Laura Babcock Murder Trial 12.05.17 - Closing Arguments - Day 1

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Millard now shows the court photos we've previously seen. There is one of him holding a cat, with a blonde woman, his ex fiancé. There is also a photo of a red Jeep, which his friend Andrew Michalski told the court Millard bought for his ex.

Millard seems to again be trying to discredit the Crown's theory that he would murder for Noudga.

"That doesn't make sense," he says.

"I did a hell of a lot more for other people than I did Christina."

He goes onto to say that he did not care about bickering between Babcock and Noudga.

by Shannon Martin 1:01 PM
 
meterclicks said:
Millard says to the jury, that the Crown argues bickering between Babcock and Noudga was motive for murder.

"I say, that's not. That's ridiculous."

Millard says he and Noudga had an open relationship.
by Shannon Martin 12:53 PM
Click to expand...

Isn't talk of an open relationship hearsay without her evidence to that?
 
Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
1m1 minute ago
I say, so what? It doesn't matter to me that Laura and Christina Noudga were bickering, #Millard says. Michalski, "my closest friend, my best friend" and Karoline Shirinian both testified that #Millard didn't really care much about the women in his life.

Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
27s28 seconds ago
In another text message, #Millard offers Christina up for sex with Michalski. How much did he care for her if he offered her to his friends and didn't buy gifts for her? #LauraBabcock
 
Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
1m1 minute ago
"I wouldn't even give her monogamy, it's not the kind of obsessive relationship you see in a murder trial." #Millard says of Noudga
 
Millard brings up a text message - that he calls crude - between himself and friend Andrew Michalski. Millard write Michalski can sleep with Noudga.

"Is she someone I would kill for, or someone I would offer to my friends?"

He repeats he never bought Noudga gifts.
by Shannon Martin 1:03 PM
 
JuneBug67 said:
As somebody who has been on the 'wrong' side of arguments in other cases, I think it's the worst kind of trolling and bullying groupthink to imply that people who don't agree with you must be related to somebody from the case, or worse, be somebody from the case. It completely undermines the sincere efforts somebody puts in to contribute to the group and the conversation. And invariably you get a little gang willing to like/thank the posts. I find it a massive turn off.
Click to expand...

Thank you
 
Night_is_Mine said:
She could most definitely put the out of context evidence into context. That was a great way of Dell showing the jury that crown's goal is not justice rather simply victory .
Click to expand...

The Crown`s job is to present enough evidence to prove that DM and MS are guilty of first degree murder, beyond a reasonable doubt. That`s it. Forget about artificial concepts like `justice`, the Crown`s job is to convince a jury that they are both guilty.

DM could have called CN if it would help raise a reasonable doubt. He didn`t, so what inference can the jury draw from that.
 
Discuss the proceedings and NOT each other.

Way too late in the trial to be on the outside looking in.

Surely none of you wants that.
 
meterclicks said:
Millard brings up a text message - that he calls crude - between himself and friend Andrew Michalski. Millard write Michalski can sleep with Noudga.

"Is she someone I would kill for, or someone I would offer to my friends?"

He repeats he never bought Noudga gifts.
by Shannon Martin 1:03 PM
Click to expand...

Does he even know how this is coming across? Is he suggesting that he WOULD kill for someone if the conditions were right? :waitasec:

Wouldn't most people be suggesting that they would never kill anyone for any reason? :dunno:

MOO
 
Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
4m4 minutes ago
"A gentle nudge" to getting help is what he gave to #LauraBabcock to get rid of her. "There's no motive. It is a defence to say there's no motive. I certainly say there is no motive." #Millard says

Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
2m2 minutes ago
Millard puts up letter he wrote to Christina Noudga, talking about the night #LauraBabcock disappeared. What do we know? We know I wrote it, Millard says. There's an agreed statement of fact.

Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
2m2 minutes ago
The letter was found at Christina's house. "We know it said destroy this letter, and it was found, so we can assume she didn't do that." #LauraBabcock.
 
Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
1m1 minute ago
The letter talks about an investigation into #LauraBabcock's death, but at that point #Millard didn't have any disclosure about the trial, It was before Apr 10, 2014, and all he had was the missing poster, which says Babcock went missing end of June.
 
Kamille said:
Does he even know how this is coming across? Is he suggesting that he WOULD kill for someone if the conditions were right? :waitasec:

Wouldn't most people be suggesting that they would never kill anyone for any reason? :dunno:

MOO
Click to expand...

Millard doesn't truly understand emotion, he just tries to harness it in others for his own benefit. So he's going to be just a bit off on a million things like this. He's probably been just a bit off every single day and has told the jury so much more than he realizes about himself. His lack of legal experience is probably the least of the perils of a guy like this speaking, reacting and making judgements in front of a jury every day.
 
Kamille said:
Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
4m4 minutes ago
"A gentle nudge" to getting help is what he gave to #LauraBabcock to get rid of her. "There's no motive. It is a defence to say there's no motive. I certainly say there is no motive." #Millard says

Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
2m2 minutes ago
Millard puts up letter he wrote to Christina Noudga, talking about the night #LauraBabcock disappeared. What do we know? We know I wrote it, Millard says. There's an agreed statement of fact.

Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
2m2 minutes ago
The letter was found at Christina's house. "We know it said destroy this letter, and it was found, so we can assume she didn't do that." #LauraBabcock.
Click to expand...

The letters - going to be the hardest wriggle of all!
 
I don't love CN but I tell her what she needs to hear. I wouldn't kill for her. We have an open relationship, but she can't be open. I'd kill for myself if i so desired. It might not have been a love triangle (does it matter?)
 
Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
2m2 minutes ago
Shawn Lerner started his own investigation, with #LauraBabcock's cell phone data, Millard says, showing texts between he and Lerner. Lerner also thought #Babcock went missing at the end of June. #Millard says the jury should assume he thought Laura disappeared end of June.

Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
20s20 seconds ago
Laura was in phone contact with #Millard between end of June and July 3, but we don't know that she went to his house in that time, he says. #LauraBabcock
 
Millard says the letter was written sometime before April 10, 2014, when they were seized by police from Noudga's bedroom.

He says he did not get any disclosure leading up to the trial, just a missing persons poster that said Babcock disappeared June 26, 2012.

Of the letter to Noudga about the night Babcock disappeared, Millard tells the jury:

"It's of little evidentiary value, because we haven't heard from Christina to tell us what it means."
by Shannon Martin 1:13 PM
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 54 more.
Total: 2,502 (members: 55, guests: 2,447)

Online statistics

Members online
55
Guests online
2,447
Total visitors
2,502
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
601,928
Messages
18,132,014
Members
231,187
Latest member
atriumproperties
Back
Top