Bosma Murder Trial 02.08.16 - Day 5

[Ontario Mom]

Is it at all possible that the only reason Const. Jennifer Granatier testified today was to keep the "theme" going of all the LE officers directly involved in surveillance? First there was Oxley, then Suave, then... "A third surveillance officer testified about another operation on Sept. 18, 2013." All directly related to the case of course, and surveillance but not necessarily related to the night in question of Tim's death. Just finished reading this http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6267677-millard-s-arrest-focus-of-bosma-murder-trial-s-fifth-day/ and that's kind of the impression I got.

 

[ABro]

Once LE got ahold of CN I think that's when more started to unravel and **the plea bargaining took place.**
Why would they go back and add to these charges if they need CN to cooperate now?

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

There was no plea bargaining. Where on earth are you getting that from?

 

[Errrr]

Yes, so we know CN didn't get wrapped up in this until May 9, the Thursday, probably recruited to help DM cover his tracks.

By that time, surely MS and DM didn't want to be seen together, and DM had LE hot on his trail and loose ends all over.

I wonder if DM was thinking it was MSs record that was drawing attention to the theft, thus necessitating putting some distance between them and needing his girlfriends "help"?

 

[ArianeEmory]

There was no plea bargaining. Where on earth are you getting that from?

Speaking as a legal neophyte and definitely having no familiarity of Canada law, I think this whole thing falls into a black box for some of us--or we've watched too much television. The publication ban doesn't help. It makes it easy to assume there have been "dealings" behind the scenes.

(Or maybe I misunderstood this tangent, if so just ignore me.)

 

[HackD]

MS was convicted of impaired driving in 2009. There was no mention at that time that he was driving without a licence or with a suspended licence. That conviction would likely have a minimum 1 year suspension of his licence so he should have it back by 2010-2011 at the latest. Why is there an assumption that he didn't have a drivers licence? Did I miss a subsequent charge or conviction?

For someone of MS's shifty means, I highly doubt he revalidated his DL. Insurance would be stratospherically high. Additionally..

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired-driving.shtml

lose your licence
have your vehicle impounded
need to pay an administrative monetary penalty
need to attend an education or treatment program
be fined upon conviction
be required to install an ignition interlock device in your vehicle
spend time in jail

Lots of money needed to get right with DMV and insurers.

 

[Kamille]

It is only my opinion, but I don't think it would be necessary for her to be at the hangar that night after helping with the escape. Getting the murder weapon off DM's property might have been important to him, and the sooner she got home, the easier it would be for her to say she was not there.

I think the truck, incinerator and corpse inside would have been more difficult for DM to hide than a gun.

MOO

 

[HackD]

Speaking as a legal neophyte and definitely having no familiarity of Canada law, I think this whole thing falls into a black box for some of us--or we've watched too much television. The publication ban doesn't help. It makes it easy to assume there have been "dealings" behind the scenes.

(Or maybe I misunderstood this tangent, if so just ignore me.)

After Homolka, CA's are going to be very reluctant to 'cut deals' in such a high profile case.

 

[Kamille]

I know I would wear a hoodie if I was MS- it would assist in blocking the stares, head shakes and glances from DM. I keep thinking how unnerving those stares and gestures would be. IMHO, MS is showing a tremendous amount of control and respect by continuing to have respect for the Court, witnesses and Jury and keeping his vision forward. MOO

I cannot believe the judge has not reprimanded him via his lawyer to knock this off. But then again, Dungey isn't going to complain. It's making him look like an idiot. Trying to influence the jury with body gestures. I call that trying too hard when you've got 500 dollar an hour lawyers. Is he not confident in them?

MOO

 

[swedie]

By April 2014, CN had already amassed a nice stack of letters from DM. I'm wondering if she was more useful to LE not arrested? MOO

Hmm yeah. I guess time will tell. I wonder if DM missed the memo that day when he was told who was on his no contact list? Or did DP forget to deliver it period? I now wonder who else he tried or did make contact with on the outside world? MOO.

 

[MsSherlock]

MS was convicted of impaired driving in 2009. There was no mention at that time that he was driving without a licence or with a suspended licence. That conviction would likely have a minimum 1 year suspension of his licence so he should have it back by 2010-2011 at the latest. Why is there an assumption that he didn't have a drivers licence? Did I miss a subsequent charge or conviction?

My apologies- I just dug up MS's criminal/arrest info as well and I agree. FWIK, there's no reason he wouldn't have his license back. Affording insurance may be another thing, but he certainly may have had a valid license. MOO

"including drug charges in 2005, impaired driving charged in 2009 and a graffiti offence in 2012."
http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/mark-smich-formally-charged-in-tim-bosma-murder-1.1293433

 

[JPC]

For someone of MS's shifty means, I highly doubt he revalidated his DL. Insurance would be stratospherically high. Additionally..

http://www.mto.gov.on.ca/english/safety/impaired-driving.shtml

lose your licence
have your vehicle impounded
need to pay an administrative monetary penalty
need to attend an education or treatment program
be fined upon conviction
be required to install an ignition interlock device in your vehicle
spend time in jail

Lots of money needed to get right with DMV and insurers.

One part of the quote that is missing from your list is "you may" suffer some or all of these repercussions not "You will". Right now it is only a theory that he does not have one.

 

[canadiangirl]

There was no plea bargaining. Where on earth are you getting that from?

It was just my opinion. Not fact. It's what I think happened. MOO
I wouldn't think plea bargaining is an unreasonable thought is it?
After all it is used to lessen the charge against someone.
Do we know there wasn't one for sure? Is this something that would be disclosed to the public? Totally different case but think Karla Holmolka and the deal that was made to give up info on Bernardo. A plea bargain is not unheard of.

In any case, I still believe in a third person. And I've repeatedly said I'm in the minority and maybe I'm wrong but we'll see what unfolds. All JMO

 

[Kamille]

The May 9 date seems to be a sticking point in CN's involvement. Is it not possible CN did something that alerted LE to her which lead to her arrest that they could pin point on May 9. They needed solid evidence to charge her. She wasn't charged for almost an entire year later. Which tells me LE was building their case against DM and MS.
Now LE said early on they didn't know if the 3rd person was a man or woman. Once LE got ahold of CN I think that's when more started to unravel and the plea bargaining took place.
Why would they go back and add to these charges if they need CN to cooperate now?

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

CN did not plea bargain. She is pleading not guilty to the charges against her. There was no plea bargain or agreement with CN. She was arrested and charged with accessory after a thorough investigation on her. Has it been said somewhere that the information they obtained on CN was given to them by her? Why is she pleading not guilty?

MOO

 

[ABro]

Speaking as a legal neophyte and definitely having no familiarity of Canada law, I think this whole thing falls into a black box for some of us--or we've watched too much television. The publication ban doesn't help. It makes it easy to assume there have been "dealings" behind the scenes.

(Or maybe I misunderstood this tangent, if so just ignore me.)

That's a very good point. I think the pub ban plus the long wait to trial causes people's imaginations to run a little bit wild

I honestly don't get why everyone is so obsessed with plea bargaining.

In any kind of negotiation, both sides have to have something to potentially gain or there's no reason to negotiate.

This is even true on Law and Order. They plea bargain when they feel they have to, not on every single case.

 

[Ontario Mom]

After Homolka, CA's are going to be very reluctant to 'cut deals' in such a high profile case.

One would certainly hope. I don't think Ontarians will ever get over that nasty little deal. Especially the victim's families.

 

[canadiangirl]

That's a very good point. I think the pub ban plus the long wait to trial causes people's imaginations to run a little bit wild

I honestly don't get why everyone is so obsessed with plea bargaining.

In any kind of negotiation, both sides have to have something to potentially gain or there's no reason to negotiate.

This is even true on Law and Order. They plea bargain when they feel they have to, not on every single case.

Plea bargaining aside. I don't really care either way if she negotiated anything. I think she is the third person. We shall see. I was just giving a theory on the May 9th date

 

[Snowglobe]

I don't agree. She didn't commit the felony. So no murder charges. If she's an accessory after the fact this is the definition.

Definition

Someone who assists another 1) who has committed a felony, 2) after the person has committed the felony, 3) with knowledge that the person committed the felony, and 4) with the intent to help the person avoid arrest or punishment. An accessory after the fact may be held liable for, inter alia, obstruction of justice.

Do you mean "indictable offence"?

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/I/IndictableOffence.aspx

 

[ABro]

It was just my opinion. Not fact. It's what I think happened. MOO
I wouldn't think plea bargaining is an unreasonable thought is it?
After all it is used to lessen the charge against someone.
Do we know there wasn't one for sure? Is this something that would be disclosed to the public? Totally different case but think Karla Holmolka and the deal that was made to give up info on Bernardo. A plea bargain is not unheard of.

In any case, I still believe in a third person. And I've repeatedly said I'm in the minority and maybe I'm wrong but we'll see what unfolds. All JMO

Of course, plea bargaining happens but it is not done in secret. If there were a plea deal, you would know and, as someone else pointed out, there would be a guilty plea. There isn't. This means there is no plea.

As for the third party, as has been pointed out many times, CN is not charged in connection with May 6.

 

[canadiangirl]

Of course, plea bargaining happens but it is not done in secret. If there were a plea deal, you would know and, as someone else pointed out, there would be a guilty plea. There isn't. This means there is no plea.

As for the third party, as has been pointed out many times, CN is not charged in connection with May 6.

This is not her trial though. So why would we know this information at this point? I'm genuinely asking. Not challenging, you obviously have more experience than I

 

[NashBridges2]

That's my thought. I really think we'll see her driving the Yukon that trailed behind. MOO

Not going to happen. She would gave been charged for this, it's a crime.