Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #6

[billandrew]

Forgive me if this has been answered already, but I'm curious about why both DM and MS both have pictures of what I'm assuming is the same gun. Did they share it? Did one sell it to the other? Does anyone remember what order the photos were in?

Pics 1 & 2: Found on DM's computer. Taken on February 14, 2012 near near DM's residence in Etobicoke. DM's finger in photo.



Pic 3: Found in backup of MS's iPad. Taken on August 3, 2012, location not provided. Appears to be MS holding the gun.



Pic 4: Found on CN's laptop, iPhone Backup - iMessage of September 22, 2012. Picture sent to Noudga.



Source: Exhibit #84 (PowerPoint slides)

 

[Juballee]

Pics 1 & 2: Found on DM's computer. Taken on February 14, 2012 near near DM's residence in Etobicoke. DM's finger in photo.

Pic 3: Found in backup of MS's iPad. Taken on August 3, 2012, location not provided. Appears to be MS holding the gun.

Pic 4: Found on CN's laptop, iPhone Backup - iMessage of September 22, 2012. Picture sent to Noudga.

Source: Exhibit #84 (PowerPoint slides)

Thanks, Billandrew! Just to be clear, the last photo was sent on Sept 22 2012 or backed up on that date, do you know?

It almost appears to me like they may have been sharing the gun. Or it belongs to one and the other likes to take their picture with it.

Editted to Add:

Now that I am looking at the first two photos again, they seem more the type of photos someone would take when they were recording information, I think that is why the close up of the writing and the clip, to show what type of clip to buy in the future or to research the model of the gun. The third photo may be instructional, it appears to be a close up of the little red button. I guess I was expecting more posing with a gun type photos, like MWJ or kids you see on TV.

All my opinion only.

 

[billandrew]

IMO the gun looks well worn. I assume it's the same gun in each pic but that's not necessarily true. Who knows what its history is, not just in DM's and MS's hands but also with any previous owners.

 

[billandrew]

Thanks, Billandrew! Just to be clear, the last photo was sent on Sept 22 2012 or backed up on that date, do you know?

The exhibit just says "iPhone Backup - iMessage of September 22, 2012". The original picture could have been taken at an earlier date.

 

[billandrew]

Photos taken with prohibited firearms, large incinerator purchased and hidden away in a barn, stolen vehicles, people disappearing, people getting shot, etc. I cannot wait to hear the defense's side of this story.

 

[MsSherlock]

Thanks, Billandrew! Just to be clear, the last photo was sent on Sept 22 2012 or backed up on that date, do you know?

It almost appears to me like they may have been sharing the gun. Or it belongs to one and the other likes to take their picture with it.

Editted to Add:

Now that I am looking at the first two photos again, they seem more the type of photos someone would take when they were recording information, I think that is why the close up of the writing and the clip, to show what type of clip to buy in the future or to research the model of the gun. The third photo may be instructional, it appears to be a close up of the little red button. I guess I was expecting more posing with a gun type photos, like MWJ or kids you see on TV.

All my opinion only.

IMO, DM & MS seemed to be big buds, so I'm assuming that this gun or any gun for that matter could have been shared for photo ops, used by either, purchased by one and then disposed of by the other. The sharing possibilities are endless. I personally can't see how it matters who actually had ownership of this particular gun- after all, it wasn't a registered hand gun. Neither DM or MS had a PAL and this particular gun appears to be of significance in this case.

The evidence presented thus far show a couple of low lives acting in tandem with each other. They were just slinking around like wolves in sheep's clothing.

