Bosma Murder Trial 02.18.16 - Day 11

[Kamille]

Feb 18 2016 3:49 PM
Since April 20th, McGrath had been there with his dad and his cousin, he says. He had also seen one person walking around down in a back field.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 4m4 minutes ago
In turkey hunting month, April 20 to May 20, he hunted 15 to 20 times on that property.

Feb 18 2016 3:51 PM
McGrath says you could see the area where the incinerator was from where he used to sit to hunt.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 3m3 minutes ago
Sometimes he would hunt with cousin or dad. Sometimes by himself.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 2m2 minutes ago
He saw one guy walking "way down in the back field." But otherwise saw nobody.

Feb 18 2016 3:51 PM
He says the four deer also came out of that area where the incinerator was eventually found.

 

[JPC]

So as of right now there's the dirt biker, the horse farmer, the dairy farmer, the cash cropper and the hunter- and chances are DM didn't have a clue that they were all paying attention to their surroundings MOO

Defence may use the fact that a lot of people had access to the hangar, the trailer and the farm and could be potential suspects. Argh!

 

[redwing7225]

Thanks. Do you have a link to the evidence map for that date? For some reason I think ABro missed posting that one on her site. Or I'm just not seeing it?

Doing the best i can :facepalm: there's a video posted Day 10 thread. Page 29 Post #423.
May 10 approx 03:43 is the last of the ping data though on that video. Additional phone data must be around here somewhere

 

[Kamille]

Feb 18 2016 3:52 PM
McGrath says he has walked the roadway where the incinerator was on multiple occasions.

Feb 18 2016 3:53 PM
He says a 4x4 could drive on that roadway in the treeline where the incinerator was found.

Feb 18 2016 3:53 PM
He says a 4x4 could drive on that roadway in the treeline where the incinerator was found.

Feb 18 2016 3:54 PM
Dungey doesn't cross examine. McGrath is finished.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Defence may use the fact that a lot of people had access to the hangar, the trailer and the farm and could be potential suspects. Argh!

Except none of them, were in Tim's truck the night he never came home.

 

[MsSherlock]

I bet these witnesses are happy to have their appearance over with.

 

[Kamille]

Feb 18 2016 3:55 PM
The next witness is Brian Franklin.

Feb 18 2016 3:56 PM
He's Jason McGrath's cousin. McGrath said he'd go out hunting turkey with him sometimes.

 

[Kamille]

Feb 18 2016 3:56 PM
Fraser asking him about the "Roseville swamp," which is just east of where the incinerator was found.

Feb 18 2016 3:58 PM
Franklin says he had heard about the Bosma investigation in the media. "Once it was released that a property was under investigation in Roseville ... that's where I was hunting."

 

[Kamille]

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 7m7 minutes ago
Witness is done. Last witness for the day is called: Brian Franklin.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 6m6 minutes ago
He is cousin of Jason McGrath, who just testified. He turkey hunted with Jason at swamp on May 4 and 5, 2013. #Bosma

molly hayesVerified account ‏@mollyhayes 3m3 minutes ago
Back in May 2013, Franklin saw aerial shots in media of the farm where police were investigating in #Bosma case.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 4m4 minutes ago
He's now marking his hunt route on the map.

 

[MsSherlock]

I am hypothesizing, but suspect that "implied consent" would factor in here. These hunters had access to the property for their hunting activities from the previous owner (Snider) and it was still operational after DM's ownership (2 years previous), whether explicitly or not. Hence, implicit consent. Snider, then by inference DM, consented to their hunting turkey and deer, and by extension to whatever reasonable activities this involved, for example setting up a temporary campsite, cameras, whatever. Some things, like right of way over a property, continue from year to year and have to be explicitly terminated. If they go on long enough, they can't be explicitly terminated (in some jurisdictions, anyway).

IMO, you are correct in the "implied consent". It would have been a different story if DM would have put up "no hunting signs" and "no trespassing" signs all over his property, but FWIK, he didn't. He could have also secured his property line by fence and locked the gate. AFAIK, DM made no attempt at restricting access- probably because he didn't think that far ahead. His D is confirming the fact that DM never made an issue with access to the property. MOO

 

[Kamille]

Feb 18 2016 4:02 PM
Fraser now asking about the area around the two burn sites.

Feb 18 2016 4:03 PM
That site is near where they would hunt, Franklin says.

 

[Kamille]

Feb 18 2016 4:08 PM
Franklin says on May 4/5th, he was sitting at a spot hunting close to where the burn sites are. "Did you notice anything in front of you in terms of any scorched or burnt areas?" Fraser asks. "No," Franklin responds."
Adam Carter

Feb 18 2016 4:08 PM
The Crown also asks if he smelled gas or anything like it, and he says no.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 2m2 minutes ago
He did not see any scorched areas or smell gasoline while hunting.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 38s38 seconds ago
No more questions. Franklin is excused. Jury is done for the week, back Monday. #Bosma

Feb 18 2016 4:09 PM
No cross examination. The jury is out. We're now done for the day.

 

[palisadesk]

Defence may use the fact that a lot of people had access to the hangar, the trailer and the farm and could be potential suspects. Argh!

I doubt it, remember that wonderful post about how the defense presented to the jury must have "an air of reality." It's going to be near-impossible to construct a plausible scenario for how a random stranger managed to get the key to Tim's truck onto DM's carabiner, for example, or hide the stolen goods inside DM's trailer....one could go on. Only a "Beam me up, Scotty" type fantasy could explain those things without involving the two accused.

Their questions regarding access and so forth are quite legitimate and could conceivably bring particular pieces of evidence into dispute about reliability, but are unlikely to affect the big picture.

Disclosure means the defense already knows what evidence is going to be presented by the Crown. Their strategy is not likely an attempt to obtain an acquittal, but perhaps one or another of two scenarios:

(1) Convince enough jury members that an accused had a lesser role in the crime and should be found guilty of second-degree murder. For a recent example of how this can happen, consider the Sammy Yatin death trial recently. The officer was charged with second-degree murder. The jury was out for a long time, obviously carefully going over the evidence, but came back with guilty of attempted murder, still a criminal offense but a lesser sentence. That suggests differences of opinion on culpability among jury members

We have no idea what possible mitigating circumstances either defense attorney may put forward, but getting conviction on a lesser charge is probably the goal.

(2) A hung jury. Even one juror who is sufficiently in doubt may result in a hung jury, where the 12 cannot agree on a verdict. Usually significant disagreements are reached through concessions on all sides, but sometimes not. Recent cases in Canada include:

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

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hung-jury-dismissed-in-n-s-murder-trial-1.901453

Usually, the result is a new trial, but sometimes the Crown decides not to proceed with another trial. Not bleeping likely in this case.

 

[Kamille]

Feb 18 2016 4:11 PM
Just a heads up: tomorrow, court will be sitting, but the jury will not be attending. An all day "voir dire" is planned for lawyers to make legal arguments that the jury can't hear. I'll be here, but because the jury won't be in the room, I can't report on anything that's said tomorrow. Our live blog will return on Monday morning.

 

[Ontario Mom]

Even though I was expecting another day with the jury tomorrow, I'm kind of glad the jury has been excused until Monday. My work productivity has completely tanked!

 

[ADAWG]

Hopefully after hearing and seeing what was put forward today and this week the people of the jury over indulge in drinks tonight. I know I would.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sillybilly]

Except none of them, were in Tim's truck the night he never came home.

Or arrested with Tim's keys on their keychain.

 

[ThelmaLouise]

I found most of the witnesses today, giving some of the most useful testimony yet. All those little dots are being connected.The timeline being developed seems really solid.
On another note, ...the bones. Does anyone know if it was stated, (where in tweets, if so.) that it is simply the location of where the bone(s) were burning in the incinerator that allowed them to remain intact ? I am wondering why the radius might stay intact over a skull?

 

[deugirtni]

I thought it was the gas as well. But it's interesting that his lawyer didn't try to clarify it.

MOO

IMO, DM's lawyer totally screwed up. For one, he has now presented a 'motive' for his client wanting a diesel engine/truck, by having this witness mention that he razzed him for not getting a diesel in the first place. Secondly, the witness's statement that he *thought* he meant that diesel *fuel* was hard to 'get'... but to me, it sounded like the witness was now having to question whether DM may have instead meant that diesel trucks are hard to get (steal). haha too much. Total backfire. IMHO of course.

 

[Kamille]

I found most of the witnesses today, giving some of the most useful testimony yet. All those little dots are being connected.The timeline being developed seems really solid.
On another note, ...the bones. Does anyone know if it was stated, (where in tweets, if so.) that it is simply the location of where the bone(s) were burning in the incinerator that allowed them to remain intact ? I am wondering why the radius might stay intact over a skull?

What WAS said today is that the two bones, tooth and fragments that they were able to collect from between the cement tubes in the bottom of the incinerator is not TB's full remains. In the opinion of the forensic pathologist, the incinerator had been cleared out before LE got to it.

WARNING:
If you have the stomach for it, this link will show you the entire process, including what is expected to be left in the incinerator after cremation is completed. These calcified bones are usually ground after cremation and added to the "ashes" to form the cremains that are returned to the family. I do not want to post the pic as it may be offensive to some.

http://www.deep-six.com/deathweb/page223.htm

Other than the two bones, one tooth, and 58 small fragments, you can see from that picture how much of TB's remains were not returned to his family.

MOO