Bosma Murder Trial 06.10.16 - Day 59 - Charge to jury

[ILoveDateline]

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 24s25 seconds ago
In prev statement to police, she said Millard seemed happy. At trial, she said both men appeared to be "celebrating." #Bosma

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 32s33 seconds ago
Meneses not indicating at first that Smich was celebrating when they picked her up the morning after is another. #TimBosma #Bosma

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 37s38 seconds ago
Tumanenko hadn't spoken of the change of temperature before trial, and under cross exam, admitted he may have overstated the reaction.#Bosma

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 39s40 seconds ago
Goodman mentions Tumanenko only mentioning the "change of temperature" in his truck at trial as an example of an inconsistency. #Bosma

Colin Butler ‏@ColinButlerCBC 43s44 seconds ago
Igor Tumenenko never told police about the change in temperature inside the truck when he mentioned his Israeli Army experience. #TimBosma

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 48s49 seconds ago
Meneses, for ex, varied in her description of mood in Yukon the am of May 7, 2013. #Bosma

 

[Inspector_North]

So does this mean because Dungey did not recall witnesses or ask questions to them at the time of cross that anything not asked of them is inadmissible?
Abro had mentioned we can't keep recalling witnesses or else a trial wouldn't end. Am I reading this correctly?

That is the way I see it. Since MS was only telling his story, and his testimony is not evidence, TD did not use the opportunity to corroborate his story with actual witness testimony. Ex. BD being in on the DM, MS conversation. BD testified that he only let DM in the building, which is evidence, direct evidence.

I understand that it would make this trial run on and on if they started calling back witnesses, but TD should have jumped on this when BD was on the stand. Unless he did not know MS's story at the time.

MOO

 

[Kamille]

Goodman now talking about how Michalski admitted he lied to police.
by Adam Carter 11:22 AM

"He lied to police to protect Millard ... and only came clean when he realized he was in deep jeopardy."
by Adam Carter 11:22 AM

 

[ILoveDateline]

Colin Butler ‏@ColinButlerCBC 32s33 seconds ago
Goodman now going through a number of questionable statements made by Schlatman, Michalski and Hagerman in court. #TimBosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 35s36 seconds ago
His description was mentioned for first time at the trial.

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 35s36 seconds ago
Consider whether Michalski & Hagerman testimony about dropping drugs & gun in Oakville was different, judge tells jury.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 48s49 seconds ago
"He lied to police to protect Millard ... and only came clean when he realized he was in deep jeopardy." #TimBosma #Bosma

Colin Butler ‏@ColinButlerCBC 1m1 minute ago
She testified both men wanted to celebrate in court. #TimBosma

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 1m1 minute ago
Meneses didn't talk about the celebration in the car on May 7 until trial. Michalski admitted he lied to police in first 60 pages of intvw

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 1m1 minute ago
Goodman now talking about how Michalski admitted he lied to police. #TimBosma #Bosma

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 1m1 minute ago
Daly, too, gave conflicting evidence about the gun in the toolbox and a convo about bullets. #Bosma

Colin Butler ‏@ColinButlerCBC 2m2 minutes ago
Marlena Meneses told police it was only Millard who was happy when he and Smich picked her up the day after #TimBosma vanished.

 

[ILoveDateline]

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 34s35 seconds ago
Daly's evidence about the gun and the toolbox was confusing, judge says. #Bosma

Alex Pierson ‏@AlexpiersonAMP 45s46 seconds ago
Inconsistencies w witnesses. Are they believable many lied to police. Or forgot details on the stand. @AM900CHML

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 56s57 seconds ago
Michalski admitted to initially lying to police about Millard getting a truck. Only came clean when he knew he was in deep trouble.

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 1m1 minute ago
Was Shane Schlatman, Millard mechanic, subversive or oblique in his testimony? Jurors should consider, judge says.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 1m1 minute ago
Daly "provided confusing evidence" about gun in toolbox. Especially regarding Smich showing him a YouTube video about a gun and bullets.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 1m1 minute ago
Michalski too lied in original statements to police. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 1m1 minute ago
Likewise Meneses description of "celebration" in Yukon was not raised in first police statement.

