I'm just saying that I think it is complicated.. there seem to be convictions and appeals and reinstatements and etc, from this very issue, and so if judges can't seem to get it right all of the time, I think it's something that's above our pay-grade here as sleuthers to see it as cut and dried simple, imho.
They haven't proven the victims were taken alive, so I think that option falls apart right there, even if that option was available to begin with. As I understand it, it also has to be a distinctly separate act from the murder, not a part of it. When that law was created, I believe it was to cover a case where say, a hostage was taken, but no intent was there to kill the hostage, but the hostage ended up dying by accident. In this case, it seems pretty clear that there was intent and planning, which would be first degree murder anyway. DG may not have specifically planned to kill NO, but when he found him there, he may have intended to include him in his plan. I don't believe it takes a certain time period in which the planning and deliberation must take place, can be seconds. In the event that DG gets 2nd degree for NO, DG is still going away for the rest of his life, regardless. He is going to be an elderly man when he sees the light of day again... even if the sentences are served concurrently.
In the case of Bosma, I don't think that even that one is simple... it could be said that they can't use 'kidnapping', since TB got into the truck willingly (but yet it was under deliberately false pretences); but they did definitely confine him and prevent him from leaving, just as DG would have prevented this family from leaving. moo.
