Babcock Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #5

[mimimic]

He acquired a gun on July 2 and then likely got ammo on July 3. The other gun was not talked about in this trial so irrelevant to the jury.

And again - yes he could have some kind of wacky plan for the incinerator. That is possible. It is reasonable to think he was going to run around burning animals for vets (we've heard no). We have no evidence to say he was thinking about become a travelling human body burning salesman.

It sure would be something if he admitted it. Messed up. Friggen Lunatics.
I think some here, besides me, believe it to be so.
No other reason for the damned thing.

 

[mimimic]

The mobility of the incinerator gave him flexibility between the farm and the hangar, the ability to move or hide it if necessary and the potential for general scalability, whatever the intentions. Reductio ad absurdum is probably not a helpful approach in understanding why the man bought an incinerator and welded it to a trailer.

This made me look up something you all would likely like to as well. Straw man somewhere in this line of thought.

 

[JuneBug67]

Do we know that this breakup was determined to be any given amount of time? I hadn’t seen any talk about them reconciling, and I guess somehow I just felt it could have been nothing more than an argument. Did I miss something, or could they have simply made up the next day?

I was re-reading billandrew’s amazing timeline again today, and what seems apparent to me is dm’s increasing urgency to get the incinerator going. He seems to be getting more agitated with Laura in April as evidenced by his texts with CN, and tells SS in May he wants him to make an incinerator. I feel fairly confident that if the incinerator was available in May, Laura just may have been a victim that much sooner.

One if the (many) things that helps to convince me that this was planned is all of his talk about “removing her from our lives”, which of course doesn’t necessarily mean murder, but when he replies to CN about her warm fuzzy feelings, he says something about “sinister intentions”, and that, to me, is very telling.

As many have stated, it’s the totality of all the little facts we have together, that make me confident that this was most certainly planned, and nothing short of M1.

IMO

I had thought it was just a brief spat as well, but we had subsequent testimony that DM told somebody that he was happy to be back with CN as they had been broken up for a few weeks and he had missed her. The fight was June 9 and they took a couple-ish selfie a month later. Overall I had the impression that they broke up, tentatively started speaking and socializing again (by July 1 she was at his Canada Day party) and officially got back together, all within a matter of a few weeks.

I think the overarching totality of the facts strongly suggest the incinerator was about making money and facilitating other crimes that produced profit in one way or another. It’s easy to curate selected events and present them as a cohesive narrative, but it’s easy for that to be an illusion. DM told LB to bugger off and not contact him for a long while sometime in April, and as far as we know she did bugger off. Next contact we know about is July 1, initiated by LB. Somewhere in between all that DM breaks it off with CN. Taken together, it would be an odd period for a situation with LB to be escalating.

I think the idea of a robbery motive with LB needs a good look. It fits in with the general hunt for money and things that had been pervasive for months.

 

[inbetweendoors]

The fact that trials are somewhat out of sequence in relation to the actual murder dates has evidence for WM still on hold. The trials of course are scheduled by the date the charge was laid. In the case of LB and WM, they were charged with them on the same day, so I assume the the date of the trial is determined by the date of the murder.

Pretty sure the S&W Long was the one used. It would be strange for LE to say they confiscated the revolver in November of 2012, and still deem WM's death a suicide that same month if it was not the gun. MOO

Are guns usually confiscated in cases of suicide? If there was an investigation, I can understand, but if the death is then deemed a suicide, would the gun not be returned to the owner (or owner's estate since the presumed owner is now deceased)?

As I'm typing I'm realizing that the gun may have been illegal and therefore confiscated - which in turn stands to reason that WM did not have the proper licence to own a prohibited firearm, as DM may now be trying to claim.

For some reason I always thought WM died by shotgun (wasn't there also a shotgun in the home?) but I may just be projecting as have personal experience with suicide by shotgun. Or simply mixed up "gunshot" with "shotgun".
We really have never heard anything in MSM so far about the specific gun used eh?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[inbetweendoors]

Wasn't WM killed with a rifle ????

Ok I see I'm not the only one who was of that opinion. But where did we get that idea??

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Bluepopsicle]

I had thought it was just a brief spat as well, but we had subsequent testimony that DM told somebody that he was happy to be back with CN as they had been broken up for a few weeks and he had missed her. The fight was June 9 and they took a couple-ish selfie a month later. Overall I had the impression that they broke up, tentatively started speaking and socializing again (by July 1 she was at his Canada Day party) and officially got back together, all within a matter of a few weeks.

I think the overarching totality of the facts strongly suggest the incinerator was about making money and facilitating other crimes that produced profit in one way or another. It’s easy to curate selected events and present them as a cohesive narrative, but it’s easy for that to be an illusion. DM told LB to bugger off and not contact him for a long while sometime in April, and as far as we know she did bugger off. Next contact we know about is July 1, initiated by LB. Somewhere in between all that DM breaks it off with CN. Taken together, it would be an odd period for a situation with LB to be escalating.

I think the idea of a robbery motive with LB needs a good look. It fits in with the general hunt for money and things that had been pervasive for months.

Interesting, thank you. I must have missed that about the break up period. All this time I was thinking it was basically a non-event. Now I’m wondering if it’s possible that Laura was annoying him further during that time... possibly hearing about the breakup and started contacting him more. Although there’s certainly no evidence of that in the cell phone records. Is it possible that there are things we’re missing from the phone logs? Though I’d have to imagine that the Crown would have included that as evidence if there were. Unless he may have deleted, and they were unrecoverable and not backed up through itunes.

As far as him and the money, I feel like its only becoming apparently urgent around the time of WM’s death, and increasingly moreso after. I believe that’s the reason for his death...possibly DM was getting further in trouble financially, and his dad was asking questions, looking into things, etc. I find myself reading the timeline over and over, and coming up with different things. It’s so frustrating...I want answers we’ll likely never get.

 

[cansleuther]

Ok I see I'm not the only one who was of that opinion. But where did we get that idea??

From Susan Clairmont and Molly Hayes of the Hamilton Spectator.

Millard is also charged with the first-degree murder of his own father, Wayne Millard, whose November 2012 shotgun death was originally ruled a suicide.

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/5839030-babcock-murder-case-going-straight-to-trial/

Wayne Millard's shotgun death in November 2012 was originally deemed a suicide.

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/6122708-accused-killer-dellen-millard-hires-hamilton-lawyer-peter-boushy/

 

[Satchie]

Toronto 18?

Yes, my last statement in that paragraph was carelessly worded. I should have said:
Someone or some people may have a vague plan to kill someone or some people in the future, but unless the plan becomes specific and actionable, they haven't committed a crime.

Recently, actions like DUI have been designated crimes, for the purpose of public safety. But still, the law always has to adhere to the long-standing principal that there is a clear line between crime and not-crime, and crossing that line is a deliberate physical action. That someone got into the car and drove while intoxicated over a certain specified limit can easily be proven or disproven. Whether they were or were not alert or driving carefully, etc, is a quagmire of opinions where no truth will ever emerge.

Similarly, to prove M1 against MS in this case, I believe you have to prove there was an action taken in the form of a conversation, along the lines of "Mark, I want you to help me murder someone will you do this?". "Yes, I'm in, tell me what I should do". In that conversation, both people would have crossed a line into the area of criminal offense, and both people would know it.

IMO, that MS was texting about getting food, and DM stating 'I'm on a mission", very much undermines any theory about MS being in on a plan.

Again, the point I'm making is that a conviction can't be based on a vague sense someone was up to no good, a right ******, etc. There must be proof of a specific offence, which is a "guilty act" as defined in the criminal code

 

[Bluepopsicle]

Yes, my last statement in that paragraph was carelessly worded. I should have said:
Someone or some people may have a vague plan to kill someone or some people in the future, but unless the plan becomes specific and actionable, they haven't committed a crime.

Recently, actions like DUI have been designated crimes, for the purpose of public safety. But still, the law always has to adhere to the long-standing principal that there is a clear line between crime and not-crime, and crossing that line is a deliberate physical action. That someone got into the car and drove while intoxicated over a certain specified limit can easily be proven or disproven. Whether they were or were not alert or driving carefully, etc, is a quagmire of opinions where no truth will ever emerge.

Similarly, to prove M1 against MS in this case, I believe you have to prove there was an action taken in the form of a conversation, along the lines of "Mark, I want you to help me murder someone will you do this?". "Yes, I'm in, tell me what I should do". In that conversation, both people would have crossed a line into the area of criminal offense, and both people would know it.

IMO, that MS was texting about getting food, and DM stating 'I'm on a mission", very much undermines any theory about them being in on a plan.

Again, the point I'm making is that a conviction can't be based on a vague sense someone was up to no good, a right ******, etc. There must be proof of a specific offence, which is a "guilty act" as defined in the criminal code

While I agree with you that MS may not be guilty of M1, I don’t agree that that specific text exchange undermines the fact that there may have been a plan in place. The murder could have taken place before, or after that approximate hour long mission he was on. But I am also (maybe wrongfully) of the opinion that if MS knew that DM was planning to kill her and was in on the plan, though possibly not part of the actual physical act, but in on the rest of it, that he should be guilty of M1 as well. That may not be the law however, I am certainly no expert on that, but it’s what my mind and my gut thinks is right. If I were on that jury I would obviously need instruction from the judge as to what’s needed to find one guilty of M1.

I think MS could have been aware of what was going to happen that night, just maybe not specifically when. At least I think its possible, but I don’t think it’s proven.

 

[Grey-St]

While I agree with you that MS may not be guilty of M1, I don’t agree that that specific text exchange undermines the fact that there may have been a plan in place. The murder could have taken place before, or after that approximate hour long mission he was on. But I am also (maybe wrongfully) of the opinion that if MS knew that DM was planning to kill her and was in on the plan, though possibly not part of the actual physical act, but in on the rest of it, that he should be guilty of M1 as well. That may not be the law however, I am certainly no expert on that, but it’s what my mind and my gut thinks is right. If I were on that jury I would obviously need instruction from the judge as to what’s needed to find one guilty of M1.

I think MS could have been aware of what was going to happen that night, just maybe not specifically when. At least I think its possible, but I don’t think it’s proven.

From my understanding, what you are describing here, is in fact the law. Just like in the TB trial, it didn't matter who pulled the trigger, or what car MS was in when the murder took place. The jury believed they both took part in premeditated murder, planned and deliberate, which resulted in a M1 conviction for both.

Whether that has been proven in this trial, for MS, is the question up for debate.

 

[Tealgrove]

What about the Russell Williams interrogation? That one is epic.
I also recall that blubbering guy who raped Victoria Stafford?

I believe the reason these videos are public is because they were entered into evidence thus are in the public domaine.

I recall videos of Terri Lynn McClintic, Michael Rafferty, Russell Williams and Elizabeth Wettlaufer. All those videos were entered into evidence.

MOO

 

[Bluepopsicle]

From my understanding, what you are describing here, is in fact the law. Just like in the TB trial, it didn't matter who pulled the trigger, or what car MS was in when the murder took place. The jury believed they both took part in premeditated murder, planned and deliberate, which resulted in a M1 conviction for both.

Whether that has been proven in this trial, for MS, is the question up for debate.

Well that’s good to know! I like when the law makes sense...I find that’s not always the case. It sure would be interesting to be a fly on the wall when the jury is deliberating. I don’t envy their job!

 

[Satchie]

IMO the fact pattern pointing to DM and MS working together to murder LB is pretty clear. Premeditation murder of LB that evening 1) DM knew to pick up LB from station, instruction to MS to not be visible when he got back, conversation with CN indicating that he had a big job to do and wouldn't be getting together with CN until Friday.

Then you have quite the diary of trying to get the incinerator delivered and all set up- a "smell check" memo for DM in the barn because the incinerator had a learning curve.

It finishes 20 days later with a late night run by DM/MS/MM out to the farm- DM/MS realization that hydro is needed so an impromptu trip with incinerator in tow to the hangar (which was probably why they didn't waste any time with TB- when they quickly picked up the incinerator and went straight to the hangar)

Late night photo album entries of remains in a glowing incinerator.

MS- moves continues to use LB's personal possessions
DM- moves on to play dumb with SL

Fast forward a year and DM pens a jail house letter to CN referencing "the night" LB disappeared when LE hadn't even acknowledged LB was dead. His alibi includes LB and MS- no MM referenced (IMO, if MM was there, DM would have written MM into the alibi)

MS made arrangements for the gun. MS couldn't swing the "I was just helping my buddy out and I was scared for my life because I didn't know my psycho bro was going to kill someone and burn them" defence in the TB case.

IMHO, they don't need to know who actually killed LB. They both participated in the planning of and actual murder of LB and IMHO, just like in the TB case, the Jury will be returning a M1 for both. MOO

I agree there is a strong chain of circumstantial evidence, as you outline, to convict DM of M1. Also clear evidence, beginning with the texts about 'let's talk after I sleep' followed by the sinister 'spliff' texts, that MS knew what he'd done and helped dispose of her belongings and body.

But the evidence about MS actually planning or committing the murder of LB, is missing I think. MS was living at the crime scene with his girlfriend, so IMO that's not evidence for his being in on the plan, like it was in the TB case.

 

[inbetweendoors]

I'd have to agree, and this disconnect is furthered by two different crown theories, in two different trials. In each trial, the crown is trying to use the purchase of the incinerator prove premeditated murder of TB, and then premeditated murder of LB. It's a decent strategy, and likely doesn't matter because this jury "does not know" about the TB trial or the crowns theory during it, but for the public, and the families of both victims, we see this disconnect. We want the real truth as to why this incinerator was acquired. I suppose the crown has no obligation to give us this information, or likely doesn't know, but as human beings we can't help but want to know, and in the process rule out theories that don't make sense to us.

For what it's worth, LB's family is also not buying the crowns theory that Laura was murdered because of a love-triangle. They think she knew something incriminating that put the accused in a vulnerable position. I think they deserve better.

Where was it said that this is what LB's family believes? TIA.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[ABro]

I agree there is a strong chain of circumstantial evidence, as you outline, to convict DM of M1. Also clear evidence, beginning with the texts about 'let's talk after I sleep' followed by the sinister 'spliff' texts, that MS knew what he'd done and helped dispose of her belongings and body.

But the evidence about MS actually planning or committing the murder of LB, is missing I think. MS was living at the crime scene with his girlfriend, so IMO that's not evidence for his being in on the plan.

You seem to be forgetting about other direct evidence -- like the two witnesses who said MS confessed.

And also the fact that his behaviour was very bizarre for someone not in on the murder. Do you think the jury's going to find it plausible that he revelled in cremating someone, proudly posing for photos and writing a grotesque rap about a murder he wasn't in on but allegedly confessed to? And, oh yes, there's all the other circumstantial evidence you referenced plus a few more things you didn't.

The "not enough evidence for MS" crowd conveniently forgets about a lot of the evidence against MS. But the Crown won't forget any of it when they make their closing address. It will all be tied up with a bow.

Dungey will try his best to make it all look coincidental.

And then the jury can decide.

 

[Satchie]

While I agree with you that MS may not be guilty of M1, I don’t agree that that specific text exchange undermines the fact that there may have been a plan in place. The murder could have taken place before, or after that approximate hour long mission he was on. But I am also (maybe wrongfully) of the opinion that if MS knew that DM was planning to kill her and was in on the plan, though possibly not part of the actual physical act, but in on the rest of it, that he should be guilty of M1 as well. That may not be the law however, I am certainly no expert on that, but it’s what my mind and my gut thinks is right. If I were on that jury I would obviously need instruction from the judge as to what’s needed to find one guilty of M1.

I think MS could have been aware of what was going to happen that night, just maybe not specifically when. At least I think its possible, but I don’t think it’s proven.

Yes, I guess I'm interested in the question of what can be proven.

When I say 'proved', that includes circumstantial evidence that leads to concluding, beyong a reasonable doubt, that the crime in question was committed.

To me, the comment 'don't be out front', on it's own, isn't sufficient circumstantial evidence of an agreed plan to murder. For one thing, if they had a plan, DM wouldn't need to tell MS that. He could just say 'I'll be there in 15", and MS would know what to do.

 

[Inspector_North]

There are still a lot of folks that think there is not enough to find MS guilty of M1. I believe there is. Yes he lived in the house and could have not known what DM was up to. But he did know the homemade incinerator was not for garbage. It was only after it failed that the Eliminator entered the picture with the Pet Cremation business story, yet just days before LB disappeared ......

From Bill's timeline

May 28 4:39 pm Millard sends Smich photos of the homemade incinerator.
May 28 4:47 pm Smich texts Millard: "Do u have any bones for tonight? Or we just putting it together?"
May 28 4:48 pm Millard texts Smich: "I will have something."
May 28 4:48 pm Smich texts Millard: "Tru. And we should try something else as well. Something wet."
May 28 4:49 pm Smich texts Millard: "I'm just sayin. Wet like a pu**y and hard like a d**k."



MS knew! And like the TB trial, both were involved in the plan, and who did the actual murder is not required. The Crown has shown enough before, during, and after activity by both to prove guilty of M1 in my opinion.

 

[paris_paris]

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

I'm sure she does. I hadn't paid attention before to the profile pic. Is it new? I swear the reflection in her eye shows a man running.

 

[palisadesk]

Sorry..that’s what I meant by kidnapping. They were originally charged with that, but the judge took it off the table right before deliberations and said they could not consider forcible confinement as a factor. I don’t think we found out the legal justification for that.

I don't recall that it was explained explicitly, but if you put together the Crown's opening statement with the judge's charge (in which he told the jury that forcible confinement was not an option for them to consider) it is implied that the reason is the absence of proof of either force OR confinement, strictly speaking. The Crown explicitly stated (as the evidence showed) that TB went with the deadly duo willingly, and the Crown alleged (though this is a hypothesis) that TB was shot minutes later in the field near the house, where the Yukon had been left. In that case, there was no time for forcible confinement - though it's also likely (IMO) that they drove farther, possibly even as far as Brantford, before the shooting took place. If that were true, forcible confinement would have been necessary - can't imagine TB just sitting there and not objecting. But there's no evidence to support exactly where the shooting occurred, so no evidence TB was confined by force. He may have been, naturally, but that's one of many things about that crime -- and this one -- we'll never know.

 

[Satchie]

You seem to be forgetting about other direct evidence -- like the two witnesses who said MS confessed.

And also the fact that his behaviour was very bizarre for someone not in on the murder.

Snipped by me.

I'm not forgetting the evidence of the peach shnapps incident. Firstly, I wouldn't call it a 'confession', but rather bragging. MS was not trying to remove the pain of a guilty conscience by telling the truth, he was trying to impress much younger teenagers.

Secondly, it happened a long time ago when the witnesses were impressionable kids and stoned. Yes, taken with the date of the recorded video, it does provide strong evidence that Smich's rap song about burning her body was true, but I don't believe it proves he killed her.

Secondly, I don't think it's beyond the realm of possibility that someone like Smich would take delight in using that evil machine to burn the body of his friends victim.

I'll also comment, why would DM need MS to help kill LB? The Bosma plan required an accomplice to drive the Yukon, help move the body, and possibly shoot the victim from behind. Nothing like that was needed when he brought LB home. So again, the assumption that MS must have taken part is lacking proof, I think.