Laura Babcock Murder Trial - *GUILTY*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Forest_Wood said:
I think many people underestimate the effect that intoxicants (toxic substances=poisons) have on a person’s thinking. Their on-going use changes a person’s thinking, feelings and behaviours.

Imagine drinking poison every single day from the age of say, 15 through 25. Imagine the downward spiral in thinking, reasoning and decision-making. Any mood-altering substance changes a person, even the THC in cannabis or Magic Mushrooms is another example of an hallucinagen.
A substance is used to help change a mood, to get excited, to come down, to get up, to sleep, to get excited, to change perception and so on.

Add to that everything else going on during those formative years (the brain developing until age 25, understanding sexuality, video-gaming, becoming an adult and on and on) and we have a cocktail of unpredictable actions that can, and do, take place. Substance (ab)use has become so normalized that we no longer question their impact.

I absolutely believe it plays a huge factor in people’s behaviour, just as trauma, family dynamics, abuse, and the list goes on.
Click to expand...
I think some drugs can definitely alter a person s personality etc. Legally even if a person is a drug addict they are still criminally held responsible for their actions. They cannot legally claim NCR for being addicted to drugs. The only time NCR can be allowed is if the person has a severe mental illness and they are in a psychotic state when committing a crime.
 
winter2017 said:
I think some drugs can definitely alter a person s personality etc. Legally even if a person is a drug addict they are still criminally held responsible for their actions. They cannot legally claim NCR for being addicted to drugs. The only time NCR can be allowed is if the person has a severe mental illness and they are in a psychotic state when committing a crime.
Click to expand...


Yes, for sure! I’m not implying people are not responsble due to intoxicants. I’m saying that using drugs alter perception. Drug abuse (alcohol is a drug too) is a recipe for failure, any way you look at it. The person is still held accountable for their choices.
 
Grey-St said:
I don't know the case in the depth that you do, I was only old enough at the time to be aware of what happened, but I would bet my life savings that a true psychopath or sociopath could "pass" those tests with flying colours. They manipulate everyone and everything around them, clinicians included.
Click to expand...

An extensively validated screening test used around the world for which manipulativeness is a key dimension would of course have mechanisms that factor in that risk. In the case of the PCL-R that includes several things: very specific training before a clinician is permitted to use the test, including a detailed scoring manual; a review of available records to compare the words and presentation of the test subject to the objective history; interviews with others who have observed and/or interacted with the test subject over time. We are of course all potential targets for manipulation in our personal and professional lives, but there is almost almost some vulnerability that is first exploited: an existing relationship, a lack of sufficient knowledge, misplaced trust or general credulity to list a few examples. The clinicians we are talking about in this instance were a psychologist and psychiatrist affiliated with the Saskatoon Regional Psychiatric Centre (a Corrections Canada facility) and Institut Philippe-Pinel de Montréal respectively. These are trained professionals with specific and broad experience with criminal and prison populations, and in a normal situation their professional judgment - delivered independently and ten years apart - would certainly be relied upon over the opinion of a columnist in the Toronto Sun or whatever.

Beyond all that, psycopaths gonna psychopath, and it leaks out in ways they can't prevent because they can't perceive. See Millard, Dellen and Bernardo, Paul for fairly vivid examples.
 
It looks like explosive evidence will be coming out at the WM trial. I believe DM 's mother we may find out shocking things about the woman. it is my opinion and definitely not fact. I believe a lot more will be revealed at the next trial.
Can it get any worse? I thought I had heard all about DM but I don't think so, there may be more in next trial.
 
Forest_Wood said:
I think many people underestimate the effect that intoxicants (toxic substances=poisons) have on a person’s thinking. Their on-going use changes a person’s thinking, feelings and behaviours.

Imagine drinking poison every single day from the age of say, 15 through 25. Imagine the downward spiral in thinking, reasoning and decision-making. Any mood-altering substance changes a person, even the THC in cannabis or Magic Mushrooms is another example of an hallucinagen.
A substance is used to help change a mood, to get excited, to come down, to get up, to sleep, to get excited, to change perception and so on.

Add to that everything else going on during those formative years (the brain developing until age 25, understanding sexuality, video-gaming, becoming an adult and on and on) and we have a cocktail of unpredictable actions that can, and do, take place. Substance (ab)use has become so normalized that we no longer question their impact.

I absolutely believe it plays a huge factor in people’s behaviour, just as trauma, family dynamics, abuse, and the list goes on.
Click to expand...
Oh yes, I don't disagree with you there, especially on a developing brain. I just think he as an individual was sick to begin with. I didn't however follow the case with the dedication I do with others.
 
SnooperDuper said:
Google "boredom substance abuse" and you'll find there is a whole lot written on the topic. I think people can have a really romantic view of addiction sometimes when the truth is far simpler.

Bourque ran out of money to buy pot (which was making him paranoid) and went into a downward mood spiral as a result and decided to take people out. Sure Bourque had issues to begin with, but pot is what tipped the balance.
Click to expand...
I'm sure boredom substance abuse exists, I just think it's far more rare in comparison to taking a trauma informed lens to it.

That's useful to know about Bourque, I didn't follow that case thoroughly.
 
Grey-St said:
Oh yes, I don't disagree with you there, especially in a developing brain. I just think he as an individual was sick to begin with. I didn't however follow the case with the dedication I do with others.
Click to expand...
When we hear more evidence about DM in the WM trial, I don't think drugs had anything to do with him murdering people. I think the next trial will show DM as the conniving, con and a very calculated bad person he really is.
 
