Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #6

[Slooter]

Tim Bosma Trial FAQ by Adam Carter

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/bosma-faq-1.3497820

 

[matou]

Welcome Slooter! Thanks for the link.

:welcome4::welcome4:

 

[Slooter]

Welcome Slooter! Thanks for the link.

:welcome4::welcome4:

:tyou: It's my first post

 

[Arnie M]

An interesting theory Arnie but what would the lumber be used for? And where would the special compartments go that they were apparently building? I always assumed they were building another trailer like the other one, although it may have been a smaller version for the reasons you have stated.

I also thought that perhaps those two trailers were removed from the hangar because they were stolen and were perhaps being returned to their rightful owners. What other legal reason would LE have to be able to remove property from the hangar that was not used in the commission of the crime? Do you think there were forensics being done on these trailers?

MOO

Whether an open trailer or enclosed trailer the floor is often covered with wood planks or marine plywood , there is a substantial steel framework underneath that supports the load , the wood is more for providing a flat smooth surface.

Extra plywood compartments could be a tool-parts cabinet on the front for jacks and chains etc. And if DM specified extra-extra hidden special compartments it could be for smuggling another dog in from Mexico .... Ahem !!!

 

[Arnie M]

How do you know that LE haven't noticed that the red ram was a stolen? Just because they haven't said doesn't mean it wasn't stolen. Sounds like there may have been stolen vehicles in the hanger, however, I don't believe LE has given out any more information.

I think Wayne bought the red truck and trailer. Perfect for moving a helicopter to various locations and can double as a portable hangar. And keep in mind they had a lot of personal items and Carls memorabilia to move and store when the old hangar was dismantled , not to mention hauling Carls car collection .... enclosed trailers are the preference for that..

But I do agree there was likely more stolen stuff besides the Harley in the hangar that we have not heard about. My pet suspicion always comes back to the repainted wood chipper with all the decals removed. An airport hangar needs a wood chipper about as much as it needs an animal incinerator.

 

[Kamille]

I think Wayne bought the red truck and trailer. Perfect for moving a helicopter to various locations and can double as a portable hangar. And keep in mind they had a lot of personal items and Carls memorabilia to move and store when the old hangar was dismantled , not to mention hauling Carls car collection .... enclosed trailers are the preference for that..

But I do agree there was likely more stolen stuff besides the Harley in the hangar that we have not heard about. My pet suspicion always comes back to the repainted wood chipper with all the decals removed. An airport hangar needs a wood chipper about as much as it needs an animal incinerator.

Actually I believe we heard testimony that DM purchased the red truck as a used vehicle in 2009. He and AM attended the Baja 1000 in November of that year so that's likely what it was for. Of course it was purchased under the company name as it appears that DM put all his large personal expenses through the company, not sure if WM did as well. Even though there really wasn't a company to speak of after CM died in 2006.

MOO

 

[Arnie M]

.

What if Tim had just handed DM the keys and let him go for a test drive. Did DM even hope for that ? It would be the easiest way to steal a truck. Or was it part of the plan to have Tim come along so he could be killed ?

Some vehicle owners will let a potential customer take a drive but want a piece of ID left behind , I wonder if DM even considered a doctored ID to hand Tim before he drove away

Everything about this case suggests DM wanted Tim along , and had MS there to assist .

I look forward to the trial resuming tomorrow , hopefully they have tons of info with a minimum of lawyer debates.

 

[LibTech]

There is that Agreed Statement of Facts where Smich admits he was on the IT test drive, http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2016/02/by-special-request-day-4-of-the-tim-bosma-trial.html It must have been negotiated for some purpose, though perhaps just to keep evidence out of court that would have been embarrassing in some way.

The statement made by MS admitting that he was in the truck on the first test drive was submitted by his defence. The crown agreed with the statement and as such, they won't discuss it at trial. I think it's basically to save time.

Here is an explanation of the statement of agreed facts which falls under section 655 of the Canadian Criminal Code.

http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Admissions_of_Fact&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile

 

[Abitcountry]

The statement made by MS admitting that he was in the truck on the first test drive was submitted by his defence. The crown agreed with the statement and as such, they won't discuss it at trial. I think it's basically to save time.

Here is an explanation of the statement of agreed facts which falls under section 655 of the Canadian Criminal Code.

http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Admissions_of_Fact&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile

Would this statement of agreed facts be a possibility in the case of CN's testimony during the Bosma trial.....I was looking forward to what she might eventually say on the stand and then it occurred to me that her testimony may be be brief and limited due to her own up coming trial.
So with a statement of agreed facts could CN admit to being with DM on May 9th and driving in the truck with him when the gun was left with a friend and the trailer was taken from the hangar to Kleinberg...and thereby limiting what she reveals during this current trial???

 

[SnooperDuper]

Would this statement of agreed facts be a possibility in the case of CN's testimony during the Bosma trial.....I was looking forward to what she might eventually say on the stand and then it occurred to me that her testimony may be be brief and limited due to her own up coming trial.
So with a statement of agreed facts could CN admit to being with DM on May 9th and driving in the truck with him when the gun was left with a friend and the trailer was taken from the hangar to Kleinberg...and thereby limiting what she reveals during this current trial???

The agreed statement of facts in MS's case is so that they didn't have to introduce and argue over the evidence that IT had ID'd MS. This fact was simply accepted by both sides without getting into the details.

CN is compelled to testify, so there's no holding back for her.

 

[Arnie M]

The statement made by MS admitting that he was in the truck on the first test drive was submitted by his defence. The crown agreed with the statement and as such, they won't discuss it at trial. I think it's basically to save time.

Here is an explanation of the statement of agreed facts which falls under section 655 of the Canadian Criminal Code.

http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Admissions_of_Fact&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile

Interesting that MS agreed he was along on the first test drive .... MS has no advantage to admit that and it is unlikely Igor could positively identify him , plus MS has no advantage to "speed up" the trial by admitting it.

Leaves me with the conclusion MS will also admit to being there for the TB test drive but will have a defense along the lines that he did not kill TB but ended up helping DM afterwards.

Hard to say if the jury will then assign a longer sentence to DM and a shorter sentence to MS .... gotta be a reason MS is being slightly cooperative. Or maybe he has already told the whole story.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Interesting that MS agreed he was along on the first test drive .... MS has no advantage to admit that and it is unlikely Igor could positively identify him , plus MS has no advantage to "speed up" the trial by admitting it.

Leaves me with the conclusion MS will also admit to being there for the TB test drive but will have a defense along the lines that he did not kill TB but ended up helping DM afterwards.

Hard to say if the jury will then assign a longer sentence to DM and a shorter sentence to MS .... gotta be a reason MS is being slightly cooperative. Or maybe he has already told the whole story.

I can't help thinking that it took two people to commit this crime: if DM were alone, he could not have done it.

Just because of that, I don't think MS deserves any consideration for participating less. Still wondering how things will turn out for him though.

 

[Typhoo1961]

Interesting that MS agreed he was along on the first test drive .... MS has no advantage to admit that and it is unlikely Igor could positively identify him , plus MS has no advantage to "speed up" the trial by admitting it.

Leaves me with the conclusion MS will also admit to being there for the TB test drive but will have a defense along the lines that he did not kill TB but ended up helping DM afterwards.

Hard to say if the jury will then assign a longer sentence to DM and a shorter sentence to MS .... gotta be a reason MS is being slightly cooperative. Or maybe he has already told the whole story.

Perhaps this is the reason why DM is staring at MS in court at various times.

 

[SnooperDuper]

It must have been a big shock to MS that immediately when DM was arrested, he claimed to have been framed and pointed his finger at the at time unknown other assailants.

I guess that was the end of the bromance after spending 80% of their time together.

 

[brightii]

Interesting that MS agreed he was along on the first test drive .... MS has no advantage to admit that and it is unlikely Igor could positively identify him , plus MS has no advantage to "speed up" the trial by admitting it.

Leaves me with the conclusion MS will also admit to being there for the TB test drive but will have a defense along the lines that he did not kill TB but ended up helping DM afterwards.

Hard to say if the jury will then assign a longer sentence to DM and a shorter sentence to MS .... gotta be a reason MS is being slightly cooperative. Or maybe he has already told the whole story.

IT did identify MS:

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...case-as-tim-bosma-murder-trial-continues.html

"It says Mark Smich went on a test drive with Igor Tumanenko on May 5, 2013 starting at 3 p.m. and Smich was the rear passenger. It says Smich was identified by Tumanenko in a photo lineup on May 15, 2013, conducted by Hamilton Police Service."
All MOO.

 

[Lorelei1]

IT did identify MS:

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...case-as-tim-bosma-murder-trial-continues.html

"It says Mark Smich went on a test drive with Igor Tumanenko on May 5, 2013 starting at 3 p.m. and Smich was the rear passenger. It says Smich was identified by Tumanenko in a photo lineup on May 15, 2013, conducted by Hamilton Police Service."
All MOO.

The Toronto Star article says that IT agreed with DM's lawyer that he was never asked to identify DM in a lineup. I'm wondering why that lineup never happened.

 

[SnooperDuper]

The Toronto Star article says that IT agreed with DM's lawyer that he was never asked to identify DM in a lineup. I'm wondering why that lineup never happened.

DM didn't have a record so they didn't have a mug shot of him. By the time DM was arrested, his picture was all over the news and it was too late to do a lineup because the witnesses' memory may have been contaminated by the news.

 

[Lorelei1]

I also have a question about the time AJ phoned CS Enquiring about the VIN number. I know CS protects the caller's identity but when someone's life is in danger, for eg., in the abduction of a child, can the police take steps to act on that tip? In this case, could they trace the cell phone ping from the person's phone call to CS if it meant possibly saving a life?

 

[SnooperDuper]

I also have a question about the time AJ phoned CS Enquiring about the VIN number. I know CS protects the caller's identity but when someone's life is in danger, for eg., in the abduction of a child, can the police take steps to act on that tip? In this case, could they trace the cell phone ping from the person's phone call to CS if it meant possibly saving a life?

I don't think many people would be calling Crimestoppers if they knew their call could be traced. It's supposed to be anonymous.

 

[Lorelei1]

Sorry, I knew I shouldn't have asked such a silly question!