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

Status
Not open for further replies.
  • #941
... And yet LE officially say that they found no trace of her on the farm ...
<rsbm>

Do you have a link to them saying that after the second search?

I know TPS said that after their first search in May, but they searched again in September based on new information. The pic of the officer with the plank beside the forensic ID van was taken during the September search.

June 4 2013
http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/0...ng-woman-laura-babcock-through-phone-records/

Carbone said police found no evidence in relation to Babcock&#8217;s disappearance at the property.

search in September 2013
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4072830-laura-babcock-s-uncle-pleads-for-answers-at-millard-farm/
 
  • #942
Re: Plank .... the stain looks like oil .... discussed here ...

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...r-in-the-First-Degree&p=10822789#post10822789

Probably the only reason folks focus on it is because there was a picture in the news .... same as the barrels .... nothing came of it (no evidence of LB) .... lots of other things removed from farm ... drill press etc .... in the end I'm sure LE said no evidence of LB was in the barn

It is a dead subject that keeps being revived for no practical purpose
 
  • #943
Re: Plank .... the stain looks like oil .... discussed here ...

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...r-in-the-First-Degree&p=10822789#post10822789

Probably the only reason folks focus on it is because there was a picture in the news .... same as the barrels .... nothing came of it (no evidence of LB) .... lots of other things removed from farm ... drill press etc .... in the end I'm sure LE said no evidence of LB was in the barn

It is a dead subject that keeps being revived for no practical purpose

Board or no board, I recall LE saying the barrels weren't relevant, but I do not recall them saying no evidence was found after the second search. That's why I asked the OP for a link to that effect.

It's not a dead subject if people are still talking about it ;)
 
  • #944
September 20 2013
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/toronto/millard-farm-search-is-inconclusive/article14430330/

Police who searched murder suspect Dellen Millard&#8217;s farm last week have so far found &#8220;no significant connection&#8221; to a missing Toronto woman, but the head of the city&#8217;s homicide squad said objects taken from the property still need to be forensically examined.

&#8220;I&#8217;m not aware of anything [from the farm] that leads us to Laura Babcock&#8217;s disappearance,&#8221; Staff Inspector Greg McLane told The Globe and Mail Thursday. &#8220;However, there are some things we need to further investigate that were found there to see if there&#8217;s a connection.&#8221; &#8230;

&#8230; Staff Insp. McLane said items taken last week from the Kitchener-area property must be examined to establish whether there&#8217;s a link to Ms. Babcock, but he wouldn&#8217;t say what exactly police had retrieved.

&#8220;We need to look at some things forensically, and if there&#8217;s a connection, then there&#8217;s a connection, and if there&#8217;s not, there&#8217;s not,&#8221; he said. &#8220;We&#8217;re going to do everything in our power to try to establish her whereabouts.&#8230; At this point in time, we don&#8217;t have the answers.&#8221;

Laura Babcock&#8217;s mother said Toronto police called her after their search culminated Friday to let her know they hadn&#8217;t found anything pertaining to her daughter &#8211; a welcome update for a family that waits anxiously by the phone for news of their vivacious loved one.

Note: LB's family was told on Friday that nothing was found, but at a later presser LE are saying there is evidence found that still needed to be forensically examined.

Less than 2 weeks later, the case was turned over to Major Case Management

October 3 2013
http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/201...s_to_dellen_millard_added_to_joint_probe.html

after establishing an &#8220;investigative link&#8221; between the three cases

I&#8217;m not being persnickety &#8230; I just can&#8217;t find where TPS later said there was no evidence related to LB found at the farm. It may exist .. I just can&#8217;t find it and I don&#8217;t recall it. I'm old :(
 
  • #945
SB is likely a Crown witness, and that would imho be a very likely reason for her visiting the Crown's office.

Isn't the onus on the prosecution to provide what they are claiming is truth? Didn't I read somewhere that SB was seen going into the crowns office? If SB is given information on the case then imo it would be fair that LB's family should be given information too. It is just a presumption that SB was going into crowns office to be updated, but I can't see any other reason for her doing so.IMO
 
  • #946
It is possible that someone (potential witness to some aspect) came forward to LE with evidence/knowledge of/statement regarding LB and perhaps her demise, and it is possible that someone could be a reputable source with a statement that perhaps can be backed up with either concrete evidence or circumstantial evidence or both, and perhaps that is what led to their second search of the Ayr property, of which we are not privvy to their findings.

As far as I understand it, once an accused is arrested, LE are not at liberty to discuss a case with victims' families (or anyone else) and a case is turned over to the Crown's office, and families get assistance and information through victim support services. I read something recently (but I am not able to find it now after much searching!!) which was very informative about how people tend to believe that LE and the prosecution are working for the victims, when in fact they are not, they are working for the Crown and 'the people'. It does seem cruel, but it seems that hands may be tied in providing much information to the families. So I suppose what they are waiting for, is the trial when all of the evidence can be laid out. Also, LB was an adult, living on her own, and apparently living a life her parents knew nothing about. I would think there might also be privacy considerations in how much they can share with her family? MOO

There is already so much tragedy in this case, I really can't understand why LE haven't kept Laura's poor family better informed. To me it seems like an unnecessary cruelty to keep them wondering if LE are sure. What are LE waiting for, more evidence? Are they afraid that if they tell Laura's family, that they will share the information? Surely the lawyers for the accused have received the evidence that will be used against them to prove that they murdered LB, so why is it that the accused have more right to information than the family of the victim? Do they not trust the Babcock's with the information, or do they not trust the information itself?
 
  • #947
It is possible that someone (potential witness to some aspect) came forward to LE with evidence/knowledge of/statement regarding LB and perhaps her demise, and it is possible that someone could be a reputable source with a statement that perhaps can be backed up with either concrete evidence or circumstantial evidence or both, and perhaps that is what led to their second search of the Ayr property, of which we are not privvy to their findings.

As far as I understand it, once an accused is arrested, LE are not at liberty to discuss a case with victims' families (or anyone else) and a case is turned over to the Crown's office, and families get assistance and information through victim support services. I read something recently (but I am not able to find it now after much searching!!) which was very informative about how people tend to believe that LE and the prosecution are working for the victims, when in fact they are not, they are working for the Crown and 'the people'. It does seem cruel, but it seems that hands may be tied in providing much information to the families. So I suppose what they are waiting for, is the trial when all of the evidence can be laid out. Also, LB was an adult, living on her own, and apparently living a life her parents knew nothing about. I would think there might also be privacy considerations in how much they can share with her family? MOO

I don't think privacy can be expected once one is dead. Wills become public. When someone is dead they have no rights as such, as they don't exist, except for respect of the corpse. I could be wrong.

Anything is possible at this stage of the game in this case. I agree, the crown could pull in witnesses, but so could the defense ! The prosecution are working for the Crown as you say, and the Crown works for the government.
 
  • #948
duplicate
 
  • #949
Laura Babcock's parents were informed that murder charges were being laid before it was made public just as Sharlene Bosma was told in advance about the accessory charges against Christina Noudga.

[modsnip]
 
  • #950
MSM said this:

The province's coroner's office says it has never opened an investigation into the Laura Babcock murder, something it would do if remains were found in Ontario.

The provincial coroner&#8217;s office has never handled the remains of Laura Babcock.

Police have kept whether her body has been recovered secret from her family. However, the province&#8217;s coroner investigates any death by suspected homicide and would be involved if Babcock&#8217;s remains were found in the province.

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

So no investigation was opened by the coroner's office because no remains were found. If remains were found, I'm sure LE would have returned them to the B family after the coroner was finished with them. Although those things did not happen, they do not preclude other evidence, even DNA evidence which may not be enough to be considered 'remains'. It doesn't say the coroner has no record of her death, I'm sure the coroner's office is aware of this case. At this point in time, it is a belief that must be declared by a court or proven in a court beyond a reasonable doubt.

And from your quote below:

Where a coroner has reason to believe that a death has occurred in circumstances that warrant the holding of an inquest

So the coroner I would presume, does not believe circumstances warrant the holding of an inquest at this point. Do coroners call inquests into all murder cases? Aren't inquests called so that determinations can be made on how to prevent same type of deaths in future? What could they say, 'watch out who your 'friends' are'? 'don't get involved in drugs'? 'always let your family know what you're doing'?

And neither of those suggestions really have anything to do with the reasons LE have for believing that LB was murdered by DM and MS. We are not privvy to their reasons at this point. LE stated that they believe she was already dead by the time she was reported missing. If there is no body/remains on which to base time of death, that would lead one to imagine there could only be one explanation for how they arrived at that conclusion. And I'm sure that before laying charges, they would have backed that explanation up with additional circumstantial evidence.

I'm not sure when exactly the family was informed and what they were informed of, I was only saying that fine details would not likely be shared with the family since LB was an adult and living on her own and there are privacy considerations. It seems that for that reason, and perhaps also because LE believed LB to be involved somehow in the 'sex trade', and who knows, perhaps also because they knew about her mental health issues, they did not make it a priority to worry about her disappearance since no body had been found, or unidentified injured people showing up at a hospital, etc. There was no real indication that something sinister had happened to her at the point when she went missing. Adults are free to travel and not let anyone know where or who with or why or for how long.

Sorry to say deugirtni, you're mostly right about this. Sorry to say because it does seem that a great deal of stress has been placed on LB's family piling sorrow upon sorrow. We'd learned from MSM (somewhere) that there was some tough love going on in that family in their dealings with their daughter so, on top of everything else, their grief and guilt must be just terrible. But the fact is that support and information is provided to victim's families but only within a fairly restricted range - namely, to the spouse of a victim or to the parent or guardian of a child (both as defined by the Family Services Act of Ontario). Unfortunately LB's parents obviously do not fit in either category and as such, are not entitled to receive any details whatsoever. So it was that they first learned that police had determined that their daughter had been murdered when there was a televised press conference announcing that DM and MS had been so charged. And so it was that her uncle conducted his sad vigil at the Ayr farm last September, during the last LE investigation, hoping for any stray details about the death of his niece. And so it is that her family can have no access to information about what happened to their daughter or where she died or what happened to her remains until the trial, which may be a year or more from now. It may feel heartbreakingly insensitive but apparently "them's the rules". Prosecution, and certainly not police, are under no obligation to bring her parents into the loop, but they do have a responsibility to the spouse of TB.

Yet, at the same time the Coroner's report that they have no record of her death in Ontario is exceedingly curious.

According to the Coroner's Act of Ontario http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90c37_e.htm#BK14

Duty to give information
10. (1) Every person who has reason to believe that a deceased person died,
(a) as a result of,
(i) violence,
(ii) misadventure,
(iii) negligence,
(iv) misconduct, or
(v) malpractice;
(b) by unfair means;
(c) during pregnancy or following pregnancy in circumstances that might reasonably be attributable thereto;
(d) suddenly and unexpectedly;
(e) from disease or sickness for which he or she was not treated by a legally qualified medical practitioner;
(f) from any cause other than disease; or
(g) under such circumstances as may require investigation,
shall immediately notify a coroner or a police officer of the facts and circumstances relating to the death, and where a police officer is notified he or she shall in turn immediately notify the coroner of such facts and circumstances. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.37, s. 10 (1).
So, if these rules were followed by LE, then LB did not die in Ontario.

Also

Where body destroyed or removed from Ontario
21. Where a coroner has reason to believe that a death has occurred in circumstances that warrant the holding of an inquest but, owing to the destruction of the body in whole or in part or to the fact that the body is lying in a place from which it cannot be recovered, or that the body has been removed from Ontario, an inquest cannot be held except by virtue of this section, he or she shall report the facts to the Chief Coroner who may direct an inquest to be held touching the death, in which case an inquest shall be held by the coroner making the report or by such other coroner as the Chief Coroner directs, and the law relating to coroners and coroners&#8217; inquests applies with such modifications as are necessary in consequence of the inquest being held otherwise than on or after a view of the body. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.37, s. 21.

I think, if I were that poor girl's parents, I'd be insisting on an inquest in the loudest possible and most public terms. Regardless of the "rules" the rights of common decency, if nothing else, should allow them to be told what happened to their daughter and try to begin to come to grips with it without further delay, IMO. IMHO. MOO. They've become the shadow victims, with no rights, no access and no recourse. That's bloody terrible, if you ask me leaving them still hoping against hope that she may yet come walking through the door. IMO. MOO. IMHO. If, on the other hand, their denial has some basis in fact, then a request for an inquest might, at the very least, confirm that impossibility because the Coroner's office has not been informed of LB's death either in Ontario or anywhere else that has been designated by an Ontario LE.
 
  • #951
  • #952
So, if these rules were followed by LE, then LB did not die in Ontario.
<rsbm>

I don't think we can make that assumption. As I mentioned earlier, I find the response of the Coroner to be somewhat canned/contrived (specifically wrt the wording "remains" and "investigation" ... i.e. they did not say "we have not received a report/notification").

There's nothing to say that LE did not give notification / report to the Coroner that they believe LB is deceased. Without a body or at least partial remains, no autopsy can be done for a Coroner to make their own independent determination wrt COD, MOD. Consequently there is really nothing on which a Coroner can base an investigation or justify a subsequent Coroner's inquest.

Duty to give information

10. (1) Every person who has reason to believe that a deceased person died,

(a) as a result of,

(i) violence,

&#8230;.

shall immediately notify a coroner or a police officer of the facts and circumstances relating to the death, and where a police officer is notified he or she shall in turn immediately notify the coroner of such facts and circumstances. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.37, s. 10 (1).

....

Coroner&#8217;s investigation

15. (1) Where a coroner is informed that there is in his or her jurisdiction the body of a person and that there is reason to believe that the person died in any of the circumstances mentioned in section 10, the coroner shall issue a warrant to take possession of the body and shall examine the body and make such investigation as, in the opinion of the coroner, is necessary in the public interest to enable the coroner,

(a) to determine the answers to the questions set out in subsection 31 (1);

(b) to determine whether or not an inquest is necessary; and

(c) to collect and analyze information about the death in order to prevent further deaths in similar circumstances. 2009, c. 15, s. 7 (1).

from:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90c37_e.htm#BK14
 
  • #953
MSM said this:

So no investigation was opened by the coroner's office because no remains were found. If remains were found, I'm sure LE would have returned them to the B family after the coroner was finished with them. Although those things did not happen, they do not preclude other evidence, even DNA evidence which may not be enough to be considered 'remains'. It doesn't say the coroner has no record of her death, I'm sure the coroner's office is aware of this case. At this point in time, it is a belief that must be declared by a court or proven in a court beyond a reasonable doubt.

So still no dead body. Blood can escape the body as can other fluids without a body being dead. Will be an uphill battle trying to prove some saliva, blood or other body fluid was from a dead or soon to be dead body IMO, JMO

So the coroner I would presume, does not believe circumstances warrant the holding of an inquest at this point. Do coroners call inquests into all murder cases? Aren't inquests called so that determinations can be made on how to prevent same type of deaths in future? What could they say, 'watch out who your 'friends' are'? 'don't get involved in drugs'? 'always let your family know what you're doing'?

They actually could say ''don't get involved in drugs'' drugs being something LB has been accused of looking for, and which may, if she is deceased, caused her to be so, cue overdose. Also we dont know that this was a murder at this point. Still no body. Coroners could actually point out that LB was suffering from something that caused her to become deceased, if in fact she has, which is still a 'don't know' for me.

And neither of those suggestions really have anything to do with the reasons LE have for believing that LB was murdered by DM and MS. We are not privvy to their reasons at this point. LE stated that they believe she was already dead by the time she was reported missing. If there is no body/remains on which to base time of death, that would lead one to imagine there could only be one explanation for how they arrived at that conclusion. And I'm sure that before laying charges, they would have backed that explanation up with additional circumstantial evidence.

Right we have no reason to believe she is dead IMO at the moment and no reason to claim to know who has done it if she is. I realize there are charges against the accused but until the matter is heard we don't know the outcome. I know it is considered crazy to think that maybe charges will be proven wrong but that's why we have acquittals and appeals isn't it? I m sure LE have given the crown some ideas on what they think has happened and the crown has pieced together a scenario to pitch to the jury, along with suggested evidence, but at the end of it all we cant project what is going to happen. JMO

I'm not sure when exactly the family was informed and what they were informed of, I was only saying that fine details would not likely be shared with the family since LB was an adult and living on her own and there are privacy considerations. It seems that for that reason, and perhaps also because LE believed LB to be involved somehow in the 'sex trade', and who knows, perhaps also because they knew about her mental health issues, they did not make it a priority to worry about her disappearance since no body had been found, or unidentified injured people showing up at a hospital, etc. There was no real indication that something sinister had happened to her at the point when she went missing. Adults are free to travel and not let anyone know where or who with or why or for how long.

The privacy issues only relate to living people as the dead are no more and as such, have no rights as they do not exist. The last sentence explains that we are all supposed to be free to travel without notifying anyone of where we are going or for how long, that may well be where the situation still is. JMO
 
  • #954
There was no real indication that something sinister had happened to her at the point when she went missing. Adults are free to travel and not let anyone know where or who with or why or for how long.

What about the fact that she had filed assault and theft charges against her ex DA four months before her disappearance? Or the fact that a missing report said she may have bruises and cuts on her arms and stomach? Or the shoebox full of cash that was left at her parents house?

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

http://www.nampn.org/cases/babcock_laura.html
 
  • #955
<rsbm>

I don't think we can make that assumption. As I mentioned earlier, I find the response of the Coroner to be somewhat canned/contrived (specifically wrt the wording "remains" and "investigation" ... i.e. they did not say "we have not received a report/notification").

There's nothing to say that LE did not give notification / report to the Coroner that they believe LB is deceased. Without a body or at least partial remains, no autopsy can be done for a Coroner to make their own independent determination wrt COD, MOD. Consequently there is really nothing on which a Coroner can base an investigation or justify a subsequent Coroner's inquest.



from:
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_90c37_e.htm#BK14

I agree that the Coroner's response appears crafted. Ontario has moved to reduce or remove the Coroner's office involvement in special cases like these, and replace them with forensic pathologists. I strongly believe that this policy is already being applied to the DM cases. Even if remains were found they wouldn't necessarily have been received or examined by the coroner.

http://www.thestar.com/news/queensp...expanded_role_in_homicide_investigations.html
 
  • #956
Refuting my own post wrt no body / no inquest. This article is not about a Canadian case, but obviously there are cases in England where an inquest can be held without a body:

from:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7128867.stm

When someone goes missing, the police will try to establish whether the person has died by checking bank accounts and investigating possible sightings.

If they believe there should be an inquest, possibly to help the family receive a death certificate and reach closure, they will file a report to the local coroner. This will indicate if there are any suspicious circumstances.

The coroner has to apply to the secretary of state (then home secretary, now justice secretary) under section 15 of the Coroners Act 1988 for permission for an inquest with no body. There is no time limit in such cases; the rule to wait seven years may only apply in the High Court on the settlement of an estate.

"In this case the secretary of state would have agreed to the order and the inquest would have been held," says a spokesman for the Ministry of Justice.

The number of requests received is less than 10 a year, he adds, and few are refused.
 
  • #957
<rsbm>

I don't think we can make that assumption. As I mentioned earlier, I find the response of the Coroner to be somewhat canned/contrived (specifically wrt the wording "remains" and "investigation" ... i.e. they did not say "we have not received a report/notification").

There's nothing to say that LE did not give notification / report to the Coroner that they believe LB is deceased. Without a body or at least partial remains, no autopsy can be done for a Coroner to make their own independent determination wrt COD, MOD. Consequently there is really nothing on which a Coroner can base an investigation or justify a subsequent Coroner's inquest.

I agree, I also think that there is nothing that can be used to justify someone is dead, unless the body is nowhere to be found and the vital organs are found somewhere or mailed to some random recipient. Think Magnotta.
 
  • #958
  • #959
That sounds more like it. The English must be more clued in regarding the rights of family and justice for them. :thinking:

Voila !! .. a Canadian inquest w/o a body:

http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=31031a46-6747-4ea3-b40d-ceb5de895da3

It is a peculiar coroner's inquest that examines an alleged murder for which no body has been found, no arrest made. Stranger still was the testimony of the two women about their reaction to Bouillon's deathbed confession. They said they talked about it between themselves and with a few of their nursing colleagues, but they never alerted their boss, let alone the police.
 
  • #960
What about the fact that she had filed assault and theft charges against her ex DA four months before her disappearance? Or the fact that a missing report said she may have bruises and cuts on her arms and stomach? Or the shoebox full of cash that was left at her parents house?

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

http://www.nampn.org/cases/babcock_laura.html

NAMPN site: the cuts and bruises part and the mention of depression, makes her sound suicidal.

However, that site isn't run by any sort of organization, just an individual, and that link didn't churn up until September 2013 here on WS, so I'm betting it was posted after all the news stories were posted. I am not sure how authentic/authorative that info is. It's not official in any way, IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
143
Guests online
3,307
Total visitors
3,450

Forum statistics

Threads
632,630
Messages
18,629,400
Members
243,228
Latest member
sandy83
Back
Top