Verdict Watch Discussion Thread

[matou]

“Dellen Millard asked me to carry bullets from the U.S. to Canada in a baby — I mean pregnancy — suit,” she said when questioned about it when the jury was not in the room.


She described it as being “kind of like a bathing suit with a plastic belly, skin coloured.” It wasn’t just an idea or fantasy; it existed, he owned it, she said.


“I saw it, I tried it on.


“I told Mark I was uncomfortable and didn’t want to do that and Mark said, ‘don’t, it’s a stupid idea.’”

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...jury-didnt-hear-in-the-tim-bosma-murder-trial

 

[Dutchman]

Your mistake is that this trial is not about Tim, it's about Millard and Smich. The judge was absolutely correct in saying that. The fact that the victim is a nice guy or an a-hole should not affect the verdict one bit. People should be found guilty on facts, not emotion.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

K sorry trying this again. Yes you are correct it is about the two accused and the evidence against them. Hard to be objective, I would not be good jury material to try to keep them separate. I feel there is certainly enough evidence against DM for 1 st. But I worry about Ms. Is there enough? The after the trial comments convinced me, but he jury will never hear that. Your thoughts?

 

[hellkat2]

Really, what's the point of asking about that tanking up? It can't be the two disputed truck sightings, as it doesn't fit in any time frame (if it was TB going to the gas station, he wouldn't meet DM and MS for at least 30 minutes since they passed the Supersucker in Yukon).

It could be some sort of a last ditch attempt to falsify or confirm Smich's testimony. Otherwise, if they want to reconstruct everything and draw inferences, it's going to take awhile and will come to the same seized state that we have here - whether Smich knew or not. And there is no single decisive evidence for that. It really is a matter of belief.

So far, the WS anti-popularity contest runs @ 93.5% for DM-M1 and 74% MS-M1. In other words, there is ~ 6.5% and 26% chance that any single juror believes they deserve a lesser charge. How that will transform into a collegiate decision is a different and interesting Q. IMO, they'll be judged on extremes. 2nd degree and manslaughter are very unlikely for either of the two.

I find it intriguing that the judge brought up the two dogs and a bowl of dog food example with the inference that one or both of the dogs ate it. Wasn't Millard reported eating dog biscuits? Did Millard empty the bowl? Was it deliberate?

It may have something to do about the time line being off regarding the drive to Super Soaker etc. I could never keep any of that clear and so I am ignorant to the finer details. Would appreciate how changing the time line would have any significance. Still cannot wrap my mind around the details and the significance. Could not see the forest for the trees when it came to that ....anybody that could dumb it down for me?

 

[matou]

Michalski also said during a hearing without the jury that he and Millard were in a mall in Peterborough, Ont., in 2011 when Millard was caught shoplifting a $3 DVD.

Asked why Millard would take such a risk for such a petty item, Michalski simply said: “So we could watch something on his boat.”

There was also mention of arson and setting cars on fire at Toronto’s Harbourfront Centre, but there were few details.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...jury-didnt-hear-in-the-tim-bosma-murder-trial

 

[canadiangirl]

Not really. Tim is already pissed that these guys are late and he's wondering where they are. Makes no sense that he'd just leave, even if only for ten minutes.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

SB testified they left his mother's birthday early to go home to wash and wax the truck. Makes sense to me he'd get fuel before a test drive. Except he did this the day before, not the day of which is possibly the confusion. Jurors don't have the same reference materials we do

 

[matou]

Meneses, for instance, told police that Millard’s house was broken into and someone stole a bag with a gun in it and a lot of marijuana. The jury was not allowed to hear that.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...jury-didnt-hear-in-the-tim-bosma-murder-trial

 

[matou]

Dungey complained to the judge that Sachak had said, four times, that Dungey “shouldn’t put up a perjurer” (on the stand.) Some members of the jury were still in the room. Several people in the courtroom heard it.


Dungey was upset.


He said he would consider a complaint to the law society.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...jury-didnt-hear-in-the-tim-bosma-murder-trial

 

[DMB]

The CH news link on the previous page. The reporter said these things were ruled against and not allowed to be shown to the jury until Laura's trial.

I'm sorry, I can't find any report on texts between DM and Smich about Laura, as well as mention of Laura in the jailhouse letters? Can you post the link please?

 

[CJPRINCESS]

I'm sorry, I can't find any report on texts between DM and Smich about Laura, as well as mention of Laura in the jailhouse letters? Can you post the link please?

If you watch the LH video, it's suggested there.

http://www.chch.com/deliberation-begins-tim-bosma-trial/

 

[Ontario Mom]

This thread zipped by so fast yesterday I'm just now getting caught up! A couple of thoughts:

Goodman's charge to the jury about not making a decision based on sympathy for Tim and the Bosma family makes 100% sense, no matter how cold it may sound. Although I think we all understand why it sounds cold. Seeing references for the last 4 months of Sharlene sitting in court weeping, Tim's mom having to get up and leave the court room at one point, it's heartbreaking. No matter, it has to be the fact, evidence, testimony, etc., that the jury uses to come to their decision.

Speaking of which, I'm really not sure why anyone thinks it might be a quick decision. Just watching the tweets yesterday going through Goodman's charge to the jury on the decision trees made me really think about what a painstaking process this has to be for each and every juror, and not just for 1 accused but 2. Taking all the evidence & testimony into account and going through each phase of the decision tree will naturally bring up questions that they'll have to discuss among themselves before they can move to the next step. Wash, rinse, repeat until they're all the way through it. Then, onto the second accused and doing it all over again (or they'll do them both at the same time, but that seems like it would be confusing?).

As to the evidence the jury did not get to hear, I'm not at all surprised there's still loads of things we don't know. I think once Laura's trial is underway, that's when we'll be truly shocked to learn what this jury didn't hear. For them to have charged both DM and MS in the murder of Laura, investigators had to have uncovered some pretty damning evidence during their investigation, that the public still doesn't know about.

moo.

 

[littlesauce]

Dungey complained to the judge that Sachak had said, four times, that Dungey “shouldn’t put up a perjurer” (on the stand.) Some members of the jury were still in the room. Several people in the courtroom heard it.


Dungey was upset.


He said he would consider a complaint to the law society.

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...jury-didnt-hear-in-the-tim-bosma-murder-trial

Ah yes, I was there for that. Dungey was livid.

 

[littlesauce]

From the National Post article...
"Millard nodded frequently to people in court when he was arriving and leaving. He was particularly interested in the spectators in the last half of the trial when a blonde woman sat in the seats reserved for the defendants’ supporters. She read from a large Bible as she waited for court to start each day and refused to talk to reporters."

Does anyone know which seats were reserved for the dedendants' supporters?? Now I am paranoid that I sat in a seat supporting them.... No one ever instructed where those seats were :thinking:

 

[don_quixote]

Just think for a moment.. say that the owner of this truck had been not TB, but instead, a low-life, good-for-nothing, drug-dealing wife-beater who had criminal convictions for despicable behaviour of his own. These two accuseds met at his home, took him for a test-drive, and did the exact same scenario as this. Is it fair that the accuseds' verdicts should have any link to how wonderful or not wonderful the person was who they murdered? What would the Crown say then to the jury? 'Don't forget the r@ts @$$ whose life they snuffed out'? If they did a favour to society for snuffing out 'that guy's' life, should they get off on their charges? Whatever the verdicts are for each of the accuseds shouldn't have a bearing on 'who' they killed, but rather, what they did. I think that is why it is expected to be considered and judged without emotion, imho.

In our free society the gov't has monopoly over doing such things to people. Whether it's "a nice guy or an a-hole" punishment should be the same. Although, in reality it's probably not.

 

[Mscree]

Wait...what??? This must have been a reaction from his holding cell? And he has a book called "serial killers" that he carries religiously like a bible?

I'm so confused. :scared:

I really found her clip informative. She is also the first person I have heard of calling Mark Cunning and that he used things that were said out of the presence of the jury to his advantage in testimony. Both are guilty of first degree murder. I hope they see Mark for who he really is

 

[CJPRINCESS]

From the National Post article...
"Millard nodded frequently to people in court when he was arriving and leaving. He was particularly interested in the spectators in the last half of the trial when a blonde woman sat in the seats reserved for the defendants’ supporters. She read from a large Bible as she waited for court to start each day and refused to talk to reporters."

Does anyone know which seats were reserved for the dedendants' supporters?? Now I am paranoid that I sat in a seat supporting them.... No one ever instructed where those seats were :thinking:

Did you get some stares, a wave and smiles? If so, you were probably in the defendants row

 

[Ontario Mom]

If you watch the LH video, it's suggested there.

http://www.chch.com/deliberation-begins-tim-bosma-trial/

I just watched that video and while it's very interesting, I never heard anything about texts between DM and MS about Laura, or any mention of Laura in the jailhouse letters.

 

[littlesauce]

Did you get some stares, a wave and smiles? If so, you were probably in the defendants row

Yes, DM did stare and smile at me. But other people were in the row as well... DM did smile a lot though, FML now I am embarrassed

 

[Claroon]

I really found her clip informative. She is also the first person I have heard of calling Mark Cunning and that he used things that were said out of the presence of the jury to his advantage in testimony. Both are guilty of first degree murder. I hope they see Mark for who he really is

Yes she implied they saw and heard a lot more than we did. She said he heard the legal arguments and then twisted the info to suit him. That was her take. Very telling.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

I just watched that video and while it's very interesting, I never heard anything about texts between DM and MS about Laura, or any mention of Laura in the jailhouse letters.

Starts at around 1:35.

She mentions it but can not say exactly what was texted or wrote as it is under publication ban untill after the LB trial.

 

[Abitcountry]

That show is great. That chair is great Every judge should have one.

BBC's Graham Norton Show is my# 1........... And hot on his heels is The Late Late Show with James Corden who just hosted the Tony Awards. Corden does a karaoke routine driving in a car with guest stars that is just the best. Great viewing !!!