Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #13

[cckp72]

Definitely not.

Especially if she has the same attitude as she showed this go around in court. Do we know if she will take the stand in her own case? Sorry, may have missed it! (long time lurker, first time poster).

 

[andreww]

Quote Originally Posted by ILoveDateline View Post
I agree with you. She was smart in terms of protecting herself. She played only the cards she wanted to but not the hand that she was dealt. She was there to tell the whole truth (is that actually in the oath people swear to or is that a tv thing?) and I refused to credit her for cheating at cards. IMO.

If I'm not mistaken, her testimony has nothing to do with MS. Her testimony can only be used against DM and MMs against MS.
Not true. Because they would most likely be questioned about their time and involvement with their respective BF's, they most likely had first person information about that accused. However, anything they testify that was the result of a direct contact with the other accused is also fair game. Anything they claim that they heard from their BF about the other accused is 'hearsay' and is not allowed to be considered by the jury.

ex.
MM stating that DM was happy about the mission success when she got in the Yukon.
CN testifying about her phone conversation with MS on the 10th.

MOO

So the question becomes; can the jury consider what was disclosed in the letters for both accused?

Very confusing this is.

 

[Stumper]

She testified that she and MB hearing about the truck theft and force able confinement arrest was what panicked them into wiping down the prints. Then there is her notes and DM's clear instructions. Maybe someone will testifying that they were contacted by her to change evidence. Or at least that they were present when Millard told her about the planned truck heist. Maybe even MS could have something to say about that..

MOO

ETA At her upcoming trial not this one

 

[mimimic]

A judge can't see through anything as they think logically and are not swayed by gut feelings like a jury may be. Put it this way, there is only one way to prove that she had prior knowledge of what was in that trailer and toolbox, that is if Dellen Millard testifies that he told her as much. Will he? Not likely in my opinion based on the fact that he's still got two more murder trials in front of him and he'll want to keep what he says and admits to to a minimum. But who knows, spite for keeping those letters? Millard's attorney insinuated about a "you testify against him, he'll testify against you" arrangement, so who knows? But would anybody believe what Millard says at this point?

Doesn't it most likely come down to the fact that she wiped prints rather then proving if she knew any other of her moves were helping DM? Was wiping the prints enough to put her in jail too?

 

[Inspector_North]

Does anyone feel that when CN does have her day in court that the Judge will go easy on her because she is female?

It will depend on the judge. I am very disappointed with some of the decisions that have been made by Ontario judges. Especially when it comes to concealed weapons. I believe a concealed weapon should be automatic jail time. There is no excuse in Canada to be carrying a concealed Walhter PPK, or illegally owning one. Not one!

Many times the weapon charge is dropped when seeking other charges. They should not be.

MOO

 

[andreww]

Especially if she has the same attitude as she showed this go around in court. Do we know if she will take the stand in her own case? Sorry, may have missed it! (long time lurker, first time poster).

She will definitely not take the stand IMO. In fact the case against her is so week, I doubt she'd present much of a defence.

 

[canadiangirl]

Doesn't prove anything if she had no knowledge of the crime or the contents of the trailer. She admits being along for the ride, but its up to the crown to prove she was aware of what was going on.

So all she has to do is say a bunch of I don't knows and she gets off? Everyone would be using that tactic if that were the case

 

[EspressoBean]

Especially if she has the same attitude as she showed this go around in court. Do we know if she will take the stand in her own case? Sorry, may have missed it! (long time lurker, first time poster).

I would be very doubtful that she would take the stand. Particularly after her lawyer has seen just how unlikable she comes across. I also don't think she will need to take the stand. They do not seem to have any actual evidence that she knew the crime had been committed on May 9th when she assisted DM which is needed in an accessory charge. DM's testimony will be torn apart, I'm sure, if he is called to testify. There may be some attempts to prove willful blindness but I believe they would have to prove she knew the murder had occurred. jmo

 

[mimimic]

How far in advance do people find out who the Judge will be? I ask because i also wonder if people(like us) ever petition them?

 

[andreww]

Doesn't it most likely come down to the fact that she wiped prints rather then proving if she knew any other of her moves were helping DM? Was wiping the prints enough to put her in jail too?

No. They will have to PROVE CN had knowledge that there was a truck in the trailer OR that she knew the gun was in the toolbox, OR that the Eliminator was used to incinerate TB, OR that she knew that the video recorder was something other than a stereo. I don't really think the print wiping has much to do with it, more just her actions on May 9th.

 

[EspressoBean]

And my apololgies to everyone. In the previous thread, I said that CN's twitter # of followers grows daily when I meant Instagram, not Twitter. The thread is closed so I can't edit it anymore.

 

[canadiangirl]

Isn't it enough proof that DM said he had a little mission for her?
She obviously knew she wasn't there to have sex that night

 

[mimimic]

No. They will have to PROVE CN had knowledge that there was a truck in the trailer OR that she knew the gun was in the toolbox, OR that the Eliminator was used to incinerate TB, OR that she knew that the video recorder was something other than a stereo. I don't really think the print wiping has much to do with it, more just her actions on May 9th.

Well wiping prints is covering for something on May 9th. but i get ya

 

[EspressoBean]

No. They will have to PROVE CN had knowledge that there was a truck in the trailer OR that she knew the gun was in the toolbox, OR that the Eliminator was used to incinerate TB, OR that she knew that the video recorder was something other than a stereo. I don't really think the print wiping has much to do with it, more just her actions on May 9th.

And I think it is even more than that. She is charged with accessory to murder which means they need to prove she knew he had murdered someone. I don't know that even knowing that there was a stolen truck in the trailer would be enough. jmo

 

[EspressoBean]

Isn't it enough proof that DM said he had a little mission for her?

Sent from my Nexus 5X using Tapatalk

She has testified that she did not know "missions" to be criminal activity. She has said that she knew them to be getting drugs or errands. Not believable to everyone after the other testimony in this case but there does not seem to be any proof to show that she knew otherwise.

 

[andreww]

So all she has to do is say a bunch of I don't knows and she gets off? Everyone would be using that tactic if that were the case

She doesn't even have to do that. Millard and Smich haven't said a word have they? Her trial will be the same. It is the burden of the crown to prove A) She moved or hid evidence and B) She was aware of that evidence's relation to the crime. Very simple really. But the only two people that we know of that can answer that question are CN and DM, so unless she blabbed to another friend at some point or spoke to a jailhouse snitch, I don't see how they are going to do that.

 

[mimimic]

And I think it is even more than that. She is charged with accessory to murder which means they need to prove she knew he had murdered someone. I don't know that even knowing that there was a stolen truck in the trailer would be enough. jmo

augh.

 

[canadiangirl]

She has testified that she did not know "missions" to be criminal activity. She has said that she knew them to be getting drugs or errands. Not believable to everyone after the other testimony in this case but there does not seem to be any proof to show that she knew otherwise.

Uhhh drugs aren't exactly non criminal. And errands like standing watch while a crime is taking place is still criminal IMO

 

[mimimic]

She doesn't even have to do that. Millard and Smich haven't said a word have they? Her trial will be the same. It is the burden of the crown to prove A) She moved or hid evidence and B) She was aware of that evidence's relation to the crime. Very simple really. But the only two people that we know of that can answer that question are CN and DM, so unless she blabbed to another friend at some point or spoke to a jailhouse snitch, I don't see how they are going to do that.

So would the same crown lawyers be presenting?

 

[canadiangirl]

She doesn't even have to do that. Millard and Smich haven't said a word have they? Her trial will be the same. It is the burden of the crown to prove A) She moved or hid evidence and B) She was aware of that evidence's relation to the crime. Very simple really. But the only two people that we know of that can answer that question are CN and DM, so unless she blabbed to another friend at some point or spoke to a jailhouse snitch, I don't see how they are going to do that.

But DM will take the stand in her case. And I'm sure the crown must have more evidence to charge her in her own case. They can't charge someone on a gut feeling. I think there's more to come