Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #18

[canadiangirl]

Well, I'd consider that the same mission as TB just didn't work out.

Why not? Because last I checked a gun trumps a person any day. Doesn't matter his size.

 

[Miranda16]

Why not? Because last I checked a gun trumps a person any day. Doesn't matter his size.

If you have some distance between you and have the skill to hit a moving target, yes. But if you have to pull the gun in close proximity to a much stronger victim who has military training and might fight back, could DM and MS be absolutely sure they'd gain the upper hand? I'd argue no.

 

[canadiangirl]

If you have some distance between you and have the skill to hit a moving target, yes. But if you have to pull the gun in close proximity to a much stronger victim who has military training and might fight back, could DM and MS be absolutely sure they'd gain the upper hand? I'd argue no.

2 against one and a gun? I'd have to disagree. Smich could've pulled the gun from the back seat and Igor would've been none the wiser.

 

[Miranda16]

2 against one and a gun? I'd have to disagree. Smich could've pulled the gun from the back seat and Igor would've been none the wiser.

You have to think about it from DM's and MS's perspective. They have to be darn sure that they'll succeed. If IT was able to intimidate them, there's a good chance they'd back off. If MS shot from the back seat in a daylight situation then they could find themselves driving an obviously bloody truck during daylight. To succeed with IT they'd have to either forcibly confine him on the way to the farm, or force him out in a low-traffic area, shoot him, wrap him and get him into the truck bed. In either scenario if he fights back MS and DM couldn't be 100% confident they'd win.

95% confidence wouldn't be good enough. So pick a weaker target in a better location, after dark.

 

[mozzagirl]

Does anyone know of a way I can set up some kind of alert through twitter that if a reporter tweets about the verdict being ready I will get a notification?? I know once they reach a verdict it is read fairly soon after and I don't want to miss it.

 

[Abitcountry]

There is another conversation that keeps reappearing.....the idea that DM could not keep his eyes on the road while keeping a gun trained on his passenger.
Just thinking about how much we all do while driving ( and shouldn't ) I do not believe that it should be dismissed so lightly.

Going back to the testimony of Shane Schlatman at the beginning of the trial. IIRC Shane was asked if he actually drove with DM during the road race and his was response was something to the effect--'ya, I did it once and I'll never do it again'. There was more than a small suggestion that DM could be a 'wild man' behind the wheel.
I take this to suggest that DM probably lives up to his reputation of being a risk taker even while driving.

We already know
-he uses a handheld phone while driving and his preferred communication is texting....to multiple people at the same time on occasion.
-he can text, drive and orgasm all at the same time while speeding down the highway...and probably has done the nasty while driving as well
- he can easily handle a u-turn in his red Ram while pulling a large 5th wheel trailer and do some precision backing up and parking with the same red Ram and trailer.
-he was very confident behind the wheel and driving with one hand was apparently something he did often.

I am not prone to flights of fancy, and pardon in advance for the graphics, but I can easily imagine DM leaning toward the right side of the driver's seat and extending his right arm towards the passenger.......Now add a couple of inches for the length of the barrel may have brought the gun into point blank range.
Holding it at the passenger's head would not likely be steady or sustainable......but if the point of the gun could be jammed up tight against the softer tissue of the passenger's neck just under the jaw it may be possible. The driver could also then use the side edge of the passenger's seat to help support his forearm and wrist and likely maintain his aim more easily. For the most part DM then could manage his aim by feel primarily and would only have to do a visual check every once in a while which would not interfere with any driving.
The seat belt and verbal threats plus firearm would have likely been enough to subdue a passenger who likely would have done what he was told without question.
As I finish up, I recall Mr. Dungey asking a question during cross examination about the possibility of TB having been shot in the neck and that the bullet may have then pierced the passenger side window. His comment at the time stirred up alot of chatter here on WS but we never heard anything more on the topic.

IMOO

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Does anyone know of a way I can set up some kind of alert through twitter that if a reporter tweets about the verdict being ready I will get a notification?? I know once they reach a verdict it is read fairly soon after and I don't want to miss it.

You can set-up notifications on your phone via notification or text message when someone tweets. You'd want to pick someone like Molly Hayes or Adam Carter who rarely tweets outside of the trial and wait to set-it up after the judge's charge is done. You just go to someone's twitter page and click the settings gear thing on the browser or the star thing on the twitter app. You'd have to set-up mobile notifications on the twitter app or in the browser as well.

https://support.twitter.com/articles/20169920
https://support.twitter.com/articles/129550

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

There is another conversation that keeps reappearing.....the idea that DM could not keep his eyes on the road while keeping a gun trained on his passenger.
Just thinking about how much we all do while driving ( and shouldn't ) I do not believe that it should be dismissed so lightly.

Going back to the testimony of Shane Schlatman at the beginning of the trial. IIRC Shane was asked if he actually drove with DM during the road race and his was response was something to the effect--'ya, I did it once and I'll never do it again'. There was more than a small suggestion that DM could be a 'wild man' behind the wheel.
I take this to suggest that DM probably lives up to his reputation of being a risk taker even while driving.

We already know
-he uses a handheld phone while driving and his preferred communication is texting....to multiple people at the same time on occasion.
-he can text, drive and orgasm all at the same time while speeding down the highway...and probably has done the nasty while driving as well
- he can easily handle a u-turn in his red Ram while pulling a large 5th wheel trailer and do some precision backing up and parking with the same red Ram and trailer.
-he was very confident behind the wheel and driving with one hand was apparently something he did often.

I am not prone to flights of fancy, and pardon in advance for the graphics, but I can easily imagine DM leaning toward the right side of the driver's seat and extending his right arm towards the passenger.......Now add a couple of inches for the length of the barrel may have brought the gun into point blank range.
Holding it at the passenger's head would not likely be steady or sustainable......but if the point of the gun could be jammed up tight against the softer tissue of the passenger's neck just under the jaw it may be possible. The driver could also then use the side edge of the passenger's seat to help support his forearm and wrist and likely maintain his aim more easily. For the most part DM then could manage his aim by feel primarily and would only have to do a visual check every once in a while which would not interfere with any driving.
The seat belt and verbal threats plus firearm would have likely been enough to subdue a passenger who likely would have done what he was told without question.
As I finish up, I recall Mr. Dungey asking a question during cross examination about the possibility of TB having been shot in the neck and that the bullet may have then pierced the passenger side window. His comment at the time stirred up alot of chatter here on WS but we never heard anything more on the topic.

IMOO

Possible although believe is left handed.

 

[Oreck]

Does anyone know, is the jury allowed to talk and discus with each daily during the trial or just after the judge's charge?

 

[canadiangirl]

Does anyone know, is the jury allowed to talk and discus with each daily during the trial or just after the judge's charge?

I posted an article how jury duty works in Canada. They can discuss amongst themselves in the jury room only. I'm quoting myself here but on my phone and can't link it

For everyone saying the decision will be made in 5 mins, or people will quickly hate you if you disagree with others during deliberations, or that you would be pressured, I found this article to be very interesting about jury duty.

https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2011/05/22/what_jury_duty_is_really_like.html

 

[hellkat2]

Who knew more than MS?
-SS was part of the inner circle and worked on incineration techniques/equipment (MS researched incinerators and helped with prep) and cover-up but didn't plan missions as far as we know. We don't know if he was aware of the guns
-AM was DM's housemate but wasn't involved with guns and incineration and didn't go on this particular mission - wasn't involved other than truck research/theft idea as far as we know. He hadn't been in the inner circle, though DM seemed to be evaluating him for it
-CN was presumably a confidante (at least in the Crown's view). She may have known a lot, but not more than MS
-MM suspected enough to try to stop MS from going but certainly knew less than him.

MS knew that they were luring TB into taking them on a test drive under false pretenses. He knew the plan was not to purchase. He knew he was working with DM on missions. He knew the obtained guns from illegal sources. He knew about the incinerator. He knew He knew He Knew.

 

[Miranda16]

MS knew that they were luring TB into taking them on a test drive under false pretenses. He knew the plan was not to purchase. He knew he was working with DM on missions. He knew the obtained guns from illegal sources. He knew about the incinerator. He knew He knew He Knew.

Thank you. That was exactly my point. I was responding to CanadianGirl who said "And there is much more evidence to suggest the others knew way more then MS."
I was disagreeing with her and saying that MS knew more than the others.

ETA: I do agree with her, however, that it's a shame that SS is not charged with aiding and abetting (whatever charge would be appropriate). Because letting him walk seems unjust, but can the crown prove an offence in his case? It seems not because he plays ignorant.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Thank you. That was exactly my point. I was responding to CanadianGirl who said "And there is much more evidence to suggest the others knew way more then MS."
I was disagreeing with her and saying that MS knew more than the others.

ETA: I do agree with her, however, that it's a shame that SS is not charged with aiding and abetting (whatever charge would be appropriate). Because letting him walk seems unjust, but can the crown prove an offence in his case? It seems not because he plays ignorant.

I believe (but again not a lawyer) that there isn't really an aiding and abetting crime in Canada. If you think SS aided and abetted, he'd get charged with 1st degree murder like MS/DM and that is probably too high a bar to get a conviction.

 

[Miranda16]

I believe (but again not a lawyer) that there isn't really an aiding and abetting crime in Canada. If you think SS aided and abetted, he'd get charged with 1st degree murder like MS/DM and that is probably too high a bar to get a conviction.

also accessory after the fact, though in his case it's more before the fact that he was involved. And they'd have to prove that he knew of the murder as he continued to help afterwards.

 

[deugirtni]

There is another conversation that keeps reappearing.....the idea that DM could not keep his eyes on the road while keeping a gun trained on his passenger.
Just thinking about how much we all do while driving ( and shouldn't ) I do not believe that it should be dismissed so lightly.

Going back to the testimony of Shane Schlatman at the beginning of the trial. IIRC Shane was asked if he actually drove with DM during the road race and his was response was something to the effect--'ya, I did it once and I'll never do it again'. There was more than a small suggestion that DM could be a 'wild man' behind the wheel.
I take this to suggest that DM probably lives up to his reputation of being a risk taker even while driving.

We already know
-he uses a handheld phone while driving and his preferred communication is texting....to multiple people at the same time on occasion.
-he can text, drive and orgasm all at the same time while speeding down the highway...and probably has done the nasty while driving as well
- he can easily handle a u-turn in his red Ram while pulling a large 5th wheel trailer and do some precision backing up and parking with the same red Ram and trailer.
-he was very confident behind the wheel and driving with one hand was apparently something he did often.

I am not prone to flights of fancy, and pardon in advance for the graphics, but I can easily imagine DM leaning toward the right side of the driver's seat and extending his right arm towards the passenger.......Now add a couple of inches for the length of the barrel may have brought the gun into point blank range.
Holding it at the passenger's head would not likely be steady or sustainable......but if the point of the gun could be jammed up tight against the softer tissue of the passenger's neck just under the jaw it may be possible. The driver could also then use the side edge of the passenger's seat to help support his forearm and wrist and likely maintain his aim more easily. For the most part DM then could manage his aim by feel primarily and would only have to do a visual check every once in a while which would not interfere with any driving.
The seat belt and verbal threats plus firearm would have likely been enough to subdue a passenger who likely would have done what he was told without question.
As I finish up, I recall Mr. Dungey asking a question during cross examination about the possibility of TB having been shot in the neck and that the bullet may have then pierced the passenger side window. His comment at the time stirred up alot of chatter here on WS but we never heard anything more on the topic.

IMOO

I agree with your assessment of DM's driving habits, as being a risk-taker, having the ability to multi-task while driving etc. I am not sure why he would have had to subdue the passenger, or why he would need to sustain his gun pose for any length of time. Why would he not just pull it out, bring it to head level and shoot right away. We don't know for sure if there was only one bullet required to end TB's life, or more than one, but that one at least would have subdued him. I don't see a big problem with how he was able to do this, considering as was mentioned, his ability to do numerous other things while driving. I don't believe he would necessarily have even had to use his left hand, as I understand it was a small gun. moo

 

[deugirtni]

MS knew that they were luring TB into taking them on a test drive under false pretenses. He knew the plan was not to purchase. He knew he was working with DM on missions. He knew the obtained guns from illegal sources. He knew about the incinerator. He knew He knew He Knew.

Yes, MS knew there was a plan to steal TB's truck, and no plan to purchase it. He knew a gun exited which had been obtained illegally, but it is not clear if he knew it was present on that evening. He knew an incinerator existed. The issue that must be proven is that he knew there was a plan to murder TB and that he was a willing participant in the plan to murder. moo

 

[Sillybilly]

Rsbm
It's not? According to Judge Goodman you'd be incorrect.

I think we need the context in which that was said, because rule of thumb (and sources have previously been provided) that generally it is not a crime to just have knowledge that a crime has been committed. The Judge's statement needs to be analyzed a bit more to see what he was referring to.

 

[XiolaBlueX]

4-5 minutes.

Respectfully, I don't think the deliberations will be nearly that quick.

The judges instructions yesterday included: (from my notes) ----- You (the jurors) can not just start the deliberations and say 'I have already made up my mind'
you need to discuss the evidence, and try to come up with agreements. It's ok to change your mind. However, don't change your honest belief to come to an agreement, or to get it over with.
Requirements for verdict:
All must agree. Unanimous.you have the right to disagree. Goal should be to reach an agreement (but not for the purpose of being unanimous to endthe trial)Discuss differences.

Your notes are not evidence, they are only to help you remember. Even if somebody else is an excellent not taker, do not all rely on their notes if there is a discrepency- rely on your own respective memories. The jurors all have equal say and are coming up with their own individual beliefs, but through discussions together the goal is to reach an agreement.

 

[Sillybilly]

I believe (but again not a lawyer) that there isn't really an aiding and abetting crime in Canada. If you think SS aided and abetted, he'd get charged with 1st degree murder like MS/DM and that is probably too high a bar to get a conviction.

There is an aiding and abetting crime in Canada, and you are correct that anyone who did so would be charged with the same offence as the principle offender.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-21.html

Parties to offence

21 (1) Every one is a party to an offence who

(a) actually commits it;


(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or


(c) abets any person in committing it.



Marginal note:Common intention

(2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence.


R.S., c. C-34, s. 21.

 

[XiolaBlueX]

You have to think about it from DM's and MS's perspective. They have to be darn sure that they'll succeed. If IT was able to intimidate them, there's a good chance they'd back off. If MS shot from the back seat in a daylight situation then they could find themselves driving an obviously bloody truck during daylight. To succeed with IT they'd have to either forcibly confine him on the way to the farm, or force him out in a low-traffic area, shoot him, wrap him and get him into the truck bed. In either scenario if he fights back MS and DM couldn't be 100% confident they'd win.

95% confidence wouldn't be good enough. So pick a weaker target in a better location, after dark.

Intersting points Miranda, thx. However, it makes me think, if you think it was a premeditated murder, why would they have picked that drive with IT in the daylight at all if they were planning to kill him (instead of at dark?) It wouldn't make much sense as regardless of his size as per your point the day time thing could be a real heat score, so to speak.
Mind you, even a planned robbery seems foolish in the day light.