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

[andreww]

No. I would feel it was my duty as a juror to force a mistrial. Not conform to the beliefs of others in order to convict someone I'm not sure is guilty.

So basically what you are saying is that unless the vote is 12-0 off the bat, you are going to push for a mistrial?

 

[canadiangirl]

So basically what you are saying is that unless the vote is 12-0 off the bat, you are going to push for a mistrial?

No. What I'm saying is, if I'm ever on a jury, if I find there is a reasonable doubt, I'm not finding someone guilty because 11 other people want to try to pressure me to.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

No. What I'm saying is, if I'm ever on a jury, if I find there is a reasonable doubt, I'm not finding someone guilty because 11 other people want to try to pressure me to.

Easier said than done. When you're away from your family for 3 days and keeping others away from theirs, most would be willing to compromise.

 

[andreww]

Easier said than done. When you're away from your family for 3 days and keeping others away from theirs, most would be willing to compromise.

And the judge will be pressuring you to come to a decision. Sit in the room for another 12 hours with eleven people that are starting to hate your guts. And 3 days? Try 3 weeks!

 

[canadiangirl]

Easier said than done. When you're away from your family for 3 days and keeping others away from theirs, most would be willing to compromise.

Compromise on a man's freedom? Seems fair. 3 days to you is 25+ yrs to someone else. As I've said before, I really hope everyone who is actually saying this never finds themselves or someone they know trying to prove their innocence.. Because that is really how it seems to play out. Not innocent until proven guilty as it should be.

 

[canadiangirl]

And the judge will be pressuring you to come to a decision. Sit in the room for another 12 hours with eleven people that are starting to hate your guts. And 3 days? Try 3 weeks!

And why would they hate your guts?

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Rsbm
If that were the case then these people who weren't following closely shouldve automatically concluded MS as guilty. If they weren't following closely all they would know is 2 guys stole a truck and a man ended up dead and incinerated. Guilty as charged.
I think the results of this prove people may have actually been following closer then you think. JMO

If you read all the comments that people are leaving on that site that has the polls, one can clearly see that very few of the commenters have been following the case very closely, or have a good understanding of the Canadian Justice system. There is a great dissemination of non-factual information, some of it is even outlandish.

MOO




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[andreww]

Compromise on a man's freedom? Seems fair. 3 days to you is 25+ yrs to someone else. As I've said before, I really hope everyone who is actually saying this never finds themselves or someone they know trying to prove their innocence.. Because that is really how it seems to play out. Not innocent until proven guilty as it should be.

Hey I get that, if there is evidence to show that a defendant is actually innocent. But to have someone say "maybe this text means something else" or "maybe he actually did that" doesn't exactly sound like an opinion that can be compromised. <modsnip>

 

[canadiangirl]

If you read all the comments that people are leaving on that site that has the polls, one can clearly see that very few of the commenters have been following the case very closely, or have a good understanding of the Canadian Justice system. There is a great dissemination of non-factual information, some of it is even outlandish.

MOO




Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

As I said, I didn't read. Saw a poll of 1000 people and found it interesting that only 43% think MS is guilty of M1 in comparison to DM. That's all.

 

[Sillybilly]

STOP the snark in your posts. Posts have been removed or edited. All members are expected to know WS Terms of Service. Mods don't have time to edit posts to make them acceptable. From now on, if your post contains snark, it will be simply be removed, regardless of how much other informative or non-snark content.

Nobody wants to be responsible for having a thread closed down. Post accordingly.

 

[deugirtni]

It shouldn't be difficult. As this trial went on I kept on thinking how the defence was going to counter all this overwhelming evidence and they never did. All they did was point fingers at the other which I don't think matters in the end. Smich's testimony was the only real defence. The part that bothers me is that he was there the entire trial, able to take notes, and manufacture a story to fit all the other pieces of evidence brought against him and that's probably the source of most of this doubt any juror might have left. The part that was over the top for me was that he didn't help Millard put Bosma in the incinerator. The most far-fetched story he could produce to conveniently separate him from all the really bad parts of it.

Not to be picky or anything, but, if a person sets out to steal a truck with his main man, separates, the main man ends up killing the truck owner, and this guy did assist in confiscating evidence (the body via assisting getting into the incinerator), is it first degree murder for him?

 

[deugirtni]

And why would they hate your guts?

If all of the jurors except for one were all in agreement and had been sitting together day in and day out for a few days, and this one juror could not be swayed to the majority side, it is likely that that one juror would not be winning the juror-popularity-contest amongst jurors.. maybe not so far as to 'hate that person's guts'.. but.. the last thing the judge or anyone would want is a hung jury to necessitate a whole new trial. That one juror would be under tremendous pressure.

 

[Typhoo1961]

And the judge will be pressuring you to come to a decision. Sit in the room for another 12 hours with eleven people that are starting to hate your guts. And 3 days? Try 3 weeks!

This isn't 12 Angry Men and judges never pressure jurors to come to a decision.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Thanks Silly. I read so much over the past 3 yrs, I'll take a look at the thread when I get the time. It could come up at another trial, you're correct.

I realize ABro is a journalist but since some of the pieces on her site aren't published in MSM and only known if you visit that page, I take them as being more a "blogging" of sorts since she also lists herself as a blogger. You or I could've written the same thing on a private blog as it's the only place I've seen them referenced.

ABro is a journalist of highest repute. She is also a licensed Private Investigator. IMHO, your blogging on a private page somewhere is hardly a fair comparison to ABro's. ABro has her reputation at stake, and all that she has personally uncovered while investigating this case has been outstanding IMHO.
Anyhow, your private blogging page would be speculation and opinions lacking credentials. ABros contains investigated facts, strong credentials, and sometimes opinions based on sound reasoning. And we all benefit from her efforts.

As always, IMHO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[teamsundin]

Compromise on a man's freedom? Seems fair. 3 days to you is 25+ yrs to someone else. As I've said before, I really hope everyone who is actually saying this never finds themselves or someone they know trying to prove their innocence.. Because that is really how it seems to play out. Not innocent until proven guilty as it should be.

I agree with you on that. Shouldn't compromise what you believe in because it's inconvenient or holding people up. I'm curious how often people give in...it's amazing some of the guilty verdicts that have much less evidence than this or rely heavily on circumstantial evidence. The one thing I hate about our justice system is it's a competition among lawyers and prosecutors. If you're in trouble and innocent but can't afford a good lawyer, well, it might not matter if you're innocent. The goal should be to try to find the truth, get all sides of the story and then let a judge/jury decide rather than having counsel withhold information or not ask questions that don't suit their agenda.

 

[ILoveDateline]

No. What I'm saying is, if I'm ever on a jury, if I find there is a reasonable doubt, I'm not finding someone guilty because 11 other people want to try to pressure me to.

Easier said than done. When you're away from your family for 3 days and keeping others away from theirs, most would be willing to compromise.

It's, perhaps, unrealistically hopeful of me to think that the Judge's charge to the jury and the decision tree will foster an analytical and persuasive dymanic vs. a "pressure" one. I imagine the jury will look at item/issue A, discuss it and use the decision tree to lead them to their final decision but I'm sure tense moments will occur.

I'm hoping the decision tree is clear in its guidance. For example, if there are 10 elements to the decision tree and 7 of those point to guilty, 3 to not guilty. Do you (and this is an open question, not targeted at any one person here) not have to then yield a guilty verdict? What if you put more value or weight on those 3 items? Just my curiosity.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

This isn't 12 Angry Men and judges never pressure jurors to come to a decision.

Judges do want to avoid hung juries. They aren't going to push you to a decision, but they will send you back to deliberate further until they truly believe it's a unbreakable deadlock.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Mrs. T., did you finish your thought here? I thought you were going to share what time SC recommends one should show up to court.

Ha, ha, ha!!! Keeping you in suspense, lol!!

Susan recommended she arrive with a coffee by 7:30 am, being as she was coming all the way from Vancouver [emoji851]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[teamsundin]

Not to be picky or anything, but, if a person sets out to steal a truck with his main man, separates, the main man ends up killing the truck owner, and this guy did assist in confiscating evidence (the body via assisting getting into the incinerator), is it first degree murder for him?

For me it would be really difficult to believe the other guy was completely innocent and not be integrally involved if he is willing to help put a human being in an incinerator. There's one thing with a gf helping move an incinerator, it's an entirely different one to put a human being inside of it. I think the danger with saying in that situation he is innocent it could create a dangerous precedent and say hey if i wasn't directly involved with the act but went along with it and did absolutely everything else i'm free and clear by feigning ignorance.

 

[ILoveDateline]

No. What I'm saying is, if I'm ever on a jury, if I find there is a reasonable doubt, I'm not finding someone guilty because 11 other people want to try to pressure me to.

I agree with you on that. Shouldn't compromise what you believe in because it's inconvenient or holding people up. I'm curious how often people give in...it's amazing some of the guilty verdicts that have much less evidence than this or rely heavily on circumstantial evidence. The one thing I hate about our justice system is it's a competition among lawyers and prosecutors. If you're in trouble and innocent but can't afford a good lawyer, well, it might not matter if you're innocent. The goal should be to try to find the truth, get all sides of the story and then let a judge/jury decide rather than having counsel withhold information or not ask questions that don't suit their agenda.

The problem is some information can unfairly prejudice the jury. Counsel, judge and jury can make errors when finding or applying what is relevant and you will never have ALL of the information.