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

[marymcd]

My apologies if someone has already posted this but I was reading some of the posts about the toolbox last night. I was wondering why if Millard had left about 2lbs of weed at his house, why he would have moved the toolbox if it only had drugs in it? Also still wondering if the buried(?) gun isn't 2 buried guns and that's why Smich is so desperate to conceal the location.

 

[marymcd]

My apologies if someone has already posted this but I was reading some of the posts about the toolbox last night. I was wondering why if Millard had left about 2lbs of weed at his house, why he would have moved the toolbox if it only had drugs in it? Also still wondering if the buried(?) gun isn't 2 buried guns and that's why Smich is so desperate to conceal the location.

Just read another post pointing out and reminding me of his search for ammo and am wondering if maybe there were 2 guns and the one that was discarded wasn't the gun that was used to kill Bosma. I don't know, and it doesn't matter but it still perplexes me.

 

[Inspector_North]

All the evidence that will be presented in this trial has been presented. There is no more, and the jury will need to make their decision based on what we have all heard in the last few months. It doesn't stop WS'ers from continuing speculation, and this trial has rolled out in a way that leaves plenty of room for speculation. However, the reality is that these men will be judged only on the evidence that has already been presented.

We only have one more key step before these jurors exercise a very serious responsibility demanded of them by our society. A responsibility that will change the lives of many folks with the outcome of two decisions from a single deliberation.

MOO

 

[andreww]

Just read another post pointing out and reminding me of his search for ammo and am wondering if maybe there were 2 guns and the one that was discarded wasn't the gun that was used to kill Bosma. I don't know, and it doesn't matter but it still perplexes me.

You never know, did Millard shoot him? Did Smich shoot him? Did both shoot him? We'll likely never know, not that it matters. There has been sufficient evidence that both these guys moved on this mission knowing in advance that they would be killing Bosma and incinerating his body before the morning. Both will be guilty and that's that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[canadiangirl]

You never know, did Millard shoot him? Did Smich shoot him? Did both shoot him? We'll likely never know, not that it matters. There has been sufficient evidence that both these guys moved on this mission knowing in advance that they would be killing Bosma and incinerating his body before the morning. Both will be guilty and that's that.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You're pretty matter of fact. I guess we'll see when the jury decides. I'm interested to know the judge's charges myself.

 

[andreww]

You're pretty matter of fact. I guess we'll see when the jury decides. I'm interested to know the judge's charges myself.

Not "matter of fact", just realistic. Going by the number of people that regularly contribute here (maybe 50 or 60) and the number of people that still believe in Smich (maybe 2 or 3), chances are there will be one person at best on the jury that will need to be convinced. Unless that person has some kind of super human will, they will change their mind quickly. Statistics don't lie.

 

[andreww]

All the evidence that will be presented in this trial has been presented. There is no more, and the jury will need to make their decision based on what we have all heard in the last few months. It doesn't stop WS'ers from continuing speculation, and this trial has rolled out in a way that leaves plenty of room for speculation. However, the reality is that these men will be judged only on the evidence that has already been presented.

We only have one more key step before these jurors exercise a very serious responsibility demanded of them by our society. A responsibility that will change the lives of many folks with the outcome of two decisions from a single deliberation.

MOO

BBM. As a juror that had some nagging doubts about Smich, would you feel more comfortable putting him back on the streets or locking him away? Certainly Smich at the absolute minimum knew that at the very least TBs life was in danger that night and he knew what Millard was capable of, maybe he deserves to be put away even if technically you don't believe he's guilty? As a juror do you want the responsibility of setting him free only to find he killed someone else sometime later? Sometimes I think people should be the victims of their own stupidity, meaning that he chose the lifestyle, he chose his associates, he chose to have weapons around him, and poor Tim Bosma got killed. If you didn't make such bad choices, and lived your life right, TB would be alive today, thus you are directly responsible for his death.

Not that I think any juror would go to that extent, but I certainly do feel that it would not be difficult to convince a reluctant juror to change their mind in a case like this.

 

[canadiangirl]

Not "matter of fact", just realistic. Going by the number of people that regularly contribute here (maybe 50 or 60) and the number of people that still believe in Smich (maybe 2 or 3), chances are there will be one person at best on the jury that will need to be convinced. Unless that person has some kind of super human will, they will change their mind quickly. Statistics don't lie.

I wouldn't call it "believing in" either of the accused. It's called not drawing conclusions based on "theories" of holsters, "scenarios" on where TB was killed, "theories" on how many trucks or if they are the same or different trucks, "theories" on how many guns, interpretation of text messages including a "picture" of sausages in a frying pan.
Add to that rap lyrics of course and is that a solid case?

People seem to forget you're innocent until proven guilty in this country so I'd like to see evidence without a reasonable doubt before convicting someone. Not to mention the LACK of physical evidence here. No fingerprints, DNA, GSR, murder weapon, no evidence in the Yukon from MS, I could go on but everyone has been following as closely or closer then I have so you get the point. No need to keep going on.

Before trial and knowing the evidence I was convinced they were both guilty.
You're going by 50 regular posters, whereby I posted results of a poll yesterday that out of approx 1000 people, only 43% say first degree for MS for example. Who knows what type of people weighed in or what their knowledge of the case is, but I tend to think those numbers weren't based on a select group of people who were swayed by popular opinion. That's just my opinion of course. Not fact.

 

[Variant]

That holster is for someone right handed, it seems. Did he purchase one like this or a left handed version?

The seller provided instructions in the listing for ordering either a left or right handed holster and which a left handed shooter should choose, depending on where they wanted to locate the gun on their body.

I expect that LE will have checked with eBay and the seller to verify the account holder and to determine what was shipped, and to what name and address.

 

[RandomName479]

BBM. As a juror that had some nagging doubts about Smich, would you feel more comfortable putting him back on the streets or locking him away? Certainly Smich at the absolute minimum knew that at the very least TBs life was in danger that night and he knew what Millard was capable of, maybe he deserves to be put away even if technically you don't believe he's guilty? As a juror do you want the responsibility of setting him free only to find he killed someone else sometime later? Sometimes I think people should be the victims of their own stupidity, meaning that he chose the lifestyle, he chose his associates, he chose to have weapons around him, and poor Tim Bosma got killed. If you didn't make such bad choices, and lived your life right, TB would be alive today, thus you are directly responsible for his death.

Not that I think any juror would go to that extent, but I certainly do feel that it would not be difficult to convince a reluctant juror to change their mind in a case like this.

BBM - we clearly have different opinions of the intent of the justice system.

In criminal law, Blackstone's formulation (also known as Blackstone's ratio or the Blackstone ratio) is the principle that "It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer", as expressed by the English jurist William Blackstone in his seminal work, Commentaries on the Laws of England, published in the 1760s.

from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation

Should Smich be locked up? Yes. At a minimum he has admitted to AATF which carries a lengthy prison sentence. Should he be found guilty of 1st degree if the evidence doesn't support it? No. It's a JUSTICE system....not a VENGANCE system.....

 

[teamsundin]

BBM. As a juror that had some nagging doubts about Smich, would you feel more comfortable putting him back on the streets or locking him away? Certainly Smich at the absolute minimum knew that at the very least TBs life was in danger that night and he knew what Millard was capable of, maybe he deserves to be put away even if technically you don't believe he's guilty? As a juror do you want the responsibility of setting him free only to find he killed someone else sometime later? Sometimes I think people should be the victims of their own stupidity, meaning that he chose the lifestyle, he chose his associates, he chose to have weapons around him, and poor Tim Bosma got killed. If you didn't make such bad choices, and lived your life right, TB would be alive today, thus you are directly responsible for his death.

Not that I think any juror would go to that extent, but I certainly do feel that it would not be difficult to convince a reluctant juror to change their mind in a case like this.

It shouldn't be difficult. As this trial went on I kept on thinking how the defence was going to counter all this overwhelming evidence and they never did. All they did was point fingers at the other which I don't think matters in the end. Smich's testimony was the only real defence. The part that bothers me is that he was there the entire trial, able to take notes, and manufacture a story to fit all the other pieces of evidence brought against him and that's probably the source of most of this doubt any juror might have left. The part that was over the top for me was that he didn't help Millard put Bosma in the incinerator. The most far-fetched story he could produce to conveniently separate him from all the really bad parts of it.

 

[canadiangirl]

BBM. As a juror that had some nagging doubts about Smich, would you feel more comfortable putting him back on the streets or locking him away? Certainly Smich at the absolute minimum knew that at the very least TBs life was in danger that night and he knew what Millard was capable of, maybe he deserves to be put away even if technically you don't believe he's guilty? As a juror do you want the responsibility of setting him free only to find he killed someone else sometime later? Sometimes I think people should be the victims of their own stupidity, meaning that he chose the lifestyle, he chose his associates, he chose to have weapons around him, and poor Tim Bosma got killed. If you didn't make such bad choices, and lived your life right, TB would be alive today, thus you are directly responsible for his death.

Not that I think any juror would go to that extent, but I certainly do feel that it would not be difficult to convince a reluctant juror to change their mind in a case like this.

If a juror has a nagging doubt, it is their duty to NOT put someone away for that very reason. As a juror it is your duty to find someone innocent if there is reasonable doubt and you are not convinced they are guilty. I would hope that a reluctant juror would NOT be "convinced", that would be a grave injustice to someone.
We don't lock people away for any crime if the evidence isn't there. It's scary to think there could be people with this same mindset out there deciding someone's fate.

 

[andreww]

I wouldn't call it "believing in" either of the accused. It's called not drawing conclusions based on "theories" of holsters, "scenarios" on where TB was killed, "theories" on how many trucks or if they are the same or different trucks, "theories" on how many guns, interpretation of text messages including a "picture" of sausages in a frying pan.
Add to that rap lyrics of course and is that a solid case?

People seem to forget you're innocent until proven guilty in this country so I'd like to see evidence without a reasonable doubt before convicting someone. Not to mention the LACK of physical evidence here. No fingerprints, DNA, GSR, murder weapon, no evidence in the Yukon from MS, I could go on but everyone has been following as closely or closer then I have so you get the point. No need to keep going on.

Before trial and knowing the evidence I was convinced they were both guilty.
You're going by 50 regular posters, whereby I posted results of a poll yesterday that out of approx 1000 people, only 43% say first degree for MS for example. Who knows what type of people weighed in or what their knowledge of the case is, but I tend to think those numbers weren't based on a select group of people who were swayed by popular opinion. That's just my opinion of course. Not fact.

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. You may have a problem coming to conclusions from texts, rap lyrics and theories but you seem to ignore how simply unbelievable Smich's testimony was. He did not recall any important details during that time, and said "I don't remember", "I don't recall", or "I wouldn't have done that" countless times. I am a good judge of people and I can say with certainty that Smich was lying for most of the time he was on the stand. He simply denied important details, then didn't remember any of the times in between. This is a classic tell of a liar because you can not fabricate 5 days worth of fiction without tripping up. Tell the basic lie and say you forget the rest. If Smich were telling the truth I would have expected him to fill in every second of what happened between May 6 and May 10th. I'd expect him to lead me to the gun. I'd expect him to tell me every damn thing Millard sad to him on the 10th during that 50 minute meeting. Id certainly expect him to be more forthcoming about that night, giving every detail of what would certainly be etched in his mind. But he didn't. Mark Smich is every bit as guilty as Dellen Millard. He is every bis as evil as Millard, maybe even more so. I think that one day soon this is all going to become pretty obvious to you as well.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

A man who wears a man purse aka murse is making a statement. Most men would take note of another man who would be wearing one.

Curious as to what that "statement" might be?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[CJPRINCESS]

Except that MS had his hands in his hoodie pocket the whole time, as if he was holding or hiding something.

If DM had had his hand in his purse, (if it was there), or on the butt of a gun in a holster, (if it was there), then it could be comparable. But the hoodie was definetly there.

Tape he asked DM for? I don't believe MS wanted it to stencil

 

[andreww]

If a juror has a nagging doubt, it is their duty to NOT put someone away for that very reason. As a juror it is your duty to find someone innocent if there is reasonable doubt and you are not convinced they are guilty. I would hope that a reluctant juror would NOT be "convinced", that would be a grave injustice to someone.
We don't lock people away for any crime if the evidence isn't there. It's scary to think there could be people with this same mindset out there deciding someone's fate.

I know that, but jurors are not robots, they are human beings. OJ Simpsons Jury found him not guilty, probably because they just wanted to go home. In this case I am convinced that both are guilty, but a few weeks ago maybe I wasn't convinced. Yet even at that point I still wouldn't have had a problem sending him away. Simply put, you have 12 jurors in a room, all with their own opinion. They can't leave until they are unanimous. Somebody has to give up their beliefs, and if some of the best attorneys in the province couldn't convince you of Smich's guilt, how will I? Similarly, I'm 100% positive of what kind of a monster Smich is and I'll be damned if I'll ever see him go free. What I am getting at is that you, being uncertain, are a far better candidate to change their mind. I am certain, you are not. Would you not defer to the certainty of the 11 other jurors rather than force a mistrial?

 

[zencompass]

This case saddens my heart for Tim's family. How they held up during the trial is a testament to their love for Tim Bosma.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out regarding M.S.'s role in this.

We don't have felony murder here as they have in the U.S. which would mean that both would be held responsible for a murder during
a robbery.

M.S. knew that they were going to steal a truck. He knew there was a gun. D.M. would likely not have gone without M.S. so in my opinion Tim may
still be alive if M.S. hadn't gone. Consequences have to apply.

My question is does it matter who pulled the trigger?

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

This case saddens my heart for Tim's family. How they held up during the trial is a testament to their love for Tim Bosma.

It will be very interesting to see how this plays out regarding M.S.'s role in this.

We don't have felony murder here as they have in the U.S. which would mean that both would be held responsible for a murder during
a robbery.

M.S. knew that they were going to steal a truck. He knew there was a gun. D.M. would likely not have gone without M.S. so in my opinion Tim may
still be alive if M.S. hadn't gone. Consequences have to apply.

My question is does it matter who pulled the trigger?

In legal terms, no, it doesn't matter who pulled the trigger. If the jury finds that the evidence proves that both MS and DM were complicit in planning to murder Tim, then they can both be convicted of 1st degree murder.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[canadiangirl]

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. You may have a problem coming to conclusions from texts, rap lyrics and theories but you seem to ignore how simply unbelievable Smich's testimony was. He did not recall any important details during that time, and said "I don't remember", "I don't recall", or "I wouldn't have done that" countless times. I am a good judge of people and I can say with certainty that Smich was lying for most of the time he was on the stand. He simply denied important details, then didn't remember any of the times in between. This is a classic tell of a liar because you can not fabricate 5 days worth of fiction without tripping up. Tell the basic lie and say you forget the rest. If Smich were telling the truth I would have expected him to fill in every second of what happened between May 6 and May 10th. I'd expect him to lead me to the gun. I'd expect him to tell me every damn thing Millard sad to him on the 10th during that 50 minute meeting. Id certainly expect him to be more forthcoming about that night, giving every detail of what would certainly be etched in his mind. But he didn't. Mark Smich is every bit as guilty as Dellen Millard. He is every bis as evil as Millard, maybe even more so. I think that one day soon this is all going to become pretty obvious to you as well.

Maybe one day it will. Maybe after the LB trial. Who knows. I'm looking at this trial though. Not information I'm not privy to as of yet.

As I said I don't know when the poll was started, nor does it matter to me or make a difference. The results were posted June 3. That's about all I know about it.

You state you're a good judge of people. Does this include people you've never met?

As for myself, I'm not ignoring anything, but it is really ironic how if you don't agree with everyone else, those of us must be not seeing the whole picture or ignoring something. If that's the case I guess I would have to ignore all the groupies as well because all of their testimony had unbelievable parts IMO. I don't think one person told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth out of the group of them.

And if I recall the judge did point out you can believe all, part or none of a witness testimony. It's not so black and white as, well the person lied about one part, so they lied about everything. Not even close IMO.

 

[canadiangirl]

I know that, but jurors are not robots, they are human beings. OJ Simpsons Jury found him not guilty, probably because they just wanted to go home. In this case I am convinced that both are guilty, but a few weeks ago maybe I wasn't convinced. Yet even at that point I still wouldn't have had a problem sending him away. Simply put, you have 12 jurors in a room, all with their own opinion. They can't leave until they are unanimous. Somebody has to give up their beliefs, and if some of the best attorneys in the province couldn't convince you of Smich's guilt, how will I? Similarly, I'm 100% positive of what kind of a monster Smich is and I'll be damned if I'll ever see him go free. What I am getting at is that you, being uncertain, are a far better candidate to change their mind. I am certain, you are not. Would you not defer to the certainty of the 11 other jurors rather than force a mistrial?

No. I would feel it was my duty as a juror to force a mistrial. Not conform to the beliefs of others in order to convict someone I'm not sure is guilty.