Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #1

[matou]

Did AJ actually send the truck photos to Crimestoppers? I think he gave the VIN directly and it checked out when he called back. In the photos, I think LE could see that the truck was in a very large warehouse or garage of some kind. Maybe they could even tell it was in a hangar?

 

[Alethea Dice]

You make some good points. It may have been an accident, or possibly DM, because of his resentment, and bad temper, managed to " bump " into the old man, or " accidentally " trip him, likely smiling like a genuine guy, while he did it. With plausible deniability, his Grandfather, and Father would have protected him, and since he was a minor, not much would have happened to him in the justice system. I just find it suspicious that he has been charged with first degree murder in 3 separate cases, and this incident is in his background. If he is a serial killer, he may have started early. Most of them do. This is all speculation on my part, and my own opinion.

There was a third person working with them, an aircraft maintenance engineer who was employee at Jazz at the time. The distance looks a little far for someone to have pushed, bumped into or tripped him when his foot slipped off the edge of the grease and oil saturated platform, but feel free to read the investigation report for yourself.

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Brantford-Airport-Distribution.pdf

 

[SnooperDuper]

Did AJ actually send the truck photos to Crimestoppers? I think he gave the VIN directly and it checked out when he called back. In the photos, I think LE could see that the truck was in a very large warehouse or garage of some kind. Maybe they could even tell it was in a hangar?

I don't think he shard the photos with crimerstoppers, only KW as the location...but he later went directly to police and they would have the photos then.

 

[Factoria]

It's because the gunshot residue in the truck was in the front driver's side and front passenger side area, where DM and TB were sitting, and the window directly behind TB from DM's perspective was blown out. That points to DM being the operator of the gun.

I'm not a forensics expert, but, I think the GSR and damaged window only give perspective on the positioning of the gun at the time of shooting, not on who the shooter was. In my opinion, the close-range shooting could have been committed by either the driver or the backseat passenger, with the gun in the same position in either instance.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Re: what the jury might be thinking...

Well, if those folks are anything like the vast majority of folks on here in the last 3 years, and the vast majority of folks I've talked to around here for the last 3 years, they're probably thinking both of these vermin are equally guilty as sin. But that's just my guess. The Bosma case has been the topic of countless conversations over these last 3 years and I've yet to meet a single person who thinks either one of them may be innocent of this crime. Of course all those opinions have been shared before the Crown's opening statement and the trial started so they only knew what they'd read in the news but now that we know even more... well, I don't imagine most folks are going "wow, well now I'm pretty sure one of these guys is innocent". Nope. :notgood:

 

[Juballee]

It's because the gunshot residue in the truck was in the front driver's side and front passenger side area, where DM and TB were sitting, and the window directly behind TB from DM's perspective was blown out. That points to DM being the operator of the gun.

We don't know how many shots were fired or who shot them. In the same way that people from the backseat lean forward to engage in conversation with the front seat, a killer from the back seat could have leaned forward to make his shot. Perhaps he thought ahead enough to know that they wouldn't be able to drive with a blown out windshield and didn't want his friend in the direction of the bullet either?

In in my opinion there are still a lot of questions to be answered and it is still possible that it could have been one without the prior knowledge of the other, which would be why the Judge has instructed the jury that they can find one guilty and one not.

 

[Ontario Mom]

I'm not a forensics expert, but, I think the GSR and damaged window only give perspective on the positioning of the gun at the time of shooting, not on who the shooter was. In my opinion, the close-range shooting could have been committed by either the driver or the backseat passenger, with the gun in the same position in either instance.

I'm not an expert either but I really don't think the gun could have possibly been in the same position simply due to the location of driver & location of back seat passenger. Two completely different angles, even if the back seat passenger moved to the other side and was directly behind the driver. A significant amount of GSR would have had to be present on the ceiling of the truck in the back seat area - and from what I recall, none was. (someone can correct me if I'm wrong).

 

[Juballee]

Re: what the jury might be thinking...

Well, if those folks are anything like the vast majority of folks on here in the last 3 years, and the vast majority of folks I've talked to around here for the last 3 years, they're probably thinking both of these vermin are equally guilty as sin. But that's just my guess. The Bosma case has been the topic of countless conversations over these last 3 years and I've yet to meet a single person who thinks either one of them may be innocent of this crime. Of course all those opinions have been shared before the Crown's opening statement and the trial started so they only knew what they'd read in the news but now that we know even more... well, I don't imagine most folks are going "wow, well now I'm pretty sure one of these guys is innocent". Nope. :notgood:

It would be an injustice to have a jury that already thinks that they are guilty before they hear the evidence. Good reason for a mistrial or appeal. We don't have to treat them as if they are innocent until proven guilty, but I'm pretty sure that is the duty of the jury.

 

[Alethea Dice]

It's because the gunshot residue in the truck was in the front driver's side and front passenger side area, where DM and TB were sitting, and the window directly behind TB from DM's perspective was blown out. That points to DM being the operator of the gun.

You don't think that if the person in the back seat did the shooting, he would lean over the seat to do it? He'd just casually lean back and shoot through the headrest?

 

[Ontario Mom]

It would be an injustice to have a jury that already thinks that they are guilty before they hear the evidence. Good reason for a mistrial or appeal. We don't have to treat them as if they are innocent until proven guilty, but I'm pretty sure that is the duty of the jury.

It would be completely unrealistic to assume that the individuals on that jury don't already have an opinion one way or another. Of course they do - everyone in Ontario does. The real job of those folks is to set that opinion aside and focus directly on the evidence (which is exactly what all jurists are instructed to do). I'm confident that they will do exactly that - even if it means some of them have been persuaded in a different direction regarding one or the other (or both) of the accused.

 

[EspressoBean]

<modsnip> All are entitled to an opinion and I'm a supporter of a fair trial but it's hard for me to see the work in advocating for this guy's ignorance and innocence in this. There are two other deaths close to this man that after a year, when they were investigated, there is enough evidence to charge DM with their murders. This is a guy that was not living a life on the clean side of the law. To say he got duped into a murder and then was such a good friend, that he helped his buddy get rid of the evidence, and involve his own "business", mother, and girlfriend in the cover up.....I can't make that fit.

 

[Boudica]

Or DM says, "What have you gotten me into! Now I have to clean up your mess or it looks like I killed the guy because I'm the one looking for a truck! Give me that gun before you kill anyone else!" I could go on and on.

And again, the same could be said about DM having the right equipment on hand if all he owned was a hack saw or a kitchen knife. People use what they have. Or if no DM was on hand, I'm sure MS would have used whatever he had on hand to get rid of the body.

Most likely though it was DM who had the gun. He was the one who bought the shoulder holster.

 

[Ontario Mom]

You don't think that if the person in the back seat did the shooting, he would lean over the seat to do it? He'd just casually lean back and shoot through the headrest?

If Tim was shot by the person in the back seat, yes, that person would have likely leaned over the seat and fired towards the passenger window. If that were the case, the GSR would not be on the ceiling of the FRONT driver's side - because that wasn't where the gun was fired from.

 

[SnooperDuper]

If Tim was shot by the person in the back seat, yes, that person would have likely leaned over the seat and fired towards the passenger window. If that were the case, the GSR would not be on the ceiling of the FRONT driver's side - because that wasn't where the gun was fired from.

The other thing is that these are high seats that you'd struggle to get your elbow over and maintain control to fire

 

[Factoria]

But a backseat passenger could easily reach around the SIDE of the seat and shoot, putting the GUN in the same position that it would be if the driver did the shooting...

 

[Alethea Dice]

It would be an injustice to have a jury that already thinks that they are guilty before they hear the evidence. Good reason for a mistrial or appeal. We don't have to treat them as if they are innocent until proven guilty, but I'm pretty sure that is the duty of the jury.

I agree. Which is why they ask potential jurors questions to see if they have any bias or have already formed an opinion.

 

[inbetweendoors]

Not sure he'd want to be pulling all that weight with his older, automatic, non diesel engine. Why not just take another truck and trailer? But why put out a hundred grand or more to do so when you've got employees sitting around doing nothing who can build you a trailer cheap and you can just steal a truck? Imagine the thrill!

I think both Jeeps were modified, one more so than the other. Maybe AM was going to drive the other one in the race? I think he drove with DM in 2011?

I once thought they wanted the engine until I heard the evidence of the other trailer. Now I think they wanted the truck to use and it WAS a car jacking gone wrong. But DM is so cocky that it appears he was still willing to go forward with his plan to use the truck, just paint it and strip the numbers and replace that interior they had to remove because of a pesky murder that got in the way. Maybe just throw in a driver's seat. Judging from his other vehicles he wasn't picky about the interiors. Until he got the news from SS. That was his oh-oh moment. And the cover up began. He just ran out of time.

MOO

Just a few points from my Dodge-loving husband on some of our theories here:

1) Re-VINing a truck like Tim's would not be quick or easy - I liked someone's earlier idea that the quick-build trailer was to be used to conceal the truck while they worked on it

2) re: the Baja Jeep motorswap theory - husband says TB's diesel would be waaay too heavy for DM to want in his racing Jeep. Baja isn't just about climbing hills, there are open stretches of desert. Even if he did want the torque for hills, again the weight of the engine would cause the front end to dip and you don't want that.
Husband also says you can find similar diesel engines in lots of construction equipment (which, to me, sounds easier to thieve). I asked if DM et al would know about that and he said "well I know about it and that's just from reading about Dodge trucks"

3) Even if he DID want to motorswap, it is totally doable in under 3 weeks. Especially with the manpower and money available to DM.


I think that's all for now - I keep going to the husband with truck Qs, lol

 

[SnooperDuper]

But a backseat passenger could easily reach around the SIDE of the seat and shoot, putting the GUN in the same position that it would be if the driver did the shooting...

Why would he extend the gun so far away from himself that TB could grab and wrestle with it, force it down....and then the gunshot would not have hit the window.

In order for the backseat guy to get the gun in the position where it would have left residue in the driver's/passenger's front seat area and blown out the passenger window, the back seat gunman would have to extend the gun in full view and lose his element of surprise. Also, he wouldn't be in a position where he could easily control the gun if TB reached for it. It doesn't make sense.

 

[iknowhim2]

From that link:



What we don't know (yet) is this: where exactly along that road, video evidence picks up a vehicle following Tim's truck. If we knew the exact physical location of that video camera, that would certainly narrow it down but we don't have that - that I'm aware of?

I've never physically been on that road but I've taken my google street view guy down it a hundred times or more in the last 3 years. It looks pretty much identical to any country road in southern Ontario - houses, barns, fields, silos, creeks, ponds, driveways, laneways, field entry ways, shoulders with wide pull out areas, etc. Multiple places to pull a vehicle off the road, park and walk to wherever. Likewise, multiple places to pull over and let a passenger out to get into another vehicle. Depending on how far down the road that video camera was, it would have been ridiculously easy for them to pull off and one of them get back in the same vehicle they arrived in and keep going, before video footage ever spotted either vehicle.

There are only two walkable locations with public video cameras. Ancaster Fairgrounds and the lights at Hwy 52 and Trinity Rd.

 

[iknowhim2]

Yeah, this third person thing is seriously grasping at straws at this point. LE made it pretty clear that they didn't believe there was still a third kidnapper at large and a danger to the public. <modsnip>

Does anyone not think that CN could have been "donut"?