Bosma Murder Trial 03.08.16 - Day 21

[SnooperDuper]

Are they simply establishing that DM had a gun in his possession and available to him? Without the gun being found, it seems like this is simply proving he had a gun and took a photo with it. Nothing really ties the gun in the photo to the actual shooting, despite the shell casing matching. MOO

You would think a matching shell casing ties the gun in the photo to the gun used in the crime.

 

[inbetweendoors]

My count:

Driver's door panel, 1 particle GSR.
Rear driver side door, 1 particle GSR.
Front door passenger, 0 particles GSR.
Back passenger door, 2 particles GSR.
Driver's seat roof liner, 26 particles GSR
Passenger's seat roof liner, 35 particles GSR.
Rear passenger side roof liner, 10 particles GSR.

Sorry can't quote the tweet right now, but I believe the 26 "driver's seat roof liner" we're actually for both front AND rear driver's side. They used one dabber for the front and back on that side for whatever reason, so it's unknown exactly where those 26 were spread across the entirety of the driver's side.

Hope that made sense... and I'll see if I can find the tweet.

ETA:
Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 20s21 seconds ago
Confirming 26 particles cover front and rear on driver's side. Gerard doesn't know exactly where on that side of roof they came from.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 18s18 seconds ago
Pillay asks about 26 particles found on drivers side--this is from samples that cover both front and back of drivers side? Yes, Gerard says

 

[DeepWoodsOff]

You would think a matching shell casing ties the gun in the photo to the gun used in the crime.

The problem is that shell could fit any number of guns using the same caliber of bullet. While in our minds it is a reasonable connection...there truly would be reasonable doubt. MOO

 

[brightii]

But evidence photo shows a shattered upper portion of that window. The window wasn't all the was down. Looks like only 1/4 of the window remained.

I'm not talking about the passenger side window, I'm saying the shooter could have stood outside the driver's side open window or open door with their arm and hand extended inside the truck and shot TB. Obviously, this scenario would mean the truck was stopped at the time.

All MOO.

 

[billandrew]

Are they simply establishing that DM had a gun in his possession and available to him? Without the gun being found, it seems like this is simply proving he had a gun and took a photo with it. Nothing really ties the gun in the photo to the actual shooting, despite the shell casing matching. MOO

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.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

Mar 8 2016 10:55 AM

Dungey asking questions about how the gun being held might influence the GSR. Gerard says he's not qualified to answer that, but a firearms expert could.

Once that I can find. He isn't saying that the firearms expert (ballistics expert) could say where the shooter was, merely how holding the gun could influence GSR. We will have to agree to disagree and see what happens as the Crown unfolds their case. MOO

Once from all witnesses?? I beleive I've seen it a few times from ALL witnesses. I'm not speaking of just One witness (as I did say witnesses)! So I guess we will agree to disagree

 

[Kamille]

Adam Carter
Mar 8 2016 12:10 PM
In the meantime, here's my recap from this morning:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/gun-likely-fired-inside-tim-bosma-s-truck-1.3481024

***Since it appears to me that the gun may be sitting on the table in the office of the Millard house, I'd love to know what was considered too prejudicial to be shown that has been blocked out in that picture.


MOO

 

[meterclicks]

I'm thinking more of the sloppiness beforehand. Millard is 6'4 or something and already stands out before the man purse, tattoos and use of his middle name. That stuff would all have likely been okay if police were only investigating a truck theft, even an audacious one. But murder? There's risk taking and then there's a wildly inadequate sense of self preservation. The cell phone evidence is important to this point I think. They clearly demonstrate an awareness of not leaving a trail - the burner phone was shut off immediately after it's last use, for example, and Tim's is shut off presumably right after his death. But their personal phones were carted to a planned murder? And MS decides to switch his off only after they commit the murder? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. What makes more sense to me is not knowing they were going to be killers, and then each of them having a different reaction. Smich to turn his off, Millard maybe deciding that in a bad situation with no good options he is better to leave the phone on and at least be able to have a half-assed argument of no cognizance of guilt. The sloppiness after was probably mostly little planning, inexperience, a little bad luck and running out of time.

I don't disagree with the things you've said here. I've thought about them but I can't begin to wrap my head around a lot of it. Which is why I'm stuck. One moment I think one thing, then certain evidence comes into play and I'm thinking differently.
But I have thought the 1st degree charge has been appropriate for both from the very beginning, much less about how I came to that line of thinking. (I couldn't even begin to explain it, just a feeling)

 

[SnooperDuper]

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 30s31 seconds ago
Next #Bosma witness is Michael Plaxton, an expert forensic video analyst who works with @HamiltonPolice

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 33s33 seconds ago
Now up, Michael Plaxton. Being qualified as forensic video analyst. #Bosma

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 8s8 seconds ago
Next up is Michael Plaxton, who Crown seeks to qualify as an expert in forensic video analysis. #Bosma

 

[Kamille]

Mar 8 2016 12:18 PM
Court now back in session. Jury being recalled.

Mar 8 2016 12:19 PM
The next witness is video analyst Michael Plaxton.

Mar 8 2016 12:20 PM
The Crown is seeking to have Plaxton qualified as an expert in forensic video analysis.

***Finally getting to some of the video evidence

 

[SnooperDuper]

Sorry can't quote the tweet right now, but I believe the 26 "driver's seat roof liner" we're actually for both front AND rear driver's side. They used one dabber for the front and back on that side for whatever reason, so it's unknown exactly where those 26 were spread across the entirety of the driver's side.

Hope that made sense... and I'll see if I can find the tweet.

ETA:
Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 20s21 seconds ago
Confirming 26 particles cover front and rear on driver's side. Gerard doesn't know exactly where on that side of roof they came from.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 18s18 seconds ago
Pillay asks about 26 particles found on drivers side--this is from samples that cover both front and back of drivers side? Yes, Gerard says

Read over AC's coverage - he has more details and offered the 10 + 26 particles info in his tweets

 

[SnooperDuper]

The problem is that shell could fit any number of guns using the same caliber of bullet. While in our minds it is a reasonable connection...there truly would be reasonable doubt. MOO

Reasonable doubt has to be reasonable. You think there was another gun or that the gun was not DM's...? What do you doubt, and how is that doubt reasonable?

 

[Kamille]

Mar 8 2016 12:22 PM
Plaxton originally graduated from Seneca in the late 70s.

Mar 8 2016 12:22 PM
He has also been a photographic technician with the Canadian Armed Forces.

Mar 8 2016 12:27 PM
Plaxton still running through his resume here. He also worked with Durham Regional Police.

 

[DeepWoodsOff]

Oh crap! Incinerator video? Local businesses video of the trucks going by? The video of the incinerator being fired up is going to be very difficult for the family.

 

[RandomName479]

Once from all witnesses?? I beleive I've seen it a few times from ALL witnesses. I'm not speaking of just One witness (as I did say witnesses)! So I guess we will agree to disagree

BBM - link?

 

[SnooperDuper]

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 2m2 minutes ago
He's a civilian with @HamiltonPolice. Can determine height, speed from video and provide comparisons.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 30s31 seconds ago
Plaxton is former photographer for @CanadianForces. #Bosma

 

[Ironworker736]

The crown is clearly either limited by the evidence or strategically not seeking to make one the shooter over the other. As tempting as it is to try to extrapolate the facts to a specific shooter, I have to remind myself that I have no justification to substitute my judgement or 'common sense' for that of the expert witnesses. My gut says it was Millard, but that and 5 cents will get you a ju-jube. Perhaps the defence cases will offer expert testimony that suggests one or the other. It's interesting to note that both Dungey and the crown have offered the only concrete hypothetical, and they both implied a shot from the drivers side that broke out the passenger window. It's kind of a no-brainer possibility though, which doesn't give it the weight of evidence.

What if a rear shooter slid over to the driver's side to get a more logical angle on TB? Are rear passengers restricted to staying on the passenger side of the vehicle?

 

[DeepWoodsOff]

Reasonable doubt has to be reasonable. You think there was another gun or that the gun was not DM's...? What do you doubt, and how is that doubt reasonable?

In my mind it is a connection but there truly is reasonable doubt when you consider that there are literally millions of guns that could fire that same caliber of bullet. A lawyer would jump all over that all day long. I think it is a very important piece of the puzzle that the jurors have now seen and they will add it to the puzzle. But it isn't the "smoking gun" so-to-speak. If they were able to tie that gun to the actual shooting than this would have been a very short trial. MOO

 

[SnooperDuper]

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 40s40 seconds ago
Became @OPP_News first digital imaging technician. Then went to @DRPS as digital analyst.

 

[brightii]

Once from all witnesses?? I beleive I've seen it a few times from ALL witnesses. I'm not speaking of just One witness (as I did say witnesses)! So I guess we will agree to disagree

ALL the expert witnesses are duly qualified by the court, IMO. Just because they cannot answer with certainty about certain things does not equate to them having a lack of qualifications in their own specific area of expertise. They speak only to the facts as they find them and cannot speculate outside of their defined area of expertise and therefore rightly state that fact when necessary.

Also, just because they have an expertise in one area does not necessarily follow that they can say with certainty what their examination of the evidence concludes, ie GSR present in the truck could be identified but the expert witness could not say where the shooter was or from what angle TB was shot. That is not the fault of the expert witness, it's just the state of the evidence being questioned.

Also all the lawyers know (I presume) what specifically these experts are qualified to speak about but ask them questions or press them to speculate anyway even if it is outside the expert's area of expertise.

All MOO.