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

[Miranda16]

Ms did testify about the gun and said that "There were other reasons for having a gun". He was not questioned further on this by any attorney. I understood it to mean that he claimed to own a gun for his own protection as he was heavy into illegal activities.
I also noticed that Isho was doing DM a favour by giving him the gun at cost and not making a penny. Wondering why a casual acquaintance would go out of his way to do such a favour. IMO DM & Isho were partners in a much bigger scale then anybody has testified to

There was some testimony about the gun that was shut out due to legal arguments wasn't there? MS actually introduced DM to Isho, and MS mentioned contacting Isho again after the murder. So both MS and DM were involved with an illegal gun dealer.

 

[Miranda16]

MS knew Isho from highschool and introduced DM to him after they hooked up when DM was buying pot from MS. There is no evidence that MS was into anything heavier then petty pot dealing prior to DM. DM & Isho's dealing were much bigger as is indicated in the deal for the gun and large amounts of drugs in his possession. DM seems to be the middleman between Moose & Isho???

There's also no evidence that DM was into anything serious prior to MS, either. That's going back a few years before the two of them both escalated as partners in crimes of increasing severity.

 

[Miranda16]

https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/11...ng_murder.html

Google it...you will find lots to support and lots to undermine. Either way first degree murder is not as cut and dried as some may think in my opinion.

It is if you have demonstrable prior intent, as is the case for both accused in the TB case.

 

[canadiangirl]

Well thought out post.

My retort would be is it really reasonable to think DM is going to plan a murder and then bring along someone who has no idea it's about to happen? If MS decides murdering is a step too far DM is immediately caught when he reports it.

IMO the idea that DM is going to plan out a murder to the extent of incinerating a body and then bring along some unknowing dupe who could easily decide murder is a step way beyond what he's prepared to do is unreasonable.

In the majority of cases I would agree. However in this case it seems like DM is the alpha. He's their golden boy. Rich guy with toys. There's a gang mentality with these people. DM planned what to take. When. Who was involved. Where. Etc. I mean most testimony we heard said DM would say I have a mission for you, you in? and then boom. They are off stealing trees and random things. I don't think everyone was privy to exactly every detail of what a mission might involve. Just go along for the ride. So it's not unreasonable to think someone wasn't aware of the plan in this case.

For a normal person who isn't involved in this lifestyle with it then I'd agree. But DM was pushing the limits as far as he could it seems.

Just like he told AM the missions would be dangerous. AM was on board. Why not bring him along? Maybe because he didn't have a criminal background to make him the fall guy should stuff go sideways?

However, IMO this situation is no different then everyone who has said by being a juror you'd just be swayed by 11 other people, give into the pressure, and go with the flow. And have no consideration for putting someone away for life because you had family at home to consider. Some people have a strong will, and sometimes people just go with the flow without complete rational thinking. It's been demonstrated time and again.

 

[Miranda16]

Did I understand you correctly? You're judging MS for mere knowledge that DM had a gun? I think that's a little unfair. My hubby wants a handgun (though, he has obtained the proper licensing) and has absolutely no need for one, IMO, and I will not permit it. Some people just love guns. But, let's say he did have a gun, do I "look bad" because my hubby has a gun?

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

You're reading one quote from a series of posts. If you take it in context, MS knew that his criminal partner bought a gun. Therefore he should have been aware of the potential for violence in their activities. That's giving MS the benefit of doubt and assuming he was not a full partner in their escalation. I happen to think he was a full partner.

 

[Miranda16]

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

it was brought up as one piece of several which together fit the puzzle and lead to the logical conclusion that MS is guilty of premeditated murder. This one fact cannot convict him, but the sum of the evidence should IMO

 

[andreww]

You're reading one quote from a series of posts. If you take it in context, MS knew that his criminal partner bought a gun. Therefore he should have been aware of the potential for violence in their activities. That's giving MS the benefit of doubt and assuming he was not a full partner in their escalation. I happen to think he was a full partner.

He was a full partner. He even said it "I thought it was fireworks tonight". Smich knew Millard was bringing the gun and the fireside furniture/sausage text suggests he knew about the Eliminator as well.

 

[ILoveDateline]

it was brought up as one piece of several which together fit the puzzle and lead to the logical conclusion that MS is guilty of premeditated murder. This one fact cannot convict him, but the sum of the evidence should IMO

Sorry if I pulled the one comment out of context from a longer conversation. I do agree with you except that I don't include the illegal gun in my sum of evidence against MS. My general view is, knowing someone has a weapon, does not mean you know they plan to use it. I suppose ownership of a weapon does imply the potential to use it, but that could be true about anything, and does not imply intention to use it. I can see the rationale for the opposite argument. My specific view is that it hasn't been proven to me that MS knew DM brought the gun that night. That's just my opinion. I see your side.

All MOO.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

There's also no evidence that DM was into anything serious prior to MS, either. That's going back a few years before the two of them both escalated as partners in crimes of increasing severity.

DM and his gang were into thefts before MS was into the group. They (DM and MS) met through a drug dealing, no contact for two years then reconnected again over drugs. Or did I misunderstand testimony?

 

[Mscree]

If you read all the comments that people are leaving on that site that has the polls, one can clearly see that very few of the commenters have been following the case very closely, or have a good understanding of the Canadian Justice system. There is a great dissemination of non-factual information, some of it is even outlandish.

MOO

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I agree I'm aware of the poll a lot of those who voted are people who have not followed the trial closely. I don't give much weight to it. I believe this crime is so senseless many are looking for something that makes sense a story if you will. We know so much about Millard and very little about smich that some are willing to give him the benefit he was in the wrong place wrong time scenario. It's just to convenient so many items are missing. The letters Millard sent and the fact he didn't testify totally worked in smichs favor. Once the judge reads his charge it will make it more clear to those on the fence. If he gave up the gun location or where he ditched his sim cards I would give him some credit.. I also believe since Dungey went after witnesses and asked the tough questions what about Tim, didn't you care about the Bosma family ect. That made a lot of people believe in smich and his council. All my own opinion but it worked to smichs favor
I

 

[canadiangirl]

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."

 

[canadiangirl]

Not sure how not finding blood in the Yukon means anything. Yes there was a lot of blood in the RAM, but virtually none in the back seat where Smich sat. In fact there was very little in the driver seat area either. So MS wouldn't have got blood in the Yukon and by the time Millard drove it, any spatter on him would have dried.

But to sum things up, we know the murder occurred, we know they were both involved and we know there was no blood in the Yukon. All facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

BBM
How do we know there was very little in the drivers seat area? Those seats were burned out.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

In the majority of cases I would agree. However in this case it seems like DM is the alpha. He's their golden boy. Rich guy with toys. There's a gang mentality with these people. DM planned what to take. When. Who was involved. Where. Etc. I mean most testimony we heard said DM would say I have a mission for you, you in? and then boom. They are off stealing trees and random things. I don't think everyone was privy to exactly every detail of what a mission might involve. Just go along for the ride. So it's not unreasonable to think someone wasn't aware of the plan in this case.

For a normal person who isn't involved in this lifestyle with it then I'd agree. But DM was pushing the limits as far as he could it seems.

Just like he told AM the missions would be dangerous. AM was on board. Why not bring him along? Maybe because he didn't have a criminal background to make him the fall guy should stuff go sideways?

However, IMO this situation is no different then everyone who has said by being a juror you'd just be swayed by 11 other people, give into the pressure, and go with the flow. And have no consideration for putting someone away for life because you had family at home to consider. Some people have a strong will, and sometimes people just go with the flow without complete rational thinking. It's been demonstrated time and again.

BBM

Except that isn't true with MS.


May 13 - Smich to Millard - I'm *advertiser censored***** hungry for a mission too and I know I've been slacking on that lately
May 30 - Smich to Millard - I need a mission or whatever/I gotta get out of this place bro....
May 30 - Smich to Millard - bringing mission stuff just in case
Jun 9 - Smich to Millard - I found some small missions easy s*** on the way. Not important but useful.
Apr 26 - Smich to Millard - Its almost mission time/
May 2 - Smich to Millard - oh wanna come by and run some missions with me while her and her friend pierce each other
May 3 - Smich to Millard - Yo holla back tomorrow when you back from Toronto. There's a bunch. Missions and more.

 

[canadiangirl]

BBM

Except that isn't true with MS.


May 13 - Smich to Millard - I'm *advertiser censored***** hungry for a mission too and I know I've been slacking on that lately
May 30 - Smich to Millard - I need a mission or whatever/I gotta get out of this place bro....
May 30 - Smich to Millard - bringing mission stuff just in case
Jun 9 - Smich to Millard - I found some small missions easy s*** on the way. Not important but useful.
Apr 26 - Smich to Millard - Its almost mission time/
May 2 - Smich to Millard - oh wanna come by and run some missions with me while her and her friend pierce each other
May 3 - Smich to Millard - Yo holla back tomorrow when you back from Toronto. There's a bunch. Missions and more.

Yes I've read that except DM missions were backed up with actual stolen items as found in the hanger and testified by others. What were the validity of MS "missions"?

Does talking about them mean they happened?

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Yes I've read that except DM missions were backed up with actual stolen items as found in the hanger and testified by others. What were the validity of MS "missions"?

Does talking about them mean they happened?

Does it matter? But probably since they were stealing things left and right.
And I doubt he kept bringing it up if he was always being turned down.

 

[Errrr]

This won't be a popular post, but...

'This was a premeditated mission' - ...........

'Both knew the gun existed, and it didn't exist for just photo ops' - What evidence is being relied upon which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that both knowing the gun existed means the same thing as both knowing that it was brought along on that evening and further, that it was brought along for the purpose of carrying out a plan to kill a man that night? What proves beyond a reasonable doubt that MS knew it was present that night before the murder, and that MS also knew that it had been planned to use it to murder a man on this occasion?

The alternative seems absurd. That DM would bring along someone to observe him murder someone( in the hopes he would say hey that looks like a good idea, let me help you there) or to fit a live guy into the incinerator you had been working on together without killing him first?

 

[canadiangirl]

Does it matter? But probably since they were stealing things left and right.
And I doubt he kept bringing it up if he was always being turned down.

Of course it matters. If you keep saying you've got grand plans of buying a fancy house one day and it never happens, what does that make you? A big talker with nothing solid to back it up.

And a few texts messages spread out over the course of... a year all lumped together to make it appear the person is asking over and over?

 

[Georgeo]

That's interesting that murder during an indictable offence was something that was repealed in Canadian law rather than something that never existed. I can respect the reasoning for the repeal. The most f'd up application of a law like that I've ever heard was a case of several teens in the US who broke into a home after school thinking it was unoccupied and with the intention of burglary. The homeowner was there and shot one of the teens to death, wounded others. The other teens were charged with first degree murder in that death because it occurred during the commission of of the break and enter. The homeowner committed no crime and was not charged with anything. Totally messed. It still makes me shake my head typing it out. All tried as adults and sentenced to 55 years in prison. One got "lucky" and got 45. It was under appeal, so don't know what happened ultimately.

Teens broke into someone's home, and ended up getting shot at and one killed. Good on them.. homeowner was defending himself and his home. They shouldn't have broken into his home in first place.

 

[teamsundin]

This won't be a popular post, but...

'This was a premeditated mission' - I understood there to be evidence that there was a mission planned for the two men to steal a truck as has been testified to by a few witnesses, and by DM trying to get a witness to change what he heard DM say ahead of time in regard to stealing a truck at that time. For me personally, I am also satisfied that there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that DM (and possibly CN) knew that a murder was in the plan, because of DM's advance planning to have first the car-hauler trailer available, and then also the Yukon for towing the incinerator, as well as asking his employee in advance about the location of the generator for the incinerator. What evidence is being relied upon which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that MS knew that the mission also included murdering the truck owner?

'The mission ended with TB being dead' - This is a fact, but what evidence is being relied upon which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that killing TB was part of the plan, and what evidence is being relied upon which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that MS knew this part of the plan?

'Both knew the gun existed, and it didn't exist for just photo ops' - What evidence is being relied upon which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that both knowing the gun existed means the same thing as both knowing that it was brought along on that evening and further, that it was brought along for the purpose of carrying out a plan to kill a man that night? What proves beyond a reasonable doubt that MS knew it was present that night before the murder, and that MS also knew that it had been planned to use it to murder a man on this occasion?

-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.

 

[deugirtni]

IIRC, there was one ebay account that was found to not belong to DM, but the ebay account where a holster was purchased was shown to belong to this Dellen Millard. It is not a floated theory.

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?