Bosma Murder Trial 05.12.16 - Day 48

[Errrr]

Geez, could they not have finished that off yesterday? Not to make this about taxpayer money, but that 15 minutes in court today probably cost the system at least $100k, not to mention the jury having to miss another potential day of work or some other activity, as well as the time of all the spectators who, despite the fact they are just spectators, are there playing an important role in monitoring the legal system on behalf of the people.

I think they wanted to give the legal interns a chance to read WS to find out what issues might need to be addressed before closing.
WS is a great resource for lawyers to gauge the mindset of a theoretical jury.

 

[SnooperDuper]

So based on the evidence so far, if anyone was sitting on the Jury and only knew what the Jury has been allowed to hear, would you be able to find DM and MS guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" of 1st degree murder? JFMOC (Just for my own curiosity!)

Yeah, I would hang 'em high. No problems seeing first degree for both.

 

[EspressoBean]

Well I tweeted this:

@susanclairmont Thanks for clearing that up. @PeterAkmanCTV tweeted Peter Bouchy, Millard's lawyer in Wayne Millard case, said it could be

SC retweeted it under this:

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 49m49 minutes ago
Crown and Dungey say it's impossible.



The guy that tweeted that is a law student currently articling. the case was Case is R. v. Karim 2010 ABCA 401.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2010/2010abca401/2010abca401.html

It's an interesting case but I don't think the same applies here. That defendant was denied his application to open the case, which was part of his appeal but it was due to the other defendant making a claim of extortion. This was new and new evidence. Also that defendant did give evidence and DM has had his chance to do this and didn't take the opportunity.
Here, MS is only giving evidence to support that DM murdered TB which is what he is already charged with. I don't see that this is new evidence. I think any application would be ruled against since DM already declined to present evidence. With the Crown and Dungey saying it isn't impossible, I also have to wonder that things might have been discussed in legal arguments outside of the jury before the defense even made their election to the judge.

 

[Massasauga Rattler]

Even if he did know a general area that is unlikely to be solicited in open court. That would be a significant public safety issue if it sent a bunch of amateur metal detectors into the generally correct location to find an illegal handgun.

Maybe if MS offered an approximate area, LE could take the fleet of DM's stolen bobcats, on DM's stolen trailers, down to 16 Mile Creek, and use them to dig up some of the forest floor looking for the gun. If they have to take down any trees in the process then can remove them with DM's stolen woodchipper. Then if they need to replant trees to replace those they had to take down, then can use some of DM's stolen nursery trees.

Of course, MS won't say where, so it's most likely instead he could be using DM's stolen floor polisher to prep his cell.

 

[don_quixote]

Well I tweeted this:

@susanclairmont Thanks for clearing that up. @PeterAkmanCTV tweeted Peter Bouchy, Millard's lawyer in Wayne Millard case, said it could be

SC retweeted it under this:

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 49m49 minutes ago
Crown and Dungey say it's impossible.



The guy that tweeted that is a law student currently articling. the case was Case is R. v. Karim 2010 ABCA 401.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2010/2010abca401/2010abca401.html

This is an excellent link. And it reads

Clearly, a trial judge has a discretion to allow applications to re-open the case of either side. The exercise of that discretion will be guided by a number of factors including:
...

 

[RandomName479]

Well I tweeted this:

@susanclairmont Thanks for clearing that up. @PeterAkmanCTV tweeted Peter Bouchy, Millard's lawyer in Wayne Millard case, said it could be

SC retweeted it under this:

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 49m49 minutes ago
Crown and Dungey say it's impossible.



The guy that tweeted that is a law student currently articling. the case was Case is R. v. Karim 2010 ABCA 401.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abca/doc/2010/2010abca401/2010abca401.html

Thanks for the link.....I am not well versed in legal procedure and this may help me form an opinion.

 

[ILoveDateline]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...-can-t-remember-where-he-buried-gun-1.3578641

MS's testimony today about receiving the gun unexpectedly from AM and MH which caused him to worry that DM was framing him may have more impact on the jury than MS not being able to remember where he hid it, IMO. DM in his letters did seem to want MS framed, IMO.

