Bosma Murder Trial 02.01.16 - Day 1, Opening Statements

[deugirtni]

The Crown intends to prove that on this date in the late evening hours, Tim Bosma -was killed in his truck, shot by the two accused at close range, while on a test drive with his truck; his body then incinerated hours later by the two accused.

http://de.scribd.com/doc/297563969/Crown-s-opening-address-in-Tim-Bosma-murder-trial#download

That 'proving' thing is important. The Crown's opening summary is not evidence, it is only what the Crown is saying they will prove through evidence and testimony and circumstantial evidence.

I noted someone's post above when they asked if SB had been asked to identify the men who had come to do the test drive... I did not hear or read that the Crown asked SB if those men, or either one of those men, were sitting in the courtroom yesterday.

As someone posted, tweets reported that she was asked if she had ever seen them BEFORE May 6th, but apparently, they have avoided asking her outright if those same men that she saw ON May 6th were also present in the courtroom. But yet..... the Crown asked her to identify if that was the ad she had placed, if she recognized the keys, if she recognized the truck in the photograph, and etc. I find that bizarre.. unless I and others seem to have missed something.

 

[ArianeEmory]

I've been fairly agnostic about who pulled the trigger, but beginning to lean towards it having been DM. (I'm sure this seems obvious at this point, I've just been having a little trouble tracking on who was where in the truck.)

 

[LoyalSleuth]

I recall during the time when this was all happening, LE said they were catching a vehicle traveling behind TB's truck, on a neighbouring video camera. That is why (imo) they had been seeking a third suspect. I'm not sure on the timelines of when this other truck was seen, but later, once DM had been arrested, IIRC, LE determined the vehicle following TB's was the same vehicle and color as DM's vehicle.

It is possible(?) that DM let MS out of the rear of TB's truck when they met up with DM's vehicle, and MS could have started driving it/following DM/TB at that time. If that is the case, then it is also possible that MS may not have even been present in the vehicle at the time when TB was shot?

Possible, but I would think TB would have been saying WTF, why is this guy getting out and going in the car you said you didn't have with you? You said a friend dropped you off...
If true, that would mean that MS had an out, he could have left once he found out that TB was dead, etc.

 

[DeepWoodsOff]

That 'proving' thing is important. The Crown's opening summary is not evidence, it is only what the Crown is saying they will prove through evidence and testimony and circumstantial evidence.

I noted someone's post above when they asked if SB had been asked to identify the men who had come to do the test drive... I did not hear or read that the Crown asked SB if those men, or either one of those men, were sitting in the courtroom yesterday.

As someone posted, tweets reported that she was asked if she had ever seen them BEFORE May 6th, but apparently, they have avoided asking her outright if those same men that she saw ON May 6th were also present in the courtroom. But yet..... the Crown asked her to identify if that was the ad she had placed, if she recognized the keys, if she recognized the truck in the photograph, and etc. I find that bizarre.. unless I and others seem to have missed something.

I thought about how carefully they worked around that question. I think it comes down to this...if they flat out asked Sharlene if the two men in the courtroom were the men that were at her house that night, what would her answer have been? I don't think the answer is an emphatic YES! I think her honest answer would be that she thinks so but can't be 100% sure. That would be a huge misstep if the Crown took that approach, IMO. So they ask her for descriptions etc. that will add nicely to the puzzle as their case is presented. MOO

 

[Kamille]

The Crown intends to prove that on this date in the late evening hours, Tim Bosma -was killed in his truck, shot by the two accused at close range, while on a test drive with his truck; his body then incinerated hours later by the two accused.

http://de.scribd.com/doc/297563969/Crown-s-opening-address-in-Tim-Bosma-murder-trial#download

Okay well it's unlikely both were carrying a gun and both were shooting at TB from the driver's side area of the truck but IMO the truth is, the Crown do not know with certainty who actually fired the shots. But it doesn't matter. So they are going to continue to suggest that the two of them shot TB. They are both charged with first degree murder. It's unlikely the jury will ever know who actually did it either...but according to the criminal code, it doesn't matter.

MOO

 

[deugirtni]

I recall the same thing....that they had video of DM's vehicle following Tim's truck and, if I recall...it was video close to Tim's house (possibly one of the businesses on Trinity near the Wilson intersection. If that is the case then my opinion is that they killed Tim VERY soon after leaving the driveway, before they got to Millard's truck that was waiting down the road. I can't imagine they stopped to pick up the vehicle while Tim was alive. Even if he was being held at gun point, would DM and MS leave one or the other alone in the truck with Tim? Too much risk. MOO

I had the impression that the video was from a neighbouring home, so likely close to TB's home.. but then again, maybe not, who knows? To have stopped and let MS out of TB's vehicle to get into DM's vehicle, would have meant TB would have known by then that he was in serious trouble, if not already dead. (IMO)

 

[ArianeEmory]

I thought about how carefully the worked around that question. I think it comes down to this...if they flat out asked Sharlene if the two men in the courtroom were the men that were at her house that night, what would her answer have been? I don't think the answer is an emphatic YES! I think her honest answer would be that she thinks so but can't be 100% sure. That would be a huge misstep if the Crown took that approach, IMO. So they ask her for descriptions etc. that will add nicely to the puzzle as their case is presented. MOO

If so, what stopped defense from asking her the same question on cross?

 

[matou]

if so, what stopped defense from asking her the same question on cross?

bam!!!

 

[MsSherlock]

They were already 'in the country' when they visited TB's home.. and from there, they took non-major-highways to travel to Brantford.. from Bosma's house to 'Wilson Street' (Ancaster) which turns into Colborne Street in Brantford (eventually going downtown).. and then turned right, onto 'Brant Ave' which turns into 'Paris Road', and then to the 'industrial complex' which may have been officially in Brantford, but was close to the border of 'Paris'.. and from there, up into Ayr. That is a popular way to get to Ayr. If I am understanding their route, based on what has been reported, it kind of makes sense if you know the area. They may have calculated their chances in getting pulled over by police along the way were less, by taking the back roads rather than the major highways? And/or they could have thought there would be fewer cameras, since the major highways have cameras?

I also think that DM was limited in knowing the area- but would have known the route back to Waterloo from the Brantford Airport. If he had taken a look on a google map prior, he would have felt Hwy 2/Colbourne Street would put him in known territory not realizing he may make a wrong turn and end up in downtown Brantford. IMHO, I'm thinking he was making his way over to Hwy 24, right near the Brantford Airport- a familiar route to him, missed his turn and ended up staying on Hwy 2 going straight thru downtown Brantford. IMO, it may not have been the planned route. The stop at the industrial park could have been the result of adrenaline overload. I'm thinking, his first choice would have been the Brantford Airport- lots of buildings, no security and very familiar turf. MOO

 

[Kamille]

How do we know they didn't use a silencer on the gun?

They very well may have. But it doesn't really matter since no one has come forward to say they heard a gunshot. From following another case here on WS, it is my understanding that silencers are not a very good idea for smaller handguns as they can cause the gun to jam so it's unlikely they had one. Not to mention, here in Canada it's hard enough to get your hands on an illegal gun, let alone a silencer. DM had to go to Ebay just for the holster for his gun.

MOO

 

[deugirtni]

I thought about how carefully the worked around that question. I think it comes down to this...if they flat out asked Sharlene if the two men in the courtroom were the men that were at her house that night, what would her answer have been? I don't think the answer is an emphatic YES! I think her honest answer would be that she thinks so but can't be 100% sure. That would be a huge misstep if the Crown took that approach, IMO. So they ask her for descriptions etc. that will add nicely to the puzzle as their case is presented. MOO

Yes exactly, but... why did neither of the defence lawyers ask her that question either?

 

[DeepWoodsOff]

If so, what stopped defense from asking her the same question on cross?

Great question! Regardless of the approach that the Crown took with SB, why would the defense not ask that question? I wonder what SB's response would have been? You would have to think she had been briefed on how to respond to that if asked.

