Babcock Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #6

[Inspector_North]

As I recall she told him no.

.... or at least was delaying him. Hence his "*advertiser censored* rabbit" text.

 

[banting]

As I recall she told him no.

Yes, I think you're right. I think he wanted her to take a line of credit on her house so that he could complete the purchase of the Distillery District condo which he was trying to sell. Not sure how that got resolved, but wasn't this one of the properties DM transferred to MB for $1 and she then made the sale for him.

 

[Typhoo1961]

Yes, I think you're right. I think he wanted her to take a line of credit on her house so that he could complete the purchase of the Distillery District condo which he was trying to sell. Not sure how that got resolved, but wasn't this one of the properties DM transferred to MB for $1 and she then made the sale for him.

Can you imagine, an adult child with enough b*lls to tell a parent to take out a line of credit on their own house so he could have the cash. Talk about an endulged kid. I bet his parents never said no to DM often as he was growing up.

 

[Grey-St]

Can you imagine, an adult child with enough b*lls to tell a parent to take out a line of credit on their own house so he could have the cash. Talk about an endulged kid. I bet his parents never said no to DM often as he was growing up.

He was such an abuser and manipulator to everyone in his life, including his parents. I've seen it happen before, it's quite disturbing. He believes he's entitled to ask or convince people to do all these things for him, for his benefit.

 

[deezep2m]

Can you imagine, an adult child with enough b*lls to tell a parent to take out a line of credit on their own house so he could have the cash. Talk about an endulged kid. I bet his parents never said no to DM often as he was growing up.

Reality... Mom if you dont give me the money I'm going to do to you like Dad...

Boom why we're in court!

 

[musicaljoke]

Thank you for this info. I sat in on a trial at the University Ave. courthouse a few years back. The perpetrator had been charged with 2nd degree murder. When the jury was selected not one of them was asked a single question at all. Each was asked to look at the accused, and there were two people selected from the jury pool (I think they were called Triers of Fact?) who observed the potential juror looking at the accused, and then a decision was made whether to accept that juror or not (defence and Crown had a say too).

But not a single person was asked anything at all ... not if they were aware of the case, if they could set aside any of their decisions based on what they had read, etc. Nothing at all like we see in the U.S. where jurors answer pages of questions before hand, and are subject to endless questioning.

So, why would some cases here in Canada not ask a juror a single thing, and other cases some questions are asked?

Would that be at the judge’s discretion? TIA

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

When members of the public arrive for the jury selection, they have already been pre-screened by mail, for their ability and eligibility to serve on a jury. If they are called for selection, the judge will inform the group of the defendant and the charges. At that point, the people who were called for jury selection can appeal to the judge to be excused for various reasons, and it's up to the judge to decide whether or not they can leave. Once the preemptory challenge begins, the process when jurors are chosen, counsel in Canada are not allowed to ask prospective jurors any questions.

Both sides are given an equal opportunity to reject any potential juror, for any subjective reason, with no discussion about the reason why someone is rejected. This gives both sides an equal chance at selecting a jury, knowing that it might not be completely impartial.

In some highly publicized cases, there is an opportunity for "Challenge for Cause". I believe this is what happened in the TB case.

The Canadian jury selection process is different from the American process. Canadian law places more emphasis on the jury being a randomly selected and representative group of peers. The jury holds the law in their hands, so in this way, society is protected from legal tyranny if the law is not supported by the people.

I've watched an American jury selection take place in which each prospective juror was asked whether or not they could support the death penalty. All who didn't support this, were excluded from the jury. In this case, the jury is not a representative group of peers, and has no influence on the law. There is no process within the legal system for justice against a law that the public might not support.

http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php?title=Challenge_for_Cause&mobileaction=toggle_view_mobile

http://merrimenlaw.ca/blog/2017/11/9/jury-selection-in-canada-the-peremptory-challenge

 

[andreww]

Your phrasing is fine , I think I understand what you are getting at, and have had the same questions going through my mind as well.

To my understanding, I don't believe either DM or TD for that matter, can get up there and spew some narrative that hasn't been suggested by evidence in court. That would be like giving testimony as a witness, and has to be rightly subjected to cross examination by the crown.

I think what they CAN do, is try to discredit the crowns case, and elaborate on evidence (or lack of evidence) that has been presented that supports their defence. For example, TD can say there has been no sufficient evidence to suggest his client even knew LB or that she had been murdered, until after the fact. They both might suggest that no hard evidence exist to support that LB is even deceased (a stretch, but I suppose fair game). I don't think either of them can get up there during closing arguments and provide testimony on "what truly happened to LB".

I hope I am making sense, it's JMO after giving it some thought. Maybe someone else knows better?

But didn't Millards lawyer spin the tail of what happened to TB in his closing? Seem to recall a story about Smich shooting him While Millard drove on the highway.

 

[Inspector_North]

But didn't Millards lawyer spin the tail of what happened to TB in his closing? Seem to recall a story about Smich shooting him While Millard drove on the highway.

Can they not tell any story as long as it does not try to add or change evidence? DM's story told through his lawyer was just that, a story that did not add evidence, and tried to convince the jury his story was possible based on the evidence they were presented. MOO

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

But didn't Millards lawyer spin the tail of what happened to TB in his closing? Seem to recall a story about Smich shooting him While Millard drove on the highway.

That was during their cross examination of MS, but yes pretty sure they can say anything they want but if DM says aliens came down and abducted LB I think the judge would say their is no evidence supporting that in his charge.

 

[Shaz14]

Call me naive, but I was truly shocked one day when, just as this LB trial was getting underway, I had occasion to speak to a long-time officer (not sure what his rank was) from Peel Police Service - who knew nothing of the impending trial, *or* the LB case - hadn't even heard of it. I realize that 'Peel' may not have been specifically involved, but considering the media coverage and intertwining of these cases, the areas in which the cases spanned (Ancaster/Hamilton, Brantford, Ayr, Toronto, Mississauga, Waterloo, Etobicoke, Kleinburg, etc), and various police services working together, I would have figured that at least police would know about the cases, let alone the public.

It depends on what department they are in within the force. They are busy people with busy jobs too, they can’t keep up with every case out there. If you’re a traffic cop, you don’t know what Homicide is doing unless you listen to the news just like everyone else in the general public. This case is a fairly big deal but there are crimes all the time, if it wasn’t of particular interest to them they probably didn’t pay much attention.

 

[Shaz14]

If I lived in T.O I doubt I would have paid much attention to the case. I live in Hamilton and posters were everywhere about the disappearance of Tim Bosma and the truck. All over the downtown on bus shelters. Then when Sharlene came on the news and to see her face, heartbroken and the anguish, it caused me to pay attention. Then when they captured DM and said who he was. I had hoped they would find Tim Bosma alive.

I agree. I’m in Oakville and paid close attention because it seemed close to home. TB was close to my age and a father. Then I found out that MS was also from Oakville. If I lived anywhere else it would probably have just been another crime and I would have moved on. It’s not that I don’t care about these crimes but there is only so much you can pay attention to and follow at any given time. It is also sad and stressful to follow some of these stories, there’s only so much I can emotionally take. That doesn’t mean that other crimes are just as horrendous. This particular crime(s) also seems to get more and more interesting as time goes on. If I didn’t follow from the beginning I probably wouldn’t know that.

 

[Grey-St]

That was during their cross examination of MS, but yes pretty sure they can say anything they want but if DM says aliens came down and abducted LB I think the judge would say their is no evidence supporting that in his charge.

I couldn't find much information, but found this:

Counsels' final arguments must only be about facts presented at trial. Counsel makes arguments based on evidence or such basic facts that everyone knows are correct and do not require formal proof. Only facts which are directly related to the trial can be discussed.

http://www.victimsinfo.ca/es/about-court/going-to-trial/how-trial-will-proceed/closing-arguments

And then yes, there is the judge's charge to the jury where they can be instructed to disregard aspects of a closing statement.

 

[MrsThreadgoode]

If it is true because I never heard anything in the media about that.

It is true. It was written about in Ann Brocklehurst’s book. IIRC she was in touch with the NYC police about it. All details are in her book.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[bakingirl]

If DM breaks the rules and starts giving his version of events in his closing arguments, then what? Would the Crown and/or Dungey object? I haven't heard of objections during closing arguments, but then again lawyers tend to play by the rules - not so sure about DM...

 

[Grey-St]

If DM breaks the rules and starts giving his version of events in his closing arguments, then what? Would the Crown and/or Dungey object? I haven't heard of objections during closing arguments, but then again lawyers tend to play by the rules - not so sure about DM...

It's a good question. I've never heard of objections during closing arguments either. Maybe an interruption from the judge? All I know is that the judge can instruct to the jury afterwards during his charge to disregard DM's closing, if he presents something that isn't backed up by evidence in this trial.

 

[ab-initio]

It's a good question. I've never heard of objections during closing arguments either. Maybe an interruption from the judge? All I know is that the judge can instruct to the jury afterwards during his charge to disregard DM's closing, if he presents something that isn't backed up by evidence in this trial.

I'm not sure of the exact procedure, but I can't imagine the Judge would allow DM, or anyone else, blather on if they are out of line. Regardless of his charge, you can't "unhear" something, and with these statements being the last the jury will hear before deliberation, I imagine any indiscretions will be cut short and redirected.

 

[Fionn]

Whatever they decided to do to make money in August of 2012, DM was still hurting cash wise by April 2013. Although his plan for "all business" profits in April was "ambitious" to say the least.


Apr 5 2013 - Millard texts Michalski: "2013 is gonna be all business. 2014/15 will be for inventions!"
Apr 5 2013 - Michalski texts Millard: "need to make some money first."
Apr 5 2013 - Millard texts Michalski: "about 100,000 a month and I'll be out of the hole."

Trying to figure out what was going through DM's mind at that time is futile. He had already decided to get out of the Aviation repair business. Not sure if he was seriously considering making a profit leasing the hangar? But he did mention in an email to Rabbit, and one to CN that his dad a left the business in a lot worse financial shape than he thought. To the point that he wanted Rabbit's equity in her house to help him make urgent financial obligations.

DM would never consider that the financial shape he was left with, was mostly his doing.

MOO

I’ve wondered if the take from ‘the source’ remark was alluding to Wayne Millard (who was dead a few months later) He seemed unaware of his father’s actual financial situation until after he died.

While I’m speculating does anyone else wonder if DM had a juvenile record? There seems to be so much more to the story with his uncle.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ab-initio]

It's a good question. I've never heard of objections during closing arguments either. Maybe an interruption from the judge? All I know is that the judge can instruct to the jury afterwards during his charge to disregard DM's closing, if he presents something that isn't backed up by evidence in this trial.

I'm not sure of the exact procedure, but I can't imagine the Judge would allow DM, or anyone else, blather on if they are out of line. Regardless of his charge, you can't "unhear" something, and with these statements being the last the jury will hear before deliberation, I imagine any indiscretions will be cut short and redirected.

While this is not a legal court source, per se, this is snipped from an article on an Ontario PI law firm's website:

Counsel should never interrupt counsel during their jury address to make such an objection, but should wait until the end of the address. However, the court will occasionally interrupt counsel during both opening and closing addresses when counsel is going to far.
When the closing is over the edge, counsel may convince the judge to issue a corrective charge to the jury or even to strike the jury in particularly egregious cases.

https://oatleyvigmond.com/boundaries-of-closing-arguments-how-to-avoid-crossing-the-line/

 

[bakingirl]

While this is not a legal court source, per se, this is snipped from an article on an Ontario PI law firm's website:

Counsel should never interrupt counsel during their jury address to make such an objection, but should wait until the end of the address. However, the court will occasionally interrupt counsel during both opening and closing addresses when counsel is going to far.
When the closing is over the edge, counsel may convince the judge to issue a corrective charge to the jury or even to strike the jury in particularly egregious cases.

https://oatleyvigmond.com/boundaries-of-closing-arguments-how-to-avoid-crossing-the-line/

Thanks, very helpful! The judge will likely be on high alert for DM mis-speaks, since it has been happening
throughout the trial!

 

[Grey-St]

While I’m speculating does anyone else wonder if DM had a juvenile record? There seems to be so much more to the story with his uncle.

RSBM. I've wondered that also. It's certainly a possibility, and let's just say that I wouldn't be surprised.

On the other hand, when young people come from a place of privilege, as DM did, it's easier for them to avoid charges. Family are more able to protect you, vouch for you, cover for you. LE are more inclined to let them off the hook, etc. This often doesn't do them any good, as they continue to go through life thinking they can get away with everything. I wouldn't be surprised if something like this supported the uncles distain for DM. JMO.