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

[palisadesk]

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.

Hmmm, That's odd. Mine is a 2013 but does not have OnStar to my knowledge (and I read the manual). I'll check it again.They tried to sell me every bleeping add-on possible so it's hard to believe that I could have had it as an option if it's not there now.

The year of Igor's RAM was mentioned, I think it was a 2010; I do remember for certain that it was a newer one than TB's.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Most of that text conversation between DM and MW *was* allowed as evidence, but DM's comment about her coming back 'dirty' was not allowed, so the reasoning couldn't have been about dates.

IMHO, the texts from that conversation that were allowed was because they were necessary as evidence of DM's purchase of the gun that killed Tim Bosma.

But the rest of the texts from that conversation were not allowed because those texts from 2012 couldn't be necessarily tied specifically to the murder of Tim Bosma ... perhaps more likely in time to have been used to murder Laura Babcock?

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Myvice]

Agreed. A complete disregard and disrespect for the law. I really didn't understand how during the trial people kept referencing the fact that Smirch couldn't drive because he didn't have a license. Like that would be the law he chose to obey? Really? And even insinuated he didn't know how to drive on the hiway? MOO

 

[otto]

I will spend more time on this "code" however, this is what I did find this morning, more of a poem/writing. I was never really good at "reading between the lines"
View attachment 96913

Isn't that simply justifying brutal behaviour on the bases of having a parent that was perceived as having brutal behaviour?

 

[leafs_fan93]

And I wouldn't have had to skip the last 6 pages, even after the Mod warning.

The point I was trying to make is that discussion happens when there are differing opinions. If we all agreed on everything there would be nothing to discuss. We just need to do it in a respectful manner that's all.

 

[Miranda16]

When I saw that screenshot, I assumed he was confused about how to work the computer - he looks stunned and dopey.

I like this from your link:

"In one awkward moment, Sachak mixed up a timeline while asking about a firearm, prompting a jab from a smirking Smich.

[Smich]: “It must be one of your brain cramps again,” he said. “You’re probably under a lot of stress.”

The courtroom gasped and the judge shut down the exchange." (link)

Clearly Smich enjoys intimidation when he perceives a weakness in someone. Why do people not view this man as also suffering from antisocial personality disorder?

People have mentioned a difference in tone from Smich between when he was being cross-examined by DM's lawyers (where he was more combative and disrespectful) compared to when he was cross-examined by the crown. He clearly has issues with authority given his 'profession', but I think he may have regarded jabs at DM's lawyers in the same way as jabs at DM.

 

[leafs_fan93]

People have mentioned a difference in tone from Smich between when he was being cross-examined by DM's lawyers (where he was more combative and disrespectful) compared to when he was cross-examined by the crown. He clearly has issues with authority given his 'profession', but I think he may have regarded jabs at DM's lawyers in the same way as jabs at DM.

I took as since he couldn't give those jabs to DM he would give them to his lawyers instead. That said, IIRC the jabs started when DMs lawyer was at the point of asking the same things over and over and over.

 

[otto]

I took as since he couldn't give those jabs to DM he would give them to his lawyers instead. That said, IIRC the jabs started when DMs lawyer was at the point of asking the same things over and over and over.

It sounds like the lawyer's efforts to reveal the true, nasty side of Smich were successful.

 

[THXGuru]

Speculation has played a huge part in a murder conviction. Because it's all we have. That and interpretation of premeditation.

As I said, I'm willing to change my opinion once the evidence on LB comes out.

And just to be clear, does MS loser status come into play because that is what the courts allowed to be seen? What we didn't see was DM was also a druggie loser if we're going there that has been attention seeking since he was a child eating dog biscuits in school. He is also a high school drop out, sold drugs, used them, used the hanger for a chop shop and suicide girls which is soft *advertiser censored* exploiting women. Except that wasn't allowed for the pretty boy millionaire persona.

The loser status of MS was greater than DM. DM never spoke so who knows of we would of still thought he was a loser or not. The testimony of MS is hard to believe, because of the fact that he has no real credibility.

 

[Abitcountry]

OnStar remains a GM product but an equivalent service under different branding did become available for Dodge trucks at some point. Memory wants to tell me IT's truck was a 2010?

Some 30 GM vehicles come equpped with OnStar calling that is independent of your cell phone and is billed monthly....covers GMC, Chevrolet, Cadillac & Buick vehicles.....
Dodge uses a slightly different system called Uconnect that syncs with your compatible phone's contacts and uses the onboard audio system for hands free....activation includes navigation featuring Garmin & Sirius.

 

[canadiangirl]

The loser status of MS was greater than DM. DM never spoke so who knows of we would of still thought he was a loser or not. The testimony of MS is hard to believe, because of the fact that he has no real credibility.

And yet people commented how they were surprised how MS was when he actually did speak in court.

 

[Ashley96]

Thanks for this great link...I learned a LOT about what presumably went on in at least some of those legal arguments in court...bad character etc.

This blog post points out that bad character evidence can be introduced for by a defendant against the other defendant in a cut-throat defense (with restrictions).

Main gist is that if it is allowed - the judge must point out that it can't be used to show guilt of one accused (can only be used to find the one presenting as not guilty). I would say the judge did it in this case. TD brought up the 'killing games' DM played and DM's lawyers brought up the rap stuff and the judge clearly told the jury to not consider those in determining guilt.


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

… ince evidence of propensity or bad character can carry a very grave risk of prejudice to the fair trial of the accused against whom the evidence is led, it is incumbent on the trial judge to examine closely the probative value of the evidence and the purposes for which the evidence is tendered. In my view, in a joint trial, counsel's mere assertion that the evidence is necessary for the accused to make full answer and defence is not sufficient given the grave potential for prejudice to the fair trial of a co-accused. There must be some evidentiary foundation to support this assertion.
[76] The effect of the direction from these authorities is this. Propensity evidence, while inherently prejudicial, may be led by a co-accused so long as the prejudicial effect of that evidence does not clearly outweigh its probative value. This is a lower threshold of admissibility than is applied to character evidence led by the Crown, where the prejudicial effect need only outweigh the probative value for the evidence to be rendered inadmissible: see Pollock at paras. 110, 123.
[77] Despite these differing standards, the concern over prejudice is the same. When bad character evidence becomes potentially admissible, the trial judge, after going through the analysis mandated by Pollock, has the discretion whether to admit the evidence. Its admission is not automatic and the trial judge must engage in a careful and explicit balancing of probative value and prejudicial effect.
[78] If the trial judge concludes the evidence should be admitted, the jury must be carefully and clearly instructed as to how they can use the evidence in considering the case of the accused who adduces it, but not in considering the case of the co-accused: see Suzack at paras. 127-28. The jury must be told in no uncertain terms that the propensity evidence may be used to raise a reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused who leads the evidence, but cannot be used in any way to support the Crown's case against the co-accused. Furthermore, Sharpe J.A., in R. v. Diu (2000), 49 O.R. (3d) 40, makes it clear that the trial judge has an additional obligation to instruct the jury not only as to the use they cannot make of propensity evidence but also the use that they can make of it. He refers to these as positive and negative instructions. A failure to give either prejudices the accused against whom the evidence was led: see Diu at paras. 140-42.

 

[Sillybilly]

Was the hope that Smich would be found guilty of manslaughter even though he participated in a carjacking and murder of a 32 year old family man? If so, why? Does he seem like a loser who looked up to Millard, and therefore he should not be responsible for his actions?

<rsbm>

I don't see where anyone is hoping that Smich be found guilty or not guilty of anything, just that the consideration should be that folks are satisfied "beyond a reasonable doubt".

Why should Millard, or Smich, be excused for their participation in the murder of Tim Bosma?

<rsbm>

Again, not excusing anyone if they in fact participated in the planning and/or actual murder. While there seems to be no doubt whatsoever as it relates to DM, some people do have doubt as it relates to Smich.

Smich said IT told them his truck had GPS because they had asked him, but IT wasn't questioned about whether or not he had been asked when he was on the stand. So perhaps that was the deciding factor.

IIRC, that is what Smich testified as to the reason they did not carry out their plan to steal IT's truck.

I don't feel they should be excused. Reasonable doubt doesn't mean that at all.

Not possible, probable, or even just reasonable doubt ... the bar is "beyond a reasonable doubt".

MOO

 

[canadiangirl]

Agreed. A complete disregard and disrespect for the law. I really didn't understand how during the trial people kept referencing the fact that Smirch couldn't drive because he didn't have a license. Like that would be the law he chose to obey? Really? And even insinuated he didn't know how to drive on the hiway? MOO

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?

 

[Sillybilly]

Clearly if on this jury, you could put those references aside. Why do you think the members of this jury couldn't?

Possibly just as some members here continue to include thoughts of the charges in LB's and WM's in their discussion/consideration of TB's case ... some people can do it and others can't. We will never know how the individual jurors thought and what they were able to disregard.

 

[redheart]

Mocking, ridiculing, those work as well. Either way, clearly Smich has a complete disrespect for another person. Rather than view Millard as suffering antisocial personality disorder, and Smich as a sad victim, why not interpret Smich's mocking attitude as an example of antisocial personality disorder.

Yes, this! l have read so many posts diagnosing DM as a manipulative psychopath, and while that may be correct I have to wonder - who is the truly manipulative creep here? The one who almost everybody can easily see as a manipulative monster or the one who has a number people thinking that he possibly isn't guilty of 1st degree?

I think Smich is every bit as scary as DM...just in a different way. I'm sure glad that a jury of 12 agreed, and saw through Smich's trickery. MOO

 

[Just4TB]

Thanks everyone for all the insight, conversation and opinions during the trial and verdict.
Look forward to reading & discussing with you all again in November!!

Just4TB accomplished and Just4TB signing out4now...

 

[Sillybilly]

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?

I believe one of DM's texts to MS stated that a priority was MS getting his GL. Although MS's mom apparently made reference to MS now not getting the Cadillac, I don't recall the Caddy ever being referred to in any texts between DM and MS. I've speculated that it MAY have been offered in exchange for MS helping DM get a Dodge diesel, but not necessarily as a big bonus for helping kill a guy.

 

[Sphinx]

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?

MS said that his girlfriend MM was going to get her license, and do the driving to Alberta. I think he really wanted that caddy, and the promise of having it, was a significant motivation for him to participate in the planning and deliberate murder of a good man. Both DM and MS got the maximum that Canada could give them. I wish we still had capital punishment, but I do feel that the Bosmas did get a form of justice for Tim, and I am glad they did. Now I hope the courts get it right where LB and WM are concerned. I also hope that justice is done in the CN trial, and that the judge does not go easy on her. This trial has been so high profile, I doubt that he will.

IMO

 

[Jen Darme]

When I saw that screenshot, I assumed he was confused about how to work the computer - he looks stunned and dopey.

I like this from your link:

"In one awkward moment, Sachak mixed up a timeline while asking about a firearm, prompting a jab from a smirking Smich.

[Smich]: &#8220;It must be one of your brain cramps again,&#8221; he said. &#8220;You&#8217;re probably under a lot of stress.&#8221;

The courtroom gasped and the judge shut down the exchange." (link)

Clearly Smich enjoys intimidation when he perceives a weakness in someone. Why do people not view this man as also suffering from antisocial personality disorder?

Of Susan Clairmont, Molly Hayes, and Adam Carter, only Molly noted a response by the judge to exchange you quoted: "Justice Goodman steps in, moves things along." Everyone had already been through a day of NS's absurd scenarios and repetition in the magical forest. MS got a few jabs in but he mostly remained courteous throughout.