Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #6

[NashBridges2]

Thank you, I missed that. Just to clarify however, I was not saying that I did not believe there were 2 bangs, I'm sure there were, or the Crown would/could have easily been proven wrong. The Crown, IIRC, did not intimate what they suspected the bangs were from, that was left entirely up to anyone's imagination, imo. I'm just saying that both sides are saying things, mentioning things, intimating things, trying to sway perceptions one way or another, and if one side can do it, then it's game for both sides, imo.

Of course they are, that's what trial is all about.

 

[Typhoo1961]

Re; the 2 bangs in the video

Has that video been released to the public yet?

 

[NashBridges2]

Isn't there a possibility that there are texts that may have been ruled inadmissible? And even if they were admissible, including a bunch of relatively benign texts in a graphics presentation to the Jury would do absolutely nothing to assist the Crown prove their case. IMO, the Crown has absolutely no incentive or reason to dilute their case with anything that isn't relevant. MOO

You are so very right. There has been many exclusions and things withheld from the public and jury that the general public are not aware of. I don't care to see or hear call logs that aren't relevant to THIS case.

Also, I keep reading about LE not mentioning a truck similar to TB truck on the video 20 minutes earlier and people wanting to know why the Crown didn't bring that up. It was irrelevant because LE knew where Tim and his truck were, at that time. Both at home, waiting for DM and MS to show up for the test drive.

Let's give LE, and the crown the kudos they deserve for what they have managed to put together. Short of having the whole rcrime put on tape for the world to see, they've done an amazing job so far. Let's withhold all judgment until it's all said and done. We owe them that.

 

[Arnie M]

Re; the 2 bangs in the video

Has that video been released to the public yet?

We have seen at least parts of it , but without audio . I would like to hear it , anyone who has heard rail cars couple will recognize the sound , anyone who has heard an empty gravel-truck go over railroad tracks will recognize the sounds , and anyone who has heard the pop pop of a 9mm inside a truck cab will say you would not likely hear it from the Bobcat location and the sound would not even be comparable to the other two

Didn't SB start calling Tim's phone around 10:00 pm ??? .... the driver of the stolen truck would have heard it ring .... pulled off the main highway to retrieve it from TB , turn it off , and then toss it out .

.

 

[deugirtni]

Isn't there a possibility that there are texts that may have been ruled inadmissible? And even if they were admissible, including a bunch of relatively benign texts in a graphics presentation to the Jury would do absolutely nothing to assist the Crown prove their case. IMO, the Crown has absolutely no incentive or reason to dilute their case with anything that isn't relevant. MOO

I'm really not sure why this is such a large issue for some sleuthers here that I am interested to see the same texts talked about on the stand in the exhibit presenting texts, as well as the exhibit presenting only SH's texts, but to me, they can't have it both ways. MOO. If the evidence is useless, then SH wouldnt' have been on the stand presenting his evidence, and his texts with DM wouldn't be submitted as an evidence exhibit.

If it wasn't useless, then those same texts, one might assume, would also be seen on the earlier cellphone exhibit, and in fact, one of them was for sure, but it has now somehow disappeared, from what I can see, from the version available on Sunday online. I can't explain that, but as a sleuther who wants to know it all, I do find it disturbing. Can an exhibit be changed once it is registered as a numbered exhibit? No idea. If the texts are inadmissible, they have just gone and added a batch of texts, including one of the same texts, to the evidence. The exhibit#37 did not contain anything inadmissable, imo. The cell numbers only had 4 digits, identities were protected, other than those of the main players which were listed on the exhibit (IIRC). The exhibits were already posted publicly.

 

[Wollander77]

Didn't SB start calling Tim's phone around 10:00 pm ??? .... the driver of the stolen truck would have heard it ring .... pulled off the main highway to retrieve it from TB , turn it off , and then toss it out.

According to AC, Sharlene contacted TB at around 10:20, long after DM and MS tossed and/or turned off his cell phone.

Feb 1 2016 3:16 PM
She watched a show on PVR. At 10:20 p.m. she was alarmed because he hadn't come home yet. She called him and it went right to voice mail.

Feb 1 2016 3:17 PM
Then she texted him about 10:22. She said "Where are you?" but didn't get any response. She texted her downstairs neighbour, and now was worried.

 

[deugirtni]

I am simply asking for you to provide the link that you claim is different from the link that most of us have been using for the cell phone exhibit as I am curious to see this different exhibit. You are claiming that something exists and I'm asking if you can prove that with a link.

Here is the link that I have for the cell phone exhibit. The communication with SH is on it. https://docs.google.com/presentatio...AGTr4PrZnEc7rU/edit?pref=2&pli=1#slide=id.p25

<modsnip>I would genuinely like to see the two different exhibits and would like to know why we should be concerned that the Crown did not put all of the communication between SH and DM on the exhibit. Do we know if the jury will be also be provided with the full phone records?

MOO

If that link is the same one that was posted the other day (I believe it was Sunday), and it does have one communication with SH and DM, then it is the same, and I was not able to find it on there the other day.

Nobody says that sleuthers here on WS all need or should be concerned about the same things. Some of us were having a conversation around some things being shown and others not, etc. Some of us are interested in matching certain things up, others find it unimportant. Those who are not interested in doing so don't need to be concerned with it. Thank you.

 

[Kamille]

I'm really not sure why this is such a large issue for some sleuthers here that I am interested to see the same texts talked about on the stand in the exhibit presenting texts, as well as the exhibit presenting only SH's texts, but to me, they can't have it both ways. MOO. If the evidence is useless, then SH wouldnt' have been on the stand presenting his evidence, and his texts with DM wouldn't be submitted as an evidence exhibit.

If it wasn't useless, then those same texts, one might assume, would also be seen on the earlier cellphone exhibit, and in fact, one of them was for sure, but it has now somehow disappeared, from what I can see, from the version available on Sunday online. I can't explain that, but as a sleuther who wants to know it all, I do find it disturbing. Can an exhibit be changed once it is registered as a numbered exhibit? No idea. If the texts are inadmissible, they have just gone and added a batch of texts, including one of the same texts, to the evidence. The exhibit#37 did not contain anything inadmissable, imo. The cell numbers only had 4 digits, identities were protected, other than those of the main players which were listed on the exhibit (IIRC). The exhibits were already posted publicly.

BBM

I do not believe an exhibit can be changed, at least not without testimony about a change that was deemed neccesary, and that was not done in this case. The link ABro provided in her post #300 is the same one as I provided and also has the SH text on it. Unless you can provide a link, there is no altered exhibit that does not show that text IMO.

The cell phone exhibit was to show the movement of the two accused during the days leading up to the murder and the days after the murder. It was not intended to show every text or communication between them and any witness who may take the stand. That will be done when the witness takes the stand, as we saw in the case of SH.

MOO

 

[Kamille]

If that link is the same one that was posted the other day (I believe it was Sunday), and it does have one communication with SH and DM, then it is the same, and I was not able to find it on there the other day.

Nobody says that sleuthers here on WS all need or should be concerned about the same things. Some of us were having a conversation around some things being shown and others not, etc. Some of us are interested in matching certain things up, others find it unimportant. Those who are not interested in doing so don't need to be concerned with it. Thank you.

We should all be concerned when incorrect information is being perpetuated on the forum.

MOO

 

[andreww]

If the nearby train tracks are the source of the sounds they must have made the road fairly rough. I've even considered the idea that if a driver was holding a gun on a passenger, driving over those tracks may have accidentally discharged the gun. This could explain why they pulled into the Bobcat for several minutes, which was just a short distance up the road from the tracks. Pure speculation of course.

If a truck going over those tracks made those sounds, don't you think cops would know it? The have plenty of tape from that camera, and presumably many trucks have gone over those tracks. Where the noises comparable? Presumably not because there was no rebuttal from either defence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Arnie M]

According to AC, Sharlene contacted TB at around 10:20, long after DM and MS tossed and/or turned off his cell phone.

Feb 1 2016 3:16 PM
She watched a show on PVR. At 10:20 p.m. she was alarmed because he hadn't come home yet. She called him and it went right to voice mail.

Feb 1 2016 3:17 PM
Then she texted him about 10:22. She said "Where are you?" but didn't get any response. She texted her downstairs neighbour, and now was worried.

Thank you for the timeline ... for some reason I thought she started calling TB around 10:00

 

[Arnie M]

If a truck going over those tracks made those sounds, don't you think cops would know it? The have plenty of tape from that camera, and presumably many trucks have gone over those tracks. Where the noises comparable? Presumably not because there was no rebuttal from either defence.

I would not be surprised if a city cop did not recognize the sounds .... you have to be out in a quiet rural area , usually at night when traffic is low .

Those same sounds happen in the daytime but are masked by all the other noise and traffic.

 

[ABro]

I would not be surprised if a city cop did not recognize the sounds .... you have to be out in a quiet rural area , usually at night when traffic is low .

Those same sounds happen in the daytime but are masked by all the other noise and traffic.

The witness said he tried several methods to enhance the audio and figure out what the sounds were. He did not succeed. All he could make out is what he described as two booms.

He did not attempt to guess what the sounds were and neither did anyone else.

 

[Prairie_dawg]

BBM

I do not believe an exhibit can be changed, at least not without testimony about a change that was deemed neccesary, and that was not done in this case. The link ABro provided in her post #300 is the same one as I provided and also has the SH text on it. Unless you can provide a link, there is no altered exhibit that does not show that text IMO.

The cell phone exhibit was to show the movement of the two accused during the days leading up to the murder and the days after the murder. It was not intended to show every text or communication between them and any witness who may take the stand. That will be done when the witness takes the stand, as we saw in the case of SH.

MOO

I think some things may be redacted before the PUBLIC get the exhibit. After all WE are not the ones to be investigating the case that's LE's job. Even though we like to sleuth and follow links etc we are not privy to all clues. We are only see what scraps are allowed to be shown outside of court. The exhibit from DMs and MS computers ipads for example were release then quickly redacted. We must live with whatever is deemed suitable for public. Its a fact of life in Canada. Some things may be deemed prejudicial to WM or LB trial for example. JMO

 

[Kamille]

I think some things may be redacted before the PUBLIC get the exhibit. After all WE are not the ones to be investigating the case that's LE's job. Even though we like to sleuth and follow links etc we are not privy to all clues. We are only see what scraps are allowed to be shown outside of court. The exhibit from DMs and MS computers ipads for example were release then quickly redacted. We must live with whatever is deemed suitable for public. Its a fact of life in Canada. Some things may be deemed prejudicial to WM or LB trial for example. JMO

Exhibit 84 is still available online. I've not heard of any exhibits that were released and then redacted? Was there another exhibit from the computer and Ipad seizures that was redacted?

https://docs.google.com/presentatio...lXFyWyCdHr42Ho/edit?pref=2&pli=1#slide=id.p13

[video=youtube;cfO7B9rgltE]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cfO7B9rgltE[/video]

But I understand what you mean. Some exhibits and evidence that have been presented have not been released at all for reasons that we are not privy to. I think we are all interested in the video of the vehicles from the Super Sucker Vacuum surveillance video and the Brantford Bobcat surveillance video but for some reason, only screen grabs of both videos were released. Perhaps they were just not put into a format that could be released to the media? Or either the Crown or defense has requested them to be sealed for some reason?

MOO

 

[Juballee]

I would not be surprised if a city cop did not recognize the sounds .... you have to be out in a quiet rural area , usually at night when traffic is low .

Those same sounds happen in the daytime but are masked by all the other noise and traffic.

In all the years I drove a pickup truck, I never ever hit a bump or a pothole or a set of tracks that didn't make a double bang sound as I drove over them. Pickup trucks are noisy.

My opinion only.

 

[Juballee]

Forgive me if this has been answered already, but I'm curious about why both DM and MS both have pictures of what I'm assuming is the same gun. Did they share it? Did one sell it to the other? Does anyone remember what order the photos were in?

 

[Kamille]

The witness said he tried several methods to enhance the audio and figure out what the sounds were. He did not succeed. All he could make out is what he described as two booms.

He did not attempt to guess what the sounds were and neither did anyone else.

So in other words, he just presented the facts about this evidence and did not give an expert opinion on what the sounds were on the video because he was unsuccessful in determining, to his satisfaction, what the sounds may have been. So the evidence has been presented to the jury as is, without expert opinion to influence their thoughts about the sounds. That is being left entirely up to them individually. And the defense is free to bring in their own expert regarding this video to say what he/she thinks the sounds may be to actually influence the jury?

MOO

 

[ABro]

I think some things may be redacted before the PUBLIC get the exhibit. After all WE are not the ones to be investigating the case that's LE's job. Even though we like to sleuth and follow links etc we are not privy to all clues. We are only see what scraps are allowed to be shown outside of court. The exhibit from DMs and MS computers ipads for example were release then quickly redacted. We must live with whatever is deemed suitable for public. Its a fact of life in Canada. Some things may be deemed prejudicial to WM or LB trial for example. JMO

This is inaccurate. A publication ban pertained to certain information in the computer exhibit. The exhibit was not altered or changed. The press was just told it could not publish certain parts. A member of the public can still go to the courthouse and see the full exhibit.

Also, the standard publication bans on the information heard in voir dires, pre-trial motions and when the jury was not in the room is temporary. Everything that was said -- unless a rare special publication ban or sealing order is put in place -- can eventually made public.

This is why you get those "what the jury didn't hear" reports.
It's standard practice to lift the publication ban as soon as the jury is sequestered.

Courts are supposed to be open and transparent.

 

[JuneBug67]

If a truck going over those tracks made those sounds, don't you think cops would know it? The have plenty of tape from that camera, and presumably many trucks have gone over those tracks. Where the noises comparable? Presumably not because there was no rebuttal from either defence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

My sense of it was that there was not ultimately enough information to identify the sounds as anything in particular. It's possible that noise from the tracks or some other road condition was ruled out, but we weren't given that information if so.