Ontario Mom
stay safe ♥ be kind
- Joined
- May 21, 2013
- Messages
- 17,777
- Reaction score
- 137,319
After all the details this week, I decided to go back and refresh my brain on the Crown's opening statement.
"The Crown intends to prove that on this date in the late evening hours, Tim Bosma was killed in his truck, shot by the two accused at close range, while on a test drive with his truck; his body then incinerated hours later by the two accused."
The bolded is what really stands out to me. If there were some other murder weapon, such as a box cutter, it would have been entered into evidence, completely taken apart, thoroughly tested for blood/dna/fingerprints etc. But the Crown's opening statement says nothing about a box cutter at all. Not to mention, last time I checked, a box cutter doesn't shatter a window.
The other part that stands out to me is that the Crown intends to prove that BOTH of them shot Tim. I don't know how that works - unless both of them did actually, literally, physically fire the gun that killed him? Or - because both were there and the shooting happened in the commission of both the stealing of the truck AND Tim's forcible confinement - they can both be charged with murder? I know this has already been discussed but it sort of bugs me not knowing for sure.
Then there's this part from the Crown:
"Significant amounts of gunshot residue were found on the inside of the truck, with especially high concentrations in the front seat area, both passenger side ceiling and driver’s side ceiling."
That makes it really, really clear to me that the gun was fired from the FRONT of the truck, not the back seat. The reason this part stands out to me is that after all the exhaustive investigation, all the lab work, all the test results, all the witness statements, etc., the statement says "the Crown intends to prove" which tells me they're absolutely confident they know exactly what happened in that truck that night. They're not speculating or giving an opinion - they're basing what they know on facts, and evidence. Yet, there are still some that more or less opine that the Crown is wrong, or somehow mistaken, or, something. That's rather baffling to me. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion but when there is physical evidence, cold hard facts, and proof that contradict that opinion, it seems odd one would still hold to it (and this happens in all cases I'm sure, not just this one). Oddly enough, even the defense (so far) isn't really questioning or disputing the statements or evidence that has been entered or given.
Just some random thoughts. moo & such.
"The Crown intends to prove that on this date in the late evening hours, Tim Bosma was killed in his truck, shot by the two accused at close range, while on a test drive with his truck; his body then incinerated hours later by the two accused."
The bolded is what really stands out to me. If there were some other murder weapon, such as a box cutter, it would have been entered into evidence, completely taken apart, thoroughly tested for blood/dna/fingerprints etc. But the Crown's opening statement says nothing about a box cutter at all. Not to mention, last time I checked, a box cutter doesn't shatter a window.
The other part that stands out to me is that the Crown intends to prove that BOTH of them shot Tim. I don't know how that works - unless both of them did actually, literally, physically fire the gun that killed him? Or - because both were there and the shooting happened in the commission of both the stealing of the truck AND Tim's forcible confinement - they can both be charged with murder? I know this has already been discussed but it sort of bugs me not knowing for sure.
Then there's this part from the Crown:
"Significant amounts of gunshot residue were found on the inside of the truck, with especially high concentrations in the front seat area, both passenger side ceiling and driver’s side ceiling."
That makes it really, really clear to me that the gun was fired from the FRONT of the truck, not the back seat. The reason this part stands out to me is that after all the exhaustive investigation, all the lab work, all the test results, all the witness statements, etc., the statement says "the Crown intends to prove" which tells me they're absolutely confident they know exactly what happened in that truck that night. They're not speculating or giving an opinion - they're basing what they know on facts, and evidence. Yet, there are still some that more or less opine that the Crown is wrong, or somehow mistaken, or, something. That's rather baffling to me. Of course everyone is entitled to their own opinion but when there is physical evidence, cold hard facts, and proof that contradict that opinion, it seems odd one would still hold to it (and this happens in all cases I'm sure, not just this one). Oddly enough, even the defense (so far) isn't really questioning or disputing the statements or evidence that has been entered or given.
Just some random thoughts. moo & such.
