Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #11

[matou]

DM was supposed to be there for 6 for the gun deal. @1:05 in the link.

ETA: it looks like the Niagara Guy was late and DM said he had until 7 pm to wait for it.

 

[mimimic]

MS was afraid of LE coming to arrest him IMO.

I don't agree, the language ie: "these guys don't #@*** around and the slag SM used don't seem like the kind used directed at LE." moo.

 

[Gibson67]

Why is MM asking Isho to call her? Also it reads like she had prior communication with him and he isn't really happy about her contacting him. This is after the arrests. JMO

totally agree with you, can't see any reason why she would need to contact him..it's very strange..makes you go hmmmm.

 

[Typhoo1961]

I don't agree, the language ie: "these guys don't #@*** around and the slag SM used don't seem like the kind used directed at LE." moo.

LE doesn't mess around either when they are looking for murderers.

 

[matou]

Possibly related:

Mark Smich was charged Monday by Det. Mark Carbone of the Toronto police homicide unit. Documents filed with the courthouse in Etobicoke say the alleged breach of recognizance happened between April 10 and July 31 of last year while Smich was in custody at the Toronto West Detention Centre.

The dates of Smich violation to his no-contact order with MM coincides with his new charge of first degree murder of Laura Babcock. He was changed with violating the no-contact order in Jan 2015.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5262706-co-accused-in-bosma-murder-case-faces-new-charge/

 

[mimimic]

LE doesn't mess around either when they are looking for murderers.

I totally agree with this statement but think guys like SM use Other Slang for LE and would maybe rather say holy***they are on to us!

 

[MsSherlock]

As honest as MM was, I think she also held back info, etc. I think she knows what happened to the gun and was in communication with Isho after Smich was arrested. JMO

You could be correct, but IMHO, her testimony may be limited in the D's arguments. The witness is somewhat guided by the questions and areas that the Crown can ask them, with certain topics etc non permissible. When it comes to the info about the gun, MWJ is still facing charges for selling DM a gun ( I believe the one that he used to kill WM with- but correct me if I'm wrong!). DM, MWJ & the gun(s) are getting blurry with me! lol The point I was making was that just because we didn't hear it on the stand, doesn't mean that the witness isn't being truthful- it may in fact mean that the Crown just can't go there. FWIK, cross examination is also subject to the decisions from the arguments. i.e.. S & P may want to bring something up and Dungey objects and visa versa. IMHO, since there are other cases before the Courts, we cannot underestimate the importance of the Judge to keep everything in balance. MOO

 

[Georgeo]

Thank you for your explanation re various legal processes and rules, however all the games with regard to wording of a cross examining question and knowing the answer witness will give exactly makes the whole legal process seem scripted like a movie or reality show! These two are guilty period. Why all the theatrics and hope for no successful appeal? The evidence is clear. Witnesses are clear. Why do we owe these two so much latitude and benefit of the doubt? Was Tim Bosma treated this way? His life was extinguished with no warning, no reason, and he has zero chance of a second chance or appeal! Moo

I think it was because DM could control MS. As MM stated DM never paid them, but would pay for their cell phone or buy them things and offer them a free place to stay. With MS and MM having no money and DM offering to pay for various things, this would leave them hanging off of DM's coat tails and always there when he snapped his fingers. JMO Welcome to websleuth!!!

You are correct, it's certainly taken a long time to get to trial, but I also believe a lot of the delay was the ongoing investigation, and of course the additional murder charges, making everything so much more complex. With respect to scripting their cases, only so much scripting can be done when you are faced with evidentiary facts. It's pretty difficult for witnesses to all lie, without something not adding up and standing out. I do believe that justice will be served here in the end, but for the Bosma family it is a terrible journey to have to take.

defending these monsters is wrong due to the degree of evidence they have against them. The term "vigorously defending" their clients, is sickening when it is clear they are sooooo guilty. The Bosma family has suffered enough and need to heal and slowly close this horrible chapter in their lives. Millard laughing and smirking in court is extremely rude. You would think his lawyers would tell him to at least act solemn and contrite. Jmo

 

[ArianeEmory]

defending these monsters is wrong due to the degree of evidence they have against them. The term "vigorously defending" their clients, is sickening when it is clear they are sooooo guilty. The Bosma family has suffered enough and need to heal and slowly close this horrible chapter in their lives. Millard laughing and smirking in court is extremely rude. You would think his lawyers would tell him to at least act solemn and contrite. Jmo

We have to have defense lawyers, it's how our legal system works.

As much as I have poked fun at Millard's defense (and occasionally been appalled), I think at this point they just do what he says and are well aware he is going down.

I would also imagine they tried to tell him not to act like such a psycho in court and he ignored them. Or maybe they didn't even bother trying. (See above.)

 

[billandrew]

I have a general question, not necessarily related to this case: What are the ethics of defending an accused criminal when the lawyer knows their client is guilty? I know the accused has a right to a fair trial, and I acknowledge that defense lawyers play a critical role in upholding that right. But is it ethical (or even legal, for that matter) for a defense lawyer to defend their client based on a story that they know is untrue?

 

[MsSherlock]

defending these monsters is wrong due to the degree of evidence they have against them. The term "vigorously defending" their clients, is sickening when it is clear they are sooooo guilty. The Bosma family has suffered enough and need to heal and slowly close this horrible chapter in their lives. Millard laughing and smirking in court is extremely rude. You would think his lawyers would tell him to at least act solemn and contrite. Jmo

And we can't forget that TB is only 1 out of 3 that DM is charged with and it's 1 out of 2 for MS. My heart aches for TB's loved ones, but I cannot ever lose sight of the Babcock & Millard families. Whether he's waving at witnesses, staring down MS or smiling as he looks around the court room, DM's behaviour has been bizarre and callous. Equally bizarre and disgusting is the fact that he's defending himself in the LB case. If his behaviour in this trial is an indicator of his behaviour during subsequent trials, then my prayers are with LB's love ones- I can't even imagine how that trial will unfold nor can I imagine the pain and agony he will continue to cause the Babcock family as they search for their closure. DM is an absolute monster. He doesn't care about anyone or anything that doesn't serve him. A guilty verdict in this trial will finally bring closure for the Bosma family, but IMHO, DM's is far from finished causing pain to people. MOO

 

[MsSherlock]

I have a general question, not necessarily related to this case: What are the ethics of defending an accused criminal when the lawyer knows their client is guilty? I know the accused has a right to a fair trial, and I acknowledge that defense lawyers play a critical role in upholding that right. But is it ethical (or even legal, for that matter) for a defense lawyer to defend their client based on a story that they know is untrue?

PB's first lawyer was actually charged because he had the tapes that PB told him to get out of his house. After KH's deal, he quit and handed them over to PB's new lawyer, who in return gave them to LE. Good timeline on PB/KH trials.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/key-events-in-the-bernardo-homolka-case-1.933128

Maybe that case will answer some questions about what a criminal lawyer can do and/or must do. MOO

 

[Orderly]

IMO...ms followed dm like a puppy dog. smetch's gf said smich was in love with dellen which implies a little more than your regular bromance. Mallard and smich can write love letters to each other in prison for the rest of their life for all I care. I wish they still had capital punishment in Canada for cases like this. I hope they come to a verdict asap for these two and send them to a cell for the rest of their lives. Someone posted that in the US courts have limits of a year to have a murder cases come to trial and it has been two years for this case to come to trial as Canada does not have legislation of this nature. Justice delayed is justice denied. IMO it gives the criminals lots of time to lawyer up and get their stories carefully scripted to support the case that both the defense and the prosecution are attempting to build. The former partners in crime of Mallard and Smich are testifying to attempt to save themselves from prosecution. IMO evil walks amongst the family of the victim and there is something intrinsically wrong with this. In a lot of ways ...justice must be seen to have been done but the length of time this has taken to get to trial and the fact that the family is watching these people testifying against their buddy dellen and then walking free and around them in the court room is not seeing justice in my opinion. Particularly for the family of the victims, it is victimizing and the fact that they are having to revisit this over two years later is not a good thing. This should have been cut a dried and would have been if they got this to trial in a timely manner. Thanks for your thought provoking comments.

A couple of comments on your post:

1. Capital punishment doesn't reduce crime rates, it's been proven over and over again. In any context there is a number of criminals. It's not possible to get rid of all the criminals. Paraphrasing the theory of Emile Durkheim, even in a group of saints there is someone who is less saintly.
2. How do innocent people get convicted for crimes they didn't commit? Or guilty people acquitted for crimes they did commit? One of the ways is through rushed trials where evidence is ignored or overlooked. The threshold for proving guilt is extremely high as it should be to prevent innocent people from losing their freedom. Not only that but it's not always the fault of the crown and its prosecutors that a trial doesn't start on time or is delayed. There can be delays because the defence needs to take more time to look over documents or certain dates don't fit into a lawyers schedule. I think for most people following a trial they just want it to start because they are interested in the case. However, it is necessary to remind oneself at times that this isn't a show. I'm sure the Bosma family would rather have the crown do a spectacular job and prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt so that there is no risk of acquittal and justice is served and the right people have been brought to justice.
3. Then your statement about the witnesses walking free. For someone to go to prison they need to actually have committed a crime. The police has deemed that they have committed no criminal acts and if they did commit criminal acts the police has deemed it does not have a strong case against them. All these witnesses are guilty of as far as I understand is associating with people who have poor character and wanting to protect themselves. However, I'm sure many average people are guilty of that. Furthermore, calling them liars is normative. Overall, I personally believe that overall the story has been consistent.

IMO

 

[girl_next_door]

A journalist tweeted that MB won't be called by the Crown as a witness. Any speculation why? They had enough evidence? Or didn't think "rabbit" would have much to contribute? Lol..

 

[Orderly]

I have a general question, not necessarily related to this case: What are the ethics of defending an accused criminal when the lawyer knows their client is guilty? I know the accused has a right to a fair trial, and I acknowledge that defense lawyers play a critical role in upholding that right. But is it ethical (or even legal, for that matter) for a defense lawyer to defend their client based on a story that they know is untrue?

Perfectly ethical. It doesn't matter what a lawyers opinion is on their clients guilt or innocence, they were hired to protect their clients rights and defend them to the best of their ability. In any job, one has to deal with nasty people or people they do not agree with but they can't just refuse to work with them.

 

[Orderly]

A journalist tweeted that MB won't be called by the Crown as a witness. Any speculation why? They had enough evidence? Or didn't think "rabbit" would have much to contribute? Lol..

Because her testimony does not do anything for the crowns case.

 

[hellkat2]

Wonder if DM has finally realized that he's not going to lie his way out of this one? The reality of being found guilty of first degree and spending the rest of his life behind bars must be sinking in by now. MOO

IMO this is wishful thinking. I believe Dellen will deny till he is blue in the face and spend the rest of his life in prison paying lawyers to get him out. Why would he do this? Because he can and has the means. Simple as that.

 

[hellkat2]

Because her testimony does not do anything for the crowns case.

Is there not some legal term that indicates that a wife or mother etc cannot be made to testify. Canada evidence act?

 

[ArianeEmory]

IMO this is wishful thinking. I believe Dellen will deny till he is blue in the face and spend the rest of his life in prison paying lawyers to get him out. Why would he do this? Because he can and has the means. Simple as that.

You've said this before about him paying lawyers, but he's representing himself in the murder of Laura Babcock, and the family resources are obviously finite.

 

[Claroon]

You could be correct, but IMHO, her testimony may be limited in the D's arguments. The witness is somewhat guided by the questions and areas that the Crown can ask them, with certain topics etc non permissible. When it comes to the info about the gun, MWJ is still facing charges for selling DM a gun ( I believe the one that he used to kill WM with- but correct me if I'm wrong!). DM, MWJ & the gun(s) are getting blurry with me! lol The point I was making was that just because we didn't hear it on the stand, doesn't mean that the witness isn't being truthful- it may in fact mean that the Crown just can't go there. FWIK, cross examination is also subject to the decisions from the arguments. i.e.. S & P may want to bring something up and Dungey objects and visa versa. IMHO, since there are other cases before the Courts, we cannot underestimate the importance of the Judge to keep everything in balance. MOO

I agree and am thinking if she admits now she knows where it is, she would incriminate herself for hiding the whereabouts of a concealed weapon used in murder, perhaps
IMO.