Laura Babcock: Dellen Millard & Mark Smich charged w/Murder in the First Degree #1

[Snoofo]

David Milgaard was charged and then convicted and spent 23 years wrongfully imprisoned for the death of Gail Miller. Just because one is charged doesn't mean LE must have been right. But back then there must have been lots of people ready to hang that other DM based on the charges against him.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[Variant]

David Milgaard was charged and then convicted and spent 23 years wrongfully imprisoned for the death of Gail Miller. Just because one is charged doesn't mean LE must have been right. But back then there must have been lots of people ready to hang that other DM based on the charges against him.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

Not very comparable in my opinion. Milgaard didn't have three murder charges against him, with others co-charged on some, and three different police forces investigating him with modern procedures in a widespread and publicly scrutinized investigation for over more than a year.

I expect some will continue to imply or even assert that LE are mistakenly, or perhaps wilfully, piling the charges on an innocent DM in this case.

But if DM should be presumed innocent at this time why not the co-charged too? I think anyone who truly believed in the presumption of innocence would support MS similarly as DM at this time, instead of trying to direct blame to MS for all of this.

 

[Arnie M]

David Milgaard was charged and then convicted and spent 23 years wrongfully imprisoned for the death of Gail Miller. Just because one is charged doesn't mean LE must have been right. But back then there must have been lots of people ready to hang that other DM based on the charges against him.

There is more to that story than often told in the media. Milgaard and his buddies were traveling across Canada doing drugs and break-ins

They were in the area of the murder , and out and about at the same time , thus they were questioned by police

They lied about everything , kept changing their stories , so it is not like LE was picking on the pure and innocent.

An injustice was done , but they brought a lot of it upon themselves right from the start.

 

[robynhood]

Thank you Arnie...you may have said above me...post #643 exactly what I was trying to say,,,BUt I feel the TRUTH shall RING thru our courts LOUD and clear as the TRUE evidence is seen. I believe this story has NOT been told as it is approaching our courts with a huge Publication ban...As Arnie posted there are so many different investigation forces involved...Let the TRUTH speak as no one else is ...the end for now ..robynhood.......................I would like to hear how DM defense is going to explain his innocence..hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?...Yes innocence on all 3 counts>>>>??????

 

[swedie]

rsbm



I don't read that as DM denied speaking with her at all. He admitted talking to her once or twice, just not eight times.

I'm always a little surprised to read that SL didn't know about the drugs, or the escort service, or the "sexual relationship" with DM until after he started looking for her.

JMO

No it doesn't say that in this particular article, but it has been stated in others. HTH.

Alethea Dice I am curious as to why you are surprised SL didn't know about LB's drug use and being an escort until he started searching for her. Maybe these things were something LB was doing out of desperation and possibly these actions were something she was ashamed of. JMO.

When the two men met for coffee the next day, Lerner said that Millard initially denied having spoken with Babcock. But after Lerner produced the phone bill from his bag, Lerner said that Millard changed his story, saying Babcock had contacted him looking for drugs. Lerner says he passed this information on to Woodhouse.

http://www.thegridto.com/city/local-news/the-mystery-of-dellen-millard/

The recently turned CEO of Millardair denied talking with Babcock, but when the boyfriend produced copies of the phone records, Millard admitted that he had spoken with Babcock, but, according to Millard, she had wanted drugs and a place to spend the night, both of which he refused.

http://www.examiner.com/article/dellen-millard-canada-s-latest-serial-killer

 

[Alethea Dice]

No it doesn't say that in this particular article, but it has been stated in others. HTH.

Alethea Dice I am curious as to why you are surprised SL didn't know about LB's drug use and being an escort until he started searching for her. Maybe these things were something LB was doing out of desperation and possibly these actions were something she was ashamed of. JMO.

<rsbm>

IMO, there's been a lot of shoddy reporting in this case, and a lot of conflicting information. This last article states it pretty specifically with the quoted comments. The way it's stated, I can see why there could be some misunderstanding by the various reporters and/or confusion in the way it's heard by the readers.

“First, he denies all the calls: ‘Maybe we spoke once or twice, but definitely not eight times.’ Flat-out denies it,” Mr. Lerner recalled.

He denies "all" the calls? Or he denies all but a couple? Without that second quote ("maybe we spoke once or twice"), it does leave the impression that he denied receiving any calls at all.

I choose to believe this last article because it actually quotes what was said. Either there has been misunderstanding or he is telling different things to different people. Maybe ABro could recheck the tape of her interview and clarify what exactly it was that he said in her meeting, and help to clarify this. Did he deny speaking to her, or did he deny speaking to her 8 times?

The second link you provided is just a mish-mash of information picked up from various other media linked to in the article. I don't consider it very reliable at all. It also says, "Lerner confronted Dellen Millard, who was known to allegedly have been in a relationship with Babcock prior to seeing Lerner." I'm pretty sure that isn't accurate.

As for your question, I find myself surprised because, if I had someone like that, who I had remained close with and could rely on, I would share that information with him. He would be that person that I knew I could always go to or lean on when I needed support. Even if I was ashamed, I would maybe hope that he would talk me out of it, show me that things weren't that desperate. That's just how it's always been between myself and my close friends.

JMO

 

[Snoofo]

Not very comparable in my opinion. Milgaard didn't have three murder charges against him, with others co-charged on some, and three different police forces investigating him with modern procedures in a widespread and publicly scrutinized investigation for over more than a year.

I expect some will continue to imply or even assert that LE are mistakenly, or perhaps wilfully, piling the charges on an innocent DM in this case.

But if DM should be presumed innocent at this time why not the co-charged too? I think anyone who truly believed in the presumption of innocence would support MS similarly as DM at this time, instead of trying to direct blame to MS for all of this.

I stand corrected. MS too.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

 

[ABro]

Lerner told me what he told the Globe except in slightly less detail.

That Globe quote looks to me exactly the type of thing people say in casual conversation.

Maybe Millard said he had no contact with Laura. Then when confronted with the bill, he said something like, oh yeah, now I remember maybe one or two calls but there's no way there were eight.

Lerner then characterizes that last part of the comment as flat out denial. Makes perfect sense to me.

As for other reports, I recall them saying Millard initially denied speaking to Laura and that the last eight calls she made were to him. Sometimes reporters just don't have the space to parse every single detail and I'm not sure that it really makes a difference in this case.

Surely the point is, according to Lerner's account, which is credible, Millard lied about contact with Laura during her final days. The bill and text messages back up Lerner's story.

 

[Variant]

<rsbm>

As for your question, I find myself surprised because, if I had someone like that, who I had remained close with and could rely on, I would share that information with him. He would be that person that I knew I could always go to or lean on when I needed support. Even if I was ashamed, I would maybe hope that he would talk me out of it, show me that things weren't that desperate. That's just how it's always been between myself and my close friends.

JMO

By various accounts LB was suffering from mental health issues. My experience as an intervenor with two different friends going through episodes of mental breakdown was that they could not rationalize or would not rely on help from friends and family, even when their relationships were wholesome and friendly prior to the episodes.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Lerner told me what he told the Globe except in slightly less detail.

That Globe quote looks to me exactly the type of thing people say in casual conversation.

Maybe Millard said he had no contact with Laura. Then when confronted with the bill, he said something like, oh yeah, now I remember maybe one or two calls but there's no way there were eight.

Lerner then characterizes that last part of the comment as flat out denial. Makes perfect sense to me.

As for other reports, I recall them saying Millard initially denied speaking to Laura and that the last eight calls she made were to him. Sometimes reporters just don't have the space to parse every single detail and I'm not sure that it really makes a difference in this case.

Surely the point is, according to Lerner's account, which is credible, Millard lied about contact with Laura during her final days. The bill and text messages back up Lerner's story.

Although I agree that SL's credibility isn't in question, and I understand that the different reporting can be the result of how something is said in casual conversation, I don't think we can be so sure that DM actually lied. The Globe and Mail claims to have obtained the text and his response to the first text was just "Heard about that, don’t know where she is.” When they met in person, he said ‘Maybe we spoke once or twice, but definitely not eight times.’ If he only answered two of those calls, we don't know if he knew she had called that often. If he didn't realize how often she had called, is it really a lie?

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

By various accounts LB was suffering from mental health issues. My experience as an intervenor with two different friends going through episodes of mental breakdown was that they could not rationalize or would not rely on help from friends and family, even when their relationships were wholesome and friendly prior to the episodes.

I'm sorry that your experience didn't have as positive a result as mine did. And yes, there were mental/emotional issues in my friend's situation as well, quite similar to LB's by the sound of it.

It's also unfortunate that LB did feel she could go to him for help on June 26th, when he got her dinner and a room and loaned her his iPad. But for whatever reason, she didn't on July 2nd or 3rd, when she was making the flurry of calls to other people. Hindsight is 20/20.

JMO

 

[ArianeEmory]

David Milgaard was charged and then convicted and spent 23 years wrongfully imprisoned for the death of Gail Miller. Just because one is charged doesn't mean LE must have been right. But back then there must have been lots of people ready to hang that other DM based on the charges against him.

Sent using Tapatalk 2

I was intrigued so I did a quick google. Seems he was convicted based on the false testimony of a single person out for the reward money...in the justice system of 45 years ago. I have no idea how we can compare this to Dellen Millard, who had a dead man's body on his farm and the dead man's truck in his trailer, and a string of suspicious deaths and disappearances prior to that.

Meanwhile have been meaning to comment on this for a few days:

After Mr. Lerner sent three more texts pleading for information, Mr. Millard replied: “Doesn’t sum up into a text message, shall we grab a coffee later today or tomorrow?”

This pretty much screams to me that DM was realizing he had to do damage control and had settled on an in-person meeting, where he probably believed he would be better able to manipulate SL into believing his version of events. I'm sure he also played up Laura's bad lifestyle choices a bit for dramatic effect.

 

[Juballee]

I was intrigued so I did a quick google. Seems he was convicted based on the false testimony of a single person out for the reward money...in the justice system of 45 years ago. I have no idea how we can compare this to Dellen Millard, who had a dead man's body on his farm and the dead man's truck in his trailer, and a string of suspicious deaths and disappearances prior to that.

Meanwhile have been meaning to comment on this for a few days:



This pretty much screams to me that DM was realizing he had to do damage control and had settled on an in-person meeting, where he probably believed he would be better able to manipulate SL into believing his version of events. I'm sure he also played up Laura's bad lifestyle choices a bit for dramatic effect.

I guess that to some, meeting in person makes it seem like he had something to hide, but I imagine that if he had not met with SL in person that there would be twice as many people finding it more suspicious that he would refuse to meet with someone to possibly help out when a friend had gone missing.

 

[Alethea Dice]

I was intrigued so I did a quick google. Seems he was convicted based on the false testimony of a single person out for the reward money...in the justice system of 45 years ago. I have no idea how we can compare this to Dellen Millard, who had a dead man's body on his farm and the dead man's truck in his trailer, and a string of suspicious deaths and disappearances prior to that.

Meanwhile have been meaning to comment on this for a few days:



This pretty much screams to me that DM was realizing he had to do damage control and had settled on an in-person meeting, where he probably believed he would be better able to manipulate SL into believing his version of events. I'm sure he also played up Laura's bad lifestyle choices a bit for dramatic effect.

Since he was "clearly in a hurry" and their conversation lasted less than 5 minutes, I guess he didn't plan on spending too much time doing damage control or manipulating or talking about lifestyle choices.

I'm not sure why some are trying to compare the two DM cases. If I'm not mistaken, I believe Snoofo's comment was more directed to the belief that, if someone is charged, there must be ample proof of guilt, which simply is just not always the case.

JMO

 

[ABro]

Although I agree that SL's credibility isn't in question, and I understand that the different reporting can be the result of how something is said in casual conversation, I don't think we can be so sure that DM actually lied. The Globe and Mail claims to have obtained the text and his response to the first text was just "Heard about that, don’t know where she is.” When they met in person, he said ‘Maybe we spoke once or twice, but definitely not eight times.’ If he only answered two of those calls, we don't know if he knew she had called that often. If he didn't realize how often she had called, is it really a lie?

JMO

Unlike you, I don't believe for a second that he ever forgot he had spoken to Laura so, yes, "lied" is exactly the right word.

 

[Archangel7]

Unlike you, I don't believe for a second that he ever forgot he had spoken to Laura so, yes, "lied" is exactly the right word.

Yep. Plus who doesn't have caller ID or the ability to send/receive text after the party didn't answer the phone call or an answering machine? Many people call and if no answer immediately follow with text.

Regardless the recipient would know LB had attempted contact whether they spoke to LB on every calling attempt.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Unlike you, I don't believe for a second that he ever forgot he had spoken to Laura so, yes, "lied" is exactly the right word.

I didn't read that he forgot he spoke to her. I read that he said he spoke to her once or twice. But I'm fine with agreeing to disagree.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Yep. Plus who doesn't have caller ID or the ability to send/receive text after the party didn't answer the phone call or an answering machine? Many people call and if no answer immediately follow with text.

Regardless the recipient would know LB had attempted contact whether they spoke to LB on every calling attempt.

Unfortunately, we haven't been given the opportunity to view the text portion of the phone bill, only the calls. So we have no way of knowing if she followed up with a text. Only that she called about every 1/2 hour on that last day.

I can guarantee you that if I call my son and don't leave a message or a text, he will not even realize that I called. Our cell phone ringers are turned off if we're at work or busy. We don't check the list to see what calls we may or may not have missed. We only check our messages. If it was important, the person would have left a message or sent a text. I really don't think you can assume that the recipient would know of any attempted contacts if they were not available at the time and no message was left. Everyone's habits are different.

JMO

 

[Juballee]

Ever have someone who called you when you didn't really want to speak to them but they really wanted to speak to you? That is the pattern I see in those phone records, personally. Sure, maybe you answer the phone once or twice, but when you can see it isn't getting anywhere, you stop answering the phone, you stop replying to their texts, you probably even turn your phone off and later ignore every prompt for a missed call or text from that number, if it is annoying enough. Or is that just me?

 

[Sillybilly]

After Mr. Lerner sent three more texts pleading for information, Mr. Millard replied: &#8220;Doesn&#8217;t sum up into a text message, shall we grab a coffee later today or tomorrow?&#8221;

If DM was that busy to only spend 5 mins with SL in a face-to-face, what did DM have to say during that brief meeting that "wouldn't sum up into a text message"?

JMO, but he bought himself some time to think, the info he had to share was minimal (whether factual or not) and could have easily been put into a text. I feel he was avoiding putting anything in writing.