Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #17 [06.03.16 to 06.09.16]

[ABro]

In order for something to be considered evidence, it has to be introduced by testimony. Otherwise it is mere speculation or theory.

TD would know in advance which questions he would ask MS, or what his client's story was. In order to further support MS's assertions, he should have asked previous witnesses the same or similar questions. Those witnesses' answers would then have potential evidentiary value to support MS's claims.

(Sorry if I am not explaining this very well [emoji17] I know what I mean in my head ... It just doesn't come out of my fingers the same way, lol.)

MOO

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

That's a good explanation.

This is precisely why the much maligned Pillay grilled the cop and Super Sucker guy about times and Plaxton about the other truck sightings. He was laying the groundwork.

 

[canadiangirl]

In order for something to be considered evidence, it has to be introduced by testimony. Otherwise it is speculation or theory.

TD would know in advance which questions he would ask MS, or what his client's story was. In order to further support MS's assertions, he should have asked previous witnesses the same or similar questions. Those witnesses' answers would then have potential evidentiary value to support MS's claims.

(Sorry if I am not explaining this very well [emoji17] I know what I mean in my head ... It just doesn't come out of my fingers the same way, lol.)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Is it not possible that MS testifying wasn't planned well in advance testimony so how could TD know what questions to ask previous witnesses? I was honestly surprised he ever took the stand, as were a lot of others IIRC.
At what point does the accused have to make the decision to put themselves on the stand I wonder. Or is there a cut off? I would assume if a lawyer knew their client was taking the stand well in advance, they would ensure there was evidence to support their client's testimony to strengthen it.

 

[Lexiintoronto]

There was some discussion a few days ago on these threads about MS's 'SAY10' graffiti. One poster said they saw the tag on a train, and there was some discussion about how intricate it was etc & it could not have been made by MS. In an April NP article I found an example of it MS had drawn on his hand:


Source: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/texts-show-millard-smich-were-looking-for-specific-model-truck-tim-bosma-was-selling-crown

 

[canadiangirl]

There was some discussion a few days ago on these threads about MS's 'SAY10' graffiti. One poster said they saw the tag on a train, and there was some discussion about how intricate it was etc & it could not have been made by MS. In an April NP article I found an example of it MS had drawn on his hand:
View attachment 95954

Source: http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/texts-show-millard-smich-were-looking-for-specific-model-truck-tim-bosma-was-selling-crown

I have seen this before, it's interesting the bridge tag looks nothing like this.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Is it not possible that MS testifying wasn't a planned well in advance testimony so how could TD know what questions to ask previous witnesses? I was honestly surprised he ever took the stand, as were a lot of others IIRC.
.

RSBM

It is a lawyer's job to cover all the bases, all the possibilities way in advance of the trial.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[canadiangirl]

RSBM

It is a lawyer's job to cover all the bases, all the possibilities way in advance of the trial.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agreed but they aren't mind readers.
And with Dungey's skill as many have pointed out, I doubt this would be an oversight. MOO

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Agreed but they aren't mind readers.

The lawyer doesn't into the trial completely blind. If there's any chance MS might testify, he needs to know the story so he can craft arguments and questions to support it.

If MS didn't tell him anything and then jumped up on the stand to tell this story, then he screwed his lawyer (and himself).

 

[brightii]

Agreed but they aren't mind readers.
And with Dungey's skill as many have pointed out, I doubt this would be an oversight. MOO

I don't think it was an oversight on TD's part, if I understand what TL was suggesting it was part of his calculated strategy not to ask certain questions.

All MOO.

 

[canadiangirl]

I don't think it was an oversight on TD's part, if I understand what TL was suggesting it was part of his calculated strategy not to ask certain questions.

All MOO.

That's definitely possible. As with anyone trying to prove their position. Things are "overlooked" in their favour

 

[JuneBug67]

Susan Clairmont hat retweetet
13 Std.
@ @susanclairmont I rank the shows: #1 Leitch #2 Dungey and #3 Pillay

That's interesting. Her piece about Pillay's argument between Pillay and Dungey characterized it as effective, even "astounding", and "among the best she's seen". Still, that one ended up last on her list and they've been effectively ranked in the reverse order from what they've been given. Some of that probably absolutely flow from the strengths of the arguments and skill of the attorneys, but it's hard not to conclude that at least some of her ranking is based on the impact of recency. We may be most impacted and persuaded by what we've just heard, and at each stage the most recent argument has attempted to negate the last one or ones. The jury probably feels the same way right now, but by the time they deliberate the judge's charge will the last thing they have heard. It's interesting to wonder how much these arguments stay with them as they deliberate when the task turns away from listening to a narrative to weighing evidence against a set of instructions.

ETA: It was pointed out that this was a retweet and not necessarily the thoughts of SC herself. Apologies for the oversight!

 

[canadiangirl]

The lawyer doesn't into the trial completely blind. If there's any chance MS might testify, he needs to know the story so he can craft arguments and questions to support it.

If MS didn't tell him anything and then jumped up on the stand to tell this story, then he screwed his lawyer (and himself).

With 9 days on the stand, that is a lot of testimony and a ton of variables to be sure of.

 

[raffielle]

There was a lot of talk about the gun and more about how if he was innocent why not just present the guy and prove it. My thought regarding MS presenting the gun to exonerate himself if not guilty, I am in agreement with his lawyer on this one. If he did present the gun it would more than likely have more than one set of fingerprints or if DM was intending to frame MS possibly only his when he recovered it from the toolbox, thereby incriminating himself further b/c now only his fingerprints are on it b/c DM wiped his off prior to having it delivered to him.

In my heart I believe that both of these men committed a planned murder but I also believe that there is a reasonable amount of doubt of premeditation in the case of MS (dang good lawyer there) again JMO.

 

[ABro]

That's interesting. Her piece about Pillay's argument between Pillay and Dungey characterized it as effective, even "astounding", and "among the best she's seen". Still, that one ended up last on her list and they've been effectively ranked in the reverse order from what they've been given. Some of that probably absolutely flow from the strengths of the arguments and skill of the attorneys, but it's hard not to conclude that at least some of her ranking is based on the impact of recency. We may be most impacted and persuaded by what we've just heard, and at each stage the most recent argument has attempted to negate the last one or ones. The jury probably feels the same way right now, but by the time they deliberate the judge's charge will the last thing they have heard. It's interesting to wonder how much these arguments stay with them as they deliberate when the task turns away from listening to a narrative to weighing evidence against a set of instructions.

That's not Clairmont's list. The fact that she retweets something doesn't mean she agrees with it. She retweets lots of readers' opinions, many of which are conflicting.

 

[RandomName479]

That's interesting. Her piece about Pillay's argument between Pillay and Dungey characterized it as effective, even "astounding", and "among the best she's seen". Still, that one ended up last on her list and they've been effectively ranked in the reverse order from what they've been given. Some of that probably absolutely flow from the strengths of the arguments and skill of the attorneys, but it's hard not to conclude that at least some of her ranking is based on the impact of recency. We may be most impacted and persuaded by what we've just heard, and at each stage the most recent argument has attempted to negate the last one or ones. The jury probably feels the same way right now, but by the time they deliberate the judge's charge will the last thing they have heard. It's interesting to wonder how much these arguments stay with them as they deliberate when the task turns away from listening to a narrative to weighing evidence against a set of instructions.

SC was not the person who ranked them.....it was someone else.....SC responded to it......people are posting non-reporter tweets and that may be the confusion

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

With 9 days on the stand, that is a lot of testimony and a ton of variables to be sure of.

Pretty confident that Dungey is smart enough to know the cross would involve the CN call and the last meeting with DM.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Agreed but they aren't mind readers.
And with Dungey's skill as many have pointed out, I doubt this would be an oversight. MOO

I'm sorry but I don't understand ... TD is a skilled lawyer, and did an excellent job in his representation of MS ... He most definitely would have been prepared well in advance of the trial, and been well aware of his client's version of events, and would have anticipated what testimony would bolster his client's version of events, thus question the previous witnesses accordingly, if he had reason to believe that the answers would give supporting evidence for his client.

What mind reading and oversight are you referring to?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

There was a lot of talk about the gun and more about how if he was innocent why not just present the guy and prove it. My thought regarding MS presenting the gun to exonerate himself if not guilty, I am in agreement with his lawyer on this one. If he did present the gun it would more than likely have more than one set of fingerprints or if DM was intending to frame MS possibly only his when he recovered it from the toolbox, thereby incriminating himself further b/c now only his fingerprints are on it b/c DM wiped his off prior to having it delivered to him.

In my heart I believe that both of these men committed a planned murder but I also believe that there is a reasonable amount of doubt of premeditation in the case of MS (dang good lawyer there) again JMO.

Incriminate him how? By telling him where the gun was and giving it to him in a locked box? MS could have easily not broken the lock and not touched the gun.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

With 9 days on the stand, that is a lot of testimony and a ton of variables to be sure of.

Yup ... All part of a lawyer's duty.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[JuneBug67]

Not being a Twitter girl I didn't catch that it was a retweet. Apologies to SC and the board. Scrap the part about SC, but I'd be willing to bet a lot of people would rank the arguments just that way, perhaps even SC, and I'd make the same points. I think it's interesting the way we work, the way we make decision. People are not necessarily the rational creatures we think we are and a great number of our influences fly below a level of complete awareness.

 

[JuneBug67]

SC was not the person who ranked them.....it was someone else.....SC responded to it......people are posting non-reporter tweets and that may be the confusion

Yes, thanks...that was pointed out. Apologies!