Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #1

[EspressoBean]

Those are the only public video cameras. There are quite likely security cameras on some of the private properties along that road.

 

[EspressoBean]

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

I think evidence points to there not being a "donut" and the Tim Hortons was just a story the suspects gave to TB.

 

[iknowhim2]

I really do think the Crown's opening statement says it all. After all the investigative work done, all the cell phone records pulled, interviews, video, photo and forensic evidence, statements, etc., they've every reason to believe the ONLY two people directly involved in the death of Tim Bosma, are the two people on trial right now. Obviously there are others that knew more than they let on, at the time, and others that helped do this or that either before or after the fact, but the ONLY two directly responsible, are DM and MS.

And both should rot in a cage for the remainder of their natural lives. Its the only rational option for a civilized society.

This could very well be WORDING and not that there wasn't a third person. Was the 3rd person directly involved in the murder, maybe not. Were they directly involved in his death, maybe not. Is this a matter of wording and it will come out that possibly CN was involved as the 3rd person when she testifies?

 

[Alethea Dice]

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.

It's my understanding that GSR is projected in a conical sphere. If the back seat passenger is leaning over the seat, his hand is right beside the driver.

http://www.firearmsid.com/a_distancegsr.htm

 

[Ontario Mom]

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

I honestly don't think there ever was a Donut. But, it's certainly possible there was - and if there was - the Crown will present evidence or a witness to establish that.

 

[Tamarind]

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:

Everyone I have spoken with about this case have said that there is something not right about it. Or that something doesn't add up.

 

[Tamarind]

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.

Not to me. Residue can be blown back or it can also be everywhere in a confined space. A person sitting diagonally from the front passenger in the back seat would have perfect aim and likely hit the window too. It appears that MS prints have been removed or he wore gloves. It has been confirmed that he was in the back seat, so where are his fingerprints?

 

[Ontario Mom]

Those are the only public video cameras. There are quite likely security cameras on some of the private properties along that road.

Agreed, there are numerous possible locations along that road for residential and businesses alike to have security cameras. We just don't know which one (location) LE is going by.

 

[EspressoBean]

This could very well be WORDING and not that there wasn't a third person. Was the 3rd person directly involved in the murder, maybe not. Were they directly involved in his death, maybe not. Is this a matter of wording and it will come out that possibly CN was involved as the 3rd person when she testifies?

CN was charged with being an accessory on May 9th. There are no charges against her for the date of the murder so I don't expect her testimony will say otherwise. There were press conferences at the time that LE said that they no longer believed there was a third party involved. It leads me to think they have evidence showing who was in both of those vehicles that night.

 

[Alethea Dice]

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.

This confuses me. Why would he lean over the high part of the seat when he could easily go through the large space between the seats?

 

[amis_]

CN was charged with being an accessory on May 9th. There are no charges against her for the date of the murder so I don't expect her testimony will say otherwise. There were press conferences at the time that LE said that they no longer believed there was a third party involved. It leads me to think they have evidence showing who was in both of those vehicles that night.

Agreed. I believe her charges would not only be accessory after the fact if she was involved in dropping them off, even if she agreed to testify. I also believe the Crown would have mentioned that in the opening statements.

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Tamarind]

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).

My guess is that MS was sitting in the centre of the back seat initially. It would give him a good vantage point to talk to both in the front seats and to have direct access to a phone that TB may have put to his ear, far easier for someone in that position to grab a phone than someone who is driving IMO. It also gives full view to passenger in order to put gun to head and blow out passenger window. Of course we have no idea whether someone else met them, and jumped in the truck. We also dont know if anyone in the truck had left the test drive leaving the rest in the truck. JMO

 

[inbetweendoors]

There was no database. Police traced TBs phone records which led them to the Bate phone. The Bate phone led to Igor. Igor told them about the ambition tattoo. Police published the info about the tattoo and two different sources called in and mentioned DM. In fact all that has already been testified to.

Catching up so apologies if this has been addressed - but YES, the police had the tattoo info from DM's contact card. The police had stopped DM for something or other and took down details about him. I don't agree with the practice, but it appears to have been a good thing in this case.

 

[Tamarind]

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.

Many people in Ontario may be choosing to wait and see any evidence of facts before forming any opinion. I'm hoping thats the case. JMO

 

[Tamarind]

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.

How do we know where it was exactly fired from. Do you have a link?

 

[MsSherlock]

AJ did say MS was often at the hangar and his SIL . Sounds like quite a few people likely had knowledge of the equipment and anything else DM owned or was connected to.

Not sure about that- just going on AJ's testimony where he said that MS and MS's gf sometimes came with DM and worked at the hangar and that AJ saw MS on the 8th with DM at the hangar.

AJ did say that it was well known that you did not go to the hangar after hours. IMHO, MS would only be where DM wanted him to be. IIRC, MS didn't have any form of transportation so his visits to the Hangar seem to be DM driven. If DM kept the incinerator at the farm, IMO, the only way MS would get there would be by DM. Maybe MS did know that DM had an incinerator and maybe he even helped DM with it in the past- still doesn't negate DM's involvement on during the early morning hours of the 7th. The Crown says they have "video"- not eye witness accounts, no innuendo, they're saying "video evidence" showing DM & MS in the hangar while the incinerator was burning just outside the hangar. That's pretty hard to explain, isn't it? AJ also said under oath that the only people who worked at the hangar were SS, himself, sometimes another guy and the Columbian contractors who were doing work on the hangar. MOO

 

[SnooperDuper]

This confuses me. Why would he lean over the high part of the seat when he could easily go through the large space between the seats?

It's just ridiculous to think someone worked his way through that tight area and put the gun in a position where the residue ended up on the driver's side.

Isn't the clearest, most obvious solution that DM shot TB?

I don't really think it's possible for the residue to be on the driver's side after a shot from behind because the seats limit a backseat's shooter's mobility and range so much.

I don't understand why some people think it's so important to have the tunnel vision that MS was the assailant.

I think MS was only the getaway driver.

 

[amis_]

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/tag/matthew-ward-jackson

Let's not forget MWJ was allegedly selling guns to DM and not MS. However I've been thinking and there must be a reason that both DM and MS came for the test drive. If there was no third driver and MS got out of the truck to drive the Yukon, why didn't he just wait in the Yukon and let DM go get Tim and the truck?

Sent from my SM-G900W8 using Tapatalk

 

[EspressoBean]

Many people in Ontario may be choosing to wait and see any evidence of facts before forming any opinion. I'm hoping thats the case. JMO

I think the evidence of facts is what the current opinions are based on. I think it would be hard to not have an opinion based on the facts presented in court so far and the facts previously revealed.
What I think should be the case is that people are open to change their opinions if different facts, or strong evidence was shown that would somehow disprove what is already known.
Making an opinion is something that anyone does based on information they have. For example, if a woman was found alone and beaten and her boyfriend was found with broken knuckles and blood on him and proven to be in the same place when it happened, it would be hard for a reasonable person to not form some opinion to believe that he was responsible. Evidence would need to be presented to change that opinion or convict him but I don't think more evidence would be needed at the time for an average person to naturally form an opinion.
MHO

 

[missberry]

This could very well be WORDING and not that there wasn't a third person. Was the 3rd person directly involved in the murder, maybe not. Were they directly involved in his death, maybe not. Is this a matter of wording and it will come out that possibly CN was involved as the 3rd person when she testifies?

If that was so, wouldn't she have been arrested earlier then 1 year later?

Edit- now that I'm caught up I see others said the same thing