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

[deugirtni]

I have yet to see a holster that would conceal a weapon under a tee shirt. Then there would be getting it out of a hidden holster while driving.

I agree with TL, there is no way he would have been able to drive and keep a gun on someone while driving. And I agree with an earlier poster who said that if one thinks that they can drive and shoot a person at the same time, that person has likely never fired a gun.

I imagine that LE checked the roads where footage of the Ram was spotted for broken glass, and the field as well. They would have looked for spots where a truck pulled off the road and onto the shoulders. Pulling over would have given Tim a chance to escape.

MS was desperate to get his hands on the weapon to get rid of it without ever allowing for it to be recovered. It could be used to kill other people whther he gets out of jail or not. BD said MS told him it was his gun in the toolbox, and he had no reason to lie about that, unlike MS who contradicted him. The crown showed that DM didn't have his satchel and wouldn't have been able to retrieve it without arousing major suspicion in Tim. MS acted shady, hid from the witnesses and told everyone he f'ed up.

Quote Originally Posted by andreww View Post
Sorry, when did the crown ever say he wasn't wearing the satchel?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

In his closing.

Is this the evidence being relied upon on when stating, "the crown showed that DM didn't have his satchel?" The judge educated the jurors on the very first day of this trial, and numerous times after that, that what is said by a lawyer or the Crown is not evidence in this case. Further, that something is not reported as seen, is not evidence of its absence. To quote another member, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"

From the Crown's close (BB):

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews
Smich says he saw Millard put gun in satchel. But no one else reported seeing the satchel that night. #TimBosma

 

[deugirtni]

What purpose would this lie have? Why would she lie about it?

And wouldn't she be more likely to have lied when first questioned when she was in love and thinking she was carrying his baby?

Memories change with time, that has been proven in this trial. That is why they get statements signed in blood at the time. Nobody is saying that MM is lying, however the very first time that she indicated a celebratory mood was on the stand.

ETA: Sorry, another poster has indicated that MM first reported this change 9 days before her scheduled date on the stand. I don't recall anything about that, so if that is true, then amend my post to say that the first time those words were reported was almost 3 years after her statement.

 

[DMB]

It did hurt them though, they have been in jail for 3 years so far because of it.

It matters that they walked up to the door together for a couple of reasons. Although dead men cannot identify people, the witnesses who were not killed can.

It did make a difference that the other two witnesses saw them, because they were able to testify to that in court.

It also matters because it is inconsistent with the scenario that they were there to commit a murder and not get caught. If they had a plan to get a driver in a truck and then shoot him for his keys, why would both need to be seen at the house? Why not leave MS with the Yukon to follow, or to even pretend that he was stranded on the side of the road and pull over to help him. Surely TB would not have found that suspicious because he was naturally the kind of person who would offer help to a stranded motorist, I feel. Any tiny bit of forethought and pre-planning would have come up with a better plan than to both be seen by the intended victim's wife and tenant. If eliminating witnesses was the reason that they didn't fear showing their faces, then logic would follow that they would eliminate every witness who saw their faces. They obviously didn't.

Why even bother tying in a murder with the theft of a truck????? If they wanted to murder someone the focus of the planning would have been on a murder! DM had already apparently done it twice with nothing to do with a truck???? Unless, the impression he wanted "everybody" to believe was that it was a robbery gone bad, including MS.

 

[ABro]

Memories change with time, that has been proven in this trial. That is why they get statements signed in blood at the time. Nobody is saying that MM is lying, however the very first time that she indicated a celebratory mood was on the stand.

First statements are good because memories are the clearest, but they are also often given when loyalties are the strongest.

They are not written in blood any more than sworn testimony in court.

MM was both horrified at what had happened and loyal to Smich when she gave her first statement. She denied knowing about the incinerator. She said cancelling his phone was just a random thing. She failed to mention the celebratory mood.

Yes, there were elements of her testimony about that mood that appear contradictory. The defence team did their best to rip her to shreds over that.

Now, it's up to the jury -- who were there for every word she and Smich said -- to decide who was more credible.

 

[deugirtni]

THIS. I had questioned earlier where the Crown had said that DM wasn’t wearing the satchel….I have since gone back and read everything pertaining to the subject. The Crown’s closing is not evidence. And no evidence has been presented that DM wasn’t wearing the satchel. SB/WDB did not say DM was not wearing it….merely that they didn’t notice if he was or wasn’t. This is the evidence. IIRC, during his close, DM’s lawyer also mentioned that DM was wearing the satchel at the Bosma’s as part of his “signature look”….but as this was mentioned by the lawyer, not evidence.
On the other hand, MS testified (and like it or not, this is considered evidence) that DM WAS wearing the satchel at the Bosma’s. He may or may not be telling the truth. But we have irrefutable evidence that DM was wearing the satchel at the hangar after the murder and that the satchel was found in his washing machine. That’s it.
People are twisting words and testimony to try and make things fit their story. MOO

Absolutely. Just wanted to note that when DM's lawyer mentioned about DM having worn the satchel, he was not referring to when he was at TB's, he was referring to when he wore it to the IT test-drive and how he didn't hide it then. Either way, as you mention, DM's lawyer's words are not testimony, nor evidence, even if his lips are conveying the thoughts of his client.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

For multiple murders, the parole ineligibility period can be extended (i.e. Travis Baumgartner, killed 3 people, was sentenced in accordance with the 2011 Protecting Canadians by Ending Sentence Discounts for Multiple Murders Act and is ineligible to apply for parole until he has served 40 years.)

Thank you very much for citing the Travis Baumgartner sentencing. I knew that the law had changed (thankfully, and wisely IMO) in 2011 to allow for consecutive parole eligibility in the case of multiple murders, but I had yet to discover a case where the sentencing reflected that law.

In case others are also unaware, here is a link to an article about the Baumgartner case:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmon...thout-parole-for-killing-co-workers-1.1706464

(IMHO, many of the Judge's sentencing remarks that are quoted in this article are eerily reflective of what should also be spoken to DM and MS, i.e. "It's hard to put into words the revulsion of society, of this court, of the public." I am sure they will be.)

ETA: I just read through the CBC's live blog at the end of the article and found that gave me added insight to the new 2011 law as well.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[deugirtni]

First statements are good because memories are the clearest, but they are also often given when loyalties are the strongest.

They are not written in blood any more than sworn testimony in court.

MM was both horrified at what had happened and loyal to Smich when she gave her first statement. She denied knowing about the incinerator. She said cancelling his phone was just a random thing. She failed to mention the celebratory mood.

Yes, there were elements of her testimony about that mood that appear contradictory. The defence team did their best to rip her to shreds over that.

Now, it's up to the jury -- who were there for every word she and Smich said -- to decide who was more credible.

Yes, by 'written in blood', I did not mean literally. I meant that these witness statements are taken very seriously, and if something said on the stand by any of the witnesses in this trial was in opposition to something the same witness swore to in his/her sworn statement, it was not looked upon favourably, imo, and whichever lawyer was up, questioned the witness further, and many times had a witness refer back to his/her statement to refresh a memory. Three years is a long time in the life of a 21 year old, in anyone's life for that matter. And yes, fortunately it is up to the jury and not us to decide the fate of these two men. I don't envy their task, and once the judge instructs them, they will be in the best position to do so, without having listened to 3 years of random theories, various incorrect information, and disallowed information. I feel like I might be one of a very few people who will be sad, rather than happy, once the verdicts come in. I can't help thinking about what a waste of life this was for at least 3 people, and for what possible gain. And what profound changes this has brought to the lives of so many others in addition to the three. Too bad there isn't a way to educate the wannabe gangstas on how their actions affect so many... and get them to give a $h!+.

 

[andreww]

Is this the evidence being relied upon on when stating, "the crown showed that DM didn't have his satchel?" The judge educated the jurors on the very first day of this trial, and numerous times after that, that what is said by a lawyer or the Crown is not evidence in this case. Further, that something is not reported as seen, is not evidence of its absence. To quote another member, "Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence"

From the Crown's close (BB):

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews
Smich says he saw Millard put gun in satchel. But no one else reported seeing the satchel that night. #TimBosma

Well that is quite a long way from the crown saying "he wasn't wearing a satchel". We know he was wearing a satchel, we all saw it. The crown was simply doing whatever they could to discredit Smich even if it meant giving back a little on Millard who is a hopeless case anyway. But yes, nobody (two people at a distance in the dark) said the didn't remember seeing it. Doesn't mean it wasn't there.

 

[RandomName479]

Absolutely. Just wanted to note that when DM's lawyer mentioned about DM having worn the satchel, he was not referring to when he was at TB's, he was referring to when he wore it to the IT test-drive and how he didn't hide it then. Either way, as you mention, DM's lawyer's words are not testimony, nor evidence, even if his lips are conveying the thoughts of his client.

May be a moot point, but I swear I saw a tweet (from SC I think) that indicated DM was wearing the satchel at the Bosma’s (during close by his lawyer)…..was this a mis-tweet? Am I not remembering correctly? How did we determine this wasn’t the case? Apologies….this has likely been dealt with….I haven’t been able to keep up lately

 

[lawstud]

One thngs in this entire scenario that seems strange to me, is the fact that we assume DM or MS tossed TB's cell phone into the field. This seems odd as its leaving evidence around for the LE to pick up. If the plan was to get rid of the body, why not keep the phone and dispose of it also. My thought-perhaps TB threw the cell phone into the field when things got heated so he might be able to leave some evidence behind..MOO.

Also, and this has been most likely already been discussed, but can the judge charge the jury with a potential lessor charge of 2nd degree murder. Still automatic life sentence but a judge determined parole period from 10-25 years. Just a thought and not sure what the protocol on the actual charges are.....MOO

 

[andreww]

Memories change with time, that has been proven in this trial. That is why they get statements signed in blood at the time. Nobody is saying that MM is lying, however the very first time that she indicated a celebratory mood was on the stand.

ETA: Sorry, another poster has indicated that MM first reported this change 9 days before her scheduled date on the stand. I don't recall anything about that, so if that is true, then amend my post to say that the first time those words were reported was almost 3 years after her statement.

Did you ever think that she was just never questioned thoroughly about the mood in the truck? Possibly 9 days before she testified when she gave her interview she was finally asked. The lawyers would have said "yes, play that up and use these words". I don't doubt that she might have exaggerated slightly but I do believe she was giving an accurate assessment of their mood. Maybe not bouncing, but very happy with themselves.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

Did you ever think that she was just never questioned thoroughly about the mood in the truck? Possibly 9 days before she testified when she gave her interview she was finally asked. The lawyers would have said "yes, play that up and use these words". I don't doubt that she might have exaggerated slightly but I do believe she was giving an accurate assessment of their mood. Maybe not bouncing, but very happy with themselves.

But in that video, MS doesn't looked happy and bouncy. Can't see DM, so I can't comment there.

 

[andreww]

But in that video, MS doesn't looked happy and bouncy. Can't see DM, so I can't comment there.

I disagree, Smich jumps out of the SUV and gives MM a big hug. I don't think you can tell anything from that as Smich's clothes are all baggy and his posture was never outstanding. He just looks mopey because thats the way gangsters carry themselves.

 

[Sillybilly]

When other members request a link to something stated as fact, please provide a link to support such statement. IOW, not a 'oh, it's here somewhere' and other posters have to repeatedly ask for a link and rummage around to support the statement or not.

Mod hat off ... WRT TL's reference to the satchel in his closing statement, this is what I found:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...osing-Arguments-Day-3&p=12603550#post12603550

IMO, TL indicated in his closing that there was no evidence that DM wore the satchel at the TB residence. That is different than stating DM did not wear it .. just that there was no evidence.

We have seen numerous photos, and SS testified that DM wore the satchel quite regularly. DM retrieved it when LE showed up at the hangar. IT testified that DM wore it on that test drive. Video shows him wearing it during the incineration phase of the crime. It seemed especially important to him. Just because two people didn’t see it or notice it just prior to the crime is not proof that he was or wasn’t wearing it. Susan Clairmont tweeted that Ravin Pillay made reference to DM wearing it at the Bosma residence. (I can’t recall if that was a tweet made in error and later rectified?)

IMO, the contentious point is, if he WAS wearing it at the Bosma residence, then he did not have to get out of the truck to retrieve it from the Yukon that was parked up the road. This would tend to support that the satchel was in DM’s possession at all times that night, and therefore lends credence to MS’s claim that he was driving the Yukon at the time Tim was killed by DM in the truck (and as evidenced by blood and GSR in the truck but nothing in the field where the Yukon had been parked), and by extension supports MS’s claim that DM put the gun in the satchel as he exited the truck at the Bobcat dealership.

Given there is no evidence that DM was or was not wearing it at the Bosma residence, a jury should at least consider that the testimony of the defendant MS may be reasonable and truthful as it relates to the totality of his testimony.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Oh, yes, I agree, and there are a few possibilities. The only point I was trying to make is that Isho was contacted for some reason, that reason being the gun, not drugs. IMO, I believe that Isho would know how to make a gun clean, or have other possible suggestions for MS/DM, or possibly given back to him or sold back to him. I remember when DM purchased the gun from Isho, he asked if the gun was clean, so there is a possibility that one could purchase a dirty gun from Isho. Regardless, DM and MS wanted MS to contact Isho about something to do with the gun(s).

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I don't see anything in those text messages about DM wanting anyone to contact Isho, only that MS was going to and wanted DM to.

DM texted MS at 4:46 am saying "retooled for stormy weather" and that he had an accounting meeting at 7:00 am. Then MS sends a series of messages that were deleted and couldn't be retrieved. Then at 9:36 am and 9:42 am, MS is texting asking how "everything goes with that there" and if DM can talk for a minute. DM replies at some point that he is in the accounting meeting and will call on his lunch break. Seems MS doesn't want to wait because he calls DM again at 11:18 am. At 11:42, DM texts that SS and AJ are busy and he hasn't talked to them yet. At 12:20, MS tells DM to check with Isho soon and that he was going to call him that day.

There is nothing there about any response from DM regarding Isho or whether he wanted to contact him. Maybe this was something that MS thought would be a good idea? (I'm not sure how one would go about making a dirty gun clean.)

JMO

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hb6kEtpLa8cHCVorBuy4yqfHymGvhfHeM6s8QMWGVW8/pubhtml

 

[deugirtni]

May be a moot point, but I swear I saw a tweet (from SC I think) that indicated DM was wearing the satchel at the Bosma’s (during close by his lawyer)…..was this a mis-tweet? Am I not remembering correctly? How did we determine this wasn’t the case? Apologies….this has likely been dealt with….I haven’t been able to keep up lately

Yes I believe it was a 'mis-tweet' by SC. At the time RP was talking about the IT test-drive. All the other reporters got it right.

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 8m8 minutes ago
If Millard intented to kill Igor Tumanenko, there would be some sort of attempt to conceal his identity. Especially his tattoos. #Bosma
0 retweets 0 likes

Alex Pierson ‏@AlexpiersonAMP 8m8 minutes ago
Pillar " he used that name with multiple owners" Spent an hr w Tumanenko. didn't conceal his i.d. or his very distinctive tattoos.
0 retweets 0 likes

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 8m8 minutes ago
If Millard intended to kill Tumenenko, there would have been something about an attempt to conceal his ID, he says. #Bosma
0 retweets 0 likes

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC
"He touched different areas of the vehicle. No gloves," Pillay says. #TimBosma #Bosma

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes
Satchels were part of his signature look. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont
Shows Millard was not trying to conceal his identity. He used a satchel at Bosma residence, pulled out satchel in front of police later.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC
Pillay also points out MIllard didn't try to disguise himself when he went on the test drive with Tumanenko. #TimBosma #Bosma

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews
Millard wore jeans and a short sleeved shirt and carried a satchel, which helped ID him, Pillay says. #TimBosma

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes
He wore short sleeves, jeans, a satchel. He was not trying to conceal his identity, Pillay says. #Bosma

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

One thngs in this entire scenario that seems strange to me, is the fact that we assume DM or MS tossed TB's cell phone into the field. This seems odd as its leaving evidence around for the LE to pick up. If the plan was to get rid of the body, why not keep the phone and dispose of it also. My thought-perhaps TB threw the cell phone into the field when things got heated so he might be able to leave some evidence behind..MOO.

Also, and this has been most likely already been discussed, but can the judge charge the jury with a potential lessor charge of 2nd degree murder. Still automatic life sentence but a judge determined parole period from 10-25 years. Just a thought and not sure what the protocol on the actual charges are.....MOO

Regarding your first paragraph, IMO DM threw Tim's phone away in that location, in the belief that if/when Tim's phone was found, it would only be linked to a Lucas Bate by the burner phone that DM had purchased and used to contact his potential victims and victim, which would have given them both plenty of time to complete their mission by sending LE on a wild goose chase, looking for someone who didn't exist. The latter are potentially DM's arrogant thoughts because he thought he was smart and confident enough to plan a perfect mission, IMO. If Tim had thrown his phone out, it is most likely, IMO, that he would have left it turned on so it could be located. Tim's phone was powered down shortly after 10 pm on May 6.

Regarding your second paragraph, the charge of 1st degree murder also carries lesser included charges -- 2nd degree murder and manslaughter.

In his charge to the jury I believe that Justice Goodman will use, as part of his charge, what is known as a "decision tree", which steps through the legal requirements in order for the accused to be found guilty beyond reasonable doubt for 1st degree and the lesser included charges, and guides the jurors through all the possibilities, giving the jurors a clear, top-to-bottom step-by-step path to follow in their deliberations.

I am probably not explaining this too well. I have been present in courtrooms during the judge's jury charge in three separate cases (not as a juror), and each judge used a "decision tree" in his charge. I listened to every word (it was completely fascinating for me), and found each judge gave very clear guidance, and the decision tree to be especially helpful. I wish I could remember more specific details. I am only left with my personal certainty that the judges' charges gave me full confidence that I understood the steps to take in order to reach the appropriate legal judgement.

IMHO



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Alethea Dice]

Took her almost 3 years to remember that gem? I could see a few weeks or so, even a month..but 3 years? Yes, I've asked myself why and I keep coming back to...recognition of taking down one of the bad guys in one of the biggest murder cases. Some people like to be the center of things...I dunno ask MM why!

I don't think Dungey was hard on her or intimidated her. IMO, I thought he went too easy on her. I don't believe that's why she changed back to "DM was happy". Just that the Truth is easier to remember then a lie!

I also believe she first said MS wanted the drugs, then she said under cross, No, it was her that wanted the drugs to smoke. Why would she lie about that? She got caught in a lie, on the stand and again had to have her memory refreshed.

I found that she seemed to just agree with whatever she was asked, regardless of which lawyer was doing the questioning at the time. That created some contradictions on a few things she had stated and that lessened the reliability of her testimony in my eyes.

JMO

 

[RandomName479]

Yes I believe it was a 'mis-tweet' by SC. At the time RP was talking about the IT test-drive. All the other reporters got it right.

I would say that is still ambiguous.....but either way, IMO it is POSSIBLE that DM had the satchel at the Bosma's.

 

[deugirtni]

Did you ever think that she was just never questioned thoroughly about the mood in the truck? Possibly 9 days before she testified when she gave her interview she was finally asked. The lawyers would have said "yes, play that up and use these words". I don't doubt that she might have exaggerated slightly but I do believe she was giving an accurate assessment of their mood. Maybe not bouncing, but very happy with themselves.

It just looks kind of bad, imho, if a witness changes his/her statement in such a profound way, after 3 years and very close to the trial. By then all of the evidence/disclosure had long been given to the defence lawyers, which is required, and suddenly it changed, so of course they would pounce on that. If it was her saying something to the opposite effect, such as say, 'as soon as we got home, MS was curled in a ball and crying uncontrollably, shaking, and asking how he can ever forgive himself for being with DM, and asking how he can help his friend, and vomiting, and saying he was scared that he'd be blamed, and didn't know what to do, etc.', it would look equally as bad for MM to remember that at that point in time.

There is a video of MS getting out of the vehicle, trodding to the door to fetch MM, opening the door for her, embracing her, and getting back into the vehicle, but I personally didn't see any indication of joviality present. There are also texts from that exact time and from the texts I'm not picking up any sense of joyfulness or even contentment. And of course, it is beyond my comprehension that a sane person could BE jovial at such a time. With DM, I can possibly understand it because I suspect he is truly a psychopath without normal human feeling, but in MS's case, I'm having difficulty in believing he is just pure bad, but that is only my impression.