Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #7

[matou]

Alex Pierson says that Noudga didn't know about Whidden. Good info here about Whidden's testimony and demeanor on the stand.

https://soundcloud.com/am900chml/a-...d-took-the-stand?in=am900chml/sets/bill-kelly

 

[matou]

Haha, Whidden stared the journalists down: "one that was writing a book" and Pierson herself.

https://soundcloud.com/am900chml/a-...d-took-the-stand?in=am900chml/sets/bill-kelly

 

[matou]

Pierson says that the $10, 000 cheque came in the mail from MB. Dungey directly cross-examined her about it and got a huge laugh out of the courtroom.

 

[matou]

Schlatman will be back this week for cross-examination and girlfriends next week, according to Pierson.

 

[Massasauga Rattler]

Alex Pierson says that Noudga didn't know about Whidden. Good info here about Whidden's testimony and demeanor on the stand.

https://soundcloud.com/am900chml/a-...d-took-the-stand?in=am900chml/sets/bill-kelly

Now how in the hell would Alex Pierson "know" that CN was not aware of LW? Did she go ask her after LW's testimony? It's one thing for a reporter to suggest LW "likely" didn't know, but to say she "knows" is pure journalistic hyperbole.

 

[Sphinx]

Did Whiddens explain who Scotty is?

I would really like to know who he is too, but when I read her testimony, it seemed that she did not reveal it. I expected the Crown to ask, but maybe in legal arguments it was decided that he could not.

Whidden's more than lame explanation that she thought when DM said he was too hot, and for Scotty to stay away, meant that she thought DM was sick, is in my opinion an obvious lie. I am surprised that she got away with it. I hope they recall her later, and make her explain it, or maybe they will put " Scotty" on the stand and it will have some serious consequences for Whidden. I hope the truth comes out. IMO

 

[Susanne]

I don't believe they intended to shoot him in the truck, and plans changed.

MOO

My husband always carries a very lethal looking (to me) 4 inch blade folding knife in his pocket, used by Mr. Fixit several times a week at work or around the house.
I wonder if TB carried a pocketknife.......

Also, on the subject of LW2's receipt of $10,000 for a seller referral fee, when I was an agent the referral fee was usually a small percentage of the selling agent's commission.
If the listing and selling commission share was 50/50 split, and then the broker and agent was another 50/50 split, the selling agent could make 1.25% on the sale based on a 5% commission.
If the condo sold for say, $700,000 then the total 5% commission would be $35,000. The selling broker split is 50% which equals $17,500. The selling broker/agent split would be 50/50 so the selling agent would make $8,750. Referral fees used to be between 10% and 20%, so to be generous the referral fee could be $1,750 based on 20% of the selling agent's commission.
Said referral fees were paid by the selling agent's broker, as there is paperwork required to be authorized by all parties involved.
It appears LW2's referral fee of $10,000 was very generous.

Many agents do work on a higher commission split with their brokers but then they must pay for office space, office personnel, advertising, office supplies, etc. etc.

JMHO

 

[Abitcountry]

You said it.....referral fees are paid by the selling agent's broker when they are applicable. Referral fees are not paid by the seller or the seller's mother....so how would you describe the 10k paid by MB?

 

[Susanne]

You said it.....referral fees are paid by the selling agent's broker when they are applicable. Referral fees are not paid by the seller or the seller's mother....so how would you describe the 10k paid by MB?

I would have to think that the use of the wording "referral fees" was used very loosely and did not travel through the usual channels of disbursement.
Also, MB must be a very generous mother to DM's friends. JMHO

 

[brightii]

Now how in the hell would Alex Pierson "know" that CN was not aware of LW? Did she go ask her after LW's testimony? It's one thing for a reporter to suggest LW "likely" didn't know, but to say she "knows" is pure journalistic hyperbole.

AP says she's curious to know what's going through CN's mind right now because CN didn't know about LW2, (0:50 minute mark); and then AP says CN who dated DM for two years was obviously oblivious to the relationship between DM and LW2 but CN might not be now (after LW2s testimony) (3.12 minute mark).

I agree that AP is expressing her opinion based on assumption rather than fact.

All MOO.

