Babcock Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #2

[Errrr]

I saw a case in Ontario where a kid was convicted of m1. He gave some friends info on his neighbor having cash at home
They came killed the neighbor and kid got m1

Colin Thatcher arranged for his wife's killing and was convicted of murder. Charles Manson is not known to have actually killed anyone.

 

[Oreck]

I have a question regarding evidence gathered.
We know that a great deal of evidence was gathered in the months following the TB murder and arrest of both DM and MS. For the sake of of my inquiry ONLY and not insinuating at all that this happened...what if: They collected a blood sample, a hair sample and say a fingerprint that turned out not to be a match to anyone associated with the TB trial. 1) Where does that evidence go? 2) how long is it kept?
Then..
We now have them investigating LB disappearance a few months later and these 2 are possible suspects. 1) Is LE allowed to go back into that evidence that is now in their possession to apply tests to see if it ties in with LB at their own will? or would they require a search warrant of some kind again to be allowed to test it for their new reasons?? Thanks in advance for any insight you can share.

I have questions along those lines also,
If LE comes up with a strange finding, be it odd dna or print or informant's tip, no matter how obscure, are they obliged to share it with the defense, or do they only talk to the prosecutors.

 

[swedie]

Yes that is because of the way LE treated her while searching the home. IIRC a complaint was filed against LE about how they treated her but the judge dismissed it.


Sent from my SM-T320 using Tapatalk

I don't recall this CG, do you by chance have a link? You're not confusing RWilliams' wife Mary filling a claim against LE for scratching her floors are you? But in her case she was cut a cheque from the OPP. MOO.

She complained that detectives scratched her hardwood floors, leading the Ontario Provincial Police to cut her a cheque for $3,000.
http://www.macleans.ca/news/canada/her-only-crime-was-trusting-him/

 

[deugirtni]

While Sharlene was an eyewitness to DM and MS getting in the truck just before TB was killed, she testified she was unable to positively identify either accused; she gave general descriptions, mostly of DM, and said she didn't get a good look at MS, because he was wearing a red hoodie that covered most of his face; she described him as "sketchy." You may be thinking of the agreed-upon statement of fact that MS admitted to being a passenger when IT took them for a test drive the day before. IT *did* positively identify MS from a photo lineup.

As for someone's question about whether you can be convicted of M1 if you aren't physically there -- yes, you certainly can. In such convictions, the absentee killer is part of the planning and may even have arranged the homicide, or paid/convinced someone else to do it for him. Think back to the Peter Demeter case. He had an ironclad alibi for his wife's murder, but he had hired a hit man (who has never been found) and he got M1 . From prison he tried to arrange a few more hits on people who he had a grudge with! He will die in prison, where he has been for 40+ years.

We can't know what specific evidence convinced the jury in the TB case, as they are never allowed to reveal any content of their discussions. They can talk about their feelings, reactions etc. but nothing to do with their deliberations. Also,the different jurors don't need to agree on what the determinative evidence is, only on the verdict, which each may come to via a different path.

Everything I'm reading about Demeter suggests he was convicted of 'arranging', 'conspiracy to commit', 'hiring', 'procuring', etc.
One example (of many): "Peter Demeter, who was convicted of conspiring to have wife Christine murdered in 1974 has spent the last 33 years in jail."
https://www.ourwindsor.ca/news-stor...-one-of-mississauga-s-most-notorious-killers/

Also: "In 1974, Demeter was given his first prison sentence for arranging the July 18, 1973 murder of his wife, Christine, after taking out a $1 million life insurance policy in her name.".....
https://www.thestar.com/yourtoronto...on-a-city-the-evil-life-of-peter-demeter.html

 

[deugirtni]

The Prosecution didn't ask that question because they knew from the police interviews that they couldn't get the answer they wanted.

Then why wouldn't each of the defence lawyers have asked the question?

 

[deugirtni]

And then again...may have dropped off MS who plugged his phone in to charge and left it at his mom's, and he may have gotten back into DM's car to continue.

LB was probably dead, but could have been drugged and shot at the farm. Or could have been folded up into a suitcase for all we know . SPECULATION

Really, so many possibilities... if one doesn't rush to make assumptions? DM could have also dropped MS off and then gone to the farm and killed her, all by his lonesome.

The mattress testimony will hopefully be interesting? Are they only basing it on that DM purchased a new one which had to be delivered immediately, or is there also evidence of what happened with the mattress to necessitate the purchase of a new one? I'm assuming DM would've been fine to sleep without his mattress for a couple of days, so also assuming that perhaps one of his gf's was scheduled to come by the house, and it would've caused too many questions for him to have no mattress... so which gf was it? When did she come to the house, and what did she notice/know? Where was dad in all of this?

 

[musicaljoke]

Then why wouldn't each of the defence lawyers have asked the question?

Rule of thumb - never ask a question for which you are uncertain of the forthcoming answer.

A defence lawyer wouldn't ask, "Did LB have a red Roots bag with her when you saw her last?" The response potentially could be, "Why, yes! Now that you mention it, that's exactly what I saw! "

 

[deugirtni]

Rule of thumb - never ask a question for which you are uncertain of the forthcoming answer.

A defence lawyer wouldn't ask, "Did LB have a red Roots bag with her when you saw her last?" The response potentially could be, "Why, yes! Now that you mention it, that's exactly what I saw! "

Did any of the lawyers ask any of the witnesses to describe the luggage?

 

[beedais]

I have questions along those lines also,
If LE comes up with a strange finding, be it odd dna or print or informant's tip, no matter how obscure, are they obliged to share it with the defense, or do they only talk to the prosecutors.

LE only "talks" to the crown. Any information the crown has MUST be handed over to the defence lawyers. If a witness goes and talks to the crown the morning of their testimony with new information the crown must immediately pass that on to the defence.

All info the crown has the defence must have otherwise the accused are not being given their right to a fair trial and their right to "test" the case against them.

Edit: the defence also has the right to request (read demand) further disclosure that is not presented. IE blood samples were taken from the accused but are not being used as evidence (due to not a match or inconclusive). Knowing those samples were taken the defence asks for the information in regards to that so they can use the inconclusive or no match evidence in their defence. Same with interviews of witnesses or other suspects etc.

 

[mimimic]

Will DM have to explain in anyway why their phones were travelling together?(and why he remembers a different color bag)

 

[Just4TB]

Will DM have to explain in anyway why their phones were travelling together?(and why he remembers a different color bag)

DM is not compelled to answer any questions as it stands now. Unless he decides to testify in his own defense, in which case, another lawyer would ask pre-arranged questions of him during this testimony.
And he would open himself up to cross examination by Crown and Dungey, and then would be compelled to answer / explain phones if asked.

 

[Inspector_North]

Will DM have to explain in anyway why their phones were travelling together?(and why he remembers a different color bag)

If this takes the same twists and turns as the TB trial, once the forensic evidence and possibly the star witnesses take the stand, this point in the trial has a lot of red herrings.

I wonder if the Crown have the same strategy in mind as the TB trial with respect to the witness order?

TB trial
first witnesses with information, but not directly linked. Like the Uncle, Eliminator manufacturer, Igor, etc.
then, forensic evidence
and finally star witnesses like AM, members of the hole in the head gang, the mechanic, and of course CN.

IMO

 

[deugirtni]

DM is not compelled to answer any questions as it stands now. Unless he decides to testify in his own defense, in which case, another lawyer would ask pre-arranged questions of him during this testimony.
And he would open himself up to cross examination by Crown and Dungey, and then would be compelled to answer / explain phones if asked.

and open himself up to reporting past criminal convictions.

 

[palisadesk]

Everything I'm reading about Demeter suggests he was convicted of 'arranging', 'conspiracy to commit', 'hiring', 'procuring', etc.
One example (of many): "Peter Demeter, who was convicted of conspiring to have wife Christine murdered in 1974 has spent the last 33 years in jail."

Yes, exactly. Conspiring, arranging, procuring are all subsets of the key element in first-degree murder: planning. As someone else pointed out, the Thatcher case was very similar. To be convicted, the accused does not need to have been physically present or operative in the actual killing, but s/he must have been involved in the planning, either as the principal or as a collaborator.

OTOH, if a person simply has knowledge of a murder but wasn't involved and doesn't report it, that is not technically a crime. Often the spouse/partner of a murderer is in such a situation. LE ask for anyone with relevant knowledge to come forward, but often such persons do not, for fear of reprisal.

 

[winter2017]

If they can't prove that MS was in with DM to plan the murder but he helped with disposing of a body, it would be an accessory to a murder I think. He is not charged with being an accessory so must be proof he was part of murdering her.

 

[gremlingrrl]

Does anyone else remember something about one of the gun pics having been sent to CN in a text message? This would have come up in the TB trial.... but I'm questioning my memory. Does this ring familiar to anyone else? IIRC, it would have been the gun pic that was partially blacked out.

 

[JuneBug67]

He did send a gun pic to CN, though my memory is that it might have been the one they got the fingerprint from. If it was the other one, I think the blacked out portion was a second gun. Either way, could this have been a demonstration of his intention to take care of the LB problem? Horrible thought.

 

[JuneBug67]

The most unusual case of conferred murder I’ve ever seen involved a small group of unarmed teens who broke into an Indiana home with the intention of burglarizing it. The homeowner was home, and shot one of the teens. The other teens, including one that stayed outside as a lookout, were charged and convicted of murder. The homeowner faced no charges. In another more recent case, a getaway car driver was charged with the murder of her three partners in crime who died in similar circumstances. The premise is that you’re responsible if somebody dies during the commission of a felony you’re involved in.

 

[JuneBug67]

Found a reference to the picture sent to CN. It was the photo that was partially blacked out as gremlingrrl recalled:

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/...photos-of-guns-in-tim-bosma-murder-trial.html

 

[inbetweendoors]

Found a reference to the picture sent to CN. It was the photo that was partially blacked out as gremlingrrl recalled:

https://www.thestar.com/news/crime/...photos-of-guns-in-tim-bosma-murder-trial.html

But we don't know what is beneath the blocked out portion, correct?

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk