Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #6

[Gumshew]

On the topic of security at the Waterloo airport...I always think of Justin Bieber's pot plane that originated from Waterloo:



http://www.nbcnews.com/news/investi...clusive-inside-story-biebers-pot-plane-n22056

Somehow JB had to get all that pot on the plane and there doesn't seem to have been any powers to stop him at Waterloo.

You've made a very interesting point!

 

[JuneBug67]

An interesting and perhaps controversial offering on CBC tonight about violent crime and violent criminals:

http://www.cbc.ca/natureofthings/episodes/my-brain-made-me-do-it

 

[Abitcountry]

I am slightly confused regarding the charge against DM & MS. I understand that initially DM was charged with theft and forcible confinement and that charge was later upgraded to First Degree Murder. And it appears that MS was charged with First Degree Murder when he was arrested.

In subsequent posts I have read people discussing the need for the Crown to conclusively prove that the murder in question was planned and deliberate.....and I have repeatedly wondered what it is that I keep missing???

It has seemed to me that the Crown has actually had the slightly lesser burden to prove that TB was abducted and while forcibly confined met with his untimely death at the hands of the accused .
The victim voluntarily got in the truck with two strangers.....he was removed from his home and community .....not allowed to return to his home......and was never seen alive again. And those are absolute facts--there is no measuring the degree of confinement or the degree of the abduction.....it appears to me that the Crown has to make an solid case that identifies DM & MS as his abductors and the persons who unlawfully confined TB and that his death resulted whether it was planned, intentional or accidental.
So I ask again....what am I missing here??? Is it that there is some possible debate that TB was abducted &/or confined with tragic results??? Is it that premeditated and planned trumps abducted or forcibly confined....I just don't get it???

I have included 2 quotes that both speak to the fact that certain homicides are automatically considered First Degree Murder
regardless of premeditation and planning....and I can provide another reference to a case in Vancouver where a man was unlawfully confined in his apartment when he was killed..... his attacker was later convicted of First Degree Murder ----Strangely enough, the victim had advertised some expensive jewellery for sale online and he was murdered by the prospective buyer who had arranged a meeting at the victim's apartment.

Can a murder that is not planned and deliberate be categorized as first-degree murder?
There are two reasons that a homicide could be categorized as first-degree murder regardless of whether it was planned or deliberate. Murdering a police officer (assuming the accused knew the person was a police officer) is always first-degree murder. In addition, a murder is considered first-degree murder if it is committed in the course of the commission of particular enumerated offences such as a hijacking, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, forcible confinement, hostage taking, terrorism, intimidation, or any offence committed on behalf of a criminal organization.

Daniel Brown Criminal Lawyers, Toronto http://www.********************/homicide-murder-criminal-lawyer-toronto/

First Degree Murder

Definition: A culpable homicide that is planned and deliberate — both aspects must be demonstrated in order for the homicide to be considered first-degree murder.Some homicides are automatically considered first-degree murder — even if they were not intentional or planned:

• The killing of a police officer or prison employee on duty.
• A killing committed in the course of one of the following offences: hijacking, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, forcible confinement, hostage taking, terrorism, intimidation,criminal harassment, any offence committed on behalf of a criminal organization.

Sentence: First -degree murder carries an automatic life sentence with no possibility of parole for 25 years. Offenders who are paroled remain on parole for the rest of their life, even after their release from prison, meaning they must report to a parole officer and are subject to the conditions of their parole. If they break the conditions of their release, they are sent directly back to prison without a hearing.

Murder vs. Manslaughter www.cbc.ca

 

[Gibson67]

Wednesday of that week is the one day that Smich and DM did not connect. DM likely burned up the seats in the morning at the farm on his way to the hangar and then spent the day at the hangar, meeting with SH among other things, and then returned to Maplegate in the early evening. MS's records show that he was in Oakville the entire day and evening.

So the men at DM's house that night were likely any roommates that he had and/or friends, other than MS and SS, that were uninvolved in this crime. Probably the same night DM was "washing" evidence as well.

MOO

if they did not connect on the Wednesday then why this statement from AJ?
Feb 4 2016 2:22 PM Thursday May 9 is when Jennings called police. He saw Smich at the hangar the day before.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...l-oh-my-god-could-that-be-the-truck-1.3433214

 

[MissRobot]

Is there a place on here where we can speak about the motive? I don't have one in mind but I would love to hear what other people are thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[SnooperDuper]

In subsequent posts I have read people discussing the need for the Crown to conclusively prove that the murder in question was planned and deliberate.....and I have repeatedly wondered what it is that I keep missing???

<rsbm> It is first degree if TB was forcibly confined OR if the crime was premeditated. I think both are true but it will be up to the judge to direct the jury as to how to find DM and MS guilty or not of first degree murder.

 

[Satchie]

The Crown's opening statement refers to intent to steal the truck, and abduction of TB, not premeditation of murder, so I agree that's all they have to prove. The evidence that a gun went off inside the truck supports forcible confinement IMO

 

[billandrew]

Is there a place on here where we can speak about the motive? I don't have one in mind but I would love to hear what other people are thinking.

This has been widely discussed on here since the beginning. A popular theory is that it was a "thrill kill". The presence of the gun and the incinerator, among many other things, suggest that there was at least some premeditation to the murder. However, there is an apparent lack of motive. DM and MS had never previously met TB. They had no beef with him, and they were not hired as hitmen to take him out.

Based on what we know about DM, he had an interest in vehicles and was actively looking to acquire a used Dodge Ram 3500. It is quite apparent that DM sought out the truck regardless of who owned it. The murder victim could have possibly been anybody selling a used Dodge Ram at the time.

We may never know if DM and MS drove to Ancaster on May 6, 2013 with the intent to murder TB. On the one hand, they had all the tools ready to do so: gun, incinerator, etc. On the other hand, they did such a poor job of covering their tracks that it really calls into question whether the murder was planned. When MS walked outside his Oakville home and jumped in the Yukon with DM that evening, did he know he would be pulling an all-nighter at the hangar in Waterloo, incinerating a body and cleaning up evidence? Did he realize he would be making several trips back to the hangar and farm that week to continue covering up tracks?

 

[Kamille]

if they did not connect on the Wednesday then why this statement from AJ?
Feb 4 2016 2:22 PM Thursday May 9 is when Jennings called police. He saw Smich at the hangar the day before.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...l-oh-my-god-could-that-be-the-truck-1.3433214

These were the notes from the actual live blog

Feb 4 2016 12:37 PM Jennings says he had seen Smich before, just had general conversation. Smich was at the hangar that week, Jennings says, on Tuesday or Wednesday.

Feb 4 2016 12:38 PM He says he believes it was Wednesday. Tuesday they were told not to come to work.

Turns out he was incorrect about both days. I'm sure that whole week was a blur to him 3 years later but he did remember that MS was there on one of the days. MS actually came to the hangar with DM on Thursday. His cell records place him in Oakville all day on the Wednesday.

https://docs.google.com/presentatio...AGTr4PrZnEc7rU/edit?pref=2&pli=1#slide=id.p70

 

[Kamille]

Is there a place on here where we can speak about the motive? I don't have one in mind but I would love to hear what other people are thinking.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Welcome MissRobot :welcome:

The motive has been discussed repeatedly for the past three years in many of the threads in this forum and I'm not sure we've ever come to an absolute conclusion on it. Right now we're discussing the evidence presented at the trial to date. My personal opinion, which is bolstered by evidence that has been presented by the Crown, is that DM wanted/needed a new truck to get to the Baja 500 race in Mexico in May 2013 and it appears he was not willing/able to just go out and buy one.

MOO

 

[Ironworker736]

I have a question in regard to forcible confinement. If TB got into the truck willingly, then at some later point a gun was produced with an order to leave the vehicle, not to remain in the vehicle, would this qualify as forcible confinement in the legal sense of the term? I found this and was wondering if it means that the forcible confinement element of this case is not necessarily a given. Thoughts?

The prosecution must prove that the accused either intentionally or recklessly committed acts which were sufficient to totally restrain the victim and that he intended, or was reckless with regard to, the consequent confinement. It is particularly important that triers of fact be alert not to casually draw inferences against the accused without fully weighing an alternative explanation of his mental state, especially with respect to circumstances (consent) or consequences (confinement).


Sorry that it looks pieced together like a ransom note, it's just how it copied and pasted from the PDF file

 

[Sillybilly]

I have a question in regard to forcible confinement. If TB got into the truck willingly, then at some later point a gun was produced with an order to leave the vehicle, not to remain in the vehicle, would this qualify as forcible confinement in the legal sense of the term? I found this and was wondering if it means that the forcible confinement element of this case is not necessarily a given. Thoughts?

The prosecution must prove that the accused either intentionally or recklessly committed acts which were sufficient to totally restrain the victim and that he intended, or was reckless with regard to, the consequent confinement. It is particularly important that triers of fact be alert not to casually draw inferences against the accused without fully weighing an alternative explanation of his mental state, especially with respect to circumstances (consent) or consequences (confinement).


Sorry that it looks pieced together like a ransom note, it's just how it copied and pasted from the PDF file

Confinment in this context does not mean within a physically limiting space, so it doesn't necessarily matter if that confinement was inside or outside the vehicle.

from:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ticle/10781-eng.htm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

In Canada, it is a criminal offence to unjustly hold anyone against their will through the use of threats, duress, force or the exhibition of force. This offence is called "forcible confinement" and is formally defined by the Criminal Code of Canada as depriving an individual of the liberty to move from one point to another by unlawfully confining, imprisoning or forcibly seizing that person.

<bbm>

 

[Sillybilly]

I would also suggest that, although TB got in the truck willingly, it would certainly have been his expectation and intent to return home. He did not volunteer to go with persons who had an intent to either seize his vehicle or kill him. IMO, an appearance of a gun at any point in the transaction would constitute "exhibition of force".

 

[FredFlintstone]

anyone made the matthew ward-jackson informant connection ?

 

[billandrew]

I have a question in regard to forcible confinement. If TB got into the truck willingly, then at some later point a gun was produced with an order to leave the vehicle, not to remain in the vehicle, would this qualify as forcible confinement in the legal sense of the term? I found this and was wondering if it means that the forcible confinement element of this case is not necessarily a given. Thoughts?

The prosecution must prove that the accused either intentionally or recklessly committed acts which were sufficient to totally restrain the victim and that he intended, or was reckless with regard to, the consequent confinement. It is particularly important that triers of fact be alert not to casually draw inferences against the accused without fully weighing an alternative explanation of his mental state, especially with respect to circumstances (consent) or consequences (confinement).


Sorry that it looks pieced together like a ransom note, it's just how it copied and pasted from the PDF file

In my opinion, the forcible confinement charge was a means to arrest DM at the time. The investigators surely suspected that TB was murdered, but they had no basis to lay such a charge on DM until after more evidence was discovered. They were able to charge DM with forcible confinement because the cell tower location records placed him in all the same locations as the Bate phone and TB's phone after he got in the truck. It was also known that a person with an ambition tattoo had been on a similar test drive a few days earlier, and the police confirmed DM's tattoo. Therefore, since TB was still technically "missing", forcible confinement was the appropriate charge in order to get DM into police custody.

 

[Gumshew]

anyone made the matthew ward-jackson informant connection ?

What do you mean? As far as I know, which could be wrong, MWJ has not informed on anyone. Most likely the other way around. Someone had to link him as the gun source. I don't think he gave himself up. IMO

 

[Dee2]

Yes .... that seat frame has been there for a while , the old corn stalks are lying on parts of it


If you blow it up you can tell it is a component of some sort with symmetrical sides , and a hoop portion similar to the contours of a seat



Agreed ... it has been there for a while ... LB went missing the previous year

Thing is...think of the planting and crop cycle. Even with low-till / no till planting (meaning that the land would not have been disked and turned), corn is planted in the spring - say by the beginning of May if it's a wet spring, and harvested late fall. A combine (which is used to cut the cornstalks and separate the corn) would have likely caught up a piece of metal like that. If it's sitting on the surface like that, it would have been there after harvest - which is often late September or into October (all MOO)

 

[Ironworker736]

I would also suggest that, although TB got in the truck willingly, it would certainly have been his expectation and intent to return home. He did not volunteer to go with persons who had an intent to either seize his vehicle or kill him. IMO, an appearance of a gun at any point in the transaction would constitute "exhibition of force".

In case you misunderstood, this question was in direct relation to the robbery gone wrong theory (lack of premeditation).
If it was accidental, forcible confinement must be proven for a murder 1 conviction, as you know.

I'll use another example...
You are at my house, I want you to leave, I pull out a gun and say "go home". The gun accidentally goes off and kills you. Would I be guilty of forcible confinement in this case, in your opinion?

ETA - I'm just asking because some feel forcible confinement is a given, no matter what. I'm not sure that's right. I could be wrong, of course.

In the TB matter, if the gun was produce and TB was told "we want your truck, get out (go home, go anywhere but here).

 

[Abitcountry]

Arnie, I think the Trevor Dunn photo below may be what you are looking for. However, this photo was taken May 15, and appears to be a single bucket seat frame ... Maybe the missing rear right Yukon seat frame?
http://t.co/cS9FN53jDc

.
Definitely worth a second look.....a recent comment had me go back and take a second look at this photo. So interesting...This time I have no trouble seeing the longer pieces that would have formed the back of the seat and a portion of the lower seat flipped up !!! It's right there ...and no, it's not a shadow. Thanks again for this great find.

 

[JuneBug67]

I was thinking about something last night - something from my personal life more than 25 years ago - and I find myself surprised today that I didn't connect the events I'm going to describe to this case before last night. A fellow member previously mentioned preferring not to read about animal cruelty. This post will have a description of animal cruelty, so I wanted to say so in advance.

I went to college in the late 80's/early 90's with a guy I'll call John who ended up serving time in prison for manslaughter. It was a local community college and our program and cohort was small enough that we were a fairly tight knit group well known to each other. John was a smart enough guy, pleasant and involved, part of the group, but just a little bit odd. He played Dungeons and Dragons in an open concept student lounge during breaks and developed the habit of wearing slippers around school instead of shoes. Dressed a little more formally than most of us. Just a bit odd, a bit off, but nothing remotely menacing.

Around this time my city was experiencing a shocking and deeply disturbing spree of pet murders. The killings were contained to one area of the city that was solidly residential and a blend of middle class and affluence. Dogs and other animals were killed and left gruesomely displayed, sometimes disembowelled, hanging in trees or left on properties. For pet owners it was terrifying. The crimes went unsolved for a long number of months, with no end in sight.

Cut to almost Christmas time. I and others in my college program were absolutely floored when John and another person unknown to us were arrested for the unsolved murder of a man from late summer of the same year. A 23 year old guy had been stabbed to death in a undeveloped area of trees and sand pits in behind where he lived. It was eventually prosecuted as a car theft gone wrong. The co-defendant we didn't know was from the general area of town that the man was killed in. John was from the area of town the pets were being killed in. My brain usually runs on logic rather than intuition, so I surprised myself greatly by leaping to the very persistent idea that these two were responsible for the pet killings that would not be solved for a time yet.

I can't begin to tell you how shocked I was that John was involved in a murder. But, as it turned out, he was the main actor, the one who was accused of yielding the knife. Stabbed the man six times, including a fatal wound to the heart. All for, it was said, a car. I was so shocked. I was even sad and worried for John. I couldn't make sense of it. I was about a hundred things all at once. In this frame of mind I called the Crown Attorney's office a few months into the case to find out about it's progress and what was happening. Well. The crown attorney flipped his powdered wig on me. Demanded I tell him why I was interested in this case, demanded to know what I knew, treated me effectively like I was Christina Nougda. He asked what I knew about the Dungeons and Dragons and implied John was acting out a game fantasy in real life. In the course of the rather one sided conversation he half yelled at me that this whole case was the most disturbing thing he'd ever worked on. I hung up, chastised, and never called again.

Roll forward a few months and John's co-defendant in the murder was charged in the unsolved animal killings. Score one for intuition. They never charged John, but they happened in John's neck of the woods, clear across town from where the co-defendant lived. I think he was involved and I think the Crown Attorney thought so too. The murder was eventually pleaded down to manslaughter for John and accessory to murder for the animal killer. John got eight years in prison for the most disturbing case some Crown attorney had ever worked on. It never felt like justice. John took off to the west coast on his release and now has a family. Rumour has it he's a reservist too.

Anyway, it all speaks to the complexity of motive and the limit of facts as a court must see them. It speaks maybe to the ugly forces in a 'folie a deux' as well. It was prosecuted and plead out as an armed robbery gone wrong, but there was darkness around the edges of the case that chilled a seasoned Crown Attorney and probably made him feel pretty helpless in some ways. I see the animal killing and the underbelly of the Dungeons & Dragons connection a little like I see the Eliminator and the dead father and the Steam avatar. We've got the cold hard facts, but we've got this dark, difficult to grasp force that feels like it is running through everything as well. The facts say John wanted a car, and DM wanted a truck. But maybe in the heat and adrenaline of the moment of that power they found themselves wanting murderous violence too. It's so hard to know, so hard to grasp their minds. I'm grateful for that.