That leads me to the hierarchy of their relationship. There's so much that indicates that DM was the psychopathic ring leader. Phone calls for test drives- DM, lead man on test drives- DM, lead man in the hangar video- DM, computers, pics and backups- DM, jail house interviews- DM, taking truck to MB's- DM, writing to GF to tamper with evidence- DM, stares in court- DM. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... IMO, DM is the alpha psychopath in all of this and it doesn't matter who's gun it is and who shot TB. It was cold blooded premeditated murder by both of them and the Southern Ontario area is a much safer place with them behind bars. MOO

 

[MsSherlock]

In reviewing the cellphone deck, I notice DM had communication happening with his ex with a call even originating close to where the ex lived. Got me wondering if DM was hoping that JS could hold onto some evidence for him or wondering if DM and JS were still a number. I'm curious if JS will appear on the stand to explain the communication. MOO

 

[JuneBug67]

Thanks, Billandrew! Just to be clear, the last photo was sent on Sept 22 2012 or backed up on that date, do you know?

It almost appears to me like they may have been sharing the gun. Or it belongs to one and the other likes to take their picture with it.

Editted to Add:

Now that I am looking at the first two photos again, they seem more the type of photos someone would take when they were recording information, I think that is why the close up of the writing and the clip, to show what type of clip to buy in the future or to research the model of the gun. The third photo may be instructional, it appears to be a close up of the little red button. I guess I was expecting more posing with a gun type photos, like MWJ or kids you see on TV.

All my opinion only.

I agree that the first three pictures at least look...functional, for lack of a better word. Although it is yet unproven it's worth remembering that police allege that it was Millard who bought the gun he is accused of murdering his father with, from Matthew Ward-Jackson. What that might tell us about this gun and it's ownership I guess we can't say. I can note that thus far when one is looking for indications of who the prime mover in any particular event might be, it's hard to remember a time that it's come up MS. It really does appear at this point to be the Dellen Millard show, starring Mark Smich and featuring Christina Noudga.

 

[billandrew]

In reviewing the cellphone deck, I notice DM had communication happening with his ex with a call even originating close to where the ex lived. Got me wondering if DM was hoping that JS could hold onto some evidence for him or wondering if DM and JS were still a number. I'm curious if JS will appear on the stand to explain the communication. MOO

Do we know for sure that was his ex? What if she had a brother or relative who was friends with DM?

 

[Abitcountry]

When the back and forth on WS gets intense or confusing as it sometimes does....I find myself going back to Judge Goodman's instructions to the jurors for a refresher.....
He clearly reminded them that they were not lawyers or investigators .....they were to listen carefully to the evidence and the facts as presented to them....and they were to use good common sense in weighing the evidence. The jurors are faced with making a decision based on that which is presented by the Crown's stream of experts and the challenges as presented by the defense....and then come to to their final decision. They have been hand selected and (we have to trust) are up to the challenge.
Discussions that have become 'hot topics' for WSers may be nonexistent for the jurors......and while the trial has generated great conversation and endless debate, in the end, I am so grateful that we have the judicial system that we do...and the final decision is not in our hands. IMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

I'm really not sure why this is such a large issue for some sleuthers here that I am interested to see the same texts talked about on the stand in the exhibit presenting texts, as well as the exhibit presenting only SH's texts, but to me, they can't have it both ways. MOO. If the evidence is useless, then SH wouldnt' have been on the stand presenting his evidence, and his texts with DM wouldn't be submitted as an evidence exhibit.

If it wasn't useless, then those same texts, one might assume, would also be seen on the earlier cellphone exhibit, and in fact, one of them was for sure, but it has now somehow disappeared, from what I can see, from the version available on Sunday online. I can't explain that, but as a sleuther who wants to know it all, I do find it disturbing. Can an exhibit be changed once it is registered as a numbered exhibit? No idea. If the texts are inadmissible, they have just gone and added a batch of texts, including one of the same texts, to the evidence. The exhibit#37 did not contain anything inadmissable, imo. The cell numbers only had 4 digits, identities were protected, other than those of the main players which were listed on the exhibit (IIRC). The exhibits were already posted publicly.

BBM

I do not believe an exhibit can be changed, at least not without testimony about a change that was deemed neccesary, and that was not done in this case. The link ABro provided in her post #300 is the same one as I provided and also has the SH text on it. Unless you can provide a link, there is no altered exhibit that does not show that text IMO.

The cell phone exhibit was to show the movement of the two accused during the days leading up to the murder and the days after the murder. It was not intended to show every text or communication between them and any witness who may take the stand. That will be done when the witness takes the stand, as we saw in the case of SH.

MOO

Apparently, a posted exhibit can be changed/corrected and reposted online. For example, in the computer evidence slides, a file folder was originally included with a person's name on it who had another hearing in a different court at a different time. Many here saw the original slide, as many people were discussing it here with links to the other case. The slide in question is slide #36 here - https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1C9QrBmRsChLRin0MCRNb7IooPPZFllXFyWyCdHr42Ho/edit?pref=2&pli=1#slide=id.p53

As you can see, the file with that person's name has now been blocked out. The reason, I'm guessing, is this:

Here is the PowerPoint for the forensic examination of computers and related electronics seized from Dellen Millard’s residence in Toronto.

I have removed five slides which I need to redact. I will post them here once the redactions are done.

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2016/03/computer-examinations-for-r-vs-millard-and-smich.html

I have no idea why that folder would need to be blocked out as I don't remember any specific tweets about it, but if it was ordered not to be released to the public for any reason, it would need to be removed from the exhibit before it was publicly posted.

It is impossible to post a link to an exhibit which has been removed and/or replaced. To post a picture of the original exhibit that was saved to one's computer is not possible either, as it may be against a publication ban. Just sayin'.

 

[NashBridges2]

When the back and forth on WS gets intense or confusing as it sometimes does....I find myself going back to Judge Goodman's instructions to the jurors for a refresher.....
He clearly reminded them that they were not lawyers or investigators .....they were to listen carefully to the evidence and the facts as presented to them....and they were to use good common sense in weighing the evidence. The jurors are faced with making a decision based on that which is presented by the Crown's stream of experts and the challenges as presented by the defense....and then come to to their final decision. They have been hand selected and (we have to trust) are up to the challenge.
Discussions that have become 'hot topics' for WSers may be nonexistent for the jurors......and while the trial has generated great conversation and endless debate, in the end, I am so grateful that we have the judicial system that we do...and the final decision is not in our hands. IMO

Great post. I'm still waiting for the 2 actual links that someone is claiming to have seen that has differences in the cell phone logs. <modsnip>

 

[ABro]

Apparently, a posted exhibit can be changed/corrected and reposted online. For example, in the computer evidence slides, a file folder was originally included with a person's name on it who had another hearing in a different court at a different time. Many here saw the original slide, as many people were discussing it here with links to the other case. The slide in question is slide #36 here - https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1C9QrBmRsChLRin0MCRNb7IooPPZFllXFyWyCdHr42Ho/edit?pref=2&pli=1#slide=id.p53

As you can see, the file with that person's name has now been blocked out. The reason, I'm guessing, is this:



http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2016/03/computer-examinations-for-r-vs-millard-and-smich.html

I have no idea why that folder would need to be blocked out as I don't remember any specific tweets about it, but if it was ordered not to be released to the public for any reason, it would need to be removed from the exhibit before it was publicly posted.

It is impossible to post a link to an exhibit which has been removed and/or replaced. To post a picture of the original exhibit that was saved to one's computer is not possible either, as it may be against a publication ban. Just sayin'.

I honestly don't have the foggiest idea what you're talking about. The name of the person in question is clearly visible in the right hand column of slide 36. Nothing related to that slide has been blocked.

https://docs.google.com/presentatio...CRNb7IooPPZFllXFyWyCdHr42Ho/edit#slide=id.p53

 

[billandrew]

Apparently, a posted exhibit can be changed/corrected and reposted online. For example, in the computer evidence slides, a file folder was originally included with a person's name on it who had another hearing in a different court at a different time. Many here saw the original slide, as many people were discussing it here with links to the other case. The slide in question is slide #36 here - https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1C9QrBmRsChLRin0MCRNb7IooPPZFllXFyWyCdHr42Ho/edit?pref=2&pli=1#slide=id.p53

As you can see, the file with that person's name has now been blocked out. The reason, I'm guessing, is this:



http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2016/03/computer-examinations-for-r-vs-millard-and-smich.html

I have no idea why that folder would need to be blocked out as I don't remember any specific tweets about it, but if it was ordered not to be released to the public for any reason, it would need to be removed from the exhibit before it was publicly posted.

