Laura Babcock Murder Trial 11.14.17 - Day 15

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fionn said:
I struggle with the theory put forward by the Crown as well. It doesn’t appear that he cared enough about any of these women to engage in an act as extreme as murder. I also agree that Laura didn’t appear to have any involvement in the “breakup” of DM and CN. The killing of Laura Babcock would have had to serve him in some way. I am drawn to the “note to self” which I can’t remember verbatim but was something along the lines of trying to make a deal with Laura and see what she would settle for. (MOO) I am sure someone in this group has better recall than I do.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

My thought was CN text flirted as a way of getting back at DM for having other women in his life. Tit for tat. As you said CN was thinking up deals to make with Laura. Perhaps DM actually cared for CN or decided he needed her for his plans so he followed through with his plan of making LB disappear.
 
andreww said:
Thats what I mean, we all know it wasn't a deer. So does the jury. But they couldn't see that picture without an expert to testify to what it is, so they found someone to do it. Its not good science though, thats all Im saying.
Click to expand...

He can argue anything, including that human anatomy is her specialty, and this is why she sees human bones everywhere. As an expert, she presented her opinion and the jury will have to put at least some weight on it....

Just another piece to keep the psychos where they belong.
 
bakingirl said:
If DM is found guilty of M1 at this trial, would the guilty verdict be evidence in the Wayne Millard trial? I think so, because it would be a similar fact, but does the Crown have to climb a hurdle to use it?
Click to expand...

Well, the convictions from the Bosma murder are inadmissible, and both the Bosma and Babcock murders saw an individual spend their final traceable (pre- and/or post-mortem) moments in the company of DM & MS, and end up in an incinerator. That was definitely a hurdle, and one that ultimately couldn't be cleared.

If it comes to light that WM's murder was motivated by what he may have known about LB's demise, hopefully probative value will be deemed to outweigh prejudicial.
 
Thanks Gremlingrrl! I thought maybe the Bosma conviction was inadmissible because it happened after Laura's murder. Also, the Crown seemed to really want Laura's trial before Wayne's trial. Maybe so they can use a potential M1 conviction from Laura's trial in Wayne's trial.

Fingers crossed that probative value would outweigh prejudicial effect.
 
bakingirl said:
Thanks Gremlingrrl! I thought maybe the Bosma conviction was inadmissible because it happened after Laura's murder. Also, the Crown seemed to really want Laura's trial before Wayne's trial. Maybe so they can use a potential M1 conviction from Laura's trial in Wayne's trial.

Fingers crossed that probative value would outweigh prejudicial effect.
Click to expand...

It's my understanding that there were a number of factors that worked against admissibility.

And re. the sequence of trials, DM was reeeeeally trying to get WM in before LB.

What an incredible, tangled web of loss, horror, and tragedy these losers have spun.

IMO
 
gremlingrrl said:
It's my understanding that there were a number of factors that worked against admissibility.

And re. the sequence of trials, DM was reeeeeally trying to get WM in before LB.

What an incredible, tangled web of loss, horror, and tragedy these losers have spun.

IMO
Click to expand...

wonder why...... will be interesting after all 3 trials to digest all the details and items under publication bans, to see the whole picture.
 
XFP said:
Are you referring to the January 2012 calendar reference: "Make a deal w/Laura, what does she want from me, what does she have to offer?"
Click to expand...

Yes. Thank you


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Kamille said:
Oh good, another extraction report to go over from The Mob Reporter while we wait...

[video=youtube;s6UnVuVPMZQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s6UnVuVPMZQ[/video]
Click to expand...

So ridiculous they text in "code." Like DUH :doh: , as if people can't figure out what they are talking about. Did they really think LE were that dumb hahaha. Yep, goes to show how dumb they all were...and to use their cellphone too. :bang: MOO.
 
don_quixote said:
Crown presents the triangle as one of the motives. And it's important to demonstrate that there was a motive in the crime. For example, a one-legged man that has only the left leg could argue that there is no point for him in stealing a right shoe, as he can't use it and the market value is negligible.

At the same time, motives can be less trivial. Would anybody argue that Russel Williams stole panties for personal use (imagine those under his uniform)?

Here is an excerpt from Bundy's wiki page. I find this relevant. Notice theft and the thrill of possession, as well as progression in his criminal behaviour. Does this ring the bell?
Shortly after the conclusion of the Leach trial and the beginning of the long appeals process that followed, Bundy initiated a series of interviews with Stephen Michaud and Hugh Aynesworth. Speaking mostly in third person to avoid "the stigma of confession", he began for the first time to divulge details of his crimes and thought processes.[SUP][231][/SUP]

He recounted his career as a thief, confirming Kloepfer's long-time suspicion that he had shoplifted virtually everything of substance that he owned.[SUP][232][/SUP] "The big payoff for me," he said, "was actually possessing whatever it was I had stolen. I really enjoyed having something ... that I had wanted and gone out and taken." Possession proved to be an important motive for rape and murder as well.[SUP][233][/SUP] Sexual assault, he said, fulfilled his need to "totally possess" his victims.[SUP][234][/SUP] At first, he killed his victims "as a matter of expediency ... to eliminate the possibility of [being] caught"; but later, murder became part of the "adventure". "The ultimate possession was, in fact, the taking of the life", he said. "And then ... the physical possession of the remains."[SUP][235][/SUP]

Bundy also confided in Special Agent William Hagmaier of the FBI Behavioral Analysis Unit. Hagmaier was struck by the "deep, almost mystical satisfaction" that Bundy took in murder. "He said that after a while, murder is not just a crime of lust or violence", Hagmaier related. "It becomes possession. They are part of you ... [the victim] becomes a part of you, and you [two] are forever one ... and the grounds where you kill them or leave them become sacred to you, and you will always be drawn back to them." Bundy told Hagmaier that he considered himself to be an "amateur", an "impulsive" killer in his early years, before moving into what he termed his "prime" or "predator" phase at about the time of Lynda Healy's murder in 1974. This implied that he began killing well before 1974—though he never explicitly admitted doing so.[SUP][236][/SUP]
Click to expand...

I understand motive and also know that the Crown does not have to prove motive. All I’m saying is I think the “love triangle” theory is lacking and doesn’t take into consideration key aspects of his exhibited personality traits. Bundy etc have been assessed and analyzed. Without a true understanding of DM’s pathology we may never know what truly motivated him, but like Bundy, Russell Williams et al the core motivation will fill some need within him. Again, only my opinion. :)


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
inbetweendoors said:
I was about to say something similar. I get we love to hate on DM, but what else would he do here in his defense? Or even legit defense attorneys for that matter?
Seems fair to me. He has to try to argue her findings or else he may as well just roll over.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

He may as well roll over, he's done. Stick a fork in it DM. Too much evidence stacked against you and you're not impressive. He just wants to strut his stuff and show the jurors what a brilliant man he is...narcissistic ahole.

I wonder if he's impressing Markie hahaha. I'm sure MS looked up to DM once upon a time, thinking he was pretty brilliant. :laughing: MOO.
 
gremlingrrl said:
Can you elaborate?
Click to expand...

I'm not sure about the drugs theory, but it is possible that LB was killed for the following reasons:

- In addition to the iPad, it's possible that she had a few thousand dollars in her possession at the time she was murdered. DM alludes to scoring "loot" after the murder. Maybe DM told her they were going on a trip for a month or two and asked her to bring some cash to spend on the trip. Maybe she left the $1000 at her parent's house with her dog because she wanted to have some money left over when she returned from said trip? IIRC, SL said she had a few thousand dollars on her when he put her up in the hotel.

- She perhaps knew something and was trying to get drugs/money from him. Maybe that's what he was referring to with the note about figuring out what she wants from him. So perhaps killing her was the easy way to avoid possible blackmail? Perhaps LB had evidence that they had slept together while he was dating CN and she was threatening to show CN? DM was clearly lying to CN about sleeping with LB while they were together.

- DM clearly had a "special" relationship with CN, and CN clearly wanted LB out of the picture, so murdering LB would also solve that issue. In the texts between DM and CN, it seems clear to me that CN knew what was coming for LB and she seemed happy about it.

All my opinion of course.

We will find out more as the trial progresses.
 
Fionn said:
I understand motive and also know that the Crown does not have to prove motive. All I’m saying is I think the “love triangle” theory is lacking and doesn’t take into consideration key aspects of his exhibited personality traits. Bundy etc have been assessed and analyzed. Without a true understanding of DM’s pathology we may never know what truly motivated him, but like Bundy, Russell Williams et al the core motivation will fill some need within him. Again, only my opinion. :)
Click to expand...

DM is odd because his choice of victims didn't follow a recognizable pattern, which is so typical of serial killers. Bundy only chose young pretty women with long hair, he would never have killed a guy because he wanted his truck. Also, very unusually, DM acquired a partner in killing.

I think if he's convicted of all three murders, there'll be a lot of interest from psychologists to classify him.
 
Satchie said:
DM is odd because his choice of victims didn't follow a recognizable pattern, which is so typical of serial killers. Bundy only chose young pretty women with long hair, he would never have killed a guy because he wanted his truck. Also, very unusually, DM acquired a partner in killing.

I think if he's convicted of all three murders, there'll be a lot of interest from psychologists to classify him.
Click to expand...

I completely agree with you.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
matou said:
The Mob Reporter: WHAT THE JURY SAW: Laura Babcock Trial — “Preparing Eliminator” | What was on Millard’s computers 11

[video=youtube;HAZkGiO0J0Q]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HAZkGiO0J0Q[/video]
Click to expand...

Hmm interesting now to see those tweets about the idea of a cremation business. Wonder why defense never brought those texts into evidence? I guess his uncle Robert's testimony was enough to convince the jurors what a lying sack of ***** his nephew really is. Carpy defense, no wonder DM decided to defend himself LMAO. Not that he's doing any better, but at least he's not wasting his money (Rabbit's inheritance) now. It won't surprise me if he ends up defending himself in his father's trial. MOO.

I noticed a yellow boom truck in the background of a couple of those photo...another stole vehicle perhaps? And they have gutted it.

No wonder Al S wasn't willing to move forward on contract...what a blood mess that brand new hangar was. WM poured all his money, millions of dollars into the hangar and these idiots were using it like it was a playground. SMH. ALL MOO.
 
paris_paris said:
There is a picture on the intranets of Andrew in the driver's seat. But I think the Cadillac was promised to MS after the TB murder.
Click to expand...
There is another caddy I thought. It was light blue?

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk
 
Satchie said:
DM is odd because his choice of victims didn't follow a recognizable pattern, which is so typical of serial killers. Bundy only chose young pretty women with long hair, he would never have killed a guy because he wanted his truck. Also, very unusually, DM acquired a partner in killing.

I think if he's convicted of all three murders, there'll be a lot of interest from psychologists to classify him.
Click to expand...

A bored man-boy psychopath with no accountability, too much money and too few responsibilities? A loser who needed a hobby outside of chasing the next adrenaline rush, with a brain whose serotonin and dopamine levels were perpetually off-kilter as a result of the party that never ended? An entitled narcissist no one had ever successfully said "no" to?

(I'm not a psychologist, and I've never played one on tv.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 178 more.
Total: 3,932 (members: 179, guests: 3,753)

Online statistics

Members online
179
Guests online
3,753
Total visitors
3,932
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,428
Messages
17,968,738
Members
228,767
Latest member
Dont4get
Back
Top