Verdict: GUILTY for both Millard and Smich of 1st degree murder

[swedie]

That is what I read too, that they are used at a sentencing hearing and for M1 there is no sentencing hearing.

It was SC that tweeted this info to someone a few weeks ago in response to them asking when the victim impact statements are read. I am not sure I could find the tweet but I will try.

Sorry if this has been answered already, but yes there will be victim impact statements if the victims chose to do so. Thinking back to MR's trial, the jurors reached their verdict on May 11th, and the judge sentenced him on May 15th, victim impact statements were read and the was given a chance to speak. MOO.

For anyone interested in knowing, MR's appeal will be heard October 24, 2016. IMO I hope he is denied another trial as there is plenty of evidence regardless of TLM's testimony to prove he planned abduction and carried his deviant sexual fantasies and murder against TS ...beyond a reasonable doubt IMO.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/called-a-monster-rafferty-denies-guilt-1.810273

http://www.lfpress.com/2016/06/16/r...on-in-killing-of-tori-stafford-8-of-woodstock

 

[Arnie M]

IMO I believe the long deliberations has to do with the jurors undecided as to what sentence MS should get. I bet DM was no issue right out of the gate for first degree. Again IMO I think some believe first degree while others are thinking manslaughter for MS. I hope they both end up get first degree. JMO.

I think you are right .... I followed a lot of jury trials (mostly USA) and the guilty verdicts were usually quick and within a day or two. I even think they (USA) do an immediate vote before deliberations even begin , and if it unanimous they will relax for a while and then call another vote and if still unanimous they will tell the court.

Longer deliberations usually indicate a bit of uncertainty (MS) so they sift through testimony a bit longer until they arrive at a decision. But if it drags out too long it means there are a few holdouts and could even be a hung jury

By the end of the trial most of us say 1st degree for both of them and probably the jury will too. We are not a lot different than the jury , we just occupy different seats.

 

[deugirtni]

But I thought it was because of a scheduling issue?

I assumed it was *their* scheduling issue, in that they had not yet had their dinner break.. and if their dinner break was going to be x amount of time, by then it wasn't going to be worth it to go back to it for less than an hour. That's just an assumption on my part. I am wondering if they have to have certain policies in effect for the jurors, kind of similar to how Ontario has policies that must be upheld for 'workers'.. ie certain breaks after working for x amount of time. If so, I've never heard that before, and it seems silly to make the jurors adhere to an arbitrary schedule, if they would rather just plug away at it. Is it thought that perhaps it was the judge's (or someone else's) schedule that determined the early end? That could very well be possible, I just thought it was all about the jurors at this point, but perhaps others' schedules are also considered.

 

[deugirtni]

I think you are right .... I followed a lot of jury trials (mostly USA) and the guilty verdicts were usually quick and within a day or two. I even think they (USA) do an immediate vote before deliberations even begin , and if it unanimous they will relax for a while and then call another vote and if still unanimous they will tell the court.

Longer deliberations usually indicate a bit of uncertainty (MS) so they sift through testimony a bit longer until they arrive at a decision. But if it drags out too long it means there are a few holdouts and could even be a hung jury

By the end of the trial most of us say 1st degree for both of them and probably the jury will too. We are not a lot different than the jury , we just occupy different seats.

I disagree on your point that we are not a lot different than the jury. The jury is instructed on exactly what the evidence is that they are allowed to consider when rendering their verdicts, while we go indepth exploring every possibility based on many things other than the actual allowed evidence. It seems many here are also considering their other charges, and other 'evidence' that has been disallowed for not being relevant to this specific case, or for whatever other reasons. Many here are basing a lot on emotion too it seems.

I am finding it really interesting.. I haven't ever followed a trial this closely, or been this interested in a case before. It's interesting to me how the jury can never talk about their deliberations.. and how it doesn't matter *how* they come to the same conclusion, as long as they all come to the same conclusion. For some it could be one thing that does it for them, while for others it could be something entirely different. And I didn't know about these 'decision trees' to help them out, that must really simplify things for them. Also interesting how there is always a 'leader of the pack', and one must be chosen to lead and guide the others on the jury, and also how they are told to start at a starting point, and rule things out from there. I have a feeling it might be more difficult than it seems, to get 12 of us in a room to agree on something, jmo.

 

[Dutchman]

It will be nice to get a verdict, but I hope the jury takes the time they need o get it right. It's Been a three long year wait to get to this point. I sometimes feel this whole thing has consumed me. I can't even imagine how TB s family feels. When the verdict is reached. Until the next trial, I can put down my iPad, and resume my summer. But for the family, it will never be that easy. From searching for Tim, the day after the test drive, to handing out flyers. To watching for circling birds in the sky for weeks. To following on WS, this whole thing has grabbed my heart. Which, made me think, that was there no one left that cared enough to question the other two victims? DM s father? No mother or father maybe obvious, but no brother or sister or friend that questioned his departure? The troubled young girl? How many other murders happen, when there isn't a community looking for answers. When I say the jury gets the verdict right, that does not mean, my right. But how they interpret the law and can live with their decision. I know how I would vote. But that may not be how they see it, and I can accept that, knowing, who the true Judge is. Jmo

 

[andreww]

My guess would be that it meant lack of evidence in this case that two guns were used. We had one casing only, and no evidence that more than one shot was fired. I think it's probably both legally (as if I'd actually know!) and logically the correct decision. Imagine there were three guns as per MS's 'multiple guns' statement in voir dire. Let's say one is confiscated with WM, and one was stolen from a bag in Millard's house as per MM in voir dire. That would leave one. In that scenario, and others, it would have been misleading for the jury to see two guns. IMO it's not like they've been shielded from anything critical. Both defendants had photographs with the gun, the jury knows it was purchased by DM, MS raps about 'his' .380 and so on. As Goodman said, the jury doesn't even need to figure out who shot the gun if they agree they were acting in concert. So it would have added little but grounds for appeal IMO.

I see your point but the issue of two guns really has no bearing on who did or didn't shoot TB, it speaks more to premeditation, specifically relating to Smich. The disallowed evidence certainly does show that Smich did own a gun, and logic would tell you that he was likely carrying it the night of Bosma's murder. I think Smich caught a huge break from the judge here.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[hellkat2]

Just a thought, but.. aside from my being in agreement with everything about the 2nd gun that JuneBug67 is saying.. what if the police and therefore the Crown might happen to *know* where that 2nd gun in the photograph is right now and also where it was on May 6, 2013? I can't remember what the date on the photo was, but if it was prior to WM's death, it could have been confiscated immediately afterward, and if so.. would it be fair for the Crown to present it as a possible second weapon used in this crime that occurred 5 months after it was confiscated? It's not like the Crown could show the photo and say, but disregard the other gun since it was confiscated after one of the accused's father was fatally shot in the eye, since they were trying to keep that whole situation out of the minds of the jurors at this trial.

I think that if that is the case the legal system has "out thunk" themselves. And this would not surprise me at all. It may be the legally right thing to do but that does not make it right. If there was two guns and this was one of them and they are holding that back due to a legal rule they have.....IMO that is wrong.

 

[hellkat2]

In this CTV News - Kitchener video segment a criminal defence lawyer agrees with you that the verdict will come in tomorrow. I hope you're both right.

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/bosma-f...pport-as-wait-for-verdict-continues-1.2949023

All MOO.

Those are very long days that the jury are putting in and for the Bosma family. I will say that I pray that justice will be served. The fact that the incinerator plays a role in this I think will speak volumes to the Jury.

 

[hellkat2]

Should we take this as the "big bear" changing some of his testimony?

And the lawyer did not inquire as to "lies have been told'. Something I would expect to happen in a court of law.

 

[hellkat2]

I think we have all assumed that AM and MH fell out as friends because of what MH said on the stand about why he no longer is friends with AM, although his brief answer "Lies have been said" was immediately cut off by Pillay. MH never said who told the lies or what the lies were IIRC. MH had no chance to elaborate as far as I know. In any case, I found this article today and it says that the friendship between DM and MH was torn apart because of lies. Hmmm. I wonder if this is something we didn't hear about but was said by MH on the stand or did the reporter writing this piece get it wrong? Could it mean that DM lied to MH about what was in the toolbox . . . or something else?

http://www.am980.ca/2016/04/07/life-long-friend-of-accused-takes-stand-at-tim-bosma-trial/

Just wondering aloud . . .

All MOO.

I thought he meant that they are no longer friends because "lies have been told". He said, she said kind of stuff that divided them.

 

[hellkat2]

Who said this? Interesting... I thought they were found in CN bedroom

yes what happened to the follow-up around this "you will be shocked" stuff. When and how will we find out about this? This is an alarming statement. There is something wrong with the legal system when evidence can be held back and submitted but in a strategic delayed manner. It just does not seem like. I am not saying that it is not legally correct. I just don't think it is right.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

I found the sound clip:

https://soundcloud.com/am900chml/ju...ously-withheld-now-open-to-discussion#t=24:24

she mentions it at 24:25.

"The big one, and I cannot talk to this much, would be how did those letters actually get out? One day I'm going to explain that scott, and you're gonna fall off your chair."

You know - thought about this a bit - what would be shocking? MB giving up the info on her son. Would explain her never being charged and how all of the other charges came at the same point.

Complete speculation.

 

[Tealgrove]

yes what happened to the follow-up around this "you will be shocked" stuff. When and how will we find out about this? This is an alarming statement. There is something wrong with the legal system when evidence can be held back and submitted but in a strategic delayed manner. It just does not seem like. I am not saying that it is not legally correct. I just don't think it is right.

As much as we want to know specific information I think it is important to remember that information in those letters may pertain to the LB murder and will be evidence at Christine Noudga's trial as well. Everybody would be screaming if all was divulged and then convictions could not be returned because our Legal System blabbed about the evidence before it was presented.

Although this is a trial about the murder of Tim Bosma, the evidence is linked to 3 more trials, CN, LB and potentially WM.

 

[Tealgrove]

You know - thought about this a bit - what would be shocking? MB giving up the info on her son. Would explain her never being charged and how all of the other charges came at the same point.

Nothing would shock me anymore. MB delivered them, Lawyer delivered, Accountant delivered them while getting papers signed(?). I am sure there were other visitors. A guard. The possibilities are endless.

 

[DMB]

Just a thought, but.. aside from my being in agreement with everything about the 2nd gun that JuneBug67 is saying.. what if the police and therefore the Crown might happen to *know* where that 2nd gun in the photograph is right now and also where it was on May 6, 2013? I can't remember what the date on the photo was, but if it was prior to WM's death, it could have been confiscated immediately afterward, and if so.. would it be fair for the Crown to present it as a possible second weapon used in this crime that occurred 5 months after it was confiscated? It's not like the Crown could show the photo and say, but disregard the other gun since it was confiscated after one of the accused's father was fatally shot in the eye, since they were trying to keep that whole situation out of the minds of the jurors at this trial.

Apparently there is quite of bit of evidence being withheld that we are not privy to which is deemed to be "for a good reason". Those reasons being to not in any way interfere with justice in the upcoming cases. There are 3 more cases (including MWJ) that tie in with the TB murder, this evidence must be protected if we want to see justice served at a later date. MS has said there is "multiple guns", and we have only seen photos of 2 and only two of MWJ conversations with DM. It is possible and probable that there are many more like the one which we were told of regarding the fact that DM could bring the guns back to MWJ to have the "print" changed. IMO

 

[canadiangirl]

yes what happened to the follow-up around this "you will be shocked" stuff. When and how will we find out about this? This is an alarming statement. There is something wrong with the legal system when evidence can be held back and submitted but in a strategic delayed manner. It just does not seem like. I am not saying that it is not legally correct. I just don't think it is right.

I didn't post the original statement but if you read through it was AP who said this from the news and it is linked

 

[nettie_82]

Seems like my prediction of a verdict today didn't come true , but IMO, not having any questions today means that they were able to move on from the concerns about the handling of the toolbox and there's a good possibility that we'll get news tomorrow. It would be great if they had a verdict tonight and wanted to sleep on it and deliver it early tomorrow. I guess all I can say with certainty is that we're one day closer! MOO

In the Rafferty case, they were close to a verdict and stayed late to finish up if I remember correctly. I think it was fairly late in the evening when that verdict was delivered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Miranda16]

This has been discussed already I'm sure but I missed a few days due to work being busy.
In the excluded evidence, one text exchange between DM and MWJ (about guns) was:
Millard then wrote, "By the time I let her go, she'll be a dirty girl." Jackson responded, "[that's] fine lol. I can change her print."

Does anyone know what "change her print" means specifically? Change the gun how?

Thanks!

P.S. The judge deliberately scheduled jury instructions to end on a Monday rather than the end of the week to preserve the jury's weekend. I guess that means he expected a few days of deliberation rather than much longer, because a longer deliberation phase would eat into weekends irregardless?

 

[Ontario Mom]

Sorry if this has been answered already, but yes there will be victim impact statements if the victims chose to do so. Thinking back to MR's trial, the jurors reached their verdict on May 11th, and the judge sentenced him on May 15th, victim impact statements were read and the was given a chance to speak. MOO.

For anyone interested in knowing, MR's appeal will be heard October 24, 2016. IMO I hope he is denied another trial as there is plenty of evidence regardless of TLM's testimony to prove he planned abduction and carried his deviant sexual fantasies and murder against TS ...beyond a reasonable doubt IMO.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/called-a-monster-rafferty-denies-guilt-1.810273

http://www.lfpress.com/2016/06/16/r...on-in-killing-of-tori-stafford-8-of-woodstock

Sort of O/T but sort of not: On May 6th TS's mom changed her FB profile pic to the memorial purple ribbon for TB. When I think about how meticulous judge Goodman was in his charge to the jury in this case, I thought about MR's argument. I read Tara McDonald's comments about how this is affecting the family and just felt heartsick for them. It has to be torturous enough going through the trial the first time, I cannot even imagine going through it twice.

 

[meterclicks]

In the Rafferty case, they were close to a verdict and stayed late to finish up if I remember correctly. I think it was fairly late in the evening when that verdict was delivered.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It sure was, I was there. I didn't leave the courthouse until well after 10pm when the family did.