Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #18

[NoodlesMcgee]

Now with MS - we have the pre-act actions which is being argued is similar with what AM/SS knew.

We also have the act itself. He was on the test drive and was at minimum close by when the murder happened.

We also have to post-act actions where he cleaned out and stripped TB's truck, then we have the following days when he's still contacting DM and burning evidence/burying a gun.

It builds on itself.

 

[canadiangirl]

Now with MS - we have the pre-act actions which is being argued is similar with what AM/SS knew.

We also have the act itself. He was on the test drive and was at minimum close by when the murder happened.

We also have to post-act actions where he cleaned out and stripped TB's truck, then we have the following days when he's still contacting DM and burning evidence/burying a gun.

It builds on itself.

But the act itself is debatable, specifically if he knew the plan was to murder or not. And the after the fact as Justice Goodman stated (paraphrasing) does not prove a person's guilt.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

But the act itself is debatable, specifically if he knew the plan was to murder or not. And the after the fact as Justice Goodman stated (paraphrasing) does not prove a person's guilt.

He said:

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes
After the fact conduct cannot be considered in isolation or given undo weight. Jury must look at along with all of the evidence.



It builds on things.

 

[canadiangirl]

He said:

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes
After the fact conduct cannot be considered in isolation or given undo weight. Jury must look at along with all of the evidence.



It builds on things.

Yes I quoted the tweet in my previous post and paraphrased this since my other post was from a computer and this one is on my phone. You can't edit a post from a computer on your phone/Tapatalk

 

[DMB]

Let me put it this way with three scenarios:

1) If I got a hold of search history on your computer for you and your best friend and both of you were researching trips to Mexico

2) Now say I have that search history but I also work with you and your best friend and you had just taken a week off while your best friend were at work every day with me.

3) Same info as in scenario 1 & 2, but it is now the next week and you are back at work but you have a sombrero on your desk, are giving everyone small bottles of tequila and have a sweet tan.

Now in scenario 1, I might think both of you were heading on vacation.

In scenario 2 there is a much greater chance that you went to Mexico and were planning a vacation than your friend who had the exact same search history, but maybe you were just sick.

In scenario 3, it seems pretty obvious you went to Mexico and your friend did not.

Information builds on itself and even though we start from the same point, the probabilities of what actually happened change.

Scenario 4, A week after a get back the police come by and I am arrested for the murder of someone down in Mexico. As it turns out, it wasn't a stranger but my best friends who I loved dearly and would do anything for ex boyfriend???? In the course of the investigation texts are revealed from the previous year between us where she expresses her hate and wishes he would die!!!! Jokingly we discuss (as best friends do) how we'll walk into the room dressed to the nines, just gorgeous with many admirers all over her making him so jealous he begs for her to come back to him. Then when they are back in their room she tells him exactly what she really thinks and pushes him over the balconey. Would she be charged with First degree or AATF even though she wasn't there???? Bad example but just off the top of my head, my point, this is real life and a great tragedy has occurred with the loss of TB's life, however we must be certain, beyond reasonable doubt, that MS, whether we like his look, or his music was not just an innocent dupe of a psychopath.

 

[Arnie M]

.

They planned to bring a loaded gun on the test drive .... and they planned to use the gun ... and that's exactly what they did

If they were not planning to use a gun they would not have brought a gun . Simple as that .

And they confirmed the plan a few hours later by reporting "mission successful"

No mention of things going wrong , or things not going according to plan

The plan derailed 3 days later when DM suspected AJ called crime stoppers and he texted .... "Something just turned very sour"

Until then everything had gone according to plan , including the shooting

 

[canadiangirl]

.

They planned to bring a loaded gun on the test drive .... and they planned to use the gun ... and that's exactly what they did

If they were not planning to use a gun they would not have brought a gun . Simple as that .

