Laura Babcock Murder Trial 12.05.17 - Closing Arguments - Day 1

[DeaconBrodie]

Can the crown now share that she refused to give them interviews/hostile etc?

Not unless it is in evidence. The fact that she didn't testify is in evidence so its fair for DM to bring it up.

 

[Typhoo1961]

Millard is talking. "In court I use the biggest words I can," he says.

Someone bought DM a thesauras. Oooooo LOL

 

[Kamille]

Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
2m2 minutes ago
Millard notes that by the end of the month that he broke up with Christina Noudga, they were back together again. "The issue is, some people might assume that's a breakup. It's my suggestion it's not an up and down relationship. But is it exclusive? or do they see other ppl?

Apparently only you do DM. You didn't like her texting Boris remember?

 

[CJPRINCESS]

Whoa crown you are busted!

Why is the crown busted?? Why didn’t DM call her as a witness? Just because the crown didn’t, that doesn’t mean crap! She was a hostile witness for the crown and she Was useless like her boyfriends evidence here! Why would the crown call her in when every single answer at TB trial was “I don’t know” or “I was busy giving him a bj” what would the crown honestly gain here by calling her again?

 

[Gloria77]

No. He's neither of them. He's a male millennial.

I wouldn't be so sure....

 

[mimimic]

Well maybe they can say why, some witnesses may seem important, but at what reasons they might not be called....

Not unless it is in evidence. The fact that she didn't testify is in evidence so its fair for DM to bring it up.

 

[Kamille]

Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
2m2 minutes ago
Millard dated Christina from Feb 2011 to well into 2013. Clearly he had relationships with other women during that time. He accused Noudga of sleeping with a guy named Boris. "There's no breakup here," Millard says.

Clearly he was engaged to be married and living with another woman during this time too. So the point is? :waitasec:

 

[don_quixote]

I wouldn't be so sure....

Ok. I'm not so sure about the male part.

 

[Kamille]

Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
2m2 minutes ago
Now the photo from Europe, "which my uncle was able to help us a bit with, when I took his son sailing," #Millard says he's getting to the part he thinks is relevant. "I continue to date Christina, I just don't call her my girlfriend. I considered it an open relationship."

Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
1m1 minute ago
"What's the point I'm getting at here? The point I'm getting at is evaluating the relationship," and it's not a motive for murder, #Millard says. #LauraBabcock

Aha...finally we hear the point. :facepalm:

 

[meterclicks]

Millard says to the jury, that the Crown argues bickering between Babcock and Noudga was motive for murder.

"I say, that's not. That's ridiculous."

Millard says he and Noudga had an open relationship.
by Shannon Martin 12:53 PM

 

[Jasper52]

I can't keep up with DM's contradictions. Am I the only one?

 

[Stratocaster]

I really hope all these women get STD tests if they didn’t use protection! He’s gross!

He's now about to switch teams, behind bars that is

 

[Night_is_Mine]

Why is the crown busted?? Why didn’t DM call her as a witness? Just because the crown didn’t, that doesn’t mean crap! She was a hostile witness for the crown and she Was useless like her boyfriends evidence here! Why would the crown call her in when every single amasser was “I don’t know” or “I was busy giving him a bj” what would the crown honestly gain here by calling her again?

She could most definitely put the out of context evidence into context. That was a great way of Dell showing the jury that crown's goal is not justice rather simply victory .

 

[DeaconBrodie]

Well maybe they can say why, some witnesses may seem important, but at what reasons they might not be called....

Yes, they can speak generally about why a witness may not be called, but not specific to this instance because that would require evidence to have been presented.

 

[don_quixote]

Well maybe they can say why, some witnesses may seem important, but at what reasons they might not be called....

They under no obligation to call CN, or anybody else. They are making their case. If DM, or anybody else, think that the Crown somehow must present all possible hypotheses and call all 6+ bin people to testify, then they better take a time out in the safe zone.

 

[Kamille]

Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
2m2 minutes ago
Sept 2012 - a message from Christina Noudga, and photos of Millard and his ex-fiancee, Jen, where she talks about #Millard still sleeping with his former fiancee.

 

[FastLikeLight]

Give him one more day and we'll know all details how it happened.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
57s57 seconds ago
Millard is talking about how he speaks differently with different friends. With Shane it was a business relationship, with Smich it's street lingo. "In court I use the biggest words I can," he says

Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
37s37 seconds ago
"When I speak to Christina, I speak in a manner to her." But she hasn't been here, there's an absence of evidence about her take on this and what she would say, Millard says.

So they ARE still talking??? Smart move be on the crown to not call her. Sounds like she was there as crown witness, as some thought but crown let her warm the bench. Great move because DM then couldn’t call her as a witness to collaborate more BS and turn the courtroom into a circus!

 

[Kamille]

Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
1m1 minute ago
This is me and Jennifer, #Millard says. Judge says that hasn't been proven in evidence. Millard will look for it. The photo was taken in the old Toronto hangar, giving some context to the date it was taken. Also a photo of a red jeep he bought for Jennifer.

Lisa Hepfner‏ @HefCHCHNews
now7 seconds ago
Millard paid for things for many friends. Bought Shane Schlatman half a car. He didn't do these things for Christina Noudga, "and yet the crown goes to you and says Christina's frustration with Laura is somehow motive for murder." #Millard says

 

[JuneBug67]

I wouldn't be so sure....

As somebody who has been on the 'wrong' side of arguments in other cases, I think it's the worst kind of trolling and bullying groupthink to imply that people who don't agree with you must be related to somebody from the case, or worse, be somebody from the case. It completely undermines the sincere efforts somebody puts in to contribute to the group and the conversation. And invariably you get a little gang willing to like/thank the posts. I find it a massive turn off.