Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #5

[deugirtni]

A little off topic If WS and Forensic files have taught me anything, it's that if I meet my demise today, I won't have any control over the piles of pictures of the interior of my house and car that may be needed for evidence. They will inevitably end up online for the whole world to see. So, today I made my kids clean their rooms, cleaned the laundry room and detailed my car! I think if I had to go today, the pics would be OK!! MOO

Ha, yes I hear ya! I'm thinking the same thing as you!

 

[swedie]

Any prior convictions would not be brought into the trial though would they? Even if it was for the same general thing?

And I assume she claimed she had something stolen and was taking them to court about that when she then claimed that they were doing something to her vehicle the night before the court date wasn't it?

Or was it originally just a monetary claim between landlord and tenant that escalated because a couple of guys were messing with her car so she couldn't make it on time to the court date?

So how long has the original case been pending or has it been settled? Is the car fiddling a separate case that is still pending? :waitasec:

MOO

Reminds me of MR's case where Judge Heeney threw out the evidence pertaining to MR's laptop and computer hard drive, which proved MR searched for sexually explicit information pertaining to children, before and after TS's rape and murder. And no, previous criminal cases cannot be brought up during this trial. Just as the Crown cannot bring up pending trials. MOO

Allowing the Internet searches would be, he acknowledged, “a close call.” But he decided against it.

For three months leading to the murder of Victoria ‘Tori’ Stafford, Michael Rafferty searched the Internet for child .

His searches included “underage rape, “real underage rape pictures” and “pre-teen nude.”

He also accessed a how-to guide on raping children and dozens of child videos, including some featuring incest and one purporting to be a “snuff movie” involving a child.

On March 28, 2009, 10 days before the kidnapping, Rafferty watched a movie about a man using a story about his lost dog to abduct a blond, 8-year-old girl walking home alone after school. She is taken away in the man’s car and forced later to perform sexual acts.

On April 23, 2009, after the kidnapping, he downloaded a movie about Karla Homolka.

His interest in child extended back at least to 2006. A hard drive from an old computer found in Rafferty’s house contained nine child videos, “some with an outwardly coercive element,” police reports say.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/10/judge-gives-rafferty-jurors-their-final-instructions

 

[deugirtni]

Any prior convictions would not be brought into the trial though would they? Even if it was for the same general thing?

And I assume she claimed she had something stolen and was taking them to court about that when she then claimed that they were doing something to her vehicle the night before the court date wasn't it?

Or was it originally just a monetary claim between landlord and tenant that escalated because a couple of guys were messing with her car so she couldn't make it on time to the court date?

So how long has the original case been pending or has it been settled? Is the car fiddling a separate case that is still pending? :waitasec:

MOO

.... And no, previous criminal cases cannot be brought up during this trial. Just as the Crown cannot bring up pending trials. MOO ....

I had always thought that if a prior conviction exists, and it is relevant to the trial at hand, that evidence/knowledge could be introduced, since it is already a 'conviction', ie proven in court. If a trial is merely pending however, and has not yet taken place, then it is only charges at that point, so would not be allowed to be introduced. If a conviction exists for say, I don't know... a DUI offence, then perhaps since that isn't exactly relevant, it wouldn't be allowed... but if there was a conviction in regard to a theft, or an abduction, kidnapping, assault, murder.. then wouldn't it be relevant to this case, and therefore be eligible to be brought up in front of the jury? Wouldn't it attest to the accused's character, etc? I'm not arguing, just saying that is how I thought it was.

 

[deugirtni]

Just thinking about why there has been nothing (that I have seen at least, even though I searched for it) published in regard to the judge's decision on whether DM will proceed to trial for the murder of his father, WM.... is it possible there is a pub ban on the decision itself, because of the current trial, and perhaps not wanting to bring to the jury's attention another murder charge for the one accused?

 

[swedie]

I tend to go with your line of thinking here. I know it's much easier for us to think that certainly this was simply a couple of guys who wanted to steal a truck and met resistance. Interestingly enough, evidence this week indicates that DM was on the lookout for a dodge ram since Nov/12, prior to WM's death. The question I have is "why", with all the dodge ram trucks out there, didn't they steal one then. They had the gun. They had the man power. Or was it simply out of line with DM's planning. In November, he was restricted by the activity at the hangar. WM had a whole crew there readying the hangar for business. So he bops his pops and clears away any obstructions.

Now the question is, why didn't he steal a truck in Jan, Feb, March, or April? Why did he wait until May? With access to his Dad's money, why didn't he buy a truck over those months? I'm going out on a limb here and supporting the original theory that it was a thrill kill and the truck was simply the cherry on the whipped cream. He needed to make sure that there were no pending concerns about his involvement with LB. Then after WM, he needed to make sure that he was in the clear. By all accounts, they were in the clear. If they wanted to steal a truck, they would have stolen one, but that was never the plan. IMO, DM & MS set out that night to kill someone and burn them in DM's incinerator just because they wanted to and they could. IMHO, TB's death was no accident. It was premeditated murder. MOO

I agree with your comment MsSherlock. It was more than just stealing a truck. I believe DM got a taste of murder at least twice prior to Tim and he got his "jollies" from them, and he wanted the thrill again. No doubt in my mind he would have murdered again and again had he not been caught. There were so many ways they could have stolen a truck without murdering someone over one. Matter of fact, DM could have purchased one. That seemed to be the big question when we found out TB was murdered, "WHY? When DM could have afforded to buy a brand new truck if he wanted one. WHY murder over a truck?" It was about the thrill with the truck being the bonus. And we've seen that now with the 3.7 million dollar loan in October, DM had the finances that would have allowed him to buy a truck. It was murder on DM's mind and as you said, the truck was the cherry on top of the whipped cream.

