Bosma Murder Trial 04.14.16 - Day 35

[matou]

CHCH News coverage[FONT=Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif] [/FONT] Bosma Day 36

http://www.chch.com/bosma-day-36/

 

[Claroon]

OK, I will take a stab at this. I think the best way to explain it is to come at it the other way around, that is, to explain what "beyond a reasonable doubt" (the criterion for conviction) is. I remember the gist of this explanation from a judge but I don't recall which case or the exact illustrative examples he provided. But I'm sure I have the general idea.

"Beyond a reasonable doubt" does not mean certainty. That would be an impossible standard to meet. Instead, where convictions are concerned, it should mean the same kind of assurance one would have in making some very significant life decision that carried long-term and important consequences, and into which decision many factors enter. I believe the judge gave the example of purchasing a house or leaving one highly satisfactory job for another. In the house example, the careful purchaser would consider many variables, have an inspection of the property, a title search, work out the financing, suss out the neighbourhood, available services, schools if applicable, and so on and so forth (you get the drift). If one then decides, based on the totality of the evidence, that this is the right house to buy, one could still be making a mistake - but not likely. The purchase is considered, well-thought-out, based on a number of facts and data, weighed against needs and requirements, and so one can be sure "beyond a reasonable doubt" that it's the one to buy. The decision can never meet the goal of being an absolute certainty, but if the buyer has done his/her homework he can be as close to certain as is reasonably possible.

That, according to this illustration (which I thought was a good one and that's why I remember it) is what "beyond a reasonable doubt" means in a criminal case. It's not necessary for every little detail to be right. To demand that would be "unreasonable."

Thanks. I love that illustration. Makes sense.

 

[brightii]

I think that's exactly where TD wanted his cross to go. When asking AM why he didn't take the bag and toolbox to LE instead of MS.

Mark wanted it," Michalski said.

"So we're going to dump it on Smich, right?" Dungey said. "No, he wanted it," Michalski responded.

"A big strapping guy like you isn't going to listen to a small guy like Mark Smich," Dungey said. "You weren't afraid of him."

"I was afraid of him, yes sir," Michalski responded.

IMHO, TD went in on an attack on AM's character here- the "why didn't you contact LE" hoping to get his "you're just protecting DM" theory out there some more. IMO, it really backfired this time- resulting in AM saying it was MS who wanted it and he was in fact afraid of MS. IMO, TD wasn't expecting that and had to finish up with his signature "you're lying jab". Cue more gun evidence. MOO

I actually thought that TD was strategically probing and simultaneously restrained in his cross of AM, and I thought TD was highly effective today, IMO.

TD didn't need to highlight AM's character flaws as AM did that himself by his own words and actions, long before this crime, in the days leading up to it, and in its aftermath, even when AM knew TB had been murdered, IMO.

DM said about TB's truck to SS in a text: "What truck?" I say to you and others about AM: What character?

When it came to AM speaking about his fear, what I found most compelling was AM's fear for himself in the circumstances he found himself in, after being charged with first degree murder, IMO. AM said he was afraid of MS, yet that assertion did not come across to me as believable as it was not mentioned at all when AM testified that he was in the presence of MS when AM says that DM talked about stealing a truck, IMO, nor when AM talked on the stand about making the drop, IMO. He said earlier that he just didn't want to be near MS or be involved in the crime, and that rang true to me, IMO, because I see AM acting out of self-interest and in protection-from-suspicion mode from the get-go, IMO.

I suspect because AM did not want to get into any trouble with LE if he had been caught making that drop directly to MS, IMO, he had good reason to want to avoid MS if there was drugs and/or gun(s) in the items he was dropping in MS's girlfriend's or her sister's "hood", IMO. At no point that I recall did AM suggest that he had felt frightened by MS, rather AM said he felt angry at DM supposedly for DM's intention to steal a truck, IMO, and that to me sounds rather unlikely given that AM himself had on previous occasions participated in thefts and knew about others (Harley) and AM knew what DM was all about, IMO. Why was this particular theft the kind that would suddenly inspire anger from AM? It sounds to me like that would have been a first for AM to challenge DM over a theft, and since AM said too on the stand that he found DM intimidating. AM is likely selectively scared and intimidated by DM and/or MS now, when in the past he eagerly went along to aid and abet other crimes with them without so much as raising a brow in concern, IMO.

From my perspective, TD made his points very clear regarding AM. I wonder how the jury will interpret AM and his testimony?

All MOO.

 

[mimimic]

Ditto to Claroon

 

[Claroon]

Maybe Pedo has it.

One day Pedo will dig it up for us. :wolf:

 

[Abitcountry]

-I understand that the sentence for murder in the first is 25 years.....In this particular case, is there the possibility of any additional charges such as indignity to a body.....theft of the truck and other sentences that could be added tho the initial 25 years ???

-CN faces the possibility of significant jail time for her involvement in this case as an accessory......of course.

-Is there any possibility of charges and jail time for Hagerman, Michalski and any other of the lookouts and thieves who participated in the 'missions' ?? And what of MM?
Is there any possibility that Schlatman could face charges for aiding in hiding the red Dodge truck....receiving stolen goods at the hangar...or any other major or minute infraction for that matter that is related to his job at the hangar?

-When LW the bookkeeper was on the witness stand her testimony had many suspecting that she may be guilty of perjury....is there any chance that that may be persued when this trial is completed?

It is my profound hope that every possible charge be charged and convictions sought for all the characters who participated in this sick drama whether it be midnight missions or idiotic lies and fabrications or perjury ......no stone unturned.

 

[paris_paris]

I don't fully understand all of the May 7 iPad messages yet. The "baby" message at 1:33am is reported to be an incoming message to the iPad. Is it from Meneses? There's another incoming message that says "yo it's mark, you home?" Is that a reporter error? I would guess that it should be an outgoing message to Meneses. Regardless, I don't know what time it was sent so have left it off the timeline.

Another message is outgoing, "Yo I'm coming home now". The time was 7:50am. This is the only one I've added to the timeline for now. Hopefully we'll get an extraction report so I can get the exact times and add all of the messages properly.

Here's an example...

I have an iPhone, iPad, and iMac. If you send me a message and my phone is shut off, the messages will still go to the iPad and iMac.

edit... think I misunderstood your question... "yo, it's Mark" was an outgoing message at 2:27 a.m.
These were all to/from the iPad though? Did he turn his phone off, but take his iPad with him?
The incoming messages make sense to me, but not the outgoing messages.

 

[brightii]

I think DM had been grooming AM for a bigger position in his plans for a while. He alludes to missions he can choose, without being specific, allowing him to determine just how dirty AM was willing to get. When he asked which truck he should steal, I think he was testing AM. It appears AM may have been okay with business theft but drew a line when it got too personal with individual owners. DM seemed very tight lipped about the mission after AM told him to F******f. He kept answers to a minimum because he knew AM was not into it.

That's very possible, and while I don't agree, you could be right. Thank you for sharing your take on things!

PS Errrr Can you please edit your response to me. Somehow when you snipped it a weird link appears in the centre of it that was not a part of my original post. Thank you.

All MOO.

 

[mimimic]

I actually thought that TD was strategically probing and simultaneously restrained in his cross of AM, and I thought TD was highly effective today, IMO.

TD didn't need to highlight AM's character flaws as AM did that himself by his own words and actions, long before this crime, in the days leading up to it, and in its aftermath, even when AM knew TB had been murdered, IMO.

DM said about TB's truck to SS in a text: "What truck?" I say to you and others about AM: What character?

When it came to AM speaking about his fear, what I found most compelling was AM's fear for himself in the circumstances he found himself in, after being charged with first degree murder, IMO. AM said he was afraid of MS, yet that assertion did not come across to me as believable as it was not mentioned at all when AM testified that he was in the presence of MS when AM says that DM talked about stealing a truck, IMO, nor when AM talked on the stand about making the drop, IMO. He said earlier that he just didn't want to be near MS or be involved in the crime, and that rang true to me, IMO, because I see AM acting out of self-interest and in protection-from-suspicion mode from the get-go, IMO.

I suspect because AM did not want to get into any trouble with LE if he had been caught making that drop directly to MS, IMO, he had good reason to want to avoid MS if there was drugs and/or gun(s) in the items he was dropping in MS's girlfriend's or her sister's "hood", IMO. At no point that I recall did AM suggest that he had felt frightened by MS, rather AM said he felt angry at DM supposedly for DM's intention to steal a truck, IMO, and that to me sounds rather unlikely given that AM himself had on previous occasions participated in thefts and knew about others (Harley) and AM knew what DM was all about, IMO. Why was this particular theft the kind that would suddenly inspire anger from AM? It sounds to me like that would have been a first for AM to challenge DM over a theft, and since AM said too on the stand that he found DM intimidating. AM is likely selectively scared and intimidated by DM and/or MS now, when in the past he eagerly went along to aid and abet other crimes with them without so much as raising a brow in concern, IMO.

From my perspective, TD made his points very clear regarding AM. I wonder how the jury will interpret AM and his testimony?

All MOO.

yeah what brightii said here and here. WHY is right! ( i hope my bolding the text works)

 

[Webulls]

s

There are several reasonable alternatives to premeditation to murder that are covered by 'bring a change of clothes'. If you read back you'll see that that element is what I have focused on in this discussion. I'm talking about that kind of evidence and the weight I would give it. There remains IMO significantly more knowable facts that argue against premeditation in this case than argue for it. And I will say again that the men are not charged with first degree murder based on premeditation, nor is premeditation laid in the Crown's roadmap. I think then it's fairly reasonable to conclude that there is in fact an interpretation of the facts that reasonably concludes this may not have been premeditated murder?

<modsnip> Arguing against the totality of evidence that strongly suggests premeditated murder, is just playing devil's advocate for arguments sake. Sure, you're entitled to have doubts and questions. I don't have issues with that. I'm confident, however, that the jury will deliberate for less than one hour and come back with murder1 for both of these lowlifes.

 

[Claroon]

-I understand that the sentence for murder in the first is 25 years.....In this particular case, is there the possibility of any additional charges such as indignity to a body.....theft of the truck and other sentences that could be added tho the initial 25 years ???

-CN faces the possibility of significant jail time for her involvement in this case as an accessory......of course.

-Is there any possibility of charges and jail time for Hagerman, Michalski and any other of the lookouts and thieves who participated in the 'missions' ?? And what of MM?
Is there any possibility that Schlatman could face charges for aiding in hiding the red Dodge truck....receiving stolen goods at the hangar...or any other major or minute infraction for that matter that is related to his job at the hangar?

-When LW the bookkeeper was on the witness stand her testimony had many suspecting that she may be guilty of perjury....is there any chance that that may be persued when this trial is completed?

It is my profound hope that every possible charge be charged and convictions sought for all the characters who participated in this sick drama whether it be midnight missions or idiotic lies and fabrications or perjury ......no stone unturned.

And what about texting while driving? (Okay I am (respectfully) joking) Yeah! Nail those dudes for everything possible! IMO :gasp:

 

[Alethea Dice]

I don't fully understand all of the May 7 iPad messages yet. The "baby" message at 1:33am is reported to be an incoming message to the iPad. Is it from Meneses? There's another incoming message that says "yo it's mark, you home?" Is that a reporter error? I would guess that it should be an outgoing message to Meneses. Regardless, I don't know what time it was sent so have left it off the timeline.

Another message is outgoing, "Yo I'm coming home now". The time was 7:50am. This is the only one I've added to the timeline for now. Hopefully we'll get an extraction report so I can get the exact times and add all of the messages properly.

Lisa Hepfner &#8207;@HefCHCHNews 46s46 seconds ago
May 7 2013, 1:33 am incoming message "Baby." Then at 2:27 outgoing "you it's mark, you home?"

 

[Claroon]

Lisa Hepfner &#8207;@HefCHCHNews 46s46 seconds ago
May 7 2013, 1:33 am incoming message "Baby." Then at 2:27 outgoing "you it's mark, you home?"

AdamCarter "Then another incoming from another device that reads "yo it's mark, you home?"

"Back looking at messages from May 7. One incoming message to the iPad that reads "baby."

 

[SnooperDuper]

Looks like the debate here has died off a lot. Something over the last week - AM's dramatic testimony, or MS's text messages, turned the page for most.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Not for Tim, but i wonder if they went on a different 'mission" after IT. cause why the waking in pain at 3 am?

That must have been some big hangover. Maybe AM was right when he used the work "sick" instead of "hangover".

 

[Stumper]

First time poster. I was a friend of Wayne, employee of Carl and had met DM several times while he was a child. I would love to think he is innocent of this.. The most damning aspect of this Imo his reaction after the fact. Seem's significantly proofed that he was there. Myself, and I think 99.999% of people would be a wreck if they had accidentally killed someone (even in self defence). The one Constant throughout all the self serving (protecting) testimony is that Dellen wasn't rattled even a bit.. I reluctantly have a hard time believing it was an unplanned or accidental murder

 

[SnooperDuper]

That must have been some big hangover. Maybe AM was right when he used the work "sick" instead of "hangover".

IT never testified that MS looked sick. I think they chickened out and IT will have the best bar story ever.

 

[Webulls]

<modsnip> Arguing against the totality of evidence that strongly suggests premeditated murder, is just playing devil's advocate for arguments sake. Sure, you're entitled to have doubts and questions. I don't have issues with that. I'm confident, however, that the jury will deliberate for less than one hour and come back with murder1 for both of these lowlifes.

Looks like the debate here has died off a lot. Something over the last week - AM's dramatic testimony, or MS's text messages, turned the page for most.

Did not have to wait for AM's testimony or MS's text messages. Once science confirmed DM's fingerprints were in TBs truck and TB's truck was found on MB's driveway, that's all that was really needed. All other evidence was just one layer of proof on top of another. Unnecessary really, but required to make sure the key can be thrown away forever once these two pukes get locked up.

 

[Gibson67]

IT never testified that MS looked sick. I think they chickened out and IT will have the best bar story ever.

wasn't it the morning of the 6th he was hungover..so got drunk after the test drive?

 

[JuneBug67]

-I understand that the sentence for murder in the first is 25 years.....In this particular case, is there the possibility of any additional charges such as indignity to a body.....theft of the truck and other sentences that could be added tho the initial 25 years ???

-CN faces the possibility of significant jail time for her involvement in this case as an accessory......of course.

-Is there any possibility of charges and jail time for Hagerman, Michalski and any other of the lookouts and thieves who participated in the 'missions' ?? And what of MM?
Is there any possibility that Schlatman could face charges for aiding in hiding the red Dodge truck....receiving stolen goods at the hangar...or any other major or minute infraction for that matter that is related to his job at the hangar?

-When LW the bookkeeper was on the witness stand her testimony had many suspecting that she may be guilty of perjury....is there any chance that that may be persued when this trial is completed?

It is my profound hope that every possible charge be charged and convictions sought for all the characters who participated in this sick drama whether it be midnight missions or idiotic lies and fabrications or perjury ......no stone unturned.

I think a significant challenge becomes how does the crown make some of these cases? People have a right to not self-incriminate and none of their testimony here can be used as evidence against them. Do their police statements become tantamount to confessions or are those protected too? I don't know. The Crown is always mindful of the likelihood of conviction, the public purse and the wider interests of justice. It's possible that they would conclude that the right balance has been served by the public shaming of these individuals. They've had to very publicly admit being theives, liars and self-interested cowards. Beyond that the Cown may feel it risks costly, uncertain convictions and sending a message that cooperating with police gets you publicly shamed and criminally charged. They've had three years to charge them and i think it might be hard to justify it at this point.