Bosma Murder Trial 03.08.16 - Day 21

[JuneBug67]

there is also a photo of MS holding the same gun that was a photo from his IPAD so not sure what this proves.

Because this is Canada I think there is value in these photos because for 99.99% of us owning, holding, photographing and IMing a handgun is going to be a really strange, unsettling experience that few of us would seek out. The attraction to this stuff for a couple of middle class suburbanites is not without probative value. But as far as connecting THAT gun to the murder? Nothing yet. The closest they get I think is that it's not inconsistent with the murder weapon and nobody can produce it now. If I was a juror I think that's as far as I could go in my mind. A possibility, but no more than that.

 

[sab_bri]

Does anyone have the link to the SuperSucker video footage?

 

[andreww]

Question from a non-car person.....would this be described as rimless?

Yes. In the video it would appear to just be steel rims. These actually look like blacked out aluminum rims.

 

[RandomName479]

Does anyone have the link to the SuperSucker video footage?

likely won't be released until after the witness is done testifying....that's how it worked for the rest I think....

 

[Tealgrove]

Yup, at this point the gun photo is just another tidbit of information. They have not presented anything to link the gun in the photo to the gun that shot TB.

No they haven't, BUT, visually they have put a gun in Dellen Millard's hand and to a jury that may speak volumes.

Quite frankly, the evidence so far has been so compelling that I don't think the jury needs a lot more to convict but that VISUAL of Dellen Millard's hand holding a gun is an important piece of evidence that will help to go to premeditation and supporting the 1st degree charge. MOO

 

[paris_paris]

Question from a non-car person.....would this be described as rimless?

Of course it has rims. He said no hubcaps.

 

[andreww]

No they haven't, BUT, visually they have put a gun in Dellen Millard's hand and to a jury that may speak volumes.

Quite frankly, the evidence so far has been so compelling that I don't think the jury needs a lot more to convict but that VISUAL of Dellen Millard's hand holding a gun is an important piece of evidence that will help to go to premeditation and supporting the 1st degree charge. MOO

-Its a 380
-the casing is 380
-Millard owned the weapon but no longer does
-GSR found in his satchel

I have no problem believing that the gun in that picture is the gun that was used to kill TB

 

[SnooperDuper]

No they haven't, BUT, visually they have put a gun in Dellen Millard's hand and to a jury that may speak volumes.

Quite frankly, the evidence so far has been so compelling that I don't think the jury needs a lot more to convict but that VISUAL of Dellen Millard's hand holding a gun is an important piece of evidence that will help to go to premeditation and supporting the 1st degree charge. MOO

I agree. Just because evidence is circumstantial and not direct does not mean the evidence is any less valid.

 

[RandomName479]

Of course it has rims. He said no hubcaps.

You're absolutely right. My bad :blushing:

 

[JuneBug67]

No they haven't, BUT, visually they have put a gun in Dellen Millard's hand and to a jury that may speak volumes.

Quite frankly, the evidence so far has been so compelling that I don't think the jury needs a lot more to convict but that VISUAL of Dellen Millard's hand holding a gun is an important piece of evidence that will help to go to premeditation and supporting the 1st degree charge. MOO

Again I think its important to point out that you don't need premeditation in this case to support the 1st degree murder charge due to the kidnapping (forcible confinement) component. Tim died during a kidnapping and that informs the 1st degree charge. There was nothing in the crown's opening statement about the planning or premeditation of Tim's murder. It's not a necessary thing to prove in this case as charged.

 

[Kamille]

Because this is Canada I think there is value in these photos because for 99.99% of us owning, holding, photographing and IMing a handgun is going to be a really strange, unsettling experience that few of us would seek out. The attraction to this stuff for a couple of middle class suburbanites is not without probative value. But as far as connecting THAT gun to the murder? Nothing yet. The closest they get I think is that it's not inconsistent with the murder weapon and nobody can produce it now. If I was a juror I think that's as far as I could go in my mind. A possibility, but no more than that.

And I'm thinking that because this is Canada, a gun that happens to be of the same caliber that the shell casing from the victim's truck is, obviously owned by one of the two accused considering the time period between the two pictures, neither of whom have a registered license to own a handgun, and the gun was not found in the possession of either of them after the crime to test it, is all I need to know to consider the most reasonable conclusion is that it was that gun that was fired in the victim's truck by one of the two accused.

MOO

 

[Kamille]

Again I think its important to point out that you don't need premeditation in this case to support the 1st degree murder charge due to the kidnapping (forcible confinement) component. Tim died during a kidnapping and that informs the 1st degree charge. There was nothing in the crown's opening statement about the planning or premeditation of Tim's murder. It's not a necessary thing to prove in this case as charged.

The forcible confinement component is a fine line than can be argued however. Let's say TB was shot after being told to get out of the truck and refusing? He got into the truck willingly. At that point, I'd say, the shooter at least, made a premeditated decision to shoot him rather than abort the theft. So if it can be proven that both of the parties involved were aware that this would be the result if the victim did not comply, regardless of who shot, then this was a premeditated plan to steal a truck and kill the owner if necessary.

MOO

 

[sab_bri]

likely won't be released until after the witness is done testifying....that's how it worked for the rest I think....

oh, I was wondering if it was released after the owner of the store testified a while back - Guess not! Perhaps because they weren't done with it.

 

[billandrew]

This might already be common knowledge, but just for anyone who doesn't know: the gun in the photos, a Walther PPK 380, is a prohibited firearm in Canada because the barrel is less than 106 mm. It had to be acquired illegally or smuggled into the country.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/cfp-pcaf/fs-fd/prohibited-prohibe-eng.htm

http://www.waltherarms.com/handguns/ppk/ppk-ppks/

 

[Kamille]

-Its a 380
-the casing is 380
-Millard owned the weapon but no longer does
-GSR found in his satchel

I have no problem believing that the gun in that picture is the gun that was used to kill TB

To my knowledge, there was no GSR found in the satchel. I believe Dungey just brought that up as a hypothetical. Stating that IF the satchel had not been washed they may have been able to find GSR in it if the gun had been in it. If you have seen otherwise, I'd love to see it as that would definitely place a gun in DM's possession.

MOO

 

[andreww]

And I'm thinking that because this is Canada, a gun that happens to be of the same caliber that the shell casing from the victim's truck is, obviously owned by one of the two accused considering the time period between the two pictures, neither of whom have a registered license to own a handgun, and the gun was not found in the possession of either of them after the crime to test it, is all I need to know to consider the most reasonable conclusion is that it was that gun that was fired in the victim's truck by one of the two accused.

MOO

Jury can use common sense. Where is Millard's gun if this is not the one used in the crime? Even bigger that this is the obvious fact that TB left with Millard and Smich and ended up shot to death. If Millard and Smich didn't do it, who did? The evidence is all circumstantial, but together it is painting a very clear picture of what happened.

 

[andreww]

To my knowledge, there was no GSR found in the satchel. I believe Dungey just brought that up as a hypothetical. Stating that IF the satchel had not been washed they may have been able to find GSR in it if the gun had been in it. If you have seen otherwise, I'd love to see it as that would definitely place a gun in DM's possession.

MOO

I believe 1 particle was found in the satchel.

 

[ADAWG]

I am assuming a fire arms expert will come in and testify that this weapon is designed for conceal and carry as well as a good gun for close range shot. That the gun in the photo would be a perfect fit for this type of situation.

 

[RandomName479]

I believe 1 particle was found in the satchel.

I don't recall this....what's your source?

 

[CJPRINCESS]

And I'm thinking that because this is Canada, a gun that happens to be of the same caliber that the shell casing from the victim's truck is, obviously owned by one of the two accused considering the time period between the two pictures, neither of whom have a registered license to own a handgun, and the gun was not found in the possession of either of them after the crime to test it, is all I need to know to consider the most reasonable conclusion is that it was that gun that was fired in the victim's truck by one of the two accused.

MOO

Is it possible the LE actually have the gun? Maybe this is all important to show that it's the same gun they have in evidence. We have only been given small amounts of evidence found. We also heard, that the gun was buried in a forest. So maybe MS or MM (if she knew where exactly) showed LE the way?