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

[Arnie M]

You don't think those letters indicate he was, among other things, some of which you mention, trying to frame MS for Tim's murder in a completely made up scenario? I don't think any jury on the planet would concur with that.

Yes I could read it that way too , but maybe there was a ring of truth to "Marks Mess" and DM was trying to distance himself from it (as opposed to simply framing MS)

Bottom line (to me anyway) is that DM was continuing in his "appearances delusion" .... he was clever to make himself look a certain way to certain people but in reality he was something completely different ... I think he even believed he was "entitled" to anything he wanted .... it appears much of his life was that way , only difference he deviated to crime in the end .

 

[Elisabeth]

How do you explain the text conversations between DM and MS, which said MS was going to contact Isho? Sounds like a team decision being hatched in those texts.

Also, common sense dictates that in the 50 minute conversation between DM and MS prior to DM's arrest their mutual priorities would assuredly be discussing and settling upon further plans to cover their tracks, and grandiose ideas for an exit strategy for both of them.

MOO

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think they wanted all evidence away from themselves as fast as they could (Thursday night before SS's father in law had a chance to go to the police). Possibly have Isho pick up the weapon from MH directly. (In case they were being followed).

Why MS then wanted it back after DM was arrested? Not sure.

 

[Errrr]

Concealed carry holsters are designed to be worn under whatever you're wearing and be discreet. They hold a weapon snugly against the body at the waistline and there are countless images on the Internet of people demonstrating concealed carry holsters with t-shirts. When we have a holster custom-matched to the alleged murder weapon, that is of course relevant for discussion. The Walther is a small gun easy to tuck anywhere and there is not a single thing about it that makes MS's pocket the most likely place for it and certainly not the only reasonable one, which seems to be your thought. I get that you prefer that scenario in your theory, but the things you use to argue it are very arbitrary. There is no need for special shirts, or buttons, or hoodie pockets. Either of them could have had the gun. One of them did.

Also, judging from the text from MS to DM on April 11,2013, he would not risk such a gun rattling around in his pockets to go off by accident. He was obviously very aware of its power.

 

[JuneBug67]

You don't think those letters indicate he was, among other things, some of which you mention, trying to frame MS for Tim's murder in a completely made up scenario? I don't think any jury on the planet would concur with that.

Yes I could read it that way too , but maybe there was a ring of truth to "Marks Mess" and DM was trying to distance himself from it (as opposed to simply framing MS)

Bottom line (to me anyway) is that DM was continuing in his "appearances delusion" .... he was clever to make himself look a certain way to certain people but in reality he was something completely different ... I think he even believed he was "entitled" to anything he wanted .... it appears much of his life was that way , only difference he deviated to crime in the end .

I agree there is a ring of truth to the MS screwing up a robbery scenario. In the same way, there is ring of truth to the "I'm taking the truck." from MS' story. Which is weird as they are mutually exclusive. I'm not as confident as many that the jury will be able to find premeditation, and if they don't I'm not sure how they determine what is right from there with two conflicting stories from two highly self interested accused. The judge's charge will be extra critical in this case and I'm glad they've taken a week for it.

 

[Georgeo]

I really wish certain evidence wasn't witheld from jury. By suppressing evidence the jury does not have the complete picture. How is that fair? The accused are thereby given extra opportunity to succeed in getting lesser charge and lesser sentence.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

I cannot enlighten you as to what happened when the jury wasn't present.

I don't know why the media tweets didn't share all that she testified to in court, but since most of it was completely innocuous I can only assume that it was either to protect the identity of Scotty (whose last name was said, and easily forgotten, but I'm pretty sure it wasn't Moose) or to create a mystery and drama where there was none to sell papers. I am personally leaning to the latter, because the narrative they gave of her testimony and the actual presentation of it were nothing similar to each other. There was no mystery to Scotty in court, I believe she said he was a friend she introduced to DM, she wasn't asked what his occupation was and there weren't a lot of questions about him. The tweeters didn't find him interesting enough to fill it in for you, so they left it open to create some intrigue.

Unlike other witnesses being questioned, they weren't necessarily asking questions to try to get her to reiterate a story or poke holes in one, they were asking probative questions that they didn't already have answers for.

Thank you. I realize that you cannot enlighten us about anything that was said outside the jury's presence.

None of the reporters are allowed to either.

What I am trying to understand, though, is your accusation that the tweets and media weren't forthcoming in telling the whole LW2 & Scotty story in order to create intrigue and sell more papers.

The only conclusion I can come to from what you have said is that you are alleging that journalists deliberately withheld information that they WERE allowed to publish because it was testified to in the presence of the jury.

(IMO that is an irresponsible accusation to make to the numerous journalists who have spent countless hours dedicated to their coverage of the Bosma trial, unless you can back it up.)

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

 

[Typhoo1961]

I really wish certain evidence wasn't witheld from jury. By suppressing evidence the jury does not have the complete picture. How is that fair? The accused are thereby given extra opportunity to succeed in getting lesser charge and lesser sentence.

It's not fair but trials are geared towards the accused and not the victims. Sadly.

 

[theowls42]

Just an idea I got listening to Pillay. The neighbour's dogs didn't bark at the alleged gun shot in the field. I think there's a good chance that Tim was murdered very early on in the drive. Probably before the two separated in the two cars. But the dogs didn't bark. Dogs bark at a pop can opening. Especially country dogs that are used to piece and quiet didn't bark. They would have barked at a gun shot. But they didn't. And it makes sense that DM wouldn't have wanted to trash the truck.
So here's the idea. Everyone assumes that the gun shot was the cause of death. But what if it wasn't? How hard would it be for MS to strangle a restrained unsuspecting passenger in the front passenger seat if he's in the back? I would propose that Tim died out strangulation or some sort of trauma to the neck that would've been cleaner than a gun shot. The gun was just back up. (Also would explain why Igor the Israeli was ruled out.) I think this was a murder gone wrong. They killed him in the field and drove off but on the drive to the farm, perhaps DM panicked and shot the body again. Maybe Tim's body moved and spooked DM. Something like that. The gun may not have been the first weapon of choice.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

Just an idea I got listening to Pillay. The neighbour's dogs didn't bark at the alleged gun shot in the field. I think there's a good chance that Tim was murdered very early on in the drive. Probably before the two separated in the two cars. But the dogs didn't bark. Dogs bark at a pop can opening. Especially country dogs that are used to piece and quiet didn't bark. They would have barked at a gun shot. But they didn't. And it makes sense that DM wouldn't have wanted to trash the truck.
So here's the idea. Everyone assumes that the gun shot was the cause of death. But what if it wasn't? How hard would it be for MS to strangle a restrained unsuspecting passenger in the front passenger seat if he's in the back? I would propose that Tim died out strangulation or some sort of trauma to the neck that would've been cleaner than a gun shot. The gun was just back up. (Also would explain why Igor the Israeli was ruled out.) I think this was a murder gone wrong. They killed him in the field and drove off but on the drive to the farm, perhaps DM panicked and shot the body again. Maybe Tim's body moved and spooked DM. Something like that. The gun may not have been the first weapon of choice.

Not all dogs bark. I had a dog afraid of everything, barked at a leaf dropping. However, fireworks, thunderstorms or the bird bangs, he'd coward under the table without a peep. My mom's Pug sat in a lawn chair and watched the fireworks without a peep. My Sheppard isn't phased by anything except cats and unwelcome visitors in my home.

I do however agree that it was a murder that went wrong but just not with your whole theory of how.

 

[theowls42]

There were 3 dogs close by.

 

[canadiangirl]

There were 3 dogs close by.

3 dogs? We only heard Bullman was walking his

 

[Sillybilly]

Agreed, but I do wonder why it wasn't. Even that it exists seems highly relevant. Argued out maybe?

It was purchased in October 2012 so may be somehow relevant to WM's death in November 2012 and we may hear more about it in that trial.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

It was purchased in October 2012 so may be somehow relevant to WM's death in November 2012 and we may hear more about it in that trial.

The fact he bought two different holsters really points to them both having guns.

 

[theowls42]

Bosma's dog.

 

[leafs_fan93]

I really wish certain evidence wasn't witheld from jury. By suppressing evidence the jury does not have the complete picture. How is that fair? The accused are thereby given extra opportunity to succeed in getting lesser charge and lesser sentence.

By omitting that evidence it lessens the chance of an appeal being won. If boarder line evidence is let in, as much as it would make sense to us for it to be included, it gives them an opening to appeal and have any conviction thrown out. Not worth it.

 

[Juballee]

How do you explain the text conversations between DM and MS, which said MS was going to contact Isho? Sounds like a team decision being hatched in those texts.

Also, common sense dictates that in the 50 minute conversation between DM and MS prior to DM's arrest their mutual priorities would assuredly be discussing and settling upon further plans to cover their tracks, and grandiose ideas for an exit strategy for both of them.

MOO

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

What was DM's reply to MS talking about contacting Isho, I forget? Why don't we have MS's phone records to verify that he did contact Isho? And didn't Isho also sell drugs? Maybe MS was just looking to score.

I would have thought that the meeting on the Thursday was to make their plans in case DM got arrested, I wonder what changed about the plan overnight? If MS thought he could be arrested at any minute too, I'm surprised he would have wanted the gun anywhere near himself unless he thought it could be useful to him or if he thought it could incriminate him if he didn't get rid of it.

My opinion only

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

What was DM's reply to MS talking about contacting Isho, I forget? Why don't we have MS's phone records to verify that he did contact Isho? And didn't Isho also sell drugs? Maybe MS was just looking to score.

I would have thought that the meeting on the Thursday was to make their plans in case DM got arrested, I wonder what changed about the plan overnight? If MS thought he could be arrested at any minute too, I'm surprised he would have wanted the gun anywhere near himself unless he thought it could be useful to him or if he thought it could incriminate him if he didn't get rid of it.

My opinion only

We don't have MS phone record because either he deleted the messaves and/or destroyed the phone or he destroyed or lost the sim card.

 

[Just4TB]

...The crown showed that DM didn't have his satchel ...

I disagree. Lack of evidence that he was wearing the satchel is different than crown showing that he didn't have a satchel.
The crown did not show that he didn't have his satchel at Bosma home. The crown stated there was no evidence of him wearing a satchel.

There is no evidence of DM wearing the satchel, but there is also no evidence that he was not wearing it.

 

[Arnie M]

I disagree. Lack of evidence that he was wearing the satchel is different than crown showing that he didn't have a satchel.
The crown did not show that he didn't have his satchel at Bosma home. The crown stated there was no evidence of him wearing a satchel.

There is no evidence of DM wearing the satchel, but there is also no evidence that he was not wearing it.

Yes , and the fact he laundered it afterward indicates it had been used.

 

[deugirtni]

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.

This doesn't make sense, imho. If DM's prints were NOT on the gun, it does NOT prove that he was NOT the shooter. If nobody's prints were on the gun, it doesn't prove the gun was not the murder weapon. If MS gave up the gun's location and MS's prints ARE on the gun, it does NOT prove that he WAS the shooter.

I may have missed something since there was just SO much reading and time involved in this case, but as far as I have read, there is no proof that MS was 'in such a hurry to get the gun', or 'to get the gun' at all. I'm not sure how MS found out that another item had been dropped off by DM to MH at his family's residence, whether through MS or AM or even DM. There IS evidence that he wanted all of DM's drugs. Is there evidence to prove that MS knew there was a gun inside the toolbox, or is there only really evidence to show that MS wanted the drugs and assumed there were drugs also inside the toolbox and therefore wanted those drugs too?

We heard testimony from MH that DM had historically kept narcotics and drug paraphernalia locked inside the toolbox, and I believe from AM that the toolbox was kept in DM's bedroom, so if MS knew that DM had dropped off the toolbox, and he wanted it, where is the evidence that he knew that something other than drugs and drug paraphernalia was inside? I believe texts referred to it as 'the thing' or 'the other thing', meaning 'the toolbox', but which they likely did not want to text out in full. If MS knew there was a gun, the murder weapon inside the toolbox, and that DM had taken the toolbox to MH's, the only way he could have found out the gun was in the toolbox was if DM told him. If DM had not wanted MS to get the gun, then why would he have told MS that he put it there, and where he took it to? And if DM did not want MS to get the gun that he put in the toolbox, why did he not leave instructions with AM and MH that he didn't want MS to have the toolbox, or to know about the toolbox?