According to Mike On Crime the jury has reached a verdict in the Mark Stobbe trial.
UPDATE: Not Guilty by reason of decade of delay.
According to Mike On Crime the jury has reached a verdict in the Mark Stobbe trial.
UPDATE: Not Guilty by reason of decade of delay.
I don’t know if Mr.Stobbe murdered his wife. However, if he was cross-examined for six days the Crown prosecutor did not have a lot of silver bullets in his/her gun. Not guilty verdict seems likely.
Colin Thatcher was a Conservative
My thought too, Bear.
Exactly
Looks like he could bike 50 yards max before keeling over in exhaustion.
12 years ago he could have been physically fit. But the jury has reached their verdict and therefore he is not guilty.
They waited to find the right dupe in the crown prosecutor’s office to take a fall on this. Effin eh right this trial is a mistrial – a decade? Constituional guarantee of a speedy trial???
The crown had a thin case, surprised it lasted this long.
Duncan MacPherson’s family spent their life’s savings to find out what happened to their son when he died. What a contrast to Stobbe’s attitude.
Occam, Stobbe wasn’t charged until relatively recently.
Gotta stay employed some how or I mean gotta justify sucking on the public tit somehow!!!!
Occam – the right to a speedy trial has it’s onnus on the prosecution, not the defense. If the defense plays the double down delay, there’s no recourse to a speedy trial.
I am sure he has talked to OJ for tips on tracking down the real killer.
Wonder if they’ll help him find his axe after this is all over.
That’s a long time ago.
Was this investigation started before or after the cops erased 20 years of Air India evidence?
The case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence, which always leaves room for doubt, and it is up to the jury to decide whether the doubt that there is, is reasonable. I am aware that I didn’t see and hear all that the jury heard, so I don’t dispute that their verdict is correct.
But from what was reported of the trial that I saw, the prosecution did a very good job with only circumstantial evidence, and it seems to me this case was a good argument for the Scottish verdict: “not proven.”
I won’t be surprised if people start calling him O.J. Stobbe and the police don’t go looking for a one-armed man.
My thought too, bear.
Of course guilt or innocence is determined by politcal preference. What other conclusion could one come to?
Wonder who Kim Walker votes for.
“Wonder who Kim Walker votes for”
Probably votes liberal or NDP like most cons.
BTW Thatcher was found guilty and went to jail as did Walker, so your point is?
g; Are you dense or an NDP which is the same?
Stobbe prosecutor may appeal
The Selkirk RCMP forked this case at the very start …. people in the neighbourhood had this figured out the day after the news broke back in 2000.
OMMAG, it seems the Selkirk RCMP had it figured out pretty quickly, too, but after all these years, still have only circumstantial evidence and not quite enough of that to convince a jury there isn’t “reasonable doubt.” Do you have any reason to think people in the neighbourhood know of any evidence the police don’t know about?
It’s a verdict a jury could render if every one of them believes Stobbe did it, but enough of them acknowledge it isn’t proven to the required standard.
kdl “Stobbe prosecutor may appeal”
On what grounds? Don’t like the verdict. If the prosecutor spent 6 days cross-examining the defendant in a case consisting entirely of circumstantial evidence, she told the world she had nothing. 30/40/50 hours of repeated reworded versions of the same questions must have made her look like a bit of a retard? Everyone in the room had it figured out but her.
g; Are you dense or an NDP which is the same?
No spike I lean to the right, perhaps it is you who are dense.
Walker committed a crime, he was found guilty and is serving his sentence. Thatcher committed a crime(although some believe that the wrong Thatcher went to jail, but I won’t go there) and also went to jail.
phil would have us believe that Walker and Thatcher are somehow sympathetic to those of us who lean right and we are upset because Stobbe, a lefty, got off. Now I have no problem with what Walker did. (If it were my 15 year old daughter I might have done the same, only more discretely ;)Thatcher should have been left to rot in a cell.
Mark Stobbe on the other hand may or may not have committed a murder (blood and bones in his yard and garage, and a weak alibi at best) but a jury of his peers decided there was not enough evidence to convict. Do you have a problem with this? Perhaps you should take it up with the jury, the crown prosecutor who delivered the case or the RCMP who would have been responsible for gathering that evidence or perhaps (and this is I think a much better thought) you should pound sand, I really don’t care which you choose but should you choose the sand I am more than happy and capable to help you with that choice.
The fat man walks!… er, waddles!
Come on all you political conspiracy theorists – this was a cold case prosecution. Stop with the second guessing. None of us was in the court room so we really can’t comment.
Speculation like I’ve been reading just makes you look like pool-room guys just throwing sh_t at something you can’t see.
Not Guilty. Let it go.
Shortly after the murder an RCMP officer was asked by a reporter if the area had to be careful about a murderer on the loose ….. he let it slip …. NO …. they already had a main suspect ….
It turns out they just did not have enough evidence to prove it.
At the very least … I am glad they went ahead with the trial …. it showed what evidence they had …. this alone ends a lot of speculation and rumors.
Whether we like the verdict or not …. the system works.
What the he** does ‘NDP politics’ have to do with this case? A guy was tried for murdering his wife and found not guilty. End of story. What do his political beliefs (misguided as they are) have to do with it? I know this site is about politics but can we also have a little intelligence as well or are the two mutually exclusive?
From Wiki.
Lizzie Andrew Borden[2] (July 19, 1860 – June 1, 1927) was a woman in New England who was tried for killing her father and stepmother with a hatchet on August 4, 1892, in Fall River, Massachusetts. The murders, subsequent trial, and ensuing trial by media became a cause célèbre. Although Lizzie Borden was acquitted, no one else was ever arrested or tried and she has remained a notorious figure in American folklore. Dispute over the identity of the killer or killers continues to this day.