PDA

View Full Version : Weekend Discussion thread 04/21-24/2012



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

SoSueMe
04-21-2012, 06:06 AM
Weekend Discussion Thread:

reposting a few of the warnings:

Salem's warning from last week:

Okay everybody - LISTEN UP! We are not bashing, accusing or blaming Tori's family here. It won't be allowed.

Children walk home from school every day without incident. Parents are not perfect, it's just not possible. Tori's parents DID NOT do this to her. TLM and an accomplice DID. That is where the blame goes.

We had a lot of family bashing in the early parts of this investigation after Tori went missing and a lot of baseless accusations - NONE OF WHICH PROVED TO BE TRUE. Victim and family bashing will not be allowed during this trial.

Thank you,
Salem

---------------------------------


As some of you may have noticed, the members following this case are dropping in numbers. It's disheartening to us because we need and welcome discussion of both sides of every issue on Websleuths.

Zero tolerance means ZERO tolerance. Please discuss this case with respect to your fellow members. Subtle and veiled harassment and/or talking in code about other members will not be tolerated.

A word of caution on the Alerts in this forum. If you alert a post, make sure it is a clear violation of our Terms of Service. A difference of opinion is not a violation of TOS.

Please note that everything discussed in court and printed/tweeted is now within the realm of discussion. WS has never and does not now have a policy of "innocent until proven guilty." That is for the court room. Here, we discuss, speculate, theorize and judge according to the opinions we develop from following the case.

Keeping that in mind, abuse of our alert system is a good way to find yourself in timeout or worse. Abuse of the alert systems includes, but is not limited to:

Alerting repeatedly on the same poster;
Demanding a specific outcome;
Alerting on the same post more than once.

Once you have alerted a post, move on and don't question the decisions of our Administrators, Moderators or Owners.

Following this trial is very important to our members and we're going to see that they have their day in court. The "zero tolerance" policy in this forum will continue and it will be enforced.

Thank you and please carry on.
Sue aka SoSueMe
Websleuths Co-Owner

------

Please keep discussion focused on what has been presented in testimony and remember to link up as the partial publication ban is still in place

snoofer
04-21-2012, 07:22 AM
CS looked beautiful in her pin stripe suit with the satiny purple shirt underneath IMO. It choked me up and didn't catch the purple shirt til someone mentioned it. I think it is not a coincidence she wore the top IMO and it goes to show me how much this case means to people especially those who have been dragged into it. Tori really captured the hearts of so many people and no matter how you slice it, where you are in life; MTR crossed the line in such a monumental way. I cannot fathom what kind of defense they will put on when defense is up...cannot imagine. But we shall soon here.

Yes kudos to all the witnesses that came forward for crown; they were brave and put themselves at many risks by coming forward but yet they did it. Sometimes good comes out of the darkest days and darkest events. I cannot help wonder how many lives Tori will have affected and effected positive change in due to her story. JMO

~n/t~
04-21-2012, 08:07 AM
The Judge's quote burns me up. I had to walk away from the computer yesterday because I thought I was having an anxiety attack! How could he say something like this? His character has everything to do with this crime!! Yes, some may interpret it as the Judge saying whether he had 1 or 1000 women makes no difference but he added "worse" part and that really irks me. If he was "pimping" these women, it is evidence that he had no regard for anyone but himself and also explains his behaviour following Tori's murder.

Lying, cheating and worse, Judge Heeney!!! It has EVERYTHING to do with this crime!


When the jurors returned, Justice Thomas Heeney cautioned them that testimony that Rafferty was dating numerous women, including an escort who supplied him with money, isn’t relevant to the charges he faces in the Stafford case.

“All of this may lead you to believe that Mr. Rafferty was a philandering cad or worse . . . Whatever you may think of Mr. Rafferty’s character, it has no relevance to whether he is guilty of the crimes he is charge with,” Heeney said.


http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/04/20/rafferty-linked-to-escort-service

snoofer
04-21-2012, 08:10 AM
The Judge's quote burns me up. I had to walk away from the computer yesterday because I thought I was having an anxiety attack! How could he say something like this? His character has everything to do with this crime!! Yes, some may interpret it as the Judge saying whether he had 1 or 1000 women makes no difference but he added "worse" part and that really irks me. If he was "pimping" these women, it is evidence that he had no regard for anyone but himself and also explains his behaviour following Tori's murder.

Lying, cheating and worse, Judge Heeney!!! It has EVERYTHING to do with this crime!



http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/04/20/rafferty-linked-to-escort-service

not sure what the logic would be for his statement but as a judge i would think that anything he said would be crafted to NOT cause a mistrial. Guess he could only make a statement down the middle somewhere but try to remind jurors to stick to the facts and convict on the facts. JMO But ya understands the rub to his statement for sure. IMO

~n/t~
04-21-2012, 08:33 AM
not sure what the logic would be for his statement but as a judge i would think that anything he said would be crafted to NOT cause a mistrial. Guess he could only make a statement down the middle somewhere but try to remind jurors to stick to the facts and convict on the facts. JMO But ya understands the rub to his statement for sure. IMO

Well if that's the case, he should've made that statement 11 witnesses ago. Why yesterday? Because it was a bombshell? Because everyone in that courtroom were probably disgusted by this revelation? The accused child killer didn't like the fact that the audience gasped and complained to his attorney during the break? Was he upset because now the entire country knows the only reason he was "dating" these poor women was to use them and mentally abuse them? Like he did TLM? Promises of love and marriage for money, sex and murder?

That is the evidence in this case. The truth. It is more relevant than the defense's continuous NECRO music lyrics references made during cross examination that have nothing to do with this case!

Snoofer, please know that I'm not directing this at you. I'm venting and it is towards this Judge who I'm not very fond of.

robynhood
04-21-2012, 08:54 AM
...Late Night News on a Vancover station there was an announcement ...That Steve Harper is giving " families that have chidren that are VICTIMS of Crimes" extra money weekly as they sit thru LENGTHY Trials for their children they have lost ....I think it was 300/week (aprox.) cannot remeber exactly and it did show Tori's Parents when Darren was reading that speak ...IMO this may be a start BUT again in my strong opinion Only .....I want to see the TORI LAW passed ...last check on website said they almost have enough signatures to bring it into Legislature ...again that is only for it to be heard.....I feel it is VITAL that we attempt to keep our children & teeangers safe from harm !....off topic but another teenager girl ...Crystal Iahtail age 14 ,Abirginal heretiage has been missing from Newmarket since Thurs. March 29, 2012 .She is 5' 6" weighs 130lbs shoulder length black hair and police have stated they fear she is in danger and in the downtown Toronto area now !...robynhood

robynhood
04-21-2012, 09:34 AM
...OMg ...just reading yesterday's post( catching up) and must applaud the posters especially last post by BORGQUEEN.....I AGREE 100 PERCENT and I too am very upset as I write this too ! I was also in tears when I watched the first NEws Reports of TORI missing in 2009 and been glued to this site since ......

It was actually my OLDEST son who said" mom you must watch ...a little girl named Tori went missing in Woodstock as he knows as a teacher I get extremely upset as I taught children tori's age.This has been every mother's worst nightmare ....and like you Borgqueen survived a terribly emotinally abusive marriage ...long ended a century ago but the wounds from emotional abuse last long . I can also spot an emotinally abusive person easily....I went thru many mnay years of therapy and was given exact profile charcteristics & traits to look for as being aware is crucial in HEALING process as one never wants to enter another one EVER!

I also have worked in the field as a Special ed teacher trained in behavioral problems in troubled children .....so I am highly trained in this area ...Specialist degree in Sp ED....IMO and it is professinal >>>>many bells ring as I read this trial ! IMO it DOES have a lot to do with the case and do not understand the JUDGES comments ....but I am not a legal expert ....I personally find the courts & judges have a gudelines and if it does not fit into ther boxes of LeGAL RULES in Canada( from the LAw society and those ACTS they have # ( as their LEGAL constitution ) we see what happened yesterday...IMO ...I am stressing...I have seen it personally while I was in court fighting for child support owed !!!!!!....again I am stressing MY OPINIONS as I do not want to upset moderators here......! ...robynhood !

JayFriend
04-21-2012, 10:03 AM
Quote:

Originally Posted by ~n/t~ View Post
The Judge's quote burns me up. I had to walk away from the computer yesterday because I thought I was having an anxiety attack! How could he say something like this? His character has everything to do with this crime!! Yes, some may interpret it as the Judge saying whether he had 1 or 1000 women makes no difference but he added "worse" part and that really irks me. If he was "pimping" these women, it is evidence that he had no regard for anyone but himself and also explains his behaviour following Tori's murder.

Lying, cheating and worse, Judge Heeney!!! It has EVERYTHING to do with this crime!



http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.c...escort-service
not sure what the logic would be for his statement but as a judge i would think that anything he said would be crafted to NOT cause a mistrial. Guess he could only make a statement down the middle somewhere but try to remind jurors to stick to the facts and convict on the facts. JMO But ya understands the rub to his statement for sure. IMO
It seems that Derstine must have made a very strong argument that the defendant's morals were not to be judged, just his guilt of the crimes as charged. While technically that's true, we all know that there's a connection between immoral character and criminal acts. While one is not necessary to cause the other, they do frequently occur together. There's no way the jury could associate TLM's demonstrated evil character with her apparent deeds and dismiss MR's character in considering his guilt.

Kamille
04-21-2012, 10:09 AM
The Judge's quote burns me up. I had to walk away from the computer yesterday because I thought I was having an anxiety attack! How could he say something like this? His character has everything to do with this crime!! Yes, some may interpret it as the Judge saying whether he had 1 or 1000 women makes no difference but he added "worse" part and that really irks me. If he was "pimping" these women, it is evidence that he had no regard for anyone but himself and also explains his behaviour following Tori's murder.

Lying, cheating and worse, Judge Heeney!!! It has EVERYTHING to do with this crime!



http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/04/20/rafferty-linked-to-escort-service

That "announcement" was made after there were some legal issues being discussed when the jury left the room. So after the crowd gasped and a jury member "recoiled", Derstine knew he had to attempt some damage control over the unexpected announcement from CS.

As I've stated before, the Crown cannot bring in character witnesses for the defendent. It is considered prejudicial and cannot be done in the Canadian court system. With that said, the only reason they were allowed to bring all these women in was because they all had some information about the day of and the days following the crime about MR's actions and behaviours regarding the crime.

If MR had never called, texted anyone that day or spoke about the crime with any of these women, none of them would have been permitted to testify about their "relationship" to him. Thankfully he did have contact with all of them during this time so that they could be brought in to speak of what he had told them or to verify parts of TLM's story such as CS stating that her BBM's to him were undeliverable for a period of time that day. And of course they are permitted to give a bit of background as to how they know the defendent to explain why he was tellng them this stuff.

It worked very well to the Crown's advantage that he was stupid enough to be blabbing to them all. There could even be more that he didn't say anything to or have contact with on the crucial day that didn't show up on the witness stand.

So the judge had to issue a disclaimer to tell the jury that these women were not brought in as character references but had actual evidence to present to them. It's a technicality really. Juries are human, and the Crown knew the impact that this "parade" of women was going to have on his image as an innocent dupe. But the jury cannot convict him because they think he's a pig. They have to use the other evidence for that. This parade of women just helps to put things in perspective when the defence starts in on their side of the story.

MOO

Ardy
04-21-2012, 10:15 AM
The Judge's quote burns me up. I had to walk away from the computer yesterday because I thought I was having an anxiety attack! How could he say something like this? His character has everything to do with this crime!! Yes, some may interpret it as the Judge saying whether he had 1 or 1000 women makes no difference but he added "worse" part and that really irks me. If he was "pimping" these women, it is evidence that he had no regard for anyone but himself and also explains his behaviour following Tori's murder.

Lying, cheating and worse, Judge Heeney!!! It has EVERYTHING to do with this crime!



http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/04/20/rafferty-linked-to-escort-service

I am sure Judge Heeney knows the law to the infinite detail.

He may have done the Crown a favor by advising the jury, rather than excluding ALL the testimony of the parade of female witnesses.

The results of this trial ARE subject to appeal by either side.

I doubt the Crown would like to have a guilty verdict overturned on Appeal because they violated the rules of evidence.

Derstine hasn't objected to all this testimony, perhaps because he is content to let the Crown introduce grounds for appeal into the trial, just in case his client is found guilty.

The Crown needs to be cognizant that violating the accused trial rights to win a guilty plan, would be a short lived victory if lost on appeal.

JMO..........

Snoopster
04-21-2012, 10:18 AM
“All of this may lead you to believe that Mr. Rafferty was a philandering cad or worse . . . Whatever you may think of Mr. Rafferty’s character, it has no relevance to whether he is guilty of the crimes he is charge with,” Heeney said.

I didn't like the judge's comment for a slightly different reason than n/t. did.

I believe the judge was tryig to remind the jury that you can't assume someone is guilty just because you don't like their character or their lifestyle. I think that is a healthy reminder in the court. You have to convict based on the evidence as it pertains to the crime.

The evidence showing his behaviour and habits, though, in this case might point to the fact that MR is a sexual addict and was constantly in touch with people ensuring he was going to 'get his fix'. If he showed a sudden change in behaviour, then that could be telling. So I hope the judge's comment isn't interpreted as meaning that none of this parade of sexual partners is relevant as evidence.

Ardy
04-21-2012, 10:49 AM
I didn't like the judge's comment for a slightly different reason than n/t. did.

I believe the judge was tryig to remind the jury that you can't assume someone is guilty just because you don't like their character or their lifestyle. I think that is a healthy reminder in the court. You have to convict based on the evidence as it pertains to the crime.

The evidence showing his behaviour and habits, though, in this case might point to the fact that MR is a sexual addict and was constantly in touch with people ensuring he was going to 'get his fix'. If he showed a sudden change in behaviour, then that could be telling. So I hope the judge's comment isn't interpreted as meaning that none of this parade of sexual partners is relevant as evidence.


I would also add the lengthy list of females and their testimony, also shows that none of them expressed any concern that MR had devious sexual desires. The females were from different educational and career backgrounds, some had young children, the relationships varied from single conversations or meetings to fairly lengthy periods of time.

And as far as I know..........not one of them said anything about any sexual deviancy about MR.

The defense still has to present their side........

JMO

snoofer
04-21-2012, 10:53 AM
Well if that's the case, he should've made that statement 11 witnesses ago. Why yesterday? Because it was a bombshell? Because everyone in that courtroom were probably disgusted by this revelation? The accused child killer didn't like the fact that the audience gasped and complained to his attorney during the break? Was he upset because now the entire country knows the only reason he was "dating" these poor women was to use them and mentally abuse them? Like he did TLM? Promises of love and marriage for money, sex and murder?

That is the evidence in this case. The truth. It is more relevant than the defense's continuous NECRO music lyrics references made during cross examination that have nothing to do with this case!

Snoofer, please know that I'm not directing this at you. I'm venting and it is towards this Judge who I'm not very fond of.

;) I am trying to understand too what he was thinking...scratching my head. JMO Agrees way more relevance than the NECRO music.

Snoopster
04-21-2012, 11:00 AM
Regarding frequency, timing and amounts of payments from CS to MTR, I tried to grab a screen shot from the LFP video to save for reference. I couldn't easily figure out how to post a larger, clearer version here (although it's pretty clear if you watch the video in full-screen mode and then just pause it).

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ha_ryHb82cY/T5K7U2AWReI/AAAAAAAABZc/Zp17NDHzaIo/s456/CS%2520transfers%2520to%2520Rafferty.jpg

What you will see though, for the few months leading up to Apr 9, is that the deposits occurred on average every 2-3 days. Sometimes a couple of days in row, and sometimes several days apart. Amounts were typically in the $200 - $500 range, although there were several at $100 (a couple even lower) and one as large as $1000.

The last deposit before Apr 8 was on Apr 4 for $100.

Apr 8 there were the 2 deposits,as reported, for $400 at 9:47 and $100 at 2:58. There was another deposit of $300 on Apr 9 at 3:59.

Then....nothing for almost 2 weeks. Strange.

LilyMacBloom
04-21-2012, 11:01 AM
whoever started the list of occupations for MR could you please update the list and re post to include
-whatever he was supposed to be doing in Australia (I'm sure one of you will remember what it was because I forget)
-as well as a philandering cad (my personal fav and possibly his true occupation) I think the mere fact Judge H said this drove the point home.

Thanks to all that posted for the trial date yesterday you all did a fabulous job, as always.

snoofer
04-21-2012, 11:01 AM
I do want to be fair to the defense; maybe we will hear something that will blow the socks off this case and show MTR evidence. I sure would not be considered impartial as I sure as heck cannot imagine what that would be but am willing to listen. JMO

snoofer
04-21-2012, 11:02 AM
whoever started the list of occupations for MR could you please update the list and re post to include
-whatever he was supposed to be doing in Australia (I'm sure one of you will remember what it was because I forget)
-as well as a philandering cad (my personal fav and possibly his true occupation) I think the mere fact Judge H said this drove the point home.

Thanks to all that posted for the trial date yesterday you all did a fabulous job, as always.

s___e is "away" for awhile; she has the list. Maybe could start another one? JMO

I suppose we could add; future stepfather of 5 as he told CS he wanted to marry her. Good lord what a t___d! Not a toad lol.

P.S. I miss my buddy and smilies :( JMO

snoofer
04-21-2012, 11:07 AM
Regarding frequency, timing and amounts of payments from CS to MTR, I tried to grab a screen shot from the LFP video to save for reference. I couldn't easily figure out how to post a larger, clearer version here (although it's pretty clear if you watch the video in full-screen mode and then just pause it).

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ha_ryHb82cY/T5K7U2AWReI/AAAAAAAABZc/Zp17NDHzaIo/s456/CS%2520transfers%2520to%2520Rafferty.jpg

What you will see though, for the few months leading up to Apr 9, is that the deposits occurred on average every 2-3 days. Sometimes a couple of days in row, and sometimes several days apart. Amounts were typically in the $200 - $500 range, although there were several at $100 (a couple even lower) and one as large as $1000.

The last deposit before Apr 8 was on Apr 4 for $100.

Apr 8 there were the 2 deposits,as reported, for $400 at 9:47 and $100 at 2:58. There was another deposit of $300 on Apr 9 at 3:59.

Then....nothing for almost 2 weeks. Strange.

ya that is strange; what could that mean. IMO

matou
04-21-2012, 11:10 AM
ya that is strange; what could that mean. IMO

What was the date for the next deposit into his account? I don't have that video file handy. xo

Snoopster
04-21-2012, 11:13 AM
Maybe the judge made a compromise of sorts; i will allow crown to call them all much to chagrine of defense. But then I will admonish jury about how to interpret this line up of women. Maybe he thought it would be fair that way to both sides. I do on the other hand look at what is fair to Tori; and I think that the truth wins out. But he is a judge and has to be impartial I guess. JMO

Not picking on you here Snoofer, just a general comment... I think it's important to keep reminding ourselves that we do not KNOW the truth. That is what the trial is for. And, as Ardy said above, the defense still has to present their case.

At this point in the trial, MTR looks guilty, but I would certainly hope that would be the case as the Crown winds up their side, or else the shouldn't have brought him to trial. In the end we all want justice for Tori! Let's just let justice be done and not jump to conclusions ahead of time. Afterall, that is what we, as society, are asking of the jurors.

Please don't take this as me defending MTR. I actually suspect he is guilty. I am just admitting that I am not in a position to KNOW, and not all of the evidence is out yet.

snoofer
04-21-2012, 11:13 AM
Regarding frequency, timing and amounts of payments from CS to MTR, I tried to grab a screen shot from the LFP video to save for reference. I couldn't easily figure out how to post a larger, clearer version here (although it's pretty clear if you watch the video in full-screen mode and then just pause it).

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ha_ryHb82cY/T5K7U2AWReI/AAAAAAAABZc/Zp17NDHzaIo/s456/CS%2520transfers%2520to%2520Rafferty.jpg

What you will see though, for the few months leading up to Apr 9, is that the deposits occurred on average every 2-3 days. Sometimes a couple of days in row, and sometimes several days apart. Amounts were typically in the $200 - $500 range, although there were several at $100 (a couple even lower) and one as large as $1000.

The last deposit before Apr 8 was on Apr 4 for $100.


Apr 8 there were the 2 deposits,as reported, for $400 at 9:47 and $100 at 2:58. There was another deposit of $300 on Apr 9 at 3:59.

Then....nothing for almost 2 weeks. Strange.

Do you have the video link handy???

snoofer
04-21-2012, 11:16 AM
Not picking on you here Snoofer, just a general comment... I think it's important to keep reminding ourselves that we do not KNOW the truth. That is what the trial is for. And, as Ardy said above, the defense still has to present their case.

At this point in the trial, MTR looks guilty, but I would certainly hope that would be the case as the Crown winds up their side, or else the shouldn't have brought him to trial. In the end we all want justice for Tori! Let's just let justice be done and not jump to conclusions ahead of time. Afterall, that is what we, as society, are asking of the jurors.

Please don't take this as me defending MTR. I actually suspect he is guilty. I am just admitting that I am not in a position to KNOW, and not all of the evidence is out yet.

agrees, I am willing to listen to the defense side but he sure does make me angry as from the crown case so far he seems guilty as heck, but willing to change my mind if defense changes my mind. I do believe in innocent til prooven guilty in theory but we are human and this is WS lol. I can be easily swayed one way or the other IF good evidence is presented. No worries I know you are not picking on me :) JMO I don't believe defense has shown their hand yet just a few feelers; this has been a shocking case; maybe defense has some shockers too. At end of day though I think this will come full circle and I think all the truth will come out and we will get justice for Tori. Patiently waiting. JMO

matou
04-21-2012, 11:19 AM
OMG, I thought snoopster and snoofer were the same person, names almost the same. Sorry, I thought I was asking the person with the screenshot.

I found some info r.e. CS and what that she was planning a birthday for her twins with MR on April 9th. She was likely focusing on her family during that time. JMO

RaffertyLFP: Next day messages were about Easter plans and her twin's birthday

snoofer
04-21-2012, 11:30 AM
OMG, I thought snoopster and snoofer were the same person, names almost the same. Sorry, I thought I was asking the person with the screenshot.

I found some info r.e. CS and what that she was planning a birthday for her twins with MR on April 9th. She was likely focusing on her family during that time. JMO

RaffertyLFP: Next day messages were about Easter plans and her twin's birthday

wow so his arrest for this case would have been huge shocker for her.

I am guessing what the defense (just a guess) might say is that - TLM went nuts and killed TS and this shocked him, but he helped clean up because he knew he was doing all this other illegal stuff???? Caught between a rock and a hard place so to speak. Well, I don't think that would legally fly because following the law is not about your convenience, the law is the law. It would be hard to believe that someone so criminally minded such as MTR got blindsided by TLM but I suppose it could happen but the law is such..you cannot take kids in your car and out of town and not be held responsible for what happens to them.

There is a reason we teach our children cliche's such as show me your company I will tell you what you are and guilty by association etc. MTR has prooven that he either hasn't been taught these basics or he chooses to disregard them. MTR was captain of his own life and it was pretty predictable that his life would capsize eventually. JMO

otto
04-21-2012, 12:21 PM
The Judge's quote burns me up. I had to walk away from the computer yesterday because I thought I was having an anxiety attack! How could he say something like this? His character has everything to do with this crime!! Yes, some may interpret it as the Judge saying whether he had 1 or 1000 women makes no difference but he added "worse" part and that really irks me. If he was "pimping" these women, it is evidence that he had no regard for anyone but himself and also explains his behaviour following Tori's murder.

Lying, cheating and worse, Judge Heeney!!! It has EVERYTHING to do with this crime!



http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/04/20/rafferty-linked-to-escort-service

Canadian law does not allow a person's character to be a factor in deciding guilt.

"On appeal, the appellant argued that the trial judge failed to instruct the jury that it could not use evidence of his bad character as probative of guilt and that it could not used evidence of the other person’s criminal record and bad character to decide whether it had a reasonable doubt as to there having been only one intruder."

otto
04-21-2012, 12:22 PM
Well if that's the case, he should've made that statement 11 witnesses ago. Why yesterday? Because it was a bombshell? Because everyone in that courtroom were probably disgusted by this revelation? The accused child killer didn't like the fact that the audience gasped and complained to his attorney during the break? Was he upset because now the entire country knows the only reason he was "dating" these poor women was to use them and mentally abuse them? Like he did TLM? Promises of love and marriage for money, sex and murder?

That is the evidence in this case. The truth. It is more relevant than the defense's continuous NECRO music lyrics references made during cross examination that have nothing to do with this case!

Snoofer, please know that I'm not directing this at you. I'm venting and it is towards this Judge who I'm not very fond of.

Evidence of bad character can be introduced to rebut good character evidence presented by the defence, but not to infer guilt.

otto
04-21-2012, 12:27 PM
I didn't like the judge's comment for a slightly different reason than n/t. did.

I believe the judge was tryig to remind the jury that you can't assume someone is guilty just because you don't like their character or their lifestyle. I think that is a healthy reminder in the court. You have to convict based on the evidence as it pertains to the crime.

The evidence showing his behaviour and habits, though, in this case might point to the fact that MR is a sexual addict and was constantly in touch with people ensuring he was going to 'get his fix'. If he showed a sudden change in behaviour, then that could be telling. So I hope the judge's comment isn't interpreted as meaning that none of this parade of sexual partners is relevant as evidence.

Exactly. "The crown is prohibited from presenting any evidence of bad character of the accused. The reason behind this is that the trier-of-fact should not be influenced to believe the accused has bad character and so is more likely to have committed the offence"

link (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Evidence/Character#cite_note-2)

otto
04-21-2012, 12:29 PM
Not picking on you here Snoofer, just a general comment... I think it's important to keep reminding ourselves that we do not KNOW the truth. That is what the trial is for. And, as Ardy said above, the defense still has to present their case.

At this point in the trial, MTR looks guilty, but I would certainly hope that would be the case as the Crown winds up their side, or else the shouldn't have brought him to trial. In the end we all want justice for Tori! Let's just let justice be done and not jump to conclusions ahead of time. Afterall, that is what we, as society, are asking of the jurors.

Please don't take this as me defending MTR. I actually suspect he is guilty. I am just admitting that I am not in a position to KNOW, and not all of the evidence is out yet.

It sounds like he contacted his "escort" friend to put money in his bank account and then that money was used to purchase a hammer and garbage bags.

myzzy
04-21-2012, 12:51 PM
Im so glad its the weekend, i sat on the friday thread wondering where everyone was not noticing that it had been closed and moved to the weekend thread lol..


If the young lady who said she was escorting was giving ALL her money to MR then why did he have to ask for it as per her testimony? I do not beleive she handed over all of her earnings otherwise he would not be asking for "gas money" or "car payment" money

otto
04-21-2012, 12:52 PM
Im so glad its the weekend, i sat on the friday thread wondering where everyone was not noticing that it had been closed and moved to the weekend thread lol..


If the young lady who said she was escorting was giving ALL her money to MR then why did he have to ask for it as per her testimony? I do not beleive she handed over all of her earnings otherwise he would not be asking for "gas money" or "car payment" money

Isn't it possible that she handed over all the earnings and he still wanted more?

~n/t~
04-21-2012, 12:59 PM
That "announcement" was made after there were some legal issues being discussed when the jury left the room. So after the crowd gasped and a jury member "recoiled", Derstine knew he had to attempt some damage control over the unexpected announcement from CS.

As I've stated before, the Crown cannot bring in character witnesses for the defendent. It is considered prejudicial and cannot be done in the Canadian court system. With that said, the only reason they were allowed to bring all these women in was because they all had some information about the day of and the days following the crime about MR's actions and behaviours regarding the crime.

If MR had never called, texted anyone that day or spoke about the crime with any of these women, none of them would have been permitted to testify about their "relationship" to him. Thankfully he did have contact with all of them during this time so that they could be brought in to speak of what he had told them or to verify parts of TLM's story such as CS stating that her BBM's to him were undeliverable for a period of time that day. And of course they are permitted to give a bit of background as to how they know the defendent to explain why he was tellng them this stuff.

It worked very well to the Crown's advantage that he was stupid enough to be blabbing to them all. There could even be more that he didn't say anything to or have contact with on the crucial day that didn't show up on the witness stand.

So the judge had to issue a disclaimer to tell the jury that these women were not brought in as character references but had actual evidence to present to them. It's a technicality really. Juries are human, and the Crown knew the impact that this "parade" of women was going to have on his image as an innocent dupe. But the jury cannot convict him because they think he's a pig. They have to use the other evidence for that. This parade of women just helps to put things in perspective when the defence starts in on their side of the story.

MOO



Thanks. I get that. But the fact remains that he did it yesterday after 11 witnesses (??) were already called. I can't keep track of all the women so I'm guessing 11 were called to the stand. Furthermore, he added the word "worse". What did he mean by worse? The jury can interpret that as anything. It's the way he worded it that is totally wrong, imo.

Worse can be a pimp. Worse can be a pedophile. Worse can be a rapist. Worse can be a drug dealer. Worse can be anything.

IMO, any of the above can lead to a possible motive for the jury.

I do not feel it is up to him to decide what the jury concludes in their decision of the evidence presented to them which includes that he was paid a lot of money for "pimping" a woman. The others didn't come forward with that admission perhaps they weren't or perhaps they were too embarrassed to admit it.

IMO

~n/t~
04-21-2012, 01:03 PM
Exactly. "The crown is prohibited from presenting any evidence of bad character of the accused. The reason behind this is that the trier-of-fact should not be influenced to believe the accused has bad character and so is more likely to have committed the offence"

link (http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/Canadian_Criminal_Evidence/Character#cite_note-2)

He should've stated that from the beginning before they started the chapter not in the middle of someone's damning testimony which related to his "pimping" and not his sex life. I don't give a darn how many women he bedded with or not and I'm pretty sure the jury doesn't either but I think they do care if he was being paid. If he was being paid for escorting his women and used his manipulative ways to do it, then it's not far fetched to believe he used TLM in the same way and forced her to kidnap Tori.

otto
04-21-2012, 01:10 PM
Thanks. I get that. But the fact remains that he did it yesterday after 11 witnesses (??) were already called. I can't keep track of all the women so I'm guessing 11 were called to the stand. Furthermore, he added the word "worse". What did he mean by worse? The jury can interpret that as anything. It's the way he worded it that is totally wrong, imo.

Worse can be a pimp. Worse can be a pedophile. Worse can be a rapist. Worse can be a drug dealer. Worse can be anything.

IMO, any of the above can lead to a possible motive for the jury.

I do not feel it is up to him to decide what the jury concludes in their decision of the evidence presented to them which includes that he was paid a lot of money for "pimping" a woman. The others didn't come forward with that admission perhaps they weren't or perhaps they were too embarrassed to admit it.

IMO

I think that Canadians are sometimes influenced by what is seen in US trials via talking heads like Nancy Grace. In North Carolina, for example, a person's character can be considered by the jury when deciding a verdict. In Florida, absolutely everything about the case can be released to the public well before a trial. Common law does not allow any information about an investigation to be released before trial and a persons prior bad acts cannot be used when determining whether a person is guilty of a specific bad act.

I think it is important that these rights are protected. I followed the North Carolina cases of Brad Cooper and Jason Young and was really surprised at how much court time was dedicated to smearing the character of the accused. Particularly in the case of Brad Cooper, two weeks of trial time were filled with testimony of the neighbours badmouthing the suspect. At the time, I thought it was a completely irrelevant waste of time, but in the long run, smearing the character of the suspect before presenting evidence of the crime worked in terms of tainting the suspects character and leaving him vulnerable to having all the evidence interpretted in a very negative way.

SFB73
04-21-2012, 01:11 PM
I think the jury would come back with a guilty conviction relatively quickly if they had to deliberate at this point in the trial. Unless the defense can bring out something bigger than the bombshell dropped yesterday, I feel the only verdict they could reach would be guilty on the kidnapping and the sexual assault charges. The murder will be a tougher one to get conviction on, but the kidnapping and sexual assault should be enough to put him away for 25 years. Honestly, if I was on the jury, I think I'd put him away even if I had glimmer of doubt, for the simple reason he was there and did nothing at all to prevent the death of this child if he had no active roll in causing her death. Hopefully the 12 jurors are thinking logically and using common sense... And guess what...just because the judge says the jury can't take MR's serial dating and partnership into account when deliberating doesnt mean they will follow that advice. I know that I would, but would be smart enough to not discuss it in the jury room. I'm certain the judge only mentioned that in order to avoid an appeal down the road.

snoofer
04-21-2012, 01:11 PM
I think that Canadians are sometimes influenced by what is seen in US trials via talking heads like Nancy Grace. In North Carolina, for example, a person's character can be considered by the jury when deciding a verdict. In Florida, absolutely everything about the case can be released to the public well before a trial. Common law does not allow any information about an investigation to be released before trial and a persons prior bad acts cannot be used when determining whether a person is guilty of a specific bad act.

I think it is important that these rights are protected. I followed the North Carolina cases of Brad Cooper and Jason Young and was really surprised at how much court time was dedicated to smearing the character of the accused. Particularly in the case of Brad Cooper, two weeks of trial time were filled with testimony of the neighbours badmouthing the suspect. At the time, I thought it was a completely irrelevant waste of time, but in the long run, smearing the character of the suspect before presenting evidence of the crime worked in terms of tainting the suspects character and leaving him vulnerable to having all the evidence interpretted in a very negative way.

very good point! JMO

JayFriend
04-21-2012, 01:15 PM
He should've stated that from the beginning before they started the chapter not in the middle of someone's damning testimony which related to his "pimping" and not his sex life. I don't give a darn how many women he bedded with or not and I'm pretty sure the jury doesn't either but I think they do care if he was being paid. If he was being paid for escorting his women and used his manipulative ways to do it, then it's not far fetched to believe he used TLM in the same way and forced her to kidnap Tori.
While MR's rabbit-like behaviour may be despicable, it's not illegal. Pimping, however, is criminal activity. The judge may instruct the jury to disregard unsavoury character, but can he instruct them to disregard criminal behaviour?

otto
04-21-2012, 01:15 PM
He should've stated that from the beginning before they started the chapter not in the middle of someone's damning testimony which related to his "pimping" and not his sex life. I don't give a darn how many women he bedded with or not and I'm pretty sure the jury doesn't either but I think they do care if he was being paid. If he was being paid for escorting his women and used his manipulative ways to do it, then it's not far fetched to believe he used TLM in the same way and forced her to kidnap Tori.

I think that the difference is that pimping is a criminal offence, but meeting women on a website and hooking up is not. As soon as information about a potential criminal act was introduced, the Judge had to notify the jury that they could not consider his bad acts or bad character when deciding the verdict.

Ardy
04-21-2012, 01:44 PM
Im so glad its the weekend, i sat on the friday thread wondering where everyone was not noticing that it had been closed and moved to the weekend thread lol..


If the young lady who said she was escorting was giving ALL her money to MR then why did he have to ask for it as per her testimony? I do not beleive she handed over all of her earnings otherwise he would not be asking for "gas money" or "car payment" money

That's a good point.

If she was handing over "all" the money, why would he have to give her a reason to justify it?

Also, if a person collects welfare and doesn't report the income, they would be committing welfare fraud and be subject to criminal charges and having to pay back all the money collected.

Would claiming to give the money to MR mitigate the damage?

To be accurate and fair, we don't know if she was collecting OW or if she claimed the income. She could claim the income to keep health benefits for her kids and receive no cash from OW..........but if she collected cash benefits..........that would draw some interest.

JMO..........

Shasta
04-21-2012, 01:47 PM
I'm more upset that the judge, at one point, made disparaging comments to the jury in reference to the Crown's presentation of evidence. I can't find the link but it was after the presentation of cell phone evidence (I think); the judge thereafter commented to the jury about the boring evidence.

Why would the judge verbally demonstrate bias against the Crown? JMO

I hope it's not suggested the judge was trying to be funny because there's nothing comical about this case especially with Tori's family sitting there listening to the cruelty she endured. JMO

otto
04-21-2012, 01:48 PM
That's a good point.

If she was handing over "all" the money, why would he have to give her a reason to justify it?

Also, if a person collects welfare and doesn't report the income, they would be committing welfare fraud and be subject to criminal charges and having to pay back all the money collected.

Would claiming to give the money to MR mitigate the damage?

To be accurate and fair, we don't know if she was collecting OW or if she claimed the income. She could claim the income to keep health benefits for her kids and receive no cash from OW..........but if she collected cash benefits..........that would draw some interest.

JMO..........

This woman was another victim of MR. He took advantage of her, preyed on her like he did with all women. Whether she filed taxes and included her escort income doesn't seem very important in the grand scheme of things.

Tahorn
04-21-2012, 02:11 PM
That's a good point.

If she was handing over "all" the money, why would he have to give her a reason to justify it?

Also, if a person collects welfare and doesn't report the income, they would be committing welfare fraud and be subject to criminal charges and having to pay back all the money collected.

Would claiming to give the money to MR mitigate the damage?

To be accurate and fair, we don't know if she was collecting OW or if she claimed the income. She could claim the income to keep health benefits for her kids and receive no cash from OW..........but if she collected cash benefits..........that would draw some interest.

JMO..........

Since he purchased drugs with the 400.00 that was supposed to be for his car payment ... I tend to believe that the monies was more about drugs then escorting. JMO

Heliotrope
04-21-2012, 02:17 PM
I'm thinking we're moving on to the next chapter this coming week - "Chapter 12: A recap of the surveillance video"

This is a summary of what I think they might present, but I'm not sure how they'll do it. Will they recall the police officers who spoke about the footage? Or maybe one of the lead investigators giving an overview of everything they pieced together.

What do you guys think? Also, have I missed any key video? Like I've said previously, I think the evidence that is most damaging to the innocent bystander theory is the clip at Home Depot. It shows he was aware of what was coming and was an active participant.


Date / time unknown
MR and TLM on a date at what appears to be a movie theatre

April 8th, 2009

Woodstock
CASS Camera
9:03 AM - MR's car drives north on Fyfe, away from the school

BMO Main Branch ATM camera
11:14 AM - MR at bank machine Woodstock BMO branch, later determined to be $400 withdrawal

Woodstock Esso (Norwich & Parkinson) exterior camera
3:24 PM - MR's car pulls into lot (timestamp later determined to be one hour off, shows 4:24 PM)

Woodstock Esso (Norwich & Parkinson) interior camera
X:XX PM - MR inside the store wearing white jacket [can't locate footage]

Woodstock Esso (Norwich & Parkinson) exterior camera
3:29 PM - MR's car pull out of the lot and turns in the direction of the school

CASS camera
3:30 PM - MR's car again drives north on Fyfe, away from the school

"Outside Art Door" camera
No timestamp - same car is seen continuing north on Fyfe and turning into the nursing home parking lot

CASS camera
3:32 PM - Tori being led north on Fyfe by TLM

"Outside Art Door" camera
No timestamp - TLM and Tori seen continuing up Fyfe, then crossing Fyfe towards the nursing home parking lot, car pulls away moments later

Guelph
Home Depot parking lot camera
5:01:03 PM - MR's car pulling into the parking lot and parking far from the store
5:01:34 PM - MR gets out of car and walks out of shot, presumable to the Petro Can adjacent to Home Depot

Switch to Petro Can interior camera
4:27 PM (according to timestamp) - MR walk into the Petro Can to the corner where the ATM is, from records he tried unsuccessfully to withdraw $100, then successfully withdrew $80
4:28 PM (according to timestamp) - MR exits the Petro Can without buying anything

Switch view back to Home Depot parking lot camera
5:04:15 PM- MR gets back in car
5:04:46 PM - Car pulls closor to Home Depot and parks
5:05:05 PM - TLM gets out and walks towards HD

Switch to interior camera at Home Depot
5:05:45 PM - TLM walks in entrance
5:11 PM - TLM seens walking through indoor gardening section, what appears to be hammer visible in her hand
5:11 PM - TLM at self-checkout
5:12 PM - TLM leaves the store

Switch back to Home Depot parking lot camera
5:13 PM - TLM exits Home Depot with bag, car pulls closer and pops trunk, she get in and they drive off after a close call with a car pulling out of a parking spot

April 9th, 2009
BMO Main Branch ATM camera
2:32 PM - MR at ATM Woodstock BMO branch

Ardy
04-21-2012, 02:23 PM
This woman was another victim of MR. He took advantage of her, preyed on her like he did with all women. Whether she filed taxes and included her escort income doesn't seem very important in the grand scheme of things.

Another victim?

I guess the theory of MR's incredible ability to victimize a numerous and wide ranging number of women supports the Crown's accusation, based on TLM's testimony, that the kidnapping was a master plan by a skillful manipulator......who apparently simultaneously was dumb as a brick.

My biggest problem with the Crown's case is the beginning.

Based on TLM's testimony, we have to believe.............

Despite having a long list of female encounters, none of whom made any reference to a devious sexual side of MR, one day he woke up and decided to take a child and sexually assault her.

He decided it was a good idea to take a witness along with him.

A witness who was recently released from custody, was a drug addict, and was continually in and out of trouble with the law. Surely he could depend on her to keep a secret like this for the rest of his life.

He decided that rather than drive to Guelph and kidnap a child there, it would be a better idea to kidnap one in Woodstock and drive around with her in the backseat of the car for a couple of hours.

He pulled the battery out of his phone so he wouldn't be tracked leaving Woodstock.........frantically listens to the radio for kidnapping alerts and then decides to insert the battery back into the phone when he arrives at Guelph.......just down the highway.

He decided it would be a good idea to stop at Tim Horton for tea, pick up some drugs at a friends home with his car parked out front of her home and a kidnapped young girl inside, and stick around and "chat" for about 10 minutes.

Then he decided to continue on with the crime.

But let's go back to the actual abduction...............

TLM testified it was totally random.

Out of all the elementary schools in Woodstock, they end up at this one.

Out of all the kids in the school, she picks up VS.

Out of all the dog breeds in the world, she talks about the same breed as VS owns.

She walks VS down the street, passing a woman waiting for her own child and who knows whoever else waiting for their kids or just arriving for their kids, and is unconcerned that she is going to be stopped or approached about why she is with that child.

After all she claims she didn't know VS was TM's daughter. She claimed the abduction was random, so she didn't know who VS parents were or what they looked like.

But she did know TM. Her mother had sold drugs to TM and boyfriend JG on numerous occasions. TM knew her from 2 trips to TLM's house.

All of these "coincidences" and there is more..............

TLM testified...she didn't know why she took a little girl that day, she doesn't know why she didn't escape with VS, and she doesn't know why she murdered VS...........but she has an incredibly clear memory of everything else, apparently good enough to sketch out maps for LE.

At this point, I don't know what the defense theory will eventually be, but I don't know how it could be any more unbelievable than the story TLM spun.

I don't believe TLM..........I have never believed TLM.........and I never will.

MR's involvement in the crime is still to be determined, but I don't believe for a second that TLM was an innocent dupe or victim in this case.

****Not that you said she was..but that appears to be the Crown case.

JMO............

Macright
04-21-2012, 02:24 PM
just want to say that you all today have made some great points and used some good examples. in regards to yesterdays witness it left me with the understanding that MR and the witness were two consenting adults and I didn't get the feeling that one was more manipulative than the other..it also didn't conclude to me that MR was a pimp...As the witness testified, they both came up with the idea that she would enter the "escort" business in order to make some fast bucks and they would share the proceeds...whether he helped arrange clients..well that I don't know about to date and I am sure those clients will not be coming forth with this info.. the fact that she was using his bank account to deposit money to him was done for a purpose..either she was trying to hide the extra income she was earning from whomever or when he did meet up with her on those two or three days a week they would spend the money together.. she spoke about a "car payment" but surely she knew what he was driving so I wonder if he maybe had leased a car for her and he would make the payments for her (maybe she had no credit)..This woman did not give off vibes that someone could pull the wool over her eyes and with five children I am sure she was not short of a man or two...along with their "escort arrangement" maybe they had another sideline in drug dealing and of course he would need cash up front in order to purchase from suppliers...I think that also was his connection to CM..she would supply the drugs and he would do the selling of them..that is why I still think that "drugs" or "a drug debt" played a big role in this murder...and drugs was an issue with most of the parties in this crime..both sides.... JMO

Tahorn
04-21-2012, 02:25 PM
This woman was another victim of MR. He took advantage of her, preyed on her like he did with all women. Whether she filed taxes and included her escort income doesn't seem very important in the grand scheme of things.

I respectfully disagree ... CS did not testify that she was forced in to becoming an escort, nor did she testify that MR was abusive. I believe that CS was a women with life experiences and at the time 4 children. Still more to that story ...

otto
04-21-2012, 02:26 PM
Thank for the recap Heliotrope ... so it is very difficult for MR to argue that he withdrew money from the bank machine at the Petro Can Station but did not immediately give that money to TM so she could buy a hammer and garbage bags.

girlfriday
04-21-2012, 02:28 PM
It's been a long time since I've followed this case here. Thanks for keeping it going.

I don't see how it matters if a witness or the defendant has said that the car seat was removed from the suspect vehicle in March...because, it seems plausible to me that it could just as easily have been put back in after that, and again removed after April 8. To me, the puzzling part would be why the seat is missing altogether. I would think that someone removing a seat to make room for speakers would keep the seat in storage and not throw it away.

As always, opinions expressed by me are just that - my opinions.

otto
04-21-2012, 02:29 PM
I respectfully disagree ... CS did not testify that she was forced in to becoming an escort, nor did she testify that MR was abusive. I believe that CS was a women with life experiences and at the time 4 children. Still more to that story ...

I get the impression that MR lied to this woman and manipulated her in order to get money from her. That is the reason why I view MR as preying on her.

Macright
04-21-2012, 02:40 PM
Another victim?

I guess the theory of MR's incredible ability to victimize a numerous and wide ranging number of women supports the Crown's accusation, based on TLM's testimony, that the kidnapping was a master plan by a skillful manipulator......who apparently simultaneously was dumb as a brick.

My biggest problem with the Crown's case is the beginning.

Based on TLM's testimony, we have to believe.............

Despite having a long list of female encounters, none of whom made any reference to a devious sexual side of MR, one day he woke up and decided to take a child and sexually assault her.

He decided it was a good idea to take a witness along with him.

A witness who was recently released from custody, was a drug addict, and was continually in and out of trouble with the law. Surely he could depend on her to keep a secret like this for the rest of his life.

He decided that rather than drive to Guelph and kidnap a child there, it would be a better idea to kidnap one in Woodstock and drive around with her in the backseat of the car for a couple of hours.

He pulled the battery out of his phone so he wouldn't be tracked leaving Woodstock.........frantically listens to the radio for kidnapping alerts and then decides to insert the battery back into the phone when he arrives at Guelph.......just down the highway.

He decided it would be a good idea to stop at Tim Horton for tea, pick up some drugs at a friends home with his car parked out front of her home and a kidnapped young girl inside, and stick around and "chat" for about 10 minutes.

Then he decided to continue on with the crime.

But let's go back to the actual abduction...............

TLM testified it was totally random.

Out of all the elementary schools in Woodstock, they end up at this one.

Out of all the kids in the school, she picks up VS.

Out of all the dog breeds in the world, she talks about the same breed as VS owns.

She walks VS down the street, passing a woman waiting for her own child and who knows whoever else waiting for their kids or just arriving for their kids, and is unconcerned that she is going to be stopped or approached about why she is with that child.

After all she claims she didn't know VS was TM's daughter. She claimed the abduction was random, so she didn't know who VS parents were or what they looked like.

But she did know TM. Her mother had sold drugs to TM and boyfriend JG on numerous occasions. TM knew her from 2 trips to TLM's house.

All of these "coincidences" and there is more..............

TLM testified...she didn't know why she took a little girl that day, she doesn't know why she didn't escape with VS, and she doesn't know why she murdered VS...........but she has an incredibly clear memory of everything else, apparently good enough to sketch out maps for LE.

At this point, I don't know what the defense theory will eventually be, but I don't know how it could be any more unbelievable than the story TLM spun.

I don't believe TLM..........I have never believed TLM.........and I never will.

MR's involvement in the crime is still to be determined, but I don't believe for a second that TLM was an innocent dupe or victim in this case.

****Not that you said she was..but that appears to be the Crown case.

JMO............



wow...your post blew me away because I am on the same page as you and you explained it so simply,something I could not do...many thanks for that.. also I might add that even though my thoughts are similar to yours in how this all transpired I also don't condone MR for being there and letting the murder take place without trying to intervene..but then I went a little further in my thoughts and placed him away from the scene, maybe on his cell and TLM throws TS out of the car and begins her assault on TS by first stomping on her chest which would have done severe damage at that point and THEN she realizes that what she has done would be fatal in the long run so she then takes the hammer and finishes her off, so to speak with such rage ..maybe rage that has been bottled up inside her since her last breakdown...by the time MR rushes over the initial damage has been done to TS and in the end all he could muster up was to bag up the child and try and cover this up the best way he knew how...at that point he knew he was involved ...his reasons for doing this, well only he can answer that and the fact that he hide this crime until TLM sold him out...for that he deserves to do some time ..the other charges are not believable at this point to me and nothing has been shown by the crown to make me believe otherwise...just saying...JMO

myzzy
04-21-2012, 02:52 PM
This can be read either way, I seriously doubt seeing him 2 or 3 times a week that she would hand over all her money, someone was paying rent and from what we saw on the video it didnt look like any rental payment was made so i can only conclude that someone else was paying his bills, thus coming to the assumption that she didnt hand over all the money she earned. Out of the woman i think this young lady who was escorting was scorned the most and could see someone stating he took all the money.


Regardless, she handed over a buttload of cash to MR, but other then making him out to be a hussler i dont see the leap to murdering a child because he is a womanizer BUT my leg swung over the other side of the fence im sitting on with the bombshell friday

otto
04-21-2012, 02:54 PM
This murder has something to do with drugs only because the two murderers regularly used drugs. Both of the accused are equally guilty because they both participated in the crime from beginning to end.

otto
04-21-2012, 03:05 PM
This can be read either way, I seriously doubt seeing him 2 or 3 times a week that she would hand over all her money, someone was paying rent and from what we saw on the video it didnt look like any rental payment was made so i can only conclude that someone else was paying his bills, thus coming to the assumption that she didnt hand over all the money she earned. Out of the woman i think this young lady who was escorting was scorned the most and could see someone stating he took all the money.


Regardless, she handed over a buttload of cash to MR, but other then making him out to be a hussler i dont see the leap to murdering a child because he is a womanizer BUT my leg swung over the other side of the fence im sitting on with the bombshell friday

I think the "all" or "some" point doesn't make that much difference.

"The shocker was that Rafferty essentially pimped out one girlfriend and proceeded to drain her of more than $16,000 in the following six months.


This came from Charity Spitzig, now just 26 and a mother of five (one child passed away). She connected with Rafferty on Plenty of Fish in April of 2008, she said, met him right away and began what she considered to be a "pretty promising" relationship that was "exclusive, you could say."


She lived in London, Ont., he in Woodstock. Rafferty told her he was in school, taking dance courses and working in the home-renovation business — this was but one version of what he regularly told the women he met — so she wasn't surprised they saw one another only two or three times a week.


She told prosecutor Kevin Gowdey that, as a serious relationship, she was prepared to "invest" in it, and when asked if she loaned money to Rafferty, replied, "We discussed ways for finances to be made easier, me getting into the escort business, which I did, and any monies from there went directly to him."


Bank records show that in the six months from December 2008 to May 2009, Spitzig transferred $16,835 to Rafferty."


http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=6494217

SFB73
04-21-2012, 03:05 PM
just want to say that you all today have made some great points and used some good examples. in regards to yesterdays witness it left me with the understanding that MR and the witness were two consenting adults and I didn't get the feeling that one was more manipulative than the other..it also didn't conclude to me that MR was a pimp...As the witness testified, they both came up with the idea that she would enter the "escort" business in order to make some fast bucks and they would share the proceeds...whether he helped arrange clients..well that I don't know about to date and I am sure those clients will not be coming forth with this info.. the fact that she was using his bank account to deposit money to him was done for a purpose..either she was trying to hide the extra income she was earning from whomever or when he did meet up with her on those two or three days a week they would spend the money together.. she spoke about a "car payment" but surely she knew what he was driving so I wonder if he maybe had leased a car for her and he would make the payments for her (maybe she had no credit)..This woman did not give off vibes that someone could pull the wool over her eyes and with five children I am sure she was not short of a man or two...along with their "escort arrangement" maybe they had another sideline in drug dealing and of course he would need cash up front in order to purchase from suppliers...I think that also was his connection to CM..she would supply the drugs and he would do the selling of them..that is why I still think that "drugs" or "a drug debt" played a big role in this murder...and drugs was an issue with most of the parties in this crime..both sides.... JMO

I don't think leasing companies are in the business of leasing vehicles to people who cant show proper proof of income.... Unless of course the lease was prepaid, but then there would be no need of a payment. Also, isnt there a stipulation for people on assistance that says you cant have assets totalling over X number of dollars and collect welfare?? For all we know the car payment may indeed be true, there are lots of people out there lending money with high interest rates to people who cant get financing from the mainstream institutions. I'm more inclined to think the "car payment" was just more bs strung to yet another female in this case and there was other intentions for the money...surely that car wouldn't have a 400.00 payment on it... But nothing would surprise me now.

Tahorn
04-21-2012, 03:13 PM
I get the impression that MR lied to this woman and manipulated her in order to get money from her. That is the reason why I view MR as preying on her.

$50 maybe ... $17K doubtful, I believe that it was for drugs. I believe she could not testify to the drugs because she has 4 children. Escorting is not illegal while drugs is.

Jezbel
04-21-2012, 03:14 PM
Respectfully my point of view is such...... We didn't hear from any of the women that testified that MR was abusive or manipulative because they were not asked what their relationship was like and how it ended. I think if the crown tried that, the defence would have had some serious objections.

Also I don't think it's relevant whether CS was on welfare, she or her character are not on trial here. Yes she said they agreed she would start escorting to earn additional money but we don't know if she was happy to do so or was maybe somewhat coerced into it by MR. I also don't find it strange that MR had to ask her to deposit money, she was a mum of 4 I doubt that each time she earned money she would have the time to run immediately to the bank to deposit it in his account. Almost $17000 was deposited into his account, that's a lot of money so I don't doubt that most of the money she earned went to him regardless of whether it was for drugs or she thought she was helping him through school or not, I am sure she did not intend for it to be spent on shopping trips for other women and their children. She was in love with him, thought they would get married, she has no reason to lie.
Also she may be a tough women now but 3 years ago she could have been a totally different person, 23 yrs old with 4 boys, two being twins and by herself, she may have been lonely, had low self esteem an MR seemed like her night in shining armour. After finding out the man you loved, wanted to marry, was a father figure to your children has been arrested and charge with a crime like this must turn your world around and make you a stronger, more aware and assertive person.

As always moo

gardenia
04-21-2012, 03:27 PM
Like some on these boards, I do not see these women as "victims" ... I do agree that they have made some unfortunate choices in their lives - and perhaps hooking up with MR is just another one of them.

It seems likely that CS had some previous experience in the "escorting" business ... I mean, I don't think you suddenly wake up with 5 kids & decide to change careers. I would bet that there is a drug connection between CS & MR, which helps explain the reason she is putting $$ into his account. I mean, for what other reason would she be giving him $$ & 'supporting' him? She has 5 kids to care for & he is single & able-bodied... I honestly don't think she was doing this solely for his benefit. JMO!

As always, there is more to the story...

Snoopster
04-21-2012, 03:33 PM
What was the date for the next deposit into his account? I don't have that video file handy. xo

The next deposit was Apr 22 for $200.

And sorry about not posting the link to the video (where the list of deposits was shown) along with the image in my earlier post. Here it is:

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/20/19660781.html

Macright
04-21-2012, 03:37 PM
I still think that there is a dark cloud hanging over the head of another player in all this...JMO

Macright
04-21-2012, 03:38 PM
The next deposit was Apr 22 for $200.

And sorry about not posting the link to the video (where the list of deposits was shown) along with the image in my earlier post. Here it is:

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/20/19660781.html


maybe she took some time off.....JMO

Snoopster
04-21-2012, 03:46 PM
I think that Canadians are sometimes influenced by what is seen in US trials via talking heads like Nancy Grace. In North Carolina, for example, a person's character can be considered by the jury when deciding a verdict. In Florida, absolutely everything about the case can be released to the public well before a trial. Common law does not allow any information about an investigation to be released before trial and a persons prior bad acts cannot be used when determining whether a person is guilty of a specific bad act.

I think it is important that these rights are protected. I followed the North Carolina cases of Brad Cooper and Jason Young and was really surprised at how much court time was dedicated to smearing the character of the accused. Particularly in the case of Brad Cooper, two weeks of trial time were filled with testimony of the neighbours badmouthing the suspect. At the time, I thought it was a completely irrelevant waste of time, but in the long run, smearing the character of the suspect before presenting evidence of the crime worked in terms of tainting the suspects character and leaving him vulnerable to having all the evidence interpretted in a very negative way.


Otto, I just want to thank you for sharing your legal knowledge with us. I find it very helpful!

Tahorn
04-21-2012, 03:48 PM
The next deposit was Apr 22 for $200.

And sorry about not posting the link to the video (where the list of deposits was shown) along with the image in my earlier post. Here it is:

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/20/19660781.html

April 9th, 2009 3:59pm $300

Snoopster
04-21-2012, 03:49 PM
One other person that I want to make sure I thank for several posts is BorgQueen. I didn't have a chance to thank her on yesterday's trial thread before it closed. I think her messages are insightful and from the perspective of 'until you walk in my shoes'.

Thank you for sharing, BorgQueen.

Macright
04-21-2012, 03:52 PM
illegal activities presented by crown by MTR
a. ingested drugs
b. sold drugs-large quantities
c. received monies for escorting-does he have a business license??
d. income tax evasion?
e. receiving any govt benefits gst etc based on not working but he WAS in receipt of oodles of money - illegal IMO does it constitute fraud?
f. did he defraud some of these women by lying about marrying them??
g. taking a child without express parental permission into his car -criminal
h. taking a child without express parental permission into his car -civil damages
i. rape
j. murder

anything else that could be considered illegal as presented by crown?

JMO

a. has that been proven
b. has that been proven
c. was he escorting...I thought she was
d. yeah I agree but doubt if the gov. will do anything about that..can't get blood from a turnip
e. penalty should be he will have to pay it back..although I have never received a GST refund in my life I understood one can earn XX # of $$$ and still receive a GST refund...again doubt if penalty would be paid ..see turnip reason
f. that is not a crime....if so can you prove that..
g. since he was not a parent and not familiar with the rules etc. AND if TLM said she was babysitting Tori..well then all I can say is he didn't use common sense but then if anyone picked up a child from school with someone who said they were babysitting then I doubt he is the only one that this has ever happened to.
h. see above
i. we don't know that and it was not proven...hearsay...
j. murder did happen in this instance but someone else confessed to being the one who committed it and is now serving her time.

all of the above are JMO

Snoopster
04-21-2012, 03:54 PM
April 9th, 2009 3:59pm $300

You're absolutely right, Tahorn. But I believe that I mentioned that one and said this was followed by no deposits for almost 2 weeks. I think that was what the poster was asking about...but I may be wrong. So thanks for that.

crazyladi
04-21-2012, 04:11 PM
I would also add the lengthy list of females and their testimony, also shows that none of them expressed any concern that MR had devious sexual desires. The females were from different educational and career backgrounds, some had young children, the relationships varied from single conversations or meetings to fairly lengthy periods of time.

And as far as I know..........not one of them said anything about any sexual deviancy about MR.

The defense still has to present their side........

JMO

They werent asked about his sexual appetite or habits. The questions were direct as to the evidence about the back seat, when they dated and how long it lasted.

That being said a lot of little details are not being asked unless we are just not hearing it.

snoofer
04-21-2012, 04:14 PM
Respectfully my point of view is such...... We didn't hear from any of the women that testified that MR was abusive or manipulative because they were not asked what their relationship was like and how it ended. I think if the crown tried that, the defence would have had some serious objections.

Also I don't think it's relevant whether CS was on welfare, she or her character are not on trial here. Yes she said they agreed she would start escorting to earn additional money but we don't know if she was happy to do so or was maybe somewhat coerced into it by MR. I also don't find it strange that MR had to ask her to deposit money, she was a mum of 4 I doubt that each time she earned money she would have the time to run immediately to the bank to deposit it in his account. Almost $17000 was deposited into his account, that's a lot of money so I don't doubt that most of the money she earned went to him regardless of whether it was for drugs or she thought she was helping him through school or not, I am sure she did not intend for it to be spent on shopping trips for other women and their children. She was in love with him, thought they would get married, she has no reason to lie.
Also she may be a tough women now but 3 years ago she could have been a totally different person, 23 yrs old with 4 boys, two being twins and by herself, she may have been lonely, had low self esteem an MR seemed like her night in shining armour. After finding out the man you loved, wanted to marry, was a father figure to your children has been arrested and charge with a crime like this must turn your world around and make you a stronger, more aware and assertive person.

As always moo

definately low self esteem if your knight in shining armour expected you to escort and give him money. I would suggest a decent guy would not want their gf doing that and most especially take the money for it. JMO Good lord; it must be tough out there for a single person to think MTR was a good catch. Where have all the good guys gone? JMO In all seriousness I can see it being tough out there as let's face it, if a gal meets a truly good man, she hangs on to her and vise versa. JMO

Jezbel
04-21-2012, 04:23 PM
definately low self esteem if your knight in shining armour expected you to escort and give him money. I would suggest a decent guy would not want their gf doing that and most especially take the money for it. JMO Good lord; it must be tough out there for a single person to think MTR was a good catch. Where have all the good guys gone? JMO In all seriousness I can see it being tough out there as let's face it, if a gal meets a truly good man, she hangs on to her and vise versa. JMO

Nope I agree, I don't think any decent guy would either, but then I don't think MR is decent in any way either.

She probably thought he was a good guy as he was willing to take on 4 young children who were not his own. I read somewhere that her last son was born in May 2008, that would mean she would have been pregnant when they started dating....

Jmo

Wondergirl
04-21-2012, 04:25 PM
Regarding frequency, timing and amounts of payments from CS to MTR, I tried to grab a screen shot from the LFP video to save for reference. I couldn't easily figure out how to post a larger, clearer version here (although it's pretty clear if you watch the video in full-screen mode and then just pause it).

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ha_ryHb82cY/T5K7U2AWReI/AAAAAAAABZc/Zp17NDHzaIo/s456/CS%2520transfers%2520to%2520Rafferty.jpg

What you will see though, for the few months leading up to Apr 9, is that the deposits occurred on average every 2-3 days. Sometimes a couple of days in row, and sometimes several days apart. Amounts were typically in the $200 - $500 range, although there were several at $100 (a couple even lower) and one as large as $1000.

The last deposit before Apr 8 was on Apr 4 for $100.

Apr 8 there were the 2 deposits,as reported, for $400 at 9:47 and $100 at 2:58. There was another deposit of $300 on Apr 9 at 3:59.

Then....nothing for almost 2 weeks. Strange.

BBM: It is strange.

It begs the questions, did she take herself out of commission, and, also did she have any idea about what happened to Tori? I would presume, by her selfless actions yesterday, that she did not know about Tori.

girlfriday
04-21-2012, 04:38 PM
QUOTE: Another former girlfriend described Rafferty as having aggressive sexual interests and a secretive personality.

"He never had any money and I would always pay for things," said Jennifer Etsell, a single mom in Hanover who met Rafferty through an online dating service in 2006. "He started lying about things (and) he was always very secretive.

"I didn't meet any of his friends. He wouldn't talk about any of his past relationships."

His interest in what she called "rough sex" and bondage -- he became angry when rebuffed -- strained the relationship. She ended it after $2,000 disappeared from her bank account. END QUOTE

From this old article:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/05/21/pf-9520751.html

crazyladi
04-21-2012, 04:42 PM
QUOTE: Another former girlfriend described Rafferty as having aggressive sexual interests and a secretive personality.

"He never had any money and I would always pay for things," said Jennifer Etsell, a single mom in Hanover who met Rafferty through an online dating service in 2006. "He started lying about things (and) he was always very secretive.

"I didn't meet any of his friends. He wouldn't talk about any of his past relationships."

His interest in what she called "rough sex" and bondage -- he became angry when rebuffed -- strained the relationship. She ended it after $2,000 disappeared from her bank account. END QUOTE

From this old article:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/05/21/pf-9520751.html


Thank you for posting this. The crown has not asked any of these women about his sexual appetite. I dont know why but there is obviously a reason.

This same girl testified recently and none of what she said came out and I think it should have as it plays an important role that I think that just like Bernardo he needed to take it to the next level because these women couldnt give him what he wanted.

Snoopster
04-21-2012, 05:03 PM
BBM: It is strange.

It begs the questions, did she take herself out of commission, and, also did she have any idea about what happened to Tori? I would presume, by her selfless actions yesterday, that she did not know about Tori.

Oh, I forgot to add, I didn't see any other day, other than Apr 8, where there were two deposits in one day.

Confusedashell
04-21-2012, 05:35 PM
Thank you for posting this. The crown has not asked any of these women about his sexual appetite. I dont know why but there is obviously a reason.

This same girl testified recently and none of what she said came out and I think it should have as it plays an important role that I think that just like Bernardo he needed to take it to the next level because these women couldnt give him what he wanted.
She was never asked about that. She was asked where she lived how they met, how many children she has and what way they took back and forth from Hanover to Guelph that is all. Nothing about his sexual behaviour nor how he acted around her child was ever brought up.

otto
04-21-2012, 06:16 PM
$50 maybe ... $17K doubtful, I believe that it was for drugs. I believe she could not testify to the drugs because she has 4 children. Escorting is not illegal while drugs is.

If it was drugs, not escorting, the defence lawyers could destroy her testimony on cross. The prosecution would not likely take that risk, so it was probably escorting. She thought that she was investing in a relationship that had some promise.

Hello_Kitty
04-21-2012, 06:19 PM
I would also add the lengthy list of females and their testimony, also shows that none of them expressed any concern that MR had devious sexual desires. The females were from different educational and career backgrounds, some had young children, the relationships varied from single conversations or meetings to fairly lengthy periods of time.

And as far as I know..........not one of them said anything about any sexual deviancy about MR.

The defense still has to present their side........

JMO

Well I don't remember either the crown or defence asking any of the witnesses about that, so I assume that's why they didn't say ;)

Hello_Kitty
04-21-2012, 06:21 PM
Regarding frequency, timing and amounts of payments from CS to MTR, I tried to grab a screen shot from the LFP video to save for reference. I couldn't easily figure out how to post a larger, clearer version here (although it's pretty clear if you watch the video in full-screen mode and then just pause it).

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-ha_ryHb82cY/T5K7U2AWReI/AAAAAAAABZc/Zp17NDHzaIo/s456/CS%2520transfers%2520to%2520Rafferty.jpg

What you will see though, for the few months leading up to Apr 9, is that the deposits occurred on average every 2-3 days. Sometimes a couple of days in row, and sometimes several days apart. Amounts were typically in the $200 - $500 range, although there were several at $100 (a couple even lower) and one as large as $1000.

The last deposit before Apr 8 was on Apr 4 for $100.

Apr 8 there were the 2 deposits,as reported, for $400 at 9:47 and $100 at 2:58. There was another deposit of $300 on Apr 9 at 3:59.

Then....nothing for almost 2 weeks. Strange.

It's really a wonder the bank didn't catch on to all those deposits and look into it.

otto
04-21-2012, 06:24 PM
Otto, I just want to thank you for sharing your legal knowledge with us. I find it very helpful!

You are welcome. I am not a lawyer, but I have a close relationship with a senior Queen's Counsel and A.C.C. Prosecutor, so I have picked up some understanding of criminal law over the years.

~n/t~
04-21-2012, 06:24 PM
I think that Canadians are sometimes influenced by what is seen in US trials via talking heads like Nancy Grace. In North Carolina, for example, a person's character can be considered by the jury when deciding a verdict. In Florida, absolutely everything about the case can be released to the public well before a trial. Common law does not allow any information about an investigation to be released before trial and a persons prior bad acts cannot be used when determining whether a person is guilty of a specific bad act.

I think it is important that these rights are protected. I followed the North Carolina cases of Brad Cooper and Jason Young and was really surprised at how much court time was dedicated to smearing the character of the accused. Particularly in the case of Brad Cooper, two weeks of trial time were filled with testimony of the neighbours badmouthing the suspect. At the time, I thought it was a completely irrelevant waste of time, but in the long run, smearing the character of the suspect before presenting evidence of the crime worked in terms of tainting the suspects character and leaving him vulnerable to having all the evidence interpretted in a very negative way.

Oh that's right. I forgot I was born and raised in this wonderful country where criminals have all the rights and the victims have none.

This trial is just one example.

otto
04-21-2012, 06:28 PM
Oh that's right. I forgot I was born and raised in this wonderful country where criminals have all the rights and the victims have none.

This trial is just one example.

I wouldn't go so far as to say that criminals have all the rights, but I do think that it's more common to give the benefit of the doubt in Canada and Western Europe.

Macright
04-21-2012, 06:29 PM
If it was drugs, not escorting, the defence lawyers could destroy her testimony on cross. The prosecution would not likely take that risk, so it was probably escorting. She thought that she was investing in a relationship that had some promise.


I thought the original poster meant the $$$ were deposited into the bank for the purchase of drugs for resale...their second occupation... I think the witness knew enough about the risk of mentioning drugs and changed her story of why she was making the deposits....IMO that was their relationship...a business deal and nothing to do about investing in a relationship ie: marriage etc.. JMO

otto
04-21-2012, 06:35 PM
I thought the original poster meant the $$$ were deposited into the bank for the purchase of drugs for resale...their second occupation... I think the witness knew enough about the risk of mentioning drugs and changed her story of why she was making the deposits....IMO that was their relationship...a business deal and nothing to do about investing in a relationship ie: marriage etc.. JMO

If their relationship was about buying and selling drugs, MF would inform his lawyer and the lawyer would discredit the witness. Has the witness been cross examined by the defence lawyer yet and, if so, did the lawyer ask her about drug dealing? If not, then the financial transfers are not related to drug dealing.

AbbeyR
04-21-2012, 06:35 PM
Good lord; it must be tough out there for a single person to think MTR was a good catch. Where have all the good guys gone? <snipped, bbm>

Indeed. But then, remember that just about all of these women met him on PoF and his profile was not exactly an accurate reflection, as we now know. It was a collection of lies, which seem designed to target women who were asking this very question. And he has an answer for them:

"I dont want somene who will say things to hurt(dont tell me you love me,then tell me you dont)no head games PLEASE!! And I want someone who is wanting forever with someone and only them/me.I always tell it like it is and I always work at trying to better myself all the time.... I am one of the good guys. I want someone to spend the rest of my life with and someone who I can make happier then they have ever been..."

note: "mychol Appears on 31 members favorites lists"

(I found his POF profile through a site that was mentioned in the trial the other day, hope this link is okay to post: (If not, I'll delete) http://web.archive.org/web/20090530090552/http://www.cancrime.com/2009/05/accused-child-killer-left-trail-online.html)

MOO

Macright
04-21-2012, 06:44 PM
If their relationship was about buying and selling drugs, MF would inform his lawyer and the lawyer would discredit the witness. Has the witness been cross examined by the defence lawyer yet and, if so, did the lawyer ask her about drug dealing? If not, then the financial transfers are not related to drug dealing.

we may never know the true reasons for the deposits but we don't have to believe her reasons for them when they don't make any sense to us and to me they don't...JMO just because Dirk didn't go there doesn't mean it isn't so...JMO

Hello_Kitty
04-21-2012, 06:45 PM
Another victim?

I guess the theory of MR's incredible ability to victimize a numerous and wide ranging number of women supports the Crown's accusation, based on TLM's testimony, that the kidnapping was a master plan by a skillful manipulator......who apparently simultaneously was dumb as a brick.



Snipped for space

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to manipulate someone. There are plenty of tall, dark, handsome dumb guys out there that use their looks to manipulate middled aged women into parting with their money.... I guess you could say they are the equivalent of the dumb blond.

brighidin
04-21-2012, 06:47 PM
just want to say that you all today have made some great points and used some good examples. in regards to yesterdays witness it left me with the understanding that MR and the witness were two consenting adults and I didn't get the feeling that one was more manipulative than the other..it also didn't conclude to me that MR was a pimp...As the witness testified, they both came up with the idea that she would enter the "escort" business in order to make some fast bucks and they would share the proceeds...whether he helped arrange clients..well that I don't know about to date and I am sure those clients will not be coming forth with this info.. the fact that she was using his bank account to deposit money to him was done for a purpose..either she was trying to hide the extra income she was earning from whomever or when he did meet up with her on those two or three days a week they would spend the money together.. she spoke about a "car payment" but surely she knew what he was driving so I wonder if he maybe had leased a car for her and he would make the payments for her (maybe she had no credit)..This woman did not give off vibes that someone could pull the wool over her eyes and with five children I am sure she was not short of a man or two...along with their "escort arrangement" maybe they had another sideline in drug dealing and of course he would need cash up front in order to purchase from suppliers...I think that also was his connection to CM..she would supply the drugs and he would do the selling of them..that is why I still think that "drugs" or "a drug debt" played a big role in this murder...and drugs was an issue with most of the parties in this crime..both sides.... JMO
They decided she should be an escort. He got the money. How much more pimpness do you expect him to exude??

imo

myzzy
04-21-2012, 07:04 PM
Only thing i can think of is the defence has its work cut out for him. there plate is quite full

girlfriday
04-21-2012, 07:05 PM
I was just reading the last thread, and wanted to comment on something. Some have suggested that perhaps MR was led to believe the TLM was babysitting TS and didn't know at first that she was being abducted. I personally would find that REALLY hard to believe, because I would assume that TS would not have just quietly acted like it was normal to be being driven away by strangers. One could reasonably think that TS would be asking the normal question, like, where are you taking me, or telling them that she needed to go home, etc. Besides, if he concedes that there was no back seat in the car, at that time - why would he agree to allow a child to ride back there? Or are we to believe that she was up in the front?

As always, this is just my opinion.

Heliotrope
04-21-2012, 07:11 PM
Another victim?

I guess the theory of MR's incredible ability to victimize a numerous and wide ranging number of women supports the Crown's accusation, based on TLM's testimony, that the kidnapping was a master plan by a skillful manipulator......who apparently simultaneously was dumb as a brick.

My biggest problem with the Crown's case is the beginning.

Based on TLM's testimony, we have to believe.............

Despite having a long list of female encounters, none of whom made any reference to a devious sexual side of MR, one day he woke up and decided to take a child and sexually assault her.

He decided it was a good idea to take a witness along with him.

A witness who was recently released from custody, was a drug addict, and was continually in and out of trouble with the law. Surely he could depend on her to keep a secret like this for the rest of his life.

He decided that rather than drive to Guelph and kidnap a child there, it would be a better idea to kidnap one in Woodstock and drive around with her in the backseat of the car for a couple of hours.

He pulled the battery out of his phone so he wouldn't be tracked leaving Woodstock.........frantically listens to the radio for kidnapping alerts and then decides to insert the battery back into the phone when he arrives at Guelph.......just down the highway.

He decided it would be a good idea to stop at Tim Horton for tea, pick up some drugs at a friends home with his car parked out front of her home and a kidnapped young girl inside, and stick around and "chat" for about 10 minutes.

Then he decided to continue on with the crime.

But let's go back to the actual abduction...............

TLM testified it was totally random.

Out of all the elementary schools in Woodstock, they end up at this one.

Out of all the kids in the school, she picks up VS.

Out of all the dog breeds in the world, she talks about the same breed as VS owns.

She walks VS down the street, passing a woman waiting for her own child and who knows whoever else waiting for their kids or just arriving for their kids, and is unconcerned that she is going to be stopped or approached about why she is with that child.

After all she claims she didn't know VS was TM's daughter. She claimed the abduction was random, so she didn't know who VS parents were or what they looked like.

But she did know TM. Her mother had sold drugs to TM and boyfriend JG on numerous occasions. TM knew her from 2 trips to TLM's house.

All of these "coincidences" and there is more..............

TLM testified...she didn't know why she took a little girl that day, she doesn't know why she didn't escape with VS, and she doesn't know why she murdered VS...........but she has an incredibly clear memory of everything else, apparently good enough to sketch out maps for LE.

At this point, I don't know what the defense theory will eventually be, but I don't know how it could be any more unbelievable than the story TLM spun.

I don't believe TLM..........I have never believed TLM.........and I never will.

MR's involvement in the crime is still to be determined, but I don't believe for a second that TLM was an innocent dupe or victim in this case.

****Not that you said she was..but that appears to be the Crown case.

JMO............

I don't believe any of these women, including TLM, are victims. I don't believe TLM is telling the complete truth - after all, how do you know when a drug addict is lying? Their lips are moving.

But are you saying you believe that this is a widespread conspiracy between many parties to deliberately target an innocent man by excluding evidence and ignoring a viable line of questioning?

In theory, such a conspiracy would have to involve, at a minimum, Woodstock Police, the OPP from the lowest to the highest levels, Oxford County Crown Prosecutor, perhaps the judge, Tori's family and TLM. And perhaps all the witnesses we don't hear about that would exonerate MR. And perhaps MR's family, because none of them seem to be defending him. And perhaps also the media, both left- and right-leaning (holy crap, they agree on something!), because editorials in both often seem to suggest that the evidence is very damning.

And all of those parties are going along with it because TLM wants them to? That is a fascinating theory.

My counter theory is that all the parties listed above want justice for the perpetrators and peace for the victims, and the evidence points overwhelmingly to MR.

Just my opinion.

girlfriday
04-21-2012, 07:16 PM
There was mention of MR's possible connection to an escort, previously, in a really old thread here - starting at post #17 :

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87664

Kamille
04-21-2012, 07:18 PM
BBM: It is strange.

It begs the questions, did she take herself out of commission, and, also did she have any idea about what happened to Tori? I would presume, by her selfless actions yesterday, that she did not know about Tori.

She testified that she gave him cash when he was at her home and that she had given him much more that the money that is shown in the bank transfers. Looks like he spent more time over there in the two weeks following the crime to get his money in cash. Didn't his new girlfriend JM live in the same city of London? So he was there pretty much every day or night? That's why there were less transfers IMO.

Maybe he only asked for transfers when he was in Woodstock and wanted to buy stuff for JW.

MOO

Alison
04-21-2012, 07:23 PM
OK I do not know how to bring quotes over from other threads but there is something I would really like to address. Someone stated that MR's many women would lead them to believe that he was not a child rapist. However becaues he raped a little girl does not mean he is actually a pedophile. The reason I say this is rape is about power and control. MR appears to have preyed on the vulnerable, women who were/are single mothers, who needed companionship and quite possible had low self esteem. Who in society are more vulnerable then these women? The young,the old, and the disabled. I believe that he could have easily done this to someone who fell into any one of these categories. What he did was not about sex it was about ripping some girl apart emotionaly, physically and mentally. However this is all my opinion formed on knowledge I have in this field, however I am no expert but I bet if you asked one they would probably agree. So the argument that he dated many women would negate him raping a little girl is not relevant in my mind. MOO

Hello_Kitty
04-21-2012, 07:23 PM
I was just reading the last thread, and wanted to comment on something. Some have suggested that perhaps MR was led to believe the TLM was babysitting TS and didn't know at first that she was being abducted. I personally would find that REALLY hard to believe, because I would assume that TS would not have just quietly acted like it was normal to be being driven away by strangers. One could reasonably think that TS would be asking the normal question, like, where are you taking me, or telling them that she needed to go home, etc. Besides, if he concedes that there was no back seat in the car, at that time - why would he agree to allow a child to ride back there? Or are we to believe that she was up in the front?

As always, this is just my opinion.

Good points. TLM did say she that TS asked to go home and that she wouldn't say anything and say she went to her cousin's.

I'm sure someone will say TLM lied, that TS never asked to go home.

Alison
04-21-2012, 07:48 PM
They decided she should be an escort. He got the money. How much more pimpness do you expect him to exude??

imo

This made me laugh. Pimpness :). I totally agree by the way, he totally was the definition of pimp. I do not understand why people think a pimp has to be the guy hanging out on the street making sure his broad is being treated right.

BTW OTTO thank you as well for your insight.

Another point I do not believe that the crown was allowed to ask if he was a sexual deviant due to the whole can not attack his character issues. Correct me if I am wrong.

Ardy
04-21-2012, 07:49 PM
But are you saying you believe that this is a widespread conspiracy between many parties to deliberately target an innocent man by excluding evidence and ignoring a viable line of questioning?

In theory, such a conspiracy would have to involve, at a minimum, Woodstock Police, the OPP from the lowest to the highest levels, Oxford County Crown Prosecutor, perhaps the judge, Tori's family and TLM. And perhaps all the witnesses we don't hear about that would exonerate MR. And perhaps MR's family, because none of them seem to be defending him. And perhaps also the media, both left- and right-leaning (holy crap, they agree on something!), because editorials in both often seem to suggest that the evidence is very damning.

And all of those parties are going along with it because TLM wants them to? That is a fascinating theory.

Just my opinion.

It is a fascinating theory......but it's yours not mine.

JMO..........

Kamille
04-21-2012, 07:50 PM
OK I do not know how to bring quotes over from other threads but there is something I would really like to address. Someone stated that MR's many women would lead them to believe that he was not a child rapist. However becaues he raped a little girl does not mean he is actually a pedophile. The reason I say this is rape is about power and control. MR appears to have preyed on the vulnerable, women who were/are single mothers, who needed companionship and quite possible had low self esteem. Who in society are more vulnerable then these women? The young,the old, and the disabled. I believe that he could have easily done this to someone who fell into any one of these categories. What he did was not about sex it was about ripping some girl apart emotionaly, physically and mentally. However this is all my opinion formed on knowledge I have in this field, however I am no expert but I bet if you asked one they would agree. So the argument that he dated many women would negate him raping a little girl is not relevant in my mind.

We also have no idea how much about her childhood TLM told MR. She testified that she knew nothing about him and that their conversations were all about her. He wanted to know about her.

Now if she told him all about her childhood and her own sexual assault(s) and how traumatic that had been he may have found that topic of conversation "arousing". And that might have been the trigger for him to decide he wanted to abduct and rape a child.

MOO

Ardy
04-21-2012, 07:55 PM
Good points. TLM did say she that TS asked to go home and that she wouldn't say anything and say she went to her cousin's.

I'm sure someone will say TLM lied, that TS never asked to go home.

TLM told VS that she wouldn't let anything happen to her, according to her own testimony.

She either lied to VS then, or she is lying about it now.

She lied to VS family and said MR killed VS.

TLM is a sociopath. She lies just because she can. She has no moral code.

If a Judge stepped forward and said MR was at his house the day of the abduction, TLM would simply change her story to include the Judge.........

That is how sociopaths operate.

JMO............

Alison
04-21-2012, 08:00 PM
TLM told VS that she wouldn't let anything happen to her, according to her own testimony.

She either lied to VS then, or she is lying about it now.

She lied to VS family and said MR killed VS.

TLM is a sociopath. She lies just because she can. She has no moral code.

If a Judge stepped forward and said MR was at his house the day of the abduction, TLM would simply change her story to include the Judge.........

That is how sociopaths operate.

JMO............

Well I am not sure what TLM is diagnosed with, however I do agree that she is a monster. However, you explain away a lot of the evidence, but the law requires to acquit, it must be through "reasonable" doubt. Heavy weight on the "reasonable". Coincidence can only be used as an excuse so many times. Any good investigator will tell you that in an investigation there is no such thing as a coincidence. MOO

Alison
04-21-2012, 08:03 PM
Off topic but considering there are many Ontarians on here:

Amber Alert

Issued at 7:11 PM Saturday 21 April 2012

Importance:
High

Description

Release Immediately April 21, 2012 1830 hrs. MEDIA Contact Toronto Police Service 416 808 3300 PLEASE BROADCAST THE FOLLOWING UPON RECEIPT THE TORONTO POLICE SERVICE HAS REQUESTED AN AMBER ALERT FOR AN ABDUCTED CHILD IN THE GREATER TORONTO AREA. Victim?s name Joshua LOW Date of Birth 28 April 2003 8 years of age Physical Description: Oriental Height 4 ft Weight 40 45 lbs Hair color Black Eye color Brown Clothing Last seen wearing dark hooded sweat shirt, blue and yellow shoes. Believed to be in the company of Jessica Yi Qing LOW-ZHEN Date of Birth 28 August 1966 45 years of age Physical Description Oriental Height 5ft 1 Weight Thin build Hair color Long black hair Eye color Brown Photo available of both subjects from the Toronto Police Service Details of Incident On Friday April 13th 2012 the female left the family home with her child. On Friday April 20th, 2012 Toronto Police Service received information which caused them to be concerned for his safety while in her care. Jessica LOW ZHENG is described as female Asian, 45 years old, approximately 5 ft 2, thin build, long black hair, wears glasses. Joshua LOW is described as male Asian, 8 years old, approximately 4ft, skinny build, short black hair. Anyone with information is asked to contact police at 416 808 3300 Vehicle Information They were last seen in a 2000 Toyota Corolla, 4 door brown with an Ontario licence plate BAME697. If observed call 911.

Area Description

Greater Toronto Area

Issued By:
Ontario Provincial Police

crazyladi
04-21-2012, 08:40 PM
Now this goes back to Katerine. I think she was an escort as well, wasnt she the one that had the page dedicated to him? So 2 possible escorts?

Kittymama
04-21-2012, 08:52 PM
Now this goes back to Katerine. I think she was an escort as well, wasnt she the one that had the page dedicated to him? So 2 possible escorts?

Or was that an alias?

snoofer
04-21-2012, 09:00 PM
Antisocial personality disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

1. Callous unconcern for feelings of others: let parents stew about where their daughter was, lied to many of these women
2. irresponsibility, disregard social norms, rules and obligations: didn't work, took and sold drugs (I believe LE), drove on narcotics, sponged off mother
3. incapacity to maintain long term relationships but not problem starting them: omg let me count the ways and women. IMO
4. low tolerance to frustration and aggression- jury is still out so to speak
5. incapacity to experience guilt - he buried a child, covered crime scene and his life didn't seem to skip a beat and he let the parents stew over where their child was
6. markedly prone to blame others or offer rationalizations for his behavior which has brought him into conflict with society - see trial
7. deception, repeated lying and use of aliases or conning others for personal profit or pleasure - again see trial
8. impulsiveness-failure to plan ahead- not sure of this I am thinking he plans sometimes and is impulsive other times IMO

IMO TLM could also meet these criteria. MOO

Heliotrope
04-21-2012, 09:03 PM
It is a fascinating theory......but it's yours not mine.

JMO..........

No, it's not my theory.

How could such a significant relationship not come to light in the course a trial other than by a concerted effort to conceal it? If not between LE and the Crown, then at least some sort of unspoken agreement between TM and the woman who murdered her child. No, not my theory at all.

My theory is that, in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt, the honourable lawyer for the accused is randomly throwing out a lot of **** and hoping that at least some of it will stick.

snoofer
04-21-2012, 09:23 PM
Even if the lovely TLM told MTR she was babysitting initially I do not think that a man would take the child in his car and out of town just zipping around WITHOUT express permission from the parent. It DOESNT happen. This is a 28 year old man and ANY 28 year old man had best know that IF he does that parents will be pissed and LE will charge him. Zipping to buy drugs in another town, zipping here and there without permission, without the child restrained properly. That whole theory just makes no sense. Why doesn't it makes sense? Because parents want to know where their child is, EVEN if with a babysitter. No parent would allow it IMO and no man in his right mind would go with a strange kid out of town, zipping around buying drugs with that kid in his car, then to a rural setting in the woods and expect it to be considered innocent behavior. JMO At the very least it is creepy behavior....and considering the end result..... JMO

TLM did not have a vehicle and the parent would know that if she was babysitting. So HIS choice to drive all over and out of town would have been exactly that....HIS choice. HIS choice to take a child out of town, unknown to the parent and without permission. HE would have known that the parent DID NOT know where this child was because she did not have a vehicle. JMO AND obviously the permission was NOT given or the police would not have been called because she was missing.

To me IMO this is the most important part before even consider all of the other overwhelming evidence; I want to hear defense explain how this is not sinister behavior in this day and age. Because that initial act alone has bad data written all over it IMO. Remember it was HIM that went to buy drugs with the child in the car to HIS drug connection, did HE have permission for that, did TLM have permission for that. Yea right; I think not! Nobody takes a kid to another town without permission, I have never heard of something so rediculous for behavior while babysitting. MOO

Bravo
04-21-2012, 09:46 PM
I'm more upset that the judge, at one point, made disparaging comments to the jury in reference to the Crown's presentation of evidence. I can't find the link but it was after the presentation of cell phone evidence (I think); the judge thereafter commented to the jury about the boring evidence.

Why would the judge verbally demonstrate bias against the Crown? JMO

I hope it's not suggested the judge was trying to be funny because there's nothing comical about this case especially with Tori's family sitting there listening to the cruelty she endured. JMO

I believe the remark was the Questioning was sleep inducing. Words to that effect. I think it's important we remember these are tweets and we are not in the Courtroom. I have been. I have noted the Crown and Judge have been very attentive to the Jurors. Last i was there one of the elder jurors didn't even have half her yawn out when Judge started to say break time and prosecutor was starting to speak of a break also. I was not there that day but we don't know if the Judge was remarking due to a few Jurors yawning. I was impressed how in tune he was to them. It would be my guess the Judge was pointing out it was time for a break. Prosecution hadn't noticed and Judge was pointing out he was losing them. MOO but we are not there to see the context.

otto
04-21-2012, 09:51 PM
This made me laugh. Pimpness :). I totally agree by the way, he totally was the definition of pimp. I do not understand why people think a pimp has to be the guy hanging out on the street making sure his broad is being treated right.

BTW OTTO thank you as well for your insight.

Another point I do not believe that the crown was allowed to ask if he was a sexual deviant due to the whole can not attack his character issues. Correct me if I am wrong.

I don't know for sure, but I think it would go to relevance. IMHO, the women have been introduced as witnesses to demonstrate MR's state of mind at the time of the murder. Whether he was sexually deviant wouldn't really be relevant to the trial - since there are no sexual deviance charges (other than sexual interference with a child). The trial can't be a fishing expedition to infer that there was other sexual deviance during the child rape.

otto
04-21-2012, 09:58 PM
No, it's not my theory.

How could such a significant relationship not come to light in the course a trial other than by a concerted effort to conceal it? If not between LE and the Crown, then at least some sort of unspoken agreement between TM and the woman who murdered her child. No, not my theory at all.

My theory is that, in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt, the honourable lawyer for the accused is randomly throwing out a lot of **** and hoping that at least some of it will stick.

Coincidence or conspiracy theory ... it's most likely deductive reasoning based on evidence. I think that there are always one or two holes in the solving of a crime, but if there's enough substance, as with this case, then it's highly unlikely that everyone will interpret the evidence as either coincidence or conspiracy.

SFB73
04-21-2012, 10:25 PM
Even if the lovely TLM told MTR she was babysitting initially I do not think that a man would take the child in his car and out of town just zipping around WITHOUT express permission from the parent. It DOESNT happen. This is a 28 year old man and ANY 28 year old man had best know that IF he does that parents will be pissed and LE will charge him. Zipping to buy drugs in another town, zipping here and there without permission, without the child restrained properly. That whole theory just makes no sense. Why doesn't it makes sense? Because parents want to know where their child is, EVEN if with a babysitter. No parent would allow it IMO and no man in his right mind would go with a strange kid out of town, zipping around buying drugs with that kid in his car, then to a rural setting in the woods and expect it to be considered innocent behavior. JMO At the very least it is creepy behavior....and considering the end result..... JMO

TLM did not have a vehicle and the parent would know that if she was babysitting. So HIS choice to drive all over and out of town would have been exactly that....HIS choice. HIS choice to take a child out of town, unknown to the parent and without permission. HE would have known that the parent DID NOT know where this child was because she did not have a vehicle. JMO AND obviously the permission was NOT given or the police would not have been called because she was missing.

To me IMO this is the most important part before even consider all of the other overwhelming evidence; I want to hear defense explain how this is not sinister behavior in this day and age. Because that initial act alone has bad data written all over it IMO. Remember it was HIM that went to buy drugs with the child in the car to HIS drug connection, did HE have permission for that, did TLM have permission for that. Yea right; I think not! Nobody takes a kid to another town without permission, I have never heard of something so rediculous for behavior while babysitting. MOO

Nice post!!

Let's simplify it a little.... What parent in their right might would allow TLM to babysit their child??? If I were on the jury, and something like this was even raised or suggested I would immediately respond with the question "would you let your child go with either MR or TLM for an afternoon drive?"

If they present the theory that he thought the child was in TLM's care, it is almost akin to outright calling the jury morons to even think they would entertain that. If that's the defense, I think they are in big big trouble.

Shasta
04-21-2012, 10:38 PM
I believe the remark was the Questioning was sleep inducing. Words to that effect. I think it's important we remember these are tweets and we are not in the Courtroom. I have been. I have noted the Crown and Judge have been very attentive to the Jurors. Last i was there one of the elder jurors didn't even have half her yawn out when Judge started to say break time and prosecutor was starting to speak of a break also. I was not there that day but we don't know if the Judge was remarking due to a few Jurors yawning. I was impressed how in tune he was to them. It would be my guess the Judge was pointing out it was time for a break. Prosecution hadn't noticed and Judge was pointing out he was losing them. MOO but we are not there to see the context.

Thank you Bravo. It's easy to miss subtleties and mis-perceive context when we're getting everything from twitter. Which is probably the case with my post.

Macright
04-21-2012, 10:46 PM
Nice post!!

Let's simplify it a little.... What parent in their right might would allow TLM to babysit their child??? If I were on the jury, and something like this was even raised or suggested I would immediately respond with the question "would you let your child go with either MR or TLM for an afternoon drive?"

If they present the theory that he thought the child was in TLM's care, is almost akin to outright calling the jury morons to even think they would entertain that. If that's the defense, I think they are in big big trouble.


totally agree with you there about "what parent would permit TLM to babysit their child" and we now know that TM didn't but MR would not have known that about TLM...she had done some babysitting (or so she had listed on her resume and MR didn't know her that long and maybe had not seen the other side of her behaviour so if she told him that she had to babysit TS he would have no reason not to believe her. Also if TLM had told TS that her mother had sent her to pick her up and babysit her for whatever reason TS probably would not have questioned that either because I think TS knew TLM.. yes MR, without a backseat was lax about letting a child sit in there with no seatbelt etc. but the child may have not known any better as she more than likely was not up on the safety rules considering she was only 8...then they drive to Guelph and continue on with their other stops and maybe it was only then that TS started to get scared...if she were scared when they were in Guelph she could have screamed etc. while he was in the house for 10 minutes...I don't believe at that point even that she knew she was in trouble..something must have happened when they started driving to that spot either on the way or at the spot.. that is what I think but we don't know what transpired between the child and TLM that ended in her death... JMO so it's not a question of a jury believing that a parent would permit TLM to babysit their child but rather is that the story that TLM related to MR and he believed her..

otto
04-21-2012, 11:10 PM
Ardy, in response to your post above (too long to quote in a reply), as far as MR being as "dumb as a brick" and being capable of victimizing or manipulating a number of women ... yes, I think it's quite possible. Sometimes, people are too stupid to know how stupid they are, but they can recognize a vulnerable person from a mile away. Also, stupid people would make a lot of mistakes during the commission of a crime because of their stupid arrogance (not realizing that other people may be smarter than they).

People like MR and TM probably thought they were flying in the fast lane with their drugs and decadent lifestyle. MR probably thought he was la creme de la creme with women (Mr Dance), lining them up like he was running a pinball machine. Yes, he was stupid enough to think that he could get away with what he did, even though he was careless, even after TM was arrested for an unrelated matter. In fact, he's still trying to get away with it even though there is an eyewitness and overwhelming evidence of his guilt. There's nothing surprising in the fact that MR is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and get away with murder, but he's still dumb as a brick.

Neither MR nor TM were duped. They were on a drug crazed, fantasy mission that involved sexually assualting and murdering a child. They must have talked about it before that day. If they claim today that they don't know why they did what they did that day, it's believable. They were stoned out of their minds and although it seemed like a good idea at the time, it makes no sense to them today ... so they can't explain why they did it. Murderers can rarely explain why they did it in a way that makes sense to anyone else ... as far as I know.

Tahorn
04-21-2012, 11:12 PM
Nice post!!

Let's simplify it a little.... What parent in their right might would allow TLM to babysit their child??? If I were on the jury, and something like this was even raised or suggested I would immediately respond with the question "would you let your child go with either MR or TLM for an afternoon drive?"

If they present the theory that he thought the child was in TLM's care, it is almost akin to outright calling the jury morons to even think they would entertain that. If that's the defense, I think they are in big big trouble.


TLM listed babysitting of a 8 year old and a 5 year old on her resume, so I don't think the jury will consider that to be impossible. Besides all the people in TLM life were addicts so I doubt they would think twice about TLM babysiting.

SFB73
04-21-2012, 11:14 PM
So, in the age of cellular communications, when TS started to get a little scared and she possibly asked to call home to her mom, and if she was denied that opportunity wouldn't that raise suspicions of any reasonable 28 year old man in the company of an 18 year old and an 8 year old. When this happened my child was 8 as well and I'm sorry, she knew both her mom and dad have cell phones, knew both numbers and home number as well as grandparents home phone number cause it's real easy.....

The first thought she would have had if scared would be to ask to call someone...Ohhh wait.... Maybe that's why the battery was taken out of the phone... "sorry, you can't call home, my phone is broke..."

Macright
04-21-2012, 11:18 PM
So, in the age of cellular communications, when TS started to get a little scared and she possibly asked to call home to her mom, and if she was denied that opportunity wouldn't that raise suspicions of any reasonable 28 year old man in the company of an 18 year old and an 8 year old. When this happened my child was 8 as well and I'm sorry, she knew both her mom and dad have cell phones, knew both numbers and home number as well as grandparents home phone number cause it's real easy.....

The first thought she would have had if scared would be to ask to call someone...Ohhh wait.... Maybe that's why the battery was taken out of the phone... "sorry, you can't call home, my phone is broke..."


did TS ask if she could call home? or is that what the confessed murderer TLM testified...I wasn't aware that TS asked that...

snoofer
04-21-2012, 11:19 PM
TLM listed babysitting of a 8 year old and a 5 year old on her resume, so I don't think the jury will consider that to be impossible. Besides all the people in TLM life were addicts so I doubt they would think twice about TLM babysiting.

However, TS's parents WERE looking for her when she did not return home. I doubt very much TM would have considered TLM babysitting material for her daughter knowing what she knew about TLM and mother. Same goes for jury. Knowing what hey know about TLM; no matter what TLM put on her resume, I doubt the jury would believe most people would consider her babysitting material. Emphasis on MOST. JMO

snoofer
04-21-2012, 11:23 PM
So, in the age of cellular communications, when TS started to get a little scared and she possibly asked to call home to her mom, and if she was denied that opportunity wouldn't that raise suspicions of any reasonable 28 year old man in the company of an 18 year old and an 8 year old. When this happened my child was 8 as well and I'm sorry, she knew both her mom and dad have cell phones, knew both numbers and home number as well as grandparents home phone number cause it's real easy.....

The first thought she would have had if scared would be to ask to call someone...Ohhh wait.... Maybe that's why the battery was taken out of the phone... "sorry, you can't call home, my phone is broke..."

I assume TS would have wanted to call home as well to ask if the movie was still on with her friends she was looking forward to. I don't imagine she would have been too happy to be sitting in a car when she could be having time with her friends. JMO Kids that age talk on the phone to their friends. If plans changed she would want to talk to her friends and complain about it! She KNEW her friends were coming over and SHE wouldn't be there. JMO

8 year olds are VERY verbal and able to express how they feel with words and they DO! They are all about if something is fair or unfair. JMO

Kittymama
04-21-2012, 11:25 PM
Ardy, in response to your post above (too long to quote in a reply), as far as MR being as "dumb as a brick" and being capable of victimizing or manipulating a number of women ... yes, I think it's quite possible. Sometimes, people are too stupid to know how stupid they are, but they can recognize a vulnerable person from a mile away. Also, stupid people would make a lot of mistakes during the commission of a crime because of their stupid arrogance (not realizing that other people may be smarter than they).

People like MR and TM probably thought they were flying in the fast lane with their drugs and decadent lifestyle. MR probably thought he was la creme de la creme with women (Mr Dance), lining them up like he was running a pinball machine. Yes, he was stupid enough to think that he could get away with what he did, even though he was careless, even after TM was arrested for an unrelated matter. In fact, he's still trying to get away with it even though there is an eyewitness and overwhelming evidence of his guilt. There's nothing surprising in the fact that MR is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and get away with murder, but he's still dumb as a brick.

Neither MR nor TM were duped. They were on a drug crazed, fantasy mission that involved sexually assualting and murdering a child. They must have talked about it before that day. If they claim today that they don't know why they did what they did that day, it's believable. They were stoned out of their minds and although it seemed like a good idea at the time, it makes no sense to them today ... so they can't explain why they did it. Murderers can rarely explain why they did it in a way that makes sense to anyone else ... as far as I know.

Just FYI--we've been referring to Tara as TM and Terri as TLM. It helps avoid confusion.

Macright
04-21-2012, 11:27 PM
However, TS's parents WERE looking for her when she did not return home. I doubt very much TM would have considered TLM babysitting material for her daughter knowing what she knew about TLM and mother. Same goes for jury. Knowing what hey know about TLM; no matter what TLM put on her resume, I doubt the jury would believe most people would consider her babysitting material. Emphasis on MOST. JMO

you are also correct..the jury would never be expected to believe that TLM was babysitting material and I don't think that is what Dirk is trying to put out there to them...what he MAY put to them is TLM told MR that she was babysitting TS... <modsnip> we know they did their own search and called her friends but I have always felt the alarm should have been sounded earlier.. I believe it was the grandmother who reported her missing to the police.. JMO

otto
04-21-2012, 11:28 PM
totally agree with you there about "what parent would permit TLM to babysit their child" and we now know that TM didn't but MR would not have known that about TLM...she had done some babysitting (or so she had listed on her resume and MR didn't know her that long and maybe had not seen the other side of her behaviour so if she told him that she had to babysit TS he would have no reason not to believe her. Also if TLM had told TS that her mother had sent her to pick her up and babysit her for whatever reason TS probably would not have questioned that either because I think TS knew TLM.. yes MR, without a backseat was lax about letting a child sit in there with no seatbelt etc. but the child may have not known any better as she more than likely was not up on the safety rules considering she was only 8...then they drive to Guelph and continue on with their other stops and maybe it was only then that TS started to get scared...if she were scared when they were in Guelph she could have screamed etc. while he was in the house for 10 minutes...I don't believe at that point even that she knew she was in trouble..something must have happened when they started driving to that spot either on the way or at the spot.. that is what I think but we don't know what transpired between the child and TLM that ended in her death... JMO so it's not a question of a jury believing that a parent would permit TLM to babysit their child but rather is that the story that TLM related to MR and he believed her..

If MR was an innocent, duped victim, why did he go to the bank machine and withdraw $80 right before he drove to the hardware store, where TM got out of the car to purchase a hammer and garbage bags ... while they had a random child stuffed in the back seat under a coat? Why did MR drive to a secluded area with the child under the coat? Who disposed of the hammer and where is it? Did he allow a babysitter to stuff a child under a coat in the back seat of his car? At what point was he no longer duped? If he is innocent, we would know those answers ... but I doubt that he could give them without implicating himself.

otto
04-21-2012, 11:33 PM
Just FYI--we've been referring to Tara as TM and Terri as TLM. It helps avoid confusion.

Thank you so much. I'm so sorry. I've been referring to Terri-Lynn McClintic as TM.

I don't think there is anything to say about the mother of the victim other than that the loss of her daughter seems to have destroyed her. Tara is the mother of the victim, right?

Macright
04-21-2012, 11:39 PM
If MR was an innocent, duped victim, why did he go to the bank machine and withdraw $80 right before he drove to the hardware store, where TM got out of the car to purchase a hammer and garbage bags ... while they had a random child stuffed in the back seat under a coat? Why did MR drive to a secluded area with the child under the coat? Who disposed of the hammer and where is it? Did he allow a babysitter to stuff a child under a coat in the back seat of his car? At what point was he no longer duped? If he is innocent, we would know those answers ... but I doubt that he could give them without implicating himself.

Otto that's just why I have to scratch my head and think why...if he were guilty and this was planned why did he stop at an ATM and withdraw cash..if this were planned why did he have to purchase the hammer and the garbage bags, if this were planned why didn't he have these articles with him before he started out...if this were planned why did he need to stop at a Tim Hortons and drink a coffee/tea...one would think that TLM & MR would be so thrilled with their plan that they would head out right away and get things underway... that is a real puzzle for me... oh oh..I forgot one other small thing..why would he stop at a supplier in Guelph and purchase his drugs and visit with her for 10 minutes all the while having a small kidnapped child in the back seat..he sure took some chances don't you think...don't think you could find another kidnapping where the kidnapper did all those things before doing what he had in mind at the start..makes no sense to me at all..JMO

SFB73
04-21-2012, 11:39 PM
did TS ask if she could call home? or is that what the confessed murderer TLM testified...I wasn't aware that TS asked that...

No one other than TLM or MR would know that. I think it would be a very likely possibility that a child in this situation with people she didn't know would ask....

How could anyone reasonably believe that during the ride that this child never once questioned as to why she was in that car or where they were going or when she would be returned home to her parents. The moment any doubt was raised about the validity of TLM being in custody of TS is the moment MR needed to do what a logical innocent 28 year old would do and protect the child which is now in his custody as a direct result of being in his vehicle.

Kittymama
04-21-2012, 11:40 PM
Thank you so much. I'm so sorry. I've been referring to Terri-Lynn McClintic as TM.

I don't think there is anything to say about the mother of the victim other than that the loss of her daughter seems to have destroyed her. Tara is the mother of the victim, right?

No worries, I just had a momentary "huh?" moment when I read your post.

Yes, Tara is the mother of the victim. Poor woman. :( She's sometimes referred to on here because of things that come up at trial, etc. So we do need a "name" for her.

snoofer
04-21-2012, 11:42 PM
When my kids were young and I had another child in my care for the day. If I wanted to do something with the kids out of my home I first ran it by the parent. Even though I was designated babysitter by the parent I did not believe it meant cart blanche to do whatever with the kids. If I thought a beach day with the kids was good idea, I FIRST asked the parent; is it ok if we go to the beach, or is it ok if we go to the library. I did not take them anywhere without permission and without the parent knowing where that child would be and with whom. And I was a married woman with children and knew these kids all their lives. I do NOT think my way of babysitting was RARE. It was common sense. To suggest that a man would take a liberty of taking a child out of town without direct permission from that parent is just plain (insert adjective here) ______. And we KNOW according to CROWN that he was purchasing drugs and he drove that child to a rural field. But willing to listen to the defense explanation for this. JMO It best be good. JMO

brighidin
04-21-2012, 11:48 PM
Thank you so much. I'm so sorry. I've been referring to Terri-Lynn McClintic as TM.

I don't think there is anything to say about the mother of the victim other than that the loss of her daughter seems to have destroyed her. Tara is the mother of the victim, right?

Yes, Tara is Tori's mother. Tara seems like a very strong woman. She was Tori's voice everyday when she was missing, despite being vilified by the media, the community, and the blogosphere. Although she has had drug problems, she has stated that she has cleaned herself up and is sober now. She also did a good job testifying. No, I don't think this has destroyed her. Not at all.

imo

Macright
04-21-2012, 11:51 PM
When my kids were young and I had another child in my care for the day. If I wanted to do something with the kids out of my home I first ran it by the parent. Even though I was designated babysitter by the parent I did not believe it meant cart blanche to do whatever with the kids. If I thought a beach day with the kids was good idea, I FIRST asked the parent; is it ok if we go to the beach, or is it ok if we go to the library. I did not take them anywhere without permission and without the parent knowing where that child would be and with whom. And I was a married woman with children and knew these kids all their lives. I do NOT think my way of babysitting was RARE. It was common sense. To suggest that a man would take a liberty of taking a child out of town without direct permission from that parent is just plain (insert adjective here) ______. And we KNOW according to CROWN that he was purchasing drugs and he drove that child to a rural field. But willing to listen to the defense explanation for this. JMO It best be good. JMO

of course you would Snoofer and that is what most people would do but you have to remember who we are dealing with here..MR more than likely had no experience with children so would not be expected to know the rules etc. he was not the one doing the babysitting..it was TLM who MAY have said that was what she was doing.. and I don't believe MR is a very bright or logical person. besides how would he be able to ask the parents for permission if he didn't know them or know where to call them...he only would have TLM's word to go on and it looks as if he believed her...I don't think he was up on the rules of babysitting and permissions that are required... JMO

otto
04-21-2012, 11:52 PM
Otto that's just why I have to scratch my head and think why...if he were guilty and this was planned why did he stop at an ATM and withdraw cash..if this were planned why did he have to purchase the hammer and the garbage bags, if this were planned why didn't he have these articles with him before he started out...if this were planned why did he need to stop at a Tim Hortons and drink a coffee/tea...one would think that TLM & MR would be so thrilled with their plan that they would head out right away and get things underway... that is a real puzzle for me... oh oh..I forgot one other small thing..why would he stop at a supplier in Guelph and purchase his drugs and visit with her for 10 minutes all the while having a small kidnapped child in the back seat..he sure took some chances don't you think...don't think you could find another kidnapping where the kidnapper did all those things before doing what he had in mind at the start..makes no sense to me at all..JMO

He needed to stop at the bank machine because he had just asked his escort girlfriend to deposit $100 in his account. It was planned and the plan was to buy a hammer and garbage bags on the way to the secluded spot. They stopped for coffee because they knew that they wanted to take their time and it was going to be a bit of a drive to the secluded spot. The drugs were purchased prior to the abduction ... all the better to enjoy their crazed plan. The child in the car was in the back seat under a coat and presumably TLM made sure that child didn't move.

Can you think of a murderer that wasn't arrogant and who didn't leave evidence behind? The pair were in it together from the start. They had a crazed fantasy plan of getting all drugged up and sexually assaulting a child, but they knew they couldn't get away with it if the child was left alive - so they stopped for the hammer along the way - as part of the plan to drive to the secluded spot where Tori was found. He even made sure there was enough money in his bank account (courtesy of another woman earlier in the day) to buy the murder weapon.

Macright
04-21-2012, 11:56 PM
He needed to stop at the bank machine because he had just asked his escort girlfriend to deposit $100 in his account. It was planned and the plan was to buy a hammer and garbage bags on the way to the secluded spot. They stopped for coffee because they knew that they wanted to take their time and it was going to be a bit of a drive to the secluded spot. The drugs were purchased prior to the abduction ... all the better to enjoy their crazed plan. The child in the car was in the back seat under a coat and presumably TLM made sure that child didn't move.

Can you think of a murderer that wasn't arrogant and who didn't leave evidence behind? The pair were in it together from the start. They had a crazed fantasy plan of getting all drugged up and sexually assaulting a child, but they knew they couldn't get away with it if the child was left alive - so they stopped for the hammer along the way - as part of the plan to drive to the secluded spot where Tori was found. He even made sure there was enough money in his bank account (courtesy of another woman earlier in the day) to buy the murder weapon.


Otto the drugs were purchased after the abduction with TS in the car...

otto
04-21-2012, 11:58 PM
Yes, Tara is Tori's mother. Tara seems like a very strong woman. She was Tori's voice everyday when she was missing, despite being vilified by the media, the community, and the blogosphere. Although she has had drug problems, she has stated that she has cleaned herself up and is sober now. She also did a good job testifying. No, I don't think this has destroyed her. Not at all.

imo

I read an article about her having a very sad expression.

Congratulations to her for battling the beast!

Tahorn
04-22-2012, 12:00 AM
However, TS's parents WERE looking for her when she did not return home. I doubt very much TM would have considered TLM babysitting material for her daughter knowing what she knew about TLM and mother. Same goes for jury. Knowing what hey know about TLM; no matter what TLM put on her resume, I doubt the jury would believe most people would consider her babysitting material. Emphasis on MOST. JMO



Agreed, but the world TLM lived in is what we are talking about. Would people in TLM lifestyle use her for babysitting?

Ardy
04-22-2012, 12:00 AM
MR certainly doesn't fit the profile of an oxycontin addict.

The first noticeable thing about addicts is their appearance.

As an addict, their life is consumed with the search for drugs or the money to buy drugs.

Their appearance no longer is a priority for them.

Their personal hygiene becomes noticeably lacking.

Their teeth rot out and they scratch all the time.

Even Christie Blatchford commented on MR's conventional good looks and appearance.

I think MR is either an addict of some other substance.........or he isn't an addict at all and his drug use has been blown out of proportions.

If he kidnapped and sexually assaulted VS........it wasn't drugs that made him do it.

TLM.............is a whole different story............JMO......

otto
04-22-2012, 12:03 AM
of course you would Snoofer and that is what most people would do but you have to remember who we are dealing with here..MR more than likely had no experience with children so would not be expected to know the rules etc. he was not the one doing the babysitting..it was TLM who MAY have said that was what she was doing.. and I don't believe MR is a very bright or logical person. besides how would he be able to ask the parents for permission if he didn't know them or know where to call them...he only would have TLM's word to go on and it looks as if he believed her...I don't think he was up on the rules of babysitting and permissions that are required... JMO

A 28 year old man that doesn't understand normal formalities regarding caring for young children? Unless he is intellectually defective (60 IQ range), I don't believe that. He attended a wedding not too long before the murder and there were pictures of him holding two young girls (4-6 years of age). He knew people that had young children and knew perfectly well what was normal and acceptable and what wasn't. Didn't he say something to TLM about Tori not being young enough?

otto
04-22-2012, 12:05 AM
Otto the drugs were purchased after the abduction with TS in the car...

Thanks ... I meant to say that. TLM must have used some sort of threat or promise to keep Tori quiet in the car for 10 minutes. The drugs were after the abduction and before the murder ... part of the plan.

flipflop
04-22-2012, 12:06 AM
just want to say that you all today have made some great points and used some good examples. in regards to yesterdays witness it left me with the understanding that MR and the witness were two consenting adults and I didn't get the feeling that one was more manipulative than the other..it also didn't conclude to me that MR was a pimp...As the witness testified, they both came up with the idea that she would enter the "escort" business in order to make some fast bucks and they would share the proceeds...whether he helped arrange clients..well that I don't know about to date and I am sure those clients will not be coming forth with this info.. the fact that she was using his bank account to deposit money to him was done for a purpose..either she was trying to hide the extra income she was earning from whomever or when he did meet up with her on those two or three days a week they would spend the money together.. she spoke about a "car payment" but surely she knew what he was driving so I wonder if he maybe had leased a car for her and he would make the payments for her (maybe she had no credit)..This woman did not give off vibes that someone could pull the wool over her eyes and with five children I am sure she was not short of a man or two...along with their "escort arrangement" maybe they had another sideline in drug dealing and of course he would need cash up front in order to purchase from suppliers...I think that also was his connection to CM..she would supply the drugs and he would do the selling of them..that is why I still think that "drugs" or "a drug debt" played a big role in this murder...and drugs was an issue with most of the parties in this crime..both sides.... JMO

I was not aware that CS testified that they would share the profits, do you have a link for this.

All the links that I have read do not include the word share.....

The 26-year-old said during their relationship she and Rafferty discussed how to improve their finances and they decided she would get into the escort business and would give him all of those earnings.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/20/rafferty-stafford-phone-calls.html

otto
04-22-2012, 12:08 AM
Agreed, but the world TLM lived in is what we are talking about. Would people in TLM lifestyle use her for babysitting?

It doesn't really matter what sort of standards 18 year old TLM had for babysitting. 28 year old MR knew perfectly well what was normal and what wasn't when it came to 9 year old abducted children under a coat in the back seat area of his vehicle. There's no excuse for him supposedly looking to TLM to make decisions about how and where a child was transported and cared for in his vehicle.

brighidin
04-22-2012, 12:09 AM
MR certainly doesn't fit the profile of an oxycontin addict.

The first noticeable thing about addicts is their appearance.

As an addict, their life is consumed with the search for drugs or the money to buy drugs.

Their appearance no longer is a priority for them.

Their personal hygiene becomes noticeably lacking.

Their teeth rot out and they scratch all the time.

Even Christie Blatchford commented on MR's conventional good looks and appearance.

I think MR is either an addict of some other substance.........or he isn't an addict at all and his drug use has been blown out of proportions.

If he kidnapped and sexually assaulted VS........it wasn't drugs that made him do it.

TLM.............is a whole different story............JMO......

BBM#1: Do you have a link to anything about how oxy users look? I have never read anything about oxy taking such a physical toll on people Meth, yes, most definitely, but I haven't read anything like that about oxy and I would be genuinely interested in reading that. :)

BBM#2: Blown out of proportion by whom? He seemed to take percocets a lot too.

BBM#3: I am a 30-something single woman and I don't find him attractive in the least. (I'm referring to his pre-jail pictures). It is all subjective, I guess.

BBM#4: While I agree with you that TLM is something else, she doesn't look like what the media wants us to think a junkie looks like. In two pictures I have seen (mugshot and wearing MR's shirt) I noticed that she has very clear skin. Maybe its her youth, but I certainly didn't expect that.

girlfriday
04-22-2012, 12:13 AM
IMO - this 'date' video, on the LFP website, shows how completely enamored TLM was with MR. Apparently, this was just days before the abduction.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/03/14/19503341.html

SFB73
04-22-2012, 12:18 AM
of course you would Snoofer and that is what most people would do but you have to remember who we are dealing with here..MR more than likely had no experience with children so would not be expected to know the rules etc. he was not the one doing the babysitting..it was TLM who MAY have said that was what she was doing.. and I don't believe MR is a very bright or logical person. besides how would he be able to ask the parents for permission if he didn't know them or know where to call them...he only would have TLM's word to go on and it looks as if he believed her...I don't think he was up on the rules of babysitting and permissions that are required... JMO

You don't have to have kids, or be involved with kids to know right from wrong... I didn't have kids till I was 27 and I certainly would have known putting another persons child in my car was probably not a good idea unless I had permission from the parent, not the word from an 18 year old with a checkered past...

Not to mention we were all kids at one point and probably all at one time or another were left in the care of others and I as a child knew that even if a friend was over and my mom wanted to take us to McDonald's for lunch, that friend would call home and ask permission first and let his parents know and vice versa.

MR seemed to have no problem at all portraying himself as a worldly, compassionate all around great guy on POF, surely someone like that would know the ins and outs of child care, and have a good sense of right and wrong... Not to mention working as a "dance instructor" (bulk of people involved in dance lessons are minors) he would surely have had some of the "speak out" training that is now mandatory amongst coaches/ instructors here in Canada where working with children is involved... You know the common sense stuff that is expected from an adult when around children and what children should expect from an adult entrusted to their care....

otto
04-22-2012, 12:20 AM
MR certainly doesn't fit the profile of an oxycontin addict.

The first noticeable thing about addicts is their appearance.

As an addict, their life is consumed with the search for drugs or the money to buy drugs.

Their appearance no longer is a priority for them.

Their personal hygiene becomes noticeably lacking.

Their teeth rot out and they scratch all the time.

Even Christie Blatchford commented on MR's conventional good looks and appearance.

I think MR is either an addict of some other substance.........or he isn't an addict at all and his drug use has been blown out of proportions.

If he kidnapped and sexually assaulted VS........it wasn't drugs that made him do it.

TLM.............is a whole different story............JMO......

MR was so consumed with finding drugs that he solicited women in online pick-up joints to pimp themselves out and give him the money. He used that money for drugs and a lazy lifestyle.

Why would MR stop at his drug dealer's house and spend $400 on drugs if it wasn't because he wanted to get high while sexually assaulting and murdering a young child. He had the child, all he needed were the drugs ... and maybe for a few days to come. I don't think that drugs made MR decide to sexualy assault a child ... more likely he is a sexual deviant that wanted to be high while committing the crime - intensify the experience.

MR and TLM made a horrible decision and the moment the pulled into the parking lot near the school to abduct a child, he was part of it.

otto
04-22-2012, 12:21 AM
I was not aware that CS testified that they would share the profits, do you have a link for this.

All the links that I have read do not include the word share.....

The 26-year-old said during their relationship she and Rafferty discussed how to improve their finances and they decided she would get into the escort business and would give him all of those earnings.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/20/rafferty-stafford-phone-calls.html

She was "investing" in her relationship with him.

Kamille
04-22-2012, 12:22 AM
IMO - this 'date' video, on the LFP website, shows how completely enamored TLM was with MR. Apparently, this was just days before the abduction.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/03/14/19503341.html

That is one of the most compelling pieces of evidence to show the dynamics between those two IMO.

Kittymama
04-22-2012, 12:23 AM
MR certainly doesn't fit the profile of an oxycontin addict.

The first noticeable thing about addicts is their appearance.

As an addict, their life is consumed with the search for drugs or the money to buy drugs.

Their appearance no longer is a priority for them.

Their personal hygiene becomes noticeably lacking.

Their teeth rot out and they scratch all the time.

Even Christie Blatchford commented on MR's conventional good looks and appearance.

I think MR is either an addict of some other substance.........or he isn't an addict at all and his drug use has been blown out of proportions.

If he kidnapped and sexually assaulted VS........it wasn't drugs that made him do it.

TLM.............is a whole different story............JMO......

I would also be interested in seeing a link to prove your assertions about the physical effects of Oxycontin addiction. By your logic, TLM's not an addict either, as her teeth haven't rotted out and no one has mentioned her scratching all the time. Also, she's physically attractive. So there goes that theory.

Also, how do you explain the numerous women who testified about his Oxycontin addiction?

otto
04-22-2012, 12:25 AM
IMO - this 'date' video, on the LFP website, shows how completely enamored TLM was with MR. Apparently, this was just days before the abduction.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/03/14/19503341.html

What exactly are they doing on that date? That's a pretty weird looking date.

BorgQueen
04-22-2012, 12:25 AM
IMO - this 'date' video, on the LFP website, shows how completely enamored TLM was with MR. Apparently, this was just days before the abduction.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/03/14/19503341.html

It does appear that she is quite enamoured with him. And it shows that he seemed to be embarrassed to be too close to her in public. Going as far as spinning to get away from her when she put her hand on him. Or was he afraid that one of his other females would see him with her? In any event, she seems quite smitten, and appears to be beaming the entire time, while he looks somewhat aggravated.

brighidin
04-22-2012, 12:26 AM
I was not aware that CS testified that they would share the profits, do you have a link for this.

All the links that I have read do not include the word share.....

The 26-year-old said during their relationship she and Rafferty discussed how to improve their finances and they decided she would get into the escort business and would give him all of those earnings.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/20/rafferty-stafford-phone-calls.html

She certainly did not say they were going to share the profits.
Steven D'Souza ‏ @cbcsteve
Spitzig says discussed getting in escort business with all money going to #Rafferty. Says in spring 2009, she'd give money to Rafferty #sl

I think the OP needs to re-read the tweets.

BorgQueen
04-22-2012, 12:27 AM
What exactly are they doing no that date? That's a pretty weird looking date.

If my memory is serving me right, that was their 'movie date' where they had (allegedly) had sex in the theatre. {insert barfing emoticon here}

otto
04-22-2012, 12:31 AM
If my memory is serving me right, that was their 'movie date' where they had (allegedly) had sex in the theatre. {insert barfing emoticon here}

Are they at the movie theatre flipping a movie menu? ... unable to pick the movie? Sex in the movie theatre? ... what kind of movie was it?

Ardy
04-22-2012, 12:33 AM
I don't know for sure, but I think it would go to relevance. IMHO, the women have been introduced as witnesses to demonstrate MR's state of mind at the time of the murder. Whether he was sexually deviant wouldn't really be relevant to the trial - since there are no sexual deviance charges (other than sexual interference with a child). The trial can't be a fishing expedition to infer that there was other sexual deviance during the child rape.

But they did testify to sexual intimacy, and none of them said MR showed or expressed any deviant sexual interest.

They testified to why the relationships ended and none of the women said it was because of deviant sexual interests.

The opportunity was there.

JMO...........

Macright
04-22-2012, 12:33 AM
to answer the demands of others wanting a link to my post I admit I should have added JMO to that statement about sharing the profits...JMO that they shared the profits as I will never believe that there wasn't another reason behind her depositing money into his account and I do not believe that she was depositing all her hard earned cash to MR...JMO and with that I will no longer be commenting on that subject as it now has become old hat to me and nothing that has been posted has made me change my mind on that issue. goodnight all until the next time....

Wondergirl
04-22-2012, 12:34 AM
TLM told VS that she wouldn't let anything happen to her, according to her own testimony.

She either lied to VS then, or she is lying about it now.

She lied to VS family and said MR killed VS.

TLM is a sociopath. She lies just because she can. She has no moral code.

If a Judge stepped forward and said MR was at his house the day of the abduction, TLM would simply change her story to include the Judge.........

That is how sociopaths operate.

JMO............

BBM: That is exactly how the Crown has shown that MTR's operates, also.

As a sociopath.

JMO

girlfriday
04-22-2012, 12:35 AM
What exactly are they doing on that date? That's a pretty weird looking date.

I'm not sure - I wondered too. It reminded me a bit of the Silver City at Masonville Mall in London Ontario (a movie theatre)... but when they are looking at the book, it seems odd.

otto
04-22-2012, 12:36 AM
It does appear that she is quite enamoured with him. And it shows that he seemed to be embarrassed to be too close to her in public. Going as far as spinning to get away from her when she put her hand on him. Or was he afraid that one of his other females would see him with her? In any event, she seems quite smitten, and appears to be beaming the entire time, while he looks somewhat aggravated.

It looks like he's trying to get away with something. He's spinning around in a coy way .. pulling away from her arm but not ever entirely pulling away from her. In fact, the menu "indecision" looks like he's either completely befuddled about why he brought his date to the theatre, or he's trying to look like Mr Nice Guy by letting her pick the movie. If they had sex in the theatre, then I suspect that he had that in his mind the entire time ... nohing to do with going to a movie ... so looking like Mr Nice Guy and letting her pick the movie was always about him.

Kamille
04-22-2012, 12:37 AM
I would also be interested in seeing a link to prove your assertions about the physical effects of Oxycontin addiction. By your logic, TLM's not an addict either, as her teeth haven't rotted out and no one has mentioned her scratching all the time. Also, she's physically attractive. So there goes that theory.

Also, how do you explain the numerous women who testified about his Oxycontin addiction?

Well you know he had all that back pain and possible colon cancer from all the dancing he was doing both while he was teaching and while he was in dance school. I hope someone warns those kids that who go on that "So You Think You Can Dance Show" or who dance every day in stage productions and on Broadway about these dangers ;)

Or maybe it was from that hard labour in construction/home renovations? Hard to say.


MOO

otto
04-22-2012, 12:37 AM
I'm not sure - I wondered too. It reminded me a bit of the Silver City at Masonville Mall in London Ontario (a movie theatre)... but when they are looking at the book, it seems odd.

Maybe there's a movie menu for people that show up at the theatre and don't know what movie to walk into late?

Kamille
04-22-2012, 12:38 AM
You don't have to have kids, or be involved with kids to know right from wrong... I didn't have kids till I was 27 and I certainly would have known putting another persons child in my car was probably not a good idea unless I had permission from the parent, not the word from an 18 year old with a checkered past...

Not to mention we were all kids at one point and probably all at one time or another were left in the care of others and I as a child knew that even if a friend was over and my mom wanted to take us to McDonald's for lunch, that friend would call home and ask permission first and let his parents know and vice versa.

MR seemed to have no problem at all portraying himself as a worldly, compassionate all around great guy on POF, surely someone like that would know the ins and outs of child care, and have a good sense of right and wrong... Not to mention working as a "dance instructor" (bulk of people involved in dance lessons are minors) he would surely have had some of the "speak out" training that is now mandatory amongst coaches/ instructors here in Canada where working with children is involved... You know the common sense stuff that is expected from an adult when around children and what children should expect from an adult entrusted to their care....

Wasn't he a "step father" himself at this time?

MOO

girlfriday
04-22-2012, 12:40 AM
But they did testify to sexual intimacy, and none of them said MR showed or expressed any deviant sexual interest.

They testified to why the relationships ended and none of the women said it was because of deviant sexual interests.

The opportunity was there.

JMO...........

Perhaps not in trial - but I read about such back when the story first broke and his ex's were coming forward to the news(papers). For one example, see my post #69, in this thread, with a quote and link to an article that is still online. I recall having read others on this board, back then too.

flipflop
04-22-2012, 12:42 AM
to answer the demands of others wanting a link to my post I admit I should have added JMO to that statement about sharing the profits...JMO that they shared the profits as I will never believe that there wasn't another reason behind her depositing money into his account and I do not believe that she was depositing all her hard earned cash to MR...JMO and with that I will no longer be commenting on that subject as it now has become old hat to me and nothing that has been posted has made me change my mind on that issue. goodnight all until the next time....

I respect your opinion, but I do not agree with it. I believe the reason behind her depositing money into his account....she was another victim of being manipulated/cheated/lied (whatever word you want to call it) by MR. Just as he had manipulated TLM into what she thought was a real relationship, he had her wrapped around his baby finger and could get her to do whatever he asked.....and that was to kidnap a child for his sick fantasy. JMO

otto
04-22-2012, 12:42 AM
to answer the demands of others wanting a link to my post I admit I should have added JMO to that statement about sharing the profits...JMO that they shared the profits as I will never believe that there wasn't another reason behind her depositing money into his account and I do not believe that she was depositing all her hard earned cash to MR...JMO and with that I will no longer be commenting on that subject as it now has become old hat to me and nothing that has been posted has made me change my mind on that issue. goodnight all until the next time....

Obviously she kept her cut for her escort services, but she handed a lot of it to MR (almost $17k) through bank transfers (possibly done online) and cash handouts. She was investing in him and in a future for her and her children. MR used the money to buy drugs, pay car and blackberry bills, seduce and manipulate other women

Kamille
04-22-2012, 12:43 AM
Thanks ... I meant to say that. TLM must have used some sort of threat or promise to keep Tori quiet in the car for 10 minutes. The drugs were after the abduction and before the murder ... part of the plan.

Imagine the threats that MR was using to keep her quiet while TLM was in the Home Depot. Victoria was afraid of him remember? That's why he had to walk to Mt Forest and back while TLM had her little chat with her.

I wonder why he didn't take his phone?

MOO

Kamille
04-22-2012, 12:45 AM
If my memory is serving me right, that was their 'movie date' where they had (allegedly) had sex in the theatre. {insert barfing emoticon here}

Yeah...during the day on a weekday. I guess that's when he would be sure that none of his other ladies would see him there.

MOO

Tahorn
04-22-2012, 12:47 AM
MR certainly doesn't fit the profile of an oxycontin addict.

The first noticeable thing about addicts is their appearance.

As an addict, their life is consumed with the search for drugs or the money to buy drugs.

Their appearance no longer is a priority for them.

Their personal hygiene becomes noticeably lacking.

Their teeth rot out and they scratch all the time.

Even Christie Blatchford commented on MR's conventional good looks and appearance.

I think MR is either an addict of some other substance.........or he isn't an addict at all and his drug use has been blown out of proportions.

If he kidnapped and sexually assaulted VS........it wasn't drugs that made him do it.

TLM.............is a whole different story............JMO......

Armstrong considered Rafferty, 31, a "confidante" and sold him pills a few times a month for more than a year.

Armstrong testified she sold Rafferty more painkillers a few days later and met with him on a dozen more occasions until his arrest on May 19, 2009.

"He was looking haggard. He had a cold sore. He gets cold sores when he's super stressed," she said of their first meeting following Stafford's abduction. "He said that he hadn't been eating. He hadn't been sleeping. He was so stressed out, so many things going on in his life."

http://www.canada.com/Stafford+Trial+Michael+Rafferty+told+drug+dealer+p lanned+search+Tori/6367050/story.html

It looks like he was fairly new to his addiction, he did have a proscription bottle in his bedroom. However after it looks like he changed his consumption level increased dramatically.

Rafferty asked the officers posing as inmates if they were carrying any drugs. They said no, but when he was asked what he was looking for, Rafferty said he wanted "Oxy," or OxyContin. He said he would take five 80 mg OxyContin pills a day, or 11 or 12 if they were 40 mg size. Rafferty said he would take 20 to 30 Percocets a day.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/05/rafferty-stafford-trial-thursday.html

brighidin
04-22-2012, 12:48 AM
to answer the demands of others wanting a link to my post I admit I should have added JMO to that statement about sharing the profits...JMO that they shared the profits as I will never believe that there wasn't another reason behind her depositing money into his account and I do not believe that she was depositing all her hard earned cash to MR...JMO and with that I will no longer be commenting on that subject as it now has become old hat to me and nothing that has been posted has made me change my mind on that issue. goodnight all until the next time....

Nobody is "demanding" anything from you. It is the way websleuths works: either post a link or a moo. Not a big deal.

Alethea Dice
04-22-2012, 12:49 AM
Antisocial personality disorder - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociopath)

1. Callous unconcern for feelings of others: let parents stew about where their daughter was, lied to many of these women
2. irresponsibility, disregard social norms, rules and obligations: didn't work, took and sold drugs (I believe LE), drove on narcotics, sponged off mother
3. incapacity to maintain long term relationships but not problem starting them: omg let me count the ways and women. IMO
4. low tolerance to frustration and aggression- jury is still out so to speak
5. incapacity to experience guilt - he buried a child, covered crime scene and his life didn't seem to skip a beat and he let the parents stew over where their child was
6. markedly prone to blame others or offer rationalizations for his behavior which has brought him into conflict with society - see trial
7. deception, repeated lying and use of aliases or conning others for personal profit or pleasure - again see trial
8. impulsiveness-failure to plan ahead- not sure of this I am thinking he plans sometimes and is impulsive other times IMO

IMO TLM could also meet these criteria. MOO

Same thing...

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/antisocial-personality-disorder/DS00829


Antisocial personality disorder is a type of chronic mental illness in which a person's ways of thinking, perceiving situations and relating to others are abnormal — and destructive.

People with antisocial personality disorder typically have no regard for right and wrong. They may often violate the law and the rights of others, landing in frequent trouble or conflict. They may lie, behave violently, and have drug and alcohol problems. And people with antisocial personality disorder may not be able to fulfill responsibilities to family, work or school.

Antisocial personality disorder is sometimes known as sociopathic personality disorder. A sociopath is a particularly severe form of antisocial personality disorder.

But, I agree. TLM does meet these criteria, in the most severe form.

JMO

flipflop
04-22-2012, 12:52 AM
MR certainly doesn't fit the profile of an oxycontin addict.
The first noticeable thing about addicts is their appearance.

As an addict, their life is consumed with the search for drugs or the money to buy drugs.

Their appearance no longer is a priority for them.

Their personal hygiene becomes noticeably lacking.

Their teeth rot out and they scratch all the time.

Even Christie Blatchford commented on MR's conventional good looks and appearance.

I think MR is either an addict of some other substance.........or he isn't an addict at all and his drug use has been blown out of proportions.

If he kidnapped and sexually assaulted VS........it wasn't drugs that made him do it.

TLM.............is a whole different story............JMO......

I thought it was percocets that he was using/buying?!?

Common Percocet addiction symptoms are:

* High tolerance: Needing to take more and more in order to get the same or desired effect.
* Dependence: Feeling physical withdrawal symptoms if a dose is missed.
* Mood and behavior changes: Becoming hostile, volatile, agitated or anxious, especially between “fixes.”
* Compulsive use: Craving the drug and doing whatever it takes to get it, even despite adverse social, psychological or physical consequences.
* Financial problems associated with having to purchase more and more pills.
* Secretive or deceitful behavior in order to obtain the drug. Having multiple prescriptions from more than one doctor or buying it off the street is a good indication that an addiction has started.

http://www.casapalmera.com/articles/percocet-overview-addiction-signs-withdrawal-and-treatment/

signs of oxycodone addiction, such as:

•Secluded behavior, often needing to spend large amounts of time alone
•Stealing, lying, or other dishonest behavior
•An unexplainable lack of money
•Changes in social circles, such as abandoning good friends and replacing them with new ones
•Unexplained changes in mood or behaviors.

http://back-pain.emedtv.com/oxycodone/oxycodone-addiction.html

girlfriday
04-22-2012, 12:53 AM
I'm curious if any there was any mention of toxicology tests on TS ... was it possible to have done any?

otto
04-22-2012, 12:53 AM
I respect your opinion, but I do not agree with it. I believe the reason behind her depositing money into his account....she was another victim of being manipulated/cheated/lied (whatever word you want to call it) by MR. Just as he had manipulated TLM into what she thought was a real relationship, he had her wrapped around his baby finger and could get her to do whatever he asked.....and that was to kidnap a child for his sick fantasy. JMO

Any single mom with five children that is handing money over to a useless guy she met on the internet is extremely vulnerable and perhaps even desperate enough to make stupid decisions where she gives money to the man instead of using it to raise her children. There is no plausible explanation for why a woman like that would give money to a man she didn't know ... except that she wasn't thinking straight - easily manipilated and desperate to meet a guy that didn't "play headgames" and wanted to "better himself".

He had TLM and the escort jumping when he said jump ... like a con man - a man with an agenda.

Kamille
04-22-2012, 12:54 AM
Armstrong considered Rafferty, 31, a "confidante" and sold him pills a few times a month for more than a year.

Armstrong testified she sold Rafferty more painkillers a few days later and met with him on a dozen more occasions until his arrest on May 19, 2009.

"He was looking haggard. He had a cold sore. He gets cold sores when he's super stressed," she said of their first meeting following Stafford's abduction. "He said that he hadn't been eating. He hadn't been sleeping. He was so stressed out, so many things going on in his life."

http://www.canada.com/Stafford+Trial+Michael+Rafferty+told+drug+dealer+p lanned+search+Tori/6367050/story.html

It looks like he was fairly new to his addiction, he did have a proscription bottle in his bedroom. However after it looks like he changed his consumption level increased dramatically.

Rafferty asked the officers posing as inmates if they were carrying any drugs. They said no, but when he was asked what he was looking for, Rafferty said he wanted "Oxy," or OxyContin. He said he would take five 80 mg OxyContin pills a day, or 11 or 12 if they were 40 mg size. Rafferty said he would take 20 to 30 Percocets a day.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/05/rafferty-stafford-trial-thursday.html

If he was taking that number of percs then he wasn't dealing. Those baggies he was getting from BA were for his own personal consumption.

TLM also testified that he showed up at her house that day after she had returned from the grocery store looking for Oxy so they "went to get some".

Other's stated in newspaper articles and here on this board that he was bugging them for Oxy's years prior. The old girlfriend from 2007 talked of his popping percs. So they are both an old habit. He likely preferred the Oxy when he could get it, but settled for the percs because he knew where to get that steady supply.

MOO

otto
04-22-2012, 12:56 AM
Imagine the threats that MR was using to keep her quiet while TLM was in the Home Depot. Victoria was afraid of him remember? That's why he had to walk to Mt Forest and back while TLM had her little chat with her.

I wonder why he didn't take his phone?

MOO

They were in it together and they are probably still holding back, just like Homolka and Bernardo.

Alison
04-22-2012, 12:59 AM
you are also correct..the jury would never be expected to believe that TLM was babysitting material and I don't think that is what Dirk is trying to put out there to them...what he MAY put to them is TLM told MR that she was babysitting TS... <modsnip> we know they did their own search and called her friends but I have always felt the alarm should have been sounded earlier.. I believe it was the grandmother who reported her missing to the police.. JMO

In the case of any missing person's other avenues are exhausted first. I do not blame the parents.

Alison
04-22-2012, 01:00 AM
TLM listed babysitting of a 8 year old and a 5 year old on her resume, so I don't think the jury will consider that to be impossible. Besides all the people in TLM life were addicts so I doubt they would think twice about TLM babysiting.

That is a pretty broad assumption to make. Where is your proof?

Tahorn
04-22-2012, 01:02 AM
It doesn't really matter what sort of standards 18 year old TLM had for babysitting. 28 year old MR knew perfectly well what was normal and what wasn't when it came to 9 year old abducted children under a coat in the back seat area of his vehicle. There's no excuse for him supposedly looking to TLM to make decisions about how and where a child was transported and cared for in his vehicle.

That is if you believe TLM, after all there was no evidence of VS on the peacoat.

Now I agree he is somehow involved, but I have such a hard time believing TLM version. Besides it has changed a few times and I am sure if we question her again it will change again.

Alison
04-22-2012, 01:02 AM
[QUOTE=Macright;7817494]totally agree with you there about "what parent would permit TLM to babysit their child" and we now know that TM didn't but MR would not have known that about TLM...she had done some babysitting (or so she had listed on her resume QUOTE]


So he had access to her resume?

Ardy
04-22-2012, 01:05 AM
MR was so consumed with finding drugs that he solicited women in online pick-up joints to pimp themselves out and give him the money. He used that money for drugs and a lazy lifestyle.

Why would MR stop at his drug dealer's house and spend $400 on drugs if it wasn't because he wanted to get high while sexually assaulting and murdering a young child. He had the child, all he needed were the drugs ... and maybe for a few days to come. I don't think that drugs made MR decide to sexualy assault a child ... more likely he is a sexual deviant that wanted to be high while committing the crime - intensify the experience.

MR and TLM made a horrible decision and the moment the pulled into the parking lot near the school to abduct a child, he was part of it.

Oxycontin would be poor choice of drugs to enhance sex.

Cocaine would be more relevant for sex.

MR shows the lifestyle of a drug dealer, more than a drug addict.

Street level at best........but it gave him cash.

He could pay $400 for percs and sell them for $800.

JMO......

Kamille
04-22-2012, 01:09 AM
That is if you believe TLM, after all there was no evidence of VS on the peacoat.

Now I agree he is somehow involved, but I have such a hard time believing TLM version. Besides it has changed a few times and I am sure if we question her again it will change again.

There was no evidence of Victoria in the car either, well other than that one blood spot mixed with sperm cells. Not a hair anywhere else. And we know she was in there for a couple of hours. That's one major clean up. Not surprising that the coat was cleaned too.

TLM's story has changed once. In his favour.

MOO

otto
04-22-2012, 01:09 AM
Armstrong considered Rafferty, 31, a "confidante" and sold him pills a few times a month for more than a year.

Armstrong testified she sold Rafferty more painkillers a few days later and met with him on a dozen more occasions until his arrest on May 19, 2009.

"He was looking haggard. He had a cold sore. He gets cold sores when he's super stressed," she said of their first meeting following Stafford's abduction. "He said that he hadn't been eating. He hadn't been sleeping. He was so stressed out, so many things going on in his life."

http://www.canada.com/Stafford+Trial+Michael+Rafferty+told+drug+dealer+p lanned+search+Tori/6367050/story.html

It looks like he was fairly new to his addiction, he did have a proscription bottle in his bedroom. However after it looks like he changed his consumption level increased dramatically.

Rafferty asked the officers posing as inmates if they were carrying any drugs. They said no, but when he was asked what he was looking for, Rafferty said he wanted "Oxy," or OxyContin. He said he would take five 80 mg OxyContin pills a day, or 11 or 12 if they were 40 mg size. Rafferty said he would take 20 to 30 Percocets a day.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/05/rafferty-stafford-trial-thursday.html

It makes me smile to read that he broke out in a facial sexually transmitted illness/disease shortly after murdering a child. Amanda Knox broke out in cold sores before and after the murder of Meredith Kercher too. Why was he prescribed the prescription in the first place and was a doctor monitoring the situation - or just prescribing the pills and doing no follow up? Is there a provincial prescription database in Ontario?

Anyone that has been on those drugs for pain - without addiction - knows they completely fry your brain. It's like watching the stairs zoom in and out while trying to navigate to the top. I found that stuff seriously loopy. I stopped my prescription before I ran out because because I wanted to see what they felt like if I wasn't in extreme pain ... but threw them away instead.

Kamille
04-22-2012, 01:11 AM
I'm curious if any there was any mention of toxicology tests on VS ... was it possible to have done any?

It was definitely possible. I'm surprised that didn't come up. I guess it was negative?

MOO

Alison
04-22-2012, 01:12 AM
But they did testify to sexual intimacy, and none of them said MR showed or expressed any deviant sexual interest.

They testified to why the relationships ended and none of the women said it was because of deviant sexual interests.

The opportunity was there.

JMO...........

They were not asked probably because the crown could not ask....?

Tahorn
04-22-2012, 01:12 AM
That is a pretty broad assumption to make. Where is your proof?

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1146464--tori-stafford-murder-trial-drug-addled-mcclintic-offered-to-take-fall-for-beau

girlfriday
04-22-2012, 01:14 AM
To me, this seems so odd ... how close her name is to TM and that MR called her while TS was in the car ... such a weird coincidence. Too bad she couldn't recount the call.

QUOTE: Tara McLellan, 30, also testified Friday that she went on a date with Rafferty around that time after chatting with him on Plenty of Fish. They went on a coffee date to Tim Hortons on April 1 but didn't go out again after that, she testified. He did, however, call her at 4:28 p.m. on April 8, phone records show, though McLellan doesn't remember receiving the call. END QUOTE

From this article:
http://www.fm96.com/Channels/newsinfo/localnews/Story.aspx?ID=1690558

otto
04-22-2012, 01:16 AM
That is if you believe TLM, after all there was no evidence of VS on the peacoat.

Now I agree he is somehow involved, but I have such a hard time believing TLM version. Besides it has changed a few times and I am sure if we question her again it will change again.

It actually has nothing to do with TLM. If a 28 year old man, photographed at a wedding with two preschooler girls, didn't know how to care for children that photo would not exist. It's common sense to know that a 28 year old man either does or doesn't know that it's not okay to take a 9 year old girl to a remote area with a coffe, hammer and garbage bags.

It doesn't really matter what TLM has to say other than whether he has been placed at the scene of the crime ... and he has. She can say what she wants after that, but there is nothing he can say to explain himself.

Alison
04-22-2012, 01:17 AM
I must skip over some posts to remain an active member of this site....

Alison
04-22-2012, 01:19 AM
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1146464--tori-stafford-murder-trial-drug-addled-mcclintic-offered-to-take-fall-for-beau

You said all the adults in her life where drug addicts which is quite incorrect. I know some adults who worked with her who are definaltly not drug addicts. You may want to make your statement more concise.

otto
04-22-2012, 01:20 AM
[QUOTE=Macright;7817494]totally agree with you there about "what parent would permit TLM to babysit their child" and we now know that TM didn't but MR would not have known that about TLM...she had done some babysitting (or so she had listed on her resume QUOTE]


So he had access to her resume?

Are you thinking that because he knew TLM's name, he researched her resume and would not think twice about taking a 9 year old child to a remote area with a hammer because TLM listed babysitting on her resume?

Ardy
04-22-2012, 01:25 AM
I would also be interested in seeing a link to prove your assertions about the physical effects of Oxycontin addiction. By your logic, TLM's not an addict either, as her teeth haven't rotted out and no one has mentioned her scratching all the time. Also, she's physically attractive. So there goes that theory.

Also, how do you explain the numerous women who testified about his Oxycontin addiction?

Drug addicts don't use the medicine within safe dosage limits or by safe delivery methods, so they are subject to experiencing the most severe side affects of the drugs.

http://www.migraines.org/treatment/prooxyco.htm

http://www.narconon.ca/oxycontin.htm

JMO...............

Tahorn
04-22-2012, 01:41 AM
You said all the adults in her life where drug addicts which is quite incorrect. I know some adults who worked with her who are definaltly not drug addicts. You may want to make your statement more concise.

TLM listed babysitting of a 8 year old and a 5 year old on her resume, so I don't think the jury will consider that to be impossible. Besides all the people in TLM life were addicts so I doubt they would think twice about TLM babysiting.

I am pretty sure that the people that worked with her would not be on a personal level to which they would have her babysit their child.

Kittymama
04-22-2012, 01:41 AM
Drug addicts don't use the medicine within safe dosage limits or by safe delivery methods, so they are subject to experiencing the most severe side affects of the drugs.

http://www.migraines.org/treatment/prooxyco.htm

http://www.narconon.ca/oxycontin.htm

JMO...............

Side effects are possibilities, not guarantees. You asserted that MTR doesn't fit the profile of an Oxy addict. Those links you posted list side effects and withdrawal symptoms, but not the effects of long-term Oxy addiction.

Again, where is your proof that MTR probably wasn't an Oxy addict because he didn't show signs of itching, having rotten teeth, or of having poor hygiene (his car certainly indicated poor hygiene, though--yuck!)? And what about the fact that TLM didn't show these signs, either?

Ardy
04-22-2012, 01:52 AM
A 28 year old man that doesn't understand normal formalities regarding caring for young children? Unless he is intellectually defective (60 IQ range), I don't believe that. He attended a wedding not too long before the murder and there were pictures of him holding two young girls (4-6 years of age). He knew people that had young children and knew perfectly well what was normal and acceptable and what wasn't. Didn't he say something to TLM about Tori not being young enough?

I think you are missing the fact that TLM and TM knew each other.

Quite likely MR knew they knew each other.

It wouldn't be that unusual for people to babysit for someone they know.

JMO..........

snoofer
04-22-2012, 01:54 AM
Side effects are possibilities, not guarantees. You asserted that MTR doesn't fit the profile of an Oxy addict. Those links you posted list side effects and withdrawal symptoms, but not the effects of long-term Oxy addiction.

Again, where is your proof that MTR probably wasn't an Oxy addict because he didn't show signs of itching, having rotten teeth, or of having poor hygiene (his car certainly indicated poor hygiene, though--yuck!)? And what about the fact that TLM didn't show these signs, either?

yes, and maybe it is because I (we) am a law abiding citizen, but if crown and LE state that two undercover officers were told by MTR he takes that enormous amount of those drugs, then I believe those officers. JMO

Tahorn
04-22-2012, 01:58 AM
It actually has nothing to do with TLM. If a 28 year old man, photographed at a wedding with two preschooler girls, didn't know how to care for children that photo would not exist. It's common sense to know that a 28 year old man either does or doesn't know that it's not okay to take a 9 year old girl to a remote area with a coffe, hammer and garbage bags.

It doesn't really matter what TLM has to say other than whether he has been placed at the scene of the crime ... and he has. She can say what she wants after that, but there is nothing he can say to explain himself.

I agree that it isn't reasonable for anyone to take another persons child for a ride to Guelph. What I am saying is that it is possible that MR may have believed TLM was babysitting and a quick trip to Guelph wouldn't be an issue.

otto
04-22-2012, 02:29 AM
To me, this seems so odd ... how close her name is to TM and that MR called her while TS was in the car ... such a weird coincidence. Too bad she couldn't recount the call.

QUOTE: Tara McLellan, 30, also testified Friday that she went on a date with Rafferty around that time after chatting with him on Plenty of Fish. They went on a coffee date to Tim Hortons on April 1 but didn't go out again after that, she testified. He did, however, call her at 4:28 p.m. on April 8, phone records show, though McLellan doesn't remember receiving the call. END QUOTE

From this article:
http://www.fm96.com/Channels/newsinfo/localnews/Story.aspx?ID=1690558

A date at Tim Horton's? What sort of future was he offering? Mickie Dees? It takes a desperate woman to accept that coffee at Tim Hortons or sex with a movie menu is a date.

What sort of coincidence are you seeing ... all their names appear to be Scottish, with the "Mc" and "Mac", but is there another coincidence?

Ardy
04-22-2012, 02:33 AM
Armstrong considered Rafferty, 31, a "confidante" and sold him pills a few times a month for more than a year.

Armstrong testified she sold Rafferty more painkillers a few days later and met with him on a dozen more occasions until his arrest on May 19, 2009.

"He was looking haggard. He had a cold sore. He gets cold sores when he's super stressed," she said of their first meeting following Stafford's abduction. "He said that he hadn't been eating. He hadn't been sleeping. He was so stressed out, so many things going on in his life."

http://www.canada.com/Stafford+Trial+Michael+Rafferty+told+drug+dealer+p lanned+search+Tori/6367050/story.html

It looks like he was fairly new to his addiction, he did have a proscription bottle in his bedroom. However after it looks like he changed his consumption level increased dramatically.

Rafferty asked the officers posing as inmates if they were carrying any drugs. They said no, but when he was asked what he was looking for, Rafferty said he wanted "Oxy," or OxyContin. He said he would take five 80 mg OxyContin pills a day, or 11 or 12 if they were 40 mg size. Rafferty said he would take 20 to 30 Percocets a day.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/05/rafferty-stafford-trial-thursday.html

I had never read that information before.

It would indicate to me that he hasn't been in jail before though.

That isn't the kind of question a person would want to ask his fellow inmates.

First..........they wouldn't know if he was a cop.

Second......they have all been strip searched, and there is only one place left to hide drugs..........and nobody is about to reach up and recover them just yet because there are cameras in there.

Third........Drugs are currency in jail and MR had nothing to offer them.

I would put it down to probably a little "male bravado" for the boys........

JMO............

otto
04-22-2012, 02:36 AM
TLM listed babysitting of a 8 year old and a 5 year old on her resume, so I don't think the jury will consider that to be impossible. Besides all the people in TLM life were addicts so I doubt they would think twice about TLM babysiting.

I am pretty sure that the people that worked with her would not be on a personal level to which they would have her babysit their child.

A murderer listed babysitting on her resume and ... and what are we supposed to think ... that people viewed her as a childcare provider? I doubt MR was that stupid.

otto
04-22-2012, 02:40 AM
I think you are missing the fact that TLM and TM knew each other.

Quite likely MR knew they knew each other.

It wouldn't be that unusual for people to babysit for someone they know.

JMO..........

TLM met the victim's mother once through her mother ... how do you get to the point of thinking that MR knew the victim or her mother? There has been no testimony about that.

Who did TLM babysit for?

otto
04-22-2012, 02:42 AM
I agree that it isn't reasonable for anyone to take another persons child for a ride to Guelph. What I am saying is that it is possible that MR may have believed TLM was babysitting and a quick trip to Guelph wouldn't be an issue.

Given the circumstances, I don't believe it is possible that a 28 year old man thought that babysitting included a trip to a secluded area, a hammer, garbage bags and failure to return the child to the parents.

otto
04-22-2012, 02:44 AM
I had never read that information before.

It would indicate to me that he hasn't been in jail before though.

That isn't the kind of question a person would want to ask his fellow inmates.

First..........they wouldn't know if he was a cop.

Second......they have all been strip searched, and there is only one place left to hide drugs..........and nobody is about to reach up and recover them just yet because there are cameras in there.

Third........Drugs are currency in jail and MR had nothing to offer them.

I would put it down to probably a little "male bravado" for the boys........

JMO............

Are you suggesting that when MR was looking to feed his drug habit he wasn't really looking for drugs, he was trying to look like a tough guy? ... if only he could find a drug dealer to testify to that, but instead apparently he was a regular customer of his drug dealer for over a year prior to the murder.

Alice Ramnit
04-22-2012, 03:05 AM
Another victim?

I guess the theory of MR's incredible ability to victimize a numerous and wide ranging number of women supports the Crown's accusation, based on TLM's testimony, that the kidnapping was a master plan by a skillful manipulator......who apparently simultaneously was dumb as a brick.

My biggest problem with the Crown's case is the beginning.

Based on TLM's testimony, we have to believe.............

Despite having a long list of female encounters, none of whom made any reference to a devious sexual side of MR, one day he woke up and decided to take a child and sexually assault her.

He decided it was a good idea to take a witness along with him.

A witness who was recently released from custody, was a drug addict, and was continually in and out of trouble with the law. Surely he could depend on her to keep a secret like this for the rest of his life.

He decided that rather than drive to Guelph and kidnap a child there, it would be a better idea to kidnap one in Woodstock and drive around with her in the backseat of the car for a couple of hours.

He pulled the battery out of his phone so he wouldn't be tracked leaving Woodstock.........frantically listens to the radio for kidnapping alerts and then decides to insert the battery back into the phone when he arrives at Guelph.......just down the highway.

He decided it would be a good idea to stop at Tim Horton for tea, pick up some drugs at a friends home with his car parked out front of her home and a kidnapped young girl inside, and stick around and "chat" for about 10 minutes.

Then he decided to continue on with the crime.

But let's go back to the actual abduction...............

TLM testified it was totally random.

Out of all the elementary schools in Woodstock, they end up at this one.

Out of all the kids in the school, she picks up VS.

Out of all the dog breeds in the world, she talks about the same breed as VS owns.

She walks VS down the street, passing a woman waiting for her own child and who knows whoever else waiting for their kids or just arriving for their kids, and is unconcerned that she is going to be stopped or approached about why she is with that child.

After all she claims she didn't know VS was TM's daughter. She claimed the abduction was random, so she didn't know who VS parents were or what they looked like.

But she did know TM. Her mother had sold drugs to TM and boyfriend JG on numerous occasions. TM knew her from 2 trips to TLM's house.

All of these "coincidences" and there is more..............

TLM testified...she didn't know why she took a little girl that day, she doesn't know why she didn't escape with VS, and she doesn't know why she murdered VS...........but she has an incredibly clear memory of everything else, apparently good enough to sketch out maps for LE.

At this point, I don't know what the defense theory will eventually be, but I don't know how it could be any more unbelievable than the story TLM spun.

I don't believe TLM..........I have never believed TLM.........and I never will.

MR's involvement in the crime is still to be determined, but I don't believe for a second that TLM was an innocent dupe or victim in this case.

****Not that you said she was..but that appears to be the Crown case.

JMO............

Drugs addle the brain. I don't believe that TLM was an innocent dupe either...I DO believe that sometimes, rarely, two psychopaths converge.

http://www.change.org/petitions/tori-s-law

BorgQueen
04-22-2012, 03:06 AM
A date at Tim Horton's? What sort of future was he offering? Mickie Dees? It takes a desperate woman to accept that coffee at Tim Hortons or sex with a movie menu is a date.

What sort of coincidence are you seeing ... all their names appear to be Scottish, with the "Mc" and "Mac", but is there another coincidence?

'Coincidences' I am seeing are:
-The women are quite lonely/desperate. To the point of looking for a date using a website such as POF. (and that is NOT a judgement. Been there, done that, had my life threatened as a result of not responding to one guy's multiple messages, will never do it again).
-Many of these women are single parents.

Vulnerability is often a side-effect of severe loneliness and being a single parent.



MOO.

girlfriday
04-22-2012, 03:09 AM
A date at Tim Horton's? What sort of future was he offering? Mickie Dees? It takes a desperate woman to accept that coffee at Tim Hortons or sex with a movie menu is a date.

What sort of coincidence are you seeing ... all their names appear to be Scottish, with the "Mc" and "Mac", but is there another coincidence?

Tori's mother is also named Tara and same initials (TM or Tara M). I think it was the last call from the phone before it was turned off. Just seems odd to me.

As always, this is just my opinion.

snoofer
04-22-2012, 06:12 AM
Drugs addle the brain. I don't believe that TLM was an innocent dupe either...I DO believe that sometimes, rarely, two psychopaths converge.

http://www.change.org/petitions/tori-s-law

Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

here is an interesting checklist! JMO

~n/t~
04-22-2012, 06:54 AM
I wish there were more reporters like her!!


Certainly, as Mr. Rafferty was before Victoria (Tori) Stafford’s kidnapping and death — carousing like a rabbit, living off the avails of one young woman and using her money to buy presents for others, juggling more than a dozen women like balls in the air, constantly working his BlackBerry to make the next connection that might satisfy what was clearly an omnivorous appetite — so was he after it.


But through his lawyer, Dirk Derstine, Mr. Rafferty has admitted being in his car when Terri-Lynne McClintic arrived with the little girl (Mr. Derstine said Mr. Rafferty “thought nothing of it”) and to helping McClintic, then one of his girlfriends, “clean up.”

In his cross-examination of McClintic here last month, Mr. Derstine maintained that Mr. Rafferty turned down McClintic’s crass offer to have the child sexually, was sent away from the car for a time, and was “horrified” when he returned to find Tori dead on the ground.



Horrified, Mr. Derstine proclaimed his client was to see that child dead. Really? All the evidence suggests that April 8, 2009 was just another ordinary Michael Rafferty day.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/20/christie-blatchford-no-signs-tori-staffords-death-had-any-effect-on-michael-raffertys-frenetic-sexual-calendar/


Full article at the link.

BorgQueen
04-22-2012, 06:55 AM
Hare Psychopathy Checklist - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hare_Psychopathy_Checklist)

here is an interesting checklist! JMO

Interesting, but a very important quote in the article: "Hare argues that the test should only be considered valid if administered by a suitably qualified and experienced clinician under controlled and licensed conditions."

The same can be said about all psychiatric evaluation. When one is not qualified to make the assessment, it is not valid. One may form an opinion, make assumptions, but without being a qualified psychiatrist/psychologist, it is not fact.
Many psychological problems share traits/symptoms. Without the necessary qualifications, and a proper evaluation (which one would need to spend time with the 'patient'), it is dangerous and slanderous to label somebody as a psychopath, sociopath, or anything.
I'm not saying that the convicted and the accused are not psychopaths or sociopaths. They may very well be such. But we do not know for sure. And we never will know due to patient/doctor confidentiality. There are plenty of other conditions that either of the two may suffer.



Just my opinion, of course. It is interesting. I am not a professional, but I am interested in psychology, myself. And I would be lying if I said that I did not come to my own conclusions. But, it is just opinion, not fact.


(also, I would like to point out that wikipedia is not the most reliable resource. Anybody can edit these articles, and I have noticed many differences between what is said in wikipedia articles and what I have read in various textbooks.)



MOO. (Wish I could still :moo: ... I liked that cow!)

snoofer
04-22-2012, 06:59 AM
Interesting, but a very important quote in the article: "Hare argues that the test should only be considered valid if administered by a suitably qualified and experienced clinician under controlled and licensed conditions."

The same can be said about all psychiatric evaluation. When one is not qualified to make the assessment, it is not valid. One may form an opinion, make assumptions, but without being a qualified psychiatrist/psychologist, it is not fact.
Many psychological problems share traits/symptoms. Without the necessary qualifications, and a proper evaluation (which one would need to spend time with the 'patient'), it is dangerous and slanderous to label somebody as a psychopath, sociopath, or anything.
I'm not saying that the convicted and the accused are not psychopaths or sociopaths. They may very well be such. But we do not know for sure. And we never will know due to patient/doctor confidentiality. There are plenty of other conditions that either of the two may suffer.



Just my opinion, of course. It is interesting. I am not a professional, but I am interested in psychology, myself. And I would be lying if I said that I did not come to my own conclusions. But, it is just opinion, not fact.


(also, I would like to point out that wikipedia is not the most reliable resource. Anybody can edit these articles, and I have noticed many differences between what is said in wikipedia articles and what I have read in various textbooks.)



MOO. (Wish I could still :moo: ... I liked that cow!)

fully agree (said interesting read) and miss that cow too. JMO

snoofer
04-22-2012, 07:01 AM
I wish there were more reporters like her!!







http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/20/christie-blatchford-no-signs-tori-staffords-death-had-any-effect-on-michael-raffertys-frenetic-sexual-calendar/


Full article at the link.

yes, she has a way of decluttering the bs and getting to the point. Always enjoys seeing what she has to say. JMO

BorgQueen
04-22-2012, 07:36 AM
fully agree (said interesting read) and miss that cow too. JMO

Oh, I know. Just something I have felt like saying for a while now, bounced it off your post :)


(and while I miss the cow, I do NOT miss that rocking-face-hands-emoticon-thing... that drove me crazy!)

puppyraiser
04-22-2012, 07:54 AM
Perhaps not in trial - but I read about such back when the story first broke and his ex's were coming forward to the news(papers). For one example, see my post #69, in this thread, with a quote and link to an article that is still online. I recall having read others on this board, back then too.


They were not asked probably because the crown could not ask....?

I agree Alison and girlfriday. I find it hard to believe that not one, I repeat NOT ONE female that was brought into court said anything about MR and his sexual preferences. I wasn't in court and I don't know what all the legal arguments were about, but I'd bet dollars to donuts this precise topic and how it might affect the jury's perception of MR's character was why the Crown didn't ask and why not one witness said anything.

IMO, MOO, JMO etc

snoofer
04-22-2012, 07:58 AM
A date at Tim Horton's? What sort of future was he offering? Mickie Dees? It takes a desperate woman to accept that coffee at Tim Hortons or sex with a movie menu is a date.

What sort of coincidence are you seeing ... all their names appear to be Scottish, with the "Mc" and "Mac", but is there another coincidence?

haha, I have a friend and the fellow from POF after previously meeting her; the next meet or "date" was at McDonalds. I have been out of the dating circuit for decades however I think that I would not be so impressed with the coffee or mcdonald's date; no...it would say it all to me and I wouldn't go on the date. JMO I think if a fellow was truly interested in you he would go to much more effort than that for a date. JMO

A first date: For the young ladies if a guy is REALLY serious about you, still involves IMO
a. a reason to get dressed up
b. likely vegetables lol because you would be going to a nice restaurant!
c. car door opening
d. making sure you are warm and protected from the rain
e. the cell phones are off
f. the car is clean
g. you don't need your purse but if it matches your outfit go ahead and bring it ;)
h. a kiss on the cheek and maybe an embrace
i. heck you might even get some pretty flowers if he REALLY likes you ;)

MOO

Is ready for the clobbering lol JMO

~n/t~
04-22-2012, 09:15 AM
haha, I have a friend and the fellow from POF after previously meeting her; the next meet or "date" was at McDonalds. I have been out of the dating circuit for decades however I think that I would not be so impressed with the coffee or mcdonald's date; no...it would say it all to me and I wouldn't go on the date. JMO I think if a fellow was truly interested in you he would go to much more effort than that for a date. JMO

A first date: For the young ladies if a guy is REALLY serious about you, still involves IMO
a. a reason to get dressed up
b. likely vegetables lol because you would be going to a nice restaurant!
c. car door opening
d. making sure you are warm and protected from the rain
e. the cell phones are off
f. the car is clean
g. you don't need your purse but if it matches your outfit go ahead and bring it ;)
h. a kiss on the cheek and maybe an embrace
i. heck you might even get some pretty flowers if he REALLY likes you ;)

MOO

Is ready for the clobbering lol JMO

No purse? Where would I put my cell, my wallet and makeup and the pepper spray? LOL

I don't see going to Timmie's or McDonald's for a first encounter as being bad especially if you met the guy on some dating site and it's your first face to face meeting. It's probably the safest place, imo. If things work out then perhaps a second more appropriate place like a nice restaurant would be the way to go. If he takes you to Timmie's for soup and sandwich or McD's for the happy meal on a second date....ummmm....he probably has no money or very limited money and he's either married or a loser. LOL

IMO

matou
04-22-2012, 09:38 AM
Was he trying to scrape the paint off of his car? The rear end of the car's paint (darker paint) looks like it was being removed. Also, he bought his car at Sun Auto in Toronto, based on his license plate cover. JMO

http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/?src=http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/05/Raffertyvehicle10.jpg&size=640x480&quality=90

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/05/19599961.html

Alison
04-22-2012, 09:42 AM
Interesting, but a very important quote in the article: "Hare argues that the test should only be considered valid if administered by a suitably qualified and experienced clinician under controlled and licensed conditions."

The same can be said about all psychiatric evaluation. When one is not qualified to make the assessment, it is not valid. One may form an opinion, make assumptions, but without being a qualified psychiatrist/psychologist, it is not fact.
Many psychological problems share traits/symptoms. Without the necessary qualifications, and a proper evaluation (which one would need to spend time with the 'patient'), it is dangerous and slanderous to label somebody as a psychopath, sociopath, or anything.
I'm not saying that the convicted and the accused are not psychopaths or sociopaths. They may very well be such. But we do not know for sure. And we never will know due to patient/doctor confidentiality. There are plenty of other conditions that either of the two may suffer.


Respectfully snipped for space :)

It is like some people with Autism are misdiagnosed with schizophrenia because they have many similarities. It is hard to diagnose mental illness in people with developmental disabilities( not saying either MR or TLM have one it is just an example of how hard it is to be diagnosed appropriatly).So I agree BQ no one should be using checklists to armchair diagnose others. MOO

crazyladi
04-22-2012, 09:50 AM
Just because the crown hasn't asked these women about his sexual appetite it doesn't mean that he doesn't have some weird twisted sexual fantasy that's moo. Also the reason that he probably had to take money out of the ATM was because taking tori was a dare and I guess he really didn't think she would do it but was glad she did and he carried on with his life like nothing happened. He is far from innocent. Nothing can explain his actions. There are no such things as coincidences in a crime and this case has more than enough so called coincidences to lock him upand throw away the key.

Kamille
04-22-2012, 10:37 AM
Was he trying to scrape the paint off of his car? The rear end of the car's paint (darker paint) looks like it was being removed. Also, he bought his car at Sun Auto in Toronto, based on his license plate cover. JMO

http://storage.canoe.ca/v1/dynamic_resize/?src=http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/05/Raffertyvehicle10.jpg&size=640x480&quality=90

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/05/19599961.html

What boggles my mind is that as far as we know not one person has come forward who was travelling on the 401 or anywhere else in Guelph to identify that car. How could you miss it? I'm pretty sure if I saw that heap on the road during an hour long run on the highway I'd remember it if it was three different colours. But not so much if it was all black.

High powered power washers, such as the type that are used in car washes, would likely strip the paint right off some areas of the car, especially the bumpers which are not metal. Even the purple colour didn't stay on those.

I believe it was Wendell who mentioned on the board that the car did have that dark purple paint about half way down the car when she saw it before the crime. But not the black.

But if you look at the two different angles from the Esso surveillance video you cannot see any of the blue or purple paint. I know it's grainy but you would be able to see some of it I would think.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2hnw9rl.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/2e5m5qq.jpg

MOO

Alison
04-22-2012, 10:41 AM
This is pure speculation on my part, but I have been wondering lately if he specifically targeted TLM. Perhaps the meeting at the pizza shop was not by accident. Perhaps he had heard word within his circle about this crazy b**** who had been to jail, and was quite violent. Since his fishing expedition on POF was not turning out any kidnapping partner prospects maybe he went out of his way to track down TLM. MOO just theory.
I would also like to state that I do not think TLM is a victim or was manipulated by MR. I believe she was a willing participant in all events.

myzzy
04-22-2012, 10:41 AM
I so can not wait for the defence to start. Im ready to hear his side of the story and hopefully come up with a more complete picture of what happened that dreaded day. Why a little girl had to loose her life that day.

Alison
04-22-2012, 10:51 AM
MR certainly doesn't fit the profile of an oxycontin addict.

The first noticeable thing about addicts is their appearance.

As an addict, their life is consumed with the search for drugs or the money to buy drugs.

Their appearance no longer is a priority for them.

Their personal hygiene becomes noticeably lacking.

Their teeth rot out and they scratch all the time.

Even Christie Blatchford commented on MR's conventional good looks and appearance.

I think MR is either an addict of some other substance.........or he isn't an addict at all and his drug use has been blown out of proportions.

If he kidnapped and sexually assaulted VS........it wasn't drugs that made him do it.

TLM.............is a whole different story............JMO......

I know many people who are addicted to oxy, and I disagree about the rotting of teeth and scratching. That is a sign of meth use not oxy use. All the people I know still continue to take care of the their personal hygiene and looks. The only physcial difference I ever noted with the abuse of oxy/percs was weight loss.

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 11:23 AM
With these words below coming right from TLM's mouth, doesn't it sound like she was trying to convince MR that he has nothing to loose so let's do it sorta speak? Meaning it was TLM idea. However never the less to me it doesn't matter who 's idea this was. IMO.


"To Rafferty, however, McClintic made a vow if suspicion should settle on the couple. “I said that I would take the fall for everything, that I would say it was all me. He had more to lose than I did. He had a life, a job, things going for him and I had nothing.”

Rafferty purportedly pointed out the consequences of making such a claim. “You know that it would be first-degree murder, right?”

McClintic responded: “Yeah, but you’ve got more to lose than me. I’m just an 18-year-old junkie anyway so I’ll just take the fall for everything.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1146464--tori-stafford-murder-trial-drug-addled-mcclintic-offered-to-take-fall-for-beau

~n/t~
04-22-2012, 11:32 AM
I so can not wait for the defence to start. Im ready to hear his side of the story and hopefully come up with a more complete picture of what happened that dreaded day. Why a little girl had to loose her life that day.

I don't think we'll hear his side of the story nor will we see a complete picture. Whatever the defense will put on will be fabricated, a fairy tale if they decide to tell the accused murderer's side which I truly doubt. Look at what happened with TLM's cross? He admitted his client was at the scene. Ha! Good luck with back peddling on that one Mr. D. I honestly don't think the accused killer will take the stand.

The only defense that may work will be to find holes in the Crown's evidence. Example the blood evidence or the cell phone pings, etc.

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 11:33 AM
What boggles my mind is that as far as we know not one person has come forward who was travelling on the 401 or anywhere else in Guelph to identify that car. How could you miss it? I'm pretty sure if I saw that heap on the road during an hour long run on the highway I'd remember it if it was three different colours. But not so much if it was all black.

High powered power washers, such as the type that are used in car washes, would likely strip the paint right off some areas of the car, especially the bumpers which are not metal. Even the purple colour didn't stay on those.

I believe it was Wendell who mentioned on the board that the car did have that dark purple paint about half way down the car when she saw it before the crime. But not the black.

But if you look at the two different angles from the Esso surveillance video you cannot see any of the blue or purple paint. I know it's grainy but you would be able to see some of it I would think.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2hnw9rl.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/2e5m5qq.jpg

MOO

What i don't understand is the window looks rolled down and his arm laying on the rim of the window frame. Who would have the window down when kidnapping a child?

SFB73
04-22-2012, 11:40 AM
What boggles my mind is that as far as we know not one person has come forward who was travelling on the 401 or anywhere else in Guelph to identify that car. How could you miss it? I'm pretty sure if I saw that heap on the road during an hour long run on the highway I'd remember it if it was three different colours. But not so much if it was all black.

High powered power washers, such as the type that are used in car washes, would likely strip the paint right off some areas of the car, especially the bumpers which are not metal. Even the purple colour didn't stay on those.

I believe it was Wendell who mentioned on the board that the car did have that dark purple paint about half way down the car when she saw it before the crime. But not the black.

But if you look at the two different angles from the Esso surveillance video you cannot see any of the blue or purple paint. I know it's grainy but you would be able to see some of it I would think.

http://i42.tinypic.com/2hnw9rl.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/2e5m5qq.jpg

MOO

Maybe MR watched "The Jackal" and figured he would paint the car before the crime, then wash off the paint....

SFB73
04-22-2012, 11:42 AM
What i don't understand is the window looks rolled down and his arm laying on the rim of the window frame. Who would have the window down when kidnapping a child?

I think he was on the way to pick up TLM and TS when these images were captured...The time stamp on the video was an hour ahead.

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 11:43 AM
I wonder who the person was driving passed MR car as it leaves ESSO and if they saw Tori in the back?

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 11:49 AM
I think he was on the way to pick up TLM and TS when these images were captured...The time stamp on the video was an hour ahead.

There was a video showing MR car going passed Tori school when TLM was walking and then MR car turned the corner. Is that the way to the ESSO?

SFB73
04-22-2012, 11:53 AM
Yes, you could get to the Esso station where this video was captured by driving past the school and then turning right onto Cedar st if you were going northbound on Fyfe by Oliver Stephens school, or if going southbound on Fyfe you would turn left onto Parkinson Road, the Esso is less than 2 minutes from the school....

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 11:54 AM
Yes, you could get to the Esso station where this video was captured by driving past the school and then turning right onto Wilson street/Norwich avenue if you were going northbound by Oliver Stephens school, or if going southbound you would turn left onto Parkinson Road, the Esso is less than 2 minutes from the school....

Oh i see, so Tori may not have even been in the car then at the esso.

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 11:57 AM
I am still mind boggled about how TLM was able to get VS to follow her. I know she mentioned dogs but TM says she wouldn't go with anyone she didn't know or something along those lines. That to me says VS was taught stranger danger skills. JMO

SFB73
04-22-2012, 11:59 AM
Oh i see, so Tori may not have even been in the car then at the esso.

Correct, I believe that if the time was an exact hour ahead, she wouldn't have been dismissed from school until 15:30. I believe MR dropped TLM off around the school prior to this video capture, then went to the esso, came back to the school area where he parked in the lot at the nursing home and waited for TLM and TS.

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 12:04 PM
Correct, I believe that if the time was an exact hour ahead, she wouldn't have been dismissed from school until 15:30. I believe MR dropped TLM off around the school prior to this video capture, then went to the esso, came back to the school area where he parked in the lot at the nursing home and waited for TLM and TS.

Would Tori walk down the nursing home street normally to walk home?

SFB73
04-22-2012, 12:06 PM
Oh i see, so Tori may not have even been in the car then at the esso.

Here is a map of the area...

http://www.google.ca/search?q=oliver+stehens+school+woodstock+ont&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

Key areas labelled on map... Oliver Stephens (school) Crescent Care (parking lot closest to Walter street across from tennis cout at college ave school), Bakers dozen doughnuts (Esso station is to the north of doughnut shop)

Which also raises the question, if these two had legitimate reasons to have TS why did he park so far away from the school at the nursing home, why not just drive into the schools parking lot and pick up TS there... I mean thats what I do at my children's school if I need to pick them up and they are not coming home on the bus along with anyone else who has a reason to be picking up a child... They certainly don't wait half a kilometer away in a secluded out of sight nursing home lot... Or for that matter there is lots of parking on the road by the school...MR parked where he parked for one soul purpose, do avoid detection and not to be noticed.

Ardy
04-22-2012, 12:16 PM
According to the undercover cops, MR said he had an oxycontin habit of 5 pills of 80mg each.

He would be paying 200 a day just for oxycontin plus the cost of percs.

If true, he was spending $7000 a month on drugs............

He doesn't strike me as a guy who has $7000 a month in extra cash.

Either he was dealing to pay for his habit, he found an unethical doctor who prescribed oxycontin to addicts, or he was exaggerating his drug use.

At that level of drug use...........he would barely be able to function.

JMO..........

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 12:27 PM
Here is a map of the area...

http://www.google.ca/search?q=oliver+stehens+school+woodstock+ont&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

Key areas labelled on map... Oliver Stephens (school) Crescent Care (parking lot closest to Walter street across from tennis cout at college ave school), Bakers dozen doughnuts (Esso station is to the north of doughnut shop)

Which also raises the question, if these two had legitimate reasons to have TS why did he park so far away from the school at the nursing home, why not just drive into the schools parking lot and pick up TS there... I mean thats what I do at my children's school if I need to pick them up and they are not coming home on the bus along with anyone else who has a reason to be picking up a child... They certainly don't wait half a kilometer away in a secluded out of sight nursing home lot... Or for that matter there is lots of parking on the road by the school...MR parked where he parked for one soul purpose, do avoid detection and not to be noticed.

Yes if they had permission to pick up VS then they would have parked on the school street.

maxfactor
04-22-2012, 12:28 PM
According to the undercover cops, MR said he had an oxycontin habit of 5 pills of 80mg each.

He would be paying 200 a day just for oxycontin plus the cost of percs.

If true, he was spending $7000 a month on drugs............

He doesn't strike me as a guy who has $7000 a month in extra cash.

Either he was dealing to pay for his habit, he found an unethical doctor who prescribed oxycontin to addicts, or he was exaggerating his drug use.

At that level of drug use...........he would barely be able to function.

JMO..........

Not so according to his friend BA, she was selling them to him for $3 a pill. And we have seen the pill bottles from his mother's, so he had prescriptions.

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 12:31 PM
According to the undercover cops, MR said he had an oxycontin habit of 5 pills of 80mg each.

He would be paying 200 a day just for oxycontin plus the cost of percs.

If true, he was spending $7000 a month on drugs............

He doesn't strike me as a guy who has $7000 a month in extra cash.

Either he was dealing to pay for his habit, he found an unethical doctor who prescribed oxycontin to addicts, or he was exaggerating his drug use.

At that level of drug use...........he would barely be able to function.

JMO..........

He was functioning just fine dating many women and being able to keep track of each and everyone of them along with having one of them placing large cash into his account.

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 12:33 PM
I hate to say it but i find it had to believe that MR did this kidnapping for sex. His profile shows he does everything he does for drugs and money. JMO

robynhood
04-22-2012, 12:48 PM
...IMO...it was stated that Rafferty bought a WHOLE PLASTIC bag of pills while Tori was in the car with TLM ...this leads me to believe that he was PROBABLY was selling those pills ????.....IMO that would be the only reason he would take an 8 year girl ....TORI with him to pick up those pills ....hmmm what do other peopple think???...My LOGIC says it MUST HAVE BEEN very URGent to go there with an 8 year old...Tori that you have just KIDNAPPED...this Puzzles me GREATLy ...IMO he did not seems rushed either to be in that house for 10mins ...just chit chatting while leaving TLM and tori waiting????.....I am VERY INTERESTED too ....HOW TLM kept Tori QUIET for so long ????....Imo as others have posted I DO NOT think Tori was a "PASSIVE"" child who would sit QUIETLY ...IMO ...Poor Tori left with Rafferty alone too while TLM went into home Depot too....IMO maybe they drugged her ...? ...IMO Poor Tori was in that darn car for what looks like 2 HOURS TILL SHE met her Horrible fate....Please others can you help me here ...??? I do respect many posters OPINIONS....this whole story TROUBLES me greatly ....thanks Robynhood....it is comforting to see others as troubled as I am about this horrendous case >>>>and I feel obessed about this case ...JUST SO DEEPLY UPSETTING ...thanks again robynhood...I do hope to hear some replies from others ...PLEASE??????

Alethea Dice
04-22-2012, 12:50 PM
Would Tori walk down the nursing home street normally to walk home?

Tori didn't normally walk home to that house. It was the first night she had stayed in the new house and her grandmother usually picked them up. Prior to the move, I believe TM said that, when they walked, she walked with her brother.

JMO

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 12:52 PM
Tori didn't normally walk home to that house. It was the first night she had stayed in the new house and her grandmother usually picked them up. Prior to the move, I believe TM said that, when they walked, she walked with her brother.

JMO

Ok but is that the way to her house?

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 12:54 PM
...IMO...it was stated that Rafferty bought a WHOLE PLASTIC bag of pills while Tori was in the car with TLM ...this leads me to believe that he was PROBABLY was selling those pills ????.....IMO that would be the only reason he would take an 8 year girl ....TORI with him to pick up those pills ....hmmm what do other peopple think???...My LOGIC says it MUST HAVE BEEN very URGent to go there with an 8 year old...Tori that you have just KIDNAPPED...this Puzzles me GREATLy ...IMO he did not seems rushed either to be in that house for 10mins ...just chit chatting while leaving TLM and tori waiting????.....I am VERY INTERESTED too ....HOW TLM kept Tori QUIET for so long ????....Imo as others have posted I DO NOT think Tori was a "PASSIVE"" child who would sit QUIETLY ...IMO ...Poor Tori left with Rafferty alone too while TLM went into home Depot too....IMO maybe they drugged her ...? ...IMO Poor Tori was in that darn car for what looks like 2 HOURS TILL SHE met her Horrible fate....Please others can you help me here ...??? I do respect many posters OPINIONS....this whole story TROUBLES me greatly ....thanks Robynhood....it is comforting to see others as troubled as I am about this horrendous case >>>>and I feel obessed about this case ...JUST SO DEEPLY UPSETTING ...thanks again robynhood...I do hope to hear some replies from others ...PLEASE??????

Some people believe VS was afraid of MR when it may Have been she was afraid of TLM. Or most likely she was afraid of them both as she was not in woodstock and I am sure her gut instinct told her something was not right. IMO

Alethea Dice
04-22-2012, 12:55 PM
Here is a map of the area...

http://www.google.ca/search?q=oliver+stehens+school+woodstock+ont&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&hl=en&client=safari

Key areas labelled on map... Oliver Stephens (school) Crescent Care (parking lot closest to Walter street across from tennis cout at college ave school), Bakers dozen doughnuts (Esso station is to the north of doughnut shop)

Which also raises the question, if these two had legitimate reasons to have TS why did he park so far away from the school at the nursing home, why not just drive into the schools parking lot and pick up TS there... I mean thats what I do at my children's school if I need to pick them up and they are not coming home on the bus along with anyone else who has a reason to be picking up a child... They certainly don't wait half a kilometer away in a secluded out of sight nursing home lot... Or for that matter there is lots of parking on the road by the school...MR parked where he parked for one soul purpose, do avoid detection and not to be noticed.

According to that map, it was a 3 minute walk to the nursing home. Since the videos show that they were already walking up the street when MR drove past, it would be pointless to pull into the school. He pulled into the first parking lot after passing them on the street. At 3:32, TLM was caught on video walking down Fife with Tori. At 3:33, they were leaving the retirement home.

Alethea Dice
04-22-2012, 12:57 PM
Ok but is that the way to her house?

That is the direction to her house, but she would not have crossed the street.

JMO

SFB73
04-22-2012, 01:02 PM
Ok but is that the way to her house?


Yes, she lived on Francis street, closer to Dover street, an alternative route would have been to cut through cass over to east park drive, but that would involve walking up a hill and there may be a fence around the track at cass. So walking up Fyfe to Francis is the route....

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 01:03 PM
That is the direction to her house, but she would not have crossed the street.

JMO

She would not have crossed the street without an adult or because she didn't live on the street where MR was parked?

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 01:05 PM
I wonder why the person who found TLM shoes was not allowed to describe the other single shoe?

Makes me wonder if VS clothes purse etc will ever be found. Or if they are truly in a dumpster behind this car wash that was never found.

Alethea Dice
04-22-2012, 01:08 PM
She would not have crossed the street without an adult or because she didn't live on the street where MR was parked?

She would not have crossed the street to get to her house.

flipflop
04-22-2012, 01:08 PM
I hate to say it but i find it had to believe that MR did this kidnapping for sex. His profile shows he does everything he does for drugs and money. JMO

Which profile shows this????

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 01:11 PM
Something else that always struck me odd is how fast the actual kidnapping happened. For a random, unplanned kidnapping of a child unknown to the kidnapper, everything happened very quickly. At 3:25 the school bell rang, and by 3:33 Tori was in the car and being driven away. All it took was 8 minutes. 8 minutes to find a child that was all alone, talk to her about dogs, convince the child to go with her, take the 3 minute walk down the street, get in the car and leave. Maybe it's just me, but it seems like everything ran very smoothly for a spur of the moment, stranger abduction.

Exactly not to mention that usually the first thing you learn in "Stranger Danger" is don't go to anyone who wants you to help look for their dog etc. It usually is a lesson about someone and dog talk. JMO

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 01:12 PM
Which profile shows this????

A JMO profile of MR

flipflop
04-22-2012, 01:17 PM
A JMO profile of MR

I understand what you are saying. Sex also seems to be a bit part of his life. I believe he hooked up with TLM for a very sick reason. JMO

SFB73
04-22-2012, 01:18 PM
According to that map, it was a 3 minute walk to the nursing home. Since the videos show that they were already walking up the street when MR drove past, it would be pointless to pull into the school. He pulled into the first parking lot after passing them on the street. At 3:32, TLM was caught on video walking down Fife with Tori. At 3:33, they were leaving the retirement home.

My point is, MR dropped off TLM before school was out, he alone in his car was then spotted at 3:20 ish on video meaning he likely was dropping TLM off in the area before school was out, so why not simply drive into the school parking lot to drop her off and wait for TS rather than have TLM meet up with TS on the street, too many people would have noticed them if they were in the lot at the school.

The video footage of TLM and TS is shot at angle where they would have already past the main parking lot of the nursing home, he was parked in a secluded smaller parking lot to the north of the building. He dropped TLM off, got out of the area and came back trying to keep his vehicle out of sight and avoid being noticed. Look at a satellite photo of the tennis courts at cass, the camera was on the building by the courts which is further up the road than the first lot at Crescent Care.

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 01:23 PM
My point is, MR dropped off TLM before school was out, he alone in his car was then spotted at 3:20 ish on video meaning he likely was dropping TLM off in the area before school was out, so why not simply drive into the school parking lot to drop her off and wait for TS rather than have TLM meet up with TS on the street, too many people would have noticed them if they were in the lot at the school.

The video footage of TLM and TS is shot at angle where they would have already past the main parking lot of the nursing home, he was parked in a secluded smaller parking lot to the north of the building. He dropped TLM off, got out of the area and came back trying to keep his vehicle out of sight and avoid being noticed. Look at a satellite photo of the tennis courts at cass, the camera was on the building by the courts which is further up the road than the first lot at Crescent Care.

So this is not the direction to VS home. Therefore I believe that one or both TLM or MR knew VS as no child "Who's mother says she wouldn't go with a stranger" is going to walk that far in direction away from home or with someone she didn't know JMO

snoofer
04-22-2012, 01:23 PM
...IMO...it was stated that Rafferty bought a WHOLE PLASTIC bag of pills while Tori was in the car with TLM ...this leads me to believe that he was PROBABLY was selling those pills ????.....IMO that would be the only reason he would take an 8 year girl ....TORI with him to pick up those pills ....hmmm what do other peopple think???...My LOGIC says it MUST HAVE BEEN very URGent to go there with an 8 year old...Tori that you have just KIDNAPPED...this Puzzles me GREATLy ...IMO he did not seems rushed either to be in that house for 10mins ...just chit chatting while leaving TLM and tori waiting????.....I am VERY INTERESTED too ....HOW TLM kept Tori QUIET for so long ????....Imo as others have posted I DO NOT think Tori was a "PASSIVE"" child who would sit QUIETLY ...IMO ...Poor Tori left with Rafferty alone too while TLM went into home Depot too....IMO maybe they drugged her ...? ...IMO Poor Tori was in that darn car for what looks like 2 HOURS TILL SHE met her Horrible fate....Please others can you help me here ...??? I do respect many posters OPINIONS....this whole story TROUBLES me greatly ....thanks Robynhood....it is comforting to see others as troubled as I am about this horrendous case >>>>and I feel obessed about this case ...JUST SO DEEPLY UPSETTING ...thanks again robynhood...I do hope to hear some replies from others ...PLEASE??????

in the video of TLM with Det Smythe he asked TLM if Tori had tape over her mouth. I think the answer was no.

in other cases it has been pretty common to use tape to put over mouth or hands of the victim; so that would not suprise me. neither would it surprise me to find out if she had been drugged. JMO Allowing the perpetrator to be free to zip around without a fuss. JMO Unfortunately with the condition of her body those things could not be prooved or disprooved so it can only be a guess for anybody; but statistically I think that is usually what happens. JMO

Nearly half of the victims (the vast majority) are immediately controlled by “Direct Physical Assault.” One-quarter of the victims are found bound. Whether it’s to control an uncooperative, hysterical child or to “fulfill [the killer’s] sexual fantasies.”
http://thealphabetkiller.com/portrait-of-a-child-abduction-murder/

This does NOT mean this is what happened; just what statistics say is usually the case in child abduction murders in general. JMO

Nobody knows exactly what happened that day Robynhood; but that now TS is at peace. She is not suffering now. JMO

Kamille
04-22-2012, 01:24 PM
According to the undercover cops, MR said he had an oxycontin habit of 5 pills of 80mg each.

He would be paying 200 a day just for oxycontin plus the cost of percs.

If true, he was spending $7000 a month on drugs............

He doesn't strike me as a guy who has $7000 a month in extra cash.

Either he was dealing to pay for his habit, he found an unethical doctor who prescribed oxycontin to addicts, or he was exaggerating his drug use.

At that level of drug use...........he would barely be able to function.

JMO..........

It was an either/or habit for him. The percs were way cheaper so that was probably his usual fix. But I'm sure he'd pick up the Oxy whenever he had the chance. And we know he talked at least one physician into prescribing them for him for his "bad back". Who knows how many other prescriptions he actually had filled under his own name.

If BA was correct that the "baggie" he bought was $300, and he was buying from her about 3 times a month, then that was about a $900 a month perc habit. Add in whatever Oxy's he could get his hands on and we might be looking at around $1200 a month.

MOO

Thinkzerz
04-22-2012, 01:27 PM
I understand what you are saying. Sex also seems to be a bit part of his life. I believe he hooked up with TLM for a very sick reason. JMO

There are a few things that have crossed my mind. With MR saying "she isn't young enough" and TLM past history of man sexually assaulting her.

Was MR selling VS and she was to old?
Was TLM trying find out if MR was like most men she knew?
Did TLM find out MR had many girlfriends (frame MR)?

Or is TLM story the whole truth and there is no other reason other than another Karla and Paul Bernardo?

Still makes no sense on why these two would drive around with VS to Guelph. Unless one didn't know she was kidnapped???

JayFriend
04-22-2012, 01:32 PM
She would not have crossed the street without an adult or because she didn't live on the street where MR was parked?
If she were going home from the school, she would not have had to cross Fyfe (but as we know, she had never walked home to her new house before by herself). I guess we haven't heard whether there was a crossing guard helping kids cross the street from the school. It's not a busy street, but when school lets out, there must be lots of bus and pick-up traffic. Makes you wonder whether TLM picked up Tori right in front of the school and took her across the street. Tori would have had no reason to cross the street herself.