All My own opinion:
Today was a fine example, and a reminder, of what good legal representation is, and what the law is all about.
Yes. The crown so far has a decent case. It isn't bullet proof, and a lot of the testimony presented is full of holes and lies, and people protecting their own interests (CN and her later trial). We know, regardless of MS' testimony on the stand, that TB died at the hands of DM and MS. Maybe one, maybe both of them committed the crime. Only the two defendants know the truth. The bigger question, is which truth is actually factual. MS gave testimony, and some of that testimony is backed up and correlated by physical evidence (video footage, lack of GSR in yukon, etc). There are some flaws with his story, but not critical, and after cross examination, the crown didnt come forward with evidence or witness which disproved his testimony. DM has provided no testimony, and we were subjected to the poor ability of his legal councel in cross examination, and his rambling and suggestion of what DM claims happened. Unfortunately, his ramblings didn't help his or DM's appearance of supposed innocence, and the theories made even less sense, with little previously entered physical evidence backing up DM's scenarios.
I've read a few opinions on this thread, and I do not agree largely with those that just want to watch someone fry - not justice, but vengeance. I am a firm beleiver in the justice system, and the conviction has to fit the crime. Yes, TB died and it was horrible. But before we completely remove someones freedom and strip them of some of their charter rights, the very charter rights that soliders die for, and ever Canadian takes for granted, we MUST be sure we convict the correct person, for the correct time, and that they serve the correct sentence. I don't care of MS or DM are sleazy, manipulating, or what ever I think of them. One of them pulled the trigger, and we have to be damn sure which one planned that murder before we slam them away for 70+ years.
Today was a good example of the legal system at work. It established that only one person could have commited Murder in the first degree, and that the other committed second degree, at worst. Dungey did a good job showing that it was possible that it was actually a murder in the second commited by DM, and that MS was accessory after the fact.
At this time, I'm inclined to think that DM commited First or Second degree (mountain against him), and that MS was accessory after the fact (no GSR in yukon, video footage backs his story better than DM's story, etc), after my taking into consideration the facts of the case, the testimony given, and evidence entered. I do not pay attention to stories, speculation and theories in a court room. They don't belong there.
Tomorrow the crown has their turn. My opinion might change, again.
All my own thoughts and opinion.
Today was a fine example, and a reminder, of what good legal representation is, and what the law is all about.
Yes. The crown so far has a decent case. It isn't bullet proof, and a lot of the testimony presented is full of holes and lies, and people protecting their own interests (CN and her later trial). We know, regardless of MS' testimony on the stand, that TB died at the hands of DM and MS. Maybe one, maybe both of them committed the crime. Only the two defendants know the truth. The bigger question, is which truth is actually factual. MS gave testimony, and some of that testimony is backed up and correlated by physical evidence (video footage, lack of GSR in yukon, etc). There are some flaws with his story, but not critical, and after cross examination, the crown didnt come forward with evidence or witness which disproved his testimony. DM has provided no testimony, and we were subjected to the poor ability of his legal councel in cross examination, and his rambling and suggestion of what DM claims happened. Unfortunately, his ramblings didn't help his or DM's appearance of supposed innocence, and the theories made even less sense, with little previously entered physical evidence backing up DM's scenarios.
I've read a few opinions on this thread, and I do not agree largely with those that just want to watch someone fry - not justice, but vengeance. I am a firm beleiver in the justice system, and the conviction has to fit the crime. Yes, TB died and it was horrible. But before we completely remove someones freedom and strip them of some of their charter rights, the very charter rights that soliders die for, and ever Canadian takes for granted, we MUST be sure we convict the correct person, for the correct time, and that they serve the correct sentence. I don't care of MS or DM are sleazy, manipulating, or what ever I think of them. One of them pulled the trigger, and we have to be damn sure which one planned that murder before we slam them away for 70+ years.
Today was a good example of the legal system at work. It established that only one person could have commited Murder in the first degree, and that the other committed second degree, at worst. Dungey did a good job showing that it was possible that it was actually a murder in the second commited by DM, and that MS was accessory after the fact.
At this time, I'm inclined to think that DM commited First or Second degree (mountain against him), and that MS was accessory after the fact (no GSR in yukon, video footage backs his story better than DM's story, etc), after my taking into consideration the facts of the case, the testimony given, and evidence entered. I do not pay attention to stories, speculation and theories in a court room. They don't belong there.
Tomorrow the crown has their turn. My opinion might change, again.
All my own thoughts and opinion.
