don_quixote
Active Member
- Joined
- Apr 28, 2016
- Messages
- 334
- Reaction score
- 41
Ah, you don't mean this do you? Are you just feeling defensive? Did you see the picture of MS laying beside the pool?
It's sarcasm. No. Don't recall the picture.
Ah, you don't mean this do you? Are you just feeling defensive? Did you see the picture of MS laying beside the pool?
MS = M1 If you have doubts, read this. And, if you missed some of the previous posts, go back and read them, several people have clearly explained how MS was involved in the planning and deliberation.
Often people are unconscious fence sitters because they don't want to be wrong, but if I was on a jury with a anyone who debated issues that in totality are quite clear, it would be frustrating.
Well , why would LE or the courts allow this without an after the fact choice, unless they know a bit more than they are sharing? Is it possible they are holding some back?
For example do they know the contents of the text messages between CN and LB or where they not recoverable?
So now I wonder how many believe there is not enough evidence but still believe he was involved.This is where I stand:
1. Laura is deceased. The Crown's evidence and my own, very long, life experience, has convinced me of that
2. DM is guilty of M1. The evidence, albeit it mostly circumstantial, has convinced me of that.
3. MS is not guilty (and it sticks in my craw to say that). The Crown just couldn't collect enough evidence to show that he had prior knowledge. IMO. I wish he could be found guilty of assisting in the disposal of a body, just as I wish CN could be charged with perjury and aiding and abetting.
This is all my opinion only and not intended to inflame any subsequent debate.
Lisa Hepfners tweets:
The jury must be satisfied that both accused were present and participated in the act that caused #LauraBabcock's death.
Judge reminds jury to consider each accused separately. "Do not find one accused guilty simply because you have found the other accused guilty. They may both be not guilty. They may both be guilty. Or one may be, the other not. #LauraBabcock
At least one of the two accused has to be the principal, because there is no other known principal. #LauraBabcock
Who buys a gun just to have it and pose with it? Who tries to buy ammo for a gun, unless they are planning on using it?
Totallity of the evidence. All the pieces together equal M1 for both.
Again, there is no MS is guilty or MS is not guilty crowd. We all believe that MS is guilty as hell. What we are questioning is what exactly the Crown has proved him guilty of.
To be honest, I'd bet that TD likely sealed the deal for a guilty verdict with his closing argument. There was no need for him to yell and bluster if he had reasonable points to make about the evidence (or lack thereof) that was being presented against his client. That couldn't have gone over well with the jury IMO. Again however, that is not sufficient reason for a guilty verdict. The "common sense" decision of the jury based on the totality of the evidence presented is going to be scrutinized on appeal if they render a guilty verdict on M1. Will it hold up?
MOO
I'm not missing your point at all. I get your point. And I disagree with your point.
Regarding the Smich incinerator photo, you stated:
I'm asking you to please explain to us what those reasons are that Smich could look so happy.
I have never said that Smich must be guilty because of one photo nor, to the best of my knowledge, has anyone else. This is a straw man you have created.
However, the photo is a very powerful image, which is why the Crown used it at the end of its closing after summing up the evidence.
Darn. I was right downtown today. I wish I popped in nowLisa Hepfners tweets:
Intention is not the same thing as motive, judge clarifies. Motive is just one item of circumstantial evidence in the context of all the other evidence. #LauraBabcock
Far fewer spectators and reporters in court for the judge's charge. The room was full, with lineups to get in, almost all seven weeks of the trial until this point. #LauraBabcock.
I honestly don't think he is stupid enough to throw the word WE killed a girl in this bravado/confession story. I seriously wonder why he thought he should tell anyone if they were headed this way for a future though either.The rap never talks about killing her. He see's her outside the home, then he see's her dead. The admission? Could have been bravado or Smich taking more credit than he was actually due. For instance, if a buddy shows up army door with a car that he just stole, and we go out for a night on the town, I might later brag that "WE stole a car and went out on the town". You are right that when looking at the totality of the evidence it is a key piece, but I don't think that the rest of the evidence is damning enough to make that connection.
Apparently I missed the point in your original post where you said in the context of the evidence. I wrote a post that focused on the after the fact. I tried to delete it but WS wouldn’t let me. You are missing my point because we actually agree with each other that you have to look at he evidence as a whole and can’t just look at the picture or rap. Where we happen to disagree is that I feel that it takes more than just common sense to weigh the evidence and come up with a verdict. If you would like to give me the exact definition of common sense as it applies to a court of law then please do so and perhaps i’ll change my mind on that too. I’m capable of, and perfectly in my right to, change my mind on things. I’m in no way attacking you, I was just enjoying taking part in the discussions over past couple of days but I won’t lie, as tonight is progressing i’m enjoying it less and less. Thanks.
There really is NO WAY DM planned and decided to do this without sharing his plans with his 'brother' and getting him to help...it was MS that countless times pushes for progress and wants to discuss plans for their evolving and escalating criminal enterprise which involved human incineration. They were in it together all the way and DM wouldn't have excluded MS in this test run (or whatever the heck this was)..it was another 'bonding' activity between the bros
I said explanations that make sense. Not mere declarations that, yes, of course, Smich could be smiling about incinerating a body even thought he had nothing to do with it until after the fact.
I also note you didn't quote any of the multitude of explanations that supposedly make sense about why someone who's an accessory after the fact is so very proud to be an accessory after the fact, so proud that he poses in front of an animal incinerator and so proud that he allegedly boasts to others that he's a murderer.
I've seen one person say Smich was just "callous." Does that make sense to you? Others have said Millard forced Smich. Again, does that make sense? Others have said he was just boasting while ignoring that for a guy who was just boasting, there was a whole big pile of evidence against him. Does that make sense to you? That it's all just one giant coincidence? Or does it sound like people grasping at straws and playing devil's advocate?
So, again, please tell us the explanations for this behaviour that supposedly make sense. And then please tell us if they make sense to you personally.
Because that's another trait of the "not evidence for Smich" crowd, they almost always say they think he's guilty but there's just not enough evidence.
It's as if we're all supposed to suspend common sense whereas the jury will be told to use common sense.
But we will just have to wait to see the verdict the jury comes up with.
Yes you are correct. They later said that during questioning. However MM had started playing with the i Pad by July 5th.
Common sense is one of those things that is very hard to define. Just like reasonable doubt. That's why people disagree about these things. And that's why for years courts refused to define reasonable doubt.
I didn't think you were attacking me. And I didn't meant to attack you. I was genuinely curious to know what -- under the circumstances and considering the evidence -- Smich could possibly be smiling about.
I don't think you have even remotely captured the essence of those that are not sure what prior knowledge MS had. And no one is asking anyone here to suspend common sense, in my opinion - it's your opinion that is being asked.
Maybe you could list what 'the totality of the evidence' is. I find that term highly overrated since a list never accompanies that phrase.
Imo everyone here is on the same side - not sure why any deserve to have their azz kicked.
Fwiw - when people take a pic of another person - they don't say cry, they say smile.
AdamCarterCBC
Dec 7
Any one piece of circumstantial evidence, standing alone, may not amount to much, Code says. "However, when a number of circumstances are put together and considered as a whole, a difference conclusion might be reached."
@AdamCarterCBC
Dec 7
More
He's now moving on to talking about looking at the evidence as a whole, and not piece by piece. #LauraBabcock
@AdamCarterCBC
Dec 7
More
He says look at the evidence as a totality, as a whole, and not "piecemeal." #LauraBabcock
@AdamCarterCBC
Dec 7
More
The meaning of reasonable doubt, Code says, is a doubt beyond reason and common sense, when looking at all the evidence as a whole. #LauraBabcock
RSBM
The "bromance" between these two was only in MS's mind. To DM, MS was nothing more than another minion that he could dangle a carrot in front of and use for his own personal gain.
How do you figure MS was pushing for anything other than trying to get money out of DM to pay his bills or buy his food, drink and drugs? Oh and to launch his "rap career". MS appeared to be willing to do anything for his "bro". DM...not so much.
(shrug)...not enough evidence? (pure speculation)If they were so close and DM shared everything with him, why is DM charged alone in the murder of his father? Why not involve MS in that one too?