Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #7

[Juballee]

RSBM. Well said, MsSherlock.

When the jury considers Lisa Whidden's testimony, they will be able to take all of her actions into account:

• Slept with her real estate client who was already in a relationship.
• Accepted a $10,000 gift immediately after DM was arrested.
• Refused to provide a police statement.
• Refused to speak to the Crown and had to be compelled to testify.
• Whined on the stand, in front of the jury and the Bosma family, about how the police treated her poorly and took her cell phone without her permission.

Whidden's actions help to prove that DM surrounded himself with people of weak character who he could easily manipulate, thus supporting the image of him as the puppet master who planned and orchestrated everything, including the murder of TB.

I was able to make it to the trial that day and I have to say that I disagree with the assessment that the real estate agent has gotten here so far.

-They never asked her if she knew he was in another relationship, nor if she was.

-It was quickly pointed out that the $10k might have been $7k, and that it didn't actually come from MB as a gift, it was a referral fee sent from one real estate agency to another. She listed work that she did to earn that fee, as well, and it came long after DM was arrested, as it would have come after the sale of the condo closed.

Her refusal to give a statement was likely a result of the police's initial rough treatment of her as much as it was her following legal advice. Everyone who testifies is compelled to testify with a subpoena, she wasn't different in that respect.

She didn't whine when she mentioned that LE made her bleed her while handcuffing her, she was matter of fact and seemed to be expressing her shock that it happened. The jury heard her testify that she told the officers who wanted her phone that they could have it if they got a warrant and she promised that she wouldn't change anything on it in that time.

Personally, I think that it is sad that in this day and age when a woman is roughed up by the police enough to draw blood, and arrested when not even suspected of a crime, that some people think that she is whining when asked about it. Sure, police brutality and abuse of power are minor crimes when compared to murder, but that is no reason to scoff them off, in my opinion.

She also contacted DM (who was already in custody) to tell him that LE was at her home questioning her about him. She was ready to tell LE whatever story he would have offered her IMO.

Except that she didn't. DM had already left a 'story' on the phone for her, and she didn't give that story/statement to LE to try to save him. Her message, sent not knowing that he was in custody was something along the lines of 'Cops are at my house waiting to ask about you?' as a question. I think the missing word was 'Why?'

My Opinion Only.

 

[Juballee]

how true - "LW 2 sat there while her professional real estate name was tweeted faster than a high speed fan, while she was telling the world about sleeping with one of her clients and getting a 10K gift in the mail from the mother of the accused. Fantastic for her that now when a client tries to find her the first 20 pages of google will be stories of DM's "real estate agent with sexual benefits".

Googled "Lisa Widden" - first page of results 7 entries dealing with trial. nothing dealing with real estate. Pretty much kiss real estate career away

Could this be why she wanted nothing to do with the investigation?

AS was interesting because he was the first person who knew DM well that came out and threw shade on him. What's most interesting to me the the true disdain that men like AS and RB, both accomplished men, have for DM. They had both made their way in business and they showed no respect for DM at all.

So why did these women allow themselves to be degraded in public? They wouldn't have faced this shaming if they had not stood up to defend DM.

RSBM

Personally, I have trouble trusting completely in people who go around 'throwing shade' about people they are asked to give their opinion on, it makes me feel like perhaps they may be biased for some reason, and that their disdain may be tainting their judgement.

I'm not sure how these women have 'allowed themselves to be degraded in public'? I'm curious what makes the males who testify 'accomplished men' while the women are 'degraded' in comparison?

Is this suggesting that these women should have lied to save themselves the public shaming? How does that serve justice for the Bosmas?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

It ultimately doesn't matter though, does it, who pulled the trigger - because they acted together?

For me as a layman the acting TEAM DM/MS seems irrefutable now. They were friends, they turned up together 80% of time (as a witness testified), they lived together for at least 3 months, each one of them had his own circle of other friends (therefore IMO the connection between the two was another level: more close, more intimate, perhaps more criminal?), they understood each other without words but by an intense look (when I think of DM/MS's behavior while test driving with IT!!), they followed each other in whatever car through the dark night (night of TB's murder) like a 100% well-rehearsed pair. It is almost ridiculous (as I did :blushing to think one of the accused wouldn't have known of what the other was planning.

 

[billandrew]

I was able to make it to the trial that day and I have to say that I disagree with the assessment that the real estate agent has gotten here so far.

-They never asked her if she knew he was in another relationship, nor if she was.

-It was quickly pointed out that the $10k might have been $7k, and that it didn't actually come from MB as a gift, it was a referral fee sent from one real estate agency to another. She listed work that she did to earn that fee, as well, and it came long after DM was arrested, as it would have come after the sale of the condo closed.

Her refusal to give a statement was likely a result of the police's initial rough treatment of her as much as it was her following legal advice. Everyone who testifies is compelled to testify with a subpoena, she wasn't different in that respect.

She didn't whine when she mentioned that LE made her bleed her while handcuffing her, she was matter of fact and seemed to be expressing her shock that it happened. The jury heard her testify that she told the officers who wanted her phone that they could have it if they got a warrant and she promised that she wouldn't change anything on it in that time.

Personally, I think that it is sad that in this day and age when a woman is roughed up by the police enough to draw blood, and arrested when not even suspected of a crime, that some people think that she is whining when asked about it. Sure, police brutality and abuse of power are minor crimes when compared to murder, but that is no reason to scoff them off, in my opinion.



Except that she didn't. DM had already left a 'story' on the phone for her, and she didn't give that story/statement to LE to try to save him. Her message, sent not knowing that he was in custody was something along the lines of 'Cops are at my house waiting to ask about you?' as a question. I think the missing word was 'Why?'

My Opinion Only.

I am not scoffing off a victim of police brutality. Ms. Whidden was uncooperative with law enforcement at every turn, and she made no attempt to hide her haughty attitude in the courtroom. IMO the police acted lawfully and Ms. Whidden got hurt in the process, most likely because she resisted and fought back. She then took an opportunity on the stand to try to paint herself as a victim. That is beyond sad, and nobody, especially the jury, will be falling for it.

 

[loveisthemovement]

If they can't determine who pulled the trigger, and i don't think they will, they need to prove the murder was planned and deliberate by BOTH DM and MS and /or that it was during a kidnapping.

I am not sure the evidence will or has shown that for MS.

Sent from my SGH-I747M using Tapatalk

If MS didn't pull the trigger, would he have to be aware of the (murderous) plan prior, in order to be found guilty? So if I rob a bank with someone (following a plan) and my partner kills someone (not the plan), I couldn't be charged with murder? I want to say that isn't so.... Maybe that's wrong?

 

[Inspector_North]

After going through the exhibits one more time, at this time I believe DM was the shooter. There is no way DM would be taking the elaborate steps to cover up the crime if he wasn't. MS just did what DM told him to do, and I don't think DM would go out of his way to cover if MS did the shooting.

DM involved others (CN) while MS was not directly involved in the cover up at all times. I don't think MS would be home while DM took the risk of hiding the truck at his moms, if DM didn't feel this was his murder to cover up.

I also put some weight on the fact that DM has been charged with shooting his dad. Just reinforces that DM is capable of pulling the trigger.

Not sure I should be factoring in WM's death, but I felt it was needed to make sense of the motive, and who pulled the trigger.

I expect the texts between (DM and CN), and (MS and MM) to shed some light on the motive, and also show why both men are charged with first degree.

MOO

 

[musicaljoke]

If MS didn't pull the trigger, would he have to be aware of the (murderous) plan prior, in order to be found guilty? So if I rob a bank with someone (following a plan) and my partner kills someone (not the plan), I couldn't be charged with murder? I want to say that isn't so.... Maybe that's wrong?

If you were aware that your partner took along a loaded gun that could potentially kill someone when you went together on your robbing spree, and then your partner shot and killed someone, then yeah, you certainly would be charged right along with your partner.

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Parties

 

[Juballee]

I am not scoffing off a victim of police brutality. Ms. Whidden was uncooperative with law enforcement at every turn, and she made no attempt to hide her haughty attitude in the courtroom. IMO the police acted lawfully and Ms. Whidden got hurt in the process, most likely because she resisted and fought back. She then took an opportunity on the stand to try to paint herself as a victim. That is beyond sad, and nobody, especially the jury, will be falling for it.

Out of curiosity, I wonder who was there that day? The people that were present saw and heard much more than went into the tweets and news reports, so much so that it really gave me a shocking view into how different the reporting is compared to what actually happened in court. There were courtroom arguement said that cannot be revealed here yet, but suffice to know that this issue was discussed and the judge ruled this testimony admissible, for a reason. It's not really up to us to determine that the judge was wrong without knowing what was said when the jury wasn't present, in my opinion.

Ms. Whidden had actually told the police that she would cooperate with them before they roughed her up. The thing she was going to cooperate with was no longer necessary once her phone was taken without a warrant. She wasn't resisting arrest, she was resisiting having her belongings taken illegally, the arrest was to assist in taking her belongings without a warrant. The phone evidence could have been thrown out, but it wasn't because each side wanted something from it, from what I saw. Still, in my opinion, police who arrest innocent people for simply knowing someone accused of a crime should be resisted, otherwise we will be living in a country with no basic human rights.

Police have rules that they need to follow, and they didn't follow them in this case, and that is no reflection on Ms Whidden, in my opinion, it's a reflection on the LE that drew her blood while trying to get something from her. Following legal advice isn't being uncooperative at every turn, perhaps some would like to live in a police state where citizens don't have laws protecting them from having police turning violent during questioning, but not me. Whether you are under arrest or not, law enforcement is not supposed to make you bleed.

My opinion only.

 

[musicaljoke]

I am not scoffing off a victim of police brutality. Ms. Whidden was uncooperative with law enforcement at every turn, and she made no attempt to hide her haughty attitude in the courtroom. IMO the police acted lawfully and Ms. Whidden got hurt in the process, most likely because she resisted and fought back. She then took an opportunity on the stand to try to paint herself as a victim. That is beyond sad, and nobody, especially the jury, will be falling for it.

My guess is that this was discussed w/o the jury present and that there were no grounds to dismiss the witness. There certainly wasn't any objection raised from either the Crown or the Defense.

If she injured herself to the point of bleeding from the handcuffs, then she certainly was a feisty character. moo.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I was able to make it to the trial that day and I have to say that I disagree with the assessment that the real estate agent has gotten here so far.

-They never asked her if she knew he was in another relationship, nor if she was.

-It was quickly pointed out that the $10k might have been $7k, and that it didn't actually come from MB as a gift, it was a referral fee sent from one real estate agency to another. She listed work that she did to earn that fee, as well, and it came long after DM was arrested, as it would have come after the sale of the condo closed.

Susan ClairmontVerified account ‏@susanclairmont Mar 22
Talked about Baja. She says they didn't talk about driving a truck to Baja...Was sent a $10,000 cheque from Millard's mother.

Seems you heard something different than the reporters did.

Her refusal to give a statement was likely a result of the police's initial rough treatment of her as much as it was her following legal advice. Everyone who testifies is compelled to testify with a subpoena, she wasn't different in that respect.

She didn't whine when she mentioned that LE made her bleed her while handcuffing her, she was matter of fact and seemed to be expressing her shock that it happened. The jury heard her testify that she told the officers who wanted her phone that they could have it if they got a warrant and she promised that she wouldn't change anything on it in that time.

Personally, I think that it is sad that in this day and age when a woman is roughed up by the police enough to draw blood, and arrested when not even suspected of a crime, that some people think that she is whining when asked about it. Sure, police brutality and abuse of power are minor crimes when compared to murder, but that is no reason to scoff them off, in my opinion.

LE didn't need a warrant for her phone http://globalnews.ca/news/1721144/police-can-search-cellphones-without-warrant-during-arrest-court/

It's obvious LW's cooperation was limited to what she was compelled to do by law. She didn't give in for a second.

Except that she didn't. DM had already left a 'story' on the phone for her, and she didn't give that story/statement to LE to try to save him. Her message, sent not knowing that he was in custody was something along the lines of 'Cops are at my house waiting to ask about you?' as a question. I think the missing word was 'Why?'

My Opinion Only.

Interesting, I wonder why we did not hear that "story" from phone records?

 

[SnooperDuper]

Out of curiosity, I wonder who was there that day? The people that were present saw and heard much more than went into the tweets and news reports, so much so that it really gave me a shocking view into how different the reporting is compared to what actually happened in court. There were courtroom arguement said that cannot be revealed here yet, but suffice to know that this issue was discussed and the judge ruled this testimony admissible, for a reason. It's not really up to us to determine that the judge was wrong without knowing what was said when the jury wasn't present, in my opinion.

Ms. Whidden had actually told the police that she would cooperate with them before they roughed her up. The thing she was going to cooperate with was no longer necessary once her phone was taken without a warrant. She wasn't resisting arrest, she was resisiting having her belongings taken illegally, the arrest was to assist in taking her belongings without a warrant. The phone evidence could have been thrown out, but it wasn't because each side wanted something from it, from what I saw. Still, in my opinion, police who arrest innocent people for simply knowing someone accused of a crime should be resisted, otherwise we will be living in a country with no basic human rights.

Police have rules that they need to follow, and they didn't follow them in this case, and that is no reflection on Ms Whidden, in my opinion, it's a reflection on the LE that drew her blood while trying to get something from her. Following legal advice isn't being uncooperative at every turn, perhaps some would like to live in a police state where citizens don't have laws protecting them from having police turning violent during questioning, but not me. Whether you are under arrest or not, law enforcement is not supposed to make you bleed.

My opinion only.

I think Whidden suffered a scrape from the handcuffs - you're making it sound like she was drained of buckets of blood.

re: "She wasn't resisting arrest, she was resisiting having her belongings taken illegally, the arrest was to assist in taking her belongings without a warrant.", LE does not need a warrant to search your cell phone http://globalnews.ca/news/1721144/police-can-search-cellphones-without-warrant-during-arrest-court/ Perhaps if LW understood the law, she would be feeling much more accepting of what happened.

 

[Juballee]

After going through the exhibits one more time, at this time I believe DM was the shooter. There is no way DM would be taking the elaborate steps to cover up the crime if he wasn't. MS just did what DM told him to do, and I don't think DM would go out of his way to cover if MS did the shooting.

DM involved others (CN) while MS was not directly involved in the cover up at all times. I don't think MS would be home while DM took the risk of hiding the truck at his moms, if DM didn't feel this was his murder to cover up.

I also put some weight on the fact that DM has been charged with shooting his dad. Just reinforces that DM is capable of pulling the trigger.

Not sure I should be factoring in WM's death, but I felt it was needed to make sense of the motive, and who pulled the trigger.

I expect the texts between (DM and CN), and (MS and MM) to shed some light on the motive, and also show why both men are charged with first degree.

MOO

I see this the opposite way, I think that MS put all the clean up on DM after having already implicating him by murdering TB on his test drive. I fully think that the person who had no intention of being implicated in a horrific crime would feel compelled to take elaborate steps to cover it up after the fact. I think that had he intended a murder, he would have taken elaborate steps to plan it ahead of time instead. I think that if DM had planned it, he would have had all his tools lined up in the right locations, ready to go. The fact that the incinerator had to be moved to the hanger at considerable extra risk shows a lack of premeditation, on at least DM's part. MS couldn't ask DM ahead of time to move the incinerator without DM being aware of what MS had planned. If the only way to get DM to cooperate with MS's plan was to spring it on him, and then make him feel like he will be equally culpable if he doesn't help to cover it up, then it also shows that DM might not have gone along unless forced by the shared culpability.

I don't see DM having anything to gain from stealing a truck, whereas I can see a guy who has no truck, no job and no money having something to gain. DM didn't do anything ahead of time to hide his appearance whereas MS completely hid his from everyone. One had a criminal record, one had a clean record, one had experience in jail, the other had none. One had plenty of means and opportunities to make a decent future for himself, with lots to lose, the other was cleaning toilets for his friends for money, (not that there is anything wrong with that, but there was not a lot of opportunity for career growth for him). Add that to the fact that the shell casing was found where MS was sitting, and to me I see a guy who wanted to commit a crime and who happened to have a buddy who had all the tools he needed.

And wasn't DM on the way to his lawyer's when he was arrested? I have to assume that if he had made it to his lawyer's before he was arrested that things would have gone down differently. It would be far more likely for a lawyer to recommend that a client turn themselves in and cooperate in that situation, then to remain quiet and wait for arrest. (Maybe that is one reason why DP cannot represent DM now, perhaps he will be called as a witness too!?! Lol) Once a client is arrested, their advice is always to remain silent. We have not heard about MS visiting a lawyer before arrest, have we? He didn't even try to pull his gangster rap video off the net until after he was arrested. I wonder if this case has anything to do with street cred?


All my opinion only.

 

[matou]

To the person who was in court when Whidden was on the witness stand, how was JV on the stand? TIA

 

[grillzgirl]

I'm at the point of realizing that no matter how much evidence is to follow the massive amount already presented, I'll never understand the motivation for murder unless one or both of the accused talk, and perhaps not even then.


Trying to figure everything out among amateur sleuths sometimes feels to me like the whole thing is fiction, and though I am shocked by the crime, I am merely an interested yet distant observer and the verdicts will not impact me directly.


When I think about the very real crime, the genuine victim, TB, and all those who cared about him, even depended upon him, all those innocent people left hurting for a lifetime, I know there is no acceptable explanation possible that will alter that truth or make much difference to them.


I want justice to be delivered by way of the verdicts, but in the end, the reality is that the verdicts will only be one phase of this heartbreaking crime, and for those directly affected, the pain may ease with time, but IMO, it will never really end.

TB's murder and the unspeakable horror in the fact that he was also incinerated is IMO, an unforgivable crime!


All MOO.

BBM
I totally agree. I have followed this case for quite some time and I think what has drawn me in is the lack of motive. This man's life was snuffed out for NO REASON. Not that any reason is a good reason to murder, but I just can't wrap my mind around this one.

In regards to MS or DM being the shooter, I think it was DM. However, MS, in my mind, is just as guilty. I've been around cremations (mortuary school and such) and there is no way they didn't smell his remains burning in that incinerator while they were at the hangar. It is a horrible smell. At least in a professional retort there is a ventilation system. They hung out there burning this man beyond recognition after taking his life!!! The sounds, the smell, the blood they were washing off...... They are soulless. I cannot wait for the guilty verdict to be handed down.

 

[Juballee]

Susan ClairmontVerified account ‏@susanclairmont Mar 22
Talked about Baja. She says they didn't talk about driving a truck to Baja...Was sent a $10,000 cheque from Millard's mother.

Seems you heard something different than the reporters did.



LE didn't need a warrant for her phone http://globalnews.ca/news/1721144/police-can-search-cellphones-without-warrant-during-arrest-court/

It's obvious LW's cooperation was limited to what she was compelled to do by law. She didn't give in for a second.



Interesting, I wonder why we did not hear that "story" from phone records?

As as we have seen numerous times here, not every tweet is fully accurate. That tweet was probably sent out before LW clarified it, which took some time. Being there in person you certainly do see and hear more than is reported in just the intermittent 140 character tweets.

LE did end up needing a warrant to look into that phone, (possibly because it was locked, which changes the rules for LE searching your phone without a warrant). Things that were discussed when the jury was not present would make the situation more understandable, as well as things that were said in their presence that were not tweeted, such as when they asked her if she had ever seen the warrant that was eventually made for her phone. But from what I have seen, the media doesn't want to spread understanding, they are selling mystery. Mystery sells.

The 'story' in her phone records was revealed and has been discussed here at length, so yes, we did hear that once she testified. I'm not sure why it bothers some that she did as she was compelled?

 

[Juballee]

To the person who was in court when Whidden was on the witness stand, how was JV on the stand? TIA

They were there on different days.

 

[matou]

Did Whiddens explain who Scotty is?

 

[Kamille]

I think Whidden suffered a scrape from the handcuffs - you're making it sound like she was drained of buckets of blood.

re: "She wasn't resisting arrest, she was resisiting having her belongings taken illegally, the arrest was to assist in taking her belongings without a warrant.", LE does not need a warrant to search your cell phone http://globalnews.ca/news/1721144/police-can-search-cellphones-without-warrant-during-arrest-court/ Perhaps if LW understood the law, she would be feeling much more accepting of what happened.

Not to mention there was still a man missing at the time, and one in custody who wasn't talking. If one of my loved ones is missing and LE hone in on someone who was in contact with the perpetrator during the time they are missing, you better believe I want them to use all means neccessary to get information. And they legally have that right. What on earth was this woman thinking? Her assumed rights (of which she was wrong about anyway) trump an innocent man's life? Her cell phone phone was more important to her than a police investigation into a missing man who appeared to be the victim of a kidnapping? Where were her priorities? Doesn't she have children? What if she or one of her children were missing and someone connected to a person in custody put up this kind of fuss? It actually probably made her look guilty of something, hence the arrest.

And that kind of blind loyalty to DM that she displayed on the stand with her whining about police brutality because she resisted her cell phone being taken, while the woman whose husband was incinerated and then thrown away by the accused sat there and listened to her hostility on the stand is confusing to me. I would have thought after 3 years she might have had a change of heart about why getting that cell phone was so important (and legal) to LE at the time and realized her behaviour is the reason why she was arrested. There were a lot of other people that DM was in contact with that week that obviously cooperated with turning in their phones and were not arrested.

I wonder if she's ever considered how lucky she is (and her children are) that she didn't become a nuisance or problem for DM during the time she was seeing him?

MOO

 

[puppyraiser]

I see this the opposite way, I think that MS put all the clean up on DM after having already implicating him by murdering TB on his test drive. I fully think that the person who had no intention of being implicated in a horrific crime would feel compelled to take elaborate steps to cover it up after the fact. I think that had he intended a murder, he would have taken elaborate steps to plan it ahead of time instead. I think that if DM had planned it, he would have had all his tools lined up in the right locations, ready to go. The fact that the incinerator had to be moved to the hanger at considerable extra risk shows a lack of premeditation, on at least DM's part. MS couldn't ask DM ahead of time to move the incinerator without DM being aware of what MS had planned. If the only way to get DM to cooperate with MS's plan was to spring it on him, and then make him feel like he will be equally culpable if he doesn't help to cover it up, then it also shows that DM might not have gone along unless forced by the shared culpability.

I don't see DM having anything to gain from stealing a truck, whereas I can see a guy who has no truck, no job and no money having something to gain. DM didn't do anything ahead of time to hide his appearance whereas MS completely hid his from everyone. One had a criminal record, one had a clean record, one had experience in jail, the other had none. One had plenty of means and opportunities to make a decent future for himself, with lots to lose, the other was cleaning toilets for his friends for money, (not that there is anything wrong with that, but there was not a lot of opportunity for career growth for him). Add that to the fact that the shell casing was found where MS was sitting, and to me I see a guy who wanted to commit a crime and who happened to have a buddy who had all the tools he needed.

And wasn't DM on the way to his lawyer's when he was arrested? I have to assume that if he had made it to his lawyer's before he was arrested that things would have gone down differently. It would be far more likely for a lawyer to recommend that a client turn themselves in and cooperate in that situation, then to remain quiet and wait for arrest. (Maybe that is one reason why DP cannot represent DM now, perhaps he will be called as a witness too!?! Lol) Once a client is arrested, their advice is always to remain silent. We have not heard about MS visiting a lawyer before arrest, have we? He didn't even try to pull his gangster rap video off the net until after he was arrested. I wonder if this case has anything to do with street cred?


All my opinion only.

IMO the truck was for DM. Why would MS want a big truck instead of a fancy car? He had no toys, trailers or incinerators to tow around- DM did. MS didn't have a Baja race to attend, DM did.

I believe the plan was to simply steal a truck using the threat of violence (dumb move of bringing a loaded gun) and either TB resisted or the gun went off accidentally. Their plan wasn't foolproof by any means: TB was shot and they both scrambled into a very clumsy clean up.

 

[leafs_fan93]

Did Whiddens explain who Scotty is?

I don't believe she did. According to exhibit 37 in this link
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/what-the-tim-bosma-jury-saw
It shows texts to "Scott" so I assume we will find out who he is at some point?