 

[deugirtni]

Okay well it's unlikely both were carrying a gun and both were shooting at TB from the driver's side area of the truck but IMO the truth is, the Crown do not know with certainty who actually fired the shots. But it doesn't matter. So they are going to continue to suggest that the two of them shot TB. They are both charged with first degree murder. It's unlikely the jury will ever know who actually did it either...but according to the criminal code, it doesn't matter.

MOO

But if MS was not even in TB's truck at the time of the shooting/murder, then his charge would more appropriately be accessory, wouldn't it? So it *is* important to know exactly at which point he was killed and who was in the truck at the time, and at which time which one got out and started driving the other vehicle, no?

 

[Kamille]

Possible, but I would think TB would have been saying WTF, why is this guy getting out and going in the car you said you didn't have with you? You said a friend dropped you off...
If true, that would mean that MS had an out, he could have left once he found out that TB was dead, etc.

If TB was being held at gunpoint, they could have done anything. I'll bet that gun was pulled as soon as they left the driveway. Maybe that's why he cut the corner at the end of the driveway, he was pulling a gun and turning at the same time

But they wouldn't have kicked TB out right then and there if they were just intending to car jack the truck because he could have hightailed it back to the house and called LE, putting them hot on the trail of the stolen truck. They probably also got his phone from him at that time and turned it off. They would have had to drive him further out to a secluded area and dumped him off with no phone or transportation to give themselves some time. Which is what I think they intended to do. What went wrong?

MOO

 

[Kamille]

But if MS was not even in TB's truck at the time of the shooting/murder, then his charge would more appropriately be accessory, wouldn't it? So it *is* important to know exactly at which point he was killed and who was in the truck at the time, and at which time which one got out and started driving the other vehicle, no?

He was part of the kidnap plan and in the vehicle when TB was kidnapped and confined. He's guilty of first degree murder.

MOO

 

[meterclicks]

Yes exactly, but... why did neither of the defence lawyers ask her that question either?

Exactly. They had the opportunity. My guess is that they aren't going to dispute that it was either of them there that night (cell phone records, video, etc). They will just try to dispute that they were involved in the murder.

 

[deugirtni]

Great question! Regardless of the approach that the Crown took with SB, why would the defense not ask that question? I wonder what SB's response would have been? You would have to think she had been briefed on how to respond to that if asked.

I have a feeling, imo, that it is quite obvious that the 2 were involved, based on all of the evidence that the Crown says they have.. so perhaps the defence lawyers are not asking that question because of presumed public outrage if they were to go that route?

 

[ArianeEmory]

Great question! Regardless of the approach that the Crown took with SB, why would the defense not ask that question? I wonder what SB's response would have been? You would have to think she had been briefed on how to respond to that if asked.

I only have one real theory at this point, which is that there is some reason covered by a PB that either the question isn't being asked ... or isn't being REPORTED as having been asked.

Wish abro could be around, maybe she could help with this one, but I'm sure she is both busy and also being extremely careful about what she publishes (has a lot of loons mad at her).

Edit: earlier I agreed with the theory that neither side is asking because it's not necessary, but this still feels weird to me. Courtroom proceedings are all about verifying everything, even the "obvious".

 

[deugirtni]

He was part of the kidnap plan and in the vehicle when TB was kidnapped and confined. He's guilty of first degree murder.

MOO

How do you know that the plan wasn't simply to steal a truck, and nothing about kidnapping or murder? TB went willingly with them for a test drive. What if the plan had been to do that and just drop him off in the middle of nowhere/countryside, take the truck quickly to the hangar for stripping of VIN, repainting, etc., but then the plan went awry because someone happened to bring a gun and shoot TB instead? For that matter, how do you know that the plan was to even steal a truck? I'm not sure that we know yet, what their plan was?

Don't get me wrong.. I was shocked at how much evidence the Crown says they have, and I don't see a way in hell how DM will even present a defence. If MS was part of the plan, and there and present at the time of the murder, then he is screwed too.. just saying we don't really know these things just yet.

 

[matou]

I think if the person cannot willingly leave the vehicle, it's kidnapping.