I can't wait for closing arguments from both defence teams and the finale from the Crown. IMO the Crown will have the last word and I am hoping they will make it memorable and persuasive. I don't know about all of you, but I'd like to arrive at a point where all reasonable doubt is removed about the guilt of both accused. In the meantime, I think I'll take break for a while because the discussions actually make me get more confused. So many of you seem certain about MS or DM being guilty, but I waffle back and forth about MS. I wouldn't want to convict him, but I wouldn't want him set free - that's quite the dilemma, IMO.

It's time for clarity and a conclusion, IMO and I think the Crown's closing address will provide it, IMO. Whatever justice looks like after the verdicts, I will be glad to finally see it! I'm sure the Bosma's are anxious to have this trial over with and once they finally get justice for Tim, hopefully they can begin a happier and more hopeful chapter in the lives.

All MOO.

Oh, Brightii , I'm with you. I've gone back and forth between DM and MS many times. So much is revealed in a day. There has been so much lying and cover up that it's so refreshing to have MS speak and, by contrast, it makes him look good. I'm buying in to the spin hook, line and sinker. IMO. But I will not make my final decision until cross and closing arguments are done. Who knows what else there is to come.

 

[don_quixote]

I think they wanted to give the legal interns a chance to read WS to find out what issues might need to be addressed before closing.
WS is a great resource for lawyers to gauge the mindset of a theoretical jury.

Not necessarily. The audience here is not representative of the general population.

 

[Errrr]

.

Another thing that stands out for me is all the people around MS who knew he had the gun .... check the court tweets today .... for someone who wanted no association with the gun there were sure a lot of people who knew he had it

IMO his whole testimony went out the window when he decided to lie about that gun, especially when so many people knew about it. Maybe that's why TD was off today. The whole excercise was wasted.
I wonder if MS will continue his education plans once he gets first degree?

 

[palisadesk]

I can't wait for closing arguments from both defense teams and the finale from the Crown. IMO the Crown will have the last word and I am hoping they will make it memorable and persuasive.

The Crown delivers the final argument when the defense calls witnesses/presents evidence. Otherwise, if the defense does not introduce evidence, the defense gets to make the final address to the jury.

Now, in this case, with a "split" defense, my understanding is that Dungey will not make the final address (because he has called at least one witness, with perhaps more to come), but the Crown may not be making the final address either, if Millard's team does not present any further witnesses/evidence.

See this link for a bit of an explanation:

http://www.victimsinfo.ca/es/about-court/going-to-trial/how-trial-will-proceed/closing-arguments

Now, if there is a determination that DM's defense can call him (or another witness), then the Crown will have the last word.

Otherwise, Pillay will have the last word.

 

[RandomName479]

It's an interesting case but I don't think the same applies here. That defendant was denied his application to open the case, which was part of his appeal but it was due to the other defendant making a claim of extortion. This was new and new evidence. Also that defendant did give evidence and DM has had his chance to do this and didn't take the opportunity.
Here, MS is only giving evidence to support that DM murdered TB which is what he is already charged with. I don't see that this is new evidence. I think any application would be ruled against since DM already declined to present evidence. With the Crown and Dungey saying it isn't impossible, I also have to wonder that things might have been discussed in legal arguments outside of the jury before the defense even made their election to the judge.

BBM - I think you mean isn't possble? MOO

 

[redheart]

So based on the evidence so far, if anyone was sitting on the Jury and only knew what the Jury has been allowed to hear, would you be able to find DM and MS guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" of 1st degree murder? JFMOC (Just for my own curiosity!)

Yes. DM is easy, I won't even explain that.

MS is guilty. I would dismiss most of his testimony, because I think it is untruthful and self-serving
That leaves me with:
-him posing with guns
-knowledge of the mission
-told to bring a change of clothes
-referring to the mission as "fireworks"
-texting fireside furniture and sausages to DM in the middle of mission discussion
-celebratory (or happy) mood of DM and MS per MM following the mission
-direct participation in a great deal of the cleanup
-not going to police at any time
-asking for the drugs and "the other thing" and then getting rid of the gun


I'm sure there's more. Some of those things can be explained, but it becomes unreasonable to find an explanation for each one. Put them all together and I firmly believe that MS knew that murdering and incinerating Tim was the plan and was a willing participant, even if he didn't do the shooting.

