Bosma Murder Trial 04.28.16 - Day 42

[SnooperDuper]

Meaning of ‘Inconsistency’ Under Section 9(2)

Where a witness claims that he or she has no recollection of the matters contained in a prior statement, it is within the sole discretion of the trial judge to find that the witness is lying about his or her lack of recollection, and conclude that there is an ‘inconsistency’ between the witness’ testimony and the prior statement: see McInroy. That is, an ‘inconsistency’ will arise under s. 9(2) of the CEA even when a witness does not expressly contradict the contents of a prior statement, but testifies to a lack of recollection regarding the statement that the Judge, in his or her discretion, finds unworthy of belief.

http://www.justice.gov.sk.ca/milgaard/finalPDF/43-Appendix_K.pdf

 

[Inspector_North]

Yep, they were acting like criminals.

Mom and his ex fiancé were also one of the first to the scene after WM took his own life. Just saying. MOO

 

[andreww]

Guess they drove back to the Kleinberg pi$$ed drunk, from the "copious" amounts of wine they consumed.

I got the impression that they went back very soon after getting to the hotel. Not necessarily drunk at that point.

 

[andreww]

That is a very good point! Unless they already knew what had happened to TB?

See, somebody gets me

 

[Nosey Parker]

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 34s35 seconds ago
Leitch takes her to yet another spot in note. She insists that what she's viewing in the notes refers to "seeing him" not "contacting him."

This is like watching Jodi Arias on the stand with her utter denial of truth, and even down to semantics.

 

[Ontario Mom]

So... DM's own mother knew, or at the very least highly suspected Tim Bosma's stolen truck was sitting in a trailer, in her driveway, on the very same night DM was arrested. Not only that, she was in fact there when a very stoned DM and CN dropped it off the night before.

So DM is arrested. Does she (MB) phone the police? Crimestoppers? Any authorities whatsoever? Especially in light of the fact that Tim himself was still considered missing at this point???

No she does not, she phones DM's girlfriend and they proceed to sneak off to a motel, swipe some cash from DM's house, return and wipe prints off the trailer, then get drunk until dawn on the 11th. Anyone thinking how the apple didn't fall too far from the tree, at this point? Anyone wondering why MB was also not charged with at least tampering with evidence?

Color me disgusted with the lot of them. :gaah:

 

[meterclicks]

ok so what does making an application for presenting her as a hostile witness do? Does her testimony mean nothing to the jury? What exactly does it do to the case? Does it have any repercussions for her?

It means Leitch can ask her leading questions. He's declaring that she is not being truthful in correspondence to the evidence (all the inconsistencies) She is called as a Crown witness but she is not providing information that is favourable for them.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Alex Pierson ‏@AlexpiersonAMP 21m21 minutes ago
Nougda says. She was referring to "seeing him. Not contacting him' @AM900CHML #timbosma

Alex Pierson ‏@AlexpiersonAMP 20m20 minutes ago
Nougda says she is referring to "seeing him. Not contacting him" @AM900CHML #TimBosma

Alex Pierson ‏@AlexpiersonAMP 20m20 minutes ago
And yes- I'm as miffed by it as u are. @AM900CHML

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 19m19 minutes ago
molly hayes Retweeted Hamilton Spectator
Here's what we've heard so far this morning at the #Bosma trial:

Hamilton Spectator ‏@TheSpec
Bosma trial: Millard's girlfriend got panic call night of his arrest http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6...irlfriend-got-panic-call-night-of-his-arrest/ …

 

[Massasauga Rattler]

Can anyone google what section 9 subsection 2 pertains to?

Probably answered already, but it seems to me that it's application to allow the Court to have the witness deemed a hostile witness, and to subsequently allow all the privileges of cross examination, including leading questions, to the Crown. My humble interpretation.

 

[DeepWoodsOff]

ok so what does making an application for presenting her as a hostile witness do? Does her testimony mean nothing to the jury? What exactly does it do to the case? Does it have any repercussions for her?

