Laura Babcock Murder Trial 11.16.17 - Day 17

[Coldpizza]

Good morning, we're about to get underway at the Laura Babcock murder trail.

We'll start with cross-examination of a Toronto police detective who analyzed text messages between Millard, Smich, and a man identified as Isho.
by Shannon Martin 10:04 AM

 

[hopingforjustice]

I think DM may have scored a point for his defense in that this business neighbor Dubien knew about DM's pet cremation business, adding legitimacy for the jury, but I still don't see it as a win.

Dubien's wife was DM bookkeeper. DM would have had to provide her with some "logical" explanation for the purchase.
I am guessing that is where Dubien heard it from and not directly from DM. I think the jury may have a different thought process about Dubien knowing if they knew this as apposed to DM boasting about a new career opportunity. JMO

 

[Coldpizza]

Good morning. Today's trial thread is open for posting.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?356263-Laura-Babcock-Murder-Trial-11-17-17-Day-18

Thanks to all that are able to help with the tweets.

This thread will close once the proceedings begin.

The jury is here and Dellen Millard begins his cross-examination of Det. Jansz.

The text messages Det. Janz looked at are between, Millard, Smich, and a man so far only identified as Isho.

Millard asks about Det. Jansz work experience, he repeats what we heard yesterday -- he's taken part in many investigations, involving guns, drugs, and other criminal activity.

Millard shows the court a text from Isho: "you around later tonight? want to play ball?"
Millard asks, does "ball" refer to cocaine?

Det. Jansz says looking at one message, he can't tell. He usually analyzes a number of texts. If there is repeated references, and other cocaine references, "ball" could mean cocaine.

"Based on one text message alone I cannot say one way or another if it's a reference to cocaine, I need to see further text messages."

by Shannon Martin 10:29 AM

Closing up now

 

[Sillybilly]

The defense is under no obligation to make public what they will present.

While there is not the extensive duty to disclose that is required of the Crown, the exception is that the defence must disclose in advance if they are going to present an alibi defence (in order to give the Crown the opportunity to investigate). If the accused uses an alibi defence, the Crown is then entitled to cross examine the accused. (Not sure how that would transpire with DM representing himself.)

If the accused uses an alibi defence but does not testify, a negative inference may be drawn by the trier of fact.