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

[brightii]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweets:

The jury must be satisfied that both accused were present and participated in the act that caused #LauraBabcock's death.

Judge reminds jury to consider each accused separately. "Do not find one accused guilty simply because you have found the other accused guilty. They may both be not guilty. They may both be guilty. Or one may be, the other not. #LauraBabcock

At least one of the two accused has to be the principal, because there is no other known principal. #LauraBabcock

 

[meterclicks]

"Do not find one accused guilty simply because you have found the other accused guilty," Code says. "They may both be not guilty. They may both be guilty. Or one may be guilty and the other one not guilty." There are separate bodies of evidence, he says. But, at least one of the two must be the "principal" to cause death.
by Adam Carter 11:24 AM

If neither of them is the principal, Code says, then you'd have to find both accused not guilty.
by Adam Carter 11:25 AM

You can also have co-principals, the judge says, if they were both "applying force."
by Adam Carter 11:26 AM

An accused who is not a principal can only be found guilty as an aider or abettor, Code says.
by Adam Carter 11:26 AM

 

[brightii]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweets:

An accused who is not a principal or co-principal can only be found guilty of manslaughter as an aider or abettor - does some other act that knowingly and intentionally assists the principal. #LauraBabcock

There is rarely direct evidence of intention. It has to be inferred. If a person knows in advance that the principal intends to commit an offence & attends to help or encourage, that is aiding and abetting. #LauraBabcock

The crown submits that #Millard is the principal. He had motive, access, bought the incinerator and the gun. #LauraBabcock

 

[meterclicks]

This means the other person would have to assist or encourage with knowledge or intention of the unlawful act, Code says.
by Adam Carter 11:28 AM

"It is not enough that an accused is merely present at the scene where the principal commits an unlawful act that causes death. In order to become an aider or abettor, an accused must actually do or say something that assists or encourages the principal in carrying out the unlawful act." They also have to do that with the intention of assisting or encouraging the principal, Code says.
by Adam Carter 11:29 AM

"The Crown submits that Mr. Millard was the principal who carried out the unlawful act that caused Ms. Babcock's death," Code says. Millard had the alleged motive, bought the Eliminator, got a gun, was in contact with Babcock, and appears to have met up with her.
by Adam Carter 11:32 AM

 

[meterclicks]

"The Crown submits that Mr. Smich was an aider or abettor who was present at the Etobicoke home when Mr. Millard brought Ms. Babcock there on July 3, 2012, based on cell tower tracking evidence and on the text messages between Mr. Millard and Mr. Smich that evening. The Crown submits that Mr. Smich's knowing and intentional participation in the unlawful act that caused death can be inferred from" several circumstances.
by Adam Carter 11:34 AM

Code now listing that evidence, including texts between Millard and Smich, that Smich had knowledge of the incinerators from Milllard, that he was using Babcock's iPad, and that he had her red suitcase.
by Adam Carter 11:35 AM

 

[brightii]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweets:

Smich, according to the crown, is the aider or abettor, present on Maple Gate and knowingly and intentionally attended to help. #LauraBabcock

The close relationship between #Millard and #Smich, as evidenced by their text messages. The fact that Millard kept Smich involved with acquisition, prep and testing of the two large incinerators. #LauraBabcock

They worked together on the trailer, called it the "BBQ Mission" "tomorrow after dark" and whether Marlena Meneses should be there "while we are out back talking to that girl. If you know what I mean." #LauraBabcock

 

[brightii]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweets:

The fact that #Smich appears to have acquired and started using #LauraBabcock's iPad on July 4th & changed its name to Mark's iPad. Her red bag found at his house. Jury will decide the relevance of those facts.

The apparent participation by #Smich in cremating what the crown contends are #LauraBabcock remains at the hangar on July 23-24 and composing the "ashy stone" rap song that same night.

 

[meterclicks]

Code is now discussing the use of "after the fact conduct" again -- he went over this in great detail yesterday.
by Adam Carter 11:41 AM

Code is discussing the Ashy Stone rap as well, and saying the defence submits that it was just "artistic expression."
by Adam Carter 11:42 AM

Code says he's now concluding all the information on the law of manslaughter. It essentially boils down to three elements -- but as you can see by everything I just wrote, it's complicated.
by Adam Carter 11:43 AM

 

[brightii]

I think these reporters Adam Carter and Lisa Hepfner do a phenomenal job at transcribing what they are hearing in real time! I have a hard time keeping up and all I have to do is copy and paste.

Very grateful I feel that we are able to get the judge's charge to the jury like this.

All MOO

 

[meterclicks]

Code says that if the jury finds "one or both accused guilty of the lesser included offence of manslaughter, that you can then go on to consider the further offence of second-degree murder in relation to one of both of the accused who participated."
by Adam Carter 11:47 AM

Now taking the morning recess. Back in 20 mins.
by Adam Carter 11:48 AM

 

[brightii]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweet:

The defence says the rap song is just a song, and that his friends who testified were not credible. #Smich says #Millard gave him the iPad and the red bag. Millard contends they burned a deer that night at the hangar. #LauraBabcock

 

[brightii]

:cupcake::cupcake: Thank you meterclicks and Jasper52 for being so kind to do the tweets yesterday and today!

:cheers:

 

[palisadesk]

I just heard about this Supreme Court of Canada decision and wonder what effect it will have on this case - if not now, in terms of future appeals.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...should-be-considered-private/article37267893/

and

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-texting-privacy-1.4437469

Without the text evidence, the case against MS is significantly weaker. Don't think it would make much difference re DM considering all the other factors.

 

[Jasper52]

:cupcake::cupcake: Thank you meterclicks and Jasper52 for being so kind to do the tweets yesterday and today!

:cheers:

Thank you, meterclicks and brightii for posting the tweets today!!!

DeaconBrodie, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the case thus far.

 

[Kamille]

I just heard about this Supreme Court of Canada decision and wonder what effect it will have on this case - if not now, in terms of future appeals.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...should-be-considered-private/article37267893/

and

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-texting-privacy-1.4437469

Without the text evidence, the case against MS is significantly weaker. Don't think it would make much difference re DM considering all the other factors.

That's absurd. Text messages are not private communication....period. I wonder what the age range of the judges who voted in favour of this were?

As far as this case however, it would not affect DM as his phone was seized in a warrant I believe? It might affect MS's communication with DM though?

MOO

 

[BettyCooper]

I just heard about this Supreme Court of Canada decision and wonder what effect it will have on this case - if not now, in terms of future appeals.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...should-be-considered-private/article37267893/

and

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-texting-privacy-1.4437469

Without the text evidence, the case against MS is significantly weaker. Don't think it would make much difference re DM considering all the other factors.

I was just thinking the same thing... I'm assuming that what we're missing in the article is that the phone was seized without a warrant & maybe that's the issue in that particular case. It also says the offender asked the recipient to delete the messages numerous time &, therefore, had an expectation of privacy. Imagine if DM turned around & said "well yes, I wrote those letters but they were private & I told her to destroy them so they can't be used as evidence". That doesn't make any sense to me. If you commit a crime "in private", you've still committed a crime! I can't say that I agree with this ruling.

 

[Ashley96]

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...should-be-considered-private/article37267893/

In her reasons for the majority, Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin notes that Marakah was the author of the text messages introduced as evidence against him, that he expected the electronic conversation to remain private and that he asked the recipient numerous times to delete the messages.

@Legal minds : Why would electronic conversation be treated differently from written conversations? (ie DM's letters to CN that he asked her to destroy and expected them to remain private)

 

[winter2017]

I have learned a lot today reading the coverage of what the judge is saying. I did not know the definition of aiding and abetting. I also did not know the leader that has motive and can acquire the murder weapon is considered the principal in a murder.
It is interesting that if you are present when a murder takes place and are encouraging the person to murder you are as guilty.
It will help me understand in future about charges laid against someone.
I think that CN should have been charged with aiding and abetting. Maybe because she was not present at the murder is the reason she is not charged.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

I just heard about this Supreme Court of Canada decision and wonder what effect it will have on this case - if not now, in terms of future appeals.

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/new...should-be-considered-private/article37267893/

and

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/supreme-court-texting-privacy-1.4437469

Without the text evidence, the case against MS is significantly weaker. Don't think it would make much difference re DM considering all the other factors.

Not feeling well today, head in a fog but I’m not seeing where this would be an issue for DM and MS? I’m reading it as only some content can be excluded/not used but it depends on the circumstances of the accused.

 

[brightii]

I was just thinking the same thing... I'm assuming that what we're missing in the article is that the phone was seized without a warrant & maybe that's the issue in that particular case. It also says the offender asked the recipient to delete the messages numerous time &, therefore, had an expectation of privacy. Imagine if DM turned around & said "well yes, I wrote those letters but they were private & I told her to destroy them so they can't be used as evidence". That doesn't make any sense to me. If you commit a crime "in private", you've still committed a crime! I can't say that I agree with this ruling.

I agree, BettyCooper. Good gracious, criminals don't need anymore legal loopholes to slip through, IMO.

All MOO.