Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #6

[deugirtni]

Just taking an illegal gun with them has to infer something IMO

Not really since he/they could have carried one at all times? Tough guys, you know?

 

[Satchie]

I'm pretty sure RP will get into what the two bangs are when court resumes. Is the truck crossing the train track the source of the bangs? If it is, then why would LE purposefully make believe they didn't know the source? Are they wanting us to use our imagination and imagine gunshots? So,... practicing willful omission, thus intimation, in order to persuade the jury to come to a certain favourable conclusion?

Both sides in a court case are trying to persuade the jury. The Crown presents the case they have compiled against the accused, because they believe the accused is guilty, it's up to the defense to present their own evidence to persuade the jury the person is innocent, or that there are flaws in the Crown's evidence.

 

[Gumshew]

Not really since he/they could have carried one at all times? Tough guys, you know?

Hah, maybe DM but MS couldn't afford one. It's not like illegal weapons come cheap. He would probably have been caught by LE the day after he took possession if he hadn't shot himself first. He couldn't even do a graffiti job without getting caught.

 

[Gumshew]

Both sides in a court case are trying to persuade the jury. The Crown presents the case they have compiled against the accused, because they believe the accused is guilty, it's up to the defense to present their own evidence to persuade the jury the person is innocent, or that there are flaws in the Crown's evidence.

Yeah.... I kindda know how it works.

My point is that I dislike inaccuracy and willful omission, especially in a murder 1 case.

 

[deugirtni]

bbm

I was going to respond that at least we have the reassurance that the auto body guy called it in as suspicious. But in re-reading it all, I was incorrectly assuming that he did that now. Although I can't find reference as to exactly when he did call in to LE I now am thinking it was only after the arrest. And I wonder if it was not at the uncles urging here too

Tony Diciano is the next witness, with an Italian as opposed to a Russian accent. Tall and white haired, he’s run an auto body shop for 38 years. He’s known Dellen Millard for 7-10 years and met him through his uncle, Robert Burns.

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2016/02/dispatches-from-the-tim-bosma-trial-day-5.html

I don't recall ever hearing or reading that Diciano had called the police with his knowledge regarding a scheduled paint job. I wasn't aware of a paint job for the TB truck being discussed with Diciano at all, until he was a witness at trial, and from tweets and articles, I haven't noticed anything to say that he called it in. That leads me to wonder if police approached *him* for information, which as suggested, was likely due to Robert Burns. or vice versa, RB asked Diciano if he happened to hear of DM's arrest, and from there it went. When LW apparently talked to RB about her dealings with DM, it was after DM's arrest I believe, and so RB could easily have discovered something about the paint job after the fact as well, and encouraged Diciano to call. All seems to have been done after his arrest as mentioned above.

 

[Satchie]

Until yesterday I also had been reading the time as 1:30 to 1:33 .... the way I understood it was to show DM & MS inside the hangar while the actual incineration was taking place .... if I was a defense lawyer I would have been all over it.

No, the hangar video was earlier than what is presumed to be the lighting of the incincerator: at 1:44 a.m. the outdoor camera from G&M masonry captured "what Plaxton described as “a large flame” appears above the trailer. It briefly illuminates the side of the hangar." http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/security-camera-caught-moment-tim-bosmas-body-was-incinerated-prosecution

Viewing the video, it is quite clearly a flame, and large. Pretty odd thing to see at night at an airport hangar.

 

[Satchie]

I don't recall ever hearing or reading that Diciano had called the police with his knowledge regarding a scheduled paint job.

LE had DM's phone records, I assumed they may have contacted the autobody guy to see if he had any information.

 

[deugirtni]

It's confusing because Plaxton spliced the videos together to make one video showing the sequence of events.
--
The video he's talking about that is 5 hours off is the video from the hangar. Plaxton says the video is from 1:33 am. Add the final calculation of 4 hours and 38 minutes, and you get 6:11 am, which is what shows on the video. Here are Molly Hayes' tweets which should help:

Okay so humor me.. he's saying 5:10 off, and then he's saying 4:38 off. Which is it? Or is it either, or, depending on which time suits which purpose?

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes Mar 9
Time stamp on the hangar DVR was 5hrs10mins off when Plaxton first reviewed it. A year later, 5hrs20mins off.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes Mar 9
That's common for a system that's stored off and unplugged, he says. Had to find an event they knew time of to then figure out correct time.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes Mar 9
He determined the DVR time was 4 hours 38 mins fast.

 

[deugirtni]

LE had DM's phone records, I assumed they may have contacted the autobody guy to see if he had any information.

Too bad we (and the jury) don't have the cell records, all of them, rather than just the picked and plucked ones that someone deemed to be all that was required?

 

[deugirtni]

Hah, maybe DM but MS couldn't afford one. It's not like illegal weapons come cheap. He would probably have been caught by LE the day after he took possession if he hadn't shot himself first. He couldn't even do a graffiti job without getting caught.

Okay so call it a well-off guy who could afford to carry self protection at all times, along with a wannabe gangsta kid.

 

[deugirtni]

In the case of DP's iffy retainment, have you thought about that he was also representing MWJ at the same time-- a conflict of interest dismissal seems a good guess. Yes, I agree, there's really a lot we don't know. Yes, interesting that he was "told" there are more suspects.

I'm pretty sure RP will get into what the two bangs are when court resumes. Is the truck crossing the train track the source of the bangs? If it is, then why would LE purposefully make believe they didn't know the source? Are they wanting us to use our imagination and imagine gunshots? So,... practicing willful omission, thus intimation, in order to persuade the jury to come to a certain favourable conclusion?

Yes, I also think it stinks that the cellphone exhibit is cherry picked. You bring up excellent points... again, the willful omissions.

Imho, we can't blame the prosecution for putting that little hint out there that those 2 bang noises existed in the background (which when Adam Carter listened to and watched the video in the courtroom, noted that he had not heard them). But I don't think the Crown put words out to the effect that they could have been two shots fired... although that is of course, the first thing I thought of, and I'm sure many others, as soon as I read it. And the defence of course, is doing the same thing, although more blatantly. As DP once said... (something like) he treats a trial like a war. .. and like Sachak said during this trial, 'what's good for the goose is good for the gander'. The jury is left to discard, give little weight to, lose trust after seeing discrepancies, judge the witnesses however they see fit, get sick adn tired of the same old mantra of the accused not hiding anything, and come up with their own version of the truth... the triers of fact. I can't imagine being a juror in a regular say, two week trial, and not being allowed to take notes!

 

[deugirtni]

I was meaning to infer that the bangs were caused by their vehicle or some other heavier vehicle going over the tracks. I agree that the gunshot would not necessarily be heard, especially if it was coincident to the bangs made by a vehicle. Does anybody know what the pot hole situation was like in the spring in that area?

Someone needs to post an audio file of the noises the trains make at night, which I'm sure would be heard over at Bobcat.

 

[Satchie]

Okay so humor me.. he's saying 5:10 off, and then he's saying 4:38 off. Which is it? Or is it either, or, depending on which time suits which purpose?

As I read his testimony, when he first looked at it, it was 5:10 off, but when he went back and looked a year later, it had drifted by an additional 10 minutes. It was seized from CNs house 11 months after the murder, and we don't know when he analyzed it. So the 5:10 minutes off when he viewed it, included a 20 minute inaccuracy that had drifted in just by sitting in CNs closet.

I think he could have determined the accurate time for hangar video quite easily, he had the external video showing the main hangar lights coming on, presumably that would be appear on the indoor video as well and he could sync the time from that.

 

[deugirtni]

As I read his testimony, when he first looked at it, it was 5:10 off, but when he went back and looked a year later, it had drifted by an additional 10 minutes. It was seized from CNs house 11 months after the murder, and we don't know when he analyzed it. So the 5:10 minutes off when he viewed it, included a 20 minute inaccuracy that had drifted in just by sitting in CNs closet.

I think he could have determined the accurate time for hangar video quite easily, he had the external video showing the main hangar lights coming on, presumably that would be appear on the indoor video as well and he could sync the time from that.

5 hours and 10 minutes is basically half an hour different from 4 hours and 38 minutes. First he says the time on the hangar video is off by 5:10, but then he also says he found it was 4;38.. so which is it? I'm not asking about the 10 minute drift during a year in a closet.

 

[Wollander77]

Timeline accuracy is very important. If LE have skewed the timeline then you can bet the defence will pursue it. RP has been not-so-subtly getting at that.

In my own opinion, there is already a hint of inaccuracy and cherry picking in the prosecution's presentation of video. Also, some shoddy work securing evidence so that it fell out of a moving vehicle and unclear notes about seat/bullet.

Lastly, how could LE not know what caused or could have caused the two loud bangs on the video? I bet RP knows. I don't believe it is anything to do with gunshots. I get the impression that LE is purposefully leaving the two bang sounds up in the air so that it may "seem" to be gunshots.

All just my opinion and impression.

In my mind, there's a difference between cherry-picking (which is asking for trouble) and careful selection of evidence that strings together a well-substantiated argument. This goes for both the Crown and Defense.

LE admitted that the trailer had not been properly secured. Experts attested to what they can verify, and no more than what they were in charge of doing - the reason, perhaps, behind some confusion on the placement of the seats (not necessarily the bullet, as it could've moved when the truck travelled in the trailer; to argue that it originally launched to the back or front would've invited more criticism from the Defense). LE remarked openly on time differences in the security cams, and I don't think the Defense had offered stern criticism for manipulating hours-long gaps to suit the Crown's case (they've implied LE had not recorded verifying the time, but they might grill LE more in the weeks ahead).

From these few examples, I didn't get the feeling the Crown tried to hide relevant and potentially harmful data from the jury. But I understand how people might think differently, especially in regards to what they think is "relevant."

On your recent point about wilful omission, deceit, and inaccuracy on the Crown's part... I don't believe we have the full picture yet, of the Crown's case or even their defense of what appeared to be inaccuracies or omission of evidence. We also haven't been physically present in court since the start of trial - there might be details, nuances, or easily explained paradoxes we've unfortunately missed. So it'd be interesting to see what evidence the Defense will include in their summary arguments, and to what extent their objections (and witnesses, if they have any) could challenge the Crown's case. But this is JMO.

 

[deugirtni]

I have always wondered why, to this day, this wasn't done or followed up on, or even explained as to why it wasn't. Why wasn't it?

2:18 PM
On May 10, Tselepakis got production orders for the Lucas Bate phone and Tim Bosma's phone.
2:19 PM
He was then asked to go to two locations to follow up on two numbers they didn't know where they had come from.
2:20 PM
Two other numbers were contacted by the Bate phone: one from Dennis Araujo and another from a Colin Blair or Sheryl Blair.
2:20 PM
Araujo had a missed call from that number at 8:22 p.m. but didn't call back. He had a truck for sale on Auto Trader.
2:21 PM
Tselepakis didn't follow up with Blair.

 

[deugirtni]

LE had DM's phone records, I assumed they may have contacted the autobody guy to see if he had any information.

Interesting that they would bother to call the autobody number (without perhaps knowing it was an autobody shop?), but didn't bother to visit the people at a number they were specifically requested to visit, and not only didn't visit as told to do, but it was never even explained why this wasn't done. I just find that so lacking.

 

[Kamille]

Interesting that DP says he is 'told' there are more suspects... so sounds like the info he is getting is from police/prosecution, as opposed to from his own client, at that point in time. One has to wonder.. being on the outside and not knowing things.. whether DP took this whole thing upon himself.. or did DM in fact call him to see if he wanted him to work on the case. I recall another lawyer from another lawfirm at some point went to see DM, and DP's nose was all out of joint and he said it is illegal, and he'd be looking into wrongdoing, etc., (rephrasing here), meanwhile the firm in question said that DM had in fact called them. And then as it all turned out in the end, DP never *was* contracted as DM's lawyer in this case. So much that we don't know!

And yes, of course the defence will question any screwups in timelines. I am wondering why RP didn't get into that 2-bangs-heard issue, since it was intimated that they could have been the end of TB's life.

I also think it rather stinks that on the cellphone exhibit, they picked and chose which communications to include on the report. Now we have one that is different from another, because at least one entry is missing from the one available online now. Why would it change, and did it only change online, or is it a correction, and if correction, is the jury aware, because it was certainly never tweeted about. If they had just listed everything, rather than picking and choosing what they felt was relevant, it would be easier to confirm the accuracy of the cellphone records. As it stands, it just looks like stuff is missing, and so there is no way to check or confirm; for example all of the texts between SH and DM.. not there.. but yet in the testimony, we see a visual presentation of texts between them which include exact times to the second.. no way to check if they are the same times on the cell exhibit because they're left off. Is something trying to be hidden or avoided? If it was the other way around, I'm sure it would be seen like that.

Can you please elaborate on this? There is only one cell phone exhibit that has ever been used and presented to the jury in this case. What is it that you believe to have been different? And what possible relevance does the cell records between DM and SH have to this crime? They were discussing business. So unless the calls between them were necessary to provide a time and location for DM, they were irrelevant.

The jury does not need to see pages upon pages of telephone records, 70 percent of which have nothing to do with this crime. Talk about confusion. MS received 21 messages overnight on the 6th. Can you imagine the records that could have been presented if every call and text that both of them made or took for over a week had been presented in court? And the defense likely would have argued out all the calls that were irrelevant anyway. The records that were chosen were selected to show timeline, where each of them were at any given time, apart and together and focused on some people they were in contact with. I would assume that some or all of these people will be taking the witness stand.

The defense has their own complete copy of the phone records and are welcome to make their own exhibit from them if there is anything there that they feel should have been presented in this case and wasn't or they want to interpret things in a different way with the records.

MOO

 

[hopingforjustice]

I don't recall ever hearing or reading that Diciano had called the police with his knowledge regarding a scheduled paint job. I wasn't aware of a paint job for the TB truck being discussed with Diciano at all, until he was a witness at trial, and from tweets and articles, I haven't noticed anything to say that he called it in. That leads me to wonder if police approached *him* for information, which as suggested, was likely due to Robert Burns. or vice versa, RB asked Diciano if he happened to hear of DM's arrest, and from there it went. When LW apparently talked to RB about her dealings with DM, it was after DM's arrest I believe, and so RB could easily have discovered something about the paint job after the fact as well, and encouraged Diciano to call. All seems to have been done after his arrest as mentioned above.

Yup...guilty as charged here Not sure why I just assumed he came forward. You are very right. Thanks!

 

[Satchie]

5 hours and 10 minutes is basically half an hour different from 4 hours and 38 minutes. First he says the time on the hangar video is off by 5:10, but then he also says he found it was 4;38.. so which is it? I'm not asking about the 10 minute drift during a year in a closet.

The day it was recorded, the timestamp was 4:38 off
The day he first viewed it, a year or more later, the timestamp was 5:10 off
One year later, the time stamp was 5:20 off