Laura Babcock Murder Trial 12.08.17 - Charge to the Jury - Day 2

[don_quixote]

Ah, you don't mean this do you? Are you just feeling defensive? Did you see the picture of MS laying beside the pool?

It's sarcasm. No. Don't recall the picture.

 

[Horror]

MS = M1 If you have doubts, read this. And, if you missed some of the previous posts, go back and read them, several people have clearly explained how MS was involved in the planning and deliberation.

Often people are unconscious fence sitters because they don't want to be wrong, but if I was on a jury with a anyone who debated issues that in totality are quite clear, it would be frustrating.

Hi I am one that said fence sitting and going back and forth. I thought I should explain. I think MS is guilty, I also think that the reason MM wasn't asked about that night is because nothing's stood out to her. I am thinking the gap with no messages that night is due to them doing the deed. I think the the " where are you " text was intentional rubbish text. I also think MS has no morals so he didn't really care what his bro did, whether he knew before during or after. I believe myself their is most likely huge evidence that was argued out that we will be satisfied to read after they hopefully both go M1
In Aus we do not have different levels of murder. But their are numerous relevant charges that put you away just as long and hold you accountable.

My fence sitting and moving to and fro chatter - is purely my mind hearing the evidence and interpreting the law there, in that country, not what I would vote in that room.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Kamille]

Well , why would LE or the courts allow this without an after the fact choice, unless they know a bit more than they are sharing? Is it possible they are holding some back?
For example do they know the contents of the text messages between CN and LB or where they not recoverable?

They would not be holding back any evidence of guilt. There may be some that was argued as inadmissible but they would never hold anything back deliberately.

The contents of that text exchange was unrecoverable as they did not have either phone.

MOO

 

[XFP]

I'm off. To anyone still working it out, please make a chart. Night.

 

[mimimic]

This is where I stand:

1. Laura is deceased. The Crown's evidence and my own, very long, life experience, has convinced me of that
2. DM is guilty of M1. The evidence, albeit it mostly circumstantial, has convinced me of that.
3. MS is not guilty (and it sticks in my craw to say that). The Crown just couldn't collect enough evidence to show that he had prior knowledge. IMO. I wish he could be found guilty of assisting in the disposal of a body, just as I wish CN could be charged with perjury and aiding and abetting.

This is all my opinion only and not intended to inflame any subsequent debate.

So now I wonder how many believe there is not enough evidence but still believe he was involved.

 

[canadiangirl]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweets:

The jury must be satisfied that both accused were present and participated in the act that caused #LauraBabcock's death.

Judge reminds jury to consider each accused separately. "Do not find one accused guilty simply because you have found the other accused guilty. They may both be not guilty. They may both be guilty. Or one may be, the other not. #LauraBabcock

At least one of the two accused has to be the principal, because there is no other known principal. #LauraBabcock

I'm catching up but this is the part I'd be hung up on.. I'm not 100% MS was present and participated in the act that caused her death. MOO

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[Oreck]

Who buys a gun just to have it and pose with it? Who tries to buy ammo for a gun, unless they are planning on using it?



Totallity of the evidence. All the pieces together equal M1 for both.

Respectfully.
I have many guns. Why? I don't know. I don't target practice any more but I still have them.
It's like my son, He has a huge record collection, He doesn't play them, Why doesn't he throw that useless stuff away.

I agree with your last statment. M1 equally for both.

 

[ABro]

Again, there is no MS is guilty or MS is not guilty crowd. We all believe that MS is guilty as hell. What we are questioning is what exactly the Crown has proved him guilty of.

To be honest, I'd bet that TD likely sealed the deal for a guilty verdict with his closing argument. There was no need for him to yell and bluster if he had reasonable points to make about the evidence (or lack thereof) that was being presented against his client. That couldn't have gone over well with the jury IMO. Again however, that is not sufficient reason for a guilty verdict. The "common sense" decision of the jury based on the totality of the evidence presented is going to be scrutinized on appeal if they render a guilty verdict on M1. Will it hold up?

MOO

Hang on, wait. You're already at the appeal and wondering if it will hold up if the jury finds Smich guilty of first degree murder.

