Babcock Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #5

[palisadesk]

Paul Bernardo's interrogation is on Youtube. So are several others from known Canadian criminals. You just have to look for them.

AFAIK, the only interview with Paul Bernardo is the one TPS conducted in Kingston Pen with reference to the Elizabeth Bain case -- in which PB claimed to know nothing and he ranted about bias against him and so on and on blah blah. I don't believe any interviews re his actual proven crimes are publicly posted anywhere. The Rafferty and Williams interviews are an exception, rather than the rule - several were with the same OPP behavioural science unit detective. I wish we did see these sorts of interviews and proceedings more often, but it is uncommon and I don't know (though someone else probably does and can chip in) what was the determining factor in releasing those particular interviews. Both were high profile cases, but often the minutiae of high profile cases does not get released to the public. Trial transcripts can be obtained but I believe there's a significant fee involved.

 

[Stumper]

I fix commercial airplanes for a living and after every job before I sign the aircraft out to fly I ask myself would I put my loved ones on this aircraft right now? That is the standard I have always held.

That to me defines reasonable doubt. I have no way of knowing everything about that aircraft’s condition, how good of a repair the guy across the country did four months ago, or what might happen on that flight.. But, I can and do determine that based on my limited knowledge of the situation that it is safe to put my kids and grandkids on that flight. It is imo safe beyond a reasonable doubt

For those that are having a hard time with MS’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt I ask would you release him as “not guilty” of this crime and free to the public based on the massive amount of evidence provided if it was your personal call?

The only remotley plausible alternatives to the totality of evidence of planned M1 for MS I have heard are:

That he was only planning a human corpse incineration business and never planned on a murder but was happily surprised to incinerate for practice when a murdered girl just happened to turn up right under his nose. Then wrote and preformed a rap about it all to multiple audiences

Or,

That despite helping procure a commercial incerator and an illegal hand gun he had no clue what was going to go down.. total shock but luckily for DM he just so happened to be down with disposing of the body and happy to take and use many of the personal belongings of the victim. Then wrote a rap song because the whole experience was just to damn cool not to

Again.. Guilty beyond a Reasonable doubt is the bar

What if you knew that on release he would be living close to and potentially interacting with some of your unaware loved ones?

 

[deugirtni]

Just a couple of random thoughts...

-someone had mentioned awhile ago about the photos taken on the ipad showing MM a few times surrounding July 4th or so.. and I have to agree.. that the clothes she is adorning seem to be a tiny tiny bit tight-ish, and different... I really wonder why the Crown didn't ask her about those photos, or if she had obtained any new clothes or woman items around that time.

-the jailhouse letter from DM to CN regarding his tale about what happened to Laura on the night she disappeared - I think he said that CN had come over - she'd seen coke on the bar, etc...... and it occurred to me that perhaps she DID come over. Was she for sure in day camp working as a counsellor that day? Is it possible that she accompanied DM when he picked up LB, or that he may have went out later (to pick up the gun AND CN)? I'm still not sure about how the cellphone pings work - would police have been able to tell if CN's phone had also been in the area at certain times? Is it weird that DM talked about what potentially happened during, but not after, during the trip to the farm, etc, or the incineration a few weeks later?

-MS would be a fool if he testified in his own defence. Surely he would have learned from his last trial that it's a bad move for an accused murderer to do so? However, DM has to say it first, whether or not he will be presenting a defence.. and if he says yes, I suspect that MS would have no choice but to present one afterward. If either one says they are presenting a defence, it wouldn't necessarily mean that they are testifying themselves, they could just be calling other witnesses, correct? I am very curious whether DM will testify however, since, didn't he hire a lawyer for that very purpose? I forget what the wording was in the beginning when news reports said he had a lawyer for certain purpose.... but that lawyer hasn't done any questioning of witnesses on his behalf.. as of yet anyway. Should be interesting.

-too bad we weren't informed ahead that MWJ was going to be testifying on that day, would have been a great day to attend!

 

[JuneBug67]

Ha. Sea Enn fixed the spelling of reminiscing I was mocking earlier today.

 

[canadiangirl]

Ha. Sea Enn fixed the spelling of reminiscing I was mocking earlier today.

I just noticed that as well..
Also who's legs are those? Lol


Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[Just4TB]

Thanks for that article. I never saw the make/model of the third gun before. The article states that Smich said, "[FONT=&amp]"There's multiple firearms of different calibres".

[/FONT]
We know that TB was shot with a .380 from the shell casing found, and were shown pictures of a Walther PPK which is chambered for .380 ACP ammo. The gun confiscated on November 2012 was a .32 S&W Long which uses different ammo. The third gun according to that article is a BODYGUARD 380, which is also chambered for .380 ACP ammo.

