Verdict: GUILTY for both Millard and Smich of 1st degree murder #2

[Mscree]

Then how do you explain the conversation between Isho and DM stating the gun would be a dirty girl when it came back but no worries. Isho could change her print.

That was omitted from testimony, the reason IMO is because the text is pertaining to one of his other charges

 

[canadiangirl]

Smich's lawyers introduced his criminal record IIRC. They must have thought that because his past convictions were for non-violent crimes, it may actually help his case. When MS decided to take the stand and testified to his GOOD character, he opened the door for character evidence to be admissible. DM didn't take the stand......

Even so, I don't see a huge discrepancy in what was allowed as character evidence for DM vs MS. DM did NOT come across as a choir boy. In fact, the character evidence against him that WAS allowed IMO was worse than MS. The thefts/missions.....multiple women....drug use/supplying friends with drugs/supplying MS with oxy....how MM felt about him....etc.

I understand why you see doubt, but IMO there was no miscarriage of justice as far as what was allowed into evidence. MS's violent and gory snuff film wasn't allowed (assuming bc it would have been too prejudicial). They were both bad apples.....the jury just wasn't privy to exactly how bad they were.

all MOO

I see a vast difference but I agree to disagree. I don't recall character references for DM made in court to the jury whereby the constant hammering it home about his character. But that's JMO

 

[redheart]

Here are AC's tweets from a portion of the judge's charge. He did NOT say to disregard Smich's rap lyrics, or other character evidence.

Goodman now turning to bad character evidence. He says that evidence is generally inadmissible. #TimBosma #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
Goodman says that just because an accused is the type of person who committed a criminal offence, that doesn't mean they're guilty #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
He says that extends to prior thefts, drug use and gun ownership. "They are not on style for their lifestyle choices." #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
That means the evidence given by Smich about Millard's bad character can only used when considering himself, and vice versa. #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
The jury also can't use Smich's criminal record to prove he's the "sort of person" who would commit murder, he says. #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
A previous conviction doesn't mean the jury shouldn't consider Smich's evidence, he says. #TimBosma #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
It does mean they should weigh them for importance against his evidence, he says. #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
Goodman says there has been "copious" amounts of character evidence in this trial. #TimBosma #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
We've heard Smich's testimony about Millard's life/thefts, alongside Hagerman and Michalski's, and Meneses' assertion he was "creepy" #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
"Millard is not on trial for a breach of court orders," Goodman says, about Millard sending letters to Noudga. #TImBosma #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
The letters are, however, part of a "pattern of after the fact conduct," Goodman says. #TimBosma #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
"Millard is not on trial for the theft of other items ... for his lifestyle choices, or for the possession or distribution of drugs" #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
Smich is not on trial for drug trafficking, thievery or vandalism, Goodman says. Also not to make conclusions about his rap lyrics. #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
Goodman says they can use this evidence in certain ways. It was admitted to provide context, and to shed light on possible motive. #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
Goodman says this may seem confusing at first, but he hopes it isn't. #TimBosma #Bosma Jun 10, 2016

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Qlyw__2QSDhYkGxMU/pubhtml?gid=0&single=false#

 

[canadiangirl]

That was omitted from testimony, the reason IMO is because the text is pertaining to one of his other charges

But it pertained to this one. Just like the incinerator did. Of course I'm not a lawyer or judge.

 

[otto]

I would have to go back to trial tweets to confirm, and I'm on my phone at the moment and I wouldn't want to misquote here. (people ask for links)

IMO it doesn't matter who introduced them, the fact they were even allowed when the jury was advised not to consider and played for the courtroom some people here even put a lot of weight onto those lyrics. It helps form opinions I'd say.

BBM

Suggesting that it doesn't matter who introduced the lyrics, while at the same time suggesting that what was introduced to prejudice the jury, leaves me wondering what information is being omitted regarding this point.

It is critical to know who introduced evidence that could not be considered by the jury, and in what context. I'm pretty sure that the crown cannot introduce evidence during the prima facie case if that evidence cannot be considered by the jury. Therefore, if evidence was introduced that cannot be considered by the jury, it was either introduced by a defence lawyer, or by the crown in response to false testimony from the accused. If it was introduced by the crown to counter false testimony, then it is the accused who stepped in a mud puddle and left himself vulnerable having excluded evidence introduced in court to discredit his testimony.

So, who opened the door to allow the lyric evidence to be introduced? Was it Smich? If so, how can anyone complain that the evidence was made available if he is responsible for making it available?

 

[canadiangirl]

BBM

Suggesting that it doesn't matter who introduced the lyrics, while at the same time suggesting that what was introduced prejudiced the jury, leaves me wondering what information is being omitted regarding this point.

It is critical to know who introduced evidence that could not be considered by the jury, and in what context. I'm pretty sure that the crown cannot introduce evidence during the prima facie case if that evidence cannot be considered by the jury. Therefore, if evidence was introduced that cannot be considered by the jury, it was either introduced by a defence lawyer, or by the crown in response to false testimony from the accused. If it was introduced by the crown to counter false testimony, then it is the accused who stepped in a mud puddle and left himself vulnerable having excluded evidence introduced in court to discredit his testimony.

So, who opened the door to allow the lyric evidence to be introduced? Was it Smich? If so, how can anyone complain that the evidence was made available if he is responsible for making it available?

I believe it was Millard's lawyers who introduced this as someone stated. But don't quote me on that.

My question is, if it's evidence that can't be used against someone anyways, then why is it admissible in the first place? Which is why I said it doesn't matter who introduced it.

 

[canadiangirl]

Here are AC's tweets from a portion of the judge's charge. He did NOT say to disregard Smich's rap lyrics, or other character evidence.

Goodman now turning to bad character evidence. He says that evidence is generally inadmissible. #TimBosma #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
Goodman says that just because an accused is the type of person who committed a criminal offence, that doesn't mean they're guilty #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
He says that extends to prior thefts, drug use and gun ownership. "They are not on style for their lifestyle choices." #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
That means the evidence given by Smich about Millard's bad character can only used when considering himself, and vice versa. #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
The jury also can't use Smich's criminal record to prove he's the "sort of person" who would commit murder, he says. #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
A previous conviction doesn't mean the jury shouldn't consider Smich's evidence, he says. #TimBosma #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
It does mean they should weigh them for importance against his evidence, he says. #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
Goodman says there has been "copious" amounts of character evidence in this trial. #TimBosma #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
We've heard Smich's testimony about Millard's life/thefts, alongside Hagerman and Michalski's, and Meneses' assertion he was "creepy" #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
"Millard is not on trial for a breach of court orders," Goodman says, about Millard sending letters to Noudga. #TImBosma #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
The letters are, however, part of a "pattern of after the fact conduct," Goodman says. #TimBosma #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
"Millard is not on trial for the theft of other items ... for his lifestyle choices, or for the possession or distribution of drugs" #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
Smich is not on trial for drug trafficking, thievery or vandalism, Goodman says. Also not to make conclusions about his rap lyrics. #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
Goodman says they can use this evidence in certain ways. It was admitted to provide context, and to shed light on possible motive. #Bosma Jun 10, 2016
Goodman says this may seem confusing at first, but he hopes it isn't. #TimBosma #Bosma Jun 10, 2016

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet...Qlyw__2QSDhYkGxMU/pubhtml?gid=0&single=false#

Thanks, I thought there was a part about the rap lyrics specifically not being allowed. But interesting to re-read about the character references in general were allowed to be considered.

 

[RandomName479]

BBM. I agree and disagree.

I think that the people who see reasonable doubt as to Smich's guilt are a mix of people, same as those who believe DM and MS have been correctly convicted. Some of the people who think Smich might not be guilty of 1st degree are thoughtful, caring posters who I respect. (And this is in reference to everywhere online, not just here.) Some of the people who think Smich might not be guilty are just stubborn, argumentative types. Some are probably friends of his. Some enjoy the sound of their own online voices and post diatribes in other cases too about reasonable doubt.

And the same goes for those who agree with the jury that MS and DM are guilty of 1st degree. Some of those are thoughtful, caring people. Some are vicious, hang 'em before we hear the evidence types, etc. etc.

There's just no putting everyone in a neat box, good or bad. I think the frustration seen online comes from both camps dealing with the less than reasonable people from either side.

MOO

Thanks button wasn't enough

You nailed it.

I will admit to seeing reasonable doubt when it comes to premeditation for MS. That being said, I was able to distill it down to this.....he clearly knew about the plan to steal the truck.....and TB was killed during that crime. While in Canada that does not equal 1st degree.....it does constitute murder.....even if MS had no prior knowledge of DM bringing a gun. TB was killed during the commission of a crime. MS clearly had knowledge that DM had guns. So, IMO he OUGHT to have known that there was a risk of someone getting hurt during this theft.

Murder, as defined by the criminal code, is when the offender either:
...
4) is in the commission of an offense and does something he knows or ought to know may cause death (even if death is not intended).

http://www.accused.ca/murder.htm

I haven't quite gotten to 1st degree (although I fully respect the jury's decision).....but I was able to get to second degree because of this. I think part of my problem is that sitting next to DM and his courtroom performances, MS looked good. He behaved well in court. He presented well. He seems to have cleaned his life up. And I believe most of his story.....quite possibly because it is believable to me that DM is a complete psychopath. But even if we believe his testimony, IMO he would still be guilty of 2nd degree.....he was a full and willing participant in the planning of the theft and during that theft someone got killed. It was a foreseeable consequence.

All MOO.....

 

[XiolaBlueX]

Thankfully, the jury wasn't supposed to be watching the media/news while on the jury so they wouldn't have been exposed to this during the trial at all.

Respectfully, the news coverage has been everywhere, and the jury was not sequestered until the last several days for deliberation. Not only was MSM covering the trial regularly (radio, print, online) but journalists were surrounding the court house as well, chatting it up during breaks and lunch at different restaurants, walking around, at the nearby park, etc (as well as spectators, victims' loved ones etc)

Ive been at neighbouring eateries eating lunch and been steps away from jury members that blend in completely with the public, but I recognized them.
I've noticed jury members on their cell phone scrolling around during lunch break also. I'm not suggesting they were doing anything nefarious on their phones, and of course they were to do their best to avoid any media or public exposure to the case.
However, in my opinion that would be impossible.

 

[Velma]

I signed off last night and said I would see everyone in November but....I'M STILL HERE! How come I'm not surprised?!

I actually do wonder what Rabbit is up to these days. For someone who appeared to be prepared to "assist" her son in times of trouble, i.e., delivering letters, arranging phone calls with CN and helping to wipe down the trailer in her driveway, I have to admit that I am shocked that she never once showed her face in court to support her son.

MS's, mother and sister showed up when he testified and his sister was there for the verdict, but no MB. I just would love to know why.

I did the same, but how can I stay away until November? There's so much left to sleuth!

 

[otto]

I believe it was Millard's lawyers who introduced this as someone stated. But don't quote me on that.

My question is, if it's evidence that can't be used against someone anyways, then why is it admissible in the first place? Which is why I said it doesn't matter who introduced it.

The accused has the right to introduce evidence to defend all accusations. If Smich accused Millard of something, and Millard has evidence that contradicts the accusation, then that evidence can be introduced to counter the accusations but that evidence cannot be considered as part of the crown's evidentiary case. It sounds like Smich's decision to testify and to attack the character of Millard opened the door to Millard attacking the character of Smich. While it's all very interesting that the two men hung each other's dirty laundry, it was not part of the crown's case, and not part of the evidence that the jury should consider in determining whether they murdered Tim Bosma.

 

[Mscree]

Apparently OnStar became standard on Dodge vehicles in 2008. Tim's truck was a 2007 (so no OnStar), but I'm not sure we know the year of IT's truck.

I also am unsure of the year but it was said to be newer. Which leads me to think I all of the planning over the year, these clowns never once googled to see when gps started in these diesel trucks?

 

[Mscree]

Well that was pointed out in reference to the fact DM was supposed to have promised MS a caddy. Was he going to drive around the GTA and possibly all the way to Alberta without a license? And what would happen when he got to Alberta with a car that had Ontario plates but a driver with no license. Wouldn't be long before he could no longer fly under the radar. The caddy as payment, again made no sense. What was he going to do with it? Park it at his Mom's? Or at EM apartment building? How would he plate the thing so he wouldn't get picked up? Or was DM going to hold the ownership even after "paying" MS?

Mm was suppose to get a licence and have it registered under her name.

 

[canadiangirl]

BBM. I agree and disagree.

I think that the people who see reasonable doubt as to Smich's guilt are a mix of people, same as those who believe DM and MS have been correctly convicted. Some of the people who think Smich might not be guilty of 1st degree are thoughtful, caring posters who I respect. (And this is in reference to everywhere online, not just here.) Some of the people who think Smich might not be guilty are just stubborn, argumentative types. Some are probably friends of his. Some enjoy the sound of their own online voices and post diatribes in other cases too about reasonable doubt.

And the same goes for those who agree with the jury that MS and DM are guilty of 1st degree. Some of those are thoughtful, caring people. Some are vicious, hang 'em before we hear the evidence types, etc. etc.

There's just no putting everyone in a neat box, good or bad. I think the frustration seen online comes from both camps dealing with the less than reasonable people from either side.

MOO

Just to be clear, posters here may see it as being stubborn or argumentative, however, the fact we don't have to agree or conform is other's opinions is a wonderful thing.
Respectful posting by people is appreciated.
I suppose the other side fails to see that when people keep trying to hammer home all the reasons why you're wrong, didn't look at the big picture etc etc, that yes, when you're asked question upon question, it leads to answers? Otherwise you're accused of not answering questions posed to you to support your position. It's a double edge sword really.
So, hearing your own voice online is not ideal, but considering the reasonable doubt pool is much smaller, I believe it should be expected. MOO

 

[SnooperDuper]

If it's true, MS probably had a significantly higher and steadier income, too.

As a crack dealer? No, it is a bottom-feeder career, small money and horrible clients.

If I wanted to make quick money selling drugs, something high margin and easy to deal with, I would sell oxy like DM.

 

[DMB]

That was omitted from testimony, the reason IMO is because the text is pertaining to one of his other charges

And that is exactly why I believe there was too much evidence suppressed that should have been allowed in this case, however, if presented here would present legal arguments down the road regarding the integrity of evidence in future trials.

The text convo between Iisho & Millard clearly show the "state of mind" of DM regarding intent and premeditation to use that gun. Doesn't matter when it took place as it didn't reference a date or victim. It also shows that clearly there is a relationship between MWJ & DM that does not include MS. Though MS stated in testimony he was aware of the gun(s) is there evidence that he was part of the conversation regarding intent???? IMO that text clearly shows proof of Aiding & Abetting and possible charges for MWJ. He sold the gun DM used to commit murder knowing DM's intent to use it and then offered to change it's "print" after the fact. MOO

 

[RandomName479]

As a crack dealer? No, it is a bottom-feeder career, small money and horrible clients.

If I wanted to make quick money selling drugs, something high margin and easy to deal with, I would sell oxy like DM.

I agree with the high margin....but have you ever dealt with people on oxy? I definitely wouldn't describe them as easy to deal with.....I have literally had someone pull a gun on me to steal oxy.....these people are addicts....just because it is a "legal" drug doesn't make it any less problematic. MOO

 

[SnooperDuper]

I agree with the high margin....but have you ever dealt with people on oxy? I definitely wouldn't describe them as easy to deal with.....I have literally had someone pull a gun on me to steal oxy.....these people are addicts....just because it is a "legal" drug doesn't make it any less problematic. MOO

Most of the "incidents" in my neighborhood are crack-related. Yeah, oxy people aren't great people either, but crack people are more unstable and more dangerous IMO. The oxy people in my neighbourhood only hit the news when they are dead of overdose. Crack users are in the paper all the time for all kinds of things.

 

[Ashley96]

Canadian Girl quote: My question is, if it's evidence that can't be used against someone anyways, then why is it admissible in the first place? Which is why I said it doesn't matter who introduced it

Again, if I am interpreting it right...bad character evidence can't be used to prove Smich guilty, but because there are two accused, and Smich took the stand and opened himself to cross exam and because Millard has a right to a full answer and defense, Millards lawyer is able to bring up relevant evidence that reflects poorly on Smich because Millard's defense is that millard didn't do it, and a key part of that defense is necessarily that smich did (had motive, state of mind etc).. but at this point it's about proving Millard innocent (reasonable doubt)...not about proving Smich guilty. And that's why it's admissible.

It's confusing...and at first glance seems contradictory...but I guess it's all just part and parcel of our judicial system that needs to address everyone's rights when they weigh the admissibility of evidence...

Does this answer that question?

Because of this high and inherent prejudice, evidence of the bad character of the accused is presumptively inadmissible when led by the Crown.
[73] The situation is different, however, when one accused seeks to lead evidence of the bad character of a co-accused, in cases where what is known as a "cut-throat" defense is raised by one of the accused against the other. This is where two accused are jointly tried, each with equal opportunity to commit the crime and each alleging that the other committed it: see R. v. Suzack (2000), 141 C.C.C. (3d) 449 (Ont. C.A.) at para. 72. In this scenario, one accused may be permitted to lead propensity evidence against the other accused on the basis of his or her right to make full answer and defense, even though the Crown would not be permitted to lead such evidence: see Suzack at para. 111.

http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.ca/2010/12/bad-character-and-cut-throat-defence.html

 

[canadiangirl]

Mm was suppose to get a licence and have it registered under her name.

Can you link this please?
All I can find is that MS wanted to move to Calgary, but MM did not want to go.