Laura Babcock Murder Trial - *GUILTY*

[winter2017]

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.

He helped DM plan Laura s murder and was an accomplice. DM sent him a text to tell him not to be at front of house when he arrived with Laura. She probably was ambushed and I believe DM shot her. What happened to lead up to her being shot I believe DM and MS were involved in somehow restraining her, drugging her etc and that DM actually shot her and then they both were together to put in her the tarp.

 

[nuff]

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

Agreed that Fallon's self-diagnosis may (or may not) be entirely reliable, but as for the reviewer - Homolka presumably lacks a Y chromosome but IMO she's undoubtedly a psychopath. The other book that's intriguing from a scientific perspective (and addresses the possibility of rehabilitation) is The Psychopath Whisperer, Kent A. Kiehl.

 

[ABro]

Agreed that Fallon's self-diagnosis may (or may not) be entirely reliable, but as for the reviewer - Homolka presumably lacks a Y chromosome but IMO she's undoubtedly a psychopath. The other book that's intriguing from a scientific perspective (and addresses the possibility of rehabilitation) is The Psychopath Whisperer, Kent A. Kiehl.

The Y chromosome example is used to point out the fallacy of Fallon’s argument. The reviewer is not endorsing it. Just the opposite. He’s showing how silly it is. Take another look.

As for FAllon's self diagnosis and his ensuing conclusions, none of it has never been peer reviewed. It’s best seller fodder not science.

I will definitely check out The Psychopath Whisperer.

 

[THXGuru]

He helped DM plan Laura s murder and was an accomplice. DM sent him a text to tell him not to be at front of house when he arrived with Laura. She probably was ambushed and I believe DM shot her. What happened to lead up to her being shot I believe DM and MS were involved in somehow restraining her, drugging her etc and that DM actually shot her and then they both were together to put in her the tarp.

Was it assume that MM was at the house during this time? CN as well?

 

[winter2017]

Was it assume that MM was at the house during this time? CN as well?

I think MM was at the house , she was living there with MS. I suspect she knew a lot more from what she said. She is not going to admit to anything that would mean she is charged. She was in the video with MS doing the rap and in no way do I believe she did not know what that rap was about. There is no way for the police to prove it, so she was not able to be charged with anything. She is as vile as all the other characters who were either directly helping DM do crimes or they knew a lot more from what they told the police.

 

[winter2017]

Was it assume that MM was at the house during this time? CN as well?

NO I don't think CN was at the house. She should have been charged with an accessory to a murder but the police did not have a lot of really good evidence to charge with that and she pleaded to a less serious charge and the Bosma family accepted it and so got off with a less serious charge. I heard a lawyer say that even if she passes medical school in Europe with her notoriety and the criminal charge most likely never be able to be a dr. in Canada, hurray.

 

[brightii]

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.

Thank you for posting the reference letters re MS from his family and friends.

What a huge difference these letters are from those who wrote in support of DM. I could actually feel the emotion that was expressed in many of the letters and was struck by the fact that MS's crimes and convictions were acknowledged. Yes, there were excuses made for MS (mitigating factors?) by his loved ones, but that is only natural IMO to some degree. I did not feel completely offended by the sentiments expressed for MS as I did when reading the letters for DM. I feel compassion for MS's family, his mother and sisters as they will have to adjust to the painful reality that their son/brother will likely never again be able to participate in their lives. Just my thoughts FWIW.

All MOO

 

[DeaconBrodie]

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?

I think that the confusion arises over the meaning of reasonable doubt. It is a very complex concept as is evidenced by the fact that judges improperly enunciating the concept of reasonable doubt is probably the most common reason for successful appeals of jury verdicts. There are a number of SCC decisions that have sought to clarify it in a way that can be understood by ordinary jurors. Judges typically read the scripted instructions very carefully and try not to stray away from the tried and true because that is when they often run afoul of the appeal courts.

A juror does not have to be certain of guilt but thinking that the accused is probably guilty is not enough either. The requirement lies somewhere been probably and certainty and I think when people suggest that they did not think there was enough to convict but they a pleased that the jury did, they are reflecting the problems that the jurors likely faced in convincing any holdouts that their misgivings really did not amount to a reasonable doubt.

Despite all of this, with a few notable exceptions, juries usually get it right the end.

 

[clefk27]

He helped DM plan Laura s murder and was an accomplice. DM sent him a text to tell him not to be at front of house when he arrived with Laura. She probably was ambushed and I believe DM shot her. What happened to lead up to her being shot I believe DM and MS were involved in somehow restraining her, drugging her etc and that DM actually shot her and then they both were together to put in her the tarp.

Given that DM sent MS that infamous text 'I just rolled my first spliff' on July 4 morning, one might conclude that DM rolled her up in the tarp himself. It does sound like MS participated in the killing though.

 

[londongal]

I think that the confusion arises over the meaning of reasonable doubt. It is a very complex concept as is evidenced by the fact that judges improperly enunciating the concept of reasonable doubt is probably the most common reason for successful appeals of jury verdicts. There are a number of SCC decisions that have sought to clarify it in a way that can be understood by ordinary jurors. Judges typically read the scripted instructions very carefully and try not to stray away from the tried and true because that is when they often run afoul of the appeal courts.

A juror does not have to be certain of guilt but thinking that the accused is probably guilty is not enough either. The requirement lies somewhere been probably and certainty and I think when people suggest that they did not think there was enough to convict but they a pleased that the jury did, they are reflecting the problems that the jurors likely faced in convincing any holdouts that their misgivings really did not amount to a reasonable doubt.

Despite all of this, with a few notable exceptions, juries usually get it right the end.

Totally agree with you in this case. The Crown had evidence MS conspired to commit murder and evidence he was an accessory after the fact. Oh and he was at the locations where and when LB and TB were violently murdered. Not a stretch to find him as guilty. He never attempted to warn or save either of them. A very willing enthusiastic participant. DM reminds me of Bernardo, Ted Bundy, Ian Brady..etc. They are master manipulators with no conscious. They are leaches who are only interested in personal gain for self. They are truly broken and damaged. There is no rehabilitation for them ever. It's in their DNA.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

 

[ABro]

A juror does not have to be certain of guilt but thinking that the accused is probably guilty is not enough either. The requirement lies somewhere been probably and certainty and I think when people suggest that they did not think there was enough to convict but they a pleased that the jury did, they are reflecting the problems that the jurors likely faced in convincing any holdouts that their misgivings really did not amount to a reasonable doubt.

Despite all of this, with a few notable exceptions, juries usually get it right the end.

I think that’s backwards. The people that say they couldn’t convict but are glad the jury did would be the holdouts not the jurors who had to talk them round. They should have been taking on the angry 😡 man role and talking their fellow jurors out of a conviction if they truly felt there wasn’t enough evidence to convict.

The best way to define reasonable doubt is not to, which it was how it was done for years.

Just turn to the person putting forth the ridiculous theory and ask calmly if they truly consider it reasonable.

I’m a huge fan of juries.

 

[mimimic]

I don't know many stories about serial killers but a few seem to admit to their crimes. Maybe this is after sentencing and while IN prison for crimes. DM is maybe just not there yet. (?)

I don't get when everyone talks about fitting a "profile." I don't think you can judge a book by the cover. Scary for sure.

 

[winter2017]

Totally agree with you in this case. The Crown had evidence MS conspired to commit murder and evidence he was an accessory after the fact. Oh and he was at the locations where and when LB and TB were violently murdered. Not a stretch to find him as guilty. He never attempted to warn or save either of them. A very willing enthusiastic participant. DM reminds me of Bernardo, Ted Bundy, Ian Brady..etc. They are master manipulators with no conscious. They are leaches who are only interested in personal gain for self. They are truly broken and damaged. There is no rehabilitation for them ever. It's in their DNA.

Sent from my XT1650 using Tapatalk

A good interview on a radio show with one reporter. They said that this sentencing will help the families because they won't have to go to any parole hearings for 25 years, the Bosma will in 25 years and then it will be another 25 years before the Babcock family will have to go. They have appeals also and will have to wait and see what happens with the appeals.
The judge giving this consecutive sentence will spare the families having to deal with this again for many years.
There has been rumors MS would be a witness at WM s murder case but in the radio show the host said doubt he will because every thing that comes out of his mouth is a lie and so worthless witness. Just like CN, that is why the crown did not want her at the Babcock trial , you know she is lying when her lips move.
My thoughts go out to the families of the victims and always have and my hope is that they can have some closure to the worst nightmare they have endured.

 

[canadiangirl]

He helped DM plan Laura s murder and was an accomplice. DM sent him a text to tell him not to be at front of house when he arrived with Laura. She probably was ambushed and I believe DM shot her. What happened to lead up to her being shot I believe DM and MS were involved in somehow restraining her, drugging her etc and that DM actually shot her and then they both were together to put in her the tarp.

I don't agree she was ambushed. She was infatuated with DM. No need to ambush her. Moo

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

 

[winter2017]

I don't agree she was ambushed. She was infatuated with DM. No need to ambush her. Moo

Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

She was unaware MS was there to help DM to murder her and once DM had her in the house I think MS came to help DM either restrain her or drug her and then either DM or MS shot her. They had a gun and from what I read that they got the bullets they needed.

 

[DeaconBrodie]

I think that’s backwards. The people that say they couldn’t convict but are glad the jury did would be the holdouts not the jurors who had to talk them round. They should have been taking on the angry 😡 man role and talking their fellow jurors out of a conviction if they truly felt there wasn’t enough evidence to convict.

The best way to define reasonable doubt is not to, which it was how it was done for years.

Just turn to the person putting forth the ridiculous theory and ask calmly if they truly consider it reasonable.

I’m a huge fan of juries.

I don't disagree with you I principle but I think it is different in practice.

As you know, in Canada we do not have the luxury of knowing what happens inside the jury room but based on descriptions of what occurs south of the border and assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that the human dynamics would play out similarly in Canada, we know that the majority usually bully the minority into submission.

Most individuals can only keep up the angry man role for so long before peer pressure and intimidation win out. That is why there are relatively few hung juries. The pressure to conform is unrelenting.

 

[JuneBug67]

bbm I agree wholeheartedly with the first paragraph of your post.

Today as Laura and Tim's families are finally able to revel in the realities of their hard fought victory, I admit that I revel with them. I cannot feel the same level of empathy for DM or MS. If they are sociopaths or psychopaths, as I believe they very likely are, then I think it could be argued that neither of them can or will appreciate the gravity of their crimes and exhibit genuine remorse, and IMO neither of them will feel the impact of the consecutive sentence as would persons without such afflictions. They will adapt in their new environment, IMO

As for MS, I don't think he followed along after DM. I think he was aimless with little ambition in life before DM and he also had a fascination with crime and violence. I think DM and MS were able to commit their crimes together because they both had a propensity for criminal activity and a wish for power among their peers. Killing people, keeping trophies and bragging about their crimes was the ultimate power trip and they were in on it together in every respect, IMO. They each chose to commit these murders and I believe with all my heart and soul - and my brain too - that if either had the chance again at freedom, society would continue to suffer for their lack of conscience. The price paid already is too steep.

I honestly cannot see either DM or MS changing if they are let loose. I am not an unfeeling or heartless person but I just can't and don't feel compassion for these very dangerous guys. Rather, I feel gratitude that Justice Code decided to show them the meaning of justice and by doing so, IMO, he restored public confidence in the justice system and a left us with a sense that at the very least the victims's families and the public are better protected and will not have to live with the threat of DM and MS creating chaos and calamity in our midst for at least the next 50 years.

JuneBug67, I feel for you that you have such a soft heart. :heartbeat:

All MOO

It's very kind of you to credit me with a soft heart. But the thoughts you quoted me on are almost entirely a head process - not a heart process. Every last thing that keeps the rest of us from murdering people - guilt, fear, a realistic connection to consequences, impulse regulation, the ability to meaningfully connect, feel empathy etc. etc.etc. - were either not present in Millard's makeup, or so hobbled that they may as well not have been. To me, being angry at Millard or feeling satisfaction as his fate is like screaming at a person with shattered kneecaps, collapsed on a track, because he can't get up and run a clean lap. Clapping and jeering as he's dragged off out of his lane and out of the race might be emotionally satisfying, but...

Empathy is not sympathy, it's simply the ability to put yourself in another's shoes. I've always thought it should be a universal quality in any person - given sufficient knowledge or experience, either you can put yourself in the shoes of others, or you can't. In practice though I've found that many people treat empathy more like sympathy. They make value judgements and choose to withhold it if the situation seems to suggest that. For me, empathy is a head process that I find I can deploy pretty universally. Sympathy is the heart process that may or may not follow from that, and that can be personal, subjective and arbitrary. In the case of Millard and Smich I do have some sympathy, for reasons I already outlined. I completely understand why others may not.

 

[JuneBug67]

Or designated a dangerous offender, which still would allow for parole. Consecutive x3 would negate that.
https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/...nst-hgh-rsk-ffndrs/dngrs-ffndr-dsgntn-en.aspx

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

Apologies to WSers who have seen me post this a gazillion times, but I repeat myself because I think it is interesting and useful info for Canadian crime watchers: murder alone cannot result in dangerous offender status. Not one murder, not three murders and not ten murders. Dangerous Offender status is meant to keep people in prison whose convictions could otherwise result in mandatory release dates. Murder comes with a life sentence, parole is not mandatory, and so there are no additional mechanisms like DO status required to keep them behind bars for as long as is needed.

 

[JuneBug67]

Thank you for posting the reference letters re MS from his family and friends.

What a huge difference these letters are from those who wrote in support of DM. I could actually feel the emotion that was expressed in many of the letters and was struck by the fact that MS's crimes and convictions were acknowledged. Yes, there were excuses made for MS (mitigating factors?) by his loved ones, but that is only natural IMO to some degree. I did not feel completely offended by the sentiments expressed for MS as I did when reading the letters for DM. I feel compassion for MS's family, his mother and sisters as they will have to adjust to the painful reality that their son/brother will likely never again be able to participate in their lives. Just my thoughts FWIW.

All MOO

They're way more grounded than Millard's support system, but there is still some denial about what Smich brought to the table in this. It's pretty hard to move somebody to murder purely on the kind of manipulation Millard had mastered without other factors being present on their own. Still, it's absolutely true in my view that Millard's did create a false and seductive environment that was crafted to entice Smich and exploit his weaknesses and criminality for Millard's benefit - but there was no coercion and there is no indication that Smich was following Millard to a place he didn't want to go. I think their overarching point is that it's sad, that it didn't have to be this way for Smich but for some pretty fateful things that were mostly out of his control, is true. So yes, it didn't have to be, but it is, and now he's a convicted murderer for mostly very good and mostly clear reasons.

Smich's family makes you feel the concentric circles of loss that grow from terrible acts. The letters were good, and for me reflective of what I think has been pretty clear all along. Smich is not Millard. Doesn't mean he's not dangerous and right where he belongs, but he's not Millard. For me the people who do terrible things but don't meet the diagnostic criteria for psychopathy are the most interesting, and the ones we can learn the most from as human beings with an interest in criminal cases that can in part serve as a means to understand people and the world. It is very unlikely that people like Mark Smich, Karla Homolka, Russell Williams and other deeply destructive people are psychopaths, and yet they did horrific things. Why? What are they if they aren't that? How did this happen? It's that question that typically defines the cases I end up interested in.

 

[JuneBug67]

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

I have! I read it a few years ago, and did enjoy it. To the criticism of it noted, kind of yes and kind of no. It was at least as much memoir as 'science book' and it was fairly clear that what he was presenting was mostly anecdotal. Brain scans with effectively 'dead' regions in key areas are not distributed through half the population, so the other author's Y chromosome example made the point in science/reason but was a little misleading all the same. And a criticism because a hypothesis is based on scant data is not a particularly strong one, to say the least, given the definition of a hypothesis. So the critical review is not wrong, but he's holding the book to a scientific standard it was not my impression that Fallon was trying to reach, so in my view that alone should not discourage people from reading it. By coincidence I also read a book on behavior by the reviewer last year, which was really good, but I think it was out about the same time as Fallon's, and part of his negative view may have been a perfectly human annoyance that a book he didn't see as scientifically rigorous seemed to be making the bigger splash at the time in terms of people connecting with it. Also, his research interests are in many ways opposed to a strong environmental role in behaviour, which is what Fallon was suggesting, so there's that, too.

What I found most interesting and valuable about the book was the way Fallon has insight into his own behaviour, but didn't have insight at the same time. Which would be exactly what one might expect from a psychopathic brain that had been tempered by a positive environment. Overall, even with its limitations, I'd still recommend it. And I'd recommend the one I read by the reviewer too: The Other Side of Normal.