Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #9

[hippy_chic]

AP's info always seems to be different in terms of witnesses left and who is up next. I have become sceptical of their info lately.

I agree with you, that some of her reports have been incorrect, that's why I'd hoped someone had heard from another MSM source for verification. :cheers:

 

[mozzagirl]

I agree with you, that some of her reports have been incorrect, that's why I'd hoped someone had heard from another MSM source for verification. :cheers:

Susan Clairmont
Good for him! Legal arguments at 9:30, jury back after lunch. Courthouse opens at 8:30.

SC just tweeted this 2 minutes ago in reply to someone asking when to come to court tomorrow to see AM testify. So sounds like it will be starting tomorrow afternoon like AC said.

 

[palisadesk]

This is wrong. If he willingly took place in the theft, he's 100% at fault for everything that occurred during the theft.

That's true in US law, but not in Canada.

 

[billandrew]

This is wrong. If he willingly took place in the theft, he's 100% at fault for everything that occurred during the theft.

I believe the reasoning goes something like this:

• DM and MS both intended/planned to steal the truck.
• DM and MS were both present during the act.
• TB was in the truck during the act of theft, therefore he was forcibly confined.
• TB was shot and killed inside the truck while he was forcibly confined.
• Both are guilty of first degree murder, regardless of who pulled the trigger.

Someone please correct me if any of this is wrong.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

Ok so another question. I know nothing about the legality of murder cases, so this is a question for anyone(s) that know. This is the first murder trial that I have followed closely.

What happens if another suspect arises? So say, new evidence is found (even years later during the trial) that there was in fact (with physical evidence) that there was someone else involved? I have a theory in mind but don't want to start a s**T show here.

 

[Gibson67]

AP seems to think we are 3 weeks til the end of the trial..AM this week and then the girlfriends next week...seems there are a few other witnesses that I though would testify too. Is she meaning just until the crown is finished? Would the defence for both sides only take a week? Seems to me it would take each side a bit longer to plead their case.

 

[palisadesk]

Question for those with more legal knowledge than myself, as I have zero clue how this would work,but if they jury found MS not guilty of first degree, can the crown pursue a lesser charge of second degree at that point? Or can the jury assign that charge in place of first degree? Thanks.

If the jury found that there was insufficient proof to convict MS of first-degree murder, yes, they could then find him guilty of second-degree murder (or manslaughter). The judge, in his charge to the jury, will explain their options to them. It isn't necessary for the Crown to be involved again at this stage. Generally speaking, the Crown pursues the most serious charge upon which they have a reasonable (not probable) chance of conviction; they know the lesser charge conviction is still an option for the jury. All lesser degrees of culpability are subsumed into the charge of first-degree murder; the jury is able to back up and choose a lesser one if that is their conclusion upon weighing all the evidence. It also may be a result of disagreements among jury members. Compromises are often reached when the jury is not unanimous.

Remember that case recently in Toronto, about the policeman who shot the boy Sammy Yatin on the streetcar? That was a charge of second-degree murder (the officer was clearly culpable, but to what degree was the matter under dispute). I was expecting the jury to come back with a conviction of manslaughter, but they went a step further and convicted of attempted murder, which carries a much lesser sentence. Most observers felt that this represented division among the jury on the appropriate degree of guilt, so the final verdict was a compromise.

 

[RandomName479]

AP seems to think we are 3 weeks til the end of the trial..AM this week and then the girlfriends next week...seems there are a few other witnesses that I though would testify too. Is she meaning just until the crown is finished? Would the defence for both sides only take a week? Seems to me it would take each side a bit longer to plead their case.

AP seems to think there are only 5 Crown witnesses left....while other MSM are saying around a dozen. She has also stated that both accused will be testifying.....which at this point in time she really has no way of knowing......I'd take her reporting with a grain of salt.....MOO

 

[palisadesk]

Ok so another question. I know nothing about the legality of murder cases, so this is a question for anyone(s) that know. This is the first murder trial that I have followed closely.

What happens if another suspect arises? So say, new evidence is found (even years later during the trial) that there was in fact (with physical evidence) that there was someone else involved? I have a theory in mind but don't want to start a s**T show here.

There is no statute of limitations on murder cases, so a charge could be laid against another person (if appropriate) at any time -- next year or 50 years from now. Some cases are solved years later (the murder of Allison Parrot comes to mind) and the individual responsible can be tried, convicted and sentenced.

There's still a watch on for the killers of Christine Jessop (age 9 in 1984) and Sharin' Morningstar Keenan in 1983, though her case isn't a mystery, the killer is known but hasn't been apprehended.

 

[palisadesk]

I believe the reasoning goes something like this:

• TB was in the truck during the act of theft, therefore he was forcibly confined.

This is the weak link. It is not disputed that TB entered the truck willingly, and there are witnesses to this who have testified as much. It would require some additional evidence to prove forcible confinement. Such evidence might include one of the merry band of brigands testifying to being told by DM or MS that they were planning to steal a truck, tie up the driver and toss him out in a remote spot and make off with the goods. That would be abduction and forcible confinement. But the evidence so far doesn't show any apparent use of force to get Tim into the truck, and by your timeline (which I found brilliant BTW) the murder probably occurred within minutes so on the face of it "forcible confinement" does not seem to have occurred, although if it was in the plan and reported as such, that would be evidence of same. Also, did the vehicle have child safety locks so that the passenger side person could not get out? If forensic studies showed the truck with those still in place and turned on maybe that would be evidence (but I'm not sure about that).

Unless the forthcoming witnesses can provide some evidence of intent to confine the owner of the vehicle that will be a difficult thing to prove. Although premeditation, at least on DM's part, is more likely. We will have to wait for more testimony I think.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 21m21 minutes ago
Judge originally told jury to return 10 tomorrow. Then changed to 10 Wednesday. And finally to tomorrow afternoon.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 20m20 minutes ago
Legal arguments tomorrow morning, jury expected for tomorrow afternoon. Some media were absent for final decision.

 

[ABro]

Remember that case recently in Toronto, about the policeman who shot the boy Sammy Yatin on the streetcar? That was a charge of second-degree murder (the officer was clearly culpable, but to what degree was the matter under dispute). I was expecting the jury to come back with a conviction of manslaughter, but they went a step further and convicted of attempted murder, which carries a much lesser sentence. Most observers felt that this represented division among the jury on the appropriate degree of guilt, so the final verdict was a compromise.

Attempted murder isn't a much lesser sentence than manslaughter. In fact there's a mandatory minimum. The cop will likely serve more time as a result of being found guilty of attempted murder than he would of manslaughter.

Even if this was the result of a jury compromise, I think the results are pretty fair.

And what's a jury to do when they sit through a day of instructions and the judge calls them back to say he erred in his instruction?

ETA: Just saw there's also a mandatory minimum for manslaughter with a firearm (four years).

 

[leafs_fan93]

This is the weak link. It is not disputed that TB entered the truck willingly, and there are witnesses to this who have testified as much. It would require some additional evidence to prove forcible confinement. Such evidence might include one of the merry band of brigands testifying to being told by DM or MS that they were planning to steal a truck, tie up the driver and toss him out in a remote spot and make off with the goods. That would be abduction and forcible confinement. But the evidence so far doesn't show any apparent use of force to get Tim into the truck, and by your timeline (which I found brilliant BTW) the murder probably occurred within minutes so on the face of it "forcible confinement" does not seem to have occurred, although if it was in the plan and reported as such, that would be evidence of same. Also, did the vehicle have child safety locks so that the passenger side person could not get out?

This is also the part I am struggling with. We know that TB willingly got into the vehicle, but we don't know if at any time, he was forcibly confined to the vehicle. The only people who were there were TB, MS and DM. The only way we will find out is if either MM or CN were told this information by one of the accused, and they are willing to share that information under oath. From everything I've seen/heard so far, and making an assumption or two on my own(like why would you shoot someone in a truck you were hoping to drive on a regular basis?) my best guess, and it's just that, a guess of what happened, I think perhaps they got a certain distance down the road to where no one where hear anything, DM demands that TB get out of the truck. Perhaps his plan was to drive off and leave him there, or perhaps all along it was to shoot TB once he left the vehicle. If this is what took place, then in my view, forcible confinement never took place, and unless MS knew DM planned on shooting TB, it would be hard to convict him of first degree murder.
Eta: perhaps after being asked to get out, TB refused to get out, not wanting them to drive off with his truck, thus why He was shot in the truck, not outside.

I think everything will come down to the girlfriends testimony, and more specifically to MMs testimony. To me, she is the more credible witness between the two, and. I have a feeling MS may have shared more with her than DM did with CN.

All above are MOO, and guesses as to how it happened

 

[mozzagirl]

I have a feeling MM will feel like a scorned ex-gf and want to tell the whole truth as much as she can. She seems to be happily in a relationship for a few years now so seems like she has totally moved on.

 

[Inspector_North]

Looking at the evidence to date, I have a very strong feeling that we entering into the reason for "straight to indictment' portion of evidence. Like someone has also mentioned, they are fighting for their (free) lives. I see nothing unusual with the increasing frequency of legal arguments at this point in the trial. Judge has done a good job of keeping this logistically complicated trial on schedule.

Justice will be delivered for the Bosma family!

MOO

 

[RandomName479]

Question for the legal minds.....lets say MS told MM everything......and DM was the shooter. Could MM testify to this or would that be considered hearsay? "I heard from MS that DM shot TB".....I'm thinking that she will only be able to testify to what she actually saw and what MS said about his involvement? Or am I wrong here?

 

[JuneBug67]

AC is saying Tuesday afternoon....."More legal arguments are set to continue on Tuesday. Testimony is scheduled to resume on Tuesday afternoon."
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilt...nday-1.3529736

AP is saying Wednesday morning.....https://soundcloud.com/am900chml/jur...im-bosma-trial

SC is saying Tuesday morning......

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 3h3 hours ago
Jury is to return at 10 am tomorrow. #Bosma

= Weusday mornfternoon. Be there or be square!

 

[brightii]

This is the weak link. It is not disputed that TB entered the truck willingly, and there are witnesses to this who have testified as much. It would require some additional evidence to prove forcible confinement. Such evidence might include one of the merry band of brigands testifying to being told by DM or MS that they were planning to steal a truck, tie up the driver and toss him out in a remote spot and make off with the goods. That would be abduction and forcible confinement. But the evidence so far doesn't show any apparent use of force to get Tim into the truck, and by your timeline (which I found brilliant BTW) the murder probably occurred within minutes so on the face of it "forcible confinement" does not seem to have occurred, although if it was in the plan and reported as such, that would be evidence of same. Also, did the vehicle have child safety locks so that the passenger side person could not get out? If forensic studies showed the truck with those still in place and turned on maybe that would be evidence (but I'm not sure about that).

Unless the forthcoming witnesses can provide some evidence of intent to confine the owner of the vehicle that will be a difficult thing to prove. Although premeditation, at least on DM's part, is more likely. We will have to wait for more testimony I think.

I really appreciate your explanations on the legalities involved in this case. Your insights are very helpful. :tyou:

All MOO.

 

[mozzagirl]

Looking at the evidence to date, I have a very strong feeling that we entering into the reason for "straight to indictment' portion of evidence. Like someone has also mentioned, they are fighting for their (free) lives. I see nothing unusual with the increasing frequency of legal arguments at this point in the trial. Judge has done a good job of keeping this logistically complicated trial on schedule.

Justice will be delivered for the Bosma family!

MOO

Good point! I am so impressed with the evidence the Crown has already presented but nothing so far seems strong enough to get the direct indictment on it's own. I think there will be a lot more "shockers" that come out of the next few witnesses.

 

[studyer]

This is also the part I am struggling with. We know that TB willingly got into the vehicle, but we don't know if at any time, he was forcibly confined to the vehicle. The only people who were there were TB, MS and DM. The only way we will find out is if either MM or CN were told this information by one of the accused, and they are willing to share that information under oath. From everything I've seen/heard so far, and making an assumption or two on my own(like why would you shoot someone in a truck you were hoping to drive on a regular basis?) my best guess, and it's just that, a guess of what happened, I think perhaps they got a certain distance down the road to where no one where hear anything, DM demands that TB get out of the truck. Perhaps his plan was to drive off and leave him there, or perhaps all along it was to shoot TB once he left the vehicle. If this is what took place, then in my view, forcible confinement never took place, and unless MS knew DM planned on shooting TB, it would be hard to convict him of first degree murder.
Eta: perhaps after being asked to get out, TB refused to get out, not wanting them to drive off with his truck, thus why He was shot in the truck, not outside.

I think everything will come down to the girlfriends testimony, and more specifically to MMs testimony. To me, she is the more credible witness between the two, and. I have a feeling MS may have shared more with her than DM did with CN.

All above are MOO, and guesses as to how it happened

But DM was apparently charged with forcible confinement (before the charges were upgraded http://www.chch.com/110078/). In addition, in the crown's opening statement, the test drive is repeatedly referred to as an "abduction". (source: http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2016/02/tim-bosma-trial-the-crowns-opening-statement.html).