Canada -Timothy Bosma, 32, Hamilton Ontario, 6 May 2013 - #8 **ARREST**

[KophyBeenz]

I'm still stuck on test drive #1 and #2. Same MO but they ended differently. TB was killed inside the truck, so it doesn't seem like whatever happened could have been an accident. The video (although not likely related) brings me back to my original theory, that the truck was just a way to find TB. If he accidentally came across something (he may not have even known he saw something) perhaps the only thing the killers had to go on was make, model, for sale sign, maybe a partial plate. I know people are stuck on the LE statement that there was no connection between TB and DM before the test drive, but how could they possibly know that, with DM not talking and TB unable to?

 

[Sillybilly]

Well, if DM VOLUNTARILY gives his DNA for research purposes, I suppose this legally supports any attempts to retrieve his DNA for this particular case. And YES, I'm sure LE already has a sample of his DNA via indirect methods. JMO

<rsbm>

Under the CCC, LE would easily get a warrant based on the nature of the charge (sorry this is so long):

Information for warrant to take bodily substances for forensic DNA analysis

487.05 (1) A provincial court judge who on ex parte application made in Form 5.01 is satisfied by information on oath that there are reasonable grounds to believe

(a) that a designated offence has been committed,


(b) that a bodily substance has been found or obtained

(i) at the place where the offence was committed,


(ii) on or within the body of the victim of the offence,


(iii) on anything worn or carried by the victim at the time when the offence was committed, or


(iv) on or within the body of any person or thing or at any place associated with the commission of the offence,



(c) that a person was a party to the offence, and


(d) that forensic DNA analysis of a bodily substance from the person will provide evidence about whether the bodily substance referred to in paragraph (b) was from that person


and who is satisfied that it is in the best interests of the administration of justice to do so may issue a warrant in Form 5.02 authorizing the taking, from that person, for the purpose of forensic DNA analysis, of any number of samples of one or more bodily substances that is reasonably required for that purpose, by means of the investigative procedures described in subsection 487.06(1).


Criteria

(2) In considering whether to issue the warrant, the provincial court judge shall have regard to all relevant matters, including

(a) the nature of the designated offence and the circumstances of its commission; and


(b) whether there is

(i) a peace officer who is able, by virtue of training or experience, to take samples of bodily substances from the person, by means of the investigative procedures described in subsection 487.06(1), or


(ii) another person who is able, by virtue of training or experience, to take, under the direction of a peace officer, samples of bodily substances from the person, by means of those investigative procedures.

from:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/laws/stat/rsc-1985-c-c-46/latest/rsc-1985-c-c-46.html#sec487.05_smooth

 

[meadsipper]

I notice at the Dee Em page that one of his fav books was "The Last Lecture."

This book was a bestseller. Anyone, from any walk of life, might choose to pick up a best selling book to read what it's all about. I've never read it, but after going over the reviews, it sounds quite interesting.

DM's lawyer says that he is a philosophizer, so a book like this would probably be right up his alley. If it's a pageturner, he might find it hard to put the dog biscuits down.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I'm still stuck on test drive #1 and #2. Same MO but they ended differently. TB was killed inside the truck, so it doesn't seem like whatever happened could have been an accident. The video (although not likely related) brings me back to my original theory, that the truck was just a way to find TB. If he accidentally came across something (he may not have even known he saw something) perhaps the only thing the killers had to go on was make, model, for sale sign, maybe a partial plate. I know people are stuck on the LE statement that there was no connection between TB and DM before the test drive, but how could they possibly know that, with DM not talking and TB unable to?

Well keep in mind that LE will be abler to get a warrant to search DM's smartphones and computers because the contact to TB was made through Autotrader/kijiji...they will be able to see exactly what he was searching for: a truck or a person

 

[Storme]

I never understood in the legal system why either the judge, who is supposed to be impartial, does not question the witnesses. OR a third party who is supposed to be impartial does not assess both sides and try to pick holes in both until one breaks.

That's the role Im trying to play here. The Anglo legal system is a joke, Ive seen it in action back home and its nothing but a big game to those who are profiting from it

ExiledRed, what you're describing is the Inquisitorial System. The panel of judges do the fact searching and questioning. In our system, the judge is there to ensure that the rules are followed and administer the court.

Here's a wiki entry on the Inquisitorial System:

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inquisitorial_system"]Inquisitorial system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[KophyBeenz]

Well keep in mind that LE will be abler to get a warrant to search DM's smartphones and computers because the contact to TB was made through Autotrader/kijiji...they will be able to see exactly what he was searching for: a truck or a person

I'm suggesting he would be searching for a truck in order to find a person. Geez, I thought I worded my post so carefully..

 

[Kamille]

That's odd, and I bow to your superior wisdom (not sarcasm) but I was sure I'd read that taking a cigarette end from the interview room to obtain DNA was common practise.

Im sure a warrant would be supra-easy to obtain in this case though.

Getting a suspect's DNA in this fashion would likely cause major problems during trial. I understand doing this in the field when trying to track down a suspect who matches DNA found at a crime scene, but any evidence, including DNA that is presented at trial, must be presented with the proper warrants and procedures having taken place AFAIK.

MOO

ETA: We have a poster here, Storme I believe, who is a lawyer I believe? Perhaps they could get verified so we can ask these questions with confidence?

 

[winkipinki]

There is always the theory in some crimes, that the suspects actually had no exit plans. People assume they won't get caught, and therefore, do not necessarily cover all their basis.

Tori Stafford is an example. It was fairly impulsive move to kidnap her, and there was no clear plan, as picking up materials at home depot during the crime isn't exactly ideal. There was no real exit plan, and were lucky there got away as long as they did.

In Boston, I am not sure what those guys were thinking. They seemed to have an elaborate plan to set off the bomb, but just kind of hung around after, I am sure they never thought they would be identified, and the crime would remain unsolved.

Back to the DM situation, remember if it turns out LB was a victim, they/he had the confidence of getting away with it before. One would naturally become more confident. It isn't as if this type of human doesn't have deficits in their thinking in general. There is a certain type of arrogance that goes along with borderline personalities, really believing they would get away with it, or talk their way out of it. Jodi Arias ?

 

[KophyBeenz]

I don't think so. You just need a copy. It is actually recommended that you never have the actual title with you but out of your vehicle in a safe place.
EDIT: it should be a certified true copy. Police could ticket you if you didn't have one but insurance companies, car dealerships, etc. all tell you not to keep it in your car so if your car is stolen, you have your proof of ownership somewhere else.

You have to carry your insurance and registration with you - mine is in my wallet. On the back of the reg is a certificate of sale that you fill out and give to the buyer so they can reg the vehicle.

 

[chrix76]

In Ontario you can be charged if you do not have the ownership (title) and Insurance certificate with you if you are stopped by the police.

not true, a photocopy of the registration is sufficient and actually recommended you do not keep origionals in the vehicle in case of theft

 

[Kamille]

DM is involved in this, whether it was him or someone else who was going to be the end user of the stolen vehicle. By the way, it is very possible that it wasn't DM who wanted the truck for himself.

I'm thinking along those lines too meadsipper. He may be generous, but purchasing an expensive vehicle for a friend or acquaintance might be a bit more generous than he chooses to be. So when the friend/acquaintance comes up with a plan to steal one, a thrill seeker might find this an interesting challenge. When things go wrong, the guy with access to multiple properties, trailers and an incinerator might take the lead in "fixing" things because he knows he's involved and will face jail time regardless of who actually killed the victim.

MOO

 

[EspressoBean]

You have to carry your insurance and registration with you - mine is in my wallet. On the back of the reg is a certificate of sale that you fill out and give to the buyer so they can reg the vehicle.

For the last 5 years, I have only ever carried a copy of the ownership after being advised by several that it was unwise to carry the actual ownership. I've had to show it and I've never been questioned. I keep the actual ownership in safe keeping. I know at least a lot of people within my circles do the same. So it would be just as likely that the vehicle did not have the ownership with it during the test drive.

 

[ExiledRed]

ExiledRed, what you're describing is the Inquisitorial System. The panel of judges do the fact searching and questioning. In our system, the judge is there to ensure that the rules are followed and administer the court.

Here's a wiki entry on the Inquisitorial System:

Inquisitorial system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Im not actually advocating the inquisitorial system, and I dont mean to insult you or the system you work within.

I do however believe that the anglo-legal system is antiquated and was spawned by a class based society that could not conceive of life in 2013.

My point was that a third impartial party who's objective is to get to the truth as opposed to winning the case, should also be allowed to question the witnesses. I believe this would minimize both corruption and also the sport of the proceedings.

I may be wrong and there may also be many flaws with this idea that i havent thought of, I just hate that verdicts can often boil down to who has the better lawyer/barrister.

sorry if this is OT

 

[MsSherlock]

I'm still stuck on test drive #1 and #2. Same MO but they ended differently. TB was killed inside the truck, so it doesn't seem like whatever happened could have been an accident. The video (although not likely related) brings me back to my original theory, that the truck was just a way to find TB. If he accidentally came across something (he may not have even known he saw something) perhaps the only thing the killers had to go on was make, model, for sale sign, maybe a partial plate. I know people are stuck on the LE statement that there was no connection between TB and DM before the test drive, but how could they possibly know that, with DM not talking and TB unable to?

IMO that is a possibility...however, why would they have continued going for the test drive when the first one didn't fit the description. They could have backed out...maybe looked the vehicle over and left..Which begs me to ask, why, upon seeing the size of the first guy did they continue with the test drive? Instead, they got into the truck with a big guy that they knew they would have a hard time overtaking. I'm starting to think that his size didn't matter...but the ability of Suspect # 2 to do "his job" could be key. Maybe an initiation? Maybe Suspect #3 backed out?

 

[Avie]

Yay finally stopped just reading ever since noelle and registered!

Quick note regarding the name Hun 1967

This is someone who is a Scottish football (soccer) fan a Hun is something a Celtic supporter calls a rangers supporter and 1967 was a huge victorious year for Celtic FC it's printed on all their jerseys and basically everything. My bf is a huge fan so I easily caught this

 

[bessie]

That's odd, and I bow to your superior wisdom (not sarcasm) but I was sure I'd read that taking a cigarette end from the interview room to obtain DNA was common practise.

Im sure a warrant would be supra-easy to obtain in this case though.

487.05. Information for warrant to take bodily substances for forensic DNA analysis

http://yourlaws.ca/criminal-code-canada/48705-information-warrant-take-bodily-substances

 

[meadsipper]

Yay finally stopped just reading ever since noelle and registered!

Quick note regarding the name Hun 1967

This is someone who is a Scottish football (soccer) fan a Hun is something a Celtic supporter calls a rangers supporter and 1967 was a huge victorious year for Celtic FC it's printed on all their jerseys and basically everything. My bf is a huge fan so I easily caught this

Very good! :seeya:

 

[ExiledRed]

Yay finally stopped just reading ever since noelle and registered!

Quick note regarding the name Hun 1967

This is someone who is a Scottish football (soccer) fan a Hun is something a Celtic supporter calls a rangers supporter and 1967 was a huge victorious year for Celtic FC it's printed on all their jerseys and basically everything. My bf is a huge fan so I easily caught this

I totally forgot about the Old Firm nicknames. Thanks!

EDIT - but wait a second. Celtic had a good 67, but Rangers (the huns) lost the cup winner's to Germany's Bayern Munich that year. Interestingly, the english refer to the germans as 'the huns'

 

[Archangel7]

In Ontario you can be charged if you do not have the ownership (title) and Insurance certificate with you if you are stopped by the police.

Help me understand....You have in your possession the original title to the vehicle even if it has a lein? or just a copy of title?

 

[matou]

Tim Bosma: Police continue investigation into Millard&#8217;s Ayr farm

http://globalnews.ca/news/575805/ti...witter&utm_medium=link&utm_campaign=community