 

[Kamille]

Goodman also tells the jury to assess Noudga's credibility. "Often, answers to various common sense answers were disputed," he says about her testimony.
by Adam Carter 11:25 AM

 

[ILoveDateline]

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews now
They decide how much to believe of the witness's trial testimony, judge tells jury. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont now
Can only use the testimony under oath at this trial to compare inconsistencies. #Bosma

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 23s24 seconds ago
They may find these are examples of inconsistencies, Goodman says--or not. Up to them. #Bosma

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 43s44 seconds ago
Goodman also tells the jury to assess Noudga's credibility. "Often, answers to various common sense answers were disputed," he says. #Bosma

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 58s58 seconds ago
Noudga was evasive and her answers often defied common sense, judge says. Consider that. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 1m1 minute ago
Noudga. Often she "disputed" simple questions. Was "evasive" and defied "common sense."

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 1m1 minute ago
Schlatman denied discussing the truck with Millard on May 9, (pre texts between them). But judge says it's clear from texts they did. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 1m1 minute ago
Schlatman trustworthiness. Consider his moving of the red truck.

 

[ILoveDateline]

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 38s38 seconds ago
He tells them to consider the explanations given by witnesses as well. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 1m1 minute ago
Consider any explanation the witness gave for the differences, says Goodman.

 

[Kamille]

Goodman cautions the jury on when a witness' answers aren't consistent. "This may suggest that the witness does not take the oath or affirmation seriously."
by Adam Carter 11:26 AM

 

[ILoveDateline]

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 20s21 seconds ago
In cases where statements differ, earlier (pre trial) statements are not evidence unless they're adopted as true by witness on stand. #Bosma

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 32s33 seconds ago
"This may suggest that the witness does not take the oath or affirmation seriously." #TImBosma #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 39s40 seconds ago
Cannot use earlier statements as evidence unless they were accepted as true by witness on stand at this trial.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 41s42 seconds ago
Goodman cautions the jury on when a witness' answers aren't consistent. #TimBosma #Bosma

 

[ILoveDateline]

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 55s56 seconds ago
Earlier statements from witnesses are not to be used unless witnesses adopt those statements in their testimony, judge says. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 1m1 minute ago
Adoption of evidence by non-accused witnesses.

 

[Kamille]

Goodman now turning to the out of court statements made by the two accused.
by Adam Carter 11:28 AM

"An out of court statement can only been used for or against the person who actually makes the statement, even if it refers to the other co-accused."
by Adam Carter 11:29 AM

 

[ILoveDateline]

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 14s14 seconds ago
"An out of court statement can only been used for or against the person who actually makes the statement..." #Bosma #TimBosma

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 21s21 seconds ago
They can only be applied to the individual who made the comments--even if they are about the other. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 26s26 seconds ago
Accused can be held responsible only for what he actually says.

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 32s32 seconds ago
An accused can only be held responsible for what he himself says, judge says. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 40s40 seconds ago
Out of court statements of the accused. Verbal statements, text messages, Millard letters to Noudga.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 53s53 seconds ago
Goodman now references out-of-court statements made by accused. Includes verbal conversations, texts, emails, and letters. #Bosma

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 59s59 seconds ago
Goodman now turning to the out of court statements made by the two accused.

 

[ILoveDateline]

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 22s22 seconds ago
If an accused testifies about something another accused said out of court, it can only be considered in deliberations for he who testified.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 33s33 seconds ago
Special rule when accused testifies about what other accused said outside courtroom. Can only be used in deciding case for person on stand.

Colin Butler ‏@ColinButlerCBC 1m1 minute ago
"Anything that an accused said is only part of the case, you must consider it along with any other evidence," Goodman tells the jury. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 1m1 minute ago
Consider anything an accused said along with all other evidence in the case. #Bosma

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 1m1 minute ago
Some of these comments might help the accused. These must similarly be considered. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 2m2 minutes ago
Some or all of the statements may help Smich and Millard in their defence. Must consider those along with those that don't help.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 2m2 minutes ago
"... even if it refers to the other co-accused." #TImBosma #Bosma

 

[Kamille]

Goodman again cautions the jury they can't use any out of court statement from one accused about the other when deciding about the other accused. For instance, what Millard says Smich did in his letters can't be used for deciding if Smich is guilty.
by Adam Carter 11:32 AM

Another example is that Smich told Meneses that Millard did it. The jury can't use that testimony for convicting Millard.
by Adam Carter 11:33 AM

 

[ILoveDateline]

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 35s36 seconds ago
Millard blaming Smich in the letters is not proof against Smich. But it could raise reasonable doubt about Millard's guilt. #TimBosma

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 40s41 seconds ago
For instance, what Millard says Smich did in his letters can't be used for deciding if Smich is guilty. #Bosma

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 46s47 seconds ago
For ex. Millard's comments in Noudga letters about Smich (having to 'clean up his mess' etc.) can only be considered in regards to Millard.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 46s47 seconds ago
Goodman cautions the jury they can't use any out of court statement from one accused about the other when deciding about the other. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 58s59 seconds ago
Cannot use Millard statement in letter to Noudga that he "had to clean up Mark's mess" as evidence against Smich. Only in regard to Millard.

Colin Butler ‏@ColinButlerCBC 1m1 minute ago
Millard's letters may only be used by the jury in the case against Millard and not against Smich, even though he writes about Smich. #Bosma

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 1m1 minute ago
Millard's statements out of court to other witnesses, ie letters to Noudga, can only be used against Millard, even tho he talked about Smich

 

[RandomName479]

That is the way I see it. Since MS was only telling his story, and his testimony is not evidence, TD did not use the opportunity to corroborate his story with actual witness testimony. Ex. BD being in on the DM, MS conversation. BD testified that he only let DM in the building, which is evidence, direct evidence.

I understand that it would make this trial run on and on if they started calling back witnesses, but TD should have jumped on this when BD was on the stand. Unless he did not know MS's story at the time.

MOO

BBM - his testimony IS evidence....like it or not.....may not be credible evidence....but it IS evidence.

I do agree with your assessment of the judge's instructions about TD not posing questions to the witnesses.....the judge stated that the omission of questions CAN be considered during their deliberations....

MOO

 

[ILoveDateline]

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 33s34 seconds ago
Exception is when one co-accused was present at time of the making of other co-accused statement.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 37s38 seconds ago
Put simply, that can only be used to find Smich not guilty -- not to find Millard guilty. #Bosma

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 50s51 seconds ago
Smich told Meneses "Millard did it." That can't be used as proof against Millard. Could raise reasonable doubt about Smich guilt. #Bosma

Colin Butler ‏@ColinButlerCBC 59s60 seconds ago
Same goes with what Smich told Meneses, judge recalls to jury her testimony about how Smich told her that Millard murdered #Bosma.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 1m1 minute ago
Similarly, Smich's statements to Meneses about Millard (that Milard did everything, for ex.) cannot be used against Millard. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 1m1 minute ago
Smich's out of court statement to Meneses can only be used in connection to Smich. Eg. Millard "did it" and "murdered Bosma."

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 1m1 minute ago
Another example is that Smich told Meneses that Millard did it. The jury can't use that testimony for convicting Millard. #TimBosma #Bosma

Colin Butler ‏@ColinButlerCBC 2m2 minutes ago
"You must not use any instances of him blaming Smich as proof" the judge tells the jury. #TimBosma

 

[Georgeo]

That is the way I see it. Since MS was only telling his story, and his testimony is not evidence, TD did not use the opportunity to corroborate his story with actual witness testimony. Ex. BD being in on the DM, MS conversation. BD testified that he only let DM in the building, which is evidence, direct evidence.

I understand that it would make this trial run on and on if they started calling back witnesses, but TD should have jumped on this when BD was on the stand. Unless he did not know MS's story at the time.

MOO

Or, TD decided that he wouldn't recall BD as he knew some of the testimony would be disputed by BD, therefore no point to it. TD certainly gave the impression he was vigorously defending MS, but if he knew MS's testimony would be disputed..... at least TD can't be blamed for not appearing to defend his client from outward appearances.

moo

 

[ILoveDateline]

Alex Pierson ‏@AlexpiersonAMP 15s16 seconds ago
Even if the comments are about co accused, like DM letters to Noudga where he talks about MS. Can't be used against Smich.

Adam Carter ‏@AdamCarterCBC 18s19 seconds ago
The jury will have to decide for any text or email who it was sent from, to whom it was sent, and what should be taken from it. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 43s44 seconds ago
Millard wearing reading glasses in court today. Glancing often at Smich, who ignores him. #Bosma

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 49s50 seconds ago
The exception is when both accused are present when the statement is made. #Bosma


BBM: Interesting. This is the first I've heard DM wears glasses in this trial.