Laura Babcock Murder Trial 12.07.17 - Charge to the Jury - Day 1

[meterclicks]

Code says he has two more sections he wants to deal with today. We're taking the afternoon recess now.
by Adam Carter 3:55 PM

 

[mimimic]

thank you for the kind words, mimimic! Yes, lots of education is finally being done. I've trained service providers, law enforcement, social workers, teachers, and also spoken in many classrooms and youth groups.

awesome!***

 

[Bluepopsicle]

God’s work, Grey St. Thank you.
And what an eye opener that article is., thanks for posting FrannieQ

 

[Grey-St]

MOO

They did not call many, if any, TPS Officers to testify and I believe that could be that they would not have been good witnesses for the Crown. TPS did very little, if nothing, when LB was reported missing. Shawn Lerner had to beg them to look into Dellen Millard as LB's final phone calls/texts were to him. They did not look into Dellen Millard.

TPS, I wholeheartedly believe, did nothing because LB was a sex trade worker, had a history of drug use and mental illness. IMHO they figured she lived a risky lifestyle and those types of people go missing all the time, so why bother.

The only LE type witnesses were analysts and forensic types. Most of them came from Hamilton as most of the evidence was collected at the time of the murder of Tim Bosma. TPS didn't investigate anything about Laura until Tim Bosma was murdered and Dellen Millard's name came up and Shawn Lerner went back to TPS to make them aware.

Pretty sad actually.

Again, MOO

I could not agree with this more, and wholeheartedly put my support behind this post, given my experience with these populations.

 

[FrannieQ]

I appreciate your experienced views on this but then there's that still small voice again. DM and MS are a couple of unsavoury characters, that's for sure, and proven, years later, to be capable of brutal murder. However, the poor jury in this case has to decide whether they carried out this particular brutal murder. Didn't she have a restraining order against a boyfriend who was pimping her on the internet just a couple of months before her disappearance? That was the guy who testified that he saw her months later, I think. Maybe I better go back and read the thread more carefully. Anyway, just sayin'. One frivolous side note to that outstanding Star article are the photos mid-way down the page of this heavily tattooed trafficer who is presently biding his time in the hoosegow. Wouldn't you know it? His name is Matthew!! What is it with all these Matthews prowling around on the dark side. (Note to self: Stay far away from overly tattooed Torontonians named Matthew.)

 

[inbetweendoors]

I must say, I feel really sorry for the two jurors that will be dismissed come time for deliberations. I remember how hard it was for the dismissed jurors in the TB trial. They never had closure.

IIRC One of the alternates was excused when her brother died, and the other was excused during Closings for undisclosed, personal reasons.

I agree with the rest of your statement, I would definitely find it difficult to be an alternate (but at the same time, it might be a relief not to have to decide the fate of someone's life).

 

[Nosey Parker]

Whenever I have suspicions of Laura disappearing of her own free will, or nefariously, I think back to her willingly leaving Lacey with her parents. That to me shows she anticipated a trip with intent to return. That's based on my years as a dog owner.

 

[Grey-St]

I appreciate your experienced views on this but then there's that still small voice again. DM and MS are a couple of unsavoury characters, that's for sure, and proven, years later, to be capable of brutal murder. However, the poor jury in this case has to decide whether they carried out this particular brutal murder. Didn't she have a restraining order against a boyfriend who was pimping her on the internet just a couple of months before her disappearance? That was the guy who testified that he saw her months later, I think. Maybe I better go back and read the thread more carefully. Anyway, just sayin'. One frivolous side note to that outstanding Star article are the photos mid-way down the page of this heavily tattooed trafficer who is presently biding his time in the hoosegow. Wouldn't you know it? His name is Matthew!! What is it with all these Matthews prowling around on the dark side. (Note to self: Stay far away from overly tattooed Torontonians named Matthew.)

I understand your concerns. However, if she was being trafficked/pimped, she would still have footsteps (to reference the crowns closing). Sadly, Laura is very much gone, and her footsteps end with the two accused.

 

[Gloria77]

Whenever I have suspicions of Laura disappearing of her own free will, or nefariously, I think back to her willingly leaving Lacey with her parents. That to me shows she anticipated a trip with intent to return. That's based on my years as a dog owner.

Hi Nosey Parker, was it ever confirmed that Laura did in fact leave Lacey herself?

 

[Shaz14]

Hi Nosey Parket, was it ever confirmed that Laura did in fact leave Lacey herself?

That never occurred to me. If it wasn’t her, who would have done that?

 

[DeaconBrodie]

Can anyone help me out here? I'm having a bit of trouble understanding the second hearsay rule, and the examples Justice Code gave.

DeaconBrodie? Lol :loser:

The admissibility of hearsay evidence is very intricate and complicated. The basics rule is that you cannot introduce testimony about what someone else said IF you are leading that evidence for the truth of its contents and not just to show that it was said. There are however a number of exceptions.

Justice Code was referring to the exception that if there is evidence that an accused has at some time accepted the hearsay to be true (adopted the hearsay) then it can be used for the truth of its contents against that accused.

I'm not sure what hearsay he was referring to, but hopefully he will talk about it I context later in his charge.

Hopefully I haven't just made it more confusing....

 

[Nosey Parker]

Hi Nosey Parker, was it ever confirmed that Laura did in fact leave Lacey herself?

That was my understanding from her father. However, as Shaz asks, who would have done that? DM knew where her parents lived but that would incriminate him all the more. Can't think of anyone else who had any reason to do that, can you?

 

[mousy]

That never occurred to me. If it wasn’t her, who would have done that?

My opinion here. IF she did not drop her dog off and I *think* I read that they (her parents) came home to the dog and money on the counter. Millard knew that her parents changed the locks and left a key for her outside for her to use at all times, I believe they said they changed the locks to control who comes and goes. I found that odd because they left a key outside hidden so that seem odd and would not change whom she brings in. But anyway I wonder if he dropped the dog off at her parents. I would have to dig to see where I read that but I am new to the boards here and not good at searching.
This is all my opinion but its what I wonder. He left $1000 for the care of the dog and kept the $3000 for himself to spend.

 

[meterclicks]

We're back -- now talking about "bad character evidence," relating to purchasing of a gun, selling drugs, and smuggling ammunition.
by Adam Carter 4:34 PM

Code says the jury heard information about Millard buying a handgun from Iso on July 2. It was found at his home. The judge says he needs to tell the jury on how they can't and can't use this evidence.
by Adam Carter 4:35 PM

 

[Shaz14]

My opinion here. IF she did not drop her dog off and I *think* I read that they (her parents) came home to the dog and money on the counter. Millard knew that her parents changed the locks and left a key for her outside for her to use at all times, I believe they said they changed the locks to control who comes and goes. I found that odd because they left a key outside hidden so that seem odd and would not change whom she brings in. But anyway I wonder if he dropped the dog off at her parents. I would have to dig to see where I read that but I am new to the boards here and not good at searching.
This is all my opinion but its what I wonder. He left $1000 for the care of the dog and kept the $3000 for himself to spend.

But then what is with all the pings around Kipling station? His phone didn’t track to her parents place, right? Why would DM go through the effort to drop the dog off if he was going to kill her?? Why not take the dog?

I always assumed that she left the $1000 for her parents and just took the remaining $3000 with her...which DM would have ended up with, hence his comment about all the loot.

 

[meterclicks]

Code says it looks like Millard had this phone in his possession by the evening of July 3, but he did not have ammo at this time.
by Adam Carter 4:36 PM

[Assuming Adam means gun here and not phone]

Code now talking about how it appears Millard got ammunition from Ward Jackson, then went to Kipling subway station to pick up Babcock. But there's "no evidence" that any ammo was delivered, he says, or that the gun was used to kill Babcock. It can only be used to look at if Millard had planned to kill Babcock, Code says.
by Adam Carter 4:38 PM

Intent and planning to kill are essential elements in first-degree and second-degree murder, Code says.
by Adam Carter 4:38 PM

 

[meterclicks]

"It's not that this was actually the murder weapon, but if it was part of a plan to kill and an intent to kill," Code says.
by Adam Carter 4:39 PM

The judge says that the jury can't use this evidence to infer that Millard, through his association with Ward-Jackson, is a person of bad character, and is therefore the kind of person who would be likely to kill someone.
by Adam Carter 4:40 PM

"You must not use the evidence in that manner," Code says.
by Adam Carter 4:41 PM

 

[FastLikeLight]

My opinion here. IF she did not drop her dog off and I *think* I read that they (her parents) came home to the dog and money on the counter. Millard knew that her parents changed the locks and left a key for her outside for her to use at all times, I believe they said they changed the locks to control who comes and goes. I found that odd because they left a key outside hidden so that seem odd and would not change whom she brings in. But anyway I wonder if he dropped the dog off at her parents. I would have to dig to see where I read that but I am new to the boards here and not good at searching.
This is all my opinion but its what I wonder. He left $1000 for the care of the dog and kept the $3000 for himself to spend.

"1093
Jul 4 10:20 pm
Millard texts Noudga: "I just got in, haven't slept in 2 days. Got lots a loot though! Scooped you a little present along the way." (1/2) Babcock Day 13: Falconer testimony"

My bold. You decide if it can be part of those 3000.


"Loot" is found several times at https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Hb6kEtpLa8cHCVorBuy4yqfHymGvhfHeM6s8QMWGVW8/pubhtml

1532
Feb 16 - Im just comin for the loot, so shoot first, I come for your new purse, and wallets, Bosma Day 54: Crown cross of Smich

488 Apr 12 3:53 pm Smich texts Millard: "Lol. Nah I need like actual money. I'm not gunna sit around and make something just to sit around..." (1/2)
Babcock Day 12: Falconer testimony
489 Apr 12 3:53 pm Smich texts Millard: "...and sell it. I'm already doing that with my rhymes. I need a pay check or a mission." (2/2) Babcock Day 12: Falconer testimony
490 Apr 12 4:00 pm Smich texts Millard: "Unless u can send me some loot. lol. That would be proper. I could just try to sell the plants." (1/3)

 

[meterclicks]

Again, he says this is one link in a "chain of circumstantial inferences."
by Adam Carter 4:41 PM

So is there some other reason Millard could have bought a gun in this period of time? The jury should weigh it against that, Code says.
by Adam Carter 4:42 PM

The next bad character evidence is that Millard and Smich provided drugs or cigarettes to people, including Babcock.
by Adam Carter 4:43 PM

 

[Bluepopsicle]

Whenever I have suspicions of Laura disappearing of her own free will, or nefariously, I think back to her willingly leaving Lacey with her parents. That to me shows she anticipated a trip with intent to return. That's based on my years as a dog owner.

I hear that, Nosey Parker! My sentiments exactly!!

One other thing that’s bothered me, as a dog owner, is hearing that Pedo soiled DM’s bed. I don’t know where that came from, his defence, or others speculating... But as a dog owner almost all of my life, dogs don’t normally soil where they or their owner sleeps. That’s taboo in dog behavior, from my experience and what I’ve read in canine behavior.