It is impossible to post a link to an exhibit which has been removed and/or replaced. To post a picture of the original exhibit that was saved to one's computer is not possible either, as it may be against a publication ban. Just sayin'.

The five slides ABro removed are ones that had phone numbers of certain people in them. You can still see these slides in Adrian Humphreys's (The Mob Reporter) YouTube video of the exhibit, but the phone numbers are blocked out.

These are the only redactions. None of the folders on slide 36 are covered up as far as I can tell. The grey area over the first column is just where there would be duplication with the second column.

 

[Gibson67]

IMO, DM & MS seemed to be big buds, so I'm assuming that this gun or any gun for that matter could have been shared for photo ops, used by either, purchased by one and then disposed of by the other. The sharing possibilities are endless. I personally can't see how it matters who actually had ownership of this particular gun- after all, it wasn't a registered hand gun. Neither DM or MS had a PAL and this particular gun appears to be of significance in this case.

The evidence presented thus far show a couple of low lives acting in tandem with each other. They were just slinking around like wolves in sheep's clothing.

That leads me to the hierarchy of their relationship. There's so much that indicates that DM was the psychopathic ring leader. Phone calls for test drives- DM, lead man on test drives- DM, lead man in the hangar video- DM, computers, pics and backups- DM, jail house interviews- DM, taking truck to MB's- DM, writing to GF to tamper with evidence- DM, stares in court- DM. If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck... IMO, DM is the alpha psychopath in all of this and it doesn't matter who's gun it is and who shot TB. It was cold blooded premeditated murder by both of them and the Southern Ontario area is a much safer place with them behind bars. MOO

I totally get what you are saying but really Smich had nothing without DM..no job, no house, no car..so really if he had been the one to shoot Tim..where was he going to turn for help? So IMO saying DM was the ringleader, really only because he was the one who had everything at his disposal to clean up the mess. I really wonder what each of them will say when it comes time to take the stand. DM certainly didn't throw Smich under the bus when he was free for 2 weeks after DM got arrested.

 

[Abitcountry]

Today I chose to explore the sound of gunshots ....and specifically from a PPK 38 caliber. You Tube has several examples of live fire and there is a huge difference in the blast sound depending on where it is fired meaning out in the open or in an indoor space. The sound in a gun range was definitely duller type of sound....but
this I will say--there is nothing about the blast from a PPK that is just a pop !

It occurred to me that shots in the truck's extended cab containing sound absorbing seats and at least two adult male bodies and windows closed might sound very different than a shot in the truck's cab that just blew out a window.
The cadence of the sounds were identified by the expert were "boom..boom" and subsequently a single "bang"......The first sounds seem to have occured before the vehicles appear in the video and so they would have been further from the microphones in the Bobcat surveillance system. Perhaps "boom...boom" may not be the best descriptor of the sound from a pistol but the cadence seems believable as being possible gun shots.
The next sound described as "bang" as in a single shot could be taken as a followup shot under slightly altered conditions such as a window in the truck being blown out and not so well insulated and also closer to microphones. All possibilities and all believable and had I been a juror when this evidence was presented, it would not have been a huge stretch for me to come to that conclusion.

I understand that there is now a fast developing field of expertise known as forensic gunshot acoustics in which investigators focus especially on recordings of gunshots following an incident. There is a very good article online that is most informative--- Gunshot Foresnsics:What's in a Bang ? (www.the.soft.anonymous.com)
Perhaps not far enough along currently to resolve the issue in this trial but I would most definitely be holding on to the video and audio from this exhibit for the future. I wonder even now if there is a means to measure the decibel pattern of all three sounds as the can be heard.
All interesting speculation and not just personal opinion

 

[Kamille]

The five slides ABro removed are ones that had phone numbers of certain people in them. You can still see these slides in Adrian Humphreys's (The Mob Reporter) YouTube video of the exhibit, but the phone numbers are blocked out.

These are the only redactions. None of the folders on slide 36 are covered up as far as I can tell. The grey area over the first column is just where there would be duplication with the second column.

So an exhibit was not changed. Certain information was requested by the Crown to be redacted before being published. The exhibit is exactly the same, it just has certain personal info covered that was not covered when presented in court? For privacy concerns?

MOO

 

[Kamille]

I totally get what you are saying but really Smich had nothing without DM..no job, no house, no car..so really if he had been the one to shoot Tim..where was he going to turn for help? So IMO saying DM was the ringleader, really only because he was the one who had everything at his disposal to clean up the mess. I really wonder what each of them will say when it comes time to take the stand. DM certainly didn't throw Smich under the bus when he was free for 2 weeks after DM got arrested.

MS didn't want the truck, DM did. The whole truck theft plan was his idea, for his personal gain. He was the "ringleader" IMO.

MOO

 

[ABro]

So an exhibit was not changed. Certain information was requested by the Crown to be redacted before being published. The exhibit is exactly the same, it just has certain personal info covered that was not covered when presented in court? For privacy concerns?

MOO

BIngo. Standard issue pub ban for privacy reasons. Unredacted exhibit can be seen by anyone who cares to go to the courthouse and request the file, but all they'll get is a bunch of phone numbers.

 

[JuneBug67]

Today I chose to explore the sound of gunshots ....and specifically from a PPK 38 caliber. You Tube has several examples of live fire and there is a huge difference in the blast sound depending on where it is fired meaning out in the open or in an indoor space. The sound in a gun range was definitely duller type of sound....but
this I will say--there is nothing about the blast from a PPK that is just a pop !

It occurred to me that shots in the truck's extended cab containing sound absorbing seats and at least two adult male bodies and windows closed might sound very different than a shot in the truck's cab that just blew out a window.
The cadence of the sounds were identified by the expert were "boom..boom" and subsequently a single "bang"......The first sounds seem to have occured before the vehicles appear in the video and so they would have been further from the microphones in the Bobcat surveillance system. Perhaps "boom...boom" may not be the best descriptor of the sound from a pistol but the cadence seems believable as being possible gun shots.
The next sound described as "bang" as in a single shot could be taken as a followup shot under slightly altered conditions such as a window in the truck being blown out and not so well insulated and also closer to microphones. All possibilities and all believable and had I been a juror when this evidence was presented, it would not have been a huge stretch for me to come to that conclusion.

I understand that there is now a fast developing field of expertise known as forensic gunshot acoustics in which investigators focus especially on recordings of gunshots following an incident. There is a very good article online that is most informative--- Gunshot Foresnsics:What's in a Bang ? (www.the.soft.anonymous.com)
Perhaps not far enough along currently to resolve the issue in this trial but I would most definitely be holding on to the video and audio from this exhibit for the future. I wonder even now if there is a means to measure the decibel pattern of all three sounds as the can be heard.
All interesting speculation and not just personal opinion

It's a reasonable supposition that something happened to prompt the stop at the Bobcat. It's hard to figure how or why that stop would have been planned. IF the stop was related to the sounds there has to be a limited number of possibilities. Planned or unplanned gunshot(s) have to be considered. I wonder what a tire blowing out would sound like? I wonder if the acoustics there would have set up an echo? Perhaps one boom and an echoed boom, followed by a bang? I just imagined a tire blowing, freaking out the idiot holding the gun, who discharges the weapon. I realize how wildly thin that speculation is. LOL.