PDA

View Full Version : Weekend Discussion Thread 04/27-30/2012



Pages : 1 [2] 3

Ardy
04-29-2012, 01:22 AM
The crown has grounds to appeal a not guilty verdict and will often be granted a new trial. That is not possible in the US .. so in terms of whether the defendant has all the advantage in Canada, this is a point where the defendant has a balancing disadvantage.

I would have to respectfully disagree.

Neither side can appeal a verdict. They can appeal on grounds of legal errors during the trial. A higher court would have to be convinced the errors were substantial and grievous and had an affect on the verdict.

There is a very high threshold to meet for a successful appeal.

JMO.

Alethea Dice
04-29-2012, 01:28 AM
The edited version on the news may or may not be the same as what was viewed in court. If what was viewed in court was presented as evidence with time stamps, then what difference does it make if other footage that is not evidence was not presented in court?

I believe I made my point in my previous post. The jury only saw the edited tape. It leaves the impression that the entire visits were nothing but hugs and happiness. It's not unusual for people to hug when they arrive and hug when they leave. The larger portion of the visits could have been entirely different. It's misleading if it's meant to show what their visits were like.

otto
04-29-2012, 01:28 AM
On female murderers with a male accomplice:

"Vronsky reports that female serial killers are not as rare as we think: 16 percent of known serial killers in the United States between 1800 and 1995 were females and accounted for between four hundred and six hundred victims. Seventy-five percent of these female serial killers appeared on the scene since 1950 and a third committed their crimes with an accomplice, frequently a male."

http://financeswests.com/ears/r12e214331mi/

Ardy
04-29-2012, 01:29 AM
It shouldn't be IMO. The edited pieces showed only what the Crown needed to make their point. How the visits started and ended doesn't mean the entire visit was all hugs and giggles and cracking backs.

JMO

It was pretty obvious the Crown edited the video to show what they wanted to show..........but I am wondering why Derstine is just letting a lot of things slide by.

I also wondered why he didn't object to all that testimony from endless females testifying to nothing relevant to the trial.

I also wondered about the "escort" and why he didn't ask her how she made a living for herself if she gave all her money to MR. Her answer could have shown that her integrity as a witness was compromised.

Maybe letting the Crown carry on..........and gathering up things for appeal at a later date........if needed?

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

Alethea Dice
04-29-2012, 01:34 AM
Canada
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes provisions such as section 11(h) prohibiting double jeopardy. But often this prohibition applies only after the trial is finally concluded. Canadian law allows the prosecution to appeal from an acquittal. If the acquittal is thrown out, the new trial is not considered to be double jeopardy because the first trial and its judgment would have been annulled. In rare circumstances, a court of appeal might also substitute a conviction for an acquittal. This is not considered to be double jeopardy either - in this case the appeal and subsequent conviction are deemed to be a continuation of the original trial.

For an appeal from an acquittal to be successful, the Supreme Court of Canada requires that the Crown show an error in law was made during the trial and that the error contributed to the verdict. It has been suggested that this test is unfairly beneficial to the prosecution. For instance, Martin L Friedland, in his book My Life in Crime and Other Academic Adventures, contends that the rule should be changed so that a retrial is granted only when the error is shown to be responsible for the verdict, not just one of many factors.

http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/ajb/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Double_jeopardy.html

otto
04-29-2012, 01:36 AM
I would have to respectfully disagree.

Neither side can appeal a verdict. They can appeal on grounds of legal errors during the trial. A higher court would have to be convinced the errors were substantial and grievous and had an affect on the verdict.

There is a very high threshold to meet for a successful appeal.

JMO.

"In Canada, unlike in the United States, the Crown (the prosecution) can appeal an acquittal (a finding of not guilty at trial) or a sentence imposed after conviction (whether at trial or on a guilty plea).

The Crown’s ability to appeal is strictly limited by law and therefore exercised very rarely. This means that if you have been served with a Notice of Appeal by the Crown, there is likely to be a strong basis in law to challenge the outcome at trial."

http://www.criminallawappeals.ca/Crown-Appeals.php

Guy Paul Morin was tried three times, eventually convicted, conviction eventually overturned on the basis of DNA evidence. Apparently the technicalities were not that difficult to define.

I'm pretty sure that the crown could present a good argument for appeal if MR is found not guilty ... somehow, that legal argument would be found.

otto
04-29-2012, 01:45 AM
It was pretty obvious the Crown edited the video to show what they wanted to show..........but I am wondering why Derstine is just letting a lot of things slide by.

I also wondered why he didn't object to all that testimony from endless females testifying to nothing relevant to the trial.

I also wondered about the "escort" and why he didn't ask her how she made a living for herself if she gave all her money to MR. Her answer could have shown that her integrity as a witness was compromised.

Maybe letting the Crown carry on..........and gathering up things for appeal at a later date........if needed?

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

Why show evidence that is meaningless? The video is like still photos ... some are relevant, some not ... why show footage that isn't evidence of anything? The defence can certainly show the entire video if they feel that something in the video refutes the point made by the video.

On what grounds could the defence object to testimony about what MR was doing shortly before and after the murder?

The escort's income is not the point ... all that matters for the purposes of the trial is how much money she gave to MR on the morning of the murder, on the afternoon of the murder, why she gave him money, during what time period and how much in total. Her overall income has nothing to do with the trial. Her character is not in question ... all that matters is what she can tell us about the suspect.

daisy.faithfull
04-29-2012, 01:45 AM
I don't know how this stuff is possible. And that is the problem because not all of these people have a red sign over their heads that say sicko like TLM. Maybe people saw the sickness in MTR, but it seemed like he fooled a lot of people. It's terrifying.

I don't have children, but if I did I would be a nervous wreck.

Ardy
04-29-2012, 01:51 AM
"In Canada, unlike in the United States, the Crown (the prosecution) can appeal an acquittal (a finding of not guilty at trial) or a sentence imposed after conviction (whether at trial or on a guilty plea).

The Crown’s ability to appeal is strictly limited by law and therefore exercised very rarely. This means that if you have been served with a Notice of Appeal by the Crown, there is likely to be a strong basis in law to challenge the outcome at trial."

http://www.criminallawappeals.ca/Crown-Appeals.php

Guy Paul Morin was tried three times, eventually convicted, conviction eventually overturned on the basis of DNA evidence. Apparently the technicalities were not that difficult to define.

I'm pretty sure that the crown could present a good argument for appeal if MR is found not guilty ... somehow, that legal argument would be found.

The Crown can apply for anything it wants, but unless there are very strong grounds for appeal............the Supreme Court of Canada won't even hear the case.

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

daisy.faithfull
04-29-2012, 01:52 AM
If MTR did that her was going to molest Tory, knowing TLM was so obviously sick it makes it all the more likely he knew TLM would kill Tory even if they did not specifically plan it that way.

I think both of them knew what the other was capable and likely to do even if it was not a plan they spoke about.

Alethea Dice
04-29-2012, 01:53 AM
"In Canada, unlike in the United States, the Crown (the prosecution) can appeal an acquittal (a finding of not guilty at trial) or a sentence imposed after conviction (whether at trial or on a guilty plea).

The Crown’s ability to appeal is strictly limited by law and therefore exercised very rarely. This means that if you have been served with a Notice of Appeal by the Crown, there is likely to be a strong basis in law to challenge the outcome at trial."

http://www.criminallawappeals.ca/Crown-Appeals.php

Guy Paul Morin was tried three times, eventually convicted, conviction eventually overturned on the basis of DNA evidence. Apparently the technicalities were not that difficult to define.

I'm pretty sure that the crown could present a good argument for appeal if MR is found not guilty ... somehow, that legal argument would be found.

And the inquiry found evidence of police and prosecutorial misconduct and misrepresentation of forensic evidence. Perhaps they're a little more stringent defining the technicalities now. JMO

otto
04-29-2012, 01:56 AM
I believe I made my point in my previous post. The jury only saw the edited tape. It leaves the impression that the entire visits were nothing but hugs and happiness. It's not unusual for people to hug when they arrive and hug when they leave. The larger portion of the visits could have been entirely different. It's misleading if it's meant to show what their visits were like.

I thought that the purpose of showing the video footage from the detention centre and movie theatre was to show that the woman that abducted Victoria moved and appeared similar to TLM, and to demonstrate that the lovers were still embracingly, secretive about the murder on the one month anniversary of the murder.

In other portions of the video, would we see them having a normal looking conversation .. where they were actually talking about keeping their mouths shut? What might we see during other portions of the visit?

He sure looked impatient at the door.

otto
04-29-2012, 01:59 AM
The Crown can apply for anything it wants, but unless there are very strong grounds for appeal............the Supreme Court of Canada won't even hear the case.

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

My only point was that in the US, only the defense can appeal after a verdict. In Canada, both the Crown and the defence can appeal a decision (same as Italy). In both countries, grounds for appeal are required both from the defense/defence and the state/crown.

Alethea Dice
04-29-2012, 02:11 AM
I thought that the purpose of showing the video footage from the detention centre and movie theatre was to show that the woman that abducted Victoria moved and appeared similar to TLM, and to demonstrate that the lovers were still embracingly, secretive about the murder on the one month anniversary of the murder.

In other portions of the video, would we see them having a normal looking conversation .. where they were actually talking about keeping their mouths shut? What might we see during other portions of the visit?

He sure looked impatient at the door.

I thought it's purpose was to show that they were still a "couple" and back up TLM's testimony that they acted together. Also perhaps, judging by some of the conversion on here, that he may have manipulated her into the act. If that was their intent, speaking only for myself, it failed miserably. She had to ask him for the hug, he patted her on the head like a little sister, and he couldn't wait to get away. She had him by the gonzos and he had no choice but to humour her or go to jail. JMO

BorgQueen
04-29-2012, 02:15 AM
There are a lot of differing opinions on why TLM testified.

My opinion is that TLM did what she always does.......look after TLM.

Since the day of her sentencing, she no longer had any access to the almost 3 years of investigative work by LE.

Her lawyer, was no longer connected to the case, and had gone on to be appointed a Judge.

TLM didn't know if the hammer and clothes had been found by LE.

She DID know that her fingerprints, and only her fingerprints, would be on the hammer.

She didn't want to testify, and expressed that to LE after he confession to the counselor. She was advised that she would still be forced to testify.

I believe she simply didn't know if her fingerprints would be on the hammer when she went to court to testify...........and wouldn't know what to say on the stand.

Would she maintain MR did it? Or, would she admit she did it?

If she was caught lying on the stand during MR's trial, it would question the validity of all of her testimony................and she knew it.

She didn't want to be in the position of not knowing if LE had found the hammer when she had to take the witness stand............so she confessed hoping to avoid testifying at all.

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

I do agree that TLM was looking after TLM. And I do believe she wanted to avoid testifying. But, I also believe that she is where she wants to be.
She, IMO, confessed (and turned in MR) because she realised she is bloody insane and that SHE is safer behind bars. Nevermind that the rest of the world is safer, but SHE is. What does she have on the outside? Nothing. And once she realised she was being played by MR, it became obvious that she also has nobody. She decided to go down... but not alone.
They were in on this together, they went down together. And her life is quite comfortable 'behind bars'. She has food, shelter, protection. None of which she had on the outside, really. Her life, as it was, sucked. Sadly, it sucked so much that it is better where she is now.
But, that is my opinion on why she confessed (and turned MR in, and eventually decided to say that SHE was the one who held the hammer that horrible day). She was looking out for herself. Doing the "right thing" served her purposes, and for the next 25 years, she really doesn't have much to worry about.

JMO.

Ardy
04-29-2012, 02:20 AM
Why show evidence that is meaningless? The video is like still photos ... some are relevant, some not ... why show footage that isn't evidence of anything? The defence can certainly show the entire video if they feel that something in the video refutes the point made by the video.

On what grounds could the defence object to testimony about what MR was doing shortly before and after the murder?

The escort's income is not the point ... all that matters for the purposes of the trial is how much money she gave to MR on the morning of the murder, on the afternoon of the murder, why she gave him money, during what time period and how much in total. Her overall income has nothing to do with the trial. Her character is not in question ... all that matters is what she can tell us about the suspect.

Witness credibility is an important factor for jury consideration.

The escort testified she gave all her money from the escort business to MR.

Is that a true or false statement?

Well............to believe her statement is true, you have to believe:

a) she had other gainful employment.

b) she lived on no income.

The escort also said she was having financial difficult and decided to become an escort. She then said she would give all the money to MR.

How did that help out her personal finances?

Her testimony was that MR asked her for money for gas and a car payment

Why would he have to give her any reason at all, if she was giving him all the money anyways?

Sorry................not buying this song and dance routine.

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

Ardy
04-29-2012, 02:36 AM
I do agree that TLM was looking after TLM. And I do believe she wanted to avoid testifying. But, I also believe that she is where she wants to be.
She, IMO, confessed (and turned in MR) because she realised she is bloody insane and that SHE is safer behind bars. Nevermind that the rest of the world is safer, but SHE is. What does she have on the outside? Nothing. And once she realised she was being played by MR, it became obvious that she also has nobody. She decided to go down... but not alone.
They were in on this together, they went down together. And her life is quite comfortable 'behind bars'. She has food, shelter, protection. None of which she had on the outside, really. Her life, as it was, sucked. Sadly, it sucked so much that it is better where she is now.
But, that is my opinion on why she confessed (and turned MR in, and eventually decided to say that SHE was the one who held the hammer that horrible day). She was looking out for herself. Doing the "right thing" served her purposes, and for the next 25 years, she really doesn't have much to worry about.

JMO.

I don't really disagree with you.

I just have a real problem with figuring out MR.

Here is a guy who is with a girl he really doesn't want to be with.

But, she supplies him with drugs and he pretends they are pals.

I don't know what MR is doing for money, but I don't buy the "escort" story. I think it is more involved than that and probably involves drug courier and money transfers type of cash job.

Judging by his car.........and living at home........I don't think he is the mastermind behind the drugs.

Then one day, he decides he is going to get this girl, whom he barely knows but what he knows is she is in constant trouble with the police and just got out of custody, and he is going to get her to get him a young girl to fulfill a sexual fantasy for him.

And he is going to depend on her not to say anything for the rest of HIS life, never mind her life.

Maybe.............if he literally lost all sense of reason, all sense of self interest, and all sense of normal compassion and humanity.............it could happen.

Or if he was drugged up to the point of incoherent thought.

But how many drug addicts at that point of a drug binge are interested in sex at all..........let alone driving down the highway, doing drug pickups and stopping for coffee?

I have known people whacked out on oxy and percs...........and they can barely tie their shoes, let alone plan and execute a plan of any consequence. When TM was at CM's house, she said TLM came in and was so far gone that she didn't think she recognized TM. MR was supposed to doing 400 mg a day of oxy plus 15 percs a day?

It is just too bizarre a scenario..........too far out there..........for me.

I am thinking there must be another answer.

One that makes some kind of sense.

I guess I will know in a week or two..........

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

BorgQueen
04-29-2012, 02:50 AM
I don't really disagree with you.

I just have a real problem with figuring out MR.

Here is a guy who is with a girl he really doesn't want to be with.

But, she supplies him with drugs and he pretends they are pals.

I don't know what MR is doing for money, but I don't buy the "escort" story. I think it is more involved than that and probably involves drug courier and money transfers type of cash job.

Judging by his car.........and living at home........I don't think he is the mastermind behind the drugs.

Then one day, he decides he is going to get this girl, whom he barely knows but what he knows is she is in constant trouble with the police and just got out of custody, and he is going to get her to get him a young girl to fulfill a sexual fantasy for him.

And he is going to depend on her not to say anything for the rest of HIS life, never mind her life.

Maybe.............if he literally lost all sense of reason, all sense of self interest, and all sense of normal compassion and humanity.............it could happen.

Or if he was drugged up to the point of incoherent thought.

But how many drug addicts at that point of a drug binge are interested in sex at all..........let alone driving down the highway, doing drug pickups and stopping for coffee?

I have known people whacked out on oxy and percs...........and they can barely tie their shoes, let alone plan and execute a plan of any consequence. When TM was at CM's house, she said TLM came in and was so far gone that she didn't think she recognized TM. MR was supposed to doing 400 mg a day of oxy plus 15 percs a day?

It is just too bizarre a scenario..........too far out there..........for me.

I am thinking there must be another answer.

One that makes some kind of sense.

I guess I will know in a week or two..........

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

The only thing that can make the 'escort' story make sense is abuse. Abuse we can neither prove nor disprove. Speaking as somebody who has been in abusive (psychological AND physical) relationships, it is amazing how this can mess with a person's mind. Without ever having to lift a hand. And the victim is often convinced that any abuse is their own fault and they 'had it coming'. So, in order for the 'escort' story to make sense to me, I have to assume that MR was abusive in one way or another to CS. But, we really do not know much about him to even come to that conclusion, do we?
He confuses the heck out of me.

TLM is very much "this is who I am. Hate me as much as I do". I would almost feel bad for her, if she never killed a child. Her life is something out of a horror novel... she was failed from the moment she was conceived, really. She likely has more mental illnesses than one could shake a stick at. Her involvement, and behaviour, makes perfect sense.
MR? He is a mystery. While at this point I do think he was in on this as deep as TLM was, I have been open minded, and continue to be until the verdict is in. If a piece of evidence comes in that can change my mind, I am open to it.

ETA: I have also known people all whacked out on oxy (and also, less so, percs). These people used this drug as a substitute for their drug of choice when none was available, to avoid the nasty withdrawal symptoms. They were mostly addicted to cocaine and morphine (plus one heroin user). I have obtained prescriptions for percocet, but only because I was screaming and crying and crawling around in severe pain. They did NOT get me high. At all. In fact, they didn't even kick the pain (dental pain, worse than giving birth without an epidural.. speaking from experience here). I had taken 6 percs at once in an attempt to sleep at night, and the only thing it did for me was give me a massive stomach ache, adding to my agony (thanks to the acetaminophen). Based on my personal experience with them, the experience of others who have been legally prescribed these drugs for pain, plus the addicts that I have known that used these drugs to help them with their withdrawal symptoms, I do not believe for a second that drugs were the root of the problem and are to blame for this tragedy. Yes, everybody is different and these drugs have different effects for every different person. I have seen that with my own eyes, and experienced it with my own body. But, I still do not believe drugs are to blame.

There is something else...

swedie
04-29-2012, 04:10 AM
It was pretty obvious the Crown edited the video to show what they wanted to show..........but I am wondering why Derstine is just letting a lot of things slide by.

I also wondered why he didn't object to all that testimony from endless females testifying to nothing relevant to the trial.

I also wondered about the "escort" and why he didn't ask her how she made a living for herself if she gave all her money to MR. Her answer could have shown that her integrity as a witness was compromised.

Maybe letting the Crown carry on..........and gathering up things for appeal at a later date........if needed?

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

Respectfully but yes of course the Crown edited the video. The jurors only needed to see what was important. What was important to the jurors was to establish the fact that TLM and MR were more than friends. This backs up how much of a liar MR is/was. When he was interview May 15th/09 by LE he claimed he didn't really know TLM. These videos where taken in April before MR's interview. For someone he didn't really know, he had no problem being affectionate toward her.

Did it every occur to you Derestine has standards and morals? Maybe he intentionally let a lot of things slide. You should go back and read my list of the cross examinations if you are seeking answers. What value came out of Derestine's cross that made anyone have an "ah ha" moment? For me there was zilch, big fat zero. Nothing to show reasonable doubt in my mind. For some lawyer who is suppose to be top notch and oh so fabulous, which some claimed he was, he didn't impress me. But that's my opinion.

I still believe Hal M. tried to get MR to plead to a lesser sentence but MR refused even though he knew he was fighting a losing battle. JMHO but I bet that is why Hal M. no longer defended MR. Bottom line is MR had nothing to lose by pleading not guilty. Maybe he felt like he would get lucky and there would be 12 village idiots sitting in as jurors. If that was the case, he felt wrongly. These jurors have an over abundance of evidence and I'm sure they see MR for the sick minded, sexual deviant, master manipulator I believe he is.

Again, JMHO I don't believe Derstine has any witnesses. And I don't see MR taking the stand. He knows he's guilty. He knows the Crown will gobble him up and it will be game over. MR cannot explain away any of the evidence to show he was duped by TLM because it's blatantly obvious Tori was abducted for sexual purposes. Tori's blood and sperm found together in his car, Tori naked from the waist down. It just doesn't get more obvious then that. TLM did not sexually assault Tori to try and frame MR. Either one of these two sickos never thought they would get caught so there was no planning on TLM's part.

BorgQueen
04-29-2012, 04:57 AM
Respectfully but yes of course the Crown edited the video. The jurors only needed to see what was important. What was important to the jurors was to establish the fact that TLM and MR were more than friends. This backs up how much of a liar MR is/was. When he was interview May 15th/09 by LE he claimed he didn't really know TLM. These videos where taken in April before MR's interview. For someone he didn't really know, he had no problem being affectionate toward her.

Did it every occur to you Derestine has standards and morals? Maybe he intentionally let a lot of things slide. You should go back and read my list of the cross examinations if you are seeking answers. What value came out of Derestine's cross that made anyone have an "ah ha" moment? For me there was zilch, big fat zero. Nothing to show reasonable doubt in my mind. For some lawyer who is suppose to be top notch and oh so fabulous, which some claimed he was, he didn't impress me. But that's my opinion.

I still believe Hal M. tried to get MR to plead to a lesser sentence but MR refused even though he knew he was fighting a losing battle. JMHO but I bet that is why Hal M. no longer defended MR. Bottom line is MR had nothing to lose by pleading not guilty. Maybe he felt like he would get lucky and there would be 12 village idiots sitting in as jurors. If that was the case, he felt wrongly. These jurors have an over abundance of evidence and I'm sure they see MR for the sick minded, sexual deviant, master manipulator I believe he is.

Again, JMHO I don't believe Derstine has any witnesses. And I don't see MR taking the stand. He knows he's guilty. He knows the Crown will gobble him up and it will be game over. MR cannot explain away any of the evidence to show he was duped by TLM because it's blatantly obvious Tori was abducted for sexual purposes. Tori's blood and sperm found together in his car, Tori naked from the waist down. It just doesn't get more obvious then that. TLM did not sexually assault Tori to try and frame MR. Either one of these two sickos never thought they would get caught so there was no planning on TLM's part.

JMO, but even though Derstine has standards and morals, he still has a job to do. I do not believe for a second that he deliberately let anything slide, even if he wanted to. He would not be doing his job, and that would severely harm his reputation. IF he let anything slide, it is because he has something up his sleeve. And he has done his job. There ARE people who do not believe MR is guilty. It doesn't really matter if Derstine believes his client is guilty or innocent, it isn't his job to ensure his client goes to jail. It is his job to ensure that his client, guilty or not guilty, either gets a 'not guilty' verdict, an acquittal, or the smallest sentence possible, whether he believes in it or not.

JMO.

daisy.faithfull
04-29-2012, 05:17 AM
As far as the defence not asking more questions it's possible he didn't want the jury to hear the answers if he thought it wouldn't benefit or even hurt MTR.

I doubt he will be testifying, although I think he wants to just based on what we've seen of him.

snoofer
04-29-2012, 05:26 AM
I thought it's purpose was to show that they were still a "couple" and back up TLM's testimony that they acted together. Also perhaps, judging by some of the conversion on here, that he may have manipulated her into the act. If that was their intent, speaking only for myself, it failed miserably. She had to ask him for the hug, he patted her on the head like a little sister, and he couldn't wait to get away. She had him by the gonzos and he had no choice but to humour her or go to jail. JMO

could it be when the embraces happened they were verbally passing along information about LE etc and if they are in the clear or not. MOO Perhaps MTR used those hugs to tell TLM things. Perhaps TLM missed that point and saw them as true affection and info sharing. MOO

snoofer
04-29-2012, 05:37 AM
The only thing that can make the 'escort' story make sense is abuse. Abuse we can neither prove nor disprove. Speaking as somebody who has been in abusive (psychological AND physical) relationships, it is amazing how this can mess with a person's mind. Without ever having to lift a hand. And the victim is often convinced that any abuse is their own fault and they 'had it coming'. So, in order for the 'escort' story to make sense to me, I have to assume that MR was abusive in one way or another to CS. But, we really do not know much about him to even come to that conclusion, do we?
He confuses the heck out of me.

TLM is very much "this is who I am. Hate me as much as I do". I would almost feel bad for her, if she never killed a child. Her life is something out of a horror novel... she was failed from the moment she was conceived, really. She likely has more mental illnesses than one could shake a stick at. Her involvement, and behaviour, makes perfect sense.
MR? He is a mystery. While at this point I do think he was in on this as deep as TLM was, I have been open minded, and continue to be until the verdict is in. If a piece of evidence comes in that can change my mind, I am open to it.

ETA: I have also known people all whacked out on oxy (and also, less so, percs). These people used this drug as a substitute for their drug of choice when none was available, to avoid the nasty withdrawal symptoms. They were mostly addicted to cocaine and morphine (plus one heroin user). I have obtained prescriptions for percocet, but only because I was screaming and crying and crawling around in severe pain. They did NOT get me high. At all. In fact, they didn't even kick the pain (dental pain, worse than giving birth without an epidural.. speaking from experience here). I had taken 6 percs at once in an attempt to sleep at night, and the only thing it did for me was give me a massive stomach ache, adding to my agony (thanks to the acetaminophen). Based on my personal experience with them, the experience of others who have been legally prescribed these drugs for pain, plus the addicts that I have known that used these drugs to help them with their withdrawal symptoms, I do not believe for a second that drugs were the root of the problem and are to blame for this tragedy. Yes, everybody is different and these drugs have different effects for every different person. I have seen that with my own eyes, and experienced it with my own body. But, I still do not believe drugs are to blame.

There is something else...

Could be that crown knows MUCH more and the stories about MTR could be endless but they had to make choices for fear of muddying the story. The crown job is to make a clear, concise display of the evidence for the jury of THIS crime. So perhaps they only put in evidence that clearly related to the crime and evidence. Remember, evidence on character is not admissable and crown knows this so any info they come across can only be displayed IF can show direct relation to THIS crime. They could in theory have all kinds of tidbits on his criminality and lack of morality; but would it be admissable as evidence of THIS crime. JMO Therefore we would be left not knowing one way or the other if there is ...more to the story of how MTR came to be or lived his life as we are not privy to that info if there is any; or perhaps there is none. JMO

BorgQueen
04-29-2012, 05:56 AM
Could be that crown knows MUCH more and the stories about MTR could be endless but they had to make choices for fear of muddying the story. The crown job is to make a clear, concise display of the evidence for the jury of THIS crime. So perhaps they only put in evidence that clearly related to the crime and evidence. Remember, evidence on character is not admissable and crown knows this so any info they come across can only be displayed IF can show direct relation to THIS crime. They could in theory have all kinds of tidbits on his criminality and lack of morality; but would it be admissable as evidence of THIS crime. JMO Therefore we would be left not knowing one way or the other if there is ...more to the story of how MTR came to be or lived his life as we are not privy to that info if there is any; or perhaps there is none. JMO

Oh, I know. As somebody interested in psychology, it may matter to me, but I do know that it is not evidence in this particular case. It may make clear how somebody could have done this, but it doesn't prove guilt or innocence. It is irrelevant in the court of law.
Although, I guess is safe to say that the accused is not a Necro fan? :)

snoofer
04-29-2012, 06:53 AM
The problem for the defence IMO is that when an 8 year old girl is abducted by strangers and there is a male involved; statistics, common sense and profiling immediately makes one think...nefarious, sexually motivated. THEN low and behold, TS is found dead, brutally murdered, without pants.

It leaves the defense with the dilemma to have to override the most likely, common sensed, statistically suggestive, profiled damning motive for a crime such as this. It almost screams; knit me a defense.

AND THAT is before we even look at the evidence and the behavior before and after the crime. And we know what the evidence presented thus far shows.

I am interested in what the defense has to say and I am open to new evidence as well. I do think it will take a magic wand, fairy dust, a prayer from hell and a damned good lawyer to get him out of this one. But willing to listen; but it would take irrefutable evidence and not just conjecture to believe MTR was not up to his eyeballs in this crime. MOO Defense is up! I haven't yet ruled out a shocker from defense either. JMO

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 07:16 AM
I'm very interested in what we will hear from the defence too snoofer.

nettie_82
04-29-2012, 08:48 AM
I haven't fully caught up on here and I apologize if this has been asked before, how long do you think it will take the defense to present their case? Just curious how long before the jury starts deliberating. I can't wait until we can find out what all the legal arguments have been about. How long until JUSTICE FOR TORI??

roseofsharon
04-29-2012, 08:49 AM
The Genest video showed a small portion of the visits. I'd be interested in seeing what the other approximately 45 minutes of each visit was like.

And with audio!!! MOO

robynhood
04-29-2012, 10:36 AM
I agree 100 percent with BorgQueen...I shudder to think what kind of defense will be presented on TUESDATY...OMG......IMO I am certain it shall be outrageous ..and simliar to Mr. Derstine's cross exams...NOt looking forward to more insane excuses as to how BAD TLM is....Hey Mr.Defense >>>IMO...it is now time to actually hear about Rafferty and How he was caught driving HIS CAR with an 8 year old who obiviously was terrified ..as we think she made to hide in his back seat ( on the darn floor )under his coat ...and I do feel they drugged her so she was sleeping....I do know how percs and oxy made me feel when I had horrible shingles and it usually made me SLEEP if the pain was susided ! She was only 8 years old and I am certain it would have made her >>>SLEEP! ( some of the time if they were making her swallow it with TIM horton's tea ....they could have put it in hot tea ( pill dissolves )...I do pray Tori was sleeping in that car ...the whole thing is a HUGE NIGHTMARE IMO ....no excuses Tori was abucted in MR car that was proven without a DOUBT by the CROWN...now let the defense expalin that and why she had no CLOTHES from the waist down when she was finally found in Mount Forest ...UGH...again I must say ...."Let the defense explain ...MR's story as he did say before the TRIAL...>>> something like DO NOT JUDGE my client till you hear our evidence....Ok we all ears ...Mr. Defense start explaining....OMG ...the circus is to begin FOLKS....IMO...and NOT AT ALL LOOKING forward to this one...I feel the crown DID an EXCELLENT JOB ...thanks from all of ONT....robynhood ...my strong OPINIONS !

roseofsharon
04-29-2012, 10:54 AM
Since MR and TLM both had all day to do whatever they wanted on April 8, 2009, did the premeditation for the murder occur somewhere between Woodstock and Guelph.

Why were the garbage bags and the hammer purchased at HD in Guelph, why not before leaving Woodstock. Did MR think that far ahead, wanting to capture TLM on camera purchasing these items and not himself?

Were they that naive, as to think the camera(s) would not have been rolling in Guelph in a HD, the way they obviously thought they would have been in Woodstock, so if MR wanted TLM on the video surveillance, what was the difference between store location.

Just MOO

gardenia
04-29-2012, 12:02 PM
IF MR had wanted to abduct & molest a child, why on earth would TLM choose a child that was known to her, who could identify her?

i can't get past this question.

jmo.

robynhood
04-29-2012, 12:31 PM
IMO gardenia ....First off I am a techer of primary children for many years ..20+ and I can tell you there are NOt that many kids walking home alone /most walk with a friend or smeone picks them up......This was a rarity that Tori even did this PLUS I feel she was waiting for her brother who was just talking a maybe 10 min walk to help another child( with Autism get home)...Imo Plus I think Tori was familiar with TLM as she saw her walk her dog just a few days before...( that was mentioned on here and I think they had a video of her walking her shitzo dog ...I think I read it here ...???..........The key part is The OPPORTUNITY presented itself ....hmm here is a young child alone ...and she approached Tori who unfortunately loved shitzu dogs ....and so there ya go....Imo...Plus "I" Do believe MR dared her and just droped her off ....Crown presented that video ...MR's car was seen dropping TLM off near Tori's school ....I feel it fit together like a percise puzzle...I feel the Crown did an EXCELLENT Job of showing details for details of evidence of that horrible day ....APRIL 8 2009...nightmare city ! ...if you want confirmation look at all the evidence the Crown presented ....one article in the London press paper shows exactly the # of evidence presented by the crown and all the witness presented ....wow ...awaiting the defense to explain the ALL of this ....???robynhood ...we shall see this Tuesday ....OMG again! ...IMO...robynhood

Wondergirl
04-29-2012, 01:01 PM
MTR and TLM met in February 2009 and by April 8, 2009, during this short amount of time, both were able to get into the other's psyche.

Why did they do this and why the overkill. How did these two ever broach the subject of carrying out these horrific acts upon a child. I think it is the worst case I have ever followed.

The Genest video does not portray either one of them, the least bit anxious.

It appears both MTR and TLM were able to compartmentalize their despicable acts.


MOO


BBM: Were they able to compartmentalize their despicable acts due to prior experience?

JMO

Wondergirl
04-29-2012, 01:11 PM
It was pretty obvious the Crown edited the video to show what they wanted to show..........but I am wondering why Derstine is just letting a lot of things slide by.

I also wondered why he didn't object to all that testimony from endless females testifying to nothing relevant to the trial.

I also wondered about the "escort" and why he didn't ask her how she made a living for herself if she gave all her money to MR. Her answer could have shown that her integrity as a witness was compromised.

Maybe letting the Crown carry on..........and gathering up things for appeal at a later date........if needed?

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

Derstine can't open a can of worms.

THAT isn't going to help his client get a verdict of not-guilty.

He knew to leave well enough alone.

JMO

snoofer
04-29-2012, 01:12 PM
Since MR and TLM both had all day to do whatever they wanted on April 8, 2009, did the premeditation for the murder occur somewhere between Woodstock and Guelph.

Why were the garbage bags and the hammer purchased at HD in Guelph, why not before leaving Woodstock. Did MR think that far ahead, wanting to capture TLM on camera purchasing these items and not himself?

Were they that naive, as to think the camera(s) would not have been rolling in Guelph in a HD, the way they obviously thought they would have been in Woodstock, so if MR wanted TLM on the video surveillance, what was the difference between store location.

Just MOO

MTR packed a change of clothes for them. MOO

Salem
04-29-2012, 01:16 PM
It shouldn't be IMO. The edited pieces showed only what the Crown needed to make their point. How the visits started and ended doesn't mean the entire visit was all hugs and giggles and cracking backs.

JMO

Do you think there was arguing and disconnect between the clips that we saw? They parted on friendly terms, it appears. Do you think the Defense will be showing us clips that indicate there was some discord between the two?

Salem

Salem
04-29-2012, 01:20 PM
IF MR had wanted to abduct & molest a child, why on earth would TLM choose a child that was known to her, who could identify her?

i can't get past this question.

jmo.

All testimony has been that Tori did NOT know TLM. I am on the fence about whether or not TLM knew Tori however. TLM claims she did not, but....

Salem

Wondergirl
04-29-2012, 01:23 PM
I thought it's purpose was to show that they were still a "couple" and back up TLM's testimony that they acted together. Also perhaps, judging by some of the conversion on here, that he may have manipulated her into the act. If that was their intent, speaking only for myself, it failed miserably. She had to ask him for the hug, he patted her on the head like a little sister, and he couldn't wait to get away. She had him by the gonzos and he had no choice but to humour her or go to jail. JMO

Do you think the video corroborated MTR's statement to LE that he barely knew TLM?

P.S. How did SHE have HIM by the gonzos? Curious?

snoofer
04-29-2012, 01:24 PM
Since MR and TLM both had all day to do whatever they wanted on April 8, 2009, did the premeditation for the murder occur somewhere between Woodstock and Guelph.

Why were the garbage bags and the hammer purchased at HD in Guelph, why not before leaving Woodstock. Did MR think that far ahead, wanting to capture TLM on camera purchasing these items and not himself?

Were they that naive, as to think the camera(s) would not have been rolling in Guelph in a HD, the way they obviously thought they would have been in Woodstock, so if MR wanted TLM on the video surveillance, what was the difference between store location.

Just MOO

LE only knew about the HD because TLM told them. I don't think MTR ever thought she would admit to being involved. Think he thought she would clam up if confronted and never rat. I think he never thought the body would be found so there would be no need to check hardware stores for video of them. MTR was also caught following TLM on video while she led TS to the arranged meeting spot. This shows premeditation before they grabbed TS. MOO Good things coming my way...the extra clothes for TLM. JMO

snoofer
04-29-2012, 01:25 PM
Do you think the video corroborated MTR's statement to LE that he barely knew TLM?

P.S. How did SHE have HIM by the gonzos? Curious?

The video showed he told yet another Big Fat Porky Pie! JMO

Salem
04-29-2012, 01:32 PM
Witness credibility is an important factor for jury consideration.

The escort testified she gave all her money from the escort business to MR.

Is that a true or false statement?

Well............to believe her statement is true, you have to believe:

a) she had other gainful employment.

b) she lived on no income.

The escort also said she was having financial difficult and decided to become an escort. She then said she would give all the money to MR.

How did that help out her personal finances?

Her testimony was that MR asked her for money for gas and a car payment

Why would he have to give her any reason at all, if she was giving him all the money anyways?

Sorry................not buying this song and dance routine.

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

Even if she didn't give him ALL the money, what does that matter? We know how much money she did give him and it was a substantial sum. Close to $17,000 wasn't it, over 6 months. That works out to about $2,500 to $3,000 a month.

Her personal finances are not at issue and as far as the money goes, in my opinion, neither is her credibility because the bank records prove the amount of money she gave him and more importantly the amount of money she gave him on April 8th, the day in question.

Salem

Wondergirl
04-29-2012, 01:44 PM
Witness credibility is an important factor for jury consideration.

The escort testified she gave all her money from the escort business to MR.

Is that a true or false statement?

Well............to believe her statement is true, you have to believe:

a) she had other gainful employment.

b) she lived on no income.

The escort also said she was having financial difficult and decided to become an escort. She then said she would give all the money to MR.

How did that help out her personal finances?

Her testimony was that MR asked her for money for gas and a car payment

Why would he have to give her any reason at all, if she was giving him all the money anyways?

Sorry................not buying this song and dance routine.

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


The lack of cross and the fact that absolutely ZERO attempts were made to discredit Charity's testimony, indicates that you are incorrect this is a song and dance routine.

Derstine was well aware of Charity, and was probably relieved that's ALL she was able to testify about on the stand. Afterall, he couldn't refute the $ transfers, could he? Black & white.

Charity's testimony was the truth. There was WAY MORE. Derstine was wise enough not to go there. Really wise.

Therefore, her testimony stands as very strong testimony against MTR regarding the irrefutable fact of the $ transfers.

Song and dance, allright, by the defense.

Tappity-tap-tap-tap.

JMO

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 01:45 PM
All testimony has been that Tori did NOT know TLM. I am on the fence about whether or not TLM knew Tori however. TLM claims she did not, but....

Salem


JMO, was it not disclosed TLM had met TS? I seem to recall she said she had met her on a walk (s)? I will look for link. Seem to recall reading TLM said TS asked where TLM's dog Precious was??

otto
04-29-2012, 01:52 PM
Here's an article that describes some of MR's background. It sounds like he was a troubled child, or perhaps too much for his mom to handle, so he was partially raised by extended family.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/rafferty-trial-to-hear-about-remarks-he-made-after-tori-147282055.html

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 02:00 PM
"In another, she was to admit that she didn't know Tori but had met her on a previous occasion with her dog. She said she was told to tell police that day she ran into the blond-haired girl and walked with her but parted ways shortly after. In the third scenario, she was to say the two picked up the girl but dropped her off in a green sedan."



Read more: http://www.canada.com/news/Tori+Stafford+trial+Terri+Lynne+McClintic+agreed+t ake+fall+everything+video/6300744/story.html#ixzz1tSujH2ry

Ardy
04-29-2012, 02:02 PM
Even if she didn't give him ALL the money, what does that matter? We know how much money she did give him and it was a substantial sum. Close to $17,000 wasn't it, over 6 months. That works out to about $2,500 to $3,000 a month.

Her personal finances are not at issue and as far as the money goes, in my opinion, neither is her credibility because the bank records prove the amount of money she gave him and more importantly the amount of money she gave him on April 8th, the day in question.

Salem

I think the amount was actually more than that, as she said the figure didn't include cash she gave him.

The origin of the money she gave to MR, could be an issue, if it was drug related, and the defense is pursuing the abduction of VS as a drug related crime.

I would imagine Derstine already knows the answer to that question, as it wouldn't be hard for an investigator to ask around the neighbourhood and learn some details.

We will see if it is mentioned again, or let drop..................

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

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 02:05 PM
Witness credibility is an important factor for jury consideration.

The escort testified she gave all her money from the escort business to MR.

Is that a true or false statement?

Well............to believe her statement is true, you have to believe:

a) she had other gainful employment.

b) she lived on no income.

The escort also said she was having financial difficult and decided to become an escort. She then said she would give all the money to MR.

How did that help out her personal finances?

Her testimony was that MR asked her for money for gas and a car payment

Why would he have to give her any reason at all, if she was giving him all the money anyways?

Sorry................not buying this song and dance routine.

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

JMO, ITA, well thought out post. JMO

Ardy
04-29-2012, 02:09 PM
The lack of cross and the fact that absolutely ZERO attempts were made to discredit Charity's testimony, indicates that you are incorrect this is a song and dance routine.

Derstine was well aware of Charity, and was probably relieved that's ALL she was able to testify about on the stand. Afterall, he couldn't refute the $ transfers, could he? Black & white.

Charity's testimony was the truth. There was WAY MORE. Derstine was wise enough not to go there. Really wise.

Therefore, her testimony stands as very strong testimony against MTR regarding the irrefutable fact of the $ transfers.

Song and dance, allright, by the defense.

Tappity-tap-tap-tap.

JMO

The question still remains unanswered though.

If she gave all her money to MR..........what did she live on?

Was the money really from an "escort" business, or due to something else?

How does it all relate to the defense theory of a "drug debt" crime?

You may be right, that Derstine didn't challenge the witness directly, as she would have simply denied it, but if he can provide other evidence that shows the money was for some other reason............then what?

Remember that if people are involved in drug trafficking, they aren't going to want to be saying much about it, and testifying in court isn't going to change that, because they will still be on the streets long after this trial is over.

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

otto
04-29-2012, 02:09 PM
Since MR and TLM both had all day to do whatever they wanted on April 8, 2009, did the premeditation for the murder occur somewhere between Woodstock and Guelph.

Why were the garbage bags and the hammer purchased at HD in Guelph, why not before leaving Woodstock. Did MR think that far ahead, wanting to capture TLM on camera purchasing these items and not himself?

Were they that naive, as to think the camera(s) would not have been rolling in Guelph in a HD, the way they obviously thought they would have been in Woodstock, so if MR wanted TLM on the video surveillance, what was the difference between store location.

Just MOO

I'm of the opinion that the premeditation happened in the days before the abduction. When I hear that he discussed abducting children with women, I think he was testing the water. I think that he tested the water with TLM and discovered that she was prepared to go along with the idea. I would like to see his computer records ... I'm curious about what he liked to read and if it related to other child abduction cases.

"Once, Ms. Hodge said, they had a little chat about “abducting kids,” surely a fascinating subject for a child worker and a man who would soon be charged with precisely that crime.

It was he who raised the topic, she said. “He said how people take kids, abduct them, and they [the kids] grow up thinking they’re [the kidnappers] like their real parents,” she said."

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/12/christie-blatchford-michael-raffertys-rather-quick-recovery-from-witnessing-horrifying-tori-stafford-murder/

otto
04-29-2012, 02:14 PM
I think the amount was actually more than that, as she said the figure didn't include cash she gave him.

The origin of the money she gave to MR, could be an issue, if it was drug related, and the defense is pursuing the abduction of VS as a drug related crime.

I would imagine Derstine already knows the answer to that question, as it wouldn't be hard for an investigator to ask around the neighbourhood and learn some details.

We will see if it is mentioned again, or let drop..................

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

So ... going with this theory ... the escort knowingly provided money to MR to buy drugs or she bought drugs from MR ... then MR abducted Victoria because of a drug debt ... I suppose this would mean that Victoria's mother owed money to someone ... I can't see how this adds up.

Could you elaborate a little more on this theory? How does the escort connect to Victoria's mother?

Ardy
04-29-2012, 02:14 PM
Here's an article that describes some of MR's background. It sounds like he was a troubled child, or perhaps too much for his mom to handle, so he was partially raised by extended family.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/rafferty-trial-to-hear-about-remarks-he-made-after-tori-147282055.html

I believe by his own admissions on Facebook etc..........that he had a troubled childhood. He sounded despondent on decisions he had made iin the past.

Not sure if it involved anything even remotely close to TLM's past though.

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

otto
04-29-2012, 02:19 PM
The question still remains unanswered though.

If she gave all her money to MR..........what did she live on?

Was the money really from an "escort" business, or due to something else?

How does it all relate to the defense theory of a "drug debt" crime?

You may be right, that Derstine didn't challenge the witness directly, as she would have simply denied it, but if he can provide other evidence that shows the money was for some other reason............then what?

Remember that if people are involved in drug trafficking, they aren't going to want to be saying much about it, and testifying in court isn't going to change that, because they will still be on the streets long after this trial is over.

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

The income of witnesses is not relevant to the trial.

What is relevant is that MR contacted the escort woman twice on the day of the abduction and requested money. We know that the first requested money was used to buy drugs and the second requested money was withdrawn moments before MR drove TLM to the Home Depot to purchase the murder weapon.

We also know that MR habitually requested money from this particular woman and that over a period of 6 months she gave him cash and regularly transferred money into his account.

How does money from the escort translate into Victoria being abducted to settle a drug debt? I can't see how the dots would be connected.

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 02:25 PM
So ... going with this theory ... the escort knowingly provided money to MR to buy drugs or she bought drugs from MR ... then MR abducted Victoria because of a drug debt ... I suppose this would mean that Victoria's mother owed money to someone ... I can't see how this adds up.

Could you elaborate a little more on this theory? How does the escort connect to Victoria's mother?

Not the OP, but what exactly did TM testify about re JG drug debt/ripping someone off for drugs? Don't recall exact testimony

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 02:31 PM
The income of witnesses is not relevant to the trial.

What is relevant is that MR contacted the escort woman twice on the day of the abduction and requested money. We know that the first requested money was used to buy drugs and the second requested money was withdrawn moments before MR drove TLM to the Home Depot to purchase the murder weapon.

We also know that MR habitually requested money from this particular woman and that over a period of 6 months she gave him cash and regularly transferred money into his account.

How does money from the escort translate into Victoria being abducted to settle a drug debt? I can't see how the dots would be connected.

I disagree with your opinion, sorry, JMO

swedie
04-29-2012, 02:32 PM
Informative article, thanks Otto! MR was very familiar with that area. Sounds like MR had the black sheep syndrome IMHO. And to clarify, MR only worked for JC in the summer of 2003 and then one year Sept. 2005 to Sept. 2006. From past articles I read, they made it sound like MR had steady employment from 2003 through to 2006, not the case at all. Has there been any other jobs MR has held besides this and Better Beef? Wow doesn't sound like it. 28 years old, high school drop out with one credit, druggie, possible drug dealer, pimping, couldn't get along with family including mom's live in boyfriend and maybe his mom as well. A real fine character...or not. Sounds like trouble in the making and he made it. Maybe MR dreamt of being famous. Looks like he got it. Now he getting his 15 minutes sitting in the prisoner's box. moo

That remote area southeast of Mount Forest, Ont., would have been familiar to Rafferty, who lived and worked nearby at various times in his life, court heard.
A previous witness testified she went to middle school with Rafferty in Drayton — about 35 kilometres south of Mount Forest — where he lived with an aunt and uncle, but he moved to the Toronto area for high school.
Later, he lived in Guelph, Ont. — where court has heard he and McClintic stopped with Tori in the car to buy garbage bags and a hammer — and worked for a landscaping company that had contracts at several landfills north of the city.

John Cruickshank, who owns the landscaping company, testified Friday that Rafferty worked for him in the summer of 2003 and from September 2005 to September 2006. The landfills Rafferty and his other employees worked at were between Guelph and Mount Forest, court heard, including one that was just a couple of side roads away from where Tori was killed.

Rachel Diwell, 23, who dated Rafferty when he lived in Guelph, said they were "inseparable" during their relationship of several months in 2006 or 2007. Many of their dates consisted of driving around back roads north of Guelph, she said.
"He always seemed to know where he was going or he had a map that he would look up," she said. "He always travelled on a lot of back roads to get places."

"He told me about his past, growing up, (it) wasn't the best," she testified. "He didn't really get along with his family at all, kind of had a bad childhood, got into a lot of trouble."
Rafferty told Cooney he didn't get along with his brother, she said. Court heard from another woman Thursday who said Rafferty told her he had a few brothers but wasn't close to them.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/rafferty-trial-to-hear-about-remarks-he-made-after-tori-147282055.html

gardenia
04-29-2012, 02:33 PM
I think one has to admit that it was an exaggeration for the escort to say that she gave MR "all" of her money ... it isn't possible. I don't know why the defence didn't question her saying "all", because it simply cannot be true.

This reminds me of how some children talk - with exaggerated language.

JMO

antiquegirl
04-29-2012, 02:37 PM
It is my firm belief that had the Crown discovered evidence of MTR having a history of physical abuse, threats, or coercion with regards to anyone in his past, he would have called these people to the stand and questioned them. Also, had any of the women he dated had any suspicions of untoward attention to their children, this, too, would have been brought up during the questioning. This type of evidence is far more relevant to the charges (sexual abuse and murder) than a lot of evidence we did hear. As Judge Heeney stated, how many women MTR dated is irrelevant to the charges. Violence and pedophilia would definitely be relevant. The fact that these questions were not asked indicates to me with certainty that there was no such history.

<modsnip> Had he threatened her into making this decision, or coerced her against her will, this would have been part of her testimony. Instead, she said they "discussed" it, like it was a mutual decision. I do not believe that he is the one who suggested this "profession". I do believe that it was a mutually beneficial relationship and that she thought it was an exclusive one that might lead to marriage. I doubt that was ever his intention.

The Crown was very successful in pointing out that MTR is a despicable human being with no morals and probably not much of a conscience. However, he did not convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that he is either violent or a pedophile.

MOO MOO MOO

otto
04-29-2012, 02:42 PM
I disagree with your opinion, sorry, JMO

In what way is the income of the women that MR dated relevant to the murder trial? It seems to me that what is relevant is evidence can be presented to supports the theory that MR abducted, assaulted and murdered the child. The cash withdrawal, moments before the hammer purchase, is very relevant. How much the escort earned has nothing to do with this trial. If the objective is to discredit the witness testimony, then proof must be given that MR did not receive money from the escort.

How does the escort's income relate to a hypothetical drug debt that would result in the kidnapping of Victoria?

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 02:49 PM
In what way is the income of the women that MR dated relevant to the murder trial? It seems to me that what is relevant is evidence can be presented to supports the theory that MR abducted, assaulted and murdered the child. The cash withdrawal, moments before the hammer purchase, is very relevant. How much the escort earned has nothing to do with this trial. If the objective is to discredit the witness testimony, then proof must be given that MR did not receive money from the escort.

How does the escort's income relate to a hypothetical drug debt that would result in the kidnapping of Victoria?

"The income of witnesses is not relevant to the trial."

I disagree with your opinion on that. JMO

We don't know the facts in this case, and we do not know that MR assaulted TS. JMO

antiquegirl
04-29-2012, 02:50 PM
I'm of the opinion that the premeditation happened in the days before the abduction. When I hear that he discussed abducting children with women, I think he was testing the water. I think that he tested the water with TLM and discovered that she was prepared to go along with the idea. I would like to see his computer records ... I'm curious about what he liked to read and if it related to other child abduction cases.

"Once, Ms. Hodge said, they had a little chat about “abducting kids,” surely a fascinating subject for a child worker and a man who would soon be charged with precisely that crime.

It was he who raised the topic, she said. “He said how people take kids, abduct them, and they [the kids] grow up thinking they’re [the kidnappers] like their real parents,” she said."

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/12/christie-blatchford-michael-raffertys-rather-quick-recovery-from-witnessing-horrifying-tori-stafford-murder/
(RSBM)

A laptop computer was found in his car on the evening MTR was arrested and seized by LE. (As was his mother's desktop from the house.) Had there been anything incriminating on that computer, the Crown surely would have raised it. The content found on the computer was glaringly absent from any evidence raised by the Crown. Whether he deleted anything prior to his arrest is irrelevant to his trial. It cannot be proved or it would have been raised. Only what is found is relevant, as the Crown has to prove his guilt.

It was also been discussed that MTR wiped his BlackBerry clean and therefore no earlier texts or private chats could be found for evidence. However, the people he contacted would not necessarily have wiped their phones and computers - and there were many, many contacts. It would seem reasonable that once LE had his contact numbers, those people would have had their phones and computers examined for evidence. That none was presented suggests there was nothing incriminating found there either.

As I've posted before, what was not brought into evidence by the Crown is almost as significant as what was.

JMO

tmhco
04-29-2012, 02:51 PM
I think that several people called in a tip that the woman in the white coat looked like TLM. I think the gig was up and she knew it. Even Russell Williams knew when to throw in the towel during a police interrogation ... and he was far more intelligent and accomplished than TLM.


I should have been more clear. I meant when she confessed to be the one to commit the act of murder.

tmhco
04-29-2012, 03:02 PM
I believe I made my point in my previous post. The jury only saw the edited tape. It leaves the impression that the entire visits were nothing but hugs and happiness. It's not unusual for people to hug when they arrive and hug when they leave. The larger portion of the visits could have been entirely different. It's misleading if it's meant to show what their visits were like.

Pretty certain Derenstine would have thought of that and objected. JMO

otto
04-29-2012, 03:05 PM
It is my firm belief that had the Crown discovered evidence of MTR having a history of physical abuse, threats, or coercion with regards to anyone in his past, he would have called these people to the stand and questioned them. Also, had any of the women he dated had any suspicions of untoward attention to their children, this, too, would have been brought up during the questioning. This type of evidence is far more relevant to the charges (sexual abuse and murder) than a lot of evidence we did hear. As Judge Heeney stated, how many women MTR dated is irrelevant to the charges. Violence and pedophilia would definitely be relevant. The fact that these questions were not asked indicates to me with certainty that there was no such history.

As well, I remember rumours from three years ago that CS (the escort) was in that business long before she ever met MTR. Had he threatened her into making this decision, or coerced her against her will, this would have been part of her testimony. Instead, she said they "discussed" it, like it was a mutual decision. I do not believe that he is the one who suggested this "profession". I do believe that it was a mutually beneficial relationship and that she thought it was an exclusive one that might lead to marriage. I doubt that was ever his intention.

The Crown was very successful in pointing out that MTR is a despicable human being with no morals and probably not much of a conscience. However, he did not convince me beyond a reasonable doubt that he is either violent or a pedophile.

MOO MOO MOO

How could any of the girlfriends testify that MR had a deviant sexual interest in young girls if there was never a complaint or charges? All we know is that MR was never charged with inappropriate interactions with young girls prior to his arrest. Having suspicions about deviant sexual interests cannot be presented as evidence in a trial.

Since we know that MR and Victoria were together shortly before she was murdered and that Victoria was not wearing clothes below the waist ... what do you think he was doing if he isn't a pedophile?

tmhco
04-29-2012, 03:08 PM
How could any of the girlfriends testify that MR had a deviant sexual interest in young girls if there was never a complaint or charges? All we know is that MR was never charged with inappropriate interactions with young girls prior to his arrest. Having suspicions about deviant sexual interests cannot be presented as evidence in a trial.

Since we know that MR and Victoria were together shortly before she was murdered and that Victoria was not wearing clothes below the waist ... what do you think he was doing if he isn't a pedophile?


I believe MR wanted a little girl. He had the desire and TLM had the nerve. Match made in hell. He finally found the girl to make all his dreams come true. JMO

antiquegirl
04-29-2012, 03:17 PM
And with audio!!! MOO

There was no audio. The Genest employee testified to that. She couldn't even hear what they were saying while in the same room. Which makes me wonder, if TLM was on LE's radar early on, why they didn't have a recording device planted there during her visits. We were led to believe that TM's home was bugged, as was the entire "limo sting" operation. By the time of MTR's two visits to TLM (May 8 and May 12), LE should have been able to get warrants to monitor both TLM's phone calls and personal visits. Why didn't they?

JMO


London Free Press‏@RaffertyLFP
The Genest inmates were allowed privacy for their calls but staff close by


AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court
People at Genest have the right to private calls. Staff don't listen in.

JayFriend
04-29-2012, 03:19 PM
Since MR and TLM both had all day to do whatever they wanted on April 8, 2009, did the premeditation for the murder occur somewhere between Woodstock and Guelph.

Why were the garbage bags and the hammer purchased at HD in Guelph, why not before leaving Woodstock. Did MR think that far ahead, wanting to capture TLM on camera purchasing these items and not himself?

Were they that naive, as to think the camera(s) would not have been rolling in Guelph in a HD, the way they obviously thought they would have been in Woodstock, so if MR wanted TLM on the video surveillance, what was the difference between store location.

Just MOO

I'm guessing the first order of business was to get out of the Woodstock area, where people would soon be looking for Tori. I believe it was only after TLM started talking to the police that they found out where they'd gone and went after the video surveillance recordings.

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 03:20 PM
How could any of the girlfriends testify that MR had a deviant sexual interest in young girls if there was never a complaint or charges? All we know is that MR was never charged with inappropriate interactions with young girls prior to his arrest. Having suspicions about deviant sexual interests cannot be presented as evidence in a trial.Since we know that MR and Victoria were together shortly before she was murdered and that Victoria was not wearing clothes below the waist ... what do you think he was doing if he isn't a pedophile?

bbm, indeed, no evidence of a rape and no evidence MTR did it

JayFriend
04-29-2012, 03:20 PM
IF MR had wanted to abduct & molest a child, why on earth would TLM choose a child that was known to her, who could identify her?

i can't get past this question.

jmo.

Maybe because they premeditated the killing?

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 03:25 PM
How could any of the girlfriends testify that MR had a deviant sexual interest in young girls if there was never a complaint or charges? All we know is that MR was never charged with inappropriate interactions with young girls prior to his arrest. Having suspicions about deviant sexual interests cannot be presented as evidence in a trial.

Since we know that MR and Victoria were together shortly before she was murdered and that Victoria was not wearing clothes below the waist ... what do you think he was doing if he isn't a pedophile?

JMO, I don't see any proof MR did anything sexual to VS. Do you have proof?

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 03:26 PM
Maybe because they premeditated the killing?

Could be, JMO, you may be right, I don't believe it was random jmo, and don't think MR was behind it. JMO

otto
04-29-2012, 03:27 PM
I've been re-reading the transcripts, and MR has a different last name than his mother and brother. <modsnip> We know that MR lived with his aunt and uncle during middle school. I get the impression that he was not only troubled, but possibly neglected. I wonder if his mom put up with him when he moved in with her in 2008 because she felt some guilt over his unstable upbringing. The live-in boyfriend of MR's mother testified that he moved out because MR was taking advantage of his mother. MR may have treated his mother like she owed him something and perhaps he treated other women like that as well ... perhaps he was able to manipulate his mother into giving him what he wanted and he then used that strategy with women he met on dating websites.

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 03:30 PM
I've been re-reading the transcripts, and MR has a different last name than his mother and brother. <modsnip>. We know that MR lived with his aunt and uncle during middle school. I get the impression that he was not only troubled, but possibly neglected. I wonder if his mom put up with him when he moved in with her in 2008 because she felt some guilt over his unstable upbringing. The live-in boyfriend of MR's mother testified that he moved out because MR was taking advantage of his mother. MR may have treated his mother like she owed him something and perhaps he treated other women like that as well ... perhaps he was able to manipulate his mother into giving him what he wanted and he then used that strategy with women he met on dating websites.

I understand you have your opinions about this, but at this point, we have no idea. JMO

antiquegirl
04-29-2012, 03:30 PM
How could any of the girlfriends testify that MR had a deviant sexual interest in young girls if there was never a complaint or charges?

Exactly.


All we know is that MR was never charged with inappropriate interactions with young girls prior to his arrest. Having suspicions about deviant sexual interests cannot be presented as evidence in a trial.

I respectfully beg to differ. If any of these girlfriends' children complained to them about inappropriate touching, or even if they had thought MTR spent an unusual amount of time alone with one or more of these kids, I am positive that the Crown would have asked them about it on the stand. It would be extremely relevant to the sexual assault charges. The defence may have objected, but it would have been reported nonetheless.


Since we know that MR and Victoria were together shortly before she was murdered and that Victoria was not wearing clothes below the waist ... what do you think he was doing if he isn't a pedophile?

I believe there is a possibility (read as 'reasonable doubt') that TLM could have been the one to sexually assault Tori, or that she removed the clothing to make it look like there had been an assault by MTR. It sounds like a stretch, I know, but I would not put anything past her. One speck of Tori's blood mixed with another speck of unidentified semen does not convince me 100% that MTR raped that little girl. It is MOO that it will not convince the jury, either.

JMO

otto
04-29-2012, 03:32 PM
bbm, indeed, no evidence of a rape and no evidence MTR did it

What was Victoria's blood doing in MR's car? That seems like evidence that he caused injury to Victoria. Why was his semen mixed with Victoria's blood? That sems like evidence of rape. After Victoria was in MR's car, she was found missing half her clothes, beaten to death and stuffed into garbage bags. That seems like evidence that MR had everything to do with Victoria's murder. Where is the blade of MR's blue knife? Surely there's a good reason why he removed the blade right after the murder.

Salem
04-29-2012, 03:33 PM
JMO, was it not disclosed TLM had met TS? I seem to recall she said she had met her on a walk (s)? I will look for link. Seem to recall reading TLM said TS asked where TLM's dog Precious was??

I don't remember this, Flossie. It was disclosed that TM and TLM had met on a couple of occasions - but my understanding from the testimony of both of them was that TLM had never met and did not know Tori. As I said above, I'm on the fence about this.

I do think it is quite conincidental that TLM picked Tori and while I do believe in coincidence -- too many of them strung together makes me think there is something wrong with the story.

Salem

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 03:34 PM
Exactly.

snip

I believe there is a possibility (read as 'reasonable doubt') that TLM could have been the one to sexually assault Tori, or that she removed the clothing to make it look like there had been an assault by MTR. It sounds like a stretch, I know, but I would not put anything past her. One speck of Tori's blood mixed with another speck of unidentified semen does not convince me 100% that MTR raped that little girl. It is MOO that it will not convince the jury, either.

JMO

I don't find it a stretch JMO

otto
04-29-2012, 03:35 PM
JMO, I don't see any proof MR did anything sexual to VS. Do you have proof?

I've asked this before, but I'll ask again:

What would a 28 year old man be doing in a secluded spot (well known to him) with an 8 year old child that is missing clothing below the waist? I would like to hear any answer that is not child rape, as that is the obvious answer. That is the proof that MR sexually assaulted the 8 year old child.

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 03:35 PM
I've been re-reading the transcripts, and MR has a different last name than his mother and brother. <modsnip>. We know that MR lived with his aunt and uncle during middle school. I get the impression that he was not only troubled, but possibly neglected. I wonder if his mom put up with him when he moved in with her in 2008 because she felt some guilt over his unstable upbringing. The live-in boyfriend of MR's mother testified that he moved out because MR was taking advantage of his mother. MR may have treated his mother like she owed him something and perhaps he treated other women like that as well ... perhaps he was able to manipulate his mother into giving him what he wanted and he then used that strategy with women he met on dating websites.

bbm, there is no proof of that

Salem
04-29-2012, 03:36 PM
bbm, indeed, no evidence of a rape and no evidence MTR did it

This is your opinion. My opinion is different. I believe there is very STRONG evidence that MR did rape Tori. Tori's blood was found with semen in it, in MR's car. And Tori was found without her clothing. This is coincidence that tells me there is something wrong with the story of innocence -- one without the other, maybe - but all three together - in my opinion, no way in Hades.

Salem

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 03:42 PM
I've asked this before, but I'll ask again:

What would a 28 year old man be doing in a secluded spot (well known to him) with an 8 year old child that is missing clothing below the waist? I would like to hear any answer that is not child rape, as that is the obvious answer. That is the proof that MR sexually assaulted the 8 year old child.

There is no proof poor little VS was sexually assaulted, or that MR did it. I pray for her every night. Breaks my heart. I don't even know how they stand it.

IMO There is no proof MR sexually assaulted VS.

I understand we all have strong opinins, and are passionate about this case and want to see guilty party/parties punished, but they are just that, OPINIONS. Sorry I get in a twist when opinions are posted as facts. We do not know the facts!

Sorry we have to be clear what is fact and what is opinion IMO.

otto
04-29-2012, 03:43 PM
Exactly.



I respectfully beg to differ. If any of these girlfriends' children complained to them about inappropriate touching, or even if they had thought MTR spent an unusual amount of time alone with one or more of these kids, I am positive that the Crown would have asked them about it on the stand. It would be extremely relevant to the sexual assault charges. The defence may have objected, but it would have been reported nonetheless.



I believe there is a possibility (read as 'reasonable doubt') that TLM could have been the one to sexually assault Tori, or that she removed the clothing to make it look like there had been an assault by MTR. It sounds like a stretch, I know, but I would not put anything past her. One speck of Tori's blood mixed with another speck of unidentified semen does not convince me 100% that MTR raped that little girl. It is MOO that it will not convince the jury, either.

JMO

There were no police reports filed regarding deviant sexual behavior prior to the arrest. The crown cannot present evidence that people suspected MR was a pedophile before the arrest. Evidence just doesn't work that way. Evidence has to be factual and supported by corroborating evidence. Witnesses can only testify to what they know to be true, not to what they silently suspected or imagined at some point in time.

The facts are that we have a 28 year old man, an 8 year old half undressed child and an 18 year old woman. Isn't it a bit of a stretch (perhaps to the point of making excuses) to suggest that the 28 year old man did nothing while the 18 year old woman undressed the child to frame the duped 28 year old man?

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 03:44 PM
This is your opinion. My opinion is different. I believe there is very STRONG evidence that MR did rape Tori. Tori's blood was found with semen in it, in MR's car. And Tori was found without her clothing. This is coincidence that tells me there is something wrong with the story of innocence -- one without the other, maybe - but all three together - in my opinion, no way in Hades.

Salem

I totally understand Salem, we both have opinions, I am all about opinions, we do not have the facts, that was my point. Sorry if I was not clear

roseofsharon
04-29-2012, 03:47 PM
I believe by his own admissions on Facebook etc..........that he had a troubled childhood. He sounded despondent on decisions he had made iin the past.

Not sure if it involved anything even remotely close to TLM's past though.

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

I think his despondency was contrived to elicit the sympathy of women. I remember seeing the word "needy" used to describe MR. MOO

otto
04-29-2012, 03:49 PM
bbm, there is no proof of that

From my post: "I've been re-reading the transcripts, and MR has a different last name than his mother and brother. We know that MR lived with his aunt and uncle during middle school. I get the impression that he was not only troubled, but possibly neglected. I wonder if his mom put up with him when he moved in with her in 2008 because she felt some guilt over his unstable upbringing. "

Here are the transcripts: http://www.am980.ca/Other/Rafferty%20Transcript.pdf. You can see for yourself that all three have different last names.

"A previous witness testified she went to middle school with Rafferty in Drayton — about 35 kilometres south of Mount Forest — where he lived with an aunt and uncle, but he moved to the Toronto area for high school."

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/rafferty-trial-to-hear-about-remarks-he-made-after-tori-147282055.html

"Riddell recently moved out of the home because he felt Rafferty was taking advantage of his mother's generosity."

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20090521/stafford_suspects_090521/#ixzz1tScQJ9v7

otto
04-29-2012, 03:51 PM
There is no proof poor little VS was sexually assaulted, or that MR did it. I pray for her every night. Breaks my heart. I don't even know how they stand it.

IMO There is no proof MR sexually assaulted VS.

I understand we all have strong opinins, and are passionate about this case and want to see guilty party/parties punished, but they are just that, OPINIONS. Sorry I get in a twist when opinions are posted as facts. We do not know the facts!

Sorry we have to be clear what is fact and what is opinion IMO.

Okay ... so we have a 28 year old man together with an 8 year old female half-undressed child who is later found murdered, and we want to believe that this is perfectly normal and he is completely innocent of causing any injury to the child?

Salem
04-29-2012, 03:53 PM
There is no proof poor little VS was sexually assaulted, or that MR did it. I pray for her every night. Breaks my heart. I don't even know how they stand it.

IMO There is no proof MR sexually assaulted VS.

I understand we all have strong opinins, and are passionate about this case and want to see guilty party/parties punished, but they are just that, OPINIONS. Sorry I get in a twist when opinions are posted as facts. We do not know the facts!

Sorry we have to be clear what is fact and what is opinion IMO.

The Crown has presented a lot of evidence which is FACT. Tori was, indeed, found without her clothing from the waist down - that is a FACT. Tori's blood was mixed with semen (FACT) in MR's car (FACT). Tori was beaten and hidden (FACT). MR lied to LE about what he knew (FACT) and he lied about how well he knew TLM (FACT). MR continued to see TLM (FACT) and even continued to hug her and hold hands with her (FACTS).

There is audio of MR lying to LE. Those are facts. So we do know some facts - it is the inferences we make from those facts that differs - but not the facts themselves.

If you interpret these facts to mean there are no facts, that's fine. But these are facts and everybody is entitled to interpret them however they wish.

For me, these facts are telling a story of the brutal murder and rape of an innocent, 8 year old child. And that both MR and TLM were very much involved in that murder and rape.

Salem

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 03:56 PM
From my post: "I've been re-reading the transcripts, and MR has a different last name than his mother and brother. We know that MR lived with his aunt and uncle during middle school. I get the impression that he was not only troubled, but possibly neglected. I wonder if his mom put up with him when he moved in with her in 2008 because she felt some guilt over his unstable upbringing. "

Here are the transcripts: http://www.am980.ca/Other/Rafferty%20Transcript.pdf. You can see for yourself that all three have different last names.

"A previous witness testified she went to middle school with Rafferty in Drayton — about 35 kilometres south of Mount Forest — where he lived with an aunt and uncle, but he moved to the Toronto area for high school."

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/rafferty-trial-to-hear-about-remarks-he-made-after-tori-147282055.html

"Riddell recently moved out of the home because he felt Rafferty was taking advantage of his mother's generosity."

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20090521/stafford_suspects_090521/#ixzz1tScQJ9v7
I'm open to more info. If there is proof, am open to that.

roseofsharon
04-29-2012, 03:58 PM
There was no audio. The Genest employee testified to that. She couldn't even hear what they were saying while in the same room. Which makes me wonder, if TLM was on LE's radar early on, why they didn't have a recording device planted there during her visits. We were led to believe that TM's home was bugged, as was the entire "limo sting" operation. By the time of MTR's two visits to TLM (May 8 and May 12), LE should have been able to get warrants to monitor both TLM's phone calls and personal visits. Why didn't they?

JMO

My post was responding to Alethea Dice's post regarding seeing the entire video from Genest. My post "and with audio" was me saying, not only would it be great to see the entire video, but also hearing their conversation.

otto
04-29-2012, 03:58 PM
I'm open to more info. If there is proof, am open to that.

Are you asking for proof that names MR provided for his family members and the testimony given in court is true?

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 04:03 PM
The Crown has presented a lot of evidence which is FACT. Tori was, indeed, found without her clothing from the waist down - that is a FACT. Tori's blood was mixed with semen (FACT) in MR's car (FACT). Tori was beaten and hidden (FACT). MR lied to LE about what he knew (FACT) and he lied about how well he knew TLM (FACT). MR continued to see TLM (FACT) and even continued to hug her and hold hands with her (FACTS).

There is audio of MR lying to LE. Those are facts. So we do know some facts - it is the inferences we make from those facts that differs - but not the facts themselves.

If you interpret these facts to mean there are no facts, that's fine. But these are facts and everybody is entitled to interpret them however they wish.

For me, these facts are telling a story of the brutal murder and rape of an innocent, 8 year old child. And that both MR and TLM were very much involved in that murder and rape.

Salem

No offense Salem. Yes Tori had no clothing from waist down. does not prove MR raped her. Or anyone raped Tori. I know that's a hot topic, there is NO proof she was raped or that MR did it. Sorry if that upsets people. It is what it is.

Tori's blood mixed with semen was not proven to be MTR's. IIRC they could not prove sperm, or that and sperm from MTR was involved jmo?

jmo let me go back and post again

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 04:04 PM
Are you asking for proof that names MR provided for his family members and the testimony given in court is true?

I apologize, am not sure what you are asking me?

roseofsharon
04-29-2012, 04:04 PM
Why would TLM remove TS's undergarments to stage a sexual assault/rape if they thought they were never going to be caught. Why would she do that, just in case they got caught. I don't think so.

MOO

kmclaren
04-29-2012, 04:08 PM
From my post: "I've been re-reading the transcripts, and MR has a different last name than his mother and brother. We know that MR lived with his aunt and uncle during middle school. I get the impression that he was not only troubled, but possibly neglected. I wonder if his mom put up with him when he moved in with her in 2008 because she felt some guilt over his unstable upbringing. "

Here are the transcripts: http://www.am980.ca/Other/Rafferty%20Transcript.pdf. You can see for yourself that all three have different last names.

"A previous witness testified she went to middle school with Rafferty in Drayton — about 35 kilometres south of Mount Forest — where he lived with an aunt and uncle, but he moved to the Toronto area for high school."

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/rafferty-trial-to-hear-about-remarks-he-made-after-tori-147282055.html

"Riddell recently moved out of the home because he felt Rafferty was taking advantage of his mother's generosity."

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20090521/stafford_suspects_090521/#ixzz1tScQJ9v7

Not sure about others, but for the PDF version of the interview transcript I can't do a word search. Here's a link to a text version, I had bookmarked. I just re-read some of it again and wow full of so many attempted CYA lies... (JMO)

http://www.newstalk1010.com/blog/raffertyevidence/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10363499

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 04:12 PM
Why would TLM remove TS's undergarments to stage a sexual assault/rape if they thought they were never going to be caught. Why would she do that, just in case they got caught. I don't think so.

MOO

JMO she may have assaulted her on her own. JMO We don't know. :( God bless Tori :(

snoofer
04-29-2012, 04:25 PM
I am open to what the defense has to say as well. However, there is something "rotten in Denmark" with those two. LE has placed them both at the scene of a brutal kidnapping, murder and rape. TS blood was found mixed with semen. Her blood should not ever be mix with semen. Coincidence??? How many coinkydinks should be afford MTR.

a. TS blood mixed with semen
b. MTR just happened to be driving by school while TLM led TS away to his awaiting car
c. TLM and his own lawyer say he was present and cleaned up the crime scene
d. he lied to LE in audio
e. he changed his clothes
f. he got rid of evidence
g. he said not friends with TLM but poof; there is the video at Genest. This lie was to LE!!! He said he doesn't really know her very well.
h. He sells drugs, he takes drugs
i. he lies like a rug and pimps out women to escort
j. his morals are corrupt ie lies, drugs, tax evasion, selling drugs, plays games with the lives of women,immature, sponges off his mother, interferes with his mother's relationships, is a drifter/bum. How many allowances have to be made for his behaviors before he will be held accountable.

He took a child without permission from the parents into his car, a 28 year old man and left the city to a deserted rural spot with her. The law is clear, when you take a child without permission it is called kidnapping. And any death that occurs while that kidnapping occurs you will be charged with murder one. Do I think he raped her. Yep. It is not TS fault that her body decomposed before LE could gain more evidence to proove it. But one spot was found, missed by those two and it was mixed with semen. So NOW we are to believe oh well his car is a sex mobile this explains it....how one small dot of TS blood found its way to one small dot of semen. I think not. Common sense tells us that he raped her. Why else does a 28 year old man grab a kid off the street? Defense will try and entertain us with other scenarios but they are that scenarios unless they put forth irrevocable proof. A theory could be aliens did it, or a gang, or............but who was there...those two...what was the condition of TS body, unclothed, horribly disfigured...dead. Who transported this child in their car. Should we believe it was all TLM's idea and doing.....if only she had her license she would have driven herself??? I do think TLM is devious and you do wonder. But what does the evidence tell us. Not let's think of other scenarios that COULD happen. What DID happen and what does the evidence tell us.

Experts in LE, pschyology, psychiatry and government have studied the patterns of these rapist child killers for years. What a coincidence that the same guy who took her into his car, whose TS blood is in his car, who destroyed evidence, who lied to LE.... Takes alot of nuts to lie to LE during a murder investigation. And read the profile of someone who would do this heinous crime. Coincidence? LE had his number and the evidence nailed him. JMO http://itsamysterytome.wordpress.com/2009/10/23/whos-killing-our-children-a-profile-of-child-killers-and-the-kids-they-prey-on-a/

Profile of who is killing our children above.

PS. lmao. What did Katey Perry name her cat? Kitty Purry!

All JMO

BorgQueen
04-29-2012, 04:30 PM
I'm sorry, I'm not trying to be catty, this is a serious question... do we need photographic evidence to prove that Tori was sexually assaulted? Is that the only way to prove the guilt of the accused, and without it, he MUST be innocent?

FACT: Tori was found without clothes from the waist down
FACT: Tori's blood was found, in MR's car, mixed with (unidentified) sperm cells. Pretty sure TLM does not produce this substance?


In my opinion, based on these two facts alone (nevermind TLM's testimony, which is also considered evidence whether we like it or believe it or not... and this testimony has been backed up by evidence presented, but I am choosing to ignore it completely anyway), sexual assault did occur. Any other explanation is just too convoluted and illogical, in my opinion, to be able to accept. Usually, the simplest explanation is the correct one. I can not force myself to believe, no matter how many 'possibilities' are presented to me, that MR was just an innocent dupe and is being framed. I don't need photographic evidence as proof, as the other evidence presented is proof enough. Amazing that it even existed, given the time the accused had to go back and cover his tracks... including getting rid of his back seat.


JMO...

antiquegirl
04-29-2012, 04:34 PM
There were no police reports filed regarding deviant sexual behavior prior to the arrest. The crown cannot present evidence that people suspected MR was a pedophile before the arrest. Evidence just doesn't work that way. Evidence has to be factual and supported by corroborating evidence. Witnesses can only testify to what they know to be true, not to what they silently suspected or imagined at some point in time.

The facts are that we have a 28 year old man, an 8 year old half undressed child and an 18 year old woman. Isn't it a bit of a stretch (perhaps to the point of making excuses) to suggest that the 28 year old man did nothing while the 18 year old woman undressed the child to frame the duped 28 year old man?

(RSBM)

I am not a lawyer, so I can't say anything for certain about this. But it seems to me that we have heard a lot of "evidence" that is not supported by anything. TLM's testimony, for instance, is chock full of claims about what MTR said to her (i.e. that he wanted to kidnap single mothers, that it was his idea to abduct a child, that he said "You'd do anything for a little lovin', eh?", etc., etc.) that has been presented as evidence, but never corroborated and never can be. All of these statements are merely hearsay by a convicted accomplice with questionable credibility.

CS's testimony that it was a mutual decision between her and MTR for her to become an escort was also in the testimony and considered evidence. Yet, where is the corroboration? I'm sure if we go back through every trial day, we can find many more examples of "evidence" that can not be proven.

So, how is all this different from a former girlfriend testifying that MTR asked to spend time alone with her child? Or that a child complained MTR tried to touch her inappropriately? If a girlfriend had suspicions, they would have to be based on something concrete. I'm saying that if no such testimony was presented, it means that these things did not happen ... or the Crown would have pounced on them.

JMO

Tahorn
04-29-2012, 04:36 PM
Why would TLM remove TS's undergarments to stage a sexual assault/rape if they thought they were never going to be caught. Why would she do that, just in case they got caught. I don't think so.

MOO

It could be because that is what everyone would presumed happen when they found her or VS had an accident in her tights.

Ardy
04-29-2012, 04:37 PM
The evidence is that VS was found with no clothing from the waist down.

There is no evidence to show if the clothing was removed prior to.......or after TLM's assault on VS.

TLM's testimony was that a garbage bag was put over VS head, and therefore there was no blood spatter.

Forensics told us that VS suffered horrific facial injuries and was hit at least 3 times with the claw (sharp) end of the hammer and numerous times with the heavy end.

Forensics told us there was a drop of VS blood beside the rear door, and it was mixed with sperm from an unknown donor. Forensics also told us that MR's sperm was found mixed with TLM's DNA all over the back seat in that same location.

There is no evidence to show if VS pants were removed prior to........or after the assault by TLM.

I find it hard to believe her story there was no blood spatter.

VS pants could very well have been removed after the assault by TLM and used to clean up the blood which would have been on the side of the car.

I found it interesting that the "most damning" evidence against TLM, and the evidence which would be the most defining in this trial...........was never found., and the car wash were TLM said it was deposited was never found.

In my opinion, LE would have searched every single car wash/convenience store in the area............and none was ever found.

At what point did LE give up.......or when did they realize that TLM wasn't telling them the truth and the car wash didn't exist?

Although TLM accompanied LE for several days during the search, she actually didn't help them find anything and they eventually sent her back to prison.

TLM had time and the knowledge of some discovery from the Crown, as she fashioned her story..........but 3 years later she didn't know the rest of it, and that is what made her nervous and decide to confess to the crime.......rather than being found to be a liar while she was sitting on the witness stand.

Unfortunately, TLM's Agreed Statement of Facts from her sentencing is sealed until after this trial is concluded.

We may get a better idea of how her testimony has changed over the course of time.

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

Salem
04-29-2012, 04:51 PM
No offense Salem. Yes Tori had no clothing from waist down. does not prove MR raped her. Or anyone raped Tori. I know that's a hot topic, there is NO proof she was raped or that MR did it. Sorry if that upsets people. It is what it is.

Tori's blood mixed with semen was not proven to be MTR's. IIRC they could not prove sperm, or that and sperm from MTR was involved jmo?

jmo let me go back and post again

You don't need to repost unless you want to. I agree that there was not enough sperm to identify the donater (if you will) of the sperm. But the fact remains that Tori's blood was mixed with sperm cells in MR's car. I also understand that some think that MR's sperm was pre-existing. I don't believe that. Yes, there were pre-existing sperm spots in the car - but, to me, the location of the mixed TS spot is very consistent with some one that was getting out of the car - I hate to be explicit because it makes me emotional, but I can clearly see in my mind's eye how that spot got there and I don't think it was a "coincidence." I'm not buying that. However, I understand why others might believe that.

Salem

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 04:52 PM
Why would TLM remove TS's undergarments to stage a sexual assault/rape if they thought they were never going to be caught. Why would she do that, just in case they got caught. I don't think so.

MOO jmo may not be the case jmo

Ardy
04-29-2012, 04:52 PM
One thing that stuck out for me from the Genest videos, was that TLM still tries to maintain control over her surroundings.

She came into the room, with a bit of swagger in her step, initiated most of the physical contact with MR, and at the end of the video.............when the support worker (or whatever they call them at Genest), gestured for TLM to head back to the room............TLM ignored her and wandered back to the window and had a chat with the worker.

There was proof of further manipulation of experienced guards in prison, as TLM succeeded in using the system to allow her to be alone with an inmate she had a grievance with............so she could beat her.

I don't understand the concept that MR was able to control TLM, and succeeding where years of probation officers, counselors, school officials, custody officials, social workers, and whatever parental control she had experienced over her inglorious life..............had failed so miserably.

If MR did indeed control TLM.........he succeeded where so many others had failed.

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

snoofer
04-29-2012, 04:58 PM
(RSBM)

I am not a lawyer, so I can't say anything for certain about this. But it seems to me that we have heard a lot of "evidence" that is not supported by anything. TLM's testimony, for instance, is chock full of claims about what MTR said to her (i.e. that he wanted to kidnap single mothers, that it was his idea to abduct a child, that he said "You'd do anything for a little lovin', eh?", etc., etc.) that has been presented as evidence, but never corroborated and never can be. All of these statements are merely hearsay by a convicted accomplice with questionable credibility.

CS's testimony that it was a mutual decision between her and MTR for her to become an escort was also in the testimony and considered evidence. Yet, where is the corroboration? I'm sure if we go back through every trial day, we can find many more examples of "evidence" that can not be proven.

So, how is all this different from a former girlfriend testifying that MTR asked to spend time alone with her child? Or that a child complained MTR tried to touch her inappropriately? If a girlfriend had suspicions, they would have to be based on something concrete. I'm saying that if no such testimony was presented, it means that these things did not happen ... or the Crown would have pounced on them.

JMO

he had zero permission to have that child in his car or take her out of the city or to a remote field after school. He is responsible for the condition of that child.JMO I cannot see any way around that legal fact. ;O) "You break it; you bought it" comes to mind. He took her without asking, broke her and now he pays. MOO

maxfactor
04-29-2012, 05:01 PM
One thing that stuck out for me from the Genest videos, was that TLM still tries to maintain control over her surroundings.

She came into the room, with a bit of swagger in her step, initiated most of the physical contact with MR, and at the end of the video.............when the support worker (or whatever they call them at Genest), gestured for TLM to head back to the room............TLM ignored her and wandered back to the window and had a chat with the worker.

There was proof of further manipulation of experienced guards in prison, as TLM succeeded in using the system to allow her to be alone with an inmate she had a grievance with............so she could beat her.

I don't understand the concept that MR was able to control TLM, and succeeding where years of probation officers, counselors, school officials, custody officials, social workers, and whatever parental control she had experienced over her inglorious life..............had failed so miserably.

If MR did indeed control TLM.........he succeeded where so many others had failed.

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

yup, cause she'd do anything for a little bit of love..

robynhood
04-29-2012, 05:03 PM
The Crown has presented a lot of evidence which is FACT. Tori was, indeed, found without her clothing from the waist down - that is a FACT. Tori's blood was mixed with semen (FACT) in MR's car (FACT). Tori was beaten and hidden (FACT). MR lied to LE about what he knew (FACT) and he lied about how well he knew TLM (FACT). MR continued to see TLM (FACT) and even continued to hug her and hold hands with her (FACTS).

There is audio of MR lying to LE. Those are facts. So we do know some facts - it is the inferences we make from those facts that differs - but not the facts themselves.

If you interpret these facts to mean there are no facts, that's fine. But these are facts and everybody is entitled to interpret them however they wish.



I could NOT agree more fully! .............I MUST BRING UP THE TOTALITY and I am not SAying it Just releated to this TRIAL>>>>I FEEL STRONGLY as a teacher in Ontario and a PARENT >>>>IMO strong opinion with knowledge PROFESSIoNALLY>>>>>Every spring at least ONCE a year for My 20 Years of teaching I am required to sit my young class down and Hand out ....WARNING letters for the school community That there has been a CAR STALKING the small town I teach in....Our school board ...LARGEST IN ONTARIO sends out warnings when there is a supicious car lurking in the area .....the children are told this letter is URGENT and should be given to their parents and we warn the kids not to talk to strangers or go near unknown cars!!!!! ....most parents often now.... have internet news weekly >>>>But we still hand out letters .... and the Police are notified ....I am posting this for a reason ....Rodney strafford wishes are a change in Ontario law for all our children ...I hope all has considered this....more info online ...I better not say more as websleuthers may not like where I am leading this too....robynhood!

Ardy
04-29-2012, 05:03 PM
he had zero permission to have that child in his car or take her out of the city or to a remote field after school. He is responsible for the condition of that child.JMO I cannot see any way around that legal fact. ;O) "You break it; you bought it" comes to mind. He took her without asking, broke her and now he pays. MOO

MR didn't have permission to be with VS, but he may have thought TLM did.

If it was not his intent to kidnap VS, or sexually assault her..........there can be no finding of first degree murder, because TLM has confessed to the murder.

Therefore what MR's intentions were relating to the abduction are the most important part of the case.

If the defense can show evidence that TLM abducted VS for her own reasons, that would provide support for a lack of intent by MR.

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

gardenia
04-29-2012, 05:07 PM
It is quite conceivable that both MR and VS thought that TLM was babysitting.

roseofsharon
04-29-2012, 05:08 PM
Sorry if this has been posted already, but no one can describe better than CB. She is brilliant!!! MOO

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/04/25/christie-blatchford-nothing-can-top-horror-of-mcclintic-rafferty-jail-visit-after-stafford-death/

snoofer
04-29-2012, 05:08 PM
People who don't have cars or a license ask for a drive to the grocery store, maybe to the laundry mat. Do they ask for a drive to commit a secret murder. A bit far fetched. Mmmm, will committ murder today (TLM); if I can get a lift? JMO Pure silliness. Apparently then she should have just called a cab to pick her and TS and take her to the murder spot; since TS was apparently cooperating so well with the babysitting story. MOO

robynhood
04-29-2012, 05:13 PM
...hmm interesting so when TLM pushed Tori into the car...MR should not have a red alert signal that something is not right here....? ....IMo...another problem who takes a child out of town for a 2 hour JOY RIDE????...and stops at Home depot ????....AS a parent I usually verify with a PArent when I am taking a child who is 8 years old away from a school....as a teacher any person removing a child from school prperty needs a Parent's permission in ALL SCHOOL BOARD and they must sign a child out at the office ....I have done it as a PArent ...if there is no Note ..the school calls home...especailly a PRIMARY CHILD !!!( GRADE K- 3 ) and I have done this when my kids were even in grade 8 ....Ont law ! ...robynhood

gardenia
04-29-2012, 05:24 PM
do we know if VS was pushed into the car by TLM? is that on video?

roseofsharon
04-29-2012, 05:39 PM
do we know if VS was pushed into the car by TLM? is that on video?

According to the following, TLM pushed TS into the back seat and MR told TLM to hurry up. (paraphrasing). Doesn't sound like babysitting to me.

MOO


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o-s1MayuCU4J:www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/mcclintic-who-confessed-in-tori-stafford-death-to-testify-at-murder-trial-142432105.html+michael+rafferty+told+terry+lynn+mc clintic+to+hurry+up+when+she+pushed+tori+into+the+ car&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca

robynhood
04-29-2012, 05:40 PM
There is an education Law in ontario for safe exit of all elementary children ...kids must be signed out of school if they are not the usual person taking children from school property ....schools have teachers on Duty 15 min before and after school watching the school property ! ...as I mentioned above ....All posters who are PARENTS are aware...!

common sense here too ...I am sure Tori made her wishes loud and clear that she wanted to" go Home " ...2 Hour car ride ...omg ..IMO ...I think I better leave here till Tuesday ....OMG robynhood

antiquegirl
04-29-2012, 05:40 PM
One thing that stuck out for me from the Genest videos, was that TLM still tries to maintain control over her surroundings.

She came into the room, with a bit of swagger in her step, initiated most of the physical contact with MR, and at the end of the video.............when the support worker (or whatever they call them at Genest), gestured for TLM to head back to the room............TLM ignored her and wandered back to the window and had a chat with the worker.

There was proof of further manipulation of experienced guards in prison, as TLM succeeded in using the system to allow her to be alone with an inmate she had a grievance with............so she could beat her.

I don't understand the concept that MR was able to control TLM, and succeeding where years of probation officers, counselors, school officials, custody officials, social workers, and whatever parental control she had experienced over her inglorious life..............had failed so miserably.

If MR did indeed control TLM.........he succeeded where so many others had failed.

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

(RSBM)

ITA. Not only that, but somehow TLM managed to extend the length of her visits with MTR to double what is normally allowed. This struck me as kind of odd.


AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court /
Visits are allowed at Genest. Visitors must be approved, visitors must call in to book a time. They're generally a half hour.


London Free Press‏@RaffertyLFP
Cushing-Mitchener said visits to inmates have to approved and scheduled ahead of time - usually 30 minutes


AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court /
Rafferty visited on May 8th and May 12th. Visit on the 8th lasted about an hour.

The May 12th visit lasted just under an hour, as well.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/25/19679806.html

JMO

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 05:41 PM
do we know if VS was pushed into the car by TLM? is that on video?


do we know if VS was pushed into the car by TLM? is that on video?


JMO, no we don't, and no, it's not

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 05:43 PM
According to the following, TLM pushed TS into the back seat and MR told TLM to hurry up. (paraphrasing). Doesn't sound like babysitting to me.

MOO


http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:o-s1MayuCU4J:www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/mcclintic-who-confessed-in-tori-stafford-death-to-testify-at-murder-trial-142432105.html+michael+rafferty+told+terry+lynn+mc clintic+to+hurry+up+when+she+pushed+tori+into+the+ car&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca
JMO, bs

I don't believe a word she said JMO

otto
04-29-2012, 05:49 PM
JMO, bs

I don't believe a word she said JMO

Should we assume that everything said by the confessed murderer is a lie, including her confession, and that everything claimed by her accomplice - that he had no idea what was going on the entire time Victoria was in his car, assaulted and murdered - is true?

roseofsharon
04-29-2012, 05:50 PM
MR and TLM are both the consumate liars and the jury has their work cut out for them in deciding what is fact and what is fiction.



MOO

otto
04-29-2012, 05:52 PM
The Crown has presented a lot of evidence which is FACT. Tori was, indeed, found without her clothing from the waist down - that is a FACT. Tori's blood was mixed with semen (FACT) in MR's car (FACT). Tori was beaten and hidden (FACT). MR lied to LE about what he knew (FACT) and he lied about how well he knew TLM (FACT). MR continued to see TLM (FACT) and even continued to hug her and hold hands with her (FACTS).

There is audio of MR lying to LE. Those are facts. So we do know some facts - it is the inferences we make from those facts that differs - but not the facts themselves.

If you interpret these facts to mean there are no facts, that's fine. But these are facts and everybody is entitled to interpret them however they wish.



I could NOT agree more fully! .............I MUST BRING UP THE TOTALITY and I am not SAying it Just releated to this TRIAL>>>>I FEEL STRONGLY as a teacher in Ontario and a PARENT >>>>IMO strong opinion with knowledge PROFESSIoNALLY>>>>>Every spring at least ONCE a year for My 20 Years of teaching I am required to sit my young class down and Hand out ....WARNING letters for the school community That there has been a CAR STALKING the small town I teach in....Our school board ...LARGEST IN ONTARIO sends out warnings when there is a supicious car lurking in the area .....the children are told this letter is URGENT and should be given to their parents and we warn the kids not to talk to strangers or go near unknown cars!!!!! ....most parents often now.... have internet news weekly >>>>But we still hand out letters .... and the Police are notified ....I am posting this for a reason ....Rodney strafford wishes are a change in Ontario law for all our children ...I hope all has considered this....more info online ...I better not say more as websleuthers may not like where I am leading this too....robynhood!

Isn't Tori's Law about reinstating capital punishment?

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper says opening the debate on capital punishment is a non-starter, despite this week's outcry from Canadians horrified by details of the Tori Stafford case.

"I don't think there is a public consensus on the death penalty," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday. "I don't think the public wants to reopen the debate and I don't intend to reopen the debate."

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/16/pm-wont-open-capital-punishment-debate

That's the end of that ... there will be no new law to re-instate capital punishment in Canada for any reason.

otto
04-29-2012, 05:57 PM
MR and TLM are both the consumate liars and the jury has their work cut out for them in deciding what is fact and what is fiction.

MOO

Isn't that always the case when someone is accused of a crime? He/she lies and investigators gather evidence to expose the lies. It doesn't make sense to me to assume that one half of a murderous couple is lying (even though she confessed to the murder) and that the other half is telling the truth (even though the evidence suggests otherwise).

flipflop
04-29-2012, 06:01 PM
yes all the money for the expensive clothes, drugs, gas....she had to know it was illegal behavior; unless lordy knows maybe she thought he taught dancing every day.MOO

wonders what he told the neighbours about whether he was employed or not; and wonder what the mother told others about whether he worked or not. MOO

I am pages behind....and trying to catch up.

Perhaps MR had the wool pulled over his mothers eyes just as he did with all the women that he was dating. They all seemed to think that he was working at some job or other. Some stated he was doing construction, others teaching dance, odd jobs, etc, when in fact he had no job. So maybe his mother was told (by him) that he was doing odd jobs and earning cash under the table to make his car payments etc.

As for his past...even his gf's have stated that he did not talk of his past and no one seems to know anything. TLM's seems to have talked about her past to friends etc. I remember very early articles from her neighbours stating that she had been in foster care, told the story of her real mother giving her up etc. For whatever reason MR has skeletons in the closet and even those close to him (his gf's) did not even know any details of his past.

snoofer
04-29-2012, 06:03 PM
do we know if VS was pushed into the car by TLM? is that on video?

the entry point to the vehicle at the nursing care home what not at an angle to see on video. MOO

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 06:04 PM
Should we assume that everything said by the confessed murderer is a lie, including her confession, and that everything claimed by her accomplice - that he had no idea what was going on the entire time Victoria was in his car, assaulted and murdered - is true?

jmo, I wouldn't assume anything. JMO we can all believe what we choose to. JMO

snoofer
04-29-2012, 06:05 PM
I am pages behind....and trying to catch up.

Perhaps MR had the wool pulled over his mothers eyes just as he did with all the women that he was dating. They all seemed to think that he was working at some job or other. Some stated he was doing construction, others teaching dance, odd jobs, etc, when in fact he had no job. So maybe his mother was told (by him) that he was doing odd jobs and earning cash under the table to make his car payments etc.

As for his past...even his gf's have stated that he did not talk of his past and no one seems to know anything. TLM's seems to have talked about her past to friends etc. I remember very early articles from her neighbours stating that she had been in foster care, told the story of her real mother giving her up etc. For whatever reason MR has skeletons in the closet and even those close to him (his gf's) did not even know any details of his past.

In general school records are sealed and mental health records are sealed as well as medical. MOO Privacy is taken very seriously in this country. MOO We are not privy to any info from any of those places; and most certainly not to be released to general public.

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 06:07 PM
I am pages behind....and trying to catch up.

Perhaps MR had the wool pulled over his mothers eyes just as he did with all the women that he was dating. They all seemed to think that he was working at some job or other. Some stated he was doing construction, others teaching dance, odd jobs, etc, when in fact he had no job. So maybe his mother was told (by him) that he was doing odd jobs and earning cash under the table to make his car payments etc.

As for his past...even his gf's have stated that he did not talk of his past and no one seems to know anything. TLM's seems to have talked about her past to friends etc. I remember very early articles from her neighbours stating that she had been in foster care, told the story of her real mother giving her up etc. For whatever reason MR has skeletons in the closet and even those close to him (his gf's) did not even know any details of his past.
bbm, jmo, we don't know that. it may be true, but we do not know imo

otto
04-29-2012, 06:07 PM
(RSBM)

ITA. Not only that, but somehow TLM managed to extend the length of her visits with MTR to double what is normally allowed. This struck me as kind of odd.

The May 12th visit lasted just under an hour, as well.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/25/19679806.html

JMO

I think that, given the suspicions about TLM's involvement in the murder of a young child, exceptions would be made when she had visitors ... if only to observe who wanted to stay longer, what the interactions were like, the frequency of visits and so on.

Flossie JMO
04-29-2012, 06:13 PM
gotta fly, sorry, fiance home. Have a good night all

roseofsharon
04-29-2012, 06:15 PM
Isn't that always the case when someone is accused of a crime? He/she lies and investigators gather evidence to expose the lies. It doesn't make sense to me to assume that one half of a murderous couple is lying (even though she confessed to the murder) and that the other half is telling the truth (even though the evidence suggests otherwise).

Are investigators really able to gather all the evidence??? IMO, there is much more to this story that will never be revealed and since MR and TLM are both liars, IMO, it will be interesting to see what version of the events on April 8, 2009, the jury will believe. That's all. MOO

roseofsharon
04-29-2012, 06:17 PM
MR didn't have permission to be with VS, but he may have thought TLM did.

If it was not his intent to kidnap VS, or sexually assault her..........there can be no finding of first degree murder, because TLM has confessed to the murder.

Therefore what MR's intentions were relating to the abduction are the most important part of the case.

If the defense can show evidence that TLM abducted VS for her own reasons, that would provide support for a lack of intent by MR.

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

Exactly, and all dependent on what the jury believes! MOO

Oldsoul2
04-29-2012, 06:20 PM
yes all the money for the expensive clothes, drugs, gas....she had to know it was illegal behavior; unless lordy knows maybe she thought he taught dancing every day.MOO

wonders what he told the neighbours about whether he was employed or not; and wonder what the mother told others about whether he worked or not. MOO

I really wonder if the defense is going to try and gain sympathy from the jurors as part of their defense tactic. I say this because Derstine hasn't denied he was there but making him a "victim" to this crime. Since alot of his dirty laundry has come out in regards to his lifestyle, the only way I can foresee the jury buying (which I think they won't regardless) this victimhood is by the defense trying to portray little boy blue, how unfortunate his life has been for him etc....

otto
04-29-2012, 06:28 PM
Are investigators really able to gather all the evidence??? IMO, there is much more to this story that will never be revealed and since MR and TLM are both liars, IMO, it will be interesting to see what version of the events on April 8, 2009, the jury will believe. That's all. MOO

I don't think the jury will have any difficulty finding MR guilty of 1st degree murder and it will have nothing to do with whether they believe either of the suspects. They were both parties to the offence. TLM confessed and MR has been placed as being by her side from beginning to end.

Parties to offence

21. (1) Every one is a party to an offence who

(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.

Marginal note:Common intention

(2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-6.html#h-5

A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,

(a) by means of an unlawful act;
(b) by criminal negligence;
(c) by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or
(d) by wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-108.html

snoofer
04-29-2012, 06:36 PM
It is quite conceivable that both MR and VS thought that TLM was babysitting.

so in affect TLM just used MTR as the cab drive??? To get to the destination of her murder plans??? Bit far fetched don't you think? MOO

Then why not just pull TS into a bush and kill her. Why get a ride with MTR. MOO

Ardy
04-29-2012, 07:11 PM
so in affect TLM just used MTR as the cab drive??? To get to the destination of her murder plans??? Bit far fetched don't you think? MOO

Then why not just pull TS into a bush and kill her. Why get a ride with MTR. MOO

Without accusing MR of sexually assaulting VS, and claiming that was the motivation for the abduction.............how could TLM explain any reason MR would murder VS as she first claimed?

Maybe TLM didn't intend to murder VS, but her plan wasn't working out very well, the police had become involved and she went into a rage because she knew she was going back to jail. She was after all, released on probation for a previous stabbing.

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

otto
04-29-2012, 07:17 PM
so in affect TLM just used MTR as the cab drive??? To get to the destination of her murder plans??? Bit far fetched don't you think? MOO

Then why not just pull TS into a bush and kill her. Why get a ride with MTR. MOO

Even if he provided cab service, he was there from beginning to end, should have reasonably known that something was wrong, did nothing to intervene on behalf of the victim and then proceeded to cover up the crime. He's as guilty as the confessed murderer.

antiquegirl
04-29-2012, 07:22 PM
I think that, given the suspicions about TLM's involvement in the murder of a young child, exceptions would be made when she had visitors ... if only to observe who wanted to stay longer, what the interactions were like, the frequency of visits and so on.

According to the Tweets, TLM had only 6 approved visitors: her mother, her aunt, her lawyer, her welfare worker, her parole officer, and (not approved until April 27) MTR. I don't suppose that anyone there, other than MTR, would be under suspicion by LE. Strangely, he waited 10 days after approval before his first visit (May 8) and then had only one more (May 12) before he was arrested.

As I wrote before, I do not believe that LE were quite suspicious enough ... or why didn't they add audio surveillance to her visits? They have admitted to bugging TM's house and implied that there was other surreptitious audio surveillance going on (I assume that was the "limo ride" sting, and probably others), so why not this? My opinion is that, in spite of what TLM's neighbours told LE, TLM and MTR were not serious suspects until May 14th or May 15th - AFTER MTR's last visit to Genest.

MTR was present for TLM's hearings for the parole violations on May 14 and 15th. So was LE. On the day of the 2nd appearance, LE took TLM aside to a private room in the courthouse and had a talk with her. I'm guessing that that's when they asked her about MTR. She had to tell them that he was her boyfriend because that's what she listed on her detention centre application to allow him phone calls and visits.

On that same night (May 15), LE shows up at MTR's house to interview him. When asked if he is TLM's boyfriend, he laughs and says they're just friends. I think this is when LE became seriously suspicious, except still not enough to take him in for questioning right then and there. Instead, they lost him for the next four days, in spite of him scooting all over London.

IMHO, this is when LE started coming down on TLM like a ton of bricks. They told her that they talked to her "boyfriend" and he denied that they were BF/GF. They probably told her that he laughed and dropped the names of a bunch of other women he was seeing. And voila! Within four days, TLM "confesses" and blames everything on MTR except for the walking away with Tori part. Didn't she even initially say that she left Tori with MTR and went on her merry way? Typical TLM revenge, if you ask me.

(Above contains some undisputed facts and some guesswork on my part.)

JMO

snoofer
04-29-2012, 07:30 PM
MR didn't have permission to be with VS, but he may have thought TLM did.

If it was not his intent to kidnap VS, or sexually assault her..........there can be no finding of first degree murder, because TLM has confessed to the murder.

Therefore what MR's intentions were relating to the abduction are the most important part of the case.

If the defense can show evidence that TLM abducted VS for her own reasons, that would provide support for a lack of intent by MR.

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

yes with her interaction with even the guards you get a picture of oppositional and defiant type person, every small thing is a production and an exercise in futility. Many times in that situation the consequences are delayed, because it is a youth facility, as this person would always be a write-up, always be on reprimand. JMO No I do not think that MTR controlled TLM nor do I think she controlled him...except for one small thing MTR tried...to keep her mouth shut with manipulation. MOO As would be expected, she didn't do what he told her. Once TLM found out she was being manipulated; she sang like a bird! JMO I don't think she necessarily wanted revenge; I think it is the nature of oppositional and defiant people to "do the opposite" when they realize that someone is trying to control them or manipulate their emotions. Rebel even at the cost to themselves. I think she sent him a message; loud and clear. JMO

otto
04-29-2012, 07:38 PM
According to the Tweets, TLM had only 6 approved visitors: her mother, her aunt, her lawyer, her welfare worker, her parole officer, and (not approved until April 27) MTR. I don't suppose that anyone there, other than MTR, would be under suspicion by LE. Strangely, he waited 10 days after approval before his first visit (May 8) and then had only one more (May 12) before he was arrested.

As I wrote before, I do not believe that LE were quite suspicious enough ... or why didn't they add audio surveillance to her visits? They have admitted to bugging TM's house and implied that there was other surreptitious audio surveillance going on (I assume that was the "limo ride" sting, and probably others), so why not this? My opinion is that, in spite of what TLM's neighbours told LE, TLM and MTR were not serious suspects until May 14th or May 15th - AFTER MTR's last visit to Genest.

MTR was present for TLM's hearings for the parole violations on May 14 and 15th. So was LE. On the day of the 2nd appearance, LE took TLM aside to a private room in the courthouse and had a talk with her. I'm guessing that that's when they asked her about MTR. She had to tell them that he was her boyfriend because that's what she listed on her detention centre application to allow him phone calls and visits.

On that same night (May 15), LE shows up at MTR's house to interview him. When asked if he is TLM's boyfriend, he laughs and says they're just friends. I think this is when LE became seriously suspicious, except still not enough to take him in for questioning right then and there. Instead, they lost him for the next four days, in spite of him scooting all over London.

IMHO, this is when LE started coming down on TLM like a ton of bricks. They told her that they talked to her "boyfriend" and he denied that they were BF/GF. They probably told her that he laughed and dropped the names of a bunch of other women he was seeing. And voila! Within four days, TLM "confesses" and blames everything on MTR except for the walking away with Tori part. Didn't she even initially say that she left him with MTR and went on her merry way? Typical TLM revenge, if you ask me.

(Above contains some undisputed facts and some guesswork on my part.)

JMO

According to the prepared answers that TLM was going to give police, she was going to tell them that she met with a friend after speaking with Victoria. Police would have asked for the name of the friend, and then MR would have been at the top of the suspect list.

From previous posts, it sounds like there were privacy issues at play in the detention centre ... simlar to jail. Can investigators wire tap a table in a public visiting area in a jail? In fact, a wiretap application would have to be made for all tables and areas in the visiting area, since choice of seat would be random. I'd be surprised if that was ever possible.

antiquegirl
04-29-2012, 07:46 PM
Even if he provided cab service, he was there from beginning to end, should have reasonably known that something was wrong, did nothing to intervene on behalf of the victim and then proceeded to cover up the crime. He's as guilty as the confessed murderer.

I think that this is where Derstine may consider using the mens rea defence. If he does, it's anyone's guess whether or not it will fly with the jury.

JMO

otto
04-29-2012, 07:51 PM
I think that this is where Derstine may consider using the mens rea defence. If he does, it's anyone's guess whether or not it will fly with the jury.

JMO

It's rather difficult to admit that he knowingly helped cover up the crime, but was unaware that a crime had been committed. He would have to have an IQ of about 60 to make that claim. Let's suppose this 28 year old man thought it was perfectly normal to take a child from her school, drive her to a secluded place, remove half her clothes and violently murder her. Then, he knew enough was wrong that he helped cover up the crime and then did everything he could to prevent investigators from discovering that crime ... that just doesn't add up. Even duped men know how to do the right thing after the fact when a child has been abducted and murdered.

Heliotrope
04-29-2012, 07:59 PM
Just for reference:

proof -/pruf/ noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law . (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

Note that proof doesn't have to be an HD, surround-sound video of the event, a la Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, to be considered proof. Sorry if that upsets people...JMO.

antiquegirl
04-29-2012, 08:01 PM
According to the prepared answers that TLM was going to give police, she was going to tell them that she met with a friend after speaking with Victoria. Police would have asked for the name of the friend, and then MR would have been at the top of the suspect list.

From previous posts, it sounds like there were privacy issues at play in the detention centre ... simlar to jail. Can investigators wire tap a table in a public visiting area in a jail? In fact, a wiretap application would have to be made for all tables and areas in the visiting area, since choice of seat would be random. I'd be surprised if that was ever possible.

Of course there are privacy issues everywhere, including TM's home. That shouldn't deter a missing child/suspected murder investigation, as long as a warrant is issued. I've asked around and was told it should be no problem obtaining one. I'm also pretty sure that the technology exists to bug an entire room for sound with just one device. (According to the video, MTR and TLM were the only ones there for both visits.) Besides, those privacy issues didn't seem to extend to video surveillance.

We must not underestimate the powers of LE when they are determined. The problem is, as I wrote, I don't think they were determined enough at that point. Hindsight is 20/20 and I bet they wish now they had been more suspicious at the time. Not that they would ever admit it.

Just MOO!

antiquegirl
04-29-2012, 08:08 PM
It's rather difficult to admit that he knowingly helped cover up the crime, but was unaware that a crime had been committed. He would have to have an IQ of about 60 to make that claim. Let's suppose this 28 year old man thought it was perfectly normal to take a child from her school, drive her to a secluded place, remove half her clothes and violently murder her. Then, he knew enough was wrong that he helped cover up the crime and then did everything he could to prevent investigators from discovering that crime ... that just doesn't add up. Even duped men know how to do the right thing after the fact when a child has been abducted and murdered.

ITA. I'm not disputing any of that. All I'm suggesting is that Derstine may use the mens rea defence to get his charges reduced from 1st to 2nd degree murder, claiming that MTR had no idea at the time of the abduction that it was indeed an abduction and that a murder would ensue.

I am looking forward to what the defence will say this week and when they're done, what the judge's instructions to the jury will be.

JMO

"The mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") of murder is either an intention to kill ... or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_English_law#Mens_rea_.28intention.29

otto
04-29-2012, 08:09 PM
Of course there are privacy issues everywhere, including TM's home. That shouldn't deter a missing child/suspected murder investigation, as long as a warrant is issued. I've asked around and was told it should be no problem obtaining one. I'm also pretty sure that the technology exists to bug an entire room for sound with just one device. (According to the video, MTR and TLM were the only ones there for both visits.) Besides, those privacy issues didn't seem to extend to video surveillance.

We must not underestimate the powers of LE when they are determined. The problem is, as I wrote, I don't think they were determined enough at that point. Hindsight is 20/20 and I bet they wish now they had been more suspicious at the time. Not that they would ever admit it.

Just MOO!

Do you have a reference for wiretap applications being approved for tables in a public visiting area in a jail or detention centre? How are the rights of all other people using that public area protected?

In my opinion, it's always challenging to make a wiretap application ... nothing routine about it. I'm curious ... what sort of sources are saying it's not a problem to get a wiretap application approved for public spaces?

otto
04-29-2012, 08:14 PM
ITA. I'm not disputing any of that. All I'm suggesting is that Derstine may use the mens rea defence to get his charges reduced from 1st to 2nd degree murder, claiming that MTR had no idea at the time of the abduction that it was indeed an abduction and that a murder would ensue.

I am looking forward to what the defence will say this week and when they're done, what the judge's instructions to the jury will be.

JMO

"The mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") of murder is either an intention to kill ... or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_English_law#Mens_rea_.28intention.29

He was a party to the offence if he willingly did nothing to prevent it. When TLM was kicking the victim, holding a hammer ready to strike her - surely he could predict the outcome ... yet he did nothing.

kmclaren
04-29-2012, 08:25 PM
He was a party to the offence if he willingly did nothing to prevent it. When TLM was kicking the victim, holding a hammer ready to strike her - surely he could predict the outcome ... yet he did nothing.

But then Derstine has suggested MTR had taken a little walk so wouldn't have seen any of this... Even if I try really hard to believe that, I can't and if I were on the jury I think I'd find it an insult to my intelligence. Especially given that such a Blackberry addict like MTR didn't use his "walk away while Tori is murdered time" to catch up on his texts, messages and calls he had missed over the past 3 hours. IMO, he's guilty as charged...

otto
04-29-2012, 08:32 PM
But then Derstine has suggested MTR had taken a little walk so wouldn't have seen any of this... Even if I try really hard to believe that, I can't and if I were on the jury I think I'd find it an insult to my intelligence. Especially given that such a Blackberry addict like MTR didn't use his "walk away while Tori is murdered time" to catch up on his texts, messages and calls he had missed over the past 3 hours. IMO, he's guilty as charged...

Let's suppose that he didn't see the murder. Any responsible, upstanding man that was driving around the countryside with a stranger's child would have spoken with the child when he was alone with her (while TLM was purchasing the murder weapon). Are we to believe that Victoria did not ask him to let her go, that she did not communicate her distress in any way, that MR was completely unaware that what he was doing was wrong? That's impossible.

antiquegirl
04-29-2012, 08:36 PM
Do you have a reference for wiretap applications being approved for tables in a public visiting area in a jail or detention centre? How are the rights of all other people using that public area protected?

In my opinion, it's always challenging to make a wiretap application ... nothing routine about it. I'm curious ... what sort of sources are saying it's not a problem to get a wiretap application approved for public spaces?

I asked one friend who is a lawyer and another who has worked as a law clerk for 20 years. The problem that usually arises is not about getting a warrant, but about installing wiretaps without one. Even those are currently permitted when it's deemed an emergency.


The RCMP started wiretapping immediately after they learned of the kidnapping and only obtained the necessary judicial authorization 24 hours later.


At trial, the judge ruled the police violated the Charter of Rights, but admitted the wiretap evidence anyway.


The ruling made it clear that allowing police the power to intercept a private communication without a warrant does not inherently represent a charter breach.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/13/supreme-court-wiretap-law_n_1423416.html

I'm only going by what I was told, do not have time for more research, and am merely stating my opinion - that a detention centre already equipped with video cameras, and where a child's life is at stake, would fall under the type of situation where a judge would not hesitate to issue a warrant for a wiretap ... had LE been suspicious enough to apply for one. There would be no need to activate it until the meeting between MTR and TLM took place and deactivated afterward.

All MOO!

tmhco
04-29-2012, 08:36 PM
But then Derstine has suggested MTR had taken a little walk so wouldn't have seen any of this... Even if I try really hard to believe that, I can't and if I were on the jury I think I'd find it an insult to my intelligence. Especially given that such a Blackberry addict like MTR didn't use his "walk away while Tori is murdered time" to catch up on his texts, messages and calls he had missed over the past 3 hours. IMO, he's guilty as charged...

You read my mind. That is the nail in the coffin! JMO

otto
04-29-2012, 08:45 PM
I asked one friend who is a lawyer and another who has worked as a law clerk for 20 years. The problem that usually arises is not about getting a warrant, but about installing wiretaps without one. Even those are currently permitted when it's deemed an emergency.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/13/supreme-court-wiretap-law_n_1423416.html

I'm only going by what I was told, do not have time for more research, and am merely stating my opinion - that a detention centre already equipped with video cameras, and where a child's life is at stake, would fall under the type of situation where a judge would not hesitate to issue a warrant for a wiretap ... had LE been suspicious enough to apply for one. There would be no need to activate it until the meeting between MTR and TLM took place and deactivated afterward.

All MOO!

It seems like the quotes selected from the article relate to the BC ruling before it was struck down by the supreme court ... what the artcle actually says is that the supreme court did not uphold the BC court decision to allow wiretap without a warrant.

From your link: "Supreme Court Strikes Down Emergency Exception, Requires Warrants"

"The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down a law that allowed police to immediately start wiretaps in urgent cases without getting a search warrant."

Additionally, law clerks and lawyers have little to do with wiretap applications. Prosecutors write them up and, from what I've heard, they meticulously comb through the document after they draft it to ensure that there is not one single error ... any small error results in the application being rejected. It is no small feat to make a wiretap application and I seriously doubt that one would ever be granted for a public space in a detention centre.

roseofsharon
04-29-2012, 08:49 PM
Let's suppose that he didn't see the murder. Any responsible, upstanding man that was driving around the countryside with a stranger's child would have spoken with the child when he was alone with her (while TLM was purchasing the murder weapon). Are we to believe that Victoria did not ask him to let her go, that she did not communicate her distress in any way, that MR was completely unaware that what he was doing was wrong? That's impossible.

Unless TLM had given TS something to sedate her enough to induce sleep and then perhaps there was no opportunity for MR to converse with TS before arriving at the crime scene. MOO

Footnote: However, this is just a possible scenario, however, I really think TS probably did tell MR she wanted to go home several times throughout this time and I don't think MR thought TLM was babysitting. IMO, he was in the plan all the way and IMO, the mastermind. MOO

gardenia
04-29-2012, 08:57 PM
We have heard evidence that there were a lot of drugs in that car - we can only hope VS was sedated.

snoofer
04-29-2012, 09:01 PM
refuting devils advocate:

Scenario. TLM thinks someone owes her money or drugs.

Takes TS; tells MTR babysitting. TS acts normal.
MTR goes to care home to pick TLM up where she told him to.

TLM contacts that someone and says a. give me money or b. return drugs You have til such and such a time or you don't get TS back.

Something goes wrong. The "someone" a. can't get the money together b. no longer has the drugs.

Meanwhile someone else has called LE; didn't know there was this bargaining going on.
MTR stops for money, he likes to have it on him. TLM says great I have to go to HD for something. MTR doesn't question.

The first someone tells TLM; police have been called, drop her off somewhere.
TLM thinking about what to do; tells MTR TS is kidnapped. Asks MTR to find somewhere quiet so she can think things out. MTR takes her to the rural spot. He goes for a walk and thinks about the crap position he has been put in.

TLM gets panicked, thinks about jail...kills TS. She is pissed, everything has gone wrong, wrong wrong. She takes it out on TS. She regains composure; then thinks I can blame it on MTR.
MTR returns from walk; holy crap TLM killed her. TLM tells him help me clean up or I will have my gang after you. Her gang told her not to let those others get away with stiffing her.
Covers up crime.
MTR cleans up; still pondering what he should do. He is afraid of this murderer and her gang

Goes about her life til picked up by LE on probation violation.
MTR knows he is in between rock and a hard place so he keeps on TLM good side and visits etc so she doesn't sick her gang on him or his family, lies to LE and hopes that nothing will lead back to them

How would defense get past;
a. he did not have the right to have TS in his car; he may have thought he did, but legally he did not...it is kidnapping as he did not have the permission. Or is that not legally the case.
b. when he was informed TS was kidnapped, at that very moment of finding out; why did he not 1. protect Tori from the kidnapper ie never leave her for a moment with TLM 2. call police 3. flat out refuse to clean up and leave the area and call LE Fear is not an excuse to disobey the law, is it? In the immediate sense he was bigger than TLM, had a knife. So he failed to protect TS, didn't report the crime, messed with a crime scene, and lied to LE during a crime investigation, and got rid of evidence...because he was afraid of his immediate self or fear of down the road of TLM and her gang. Did she have a gun? Could he have not crashed the car if that was the case.

Was he truly more afraid of TLM at that moment and her gang in the future than he would be of LE, prison, the disgust of society and his family?

Legal experts, IF a scenario like that presented itself, would the law excuse his illegal behavior because he was afraid for his safety?? Second thought perhaps if in hands of a jury it would depend on how they feel?

The judge would I guess lay down guidelines for the law.

Not so sure the law would allow you to let a young life pass because you knowingly leave the child with a kidnapper alone and not be held legally accountable or allow you to cover it up out of fear and not be held legally accountable. JMO Does anyone know where the law stands on that?

If that were the case then the charges would be what? MOO

Perhaps Otto can speak to the legal aspects in a scenario such as that. You seem to have a good grasp of the law and lawyery stuff :O)

otto
04-29-2012, 09:12 PM
And how does that relate to the escort and drug debt scenario ... or is that unrelated?

crazyladi
04-29-2012, 09:21 PM
Okay so I have read all of these posts over the weekend and I'm sorry there is no way Mtr didn't know vs was kidnapped period. I'm sorry that is ridiculous.

He knew exactly what was going on.

I think they took her originally so he could rape her and they stopped at home depot because they realized who she was and there was no way to bring her back without tm finding out it was TLM that was involved.

He didn't walk away he was there the whole time or he would have been on his phone.

I think he truly believed that she would take the fall and he was trying to make sure if it.

He had many secrets and I don't think he confided in too many people and that is why there is much known about him.

The crown did a great job and they stayed with the facts of what happened.

I don't buy all of these post that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Two mentally unstable people met one day and they both acted on their deep dark fantasies.

The jury will not be fooled.

He will be in jail and they will find him guilty of all charges.

JMO

snoofer
04-29-2012, 09:21 PM
And how does that relate to the escort and drug debt scenario ... or is that unrelated?

unrelated i guess in that scenario lol MOO, except that he was in addition to a dupe he was a drug dealer and receiver of escort money. How is that. MOO

What does the law say if this scenario is presented Otto.

Ardy
04-29-2012, 09:32 PM
In Canada, intent is a crucial element in all criminal charges.

For the jury to find MR guilty of kidnapping, the Crown must first prove that all of the elements of the charge were fulfilled.

Was it MR's intent to kidnap VS.....or was he unknowingly involved?

As to cleaning up the crime scene, MR has not been charged with obstruction of justice or any of a number of charges he could be charged with for this offense.

I would be confident that if found not guilty on the current charges, the Crown would lay charges against him for those offenses.

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

Ardy
04-29-2012, 09:39 PM
Whatever happened to the pea coat?

The pea coat was supposed to be a crucial piece of evidence, that many thought would support TLM's testimony that VS was hidden in the back seat area covered by it.

The pea coat was recovered. It was examined. It did have lots of DNA on it.

But it didn't have any DNA from VS on it.

How could that be?

No hair fibers......no saliva........no mucus...........nothing from VS.

Forensics could tell if the coat had been cleaned.......but mentioned nothing about the presence of cleaning fluids.

Was TLM lying or telling the truth?

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

Ardy
04-29-2012, 09:43 PM
Snoofer..........

Your devil's advocate synopsis is pretty much what I expect the defense case will be...........but they will need supporting testimony or evidence.......IMO.

We will see what they bring to court.

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

maxfactor
04-29-2012, 09:54 PM
Okay so I have read all of these posts over the weekend and I'm sorry there is no way Mtr didn't know vs was kidnapped period. I'm sorry that is ridiculous.

He knew exactly what was going on.

I think they took her originally so he could rape her and they stopped at home depot because they realized who she was and there was no way to bring her back without tm finding out it was TLM that was involved.

He didn't walk away he was there the whole time or he would have been on his phone.

I think he truly believed that she would take the fall and he was trying to make sure if it.

He had many secrets and I don't think he confided in too many people and that is why there is much known about him.

The crown did a great job and they stayed with the facts of what happened.

I don't buy all of these post that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Two mentally unstable people met one day and they both acted on their deep dark fantasies.

The jury will not be fooled.

He will be in jail and they will find him guilty of all charges.

JMO

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you have said!!! I also think that what Derstine did for MR was to have certain things excluded from evidence. It may be because those things would go to his character, I'm not sure. Judging from the timing of days off for legal arguments I think the Crown wanted to ask questions of some of those women that the defense wasn't going to let them ask. I still am wondering about his laptop also. There was another day off court for legal arguments during the Blackberry chapter. I think there is a lot that we don't know and won't know until the jury deliberates. Maybe Otto could answer something for me, if evidence was excluded that could have gone to motive, say sexual proclivities or violence and he is found not guilty by this jury, can the Crown appeal on the basis that the evidence should have been allowed? This is all just MOO of course.

roseofsharon
04-29-2012, 09:56 PM
Whatever happened to the pea coat?

The pea coat was supposed to be a crucial piece of evidence, that many thought would support TLM's testimony that VS was hidden in the back seat area covered by it.

The pea coat was recovered. It was examined. It did have lots of DNA on it.

But it didn't have any DNA from VS on it.

How could that be?

No hair fibers......no saliva........no mucus...........nothing from VS.

Forensics could tell if the coat had been cleaned.......but mentioned nothing about the presence of cleaning fluids.

Was TLM lying or telling the truth?

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

It appears MR is wearing his pea coat in the video at the bank machine, but it is very odd that blonde hairs were removed from the coat for examination, but were not TS's. I think the hairs were on the coat, not positive on that. Maybe TLM was mistaken about what covered TS in the back of the car; it could have been something else. There was certainly enough back there to use something else. MOO

swedie
04-29-2012, 09:59 PM
MR is guilty in my opinion and here's why I believe.

1. MR was very familiar with the Mount Forest, Guelph area
2. For a little chat, there was no need to drive to this secluded spot
3. Tori found naked from the waist down and I do not believe TLM staged this because
4. Tori's blood and sperm factions mixed and found on door moulding of MR's car
5. There was probably more blood and sperm evidence but it was all cleaned away with the trip to the car wash that night and also Jessica M. testified she had helped MR clean his car. MR probably made numerous attempts to cleaning evidence from his car after Tori's rape and murder also
6. The rates are very high on children being abducted for sexual assault
7. MR allowed Tori in his car when in reality he would know if caught, he could be charged with abduction
8. He went to ATM to take money out for TLM to purchase the murder weapon
9. If Tori wasn't abducted and she was afraid of MR, why didn't he insist TLM take her into HD with her
10. The videos putting him in Guelph at the ATM stop, HD where we see him getting out of his car on the driver side, back in and then driving a bit closer to HD where we see TLM getting out of the passenger side and back in after shopping
11. Police state Tori was abducted for nefarious and sexual purposes and do not allude to drug debt theory
12. MR telling TLM, we can't keep her and we can't take her back, you know I'm going to F&^% her, you're in this just as far as I am, you'd do anything for a little bit of love, good things are comming (sic) my way
13. MR driving past OSPS at least three times that day
14. MR parked in the nursing home parking lot hoping no one would see them shoving Tori into MR's car
15. All the women MR was using for financial and sexual gain who he showed no respect to
16. His cell phone pings
17. MR did not use his BB during the time he supposedly went for a walk while TLM staged rape and murder Tori hoping to blame the only person she felt loved her
18. MR was addicted to his BB and it's inconceivable he would not take it with him on his little walk
19. A little chat with Tori which could have taken place right there in MR's car while MR was not present
20. Tori's and MR's blood found on MR's gym bag
21. The missing back seat from MR's car
22. The little piece of material found on the floor of MR's car showing his back seat was cut to remove blood and semen evidence
23. The lack of Derstine trying to plant reasonable doubt in his cross examinations of all the witnesses and lack of cross examining some witnesses
24. Derstine being evasive as to whether any witnesses will take the stand
25. Derstine being evasive as to whether MR will take the stand in his own defense
26. MR's facial expressions during some witnesses testimony
27. MR's lack of interest while some witnesses on the stand, especially those with scientific evidence (telling strong evidence)
28. Changing of clothing after the murder and burial
29. Throwing away evidence
30. If he was duped, one would think MR may have wanted to hold onto at least the murder weapon to prove TLM's DNA was on it. No he got rid of everything, so he thought
31. There was no logical reason why MR didn't take TLM and Tori into BA's house and especially when she testified he didn't seem to be in a hurry, spending about ten minutes with her
32. TLM's statements she abducted Tori for MR at his request
33. TLM's testimony
34. MR's lies to LE during interview
35. His claims and even posts on sites claiming to be searching or wanting to search for Tori when he knew all along where she was and what happened to her.
36. MR's lies about his unsubstantiated education and careers
37. MR's secretive life and past troubled life according to some women
38. MR's shady life style; pimping, unemployed, seemingly lack of male friends
39. The purchase of the hair dye by MR for TLM to disguise herself three days after the murder and two days after the CASS video came to light
40. His shoes found in TLM house
41. Found his dupe in TLM who would do anything including an abduction for his sick sexual desire. Anything for a little bit of love.

These are just some of the reasons I believe he will be found guilty. MOO
Anyone feel free to add on. Would be interesting to see someone compile a list as to why MR is not guilty. Again Moo

maxfactor
04-29-2012, 10:01 PM
Whatever happened to the pea coat?

The pea coat was supposed to be a crucial piece of evidence, that many thought would support TLM's testimony that VS was hidden in the back seat area covered by it.

The pea coat was recovered. It was examined. It did have lots of DNA on it.

But it didn't have any DNA from VS on it.

How could that be?

No hair fibers......no saliva........no mucus...........nothing from VS.

Forensics could tell if the coat had been cleaned.......but mentioned nothing about the presence of cleaning fluids.

Was TLM lying or telling the truth?

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

I don't remember seeing a tweet where they were asked if the coat had been cleaned and I can see how that question might be prejudicial so perhaps the Crown wasn't able to ask it. On the other hand why didn't Derstine ask that question? If the coat had not been cleaned that would have been in MR's favor. Now that I think about it there were a lot of questions that Derstine should have asked and didn't. Maybe he knew what the answers would be. MOO

snoofer
04-29-2012, 10:19 PM
I don't remember seeing a tweet where they were asked if the coat had been cleaned and I can see how that question might be prejudicial so perhaps the Crown wasn't able to ask it. On the other hand why didn't Derstine ask that question? If the coat had not been cleaned that would have been in MR's favor. Now that I think about it there were a lot of questions that Derstine should have asked and didn't. Maybe he knew what the answers would be. MOO

Very good point!!!

Crown could be holding back too; I believe they get rebuttal of defense evidence if I remember my high school law class. Now don't laugh Otto, I got the highest mark on the exam my teacher told me. ;O)

Salem
04-29-2012, 10:39 PM
I agree wholeheartedly with everything you have said!!! I also think that what Derstine did for MR was to have certain things excluded from evidence. It may be because those things would go to his character, I'm not sure. Judging from the timing of days off for legal arguments I think the Crown wanted to ask questions of some of those women that the defense wasn't going to let them ask. I still am wondering about his laptop also. There was another day off court for legal arguments during the Blackberry chapter. I think there is a lot that we don't know and won't know until the jury deliberates. Maybe Otto could answer something for me, if evidence was excluded that could have gone to motive, say sexual proclivities or violence and he is found not guilty by this jury, can the Crown appeal on the basis that the evidence should have been allowed? This is all just MOO of course.

I'm not Otto, but from what I understand from the posting of others, the appeal will have to be based on judicial error during the trial. That means if some evidence was excluded and the Crown finds it necessary to appeal, they will have to show, on a legal basis, that the judge made an error. In the US that argument would be made based on prior precedent. Not sure how it is done in Canada.

Salem

Salem
04-29-2012, 10:42 PM
I don't remember seeing a tweet where they were asked if the coat had been cleaned and I can see how that question might be prejudicial so perhaps the Crown wasn't able to ask it. On the other hand why didn't Derstine ask that question? If the coat had not been cleaned that would have been in MR's favor. Now that I think about it there were a lot of questions that Derstine should have asked and didn't. Maybe he knew what the answers would be. MOO

I would also caution that the question may very well have been asked and answered, but the info was not tweeted. The jury has a lot more info then we do.

I know a few posters have been in court but they are not allowed to say anything about anything that was not in the media - so they couldn't tell us, even if they knew.

It's a good point you make that if the question was not asked by the defense, there was probably a reason for it.

Salem

Macright
04-29-2012, 10:51 PM
He was a party to the offence if he willingly did nothing to prevent it. When TLM was kicking the victim, holding a hammer ready to strike her - surely he could predict the outcome ... yet he did nothing.

respectfully..do you know for a fact that he did nothing...the kicking and the stomping would have eventually led to her death...she was only a mite of a little girl and I would imagine TLM used a lot of force when she stomped on that little girl crushing her ribs and damage to her liver and god knows what other organs of her body....I wish people would not state things as fact but use the symbol IMO...this is how things are taken out of context and people run with it as actual fact...and by the way what has his age got to do with anything...yes he was 28 and the other thing was ten years younger but she was a lot more street wise than he was..he could have been the same age and the results would have been the same... another thing...people state for a fact that because there was a male involved and the child was found without clothing that therefore there had to be a rape...huh...yes if MR was the only one there besides TS..then yes I could see how people could think that..stands to reason BUT in this case we had a person like TLM also there and I won't go into detail about her because we all know just what kind of an evil despicable person she is...JMO

paris_paris
04-29-2012, 10:57 PM
Snoofer..........

Your devil's advocate synopsis is pretty much what I expect the defense case will be...........but they will need supporting testimony or evidence.......IMO.

We will see what they bring to court.

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

I've been away all weekend and just reading the last page and Snoofer's synopsis.

Had an "omg" moment... what if Snoofer was Derstine testing out his synopsis here to see how we would pick it apart and then he could adjust it to something more believable.

sorry Snoofer :/

Macright
04-29-2012, 10:59 PM
Let's suppose that he didn't see the murder. Any responsible, upstanding man that was driving around the countryside with a stranger's child would have spoken with the child when he was alone with her (while TLM was purchasing the murder weapon). Are we to believe that Victoria did not ask him to let her go, that she did not communicate her distress in any way, that MR was completely unaware that what he was doing was wrong? That's impossible.


maybe at that time TS still thought that TLM was babysitting her and maybe he did speak with her..we don't know that he didn't...there is no audio from inside of the car....JMO

crazyladi
04-29-2012, 11:00 PM
respectfully..do you know for a fact that he did nothing...the kicking and the stomping would have eventually led to her death...she was only a mite of a little girl and I would imagine TLM used a lot of force when she stomped on that little girl crushing her ribs and damage to her liver and god knows what other organs of her body....I wish people would not state things as fact but use the symbol IMO...this is how things are taken out of context and people run with it as actual fact...and by the way what has his age got to do with anything...yes he was 28 and the other thing was ten years younger but she was a lot more street wise than he was..he could have been the same age and the results would have been the same... another thing...people state for a fact that because there was a male involved and the child was found without clothing that therefore there had to be a rape...huh...yes if MR was the only one there besides TS..then yes I could see how people could think that..stands to reason BUT in this case we had a person like TLM also there and I won't go into detail about her because we all know just what kind of an evil despicable person she is...JMO

How do you know she was more streetwise?

Macright
04-29-2012, 11:08 PM
How do you know she was more streetwise?


well her record that has been released in court and other sources led me to that conclusion...haven't heard anything like that about MR.other than taking $$$ from an escort for their arranged business deal....JMO I think we can assume that TLM was not teaching sunday school....JMO

crazyladi
04-29-2012, 11:14 PM
I disagree. No one knows what kind of life Mtr had. I truly believe they both were. Jmo.

crazyladi
04-29-2012, 11:15 PM
well her record that has been released in court and other sources led me to that conclusion...haven't heard anything like that about MR.other than taking $$$ from an escort for their arranged business deal....JMO I think we can assume that TLM was not teaching sunday school....JMO

Plus you don't need a record to be street smart

kmclaren
04-29-2012, 11:15 PM
maybe at that time TS still thought that TLM was babysitting her and maybe he did speak with her..we don't know that he didn't...there is no audio from inside of the car....JMO

What makes you think Tori thought she was being babysat? Tori had no reason to be with a babysitter - her mom was at home waiting for her and she had friends coming over to watch a movie after school, which she was reportedly very excited about. She thought she was going to have a quick look at a puppy (IMO)...

kmclaren
04-29-2012, 11:23 PM
I've been away all weekend and just reading the last page and Snoofer's synopsis.

Had an "omg" moment... what if Snoofer was Derstine testing out his synopsis here to see how we would pick it apart and then he could adjust it to something more believable.

sorry Snoofer :/

Wouldn't that be unethical? Maybe not illegal but don't lawyers have a code of ethics for their profession? I just can't see playing out scenarios and bantering back and forth on the internet while defending someone on trial for kidnapping, rape and 1st degree murder would be OK... Then again, I'm not a lawyer but I am in a profession that has a code of conduct where that type of behaviour would not be OK! JMO as usual...

eta - snoofer, i don't think you're derstine btw!!

tmhco
04-29-2012, 11:56 PM
Whatever happened to the pea coat?

The pea coat was supposed to be a crucial piece of evidence, that many thought would support TLM's testimony that VS was hidden in the back seat area covered by it.

The pea coat was recovered. It was examined. It did have lots of DNA on it.

But it didn't have any DNA from VS on it.

How could that be?

No hair fibers......no saliva........no mucus...........nothing from VS.

Forensics could tell if the coat had been cleaned.......but mentioned nothing about the presence of cleaning fluids.

Was TLM lying or telling the truth?

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

It was draped over the child. What would you expect to find 3 months later. JMO

otto
04-29-2012, 11:57 PM
In Canada, intent is a crucial element in all criminal charges.

For the jury to find MR guilty of kidnapping, the Crown must first prove that all of the elements of the charge were fulfilled.

Was it MR's intent to kidnap VS.....or was he unknowingly involved?

As to cleaning up the crime scene, MR has not been charged with obstruction of justice or any of a number of charges he could be charged with for this offense.

I would be confident that if found not guilty on the current charges, the Crown would lay charges against him for those offenses.

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

I'm not seeing a problem with intent. What reasonable explanation is there for a 28 year old man to take an 8 year old abducted girl to the middle of no where and then not tell anyone what he did? Would anyone believe that he thought this is how children are babysat?

tmhco
04-29-2012, 11:58 PM
respectfully..do you know for a fact that he did nothing...the kicking and the stomping would have eventually led to her death...she was only a mite of a little girl and I would imagine TLM used a lot of force when she stomped on that little girl crushing her ribs and damage to her liver and god knows what other organs of her body....I wish people would not state things as fact but use the symbol IMO...this is how things are taken out of context and people run with it as actual fact...and by the way what has his age got to do with anything...yes he was 28 and the other thing was ten years younger but she was a lot more street wise than he was..he could have been the same age and the results would have been the same... another thing...people state for a fact that because there was a male involved and the child was found without clothing that therefore there had to be a rape...huh...yes if MR was the only one there besides TS..then yes I could see how people could think that..stands to reason BUT in this case we had a person like TLM also there and I won't go into detail about her because we all know just what kind of an evil despicable person she is...JMO


And why do you believe she was stomped and kicked by TLM?

swedie
04-30-2012, 12:24 AM
unrelated i guess in that scenario lol MOO, except that he was in addition to a dupe he was a drug dealer and receiver of escort money. How is that. MOO

What does the law say if this scenario is presented Otto.

Hey Snoof you're on a roll today *thumbs up*

We know Tori was not abducted over a drug debt because:

a) There was no call made to TM asking for the drug debt to be paid or ransom or she would never see her child again
b) Tori died with hours of being abducted
c) TM stated it was JG who had the minor drug debt and not herself
d) Tori was abducted for sexual purposes for MR as evidence fits
e) LE have never alluded to a drug debt this is just Derstine's spun story I believe he is going to use and IMHO it's laughable now knowing what we know through all the testimonies
f) seems MR was the one who was buying and selling drugs, showing up at TLM's house in order for her to get him drugs from associates. If CM was a supplier, I'm sure the Crown would have brought that forward as to who else MR was buying drugs from
g) TLM was falling in love with a dupe and would do anything for a little bit of love such as abducting a child for his wacked desires
h) TLM never said anything on the stand about a drug debt
i) TLM admitted Tori was abducted for MR on a dare

And the list goes on and on. Phew drug debt...go ahead Derstine spin it. I'm sure the jurors won't buy it. I see this case closing in fast and hard on MR. I bet the Crown will chew Derstine's spun story to shreds. MOO

Just curious to those who believe MR is being wrongly accused or duped or innocent. What's your take going to be should the jury find him guilty? Will you think he got an unfair trial or will you then believe the verdict? We are at a crossroad right now. I believe the only thing left is the closing arguments. As I've stated before, IMO I don't believe Derstine will call witnesses and I do not see MR taking the stand in his own defense. So in reality there could be no more evidence to come, just an argument coming from each side. Remember whatever Derstine says, more than likely will likely not be backed up by evidence, whereas the Crown has presented lots of evidence and TLM's testimony to back that evidence.

If he has the truth, it should be so easy for Derstine to prove MR's innocence. Derstine has already admitted that MR was there through the abduction and helped cover up the murder, therefore he will be found guilty of those two charges. The sexual assault IMHO is proven with the blood and sperm evidence, Tori naked from the waist down. It doesn't get any clearer then that. The rest of circumstantial evidence is a cherry on top. The clock is ticking. MOO

Macright
04-30-2012, 12:25 AM
s
And why do you believe she was stomped and kicked by TLM?


Because I believe it was TLM who did the killing..JMO she confessed to the killing so I believe it was TLM and her alone who did the stomping and kicking and also swung the hammer...JMO

http://canindia.com/2012/04/tori-stafford-jury-to-hear-about-evidence-from-raffertys-home/ I could ask you the same question...who do you think did the deed...

sillybilly
04-30-2012, 12:52 AM
It appears MR is wearing his pea coat in the video at the bank machine, but it is very odd that blonde hairs were removed from the coat for examination, but were not TS's. I think the hairs were on the coat, not positive on that. Maybe TLM was mistaken about what covered TS in the back of the car; it could have been something else. There was certainly enough back there to use something else. MOO

Given he was wearing the coat earlier but not while driving when Tori was with them, then IMO it is quite plausible that it was in the car, and covering Tori as claimed by TLM.

swedie
04-30-2012, 04:01 AM
Plus you don't need a record to be street smart

And if MR had a juvie record, it would not be admissible in court. Depending on other records, he may have asked for a pardon and granted one. TLM seems to be more "in your face" while MR seems to be more secretive and cagey. I would think that because MR didn't share information about his life with others, it was because it was not good, full of troubles. Look at how many women he duped and none seemed the wiser he was fooling around not only with one, but many at the same time. MOO

swedie
04-30-2012, 04:33 AM
respectfully..do you know for a fact that he did nothing...the kicking and the stomping would have eventually led to her death...she was only a mite of a little girl and I would imagine TLM used a lot of force when she stomped on that little girl crushing her ribs and damage to her liver and god knows what other organs of her body....I wish people would not state things as fact but use the symbol IMO...this is how things are taken out of context and people run with it as actual fact...and by the way what has his age got to do with anything...yes he was 28 and the other thing was ten years younger but she was a lot more street wise than he was..he could have been the same age and the results would have been the same... another thing...people state for a fact that because there was a male involved and the child was found without clothing that therefore there had to be a rape...huh...yes if MR was the only one there besides TS..then yes I could see how people could think that..stands to reason BUT in this case we had a person like TLM also there and I won't go into detail about her because we all know just what kind of an evil despicable person she is...JMO

TLM admitted to kicking Tori but MR IMHO did much worse by sexually abusing Tori and what more than likely transpired during the sexual assault. We do not know what he did to her after he was done sexually assaulting her. I have said before I fear he probably punched her because her lack of cooperation was getting the better of him. If Tori was giving him a hard time and he was not having the sick thrill or fun his warped mind had anticipated, MR could have done numerous harmful things to Tori before throwing her out of his car, to the ground. As we know TLM was not present while MR was raping Tori. She was off taking in her surroundings and being on the lookout for MR. One would think something besides sexual assault happened in the back seat of his car in order for Tori to be lying on the ground moaning. Otherwise I would think Tori may very well have gotten up and ran to TLM for protection. At at least got to a sitting position or standing. But she wasn't, she was lying on the ground already wounded. MOO

In the eight weeks of Rafferty’s trial, the jury has heard from 61 witnesses, seen hundreds of photos, and watched a lot of surveillance video. Fifteen of those witnesses were women Rafferty dated in the spring of 2009.

All to prove McClintic’s story.

The video corroborated McClintic’s testimony about events of that day.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1169021--tori-stafford-trial-how-the-crown-went-after-michael-rafferty

swedie
04-30-2012, 04:44 AM
A man whose lawyer has suggested he was nothing more than a horrified witness to the murder of Victoria Stafford at the hands of his girlfriend is seen on video with the woman a month later flexing his muscles for her and drawing her in for a long embrace.

But McClintic's arrest and detention apparently did not deter Rafferty from trying to keep in near-constant communication with her, records show.

Over the next month about 30 calls were exchanged between Rafferty's BlackBerry and the Genest Detention Centre, records show.

Rafferty visited McClintic there twice — on May 8 and 12 — and surveillance video with no audio played in court Wednesday shows the two laughing and joking around, with Rafferty prancing around as if modelling his clothes, flexing his biceps for her and at times reaching across the table to stroke her hair or brush it out of her face.

When he arrives and when he leaves, Rafferty and McClintic embrace for intimate, lingering hugs.

McClintic has testified that when they were leaving Woodstock that day, Rafferty took the battery out of his phone and put it back in once they arrived in Guelph, where he bought the Percocets.

The next gap in Rafferty's phone use came between 5:05 and 7:46 p.m. According to McClintic's testimony, Tori was raped and killed around that time, as it was beginning to get dark.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/25/michael-rafferty-hug-video-surveillance_n_1451224.html

swedie
04-30-2012, 04:56 AM
Yet through a timeline of phone calls and showing of Genest surveillance video, the Crown painted a picture Wednesday of Rafferty keen on keeping in touch with McClintic and showing no signs of being horrified with her behaviour.

The two contacted each other at least 97 times through cellphone calls or texts between April 9 and May 19, the day McClintic and Rafferty were arrested. He visited her once at Woodstock courthouse when she had a hearing on an unrelated charge and visited her twice in Genest while she was in custody on that charge.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/25/19680036.html

snoofer
04-30-2012, 05:59 AM
I really wonder if the defense is going to try and gain sympathy from the jurors as part of their defense tactic. I say this because Derstine hasn't denied he was there but making him a "victim" to this crime. Since alot of his dirty laundry has come out in regards to his lifestyle, the only way I can foresee the jury buying (which I think they won't regardless) this victimhood is by the defense trying to portray little boy blue, how unfortunate his life has been for him etc....

except that he appeared to be "living the life of Riley". No work, living off girlfriends and mother. Zipping here, zipping there. Lot of time at the gym, and shopping for the highest fashions, a BB to coordinate his criminal life and keep track of his social calendar. Popping pills, selling drugs, living a dozen lives with other women. Oh yes, he seemed very happy with his arrangements. No responsibility, unlimited sex, saps willing to believe all his lies, money out the wazooka. Someone to wash and cook for him, better standard at mom's (the only working <modsnip>)than say he had to live like most non working people in a place like TLM lived.

Defense will have to knit a whopper to outdo TLM's sad story and make a jury feel he is a victim. Because his lifestyle did not support a victim's story. MOO :O)

snoofer
04-30-2012, 06:12 AM
I've been away all weekend and just reading the last page and Snoofer's synopsis.

Had an "omg" moment... what if Snoofer was Derstine testing out his synopsis here to see how we would pick it apart and then he could adjust it to something more believable.

sorry Snoofer :/

haha, my grade 12 law class has paid off! MOO AND Snoofer would ensure that Derstine pulled his own luggage with his own things in it! :O) Defo not Derstine!

Defense would be worse off than I thought if they had me on the team! MOO Maybe you haven't seen my other posts prior to the synopsis. ;O) JMO

P.S. Anything I know about law is from high school .....and Jack Bauer!

"Why don't you go hide in the shelter with the other children." - Jack Bauer / Who does that remind you of.... MOO

tmhco
04-30-2012, 07:36 AM
s


Because I believe it was TLM who did the killing..JMO she confessed to the killing so I believe it was TLM and her alone who did the stomping and kicking and also swung the hammer...JMO

http://canindia.com/2012/04/tori-stafford-jury-to-hear-about-evidence-from-raffertys-home/ I could ask you the same question...who do you think did the deed...

I honestly don't know. The video of her first confession is so raw with emotion, the genuine emotion you would expect. Her descriptions were accurate, she described hearing things and seeing things. I don't think we will ever know the truth.

I am just surprised at how sure you are that she did. I don't understand how you can believe her testimony yet require much more evidence when it comes to MR. JMO

crazyladi
04-30-2012, 08:14 AM
s


Because I believe it was TLM who did the killing..JMO she confessed to the killing so I believe it was TLM and her alone who did the stomping and kicking and also swung the hammer...JMO

http://canindia.com/2012/04/tori-stafford-jury-to-hear-about-evidence-from-raffertys-home/ I could ask you the same question...who do you think did the deed...

So you dont believe her when she said he raped her but you believe her story that she killed her? I dont get it. How do you know she is telling the truth? Why believe that part and not the rape? The evidence showed that they couldnt determine who killed Tori, so how do you know 100% that it was her, just because she said so?

IMO you either believe her whole confession or you believe none of it. How can you pick and chose what to believe?

You also believe that MTR thought he was babysitting, I dont understand how so. If he didnt have a back seat then why have a child in the car? Why hide the child?

To me some <modsnip> are picking and choosing to believe some of the crowns evidence that leans towards TLM doing everything but believe none of the evidence that shows MTR raped her, abducted her etc.

Boggles my mind.

Anyways this is all JMO

LilyMacBloom
04-30-2012, 08:36 AM
One more sleep!

Wondergirl
04-30-2012, 09:26 AM
Great article, must read.

Edward Greenspan pipes in.



Rafferty's lawyers face tough call

Will Tori Stafford's accused killer testify on his own behalf?

CBC News (http://www.cbc.ca/news/credit.html)

Posted: Apr 30, 2012 6:02 AM ET



One concern in not having an accused testify is that, for some, it makes the accused appear guilty, Greenspan says.

Can lead to 'worst-case scenario'

Leo Adler, a criminal defence lawyer with 37 years of experience, says most juries want to hear the accused say they "didn't do it."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/27/accused-testifying-own-defence.html

Wondergirl
04-30-2012, 09:33 AM
So you dont believe her when she said he raped her but you believe her story that she killed her? I dont get it. How do you know she is telling the truth? Why believe that part and not the rape? The evidence showed that they couldnt determine who killed Tori, so how do you know 100% that it was her, just because she said so?

IMO you either believe her whole confession or you believe none of it. How can you pick and chose what to believe?

You also believe that MTR thought he was babysitting, I dont understand how so. If he didnt have a back seat then why have a child in the car? Why hide the child?

To me some <modsnip> are picking and choosing to believe some of the crowns evidence that leans towards TLM doing everything but believe none of the evidence that shows MTR raped her, abducted her etc.

Boggles my mind.

Anyways this is all JMO

BBM: I believe you look for corroborating evidence, to support what TLM has said.

The Crown has presented ample evidence to corroborate the kidnapping and sexual assault, IMO. Therefore, to me, they must convict on the murder charge also, as Rafferty was there, and Tori died during the assault and kidnapping.

You really needed to be in the courtroom to hear all of TLM's testimony, and see the videos of her confession, before you could pass judgement on who you believe wielded the hammer, IMO. It's very difficult to determine that, based on the tweets, IMO.

JMO

antiquegirl
04-30-2012, 09:54 AM
So you dont believe her when she said he raped her but you believe her story that she killed her? I dont get it. How do you know she is telling the truth? Why believe that part and not the rape? The evidence showed that they couldnt determine who killed Tori, so how do you know 100% that it was her, just because she said so?

IMO you either believe her whole confession or you believe none of it. How can you pick and chose what to believe?

You also believe that MTR thought he was babysitting, I dont understand how so. If he didnt have a back seat then why have a child in the car? Why hide the child?

To me some <modsnip> are picking and choosing to believe some of the crowns evidence that leans towards TLM doing everything but believe none of the evidence that shows MTR raped her, abducted her etc.

Boggles my mind.

Anyways this is all JMO

With all due respect, I think just the opposite. IMO, based on TLM's background and previously changed versions of events, it would be illogical to believe all or none of her testimony. <modsnip> - MOO. It seems perfectly natural to "pick and choose" depending on the evidence, instinct, and gut feeling.

<modsnip> that they still do not believe that it was TLM who swung the hammer (in spite of her latest testimony and no evidence to refute it), and yet they believe everything else she has claimed. All before they have heard the defence's side of the story.

What boggles my mind is that so many people are 100% convinced of the accused's guilt of all charges (and then some!) at a stage in the trial when only the prosecution's case has been presented. Some have openly stated that they are prepared to fully disbelieve whatever the defence has to say. Others have come right out and questioned even the necessity of a trial.

IIRC, most members who have expressed doubts are withholding judgment until both sides have presented their evidence and arguments. Suggesting alternative possibilities and differing opinions is what Websleuths is all about. How boring it would be if everyone agreed.

JMO

P.S. Other than TLM's word, I don't recall any evidence that Tori was hidden in the back seat. The car had tinted rear windows and there was no DNA found on the coat that TLM claimed covered her. The absence of difficult-to-remove DNA on that jacket is just one of many pieces of "evidence" (or lack of it) that has me scratching my head. MOO

crazyladi
04-30-2012, 10:11 AM
With all due respect, I think just the opposite. IMO, based on TLM's background and previously changed versions of events, it would be illogical to believe all or none of her testimony. <modsnip> - MOO. It seems perfectly natural to "pick and choose" depending on the evidence, instinct, and gut feeling.

<modsnip> that they still do not believe that it was TLM who swung the hammer (in spite of her latest testimony and no evidence to refute it), and yet they believe everything else she has claimed. All before they have heard the defence's side of the story.

What boggles my mind is that so many people are 100% convinced of the accused's guilt of all charges (and then some!) at a stage in the trial when only the prosecution's case has been presented. Some have openly stated that they are prepared to fully disbelieve whatever the defence has to say. Others have come right out and questioned even the necessity of a trial.

IIRC, most members who have expressed doubts are withholding judgment until both sides have presented their evidence and arguments. Suggesting alternative possibilities and differing opinions is what Websleuths is all about. How boring it would be if everyone agreed.

JMO

P.S. Other than TLM's word, I don't recall any evidence that Tori was hidden in the back seat. The car had tinted rear windows and there was no DNA found on the coat that TLM claimed covered her. The absence of difficult-to-remove DNA on that jacket is just one of many pieces of "evidence" (or lack of it) that has me scratching my head. MOO



I respect all the things you post as you are very logical. I agree that we have not heard everything because we are not in the courtroom and we have not heard the defence and everyone has a right to their own opinion.

I agree with you on the coat as there was no evidence found and I was shocked to hear that. You are right when you say that its only her word that Tori was hidden in the back.

I am not even 100% on what I believe because there are so many gaps and missing evidence.

I guess that is what you get on a site like this when people believe different things. I just find that a lot of people are defending him saying he didnt know Tori was kidnapped, he didnt rape her and he just happened to be at the wrong place wrong time.

There is just no way I believe that MTR didnt know she was being kidnapped. No matter what TLM's story was to the courts.

As for the actual murder, that really wasnt proven either, she claimed that she did it, but did she really?

Both of these people are liars and I think if MTR was not guilty he would take the stand.

Wouldn't you think so?

antiquegirl
04-30-2012, 10:37 AM
I respect all the things you post as you are very logical. I agree that we have not heard everything because we are not in the courtroom and we have not heard the defence and everyone has a right to their own opinion.

I agree with you on the coat as there was no evidence found and I was shocked to hear that. You are right when you say that its only her word that Tori was hidden in the back.

I am not even 100% on what I believe because there are so many gaps and missing evidence.

I guess that is what you get on a site like this when people believe different things. I just find that a lot of people are defending him saying he didnt know Tori was kidnapped, he didnt rape her and he just happened to be at the wrong place wrong time.

There is just no way I believe that MTR didnt know she was being kidnapped. No matter what TLM's story was to the courts.

As for the actual murder, that really wasnt proven either, she claimed that she did it, but did she really?

Both of these people are liars and I think if MTR was not guilty he would take the stand.

Wouldn't you think so?

(RSBM)

Not necessarily. I have heard that most defence attorneys strongly discourage this. MTR would have to be terribly determined to do so against his lawyer's advice. Basically, all he could say would be to refute TLM's testimony about what only the two of them thought, felt, heard, saw, and did. It would be strictly a "he said/she said" situation and in all honesty, his credibility right now is not much better than hers. As per my previous post, it's is also MOO that there are many people who would not believe a word that he said.

As we know, the onus is on the Crown to prove MTR's guilt. It is the defence's job to cast reasonable doubt on the Crown's evidence. I have doubts that there is much MTR could say that would convince most people he is being honest - sworn testimony or not. It could only become detrimental to his cause if the Crown tore him apart up there, which is what he would attempt.

Having said all that, I'm not sure how I feel about wanting MTR to testify on his own behalf. Part of me hopes he does and another does not. I don't believe it would help him and I do want all guilty parties in this case to get the appropriate verdict.

JMO

Yody04
04-30-2012, 10:41 AM
I can't help it but I am thinking all the time how horrific the situation for MR's mother must be. Imagine you would be in her shoes....

Did she move away? I sure would. Everybody in the neighbourhood knows you're the mother and talks about you.

Having children on my own I feel for both parties. Loosing a child is the most horrible thing that can happen to a parent and both parties did. Not only Toris parents will ask themselves for the rest of their lives the questions: what if...? Why? Is it my fault? What went wrong? And for MR's Mother: When and where did I loose my child? When and why was the connection gone? When did I miss to step in because he was on the wrong path?

I truly feel bad for her. There are probably not many people out there asking about how she is coping with this awful situation simply because she is the ......(you fill in whatever you like) mother.



I am glad things get moving tomorrow and I am open for everything. I can't see how he can not be guilty but who knows. In my little loving mind is so much trouble to accept that there are people out there that are capable of doing such horrific things. I just don't get it!!

Salem
04-30-2012, 11:03 AM
One more sleep!

I know. I can hardly wait to get this show on the road, so to speak. All these delays and days off. I can't imagine how Tori's family must feel, waiting and waiting. Waiting for the defense's big bomb and the story that will free MR, or not. They must be very anxious.

This is like watching one of those reality shows where someone is getting kicked off or someone wins and before they say who, the do an entire recap and 30 minutes of commercials. Irritating!

Salem

Flowercb
04-30-2012, 11:09 AM
Yet through a timeline of phone calls and showing of Genest surveillance video, the Crown painted a picture Wednesday of Rafferty keen on keeping in touch with McClintic and showing no signs of being horrified with her behaviour.

The two contacted each other at least 97 times through cellphone calls or texts between April 9 and May 19, the day McClintic and Rafferty were arrested. He visited her once at Woodstock courthouse when she had a hearing on an unrelated charge and visited her twice in Genest while she was in custody on that charge.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/25/19680036.html

If he wasn't guilty he would not be visiting her. If he was innocent, he would have no need to protect himself and no desire to be around her--an he certainly would not have helped to cover up the crime. MOO

Wondergirl
04-30-2012, 11:23 AM
I was just reading the words that Paul Bernardo wrote on his bedroom wall, while still living at home.

I thought they applied to MTR, and what he might write on his walls.

JMO




In Paul's own hand writing, carefully placed and posted, were phrases that glorified ultimate power.


Greed, money and dominance are necessities, claim these walls. "Expect the unexpected;" "Those who have nerves breakdown;" "The facts don' t count when you have a dream;" "There are winners, and there are whiners;" "Change the input and you'll change the output;" "Nice guys finish last;" "Every battle is won before it's fought."


One phrase, culled from the movie Wall Street, reads: "Greed is good, greed is great, greed works. Greed clarify's, cuts through and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for money, for life, for love and knowledge has marked the ground upsurge of mankind. And greed will do it for you.”


"The illusion has become real.”


http://www.skcentral.com/downloads/ebooks/scarboroughrapist.pdf

Confusedashell
04-30-2012, 11:37 AM
Has anyone ever thought that his lawyer might be trying to pull the insanity route? is this possible this late in the game??

robynhood
04-30-2012, 11:48 AM
Isn't Tori's Law about reinstating capital punishment?

"Prime Minister Stephen Harper says opening the debate on capital punishment is a non-starter, despite this week's outcry from Canadians horrified by details of the Tori Stafford case.

"I don't think there is a public consensus on the death penalty," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday. "I don't think the public wants to reopen the debate and I don't intend to reopen the debate."

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/16/pm-wont-open-capital-punishment-debate

That's the end of that ... there will be no new law to re-instate capital punishment in Canada for any reason.

...well I am being careful in my reply as this is websleuther and do NOT want to offend anyone here....there is MOST definitely a Petition tited The Tori Law !....It was on TV in which Tori's father voiced his Opinions pertaining to his daughter 's horrific MURDER ....15,000 signatures are required and they are almost there !!!!... ONTARIO PArents and Citzen's are as you said "HORRIFIED with TORI's brutal MURDER "....RODNEY"S final words that are on video and he was interviewed on Friday AFTER the crown has now rested their case ...parphrased ...Rodney wishes are to MAKE ONTARIO a SAFER place for all CHILDREN!....once 15.000 signatures are met this PETION shall be re INTRODUCED into our Legislature!....All I will comment is shall we all watch than how it is handled !!!...the end Robynhood ...and yes finally ! more sleep and than ...FINALLY AFTER 3 years of waiting we shall see what MR>. Detstine ...the defence intends to handle all this EVIDENCE and foresic science and video tapes....I MAY VERY WELL be in London court this week!....I find it EXTREMELY HARD to get a clear picture of what is going on.....AS a teacher and a PARENT in ONTARIO ....I want the see OUR CHILDREN SAFE like Tori's dad....sorry end of this reant for the monent ....Oh yes ...I am applauding SWEDE for that long list of evidence ...etc...which the CROWN DID IN THIS CASE ...IMO THE CROWN did an EXCELLEnt job OF PRODUCING ....THANKS AGIN SWEDE FOR WHAT i FEEL WAS A GREAT post HERE ....ROBYNHOOD

crazyladi
04-30-2012, 12:00 PM
...well I am being careful in my reply as this is websleuther and do NOT want to offend anyone here....there is MOST definitely a Petition tited The Tori Law !....It was on TV in which Tori's father voiced his Opinions pertaining to his daughter 's horrific MURDER ....15,000 signatures are required and they are almost there !!!!... ONTARIO PArents and Citzen's are as you said "HORRIFIED with TORI's brutal MURDER "....RODNEY"S final words that are on video and he was interviewed on Friday AFTER the crown has now rested their case ...parphrased ...Rodney wishes are to MAKE ONTARIO a SAFER place for all CHILDREN!....once 15.000 signatures are met this PETION shall be re INTRODUCED into our Legislature!....All I will comment is shall we all watch than how it is handled !!!...the end Robynhood ...and yes finally ! more sleep and than ...FINALLY AFTER 3 years of waiting we shall see what MR>. Detstine ...the defence intends to handle all this EVIDENCE and foresic science and video tapes....I MAY VERY WELL be in London court this week!....I find it EXTREMELY HARD to get a clear picture of what is going on.....AS a teacher and a PARENT in ONTARIO ....I want the see OUR CHILDREN SAFE like Tori's dad....sorry end of this reant for the monent ....Oh yes ...I am applauding SWEDE for that long list of evidence ...etc...which the CROWN DID IN THIS CASE ...IMO THE CROWN did an EXCELLEnt job OF PRODUCING ....THANKS AGIN SWEDE FOR WHAT i FEEL WAS A GREAT post HERE ....ROBYNHOOD



I thought that I read somewhere recently that Harper said no to even bringing this to the table for discussion. Did anyone else here this? I thought I saw it on a tweet yesterday or the day before on CP24

crazyladi
04-30-2012, 12:07 PM
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2012/03/16/19513766.html

robynhood
04-30-2012, 12:16 PM
...interesting THE REPONSES TO MY POST...in the comment that supposively STEVE HARPER said ....parprase from previous thread...." that Steve Harper does not think Ontario people do NOT want to re open the discussion about CAPITaL punishment....stated on Fridays t.V prodcast...I did not see by the way ....IMO ..I say hmmm moment ...there are almost 12,000 Parents / people signatures ...currently on that petition...hmmm I wonder if that is not a VOICE from fellow ontario People ...we shall see ....IMO as I agree STRONGLY with what Rodney ( Tori's dad said) ....I want my daughter's name TORI ...To be remebered as how this changed ONTARIO and made it safer for other children....I shall try and find his video / interview with Adler ...oh and by the way this petition was NOT started by Rodney ...he found out about it after it was started !!!....IMO this even furthers how I think people feel ...especially Parents and teacher of young children ...similar to myself...again IMO ONLY ...robynhood!

crazyladi
04-30-2012, 12:17 PM
Oh I totally understand what you are saying, I just read this the other day and I thought that it was interesting considering everything that is going on.

