Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #2

[Tamarind]

With all due respect, if this indeed is the case...there would be no requirements for the incinerator, the txt to tell staff to stay away, hiding truck in trailer at mother's home, etc. An honest respectful person would call the police and give the facts. Simply put, it was my intention to steal the truck but my friend did this...
There comes a point in one's life, (for some later than sooner) where as a citizen, we become accountable for our actions.
There's many cases in which I wish the clock could turn back to July 13, 1976...far less of these crimes would be committed. IMO

Sorry if I am missing the point, which I probably am,but why is July 13th 1976 stated here?

 

[SnooperDuper]

I don't believe there has been any evidence presented that shows that DM put the gun in a tool box and locked it. For all we know MS or someone else at the hangar could have. Just an observation.

It's what was alleged in the Crown's opening statement:

Mr. Millard contacted a friend on May 9, 2013, the night before his arrest and made arrangements to drop off a locked tool box for him to hold on to. Mr. Millard did this around 4:00 a.m. with his girlfriend.

After the arrest of Mr. Millard, Mr. Smich obtained possession of the toolbox from mutual friends of the two Accused. Mr. Smich was aware of the arrest of Mr. Millard and he took steps to gain control and possession of the locked toolbox.

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2016/02/tim-bosma-trial-the-crowns-opening-statement.html

 

[Tamarind]

It's what was alleged in the Crown's opening statement:


http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2016/02/tim-bosma-trial-the-crowns-opening-statement.html

It's an allegation, so nothing factual at this point. Thank you. IF DM made arrangements to drop off a locked toolbox, how do we know it wasn't already locked by some else prior?

 

[SnooperDuper]

It's an allegation, so nothing factual at this point. Thank you. IF DM made arrangements to drop off a locked toolbox, how do we know it wasn't already locked?

It was locked. That means it was already locked.

 

[Gumshew]

It's what was alleged in the Crown's opening statement:


http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2016/02/tim-bosma-trial-the-crowns-opening-statement.html

I wonder if MS taking steps to retrieve the box was his own initiative or someone besides DM told him to do it. Thoughts?

 

[Tamarind]

It was locked. That means it was already locked.

I'll alter my post to make it clearer for you

 

[Tamarind]

I wonder if MS taking steps to retrieve the box was his own initiative or someone besides DM told him to do it. Thoughts?

Maybe MS was the only one who knew where he put it (toolbox) and the only one with the key. He needed it delivered as he didn't want to carry it himself. Much easier to have DM deliver what appears to be a toolbox.

 

[cansleuther]

Sorry if I am missing the point, which I probably am,but why is July 13th 1976 stated here?

It took a lot of searching, but apparently it's the day before Canada eliminated capital punishment.

Before Canada eliminated the death penalty for murder on July 14, 1976, 1,481 people had been sentenced to death, and 710 had been executed. Of those executed, 697 were men and 13 were women.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment_in_Canada

 

[redwing7225]

<modsnip>

Technology, evidence testing, DNA, etc, has come a long way...and yes, there may very well be more innocent people in jails than there should be BUT, IF ALL evidence leads to conviction, IMO, what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
Appeal the guilty verdict, Prove you're innocent.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I wonder if MS taking steps to retrieve the box was his own initiative or someone besides DM told him to do it. Thoughts?

This is what the opening statement says:

Mr. Millard contacted a friend on May 9, 2013, the night before his arrest and made arrangements to drop off a locked tool box for him to hold on to. Mr. Millard did this around 4:00 a.m. with his girlfriend.

After the arrest of Mr. Millard, Mr. Smich obtained possession of the toolbox from mutual friends of the two Accused. Mr. Smich was aware of the arrest of Mr. Millard and he took steps to gain control and possession of the locked toolbox.

The toolbox in question was seized in the home of Mr. Smich upon his arrest on May 22, 2013. Forensic examination of the toolbox found gunshot residue on the interior. There was no gun in the toolbox because Mr. Smich had already taken steps to dispose of it.

Mr. Smich’s girlfriend told police that Mr. Smich told her that he had the gun, but that he got rid of the gun by burying it in the forest. Mr. Smich was not more specific than that with her.

Before burying the gun, Mr. Smich tried to sell the gun through a friend. He was unsuccessful.

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2016/02/tim-bosma-trial-the-crowns-opening-statement.html

 

[Factoria]

The thanks button wasn't enough. I welcome logical debates, I think it only serves to make the case stronger and have me analyze my thought processes. But we are seeing cold hard facts (ie: cellphone logs, GSR, not to mention everything else in the Crown's opening for which evidence has yet to be introduced - and I have no doubt they do have the evidence) and these are being twisted to try and fit into a preconceived notion that DM is innocent of the crime. It's one thing to keep an open mind and question the evidence. It's quite another to disregard all evidence the Crown has introduced. MOO. To those who believe DM is innocent I ask this....what evidence would be required for you to believe DM was involved in this horrific crime?

For the record, my personal opinion is, and has been since early on in the investigation, that DM and MS are both guilty of this gruesome crime. I can't imagine any scenario that could prove their innocence beyond a reasonable doubt at this point. HOWEVER, despite the wealth of information that we have already learned to be fact through evidence presented in court thus far, there is undoubtedly a great deal more evidence to be presented. Let us not forget that we have yet to hear anything from the defendants or their representatives.

For example: While the cell phone data evidence appears insurmountably damning, the truth is that it only proves where the defendants' cell phones travelled. My personal opinion is that it's most LIKELY that DM and MS WERE the ones carrying their phones, but we don't actually know that to be fact. Clearly, DM has been proven to have been in TB's truck ~ via fingerprints that have been entered as evidence. No getting around that one, folks! There's a great deal of evidence already against the accused. No doubt about it, IMO. <modsnip> Just putting in my two cents. ALL MOO, of course.

 

[swedie]

We have to put this into perspective. What we have seen and heard over the past 2 weeks is a mere sampling of the quantity and quality of evidence the Crown intends to bring forward over the next 3 1/2 months. IMHO, at the end of the next 3 1/2 months, if the evidence continues at this pace, the Jury will not have a hard time finding the accused guilty as charged. MOO

BBM - EXACTLY! Those seven words say sooo much folks. Thank you MsSherlock.
MOO and HTH.

 

[flipflop]

I dunno, "calm blue ocean" is a mantra for those soothing themselves, and Pacific literally means calm and at peace.

Maybe it is just a reminder for him to keep his cool and take it one day at a time?

If it was a reminder for himself, would it not be somewhere where he could read it. He chose to place the word "pacific" on his shoes- a place where everyone else but him could read it. This tells me it was a message to get out to someone. JMO

 

[Figuring]

His body was burned. Can it actually proven what the murder weapon was? Can they introduce something as a murder weapon if they have no proof? All I've read right now was that they found one. Are they done all the blood part of the trial at this point or is there more to come? Likely I'm thinking a blood expert will be called in I'm sure

There will be more blood spatter evidence introduced likely, but it's an obvious inference that the amount of blood spatter in the front of the truck, along with the pattern and velocity of the spatter, that TB was a) shot b) in the head. IF he was cut w a box cutter there wouldn't be gun residue or high impact spatter. IF he was shot in the thigh for example, it is very unlikely that the spatter would be on the interior ceiling and/or the driver's side. That someone was shot in the head isn't proof of death, but increases the odds. Why does it matter, can I ask, if TB was merely incapacitated by a gunshot to the head vs the incinerator?? When there's proof of both things occurring, and both occurrences being linked to DM/MS.

 

[Wollander77]

<modsnip>

My own two cents on the murder weapon of choice: I only hope that TB suffered very little. The thought of MS sneaking up from behind and gouging his throat or DM and MS ganging up on him is infinitely more painful than the thought of a swift bullet to the head (though the latter possibility is still so incredibly sad). The Crown has a lot riding on them, so I only hope they, and the defense, will do a good job of arriving to a just conclusion.

 

[Figuring]

Hi all, I've been following closely but not logging in... I want to ask something of anyone willing to shed some light:

Why is it being disputed, whether it might have been DM or MS who pulled the trigger? While the angle of trajectory might or might not shed light, the Crown statement of fact argues that BOTH shot TB.

This is, in a layman sense, factually impossible--two people would not very likely pull the trigger. However, as so many other posters have pointed out, if TB was killed in the commission of a felony (i.e., theft of a truck), it is automatically 1st degree. Meaning, even if DM was misled or whatever by his friend, he still went along with this crime, forcibly confined someone, and was involved with a murder. I think there is very little doubt or dispute that they, at the very least, were stealing a truck?

I feel like the time spent on "who did it" is moot, given the criteria for 1st degree murder in Canada. I'm Canadian (live about an hour from the crime), so maybe some of this nuance is lost outside the country, or maybe I'm missing something in some posters' rationale. I'm asking honestly. How can anyone advocate for 1 of 2 people to not be guilty of 1st degree murder, when both were present (this is proven, as I've never heard of a "planted" fingerprint), both were committing a crime (theft, forceable confinement), and a death occurred--under our criminal code??

