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

[meterclicks]

Thank you meterclicks.

No problem, nice to see a post by someone else

 

[Grey-St]

I know we likely have 3 days of this to go through, so there's still time to circle back to this, but Code went from before the fact evidence, to after the fact evidence, without touching on the homemade incinerator, which I think is important to show premeditation. Especially with the "bring something with bones" comment. JMO.

 

[Jasper52]

Thank you, meterclicks.

 

[Shaz14]

He's also talking about texts Millard sent to Noudga about Millard, and evidence of "bad blood" between Noudga, Millard and Babcock. Code also says Millard has said his relationship with Noudga was "at times" an open one.
by Adam Carter 11:36 AM

All of these texts are out of court statements by Millard, and therefore can't be used against Smich, Code says.
by Adam Carter 11:37 AM

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.

 

[redwing7225]

It also includes Babcock's phone being found at Smich's place.
by Adam Carter 11:59 AM

Phone? I missed that part

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[inbetweendoors]

Phone? I missed that part

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

I did a double take too then realized he probably meant iPad

 

[Inspector_North]

Phone? I missed that part

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

I was just going to ask the same question.

 

[Jasper52]

I know we likely have 3 days of this to go through, so there's still time to circle back to this, but Code went from before the fact evidence, to after the fact evidence, without touching on the homemade incinerator, which I think is important to show premeditation. Especially with the "bring something with bones" comment. JMO.

Lisa Hepfner tweeted this;

"Acquisition of an incinerator and a gun in late June 2012: another body of circumstantial evidence. #Millard tried to have a large incinerator built. When it failed he bought a large commercial one. #Smich appeared to be involved in procurement and testing. #LauraBabcock"

Justice Code touched on it.

 

[5150]

I know we likely have 3 days of this to go through, so there's still time to circle back to this, but Code went from before the fact evidence, to after the fact evidence, without touching on the homemade incinerator, which I think is important to show premeditation. Especially with the "bring something with bones" comment. JMO.

I think at this point in his charge he is outlining types of evidence (using examples) and not into totality of evidence.

Interesting that both accused have a piece of IMO damming evidence that applies only to them. MS rap and garage confession/admission and for DM the letters to CN. This ties IMO both of them to her disappearance. If jury can conclude she is deceased, I think there is evidence enough for M1 for both.

 

[NorthTona]

It also includes Babcock's phone being found at Smich's place.
by Adam Carter 11:59 AM

Did I miss something? I thought you had to go swimming to find her phone.

 

[loveisthemovement]

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 wondered the same. DM saying that does not make it true nor should it be considered evidence. I think My memory is hazy but I think CN testified that she believed their relationship was exclusive.

 

[Inspector_North]

Did I miss something? I thought you had to go swimming to find her phone.

I did a double take too then realized he probably meant iPad

Most likely. This judge admitted he is not a tech nerd.

 

[Shaz14]

This also includes Smich's alleged statements about killing a girl, and the "ashy stone" rap.
by Adam Carter 11:58 AM

It also includes Babcock's phone being found at Smich's place.
by Adam Carter 11:59 AM

Code says circumstantial evidence is "crucial" in this case.
by Adam Carter 12:01 PM

"The case depends on circumstantial evidence on two of the main issues," Code says. Again, that's whether or not Babcock is dead, and if Millard and Smich killed her.
by Adam Carter 12:02 PM

Did he mean Babcock's phone being found at Smich's place?

ETA: I just saw that a bunch of people asked the same thing. Sorry! I suspect that was a mistake and he meant iPad since we all caught it??

 

[Nosey Parker]

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.

Yes, I recall posting at the time that I thought that was hearsay because CN wasn't there to testify to that.

 

[Ashley96]

Code says the only way to find guilty verdicts with circumstantial evidence is where it is the "only rational or logical inference or conclusion, based on the totality of the circumstantial evidence. "
by Adam Carter 11:14 AM

Inference drawing shouldn't be based on speculation, Code says.
by Adam Carter 11:15 AM

He's now moving on to talking about looking at the evidence as a whole, and not piece by piece.
by Adam Carter 11:15 AM

This struck me...I didn't think there was so much against MS (probably in direct contrast to how much there is against DM!) ...but when you look at the totality...how MS was involved, accepting, encouraging?....happy to do his part, assist DM where needed, whatever was needed (guns, incinerator, bbq, meat with bones, stayed out of sight when LB arrived, using LB's ipad the next day...proudly posing during cremation, rap written right after, confession in the garage etc..

Well what 'rational' explanation is there for all that? He was a hypnotized follower? But some texts show him to be contributing to the plan...not just saying "yes, whatever you say DM...."

Most rational explanation for me is that he was partnering with DM in this whole criminal plan..for the criminal glory, to keep the DM gravy train going or inspiration for his rap artistry...whatever the reason, My commonsense tells me the evidence shows he is guilty of M1

 

[redwing7225]

My memory is hazy but I think CN testified that she believed their relationship was exclusive.

Wrong trial the jury doesn't know her sexual encounters with DM

Sent from my SM-G930W8 using Tapatalk

 

[meterclicks]

And we're back. Code says the jury has told him they're not interested in sitting on the weekend. "My feelings are hurt," he jokes.
by Adam Carter 12:42 PM

 

[NorthTona]

Most likely. This judge admitted he is not a tech nerd.

I am more concerned the jury heard the wrong thing. He will surely correct his slip of the tongue. Maybe it is Adam Carter's typo?

 

[meterclicks]

He's now moving on to talk about the hearsay rule, basically meaning that out of court statements are generally inadmissible when they're being introduced to prove the truth of what's asserted in the out of court statement -- but there are exceptions, like if they assert a state of mind or intention of the person who made the statement.
by Adam Carter 12:44 PM

It also kind of levels the playing field, as it were, because the Crown cannot compel an accused to testify at his own trial. That's why we get evidence from Smich's friends about what he allegedly said, and Millard's letters to Noudga.
by Adam Carter 12:47 PM




(Side note: I just double checked the post about the phone on the blog and it has not been edited to say iPad - so unsure if it was error by Justice Code or a typo on Adam's part)

 

[inbetweendoors]

So if the jury convicts DM of M1 but is unable to come to an agreement on MS, would that only be a mistrial for MS or would it be both because they're tried together?

If only a mistrial for MS, do you think the Crown would re-try him for M1, try a lesser charge (AATF) or simply cut their losses?
I'm very curious how they would re-try him without DM (ie. what would be admissible/inadmissible).

Of course this may all be a moot point. Just curious.