Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #8

[deugirtni]

Maybe I have watched too many American tv shows, but I thought this kind of questioning was called " leading the witness" and not allowed. Perhaps it is different in Canada. IMO

Both the Crown Attorney and the defence must follow rules of evidence when
questioning witnesses. Neither the Crown Attorney nor the defence can ask leading
questions of witnesses for its own side. A leading question is one that suggests its own
answer. They must ask the kinds of questions that allow witnesses to use their own
words. Leading questions are allowed in a cross-examination. The defence can ask
leading questions of Crown witnesses and the Crown Attorney can ask leading questions of defence witnesses.

www.cliapei.ca/sitefiles/File/publications/CRI1.pdf

 

[Deleted member 102539]

I know this is a video from a Facebook group, but I hope it's ok to post it here. Is anyone able to distinguish any other cameras on the hangar from this video? MOO.

That is one huge building! Interesting how some earlier WS members claimed to have seen photos from inside the hangar and didn't see the collection of DM's toys and junk. No wonder AS wasn't interested in showing prospective clients/customers this aircraft business that was new and suppose to be "professional." :facepalm: MOO.

https://www.facebook.com/DellenMillardDiscussTheCase/videos/552379901588921/

Thank you, very interesting!!
I don't understand why there is no fence and everyone may drive near the building? Now it is clear to me that DM's friends (unauthorized people) had no problem to get there at any time of day.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Everything I've read about PTZ cameras in cold weather suggests that the problem in these cases is lossy video (snow, lines in the picture, no picture) and not the camera going limp like a piece of asparagus. The cameras are designed to be able to hold their position when not moved by the motor.

You would expect the camera to be set up to focus at point 1, track to point 2, track to point 3, (up to 32 points) and track back to point 1 in a cycle.

PTZ cameras are not designed to be used focused on one fixed point without moving. They have a narrower lens angle and lower resolution (megapixels) than a static camera would have.

I can imagine the thing mechanically seizing but then the camera would be focused somewhere along the programmed track, not at the wall.

OTOH commercial cameras are expected to run 24/7/365 trouble free for 10+ years. OTOH quirkily enough, DM bought an Israeli brand of DVR.

Loads of guys out there on forums bragging bout how cold it got and their camera still worked.

 

[Abitcountry]

I agree and have wondered the same. If the perps knew they could be identified, this would put the witnesses in potential huge danger.
One thought that I have found chilling... a good probability that DM not only had the truck keys, but also had the keys to SB house for the duration of time that TB was missing.
Yes, house locks are only a deterrent, but the thought is very disturbing. Security would be necessary up until both DM and MS were behind bars. IMO

Source http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6...found-on-key-ring-in-suv-millard-was-driving/

Excellent point....have often wondered if TB had had similar thoughts when his captors turned on him during the first part of the test drive.
Concern for his family may have inspired him to make one last desperate act to get out of the vehicle or attempt to make an emergency call.
While the mere display of a gun, may have been enough to cause TB to be somewhat compliant in the beginning....given time to calculate the risk of harm to himself and the potential harm that may come to his wife and child later.....it seems very likely to me that TB may have done something quite unexpected by his captors and they responded swiftly.

 

[deugirtni]

Did anyone else get a sense of 'change' in how they perceived SS's testimony on Thursday, compared to the first time he was on the stand?

I went back at his first testimony to look something else up, and I got a sense that something had changed. Call me paranoid, if you wish. I got a sense of him trying to tell the truth on his first visit to the witness stand, but I was getting more of a sense of camaraderie with DM's defense lawyer on the second visit. I found he said a few incriminating things on his first visit, but was getting a different sense on Thursday. I can't wait to hear TD's cross.

I noticed that SS had reported that DM had said the below, that he had 'purchased' the truck.. so.. can't wait for the defence to produce *that* sales receipt, which EVERYONE gets a sales receipt when they buy a used vehicle, or any vehicle. Can't wait to see who the seller was, and how he fits into the TB crime. I wonder how Mr. Sachak will seek to overcome *that* fib?

If I were Sachak, I think I wouldn't be worrying so much about proving DM's ability or inability to pay for a used truck, since this isn't really a theft trial. I'd be worrying about how to deal with the various other admissions and actions that are showing his client to be a boldfaced liar who appears to have done some advance planning, in addition to a lot of hiding of evidence after the fact, in regard to a murder. Does he believe that focusing on hours of chatter in regard to the more irrelevant details will get the jury lost and off track from thinking about what this case is really about.. murder?

I also noticed in looking back, that there were several instances of SS having been asked (by Penner and the other fellow from Eco something), what the incinerator would be used for, to which an answer didn't seem to be given. Why would SS not have answered their question? Did he not have a clue what it was to be used for? Why was he avoiding that question? All said, I think SS and his testimony reek of involvement, or at least of much more knowledge than he is sharing on the stand. Was his payoff that $40,000 '68 camaro he has listed for sale? No wonder he and his FIL haven't spoken since then. MOO

The first time, (from Adam Carter's Live Blog), he stated:
12:35 PM
"He said he had nought the truck to go to Baja with, and he wanted to get it painted. He indicated to me he had purchased it in Kitchener." He didn't say when.

 

[MsSherlock]

I noticed that SS had reported that DM had said the below, that he had 'purchased' the truck.. so.. can't wait for the defence to produce *that* sales receipt, which EVERYONE gets a sales receipt when they buy a used vehicle, or any vehicle. Can't wait to see who the seller was, and how he fits into the TB crime. I wonder how Mr. Sachak will seek to overcome *that* fib?

first time, (from Adam Carter's Live Blog), he stated:
12:35 PM
"He said he had nought the truck to go to Baja with, and he wanted to get it painted. He indicated to me he had purchased it in Kitchener." He didn't say when.

Very good points that got me thinking. Ontario actually has laws around selling and purchasing "used vehicles". Of course they wouldn't apply if you were simply going to swap out VIN plates on a stolen vehicle, but for any legit purchase AFAIK, there's no way to get around it. These laws are in place to make sure that a rich guy like DM doesn't end up buying a stolen vehicle. DM and SS should have known about that- it's been in place for a long time. So when DM was telling SS that it could be TB's truck, it should have clicked in with SS that DM would have had the package from the Ministry and he had nothing to fear. After all, DM was going to have to register his new acquisition, pay the sales tax and get plates for it- wasn't he? How would SS suggest any other way to get plates on the truck, the truck safetied and on the road? MOO

https://www.ontario.ca/page/buy-or-sell-used-vehicle-ontario

 

[napper505]

If you are wondering, SS quoted as saying a "Performance box" was ordered

Google this "Bully Dog GT Tuner & Pillar Mount For 03-09 Dodge Ram 5.9L & 6.7L Cummins"

I Couldn't find one on the Napa web site but I didn't look very hard.

Napper505

 

[Inspector_North]

Can't help but think about DM's defense, and the whole cash flow problem. DM's initial lawyer DP was very vocal about his client having the means to buy a new one, and therefore no need to steal one. It would make sense if this was still questionable, but the evidence so far has proved IMO that he did steal the truck. Why is the finances still a big issue?

SS has said that he suggested a diesel to DM.
DM texted LW_2 that he was seeking to get a diesel truck
The truck and keys were found in DM's possession
He had SS strip his claimed new Kitchener purchase for painting.
He attempted to arrange an urgent paint job
TB's truck was on his computer
Overwhelming evidence proved he was there the night it was stolen.

The premeditated murder on the other hand still needs some additional evidence to seal it. But IMO, the crown is very close to this also.

Again, why are the finances such a big issue? Unless they tie into the murder somehow?

As many have said, he could have just stolen it without murdering.

His involvement in the theft IMO is a slam dunk at this point.

Am I missing something? Thoughts?

 

[matou]

I wonder if AJ, SS's father-in-law, was in court during SS's testimony on Thursday?

 

[napper505]

I found this view of the hanger from the airfield side, not sure when it was taken but "CHARTRIGHT" has there logo up currently.

zoom in and you can see a loader, forklift, etc..


Napper505

 

[Stratocaster]

Everything I've read about PTZ cameras in cold weather suggests that the problem in these cases is lossy video (snow, lines in the picture, no picture) and not the camera going limp like a piece of asparagus. The cameras are designed to be able to hold their position when not moved by the motor.

You would expect the camera to be set up to focus at point 1, track to point 2, track to point 3, (up to 32 points) and track back to point 1 in a cycle.

PTZ cameras are not designed to be used focused on one fixed point without moving. They have a narrower lens angle and lower resolution (megapixels) than a static camera would have.

I can imagine the thing mechanically seizing but then the camera would be focused somewhere along the programmed track, not at the wall.

OTOH commercial cameras are expected to run 24/7/365 trouble free for 10+ years. OTOH quirkily enough, DM bought an Israeli brand of DVR.

Loads of guys out there on forums bragging bout how cold it got and their camera still worked.

I'm not a video surveillance camera guy, but the testimony of the camera in question, essentially doing a 180° turn from a panoramic view, then to face the wall?.........seems a bit fishy

 

[Quaere_veritatem]

The defense's job is to provide arguments and evidence at to why the accused couldn't have committed the crime. They are trying to say he has lots of money therefore no need to steal the truck. This is in hopes of creating a reasonable doubt. It's a pretty thin argument. But I guess they are just trying to do the best they can with what they have and they don't have much.

 

[matou]

O/T is the WS layout back for good? Also, tags are back!

 

[Inspector_North]

I'm not a video surveillance camera guy, but the testimony of the camera in question, essentially doing a 180° turn from a panoramic view, then to face the wall?.........seems a bit fishy

Seems fishy for a few reasons IMO. If the reason the camera faced the wall was important, it could be verified. Security systems are known to do some wacky stuff, including parking in an unwanted position. This could be due to DVR-Camera matching, camera malfunction, etc.

Again, if it was important to showing premeditation, the system operation could have been verified. MOO

 

[Abitcountry]

Very good points that got me thinking. Ontario actually has laws around selling and purchasing "used vehicles". Of course they wouldn't apply if you were simply going to swap out VIN plates on a stolen vehicle, but for any legit purchase AFAIK, there's no way to get around it. These laws are in place to make sure that a rich guy like DM doesn't end up buying a stolen vehicle. DM and SS should have known about that- it's been in place for a long time. So when DM was telling SS that it could be TB's truck, it should have clicked in with SS that DM would have had the package from the Ministry and he had nothing to fear. After all, DM was going to have to register his new acquisition, pay the sales tax and get plates for it- wasn't he? How would SS suggest any other way to get plates on the truck, the truck safetied and on the road? MOO

https://www.ontario.ca/page/buy-or-sell-used-vehicle-ontario

Did SS really believe that DM had actually bought the truck in the condition that it was in and with all the required paperwork and safety certificate.....a huge leap IMO ......made worse by the fact that SS himself saw the truck in the hangar Wednesday morning ......knew it was TB's truck by Thursday. Legitimate purchase???--fat chance in hell that the safety and paperwork was all done on the Tuesday that 'airport politics' interrupted work at the hangar.....SS was bllshtng right out of the gate with the Crown and it is only getting worse with the defense----Three bags full !

 

[Susanne]

5 bucks that TD postponed his cross of SS 'til Monday because he wanted the weekend to gather the amazing questions and info from the super sleuths on this site.
I bow in awe....simply amazing how you catch the obvious that goes right over my head. "security lights that turn to the wall if it's cold.
Seriously?
JMHO

 

[Claroon]

Incoming: $125k salary a year

Outgoing:

- $180k/year on car parts
- Extensive travel
- Paid for dining for groups and others on trips
- Renos

I dunno, if your expenses due to your lifestyle far exceed your income, wouldn't you call that a a cashflow problem?

Darn right. Add in paying for the parties, insurance on each vehicle and each home, property tax, utility bills...Imagine utility bills on hangar alone?

 

[billandrew]

Did SS really believe that DM had actually bought the truck in the condition that it was in and with all the required paperwork and safety certificate.....a huge leap IMO ......made worse by the fact that SS himself saw the truck in the hangar Wednesday morning ......knew it was TB's truck by Thursday. Legitimate purchase???--fat chance in hell that the safety and paperwork was all done on the Tuesday that 'airport politics' interrupted work at the hangar.....SS was bllshtng right out of the gate with the Crown and it is only getting worse with the defense----Three bags full !

IMO SS knew about the truck theft and was helping cover it up. Given how closely involved he was with DM and his vehicles, he would have certainly known about DM's desire to get a diesel truck. It was a huge deal for them, and the minute SS saw the truck in the hangar he would have been all over it checking it out. Many questions would have instantly popped into his head:

• Why are there no front seats?
• Why is it sitting on a tarp?
• Why is the carpet cut out and sitting underneath the truck?
• Wait, are those... blood stains on the carpet?
• Oh god... those are definitely blood stains on the dashboard...

He said DM told him he bought the truck in Kitchener and drove it to the hangar sitting on a pail. Hm, that's a perfectly legit answer, I guess I won't ask any more questions. When the Crown asked him about the windshield removal kit, he claimed he tried to use it on the red Dodge Ram, not the black one sitting in the hangar. Sure, SS, sounds like you're just covering your own arse. He took a fit on AJ and told him to keep his mouth shut. And despite his testimony, IMO SS did alert DM about AJ's call to Crimestoppers. I don't see a better explanation as to why DM suddenly moved the truck to his mom's house and tried to hide a bunch of other evidence on May 9.

IMO SS took a "don't ask, don't tell" position on TB's murder too, and likely knew or had a strong suspicion that the incinerator was used. AJ probably agrees and that's why they haven't talked in 3 years.

 

[Claroon]

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 52s53 seconds ago

If I was told to stay away from work, I would be very curious as to why. If I had an app that could let me see why I am to stay away, you bet your last dollar, I would be checking it out!!!! I think SS saw the truck, saw some activity with pulling things out of the truck, I think he saw too much and had to get rid of the phone!!!!!

The timing of the new phones is definitely suspicious imo.

 

[deugirtni]

I wonder if AJ, SS's father-in-law, was in court during SS's testimony on Thursday?

Or perhaps the first time he was on the stand, could that possibly be why he seemed more honest the first time?