Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #9

[SnooperDuper]

People perhaps are having some difficulty letting go of the idea of a third suspect because it has never been truly answered. The trial is not yet over. We don't yet know everything. As I noted above, a full month later, police were still searching for the third suspect. A year later when CN was arrested, they called her the third suspect, although her charges were Accessory and not Murder. There has been silence surrounding her case since her arrest. The Crown states with confidence that TB was killed, shot dead, by both accuseds (DM and MS), but yet I'm not sure that is possible if MS was driving the Yukon. To me, it only makes sense that there may still be some of us who are still wondering about a potential third participant that night.

But her charges not make sense if she was the driver, and CN is already committed to go before a judge to face those charges.Why would they wait so late in the game to upgrade charges against CN? (Because driving the Yukon is not "accessory after the fact".) CN as the Yukon driver totally does not make sense, IMO.

 

[palisadesk]

And now I believe there were potentially others, at least one, who could have (should have?) been charged with Accessory, but he/they wasn't/weren't, even though he lied to police consistently during multiple interviews.

You speak for many people who feel that way and not without reason. Several of these people appeared to have been lying or at minimum being deceptive and elusive to police from the beginning, which makes one wonder how much of their sworn testimony is credible. This is, however, a routine happening in criminal trials where a number of unsavoury or petty criminal types are involved or peripherally involved. All of them have things to hide and a long history of prevarication. Sorting out what to believe from their testimony is one of the jobs the jurors undertake (the judge will give them instructions on this: just because they don't believe one part of a witness's testimony doesn't mean they need to dismiss another part.)

But the charges of accessory are much more difficult to make stick. In order to be an accessory after the fact in this case, the witness would have had to know that DM had just committed murder and be actively trying to help him get away with it.

None of the evidence presented so far suggests that was the case (although we can only guess who knew what, or who said what to whom). In those first few days when all this was going down, DM had not been charged with murder. His cronies were certainly covering for him, whether they thought he was in trouble for drug dealing, auto theft, kidnapping, or what - but there hasn't been any evidence introduced that suggests one of these guys knew at that time the first days after the crime, that DM had just killed somebody. That knowledge is what is needed to make them an accessory after the fact.

So that's why they have not laid charges for that on anyone except CN, for whom there is a paper trail, plus DNA, plus stuff found in her closet, plus more (the letters) that point a damning finger in her direction that she was covering up for her "true love" and was trying to help him escape the consequences of his actions. That's the very definition of "accessory after the fact." So far in this case no one else's conduct meets those criteria, however reprehensible we find their behaviour.

 

[Claroon]

Is there a sticky of the witness list? Is there a sticky of the excel timeline? I'm having trouble finding both.Thanks.

 

[Yendys]

Also keep in mind LE released descriptions of the suspects on May 8 (timeline) and here's a news article on the 10th saying TB's cellphone had been found.

Can anyone remember which day SB first pleaded for the safe return of TB? I'm sure it was at 2pm and I think it was on May 9, 2013. If DM was keeping tabs on the news or a friend alerted him. I think SB's plea may have been the event that triggered DM'S need to hide everything starting about 4 pm on the 9th. All MOO of course.

 

[mimimic]

Is there a sticky of the witness list? Is there a sticky of the excel timeline? I'm having trouble finding both.Thanks.

on the bottom of billandrew's posts!! lol

 

[SnooperDuper]

Can anyone remember which day SB first pleaded for the safe return of TB? I'm sure it was at 2pm and I think it was on May 9, 2013. If DM was keeping tabs on the news or a friend alerted him. I think SB's plea may have been the event that triggered DM'S need to hide everything starting about 4 pm on the 9th. All MOO of course.

AJ called Crimestoppers on the 9th, told SS, SS told DM, DM got into action IMO.

 

[deugirtni]

But her charges not make sense if she was the driver, and CN is already committed to go before a judge to face those charges.Why would they wait so late in the game to upgrade charges against CN? (Because driving the Yukon is not "accessory after the fact".) CN as the Yukon driver totally does not make sense, IMO.

I did not say anything about CN's charges being upgraded. I said I am still wondering if a big bombshell will be dropped before the Crown's case is completed, and we may find out that CN was the driver of the Yukon that night. If CN went along on the 'mission' that night, knowing only that the goal was to steal a truck, she let the 2 men out to walk down the road to TB's house, the 3 men are in TB's truck, while all the while, she was in control of the Yukon, and then at some later time she finds out that TB is dead in his truck.. and she later assists with concealing evidence.. would the charges not still be Accessory? In that case, CN wouldn't have had beforehand knowledge of any murder or kidnapping, she wouldn't have been present during the murder, so what would the charges be upgraded to?

 

[Claroon]

From timeline "Millard drives to Hwy 6 PetroCan station, then to Speers Rd, Oakville. Millard exits vehicle for 50 min"

Has anyone guessed at what he did there for 50 min?

 

[palisadesk]

People perhaps are having some difficulty letting go of the idea of a third suspect because it has never been truly answered. ....The Crown states with confidence that TB was killed, shot dead, by both accuseds (DM and MS), but yet I'm not sure that is possible if MS was driving the Yukon.

That's what the Crown says in its opening statement, but I think that needs to be taken as a statement in legal terms, not as a description of who did what in the car. The Crown intends to prove that both accused are guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting of TB in his truck etc.

We've had posts earlier about what is needed for a murder to be considered first-degree. Intention and premeditation are generally required, but if a murder (or accidental death for that matter) results from kidnapping and/or forcible confinement, that is automatically first degree murder (ditto if the death results from sexual assault but that is not relevant to this case).

So, if it is satisfactorily proven that both accused forcibly abducted and confined TB, and did it together (i,e, in cahoots with each other), it doesn't require both to be in the truck when the shooting occurred. The one driving the Yukon would be just as guilty of the murder, because he is/was a party to the abduction and forcible confinement, as if he were in the truck simultaneously firing with a second gun.

IOW, the Crown is saying, TB was shot in the truck and both accused did it. Meaning, both accused are responsible and had the mens rea (the legal term -- the intent and mental framework) to commit the crime, as evidenced by the fact they set up the meeting, under duplicitous conditions, lied to TB and his wife and boarder about being "dropped off" and got into the truck with TB, effecting an abduction and forcible confinement according to a preconceived plan. What followed is the responsibility of both even if one was not in the truck when the crime occurred.

The Crown may not be able to prove who fired the fatal shot. Each lawyer may try to suggest that the other defendant did it. But even if either defendant could prove that to be true, it would not get him off the hook. Because he was a party to abduction and forcible confinement of TB, he is guilty of first-degree murder even if he didn't intend TB's death.

The part I don't get is, how did they subdue TB when MS presumably got out of the truck to drive the Yukon? I can't imagine him not trying to do something, whether grab the keys or get away or what. The video evidence from Super Sucker suggests that they wasted no time at the hayfield so the actual shooting must have happened later (besides which, Bullman the neighbour didn't report hearing gunshots).

 

[HackD]

I did not say anything about CN's charges being upgraded. I said I am still wondering if a big bombshell will be dropped before the Crown's case is completed, and we may find out that CN was the driver of the Yukon that night. If CN went along on the 'mission' that night, knowing only that the goal was to steal a truck, she let the 2 men out to walk down the road to TB's house, the 3 men are in TB's truck, while all the while, she was in control of the Yukon, and then at some later time she finds out that TB is dead in his truck.. and she later assists with concealing evidence.. would the charges not still be Accessory? In that case, CN wouldn't have had beforehand knowledge of any murder or kidnapping, she wouldn't have been present during the murder, so what would the charges be upgraded to?

This is all what-ifs. CN was brought in by DM to help clean up after the fact. Time-line so far indicates that the Yukon was stashed elsewhere, and that TB was murdered very shortly after leaving his residence driveway.

Given the Karla Homolka nightmare for the Crown, in making a deal with the Devil in the Paul Bernardo trials back in the 1990's - the Crown would have been very sensitive in reviewing her participation in this crime - during, and after TM's murder to make sure that charges were appropriate, and that they had all their ducks in a row before laying the charges that she faces. Remember, it took a year of investigating, before CN faced formal charges in this case. This wasn't a case of the Crown casually laying the charge, in hopes that it would stick.

 

[brightii]

shoot no...um when billandrew puts a post up - at the bottom of it you will notice three links you can click that bring you to some evidence pages are those only available through a post of his? - sorry if it is still only as clear as mud. I will let it go after this and continue on as if i am normal lol

Once you locate the links at the bottom of any one of billandrew's posts, simply open each link and then bookmark them on your own computer. They are constantly updated by billandrew with new information as it arises. I haven't yet read through this thread, so perhaps your question is already answered by others. HTH.

All MOO

 

[SnooperDuper]

That's what the Crown says in its opening statement, but I think that needs to be taken as a statement in legal terms, not as a description of who did what in the car. The Crown intends to prove that both accused are guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting of TB in his truck etc.

We've had posts earlier about what is needed for a murder to be considered first-degree. Intention and premeditation are generally required, but if a murder (or accidental death for that matter) results from kidnapping and/or forcible confinement, that is automatically first degree murder (ditto if the death results from sexual assault but that is not relevant to this case).

So, if it is satisfactorily proven that both accused forcibly abducted and confined TB, and did it together (i,e, in cahoots with each other), it doesn't require both to be in the truck when the shooting occurred. The one driving the Yukon would be just as guilty of the murder, because he is/was a party to the abduction and forcible confinement, as if he were in the truck simultaneously firing with a second gun.

IOW, the Crown is saying, TB was shot in the truck and both accused did it. Meaning, both accused are responsible and had the mens rea (the legal term -- the intent and mental framework) to commit the crime, as evidenced by the fact they set up the meeting, under duplicitous conditions, lied to TB and his wife and boarder about being "dropped off" and got into the truck with TB, effecting an abduction and forcible confinement according to a preconceived plan. What followed is the responsibility of both even if one was not in the truck when the crime occurred.

The Crown may not be able to prove who fired the fatal shot. Each lawyer may try to suggest that the other defendant did it. But even if either defendant could prove that to be true, it would not get him off the hook. Because he was a party to abduction and forcible confinement of TB, he is guilty of first-degree murder even if he didn't intend TB's death.

The part I don't get is, how did they subdue TB when MS presumably got out of the truck to drive the Yukon? I can't imagine him not trying to do something, whether grab the keys or get away or what. The video evidence from Super Sucker suggests that they wasted no time at the hayfield so the actual shooting must have happened later (besides which, Bullman the neighbour didn't report hearing gunshots).

Is it any defense for MS if he were compelled by DM to participate, e.g., if MS owed DM a debt and DM made him participate in the mission on that account? Could he argue DM was supplying him with drugs and controlling him? Is being forced, in any way, any defence?

 

[ABro]

The part I don't get is, how did they subdue TB when MS presumably got out of the truck to drive the Yukon? I can't imagine him not trying to do something, whether grab the keys or get away or what. The video evidence from Super Sucker suggests that they wasted no time at the hayfield so the actual shooting must have happened later (besides which, Bullman the neighbour didn't report hearing gunshots).

During his cross examination of the forensic video analyst Michael Plaxton, Ravin Pillay showed video footage from Super Sucker of what looked like the Bosma truck heading north on Trinity at approx 9:05, then south about ten minutes later, then north again followed by the Yukon at 9:20.

The dog walker said he believed the two vehicles pulled out of the hayfield between 9:15 and 9:30.

 

[Claroon]

People perhaps are having some difficulty letting go of the idea of a third suspect because it has never been truly answered. The trial is not yet over. We don't yet know everything. As I noted above, a full month later, police were still searching for the third suspect. A year later when CN was arrested, they called her the third suspect, although her charges were Accessory and not Murder. There has been silence surrounding her case since her arrest. The Crown states with confidence that TB was killed, shot dead, by both accuseds (DM and MS), but yet I'm not sure that is possible if MS was driving the Yukon. To me, it only makes sense that there may still be some of us who are still wondering about a potential third participant that night.

Just wondering on the MO thing. Wondering if this was another 'mission', like the others, or if this one was different on purpose.

