Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #18

[hellkat2]

There is another conversation that keeps reappearing.....the idea that DM could not keep his eyes on the road while keeping a gun trained on his passenger.
Just thinking about how much we all do while driving ( and shouldn't ) I do not believe that it should be dismissed so lightly.

Going back to the testimony of Shane Schlatman at the beginning of the trial. IIRC Shane was asked if he actually drove with DM during the road race and his was response was something to the effect--'ya, I did it once and I'll never do it again'. There was more than a small suggestion that DM could be a 'wild man' behind the wheel.
I take this to suggest that DM probably lives up to his reputation of being a risk taker even while driving.

We already know
-he uses a handheld phone while driving and his preferred communication is texting....to multiple people at the same time on occasion.
-he can text, drive and orgasm all at the same time while speeding down the highway...and probably has done the nasty while driving as well
- he can easily handle a u-turn in his red Ram while pulling a large 5th wheel trailer and do some precision backing up and parking with the same red Ram and trailer.
-he was very confident behind the wheel and driving with one hand was apparently something he did often.

I am not prone to flights of fancy, and pardon in advance for the graphics, but I can easily imagine DM leaning toward the right side of the driver's seat and extending his right arm towards the passenger.......Now add a couple of inches for the length of the barrel may have brought the gun into point blank range.
Holding it at the passenger's head would not likely be steady or sustainable......but if the point of the gun could be jammed up tight against the softer tissue of the passenger's neck just under the jaw it may be possible. The driver could also then use the side edge of the passenger's seat to help support his forearm and wrist and likely maintain his aim more easily. For the most part DM then could manage his aim by feel primarily and would only have to do a visual check every once in a while which would not interfere with any driving.
The seat belt and verbal threats plus firearm would have likely been enough to subdue a passenger who likely would have done what he was told without question.
As I finish up, I recall Mr. Dungey asking a question during cross examination about the possibility of TB having been shot in the neck and that the bullet may have then pierced the passenger side window. His comment at the time stirred up alot of chatter here on WS but we never heard anything more on the topic.

IMOO

They were in it together. dm was the driver and ms was the shooter IMO whether ms shot him from the back or got out when they got to the Yukon on the ploy of meeting the friend who couldn't find Tim Hortons and shot him TB through the passenger window. Whatever happened we will never know but I do feel there is enough evidence to say that it was premeditated and they were a team from beginning to the end.

 

[Abitcountry]

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.

I know a 2 dog household where both dishes were empty every morning......hahaha....and 1 dog was getting wider and wider and wider !!!

 

[XiolaBlueX]

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.

Hi It wasn't an add on from me, but from the judge. I just posted about it, so you'll probably see that now. I didn't see it in other tweets either. They (MSM tweeters) must not be as obsessively detail oriented as most of us WSs? Just joking, most of them do great, just must be difficult to post it all on an electronic device esp with limited characters. Whereas I was aiming to transcribe word for word by hand.

 

[Just4TB]

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

A dog eating dog food is normal behaviour. How about if a steak is missing from the counter?

The dog that ran and hid under the couch when you came back ate the steak.
Both DM and MS hid evidence, MS ran and hid at MM sister's apt after LE was after them. Both dogs are guilty

 

[Abitcountry]

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.

Thanks for that.....Goodman does have a way about him....hahaha....I know he's clever but you will have to tell me id he's cute !

 

[grimmyman]

I'll add, after Friday's part of the charge and this weekends interesting banter and discussion.

Things I despise in court: Feelings. I'm sorry, I know it comes across cold. But a courtroom is a place for Law, not a place feelings of sadness, revenge etc etc. The words "justice for Tim" etc have nothing to do there, or anywhere near a legal discussion. Because then, one is making decision on hate and sorrow, not on fact and logic. I cannot develope hate toward an accused, despite the evidence, I do not know that person well enought hate them. I can revile them for what they have done, if they are found guilty. I cannot and will not despise someones alleged actions, only those actions which are proven in court and to which he/she is found guilty of.

My verdict: Millard is guilty of Second degree. I think he was prepared to kill, but did not explicitly intend and plan to kill Tim. Smich's story of DM having the gun and putting it into his sachel is logical and physical evidence reinforces this. I conclude that he did not explicitly plan Tim's death because he did not have clean up at all prepared. I beleive the incinerator was for disposal of LB's body or evidence, and maybe was considered IF things went sidways, but I don't think DM had planned specifically for TB to die.

Verdit for Smich: Smich was an accessory after the fact. Yes, he knows more than he is letting on. But the crown didn't prove it I don't think. Physical evidence does not poiint to MS having been immediately present or within vicinity of the shooting, which reinforces his story, in that there was not blood or GSR in the yukon which he was driving. Which means either he had a shower, wore a body condom, or was not present to the shooting. He did help clean up after the fact. He was guilty of conspiracy to commit an indictable offence (theft over $5k), and AatF.

The Gun: I bet MS knows where it is or where abouts. But it doesnt help him OR DM if he gives it up, despite what anyone says. I do beleive that it was Millards, and that DM tried to frame smich by sending it his way. If Smich was the shooter, he would try to distance himself from the weapon, not control it, especially with the heat on and DM in jail. I think Smiches story is accurate in how it came to him, and that he disposed of it.

