- Joined
- May 9, 2009
- Messages
- 39,522
- Reaction score
- 118,460
DM does not need to be found guilty for CN to still be tried for accessory according to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Please provide a link for that. Thanks !!
DM does not need to be found guilty for CN to still be tried for accessory according to the Criminal Code of Canada.
Since it was only DM and MS on trial here, is it not possible that most damning evidence on CN has been kept for her case? I'm thinking some of these blacked out portions of letters have more. Can the phone records/texts of her "Stolen" phone be pulled. In a murder case, do they/LE need the actual phone or can they get this info right from provider? In reporters clips they say "CN was going to help DM escape" I'm sure there is proof there but we won't know till November. The glove with her and TB'S DNA, we heard about it but not much detail given. The hose, again, mentioned an no details.
IMO, things were left out pertaining to CN's participation to use against her at her own trial. Id think the Crown has hard proof or there would be no case against her at all.
Jumping off your post, in her notes, she had written, "leave country" which would definitely make her a flight risk. If she wasn't giving information, they weren't going to let her out on bail to leave the country and tamper with witnesses.
I'm guessing after the letters were found, there was further questioning of MH and AM to find out about their contact with her which could hold up her getting out on bail.
Please provide a link for that. Thanks !!
Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 1h1 hour ago
I think there is a good chance Smich and Millard will take the stand. #Bosma
Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 1h1 hour ago
I think there is a good chance Smich and Millard will take the stand. #Bosma
Trial by judge or trial by jury ???
I am sure there are some here who remember the exchanges we had on the thread on this topic.
IIRC it came down in the final anaysis to .....Trial by judge if one is innocent.......Trial by jury if one is guilty.
I wonder if Noudga read that read then......no, she made her choice long before our exchange here online.....maybe she is just wanting us to think she's innocent.:giggle:
Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 1h1 hour ago
I think there is a good chance Smich and Millard will take the stand. #Bosma
I opened a poll just about this couple of days ago. Anybody wants to make it really interesting? :thinking:
WHERE ONE PARTY CANNOT BE CONVICTED
23.1 For greater certainty, sections 21 to 23 apply in respect of an accused notwithstanding the fact that the person whom the accused aids or abets, counsels or procures or receives, comforts or assists cannot be convicted of the offence. [R.S.C. 1985, c.24 (2nd Supp.), s.45.]
http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.23.1.html
To explain that, Section 23 of the Criminal Code applies to Accessory After the Fact. This provision is stating that it still applies even if the one who commits the initial crime is not able to be convicted for any reason.
<bbm>This provision is meant to prevent acquittals of accessories after the fact where the principle is acquitted based on a Charter application or successful defence. Moreover, based on the ruling the R. v. McAvoy, the principal need not even ever have been tried for the alleged crime. This rule is meant to prevent accessories who are successful in helping the principle offender flee the jurisdiction from escaping liability simply because the principal cannot be found or cannot be tried. However, if the principle is tried and convicted, s. 657.2(2) indicates that his or her conviction will provide presumptive proof of the offence, thus relieving the Crown of the obligation of proving that the person aided by the accessory may have committed a crime.
I opened a poll just about this couple of days ago. Anybody wants to make it really interesting? :thinking:
Yep. That's a good explanation from a Toronto defense lawyer firm's blog. This link might work better. The cached one posted gives me wonky errors.Thanks EB. I think I'm guilty of posting misinformation in previous threads.
Here's a lawyer's take on that provision (I can't copy more due to copyright):
from:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ory-after-the-fact/+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
<bbm>
I'd buy in but I don't know if everyone is on equal footing when it comes to the information to base their votes or bets.
I'd suggest that if you take the votes of anyone that has sat in on some of the legal discussions outside of the jury, it would give you a relatively accurate prediction. :shush:
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.
Can I ask what you think? I honestly don't know what to think....
I'd buy in but I don't know if everyone is on equal footing when it comes to the information to base their votes or bets.
I'd suggest that if you take the voted of anyone that has sat in on some of the legal discussions outside of the jury, it would give you a relatively accurate prediction. :shush: