Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #13

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
I didn't think you could call a phone booth since the 90's, which is why it made me pause.

* I also don't think friends/family/people can call into the jail and speak with an inmate just like that. I'm pretty sure the inmate can only call out collect.
 
CJPRINCESS said:
Since it was only DM and MS on trial here, is it not possible that most damning evidence on CN has been kept for her case? I'm thinking some of these blacked out portions of letters have more. Can the phone records/texts of her "Stolen" phone be pulled. In a murder case, do they/LE need the actual phone or can they get this info right from provider? In reporters clips they say "CN was going to help DM escape" I'm sure there is proof there but we won't know till November. The glove with her and TB'S DNA, we heard about it but not much detail given. The hose, again, mentioned an no details.

IMO, things were left out pertaining to CN's participation to use against her at her own trial. Id think the Crown has hard proof or there would be no case against her at all.
Click to expand...

They have her phone records for that phone. But the actual details of text messages require the actual phone.
I believe the records can show who a text message was sent to or received from so they can get the phones on the other end to potentially see those messages which was what was done already in this trial for messages that were not able to be retrieved.
 
EspressoBean said:
Jumping off your post, in her notes, she had written, "leave country" which would definitely make her a flight risk. If she wasn't giving information, they weren't going to let her out on bail to leave the country and tamper with witnesses.
I'm guessing after the letters were found, there was further questioning of MH and AM to find out about their contact with her which could hold up her getting out on bail.
Click to expand...

I'd be interested to find out when she decided to minor in psychology..
 
sillybilly said:
Please provide a link for that. Thanks !!
Click to expand...

WHERE ONE PARTY CANNOT BE CONVICTED

23.1 For greater certainty, sections 21 to 23 apply in respect of an accused notwithstanding the fact that the person whom the accused aids or abets, counsels or procures or receives, comforts or assists cannot be convicted of the offence. [R.S.C. 1985, c.24 (2nd Supp.), s.45.]

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.23.1.html

To explain that, Section 23 of the Criminal Code applies to Accessory After the Fact. This provision is stating that it still applies even if the one who commits the initial crime is not able to be convicted for any reason.
 
Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 1h1 hour ago
I think there is a good chance Smich and Millard will take the stand. #Bosma
 
Trial by judge or trial by jury ???

I am sure there are some here who remember the exchanges we had on the thread on this topic.
IIRC it came down in the final anaysis to .....Trial by judge if one is innocent.......Trial by jury if one is guilty.

I wonder if Noudga read that read then......no, she made her choice long before our exchange here online.....maybe she is just wanting us to think she's innocent.:giggle:
 
Abitcountry said:
Trial by judge or trial by jury ???

I am sure there are some here who remember the exchanges we had on the thread on this topic.
IIRC it came down in the final anaysis to .....Trial by judge if one is innocent.......Trial by jury if one is guilty.

I wonder if Noudga read that read then......no, she made her choice long before our exchange here online.....maybe she is just wanting us to think she's innocent.:giggle:
Click to expand...

I'm going to guess again that her lawyer had her choose a judge trial.. It was probably clear immediately that her stellar personality wouldn't rub a jury the right way.. It also likely took quite a while to have all the evidence in.. Just like it did for DM.. took years to go through all the evidence.. trial was already supposed to be over by now... it got pushed out another year..

Don't forget, alot of the text messages that were recoverd were already "deleted".. knee jerk reaction to a charge would be not guilty.. ESPECIALLY when you're under the impression that your text messages have already been "deleted"...
 
SnooperDuper said:
Susan Clairmont ‏@susanclairmont 1h1 hour ago
I think there is a good chance Smich and Millard will take the stand. #Bosma
Click to expand...

I opened a poll just about this couple of days ago. Anybody wants to make it really interesting? :thinking:
 
I'm still catching up from yesterday but after reading CN's testimony I can help but feel irritated. She.Is.So.Smug.
I feel confident that the crown has a good case against her. The crown has clearly been thorough in this case. I don't think they would have followed through with the charges if they didn't have a pretty good case.
 
don_quixote said:
I opened a poll just about this couple of days ago. Anybody wants to make it really interesting? :thinking:
Click to expand...

Yes, that's a good one! I voted ;) Interesting to see how many believe (like me) they will not take the stand. Doesn't make sense to me; seems like suicide.
 
EspressoBean said:
WHERE ONE PARTY CANNOT BE CONVICTED

23.1 For greater certainty, sections 21 to 23 apply in respect of an accused notwithstanding the fact that the person whom the accused aids or abets, counsels or procures or receives, comforts or assists cannot be convicted of the offence. [R.S.C. 1985, c.24 (2nd Supp.), s.45.]

http://www.efc.ca/pages/law/cc/cc.23.1.html

To explain that, Section 23 of the Criminal Code applies to Accessory After the Fact. This provision is stating that it still applies even if the one who commits the initial crime is not able to be convicted for any reason.
Click to expand...

Thanks EB. I think I'm guilty of posting misinformation in previous threads.

Here's a lawyer's take on that provision (I can't copy more due to copyright):

from:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ory-after-the-fact/+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

This provision is meant to prevent acquittals of accessories after the fact where the principle is acquitted based on a Charter application or successful defence. Moreover, based on the ruling the R. v. McAvoy, the principal need not even ever have been tried for the alleged crime. This rule is meant to prevent accessories who are successful in helping the principle offender flee the jurisdiction from escaping liability simply because the principal cannot be found or cannot be tried. However, if the principle is tried and convicted, s. 657.2(2) indicates that his or her conviction will provide presumptive proof of the offence, thus relieving the Crown of the obligation of proving that the person aided by the accessory may have committed a crime.
Click to expand...
<bbm>
 
don_quixote said:
I opened a poll just about this couple of days ago. Anybody wants to make it really interesting? :thinking:
Click to expand...

I'd buy in but I don't know if everyone is on equal footing when it comes to the information to base their votes or bets.
I'd suggest that if you take the votes of anyone that has sat in on some of the legal discussions outside of the jury, it would give you a relatively accurate prediction. :shush:
 
sillybilly said:
Thanks EB. I think I'm guilty of posting misinformation in previous threads.

Here's a lawyer's take on that provision (I can't copy more due to copyright):

from:
http://webcache.googleusercontent.c...ory-after-the-fact/+&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

<bbm>
Click to expand...
Yep. That's a good explanation from a Toronto defense lawyer firm's blog. This link might work better. The cached one posted gives me wonky errors.

http://www.torontodefencelawyers.com/blog/general-category/accessory-after-the-fact/
 
EspressoBean said:
I'd buy in but I don't know if everyone is on equal footing when it comes to the information to base their votes or bets.
I'd suggest that if you take the votes of anyone that has sat in on some of the legal discussions outside of the jury, it would give you a relatively accurate prediction. :shush:
Click to expand...

Can I ask what you think? I honestly don't know what to think....
 
EspressoBean said:
She testified that they all stopped talking due to what had happened and the trial. AM or MH also testified to this. Her note that was referenced in trial had said she thought writing a letter to MH to explain things to AM would be better so she wanted his address. She knew AM more closely than MH.
She didn't have a DNC list so I think she could talk to whoever she pleased. DM just needed there to be no evidence that she had done this so she could hide that she was involved in getting witnesses to change their testimony.
Click to expand...

What I want to know is how is mad at who and why??

AM and MH don't speak as testified because MH made it sound like they have a difference of opinion with DM and what went down? Who didn't agree with who and why???

If AM said don't speak....why would MH get made.,,, it took him like 5 statements to say anything???

If MH said don't speak....AM wouldn't at that point (when they met for drop off) know he was going to get hauled in...so ok make a pact?

Did AM not hold the pact and MH got mad after the statement AM gave???

Why do they not speak with CN???

It seems that AM and MM are still friends...MM said so.

What a tangled web and so many players are involved.
 
EspressoBean said:
I'd buy in but I don't know if everyone is on equal footing when it comes to the information to base their votes or bets.
I'd suggest that if you take the voted of anyone that has sat in on some of the legal discussions outside of the jury, it would give you a relatively accurate prediction. :shush:
Click to expand...

Just joking. Of course there would be asimmetry of information. And no clearing house. And I wouldn't want to make any money on such a horrific, tragic event.

I wish they testify. No matter how gore the details are, I think it would bring some closure and confidence that justice is done.

At the very least that the family knows, even if there is a publication ban on that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 198 more.
Total: 1,766 (members: 199, guests: 1,567)

Online statistics

Members online
199
Guests online
1,568
Total visitors
1,767
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
594,474
Messages
18,006,664
Members
229,414
Latest member
DryHeat77
Back
Top