Jurors in the Laura Babcock murder trial were not told about the co-accused’s killing of Tim Bosma, nor were they allowed to see the shackles on the feet of Dellen Millard and Mark Smich ahead of delivering a verdict on Monday.

Millard, 32, of Toronto, and Smich, 30, of Oakville, Ont., awaited the verdict Monday in the presumed murder of 23-year-old Laura Babcock, whose body was never found following her disappearance in July 2012. The Crown has argued that Babcock had been at the centre of a love triangle involving Millard and his girlfriend, Christina Noudga.

Millard, who represented himself, has argued that the Crown couldn’t prove Babcock was dead beyond a reasonable doubt because her body was never found.

The jury did not hear that Millard and Smich are currently serving life sentences with no chance of parole for 25 years for killing Bosma, a 32-year-old father, in May of 2013. The two men posed as prospective buyers of Bosma’s truck, and shot him while out for a test drive. They later burned his body in an incinerator.

The Crown argued in the Babcock case that Millard’s incinerator was used to dispose of her body. However, the jury was not told that the same incinerator was believed to have been used to burn Bosma’s body. They also didn’t see the shackles on Millard’s and Smich’s legs due to a black curtain around the lectern.

Seven jurors admitted during jury selection that they had heard of Millard and Smich, but it’s unknown how much they knew.

The jury also was not told that Noudga was found guilty of obstructing justice in the Bosma case.

In addition to omitting any mention of the Bosma case, the Crown was not permitted to bring up Millard’s pending first-degree murder trial following the death of his father, Wayne, in 2012. Wayne Millard’s death by gunshot wound had initially been ruled a suicide.

Millard received a considerable inheritance following his father’s death, but was cut off from that money after he was convicted of murdering Bosma. He initially asked for a public defender in the Babcock case, but a judge denied that and instead granted him access to $900,000 of his money to pay a lawyer. He ended up defending himself when the judge in the Babcock case refused to adjourn the case to let him select a new lawyer.