Laura Babcock: Dellen Millard & Mark Smich charged w/ Murder in the First Degree #2

[SnooperDuper]

Different years. The Spec report on the DI is 2014 so 41 + 365. There was originally a PI scheduled for fall of 2014.

Oh no spreadsheet time!

4/10/2014 - charges re: LB
10/30/2014 - DI request reported LB
9/10/2015 - DI issued LB

5/10/2013 - charges re: TB
6/20/2013 - DI request reported TB
7/16/2013 - DI issued TB

I think we are on the same page but my last post was TB and yours LB?

 

[SnooperDuper]

Not a lot of support these days for DM in online comments

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5839030-babcock-murder-case-going-straight-to-trial/
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/1...charged-with-murder-in-death-of-laura-babcock

Many calls for the death penalty. What happened to all of DM's active supporters?

 

[Tamarind]

Not a lot of support these days for DM in online comments

http://www.thespec.com/news-story/5839030-babcock-murder-case-going-straight-to-trial/
http://www.torontosun.com/2015/09/1...charged-with-murder-in-death-of-laura-babcock

Many calls for the death penalty. What happened to all of DM's active supporters?

I think it reflects on the 'society' we live in today. People are brainwashed by the press and media, more now than ever. The need for facts has been overtaken by the reliance on whatever the media puts out there. IMO.

For example, when the press prints about DI's and any negative spins on hairstyles etc, it gets interpreted negatively, which may be another reason the crown opted for DI. They know the jury will consist of those who likely read the press and get swallowed up by TV on a nightly basis. Just my opinion. Hopefully there are unbiased people out there who will be sitting on the juries and have the ability to filter out any slant portrayed in the media.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I think it reflects on the 'society' we live in today. People are brainwashed by the press and media, more now than ever. The need for facts has been overtaken by the reliance on whatever the media puts out there. IMO.

For example, when the press prints about DI's and any negative spins on hairstyles etc, it gets interpreted negatively, which may be another reason the crown opted for DI. They know the jury will consist of those who likely read the press and get swallowed up by TV on a nightly basis. Just my opinion. Hopefully there are unbiased people out there who will be sitting on the juries and have the ability to filter out any slant portrayed in the media.

I think people are educated by the press/media.

Facts are facts: if there is a DI, if DM is greasy, it is reported as such. I think it is in the comments section and here on WS that you see bias. I think the press/media is fairy neutral.

 

[ABro]

And that will take care of some things. But since they don't call witnesses at pre-trial motions, scientific or otherwise, it still leaves a lot of unknowns that will need to be dealt with later.

There's always a lot to be dealt with. If you have a prelim a year before the trial, the jury will almost certainly end up hearing about contradictions between testimony at the prelim and at the trial.

I'm not understanding what you've got against the use of direct indictment. It's an extraordinary power that is infrequently used.

Do you think there should be no direct indictment option, that such a power shouldn't exist? Or is your point that it's been wrongly used in this case?

Was it wrong to directly indict Paul Bernardo or Michael Rafferty?

Do you not see that a direct indictment can have certain societal and legal benefits?

Or are you just playing devil's advocate?

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/crim/cpm/2005/DirectIndictment.pdf

 

[Tamarind]

I think people are educated by the press/media.

Facts are facts: if there is a DI, if DM is greasy, it is reported as such. I think it is in the comments section and here on WS that you see bias. I think the press/media is fairy neutral.

I don't agree that people are educated by the media. The media was set up primarily to report any news, be it true, false or interesting etc. IMO. I wouldn't use the word educated myself to describe what is expressed by media outlets. I think people are bombarded with information. The information is often opinion or based on what someone else has said. I think we are in a sad state if education is dependent on news releases and blogging. All JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

I don't agree that people are educated by the media. The media was set up primarily to report any news, be it true, false or interesting etc. IMO. I wouldn't use the word educated myself to describe what is expressed by media outlets. I think people are bombarded with information. The information is often opinion or based on what someone else has said. I think we are in a sad state if education is dependent on news releases and blogging. All JMO

I think you learn more things that are relevant to your daily life and growth by reading the news daily, then you do by reading all of Harry Potter.

 

[Juballee]

I don't agree that people are educated by the media. The media was set up primarily to report any news, be it true, false or interesting etc. IMO. I wouldn't use the word educated myself to describe what is expressed by media outlets. I think people are bombarded with information. The information is often opinion or based on what someone else has said. I think we are in a sad state if education is dependent on news releases and blogging. All JMO

I agree, and I think that media representation has as much to do with the DI as the evidence might. The idea of people being 'educated' by the media is, to me, another way of saying that the jury pool is being tainted by the media despite the PB.

Personally, I believe due process is very important to achieving justice. Every part of the due process that is skipped can leave room for appeals later. But in my opinion, more importantly, skipping a part of the due process because of social outcry or media pressure is not very democratic, it is biased. It is saying that we treat all criminals the same, except for some, in my opinion.

 

[swedie]

A DI is not a simple request by no means, nor is it a request the Crown takes lightly and just tosses at the AG "just because". It's a very rare request the Crown makes. This power is an extraordinary one and is used infrequently in Ontario. The Crown has the evidence for a conviction against the two accused and that is why they requested the DI. After going through the paperwork/evidence herself, apparently the AG finds there is enough direct, solid evidence against the two accused murderers; enough to render a conviction through two trials. Now it's just a case of presenting that evidence to jurors in each trial because it is the accused right to have a fair trial and to be tried by either a judge or jury/their peers. No doubt and for obvious reasons, both accused will chose a jury over a judge to render their verdicts. There is a reason why DM and MS won't be, or did not plead guilty. IMO it's not because they are not guilty. Both are hanging onto that very thin sliver of hope there will be that one blemished juror (which I doubt), or there will be issues throughout the trials in which they hope they can hang their hats on to file appeals. Whatever evidence the Crown has is enough to show both accused were involved and are guilty of TB's and LB's murders, otherwise there wouldn't be a DI for both accused. Should they plead guilty, it's game over, a done deal, their geese are cooked, they are on the inside looking out for the rest of their lives. They are as desperate as desperate gets no doubt. So of course they are going to do anything in their limited power now to try and use whatever means they can to save themselves from going to the big house. ALL MOO.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Oh no spreadsheet time!

4/10/2014 - charges re: LB
10/30/2014 - DI request reported LB
9/10/2015 - DI issued LB

5/10/2013 - charges re: TB
6/20/2013 - DI request reported TB
7/16/2013 - DI issued TB

I think we are on the same page but my last post was TB and yours LB?

Not quite there yet. You have LB right, but TB should be:

5/10/2013 - charges re: TB
6/20/2014 - DI request reported TB
7/16/2014 - DI issued TB

I did the same thing at first. Maybe because it was soooo long ago now.

 

[swedie]

I agree, and I think that media representation has as much to do with the DI as the evidence might. The idea of people being 'educated' by the media is, to me, another way of saying that the jury pool is being tainted by the media despite the PB.

Personally, I believe due process is very important to achieving justice. Every part of the due process that is skipped can leave room for appeals later. But in my opinion, more importantly, skipping a part of the due process because of social outcry or media pressure is not very democratic, it is biased. It is saying that we treat all criminals the same, except for some, in my opinion.

BBM - So are you suggesting the Crown and the AG have let MSM and social outcry influence their decision on the DI? Sounds like that's what you're saying IMO. No I highly doubt this to be the case. Their decisions are based on evidence collected by LE, examined by the Crown and re-examined by the AG in order to come to their decision. Before requesting the Attorney General or Deputy Attorney General’s consent, Crown counsel must have concluded that there is a reasonable prospect of conviction and that the continuation of the prosecution is not contrary to the
public interest.

UBM - Does that even make sense? How do all criminals get treated the same...except for some? Either no criminals get treated the same or they all get treated the same. What am I missing? :thinking: Could you explain? TIA.

Juballee or Tamarind, can either or both of you provide MSM articles or blogs which show bias which could taint the jury pool because I have missed those articles and I am certainly interested in reading them. TIA. Any MSM articles which I have read are all meant to inform the public about three murder and who LE claim are responsible for them. How LE connected the dots, victims involved, locations, evidence found, etc. We the public have a right to know don't we? Maybe if the MSM had paid more attention to WM's death or LB's disappearance, one or two lives could have been saved. MOO.

Speaking of appeals, wonder what the hold up is on MR's appeal? Due process I guess. :waiting: MOO.

 

[SnooperDuper]

Not quite there yet. You have LB right, but TB should be:

5/10/2013 - charges re: TB
6/20/2014 - DI request reported TB
7/16/2014 - DI issued TB

I did the same thing at first. Maybe because it was soooo long ago now.

Thank you, it's clear to me now

 

[Alethea Dice]

I think people are educated by the press/media.

Facts are facts: if there is a DI, if DM is greasy, it is reported as such. I think it is in the comments section and here on WS that you see bias. I think the press/media is fairy neutral.

I can't agree that the press is neutral. Many are biased one way or another, some to a greater degree and some lesser. If you follow some of the other current events of the day in one particular Toronto paper, their bias is very clear and very obvious. People can't get much of an education from them if they don't bother to read other media that's available, because they've been ignoring a lot of the "facts" that are available elsewhere.

In this particular case, a lot of what has been reported, in particular after the arrest, is opinion and third hand knowledge. How someone looks is that particular reporter's opinion. Many reports were based on what people say - people from the neighbourhood, friends, acquaintances - the same type information you and I can get from talking to people on the street near them or people we see on FB who know them. Again, that is not necessarily true and is simply rumour based on what those people think or feel. You can talk to two people who know the accused and get two different answers. It doesn't make what they say "fact" just because it got printed in the papers.

If you read through those comments on the links you gave, you can see a few people who don't even know what has been reported as "fact" in this case. They seem to have some things confused and some just wrong. But they still want the death penalty because of the vision of what the media has put out there and the small pieces that have stuck in their mind.

JMO

 

[SnooperDuper]

I can't agree that the press is neutral. Many are biased one way or another, some to a greater degree and some lesser. If you follow some of the other current events of the day in one particular Toronto paper, their bias is very clear and very obvious. People can't get much of an education from them if they don't bother to read other media that's available, because they've been ignoring a lot of the "facts" that are available elsewhere.

In this particular case, a lot of what has been reported, in particular after the arrest, is opinion and third hand knowledge. How someone looks is that particular reporter's opinion. Many reports were based on what people say - people from the neighbourhood, friends, acquaintances - the same type information you and I can get from talking to people on the street near them or people we see on FB who know them. Again, that is not necessarily true and is simply rumour based on what those people think or feel. You can talk to two people who know the accused and get two different answers. It doesn't make what they say "fact" just because it got printed in the papers.

If you read through those comments on the links you gave, you can see a few people who don't even know what has been reported as "fact" in this case. They seem to have some things confused and some just wrong. But they still want the death penalty because of the vision of what the media has put out there and the small pieces that have stuck in their mind.

JMO

Well I think DP started out with the bias, trying to portray DM as a prep school kid that never had trouble with the law. He's a prep school dropout who has been carded and faces multiple charges for illegal activities over a long period.

I think it is fair, when DM's lawyer makes such assertions, that the media investigate the truth of the matter.

I agree that you can't stick to just one media source for your information.

The comments did have a few facts wrong perhaps: some mentioned the fiancee of WM who we have heard no more of. However, perhaps she exists. We won't know until later.

I think the calls for the death penalty spring from the TB case: that a wholesome man was taken by a stranger and killed, for kicks, because the perpetrator had all the money one could want (but apparently not enough excitement in his life. I hope DM is finding jail to be exhilarating.) That is, the outrage is because of the crime, not because DM dropped out of prep school.

 

[Alethea Dice]

There's always a lot to be dealt with. If you have a prelim a year before the trial, the jury will almost certainly end up hearing about contradictions between testimony at the prelim and at the trial.

I'm not understanding what you've got against the use of direct indictment. It's an extraordinary power that is infrequently used.

Do you think there should be no direct indictment option, that such a power shouldn't exist? Or is your point that it's been wrongly used in this case?

Was it wrong to directly indict Paul Bernardo or Michael Rafferty?

Do you not see that a direct indictment can have certain societal and legal benefits?

Or are you just playing devil's advocate?

https://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/crim/cpm/2005/DirectIndictment.pdf

I realize there will still be a lot to deal with, so why not cut down on some of that ahead of time? I also don't believe it should be a year between the prelim and the trial, but hey, I don't believe it should take 3 years to go to trial either. That needs fixed.

I don't think I'm totally against DI's, however, I do see disadvantages to them, even for the Crown side. I also believe they should be extraordinary and rare, as they were meant to be. It seems a little odd to me that something used so infrequently should have been applied to two cases against the same two accused in such a short period of time. As for societal and legal benefits of a direct indictment, no, I don't really see that. They rarely shorten the length of time it takes to get to trial and, as I stated before, they can make the trial go on longer.

I doubt a preliminary hearing would have affect Paul Bernardo's trial much, particularly with the deal with the devil that was made. As for Michael Rafferty, it may possibly have shown the Crown ahead of time that their star witness was going to change her story once she got under oath and had time to think about it. The Judge ruled that his appeal had merit on three grounds, one of which was that the trial Judge erred in allowing that star witness's earlier and inconsistent police statement as evidence. Perhaps if they had known in advance the extent to which her testimony was unreliable and untrustworthy, they would have put a few less eggs in her basket and not have been so caught off guard.

I didn't know that stating my opinions was "playing devil's advocate".

