Bosma Murder Trial 06.10.16 - Day 59 - Charge to jury

[leafs_fan93]

Hmmmm ... I wonder if he will explain why? To me, forcible confinement is a big deal. Perhaps it was argued out during legal arguments? Would like to know the legal reasoning behind that decision.

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

My assumption is because it can not be proven, only assumed.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

what??? Why not???? Did he explain???

No ... Absolutely no explanation given ... I have made a couple of posts regarding Adam Carter's tweet, and his responses to questions.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Tim Bosma was lured into that test drive on false pretenses. Did Tim Bosma know that it wasn't a test drive to purchase that it was a test drive to steal the vehicle and that there was a loaded gun on board???

I agree ... I am very surprised (and disappointed) about Justice Goodman's decision, or perhaps legal arguments caused it to be withdrawn? We don't know. Wonder if we ever will?

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

My assumption is because it can not be proven, only assumed.

Thank you ... Perhaps you are right. But, IMO, it is a logical assumption based upon the evidence. There isn't proof of a few aspects of the trial, but based upon the evidence, jurors have to conclude certain things using reasoning and common sense. Why is the issue of FC any different than that?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[hellkat2]

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6...to-deliberate-on-verdicts-bottom-rung-and-up/

The idea that unlawful confinement of Bosma cannot be used is flabbergasting to me.

 

[hellkat2]

My assumption is because it can not be proven, only assumed.

Someone is shot dead and you cannot conclude that forcible confinement happened when it was pointed at them???? Really???? If you were not being forcibly confined by the gun then you would just walk away and be alive wouldn't you? The only other conclusion I come up with is that you were shot in the back not having any knowledge and therefore you were not forcibly confined before you were murdered in cold blood. either way it is murder and two people are going down for first degree murder. either they both had guns, or one had a gun and the other one did nothing to stop it or call 911 or anything else to help Tim Bosma.

 

[canadiangirl]

What's everyone's guess on how long the jury takes to deliberate?

We need another poll

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

What's everyone's guess on how long the jury takes to deliberate?

I think that they have such a great deal to consider, and they they will want to do their very best to make such an important decision ... My personal guess is 4-5 days.

How about you? What do you think?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[leafs_fan93]

Thank you ... Perhaps you are right. But, IMO, it is a logical assumption based upon the evidence. There isn't proof of a few aspects of the trial, but based upon the evidence, jurors have to conclude certain things based upon reasoning and common sense. Why is the issue of FC any different than that?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Because it's such a key part of first degree. I think of it this way: if the judge allows the jury to use FC as a vehicle to arrive at a first degree conviction, it's an easy appeal for the accused. It was never proven, and can only be assumed. For all we know, someone pulled the gun and quickly shot TB before he even realized anything was up.

Some people have argued that bringing the gun was false pretence, and that he was never going to have the option to leave - that's premeditation, not FC - a much safer avenue to arrive at a first degree conviction in this case.

If the accused win an appeal, the Bosmashave to go through this ordeal all over again. The judge is ensuring that doesn't happen. Get there the right way, not the fast way.

 

[billandrew]

When you wrote your hypothetical scenario, I had an epiphany that this ten minute loop completely could make sense, and the killing could have happened during it. As we know, It corroborates Bullmans observation that the cars went west on Book instead of turning onto Trinity. Doesn't Bullmans approx 9:15 pm - 9:30 pm regular dog walking timeline still fit with this also, as it is a relatively wide window.

What's wrong with Bullman's testimony under any other scenario? AFAIK the only person who offered conflicting testimony was Smich himself, the very person who's testimony must be accepted in order for this loop business to be feasible in the first place.

 

[hellkat2]

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 1m1 minute ago
Expert could not say where the shooter was sitting when the person was shot. Lots of unanswered questions, judge says. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 2m2 minutes ago
Gun shot residue can come from different places in a gun. Found GSR in yellow toolbox. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 1m1 minute ago
GSR found in #Bosma truck. Mostly in area of ceiling liner above front passenger seat. Lesser amount in ceiling over driver's seat.

molly hayes ‏@mollyhayes 48s49 seconds ago
There was also testimony from a gunshot residue expert. GSR was found in truck, with majority found on ceiling above front seats. #Bosma

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 1m1 minute ago
Gunshot residue was found in the Bosma truck, especially in the ceiling above the front passenger and somewhat fewer above driver. #Bosma

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 45s46 seconds ago
Gun likely discharged close to where passenger was seated, judge says of expert testimony. #Bosma

I wonder if MS got out of the back seat of the truck on the ploy of getting into the Yukon with his friend and shot TB through the window of the truck?????

