Bosma Murder Trial 05.12.16 - Day 48

Status
Not open for further replies.
RSBM and coloured by me....

I'm not taking a stance on whether Justice Goodman will allow DM to reopen his defense.....what I'm saying is that both the Crown and TD say this is not possible. The only way it is possible is if MS has testified to new evidence....and from your list, the only thing I can see as "new" is that MS is saying DM was alone in shooting and burning of the body. The rest of your list was already presented by the Crown. MOO.

I'm not saying that there all this is new new. But in many instances it completes the evidence by a first hand account, places people into times and locations, matches evidence with people.
1. actually not certain if the Crown is going for 1st degree because of premeditation or forcible confinement.... Yes, not certain. So MS's words will be weighed against Crown's proof
2. the Crown never once claimed there was a third person There is a difference between not claiming that there was a 3rd person and claiming that there was no 3rd person
3. Crown never said TB was restrained They didn't, but if they do, them MS's testimony may influence his participation in forcible confinement, and 1st degree charge
4. new detail...but still fits with the Crown's theory.... Sure. And it will help to convict DM. A theory is a theory. Evidence is evidence.
5. Crown actually presented evidence FOR this Ok, I should reformulate. That the shot was fired during the test drive. Otherwise, the GSR may have been there from before. Or, a blank shot was fired, or gunpowder was burnt.
6. Crown also presented evidence for this Not sure they ever presented evidence who was in the truck when the shooting happened. And that there was anybody at all in the truck besides Tim Bosma. The shooting could have been fired from outside.
7. not new - this was the Crown's claim all along There is only evidence of blood loss. Again, not certain if it was DM, MS, or anybody else there at the time.
9. Crown has always said this, right from the opening statement They claimed it, but one would have to make a leap of faith to believe that. They gave evidence that Tim Bosma got into the truck with them, then there was a blood letting event, then there were male ashes.
10. also Crown has presented evidence of this (texts between DM and One of the Matthew's) Who knows who sent those messages. It is a solid confirmation of the claim. And was there any evidence that the deal went through?
11. Crown said both were responsible.....so I see this like number 8....could be new info. It's not up to the Crown to decide who is responsible and who is not. I think this is more technical, but it stops the possible claims that he may have been alive and then somebody killed him in the incinerator.
12. Crown presented evidence of this Yes, there was stuff burnt, but who knows who burnt what? Now there is a 1st hand account of that. Completes the evidence, connects them to the other evidence.
 
Yes, *If* that happens, then the Crown will present the final closing address. The Spec article assumes (but doesn't state, for clarification) that both defense counsel will call witnesses. While that often does happen, it is not unusual for the defense not to call witnesses, and in that case, defense gets the last word, after the Crown's closing statement.

So, if Millard's team is given leave to call new evidence -- and we only have speculation to that end, at this point -- then the order of closing statement, as reported by the Spec article, will be followed ( Millard, Smich, Crown).

But, if Millard's team does not present new evidence, either because it declines to do so or is not given leave to do so, then the order will be DM's team last.

See a fuller explanation at this link:
http://www.julianhermida.com/polnotesoverview.htm

The important take-away is that the Crown does not automatically get the last word.

According to 651(3) of the Criminal Code:

Prosecutor’s right of reply where more than one accused

(4) Where two or more accused are tried jointly and witnesses are examined for any of them, all the accused or their respective counsel are required to address the jury before it is addressed by the prosecutor.
 
I'm not saying that there all this is new new. But in many instances it completes the evidence by a first hand account, places people into times and locations, matches evidence with people.
1. actually not certain if the Crown is going for 1st degree because of premeditation or forcible confinement.... Yes, not certain. So MS's words will be weighed against Crown's proof
2. the Crown never once claimed there was a third person There is a difference between not claiming that there was a 3rd person and claiming that there was no 3rd person
3. Crown never said TB was restrained They didn't, but if they do, them MS's testimony may influence his participation in forcible confinement, and 1st degree charge
4. new detail...but still fits with the Crown's theory.... Sure. And it will help to convict DM. A theory is a theory. Evidence is evidence.
5. Crown actually presented evidence FOR this Ok, I should reformulate. That the shot was fired during the test drive. Otherwise, the GSR may have been there from before. Or, a blank shot was fired, or gunpowder was burnt.
6. Crown also presented evidence for this Not sure they ever presented evidence who was in the truck when the shooting happened. And that there was anybody at all in the truck besides Tim Bosma. The shooting could have been fired from outside.
7. not new - this was the Crown's claim all along There is only evidence of blood loss. Again, not certain if it was DM, MS, or anybody else there at the time.
9. Crown has always said this, right from the opening statement They claimed it, but one would have to make a leap of faith to believe that. They gave evidence that Tim Bosma got into the truck with them, then there was a blood letting event, then there were male ashes.
10. also Crown has presented evidence of this (texts between DM and One of the Matthew's) Who knows who sent those messages. It is a solid confirmation of the claim. And was there any evidence that the deal went through?
11. Crown said both were responsible.....so I see this like number 8....could be new info. It's not up to the Crown to decide who is responsible and who is not. I think this is more technical, but it stops the possible claims that he may have been alive and then somebody killed him in the incinerator.
12. Crown presented evidence of this Yes, there was stuff burnt, but who knows who burnt what? Now there is a 1st hand account of that. Completes the evidence, connects them to the other evidence.

We are going to have to agree to disagree. I feel that most of this evidence has already been presented.....having confirmation of it isn't new evidence IMO. Again, not saying DM's request (assuming he is making a request) to reopen his case won't be granted.....it is up to the judge who will weigh the process carefully and determine whether MS has provided evidence that is new.
 
We are going to have to agree to disagree. I feel that most of this evidence has already been presented.....having confirmation of it isn't new evidence IMO. Again, not saying DM's request (assuming he is making a request) to reopen his case won't be granted.....it is up to the judge who will weigh the process carefully and determine whether MS has provided evidence that is new.

This was exactly my point when I say MS "story". I'm not sure where people are coming up with all this new evidence. I agree most has been presented already...

All comments are JMO unless stated otherwise
 
According to 651(3) of the Criminal Code:

Thanks for that, haven't run into the "joint accused" situation before. I have seen cases where the defense addressed the jury last, because they had not called any witnesses. Sometimes that's a strategic decision, in the hopes that a powerful closing defense may stick with the jury and resonate beyond the Crown's summary.

The judge's charge however remains the most critical piece of all. What amazes me about these is the clarity of most judicial charges (and rulings - for clear, well-organized and straightforward English prose, judges' decisions and statements are exemplars. I wish those techniques were taught to students in school, where clarity of written expression seems to be a rare occurrence (or so my teacher and university faculty friends tell me)..
 
We are going to have to agree to disagree. I feel that most of this evidence has already been presented.....having confirmation of it isn't new evidence IMO. Again, not saying DM's request (assuming he is making a request) to reopen his case won't be granted.....it is up to the judge who will weigh the process carefully and determine whether MS has provided evidence that is new.

I agree to disagree. <modsnip>

Just one comparison is JFK's assassination (without of opening the can of worms). There is a lot of evidence against one individual, but may be if there was his first hand account, we'd have much fewer interpretations of the events.
 
I stand corrected, thank you. MS wanted $1000 and the friend had $100.

Bleach came, but only had about $100, Daly said. Smich was looking for $1,000, so no sale took place.
http://news.nationalpost.com/news/c...g-to-lay-low-after-bosma-disappearance-friend

I have to wonder if MS traded the gun for a lot of weed, or some other drugs ? He might have been able to sell a lot of that while traveling to attend his sisters' wedding. Maybe some of the family he thinks the world of are holding the cash. He could be protecting a drug dealer he is afraid to cross, as well as family and friends. He looked awfully happy and confident, I would even say ruthless in a picture taken at the wedding with MM. It could have been the effects of cocaine. IMO
 
and the BBQ was part of mission prep
Maybe the incinerator was frequently used to get rid of evidence from things they stole. i.e._ gps, tags, papers. CN testified that DM told her he used it to melt metal and perhaps that was the truth. Personally, I can see SS being OK with hot cars and equipment especially when all the incriminating details are reduced to a chunk of metal, but I just can't see SS actually being OK with people getting incinerated yet he knew that DM was using it and referred to it as the BBQ himself. I too would like to know why it was referred to as the BBQ- I think we may find that out as well once the Crown starts their cross examination. MOO
 
I think you do have to look at in context. He said this to his girlfriend who had told him not to go and not to do this. I don't think he is saying that it was just the test drive. He has admitted to having plans to scope out the truck and to steal it. But she had a sense that it was not a good idea, told him not to go and he said to her, "I *advertiser censored**ked up."
I am not saying that I necessarily believe him but in context, it's not that unreasonable. IMO

wouldn't you say then I shouldn't have gone? not I ****ed up? Just seems like the wrong context to be using.
 
When SC was asked about the lawyer on the news last night saying DM could apply to testify

Susan Clairmont &#8207;@susanclairmont 2m2 minutes ago
Not true according to lawyers in this case.

BBM - I think she chose this wording carefully....the lawyer on the news last night is representing DM in the WM trial.....he has a horse in the race....but obviously can't make any legal arguments for this case.....he isn't completely unbiased IMO
 
I know this is fact as it's been in the media and mentioned here a lot. It makes me wonder why someone so squeaky clean and not known to police was ever tagged in the first place ..... I wish we were privy to a few outside things

Because he was probably cruising around at 3:00 AM looking for stuff to steal. His stupid red mohawk probably gave LE the impression that this kid was likely up to no good.
 
I have a question for you. Or anyone here who believes MS story (personally I'm on the fence right now until after cross etc so I'm not judging your stance in any way)

But, if DM had've got on the stand first, and recited the jailhouse letters as he rehearsed, would your feeling be the same about MS?

That's a great question. I'd have to say no, based on the testimony given so far from those closest to both (DM appeared to carry on after TB's murder, business as usual while MS seemed to have lost his mind, freaked out and went into hiding at MM's sister's place and tried to drum up the money to hire a lawyer), the fact that he was a two-timer (possibly a three-timer?) with his women, and probably most importantly, DM's manipulative letters from jail to CN. He put it in writing that he was planning on weaseling his way out of this charge.
 
I agree, he would at least know which forest. And, IMO that is something you commit to memory unless being stoned and drunk all the time wiped his memory. IMO

Indeed. I think that the gun is not in the forest and is retrievable. MS, who is a career criminal, isn't going to part with that tool easily. For someone who was very agitated because he f---d up and worried about the guys who were gonna get him, I doubt that he lost the gun.

MS is a dangerous criminal. I certainly am not happy that the gun is still out there.
 
Yeah, I'm really curious how the fireside furniture and MM's report of their morning behavior will be addressed. No way it doesn't come up. And those are the two big sticking points for me.

I believe the Crown can only cross-exam evidence for MS that was discussed during his testimony. The Crown cannot go off on wild goose chase asking about evidence.
 
Quote Originally Posted by meterclicks View Post
"I was very scared at that time," Smich says. "I was confused. I ended up going out and burying the gun ... I jumped on my bike, rode out in the forest and buried it."
by Adam Carter 10:12 AM

Smich says he "buried it in the forest somewhere late at night." Dungey asks if he knows where he buried it, and Smich says there are "lots of ravines and paths" in Oakville. "Do you know where today that gun would be?" Dungey says. "No, I don't," Smich says.
by Adam Carter 10:13 AM

Smich says he didn't go to police with the gun because he had a criminal record, and he was worried they wouldn't believe him.
by Adam Carter 10:14 AM

I know these paths and they are identifiable by street. I don't believe that he doesn't know where he buried it - the general area. Why does he not want the gun to be found.?

Adam Carter &#8207;@AdamCarterCBC 5 Std.Vor 5 Stunden Übersetzung anzeigen
"Do you know where today that gun would be?" Dungey says. "No, I don't," Smich says. #TimBosma #Bosma

bbm
At the moment I read his/this answer I was convinced MS was lying. Too short, too explizit for an answer of him who yesterday answered in another form somehow. That "No, I don't" disappointed me.
 
wouldn't you say then I shouldn't have gone? not I ****ed up? Just seems like the wrong context to be using.

Seems like the perfect wording to me. Its an ambiguous statement. When he says he effed up I think he just means for getting in to the situation he's in, of going along with Millard's stupid plan. I never took it to mean that he shot anybody and I still don't.
 
wouldn't you say then I shouldn't have gone? not I ****ed up? Just seems like the wrong context to be using.

I don't think it matters what I would say. I don't know what MS would say specifically. I can see that after going on the test drive and the events that followed after girlfriend had been telling him it was not a good idea, he might have said, "I *advertiser censored**cked up." I don't know that it makes more contextual sense that he would say that after committing murder. Particularly if it was a planned and deliberate murder as most here on WS seem to believe. jmo
 
Because he was probably cruising around at 3:00 AM looking for stuff to steal. His stupid red mohawk probably gave LE the impression that this kid was likely up to no good.

Very possibly, but you would also be surprised at what details LE will note even on a traffic stop, for this reason. One small piece of info can break open a case down the road hence they are trained to take notes about this stuff even on a basic traffic stop.

I caught a view of my police file after getting briefly picked up a few years back in Oakville. They still had notes in there about the car I was in and clothes I was wearing from a previous stop which had been 4 years prior!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
170
Guests online
1,735
Total visitors
1,905

Forum statistics

Threads
589,952
Messages
17,928,165
Members
228,015
Latest member
Amberraff
Back
Top