And they confirmed the plan a few hours later by reporting "mission successful"

No mention of things going wrong , or things not going according to plan

The plan derailed 3 days later when DM suspected AJ called crime stoppers and he texted .... "Something just turned very sour"

Until then everything had gone according to plan , including the shooting

The word "they" is subjective to interpretation here. Which "they" brought the gun? Which "they" planned to use it? Which "they" reported mission successful? And if I recall it was said someone" *advertiser censored****d up". I'd have to refer to tweets and timelines for the context again. Whatever that means, indicates to me something didn't go according to how "someone" thought it was supposed to. MOO

 

[XiolaBlueX]

To further add to the above, even though I know people dont like hearing this -
Many have pointed out how the rap lyrics must mean something. Again, from Goodman's directions
Jun 10 2016 12:05 PM
Smich is not on trial for drug trafficking, thievery or vandalism, Goodman says. Also not to make conclusions about his rap lyrics.

None of this really proves premeditation for me, although some feel I'm defending MS I really just see holes and opinions or interpretation as do some others. I understand that is not the popular opinion but I suspect some jurors will be of the same mindset, whether or not their position changes, we'll find out.

Hi Canadiangirl Here are some more notes that I took yesterday in relation further to what you posted

Judges instructions to jury:
Must not punish the people involved for drugs, marijuana, guns or think that this is the type of person to do the crime
Taste in rap, associations of disrepute, violent video games, thievery.
MSs priors must not be used against him as evidence, as the "type of person" who may commit the crime charged with.

When you hear of any criminal behaviour or behaviour of disrepute, you can only use it as towards determining credibility, not as evidence towards the crime.
When you hear testimony eg Ms testimony against DM, it can only be used for or against MS, NOT DM. Eg. MS testifying about drugs and thievery with DM can only be used against MS, not DM, and only then not as evidence. EG. When you hear of DM distributing marijuana at parties, Michelski and thefts, MM saying that DM made sexual advances to her, it can not be used against DM. Vehicles that were stolen.
They are not on trial for lifestyle choices (MS, DM and other characters involved) (BBM so it doesnt get lost)
Eg. MMs testimony about any prior physical or verbal abuse can not be used against MS, only towards any way that it ties back to herself. On the other hand, you can not consider any love and support she may have said she had from him either.

Judge continues
~On the stand MS admitted vandalism, theft, drugs, both marijuana and other drugs - he is not on trial for these acts.
Rap lyrics- Rap is a genre of music that does not mean someone is violent. Any violent video games, and cocaine, disregard entirely.
Must not punish them for using drugs, hearing about guns, thievery. When you hear such things that you may find to be of disrepute, you must not say "this is the type of person who would do this crime"
Such evidence of whats sometimes known as "bad character" is inadmissable. Past proclivities or propensities you can not say "this is the type of person" to commit the crime.

Judge continues:So how can you use it (such testimonies)? You can use some, none or all. It can provide context to relationships. Involvement, motive. (Xiolablues note: Motive while providing testimony? Involvement with the accused, situation etc I inferred. He wasn't so clear)

 

[Arnie M]

The word "they" is subjective to interpretation here. Which "they" brought the gun? Which "they" planned to use it? Which "they" reported mission successful? And if I recall it was said someone" *advertiser censored****d up". I'd have to refer to tweets and timelines for the context again. Whatever that means, indicates to me something didn't go according to how "someone" thought it was supposed to. MOO

Please refer to the tweets and timelines and you will realize the unraveling of plans and *advertiser censored**ups began 3 days after they shot TB.

And "they" has to include MS because he was not able to clear himself on the witness stand so how can anyone else even begin to try .

.

 

[Oreck]

I have been thinking about this for days. In the middle of the nite when I can't sleep.
It does not make sense that they would plan to kill the owner in the truck.
Too serious. Too dangerous. You never know where a bullet might go.
Through a window? Through a door? Through the dash? Through your buddy?
And it makes a lot of mess.
Millard’s: “No more money bro, we take what we want at the source.”
I think this must have meant to force the owner out, take his truck, and just drive away.
Change the colour. Change serial numbers.
Who knows the difference?
I think they had no plan to kill just to steal. Murder is too foolish and way too serious.
The gun was to give the plan Back Up.
The plan got cancelled with IT.
Everyone knows Don't pull a gun on a soldier. Unless it has smooth edges.
I don't think murder was ever the intent.
Kick the owner out and just drive away.
Worst charge would be possession.
I have no doubt they were both armed.
The plan went terribly wrong.
The details don't matter.
I do think this puts both MS and DM up for M1.

 

[canadiangirl]

Please refer to the tweets and timelines and you will realize the unraveling of plans and *advertiser censored**ups began 3 days after they shot TB.

And "they" has to include MS because he was not able to clear himself on the witness stand so how can anyone else even begin to try .

.

I'm not sure the "timing" of when the person indicated they f-d up matters considering according to the crown, the "planning" texts go back to an entire year before the murder occurred. Seems like a double standard.

With all due respect, the accused does not have to clear themselves. That will be up to the jury to decide.

 

[Arnie M]

.

DM's own texts prove the planning , and the planning proves premeditation

A message from the Millard phone at 7:40 p.m. May 6: "I'm on my way to a mission now. If it's a flop I'll be done in 2 hrs. If it goes .. it'll be an all nighter."

And we know it turned out to be an all nighter .... steal , kill , incinerate , strip the truck and after the (planned) all nighter he says

A message from "Kinks" (CN) at 8:26: "Still working?" Message back from Millard's phone: "Stage 1 complete, taking a respite. Not sure yet. Then later I'm gonna take a nap."

 

[swedie]

About the "I F&%@ed up" coming from MS, It could have so many meanings. First thought that came to my mind is of course he's going to tell people "he" or "they" F&%@ed up. Would anyone really except either one of them to "admit" they deliberately murdered a man for his truck prior to or after the fact? Sharing with friends that you're going on a mission to steal a truck is one thing, but to tell friends, "oh and by the way, we're taking a loaded gun because if all goes well, we're killing the owner and then we're going to incinerate him. We're upping the ante and need a thrill." Another reason could have been because MS knew going along with DM was a F&%@ up, or he may have meant because he shot TB in the truck. Again it's one of those things we will never know the truth about and should IMO be considered as an admission of guilt for the shooting, therefore MS should face first degree murder. ALL MOO.

 

[canadiangirl]

.

DM's own texts prove the planning , and the planning proves premeditation

A message from the Millard phone at 7:40 p.m. May 6: "I'm on my way to a mission now. If it's a flop I'll be done in 2 hrs. If it goes .. it'll be an all nighter."

And we know it turned out to be an all nighter .... steal , kill , incinerate , strip the truck and after the (planned) all nighter he says

A message from "Kinks" (CN) at 8:26: "Still working?" Message back from Millard's phone: "Stage 1 complete, taking a respite. Not sure yet. Then later I'm gonna take a nap."

Yes. DM texts sure do.
Where are MS texts about knowing the plan the night of?
MS told MM he'd be back soon and she was expecting him that night. At 920pm MS tells MM he's driving before his phone goes silent. She tries to reach him all night. Says she's worried sick. The next morning at 6am MM is freaking out texting AM to find MS because she hasn't heard from him.

 

[swedie]

Anyone care to give a logical, reasonable explanation as to why DM and/or MS would take a "loaded" gun on a scoping mission or even if it was intended to be just a theft of a truck, kicking the owner out? An "unloaded" gun would produce the same results from a victim with a gun pointed at him as a threat. When it's two lunatics against one innocent man, I tend to believe the victim would comply with the lunatic's demands. I doubt Tim would have put up a fight to save a "lemon" of a truck he had been trying to get rid of and would have had insurance on.

I chose to ignore the suggestion there was a struggle prior to the gun going off because there was no evidence presented in court to prove that was the case, not even through MS's testimony, and possibly why the forcible confinement charge is off the table. A loaded gun was taken because there was intent to use it. Interestingly enough the numerous times MS and DM spent together after the fact, MS was not able to elaborate on discussions that went on between him and DM. I'm sure there was a lot he could have shared during trial IF he had been telling the truth it was lunatic DM who shot Tim. MS didn't share their conversations because he would have to lie and lies are too hard to remember...the truth isn't. MOO.

 

[swedie]

Yes. DM texts sure do.
Where are MS texts about knowing the plan the night of?
MS told MM he'd be back soon and she was expecting him that night. At 920pm MS tells MM he's driving before his phone goes silent. She tries to reach him all night. Says she's worried sick. The next morning at 6am MM is freaking out texting AM to find MS because she hasn't heard from him.

Perhaps MS didn't want to tell MM he was going on an all night mission because it would have caused a fight or argument. Some men are notorious for lying to their women like that because they like to come and go as they please. And if you recall, these two were inseparable and MS didn't seem to approve later in their relationship by telling MM she needed to get a job. MS wanted his freedom and not a ball and chain. Was she worried sick or upset because she may have ran out of weed and needed a fix from her supplier boyfriend? We'll never know. MOO.

 

[qdm]

I have been thinking about this for days. In the middle of the nite when I can't sleep.
It does not make sense that they would plan to kill the owner in the truck.
Too serious. Too dangerous. You never know where a bullet might go.
Through a window? Through a door? Through the dash? Through your buddy?
And it makes a lot of mess.
Millard’s: “No more money bro, we take what we want at the source.”
I think this must have meant to force the owner out, take his truck, and just drive away.
Change the colour. Change serial numbers.
Who knows the difference?
I think they had no plan to kill just to steal. Murder is too foolish and way too serious.
The gun was to give the plan Back Up.
The plan got cancelled with IT.
Everyone knows Don't pull a gun on a soldier. Unless it has smooth edges.
I don't think murder was ever the intent.
Kick the owner out and just drive away.
Worst charge would be possession.
I have no doubt they were both armed.
The plan went terribly wrong.
The details don't matter.
I do think this puts both MS and DM up for M1.

ok yes, but incinerator

 

[deugirtni]

Just a question. Considering that AATF has (unsurprisingly) not been offered up as one of the possible findings of guilt in this case, does that mean that if the jury happened to believe that was what, say MS was guilty of, that he would just walk away scott free? The jury would have to find MS 'not guilty' in that case, on this charge, but then wouldn't the Crown's hands be tied as far as subsequently charging him with AATF, since in Canada, you can't be tried twice for the same crime? I am unclear on whether that law means a suspect can only be charged with the incident one time, or if the suspect can only be charged with the same charge one time, ie could he still be charged with AATF since he hadn't already been charged with that, or is the Crown SOL because they chose different charges for the same crime?

 

[deugirtni]

Does anyone know when it was said that the seats were to have been burned? I can see that they took the seats and carpet out at the hangar on the night of the 6th/middle of the night on the 7th. On the 7th they go and pick up MM, drop MS and MM off at MS's mother's house, MS goes to sleep. DM picks him up later, they go to the farm and move the incinerator into the barn? (When was the incinerator taken back to the farm?) According to MS's testimony, he thinks that is all that was done that night, and then on the 8th, according to MS testimony, the two men didn't get together? Then on the 9th, per MS, DM was 'back to normal', and seems they went to the farm to burn remaining stuff that was inside the red Ram? I seem to be missing when the seats got done, and also how they were transported, and why they was no blood evidence from that transport? Thank you!

 

[deugirtni]

.

They planned to bring a loaded gun on the test drive .... and they planned to use the gun ... and that's exactly what they did

If they were not planning to use a gun they would not have brought a gun . Simple as that .

And they confirmed the plan a few hours later by reporting "mission successful"

No mention of things going wrong , or things not going according to plan

The plan derailed 3 days later when DM suspected AJ called crime stoppers and he texted .... "Something just turned very sour"

Until then everything had gone according to plan , including the shooting

BD testified that it was May 7th when MS said to him, 'I f'kd up'.

from AC's live blog from BD's cross by Pillay:

4:02 PM
On May 7, Smich told Daly "I f--ked up." "He said it over and over again, yes," Daly says.
4:03 PM
"It immediately became apparent that something bad had happened? There was a sense of dread in his voice?" Pillay asks. Daly says yes.
4:06 PM
Daly agrees that Smich grew more and more anxious and unsettled as the days went on after May 7.