AJ also testified that carpets and such were pulled from cars so it wasn't unusual to see as DM said he was allergic to mold. Yes MS story lines up that he didn't care about a mess as the interior would be stripper regardless. The other areas could easily be cleaned with a hose and soap.
Bosma Murder Trial 05.18.16 - Day 51
- Thread starter Sillybilly
- Start date
-
CANADA Canada - Darius Macdougall, 5, Crowsnest Pass, Alberta,Canada 21 Sept 2025- Latest: inmyhumbleopinion
- Status
AJ also testified that carpets and such were pulled from cars so it wasn't unusual to see as DM said he was allergic to mold. Yes MS story lines up that he didn't care about a mess as the interior would be stripper regardless. The other areas could easily be cleaned with a hose and soap.
Mrs. M
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Oct 2, 2015
- Messages
- 250
- Reaction score
- 1,884
Once a defendant takes the stand they are "fair game", everything about them, including their criminal history.
Which is why so many do not, including DM IMO.
MOO
There's lots of credible reasons but if he didn't testify to them he's going to get a massive wallop with Sachak's timeline, which will make much more sense than his and put him the truck for an extra few critical minutes and suggest his accounting of getting right into the Yukon after the Bosma's is a lie.
So is NS suggesting that DM was dangling the Cadillac carrot over MS's head for over a year? You'll get the Cadillac when I get my diesel truck that you help me steal? Which was also an issue because neither MS nor MM could register the vehicle in their name without a license. So DM would have let them use it, uninsured, while it was still under his name? So basically, this pretend deal was for DM to lend MS the Cadillac to drive to Calgary? And if they had gotten into an accident, with no insurance, ownership or license between them, would DM have told LE that they stole it from him? Not much of a deal for MS.
:waitasec:
MO
:waitasec:
MO
Stephen King writes in the third person. MS raps in the first person.
MrsThreadgoode
Member
- Joined
- Jun 14, 2011
- Messages
- 921
- Reaction score
- 22
FWIW ... An interesting Walrus magazine article about rap lyrics used as evidence in trials in Canada, with mention of this trial ...
http://thewalrus.ca/rap-on-trial/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
http://thewalrus.ca/rap-on-trial/
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 41,751
- Reaction score
- 129,344
Justice Goodman said trial will now include Friday, but did he specify if starting this week or next?
brightii
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 1,141
- Reaction score
- 26
Just reading and trying to catch up now. :tyou: to all those who provided the tweets today!
Does anyone wonder why, if MS's story is true, DM would have trusted MS to follow him while driving alone with DM's dog in the Yukon AFTER TB was killed by DM? Would it not occur to DM that MS may try to take a detour and escape or that he might call the police? Was that not extremely presumptuous of DM to expect that MS would follow him with no questions asked? Why would DM expect MS to protect him or assist him in the clean up afterwards if this wasn't part of a pre-arranged plan? If MS didn't know about a plan to murder the truck owner, or at the very least a plan to try and overpower TB so that DM and MS could take the truck, then I see no reason why MS would have followed DM to the farm and later the hangar and even less that DM would have simply expected MS to. That's expecting a lot IMO and I think it's highly unlikely. I'd think it very unusual for DM to place that much trust in MS without having had some sort of conversation with MS, if not prior to the murder immediately afterwards, at least about what had happened and why and perhaps then making an impassioned plea for help. MS says DM just said he's taking the truck and directed MS to change the plates of TB's truck and MS just goes along? Why?
I believe so strongly that both DM and MS both knew the plan whatever the plan was - and we'll likely never hear the the true details of it. That one or both accused were armed with a gun and whether or not they planned ahead to kill TB, they were prepared that at least one of them, if not both, would use a gun to at the very least threaten TB with, is more believable to me than any tall tale MS or DM puts forth. No matter which one shot TB, or if they both did, that they are both guilty as charged IMO.
All MOO.
Does anyone wonder why, if MS's story is true, DM would have trusted MS to follow him while driving alone with DM's dog in the Yukon AFTER TB was killed by DM? Would it not occur to DM that MS may try to take a detour and escape or that he might call the police? Was that not extremely presumptuous of DM to expect that MS would follow him with no questions asked? Why would DM expect MS to protect him or assist him in the clean up afterwards if this wasn't part of a pre-arranged plan? If MS didn't know about a plan to murder the truck owner, or at the very least a plan to try and overpower TB so that DM and MS could take the truck, then I see no reason why MS would have followed DM to the farm and later the hangar and even less that DM would have simply expected MS to. That's expecting a lot IMO and I think it's highly unlikely. I'd think it very unusual for DM to place that much trust in MS without having had some sort of conversation with MS, if not prior to the murder immediately afterwards, at least about what had happened and why and perhaps then making an impassioned plea for help. MS says DM just said he's taking the truck and directed MS to change the plates of TB's truck and MS just goes along? Why?
I believe so strongly that both DM and MS both knew the plan whatever the plan was - and we'll likely never hear the the true details of it. That one or both accused were armed with a gun and whether or not they planned ahead to kill TB, they were prepared that at least one of them, if not both, would use a gun to at the very least threaten TB with, is more believable to me than any tall tale MS or DM puts forth. No matter which one shot TB, or if they both did, that they are both guilty as charged IMO.
All MOO.
Typhoo1961
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 951
- Reaction score
- 192
I guess we'll find out this Friday.
brightii
New Member
- Joined
- Feb 25, 2016
- Messages
- 1,141
- Reaction score
- 26
- Joined
- May 23, 2013
- Messages
- 121
- Reaction score
- 7
This honestly makes me think he's telling the truth. If he were listening to previous testimony, and adapting his version of events to what they say, he would have said they pulled in, dropped him off and both vehicles pulled back out - is it would have been collaborated with the story from the gentleman walking his dog. IIRC the gentleman said at the time, he thought the vehicles may have been dumping garbage, but didn't think much of it til police reports of Mr Bosma missing. He knows he saw both vehicles, maybe just mis-remembered where on the road they were/what they were doing
- Joined
- May 23, 2013
- Messages
- 121
- Reaction score
- 7
This would explain it too..it being a rural area, (that I'm not familiar with) perhaps the road was not wide enough for DM to make the U turn, so he did a 3/point turn, backing into the field then pulling out?
Perhaps DM pulled out a gun earlier before he dropped MS off, then returned to the field to retrieve the Yukon. MS duct tape TB and he followed in the Yukon. We know TB s blood and gun residue was not found in that truck. Then TB gets loose by the Bobcat place. DM. Shoots:jail:. Imo there's no way, you can just drop MS off and TB is just dazzled by DM. So parts of MS story holds truth, but other parts fall apart.
Other thoughts when LE combed the Yukon, they did find evidence of blood, but belonged to LB. ? Incinerator was used before ? LB ?
Re: lie detectors - Psychopaths would naturally do well wouldn't they (just a guess because maybe lies don't affect them physiologically?)
so I assume that DM could beat the polygraph.
Typhoo1961
Active Member
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2016
- Messages
- 951
- Reaction score
- 192
Have you tried getting loose with duct tape wrapped around your wrists? I would think it would be next to impossible.
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 19,666
- Reaction score
- 151,879
Just now catching up from this afternoon. Some random thoughts:
Sachack pretending to not understand the friend/Tim Horton's story is 100% BS in my opinion. He knew exactly what MS had said earlier as to why the Yukon was in the laneway to the field. According to MS, it was Sachak's own client who came up with the "oh golly gee, my fake invisible magical friend cannot seem to find the local Timmies, they're parked right down the road here!" Sachak knew all that and yet he's pulling this crap about the friend looking for a Tim Hortons in a field. The fact that he's doing that tells me he has absolutely nothing else, and yet he's actually attempting to convince the jury MS is lying about a strawman argument he himself (Sachak) is presenting. In a sense, he's deliberating misrepresenting what MS has already said. MS never said this fake friend was looking for a Timmies in a field, he said DM told them his "friend" couldn't find it, and was parked nearby (not an actual quote, but this is what he testified to on the stand). This tells me, Sachak has absolutely nothing else to use.
While I find MS's version of what went down that night believable, I'm still on the fence as to whether he knew DM had a gun on him, or how much he actually knew in advance. DM strikes me as the type to only disclose details to his "friends" as he sees fit.
Sachak bringing up MS criminal history has one seriously HUGE THING missing: MS does not have a violent criminal history. DM on the other hand, while never convicted (yet), has been charged in THREE murders. One of which, his own father, for crying out loud. All of MS criminal history is petty crap in comparison to shooting a man in cold blood. Failure to comply, tagging, possession, and then the DUI. Even though MS is also charged in LB's case, his prior criminal history, prior to meeting DM is 100% absent of any violence. I know the jury can't use DM's pending charges/murder cases in their deliberations on this case but it sure stands out to me.
all the above is moo, imo & various/sundry disclaimers, fwiw
Sachack pretending to not understand the friend/Tim Horton's story is 100% BS in my opinion. He knew exactly what MS had said earlier as to why the Yukon was in the laneway to the field. According to MS, it was Sachak's own client who came up with the "oh golly gee, my fake invisible magical friend cannot seem to find the local Timmies, they're parked right down the road here!" Sachak knew all that and yet he's pulling this crap about the friend looking for a Tim Hortons in a field. The fact that he's doing that tells me he has absolutely nothing else, and yet he's actually attempting to convince the jury MS is lying about a strawman argument he himself (Sachak) is presenting. In a sense, he's deliberating misrepresenting what MS has already said. MS never said this fake friend was looking for a Timmies in a field, he said DM told them his "friend" couldn't find it, and was parked nearby (not an actual quote, but this is what he testified to on the stand). This tells me, Sachak has absolutely nothing else to use.
While I find MS's version of what went down that night believable, I'm still on the fence as to whether he knew DM had a gun on him, or how much he actually knew in advance. DM strikes me as the type to only disclose details to his "friends" as he sees fit.
Sachak bringing up MS criminal history has one seriously HUGE THING missing: MS does not have a violent criminal history. DM on the other hand, while never convicted (yet), has been charged in THREE murders. One of which, his own father, for crying out loud. All of MS criminal history is petty crap in comparison to shooting a man in cold blood. Failure to comply, tagging, possession, and then the DUI. Even though MS is also charged in LB's case, his prior criminal history, prior to meeting DM is 100% absent of any violence. I know the jury can't use DM's pending charges/murder cases in their deliberations on this case but it sure stands out to me.
all the above is moo, imo & various/sundry disclaimers, fwiw
ILoveDateline
New Member
- Joined
- May 2, 2016
- Messages
- 648
- Reaction score
- 52
I'm hoping this works for me. I don't think this Tweet made it into today's thread.
Court will sit Fridays from now on. Including this Friday and likely next. #TimBosma
Check out @HefCHCHNews's Tweet: https://twitter.com/HefCHCHNews/status/733025176816889861?s=01
In the absence of the LB case, and under MS's story where he had no foreknowledge of murder, you would think DM would wonder if MS would continue to follow.
So I agree with you that the fact that DM trusted MS to follow at the minimum seems to suggest that the murder plan was known by MS.
However one scenario for DM to trust an 'unaware' MS would be if DM's huge ego allowed him to believe that the bond between them was rock solid and/or a belief that MS would never risk prison time for theft/drug offences he was already guilty of.
If if we add in LB (assuming MS is complicit as charged) then DM would be absolutely confident that MS would follow (I.e. He seems not to have anticipated MS's testimony in the Bosma trial)
- Status
Similar threads
Online statistics
- Members online
- 116
- Guests online
- 1,454
- Total visitors
- 1,570