So: DM in the second degree, and Smich not guilty. I predict the jury will decide DM in the first, and smich manslaughter.

 

[hellkat2]

""



That was plan B.

Yes. 100 percent .

 

[grimmyman]

A dog eating dog food is normal behaviour. How about if a steak is missing from the counter?

The dog that ran and hid under the couch when you came back ate the steak.
Both DM and MS hid evidence, MS ran and hid at MM sister's apt after LE was after them. Both dogs are guilty

Knowing a crime had been committed, and helping to clean up, doesn't make one a murderer, but does mean both would run and hide the same. So hiding and fleeing prosecution doesn't make both of them guilty of first degree murder.

 

[XiolaBlueX]

More from Friday's Judge charge:

He started by saying there are 11 parts of his charge to be covered on Friday and Monday.
Here are some of the sections, General duties of jury, legal principles, general rules of evidence, different ways a person can be a party to a crime, the charged offence, what the crown needs to prove, brief review of closing.

Judge is the judge of the law. jury is the judge of the evidence. Jury will determine what the facts are by all of the evidence. Must not speculate or guess theories. They are deciding the facts. Crown does not have to answer every question, but they do need to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.

The jury will not need to keep reasons for their decisions and it will not be recorded. The media coverage has been extensive and ubiquitous on this case.
Irrelevant is: All outside info, family, spouse, friends, the fact that the accused has been in pretrial custody. Any sympathy, prejudice or fear, public opinion,emotions. (This is where the judge said jurors need to disregard the Crown closing including to think about TB when deliberation)
Punishment- Punishment is not their job, it has no place in the process, it would be the judges if an offence has been deemed to have taken place.

 

[hellkat2]

Yes, MS knew there was a plan to steal TB's truck, and no plan to purchase it. He knew a gun exited which had been obtained illegally, but it is not clear if he knew it was present on that evening. He knew an incinerator existed. The issue that must be proven is that he knew there was a plan to murder TB and that he was a willing participant in the plan to murder. moo

And there is no proof that DM knew there was a gun on board either. No honour amongst thieves. They pointing their boney fingers at each other. We do know they both got guns. They were a team on a mission. They came prepared for anything that went down on that drive. That is what we can logically and reasonably make inference to.....and conclude...... just like the Judge man says. First degree for both. Premeditated all the way. This is in no way a leap.

 

[XiolaBlueX]

Judges Charge Friday - from my personal notes
General Legal Principle (of Reasonable Doubt)

Judge: Both accused started with clean slate. Crown has the Burden of proof. Crown does not need to prove each fact, just essential elements. Reasonable doubt - Probably or likely guilty is not enough. Can not be a probability of guilt.
Note that it is nearly impossible to have absolute certainty. However, beyond reasonable doubt is closer to absolute certainty than to likely or probably

Judge also said: Jurors can choose to believe some, none or all to testimonies. There is no magic formula. Consider credibility and reliability. Credibility means witness truthfulness, Reliability means accuracy. Sometimes witness can be credible but not reliable. Ask yourself if someone has a special interest to lie.However, don't put undue weight on it. Innocent and guilty persons both have personal interest in outcome, so do not assume they will lie.
The crown and Pillay both said MS was motivated to lie. Jurors must disregard this for it tramples MSs presumability of innocence.

 

[XiolaBlueX]

Judges charge to jury - Friday - From personal notes (bbm)

Judge: Regarding Out of court statements by Accused - text messages/letters. SPECIAL RULE: Only can be used against the person who is relaying it and not the other person. Example: For Dms out of court handwritten letters (which he has admitted are his) can be used against deliberation against DM and not MS. Can't use - Clean up Mark's mess or that Mark is a drug dealer. If you believe it, you can only use it as a defense for the other person.
Example- You can not use that MS said DM "murdered Bosma" against DM as proof. Only can use it if it raises reasonable doubt of MS. Exception is if the other person (coaccused) was there during the relaying of the info.

Personal note: There are times when the instructions get pretty darn detailed as we can see . I don't mean to bombard with posts all of a sudden, just said I would relay from Friday, and finally got another chance!

 

[CJPRINCESS]

How could it have been on the morning of the 7th that MS whizzed past BD? They are on video picking up MM at the apartment that morning. How does DM drop off MS, then MM come out of the house to tell BD to leave if they were all together when dropped off? (And according to MM, happy at that point.)

MS and MM moved to the sister's apartment after DM was arrested. From MH's tweets on April 5th, line 2740 and 2741:



Edit: Found this as well, from MM's sister's testimony, line 4371 of MH's tweets:



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1zxyo_MC4bf28IMfFvSuu5ETlebQlyw__2QSDhYkGxMU/edit?pref=2&pli=1#gid=156108166

Im sure this has been answered but MM was picked up at someone's apartment (sisters maybe?) on the morning of the 7th. DM then drove MS and MM to MS'S mother's house. So I'm assuming MM must have stayed at her sisters for the night while DM and MS went on their mission.

