Verdict Watch Discussion Thread

[Claroon]

Why does he say this and then continue to report on what happens? :thinking:

He clarifies "he can" report because prior to deliberations, he was not allowed to report any legal argument information. Now he can.

 

[Claroon]

While I absolutely believe that to be true, I wonder what the proof is for them to make this statement?

I think because she and other reporters heard the legal arguments, then they heard MS testimony and put 2&2 together. Guess you had to be there. Examples may be forthcoming.

 

[don_quixote]

Since I had 30 minutes, made a toy model for the time it's going to take for the jury to decide. Under my assumptions, it estimates time for decision regarding MS - 2.5 hrs, DM - 12 hrs. Plus, add some overhead for the general review of evidence and discussion, I guesstimate @ 10-12 hrs. So, if they have 8 hr workdays, my take is expect the decision Thursday afternoon or Friday before noon.

P.S. It's a super lame model

 

[kaen]

Deleted, found what I was looking for.

 

[RandomName479]

Also regarding new info on MS, Lisa Hepfner said in her news report, "People in court who were there in the absence of the jury, could see how cunning he was. He would use information he heard when the jury was out of the room and twist it to his own advantage on the stand.”


http://www.chch.com/deliberation-begins-tim-bosma-trial/

I wish Lisa would have elaborated about what she meant about using (twisting) things said in legal arguments during his testimony...

.....if it was stating that DM had "other" uses for the truck besides going to Mexico for the Baja race (like the drug smuggling stuff - trailer modifications/etc) then to me that isn't a huge deal....more of a frustration that a lot of bad character evidence wasn't allowed (and IMO wanting the truck to pull the modified trailer to smuggle drugs speaks to motive....so not sure why it wasn't allowed)....

....if it was something more....and I wouldn't even know where to start guessing.....then that could be much more meaningful (at least to me)....

As always...MOO

 

[paris_paris]

I wish Lisa would have elaborated about what she meant about using (twisting) things said in legal arguments during his testimony...

.....if it was stating that DM had "other" uses for the truck besides going to Mexico for the Baja race (like the drug smuggling stuff - trailer modifications/etc) then to me that isn't a huge deal....more of a frustration that a lot of bad character evidence wasn't allowed (and IMO wanting the truck to pull the modified trailer to smuggle drugs speaks to motive....so not sure why it wasn't allowed)....

....if it was something more....and I wouldn't even know where to start guessing.....then that could be much more meaningful (at least to me)....

As always...MOO

Exactly what you said is a good example. They were not allowed to talk about the other uses for the truck. MS made reference to it though knowing that they couldn't question him any further about it.

 

[SomeITGuy]

Exactly what you said is a good example. They were not allowed to talk about the other uses for the truck. MS made reference to it though knowing that they couldn't question him any further about it.

He even went as far as saying "Other uses I'm not allowed to discuss [in presence of the jury]" (paraphrasing).
Pretty smart IMO - makes the jury speculate whether they were supposed to or not, a comment like that wouldn't go unnoticed.

 

[JuneBug67]

I wish Lisa would have elaborated about what she meant about using (twisting) things said in legal arguments during his testimony...

.....if it was stating that DM had "other" uses for the truck besides going to Mexico for the Baja race (like the drug smuggling stuff - trailer modifications/etc) then to me that isn't a huge deal....more of a frustration that a lot of bad character evidence wasn't allowed (and IMO wanting the truck to pull the modified trailer to smuggle drugs speaks to motive....so not sure why it wasn't allowed)....

....if it was something more....and I wouldn't even know where to start guessing.....then that could be much more meaningful (at least to me)....

As always...MOO

I assumed she meant the times when MS would kind of speak in ellipses about things he "wasn't sure if he could say" that managed to sound damning to DM anyway.

I think the most useful stuff that was left out was DM's "dirty girl" comment and the fact that he used steroids, if there was sufficient evidence. Steroids can impact aggression and impulsivity over time and may have lent some credence to the MS tale of an unplanned act by DM. This is different than the free-for-all on drug use that Justice Goodman was wisely trying to avoid.

 

[Abitcountry]

He clarifies "he can" report because prior to deliberations, he was not allowed to report any legal argument information. Now he can.

And now that the jury is deliberating, the reporters are allowed to reveal the contents of legal arguments..as opposed to us waiting impatiently in silence through them until the proceedings resumed.

I understand that LH is free to tell us of the cagey antics of Smich and how he used the information he gleaned from those legal arguments.....but she can't give us specific examples even though the jury is now sequestered......What is the difference?

 

[JuneBug67]

And now that the jury is deliberating, the reporters are allowed to reveal the contents of legal arguments..as opposed to us waiting impatiently in silence through them until the proceedings resumed.

I understand that LH is free to tell us of the cagey antics of Smich and how he used the information he gleaned from those legal arguments.....but she can't give us specific examples even though the jury is now sequestered......What is the difference?

It could be that the legal argument(s) in question remain under the extended pb. I think as well that live reporting sometimes means you aren't getting perfect precision, and LH probably could find some concrete examples she could share if she sad down afterword and tried to do so.

 

[DeaconBrodie]

I feel like I learn something new every day when following this trial. I always thought when they start deliberations that the jury could not be bothered and they only come back in court when they have a question. This deliberation may take forever if they come out to get an answer and then after the answer they are brought back out to clarify said answer.

The most important thing here is that the rights of the accuseds are not infringed. The last thing that anyone wants right now is to make a mistake that could result in a successful appeal. Better to call the jury back to make it clear that they seem to have misapprehended a part of the evidence than to allow it to go unchecked.

Of course, this also raises the question of what else are the jury may be misapprehending and not bringing to the Judge.

 

[meterclicks]

Alex Pierson ‏@AlexpiersonAMP 7m7 minutes ago
Outside John Sopinka court. A prayer group showing support for the Bosma family.#bosmajurywatch

 

[JuneBug67]

Just in case anybody was curious, like me.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Sopinka

 

[Kamille]

Adam Carter and others speaking live about the trial

https://www.facebook.com/cbchamilton

 

[mimimic]

Go to that Erin Brockelwurst website....she has a bunch of photo's there. Otherwise too late for me am hitting the hay. If you google her name ...oakville they will likely pop up.

Ann Brocklehurst...? I think you mean,instead.

 

[DeepWoodsOff]

You know what I find interesting about these types of trials? There is no question whatsoever that these two were involved. The question is to what extent. My point is, if after reviewing all of the evidence and climbing these decision trees over and over, the jury somehow finds them both not-guilty, it's not like LE enforcement says, "Welp...better get back to finding who really did it than!" Now in this case I don't think there is a chance that either one of them gets a not-guilty verdict but one or both could potentially get less than 1st Degree. It highlights how important the evidence and how it is presented is in the judicial process. MOO

 

[Abitcountry]

Alex Pierson ‏@AlexpiersonAMP 7m7 minutes ago
Outside John Sopinka court. A prayer group showing support for the Bosma family.#bosmajurywatch

. Hallelujah !

 

[Kamille]

Roh roh...one female juror stared at DM a lot during the trial according to Shannon Martin on the live feed.

 

[meterclicks]

Roh roh...one female juror stared at DM a lot during the trial according to Shannon Martin on the live feed.

I can't listen and there's no point to watching if I can't hear it lol. Keep us posted on anything else!

 

[brightii]

Roh roh...one female juror stared at DM a lot during the trial according to Shannon Martin on the live feed.

Let's hope she isn't the jury foreman. :thinking:

All MOO.