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

[Oreck]

And the judge will be pressuring you to come to a decision. Sit in the room for another 12 hours with eleven people that are starting to hate your guts. And 3 days? Try 3 weeks!

They start out with 14 or 15 jurors. Maybe they should keep them in the jury room for when his happens.
MO.

 

[deugirtni]

https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/11...ng_murder.html

Google it...you will find lots to support and lots to undermine. Either way first degree murder is not as cut and dried as some may think in my opinion.

Perhaps I am doing something wrong, but this is what the link comes up with on my computer. Could you please repost the link?:

[h=1]Sorry, the page you were looking for is not available[/h]

 

[Sillybilly]

Latest poll thread is now open folks !! It's a multiple selection poll in which all members and all Websleuths' guests can vote. The poll will close automatically Thursday night as Justice Goodman's charge to the jury is scheduled to commence Friday morning.

Poll can be found here.

 

[deugirtni]

Latest poll thread is now open folks !! It's a multiple selection poll in which all members and all Websleuths' guests can vote. The poll will close automatically Thursday night as Justice Goodman's charge to the jury is scheduled to commence Friday morning.

Poll can be found here.

Thanks sillybilly. Just wondering.. considering that guests are eligible to vote in this poll, is there a mechanism to prevent same-guests from voting more than once?

 

[deugirtni]

I came across this in my travels. I was trying to find samples of a judge's 'decision tree'. This is from the trial of the killer of Victoria Stafford. It asks the jury to determine whether the girl had been kidnapped. BBM.

UPDATE: 12:51 Justice Thomas Heeney told jurors that anyone who "aids or abets" a crime is considered guilty along with the person who actually commits the crime.
Heeney also went into an explanation of the individual charges against Michael Rafferty. He said the kidnapping charge is defined as confining or moving someone "through force or fraud" against their will.
He said the jury will have to decide whether the circumstances of Tori's disappearance were a kidnapping. Heeney spent some time summarizing the testimony of various witnesses relating to the kidnapping charge including Tara MacDonald, Tori's mother.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/05/10/19740536.html

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

This won't be a popular post, but...

'This was a premeditated mission' - I understood there to be evidence that there was a mission planned for the two men to steal a truck as has been testified to by a few witnesses, and by DM trying to get a witness to change what he heard DM say ahead of time in regard to stealing a truck at that time. For me personally, I am also satisfied that there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that DM (and possibly CN) knew that a murder was in the plan, because of DM's advance planning to have first the car-hauler trailer available, and then also the Yukon for towing the incinerator, as well as asking his employee in advance about the location of the generator for the incinerator. What evidence is being relied upon which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that MS knew that the mission also included murdering the truck owner?

'The mission ended with TB being dead' - This is a fact, but what evidence is being relied upon which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that killing TB was part of the plan, and what evidence is being relied upon which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that MS knew this part of the plan?

'Both knew the gun existed, and it didn't exist for just photo ops' - What evidence is being relied upon which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that both knowing the gun existed means the same thing as both knowing that it was brought along on that evening and further, that it was brought along for the purpose of carrying out a plan to kill a man that night? What proves beyond a reasonable doubt that MS knew it was present that night before the murder, and that MS also knew that it had been planned to use it to murder a man on this occasion?

IMO, having reasoned through the text messages, MS's involvement in researching the incinerator, either one or the other or possibly both brought a loaded gun with them, which they definitely didn't need in order to steal a truck, and so much more that I am too tired to relate right now, but have previously done many times in this forum, clearly indicate to me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that together MS and DM planned "the mission" to steal the 3500, murder the owner of the truck and incinerate the owner, and then clean up. There isn't a doubt in my mind. I believe that the Crown's closing argument is as close to the truth as anyone can know at this time.

As always, MOO, based on numerous hours of reasoning through all the possibilities of the evidence, weighing matters out, using my common sense, concluding what was most probable, and my personal understanding of 1st Degree Murder laws in Canada after reading numerous books and articles.

I respect that we all view the evidence and arrive at conclusions differently, but I can only express my own, FWIW.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Latest poll thread is now open folks !! It's a multiple selection poll in which all members and all Websleuths' guests can vote. The poll will close automatically Thursday night as Justice Goodman's charge to the jury is scheduled to commence Friday morning.

Poll can be found here.

Thank you very much sillybilly.

Do you, or any other WSers know if I can vote via Tapatalk?

When I click on the link you posted, none of the options that you mentioned earlier this evening appear for me ... No boxes to check in order to make a selection.

Any suggestions greatly appreciated!



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Similar after a poster states they can see reasonable doubt, I've yet to see anyone say MS is innocent.

That says it all right there. With all the people here that are following this trial, and not one thinks he's innocent? How the heck can there be reasonable doubt?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

BBM

I think that this is a good possibility ... Jumping off from what you said, considering DM's assertions (paraphrasing) that he needed to make $100,000 a month, that they DM/MS were going to take anything they wanted from the source, combined with the investment of $23,000 for a livestock incinerator that had no legitimate purpose, as well as acres of land in a rural area, it is possible that DM, MS and Isho might have been considering a possible lucrative enterprise of disappearing people. I know that this is wild speculation on my part, but perhaps in DM's twisted game and mission filled head there might have been a seed of that.

MOO



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

This is not wild speculation at all. The plan was to steal large ticket items and make the owners vanish. This was not a one time deal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

This won't be a popular post, but...

'This was a premeditated mission' - I understood there to be evidence that there was a mission planned for the two men to steal a truck as has been testified to by a few witnesses, and by DM trying to get a witness to change what he heard DM say ahead of time in regard to stealing a truck at that time. For me personally, I am also satisfied that there is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that DM (and possibly CN) knew that a murder was in the plan, because of DM's advance planning to have first the car-hauler trailer available, and then also the Yukon for towing the incinerator, as well as asking his employee in advance about the location of the generator for the incinerator. What evidence is being relied upon which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that MS knew that the mission also included murdering the truck owner?

'The mission ended with TB being dead' - This is a fact, but what evidence is being relied upon which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that killing TB was part of the plan, and what evidence is being relied upon which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that MS knew this part of the plan?

'Both knew the gun existed, and it didn't exist for just photo ops' - What evidence is being relied upon which proves beyond a reasonable doubt that both knowing the gun existed means the same thing as both knowing that it was brought along on that evening and further, that it was brought along for the purpose of carrying out a plan to kill a man that night? What proves beyond a reasonable doubt that MS knew it was present that night before the murder, and that MS also knew that it had been planned to use it to murder a man on this occasion?

Well thought out post.

My retort would be is it really reasonable to think DM is going to plan a murder and then bring along someone who has no idea it's about to happen? If MS decides murdering is a step too far DM is immediately caught when he reports it.

IMO the idea that DM is going to plan out a murder to the extent of incinerating a body and then bring along some unknowing dupe who could easily decide murder is a step way beyond what he's prepared to do is unreasonable.

 

[andreww]

I would assume blood would run as it did in the truck? I don't know the details and it's a moot point really as I can't say for certain. What I can say is I don't recall very many crime scenes whereby the physical evidence is completely wiped.

Not sure how not finding blood in the Yukon means anything. Yes there was a lot of blood in the RAM, but virtually none in the back seat where Smich sat. In fact there was very little in the driver seat area either. So MS wouldn't have got blood in the Yukon and by the time Millard drove it, any spatter on him would have dried.

But to sum things up, we know the murder occurred, we know they were both involved and we know there was no blood in the Yukon. All facts.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CJPRINCESS]

That says it all right there. With all the people here that are following this trial, and not one thinks he's innocent? How the heck can there be reasonable doubt?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Just because some think he didn't know the plan and didn't kill TB, does not mean they are saying MS is innocent entirely. Only innocent of M1 and guilty of AATF which also carries up to 25 years.

I can't answer for everyone but that's what my thinking was when I sat upon the fence.

 

[JuneBug67]

AFAIK, forcible confinement has not been brought forward in this trial. And an unplanned murder during a robbery is not 1st degree.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/newfoundland-labrador/murder-brandon-phillips-larry-wellman-1.3274163

That's interesting that murder during an indictable offence was something that was repealed in Canadian law rather than something that never existed. I can respect the reasoning for the repeal. The most f'd up application of a law like that I've ever heard was a case of several teens in the US who broke into a home after school thinking it was unoccupied and with the intention of burglary. The homeowner was there and shot one of the teens to death, wounded others. The other teens were charged with first degree murder in that death because it occurred during the commission of of the break and enter. The homeowner committed no crime and was not charged with anything. Totally messed. It still makes me shake my head typing it out. All tried as adults and sentenced to 55 years in prison. One got "lucky" and got 45. It was under appeal, so don't know what happened ultimately.

 

[ILoveDateline]

On the gun(s), as far as I recall no one was asked for a reasonable explanation for DM wanting a gun (not even going so far as saying he required it for 'self defence' being such an important rich guy and potential target). The fact that MS at a minimum knew DM had a gun looks bad for MS IMO, but that alone doesn't clinch his guilt. If DM had a gun, then MS should wonder if he was capable of using it (in the absence of any knowledge of the LB and WM murders)

Did I understand you correctly? You're judging MS for mere knowledge that DM had a gun? I think that's a little unfair. My hubby wants a handgun (though, he has obtained the proper licensing) and has absolutely no need for one, IMO, and I will not permit it. Some people just love guns. But, let's say he did have a gun, do I "look bad" because my hubby has a gun?

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Did I understand you correctly? You're judging MS for mere knowledge that DM had a gun? I think that's a little unfair. My hubby wants a handgun (though, he has obtained the proper licensing) and has absolutely no need for one, IMO, and I will not permit it. Some people just love guns. But, let's say he did have a gun, do I "look bad" because my hubby has a gun?

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Of course not, but are you already involved in thefts and illegal activity with your husband? Have you said to you husband that you are no longer paying for anything, just taking it at the source?

 

[hellkat2]

This is stated in the OP's posted article:


First-degree no longer automatic if death occurs during a robbery

By Terry Roberts, CBC News Posted: Oct 19, 2015 6:27 AM NT Last Updated: Oct 19, 2015 9:36 AM NT


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

May not be automatic but it is a possibility and highly probable to start with it and then go down as is the case with even a speeding ticket.

 

[hellkat2]

Perhaps I am doing something wrong, but this is what the link comes up with on my computer. Could you please repost the link?:

[h=1]Sorry, the page you were looking for is not available[/h]

It is not working for me anymore either. I think the newspaper has done something to stop it. So cannot do but you can google lots on this yourself.

 

[hellkat2]

Thanks sillybilly. Just wondering.. considering that guests are eligible to vote in this poll, is there a mechanism to prevent same-guests from voting more than once?

Cripes...is that actually happening? LMAO.

 

[hellkat2]

MS knew Isho from highschool and introduced DM to him after they hooked up when DM was buying pot from MS. There is no evidence that MS was into anything heavier then petty pot dealing prior to DM. DM & Isho's dealing were much bigger as is indicated in the deal for the gun and large amounts of drugs in his possession. DM seems to be the middleman between Moose & Isho???

Maybe this ISHO was his boss in highschool. MS sure stayed in high school a long time. Was he there for other purposes? Sales and Marketing to students?

 

[ILoveDateline]

Of course not, but are you already involved in thefts and illegal activity with your husband? Have you said to you husband that you are no longer paying for anything, just taking it at the source?

No, but because someone engages in some illegal activity, doesn't mean they engage in all illegal activity, or knew DM (or whomever you believe brought the gun that night) brought the gun that night with the intention of using it.

I do agree that engaging in illegal activity makes one "look bad" but it doesn't make one guilty (ETA f new offenses) .

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk