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

[Georgeo]

But isn't this what any accused individual would do when testifying, whether planned well in advance or at any time during trial? MS may have told TD right at the start that he would like to take the stand. Then as testimony of others was presented, he had an opportunity to refute and/or defend himself against any and all evidence that was presented. I think that is perfectly reasonable and don't see this as being any different from any other individual who would take the stand in their own defence

No. Telling one's story is fine however he conveniently edited out ALL the damning situations, and conveniently forgot any other troublesome details. Believable? Hmmmm.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

I can sort of see that in regards to the Yukon but not TBs truck. I mean one DM fingerprint does show he shot anyone either. If anything the fact that MS cleaned out the car and left one DM fingerprint would potentially make one think he was doing the setting up.

I don't think MS left 2 finger prints on purpose, IMO, DM did that when he moved the truck into the trailer and forgot to wipe those two spots again. Just more carelessness.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

I don't think MS left 2 finger prints on purpose, IMO, DM did that when he moved the truck into the trailer and forgot to wipe those two spots again. Just more carelessness.

I agree.

 

[hellkat2]

I respect everyone's opinion, but am curious what evidence or lack of evidence has you questioning proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Or maybe it's the definition of reasonable doubt, or the scale of reasonable doubt?

The judge's charge may address not only the nature of the first degree, but how the jury weighs the evidence for/against the nature of the first degree charge.


MOO

It does not have to be hijacking of an aircraft, it can be a vehicle.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

So does this mean they could have recalled previous witnesses?

My personal interpretation of this info is that ALL FOUR grounds must be met in order for the Crown to be allowed to present rebuttal.

IMHO:

A. Was met

B. I personally don't believe that this was met

C. We don't know because it would have been a part of legal arguments

D. IMO, same as B


Therefore, given B and the possibility of C, I would not think that Crown rebuttal would have been allowed. However, I have no legal background, so it is all my personal interpretation.

MOO




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Miranda16]

Sure they were both there. It wasn't disputed. And lack of DNA does not let him off the hook. But it sure raises questions for me while DM left a trail of breadcrumbs, MS is Houdini?

Police found TB truck and DM Yukon before arresting Smich. So no one can say MS had longer to clean up his evidence in that regard.

Both knew the gun existed absolutely. Did they both know it was brought on this mission? Is there conclusive evidence who brought it? Does it matter who brought it? And what exactly were the details of this premeditated mission?

All questions after hearing all the evidence I'm still left asking. Just to name a few.

On the gun(s), as far as I recall no one was asked for a reasonable explanation for DM wanting a gun (not even going so far as saying he required it for 'self defence' being such an important rich guy and potential target). The fact that MS at a minimum knew DM had a gun looks bad for MS IMO, but that alone doesn't clinch his guilt. If DM had a gun, then MS should wonder if he was capable of using it (in the absence of any knowledge of the LB and WM murders)

 

[hellkat2]

But isn't this what any accused individual would do when testifying, whether planned well in advance or at any time during trial? MS may have told TD right at the start that he would like to take the stand. Then as testimony of others was presented, he had an opportunity to refute and/or defend himself against any and all evidence that was presented. I think that is perfectly reasonable and don't see this as being any different from any other individual who would take the stand in their own defence

I do not find it reasonable to piece together a story with all the evidence jury has heard. That is not the same thing as the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Two very different things.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

I think many are looking at the lack of DNA evidence putting them both in vehicle at the time of the shooting. They were calling each other 'bro' until DM got arrested, and then the blame game started, and it looks like it has resulted in a positive for MS telling his story after all the evidence was presented.

MOO

I agree. I know you're probably sick of me saying this, but I truly believe the possibility of the "CSI Effect" is causing some to unreasonably expect more evidence, or that the evidence should be more absolute in nature, than the mountain of evidence we've already seen. I could be wrong. [emoji848]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[hellkat2]

An outcome where the lawyers playing what can be compared to a game of cards, and playing a certain hand, and outwitting the other players is not justice. It is just that - playing games. Justice is these 's paying for the murder of a truly innocent man. The word innocent is far overused in murder trials.

You have expressed what I have been thinking from the beginning. Hats off to you.

 

[canadiangirl]

On the gun(s), as far as I recall no one was asked for a reasonable explanation for DM wanting a gun (not even going so far as saying he required it for 'self defence' being such an important rich guy and potential target). The fact that MS at a minimum knew DM had a gun looks bad for MS IMO, but that alone doesn't clinch his guilt. If DM had a gun, then MS should wonder if he was capable of using it (in the absence of any knowledge of the LB and WM murders)

How does knowledge of someone owning a gun make you look bad? I would assume anyone who owns one would be capable of using it.
I know someone who owns a gun, so am I no longer their friend and stay far away from them because they might use it in my presence one day and if I'm around for that I'm automatically guilty?

 

[Miranda16]

RSBM
In regards to the DNA evidence in the Yukon, I'm referring the lack of TB transfer to the Yukon. As in, if MS was in the vehicle when TB was murdered, I find it hard to believe that there isn't one bit of transfer to the Yukon by him at all. And we all saw that vehicle wasn't clean.

if I recall there were just a few drops of blood in the back seat area of TB's truck. If MS was in TB's truck during the shooting it is even possible that some blood hit him (instead of a truck surface), but it would be on his front in that case. So it is even possible that he moved over to the Yukon after the shooting, with blood on the front of his clothes that would not transfer to theYukon because it did not touch anything in the Yukon. And I think someone had stated that GSR would be difficult to transfer from a person (also presumably on his front) to another vehicle.

 

[hellkat2]

<rbbm>

No, it was Diesel brand.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/bosma-trial-investigators-searched-for-gun-at-smich-house-seize-ipad-1.3471003

Thanks, now that I think about it, there was a lighter from a hemp store they found in the farmer's field??? So much evidence....I can't keep it all straight. It has been a long day.

 

[canadiangirl]

if I recall there were just a few drops of blood in the back seat area of TB's truck. If MS was in TB's truck during the shooting it is even possible that some blood hit him (instead of a truck surface), but it would be on his front in that case. So it is even possible that he moved over to the Yukon after the shooting, with blood on the front of his clothes that would not transfer to theYukon because it did not touch anything in the Yukon. And I think someone had stated that GSR would be difficult to transfer from a person (also presumably on his front) to another vehicle.

I'm no expert but by the way the crown/media described the "blood letting event", I would assume more then a few drops of blood were actually inside the truck itself. I do however recall the few drops on the backseat of TB truck. So what about things like shoes? Clothes? Hands? Murder weapon? All capable of transfer but none found.

 

[hellkat2]

You didn't ask me, but I'll chime in because I work at a steel mill. We melt scrap to make steel plate and coil. The metal has to be heated to 3000° in order to transform it into something else. Steel has to be at 2500-2750° just to begin to melt. At 3000° you have liquid steel that you can pour into molds to produce slabs, for instance.

What could DM have possibly wanted to do with his melted steel assuming he didn't know he wouldn't be able to produce the heat necessary to melt it? We use EAF, or an electric arc furnace, to produce the heat.

But assuming he really thought he'd melt some steel, then what? In any event, the steel doesn't burn away: it is infinitely recyclable. Additionally, melted steel would likely break through any non-commercial vat. The whole idea is ludicrous.

Of course I realize he likely had no intention whatsoever of melting metal in the incinerator.

This is my opinion only.

If you're interested, you can read about melting steel here: http://www.steel.org/making-steel/h...es-info/electric-arc-furnace-steelmaking.aspx.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

I had asked in a previous post about this and nobody got back to me about it . I really appreciate you sharing this information. I asked many people outside this post and they didn't know. We thought he might have been wanting something to throw scrap metal in as he was running a chop shop out of the airport hangar. But.....I get that the incinerator he bought would not and am out in left field about that now.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Sure they were both there. It wasn't disputed. And lack of DNA does not let him off the hook. But it sure raises questions for me while DM left a trail of breadcrumbs, MS is Houdini?

Police found TB truck and DM Yukon before arresting Smich. So no one can say MS had longer to clean up his evidence in that regard.

Both knew the gun existed absolutely. Did they both know it was brought on this mission? Is there conclusive evidence who brought it? Does it matter who brought it? And what exactly were the details of this premeditated mission?

All questions after hearing all the evidence I'm still left asking. Just to name a few.

Here are a couple fewer questions you will need to ask yourself then.

No, legally it does not matter who brought it. It does not matter who shot it.

There doesn't need to be conclusive proof of who brought it. It was there. TIm was murdered.

We don't need to know for a fact all the details of their plan. And although only my opinion, that there was "a plan" to steal the truck, murder Tim (or another victim in similar circumstances), incinerate their victim and get rid of all the evidence, we only need to know that they planned it together ... Not an item by item list of "the plan" ...

In fact, with regard to all your questions, nothing needs to be proved conclusively, just beyond a reasonable doubt.

I realize that you have reasonable doubt about MS. Hoping that Justice Goodman's charge helps to sort these matters out <modsnip>.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Miranda16]

How does knowledge of someone owning a gun make you look bad? I would assume anyone who owns one would be capable of using it.
I know someone who owns a gun, so am I no longer their friend and stay far away from them because they might use it in my presence one day and if I'm around for that I'm automatically guilty?

i said that this doesn't clinch his guilt but does look bad. MS was criminal partner to someone who he knew had an illegal weapon. If you were in this situation but had no intention of physically harming anyone (or being a party to it), then this knowledge should concern you. Why would he as a criminal have an illegal weapon if there was no willingness or plan to use it? By continuing to plan and go on missions with this man, MS was exposing himself to possible violence. That's what we can say about the gun ownership alone.

Then add in all the rest of the evidence. So MS was very naive about the gun? Maybe, but he's naive about the gun and he researched incinerators and sent other suspicious texts and continued to initiate first contact with DM after the murder (making him look like a full partner) and wanting to meet Isho and googling ammo after the murder and developing selective amnesia and contradicting other witnesses and ... All those things strung together are very difficult to explain innocently IMO.

 

[Georgeo]

How does knowledge of someone owning a gun make you look bad? I would assume anyone who owns one would be capable of using it.
I know someone who owns a gun, so am I no longer their friend and stay far away from them because they might use it in my presence one day and if I'm around for that I'm automatically guilty?

knowing your buddy in crime and in fact MS himself had gun (per BD testimony). Why bring loaded gun(s) to a truck robbery/test drive/theft, etc? Loaded gun is for one reason only - to kill.

 

[canadiangirl]

Here are a couple fewer questions you will need to ask yourself then.

No, legally it does not matter who brought it. It does not matter who shot it.

There doesn't need to be conclusive proof of who brought it. It was there. TIm was murdered.

We don't need to know for a fact all the details of their plan. And although only my opinion, that there was "a plan" to steal the truck, murder Tim (or another victim in similar circumstances), incinerate their victim and get rid of all the evidence, we only need to know that they planned it together ... Not an item by item list of "the plan" ...

In fact, with regard to all your questions, nothing needs to be proved conclusively, just beyond a reasonable doubt.

I realize that you have reasonable doubt about MS. Hoping that Justice Goodman's charge helps to sort these matters out <modsnip>.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks Mrs. T. I've been following along for 3 years, and I'm well aware and have asked myself and my husband these same question. I suppose we're just a "CSI effect" family.

 

[Georgeo]

I'm no expert but by the way the crown/media described the "blood letting event", I would assume more then a few drops of blood were actually inside the truck itself. I do however recall the few drops on the backseat of TB truck. So what about things like shoes? Clothes? Hands? Murder weapon? All capable of transfer but none found.

Incinerator
2 burn sites at farm

 

[canadiangirl]

knowing your buddy in crime and in fact MS himself had gun (per BD testimony). Why bring loaded gun(s) to a truck robbery/test drive/theft, etc? Loaded gun is for one reason only - to kill.

Again. Who brought the gun and did the other person know?