Bosma Murder Trial 03.07.16 - Day 20

[ArianeEmory]

Is Dungey trying to cause the jury to assume it was DM, or cause them to cast doubt on Jones' himself?

To me it reads like he saw a (pretty thin, IMO) opportunity to put the bullet and the window and DM together in the mind of the juries, in case the broken window hadn't occurred to them yet in the context of a shooting death.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 3m3 minutes ago
Dungey: if the driver shoots Mr. Bosma and window is smashed, could it go to theory driver is shooter? Suggests bullet through neck.

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 2m2 minutes ago
Dungey is focused on where the shooter would have been. Asks, if the psgrwindow is shattered, doesn't that mean the driver was the shooter?

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 2m2 minutes ago
Pillay objects. He and Jones say these are questions for a shooting deconstructionist, not a blood spatter expert.

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 2m2 minutes ago
Judge rules blood spatter expert can't opine on gunshot scenarios #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 2m2 minutes ago
Judge says he will not accept the question and orders Dungey to move on. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 59s60 seconds ago
Dungey: asking if driver shoots Mr. Bosma, blood would come back toward driver? Jones says there would be some back spatter, yes.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 24s25 seconds ago
Jones says there was not back spatter into that area.

 

[DeepWoodsOff]

Doing a little Googling and came across this....been trying to figure out if it really matters who pulled the trigger if both were there...

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Parties

The interesting part...
[h=3]Section 21(1)(a): Commits[edit][/h]A person "actually commits" an offence when he does some act "towards the commission of the offence" with requisite mens rea or uses an agent to commit it.
This means that where there is multiple people all doing some act together towards the shared achievement of the offence, each is actually committing the offence as a "joint principle offender".[SUP][1][/SUP]
This means that where it is proven that where it is proven that multiple people acted with an intention to commit murder, it is "legally irrelevant" to determine who pulled the trigger.[SUP][2][/SUP]

 

[swedie]

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 15m15 minutes ago
"We've got a casing here and you're stain guy, and you're telling us you're not going to note it in your book?" Dungey says

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 9m9 minutes ago
Dungey asking about if the driver "shot Mr. Bosma" that it would smash the window out.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 5m5 minutes ago
Dungey is now done his cross examination. The Crown is reexamining.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 1m1 minute ago
Jones says he is trained as a shooting reconstructionist, but he hasn't been qualified by the court to give an opinion on that.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 58s58 seconds ago
Justice Goodman asking the jury and the witness to step out for a moment.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 3m3 minutes ago
Dungey: if the driver shoots Mr. Bosma and window is smashed, could it go to theory driver is shooter? Suggests bullet through neck.

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 2m2 minutes ago
Dungey is focused on where the shooter would have been. Asks, if the psgrwindow is shattered, doesn't that mean the driver was the shooter?

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 2m2 minutes ago
Pillay objects. He and Jones say these are questions for a shooting deconstructionist, not a blood spatter expert.

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 2m2 minutes ago
Judge rules blood spatter expert can't opine on gunshot scenarios #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 2m2 minutes ago
Judge says he will not accept the question and orders Dungey to move on. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 59s60 seconds ago
Dungey: asking if driver shoots Mr. Bosma, blood would come back toward driver? Jones says there would be some back spatter, yes.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 24s25 seconds ago
Jones says there was not back spatter into that area.

But how would Jones know there was no back spatter from an entry wound, when the seats were gone and he didn't have access to the clothes DM was wearing that night (assuming he was the one who fired the gun)?? There would have been nothing to test to determine that.

 

[DeepWoodsOff]

But how would Jones know there was no back spatter from an entry wound, when the seats were gone and he didn't have access to the clothes DM was wearing that night (assuming he was the one who fired the gun)?? There would have been nothing to test to determine that.

Crown is re-examining the witness...I wouldn't be surprised if this is asked. If some of us thought of that exact thing, I would hope the prosecution did as well.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 1m1 minute ago
Jones did not try to reconstruct any blood patterns because there were too few without the front seats or truck carpeting.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 6m6 minutes ago
Leitch is reexamine ingredients Jones. Showing him photo of inside #Bosma truck taken in April 2013. Shows carpet.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 5m5 minutes ago
Jones says it would take a lot of blood to soak through carpet to get in floor underneath.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 3m3 minutes ago
Crown reexamines. Asks Jones if he is a shooting reconstructionist. Trained in it yes, but not qualified as an expert on that today. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 2m2 minutes ago
Final words from witness while jury was still in is that he's had some training in shooting reconstruction.

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 2m2 minutes ago
Jones testified that he does have training in shooting reconstruction

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 2m2 minutes ago
Crown is done reexamining. Judge asks jury to step out a moment. #Bosma

Now on recess until 3:05 pm - quick! gets some work done

 

[swedie]

Back at 3:00pm. Recess.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 3m3 minutes ago
Now taking the afternoon recess for 20 mins.

