Bosma Murder Trial 06.10.16 - Day 59 - Charge to jury

[canadiangirl]

Because ANY human being will get out and hand over the truck if given the choice between never getting to tuck your baby girl in again or getting shot in the head. It's a no brainer. Those punks didn't give him a choice.

Well then the crown would have to prove which ONE didn't give TB the option to leave, and they haven't, and can't.
Just being there doesn't make you guilty, as per the judge's charge.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Curious ... Sorry I can't remember this. Was it confirmed how Smich found out about Millard's arrest on the night of May 10? I believe MM said they saw it on the news, but I don't believe that DM's arrest was broadcast on the news on the 10th? TIA


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[billandrew]

BBM
And IMO this is exactly why TD did NOT bother to question BD about the meeting between DM and MS, not some hidden strategy in the MS defense.

I must have missed something: If Daly tended to agree with any suggestion a lawyer put on him, then why wouldn't TD want to put some ideas on him?

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Warmest praise and thanks to ILoveDateline and Kamille for your great kindness and technical prowess in providing us with all the tweets. Don't know where we would be without you and all the other great WS tweeters! Thank you all! [emoji307]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[loveisthemovement]

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 1m1 minute ago
"He was evasive, unclear, and tended to agree with every lawyer's propositions," the judge says of Brandon Daly. #Bosma

The judge can give his opinion on witnesses? Is the jury supposed to include that in their evidence?

 

[canadiangirl]

I must have missed something: If Daly tended to agree with any suggestion a lawyer put on him, then why wouldn't TD want to put some ideas on him?

Why bother to cloud already murky waters, IMO he was an unreliable witness to begin with. There would be no added value
The judge obviously sees this as well, so getting BD to collaborate the story would have no weight and could be more harmful then good in the end IMO

 

[billandrew]

The judge can give his opinion on witnesses? Is the jury supposed to include that in their evidence?

I think so... BUT, statements like this would have been discussed and agreed with all counsel prior to today.

 

[RandomName479]

Well then the crown would have to prove which ONE didn't give TB the option to leave, and they haven't, and can't.
Just being there doesn't make you guilty, as per the judge's charge.

I disagree.....the Crown could prove either one (or BOTH) didn't give TB the option to leave....and if the other party went along with it, they would be complicit in the crime. IMO, the problem with forcible confinement in this case is that there isn't any proof (bc TB can't testify as to what happened in the truck) that the gun was actually pulled and held on him (ie: kidnapping)......

For example (and I don't for a second believe this), if DM (or MS) just went crazy for a minute and pulled the gun out and shot TB without any warning, forcible confinement wouldn't be applicable.....

So I think in this case, the Crown did not bring any evidence for kidnapping, so it couldn't be considered as the pathway to 1st degree murder.....all MOO

 

[canadiangirl]

I disagree.....the Crown could prove either one (or BOTH) didn't give TB the option to leave....and if the other party went along with it, they would be complicit in the crime. IMO, the problem with forcible confinement in this case is that there isn't any proof (bc TB can't testify as to what happened in the truck) that the gun was actually pulled and held on him (ie: kidnapping)......

For example (and I don't for a second believe this), if DM (or MS) just went crazy for a minute and pulled the gun out and shot TB without any warning, forcible confinement wouldn't be applicable.....

So I think in this case, the Crown did not bring any evidence for kidnapping, so it couldn't be considered as the pathway to 1st degree murder.....all MOO

Good explanation, I can see that side for sure. Either way the jury is now only left with premeditation. Someone said a while ago this was the case (I forget who), I'm not sure why it surprised me.

 

[RandomName479]

Why bother to cloud already murky waters, IMO he was an unreliable witness to begin with. There would be no added value
The judge obviously sees this as well, so getting BD to collaborate the story would have no weight and could be more harmful then good in the end IMO

I mostly agree with you, that's why I'm being nitpicky about certain things Don't think I'm picking on you....

The judge clearly said in his charge that the fact that TD did not pose certain questions to witnesses was to be considered by the jury. So, it would have benefitted TD/MS if TD had asked those questions (of course, assuming he got the answers he was looking for).....the fact that he didn't corroborate MS's story when given the opportunity is only going to hurt MS. MOO

 

[Inspector_North]

Curious ... Sorry I can't remember this. Was it confirmed how Smich found out about Millard's arrest on the night of May 10? I believe MM said they saw it on the news, but I don't believe that DM's arrest was broadcast on the news on the 10th? TIA


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Looking back on this WS site at day 1 to 4, there was no mention of Dellen until the afternoon of the 11th. And there were many contributing in the early days of this tragedy. They obviously knew, but who?

MOO

 

[RandomName479]

Curious ... Sorry I can't remember this. Was it confirmed how Smich found out about Millard's arrest on the night of May 10? I believe MM said they saw it on the news, but I don't believe that DM's arrest was broadcast on the news on the 10th? TIA


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This has always been a sticking point for me....IMO someone isn't being honest about what went down....

 

[canadiangirl]

I mostly agree with you, that's why I'm being nitpicky about certain things Don't think I'm picking on you....

The judge clearly said in his charge that the fact that TD did not pose certain questions to witnesses was to be considered by the jury. So, it would have benefitted TD/MS if TD had asked those questions (of course, assuming he got the answers he was looking for).....the fact that he didn't corroborate MS's story when given the opportunity is only going to hurt MS. MOO

Oh I don't think that at all.. Nitpicky is good. I know that's what the judge said, I just don't see why TD would want to ask this question to witness who was all over the place.

I can't imagine coming this far and having TD hurt the case. I tend to think there had to be a reason that outweighs the negative or he truly didn't know MS was going to say that. He's had years of experience so he had to know the judge wouldn't like that IMO

 

[billandrew]

Regarding the forcible confinement issue, I think there must be an accepted interpretation of what FC is in the practice of law that goes beyond its legal definition, and it just doesn't apply in this case. If it was simply due to a lack of evidence, wouldn't that be for the jury to decide?

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

The judge can give his opinion on witnesses? Is the jury supposed to include that in their evidence?

He tells the jurors that he might make mistakes in his interpretation of the evidence, and they are not to accept his opinion as any more important than theirs, that what he says in that regard isn't gospel, that it is entirely their decision to make. It is not to be interpreted as evidence or fact. (Paraphrasing).

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[mimimic]

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer."

- Blackstone's formulation

I don't know - I would go to jail to save a kid like VS from someone like the 10 guilty persons. (i think i would) On the peers vs selected a jury. Education does not make you a good judge of character.

 

[deugirtni]

I believe there is good reason why innocent people most often oft for trial by judge only.

MOO

I believe that in Ontario Canada, an accused does not have the right to choose trial by judge alone if the offence is murder. It is my understanding that that option is only applicable in Alberta for some reason. The links below are what I could find easily, but there are many references. (BBM). I would think that both innocent and guilty would choose trial by judge alone if they could.

Another exception to these typical choices are those offences listed within section 469 of the Criminal Code of Canada. “469 offences” are the most serious offences under Canadian criminal law. They include murder, treason, and terrorism offences. Unlike most indictable offences where an accused has a right to be tried before a judge alone, section 469 offences must be tried by a jury unless the Crown Attorney consents to a judge sitting alone.

https://robichaudlaw.ca/ontario-criminal-court-procedures/electing-the-mode-of-trial/

Note: section 459 includes 'murder'

Trial by judge without a jury
558 If an accused who is charged with an indictable offence, other than an offence mentioned in section 469, elects under section 536 or 536.1 or re-elects under section 561 or 561.1 to be tried by a judge without a jury, the accused shall, subject to this Part, be tried by a judge without a jury.

• R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 558;
• R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), s. 108;
• 1999, c. 3, s. 41.

https://zoupio.lexum.com/calegis/rs...FicSHU8SQdELEuFJFTEVWQU5DRSx0YWLElsWkxYpoKSk=

 

[JuneBug67]

Well then the crown would have to prove which ONE didn't give TB the option to leave, and they haven't, and can't.
Just being there doesn't make you guilty, as per the judge's charge.

I think perhaps the Crown effectively surrendered the option with the case they chose to present. The forcible confinement option is intended to elevate a death to first degree murder that might not have otherwise had the necessary intent. The Crown, oddly I think, hitched their cart to a year long plan to incinerate a person and a planned murder a minute from Tim's house. If defense teams tried to argue out the forcible confinement option given this, I can understand why that was successful.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Looking back on this WS site at day 1 to 4, there was no mention of Dellen until the afternoon of the 11th. And there were many contributing in the early days of this tragedy. They obviously knew, but who?

MOO

Thank you Inspector ... So that has never been confirmed yet? We are left with speculation only.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JuneBug67]

Mark Carcasole ‏@MarkCarcGlobal 1m1 minute ago
Bullmann tells #Millard lawyer he did not see which way the two vehicles turned. Only able to see they that were headed toward Brantford.

Now that I'm looking, there is a tweet that they crossed Trinity. But then he didn't see which way they turned. Go figure. The simplest explanation is that it was dark and he misjudged the distance. Everything seems to point that the did turn north on Trinity.

The field is at the corner of Trinity and Book. They either pulled out and turned immediately or proceeded through the intersection. It doesn't seem to be a situation that would lend itself to misjudging distance.