Bosma Murder Trial 05.09.16 - Day 46

[Ontario Mom]

Somehow I keep forgetting that MS is also charged with 1st degree murder in LB's case (but not in WM's case - only DM is charged in that). I don't know how I forget that, unless it's just because there are so many details, times and places to keep straight.

 

[JuneBug67]

First post here, perhaps someone could help me out with a few questions that I have.

When the Crown presented their witnesses, in questioning they were only allowed to speak about what was covered in the police witness testimony and were not allowed to ask leading questions. It was the defence lawyers who WERE allowed to go beyond what was made in their statement and ask questions that were not allowed by the crown.

In DM's infamous letters he writes that MS got himself charged by trying to blame DM. In MM's testimony she made a plea to MS to speak to the police and tell them the truth and
let him know that she had told them everything that MS had told to her.

So, if MS did make a statement when arrested and he is the defence witness does the same hold true on who can and cannot ask leading questions if he should take the stand???? Will TD only be allowed to speak on what is in that statement and the Crown can ask much more and lead AND since he is a defence witness will DM's lawyers be able to attack him on the stand?????

As I understand it it's about direct vs. cross examination rather than what role a lawyer has in a proceeding. So the crown has thus far only had an opportunity for direct examination as they have been presenting their case in chief, but for Dungeys' defence case both the Crown and DM's team can cross examine any of Dungey's witnesses. Cross examination allows more latitude, including leading questions etc.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Thanks. I found these two paragraphs to be confusing read together:

In a criminal trial by judge alone, these final arguments are delivered by Crown and defence counsel after the defence's case is finished. If defence counsel has presented evidence then she or he will be the first to make final arguments. Crown counsel will speak last. If defence counsel did not call evidence, then the order is reversed.

In a jury trial, the judge will summarize the evidence and counsels’ arguments for the jury. The judge will also explain the relevant legal principals to be applied in the case, give the jury any necessary instructions, and tell them when they may begin their “deliberations” or decision making about the case.

Read one way, it seems to imply there is a different approach in a judge vs. jury trial. Read another, it just sounds like in a jury trial there is the additional step of a judge's summary after arguments by counsel. Someone more knowledgeable will clarify soon hopefully.

In Canada, whether before a judge alone, or before judge and jury, the Crown and the Defence give closing arguments.

And then the judge presents his jury instructions, which are much more involved regarding guidance to specific evidence entered during the trial than we typically see in U.S. judge instructions to the jury.

 

[don_quixote]

Can DM's defense change their mind based on MS's evidence?

 

[billandrew]

Thanks. I found these two paragraphs to be confusing read together:

In a criminal trial by judge alone, these final arguments are delivered by Crown and defence counsel after the defence's case is finished. If defence counsel has presented evidence then she or he will be the first to make final arguments. Crown counsel will speak last. If defence counsel did not call evidence, then the order is reversed.

In a jury trial, the judge will summarize the evidence and counsels’ arguments for the jury. The judge will also explain the relevant legal principals to be applied in the case, give the jury any necessary instructions, and tell them when they may begin their “deliberations” or decision making about the case.

Read one way, it seems to imply there is a different approach in a judge vs. jury trial. Read another, it just sounds like in a jury trial there is the additional step of a judge's summary after arguments by counsel. Someone more knowledgeable will clarify soon hopefully.

BBM. So by not calling any evidence, DM's defence will get the last word in the closing arguments? If so, I'm sure this is intentional so that neither the Crown or MS's defence will get to respond to what they say, and they get a chance to hear MS's final argument before they make theirs.

 

[Massasauga Rattler]

I was at least expecting character witnesses. But then again, other then his rabbit, not too many friends and family left to even give him that.

All DM's friends ARE characters, and character witness testimony from characters doesn't usually work out well.

 

[cckp72]

They will go with Smitch is just a punk involved in petty crimes who needed drug money and drugs and DM supplied that. Even MM said it was like he loved DM. MS was obviously enamored with DM and therefore went along with the plan to steal the truck. They will claim DM shot TB and tried to frame MS and with his bum shoulder no way he could have shot him or helped move the body. And being he was so freaked out after, that will support their defense. MS had to go along with helping as he was there and everyone knew it. Likely his prints were on the gun and he had to ditch it. He already was known by LE and he had no choice because of DM being squeaky clean in the eyes of the law. JMO on how MS will explain this away. He left DM to clean up the rest of HIS own mess with CN. To me I don't care what he says... Because at this point I don't think we'll know the truth

All comments are JMO unless stated otherwise

Is this fact - DM had no prior incidents with LE? I know we know now about LB and WM but nothing else?

Thanks.

 

[andreww]

DM not testifying also serves to not dig him any deeper than he already is, or expose himself for what he is any further, thus preserving his tiny army of believers. There are almost certainly some people who still see him as a victim of a rush to judgement and a man who maybe made some mistakes but who is not a killer. Psychopaths are highly and effectively manipulative and have a presentation that seems utterly normal, sincere and disarming to those who are primed to believe for whatever reason. His mother may still be struggling to square the child she believed she knew for almost three decades with the facts as presented. Strangers or acquaintances may simply be dug in to their first impressions of DM and of the evidence and the beliefs that formed around all that. It's a well known thing in psychology that it's difficult to dislodge us from our initial beliefs and confirmation bias is a significant force. Still, reality is always the best place to live. DM, dangerous individual and general menace to society, gets stopped right here.

BBM No. No there aren't.

 

[Crimeinthe6ix]

Is this fact - DM had no prior incidents with LE? I know we know now about LB and WM but nothing else?

Thanks.

From my understanding he was not known to LE in the traditional sense. Although I did read on the Star that Millard had been pulled over on a traffic stop in Toronto and a police noted his Tattoo - which helped them in the investigation.

Even Smich's only prior was drug charges and the mischief charge, which in relative terms are very minor charges compared to what they are facing.

 

[Massasauga Rattler]

Well, wow. DM's defense sure did him loads of good, didn't they?

As for TD and who will be called, I'd love to believe MS has actually told his lawyer the truth about what happened that night and TD is going to put him on the stand to lay it out, once and for all. One would think, if one KNOWS their client is a murdering piece of garbage, they'd genuinely have no defense (oh, hi Millard, how are you?). But one would also think, if their dumb client just happened to be along to steal a truck and never shot anyone, then that defense attorney would want to make sure the jury heard that.

I know it's a lot of wishful thinking but I know many of us here never believed MS pulled the trigger in the first place. I guess we'll find out beginning Wednesday where TD plans to go with this.

I wonder though if MS took that stand to admit he was just along to steal a truck, would that actually work against him? I still don't believe any single piece of evidence puts him at the scene of the murder (the incineration, yes). By admitting he was there to steal a truck, he now provides the definitive piece of evidence that puts him at the scene of the murder. And though his intentions were to just steal a truck, the fact a murder took place as part of the forcible confinement process in stealing the truck, then he now has implicated himself in the 1st degree. It seems like a very fine line that I can't believe TD would be willing to let him walk on the stand.

 

[andreww]

Is this fact - DM had no prior incidents with LE? I know we know now about LB and WM but nothing else?

Thanks.

Aside from traffic tickets he is clean.

 

[Massasauga Rattler]

The fact that Millard is not going to put on any sort of defence just shows what a piece of *advertiser censored* this guy is. Why would he put the Bosma family through all this? He was aware of all this evidence in advance, he knew he'd be found guilty, and he still made the Bosma family sit through this agony for 3 months. What a monster.

Well, I'd somewhat agree on an emotional level, however I think many would say the same if he did try and defend himself further.

 

[Miranda16]

I don't see how a left shoulder injury really helps MS (unless he is left handed). Just because he sat behind TB initially during the test drive does not mean that he stayed there.

i wonder if a doctor had seen him yet or if it was only an upcoming appointment.

 

[andreww]

I wonder though MS took that stand to admit he was just along to steal a truck, would that actually work against him? I still don't believe any single piece of evidence puts him at the scene of the murder (the incineration, yes). By admitting he was there to steal a truck, he now provides the definitive piece of evidence that puts him at the scene of the murder. And though his intentions were to just steal a truck, the fact a murder took place as part of the forcible confinement process in stealing the truck, then he now has implicated himself in the 1st degree. It seems like a very fine line that I can't believe TD would be willing to let him walk on the stand.

I agree, no single piece of evidence puts him there that night and I'll go one step further and say nothing puts him at the hangar either. There is video of a skinny kid from behind, could be anyone. So the question he has to answer is why his phone pinged near Bosma's and how he got in to Millard's truck at 7:00 am without having any cellphone contact with him.

 

[JPC]

Well, I'd somewhat agree on an emotional level, however I think many would say the same if he did try and defend himself further.

Did nothing come of the harassing the riverside tenant or was that pinned on Javier?

 

[andreww]

Well, I'd somewhat agree on an emotional level, however I think many would say the same if he did try and defend himself further.

At least there would be a point to it. The whole idea of going to trial is to defend yourself, this guy has done nothing but waste everybody's time. I can't think of a case, including Paul Bernardo, where I have seen such a weak defence. Never!

 

[andreww]

I don't see how a left shoulder injury really helps MS (unless he is left handed). Just because he sat behind TB initially during the test drive does not mean that he stayed there.

i wonder if a doctor had seen him yet or if it was only an upcoming appointment.

I'd guess he is just saying that he wouldn't have been able to lift a 160 lb man in to an incinerator.

 

[Inspector_North]

I wonder though MS took that stand to admit he was just along to steal a truck, would that actually work against him? I still don't believe any single piece of evidence puts him at the scene of the murder (the incineration, yes). By admitting he was there to steal a truck, he now provides the definitive piece of evidence that puts him at the scene of the murder. And though his intentions were to just steal a truck, the fact a murder took place as part of the forcible confinement process in stealing the truck, then he now has implicated himself in the 1st degree. It seems like a very fine line that I can't believe TD would be willing to let him walk on the stand.

We know that MS provided a statement of fact that he was on the IT test drive. DM seemed to suggest in his letters that both AM and MS made damaging statements, for DM at least. I wonder if there was more to MS's statement?

There is little doubt MS was there, but exactly where when the murder took place?

MOO

 

[canadiangirl]

Is this fact - DM had no prior incidents with LE? I know we know now about LB and WM but nothing else?

Thanks.

From my understanding he is not known to LE but it's all MOO.

All comments are JMO unless stated otherwise

 

[Miranda16]

Well, I'd somewhat agree on an emotional level, however I think many would say the same if he did try and defend himself further.

I assume that Andrew meant that given that DM could foresee a guilty verdict in advance of the trial (based on evidence disclosure), he should have just changed his plea to guilty (especially if he had no intent of defending himself). I agree and often wonder this about accused criminals; if the case is pretty much a slam dunk, why not plead guilty and save everyone's time.

I remember an interview with the detective questioning Russel Williams. He said that he played to RW's intelligence: "look I have all this evidence against you, why bother denying it". It worked in this case (although RW's wish to shield his wife from a trial was apparently a big factor in his admission of the crimes - if I recall correctly)