Laura Babcock Murder Trial - *GUILTY*

[clefk27]

Someone mentioned this yesterday and it piqued my interest. If DM is found guilty in his dad's trial, he will lose his inheritance? In turn, does this mean that the civil suit the Bosmas launched will be for not? I admit, I am not always clear on why civil suits are launched....

And the parallel question - if DM loses his inheritance, who gets WM's money? Certainly not MB (she has no entitlement that I could imagine). Other relatives of WM? Did WM have a will?

Justice would dictate that the money goes to DM's victims but then it isn't his money anymore...

 

[nuff]

And the parallel question - if DM loses his inheritance, who gets WM's money? Certainly not MB (she has no entitlement that I could imagine). Other relatives of WM? Did WM have a will?

Justice would dictate that the money goes to DM's victims but then it isn't his money anymore...

DM transferred his assets to MB before the Bosma trial, if I remember correctly. See https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/..._mother_sells_family_home_for_12_million.html

 

[DeaconBrodie]

And the parallel question - if DM loses his inheritance, who gets WM's money? Certainly not MB (she has no entitlement that I could imagine). Other relatives of WM? Did WM have a will?

Justice would dictate that the money goes to DM's victims but then it isn't his money anymore...

If WM had a valid Will then the Will would outline who receives his Estate.

Without a valid Will the Succession Reform Act would give his estate to his children. If no children then grandchildren. If none then parents. If no parents, then siblings. If no siblings then nieces an nephews.

 

[londongal]

If WM had a valid Will then the Will would outline who receives his Estate.

Without a valid Will the Succession Reform Act would give his estate to his children. If no children then grandchildren. If none then parents. If no parents, then siblings. If no siblings then nieces an nephews.

Interesting as I always thought the Canadian government took your estate if you didn't have a will. I wish they could have prevented the transfer of assets by DM.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[ABro]

I've never been so content in being wrong.
During the Bosma trial, I didn't see enough for MS to be found guilty, I thought.
During the Babcock trial, I didn't think MS would get consecutive.
Justice... served. Great job by the crowns, juries and judges.
I look forward to the WM trial, and another consecutive 25 years for DM if found guilty.
Thoughts with the victims families to remain strong without the distractions of trials to keep their minds preoccupied.

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

I am genuinely curious about the people who say they didn't see enough evidence for Smich to be found guilty.

At both trials, there was a lot of evidence against Smich. Only in comparison to Millard did it pale.

In the common law, you can find someone guilty based on one witness's testimony.

The judge can also dismiss the case after the prosecution rests if he deems there's legally not enough evidence to commit.

Legally, there was no question, in both cases, of whether the jury could convict. They absolutely could.

So saying you didn't think the jury had enough evidence to find him guilty would seem to be saying that you personally didn't see enough evidence to find him guilty. Which is turn makes me ask why would you be glad see Smich found guilty -- let alone sent to prison until his seventies -- if you didn't think there was enough evidence to convict him. I would think you would find it a great injustice.

Why would you want a guy to get consecutive sentences if you don't believe there was enough evidence to convict him at both trials? I would only be in favour of such a sentence if I had been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in both cases.

 

[ABro]

Agreed. Have you read "The Psychopath Inside" by James Fallon (a neuroscientist who discovered he is a psychopath)? You'd enjoy it, I think.

Here's a very good critique of Fallon for those who are interested https://lareviewofbooks.org/article/psychopath-ish/#!

 

[THXGuru]

I am genuinely curious about the people who say they didn't see enough evidence for Smich to be found guilty.

At both trials, there was a lot of evidence against Smich. Only in comparison to Millard did it pale.

In the common law, you can find someone guilty based on one witness's testimony.

The judge can also dismiss the case after the prosecution rests if he deems there's legally not enough evidence to commit.

Legally, there was no question, in both cases, of whether the jury could convict. They absolutely could.

So saying you didn't think the jury had enough evidence to find him guilty would seem to be saying that you personally didn't see enough evidence to find him guilty. Which is turn makes me ask why would you be glad see Smich found guilty -- let alone sent to prison until his seventies -- if you didn't think there was enough evidence to convict him. I would think you would find it a great injustice.

Why would you want a guy to get consecutive sentences if you don't believe there was enough evidence to convict him at both trials? I would only be in favour of such a sentence if I had been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in both cases.

I could entertain the idea that Smich might not of done the LB murder. Some possibilities exist. However, the when looking at things as whole, I am pretty sure he did it. I do struggle with the one the exact thing that points to an absolute surety. Perhaps some others can help me out with that.

But overall, I am in consensus that he did it.

 

[ABro]

I could entertain the idea that Smich might not of done the LB murder. Some possibilities exist. However, the when looking at things as whole, I am pretty sure he did it. I do struggle with the one the exact thing that points to an absolute surety. Perhaps some others can help me out with that.

But overall, I am in consensus that he did it.

Absolute certainty is not required by the law. Almost no one would ever be found guilty of anthing if that was the requirement. It's beyond a reasonable doubt.

There also doesn't have to be one thing that clinches it for you.

The jury was told to look at the evidence as a whole. That's the essence of a circumstantial case. One thread won't hold up a weight on its own, but all the threads together will. All the different evidence threads together support the conviction.

So that's what you need to ask yourself. Do I have any reasonable doubt that Smich did it? Not, are there far fetched possibilities unsupported by evidence that he didn't do it? Not, am I certain? And not, is there a smoking gun? But after seeing all the evidence, am I left in reasonable doubt -- emphasis on reasonable?

 

[THXGuru]

I am genuinely curious about the people who say they didn't see enough evidence for Smich to be found guilty.

At both trials, there was a lot of evidence against Smich. Only in comparison to Millard did it pale.

In the common law, you can find someone guilty based on one witness's testimony.

The judge can also dismiss the case after the prosecution rests if he deems there's legally not enough evidence to commit.

Legally, there was no question, in both cases, of whether the jury could convict. They absolutely could.

So saying you didn't think the jury had enough evidence to find him guilty would seem to be saying that you personally didn't see enough evidence to find him guilty. Which is turn makes me ask why would you be glad see Smich found guilty -- let alone sent to prison until his seventies -- if you didn't think there was enough evidence to convict him. I would think you would find it a great injustice.

Why would you want a guy to get consecutive sentences if you don't believe there was enough evidence to convict him at both trials? I would only be in favour of such a sentence if I had been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in both cases.

Absolute certainty is not required by the law. Almost no one would ever be found guilty of anthing if that was the requirement. It's beyond a reasonable doubt.

There also doesn't have to be one thing that clinches it for you.

The jury was told to look at the evidence as a whole. That's the essence of a circumstantial case. One thread won't hold up a weight on its own, but all the threads together will. All the different evidence threads together support the conviction.

So that's what you need to ask yourself. Do I have any reasonable doubt that Smich did it? Not, are there far fetched possibilities unsupported by evidence that he didn't do it? Not, am I certain? And not, is there a smoking gun? But after seeing all the evidence, am I left in reasonable doubt -- emphasis on reasonable?

Thank you. Totally agree. I knew that you don’t need to be absolute. Was just wondering what might of been the one big factor for others. For me there was nothing that stood out, but it was a total of all the evidence. I am still not clear if he was at the house with MM at the time of the murder.

 

[Dion]

Millard must be so mad - all his sucking up to fellow inmates and prison guards came to nothing. According to his letters, he had been working on them, since he was first incarcerated, when he wrote that he is "outwardly docile." And says one guard called him numb which was "very useful feedback."

In another letter he says. "I see how knowledge is power. There is a constant back and forth, of discovering more ways in which I could lose, and then discovering ways to effectively counter it." "It's all very interesting in a game of strategy kind of way."

This tells you who DM really is - he takes note of who can benefit him, and acts accordingly. He really thought there was a chance he could "effectively counter" the charges against him with his superior strategizing skills.

 

[THXGuru]

I am genuinely curious about the people who say they didn't see enough evidence for Smich to be found guilty.

At both trials, there was a lot of evidence against Smich. Only in comparison to Millard did it pale.

In the common law, you can find someone guilty based on one witness's testimony.

The judge can also dismiss the case after the prosecution rests if he deems there's legally not enough evidence to commit.

Legally, there was no question, in both cases, of whether the jury could convict. They absolutely could.

So saying you didn't think the jury had enough evidence to find him guilty would seem to be saying that you personally didn't see enough evidence to find him guilty. Which is turn makes me ask why would you be glad see Smich found guilty -- let alone sent to prison until his seventies -- if you didn't think there was enough evidence to convict him. I would think you would find it a great injustice.

Why would you want a guy to get consecutive sentences if you don't believe there was enough evidence to convict him at both trials? I would only be in favour of such a sentence if I had been convinced beyond a reasonable doubt in both cases.

Millard must be so mad - all his sucking up to fellow inmates and prison guards came to nothing. According to his letters, he had been working on them, since he was first incarcerated, when he wrote that he is "outwardly docile." And says one guard called him numb which was "very useful feedback."

In another letter he says. "I see how knowledge is power. There is a constant back and forth, of discovering more ways in which I could lose, and then discovering ways to effectively counter it." "It's all very interesting in a game of strategy kind of way."

This tells you who DM really is - he takes note of who can benefit him, and acts accordingly. He really thought there was a chance he could "effectively counter" the charges against him with his superior strategizing skills.

Definitely been defeated. There is no doubt about it. I wonder what he is thinking now. There is no positive outcome for him.

I have been waiting to share my thoughts on this as I wanted to let everything sink in. Code’s final comments of “Good luck to you on the penitentiary, I mean that sincerely. Take care of yourselves” has really stuck with me. It’s like the final comments and I didn’t expect them to be so powerful with me. I will be dead or more than likely dead by the time they are eligible for parole. It’s crazy to think.

 

[ABro]

This tells you who DM really is - he takes note of who can benefit him, and acts accordingly. He really thought there was a chance he could "effectively counter" the charges against him with his superior strategizing skills.

He still thinks his appeals are going to be successful.

 

[RezButt]

Now that all the facts have come out. I am almost certain that MS pulled the trigger on TB. Makes the most sense logistically in the context of a ‘test drive’ (back seat) and everything that came out in the LB trial as well was what wasn’t admitted.

This is a modern day Leopold and Loeb. With the exception being that only one of them was wealthy. However Smich came from a good home in the sense he grew up in a good town, with good schools and good kids around him. He could have gone right. He went left. That said, he is just as evil as Millard. His texts, conversations with his drug customers and his own testimony prove it

If their victim in the ‘3500 mission’ had been a loner that rented a basement apartment, they would have gotten away with the truck theft, too.

These two would have never let ‘The Eliminator’ cool off until they got caught.

This story made for a phenomenal read (hats off, ABro) and really proves, to me anyway, that truth really is stranger than fiction.

 

[Spartygirl]

Thank you Judge Code for making the proper decision of consecutive sentences for both these Evil human beings. I popped in here yesterday to follow and just before confirmation of the sentencing, my daughter and grandkids stopped over, so instead, I hugged on them and enjoyed some time with them. I am just now able to get back here.

YAY,...Justice for Laura !!!! I know that all the justice in the world will not bring her back and my heart bleeds for her parents and friends, but for us following this case (and TB's) we can be happy that the murderers are where they belong.

 

[JPC]

He still thinks his appeals are going to be successful.

Not surprising as he lacks the capacity for empathy and self awareness. His self aggrandizement knows no bounds...gosh those silly letters to CN and the character reference letters were proof of this. I truly believe that even when he is alone with his thoughts in his cell, he will never be able to take responsibility for all the wrongs that he has done. He is not wired that way and like Paul Bernardo and many other serial killers, we are all lucky that he is not on the streets. I have a strong belief in rehabilitation but sadly have to concede that what he suffers can not be cured. What makes killers like him most scary is how they can blend in, in plain sight. I suppose that is how they become serial killers. They almost get a pass because no one can believe that they would actually kill someone until it is too late. The signs could be there but LE does not follow up because the suspect does not fit the profile.

 

[Jasper52]

Not surprising as he lacks the capacity for empathy and self awareness. His self aggrandizement knows no bounds...gosh those silly letters to CN and the character reference letters were proof of this. I truly believe that even when he is alone with his thoughts in his cell, he will never be able to take responsibility for all the wrongs that he has done. He is not wired that way and like Paul Bernardo and many other serial killers, we are all lucky that he is not on the streets. I have a strong belief in rehabilitation but sadly have to concede that what he suffers can not be cured. What makes killers like him most scary is how they can blend in, in plain sight. I suppose that is how they become serial killers. They almost get a pass because no one can believe that they would actually kill someone until it is too late. The signs could be there but LE does not follow up because the suspect does not fit the profile.

I agree with your thoughts...........Bruce Mcarthur is another alleged serial killer that has many of the same traits as DM.

We never know who walk amongst us which is very scary in itself. jmo

 

[Alban]

From the Mob Reporter https://youtu.be/2i5mKZorG88

IMPORTANT NOTE: This is based on evidence exhibits as filed in court and released on the authority of Superior Court Justice Michael Code. // At a hearing to decide how long Dellen Millard and Mark Smich will spend in prison, Justice Michael Code heard letters from relatives, supporters and friends of both men, convicted at separate trials of first-degree murder of Laura Babcock, 23, of Toronto, and Tim Bosma, 32, of Hamilton. The hearing is to determine whether the parole ineligibility of 25 years on each sentence will be served concurrently or consecutively.

 

[whydontchathen]

"The eyes of both Millard and Smich welled up as they were handcuffed and led out of court."


I really wonder if this is accurate. I'm no psychologist, but my sense of DM is that he's so full of himself and "performing to his enraptured audience" in his own delusional mind, that I don't think he would show any weakness to his perceived audience. Tears in his eyes?

I think he has more control over himself than to get all teary-eyed.

Anybody else?

MOO

 

[winter2017]

Thank you. Totally agree. I knew that you don’t need to be absolute. Was just wondering what might of been the one big factor for others. For me there was nothing that stood out, but it was a total of all the evidence. I am still not clear if he was at the house with MM at the time of the murder.

DM told MS not to be at the front of house when he brought Laura back. My view is MS was waiting for DM to bring Laura back and had planned to murder her and MS was an accomplice. I believe Laura was shot. There is evidence that showed no text between MS and DM for many hours after DM arrived at the house. The crown believed that is when both of them were involved in the murder of Laura. There was never any question to me that MS was not involved in the murder of Laura.

 

[winter2017]

"The eyes of both Millard and Smich welled up as they were handcuffed and led out of court."


I really wonder if this is accurate. I'm no psychologist, but my sense of DM is that he's so full of himself and "performing to his enraptured audience" in his own delusional mind, that I don't think he would show any weakness to his perceived audience. Tears in his eyes?

I think he has more control over himself than to get all teary-eyed.

Anybody else?

MOO

IT finally sunk into him that he is going to die in prison , any tears would be for himself and what he is facing of 45 years in prison and dying in prison.