Bosma Murder Trial 02.23.16 - Day 13

[Stratocaster]

... Catching up ......I don't think it's been revealed as of yet, but does anyone have any speculation who DM is referring to in the CN saved letters as to 'changing his testomony' to avoid a life sentence? Also, if I'm not mistaken with today's testimony with the DVR recovered in the CN search warrant, there is also additional video from a neighbouring business (G & A masonry on Jetliner Rd •google earth•) with the road leading up to the semi secluded hangar..... Can't help but say this, but from early May 2013 (failed test-drives) until DM and MS arrest, this sounds like a Martin Scorsese written pilot story, JMO I'd be willing to bet the co-accused were also head first into the 'Devil's dandruff up the nose' to keep them going through a couple speculated late nights, and busy schedules in the week in question..... All MOO

 

[Ironworker736]

Can DM's letters to CN be inadmissible if the search warrant was to specifically find a DVR, and not to search for any additional evidence?

[h=2]Seizure of Things Not Specified[edit][/h]Section 489 authorizes police officers to seize certain property. It specifically addresses the situation where police seek to seize property other than what is specified in the warrant.

Seizure of things not specified
489. (1) Every person who executes a warrant may seize, in addition to the things mentioned in the warrant, any thing that the person believes on reasonable grounds
(a) has been obtained by the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament;(b) has been used in the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament; or(c) will afford evidence in respect of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament.Seizure without warrant
(2) Every peace officer, and every public officer who has been appointed or designated to administer or enforce any federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this or any other Act of Parliament, who is lawfully present in a place pursuant to a warrant or otherwise in the execution of duties may, without a warrant, seize any thing that the officer believes on reasonable grounds
(a) has been obtained by the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament;(b) has been used in the commission of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament; or(c) will afford evidence in respect of an offence against this or any other Act of Parliament.R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 489; R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 72, c. 42 (4th Supp.), s. 3; 1993, c. 40, s. 16; 1997, c. 18, s. 48.

– CCC​

Under s. 489, a peace officer in lawful execution of their duty may seize anything without a warrant that they reasonably believe to be:

1. obtained by crime;
2. used in a crime; or
3. affords evidence of a crime.

All items that are seized must be reported to a justice of the peace pursuant to s. 489.1. The justice of the peace will grant a detention order for a period of time. The property must be returned on the expiration of the order unless the justice grants an extension under s. 490(1) or if charges are laid.
This section does not codify or incorporate any part of the common law doctrine of "plain view".[SUP][1][/SUP]

• Jump up ↑ R. v. Bottineau, 2011 ONCA 194 (CanLII)

 

[jash]

Hm, imagine being 22 with no legal background and only Google or the library as sources of information (she didn't tell any of her friends that he was in jail so they aren't likely to be sources). However, even those sources have limited usefulness since anything you search or any book you take out could be used as evidence against you since you're under surveillance. The only theory that makes sense for the police being able to search her house is that they knew they would find something because they were told something (maybe the person who passed the letters to CN). The police needed probable cause, I'm assuming that's why they took so long.

The warrant listed that exact DVR. I'm not sure why they felt it was at CN's house, but that's what they were looking for.

BBM - Would someone telling the police that CN had the DVR be enough to get a warrant signed? The timing is weird to me. Police were tailing her in September 2013 in order to get DNA castoff (which must factor into this case somehow). But they don't arrest her until April 2014, after executing a search warrant. What if she had moved out of the country in the meanwhile?

 

[Orderly]

Can DM's letters to CN be inadmissible if the search warrant was to specifically find a DVR, and not to search for any additional evidence?

From what I understand if it is relevant to the case and it is in plain sight then I see no reason for it being inadmissible. Courts usually lean towards accepting relevant finds during searches that aren't the item requested. It's like finding drugs and a note next to them saying they are to be sold, one reinforces the other.

 

[ABro]

BBM - Would someone telling the police that CN had the DVR be enough to get a warrant signed? The timing is weird to me. Police were tailing her in September 2013 in order to get DNA castoff (which must factor into this case somehow). But they don't arrest her until April 2014, after executing a search warrant. What if she had moved out of the country in the meanwhile?

It's common practice to get a search warrant when you arrest someone and go into their house immediately after the arrest.

 

[billandrew]

From what I understand if it is relevant to the case and it is in plain sight then I see no reason for it being inadmissible. Courts usually lean towards accepting relevant finds during searches that aren't the item requested. It's like finding drugs and a note next to them saying they are to be sold, one reinforces the other.

I am trying to imagine the police searching her room. Say they find the DVR right away under her clothes. At that point they have what they came for. Are they then allowed to keep going through her stuff? What if the letters were kept in a small drawer, obviously too small to fit a DVR machine? Was it permissible for LE to search through that drawer?

ETA: this was building on my initial question about whether the letters could be collected with just a warrant for the DVR.

 

[Orderly]

Can DM's letters to CN be inadmissible if the search warrant was to specifically find a DVR, and not to search for any additional evidence?

BBM - Would someone telling the police that CN had the DVR be enough to get a warrant signed? The timing is weird to me. Police were tailing her in September 2013 in order to get DNA castoff (which must factor into this case somehow). But they don't arrest her until April 2014, after executing a search warrant. What if she had moved out of the country in the meanwhile?

Probable cause. Unless the police expect to find something specific because they know it is there or have good reason to search someone's house they are just not allowed to search it because then whatever they find will definitely be inadmissible.

 

[Ironworker736]

BBM - Would someone telling the police that CN had the DVR be enough to get a warrant signed? The timing is weird to me. Police were tailing her in September 2013 in order to get DNA castoff (which must factor into this case somehow). But they don't arrest her until April 2014, after executing a search warrant. What if she had moved out of the country in the meanwhile?

Not sure, but loose lips sink ships...and there's a whole fleet going down! HTH

 

[ABro]

I am trying to imagine the police searching her room. Say they find the DVR right away under her clothes. At that point, are they allowed to keep going through her stuff? What if the letters were kept in a small drawer, obviously to small to fit a DVR machine? Was it permissible for LE to search through that drawer?

You seem to be assuming that the warrant was only for the DVR. Warrants can be written for all relevant evidence including x, y and z.

 

[Orderly]

Can DM's letters to CN be inadmissible if the search warrant was to specifically find a DVR, and not to search for any additional evidence?

Not sure, but loose lips sink ships...and there's a whole fleet going down! HTH

Do you guys remember the whole third person theory that the police had? I think it is relevant here, they probably surveilled her because they thought she was that person but had no proof until something happened. IMO

 

[ABro]

Probable cause. Unless the police expect to find something specific because they know it is there or have good reason to search someone's house they are just not allowed to search it because then whatever they find will definitely be inadmissible.

The something they expect to find can be simply evidence of a crime. They don't have to itemize every item of evidence in advance. Almost nothing, BTW, is "definite" in the law. It's almost always subject to interpretation.

 

[billandrew]

You seem to be assuming that the warrant was only for the DVR. Warrants can be written for all relevant evidence including x, y and z.

Edit for clarity. My initial question was hypothetical: could the letters be collected with just a warrant for DVR?

 

[Orderly]

Can DM's letters to CN be inadmissible if the search warrant was to specifically find a DVR, and not to search for any additional evidence?

The something they expect to find can be simply evidence of a crime. They don't have to itemize every item of evidence in advance. Almost nothing, BTW, is "definite" in the law. It's almost always subject to interpretation.

Yeah, evidence law is tricky. If the police are acting in good faith or if the crime is particularly serious a lot of things can be deemed as admissible. IMO

 

[deugirtni]

Could it be possible that the metal particles were bullet fragments?
JMHO

I was wondering that as well, but I couldn't really find anything to say what the disintegration temperature would be for a 380 bullet? I was also thinking the little metal particle could be a tooth filling? According to "The Analysis of Burned Human Remains", amalgam fillings will melt at approximately 965C (approx 1770F), so wouldn't it make sense that some fillings may still be amongst the ashes?

 

[Stratocaster]

... Since my expertise is in another field ... Can anyone comment with the Coles notes version of how a search warrant is awarded to LE with the Justice of the Peace in Ontario? I'm assuming that LE must present reasonable grounds for executing the warrant? Just stating the obvious IMO, but what would be a common reason for a J of P to deny LE a search warrant?

 

[Kamille]

May 9th was the day AJ took photos of the truck and called Crimestoppers. Assuming SS gave DM the heads up about that later that day/evening, that could be what triggered DM's all-night clean up mission.

DM communicated with CN at 9:39 PM. He gave her the DVR when he picked her up en route to his mother's house. After Kleinburg they went to the farm to move the Eliminator. And around 4:00 AM (on May 10th), they dropped off the locked toolbox.

Curious that he didn't leave the DVR with the toolbox. As some have suggested, it may have been because he wanted it as insurance/blackmail against MS and trusted his girlfriend wouldn't give it up. Clearly MS was able to retrieve the toolbox but I have a feeling DM didn't have a problem with that. It sounds like MS got rid of the weapon (or tried to at least, via burial), which would benefit both MS and DM. Maybe after the police visited him at the hangar, DM told MS to get rid of it.

It will be very interesting to see DM's phone activity between the time of the police visit and his arrest.

Just jumping off your post...

If we really look at those two days, we may be able to see why DM chose to keep those items by giving them to other people. I'd imagine that CN said a big hell no to hiding an illegal gun in her parent's house so maybe that's why she only ended up with the DVR.

We heard testimony that AJ took the pictures on May 9th and called the VIN into crimestoppers. He got the positive ID and went home after work to talk to his family, which included his wife, daughter and SS. Now the information he gave them was that he knew the truck in the hangar belonged to TB and that he had not told LE where it was at that time. SS got angry and probably told him to "leave it alone". Not to call LE. And it appears that AJ took that advice and went to work the next day without calling LE. So it's very possible that SS notified DM of what AJ had said and done, telling him that he thought it would be okay because he had convinced AJ not to call LE. Perhaps DM decided, to be safe if LE did actually show up at the hangar because of that call to crimestoppers, to move some evidence around "just in case". He likely didn't think anything would come of it and wanted to keep those expensive and useful items but that might also explain why he didn't start moving the evidence out of the hangar until the evening of the 9th.

Now on the 10th, DM was dropping off the lockbox at 4am. He then went to the hangar to meet with his accountant. (I am guessing the accountant was called in to help him find the incinerator file?). When LE showed up at the hangar, there was no one else there other than DM and the accountant. This leads me to believe it was before SS and AJ showed up for "work" or they should also have been there when LE showed up. I think AJ said he usually got to work around 9am? So if LE showed up before 9am, DM must have thought that AJ did actually call LE regarding the truck being in the hangar, against the advice from SS (hence his lack of surprise when the "suits" showed up?)

So according to AJ, he worked on the 10th until sometime after lunch when he went to the Home Depot to pick up wood. When he returned to the hangar after that he said that DM and SS were in the office area having an "exchange". I'd imagine this was the first chance DM had gotten to talk to SS alone without AJ there to discuss the fact that LE had shown up that morning. And so when AJ returned, they both probably thought that AJ had tipped off LE and he was fired. DM probably also knew at that time that he needed to figure out a way to actually get rid of evidence, knowing that he was likely being watched at that point. What he didn't know is that AJ had NOT tipped off LE and that were already well into their investigation of him when they showed up at the hangar and that he had essentially run out of time to actually get rid of anything.

MOO

 

[Kamille]

BBM - Would someone telling the police that CN had the DVR be enough to get a warrant signed? The timing is weird to me. Police were tailing her in September 2013 in order to get DNA castoff (which must factor into this case somehow). But they don't arrest her until April 2014, after executing a search warrant. What if she had moved out of the country in the meanwhile?

Maybe the DVR is more damning to DM than MS and it was MM who told police that CN had it? We have to remember that MS was out for a while before being arrested and if he knew where the gun was then he knew where the DVR was as well.

MOO

 

[Sphinx]

So toss it in the eliminator since you are towing it all around the farm.

Couldn't she just put it in a gym bag and go get rid of it? She had a YEAR. Keeping it there was only adding to her accesory after fact case.

IMO maybe the lawyer she hired shortly after DM was arrested, advised her not to destroy any evidence.

 

[Sillybilly]

I'm not sure what the legal issue was, but Leitch specifically told officer Wilson to not say what the other item recovered was, just that it was recovered. Anyone recall any details about this mystery item?

"Wilson said there was a second item seized by police during the search but was asked by assistant Crown attorney Tony Leitch not to say what it was."

IMO, the fact that the Crown asked him not to say it (as opposed to the Crown not even mentioning it), brought "it" to the attention of the jurors that there was something important that could not be discussed right now. IOW, the witness referred to in the letter is expected to give important testimony, and the Crown doesn't want a jury with a preconceived idea that the key witness could have altered their testimony.

Only other thing I can think of is that the defence was successful in getting it tossed because its prejudicial value outweighed its probative value, but it was agreed that the Crown could make reference to other evidence but that it could not be discussed.

ETA: Also, just because the letter appeared to be from DM, maybe they will have to introduce some type of forensic documentation expert to establish that before they can influence the jury by saying it was a letter from DM himself.

 

[billandrew]

Slightly off-topic, but I was just thinking about how the Millard family seems to fit that stereotype of rich families squandering their wealth by the third generation. Carl built the empire, Wayne did his best to maintain it, and Dellen threw it away. I'm not sure if the phenomenon has ever been statistically or scientifically proven, but it is a well-known stereotype and the Millards seem to fit it well.