Related Issues and Food for Thought

[Tamarind]

LE don't need actual, factual direct evidence to lay a murder charge in a no body case. And if they don't have this type of evidence, there is nothing concrete they can offer up to the family. No doubt that will be primarily a circumstantial case and they've told the family this. Here's a good article explaining those types of cases.

I think its ridiculous to charge someone based on no actual factual evidence, and no body either. Any juror with a sane mind would never convict someone without solid evidence IMO. JMO. If they don't have anything concrete then maybe they shouldn't be laying charges.
I think with crazy legislation like that to go on it is a grounds for jury nullification. Just my opinion.

LB's family likely chooses to hang on to some hope that LE are wrong and that she will be returning home alive and well one day. Everyone deals with things in their own way IMO. Not sure even a conviction will make them give up on that hope.

MOO

Especially a conviction based on no actual factual evidence along with no body. Who can blame them JMO

 

[Kamille]

It has been mentioned several times that DM does not now have the opportunity to do anything other than wait this out. Even if people tell police the truth, there is NO guarantee that they will be believed and thus released. There are many examples of this fact. His lawyer has no doubt advised him to stay silent as any good lawyer would do. To say that he could exonerate himself by speaking is untrue, the system does not work that way.

The lawyers work for DM. There was and still is nothing preventing him from exonerating himself other than the fact that he can't IMO.

 

[Tamarind]

I think the truck was a side benefit but the main purpose was to have a thrilling adventure (and the truck would be a bonus)
If they were only after a truck I am sure they could have planned things to go much tighter, and could have found a much lower risk way to get one.

I dont see anything thrilling in going for a test drive and then supposedly driving around putting evidence on your own doorstep IMO. Surely those details would have subdued the thrill somewhat!

I think once the trial begins and both personalities are on display, we will see that sure, there was a synergy between them but they were both fundamentally twisted individuals inside.

Or one or none is twisted . JMO

 

[Tamarind]

The lawyers work for DM. There was and still is nothing preventing him from exonerating himself other than the fact that he can't IMO.

You cannot guarantee being exonerated once you are within the system. There is a reason that people are advised to stay silent. It is not in my opinion to suggest they are guilty as some appear to think. It is to prevent a twisting of evidence etc. HTH

 

[Kamille]

I think its ridiculous to charge someone based on no actual factual evidence, and no body either. Any juror with a sane mind would never convict someone without solid evidence IMO. JMO. If they don't have anything concrete then maybe they shouldn't be laying charges.
I think with crazy legislation like that to go on it is a grounds for jury nullification. Just my opinion.



Especially a conviction based on no actual factual evidence along with no body. Who can blame them JMO

It's done every day. Murderers hide bodies, sometimes very well. So no one should ever be charged with murder if they're really good at hiding a body? Even though all circumstantial evidence points to them being responsible?

There may also be some direct evidence such as electronic communication and/or witness accounts/statements that we are not aware of and that investigators feel would compromise the right to a fair trial by revealing to LB's family at this time.

MOO

 

[Kamille]

You cannot guarantee being exonerated once you are within the system. There is a reason that people are advised to stay silent. It is not in my opinion to suggest they are guilty as some appear to think. It is to prevent a twisting of evidence etc. HTH

If you have absolute proof of being in another place at the time of a crime, or in other words an airtight alibi, you will be released pending further investigation.

 

[Tamarind]

It's done every day. Murderers hide bodies, sometimes very well. So no one should ever be charged with murder if they're really good at hiding a body? Even though all circumstantial evidence points to them being responsible?

All evidence apparently pointed to Truscott, Morin et al being guilty but it was not so. What if someone hid a body at a friends house and all evidence points to the friend? Should the friend be convicted ? Murderers may hide bodies, but unless it is proven that someone actually did it I do not see how a conviction is justified, hence my view of jury nullification.

There may also be some direct evidence such as electronic communication and/or witness accounts/statements that we are not aware of and that investigators feel would compromise the right to a fair trial by revealing to LB's family at this time.MOO

Maybe so, but the Babcock family have said they still hold out hope, so that means they do not believe she is dead. IF and I think its a big IF, they have electronic PROOF then they should be told that proof exists. Otherwise there is no proof at this point IMO.

 

[Tamarind]

If you have absolute proof of being in another place at the time of a crime, or in other words an airtight alibi, you will be released pending further investigation.

So if you were in the bath, taking a walk or partaking in some other solo activity it is ok to stay charged and accused of something you didnt do? Even be convicted because you can't prove you were taking a bath or cleaning out your basement?

Just pinning blame on people is not justice in my opinion. Backing it up by saying murderers hide bodies doesn't really convince me either. JMO

 

[swedie]

<rsbm>

Swedie, you have forgotten ... both DM and MS have been charged with LB's murder.

Oops, thanks SB, I meant WM's murder.

 

[Kamille]

All evidence apparently pointed to Truscott, Morin et al being guilty but it was not so. What if someone hid a body at a friends house and all evidence points to the friend? Should the friend be convicted ? Murderers may hide bodies, but unless it is proven that someone actually did it I do not see how a conviction is justified, hence my view of jury nullification.



Maybe so, but the Babcock family have said they still hold out hope, so that means they do not believe she is dead. IF and I think its a big IF, they have electronic PROOF then they should be told that proof exists. Otherwise there is no proof at this point IMO.

I believe those were cases where there was a body. And no one is disputing that those were wrongful convictions from many years ago. No body cases are much more difficult to prove but that doesn't mean that if all signs point to one or more person that they shouldn't be pursued. And they usually are.

And the victim's family rights unfortunately do not trump the rights of the accused. So while the family and the public have no PROOF at this time, the prosecution obviously believe that there is some.

MOO

 

[Kamille]

So if you were in the bath, taking a walk or partaking in some other solo activity it is ok to stay charged and accused of something you didnt do? Even be convicted because you can't prove you were taking a bath or cleaning out your basement?

Just pinning blame on people is not justice in my opinion. Backing it up by saying murderers hide bodies doesn't really convince me either. JMO

Well if you have no alibi because you were in the bath and your cell phone was turned off/battery removed and a body is found in your incinerator on your property and the victim's vehicle is found in your trailer in your mother's driveway and the victim's wife identifies you as one of two people to last be seen with the victim, and you had called that victim to meet with them prior to their disappearance from a phone that can be traced to you, then I'd say you have a problem.

I wouldn't exactly call those set of circumstances just pinning blame on someone for the heck of it.

MOO

 

[swedie]

We have three people charged in connection to this case and it wouldn't surprise me if one or two or them has talked and cooperated with LE to an extent. It wouldn't take much to get someone to talk if LE were to show them evidence like what happened in RW case or MR's case. Yes both plead guilty (RW and TLM) in those cases when the heat was turned up on them, evidence shown. I could see that happening in this case also, not the pleading guilty part, but pointing fingers in the direction of who did the actual murders. MOO.

As far as LB's situation goes, her parents may have received information from LE since these last reports. And if LE know she met the same fate as TB, there was likely no remains, no body to give them. DM did take a road trip to Mexico after her disappearance. Did he toss her ashes along the way? MOO. The coroner&#8217;s office would only confirm that no remains were uncovered and examined in Ontario. It could not comment on the possibility her remains were found in another province or country.

Kevin Bryan, a retired detective who worked with the York Regional Police forensic unit for 16 years, believes the family would be told if her body had been found, but said police would have other evidence of her death.

&#8220;Now they&#8217;ve laid a murder charge which means they do have some evidence that she&#8217;s dead. . . . What that is, I don&#8217;t know and they&#8217;re not going to tell us that either,&#8221; said Bryan.

&#8220;They don&#8217;t go out and lay the charge in a situation like this without extensive consultation with the prosecutions office.&#8221;

Criminal Attorney Daniel Brown suggested police may be keeping information secret to assist in their investigation and prosecution.

&#8220;It could be an important part of the investigation or they want to ensure they haven&#8217;t tainted any witnesses, or perhaps they have a statement from an accused,&#8221; said Brown.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...a_babcocks_body_not_recovered_in_ontario.html

 

[Tamarind]

I believe those were cases where there was a body. And no one is disputing that those were wrongful convictions from many years ago. No body cases are much more difficult to prove but that doesn't mean that if all signs point to one or more person that they shouldn't be pursued. And they usually are.

Yes that's right, there were bodies. Even with bodies huge mistakes were made and a man had his freedom and his life curtailed for a very long time. So without bodies as you rightly say, it is much more difficult to prove. Which confirms that it is rather unreliable to say the least to be determining guilt from circumstances that may originate from an innocent man having no confirmable alibi.

And the victim's family rights unfortunately do not trump the rights of the accused. So while the family and the public have no PROOF at this time, the prosecution obviously believe that there is some.

MOO

Of course the victims rights do not trump the rights of the accused, at least prior to a trial. That's because the accused may well be innocent..
The prosecution can believe whatever they like, but in reality they obviously have not uncovered the truth or the victims family would have or should have been informed. IMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

A blast from the past that thinks about the nature of MS and DM

Now this one looks the part.

If you were casting a horror movie about two men who answer an online ad for a pickup truck and take the unsuspecting seller on a fatal test drive, Mark Smich could play one of the leads.

He is suspect number two.

Tall and gangly, his head shaved, his hands stuffed in the pockets of his baggy black pants, the sullen 25-year-old Oakville man has the nervous twitch of someone who&#8217;s itching for a fix. He also has the black eye and facial cuts of someone on the wrong end of a scuffle - whether with arresting officers or with his new roommates at the local jail. A wannabe gangsta punk, he looks like trouble.

He played &#8220;the killer&#8221; in a disturbing online video, a Dexter-like character who butchers his victim in a plastic-lined room.

Millard is suspect number one. When the wealthy, clean-cut aviation heir made his court appearance last week, he didn&#8217;t seem to fit the part - what was a handsome rich kid from Toronto doing charged with the mysterious slaying of a stranger? But then we should know by now that looks mean nothing - Paul Bernardo taught us that a long time ago.

Millard&#8217;s lawyer Deepak Paradkar insisted there was more to the story, that his client was innocent and the truth would become clear once his co-accused was under arrest. Millard is a known thrillseeker who&#8217;s piloted planes and helicopters since he was a young teen and raced across deserts in more recent years. But his lawyer seemed to suggest that he had fallen into bad company. &#8220;A gentleman like him and his background, we don&#8217;t know how he would end up with other individuals who may or may not be involved.&#8221;

There is little doubt the two murder suspects knew one another. A Facebook photo shows Millard, his hair in a red-dyed mohawk, in Smich&#8217;s driveway as they walk toward a vintage blue Chevy Nova. Both were known to share an affection for cars and drugs - were those the ties that brought them together?

Was Millard led astray by Smich? Was it the other way around? Or did two like-minded adrenaline-junkies find they had much in common? The devil and his partner - though who can say for sure which role, if any, either played.

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/23/killer-video-for-bosma-accused

 

[Tamarind]

Well if you have no alibi because you were in the bath and your cell phone was turned off/battery removed and a body is found in your incinerator on your property and the victim's vehicle is found in your trailer in your mother's driveway and the victim's wife identifies you as one of two people to last be seen with the victim, and you had called that victim to meet with them prior to their disappearance from a phone that can be traced to you, then I'd say you have a problem.

I wouldn't exactly call those set of circumstances just pinning blame on someone for the heck of it.

MOO

Being in the bath was simply one reason someone may not have a verifiable alibi. Thats all.

There is a possibility that someone may have:

Left the scene of a murder prior to it occurring

Knew that others were involved but needed to prove it

Stopped and called someone from a payphone (not saying this is true just pointing out that something like this would give more information if verified)

Driven to another friends home
(Even if a friend wasn't home, the fact that accused knew he wasn't home could be used as further information to support his alibi)
Gone to a hangar and did some paperwork, used the phone there.

and more possibilities.

It is also possible that friends of an accused would know where the accused lived, worked, knew where he owned properties and where his mother lived.
It is also a possibility that accused felt intimidated enough to agree to certain requests, especially if there is a possibility he was looking down the barrel of a gun. JMO

And yes someone would have a problem without a confirmable alibi, such as those in bold above. HTH

 

[Kamille]

Yes that's right, there were bodies. Even with bodies huge mistakes were made and a man had his freedom and his life curtailed for a very long time. So without bodies as you rightly say, it is much more difficult to prove. Which confirms that it is rather unreliable to say the least to be determining guilt from circumstances that may originate from an innocent man having no confirmable alibi.



Of course the victims rights do not trump the rights of the accused, at least prior to a trial. That's because the accused may well be innocent..
The prosecution can believe whatever they like, but in reality they obviously have not uncovered the truth or the victims family would have or should have been informed. IMO

DNA, which was not available at the time of the convictions, exonerated one of these two. At the same time, DNA is convicting people and now we find out it is not always reliable and cases are being reviewed for possible error. So were those exonerations the result of reliable or unreliable DNA testing?

And DM's guilt in the LB case will be determined at trial. Here it is just opinion.

If you agree that the accused rights to a fair trial supercede the victim's family's right to know certain undisclosed evidence prior to trial, then you will understand why LB's family have not been told the evidence that the prosecution used to lay the charges.

MOO

 

[Kamille]

Being in the bath was simply one reason someone may not have a verifiable alibi. Thats all.

There is a possibility that someone may have:

Left the scene of a murder prior to it occurring

Knew that others were involved but needed to prove it

Stopped and called someone from a payphone (not saying this is true just pointing out that something like this would give more information if verified)

Driven to another friends home
(Even if a friend wasn't home, the fact that accused knew he wasn't home could be used as further information to support his alibi)
Gone to a hangar and did some paperwork, used the phone there.

and more possibilities.

It is also possible that friends of an accused would know where the accused lived, worked, knew where he owned properties and where his mother lived.
It is also a possibility that accused felt intimidated enough to agree to certain requests, especially if there is a possibility he was looking down the barrel of a gun. JMO

And yes someone would have a problem without a confirmable alibi, such as those in bold above. HTH

It appears that none of this is the case or that information would have come to light during the investigation.

MOO

 

[SnooperDuper]

It appears that none of this is the case or that information would have come to light during the investigation.

MOO

I gather DM had no alibi at all, because he would not talk at all.

It's a little late to be making up an alibi for him now, isn't it?

3 At issue in this appeal is whether the alibi defence raised by the accused at trial was properly disclosed to the Crown. As outlined by my colleague, proper disclosure of an alibi has two components: adequacy and timeliness. This principle was recently reiterated in R. v. Letourneau (1994), 1994 CanLII 445 (BC CA), 87 C.C.C. (3d) 481 (B.C.C.A.), where Cumming J.A. wrote for a unanimous court at p. 532:

It is settled law that disclosure of a defence of alibi should meet two requirements:

(a)it should be given in sufficient time to permit the authorities to investigate: see R. v. Mahoney, supra, at p. 387, and R. v. Dunbar and Logan (1982), 68 C.C.C. (2d) 13 at pp. 62-3 ... (Ont. C.A.);

(b)it should be given with sufficient particularity to enable the authorities to meaningfully investigate: see R. v. Ford (1993), 1993 CanLII 843 (BC CA), 78 C.C.C. (3d) 481 at pp. 504-5 ... (B.C.C.A.).

Failure to give notice of alibi does not vitiate the defence, although it may result in a lessening of the weight that the trier of fact will accord it ....

4 As stated above, the consequence of a failure to disclose properly an alibi is that the trier of fact may draw an adverse inference when weighing the alibi evidence heard at trial (Russell v. The King (1936), 67 C.C.C. 28 (S.C.C.), at p. 32). However, improper disclosure can only weaken alibi evidence; it cannot exclude the alibi. My colleague correctly notes that the rule governing diclosure of an alibi is a rule of expediency intended to guard against surprise alibis fabricated in the witness box which the prosecution is almost powerless to challenge. Again as noted by my colleague, the development of the rule since its formulation in Russell shows that the rule has been adapted to conform to Charter norms. As such, disclosure is proper when it allows the prosecution and police to investigate the alibi evidence before trial. The criteria of timeliness and adequacy are thus evaluated on the basis of whether a meaningful investigation could have been undertaken as a result of disclosure. The flexibility of the standard is demonstrated by the fact that neither disclosure at the earliest possible moment, nor disclosure by the accused him- or herself is required in order for the criteria to be met. Third party disclosure is sufficient.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1995/1995canlii63/1995canlii63.html

 

[Tamarind]

It appears that none of this is the case or that information would have come to light during the investigation.

MOO

How so? If nobody was talking how would it have come to light? If the friend visited was not at home, how would that come to light?

If someone used a payphone and the call was met by an answer machine, how would we know? That would be the job of the lawyer to find out and possibly order call data.

If calls were made from the hangar around that time who would know who made the calls unless the caller identifies who he called and its confirmed by either the one called or the data itself.?

Maybe if they left the scene they have information that can prove where they went, it doesn't mean LE has it.

If they know it wasn't them who murdered someone but can shed light on a scenario, maybe they have key details that LE do not have.

I am just pointing out that until trial we are unaware of many possibilities that may be revealed.. JMO

 

[Tamarind]

I gather DM had no alibi at all, because he would not talk at all.

It's a little late to be making up an alibi for him now, isn't it?



http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1995/1995canlii63/1995canlii63.html

Who is making up an alibi for him?
Until the trial we have no idea what DM / lawyer may reveal or be able to counter.

You forgot to highlight the next part ;-)

"Failure to give notice of alibi does not vitiate the defence, although it may result in a lessening of the weight that the trier of fact will accord it ....
4 As stated above, the consequence of a failure to disclose properly an alibi is that the trier of fact may draw an adverse inference when weighing the alibi evidence heard at trial (Russell v. The King (1936), 67 C.C.C. 28 (S.C.C.), at p. 32). However, improper disclosure can only weaken alibi evidence; it cannot exclude the alibi. '