Bosma Murder Trial 05.11.16 - Day 47 - Smich Defence commences

[Errrr]

I would like to add my thoughts to that .... MS said killing DM was not part of the original plan .... they were only supposed to "scope it out" .... fine ..... but in order to make that stick , Mark is going to have to tell the court exactly what the original plan was ..... ie: how were they going to steal the truck after they scoped it out ?

He is in deep trouble if he does not come up with a totally convincing detailed "original plan" (no killing involved) .... and for the life of me I cannot imagine what it could be ..... I am sure they did not have a duplicate key making machine with them ..... and if they were to come back later to winch it into a trailer they would not need to expose themselves to a test drive first.

I hope MS realizes he has some big blanks to fill in if his testimony is to be believed.

I sure do give him credit for his live confession , even if it is biased in his favor much of it sounds authentic.

It is my opinion that when MS tells a lie or half truth DM smiles.

 

[artemis17]

While many here point out inconsistencies in MS's testimony, it always seemed a bit strange how MS distanced himself from DM after they completed phase one of the mission. Yes, MS did help DM a few times, but DM really took ownership of the cleanup. DM also continued with his plan to morph the truck on the 8th when he called the body shop to have it rush painted.

MS will need to address what DM meant by an all nighter, that he texted to CN. It sure sounded like MM was not expecting an all nighter, but AM didn't sound surprised.

Hopefully he will have to answer to the following:

They need to ask him about when he bolted by BD after DM dropped MS off. Was this when he was dropped off with the red truck towing the trailer and DM was panicking about AJ calling CS? Always wondered why DM got CN involved in the remainder of the mission that night? It could be as simple as DM not wanting the cleanup by two suspects fitting the description.

What did MS mean when he said he f-uped?

Of course they also need to ask about the 'fireworks' text and the photos of the furniture and sausage.

Also, what did he ask AM to bring? MS's defence team has already gone past that point, but cross will most likely pick over this one. IIRC, it was a voice call and therefore he said, he said, about bringing that other thing. To be fair, it was a leading question about "the thing".

molly hayesVerified account ‏@mollyhayes 3m3 minutes ago
Sachak: Smich wants those drugs in Dell's house. And he wants "the thing" that Hagerman had.
Michalski: yes sir. #Bosma

And AM said this to the crown.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 39s39 seconds ago
Smich wanted him to "meet up with Hagerman and he wanted whatever I had and whatever Hagerman had brought to him the next day." #Bosma

MS needs to address this, although many here thought AM was lying about this request at the time. There is no text proof as to the exchange, it's MS's word versus AM's.

One last thing he needs to address from mission prep texts, Tape, gloves, and Orange guy.

MOO

The whole "all nighter" thing could simply have been in terms of trying to swap the vin and all that stuff might seem a bit off considering we know why it was a all nighter now though.

 

[canadiangirl]

Lol, you must look shady

Absolutely! When you are going over just for the day to stock up on kids school supplies and groceries you must be the person they are looking for lol

Seems ironic how many people get waved through especially after hearing from the poster who was the former border patrol DM likely wouldn't have raised any issues even with the truck being stolen

 

[MsSherlock]

Jury is out on MS. I still think he's brought nothing new to the table and just filling in what we already know. I'll wait to see how he does with the rest of his story and the cross. So far.. Not buying it. Parts of it I believe to be true but these were parts we already knew. IMO

All comments are JMO unless stated otherwise

The fact is that up until MS got on the stand we didn't have a story- did we? Sure we had our own speculation, but IMHO, we shouldn't put our armchair speculation above what is being said on the witness stand- especially when there's evidence that collaborates with what the guy is saying. IMHO, what MS said yesterday makes perfect sense. Also, taking DM's personality into consideration, it doesn't surprise me one bit that MS saw a lunatic putting a gun in his satchel while he was walking towards the Yukon followed by the discovery of a dead TB. Sure, that's not how I may have been playing the whole plot out in my mind, but what MS said under oath on the stand trumps any thoughts that I may have had. If it fits in with the evidence the Crown has brought forward, it becomes even more believable to me. IMHO, we can't cast judgement on MS's testimony until it's tested under cross examination, but so far, I didn't know for certain a lot of what he told the court yesterday. This is why we have trials. MOO

 

[Juballee]

IMHO, if what MS is saying is the truth, it will hold water under cross examination and may even put some of the puzzle pieces in place. I don't have as much confidence in MS as I do in TD. I had never heard of TD prior to this trial, but from TD's cross examinations, it seems he has a real knack for knowing who he's dealing with. At the same time, he's a criminal defence lawyer- his client is not obligated to testify, yet TD has MS up on the stand. I'd be somewhat surprised if MS was chomping at the bit to take the stand and try to run with a lie to save his butt. I just don't believe MS has that level of confidence and I don't believe that TD would let him do it. However, I do believe that TD would assess a situation and tell his client to get up there and tell the truth. Instead of the story line going down in history as 2 psychopaths out for a thrill kill, it may very well be one spoiled, brat, rich kid psycho having a psychotic episode because he wanted a truck and wasn't going to wait any longer. IMHO, it's the latter. DM has not only left a trail of dead people, he has sucked out the life of many of the living. His tatt's should read "Sent from Hell" rather than "Heaven Sent".

If MS is telling the truth, there's nothing that DM's team or the Crown can say to change it. IMHO, the Bosma family have been strong in their faith with hopes of getting the truth-IMO, they're going to get it, whether or not any of us accept it is another story- at the end of the day, it's really up to the 12 people sitting in the Jury seats. I have no interest in seeing a guilty person walk free nor do I have an interest in seeing an innocent person incarcerated for life. I just want justice for TB. MOO

If MS is telling the truth, why is he charged in LB's murder too? Wouldn't he have distanced himself from DM then instead of waiting until after another couple of murders?

TD is doing his job, and his job is to try to minimize the impact on his client. He saw an opportunity when DM's defence declined and he took it, I see no special skill in that personally, that's just the job he is supposed to do. Let's not forget, MS has had almost 3 years to perfect his lies and hone his acting skills. Something tells me that if DM had testified, it would have been almost exactly the same story, but with MS doing the killing.

 

[Velma]

<rsbm> and that explains the floorboard with blood we saw coming out of the barn

All comments are JMO unless stated otherwise

Apologies if this has already been discussed but I'm catching up. I always thought the wide board was driven onto, then it looks like the blood dripped and ran down and pooled around a tire. I had posted it ages ago but I don't think anyone was with me. Does it seem more probable now?

 

[SnooperDuper]

Must be something wrong on your computer ..... I have been reading every single post on this thread over the past 6 hours and every post (and quote) was just fine.

That's because SB has been fixing stuff. Sorry SB, I will start alerting on broken stuff I see. There seemed to be too much so I ignored it. oops.

 

[SnooperDuper]

The only reason Smich started to distance himself from Millard is because my the morning of the 8th the story was front page news. The writing was on the wall!

I just can't believe how many people here are buying what this guy says hook line and sinker. A week ago we wanted to hang this guy based on hard evidence. He hasn't addresses any of that evidence and has just spun a sketchy tail that casts himself as the naive dolt, and people are actually buying it!

Ask yourself why, if they were supposedly just going to scope out a truck, why MM begged him not to go? Ask yourself exactly how they were going to steal that truck? Smich said they failed at hot-wiring, and they didn't bring a trailer, and if these were the options, why show your face to the owner? If the plan was not to kill Bosma, why not force him out at the field? If they weren't going to steal the truck, why did they bring plates? I could go on and on.

Lastly, Smich testifies that Millard turns in to Mr Hyde, angry and scary. From testimony we have heard from witnesses Millard is described as the easy going, even tempered one, while its Smich that is describe as having the scary, angry temper.

I'm with you, andreww

 

[Nosey Parker]

I won't be surprised if Goodman allows DM to testify, or call witnesses, now, as a protection against future appeal. Scum though he obviously is, DM has the right under law to face his accusers, and MS has now become an accuser. IMO.

 

[Juballee]

The fact is that up until MS got on the stand we didn't have a story- did we? Sure we had our own speculation, but IMHO, we shouldn't put our armchair speculation above what is being said on the witness stand- especially when there's evidence that collaborates with what the guy is saying. IMHO, what MS said yesterday makes perfect sense. Also, taking DM's personality into consideration, it doesn't surprise me one bit that MS saw a lunatic putting a gun in his satchel while he was walking towards the Yukon followed by the discovery of a dead TB. Sure, that's not how I may have been playing the whole plot out in my mind, but what MS said under oath on the stand trumps any thoughts that I may have had. If it fits in with the evidence the Crown has brought forward, it becomes even more believable to me. IMHO, we can't cast judgement on MS's testimony until it's tested under cross examination, but so far, I didn't know for certain a lot of what he told the court yesterday. This is why we have trials. MOO

Where did the satchel come from? How did it get from the Yukon to the Ram?

When SB testified there was no mention of one of the men wearing a purse or even carrying a bag. I've lived in the country, and from my knowledge, they are not as up on the metrosexual look as those who live in the city, and when country folk see a man wearing a purse, they notice it. The fact that she didn't notice one, says a lot in my opinion.

Personally I see a lot of holes in MS's story so far. I can't wait to hear the cross examinations by RP and the crown.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I read an article once that said women understand directions when based on landmarks; go about 5 minutes and turn left at the car dealership. And men do better with quantitative directions; it's 5kms south on the NW corner of x and x. I'm a woman and call my hubby all the time lost and looking for help. If it weren't for the compass on the dash, I'd never get any help. He asks me which way I'm travelling and I say "I just past a Pita Pit on the right, does that help?" it doesn't [emoji20].

In uni I was an assistant to a psych prof who studied exactly that!

 

[SnooperDuper]

If MS is telling the truth, why is he charged in LB's murder too? Wouldn't he have distanced himself from DM then instead of waiting until after another couple of murders?

TD is doing his job, and his job is to try to minimize the impact on his client. He saw an opportunity when DM's defence declined and he took it, I see no special skill in that personally, that's just the job he is supposed to do. Let's not forget, MS has had almost 3 years to perfect his lies and hone his acting skills. Something tells me that if DM had testified, it would have been almost exactly the same story, but with MS doing the killing.

Yes, they are both prepared to lie their asses off.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

It is my opinion that when MS tells a lie or half truth DM smiles.

I don't think I've heard from reporters that DM was smiling yesterday.

Everthing DM has done through this trial, IMO, has been for attention. I'm not sure I'd rely too much on DM'S halfcocked smile. Heck, he smiled for his mugshot photo!

 

[SnooperDuper]

Where did the satchel come from? How did it get from the Yukon to the Ram?

When SB testified there was no mention of one of the men wearing a purse or even carrying a bag. I've lived in the country, and from my knowledge, they are not as up on the metrosexual look as those who live in the city, and when country folk see a man wearing a purse, they notice it. The fact that she didn't notice one, says a lot in my opinion.

Personally I see a lot of holes in MS's story so far. I can't wait to hear the cross examinations by RP and the crown.

Somehow I don't think the satchel detail exculpates DM.

Welcome back Juballee, anyway.

 

[Juballee]

Yes, they are both prepared to lie their asses off.

Agreed. I wonder why MS sat behind the driver on both test drives?

And why there is no mention of him breaching the no contact order with MM? Did she burn her letters?

Why was he wearing his hoodie up on a nice night?

Why aren't his fingerprints on anything?

Damn, I still have so many unanswered questions!

 

[Inspector_North]

From day #1 of the trial.


Nicole Martin &#8207;@nmartinCHCH 13s13 seconds ago
Jury must make decision based on evidence as a whole. Judge asks jury to make decision based on evidence not sympathy. @CHCHNews

 

[canadiangirl]

The fact is that up until MS got on the stand we didn't have a story- did we? Sure we had our own speculation, but IMHO, we shouldn't put our armchair speculation above what is being said on the witness stand- especially when there's evidence that collaborates with what the guy is saying. IMHO, what MS said yesterday makes perfect sense. Also, taking DM's personality into consideration, it doesn't surprise me one bit that MS saw a lunatic putting a gun in his satchel while he was walking towards the Yukon followed by the discovery of a dead TB. Sure, that's not how I may have been playing the whole plot out in my mind, but what MS said under oath on the stand trumps any thoughts that I may have had. If it fits in with the evidence the Crown has brought forward, it becomes even more believable to me. IMHO, we can't cast judgement on MS's testimony until it's tested under cross examination, but so far, I didn't know for certain a lot of what he told the court yesterday. This is why we have trials. MOO

Some of it fits yes. Conveniently maybe? Saw an opportunity and took it and crafted it to be his own defense. After all DM was thinking of doing the exact same thing as we heard. Definitely trying to make himself look good IMO.

Is it the truth? Guess the jury will decide. I don't envy them at all. Just because it's come out of his mouth I don't take it as gospel.

Dellen's version in the letters probably would have sounded believable and "fit" as well had he taken the stand. After all they likely both have been "rehearsing" for this very moment. The advantage MS has here is MS seized the moment and DM did not. At this point I feel he is trying to "beat him at his own game" so to speak.
Notice conveniently MS glazed over some very important parts at this point.

Until the full testimony and cross are completed, we'll see how well his story holds up.

Lots of questions still to be answered JMO

ETA further to this, does that mean that every witness just because they have taken the stand is truthful "if it fits the evidence" ? We already assumed SS was lying about his involvement or at least how much he knew. Seems MS poked holes in that. He was more involved then he let on if you believe Smitch

 

[SnooperDuper]

molly hayes &#8207;@mollyhayes 6m6 minutes ago
Back in court. Long lineup yet again outside courtroom 600 as the #Bosma trial continues. Accused killer Mark Smich to be back on the stand.

molly hayes &#8207;@mollyhayes 4m4 minutes ago
molly hayes Retweeted Hamilton Spectator
Here's what we heard from Mark Smich's testimony yesterday:
#Bosma

Hamilton Spectator &#8207;@TheSpec
&#8216;I did not kill Mr. #Bosma,&#8217; Smich testifies, Dellen did it he says #HamOnt @mollyhayes http://bit.ly/24ReVR4

Susan Clairmont &#8207;@susanclairmont 2m2 minutes ago
Accused killer Mark Smich back under examination in chief today at the Tim #Bosma murder trial. #HamOnt

 

[Juballee]

Somehow I don't think the satchel detail exculpates DM.

Welcome back Juballee, anyway.

I don't think anything is going to exculpate either one of them, I'm just wishing the pieces would fit the puzzle. If DM had his man purse the whole time, why doesn't SB or her tenant remember seeing it? It is such an unusual accessory on a man, especially out in the country, I find it impossible to believe that if he was wearing one, that both witnesses missed it.

That would mean MS is lying about DM already having it, in my opinion. Why would he lie if not to cover for the logical idea that he was the one with a gun in his giant hoodie?

And didn't DM have a holster? Why would he keep his gun in his purse when he had a holster that we have to assume was for occasions like this, it was meant for carrying a gun. Personally, I believe SB's testimony and think that her description was accurate, that there was no man wearing a purse that night.

And thanks, it's good to be back. Just not as good as it is to be gone

 

[canadiangirl]

Apologies if this has already been discussed but I'm catching up. I always thought the wide board was driven onto, then it looks like the blood dripped and ran down and pooled around a tire. I had posted it ages ago but I don't think anyone was with me. Does it seem more probable now?

I agree but someone pointed out it wasn't entered into evidence at this trial.