Bosma Murder Trial 05.09.16 - Day 46

[artemis17]

He's not going to get on the stand. He would be forced to answer questions that he doesn't want to answer. Where's the gun? Why'd you hide the gun? What was the sausage photo supposed to mean? ETC... IF HE TAKES THE STAND HE'LL END UP LOOKING GUILTIER THAN MILLARD.

He definitely would need to answer stuff he does not want to answer but he could also tell his side of events which could get that lesser charge. I wish he would take the stand but seems unlikely unfortunately. He must be a afraid of this gun what it might show if he has not told them where it is...

 

[JuneBug67]

Or his final charge????

You know what's great about this from the other side? (I know it's horrible for the Bosma family) but Millard gets to stew about this until Wednesday.
CN jumped to try to save his a$$ by saying nothing, and Smitch will hopefully spill it all. I realize he'll be spinning it in his favour but either way I hope they are both
GONE GONE GONE!!!!!!!

The judge's charge includes a version of what we think of as closing arguments from lawyers on TV. In Canadian jury trials the lawyers don't present their own closing arguments; the judge summarizes each player's case for the jury. As such I imagine there is a fair bit of work and collaboration involved so that the Crown and each defence team all believe their evidence and positions are accurately and thoroughly communicated by the judge.

 

[Velma]

We heard plenty of theories about her being out of the country for the past 3 years. What we did learn is that she was hiding in plain site from DM's arrest onwards. She was slick enough to get a head start on the media circus that she knew would ensue DMs arrest, she knew that there was some kind of evidence in her driveway (or why else would she ensure that prints were wiped down), she picked up $$ and who knows what else from DMs on the night of the arrest, she kept his friends and hangers on close and dependent, she passed notes from DM to CN and facilitated calls despite the fact that there was a court ordered "no contact" in place which could have gotten him I'm even more trouble.

(modsnip)

Does anyone know if her house was ever sold? I know that there were a few sleuthers with real estate connections (I'm sorry, I forget who) that were keeping track of DM's real estate transactions and liquidations in the early days.

 

[canadiangirl]

By your comment, and I don't disagree, there is not enough evidence to show premeditated murder for MS? So along with that, showing he didn't pull the trigger, he may get a reduced sentence?

I agree, but he would need the Jury to also believe there is not enough evidence of premeditation for MS.

MOO

They will go with Smitch is just a punk involved in petty crimes who needed drug money and drugs and DM supplied that. Even MM said it was like he loved DM. MS was obviously enamored with DM and therefore went along with the plan to steal the truck. They will claim DM shot TB and tried to frame MS and with his bum shoulder no way he could have shot him or helped move the body. And being he was so freaked out after, that will support their defense. MS had to go along with helping as he was there and everyone knew it. Likely his prints were on the gun and he had to ditch it. He already was known by LE and he had no choice because of DM being squeaky clean in the eyes of the law. JMO on how MS will explain this away. He left DM to clean up the rest of HIS own mess with CN. To me I don't care what he says... Because at this point I don't think we'll know the truth

All comments are JMO unless stated otherwise

 

[Inspector_North]

Maybe someone can answer about MB being compelled to testify by a subpoena. Even if she is out of the country (and we don't know that she is), isn't she legally bound to appear if she receives a subpoena?

I don't think MS's defence team calling DM's mom would be a good call. What could she say to help MS's case besides make DM look even more evil than he already does? I think it will be someone that has something useful to say (true or not) that MS was just a minion on a "get rich" paid mission for DM. I wonder if delivering the gun would help MS's case at this point?

Just knowing that these two are charged for multiple murders makes me lean more towards the guilty side of evidence. But I still see a sliver of hope that MS can get a reduced murder charge.

MOO

 

[Kamille]

Can Dungey recall previous witnesses?

Yes I believe he can. I know it was done in the Casey Anthony trial when her father was called by both, but I also believe it is possible to do so in Canada.

MOO

 

[deugirtni]

I think DM managed to utterly destroy the credibility of not only himself but of anybody close to him who might have had relevant testimony to offer with regard to guilt. Who would believe him? Who would believe with enough confidence that any witness wasn't just spinning some tale DM had provided as a script? Honestly, I don't think I have seen another defendant destroy himself so thoroughly in all my years of crime and court watching. Wise decision not to testify. Only decision really. Maybe they're putting their eggs in some kind of appeal basket instead. Or maybe they're just resigned.

I agree that they are totally pinning their hopes on their 'appeal basket', thinking the results will be different. I am keeping my fingers crossed, even as unlikely as it is that it could be 'perfect', that AG crossed all of the t's and dotted all of the i's to follow every little letter of the law so that an appeal application would be unwarranted. Sickening to imagine another public expenditure of another 4 month trial to defend this guy.

 

[caseyjonesin905]

I agree that they are totally pinning their hopes on their 'appeal basket', thinking the results will be different. I am keeping my fingers crossed, even as unlikely as it is that it could be 'perfect', that AG crossed all of the t's and dotted all of the i's to follow every little letter of the law so that an appeal application would be unwarranted. Sickening to imagine another public expenditure of another 4 month trial to defend this guy.

I agree, and have said this before.. He'll be appealing the verdict.. With terrible council as an excuse..

 

[deugirtni]

The judge's charge includes a version of what we think of as closing arguments from lawyers on TV. In Canadian jury trials the lawyers don't present their own closing arguments; the judge summarizes each player's case for the jury. As such I imagine there is a fair bit of work and collaboration involved so that the Crown and each defence team all believe their evidence and positions are accurately and thoroughly communicated by the judge.

Can you show a link where it states that the lawyers don't present their own closing arguments in Canadian jury trials? I took a quick google and found multiple intances where it seemed that defence lawyers were reported as doing just that.

 

[deugirtni]

I agree, and have said this before.. He'll be appealing the verdict.. With terrible council as an excuse..

I'm not sure that an accused's belief that his counsel was terrible would be a valid reason for an appeal, but I'm sure that DM will come up with a whole grocery list of reasons as to why he should be awarded one. Better luck to him next round (not).

 

[puppyraiser]

CN's case will be heard in November. Do we know when the WM and LB cases will go to trial?

 

[JuneBug67]

Can you show a link where it states that the lawyers don't present their own closing arguments in Canadian jury trials? I took a quick google and found multiple intances where it seemed that defence lawyers were reported as doing just that.

I may be mis-remembering or mis-applying information. In response to your request I found this link but it seems to be a little ambiguous and may not be federal info anyway. Apologies if I've confused things!

http://www.victimsinfo.ca/es/about-court/going-to-trial/how-trial-will-proceed/closing-arguments

 

[caseyjonesin905]

I'm not sure that an accused's belief that his counsel was terrible would be a valid reason for an appeal, but I'm sure that DM will come up with a whole grocery list of reasons as to why he should be awarded one. Better luck to him next round (not).

Might be worth a read.. http://www.legaltree.ca/node/643

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

The judge's charge includes a version of what we think of as closing arguments from lawyers on TV. In Canadian jury trials the lawyers don't present their own closing arguments; the judge summarizes each player's case for the jury. As such I imagine there is a fair bit of work and collaboration involved so that the Crown and each defence team all believe their evidence and positions are accurately and thoroughly communicated by the judge.

This is not correct. In Canada, both the Crown and the Defence attorneys DO present closing arguments before the Judge charges the jury.

 

[RandomName479]

I may be mis-remembering or mis-applying information. In response to your request I found this link but it seems to be a little ambiguous and may not be federal info anyway. Apologies if I've confused things!

http://www.victimsinfo.ca/es/about-court/going-to-trial/how-trial-will-proceed/closing-arguments

I can't weigh in on this as I have no legal background.....but from reading the link you posting it seems to say that both Crown and Defense present closing arguments...MOO

 

[brightii]

One of the things that has convinced me that MS was aware of the plan to steal the truck and murder the owner is that if he wasn't aware then DM would have had no reason not to kill MS too. Why would DM keep the only witness to the murder of TB alive if the witness was not a willing participant? DM had the means to kill and dispose of both TB and MS had he wanted to, or if he thought MS posed any threat of DM being caught, IMO. He'd just say to friends that MS took off after the test drive because MS was feeling sick and he didn't know what happened to MS, IMO. After all, DM's ignorance about the whereabouts of LB never garnered him too much suspicion, IMO. DM didn't consider how thoroughly his actions could be traced by video cameras, phone and text and Internet search records, cell phone pings, etc. etc. and those who knew about and/or went along with DM for previous thefts and those who knew about TB's planned truck theft also knew that WM had died from a gunshot to the eye and that LB was missing, so you'd think DM would have been under intense suspicion by all those who knew him and yet we're to believe that know one else knew or suspected anything about DM's involvement in these other murders?

DM thought the Eliminator was the perfect instrument to ensure that he got away with murders, IMO and he was so bold to walk up the driveway with MS to meet TB without a care of later being identified by witnesses, IMO. Just like when LB went missing, DM carried on business as usual, without a care in the world about being caught because both DM and MS had already murdered her and incinerated her body, IMO. I am really convinced that both DM and MS are equally guilty of first degree murder of TB, IMO. I'm glad they were both caught because I have no doubt that together their missions to kill people would have only escalated and there would be many more future victims, IMO. I also believe that others knew exactly what that Eliminator was used for, or at the very least, had some well-founded suspicions, IMO. I hope it is dismantled piece by piece and never used again for any purpose!

All MOO.

 

[JuneBug67]

DM not testifying also serves to not dig him any deeper than he already is, or expose himself for what he is any further, thus preserving his tiny army of believers. There are almost certainly some people who still see him as a victim of a rush to judgement and a man who maybe made some mistakes but who is not a killer. Psychopaths are highly and effectively manipulative and have a presentation that seems utterly normal, sincere and disarming to those who are primed to believe for whatever reason. His mother may still be struggling to square the child she believed she knew for almost three decades with the facts as presented. Strangers or acquaintances may simply be dug in to their first impressions of DM and of the evidence and the beliefs that formed around all that. It's a well known thing in psychology that it's difficult to dislodge us from our initial beliefs and confirmation bias is a significant force. Still, reality is always the best place to live. DM, dangerous individual and general menace to society, gets stopped right here.

 

[JuneBug67]

I can't weigh in on this as I have no legal background.....but from reading the link you posting it seems to say that both Crown and Defense present closing arguments...MOO

Thanks. I found these two paragraphs to be confusing read together:

In a criminal trial by judge alone, these final arguments are delivered by Crown and defence counsel after the defence's case is finished. If defence counsel has presented evidence then she or he will be the first to make final arguments. Crown counsel will speak last. If defence counsel did not call evidence, then the order is reversed.

In a jury trial, the judge will summarize the evidence and counsels’ arguments for the jury. The judge will also explain the relevant legal principals to be applied in the case, give the jury any necessary instructions, and tell them when they may begin their “deliberations” or decision making about the case.

Read one way, it seems to imply there is a different approach in a judge vs. jury trial. Read another, it just sounds like in a jury trial there is the additional step of a judge's summary after arguments by counsel. Someone more knowledgeable will clarify soon hopefully.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Can you show a link where it states that the lawyers don't present their own closing arguments in Canadian jury trials? I took a quick google and found multiple intances where it seemed that defence lawyers were reported as doing just that.

You're right, I am thinking of the Ezekiel Stephan case that just ended, and the lawyers do present their own closing arguments. The judge then provides direction to the jury.

 

[DMB]

First post here, perhaps someone could help me out with a few questions that I have.

When the Crown presented their witnesses, in questioning they were only allowed to speak about what was covered in the police witness testimony and were not allowed to ask leading questions. It was the defence lawyers who WERE allowed to go beyond what was made in their statement and ask questions that were not allowed by the crown.

In DM's infamous letters he writes that MS got himself charged by trying to blame DM. In MM's testimony she made a plea to MS to speak to the police and tell them the truth and
let him know that she had told them everything that MS had told to her.

So, if MS did make a statement when arrested and he is the defence witness does the same hold true on who can and cannot ask leading questions if he should take the stand???? Will TD only be allowed to speak on what is in that statement and the Crown can ask much more and lead AND since he is a defence witness will DM's lawyers be able to attack him on the stand?????