Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #7

[Inspector_North]

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.

I agree with most of your post. However, the gun did not go off accidentally. Something went wrong with the plan for him to be shot in the truck. If I am not mistaken, the PPK (gun) is a double-action, first-shot pistol. You need to squeeze the trigger deliberately, as opposed to a single action.


With only two involved, it is difficult to handle a live victim with two vehicles.

unless ....
1) TB was shot near his home. - hand guns are very loud.
2) He was physically restrained, but this does not explain shooting him in the truck
3) He was rendered unconscious when they picked up the Yukon, and shot later.
4) He was held at gunpoint by the driver of the truck, and shot when attempting some kind of resistance. - ( I believe this is the way it happened). Most likely why they had to pull over at the Bobcat dealer for nearly 10 minutes. Not a spot to shoot someone.

They both knew about the gun, and had photos on their electronic devices.

Besides, all the murders these two have been implicated in are for DM's gains.

MOO

 

[redwing7225]

Talk of LW2 bleeding from handcuffs, can happen easily if she tried to move her wrists around for some reason. No pity here given the circumstances.
Regarding DM wanting the truck but not committing the murder...finding it hard to believe he wasn't involved in that part of the crime given the fact it was his incinerator, his hanger, him doing the majority of the cover up. All my opinion but facts haven't proven MS to have the knowledge to attempt to pull off something this big. Recall, MS got nailed for graffiti

 

[Just4TB]

If I am not mistaken, the PPK (gun) is a double-action, first-shot pistol. You need to squeeze the trigger deliberately, as opposed to a single action.

RSBM
The PPK can operate both as Single Action and Double Action. This doesn't change the fact that very unlikely to go off without intent... unless 2nd shot perhaps in DA mode.
Not prone to accidental discharge first shot in either SA or DA mode, because the hammer needs to be cocked in SA mode...

"The PPK can be fired with a light, single action trigger pull by manually cocking the exposed hammer for the first shot. After the first shot, the autoloading action reloads the pistol from its magazine and leaves the hammer fully cocked for subsequent shots. In this mode, the PPK operates like any single action auto, such as a Colt 1911. Alternatively, in an emergency, the pistol can be fired double action, meaning by trigger cocking, as with a double action revolver. A long, hard pull on the trigger and releases the hammer for the first shot."

Source
http://www.chuckhawks.com/walther_PPK.htm

 

[Gibson67]

I'm not sure how either D will have the opportunity to present the stories of their clients without them taking the stand. Since it's been reported to be a "cut throat" defence strategy, it kind of sounds that they're going to continue to sling mud at each other, but will this just be limited to their cross examinations of the Crown's witnesses? If the testimony from CN, MM and AM proves to be credible and beneficial to the Crown, it's going to be interesting to see how the two D's counter. MOO

"It will be weeks before the defence — Ravin Pillay and Nadir Sachak for Millard and Thomas Dungey and Jennifer Trehearne for Smich — will have a turn to present their case. Even then there is a possibility, as frequently happens at murder trials, that they will call no witnesses.

The onus is on the Crown to prove guilt. Yet in small and subtle ways, the defence teams chip away at the Crown's case through their cross-examinations."

"The most powerful tactic the defence teams have employed so far, though, is the cutthroat defence. Each accused pointing the finger at the other."

http://www.thespec.com/opinion-story/6309994-bosma-trial-defence-target-police-investigation/

I do think this is a strategy from the two defence teams..it does not necessarily mean that DM is blaming MS or that MS is blaming DM. It could be the drama effect in the court room for the jury. All the defence needs to do is play one against the other to create reasonable doubt. I'm curious to know if the defence teams talk to one another and strategized this cut throat defence.

 

[andreww]

I agree with most of your post. However, the gun did not go off accidentally. Something went wrong with the plan for him to be shot in the truck. If I am not mistaken, the PPK (gun) is a double-action, first-shot pistol. You need to squeeze the trigger deliberately, as opposed to a single action.


With only two involved, it is difficult to handle a live victim with two vehicles.

unless ....
1) TB was shot near his home. - hand guns are very loud.
2) He was physically restrained, but this does not explain shooting him in the truck
3) He was rendered unconscious when they picked up the Yukon, and shot later.
4) He was held at gunpoint by the driver of the truck, and shot when attempting some kind of resistance. - ( I believe this is the way it happened). Most likely why they had to pull over at the Bobcat dealer for nearly 10 minutes. Not a spot to shoot someone.

They both knew about the gun, and had photos on their electronic devices.

Besides, all the murders these two have been implicated in are for DM's gains.

MOO

Lets not rule out that there may have been a third person involved. I find it very interesting that LE is not really attempting to put any detail to this crime, only laying out evidence to conclusively show that Smich and Millard were both present. That is it. The don't ever try to fill in the blanks like who, when or why. The are laying out evidence and trusting the jury to come to their own conclusions. But yes, it is totally possible that a third person may have been present, their car being left at the farm or possibly close to the hangar (the reason why someone left for a short period right after their arrival at the hangar). And nothing to say TB wasn't killed at the farm house either?

My guess is that LE does not have to prove the "who" part of the equation because from what I understand that given the circumstances of the crime, they'd both be guilty of 1st degree murder. That leaves me wondering what the defence strategies are going to be? If Millard were to say Smich shot him while they were both stealing the truck, wouldn't that still qualify as 1st degree? So Millard is going to have to prove that he was sincerely interested in purchasing the truck, that Smich brought the gun and that Smich shot him. If he can convince the jury of all three things, he would only be looking at accessory after the fact charges. Can he do it?

Smith on the other hand has a few more hurdles to overcome. The gun has been linked to his hand in those Facebook photos. He also turned off his phone prior to going to TBs home. If he were under the illusion that this was to be a legitimate transaction, why would he go silent at that precise moment? We also have Smich disposing of the gun. If he were going blame this on Millard, why not hand over the gun? We have him bragging to his girlfriend that the owner is gone gone gone. Not the kind of reaction I would expect from a kid who was just unwittingly tied in to a murder.

Finally, lets not forget that Millard likely has a far better legal team as he has the money to spend. My guess is that Smich will come out looking the worst when all this is said and done. Whether the jury believes it will be another story.

 

[matou]

Two articles about Whidden's testimony on the stand from competent journalists:

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

Molly Hayes http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6...dellen-millard-told-his-lover-he-was-set-up-/

 

[SnooperDuper]

Two articles about Whidden's testimony on the stand from competent journalists:

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

Molly Hayes http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6...dellen-millard-told-his-lover-he-was-set-up-/

Those articles say the "haughty" and "insolent" Whidden "received a $10,000 cheque in the mail from Millard's mother, Madeleine Burns" - just to clarify.

 

[SnooperDuper]

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

I think she had nothing to do with the investigation because she had shady things going on. Not just the cheque. "Scotty".

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.

Sure, AS and RB are biased by their personal experiences with DM.

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?

And Whidden didn't lie? "I thought he was sick" - really? That's where the shaming comes in, it is because Whidden lied.

Why the devotion from Whidden? Was it the cheap sex and admittedly casual relationship, or the $10k? Neither is enough reason to support a murderer, IMO.

 

[andreww]

Those articles say the "haughty" and "insolent" Whidden "received a $10,000 cheque in the mail from Millard's mother, Madeleine Burns" - just to clarify.

I know that people here like to take shots at people the perceive to be pro-Millard, but that $10k could be exactly what she said it was, payment for her efforts in selling Millard's condo. She and Millard were obviously close and had been together for some time, so why not pay her for the work that she put in? It wasn't her fault that Millard got himself arrested and that the listing was pulled from her due to the NCL, so why wouldn't Millard suggest to his mother that she get paid? It certainly was her right not to be interviewed by police, and given the treatment of other witnesses by defence attorneys, I kind of don't blame her. She got her subpoena, she showed up and she answered everything that was asked of her, so I don't think its fair to crucify her.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I know that people here like to take shots at people the perceive to be pro-Millard, but that $10k could be exactly what she said it was, payment for her efforts in selling Millard's condo. She and Millard were obviously close and had been together for some time, so why not pay her for the work that she put in? It wasn't her fault that Millard got himself arrested and that the listing was pulled from her due to the NCL, so why wouldn't Millard suggest to his mother that she get paid? It certainly was her right not to be interviewed by police, and given the treatment of other witnesses by defence attorneys, I kind of don't blame her. She got her subpoena, she showed up and she answered everything that was asked of her, so I don't think its fair to crucify her.

Why didn't DM ensure JV was paid? DM told JV he was going to pay him, went to the bank, picked up $3k, got arrested - and then neither DM nor MB followed up and paid DM's loyal, long-time handyman that had been by his side for years and even taught him Spanish.

So why a payday for Whidden (when it is grey whether she deserved it or not) but none for JV, when DM at least initially moved to pay him?

I don't think Whidden deserves any credit for providing the bare minimum amount of cooperation demanded by the law. She does deserve to be called out for it, though.

 

[andreww]

Why didn't DM ensure JV was paid? DM told JV he was going to pay him, went to the bank, picked up $3k, got arrested - and then neither DM nor MB followed up and paid DM's loyal, long-time handyman that had been by his side for years and even taught him Spanish.

So why a payday for Whidden (when it is grey whether she deserved it or not) but none for JV, when DM at least initially moved to pay him?

I don't think Whidden deserves any credit for providing the bare minimum amount of cooperation demanded by the law. She does deserve to be called out for it, though.

Was Millard banging JV? That might have something to do with it.

 

[Sillybilly]

Stop the personalizing and bickering.

 

[MsSherlock]

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


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?

I can't see much in way of sexual bias as much as I can see a difference between the people DM had in his inner circle and those who are just telling it like it is. There's a long list of witnesses that have just sworn on the bible and answered the questions as honestly as they could (can). i.e.) RB, JV, AJ, IT. Then there are those who have closer ties to DM and for one reason or another have been apprehensive in providing "society" via the Courts a fulsome accounting of everything they knew. i.e.) SS, LW1, LW2. More like they're hostile witnesses? The common denominator with those on the latter list is that all 3 of them had financial ties with DM by means of MB's after DM was arrested. Perhaps a type of psychological loyalty? IMO, we as a society have reasonable expectations that once caught, murderers will be punished to the fullest extent of the law, ensuring that no one will fall victim to them in the future.

The atrocity of DM & MS's purported crimes cannot be made light of. July/12:Gone is LB and left to mourn are her family and friends. A young life who's potential will never be known. Nov/12: Gone is WM, a man with vision and hope-leaving behind business associates, employees and family who had to deal with his sudden passing- a void that could not be filled. May/13: Gone is TB, a hardworking husband, father and son; snuffed out in the prime of his life. Considering that both LB and WM were close to DM and MS, any friend of theirs should be able to see that friends and family can be murdered just as easily as strangers.

It took a "no strings attached" stranger (IT) to put two and two together and call LE with his story, while at the same time, AJ was pacing back and forth worrying about the truck sitting in the middle of DM's hangar. Why did a complete stranger worry more about the welfare of TB when DM's friends and co-workers seem to have taken a different approach? IMHO, I resign myself to the fact that some people really don't care until someone they love gets murdered by a perpetrator who should have already been locked up.

So as far as the media being hard on real estate LW? She lost me at not being open with LE the moment they showed up at her door. As was reported when CN was arrested:

" Leitch said Noudga made a statement to police after she was arrested Thursday, but could not say whether she is being co-operative.
“We don’t usually arrest co-operating witnesses,” Leitch said.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...e_she_was_reported_missing_police_allege.html

MOO

 

[SnooperDuper]

Well I am going to say that I currently don't buy that there isn't enough evidence to send DM and MS away for life.

I keep hearing the "killer evidence" is yet to come - but what if we look at what we know now and assess that? All of the factual evidence, for the most part, has been presented. All we are going to hear, upcoming, is people's interpretations of this evidence. We can't depend on the fact that witnesses are going to tell the truth.

I am confused at how people can look at the evidence that has been presented to date and see some way in which DM in particular was not involved. It seems that he is all over this.

 

[andreww]

Well I am going to say that I currently don't buy that there isn't enough evidence to send DM and MS away for life.

I keep hearing the "killer evidence" is yet to come - but what if we look at what we know now and assess that? All of the factual evidence, for the most part, has been presented. All we are going to hear, upcoming, is people's interpretations of this evidence. We can't depend on the fact that witnesses are going to tell the truth.

I am confused at how people can look at the evidence that has been presented to date and see some way in which DM in particular was not involved. It seems that he is all over this.

All we know is that the two of them went to steal a truck and TB ended up dead. It looks like we are going to have to decide from the defence side of the case what exactly happened. That is, unless one of these guys told the whole story to one of the girlfriends.

 

[SnooperDuper]

All we know is that the two of them went to steal a truck and TB ended up dead. It looks like we are going to have to decide from the defence side of the case what exactly happened. That is, unless one of these guys told the whole story to one of the girlfriends.

The only thing we don't really know IMO is who pulled the trigger, and that doesn't really matter. DM and MS were completely involved in the abduction and incineration of TB. We can gather that in between abduction and incineration came murder. They did it together.

There are cases that are settled with far far less evidence than that which has already been presented. I don't think the jury would have difficulty coming to a verdict if we ended things right now.

I don't think any upcoming witnesses will be able to present any evidence that clears DM and MS of involvement. Perhaps they might argue about the role that each played, but with a fixed 25 years to life term, what difference would it make?

 

[Alethea Dice]

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


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?

I tend to question the honesty in these types as well. When someone speaks publicly of another with such strong contempt, it leaves me with the impression that the speaker has some personal axe to grind against that person and is speaking more in anger than in total truth.

I haven't seen either woman "degraded" or "shamed" in the general public or MSM. When it happens here, it doesn't seem to be based on gender, but rather on what a person testifies to. If a witness is unable to give any direct information in regards to the crime, and has nothing to add that is particularly negative about the accused, they are accused of lying or covering up to protect him. However, those who testify to what the majority want to hear are praised as heroes and many excuses can be found for any questionable parts about their reliability as a trusted witness.

There have been a couple of witnesses that have made me wonder why the Crown has even called them, since they didn't seem to be able to provide any real evidence to support the Crown's version of events, and sometimes the reason has come out later or may still be on the horizon. However, I see no reason why any witness should be ridiculed and disrespected merely based on their own experiences and interactions with the accused. A witness can only state the truth of what they know, regardless of whether anyone thinks they should have known more. When some questions don't come up with a witness, it isn't always that the defense has successfully had the question blocked. Sometimes, it's because the Crown knows what the answer will be. Just sayin'...

JMO

 

[andreww]

The only thing we don't really know IMO is who pulled the trigger, and that doesn't really matter. DM and MS were completely involved in the abduction and incineration of TB. We can gather that in between abduction and incineration came murder. They did it together.

There are cases that are settled with far far less evidence than that which has already been presented. I don't think the jury would have difficulty coming to a verdict if we ended things right now.

I don't think any upcoming witnesses will be able to present any evidence that clears DM and MS of involvement. Perhaps they might argue about the role that each played, but with a fixed 25 years to life term, what difference would it make?

BBM. The problem is its still the top of the inning and the other team is yet to bat. IMO Millard needs to prove that it was never his idea to steal the truck. A bank account with more than $25K in it would go a long way towards proving that. If he can convince the jury that money wasn't an issue, then he's halfway there. All he would have to do is suggest Smich pulled the trigger. Remember, neither defendant has denied that they were there, and that is all that LE has proven.

 

[SnooperDuper]

BBM. The problem is its still the top of the inning and the other team is yet to bat. IMO Millard needs to prove that it was never his idea to steal the truck. A bank account with more than $25K in it would go a long way towards proving that. If he can convince the jury that money wasn't an issue, then he's halfway there. All he would have to do is suggest Smich pulled the trigger. Remember, neither defendant has denied that they were there, and that is all that LE has proven.

We've repeatedly heard about DM's money problems from LW1, LW2, JV. It's a little late for him to claim he was loaded with bucks.

If it wasn't DM's idea to steal a truck, why then did he do all the calling and talking? Why on a burner phone? Why did the key end up on DM's keyring and the truck in his hangar and then his trailer at his mom's?

Imagine MS pulled the trigger. What difference does that make to DM's case? He still participated in the robbery and the concealment of the truck. It looks like he did all the dirty work cleaning it too, with DM's gf (not MS, or MS's gf.)

I don't think there is any hope for DM, and it's just going to get worse.

 

[Massasauga Rattler]

BBM. The problem is its still the top of the inning and the other team is yet to bat. IMO Millard needs to prove that it was never his idea to steal the truck. A bank account with more than $25K in it would go a long way towards proving that. If he can convince the jury that money wasn't an issue, then he's halfway there. All he would have to do is suggest Smich pulled the trigger. Remember, neither defendant has denied that they were there, and that is all that LE has proven.

I've still yet to see proof that MS was there. Yes his phone was there, and yes he was there personally at the hanger later than night, BUT was he personally there at the time of the murder. SB did not yet positively identify him as the second guy in the driveway. His prints or blood are also not on anything, as far as I remember. So you can bet the defense strategy for MS is going to be amplifying the fact that his presence there has not been proven, and they will no doubt try to raise reasonable doubt to that effect. At this stage I think the jury will wrestle with the MS verdict. That said, DM is toast.