Bosma Murder Trial 05.19.16 - Day 52

[Claroon]

There is clearly enough evidence on MS to build a case in the death of LB. He may be playing the Jester with NS right now but it will be interesting to hear after the LB trial, what we were not allowed to hear in this trial. I think that his comic relief with reference to Walt Disney is completely disrespectful to the Bosma family. He is showing his true colours of the punk that he is. Did he pull the trigger? I am not sure if we will ever know but he isn't someone who I would EVER feel safe having in my neighbourhood.

bbm - Even his "friends" didn't feel safe. I just re-read this from an article quoting BD, "the jury heard that Daly told police that Smich had an angry side.

"Aggravated, but like, on a regular basis ... but like even then, there's something, anger ... but it's been like that since I first met him, which is weird," Daly's statement to police read.

"I don't hang out there for long though ... I go there, I smoke my weed and I kind of keep my distance and go home. Like, I don't want to be around, it puts me on edge, it really does. Like, once I kind of get high and he starts talking about all that violent stuff, and like, he makes jokes about stuff, but you look, and he's kind of got a serious face, you know what I mean."

http://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/canad...by-dellen-millard-defence-suggests/ar-BBrrPRx

 

[lclabtech]

Aspects of this have come up before, and while I take the point there are false equivalencies I think. MS != CN. Christina Noudga is not a defendant, not facing hostile questioning, is protected under the Canada evidence act and simply being asked to answer completely and honestly about what she knows in the most horrible murder case I can think of in some time. Her obfuscation and arrogance was outrageous and completely contempt worthy in my mind. The situation with MS is completely different, and whatever you think of his guilt or innocence cross examination in this context is meant to provoke, and sometimes he expresses some frustration. It's more likely hurting him than anybody else, while CN's choices could be seen as having hurt the case. In short, I think people understand MS's reactions and find CN's utterly alien.

MS may be a [link removed] but I think he's doing pretty well on the stand during this cross. If I was Dungey, I'd be pleased with how my client was holding up - his story hasn't changed at all, he's not getting tripped up, and the high school drop out is catching the defense lawyers small blunders. The optics aren't great there on that last one. He says sir in every response, uses the victim's name and makes eye contact with the jury. I mean, I still think he's a [link removed] and my gut tells me he knew TB would be in an incinerator at the end of that drive... but it's a pretty good performance so far, IMO. Crown should be tougher though.

 

[ABro]

Finally caught up from today, at least until this post.

I admit it felt like the Twilight Zone post was aimed at anyone who doesn't agree 100% MS is straight up lying about, well, pretty much everything. While I still think the MS of 2013 was a vile creep, that would put me in the TZ camp because I don't actually think he's lying about everything.

Much of his testimony comes across as genuinely believable. That whole amnesia stuff about where the gun is, is actually possible. Is it probable? I can't say, but I do know that kind of amnesia is real, despite the fact so many refuse to believe it. So for that reason alone (the fact that it's a real thing that happens), there is reasonable doubt.

If MS was not actually in the vehicle when the murder of Tim Bosma happened, AND he had no idea DM was going to shoot him, I cannot see how he's guilty of 1st degree murder.

I can't really "excuse" anything MS has done since he himself admits he was there to scope out a truck to steal, was a drug dealer, was cruel and violent at least once towards his gf, and was basically a degenerate piece of trash. No excuses there.

I'm not at all glossing over his other 1st degree murder charge but at the same time, no one here has a CLUE what evidence the Crown has on him, in that case. It could be massively circumstantial. I have no idea. No one else does either.

I'm trying hard to focus on what the Crown has on him in this case, and after 74 days (it was 74, wasn't it?) of Sachak's utter nonsense during cross, MS comes out (to me anyway) looking even less guilty of 1st degree murder than he did at the beginning of this trial.

moo. fwiw.

The judge said on the opening day of this trial, circumstantial evidence has the same weight as direct evidence.The only direct evidence against DM so far is MS's testimony.

 

[deugirtni]

I said "substantial likelihood of conviction", and this (much smarter) document says "reasonable likelihood of conviction", even better illustrating that it should not be interpreted as a slam dunk prosecution.

I wonder if DM's attempts at evidence and witness manipulation was part of the justification in either or both of the DI cases, in addition to the multiple cases under investigation.

I had always wondered if part of the justification was 'to protect the identity of an informant', with the informant being CN. I had wondered this because the charges for LB's murder were laid on the same day as the charges against CN for AATF in TB's murder, and so for some reason connected with my inner belief system about what young women *should* be like, I had hoped all of this time, that CN had done the right thing, but that there may have been reasons why this needed to be kept secret until her day on the stand. As it turns out, I was VERY wrong, and CN isn't giving up ***** and has a *nasty* demeanor about her! Now I just think it is a financial thing, as well as logistical issues since these cases seem to be so intertwined, and the courts have to ensure fair trials for the accuseds. Too difficult to keep things quiet in one case so that it won't taint a jury in another case, (or something like that).

 

[ABro]

It is very interesting to hear from those of you who have been in the courtroom.

I realize that you are not allowed to share anything that you have seen/heard outside the presence of the jury, but, if you feel comfortable in doing so, I would love to hear your personal impressions, and hope you don't mind my asking this question (also hope it is OK to ask this question)

Re Sachak's cross: in your opinion does he seem more effective in his cross when you are actually in the courtroom, vs the impressions that only reading the tweets give us?

Thank you very much.

I have been shocked by the negative reaction to Sachak's cross. Parts of it were very effective IMO.

As I was heading home today I ran into a regular courtroom watcher, an older man I've never spoken to before. He told me he found this morning's cross "devastating" and he meant devastating to MS not Sachak.

 

[ArianeEmory]

I have been shocked by the negative reaction to Sachak's cross. Parts of it were very effective IMO.

As I was heading home today I ran into a regular courtroom watcher, an older man I've never spoken to before. He told me he found this morning's cross "devastating" and he meant devastating to MS not Sachak.

Hmm. Even normally straightforward-seeming journalists like Adam Carter were editorializing a bit about the tedium and absurdity of NS's cross. I recognize that most of us here on WS don't know what it's like inside the courtroom, but more than one reporter seemed irritated with Sachak and made it be known, even if obliquely, in their tweets.

 

[deugirtni]

The judge said on the opening day of this trial, circumstantial evidence has the same weight as direct evidence.The only direct evidence against DM so far is MS's testimony.

Does the judge remind the jurors that UNlike MS's testimony being considered direct evidence against DM, Mr. S's questions for MS, wherein he gets to tell his client's side, are NOT considered evidence against MS?

 

[CJPRINCESS]

People were horrified (and rightfully so) with CN and her sarcasm, obfuscation, and entire demeanour on the stand. I have seen post after post glorifying MS' responses to Sachak. That feels very Twilight Zone-y to me.

I see people going to great lengths to dismiss evidence against MS and that also feels very Twilight Zone-y.

You can think that my TZ comment is aimed at anyone who isn't ready to convict MS of 1st degree, but that's not what I said or meant, so that's your choice to interpret it that way.

Im not sure anyone is glorifying MS or his testimony. I see people adding stuff to meet their theories (not aimed at anyone in particular) as well. So of course, those are pointed out. The dismissing of evidence you speak of isn't that. It's proving that something can be possible, therefore MS may be telling the truth when some want to believe SO bad it can't be possible. Example, the head on dashboard discussion and disbelief. I simply proved (with a pic) that it Is possible. The memory thing, well that is possible for some (including myself) while others seem to have a great memory. Some want to believe the wooden chairs have hidden meaning, while others think it's just one of the "missions" MS asked DM to help with. And the Sausages, S**T, maybe DM LOVES sausage so much that MS took a pic and sent it to him. So far with Sachak's cross, those 2 pics haven't had any meaning. Maybe they will for the Crown's cross and we'll see them in a differnt light.

I don't think MS should be freed or not held accountable for his actions. IMO, he needs to be behind bars just the same as DM. We are NOT the Jury, nor is the Jury members suppose to be reading outside of court media in the case. We are a discussion board and everyone is entitled to their opinions. I don't agree with everyone here and there have most certainly been things said I find annoying or distasful. But that's their opinions and I can respect that. In the end, it's completely up to the Jury, no matter what we feel or think.

 

[Alethea Dice]

The crown has to prove that DM and MS committed first degree murder. They do not have to prove exactly where and when. That's a mug's game given there are only two people alive who know the exact circumstances and they have both told very different self-interested stories. The legal experts I've listened to have said there is extremely strong evidence against both of them for first degree murder.

When we see how long the jury's out we'll be able to see if the reaction to the MS testimony seen here was in line with the jury's thinking or not.

Thanks for responding. I realize they don't have to prove where and when, and I personally thought they had lots of evidence against MS as well as DM, but continue to be surprised at the number of people who seem to think otherwise. I think the coincidence of a different truck being on the video in that short space of time is unlikely and including it would have helped the Crown show a more active involvement of MS, as well as IMO a more realistic scenario.

I should also point out that, my belief that MS pulled the trigger, doesn't mean I believe DM was the innocent one either.

JMO

 

[lclabtech]

I have been shocked by the negative reaction to Sachak's cross. Parts of it were very effective IMO.

As I was heading home today I ran into a regular courtroom watcher, an older man I've never spoken to before. He told me he found this morning's cross "devastating" and he meant devastating to MS not Sachak.

Genuinely curious... which parts do you mean?

 

[JuneBug67]

I had always wondered if part of the justification was 'to protect the identity of an informant', with the informant being CN. I had wondered this because the charges for LB's murder were laid on the same day as the charges against CN for AATF in TB's murder, and so for some reason connected with my inner belief system about what young women *should* be like, I had hoped all of this time, that CN had done the right thing, but that there may have been reasons why this needed to be kept secret until her day on the stand. As it turns out, I was VERY wrong, and CN isn't giving up ***** and has a *nasty* demeanor about her! Now I just think it is a financial thing, as well as logistical issues since these cases seem to be so intertwined, and the courts have to ensure fair trials for the accuseds. Too difficult to keep things quiet in one case so that it won't taint a jury in another case, (or something like that).

You make an interesting point about one reason high profile cases might up end up going directly to trial more than regular ones. Even though we have publication ban safeguards to protect the rights of accused in prelims it may just be too difficult to truly keep facts revealed there quiet until trial in cases with a ton of attention and public interest. Food for thought, anyway!

 

[mimimic]

Well, I can tell you for sure a lot of us (including me) are going to feel really dumb for even asking the questions if it turns out they have anything substantial on him for LB. Wish we knew more there. (Are things already underway for LB, under a publication ban? Are people even allowed to answer yes/no to that?)

I don't know, i don't remember, i don't recall.

 

[ABro]

Hmm. Even normally straightforward-seeming journalists like Adam Carter were editorializing a bit about the tedium and absurdity of NS's cross. I recognize that most of us here on WS don't know what it's like inside the courtroom, but more than one reporter seemed irritated with Sachak and made it be known, even if obliquely, in their tweets.

Well, I can tell you that I have talked to a lot of the reporters including Adam Carter and there is a range of opinions.

Sachak made the gun story unbelievable to pretty much everyone. The missing SIM cards are highly suspicious. MS's own mother said when DM arrested, her son said now he wouldn't get his car. These are very serious issues and yet people keep saying they "feel" MS must be telling the truth.

 

[ArianeEmory]

Does the judge remind the jurors that UNlike MS's testimony being considered direct evidence against DM, Mr. S's questions for MS, wherein he gets to tell his client's side, are NOT considered evidence against MS?

It took me a couple of read-throughs to get this (it's late), but now I am also interested in the answer.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

MS to me seems too rehearsed. The turning to the jury like he's acting in a play. The two or three mentions of Pedo being assaulted or afraid of DM are obvious ploys to get jury hatred on DM.

The only things he remembers are things brought up at this trial. There is no way I buy he doesn't remember the last visit with with DM right before he was arrested.

 

[mimimic]

I just realized that Sachak has taken 37 days (or something) on this cross exam because he has been desperately procrastinating having to say "Oh no! Call an ambulance!" out loud with a straight face. I have renewed respect for him. He didn't even call in a bomb threat or pull the fire alarm or anything!

The Jig is up!"

 

[ArianeEmory]

Well, I can tell you that I have talked to a lot of the reporters including Adam Carter and there is a range of opinions.

Sachak made the gun story unbelievable to pretty much everyone. The missing SIM cards are highly suspicious. MS's own mother said when DM arrested, her son said now he wouldn't get his car. These are very serious issues and yet people keep saying they "feel" MS must be telling the truth.

I feel like we're switching topics here, and its late so I'm going to wave the white flag on this one.

 

[deugirtni]

The judge said on the opening day of this trial, circumstantial evidence has the same weight as direct evidence.The only direct evidence against DM so far is MS's testimony.

Isn't AM's testimony also considered direct evidence, wherein he said that DM's plan was to steal a truck at that time, and asking AM which guy to steal it from. I guess I have to look up what is considered direct evidence because I would have thought that some of the contents of DM's jailhouse letters would be considered direct evidence as well?

 

[ABro]

Genuinely curious... which parts do you mean?

The gun burial that MS can't remember anything about including why he taped it.

The missing SIM cards that MS can't explain. He left almost no electronic trail compared to DM.

MS's mother statement to the police that after DM was arrested he told her now he would no longer get his car.

There are many more examples.

 

[ABro]

Isn't AM's testimony also considered direct evidence, wherein he said that DM's plan was to steal a truck at that time, and asking AM which guy to steal it from. I guess I have to look up what is considered direct evidence because I would have thought that some of the contents of DM's jailhouse letters would be considered direct evidence as well?

Yes, you're right. I should have said about the actual events of May 6th.