Laura Babcock: Dellen Millard & Mark Smich charged w/ Murder in the First Degree #2

[Alethea Dice]

RSBM

No, no one said that LB was ONLY calling DM, but previously the MSM had been reporting that her last calls had been to DM:

According to her phone bill that Lerner showed news organizations, Babcock's final eight calls were to Millard's cellphone. There were no more calls after July 3, 2012.



http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/11/straight-to-trial-for-two-men-charged-with-murder-in-death-of-laura-babcock

And apparently some media sources are still saying it.

Also from that link:

Police have refused to tell her family if they've found her body or her remains.

I wonder if this is true and if they still have not been fully informed about their daughter's case by the crown? Why would they Refuse to share crucial information like that from her next of kin? I would like to hope that if they had some kind of remains that they would allow her family the closure of a burial.

From the pictures of her phone bill that were released, the last 8 outgoing calls were to DM. There were 5 incoming calls in between those.

That's pretty sad if they still have not given any information to her family. Hopefully, that is just from the earlier story, though they really should confirm if they're going to repeat that part. JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

The Toronto Sun published comment made to LC, whose Canadian Press article was published by a few more outlets today:



http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/1...charged-with-murder-in-death-of-laura-babcock

Unfortunately, I have my doubts that there will be much recourse available to them. But since supposedly "this power is an extraordinary one and is used infrequently", it does seem a little odd that it's happened twice to the same people on two separate charges. I'm thinking it might ease their way to an appeal later on.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Unfortunately, I have my doubts that there will be much recourse available to them. But since supposedly "this power is an extraordinary one and is used infrequently", it does seem a little odd that it's happened twice to the same people on two separate charges. I'm thinking it might ease their way to an appeal later on.

What if it's just necessary in order to avoid rehashing the same stuff over and over?

E.g., if DM bought one gun and killed two people with it, why go over where the gun came from for 2 PI's and 2 trials?

How do/can they refer to testimony from one trial, in another, anyway?

 

[swedie]

What if it's just necessary in order to avoid rehashing the same stuff over and over?

E.g., if DM bought one gun and killed two people with it, why go over where the gun came from for 2 PI's and 2 trials?

How do/can they refer to testimony from one trial, in another, anyway?

That, or where the evidence is so solid there is no need to waste time and money on PHs. Sometimes criminals are so cocky, arrogant and/or stupid they do things to leaving damning evidence behind. Some murderers like to take photos or videos of their evil doings to revisit later on such as PB and KH or RW and Jerome Burdos lust murderers. The last two took photos and kept womens' undergarments as souvenirs and then murdered their female victims. There is no lying when it comes to photos and videos. Maybe there is damning photo or video evidence against MS and DM? TWT and MOO.

 

[Sillybilly]

Oh here we go, CTV has a wee article:

Babcock went missing the previous summer, but wasn't declared dead until police laid charges against Millard and Smich in 2014.

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/mobile/...o-trial-for-death-of-laura-babcock-1.2559343#

I'm not real convinced that the "declared dead" wording means legally declared dead ... possibly reporter interpretation based on the charges?

I can see no reason that LB's kin (who are apparently still holding out hope that she is alive) would seek a legal declaration of death for any reason (i.e. LB probably had no estate to settle), and the only other possibility I could think would be a coroner declaring someone dead based on evidence presented.

IMO, it's either reporter error OR a coroner (Ontario or elsewhere) has pathological evidence that satisfies them that LB is in fact deceased.

 

[Arnie M]

That, or where the evidence is so solid there is no need to waste time and money on PHs. Sometimes criminals are so cocky, arrogant and/or stupid they do things to leaving damning evidence behind. Some murderers like to take photos or videos of their evil doings to revisit later on such as PB and KH or RW and Jerome Burdos lust murderers. The last two took photos and kept womens' undergarments as souvenirs and then murdered their female victims. There is no lying when it comes to photos and videos. Maybe there is damning photo or video evidence against MS and DM? TWT and MOO.

I bet they did (keep souvenirs) .... When we look at this whole case and the way they disposed of evidence (incinerator) .... they thought they would never be caught (cocky arrogance)

And because they did it for an evil thrill of some sort , I would almost guarantee they preserved some memorabilia or pictures , or maybe even some video as a twisted reminder of their conquests..

.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I think it was all the Apple devices: DM's iphone, SL's ipad...they are all very traceable and would show the path of whoever carried them. LE need only follow that trail of locations for evidence.

 

[Alethea Dice]

What if it's just necessary in order to avoid rehashing the same stuff over and over?

E.g., if DM bought one gun and killed two people with it, why go over where the gun came from for 2 PI's and 2 trials?

How do/can they refer to testimony from one trial, in another, anyway?

If there are common elements in both trials, they will have no choice but to go over those elements in both. It is a different victim, in a different crime, in a different city, with a different Judge and Crown and, eventually, a different jury. They don't have to prove guilt or innocence in the preliminary hearing, but they do have to determine what is admissible, what is credible, what witnesses might be determined as unnecessary or untrustworthy, etc.. A Judge in one case can't make decisions on those types of things for a different Judge on a different case. The preliminary hearing is a good starting point to sorting that out and saving time at the actual trial.

We don't know whether a gun was used in either of these crimes, but if one was, I don't think the matter of where it came from will even be an issue. It doesn't matter where it came from, only that it was used and used by the accused. The only time how it was obtained will matter is in a trial for the sale or purchase of it.

I don't think they can refer to testimony from one trial in another and why would they? Any testimony as to how TB was killed will have nothing to do with proving how LB was killed. At most, and if they were both killed in the same way, and if found guilty in the first trial, all it could show was a common modus operandi. A Judge would have to decide at that time whether or not to allow it.

Even if they did want to avoid duplication in the two cases, how is it a solution to that by bypassing it in both?

JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

Unfortunately, I have my doubts that there will be much recourse available to them. But since supposedly "this power is an extraordinary one and is used infrequently", it does seem a little odd that it's happened twice to the same people on two separate charges. I'm thinking it might ease their way to an appeal later on.

Sorry, I am going backwards. IF there is no way to appeal a DI, can you really use that as a grounds for appeal after trial? It sounds to me as if this is a done decision that everyone will have to live with. I don't think they will be able to appeal on that grounds.

 

[SnooperDuper]

If there are common elements in both trials, they will have no choice but to go over those elements in both. It is a different victim, in a different crime, in a different city, with a different Judge and Crown and, eventually, a different jury. They don't have to prove guilt or innocence in the preliminary hearing, but they do have to determine what is admissible, what is credible, what witnesses might be determined as unnecessary or untrustworthy, etc.. A Judge in one case can't make decisions on those types of things for a different Judge on a different case. The preliminary hearing is a good starting point to sorting that out and saving time at the actual trial.

We don't know whether a gun was used in either of these crimes, but if one was, I don't think the matter of where it came from will even be an issue. It doesn't matter where it came from, only that it was used and used by the accused. The only time how it was obtained will matter is in a trial for the sale or purchase of it.

I don't think they can refer to testimony from one trial in another and why would they? Any testimony as to how TB was killed will have nothing to do with proving how LB was killed. At most, and if they were both killed in the same way, and if found guilty in the first trial, all it could show was a common modus operandi. A Judge would have to decide at that time whether or not to allow it.

Even if they did want to avoid duplication in the two cases, how is it a solution to that by bypassing it in both?

JMO

Well we know that there is a DI in the TB case because the Crown has the sort of evidence that they would like to have. That is, in that case, they have a strong case.

It's anyone's guess as to why there is a DI in the LB case. They obviously sat on the decision for a long time.

Prosecutors sought a DI in the TB case 6/20/2013

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dai...othy-bosma-murder-trial-latest-164541826.html

That was granted 7/16/2013, 26 days later:

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/201...an-update-plus-new-jeffrey-boucher-ebook.html

Prosecutors sought a DI in the LB case 10/30/2014

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/201...-indictment-in-laura-babcock-murder-case.html

That was granted 9/10/2015, 315 days or more than 10 months later:

[video=twitter;642039347307384833]https://twitter.com/AnnB03/status/642039347307384833[/video]

 

[Alethea Dice]

Sorry, I am going backwards. IF there is no way to appeal a DI, can you really use that as a grounds for appeal after trial? It sounds to me as if this is a done decision that everyone will have to live with. I don't think they will be able to appeal on that grounds.

I didn't mean that the DI would be the actual grounds for appeal. More that it could result in things that are grounds for appeal that may have been avoided if they were determined prior to the trial. Things that may have been improperly admitted or important evidence being excluded. For example, if a witness at trial is shown to be not credible, this could have been determined beforehand and the witness never called at the actual trial, preventing the jury from hearing something that is unreliable or untrustworthy and having it taint their deliberations. Or say there was some type of evidence that would provide doubt or point to another possibility and the Judge disallowed it without the background to realize it's importance.

Another thought - In the case of TB, if the trial is going to last as long as they have estimated, wouldn't it help to get rid of these types of issues in the first place to avoid all the wasted time at trial, and moving the jury in and out, while they determine what will be admissible and what won't be? Another example - there will likely be a lot of scientific evidence presented. Wouldn't it be faster to determine ahead of time what the Crown and Defense will agree on, rather than presenting extra witnesses to corroborate what the Defense may not have argued with anyway? Maybe the Crown doesn't care, but the jurors may appreciate being able to get back to their lives and putting food on their tables again sooner rather than later.

 

[ABro]

Another thought - In the case of TB, if the trial is going to last as long as they have estimated, wouldn't it help to get rid of these types of issues in the first place to avoid all the wasted time at trial, and moving the jury in and out, while they determine what will be admissible and what won't be? Another example - there will likely be a lot of scientific evidence presented. Wouldn't it be faster to determine ahead of time what the Crown and Defense will agree on, rather than presenting extra witnesses to corroborate what the Defense may not have argued with anyway? Maybe the Crown doesn't care, but the jurors may appreciate being able to get back to their lives and putting food on their tables again sooner rather than later.

That's exactly what pre-trial motions are for.

 

[ABro]

Prosecutors sought a DI in the TB case 6/20/2013

https://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...164541826.html

I think you have to be careful here. You're talking about the date the Spectator learned that the Crown had asked for a direct indictment. The prosecution could have asked for it weeks or months in advance of the Spectator getting that information. The two dates aren't necessarily one and the same.

 

[matou]

Nice to see you on here again ABro. Thank you for keeping us updated on all of the court proceedings.

 

[Alethea Dice]

That's exactly what pre-trial motions are for.

And that will take care of some things. But since they don't call witnesses at pre-trial motions, scientific or otherwise, it still leaves a lot of unknowns that will need to be dealt with later.

 

[swedie]

Nice to see you on here again ABro. Thank you for keeping us updated on all of the court proceedings.

Yes, agreed. Thank you Ann. :tyou:

 

[Tamarind]

And that will take care of some things. But since they don't call witnesses at pre-trial motions, scientific or otherwise, it still leaves a lot of unknowns that will need to be dealt with later.

A lot of holes in cases can be exposed at preliminary hearings. Maybe the crown feels that they can manipulate the evidence better by having an avalanche of 'evidence' at a trial, that may have a better chance of obscuring things for the jury. The muddying of waters can work both ways. Crowns may want to try to muddy things for an accused even without actual facts available on certain things. I agree with you and I personally think the crown is taking a chance with DI. The cross questioning at trial will be interesting in my opinion.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I think you have to be careful here. You're talking about the date the Spectator learned that the Crown had asked for a direct indictment. The prosecution could have asked for it weeks or months in advance of the Spectator getting that information. The two dates aren't necessarily one and the same.

From the arrest on 5/10/2013 to the Spec's report of the DI then is 41 days...in that case, they seemed to have quickly evaluated that a DI was appropriate, and approved it as quickly.

 

[ABro]

From the arrest on 5/10/2013 to the Spec's report of the DI then is 41 days...in that case, they seemed to have quickly evaluated that a DI was appropriate, and approved it as quickly.

Different years. The Spec report on the DI is 2014 so 41 + 365. There was originally a PI scheduled for fall of 2014.

 

[swedie]

Sorry, I am going backwards. IF there is no way to appeal a DI, can you really use that as a grounds for appeal after trial? It sounds to me as if this is a done decision that everyone will have to live with. I don't think they will be able to appeal on that grounds.

I believe you're right Snooper, it's a done deal, no appeals on a DI after trial, the AG's decision stands as an end point. If their are any appeals from the accused, they will have to do it after the trial, based of information/evidence presented during the trial. MOO.

Some legal information on DI.
http://www.justice.gov.nl.ca/just/prosect/guidebook/019.pdf