Bosma Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #13

[MsSherlock]

Doesn't prove anything if she had no knowledge of the crime or the contents of the trailer. She admits being along for the ride, but its up to the crown to prove she was aware of what was going on.

Precisely. Mobster 101- it's all on a need to know basis. CN was just keeping DM company and knew full well that DM was doing criminal activities, but if you never see or really hear about those criminal activities, how can you ever really know about them?
Just a whole pile of innuendo's and scenario building- like if "someone did this", "they could do that" and that and that and as long as they did it "this way" or "that way" it would be a success. IMHO, DM & CN may not have spoken about particular crimes, but they schemed about many. This just happens to be one DM messed up and got caught on. Perhaps that's why CN is a bit upset with DM- not that he had multiple lovers, the fact that he messed up on one of his missions and has created this big mess. MOO

 

[andreww]

And I think it is even more than that. She is charged with accessory to murder which means they need to prove she knew he had murdered someone. I don't know that even knowing that there was a stolen truck in the trailer would be enough. jmo

Not sure about that, but you may be correct. I think the charge relates to her covering known criminal activity that relates to the murder. But regardless, if she knew about the truck, it wouldn't be a stretch to say she must have known about the murder given the middle of the night incinerator concealment.

But let me just preface what I've said with the stipulation that CNs fingerprints were not found on that truck. That is evidence that would not necessarily have been revealed in this trial, but could very well exist.

 

[ILoveDateline]

The wiki page on accessory after the fact is pretty helpful, IMO, as to what the judge will determine. It doesn't state that prior knowledge of the crime is required but knowledge that one was committed. It's tricky but my interpretation is that as soon as she wiped down the trailer, that is acknowledgement that a crime occurred and those actions were intended to aid the accused. The page says that the intention must be there and that the act of aiding only isn't enough. It will be hard , IMO, to prove the intention is there but isn't a lot of the law determined on what a reasonable person would do? IMO it's easy to come to the conclusion that a reasonable person would not have wipe the prints or carried on a correspondence.

I don't see a judge going easy on her.

 

[Stumper]

If CN stays off the stand my understanding is that her notes would be presented much like DM's and MS's phone records. Just out there with no context or explaination for the Judge/Jury to draw their own conclusions on. Would make for a very different dynamic the. We've seen with this case

Moo

 

[mimimic]

Also, what charge could she be looking at for hiding the 'stereo'?

 

[meterclicks]

And I think it is even more than that. She is charged with accessory to murder which means they need to prove she knew he had murdered someone. I don't know that even knowing that there was a stolen truck in the trailer would be enough. jmo

Yes agreed.

And just to further delve into this, since she's charged and the Crown knows that what she presented in this trial cannot be used against her, I'm sure they have a wealth of information and evidence to proceed with her trial. I think they played it "safer" in this trial in order to keep that evidence for use against her during hers. The Crown goes into a trial for a conviction not a 'hmm maybe she will be convicted, let's try this out' scenario.

 

[caseyjonesin905]

But DM will take the stand in her case. And I'm sure the crown must have more evidence to charge her in her own case. They can't charge someone on a gut feeling. I think there's more to come

There's absolutely more to come - I have a feeling that we're finally going to see the redacted bits of the letters in her trial, most of which is likely his responses to her suggestions; etc. She's been charged with accessory after the fact - I would think that could also mean conspiring afterwards, as it sounds like she did from her own notes found.. I can't see how the crown wouldn't have more up their sleeves..

 

[EspressoBean]

Uhhh drugs aren't exactly non criminal. And errands like standing watch while a crime is taking place is still criminal IMO

But those are not the crimes she is charged with. She is charged with accessory to murder.

 

[andreww]

Yes agreed.

And just to further delve into this, since she's charged and the Crown knows that what she presented in this trial cannot be used against her, I'm sure they have a wealth of information and evidence to proceed with her trial. I think they played it "safer" in this trial in order to keep that evidence for use against her during hers. The Crown goes into a trial for a conviction not a 'hmm maybe she will be convicted, let's try this out' scenario.

Well, we've seen the extent of her phone and text records, Tacked her whereabouts via text pings, and heard testimony from all her pals, yet I still don't see any decisive evidence against her. Like I said, If Millard testifies, different story...maybe.

 

[EspressoBean]

The wiki page on accessory after the fact is pretty helpful, IMO, as to what the judge will determine. It doesn't state that prior knowledge of the crime is required but knowledge that one was committed. It's tricky but my interpretation is that as soon as she wiped down the trailer, that is acknowledgement that a crime occurred and those actions were intended to aid the accused. The page says that the intention must be there and that the act of aiding only isn't enough. It will be hard , IMO, to prove the intention is there but isn't a lot of the law determined on what a reasonable person would do? IMO it's easy to come to the conclusion that a reasonable person would not have wipe the prints or carried on a correspondence.

I don't see a judge going easy on her.

Her charge relates to her actions on May 9th. I don't know that there is any evidence outside of her statement that prints were wiped and her statement of why she did so is enough reasonable doubt that she did it to cover for DM. But also, she needed to know DN had murdered someone and there isn't evidence to prove this.

 

[meterclicks]

Well, we've seen the extent of her phone and text records, Tacked her whereabouts via text pings, and heard testimony from all her pals, yet I still don't see any decisive evidence against her. Like I said, If Millard testifies, different story...maybe.

True. But we don't know for a fact that none of her letters were recovered. We're just assuming not since none of them were presented at this trial. The Crown has much more to offer imo.

Regardless, he will be testifying.

"But six months from now Millard — convicted or not — will be the star witness at Christina Noudga's own trial for accessory after the fact to murder.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6526935-clairmont-bosma-trial-grows-more-complicated-as-noudga-faces-cross-examination/

 

[EspressoBean]

True. But we don't know for a fact that none of her letters were recovered. We're just assuming not since none of them were presented at this trial. The Crown has much more to offer imo.

Regardless, he will be testifying.

"But six months from now Millard — convicted or not — will be the star witness at Christina Noudga's own trial for accessory after the fact to murder.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6526935-clairmont-bosma-trial-grows-more-complicated-as-noudga-faces-cross-examination/

If her letters had been found, they would need to have been turned in during this trial. The defense and crown have stated that her letters were not found.

 

[andreww]

True. But we don't know for a fact that none of her letters were recovered. We're just assuming not since none of them were presented at this trial. The Crown has much more to offer imo.

Regardless, he will be testifying.

"But six months from now Millard — convicted or not — will be the star witness at Christina Noudga's own trial for accessory after the fact to murder.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6526935-clairmont-bosma-trial-grows-more-complicated-as-noudga-faces-cross-examination/

Question is, what will he say. CN didn't really say anything negative about him. However, keeping the letters was a major screw up. Its a coin toss my friend.

 

[Nosey Parker]

But DM will take the stand in her case. And I'm sure the crown must have more evidence to charge her in her own case. They can't charge someone on a gut feeling. I think there's more to come

I agree. We do have to remember that this was not her trial. There could be plenty of evidence about her crime that was not deemed relevant by the judge in the trial of DM's and MS's guilt. I know that seems a little far fetched to some, but I believe there is more on her than we know about. She did not have to know of Tim's murder, or the planning, beforehand, just that she knew she was assisting in the clean up of a crime. Wiping fingerprints is just a tip of the iceberg IMO.

 

[meterclicks]

If her letters had been found, they would need to have been turned in during this trial. The defense and crown have stated that her letters were not found.

Sorry, I remember reading that the Crown nor defense had them. But what I meant by what I said is that we don't know that DM got rid of them, what if he got them out to his mother? What if she kept them? Not to say this is true, but it's a what if.

 

[canadiangirl]

I agree. We do have to remember that this was not her trial. There could be plenty of evidence about her crime that was not deemed relevant by the judge in the trial of DM's and MS's guilt. I know that seems a little far fetched to some, but I believe there is more on her than we know about. She did not have to know of Tim's murder, or the planning, beforehand, just that she knew she was assisting in the clean up of a crime. Wiping fingerprints is just a tip of the iceberg IMO.

Right. This trial is to prove DM and MS guilt. Not CN. Her time will come. The full disclosure IMO is related this trial. Not hers. Has it been said yet if she has been given full disclosure for her own trial as of yet?

 

[brightii]

I don't know the law in how it relates to the specifics of CN's AATF charge, but FWIW, IMO the Crown would not lay such a serious charge against CN if they didn't think they could succeed at trial against CN.

Apparently the Crown strongly opposed CN's bail application and that speaks volumes to me about how serious the charge is and how much evidence the Crown likely has to prove the charge, IMO. I'm sure they will have more evidence to present against CN, IMO. Maybe I'm wrong, but like in this trial when the judge often says to the jurors it's up to them to determine if what a witness is saying is to be believed, I presume at CN's November trial, the judge will also weigh the evidence and testimony in that way too based on what he believes to be true, IMO.

CN is not a believable witness IMO and I think the judge at her trial will agree, IMO. No reasonable person will buy CN's excuse about having no suspicions about DM wanting her to help him move the Eliminator incinerator in the middle of the night, in the pitch dark, and apparently without even using a flashlight, IMO. And even worse, she asserts that when it was known that TB's body had been incinerated this shocking-to-the-rest-of-the-world news made no impact on her and nor did she even then make any connection to the murder of TB and the Eliminator she helped DM move (and likely helped clean out TB's ashes as well), and nor did she admit to that news being troublesome later, IMO. There isn't another person on the planet who would not at the very least concede that, in hindsight, once such news was heard, they would not think back to that night and wonder about the incinerator - especially since by that time DM had been charged with the crime, IMO. CN is a very cagey coyote but her feigned ignorance will not be believed IMO, and it will not work to spare her a conviction, IMO.

CN will be convicted, IMO, and I think she will testify at her own trial thinking herself so much smarter than most people (not smarter than all people, as she impudently conceded in her testimony at this trial - lol), IMO. Perhaps others in DM's crew will speak up against CN at her trial once DM has been convicted (presuming he will be soon) and is no longer perceived as a powerfully intimidating figure or threat in their lives, IMO. I hope I'm right because CN has lessons to learn, although, IMO, like DM, she is not a good candidate for rehabilitation IMO. I know I'd be terrified of them both!

All MOO.

 

[canadiangirl]

But those are not the crimes she is charged with. She is charged with accessory to murder.

Yes but I quoted your post saying she testified she didn't know "missions" meant criminal activity. When clearly IMO drugs and being the lookout or helping with so called missions is not legal.

 

[mimimic]

Could all the other characters...MS, MM etc be called by the crown??

 

[andreww]

Could all the other characters...MS, MM etc be called by the crown??

If they had contact with her, they likely will be.