Laura Babcock Murder Trial 11.29.17 - Day 24

[Just4TB]

A throwback... with relevance to the LB trial, below are a few (random) quotes as reported and tweeted during the TB trial, Goodman's instructions to the jury...

Key points - Aider & abbetter. (MS provided Isho contact arrangement, MS participated in measurements for incinerator intended use)
- Principle offender. (One of them killed her, which one is not important if they both participated in the planning)

I am looking fwd to hearing Code's charge to the jury. Decision trees would be useful. Hopefully we have good media tweeting.

Source - Justice Goodman, snippets from various Tweets from various reporters,

Participation as a principle offender...
"A non shooter may be a party to the offence as an aider or abettor," Goodman says. There are different decision trees for each.

So we're clear, the "principle" here would be the shooter.

Goodman is starting with manslaughter, and talking about how that charge applies if a person didn't intend to kill Bosma.

One person may the shooter, the other not. The non-shooter can be an aider and abetter.
Are you satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused under consideration caused the death of Timothy Bosma?

Manslaughter — Did the accused cause death of deceased? By an unlawful act that was objectively dangerous?
If yes, go on to next question. If no, was this person an aider or abetter?

 

[DeaconBrodie]

Thanks to DM wanting to put forward a defence, the Crown gets to go last in addressing the Jury. IMO, that's not the best position to be in for the accused and TD by default and no fault of his own gets to share the short straw with DM. I personally don't think DM brought forward a single witness that added any merit to his defence- he should have passed on the witnesses and just gone straight to having the last word to the Jury.

Jill Cameron is a very talented lawyer- I think her closing remarks will etch in the Jury's minds that DM & MS worked together towards LB's murder. IMO, if MS does get M1 it could very well be because DM's urge to call a few witnesses tossed them out of the prime "last word" position. MOO

I couldn't agree more.

Perhaps that was DM's way of getting back at MS for doing the same thing to him in the TB trial.

The Crown has to love it when the co-accused hate each other. And to think that one time they were like brothers.....

 

[JuneBug67]

Thanks to DM wanting to put forward a defence, the Crown gets to go last in addressing the Jury. IMO, that's not the best position to be in for the accused and TD by default and no fault of his own gets to share the short straw with DM. I personally don't think DM brought forward a single witness that added any merit to his defence- he should have passed on the witnesses and just gone straight to having the last word to the Jury.

Jill Cameron is a very talented lawyer- I think her closing remarks will etch in the Jury's minds that DM & MS worked together towards LB's murder. IMO, if MS does get M1 it could very well be because DM's urge to call a few witnesses tossed them out of the prime "last word" position. MOO

I presume he needed to call those witnesses so he could make the closing argument he wants to make - you can't introduce new evidence in closing.

 

[Grey-St]

Obviously he was part of the disposal, but that is not what he is being charged of. Bottom line, the crown needed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Smich knew about the murder of LB before it took place and I don't think they have done that. Sure the incinerator was purchased for nefarious purposes but nobody can say for sure that it was purchased specifically for LB. All Smich's comments about bones and such occurred after the murder, so at that point he certainly knew its purpose, but again that only relates to the disposal.

Would the crown try him again? Certainly not. I think the only reason the charged him this time is because they were trying them together and there were minimal costs involved, but I think they knew all along that getting a conviction was a long shot.

In his closing I don't think Dungey will dwell on what little evidence there is or try to fabricate a story. He will simply make it very clear to the jury that the case has not been proven.

RBBM. I don't think this is true. MS made the comments of "bones and such" when they were building and testing out the homemade incinerator. This happened before LB was murdered. IMO, that suggests he knew of it's intended purpose beforehand.

 

[XFP]

Anyone else a little disappointed?

Not at all. Glad it's over and looking forward to two more M1 convictions.

 

[Shaz14]

Thanks to DM wanting to put forward a defence, the Crown gets to go last in addressing the Jury. IMO, that's not the best position to be in for the accused and TD by default and no fault of his own gets to share the short straw with DM. I personally don't think DM brought forward a single witness that added any merit to his defence- he should have passed on the witnesses and just gone straight to having the last word to the Jury.

Jill Cameron is a very talented lawyer- I think her closing remarks will etch in the Jury's minds that DM & MS worked together towards LB's murder. IMO, if MS does get M1 it could very well be because DM's urge to call a few witnesses tossed them out of the prime "last word" position. MOO

The crown would always have the last word though wouldn't they? I don't think it makes a difference whether brought in witnesses or not...

 

[RandomName479]

The crown would always have the last word though wouldn't they? I don't think it makes a difference whether brought in witnesses or not...

If neither defendant introduced evidence the crown would close first....once one of them opened a defence the crown closes last. Bc MS called evidence in the TB trial the crown closed last. In this trial bc DM called evidence the crown will close last.

ETA - at least that’s how it was explained in the TB trial....

 

[JuneBug67]

Can the crown appeal a not guilty verdict? That seems like double jeopardy to me (I know that’s an American thing....but think we have something like it?)

They can appeal a not guilty verdict, but only if they can show an error in law in the first trial. This is how Guy Morin was wrongfully convicted. The Crown appealed when he was judged not guilty and then they won the second trial. Morin won a reversal of that acquittal a few years later based on DNA testing.

 

[JuneBug67]

The crown would always have the last word though wouldn't they? I don't think it makes a difference whether brought in witnesses or not...

I had always assumed that as well - it shows we're all raised on American legal dramas on TV.

 

[Shaz14]

I had always assumed that as well - it shows we're all raised on American legal dramas on TV.

I'm learning so much from this trial and TBs! Even the dull stuff is still quite interesting to me. I'm glad I took the time to pay close attention because it definitely gives me a different perspective when I hear about other stories in the news. It also makes me appreciate what the lawyers and judges do on a daily basis. Also, I now know that if I'm ever a defendant, I won't represent myself... not like I probably would have considered it anyway, but in case it ever were to cross my mind, I know I won't!

 

[JuneBug67]

I think two things are going to be very important in the case against Smich:

1) Does the jury believe the pursuit and testing of the two incinerators was specifically connected to a plot to kill LB, and that MS was aware of that? Having knowledge the jury does not have, I think the incinerators were part of a larger criminal intent and not part of a plot to kill LB, but that is of course irrelevant to what the jury will conclude.

2) How does the law apply to these circumstances? If the jury believes the point above, both his participation in the incinerator search and testing and the later incineration of LB would almost certainly be considered to make him an aider and abettor, regardless of what happened in the middle. Secondly, could he be convicted if it is believed proven that he knew that the incinerator was going to be used to facilitate a future murder or murders, regardless of the eventual victim? We will know a lot more after the charge, presuming it's tweeted effectively.

Personally, I don't think there was a plan to kill LB - or at the very least not one articulated to MS. I think MS knew the incinerator had a dark purpose and was all in. I think we have to assume he was capable of murder, and evidence suggests he was completely untroubled by incinerating Laura's body. But what happened in the middle seems to have strikingly little to do with MS. If the law requires that he be guilty of killing a specific person and you don't find adequate evidence to support a plan against LB, you'd basically have to convict the man because DM texted "don't be out front". That is thin, thin gruel on which to imprison a man for life.

 

[Tealgrove]

Just caught up.

Well, a little anti-climactic I'm thinking. I just didn't think DM could give up the opportunity to get up there and tell his story. I think he wanted to but was scared. Scared of Dungey ripping him to shreds and the Crown doing a number on him. Smart move not to take the stand.

It doesn't surprise me that MS did not take the stand. It didn't help him the last time and I don't think it would help him this time around. Smart move to sit there and stay as invisible as possible.

In the TB trial I was a bit worried that MS would get off but he didn't. The Jury prevailed. I think this is going to happen again. I'm going to stick my neck out right now and say that both DM and MS are going down as charged.

MOO

 

[Grey-St]

I think two things are going to be very important in the case against Smich:

1) Does the jury believe the pursuit and testing of the two incinerators was specifically connected to a plot to kill LB, and that MS was aware of that? Having knowledge the jury does not have, I think the incinerators were part of a larger criminal intent and not part of a plot to kill LB, but that is of course irrelevant to what the jury will conclude.

2) How does the law apply to these circumstances? If the jury believes the point above, both his participation in the incinerator search and testing and the later incineration of LB would almost certainly be considered to make him an aider and abettor, regardless of what happened in the middle. Secondly, could he be convicted if it is believed proven that he knew that the incinerator was going to be used to facilitate a future murder or murders, regardless of the eventual victim? We will know a lot more after the charge, presuming it's tweeted effectively.

Personally, I don't think there was a plan to kill LB - or at the very least not one articulated to MS. I think MS knew the incinerator had a dark purpose and was all in. I think we have to assume he was capable of murder, and evidence suggests he was completely untroubled by incinerating Laura's body. But what happened in the middle seems to have strikingly little to do with MS. If the law requires that he be guilty of killing a specific person and you don't find adequate evidence to support a plan against LB, you'd basically have to convict the man because DM texted "don't be out front". That is thin, thin gruel on which to imprison a man for life.

But it's not just the "don't be out front" text. It's that, plus the acquisition of guns, plus the "wet, meaty bones" to test the homemade incinerator before Laura's death, the rap, and the garage confession.

I'm not saying it's going to be an easy decision for the jury, but there's a lot more to it.

 

[jash]

Does anyone recall when that one juror wanted to be finished by (and if not they were going to walk away before deliberations)? I'm wondering how that fits into the projected timeline.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

 

[JuneBug67]

But it's not just the "don't be out front" text. It's that, plus the acquisition of guns, plus the "wet, meaty bones" to test the homemade incinerator before Laura's death, the rap, and the garage confession.

I'm not saying it's going to be an easy decision for the jury, but there's a lot more to it.

All of that is covered by implication in my point 1. Editing to add excepts for the guns. I covered my thoughts on the guns previously.

 

[iPhoneGuy]

Does anyone recall when that one juror wanted to be finished by (and if not they were going to walk away before deliberations)? I'm wondering how that fits into the projected timeline.

Sent from my SGH-I337M using Tapatalk

Dec 22
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=357081

"Judge says one juror wants to be sure to make a family event in Europe on Dec 22. Juror offers to be one of 2 of 14 jurors who gets excused before deliberation (so that 12 jurors only decide)."

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[Kamille]

Just caught up.

Well, a little anti-climactic I'm thinking. I just didn't think DM could give up the opportunity to get up there and tell his story. I think he wanted to but was scared. Scared of Dungey ripping him to shreds and the Crown doing a number on him. Smart move not to take the stand.

It doesn't surprise me that MS did not take the stand. It didn't help him the last time and I don't think it would help him this time around. Smart move to sit there and stay as invisible as possible.

In the TB trial I was a bit worried that MS would get off but he didn't. The Jury prevailed. I think this is going to happen again. I'm going to stick my neck out right now and say that both DM and MS are going down as charged.

MOO

DM will tell his story in his closing statement. And while that is not supposed to be considered evidence, it will attempt to tell a narrative that might make the jury re think the Crown's theory of what happened. He's introduced a lot of odd evidence into this trial that has not been put into context yet. He will do that in his closing statement. Pretty effective way to testify without being subjected to cross examination.

MOO

 

[JuneBug67]

DM will tell his story in his closing statement. And while that is not supposed to be considered evidence, it will attempt to tell a narrative that might make the jury re think the Crown's theory of what happened. He's introduced a lot of odd evidence into this trial that has not been put into context yet. He will do that in his closing statement. Pretty effective way to testify without being subjected to cross examination.

MOO

He's been waiting for a chance to address a jury since he started writing letters to CN. He even plotted a particular balance of emotions to project his innocence. Worried but stoic, or something like that. I think this deserves copious mocking in the form of other word pairs. Like he needs to be focused, but passionate. Or beefy, yet fragile.

 

[Kamille]

But it's not just the "don't be out front" text. It's that, plus the acquisition of guns, plus the "wet, meaty bones" to test the homemade incinerator before Laura's death, the rap, and the garage confession.

I'm not saying it's going to be an easy decision for the jury, but there's a lot more to it.

Here's some explanations for that. Remember, the TB murder never happened at the time of this murder and cannot be used against them.

DM was bringing home a girl that was not CN. MS didn't even seem to know LB (or JS or LW) so it would be a stranger to him. DM didn't want him to know about all the other girls because MS was in contact with CN so he told him not to be out front. MS always did what DM asked him to do, or not do, because DM was his (and benefactor at that point)

DM wanted guns. MS's sister's friend knew how to get them so MS hooked him up. MS had no idea what he wanted them for, nor did he ask. MS never bought a gun from Isho or anyone else.

DM told MS that he wanted an incinerator for garbage and those occasional pesky dead deer on his farm. Oh and the brilliant idea to get into the mobile cremation business for vet offices. MS thought incinerating dead animals was interesting and wanted to help him test it out, which is why he suggested the "meat and bones".

MS did eventually become aware that a girl had died at Maplegate and that DM had rolled her up and taken her to the farm to await the delivery of the Eliminator. He was told it was an OD and DM panicked because he didn't want to be investigated for being the one who gave her access to his full toolbox. Plus she was an escort and no one would look for her. MS did not use his better judgment and helped him out with the disposal. Then he wrote a rap about it and bragged about it to some neighbourhood stoner kids.

I believe Dungey can, and will, ask for lesser charge options to be included in regards to the jury charge against MS.

MOO

 

[Kamille]

He's been waiting for a chance to address a jury since he started writing letters to CN. He even plotted a particular balance of emotions to project his innocence. Worried but stoic, or something like that. I think this deserves copious mocking in the form of other word pairs. Like he needs to be focused, but passionate. Or beefy, yet fragile.

OMG I forgot about that! :floorlaugh: