Bosma Murder Trial 02.29.16 - Day 16

[Bsafe]

I don't think you are being annoying at all.

But I have been sitting here thinking about it.

Either the blood testimony on the bag got missed by reporters in all that was going on or we will hear about it tomorrow. Clearly a link has to exist between the blood stain, DM's DNA and the crime or else there's no point in bringing it forward as evidence.

I got nothing else at this point.

This brings to mind an annoyance that I have. Why do the reporters accept and address questions (via Twitter) WHILE they are reporting? I would think they should just be left to report so they don't miss anything. Questions, especially repetitive ones, should be asked and answered AFTER court!!

Imo Moo

 

[Gumshew]

Oh I misunderstood your post AE, but there is this HTH:

Court also saw photos of a canvas Diesel shoulder bag that was seized from Millard. A "satchel" or Indiana Jones-style bag has been mentioned several times in testimony and cross-examination, but its significance has not been fully explained.

A blood stain was found on the bag, but a DNA comparison was not possible.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...od-dna-evidence-links-bosma-millard-1.3469406

That tells us absolutely nothing. I mean, DM worked in a hanger where stuff is dismantled. The bloodstain could have been his own from whenever. Unless... it is shown that the very bag was present at the murder scene. Maybe it's coming.

 

[Night_is_Mine]

I was there today. I was staring at MS. He stared at me. Then proceeds to go towards the exit and looks back at me again. Then right as he's about to go through the door looks back at me AGAIN. So cute little gangsta trying to be all tough.

 

[palisadesk]

I mean, what happens if they can't collectively agree on who did what? Would that end with an acquittal for both?? A mistrial?? Asking because I really don't know.

The two are being tried together, but the jury do not have to deliver the same verdict for both. They could find one guilty of 1st degree murder and the other of 2nd degree murder or manslaughter, for example (the judge, in his charge to the jury, will carefully explain to them what their options are and what is required for a guilty verdict on either 1st degree murder or a lesser charge).

The jury must be unanimous on its verdict for each accused, but it is normal for some negotiations and compromise to take place when there is significant disagreement. The judge will exhort them to work together to come to a verdict if they do appear to have divisions, and this is where the leadership of the jury foreman plays a role.

Hypothetically, let's say the jury were unanimous on convicting one accused of 1st degree murder, but were divided on the second accused, with some convinced that another 1st degree conviction was appropriate, while others felt that accused's involvement fell short of what is required. After much discussion and deliberation, a possible compromise would be a unanimous agreement on a 2nd-degree murder conviction with a recommendation for the judge to impose a longer period of incarceration before parole eligibility.

We never find out the exact details that go into a Canadian jury's verdict, because jurors may not discuss what went on in the jury room, ever, unlike U.S. jurors who make the talk show circuit. They can, however, talk about their feelings or how the experience has affected them -- personal stuff. A number of the Bernardo jurors did this.

So to make a long story short, the jury can have a different verdict for each accused, they don't have to have the same verdict.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

A blood stain was found on the bag, but a DNA comparison was not possible.[/I]


http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...od-dna-evidence-links-bosma-millard-1.3469406

Weird..this was not said in any of the live tweets/blogs? Or did I miss something? I figured they were coming back to this.

 

[Stratocaster]

... MS was fully aware that TB was going to be murdered that fateful night, given his first degree murder charge in the LB case which happened 10 months prior. The failed test drives and the 'gone gone gone' comment seal it for me. All MOO. Watching upcoming video evidence of the eliminator being ignited will be excruciating pain for this family. May they have strength through they're upcoming darkest days. Rip Mr Bosma, rip

 

[girl_next_door]

I was there today. I was staring at MS. He stared at me. Then proceeds to go towards the exit and looks back at me again. Then right as he's about to go through the door looks back at me AGAIN. So cute little gangsta trying to be all tough.

Me too! (Except it was a week ago). He studied me. A couple other girls in court had similar experiences. He tends to make eye contact with observers during transition times.

 

[ArianeEmory]

Weird..this was not said in any of the live tweets/blogs? Or did I miss something? I figured they were coming back to this.

I didn't see it earlier, but I was skimming very quickly. But not seeing it is why I originally asked why it was significant that the satchel (which we've all seen DM wearing in photos, or one like it) had his own DNA on it. (Granted, at the time I originally asked, I'd missed the mention of a bloodstain, but it seems that had no provable forensic relevance so far.)

 

[swedie]

Does anyone know if the incinerator has an electric igniter or would it require a flame source ie lighter?

IIRC it was stated during trial the incinerator needed hydro. We speculated that is why it was hauled to the hangar. MOO.

 

[JPC]

I was there today. I was staring at MS. He stared at me. Then proceeds to go towards the exit and looks back at me again. Then right as he's about to go through the door looks back at me AGAIN. So cute little gangsta trying to be all tough.

<modsnip> Weird question but in the initial days of the trial we heard about what MS and DM wore and it sounded like MS wore the same gray sweater every day. Is that still the case? Did he interact with DM at all or is DM still being cocky towards him?

 

[matou]

I apologize if this has already been discussed (it probably has lol) but I can't keep up with hundreds of posts daily... I'm wondering why MM (smich's gf) has not been charged with anything whereas CN was? Given what smich said ("don't tell them anything babe") at the time of his arrest, him texting her that bosma was "gone gone gone" (mentioned in the crown's opening arguments) & that her DNA was found on things it seems she was involved or at the very least knew stuff??

I think MM cooperated fully with the investigation. She provided DNA and likely answered questions with things that checked out. CN on the other hand, was uncooperative and LE needed to follow her to get her DNA. DNA that ended up on some black nitrile gloves that also had Tim Bosma's DNA on then. JMO

 

[brightii]

The crown has made it their intention to prove that TB was shot by the two accused. There is no mention about the box cutter, and I believe that it was solely used for the purpose to remove the carpet from the truck. As for the blood underneath the truck, it was said that the splatter resembles a vehicle in motion. I believe it was seepage through the cracks of the doors and bolts. All :moo: of course.

rsbm

The box cutter was mentioned today by AC on Twitter:

There was also DNA found on a box cutter found inside the truck, but there wasn't enough DNA to make a full profile.

 

[palisadesk]

... MS was fully aware that TB was going to be murdered that fateful night, given his first degree murder charge in the LB case which happened 10 months prior.

I'm uncertain whether the murder was planned in advance or not; however, I do think that evidence against MS is probably substantial but is yet to come. The case is proceeding carefully and in a progression that the Crown expects will be most likely to present the evidence to the jury in a comprehensible way, with one piece connecting to the next piece, and so on. Jumping back and forth between the role of one accused versus the other could be confusing and unhelpful. Jurors can take notes, and some judges encourage them to do so, but on the other hand that could distract them from paying close attention to the material presented. An even and connected "flow" of evidence is probably best for enabling jurors not only to understand, but to remember in context.

There is an awful lot to remember. It's a Herculean task.

 

[Typhoo1961]

The spots were plenty but small, so my guess is was just drips through the seat bolt holes (which was done on the tarp..Hense blood found on it). The drips seem to be consistent with vehicle movement. But that would mean the seats came out (blood dripped through bolt holes) then drove truck somewhere before loading it into the trailer. The blood in the wheelwell and rear tire could be seepage thru the bottom of the door (doors are not air tight) the blood would run down the truck side and into wheelwell.

I'm kind of surprised that more blood wasn't found in TB's truck. Those seats must have been very ... absorbent.

 

[girl_next_door]

<modsnip> Weird question but in the initial days of the trial we heard about what MS and DM wore and it sounded like MS wore the same gray sweater every day. Is that still the case? Did he interact with DM at all or is DM still being cocky towards him?

I was there February 16 & MS wore the grey sweater. Neither MS or DM looked at each other (from what I saw). DM looked around more & carried himself confidently whereas MS seemed more scared to me. However MS seems to try to make eye contact with observers (me, and other young women) during transition times being led out of the court room. Those were just my observations & I could've missed things.

 

[NashBridges2]

So you can list all the evidence presented, from memory...regarding truck, gloves, cigs, incinerator, etc? Who touched what, etc. I wasn't calling anyone a moron. A summary will be helpful.

Yup, the big points will stick and the prosecution will drive it home during closing.

 

[brightii]

I don't think MS was exactly scared of DM. Remember, he was there for the test drive so he knew that the plan was to steal the truck. Furthermore, they were armed with a weapon. Under section 344 (1) of the Criminal Code, a person found guilty of armed robbery will serve a minimum of five years in prison. So, if they let him go they still would have served time in prison. The goal of the Defence is to raise "reasonable doubt". So far, we cannot "reasonably" say that he was not there at the time of the other test drive because his defence has submitted that he was. Maybe, we can say he was not there the night of the murder. However, if we make that argument then we still have to explain why his cellphone was in the general area that night. Let's say, DM stole his cellphone. Then, we still have to explain what he was doing with DM that night on the video with the incinerator? How did he get to the hangar? Who would have driven him there? He didn't have a car of his own, so it is almost near certain that DM drove him there and he was in the car with him when they went to commit the robbery. It is highly improbable that MS, just walked into DM with an incinerator and just decided to help him clean up. Also, why did he text his girlfriend that the owner of the truck is "gone, gone, gone". If it was him that texted her, that means there is no chance that DM stole his phone. Then, there is the issue of the two cars. How does one person drive two cars, they don't. So, there were two people. Why did they drive right away to the hangar, if they were just planning to rob the car? Unless, they were planning to kill him and so driving to the hangar makes sense. The only saving grace I can see for MS is lack of physical evidence, but the circumstantial evidence is very, very strong. I think it is important to note that the doubt that the defence raises has to be reasonable, they cannot just say whatever they want and then claim that it happened the way they said it did. So it seems to me, first degree murder is the reasonable charge.

IMO

rsbm

I think the fact that MS's lawyer entered into evidence early on an admission that MS was present at the IT test drive is going to be a critical part of his defense. Just a sense I have. So far, at least, that is my view. That evidence stood out for me when it was presented. I think it will be used to argue his intentions were innocent when he accompanied DM on the test drive with IT, and that nothing criminal happened on that test drive, therefore, if MS accompanied DM on the TB test drive, it could be argued he legitimately thought they were going to buy (or worst case scenario to steal) a truck.

I'm just thinking out loud here and I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but MS's admission to the 1st test drive, but no admission to the TB test (as yet) just makes me wonder what strategy MS's lawyer has.

IMO, MS has good reason to fear DM since DM was the person with the resources,especially an incinerator, and allegedly DM did not mind using it to dispose of his murder victim(s), IMO. I can't see how MS would pose any threat to DM, although it is possible, IMO.

The glitch in my line of thinking is LB. MS is also charged in her murder as well,along with DM. And WM was allegedly murdered by DM at a time when MS lived in DM's home. Maybe MS has been afraid for a very long time, and saw no way to escape his connection to DM without suffering serious repercussions for himself or his loved ones?

I hope that MS takes the stand in his own defense although he may be advised by his lawyer not to. I may be completely wrong about MS, and he could be every bit as responsible as I believe DM to be, IMO. I trust that the Crown&#8217;s evidence will clarify any reasonable doubt as the trial continues.

I'm just speculating and thinking. There is so much to consider in this very complex case.

All MOO. :thinking:

 

[artemis17]

I think the fact that MS's lawyer entered intoevidence early on an admission that MS was present at the IT test drive isgoing to be a critical part of his defense. Just a sense I have. So far, atleast, that is my view. That evidence stood out for me when it was presented. Ithink it will be used to argue his intentions were innocent when he accompaniedDM on the test drive with IT, and that nothing criminal happened on that testdrive, therefore, if MS accompanied DM on the TB test drive, it could be arguedhe legitimately thought they were going to buy (or worst case scenario tosteal) a truck.

I'm justthinking out loud here and I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but MS'sadmission to the 1st test drive, but no admission to the TB test (as yet) justmakes me wonder what strategy MS's lawyer has.

IMO, MShas good reason to fear DM since DM was the person with the resources,especially an incinerator, and allegedly DM did not mind using it to dispose ofhis murder victim(s), IMO. I can't see how MS would pose any threat to DM,although it is possible, IMO.

Theglitch in my line of thinking is LB. MS is also charged in her murder as well,along with DM. And WM was allegedly murdered by DM at a time when MS lived inDM's home. Maybe MS has been afraid for a very long time, and saw no way toescape his connection to DM without suffering serious repercussions for himself or his loved ones?

I hope that MStakes the stand in his own defense although he may be advised by his lawyer notto. I may be completely wrong about MS, and he could be every bit asresponsible as I believe DM to be, IMO. I trust that the Crown&#8217;sevidence will clarify any reasonable doubt as the trial continues.

I'm just speculating and thinking. There is so much to consider in this very complex case.

All MOO.

I am pretty much with you, for both of these guys to have so much on the line I cant see why one or both wouldnt want to try and get on the stand and accuse the other. Especially with DM's jail house letters being so adamant about the fact that hes innocent and "its right in front of our faces" and getting frustrated that no one could "see it"

 

[cansleuther]

rsbm

I think the fact that MS's lawyer entered intoevidence early on an admission that MS was present at the IT test drive isgoing to be a critical part of his defense. Just a sense I have. So far, atleast, that is my view. That evidence stood out for me when it was presented. Ithink it will be used to argue his intentions were innocent when he accompaniedDM on the test drive with IT, and that nothing criminal happened on that testdrive, therefore, if MS accompanied DM on the TB test drive, it could be arguedhe legitimately thought they were going to buy (or worst case scenario tosteal) a truck.

I'm justthinking out loud here and I'm not sure where I'm going with this, but MS'sadmission to the 1st test drive, but no admission to the TB test (as yet) justmakes me wonder what strategy MS's lawyer has.

<rsbm>

IT picked MS out of a photo lineup, SB and WDB did not.

That back-seat passenger during that test drive, court heard through an agreed statement of facts, was Smich, who Tumanenko later picked out in a photo lineup.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6263405-tim-bosma-murder-trial-nobody-comes-to-the-hangar-today-/

 

[Yendys]

IIRC it was stated during trial the incinerator needed hydro. We speculated that is why it was hauled to the hangar. MOO.

Agreed, electricity was stated as needed for the fans/afterburner IIFC. I would expect such an expensive piece of equipment would have an electric igniter but you never know.