Bosma Murder Trial 02.23.16 - Day 13

[sab_bri]

Possibly there is no way to prove that they came from Millard?

Perhaps Millard said he didn't write them, that someone else wrote them for him?

 

[Kamille]

It makes no sense to me that he gave the DVR to CN. Get rid of it. He didn't really get rid of the gun either. He gave it to someone to hold onto for him., There's a pattern. He passes things off to others, whether it be ordering stuff, doing stuff, holding stuff. He's always at arms length.

Perhaps he's learned that involving people in nefarious activities guarantees their silence on other things.

MOO

 

[ArianeEmory]

Ran out of time? This guy was driving all over Southern Ontario! He could easily have stopped somewhere and dumped stuff. Better to attempt to dump it than to be found with it I say.

What if he forgot the hangar had a security system until the last minute, or simply didn't WORRY about it until he found out AJ had dropped a dime?

Remember, during the beginning he most likely thought he was going to get away with this clean, so he didn't bother hiding anything. As his attorneys keep pointing out.

Edit: I'm not actually sure what we're arguing about--if your main point is that DM was an incompetent criminal, I heartily agree.

 

[andreww]

I agree. I may have started the speculation, but I was just questioning why Leitch would ask the officer NOT to mention the "second item" seized. We don't even know if this was the letters. It may be something completely irrelevant. It may be introduced at a later time. I doubt we have heard the last of the letters. MOO

I feel that if it is the letters they are talking about, it probably has something to do with the language Millard used. The fact that he said "Put me away for life" might lead the jury to believe that he was confessing to murder. I know in the case of Sammy Yatim, evidence that he had googled "suicide" was not allowed to be presented, even though the defence was claiming it was a case of suicide by cop. Some things are just considered too prejudicial to be admissible.

 

[palisadesk]

QuCould evidence that the Crown was going to use to "prove" the statements in their Opening Statement be now deemed inadmissible? I would have thought these admissibility issues would have been dealt with prior to trial so both sides know what they are dealing with and don't go making statements they won't be able to back up. But possibly because this was a direct indictment the rules are different? Anyone have any thoughts?

Both sides know what is admissible evidence and what is not (with rare exceptions for possibly ambiguous cases). I doubt that, so far, any evidence the Crown needs to support its opening statement has been affected by inadmissibility rulings.

Many issues are dealt with prior to trial.

What can and does happen, though, is that a witness may say something, spontaneously, that the Crown did not expect and did not wish them to say, and that is in itself inadmissible, as happened with the witness Cook. This complicates matters because IIRC the Crown cannot make an objection to its own witness.

However, it seems the Crown is now on the alert to prevent a witness from saying something inadmissible, as in the exchange with the officer who searched CN's bedroom. The reason why the officer can't name the other item found may relate to a publication ban in another case, to an ongoing investigation, or something else. Whatever it is, the Crown wanted to avoid another delay occasioned by such a misstep.

 

[matou]

I think people may be jumping to conclusions about the letters.

I agree.There were several letters and wouldn't consider that one item but several. JMO

 

[andreww]

Edit: I'm not actually sure what we're arguing about--if your main point is that DM was an incompetent criminal, I heartily agree.

Done. Lets have a beer :toast:

 

[Orderly]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't remember them being deemed inadmissible. When did this happen? Hypothetically speaking, if this did in fact happen then the writing in them could have been matched to his writing, unless they were typed, and thus they could be traced to him.

 

[matou]

Since it wasn't linked, here is the complete Crown Opening Statement here:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/297569867/Crown-s-opening-address

 

[redheart]

Both sides know what is admissible evidence and what is not (with rare exceptions for possibly ambiguous cases). I doubt that, so far, any evidence the Crown needs to support its opening statement has been affected by inadmissibility rulings.

RSBM

Really appreciate your insights, palisadesk.

 

[matou]

Here are the emails about the sale of the incinerator:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/300099872/Emails-about-sale-of-incinerator

 

[palisadesk]

I cant understand how the defense managed to get those letters inadmissible? Its so frustrating, but I don' t understand - if the letters were inadmissible- wouldn't this be brought up after the Crown's opening statement? I'm very lost.. very very lost.

I haven't seen or heard anything to suggest the letters are inadmissible. They just have not been introduced as evidence yet. This is a long trial after all.

 

[RandomName479]

Correct me if I am wrong, but I don't remember them being deemed inadmissible. When did this happen? Hypothetically speaking, if this did in fact happen then the writing in them could have been matched to his writing, unless they were typed, and thus they could be traced to him.

How can I put the worms back in the can? :worms: We have NO evidence that the letters have been deemed inadmissible. NONE. During the testimony of Mark Wilson today the Crown asked him not to speak about the second item that was seized from CN's bedroom. I asked what this could be.....and suggested the possibility of the letters (as they were also said to be seized from CN's bedroom).... I got to speculating......and others have run away with it. I apologize for confusing people. MOO.

 

[Kamille]

Both sides know what is admissible evidence and what is not (with rare exceptions for possibly ambiguous cases). I doubt that, so far, any evidence the Crown needs to support its opening statement has been affected by inadmissibility rulings.

Many issues are dealt with prior to trial.

What can and does happen, though, is that a witness may say something, spontaneously, that the Crown did not expect and did not wish them to say, and that is in itself inadmissible, as happened with the witness Cook. This complicates matters because IIRC the Crown cannot make an objection to its own witness.

However, it seems the Crown is now on the alert to prevent a witness from saying something inadmissible, as in the exchange with the officer who searched CN's bedroom. The reason why the officer can't name the other item found may relate to a publication ban in another case, to an ongoing investigation, or something else. Whatever it is, the Crown wanted to avoid another delay occasioned by such a misstep.

To add further to this, it seems as though the Crown was intending on using Mr Cook as an "expert" witness with regards to the operation of the incinerator that the company he works for manufactured.

However he was not deemed an expert at the beginning of his testimony. And I think the extra long arguments today were to prevent him from giving any testimony regarding his opinion on the pictures of the incinerator when it was found by LE and what was found inside. As well as his opinion on whether he thought it could be used for any other purpose than incinerating livestock. We did hear testimony that a couple or a few had been sold to LE to destroy seized drugs. And we did hear his opinion on the incinerator being used more than once (we didn't get to why he thinks that), even though we have to disregard it.

I don't think the crown will be seeking another "expert" witness with regards to animal incinerators but I wish they would.

MOO

 

[Ontario Mom]

A few musings, it sounds as if they are getting ready to introduce the video of the early morning hours at the hangar. Oh Boy, that's going to be tough.

Whatever the 2nd thing retrieved was may be introduced later and they don't want it to clutter up their cadence in presenting evidence. Everybody knows about the letter, it was in the opening statement so I can't imagine that it's now deemed inadmissible but who knows.

Slow slogging so far this week. Hard days for everybody.

This is the part of the evidence I've been dreading the worst Somehow it just seems so brutally painful for anyone to see these two monsters actually fire that incinerator up at the hanger that night, knowing full well that Tim was inside it.

 

[paris_paris]

If it was the letters that were asked not to be mentioned... wasn't it the Crown who said not to say what it was? It's possible the Crown doesn't want the jury to think that this witness was convinced to change their version of events.

 

[Martha Morris]

Obviously you didn't follow Jodi Arias trial. Now that was long and slow, it took 2-3 weeks to go through 1 witness. Then delay after delay, I'm sure most weeks only had 8 hours of testimony in total.

Yes I did follow the Jodi Arias trial thank you.

 

[Orderly]

The only thing that worries me about this case right now is the absence of DNA proving that it was Tim Bosma's body. I think the defence is really going to jump on that and it'll be critical for establishing their defence.

Also, I think the video will be crucial in determining the path the defence takes. If the video shows DM and MS putting a body into the incineratorand turning it on, then they are screwed. However, I have serious doubts that it shows them doing those specific things. If it just shows them hanging around the hangar then the defence will use it to raise reasonable doubt.

On the positive side, if there even is one, the physical evidence on the car is very damning as is the circumstantial evidence with all the phone tracking.

 

[Ironworker736]

Hi WSers, I just got back and am going to have to catch up on the thread, but first I want to say...what an incredibly interesting day it was! Some huge things happened that are just simply unbelievable! And I shared an elevator ride with SB...she seemed to be in good spirits today!

 

[jash]

"Yesterday we heard some evidence from Mr. Cook as to if the device [The Eliminator] was used on more than one occasion. That was improper opinion evidence," Justice Goodman says to the jury. Cook was not in a position to offer that opinion, he adds. "You are to ignore that answer."
by Adam Carter 1:53 PM

Cook is led in, but then immediately excused.
by Adam Carter 1:54 PM

***Good luck unringing that bell

BBM - Poor guy. He had to stick around an extra day for what turned out to be no reason. At least he gets to fly back to Georgia before the storm they're calling for hits.