Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #9

[JuneBug67]

Would be interesting to know in general who is winning most of these arguments, and if those in attendance get to see/hear whatever the controversial material is. For example, if they are arguing about admitting specific texts are they shown or read during the arguments?

 

[CJPRINCESS]

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.

So next question.
So if this new found person gets charged (with murder) during the existing murder trial. Would the existing trial be put on hold or continue?

Only an example/theory to my above question...Say, one of the 2 on trial may not be guilty of 1st degree murder (he/she was there but not a part of the murder or the planning) say, like in a get away car in a bank robbery, where a murder happened, where he/she didn't know that was in the plans, just there to drive. The original accused (accused #1) was pointed out by an "acquaintance" through the banks servallience video (as #1) but turned out, it was the new suspect (now #3) and not the accused #1. What would happen with the existing case?

All theory with just a question!

 

[SnooperDuper]

Would be interesting to know in general who is winning most of these arguments, and if those in attendance get to see/hear whatever the controversial material is. For example, if they are arguing about admitting specific texts are they shown or read during the arguments?

Yes, if you attend court, you can hear all of this. You just can't make anything you learn in court when the jury is not present public.

 

[mozzagirl]

If MB is testifying at all, it will be for the defence. It was in an article I read yesterday that DM says his mom visits him regularly in prison. If she was testifying for the Crown she would be on a DNC order.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...didnt_kill_tim_bosma_exclusive_interview.html

“You’re an extension of another life,” he says, speaking of his mother, Madeleine Burns, long divorced from Wayne. She is a trained interior designer who has assumed control of the business and properties. “So I’d say it’s been as hard for her as it is for me.”

She visits regularly. But he misses her.

 

[JuneBug67]

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.

I feel like I don't know what to expect from MM. MS was so overtly th-uggy I have wondered about the character of somebody who would want to be his girlfriend.

 

[billandrew]

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.

If they cannot prove the forcible confinement aspect, does that mean they have to prove that the murder itself was planned and deliberate?

 

[leafs_fan93]

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).

Then perhaps there is more evidence coming to speak to this? Because I've not seen anything proving that he was forcibly confined(that I can recall). One could logically assume he was forcibly confined, but the burden is on the crown to prove it. Not saying it didn't happen, just playing devils advocate, but as far as I can recall I haven't seen anything clearly showing forcible confinement took place? MOO

 

[leafs_fan93]

If they cannot prove the forcible confinement aspect, does that mean they have to prove that the murder itself was planned and deliberate?

This is how I understand it to be. Either premeditation or forcible confinement needs to be proved in order to find guilty of forest degree. I feel it's proven/will be proven for DM, but for MS I'm not so sure

 

[RandomName479]

This is how I understand it to be. Either premeditation or forcible confinement needs to be proved in order to find guilty of forest degree. I feel it's proven/will be proven for DM, but for MS I'm not so sure

Could it be argued that the fact a gun was brought along was enough for premeditation? Actually asking.....I don't know the ins/outs of the legal system......but in my mind a logical outcome of bringing a loaded gun would be that someone could get shot....

 

[mozzagirl]

I feel like I don't know what to expect from MM. MS was so overtly th-uggy I have wondered about the character of somebody who would want to be his girlfriend.

IIRC, she was only 19 at the time. I know the guys I liked at 19 are far from who I am attracted to now and what my husband is like. Young girls can be very naive. Plus if she was into drugs like BD said, having a bf that is a dealer would be an added plus.

 

[palisadesk]

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?

As I understand it, she can testify to what MS told her directly, but not to what MS told her that he heard somebody else say. Even so, this evidence is "hearsay" and is governed by rules of admissibility. This is one of the things those "legal arguments (voir dire) sessions are about. When either side wants to introduce hearsay evidence, and they regularly do, it has to meet certain conditions applicable to the case, these are usually defined as the principles of necessity (we need this evidence to determine what happened) and reliability (we can probably rely on this evidence because it comes from a trustworthy source). The judge will rule on these things relative to each witness to which they apply before they testify in open court.

It's kind of complicated, but you can see an explanation (not very clear!) here:
https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Evidence/Hearsay/Principled_Exception

 

[JuneBug67]

Yes, if you attend court, you can hear all of this. You just can't make anything you learn in court when the jury is not present public.

Yes, I understand those parameters. What I was wondering was whether or not the arguments contain specifics or if they are more general, referring to exhibits that are not shown during the arguments, for example.

 

[brightii]

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.

Unless I'm misunderstanding SillyBilly's 1st post in today's new thread, which is now closed though we can still read it (Day 33), you can post your theory without worrying as long as it doesn't break the rules, IMO.

"The principle of “innocent until proven guilty” is for the court room … it is not required that Websleuths members adhere to that principle. Members are allowed to discuss, speculate, theorize, and judge according to opinions they develop from following the specifics of the case."

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?304842-Bosma-Murder-Trial-04-11-16-Day-33

I hope it's okay that I linked today's closed thread and shared this quoted portion of your post here, SillyBilly.

All MOO.

 

[palisadesk]

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.

I didn't follow that case at all closely,but did think the fact the cop was shooting within 3 or 4 seconds of coming on the scene, before he even evaluated what was going on, was culpable (though not second-degree murder). Too trigger-happy by half.

But, I heard opinion, which may be pretty accurate, that when all's said and done, by the time the appeals et alia are finished, the cop will spend no time behind bars at all (time served under house arrest etc being factored in). The legal issues in the case is really complex. For those interested, check this out:
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2...datory-minimum-could-go-to-supreme-court.html

 

[SnooperDuper]

Could it be argued that the fact a gun was brought along was enough for premeditation? Actually asking.....I don't know the ins/outs of the legal system......but in my mind a logical outcome of bringing a loaded gun would be that someone could get shot....

Buying the incinerator ~10 months ahead,
getting the burner phone 3 months ahead
repositioning the camera a week ahead,
packing a gun hours ahead,
deciding to pull the trigger second ahead...

All premeditation IMO

 

[mimimic]

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

....so ...IF/since TB got in the truck by his own accord and either DM OR MS sucker shot him. Not meant in disrespect but much the same as sucker punching some ( i think that means, the victim didn't know it was coming) That means they are not as guilty ?? All because he presumably didn't know it was by force. The man didn't come back, i am sure he didn't agree to that. moo

 

[SnooperDuper]

Yes, I understand those parameters. What I was wondering was whether or not the arguments contain specifics or if they are more general, referring to exhibits that are not shown during the arguments, for example.

Yes yes yes, you would see exhibits. Hear texts, etc. Get into the details of why the lawyers are fighting over it.

 

[leafs_fan93]

....so ...IF/since TB got in the truck by his own accord and either DM OR MS sucker shot him. Not meant in disrespect but much the same as sucker punching some ( i think that means, the victim didn't know it was coming) That means they are not as guilty ?? All because he presumably didn't know it was by force. The man didn't come back, i am sure he didn't agree to that. moo

If that is how it went down, unless the non-shooter knew ahead of time the shooting was going to happen, then only the shooter would be guilty of first degree? Again, I barely made it out of my grade 12 law class with a passing mark haha, but this is how I interpret he law.

 

[leafs_fan93]

Buying the incinerator ~10 months ahead,
getting the burner phone 3 months ahead
repositioning the camera a week ahead,
packing a gun hours ahead,
deciding to pull the trigger second ahead...

All premeditation IMO

To me it proves premeditation on DMs part, not necessarily on MS's part. I thin MM's testimony will make or break the case against MS.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 2m2 minutes ago
I'm working now on an end-of-trial story.