Wondering about thoughts on whether Millard and Smich should be thought of as serial killers, had their killing continued over time in a similar pattern. Serial killing isn't only defined by a certain number of victims, but also by marked psychological compulsion and alternating periods of building and cooling off. I think I find their crimes more similar to those of mob hitmen, for example. We know these kinds of killers can have a large number of victims, but we don't typically think of them as serial killers in the connotative sense. We recognize mob killings as transactional more than anything else, and think of the people who do them as something more like assassins.

Despite the use of the word "trophies" for some of the photos and items in the cases, I'm not sure that should really apply. I think the photos were recovered from iOS backups that Millard obviously didn't even know were there? Am I recalling correctly that the blue tarp photo was texted to MWJ? Everything just seems functional and goal oriented to me. They're not burying heads and arms in planters so they can stay close, they're destroying what evidence they can and (maybe) throwing the rest in Lake Ontario. Nothing seems ritualized. Also, it really seemed like Smich had no idea the red bag even belonged to Laura. "Oh I've got your bag - the red one with the wheels" "Oh you can keep that - you can use it when we go on a trip" (paraphrased). Like many things in these cases, it just doesn't quite fit perfectly the way it should.

I don't share the belief the we know enough to ascribe certain or specific emotions and feelings and motivations to something like the photo of Smich smiling on the night Laura's body was incinerated. I've seen lots of words over the months - glee, pride, joy, others I can't recall right now. How would we know what anybody is feeling in any moment, or what a person's motivation for smiling is? It's not weird that you're smiling at an incineration - it's weird that YOU'RE WILLINGLY AT AN INCINERATION IN THE FIRST PLACE. Once you're there, once you're morally disconnected enough to be there and to do that, your smile doesn't have to mean anything deep or even be particularly expressive of anything beyond aping for the camera. I feel like I'm not framing this point very well, but what I mean is that the photo doesn't have to reflect the specific act of incineration, it could more general than that, or again more functional - it could have been Millard setting up leverage on Smich for down the road if necessary, and no longer needed once they seemed to have gotten away with it. He was so utterly amoral that it's hard to crawl inside his head, but none of it really feels like typical trophy taking to me.
 
JuneBug67 said:
Wondering about thoughts on whether Millard and Smich should be thought of as serial killers, had their killing continued over time in a similar pattern. Serial killing isn't only defined by a certain number of victims, but also by marked psychological compulsion and alternating periods of building and cooling off. I think I find their crimes more similar to those of mob hitmen, for example. We know these kinds of killers can have a large number of victims, but we don't typically think of them as serial killers in the connotative sense. We recognize mob killings as transactional more than anything else, and think of the people who do them as something more like assassins.
Click to expand...
I think Richard Kuklinski would be the exception to the rule.
 
winter2017 said:
It looks like explosive evidence will be coming out at the WM trial. I believe DM 's mother we may find out shocking things about the woman. it is my opinion and definitely not fact. I believe a lot more will be revealed at the next trial.
Can it get any worse? I thought I had heard all about DM but I don't think so, there may be more in next trial.
Click to expand...

What makes you think their will be explosive evidence?
 
cybervampira said:
I think Richard Kuklinski would be the exception to the rule.
Click to expand...

Thanks...I hadn’t heard of him. I figured out I have access to stream The Iceman on Amazon Prime video, so I’m going to check it out. :)

Speaking of movies, I got a notice that The Stanford Prison Experiment had been added to Netflix yesterday. It is based on a fascinating true story and touches on some themes we’ve talked about here - the powerful impact of environment, group influence, learned helplessness, and how ordinary people can do some shockingly bad things. Highly recommend it to all crime watchers interested in the psychology of perpetrators and victims!
 
nuff said:
And that reason would be ...? It puzzles me that the family tolerated his behaviour, even to the point of letting MM move in. Were they afraid of him?
Click to expand...
maybe they were afraid of him.
 
RezButt said:
Well you’ll have to wait until the end of May to hear anything new. Millard is facing a judge alone trial now.

http://torontosun.com/news/local-ne...-tried-by-judge-alone-for-dads-alleged-murder
Click to expand...

That's interesting. The Crown has to agree to judge only in a murder trial - there usually isn't any choice. It does make sense legally. If I was Dellen Millard or his counsel, I wouldn't want to face another jury at this point either.

Editing to add: I wonder if they knew who the judge would be before they made that request, or if the request must be made blindly, and then they're informed who will be assigned?
 
JuneBug67 said:
That's interesting. The Crown has to agree to judge only in a murder trial - there usually isn't any choice. It does make sense legally. If I was Dellen Millard or his counsel, I wouldn't want to face another jury at this point either.

Editing to add: I wonder if they knew who the judge would be before they made that request, or if the request must be made blindly, and then they're informed who will be assigned?
Click to expand...
But why would the crown agree to this, if a jury would be more impacted by his alleged crime? I suppose they feel their case is strong, and that a Judge alone will see it the way they see it?
 
This death was originally deemed a suicide, so there has to be new evidence that has come to light. Absolutely. As WM's body was cremated and the crime scene long since cleaned up, one would have to assume that the new evidence will come in the same way that it did from the previous trials. We know that Millard bought the gun from Isho, so there is going to be communication there. There will likely be communications with Smich as well as he seemed to be the link between Millard and Isho. I'm sure that Millard also gave a statement the day WM was found, likely detailing where he was during that day. They will likely use phone pings to show that to be a fabrication. And of course there might me communication between Millard and CN that might be incriminating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 116 more.
Total: 1,898 (members: 117, guests: 1,781)

Online statistics

Members online
117
Guests online
1,781
Total visitors
1,898
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,571
Messages
18,096,938
Members
230,883
Latest member
nemonic13
Back
Top