Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #18

[DMB]

That is a pretty huge difference wouldn't you say.

What I believe we are trying to say is premeditation is premeditation and the evidence produced for MS can be said to be the same as with AM, SS and CN and they have faced no charges (CN AATF). If we are to believe that the evidence against MS points to premeditated then it also points to AM, SS and CN as well and they should have been charged accordingly, even if they were not present that night.
Conspiracy

• 465 (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:
  
  • (a) every one who conspires with any one to commit murder or to cause another person to be murdered, whether in Canada or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a maximum term of imprisonment for life;
    
  • (b) every one who conspires with any one to prosecute a person for an alleged offence, knowing that he did not commit that offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
    
    • (i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or
      
    • (ii) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to imprisonment for less than fourteen years;
  • (c) every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable; and
    
  • (d) every one who conspires with any one to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    So, if the evidence which is basically the same for MS, AM, SS & CN for knowledge of the incinerator and knowledge of and assisting in plans and thefts is not there to charge AM, SS and CN with anything why is it sufficient to convict MS???
    
    

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

What I believe we are trying to say is premeditation is premeditation and the evidence produced for MS can be said to be the same as with AM, SS and CN and they have faced no charges (CN AATF). If we are to believe that the evidence against MS points to premeditated then it also points to AM, SS and CN as well and they should have been charged accordingly, even if they were not present that night.
Conspiracy

• 465 (1) Except where otherwise expressly provided by law, the following provisions apply in respect of conspiracy:
  
  • (a) every one who conspires with any one to commit murder or to cause another person to be murdered, whether in Canada or not, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to a maximum term of imprisonment for life;
    
  • (b) every one who conspires with any one to prosecute a person for an alleged offence, knowing that he did not commit that offence, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
    
    • (i) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to be sentenced to imprisonment for life or for a term not exceeding fourteen years, or
      
    • (ii) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years, if the alleged offence is one for which, on conviction, that person would be liable to imprisonment for less than fourteen years;
  • (c) every one who conspires with any one to commit an indictable offence not provided for in paragraph (a) or (b) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to the same punishment as that to which an accused who is guilty of that offence would, on conviction, be liable; and
    
  • (d) every one who conspires with any one to commit an offence punishable on summary conviction is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction.
    So, if the evidence which is basically the same for MS, AM, SS & CN for knowledge of the incinerator and knowledge of and assisting in plans and thefts is not there to charge AM, SS and CN with anything why is it sufficient to convict MS???
    
    

We didn't see any evidence of that those people were setting up the BBQ that week or getting ready for a mission or talking about fireworks. And again being there is a huge deal.

It's not like DM is a cat presenting a dead bird to MS. You don't just bring a spectator along for a murder.

 

[hellkat2]

Thank you. That was exactly my point. I was responding to CanadianGirl who said "And there is much more evidence to suggest the others knew way more then MS."
I was disagreeing with her and saying that MS knew more than the others.

ETA: I do agree with her, however, that it's a shame that SS is not charged with aiding and abetting (whatever charge would be appropriate). Because letting him walk seems unjust, but can the crown prove an offence in his case? It seems not because he plays ignorant.

It seems a shame that the whole gang of thieves testified to save their own butts. I would have preferred them to be in a cell somewhere eating their three squares off of plastic prison trays. It must have been difficult for the Bosma's to be in the same room as these 's and watch them enjoy the freedom that their loved one no longer has. Disgusting in fact. The testimony of all of them is not worth the paper it is written on in my opinion. The only reason they were there was to save themselves.

 

[hellkat2]

Well, I'd consider that the same mission as TB just didn't work out.

I believe the Tim Bosma Mission experienced some occupational hazards that they anticipated and were prepared for. So it did work for them. We will see how First degree murder work's for these two .

 

[hellkat2]

That does seem very confusing. Am I dense too?

Outside the truck or inside the truck. Maybe they pulled over by the Yukon on the premise that MS was gonna get in the truck with his friend who got lost going to Tim Hortons and the plan was for MS to get out of the the truck and shoot TB through the window and then carry on from there? Either way...all of this is not anything we will ever know unless they decide to make water boarding legal in Canada. We do know they were both in it to win it and they went from start to finish. There is no honour among thieves and now that they are caught everyone is pointing fingers. First degree murder for the both of them. They guilty as hell. Lots of evidence for the jury to reasonably conclude this. The judge is in fact making things easier and clearer in my opinion.

 

[canadiangirl]

I think we need the context in which that was said, because rule of thumb (and sources have previously been provided) that generally it is not a crime to just have knowledge that a crime has been committed. The Judge's statement needs to be analyzed a bit more to see what he was referring to.

I agree, that's why I stated earlier the comment surprised me by the judge.

 

[Alethea Dice]

I think we need the context in which that was said, because rule of thumb (and sources have previously been provided) that generally it is not a crime to just have knowledge that a crime has been committed. The Judge's statement needs to be analyzed a bit more to see what he was referring to.

Here are the tweets from MH:

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes Jun 10
Two people can be found guilty of an offence for different reasons.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes Jun 10
A person may be guilty of an offence bc they helped someone commit it--they're an "aider." But just being there doesn't make you an aider.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes Jun 10
"Abettors" are people who encourage someone to commit an offence. They must be intentionally doing so.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes Jun 10
Again, simply being there does not make one guilty as an abettor. "Sometimes people just end up int he wrong place at the wrong time."

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes Jun 10
"On the other hand, if a person knows someone intends to commit a crime...and encourages...that person is also guilty (as an abettor)."

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes Jun 10
Goodman explaining that there are also cases where parties agree to commit one offence, such as a theft, and then something else happens.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes Jun 10
An accused cannot be convicted of an offence as an aider or abettor...unless it is proven beyond a reasonable doubt that he had...(1/2)

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes Jun 10
... the requisite state of mind...for such an offence. (2/3)

 

[Miranda16]

Intersting points Miranda, thx. However, it makes me think, if you think it was a premeditated murder, why would they have picked that drive with IT in the daylight at all if they were planning to kill him (instead of at dark?) It wouldn't make much sense as regardless of his size as per your point the day time thing could be a real heat score, so to speak.
Mind you, even a planned robbery seems foolish in the day light.

It's hard to understand how their minds work but they might not have fully thought it through. Eg they may have thought they could seize the truck/driver on a test drive and head towards the farm, but the combination of daylight conditions, starting location, an imposing seller and Smich's hangover got in the way. They may not have thought through the risks of a daylight theft/abduction from Toronto but used that lesson to aim for an unusual-seeming night test drive with TB, closer to the farm. Lots of possibilities and unfortunately we'll never know.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Why not? Because last I checked a gun trumps a person any day. Doesn't matter his size.

Not if the intent is not to kill someone, but simply to steal the truck. I know most don't want to give DM the same benefit of the doubt that they allow MS, but if that can be set aside for a minute and use DM's version of events as an example. The murder was an accident that happened when MS pulled out the gun, TB reacted by grabbing for the gun and it went off. No one knows how they will react when a gun is pulled and instincts kick in. Some might freeze, while others might try to grab the gun or push it away from themselves. In the case of IT, were he to react physically to having the gun pulled on him, with his size and training, the results could very well have been much different. But, even in the daytime, if the intent was only to steal the truck, if IT had been someone smaller, someone more easy to confront, they could have pulled out the gun, forced him out (depending on how he reacted to the gun, of course) and driven away with the truck. I think one would normally presume that the other person would just back off once they saw the gun, but unfortunately, that isn't always the case and it could be possible that they weren't prepared for another reaction.

JMO

 

[deugirtni]

Just a question. Considering that AATF has (unsurprisingly) not been offered up as one of the possible findings of guilt in this case, does that mean that if the jury happened to believe that was what, say MS was guilty of, that he would just walk away scott free? The jury would have to find MS 'not guilty' in that case, on this charge, but then wouldn't the Crown's hands be tied as far as subsequently charging him with AATF, since in Canada, you can't be tried twice for the same crime? I am unclear on whether that law means a suspect can only be charged with the incident one time, or if the suspect can only be charged with the same charge one time, ie could he still be charged with AATF since he hadn't already been charged with that, or is the Crown SOL because they chose different charges for the same crime?

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Just a question. Considering that AATF has (unsurprisingly) not been offered up as one of the possible findings of guilt in this case, does that mean that if the jury happened to believe that was what, say MS was guilty of, that he would just walk away scott free? The jury would have to find MS 'not guilty' in that case, on this charge, but then wouldn't the Crown's hands be tied as far as subsequently charging him with AATF, since in Canada, you can't be tried twice for the same crime? I am unclear on whether that law means a suspect can only be charged with the incident one time, or if the suspect can only be charged with the same charge one time, ie could he still be charged with AATF since he hadn't already been charged with that, or is the Crown SOL because they chose different charges for the same crime?

I'm sure they would first appeal the not guilty verdict based on excluded evidence. But pretty sure you can be charged for a separate crime that the jury hasn't considered. They just can't attempt to charge for a similar charge (or they can't go after second degree murder)

 

[don_quixote]

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 !!!

Not that I am defending Smich, but just to represent an alternative view.

He was there that night and..... - But he didn't plan to kill
He was there on his computer checking out incinerators - We don't know for what purpose and it was not necessarily for a murder
He was there setting up meetings with the gun dealer for DM - May be he thought the gun is for bragging, target shooting, to fell "cool", but not for a murder
He was there after DM bought the gun(s) taking photos - Did all those who took a picture in front of the Fat Man take part in the Nagasaki events?
He was there googling about ammo for the handguns - But was it for the purpose of murdering someone? Many people google for ammunition every day. Few of them kill.
He was there searching for the right truck - To steal?
He was there doing the mission prep - We don't know what his understanding of "mission" was in this case
He was there on the dry run with Igor - Dry run of what? You call it dry run.
He was there when they drove towards Ancaster - Thousands of people drive towards Ancaster every day. Is that a crime?
He was there when they walked up the driveway at Tim's place - Sure. Doesn't mean he had an intent to kill.
He was there driving the Yukon behind TB's truck - Yeah. According to him, he started with TB alive. And then yes, he doesn't deny that. May be AATF is a more suitable charge?
He was there to pick up the Eliminator - Same as above
He was there to do cleanup of one sort or another in the week that followed - Same as above
He was there to scoop up the weed and the 'thing' - For weed, he should be charged with trafficking? What is the "thing"?

Altogether, it's not that easy to accept premeditation. The jury probably will, but it's not all straightforward. Most of the points you make add very little to the overall confidence. I am not saying you are wrong, I'm saying it's not that easy to say whther he should get a life sentence for 1st degree or for AATF to murder.

 

[swedie]

IMO I don't for a second believe MS didn't know about the loaded gun along on this mission. There's a 50/50 chance MS could have been toting it and was the shooter. These two were in cahoots for over a year planning missions, stealing a Dodge 3500, talking about guns, ammo, the BBQ, etc. The texts are just a tip of the iceberg...what about all the in depth talks and planning they did while together that we will never be privy to. This was the only thing they had the common sense not to discuss over texts...murdering the owner when they eventually found the right truck and opportunity.

As TL said in his closing statement, something to the affect...if you're getting caught up on the little things, you're missing the big picture. DM and MS planned, premeditated and carried out the whole thing together. MS took the stand and used the evidence in his favour to appear as an innocent dupe who had no idea a murder was going to happen, that he didn't flee because he was afraid of this lunatic, but yet continued to text DM and be around him, helped him load TB's truck into the trailer, right up until DM's arrest. MS didn't help DM lift TB into the incinerator because of his bad shoulder...all BS and luckily for him his BS aligned with the evidence and the lack there of. MS would have had no problem helping DM lift TB's body into the incinerator while hopped up on oxys, it's a pain killer for cripe sakes SMH. MS was just as deep into this murder as DM and knew exactly what was going to go down when the opportunity arose. It arose the night of May 6, 2013, unfortunately and an innocent and wonderful man's life was taken so senselessly by evil doers, leaving the victims loved ones to suffer a lifetime of agony. I say FRY the B@$t@RD$. Either one deserves freedom. They are equally responsible, warped minded and evil.

The fact that we know there are two more victims, both being charged with Laura's murder, speaks loud and clear to me. MS had been involved with DM in her murder. He wasn't afraid of DM whatsoever...he worked along side of him to destroy evidence and her remains. Tim's murder was not a surprise to MS. And yes, of course I know the jurors can't take the other "alleged" murders into consideration, BUT WE CAN. Laura's trial which also will be heading straight to trial without a PH. Take her demise into consideration when discussing and thinking about Tim's case.

JMO - Don't sweat the small stuff folks. I don't think the jurors will. ALL MOO.

Does MS mean taking everything including someone's life? Highly likely IMO. All these texts including stealing and guns shows they were likely packing a gun on their missions also.

It was followed by a rhyme: “Its all about me, you, myself, and my greed get TXDeed, we be takin Anything we need that means everything, indeed.”

“Five fingered you some practice ammo,” says a text from Millard’s phone to Smich’s on April 15, 2012. He included a photograph of 10 bullets.

“I did research,” is the reply. “The short ones are [g]ood for what u got. The ones with flat heads like u have already. Round ones will jam.”

“Yea short ones are called .380 longer ones are called 9mm,” came a response from Millard’s phone. “These ones I grabbed are the short .380’s.”

On Sept. 5, 2012, from Millard’s phone to Smich’s: “Since nothing’s happening at your moms, let’s reach waterloo, pickup your girlfriend, move the bbq into the barn (need some things from homedepot for that) and do more equipment painting. then scope 35 at night.”

Smich’s to Millard’s: “Done. I think i kno a spot.”

Millard’s: “No more money bro, we take what we want at the source.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...cific-model-truck-tim-bosma-was-selling-crown

 

[MsSherlock]

It's hard to understand how their minds work but they might not have fully thought it through. Eg they may have thought they could seize the truck/driver on a test drive and head towards the farm, but the combination of daylight conditions, starting location, an imposing seller and Smich's hangover got in the way. They may not have thought through the risks of a daylight theft/abduction from Toronto but used that lesson to aim for an unusual-seeming night test drive with TB, closer to the farm. Lots of possibilities and unfortunately we'll never know.

IMO, the IT test drive actually worked in MS's favour- it allowed him an opportunity to cultivate his "scoping" defence. I think we have to look thru the eyes of a couple of psychopaths to really understand what might have gone down. IMHO, DM would have loved to kill IT- it would fall into line with his inability to deal with authority. DM would have loved to have IT's truck that day as well- he was going to go to Baja come Hell or high-water! It was a Sunday afternoon- they could have killed him, pulled over and thru a blanket over him in the front seat; they had a couple places like Riverside, where they could have tucked in to to reposition things and they were only 45 minutes away from the Hangar. The truck could have been stripped and body incinerated on Sunday night and by Monday morning, everything would have been cleaned up IMHO, there's only one reason IT didn't die that day and that's because the test drive started off by him driving (pretty hard to kill the guy behind the wheel), even as a passenger, IT was running the show and MS was getting car sick from his oxy/booze letdown. I also believe that IT would not be comfortable having his back turned to anyone. MS was lying when he said they were just scoping IT's truck. They had already scoped it out thoroughly online. They knew exactly what it was-their mission failed. DM failed MS and visa versa.

Personally, I think the whole experience escalated things for DM: more desperate, more determined, angry with his brush with authority and that's why it became an after dark event. These two talked with each other all the way out to Ancaster that night- just like loving bro's would. They had a plan and neither of them were going to fail this time around.

MS loved DM and would have done anything for him. By all accounts DM was supporting him. MS trusted DM to the point where he was screaming at MM not to say anything when the pair were arrested. MS would have taken the fall for DM if it was part of a bigger plan, but alas- DM wasn't reciprocating his love and loyalty- soon MS saw that DM was throwing him under the bus. IMHO, MS buried the gun right after DM's arrest because it implicated the guy he loved- DM. I don't think we can ever forget how close these two psychopaths were. IMHO, MS got a reality check when he found out about the letters. His testimony was very "letter-centric"- obviously a very sore spot with poor MS and he took every single opportunity to point the finger at DM. Reminds me of nasty divorce or break-up- he said/she said, only this time it's between partners in murder who's love has long faded. MOO

<modsnip>

 

[palisadesk]

Just a question.<snip> then wouldn't the Crown's hands be tied as far as subsequently charging him with AATF, since in Canada, you can't be tried twice for the same crime?

In Canada, you can be tried twice for the same crime; it's in the USA that you cannot. There, it's known as the "double jeopardy" rule and is IIRC in the US Constitution somewhere. But in Canada, yes, if you are acquitted by a jury of a crime (or acquitted by a judge), the Crown can appeal and request a new trial on the same exact charges.

The most famous instance of this is the case of Guy Paul Morin, who was acquitted by a jury. The Crown appealed, and won a conviction on the second try.

You may recall that just recently the Crown in the Ghomeshi case said (after his acquittal) that they were considering whether or not to appeal. They then later said they were not going to. But it does illustrate that appealing an acquittal and trying the same case again is an option, though rarely used.

I'm not 100% certain of this but I believe the reason that AATF could not be included as an option for the jury in this trial is that there has to be a conviction on a murder charge for someone to be an accessory to the convicted murderer. So if both accused were to be acquitted in this case (ha!), the charges pending against CN might have to be modified. However I'm not sure how that would work. But, there does have to be a (legally established) murder that the AATF was helping the perpetrator to get away with, so the murder conviction has to precede the conviction of another party to AATF.

However, if either party was acquitted here, and the other convicted of murder (1st or 2nd), the acquitted party would likely face AATF charges at the courtroom door, but a trial wouldn't be likely. MS has admitted to the substance of such a charge and DM, while he hasn't admitted anything (his lawyer's version of DM's story is not evidence), would likely enter some kind of plea resolution agreement.

 

[canadiangirl]

He was there that night and.....
He was there on his computer checking out incinerators - as was SS building one, testing it, buying the Eliminator, and doing a test burn
He was there setting up meetings with the gun dealer for DM - as per Justice Goodman Jun 10 2016 11:57 AM
Goodman says that just because an accused is the type of person who committed a criminal offence, that doesn't mean they're guilty here. He says that extends to prior thefts, drug use and gun ownership.
"They are not on trial for their lifestyle choices.
He was there after DM bought the gun(s) taking photos - see above, knowing someone owns a gun does not indicate they knew it was for a murder
He was there googling about ammo for the handguns - see above
He was there searching for the right truck - to steal? yes DM wanted a specific truck, MS, AM, MM, some unknown girl no one remembers, etc etc etc, all knew about the plan to steal a truck
He was there doing the mission prep - to steal a truck for DM?
He was there on the dry run with Igor - dry run for? theft of a truck for DM?
He was there when they drove towards Ancaster - yes he was there and admitted to that
He was there when they walked up the driveway at Tim's place - again, he doesnt deny this
He was there driving the Yukon behind TB's truck - as per MS he wasn't there for the murder, but according to Justice Goodman, this many or may not be true, but on it's own cannot assist in finding the person guilty
Jun 10 2016 2:16 PM"A person might find himself caught in circumstances where he cleaned up in the crime scene but had no culpability in a murder," Goodman says. They might also be acting as someone who had committed a crime would
Jun 10 2016 2:18 PM Goodman says the after the fact evidence "on its own" cannot assist in finding a person guilty.
He was there to pick up the Eliminator - see above
He was there to do cleanup of one sort or another in the week that followed - see above
He was there to scoop up the weed and the 'thing'- from testimony, AM testimony says MS wanted it delivered to him. But yet, MH testified AM told him that DM would've wanted MS to have it. And the 2 argued and haven't spoken since that day because lies were told. So either MS wanted the "thing", or it was dumped on him. MS says he did not want the toolbox and never owned a gun

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. (we have no idea what they have for evidence, I've seen posts it was LB's ipad that DM gave to MS and MM to use)

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 !!!

To further add to the above, even though I know people dont like hearing this -
Many have pointed out how the rap lyrics must mean something. Again, from Goodman's directions
Jun 10 2016 12:05 PM
Smich is not on trial for drug trafficking, thievery or vandalism, Goodman says. Also not to make conclusions about his rap lyrics.

None of this really proves premeditation for me, although some feel I'm defending MS I really just see holes and opinions or interpretation as do some others. I understand that is not the popular opinion but I suspect some jurors will be of the same mindset, whether or not their position changes, we'll find out.

 

[DMB]

We didn't see any evidence of that those people were setting up the BBQ that week or getting ready for a mission or talking about fireworks. And again being there is a huge deal.

It's not like DM is a cat presenting a dead bird to MS. You don't just bring a spectator along for a murder.

Well, someone built a barbecue, ordered an alternative, tested it and was happy with it's performance yet testified he believed the same as MS that it was for garbage. SS was also with DM daily having non traceable conversations and can see exactly how much garbage is actually in need of incineration, was considered a friend who travelled with DM and was planning on building a home together.

Am tested back and forth with DM about the business plan for the year, how dangerous, intimidating and illegal it would be and was "all in". He also lived with DM and prior to that was a "parties" at DM's home 5 nights a week, again face to face without the need for text messages. He was his roommate, travel partner and best friend and he also planned a barbecue and should have been asked about DM's gun but wasn't.

The fireworks text has been discussed and I would take it to mean he thought it was May 24 weekend but then texted back oops, not yet. May 24 is something that people of that age get excited about, not just for the fireworks but it signifies the beginning of party season. It's a huge party. I don't think that you can pick a handful of texts out of 26,000 and prove pre meditation for MS and nothing for the others

 

[Abitcountry]

Not that I am defending Smich, but just to represent an alternative view.