 

[Abitcountry]

The defense is fully aware of the legalities posted in #143 and #144 so this whole line of questioning is all about a bit of smoke and mirrors. I just believe that this jury has been sharpening their skills to make the distinctions just as we are here !!!!

 

[Gibson67]

Doing a little Googling and came across this....been trying to figure out if it really matters who pulled the trigger if both were there...

https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Law/Parties

The interesting part...
[h=3]Section 21(1)(a): Commits[edit][/h]A person "actually commits" an offence when he does some act "towards the commission of the offence" with requisite mens rea or uses an agent to commit it.
This means that where there is multiple people all doing some act together towards the shared achievement of the offence, each is actually committing the offence as a "joint principle offender".[SUP][1][/SUP]
This means that where it is proven that where it is proven that multiple people acted with an intention to commit murder, it is "legally irrelevant" to determine who pulled the trigger.[SUP][2][/SUP]

but if the defense is trying to prove there was no intent to murder then this would be important to determine who was the shooter no?

 

[swedie]

AC seems to be slipping. Not giving us as much detail in his tweets lately. SC is doing a great job providing details. JMO.

 

[Gibson67]

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 59s60 seconds ago
Dungey: asking if driver shoots Mr. Bosma, blood would come back toward driver? Jones says there would be some back spatter, yes.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 24s25 seconds ago
Jones says there was not back spatter into that area.

so is Jones saying that it's not the driver that is the shooter? Is there backspatter in the back seat area?

 

[SnooperDuper]

Chemical sprays called leucomalichite green and luminol were used to test areas on the truck for blood, court heard. The chemicals react with the hemoglobin in human blood, even if blood can't be seen with the naked eye. One makes blood turn green, while the other makes blood glow in the dark.

Court was shown a photo of the truck's bed after it had been treated with luminol. It was glowing all over.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...t-happened-inside-truck-expert-says-1.3479265

 

[Abitcountry]

But how would Jones know there was no back spatter from an entry wound, when the seats were gone and he didn't have access to the clothes DM was wearing that night (assuming he was the one who fired the gun)?? There would have been nothing to test to determine that.

No spatter on the steering wheel or driver's door or in the area of driver's dashboard ...I am wondering

 

[swedie]

but if the defense is trying to prove there was no intent to murder then this would be important to determine who was the shotter no?

There was premeditation of stealing a truck by both parties. MS told MM and DM told his house mate prior to May 6, 2013, they were going to steal a truck. According to the law, it doesn't matter who pulled the trigger killing Tim, they are both culpable. MOO.

 

[DeepWoodsOff]

but if the defense is trying to prove there was no intent to murder then this would be important to determine who was the shooter no?

Exactly! It supports the theory that one or the other is going to say their client only thought they were stealing a truck...the shooting was a surprise to them! MOO

 

[SnooperDuper]

Wondering why DM, genius, did not pour bleach in the power washer to destroy the blood (Does that work? They use bleach for that on TV)

 

[Gibson67]

There was premeditation of stealing a truck by both parties. MS told MM and DM told his house mate prior to May 6, 2013, they were going to steal a truck. According to the law, it doesn't matter who pulled the trigger killing Tim, they are both culpable. MOO.

I agree but if one can prove there was no premeditation to murder and defense can create doubt about one of the accused having no idea the other had a gun or was going to shoot someone..would one possibly only get second degree?

 

[brightii]

Exactly! It supports the theory that one or the other is going to say their client only thought they were stealing a truck...the shooting was a surprise to them! MOO

Surely if this is what DM or MS is going to postulate, one of them will have to take the stand to explain such a position, IMO.

If the Crown present the totality of the evidence without placing either DM or MS as the shooter specifically, but instead rely on the relationship of all of the circumstantial evidence, I would think the Crown will have successfully made their case beyond all reasonable doubt and then one or the other - or both - of the accused would have to say something to challenge the Crown's case or just take their chances and accept that they will likely both be held responsible and therefore convicted of the crime, IMO.

If either defense for MS or DM rests without saying something to counter the Crown's case, I think both are doomed, IMO. They will be foolish to think the jury would come to the conclusion that neither of them killed TB, IMO, once all the evidence is presented. I keep thinking big picture, and I hope the jury is too.

All MOO.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Surely if this is what DM or MS is going to postulate, one of them will have to take the stand to explain such a position, IMO.

If the Crown present the totality of the evidence without placing either DM or MS as the shooter specifically, but instead rely on the relationship of all of the circumstantial evidence, I would think the Crown will have successfully made their case beyond all reasonable doubt and then one or the other - or both - of the accused would have to say something to challenge the Crown's case or just take their chances and accept that they will likely both be held responsible and therefore convicted of the crime, IMO.

If either defense for MS or DM rests without saying something to counter the Crown's case, I think both are doomed, IMO. They will be foolish to think the jury would come to the conclusion that neither of them killed TB, IMO, once all the evidence is presented. I keep thinking big picture, and I hope the jury is too.

All MOO.

I think DM and Ms hope that their supporters will speak in court for them - many will be witnesses.