Bosma Murder Trial 05.19.16 - Day 52

[ABro]

Could you explain what you mean when you say the only direct evidence against DM so far is MS testimony please? Sorry I can't bold from my phone

People often confuse direct evidence with physical evidence. Even fingerprints and DNA are circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence includes eyewitness testimony, in this case MS's witnessing of the crime.

Someone corrected me earlier that I should have said direct evidence against DM on the night of the crime. They were right.

AM's evidence that DM told him he was going to steal a truck is also direct evidence. The witness is telling you directly what happened.

You don't have to make inferences as you do with circumstantial evidence. For example, TB's blood was found on the incinerator. From that and the other relevant evidence, you can infer he was incinerated -- although there are some people who refuse to draw that conclusion on the crazier chatboards.

 

[deugirtni]

He could have gotten back on the 403 Westbound and not taken Wilson, IMO.

Except, here is DM's defence lawyer telling DM's version of events, and Wilson he said it was. Are we to disbelieve his own testimony?

 

[Prairie_dawg]

...I would also LOVE to know what ELSE he (DM) wanted the truck for as MS eluded to before being shut down. I wonder if it had to do with the extra compartments in the trailer SS was building...we will probably never know now.

Great post. Thanks.
Can you give us a reference to your last sentence please?

Yesterday MS testified:

Smich mentions "other things" Millard wanted the truck for that he can't get into unless the court allows him. Sachak cautions him. Goodman says that's his job.
by Adam Carter 12:35 PM

(link http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Trial-05-18-16-Day-51&p=12567727#post12567727 )

Then much earlier in the trial when AJ was testifying iirc, he mentioned SS was busy trying to finish a trailer for DM by the May 13 weekend and it was to have some kind of hidden compartments. Its really too far back to find for my forum search skills, I barely caught up here

 

[Claroon]

Except, here is DM's defence lawyer telling DM's version of events, and Wilson he said it was. Are we to disbelieve his own testimony?

Sorry, I didn't read all the tweets today.

ETA: He said exits at Wilson--that's what I meant too--to turn around to go back.

 

[RandomName479]

Back in May 2013 when clues were coming out and discussion was going on I was sure a guy 'like' MS was the murderer. MOO

When DM was arrested, I too fell for the rich guy charm and thought 'wow how odd this guy cant really be involved'. My prejudice on a guy like MS for his rapping, shady sort of lifestyle made me join 'the MS pulling the trigger' line of thinking.

I have now gone 100% the opposite direction and feel, I too was duped by DM and his shenanigans. Too many people kept a blind eye to DM and gave him pass after pass. The letters really did it for me on top of all the other overwhelming evidence. To me DM is a total control freak playing his minions with unfulfilled promises. He gives them crums and keeps them hanging on with dreams that 'ONE DAY' they will finally get what was promised. I feel DM was desperate for the truck and he pulled the trigger VERY close to how MS states but I am not totally convinced about all of MS's testimony. JMO

There is still evasion and cover up to some extent but for the most part I think it is sound. I am hoping that the crown can use what we have learned these last four days to get 'some' more of the truth out there. I don't feel 'justice' is served until we get the truth out there at least as much as possible...revenge maybe but not justice. JMO

I find many opportunities where MS could have lied but did not embellish, this makes his story much more believable. He had alot of chances to say he saw the flash or heard the bangs, but he didn't. It is totally plausible with his limited driving experience that he was paying 100% attention on just driving. MOO

I also suspect his lack of driving and unfamiliarity added to his following DM rather than running off to dial 911 as Sachak kept pressing. He was lost out there in the dark and blindly following a set of tail lights for the entire ride to the farm. I do not feel he was getting tripped up at all in questioning, and the only thing that NEVER gets tripped up is the truth. I do feel there is evasion on the loading of the incinerator and the disposal of the gun, both things that could either incriminate MS or get him in more hot water (ie if he loads the incinerator then he gets indignity to a body added to the AATF and 2nd or manslaughter along with theft over 5K, AND if the gun went to MWJ he fears a threat, or the gun was to be made to disappear to avoid evidence for the MWJ trial) JMO

Hopefully DM's team gets it over quick tomorrow morning, I feel for the family and jury, the last four days have been brutal. The crown wont likely start until Tuesday now IMO.

I would also LOVE to know what ELSE he wanted the truck for as MS eluded to before being shut down. I wonder if it had to do with the extra compartments in the trailer SS was building...we will probably never know now.

BBM.....well thought out post. I agree with you 100%.

MS has been on the stand for 6 days (IIRC - and 4 of those were with NS crossing.....so let's call it an even 60) and his story has been consistent.

Some details are being spontaneously added (like Pedo's "fear" of DM on the night of May 6th).

He has testified to some events that we would have known nothing about (like changing the plates on the truck) and why would he make that up? Does nothing for his "story".....

With respect to the SuperSucker video, if MS was concocting a story to fit the evidence, why wouldn't he just say all 3 drove around for a bit and then DM dropped him bacl off with the friend who couldn't find Tim Hortons at the Yukon (yes NS.....we know the Tim Hortons wasn't ACTUALLY in the field).....MS could still say DM was alone in the truck with TB when he was shot. If MS is actually telling the truth, he wouldn't know why a truck with the characteristics of TB's truck drove by the SS at 9:05 and 9:15.

I think that's what is making this so hard for me to evaluate......at times I find MS's memory lapses to be too convenient......like I think when DM stopped in on the 10th there was a memorable conversation. But if he truly doesn't remember the route they took from TB's to the Bobcat Dealership, no matter how many times he is asked, he still wouldn't know.

But like the OP has stated, not seeing any embellishments - noone could disprove him if he said he saw the flash from DM shooting TB.

Unless NS pulls a rabbit out of the magical forest, I think this cross has actually made MS look more credible. No matter what order the questions were asked (or how many times) or in what way they were asked, I can't recall a single time MS has changed his story. And I was beating my head against the wall transcribing the tweets......so I am impressed MS maintained his composure on the stand. He's not telling the whole truth. I believe that. And I believe he has been prepared extremely well by TD.....extremely well....

I think the Crown's cross will be very telling. MS's smart comebacks will not play well. At all. He will need to be extremely respectful with Leitch. The attitude sometimes worked with NS (walt disney.....I actually burst out laughing) but that's because NS has taken so long to get to the point and everyone, including the judge and the clerks and the journalists and WS members were getting tired and frustrated with the convoluted questioning.

I feel for the Bosma's and their friends and family. I want justice for TB. What happened that night was completely senseless and everyone involved should pay the appropriate price. Just because I am leaning towards believing MS's version of events, doesn't mean I don't think he should pay for his part in the crime. I just personally wouldn't be able to find him guilty of 1st degree at this time.

As always, MOO

 

[deugirtni]

Except for the fact that's not what Dr. Robert Gerard, GSR expert, testified.

And except that the GSR expert's testimony was only allowed to be based on GSR evidence, and not on blood spatter, positioning of people, a bullet hole in the window, the bullet casing in the back, or how likely it could be that the front seat passenger wrestled the gun out of the back seat passenger's hand only to accidentally shoot himself in the head with the bullet going straight through his skull and out of the glass in the passenger front window. moo

 

[ABro]

Yes for sure it's up to the jury. I think it may be more of a prejudice against 'goof-ism', no matter the race, color, religion, gender, accent, whatever. I should count how many times he has asked certain single questions. If he is looking for an answer different than what he received, that is disappointing, just as it was disappointing to hear so many 'I don't recalls' from AM and CN, but one can't cut the correct answer out of a witness to say something different than what they offer up. If he doesn't believe him, then call him a liar and move on. I don't think he needs to waste half a day of everyones' time on one or two questions. moo. I guess to each lawyer, his own style, but incessant sarcasm just isn't cutting it either, for many it seems, including myself. I may be mistaken, but I dont' really recall people having this same disdain for RP<modsnip> but who has a different demeanor (from memory). jmo

There's no doubt Sachak's style isn't for everyone and some people will respond to it better/worse than others. It's the level of disdain I find weird.

 

[Claroon]

I was just reading a bit of the tweets I'd missed. With MS implying they didn't take 403, I kind of wondered about that because IMO originally the first "sighting reports" had him going through downtown Brantford. Could that still be the case? Accounting for the 29 min versus 19?

ETA: http://www.thespec.com/news-story/2558160-tim-bosma-search-moves-to-brantford/
"investigators said a witness also spotted the 32-year-old's truck passing through Brantford downtown around 10:10 p.m. Monday." (and yes, I know the time is off)

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Do you have a link?

Perhaps the poster was referring to this article?

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4...ed-bosma-killer-s-girlfriend-was-incinerated/

"A source close to the investigation, who is not authorized to speak publicly, has told The Spectator that police believe Babcock met a similar fate. Her body has not been recovered, the source says."

 

[ABro]

And except that the GSR expert's testimony was only allowed to be based on GSR evidence, and not on blood spatter, positioning of people, a bullet hole in the window, the bullet casing in the back, or how likely it could be that the front seat passenger wrestled the gun out of the back seat passenger's hand only to accidentally shoot himself in the head with the bullet going straight through his skull and out of the glass in the passenger front window. moo

Well the blood spatter expert also wasn't willing to say where the shot came from.

And no one called a shooting reconstructionist. Although it came out during testimony that the blood spatter guy was also a shooting reconstructionist (not qualified to give expert testimony at this trial).

So, it is kind of a little strange that some dude on the internet is prepared to tell us unequivocally what none of the experts did, don't you think?

 

[canadiangirl]

The gun burial that MS can't remember anything about including why he taped it.

The missing SIM cards that MS can't explain. He left almost no electronic trail compared to DM.

MS's mother statement to the police that after DM was arrested he told her now he would no longer get his car.

There are many more examples.

Well I think most of us commented how we felt these same things were conveniently missing from his testimony. However I still don't see it as proof he shot TB. Did he cover up evidence, absolutely. He admitted that. I don't see how having the gun would change anything. Both prints would be on it likely. Or wiped. And it's been said someone shot Tim. So that leaves SIM cards. I'm going to have to go back and research because no one has the answer and I've asked a few times, but IIRC one of the cell phone experts said you just need the actual phone to retrieve information. They had phones from MS.
A comment like he's no longer going to get the car could be because his friend was arrested. We don't know the context.

As of now I'm still on the fence. I'll reevaluate after the crown is finished. Jmo

 

[Just4TB]

Can someone help me understand this?
Why did they they go towards the Bobcat dealership?
Is that in the direction of DM's farm?
20 miles and then change plates.
They approached from the north and then made a U-turn.
I don't understand.

Diversion south on Oak Park (Bobcat dealership)
IMO, while driving, (purple) with TB already dead, DM suddenly got paranoid that TB phone could track them in real time... SB could use the "find my phone" feature and know where they were.
DM pulled off the main drag to hunt for the phone... found it, ditched it and then back to the plan... (green) headed for Roseville farm.

 

[Errrr]

Genuinely curious... which parts do you mean?

I liked the part where NS got MS to not notice all the similar trucks running up and down Trinity over the 20 minutes it took them to reach Super sucker.

 

[RandomName479]

I've been lurking and watching this case for a while now. As a former Hamiltonian, I was interested when the case broke in the news.

As a former paralegal and Bailiff, these last few weeks, especially this week, have been painful to read. DM's councel hasn't been that awesome, publicly at least, IMO. I'm sure there has been some fantastic legal arguments, behind the scenes, which I hope I get the chance one day to read about. However, this cross has been quite tiring. The very few times that NS has managed to get onto something that might help his client, I feel were somewhat planned in that he wanted a particular answer, but I feel he get there simply though luck. I wonder if NS didn't present a defense because it is possible he is aware that DM is factually guilty (DM told him). Further, he's doing a miserable job in his cross, he doesn't appear to be trying to obtain an aquittal for his client, but rather trying to disprove MS' testimony so as to get a guilty verdict for not only his client and MS also. It's a bit boggling. This weeks cross has brought out what is MS' version of what happened, and I think there is some truth to it. Some parts of it are likely lies, but as for his direct guilt in the murder, I don't think a great case is against him specifically, and that he's been able to show a defence where DM committed the murder solely, and MS councel has managed to even cooborate evidence to support the story (two vehicles). I feel MS is lying about the gun, and it's likely somewhere other than in a forest, and his SIM cards are probably in a landfill or went down the toillet. But, destroying evidence after the fact is accessory after the fact, and not actual murder, but I've been wrong before.

With respect to "who is the trigger man", which is largely MS' defence, It makes sense that DM would be the interested "buyer" and would be the primary tester or driver. If in fact they stopped to pull over and MS was to hop into the Yukon, it is more likely that DM carried on in the truck. Today's story that there was a struggle and all of them were in the vehicle at the same time is another version, but I feel an unlikely one, especially after the evidence of the two vehicles pulling over which coincides with MS' testimony. I don't think hes squeeky clean, but hes trying to be that on the stand.

If MS really wants to make it stick on DM, he would do well to squeek in a reminder or two to the jury that it was DM that wanted the truck, his plan, and he had the body disposal unit ready and waiting. "that DM secretly to himself wanted a truck and wanted the thrill of the kill, and had the plan and the means to do it". The 200 bucks worth of week in the days after? That's called "shut up money". Why didnt MS go to the police? he has a list of minors convictions and he hates the police. Why help DM? because he has the common sense to know that if he went to poilice, with his rap sheet, he would be the prime suspect, not a millionaires son. Plus it's his friend, he was likely in denial and fear of police.

I'm not cheering him on, but MS has a chance at aquittal. However, I expect the crown next week to be MUCH more focussed than DM's completely horrible councel.

That all said, after the cross examine, thanks to NS' exceptionally thorough cross and asking about every single thing imaginable, repeatedly at that - everyhing covered in the cross is fair game in the re-examination of the witness.

MOO!

:welcome4: Excellent first post! And I happen to agree with you

 

[brightii]

It's extremely pronounced with Dungey.

But fortunately for MS the reviews of TD are mainly positive -- NOW -- so MS benefits by the association. People got on the TD bandwagon when he was tough on witnesses and was effective in getting to some truth, and he often impressed with concise points. But TD was not always so popular here. When I first posted that I admired TD some people accused me of being a MS "supporter" or fan. The witnesses TD questioned harshly drew sympathy from some and yet I thought TD succeeded in calling them out, but it didn't go over big here back then. I was never a fan of MS even though at that time I had reasonable doubt about MS's guilt as so little had been brought out about him at that time but I thought from the get go that TD was an impressive lawyer.

Then the NS reviews by comparison are mainly negative IMO because of his association with DM who, IMO, the majority here believe is guilty and have for a long time. After CN got on the stand and the Crown introduced the letters DM was done then and there, IMO, and NS and RP haven't a hope of defending him or themselves in their approach to defending DM. I've mocked NS and RP too, but I admit that is mainly because of my bias against DM. My bias gets transferred to them but I do think as I've said before there is a method to NS's perceived maddening style of cross examining MS and I think it has been quite effective in exposing MS and the weaknesses in his story. Yes, it's taking a long time for NS to make his point clear and maybe few here will see it, but I see MS like a stubborn and defiant child on the stand and if you've ever had to deal with such a child, it is quite exasperating trying to get them to cooperate. MS won't admit to even the most obvious points or make any minor concessions to NS. Perhaps that's just because TD has coached MS to concede nothing at all. NS has a great deal of patience with MS IMO and yet few have any patience for NS and what he's attempting to do.

Unlike TD I never get to my point clean and crisp. I'm more like NS, I do have a point but getting to it is sometimes a tedious exercise, and sometimes, try as I may, I am misunderstood. My point is that whatever lawyer is on the side of the accused that people believe is guilty, at any given time, those lawyers are seen in a negative light too.

All MOO.

 

[mskrisc]

Respectfully (really), I think the first thing you mention is really more about people disliking Sachak than cheering MS on.

(I've generally not been that impressed with him talking back, but I don't know what expected court etiquette is when a lawyer is trying to get you riled up.)

I don't actually remember if Sachak questioned CN in this way. CN's demeanor was also described as far more disdainful than MS's, but there could be gender bias in play there.

Just giving an alternate view. People are *really really* irritated with Sachak this week. The same response was evident on Twitter today. It's less about MS and more about wanting to see NS "lose", or that's my guess.

Fully agree, but also some that fear MS's conviction of M1 will get DM a lesser sentence. No one wants to see that.

 

[Errrr]

Yes, there does seem to be a "my enemy's enemy is my friend" aspect to it all.

People really enjoyed TD taking jabs at his own client.

 

[deugirtni]

People often confuse direct evidence with physical evidence. Even fingerprints and DNA are circumstantial evidence.

Direct evidence includes eyewitness testimony, in this case MS's witnessing of the crime.

Someone corrected me earlier that I should have said direct evidence against DM on the night of the crime. They were right.

AM's evidence that DM told him he was going to steal a truck is also direct evidence. The witness is telling you directly what happened.

You don't have to make inferences as you do with circumstantial evidence. For example, TB's blood was found on the incinerator. From that and the other relevant evidence, you can infer he was incinerated -- although there are some people who refuse to draw that conclusion on the crazier chatboards.

What about the letters written by DM to which he has admitted were written by him? Are they considered direct or circumstantial? What about the texts? Just curious. It seems so weird that DNA or a fingerprint could be considered circumstantial, while someone's say-so, which could be a bold-faced lie, is considered direct evidence. I remember the first day when the judge outlined each, I was surprised back then as well.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Well I think most of us commented how we felt these same things were conveniently missing from his testimony. However I still don't see it as proof he shot TB. Did he cover up evidence, absolutely. He admitted that. I don't see how having the gun would change anything. Both prints would be on it likely. Or wiped. And it's been said someone shot Tim. So that leaves SIM cards. I'm going to have to go back and research because no one has the answer and I've asked a few times, but IIRC one of the cell phone experts said you just need the actual phone to retrieve information. They had phones from MS.
A comment like he's no longer going to get the car could be because his friend was arrested. We don't know the context.

As of now I'm still on the fence. I'll reevaluate after the crown is finished. Jmo

Maybe this answered the SIM card question yesterday.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?308312-Bosma-Murder-Trial-05-18-16-Day-51&p=12570353#post12570353

 

[mskrisc]

Except, here is DM's defence lawyer telling DM's version of events, and Wilson he said it was. Are we to disbelieve his own testimony?

If he can't get on the stand ( obviously afraid of cross) then why should we believe his testimony via his lawyer?