If I understand correctly from this being discussed previously, it means the Crown can now question her in the same manner that the Defense is permitted. They can ask leading questions...which they are traditionally not permitted to do. Someone jump in here if I got this wrong.

 

[redwing7225]

ok so what does making an application for presenting her as a hostile witness do? Does her testimony mean nothing to the jury? What exactly does it do to the case? Does it have any repercussions for her?

http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/H/HostileWitness.aspx

During an examination-in-chief, a party or their attorney or lawyer is not allowed to ask leading questions of their own witness.

But if that witness openly shows hostility against the interests (or the person) that the lawyer represents, the lawyer may ask the court to declare the witness 'hostile', after which, as an exception of the examination-in-chief rules, the lawyer may ask their own witness leading questions.

Thanks everyone for the tweets, trying to catch up during a quick break.

 

[Nosey Parker]

Mom and his ex fiancé were also one of the first to the scene after MB took his own life. Just saying. MOO

Was that before or after they drank copious amounts of wine?

 

[deugirtni]

ok so what does making an application for presenting her as a hostile witness do? Does her testimony mean nothing to the jury? What exactly does it do to the case? Does it have any repercussions for her?

IIRC, I believe that making her a hostile witness enables the Crown to ask leading questions. Found this:

A hostile witness, otherwise known as an adverse witness or an unfavorable witness, is a witness at trial whose testimony on direct examination is either openly antagonistic or appears to be contrary to the legal position of the party who called the witness.

Process

During direct examination, if the examining attorney who called the witness finds that their testimony is antagonistic or contrary to the legal position of their client, the attorney may request that the judge declare the witness hostile. If the request is granted, the attorney may proceed to ask the witness leading questions. Leading questions either suggest the answer ("You saw my client sign the contract, correct?") or challenge (impeach) the witness' testimony. As a rule, leading questions are generally only allowed during cross-examination, but a hostile witness is an exception to this rule.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_witness

 

[mozzagirl]

Crying, hugging, drinking, wiping away evidence. Drinking and driving too, no less. CYA mode from everyone in this case. Disgusting and sick. Poor Tim.

The Bosmas must be sitting there thinking "YOU were crying, worrying, hugging each other and distressed?!" So so sickening.

 

[andreww]

So... DM's own mother knew, or at the very least highly suspected Tim Bosma's stolen truck was sitting in a trailer, in her driveway, on the very same night DM was arrested. Not only that, she was in fact there when a very stoned DM and CN dropped it off the night before.

So DM is arrested. Does she (MB) phone the police? Crimestoppers? Any authorities whatsoever? Especially in light of the fact that Tim himself was still considered missing at this point???

No she does not, she phones DM's girlfriend and they proceed to sneak off to a motel, swipe some cash from DM's house, return and wipe prints off the trailer, then get drunk until dawn on the 11th. Anyone thinking how the apple didn't fall too far from the tree, at this point? Anyone wondering why MB was also not charged with at least tampering with evidence?

Color me disgusted with the lot of them. :gaah:

I think that CN basically filled MB in on what was in the trailer when she showed up. Of course CN won't admit to that, but that is why MB is not wondering if there is a body in the trailer.

 

[Ontario Mom]

So in other words, Leitch is asking the Judge to go all Dungey on her?

 

[Inspector_North]

I wonder what her lawyer is saying to her over lunch?

 

[andreww]

The Bosmas must be sitting there thinking "YOU were crying, worrying, hugging each other and distressed?!" So so sickening.

Remember, MB is just as much a victim in this.

 

[meterclicks]

So in other words, Leitch is asking the Judge to go all Dungey on her?

Yep! :fence:

 

[paris_paris]

It means Leitch can ask her leading questions. He's declaring that she is not being truthful in correspondence to the evidence (all the inconsistencies) She is called as a Crown witness but she is not providing information that is favourable for them.

I thought it meant they could use what she had said in her 2 statements to police (even though she denied making the 2nd statement). I thought it also meant the Crown could use any evidence they have, even though she says the evidence isn't real. Like phone calls and dated notes and letters.