DELLEN MILLARD:  A multiple murderer                                                   

There are people in this world that you never ever want to have any physical or emotional contact with during your own lifetime. Dellen Millard is one of them.

Dellen Millard was born in Ontario, Canada on the 30^th of August 1985. He should have been drowned at birth.  Unfortunately for his parents, he survived.

As a child, he was more than just the record-breaking flyer as a child prodigy pilot. Millard became a brief media sensation when, in 1999 on his 14th birthday, he flew into the record books as the youngest person to fly solo in both an airplane and a helicopter on the same day.  He enjoyed being also part of his family’s notable history and wealth.

One of the schoolmates of Dellen Millard was Charles Humphrey, a former schoolmate at the elite Toronto French School who remembered Millard’s dog biscuits. Charles said, “In grades six and seven, Millard walked the corridors of our private school carrying a box of dog treats, drawing out one bone-shaped biscuit after another and munching on them. I remember saying to him. ‘Man, that is weird, It is gross.’ Millard shrugged and replied that they taste good.  Then he went on eating them.” Charles added, “Dellen was a little marginalized, a little different. I didn’t even know the guy was so wealthy. He always looked like a bit of a hillbilly. At our school where most students had rich parents and wore trendy outfits, Millard wore clothes more befitting a farmer. His father used to drop him off in an old pickup truck.”

While Millard, now 32 at the time of this writing, may have outgrown his attention-getting snack, his old schoolmates’ memories that seem to hold steady as Millard moved into adulthood, He did not flaunt his family’s wealth, but he remained rooted in a style of casual plaids and he maintained a dedication to American-built trucks.

His grandfather, Carl was the owner of Millardair Ltd. that was a Canadian airline that operated from 1963 until 1990. Millardair was founded in 1963 by aviator, Carl Millard (1913–2006) and was based in Toronto, Canada. The firm began using several Douglas DC-3 planes. The main business was flying automotive parts and other cargo to various locations in Canada.

In 1970 the DC-3s were used to fly passengers on third-level services, and in 1972 the four-engine Douglas DC-4 joined the company's fleet. Some of the DC-3s were exchanged for a Douglas C-117 Super Dakota, and operations continued until finding slots at the Toronto airport became difficult and the firm’s operations ceased when it went into bankruptcy on  May 31,  1990. While no longer as a flying operator, the previously flown aircraft were stored at Pearson Airport along with other aircraft acquired by the firm. The firm was then run by Wayne Millard as the firm’s president after his father died. Wayne was Denen’s father.

From the 1990s to 2012 the firm was an aircraft maintenance and servicing firm then known as Millard Air Incorporated and renamed as Millardair that was formerly based  in the city of Mississauga, Ontario. (the city I live in)  Millard Air later moved their operations to Breslau, Ontario in 2012 and ceased activities after Wayne Millard's suspicious death in December 2012.More on his death further in this article.

After Wayne Millard's death, the role of CEO was taken up firstly, by his son, Dellen and subsequently by Wayne Millard's ex-wife Madeline Burns. The MillardAir’s license was soon after, voluntarily cancelled in February 2013.

On May 10^th, 2013, Dellen was charged with the murder of Tim Bosma while attempting to steal Bosma's Dodge Ram 3500.

Dellen Millard, then 30, and his former pal, Mark Smich, then age 28, on May 6, 2013 went with Tim Bosma, then age 32, in his truck that Millard said he wanted to buy. Bosma never came home alive.

The jury determined that either Millard or Smich shot Tim in his truck and then burned his remains which later were discovered in a livestock incinerator called The Eliminator. Both men were convicted of first degree murder and each were sentenced to prison for a minimum period of 25 years.

On May 7^th, the day after Mr. Bosma went missing; Millard bought a 37^th floor two-bedroom condominium in Toronto’s historic Distillery District for $627,523.  It was another sign that Millard was a man of means who, as his lawyer, Deepak Paradkar pointed out. He could have easily bought a used truck without having to murder Bosma for his truck which added fuel to the already bafflement and frustration over Mr. Bosma’s death that had already stirred emotions across Canada.

Millard and his friend, Mark Smich each also faced a charge of first-degree murder in the death of Laura Babcock, Millard’s former girlfriend and further, Millard is also charged with another murder, that of Wayne Millard, his father. Wayne Millard reportedly died of a gunshot to the left side of his head in November 2012. The death was originally deemed a suicide, but was reopened as a homicide investigation after Millard was charged in Bosma's death. The elder Millard had just finished building a massive million-dollar hangar at the Region of Waterloo International Airport and was planning a grand opening at the time of his death. Obviously, he wouldn’t have wanted to kill himself.

