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

[canadiangirl]

I'm sorry but I don't understand ... TD is a skilled lawyer, and did an excellent job in his representation of MS ... He most definitely would have been prepared well in advance of the trial, and been well aware of his client's version of events, and would have anticipated what testimony would bolster his client's version of events, thus question the previous witnesses accordingly, if he had reason to believe that the answers would give supporting evidence for his client.

What mind reading and oversight are you referring to?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

The mindreading comment came from when I asked at what point TD would have been aware his client would be taking the stand? I believe if he didn't have this information in advance of what exactly what MS would say in his testimony, how is it possible he could know what questions to ask BD early on to collaborate a testimony he didn't know his client would ever tell.

And since I believe it would fall under client- solicitor privilege, it's a large assumption to make. Telling your lawyer your version of events is vastly different then having every word you say dissected on the stand for a very long period of time.

 

[Georgeo]

Is it not possible that MS testifying wasn't planned well in advance testimony so how could TD know what questions to ask previous witnesses? I was honestly surprised he ever took the stand, as were a lot of others IIRC.
At what point does the accused have to make the decision to put themselves on the stand I wonder. Or is there a cut off? I would assume if a lawyer knew their client was taking the stand well in advance, they would ensure there was evidence to support their client's testimony to strengthen it.

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".

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

The mindreading comment came from when I asked at what point TD would have been aware his client would be taking the stand? I believe if he didn't have this information in advance of what exactly what MS would say in his testimony, how is it possible he could know what questions to ask BD early on to collaborate a testimony he didn't know his client would ever tell.

And since I believe it would fall under client- solicitor privilege, it's a large assumption to make. Telling your lawyer your version of events is vastly different then having every word you say dissected on the stand for a very long period of time.

It isn't a question of when TD/MS decided that MS would take the stand.

When a skilled lawyer, with 40 years experience behind him, defends his/her client, he knows, from day one, that there is ALWAYS a possibility that his/her client will take the stand, and must prepare the defence with that always in mind. TD was well prepared for that, as is obvious from the testimony he elicited from his client in direct examination, and also in his cross of many other witnesses. MS was equally well prepared by TD.

It was a well planned strategy on TD's part, as was his duty. No mind reading was involved, nor was it necessary.

He chose NOT to ask certain questions of witnesses, either because he didn't know what the answer would be, or because he knew the answer would NOT help his client. The answers are evidence.

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[canadiangirl]

It isn't a question of when TD/MS decided that MS would take the stand.

RSBM - no, it's solely up to the accused to decide if this happens. His lawyer can advise for or against it, but he does not "decide" if MS would take the stand.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

RSBM - no, it's solely up to the accused to decide if this happens. His lawyer can advise for or against it, but he does not "decide" if MS would take the stand.

Either way, it's his job to be prepared for it.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

RSBM - no, it's solely up to the accused to decide if this happens. His lawyer can advise for or against it, but he does not "decide" if MS would take the stand.

You are correct ... Legally it is MS choice at the end of the day ... But they most definitely would strategize about it together. That is why I stated it as TD/MS, meaning they discuss it together as a team in a legal fashion ... Similar to the way DM and MS discussed everything together as a team and also strategized, but in an illegal fashion .


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[canadiangirl]

You are correct ... Legally it is MS choice at the end of the day ... But they most definitely would strategize about it together. That is why I stated it as TD/MS, meaning they discuss it together as a team in a legal fashion ... Similar to the way DM and MS discussed everything together as a team and also strategized, but in illegal fashion .


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Haha I knew that was going to be the next point. But truly unclear whether MS testimony was premeditated with his lawyer. If so, I'm sure they discussed how it was supposed to happen. Or his lawyer has told him how it should happen. But all scenarios don't always go as you think they will. Or led to believe. Even from those you trust.

In fact they probably took notes, which I'm sure we could have a hayday with putting them into context.

Thanks for the afternoon discussion. Have a good weekend folks

 

[andreww]

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".

TD played it perfectly. The witnesses were not going to lie to support Smich, so he made some stuff up. The crown screwed up in not recalling the witnesses IMO, While Smich got his version in front of the jury un-impeached.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Haha I knew that was going to be the next point. But truly unclear whether MS testimony was premeditated with his lawyer. If so, I'm sure they discussed how it was supposed to happen. Or his lawyer has told him how it should happen. But all scenarios don't always go as you think they will. Or led to believe. Even from those you trust.

In fact they probably took notes, which I'm sure we could have a hayday with putting them into context.

Thanks for the afternoon discussion. Have a good weekend folks

Well, from what we have seen of TD and MS, I can confidently say that their strategy worked as best as it possibly could, and that probably hundreds of hours of planning went into it. MS definitely had excellent representation.

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Either way, it's his job to be prepared for it.

I think they were knocked for a loop that Millard didn't put on a defence. With Millard looking so obviously guilty, one would have expected him to spin a yarn to the jury, a hail Mary if you will. Not that Smich was or wasn't going to testify at that point, but I think it forced them to make a decision before they were completely prepared to do so.

 

[andreww]

Well, from what we have seen of TD and MS, I can confidently say that their strategy worked as best as it possibly could, and that probably hundreds of hours of planning went into it. MS definitely had excellent representation.

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Millard did too, he just had absolutely nothing to work with.

 

[Georgeo]

TD played it perfectly. The witnesses were not going to lie to support Smich, so he made some stuff up. The crown screwed up in not recalling the witnesses IMO, While Smich got his version in front of the jury un-impeached.

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.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

TD played it perfectly. The witnesses were not going to lie to support Smich, so he made some stuff up. The crown screwed up in not recalling the witnesses IMO, While Smich got his version in front of the jury un-impeached.

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.

 

[mozzagirl]

If you compare the evidence against MS and the evidence against DM, sure it might not look like they have enough to convict MS. Personally, I think the amount of evidence they have towards DM is totally unusual, as he left evidence and paper trails everywhere. MS was a little more careful but he still left enough crumbs for the Crown, IMO.

So without comparing the amount of evidence they have between the two accused, IMO they still have plenty of evidence to convict MS of 1st degree.

 

[ILoveDateline]

Hmm, is TD allowed to say such things if it wasn't a possibility? I'm really not familiar with court proceedings; are objections allowed during closing arguments? Though, I suppose the crown did address it in their closing by saying TD didn't ask any questions of the witnesses that would have supported MS version of events, such as, asking BD if he was present on the 10th when MS and DM met for 50 mins before DMs arrest.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

I'm replying to my own post with my findings. Please note: this information is on Civil cases in the US but, perhaps, the same philosophy applies.

Objections are permitted in opening a closing arguments, however, "objections during closing arguments are the exception rather than the norm" and generally reserved for outrageous behaviour and/or statements (Johnny Cochrane's, If the gloves don't fit, you must acquit! is specifically referenced). Even still, objections are risky because "judges were unlikely to sustain their objections, and that the interruption would appear rude to the jury". There is more robust rationale in these two links, but, this is the gist of it and the it's not worth a read (unless you are REALLY interested).

http://www.manhattan-institute.org/...-closing-arguments-civil-litigation-5672.html

http://www.hrbklaw.com/closingArgumentObjections.shtml

ETA:I realize the original context of this post is now buried. It was about TBs claims that the crown could/should have recalled witnesses to dispute MS's version, then NoodlesMcgee said there are special requirements to be able to do that and judges permission required, then my quoted post above, then my research. Follow the bouncing ball

 

[JuneBug67]

If you compare the evidence against MS and the evidence against DM, sure it might not look like they have enough to convict MS. Personally, I think the amount of evidence they have towards DM is totally unusual, as he left evidence and paper trails everywhere. MS was a little more careful but he still left enough crumbs for the Crown, IMO.

So without comparing the amount of evidence they have between the two accused, IMO they still have plenty of evidence to convict MS of 1st degree.

I think that relativism between MS and DM has totally benefited MS, and that that benefit will almost disappear during deliberations. Held up to DM, MS looks pretty good, or at least a lot better. Held up to degrees of murder charges and their requirements for proof as will be laid out in the judge's charge, he's on his own.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Went back through the Tweets of BDs testimony. Dungey went nowhere near mentioning BD and MS being together in that last meeting. His cross was mainly about BD saying MS had a gun.

 

[mozzagirl]

I think Dungey not asking questions that had to do with MS's testimony wasn't even close to being an oversight. He didn't miss one or two questions here or there. He missed several questions he should have asked to IT, BD, MM, Bullman, just to list a few off the top of my head.

Dungey wouldn't have been blindsided by MS's version of events either. He has been MS's lawyer for 3 years now, he has to know MS's version in order to defend him.

IMO, Dungey purposely danced around certain topics and didn't ask certain questions. It was no oversight and he didn't need to be a mind reader to know MS's story.

Leitch pointing this out in his closing yesterday was very powerful.

 

[Crimeinthe6ix]

I think Dungey not asking questions that had to do with MS's testimony wasn't even close to being an oversight. He didn't miss one or two questions here or there. He missed several questions he should have asked to IT, BD, MM, Bullman, just to list a few off the top of my head.

Dungey wouldn't have been blindsided by MS's version of events either. He has been MS's lawyer for 3 years now, he has to know MS's version in order to defend him.

IMO, Dungey purposely danced around certain topics and didn't ask certain questions. It was no oversight and he didn't need to be a mind reader to know MS's story.

Leitch pointing this out in his closing yesterday was very powerful.

To me this should be so obvious, of course TD not just danced around certain topics, but IMO probably helped Smich craft his whole story based on what had been presented at Trail. This is what a good Lawyer does, it should be no surprise to anyone.

 

[marymcd]

Thank the heavens that CN never destroyed those letters and that Millard didn't have an extra 2 weeks to lose his SIM cards, and the gun and that he never thought about getting rid of a couple of computers. True there was plenty of other evidence but Millard had the means to provide all of the equipment and accessories needed to carry out this terrible mission and so the trail of evidence to find Millard guilty is a lot clearer. Having several prior convictions gives Smich an advantage over Millard as well (including a break and enter if I recall correctly) in that he would be a lot more careful about disposing of anything that could incriminate him. Had their roles been reversed, I doubt that Smich would still be carrying the gloves he wore in his pocket or Tim's truck keys on his own key ring for example when he was arrested. Millard also had a ton of things on his mind, other than where he was going to get the next 'orange guy', like his rental properties, the hangar business, a number of women etc. I think those distractions along with a feeling of being invincible maybe made him more careless. I also think that Smich was a survivalist and trusted no one, not even his girlfriend entirely. I think Millard trusted those within his inner circle.

I think the Crown did a great job. I have faith that justice will prevail and hope that both will be convicted of M1 as charged.