MOO

 

[MsSherlock]

Yeah, I would hang 'em high. No problems seeing first degree for both.

You're so harsh Snooper!! lol Actually, I'd be that bleeding heart on the Jury- right now, I'd be telling my Jury pals that DM had a full spoiled brat psychotic episode and was simply willing to take a gun and have his incinerator ready to kill someone for the truck he so desperately wanted- with MS I'd be saying that aside for some texts and pics, I don't see enough to say that he was part of DM's master plan. I'd give DM 1st and right now, MS Accessory after the Fact. MS could change that on Monday- but right now, that's how I'm sitting. MOO

 

[CJPRINCESS]

Did TD ask to end proceedings yesterday? If so it may have been because he knew he was going to be stuck with a weak close regarding the gun. Leaving the jury to absorb yesterday's testimony overnight without that may have been a preferable strategy.

Just using your post to jump from.
It's also possible there was means behind Dungey today and the way he ended. Maybe the defense was not ready to cross exam thinking that they would have the weekend to prepare. So endng with an unprepared DM defense team gives leverage to MS. In the way that, the jury goes home thinking about Dungey's examination and not Pillay cross?

I believe this is all non disclosed information and Pillay would have nothing ready yet. Unlike the Crowns case, defense had disclosure and probably had most material prepared.

All JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

The Crown delivers the final argument when the defense calls witnesses/presents evidence. Otherwise, if the defense does not introduce evidence, the defense gets to make the final address to the jury.

Now, in this case, with a "split" defense, my understanding is that Dungey will not make the final address (because he has called at least one witness, with perhaps more to come), but the Crown may not be making the final address either, if Millard's team does not present any further witnesses/evidence.

See this link for a bit of an explanation:

http://www.victimsinfo.ca/es/about-court/going-to-trial/how-trial-will-proceed/closing-arguments

Now, if there is a determination that DM's defense can call him (or another witness), then the Crown will have the last word.

Otherwise, Pillay will have the last word.

Once Smich's team is finished calling evidence*, the first stage of a "bifurcated" pre-charge conference will take place on the record in the jury's absence. Justice Andrew Goodman will get input from all lawyers as he prepares his critical charge to the jury.

Each legal team will then present its closing address to the jury, beginning with Millard's, followed by Smich's counsel, then Leitch for the Crown.

Next is the second stage of the pre-charge conference. Mistakes made in the judge's charge can lay groundwork for an appeal, so great care must be taken. In this case the charge will be long, perhaps two days. Courtroom doors are locked, nobody is allowed in or out except at breaks.

The charge usually begins with the judge's overview of the evidence. Then the judge instructs the jury on what law applies to the facts of the case. The judge is the trier of law; the jury is the trier of facts.

The judge will instruct jurors on considering lesser charges or included charges, such as second-degree murder or manslaughter. That is often done with the help of a "decision tree" — a diagram to guide jurors.

Once the judge is finished his charge, the 14 jurors chosen last January will be reduced to 12 via a draw. Those extra two jurors — who sat through all evidence in the event other jurors couldn't fulfil their duty — are discharged.

The 12 jurors will then be sequestered. They will bring their suitcases to the courthouse, prepared to stay in a hotel until they have a unanimous verdict.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6546273-clairmont-the-end-of-the-bosma-trial-is-in-sight/

* except that we now expect that after MS's team is finished calling evidence, DM's team will. AFTER that...

 

[ILoveDateline]

These legal arguments are very important to ensure a fair trial and prevent a mistrial.
The judge makes decisions about what can be questioned and brought up. With two accused in this trial, there are going to be so many more challenges and objections and there needs to be adequate time given to address these and not rush through it. There was no pre-trial so there are going to be things that need to be addressed during the trial that might have usually been done during a pre-trial- where so much more time is given for legal arguments and prep. jmo

Not to mention cross will be longer and involve a lot of questioning. IMO. It is more impactful to have cross start fresh next week vs starting today for a few hours and trying to pick it back Monday. But I'm not so sure that type of strategy has control over the courts time/procedure.

 

[SnooperDuper]

You're so harsh Snooper!! lol Actually, I'd be that bleeding heart on the Jury- right now, I'd be telling my Jury pals that DM had a full spoiled brat psychotic episode and was simply willing to take a gun and have his incinerator ready to kill someone for the truck he so desperately wanted- with MS I'd be saying that aside for some texts and pics, I don't see enough to say that he was part of DM's master plan. I'd give DM 1st and right now, MS Accessory after the Fact. MS could change that on Monday- but right now, that's how I'm sitting. MOO

But, THIS

Yes. DM is easy, I won't even explain that.

MS is guilty. I would dismiss most of his testimony, because I think it is untruthful and self-serving
That leaves me with:
-him posing with guns
-knowledge of the mission
-told to bring a change of clothes
-referring to the mission as "fireworks"
-texting fireside furniture and sausages to DM in the middle of mission discussion
-celebratory (or happy) mood of DM and MS per MM following the mission
-direct participation in a great deal of the cleanup
-not going to police at any time
-asking for the drugs and "the other thing" and then getting rid of the gun


I'm sure there's more. Some of those things can be explained, but it becomes unreasonable to find an explanation for each one. Put them all together and I firmly believe that MS knew that murdering and incinerating Tim was the plan and was a willing participant, even if he didn't do the shooting.

MOO

Nice summary redheart.

 

[RandomName479]

So based on the evidence so far, if anyone was sitting on the Jury and only knew what the Jury has been allowed to hear, would you be able to find DM and MS guilty "beyond a reasonable doubt" of 1st degree murder? JFMOC (Just for my own curiosity!)

I have no problem finding DM guilty of 1st degree.....but unless MS's testimony is shown to be a lie during cross examination, at this point I could NOT find him guilty of first degree. His story has created reasonable doubt for me (I know I may be crucified for this....).....he's guilty of accessory after the fact FOR SURE.....MOO

 

[Kamille]

These legal arguments are very important to ensure a fair trial and prevent a mistrial.
The judge makes decisions about what can be questioned and brought up. With two accused in this trial, there are going to be so many more challenges and objections and there needs to be adequate time given to address these and not rush through it. There was no pre-trial so there are going to be things that need to be addressed during the trial that might have usually been done during a pre-trial- where so much more time is given for legal arguments and prep. jmo

I understand that, and this trial, because of no PH, has had more than most, but I thought they just had a significant amount of time for legal arguments when TD made the announcement that MS was going to testify. I thought the majority of it may have been dealt with then. Now they have another almost full day for legal arguments and the attorneys have another 3 days for prep.

I suppose this judge is just being extra cautious because of the nature of this trial. It just seems to me that a team of defense attorneys shouldn't need this much direction and prep time. But if it prevents a mistrial or appeal, I suppose it's for the best. Explains a bit about why our court system is so backlogged though.

MOO

 

[palisadesk]

Yep, I still believe TM was overpowered from the back seat. How else could he let DM drive him almost to Paris?

I've always had issues with this scenario myself. Surely TB would have been suspicious from the moment they pulled into the field (assuming they did) and how would DM have persuaded him to go on such a long drive (if he did)?

A possibility that did occur to me (and it's only that) is that with his famous charm and persuasiveness that we know from other testimony DM has when he chooses to turn it on, he expressed genuine interest in the truck, said something about taking it for a longer spin to be sure (I can see TB being keen on such a possible resolution to his truck issue!) and then, maybe well before they got to Brantford but while en route, perhaps on a back road, TB pulled out his phone to text SB that he'd be late and DM overreacted with the consequences we know of. Then he waited to do something about the situation till they got to the Brantford site, which he was probably familiar with.

There would be no reason for TB to agree to an irregular process unless he was convinced a sale was in the works. That could have been the "hook."