Babcock Murder Trial - Weekend Discussion #4

[XFP]

I agree, completely- and I'll give further reasoning why.

When MM gave her statement to police after MS was originally arrested and charged, LB wasn't even on their radar. Only TB. She was likely only questioned about her knowledge of a truck theft and a murder relating to it. This could have likely been her only statement to police. Later on, as the investigation opened up to LB's disappearance, it's very plausible that she would miss news coverage of it. I can't even tell you the amount of people I know who have never even heard of DM, MS, TB, and certainly not LB, who was reported on disproportionately less than TB. And my friends are all quite progressive and educated and watch the news... It's easy to miss things.

Secondly, it's not unreasonable that she misunderstood the question. When she's asked "before this trial, had you ever heard of her?" maybe she misinterprets the word "trial". Maybe she means "before this investigation" or "before charges were laid in her death" or "before all this". On the contrary, maybe she didn't misunderstand the question, and the first time she's heard of LB was in fact, this trial. If you even meet with a crown attorney AT ALL to prepare, you only do so a day before or the morning of your testimony. I know this from first hand experience testifying in a trial.

And lastly, I'm just reluctant to call her a liar at all. You may all have your opinions about her, she may come across as uneducated, naive, young, aloof, etc. but liar just doesn't strike me. She has no real reason to lie about this. If she knew Laura; had met her or heard of her, she would have just said so. It doesn't implement her in LB's disappearance or murder in any way. And she's admitted to far worse things already. It's so incredibly plausible that their paths never crossed.

If I was a jury member, I wouldn't have any reason to believe MM lied in her testimony. She answered the questions that were asked to my satisfaction. I don't know anyone interested in this case, not in my bookclub, my fitness club, my work environment, my neighbours - which is why I joined Websleuths. When I read through the thread I look at everyone's opinion as if they were sitting with me in a jury room. I look for rational opinions and help in sorting out the flow of evidence. Everyone brings new insight to the thought process and that helps all of us form an opinion. There are gaps in some of the evidence, but in my opinion, whether RB was angry or MM lied are not issues I would spend much time debating.

 

[Woodland]

They are all lying to some degree. Telling only enough truth to keep themselves from getting arrested in all this. SS, MM, AM. If AM testifies, he will not spill anything BAM ... it will be minor in nature and just enough to ensure he stays out of prison. These people have zero moral compass.

Should TPS be added to this list? They lied to the public in 2013 (see the 4 Jun 2013 press conference - Carbone was just the messenger imo) and are not, or not being made to take the stand now so it will remain buried. Same thing?

 

[Errrr]

I had forgotten about this point. Thank you for posting this as it only strengthens my opinion of MM. If AM testifies it should be interesting.

All MOO.

If he does, you will probably be disappointed because they won't ask him that. It isn't important. There are things that do seem to be important that have not been asked yet. MOO

 

[XFP]

Slightly concerned what the jury will think about the lack of LE involvement between the time LB went missing and the time a homicide investigation began and when charges were laid.

Imo the Crown owes it to LB's family, SL and the community at large to admit that TPS ignored/shelved any info that LB suddenly dropped off the grid.

If I was on the jury, I would feel sad the Laura's disappearance wasn't more important to LE, but that wouldn't impact my work of sorting through the evidence and applying the verdict. I don't know enough about how the Crown would approach an apology because I'm sure that would require legal consideration - it's a cold harsh world and the Crown isn't going to implicate themselves in any liability beyond anything they may have already done (which I don't know).

 

[Errrr]

I know of a woman on trial for murder. She has been in an out of court for over a year but hasn't been convicted yet. Don't know when the final court day will be.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

Slightly concerned what the jury will think about the lack of LE involvement between the time LB went missing and the time a homicide investigation began and when charges were laid.

Imo the Crown owes it to LB's family, SL and the community at large to admit that TPS ignored/shelved any info that LB suddenly dropped off the grid.

Maybe they can say something after the trial (although they won't since they don't want to be sued) but wouldn't help get convictions so no way they say that during the trial.

 

[Woodland]

If I was on the jury, I would feel sad the Laura's disappearance wasn't more important to LE, but that wouldn't impact my work of sorting through the evidence and applying the verdict. I don't know enough about how the Crown would approach an apology because I'm sure that would require legal consideration - it's a cold harsh world and the Crown isn't going to implicate themselves in any liability beyond anything they may have already done (which I don't know).

To clarify my thought - by now the Crown is giving the appearance of shielding TPS. That's not their job (it's a choice imo) and what can the judge say to alleviate such thoughts prior to deliberations?

I would not like to be left wondering about where LE was at this point in the trial if I was on the jury - I would question what else the Crown is not coming out with that would help the jury. I thought the Crown started out okay by not saying anything regarding the lack of LE involvement for the first year LB was missing, but find it too obvious now - so much so it may not help their case. Jmo.

Not aware that an apology by a government agency requires legal consideration. Maybe it does - they seem pretty shielded from so much as it is imo. Would not find the Crown to be implicating themselves in anything by apologizing for TPS - TPS should be willing to do this via a statement to the court or even by putting one of them on the stand and weather the storm.

It hurts everyone going forward. Jmo.

 

[Sphinx]

brightii, I agree with what you said. It would be believable she did not meet her, but knew about her I think she did. MM knew about her and he was around MM all the time and I don't believe he did not discuss Laura. Also about the rap, I am sure MM asked MS about the rap, it was a weird rap and almost 99.9% she asked for the lyrics.
she was playing dumb. She told the truth about what she wanted and lied about what she wanted to.
If she would have told the full truth it might be a big help to convict MS.
It makes me wonder why she still wants to protect him. she knows he is a murderer so why not tell the whole and let him be convicted of another murder if he deserves it.
I think for some sick reason she is still protecting him. Which to me shows she has not learned much from her involvement in these heinous crimes, and it makes me think my thoughts about her have always been right.
I seriously doubt and there is always a small chance she would let what happened to change her but looks to me like it has not.

I remember reading that MS wanted MM to become a stripper, and she did not want that.

In light of the fact that LB had done some stripping online for money, I wonder if MS would have told MM that was an option, and showed her a video of LB performing, or maybe even had her meet LB and talk to her, as part of the attempt to convince MM that this was easy, safe, and something she could do to make significant money ?

IMO

 

[brightii]

I remember reading that MS wanted MM to become a stripper, and she did not want that.

In light of the fact that LB had done some stripping online for money, I wonder if MS would have told MM that was an option, and showed her a video of LB performing, or maybe even had her meet LB and talk to her, as part of the attempt to convince MM that this was easy, safe, and something she could do to make significant money ?

IMO

Now that MM has testified, she is on the record of having no knowledge of LB, so I think it's highly unlikely that she will change her position and enlighten us further even if your suggestions were true, IMO.

It would have been interesting to hear MM's response as to whether or not she knew or had heard of Elle Ryan. I imagine MM would answer she did not, but who knows?

It is my opinion that those who were involved with DM and/or MS only answer honestly to things which they either knew or suspected LE might have had proof of, IMO.

I think of how many in-person or phone conversations between all of these people that did not get committed to text or video, and I cannot help but feel there is so much more relevant information to all three trials that we - and more importantly, the jury(s) - will never know.

All MOO.

 

[NoodlesMcgee]

To clarify my thought - by now the Crown is giving the appearance of shielding TPS. That's not their job (it's a choice imo) and what can the judge say to alleviate such thoughts prior to deliberations?

I would not like to be left wondering about where LE was at this point in the trial if I was on the jury - I would question what else the Crown is not coming out with that would help the jury. I thought the Crown started out okay by not saying anything regarding the lack of LE involvement for the first year LB was missing, but find it too obvious now - so much so it may not help their case. Jmo.

Not aware that an apology by a government agency requires legal consideration. Maybe it does - they seem pretty shielded from so much as it is imo. Would not find the Crown to be implicating themselves in anything by apologizing for TPS - TPS should be willing to do this via a statement to the court or even by putting one of them on the stand and weather the storm.

It hurts everyone going forward. Jmo.

The jury is supposed to look at evidence presented, not the stuff that isn't and then guess at it. They shouldn't be guessing why TPS isn't testifying anymore thab they should be guessing why the police were searching DM and MS property months before they were charged with this crime.

 

[XFP]

Maybe they can say something after the trial (although they won't since they don't want to be sued) but wouldn't help get convictions so no way they say that during the trial.

I believe this still applies, "Section 649 of the Criminal Code makes it an offence for a juror to disclose “any information relating to the proceedings of the jury when it was absent from the courtroom that was not subsequently disclosed in open court.”
Which means jurors will not discuss anything after the trial. This is an older article on it, there are likely more recent ones you can research.
http://nationalpost.com/opinion/allan-rouben-let-the-jurors-talk

 

[Grey-St]

Now that MM has testified, she is on the record of having no knowledge of LB, so I think it's highly unlikely that she will change her position and enlighten us further even if your suggestions were true, IMO.

It would have been interesting to hear MM's response as to whether or not she knew or had heard of Elle Ryan. I imagine MM would answer she did not, but who knows?

It is my opinion that those who were involved with DM and/or MS only answer honestly to things which they either knew or suspected LE might have had proof of, IMO.

I think of how many in-person or phone conversations between all of these people that did not get committed to text or video, and I cannot help but feel there is so much more relevant information to all three trials that we - and more importantly, the jury(s) - will never know.

All MOO.

Those close to DM and MS, whether they were questioned by police or are witnesses in these trials, likely answer questions to the best of their abilities. The problem is LE and crown attorneys can’t possibly ask questions about things they *don't* know. I agree with you, and think it’s fair to say that there’s a lot we don’t know as it it pertains to these trials, and beyond. What we don’t know, is something that often looms above my head.

This question was actually posed on another social media platform and generated a lot of discussion and interesting theories. We know they were thieving and running a chop shop, we’ve heard of some small time drug dealing and tricky scales, but honestly, what else? For me, my mind often wanders to these questions:

- Why was SS building secret compartments in the van? To me it speaks to trafficking of either drugs or guns.
- Why was DM stalking some kid in Woodbridge, finding out what car he drives?
- What went down that weekend in London, Ontario with Say10 and Dman?
- What was the actual, bigger, intended purpose of the incinerator?
- Do we think LE have given up investigating DM and MS as they are already serving life sentences? Could they still be digging into their “criminal enterprise”, or other missing persons cases?

Last question, have I lost my mind?

 

[Georgeo]

<modsnip>

Would you mind explaining please? Would like to understand.

 

[Ms.elle]

Really? I don't know. I'm just not sure they would call her after her last performance. She's a known, yet unknown quantity. You can't trust what will come out of that mouth of hers. I would worry she could blow things up for the Crown.

Love to see it though. She certainly was entertaining last time around although horribly disrespectful and vacuous. A real piece of work.

MOO

I think she'll be a whole lot more cooperative now that she's no longer facing her own charges.

 

[Nakasaka]

found this:
rain = slang term for PCP or dipper ([FONT=&quot]cigarette dipped into PCP)[/FONT]
PCP = Phencyclidine - street name: PeaCe Pill or Angel Dust
https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=rain&page=2

 

[brightii]

Those close to DM and MS, whether they were questioned by police or are witnesses in these trials, likely answer questions to the best of their abilities. The problem is LE and crown attorneys can&#8217;t possibly ask questions about things they *don't* know. I agree with you, and think it&#8217;s fair to say that there&#8217;s a lot we don&#8217;t know as it it pertains to these trials, and beyond. What we don&#8217;t know, is something that often looms above my head.

This question was actually posed on another social media platform and generated a lot of discussion and interesting theories. We know they were thieving and running a chop shop, we&#8217;ve heard of some small time drug dealing and tricky scales, but honestly, what else? For me, my mind often wanders to these questions:

- Why was SS building secret compartments in the van? To me it speaks to trafficking of either drugs or guns.
- Why was DM stalking some kid in Woodbridge, finding out what car he drives?
- What went down that weekend in London, Ontario with Say10 and Dman?
- What was the actual, bigger, intended purpose of the incinerator?
- Do we think LE have given up investigating DM and MS as they are already serving life sentences? Could they still be digging into their &#8220;criminal enterprise&#8221;, or other missing persons cases?

Last question, have I lost my mind?

Grey-St, if you've lost your mind, I think you're in good company as many people are driven to distraction by trying to figure out the motivations and missing details of DM and/or MS's crimes, so you're not alone, IMO.

My frustration with many of the DM/MS associates is because I don't find them trustworthy and therefore I find it hard to sift through whatever they state as reliable and it is hard for me to feel confident that they are telling the truth - the whole truth. IMO it would have been far better had any of them offered up more information willingly about DM and/or MS but I always get the sense that they hold back in an effort to protect themselves and/or one or both accused.

When in contrast I think of SL, LB's ex, he is a shining example of someone who risked a lot by opening himself (as an ex bf might be considered a prime suspect) to scrutiny by LE and yet despite that risk, SL pushed hard for TPS to investigate further LB's disappearance. SL IMO had a clear conscience whereas several of DM and/or MS's other associates were up to no good in one way or another IMO and would not likely want to deal with LE and endure LE's questions about their lives even in light of LB being missing, in possible peril, or worse.

As for whether or not LE in any jurisdiction have been or are currently investigating any other possible crimes related to DM and/or MS, I have no idea.

All MOO.

 

[Ms.elle]

Smich texts Millard: "R u here or did u dip?" Babcock Day 13: Falconer testimony
Jul 3 2:53 pm Smich texts Millard: "It's raining
Babcock Day 13: Falconer testimony
Jul 3 3:09 pm Millard texts Smich: "how bout the white & brown paint over the side entrance? no rain there

Appears to be another coded text....I checked historical toronto weather frcst - there were no rain on july 3 .. partly cloudy with temp around 24/27C....
Any thoughts anyone?

I actually remember the last week of June and first week of July 2012 very well because of some personal drama that was unfolding at the time and that has subsequently been rehashed over and over again.

Specifically I remember that July 3/4 were the kind of days that weren't super humid but were really gorgeously sunny so it felt hotter out than it was. I don't remember every second of either day. but I remember them well enough to tell you basically what I did, where I went, who I talked to and what I was wearing. so yeah, definitely wasn't raining.

 

[Jilleybeen]

Re: whether or not MM knew who LB was from MSM. I'm an almost 40 y.o. female living in Manitoba. Not only can I not name 3 recent missing women from the GTA, I can't name 3 missing women from around here. I can name one.

And I don't think DM would've been talking about his side ladies in front of her.

 

[Ms.elle]

Maybe they can say something after the trial (although they won't since they don't want to be sued) but wouldn't help get convictions so no way they say that during the trial.

There's a statute of limitations for how long SL and Laura's family have to sue police. typically it would be 2 years from when you discover you have a potential claim against another party. As far as I know there aren't any special rules for suing the police that would change that timeframe.

 

[Errrr]

Would you mind explaining please? Would like to understand.

The term "trial" is not necessarily accepted as a description of the day of the trial. It is very often a long process beginning from arrest. Nobody questioned my usage of it.