Wondering if DM had possibly sent a call-out to his past participants-in-thievery to see if anyone was interested in performing a necessary task in *this* mission too? A 'driver' perhaps? For a remuneration of $3000 possibly? Is it possible the friends on the stand were invited to participate, but just aren't admitting it (or those that were invited have not yet testified)? I still can't help waiting for a bombshell to drop to say there was in fact a third participant present for part of the night's events. I noticed that at the time MS was arrested for murder (May 22, 2013), police were still seeking a third suspect. By June 6th, the lead detective said he wasn't sure if there was a 3rd person:


http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...rd_suspect_exists_lead_investigator_says.html

A year later, a third suspect IS arrested:


http://www.chch.com/new-bosma-suspect-appears-court/

How could the Crown so assuredly state that TB was shot by 'both men' ' inside his truck' unless there was indeed a third person tasked with driving the Yukon?

Also, we now know that there were others involved in assisting a murderer (DM) conceal evidence, knowing that he had committed murder (or ought to have known).. who also were not so cooperative with police/Crown (MH imo (and in TD's opinion) knew there was a gun(s) in the toolbox and he helped DM conceal that evidence, and lied to police during 3 separate interviews, and possibly more), and yet the others (perhaps AM also?) were not charged with Accessory. Is it possible that CN was charged with Accessory because she was the driver of the Yukon, which made her involvement that much greater?

I agree. LE used the terms "might not be" and "could have been" "he's not sure if there is a third suspect"...so it's ambiguous. I have to wonder if LE had spoken to this third person, and perhaps there were reasons for this person's identity not being made public.

AM was reportedly extremely jumpy once MH met up with him.

 

[palisadesk]

Time-line so far indicates that the Yukon was stashed elsewhere, and that TB was murdered very shortly after leaving his residence driveway.

The immediate sequence here is what I'm having trouble with. They stashed the Yukon at the hayfield on the corner of Book Road and Trinity, a long block north of the Bosma house. However, Bullman (Day 5) says the truck and the Yukon pulling out of that field minutes later (about 5 minutes after they left Bosma house) and the two vehicles were captured on video northbound on Trinity Road approaching Wilson across from the Ancaster Fairgrounds, about 9:20 or so thus the evidence seems to be that they headed over to pick up the Yukon immediately after leaving the Bosma house, then went north on Trinity (though neighbour Bullman reportedly saw them going west on Book Road, which doesn't fit).

Hard to figure where and when the shooting took place. The video doesn't provide much wiggle room for a stop in the field, and I seriously doubt that the gun was fired in a public place. OTOH, did they manage to tell TB some story and persuade him to continue with the test drive up Trinity Road? They presumably turned west on Wilson, and there are some rather dark and lonely stretches of road between there and Brantford. Did a struggle perhaps ensue along there when TB realized this wasn't a regular test drive?

 

[Abitcountry]

But her charges not make sense if she was the driver, and CN is already committed to go before a judge to face those charges.Why would they wait so late in the game to upgrade charges against CN? (Because driving the Yukon is not "accessory after the fact".) CN as the Yukon driver totally does not make sense, IMO.

Well maybe she was not the driver.....maybe she was a passenger in the Yukon !!!

 

[mimimic]

Can anyone remember which day SB first pleaded for the safe return of TB? I'm sure it was at 2pm and I think it was on May 9, 2013. If DM was keeping tabs on the news or a friend alerted him. I think SB's plea may have been the event that triggered DM'S need to hide everything starting about 4 pm on the 9th. All MOO of course.

The 9th is correct on the same day CN was helping DM

 

[deugirtni]

That's what the Crown says in its opening statement, but I think that needs to be taken as a statement in legal terms, not as a description of who did what in the car. The Crown intends to prove that both accused are guilty of first-degree murder in the shooting of TB in his truck etc.

We've had posts earlier about what is needed for a murder to be considered first-degree. Intention and premeditation are generally required, but if a murder (or accidental death for that matter) results from kidnapping and/or forcible confinement, that is automatically first degree murder (ditto if the death results from sexual assault but that is not relevant to this case).

So, if it is satisfactorily proven that both accused forcibly abducted and confined TB, and did it together (i,e, in cahoots with each other), it doesn't require both to be in the truck when the shooting occurred. The one driving the Yukon would be just as guilty of the murder, because he is/was a party to the abduction and forcible confinement, as if he were in the truck simultaneously firing with a second gun.

IOW, the Crown is saying, TB was shot in the truck and both accused did it. Meaning, both accused are responsible and had the mens rea (the legal term -- the intent and mental framework) to commit the crime, as evidenced by the fact they set up the meeting, under duplicitous conditions, lied to TB and his wife and boarder about being "dropped off" and got into the truck with TB, effecting an abduction and forcible confinement according to a preconceived plan. What followed is the responsibility of both even if one was not in the truck when the crime occurred.

The Crown may not be able to prove who fired the fatal shot. Each lawyer may try to suggest that the other defendant did it. But even if either defendant could prove that to be true, it would not get him off the hook. Because he was a party to abduction and forcible confinement of TB, he is guilty of first-degree murder even if he didn't intend TB's death.

The part I don't get is, how did they subdue TB when MS presumably got out of the truck to drive the Yukon? I can't imagine him not trying to do something, whether grab the keys or get away or what. The video evidence from Super Sucker suggests that they wasted no time at the hayfield so the actual shooting must have happened later (besides which, Bullman the neighbour didn't report hearing gunshots).

I am not a legal expert, but I am wondering if the prosecution would be able to prove kidnapping/abduction/forcible confinement in this case. TB willingly went into his truck with the 2 men, and the 2 men were invited into his truck. To date, I believe the Crown is counting on premeditation as being the basis for the first degree charges. There is an aspect of confinement in any murder, in that usually the victim is confined in some manner so as to make him/her unable to get away, or else he/she would do exactly that and there would be no murder.

If MS was in fact the driver of the Yukon that evening, then I believe the Crown may have a more difficult time in proving him guilty of murder, since to date, there has been no hint to suggest that he knew in advance that a murder would be committed, and if he also was not in the truck when it occurred, they would have to prove advance knowledge, and participation in the plan that included murder. Which they still might, since the Crown's case is not yet presented in full. If there were a third person afterall, then it would be much more likely, imo, that MS would also be found guilty.

I don't believe there was enough time to kill TB at the farmer's field, and it would have been stupid, considering it is steps away from the man's own home, and presumably a shot could easily have been heard by his wife, nevermind other lurkers in the area (Bullman). If there was no third person, one who was in control of the Yukon, and DM stopped to let MS out to drive it, is it possible the Yukon could have been parked in such a way and could the windows have been tinted dark enough so that TB, if he was even looking, would know there was no driver present in the Yukon? It is conceivable that DM and TB could have been yacking away about the truck specifics, so TB wouldn't have even noticed. But then even if so, what would the excuse have been for letting MS out of the truck to get into the Yukon instead? 'Ok, MS here has decided he doesn't need to come on the testdrive with us, so he's just going to follow along with our friend there in the Yukon'? I guess it is possible?

 

[palisadesk]

Ravin Pillay showed video footage from Super Sucker of what looked like the Bosma truck heading north on Trinity at approx 9:05

We know from the phone records that DM and MS were in TB's driveway at 9:05. A few words were exchanged, a cursory examination of the truck, then they got in and drove off.Say, 9:10.

Supersucker video showing a truck at that site at 9:05 would have had to be video of a different truck.

But 9:15 works perfectly for time for the two vehicles to pull out of the hayfield; 5-7 minutes to get there and a driver to get out and get into the Yukon. Then another 5 minutes to get to the corner of Wilson and Trinity (it can take a little longer, depending on traffic - if you're behind a slow vehicle you may not be able to pass).

So those times line up, assuming the vehicles seen by the SS video at 9:20 were the ones in question (neighbour said he saw the two vehicles go west, which doesn't fit. Although it's possible they went west and turned around, it doesn't make much sense).

Anyway, there doesn't seem a viable opportunity for a shooting in those first 15-20 minutes.

 

[serenitynow123]

The 9th is correct on the same day CN was helping DM

Was this also the same day that police updated the description of one of the suspects, that he had the word "Ambition" framed in a box, tattooed on his wrist?