Bosma Murder Trial 02.01.16 - Day 1, Opening Statements

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I wish the reporters would get rid of their pinned post at the top. Makes is harder to follow quickly.
 
matou said:
I think if the person cannot willingly leave the vehicle, it's kidnapping.
Click to expand...

If I go willingly for a test drive with potential buyers, and we drive out into the 'country' (which is where they already were, and would make sense to drive on the country roads), went a long distance, and then they stopped the truck and said.. 'get out, so long, sorry about your luck, we're taking your truck'.. was I kidnapped?
 
deugirtni said:
If I go willingly for a test drive with potential buyers, and we drive out into the 'country' (which is where they already were, and would make sense to drive on the country roads), went a long distance, and then they stopped the truck and said.. 'get out, so long, sorry about your luck, we're taking your truck'.. was I kidnapped?
Click to expand...

possibly abducted? not sure.
 
First Degree Murder means it was planned and deliberate (while committing or attempting to commit kidnapping and forcible confinement, if that is what happened).
All the defense has to do is plant the seed of doubt in the Crown's theory of what took place. Make the jury disbelieve that DM and MS planned it all out from the get-go.
 
deugirtni said:
How do we know they didn't use a silencer on the gun?
Click to expand...

Again, I am not familiar with guns, but I have seen some silencers on guns on tv shows, and they always look like a long extension on a rather large gun. Could one be used on the caliber of gun used to kill Tim ?
 
deugirtni said:
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)
Click to expand...

Maybe they shot TB then when MS was changing the vehicles because TB now was concerned re the parking Yucon?
 
deugirtni said:
If I go willingly for a test drive with potential buyers, and we drive out into the 'country' (which is where they already were, and would make sense to drive on the country roads), went a long distance, and then they stopped the truck and said.. 'get out, so long, sorry about your luck, we're taking your truck'.. was I kidnapped?
Click to expand...

No.

279. (1) Every person commits an offence who kidnaps a person with intent

(a) to cause the person to be confined or imprisoned against the person’s will;

(b) to cause the person to be unlawfully sent or transported out of Canada against the person’s will; or

(c) to hold the person for ransom or to service against the person’s will.
 
deugirtni said:
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.
Click to expand...

Once TB could not leave the vehicle unharmed it was kidnap and confinement. And their intent was to steal a truck by also "taking" the owner so they could get the truck and the keys. TB obviously could not safely exit the vehicle as it appears he did not. But you'll also notice that they appear to be charged with first degree premeditated murder. So obviously the Crown believes that kidnapping, confining and killing the driver was always the intent. I'm just giving my opinion as to why I'm not sure about that. But either way, it's still first degree murder.

MOO
 
ADAWG said:
I would assume they took the back roads as well. Taking Wilson to Brantford is very little business mostly farms and less likely to be seen. Turning towards the 403 would take you past Tim Horton's Canadian Tire, gas stations, Wendy's, Walmart, Goodlife Fitness and various other business in that plaza. There is also a bar and restaurant where Garner rd. meets Wilson. There is also car dealers and big industrial park on Tradewinds. This area is always fairly busy and well lit and multilane road. Taking Wilson to Brantford is also only a 1 lane road, not as well lit and fairly quiet at that time of night. I am assuming where the cell phone was found is where they moved Tim to the back seat as they were going to reach a more populated area and the phone fell out of his pocket.
Click to expand...

They wouldn't have had to go past that. If you take Trinity past wilson it takes you to an exit to the 403. Nowhere near Walmart, Cnd Tire, etc. No businesses at all. We go that way all the time. I believe it's the Copetown exit. Inbetween Brantford and the Wilson St exit.
 
matou said:
possibly abducted?
Click to expand...

If I went willingly, and then instead of being brought home, I was dropped off in the middle of nowhere, so they could steal my truck.. I think the charge would be theft, not kidnapping? It would be mean and cruel, but I don't think it would be kidnapping, abduction, or forcible confinement.. because I may not have even known yet, until the point of drop off, what was going on, may not have tried or wanted to leave, etc. JMO
 
meterclicks said:
No.

279. (1) Every person commits an offence who kidnaps a person with intent

(a) to cause the person to be confined or imprisoned against the person’s will;

(b) to cause the person to be unlawfully sent or transported out of Canada against the person’s will; or

(c) to hold the person for ransom or to service against the person’s will.
Click to expand...

Do any of those apply.... I am saying that IF the original plan was just to steal the truck?

I was just raising the possibility that MS may not have been privy to the larger plan.

IF the plan was just to steal the truck, as far as MS knew, and they took TB for a test drive and then let him out of the truck in the middle of nowhere unharmed.. would any of those definitions of kidnapping apply?
 
Then why have the gun? There were two guys against one.
 
deugirtni said:
Do any of those apply.... I am saying that IF the original plan was just to steal the truck?

I was just raising the possibility that MS may not have been privy to the larger plan.

IF the plan was just to steal the truck, as far as MS knew, and they took TB for a test drive and then let him out of the truck in the middle of nowhere unharmed.. would any of those definitions of kidnapping apply?
Click to expand...

Not if he was unharmed. It would be a stolen vehicle, and a title of D-bags.
 
deugirtni said:
If I went willingly, and then instead of being brought home, I was dropped off in the middle of nowhere, so they could steal my truck.. I think the charge would be theft, not kidnapping? It would be mean and cruel, but I don't think it would be kidnapping, abduction, or forcible confinement.. because I may not have even known yet, until the point of drop off, what was going on, may not have tried or wanted to leave, etc. JMO
Click to expand...

Depends on what happened. If you realized that something was wrong and asked to be returned home or let out of the vehicle while you were driving and you were not until you got to a secluded place, that's forcible confinement. If you said nothing and were surprised when the vehicle was just stopped and you were told to get out at gunpoint, that's armed robbery. ;)

If you never returned home and wound up dead, shot at point blank range in the vehicle, I'd assume you were not allowed to exit the vehicle unharmed. I don't suppose it really matters at that point whether you asked or not...it wasn't happening.

MOO
 
Kamille said:
Once TB could not leave the vehicle unharmed it was kidnap and confinement. And their intent was to steal a truck by also "taking" the owner so they could get the truck and the keys. TB obviously could not safely exit the vehicle as it appears he did not. But you'll also notice that they appear to be charged with first degree premeditated murder. So obviously the Crown believes that kidnapping, confining and killing the driver was always the intent. I'm just giving my opinion as to why I'm not sure about that. But either way, it's still first degree murder.

MOO
Click to expand...

You seem to be mixing up the fact that I am merely trying to make the suggestion that it is possible that MS knew the plan was to steal a truck that evening.

He may not have known the plan was to bring a gun, shoot somebody, kill somebody, and etc. And.. if MS was not in the vehicle at the time when the shooting occurred, and did not know of the larger plan, it is *possible* that he could be an accessory, instead of a first degree murderer. Just a possibility I am throwing out there.

I am NOT talking about the fact that killing during confinement is first degree, nor that at least one of the two shouldn't be charged with first degree. Just saying that MS may not have been planning more than stealing a truck, and for all we know at this point, he may not have been in the vehicle at the time TB was killed. That is all.
 
deugirtni said:
Do any of those apply.... I am saying that IF the original plan was just to steal the truck?

I was just raising the possibility that MS may not have been privy to the larger plan.

IF the plan was just to steal the truck, as far as MS knew, and they took TB for a test drive and then let him out of the truck in the middle of nowhere unharmed.. would any of those definitions of kidnapping apply?
Click to expand...

Believe me, both of them are going to say that the intent was to BUY the truck and the other just shot the guy, if they mount a defense. Why do you think DM wanted his roommate to change his testimony? ;)

MOO
 
matou said:
Then why have the gun? There were two guys against one.
Click to expand...

What if MS didn't know 'they' had a gun? I am talking about why it is a *possibility* that MS may not have been part of the plan to the full extent that things happened.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 121 more.
Total: 2,539 (members: 122, guests: 2,417)

Online statistics

Members online
122
Guests online
2,417
Total visitors
2,539
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,910
Messages
18,131,734
Members
231,187
Latest member
txtruecrimekat
Back
Top