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

[WideAwake]

I really feel they are both guilty, but, I am also taking into account what Justice Goodman said to the jury. Don't make up your minds now and wait for his charge. We obviously don't need to do that but sometimes I get the impression that people use the other crimes they are charged with in their arguments for a guilty verdict. The jury cannot do that. I am hoping for first degree for them both but will admit to flip flopping between buying Smich's testimony and not. In any event, I hope this is over soon for the Bosma's sake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ontario Mom]

I really feel they are both guilty, but, I am also taking into account what Justice Goodman said to the jury. Don't make up your minds now and wait for his charge. We obviously don't need to do that but sometimes I get the impression that people use the other crimes they are charged with in their arguments for a guilty verdict. The jury cannot do that. I am hoping for first degree for them both but will admit to flip flopping between buying Smich's testimony and not. In any event, I hope this is over soon for the Bosma's sake.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I can't know for sure of course but I have to wonder if some of those jurors don't already know about LB's case? In some areas folks don't really know much about this case at all (which does surprise me) but in other areas folks know pretty much every detail we all talk about here. Of course none of the jurors can use anything but the testimony and evidence in this court case to determine their verdict but I don't know how easy that will be to do, if they do know about the charges in LB (and WM's) deaths. Maybe it's easier than I think it is? I don't know, I've never been a juror. I'd stink at it, big time.

 

[brightii]

I do think you have to throw MS testimony out because as the crown mentioned, his lawyer had a chance to corroborate some of it with witness but never did as it would be shown to be lies.

One thing I don't understand, and both TL and TD mentioned this point in their closing arguments, is why the Crown didn't call back witnesses to refute what MS asserted on the stand? Any ideas?

All MOO.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

One thing I don't understand, and both TL and TD mentioned this point in their closing arguments, is why the Crown didn't call back witnesses to refute what MS asserted on the stand? Any ideas?

All MOO.

From what I've read the rebuttal from the crown has to be allowed by the judge and can only be used if things came up that were unexpected. It's possible the judge didn't allow them to do it. Also possible they didn't request it.

 

[ILoveDateline]

One thing I don't understand, and both TL and TD mentioned this point in their closing arguments, is why the Crown didn't call back witnesses to refute what MS asserted on the stand? Any ideas?

All MOO.

I'm going to look to see how often that happens. I'll let you know what i find. Perhaps, they felt the case against MS was strong enough, or they were worried witnesses would bring forth information that would only further complicate things and begin a chain reaction of recalling all witnesses to support or repute claims. Doesn't that also allow cross again and maybe that would be damaging? It's currently, whose evidence to you believe more, MS or witness a, b, c... My guess is, that you would want the witness testimony to stand for what it is and not tarnish it by rehashing their original testimony. JMO. I'll let you know if I find anything interesting in my research.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[canadiangirl]

I do think you have to throw MS testimony out because as the crown mentioned, his lawyer had a chance to corroborate some of it with witness but never did as it would be shown to be lies.

I'm not sure why that would be consideration. It's considered direct evidence and as for other witnesses that took the stand, the lawyers also had a chance to have their evidence corroborated and never did. A lot of us thought they would recall people but that never happened.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

I'm not sure why that would be consideration. It's considered direct evidence and as for other witness that took the stand, the lawyers also had a chance to have their evidence corroborated and never did. A lot of us thought they would recall people but that never happened.

Why wouldn't it be? If you are testifying a story that only you can tell, wouldn't it be good to have it supported by questions your lawyer asks?

 

[canadiangirl]

I'm going to look to see how often that happens. I'll let you know what i find. Perhaps, they felt the case against MS was strong enough, or they were worried witnesses would bring forth information that would only further complicate things and begin a chain reaction of recalling all witnesses to support or repute claims. Doesn't that also allow cross again and maybe that would be damaging? It's currently, whose evidence to you believe more, MS or witness a, b, c... My guess is, that you would want the witness testimony to stand for what it is and not tarnish it by rehashing their original testimony. JMO. I'll let you know if I find anything interesting in my research.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

See above. I agree with this statement.

Why wouldn't it be? If you are testifying a story that only you can tell, wouldn't it be good to have it supported by questions your lawyer asks?

 

[ILoveDateline]

From what I've read the rebuttal from the crown has to be allowed by the judge and can only be used if things came up that were unexpected. It's possible the judge didn't allow them to do it. Also possible they didn't request it.

Do you have that info handy? Just to save me the search? TIA .

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

I'm going to look to see how often that happens. I'll let you know what i find. Perhaps, they felt the case against MS was strong enough, or they were worried witnesses would bring forth information that would only further complicate things and begin a chain reaction of recalling all witnesses to support or repute claims. Doesn't that also allow cross again and maybe that would be damaging? It's currently, whose evidence to you believe more, MS or witness a, b, c... My guess is, that you would want the witness testimony to stand for what it is and not tarnish it by rehashing their original testimony. JMO. I'll let you know if I find anything interesting in my research.

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

Looks like there are pretty strict rules such as unexpected evidence being given by the defense. I'm not sure MS testimony would qualify for a rebuttal.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Do you have that info handy? Just to save me the search? TIA .

Sent from my LG-D852 using Tapatalk

R vs Krause was the case I saw in a quick search. Seems to something that ends up in appeals a fair bit on if judge should allow.

 

[ILoveDateline]

Looks like there are pretty strict rules such as unexpected evidence being given by the defense. I'm not sure MS testimony would qualify for a rebuttal.

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

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

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

Good point. I'm not sure at all. Way outside of my expertise.

 

[ABro]

One thing I don't understand, and both TL and TD mentioned this point in their closing arguments, is why the Crown didn't call back witnesses to refute what MS asserted on the stand? Any ideas?

All MOO.

The Crown did their job. It was up to TD to ask those questions to make his case and he chose not to. The judge will mention that in his charge to the jury. The end.

Trials cannot go on forever.

 

[canadiangirl]

The Crown did their job. It was up to TD to ask those questions to make his case and he chose not to. The judge will mention that in his charge to the jury. The end.

Trials cannot go on forever.

Why would it be up to TD if MS doesn't have to prove his innocence?

 

[ABro]

Why would it be up to TD if MS doesn't have to prove his innocence?

Because it's TD's job to defend Smich. He could have easily asked those questions. He chose not to. The Crown doesn't have to call back witnesses because TD didn't do something.

<modsnip>

 

[Dutchman]

I think there are three sides to this story. Let's hear Tim's side. Two men took me for a test drive, and went about there lives celebrating, my family is in pieces because I never return. I think the crown did an awesome job remaining us that this is what it's all about. Unasked questions, was a great point the crown made. TD is a well versed lawyer that fact that some can question MS s involvement with the pre planning. Says he's done a great job. But let's not be deceived again, by the evil that walks up a driveway and smiles. Sadly the Bosma s will never know what the last minutes of Tims life here was like. Because two drug peddling thieving selfish thrill seeking guys, decided they wanted a truck. Heaven sent, I think not. Jmo

 

[brightii]

The Crown did their job. It was up to TD to ask those questions to make his case and he chose not to. The judge will mention that in his charge to the jury. The end.

Trials cannot go on forever.

I understand that trials can't go on forever. I was just wondering about why TD mentioned in his close that neither the Crown or DM's defence challenged some things MS asserted, and then when TL said that TD refrained from asking MS certain questions, so I wondered then why didn't the Crown use that opportunity to re-examine some witnesses to challenge MS's story.

Sorry I bothered to raise the question. I didn't expect it to cause controversy.

All MOO.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Why would it be up to TD if MS doesn't have to prove his innocence?

In order for something to be considered evidence, it has to be introduced by testimony. Otherwise it is mere speculation or theory.

TD would know in advance which questions he would ask MS, or what his client's story was. In order to further support MS's assertions, he should have asked previous witnesses the same or similar questions. Those witnesses' answers would then have potential evidentiary value to support, or not support, MS's claims.

If TD chose NOT to ask the witnesses these questions, it is more than likely because he knew the answers, that would then become evidence, would NOT support his client.

(Sorry if I am not explaining this very well [emoji17] I know what I mean in my head ... It just doesn't come out of my fingers the same way, lol.)

MOO

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ABro]

I understand that trials can't go on forever. I was just wondering about why TD mentioned in his close that neither the Crown or DM's defence challenged some things MS asserted, and then when TL said that TD refrained from asking MS certain questions, so I wondered then why didn't the Crown use that opportunity to re-examine some witnesses to challenge MS's story.

Sorry I bothered to raise the question. I didn't expect it to cause controversy.

All MOO.

There's no controversy here. Just think about what you're proposing. It would result in how many more weeks of trial? Things have to end. The jury has enough information to make its decision.

This is not something new and startling that happened at this trial. There are jury instructions to deal with situations like this.

The Crown did its job. It doesn't have to call back witnesses. TD had his chance. He chose not to take it. That says a lot.