ETA: link https://soundcloud.com/am900chml/a-...d-took-the-stand?in=am900chml/sets/bill-kelly

 

[Quaere_veritatem]

There’s been a lot of talk of JV being paid under thetable. Under the table implies thepayments were being made “off the books”. The only way that could happen isif he’s being paid personally by DM out of the $125K salary DM was drawing and Ithink that was unlikely. So I don’tthink the payments were made under the table. If he was being paid either by cash or cheque from the MA bank accountthen those expenses would end up in the financial records of MA. JV was most certainly mislead by DM. He thought we was in business with DM, thatDM was going to look after all the paperwork. The arrangement certainly looked more employee/employer than businesspartner. What kind of partnership wasthis anyway? JV and his crew did all thework, they had all the expertise, DM even made JV pay for the use of his truck(s). Just what did DM bring to the table? What was the reason he gave JV for cuttingall their wages by 25%?
It ends up sounding a lot like the deal he was cooking withSH. SH had the FBO idea, SH had made allthe contacts, SH was setting up the meetings i.e.SH was doing all the leg workand DM was going the charge SH $5K to be a part of the FBO, even though SH wasdoing all the work.
All of these business “partnerships” sound half-baked andpretty one sided. IMO

 

[Inspector_North]

"At 3:41 p.m. she sent another message: “I hear Scotty is back but sick.”

“Do me a favour,” he wrote back at 3:55 p.m. “Tell him ‘I’m too hot, stay away.’”

She asked him how hot.

“Looks bad,” he wrote back at 4:59 p.m. “I think someone I work with has set me up, I’m not sure why.”"

"Asked about their exchange on the stand Tuesday, Whidden told assistant Crown attorney Tony Leitch that “Scotty” was a mutual friend, and that she had interpreted Millard’s message that he was “hot” to mean he was sick."

She thought he was set up to be sick?

 

[SnooperDuper]

You said it.....referral fees are paid by the selling agent's broker when they are applicable. Referral fees are not paid by the seller or the seller's mother....so how would you describe the 10k paid by MB?

"Hush money".

LW was definitely committed to helping DM - offering help, texting him when LE arrived, refusing to answer questions, contacting his lawyer to help...

She sure made an impression on the reporters. I have a feeling this particular colourful character will resurface in print over and over, once everything is said and done.

 

[swedie]

Could it be the "haughty" witness (as described by reporters), is in more legal hot water and this being the reason for attitude of the witness stand? I've considered this with a few "not so friendly," hesitant, reluctant and/or less than truthful witness thus far. Are they bitter because they have unfinished legal business to take care of, or have they already been stung? E.i., resisting arrest, proceeds of crime, aiding and abetting, etc? We'll have to keep our eyes on news once this trial is over. I think due to the PB certain things remain hush hush at this point. MOO.

Thanks Matou for linking AP's interview. That certainly painted a much clearer picture than what little we received in tweets from reporters in the courtroom that day of testimony. This SC article is also informative on the attitude presented in court.

I have a hard time understand WHY someone who has nothing to hide wouldn't just cooperate with LE? Not wanting to turn over a phone to assist LE in what could have been a life and death situation...just mind boggling. Didn't she also text DM from one of her "children's" phones? When asked about a phone number, she suggested it "could have" been one of her children's numbers? Or perhaps another bogus phone? And what's with DM claiming his house was broken into? Trying to claim someone stole his illegal gun? What else did he claim was stolen? Maybe we will hear about his stolen property when he takes the stand. ALL MOO.

Flicking her hair over her shoulder, the woman in the witness box looks at the lawyer and says haughtily: "I don't know who you are."

Leitch drags the reluctant Whidden through a handful of the hundreds of texts between her cell and Millard's. Some are business related, most are personal. Records also seem to show she sometimes contacted Millard using her children's' phones.[/B]

A number of texts indicate Millard — whom other witnesses described as rich — is out of money.

When Millard texts that someone he works with has "set him up" she replies: "This has been a string of oddly bad luck." (Millard told her his house had been broken into and items stolen, she says.)

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6...used-killer-s-lover-testifies-at-bosma-trial/

 

[Just4TB]

During JV Cross-exam by Sachak... an interesting twist of words was made by Villada.
Asked how much he owed DM, he answered don't know how much he owed me.


While this could be a translation error, in my opinion this was likely intentional on JV's part. Similiar to the earlier "You do the math" response.
Could JV's response have contributed to why Sachak decided to add a few more hours to the cross examination?

Sachak again asks how much Villada owed Millard at the end of 2012.
by Adam Carter 4:07 PM

Sachak asks him again, Leitch objects, says Sachak has just asked the same question four times. "I will repeat again, I don't know how much he owed me," Villada says.
by Adam Carter 4:08 PM

Source
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...Trial-03-23-16-Day-26&p=12429178#post12429178

 

[MsSherlock]

I would really like to know who he is too, but when I read her testimony, it seemed that she did not reveal it. I expected the Crown to ask, but maybe in legal arguments it was decided that he could not.

Whidden's more than lame explanation that she thought when DM said he was too hot, and for Scotty to stay away, meant that she thought DM was sick, is in my opinion an obvious lie. I am surprised that she got away with it. I hope they recall her later, and make her explain it, or maybe they will put " Scotty" on the stand and it will have some serious consequences for Whidden. I hope the truth comes out. IMO

I would imagine LE knows who Scott(y) is since his number appears on the cell phone evidence. The term "sick" can be used to describe someone who's having withdrawal symptoms so when she texts "Scotty's back but he's sick" may be an indication that a mutual friend is back around and needs a fix. Was DM supplying Scotty? His statement "tell him to STAY AWAY I'm hot" and then her reply "S*%% how hot are you?" IMO, it indicates comfort and understanding of this terminology. Will we hear from Scotty? IMHO, I don't think so because it sounds like this was a little outside drug dealing stuff and has no relevance to this particular crime.

AFAIK, evidence has to be relevant to the crime and DM's defence would probably object to the Jury being prejudiced with any knowledge of DM's extra activities. IMO, the most useful part of this text conversation is DM's text indicating he thinks someone he works with is setting him up- at the same time as he was trying to hide the truck. I may be wrong, but that's the way I see it! MOO

 

[SnooperDuper]

Could it be the "haughty" witness (as described by reporters), is in more legal hot water and this being the reason for attitude of the witness stand? I've considered this with a few "not so friendly," hesitant, reluctant and/or less than truthful witness thus far. Are they bitter because they have unfinished legal business to take care of, or have they already been stung? E.i., resisting arrest, proceeds of crime, aiding and abetting, etc? We'll have to keep our eyes on news once this trial is over. I think due to the PB certain things remain hush hush at this point. MOO.

<rsbm>

Not so fast...

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects witnesses against self-incriminating testimony. The Charter states that a witness who testifies in any proceeding has the right to not have any incriminating evidence used against him or her in another proceeding.

http://www.cliapei.ca/sitefiles/File/publications/CRI1.pdf

 

[MsSherlock]

There&#8217;s been a lot of talk of JV being paid under thetable. Under the table implies thepayments were being made &#8220;off the books&#8221;. The only way that could happen isif he&#8217;s being paid personally by DM out of the $125K salary DM was drawing and Ithink that was unlikely. So I don&#8217;tthink the payments were made under the table. If he was being paid either by cash or cheque from the MA bank accountthen those expenses would end up in the financial records of MA. JV was most certainly mislead by DM. He thought we was in business with DM, thatDM was going to look after all the paperwork. The arrangement certainly looked more employee/employer than businesspartner. What kind of partnership wasthis anyway? JV and his crew did all thework, they had all the expertise, DM even made JV pay for the use of his truck(s). Just what did DM bring to the table? What was the reason he gave JV for cuttingall their wages by 25%?
It ends up sounding a lot like the deal he was cooking withSH. SH had the FBO idea, SH had made allthe contacts, SH was setting up the meetings i.e.SH was doing all the leg workand DM was going the charge SH $5K to be a part of the FBO, even though SH wasdoing all the work.
All of these business &#8220;partnerships&#8221; sound half-baked andpretty one sided. IMO

IMO, half baked is being overly kind. I agree that JV was being totally misled by DM. His recollection of the truck swap, running water and providing entrance into Unit 2 of Riverside shouldn't be undermined by his misguided trust in DM. Crying out loud- DM sent JV down to New Mexico in February/13 with a credit card in WM's name! The only way that's possible is if the Bank didn't know WM was pushing up daisies. There's JV driving all the way to New Mexico to pick up DM's dune buggy, committing credit card fraud all the way and probably believing DM had some special arrangement with the bank.

And a $5K buy in for a share of an FBO? Holy skamoly. IMO, any aviation business person would say "whhaaaaattt?? SH, do you mean 50K? " or did DM just want SH to borrow 5K from his parents or something and hand it over to him for a similar type of business arrangement he had with JV? IMO, DM's business dealings were just downright disgusting. MOO

 

[Quaere_veritatem]

My understanding based on the evidence presented so far isthat one of the major reasons the LE were onto DM so quickly is that they madenote of his &#8220;AMBITION&#8221; tattoo when he was stopped and carded at some point inthe past. The information that is gatheredwhen someone is carded is stored and can be searched later on if LE arefollowing up on leads during an investigation.
Those who live in the area are likely aware there has beenconsiderable debate about the whole process of carding. Many want the whole process abolished becausethey feel it is being used unfairly to target visible minorities. People don&#8217;t like it because carding is beingused to collect information on innocent people for no reason. They see it as an infringement on theirrights. That whole debate notwithstanding,I am thankful that the process exists and that it was used to help identifyDM. Considering how busy DM was in thedays following TB murder, how much more evidence could he have gotten rid if hehad more time? IMO

 

[Elisabeth]

Its life for second degree as well - unless that is what you meant. :thinking:. I am not sure he needs to take the stand for a second degree conviction in my opinion.
(The difference is in parole eligibility isn't it?)

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-53.html#docCont