Bosma Murder Trial 05.09.16 - Day 46

[Elisabeth]

Lawyers are not magicians. What questions should he have asked that he didn't? You keep insisting he should have done something but are unable to come up with even one suggestion or example of what he should have done.

ETA: You also need to realize that when you call defence evidence, you open yourself up to cross examination, which can hurt your case. A lawyer interviewed on CHML today discussed how the decision to call a defence and/or put a defendant on the stand is often very, very tough.

I don't think I have been judging Pillay since I thought DM was guilty of murder right from the first few days of evidence: cell phone/burner phone/tattoo/leaving the truck in plain sight evidence. Everything else (that he may or may not have asked) just seemed to fade to less importance to me.

I don't think I could armchair quarterback a guess as to what else he could ask until I can hear the judge's instructions on convicting for first degree. My opinion is a conviction on second degree is the absolute best they could hope for. My impression is that the crown headed off the "veterinary crematorium" excuse for having an incinerator and that might have been one of the defence attempts to discredit premeditation (if that is even still relevant in this case for a first degree conviction).

I suppose similarly they could come up with an excuse for the change in clothes...

One loose end for me was the actual planned barbeque and when/if that occurred and if Smich was even invited (since he wasn't at the house very often according to AM). His pictures of roasting food (was it sausages?) and fireside furniture made many here point to premeditation (for both). Added note: I'm not saying DM's team should even raise it though....

 

[Kamille]

She didn't spend 20 years studying/practising law like Pillay did and she probably could do as good as Pillay did. Pillay did NOTHING.

I think we're going to find out what Pillay did after the jury is in deliberations.

MOO

 

[ABro]

I'm not sure of the actual stats, but I imagine the number of times a defendant takes the stand has to be low. IMO. And I think most defences would prefer to rest and hope/rely on reasonable doubt. Really their job is to defend against the case brought against them. If they do that effectively, it's defended in cross. The defence doth protest too much, me thinks.. Or something similar to that philosophy. IMO. I'm not saying I believe that was don't here but that may be DMs team's view.

It depends a lot on the type of case too. In he says/she says sexual assault cases, you'll often see the defendant take the stand, especially these days with so much pressure to prosecute and get convictions in these crimes. OTOH I was talking to a cop about to retire recently and he said he had never seen a defendant take the stand in a murder one case.

 

[SuperSpy]

After a short recess, the lawyer for Millard’s co-accused, Mark Smich, said he will call evidence in the case, which means Smich could take the stand. At that point, Millard looked over at Smich and shook his head.

The jury saw DM's reaction. Very telling. Hopefully the jury caught it.

I'm wondering if Dungey isn't going to call MS and have him destroy CN as well as DM and then have CN come back and do another round of questioning. Would set her up nicely for perjury and AATF. MS might get brownie points from the jury for telling the truth.

 

[canadiangirl]

Lawyers are not magicians. What questions should he have asked that he didn't? <modsnip>

ETA: You also need to realize that when you call defence evidence, you open yourself up to cross examination, which can hurt your case. A lawyer interviewed on CHML today discussed how the decision to call a defence and/or put a defendant on the stand is often very, very tough.

<modsnip> While I did not study law (now I sound like CN). This is what I've noticed. For example. To help explain CN's memory lapses was how the poor thing was tired and exhausted from school. Or that the truck was out in the open where AJ discovered it and not concealed. (but let's overlook it was gone pretty quickly thereafter). Or how about how lonely and sad DM was in jail so reached out to CN with these letters. Is that a good example of a defense team? <modsnip>

All comments are JMO unless stated otherwise

 

[brightii]

Something. Anything perhaps? His questioning was weak as many here pointed out when it was his time to cross and IMO he's done DM no favours.

All comments are JMO unless stated otherwise

You make a good point about how many of us here did not think DM's defence lawyers were effective, and we often mocked the way they would say how DM left everything out in the open for instance, but in fairness, DM guided his own defence, IMO. I do think that most people here were quite convinced early on that DM was in fact guilty, IMO, and unfortunately his lawyers were unpopular by association to DM, IMO, as most thought they were trying to defend the absolutely indefensible, IMO.

And it's seems that soon DM's indefensible actions will be confirmed by a guilty verdict, IMO.

Also, in contrast to TD's effective style of defence of MS, DM's lawyers paled by comparison, IMO, but that's likely only because there is some doubt for some people about MS's guilt; MS seems to take the proceedings more seriously; and MS has not been painted as the ringleader of TB's murder, IMO. I honestly think that if TD had been defending the likes of DM he too would have been criticized for his approach, IMO. I think these lawyers are all skilled, but the client on each side is essentially responsible for giving their lawyers a case to defend, IMO.

All MOO.

 

[swedie]

He is absolutely not a bad lawyer. There are no bad lawyers on this case. They are all very good.

I agree ABro. There are many defense lawyers who have a conscience and a heart, who know the truth and want justice for the victims like the vast majority of decent people. Then there are those odd lawyers who are corrupt and are only in it to win for themselves as if it's some sort of a game. It will be interesting to find out whatever happened to DP. Perhaps exotic petrified wood is more lucrative and less demanding. JMO

 

[canadiangirl]

It depends a lot on the type of case too. In he says/she says sexual assault cases, you'll often see the defendant take the stand, especially these days with so much pressure to prosecute and get convictions in these crimes. OTOH I was talking to a cop about to retire recently and he said he had never seen a defendant take the stand in a murder one case.

In the SoundCloud link someone posted today from am900, interviewing Alex Pierson, she said it's more common then we think.

All comments are JMO unless stated otherwise

 

[ABro]

In the SoundCloud link someone posted today from am900, interviewing Alex Pierson, she said it's more common then we think.

All comments are JMO unless stated otherwise

She's right in the sense that there are a lot of people who wrongly believe that defendants never take the stand and no defense lawyer should ever advise it. OTOH Susan Clairmont was also right when she tweeted, "The accused seldom testifies at a first degree murder trial." I guess it depends on how you define seldom.

 

[ArianeEmory]

I honestly think some of what people perceive as "bad" lawyering on the part of DM's defense team was due to them following his instructions.

And part of the reason we cheer for TD is because he often seemed to be the only person pushing DM's buddies hard, and reminding people that Tim was murdered. In a way he acted as a more vocal prosecutor vs. DM. We know why he did it (primarily in defense of MS), but he was asking the questions we wanted to hear asked, and hammering the people who seemed particularly weaselly, so we think of him as "good".

 

[ILoveDateline]

I think there was a lot of buzz about a defendant taking the stand. It's nice to contemplate but I still feel it unlikely. IMO. Maybe MS does but he would have to admit wrongdoing and the cross would be tough. He would have to answer truthfully or risk not being viewed as credible. You can't take the stand and only tell partial truth. Maybe he has resigned to accept the responsibility of his part in this. JMO. We can all hope but if that was the case, why wait until now? MOO .

 

[hellkat2]

I honestly think some of what people perceive as "bad" lawyering on the part of DM's defense team was due to them following his instructions.

And part of the reason we cheer for TD is because he often seemed to be the only person pushing DM's buddies hard, and reminding people that Tim was murdered. In a way he acted as a more vocal prosecutor vs. DM. We know why he did it (primarily in defense of MS), but he was asking the questions we wanted to hear asked, and hammering the people who seemed particularly weaselly, so we think of him as "good".

I want a lawyer that has some integrity and a sense of outrage. IMO TD had that. Good on him. Cerebral lawyers who lack personality belong in government, business or realty...not at a murder trial. IMO.

 

[Just4TB]

It will be interesting to find out whatever happened to DP. Perhaps exotic petrified wood is more lucrative and less demanding. JMO

RSBM
Maybe DP was petrified of losing the case?? (groan, sorry)

DP and his business partner had 5 Maplegate as their initial petrified wood business address. Makes me wonder if DM and mommy rabbit used the house to pay initial legal bills.

 

[ABro]

I honestly think some of what people perceive as "bad" lawyering on the part of DM's defense team was due to them following his instructions.

And part of the reason we cheer for TD is because he often seemed to be the only person pushing DM's buddies hard, and reminding people that Tim was murdered. In a way he acted as a more vocal prosecutor vs. DM. We know why he did it (primarily in defense of MS), but he was asking the questions we wanted to hear asked, and hammering the people who seemed particularly weaselly, so we think of him as "good".

I think this is a good analysis. I'd just add that it's not up to the Crown to hammer its own witnesses. That kind of stuff can only be done on cross. It will be interesting to see how the prosecution handles TD's witnesses.

 

[canadiangirl]

RSBM
Maybe DP was petrified of losing the case?? (groan, sorry)

DP and his business partner had 5 Maplegate as their initial petrified wood business address. Makes me wonder if DM and mommy rabbit used the house to pay initial legal bills.

DP. The first lawyer? As a matter of interest he was also MWJ lawyer.

 

[Kamille]

Video of Lisa Hepfner's take on today's proceedings, including her description of DM's reaction to the news that MS's defense would call evidence. She also mentions the reason why DM's defense has had to go first throughout the trial.

http://www.chch.com/dellen-millard-will-not-testify/

 

[brightii]

I think there was a lot of buzz about a defendant taking the stand. It's nice to contemplate but I still feel it unlikely. IMO. Maybe MS does but he would have to admit wrongdoing and the cross would be tough. He would have to answer truthfully or risk not being viewed as credible. You can't take the stand and only tell partial truth. Maybe he has resigned to accept the responsibility of his part in this. JMO. We can all hope but if that was the case, why wait until now? MOO .

There is only one reason I can think of as to why MS would not admit to his role in the crime prior to now (that's if he's going to testify) is because he may have tried already to plead guilty to a lesser charge but the Crown would not accept it, and therefore MS had no choice but to wait for the trial to try and persuade the jury of his version of events, IMO. I could be wrong as it's just a guess.

All MOO.

 

[Kamille]

If MS takes the stand, we may finally get the answer to the elusive question.... "How did MS and DM meet?"

Maybe it was at one of those "video/movie watching parties" at MWJ's house? :dunno:

MOO

 

[Kamille]

There is only one reason I can think of as to why MS would not admit to his role in the crime prior to now (that's if he's going to testify) is because he may have tried already to plead guilty to a lesser charge but the Crown would not accept it, and therefore MS had no choice but to wait for the trial to try and persuade the jury of his version of events, IMO. I could be wrong as it's just a guess.

All MOO.

I wondered that myself. Perhaps MS has already given a statement of what his role was in this crime. And the Crown did not accept his statement, nor offer him any type of reduced charge or deal to testify against DM. Therefore, he had no choice but to go to trial on a first degree murder charge by pleading not guilty.

MOO

 

[brightii]

I wondered that myself. Perhaps MS has already given a statement of what his role was in this crime. And the Crown did not accept his statement, nor offer him any type of reduced charge or deal to testify against DM. Therefore, he had no choice but to go to trial on a first degree murder charge by pleading not guilty.

MOO

It does make sense to me and I wonder if true, can TD bring this information up at trial?

All MOO.