This is precisely what puzzles me about this entire line of thought. It seems like nothing is ever enough. If the jury finds Smich guilty, it still won't be good enough because he can appeal, and then the appeal court may overturn this hypothetical conviction.

That's why I think there's more to this whole "not enough evidence" thing.

 

[Shaz14]

I'm not missing your point at all. I get your point. And I disagree with your point.

Regarding the Smich incinerator photo, you stated:



I'm asking you to please explain to us what those reasons are that Smich could look so happy.

I have never said that Smich must be guilty because of one photo nor, to the best of my knowledge, has anyone else. This is a straw man you have created.

However, the photo is a very powerful image, which is why the Crown used it at the end of its closing after summing up the evidence.

Apparently I missed the point in your original post where you said in the context of the evidence. I wrote a post that focused on the after the fact. I tried to delete it but WS wouldn’t let me. You are missing my point because we actually agree with each other that you have to look at he evidence as a whole and can’t just look at the picture or rap. Where we happen to disagree is that I feel that it takes more than just common sense to weigh the evidence and come up with a verdict. If you would like to give me the exact definition of common sense as it applies to a court of law then please do so and perhaps i’ll change my mind on that too. I’m capable of, and perfectly in my right to, change my mind on things. I’m in no way attacking you, I was just enjoying taking part in the discussions over past couple of days but I won’t lie, as tonight is progressing i’m enjoying it less and less. Thanks.

 

[canadiangirl]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweets:

Intention is not the same thing as motive, judge clarifies. Motive is just one item of circumstantial evidence in the context of all the other evidence. #LauraBabcock

Far fewer spectators and reporters in court for the judge's charge. The room was full, with lineups to get in, almost all seven weeks of the trial until this point. #LauraBabcock.

Darn. I was right downtown today. I wish I popped in now

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[mimimic]

The rap never talks about killing her. He see's her outside the home, then he see's her dead. The admission? Could have been bravado or Smich taking more credit than he was actually due. For instance, if a buddy shows up army door with a car that he just stole, and we go out for a night on the town, I might later brag that "WE stole a car and went out on the town". You are right that when looking at the totality of the evidence it is a key piece, but I don't think that the rest of the evidence is damning enough to make that connection.

I honestly don't think he is stupid enough to throw the word WE killed a girl in this bravado/confession story. I seriously wonder why he thought he should tell anyone if they were headed this way for a future though either.

 

[ABro]

Apparently I missed the point in your original post where you said in the context of the evidence. I wrote a post that focused on the after the fact. I tried to delete it but WS wouldn’t let me. You are missing my point because we actually agree with each other that you have to look at he evidence as a whole and can’t just look at the picture or rap. Where we happen to disagree is that I feel that it takes more than just common sense to weigh the evidence and come up with a verdict. If you would like to give me the exact definition of common sense as it applies to a court of law then please do so and perhaps i’ll change my mind on that too. I’m capable of, and perfectly in my right to, change my mind on things. I’m in no way attacking you, I was just enjoying taking part in the discussions over past couple of days but I won’t lie, as tonight is progressing i’m enjoying it less and less. Thanks.

Common sense is one of those things that is very hard to define. Just like reasonable doubt. That's why people disagree about these things. And that's why for years courts refused to define reasonable doubt beyond that it's not certainty.

I didn't think you were attacking me. And I didn't meant to attack you. I was genuinely curious to know what -- under the circumstances and considering the evidence -- what you thought Smich could possibly be smiling about.

 

[Kamille]

There really is NO WAY DM planned and decided to do this without sharing his plans with his 'brother' and getting him to help...it was MS that countless times pushes for progress and wants to discuss plans for their evolving and escalating criminal enterprise which involved human incineration. They were in it together all the way and DM wouldn't have excluded MS in this test run (or whatever the heck this was)..it was another 'bonding' activity between the bros

RSBM

The "bromance" between these two was only in MS's mind. To DM, MS was nothing more than another minion that he could dangle a carrot in front of and use for his own personal gain.

