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

[Mscree]

I've always been opposed to capital punishment. Not because I disagree (I don't) with putting down the human filth that commit unspeakable crimes (especially against children), but because I think capital punishment is an easy out for them. Where's the suffering in getting a lethal injection? It's over in 2 minutes. Keeping them in the can for 25 years in my opinion, is a much harsher form of punishment.

However, I've always felt that 25 years is a paltry amount to pay for the killing of an innocent person. It simply is not enough. I think life should be life, not 25 years. I might accept 50 years as a starting point, but 25 is ridiculous and completely slanted in favour of criminals, when it should be slanted in the favour of victims, and society as a whole.

Recently, I believe I've come up with a fine compromise, which should work just fine for DM and MS. I now believe capital punishment should be reinstated, but only on the condition that they serve 25 years first. Then, after 25 years, they can be executed.

So, this way, they have nothing to look forward to as their 25 years winds down.

Perfect solution to an otherwise far too lenient system.

I have the same views on Capital punishment as you but I'm truly hoping that these two recieve their just desserts in the clink. And meet their fate at the hands of some other pond scum they will be residing with. In this case eye for an eye tooth for tooth seems appropriate to me

 

[canadiangirl]

Mockery can be sort of intimidating.

I'm sure not as intimidating as 9 days on the stand.

 

[Inspector_North]

I have the same views on Capital punishment as you but I'm truly hoping that these two recieve their just desserts in the clink. And meet their fate at the hands of some other pond scum they will be residing with. In this case eye for an eye tooth for tooth seems appropriate to me

I don't think this will help their stay.

"17. Millard and Smich were fond of each other.The jury knows they spent lots of time together and texted constantly.
But the jury didn't see one particular text from Smich to Millard that said: "I love you baby."
Smich's lawyers asked to exclude that text out of concern for "the suggestion of an intimate relationship between these two men and the danger that could pose in the jail system if either or both of them is convicted."

BBM

http://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news-s...by-20-more-things-the-bosma-jury-was-never-t/

MOO

 

[Inspector_North]

I'm sure not as intimidating as 9 days on the stand.

MS had practice at handling intimidation. He put on a great smile at the wedding after being intimidated by lunatic DM. He even proceeded to sell "Walt Disney's" dope and gun.
Or was it intimidation?

MOO

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I don't think this will help their stay.

"17. Millard and Smich were fond of each other.The jury knows they spent lots of time together and texted constantly.
But the jury didn't see one particular text from Smich to Millard that said: "I love you baby."
Smich's lawyers asked to exclude that text out of concern for "the suggestion of an intimate relationship between these two men and the danger that could pose in the jail system if either or both of them is convicted."

BBM

http://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news-s...by-20-more-things-the-bosma-jury-was-never-t/

MOO

May I say finally for once: I'm not so sure they hadn't an intimate relationship. But IF then I can imagine nobody should know, neither the gf/female lovers nor the "gang". Of course only IMO.

 

[Mscree]

I don't think this will help their stay.

"17. Millard and Smich were fond of each other.The jury knows they spent lots of time together and texted constantly.
But the jury didn't see one particular text from Smich to Millard that said: "I love you baby."
Smich's lawyers asked to exclude that text out of concern for "the suggestion of an intimate relationship between these two men and the danger that could pose in the jail system if either or both of them is convicted."

BBM

http://www.cambridgetimes.ca/news-s...by-20-more-things-the-bosma-jury-was-never-t/

MOO

Not sure you knew what I was getting at? That one of their cell mates would take their life

 

[Mscree]

MS had practice at handling intimidation. He put on a great smile at the wedding after being intimidated by lunatic DM. He even proceeded to sell "Walt Disney's" dope and gun.
Or was it intimidation?

MOO

Not to mention if he was any sort of drug dealer he would be well versed at the art of intimidation

 

[Inspector_North]

Not sure you knew what I was getting at? That one of their cell mates would take their life

I did, and my post makes that possibility even more likely. There are many altercations over this sort of stuff.

MOO

 

[CJPRINCESS]

bbm

Apropos "confinement": To me it is questionable how to tape a man on the passenger seat (struggle assumed in addition) sitting behind him on the back seat. How does it work technically? I can't imagine at all.

Im sure anything is possible when a gun is pointed at your head. Would one freeze and not put up a struggle at that point? Probably. I'd say it's very possible.

 

[Errrr]

You throttle the person from behind till they pas out. Then you tape them up just in case and kill later, outside. It's hard to fight someone behind you with a seat back between you.

 

[mimimic]

I don’t say I believe all of his testimony, but I feel his story is plausible in relation to the evidence. For those who say his testimony is geared to the evidence, what else would it be geared to if not to refute something that someone is using to nail your butt to the wall with a life sentence? Of course an accused will attempt to explain evidence that others feel points to his guilt. Why wouldn’t he?

MM’s original use of the word ‘happy’ in her initial interview that somehow morphed into ‘celebration’ (or celebratory?) just prior to trial makes me think she embellished for whatever reason.

If I was of a criminal bent and knew that my buddy had just killed a guy, recognizing what my lunatic friend was capable of might lead me to act as if what he did didn’t bother me. If my buddy is capable of killing a guy, then he’s capable of killing me if a pee him off. Talk of a wedding suit? Well, there was a wedding coming up. I don’t’ place a lot of credence on BD’s testimony given that he previously lied through his teeth and seemed to gear his answers to whichever lawyer happened to be questioning him.

WRT the sausages … DM previously specified he wanted “bacon” at a barbeque. There is a pic (not in evidence) of AM (I think with MH or BD behind him) barbequing with sausages on the grill. DM seems to get what DM wants. Perhaps he didn’t like sausages, specified bacon, and it was MS's way of teasing that they were going to served. Why else would DM talk about bacon? As for a pic of fireside furniture, I believe it was in evidence (?) that they would scope out locations for desireable items. Can't recall if they shared pics of such items, but could have just been an idea for any upcoming summertime event/barbeque. Gun obsession? I know lots of people who legally possess guns who haven’t killed anyone (LE, personal protection). Change of clothes? This was something that was previously associated with other scoping missions, so not just this particular theft/murder.

As for drawing a blank on the gun burial … yeah, I say probably hogwash on that, but given the gun was acquired illegally through MS’s associates, I can see MS being terrified that if that gun could be traced back, he was in pretty big trouble with the n****s who don’t mess around.

We don’t know what that 50 min meeting with DM consisted of so we have nothing to compare. It could have been discussing any number of things. We don’t know; he doesn’t remember. He referred to his emotions as shock, paranoia, stress, so it is possible that is a segment of the whole event he simply doesn’t recall the specifics.

Other Supreme Court rulings on appeal address benefit of the doubt to the appellant (accused), i.e.:

From:
http://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1320/index.do?r=AAAAAQAKUGVyc29ubmUgYgE



I consider some of his testimony plausible, and some of the evidence as having the potential for other explanations. I also know that we can believe all, some, or none of the accused's testimony, and give the benefit of the doubt to the accused according to Supreme Court guidelines.

So according to the law we are supposed to give benefit to every doubt, even when there seems to be many in numbers that all lead to questionable meanings? It seems reasonable that MS testimony would be geared to the evidence, but the numbers of everything seems to lead to a reasonable conclusion of more than mischievous involvement. It doesn't seem reasonable to swing so much in favor of other plausible meanings. no? .imo

 

[Typhoo1961]

Im sure anything is possible when a gun is pointed at your head. Would one freeze and not put up a struggle at that point? Probably. I'd say it's very possible.

It depends on the person. When my ex-husband called me down to the basement one day, he pointed a shotgun at me when I got halfway down the stairs.
I got the worst feeling but turned and ran back up the stairs. Some people freeze, some run.

 

[Ashley96]

and I think that's where the differences in opinion come from...people have different ideas/thresholds of reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence...

Personally, Do I think Smich's story is possible? yes of course!... because ANYthing is possible (he could have thought you chop garbage for an incinerator...and had no idea what DM needed a gun for...and it COULD have been a coincidence that his phone died when it did and that his SIM cards and red hoodie were lost..and that he thought fireworks were going off the beginning of May and that following/parking so closely behind a vehicle he was scoping was just something he always did etc. etc. ...but is it 'reasonable' to believe it? given all the other information we received?

I even tried to think what MS could have said to make his testimony more believable to me (given the other evidences I heard)...and I don't think he could have. He could have admitted where he buried the gun or who he sold it to or who he gave it to to take care of....but even that wouldn't have changed my mind about his whole story.

The only way MS's story might have been more believable to me as a whole, is if he actually admitted more guilt/ownership in what happened to tim than the stated evidence already did...but of course he clearly couldn't admit to anything else without endangering his defense.

If the texts between the two convicted murderers weren't presented, then he might have had a chance..but of course I'm very happy for all the evidences and that both are sentenced appropriately

 

[mimimic]

I have not read the entire thread, so may have missed something. But, what I hear people saying, who feel that M2 would have been a more just verdict for MS, is not that "the jury is wrong" but something like, "I feel, based on how I understand the evidence - which is admittedly less completely than the jury, who saw and heard all testimony and not just abbreviated tweets and summaries -- that M2 would have been the most reasonable conclusion based on the evidence."

We are all basing our conclusions on the information we have been privy to, and the jury has been privy to a good deal more. So, while we may be pretty sure what we would decide IF we were on that jury panel, we cannot really know, because we did not have access to as much information as they did, nor did we have the advantage of the shared discussion and understandings that the jurors arrived at.

I did not hear anyone say they felt the jury was wrong. I didn't follow all the evidence myself, but am happy to defer in this case to the jury's decision. If I had parsed it all out for myself (to the degree possible, without complete access) I might feel differently, but I have no reason to think so. However, my experience in other areas where decisions are made collectively based on empirical evidence is that conscientious and reasonable people can differ, with integrity, on what the facts and evidence suggest. I believe we see some manifestations of that here.

And, it is perfectly OK!

Hey on the side of this, would it be safe to assume we, on this form, are all similar in a way(temperament maybe?) and see it mostly the same way as opposed to most others(jury/general public/peers) and are judging both sides with more or less the same personality? lol kind of-if that makes sense...It's been mentioned often that we (who follow this closely are a rare bred) or are close to the case. All the rest are normal

 

[Ashley96]

Hey on the side of this, would it be safe to assume we, on this form, are all similar in a way(temperament maybe?) and see it mostly the same way as opposed to most others(jury/general public/peers) and are judging both sides with more or less the same personality? lol kind of-if that makes sense...It's been mentioned often that we (who follow this closely are a rare bred) or are close to the case. All the rest are normal

Thanks mimimic...I think you are on to something there and it gave me something to think about:thinking: ))
I have been amazed that so many postings reflected my own thoughts and habits and obsessions etc
At times I thought I was actually talking to myself here

 

[mimimic]

Thanks mimimic...I think you are on to something there and it gave me something to think about:thinking: ))
I have been amazed that so many postings reflected my own thoughts and habits and obsessions etc
At times I thought I was actually talking to myself here

lol with a tear in the eye afterward.

 

[andreww]

You throttle the person from behind till they pas out. Then you tape them up just in case and kill later, outside. It's hard to fight someone behind you with a seat back between you.

You watch too many movies. It wouldn't be that easy, and a man fighting for his life in the front seat is more likely to cause the driver to run off the road than anything else. They have a gun. Holding it to his head would and he's is going to be very compliant. But it certainly makes no sense to try and take him to the farm and put Millard in a 1 on 1 situation. TB was dead before Smich stepped out of that truck.

 

[SnooperDuper]

ABro's book is available for pre-order https://www.amazon.ca/dp/B01DJZW9Y2...TF8&colid=1ZURVJ2U4K4XY&coliid=I2ZE0UT8J0KEZP

Release date November 8, 2016

 

[deugirtni]

It depends on the person. When my ex-husband called me down to the basement one day, he pointed a shotgun at me when I got halfway down the stairs.
I got the worst feeling but turned and ran back up the stairs. Some people freeze, some run.

I am leaping at the assumption that your dear hubby was just kidding around, right? (hoping!).. but can you imagine if a year after that happened, he was accused of murdering someone.. how that 'joke' would go over then?

 

[marymcd]

There was no trial evidence wrt personality disorders in either of the accused. It's speculation by the publc. Lots of people have personality disorders .. the existence of such doesn't make them guilty.

This bears repeating, sorry to be late to the party on this one. Neither personality disorders, nor diagnosable neurological abnormalities (such as psychopathy, FAS, and some others) have any necessary relationship to criminal responsibility, guilt or innocence. . . .The research in cognitive neuroscience and how to intervene to minimize the effects of faulty "wiring" is ongoing and positive. There is room for optimism here. . .

. . . But to reiterate sillybilly's point, most individuals with personality or neurological disorders, of whatever kind, do not commit crimes, and if they do, it is only tangentially related to their "disorder," not caused by it. Individuals, whatever their challenges, make choices for which they are responsible except in cases of severe mental illness. That's a different issue entirely.

Sorry, I'm really behind. Just wanted to say how much I enjoyed and appreciated your post. Are you familiar with the book "The boy who was raised in a cage"? I hope I have that title right. As a layperson, it was such an eye opener for me.