So it is possible this is when Daly was there, at MS'S mother's house. Some pot smokers will be up at anytime to get their dope. I lived with a cronic for 13 years. He had his joint along side of his moring coffee.

 

[Inspector_North]

Im sure this has been answered but MM was picked up at someone's apartment (sisters maybe?) on the morning of the 7th. DM then drove MS and MM to MS'S mother's house. So I'm assuming MM must have stayed at her sisters for the night while DM and MS went on their mission.

So it is possible this is when Daly was there, at MS'S mother's house. Some pot smokers will be up at anytime to get their dope. I lived with a cronic for 13 years. He had his joint along side of his moring coffee.

That is true, but most chronic users ensure they have a joint for the morning. What are the odds that MS was keen on having folks turn up at 8:00 am for their fix?

 

[CJPRINCESS]

That is true, but most chronic users ensure they have a joint for the morning. What are the odds that MS was keen on having folks turn up at 8:00 am for their fix?

Well maybe he wanted it on the night of the 6th but with MM at sisters (or whoevers apartment) and MS on mission, he had to get it in the morning. Maybe that's one reason why MM was so short with him. Maybe he was being a pain in her AZZ the night before.

ETA: my ex would go to buddies at 6am before he went to work. He'd go when he could go, no matter the time. Not all pot smokers sleep all day and MS was only a block away from Daly. We can't assume Daly was lazy and slept all day, there was nothing in any testimony that suggested this. Only thing said by MM (and MS I believe) is that Daly was slow.

 

[luis]

I'll add, after Friday's part of the charge and this weekends interesting banter and discussion.

Things I despise in court: Feelings. I'm sorry, I know it comes across cold. But a courtroom is a place for Law, not a place feelings of sadness, revenge etc etc. The words "justice for Tim" etc have nothing to do there, or anywhere near a legal discussion. Because then, one is making decision on hate and sorrow, not on fact and logic. I cannot develope hate toward an accused, despite the evidence, I do not know that person well enought hate them. I can revile them for what they have done, if they are found guilty. I cannot and will not despise someones alleged actions, only those actions which are proven in court and to which he/she is found guilty of.

My verdict: Millard is guilty of Second degree. I think he was prepared to kill, but did not explicitly intend and plan to kill Tim. Smich's story of DM having the gun and putting it into his sachel is logical and physical evidence reinforces this. I conclude that he did not explicitly plan Tim's death because he did not have clean up at all prepared. I beleive the incinerator was for disposal of LB's body or evidence, and maybe was considered IF things went sidways, but I don't think DM had planned specifically for TB to die.

Verdit for Smich: Smich was an accessory after the fact. Yes, he knows more than he is letting on. But the crown didn't prove it I don't think. Physical evidence does not poiint to MS having been immediately present or within vicinity of the shooting, which reinforces his story, in that there was not blood or GSR in the yukon which he was driving. Which means either he had a shower, wore a body condom, or was not present to the shooting. He did help clean up after the fact. He was guilty of conspiracy to commit an indictable offence (theft over $5k), and AatF.

The Gun: I bet MS knows where it is or where abouts. But it doesnt help him OR DM if he gives it up, despite what anyone says. I do beleive that it was Millards, and that DM tried to frame smich by sending it his way. If Smich was the shooter, he would try to distance himself from the weapon, not control it, especially with the heat on and DM in jail. I think Smiches story is accurate in how it came to him, and that he disposed of it.

So: DM in the second degree, and Smich not guilty. I predict the jury will decide DM in the first, and smich manslaughter.

If he was "prepared to kill", then is that not a type of premeditation?
Clean up ill prepared could have been because he intended to do the killing at his farm property, not in the truck.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

Thank you for the information, XiolaBlueX!

Reporters are also wading through the judge's charge:

[video=twitter;741619381705318400]https://twitter.com/susanclairmont/status/741619381705318400[/video]

 

[CJPRINCESS]

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

Thanks for posting this

I also want to mention that I DID also do this experiment with my seatbelt on, results were the same. Only time the seatbelt would lock is when DM applied the brakes. If TB was already dead and slumped over, the seatbelt would not have pulled him back to upright position.

 

[Inspector_North]

Too bad BD is not a reliable witness according to the judge. The gun ownership is important.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 9s9 seconds ago
Pillay: I want to be clear. The gun in the toolbox, Smich told you that was his gun? He owned that gun?
Yes, Daly says. #Bosma

and these two conflicting tweets.

Colin Butler ‏@ColinButlerCBC 11s12 seconds ago
He's recalling in May 2013 a night when Smich blew past him and out of Millard's truck #TimBosma


Pillay asking about May 6, when Daly saw Smich rolling up with Millard and Marlena in Millard's Yukon. Smich "blew past him," and went into the house, court hears.
by Adam Carter 4:01 PM

 

[saulgoodman]

Knowing a crime had been committed, and helping to clean up, doesn't make one a murderer, but does mean both would run and hide the same. So hiding and fleeing prosecution doesn't make both of them guilty of first degree murder.

Exactly. They didn't run and hide. They carried on, like business as usual. Executed perfectly.