Bosma Murder Trial 03.01.16 - Day 17

[jash]

This article clears up the Ipad confusion. It WAS an outgoing message from the Ipad to MM's phone.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...d-for-gun-at-smich-house-seize-ipad-1.3471003

Thank you for clarifying this!

 

[ABro]

What? I never wrote that a good lawyer can get a client off no matter what???? I wrote that the only chance DM has now is his lawyer working the timeline thing because the evidence against DM is so strong, IMO, I don't see any other angle of defence, including fighting against DNA accuracy. They have worked out some type of defence otherwise why plead not guilty. Please, don't read stuff into my posts that is not there.

You said, "It's all up to how smart the lawyers are now." That suggests to me that it's all up to the lawyers, but if that's not what you meant, fine.

 

[cansleuther]

They actually aren't rolling papers. You empty the cigar tobacco and then use the paper to roll the pot.

Or you can just buy blunt wraps.

 

[palisadesk]

They have worked out some type of defence otherwise why plead not guilty.

The plea of Not Guilty does not mean the defense has some kind of "angle" worked out. It may simply mean the accused refused to plead guilty even if advised to do so by their lawyers. The defense may or may not call any witnesses.

They do not have to counter the evidence admitted (none of which is coming as a surprise, they have known about it for some considerable period of time). They may choose to present evidence of mitigating circumstances or reduced capacity, if such applies in this case (which I doubt).

They can also introduce new evidence that could potentially be a surprise, but again this is an unlikely scenario. Just possible though.

 

[Gumshew]

You said, "It's all up to how smart the lawyers are now." That suggests to me that it's all up to the lawyers, but if that's not what you meant, fine.

Sorry, not at all what I meant. Did you continue on to read the rest of my post or just that sentence? If there is a timeline discrepancy, as Pillay has hinted, then that's all DM has to work with. He has a defence, whether good or awful, and a smart layer will try to work it better than a dumb one. Geeze.

 

[Gumshew]

The plea of Not Guilty does not mean the defense has some kind of "angle" worked out. It may simply mean the accused refused to plead guilty even if advised to do so by their lawyers. The defense may or may not call any witnesses.

They do not have to counter the evidence admitted (none of which is coming as a surprise, they have known about it for some considerable period of time). They may choose to present evidence of mitigating circumstances or reduced capacity, if such applies in this case (which I doubt).

They can also introduce new evidence that could potentially be a surprise, but again this is an unlikely scenario. Just possible though.

Thank you.

 

[Errrr]

The plea of Not Guilty does not mean the defense has some kind of "angle" worked out. It may simply mean the accused refused to plead guilty even if advised to do so by their lawyers. The defense may or may not call any witnesses.

They do not have to counter the evidence admitted (none of which is coming as a surprise, they have known about it for some considerable period of time). They may choose to present evidence of mitigating circumstances or reduced capacity, if such applies in this case (which I doubt).

They can also introduce new evidence that could potentially be a surprise, but again this is an unlikely scenario. Just possible though.

In traffic court, lots of people show up to argue their case only in the hopes there will be some -up by the police and they will get off.
If that's the angle in this case then all the defence lawyers can do is apparent due diligence until a multitude of miracles appear. JMO

 

[brightii]

I agree with both Gumshew and Abro, and also with what Palisadesk wrote in post # 406.

I think it matters little if one has a fantastically capable and experienced defense lawyer if the Crown has a rock solid case, but if the accused plead not guilty, as have MS and DM, and are submitting to a trial having seen the disclosure, it makes me wonder why as well, if they didn't believe they had a good chance of winning it, IMO.

I know the client directs the lawyers on how they want to plea to the charges, and sometimes they go against the advice of their lawyers, but if these lawyers are top-notch, I think they could pick away at the evidence and instill reasonable doubt for the jury about the guilt of the accused, IMO. That possibility is worrisome in all murder trials as the victim's loved ones wait for the verdict and must rely on the Crown to leave little or no room for reasonable doubt. There is no guarantee of the outcome for either side, IMO.

Can the accused change their plea down the road as the trial continues should they begin to believe and accept that they have little or no chance of being found not guilty? Perhaps despite the most compelling evidence against them they just think that even if there is a tiny chance and faint hope of getting acquittals it's worth it to keep pursuing that hope?

For the record, I do believe the Crown will prove its case against one or both of the accused, IMO, but without all of the evidence, I can't be 100% sure and that's why everything I hear day to day has me sitting on edge of my seat with the rest of you wondering what evidence will come next and what it will mean to the end result.

All MOO.

 

[ABro]

I agree with both Gumshoe and Abro, and also with what Palisadesk wrote in post # 406.

I think it matters little if one has a fantastically capable and experienced defense lawyer if the Crown has a rock solid case, but if the accused plead not guilty, as have MS and DM, and are submitting to a trial having seen the disclosure, it makes me wonder why as well, if they didn't believe they had a good chance of winning it, IMO.

I know the client directs the lawyers on how they want to plea to the charges, and sometimes they go against the advice of their lawyers, but if these lawyers are top-notch, I think they could pick away at the evidence and instill reasonable doubt for the jury about the guilt of the accused, IMO. That possibility is worrisome in all murder trials as the victim's loved ones wait for the verdict and must rely on the Crown to leave little or no room for reasonable doubt. There is no guarantee of the outcome for either side, IMO.

Can the accused change their plea down the road as the trial continues should they begin to believe and accept that they have little or no chance of being found not guilty? Perhaps despite the most compelling evidence against them they just think that even if there is a tiny chance and faint hope of getting acquittals it's worth it to keep pursuing that hope?

For the record, I do believe the Crown will prove its case against one or both of the accused, IMO, but without all of the evidence, I can't be 100% sure and that's why everything I hear day to day has me sitting on edge of my seat with the rest of you wondering what evidence will come next and what it will mean to the end result.

All MOO.

Speaking generally, the jury members are not asked to be 100% sure. That is not the legal requirement. Beyond reasonable doubt is not certainty.

Also, reasonable doubt must be reasonable.

And yes, people plead not guilty for the same reason they buy lottery tickets. What have they got to lose?

They can change their plea at any time.

 

[palisadesk]

I agree with both Gumshew and Abro, and also with what Palisadesk wrote in post # 406.

I think it matters little if one has a fantastically capable and experienced defense lawyer if the Crown has a rock solid case, but if the accused plead not guilty, as have MS and DM, and are submitting to a trial having seen the disclosure, it makes me wonder why as well, if they didn't believe they had a good chance of winning it, IMO.

"Winning" does not necessarily mean acquittal. The volume of damning evidence so far would probably preclude that. Instead, "winning" could mean conviction on a reduced charge. That would appear, at this stage, to be more of a possibility for MS than for DM, but we have yet to see most of the evidence where MS is concerned.

I know the client directs the lawyers on how they want to plea to the charges, and sometimes they go against the advice of their lawyers, but if these lawyers are top-notch, I think they could pick away at the evidence and instill reasonable doubt for the jury about the guilt of the accused, IMO.

As ABro pointed out, even the best lawyer can't make something out of nothing. They can do what they are already doing: challenging potential evidence that is hearsay, or prejudicial (but not relevant to the crime in question), and so on. They can raise doubts about particular pieces of evidence. But, as the judge will doubtless advise them, the jury is to look at the big picture, of which the details are important, but this one or that one is rarely decisive. The weight of evidence will lean one way or another, and "even the best" lawyer can't change that. I hope the accused both have excellent lawyers; when the guilty are well-represented and a trial meets the highest standards of jurisprudence, the legal system is doing its job and we the public can have confidence in it. That certainly appears to be true here, so far at least.

That possibility is worrisome in all murder trials as the victim's loved ones wait for the verdict and must rely on the Crown to leave little or no room for reasonable doubt. There is no guarantee of the outcome for either side, IMO.

Never a guarantee, no. But while the victim's loved ones (I'm not speaking of the Bosma family in particular here) are anxious for the accused to be convicted, their feelings are not helped when it turns out that a wrongful conviction has taken place. The family of Elizabeth Bain were led to believe that her killer was Rob Baltovich, and his conviction has been overturned. Same with the Jessop family and Guy Paul Morin. The anger and pain is increased many-fold when that happens; often the family clings to the belief that the wrongfully convicted is really guilty even when evidence is overwhelming that he was not (the Truscott case had such an outcome).

So it's imperative to get it right. Some of those earlier infamous cases were due to sloppy police work, even corruption and getting witnesses to lie, which would never (I hope) be tolerated today.

Can the accused change their plea down the road as the trial continues

Yes, they can. It is unusual but it is legal.

See https://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canad...ice/Trials/Juries#Guilty_plea_in_a_Jury_trial and scroll down to the part about change of plea during a jury trial.

Perhaps despite the most compelling evidence against them they just think that even if there is a tiny chance and faint hope of getting acquittals it's worth it to keep pursuing that hope?

As I said earlier, I think it's likely that neither accused expects an acquittal, but may be hoping for conviction on a reduced charge, such as second-degree murder. Of course there are accused who clearly enjoy the trials (Ted Bundy comes to mind) and DM seems a little too chipper about the whole thing so I wonder about whether he enjoys being the centre of the proceedings, as it were. That is a narcissistic trait, though not a criminal one.

 

[brightii]

:tyoualisadesk for your detailed post #412. I agree with with what you and others are explaining and I especially appreciate your taking the time to help enlighten me. :goodpost:

 

[Juballee]

PigPen at MS's... http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/201...ouse.html/screenshot-2016-03-01-at-5-09-33-pm

The orange thing in front of the can of Axe looks like a buster, a device with teeth inside to bust up marahoochie buds into something you can smoke. Fisherman's Friend for that annoying cough, Advil, lots of batteries, a bottle of Polo, South Park "Kenny" and "Cartman" dolls, jar of cash including $5, $20, $50, half-eaten Lindt chocolate bunny, watches, cheap lighter, and one bill of Canadian Tire money?

That's a great eye for detail, thanks!

To the right of the axe can, is that a note pad with a sketch of a skull with a hole in the middle of the forehead and things bursting forth from it, like perhaps snakes with other skulls for head?

 

[Juballee]

25 years old. I wonder what his street moniker is? Baby Wheels??

No, it was 'Say10', (Satan).

Although I agree that his choice of transportation is ridiculous, and not what I'd expect of satan unless satan was a 14 year old.

 

[Juballee]

This article clears up the Ipad confusion. It WAS an outgoing message from the Ipad to MM's phone.



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...d-for-gun-at-smich-house-seize-ipad-1.3471003

I wonder if it was a message from MM when she woke up wondering where he had been all night, and wondering why he hadn't answered any of the other 20 odd messages that she had sent him since he had turned his phone off, when he turned of TB's phone. I believe it was to one of the phones (Juicy?) that pinged at the hanger then, wasn't it?

I also wonder if he had some big explaining to do to convince her he hadn't spent the night with another woman, which if I recall correctly is usually where insecure young girlfriend's minds tend to go to first at that age

All my opinion only.

 

[Gumshew]

No, it was 'Say10', (Satan).

Although I agree that his choice of transportation is ridiculous, and not what I'd expect of satan unless satan was a 14 year old.

It's almost as if he is stuck in a time warp where his body ages normally but his aura of sophistication remains 14 years old.

Yes, interesting visual.... Say10 whizzing around on skateboard wheels smoking joints.

 

[Gumshew]

:tyoualisadesk for your detailed post #412. I agree with with what you and others are explaining and I especially appreciate your taking the time to help enlighten me. :goodpost:

Great posts Brightii and Palisadesk. Very eloquently written and highly explanatory. Kudos.

 

[Sillybilly]

I wonder if it was a message from MM when she woke up wondering where he had been all night, and wondering why he hadn't answered any of the other 20 odd messages that she had sent him since he had turned his phone off, when he turned of TB's phone. I believe it was to one of the phones (Juicy?) that pinged at the hanger then, wasn't it?

I also wonder if he had some big explaining to do to convince her he hadn't spent the night with another woman, which if I recall correctly is usually where insecure young girlfriend's minds tend to go to first at that age

All my opinion only.

As per Kamille's post and link upthread, the messages shown were outgoing messages being sent by MS to MM, so it was MS wondering about her, not the other way around.

Do you have a link for the "other 20 odd messages" you refer to?

 

[swedie]

Perhaps some who seem to think skateboarding is an immature sport, should have a lookie see at this video. Some of these guys are in their 40s and 50s. Same goes for BMX biking. Who says there has to be an age limit to something you love and may be good at it. MOO.

Examples:
Cabellero is 51 years of age
Mullen is 49
Gonzales, Alva and Hawk are 47

[video=youtube;CH8R4kMZOuI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH8R4kMZOuI[/video]

BMX bike riders. Perhaps they will still be riding in 10 to 20 years.
Willers age 30
Jaspers 29
Phillips age 26

 

[deugirtni]

Right you are. I missed that. It's certainly around the right time, but there's not a definite ID of the vehicles. Could they have possibly pretended to test drive, gone up Trinity to Wilson (sussing out the situation), come back down another way, turning into the hayfield (at which time the jig was up)?

That makes sense to me from one standpoint, if in fact DM wanted the truck, he would drive it at least a short distance to get a feel for it. Then move on his next planned step. They were at Bosma's shortly after 9, spent a few minutes there at least, then drove off.

I doubt they had time for the hayfield caper and arriving at the corner of Wlson and Trinity before 9:20. So, if we posit that the two vehicles were the ones in question, I'm thinking they did go for a short test drive before decamping to the murder scene.

Edited to add: this way there's no contradiction between Bullman's evidence and the security video. They can both be correct.

That actually makes a lot of sense.

It kind of makes everything work. The timing, the direction, etc. It would be great to know what is seen exactly on the footage from supersucker.. trucks were travelling in a direction that would allow the camera to see the passenger side of the vehicles.. so was the window already blown out? Was there a passenger sitting in the front passenger seat? Wonder when/if we'll get to see that video?

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Perhaps some who seem to think skateboarding is an immature sport, should have a lookie see at this video. Some of these guys are in their 40s and 50s. Same goes for BMX biking. Who says there has to be an age limit to something you love and may be good at it. MOO.

Examples:
Cabellero is 51 years of age
Mullen is 49
Gonzales, Alva and Hawk are 47

[video=youtube;CH8R4kMZOuI]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CH8R4kMZOuI[/video]

BMX bike riders. Perhaps they will still be riding in 10 to 20 years.
Willers age 30
Jaspers 29
Phillips age 26

IF some adult would ride to the next fast food restaurant with his scateboard or to his little girlfriend or to his gangsta boss, then I would think of it to be strange.
IF an adult would do sports at the corresponding location (BMX on a trail, forest, mountain and scateboard ie on a cordoned track at an airport*), then I wouldn't say a single negative word.

* my daughter did