Bosma Murder Trial 06.10.16 - Day 59 - Charge to jury

[canadiangirl]

Just a wee bit off-topic, but in case you were wondering, the woman from Vancouver made it to the courtroom today [emoji6]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It was tweeted it wasn't busy. I'm surprised. I wish I could've made it myself.

 

[leafs_fan93]

Thank you for your explanation, and I understand what you are saying., especially your saying to get there the right way, not the easy way. (Paraphrasing.) You are more than likely correct, but this is what I struggle with:

First of all, FC doesn't mean that Tim would have to have been made aware that he was forcibly confined. There was a loaded weapon in the truck. We know what the outcome was. Isn't it most probable that one or both of the accused were never going to give Tim the freedom of choice to leave?

If I am reading your post correctly, I interpret what you said is that 1st degree depended upon both FC AND premeditation, when it was actually a one or the other situation, that allowed two separate paths to conclude 1st degree. Sorry if I misread.

There are many aspects of this trial that aren't proven, and have to be reasoned through to a conclusion, using the judge's instructions, and I thought FC would be basically the same.

And, NO, I would not ever wish the Bosmas to have to face an appeal. Never in a million years.

If that is the case, I fully understand.

Sorry for taking up so much time with this one issue. It has been withdrawn, so no longer a matter for consideration. [emoji846] I only hope that someday it will be explained by the lawyers.







Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I completely agree with what you are saying in that at least one of the accused never planned on letting Tim leave the truck, and weather Tim was aware of this or not is moot. Where I disagree is in what the jury should draw from this. One could draw a conclusion of either FC or premeditation from this. I think the judge is guiding the jury to draw the conclusion based on premeditation simply because there was actually evidence of this presented at the trial. I feel like he is being very careful to ensure the jury reached their verdict based on fact and evidence - not assumptions of how someone should have or could have felt in a given situation(Tim fearing for his life, being forcibly confined)

You are correct that many aspects have not necessarily been proven, but IMO none are as important to the outcome of the case as the vehicle for arriving at first degree convictions.

 

[Claroon]

When you wrote your hypothetical scenario, I had an epiphany that this ten minute loop completely could make sense, and the killing could have happened during it. As we know, It corroborates Bullmans observation that the cars went west on Book instead of turning onto Trinity. Doesn't Bullmans approx 9:15 pm - 9:30 pm regular dog walking timeline still fit with this also, as it is a relatively wide window.

I had to be in that area today and without my GPS, wouldn't have known my route. Easily DM being in an unfamiliar truck with no GPS telling him where to go cold have easily taken wrong turns (maybe going to the west end of Book Rd before realizing he didn't mean to go that way) then turned around to head north.

 

[XiolaBlueX]

How could they conclude that DM and/or MS was never going to give TB the option to leave? To arrive at that rung on the ladder, they would need to prove it was premeditated.

Hi, just curious, do you mean only in the case if TB was never given the option of leaving, as in confining and killing? What about if it was (what I originally suspected/speculated from the beginning of this case)- carjacking "gone wrong"in other words, an unplanned death but technically while forcibly confining TB? Hopefully that makes sense (Then the death wouldn't need to be premeditated )

 

[XiolaBlueX]

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

The judge said today that he may express some statements such as this but that the jury is to make up their own mind on if they agree or disagree

 

[mimimic]

The point is more that we can see by what the outcome was that they were NOT going to let him leave. Tim was deprived of freedom of choice as soon as he closed the door, IMO.

And there doesn't need to be proof that Tim KNEW he was being forcibly confined.




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's why it seems clearer, was murder planned or wasn't it? less choice

 

[mimimic]

You keep referencing they but the fact is we don't know if it was one, or both.

Well then, how where THEY going to plan to take it from the source?

 

[Georgeo]

Someone is shot dead and you cannot conclude that forcible confinement happened when it was pointed at them???? Really???? If you were not being forcibly confined by the gun then you would just walk away and be alive wouldn't you? The only other conclusion I come up with is that you were shot in the back not having any knowledge and therefore you were not forcibly confined before you were murdered in cold blood. either way it is murder and two people are going down for first degree murder. either they both had guns, or one had a gun and the other one did nothing to stop it or call 911 or anything else to help Tim Bosma.

Why would the judge say this? Legal arguments must have had bearing on this ruling. Again, accused have all the advantages it seems. So unfair!

 

[canadiangirl]

Hi, just curious, do you mean only in the case if TB was never given the option of leaving, as in confining and killing? What about if it was (what I originally suspected/speculated from the beginning of this case)- carjacking "gone wrong"in other words, an unplanned death but technically while forcibly confining TB? Hopefully that makes sense (Then the death wouldn't need to be premeditated )

Sorry yes, only in the case if TB was given the option not leaving as in confining and killing.
The thing that baffles me is neither said it was a horrible mistake. They could have.

 

[canadiangirl]

Well then, how where THEY going to plan to take it from the source?

That statement is open to interpretation.

 

[XiolaBlueX]

Did you make it to the courthouse today?

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Sorry, I'm behind on this thread and been trying to catch up. Yes I did! I had to leave in the afternoon, but I took lots of notes in the morning. I will hopefully be able to post a couple of takeaways and observations on here tomorrow. It was very interesting.

 

[XiolaBlueX]

If you have a loaded gun pointed at you then you are beholden. You cannot do what you want to do. You are confined. You cannot leave. If this is done during the process of you being robbed and lured into it under false pretenses by the likes of DM and MS then I think you can make a logical inference that both individuals are responsible for the crimes and lots of evidence to support this. According to the judge the jury cannot use anything DM or MS said to make logical inferences about. You can on actual facts.
The example of you put milk in a bowl for your cat at her feeding time and you came back 5 minutes later and it was gone. You can make logical inference that the cat drank it. Excellent example.

The judge followed up a similar analogy today about 1 dog being left food, etc and then said - (paraphrasing) however, if you have TWO dogs, and come back later and all the food is gone, you may not know which dog ate the food, or if both did.

 

[hellkat2]

Regarding the forcible confinement - perhaps it isn't available since TB willingly got into the car? Or perhaps because all theories given by the defense and the crown didn't factor into it. Not too sure.

FWIW here is the criminal code on Forcible Confinement:
[h=6]Forcible confinement[/h][FONT="](2) Every one who, without lawful authority, confines, imprisons or forcibly seizes another person is guilty of[/FONT]

• (a) an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding ten years; or
  
• (b) an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding eighteen months.

Tim Bosma was lured into the truck on false premise. He was not allowed to leave or he would be alive not dead from a gun shot.

 

[DMB]

Thank you for your explanation, and I understand what you are saying., especially your saying to get there the right way, not the easy way. (Paraphrasing.) You are more than likely correct, but this is what I struggle with:

First of all, FC doesn't mean that Tim would have to have been made aware that he was forcibly confined. There was a loaded weapon in the truck. We know what the outcome was. Isn't it most probable that one or both of the accused were never going to give Tim the freedom of choice to leave?

If I am reading your post correctly, I interpret what you said is that 1st degree depended upon both FC AND premeditation, when it was actually a one or the other situation, that allowed two separate paths to conclude 1st degree. Sorry if I misread.

There are many aspects of this trial that aren't proven, and have to be reasoned through to a conclusion, using the judge's instructions, and I thought FC would be basically the same.

And, NO, I would not ever wish the Bosmas to have to face an appeal. Never in a million years.

If that is the case, I fully understand.

Sorry for taking up so much time with this one issue. It has been withdrawn, so no longer a matter for consideration. [emoji846] I only hope that someday it will be explained by the lawyers.







Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Just a thought, correct me if I'm wrong. It seems that originally the crown was going with FC as a route to first degree but things changed as some of the evidence came out and pointed to their original theory being incorrect. I believe it was video evidence in Brantford and the mention of the "boom" by the police officer and not MS's testimony that led us to believe that TB was murdered in Brantford hence the probability of FC. Early in the trial there wasn't much emphasis on the field other then to collaborate the time of TB's disappearance and the parking spot of the Yukon. It wasn't until much later after the SS video evidence was disputed that this new angle of murder in the field option was mentioned.. I believe if this was the original direction they were taking Bullmans testimony would have indicated so. First off if they believed this is what happened they wouldn't have waited well over a month to get a statement from such an important witness and testimony and cross would have been stronger about the spot and depth within the field that he saw the cars, where the lighter was found, was it a new lighter or something that had been sitting their for years,etc etc. Perhaps it wasn't an omission on TD's part to not question further but not relevant at the time. Hence the FC is now off the table when included originally

 

[Jen Darme]

During part of the Crown's cross of MS, I wondered if Fraser was after testimony to support forcible confinement (and didn't get any). From Molly Hayes, May 25th:

"It stands to reason that when he leaves the driveway that night, he is not very comfortable," Fraser suggests.
Dungey objects. Says Fraser is asking Smich to speculate on other people's testimony.
After being asked to step out for a moment, the jury is being brought back in.
Fraser asks if Smich observed any nervousness or unease on #Bosma's part when he got into the truck that night. Smich says no sir.

<snip>

Fraser asks if the description of him that night as "sketchy" is fair. Smich says he was there scoping out. Says it's someone else's opinion

<snip>

Fraser asks again if Smich noticed any change in #Bosma's demeanour at this moment.
"I know I didn't speak, that's for sure, unless I said 'ok.' Like I said I don't recall exact conversation," Smich says.
He can't recall any conversation or observations. "It was literally around the corner and I got out," he says.
Fraser quotes Smich's testimony. In which he said Millard said why don't you get out/you guys follow us? So we don't have to come back here
Fraser suggests #Bosma might have been suspicious at this point about what was happening.

 

[hellkat2]

It doesn't necessarily convey surprise on the journalist's part, but rather, he is pointing out what a big deal it is. Considering that other trials have seemingly left it to the jury to decide if a forcible confinement took place, I am really confused now. It sure would have been helpful if the judge had explained why this possibility is off the table for this case. Or perhaps he did explain it, but we weren't tweeted every word? Hopefully one of the journalists will write a story in the news regarding why the judge took this off the table in this case? moo

ETA: I just wanted to mention that at least a couple of times, at least a couple of journalists tweeted that they weren't tweeting everything. At one point AC said it got confusing; LH also noted that to simplify, she was not tweeting everything, because there was complication and duplication, IIRC. I wonder if this subject was one of the times when things got confusing? Hopefully one of the journos took it upon themselves to enquire of the Crown as to the reasoning for this; I know I would have, had I been a journalist in attendance today. moo

Why would this confinement be taken off the table by the judge? He perhaps is trying to keep it simple? It was either premeditated or it wasn't. It was premeditated and they both guilty as hell. I think the jury has enough actual evidence that they can reasonably conclude this. They goin down. First degree for both and I will say the jury will be out for about 4 hours to get there.

 

[rmoeller]

I just realized there isn't an AATF option. Not that I feel MS should get anything less than 1st.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Re-read the tweets around BDs testimony. I think the confusion comes in because BD is talking about two guns (DM gun that took zombie bullets and the one that he said MS had) and it seems the judge doesnt want the 2nd gun talk in the case. He's cut off testimony a few times when it comes to a 2nd gun. So youve got BD talking about two guns when everyone is trying to dance around and talk about one gun.

BD also disagreed with all of the lawyers a few times (particularly about the gun and some he or we stuff), so Im not sure i agree with the statement about him just going along with the lawyers questions.

BD does mention being hazy about some things as well and obviously we arent in the courtroom to see if it was more confusing than in tweets.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Just a thought, correct me if I'm wrong. It seems that originally the crown was going with FC as a route to first degree but things changed as some of the evidence came out and pointed to their original theory being incorrect. I believe it was video evidence in Brantford and the mention of the "boom" by the police officer and not MS's testimony that led us to believe that TB was murdered in Brantford hence the probability of FC. Early in the trial there wasn't much emphasis on the field other then to collaborate the time of TB's disappearance and the parking spot of the Yukon. It wasn't until much later after the SS video evidence was disputed that this new angle of murder in the field option was mentioned.. I believe if this was the original direction they were taking Bullmans testimony would have indicated so. First off if they believed this is what happened they wouldn't have waited well over a month to get a statement from such an important witness and testimony and cross would have been stronger about the spot and depth within the field that he saw the cars, where the lighter was found, was it a new lighter or something that had been sitting their for years,etc etc. Perhaps it wasn't an omission on TD's part to not question further but not relevant at the time. Hence the FC is now off the table when included originally

Cant speak to the crowns theory change if it exists (although pretty sure interviews are done by police and not the crown at least that far out from the trial).

In regards to TD, he should have known MS story and been looking for corroboration no ,matter what the crown was doing.

 

[XiolaBlueX]

I had to be in that area today and without my GPS, wouldn't have known my route. Easily DM being in an unfamiliar truck with no GPS telling him where to go cold have easily taken wrong turns (maybe going to the west end of Book Rd before realizing he didn't mean to go that way) then turned around to head north.

I've been thinking the same thing regarding MS not being very reliable with saying which way they were going, (even if he was being honest which is another question) if somebody isn't from around there, and especially inexperienced driver, it could be quite confusing.
Curious though, in the scenario you had there, wouldn't TB have been alive and knowing and being quite familiar with book road and therefore helping direct DM? Or were you illustrating under the scenario of the crown that TB was shot right away, and then DM would obviously be the one "leading the way" ?