Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #18

Status
Not open for further replies.

Sillybilly

Administrator
Staff member
Administrator
Joined
May 9, 2009
Messages
38,650
Reaction score
114,690
:rose: Remembering Tim Bosma and waiting for Justice :rose:

bosma-wife.jpg

National Post



By Molly Hayes

B821254669Z.1_20130514195432_000_GQ9VSLAR.2_Content.jpg


TIM AND HIS DAUGHTER
Photo courtesy of the Bosma family​
 
I think the judge also mentioned the Crown's failure to ask MS if TB had been shot from outside of the vehicle.
I believe also that he noted that TD hadn't asked MS how far into the field the Yukon was parked.
I forget if there were more, but I don't think it was all in TD's lap, he was showing various examples, I believe.

I don't understand this. According to MS's testimony he was driving behind until Millard stopped and got out with gun in hand (and TB already dead). Therefore being shot from outside the vehicle directly counters MS's testimony. Why would the crown ask this? Seems odd to call this a failure because being shot inside the vehicle fits the GSR evidence and is consistent with the crown's case.
 
But the crown changed their theory IMO which also surprised me. By the time it got to closing TB was no longer shot inside the truck, but possibly in the field. I don't understand why this path was taken by the crown. My turn to feel dense. (someone commented yesterday they were dense lol)

i thought the crown implied that he was shot in the field while IN the truck. Did they say otherwise?
 
Thank you!
To confuse things more though -- Yesterday when the judge was talking about examples of cross examination (how a lawyer doesn't need to cover every detail, but the question not being asked can be taken into account by juror) One of the judge's examples (as well as TD not asking BD those other question) was Mr. Fraser didn't ask MS if TB was shot outside of the truck. I wrote it down as such as well as hearing it. I thought maybe I was dense too hearing that canadiangirl ;)
 
To confuse things more though -- Yesterday when the judge was talking about examples of cross examination (how a lawyer doesn't need to cover every detail, but the question not being asked can be taken into account by juror) One of the judge's examples (as well as TD not asking BD those other question) was Mr. Fraser didn't ask MS if TB was shot outside of the truck. I wrote it down as such as well as hearing it. I thought maybe I was dense too hearing that canadiangirl ;)

That does seem very confusing. Am I dense too?
 
Well wasn't that much food for thought and a lot to consider from the first day of the judge's instructions today?! IMO it's actually quite simple. "It is not enough for you to find an accused probably or likely guilty." Goodman says. Goodman's take or meaning on guilt is 'as a whole,' not just the shooting itself. Bottom line, they are guilty. Neither have denied they were not present or involved in summary, except MS who denied being in the truck when Tim was murdered. IMO that is the only gliche for me...was MS present when Tim was shot, did he shoot Tim, did he have knowledge Tim was going to be shot? That is answered according to the law...it doesn't matter WHO, they are equally responsible and guilty.

IF I was on this jury, I would find them both guilty of first degree murder. My rational is, a "loaded" gun was brought along on their pre-planned and premeditated "mission." This proves intent to murder. No reason to bring a loaded gun if they were just on a scoping mission (IMO MS's excuse to try and save his own hiney). IF the intention of bring the gun was only meant to be used to scare Tim into leaving his vehicle, again no need for ammo in the gun. According to the law, it does not matter who brought the loaded gun and who the shooter was, they are both equally responsible and guilty. For further consideration, after the fact, they acted together to destroy, dispose of evidence and cover their tracks that night and for days following until their arrests. Either one went to LE knowing an innocent man's life was destroyed. It takes a "special" breed and mindset to be able to do what these two did...pure evil. Tim's murder IMO was no accident.

IMO both lack a conscience, showed no remorse, no morals, both show traits of psychopaths and narcissism, and deserve nothing less than first degree. I hope and pray the jurors make the right decision for society as a whole and bring about proper justice as far as legalities go, to bring justice for Tim and his loved ones. ALL MOO.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 14h14 hours ago
The Crown doesn't need to prove every single fact beyond a reasonable doubt though, Goodman says. Only the essential elements

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 14h14 hours ago
Goodman now moving on to reasonable doubt. "It is a doubt based on reason or common sense ... "

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 14h14 hours ago
"It is not enough for you to find an accused probably or likely guilty." Goodman says.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 14h14 hours ago
But, jury should also note it's almost impossible to prove something with "absolute certainty," Goodman notes.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 9h9 hours ago
The jury has to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that his death was planned and deliberate.

IMO the Crown did a fantastic job of logically and reasonably laying it all out for the jurors, the mindset of DM the psychopath. These tweets from TL's closing tell me Tim's murder was no accident, it was planned and MS was a willing and eager participant start to finish. ALL MOO.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC Jun 2
Leitch says the "biggest flaw" in Smich's evidence is he had multiple chances to get away from Millard, but didn't.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC Jun 2
"You don't follow a lunatic with a gun to a dark, isolated location where he can kill you too."

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC Jun 2
"Stage one complete, taking a respite" Millard texted to Noudga at 8:29 a.m. on May 7.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC Jun 2
"This is the man who according to his counsel's address is surprised by a shooting and is obligated to help Mark"

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC Jun 2
"Had a nice five hour nap & bath, refreshed and ready for the next stage of mission digestion." Millard texted Noudga.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC Jun 2
"That's Dellen Millard after this murder" Leitch says. "This isn't the guy who is upset in the aftermath of some accidental shooting"

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC Jun 2
Leitch says the defence has tried to make this a "choice between shooters."

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC Jun 2
[B]Helpers or those who encourage a murder may be as guilty as someone who causes a murder, Letich says.
[/B]

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC Jun 2
"If there was one shooter, does that mean the other non-shooter is not guilty? Not at all."

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC Jun 2
"To knowingly help a murderer do it, or encouraging a murder ... is enough."

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC Jun 2
"You may never be sure about every aspect of what happened, and you dont need to be. None of you need to decide exactly who did what"

My biggest problem from the onset of finding MS guilty of First degree is "reasonable doubt" on pre-meditation. When looking at the "totality" of the evidence how is it possible to say with certainty that MS knew and planned the purpose of the incinerator was to eliminate bodies when other people had the same if not more knowledge of it and did not even warrant an AATF? The same holds true with the "theft" of the truck, several people were in on the planning and all of them knew DM owned a gun (guns) yet didn't suspect him of a murder as this was never a part of any prior "Missions", Why would this mission be any different then any others?
 
To confuse things more though -- Yesterday when the judge was talking about examples of cross examination (how a lawyer doesn't need to cover every detail, but the question not being asked can be taken into account by juror) One of the judge's examples (as well as TD not asking BD those other question) was Mr. Fraser didn't ask MS if TB was shot outside of the truck. I wrote it down as such as well as hearing it. I thought maybe I was dense too hearing that canadiangirl ;)

So I'm not making it up lol just misinterpretation of the meaning it seems!
 
My biggest problem from the onset of finding MS guilty of First degree is "reasonable doubt" on pre-meditation. When looking at the "totality" of the evidence how is it possible to say with certainty that MS knew and planned the purpose of the incinerator was to eliminate bodies when other people had the same if not more knowledge of it and did not even warrant an AATF? The same holds true with the "theft" of the truck, several people were in on the planning and all of them knew DM owned a gun (guns) yet didn't suspect him of a murder as this was never a part of any prior "Missions", Why would this mission be any different then any others?

You need to know with certainty. Just beyond a reasonable doubt.

And what makes it different - this is the only mission we know of where they were with the person they were going to steal from.
 
My biggest problem from the onset of finding MS guilty of First degree is "reasonable doubt" on pre-meditation. When looking at the "totality" of the evidence how is it possible to say with certainty that MS knew and planned the purpose of the incinerator was to eliminate bodies when other people had the same if not more knowledge of it and did not even warrant an AATF? The same holds true with the "theft" of the truck, several people were in on the planning and all of them knew DM owned a gun (guns) yet didn't suspect him of a murder as this was never a part of any prior "Missions", Why would this mission be any different then any others?

And this is my issue as well. Especially now given the charge is based on premeditation alone. The only thing IMO that made MS any different from the rest was he was there that night. And there is much more evidence to suggest the others knew way more then MS.
 
And this is my issue as well. Especially now given the charge is based on premeditation alone. The only thing IMO that made MS any different from the rest was he was there that night. And there is much more evidence to suggest the others knew way more then MS.

That is a pretty huge difference wouldn't you say.
 
You need to know with certainty. Just beyond a reasonable doubt.

And what makes it different - this is the only mission we know of where they were with the person they were going to steal from.

Igor was the other mission.
 
No. Why does being there give you any more knowledge?
<modsnip>If I'm going away for the weekend, I'll tell someone who's not going that I'm going away. The person I'm going with, we will discuss what we will do while there.
 
And this is my issue as well. Especially now given the charge is based on premeditation alone. The only thing IMO that made MS any different from the rest was he was there that night .And there is much more evidence to suggest the others knew way more then MS.

He was there that night and.....
He was there on his computer checking out incinerators
He was there setting up meetings with the gun dealer for DM
He was there after DM bought the gun(s) taking photos
He was there googling about ammo for the handguns
He was there searching for the right truck
He was there doing the mission prep
He was there on the dry run with Igor
He was there when they drove towards Ancaster
He was there when they walked up the driveway at Tim's place
He was there driving the Yukon behind TB's truck
He was there to pick up the Eliminator
He was there to do cleanup of one sort or another in the week that followed
He was there to scoop up the weed and the 'thing'

That's just a quick list off the top of my head......13 times when MS was just there??? That's alot of 'just being there'.
Your comment gives the impression that the only thing that distinguishes MS from the rest of the posse is that he was (just) there that night.
And if my puny list is not enough to set him apart, apparently Toronto police services think that MS was there in connection with the disappearance and disposal of Laura Babcock.....not that that is a part of this trial but it certainly does say something (if only to Sleuthers at this point ) about MS's character at the time.

I do happen to agree that are a few other people who knew of and contributed to Dell's dirty dealings....but I also recall from the past posts that knowing about a crime is not in itself a criminal act.....damn it !!!
 
I do happen to agree that are a few other people who knew of and contributed to Dell's dirty dealings....but I also recall from the past posts that knowing about a crime is not in itself a criminal act.....damn it !!!
Rsbm
It's not? According to Judge Goodman you'd be incorrect.
 
And this is my issue as well. Especially now given the charge is based on premeditation alone. The only thing IMO that made MS any different from the rest was he was there that night. And there is much more evidence to suggest the others knew way more then MS.

Who knew more than MS?
-SS was part of the inner circle and worked on incineration techniques/equipment (MS researched incinerators and helped with prep) and cover-up but didn't plan missions as far as we know. We don't know if he was aware of the guns
-AM was DM's housemate but wasn't involved with guns and incineration and didn't go on this particular mission - wasn't involved other than truck research/theft idea as far as we know. He hadn't been in the inner circle, though DM seemed to be evaluating him for it
-CN was presumably a confidante (at least in the Crown's view). She may have known a lot, but not more than MS
-MM suspected enough to try to stop MS from going but certainly knew less than him.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
172
Guests online
2,284
Total visitors
2,456

Forum statistics

Threads
589,946
Messages
17,928,032
Members
228,010
Latest member
idrainuk
Back
Top