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

[deugirtni]

So not evidence in trial? Perhaps because it could not be verified to actually be his purchase.

Does anyone recall the date on which these holsters were purchased? Could the reason for omitting it from evidence be that it was far removed from the date of the event for which they are on trial? One might assume it may be easy to verify DM purchased it if it were purchased under his own ebay account and if the payment method was via some financial method belonging to DM? moo

 

[deugirtni]

I think only MS tried to come up with a special reason for DM wearing his satchel to the Bosmas.

Unless he was wearing a button up shirt that was open enough to access the holster, there was no logical reason to wear a holster. And if that was the case, his shirt would have been open enough to be noticeable, and to make it easy to see that he was wearing a gun and holster. If the shirt was a long sleeved teeshirt, it would be impossible to smoothly pull a gun out of a holster worn underneath it, especially while driving. And it would still be noticeable under the soft material the way it naturally falls.

In short, the holster is mere speculation while the hoodie MS was wearing is factual evidence. <modsnip>

It would have been just as simple for DM to slip his hand up under his top to grab the gun in his holster. The holster is mere speculation on our part, however the satchel being present is evidenced just as much as MS's hoodie, via eye witness testimony, and since the satchel was present on other occasions, such as at the hangar when police arrived, and during the other test-drive the day prior with IT, it lends credibility that the satchel might very well be expected to be present on the day of 'the event'. moo

 

[Errrr]

This doesn't make sense, imho. If DM's prints were NOT on the gun, it does NOT prove that he was NOT the shooter. If nobody's prints were on the gun, it doesn't prove the gun was not the murder weapon. If MS gave up the gun's location and MS's prints ARE on the gun, it does NOT prove that he WAS the shooter.

I may have missed something since there was just SO much reading and time involved in this case, but as far as I have read, there is no proof that MS was 'in such a hurry to get the gun', or 'to get the gun' at all. I'm not sure how MS found out that another item had been dropped off by DM to MH at his family's residence, whether through MS or AM or even DM. There IS evidence that he wanted all of DM's drugs. Is there evidence to prove that MS knew there was a gun inside the toolbox, or is there only really evidence to show that MS wanted the drugs and assumed there were drugs also inside the toolbox and therefore wanted those drugs too?

We heard testimony from MH that DM had historically kept narcotics and drug paraphernalia locked inside the toolbox, and I believe from AM that the toolbox was kept in DM's bedroom, so if MS knew that DM had dropped off the toolbox, and he wanted it, where is the evidence that he knew that something other than drugs and drug paraphernalia was inside? I believe texts referred to it as 'the thing' or 'the other thing', meaning 'the toolbox', but which they likely did not want to text out in full. If MS knew there was a gun, the murder weapon inside the toolbox, and that DM had taken the toolbox to MH's, the only way he could have found out the gun was in the toolbox was if DM told him. If DM had not wanted MS to get the gun, then why would he have told MS that he put it there, and where he took it to? And if DM did not want MS to get the gun that he put in the toolbox, why did he not leave instructions with AM and MH that he didn't want MS to have the toolbox, or to know about the toolbox?

Early am on the 10th, DM texts MS a cryptic msg "retooled for stormy weather". It sounds like they have an agreement about relocating the gun because they know LE is closing in. It wouldn't make sense for either of them to have that gun in their possession in case of arrest. Neither knew who or when these arrests would occur. Then in the afternoon, MS texts that he's going to be contacting squishy. Sounds like a plan to me.
It must surely have been a shock to MS, knowing his arrest was imminent, to receive that gun in his lap. It's actually comical.

 

[Georgeo]

It's not fair but trials are geared towards the accused and not the victims. Sadly.

yes, very sad. In fact sickening for family of Tim to sit and hear all the disallowed evidence. Judicial system protects the criminals, and hurts the victims and their loved ones over and over.

 

[Juballee]

Yes , and the fact he laundered it afterward indicates it had been used.

Can you tell from the laundry if it was used before, during, or after?

 

[canadiangirl]

Can you tell from the laundry if it was used before, during, or after?

Unfortunately not. I wish the washing machine and the dog could talk right about now.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Early am on the 10th, DM texts MS a cryptic msg "retooled for stormy weather". It sounds like they have an agreement about relocating the gun because they know LE is closing in. It wouldn't make sense for either of them to have that gun in their possession in case of arrest. Neither knew who or when these arrests would occur. Then in the afternoon, MS texts that he's going to be contacting squishy. Sounds like a plan to me.
It must surely have been a shock to MS, knowing his arrest was imminent, to receive that gun in his lap. It's actually comical.

If the goal was to keep the police from the gun, than MS getting it and making it disappear worked out perfectly. If he hadnt of gotten it, the police would have eventually would have gotten it after pressuring MH enough and on his lawyers advice.

 

[deugirtni]

I had always been under the impression that if DM wanted MS to have the gun back, he would have given it to him during the 40 minute visit on the 9th. The fact that he later gave it to someone else, not MS, made me believe he had a reason to keep it from MS.

Just like if MS wasn't the killer, and the crown speculated that producing the weapon could allow police to tie it to the actual shooter, if DM wasn't the killer, he may have wanted to gun to go to someone who would produce it later to help prove he wasn't the shooter. If it had MS's fingerprints on it, it would explain why he was in such a hurry to get it, only to try to distance himself from it again. It shows he wanted to be in control of disposing of it, and didn't trust anyone else to have it. DM had the perfect opportunity to give it back to him, and didn't.

Thinking on what has been written here, if indeed it was MS's gun that DM apparently had possession of, AFTER the murder (which to me, doesn't make sense for him to have it in the first place if it belonged to MS and MS was the murderer), then it doesn't make sense for DM NOT to want it to go back to MS. What incompetent person would take the risk personally of taking someone else's murder weapon, when that someone else had killed a man during his presence, and give it to yet a different friend who had nothing to do with it, and expect THAT friend would remain silent... knowing that if that friend talked to police, it would all be looking like DM's murder weapon? Why would someone/anyone who didn't own or use the gun, take that kind of risk with an item that had nothing to do with himself, and everything to do with the 'real killer'?

On the other hand, if it were DM's gun, and DM was the trigger-man, and DM therefore had the gun afterward (and why wouldn't the shooter still be in possession of the murder weapon? Who is going to kill a man and then just nonchalantly allow the murder weapon to get out of his control and into someone else's control who could potentially hold it against him later?), as well as beforehand, which would make much more sense, why would DM want his associate, who was physically present and the only living person aside from himself who could give eye witness testimony as to the activities that night, to have possession of it?

He wouldn't, for the obvious reason that in case MS betrayed his trust and went to the police with everything he knew, along WITH the evidence of DM's gun (whether or not it still had DM's prints on it). So what does DM do? Stupidly, he brings some innocent friend into the picture and takes the gun to the friend's parents' house, instead of pitching it in Lake Ontario, or whatever. And on top of that, he doesn't answer his friend's 'joke' when he asks if the toolbox contains guns. And on top of that, he doesn't tell his friend that he doesn't want his partner in crime to get ahold of this toolbox. I guess it might help to potentially explain his thinking if we remember that DM thought he had covered all of his bases and that there would never be enough evidence to substantiate murder charges against him.

All moo

 

[Juballee]

Thank you. I realize that you cannot enlighten us about anything that was said outside the jury's presence.

None of the reporters are allowed to either.

What I am trying to understand, though, is your accusation that the tweets and media weren't forthcoming in telling the whole LW2 & Scotty story in order to create intrigue and sell more papers.

The only conclusion I can come to from what you have said is that you are alleging that journalists deliberately withheld information that they WERE allowed to publish because it was testified to in the presence of the jury.

(IMO that is an irresponsible accusation to make to the numerous journalists who have spent countless hours dedicated to their coverage of the Bosma trial, unless you can back it up.)

And, if that is the case, because you were there that day, you would also be free to tell us what the journalists allegedly withheld that was heard by the jury if you so wished.

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's not my accusation or allegation that journalists deliberately withheld information that they were allowed to publish because it was testified to in the presence of the jury, that's just what happened. Unless someone does have MSM reports that do tell what Scotty's last name was, of course. I'm sure if one exists, someone will post it here. It's that lack of information in MSM that backs me up, in my opinion.

I also said that they could have been doing it to protect his identity, that's a possibility as well. I just feel that the real reason was to create mystery and drama to sell more papers.

You are correct, I would be free to tell you the last name if I wished, but that doesn't mean I remember it.

Or maybe I'm just trying to create mystery and drama?

 

[ArianeEmory]

Somehow I'm guessing the Scotty Moose Mystery didn't exactly have the papers flying off the shelves.

I'd pretty much forgotten the existence of the charming Lisa Whidden (or whichever LW it was) and her bud Scotty till reinvoked by this thread.

 

[Juballee]

I disagree. Lack of evidence that he was wearing the satchel is different than crown showing that he didn't have a satchel.
The crown did not show that he didn't have his satchel at Bosma home. The crown stated there was no evidence of him wearing a satchel.

There is no evidence of DM wearing the satchel, but there is also no evidence that he was not wearing it.

Witness testimony is considered evidence. SB didn't see it, neither did their tenant.

A man wearing a purse is just not something I see every day, sorry, maybe that is different in other people's towns. But I bet that Ancaster was not so full of men wearing purses in 2013 that the average person would have overlooked one because they were so commonplace. I respect SB's testimony and do not question it. Of all the people there she has no reason to lie.


All my opinion only.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Thinking on what has been written here, if indeed it was MS's gun that DM apparently had possession of, AFTER the murder (which to me, doesn't make sense for him to have it in the first place if it belonged to MS and MS was the murderer), then it doesn't make sense for DM NOT to want it to go back to MS. What incompetent person would take the risk personally of taking someone else's murder weapon, when that someone else had killed a man during his presence, and give it to yet a different friend who had nothing to do with it, and expect THAT friend would remain silent... knowing that if that friend talked to police, it would all be looking like DM's murder weapon? Why would someone/anyone who didn't own or use the gun, take that kind of risk with an item that had nothing to do with himself, and everything to do with the 'real killer'?

On the other hand, if it were DM's gun, and DM was the trigger-man, and DM therefore had the gun afterward (and why wouldn't the shooter still be in possession of the murder weapon? Who is going to kill a man and then just nonchalantly allow the murder weapon to get out of his control and into someone else's control who could potentially hold it against him later?), as well as beforehand, which would make much more sense, why would DM want his associate, who was physically present and the only living person aside from himself who could give eye witness testimony as to the activities that night, to have possession of it?

He wouldn't, for the obvious reason that in case MS betrayed his trust and went to the police with everything he knew, along WITH the evidence of DM's gun (whether or not it still had DM's prints on it). So what does DM do? Stupidly, he brings some innocent friend into the picture and takes the gun to the friend's parents' house, instead of pitching it in Lake Ontario, or whatever. And on top of that, he doesn't answer his friend's 'joke' when he asks if the toolbox contains guns. And on top of that, he doesn't tell his friend that he doesn't want his partner in crime to get ahold of this toolbox. I guess it might help to potentially explain his thinking if we remember that DM thought he had covered all of his bases and that there would never be enough evidence to substantiate murder charges against him.

All moo

Isn't the simplest explaination for all of this that they were still working together and didn't have any thoughts at this point that one would turn against the other.

 

[Juballee]

This doesn't make sense, imho. If DM's prints were NOT on the gun, it does NOT prove that he was NOT the shooter. If nobody's prints were on the gun, it doesn't prove the gun was not the murder weapon. If MS gave up the gun's location and MS's prints ARE on the gun, it does NOT prove that he WAS the shooter.

I may have missed something since there was just SO much reading and time involved in this case, but as far as I have read, there is no proof that MS was 'in such a hurry to get the gun', or 'to get the gun' at all. I'm not sure how MS found out that another item had been dropped off by DM to MH at his family's residence, whether through MS or AM or even DM. There IS evidence that he wanted all of DM's drugs. Is there evidence to prove that MS knew there was a gun inside the toolbox, or is there only really evidence to show that MS wanted the drugs and assumed there were drugs also inside the toolbox and therefore wanted those drugs too?

We heard testimony from MH that DM had historically kept narcotics and drug paraphernalia locked inside the toolbox, and I believe from AM that the toolbox was kept in DM's bedroom, so if MS knew that DM had dropped off the toolbox, and he wanted it, where is the evidence that he knew that something other than drugs and drug paraphernalia was inside? I believe texts referred to it as 'the thing' or 'the other thing', meaning 'the toolbox', but which they likely did not want to text out in full. If MS knew there was a gun, the murder weapon inside the toolbox, and that DM had taken the toolbox to MH's, the only way he could have found out the gun was in the toolbox was if DM told him. If DM had not wanted MS to get the gun, then why would he have told MS that he put it there, and where he took it to? And if DM did not want MS to get the gun that he put in the toolbox, why did he not leave instructions with AM and MH that he didn't want MS to have the toolbox, or to know about the toolbox?

Both LE during their interviews with MS and the crown during their presentation seemed to think that the gun could hold some clue to who the killer was and could possibly exonerate one of them.

The crown said in their opening address that MS went to great lengths to get the gun back. The only evidence that he only wanted drugs came from MS himself if I recall correctly. He did ask for the 'other' thing as well, why would he ask for all the drugs and the other thing of drugs, that doesn't make sense to me.

 

[Juballee]

Thinking on what has been written here, if indeed it was MS's gun that DM apparently had possession of, AFTER the murder (which to me, doesn't make sense for him to have it in the first place if it belonged to MS and MS was the murderer), then it doesn't make sense for DM NOT to want it to go back to MS. What incompetent person would take the risk personally of taking someone else's murder weapon, when that someone else had killed a man during his presence, and give it to yet a different friend who had nothing to do with it, and expect THAT friend would remain silent... knowing that if that friend talked to police, it would all be looking like DM's murder weapon? Why would someone/anyone who didn't own or use the gun, take that kind of risk with an item that had nothing to do with himself, and everything to do with the 'real killer'?

On the other hand, if it were DM's gun, and DM was the trigger-man, and DM therefore had the gun afterward (and why wouldn't the shooter still be in possession of the murder weapon? Who is going to kill a man and then just nonchalantly allow the murder weapon to get out of his control and into someone else's control who could potentially hold it against him later?), as well as beforehand, which would make much more sense, why would DM want his associate, who was physically present and the only living person aside from himself who could give eye witness testimony as to the activities that night, to have possession of it?

He wouldn't, for the obvious reason that in case MS betrayed his trust and went to the police with everything he knew, along WITH the evidence of DM's gun (whether or not it still had DM's prints on it). So what does DM do? Stupidly, he brings some innocent friend into the picture and takes the gun to the friend's parents' house, instead of pitching it in Lake Ontario, or whatever. And on top of that, he doesn't answer his friend's 'joke' when he asks if the toolbox contains guns. And on top of that, he doesn't tell his friend that he doesn't want his partner in crime to get ahold of this toolbox. I guess it might help to potentially explain his thinking if we remember that DM thought he had covered all of his bases and that there would never be enough evidence to substantiate murder charges against him.

All moo

It's possible that either one of them felt that they were already fully incriminated in a murder, even if it was committed by the other without foreknowledge. In that frame of mind, it's possible to image someone thinking that they have to help clean up the others mess and cover it up to save themselves from an unplanned prison stay. I would also not find it impossible to believe that a person in that position would take the risk of taking possession of evidence to either destroy it or to preserve it as evidence to try to prove their partner was the killer if they were ever caught.

As for DM having MS's gun after the murder, I could see MS not wanting it at his home, or DM not trusting MS with it if it actually was an F'up by MS.

 

[teamsundin]

Hi all,

I have been following from the beginning and only recently discovered this forum unfortunately. I'd like to share my theory on this and curious what you think.

I believe mark smich shot bosma and here is why:

From dellen millards letters to his gf, his previous thefts, the incinerator purchase, this suggests to me he is a practical and calculating individual who thinks ahead his steps. If he were to be this supposed lunatic as supposed by smichs testimony it was not proven in court that Millard has any such tendencies or histories with a bad temper or fits of rage.

So I think a safe assumption is Millard thought the test drive out before going on it. If he did, he would have considered the difficulty in shooting someone from the drivers seat. I thought about how he could do it and it would be near impossible without his satchel. And even then bosma will see him pull a gun and it would give him an opportunity to defend himself creating a dangerous situation for Millard. I think that is a logical conclusion. And if Millard sees that conclusion no way is he going to tell mark smich to follow in a separate car so that millard can do it all on his own. If there was a chance of error or going wrong for sure he wants mark in that car for backup. As arrogant millard may be he has been shown to have some thought in his plans. And furthermore why again is he going to make it difficult and shoot bosma who sees him rather than mark smich who bosma can't see in the backseat and defend against as easily. Add to that the shell casing that was found in the backseat suggests smich is the shooter. I can't think of a logical way that Millard did the shooting.

