Babcock Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #6

[winter2017]

Okay so he will be in for a long time, good to know. There are conflicting stories about yesterday that at the end of the day he turned and smiled at DM. If he did and it was a smile of high five to , DM it would mean to me that he was not the manipulated person he tried to portray he was.

I believe 25 years is the minimum. After that he would have to apply for parole. But yes, assuming he is found not guilty here he could technically be released when he is about 47 i believe.

 

[andreww]

I don’tknow for sure, but I would imagine whatever sentence they get for this trialwould be added on to what they currently have

I think that convictions related to the same crime are generally served concurrently. Like if you steal a car to rob a store and shoot the clerk, and are convicted of auto theft, robbery and attempted murder, those sentences might be served all at once. If you kill two different people at different times you would likely receive consecutive sentences (running end to end).

 

[winter2017]

I agree i don't think he will stay out of trouble.

That said, if Smich wants to get out in 25 years he is going to need to take responsibility and admit to his part in TBs murder. He's going to have to be a model prisoner, take courses, work, and stay out of trouble. Somehow I don't see that guy doing that, so I won't hold my breath.

 

[Inspector_North]

I think that convictions related to the same crime are generally served concurrently. Like if you steal a car to rob a store and shoot the clerk, and are convicted of auto theft, robbery and attempted murder, those sentences might be served all at once. If you kill two different people at different times you would likely receive consecutive sentences (running end to end).

If not consecutive, it will weigh heavily on the parole hearing. Especially since the "Bosma Army" are saving their impact statement for the parole hearing. And I guarantee they will have representation at the hearing 21 years from now. I hope LB's family does also. MOO

 

[Grey-St]

I've heard of TV's being removed from rooms, so maybe the same applies for cell phones and lap tops? Simply not allowed to bring these items? If one needed to make a call to family and/or friends, they could use the phone in the room. I think anything that could be connected to MSM would be disallowed, though.
JMO, though, I'd have to do some research. I don't know how strict these conditions are in our Canadian system.

Some interesting information during deliberation/sequestration:

[FONT=&amp]After the judge gives his or her instructions to the jurors, the jurors then retire to a separate room where they consider the verdict. At this point the jury is no longer allowed to speak to anyone outside of the jury room with the exception of a court appointed officer; juries in Canada are always sequestered during deliberations. They cannot have contact with any individual other than the other jurors. They are denied access to the media and cannot even phone family or friends until a verdict has been reached. They also cannot speak with the accused individual, the Crown Attorney, or the criminal defense lawyer; doing so could result in the judge ordering a new trial.[/FONT]

So maybe they take the hotel phone too... But what if there is a family emergency? Seems harsh.

After the trial:

[FONT=&amp]In some countries, such as the United States, it is permitted for jurors to discuss the facts of the case and their reasons for their verdict after a trial has been completed and the verdict given. In Canada however, jurors are not allowed to reveal such information. They cannot discuss anything that was said in the jury deliberation room with anyone, even after a verdict has been given. Any juror who does so may be charged with contempt of court, which is a criminal offence. This also applies to members of a jury which are “hung”, meaning that even if the juror was a member of a jury which did not reach a verdict, they are still not allowed to discuss any of the proceedings or deliberations that took place during their time as a juror.[/FONT]

Wish I could find out more, specifically on what items they take away and/or disallow.
http://www.victimsofviolence.on.ca/research-library/juries-in-criminal-trials/

 

[Shaz14]

Some interesting information during deliberation/sequestration:

So maybe they take the hotel phone too... But what if there is a family emergency? Seems harsh.

After the trial:


Wish I could find out more, specifically on what items they take away and/or disallow.
http://www.victimsofviolence.on.ca/research-library/juries-in-criminal-trials/

I’m sure there are plans in place in case there is a family emergency. Jury trials happen all the time so this must come up. It just wouldn’t involve having a phone in the room. The situation would probably need to be heard by the judge and then whatever arrangements need to be made can be made through the court. There is a lot of respect for the jury. It sounds harsh but they are not being punished, they are simply doing a job as a citizen.

 

[Grey-St]

There have been some negative references to Thomas Dungey over the course of this trial, implying he is not doing a good job as defense lawyer for MS. This implication is largely based on the times when Dungey did not say much. However, the absense of TD speaking, is part of his defense strategy. As such, I disagree that TD is not doing his job.

A defense lawyer is often a lightning rod, it comes with the territory. The accused are who should be reviled, not the defense. The key points to remember, are the right to a legal defense, and the right to a fair trial, both of which are cornerstone of our justice system, within our civil society. And MS is entitled to those rights, guilty or not.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secti...reedoms#Right_to_make_full_answer_and_defence

A defense lawyer's principle purpose is not to "get his client off the charges". Rather, the defense lawyer's purpose is to ensure that his client gets a fair trial, with knowledgeable representation acting in the interest of the client. So long as Dungey mounts a vigorous defense, and ensures that his client received a fair trial, ensuring proper procedures followed, then he has done his job. If the prosecution and jury follow procedure, and the jury determines his client is guilty as charged, this ought not reflect badly on TD.

