Bosma Murder Trial 06.10.16 - Day 59 - Charge to jury

[XiolaBlueX]

Sorry yes, only in the case if TB was given the option not leaving as in confining and killing.
The thing that baffles me is neither said it was a horrible mistake. They could have.

I know! That was always the scenario I thought actually happened (my speculation initially)or at least would be plausible option to hear. However, I presumed that the reason they couldn't use that as a defence , would be because then they could potentially get easily convicted of first degree murder if admitting that it was a robbery (forcible confinement for purposes of theft ) then accidental death = 1st degree. But now that this has been backed out as a route to 1st degree.....
I had actually thought that in initially hearing MS testify it was a carefully constructed tale to avoid any perception of "forcible confinement" eg. Scoping vs immediate theft/robbery of vehicle, etc. Not having the gun,
In other words, IMO only, I thought even if that was really what happened, there would be no incentive to tell that version (from a legal consequence position, not morally)IMO

 

[canadiangirl]

I know! That was always the scenario I thought actually happened (my speculation initially)or at least would be plausible option to hear. However, I presumed that the reason they couldn't use that as a defence , would be because then they could potentially get easily convicted of first degree murder if admitting that it was a robbery (forcible confinement for purposes of theft ) then accidental death = 1st degree. But now that this has been backed out as a route to 1st degree.....
I had actually thought that in initially hearing MS testify it was a carefully constructed tale to avoid any perception of "forcible confinement" eg. Scoping vs immediate theft/robbery of vehicle, etc. Not having the gun,
In other words, IMO only, I thought even if that was really what happened, there would be no incentive to tell that version (from a legal consequence position, not morally)IMO

I would have to agree because either scenario arrives at first degree.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

I completely agree with what you are saying in that at least one of the accused never planned on letting Tim leave the truck, and weather Tim was aware of this or not is moot. Where I disagree is in what the jury should draw from this. One could draw a conclusion of either FC or premeditation from this. I think the judge is guiding the jury to draw the conclusion based on premeditation simply because there was actually evidence of this presented at the trial. I feel like he is being very careful to ensure the jury reached their verdict based on fact and evidence - not assumptions of how someone should have or could have felt in a given situation(Tim fearing for his life, being forcibly confined)

You are correct that many aspects have not necessarily been proven, but IMO none are as important to the outcome of the case as the vehicle for arriving at first degree convictions.

Very good explanation ... Thank you!


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[canadiangirl]

Cant speak to the crowns theory change if it exists (although pretty sure interviews are done by police and not the crown at least that far out from the trial).

In regards to TD, he should have known MS story and been looking for corroboration no ,matter what the crown was doing.

I still think it's entirely possible TD didn't know full MS story. IMO I'm not sure MS was always going to take the stand. Of course there's no way to know this but I have to wonder if this wasn't a decision made after Millard made his. I understand people are saying he should have been prepared (even the judge basically), but I think TD has enough lawyer experience to realize he should be looking for corroboration if he knew his clients testimony well in advance. Unless people think he's being unethical in favour of his client vs justice and I just don't see it as plausible. I believe the man has seen the inside of a courtroom enough in all his years to know the judge would call him on it.

Does anyone recall if he addresses corroboration in his closing?

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Sorry, I'm behind on this thread and been trying to catch up. Yes I did! I had to leave in the afternoon, but I took lots of notes in the morning. I will hopefully be able to post a couple of takeaways and observations on here tomorrow. It was very interesting.

Wonderful!! Thank you ... Will look forward to your posts tomorrow then.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[MsSherlock]

I completely agree with what you are saying in that at least one of the accused never planned on letting Tim leave the truck, and weather Tim was aware of this or not is moot. Where I disagree is in what the jury should draw from this. One could draw a conclusion of either FC or premeditation from this. I think the judge is guiding the jury to draw the conclusion based on premeditation simply because there was actually evidence of this presented at the trial. I feel like he is being very careful to ensure the jury reached their verdict based on fact and evidence - not assumptions of how someone should have or could have felt in a given situation(Tim fearing for his life, being forcibly confined)

You are correct that many aspects have not necessarily been proven, but IMO none are as important to the outcome of the case as the vehicle for arriving at first degree convictions.

I think you're right suggesting that the Judge is guiding the jury to the premeditation route. I would imagine that sitting as a Juror in this case would be a difficult task- having to blank all the insinuations and innuendo out of your head and deal with the facts and evidence would take a bit of time.
IMHO, they can easily move on from manslaughter to 2nd degree. Moving on past that, I feel confident that once they get rid of the minutia of the "the poor minion low life drug dealer" vs the "nothing to hide rich guy" defences, and NS's weeklong cross of MS , they'll find that DM & MS's actions and planning before the murder and then their actions after the murder could only be a function of the whole thing being premeditated and that will lead them to 1st degree for both. MOO

 

[canadiangirl]

The judge followed up a similar analogy today about 1 dog being left food, etc and then said - (paraphrasing) however, if you have TWO dogs, and come back later and all the food is gone, you may not know which dog ate the food, or if both did.

It's interesting to see what isn't tweeted and what people latch onto.
Of course there is no way to tweet everything but not one person tweeted that that I recall.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Good explanation, I can see that side for sure. Either way the jury is now only left with premeditation. Someone said a while ago this was the case (I forget who), I'm not sure why it surprised me.

I was one who had said this earlier, but not sure if I was the only one. It was no surprise to me and I could never understand why everyone thought forcible confinement was still on the table. My reasoning was simply based on the Crown submitting no evidence throughout the trial to suggest or support that as being part of their theory. The Crown's entire case seemed to be built strictly on planned and deliberate. Their story of what happened in their closing, with Tim being shot in the field immediately after leaving his house, certainly put forcible confinement out of the scenario IMO.

 

[Oreck]

"

The judge's statement "You can use evidence to shed light on possible motive" is great in my opinion. This means that common sense prevails. DM and MS left the bosma driveway with TB in TB's truck and were observed by TB's wife and TB's tenant doing so. TB's truck was found in the driveway of TB's mother's home and TB's bone fragments were found in the incinerator owned by DM. The judge also said the jury may make inferences and reasoning based on evidence presented. So I feel there is enough evidence to conclude that Tim Bosma was murdered immediately following the "test drive" that the "accused" used as a ploy to lure the "deceased" to participate in the carrying out of their criminal activity. Eye witnesses to all three of them in the vehicle that did not return to the bosma driveway with Tim Bosma alive and well, gun casings, DNA, fingerprints. First Degree Murder for both DM and MS. Confinement cannot be ruled out or ignored. A loaded gun pointed at someone is confinement. You are confined from your freedom when someone has a gun pointed at you. In TB's case I believe the jury can make inferences and reasoning that this occured based on the evidence. TB's blood was all over his own truck. He was murdered in it or trying to get out of it or trying to get away from the forcible confinement of a loaded gun. I don't think it will take this jury long to find these two guilty of first degree cold blooded murder. Luring someone into a vehicle on false premises is fact. This happened.

"

Again I totally agree with you.

Let me tell you what I think might have happened. Bear in mind this is just my rendition.
When they left the Bosma's they went north on Trinity and past SS for the first vid. They turned left on the 403 and DM got the fake call stuff. He said I have to go back. He took the first rt off the 403 onto Wilson west. Dillen could have said to Smich "I like it". "I'm going to take this truck. "Here, just take the wheel for a sec. and see how nice it steers. ( my rendition only)
This is where Tim might have died.
They turned Lt on Trinity and pasted SS for the second time. (11 min to make the loop).
They got the Yukon and mistakenly went west on Book and turned around when they saw their mistake.
Then they went past SS for the third time with the Yukon following behind

NashBridges2 post, #14 from the weekend, convinced me that MS was equally guilty.
People don't just act like nothing has happened after they witness their best friend murder an innocent man.
His first text next day was "hey bro whatsapp?"
Mark Smich was in on it before, during and after. jmo.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

I still think it's entirely possible TD didn't know full MS story. IMO I'm not sure MS was always going to take the stand. Of course there's no way to know this but I have to wonder if this wasn't a decision made after Millard made his. I understand people are saying he should have been prepared (even the judge basically), but I think TD has enough lawyer experience to realize he should be looking for corroboration if he knew his clients testimony well in advance. Unless people think he's being unethical in favour of his client vs justice and I just don't see it as plausible. I believe the man has seen the inside of a courtroom enough in all his years to know the judge would call him on it.

Does anyone recall if he addresses corroboration in his closing?

That's entirely possible. But if true, MS screwed over his own case by not telling his story to the lawyer before the thing started.

 

[canadiangirl]

I was one who had said this earlier, but not sure if I was the only one. It was no surprise to me and I could never understand why everyone thought forcible confinement was still on the table. My reasoning was simply based on the Crown submitting no evidence throughout the trial to suggest or support that as being part of their theory. The Crown's entire case seemed to be built strictly on planned and deliberate. Their story of what happened in their closing, with Tim being shot in the field immediately after leaving his house, certainly put forcible confinement out of the scenario IMO.

But the crown changed their theory IMO which also surprised me. By the time it got to closing TB was no longer shot inside the truck, but possibly in the field. I don't understand why this path was taken by the crown. My turn to feel dense. (someone commented yesterday they were dense lol)

 

[Claroon]

Lisa Hepfner ‏@HefCHCHNews 1m1 minute ago
Planned & deliberate is the main distinction between first degree murder & second. Judge says he'll attempt to make it clear. #Bosma

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 53s53 seconds ago
4 essential elements to 1st degree in this trial: Millard and/or Smich caused death of Bosma.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 44s45 seconds ago
2. That Millard and/or Smich caused death of Bosma unlawfully.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 17s18 seconds ago
3. That Smich and/or Millard had the state of mind required for murder.

Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 5s6 seconds ago
4. That the murder was both planned and deliberate.

This wrapped it up for me. I say yes for both to all 4.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

But the crown changed their theory IMO which also surprised me. By the time it got to closing TB was no longer shot inside the truck, but possibly in the field. I don't understand why this path was taken by the crown. My turn to feel dense. (someone commented yesterday they were dense lol)

I think they meant he was shot in the truck while parked in the field.

They said it was the plan to shoot him outside the truck but something went wrong and he was shot inside the truck.

(they being the crown)

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

I just realized there isn't an AATF option. Not that I feel MS should get anything less than 1st.

I don't believe it was expected that AATF would be in the judge's charge. Only 1st DM and the lesser included charges of 2nd DM and manslaughter. Because AATF doesn't include murder.

I think that if, heaven forbid, MS was acquitted, he could then be charged with AATF.

MOO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Alethea Dice]

But the crown changed their theory IMO which also surprised me. By the time it got to closing TB was no longer shot inside the truck, but possibly in the field. I don't understand why this path was taken by the crown. My turn to feel dense. (someone commented yesterday they were dense lol)

I don't think they meant outside the truck. I think they just meant inside the truck and in the field. JMO

 

[canadiangirl]

I think they meant he was shot in the truck while parked in the field.

They said it was the plan to shoot him outside the truck but something went wrong and he was shot inside the truck.

(they being the crown)

Well that makes more sense! Thanks for clarifying. That is not what I took from the tweets at all.

 

[canadiangirl]

I don't think they meant outside the truck. I think they just meant inside the truck and in the field. JMO

Thank you!

 

[Just4TB]

I got home late, reading through this first day of charge to the jury. It would be difficult for any jury member to remember all that is being said. As I understand it, during deliberations, the jury can ask questions to the Judge for clarification.

After instructions are over, and the jury begins deliberation, why not put the Judge into the same room as the jury? He could sit there, not weigh in his opinion on the deliberations, but could provide legal advice of what is allowed or not allowed, on a real-time basis. This would ensure that the jury would follow all instructions without having to remember them all. I realize that is not how the system works, but it seems to me to be a more effective way to ensure the jury follows instruction. We are likely paying the Judge to hang around during deliberation anyway ...

 

[Claroon]

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

4-5 minutes.

 

[Claroon]

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.

I feel they've been ardent in taking notes, they've seen it first hand, they have 4 months already to decide. The only hold up will be if it's not unanimous.