 

[Ontario Mom]

Re: the "gun buried in the forest". MS tells his gf that's where he put it. The simple fact that he told her that's where he put it, is reason enough for me to believe that's not where it went.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Hi all, I've been following closely but not logging in... I want to ask something of anyone willing to shed some light:

Why is it being disputed, whether it might have been DM or MS who pulled the trigger? While the angle of trajectory might or might not shed light, the Crown statement of fact argues that BOTH shot TB.

This is, in a layman sense, factually impossible--two people would not very likely pull the trigger. However, as so many other posters have pointed out, if TB was killed in the commission of a felony (i.e., theft of a truck), it is automatically 1st degree. Meaning, even if DM was misled or whatever by his friend, he still went along with this crime, forcibly confined someone, and was involved with a murder. I think there is very little doubt or dispute that they, at the very least, were stealing a truck?

I feel like the time spent on "who did it" is moot, given the criteria for 1st degree murder in Canada. I'm Canadian (live about an hour from the crime), so maybe some of this nuance is lost outside the country, or maybe I'm missing something in some posters' rationale. I'm asking honestly. How can anyone advocate for 1 of 2 people to not be guilty of 1st degree murder, when both were present (this is proven, as I've never heard of a "planted" fingerprint), both were committing a crime (theft, forceable confinement), and a death occurred--under our criminal code??

:goodpost: I think, part of the reason it's been discussed over and over is due to the section I've bolded above. In a sense, you kind of answered your own question. However, I agree with you 100% and frankly don't give a rat's booty who pulled the trigger. I think the logic of the evidence of GSR clearly shows the shot came from the front of the truck, but at the end of the day, the person in the back never called 911 and spilled the beans.

 

[Tamarind]

Hi all, I've been following closely but not logging in... I want to ask something of anyone willing to shed some light:

Why is it being disputed, whether it might have been DM or MS who pulled the trigger? While the angle of trajectory might or might not shed light, the Crown statement of fact argues that BOTH shot TB.

This is, in a layman sense, factually impossible--two people would not very likely pull the trigger. However, as so many other posters have pointed out, if TB was killed in the commission of a felony (i.e., theft of a truck), it is automatically 1st degree. Meaning, even if DM was misled or whatever by his friend, he still went along with this crime, forcibly confined someone, and was involved with a murder. I think there is very little doubt or dispute that they, at the very least, were stealing a truck?

I feel like the time spent on "who did it" is moot, given the criteria for 1st degree murder in Canada. I'm Canadian (live about an hour from the crime), so maybe some of this nuance is lost outside the country, or maybe I'm missing something in some posters' rationale. I'm asking honestly. How can anyone advocate for 1 of 2 people to not be guilty of 1st degree murder, when both were present (this is proven, as I've never heard of a "planted" fingerprint), both were committing a crime (theft, forceable confinement), and a death occurred--under our criminal code??

I think most posters are aware of the forcible confinement issue and its meaning. I think the fact is that as yet do it is not known how things occurred, it is impossible to be certain of anything at this point. IMO.Regardless of whether both may have been stealing a truck ( still not confirmed) there is still no absolution on what happened as far as TB is concerned. That's why the trial is scheduled for 4 months and not 10 days (to date). I personally think jurors need more thorough selection and evaluation, so that they are fully aware of the implications of making premature judgement based on lack of understanding and predetermined opinion. I think the judge Andrew Goodman attempts to make this clear, first at the beginning of the trial and periodically throughout the trial he tells them what to ignore etc. All MOO

 

[swedie]

I think some people may be in denial about DM and MS's circle of associations, hence it's hard for them to picture DM, especially, as capable of having a sinister side.

The word "PACIFIC" that MS wrote on his sneakers, visible at trial, is an association. He is showing he is loyal to it. Whether guilty or not, in my opinion, there is a dynamic going on at the trial, between DM and MS, in opposing loyalties. Perhaps this dynamic is giving the impression that DM might be not guilty. But consider the obvious, if faced with life in prison, wouldn't anyone try to put their best face on and grasp at any straw?

BBM - Gumshew, can you be more pacific please and TIA. :giggle:

Pacifice according to urban dictionary.

The way people who aren't smart but think they are say "specific". Used mostly by people who elect to represent themselves during a criminal trial, and dummies who don't understand questions during a job interview and want to buy more time in order to think of a good bull-**** lie. You should never correct someone who says "pacific" instead of "specific" because it is a very easy way to instantly guage IQ. "Uh... I don't know which robbery you are talking about Your Honor. Can you please be more pacific?"

MOO and HTH.