Laura Babcock Murder Trial 11.23.17 - Day 21

[JuneBug67]

If the Crown is presenting evidence about a gun in relation to LB and Marlena was there, why wasn’t she ever asked by the defense about a gun shot (or not hearing one)?

Not sure, but cross can only address points brought up on direct. It's not a situation where the cross examining attorney can ask whatever he or she wants. However, if I was a defense attorney I don't think I would ask that either. It's enough that the Crown didn't ask her about the night of the 3rd/4th. It's the Crown's burden to prove guilt, and it is telling that they didn't raise it with her.

 

[ChairCat]

Wow. What a day. An excellent final piece of the puzzle via the Crown. It's been weeks the jury has read DM texts and heard him wax eloquent about his many conquests, certificates, and bon vivantness. But to now have a booklet of the DM letters to CN? That's a whole different insight level of "voice" and manipulation before them. It's going to make jaw-dropping reading; the parts not redacted.


And I think we can expect, perhaps, when it's time, for Dungey to include variations of the lines he used during his TB close. Below are (RSBM) Dungey's comments specific to the letters. (From Clairmont's texts back in June 2016):


"Who tampers with witnesses except someone who's guilty?"
Dungey is reading passages from letters to CN. Giving jurors a list of other passages they should look at again later.
"I think you'll find them shocking, surprising, but you'll get a most detailed look into a man's mind," says Dungey.
"This is the mind of the man who killed Mr. Bosma." <added by me: insert LB here>
Dungey repeating that the letters can only be used as evidence regarding Millard, "who will manipulate everyone and anyone."
"His contempt for the court dominates these letters," says Dungey.


That first sentence nails it. Because there is no need to wade into the weeds and tamper with witnesses or draft scripts of "I'm gonna say this. You gotta say this, too" UNLESS you have something to hide.

 

[ab-initio]

Right. But M1?

(and again I don't believe DM's story/brainstorming/whatever, just purely curious)

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-231.html

If it could be proven that her OD was planned and deliberate, then a charge of M1 would be applied.
If it could not be proven that her OD was assisted, it would not.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-51.html#h-74

Covering it up may qualify as Criminal Negligence / Homicide.

I'm sure there's other charges persuant to the concealment of a dead body.
I'd have to look a little deeper.

 

[LadyL]

[bbm]

or she knew they'd be good evidence to help get her out of a murder charge

I find myself wondering if the details of those clippings will be shared.
I'm highly curious to know what exactly she was clipping and saving.

The letters DM sent -- her keeping them can somewhat be explained away by their twisted, somewhat unrequited love. He sent. She received. She kept.
But the clippings? Whatever they are, she did that intentionally and wholly of her own volition.

 

[banting]

Maybe DM can come up with reports of stray/dead deer in the area or the contacts for the 2 jobs in Barrie.
DM may call CN just for the fun of it.
Don't see Dungay doing anything, he's not got anything to refute. He can leave it to himself (whom he can trust!) to interpret the evidence in his closing address.

 

[ab-initio]

In the TB trial it didn't matter who shot TB. The fact remained that the two of them were there and in it together. That was proven. MS admitted he was there but he claimed he didn't know what happened because he was driving the Yukon that was following. No one believed him.

MOO

Guilty by association -- a catchphrase I grew up with as my Mother tried to encourage good behaviour and to stay away from the bad apples

 

[JuneBug67]

Wow. I stand corrected on my view that the letters weren't likely to contain anything of significance to this trial.

Wow. WOW. !

I thought that if they didn't make an appearance it would be notable because that would mean CN didn't know about LB. My thinking was that if she did, DM would have sneakily raised his valorous acts on her behalf as he implored her to be his secret agent on the Bosma case. I have no idea why, but THIS didn't even occur to me as a possibility. Why didn't it? It's exactly what he did in the Bosma case with CN. I think on some subconcious level I thought he couldn't be that stupid, twice. But he was. And of course it wasn't really twice, it was once, and all the same effort to not have to pay for his crimes.

 

[ab-initio]

To me, the casualness of the texts and responses from Smich in the aftermath of a murder he never saw coming seems to undermine the idea that he wasn’t let in on this. He doesn’t seem fazed at all. Is there a single text that indicates any surprise or worry?

Good observation. Fair point.

 

[canadiangirl]

Wow. What a day. An excellent final piece of the puzzle via the Crown. It's been weeks the jury has read DM texts and heard him wax eloquent about his many conquests, certificates, and bon vivantness. But to now have a booklet of the DM letters to CN? That's a whole different insight level of "voice" and manipulation before them. It's going to make jaw-dropping reading; the parts not redacted.


And I think we can expect, perhaps, when it's time, for Dungey to include variations of the lines he used during his TB close. Below are (RSBM) Dungey's comments specific to the letters. (From Clairmont's texts back in June 2016):


"Who tampers with witnesses except someone who's guilty?"
Dungey is reading passages from letters to CN. Giving jurors a list of other passages they should look at again later.
"I think you'll find them shocking, surprising, but you'll get a most detailed look into a man's mind," says Dungey.
"This is the mind of the man who killed Mr. Bosma." <added by me: insert LB here>
Dungey repeating that the letters can only be used as evidence regarding Millard, "who will manipulate everyone and anyone."
"His contempt for the court dominates these letters," says Dungey.


