Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #7

[deugirtni]

Supposedly at some point after he got fired (which from various testimony and timelines appears to be sometime prior 4pm on May 10, 2013), AJ called LE to 'be proactive', apparently he doesn't remember exactly when. Could it be that he made that call just when he left the hangar that day (around 4pm), which led to the timing of DM's arrest? Perhaps without that info, police would have just kept tailing him instead?:

From Adam Clarke's Live Blog Feb 4:
Jennings says at some point he went to the police. "I wanted to be proactive and not reactive."
12:39 PM
"I knew eventually the police were going to knock on my door."
12:39 PM
"I wasn't part of a crime, and neither was my son in law."
12:40 PM

 

[deugirtni]

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. ?

 

[deugirtni]

Someone earlier upthread mentioned how LE can only seize a cellphone from a 'suspect' at the time, without a warrant. At the time when LW2 was approached by LE, she likely *was* considered a potential suspect, since at the time, TB was still missing, and police knew there was more than just the one person, DM, involved in his disappearance. Considering the times of the various communications between her cellphone and DM's, it seemed she was a POI that could potentially have more involvement. MOO

 

[andreww]

Thanks for that, but it just doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Since when do LE need a warrant to arrest someone they believe is the killer when they have him where they want him. If I shoot someone on the street and the police show up, they're not going to look at me standing there and say, "well, go for now and when we get the warrant, we'll come see you". No, they are going to arrest me on the spot, warrant or no warrant. Can someone help me understand where the line is drawn here?

IMO, if they needed a warrant there, then there is something wrong. When you have a chance you take it when a killer is at large, and can be safely taken down.

I think they were simply giving him some rope to see what he'd do and see who he'd contact. Remember they were still looking for a third suspect back then. And cops are very proficient at taking down bad guys with very little risk to the public. It happened so fast that Millard likely had no idea what was even happening.

 

[andreww]

What truck? (per DM to SS)

Glad somebody got that lol!

 

[andreww]

We've never had LE up to address the hangar search. I wonder if they'll have MM, the guy whose Harley was stolen?

I'm coming to the conclusion that evidence regarding the chop shop operation has been excluded for prejudicial reasons. If so, the hanger search and Harley guy likely wouldn't be presented.

 

[deugirtni]

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.

 

[andreww]

BBM

I think we have to hear from her. Her testimony is pivotal ..could show premeditation or show maybe got caught with his pants down. ie: immediate search for Tim when he thought he would have at least 24 hours before LE would consider him missing. (I personally think that is what made this look so unorganized. I do think it was all arranged and premeditated, but I think they figured they had a couple of days before any real LE work would begin. Their sloppiness began when they realized that their timeline had to be moved up and fast!)

Did DM call her a day or so before and say "hey Mom..mind if I park my trailer in your driveway for a couple days" or was it the reverse "Hey Dellen, why is your trailer in my driveway"

MB might be called as a defence witness. Something tells me the prosecution doesn't trust her to tell the truth on the stand.

 

[andreww]

This is a little random but I've been wanting to ask. I was always under the impression that a diesel truck was common. I've seen enough out there. Turbo Cummins etc. Was this such a hard item to find and why? Did Dodge stop making a truck with a diesel engine?

That particular year truck was in demand because later models had decreased horsepower. So apparently at the time there were only 3 trucks available in the entire southern Ontario area.

 

[deugirtni]

When DM told SS that he 'wanted to take it back', he could have been referring to 'the truck', or he could have been referring to his participation in TB's demise?

from Molly Hayes Tweets:

Texts from May 9. At 9:49pm DM texts SS: "I can't stop thinking about what that family's going through." #Bosma Mar 21, 2016

At this pt, SS says he had talked to Art. Art had told him about communication with CrimeStoppers. #Bosma Mar 21, 2016

At 10:22pm, DM: "I want to take it back, but I'm a little concerned (at) how that's going to play out." #Bosma Mar 21, 2016

("That family," Schlatman says, is #Bosma family) Mar 21, 2016

At 10:26pm SS: "ya that's a tough call man. Have you considered goin to cops? Tell em ya bought this truck but you think it's warm" #Bosma Mar 21, 2016

Then DM responds: "hypothetically: if this is the same one, I'm in a lot of jeopardy: what truck?" #Bosma Mar 21, 2016

He said he thought that was DM "playing dumb." #Bosma Mar 21, 2016

 

[deugirtni]

I'm coming to the conclusion that evidence regarding the chop shop operation has been excluded for prejudicial reasons. If so, the hanger search and Harley guy likely wouldn't be presented.

I'm not saying you are mistaken, but I don't understand why it would not be relevant in this case. It would show/prove that SS willingly followed his employer's instructions, even when he knew (or ought to have known) that he was participating in illegal activities. It seems it would have been nothing really new for SS to remove a VIN from a vehicle to disguise its ownership, to then either become DM's property or to be resold absent any indication of ownership. It could even potentially assist DM's defence in suggesting this truck was just another stolen truck, like all of the others.

Seems to me like DM is trying to portray himself as just your average law-abiding citizen, except that he's a 'rich' guy getting picked on by some of his various jealous underlings. First he 'bought' the truck, but then he denies knowing anything about the truck (what truck?). He runs a chopshop, but it's not allowed into evidence even though it could perhaps give credence to him only having involvement in thefts up to that point, and so why would this theft be any different from the rest. In trying to make himself appear to have done *nothing* wrong, he is making himself look even worse. MOO

 

[andreww]

One thing I don't get: people keep suggesting if DM fired the gun, it was an accident, or else MS fired the gun, and it was on purpose.

Why is it so hard to believe that DM intentionally fired the gun and killed TB?

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

 

[andreww]

"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?

You guys are too much. She said in court that when she got the original text about being too hot, she thought he was sick. When he replied about being set up, she understood what h meant. How is that even a lie??? All she is say is that she was mistaken for ten seconds! She didn't lie, because she didn't say it to anyone and never tried to mislead anyone. If I say a woke up last night and thought a bomb had gone off, then realized it was just a thunderstorm, did I lie???

Cut LW some slack.. She may not be an ideal witness but it does not appear that she lied about anything.

 

[andreww]

I'm not saying you are mistaken, but I don't understand why it would not be relevant in this case. It would show/prove that SS willingly followed his employer's instructions, even when he knew (or ought to have known) that he was participating in illegal activities. It seems it would have been nothing really new for SS to remove a VIN from a vehicle to disguise its ownership, to then either become DM's property or to be resold absent any indication of ownership. It could even potentially assist DM's defence in suggesting this truck was just another stolen truck, like all of the others.

Seems to me like DM is trying to portray himself as just your average law-abiding citizen, except that he's a 'rich' guy getting picked on by some of his various jealous underlings. First he 'bought' the truck, but then he denies knowing anything about the truck (what truck?). He runs a chopshop, but it's not allowed into evidence even though it could perhaps give credence to him only having involvement in thefts up to that point, and so why would this theft be any different from the rest. In trying to make himself appear to have done *nothing* wrong, he is making himself look even worse. MOO

Not that I agree with it, but this kind of thing happens quite often. The theory is that Millard and Smich are on trial for murder. If the judge allows the prosecution to paint them as the leaders of an illegal chop shop, it would taint the jury's opinion of the defendants. Remember, its also complicated by the fact that Millard and Smich have not been charged, tried or convicted of any theft charges. The prosecution has no right to assume guilt and present that evidence as fact.

 

[andreww]

When DM told SS that he 'wanted to take it back', he could have been referring to 'the truck', or he could have been referring to his participation in TB's demise?

from Molly Hayes Tweets:

Texts from May 9. At 9:49pm DM texts SS: "I can't stop thinking about what that family's going through." #Bosma Mar 21, 2016

At this pt, SS says he had talked to Art. Art had told him about communication with CrimeStoppers. #Bosma Mar 21, 2016

At 10:22pm, DM: "I want to take it back, but I'm a little concerned (at) how that's going to play out." #Bosma Mar 21, 2016

("That family," Schlatman says, is #Bosma family) Mar 21, 2016

At 10:26pm SS: "ya that's a tough call man. Have you considered goin to cops? Tell em ya bought this truck but you think it's warm" #Bosma Mar 21, 2016

Then DM responds: "hypothetically: if this is the same one, I'm in a lot of jeopardy: what truck?" #Bosma Mar 21, 2016

He said he thought that was DM "playing dumb." #Bosma Mar 21, 2016

I think at this point Millard is just spinning lies based in who he talking to and how much they happen to know. SS knows its TBs truck, so Millard's story is he unwittingly purchased a hot truck. LW knows a lot less, so the story is that he is being framed. I'm sure the stories he told his mother and CN are completely different as well.

 

[andreww]

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.

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...

 

[Inspector_North]

You guys are too much. She said in court that when she got the original text about being too hot, she thought he was sick. When he replied about being set up, she understood what h meant. How is that even a lie??? All she is say is that she was mistaken for ten seconds! She didn't lie, because she didn't say it to anyone and never tried to mislead anyone. If I say a woke up last night and thought a bomb had gone off, then realized it was just a thunderstorm, did I lie???

Cut LW some slack.. She may not be an ideal witness but it does not appear that she lied about anything.

If that is the situation, why the reluctance to provide the police her phone?

1) It could help locate the victim
2) It could provide evidence of DM's innocence. In fact she never even mentioned the set up text at that time.

 

[deugirtni]

You guys are too much. She said in court that when she got the original text about being too hot, she thought he was sick. When he replied about being set up, she understood what h meant. How is that even a lie??? All she is say is that she was mistaken for ten seconds! She didn't lie, because she didn't say it to anyone and never tried to mislead anyone. If I say a woke up last night and thought a bomb had gone off, then realized it was just a thunderstorm, did I lie???

Cut LW some slack.. She may not be an ideal witness but it does not appear that she lied about anything.

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."

 

[andreww]

If that is the situation, why the reluctance to provide the police her phone?

1) It could help locate the victim
2) It could provide evidence of DM's innocence. In fact she never even mentioned the set up text at that time.

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?

 

[deugirtni]

Not that I agree with it, but this kind of thing happens quite often. The theory is that Millard and Smich are on trial for murder. If the judge allows the prosecution to paint them as the leaders of an illegal chop shop, it would taint the jury's opinion of the defendants. Remember, its also complicated by the fact that Millard and Smich have not been charged, tried or convicted of any theft charges. The prosecution has no right to assume guilt and present that evidence as fact.

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