Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #18

[marymcd]

This has been brought up numerous times and being a novice here, I decided to look it up. I have to think that at the times in history that this philosophy evolved, I don't imagine that much in the way of what would be viewed as rights of the accused existed. I don't imagine either that the nature and spectrum of the types of crime or punishment would be comparable either. I don't know how many here remember Celia Rygrok. I was a teenager and she was a beautiful little girl that lived down the street from me who was murdered by a repeat offender when she was 21. The only other case that I followed closely was Barbara Galway, who was a very close friend of mine at the time that her family was signing petitions to fight a deportation order following her killer's early release from another crime.

I can't know, but I feel that it is possible that so much evidence may be sacrificed during the process of legal arguments and admissible evidence, that there are times when justice for the souls who have been robbed of their life, and their families whose lives have been changed forever can't possibly be served.

I am not suggesting either that this is an obsolete philosophy, just that it exists historically and arose in a different era. Every defense lawyer must have this quote or something similar posted somewhere in their office:

AUTHOR: Benjamin Franklin (1706–90)

QUOTATION: That it is better 100 guilty Persons should escape than that one innocent Person should suffer, is a Maxim that has been long and generally approved.

ATTRIBUTION: BENJAMIN FRANKLIN, letter to Benjamin Vaughan, March 14, 1785.—The Writings of Benjamin Franklin, ed. Albert H. Smyth, vol. 9, p. 293 (1906).

He was echoing Voltaire, “that generous Maxim, that ’tis much more Prudence to acquit two Persons, tho’ actually guilty, than to pass Sentence of Condemnation on one that is virtuous and innocent.—Zadig, chapter 6, p. 53 (1749, reprinted 1974).

Sir William Blackstone, in his Commentaries on the Laws of England, 9th ed., book 4, chapter 27, p. 358 (1783, reprinted 1978), says, “For the law holds, that it is better that ten guilty persons escape, than that one innocent suffer.”

 

[Oreck]

"

One word: incinerator

"



That was plan B.

 

[Alethea Dice]

I guess what made me go looking for info on when the seats were burned, was the fact that the red Ram was never mentioned (that I can recall) in any evidence, but yet it has been stated that some of the stuff was put into the back of the red truck. When I looked, I couldn't really find anything that said the seats had gone into the back of the red truck, I found stuff saying that other stuff had been put in garbage bags and put into the back of the red truck. I think that someone here mentioned that the seats had been burned earlier than on May 9th, but I can't find indication of that. That is why I'm asking for help.

The reasons I am interested:

-the seats seem to be the only item that was burned and retained, as opposed to discarded through ash (ie the carpet, gloves, their initial clothing, tarps, rags, whatever? If this stuff, including the seats were not burned until May 9th, then I am curious as to how the metal would be burned to remove all upholstery, and then cooled down enough for them to get the metal framing back into the red truck so quickly, to be taken back to the hangar, and was there an indication of such a timeline on the cellphone data report? I would imagine the metal frame would have been awfully hot for the men to lug back into the truck, and perhaps for quite some time.

-if the seats were not burned until May 9th, where were they placed from the 6th to the 9th? Before the seats were burned, they were reported to be blood soaked, from what I remember? I am wondering how AJ and SS missed seeing them? Especially with AJ reportedly being so curious about this truck suddenly there in the hangar, and already aware of the TB case from the news, one might assume he may have also noticed the red Ram on site somewhere, and even if the seat assembly were covered with a tarp, I would imagine that may get his imagination going as to what could be underneath. I wondered therefore, if the seats could have been put into the large car-hauler trailer that was later used to haul TB's truck to MB's residence. but if they were, then the duo would have had to unload the bloody seats before putting TB's truck inside, and then reload them into the trailer behind the truck... is it possible the seat assembly was burned at the farm on the same evening as when the truck and seats were taken to Ayr?

I don't know when they burned what pieces, but it appears that there was a time on the night of May 7th that MS was at the farm while DM was at the hangar. From billandrew's timeline, DM texted MS that he was on the way to pick him up at 6:06 pm. At 9:09, the Yukon arrived at the hangar. Around 11:00 to 11:30 flashlights were seen at the farm. At 11:30, Smich phone was at the farm. At 11:40, the Yukon left the hangar with the trailer. IIRC, Fraser questioned MM about who had her phone that night and whether she was with it. No idea if that means it was a quick trip to the hangar or if both were cleaning up separately.

 

[Claroon]

But also remember, if you put out dog food and have TWO dogs, which one ate the dog food when you came back?

To follow the judge's explanation, it doesn't matter which dog ate it.

"In Canadian criminal law, principals, aiders and abettors of criminal offences are all equally culpable," Goodman said. "This means that, in Canada, the distinction between those who personally commit an offence and those who aid or abet the offence is legally irrelevant.

"All are equally culpable in the eyes of the law." https://twitter.com/AdamCarterCBC

 

[Claroon]

""



That was plan B.

IMO, it was plan A.6 & A.7

A.1 buy gun
A.2 buy incinerator
A.3 choose target
A.4 meet with target
A.5 hold gun on target and shoot target
A.6 stop at farm to get incinerator
A.7 finish victim off
A.8 dismantle truck

 

[Claroon]

So, some observations from court on Friday -
DM - I've seen him in court before, but it didn't stop me from noticing just how different DM looks imo from pictures from before. He looks gaunt, and has big bags under his eyes. I suppose a few years in custody with lots of segregation can do that. On the skinnier side, with slightly ill fitting conservative clothing. In my subjective opinion in his previous pictures he definitely could be considered a physically attractive man by some, no longer however, imo.
I did not personally see any family members or obvious supporters of either DM or MS. IMO only.
MS looked the same as the other times, more lucid then pictures of him before this all, mostly serious and looking straight ahead. Dark neatly parted to the side, with conservative clothing. He is much smaller in stature in person than he ever looked in pictures, imo, also compared to DM, and probably because with slimmer fitting clothing it is more obvious.
DM on the other hand was wearing dark thick framed glasses and was often bent over his notebook with a pen or pencil.

The beginning took people by surprise (including the lawyers IMO) when the judge announced that a juror had personal private issues relayed via a letter. She ended up being discharged from the trial. We watched the juror go and the jury drop to 12. Of course there was a humming across the courtroom with people looking around at each other.

Was anyone in the audience wearing orange, or did anyone have red shoes?

 

[canadiangirl]

To follow the judge's explanation, it doesn't matter which dog ate it.

Can you please direct me to where the judge said it didn't matter which dog ate the food?
this is what I could find on the topic.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 24s24 seconds ago
Inference can logically or reasonably be drawn. eg. Woman puts dog food in dish. Then leaves house. Returns to see food gone from dish.
Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 1m1 minute ago
Direct evidence. Witness testifying to what they saw or heard. eg Woman says she put dog food in dish and saw her dog eat it.
Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 2m2 minutes ago
We use observed or known facts to infer secondary facts.
Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 2m2 minutes ago
May conclude dog ate food from dish.

Quote Originally Posted by XiolaBlueX View Post
The judge followed up a similar analogy today about 1 dog being left food, etc and then said - (paraphrasing) however, if you have TWO dogs, and come back later and all the food is gone, you may not know which dog ate the food, or if both did.

 

[Miranda16]

""



That was plan B.

OK. Under what circumstances would they have gone with plan B? What would happen?
I think the incinerator was bought specifically to dispose of bodies. Nothing else. Plan A.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

Judges charge to jury on Friday - The judge made a point of cautioning the jury (summarizing) not to confuse the premeditation of stealing a truck with premeditation of murder. Furthermore, he said that conduct after the fact does not necessarily prove what occurred. For example, cleaning up the seats and the truck, moving the eliminator, behaviour afterwards. It can still happen if it wasn't a premeditated murder and does not make it more likely that it was premeditated murder vs a manslaughter as people react in different ways to something like a manslaughter. Whether it be from fear, panic, not wanting to get caught for something, or it could be innocent.Also somebody can get caught up in a situation that was not premeditated. Jurors can still take it all into account.
(Please note that this little blurb is from my memory of observing, most of the other things in earlier posts I wrote from my notes verbatim.)

Your observations are very interesting.

I may be able to attend court tomorrow - we're allowed to take notes?

 

[Lexiintoronto]

Was anyone in the audience wearing orange, or did anyone have red shoes?

I understand the red shoes reference, but not the orange one. What does that mean?

 

[canadiangirl]

To follow the judge's explanation, it doesn't matter which dog ate it.

"In Canadian criminal law, principals, aiders and abettors of criminal offences are all equally culpable," Goodman said. "This means that, in Canada, the distinction between those who personally commit an offence and those who aid or abet the offence is legally irrelevant.

"All are equally culpable in the eyes of the law." https://twitter.com/AdamCarterCBC

Just being there doesn't make someone an aider though, Goodman says. "Sometimes people are in the wrong place at the wrong time."
by Adam Carter 2:32 PM

The Crown has to prove intent and knowledge that offence would happen on the aider's part, Goodman says.
by Adam Carter 2:32 PM

Abettors are people who encourage a person to commit an offence, and they can also be found guilty.
by Adam Carter 2:33 PM

"If a person knows that someone intends to commit a crime, and encourages it, that person who encourages it, is also guilty of the crime the other commits."
by Adam Carter 2:34 PM

There's also instances where the accused have planned to commit a certain offence, like a theft, and then something else happens.
by Adam Carter 2:36 PM

An accused cannot be convicted as an aider or abettor unless it's proven that he had the state of mind or intent with that offence.
by Adam Carter 2:38 PM

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 1m1 minute ago
Do not confuse aiding or abetting truck theft with aiding or abetting murder, says judge. "You must be very careful not to do that.

 

[Oreck]

"

I think this is the most likely as well. Except if murder was never the intent, it doesn't equal 1st degree. Second degree, or less likely manslaughter, for both. JMO

"

Even if murder was not the intent, the verdict should still be M1.
A bank robber might have no intent of murder and only intends to intimidate with a shot through the cieling, BUT
if things go sideways, it's M1.

 

[Claroon]

Judges charge to jury on Friday - The judge made a point of cautioning the jury (summarizing) not to confuse the premeditation of stealing a truck with premeditation of murder. Furthermore, he said that conduct after the fact does not necessarily prove what occurred. For example, cleaning up the seats and the truck, moving the eliminator, behaviour afterwards. It can still happen if it wasn't a premeditated murder and does not make it more likely that it was premeditated murder vs a manslaughter as people react in different ways to something like a manslaughter. Whether it be from fear, panic, not wanting to get caught for something, or it could be innocent.Also somebody can get caught up in a situation that was not premeditated. Jurors can still take it all into account.
(Please note that this little blurb is from my memory of observing, most of the other things in earlier posts I wrote from my notes verbatim.)

For more context on that issue:

underline by me

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC Jun 10
"You must not limit your analysis to the after the fact conduct," Goodman says. #TImBosma #Bosma

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC Jun 10
The after the fact conduct must be considered with all the other evidence, Goodman says. #TImBosma #Bosma


Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC Jun 10
"After the fact conduct is not to be considered in isolation," Goodman says. #TimBosma #Bosma

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes Jun 10
Flight from a scene, destruction of evidence, tampering with witnesses are all relevant.....but does not make it more likely that accused had "requisite state of mind for murder, over manslaughter."

‏@mollyhayes
After the fact conduct cannot be considered in isolation or given undo weight. Jury must look at along with all of the evidence.

 

[luis]

I have been thinking about this for days. In the middle of the nite when I can't sleep.
It does not make sense that they would plan to kill the owner in the truck.
Too serious. Too dangerous. You never know where a bullet might go.
Through a window? Through a door? Through the dash? Through your buddy?
And it makes a lot of mess.
Millard’s: “No more money bro, we take what we want at the source.”
I think this must have meant to force the owner out, take his truck, and just drive away.
Change the colour. Change serial numbers.
Who knows the difference?
I think they had no plan to kill just to steal. Murder is too foolish and way too serious.
The gun was to give the plan Back Up.
The plan got cancelled with IT.
Everyone knows Don't pull a gun on a soldier. Unless it has smooth edges.
I don't think murder was ever the intent.
Kick the owner out and just drive away.
Worst charge would be possession.
I have no doubt they were both armed.
The plan went terribly wrong.
The details don't matter.
I do think this puts both MS and DM up for M1.

The plan could have been to get the owner (restrained somehow) to the farm near Ayr. Then kill, then incinerate. No mess in the truck to clean up.
Something went wrong with that plan and TB was shot in the truck. Possibly at or just before the stop at Bobcat of Brantford.

 

[Georgeo]

My biggest problem from the onset of finding MS guilty of First degree is "reasonable doubt" on pre-meditation. When looking at the "totality" of the evidence how is it possible to say with certainty that MS knew and planned the purpose of the incinerator was to eliminate bodies when other people had the same if not more knowledge of it and did not even warrant an AATF? The same holds true with the "theft" of the truck, several people were in on the planning and all of them knew DM owned a gun (guns) yet didn't suspect him of a murder as this was never a part of any prior "Missions", Why would this mission be any different then any others?

Everyone else was not with DM that night, and didn't help with the disposal of the body, and ripping out carpets and seats out of the bloody truck. Their involvement was knowing not doing. MS could have driven away in Yukon and gone straight to police and reported the murder (IF in fact he was not privy to the pre-meditated plan to kill). He chose not to. His actions that night were that of an accomplice, not a shocked bystander.

He had several opportunities to not be involved - but he chose to help with disposal and clean up. Therefore, M1 for both. MOO

 

[Georgeo]

No. Why does being there give you any more knowledge?

Who helped dispose of body? MS
Who started initial clean up of truck and ripped out seats, carpets, etc. when he could have left? MS
Who admitted he "f'ed up"? MS
Who partied at sister's wedding mere days after the murder and didn't appear to be upset or depressed? MS

 

[canadiangirl]

Who helped dispose of body? MS
Who started initial clean up of truck and ripped out seats, carpets, etc. when he could have left? MS
Who admitted he "f'ed up"? MS
Who partied at sister's wedding mere days after the murder and didn't appear to be upset or depressed? MS

Who said actions taken after the fact don't prove a person's guilt? Judge Goodman.

 

[Georgeo]

He was there that night and.....
He was there on his computer checking out incinerators
He was there setting up meetings with the gun dealer for DM
He was there after DM bought the gun(s) taking photos
He was there googling about ammo for the handguns
He was there searching for the right truck
He was there doing the mission prep
He was there on the dry run with Igor
He was there when they drove towards Ancaster
He was there when they walked up the driveway at Tim's place
He was there driving the Yukon behind TB's truck
He was there to pick up the Eliminator
He was there to do cleanup of one sort or another in the week that followed
He was there to scoop up the weed and the 'thing'

That's just a quick list off the top of my head......13 times when MS was just there??? That's alot of 'just being there'.
Your comment gives the impression that the only thing that distinguishes MS from the rest of the posse is that he was (just) there that night.
And if my puny list is not enough to set him apart, apparently Toronto police services think that MS was there in connection with the disappearance and disposal of Laura Babcock.....not that that is a part of this trial but it certainly does say something (if only to Sleuthers at this point ) about MS's character at the time.

I do happen to agree that are a few other people who knew of and contributed to Dell's dirty dealings....but I also recall from the past posts that knowing about a crime is not in itself a criminal act.....damn it !!!

WAY TOO MANY things MS "was there for"! I completely agree that the jury won't be fooled by his testimony, omitting himself from all the really bad parts of the "events".

 

[Georgeo]

2 against one and a gun? I'd have to disagree. Smich could've pulled the gun from the back seat and Igor would've been none the wiser.

Difference? Igor broad daylight - Tim cover of darkness.
Igor busy city - Tim rural area.
Big difference.

 

[canadiangirl]

Difference? Igor broad daylight - Tim cover of darkness.
Igor busy city - Tim rural area.
Big difference.

Yes because a murder in Toronto has never occurred in broad daylight.