- Joined
- May 23, 2013
- Messages
- 121
- Reaction score
- 7
Lol, very rarely, does a defendant get on the stand and admit they committed a crime.
It's also equally rare for someone who is guilty to voluntarily take the stand
Lol, very rarely, does a defendant get on the stand and admit they committed a crime.
I believe ratting to be telling LE and/or the public/media not new or old friends in jail. It's a unspoken code that you zip it. I believe many involved in this case lived by this code. JMO.MS as a rat... would it generally be considered ratting on DM (if he says his story is true to his new buddies) or only isho/squishy? Not sure i can make my question make sense, but If he tells his new friends in prison that DM went lunatic and he had no clue, is it still ratting?
From what I understand DM will have a better time of it because he did not rat on his co-accused like MS did. As terrible and unethical and difficult to understand that is for those of us who have no insight into that world.
...A lot of people had both the accused guilty before ever going to trial. (general public included). Very scary IMO.
What you have quoted is all after the fact though. Fraser needs to prove MS had knowledge and planning of a murder regardless of how involved MS was ATF. MooFraser is doing a very very good job.
I didn't see anyone stating that? Maybe I missed some posts.I am curious to know why some people believe that MS has to be "in the truck" in order to be found guilty of 1st degree murder?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Is it possible that TB was shot before MS got into the Yukon?
That's because they're 100% guilty and the trial was a complete waste of time and only prolonged the victim's (family's) agony.
There are many trials where we should be careful about jumping to conclusions (Baltovich, Millgard, etc.).
THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM!
From what I understand DM will have a better time of it because he did not rat on his co-accused like MS did. As terrible and unethical and difficult to understand that is for those of us who have no insight into that world.
I didn't see anyone stating that? Maybe I missed some posts.
Lol, very rarely, does a defendant get on the stand and admit they committed a crime.
I think he means they shot him in the truck in the field. Not that they made him get out and shot him. It's a different version then they pulled over by bobcat and his head was on the dash which was mr smichs version
Oops guess I was a little late
What you have quoted is all after the fact though. Fraser needs to prove MS had knowledge and planning of a murder regardless of how involved MS was ATF. Moo
Very rarely does a defendant get on the stand ... period ... just the fact that he got up there and put himself through 9 days of cross speaks volumes to me
Could MS have quickly changed his clothes in the field before getting into the Yukon ?
That's because they're 100% guilty and the trial was a complete waste of time and only prolonged the victim's (family's) agony.
There are many trials where we should be careful about jumping to conclusions (Baltovich, Millgard, etc.).
THIS IS NOT ONE OF THEM!
Colin Butler ‏@ColinButlerCBC 33s34 seconds ago
Jury seeing photo of where Millard parked his SUV across from the Bullman farm. Fraser wants him to point where exactly they parked. #Bosma
Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 11s12 seconds ago
Smich asked to draw on photo spot where truck was parked. He indicates spot near where chain is.
Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 7s8 seconds ago
Smich put a black square on an area of that photo, as a description of where the Yukon was parked. Close to the chain. #TimBosma
molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 37s37 seconds ago
Smich marks the spot just behind where the chain is shown in photo. Says the truck pulled over just to the left of laneway, where he got out
Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 16s16 seconds ago
Crown asking where #Bosma truck was parked. Smich has drawn that on photo as well.
Very rarely does a defendant get on the stand ... period ... just the fact that he got up there and put himself through 9 days of cross speaks volumes to me
They were given due process. Nothing came out during trial that made me question the crown's case. The only question is why they pled not guilty in the first place. They should have confessed to the crime. Perhaps the public would have been more open to the possibility of parole after 25 years. Mea culpas have a way of bringing about sympathy. These punks still carry on like they did nothing wrong. For that, the public wants absolute punishment.I wonder, do you see yourself making the decision when the due process is followed and the Charter rights apply? Or would you nominate somebody for that role?