Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #12

[hellkat2]

I believe their initial plan was to use the farm for incineration, but they had a truck to clean. Even cleaning the truck in parallel ended up taking longer than the time planned for a incineration only murder. Remember that DM texted folks not to come in to work on the 7th, and the message was not sent out until around 5:00 am on the 7th. Indicating to me, that the cleanup of the truck was not planned, nor was the incinerator supposed to be cooling down at the hanger that morning.

MOO

Good point.

 

[hellkat2]

good theory. The entrance wound would still bleed a lot though. So I still think they intended to force or trick TB out of the truck first before shooting him. Then again these guys aren't genius planners (though in some ways DM does seem very intelligent - e.g. Languages and ability to lie/manipulate)

Or...and I hate to belabour this.......Skateboarder MS had the gun for bravado and it went off by accident. If he had intended on shooting TB I think this would not have been a difficult task.

 

[Alethea Dice]

I must be in denial of the evil that walks amongst us but I cannot accept that they were out to murder TB. It just makes no sense. It would be easier to leave him on the side of the road and take off with his truck.

There is this, from MM's cross on April 25th (from MH's tweets):

Millard made it no secret he planned to steal a truck, she agrees. And Smich was going to steal it with him.
She told Smich not to do it. But Smich does what he wants, Sachak suggests. She agrees.
Millard also made it clear he was going to first take the truck for a test drive, she agrees.

 

[hellkat2]

From one of his letters

[FONT=georgia, times new roman, times, serif]“If someone dies accidentally, and then the body is disposed of, that’s not murder. If someone dies accidentally during a robbery, that’s murder,” he writes."[/FONT]

[FONT=georgia, times new roman, times, serif]Yes DM, it was a planned robbery thanks to MM and AM's testimony. And their testimony is backed with pre mission preparation texts. Both DM and MS now understand they will be convicted of murder, and hopefully it is murder one.

I wonder if AM changed his testimony and told LE about the planned robbery only after they heard he was in the room according to MM? I believe it was mentioned that AM had several interviews, and he didn't start telling the truth until page 40 of a 60 page statement.

MOO[/FONT]

If some one is a liar then everything they say is not credible as far as the law goes. You can't be cherry picking the truth from a liar.

 

[Abitcountry]

Abit country, I couldn't get ur link to work.

Canadian 4....
I am so sorry...I just tried it and you are correct. I cannot figure what has gone wrong because I did double check it before I posted.

Here's my suggestion....go to your browser ( I use Google) and simply type in www.psychologytoday.com/narcissist
It will take you to a number of sites....chose the one that reads 6 Signs of Narcissism. I think you will be surprised at how accurately DM fills the bill.

 

[hellkat2]

Let's face it, the biggest screw up was DM wearing a short sleeved shirt, and using the same burner phone for both test drives.

MOO

Thankfully crimestoppers were called. I am surprised that the man who did that did not somehow end up in the incinerator. And to think this man's own son-in-law told DM about it. Nice.

 

[hellkat2]

IMO it is someone that he knows that told him the details. But yes silly it stood out to me about the dog lol. I always wondered what happened to poor PEDO.

“Next, very recently, someone went to my Mum’s house in Kleinberg. They rang the doorbell. There was no answer; no dog barking; my Mum was away. The street was quiet, no sign of police. Fifteen minutes later, on the highway (hwy 27) he is pulled over by an unmarked cruiser… It seems like a routine traffic stop until he’s ordered out of his car, and the car is searched! Nothing was found,” Millard writes.

“Then, to top it off, he was asked what he was doing at my Mum’s…. They were watching my Mum’s, and you can’t spot them. I think it’s safe to assume they know you two meet.

he assumes his Mum is being watched but continues to write the letters.

He is assuming his mom is still pitching for his team.

 

[ABro]

If some one is a liar then everything they say is not credible as far as the law goes. You can't be cherry picking the truth from a liar.

Yes you can. The law allows you to accept some parts of a witness' testimony but not all.

This is just like real life. I'm sure you've lied. That doesn't mean you can never again be trusted to speak the truth.

 

[Inspector_North]

If some one is a liar then everything they say is not credible as far as the law goes. You can't be cherry picking the truth from a liar.

My interpretation is that as long as there is sufficient evidence to prove a planned robbery, they are guilty of murder. It just so happens that they have two witnesses for the planned robbery, and many that have acknowledged that missions were theft missions. The only one that tried to muddy the waters, was CN when she said missions could mean anything.

CN is being careful to to not get herself in deeper trouble, but still remains loyal. If not to DM, she is for MB.

Unfortunate for DM, but there are many texts to back missions as a theft mission, and his letters (more to come) confirm a planned robbery. And since it was a planned robbery, both are guilty of murder.

MOO

 

[Inspector_North]

I must be in denial of the evil that walks amongst us but I cannot accept that they were out to murder TB. It just makes no sense. It would be easier to leave him on the side of the road and take off with his truck.

I am using DM's own definition of murder. I bet he spent a lot of time while reading his law books to verify what his defense team told him.

Planned robbery that results in an accidental death = murder.

You may believe their intention was not to murder Tim, but the fact that Tim was shot, even if accidental means guilty of murder for both involved in the planned robbery.

Until someone tells me this definition is incorrect, I believe either accused getting off the murder charge is very unlikely at this point in the trial. And the crown is not finished with evidence.

MOO

 

[hellkat2]

I agree. Also AM took the exact same distancing stance regarding MS, and yet between May 7th to May 11th there were several phone contacts between MS and AM, which came up during MM's testimony, IMO. So AM had spoken with MS before the night of DM's arrest and after TB's murder on May 6th, IMO. I think many people were aware of the planned truck theft, and if murder was discussed, then I think it may have been discussed as a wild idea by DM, and that would then make more sense to me that AM may have responded with his F-off statement, as I had posted here before, IMO.

Speculating here: If murder was in DM's mind a real plan, I think he may have been so bold to test his idea on friends to mine a response and entice accomplices, IMO. I could see if DM did suggest that he could murder the truck owner and just take the truck that his friends would reply with disbelief and incredulity, IMO. Perhaps DM took AM's response as a kind of challenge and DM was determined to show them all just what he is capable of, IMO, and they would then never dare to forget or challenge DM again, IMO. This kind of conversation may have been shared amid sick jokes, but AM didn't respond by laughing it off, and DM likely tried to shame AM by calling him out as a pansy in front of MM and MS, IMO. I think it is plausible that such a conversation about murdering the nice guy or the a-hole did take place and that no one took DM's dark humour seriously and likely thought DM was just messing with their heads and bluffing, IMO. They were minor thieves at DM's direction and under his influence before, so it's hard to fathom that any of them were suddenly overcome with a bloodlust for murder at his suggestion, IMO. Even for these immoral thieves, I think a cold-blooded pre-meditated murder would be a foreign concept to them as it would be to most people, IMO. Why would MS agree to be a part of a murder? I really don't see any incentive for MS, IMO, unlike DM, who seems to have wanted to take not only a truck but an innocent life along with it, IMO.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...y-treated-me-as-though-i-were-hannibal-lecter

In DM's Sept 14th letter to CN he wrote (paraphrasing here) that DM usually keeps his hopes and plans to himself, IMO. He was writing in context of dreams and plans DM had for he and CN that he had never shared with her (conveniently), IMO. I think those words will be used by TD to illustrate that DM did make plans and have wild fantasies that others were never privy to or informed about, IMO.

All MOO. And just my SPECULATION.

What about the text where DM says something to the effect of....returning the truck to the Bosmas. I think they have this on text ....and if so this is proof that DM was messing with them..

 

[ABro]

I am using DM's own definition of murder. I bet he spent a lot of time while reading his law books to verify what his defense team told him.

Planned robbery that results in an accidental death = murder.

You may believe their intention was not to murder Tim, but the fact that Tim was shot, even if accidental means guilty of murder for both involved in the planned robbery.

Until someone tells me this definition is incorrect, I believe either accused getting off the murder charge is very unlikely at this point in the trial. And the crown is not finished with evidence.

MOO

You must be reading American law books then because this is not the case in Canada. Many people have posted the definition of first degree murder in this country many times.

 

[Quaere_veritatem]

Not everything gets put into evidence at a trial. If it did we would spend four years instead of four months in a courtroom. And I think most of us already think four months is too long.

This video was disclosed to the defence, which is exactly how they came to bring it up at trial. NOthing was concealed or hidden.

It will be interesting to see if this video footage makes it into the closing arguments or not.

the crown went to great lengths to show that the Yukon was the vehicle in the video, they couldn't do the same for the truck since it wasn't drivable. So if the crown had presented that other video as TBs truck the defense would have taken them to task because the crown can't prove it was TBs truck. The defense would have gone on to saw how many thousands of those trucks have built and how many hundreds were in that area. I think the way it unfolded actually helps the crown, it fills a time frame in that leads to a more plausible scenario. TB was killed somewhere 5 minutes north, east or west of super sucker. Imo

 

[ABro]

the crown went to great lengths to show that the Yukon was the vehicle in the video, they couldn't do the same for the truck since it wasn't drivable. So if the crown had presented that other video as TBs truck the defense would have taken them to task because the crown can't prove it was TBs truck. The defense would have gone on to saw how many thousands of those trucks have built and how many hundreds were in that area. I think the way it unfolded actually helps the crown, it fills a time frame in that leads to a more plausible scenario. TB was killed somewhere 5 minutes north, east or west of super sucker. Imo

The reverse projection photogrammetry using the Yukon was fascinating to watch. Who would have thought the Hamilton police did such CSI-type stuff?

And, as I said, I'm very curious to see if we hear more about this.

 

[Elisabeth]

Perhaps so. Just want to add that often those that are mentally ill have no "insight." They will be least likely to show interest in medication or therapy because they are adamant there is nothing wrong with them. They will never seek help.

In Ontario there is a process where those who have no insight can be held against their wishes and treated medically against their wishes. It can be initiated by family, police, physician, and anyone who cares enough to devote the time. It's a major legal process with hearing after hearing to get to the point, but it can be done. In some cases, once given an anti-psychotic forcefully, after a period they have clarity for the first time in years, and thus finally achieve insight. Some never do. That being said, I don't think there is any medication for a narcissist or sociopath. I did learn, however, through the process with my extended family member, that there are forensic mental health wards for those who have committed a crime but found mentally ill and there is a mental health prison near Barrie, ON for the same. My understanding is some prisoners are put there eventually because as they age they are just as susceptible to dementia, etc. as anyone.

You have to be at risk to yourself or others to be admitted as an "involuntary patient" (not including court orders, minors etc). Or that you are at risk of substantial deterioration. This last part is new as of 2000 I believe. I don't read this as they can admit you because you think there is nothing wrong with you.

http://www.camh.ca/en/hospital/visi...policies/Pages/Understanding-your-rights.aspx




Admitting someone against his or her wishes is a much more difficult situation for everyone concerned. The law identifies various ways to admit a person to a hospital as an involuntary, or certified, patient. The person must be seen to be a danger to him- or herself or to others, or at risk of serious physical impairment due to a mental health problem. A person can also be admitted involuntarily if the following are all true:

• The person received treatment for a mental health problem before.
• The person showed clinical improvement as the result of the treatment.
• Based on the person's history and condition, it is likely that the person will cause harm to him- or herself or others, or to suffer substantial mental or physical deterioration or serious physical impairment.
• The person has been found to be incapable of consent and a substitute decision-maker (SDM) (see definition) consents to treatment on his or her behalf and
• The person is not suitable for informal or voluntary admission.

 

[Typhoo1961]

Or...and I hate to belabour this.......Skateboarder MS had the gun for bravado and it went off by accident. If he had intended on shooting TB I think this would not have been a difficult task.

It was no accident. I think it was very much premeditated.

 

[EspressoBean]

Now that you mention it, CN testified she was with DM since 2010/11 but WM died in Nov. 2012. So he was seeing her while engaged to the other. IMO

To recap what is known or understood based on information available and discussed in previous threads:
CN has testified that they were together 2010ish and they were exclusive.
From what is known, DM was engaged in May 2011 but it is understood that the engagement was called off not long after this but they remained friends. At the time of WM's death, DM was not engaged but his ex-fiance did come to the house. DM was also still texting with her and seeing her at the time of TB's murder.
DM was also believed to have an intimate relationship with LB before her murder July 2012.
Another witness has testified that she was also intimate with DM during that time.
I'm pretty doubtful that CN was unaware of his other relationships. She may be lying about her understanding about their relationship and when it began. moo

 

[mimimic]

I think it's possible that the f'ed up comment relates to a day before Tim's murder when he backed out of completing the theft of the first truck. That is what got them caught effectively because they left a witness who described DM's tattoo (and ultimately MS's mugshot). It's less likely that it relates to the act of shooting/murder because evidence suggests that was planned. It's possible that it relates to how or where TB was shot because something about those details led specifically to the predicament they were in at that point, perhaps the delay in getting the truck out of the hangar and in for painting. But they took no pains to hide it from hangar staff and visitors when it could have been stashed in the trailer, so perhaps that wasn't anticipated as a concern anyway.

LE had just heard that same day about the tattoo, Did they announce it right away to the public?

 

[Inspector_North]

You must be reading American law books then because this is not the case in Canada. Many people have posted the definition of first degree murder in this country many times.

I was using DM's definition from his letters. And I not even sure if he was speaking about first degree murder. But it sure sounded like DM was afraid of a murder charge due to AM's statement that DM and MS were planning a robbery of TB's truck.

Thanks for confirming his definition is wrong, for murder one at least. The Canadian definition has been posted many times, and I am trying to figure out which nature of first degree the crown will be proving. There is a little of all them up to this point.

- was planned and deliberate
- while committing or attempting to commit kidnapping and forcible confinement
- while committing intimidation.

MOO

 

[Elisabeth]

You must be reading American law books then because this is not the case in Canada. Many people have posted the definition of first degree murder in this country many times.

I would have to find the source but I believe the Canadian Supreme Court struck down the part of the statute that said that death during armed robbery automatically was first degree murder.