I think millards lawyer is right about the timing that they drove together, shot bosma and came back for the other vehicle. Three videos of a similar truck around that time in that remote an area is too big a coincidence. Maybe if it was twice, but not three times. I cannot imagine it being long into the test drive when they shoot him because consider it is already very late and he's already annoyed at the timing of their arrival . He's not going to afford them the time to go as long as they want.

As for premeditation the incinerator and burner phone proves it to me. If not for arthur Jennings and witnesses noticing millards tattoos I think he gets away with it. He knew they would look at bosmas phone records and that's why he called him from prepaid phone that police wouldn't be able to track to him. Smich went along with him the entire time and did nothing to suggest anything was unexpected. A rational person would not follow a killer. Scared or not Millard wasn't pointing a gun to his head and wasn't even in the same car at that point. It would have been extremely easy for Smich to remove himself from the situation. It's funny how his lawyer plays up him being petty drug dealer but at the same time Smich thinks he's too hardened a criminal to suggest police would believe he's not a killer. They are trying to have it both ways.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Does anyone recall the date on which these holsters were purchased? Could the reason for omitting it from evidence be that it was far removed from the date of the event for which they are on trial? One might assume it may be easy to verify DM purchased it if it were purchased under his own ebay account and if the payment method was via some financial method belonging to DM? moo

Here is the article/photos from ABro's website regarding the purchase of two holsters by Millard, however, I am unable to see the date(s) of purchase. I am pretty sure Ann must know, though, because she has details of his purchase history mentioned in the story and I am sure she would have taken note of the purchase dates.

ABro posted it to her site in September, 2013.


http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/201...ade-ebay-purchases-from-u-s-holster-firm.html



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[deugirtni]

It's not my accusation or allegation that journalists deliberately withheld information that they were allowed to publish because it was testified to in the presence of the jury, that's just what happened. Unless someone does have MSM reports that do tell what Scotty's last name was, of course. I'm sure if one exists, someone will post it here. It's that lack of information in MSM that backs me up, in my opinion.

I also said that they could have been doing it to protect his identity, that's a possibility as well. I just feel that the real reason was to create mystery and drama to sell more papers.

You are correct, I would be free to tell you the last name if I wished, but that doesn't mean I remember it.

Or maybe I'm just trying to create mystery and drama?

I don't think anyone is asking for Scotty's surname. It was stated earlier that everything had been made clear in regard to the mystery of Scotty, but that the media had chosen not to make it clear to the public. If someone was in attendance that day and believed the media was withholding evidence which could clarify the Scotty situation, I think it was merely suggested that it could be posted here to enlighten us.

Originally Posted by Juballee 03-29-2016, 09:56 AM (BBM)

I've said it before and I will say it again, the things that are tweeted and the things that actually happen in court don't always line up or tell the whole story. Reporters are essentially sales people trying to sell a story, and stories get dry and boring when they don't add some mystery to them. The story of Scotty was explained to the crown's satisfaction that day in court, but in the tweets and reports he seems like a mystery still. That is intentional on the part of the media, if everything was explained, there would be no mystery, nothing to talk about to keep you coming back, in my opinion.

The people who were present that day in court heard the crown ask what she thought that text meant when she got that text. She explained that she thought he was sick, and she says that she told Scotty that DM was sick. Hours later she got the text saying that DM thought that he was being set up, and the crown asked what she thought then, if she still thought the previous text had meant that he was sick, and she replied no, not after having received the text about the set up.

She explained who Scotty was, gave his last name, told how they met, and there was no mystery left by the time the crown finished their questions about him.

Remember that LE had her phone, and since she had been recieving and sending texts to Scotty, they had his name and number, they could verify who Scotty was, and what texts were sent between them. I have a feeling that if her texts to Scotty had contradicted the idea that she thought DM was ill, that the crown would have presented those texts to discredit the witness. They didn't, and there is no need for the crown to produce evidence that proves a witness is telling the truth, it is only their job to produce evidence that a witness may be lying if they think that, and again, they didn't.

​

 

[Juballee]

Hi all,

I have been following from the beginning and only recently discovered this forum unfortunately. I'd like to share my theory on this and curious what you think.

I believe mark smich shot bosma and here is why:

From dellen millards letters to his gf, his previous thefts, the incinerator purchase, this suggests to me he is a practical and calculating individual who thinks ahead his steps. If he were to be this supposed lunatic as supposed by smichs testimony it was not proven in court that Millard has any such tendencies or histories with a bad temper or fits of rage.

So I think a safe assumption is Millard thought the test drive out before going on it. If he did, he would have considered the difficulty in shooting someone from the drivers seat. I thought about how he could do it and it would be near impossible without his satchel. And even then bosma will see him pull a gun and it would give him an opportunity to defend himself creating a dangerous situation for Millard. I think that is a logical conclusion. And if Millard sees that conclusion no way is he going to tell mark smich to follow in a separate car so that millard can do it all on his own. If there was a chance of error or going wrong for sure he wants mark in that car for backup. As arrogant millard may be he has been shown to have some thought in his plans. And furthermore why again is he going to make it difficult and shoot bosma who sees him rather than mark smich who bosma can't see in the backseat and defend against as easily. Add to that the shell casing that was found in the backseat suggests smich is the shooter. I can't think of a logical way that Millard did the shooting.

I think millards lawyer is right about the timing that they drove together, shot bosma and came back for the other vehicle. Three videos of a similar truck around that time in that remote an area is too big a coincidence. Maybe if it was twice, but not three times. I cannot imagine it being long into the test drive when they shoot him because consider it is already very late and he's already annoyed at the timing of their arrival . He's not going to afford them the time to go as long as they want.

As for premeditation the incinerator and burner phone proves it to me. If not for arthur Jennings and witnesses noticing millards tattoos I think he gets away with it. He knew they would look at bosmas phone records and that's why he called him from prepaid phone that police wouldn't be able to track to him. Smich went along with him the entire time and did nothing to suggest anything was unexpected. A rational person would not follow a killer. Scared or not Millard wasn't pointing a gun to his head and wasn't even in the same car at that point. It would have been extremely easy for Smich to remove himself from the situation. It's funny how his lawyer plays up him being petty drug dealer but at the same time Smich thinks he's too hardened a criminal to suggest police would believe he's not a killer. They are trying to have it both ways.

Sent from my LG-H812 using Tapatalk

Welcome, Teamsundin, and thanks for the thoughtful post. I had forgotten about the shell casing, and what an unlikely spot it was found in.

I agree with most of what you are saying except for the burner phone and the incinerator.

I can see having the burner phone if he had lots of drugs he was probably selling, and using it to set up the appointment if he was planning on possibly stealing the truck later would make sense in my opinion. As you say, he seem like a calculating planner who would have thought ahead, but the phone was apparently used for contacting all kinds of other people, so I wouldn't be able to say that it was bought for this crime. If the phone had been bought that weekend, and only used for that, I would fully agree with you on that point though.

I am not sure on what the limits are for premeditation when it comes to how long ago something was bought in advance of a crime. Nor am I sure what the laws are regarding buying something that one planned to use in a particular crime but then happened to use it in a later subsequent crime. Or even the laws around buying something that one planned to use for another purpose but then got used in a crime. I'm uncertain about the premeditation factor for the incinerator because of those questions, I suppose.

 

[Claroon]

Thank you Claroon! I just always wondered if Scotty Moose was also involved in some kind of nefarious activity,

As always MOO.

The first thing that popped into my mind was as simple as drugs. He had just returned from somewhere so who knows? I don't think it's important and if it is LE will follow up on it.

 

[deugirtni]

Witness testimony is considered evidence. SB didn't see it, neither did their tenant.

A man wearing a purse is just not something I see every day, sorry, maybe that is different in other people's towns. But I bet that Ancaster was not so full of men wearing purses in 2013 that the average person would have overlooked one because they were so commonplace. I respect SB's testimony and do not question it. Of all the people there she has no reason to lie.


All my opinion only.

If the above is all true, it is still not evidence that DM had no satchel with him. A witness not noticing something does not mean that the thing is proven to be absent. She may not recall seeing their shoes that night either, but it doesn't prove they were not wearing shoes.