I thought I would put together a picture of all three guns side by side. Since there is no actual photo of the BODYGUARD 380, I pulled one off the net.

And, all 3 of these handguns are within the Prohibited class in Canada. Only a holder of a PAL that specifies Prohibited class would be permitted to own. I have a restricted class PAL, for handguns, but cannot possess or acquire any of these 3. The prohibited class allows collectors whom are grandfathered in to continue to possess and acquire prohibs until they die. There are no new Prohibited class PALs being issued, so as each holder dies, these guns become harder and harder to sell legally due to a shrinking buyer base. As such, prohibs such as these 3, do not bring much $ in the (legal) market.

 

[saulgoodman]

What if DM calls MS as his first witness? opcorn: Can he even do that?

 

[JuneBug67]

What if DM calls MS as his first witness? opcorn: Can he even do that?

No...he can’t be forced to take the stand. But if he does he can be cross examined.

DM’s best bet is probably to try to claim Laura did overdose and he just couldn’t face the fallout. MS should probably stick with not even dignifying the Crown’s case against him with a response.

 

[JuneBug67]

And, all 3 of these handguns are within the Prohibited class in Canada. Only a holder of a PAL that specifies Prohibited class would be permitted to own. I have a restricted class PAL, for handguns, but cannot possess or acquire any of these 3. The prohibited class allows collectors whom are grandfathered in to continue to possess and acquire prohibs until they die. There are no new Prohibited class PALs being issued, so as each holder dies, these guns become harder and harder to sell legally due to a shrinking buyer base. As such, prohibs such as these 3, do not bring much $ in the (legal) market.

You can see that DM didn’t want to waste either of the cool looking ones on his father’s suicide. Small yet disgusting detail.

 

[deugirtni]

So... question... if on Monday when Court recommences, DM says he is presenting a defence - (regardless of whether or not MS says same) - will DM have to move onto that right away, or would the judge allow him a few days to prepare for that - afterall, it will be exhausting for him to do all of that jumping from the witness box as the prisoner, to the podium as the prisoner's counsel? Obviously a little sarcasm there, but, would love to attend on Monday, but would hate to go all the way there to have it adjourned so he can prepare.

 

[Typhoo1961]

AFAIK, the only interview with Paul Bernardo is the one TPS conducted in Kingston Pen with reference to the Elizabeth Bain case -- in which PB claimed to know nothing and he ranted about bias against him and so on and on blah blah. I don't believe any interviews re his actual proven crimes are publicly posted anywhere. The Rafferty and Williams interviews are an exception, rather than the rule - several were with the same OPP behavioural science unit detective. I wish we did see these sorts of interviews and proceedings more often, but it is uncommon and I don't know (though someone else probably does and can chip in) what was the determining factor in releasing those particular interviews. Both were high profile cases, but often the minutiae of high profile cases does not get released to the public. Trial transcripts can be obtained but I believe there's a significant fee involved.

The police interrogation of Paul Bernardo had been up there for some time but it looks like it is gone now. I did however just find the police interrogation of Elizabeth Wettlaufer, the nurse who plead guilty to killing 8 patients with insulin.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

I intended the term logic in a sort of formal way, and not at all to imply that logic is kind of 'hard' thinking and intuitive thinking is 'soft' or emotion-based. Both are important ways to understand the world, and I agree with you that relying too much on one at the expense of the other (what you called micro vs. macro logic) can lead to chasing your own tail or missing the big picture. Where I disagree is, as mentioned, more on the 'formal' side. I see people rely too heavily on what are essentially syllogisms that just aren't accurate. For example: "Some people who dispose of a body are murderers. Mark Smich disposed of a body - that cannot lead to "therefore Mark Smich is a murderer". To me, nobody should be counting what he did on the 23rd as counting as any kind of proof of what he did on the 3rd/4th. That is not logical, in that formal logic way that I mean. Circumstantial evidence is of course cumulative, but the strands that make up your circumstantial rope have to say what you purport them to say in the first place to even be strands. What I see in the macro is lines being drawn through things that we can't even say for sure even belong together. The almost complete absence of Smich's presence in the evidence on July 3/4 has to be considered as something that might logically interrupt the line you want to draw between Smich's actions before and after that date. The fact that DM doesn't really give a **** about CN and the fact that he moves his focus to a commercial incinerator after he dumps her has to be considered as something that might logically interrupt the line people want to draw between his dark insinuations with CN and the incinerator as part of a plan to murder Laura. I understand how compelling your argument is on the intuitive level, and why it is completely logical in the more informal way we use that term - logic meaning a sort of common sense reasoning - but I think people are ignoring how arbitrary some of the connections that are being made between events may be. There are things that explain Smich's text history and actions on the 3rd/4th at least as well as and realistically probably much better than being a wingman on a murder. DM on the other hand is damned at just about every turn in that 24 hour period. To me, that stuff has to matter when reasonable doubt is the bar and life in prison is what is at stake.

There is perhaps a reason to exclude that happened on July 23rd. But the actions before the murder show he knew what the incinerator was going to be used for (should we bring bones, we should try something wet, etc).

So we know
a) before he helped burn the body - he wanted bones and something wet to test. Now you can say - oh that was because DM told him it was for animals.

b) We also know on July 23rd he was proudly posing with the Eliminator and they were very likely burning a body.

(a) is from texts from MS so no doubt about that. (b) is not a 100% certainity but based on the expert - very likely they were burning a female body at that time.

If you had just (a) or just (b) - perhaps you can say there is reasonable doubt he wasn't planning to burn a body. But together - I don't see any way you can reasonable say he wasn't planning to burn a body.

If you agree with that - you are left with the question - is it reasonable to expect you are going to burn bodies without committing murders. That you are going to operate some kind of clean up business for some unknown other murderers who are going to bring bodies to you? To me - that is unreasonable. If you are planning to burn bodies AND you burned a body AND you are helping to facilitate a gun purchase - you are expecting and at least to some extent planning a murder to be committed.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

The difference IMO is you would likely know if you killed someone strung out or not.
What the exact detail of someone "said" happened while you're strung out is different..
People don't even get it right sober.
Did he say they killed her? He killed her? He knew about it? They planned it?
What exactly was said? Context matters.

The rap lyrics indicate to me that MS was involved after the fact otherwise I believe he would have written about "poppin a girl with a. 32. And if you don't be careful it could be YOU. I'm say10, he's Dman. Together we are f'n the hoes, cause we're bros, and if you go swimming you can find her phone"

The gun talk, the incinerator, still doesn't mean to me he planned or knew of a murder.
I feel the evidence so far isn't enough. We'll see.
JMO

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

While I'm not an expert on being strung out and what you remember. I do suspect that this kid didn't hear someone admit he killed and burned a body every day so quite possible it would be something you'd remember.

Lets not forget - this kid - who you've determined was strung out and unreliable - told the vice principal at school and went to the police on his own. So you are saying he just decided to talk to police about something he's not sure about completely unprompted.

 

[don_quixote]

JuneBug, can you please use paragraphs in your posts? Hard to read.

 

[winter2017]

No I would not want him living near me.

I fix commercial airplanes for a living and after every job before I sign the aircraft out to fly I ask myself would I put my loved ones on this aircraft right now? That is the standard I have always held.

That to me defines reasonable doubt. I have no way of knowing everything about that aircraft’s condition, how good of a repair the guy across the country did four months ago, or what might happen on that flight.. But, I can and do determine that based on my limited knowledge of the situation that it is safe to put my kids and grandkids on that flight. It is imo safe beyond a reasonable doubt

For those that are having a hard time with MS’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt I ask would you release him as “not guilty” of this crime and free to the public based on the massive amount of evidence provided if it was your personal call?

The only remotley plausible alternatives to the totality of evidence of planned M1 for MS I have heard are:

That he was only planning a human corpse incineration business and never planned on a murder but was happily surprised to incinerate for practice when a murdered girl just happened to turn up right under his nose. Then wrote and preformed a rap about it all to multiple audiences

Or,

That despite helping procure a commercial incerator and an illegal hand gun he had no clue what was going to go down.. total shock but luckily for DM he just so happened to be down with disposing of the body and happy to take and use many of the personal belongings of the victim. Then wrote a rap song because the whole experience was just to damn cool not to

Again.. Guilty beyond a Reasonable doubt is the bar

What if you knew that on release he would be living close to and potentially interacting with some of your unaware loved ones?

 

[Tilly23]

There is perhaps a reason to exclude that happened on July 23rd. But the actions before the murder show he knew what the incinerator was going to be used for (should we bring bones, we should try something wet, etc).

So we know
a) before he helped burn the body - he wanted bones and something wet to test. Now you can say - oh that was because DM told him it was for animals.

b) We also know on July 23rd he was proudly posing with the Eliminator and they were very likely burning a body.

(a) is from texts from MS so no doubt about that. (b) is not a 100% certainity but based on the expert - very likely they were burning a female body at that time.

If you had just (a) or just (b) - perhaps you can say there is reasonable doubt he wasn't planning to burn a body. But together - I don't see any way you can reasonable say he wasn't planning to burn a body.

If you agree with that - you are left with the question - is it reasonable to expect you are going to burn bodies without committing murders. That you are going to operate some kind of clean up business for some unknown other murderers who are going to bring bodies to you? To me - that is unreasonable. If you are planning to burn bodies AND you burned a body AND you are helping to facilitate a gun purchase - you are expecting and at least to some extent planning a murder to be committed.

Suppose there was a plan where MS was only supposed to help with the incineration of murder victims where DM was the actual murderer.

Would MS be guilty of M1 if he:

• helped to get the murder weapon,
• helped to plan the disposal method for the evidence,
• knew that the victim had been murdered by DM
  and then
• helped with the clean up?

MOO

 

[Oreck]

And, all 3 of these handguns are within the Prohibited class in Canada. Only a holder of a PAL that specifies Prohibited class would be permitted to own. I have a restricted class PAL, for handguns, but cannot possess or acquire any of these 3. The prohibited class allows collectors whom are grandfathered in to continue to possess and acquire prohibs until they die. There are no new Prohibited class PALs being issued, so as each holder dies, these guns become harder and harder to sell legally due to a shrinking buyer base. As such, prohibs such as these 3, do not bring much $ in the (legal) market.

Unless they are sold into the US.

 

[don_quixote]

I intended the term logic in a sort of formal way, and not at all to imply that logic is kind of 'hard' thinking and intuitive thinking is 'soft' or emotion-based. Both are important ways to understand the world, and I agree with you that relying too much on one at the expense of the other (what you called micro vs. macro logic) can lead to chasing your own tail or missing the big picture. Where I disagree is, as mentioned, more on the 'formal' side. I see people rely too heavily on what are essentially syllogisms that just aren't accurate. For example: "Some people who dispose of a body are murderers. Mark Smich disposed of a body - that cannot lead to "therefore Mark Smich is a murderer". To me, nobody should be counting what he did on the 23rd as counting as any kind of proof of what he did on the 3rd/4th. That is not logical, in that formal logic way that I mean. Circumstantial evidence is of course cumulative, but the strands that make up your circumstantial rope have to say what you purport them to say in the first place to even be strands. What I see in the macro is lines being drawn through things that we can't even say for sure even belong together. The almost complete absence of Smich's presence in the evidence on July 3/4 has to be considered as something that might logically interrupt the line you want to draw between Smich's actions before and after that date. The fact that DM doesn't really give a **** about CN and the fact that he moves his focus to a commercial incinerator after he dumps her has to be considered as something that might logically interrupt the line people want to draw between his dark insinuations with CN and the incinerator as part of a plan to murder Laura. I understand how compelling your argument is on the intuitive level, and why it is completely logical in the more informal way we use that term - logic meaning a sort of common sense reasoning - but I think people are ignoring how arbitrary some of the connections that are being made between events may be. There are things that explain Smich's text history and actions on the 3rd/4th at least as well as and realistically probably much better than being a wingman on a murder. DM on the other hand is damned at just about every turn in that 24 hour period. To me, that stuff has to matter when reasonable doubt is the bar and life in prison is what is at stake.

Unfortunately, we are out of the "let's calculate" realm of formal logic. It would be really nice to toss some modus tollens, apply De Morgan's laws and we are done. Hence, the jury that is supposed to heuristically solve the problem.

 

[Just4TB]

You can see that DM didn’t want to waste either of the cool looking ones on his father’s suicide. Small yet disgusting detail.

And another disgusting detail... the .32 would NOT be the preferable calibre (vs the .380) for defense against a human, where in a defensive situation the target zone is torso / centre of mass.

However, although the .32 is not much a defensive weapon, it is a capable calibre for an assassin / hit. A close range head shot, particularly if the specific part of the skull where the bullet enters is thinner bone, (eg an eye socket)... a .32, (or even a .22) can cause very devastating damage. At close range, through a thin part of the skull, the.32 bullet is able to penetrate an entry through the skull. The bullet will fragment from passing through the bone, the now fragmented bullet continues it's rotation and the diameter of the damage is much larger than the entry hole. Each individual fragment now has reduced kinetic energy, and is thus unable to penetrate the skull to exit, so it instead ricochets off the inside of the skull causing yet further destruction of soft tissue. Total destruction to the brain. Less mess, no exit wound. And a very dead target.

In TB case, the mess in the truck, and the exit hole through the passenger window, would be consistent with a .380 ACP vs a .32 calibre. I am willing to bet that DM was likely surprised by the exit wound, might have thought TB would be more like his father. Yet another example of DM's poor planning.

 

[don_quixote]

Unless they are sold into the US.

Which brings back MJ mentioning the prohibited status of the revolver. Why does it matter whether it's prohibited in Canada if his supply is from the US. Or was it his value proposition?