Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #6

[Ontario Mom]

I'm not sure I can tell what might be faint flickers of light from the pixelation in the dark video. Are the lights any of you seeing directly in the same location as the rear vehicle?

 

[Ironworker736]

I was curious about the scenario you presented and looked up whether or not a case such as this occurred in the past. And I found a case similar to the situation you imagined. Links: https://www.sootoday.com/local-news/19-year-old-says-not-a-drop-since-car-jacking-181388 and http://www.saultstar.com/2015/06/23/carjacking-nets-house-arrest.

Last year, 19 year-old Nicholas Burns was convicted of forcible confinement, assault, and two other counts for having threatened a woman in her car with bodily harm while drunk in Sault Ste. Marie:

"Burns got into her car and demanded she drive him home. Once in the car he started to touch her arm, and was told to stop. When she tried to get him to leave, Burns yelled at her, and said he didn’t trust her. He then said that he would “smash her head against the wheel” and pulled her hair, Crown prosecutor Mary Pascuzzi said. Burns then told the victim to get out of the vehicle. She ran away and called the police."

Granted, in this case, Burns ordered the woman to drive him home, told her to leave the car when she wouldn't, and had voluntarily pleaded guilty to all charges. Even so, he acknowledged the conviction and served his sentence (because he was truly remorseful, thought he would lose the case, or wanted to lessen his sentence). So while the jury in the TB case may rule differently, there have been unique circumstances such as I've described here that urged the Crown to confidently pursue the forcible confinement charge and actually secure it.

But again, perhaps we'll never know what happened in TB's truck and the jury will have to determine the most accurate interpretation of events as they see it. I'm not sure which explanation might offer the Bosma family better closure, and my heart goes out to them in this regard.

On a final note, I didn't sense that sleuths here thought forcible confinement was a given, only that they were persuaded one way or the other with the evidence they've reviewed. I believe the Crown will still have to prove its case before the jury, as I think they've tried their best to do. But we've still more to hear from them and I want to see how they'll proceed from here.

Thank you for the detailed, civilized reply Wollander77.
Unfortunately, as you already pointed out, these are in fact 2 very different scenarios, in regard to forcible confinement IMO, for the reasons you mentioned.

I, too, want nothing but justice and closure for the Bosma family. It seems that some people feel that because I am trying to truly understand this case, and not just jump to the most obvious conclusions, I am somehow sympathizing or defending the accused and/or their actions. Sorry to anyone who feels this way, but you are dead wrong. I simply want to see this handled properly.

 

[Tealgrove]

I'm not sure I can tell what might be faint flickers of light from the pixelation in the dark video. Are the lights any of you seeing directly in the same location as the rear vehicle?

I see them very briefly by the rear vehicle and closer to the front vehicle. I see them move.

 

[Ironworker736]

<rsbm>

IMO (no learned judge here), Yes it would be forcible confinement. Firstly, in Canada, we don't just pull guns on people to get them to do as we please (you should call LE to have the person legally removed ). That aside, once you pull the gun on me, that is an "exhibition of force". I would therefore be under "duress" because you are using the "threat of force". IF that does in fact constitute FC, it does not matter that the gun went off accidentally .. I died during the commission of FC.

IMO, you would be hard pressed to convince a judge/jury that you had no intention to use the gun (mens rea). Why not just come at me with a slipper and slap me until I left ... alive but with a bruised ego?

That was a hypothetic scenario of a criminal interaction, <modsnip> but thanks anyway.
Proving what the mens rea was is one issue, proving the defendant had it is the second issue. IMO
And I'd NEVER slipper slap sillybilly...say that 10 times fast

 

[Tealgrove]

I'm not sure I can tell what might be faint flickers of light from the pixelation in the dark video. Are the lights any of you seeing directly in the same location as the rear vehicle?

I pulled up the video AGAIN and this time I put a dark piece of paper across the video right up to the following vehicle. So now no distractions and all I could see was the right third of the screen. Very faint, I will give you that, but I see LOTS of light movement. Even more than I saw the first couple of views.

 

[Satchie]

I'm not sure the lights matter that much to me - two vehicles pull off the road, don't put on their flashers or interior lights - the drivers wouldn't have been just sitting in their vehicles in the pitch dark the whole ten minutes.

 

[Tealgrove]

I'm not sure the lights matter that much to me - two vehicles pull off the road, don't put on their flashers or interior lights - the drivers wouldn't have been just sitting in their vehicles in the pitch dark the whole ten minutes.

Think about it...if you pull off to the side of the road whether it be day or night, the first thing I do is put on my flashers. I don't want to get hit and I want to be seen. Clearly, THEY DID NOT WANT TO BE SEEN.

 

[Errrr]

I don't think the smaller lights are from a cigarette. Maybe a flashlight? Very short moments of light. That whole thing is so weird and disturbing.

Maybe they meant a cigarette lighter.

 

[Errrr]

Do ya think <modsnip>!!!

Sooooo, if you steal a truck with the owner in the front seat you should be no less guilty of abduction.

 

[Lorelei1]

Maybe they meant a cigarette lighter.

Would they be using the light from a cell phone for brief moments of light?

 

[Abitcountry]

I think the Vancouver case is a perfect example that the confinement aspect isn't as black and white as some people think. The accused was first convicted on 1st degree murder based on the finding that the victim was unlawfully confined in his apartment when he was killed. He then won his appeal and the conviction was downgraded to 2nd degree on the basis that the evidence did not support that the victim was confined as a separate act from the murder. The Crown then appealed to the Supreme Court and the 1st degree conviction was reinstated on the basis that "it was open to the trial judge to conclude that the act of forcible or unlawful confinement, which occurred when the respondent prevented the victim from escaping through the front door of the apartment, was distinct and independent" from the murder. Interesting that the original trial was by judge alone, not by jury. Judging by the witness accounts, I would agree that the 1st degree conviction was the correct one in that case.

http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2016/02/26/un-gangster-has-first-degree-murder-conviction-re-instated/

It would seem from this that the confinement does have to be a separate act, distinct and independent from the murder, for a 1st degree charge to apply. In this case, the Judge will give the Jury instructions on the legal definitions of 1st degree and confinement, and it will be up to the Jury to decide guilt of 1st degree murder or a lesser charge. I think it could help the Jury in their decision if they had some evidence of what it was that actually happened just prior to the death. As for the other examples given, I think there is a very large difference between being killed while one is trying to leave the situation and as a means of preventing one from leaving, and being killed accidentally or during a struggle while one is being told to leave. The first instance would be 1st degree, the second would be 2nd degree or manslaughter.

JMO

Thanks for the thoughtful consideration....I am in complete agreement with the first half of your response and appreciate your reasoning in the second half with a few exceptions--

The question of 'being killed accidentally or during a struggle while one is being told to leave' is a whole other variable that I did not introduce in my original conversation....and it seems just to have complicated matters unnecessarily so for the purposes of conversation here I would like to ignore it for the time being especially given that IMO it is an unlikely scenario.

I do understand that a solitary charge of forcible confinement is not often successfully pursued in court. But it is clear that if forcible confinement is accompanied by other serious crimes, it is elevated to another level especially in a scenario where a death has been caused during the confinement whether the death was intentional or accidental.
In the Bosma case, it was the police who first introduced the charge of forcible confinement plus theft. When the theft and confinement was further complicated with a death, the charge was escalated to first degree automatically...and as we all know the disposal of the victim and the intricacies of the cover up have only further complicated the entire matter. IMHO....I rather think the jury will have little difficulty arriving at a guilty verdict when all is said and done.

Given what has been gleaned about DM & MS I think it is a real stretch that they would have offered TB an opportunity to leave the vehicle......and personally, if they wanted only to steal a truck, then Mr. Pamili had one that was just sitting in his parking lot doing nothing 'cause it was too big to fit in the garage...and why the loaded gun if they just want a truck when an empty one would scare the bejezus out of most of us.
I would much prefer to believe that TB made an attempt to leave the truck when they got into a built up area such the Bobcat location and was not allowed to.

I wonder if there is any evidence stored in a vehicle's computer system that shows that the child safety lock was engaged locking all of the truck's doors....or if the remnants of the driver's door controls show the safety lock was engaged.
Further I have been told that even seatbelt use may be stored in the vehicle's onboard computer....that information would be helpful to determine the extent of confinement and even how many passengers were indeed in the truck as it was driven through Brantford. it will be interesting to see what the remaining weeks hold in store.

 

[Wollander77]

Unfortunately, as you already pointed out, these are in fact 2 very different scenarios, in regard to forcible confinement IMO, for the reasons you mentioned.

Yep, two different cases, but with similarities I thought I'd highlight (in response to the possible scenario that DM and MS threatened to kill TB with a gun if he didn't leave his truck behind - which might still be interpreted as Forcible / Unlawful Confinement, but that's according to my limited knowledge of the law).

 

[Amoeba]

Gang initiation might sound a little far-fetched, but that's the scenario I keep going back to.

 

[Errrr]

Would somebody please help me with my bearings here?

Are those vehicles driving south on Oak Park - stop - then turn around and head back north?

I always assumed that they exited the 403 at Oak Park and went in a northerly direction. If they're driving south then they exited maybe at Paris Rd and drove into the outer part of Paris, and then turned onto Oak Park which is really odd. Why turn south and then have turn around. Lost?

To get to the farm, go north on Oak Park and then eventually make your way up through Cambridge or dipsy doodle through Paris and out to 15 and up.

Do we know the actual route they took to the farm?

Sorry for these questions. I had a different scenario in my head and now I realize I was wrong. Thanks

I had assumed they exited at Oak Park too until the Bobcat video. I suppose the Paris Rd exit is DMs usual route to Roseville but kind of stupid with a body in the vehicle because he had to drive right through downtown Paris. Rest Acres would have been more direct via Trussler Rd......unless TB was meant to survive until they reached Roseville? I wonder why no videos from downtown Paris?
It appears they took a detour south on Oak Park, then turned back north to Paris Rd.

 

[Abitcountry]

Sooooo, if you steal a truck with the owner in the front seat you should be no less guilty of abduction.

I would say you would be in a whole lot of trouble....

 

[Satchie]

I had assumed they exited at Oak Park too until the Bobcat video. I suppose the Paris Rd exit is DMs usual route to Roseville but kind of stupid with a body in the vehicle because he had to drive right through downtown Paris. Rest Acres would have been more direct via Trussler Rd......unless TB was meant to survive until they reached Roseville? I wonder why no videos from downtown Paris?
It appears they took a detour south on Oak Park, then turned back north to Paris Rd.

There's no where to pull over on Paris Road, I think the truck driver wanted to do something. Chose a very dark isolated spot where they would get plenty of notice if anyone was coming from either direction.

I notice how the following vehicle takes longer to turn off its lights, perhaps told to by driver of the truck. The following vehicle waits until the truck turns on its lights, though the driver is sitting a bit impatiently, taps on the brakes and turns on the lights instantly when the truck does.

 

[Satchie]

I wonder why no videos from downtown Paris?

I agree, that seems odd. I doubt that DM went via Brantford when he was going to his farm, wouldn't he take the 401?

The location of TB's home, in relation to DM's farm and hangar, seems awfully convenient.

 

[Errrr]

Would they be using the light from a cell phone for brief moments of light?

According to the video isn't that the same time Tims cell was shut off?
That flashing light around centre screen is about the location of a tower. It would be hard to see most lights on Paris Rd. Lights travelling from right side to top of screen are from Powerline Rd.

 

[Gumshew]

Gang initiation might sound a little far-fetched, but that's the scenario I keep going back to.

Dellen looked like he was his own boss. And who would want MS in their gang as a full member?? I wouldn't want a guy in my gang who, although in his twenties, still managed to get caught by LE on a simple tagging(graffiti) mission. What gang would be that dumb? That's not to say he wasn't a lackey. JMO

 

[jash]

Thanks for posting the videos matou.

Awhile back there was debate around the size difference between the Ram and Yukon (spurred by Tim's neighbour's statement about seeing a truck and a "smaller vehicle" following behind).

The Bobcat video validates his statement, IMO. Maybe it's the difference in taillight output, but to me the Yukon appears noticeably smaller than the Ram.