Canlii documents are too long for me to focus, so I'll just give this a "wtf".
Yes, I agree with this. Besides, bringing in a secondary motive would have mucked the waters. The motive to me was clear. What they want, they get. Whoever gets in the way, goes away. His aptitude for criminal activity was compelling, but it wasn't necessary to prove their case.Hopefully you can stand one passage.
The main purpose in seeking to tender evidence of the sixteen criminal incidents is to prove Millard’s alleged “thrill” seeking motive. In my view, the evidence of the sixteen incidents has limited probative value in relation to this issue for a number of reasons. First, it is not apparent that Millard’s alleged crime spree during this two and a half year period was motivated by “thrill” seeking. If the sixteen incidents can be proved and can be connected to Millard, they tend to indicate a pervasive and casual amorality, or general criminal disposition, but there is little about the crime spree that suggests “thrill” seeking. Second, and assuming a “thrill” seeking crime spree can be proved, the further inference the Crown relies on is that the Babcock murder was also motivated by a related desire for further and greater “thrills.” There is no real support for this inference in the evidence directly surrounding Ms. Babcock’s disappearance and her alleged cremation in the incinerator (as summarized above at para. 6). The desired further inference rests entirely on the extrinsic misconduct. Third, the Crown already has admissible evidence of a much more conventional motive, namely, Ms. Babcock appears to have become troublesome to Millard’s current relationship with his girlfriend and he had made a commitment to the current girlfriend that he was “going to hurt” Ms. Babcock and “make her leave.” In these circumstances, seeking to add weak evidence of a secondary motive concerning “thrill” seeking has little probative value while bringing significant prejudice into the trial. There is both moral prejudice, as the prior incidents infer a general disposition to commit crime, and there is reasoning prejudice due to the large number of prior incidents and the problems of proof associated with some of them. See: R. v. Johnson (2010), 2010 ONCA 646 (CanLII), 262 C.C.C. (3d) 404 at para. 100 (Ont. C.A.).
I don’t see much evidence of thrill seeking for its own sake either. To me it all looks objective based: acquire money or goods for profit. If you accept the Crown’s motive re Noudga tensions, that too is a specific objective.
I agree, but their motive being purposeful beyond "thrill seeking" was much more clear in my opinion.
I see the value in this point of view. I feel like "relieving CN" and "acquiring a truck" were cop outs for the fact that he wanted to "merk" people, and had no qualms about it. Maybe even enjoyed it.
I can't remember who called who, and I think when WM died MB and JS were out to dinner together, but in any sense, yes. They are all guilty as sin and there's no way around it, imo. Except apparently, in the eyes of LE.