 

[deugirtni]

The other one the judge brought up is the fact that CN talked to MM and not him the night of the arrest. He could of asked MM about that.

I think the judge also mentioned the Crown's failure to ask MS if TB had been shot from outside of the vehicle.
I believe also that he noted that TD hadn't asked MS how far into the field the Yukon was parked.
I forget if there were more, but I don't think it was all in TD's lap, he was showing various examples, I believe.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Because it's such a key part of first degree. I think of it this way: if the judge allows the jury to use FC as a vehicle to arrive at a first degree conviction, it's an easy appeal for the accused. It was never proven, and can only be assumed. For all we know, someone pulled the gun and quickly shot TB before he even realized anything was up.

Some people have argued that bringing the gun was false pretence, and that he was never going to have the option to leave - that's premeditation - a much safer avenue to arrive at a first degree conviction in this case.

If the accused win an appeal, the Bosmashave to go through this ordeal all over again. The judge is ensuring that doesn't happen. Get there the right way, not the fast way.

Thank you for your explanation, and I understand what you are saying., especially your saying to get there the right way, not the easy way. (Paraphrasing.) You are more than likely correct, but this is what I struggle with:

First of all, FC doesn't mean that Tim would have to have been made aware that he was forcibly confined. There was a loaded weapon in the truck. We know what the outcome was. Isn't it most probable that one or both of the accused were never going to give Tim the freedom of choice to leave?

If I am reading your post correctly, I interpret what you said is that 1st degree depended upon both FC AND premeditation, when it was actually a one or the other situation, that allowed two separate paths to conclude 1st degree. Sorry if I misread.

There are many aspects of this trial that aren't proven, and have to be reasoned through to a conclusion, using the judge's instructions, and I thought FC would be basically the same.

And, NO, I would not ever wish the Bosmas to have to face an appeal. Never in a million years.

If that is the case, I fully understand.

Sorry for taking up so much time with this one issue. It has been withdrawn, so no longer a matter for consideration. [emoji846] I only hope that someday it will be explained by the lawyers.







Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Canadian4]

I agree MrsThreadgoode, I believe the jury will take days to decide. There is so much to consider. If the instructions are written down for them and they decide to go in order discussing each one it could take forever. I feel for them.

 

[hellkat2]

Unlawful confinement is now not available now as a route to first degree murder, Goodman says. "There is only one route to first degree murder in this case." The jury has to be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that his death was planned and deliberate.
by Adam Carter 3:14 PM

This is a big deal. Originally, we thought that unlawful confinement would be available to the jury as a route to first degree murder. Without that, the Crown has to have proved planning and deliberation for the accused to be found guilty of first degree murder.
by Adam Carter 3:16 PM

Since when can a judge tell a jury to ignore certain sections of the criminal code? This is really an education for me.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Since when can a judge tell a jury to ignore certain sections of the criminal code? This is really an education for me.

Hopefully we will hear the legalities behind his decision some day.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Claroon]

I think so... BUT, statements like this would have been discussed and agreed with all counsel prior to today.

The judge can give his opinion on witnesses? Is the jury supposed to include that in their evidence?

I'm hoping it's like trying to convince someone the black cat is not black. The person digs their heels in even more to justify it is darn well black.

I also suspect he has to give enough opinion to support each point of view to not show partiality. But I agree these comments seem uncalled for. ABro even said she thought BD was very credible.

 

[Claroon]

This has always been a sticking point for me....IMO someone isn't being honest about what went down....

Like the judge said, choose what you want to believe.

 

[canadiangirl]

I think they will take 4+ days.. I would be surprised if it's any sooner then that

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Just a wee bit off-topic, but in case you were wondering, the woman from Vancouver made it to the courtroom today [emoji6]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk