Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #7

[andreww]

The way that Adam Clarke tweeted her testimony, it sounds like she knew exactly what he meant by 'hot':

· Mar 22 2016 3:28 PM
A message from Millard to Whidden on May 9: "Let him know 'I'm too hot, stay away.'" She responds: "****, Okay. How hot are you, are you going to be okay?" He responds: "Looks bad, I think someone I work with has set me up, I'm not sure why."

Again, your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. She has not given a statement to anybody. Why on gods earth would she lie about that text when she knew the following text specified the meaning of that text. I mean seriously, if you have no idea that I'm involved in crime and I text you "I'm hot, don't come around today", what would be your first thought? Does this guy have a fever? Probably.

 

[Inspector_North]

Did cops find anything earth shattering on that phone? No. So was she trying to hide evidence or was she simply upset that she was cuffed and her phone was being confiscated despite the fact that she had done absolutely nothing wrong?

Really?

I believe they retrieved the only hard copy evidence that DM was looking to get a diesel truck, and that he has been doing it for some time.

Earth shattering? no
Important? could very well be, the trial is not over.

You may be right, and many of us just can't understand why someone would not want to help locate a young missing father. It was one of the top news at the time.

 

[deugirtni]

I am sure that Millard is going to suggest that he was just looking to buy a truck. On the test drive Smich took matters in to his own hands and bang...

Yes except that unfortunately, he already told SS and perhaps others, that he had already 'bought the truck in Kitchener'. Unfortunately for him, he can't have it *all* ways. He is being outed by witnesses to be a massive liar, spinning whatever stories came to his mind depending on which person knew which things, and how well he felt he could trust the individuals, to try to conceal his involvement so that he wouldn't have to take responsibility. It isn't going to serve him well, imo.

 

[andreww]

Yes absolutely, but, imo, it is to their detriment. The jury is made up of average citizens, just like us here at WS. It is impossible imo, to believe that DM is simply an innocent in all of this; his only hope would be to come clean about activities surrounding the murder, including previous vehicle thefts, but to state he had no involvement or attendance during the murder. In trying to say he's just a great guy who left stuff in the open because he had nothing to hide, isn't going to cut it. moo

Unfortunately for Millard there is a lot of hard evidence that points at him. The defence he offers is going to have to explain all those pieces of evidence. So he's going to suggest that he's an innocent buyer and that Smich went rogue and shot TB. Thats fine, but then he is going to have to explain why he was using a burner phone to set up the deal.

 

[andreww]

Yes except that unfortunately, he already told SS and perhaps others, that he had already 'bought the truck in Kitchener'. Unfortunately for him, he can't have it *all* ways. He is being outed by witnesses to be a massive liar, spinning whatever stories came to his mind depending on which person knew which things, and how well he felt he could trust the individuals, to try to conceal his involvement so that he wouldn't have to take responsibility. It isn't going to serve him well, imo.

What he told SS and LW means absolutely nothing. He is not suggesting he is innocent of everything, only the things that will keep him in jail for the rest of his life. In his version of events he would have panicked and helped Smich destroy evidence, so he would still need to lie and make excuses to curious friends.

 

[deugirtni]

Again, your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. She has not given a statement to anybody. Why on gods earth would she lie about that text when she knew the following text specified the meaning of that text. I mean seriously, if you have no idea that I'm involved in crime and I text you "I'm hot, don't come around today", what would be your first thought? Does this guy have a fever? Probably.

Just my feeling, but I think we may find out about 'Scotty', and that when we do, it may reveal that DM's message for Scotty to stay away because of how 'hot' DM was, will become clear that 'hot' didn't mean he had a fever due to illness.

 

[artemis17]

I mean watching the surveillance video of them walk in the hangar while it is only some odd seconds long from they way they are walking the speed they are walking I don't get any sense of like panic or a OMG what just happened! you would think someone might have by something so crazy and unexpected..

 

[Georgeo]

What I find most frustrating about this entire trial is the overwhelming evidence, yet DM and MS are determined to drag it out through court, every last horrible detail of Tim Bosma's death.

Why they feel that they are "entitled" to plead not guilty is pure selfishness.

I would have thought that by this point in the trial, they would have changed their plea to guilty and ended the trial.

Just MOO...

 

[Georgeo]

Yes, it certainly does seem NOT above board, until we hear any testimony from MB that may change our opinion of her silence to date.

 

[artemis17]

Court is in session today correct?

 

[redwing7225]

According to witness testimony (SH, AJ), SS told them DM had 'purchased' TB's truck in Kitchener. Then later, DM told SS he 'wanted to take it back'. I wonder if DM's defence will be able to produce a bill of sale for the vehicle from whomever he purchased it from. Imo, DM would have to show more than simply having the money in the bank to 'purchase' said vehicle, he would have had to have already *paid* for said vehicle, and the money already in someone else's hands, for his story to carry any weight.

Jumping off of this...DM told SS that he purchased the truck in Kitchener, if this is correct, typically (in my past experience of selling or buying private), a sale slip is written by the owner which includes make, model, year, VIN and amount sold for. This slip in turn, gets taken to the MTO so that the vehicle can be transfered into the new owner's name and the appropriate sales tax is paid. If the truck indeed was purchased, as stated from DM to SS, why not provide the sales receipt from previous owner.
Then comes the text "I think someone has set me up", that makes no sense for DM to send. Set him up for what? He purchased a truck from someone in kitchener, certainly that "person" would be available to speak with LE to verify, if indeed that was the truth.
IMO, the web of lies started too early and DM got tangled within.

 

[andreww]

What I find most frustrating about this entire trial is the overwhelming evidence, yet DM and MS are determined to drag it out through court, every last horrible detail of Tim Bosma's death.

Why they feel that they are "entitled" to plead not guilty is pure selfishness.

I would have thought that by this point in the trial, they would have changed their plea to guilty and ended the trial.

Just MOO...

Any defence attorney that would let his client plead guilty to the worst possible charge is not a very good one. People tend to look at trial with a very simple view, that either a defendant wins or loses. In this case, people feel that would mean that for Millard and Smich to win, they would need to be found not guilty and be able to walk off in to the sunset. That is simply not the case. What the defence strategy is, their best case scenario, is to get those 1st degree murder charges dropped to 2nd degree. I'm pretty sure the jury can make that decision, or the crown could make a plea deal and end the case. Given the notoriety of this crime, I don't see that happening, so it is up to the defence to cast doubt on any evidence that suggests that this was a premeditated crime. You can already see that Millards attorneys are already working that angle, showing at every step Millard was not attempting to hide things. We'll see how this plays out.

 

[andreww]

Court is in session today correct?

No. Legal arguments only. No Jury.

 

[deugirtni]

Someone asked about Mr. V's demeanour on the stand. To me, he seemed matter of fact, and perhaps a little sad. There was no hair swishing or smirks. He did keep rubbing his forehead, seeming to have a headache, and I believe it was announced that he did have a headache, but that he was okay to proceed.

I feel so bad for Mr. V. On that day that DM was arrested, that was the last day he worked for Millard. He did not end up getting paid monies owed with which to pay himself and his 'workers', since DM had been arrested before paying him, apparently. So on that day, he lost his job, his relatives/brothers lost their jobs, he lost his vehicle, he was likely ineligible for EI since it seems he was not an 'employee', and he may have even lost his home. If Mr. V owed Millard money for repayment of the loan, or whatever other things, that could be why MB didn't bother paying him?

But I wonder why MB did not continue to utilize his and his workers' services at least until the various properties were sold? What was it that made Mr. V's treatment so different from SS, who continued on, working for Millard companies for 2 more years; or LW1 who seemingly continued on, being the contracted bookeeper for Millard companies; or LW2 who apparently received a 'gift' of $10000 for some kind of previous efforts, even though she was not contracted to sell the Distillery condo?

 

[Georgeo]

Any defence attorney that would let his client plead guilty to the worst possible charge is not a very good one. People tend to look at trial with a very simple view, that either a defendant wins or loses. In this case, people feel that would mean that for Millard and Smich to win, they would need to be found not guilty and be able to walk off in to the sunset. That is simply not the case. What the defence strategy is, their best case scenario, is to get those 1st degree murder charges dropped to 2nd degree. I'm pretty sure the jury can make that decision, or the crown could make a plea deal and end the case. Given the notoriety of this crime, I don't see that happening, so it is up to the defence to cast doubt on any evidence that suggests that this was a premeditated crime. You can already see that Millards attorneys are already working that angle, showing at every step Millard was not attempting to hide things. We'll see how this plays out.

"Not guilty" to me means they didn't do the crime. That is totally untrue. I guess the English language is misleading in that the definition of "not guilty" means they are innoscent of the crime.

 

[hippy_chic]

At least 20 more witnesses for the Crown to present.. my guess:

1. ex fiancee spafford
2. marlena meneses
3. christina noudga
4. scotty?
5. evidence re corn husk in the car seats perhaps matching the cornhusks growing in ayr
6. evidence re the dirt found on the running board perhaps matching the dirt found in ayr
7. andrew michalak
8. shane schlatman is not finished testimony
9. someone else after shane was also excused from the stand early, I think? Have to check..
10. someone else or plural, may be recalled to the stand for re-cross?
11. madeleine burns?
12. accountant?
13. dubien
14. wishbone?
15. palan?
16. could be duplication, but whoever the toolbox was taken to on the eve of May 9th by DM and CN, and then same toolbox fetched at some point by MS?
17. is it possible they could present someone from DM's financial institution, ie bank manager who knew the entire portfolio?
18. ?
19. ?
20. ?

MOO - Hagermann? I think he was one of the names on the cell ping list.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Because if it was intentional, why did he do it in the truck? That just doesn't make any sense.

And the rest of the crime makes sense?

 

[SnooperDuper]

I am sure that Millard is going to suggest that he was just looking to buy a truck. On the test drive Smich took matters in to his own hands and bang...

The Crown has evidence that DM was going to steal a truck. He told his roommate so. So now what does DM's defense do? He can't say he was looking to buy a truck, because they know he told someone he was going to steal one.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Did cops find anything earth shattering on that phone? No. So was she trying to hide evidence or was she simply upset that she was cuffed and her phone was being confiscated despite the fact that she had done absolutely nothing wrong?

Yup:

- proof that DM was having financial problems
- proof that DM was hiding from the law ("I'm hot")
- proof that DM was intending to switch his gas truck out for a diesel that weekend
- proof that DM was having an affair (which was hilarious) but also shows that DM is not a forthright guy with people (accustomed to lying)

 

[SnooperDuper]

Again, your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. She has not given a statement to anybody. Why on gods earth would she lie about that text when she knew the following text specified the meaning of that text. I mean seriously, if you have no idea that I'm involved in crime and I text you "I'm hot, don't come around today", what would be your first thought? Does this guy have a fever? Probably.

Personally, illness would be my last thought. I immediately interpreted "I'm hot" to mean the heat was on DM.