Related Issues and Food for Thought

[Kamille]

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

LE would be investigating both suspect's movements, before and after the crime. They will do this with electronic evidence, surveillence, witness statements etc. If the investigation brought info to light that DM was not involved he would have been released from custody. Apparently that didn't happen.

It is very easy in this day and age to prove your whereabouts. Electronic via cell phones, GPS in vehicles, video surveillence on any route you claimed to have taken, your neighbour's video surveillence, if you were at home or returned home at a certain time. If any of these scenarios were true LE would have come across this info during their investigation.

But if some want to choose to believe that he'd rather spend 2-3 years in jail awaiting trial and liquidate everything that he owns to pay for his defense during that trial, rather than just provide the proof of his innocence to LE when he was first arrested then so be it. IMO it means he does not have an alibi.

MOO

 

[SnooperDuper]

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. '

Time to put on your reading comprehension hat.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Time to put on your reading comprehension hat.

What's hard to comprehend? It says that failure to give notice does not vitiate the defence, nor does it exclude the alibi. It can, however, weaken the evidence, as the jury may assume that the evidence would have been produced if it was favourable to them. Much like we see here.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

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’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.

Where did you hear that DM took a road trip to Mexico after LB disappeared? I know he was in Miami in 2009 and Mexico at the beginning of June 2011, a year before she disappeared. And I know he was in Croatia and Greece in August 2012, but I've never heard of a trip to Mexico after LB disappeared.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

If LE have actual, factual evidence to prove that Laura is really dead, it is completely irresponsible, immoral and cruel not to share what that evidence is with Laura's family, I think. Can you imagine if Sharlene had been treated the same way, and was still left in the dark? Just because Laura's family has shunned the spotlight doesn't give them any less right to know the truth.

SB didn't have to wait until the trial to find out what LE know of Tim's demise, why should LB's family be treated any differently? I can't believe that LE would be so heartless, therefore I must assume that they have nothing solid to tell them. It's not like no one is privy to facts before trial, it's just that those who are privy are subject to the publication ban.

I think that LE have a duty to keep LB's family updated on any facts relating to their daughter's disappearance, and if LE had facts to share, the family wouldn't claim to still be in the dark. I doubt that the family is lying when they say that they don't know for certain that she is dead still.

This is all my opinion only.

I totally agree that the treatment of the Babcock's is cruel and unusual. It's hard for a family to give up that bit of hope when all they are told is that LE "believes" their daughter is dead and was murdered. They should have been given some kind of reassurance of what that belief is built on. If the body was found, they should have been told. If not, they should have been told what led LE to that belief. But it appears that they were told nothing at all.

This April, after she had been gone without a word for nearly two years, police finally had news. Babcock was dead, detectives said, and had been all along.
Police refuse to tell her family if they’ve found her body or her remains. The OPP is keeping those details secret ahead of the trial likely years away.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/06/07/dellen_millard_murder_of_laura_babcock_leaves_lingering_questions_for_police.html

Police have kept whether her body has been recovered secret from her family. However, the province’s coroner investigates any death by suspected homicide and would be involved if Babcock’s remains were found in the province.
Police have also refused to reveal their reasons for believing Babcock to be dead, adding to the mystery surrounding what led police to lay murder charges in her case.
Police charged Dellen Millard, 28, and Mark Smich, 26, with first-degree murder in April in connection with Babcock’s death but her family remains in the dark over much of the case against the pair.
In a tearful phone interview with the Star, Linda Babcock said she holds out hope her daughter, who was 23 when she was reported missing in June 2012, is still alive.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/06/14/dellen_millard_case_laura_babcocks_body_not_recovered_in_ontario.html

JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

I totally agree that the treatment of the Bosma's is cruel and unusual. It's hard for a family to give up that bit of hope when all they are told is that LE "believes" their daughter is dead and was murdered. They should have been given some kind of reassurance of what that belief is built on. If the body was found, they should have been told. If not, they should have been told what led LE to that belief. But it appears that they were told nothing at all.



http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/2014/06/07/dellen_millard_murder_of_laura_babcock_leaves_lingering_questions_for_police.html



http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2014/06/14/dellen_millard_case_laura_babcocks_body_not_recovered_in_ontario.html

JMO

How can something like this get published then without LB's family being told of it? They can tell the press but they can't tell the Babcocks (not Bosmas)?

Homicide detectives believe DM bought a gun illegally and used it to murder his father. And that he also murdered LB and incinerated her body — just as he allegedly did with TB.

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4...ed-bosma-killer-s-girlfriend-was-incinerated/

 

[matou]

Where did you hear that DM took a road trip to Mexico after LB disappeared? I know he was in Mexico in 2009 and at the beginning of June 2011, a year before she disappeared. And I know he was in Croatia and Greece in August 2012, but I've never heard of a trip to Mexico after LB disappeared.

JMO

How do you know? Link please.

 

[SnooperDuper]

What's hard to comprehend? It says that failure to give notice does not vitiate the defence, nor does it exclude the alibi. It can, however, weaken the evidence, as the jury may assume that the evidence would have been produced if it was favourable to them. Much like we see here.

JMO

Plainly, if you refuse to disclose an alibi beforehand and spring it on the court where it can't be investigated or validated, it can be judged to be BS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adverse_inference

Let me guess, DM's gonna say X, Y and Z struck again! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trial_of_Cody_Legebokoff

 

[Tamarind]

LE would be investigating both suspect's movements, before and after the crime. They will do this with electronic evidence, surveillence, witness statements etc. If the investigation brought info to light that DM was not involved he would have been released from custody. Apparently that didn't happen.

LE do not have superpowers, they can only work with available information. Their investigations are limited to available evidence, they cannot lawfully create evidence whenever it is needed. They do not always have information about what people are doing at certain times. Are you suggesting that there is surveillance for every move we ever make? It sometimes seems that way, but most of our lives at home and often at work we are not always monitored by electronic surveillance. JMO. I don't believe the crown prosecution service will be letting go of any accused at this stage of the game. They have no-one to replace them with and that could, in itself, bring about a lot of problems for them and for LE IMO.

It is very easy in this day and age to prove your whereabouts. Electronic via cell phones, GPS in vehicles, video surveillence on any route you claimed to have taken, your neighbour's video surveillence, if you were at home or returned home at a certain time. If any of these scenarios were true LE would have come across this info during their investigation.

I don't believe neighbours video surveillance would necessarily track anything other than their own home. My surveillance camera is focused on my front entrance way and the side driveway and rear entrance. I don't know anyone who has a home cam focused on the street itself, that's not saying it doesn't happen, but not a common practice IMO. I also don't have GPS installed in my car, my preference. In my opinion I don't believe it is possible for LE to have everything at their fingertips and may not have come across anything that DM / MS did prior to, during or after May 6th 2013. JMO

But if some want to choose to believe that he'd rather spend 2-3 years in jail awaiting trial and liquidate everything that he owns to pay for his defense during that trial, rather than just provide the proof of his innocence to LE when he was first arrested then so be it. IMO it means he does not have an alibi.

MOO

Where does it say he sold his properties to pay for a lawyer? Could you link that for me please? I have been trying to address, the matter of sometimes not being able to prove your innocence or simply wanting to have your lawyer help you to. I think he may have a genuine alibi that he has had his lawyer trace and uncover. He obviously feels he is wrongly accused, so he has something, knows something that we are not aware of IMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

How do you know? Link please.

Sorry, in double checking it was Miami that he was in 2009, not Mexico. I fixed my post. No link, pictures are on Facebook. Believe it or don't, doesn't matter. It was 3 years before she disappeared.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

How can something like this get published then without LB's family being told of it? They can tell the press but they can't tell the Babcocks (not Bosmas)?



http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4...ed-bosma-killer-s-girlfriend-was-incinerated/

Oops, not my night. I meant Babcock's and fixed it now. Thanks.

But where does that say why they believe he murdered LB? The told they Babcock's they believed she was murdered, just no information why they believed that or if they had found her. Doesn't really sound like they told the press much else either.

JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

LE do not have superpowers, they can only work with available information. Their investigations are limited to available evidence, they cannot lawfully create evidence whenever it is needed. They do not always have information about what people are doing at certain times. Are you suggesting that there is surveillance for every move we ever make? It sometimes seems that way, but most of our lives at home and often at work we are not always monitored by electronic surveillance. JMO. I don't believe the crown prosecution service will be letting go of any accused at this stage of the game. They have no-one to replace them with and that could, in itself, bring about a lot of problems for them and for LE IMO.

DM owned an Apple smartphone and all he had to do is have that thing in his pocket during his adventure and he’s done. iPhones track you mercilessly, even if the GPS functionality is turned off (the phone uses cell towers/triangulation then just like 911)

I don't believe neighbours video surveillance would necessarily track anything other than their own home. My surveillance camera is focused on my front entrance way and the side driveway and rear entrance. I don't know anyone who has a home cam focused on the street itself, that's not saying it doesn't happen, but not a common practice IMO. I also don't have GPS installed in my car, my preference. In my opinion I don't believe it is possible for LE to have everything at their fingertips and may not have come across anything that DM / MS did prior to, during or after May 6th 2013. JMO

What if everyone who had a security camera that saw them sent it in?

The investigation into the disappearance of Ancaster’s Tim Bosma brought in over 10,000 video files just on that one case.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/why-is-security-camera-video-still-so-terrible-1.2542359

Where does it say he sold his properties to pay for a lawyer? Could you link that for me please? I have been trying to address, the matter of sometimes not being able to prove your innocence or simply wanting to have your lawyer help you to. I think he may have a genuine alibi that he has had his lawyer trace and uncover. He obviously feels he is wrongly accused, so he has something, knows something that we are not aware of IMO

LE, not your lawyer, has to trace and uncover your alibi for you, if you have any hope of it holding up in court. If DM was truly someplace else, and that proved him innocent, why can't he reveal that to LE? You can't incriminate yourself if you are innocent.

 

[Tamarind]

DM owned an Apple smartphone and all he had to do is have that thing in his pocket during his adventure and he’s done. iPhones track you mercilessly, even if the GPS functionality is turned off (the phone uses cell towers/triangulation then just like 911)

What if everyone who had a security camera that saw them sent it in?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/hamilton/news/why-is-security-camera-video-still-so-terrible-1.2542359

LE, not your lawyer, has to trace and uncover your alibi for you, if you have any hope of it holding up in court. If DM was truly someplace else, and that proved him innocent, why can't he reveal that to LE? You can't incriminate yourself if you are innocent.

Yes you can incriminate yourself if you are innocent. There are some videos posted here on WS that explain how it can easily happen. HTH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

 

[SnooperDuper]

Yes you can incriminate yourself if you are innocent. There are some videos posted here on WS that explain how it can easily happen. HTH

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc

It can easily happen? Only if you follow step 1: move to the USA

At 5:20 in that video, "The Heart of the Problem" is revealed to be the complexity of the law in the US.

Surely the complexity of the law in the US is not a Canadian problem.

 

[SnooperDuper]

LE do not have superpowers, they can only work with available information. Their investigations are limited to available evidence, they cannot lawfully create evidence whenever it is needed. They do not always have information about what people are doing at certain times. Are you suggesting that there is surveillance for every move we ever make? It sometimes seems that way, but most of our lives at home and often at work we are not always monitored by electronic surveillance. JMO. I don't believe the crown prosecution service will be letting go of any accused at this stage of the game. They have no-one to replace them with and that could, in itself, bring about a lot of problems for them and for LE IMO.

<rsbm> I just wanted to reanswer this with a US case...the iPhone really kicked off the smartphone era in mid 2007. Not even two years later LE were using smartphone data as evidence:

PM was tracked by his Blackberry

His online trail did him in, police say. Investigators said they chased down "high-tech leads" and traced "IP addresses to physical locations" to snare Markoff in his own matrix.

It's easy to forget as long as we're available electronically we are visible and notable and loggable.

http://appscout.pcmag.com/news-events/272947-alleged-craigslist-killer-done-in-by-his-blackberry

Interestingly enough, this fellow was known as the "Craigslist Killer" in the US, vs. the "Kijiji Killers" thing the Sun came up with in Canada (Craigslist is more popular in the US and kijiji, Canada).

http://www.torontosun.com/2013/05/30/stolen-harley-found-on-property-of-accused-tim-bosma-killer

Like DM, PM came from a wealthy and accomplished family.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/cri...odel-julissa-brisman-custody-article-1.361215

Unfortunately PM, and likely DM, didn't understand how traceable you are on the latest gadgets.

 

[Juballee]

But what if your actual alibi is that you were home alone, it does no good to tell LE that, how is that going to help? Remember that old song, "Wake up Little Susie"? Sometimes a legitimate alibi is still not going to be believed by the right people.

What if your phone battery dies, is it still tracking you? I know it happens to my smart phone all the time. Then when the battery dies, it's hard to find because you can't just call it and listen for ringing.

If video surveillance and smart phone data were all it takes to convict someone of murder, than how easy would it be to borrow someone's truck, and secretly 'borrow' their cell phone, then drive their vehicle to commit a crime, with their cell phone tracking 'their' false whereabouts for you. Or, before you commit a crime, lend your phone to a friend going in the opposite direction. Unfortunately, like the now debunked hair sample evidence that has convicted countless people yet finally admitted to being less than 95% accurate, it's just too unreliable to use as a silent witness. All of this is my opinion only.

 

[swedie]

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

Do you know if LE didn't find LB's remains/body or any actual factual evidence? IIRC LE are not revealing any information as to what they have found to preserve that for trial. They do not want to taint potential jurors by giving information on evidence, giving the accused their right to a fair trial. If anything, I would say it's safe to assume they did find some of her ashes, as it's been mentioned many times in articles LE believe she met the same fate as TB. I've posted many links stating that recently. HTH. Of course LE have evidence and solid at that. The AG stated the Crown does so HTH.

Interesting to note, the Crown has applied for a direct indictment on LB's case, just as they did (and it was granted) on TB's case. IMO that leads me to think LE found direct evidence which will stand up in LB's case to prove the perp(s) guilt. No direct indictment was made for WM. :thinking: TWT.

BTW and respectfully, I'm glad it's just your opinion when you say it's ridiculous to charge someone without a body. Just think of all the murderers who would be out living the good life because victims' bodies were not found. What if little Tori's body hadn't been found by our outstanding Detective Smythe, under that pile of rocks? TLM and MR would be out roaming the streets, likely carrying out more abductions, brutal rapes and heinous murders of small, vulnerable, children. Sadly, it could be any one of our children or loved ones who could fall victim to such monsters. All MOO.

The ministry’s decision to approve the direct indictment, a first since she became attorney general earlier this year, is a sign of a solid case gathered by prosecutors, Madeleine Meilleur told reporters after question period Wednesday.
“I’m not going to speak about the case, but when this procedure is supported, it’s because there is good evidence that the person being accused will become convicted,” she said.

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

 

[Juballee]

The crown may have asked for a direct indictment for Laura, but as far as I have heard it was never granted. That was many, many months ago, I am sure that if it had be granted, we would have heard about it.

In my opinion, this leads me to believe the opposite, that there is not any direct evidence which could stand even the public scrutiny of the media. Maybe that's what DM is talking about that no one seemed to notice, that there doesn't seem to be any motive or evidence to prove that DM murdered LB other than a few phone calls. In my opinion there is more evidence suggesting that she ran away than that she was killed from what we have been privy to.

I feel that the AG would have had an even harder time showing the need for a direct indictment for WM since until fairly recently, police were convinced that his death was a suicide. If the evidence was there for a direct indictment, it sure as heck should have been there when they ruled it a suicide, but apparently it wasn't.

All of this is my opinion only.

 

[redheart]

I feel that the AG would have had an even harder time showing the need for a direct indictment for WM since until fairly recently, police were convinced that his death was a suicide. If the evidence was there for a direct indictment, it sure as heck should have been there when they ruled it a suicide, but apparently it wasn't.

All of this is my opinion only.

Snipped and BBM: Not at all. The evidence proving WM was murdered by his son DM could well have come from DM's own electronic footprint, which we know wasn't scrutinized until after he killed TB. IMO

 

[Kamille]

Snipped and BBM: Not at all. The evidence proving WM was murdered by his son DM could well have come from DM's own electronic footprint, which we know wasn't scrutinized until after he killed TB. IMO

It also helps to avoid a homicide investigation when there are no known friends or relatives who question why an animal activist and overall humble man would possess a gun and shoot himself in the head with it. Then again there may have been questions if anyone other than his son and his ex wife knew the truth about how he died. If WM had a sibling or any other close relative to speak on his behalf, I think that investigation would have gone a little differently. I'm sure the same evidence (and perhaps more) was there at the time of WM's death, there was just no one concerned enough to pressure LE to look for it. More likely there was someone there weaving a tale of depression and steering the investigation towards suicide.

I also understand that while the TPS may have closed the investigation, the coroner's office had not. So at least some official office was aware that something didn't seem right about that "suicide". It's still a problem that it was so easily disregarded by TPS based on their questioning of the victim's sole heir and that the coroner's office wasn't pressing for a thorough investigation though IMO.

Then again, perhaps some electronic or witness evidence came after the investigation was closed and someone thought they had gotten away with murder?

MOO