Bosma Murder Trial 03.03.16 - Day 19

[Tealgrove]

A little off topic but not really.

I've been thinking about CN and the fact that she will be testifying for the Crown as was outlined in the Crown's opening statement.

I understand that she has been charged and that she is out on bail.

Has she pleaded guilty to her charges or do we not know due to the publication ban? The reason I ask is because anything she testifies to is going to incriminate her and we already know that her DNA has shown up on the gloves which already incriminates her.

I have to assume she entered a guilty plea or else she wouldn't be testifying. Right or Wrong?

 

[brightii]

:goldstar: A gold star for Banks today as he seemed to be keeping his cool while under cross-examination! I am really glad that Banks came back up to Ontario to testify. Considering that he is now retired and living in a much warmer climate, I think that the jury will appreciate the importance of his return to testify for the Crown.

I think both DM as goose and MS as gander will soon be cooked, IMO.

All MOO.

 

[RandomName479]

A little off topic but not really.

I've been thinking about CN and the fact that she will be testifying for the Crown as was outlined in the Crown's opening statement.

I understand that she has been charged and that she is out on bail.

Has she pleaded guilty to her charges or do we not know due to the publication ban? The reason I ask is because anything she testifies to is going to incriminate her and we already know that her DNA has shown up on the gloves which already incriminates her.

I have to assume she entered a guilty plea or else she wouldn't be testifying. Right or Wrong?

Not a legal expert....but I remember reading that anything CN says at this trial can't be used against her......MOO

 

[Abitcountry]

Former homeschool mom here I taught 4 of my 7 how to read and write, and DM's printing in that letter does not look "child-like" to me at all. Not even close. But, that's just me.

Just to be clear...DM is 30 years old. The printing is not childlike for a child...for a young person I would give high marks for penmanship. In the case of a 30 year old---there's some 'spraining' to be done. IMHO

 

[Ontario Mom]

Just to be clear...DM is 30 years old. The printing is not childlike for a child...for a young person I would give high marks for penmanship. In the case of a 30 year old---there's some 'spraining' to be done. IMHO

I have found in general (not a blanket statement by any means) men don't usually have the prettiest handwriting - unless they're somewhat artistic. Despite the printing, it just doesn't look "child-like" to me. Since the documents were mentioned it'd be great if they'd clarify at some point.

 

[Variant]

Not a legal expert....but I remember reading that anything CN says at this trial can't be used against her......MOO

Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

Note that this doesn't allow a witness to "plead the thirteenth" and refuse to give testimony without penalty.

 

[ArianeEmory]

(I haven't gotten involved in the handwriting stuff because I have the worst handwriting of anyone I personally know.)

 

[RandomName479]

Section 13 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:

13. A witness who testifies in any proceedings has the right not to have any incriminating evidence so given used to incriminate that witness in any other proceedings, except in a prosecution for perjury or for the giving of contradictory evidence.

Note that this doesn't allow a witness to "plead the thirteenth" and refuse to give testimony without penalty.

Thanks for this.....so say she was subpoenaed....she HAS to testify....and if she lied could face perjury charges.....tells the truth....even if her involvement is criminal.....her statements can't be used in her trial.....so one would expect the advice CN is receiving is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

 

[Canadian4]

I think his printing is good. I have awful penmanship perhaps being a lefty forced to be a righty lol. It would be interesting to hear what a handwriting analyst had to say about his letter.

 

[palisadesk]

Former homeschool mom here I taught 4 of my 7 how to read and write, and DM's printing in that letter does not look "child-like" to me at all. Not even close. But, that's just me.

.

Good point. It does, however, look like the work of an average to low average Grade 7 student. All one has to do is examine dozens of writing samples from that age cohort to see overall similarities (though the absence of run-on sentences does indicate an older writer. Run-on sentences are one of the most frequent written language errors of middle school writers).

I think that Bank was considering the writing in broad categories. He knew it was not the work of a child, but its overall immature look made him describe it as "childlike," since it wasn't "adult-like."

I want to thank the mom who posted that her daughter is at TFS and they do teach both cursive and manuscript now. I had referred to a 2000 or so TFS curriculum syllabus I have (which may have been more indicative of what DM was taught) and there was no mention of teaching manuscript (printed) writing; I knew from my nephews who were in schools in France at that time that it was not taught there either at the K-1 level.

I try to keep abreast of these matters because I do pro bono advocacy for parents of children with specific learning needs, especially LD and/or gifted. Not on topic for this board, so anyone who has a question about something related to that is welcome to pm me; I have all I can manage right now but might be able to help with some suggestions.

As for the childlike documents, we don't actually know they were DM's. It could turn out they belong to someone else.

 

[palisadesk]

A little off topic but not really.

I've been thinking about CN and the fact that she will be testifying for the Crown as was outlined in the Crown's opening statement.

I understand that she has been charged and that she is out on bail.

Has she pleaded guilty to her charges or do we not know due to the publication ban? The reason I ask is because anything she testifies to is going to incriminate her and we already know that her DNA has shown up on the gloves which already incriminates her.

I have to assume she entered a guilty plea or else she wouldn't be testifying. Right or Wrong?

You're right that due to the publication ban we don't know precisely what is the state of the charges against CN. But the Crown's opening statement said that her trial is pending. If she had pleaded guilty to (whatever) charges, there would be no trial -- there would have been a sentencing hearing.

So the fact that she is out on bail, and is being called as a witness, suggests that she has not pleaded guilty to any charges yet.

 

[RandomName479]

When I hear child-like I think of something a child has made.....drawing/art/etc. I don't think the police officer necessarily knew who made them....could be a child...could be an adult....so he used the word "child-like" to describe how they appeared. I appreciate that technically "child-like" should mean an adult having qualities of a child, but I don't believe the officer made this distinction. MOO

 

[Variant]

Thanks for this.....so say she was subpoenaed....she HAS to testify....and if she lied could face perjury charges.....tells the truth....even if her involvement is criminal.....her statements can't be used in her trial.....so one would expect the advice CN is receiving is to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Presumably, IMO. I don't know the severity of the consequences of refusing to answer a question while on the stand, which she may weigh in giving testimony.

Others with more experience in the law may wish to chime in.

 

[Gumshew]

You're right that due to the publication ban we don't know precisely what is the state of the charges against CN. But the Crown's opening statement said that her trial is pending. If she had pleaded guilty to (whatever) charges, there would be no trial -- there would have been a sentencing hearing.

So the fact that she is out on bail, and is being called as a witness, suggests that she has not pleaded guilty to any charges yet.

No one has been found guilty of murder yet. Might her situation depend on this? I think so, and not only in her case. Would like your input on this.

 

[Night_is_Mine]

There is nothing child like about his writing. If anything the cop was talking about a drawing. (That drawing of a car in that letter now THAT was childlike )

 

[SomeITGuy]

Does anyone know if there will be live court proceedings for CN & WM trials whenever they occur?
If I recall ABro said she will be at both, hopefully she can enlighten us if there is no live blog.

 

[JuneBug67]

Id love to know if its a sincere "how did you leave that there you idiot" look or a fake "why oh why did you shoot him without my knowledge" look?

Taken as a whole I think these various expressions are meant to convey the latter. If Smich is the shooter and lets his lawyer implicitly blame Millard, that would earn a few legitimate eye rolls and stare downs. If Millard is simply using his sociopathic skills to manipulate observers and try to convince them of his innocence, it would look about the same way. It's a way to testify without ever getting on the stand, which shows some cunning. I nonetheless think he will have to take the stand if he wants that rather implausible story sold to anyone. The defense could still surprise though. How many cases look rock solid until the defence gets their turn? I'll wait to hear, but thus far he just looks and feels like a sociopath with a trail of bodies behind him.

 

[Ontario Mom]

.

As for the childlike documents, we don't actually know they were DM's. It could turn out they belong to someone else.

Exactly. I was just about to say the very same thing.

 

[palisadesk]

No one has been found guilty of murder yet. Might her situation depend on this? I think so, and not only in her case. Would like your input on this.

Absolutely. Let's say, for the sake of argument, both accused are acquitted of murder in this case. If that happened, CN could not be convicted as an accessory to a murder that a jury had found her accomplices did not commit. In that case, charges would be dropped.

Now, as for testimony in this current case, CN would be expected to testify truthfully to what she knows. The Charter of Rights guarantees that whatever she says in sworn testimony cannot be used against her in a different trial (for example, her own trial for being an accessory).

That would not mean that she could not go to trial as an accessory, but that the Crown would have to prove the case against her without reference to anything she said in this case. And I suspect there will be a publication ban on her testimony (or there could be) lest it taint the likelihood of her receiving a fair trial herself.

 

[Bsafe]

I just read the letter and hoping for some clarification.

Who is Dee and who is now in possession of this letter? Have we seen the initial letter that Dee wrote to DM? I take it that DM and Dee had never met. Did they end up meeting and/or corresponding?

I find it really odd and creepy that Dee took the time to write and DM responded by inviting them to visit!!!

ETA I am referring to the letter written from jail by DM to Dee. Sorry I don't have the link.