Laura Babcock Murder Trial 11.27.17 - Day 22

[winter2017]

MS and his sister were friends with the gun dealer and knew him from school. That was when MS lived n Mississauga. I personally think the lack of a father figure had a big influence on MS and he looked to DM for the father figure.

I agree with where you are going with this. I think it all has something to do with standing on your own as a young adult in this world. Just because either of their families have money, doesn't mean they as individuals do, and especially so in MS's case. His lack of ambition in his younger years, never having graduated high school for example, clearly impacted him and put him at a disadvantage as he got older, looking to or aspiring to establish himself. I can see the line being drawn for him to turn to a life of crime, given his personal circumstances.

How that escalates to being complicit in two murders is something I'm still trying to figure out myself. DM on the other hand is just a complete psychopath.

 

[iPhoneGuy]

I don't think it'd be "luck" to get the same lawyer for 2 trials IMO

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

Legal Aid has a list of approved lawyers and the accused can pick from them if they are eligible for Legal Aid. Legal Aid also provides duty council and other services, but that is not the extent of the program... while people often assume that Legal Aid is only court appointed lawyers.

Per site:

Representation by a lawyer – the certificate program

The certificate program helps clients pay for a lawyer's services, and is only for the most serious and complex cases.

http://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/getting/eligibility.asp


This keeps coming up... and I think this is the 3rd time at least...

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[cansleuther]

Bosmas are suing Millard. All his money is tied. Everything is frozen. Technically, he cannot qualify for legal aid because of his net worth. So he is forced to represent himself.

MS is poor. Has no funds. He qualifies for legal aid.

The Bosmas' are also suing Smich.

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/6817562-tim-bosma-s-family-launches-lawsuit-against-his-killers/

 

[Grey-St]

Not quite what happened.

Dellen Millard trial for murder of Laura Babcock postponed to Sept. 2017

"Dellen Millard and Mark Smich’s trial for the first-degree murder of Laura Babcock will be postponed from February 2017 to September 2017, a judge ruled Friday.

Millard had hoped to postpone the trial until January 2018, when Stephen Bernstein, a defence lawyer he hoped to hire, would be first available.

Superior Court Justice John McMahon said that Millard had had more than a year to retain a lawyer to represent him, and against the repeated urging of the court to hire a lawyer, had maintained he would represent himself.

The right of an accused to counsel of choice is not absolute and must be balanced with a co-accused’s right to a trial in a reasonable time and the right of the Crown to have a trial in a reasonable amount of time in the interest of the community, McMahon said.

“Mr. Millard has not acted diligently,” said McMahon, finding that delaying the trial until January 2018 would be unreasonable to Smich and the Crown. The trial will proceed in September whether or not Millard has retained a lawyer, he said."

Ah, yes, thank you.
There's also this:

Dellen Millard, who was convicted of first-degree murder with Mark Smich in the death of Tim Bosma in June, said he has filed for legal aid.

http://nationalpost.com/news/canada...re-heir-dellen-millard-is-broke-court-hears-3

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

This Jury has not heard the most incriminating evidence that was shared during the TB trial about DM's lifestyle. What he is doing today is showing that Text's against him were handpicked to prove the Crowns theory, however, he is trying to show that he is just a normal guy and MS was the true criminal.

DM better not go on the stand to say he's a good guy or his character becomes part of the case and the crown can go hog wild bringing up his crimes.

 

[Night_is_Mine]

I don't think it'd be "luck" to get the same lawyer for 2 trials IMO

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

Exactly

 

[Shaz14]

Does the defence have a disclosure process as well? Hypothetically speaking, if DM were to use the excuse that he was taking Ambien and killed LB in his sleep, would the crown need to know that in advance or can DM just decide to bring that up now? The crown didn’t call any doctors or psychiatrists as witnesses so i’m just wondering what happens if DM says he was taking some sort of sleep aid at the time.

I’m not saying I believe that is what he is going to do, I’ve just seen that suggestion made in various forums and groups so i’m trying to understand how the court handles that.

 

[Night_is_Mine]

I don't think Dungey would do pro bono work for some punk kid who cremates people for fun. Give me a break.

 

[THXGuru]

The Bosmas' are also suing Smich.

https://www.thespec.com/news-story/6817562-tim-bosma-s-family-launches-lawsuit-against-his-killers/

Millard could never qualify because he has money. He just can't access it because of the law suit from the Bosmas. Smich however has no money so he qualifies. Regardless if he is being sued.

 

[Bluepopsicle]

I don't think Dungey would do pro bono work for some punk kid who cremates people for fun. Give me a break.

It was just a comment, I have no idea about such things, I just thought I had seen it before in some high profile cases.

So do you think he’s being paid for by the family?

 

[Oreck]

I agree with where you are going with this. I think it all has something to do with standing on your own as a young adult in this world. Just because either of their families have money, doesn't mean they as individuals do, and especially so in MS's case. His lack of ambition in his younger years, never having graduated high school for example, clearly impacted him and put him at a disadvantage as he got older, looking to or aspiring to establish himself. I can see the line being drawn for him to turn to a life of crime, given his personal circumstances.




How that escalates to being complicit in two murders is something I'm still trying to figure out myself. DM on the other hand is just a complete psychopath.

I feel sorry for MS. Don't get me wrong, How twisted his thinking was is no excuse for what he did.
When he woke up after a few weeks in remand, that was probably the first time he wasn't stoned since he was 14 or less.
I'm so glad that MJ wasn't readily available when I was young or I would have been right into it.

 

[beedais]

I don't think Dungey would do pro bono work for some punk kid who cremates people for fun. Give me a break.

These have been two very high profile cases. The publicity alone makes it worth his while. On many forums people believe that Dungey believes in Mark's innocence, comment on how he handles the evidence appropriately, and who can forget all the comments about his "thunderous" performances last trial. All of that seems like a heck of a lot better advertising than a cable guide channel commercial or a bus ad for a defense lawyer.

 

[Satchie]

Does the defence have a disclosure process as well? Hypothetically speaking, if DM were to use the excuse that he was taking Ambien and killed LB in his sleep, would the crown need to know that in advance or can DM just decide to bring that up now? The crown didn’t call any doctors or psychiatrists as witnesses so i’m just wondering what happens if DM says he was taking some sort of sleep aid at the time.

I’m not saying I believe that is what he is going to do, I’ve just seen that suggestion made in various forums and groups so i’m trying to understand how the court handles that.

No, they don't have to disclose their strategy to the prosecution. There can be problems if they withold vital evidence or witnesses until the trial, for example if there was important video footage like in Bernardo's case.

 

[kovaci]

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DPWMlRgWAAELj8u?format=jpg

Sketch from thursday in court. Name the clown?

 

[bakingirl]

I don't understand DM's strategy (other than to introduce reasonable doubt), but it's discouraging. I really hope that he is cross-examined and lambasted by the Crown and Dungey.

 

[Georgeo]

I don't understand DM's strategy (other than to introduce reasonable doubt), but it's discouraging. I really hope that he is cross-examined and lambasted by the Crown and Dungey.

Surely he will be crossed by both! He can't expect to tell a story and not have to be questioned. It amazes me that these guys can make up whatever they want and get away with it. Just like MS's fairy tale at TB trial with the gun buried in forest, being a dupe and afraid of DM ....... give me a break.

 

[ABro]

No, they don't have to disclose their strategy to the prosecution. There can be problems if they withold vital evidence or witnesses until the trial, for example if there was important video footage like in Bernardo's case.

Not quite.

The defence must disclose 30 days in advance if they plan to call expert witnesses.

Also, the judge ensures that any defence put to the jury must have an "air of reality," which would exclude some of the more fanciful theories tossed about here on Websleuths.

 

[ABro]

Surely he will be crossed by both! He can't expect to tell a story and not have to be questioned.

Yes, all defence witnesses can be cross examined by the Crown and counsel for the co-accused (or Millard).

 

[Tealgrove]

I used to work at Legal Aid.

Any lawyer can accept Legal Aid Payment if they wish. Some do not accept Legal Aid Clients and some do. There is a cap on how much they will be paid.

There is also a program in place where an applicant's assets are held as collateral for legal services. Legal Aid pays the lawyer for services rendered and the Applicant pays back Legal aid over time.

At one time, Community and Social Services did the financial assessments and approved or disapproved funding. Not sure who handles that now.

 

[DeaconBrodie]

Does the defence have a disclosure process as well? Hypothetically speaking, if DM were to use the excuse that he was taking Ambien and killed LB in his sleep, would the crown need to know that in advance or can DM just decide to bring that up now? The crown didn’t call any doctors or psychiatrists as witnesses so i’m just wondering what happens if DM says he was taking some sort of sleep aid at the time.
I’m not saying I believe that is what he is going to do, I’ve just seen that suggestion made in various forums and groups so i’m trying to understand how the court handles that.

The defence does not need to advise anyone of who they may call as witnesses or if they intend to call any at all.

The exception is expert witnesses. If either side intends to call an expert, a copy of that expert's report must be provided to the other side well in advance of the trial so that the other side can arrange for a competing expert if they wish.

In your hypothetical, DM would have to call an expert to establish the defence and the Crown would know exactly what was coming. Since the Crown has not focussed on any of this so far, I suspect that DM does not have an expert and this is just a red herring.