Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #16

[canadiangirl]

Round and round we go on, IMHO, the tiniest and least likely of things, rather than the grand scheme of things.

But MS and DM and SS all knew it was a livestock incinerator.

I will be happy if we just agree to disagree at this point.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes round and round we go because posters are stating evidence as fact which is untrue and it gets confused in the forum and multiple people jump on these beliefs and somehow it "must" be what happened. I'm guilty of misquoting too but I'm not offended when someone corrects me.

Fact. One set of human remains were burned in the incinerator
Fact. Foreign debris was found also found burned in the incinerator

Further details are just unknown, unless there is something I've missed but we cannot concluded from the only thing it was used for was human remains can we based on this?

I have agreed to disagree with many but people keep insisting those on the fence aren't seeing things the same and are not looking at the whole picture.

 

[canadiangirl]

Yeah it did.

I guess that's your interpretation. And your opinion. Easy to see how other things are misinterpreted then.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Yes round and round we go because posters are stating evidence as fact which is untrue and it gets confused in the forum and multiple people jump on these beliefs and somehow it "must" be what happened. I'm guilty of misquoting too but I'm not offended when someone corrects me.

Fact. One set of human remains were burned in the incinerator
Fact. Foreign debris was found also found burned in the incinerator

Further details are just unknown, unless there is something I've missed but we cannot concluded from the only thing it was used for was human remains can we based on this?

I have agreed to disagree with many but people keep insisting those on the fence aren't seeing things the same and are not looking at the whole picture.

I have ETA and corrected my post, and in posts I have apologized for only remembering the grommets found in the burned vegetation grid.

I thanked you for pointing out my mistake.

I was not offended.

I am copying this question from one of my previous posts ... I am seeking personal opinions to my question.


Can it be said that because it was a livestock incinerator with no livestock or pets to burn, and it wasn't an incinerator of the type used to burn garbage or melt metal (CN), MOST PROBABLY the intent to purchase the Eliminator was to burn human remains (more than likely clothed and possibly wrapped in something)?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[billandrew]

There's a lot of confusion around what was recovered from Smich's devices. Here's a quick summary:

• The photo of Smich holding the Walther PPK was taken on the iPad but it was later deleted. The photo was recovered from a backup on one of Millard's computers.
• Many iMessages were deleted from the iPad but were later recovered directly from that device using forensics hardware/software. I've added some of the deleted messages below.
• The rap lyrics were recovered from the iPad. It's not clear whether they were deleted, but the modified date of one of them was May 21 -- the day before his arrest -- suggesting that at least that one was not deleted.
• The rap videos were recovered from the iPad. Not sure if any were deleted.
• A Blackberry 9000 was damaged (intentionally or not) to the point that it could not be accessed by the forensics investigator. However, a 1 GB media card was recovered from inside of it, which contained a photo of a gun from March 2012.

Here are some of the deleted messages per Officer Ryder's testimony (these are Molly Hayes's tweets):

• Seeing a series of messages sent from the iPad--but can't see who they were sent to. These are those 'orphaned' messages mentioned earlier.
• As part of that Ryder says he can't confirm this is a conversation, or if these messages are related at all.
• Seeing it on another device, again, provides that validation.
• Crown says if jury sees this same convo tmrw on Millard's phone w the names, that's validation. Ryder agrees.
• "Wutchya sayin homes" is first one. Next, incoming, is "eta 2:47"
• Then "Wuts good then? I'm chillin outside waiting for some ppl and then Marlena's got work in a couple hours."
• Then incoming "headed to Waterloo, figure out BBQ situation for this week." Then outgoing "k cuz then I need a lil bit before I can dip."
• Those were sent/received on April 27, 2013.
• Seeing another chunk of messages now, from May 3, 2013.
• One of them says "missions and more."
• These, like the last batch, had all been deleted from the device.
• Now seeing messages from May 5, 2013. First one (incoming) says "yeaow, you up negro? Mission day."
• Then we see 3 outgoing messages from iPad: "yo", "what's the word" and "link the celly."
• One incoming at 1:01pm says "reaching you now, ete 20mins, bring change of clothes."
• Then two outgoing: "my phones being retarded" and "link me when you back these ways."
• Again, these had all been deleted from the device.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

There's a lot of confusion around what was recovered from Smich's devices. Here's a quick summary:

• The photo of Smich holding the Walther PPK was taken on the iPad but it was later deleted. The photo was recovered from a backup on one of Millard's computers.
• Many iMessages were deleted from the iPad but were later recovered directly from that device using forensics hardware/software. I've added some of the deleted messages below.
• The rap lyrics were recovered from the iPad. It's not clear whether they were deleted, but the modified date of one of them was May 21 -- the day before his arrest -- suggesting that at least that one was not deleted.
• The rap videos were recovered from the iPad. Not sure if any were deleted.
• A Blackberry 9000 was damaged (intentionally or not) to the point that it could not be accessed by the forensics investigator. However, a 1 GB media card was recovered from inside of it, which contained a photo of a gun from March 2012.

Here are some of the deleted messages per Officer Ryder's testimony (these are Molly Hayes's tweets):

• Seeing a series of messages sent from the iPad--but can't see who they were sent to. These are those 'orphaned' messages mentioned earlier.
• As part of that Ryder says he can't confirm this is a conversation, or if these messages are related at all.
• Seeing it on another device, again, provides that validation.
• Crown says if jury sees this same convo tmrw on Millard's phone w the names, that's validation. Ryder agrees.
• "Wutchya sayin homes" is first one. Next, incoming, is "eta 2:47"
• Then "Wuts good then? I'm chillin outside waiting for some ppl and then Marlena's got work in a couple hours."
• Then incoming "headed to Waterloo, figure out BBQ situation for this week." Then outgoing "k cuz then I need a lil bit before I can dip."
• Those were sent/received on April 27, 2013.
• Seeing another chunk of messages now, from May 3, 2013.
• One of them says "missions and more."
• These, like the last batch, had all been deleted from the device.
• Now seeing messages from May 5, 2013. First one (incoming) says "yeaow, you up negro? Mission day."
• Then we see 3 outgoing messages from iPad: "yo", "what's the word" and "link the celly."
• One incoming at 1:01pm says "reaching you now, ete 20mins, bring change of clothes."
• Then two outgoing: "my phones being retarded" and "link me when you back these ways."
• Again, these had all been deleted from the device.

Thank you so much for clearing up the confusion. As I said before, you would be a fine addition to the prosecution team, billandrew, or a juror, but now I am thinking jury foreperson because you have the not-so-common ability to express your points so clearly, concisely and in logical, orderly, relatable fashion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mimimic]

I have tried to see where you are coming from and although you are a very strong debater I just don't agree with your line of thinking. There are too many things pointing to MS's guilt. If you break everything into pieces I can see what you're saying but the fact is we are looking at the evidence as a whole and as a whole it points to MS guilt.

I re-read DM's letters to CN this morning. They brought up some new feelings as far as MS goes, for me. When you mention it as MS's guilt - i agree because according to the letters DM seems to focus heavily on AM's words (steal vs. buy) so yes they are both guilty regardless, because it was during robbery. Now as far as who is the shooter...DM seems to say it often, but it is not clear, when exactly, he is creating a "story" for CN to convey on his behalf or merely writing it as a fact > I tried to read it as if i were him, as the shooter, and came away thinking no, it was M.who did it because He,(DM) more then once blamed Mark>marks mess>mark screwed up a robbery etc. so i guess that is my two cents again. Another thing i forgot about was the mention of a fellow named Scullion, the "rat" who went to LE on his own (a friend of MH's) and gave the info on AM and MH. While also noting DM's anger at MS asking for all the drugs (confirming to me he didn't expect the gun) ? Another thing Moose who i thought was just the name given to the money envelope for some strange reason, but turns out is is person because per DM warning not to use his bugged phone. As I was reading I marked down letter numbers of high interest 47,57,64 and 129 to the end. worht the re-read now that we are closer to the end.

 

[JuneBug67]

Thank you so much for clearing up the confusion. As I said before, you would be a fine addition to the prosecution team, billandrew, or a juror, but now I am thinking jury foreperson because you have the great ability to explain your points so clearly and in an ordered fashion.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I am with you in appreciating billandrew!

The number of posts with non-facts presented as facts when constructing an argument is kind of off putting though. We all have great resources available to us and it seems important to me to get it straight when you can, both to avoid confusing the board and as an ethical obligation of sorts. We all make mistakes of course but the mistakes seem to be fairly casual at times and most lean heavily in one direction.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Main and Pickford had never seen one before so MS and SS had? Seems rather like a big presumption, which means it's likely others didn't know what it was for. MOO

I am having a difficult time understanding your point here. It doesn't matter what anyone else presumed it to be, other than the fact that MS, DM and SS knew for a fact that it was a livestock incinerator when it was purchased.

During the trial, all the evidence states that it is was sold/marketed as a livestock incinerator.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[canadiangirl]

I have ETA and corrected my post, and in posts I have apologized for only remembering the grommets found in the burned vegetation grid.

I thanked you for pointing out my mistake.

I was not offended.

I am copying this question from one of my previous posts ... I am seeking personal opinions to my question.


Can it be said that because it was a livestock incinerator with no livestock or pets to burn, and it wasn't an incinerator of the type used to burn garbage or melt metal (CN), MOST PROBABLY the intent to purchase the Eliminator was to burn human remains (more than likely clothed and possibly wrapped in something)?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Most people who were not offended wouldn't say "round and round we go" when we' are discussing something. So my apologies.

In answer to your question, since you quoted me and seem to be highlighting me specifically for an answer,

I'm not disputing the fact that it was likely purchased for nefarious reasons. However, I don't see where people knew the real reason of why it was purchased other then DM.
I'm not sure why CN would've been asked the question in the first place?
She was not there for day to day operations was she? IMO that question would've been better posed to SS. Did anyone ask him? I can't recall at the moment.

In any case from Robert Burn's statement it was the neighbor that told him what DM said the reason for purchasing the incinerator was for, pet cremation.
So why was DM even talking about this purchase with people who would never see it? Setting up his story as a cover for later?

http://www.chch.com/bosma-day-23/
He introduced Millard to his business neighbour, a computer expert, when Millard expressed interest.
It was from that neighbour that burns found out Millard had purchased an animal incinerator, and was telling people it was to start a pet cremation business with his uncle.

That being said, it was an incinerator DM and SS purchased together, whatever story he came up with to tell people, doesn't mean they knew more or less then exactly what they were told. MOO

 

[canadiangirl]

I am having a difficult time understanding your point here. It doesn't matter what anyone else presumed it to be, other than the fact that MS, DM and SS knew for a fact that it was a livestock incinerator when it was purchased.

During the trial, all the evidence states that it is was sold/marketed as a livestock incinerator.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My point was, if a regular person doesn't know what it is. Regular person also being LE, why is it expected that any regular person would know?
I can agree DM and SS knew it was a livestock incinerator when purchased. I'm not so sure on MS though.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

The crown went with premeditation, the forcible confinement point is moot.

Andreww, a few days ago you stated that the Crown went with premeditation, and that the forcible confinement is now moot. I responded to your post for an explanation about this from you, but was unable to find it, and couldn't find any information anywhere else.

Does anyone have a link stating forcible confinement with regard to 1st degree murder has been taken off the table so that it can't be argued in the Crown's close? I am really curious as to why that would be?

TIA



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk[/QUOTE]




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

My point was, if a regular person doesn't know what it is. Regular person also being LE, why is it expected that any regular person would know?
I can agree DM and SS knew it was a livestock incinerator when purchased. I'm not so sure on MS though.

But it doesn't matter what any regular person would know, does it? It has now been proven in court. I am trying to understand why regular people not knowing it was a livestock incinerator is even a matter to consider?

MS was doing research on it, which can be inferred from some of his texts


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[canadiangirl]

But it doesn't matter what any regular person would know, does it? It has now been proven in court. I am trying to understand why regular people not knowing it was a livestock incinerator is even a matter to consider?

MS was doing research on it, which can be inferred from some of his texts


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Ok from the texts it's conclusive that MS did infact research an incinerator. Fair?
He also referenced chopping IIRC within those same texts. What was he talking about chopping?

Where does this draw a conclusion that MS knew exactly why he was researching an incinerator. Did SS know why he was building one? Purchasing one?

 

[Inspector_North]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/tim-bosma-dellen-millard-mark-smich-key-exhibits-1.3601624

 

[Inspector_North]

Alex Pierson says that MS and DM besides acquittal can only possibly have their charges reduced to 2nd or manslaughter, but not AATF if the jury doesn't find 1st has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt.

https://soundcloud.com/am900chml/closing-arguments-at-tim-bosma-murder-trial-begin-tuesday

MOO

 

[XiolaBlueX]

Yes, MS was attentive to detail. I wonder, if it is possible that there was nothing wrong with MS' arm. I tend to believe that he had pain in his shoulder, but if it was bad enough to see a doctor, as it would have been if it was dislocated, then why did he not call a doctor to give evidence his defence? The only evidence of a sore or dislocated shoulder comes from his own words. MS' credibility is somewhere in the toilet, so I'm not sure if I ought to believe him on this issue or not.

He doesn't seem smart enough to deliberately leave misleading messages about his sore shoulder, but ... he didn't support his evidence with a medical report. The lack of a report, especially if he had been to a doctor, might suggest that he did not have a serious injury, or at least not one that would prevent him from participating in the details of the mission discussed above.

Is he telling the truth, or not. Does it make any difference?

Interesting points. Something to add/emphasize- I remember when MS was testifying that he made a point of saying that although he had in fact reoccuring shoulder issues, he was using that as an excuse to DM at the time because he did not want to go near the situation loading the incinerator with TB.

 

[JuneBug67]

I have ETA and corrected my post, and in posts I have apologized for only remembering the grommets found in the burned vegetation grid.

I thanked you for pointing out my mistake.

I was not offended.

I am copying this question from one of my previous posts ... I am seeking personal opinions to my question.


Can it be said that because it was a livestock incinerator with no livestock or pets to burn, and it wasn't an incinerator of the type used to burn garbage or melt metal (CN), MOST PROBABLY the intent to purchase the Eliminator was to burn human remains (more than likely clothed and possibly wrapped in something)?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Both MS and SS testified that they were told the incinerator was to burn garbage. The company website for Tri Star Dairy describes their Eliminator products like this:


Tristar carries the Super Nova Brand of Incinerators.

We proudly serve our farmers, ranchers and growers in the food production and agricultural industry. We also provide the most up-to-date technology required by veterinarians, humane societies, hazardous and medical waste servicers along with landfill operators.

Call our friendly sales staff for pricing and availability.


Given the range of uses listed, can we really assume that SS or MS knew or intended a livestock incinerator? I'm not sure, but are some of these uses interchangeable within the same incineration device?

We also have MS's earlier texts about an incinerator that he found that offered the feature of recovering electrical power from the burn process, something that surely should strike somebody as relevant to regular use rather than the occasional murder cover up.

I have no idea what was in Millard's head when he initiated the build/get a generator process. It of course feels ominous, but I think you have to fill in a few blanks pretty arbitrarily to get to any degree of certainty about what other people thought it was for.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Ok from the texts it's conclusive that MS did infact research an incinerator. Fair?
He also referenced chopping IIRC within those same texts. What was he talking about chopping?

Where does this draw a conclusion that MS knew exactly why he was researching an incinerator. Did SS know why he was building one? Purchasing one?

It is somewhat in the realm of SS job to look up mechanical things for DM. MS has no such reason.

 

[Claroon]

Both MS and SS testified that they were told the incinerator was to burn garbage. The company website for Tri Star Dairy describes their Eliminator products like this:


Tristar carries the Super Nova Brand of Incinerators.

We proudly serve our farmers, ranchers and growers in the food production and agricultural industry. We also provide the most up-to-date technology required by veterinarians, humane societies, hazardous and medical waste servicers along with landfill operators.

Call our friendly sales staff for pricing and availability.


Given the range of uses listed, can we really assume that SS or MS knew or intended a livestock incinerator? I'm not sure, but are some of these uses interchangeable within the same incineration device?

We also have MS's earlier texts about an incinerator that he found that offered the feature of recovering electrical power from the burn process, something that surely should strike somebody as relevant to regular use rather than the occasional murder cover up.

I have no idea what was in Millard's head when he initiated the build/get a generator process. It of course feels ominous, but I think you have to fill in a few blanks pretty arbitrarily to get to any degree of certainty about what other people thought it was for.

Where is the copyright link to that quote?

 

[JuneBug67]

Where is the copyright link to that quote?

What?