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

[ILoveDateline]

Exactly. Every one of those people that testified that after two or three days they hadn't heard of Tim Bosma is full of *****. IMO if they were willing to lie about knowing about it after the fact, the are definitely willing to lie about it before the fact.

Well, there are some people who are completely blind to current events. My hubby is one - if it wasn't on the Howard Stern Show, he hasn't heard of it. Its embarrassing really; didn't know about the Paris attacks, Brussel Airport bombing, Tim Bosma, etc...

 

[JuneBug67]

Well, there are some people who are completely blind to current events. My hubby is one - if it wasn't on the Howard Stern Show, he hasn't heard of it. Its embarrassing really; didn't know about the Paris attacks, Brussel Airport bombing, Tim Bosma, etc...

Even when you're engaged with this stuff, it is very dependent on where your focus and time is spent. That recentish incident with the disappearance of the man between St. Charles and North Bay that was originally feared to be a Bosma copycat was right in my back yard....and I first read about it on Websleuths two or three days after it happened. I am way more attuned to world and national news than I am to local stuff. If it didn't happen to pop up these guys' Facebook feed they may not have known anything was going on in Ancaster, and even then I can 100% buy they may not have connected the truck theft they knew happened with the missing man.

 

[Sillybilly]

I hate to be too literal with the facts, but I have a question if anyone knows. Did we ever hear any testimony about whose idea any of the missions (other than the truck) were? I mean other than that DM called people for lookouts and planned how to carry out the missions, has anyone ever made any suggestions as to whose idea it originally was that a particular item might be a good thing to steal? Who may have seen these things somewhere and said 'hey let's see if we can steal that'? It seems like most of the missions were for kicks, to see if they could get away with it, more so than that any of the items were actually needed.

DM was apparently the one who offered money in exchange for widgets, and it was said he gave credit towards "future grabs", so I would conclude he was the one initiating and encouraging.

 

[Sillybilly]

Even when you're engaged with this stuff, it is very dependent on where your focus and time is spent. That recentish incident with the disappearance of the man between St. Charles and North Bay that was originally feared to be a Bosma copycat was right in my back yard....and I first read about it on Websleuths two or three days after it happened. I am way more attuned to world and national news than I am to local stuff. If it didn't happen to pop up these guys' Facebook feed they may not have known anything was going on in Ancaster, and even then I can 100% buy they may not have connected the truck theft they knew happened with the missing man.

My grandkids of approx. same age would be listening to their MP3s (or whatever the latest gadgets are called) and no more listening to CBC
or watching the 'news' than I would be listening to Metalhead or Alice Cooper. (Am I dating myself here? LOL)

 

[billandrew]

I have doubt about MS's guilt as it relates to either premeditation or confinement, and have been fighting with myself as to whether that doubt is "reasonable" or not. IF I was on the jury and able to concentrate solely on the evidence, possibly that doubt could be eliminated, but as it stands right now, I would not find him guilty of 1st degree murder based on my understanding of the principles of reasonable doubt and the presumption of innocence. If I am to conclude he is NG of 1st degree, it would follow that I would not find him guilty of 2nd degree based on the possibility that he was not present when TB was killed.

(AATF ... absolutely, but I don't think that will be a consideration for the jury).

There, I've said it. Please do not throw eggs at me

I have no eggs to throw! But I would like to hear your views on 1st degree for DM. If you would find him guilty as charged, how did you conclude the premeditation or forcible confinement aspect for him alone? What is it that crosses beyond a reasonable doubt for DM but not MS? What convinces you that DM was capable of committing a murder on his own accord? How about these points:

• DM never alluded to committing any type of violent act, whereas MS fantasized frequently about violence. It's a fact regardless of the weight one assigns to MS's rap lyrics and messages to DM.
• DM bought the gun and the incinerator, but there is evidence that he and MS had a joint association with these items. E.g. MS researched ammo and incinerators, DM obtained ammo for MS, they both took multiple pictures of the gun(s), they both went to visit the incinerator on more than one occasion, etc.

I cannot see a convincing case for either one of these guys planning a murder without the other. E.g. the theory that DM planned the murder without MS is certainly possible, but I would have reasonable doubt about that and I would not be able to find him guilty of first degree. The idea of them working together is much more convincing to me, and based on that I would either find them both guilty or both not guilty.

 

[Sillybilly]

I have no eggs to throw! But I would like to hear your views on 1st degree for DM. If you would find him guilty as charged, how did you conclude the premeditation or forcible confinement aspect for him alone? What is it that crosses beyond a reasonable doubt for DM but not MS? What convinces you that DM was capable of committing a murder on his own accord? How about these points:

• DM never alluded to committing any type of violent act, whereas MS fantasized frequently about violence. It's a fact regardless of the weight one assigns to MS's rap lyrics and messages to DM.
• DM bought the gun and the incinerator, but there is evidence that he and MS had a joint association with these items. E.g. MS researched ammo and incinerators, DM obtained ammo for MS, they both took multiple pictures of the gun(s), they both went to visit the incinerator on more than one occasion, etc.

I cannot see a convincing case for either one of these guys planning a murder without the other. E.g. the theory that DM planned the murder without MS is certainly possible, but I would have reasonable doubt about that and I would not be able to find him guilty of first degree. The idea of them working together is much more convincing to me, and based on that I would either find them both guilty or both not guilty.

- DM wanted/needed a diesel truck for Baja and I believe he decided he was getting that truck come hell or high water
- DM asked AM who "he" should steal the truck from (not "we"). IMO, that is an indication DM was the planner for the mission and MS was not included in all aspects of that plan
- No evidence exists in either the field or the Yukon to indicate that Tim was killed there
- DM initiated the fake text when, if MS was privy to a planned murder, there was no need for MS to leave the truck when they both could have continued with TB in the truck without raising TB's suspicion. I believe the fake text was to ensure that MS was not in the truck so that nothing would go wrong with DM's plan. Otherwise why the fake text at all? If it was both DM and MS planning to kill TB, I see no need for the fake text. They could have just continued the test drive without raising TB's suspicion and both be present for the killing someplace else. IMO the fake text was DM's way of getting MS out of the truck early in the game so that he was alone to carry out his plan.
- Window of opportunity (the total length of time DM was driving the truck vs the length of time MS was in the truck)
- DM's letters to CN solidified for me the depths of his deviousness and attempts to perfect and twist a situation

Do I believe it's possible they both carried out the murder? Possible yes, but I have to give consideration to MS's testimony (whether 100% truthful or not) and give the benefit of the doubt. His testimony is evidence, and as for his story/testimony being geared to evidence presented throughout trial, it is his trial and it is the evidence that he has to address or refute the best way he can. I found his 'story' plausible and for that reason, believe it was a wise move to have him take the stand.

 

[ILoveDateline]

Yesterday, I posted this followed by the specific texts that convinced me of MS guilt. Here, I'll summarize the three major reasons I believe MS is guilty of of M1. I have been thinking about it and realize that if you subtract 1 of those things, I can see a case for M2 and if you removed 2 of those things, I see AATF.

1. Text messages (all). I don't go in to detail of the text but these, to me, provide premeditation,
2. The SS video. I believe MS was in the Bosma truck during all 3 passes and, probably, when TB was shot.
3. Uncorroborated story. MS's story should have been supported and the fact that it wasn't makes it wishy-washy for me. TD is counting on this and the jury believing there is reasonable doubt. For me, the story could have easily been supported in witness cross and should have been. This, combined with #2, makes me reasonable doubt MS's story.

I realize that these 3 things are not believed by everyone and, you may have your own list. For me, believing these 3 things to be true (and much more), the Judge's charge would have to rule out one or more of these things for me to change from M1 to M2 or AATF.

So, I can see, when people don't put the same weight on these 3 things, why they don't see M1 for MS.

JMO.

Apologies, this is likely full of typos but I have to run and don't be able to edit it from my mobile since I'l posing on the website. Forgive me!

It's not impossible but what convinced me was:

- a post by billandrew and his updated timeline (I'll link to it when I get to a desktop - it's hard to search on tapatalk) when exhibit 144 was release by AH and provided text msgs from MS.

- the SS video show the pass of TBs truck 3 times (yes, I believe it's TBs truck)

- uncorroborated MS testimony. TD should have done this via witness questioning.

I don't even need to know how it happened or who did it. Those 3 things lead to be believe MS was involved in the planning, present during execution (eek, sorry, I mean that in the follow through meaning), and cover up of a murder. JMO.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[teamsundin]

Yesterday, I posted this followed by the specific texts that convinced me of MS guilt. Here, I'll summarize the three major reasons I believe MS is guilty of of M1. I have been thinking about it and realize that if you subtract 1 of those things, I can see a case for M2 and if you removed 2 of those things, I see AATF.

1. Text messages (all). I don't go in to detail of the text but these, to me, provide premeditation,
2. The SS video. I believe MS was in the Bosma truck during all 3 passes and, probably, when TB was shot.
3. Uncorroborated story. MS's story should have been supported and the fact that it wasn't makes it wishy-washy for me. TD is counting on this and the jury believing there is reasonable doubt. For me, the story could have easily been supported in witness cross and should have been. This, combined with #2, makes me reasonable doubt MS's story.

I realize that these 3 things are not believed by everyone and, you may have your own list. For me, believing these 3 things to be true (and much more), the Judge's charge would have to rule out one or more of these things for me to change from M1 to M2 or AATF.

So, I can see, when people don't put the same weight on these 3 things, why they don't see M1 for MS.

JMO.

Apologies, this is likely full of typos but I have to run and don't be able to edit it from my mobile since I'l posing on the website. Forgive me!

To me, #2 is all that is needed. It proves #3 and doesn't require #1. Combine that with going straight to the incinerator and I don't have much to second guess.

And really, do we know for sure Millard was the driver? Millard could have gone up on the stand and told the exact reverse of Smich's testimony and it been just as believable.

 

[Sillybilly]

To me, #2 is all that is needed. It proves #3 and doesn't require #1. Combine that with going straight to the incinerator and I don't have much to second guess.

And really, do we know for sure Millard was the driver? Millard could have gone up on the stand and told the exact reverse of Smich's testimony and it been just as believable.

How does #2 prove #3 when we can't prove #2? If we don't know where/when Tim was killed and can't see who was in the vehicle, how do we know MS was in the truck? Yes, it's possible, but that's a 50/50 chance he was/wasn't there.

It could have perhaps been helpful for DM take the stand, but he did not. While his failure to do so can't be held against him, he missed his opportunity to present testimony to consider and possibly offset what Smich testified to.

 

[andreww]

My grandkids of approx. same age would be listening to their MP3s (or whatever the latest gadgets are called) and no more listening to CBC
or watching the 'news' than I would be listening to Metalhead or Alice Cooper. (Am I dating myself here? LOL)

This story was everywhere. Kids may not read papers but they do go on Facebook and Twitter. The story was there as well. When MM went to work or CN went to school or work or wherever, people were talking about it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[teamsundin]

How does #2 prove #3 when we can't prove #2? If we don't know where/when Tim was killed and can't see who was in the vehicle, how do we know MS was in the truck? Yes, it's possible, but that's a 50/50 chance he was/wasn't there.

It could have perhaps been helpful for DM take the stand, but he did not. While his failure to do so can't be held against him, he missed his opportunity to present testimony to consider and possibly offset what Smich testified to.

It is circumstantial of course, you could say none of the cars are it, perhaps one, or all three. But when you combine this with the testimony of the neighbour walking his dog giving a timeframe of 915-930 those timestamps work and that's just too many coincidences for me to believe especially when this all occurred in a very rural area at night on a weekday. And I also think the driver being the shooter is way too difficult to pull off and just doesn't make sense to me. So I'm not relying entirely on that video but it certainly ties it all in.

 

[andreww]

- DM wanted/needed a diesel truck for Baja and I believe he decided he was getting that truck come hell or high water
- DM asked AM who "he" should steal the truck from (not "we"). IMO, that is an indication DM was the planner for the mission and MS was not included in all aspects of that plan
- No evidence exists in either the field or the Yukon to indicate that Tim was killed there
- DM initiated the fake text when, if MS was privy to a planned murder, there was no need for MS to leave the truck when they both could have continued with TB in the truck without raising TB's suspicion. I believe the fake text was to ensure that MS was not in the truck so that nothing would go wrong with DM's plan. Otherwise why the fake text at all? If it was both DM and MS planning to kill TB, I see no need for the fake text. They could have just continued the test drive without raising TB's suspicion and both be present for the killing someplace else. IMO the fake text was DM's way of getting MS out of the truck early in the game so that he was alone to carry out his plan.
- Window of opportunity (the total length of time DM was driving the truck vs the length of time MS was in the truck)
- DM's letters to CN solidified for me the depths of his deviousness and attempts to perfect and twist a situation

Do I believe it's possible they both carried out the murder? Possible yes, but I have to give consideration to MS's testimony (whether 100% truthful or not) and give the benefit of the doubt. His testimony is evidence, and as for his story/testimony being geared to evidence presented throughout trial, it is his trial and it is the evidence that he has to address or refute the best way he can. I found his 'story' plausible and for that reason, believe it was a wise move to have him take the stand.

You are not looking at the whole picture. Yes Millard wanted the truck and yes it was his mission, but think back to this one text, and I'm paraphrasing here...

"First things first, I need a truck and you need a base"

To me that text suggest that Millard is offering to take the material possessions like the truck in exchange for necessities like housing (riverside condo), transportation (Caddy) as well as providing cigarettes, booze and food to Smich. If Millard isn't a partner, why is he offering these things to Smich?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[deugirtni]

To me, #2 is all that is needed. It proves #3 and doesn't require #1. Combine that with going straight to the incinerator and I don't have much to second guess.

And really, do we know for sure Millard was the driver? Millard could have gone up on the stand and told the exact reverse of Smich's testimony and it been just as believable.

For me, considering we have seen in evidence the depth of DM's lies through the 'jailhouse letters', his testimony would have been worthless, but nevertheless, DM's 'testimony', that he didn't have to swear to, or be exposed to questioning on, was delivered via his lawyer, and it was never said that MS was the driver of TB's vehicle.

 

[JuneBug67]

You are not looking at the whole picture. Yes Millard wanted the truck and yes it was his mission, but think back to this one text, and I'm paraphrasing here...

"First things first, I need a truck and you need a base"

To me that text suggest that Millard is offering to take the material possessions like the truck in exchange for necessities like housing (riverside condo), transportation (Caddy) as well as providing cigarettes, booze and food to Smich. If Millard isn't a partner, why is he offering these things to Smich?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I read this as more of the same with Millard. He was long on promises (bases, music studios, caddies, impregnation at sea etc etc) and short on delivery. I didn't see it as an offer for a trade, but a well honed technique to manipulate people with their own dreams.

 

[Inspector_North]

There were only the two of them with TB on that tragic night.

One of them knew a loaded gun was being carried on that test drive. Who?

What are the odds that the other 'bro' didn't know the gun was available?

Based on their relationship and the fact that MS and DM took pictures with the gun, and that MS introduced DM to MWJ, IMO the odds of the other not knowing is remote to say the least. What was the purpose of purchasing the gun? MS's rap songs tell us about one purpose, but he wimps out with protection when asked about it, yeah right. You don't buy a gun for protection and buy ammo for your bro to practice.

Based on their relationship today, the trust these two bro's had going back in May of 2013 may be hard understand. But even MM couldn't keep MS from joining his 'blood brother' on that tragic mission. DM is hated so much for his manipulative ways that MS's story is proving to be a big doubt for many. DM's story told through his defense team made MS's story seem even that more credible.

MS didn't take one action immediate post murder or in the three years after to prove his story. He just chose to not remember key evidence, say others were mistaken, or say he made the wrong decision. Well, he made a very bad decision three years ago when he partnered with DM to kill someone.

MOO

 

[canadiangirl]

You are not looking at the whole picture. Yes Millard wanted the truck and yes it was his mission, but think back to this one text, and I'm paraphrasing here...

"First things first, I need a truck and you need a base"

To me that text suggest that Millard is offering to take the material possessions like the truck in exchange for necessities like housing (riverside condo), transportation (Caddy) as well as providing cigarettes, booze and food to Smich. If Millard isn't a partner, why is he offering these things to Smich?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Why did Millard offer SS a house on his farm? Why did Millard offer Javier a construction business? Why did Millard offer any of these people anything he did? Did he ever follow through?

 

[Inspector_North]

Why did Millard offer SS a house on his farm? Why did Millard offer Javier a construction business? Why did Millard offer any of these people anything he did? Did he ever follow through?

DM and the Rabbit seemed to dish out enough to keep them loyal.

SS was given a pay above the average mechanic and kept on the payroll until the hanger was sold.
AM was taken on trips
MM and MS were supplied with food, drugs and a place to crash
LW_2 was given a bonus for not selling
CN was taken on various vacations.

DM threw many parties and picked up the tab. All this generosity that DM got immediate returns on were enough to make the minions believe in the bigger dream. MS was no different, and because of that I lean more towards his buy in to the DM world three years ago. And not the current interpretation MS told after having his eyes forced open by the evidence he was subjected to over the last few months.

Of course MS hates DM now, but that was not true three years ago. He was a believer in the DM promises three years ago, and that meant partnering in the new mission strategy ..... take it from the source.

MOO

 

[JuneBug67]

Why did Millard offer SS a house on his farm? Why did Millard offer Javier a construction business? Why did Millard offer any of these people anything he did? Did he ever follow through?

Ugh. I had forgotten about those things. The worst for me was when he was trying to get his mother to sell her house to finance his own needs with the promise of building her a house on the farm. If anybody is ever tempted to forget just how callous and manipulative he can be, remember that.

 

[billandrew]

- DM wanted/needed a diesel truck for Baja and I believe he decided he was getting that truck come hell or high water
- DM asked AM who "he" should steal the truck from (not "we"). IMO, that is an indication DM was the planner for the mission and MS was not included in all aspects of that plan
- No evidence exists in either the field or the Yukon to indicate that Tim was killed there
- DM initiated the fake text when, if MS was privy to a planned murder, there was no need for MS to leave the truck when they both could have continued with TB in the truck without raising TB's suspicion. I believe the fake text was to ensure that MS was not in the truck so that nothing would go wrong with DM's plan. Otherwise why the fake text at all? If it was both DM and MS planning to kill TB, I see no need for the fake text. They could have just continued the test drive without raising TB's suspicion and both be present for the killing someplace else. IMO the fake text was DM's way of getting MS out of the truck early in the game so that he was alone to carry out his plan.
- Window of opportunity (the total length of time DM was driving the truck vs the length of time MS was in the truck)
- DM's letters to CN solidified for me the depths of his deviousness and attempts to perfect and twist a situation

Do I believe it's possible they both carried out the murder? Possible yes, but I have to give consideration to MS's testimony (whether 100% truthful or not) and give the benefit of the doubt. His testimony is evidence, and as for his story/testimony being geared to evidence presented throughout trial, it is his trial and it is the evidence that he has to address or refute the best way he can. I found his 'story' plausible and for that reason, believe it was a wise move to have him take the stand.

Is it fair to give MS's testimony the benefit of the doubt in assessing DM's guilt, as opposed to only giving benefit of the doubt regarding his own guilt? What if the story about the fake text and MS getting out of the truck so quickly were outright lies? There are many issues which cast significant doubt on MS's story (IMO):

• The cut-throat defence situation gives MS a significant incentive to lie and incriminate DM.
• MS's lawyer did not cross-examine key witnesses on points to later support MS's story -> increases the likelihood of the story being made up after hearing all the evidence.
• MS said TB's truck pulled a U-turn on Book Rd and never pulled into the farmer's field. Bullman said he saw both vehicles well into the field.
• The time gap from the time they walked up TB's driveway to the time they last drove past Super Sucker. There are possibly 10-15 minutes unaccounted for in MS's story.
• The additional video sightings on the Super Sucker video. It cannot be proven if it was TB's truck, but it really looks like the same truck in all 3 sightings. Smich's story relies on the other sightings being other trucks.

This is the fundamental difference between how we arrive at our final opinions. In my view, MS's story is neither plausible or believable, and I feel that it should be given very little weight in assessing DM's guilt for the very reasons stated above.

I agree on the points that DM wanted the 3500 badly and his letters to CN show how devious he is. However, I still view MS as his willing partner in the murder because they both planned "the mission" together over many months, acquiring guns and incinerators along the way. As the time to carry out the mission drew closer, Smich's excitement became more and more apparent. "It's almost mission time ", followed by messages to DM alluding to violence ("it's all work, no fun until someone get hurt"), etc. This was a big mission that meant a lot to them. I don't believe MS would have been so excited if they were just stealing a truck.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

[emoji3][emoji2][emoji3][emoji106][emoji106][emoji258]