This is interesting too, from the Canadian Resource for Victims of Crime:

25. Is it important for me to attend a preliminary hearing?
It is important for victims to attend the preliminary inquiry because this stage often acts as a test of the
Crown’s case against the accused. It is not uncommon for a guilty plea to be entered following a preliminary
hearing. If the accused pleads guilty, there will not be a trial. In these cases, the preliminary hearing is then
the only opportunity for victims to hear important evidence, fact and details of the crime.
The victim should also consider attending the preliminary inquiry because evidence may be introduced
during this stage that will not be allowed at trial, as the rules of evidence are less strict at preliminary
hearings.

And there's this:

In some cases a judge may rule that the evidence does not warrant the actual charges laid and, in such cases, the judge may
downgrade the charges.

http://www.crcvc.ca/docs/A_Victims_Guide_to_the_Canadian_CJS_07.pdf

We know in TB's case, the charges laid were 1st degree because of TB allegedly not being allowed to leave the truck. We don't know much of anything about LB's case and won't until the trial, if then. Should the charge be 1st degree in both?

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Well I think DP started out with the bias, trying to portray DM as a prep school kid that never had trouble with the law. He's a prep school dropout who has been carded and faces multiple charges for illegal activities over a long period.

I think it is fair, when DM's lawyer makes such assertions, that the media investigate the truth of the matter.

I agree that you can't stick to just one media source for your information.

The comments did have a few facts wrong perhaps: some mentioned the fiancee of WM who we have heard no more of. However, perhaps she exists. We won't know until later.

I think the calls for the death penalty spring from the TB case: that a wholesome man was taken by a stranger and killed, for kicks, because the perpetrator had all the money one could want (but apparently not enough excitement in his life. I hope DM is finding jail to be exhilarating.) That is, the outrage is because of the crime, not because DM dropped out of prep school.

Well, really, DM was a prep school kid at one time and had never been in trouble with the law prior to this. And carding doesn't mean much these days, especially in Toronto. But his opinion of him at that time certainly isn't any less fact than anything that the media has reported from anyone else they talked to. People just base their opinions on the statements that they want to believe and disregard the others. That's human nature. Which of those people any of us choose to believe doesn't necessarily mean that our beliefs are the correct ones. Which is also how the press can manipulate the public. If you print enough negativity, anything positive is sure to get lost in the shuffle for the majority of readers.

As for the death penalty, I agree that outrage is mainly because of the crime itself, but also includes a little of that negative image that the press put out there about DM's life. His life makes it that much harder to understand how this could have happened and makes the crime that much worse for seemingly having been committed for no reason by someone who had it all, so he must have been a total creep. I would give a couple of samples of what I'm trying to say from the comments, but I simply can't go back there and read them again. It was hard enough to get through them the first time, so we'll just leave it as JMO.

 

[ABro]

I realize there will still be a lot to deal with, so why not cut down on some of that ahead of time? I also don't believe it should be a year between the prelim and the trial, but hey, I don't believe it should take 3 years to go to trial either. That needs fixed.

You have made a lot of incorrect assumptions that I cannot correct due to publication bans. The DI is being used to get these cases to trial. The reasons for the delays will be made clear later on. It is wrong to assume that holding preliminary hearings would have been speedier. You should also keep in mind that "speed" is not the only reason for DIs:

Section 577 of the Criminal Code (Code) permits the Attorney General or the Deputy Attorney General to send a case directly to trial without a preliminary inquiry or after an accused has been discharged at a preliminary inquiry. The object of the section has been described by Southin J.A. of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in the following terms:

In my opinion, Parliament intended, by this section, to confer upon the Attorney General or his Deputy the power to override the preliminary inquiry process. It is a special power not to be exercised by Crown counsel generally but only on the personal consideration of the chief law officer of the Crown and his or her deputy.

Such a power is recognition of the ultimate constitutional responsibility of Attorneys General to ensure that those who ought to be brought to trial are brought to trial. There are many reasons why an Attorney General or a Deputy Attorney General might consider a direct indictment in the interests of the proper administration of criminal justice. Witnesses may have been threatened or may be in precarious health; there may have been some delay in carrying a prosecution forward and, thus, a risk of running afoul of s. 11(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms; a preliminary inquiry, in, for instance, cases essentially founded on wire-tap evidence, may be considered by the Attorney General to be expensive and time consuming for no purpose. These are simply illustrations. It is neither wise nor possible to circumscribe the power of the Attorney General under this section.​

http://www.ppsc-sppc.gc.ca/eng/pub/fpsd-sfpg/fps-sfp/tpd/p3/ch06.html

It seems a little odd to me that something used so infrequently should have been applied to two cases against the same two accused in such a short period of time.

It's not odd at all. Just the opposite. The nature of this highly unusual situation with five related cases in two jurisdictions is a large part of why DIs are being used in two cases against the same accused.

As for societal and legal benefits of a direct indictment, no, I don't really see that. They rarely shorten the length of time it takes to get to trial and, as I stated before, they can make the trial go on longer.

Except you have no idea how long things would have dragged on in any of these cases without DIs.

I doubt a preliminary hearing would have affect Paul Bernardo's trial much, particularly with the deal with the devil that was made.

They had video of Paul Bernardo torturing two girls. What need could there have possibly been for a preliminary hearing? If this wasn't an exceptional situation, then what is? Of what benefit to society would holding a PI have been? Another opportunity to screen the torture tapes? Bernardo wasn't going to plead guilty. He still thinks he should be let out of prison.

As for Michael Rafferty, it may possibly have shown the Crown ahead of time that their star witness was going to change her story once she got under oath and had time to think about it. The Judge ruled that his appeal had merit on three grounds, one of which was that the trial Judge erred in allowing that star witness's earlier and inconsistent police statement as evidence. Perhaps if they had known in advance the extent to which her testimony was unreliable and untrustworthy, they would have put a few less eggs in her basket and not have been so caught off guard.

Oh c'mon. That witness's "reliability" had nothing to do with whether there was a preliminary hearing. She's completely mentally damaged and could have just as easily gone off the rails after a PI. Again, there were very good reasons to spare everyone from going through that ordeal twice. Having a prelim is no guarantee a case won't be appealed.

We know in TB's case, the charges laid were 1st degree because of TB allegedly not being allowed to leave the truck. We don't know much of anything about LB's case and won't until the trial, if then. Should the charge be 1st degree in both?

You may not know much about the cases but those who applied for and issued the DIs do. The fact that DIs were issued indicates that those who have studied the evidence believe the charges are correct.

 

[ABro]

Thanks everyone for your kind words.

Just wanted to say that, while it may not seem like it, there is a lot going on behind the scenes these days all subject to publication ban.

For example, for the last two weeks the three men charged with trafficking a gun to Dellen Millard have been having their preliminary hearing. (No direct indictment for them)

I'm also waiting to hear if the crown will appeal the decision not to prosecute Matthew Ward-Jackson on the AK-47 charges.

I'm not going to be writing much or commenting here as things are very sensitive in the run-up to the Bosma trial and the media -- including us bloggers -- have to be very careful about what we say.

Stay well, everybody.

 

[Tamarind]

I think you learn more things that are relevant to your daily life and growth by reading the news daily, then you do by reading all of Harry Potter.

I disagree, nothing in any newspaper or blog has ever improved my daily life and/or growth. I don't know about Harry Potter, I take it that it isn't worth the read?

 

[Tamarind]

A DI is not a simple request by no means, nor is it a request the Crown takes lightly and just tosses at the AG "just because". It's a very rare request the Crown makes. This power is an extraordinary one and is used infrequently in Ontario. The Crown has the evidence for a conviction against the two accused and that is why they requested the DI. After going through the paperwork/evidence herself, apparently the AG finds there is enough direct, solid evidence against the two accused murderers; enough to render a conviction through two trials. Now it's just a case of presenting that evidence to jurors in each trial because it is the accused right to have a fair trial and to be tried by either a judge or jury/their peers. No doubt and for obvious reasons, both accused will chose a jury over a judge to render their verdicts. There is a reason why DM and MS won't be, or did not plead guilty. IMO it's not because they are not guilty. Both are hanging onto that very thin sliver of hope there will be that one blemished juror (which I doubt), or there will be issues throughout the trials in which they hope they can hang their hats on to file appeals. Whatever evidence the Crown has is enough to show both accused were involved and are guilty of TB's and LB's murders, otherwise there wouldn't be a DI for both accused. Should they plead guilty, it's game over, a done deal, their geese are cooked, they are on the inside looking out for the rest of their lives. They are as desperate as desperate gets no doubt. So of course they are going to do anything in their limited power now to try and use whatever means they can to save themselves from going to the big house. ALL MOO.

Blemished juror? I think the only blemished jurors will be those who have made up their minds based on press, blogs and other media, before seeing the facts of the case.

Due process is a necessary part of any proceeding and overlooking someones rights should not be taken lightly. IMO. Breaching Charter rights is also a factor prior to hearings/trials and during. Section 7 of the Charter certainly has me thinking about the rights that were not upheld as far as LB was concerned. DI's can cause problems for the crown and if they are banking on a blemished jury, the kind that I mentioned above, then they could well have an uphill battle trying to win their case. JMO