Laura Babcock Murder Trial - *GUILTY*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

We're now taking the lunch break. Back in an hour.
by Adam Carter 1:30 PM
 
Kamille said:
Lisa Hepfner@HefCHCHNews
6m6 minutes ago

It's the crown's position that Smich and Millard should serve a consecutive sentence without parole for 25 years. "Why go through this prosecution if they were already serving a life sentence? The answer is justice. Laura deserves justice," Cameron tells court.

Bosma and Babcock did not know each other. Their families only just met at sentencing, Cameron says. Tim #Bosma's photo now on court screens. Crown reviewing some of the evidence from that conviction.

Defense does not want judge to consider the #Bosma verdict in the #Babcock sentence. "That makes no sense," Cameron says.

Tim #Bosma met #Millard and #Smich the day he took them for a test drive of his truck. He never came back. He was killed and burned in an animal incinerator that night. Those facts were not in contention, crown says. Foricible confinement as a route to murder was not an option

Millard and Smich planned #Bosma's murder, that is a fact the crown says is germane to sentencing in #LauraBabcock murder trial. Judge wants to see #Bosma judge (Goodman) charge to the jury.
Click to expand...

bbm

I would have thought that Justice Code would have been very well versed on the Bosma murder trial and would not have needed to ask to see the judge's charge to the jury in that case. Hopefully he is simply doing his due diligence in this sentencing hearing to cover all the legalities, but it is nerve wracking that he seems to have doubt with regards to MS for consecutive sentencing, IMO.

All MOO.
 
Lisa Hepfner@HefCHCHNews
5m5 minutes ago
Lunch break, then Dungey will speak for #Smich. #LauraBabcock #sentencing
 
We need DeaconBrodie to pop in and clarify some of the issues! ;)
 
I've wondered all along how one judge could decide if the sentences could be concurrent or consecutive.

In my mind, these are two separate occurrences. Two different murders for two different reasons. The fact that an animal incinerator happened to be used as a disposal method (excuse my frankness) does not, IMO, tie the events together. I just don't see that and I see that as reaching.

So, to be blunt, 2 first degree LWOP guilty verdicts from two separate murders. Could Pillay be on the right track saying that Code can't make the sentences consecutive? If so, he can't make them concurrent either.

Is there a missing piece to how these relatively new sentencing options can be applied and by whom?

Trust me....I want consecutive. I'm just wondering out loud if Pillay has hit on a fundamental issue that may make things very difficult here.

MOO
 
Smh... this information on breaking news at websleuths thread?

Is there a mainstream media post that is very very recent that we could post with this thread link on that thread?
 
Tealgrove said:
I've wondered all along how one judge could decide if the sentences could be concurrent or consecutive.

In my mind, these are two separate occurrences. Two different murders for two different reasons. The fact that an animal incinerator happened to be used as a disposal method (excuse my frankness) does not, IMO, tie the events together. I just don't see that and I see that as reaching.

So, to be blunt, 2 first degree LWOP guilty verdicts from two separate murders. Could Pillay be on the right track saying that Code can't make the sentences consecutive? If so, he can't make them concurrent either.

Is there a missing piece to how these relatively new sentencing options can be applied and by whom?

Trust me....I want consecutive. I'm just wondering out loud if Pillay has hit on a fundamental issue that may make things very difficult here.

MOO
Click to expand...

Following Trails, I have never figured out the reason for consecutive and concurrent. Sometimes it never made any sense. I wish I understood that better through other members here that could explain it.
 
andreww said:
I think the outcome here will depend a lot on the judge's view on what the prison system is there for. You and I see it as punishment, thus we favour consecutive sentences. The judge likely feels that prison is for rehabilitation. If he honestly feels that and is committed to that ideology, then 50 years would likely seem counterproductive to him. I think he has already pegged Millard as the instigator here. The truck was for Millard, getting rid of Babcock was to solve Millard's GF problems. Smich, in all likelihood, would never have become a killer if he wasn't groomed for it by Millard. Millard on the other hand probably would have, because lets face it, Dell does what Dell wants. I don't think the judge is under any illusions that Millard will ever be rehabilitated. He killed his own father FFS.
Click to expand...

bbm

I respectfully disagree about the idea that MS would not likely have committed murder had he not been influenced by DM. I think they were both psychologically spoiled goods, and they each had the capacity within themselves to kill people. They found in one another someone of the same demented type who had fantasies of being involved with crime and to hell with the cost to any victims. If MS didn't find a willing partner in crime with DM, he would have found one in another, IMO, and vice versa. MS was the one to my recollection that already had connections to guns through his friendship with MWJ and IMO, that association would have escalated to include who knows what for MS. For MS, and for DM, it was all just a matter of time and opportunity before their secret proclivities found the right outlet for the expression of their inner demons.

It's too easy to see MS as a victim - I fell for that trap myself - but I think prosecutors in both murder trials did a fine job of convincing the juries that both DM and MS were equally brutal and ultimately guilty. After all, both DM and MS got sound convictions for Murder 1 and that was the first step to justice for Tim Bosma and Laura Babcock, IMO. Let's hope Justice Code takes the next steps required.

All MOO.
 
Tealgrove said:
I've wondered all along how one judge could decide if the sentences could be concurrent or consecutive.

In my mind, these are two separate occurrences. Two different murders for two different reasons. The fact that an animal incinerator happened to be used as a disposal method (excuse my frankness) does not, IMO, tie the events together. I just don't see that and I see that as reaching.

So, to be blunt, 2 first degree LWOP guilty verdicts from two separate murders. Could Pillay be on the right track saying that Code can't make the sentences consecutive? If so, he can't make them concurrent either.

Is there a missing piece to how these relatively new sentencing options can be applied and by whom?

Trust me....I want consecutive. I'm just wondering out loud if Pillay has hit on a fundamental issue that may make things very difficult here.

MOO
Click to expand...

Not sure I see your logic. I see it as two separate planned murders that used the same weapons and/or equipment. The real question is how much of the sentencing has to be based on the previous murder? Without throwing in the third alleged murder that happened in between, these murders were separate planned crimes, that deserve separate sentencing, i.e. Consecutive. MOO
 
Inspector_North said:
Not sure I see your logic. I see it as two separate planned murders that used the same weapons and/or equipment. The real question is how much of the sentencing has to be based on the previous murder? Without throwing in the third alleged murder that happened in between, these murders were separate planned crimes, that deserve separate sentencing, i.e. Consecutive. MOO
Click to expand...

I agree completely. I hear you.

Ravin Pillay made a comment that Justice Code couldn't make the determination. It's back in the tweets. I was discussing whether Ravin Pillay had a point or not. :)
 
Jasper52 said:

He is also saying that because he wasn't a lawyer for the trial, he isn't sure what messages were presented before the jury and what weren't.
by Adam Carter 1:21 PM
Click to expand...

RSBM

Wouldn't reviewing what was entered into trial evidence be basic preparation for representing at the sentencing hearing??
 
gremlingrrl said:
RSBM

Wouldn't reviewing what was entered into trial evidence be basic preparation for representing at the sentencing hearing??
Click to expand...

I know right?!! I was thinking who on earth would hire a lawyer for sentencing that wasn't brought up to speed on what transpired during the trial! It almost seemed ludicrous to hear Pillay say that!! Although I think Pillay is using whatever tactics he can get his hands on to lighten the sentencing of his client. FTR Pillay is a much better lawyer that Millard ever was!! I'll bet part of Millard is wishing Pillay had been his lawyer through out the entire trial...although then, he would not have gotten all the enjoyment of reliving his glory days....This trial was more fun for him, I don't think he ever thinks he is getting out of jail. I hope it isn't lost on Code that in a short time Millard is standing trial at his own fathers murder! Likely it will be his Third M1 conviction. That being said I think Code's issue is giving one consecutive and not the other. I think he is more torn up about Smich and the effect of the rest of his life! It will be interesting to see what Dungey has to say....
 
andreww said:
I really think that Smich made a huge error in not pleading guilty on this one and coming clean about everything. In all likelihood he would have been sentenced to two concurrent 25 year sentences. Even if he had won this case, he'd still be spending 25 years in jail, by losing he's likely never going to see freedom until he's in his 70s. If he had admitted everything he'd likely be out when he was 50.
Click to expand...

I respectfully disagree. There seems to be a misunderstanding of a life sentence. Parole eligibility after 25 years does not mean they will be out after 25. It is a life sentence, and now with a 2nd murder conviction, there is a very low probability of parole after 25 years for either MS or DM, regardless of consecutive or concurrent. If Smich had pled guilty for the Babcock murder, he would still be a 2x convicted murderer, both in the 1st degree. Neither are likely to see freedom ever.

The real difference between consecutive or concurrent sentencing is that if consecutive, there will be zero hope for them getting paroled after 25 years, instead of a slim (low probability) hope of being paroled after 25 years. In the case of consecutive sentencing, there will be a slim, low probability possibility that they will be released in their 70s. But that will be as unlikely as them being released after 25 years, if the sentences were concurrent.

Consecutive sentencing, and the removal of hope for DM and MS, is very suitable IMO. They both, willfully and gleefully, removed all hope that Sharlene would ever see Tim again, they removed all hope that Tim's daughter would ever have her father in her life, and they removed all hope that Laura might come home again, get married, have children, etc. Hope was not in the murderer's calculus when they willingly killed, and therefore, hope for these cold blooded killers ought not be high in the justice considerations during this sentencing.

The only hope we ought have for DM and MS, is that they never kill an innocent person again. Consecutive sentencing will make that hope a near certainty.
 
We're now back in court. Millard's lawyer Ravin Pillay will continue his submissions on sentencing.
by Adam Carter 2:39 PM
 
Pillay is now going through the legal principles for consecutive versus concurrent sentences. He is arguing for concurrent sentences.
by Adam Carter 2:44 PM
 
"If one is sentenced to 50 years ... that sentence effectively casts away the prospect of rehabilitation," Pillay says. "There must be an incentive, and there should be an incentive, to the offender before you to repair, to correct, to rehabilitate." He then continues: "Does one turn off that light at the end of the tunnel? Or does one keep that light on?"
by Adam Carter 2:50 PM

Code says rehabilitation is more of a concern on minor crimes, or for youth, but that it means less in extreme cases like this.
by Adam Carter 2:50 PM

Good comeback, Justice Code!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 100 more.
Total: 1,500 (members: 101, guests: 1,399)

Online statistics

Members online
101
Guests online
1,399
Total visitors
1,500
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,576
Messages
18,096,955
Members
230,884
Latest member
DeeDee214
Back
Top