"
DM's text on may 6 "it will be an allnighter"
blows this whole nice-guy idea out of the water doesn't it.
"
DM's text on may 6 "it will be an allnighter"
blows this whole nice-guy idea out of the water doesn't it.
Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #18
- Thread starter Sillybilly
- Start date
New Posts
-
-
Japan - Miyazawa family of 4 murdered, Setagaya, Tokyo, 30 Dec 2000 #3- Latest: Charlot123
- Status
MrsThreadgoode
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2011
- Messages
- 921
- Reaction score
- 22
Perhaps I am being stubborn here, or "willfully blind", or even simple-minded, but these 2 things alone (amongst so many others), cannot be "innocently" explained away, and IMO, show premeditation of 1st DM.
1. A loaded gun was brought to "test drive" or scope out for later theft, a vehicle. There is absolutely no "innocent" reason to put bullets in that gun. If the intent was only to steal the truck and terrify the owner into getting out of the truck, an empty gun would have sufficed, without question, IMO. Gun(s) were purchased well in advance of May 6, 2013. Both DM and MS were involved with the purchase.
2. Even more important, in my mind, is the purchase of the livestock incinerator, WELL in advance of Tim's murder. It was NOT purchased for an animal incineration business, or for disposal of dead livestock or garbage. It was a very costly investment that cannot be innocently reasoned away, IMO. Both DM and MS discussed/researched its purchase, its set-up, preparing it in the days leading up to the murder. (Yeah, I know about SS, but he was not there that night. I am only talking about MS and DM because they are the accused.) It was part of a plan. In what possible or likely scenario would a supposed plan to solely steal a truck also involve an incinerator? In my wildest dreams, I can't think of a single one.
And yet, if we are to believe that the intent was only to steal or scope out a truck, and Tim was UNINTENTIONALLY killed in the process because "the plan" included bringing a loaded weapon, is it reasonable to believe that in their utter shock and horror that a man had been killed, either one of them would have said "Hey, I know what we will do. We just happen to have that incinerator at the farm ... Lucky we thought to purchase that a few months ago. It's not being used for anything. Let's go there to dispose of the result of our botched plan to scope out/steal the truck." Is it remotely possible that the purchase of the incinerator was actually a mere happenstance/convenience/coincidence to their "intended plan" to solely steal a truck?
IMO, a very loud resounding NOOOOO!!! The incinerator was there because it was a part of an overall plan that was initiated a long time ago.
These 2 things alone, perhaps too simple?, are proof of premeditation in my mind.
MOO
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
1. A loaded gun was brought to "test drive" or scope out for later theft, a vehicle. There is absolutely no "innocent" reason to put bullets in that gun. If the intent was only to steal the truck and terrify the owner into getting out of the truck, an empty gun would have sufficed, without question, IMO. Gun(s) were purchased well in advance of May 6, 2013. Both DM and MS were involved with the purchase.
2. Even more important, in my mind, is the purchase of the livestock incinerator, WELL in advance of Tim's murder. It was NOT purchased for an animal incineration business, or for disposal of dead livestock or garbage. It was a very costly investment that cannot be innocently reasoned away, IMO. Both DM and MS discussed/researched its purchase, its set-up, preparing it in the days leading up to the murder. (Yeah, I know about SS, but he was not there that night. I am only talking about MS and DM because they are the accused.) It was part of a plan. In what possible or likely scenario would a supposed plan to solely steal a truck also involve an incinerator? In my wildest dreams, I can't think of a single one.
And yet, if we are to believe that the intent was only to steal or scope out a truck, and Tim was UNINTENTIONALLY killed in the process because "the plan" included bringing a loaded weapon, is it reasonable to believe that in their utter shock and horror that a man had been killed, either one of them would have said "Hey, I know what we will do. We just happen to have that incinerator at the farm ... Lucky we thought to purchase that a few months ago. It's not being used for anything. Let's go there to dispose of the result of our botched plan to scope out/steal the truck." Is it remotely possible that the purchase of the incinerator was actually a mere happenstance/convenience/coincidence to their "intended plan" to solely steal a truck?
