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

[winter2017]

I would love to see how dejected DM and MS both look at hearing this laid out so truthfully and clean.

I wish cameras would be allowed in the courtroom, maybe in future so we can see the expressions of the juror and the accused.

 

[Kamille]

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.

Great example BettyCooper, the letters. Yes, DM had an expectation of privacy with those. That ruling needs to be reversed pronto IMO. I have no expectation of privacy for anything I put into print whether it be by text, internet post or hand written letter and neither should anyone else. Especially those involved in nefarious acts using their cell phones or sending out illegal correspondence from jail.

MOO

 

[CJPRINCESS]

I wish cameras would be allowed in the courtroom, maybe in future so we can see the expressions of the juror and the accused.

Ya I don’t get why we don’t have camera’s in the courts like the US has but I think it’s only limited to the witness box.

 

[meterclicks]

Court is resuming, the jury is coming back in.
by Adam Carter 12:13 PM

We're now going through the law of second degree murder. This adds in a "major mental element," Code says.
by Adam Carter 12:15 PM

 

[brightii]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweet:

Judge is back after morning break. Jury has ben instructed on manslaughter. Moving onto second degree, state of mind element, and more sophisticated state of mind element for first degree murder. #LauraBabcock

bbm

 

[DeaconBrodie]

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

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

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......

 

[meterclicks]

"It's this intent element that elevates manslaughter to second-degree murder," Code says. In order to convict of 2nd degree murder, Code says, the jury must find that the accused had either "an intention to kill Ms. Babcock," or "an intention to kill Ms. Babcock that the accused knew was likely to kill her, and the accused was reckless as to whether Ms. Babcock would or would not die."
by Adam Carter 12:18 PM

Basically, this is causing very severe bodily harm that was "likely" to cause death.
by Adam Carter 12:19 PM

Code says it's not sufficient to "infer that the accused ought to have known the consequences of his conduct."
by Adam Carter 12:20 PM

 

[brightii]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweet:

"Intent" elevates manslaughter from second degree murder. For 2nd degree, #Millard and/or #Smich must have had intent to kill #LauraBabcock, or intent to cause enough bodily harm that it was likely to kill her and was reckless about that fact.

 

[BettyCooper]

Great example BettyCooper, the letters. Yes, DM had an expectation of privacy with those. That ruling needs to be reversed pronto IMO. I have no expectation of privacy for anything I put into print whether it be by text, internet post or hand written letter and neither should anyone else. Especially those involved in nefarious acts using their cell phones or sending out illegal correspondence from jail.

MOO

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.

 

[brightii]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweets:

Intention is not the same thing as motive, judge clarifies. Motive is just one item of circumstantial evidence in the context of all the other evidence. #LauraBabcock

Far fewer spectators and reporters in court for the judge's charge. The room was full, with lineups to get in, almost all seven weeks of the trial until this point. #LauraBabcock.

 

[palisadesk]

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.

LOL, there wasn't enough detail there for me to form an opinion, but either way, it doesn't matter what any of us thinks - it matters how the courts interpret it and apply it. I don't think we will know the answer for a while. DM's letters might well come under scrutiny re this decision, and so could the text messages that had been deleted. But it will have to be tested in courts before its application will be clear. A good site to follow re Supreme Court decisions is thecourt.ca - very learned (but understandable) posts and discussions there.

My guess: it will not affect Justice Code's charge to the jury, but it would likely influence appeals by either or both accused.

 

[meterclicks]

Motive may help decide this, Code says. "If a person had a reason or motive for doing something, you might conclude that it was more likely that he did that thing and did so intentionally. On the other hand, if you find that a person had no reason or motive to do something, you might have a doubt about whether he did it or did it intentionally. A person may be found guilty of an offence whatever his motive or even without a motive."
by Adam Carter 12:22 PM

The Crown alleges Millard had the intent needed here, Code says, because of the alleged love triangle motive, the acquisition of the Eliminator and the gun, the use of the Eliminator in July, and the absence of evidence showing Babcock's death was accidental.
by Adam Carter 12:25 PM

Conversely, Code says, the jury has to consider Millard's position that challenges the "sufficiency and reliability of the above body of evidence as a basis for inferring one or the other of the two requisite intents" required for second degree murder.
by Adam Carter 12:30 PM

 

[brightii]

LOL, there wasn't enough detail there for me to form an opinion, but either way, it doesn't matter what any of us thinks - it matters how the courts interpret it and apply it. I don't think we will know the answer for a while. DM's letters might well come under scrutiny re this decision, and so could the text messages that had been deleted. But it will have to be tested in courts before its application will be clear. A good site to follow re Supreme Court decisions is thecourt.ca - very learned (but understandable) posts and discussions there.

My guess: it will not affect Justice Code's charge to the jury, but it would likely influence appeals by either or both accused.

Admittedly, I know very little about the law, but it would seem sensible and fair to me that any new legal ruling should not be able to be applied retroactively and hence this ruling should not have any bearing on a potential appeal, IMO. Am I wrong?

All MOO

 

[brightii]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweets:

Crown says the alleged motive to murder #LauraBabcock is "I will remove her from our lives:" #Millard to girlfriend Christina Noudga, April 2012.

Crown says intent is also shown in the acquisition of the Eliminator and the gun before #Millard met up with #LauraBabcock at Kipling station on July 3, and in the use of the Eliminator to cremate her remains and destroy evidence of her cause of death.

Crown says intent is shown in the absence of evidence that #LauraBabcock died accidentally, except for her drug use and #Millard letter to Noudga about an overdose that he called "brainstorming."

 

[brightii]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweets:

Dellen #Millard's position is that there is not enough evidence to prove intent to kill. Millard says there is no motive. #LauraBabcock

Intent can only be proved if it is the only rational inference to be drawn from all the circumstantial evidence, judge says. Crown submits that #Smich was aider and abettor. Jury has to decide his state of mind too. #LauraBabcock

 

[don_quixote]

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......

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?

 

[brightii]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweets:

The crown's evidence on #Smich state of mind includes his close relationship with #Millard, and their conversation before Millard arrived with #LauraBabcock July 3. Also Smich's involvement in acquiring & testing & using incinerator, & rap song composition night of incineration.

Jury has to decide about #Smich continuing to perform the ashy stone rap stone, and whether he was enthusiastic or reluctant to perform in, and they have to decide what to make of the testimony of his garage friends, Cronin and Liberatore. #LauraBabcock

 

[palisadesk]

Admittedly, I know very little about the law, but it would seem sensible and fair to me that any new legal ruling should not be able to be applied retroactively and hence this ruling should not have any bearing on a potential appeal, IMO. Am I wrong?

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.

 

[brightii]

Lisa Hepfner’s tweets:

The jury doesn't have to agree on which of these states of mind apply, only that #Millard and #Smich had the state of mind for murder. They then go on to consider first degree murder. #LauraBabcock.

First degree murder is the last topic before the jury heads for lunch. More "dense legal" information, the judge warns. #LauraBabcock

 

[Jasper52]

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......

Thank you, DeaconBrodie. That was the response I was hoping for.