If Dellen is convicted of all three murders; that would mean that Dellen Millard murdered three persons thereby classifying him as a multiple murderer.

On December 2^nd, 2011, the Protecting Canadians by Ending Multiple Murders Act was enacted by the Canadian Parliament.  This Act states that individuals who are convicted of committing multiple murders can be ordered by the trial judge to serve their parole ineligibility period consecutively. This means the number of years allocated by a judge to be served without parole is now served one after another and not concurrently as it was in the past.  The penalty for first degree murder in Canada for the murder of one person is a minimum of 25 years in prison.  

This means that if Dellen Millard was sentenced to prison for 25 years on each of the two murders he has been convicted of and was also convicted of the first degree murder of his father and was sentenced to 25 years to be served consecutively with the other two sentences, he may be ordered to  serve at most 75 years in prison before he becomes eligible for parole. Since he is currently 32 years of age, he would only be eligible for parole when he is 107 years of age. Now there is a natural life sentence if there ever was a natural life sentence. However, the trial judge has to consider other factors before passing sentence.  More on that later in this article.

Serving a sentence for two first degree murders consecutively is not absolute. The trial judge has the final say even if a jury recommends that kind of sentence. The sentencing was scheduled for February 24, 2018.

What will be interesting is whether or not the lawyer who is going to represent him at the sentencing hearing is going to appeal the sentence on the basis of his argument that consecutive sentences for multiple first degree murders is unconstitutional.  A trial judge who dealt with this issue in another case ruled that it is not unconstitutional. Any argument that the consecutive sentences for first degree murder is too harsh will get the same sympathy from a court that we give a mosquito when it lands on our arms.

The Crown (prosecution office) has stated that it definitely will prosecute Millard for the murder of his father. That trial will begin sometime in March 2018.

Apparently, his mother is also missing and has not been seen since the police found the murdered body of Dellen’s father.  It is my honest opinion that he also killed his mother. However, they have to find her body first to charge him. If her body was incinerated like he did with his other known victims, then he will not likely be charged with her murder. However, defendants have been convicted in the past when no body was found. If the prosecutor dealing with the murder of Millard’s father’s murder and can show that the motive of murdering his father would be the same motive for the murder of his mother, he might be charged with her murder also.  In any case, charging him with the murder of his mother is academic since he will still never leave prison while he is alive if he is convicted of murdering his father.  

Years ago, a pig farmer in British Columbia was convicted of murdering 6 women and sentenced to life in prison. Later twenty more bodies were found on his farm. The Crown decided that it would be pointless to charge the serial killer for the deaths of the other 20 victims since the killer would never get out of prison for the other six murders he committed. Other trials would be a pointless expense paid by the taxpayers.  When Clifford Olsen was convicted of murdering ten boys and young men, he was given one sentence of 25 years. That didn’t mean that he would be eligible for parole after he served 25 years.  He applied a number of times but he was never released. He died in prison as an old man. The 25-year sentence is a life sentence if the parole board chooses not to release the murderer.

And now I will tell you about the incredibly interesting murder trial that Dellon and Smich were facing with respect to the murder of Laura Babcock.

Dellen Millard couldn’t’ inherit his father’s estate because he is  yet to stand trial for his father’s murder however, court documents show where some of the money is that might be used  to fund his defence. . He had spent at least $1.2 million in legal fees by November 2015 in a civil court. 

But the court documents show that through some legal maneuvering, Millard with the help of his mother who had power of attorney over his assets was able get $75,000 cash from Wayne Millard’s estate in exchange for a loan of $75,000 owed to Millard by the now-defunct family business.

The business owed Millard a total of $3,979,538.54 in return for Millard selling off or re-financing his own properties to pay off a bank loan however, since the business is no longer operational, that money is unlikely to be repaid. The cash that was released was to be used solely for the legal fees of Millard.

Superior Court Justice John McMahon told Millard that he had more than a year to retain a lawyer to represent him, and against the repeated urging of the court to hire a lawyer, Millard had maintained he would represent himself and that is what he was actually doing.  Justice Michael Code later took over the case.

There is an adage that all lawyers know and that is—A person who represents himself in court has a fool for a client. And considering how Millard was representing himself in court, he was definitely a fool. Now back to the trial involving the murder of Laura Babcock.

Millard said in his argument to the judge that Babcock had long suffered from mental health issues, but she'd been able to manage them. Her life had seemed to spiral out of control that spring. Suffering and repeatedly misdiagnosed and that she became increasingly isolated from friends and family, reportedly turning to drugs and the sex trade.

Millard and Smich had planned for months to kill the young 23-year-old Toronto woman who disappeared five years ago and then they tried to cover up their crime by burning her body in the incinerator. Millard’s alleged motive was that he was in love with another woman and Babcock was in the way.

Millard had been a primary player in the courtroom, cross-examining witnesses and, over a period of several days, conducting direct questioning of the three individuals summoned in his own defence. He seemed confident in his imitation of a lawyer.

Smich, with his head down at the defence table, scribbling on a notepad throughout, had been scarcely seen as a real presence in the courtroom, although he certainly came to life when he heard witnesses discuss scores of text messages between him and Millard.  Those texts, along with photographs and testimony from witnesses, illuminated the intense friendship which had existed between Smich and his friend Millard—the rich-boy heir to a family’s aviation fortune who was Smich’s benefactor. They were joined at the hip so to speak.

The jury had also seen a frequently replayed rap video shot a month after the Crown (prosecutor) maintained that Babcock’s body was incinerated. In the video, Smich spit out lyrics that he’d apparently written on a laptop which had been loaned to Babcock by her ex-boyfriend before she vanished just after Canada Day, 2012.  The lyrics which Smich had entered into the laptop on the very night, July 23, implied that Babcock’s corpse was fed into the Eliminator, a commercial machine intended for the disposal of animal carcasses.

Smich’s lyrics were in part; “The bitch started off all skin and bone/now the bitch lay on some ashy stone/last time I saw her outside the home/and if you go swimming you can find her phone.”

Those lyrics are evidence that Millard and Smich incinerated Babcock’s body and proof that they she was murdered by them.

After Babcock was reported missing, her cellphone bill arrived at her parents' house. The last several calls she made were to Dellen Millard. Babcock’s iPhone, which fell silent on July 3^rd in which her last eight texts sent had been sent to Millard. Meanwhile, her phone continued to emit a GPS signal into July 4, pinging off cellphone towers as it moved westwards from the area around Millard’s Maple Gate Court residence in Etobicoke, along the QEW to the vicinity of his Waterloo-area farm and Millard’s family’s plane hangar.

The Crown alleged that Babcock was killed on the night of July 3-4 and the phone’s last-gasp signals had tracked the route from Millard’s home to Millard’s farm in North Dumfries. Calls made to Babcock’s phone by worried family and friends went to voicemail until the phone’s battery finally went dead. Obviously her phone was present with the two killers which implied that Babcock was also with them as the two killers headed towards Millard’s farm.

After Bosma's remains were found at Millard's North Dumfries farm, the police and forensic investigators combed the sprawling lot. They also searched a barn on the lot after receiving new information about the Babcock case. Barrels were removed from the barn, but police ultimately said they were not important to the investigation. They should have taken a second look at the incinerator on the farm. After Bosma’s ashes were removed by the authorities, Millard and Smich burned the body of Laura Babcock in the incinerator and the police would have found her ashes in the incinerator. Well, you can’t expect police investigators to be smart all the time.

The real damming evidence by Millard was presented to the jurors at Millard’s trial. He had advised his other girlfriend (Christina Noudga) in his letters what to say if she was ever called to testify about a young Toronto woman who disappeared five years ago.

In one of the letters, he wrote. “Whatever it is you believe, it needs to be put aside. This is what happened. I told you Laura was over doing coke with Mark (Smich)  in the basement. We went to say hi to them. You saw her alive with Mark. There was coke on the bar. I told you that Mark had told me that she had OD'd, probably from mixing her prescriptions with Mark's coke." That stuff I wrote before about seeing Mark and someone partying in the basement, that was just brainstorming, forget it. Destroy this letter to protect me." unquote Unfortunately for him, she didn`t destroy his letter.

In another letter Millard wanted Noudga to become his secret agent. “To get out of this bind I need help. I won't ask you to give testimony that can be disproved. We need to get our stories straight. I need to know what you're willing to do. You said you wanted to be a secret agent, be mine.  Here's your chance to be a covert operative. Help could be testimony or other things, like secretly delivering a message. Just staying quiet has been an immense help already. I love you. I am not afraid.” unquote

If a jury needs evidence to prove that a defendant committed murder, all they need to hear is evidence that the defendant tried to create a phony alibi.

How, you ask, did the police know about the letters? A series of Millard’s jailhouse letters were secretly handed, over for months, to his girlfriend. The police eventually found them in her bedroom after her arrest as an accessory after the fact with respect to Bosma’s murder.

Much of the public focus had so far been on Millard’s apparent plotting to concoct evidence, manipulate witnesses and influence the jury to win an acquittal. The expansive text of his letters, however, also revealed much about his life behind bars, the way he sees himself and his relationship with others. 

As to how he was treated in jail after he was charged with killing Bosma, he said in part;

“When I was first brought in jail, they treated me as though I were Hannibal Lecter. I was paraded down the halls in chains and surrounded on all sides by a team of guards. I guess I should have been flattered.  For the first two weeks I was kept naked in a bare video recorded cell, and given only bread and jam to eat.” unquote  

 If that is so, he was mistreated by the jail authorities with respect to when he was in his jail cell.  As much as I have no sympathy for Millard, he shouldn’t have been treated like he was when he was first placed in a cell after arriving in the jail.   

This Millard wrote this aforementioned statement ten weeks after his arrest for the murder of Tim Bosma.

Mt eldest daughter is an inspector of jails and other correctional institutions in Ontario and if she had heard of how this murderer was treated during his first two weeks in his cell, sans the lights and she heard about it, I am sure she may have been instructed to investigate his complaint. However, she didn’t have that position in the Ontario Department of Corrections then.

With the submission of the two letters, the Crown finished its case against Millard and Smich.

It was then Millard’s time to present his own witnesses. He said to the judge, “I’m not calling any further evidence.”  That meant that he also wouldn’t be taking the stand himself to tell the jurors his responses to the crown’s position of the case against him and his lap-dog, Smich. He could do that in his argument to the jury if that was his wish.

That decision not to testify on his own part, brought a full stop to any speculation over whether or not Millard would put himself on the stand. No accused is compelled to testify but the courtroom was packed, just in case which would have seen Millard basically giving a narrative, in response of him asking himself the questions, but would have exposed him to cross-examination which would obviously tear his explanation to shreds.

After days of conjecture and anticipation, the accused killer, Dellen Millard announced that he would not be taking the stand in his own defence. That is most unfortunate for the spectators in the courtroom. It would have been fascinating to watch his testimony going through the prosecutor’s oral shedder. Millard’s decision to remain silent was the only smart thing he did during his trial.

Although defendants in criminal trials are under no obligation to testify at their own trials but they can make a statement near the end of their trials when they are either addressing the judge or their jury. They do not have to take the oath to tell the truth when giving their statement but the judge in his charge before a jury can shred the defendant’s testimony if he thinks the statement is phony.

However Millard had entered some exhibits such as documents and photos he’d used towards his defence portion. He also submitted a couple of agreed submissions, statements of fact acknowledged by him and the Crown.

“Once again you’ve been waiting patiently,” Justice Michael Code told the jury when they first took their seats in the jury box. “Things are moving rapidly. The parties have sensibly agreed to a couple of simple submissions.’’

Second, the parties agreed on the provenance of a handgun which, as the jury has already heard, ultimately came into the Millard’s possession.

In late spring of 2012, Mr. Nando LaRocca purchased a .32 calibre Smith and Wesson firearm from Miss Theresa Boisvert. This was the same .32 calibre Smith and Wesson that was later found at 5 Maple Gate Court in the fall of 2012. Millard paid $100 for it. On June 24, 2012, Mr. LaRocca sold this firearm to Mr. Matthew Odlum. He did so at the corner of Baby Point Rd. and Humbercrest Dr. in Toronto. When Mr. LaRocca sold the firearm to Mr. Odlum there was no ammunition in it.

There has been considerable talk of guns during the trial although the Crown has not made any claim about how Babcock was actually killed.

Reassembled in the early afternoon, jurors heard Millard say that he had no more evidence to call. Then he sat down.

Judge Code turned to Smich’s lawyer, Thomas Dungey. “Mr. Dungey, on behalf of Mr. Smich, are you calling any evidence?”

Dungey, standing replied, “No we are not calling any evidence.”

Millard was to deliver his closing address to the jury on December fifth. 

Millard, as always so obsequiously polite in front of the jury started of his statement by saying to the jury, “Good morning members of the jury. Sorry for the wait.”

At first, he told the jurors that everyone agreed on the date he (and Smich) had been arrested and charged with the murder of Laura Babcock which was April 10, 2014.

“I don’t think you’ll come to that conclusion that Laura is dead. Then you have to get into how did she die? Where did she die? When did she die,” he said. “These all have to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.”

The Crown had alleged that Millard and his co-accused, Mark Smich, killed Babcock on July 3 or 4, 2012 because she was the odd woman out in a love triangle with Millard and his girlfriend, Noudga.

Millard said to the jury that  he understood that members of the jury might not approve of the way he’s lived his life, or treated certain people, but he asked them to put all that aside. He continued with his closing argument by waxing philosophic.

“I’d like to ask what is an unreasonable doubt? I put that question out there because that’s something that comes out in philosophy. Am I really here? Do I exist? Is this all a dream?” Standing here in court, I can see the judge, I can see the jury, I can smell the air, touch the wood grain on the lectern. To me beyond reasonable doubt is to be absolutely convinced of something.”

That part of his argument was feeble to say the least. That argument doesn’t mean that his victim is still alive.

He told the jury Babcock is not dead, pointing to one witness who testified he saw Babcock at a nut store in Toronto in October 2012.

He also pointed to Babcock’s best friend, Megan Orr, who told court she talked to Babcock on the phone on July 4. Phone records, however, showed Babcock’s last phone call was to voice mail at 7:03 p.m. the day before. hat would be the day she was murdered.

Earlier, Smich's lawyer told the jury his client had no motive to kill Babcock because he was never part of a love triangle the Crown has said was behind her death. An accomplice’s motive in a case like this one would be to help his friend  in the murder of the a victim.  

Thomas Dungey said there's not one iota of evidence that his 30-year-old client killed Babcock.

Dungey said in his closing argument, “Mark Smich had no involvement with the disappearance of Laura Babcock. There is no evidence to where she is or what happened to her.”

Dungey argued that Smich had no reason for what he's accused of doing. He asked the following rhetorical question, “Who's involved in this love triangle? Allegedly Christina Noudga, Dellen Millard and Laura Babcock, Not Mark Smich. He wasn’t even part of the triangle and for this reason, he didn’t have a motive to kill her.”

It doesn’t really matter if he wasn’t part of the love triangle. He had helped Millard because he was Millard’s friend and Millard asked him for his help. Smich was fully involved with the murder of Babcock.

Dungey continued, “The Court has not heard evidence of any texts or communication between Smich and Babcock. And Smich didn't buy the incinerator the Crown alleges the accused used, Millard did’  

. He could have helped Millard move the body to the incinerator. He could have helped Millard cut her body into pieces before it was thrust into the incinerator. I think Law Schools should teach would-be lawyers how to use common sense when investigating their client’s stories.

The Court heard from one of Millard's former employees who had purchased the animal incinerator for his boss (Millard) costing just over $15,000. The plan, the jury heard, was that Millard and his uncle, Robert Burns were going to start a mobile pet cremation business together.

Robert Burns is a veterinarian in Woodbridge, Ontario whose sister is Millard's missing mother. He said, “Can you imagine driving up to a strip mall to a vet clinic, carting out cadavers and lighting up an incinerator, with embers flying out right there in the parking lot, and then travelling down Main Street to the next clinic?"

Dungey focused on two pieces of evidence the Crown had used to highlight Smich's connection to Babcock such as her iPad that was found in his possession and named "Mark's iPad," and a red bag with her name on it that was found in Smich's bedroom. Dungey said text messages in evidence show that Millard gave both items to Smich.

If Smich was really innocent of the murder of Babcock, wouldn’t he think it odd that Millard was handing her personal effects to him?  

Dungey said that there was not one iota of evidence that his 30-year-old client had killed Babcock.

He was right on that point. It may have been Millard that actually killed his ex-girlfriend. However, passive acquiescence can make a person still guilty of a crime if that person has the ability to put an end to the crime but does nothing to stop it and instead, stands by and watches the crime unfold before his eyes. That makes him an accomplice and as such, he is as guilty as the one who physically committed the crime.

Dungey further argued that the Crown's case was based on circumstantial evidence with no concrete proof about Babcock's presumed death.

Hey dummy. Your client received her personal effects from Millard. Do you really believe that the members of the jury will be convinced that Smich didn’t know that they were the personal effects of a dead woman?  

The police recovered texts in which Millard promised Noudga (his original girlfriend) he’d “remove her from our lives.” There was also a video where Smich rapped about the “bitch lay on some ashy stone” and his later boasts to two boys that “we burned a body and threw it in the lake.” and then telling the boys that what he said in the rap was true.

Is that not unlike sticking your hand in the cookie jar and then showing everyone how you did it?

Dungey said to the jury while referring to a rap Smich gave in his garage after Babcock disappeared “Is this a novel? Because it sure is fiction.  It comes down to a rap.  That's all they (prosecutor)  got.”

Admittedly, Smitch’s lawyer had a difficult case to deal with respect to his client’s role on the murder but to suggest that the only thing the prosecutor had was the lyrics that outlined a murder is feeble at best.  He went along with the decision that his client would not take the stand and give his story as a statement. Now just because an accused doesn’t take the stand, it doesn’t automatically mean he is guilty. He could have made a statement as to why he wasn’t involved with the murder but instead he chose to remainmute.

Dungey told the jury that both witnesses were adolescents, admitted drug addicts and smoking marijuana at the time and because of all that, their memories were not reliable.

It seems to me that their memories were functioning well enough when they gave their written statements to the police.

Millard, who represented himself, told the jury in his closing argument that several witnesses had seen or heard from Babcock after July 4, 2012.

The 32-year-old defendant told the jury that Babcock was not dead, making reference to one witness who claimed that she saw Babcock at a nut store in Toronto in October 2012.

If Babcock really was alive, surely she wouldn’t purposely remain hidden and let two innocent men be tried for her murder even after having broken up with Millard.

Millard also pointed to Babcock's best friend, Megan Orr, who told court she talked to Babcock on the phone on July fourth. Phone records, however, showed Babcock's last phone call was to voice mail at 7:03 p.m. the day before.

Millard said, “Laura must have changed her phone, must have had another phone.”  That was a drowning man reaching for straws.

The prosecution then gave its closing argument by going over a ‘mountain’ of circumstantial evidence in the presumed death of 23-year-old Laura Babcock.

In a Supreme Court of Canada decision in R v Griffin, the court   said that it ackbowledged that the trial judge was correct when he correctly instructed the jury that, in order to base a verdict of guilt based on circumstantial evidence, they had to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the guilt of the accused was the only reasonable inference that could be drawn. Although in the Babcock trial, much of the evidence presented by the prosecutor was speculation, however, when put together as one package with tidbits of actual facts that had produced substance which bolstered  and supported the  circumstantial evidence that was presented to the jury by the prosecutor.    

The prosecutor said, “The planning began in April 2012 when the feud between Millard's girlfriend, Christina Noudga, and Babcock reached its zenith.”

The court had previously heard that the two women were fighting over Millard.

"Her last footprint was in their company. Think about the improbability of coincidence. It's almost too many to count," said Crown attorney Jill Cameron. That is no coincidence. That is murder.”

She said, “Millard and Smich killed Babcock at Millard's home sometime after 8 p.m. on July 3, 2012 when the pair stopped texting each other and everyone else for about four hours.”

The prosecutor said, “It doesn't matter how they killed her. We will never know. They killed her and then they tried to cover it up by burning her body and they sure seemed pleased about doing it. They took pictures and didn't destroy them. They kept her possessions as if they were collecting trophies. Fortunately for us they didn't do a very good job of covering up their crime.”

The prosecutor also said, “Babcock's footprint, both real and digital, vanished on July fourth when her phone went dark.”

“After the two killed Babcock, Millard wrapped her body in a tarp, dumped it in his father's minivan and drove to his hangar for some work and then on to his farm to hide her body. Millard sent Smich a text with a picture of a large, wrapped blue tarp next his dog, Pedo, on the afternoon of July fourth. It was Laura's body.”

She said, “Millard and Smich spoke extensively by text about a homemade incinerator that they were never able to get working.  After that failure, Millard ordered a commercial incinerator called The Eliminator and the two spoke about testing it with bones. The machine arrived on July fifth but wasn't operational until July 23 with both men working on it to get it installed on a trailer.”

The prosecutor then pointed to the photo of a smiling Smich in front of The Eliminator taken with Millard's cellphone that night, then the image of what two experts say are bones inside the machine.

Cameron said. “Given the mountain of evidence you have heard, those aren't deer bones. That is a picture of Laura Babcock after these two got through with her.”

Then it was Judge Code’s time to give his charge to the jury, In which he told them that it was going to be a lengthy process.  A charge to the jury by a trial judge usually includes an overview of the trial's evidence, instructions on how to weigh testimony and the routes by which a jury can reach different verdicts.

At this stage of the trial, there was a much smaller crowd in court, as the number of spectators and reporters dwindled considerably for this semi-final step of the process.

Justice Michael Code began his address, which was expected to last three days, by telling the jury the case was based on two crucial questions—whether or not Babcock was actually dead, and whether or not Millard and Smich killed her.

Justice Michael Code laid out possible verdicts for jurors at the Laura Babcock murder trial, telling the jurors that manslaughter, first-degree murder and second-degree murder options are all on the table for them to consider.

Code told the jury the case in front of them is ‘dense and complex,’ and he stressed the importance of their duties.  "You are engaged in one of the most important duties a Canadian citizen can be called on to perform."

Code spent much of the morning explaining key legal concepts to the jury, like hearsay evidence, and out of court statements that were heard during the trial.

Judge Code's charge to the jury included an overview of the trial's evidence, instructions on how to weigh testimony and the avenues by which a jury can reach different verdicts. He spent much of an afternoon summarizing the evidence in the case.

He said, “My review will only be a summary of the evidence that seems to me to be important. Remember that the evidence and the findings of fact are your province, not mine, and it is your recall of the evidence and what you think is important that matters.”

The judge told the jury that it must accept all the rules of law that he says apply in the case.

He said, ‘Even if you disagree with, or do not understand the reasons for the law, you are required to follow what I say about it. You are not allowed to pick and choose amongst my instructions on the law. You must not consult other sources or substitute your own views," If I make a mistake about the law, justice can still be done in this case because the Court of Appeal can correct my mistakes. But justice will not be done if you apply the law incorrectly.’

He also said, “Your decisions are secret. You do not give reasons. No one keeps a record of your discussions for the Court of Appeal to review. As a result, it is very important that you accept the law from me and follow it without question.”

The judge also instructed the jury on issue of principal offenders. He said that Crown’s theory was that Millard was the principal killer and Smich was the aider/abettor who knowingly assisted and encouraged Millard to kill his former girlfriend.

He also said, “If you have reasonable doubt as to whether Ms. Babcock is dead, then you would find both accused not guilty. You would proceed no further in your deliberations.”

The judge also said, “If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mister Millard was the principal in the murder and that he both planned and deliberated on that murder, then you would find Mr. Millard guilty as charged of first-degree murder.  If you are satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mister Smitch aided or abetted a planned and deliberate murder committed by Mr. Millard, then you would also find Mister Smich guilty of first-degree murder.”

The judge also read through several texts messages between Millard and Babcock, sent back and forth in the months before her disappearance. He said that any of them were flirtatious and  had sexual overtones.

Code also made a point to highlight text messages between Millard, and his then-girlfriend Christina Noudga, about Babcock. In some of those messages, Millard compared Babcock to herpes.

The judge made reference to a statement made by Millard in one of the texts when Millard said, “I fancy myself something of an undercover doctor. I think with the right treatment, these herpes can be gotten rid of.  I will remove her from our lives.”

This gives you some idea as to just how stupid Millard was to put such a statement in writing. He in essence was saying that he was going to kill his former girlfriend. How would killing her solve his problem?

 If the jurors believe that Babcock is dead, then they will have to consider if Millard and Smich caused her death, and if they planned it. Judge Code answered that question for them when he said to the jurors; That’s planning and deliberation which is crucial to a finding of guilt in a case of first-degree murder.”

Judge then explained to the Jury the Crown’s argument when he said, The Crown submits that Mr. Millard was the principal who carried out the unlawful act that caused Ms. Babcock's death, Millard had the alleged motive, bought the incinerator her body was allegedly burned in, got a gun, was in contact with Babcock, and appears to have met up with her on the night she died.  Smich, the Crown contends, was an "aider or abettor" who was at Millard's home when Babcock's death occurred.

This means that they both conspired to kill Babcock which makes them both guilty of first degree murder.

The Crown's battle to enter evidence related to Tim Bosma's killing was denied in a 16-page pretrial motion by Justice Michael Code.

The judge said that the Bosma and Babcock cases were too different: Bosma had never laid eyes on his killers until they showed up at his house to test drive his truck. Babcock, on the other hand, had briefly dated Millard and continued to have sex with him after they were no longer a couple. She seemed to harbour a lingering crush on him before she vanished.

In my opinion, the judge`s order to deny the Crown to bring up the Bosma murder was academic. If any of the jurors were unaware of the Bosma murder, I have to presume that the jurors didn`t read newspapers or watched television news and that happening is as slim as a cigarette wrapper. However, the judge pointed out one glaring similarity between the two cases. It was same the animal incinerator called The Eliminator that incinerated the bodies of the two murdered victims.  WOW! Trying to undo that connection is like trying to undo the fabled Gordian Knot.  

During jury selection, 200 men and women were asked if they'd ever heard Millard and Smich mentioned in previous media reports, and if so, had they formed an opinion of guilt or innocence? Again, Bosma's name was not mentioned. About half of the jurors admitted they knew about the co-accused, but said what they knew wouldn't sway their decision in the Babcock case.

The judge thanked the jury and told them that they looked  attentive and patient. He also said that he knew that they thought he was longwinded.  (That got him a laugh) 

From the start, Crown attorneys studying the information given to them before the trial admitted their case was complex and circumstantial. There was a mountain of evidence, cellphone records, hundreds if not thousands of text messages, photos and videos, but ultimately prosecutors told the jury that it was Millard and Smich's own failed attempts to cover up the crime that was their undoing. Plus, the prosecutor told the jury that both men confessed to the killing in their own words thinking that their admitting to killing her would never be known by the police. That was their biggest mistake out of other stupid mistakes by them.

You may remember that Smich in his rap made a statement that was on a video tape, “The bitch lay on some ashy stone,”  And then the fool later boasted to the boys who were shown the video that, “we burned a body and threw it in the lake.” And then he told the boys that what he said in the rap was true.  Did this really stupid man believe that these statements wouldn’t come back to bite him in the ass?

As for Millard’ stupidity, it was some 65 handwritten letters he sent to his girlfriend, Christina Noudga at the time. While he repeatedly instructed her to destroy them, she didn’t destroy them and later they were found by the police since they were scattered all over her bedroom. However, it was his statement to Ms. Noudga that really did him in. He wrote her in April 2012 the following text, “First I'm going to hurt her. Then I'll make her leave. I will remove her from our lives.” Murdering her and burning her body is a sure way of removing Babcock from their lives.

These two dummies made two cardinal mistakes. Mitch   indirectly bragged about the crime Millard wrote text about the crime.

Further, the two dummies didn’t realize that Babcock’s cell phone was still active and its signal was traced from Millard’s home where she was murdered to his farm where she was incinerated.

As to the length of the charge to the jury, we must not forget that the jurors had to read through 300 pages of the judge’s charge to the jury. I had to do the same thing in order for me to include in this article some of what he said to the jury.

Further, I am convinced that the jurors had little difficulty in determining the guilt of the two men. I think what took so long in their deliberations was the sentencing advice they wanted to give to the judge.

The Ontario Superior Court jury began deliberating in the afternoon of December 12^th and returned their verdict on December 16^th. The jury found Dellen Millard and Mark Smich both guilty of first-degree murder in the death of Laura Babcock. Their trial lasted seven weeks. Babcock's family and several jurors cried as the verdict was read out, amid quiet cheers from the courtroom.

All 12 jurors recommended consecutive sentences for Millard, while only five jurors recommended that Smich receive the maximum consecutive year’s parole ineligibility. Seven others made no recommendation at all.

Justice Michael Code had previously told the jurors that the consecutive sentencing provision was new to the Criminal Code. A sentencing hearing will likely take place sometime in the New Year.  Judge Code said the final decision on sentencing rests with him, but he will consider all of their recommendations.

Quite frankly, I can’t see how Judge Code could do anything other than make their sentences consecutive since this is the second first degree murder these two killers have been convicted of committing.

The Sentence

Millard, 32, and Smich, 30 sentences were consecutive. Theyare already serving automatic life sentences with no parole eligibility for 25 years for the first-degree murder of Tim Bosma. Late last year, a Toronto jury convicted the pair of killing Laura Babcock, finding it was planned and deliberate and therefore first-degree murder, which carries an automatic life sentence.

Crown attorney Jill Cameron urged Superior Court Justice Michael Code earlier this month to make the 25-year parole inegibility period for Babcock’s murder consecutive to the inegibility period for Bosma’s murder. The federal government added the option of consecutive inegibility periods to the Criminal Code in 2011.

The prosecutor, Cameron said to the judge,  “These murders were two carefully planned out separate events over the course of almost a year, and in my submission, the law demands that they be sentenced consecutively, Justice for Laura demands a separate penalty for her murder.”

Defence lawyers argued that consecutive periods of parole ineligibility would leave the convicted murderers no chance to apply for parole until they are their 70s, which in their opinion, would be unduly harsh. Of course it is harsh, and so is murdering a woman harsh.

On Monday while delivering his sentencing decision, Justice Code described Millard as “profoundly amoral and dangerous” and said that Smich was an “enthusiastic” participant in the murder of Babcock.

Smich will be eligible to apply for parole on May 22, 2063, when he's 75.

Millard will be eligible to apply for parole on May 10, 2063, when he's 77.

Of course, if Millard is convicted of murdering his father, then another 25 years will be added to his current sentence and as such, he wouldn’t be eligible until he is 102 years of age which will be unlikely. In in essence he will have been sentenced to prison for the rest of his natural life.

After the judge had left the courtroom, the eyes of both Millard and Smich welled up with tears as they were handcuffed and leg-ironed and while they shuffled out of the courtroom amid the cheers and clapping of all the spectators and family members of the murdered woman that were still present in the courtroom.

The murderer`s victim`s father, Clayton Babcock said he had no sympathy for his daughter's killers. "We must admit that it was satisfying to see the two cuffed and shuffling off to the prison shuttle, to a life that for most of us would be unbearable.”

It will even more unbearable to Millard if he is convicted of murdering his father because another 25-year-sentence will begin when he is 77 years of age.  That would mean that if he lives long enough, he would be 102 years old when he would be eligible to be released from prison. Is that likely? The Earth’s spin being reversed is more likely.


UPDATE: March 7, 2018:  Dellen Millard requested a judge-alone 

 trial due to his notoriety following two murder convictions, and

the request was approved by the province’s attorney general.