It was DM who was pushing MS to get MWJ to contact him. It was DM who was pushing SS to get a working incinerator and then to research one to purchase. It was DM who was pushing for a trailer to be made for that incinerator to make it mobile. How do you figure MS was pushing for anything other than trying to get money out of DM to pay his bills or buy his food, drink and drugs? Oh and to launch his "rap career". MS appeared to be willing to do anything for his "bro". DM...not so much. Do you remember the begging for money text exchange when DM was in Vegas and told MS to make something and sell it? MS didn't appear to have the extravagant "ambition" that DM had. His needs were pretty simple. But he didn't seem to flinch at anything that was required to fulfill those needs which makes him just as sick and twisted as DM. Especially since he really didn't "profit" from either of these murders.

If they were so close and DM shared everything with him, why is DM charged alone in the murder of his father? Why not involve MS in that one too?

MOO

 

[Woodland]

I said explanations that make sense. Not mere declarations that, yes, of course, Smich could be smiling about incinerating a body even thought he had nothing to do with it until after the fact.

I also note you didn't quote any of the multitude of explanations that supposedly make sense about why someone who's an accessory after the fact is so very proud to be an accessory after the fact, so proud that he poses in front of an animal incinerator and so proud that he allegedly boasts to others that he's a murderer.

I've seen one person say Smich was just "callous." Does that make sense to you? Others have said Millard forced Smich. Again, does that make sense? Others have said he was just boasting while ignoring that for a guy who was just boasting, there was a whole big pile of evidence against him. Does that make sense to you? That it's all just one giant coincidence? Or does it sound like people grasping at straws and playing devil's advocate?

So, again, please tell us the explanations for this behaviour that supposedly make sense. And then please tell us if they make sense to you personally.

Because that's another trait of the "not evidence for Smich" crowd, they almost always say they think he's guilty but there's just not enough evidence.

It's as if we're all supposed to suspend common sense whereas the jury will be told to use common sense.

But we will just have to wait to see the verdict the jury comes up with.

I don't think you have even remotely captured the essence of those that are not sure what prior knowledge MS had. And no one is asking anyone here to suspend common sense, in my opinion - it's your opinion that is being asked.

Maybe you could list what 'the totality of the evidence' is. I find that term highly overrated since a list never accompanies that phrase.

Imo everyone here is on the same side - not sure why any deserve to have their azz kicked.

Fwiw - when people take a pic of another person - they don't say cry, they say smile.

 

[Oreck]

Yes you are correct. They later said that during questioning. However MM had started playing with the i Pad by July 5th.

Crown led me/us to believe that it became Marks Ipad on July 4.

 

[Shaz14]

Common sense is one of those things that is very hard to define. Just like reasonable doubt. That's why people disagree about these things. And that's why for years courts refused to define reasonable doubt.

I didn't think you were attacking me. And I didn't meant to attack you. I was genuinely curious to know what -- under the circumstances and considering the evidence -- Smich could possibly be smiling about.

Thank you, I appreciate your response. If we were only looking at this from the point of view of accessory after the fact (which is what I thought we were originally talking about but apparently misunderstood) I would say that he could be smiling because he was helping DM who he admired, he was smiling because he gets joy from the act of burning a body for whatever reason, he is smiling because now he can brag and get street cred, he is smiling because DM told him to, he could be smiling because he was lied to and was told that it was something else in there and he was just having fun trying out the latest toy... I just think there are lots of reasons...all of which still make him a horrible person but don’t tell us that he knew anything ahead of time.

I personally think he is guilty of M1 though. I think he is smiling because he is high on drugs and the thrill of it all.

 

[ABro]

I don't think you have even remotely captured the essence of those that are not sure what prior knowledge MS had. And no one is asking anyone here to suspend common sense, in my opinion - it's your opinion that is being asked.

Maybe you could list what 'the totality of the evidence' is. I find that term highly overrated since a list never accompanies that phrase.

Imo everyone here is on the same side - not sure why any deserve to have their azz kicked.

Fwiw - when people take a pic of another person - they don't say cry, they say smile.

There are dozens of lists, a couple in this thread alone. I didn't find it necessary to repeat them. Here are two links from yesterday:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...rge-to-the-Jury-Day-2&p=13804474#post13804474

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...rge-to-the-Jury-Day-2&p=13804697#post13804697

I'm sorry you find the idea of the totality of the evidence overrated.

Maybe the judge can change your mind:

@

AdamCarterCBC
Dec 7

Any one piece of circumstantial evidence, standing alone, may not amount to much, Code says. "However, when a number of circumstances are put together and considered as a whole, a difference conclusion might be reached."


@AdamCarterCBC
Dec 7
More
He's now moving on to talking about looking at the evidence as a whole, and not piece by piece. #LauraBabcock

@AdamCarterCBC
Dec 7
More
He says look at the evidence as a totality, as a whole, and not "piecemeal." #LauraBabcock

@AdamCarterCBC
Dec 7
More
The meaning of reasonable doubt, Code says, is a doubt beyond reason and common sense, when looking at all the evidence as a whole. #LauraBabcock

IMO everyone is not on the same side when they suggest that the Smich incinerator photo is just another instance of someone taking a photo and telling the subject to smile. That's a deliberate distortion and minimization of what the photo is, a man posing smiling in front of the machine that the Crown alleges has just been used to burn the body of a young woman who was murdered.

I accept that people have different ideas of what constitutes reasonable doubt. But I think when you're resorting to isolating that photo from the other evidence and portraying it as just another guy saying cheese, there's something more going on.

 

[Ashley96]

RSBM
The "bromance" between these two was only in MS's mind. To DM, MS was nothing more than another minion that he could dangle a carrot in front of and use for his own personal gain.
How do you figure MS was pushing for anything other than trying to get money out of DM to pay his bills or buy his food, drink and drugs? Oh and to launch his "rap career". MS appeared to be willing to do anything for his "bro". DM...not so much.

I thought this text showed there was some pushing on MS part (at least according to DM)

Feb 29 7:29 pm Millard texts Smich: "I know you are itching to get working. It's just the busiest year of my life, and I haven't been able to put much time into it. But you've been building up that itch for years, we've only started down this path for a couple months. With the little time I've put in, look how much we've gotten ready. Soon as I finish these projects (one more month) think of how far we can go. Patience negro, things are happening. Don't lose faith in what we can make happen & take better care of yourself, you're usefulness takes a dive every time you get hurt. I need you in one piece, good times aren't here yet, but we're going to bring them."

I agree with what you say though...DM is the one who makes things happen, no doubt...but MS could nag (that's what I meant by pushing)... for anything that would get him easy money etc.) ...simpler motivation, but common goal?

I think DM 'got' something from MS too though...a bro he could discuss ever darkening ambitions and ideas with...someone willing to go to the next level.

If they were so close and DM shared everything with him, why is DM charged alone in the murder of his father? Why not involve MS in that one too?

(shrug)...not enough evidence? (pure speculation)

 

[brightii]

I'm just checking in tonight to say :tyou:Thank you to Kamille for posting Adam Carter's blog this afternoon and to Jasper52 for stepping up to add the remainder of tweets for the day.

I've only been reading here awhile tonight, but I understand Shaz14 how you may feel discouraged and I hope you won't let that inhibit your very thoughtful posts. Kamille was the first person to welcome me to WS a long time ago now and I find value in everything she writes, even when on the odd chance I may disagree with her, she always takes time to explain and defend her opinions with respect.

I appreciate everyone who contributes here and though I don't often have much to say, I read and take it all in. I am often amazed by the sleuthing and debating skills of so many people here and it's important for us all to feel welcome to express our thoughts openly..

Good night all. I look forward to this trial being over soon so that Laura will receive the justice she so deserves.

 

[canadiangirl]

Since there is so much chatter about this photo of MS, let's consider who is taking this photo? Who is taking the video of the rap? Who is taking the photo of MS welding?
Now common sense would say, why isn't this person IN any of the photos or videos if they enjoyed it so much? If they planned it together why is only one person "boasting" here?
It all feels very much "set up" up in a way.

DM was begging MS to hook him up with MWJ
DM was asking SS to build and order incinerators

I could go on about the DM list but we all know it's M1 for him... All MOO

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk