Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #17 [06.03.16 to 06.09.16]

[MrsThreadgoode]

I'm interested to know what the jury didn't get to hear as well. I'm not sure how much can or will be disclosed right now due to the other trials pending though. If it tells us the full story then it should be admissible IMO. Of course I know that's not the case, but it seems unfair the jury does not get the whole picture. I was always under the assumption it went straight to trial due to the overwhelming volume and how complex the case was. But I could be wrong.

Agreeing to disagree but I'll never agree with finding someone guilty because they aren't an upstanding citizen.

I agree. They should only be found guilty/not guilty based solely on our Canadian rules of law.

But I have yet to read a post in this forum where someone ONLY stated that someone should be found guilty simply because they aren't an upstanding citizen.

I have seen similar things alluded to within posts, but only after the OP has also stated their belief that after hearing all the evidence they reasonably concluded that DM and MS are guilty of 1st degree murder.

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[marymcd]

Originally Posted by andreww
You are going by a poll that was started when the trial was about half over and voted on by people that really haven't been following closely.

Rsbm
If that were the case then these people who weren't following closely shouldve automatically concluded MS as guilty. If they weren't following closely all they would know is 2 guys stole a truck and a man ended up dead and incinerated. Guilty as charged.
I think the results of this prove people may have actually been following closer then you think. JMO

Sorry, I can't figure out how to multi-quote. . .Actually I have been following the other group as well. I think a lot of people were sympathetic to Smich early on and that may be at least in part because the focus of much of the evidence was on Millard's involvement. I'm not sure whether there are some people who just want to believe the 'underdog' but after Smich took the stand a lot of people in that group gave him so much credit for having taken the stand that they seemed blindly willing to accept his version of events as the truth. So, I would have to disagree with you that because some weren't following along as closely that they would have a lynch mob mentality. I think it was quite the opposite. That's just my perception however. I also believe that a lot of those people who were wavering or doubted Smich's involvement were convinced that Smich and Millard were equally guilty following the closing statements. I think they are going to take another poll after the judge's charge to the jury.

Thank the heavens that CN never destroyed those letters and that Millard didn't have an extra 2 weeks to lose his SIM cards and that he never thought about getting rid of a couple of computers. True there was plenty of other evidence but he had the means to provide all of the equipment and accessories needed to carry out this terrible mission and so the trail of evidence to find Millard guilty is a lot clearer. Having several prior convictions gives Smich an advantage over Millard as well (including a break and enter if I recall correctly) in that he would be a lot more careful about disposing of anything that could incriminate him. Had their roles been reversed, I doubt that Smich would still be carrying the gloves he wore in his pocket or Tim's truck keys on his own key ring for example when he was arrested. Millard also had a ton of things on his mind like his rental properties, the hangar business, a number of women etc., and I think those distractions along with a feeling maybe of being invincible made him more careless.I also think that Smich was a survivalist and trusted no one, not even his girlfriend entirely. I think Millard trusted those within his inner circle, probably too much. Again, that is just my opinion though.

 

[deugirtni]

For me it would be really difficult to believe the other guy was completely innocent and not be integrally involved if he is willing to help put a human being in an incinerator. There's one thing with a gf helping move an incinerator, it's an entirely different one to put a human being inside of it. I think the danger with saying in that situation he is innocent it could create a dangerous precedent and say hey if i wasn't directly involved with the act but went along with it and did absolutely everything else i'm free and clear by feigning ignorance.

We should get rid of that word 'innocent' altogether imho, because nobody is innocent here, except for TB. I am just asking the question, if one assists someone in putting an already-dead man into an incinerator to burn his body away to nothing, as horrible and unthinkable as that is, and the guy didn't know that his partner in thievery was planning to also kill the man in addition to stealing his truck, and he wasn't present at the time when the man was killed, is it first degree murder? Is it second degree murder? Is it manslaughter? Is it Accessory After The Fact to Murder?

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

We should get rid of that word 'innocent' altogether imho, because nobody is innocent here, except for TB. I am just asking the question, if one assists someone in putting an already-dead man into an incinerator to burn his body away to nothing, as horrible and unthinkable as that is, and the guy didn't know that his partner in thievery was planning to also kill the man in addition to stealing his truck, and he wasn't present at the time when the man was killed, is it first degree murder? Is it second degree murder? Is it manslaughter? Is it Accessory After The Fact to Murder?

Accessory and maybe indignity to a body.

 

[canadiangirl]

I agree. They should only be found guilty/not guilty based solely on our Canadian rules of law.

But I have yet to read a post in this forum where someone ONLY stated that someone should be found guilty simply because they aren't an upstanding citizen.

I have seen similar things alluded to within posts, but only after the OP has also stated their belief that after hearing all the evidence they reasonably concluded that DM and MS are guilty of 1st degree murder.

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Similar after a poster states they can see reasonable doubt, I've yet to see anyone say MS is innocent.

 

[Arnie M]

Compromise on a man's freedom? Seems fair. 3 days to you is 25+ yrs to someone else. As I've said before, I really hope everyone who is actually saying this never finds themselves or someone they know trying to prove their innocence.. Because that is really how it seems to play out. Not innocent until proven guilty as it should be.

Mark had ample opportunity to prove his innocence , and he failed to do so , and that is why he will be found guilty , it is no more complicated than that.

 

[canadiangirl]

Mark had ample opportunity to prove his innocence , and he failed to do so , and that is why he will be found guilty , it is no more complicated than that.

The accused does not have to prove their innocence.

 

[deugirtni]

Accessory and maybe indignity to a body.

I am so curious as to why they both weren't also charged with indignity to a body. Other murder charges have been laid in Canada recently that had that charge added, so it is confusing.

 

[Inspector_North]

The accused does not have to prove their innocence.

That is true to a point. When several posters discussed MS's testimony and some inconsistencies with his statements, several mentioned that TD had the opportunity to call BD back if he wanted, and didn't. Therefore leaving much doubt in MS's testimony.

MS knew there was much circumstantial evidence that pointed to the two of them as partners in this crime, and he chose to tell his story. Now that story has put much doubt for some as to his involvement, but his team did not choose to verify key events like BD being with MS when DM visited. BD testified that he only let DM in the building.

While it may be true that they don't need to prove their innocence, providing evidence that they aren't guilty is not a bad thing. MS just chose for us to believe he was source of truth and BD, MH, MM, CN and BD were all wrong with parts of their testimony. The parts that related to his guilt, everything else was okay.

He even said that the professor of forensic pathology was mistaken with what the Eliminator had been used for.

MOO

 

[canadiangirl]

That is true to a point. When several posters discussed MS's testimony and some inconsistencies with his statements, several mentioned that TD had the opportunity to call BD back if he wanted, and didn't. Therefore leaving much doubt in MS's testimony.

MS knew there was much circumstantial evidence that pointed to the two of them as partners in this crime, and he chose to tell his story. Now that story has put much doubt for some as to his involvement, but his team did not choose to verify key events like BD being with MS when DM visited. BD testified that he only let DM in the building.

While it may be true that they don't need to prove their innocence, providing evidence that they aren't guilty is not a bad thing. MS just chose for us to believe he was source of truth and BD, MH, MM, CN and BD were all wrong with parts of their testimony. The parts that related to his guilt, everything else was okay.

He even said that the professor of forensic pathology was mistaken with what the Eliminator had been used for.

MOO

Would MS' not guilty of M1 really hinge on BD's testimony?

TD would've had to call back everyone to turn it into a he said/she said. Not likely to happen as it didn't.

DM's lawyers and the crown also had the same opportunity to ask BD being with MS when DM arrived. No one did.

 

[Inspector_North]

Would MS' not guilty of M1 really hinge on BD's testimony?

TD would've had to call back everyone to turn it into a he said/she said. Not likely to happen as it didn't.

DM's lawyers and the crown also had the same opportunity to ask BD being with MS when DM arrived. No one did.

Exactly! But the crown did call BD as a witness and he said he only let him in the building. Just pointing out that the crown did their job with the overwhelming evidence. But some folks are putting sufficient weight on those uncorroborated stories that were told after the evidence was presented.

In that regard DM's team did a better job than MS's. If TD knew MS's story from the beginning, he could of ensured these were addressed when the witness was on the stand.

MOO

 

[canadiangirl]

<modsnip> IMO at this point in time there is reasonable doubt for me. I think I've said this many times? I'm waiting to hear the judges charges.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

<modsnip> IMO at this point in time there is reasonable doubt for me. I think I've said this many times? I'm waiting to hear the judges charges.

I'm just curious. Reasonable doubt for both?

 

[canadiangirl]

Exactly! But the crown did call BD as a witness and he said he only let him in the building. Just pointing out that the crown did their job with the overwhelming evidence. But some folks are putting sufficient weight on those uncorroborated stories that were told after the evidence was presented.

In that regard DM's team did a better job than MS's. If TD knew MS's story from the beginning, he could of ensured these were addressed when the witness was on the stand.

MOO

I put no weight on one part of the story. Corroborated or not. I'm looking at is as a whole.

 

[ILoveDateline]

Exactly! But the crown did call BD as a witness and he said he only let him in the building. Just pointing out that the crown did their job with the overwhelming evidence. But some folks are putting sufficient weight on those uncorroborated stories that were told after the evidence was presented.

In that regard DM's team did a better job than MS's. If TD knew MS's story from the beginning, he could of ensured these were addressed when the witness was on the stand.

MOO

<modsnip> IMO at this point in time there is reasonable doubt for me. I think I've said this many times? I'm waiting to hear the judges charges.

I do see a case for reasonable doubt, yet, the fact that TD did not corroborate MS's story makes me reasonably doubt how truthful it is. [emoji2]

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[hellkat2]

There was some discussion a few days ago on these threads about MS's 'SAY10' graffiti. One poster said they saw the tag on a train, and there was some discussion about how intricate it was etc & it could not have been made by MS. In an April NP article I found an example of it MS had drawn on his hand:
View attachment 95954

Source: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/texts-show-millard-smich-were-looking-for-specific-model-truck-tim-bosma-was-selling-crown

That is intricate. Not sure why anyone would conclude that MS had no artistic talents.

 

[hellkat2]

This was a very long trial with too many he said, she said. The story the circumstantial evidence tells does not line up with any of the stories told. The crown's story is most likely close to the truth, but the time of the actual shooting cannot be determined. Like the crown says, looking for who actually pulled the trigger misses the bigger murder picture.

Both have attempted to remove themselves from being the trigger puller. DM's story puts both of them in the truck, and MS's story puts himself in the other vehicle. And the Crown agrees with DM's story on this point.

Without ever hearing the three stories, the evidence shows that these two individuals were involved in a crime that was premeditated and had a high probability for violence. There is no circumstantial evidence of a scoping mission for test drives. There is evidence that they were planning on stealing the truck during the test drive. DM told AM they didn't steal IT's because MS was sick. This was at 5 P.M. on the 5th. As far as scoping, you would think they would have acknowledged that the IT test drive was a success since they did go on the test drive and scoped out the vehicle. But no, it was a failure because MS was sick on the test drive, meaning the mission was to steal the truck.

The evidence shows that this mission was different from previous missions. This mission was the first, or one of the first in DM's new "take if from the source" attitude. This was a theft mission that MS said they couldn't make any mistakes. This was a mission that both "bro's" seemed anxious to carry out. They were like children waiting for the "fireworks" to begin.

MOO

I agree up to the part where you discuss "DM telling MS they didn't steal it because MS was sick". You could take that to mean they didn't go back and steal it after the scope. There was a moment that the Russian said that DM whipped his head around and looked at MS which i think was related to the Russian's sharing of what he did in the military. That was odd and made me think that they were thinking about doing something during that ride to him but decided not to.

 

[hellkat2]

Sounds like MS made that decision right after DM's team decided not to call evidence. Maybe a last ditch effort to avoid a life sentence -MS probably looked at that as an opportunity to piece together a story with all the evidence jury has heard, and make himself seem as a shocked and surprised AATF - seems it backfired on him, as TD could not have structured his cross of BD, etc. whose evidence would have caused a problem for MS's "story".

Very much agree. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[Inspector_North]

I put no weight on one part of the story. Corroborated or not. I'm looking at is as a whole.

I respect everyone's opinion, but am curious what evidence or lack of evidence has you questioning proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Or maybe it's the definition of reasonable doubt, or the scale of reasonable doubt?

The judge's charge may address not only the nature of the first degree, but how the jury weighs the evidence for/against the nature of the first degree charge.


MOO

 

[hellkat2]

TD played it perfectly. The witnesses were not going to lie to support Smich, so he made some stuff up. The crown screwed up in not recalling the witnesses IMO, While Smich got his version in front of the jury un-impeached.

Agreed in full.