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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 23 Std.
6:21 p.m Millard to Noudga: "Had a nice 5 hr nap & bath, refreshed and ready for the next stage of mission digestion"

So murder was part of the mission.

MOO
 
They were willing participants in a situation where someone might be murdered because they planned to steal a truck? I suppose in a hypothetical world that is also a possibility.

When you bring a gun, yeah. Otherwise why do you need to bring it?
 
Wasn't it MS who put DM in touch with an illegal gun dealer in the first place despite the fact that there was nothing to prevent DM from buying his own gun legally. I am pretty sure a guy like MS know what illegal guns are used for...and it isn't target practice.

Yes it was Smitch who hooked him up with this gun dealer. So this may be a stretch but do you think this gun dealer has links to organized crime? Do you think it is possible that the link Smitch had with this guy is through drug dealing connections that Smitch did? Maybe even since he was in high school????? The reason I wonder about this is because if Mark Smitch did have organized crime connections this would be first degree murder with no doubt.
 
He was a full partner. He even said it "I thought it was fireworks tonight". Smich knew Millard was bringing the gun and the fireside furniture/sausage text suggests he knew about the Eliminator as well.
Both these things are a huge stretch IMO and seem to be the common theme for the popular opinion
 
First Degree Murder
This charge is laid when the prosecution’s theory of its case is grounded in the notion that the accused person had murdered someone with planning and deliberation. The prosecution must prove purpose and intent to kill someone at some level at some point in time; and the plan was successful. If the plan was not successful (i.e. the person was not murdered), the prosecution may charge an accused person with attempted murder. The Prosecution is not required to prove purpose and intent to kill when the alleged murder involved killing a police officer or if the purported murder was commtted in the context of the commission of one of the specified offences under the Criminal Code, namely terrorism, offences committed on behalf of a criminal organization, hostage taking, forcible confinement, kidnapping hijacking, (aggravated) sexual assault (with a weapon), and intimidation.

Upon the entry of a conviction for first degree murder, one is automatically sentenced to a life sentence with no option for parole for 25 years.

http://defence-law.com/homicide/ Excerpt above taken from this website. I think that DM and MS are both first degree murder and will be gone gone soon when I read the above paragraph. Guilty as hell. The jury I predict will be out deciding for about 4 hours if that and come back with a united guilty as hell of first degree murder for both. 25 years with no eligability. IMO
 

No. But I have provided the forcible confinement first degree murder. And I do consider what happened to Tim Bosma forcible confinement. IT IS THEREFORE FIRST DEGREE MURDER FOR BOTH. Read my articles that I have just recently posted and I do not see how anyone can get around the first degree murder. The readings that I have provided makes in clear that there is a lot of interpretation that goes on but this is pretty cut and dried in my opinion.
 
Maybe a new law could be brought into Canadian law, in Tim's Memory.
Speaking of new laws, one that has been mentioned here a few times is the one after Victoria S. , I am not sure what it was. ...?

May I suggest that you review the recent postings I have made with URL's? Yes it says hijacking an aircraft. I give you that. But it is more complicated. It is clear that if there is forcible confinement ....it is first degree murder. I hope you will read all articles now that the Hijacking an aircraft is not an issue for you. And that I concur with you on that. But there is interpretation of the law and it is a little more complicated that anyone may think.
 
It may say aircraft but murder while hijacking of a car gets first degree as well and there is evidence re cases in ontario re this. I would say that Tim Bosma shot dead in his own truck by one of the two individuals is also forcible confinement and constitutes first degree murder. Here is an article. There are others. Google it yourself if you don't believe it.
https://www.thestar.com/news/2007/11/04/mullings_guilty_in_carjacking_murder.html

May I suggest that you review the recent postings I have made with URL's? Yes it says hijacking an aircraft. I give you that. But it is more complicated. It is clear that if there is forcible confinement ....it is first degree murder. I hope you will read all articles now that the Hijacking an aircraft is not an issue for you. And that I concur with you on that. But there is interpretation of the law and it is a little more complicated that anyone may think.
 
Yes it was Smitch who hooked him up with this gun dealer. So this may be a stretch but do you think this gun dealer has links to organized crime? Do you think it is possible that the link Smitch had with this guy is through drug dealing connections that Smitch did? Maybe even since he was in high school????? The reason I wonder about this is because if Mark Smitch did have organized crime connections this would be first degree murder with no doubt.

There is an entire (locked) thread devoted to MWJ (the gun dealer) and whether he has ties to organized crime or if he is just a wannabe.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?246816-Matthew-Ward-Jackson
 
Would one accused bringing a loaded gun that night still be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that both defendants knew of a plan to murder the truck owner that night if the one that brought the loaded gun 'always' carried a loaded gun, or if he had always brought it to 'every' mission in the past?

prove gun was brought to other missions and that it was loaded each time.
 

Ok, thank you. I was confused about why this guy was convicted of first degree, and now I know why. He tried to appeal his case, lost, and it explains it in the article at the link below. The jury deemed it was an unlawful confinement.

Mullings appealed on a number of grounds, including that a mistrial should have been granted in the case and the jury's verdict of first-degree murder was unreasonable because the "unlawful confinement" of Spolski was inherent in the killing.

The appeal judges rejected that argument.

"Here, it was open to the jury to find that the murder was committed in the course of an unlawful confinement and that the murder and the confinement were distinct crimes that took place during an uninterrupted series of events," the judges said in their 35-page ruling. "There was evidence from which the jury could have concluded that the murder of Bogdan Spolski was an execution, carried out while he was being restrained by the appellant against his will. As such, it has the requisite degree of blameworthiness to attract the punishment for first degree murder."

....

The seasoned prosecutor said there was overwhelming evidence that the “theft of a 1994 Eagle Vision car quickly turned into “the execution of Mr. Spolski.

http://www.mississauga.com/news-sto...ooksville-turns-into-execution-life-sentence/
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
232
Guests online
1,772
Total visitors
2,004

Forum statistics

Threads
599,580
Messages
18,097,092
Members
230,888
Latest member
DeeDee214
Back
Top