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

[Georgeo]

No, but because someone engages in some illegal activity, doesn't mean they engage in all illegal activity, or knew DM (or whomever you believe brought the gun that night) brought the gun that night with the intention of using it.

I do agree that engaging in illegal activity makes one "look bad" but it doesn't make one guilty (ETA f new offenses) .

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Gun that was brought was loaded - which shows intent. Why else bring a LOADED gun????

 

[Abitcountry]

I came across this in my travels. I was trying to find samples of a judge's 'decision tree'. This is from the trial of the killer of Victoria Stafford. It asks the jury to determine whether the girl had been kidnapped. BBM.




http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/05/10/19740536.html

Excellent Post
What an eye opener....well worth the read.
This is my first go at following a trial in depth and I certainly did not comprehend how thorough the Judge's charge to the jury could be. This article dispells any false notions I had and clarifies the expression 'decision tree'........no wonder Judge Goodman has consulted with the lawyers and taken a week to prepare.......and no wonder the jury was told that it was not over yet !!
Thanks.

 

[canadiangirl]

Gun that was brought was loaded - which shows intent. Why else bring a LOADED gun????

And when it can be clearly proven the other person knew, without a doubt the other one brought it, then people can agree they both intended to kill.
Many people have stated, just because someone brings something along, or even knows of it's existences, doesn't prove anything.

 

[deugirtni]

-They hid their truck so Bosma wouldn't see where they came from, or anyone else
- They used a disposable phone to hide their tracks
- They brought a gun
- After the murder one followed the other to the hanger where the body was incinerated

From them being happy/celebrating, from their texts, it looks as though they both know what is going on, there is no surprise or anger why one person did this and this.

I don't understand what there is to doubt unless people are expecting to find some written documentation or some texts outlining the plan to carry out the murder in detail which really only the dumbest of criminals would ever put such thought in writing. Nor should that ever be a requirement to prove premeditation. You can claim person A brought a gun and person B didn't....but both cooperated in the entire thing. There is nothing to suggest that either was an unwilling participant.

It is evidenced that DM parked down the street so the Yukon wouldn't be seen, and that DM used a burner phone to contact various truck sellers, and that at some point DM purchased a gun from Isho, and that the Yukon followed TB's stolen truck to the hangar where incineration was evidenced to occur. We have a last-minute report from a witness that the mood was jovial on the morning of the 7th, and that it was said that they stole a truck... but I am just not getting what part of the evidence is being relied upon as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that MS knew in advance that a murder was planned for that mission. Sorry if I seem dense.

 

[deugirtni]

Excellent Post
What an eye opener....well worth the read.
This is my first go at following a trial in depth and I certainly did not comprehend how thorough the Judge's charge to the jury could be. This article dispells any false notions I had and clarifies the expression 'decision tree'........no wonder Judge Goodman has consulted with the lawyers and taken a week to prepare.......and no wonder the jury was told that it was not over yet !!
Thanks.

Yes, this case is definitely very very complicated in a legal sense, imo. And to think that on top of the complicated features (was there premeditation on both of the men's parts to kill a man, was there a kidnapping or a forcible confinement), there are also two defendants, rather than the usual one defendant, and that the verdicts can be different for each of them, and to further add that the judge must be so very careful in his instruction so as to try his utmost not to leave any loopholes which can later be used as justified reason for appeal.. it can make one's head spin! It seems the judge has tasked the lawyers in this case to go over this with him, which is great, since if the defence lawyers are involved in creating the instructions to the jury, how can they argue later that they were faulty? I love this judge!

 

[deugirtni]

Gun that was brought was loaded - which shows intent. Why else bring a LOADED gun????

Would one accused bringing a loaded gun that night still be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that both defendants knew of a plan to murder the truck owner that night if the one that brought the loaded gun 'always' carried a loaded gun, or if he had always brought it to 'every' mission in the past?

 

[Errrr]

Excellent Post
What an eye opener....well worth the read.
This is my first go at following a trial in depth and I certainly did not comprehend how thorough the Judge's charge to the jury could be. This article dispells any false notions I had and clarifies the expression 'decision tree'........no wonder Judge Goodman has consulted with the lawyers and taken a week to prepare.......and no wonder the jury was told that it was not over yet !!
Thanks.

In a similar way the case of MS echoes Rafferties in that they declare they were caught by surprise that murder occurred, yet what other outcome could be expected under the circumstances? Are they suggesting they planned to return their victims to their homes? Highly unlikely IMO

 

[Miranda16]

I've been thinking about this quite a bit, so I'm curious what others might think.
AM was "all in" for these dangerous missions DM was talking about.
AM had a drivers license for the most part it would seem
AM helped DM search for a truck to steal, so he was aware of at least the truck theft.
So why did AM not go on this "mission" but MS did??

I can only think of one reasonable explanation.

Apr 19 2016 10:10 AM
Adam Carter
Other texts here we've seen here before, where Millard talked about needing to make money and about how Michalski "might not like" his "methods." A text from Millard reads: "a lot of dangerous plays must be made first."

I think that DM was in the process of assessing how far Michaski would go. The conversation you're citing makes him look enthusiastic, but if he actually did tell DM to f-off about stealing the truck, then that's a negative in DM's mind (IMO). Michaski wasn't in the inner circle privy to the darkest elements IMO.

 

[deugirtni]

And when it can be clearly proven the other person knew, without a doubt the other one brought it, then people can agree they both intended to kill.
Many people have stated, just because someone brings something along, or even knows of it's existences, doesn't prove anything.

In my thinking, I would go even one step further to say that even if both knew there was a loaded gun present on this mission, it still isn't proving beyond reasonable doubt that both knew there was a plan to murder the truck owner that night, since this could have been a common thing they did at every mission, or that the gun-toter carried it on a daily basis everywhere he went.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

In my thinking, I would go even one step further to say that even if both knew there was a loaded gun present on this mission, it still isn't proving beyond reasonable doubt that both knew there was a plan to murder the truck owner that night, since this could have been a common thing they did at every mission, or that the gun-toter carried it on a daily basis everywhere he went.

You have to consider the odds that one didn't know. Is that reasonable to assume that it would occur that way.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

To me if you feel MS isn't guilty of murder than I don't see a reasonable way to have DM guilty of 1st degree murder. It's just an absurd scenario.

I can see 2nd degree for DM if you feel MS is not guilty.

 

[teamsundin]

It is evidenced that DM parked down the street so the Yukon wouldn't be seen, and that DM used a burner phone to contact various truck sellers, and that at some point DM purchased a gun from Isho, and that the Yukon followed TB's stolen truck to the hangar where incineration was evidenced to occur. We have a last-minute report from a witness that the mood was jovial on the morning of the 7th, and that it was said that they stole a truck... but I am just not getting what part of the evidence is being relied upon as proof beyond a reasonable doubt that MS knew in advance that a murder was planned for that mission. Sorry if I seem dense.

I'm sure few would argue that Millard isn't the brains of the operation. But that doesn't mean Smich and him don't talk, don't have texts referring to the plan and go along from start to finish. At no point have we seen any sort of resistance from Smich to go along with it or show that he doesn't agree with it. His testimony is the only thing that suggests that, but his actions don't. I am just looking at the totality of all this and their history and for Smich to be not involved in the premeditation and planning, would he not have to be the most unlucky person in the world to 1) get caught in the middle of a murder, 2) unknowingly follow his friend to his hangar where he unknowingly sees Millard have him incinerated, 3) somehow gets stuck with the murder weapon which he did not use, 4) hides it and forgets where.

If he were not involved in this murder from the get go I just find it is too ridiculous a scenario to dream up that he would go along with it, not ever call the police, still communicate with millard regularly (apparently all under fear). Too me the stench is just too overwhelming.

 

[Errrr]

I was thinking of the terminology DM used when describing future missions where he says they will be taking "from the source" and what this means exactly. They stole items where they lay in the past. He indicated they were going into more dangerous territory to AM to suss out his tolerance for escalating his game and AM initially agreed. But, when he asked if he should steal from the *advertiser censored*****e or the nice guy and AM told him where to go, that established AM was not on board at that point. I think DM liked AM and had him in mind to replace MS who had plans to move west shortly. AM was not comfortable when thefts become personal but I don't think he knew just how personal. By taking from the source, I think DM meant getting very personal, face to face with the owners. There is nothing like a forceful car-jacking to get LE involved in a theft.....unless the victim isn't around to report it.

 

[Miranda16]

Would one accused bringing a loaded gun that night still be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that both defendants knew of a plan to murder the truck owner that night if the one that brought the loaded gun 'always' carried a loaded gun, or if he had always brought it to 'every' mission in the past?

The crown cannot prove explicit foreknowledge by both accused that a loaded gun was brought to the TB test drive. IMO they don't need to because they can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that DM and MS were developing a plan together to dispose bodies, and those plans were clearly linked to a major theft 'mission'. That is enough to establish pre-meditation.

I'm sure that through case history there is precedent to show what evidence was used to establish pre-meditation in other 1st degree murder cases. I'm not a student of these, but IMO there is sufficient evidence in this case.

 

[canadiangirl]

I don't recall the ebay account nor the holsters that were purchased, being part of the evidence in this trial, did I miss something?

It wasn't evidence brought forth in this trial. It was something sleuthers found back in 2013. No mention of it anywhere else to my knowledge.

 

[teamsundin]

In my thinking, I would go even one step further to say that even if both knew there was a loaded gun present on this mission, it still isn't proving beyond reasonable doubt that both knew there was a plan to murder the truck owner that night, since this could have been a common thing they did at every mission, or that the gun-toter carried it on a daily basis everywhere he went.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect someone to go on a test drive in Canada and bring a loaded gun without having sinister plans. In the US where it is more common, maybe, but certainly not Canada.

 

[Miranda16]

In my thinking, I would go even one step further to say that even if both knew there was a loaded gun present on this mission, it still isn't proving beyond reasonable doubt that both knew there was a plan to murder the truck owner that night, since this could have been a common thing they did at every mission, or that the gun-toter carried it on a daily basis everywhere he went.

IMO you're focussing too much on one aspect that can never be proven. However in the big picture background MS was in on the plans to buy an incinerator. He was commenting on suitability of a particular model. That shows that they jointly developed a plan to dispose bodies. Knowing that, we don't need to prove that both were aware of the gun on that drive. We can infer it but cannot prove it. But by looking at the overall pattern we can establish that MS's actions fit the definition of pre-meditated murder. There is all kinds of additional evidence which fits the overall pattern (e.g. MS's behaviour afterwards - that is one part of the supporting evidence. He did not act like a unknowing dupe).

 

[canadiangirl]

I think that DM was in the process of assessing how far Michaski would go. The conversation you're citing makes him look enthusiastic, but if he actually did tell DM to f-off about stealing the truck, then that's a negative in DM's mind (IMO). Michaski wasn't in the inner circle privy to the darkest elements IMO.

It is interesting how the conversation I'm citing makes AM look enthusiastic, who's to say he was or wasn't? He was all in for missions. He's participated in them before.
I wasn't in court or a part of their conversation to know the tone of the f-off. To me you can say it many ways. F-off (as in ya right). Or f-off as in (no way!) I could go on but I think I've made the point in that people interpret texts and/or conversation as they see fit to suit their ideas. It's not unusual, it's very common.
I've often asked a coworker to reread my email to others to ensure there is no "tone" and it sounds okay in a professional environment... People interpret how they want.

 

[canadiangirl]

IMO you're focussing too much on one aspect that can never be proven. However in the big picture background MS was in on the plans to buy an incinerator. He was commenting on suitability of a particular model. That shows that they jointly developed a plan to dispose bodies. Knowing that, we don't need to prove that both were aware of the gun on that drive. We can infer it but cannot prove it. But by looking at the overall pattern we can establish that MS's actions fit the definition of pre-meditated murder. There is all kinds of additional evidence which fits the overall pattern (e.g. MS's behaviour afterwards - that is one part of the supporting evidence. He did not act like a unknowing dupe).

SS was in on the plan to build and buy an incinerator. He also hid DM's red truck for him after the fact and was helping to cover up TB's truck.
Also to add to that, he suddenly got a new phone after he was told not to come into the hanger.

 

[Mscree]

SS was in on the plan to build and buy an incinerator. He also hid DM's red truck for him after the fact and was helping to cover up TB's truck.
Also to add to that, he suddenly got a new phone after he was told not to come into the hanger.

I agree SS was shady but I believe if he was truly invovled in this he would have been charged. I also think Dms only priority was himself so if Ss or anyone else was involved they would have been mentioned or exposed through those letters to CN