He was there that night and..... - But he didn't plan to kill
He was there on his computer checking out incinerators - We don't know for what purpose and it was not necessarily for a murder
He was there setting up meetings with the gun dealer for DM - May be he thought the gun is for bragging, target shooting, to fell "cool", but not for a murder
He was there after DM bought the gun(s) taking photos - Did all those who took a picture in front of the Fat Man take part in the Nagasaki events?
He was there googling about ammo for the handguns - But was it for the purpose of murdering someone? Many people google for ammunition every day. Few of them kill.
He was there searching for the right truck - To steal?
He was there doing the mission prep - We don't know what his understanding of "mission" was in this case
He was there on the dry run with Igor - Dry run of what? You call it dry run.
He was there when they drove towards Ancaster - Thousands of people drive towards Ancaster every day. Is that a crime?
He was there when they walked up the driveway at Tim's place - Sure. Doesn't mean he had an intent to kill.
He was there driving the Yukon behind TB's truck - Yeah. According to him, he started with TB alive. And then yes, he doesn't deny that. May be AATF is a more suitable charge?
He was there to pick up the Eliminator - Same as above
He was there to do cleanup of one sort or another in the week that followed - Same as above
He was there to scoop up the weed and the 'thing' - For weed, he should be charged with trafficking? What is the "thing"?

Altogether, it's not that easy to accept premeditation. The jury probably will, but it's not all straightforward. Most of the points you make add very little to the overall confidence. I am not saying you are wrong, I'm saying it's not that easy to say whther he should get a life sentence for 1st degree or for AATF to murder.

I was not pretending to make a legal argument....I am not a lawyer. Perhaps my dark humour did actually get in the way of the point I was suggesting. So being more direct--I was making the point that MS appeared to be active in so many things related to this case beginning in 2012 and ending in 2013.
I understand that you are not defending Smich....<modsnip>

Your right---it is not easy to accept that 2 young men would be capable of premeditated murder of any man.
While we are allowed the luxury of having an emotional reaction to the act, the jury on the other hand has a job to do and in doing it properly there is no room for sympathy and emotion.
I also agree with you on your final point-- that it is not an easy thing by any means to sit in judgement of other human beings and have the power to alter their lives irreversibly for decades to come.

 

[DMB]

We didn't see any evidence of that those people were setting up the BBQ that week or getting ready for a mission or talking about fireworks. And again being there is a huge deal.

It's not like DM is a cat presenting a dead bird to MS. You don't just bring a spectator along for a murder.

That is correct, they were not that week, but they did do it many other times as did MS and there was no murder committed. That is MS's defence, all these things that all of them did all of the time including him never resulted in a murder meaning he was not premeditating a murder this time either.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Well, someone built a barbecue, ordered an alternative, tested it and was happy with it's performance yet testified he believed the same as MS that it was for garbage. SS was also with DM daily having non traceable conversations and can see exactly how much garbage is actually in need of incineration, was considered a friend who travelled with DM and was planning on building a home together.

Am tested back and forth with DM about the business plan for the year, how dangerous, intimidating and illegal it would be and was "all in". He also lived with DM and prior to that was a "parties" at DM's home 5 nights a week, again face to face without the need for text messages. He was his roommate, travel partner and best friend and he also planned a barbecue and should have been asked about DM's gun but wasn't.

The fireworks text has been discussed and I would take it to mean he thought it was May 24 weekend but then texted back oops, not yet. May 24 is something that people of that age get excited about, not just for the fireworks but it signifies the beginning of party season. It's a huge party. I don't think that you can pick a handful of texts out of 26,000 and prove pre meditation for MS and nothing for the others

Let me put it this way with three scenarios:

1) If I got a hold of search history on your computer for you and your best friend and both of you were researching trips to Mexico

2) Now say I have that search history but I also work with you and your best friend and you had just taken a week off while your best friend were at work every day with me.

3) Same info as in scenario 1 & 2, but it is now the next week and you are back at work but you have a sombrero on your desk, are giving everyone small bottles of tequila and have a sweet tan.

Now in scenario 1, I might think both of you were heading on vacation.

In scenario 2 there is a much greater chance that you went to Mexico and were planning a vacation than your friend who had the exact same search history, but maybe you were just sick.

In scenario 3, it seems pretty obvious you went to Mexico and your friend did not.

Information builds on itself and even though we start from the same point, the probabilities of what actually happened change.