Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #13

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mscree said:
I agree with you. I believe the jury will see their guilt, right down to their own words
Click to expand...

I know they are not supposed to, but I feel sure the jurors have individually already decided on their guilt. I think the Crown did a good job. No real bombshells - just steady forensics and circumstantial evidence all tied together.
IMO.
 
The Crown is expected to close its case Monday in Superior Court. After that, lawyers for the two accused will be asked if they want to call any witnesses.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...-accused-millard-smich-will-testify-1.3573088


So will both lawyers present their opening statements at the same time? This is where the two accused in one trial situation gets confusing to me. IMO, if they aren't asked to both open at the same time, MS has a clear defence advantage. His lawyers could wait until DM's defence is done and then tailor their defence to work off whatever DM claims MS did.

So do both teams have to give opening statements today?
 
mozzagirl said:
The Crown is expected to close its case Monday in Superior Court. After that, lawyers for the two accused will be asked if they want to call any witnesses.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...-accused-millard-smich-will-testify-1.3573088


So will both lawyers present their opening statements at the same time? This is where the two accused in one trial situation gets confusing to me. IMO, if they aren't asked to both open at the same time, MS has a clear defence advantage. His lawyers could wait until DM's defence is done and then tailor their defence to work off whatever DM claims MS did.

So do both teams have to give opening statements today?
Click to expand...

No, DM's team is up first. They do their thing whatever that may be. Then MS's team follows.
 
It will be interesting to see if either of them will take the stand. I don't think any sane Lawyer would advise either of them to speak. however;

-Millard is so guilty, and Im sure he knows he's going away for life by now, so maybe he'l have a WTF moment and speak, just because he can. Wouldn't surprise me if he does testify but I think he'll keep his mouth shut.

-It wouldn't surprise me at all if there are some jurors that are going to argue not guilty for Smich. I think they will be outnumbered and easily swayed, so maybe Smich would benefit from laying out his version of events. The thing about Smich is if he's open enough to talk, why is he still hiding the gun? I think he'll keep his mouth shut.
 
Well kind of convenient DM goes first. They'll try to frame MS then MS lawyer will try to blame DM. Hang on for the roller-coaster folks

All comments are JMO unless stated otherwise
 
andreww said:
It will be interesting to see if either of them will take the stand. I don't think any sane Lawyer would advise either of them to speak. however;

-Millard is so guilty, and Im sure he knows he's going away for life by now, so maybe he'l have a WTF moment and speak, just because he can. Wouldn't surprise me if he does testify but I think he'll keep his mouth shut.

-It wouldn't surprise me at all if there are some jurors that are going to argue not guilty for Smich. I think they will be outnumbered and easily swayed, so maybe Smich would benefit from laying out his version of events. The thing about Smich is if he's open enough to talk, why is he still hiding the gun? I think he'll keep his mouth shut.
Click to expand...

Well he would have been the last to handle the gun. He took it out of the toolbox, wrapped it in duct tape before he buried it. His/MS prints would be ALL over that gun, covering over any of DM's prints.
 
Big lines for Tim Bosma (AP)

BigLines.jpg






Anyone else who has great problems with WS and this thread now??
 
mozzagirl said:
The Crown is expected to close its case Monday in Superior Court. After that, lawyers for the two accused will be asked if they want to call any witnesses.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamil...-accused-millard-smich-will-testify-1.3573088


So will both lawyers present their opening statements at the same time? This is where the two accused in one trial situation gets confusing to me. IMO, if they aren't asked to both open at the same time, MS has a clear defence advantage. His lawyers could wait until DM's defence is done and then tailor their defence to work off whatever DM claims MS did.

So do both teams have to give opening statements today?
Click to expand...

Theoretically both sides are bound by law to tell the truth, so nothing should come as a surprise to either side. I think both sides will have a similar defence, that they were going to legitimately purchase a truck, and that each will say the other went rogue and shot Tim without their knowledge.
 
canadiangirl said:
Well kind of convenient DM goes first. They'll try to frame MS then MS lawyer will try to blame DM. Hang on for the roller-coaster folks

All comments are JMO unless stated otherwise
Click to expand...

If I were MS (happy I'm not) I'd want to go second. At least they get to see where DM's teams takes things then work off of that. IMO, I think it's an advantage for MS.
 
I wonder about Smich but then I think back to the texts about bringing change of clothes, the fireworks, prepping the BBQ, and the infamous " I f:;)$ed up and their behaviour after the crime and DMs arrest. I know we didn't hear as much against smich as we did Millard but I have faith the jury will convict them both
 
Nosey Parker said:
I know they are not supposed to, but I feel sure the jurors have individually already decided on their guilt. I think the Crown did a good job. No real bombshells - just steady forensics and circumstantial evidence all tied together. IMO.
Click to expand...

I totally agree. Crown stated originally, the case against DM and MS is based on "the totality of evidence". That to me indicates no smoking gun, but enough evidence has been seen to make decisions.
In deliberation, the Jury will be weighing the totality of evidence presented in making their decisions, coupled with the instructions from Justice Goodman.
 
andreww said:
Theoretically both sides are bound by law to tell the truth, so nothing should come as a surprise to either side. I think both sides will have a similar defence, that they were going to legitimately purchase a truck, and that each will say the other went rogue and shot Tim without their knowledge.
Click to expand...

Well good luck with that because I don't think anyone believes they were going to legitimately purchase a truck.
IMO
 
Nosey Parker said:
Well good luck with that because I don't think anyone believes they were going to legitimately purchase a truck.
IMO
Click to expand...

I was just about to say the exact same thing. No one at the point should rationally believe they were actually going to buy a truck.
 
Someone correct me if Im wrong please. I don't think the defence can just tell a story, they actually have to put someone on the stand to testify to that. For instance, if Millard's defence is that he intended to buy the truck and Smich unexpectedly shot Bosma, He could bring witness' to testify to his financial status, but he would either need an eyewitness, video evidence, forensic evidence, or Millards testimony to introduce the fact that Smich shot Bosma. Millard's lawyer can't just stand up and say it. Am I right?
 
andreww said:
Someone correct me if Im wrong please. I don't think the defence can just tell a story, they actually have to put someone on the stand to testify to that. For instance, if Millard's defence is that he intended to buy the truck and Smich unexpectedly shot Bosma, He could bring witness' to testify to his financial status, but he would either need an eyewitness, video evidence, forensic evidence, or Millards testimony to introduce the fact that Smich shot Bosma. Millard's lawyer can't just stand up and say it. Am I right?
Click to expand...

Just in their closing, I believe.
ETA: and then I think it has to be 'maybe's and possibly's'
 
Nosey Parker said:
Well good luck with that because I don't think anyone believes they were going to legitimately purchase a truck.
IMO
Click to expand...

I agree, but unless they can prove otherwise, they are guilty. Both of them. Even Millard was smart enough to recognize that fact in his letters so we'll see what happens.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 175 more.
Total: 2,794 (members: 176, guests: 2,618)

Online statistics

Members online
176
Guests online
2,618
Total visitors
2,794
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
593,745
Messages
17,991,912
Members
229,226
Latest member
rayne_solves
Back
Top