Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #16

[Typhoo1961]

I do not believe that DM got a text from his friends from Tim Hortons.

There was no friend. DM made it up according to MS.

 

[JuneBug67]

FWIW your opinion counts just as much as everyone else's. When the verdicts come in you and canadiangirl and JuneBug67 and ArianeEmory, among others who have reasonable doubt about MS may just be right in the end if the jury comes back with a verdict that reflects such reasonable doubt. I hope not but it is very possible!

I hate to see anyone feeling badly about their indecision or about sharing their honest opinions because it just feels alienating. I do hope the jury will bring back guilty verdicts for both MS and DM, but that's because I believe they are guilty. The jury may not agree with me and those who think like me.

I've always appreciated the differing viewpoints on this forum and you and others who are uncertain about MS contribute a lot to the discussions. I think we're all just very tired of debating, especially when it's not always easy to articulate why we think as we do, and we're all very anxious for the verdicts and for this very emotionally draining trial to be done with.

All MOO.

It's less that I have reasonable doubt about MS and more that I have doubt about some of the arguments that are being made towards guilt, both in and out of court. It's almost that I've gotten as far as feeling that many of the arguments aren't persuasive but not so far as to know what it is I actually feel about guilt for either of then really. They're each guilty of something, but what? I feel like I won't be surprised by any verdict except something wild like aquittal. I guess I would be surprised as well by a lesser charge for DM, and by lesser I mean lesser than MS, as I find some interpretations of the facts consistent with 2nd degree for DM or both of them. I can pretty much say I reject the Crown argument of a long planned much delayed thrill killing at this point, but don't reject the idea of premeditation at a later date. There are elements I find credible in all three accounts presented in court, and elements I think are non-sensical. I also don't think a hung jury on one or both of them is out of the question. There is a ton of evidence and I wouldn't anticipate a particularly short deliberation. Three or four days maybe?

By law we will never know what those jurors discussed or how they arrived at their conclusion. Kind of unfortunate in a complex case like this. I wonder what they think of the accused? Jurors often develop empathy of a sort for the accused after sitting day in and day out with them. They are humanize at the very least.

Of the two I find DM by far the more dangerous. To me he is the drive; a narcissistic chameleon and fixed engine of darkness and destruction. MS is more like an amoral sponge who willingly soaked up any criminality around him and wore it with the familiar ease of an old coat. It feels like he can be rehabilitated and I guess that's why there's a part of me that just wants his story to be true, rationality be damned.

 

[hellkat2]

Can you elaborate on this? What sort of difficulty?

I would assume that LE would check to see if the gun was registered and if it had not been they would be looking at the what where when and why as they always do? Sometimes if they check if a gun is registered they might find out it was registered at some point by the person who purchased it and then it was reported stolen by the original owner. In this case DM would have some explaination to do given his father is dead. Where was it purchased? From who? What do you know about this gun and how do you think your father may have come into possession of it? Checking out records that they have to see if there was any crimes committed with bullets that might match the gun??? I don't think LE would just shrug their shoulders and go ...."shucks the got rid of the gun registry in Ontario so we don't need to bother with this" especially given that it was fired and a death resulted.

 

[Miranda16]

LE would have difficulty with the gun if it wasn't registered I would say.

That's why MWJ is charged with supplying it. But if LE did not know the supplier they would have to assume that WM acquired it from an unknown source - which was DM's plan and apparently what LE originally did since the initial conclusion was suicide - all IMO

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

People very often do attempt to hide or dispose of a body after a killing to escape detection, so thinking of the incinerator as cruel and gruesome as it is actually wouldn't be a showstopper for me in believing this was 2nd degree murder or manslaughter. However my real sticking point is that I just can't get my head around the Crown's argument. People are sadly murdered every day, and only very, very, very few of them are murdered by thrill killers working in pairs. In a sense it's an extraordinary claim that falls just short of needing extraordinary proof. Add to that that it is allegedly thrill killers with a very specific plan to steal a truck and murder an owner...that they don't enact for 10 months? It remains a difficult theory to grasp for me. It's possible, and this is why I asked my mini-poll question, that the incinerator didn't start as part of a murder plan but somewhere along the way evolved into one, whether as part of a premeditated plan, an plan for exigent circumstances, or something improvised after a robbery gone bad.

To me - the thrill kill thing makes perfect sense. These two stole things they had no possible use for beyond the thrill. They stole things in broad daylight. The thrill was obviously part of it. DM in particular with the multiple girlfriends, vehicles and everything else. MS doesn't really show that same thrill seeking attitude but he obviously was good with going along with it for these crimes.

Found this wikipedia article on a pair of murderers from way back in 1924. Some wacky parallels between these two and MS/DM - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb including how they both turned on each other when they were caught and were drawn together by their interest in crime.

 

[JuneBug67]

Ummm. I don't know a whole lot about guns but it really doesn't seem to me this group and especially isho would register a gun. Moo

I just had a flash of that moronic convention of the lobotomized and inked filmed on the street to promote the Toronto gansta rap scene or something. Embarrassing! Probably could have set up a bustling gun registry in the middle of that, hardware wise.

 

[hellkat2]

There was no friend. DM made it up according to MS.

Yes I know that....I meant I don't believe that there was even discussion about his friend not being able to find Tim Hortons.....i think MS made that up as lead up in his story of how he got out of the TB truck and had nothing to do with the shooting.

 

[JuneBug67]

To me - the thrill kill thing makes perfect sense. These two stole things they had no possible use for beyond the thrill. They stole things in broad daylight. The thrill was obviously part of it. DM in particular with the multiple girlfriends, vehicles and everything else. MS doesn't really show that same thrill seeking attitude but he obviously was good with going along with it for these crimes.

Found this wikipedia article on a pair of murderers from way back in 1924. Some wacky parallels between these two and MS/DM - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopold_and_Loeb including how they both turned on each other when they were caught and were drawn together by their interest in crime.

Yeah, I called the Crown's theory a "Leopold and Loeb style thrill kill" a few days ago. It's a hard fit for me. I'd probably have to spend more time figuring out why. I think it's just because it feels kind of jammed into the facts. I'm pretty sure Millard is a psychopath, but it feels more like evidence suggests he kills for expedience rather than thrill. Who knows. The facts in the LB case may change my mind on this.

 

[flipflop]

Does court resume tues or wed this week?

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Yeah, I called the Crown's theory a "Leopold and Loeb style thrill kill" a few days ago. It's a hard fit for me. I'd probably have to spend more time figuring out why. I think it's just because it feels kind of jammed into the facts. I'm pretty sure Millard is a psychopath, but it feels more like evidence suggests he kills for expedience rather than thrill. Who knows. The facts in the LB case may change my mind on this.

Isn't that what the crown does? They weren't there for the crime. They get the evidence and then come up with a theory of how the crime went down that fits the evidence.

 

[brightii]

Does court resume tues or wed this week?

Tuesday - tomorrow, May 31st.

 

[hellkat2]

That's why MWJ is charged with supplying it. But if LE did not know the supplier they would have to assume that WM acquired it from an unknown source - which was DM's plan and apparently what LE originally did since the initial conclusion was suicide - all IMO

LE does not assume anything. They would be checking to see if that gun was stolen. i.e.....if somebody who had registered it had reported it stolen. Was it not a relatively new gun? I don't know anything about guns....but I am sure LE have experts that would be able to narrow down where a gun like that would be purchased etc.

 

[JuneBug67]

Isn't that what the crown does? They weren't there for the crime. They get the evidence and then come up with a theory of how the crime went down that fits the evidence.

Yes, but it can be a good fit or an ill fit. It's a story designed to secure an outcome, no more and no less than MS or DM's story. The Crown is not about truth, justice and light, they're often about crafting a case in a way they think they can win. It can feel like a game. When it does, that gives me pause.

 

[Miranda16]

Yeah, I called the Crown's theory a "Leopold and Loeb style thrill kill" a few days ago. It's a hard fit for me. I'd probably have to spend more time figuring out why. I think it's just because it feels kind of jammed into the facts. I'm pretty sure Millard is a psychopath, but it feels more like evidence suggests he kills for expedience rather than thrill. Who knows. The facts in the LB case may change my mind on this.

I'm completely on board with the Criwn's thrill kill theory. I think the evidence fully justifies it, and I think both were on board.
E.g. MS's comment about 'chopping' required for one incinerator model they researched? I'm sure he was referring to the need to dismember a body to fit it (as alleged in the Criwn's cross examination)

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

For the most part the crown isn't there to win or lose a case. They present the evidence.

From the Supreme Court of Canada:

“It cannot be overemphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction; it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented; it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength, but it must also be done fairly. The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness, and the justness of judicial proceedings.” (R. v. Boucher)

In the US - where these roles are elected - there is a lot more pressure to win. Its a different role in Canada.

 

[JuneBug67]

I'm completely on board with the Criwn's thrill kill theory. I think the evidence fully justifies it, and I think both were on board.
E.g. MS's comment about 'chopping' required for one incinerator model they researched? I'm sure he was referring to the need to dismember a body to fit it (as alleged in the Criwn's cross examination)

Who would you need to dismember to fit in an 18 (or whatever) foot high, wide-as-a-barrel rocket ship incinerator?

 

[hellkat2]

A murder during a hijacking is First Degree. TB was hijacked in his truck.
What does First Degree Murder mean?

A murder is first degree murder where it is planned and deliberate, a contracted murder, a murder of a police officer, a murder during hijacking, sexual assault or kidnapping, criminal harassment, terrorist activity or while using explosives in association with a criminal organization. All murder that is not First Degree Murder is Second Degree Murder.


http://gorhamlaw.ca/Toronto_Criminal...er_Lawyer.html

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hijack
Last edited by hellkat2; Today at 09:42 PM.Reason: definition of hijack added

 

[Georgeo]

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

I agree Mrs Threadgoode. The incinerator had no purpose in DM's life other than to eliminate human evidence.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Yes, but it can be a good fit or an ill fit. It's a story designed to secure an outcome, no more and no less than MS or DM's story. The Crown is not about truth, justice and light, they're often about crafting a case in a way they think they can win. It can feel like a game. When it does, that gives me pause.

You are quite mistaken when you say a Crown's role is to win.

Every Crown has a duty to ensure that the justice system is applied fairly to all ... Even the defendants.

Great read here:

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/crim/cpm/2005/CPMPreamble.pdf




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JuneBug67]

For the most part the crown isn't there to win or lose a case. They present the evidence.

From the Supreme Court of Canada:

“It cannot be overemphasized that the purpose of a criminal prosecution is not to obtain a conviction; it is to lay before a jury what the Crown considers to be credible evidence relevant to what is alleged to be a crime. Counsel have a duty to see that all available legal proof of the facts is presented; it should be done firmly and pressed to its legitimate strength, but it must also be done fairly. The role of prosecutor excludes any notion of winning or losing; his function is a matter of public duty than which in civil life there can be none charged with greater responsibility. It is to be efficiently performed with an ingrained sense of the dignity, the seriousness, and the justness of judicial proceedings.” (R. v. Boucher)

In the US - where these roles are elected - there is a lot more pressure to win. Its a different role in Canada.

You've obviously never been up close to somebody being yanked through the justice system in this country. Lucky you. People are people and the reality can be very different in practice. I'm not meaning to be disparaging to individual prosecutors or malign any specific reputation. It's just in my observation that in general it's about processing cases and winning them rather than seeking the best truth available. I've found it's good judges that sort through it all and make the difference. I actually look forward to the charge in this case more than the closing arguments.