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

[Carli]

There was likely some trace evidence in the barn, or in the near vicinity of the incinerator. There was tv news footage of police carrying a plank out of the barn with a paper bag over one end. There was speculation at the time that Laura's body may have been tied to it, and moved this way. The bag could have been covering blood and/or hairs on the plank. If either were there, and contained her DNA that would be quite strong evidence. If they had that, along with a statement from a witness, I can see them reaching the conclusion that she was murdered, and that the body was disposed of on the farm.

Well, to reprise, the provincial Coroner's Office said they'd never examined Laura Babcock's remains, which it would be required to do if the remains were found in Ontario.

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

After extensive searching of the Millard Ayr farm in June and then again in September, the two relevant LE jurisdictions released statements that no "significant connection" relating to the deaths of either DM or LB had been found. However, there was a tag on to the Toronto LE that items taken from the farm had not yet been forensically examined so we may yet learn that importance evidence was found, after all.

http://m.570news.com/2013/09/20/no-...rance-of-laura-babcock-found-at-millard-farm/

I don't know what relationship, if any, exists between police and coroner. I would have thought that, on the basic of record keeping alone, if a death occurred in Ontario, that information would have to be noted somewhere even if only scraps of remains, DNA or whatever exist. Would the Coroner's office be brought into the information loop? Anyone know?

On a side note, here's the snazzy Ontario Centre of Forensics Sciences website, if anyone is interested.

http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/centre_forensic/cfs_intro.html

 

[SnooperDuper]

WADR sillybilly , the medical examiner was called in without the discovery of any remains in the Liknes + O'Brien case in Calgary - there was most likely only DNA evidence left at the scene.



http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/06/20140630-192745.html

In that case,

Chief Hanson would not discuss why police believe the three family members are dead, saying only that the evidence “removed all doubt that it was a missing persons file [and] supported our now-firmly-held belief that it is a homicide.” He would not discuss when police believe Nathan and Mr. Liknes, 66, and Ms. Liknes, 53, died. He did not reveal a motive.

There was talk of a lot of blood.

The medical examiner might be called in to look at the blood and determine if that much blood loss would result in death.

In LB's case, I think the biggest clue is she went digitally slient (bank card, health card, SIN/income tax, iPad)

Do you really think they can't track the iPad?

 

[Sillybilly]

WADR sillybilly , the medical examiner was called in without the discovery of any remains in the Liknes + O'Brien case in Calgary - there was most likely only DNA evidence left at the scene.



http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/canada/archives/2014/06/20140630-192745.html

Well, WADR cansleuther :biggrin: ... in the Liknes/O'Brien case, LE would have called in the ME based on their suspicions given fresh blood at the scene and the fact the trio was known to be recently alive. WRT the plank removed from the Millard farm, we don't know 100% that the stain is blood or not. LE may not have called in the ME just because they found an plank with an old stain until they determined it was in fact human blood. LE's own forensic investigators may have determined it to be human blood, and may have sought an opinion from an ME, but an ME could truthfully say that they did not have the remains of LB.

I actually find the statements attributed to the coroners wrt LB to be somewhat canned.

 

[Sillybilly]

A good read ... "A-Z Guide to Murder Cases Without a Body":

http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=95807&page=1&singlePage=true

 

[Tamarind]

Maybe a pile of ashes found on the farm was actually Laura's when LE was looking for Tim Bosma.

I think they would have laid charges earlier if that were the case JMO

 

[Tamarind]

In my previous post, I simply made reference to there being "more ashes found at the farm" ... I didn't say in the incinerator itself.

OK thank you for clarifying what you were trying to say sillybilly and again sorry for the misinterpretation.

 

[Juballee]

It was confirmed that LB's remains were not found on the farm. If LB's remains were found at the farm, even in the form of ashes, the coroner would have examined them.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/babcocks-remains-not-found-at-dellen-millards-farm/article18476919/


It was later reported that LB's remains were not found anywhere in Ontario.





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

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?

 

[bessie]

Has the defense team shared all of its information with the families of the accused? I doubt it. This case is no different than most others in that regard.

 

[Tamarind]

Has the defense team shared all of its information with the families of the accused? I doubt it. This case is no different than most others in that regard.

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

 

[Juballee]

Has the defense team shared all of its information with the families of the accused? I doubt it. This case is no different than most others in that regard.

Maybe it's early and my head is still befuddled from sleep, but I can't see the defense teams' lawyers taking the time (on the books at hundreds of dollars an hour) to explain anything more than they absolutely have to to the families of their clients.

I would think that the clients themselves would be talking about any information to their own family during their private communications, since there wouldn't be a lot else that they would have to talk about, in my opinion.

I agree that this case is probably no different in that regard, as well. But I still find it odd that LB's family seems to be left so out of the loop by the crown, it is an additional unnecessary burden on them, in my opinion. But maybe ignorance is really bliss, what do I know?

 

[ABro]

The Toronto police were accused of mishandling the original Laura Babcock news conference and not informing the family beforehand.

One of the functions of the major case management team, which took over after that, is to ensure families are kept in the loop. Here are some of the guidelines:

c) control all information released by the investigative team to the victim, family,
and close associates and ensure they are treated with sensitivity;
d) ensure all information releases to the general public are preceded by similar
releases to the victim;
e) without jeopardizing any investigative strategy, discuss the need and the
rationale for public information releases;

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov....n/hearings/exhibits/OPC/pdf/56_MCM_Manual.pdf

I was told by the Bosmas' unofficial spokesman that "Sharlene knows what she can know."

I imagine that applies to the Babcocks too.

 

[robynhood]

It is very hard to persume actually what the Babcock Family know...and I do agree with you Juballee..I think it would be awful if they really are LEFT IN THE DARK about the investigation of their daughter...IMO I could hardly imagine it....( no body has been ever found)....It does make you wonder HOW they can claim she is dead...IMO only they must have found something in that Incinerator to identify LB or IMO something MUST have been found on the farm during their searches...JMHO and I am just guessing here???....How could we possibly KNOW???...I guess we will have to wait for the trial..How can we possibly guess...????...JMHO...
I do agree with Bro post #931...that is above me here....JMHO again " BUT" SHARLENE knows what she knows".....and I thionk this will come out @ the trail as I am sure she will take the stand being the last person to see her husband alive ...TB and I am sure she the accused before TB left and said " see you soon to SB"....which she never did...JMHO dam SAD....robyhood

 

[Carli]

With regard to the information shared with the Babcocks, those guidelines appear to have been viewed somewhat loosely, at least according to MSM.

In reaction to one LE presser reported at
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/06/0...to-dellen-millard-about-missing-woman-baffles

Babcock's father admitted he was "stunned" by the lack of information offered."We were expecting more," he said.
Maybe an arrest? Or her remains found on the farm being searched?
What he wasn't expecting was to hear that his daughter was allegedly involved in the sex trade.
"Shocking" was the word he used to describe his feeling of hearing information he said he was not aware of.
And hurt.
"We were stunned," said the kind, heartbroken man. "She also had a university degree. She had her issues, but she is a very nice young woman."

Then, later, in http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4...murder-leaves-lingering-questions-for-police/

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.

Her family shifts between brief moments of hope, uncertain grief and debilitating guilt. "Without any proof, to us it's like we're in purgatory," Ryan says

Hopefully, the reasons for the continuing emotional misery being visited upon this family will eventually make sense. In the meantime it just sounds like flat out idle cruelty, doesn't it? Self serving at best. IMO. MOO. IMHO. etc.

 

[Juballee]

With regard to the information shared with the Babcocks, those guidelines appear to have been viewed somewhat loosely, at least according to MSM.

In reaction to one LE presser reported at
http://www.torontosun.com/2013/06/0...to-dellen-millard-about-missing-woman-baffles



Then, later, in http://www.thespec.com/news-story/4...murder-leaves-lingering-questions-for-police/





Hopefully, the reasons for the continuing emotional misery being visited upon this family will eventually make sense. In the meantime it just sounds like flat out idle cruelty, doesn't it? Self serving at best. IMO. MOO. IMHO. etc.

I couldn't agree more, Carli, hopefully when we hear why the Babcocks have been denied that information, the reason it was witheld from them will be worth the extra years of anguish for her family.

 

[hopingforjustice]

I couldn't agree more, Carli, hopefully when we hear why the Babcocks have been denied that information, the reason it was witheld from them will be worth the extra years of anguish for her family.

Couple of things cross my mind on this...

Several months have gone by now...perhaps LE have shared more info with them now and rightfully may have not announced that to the public.

Also, perhaps there is a need to call members of the Babcock family in as witnesses and as such cannot share all details that they have.
(like SB...only allowing them to know what they "can" know) I have no idea what they potentially could be witness to...I am not creating some absurd new scenario...

Just thinking out loud here..

JMO

 

[Juballee]

An ominous reminder of the plank taken as evidence:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-MAPS-**No-Discussion**&p=9832673#post9832673

I have to say, looking at the plank photo again, I think that that the ominous-ness may be circumstantial and open to interpretation. We all thought the farm search would yield ominous results, did we not? The hazmat teams and the face masks and the tents and trucks, and the barrels, oh, how ominous were the barrels? And yet LE officially say that they found no trace of her on the farm, and the Ontario coroner hasn't had her remains, and the barrels were just full of old liquids with no bodies or tools or anything grisly like we all expected when we saw them wheel them out.

And now the plank doesn't look so ominous to me anymore, sorry. I have a feeling that if there were any DNA, blood, dried fluids or hair, it would be a grave mistake for the investigators to just plop a paper bag over the top to carry it out. Hairs could fall out of an upside down paper bag, dust dirt and general debris from outdoors could blow in beneath the bag and contaminate any samples of anything pertinent, in reality. I guess I just feel pretty sure that that just isn't proper crime scene collection protocol for potential DNA samples.

I think that if they thought that they had a DNA sample on a plank, they would have wrapped it in plastic and taped the end shut to preserve the integrity of the evidence. I imagine that the paper bag was just to cover something that was not DNA related, but still LE didn't want the cameras they knew where filming them to see, such as a bit of graffiti or perhaps pry marks. I doubt it was a stain, since they didn't see fit to cover the other stains. So what else would rank between a DNA sample and a stain, I wonder?

 

[Sillybilly]

I have to say, looking at the plank photo again, I think that that the ominous-ness may be circumstantial and open to interpretation. We all thought the farm search would yield ominous results, did we not? The hazmat teams and the face masks and the tents and trucks, and the barrels, oh, how ominous were the barrels? And yet LE officially say that they found no trace of her on the farm, and the Ontario coroner hasn't had her remains, and the barrels were just full of old liquids with no bodies or tools or anything grisly like we all expected when we saw them wheel them out.

And now the plank doesn't look so ominous to me anymore, sorry. I have a feeling that if there were any DNA, blood, dried fluids or hair, it would be a grave mistake for the investigators to just plop a paper bag over the top to carry it out. Hairs could fall out of an upside down paper bag, dust dirt and general debris from outdoors could blow in beneath the bag and contaminate any samples of anything pertinent, in reality. I guess I just feel pretty sure that that just isn't proper crime scene collection protocol for potential DNA samples.

I think that if they thought that they had a DNA sample on a plank, they would have wrapped it in plastic and taped the end shut to preserve the integrity of the evidence. I imagine that the paper bag was just to cover something that was not DNA related, but still LE didn't want the cameras they knew where filming them to see, such as a bit of graffiti or perhaps pry marks. I doubt it was a stain, since they didn't see fit to cover the other stains. So what else would rank between a DNA sample and a stain, I wonder?

You may have missed where I said in a subsequent post, "WRT the plank removed from the Millard farm, we don't know 100% that the stain is blood or not."

 

[Sillybilly]

I have a feeling that if there were any DNA, blood, dried fluids or hair, it would be a grave mistake for the investigators to just plop a paper bag over the top to carry it out

...

I think that if they thought that they had a DNA sample on a plank, they would have wrapped it in plastic and taped the end shut to preserve the integrity of the evidence.

<rsbm>

Actually it's very common to see evidence being carried in brown paper bags. Depending on what the evidence is, it can be collected in either brown paper bags or plastic, but plastic causes condensation which can affect the quality of what is being protected.

from "Collection and Preservation of Evidence":
http://www.forensicscienceresources.com/cape3.htm

Most items of evidence will be collected in paper containers such as packets, envelopes, and bags. Liquid items can be transported in non-breakable, leak-proof containers. Arson evidence is usually collected in air-tight, clean metal cans. Only large quantities of dry powder should be collected and stored in plastic bags. Moist or wet evidence (blood, plants, etc.) from a crime scene can be collected in plastic containers at the scene and transported back to an evidence receiving area if the storage time in plastic is two hours or less and this is done to prevent contamination of other evidence or other surfaces. Once in a secure location, wet evidence, whether packaged in plastic or paper, must be removed and allowed to completely air-dry. That evidence can then be repackaged in a new, dry paper container. UNDER NO CIRCUMSTANCES SHOULD EVIDENCE CONTAINING MOISTURE BE SEALED IN PLASTIC OR PAPER CONTAINERS FOR MORE THAN TWO HOURS. Moisture allows the growth of microorganisms that can destroy or alter evidence.

 

[cansleuther]

If the forensics team suspected that the stains on the board were biological, then it is likely the entire board would have been wrapped in paper.

During the Erin Howlett investigation last November, forensics removed a rug and a mattress containing possible DNA evidence from the suspect's home (months after Erin's alleged murder) and both were completely wrapped in paper. The only item that wasn't completely covered in paper or plastic was a metal bed frame but there were no visible stains on it.

http://kitchener.ctvnews.ca/furniture-removed-from-kitchener-home-as-part-of-howlett-investigation-1.1532795

JMO

 

[Juballee]

You may have missed where I said in a subsequent post, "WRT the plank removed from the Millard farm, we don't know 100% that the stain is blood or not."

Sorry if I missed your post, but of course, we don't know 100% about what the stain on the board is, that is why we are discussing it.

I personally do not think that the visible stain on the board was blood, or else it would have been covered to preserve the integrity of the sample. Also, why would they cover part of a blood sample but leave the majority of it exposed?