Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #8

[deugirtni]

Bunny trail here. Elizabeth Glass supposedly died 2009. Why was this obit not published until 2011? Did her relatives travel to town for her funeral? Was her death verified? The obit certainly seems written by DM. Could she have been another victim?

To me, it doesn't seem to be written by DM, what makes you suspect that? She was quite young.. do we know why she died? I don't know the story behind this person and how it relates to the M family, but if she was a love interest of WM's, that would be an interesting theory, that she was another victim.

 

[swedie]

:clap::takeabow::gathering:

So refreshing to read. I am thrilled to know the "Bosma team" can find some time for laughs and a bit of fun in such a horrific case. Tim would be going right along with them in their pranks if not being the leader hahaha. I bet he could come up with something new every day. Thank you for the enlightenment Susan.

Who knew one (horrid) piece of salted licorice could cause such a kerfuffle in the middle of a murder trial?

If you follow me on Twitter, you already know what I'm talking about — The Droppie.

But let me give you some context.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6...-a-sweet-mischievous-moment-with-local-media/

 

[deugirtni]

Earlier on this forum some of us decided it was better to go to the hangar where they could shower, change clothes, work on the truck, etc. They already knew it would take hours for the burn. Who wants to sit in the dark for that? And they very well might have needed more propane or couldn't get generated going or generator was missing. With the 30 min the Yukon was gone from the hangar could have been a propane run if the propane station fills that time of night.

The incinerator was supposed to be smokeless and odorless according to the salesperson/manufacturer, so I can't see why NOT do it at the hangar. Imo they were way better off to use it at the hangar where everyone who is there is busy in their own business ops, as opposed to at farmland where residential neighbours can tend to notice things (which they did). The question I have is IF the incinerator was purchased for the MRO, (I believe the purchase was put through MillardAir operations?), then why not house it inside the hangar, where there is plenty of height and space to accommodate it, rather than keeping it in a barn? I wonder how DM justified its purchase to his dad, who was alive at the time of purchase? Or was his dad so out of it that he didn't keep up with the finances of his new operation as it was being built and equipped and staffed? (It doesn't seem like he was out of it?) It really does start to look like the equipment was purchased for a specific purpose which had nothing to do with 'pets', or airport operations.

 

[deugirtni]

I was really expecting all of the people identified on the cellphone exhibit to be called as witnesses in this trial... otherwise, why have their cellphone numbers named? There are missing entries in regard to calls/texts sent and received, apparently because they are not relevant. There are many numbers listed without names attached, I'm assuming because they are also not relevant. For those that do have names attached, would that not indicate relevance? I am hoping that everyone named gets on the stand.. I am curious as to what DM was communicating with them about during these busy hours and days as he scurried around covering things up. moo

 

[deugirtni]

Yes I knew all that. Earlier today someone mentioned WM fiance and I was pretty sure she was already deceased when he died. When I searched to verify, I was surprised to see published in 2011 when she supposedly died in 2009. (Worked until her cancer operation...who says that?)

I guess I am missing the one that you are referring to, I am seeing something different for EG's obit.. can you link?

 

[deugirtni]

It certainly can be assumed that CN talked when she was finally arrested. The search warrant was 'specific' for the DVR. I think they 'knew' exactly where to find it. I think the defense successfully argued that the letters were seized outside the warrant and therefore are not going to be admissible evidence... The officer who testified about this seizure was blocked from mentioning the letters, followed by a long stretch of legal arguments. Doesn't matter though, the Jury heard about the letters during opening statement. I DO WONDER though if during CN's testimony it will come up again ...

I'm no legal expert obviously, but I can't see this as being correct. If those letters were not admissible, I believe they would have been deemed as such during the pre-trial motions which took place in the fall of 2015 prior to the commencement of this trial. Secondly, the Crown's opening statement, which the jury heard, referred to these letters and noted some information contained within. I have not read anything about the judge advising the jury that they were to disregard this, has anyone else? Any arguments from the defence that resulted in the judge making the determination that the Crown should not have mentioned the letters during the opening remarks would have had to have been clarified for the jury to disregard, and I didn't see any tweets to that effect?

The officers had a warrant when they searched CN's house, and although there may have been items they were looking for which were specifically referred to on the search warrant, it is my understanding that if police enter a home with a search warrant they can also take other evidence of crime that they find during their search. moo

I know the officer on the stand was told only to talk about the DVR that was taken from CN's house, but I got the impression that was because the Crown wishes to present their case in a certain order, and possibly wait until the two parties (CN and AM) are on the stand themselves before bringing it up.

Others' thoughts?

 

[deugirtni]

I never put 2n2 together for alot of things until some recent testimony and now some things have me really wondering.

Which 2n2 did you put together recently? Sorry, you post is kind of vague, can you elaborate? Thx!

 

[deugirtni]

Although lots of snow, looks like schools and buses are running, so hopefully court will proceed today.

April 4, 2016.

All Hamilton Public and Catholic schools are open and buses are running today.
The Halton Catholic School Board has announced all schools are open and buses are running.

http://www.900chml.com/closures/

 

[musicaljoke]

...

The officers had a warrant when they searched CN's house, and although there may have been items they were looking for which were specifically referred to on the search warrant, it is my understanding that if police enter a home with a search warrant they can also take other evidence of crime that they find during their search. moo

I know the officer on the stand was told only to talk about the DVR that was taken from CN's house, but I got the impression that was because the Crown wishes to present their case in a certain order, and possibly wait until the two parties (CN and AM) are on the stand themselves before bringing it up.

Others' thoughts?

My friend, who recently retired as chief police detective in that general area, explained it to me thusly - he said that when a warrant is granted, police may discover other evidence of the crime. However, the warrant determines where the police can search.

For example, if the warrant is for a canoe, police can't open drawers, or search in a purse, because they can't expect to find a canoe there. So, detectives will ask for a warrant that includes a small, related item, such as a canoe and its safety equipment. Now, they can search for a whistle. A whistle might be in a drawer, pocket, or purse, so they can search throughout the house. Any additional evidence found in the search for the small item included in the warrant, is admissible.

 

[Susanne]

I really appreciate your post and consider this first portion especially well thought out. I think you have touched on a point that has come up on Ws but not quite so eloquently...more than once, posters have expressed their hope that the jurors "got this, that or the other thing" and I think there has been an appreciation too that the information coming at the jurors in this case has been complicated and multi-layered to boot.

You make many good points but I especially got a chuckle reading about your own preference for a professional jury as opposed to a jury of your peers----immediately I thought of Jian Gomeshi's own choice of trial by judge which I honestly believe was the absolute best choice given the controversy surrounding the issues. And as I recall Marie Henein's interview following that case---mmmmm....I am right with you. If the need ever arose, I would want my own case to be judged by a professional as well and definitely not my peers.

You are right again, it would provide a whole new career possibility and position....and a quick and ready supply of jurors that may help to clear the back log in Ontario courts for sure.
There may come the day when it is offered as a three year program at community colleges and I think the whole idea has a lot of merit.

In the interim, we have what we have..... And while I do have the odd concern for the jurors in this trial, I am encouraged by something I have noticed over time right here on this site. It appears to me that the longer things carry on, the more interesting the conversations have become....people are listening very closely and retaining details at an alarming rate. Before you post these days, you need to check your facts or you are going to feel like people will be jumping all over you....everyone is getting sharper and quicker with the material...finding loopholes...and ever vigilant for lawyer or client antics. And it occurred to me last night that if that is what has happened to those participating on this site---then it is happening for the jurors too. The more practice one has with this material, the more practised one becomes and the conversation is automatically carried to the next level......and that alone gives me confidence in this jury at least in this case

Thank you for the kind words, but you certainly improved this idea with your own excellent suggestions.
I know the jury cannot discuss the evidence with anyone other than the jury members during the trial, but when would they seriously get the chance to do this? Are they allowed to email or twitter to the other jurors to discuss evidence as we do here, during the trial?
If not, how could these jurors ever remember all the evidence, even with note taking? By the time they hit the jury room to deliberate a verdict I am sure most have forgotten quite a lot of important evidence i.e. the timing of phone calls, times on videos, who gave what evidence, etc. etc.
Will the trial transcript be ready and available for them to reference during deliberations? I have no idea.

No wonder I have read of brawls in the jury room as they try to reach a verdict. As I mentioned, I would prefer a professional jury should I ever go to trial.

 

[musicaljoke]

...

No wonder I have read of brawls in the jury room as they try to reach a verdict. As I mentioned, I would prefer a professional jury should I ever go to trial.

The jury system is an ancient rite that protects us from the potential tyranny of the state, where the full process of the investigation is out of the hands of civilians and rests solely on the state. I would never want to lose the basic safe guard provided by trial by jury, fickle though it may be.

However, if I was guilty of a crime, I would choose trial by jury. If I was innocent, I would choose trial by judge.

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Alex Pierson ‏@AlexpiersonAMP 13 Min.Vor 13 Minuten
Sliding my way into Hamilton for #TimBosma.The heavy hitters take the stand. @ChmlBillKelly @AM900CHML

 

[Deleted member 102539]

OntarioMorning ‏@CBCOntMorning 2 Std.Vor 2 Stunden
#BosmaMurder trial. @colinbutlercbc on role of money and what to expect from star witnesses #HamOnt

 

[Abitcountry]

The jury system is an ancient rite that protects us from the potential tyranny of the state, where the full process of the investigation is out of the hands of civilians and rests solely on the state. I would never want to lose the basic safe guard provided by trial by jury, fickle though it may be.

However, if I was guilty of a crime, I would choose trial by jury. If I was innocent, I would choose trial by judge.

I am still chuckling about your distinction between trial by judge or trial by jury.....

 

[CJPRINCESS]

Thank you for the kind words, but you certainly improved this idea with your own excellent suggestions.
I know the jury cannot discuss the evidence with anyone other than the jury members during the trial, but when would they seriously get the chance to do this? Are they allowed to email or twitter to the other jurors to discuss evidence as we do here, during the trial?
If not, how could these jurors ever remember all the evidence, even with note taking? By the time they hit the jury room to deliberate a verdict I am sure most have forgotten quite a lot of important evidence i.e. the timing of phone calls, times on videos, who gave what evidence, etc. etc.
Will the trial transcript be ready and available for them to reference during deliberations? I have no idea.

No wonder I have read of brawls in the jury room as they try to reach a verdict. As I mentioned, I would prefer a professional jury should I ever go to trial.

I haven't read everything on this site but it's great so for for understanding the jurors duties.

[1]*It is your duty to watch and listen to all of the proceedings, including the addresses, the evidence and my instructions. You must listen to and observe these trial proceedings without prejudice, bias or sympathy.

[2]*At the end of the sittings for each day, you are free to go. You do not have to stay together.

[3]*When all of the evidence has been presented, counsel have addressed you and I have told you about the legal principles that apply to your discussions, you will go to the jury room together to decide the case. At that point you will be sequestered, which means that you must stay together until you have reached your verdict. Meals and overnight accommodation, if required, will be arranged for you.

So I'm assuming some talk is done during breaks and legal arguments but the majority is done after all evidence is presented. Also one part of the link posted, it sounds like jurors get copies of anything that's been presented if it's made an exhibit.

https://www.nji-inm.ca/index.cfm/publications/model-jury-instructions/

 

[Abitcountry]

What the person here thinks is a front seat could be the back seat. The front door is open so the the window it is against would be the back window. The other window behind that is the rear window. Compare with the dugertni's photo for window placement.

It is a strange experience to have a person whom I have never met tell me and others what I think ....I never wrote anything about "a front seat could be a back seat".

Interestingly enough though, as I looked at the pic of TB's truck and tried to see past the reflections, I did think that I could vaguely make out something....I was looking through the space where the front seat should have been and thought something looked like a seat back but it was at the very back of the extended cab.......It is not at all clear and I wouldn't swear that that is what is was---but if someone pressed me about what I thought I saw well there you have it. :abduction:

 

[SnooperDuper]

Ann Brocklehurst ‏@AnnB03 4m4 minutes ago
Shane Schlatman behind me in courthouse lineup but can't.talk to him as jury member in front of me

 

[Gibson67]

today's thread is closed...is it suppose to be?

 

[SnooperDuper]

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 1m1 minute ago
Some legal arguments/housekeeping underway this morning before the jury returns. #Bosma

 

[SnooperDuper]

today's thread is closed...is it suppose to be?

yes, until the jury is in!