Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #2

[Ontario Mom]

After all the details this week, I decided to go back and refresh my brain on the Crown's opening statement.

"The Crown intends to prove that on this date in the late evening hours, Tim Bosma was killed in his truck, shot by the two accused at close range, while on a test drive with his truck; his body then incinerated hours later by the two accused."

The bolded is what really stands out to me. If there were some other murder weapon, such as a box cutter, it would have been entered into evidence, completely taken apart, thoroughly tested for blood/dna/fingerprints etc. But the Crown's opening statement says nothing about a box cutter at all. Not to mention, last time I checked, a box cutter doesn't shatter a window.

The other part that stands out to me is that the Crown intends to prove that BOTH of them shot Tim. I don't know how that works - unless both of them did actually, literally, physically fire the gun that killed him? Or - because both were there and the shooting happened in the commission of both the stealing of the truck AND Tim's forcible confinement - they can both be charged with murder? I know this has already been discussed but it sort of bugs me not knowing for sure.

Then there's this part from the Crown:

"Significant amounts of gunshot residue were found on the inside of the truck, with especially high concentrations in the front seat area, both passenger side ceiling and driver’s side ceiling."

That makes it really, really clear to me that the gun was fired from the FRONT of the truck, not the back seat. The reason this part stands out to me is that after all the exhaustive investigation, all the lab work, all the test results, all the witness statements, etc., the statement says "the Crown intends to prove" which tells me they're absolutely confident they know exactly what happened in that truck that night. They're not speculating or giving an opinion - they're basing what they know on facts, and evidence. Yet, there are still some that more or less opine that the Crown is wrong, or somehow mistaken, or, something. That's rather baffling to me. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion but when there is physical evidence, cold hard facts, and proof that contradict that opinion, it seems odd one would still hold to it (and this happens in all cases I'm sure, not just this one). Oddly enough, even the defense (so far) isn't really questioning or disputing the statements or evidence that has been entered or given.

Just some random thoughts. moo & such.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Anyone notice that the Dee Em facebook page is now kaput?

 

[RandomName479]

After all the details this week, I decided to go back and refresh my brain on the Crown's opening statement.

"The Crown intends to prove that on this date in the late evening hours, Tim Bosma was killed in his truck, shot by the two accused at close range, while on a test drive with his truck; his body then incinerated hours later by the two accused."

The bolded is what really stands out to me. If there were some other murder weapon, such as a box cutter, it would have been entered into evidence, completely taken apart, thoroughly tested for blood/dna/fingerprints etc. But the Crown's opening statement says nothing about a box cutter at all. Not to mention, last time I checked, a box cutter doesn't shatter a window.

The other part that stands out to me is that the Crown intends to prove that BOTH of them shot Tim. I don't know how that works - unless both of them did actually, literally, physically fire the gun that killed him? Or - because both were there and the shooting happened in the commission of both the stealing of the truck AND Tim's forcible confinement - they can both be charged with murder? I know this has already been discussed but it sort of bugs me not knowing for sure.

Then there's this part from the Crown:

"Significant amounts of gunshot residue were found on the inside of the truck, with especially high concentrations in the front seat area, both passenger side ceiling and driver’s side ceiling."

That makes it really, really clear to me that the gun was fired from the FRONT of the truck, not the back seat. The reason this part stands out to me is that after all the exhaustive investigation, all the lab work, all the test results, all the witness statements, etc., the statement says "the Crown intends to prove" which tells me they're absolutely confident they know exactly what happened in that truck that night. They're not speculating or giving an opinion - they're basing what they know on facts, and evidence. Yet, there are still some that more or less opine that the Crown is wrong, or somehow mistaken, or, something. That's rather baffling to me. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion but when there is physical evidence, cold hard facts, and proof that contradict that opinion, it seems odd one would still hold to it (and this happens in all cases I'm sure, not just this one). Oddly enough, even the defense (so far) isn't really questioning or disputing the statements or evidence that has been entered or given.

Just some random thoughts. moo & such.

The thanks button wasn't enough. I welcome logical debates, I think it only serves to make the case stronger and have me analyze my thought processes. But we are seeing cold hard facts (ie: cellphone logs, GSR, not to mention everything else in the Crown's opening for which evidence has yet to be introduced - and I have no doubt they do have the evidence) and these are being twisted to try and fit into a preconceived notion that DM is innocent of the crime. It's one thing to keep an open mind and question the evidence. It's quite another to disregard all evidence the Crown has introduced. MOO. To those who believe DM is innocent I ask this....what evidence would be required for you to believe DM was involved in this horrific crime?

 

[MsSherlock]

Anyone notice that the Dee Em facebook page is now kaput?

Did he lose all of his friends? IIRC, out of the 6 friends he had on there a couple of them were on "no contact" lists. However, from what I understand about FB, only the owner can shut it down, unless the owner is dead and then they'll switch it to a memory page. Would this mean that DM shut it down- or maybe he got his lawyers to do it for him? MOO

 

[MsSherlock]

The thanks button wasn't enough. I welcome logical debates, I think it only serves to make the case stronger and have me analyze my thought processes. But we are seeing cold hard facts (ie: cellphone logs, GSR, not to mention everything else in the Crown's opening for which evidence has yet to be introduced - and I have no doubt they do have the evidence) and these are being twisted to try and fit into a preconceived notion that DM is innocent of the crime. It's one thing to keep an open mind and question the evidence. It's quite another to disregard all evidence the Crown has introduced. MOO. To those who believe DM is innocent I ask this....what evidence would be required for you to believe DM was involved in this horrific crime?

Great post and thank you for asking that question. MOO

 

[SnooperDuper]

Did he lose all of his friends? IIRC, out of the 6 friends he had on there a couple of them were on "no contact" lists. However, from what I understand about FB, only the owner can shut it down, unless the owner is dead and then they'll switch it to a memory page. Would this mean that DM shut it down- or maybe he got his lawyers to do it for him? MOO

I never bookmarked the link so perhaps the page has been renamed, because I did a search...OTOH Dee Em is not showing up as one of AM's friends any longer.

 

[Gibson67]

Does anyone know how long or how far back these digital cell trails can be traced? IMO if DM has the same cell number and they had LB cell number do you think they possibly have this kind of a digital trail for SMICH, DM and LB as well? Even possible DM's cell tower records for the day his Dad was killed. I mean I am so amazed by this and never knew this was done for investigative purposes..but it sure puts a person at the scene of the crime.

 

[SnooperDuper]

The thanks button wasn't enough. I welcome logical debates, I think it only serves to make the case stronger and have me analyze my thought processes. But we are seeing cold hard facts (ie: cellphone logs, GSR, not to mention everything else in the Crown's opening for which evidence has yet to be introduced - and I have no doubt they do have the evidence) and these are being twisted to try and fit into a preconceived notion that DM is innocent of the crime. It's one thing to keep an open mind and question the evidence. It's quite another to disregard all evidence the Crown has introduced. MOO. To those who believe DM is innocent I ask this....what evidence would be required for you to believe DM was involved in this horrific crime?

Some people still seem thrown by DP's declaration that DM was "100% not guilty" (and where is DP now, anyway?) and by Millard's own protestations of innocence.

It seems that DM is one heck of a liar. “I didn’t do it … They might as well accuse me of having been to the moon. There’s nothing real about it.” http://www.ourlondon.ca/news-story/...dellen-millard-says-he-didn-t-kill-tim-bosma/

Is there any ring of truth to DM's words?

 

[SnooperDuper]

Does anyone know how long or how far back these digital cell trails can be traced? IMO if DM has the same cell number and they had LB cell number do you think they possibly have this kind of a digital trail for SMICH, DM and LB as well? Even possible DM's cell tower records for the day his Dad was killed. I mean I am so amazed by this and never knew this was done for investigative purposes..but it sure puts a person at the scene of the crime.

SL's Apple ipad that he lent to LB has more detailed tracking capability than a phone...it tracks everywhere that it has been and sends the data to Apple for "market research" purposes but I believe LE can access this info with a warrant. I.e., one would not need the device. I fully expect there to be loads of info coming off that ipad.

 

[ArianeEmory]

The thanks button wasn't enough. I welcome logical debates, I think it only serves to make the case stronger and have me analyze my thought processes. But we are seeing cold hard facts (ie: cellphone logs, GSR, not to mention everything else in the Crown's opening for which evidence has yet to be introduced - and I have no doubt they do have the evidence) and these are being twisted to try and fit into a preconceived notion that DM is innocent of the crime. It's one thing to keep an open mind and question the evidence. It's quite another to disregard all evidence the Crown has introduced. MOO. To those who believe DM is innocent I ask this....what evidence would be required for you to believe DM was involved in this horrific crime?

This has been asked many times before, over the years. It's not a question that ever gets an answer. It won't get one this time. I firmly believe even the conviction itself will not be enough.

 

[andreww]

The thanks button wasn't enough. I welcome logical debates, I think it only serves to make the case stronger and have me analyze my thought processes. But we are seeing cold hard facts (ie: cellphone logs, GSR, not to mention everything else in the Crown's opening for which evidence has yet to be introduced - and I have no doubt they do have the evidence) and these are being twisted to try and fit into a preconceived notion that DM is innocent of the crime. It's one thing to keep an open mind and question the evidence. It's quite another to disregard all evidence the Crown has introduced. MOO. To those who believe DM is innocent I ask this....what evidence would be required for you to believe DM was involved in this horrific crime?

I don't think there are many that actually believe Millard is innocent, but has the evidence presented thus far enough to say that he is 100% guilty? Are there plausible explanations that would explain the evidence that has bee presented? Millard may have been intending on stealing the truck when Smich went and shot him. Its Smich that turns off his phone. Its Smich that is hiding his face. Its Smich that doesn't leave fingerprints. I know, its barely believable but it could have happened. Remember, we have the luxury of considering the fact that Millard has already killed two people, the jury doesn't.

As I said, I think he's guilty, we just haven't reached that defining piece of evidence yet. If I was on the jury I could almost convict him now, but I could probably convince a few jurors not to as well.

 

[MsSherlock]

I don't think there are many that actually believe Millard is innocent, but has the evidence presented thus far enough to say that he is 100% guilty? Are there plausible explanations that would explain the evidence that has bee presented? Millard may have been intending on stealing the truck when Smich went and shot him. Its Smich that turns off his phone. Its Smich that is hiding his face. Its Smich that doesn't leave fingerprints. I know, its barely believable but it could have happened. Remember, we have the luxury of considering the fact that Millard has already killed two people, the jury doesn't.

As I said, I think he's guilty, we just haven't reached that defining piece of evidence yet. If I was on the jury I could almost convict him now, but I could probably convince a few jurors not to as well.

We have to put this into perspective. What we have seen and heard over the past 2 weeks is a mere sampling of the quantity and quality of evidence the Crown intends to bring forward over the next 3 1/2 months. IMHO, at the end of the next 3 1/2 months, if the evidence continues at this pace, the Jury will not have a hard time finding the accused guilty as charged. MOO

 

[HackD]

MS had his mugshot in the System - he had a reason to be as non-noticeable to observers/minimize interactons as much as was possible given his sketchy legal past. Dellen Millard, not so much.

 

[redwing7225]

I don't think there are many that actually believe Millard is innocent, but has the evidence presented thus far enough to say that he is 100% guilty? Are there plausible explanations that would explain the evidence that has bee presented? Millard may have been intending on stealing the truck when Smich went and shot him. Its Smich that turns off his phone. Its Smich that is hiding his face. Its Smich that doesn't leave fingerprints. I know, its barely believable but it could have happened. Remember, we have the luxury of considering the fact that Millard has already killed two people, the jury doesn't.

As I said, I think he's guilty, we just haven't reached that defining piece of evidence yet. If I was on the jury I could almost convict him now, but I could probably convince a few jurors not to as well.

With all due respect, if this indeed is the case...there would be no requirements for the incinerator, the txt to tell staff to stay away, hiding truck in trailer at mother's home, etc. An honest respectful person would call the police and give the facts. Simply put, it was my intention to steal the truck but my friend did this...
There comes a point in one's life, (for some later than sooner) where as a citizen, we become accountable for our actions.
There's many cases in which I wish the clock could turn back to July 13, 1976...far less of these crimes would be committed. IMO

 

[andreww]

We have to put this into perspective. What we have seen and heard over the past 2 weeks is a mere sampling of the quantity and quality of evidence the Crown intends to bring forward over the next 3 1/2 months. IMHO, at the end of the next 3 1/2 months, if the evidence continues at this pace, the Jury will not have a hard time finding the accused guilty as charged. MOO

I agree. But its not there yet. Im not defending them or rooting for them though

 

[Hez]

The thanks button wasn't enough. I welcome logical debates, I think it only serves to make the case stronger and have me analyze my thought processes.But we are seeing cold hard facts (ie: cellphone logs, GSR, not to mention everything else in the Crown's opening for which evidence has yet to be introduced - and I have no doubt they do have the evidence) and these are being twisted to try and fit into a preconceived notion that DM is innocent of the crime. It's one thing to keep an open mind and question the evidence. It's quite another to disregard all evidence the Crown has introduced. MOO. To those who believe DM is innocent I ask this....what evidence would be required for you to believe DM was involved in this horrific crime?

Excellent post. I agree with everything you said.

 

[andreww]

With all due respect, if this indeed is the case...there would be no requirements for the incinerator, the txt to tell staff to stay away, hiding truck in trailer at mother's home, etc. An honest respectful person would call the police and give the facts. Simply put, it was my intention to steal the truck but my friend did this...
There comes a point in one's life, (for some later than sooner) where as a citizen, we become accountable for our actions.
There's many cases in which I wish the clock could turn back to July 13, 1976...far less of these crimes would be committed. IMO

Nobody ever said Millard was an honest respectful person. Many people simply turn their back on people in distress. CN is a prime example of that.

 

[RandomName479]

I don't think there are many that actually believe Millard is innocent, but has the evidence presented thus far enough to say that he is 100% guilty? Are there plausible explanations that would explain the evidence that has bee presented? Millard may have been intending on stealing the truck when Smich went and shot him. Its Smich that turns off his phone. Its Smich that is hiding his face. Its Smich that doesn't leave fingerprints. I know, its barely believable but it could have happened. Remember, we have the luxury of considering the fact that Millard has already killed two people, the jury doesn't.

As I said, I think he's guilty, we just haven't reached that defining piece of evidence yet. If I was on the jury I could almost convict him now, but I could probably convince a few jurors not to as well.

Let's pretend that DM knew nothing about the gun. Let's pretend he wasn't present when MS shot TB. Let's pretend DM only went to Ancaster to steal the truck. What would he be guilty of in this case? (I'm actually asking.....)

We have seen clear evidence that DM attempted to cover up the crime (cell phone records, trailer in MB's driveway, call to paint truck - and this is only what we have been presented with so far......not to mention anything about what the Crown said they intend to prove)

 

[Ontario Mom]

With all due respect, if this indeed is the case...there would be no requirements for the incinerator, the txt to tell staff to stay away, hiding truck in trailer at mother's home, etc. An honest respectful person would call the police and give the facts. Simply put, it was my intention to steal the truck but my friend did this...
There comes a point in one's life, (for some later than sooner) where as a citizen, we become accountable for our actions.
There's many cases in which I wish the clock could turn back to July 13, 1976...far less of these crimes would be committed. IMO

Exactly.

 

[Gumshew]

Some people still seem thrown by DP's declaration that DM was "100% not guilty" (and where is DP now, anyway?) and by Millard's own protestations of innocence.

It seems that DM is one heck of a liar. “I didn’t do it … They might as well accuse me of having been to the moon. There’s nothing real about it.” http://www.ourlondon.ca/news-story/...dellen-millard-says-he-didn-t-kill-tim-bosma/

Is there any ring of truth to DM's words?

I think some people may be in denial about DM and MS's circle of associations, hence it's hard for them to picture DM, especially, as capable of having a sinister side.

The word "PACIFIC" that MS wrote on his sneakers, visible at trial, is an association. He is showing he is loyal to it. Whether guilty or not, in my opinion, there is a dynamic going on at the trial, between DM and MS, in opposing loyalties. Perhaps this dynamic is giving the impression that DM might be not guilty. But consider the obvious, if faced with life in prison, wouldn't anyone try to put their best face on and grasp at any straw?