I'm not so sure MS got as much of a "thrill" out of the murders as DM, and wonder if he even knew they (LB and TB) were going to be murdered. I think there was financial gain for MS to go along with DM's plans. MS seemed to be hard up, no legit job, perhaps a weed and cigarette habit, lived at home with mom. It appears he was in a financial desperate situation and DM knew it and took advantage of MS. Who would hire someone with a criminal rap sheet, but DM. Did MS even have his grade 12 diploma? We know DM didn't as he dropped out of high school after grade 10. DM seemed to be able to control people with money.

Both deserve what is coming to them, and I hope they get the maximum sentence allowable. JMHO.

 

[swedie]

I had always thought that if a prior conviction exists, and it is relevant to the trial at hand, that evidence/knowledge could be introduced, since it is already a 'conviction', ie proven in court. If a trial is merely pending however, and has not yet taken place, then it is only charges at that point, so would not be allowed to be introduced. If a conviction exists for say, I don't know... a DUI offence, then perhaps since that isn't exactly relevant, it wouldn't be allowed... but if there was a conviction in regard to a theft, or an abduction, kidnapping, assault, murder.. then wouldn't it be relevant to this case, and therefore be eligible to be brought up in front of the jury? Wouldn't it attest to the accused's character, etc? I'm not arguing, just saying that is how I thought it was.

See #86 in this guide. And yes, I realize the section is in reference to witnesses but it applies. There is other information out there, you might also find it in this guide, but I don't have the time to look it up right now. MOO.
http://crcvc.ca/docs/Navigating-the-Canadian-CJS.pdf

 

[musicaljoke]

I had always thought that if a prior conviction exists, and it is relevant to the trial at hand, that evidence/knowledge could be introduced, since it is already a 'conviction', ie proven in court. If a trial is merely pending however, and has not yet taken place, then it is only charges at that point, so would not be allowed to be introduced. If a conviction exists for say, I don't know... a DUI offence, then perhaps since that isn't exactly relevant, it wouldn't be allowed... but if there was a conviction in regard to a theft, or an abduction, kidnapping, assault, murder.. then wouldn't it be relevant to this case, and therefore be eligible to be brought up in front of the jury? Wouldn't it attest to the accused's character, etc? I'm not arguing, just saying that is how I thought it was.

Evidence of a previous criminal record often is not permitted during the trial stage because it could be prejudicial. The jury could base their decision on a previous case, rather than the facts of the case that it being tried before them. Or the jury might base their decision on the fact that there are no previous convictions, rather than the evidence in the current case.

But previous convictions often are allowed when the accused's character is cross examined, especially after the trial, at the sentencing phase.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-5/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-5.html

 

[Ontario Mom]

Haven't been on since yesterday due to taking a mini-vacation to the Falls with hubby for our anniversary. Driving down there of course we passed the exit to Ancaster via Wilson, and of course Brantford. It's been a long time since I was over that way so seeing those roads & exit signs... obviously I couldn't help but think of Tim, Sharlene, the entire Bosma family and how these 2 monsters ripped an entire family & community apart. My heart just goes out to those this has affected the most. I pray there is genuine justice in this case and these two never see freedom again. They certainly do not deserve it.

 

[Dee2]

Hi all,
Just a random post (been following all the way along and have FINALLY caught up! ) ...in the previous day's discussion, there were comments about the trailer being dirty, etc. I don't know if anybody can zoom in, but what looks like debris might be leaf or flower buds from the trees overhead...they are just leafing out, and I think are a species of tree that drop something called catkins on the ground. That trailer looks in remarkably good condition - it would have traces of rust on any exposed edges had it been left out in the rain much.
I want to send out my kindest thoughts for those who knew and loved Tim...I first became acquainted with Websleuths when an online acquaintance was abducted and murdered....and now, seeing echoes of something similar only an hour away from where I live makes me feel that it's happened in my own community.
Thanks all,
Dee2

 

[Gibson67]

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6...-may-tell-a-grim-story/#.VtsB6L3Ked0.facebook

 

[Sillybilly]

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6...-may-tell-a-grim-story/#.VtsB6L3Ked0.facebook

The answer as to how TB's blood ended up on the undercarriage:

In his expert opinion, the "hundreds" of blood patterns on the muffler and shocks and rear axle of Tim's truck were caused when someone used a hose or power washer to blast a pool of blood in the area of the passenger door, causing it to spray up into the undercarriage.

Justice is coming, but it all just makes the heart ache so badly

 

[billandrew]

I feel like the blood pattern analysis is going to be important for something else the Crown will be presenting. Maybe the hangar video will show DM and MS with a power washer, thus connecting the blood patterns and supporting the idea that DM and MS attempted to clean up after murdering TB?

 

[Ontario Mom]

I feel like the blood pattern analysis is going to be important for something else the Crown will be presenting. Maybe the hangar video will show DM and MS with a power washer, thus connecting the blood patterns and supporting the idea that DM and MS attempted to clean up after murdering TB?

Considering DM was into cars, I would assume he did own (or stole?) a power washer and it was sitting right there in the hangar.

 

[deugirtni]

The answer as to how TB's blood ended up on the undercarriage:



Justice is coming, but it all just makes the heart ache so badly

Personally............ I just can't imagine that the two would have power-washed the blood from the truck while INside the hangar. Maybe I am mistaken, but if it were me, I would be very fearful that the red staining would be terribly difficult to get out of a concrete floor. From pics I have seen of the hangar, it seems very clean, almost pristine.. although that would be difficult I suppose, if there were engines being taken apart and such in there?

Even if the concrete floors of the hangar were polished, there could be little nicks and grooves where blood would surely collect and be hard to remove/notice? Can you imagine AJ and SS coming in on the Wednesday and finding pink concrete floors, along with a truck looking like one that was plastered all over the news?

If they power-washed the interior of the truck, which I'm sure they must have, based on the blood evidence, where did they do it? It would have had to have a good strong water supply, I would imagine, for the pressure to be any good? And I suppose if they had a gas pressure washer, they would not have required electricity. Could they have done it at the farm? It would obviously be on well water, but would well water withstand that type of use?

The blood that was found in that little screwhole in the floor of the truck... they did not mention whether it was mixed with water/soap... would it still have been possible to get a good DNA sample from it if it had been watered down with a pressure washer?

 

[Ontario Mom]

I don't think they hosed out the truck IN the hangar. They probably did it right outside. If they didn't have any issue firing up the incinerator, they sure as heck wouldn't have any issue power washing the truck.

 

[billandrew]

All I'm suggesting is that DM and MS could be on video with the power washer. Moving it, wheeling it around, or even using it inside or outside the hangar. Who knows. I just feel like there must be something to connect the blood pattern to an actual power washer, and that there must be evidence that it was used the night TB was murdered.

 

[Abitcountry]

All I'm suggesting is that DM and MS could be on video with the power washer. Moving it, wheeling it around, or even using it inside or outside the hangar. Who knows. I just feel like there must be something to connect the blood pattern to an actual power washer, and that there must be evidence that it was used the night TB was murdered.

I am questioning whether they used a power washer given that police were able to find so much trace blood on the exterior of the vehicle. I am thinking that they did a " DM style " clean up with a hose and power nozzle. I thought power washers were so thorough that they could actually take the paint off your vehicle.....but with a hose and power nozzle, I know from personal experience that unless you are willing to expend a little elbow grease, you are not going to get the real dirt ( or blood ) off. And I agree with you that there must be some trace of them having washed the vehicle.

The police spent considerable time at the hangar afterwards and I don't remember them ever revealing their findings....Perhaps there were traces trapped in the asphalt driveway that are all around the hangar. There is still so much that has yet to be present by the Crown.

 

[Velma]

Totally moo at this point, but my theory on the washing is that it happened in the barn on the farm, possibly while they were waiting for the bonfire to do it's job. I say this because, to me, the plank of wood removed from the barn seems to have the faint mark of a tire tread, with stains from a pool of blood running up to and then around the tire. Respectfully, I don't see the pelvis shape that others have noticed. This all hinges on the assumption that there is water and hose hookup around the barn. I'm hoping we find out more this see to put our speculation to rest.

 

[Abitcountry]

Totally moo at this point, but my theory on the washing is that it happened in the barn on the farm, possibly while they were waiting for the bonfire to do it's job. I say this because, to me, the plank of wood removed from the barn seems to have the faint mark of a tire tread, with stains from a pool of blood running up to and then around the tire. Respectfully, I don't see the pelvis shape that others have noticed. This all hinges on the assumption that there is water and hose hookup around the barn. I'm hoping we find out more this see to put our speculation to rest.

If they had running water at the barn, it makes good sense to do it there but if there was no hydro hooked up to run the pump there would be no water.
I do see the shape on the board and it is actually haunting similar to the image on the Shroud of Turin....but I am judging that that board is likely 8 or 10 inches wide looking at the investigator's gloved hand ......and would not accommodate even a small body on its width.
I can see why people say it does look like a tire tread but then again, the investigator said that the tire with the blood stain appeared in the middle of the tread.
Oh...I feel like such a Debbie Downer....sorry.

 

[Abitcountry]

I was trying to recall when it was that the public found out about Homolka's sweetheart deal with the crown??....was it at the end of Bernardo's trial or hers. I do remember Ontarians were pretty hot under the collar about it.
So here's my question---Is SS has cut a deal with the Crown, when would the public be informed? Like wise with MM because I find it hard to believe she has not been singing....and there may be others.