Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #7

[andreww]

"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.

Well you've got it wrong. If he feels he's not guilty of 1st degree, then "not guilty" is appropriate plea. Doesn't mean he's not guilty of 2nd degree.

 

[andreww]

And the rest of the crime makes sense?

Yes it does. He wanted the truck, he went to steal it and TB accidentally got killed. Happens every day sorry to say.

 

[DeepWoodsOff]

Hopefully the family and community is prepared to see him do substantially less than that in the end. We had a guy locally who killed three teens walking by the side of the road and was sentenced to seven years. He was out in less than four and a half.

Yep. It will be the same here. To add insult to injury...the court assessed a victim surcharge of $260/victim. Talk about insulting!

 

[SnooperDuper]

Yes it does. He wanted the truck, he went to steal it and TB accidentally got killed. Happens every day sorry to say.

Huh WHAT? I haven't heard of a case like this in like...ever.

"Happens every day?"

 

[andreww]

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)

Financial problems? Did he attempt to back out of the deal? He simply delayed it. Does that mean he couldn't come up with $20K if he needed it? Certainly not.

Millard never hid from the law. He went and stayed at all the same places.

We already knew he he was looking for a new truck.

And you are reaching on the affair thing. Who cares?

 

[andreww]

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

Yes, but thats pretty easy in the context of a murder investigation. And you keep failing to acknowledge that the very next text clarified the misunderstanding. So why would she lie???

 

[ArianeEmory]

Yes it does. He wanted the truck, he went to steal it and TB accidentally got killed. Happens every day sorry to say.

You seem to be speaking in absolutes here. Is that intentional? As in, you have specific knowledge that TB 'accidentally got killed'?

And you are reaching on the affair thing. Who cares?

The jury. It's called 'character'. And yes, people still do care.

 

[andreww]

Huh WHAT? I haven't heard of a case like this in like...ever.

"Happens every day?"

Basically a car jacking. Google it.

 

[andreww]

You seem to be speaking in absolutes here. Is that intentional? As in, you have specific knowledge that TB 'accidentally got killed'?



The jury. It's called 'character'. And yes, people still do care.

Would you shoot someone in your brand new truck? Seriously, every single piece of forensic evidence is now forever held in that truck. Why not walk him in to the woods and shoot him? Doesn't make sense at all.

<modsnip>
As for the cheating thing, you've got it wrong, nobody cares.

 

[Prairie_dawg]

I still think its pretty sick to think DM seemed willing to convert a mortal mobile crime scene for his own uses. Most criminals burn a vehicle used in such a crime or even lesser crime, but DM was planning on using TBs truck after such a horrific crime. Every day driving around with the memory of what had happened and judging by the sloppy cleanup job with evidence still visible. Most of us would never even want to set foot in a vehicle that had seen such a horrific event. That is a very sick thing indeed. To me that shows NO REMORSE whatsoever.

As for DM not hiding anything, he was arrogant at the start thinking he would never be caught. Once the dominoes started to fall he scrambled hiding all sort of things and as a result got very sloppy. He scattered evidence everywhere. Luckily it was all too late. JMO

 

[RandomName479]

Would you shoot someone in your brand new truck? Seriously, every single piece of forensic evidence is now forever held in that truck. Why not walk him in to the woods and shoot him? Doesn't make sense at all.

As for the cheating thing, you've got it wrong, nobody cares. A bunch of internet wanna be slueths who had decided Millard's guilt before the trial even began might find it despicable but nobody else does.

in your opinion???? otherwise, please link your sources. IMO it absolutely shows lack of morals/bad character.

 

[hopingforjustice]

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. ?

Someone they tried to sell the gun to???

 

[RenegadeX]

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.

I've said it before and I will say it again, the things that are tweeted and the things that actually happen in court don't always line up or tell the whole story. Reporters are essentially sales people trying to sell a story, and stories get dry and boring when they don't add some mystery to them. The story of Scotty was explained to the crown's satisfaction that day in court, but in the tweets and reports he seems like a mystery still. That is intentional on the part of the media, if everything was explained, there would be no mystery, nothing to talk about to keep you coming back, in my opinion.
[SNIP]
She explained who Scotty was, gave his last name, told how they met, and there was no mystery left by the time the crown finished their questions about him.

Remember that LE had her phone, and since she had been recieving and sending texts to Scotty, they had his name and number, they could verify who Scotty was, and what texts were sent between them. I have a feeling that if her texts to Scotty had contradicted the idea that she thought DM was ill, that the crown would have presented those texts to discredit the witness. They didn't, and there is no need for the crown to produce evidence that proves a witness is telling the truth, it is only their job to produce evidence that a witness may be lying if they think that, and again, they didn't.

Clearly, DM did not want to establish a link between Scotty and himself because police had come to the hangar the day before to ask DM questions about something (and then left, apparently provoking him to immediately fire AJ). But look, it was 3:55PM Saturday when DM told LW2 (via text) to let him know to stay away, and only when LW2 brought up his name (also via text). So it clearly was not a priority of DM's to tell Scotty himself. That in my mind rules out Scotty being involved in anything to do with the truck/TB himself. No, it seems far more likely Scotty, a mutual acquaintance of DM & LW2, was pestering LW2 for something that DM supplied. And, based on a Twitter post that existed prior to and at the time of DM's arrest, my guess is: heroin. (I have a screenshot saved somewhere and expect it to hear about this when the person who posted it, now a witness, testifies). An addict needing a fix of this particular drug would be consistent with the descriptive word "sick". Reference: https://www.futuresofpalmbeach.com/addictions/heroin/signs-symptoms-withdrawal/#

After continued exposure to the drug, the user&#8217;s brain becomes so sensitized and dependent that cutting off the heroin supply will leave the mind and body starved and incapable of functioning normally.
This is when heroin reveals its truly ugly side, as even the most well-intentioned users find themselves going back to their supply when the symptoms of withdrawal become too much to bear. A writer for XO Jane compares the sensation to being underwater and deprived of oxygen, and the director of a treatment center for health care professionals in Minnesota describes it as being in a state of constant depression &#8211; one that will never lift. &#8220;The anticipation of withdrawal,&#8221; he says, &#8220;is oftentimes worse than the actual thing.&#8221;
Some of these symptoms of heroin withdrawal can include:

• Cold sweats
• Depression and anxiety
• Loss of appetite
• Unstable moods
• Muscle cramping
• Nausea and vomiting
• Diarrhea
• Seizures

The various sensations of withdrawing from heroin can be likened to being in the grips of a particularly bad case of the flu, which has led to the slang term &#8220;super flu&#8221; being used to describe the withdrawal stage.

Edited to add: and I suspect there is relevance to the case as if DM is buying and supplying illegal goods, it suggests not only that he HAD cash, but was making cash.

 

[billandrew]

It would be a good case to raise your profile.

TD has been practicing for over 25 years and he made his name in my mind defending the accused in the infamous Toronto "Just Desserts" robbery/murder. He has had a high profile for nearly 20 years.

Pillay has been practicing for 17. Never heard of him before.

Having been to the courthouse a few times, here are my personal observations of the lawyers:

Pillay: Sharp, concise, calculating, and articulate. He projects confidence without arrogance. A highly competent lawyer who is really on top of his game. Outside the courtroom he tends to stick to himself or has Sachak at his side. He looks like he's always thinking, listening, or observing with great precision and care. When he speaks he is clear and straight to the point.

Sachak: I can't speak to his skills as a lawyer, but he has a certain frankness or demeanour about him that rubs people the wrong way. An air of arrogance, perhaps? He often cracks jokes or makes blunt remarks during the trial which people find distasteful. There's a word, which escapes me, to describe someone who's not fully "in tune" with the environment around them. He is actually quite friendly and I've seen him chatting people up in the hallway and the cafeteria at the courthouse.

Dungey: An elder lawyer, very respectable with a lot of trial experience. He is no-nonsense and will play tough. He can be hot-tempered at times. He is probably an awesome grandpa. His voice is very raspy as if he smoked heavily for many years.

Trehearne: A very smart and competent lawyer, but more in an academic sense than a courtroom experience sense. Whenever she went up to speak, it sounded to me like she was reading out an answer she had written to an exam question. It was always an A+ answer, though.

Leitch: Of all the lawyers in this trial, I have been most impressed by Leitch. He has a very genuine and colorful character about him, and he articulates his thoughts and arguments in a way like nobody else. During recesses he is always speaking to the Bosma family or the reporters.

Fraser: An older gentleman. Seems very experienced and comfortable in the courtroom. He has a mild-mannered, yet strong demeanour.

Moodie: He looks really young, but by no means lacking the skills for the job. He seems to complement Fraser and Leitch well.

 

[redheart]

Having been to the courthouse a few times, here are my personal observations of the lawyers:

RSBM

What an interesting summary. Thanks so much for writing this, giving a fuller picture to those of us who can't make it to the courtroom.

 

[musicaljoke]

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

It's easier to contain the damage if TB is shot in the truck than if they murdered TB in the field. Evidence would be left on the ground where they couldn't clean it up. Furthermore, they would still have to carry his body in the truck to be cremated.

Ya just take a power washer to the truck, dontcha know.

 

[Canadian4]

I get the feeling that DM is the kind of guy who would not be grossed out by blood getting all over the truck. He would just have MS clean it up for him and never give it another thought.

 

[RandomName479]

Having been to the courthouse a few times, here are my personal observations of the lawyers:

Pillay: Sharp, concise, calculating, and articulate. He projects confidence without arrogance. A highly competent lawyer who is really on top of his game. Outside the courtroom he tends to stick to himself or has Sachak at his side. He looks like he's always thinking, listening, or observing with great precision and care. When he speaks he is straight to the point.

Sachak: I can't speak to his skills as a lawyer, but he has a certain frankness or demeanor about him that rubs people the wrong way. An air of arrogance, perhaps? He often cracks jokes or makes blunt remarks during the trial which people find distasteful. There's a word, which escapes me, to describe someone who's not fully "in tune" with the environment around them. He is actually quite friendly and I've seen him chatting people up in the hallway and the cafeteria at the courthouse.

Dungey: An elder lawyer, very respectable with a lot of trial experience. He is no-nonsense and will play tough. He can be hot-tempered at times. He is probably an awesome grandpa. His voice is very raspy as if he smoked heavily for many years.

Trehearne: A very smart and competent lawyer, but more in an academic sense than a courtroom experience sense. Whenever she went up to speak, it sounded to me like she was reading out an answer she had written to an exam question. It was always an A+ answer, though.

Leitch: Of all the lawyers in this trial, I have been most impressed by Leitch. He has a very genuine and colorful character about him, and he articulates his thoughts and arguments in a way like nobody else. During recesses he is always speaking to the Bosma family or the reporters.

Fraser: An older gentleman. Seems very experienced and comfortable in the courtroom. He has a mild-mannered, yet strong demeanour.

Moodie: He looks really young, but by no means lacking the skills for the job. He seems to complement Fraser and Leitch well.

Just want to thank you for your observations and your timelines......appreciated more than you know :yourock:

 

[andreww]

It's easier to contain the damage if TB is shot in the truck than if they murdered TB in the field. Evidence would be left on the ground where they couldn't clean it up. Furthermore, they would still have to carry his body in the truck to be cremated.

Ya just take a power washer to the truck, dontcha know.

The blood stains in the carpet, visor, roof liner can never be removed or cleaned. NEVER!

You don't have to clean a field. So long as nobody sees you it is virtually impossible to pinpoint where it happened. Then you throw him in the back of the truck.

 

[Orderly]

Would you shoot someone in your brand new truck? Seriously, every single piece of forensic evidence is now forever held in that truck. Why not walk him in to the woods and shoot him? Doesn't make sense at all.

<modsnip>
As for the cheating thing, you've got it wrong, nobody cares.

Why would you bring an illegally obtained gun to buy a car unless you're planning to steal it? Correct me if I am wrong, I've never bought a car, but this does not seem like common practice. Why would you visit someone's house at night with your illegally obtained gun and then take them on a ride with you. Maybe, you're hoping that they live alone because then if you kill them there are no witnesses. However, if they do not live alone then you're plan is faulty because the people in the home can possibly identify you after. Thus, screwing up your plan. However, let's say you're determined to stick to your original plan to steal a truck and kill the person so there is no witness to your crime. You do this, but you're rattled because you know that there were people who saw you. Thus, you begin your clean-up right away and it is quite sloppy. The next day you see the man you killed has been reported missing and the lady you saw the night before is describing a tattoo that you have. You are officially "hot". You go about your business because you don't want to act suspiciously and attract attention. However, unless you involve more people you have absolutely no chance of cleaning everything up and acting normal at the same time. Maybe, you realize that you do not know as much about stripping down trucks as you think you did. So, you call your girlfriend and your partner-in-crime calls his and you explain the situation and for whatever reason they decide to help you. You give someone the gun, if you sell it you're making a profit and if you get away that's icing on the cake. You give your girlfriend the video because she has more time than you to deal with it. You have less time than you thought and the police catch you and now you are actually screwed. You text your girlfriend to make your friend to not testify because you no longer can.

I think if we try to think about this senseless crime logically, their actions make more sense.

Also, cheating isn't particularly relevant in terms of character assessment unless someone murders their partner.