Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #13

[Nosey Parker]

It certainly does matter what she thought it was.

Yes andreww, you are right in law - tampering with evidence - she must have knowledge. I should have been more explicit than just IMO. I was making a personal observation that she was willing to take and conceal whatever he gave her, no questions asked. I doubt that hanging on to the dvd/stereo is a separate charge anyway, unless they can prove she knew it was the hangar dvd.

 

[Jug Up]

No. They will have to PROVE CN had knowledge that there was a truck in the trailer OR that she knew the gun was in the toolbox, OR that the Eliminator was used to incinerate TB, OR that she knew that the video recorder was something other than a stereo. I don't really think the print wiping has much to do with it, more just her actions on May 9th.

While I see where you are going there, is that May 9th part of it as black and white as you say? The charge is "Accessory After The Fact", and not just relating to a particular day, is it not? While I realize the charge relates to her actions of the 9th (moving the incinerator, parking the truck), could wiping down the trailer and, later on, being asked to tamper with witnesses not be considered being an accessory, that she a crime had been committed and did nothing about it?

Sorry if that doesn't make sense.

Let me reference Dungey's "your little brain" comment made to CN yesterday. Once CN became aware that TB had been murdered, burned in an incinerator and his truck found in the trailer, could CN not have gone to the police, knowing damn well she had helped in the coverup? By not saying anything, and essenitally helping DM, does that not warrant the charge and actually strengthen the Crown's case?

MOO

 

[ILoveDateline]

DM does not need to be found guilty for CN to still be tried for accessory according to the Criminal Code of Canada.

Sorry, I just reread my source info and you are correct. You have been so helpful with your answers, providing information on the law and legal proceedings. Thanks.

 

[mozzagirl]

I am assuming that her trial information and any evidence is under a publication ban right now.

What really makes me think the Crown has a lot of evidence to convict CN is that they waited over a year after DM's arrest, to arrest her. So they sat and built their case for a year and still decided to charge her. It wasn't like they hauled her in on May 25, 2013 and charged her. They sat, watched and waited.

 

[canadiangirl]

I think the problem there as I understood it was that AM & MH were on the DNC list. She couldn't go to their doors if she was being followed, she couldn't call as phone records would show that, and writing a letter leaves an obvious paper trail. I think she is just saying that she just doesn't know what strategy to take to get in touch with them more than worrying that they wouldn't want to talk to her.

She herself was on the DNC list and she stated she didn't think she was being followed. But then said obviously she was and LE were good at their job when she found out she was. If she knew I don't think she would have met up with MB as much as she did. I often wonder if she was followed the night she listened from the phone booth. She didn't have to give that information up. So why did she say that?

 

[EspressoBean]

I think the problem there as I understood it was that AM & MH were on the DNC list. She couldn't go to their doors if she was being followed, she couldn't call as phone records would show that, and writing a letter leaves an obvious paper trail. I think she is just saying that she just doesn't know what strategy to take to get in touch with them more than worrying that they wouldn't want to talk to her.

She testified that they all stopped talking due to what had happened and the trial. AM or MH also testified to this. Her note that was referenced in trial had said she thought writing a letter to MH to explain things to AM would be better so she wanted his address. She knew AM more closely than MH.
She didn't have a DNC list so I think she could talk to whoever she pleased. DM just needed there to be no evidence that she had done this so she could hide that she was involved in getting witnesses to change their testimony.

 

[canadiangirl]

Yes. But what I was saying was that CN is claiming that she did not know missions to mean this. "Missions" when used between she and DM meant other things, is her claim and there hasn't been evidence in this case to show otherwise.

Right. I forgot she's blind and deaf. He never spoke about any "missions" around her in 3 yrs. Such an innocent flower. DM just told everyone else including MM. CN was there 6 days a week and knew his friends.

 

[andreww]

Yes. But what I was saying was that CN is claiming that she did not know missions to mean this. "Missions" when used between she and DM meant other things, is her claim and there hasn't been evidence in this case to show otherwise.

I don't think she said that she didn't know "Missions" pertained to illegal activities. I think what she said was that "Missions" could mean anything from moving a trailer to going grocery shopping. Shredding paper was a mission if I recall correctly.

 

[brightii]

A couple of things...

CN was kept in jail because she was trying to tamper with witness', not because of the charges against her, don't kid yourself.

A judge won't get the opportunity to determine if CN is a liar because she more than likely won't testify.

bbm Why do you think this?

IMO, if the Crown had evidence at that time that CN actually was tampering with a witness, after her arrest and prior to her bail application being granted, she would not have made bail IMO, and she would have faced additional charges, IMO, to be added to her AAFT charge.

I believe CN was kept in jail because of her AATF charge, IMO. The Crown opposed her bail, and perhaps the Crown did have additional concern at that time about CN trying upon release to tamper with witnesses, IMO. The Crown had DM's letters to CN when she was charged and it makes sense that they would be concerned about the potential for witness tampering by CN, and rightly so, IMO.

All MOO.

 

[brightii]

Can anyone recall if AM or MH or MM had testified about CN being involved in any of the missions? Were there any texts suggesting CN's involvement in missions?

 

[don_quixote]

And sorry, what I was getting at is that if the crown lays 100 charges, maybe 50 of those will go to trial and then only 25 will actually be found guilty. Court cases are expensive and the crown would much prefer to settle things without a trial.

For sure. That gives her even more chances to walk free. Although, she chose to go skip pretrial.

 

[EspressoBean]

I don't think she said that she didn't know "Missions" pertained to illegal activities. I think what she said was that "Missions" could mean anything from moving a trailer to going grocery shopping. Shredding paper was a mission if I recall correctly.

She says mission was "ambiguous" -- could refer to going shopping, building something, picking up something. She says the only illicit thing "mission" would refer to was picking up pot -- court has previously heard it meant other criminal activity.
by Adam Carter 2:24 PM

 

[EspressoBean]

Can anyone recall if AM or MH or MM had testified about CN being involved in any of the missions? Were there any texts suggesting CN's involvement in missions?

No evidence to suggest CN was involved in any of their missions.

 

[caseyjonesin905]

No evidence to suggest CN was involved in any of their missions.

The letters were found after the fact, what led the police to the door prior to? There's got to be evidence not pertaining to the letters that will be brought up at her trial, no??

Other than all the phone/computer stuff that was found first.. obviously.. The letters are just the nail in the coffin.. There's more than enough against her..

 

[andreww]

bbm Why do you think this?

IMO, if the Crown had evidence at that time that CN actually was tampering with a witness, after her arrest and prior to her bail application being granted, she would not have made bail IMO, and she would have faced additional charges, IMO, to be added to her AAFT charge.

I believe CN was kept in jail because of her AATF charge, IMO. The Crown opposed her bail, and perhaps the Crown did have additional concern at that time about CN trying upon release to tamper with witnesses, IMO. The Crown had DM's letters to CN when she was charged and it makes sense that they would be concerned about the potential for witness tampering by CN, and rightly so, IMO.

All MOO.

The day she was arrested was the day they found the letters. Her charge, although serious, does not meet the criteria for holding a first time offender for 4 months IMO. Was she a threat to the public? No. Was she a flight risk? No. She was simply an uncooperative punk that was really being a thorn in the side of LE, so she sat in jail.

 

[canadiangirl]

The day she was arrested was the day they found the letters. Her charge, although serious, does not meet the criteria for holding a first time offender for 4 months IMO. Was she a threat to the public? No. Was she a flight risk? No. She was simply an uncooperative punk that was really being a thorn in the side of LE, so she sat in jail.

IMO you said it right there. First time offender held in jail for 4 months. For what reason? They don't just hold punks without reason AND she lawyered up. Surely her lawyer would have got her out being she's a first time offender and all. There's way more to this JMO

 

[andreww]

She says mission was "ambiguous" -- could refer to going shopping, building something, picking up something. She says the only illicit thing "mission" would refer to was picking up pot -- court has previously heard it meant other criminal activity.
by Adam Carter 2:24 PM

Thats what I mean, she admits "mission" could mean illegal activities like buying drugs. Tell me what other illegal missions she was involved in that would give her a better frame of reference?

 

[NashBridges2]

No. They will have to PROVE CN had knowledge that there was a truck in the trailer OR that she knew the gun was in the toolbox, OR that the Eliminator was used to incinerate TB, OR that she knew that the video recorder was something other than a stereo. I don't really think the print wiping has much to do with it, more just her actions on May 9th.

You're forgetting one thing, REASONABLE DOUBT. Put all the evidence together. Moving a trailer, late at night, wiping down prints, moving an incinerator in the middle of the night, admitting in her own letters that she wonders if LE knows who moved the stuff, and wiped off prints. All together, that tells me she knew something. Nobody does all that in the cover of darkness without knowing something illegal has taken place.

 

[NashBridges2]

Well, we've seen the extent of her phone and text records, Tacked her whereabouts via text pings, and heard testimony from all her pals, yet I still don't see any decisive evidence against her. Like I said, If Millard testifies, different story...maybe.

Have we though? We've seen some of her phone and text records as it relates to THIS case. Half the letters were blacked out. There is much much more to come in her own trial.

 

[NashBridges2]

We'll see in November won't we. Again, I'm just going by what was presented at this trial, who knows what else they have and what Millard will say?

The crown hasn't presented any evidence to convict her in this trial, this trial isn't about her. They presented evidence of DM trying to pin it on someone else. They presented evidence of DM trying to get people to lie, they presented evidence of DM breaking court orders. None of this has anything to do with what they have on CN and her trial.