Bosma Murder Trial 03.08.16 - Day 21

[marycanuck]

CN has to show up in court and testify. Nothing she says can be used against her at her own trial unless she perjures herself.

The charge against her is the same as it's always been. The Crown opposed her bail.

Again, what incentive does the Crown have to make a deal with CN in your opinion? It takes two to make a deal not just one.

Perhaps there is an agreement to accept a plea to a lesser charge at the time of her trial IF she testifies? Not sure how those things work, though, JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

Yes...he certainly armed himself with a state of the art solution to that pesky problem of how to get rid of a body once you feel the need to eliminate someone that has become a problem or an obstacle. And we are assuming, that it was purchased for just that purpose when he found himself with a body that needed disposing of. But that doesn't mean that he absolutely intended to kill the owner of the truck that he was planning on stealing. However that would certainly have been his immediate go to plan once he did find himself, yet again, with a body that needed disposing of.

MOO

See we have the luxury of knowing that DM purchased the incinerator to dispose of LB.

The jury has been told nothing more than the fact that DM owned an incinerator and that he put it into action within hours of abducting and killing TB.

Even if they know more, they are asked not to consider more. Only that DM had an incinerator, that DM abducted a man and in incredibly short order, killed him and incinerated his body.

From that perspective, does the crime look more or less premeditated?

 

[ABro]

Perhaps there is an agreement to accept a plea to a lesser charge at the time of her trial IF she testifies? Not sure how those things work, though, JMO

She has to testify. She has no choice.

 

[brightii]

Perhaps there is an agreement to accept a plea to a lesser charge at the time of her trial IF she testifies? Not sure how those things work, though, JMO

:welcome4: marycanuck!

I think what ABro is saying is that CN was already charged with accessory to TB's murder after the fact and those charges were not reduced on the proviso that she testify in this case. So no deals were made with her and had a deal been made it would have to be disclosed by the Crown.

I hope I am understanding Abro's explanations above correctly. I'm certainly no expert on the law or how charges are laid or deals and reduced charges, but in any case, I look forward to your input here with us.

All MOO.

 

[Stratocaster]

What was the past testimony on the glass/broken window that we know already? Here's what I can recall:
- majority of window shattered and remained recessed in door
- no testimony of GSR of blood spatter on shattered glass removed by LE
- no mention of glass on dash/console/passengers door pocket from LE forensics
- I believe glass WAS discovered at front seat burn site (charred rectangle in corn field)

... Please correct or add if I've missed things

 

[Sphinx]

:welcome4: marycanuck!

I think what ABro is saying is that CN was already charged with accessory to TB's murder after the fact and those charges were not reduced on the proviso that she testify in this case. So no deals were made with her and had a deal been made it would have to be disclosed by the Crown.

together. IMO

I hope I am understanding Abro's explanations above correctly. I'm certainly no expert on the law or how charges are laid or deals and reduced charges, but in any case, I look forward to your input here with us.

All MOO.

I remember seeing a photo of CM as she left jail after finally being granted bail. She had large sun glasses on, and the hood of a hoodie was up, but what I remember as quite compelling was the "mona lisa like smile". She looked like the cat who swallowed the canary. I also think she and DM were well matched as attractive, successful, little psychopaths, and it is a very good thing LE caught them when they did, or these two might have had quite a criminal career

 

[Wollander77]

That info is at the bottom of each pg, so anyone can see it.

Only those who are members of the community, far as I know When I first visited the site, completely by accident, I didn't have direct access to the numbers at the time. I thought it was helpful to know at least a hundred people were invested in sifting through the mountains of info the jury has to process every week, so thanks to those who've kept us updated.

On the topic of whether the murder had been premeditated... this might be too far a stretch of an analogy, so sorry in advance, but I might liken my feelings on the matter to when I first encountered the argument that Hitler was simply a patriotic statesman doing his best to weather a weakened economy rather than the ego-maniacal, people-butchering dictator that we knew him as. Maybe it's just the banality of evil that's preventing me from considering that TB's murder was the "simple" result of a robbery gone wrong.

It just sickens me to the core. I suppose the death of an innocent man does to you. I'll do my best to review the evidence as it comes, but it'll take quite a bit to disavow my biases regarding DM and MS's intent, if not potential preparation, to kill. MOO, for now.

 

[marycanuck]

She has to testify. She has no choice.

Understood - might it be possible that she has been informally advised, or it has been suggested to her, that the nature of her testimony could lead the crown to support the low end of the range should she come to trial/be sentenced?

MOO

 

[ADAWG]

Understood - might it be possible that she has been informally advised, or it has been suggested to her, that the nature of her testimony could lead the crown to support the low end of the range should she come to trial/be sentenced?

MOO

I think there is more than enough evidence to lock these guys up that her testimony won't be the make or break of the case. I also think the crown has pieced things together in way that if she lies on the stand it'll be obvious. They know her role in this. I can't see why the crown would cut a deal for the sake of cutting it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ABro]

Understood - might it be possible that she has been informally advised, or it has been suggested to her, that the nature of her testimony could lead the crown to support the low end of the range should she come to trial/be sentenced?

MOO

Again, in your hypothetical, what incentive does the Crown have to support the low end of a sentence?

Pleas are made when it is in both parties' interest, not just one party's interest.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Understood - might it be possible that she has been informally advised, or it has been suggested to her, that the nature of her testimony could lead the crown to support the low end of the range should she come to trial/be sentenced?

MOO

It's kinda late for her to be cooperating. She refused to cooperate with LE for nearly a year before her arrest. There's no reason for her to get a break. It's her behavior from May 2013 to April 2014 that counts.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I think there is more than enough evidence to lock these guys up that her testimony won't be the make or break of the case. I also think the crown has pieced things together in way that if she lies on the stand it'll be obvious. They know her role in this. I can't see why the crown would cut a deal for the sake of cutting it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree - her story will just be the lace edge on the tablecloth, not the fabric itself.

 

[Satchie]

What was the past testimony on the glass/broken window that we know already? Here's what I can recall:
- majority of window shattered and remained recessed in door
- no testimony of GSR of blood spatter on shattered glass removed by LE
- no mention of glass on dash/console/passengers door pocket from LE forensics
- I believe glass WAS discovered at front seat burn site (charred rectangle in corn field)

... Please correct or add if I've missed things

No mention by AJ whether the window was shattered when he saw it.

A shell casing was found in the truck, so it certainly didn't go through the window.

 

[Kamille]

See we have the luxury of knowing that DM purchased the incinerator to dispose of LB.

The jury has been told nothing more than the fact that DM owned an incinerator and that he put it into action within hours of abducting and killing TB.

Even if they know more, they are asked not to consider more. Only that DM had an incinerator, that DM abducted a man and in incredibly short order, killed him and incinerated his body.

From that perspective, does the crime look more or less premeditated?

That's true. In some aspects of the trial, the things the jury "doesn't know" could actually look more sinister with regards to just this case, however it could also be a big hindrance.

They also don't know why he owned a gun and took pictures of it. However, DM purchased the incinerator almost a year prior and the pictures of the gun were from more than a year earlier. Unless the jury is willing to make the leap that he had been planning this murder for a year or more, and without the Crown being able to show that he lied about why he purchased the incinerator, I'm afraid that whole thing may just be a confusing issue for the jury.

They know he purchased an incinerator in June 2012 through an employee, under the guise of purchasing it for MillardAir. They do not know why, nor what he or the employee told anyone as to the reason why. The Crown was unable to provide testimony as to what he told anyone. So it hinges right now on what SS is going to say about what he was told directly that it was for. Something tells me he's not going to be saying he was told it was for disposing of a body in the barn. So it's probably going to be wide open for the defense to make subtle suggestions as to what it was purchased for. And all the jury has seen is a receipt that shows it was allocated to a utilities/garbage account for MillardAir.

They are seeing pictures of a gun. They can probably reasonably deduce that it was the same gun used to kill TB. Will they make the leap to assuming that because DM or MS brought a loaded gun, that they had both been pictured with, one of them over a year earlier, to steal a truck, that they premeditated a murder with that gun? Or just an armed robbery that morphed into a murder?

And without the background info on the other charges that both are facing, will they be able to see a motive for premeditating a murder?

MOO

 

[flipflop]

BBM - I wonder what the significance of the white pickup or grey Toyota is. This was probably when they still believed a third vehicle may have been involved.

hmmm I wonder what other players in this case drive?

 

[flipflop]

That info is at the bottom of each pg, so anyone can see it.

I am not on here during the day as the tweets are being reported for us, I find the data interesting to see how many are interested in the case.

If I was not interested in the post,

I would just....
Scroll and Roll ! ! ! ! ! !

 

[Satchie]

I'm very interested in the video timings (the below is assuming MS was driving the Yukon):

8:46 Yukon passes Super Sucker
..... 2 minutes drive to Bosma home
.....17 minutes unaccounted for
9:05 Bates phone call as DM is walking up the driveway of Bosma home
... x mins at Bosma home - Sharlene's testimony is there was some chitchat, looking at the truck, getting into truck, driving slowly down the driveway
....y minutes? Pull up to Yukon, deal with TB (who at the least would be surprised and suspicious), MS transfers to Yukon.
....2 minutes drive between Bosma Home and Super Sucker.
9:20 Pass Super Sucker going other direction.

I can see why LE suspected someone else was driving the Yukon and just pulled in behind them. There's lots of time for the preparation, but almost no time after they left the Bosmas (x minutes + y minutes = 13).

 

[SnooperDuper]

That's true. In some aspects of the trial, the things the jury "doesn't know" could actually look more sinister with regards to just this case, however it could also be a big hindrance.

They also don't know why he owned a gun and took pictures of it. However, DM purchased the incinerator almost a year prior and the pictures of the gun were from more than a year earlier. Unless the jury is willing to make the leap that he had been planning this murder for a year or more, and without the Crown being able to show that he lied about why he purchased the incinerator, I'm afraid that whole thing may just be a confusing issue for the jury.

They know he purchased an incinerator in June 2012 through an employee, under the guise of purchasing it for MillardAir. They do not know why, nor what he or the employee told anyone as to the reason why. The Crown was unable to provide testimony as to what he told anyone. So it hinges right now on what SS is going to say about what he was told directly that it was for. Something tells me he's not going to be saying he was told it was for disposing of a body in the barn. So it's probably going to be wide open for the defense to make subtle suggestions as to what it was purchased for. And all the jury has seen is a receipt that shows it was allocated to a utilities/garbage account for MillardAir.

They are seeing pictures of a gun. They can probably reasonably deduce that it was the same gun used to kill TB. Will they make the leap to assuming that because DM or MS brought a loaded gun, that they had both been pictured with, one of them over a year earlier, to steal a truck, that they premeditated a murder with that gun? Or just an armed robbery that morphed into a murder?

And without the background info on the other charges that both are facing, will they be able to see a motive for premeditating a murder?

MOO

The dates of the purchases of the various tools of the crime aren't relevant in that way IMO. DM had an entire toolkit at the ready for committing this crime - it doesn't really matter when he picked up each individual item so much as he had this stuff and he chose to make use of it at a given moment.

Isn't it chilling to think that this guy had a general interest in collecting a handgun and an incinerator? What kind of person owns that stuff?

Do you think the jury cares why DM says he bought the incinerator when they have seen it used on TB?

How exactly does an armed robbery turn into a murder? Someone has to pull the trigger. Someone has to make that decision. TB grabs the gun, the shooter pulls the trigger. Did TB just preempt the shooter's intended action?

I think not having the background on the other cases makes this case stronger. I doubt they will bring the Harley into this, even. It's the story arc of abduction, murder, incineration, a breathtakingly fast flow of action on the part of DM and MS that make this seem like a planned act.

 

[Claroon]

What kind of person owns that stuff?

.

One of the videos that was on his computer shows him with what the photographer says is his, "rocket launcher." Who has that kind of thing?

 

[puppyraiser]

They had already stopped once for one of them to exit the Dodge Ram, so why the need to stop a second time for approx 10-15 minutes? Did something happen in the lead vehicle to necessitate the stop or was it also a planned stopping point?