Bosma Murder Trial 04.13.16 - Day 34

[Just4TB]

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but for some reason a particular detail stands out in my mind. MH said he carried one of the items to the bottom of the stairs when they did the hasty drop, and AM carried the other. He says they each independently carried an item. However, we now hear from AM that MH alone put the items at the bottom of the stairs.

This just seems like one of those details that one wouldn't forget. So why the discrepancy? Also, iirc MH volunteered the detail regarding the way they each carried something down there, but AM was asked who put the items in the stairwell and his answer is MH.

All MOO. Thoughts?

Short answer....

 

[Arnie M]

I cant find the image of the track machine that was sitting at DM's place...was it a Bobcat as well?
If DM had a Bobcat prior to the theft...in my past experiences with these machines, the key is universal and would start the Bobcat that was being stolen.

Here are the two we know about so far

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Trial-04-07-16-Day-32&p=12457242#post12457242

(earlier I made a mistake when I said the Bobcat on tracks was in the yard and the one on wheels was at the farm ..... should have been the other way around)

(should also mention that shortly after DM was arrested a news reporter mentioned a bobcat sitting derelict in the weeds behind the Maple Gate home)

 

[SnooperDuper]

Yes .... and they were probably from Grandfather Carl's car collection .... I wonder why they even mention the "red caddy" at the trial .... seems completely irrelevant to me .

.

Sachak brought it up, and he seemed to be trying to get AM to say that MS liked it. Who knows where he's going with that...MS was going to trade a hot truck for a red caddy?

Adam CarterVerified account ‏@AdamCarterCBC 8h8 hours ago
Michalski says he recalls a Maroon Cadillac in the hangar, they'd refer to as the "red caddy." #TimBosma #Bosma

molly hayesVerified account ‏@mollyhayes 8h8 hours ago
Sachak asks if he recalls a "red caddy" (Cadillac) in the hangar. Michalski says yes--it was maroon. #Bosma

Susan ClairmontVerified account ‏@susanclairmont 8h8 hours ago
Maroon Cadillac in hangar. Referred to it as "the red Caddy." Millard didn't love that car.

molly hayesVerified account ‏@mollyhayes 6h6 hours ago
Sachak asks him about the red Cadillac. Shows him a photo. #Bosma

Colin ButlerVerified account ‏@ColinButlerCBC 6h6 hours ago
Michalski says He doesn't remember Millard saying that Smich liked a red Cadillac that belonged to Millard #Bosma

molly hayesVerified account ‏@mollyhayes 6h6 hours ago
Sachak shows another photo of the red Cadillac. Now he is done. #Bosma

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 6h6 hours ago
See photo of Michalski in a red Cadillac- one court hears #Smich liked. #Millard "was crazy" about powder blue Oldsmobile #Bosma

 

[Ontario Mom]

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but for some reason a particular detail stands out in my mind. MH said he carried one of the items to the bottom of the stairs when they did the hasty drop, and AM carried the other. He says they each independently carried an item. However, we now hear from AM that MH alone put the items at the bottom of the stairs.

This just seems like one of those details that one wouldn't forget. So why the discrepancy? Also, iirc MH volunteered the detail regarding the way they each carried something down there, but AM was asked who put the items in the stairwell and his answer is MH.

All MOO. Thoughts?

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

Could be one of those "but then lies were told" things. Who knows which is lying (or maybe both) but it seems disposing of potential evidence (or illegal items at the least) was one of those things that they were afraid would implicate them, so MH says they both dumped them, where AM says it was MH that dumped them.

Frankly, it did seem kind of weird trying to imagine them pulling the car over and both of them getting out to drop off those items. It makes more sense that only one of them would get out & take both down those stairs. Since it was MH driving, and AM the one in touch with MS, it makes more sense he'd be the one to get out. But that's not the story we're hearing.

 

[Kamille]

"DM solo'd / qualified for both his Fixed-Wing and Helicopter's licence at age 14, on his birthday."

This is why i phrased it as such. He certainly did later go through the formalities required of such documents when he turned 'of age'.

The question of age at the time of solo, is more of a matter of legal formality. He had the skill-set to solo at age 14.. which meant that he merely needed to meet all the other standards related to a private aviation licence. Born into an aviation-oriented family.. this was a right of passage, a Coming of Age, just as much as the Bar Mitzvah is, to a Jew.

There is plenty of citations available on google, to point that he held multiple aviation licences.

His life, and mine, have many eerie parallels. My Sunday afternoon "baseball game with dad" was chasing the $50.00 cheeseburger across Ontario to many, many airport greasy spoons. The only difference really between me and DM, is a potential career in aviation was destroyed by bad eye-sight, not a moral compass spun adrift, or not there to begin with. I don't know whether the standards have changed since DM solo'd 18 years ago.. i haven't kept up with that information since the eye-test spelled out "HA-HA, you lose!" about 30 years ago around my 16th birthday, and more than a few hours of ground-school in air-cadets... I do know that my late father got his pilots licence, at age 16, in '65. 2 years before he got a drivers licence.

Respectfully, and FWIW.

BBM

There is? Can you point me to where it says that DM held multiple aviation licenses? TIA

 

[dar107]

Sachak brought it up, and he seemed to be trying to get AM to say that MS liked it. Who knows where he's going"

RSBM

Bam...maybe DM is going to claim that MS was supposed to steal the truck and deliver it to the hanger and he would get the caddy as payment. MS took someone else on the test drive and whoever it was drew an ambition tattoo on themselves to set up DM. All those scowling looks at MS because DM just wanted the truck and had no idea about the murder.......all this said dripping in sarcasm.

 

[deugirtni]

Forgive me if this has already been mentioned, but for some reason a particular detail stands out in my mind. MH said he carried one of the items to the bottom of the stairs when they did the hasty drop, and AM carried the other. He says they each independently carried an item. However, we now hear from AM that MH alone put the items at the bottom of the stairs.

This just seems like one of those details that one wouldn't forget. So why the discrepancy? Also, iirc MH volunteered the detail regarding the way they each carried something down there, but AM was asked who put the items in the stairwell and his answer is MH.

All MOO. Thoughts?

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

Yes, I noticed that also. Something one would remember, for sure. Why lie? One of them has to be lying.. about a few things at least. Seems there are many discrepancies. I am also wondering why the 2 men would have taken MH's parents' vehicle, rather than AM's vehicle, which was obviously available to do 'the drop', since AM said the backpack was in the trunk and he got it out to put it into MH's vehicle? Why put MH's parents at risk of potentially having their vehicle impounded, and bringing that into the equation, or even just exposing MH to his parents' wrath due to his lack of respect for their vehicle? Why say 'park' if it was 'house' where they met, or vice versa? One says the planned drop-off location was Smich's say-so, while the other says he immediately pulled off the road when hearing DM's arrest was connected with the TB case and pulled in at the nearest available option for drop-off.. can't be both.

Other things aren't really connecting for me either, perhaps others can explain... AM reportedly told MH that Maplegate had been raided the morning of the 11th, but meanwhile AM says he was at work that day, at Campbell's, when he saw the news on the TV in the break-room that DM had also been charged with forcible confinement in the TB case. AM tells MH in a text or phonecall that DM has been arrested, but MH says the first he heard of it is when they met in the park, which AM says they never met at a park.. my head is kind of spinning.

 

[brightii]

Just reading the thread tonight here instead of catching up on my book reading and studying 18th century French philosophers. Thanks to all for sharing with me your knowledge, ideas and opinions. I'm acquiring quite the education on so many topics of discussion for which I would otherwise remain ignorant without you.

Sweet dreams. I imagine tomorrow will be another important day at trial.

All MOO.

 

[Arnie M]

I thought it was determined it was the night of the hockey game. Someone here said that was wrong because the Leafs weren't in the playoffs, but then everyone else proved that they were and there was a game that night. May 9th, 2013.

http://mapleleafs.nhl.com/club/calendar.htm?date=5/1/2013

Yes , you are right ..... back during those discussions we all determined the Leafs game was on Friday May 9th 2013 .... so the neighbor watching the game should be the most accurate witness . (because he connected it with the game)

And we also determined that the other neighbor didn't see the trailer until the next day , so from his perspective he was correct too.

So we figured the 9th was the actual date

Then it was told at trial the 10th was the date

Then we understand CN was an accessory on the 9th .... and we know she was with DM when the trailer was moved

My head hurts .... HAAAA

 

[billandrew]

"DM solo'd / qualified for both his Fixed-Wing and Helicopter's licence at age 14, on his birthday."

This is why i phrased it as such. He certainly did later go through the formalities required of such documents when he turned 'of age'.

The question of age at the time of solo, is more of a matter of legal formality. He had the skill-set to solo at age 14.. which meant that he merely needed to meet all the other standards related to a private aviation licence. Born into an aviation-oriented family.. this was a right of passage, a Coming of Age, just as much as the Bar Mitzvah is, to a Jew.

There is plenty of citations available on google, to point that he held multiple aviation licences.

His life, and mine, have many eerie parallels. My Sunday afternoon "baseball game with dad" was chasing the $50.00 cheeseburger across Ontario to many, many airport greasy spoons. The only difference really between me and DM, is a potential career in aviation was destroyed by bad eye-sight, not a moral compass spun adrift, or not there to begin with. I don't know whether the standards have changed since DM solo'd 18 years ago.. i haven't kept up with that information since the eye-test spelled out "HA-HA, you lose!" about 30 years ago around my 16th birthday, and more than a few hours of ground-school in air-cadets... I do know that my late father got his pilots licence, at age 16, in '65. 2 years before he got a drivers licence.

Respectfully, and FWIW.

DM did all this exciting coming of age stuff when he was 14, while his father and grandfather looked on so proudly. It was all over the Canadian news. Then, just one year later, he was shipped off to live with his uncle Robert Burns due to some issues in the family. From Adam Carter's tweets of Robert Burns's testimony:

For "altruistic reasons," he says, he watched Millard from ages 15 to 17. #TimBosma #Bosma Mar 10, 2016

 

[Abitcountry]

Just reading the thread tonight here instead of catching up on my book reading and studying 18th century French philosophers. Thanks to all for sharing with me your knowledge, ideas and opinions. I'm acquiring quite the education on so many topics of discussion for which I would otherwise remain ignorant without you.

Sweet dreams. I imagine tomorrow will be another important day at trial.

All MOO.

:naughty: .............:hilarious:

 

[Traymar]

Could be one of those "but then lies were told" things. Who knows which is lying (or maybe both) but it seems disposing of potential evidence (or illegal items at the least) was one of those things that they were afraid would implicate them, so MH says they both dumped them, where AM says it was MH that dumped them.

Frankly, it did seem kind of weird trying to imagine them pulling the car over and both of them getting out to drop off those items. It makes more sense that only one of them would get out & take both down those stairs. Since it was MH driving, and AM the one in touch with MS, it makes more sense he'd be the one to get out. But that's not the story we're hearing.

Yes, it would be strange, both of them getting out, leaving the vehicle unattended, etc. However, maybe it was a compromise so they'd both have their hands dirty til the end. I can envision either scenario. JMO.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

 

[Just4TB]

It appears the the witnesses who were in DM's inner circle, have the least forthright testimony. That isn't unsurprising given they were a den of thieves.
In the case of AM today, it is my opinion that his testimony was not totally false but rather skinny on truth. Yet hidden among the dirt were nuggets of usefulness.


Some of the nuggets from today...

- DM told AM he and MS planned to steal a truck
- DM was engaging in theft missions with his cohorts / minions (corroborates MH testimony)
- MS was a unique cohort, less of a minion, who did not fit well with the others
- MS and DM together were the innermost circle during thefts
- Theft missions were partially for the thrill
- DM "needed" the diesel truck (corroborates earlier evidence on diesel vs gas, LW2 texts )
- TB was targetted - "nice guy"
- DM supplied drugs to the minions and MS
- MS wanted the "thing" (gun), ruling out the DM setting up MS angle of defense
- DM had a negative cash flow issue and was aware of the issue (corroborates earlier testimony)


my opinion only

 

[deugirtni]

Sachak brought it up, and he seemed to be trying to get AM to say that MS liked it. Who knows where he's going with that...MS was going to trade a hot truck for a red caddy?

Adam CarterVerified account ‏@AdamCarterCBC 8h8 hours ago
Michalski says he recalls a Maroon Cadillac in the hangar, they'd refer to as the "red caddy." #TimBosma #Bosma

molly hayesVerified account ‏@mollyhayes 8h8 hours ago
Sachak asks if he recalls a "red caddy" (Cadillac) in the hangar. Michalski says yes--it was maroon. #Bosma

Susan ClairmontVerified account ‏@susanclairmont 8h8 hours ago
Maroon Cadillac in hangar. Referred to it as "the red Caddy." Millard didn't love that car.

molly hayesVerified account ‏@mollyhayes 6h6 hours ago
Sachak asks him about the red Cadillac. Shows him a photo. #Bosma

Colin ButlerVerified account ‏@ColinButlerCBC 6h6 hours ago
Michalski says He doesn't remember Millard saying that Smich liked a red Cadillac that belonged to Millard #Bosma

molly hayesVerified account ‏@mollyhayes 6h6 hours ago
Sachak shows another photo of the red Cadillac. Now he is done. #Bosma

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 6h6 hours ago
See photo of Michalski in a red Cadillac- one court hears #Smich liked. #Millard "was crazy" about powder blue Oldsmobile #Bosma

Ha. Yes. I suppose Sachak was trying to make it so that MS was actually getting some kind of benefit from his relationship with DM? IIRC, today TD was asking AM if the red caddy was *his* personal fav.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Bam...maybe DM is going to claim that MS was supposed to steal the truck and deliver it to the hanger and he would get the caddy as payment. MS took someone else on the test drive and whoever it was drew an ambition tattoo on themselves to set up DM. All those scowling looks at MS because DM just wanted the truck and had no idea about the murder.......all this said dripping in sarcasm.

DM would have to say, get me a truck, don't bother me with the details, and I'll give you a caddy to not be implicated himself. But yeah, something like that

 

[SnooperDuper]

It appears the the witnesses who were in DM's inner circle, have the least forthright testimony. That isn't unsurprising given they were a den of thieves.
In the case of AM today, it is my opinion that his testimony was not totally false but rather skinny on truth. Yet hidden among the dirt were nuggets of usefulness.


Some of the nuggets from today...


- DM was engaging in theft missions with his cohorts / minions (corroborates MH testimony)
- MS was a unique cohort, less of a minion, who did not fit well with the others
- MS and DM together were the innermost circle during thefts
- Theft missions were partially for the thrill
- DM "needed" the diesel truck (corroborates earlier evidence on diesel vs gas, LW2 texts )
- TB was targetted - "nice guy"
- DM supplied drugs to the minions and MS
- MS wanted the "thing" (gun), ruling out the DM setting up MS angle of defense
- DM had a negative cash flow issue and was aware of the issue (corroborates earlier testimony)


my opinion only

My takeaway was that DM was living like a celebrity. He bought his friends meals, travel, weed to follow him around and hang out with them. All of them were younger. He was burning through a lot of cash because he literally had an "entourage".

 

[Ontario Mom]

Yes, it would be strange, both of them getting out, leaving the vehicle unattended, etc. However, maybe it was a compromise so they'd both have their hands dirty til the end. I can envision either scenario. JMO.

Sent from my SM-T350 using Tapatalk

Could be, but I think one of them is just flat out lying. To me, logic says it's MH. Then again, logic also says AM was the one who got out. So who knows?

 

[hopingforjustice]

The way I see the reliability of witness memory issue is that when a witness's testimony seems to support our own or the popular viewpoint, it is more likely to be believed and the witness seen as being truthful and having a good memory, IMO.

As well, when a witness's testimony contradicts our own opinion or the group think, it is less likely to be perceived as credible, IMO and we then think they are lying or have a conveniently poor memory. Assessing witness credibility is a highly subjective exercise, IMO.

I think as human beings, and not as purely detached, objective people, we all assess witness testimony according to our own perceptions, and the Crown, and both defenses in this case will expose and exploit what they too each perceive to be the strengths and weaknesses in the witnesses testimonies. It's a complex thing trying to arrive at the truth, IMO. I feel for the jury who must decide this case.

All MOO.

I very much respect your points above..but to me its not so much on my viewpoint as on their respect for the court and the law.

Here is a man who's friend told him he was going to steal a truck. The next day he asks that man if he did and is told yes. Then this man finds out his friend has been charged with that crime. You cannot tell me that he had to read is police statement to remember that conversation. Just not believable to me. That little conversation had to ring over and over in his brain for days if not months after hearing of the arrest and especially the after the further charges. For no other reason than sheer disbelief that this was all really happening.

Also, all those witnesses have copies of their statements. They will have read and re-read them umteen times prior to trial. I get small variances to statements or remembering something more than they stated originally but to pretend they didn't say something when you know dang well that they have read those statements probably as recently as the night before testimony ( and I am just surmising as that is what I would do) just doesn't resonate with me. To me those are just outright avoidance's. They were either lying then or now.

I am no expert ..just my thoughts and strictly my opinion only

 

[deugirtni]

Originally Posted by paris_paris

I thought it was determined it was the night of the hockey game. Someone here said that was wrong because the Leafs weren't in the playoffs, but then everyone else proved that they were and there was a game that night. May 9th, 2013.

http://mapleleafs.nhl.com/club/calen...?date=5/1/2013

Yes , you are right ..... back during those discussions we all determined the Leafs game was on Friday May 9th 2013 .... so the neighbor watching the game should be the most accurate witness . (because he connected it with the game)

And we also determined that the other neighbor didn't see the trailer until the next day , so from his perspective he was correct too.

So we figured the 9th was the actual date

Then it was told at trial the 10th was the date

Then we understand CN was an accessory on the 9th .... and we know she was with DM when the trailer was moved

My head hurts .... HAAAA

According to the link you posted (see picture below), there was not a game on May 9th.

 

[HackD]

BBM

There is? Can you point me to where it says that DM held multiple aviation licenses? TIA

Well, apparently i appear to be full of <modsnip> on that one. I can't find any now, except some comments that indicate he had a fixed-wing at some point of time, but it's not MSM. Sorry for the mislead. I thought i did a search when this all broke out a few years back, and thought i saw some citations then. I can't go back in time, nor can my memory be called anywhere near 100%, so full of <modsnip> i guess it is.

Another potential source of ongoing friction with his father Wayne i imagine.. high hopes, and dashed dreams for his progeny.