IMO, a very loud resounding NOOOOO!!! The incinerator was there because it was a part of an overall plan that was initiated a long time ago.
These 2 things alone, perhaps too simple?, are proof of premeditation in my mind.
MOO
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Why is it not possible to have been the morning of the 7th that MS whizzed past BD, because MS whizzing past BD and entering his mother's house does not preclude MM also going into the house, and being the one to return to bring down the pot, telling him to leave.
There are a few dates noted in tweets listed under Pillay's cross, and so I don't see how all of them could have been errors. moo though. I believe Dungey also noted the date of May 6th being the day that MS whizzes past him, same as below. Obviously this is in error, since the crime had not happened yet?
I am not certain on the date when MS and MM moved into MM's sister's apartment, however I thought I had read somewhere that it was before DM's arrest. During the talked-about 50-minute visit that DM paid to MS prior to his arrest, where did DM go to have that visit with MS? Was it at MS's mother's house? And when was it that BD 'let DM in'? And was that not at MM's sister's apartment? I will look back, perhaps I am mistaken, but it seems to me that the two were living at the sister's prior to DM's arrest. moo.
====
AC's live blog on April 5, 2013:
Abitcountry
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 561
- Reaction score
- 20
Judge Goodman's whole point of the dog + dog food analogy was to illustrate how "inference can logically or reasonably drawn".....and it works very well in dpoing that.
XiolaBlueX's take on the 1 dog story is cute and clever---"TWO dogs....food is gone.....you may not know which dog ate the food, or if both did". But she/he failed to spell out what the 2 dog analogy is intended to illustrate.
So Canadiangirl, you shouldn't go looking for what the judge had to say about the 2 dog analogy, you really need to send a little note to XiolaBlueX !!!!!
swedie
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2011
- Messages
- 5,472
- Reaction score
- 279
Does anyone own a Dodge Ram similar to TB's and know of someone who is comparable in size to TB? 165-170 lbs, six feet tall? I have an experiment I hope someone could try which might just blow a hole in MS's testimony. According to MS he saw TB face down on the dash after being shot in his truck by DM. Is that even possible? If TB was wearing a seat belt there would be no way that could have happened. TB's head would have been slumped forward and the seat belt would have restrained him from going too far forward. If TB wasn't wearing a seat belt, falling forward after being shot, would it even be possible his head would come to rest of the dash, or would he just have slump forward or to the right being as the shot came from his left? Wouldn't the dash be too far away, even with the passenger seat in the position closest to the dash kwim? MOO.
Adam Carter Feb 1 2016 2:30 PM Crown now asking about Tim's physical stature. He was exceptionally skinny, she said. On a good day about 165-170 pounds, six feet tall. Not into sports, occasionally played pond hockey. "He was very wirey for a small guy," Sharlene says.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/tim-bosma-court-day1-millard-smich-trial-1.3426062
Adam Carter Feb 1 2016 2:30 PM Crown now asking about Tim's physical stature. He was exceptionally skinny, she said. On a good day about 165-170 pounds, six feet tall. Not into sports, occasionally played pond hockey. "He was very wirey for a small guy," Sharlene says.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/tim-bosma-court-day1-millard-smich-trial-1.3426062
Somewhere when MS was on the stand, I recall him saying that moving the incinerator to the barn was the only thing done on the 7th.
MrsThreadgoode
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2011
- Messages
- 921
- Reaction score
- 22
IIRC, a WSer (I am sorry that I don't remember who) kindly did do this experiment, and posted a pic. It was perhaps about 2-3 weeks ago? I will try to find the post.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
canadiangirl
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2013
- Messages
- 2,829
- Reaction score
- 94
CJPrincess did these tests for us and posted pictures on here. There was detailed discussion surrounding it so possibly what you're looking for.
I think it was CJPrincess.
I'm not sure that the judge mentioned the 'two dogs' analogy. I have all of the tweets recorded from the series of tweeters listed in abro's twitter thing, and my search function isn't finding reference from any of the tweeters in regard to the two dogs, only to the one dog. Perhaps that was just an add-on thought by XiolablueX? Not sure? Not that it matters, since obviously if there are two dogs, you would have to have more than one empty dog-food bowl to be able to surmise which dog ate the food.
XiolaBlueX
Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2016
- Messages
- 103
- Reaction score
- 16
No, not that I noticed anyway.
XiolaBlueX
Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2016
- Messages
- 103
- Reaction score
- 16
Yes, I experienced it to be no problem taking word by word notes, fast and by hand. (Whether you feel like a complete nerd doing it, like I did, is a different issue I suppose
hahaAt the time when DM texted that to his girlfriend, TB was already murdered. His previous text telling her that if it was a success it would be an all nighter shows planning and deliberation and intent, imho, on DM's part, but says nothing in regard to whether MS was also privy to his plan.
from MH tweets:
XiolaBlueX
Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2016
- Messages
- 103
- Reaction score
- 16
The issue is, from a legal perspective IMO, that same behaviour could still have been done after a second degree murder, for example (or even after manslaughter while trying to steal a truck)This behaviour afterwards does not prove to me that it was premeditated murder.
Can you please provide a link to support your fact?
"
At 10:47 pm a text from Kinks: "so you finish?" 11:34pm Millard phone: "gonna be an all nighter" Kinks: "ok. see me when you can." #Bosma Apr 19, 2016"
You will notice that I wrote "it will" and not "gonna"
I was referring to the text before the mission.
These texts are when Millard says "I'm on my way to a mission now. If it's flop I'll be done in 2 hrs. If it goes..it'll be an all nighter." Apr 27, 2016
At 10:47 pm a text from Kinks: "so you finish?" 11:34pm Millard phone: "gonna be an all nighter" Kinks: "ok. see me when you can." #Bosma Apr 19, 2016"
You will notice that I wrote "it will" and not "gonna"
I was referring to the text before the mission.
MrsThreadgoode
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2011
- Messages
- 921
- Reaction score
- 22
Thank you all for telling me it was CJPrincess, and thank you once again, CJPrincess, for doing this experiment. [emoji4]
I found it ... It was the trial Day 51 thread, around post number 76 or so ... I am unable to post a link, so here is a screenshot of the approx. beginning of the posted pic and discussion:
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
XiolaBlueX
Member
- Joined
- May 25, 2016
- Messages
- 103
- Reaction score
- 16
As much as I would love the opportunity to be "cute and clever", the 2 dogs analogy was not MY take on anything, I was writing it by hand as the Judge was saying it, so you may need to send a little note to him instead!
I thought that the inference was pretty obvious, but apparently not, so here is some more clarification:
Judge Goodman was discussing Direct vs Circumstantial evidence.
Judge started by saying a dog owner puts food in a dish, watches the dog eat it, it is direct evidence. If same owner leaves the dog alone with full bowl, is out all day and returns and the food is gone it is circumstantial evidence, which is a legal term to describe indirect evidence.
He later returns to the dog analogy when discussing Proper Inference vs Inproper Inferences.
Proper Inferences can come from wisdom and life experience. They cant be speculation or conjecture. The Judge then says now imagine the previous example with 2 dogs instead of one left with a full food bowl, and owners returns and it is empty. The owner will now not be able to properly infer about which dog ate the food, or if both dog ate some.
Judge then went on to say another example: Imagine my friend Richard thinks our neighbour won the lottery as he is over the moon happy and smiling. Yes this is consistent with winning the lottery. However, there are also countless reasons that have nothing to do with the lottery. It would be a wild guess/speculation and therefore an improper inference.
However, if I also heard that somebody in my small town had bought the winning ticket, the neighbour abruptly quit his job that he has always loved, and bought a brand new ferrari....
Judge speaking further on making inferences: Sometimes just because an inference is difficult to get to does not mean it is not valid. Also, sometimes there is more than one inference. Eg. If I left a hotel and there are puddles on the sidewalk I can infer that it rained. However, it could also be that the sprinkler system came on and soaked the sidewalk.
Abitcountry
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 18, 2016
- Messages
- 561
- Reaction score
- 20
I spent a couple of hours re-reading most of Justice Goodman's charge to the jury for myself today...I recognize and understand what he is saying in the passage that you have copied here.
Of all the points that he makes here, we have come back full circle to the infamous phrase about "Just being there"
Let me try to illustrate my own thinking on the matter.....
Bellman was just being there when he observed TB's truck and the Yukon exiting the dirt lane across from his home. He was literally an innocent, passive bystander who looked up, eyes opened and saw passing before him 2 vehicles that he later had cause to speak to authorities about.
Smich and Millard were also there that evening across the road from Bullman's home but they were not just being there .
They were not doing a lazy 'Sunday' type drive through the peaceful countryside, living in the moment. They were not even there for the supposed 'test drive' of a pickup truck as they had blatantly lied to TB about.
They were there on a mission....they were there as part of a plan....they were not innocent, passive bystanders who were in the wrong place at the wrong time. They were there with a plan and a purpose and one or both of those bast#ds had brought along a gun...not just any old gun.....a loaded gun and may be even with the safety off for all we know. They were not ​just being there...of that I am 100% convinced.
I am not going to get into the minutia of what has taken almost 5 months to wade through in terms of evidence, exhibits, opinions and discussion....I just know that I have followed along and listened carefully and the one thing that I am absolutely certain of is this----
The only man just being there.....the only one who was innocent and a 'nice guy' was Tim Bosma.......the only reason he was in the wrong place at the wrong time is because he was deliberately targeted and then lured from his home his family and his life.....and I am expecting from the jury the "impartial and dispassionate assessment of the evidence" that justice Goodman says we are all (as a society) entitled to.
MrsThreadgoode
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2011
- Messages
- 921
- Reaction score
- 22
As much as I would love the opportunity to be "cute and clever", the 2 dogs analogy was not MY take on anything, I was writing it by hand as the Judge was saying it, so you may need to send a little note to him instead!
I thought that the inference was pretty obvious, but apparently not, so here is some more clarification:
Judge Goodman was discussing Direct vs Circumstantial evidence.
Judge started by saying a dog owner puts food in a dish, watches the dog eat it, it is direct evidence. If same owner leaves the dog alone with full bowl, is out all day and returns and the food is gone it is circumstantial evidence, which is a legal term to describe indirect evidence.
He later returns to the dog analogy when discussing Proper Inference vs Inproper Inferences.
Proper Inferences can come from wisdom and life experience. They cant be speculation or conjecture. The Judge then says now imagine the previous example with 2 dogs instead of one left with a full food bowl, and owners returns and it is empty. The owner will now not be able to properly infer about which dog ate the food, or if both dog ate some.
Judge then went on to say another example: Imagine my friend Richard thinks our neighbour won the lottery as he is over the moon happy and smiling. Yes this is consistent with winning the lottery. However, there are also countless reasons that have nothing to do with the lottery. It would be a wild guess/speculation and therefore an improper inference.
However, if I also heard that somebody in my small town had bought the winning ticket, the neighbour abruptly quit his job that he has always loved, and bought a brand new ferrari....
Judge speaking further on making inferences: Sometimes just because an inference is difficult to get to does not mean it is not valid. Also, sometimes there is more than one inference. Eg. If I left a hotel and there are puddles on the sidewalk I can infer that it rained. However, it could also be that the sprinkler system came on and soaked the sidewalk.
Great to hear more than the tweets were telling us, from someone who was there and taking notes. Thank you. [emoji4]
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- Status