Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #16

[ILoveDateline]

I've been reflecting on the testimony of MH, AM, BD and MM based off on someone post challenging who has the most to lose by telling the truth and/or lying/hiding information.

1) I've have been unfortunate enough to been called as a witness for the prosecution in a sexual assault case about 15yrs ago. I was asked about 6 questions, requiring very little elaboration and was told beforehand to be brief and answer the question. All these witnesses have a fully more robust version of events that we didn't hear. It's very hard for me to say so-and-so had no reason the lie. Complexities of relationship and the ability to formulate an answer on the spot can skew this. I know it's up to the jury to determine who and what they believe but they all took an oath to tell the truth and don't face charges themselves so why wouldn't they tell the truth? ETA, scratch that, I think they all have something to hide, even if subconsciously, but I have to think they told the truth. IMO.

2) I think MM knew way more. I believe the discussion on May 4 on who to steal the truck from would have lead to the question, how do you plan to do that? And so I think her woman's intuition that something would go wrong had to do with the answer to that question. Her text the next day specifically said, I thought you died or something, not I thought you got hurt, or something else. I do believe she was young and naive enough to not ask a lot of questions but if they were joined at this hip and MS was just doing what he was told, I believe he would have broke down in private and told her. ETA if he lunatic Millard killed someone and he had no idea. MS was a little too cool May 7> and so I feel he was in the know/comfortable with what was happening. IMO.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[Arnie M]

.

Canadians do not own handguns or carry handguns around , it is illegal , and only under very restrictive rules can a law abiding citizen own or transport one

There are illegal handguns in Canada but even the criminals never carry them around , its just too risky for them to get caught with one

The only time a criminal will carry a loaded gun is if he plans to use it , and that is exactly what DM & MS did. End of story as far as intent

Defense never once disputed the fact the gun was there , and the gun was used .

.

No benches or sausages were harmed in the construction of this post.

 

[pooki]

Well, if we were talking about anyone else besides MS and DM that would be easy. I may not remember exactly what I talked about with my daughter a week ago, but I can be 100% certain we didn't talk about quilting, or astronomy.

In this case though, I think MS is full of poop, because the only thing him and DM had to talk about at that point were details of this crime, the cover up and how not to get caught. They may not have discussed hiding the gun or drugs specifically though (they may have talked about other aspects of the crime/cover up) so in that instance MS could be telling a partial truth.

Unless they were talking about quilting. :thinking:

I would totally agree with you...

and wanted you to know that I legitimately laughed out loud about your quilting comment

 

[ILoveDateline]

How about the necklace picture? We didn't see that either. It was MM'S comment of almost disgust that made me think it was more then fine jewelry.

Paraphrasing here:
MS sends a pic of a necklace to MM and says "for your mother"
MM replies "MARK!!!"

Not the typical response I'd give my hubby for doing something nice for my mother.

Just an example of how things can get misread when not seen. It also may have well been a beautiful gold and diamond necklace or something awfully gross or something he was going to steal from a store.

I thought it was MM that sent the pic of a necklace to MS. I could be wrong. The Mark! Text was the morning of May 7 when she hadn't heard from him all night. But your point is valid, when you read them together it takes on a new meaning.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[Quaere_veritatem]

Driving a vehicle with full on contact and grabbing a flashlight out of the back seems very different to me.. Especially if you know where said flashlights are, you don't need to sit in the vehicle merely stick your arm in

There wasn't a lot of GSR or blood found in the backseat of TB's so it follows that MS wouldn't have a lot on him either. Plus DM continued to drive the Yukon for 4 days after that eventful night. That's would have had an impact on the integrity of whatever evidence there might have been in the Yukon. Finding evidence usually means something but the lack of evidence means a whole less. IMO

 

[canadiangirl]

.

Canadians do not own handguns or carry handguns around , it is illegal , and only under very restrictive rules can a law abiding citizen own or transport one

There are illegal handguns in Canada but even the criminals never carry them around , its just too risky for them to get caught with one

The only time a criminal will carry a loaded gun is if he plans to use it , and that is exactly what DM & MS did. End of story as far as intent

Defense never once disputed the fact the gun was there , and the gun was used .

.

No benches or sausages were harmed in the construction of this post.

But then that would lead me back to the question. WHO had the gun?
Why do you get convicted of first degree murder if your friend carried a gun and used it and you weren't in the know? I'd hate to be innocent. People are making this guilty by association. MOO

 

[saulgoodman]

.

Canadians do not own handguns or carry handguns around , it is illegal , and only under very restrictive rules can a law abiding citizen own or transport one

There are illegal handguns in Canada but even the criminals never carry them around , its just too risky for them to get caught with one

The only time a criminal will carry a loaded gun is if he plans to use it , and that is exactly what DM & MS did. End of story as far as intent

Defense never once disputed the fact the gun was there , and the gun was used .

.

No benches or sausages were harmed in the construction of this post.

Many Canadians can and do own Legal hand guns. Has to have a Restrictive Gun License. It's not difficult.
Can carry around in a locked case, to and from a Gun club/shooting range and gun dealers.

 

[Jen Darme]

.

Thank you Jen Darme !!!

I was always cautious about reading too much into the bench-sausages-saga because of what you quoted in your post ....

Seeing a series of messages sent from the iPad--but can't see who they were sent to. These are those 'orphaned' messages mentioned earlier.
As part of that Ryder says he can't confirm this is a conversation, or if these messages are related at all.

That next bit:

Seeing it on another device, again, provides that validation.
Crown says if jury sees this same convo tmrw on Millard's phone w the names, that's validation. Ryder agrees.​

... another expert in mobile forensics and data recovery, Constable Craig Harrison, on April 18-19 presented messages from DM's phone, which Apple unlocked and sent the data back. Going by Molly Hayes tweets, these included the messages found deleted on MS's Ipad, eg, "figure out the BBQ situation" and the fireside furniture and frying pan photos all noted as coming from MS.

Recovered on MS's Ipad and present on DM's phone complete with timestamps and sender data validates that the exchanges occurred, when, and in what order.

 

[Elisabeth]

What I wonder is was there an actual barbecue at the farm? I mean what barbecue business could he have at the farm? Did he have a freezer full of meat there? Propane tanks? If he did, don't you think his defence team might have mentioned that on that night Millard picked up a barbecue that was stored at the farm and brought it to Maplegate? No, because it just never happened.

and the text was right in the middle of all the texts to SS looking for the BBQ generator, wasn't it?

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

But then that would lead me back to the question. WHO had the gun?
Why do you get convicted of first degree murder if your friend carried a gun and used it and you weren't in the know? I'd hate to be innocent. People are making this guilty by association. MOO

Based on the SB and neighbour testimony, it seems more likely that MS had the gun doesn't it? MS was in a bulky howdy and hiding his hands. They didn't notice DM wearing a man purse or anything.

 

[hellkat2]

If i was on the Jury, these two words would stick out to me on this sentence. situation : I would feel he is talking about incinerator because of Waterloo etc and situation doesn't really feel like a home bbq unless he ran out of propane if not hooked to natural gas, or it broke. and THIS week leads me to largely speculate this is a regular thing and happens often.

Yup no question.

 

[Sphinx]

Just another thought.

Another thing that may have tipped Tim off as suspicious is that MS and DM claimed their friend dropped them off when they arrived at 9:05. Then not even 5 minutes later as they are pulling out of Tim's driveway, DM gets a text that the friend is back and didn't find the Tim Hortons?! That would be strange to me. It would take longer than 5 or 10 minutes to drop them off at the house, look for the coffee shop and already be back near the Bosma house.

That must have struck Tim as weird, IMO.

I think you are right. DM/MS likely planned early on to kill Tim very quickly while they still had an element of surprise, and it would give them more time for the getaway before SB became alarmed. I think that was part of the plan, but like most things, they did not execute it intelligently. IMO

 

[Claroon]

I am not an expert but I am pretty sure that when a body is incinerated, all you are left with is the mineral content. Many pieces still hold the original form such as major bones. When people are urned their ashes go through a grinder to crush these pieces so they fit the urn but they are just lumps of mineral. There isn't any identifying information in mineral but possibly there would be in the form. If these ashes are dumped somewhere I doubt there would be any evidence especially after rain turns them to mush.

Or after a hose is on them for 10 hrs. And hmmm, maybe ground in the wood chipper. IMO

 

[Arnie M]

Many Canadians can and do own Legal hand guns. Has to have a Restrictive Gun License. It's not difficult.
Can carry around in a locked case, to and from a Gun club/shooting range and gun dealers.

Isn't that what I said

only under very restrictive rules can a law abiding citizen own or transport one

 

[Arnie M]

But then that would lead me back to the question. WHO had the gun?
Why do you get convicted of first degree murder if your friend carried a gun and used it and you weren't in the know? I'd hate to be innocent. People are making this guilty by association. MOO

Yes of course , and the person who had the perfect opportunity to prove he did not have/use the gun was MS on the stand .... and he did not .... so in my eyes he is much more than guilty by association

 

[canadiangirl]

Based on the SB and neighbour testimony, it seems more likely that MS had the gun doesn't it? MS was in a bulky howdy and hiding his hands. They didn't notice DM wearing a man purse or anything.

Sure except if he took his hands out of his pockets to pet the dog, which I don't recall if that was an actual fact or not but it was brought up.

You can hide a gun under your shirt in the waistband of your jeans easy enough. A bulky hoodie doesn't prove anything IMO.

All I see is speculation.

 

[Errrr]

How about the necklace picture? We didn't see that either. It was MM'S comment of almost disgust that made me think it was more then fine jewelry.

Paraphrasing here:
MS sends a pic of a necklace to MM and says "for your mother"
MM replies "MARK!!!"

Not the typical response I'd give my hubby for doing something nice for my mother.

Just an example of how things can get misread when not seen. It also may have well been a beautiful gold and diamond necklace or something awfully gross or something he was going to steal from a store.

Or a noose (she didn't get along with her mom).

 

[canadiangirl]

Yes of course , and the person who had the perfect opportunity to prove he did not have/use the gun was MS on the stand .... and he did not .... so in my eyes he is much more than guilty by association

How could he prove he didn't use the gun other then to say he didn't?

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Sure except if he took his hands out of his pockets to pet the dog, which I don't recall if that was an actual fact or not but it was brought up.

You can hide a gun under your shirt in the waistband of your jeans easy enough. A bulky hoodie doesn't prove anything IMO.

All I see is speculation.

It was brought up by MS and even he wasn't sure.

At some point, there's enough coincidences to make reasonable doubt unlikely. Even if you get down to the simplest question of the case, what is more likely? That DM just snaps out of nowhere and kills a guy a test drive or they planned it out?

 

[Errrr]

Sure except if he took his hands out of his pockets to pet the dog, which I don't recall if that was an actual fact or not but it was brought up.

You can hide a gun under your shirt in the waistband of your jeans easy enough. A bulky hoodie doesn't prove anything IMO.

All I see is speculation.

I don't really think it was their plan to use the gun till they got to the farm, but I think they both knew the plan and it doesn't matter whose gun it was or who pulled the trigger. And I do t think they made a lame excuse to Tim at the corner either. They probably disabled him on the test drive and then went to the field to pick up the Yukon. Are there any discrepancies with this scenario?