I completely agree. I'm not of the opinion that "TD isn't doing his job". He is a well versed and experienced lawyer, and we still aren't privy to what's being discussed during legal arguments, when the jury is absent.

 

[Inspector_North]

I wonder if DM has given up on CN making overnight trailer visits?

 

[musicaljoke]

I think DMgets M1 for sure. Although there is no body and no forensic evidence, there isa huge amount of circumstantial evidence that jury should be able to puttogether. I think the letters were the final nails in the coffin….why is someonedesperately be trying to put together a story and alibi ….also, I hope the CApoints out the jury that DM letter says “The night Laura disappeared”….how doeshe even know she disappeared or even more the night she disappeared? Doesn’t hebelieve she is still alive?
I think MSwill not be convicted of M1. I think the jury will be given another option suchas accessory after the fact and /or disposing of a dead body. I think the jurywill have a much easier time finding him guilty of something lesser

I don't believe that these lesser charges will be an option. He can be found guilty of M1, M2, attempted murder, or manslaughter, and I believe that's all.

First degree murder charged
(2) For greater certainty and without limiting the generality of subsection (1), where a count charges first degree murder and the evidence does not prove first degree murder but proves second degree murder or an attempt to commit second degree murder, the jury may find the accused not guilty of first degree murder but guilty of second degree murder or an attempt to commit second degree murder, as the case may be.

Conviction for infanticide or manslaughter on charge of murder
(3) Subject to subsection (4), where a count charges murder and the evidence proves manslaughter or infanticide but does not prove murder, the jury may find the accused not guilty of murder but guilty of manslaughter or infanticide, but shall not on that count find the accused guilty of any other offence.

http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Murder_(Offence)#Lesser_Included_Offences

 

[JuneBug67]

I think DMgets M1 for sure. Although there is no body and no forensic evidence, there isa huge amount of circumstantial evidence that jury should be able to puttogether. I think the letters were the final nails in the coffin….why is someonedesperately be trying to put together a story and alibi ….also, I hope the CApoints out the jury that DM letter says “The night Laura disappeared”….how doeshe even know she disappeared or even more the night she disappeared? Doesn’t hebelieve she is still alive?
I think MSwill not be convicted of M1. I think the jury will be given another option suchas accessory after the fact and /or disposing of a dead body. I think the jurywill have a much easier time finding him guilty of something lesser

He can only be convicted of the lesser included offences of the murder for which he's charged. As outlined previously that is essentially M1, M2 or manslaughter. I think you're right that the jury would have a much easier time finding him guilty of something lesser, which I believe is exactly why he is is not charged with anything else. The Crown has essentially forced a choice on the jury - murder or manslaughter, or nothing. It would be extremely hard psychologically I think to let MS off with nothing given his role in the incineration. If he had been charged with committing an indignity to a human body that would invite a compromise verdict if they were struggling with his guilt for the murder. No such option here. The Crown is gambling on the strength of its case, and that often works out for them.

 

[Just4TB]

Ahh yes, his "Wonderwall" now dashed - not the one to save him...

I wonder if DM will pull a Slobodan Praljak at sentencing? It could be his finest hour...

I wonder if DM has given up on CN making overnight trailer visits?

 

[inbetweendoors]

I'm not sure how this relates to my point? I'm not saying that poor DM had a gun thrust into his hands. There was clearly an interest once it was broached, and yes, clearly communication beyond the texts. The whole thrust of my original post was to wonder how people are pinning an alleged murder weapon on MS when even DM didn't go looking for it in June 2013.

He's super anxious for something for sure, but for what is not clear. He was still anxious to acquire something by late on the 4th, so it's truly not obvious if or how any of it fits into Laura's death. The whole body of gun facts in these cases is a bit confounding. We know there were at least three because of the charges on MWJ et al. We've seen pictures of two and aren't likely to see any more. We know DM claimed to MS that guns, plural, were lost in a break in at Maplegate, yet we have accounted for at least two via WM and TB.

BBM

And the text about the break in ("gats are gone") was from February 2013 (see link and search "gats").
We know the .32 was confiscated in Nov 2012 and he still had the Walther in May 2013...so which "gats" were gone??
The Bodyguard maybe... and did WM have any legal ones of his own? Or are there even more guns? Or did he mean the "gats" had been removed prior to this break in?

My head hurts.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/d...earchUrlHash=AAAAAQAGTm91ZGdhAAAAAAE&offset=0

 

[bambam22]

He can only be convicted of the lesser included offences of the murder for which he's charged. As outlined previously that is essentially M1, M2 or manslaughter. I think you're right that the jury would have a much easier time finding him guilty of something lesser, which I believe is exactly why he is is not charged with anything else. The Crown has essentially forced a choice on the jury - murder or manslaughter, or nothing. It would be extremely hard psychologically I think to let MS off with nothing given his role in the incineration. If he had been charged with committing an indignity to a human body that would invite a compromise verdict if they were struggling with his guilt for the murder. No such option here. The Crown is gambling on the strength of its case, and that often works out for them.

Thank you....great clarification

 

[JuneBug67]

I completely agree. I'm not of the opinion that "TD isn't doing his job". He is a well versed and experienced lawyer, and we still aren't privy to what's being discussed during legal arguments, when the jury is absent.

Repeatedly having few or no questions is also a great way to project a case through things other than language. It's a very effective way to say "you have no case against my client" in the right circumstance.

 

[Grey-St]

Ahh yes, his "Wonderwall" now dashed - not the one to save him...

I wonder if DM will pull a Slobodan Praljak at sentencing? It could be his finest hour...

Omgosh, I had to look this up, lol. That would be something, wouldn't it?

 

[Grey-St]

BBM

And the text about the break in ("gats are gone") was from February 2013 (see link and search "gats").
We know the .32 was confiscated in Nov 2012 and he still had the Walther in May 2013...so which "gats" were gone??
The Bodyguard maybe... and did WM have any legal ones of his own? Or are there even more guns? Or did he mean the "gats" had been removed prior to this break in?

My head hurts.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/d...earchUrlHash=AAAAAQAGTm91ZGdhAAAAAAE&offset=0

This is a really interesting document that outlines how and what the police were investigating, and what they learned from interviewing certain individuals, before charges were laid.

To answer your questions though, I don't think the text means the gats had been removed prior to the break in. I think it means that gats were stolen during the break in. We know that this doesn't involved the .32 or the Walther, so there must have been other guns at Maplegate. This could mean legal firearms or illegal firearms, but I would have to speculate illegal.

When you keep sketchy company, or sketchy people become privy to the fact that you have acquired "tools", don't be surprised when they rob you... :dunno:

 

[ab-initio]

Yeah, first one sounds simply like a hard earned exciting payment. Didn't realize there was only two references. Surprising it seems it's taken on a meaning of it's own.

BBM.
I have often wondered what the involved parties think of the inferences being drawn from their text communication.
Could range from a "holy s**t, we're that transparent?!" to a "LOL look at these idiots, that's not what we were talking about!"
At any given time you could take any number of my text messages out of context and conclude something completely different than what was intended.
It's possible we are way off-base.

 

[LN33]

BBM

And the text about the break in ("gats are gone") was from February 2013 (see link and search "gats").
We know the .32 was confiscated in Nov 2012 and he still had the Walther in May 2013...so which "gats" were gone??
The Bodyguard maybe... and did WM have any legal ones of his own? Or are there even more guns? Or did he mean the "gats" had been removed prior to this break in?

My head hurts.

https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onsc/d...earchUrlHash=AAAAAQAGTm91ZGdhAAAAAAE&offset=0

I read the canlii reference included here. Thank you for it. I found it assuring and impressive to see both the care that is taken to guard individual rights and also the diligent, expert work of our police services and our judicial system.

 

[Kamille]

He can only be convicted of the lesser included offences of the murder for which he's charged. As outlined previously that is essentially M1, M2 or manslaughter. I think you're right that the jury would have a much easier time finding him guilty of something lesser, which I believe is exactly why he is is not charged with anything else. The Crown has essentially forced a choice on the jury - murder or manslaughter, or nothing. It would be extremely hard psychologically I think to let MS off with nothing given his role in the incineration. If he had been charged with committing an indignity to a human body that would invite a compromise verdict if they were struggling with his guilt for the murder. No such option here. The Crown is gambling on the strength of its case, and that often works out for them.

And if the jury cannot come to an agreement on MS, but does on DM, there will be a mistrial for MS and a verdict for DM. So will MS be retried on his own in that scenario?

 

[JuneBug67]

BBM.
I have often wondered what the involved parties think of the inferences being drawn from their text communication.
Could range from a "holy s**t, we're that transparent?!" to a "LOL look at these idiots, that's not what we were talking about!"
At any given time you could take any number of my text messages out of context and conclude something completely different than what was intended.
It's possible we are way off-base.

This, and you could also select them arbitrarily and string them together to create a narrative flow where there actually is none. That's how we ended up with the purchase of the same incinerator being implied as evidence of planning in two completely distinct crimes.