Babcock Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #5

[Inspector_North]

I read some interesting posts about the guns. However for me, the make/model of the third gun if true fills some of the text exchange meanings.

1) When DM suggests to MS that they find a home for German, Smich suggests making a permanent home under the dash of the Caddy. This suggests to me that the PPK was the one Smich used, and he was planning on owning the Caddy. The other two are made by S&W, and manufactured in the US.

2) When Smich's buddy Brendan Daly testified that he viewed videos of gun and ammo on Youtube with MS, MS mentioned to him that DM got the one he wanted. Is the Bodyguard 380 something DM would find cool to own?

3) I can't recall, but was the photo of the gun(s) with the Bodyguard 380 redacted from the photo, the one DM texted to CN? If so, she was aware of the two guns, and does that have any implications of her knowing DM and MS were a team in these murders?

4) Why is the Bodyguard 380 not mentioned and remains hidden up to this point?

5) What does LE know about the purchase of the three guns. Do they know which one was purchased when?

6) Brendan Daly called his friend to see if he wanted to buy the gun from MS. Which gun? Did Brendan or his friend recognize the gun? The PPK and Bodygurad are substantially different.


MOO

 

[90sbosslady]

She and DM would have made very bad spelling babies.*. She’s #remenicing**.

* unless conceived at sea

** possible this is not a fairly egregious spelling mistake and she’s actually icing a remen

Funny thing is, she recently fixed the spelling mistake. Wonder if she reads posts here?

 

[Boudica]

Why would they purchase 3 guns? One for DM, one for MS and then the third one ? Any thoughts on this?

 

[Inspector_North]

Why would they purchase 3 guns? One for DM, one for MS and then the third one ? Any thoughts on this?

Needed to leave one at the scene of the suicide.

 

[mimimic]

and....maybe ....show which text messages are the deleted/recovered ones. wink

Maybe someone who is talented could piece together letters from both trials to see if there are redacted parts remaining.

 

[JuneBug67]

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.

It’s more than reasonable to conclude that MS was aware of a plan to burn bodies, and that he ultimately did just that. But that’s not what he’s charged with. It seems to me that the argument is that we have the beginning and we have the end and therefore the middle can be reliably inferred. Like you leave a glass on the edge of the counter and then go blast AC/DC and come back in the room a minute later to find it shattered on the floor. You didn’t see the glass fall and you didn’t hear it either, but it’s pretty obvious what happened. It would not be reasonable to consider some other obscure argument.

I see it a bit more like we have a beginning and we have an end but we’ve lost the middle, so the centre just cannot hold. Like you leave a glass on the kitchen counter and take off for the weekend and come back to find it broken in the living room. The beginning and the end are separated now by time and an unclear agency and you can no longer say definitively how they are related.

 

[musicaljoke]

DM may have told MS he would only help with disposal of the body, but I think DM planned to frame MS if the police came after him and he planned that from the beginning. He knew how stupid MS was and posting for a picture with eliminator, writing a rap about a murder. DM allowed him to do those things and then would frame MS and MS was too stupid to know that.

I wonder if, and how, the trial would go differently for MS, had he been tried alone. My personal sense is that his guilt would be more obvious. This trial is flooded with evidence that puts DM into the spotlight to such an extent that MS appears in the shadows. I think it would have been different if DM had his own trial.

Thoughts?

 

[mimimic]

Which gun is Spanish girl?

I read some interesting posts about the guns. However for me, the make/model of the third gun if true fills some of the text exchange meanings.

1) When DM suggests to MS that they find a home for German, Smich suggests making a permanent home under the dash of the Caddy. This suggests to me that the PPK was the one Smich used, and he was planning on owning the Caddy. The other two are made by S&W, and manufactured in the US.

2) When Smich's buddy Brendan Daly testified that he viewed videos of gun and ammo on Youtube with MS, MS mentioned to him that DM got the one he wanted. Is the Bodyguard 380 something DM would find cool to own?

3) I can't recall, but was the photo of the gun(s) with the Bodyguard 380 redacted from the photo, the one DM texted to CN? If so, she was aware of the two guns, and does that have any implications of her knowing DM and MS were a team in these murders?

4) Why is the Bodyguard 380 not mentioned and remains hidden up to this point?

5) What does LE know about the purchase of the three guns. Do they know which one was purchased when?

6) Brendan Daly called his friend to see if he wanted to buy the gun from MS. Which gun? Did Brendan or his friend recognize the gun? The PPK and Bodygurad are substantially different.


MOO

 

[mimimic]

That and they were starting a collection. pfft

Needed to leave one at the scene of the suicide.

 

[JuneBug67]

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.

This is an example of what I meant by intuitive thinking. If we consider the garage scene we’ve got four key things to consider. We’ve got the evidence of the two witnesses, the evidence of the rap itself and the fact that MM was made to leave. One witness says MS claimed he was involved in a murder and the other claims he only talked about the incineration and disposing of evidence. So let’s call it a 1-1 tie for supporting evidence for each theory.

The rap itself suggests last seeing someone alive and then describing her fate after death. It explicitly does not describe a murder. Let’s now call that 2-1 for evidence supporting MS’s involvement in the aftermath but not the murder.

Finally, other evidence suggests that full facts of the incineration were kept from MM, so we can’t draw any conclusion from her being asked to leave. So it’s still 2-1, and logically that must favour MS. Intuitively, apparently not. Intuitively we push that aside and arbitrarily decide to weight the evidence based on a not-in-evidence theory about how memory works and a theory about human behaviour. I see that as problematic.

 

[Inspector_North]

Which gun is Spanish girl?

A quick GOOGLE returned some responses about the S&W having a decent Spanish Clone, particularly the revolver.


Good point. As media have reported, the reference to "Spanish Girl" was the PPK. If the PPK was purchased in 2012, and was the one he said would be a "dirty girl", why are they showing the .32 S&W Long? Did this trial not use that "dirty girl" reference, but show us the revolver?

" Accused murderer Dellen Millard asked his gun dealer “Iisho” if the Walther PPK firearm he bought in 2012 was “clean or dirty.”Millard texted Iisho that he, :would be bringing her back a dirty girl,” meaning he would be using the deadly weapon, which he also called his “Spanish girl.”"

Unless it was simply a reference to his interest at the time. He called CN his "Sweet Chiquita", and was taking Spanish lessons around that time. MOO

 

[JuneBug67]

I believe not, no. My reasoning is that the criminal justice system is based on proving specific unlawful actions were committed by specific individuals against specific victims.

Someone may have a plan to kill someone in the future, but if it never turns into reality, they won't have committed a crime.

ThIs is a good point that hasn’t really been articulated here in this form before. It’s like when somebody is found out at the beginnng of a murder for hire scheme. There’re not scooped up right there and then. Investigators set a trap and continue to gather evidence until it’s completely undeniable that the person has taken active steps with a clear intent. A vague or general intent, or an initial willingness that is not followed up with specific actions may not be enough for a murder conviction.

 

[don_quixote]

Which gun is Spanish girl?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llama_firearms

Look at the Llama Ruby photo on the right side. Notice how similar different components look - the hammer, cylinder release.

 

[Just4TB]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Llama_firearms

Look at the Llama Ruby photo on the right side. Notice how similar different components look - the hammer, cylinder release.

I agree, it looks very similiar. It is quite possible that the revolver is not manufactured by Smith & Wesson.

Specifically,
The .32 S&W Long datastamp on the revolver - the S&W is referencing the specific chambering / shell, but not necessarily is the gun manufacturer. So it certainly could be a Llama Ruby
Similarly, a .270 Winchester datastamp on a rifle barrel is referencing the shell designed to be used in the rifle, but it is not necessarily a Winchester rifle.

 

[Grey-St]

I believe not, no. My reasoning is that the criminal justice system is based on proving specific unlawful actions were committed by specific individuals against specific victims.

Someone may have a plan to kill someone in the future, but if it never turns into reality, they won't have committed a crime.

BBM. Hmm, I don't know if I agree. Because in the TB case, I don't think it was proven that the murder of TB specifically was premeditated. TB could have been anyone, with that truck. The crown relied heavily on the purchase of the incinerator to show premeditated murder (of someone), but that someone didn't have to be TB specifically. They were convicted then, and if we apply that same logic to the LB case, I think they both could be convicted of M1.

In other words, I don't know if it has to be proven that MS knew specifically that LB was going to be murdered. It's his actions before, and after, that suggest premeditated murder of someone, it just happened to be (sadly and with my deepest condolences) LB.

 

[Ashley96]

This is an example of what I meant by intuitive thinking. If we consider the garage scene we’ve got four key things to consider. We’ve got the evidence of the two witnesses, the evidence of the rap itself and the fact that MM was made to leave. One witness says MS claimed he was involved in a murder and the other claims he only talked about the incineration and disposing of evidence. So let’s call it a 1-1 tie for supporting evidence for each theory.

The rap itself suggests last seeing someone alive and then describing her fate after death. It explicitly does not describe a murder. Let’s now call that 2-1 for evidence supporting MS’s involvement in the aftermath but not the murder.

Finally, other evidence suggests that full facts of the incineration were kept from MM, so we can’t draw any conclusion from her being asked to leave. So it’s still 2-1, and logically that must favour MS. Intuitively, apparently not. Intuitively we push that aside and arbitrarily decide to weight the evidence based on a not-in-evidence theory about how memory works and a theory about human behaviour. I see that as problematic.

We aren't in the courtroom though, I think the jury gets an advantage of hearing and observing body language, reactions etc which us mere twitter readers don't. They have more to draw on to decide which witnesses were more credible in which part of their testimony. I't's part of their job, right?

So conceivably they may find one witness believable in both aspects of his testimony (kill & burn), and find the other witness credible only in his 'burn' testimony.... and believe he simply didn't hear or recall the other part about killing. Is my thinking faulty here?

 

[loveisthemovement]

Funny thing is, she recently fixed the spelling mistake. Wonder if she reads posts here?

Of course she does. She is as narcissistic as they come. Her IG attempts at seeming artsy and playful reek of a pathetic plea to remain in the spotlight.

 

[Oreck]

I read some interesting posts about the guns. However for me, the make/model of the third gun if true fills some of the text exchange meanings.

1) When DM suggests to MS that they find a home for German, Smich suggests making a permanent home under the dash of the Caddy. This suggests to me that the PPK was the one Smich used, and he was planning on owning the Caddy. The other two are made by S&W, and manufactured in the US.

2) When Smich's buddy Brendan Daly testified that he viewed videos of gun and ammo on Youtube with MS, MS mentioned to him that DM got the one he wanted. Is the Bodyguard 380 something DM would find cool to own?

3) I can't recall, but was the photo of the gun(s) with the Bodyguard 380 redacted from the photo, the one DM texted to CN? If so, she was aware of the two guns, and does that have any implications of her knowing DM and MS were a team in these murders?

4) Why is the Bodyguard 380 not mentioned and remains hidden up to this point?

5) What does LE know about the purchase of the three guns. Do they know which one was purchased when?

6) Brendan Daly called his friend to see if he wanted to buy the gun from MS. Which gun? Did Brendan or his friend recognize the gun? The PPK and Bodygurad are substantially different.

MOO

Did the ever say the make of the gun that killed WM. What happened to it?

 

[JuneBug67]

Pure speculation: Remember back to the time when DM and MS were texting and DM said words to the effect that he had an idea to take things to the next level, but didn’t know if Mark was willing or able to make it to that level. They were going to discuss it further.

At this point, my own opinion of course, I believe there is a possibility that together their new business venture was to cremate murder victims. Between the two of them they knew a lot of nefarious gang members. DM and MS could charge hefty fees to dispose of murdered bodies, hence the exterminator on a trailer.

Word of their one-of-a-kind business would quickly spread throughout the criminal world. They could travel far and wide, wherever they were needed to use their incinerator. And along the way, continue to have thrills of their own making as well, in addition to hefty proceeds from their “business”.

Might be what they had in mind all along. Or else I am just being ridiculous. [emoji4]


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I just can’t shake the sense that we don’t yet have the true story on that incinerator. It feels like it’s there on some parallel purpose and the crimes are just juxtaposed with it rather than flowing both from and to it. That matters a great deal in understanding things. Obviously its presence impacts everything, including what the boys are willing to try criminally and how they react to circumstances. But to this day I think what the Crown actually proved in the TB case was second degree murder. To me, there was so much evidence that it was meant to be a robbery and not a murder. Multiple people knew about the intended robbery in advance, they created three witnesses to describe their appearance and actions, knew enough to use a burner phone but carted their own around with them too, evidence that MS did not at all expect to be gone all night, the backing off on Igor - who exactly is too intimidating to shoot to death by surprise? - and finally the unholy mess they made of the truck, not to mention blasting a gun in such a confined space, was obviously not the plan, or it could have been the plan with Igor.

Similarly with Laura, there is little evidence beyond an overlap in time that definitively suggests its purchase or even its pending presence was part of a specific murder plot. There is too much going in on parallel over months with guns and missions and next level stuff and ultimately DMs purported need for 100,000 a month. I mean what for? How was he going to do that? How did the 15,000 incinerator investment fit into that?

People have dismissed the idea that people died and the incinerator just happened to be there with a fair degree of virtual eye rolling, but that really may be exactly what happened.

 

[JuneBug67]

We aren't in the courtroom though, I think the jury gets an advantage of hearing and observing body language, reactions etc which us mere twitter readers don't. They have more to draw on to decide which witnesses were more credible in which part of their testimony. I't's part of their job, right?

So conceivably they may find one witness believable in both aspects of his testimony (kill & burn), and find the other witness credible only in his 'burn' testimony.... and believe he simply didn't hear or recall the other part about killing. Is my thinking faulty here?

No, not faulty at all. But as you point out we’re not in the courtroom, and my points are about how we here are processing the evidence we do have, here.