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

[meterclicks]

The Crown submits that Smich was an aider or abettor here. The jury has to figure out if he had the intent to kill, or an intent to cause bodily harm, while aiding and abetting the principal.
by Adam Carter 12:32 PM

The Crown has gotten to Smich's state of mind, Code says, by making allegations about Millard and Smich's relationship, the knowledge and testing of the Eliminator, his involvement in cremating something on July 23/24, and his statements about "killing a girl."
by Adam Carter 12:34 PM

"Remember that the Crown need not prove both of these subjective mental elements or states of mind. One will suffice. Furthermore, you need not all agree on the same state of mind, provided you all agree on the particular accused you are considering had one or the other of these two alternative states of mind. If you unanimously agree that Mr. Millard and/or Mr. Smich had one or the other of these two states of mine, then the Crown will have proved the lesser included offence of second-degree murder in relation to that accused. You would then go on to consider the greater offence of first-degree muder in relation to that accused. If you have reasonable doubt in relation to both of these alternative states of mind in relation to one or both of the accused, then you must find that accused not guilty of second-degree murder but guilty of manslaughter, and you would proceed no further in your deliberations in relation to that particular accused," Code says.
by Adam Carter 12:39 PM

 

[DeaconBrodie]

Exactly. The ruling is, as you said, absurd. I'm only in my twenties so I grew up with "cyber safety" curriculum as far back as elementary school. The first rule of cyber safety is that once you've put something out there on the internet (whether it's text messages, iMessages, facebook, whatever), it's fair game. You no longer own it & it's out there forever. This seems totally backwards to me.

Just because a communication is deemed to have an expectation of privacy attached to it does not mean that it cannot be used in Court.

It just means that there is a privacy consideration under section 8 of the Charter and police would need to obtain a search warrant before they searched text messages if they wanted to use them later against the accused. That was exactly what they had to do to get a hold of DM's letters to CN.

I doubt this decision will be reversed any time soon since it is a SCC decision.

 

[mimimic]

My thoughts exactly. The evidence against MS are thin. Rap, admission and incinerator photos are not enough IMO. AATF it is, as it's all after the fact.

There is this one SMS from DM to MS about "No go" because the incinerator is not ready. That's probably the main one that points to MS having prior knowledge and participating in planning. But then, it's not a statistical exercise. One evidence should be enough. Can it even be admitted against MS?

Thick for my sense of practicality.

 

[meterclicks]

Now we're moving on to first-degree murder, and planning and deliberation. "To prove first degree murder by planning and deliberation, the Crown must prove beyond a reasonable doubt not only that Mr. Millard and/or Mr. Smich murdered Ms, Babcock but also that the murder was both planned and deliberate. It is not enough to prove that the murder was planned, or that the murder was deliberate. In order to establish that the murder was first-degree murder, the Crown must prove both planning and deliberation."
by Adam Carter 12:41 PM

Code says they must have planned to murder her, not just assault her, for first-degree murder to apply in this case.
by Adam Carter 12:42 PM

 

[brightii]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweets:

Planning and deliberation elevates second degree to first degree murder. #LauraBabcock

Crown has to prove both planning and deliberation for first degree murder, and the planning and deliberation have to relate to #LauraBabcock's death.

The jury must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that in advance of the events at the Etobicoke home on July 3/4th 2012, #Millard and/or #Smich, planned to kill #LauraBabcock and that they deliberated over the plan before proceeding.

 

[don_quixote]

I don't know. But the Supreme Court of Canada is the ultimate arbiter of what the law is. It's not making any "new" law as I understand it. So if it rules that certain types of "evidence" should not be admitted because it violates the Constitution, then those convicted of crimes based on what the Court has deemed inadmissible evidence can appeal based on that ruling. However these things take time to work their way down the food chain, so to speak.

I believe this ruling will affect this case (and possibly ths Bosma case) though it may or may not result in any change to the status of the convicted. Time will tell.

I think the purpose of this ruling is to address all the privacy challenges that come with the technology. I don't think its purpose is to make the justice process more difficult.

How many people sent an SMS today that says "I'll kill him" about a co-worker they had a disagreement with? Must be in 100s of 1000s, or even millions. Is it fair and practical to send those people through the justice system because of that one SMS? Probably not. However, if there are other circumstances that point to that person, then why not use the SMS as an evidence?

 

[meterclicks]

"Planned means a calculated scheme or design that has been carefully thought out. The consequences have been thought over and sized up," Code says. "The plan does not have to be complicated, or sensible."
by Adam Carter 12:43 PM

"A murder committed on a sudden impulse and without prior consideration, even with an intention to kill, is not a planned murder," Code says.
by Adam Carter 12:44 PM

Deliberation is key here, he's stressing to the jury. It has to be carefully thought out, not hasty or rash.
by Adam Carter 12:45 PM

 

[Kamille]

My thoughts exactly. The evidence against MS are thin. Rap, admission and incinerator photos are not enough IMO. AATF it is, as it's all after the fact.

There is this one SMS from DM to MS about "No go" because the incinerator is not ready. That's probably the main one that points to MS having prior knowledge and participating in planning. But then, it's not a statistical exercise. One evidence should be enough. Can it even be admitted against MS?

I think that MS knew that escalating their missions and "taking things right from the source" meant that they would eliminate the "source" if need be (as in the case of TB) I'm still not sure if he had any idea DM was planning to eliminate LB and whether just knowing what the incinerator's purpose was for, in missions down the road, is enough for him to get M1 for LB.

And speaking of taking things right from the source...poor WM. :notgood:

MOO

 

[don_quixote]

Thick for my sense of practicality.

Enough for AATF. But viewed in isolation doesn't necessarily imply prior knowledge.

 

[meterclicks]

So here, state of mind at the time of the alleged murder is key, Code says.
by Adam Carter 12:46 PM

"In my view, you should particularly consider the timing and sequence of certain events," Code says. He points to the alleged motive to "hurt" Babcock and "remove her from our lives" in Millard's texts came from April 2012. Babcock vanished in July.
by Adam Carter 12:48 PM

Code says the jury needs to decide whether or not the timing and sequence of the evidence we've seen amounts to planning and deliberation. Millard has said it's not.
by Adam Carter 12:49 PM

 

[DeaconBrodie]

I don't know. But the Supreme Court of Canada is the ultimate arbiter of what the law is. It's not making any "new" law as I understand it. So if it rules that certain types of "evidence" should not be admitted because it violates the Constitution, then those convicted of crimes based on what the Court has deemed inadmissible evidence can appeal based on that ruling. However these things take time to work their way down the food chain, so to speak.

I believe this ruling will affect this case (and possibly the Bosma case) though it may or may not result in any change to the status of the convicted. Time will tell.

Doubtful. Part of the analysis of excluding evidence is determining if the exclusion would bring the administration o justice to disrepute and one of the factors is whether he police acted egregiously when they breached the right.

If they were following the known law and procedures at the time, then they were likely acting in an appropriate manner at that time.

 

[brightii]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweets:

The plan does not have to be complicated or sensible. Planning can occur shortly before or long before the murder. Sudden impulse without prior consideration is not a planned murder. "Deliberation" means "considered, not impulsive." #LauraBabcock

Deliberation has to take place before the murder. Judge says jury should particularly consider "the timing and sequence of certain events." For example the alleged motive to "hurt" #LauraBabcock and "remove her from our lives." Millard to Noudga April 2012

Following those messages, Millard asks Michalski to keep him "updated on where Laura goes out to, that'd be of use to me." He next asks mechanic to build , then buy an incinerator. June 30-July 3 Millard was in frequent contact with #LauraBabcock

 

[Kamille]

I think the purpose of this ruling is to address all the privacy challenges that come with the technology. I don't think its purpose is to make the justice process more difficult.

How many people sent an SMS today that says "I'll kill him" about a co-worker they had a disagreement with? Must be in 100s of 1000s, or even millions. Is it fair and practical to send those people through the justice system because of that one SMS? Probably not. However, if there are other circumstances that point to that person, then why not use the SMS as an evidence?

Here's the thing though. If you are in communication with someone who is sending ominous texts about something nefarious, and then a crime occurs and this person is suspect, IMO this ruling implies that the texts that you may have turned over to LE are inadmissible due to privacy concerns? :waitasec:

 

[brightii]

Enough for AATF. But viewed in isolation doesn't necessarily imply prior knowledge.

The judge instructed the jury not to view things "piece meal" so we too shouldn't look at anything in the case in isolation, IMO but we need to look at everything in totality to see the whole big horrid picture in order to find justice in the end.

All MOO

 

[don_quixote]

Here's the thing though. If you are in communication with someone who is sending ominous texts about something nefarious, and then a crime occurs and this person is suspect, IMO this ruling implies that the texts that you may have turned over to LE are inadmissible due to privacy concerns? :waitasec:

I don't think so. I'm not a lawyer or a legal scholar. But my understanding is that the law is intended to be "natural" in the way that it makes sense to the public. If there is clear evidence that points to the accused, it can't be thrown out for no good reason. Otherwise, Don Corleone will come and offer private justice. Courts don't want that type of competition.

 

[Nakasaka]

To All participants

Holidays is the most difficult time for families that lost their loved one...I was thinking - would it be appropriate showing support to Laura's parents to come over to court to give them a card and a small 'care' gift...thoughts?

 

[brightii]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweets:

Millard's position is that the crown's evidence is insufficient, in that the inference of guilt must be the only rational inference the jury can draw. #LauraBabcock

If the jury is satisfied that #Millard was a principal who planned and deliberated on #LauraBabcock's murder, the next issue is whether #Smich was a party to the planned and deliberate murder, or aider and abettor.

Crown says #Smich knew #Millard was planning and deliberating the murder of #LauraBabcock, intended to assist him, and actually did some act to assist or encourage the murder

 

[meterclicks]

The further issue here, Code says, is whether or not Smich was aiding or abetting a planned deliberate murder.
by Adam Carter 12:51 PM

Smich would have to know Millard was planning and deliberating to murder Babcock, that he intended to assist or encourage Millard in carrying it out, and that he actually did some act to assist or encourage that murder, Code says, to be found guilty of first-degree murder.
by Adam Carter 12:52 PM

Here's the crux on first-degree murder. This is key. "If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Millard was the principal in the murder and that he both planned and deliberated on that murder, then you would find Mr. Millard guilty as charged of first-degree murder," Code says.

"If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Smich aided or abetted a planned and deliberate murder committed by Mr. Millard, then you would also find Mr. Smich guilty of first degree murder."
by Adam Carter 12:58 PM

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

Sure!

Personally, I don't think there is any reasonable doubt that LB is dead.

I think there is more than enough circumstantial evidence to prove BRD that DM caused her death by committing an unlawful act and that it was planned. I'd be very surprised if DM gets anything less than M1.

MS is a lot harder. Personally, I don't think that the Crown has proved him guilty of M1, M2, or manslaughter BRD. That being said, I think he's guilty and I think the jury will follow Justice Code's advice to use their common sense and they'll convict him of something, M1, M2 or manslaughter, likely M1. Juries really don't like to let murders get off but they may need to compromise rather than be hung.

In spite of all the law, juries usually get it right. Time will tell......

I can’t thank everyone participating in these discussions enough for all their time and expertise in explaining the finer points of law, opinions and reasoning. As well, all the time spent copying tweets so we can follow along. Each one of you is just amazing.

I just cannot wrap my head around the discussions/opinions/perspectives that it hasn’t been proven beyond a reasonable doubt that MS is guilty of M1.

I won’t list all the circumstantial evidence here that pertains to MS because we are all well aware of it. It seems like a wealth of evidence to convict MS to me, if I apply the Judge’s charges so far, because I simply cannot see any evidence whatsoever that would logically explain away a single element of the evidence presented, let alone the totality of the evidence against MS. I realize that he is innocent until proven guilty. To me all the factors that the Crown has presented are the most reasonable, logical conclusion I can draw from all the evidence presented. What other reasons could there possibly/probably be for all this circumstantial evidence against MS? Coincidence ... I think not.

I must be missing something.

Thoughts?



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[brightii]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweet:

This is not a complete summary of the relevant evidence, judge says. Take everything into consideration, he tells the jury. #LauraBabcock