Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #17 [06.03.16 to 06.09.16]

[hellkat2]

Now that you explain it, you are 100% correct - and it's too bad that Crown did not decide to recall BD for example....

However, the jury will be told how to weigh MS's testimony, I am sure, so we shall see what comes of this. The fact both MS and DM's version of events is completely opposite, they almost cancel each other out, and what is left? The Crown's version, with perhaps a few bits of MS's testimony.

I understand that the jury will be told how to weigh MS's testimony, however I am never confident about this kind of thing when it comes to a jury? In Canada do you get to choose whether you want to be tried by a judge or judge and jury? I thought OJ Simpson opted for a jury because he was guilty as hell and it is known that a jury is better for guilty people. Not entirely sure if I have this right or not. Could be the opposite in that if you are guilty go for just the judge and if you are innocent go for the jury.

 

[Inspector_North]

I agree up to the part where you discuss "DM telling MS they didn't steal it because MS was sick". You could take that to mean they didn't go back and steal it after the scope. There was a moment that the Russian said that DM whipped his head around and looked at MS which i think was related to the Russian's sharing of what he did in the military. That was odd and made me think that they were thinking about doing something during that ride to him but decided not to.

The point I was making about the 'sick' comment was that MS said they were only scoping and would come back and steal the truck if it met the criteria. Maybe it was an poor assumption on my part to assume they meant after dark. Even if not, telling AM it was a failure only a few hours after the test drive does not sound like coming back later IMO.

MOO

 

[hellkat2]

We don't know if they were allowed to do it. There are rules to being allowed recall witnesses. And this trial has already been going on forever.

A trial that was three years in the making. i don't call this justice for the Bosmas. In my opinion in relationship to the time it took to get to trial was far greater than the amount of time this trial has actually been going on. They should have taken the time. If it isn't allowed then this lawyer is a strategic genius to play it the way he did for his client MS. And that makes me kind of sad with regard to the justice system and the way it operates at times.

 

[canadiangirl]

I respect everyone's opinion, but am curious what evidence of lack of evidence has you questioning proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Or maybe it's the definition of reasonable doubt, or the scale of reasonable doubt?

The judge's charge may address not only the nature of the first degree, but how the jury weighs the evidence for/against the nature of the first degree charge.


MOO

This is why I'm interested to hear the judge's charge. Without going through long explanations of details again, just to touch on two brief points that stand out to me amongst a bunch other things. Very scattered text messages (that can and have been interpreted however people want) with hidden sausages pictures, and absence of any kind of evidence DNA or otherwise of MS in the Yukon or TB's truck has me stuck. Add that to the letters DM has written on all the ways to frame someone, and tamper with witnesses, let's say I'm not 100% convinced. Of course CN "said" she didn't tamper with any witnesses for DM.

And oddly enough none of these reasons have anything to do with MS testimony. So people can say all day long the guy got on the stand and lied. Or his lawyer didn't ask these questions on purpose. That is only a part of a bigger picture IMO

 

[hellkat2]

I found this article on the net regarding rebuttal evidence in Canada:


REBUTTAL OF EVIDENCE

This is a separate category of evidence, presented by the prosecution, when required, to refute or disprove some aspect of the defence case.

Four criteria must be adhered to when presenting rebuttal evidence.

These criteria for presenting Rebuttal Evidence are that it must be presented:

a. At the conclusion of the defence.

b. When defence presents unforeseen evidence.

c. With permission of the court.

d. To "rebut" or disprove new or other defence evidence.


http://teacherweb.com/ON/PerthDistr...tar/Rules-of-Evidence-in-Canada-from-RCMP.pdf




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

So does this mean they could have recalled previous witnesses?

 

[hellkat2]

It really does make you wonder. I think they would have been happy to take the truck but eventually they would have found a reason to get to murder someone else.
As to your first part of question 2-- when I was selling a car a few years back I let test drivers take it on their own. More for not trusting someone else's driving skills. Think I photo copied their license though AND of course they arrived with their own car. If someone had been "dropped off" (I have a long country driveway ) I would be even more suspicious if the friend didn't at least drive up the 200 ft to drop them (as opposed to letting off at the road). A friend wound make sure it was the right house etc.

Absolutely. If I ever sell a car private instead of trade it, after what happened to TB I will not be going on a test drive. I have learned from this. I know some people who do not have the buyers come to their home. They meet them in a public place where there are cameras all over the place. Local plaza, mall, Lowes, Gas Station.....

 

[Sillybilly]

Sounds like MS made that decision right after DM's team decided not to call evidence. Maybe a last ditch effort to avoid a life sentence -MS probably looked at that as an opportunity to piece together a story with all the evidence jury has heard, and make himself seem as a shocked and surprised AATF - seems it backfired on him, as TD could not have structured his cross of BD, etc. whose evidence would have caused a problem for MS's "story".

But isn't this what any accused individual would do when testifying, whether planned well in advance or at any time during trial? MS may have told TD right at the start that he would like to take the stand. Then as testimony of others was presented, he had an opportunity to refute and/or defend himself against any and all evidence that was presented. I think that is perfectly reasonable and don't see this as being any different from any other individual who would take the stand in their own defence

 

[Inspector_North]

This is why I'm interested to hear the judge's charge. Without going through long explanations of details again, just to touch on two brief points that stand out to me amongst a bunch other things. Very scattered text messages (that can and have been interpreted however people want) with hidden sausages pictures, and absence of any kind of evidence DNA or otherwise of MS in the Yukon or TB's truck has me stuck. Add that to the letters DM has written on all the ways to frame someone, and tamper with witnesses, let's say I'm not 100% convinced. Of course CN "said" she didn't tamper with any witnesses for DM.

And oddly enough none of these reasons have anything to do with MS testimony. So people can say all day long the guy got on the stand and lied. Or his lawyer didn't ask these questions on purpose. That is only a part of a bigger picture IMO

Thanks for the response. I know MS was there that night and lack of DNA does not let him off the hook. Even if he was in the other vehicle, this was a premeditated mission that resulted in TB being shot. And both knew the gun existed, and it didn't exist for just photo ops.

MOO

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

This is why I'm interested to hear the judge's charge. Without going through long explanations of details again, just to touch on two brief points that stand out to me amongst a bunch other things. Very scattered text messages (that can and have been interpreted however people want) with hidden sausages pictures, and absence of any kind of evidence DNA or otherwise of MS in the Yukon or TB's truck has me stuck. Add that to the letters DM has written on all the ways to frame someone, and tamper with witnesses, let's say I'm not 100% convinced. Of course CN "said" she didn't tamper with any witnesses for DM.

And oddly enough none of these reasons have anything to do with MS testimony. So people can say all day long the guy got on the stand and lied. Or his lawyer didn't ask these questions on purpose. That is only a part of a bigger picture IMO

On the no DNA in TB truck point - MS admitted to cleaning the truck and removing the carpet and seats so I'm not sure why a lack of DNA in that truck would matter. He admitted to touching it.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

But isn't this what any accused individual would do when testifying, whether planned well in advance or at any time during trial? MS may have told TD right at the start that he would like to take the stand. Then as testimony of others was presented, he had an opportunity to refute and/or defend himself against any and all evidence that was presented. I think that is perfectly reasonable and don't see this as being any different from any other individual who would take the stand in their own defence

I agree, although you are under oath to tell the truth.

 

[Inspector_North]

On the no DNA in TB truck point - MS admitted to cleaning the truck and removing the carpet and seats so I'm not sure why a lack of DNA in that truck would matter. He admitted to touching it.

I think many are looking at the lack of DNA evidence putting them both in vehicle at the time of the shooting. They were calling each other 'bro' until DM got arrested, and then the blame game started, and it looks like it has resulted in a positive for MS telling his story after all the evidence was presented.

MOO

 

[hellkat2]

Well... completely speculative but..
1) Would depend on their plan, perhaps they wanted to over power TB or have the guy in the backseat with the weapon. Hard to really know.
2) Again hard to say, but I would guess when you give someone your keys you also get something from them so they just don't steal the car (like their license or their keys or something). So may have completely foiled their plan.

I wondered how much scoping went on in relationship to the Bosma's. Did they watch the coming and going of the household? I don't know if TB's wife worked and he worked and if someone was watching the house would they know when they were not at home as well as the tenant. Did T.B. drive his truck every day or was it left at home and he used another for day to day work driving. Did TB keep it in the garage? I also wonder with their household was there any time that there would be nobody home that they could have gone back and stolen that truck ? They had a big dog....was he a barker? There are some households that would never be idle enough for someone to go back when nobody was at home. Was the Bosma home on that list? Because if so there was no way that they intended on coming back later for that truck. Or maybe once they established it did not have a GPS etc that they could have planned to scope the movements of the Bosma house to see when it was unattended.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

I think many are looking at the lack of DNA evidence putting them both in vehicle at the time of the shooting. They were calling each other 'bro' until DM got arrested, and then the blame game started, and it looks like it has resulted in a positive for MS telling his story after all the evidence was presented.

MOO

I can sort of see that in regards to the Yukon but not TBs truck. I mean one DM fingerprint does show he shot anyone either. If anything the fact that MS cleaned out the car and left one DM fingerprint would potentially make one think he was doing the setting up.

 

[canadiangirl]

Thanks for the response. I know MS was there that night and lack of DNA does not let him off the hook. Even if he was in the other vehicle, this was a premeditated mission that resulted in TB being shot. And both knew the gun existed, and it didn't exist for just photo ops.

MOO

Sure they were both there. It wasn't disputed. And lack of DNA does not let him off the hook. But it sure raises questions for me while DM left a trail of breadcrumbs, MS is Houdini?

Police found TB truck and DM Yukon before arresting Smich. So no one can say MS had longer to clean up his evidence in that regard.

Both knew the gun existed absolutely. Did they both know it was brought on this mission? Is there conclusive evidence who brought it? Does it matter who brought it? And what exactly were the details of this premeditated mission?

All questions after hearing all the evidence I'm still left asking. Just to name a few.

 

[canadiangirl]

I think many are looking at the lack of DNA evidence putting them both in vehicle at the time of the shooting.

MOO

RSBM. Exactly. You beat me to it

 

[Sillybilly]

Thanks for the response. I know MS was there that night and lack of DNA does not let him off the hook. Even if he was in the other vehicle, this was a premeditated mission that resulted in TB being shot. And both knew the gun existed, and it didn't exist for just photo ops.

MOO

I don't recall there being evidence presented that MS knew DM had brought a gun on the test drive, prior to him claiming he saw DM put it in the satchel at Bobcat.

 

[Georgeo]

The accused does not have to prove their innocence.

after a 4 month trial where he is charged with M1, I would say he is definitely trying to save his life/freedom (in a way proving he isn't guilty of M1), so yes he is fighting to save his life/prove his innocence. What would you call it?

 

[hellkat2]

So is driving tired and super high with CN in his lap. DM was a risk taker.

MOO

CN's testimony was all about talking dirty to avoid the truth. Hence the head in DM's lap story and wasn't able to hear anything or see anything or say anything and had the big story to go with it and it was so obnoxious no one would question her in any detail. DM driving while shooting does not make sense to me. MS in the back seat could have stuck a candle stick into TB's back and told him to get out of the truck and they could have left him on the side of the road. Maybe MS pointed the gun into him and the idea was for DM to duct tape TB up and leave him on the side of the road. But there was a struggle and MS pulled the trigger or vice versa. Either way...they are gonna be gone gone.....I hope they enjoy their new digs.

 

[canadiangirl]

I can sort of see that in regards to the Yukon but not TBs truck. I mean one DM fingerprint does show he shot anyone either. If anything the fact that MS cleaned out the car and left one DM fingerprint would potentially make one think he was doing the setting up.

I could see that side with the exception DM had the truck in his hanger after MS helped with the initial clean. He then had SS help him with it, AJ saw it and was close enough to it, a paint guy was set to paint it, then he moved it out to MB driveway, and I don't recall hearing MS helping with any of that including getting it into the trailer. So I tend to think it was a result of DM being sloppy vs a set up by MS. MOO

 

[Sillybilly]

Going to put together a poll later this evening. These are the categories I plan to include:

DM guilty of 1st degree
DM guilty of 2nd degree
DM guilty of manslaughter
DM not guilty of any form of homicide
MS guilty of 1st degree
MS guilty of 2nd degree
MS guilty of manslaughter
MS not guilty of any form of homicide
DM guilty of being AATF
MS guilty of being AATF

I'm not sure the judge's instructions will include manslaughter in this case, but putting it in there as a form of homicide in case he does. Also, I highly doubt AATF will be included in the charge to the jury, so not sure it should be a consideration in the poll. We could put it in as a matter of interest in case there are folks who think either one could be considered as such (by us, not necessarily by the judge). Does anyone else have input as to how the poll should read?

Let me know asap and I'll have it up and running later tonite when I get more time. We'll end it late Friday morning prior to Justice Goodman beginning his charge.