Laura Babcock: Dellen Millard & Mark Smich charged w/ Murder in the First Degree #2

[SnooperDuper]

Well I think the one thing that the DI's are telling us, it's that the case is based on hard evidence, not witness testimonies. I don't think it will matter what anyone says, or if DM testifies at all. The evidence will speak for itself.

 

[Tamarind]

MsSherlock...can you prove DM lied? Might just be that everyone and their Great Aunt is lying. Everyone but DM and DP.

Maybe everyone is lying !!! We wont know until truth is revealed IMO

Makes no matter IMO who's lying and who's telling the truth because it will all come out during the trials (if there are any), and the evidence will speak for itself, the truth will be known as to who the murderer(s) is/are. The Crown may not even have to open their mouths...just show the evidence. But of course the Crown will speak, that would make for a pretty bizarre trial hehehe.

Or, who the murderers are not .

I think the crown will have a lot to say, most crowns due from what I have seen

Has it every occurred to some folks that maybe some people just may know what some of that evidence against the accused is? I guess it's not a witch hunt or ready to walk someone to the gallows, or those wielding pitchforks at the charged then is it?

I imagine the accused would know the truth, just a hunch. I expect some people will claim to know more than they do to effect suspicion, but in reality no-one really knows the truth except those who know because they were there, or know that they weren't there but know who was, or know they weren't there and know details to a point. JMO

And it wouldn't be just their opinions either would it?. It would be them trying to explaining the obvious without giving away the facts and evidence compromising the PB. I don't know if and who may know what the evidence is, but I can tell you one thing; these trials cannot come quick enough.

I think if people don't know how and who may know any truth, then they really can't speculate who does or doesn't IMO.

I suppose the victims' loved ones feel the same way. As for the accused/charged, it may not really concern them too much as they likely know what their future looks like.

ALL MOO.

If an accused is innocent I would imagine it would concern them considerably. JMO

 

[Tamarind]

Well I think the one thing that the DI's are telling us, it's that the case is based on hard evidence, not witness testimonies. I don't think it will matter what anyone says, or if DM testifies at all. The evidence will speak for itself.

I didnt see anything to that effect and previous posts have only shown that time seems to be the most important factor JMO. And in regard to it all, time again will tell JMO

 

[Tamarind]

I'm not sure about that one, because JP had a lot of turmoil in his life early on and significantly more trouble with the law before he murdered.

I think Phillip Markoff https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Markoff is similar. PM found his victims on Craigslist. He came from a family with money and had a good education. He killed with a gun. He owned all the latest technology toys, and was undone by them.

How is it similar? WM, LB or TB were not found on craigslist. Thats a new theory to me. I dont see where DM had trouble with the law prior to this case, I thought it was just MS. DM doesn't have previous interaction with police, I believe it is only MS that does.

 

[Coldpizza]

Stop the bickering back and forth about personal beliefs. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and belief and if it doesn't agree with yours, state your case (as everyone already has) and MOVE ON !! This constant petty bickering becomes tiresome to others and drives people away from the discussion.

:tyou:

Needs to stop in here, no more warnings.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Dean Paquette is Millard’s Defence Lawyer: “Most preferred indictments are seen in cases that have high profiles. Bernardo was such a case. But the public interest is a factor.”

Hamilton Defence Lawyer Dean Paquette says although Millard and Smich’s defence lawyers won’t be able to cross examine witnesses in advance at a preliminary hearing, this could be the kind of case that will be decided by evidence more than witness testimony.

Dean Paquette: “This isn’t the kind of case that ordering a preliminary hearing advantages the defence as much. It’s largely what the police find, where they find it, DNA, evidence that relates to the discovery of incriminating materials that will be used by the prosecution. It’s not witness testimony where the cross examination of those witnesses will be critical.”

http://www.chch.com/millard-smitch-will-go-straight-trial/

 

[Juballee]

http://www.chch.com/millard-smitch-will-go-straight-trial/

The above quote is from the TB DI, not Laura's. The lawyer that you are quoting is speaking of an entirely different case, this is not a quote that has anything to do with LB's case. But it is interesting to think that the lawyers think that witness testimony won't play a big part in TB's case, which would lead us back to the discussion on what SB saw and what the Etobicoke business owner will bear witness to. Although perhaps that is a discussions for a different thread.

 

[SnooperDuper]

The above quote is from the TB DI, not Laura's. The lawyer that you are quoting is speaking of an entirely different case, this is not a quote that has anything to do with LB's case. But it is interesting to think that the lawyers think that witness testimony won't play a big part in TB's case, which would lead us back to the discussion on what SB saw and what the Etobicoke business owner will bear witness to. Although perhaps that is a discussions for a different thread.

Well in LB's case, there have been first-degree murder charges and a DI. You would think if the Crown did not have strong evidence, they would not be going ahead with first-degree murder charges, let alone a DI.

It is DM's own lawyer that says "It’s not witness testimony where the cross examination of those witnesses will be critical." SB and the RBEG's testimony might show how LE were led to DM, but would not be critical to proving the case. The lawyer suggests they will be battling hard evidence, perhaps some of the 10,000 videos that were reviewed for the TB case. For all we know, there could be video evidence of much of DM and MS's actions that night, from security cameras. That would be considered direct evidence, not circumstantial.

 

[cansleuther]

Dean Paquette is Millard’s Defence Lawyer: “Most preferred indictments are seen in cases that have high profiles. Bernardo was such a case. But the public interest is a factor.”

This is the only article that mentions Dean Paquette as being DM's lawyer. Was/is he part of DM's legal team? Or is it a mistake and they meant to say Deepak Paradkar? And if it is a mistake, which DP are the quotes actually attributed to - Dean Paquette or Deepak Paradkar? :facepalm:

 

[SnooperDuper]

This is the only article that mentions Dean Paquette as being DM's lawyer. Was/is he part of DM's legal team? Or is it a mistake and they meant to say Deepak Paradkar? And if it is a mistake, which DP are the quotes actually attributed to - Dean Paquette or Deepak Paradkar? :facepalm:

This is the first time I noticed what I'll call DPq as a lawyer on DM's team. I think on WS, everyone has used DP to only refer to Paradkar. When I used DP in the other thread today, I meant Paradkar.

http://www.deanpaquettecriminallaw.com/Lawyer-Profiles/Dean-Paquette.shtml

What is interesting about DPq is that he does not list murder defenses on his menu of services. You have to wonder exactly what kind of expertise he can offer that is relevant to the cases.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I can't find any other references to DPq and DM, but interestingly enough, in an ancient article where DP complained about other lawyers trying to poach his client, DPq is endorsed twice in the comments

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/3240784-millard-hall-lawyers-locked-in-ethics-dispute/

 

[Arnie M]

Dean Paquette is Millard’s Defence Lawyer: “Most preferred indictments are seen in cases that have high profiles. Bernardo was such a case. But the public interest is a factor.”

Hamilton Defence Lawyer Dean Paquette says although Millard and Smich’s defence lawyers won’t be able to cross examine witnesses in advance at a preliminary hearing, this could be the kind of case that will be decided by evidence more than witness testimony.

Dean Paquette: “This isn’t the kind of case that ordering a preliminary hearing advantages the defence as much. It’s largely what the police find, where they find it, DNA, evidence that relates to the discovery of incriminating materials that will be used by the prosecution. It’s not witness testimony where the cross examination of those witnesses will be critical.”

http://www.chch.com/millard-smitch-will-go-straight-trial/

Thanks for that link Snooper .... although it is an article from last year many of us probably overlooked that snippet saying cross examination of witnesses will not be all that critical in these cases

It also makes it sound like they have a strong case just on the evidence alone.

Which of course is what most of us have suspected all along.

.

 

[cansleuther]

It's also possible that Dean Paquette was erroneously named as DM's lawyer and was only speaking to CHCH News as a "legal expert" with no intimate knowledge of the case. Several other articles from the same time frame have quotes from defence lawyers who are not involved in the Bosma case weighing in on their thoughts of the direct indictment.

Dean Paquette appears to be a highly regarded Hamilton-based lawyer who has has frequently represented police and advised officers being investigated by the SIU - it seems odd he is not mentioned as DM's lawyer anywhere else, especially in Hamilton-based publications like the Spec (where he would be more familiar to local reporters than RP or DP).

JMO.

 

[SnooperDuper]

It's also possible that Dean Paquette was erroneously named as DM's lawyer and was only speaking to CHCH News as a "legal expert" with no intimate knowledge of the case. Several other articles from the same time frame have quotes from defence lawyers who are not involved in the Bosma case weighing in on their thoughts of the direct indictment.

Dean Paquette appears to be a highly regarded Hamilton-based lawyer who has has frequently represented police and advised officers being investigated by the SIU - it seems odd he is not mentioned as DM's lawyer anywhere else, especially in Hamilton-based publications like the Spec (where he would be more familiar to local reporters than RP or DP).

JMO.

To be fair, the first I heard of RP was on ABro's blog late last summer.

DPq seems to speak with authority, "This isn't the kind of case...". I don't think he would be able to speak with such clarity if he were not part of the defense team. He would have couched his words more.

I went to ABro's blog and posed the question, is DPq indeed one of DM's lawyers? Standing by for feedback.

 

[cansleuther]

It's also interesting to note that Dean Paquette was MWJ's ex-girlfriend SV's counsel in the cocaine trafficking case in which they were both found not guilty last year. DP was MWJ's counsel in the same case, so it does appear that DP and DPq have worked together before.

Perhaps someone could ask Susan Clairmont or Ann Brocklehurst before everyone just ends up talking in circles again?

 

[Juballee]

Thanks for that link Snooper .... although it is an article from last year many of us probably overlooked that snippet saying cross examination of witnesses will not be all that critical in these cases

It also makes it sound like they have a strong case just on the evidence alone.

Which of course is what most of us have suspected all along.

.

I would like to keep it clear that the article said 'case' in the singular, not ''cases' plural. This lawyer being quoted is speaking of TB's case, not of LB's case, whether he is working for the defence or not. That article was written before the DI on the LB case was ever confirmed, so he couldn't be speaking of her case.

All cases are different, the evidence in LB's case will not be the same as in TB's case. For example, SB will not be a witness at LB's trial, LB's phone records won't be admitted as evidence in TB's case.

 

[cansleuther]

FWIW the CHCH News “article” is actually a transcript of the video segment that appears above the text. The video segment never actually mentions that Dean Paquette is DM’s lawyer - that information only appears in the text portion, which IMO is quite possibly an error in the transcription and not indeed fact.

 

[SnooperDuper]

FWIW the CHCH News “article” is actually a transcript of the video segment that appears above the text. The video segment never actually mentions that Dean Paquette is DM’s lawyer - that information only appears in the text portion, which IMO is quite possibly an error in the transcription and not indeed fact.

Ann replied to my question, comments #4 & 5:

http://www.annrbrocklehurst.com/2015/09/direct-indictment-issued-in-laura-babcock-case.html#comments

 

[Arnie M]

I would like to keep it clear that the article said 'case' in the singular, not ''cases' plural. This lawyer being quoted is speaking of TB's case, not of LB's case, whether he is working for the defence or not. That article was written before the DI on the LB case was ever confirmed, so he couldn't be speaking of her case.

All cases are different, the evidence in LB's case will not be the same as in TB's case. For example, SB will not be a witness at LB's trial, LB's phone records won't be admitted as evidence in TB's case.

We can nitpick the fine details all we want but cannot escape that fact that
the same two guys in the TB case are the same two guys in the LB case
Or are you suggesting they were Devils in one and Angels in the other

 

[Juballee]

Suggesting that we distinguish between the facts from the two different cases isn't nitpicking, nor does it suggest supernatural beings, in my opinion. It's a matter of accuracy. A lawyer that we have never heard of whose name sounds suspiciously like the lawyer we know was representing the defendant, may have made a statement, but that statement was in relation to one case and not the other, so to say that it applies to both is inaccurate, logically, since the indictment in the second case had not happened at that point. So unless the lawyer in question was a time traveller or a psychic, he had to have been talking about the TB case, not the LB case. This is the LB thread. Perhaps that link should be moved to the other thread, once someone is able to verify that it is accurate and not full of gross errors. There is no sense repeating errors, in my opinion, it only muddies the water.

All my opinion only.