Laura Babcock Murder Trial 12.07.17 - Charge to the Jury - Day 1

[Grey-St]

I know in his closing DM said that his relationship with Noudga was open, but was there actually any evidence of that? There was the text that said that he didn't want to be her girlfriend anymore but I don't remember anything that indicated it was now an open relationship. I have been wondering if DM was even allowed to say that during his closing, and now the judge is bringing it up again. I find this a bit confusing.

I agree that this is misleading. There is zero evidence that states they were in an open relationship. In fact, there's circumstantial evidence to suggest the opposite. And just because DM was fooling around on CN, that does not mean they were in an open relationship. Actually, for our background knowledge, in the TB trial CN testified that she always believed they were in a committed, monogamous relationship.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

I agree that this is misleading. There is zero evidence that states they were in an open relationship. In fact, there's circumstantial evidence to suggest the opposite. And just because DM was fooling around on CN, that does not mean they were in an open relationship. Actually, for our background knowledge, in the TB trial CN testified that she always believed they were in a committed, monogamous relationship.

Correct me if I’m wrong but DM not state he was in an open relationship with CN?

I’ll look after if I’ve need some reading material to put me to sleep later. Otherwise, I couldn’t stomach reading his BS again to go looking for it. Sorry

 

[meterclicks]

Both of the accused have to be present in this case. The other accused must do or say something from which you would infer that he has agreed with the first accused's statement.
by Adam Carter 1:03 PM

The second hearsay exception also includes text messages, Code says. There's no evidence that Smich was around when Millard wrote the letters to Noudga though, Code says, so they're "flat out inadmissible" against Smich.
by Adam Carter 1:06 PM

The other factor here is "adoption" -- the second accused agreeing somehow with what the first accused was saying. (Confused yet? Sorry, this is quite complex).
by Adam Carter 1:07 PM

 

[ab-initio]

Deleted post.

 

[DeaconBrodie]

Correct me if I’m wrong but DM not state he was in an open relationship with CN?

Even if he did, that is not evidence because he wasn't under oath and subject to cross examination.

 

[meterclicks]

As an example, Meneses testified that one night when she was with Millard and Smich, they drove to the farm, where they did some work with the Eliminator, before taking it to the airport. They then burned something at the hangar, but she didn't see what.

When they parked at the barn and went to do something with the Eliminator, they told Meneses something to the effect of stay in the car, don't watch us. She thought it was Smich who made this statement first, and MIllard then said something similar.

The hearsay here is who made the statement -- but there's no suggestion that one accused disagreed with what had been said. There's also a previous text exchange on this very matter, that can be used for context, Code says.
by Adam Carter 1:11 PM

 

[ab-initio]

Re the phone reference, it's hard to think that the judge would make such an important error. On that subject, though, didn't DM say that LB had a Blackberry and didn't MS also have a Blackberry as per the TB trial. I don't recall what happened to that but my guess it would be one and the same. I also thought that Jill Cameron said yesterday that LB only had one phone, ignoring but not addressing DM's comment about the Blackberry. I wonder if this was something kicked out in legal arguments, just like the references to a second gun in the TB trial.

LB was in possession of and using a Blackberry at the time of her disappearance/death.

 

[CJPRINCESS]

Even if he did, that is not evidence because he wasn't under oath and subject to cross examination.

But even if heDM said it, this allows the judge to repeat it?

ETA: I’m not sure it matters anyways. The judge said it and I’m sure he’s being carful of what and how he says things. I don’t think he’d word something like that if wasn’t said or usable to ensure there’s no mistrial as DM and MS will look for anything to achieve this.....cuz they are done...done!

 

[ab-initio]

Given that the one juror had to be in Europe for family event on Dec 22nd, you’d think they’d sit the weekend and get right into deliberations?

JMO

Maybe s/he was outvoted?
If they think they'll be some time coming to a decision, perhaps they view the weekend as their last real chance to get some family/personal time in before being without contact.

Alternately, maybe they think they'll be quick and this juror knows that and sees no need to rush through the weekend because they'll be done before the following one, making all 14 happy?

Who knows.

 

[meterclicks]

Code is now talking about the backup to the Babcock iPad, that has the Ashy Stone rap lyrics on it. There's also the video, where Smich actually performs it.
by Adam Carter 1:13 PM

The jury will have to decide if Millard filming that rap, and saving it through a backup, amounts to an adoption in connection with what Smich is saying.
by Adam Carter 1:15 PM

Code says they have to take all the context into consideration -- whether Millard heard what was being said, whether he said anything about it or disagreed, etc.
by Adam Carter 1:16 PM

 

[Jasper52]

This is Lisa Hepfner's tweet about what was found at MS's house;

"The iPad and the red bag belonging to #LauraBabcock were found in #Smich's home 10 months after she disappeared. #Millard told Shawn Lerner he had refused to help Babcock when she was looking for drugs and a place to stay."

 

[Oreck]

I agree that this is misleading. There is zero evidence that states they were in an open relationship. In fact, there's circumstantial evidence to suggest the opposite. And just because DM was fooling around on CN, that does not mean they were in an open relationship. Actually, for our background knowledge, in the TB trial CN testified that she always believed they were in a committed, monogamous relationship.

What about Boris?

 

[dar107]

I don't think DM thought it was open, either -- in the true definition of an open relationship.
It was open for him ... but the second she shacked up with Boris, he dropped her from the title of girlfriend.

More accurately, he was habitually cheating/sleeping around.

I think he tried to frame it to appear open.
The "bro talk" between him and AM ... I don't think there was really any substance to that as far as CN was concerned.

Agreed, IMO it was just Bro talk, if CN had initiated or AM had hit on her and she slept with him, it would be an entirely different story and DM would of reacted the same as he did about Boris. One sided open, and not on her side. She was not ok with him sleeping with Laura, she was not ok with him sleeping with anyone else either IMO.

 

[meterclicks]

If the jury doesn't adopt the statement, it can only be used for or against the first accused. Code says the Noudga letters is a classic example of this.
by Adam Carter 1:18 PM

He's giving another exception to the hearsay rule -- statement inferring a state of mind or intention.
by Adam Carter 1:19 PM

Code says he allowed statements from Babcock, as they talked about her state of mind. She wasn't available as a witness, and if she made a statement about her state of mind, it's includes as evidence, as we can't hear from her directly.
by Adam Carter 1:20 PM

We heard from several witnesses who testified about out of court statements made by Babcock, as well as medical statements about her mental health, Code says.
by Adam Carter 1:22 PM

 

[meterclicks]

Code says both sides wanted statements made by Babcock in. The Crown wanted them in to show Babcock's vulnerability, and her infatuation with Millard, and to help prove a motive, centred on the "love triangle."

The defence, by contrast, wanted the statements in to infer that she was leading a high risk lifestyle, and talking about travelling with a client.
by Adam Carter 1:24 PM

"All three parties want to get at Miss Babcock's state of mind and her intentions in this period, for various reasons," Code says.
by Adam Carter 1:24 PM

Code says it's up to them to decide how much weight to give to these statements.
by Adam Carter 1:25 PM

 

[Bluepopsicle]

Maybe s/he was outvoted?
If they think they'll be some time coming to a decision, perhaps they view the weekend as their last real chance to get some family/personal time in before being without contact.

Alternately, maybe they think they'll be quick and this juror knows that and sees no need to rush through the weekend because they'll be done before the following one, making all 14 happy?

Who knows.

Are the jurors allowed to discuss the case amongst themselves while they’re on breaks throughout the trial? I guess I’m wondering if its possible they all know roughly where each other stands at this point? I’m not sure why, but I was under the impression they weren’t allowed to discuss until deliberations.

And if not, can they even comment to each other, like for instance... “wow, that DM is a jerk isn’t he?”

TIA for any clarification...I know nothing about serving on a jury!

 

[meterclicks]

Code says that the fact that Babcock is calling around, looking for a place to stay before she died, says something about her state of mind.
by Adam Carter 1:27 PM

Code says that the jury has to bear in mind the limitations of this sort of evidence -- they didn't hear anything directly from Babcock. He also stresses that the evidence about Babcock's lifestyle can't be used to infer that she wasn't worthy of protection. "All persons are entitled to the protection of the rule of law," he says.
by Adam Carter 1:31 PM

He again mentions taking this in context. "Are you sick of hearing me say that yet?" Code says.
by Adam Carter 1:32 PM

 

[Bluepopsicle]

What about Boris?

I think they both cheated. Maybe I’m old fashioned, but I don’t think that equates to an open relationship.

 

[meterclicks]

Code saying he wants to go through about 30 more pages this afternoon. He doesn't want to go too late this afternoon, he says, and risk losing the jury's attention.
by Adam Carter 1:33 PM

We're now taking lunch. Back at 2:45 p.m.
by Adam Carter 1:34 PM


Can someone else pick up the blog or tweets after the lunch break?
http://live.cbc.ca/Event/Laura_Babcock_murder_trial_Dec_7

 

[Grey-St]

What about Boris?

You mean when DM broke up with CN for even talking to Boris? Clearly showing they were not in an open relationship?