That first sentence nails it. Because there is no need to wade into the weeds and tamper with witnesses or draft scripts of "I'm gonna say this. You gotta say this, too" UNLESS you have something to hide.

Yep which is why I feel more and more it is DM for M1
I mean MS wasn’t writing letters to MM and asking her to change people's testimony.
JMO but I feel MS is not guilty for M1

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[canadiangirl]

Ok theorists......who do you think the defense is going to call as witnesses?

ETA - for the life of me the only defense witness in the TB trial I can recall is MS.....

I don't think Dungey will call anyone and don't think MS will testify again
DM may call CN because he can but I don't think it's likely. Moo

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[JuneBug67]

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/section-231.html

If it could be proven that her OD was planned and deliberate, then a charge of M1 would be applied.
If it could not be proven that her OD was assisted, it would not.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-51.html#h-74

Covering it up may qualify as Criminal Negligence / Homicide.

I'm sure there's other charges persuant to the concealment of a dead body.
I'd have to look a little deeper.

Regardless, they're only charged with murder 1 as far as I know. The only lesser included offences are murder 2 and manslaughter. One of those three things is all they can be convicted of in this case if they're only charged with murder 1.

 

[JuneBug67]

If I was only the jury I would barely bat an eye at the gun evidence. It impacts DM only, and it's unnecessary. There is no proof how she died, and it doesn't matter because it is so irrefutable that she did die that night at the hands of DM. It is possible that it was unplanned or accidental, but good luck to him proving that now.

 

[Jealoushe]

I find myself wondering if the details of those clippings will be shared.
I'm highly curious to know what exactly she was clipping and saving.

The letters DM sent -- her keeping them can somewhat be explained away by their twisted, somewhat unrequited love. He sent. She received. She kept.
But the clippings? Whatever they are, she did that intentionally and wholly of her own volition.

It's possible he sent the clippings to her too.

Also think there is no way DM calls CN for his defense.

Ok theorists......who do you think the defense is going to call as witnesses?

ETA - for the life of me the only defense witness in the TB trial I can recall is MS.....

He is not smart. I think he will call her, or MS will, he has to try something to explain away those letters. To not call her would be to let the jury decide. If he thinks CN is still on his side, he will call her. Thats why the crown didn't want to call her I bet, she is probably still his cover. Going to be interesting for sure.

 

[ab-initio]

[bbm]

or she knew they'd be good evidence to help get her out of a murder charge

Absolutely.
I don't disagree with you.
But playing Devil's Advocate? I can think of some reasons for consideration that would not be nefarious or wholly self-serving.

She also could have clipped what she clipped because she was loving what he did.

 

[andreww]

If the Crown is presenting evidence about a gun in relation to LB and Marlena was there, why wasn’t she ever asked by the defense about a gun shot (or not hearing one)?

My take on it is that Millard had indeed acquired a gun but he was not able to get bullets in time. He probably killed her using his hands. The crown knows that if they ask Meneses if she heard shots, she will answer no. So maybe she's asleep, maybe she just didn't hear, or maybe she's just not being honest. Either way, it doesn't look good for the crown. So they use the acquisition of the gun as intent, then they don't specify the cause of death, leaving it to the jury to decide.

 

[Grey-St]

Regardless, they're only charged with murder 1 as far as I know. The only lesser included offences are murder 2 and manslaughter. One of those three things is all they can be convicted of in this case if they're only charged with murder 1.

You may be right. It will be useful to hear it from the judge though in his charge to the jury.

 

[ab-initio]

Regardless, they're only charged with murder 1 as far as I know. The only lesser included offences are murder 2 and manslaughter. One of those three things is all they can be convicted of in this case if they're only charged with murder 1.

The OP was asking a hypothetical question -- this was my response to that.
S/he wanted to know if LB did OD and MS/DM were only guilty of a cover, would that be a charge of M1.

 

[lclabtech]

My take on it is that Millard had indeed acquired a gun but he was not able to get bullets in time. He probably killed her using his hands. The crown knows that if they ask Meneses if she heard shots, she will answer no. So maybe she's asleep, maybe she just didn't hear, or maybe she's just not being honest. Either way, it doesn't look good for the crown. So they use the acquisition of the gun as intent, then they don't specify the cause of death, leaving it to the jury to decide.

I think reading over the exchanges with Jackson, I’d agree that this would fit the evidence.

 

[ab-initio]

It's possible he sent the clippings to her too.

Really? I suspected he wouldn't have that kind of access.

 

[inbetweendoors]

It was so important to make sure the jury knew DM wrote those letters to CN before he was charged for LB's murder.

NOW I get it. Thank you for that.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk