Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #17 [06.03.16 to 06.09.16]

[MrsThreadgoode]

Witness testimony is considered evidence. SB didn't see it, neither did their tenant.

A man wearing a purse is just not something I see every day, sorry, maybe that is different in other people's towns. But I bet that Ancaster was not so full of men wearing purses in 2013 that the average person would have overlooked one because they were so commonplace. I respect SB's testimony and do not question it. Of all the people there she has no reason to lie.


All my opinion only.

DM was definitely wearing that satchel in the hangar video in the early morning hours of May 7, which was entered into evidence, so without a doubt he brought it with him that night, and could very well have worn it to the Bosmas, although there is no evidence of that at that particular time.

Just because SB and WDB couldn't recall seeing DM with it, it doesn't mean he wasn't wearing it then. The majority of people don't see/remember every detail about a person or what they're wearing, and hence eye witness accounts are not always factual, even though the eye witness is telling the truth of what they truly believed they saw.

Combine that with the fact that he washed it in the washing machine, when he and MS were rushing all over getting rid of evidence. I doubt he would have stopped to wash his satchel if it DIDN'T have incrimating potential. Why bother with such a trivial thing iunless it was a necessary thing? Also, IIRC, blood was found on the satchel, but not enough for testing purposes.

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[NashBridges2]

If this trial ends as many expect with first degree murder convictions for both do you think the Crown will proceed with the LB and WM trials? Obviously it is important for those close to the case but I just can't see any REAL time being added to the sentence of DM and MS if they are found guilty of other crimes. Do they even have consecutive sentences in Canada? I would love to see psycho DM put away for 50 or 75 years but I don't think it would work out that way. He'd do the Bosma 25 and anything else would be concurrent (served at the same time)
Anyways justice sure isn't free and it's not as if Ontario is rolling in the money these days so it's a fair question to ask if the Crown would want to proceed with these other trials if there is no chance of the guilty serving more time.

It's not always about serving more time. It's about justice, for the families. In this case, Laura Babcock. Her family and friends who loved her, deserve to see justice brought in her name as well. I also believe now, judges can add one sentance on after another. And I believe a judge will do it, just because of the nature of the crimes (incinerated)

 

[Juballee]

I don't think anyone is asking for Scotty's surname. It was stated earlier that everything had been made clear in regard to the mystery of Scotty, but that the media had chosen not to make it clear to the public. If someone was in attendance that day and believed the media was withholding evidence which could clarify the Scotty situation, I think it was merely suggested that it could be posted here to enlighten us.

Originally Posted by Juballee 03-29-2016, 09:56 AM (BBM)

​

The post I was responding to is one in a bunch that have been asking me for more information on the so-called Scotty mystery:

And, if that is the case, because you were there that day, you would also be free to tell us what the journalists allegedly withheld that was heard by the jury if you so wished.

MOO

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

RSBM

My point has been all along that there is no Scotty mystery, it was apparently invented by the media by denying the curious masses what they so longed for; the identity of Scotty. What they withheld was his name, as far as I can tell, so that is what I assumed was being requested from me.

Let's not forget LE had LW's phone, and they would have seen her message from DM telling her to tell Scotty he is too hot, and then they would have seen LW's texts or calls to Scotty. They would have had his phone number, and could have either matched it to DM's phone or not, signifying if one of them had a burner number for Scotty or if both did or if neither did. Either way, I didn't hear shocked gasps from the detectives or the crown when Scotty's last name was stated in court, I think that they were just verifying what they already knew was on her phone at that point.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

It's not my accusation or allegation that journalists deliberately withheld information that they were allowed to publish because it was testified to in the presence of the jury, that's just what happened. Unless someone does have MSM reports that do tell what Scotty's last name was, of course. I'm sure if one exists, someone will post it here. It's that lack of information in MSM that backs me up, in my opinion.

I also said that they could have been doing it to protect his identity, that's a possibility as well. I just feel that the real reason was to create mystery and drama to sell more papers.

You are correct, I would be free to tell you the last name if I wished, but that doesn't mean I remember it.

Or maybe I'm just trying to create mystery and drama?

I am very sorry ... After having read this three times now, I am reading so many contradictory points that I don't understand what you are trying to say. Could just be me ... I can be dense at times.

Anyhow, if you will read back through all my posts to you in this thread, you will see that I wasn't referring to Scotty's last name. I was referring to the relationship between LW2, DM and Scotty, apparently testified to in front of the jury, that you insinuated wasn't published by the press.

In the grand scheme of things, it is hardly of any importance to the Bosma trial. I was merely being curious. Thinking back on it, I shouldn't have brought it up at all. There is no value in simply satisfying my curiosity.

ETA ... Juballee, if you don't mind going back to post number 95 in this thread, you will see the original questions I was asking. Maybe you have already read it?

Sorry I can't put a direct link to the post, but I haven't yet found a way to do it in Tapatalk.

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Juballee]

If the above is all true, it is still not evidence that DM had no satchel with him. A witness not noticing something does not mean that the thing is proven to be absent. She may not recall seeing their shoes that night either, but it doesn't prove they were not wearing shoes.

I imagine shoes are so commonplace in Ancaster that they are not noticible unless there is something to notice about them, say if they were giant bright squeaking clown shoes or if a man were wearing high heels with red bottoms.

I belive SB and I belive that she would have noticed a man wearing a purse, and I also agree with the crown on that point, but that is just me stating my opinion, and we can agree to disagree at this point.

 

[Juballee]

DM was definitely wearing that satchel in the hangar video in the early morning hours of May 7, which was entered into evidence, so without a doubt he brought it with him that night, and could very well have worn it to the Bosmas, although there is no evidence of that at that particular time.

Just because SB and WDB couldn't recall seeing DM with it, it doesn't mean he wasn't wearing it then. The majority of people don't see/remember every detail about a person or what they're wearing, and hence eye witness accounts are not always factual, even though the eye witness is telling the truth of what they truly believed they saw.

Combine that with the fact that he washed it in the washing machine, when he and MS were rushing all over getting rid of evidence. I doubt he would have stopped to wash his satchel if it DIDN'T have incrimating potential. Why bother with such a trivial thing iunless it was a necessary thing? Also, IIRC, blood was found on the satchel, but not enough for testing purposes.

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The debate isn't whether he had the satchel in the hanger later or with him that night at all, it is whether or not we belive SB, her tenant, and the crown who all say he wasn't wearing it when he picked up Tim. Evidence that he had it after or before doesn't dispute the crown or SB who said he didn't have it at that time. Washing it after doesn't mean he was wearing it in the Bosma's driveway either. It could have transferred blood or GSR after just as easily as during the crime, it isn't proof of being the gunman or not.

Not sure why this is such a contentious point or why SB and the crown have to be proven wrong on this, it's not like the crown's case hinges on DM being the holder of the gun or not. Perhaps we should agree to disagree.

 

[deugirtni]

Isn't the simplest explaination for all of this that they were still working together and didn't have any thoughts at this point that one would turn against the other.

It could very well be, however I am not convinced of that.. because:
-DM was beginning to conjure up a framing scenario even before his arrest, it was like it was the first thing for his mind to think of, he just hadn't decided who the fallguy would be yet (personally it makes me wonder if DM had earlier thoughts about trying to frame AJ for this crime)
-according to testimony MS was taken aback when he realized the gun was in the toolbox when he was apparently expecting drugs
-there is apparently no evidence that MS knew 'the thing' had a gun inside
-MS apparently took the discovery of the gun in the toolbox as a sign that DM was out to frame him, and acted paranoid from then on
-DM's lawyer was on the news alluding to a 'framing aspect', although I'm not sure on the timing in relation to the toolbox content discovery

MS may have been bewildered, confused, scared, paranoid, not knowing what to think about his friend at that point.. not knowing whether to try to protect his friend who turned loony and still owed him money for participating in the theft, or to risk being charged with more crimes than he believed he was guilty of by turning on DM if he thought DM was framing him. He may have heard tales of how the original gun dealers may come down on buyers who risk exposing them through being caught by LE with one of their guns. I am just saying that MS making the gun disappear forever is not proof or evidence that MS was the shooter, nor the gun's ability to prove who the shooter was, nor even who owned the gun. moo

 

[deugirtni]

Both LE during their interviews with MS and the crown during their presentation seemed to think that the gun could hold some clue to who the killer was and could possibly exonerate one of them.

The crown said in their opening address that MS went to great lengths to get the gun back. The only evidence that he only wanted drugs came from MS himself if I recall correctly. He did ask for the 'other' thing as well, why would he ask for all the drugs and the other thing of drugs, that doesn't make sense to me.

The Crown's opening address is not evidence, nor is it testimony. I don't believe there was any evidence proving that MS knew 'the thing', or 'the other thing' contained anything other than drugs. It could make sense that the two things were different because DM may have thought ahead enough to hide the narcotics and narcotic drug paraphernalia, but not necessarily caring so much about the weed in his house.

 

[Sillybilly]

Here is the article/photos from ABro's website regarding the purchase of two holsters by Millard, however, I am unable to see the date(s) of purchase. I am pretty sure Ann must know, though, because she has details of his purchase history mentioned in the story and I am sure she would have taken note of the purchase dates.

<rsbm>

I don't think we have the actual date of purchase, but the seller 'thanked' the transaction October 1 2012:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...tina-Noudga-Accessory&p=10446241#post10446241

 

[deugirtni]

Both LE during their interviews with MS and the crown during their presentation seemed to think that the gun could hold some clue to who the killer was and could possibly exonerate one of them.

The crown said in their opening address that MS went to great lengths to get the gun back. The only evidence that he only wanted drugs came from MS himself if I recall correctly. He did ask for the 'other' thing as well, why would he ask for all the drugs and the other thing of drugs, that doesn't make sense to me.

For LE and the Crown to suggest that the gun could hold the clue to the killer's identity only shows that the person whose prints were on the gun would be the one they say was the shooter. An absence of prints cannot exonerate anyone, one set of prints cannot prove who the shooter was, and two sets of prints cannot prove who the shooter was. moo

 

[Juballee]

It could very well be, however I am not convinced of that.. because:
-DM was beginning to conjure up a framing scenario even before his arrest, it was like it was the first thing for his mind to think of, he just hadn't decided who the fallguy would be yet (personally it makes me wonder if DM had earlier thoughts about trying to frame AJ for this crime)
-according to testimony MS was taken aback when he realized the gun was in the toolbox when he was apparently expecting drugs
-there is apparently no evidence that MS knew 'the thing' had a gun inside
-MS apparently took the discovery of the gun in the toolbox as a sign that DM was out to frame him, and acted paranoid from then on
-DM's lawyer was on the news alluding to a 'framing aspect', although I'm not sure on the timing in relation to the toolbox content discovery

MS may have been bewildered, confused, scared, paranoid, not knowing what to think about his friend at that point.. not knowing whether to try to protect his friend who turned loony and still owed him money for participating in the theft, or to risk being charged with more crimes than he believed he was guilty of by turning on DM if he thought DM was framing him. He may have heard tales of how the original gun dealers may come down on buyers who risk exposing them through being caught by LE with one of their guns. I am just saying that MS making the gun disappear forever is not proof or evidence that MS was the shooter, nor the gun's ability to prove who the shooter was, nor even who owned the gun. moo

I agree with Arnie that all DM's framing scenarios revolved around how he was framed, not around him framing others, including the lawyer's media foray.

The rest is all stories MS told to try to cover his butt, in my opinion. Others testified that MS's behaviour change started as soon as DM was arrested, not when he finally got his hands on the gun. The only witness who could have testified that Ms was shocked to get the gun back was Artur, and TD had the ability to call that witness to the stand and chose not to. I have to think that the reason is that they knew the testimony wouldn't corroborate MS's tale.

 

[deugirtni]

It's possible that either one of them felt that they were already fully incriminated in a murder, even if it was committed by the other without foreknowledge. In that frame of mind, it's possible to image someone thinking that they have to help clean up the others mess and cover it up to save themselves from an unplanned prison stay. I would also not find it impossible to believe that a person in that position would take the risk of taking possession of evidence to either destroy it or to preserve it as evidence to try to prove their partner was the killer if they were ever caught.

As for DM having MS's gun after the murder, I could see MS not wanting it at his home, or DM not trusting MS with it if it actually was an F'up by MS.

For me, if it was MS's gun, which apparently we will never know, it only shows how controlling DM was, and how much of the ring leader role he took. Your first paragraph supports MS's theory of burying the gun even though it didn't incriminate him specifically. moo

 

[Juballee]

For LE and the Crown to suggest that the gun could hold the clue to the killer's identity only shows that the person whose prints were on the gun would be the one they say was the shooter. An absence of prints cannot exonerate anyone, one set of prints cannot prove who the shooter was, and two sets of prints cannot prove who the shooter was. moo

There is also possible DNA evidence. That doesn't wipe off as easy as fingerprints, and in fact, the act of wiping it off is likely to insert more DNA. I don't feel like we can dismiss the likelihood of LE finding clues on the weapon that would have helped the investigation. And historically, I belive a lot of people have been exonerated, or found not guilty, by the absence of prints.

 

[Juballee]

For me, if it was MS's gun, which apparently we will never know, it only shows how controlling DM was, and how much of the ring leader role he took. Your first paragraph supports MS's theory of burying the gun even though it didn't incriminate him specifically. noo

We only have his best friend's testimony that it was his gun. I think a few other witnesses could have shed more light on that but for some reason they were not called.

 

[teamsundin]

Welcome, Teamsundin, and thanks for the thoughtful post. I had forgotten about the shell casing, and what an unlikely spot it was found in.

I agree with most of what you are saying except for the burner phone and the incinerator.

I can see having the burner phone if he had lots of drugs he was probably selling, and using it to set up the appointment if he was planning on possibly stealing the truck later would make sense in my opinion. As you say, he seem like a calculating planner who would have thought ahead, but the phone was apparently used for contacting all kinds of other people, so I wouldn't be able to say that it was bought for this crime. If the phone had been bought that weekend, and only used for that, I would fully agree with you on that point though.

I am not sure on what the limits are for premeditation when it comes to how long ago something was bought in advance of a crime. Nor am I sure what the laws are regarding buying something that one planned to use in a particular crime but then happened to use it in a later subsequent crime. Or even the laws around buying something that one planned to use for another purpose but then got used in a crime. I'm uncertain about the premeditation factor for the incinerator because of those questions, I suppose.

Thanks. I see your point about the burner phone but if I were legitimately looking to buy a truck as suggested by Millard I would need no reason to use a disposable phone. After all I'm only buying a truck from this guy not dealing drugs with him. I would have no reason to hide.

As for the incinerator I look at the lies about it being used for animal cremation, garbage, and none of them appearing to be true. It was purchased a while ago but this is also not the sort of thing that can be bought and setup in days or weeks either. It's also that it seemed as though there was no deciding what they should do with the body, no deliberation, certainly smich didn't attest to it. It was almost like a forgone conclusion that that was where he was going to go next and that's why it looks like it must have been planned. It would be an awful convenient situation to have a body you need to get rid of and conveniently dellen has an incinerator ready and available for use which does not need to be maintained or altered after its alleged animal or garbage use

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

 

[deugirtni]

The debate isn't whether he had the satchel in the hanger later or with him that night at all, it is whether or not we belive SB, her tenant, and the crown who all say he wasn't wearing it when he picked up Tim. Evidence that he had it after or before doesn't dispute the crown or SB who said he didn't have it at that time. Washing it after doesn't mean he was wearing it in the Bosma's driveway either. It could have transferred blood or GSR after just as easily as during the crime, it isn't proof of being the gunman or not.

Not sure why this is such a contentious point or why SB and the crown have to be proven wrong on this, it's not like the crown's case hinges on DM being the holder of the gun or not. Perhaps we should agree to disagree.

There is confusion here because SB, nor WDB, did not ever testify that DM was NOT wearing his satchel when he went into the car. It is only the prosecution who is stating this as fact, and unfortunately for DM, the Crown's questions and remarks are not evidence. This is not a contentious point, because I think everybody gets this, but that is only my opinion, perhaps some do not.

 

[deugirtni]

I imagine shoes are so commonplace in Ancaster that they are not noticible unless there is something to notice about them, say if they were giant bright squeaking clown shoes or if a man were wearing high heels with red bottoms.

I belive SB and I belive that she would have noticed a man wearing a purse, and I also agree with the crown on that point, but that is just me stating my opinion, and we can agree to disagree at this point.

It is absolutely fine to have beliefs and share opinions. It only becomes problematic if a poster states that there is evidence when there isn't any, or states that something has been proven when it hasn't been, unless of course the poster also acknowledges that that is only his/her belief. That is my understanding anyway. moo.

 

[mskrisc]

I had always been under the impression that if DM wanted MS to have the gun back, he would have given it to him during the 40 minute visit on the 9th. The fact that he later gave it to someone else, not MS, made me believe he had a reason to keep it from MS.

Just like if MS wasn't the killer, and the crown speculated that producing the weapon could allow police to tie it to the actual shooter, if DM wasn't the killer, he may have wanted to gun to go to someone who would produce it later to help prove he wasn't the shooter. If it had MS's fingerprints on it, it would explain why he was in such a hurry to get it, only to try to distance himself from it again. It shows he wanted to be in control of disposing of it, and didn't trust anyone else to have it. DM had the perfect opportunity to give it back to him, and didn't.

Idk, IMO, it's all very simple. DM knew he was " Hot" at this point. He knew police were watching him and during that meeting they most likely made arrangements/a plan, to get that gun to MS via someone who wasn't likely under surveillance by LE. Once MS had the gun, it would then be disposed of to hide All evidence. Both sets of prints were likely on that gun as evidence shows they both handled it. Personally, I believe that gun found its way back to MWJ's peeps . It's also evidence in his case, No?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deugirtni]

I agree with Arnie that all DM's framing scenarios revolved around how he was framed, not around him framing others, including the lawyer's media foray.

The rest is all stories MS told to try to cover his butt, in my opinion. Others testified that MS's behaviour change started as soon as DM was arrested, not when he finally got his hands on the gun. The only witness who could have testified that Ms was shocked to get the gun back was Artur, and TD had the ability to call that witness to the stand and chose not to. I have to think that the reason is that they knew the testimony wouldn't corroborate MS's tale.

The Crown also could have called Artour to testify what MS's demeanour was like when he saw the gun come out of the toolbox... however, I do not believe that Artour was even present when MS saw the contents. I believe I recall reading that Artour had placed the toolbox somewhere around the exterior steps to MS's mother's home while MS was not present, but I could be mistaken.

Secondly, in regard to DM's framing scenarios. Yes, absolutely DM had at least the beginnings of conjuring up stories very early on in regard to others framing HIM. However, when you think about it, if a person is framing you for a murder, isn't that because that person was the one who actually did the murder and the person is trying to put the focus and blame on you? Those are the beginning thoughts you can see spiralling through DM's head, thanks to MSM reporting these things. Later on, we have evidence of him making plans to frame MS, as is seen via his 'jailhouse letters' to his girlfriend. He even asks for her opinion and if anything could be improved upon in regard to his story, IIRC.

 

[deugirtni]

There is also possible DNA evidence. That doesn't wipe off as easy as fingerprints, and in fact, the act of wiping it off is likely to insert more DNA. I don't feel like we can dismiss the likelihood of LE finding clues on the weapon that would have helped the investigation. And historically, I belive a lot of people have been exonerated, or found not guilty, by the absence of prints.

I would be interested in seeing MSM reports of defendants in a murder trial being exonerated by the absence of prints on a murder weapon. Could you please post a few? TIA