Tahorn
04-30-2012, 12:18 PM
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/12/19623401.html

I watched TLM statement again, this time not as shocking but still very disturbing ... But something still bothers me...

Between TLM description of the second assault and the pic of the back seat seemed a bit unnatural. Any ideas? Can't put my figure on it but something seems odd ...

TLM police statement about 41 minutes in

crazyladi
04-30-2012, 12:26 PM
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/12/19623401.html

I watched TLM statement again, this time not as shocking but still very disturbing ... But something still bothers me...

Between TLM description of the second assault and the pic of the back seat seemed a bit unnatural. Any ideas? Can't put my figure on it but something seems odd ...

TLM police statement about 41 minutes in

Do you have the link to the statement? I am trying to find it

Tahorn
04-30-2012, 12:30 PM
Do you have the link to the statement? I am trying to find it

Can't link it but I googled TLM police statement and found it in videos.

crazyladi
04-30-2012, 12:35 PM
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/12/19623401.html

I watched TLM statement again, this time not as shocking but still very disturbing ... But something still bothers me...

Between TLM description of the second assault and the pic of the back seat seemed a bit unnatural. Any ideas? Can't put my figure on it but something seems odd ...

TLM police statement about 41 minutes in

Not sure if I watched the right one, but is it the part where she said she couldnt see Tori?

robynhood
04-30-2012, 12:40 PM
...yes all video from the Trial I found last night thru google search & every video that appeared in this trial can still be found ....just did a search for anyone interested in that Interview that Rodney did with Charles Adler was on Wed. March 21, 2012 and MAYBE ... found as it was prodcasted thru Sun News and there was a video ....Imo Rodney talked wonderfully about Tori and how he really wanted to see a change in the possiblity after our life sentence ...an offender not sentenced as a dangerous offender could be let free after 25 years....IMO many people here may be interested in listening ....robynhood ...

Tahorn
04-30-2012, 12:45 PM
Not sure if I watched the right one, but is it the part where she said she couldnt see Tori?

It is the part where she moves her body to describe MR sitting in the back seat
41:43 minutes in

Ardy
04-30-2012, 12:47 PM
Over the weekend I went back over MSM articles from the April 2009 time period, and found it interesting to read some statements and quotes, many of which were never discussed during the Crown's presentation.

I am wondering if we will hear from some of these people during the defense presentation.

In my opinion, if the defense doesn't present any refuting evidence, or any support for the drug theory.............the best MR can hope for is a mistrial due to a hung jury.

At this point, I don't think he is going to be acquitted and walk away.

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

Flowercb
04-30-2012, 12:48 PM
Trial summary video by LFP.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/26/19685496.html

Flowercb
04-30-2012, 12:50 PM
s


Because I believe it was TLM who did the killing..JMO she confessed to the killing so I believe it was TLM and her alone who did the stomping and kicking and also swung the hammer...JMO

http://canindia.com/2012/04/tori-stafford-jury-to-hear-about-evidence-from-raffertys-home/ I could ask you the same question...who do you think did the deed...

If you believe this--do you believe the part where she says MTR raped Tori repeatedly? If not, why not?

robynhood
04-30-2012, 12:57 PM
..thanks Flowercb ...yes that is the link I looked at last night...I could not find the orginal video of Mr pulling into home depot on dreaded day april 8 2009 as some one mentioned here....that they saw Mr get out of his car ...driver side and walk around his car BEFORE TLM got out to go inside Home depot....????

I was curious because >>>>I never saw MR get out of his car...???>>>I wanted to see a few things ...Is that video clip gone????....I only see TLM as she walks in and makes that purchase and than leaves Home depot ????...ty robynhood

otto
04-30-2012, 12:57 PM
...well I am being careful in my reply as this is websleuther and do NOT want to offend anyone here....there is MOST definitely a Petition tited The Tori Law !....It was on TV in which Tori's father voiced his Opinions pertaining to his daughter 's horrific MURDER ....15,000 signatures are required and they are almost there !!!!... ONTARIO PArents and Citzen's are as you said "HORRIFIED with TORI's brutal MURDER "....RODNEY"S final words that are on video and he was interviewed on Friday AFTER the crown has now rested their case ...parphrased ...Rodney wishes are to MAKE ONTARIO a SAFER place for all CHILDREN!....once 15.000 signatures are met this PETION shall be re INTRODUCED into our Legislature!....All I will comment is shall we all watch than how it is handled !!!...the end Robynhood ...and yes finally ! more sleep and than ...FINALLY AFTER 3 years of waiting we shall see what MR>. Detstine ...the defence intends to handle all this EVIDENCE and foresic science and video tapes....I MAY VERY WELL be in London court this week!....I find it EXTREMELY HARD to get a clear picture of what is going on.....AS a teacher and a PARENT in ONTARIO ....I want the see OUR CHILDREN SAFE like Tori's dad....sorry end of this reant for the monent ....Oh yes ...I am applauding SWEDE for that long list of evidence ...etc...which the CROWN DID IN THIS CASE ...IMO THE CROWN did an EXCELLEnt job OF PRODUCING ....THANKS AGIN SWEDE FOR WHAT i FEEL WAS A GREAT post HERE ....ROBYNHOOD

I think that after 15,000 signatures are there, they each have to be authenticated. It's an online petition and anyone can create 10 aliases from anywhere in the world and pretend to be Canadians voicing an opinion about the laws in Canada. We recently saw exactly that problem regarding the pipeline through Northern BC. It turned out that "foreign radicals" were attempting to strongly influence Canadian decisions through polls (link (http://beaconnews.ca/blog/2012/01/duelling-polls-about-northern-gateway-pipeline-forget-bc-first-nations/)). It would only take one fake foreign signature for the entire petition to be tossed ... since one fake signature means that there were no safeguards in the process. Furthermore, 15,000 online people can't speak for 33 million Canadians. Rob Anders is one of the few MPs interested in this law change and that is not enough to change the law.

otto
04-30-2012, 12:59 PM
I thought that I read somewhere recently that Harper said no to even bringing this to the table for discussion. Did anyone else here this? I thought I saw it on a tweet yesterday or the day before on CP24

Yes, Stephen Harper has said that he will not open the capital punishment debate ... not for 15,000 online signatures, not for any reason.

otto
04-30-2012, 01:01 PM
...interesting THE REPONSES TO MY POST...in the comment that supposively STEVE HARPER said ....parprase from previous thread...." that Steve Harper does not think Ontario people do NOT want to re open the discussion about CAPITaL punishment....stated on Fridays t.V prodcast...I did not see by the way ....IMO ..I say hmmm moment ...there are almost 12,000 Parents / people signatures ...currently on that petition...hmmm I wonder if that is not a VOICE from fellow ontario People ...we shall see ....IMO as I agree STRONGLY with what Rodney ( Tori's dad said) ....I want my daughter's name TORI ...To be remebered as how this changed ONTARIO and made it safer for other children....I shall try and find his video / interview with Adler ...oh and by the way this petition was NOT started by Rodney ...he found out about it after it was started !!!....IMO this even furthers how I think people feel ...especially Parents and teacher of young children ...similar to myself...again IMO ONLY ...robynhood!

March 16, 2012: "Prime Minister Stephen Harper says opening the debate on capital punishment is a non-starter, despite this week's outcry from Canadians horrified by details of the Tori Stafford case.

"I don't think there is a public consensus on the death penalty," Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Friday. "I don't think the public wants to reopen the debate and I don't intend to reopen the debate."

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/16/pm-wont-open-capital-punishment-debate

robynhood
04-30-2012, 01:06 PM
I think that after 15,000 signatures are there, they each have to be authenticated. It's an online petition and anyone can create 10 aliases from anywhere in the world and pretend to be Canadians voicing an opinion about the laws in Canada. We recently saw exactly that problem regarding the pipeline through Northern BC. It turned out that "foreign radicals" were attempting to strongly influence Canadian decisions through polls (link (http://beaconnews.ca/blog/2012/01/duelling-polls-about-northern-gateway-pipeline-forget-bc-first-nations/)). It would only take one fake foreign signature for the entire petition to be tossed ... since one fake signature means that there were no safeguards in the process. Furthermore, 15,000 online people can't speak for 33 million Canadians. Rob Anders is one of the few MPs interested in this law change and that is not enough to change the law.

...this petition DOES not allow the same person to sign twice...it is made that way ...But anyways TIME always tells all ...IMO ...something shall be done it is MY HOPE ...as young offenders are obviously not handled to wonderfully in Ontario...and needs IMPOVEMNTS ...again IMO ...and we shall see again once the petition is complete >>>a work in progress presently AGAIN >>>>... My opiion for what ever it is worth ...as all opinions here deserve consideration in posting here ...thanks robynhood

Macright
04-30-2012, 01:08 PM
Over the weekend I went back over MSM articles from the April 2009 time period, and found it interesting to read some statements and quotes, many of which were never discussed during the Crown's presentation.

I am wondering if we will hear from some of these people during the defense presentation.

In my opinion, if the defense doesn't present any refuting evidence, or any support for the drug theory.............the best MR can hope for is a mistrial due to a hung jury.

At this point, I don't think he is going to be acquitted and walk away.

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


I can't believe that there will be a hung jury..my reason is because he was at the scene and helped with the cover up..that is the one thing that I believe happened for reasons only MR can answer and of course because he did not say anything to LE about this but who knows..maybe he did tell them this and we have not heard anything to date..if he was there and helped then I personally think he should serve some sentence...JMO I think they could get him on a lesser charge...

Macright
04-30-2012, 01:10 PM
If you believe this--do you believe the part where she says MTR raped Tori repeatedly? If not, why not?



simple answer NO....have given my reasons previously and if you want to scroll back you will find them...I really don't feel the need to repeat things again...JMO
respectfully.....

Tahorn
04-30-2012, 01:16 PM
If you believe this--do you believe the part where she says MTR raped Tori repeatedly? If not, why not?

TLM wrote before VS death

In another, she talked about kidnapping someone on the side of the road, mutilating them so she could “smash their skull apart and put it back together like a puzzle.”

TLM wrote after VS death

She raged about being incarcerated with younger people and at one point wrote: “I’m ... getting blood-thirsty again, it’s like I’m ... relapsin’ a bit.”

No doubt that she not only killed VS but it was planned for over a year ...

As far as the rape, well since there was sperm cells with out semen was also found on the back seat just above where VS blood was found, I believe it is possible VS was mixed at different times.


http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/12/19623401.html

Picture 63

crazyladi
04-30-2012, 01:16 PM
It is the part where she moves her body to describe MR sitting in the back seat
41:43 minutes in

Every time I have watched that video it seems as though she is making everything up as she goes along. However I find it odd but plausible that TS and MTR had no clothes from the waist down.

There are certain details that are odd in her statements. I think what is odd to me is that I think she might be telling the truth in some parts but she is downplaying her role it in it all.

It really is hard to tell. To me what always has stuck in my head was the bum comment, the MTR not wearing pants after the fact and washing his hands with the water bottles, " I heard the sound of the bags" or something along those lines etc. Little details that I would find weird if she made them up.

Again I am not good in telling if someone is lying for the most part.

What I truly got out of her statements were lack of responsibility for her role during the whole time Tori was with her. Saying things like, Tori said not to leave her alone with him, she wishes she was brave like her, holding her hand so MTR couldnt see etc etc. I dont buy those statements at all. I think she is trying to make her self feel better for what she did.

crazyladi
04-30-2012, 01:19 PM
TLM wrote before VS death

In another, she talked about kidnapping someone on the side of the road, mutilating them so she could “smash their skull apart and put it back together like a puzzle.”

TLM wrote after VS death

She raged about being incarcerated with younger people and at one point wrote: “I’m ... getting blood-thirsty again, it’s like I’m ... relapsin’ a bit.”

No doubt that she not only killed VS but it was planned for over a year ...

As far as the rape, well since there was sperm cells with out semen was also found on the back seat just above where VS blood was found, I believe it is possible VS was mixed at different times.


http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/12/19623401.html

Picture 63

See and the one thing I got out of what she said was it wasnt supposed to be a little girl, it wasn't planned. I think she followed through with the plan that was set forth to her and it excited her that someone had the same demented desires. However I really dont think that she was meant or knew she was going to die that day. Again that is JMO.

I think they both knew that they were busted and they had to do something.

I see TLM killing alot more people but I truly believe that TS wasnt suppose to die that day. JMO

Ardy
04-30-2012, 01:19 PM
I can't believe that there will be a hung jury..my reason is because he was at the scene and helped with the cover up..that is the one thing that I believe happened for reasons only MR can answer and of course because he did not say anything to LE about this but who knows..maybe he did tell them this and we have not heard anything to date..if he was there and helped then I personally think he should serve some sentence...JMO I think they could get him on a lesser charge...

Good post...........if a lesser charge is a possibility, that may be the route that the jury takes.

With 12 people on the panel, I would think there are probably going to be some who just can't reach the guilty verdict without some reasonable doubt. They may believe MR.......probably did it, or likely did it, or most likely did it...........but all those fall short of the threshold.

If they have nagging questions about his guilt.......they must acquit.

Or as you say.............maybe find guilt for a lesser offense?

JMO..........

otto
04-30-2012, 01:28 PM
...this petition DOES not allow the same person to sign twice...it is made that way ...But anyways TIME always tells all ...IMO ...something shall be done it is MY HOPE ...as young offenders are obviously not handled to wonderfully in Ontario...and needs IMPOVEMNTS ...again IMO ...and we shall see again once the petition is complete >>>a work in progress presently AGAIN >>>>... My opiion for what ever it is worth ...as all opinions here deserve consideration in posting here ...thanks robynhood

Regarding the authenticity of signatures on the Tori's Law petition, it is possible for anyone to create false information on the internet. Any IP address, which may be recorded in order to prevent someone from signing twice, can be roundabout managed with ease by going through a proxy server or by signing from several different locations (eg: work, home, library). There is nothing to prevent people from anywhere in the world from pretending to be Canadian and signing the petition. If it were so easy to regulate online signatures, national voting would have an online component ... but it doesn't because there are no safeguards that can be put in place to ensure authenticity of the results. The Prime Minister has voiced his opinion of online polls in relation to the Northern Pipeline, and he is not going to modify that opinion for this proposed change to Canadian law.

Yody04
04-30-2012, 01:33 PM
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/12/19623401.html

I watched TLM statement again, this time not as shocking but still very disturbing ... But something still bothers me...

Between TLM description of the second assault and the pic of the back seat seemed a bit unnatural. Any ideas? Can't put my figure on it but something seems odd ...

TLM police statement about 41 minutes in

Good question Tahorn. To me there are endless points that just don't fit. I have another question: This is to find under evidence picture 69: Chemical indications of blood were detected........., however no blood-like staining was observed. Can somebody please explain this to me? What exactly does that mean?



I don't like that they hardly found any semen and if then it was on the front seat right? Correct me if I am wrong. Well I guess he had sex a million times in his car with all these women.

I really think for the sexual assault is not enough evidence there. unfortunately.



With everything TLM said isn't it kind of strange that the forensic didn't find more? With all these super special testing they have nowadays? I just don't know what to think.

Tahorn
04-30-2012, 01:35 PM
See and the one thing I got out of what she said was it wasnt supposed to be a little girl, it wasn't planned. I think she followed through with the plan that was set forth to her and it excited her that someone had the same demented desires. However I really dont think that she was meant or knew she was going to die that day. Again that is JMO.

I think they both knew that they were busted and they had to do something.

I see TLM killing alot more people but I truly believe that TS wasnt suppose to die that day. JMO

I think we agree...
<modsnip> ... She may not have thought VS was going to die but sub-Consciencely I believe she did... What could TLM believe was going to happen?

Wondergirl
04-30-2012, 01:37 PM
http://www.cbc.ca/gfx/images/news/photos/2012/04/27/ii-edward-greenspan-300-cp3.jpg

Edward Greenspan has defended high-profile clients such as Conrad Black and Karlheinz Schreiber. (M. Spencer Green/Associated Press)

An equally important consideration is the personality of the accused, Greenspan says, because how they act in the witness box will greatly influence how the jury perceives their version of events.

"Unfortunately, in a courtroom, a very honest person who is nervous and is upset and doesn't really know how to deal with questioning appears guilty," Greenspan says.

Likewise, he added, a person who is lying may seem completely believable if they are calm and collected.

Although the same can be said of any witness, "the accused is in the most difficult position because the jury is looking at them while the trial is going on and looking very closely," Greenspan says, noting nervousness may cause someone to say too much or too little, which can hurt their credibility

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/27/accused-testifying-own-defence.html

otto
04-30-2012, 01:51 PM
Good post...........if a lesser charge is a possibility, that may be the route that the jury takes.

With 12 people on the panel, I would think there are probably going to be some who just can't reach the guilty verdict without some reasonable doubt. They may believe MR.......probably did it, or likely did it, or most likely did it...........but all those fall short of the threshold.

If they have nagging questions about his guilt.......they must acquit.

Or as you say.............maybe find guilt for a lesser offense?

JMO..........

In view of the totality of the crimes and the horrific nature of them, could any jury member really believe that the 18 year old woman was calling all the shots and the 28 year old man was just tagging along without any control over anything ... even though he was driving the car, he had prior history with the location of the body, he withdrew money moments before the purchase of the murder weapon, he had a knife throughout the crime and the blade of the knife is now missing, the young girl was found half undressed and murdered, he did not report the crime, he attempted to get away with it through lies and manipulation, and so on?

What "nagging question" could the jury have regarding his complicity in the crimes.

I would love to see MR testify. He thinks he's a smart guy, too smart to need a formal education. In fact, he's so stupid he doesn't realize how stupid he is ... so I would really like to see him get on the stand and try to wiggle out of the questions the prosecution has for him. He will self-incriminate in no time. Unfortunately for us, I'm pretty sure his lawyer will not let that happen.

Macright
04-30-2012, 01:51 PM
Yes, Stephen Harper has said that he will not open the capital punishment debate ... not for 15,000 online signatures, not for any reason.


and rightly so... JMO.. we as a country have abolished Capital punishment and I would hate to see my country regress...

Tink
04-30-2012, 01:53 PM
Good question Tahorn. To me there are endless points that just don't fit. I have another question: This is to find under evidence picture 69: Chemical indications of blood were detected........., however no blood-like staining was observed. Can somebody please explain this to me? What exactly does that mean?



I don't like that they hardly found any semen and if then it was on the front seat right? Correct me if I am wrong. Well I guess he had sex a million times in his car with all these women.

I really think for the sexual assault is not enough evidence there. unfortunately.



With everything TLM said isn't it kind of strange that the forensic didn't find more? With all these super special testing they have nowadays? I just don't know what to think.

You would find chemical indications of blood but no blood-like staining if, for example, someone cleaned it up or rain washed the bloodstain away after some of the blood had a chance to soak into the material. Nothing visible to the eye, but some of the chemicals that indicate blood are still present, left behind in small amounts.

What you mention about "isn't it strange that forensics didn't find more?" is, I think, what forensic experts call the CSI effect. The TV crime shows that are so popular suggest that forensic testing always gives us all the answers, and so today's jurors (and others) are expecting that every case is going to produce a flood of damning forensic evidence. That's just not how it really is in real-life cases. DNA and other materials degrade pretty quickly, depending on the circumstances. Criminals have learned how to clean up and get rid of evidence that they might have left behind in the past. Just finding a drop of the victim's blood mixed with semen/sperm is a significant find.

It makes sense to me that there is more evidence of semen in the front because he was focused on cleaning up the back, where the assault on Tori took place.

Tink

sillybilly
04-30-2012, 01:54 PM
And if MR had a juvie record, it would not be admissible in court. Depending on other records, he may have asked for a pardon and granted one. TLM seems to be more "in your face" while MR seems to be more secretive and cagey. I would think that because MR didn't share information about his life with others, it was because it was not good, full of troubles. Look at how many women he duped and none seemed the wiser he was fooling around not only with one, but many at the same time. MOO

I'm still puzzled by Derstine's question about whether MTR had a criminal record, and the officer's response. It has always been my understanding that a juvenile record cannot be admitted in court (but I can't find anything to back it up or refute it). IF it is true, then the officer could only respond with regard to an adult record. Am thinking that, had he responded wrt a juvenile record, this could have been possible grounds for mistrial?? Dunno

Also, given MTR's relatives seem to go by a different surname, am wondering if MTR could possibly have a record under another surname. Back in the 1990s, someone I knew married a guy (that i had a really BAD gut feeling about). Turned out he was a convicted pedophile (a 2 1/2 year old baby girl). His criminal record didn't come up because somewhere along the line he reversed the order of his Christian names (i.e. instead of MTZS, he gave MZTS).

MOOs

Wondergirl
04-30-2012, 02:01 PM
Prominent Toronto Attorney Clayton Ruby gives his take on Rafferty's case.



Prominent Toronto defence attorney Clayton Ruby said the decision ultimately rests with Rafferty, and not his lawyer.

"(A lawyer's) job is analyzing the evidence that is already in and seeing whether there is anything you need that can only come from the client," said Ruby, who has more than four decades of experience. "And whether it's worth exposing him to cross-examination, with all its inevitable risks in order for the benefit."

One of the major concerns about an accused testimony is whether or not the jury will like them.

"People reveal themselves. You get to like them or not like them," he said. "People tend to acquit who they like and convict people who they do not like — that's inherent in the jury system."

The defence's job will be to prepare their client at length to go over every possible question they may be asked by prosecutors during cross-examination.

The key is to ensure the accused will not be "surprised" about the "different attacks" the Crown may bring.

In this case, it may also include practicing answers that will not permit the Crown to question Rafferty on his "good character."

"One of the things you prepare him for is to answer the question without doing that," said Ruby. "It's tricky."

It would be rare for a defence team like Rafferty's to not call any evidence, even though it is not required by law.


Read more: http://www.canada.com/Tori+Stafford+Trial+Defence+case+begins+Tuesday/6541865/story.html#ixzz1tY1P7VIF

Macright
04-30-2012, 02:04 PM
MR having a different name from Mother's means diddly squat to me because since we know nothing about his family or his life before this maybe his mother could have remarried or maybe that was her maiden name and MR was born before marriage.. could be the reason he lived with aunt and uncle at some period...who knows..means nothing...also if he did change his name at some point I am sure LE are aware of all of this....JMO

kmclaren
04-30-2012, 02:08 PM
In view of the totality of the crimes and the horrific nature of them, could any jury member really believe that the 18 year old woman was calling all the shots and the 28 year old man was just tagging along without any control over anything ... even though he was driving the car, he had prior history with the location of the body, he withdrew money moments before the purchase of the murder weapon, he had a knife throughout the crime and the blade of the knife is now missing, the young girl was found half undressed and murdered, he did not report the crime, he attempted to get away with it through lies and manipulation, and so on?

What "nagging question" could the jury have regarding his complicity in the crimes.

I would love to see MR testify. He thinks he's a smart guy, too smart to need a formal education. In fact, he's so stupid he doesn't realize how stupid he is ... so I would really like to see him get on the stand and try to wiggle out of the questions the prosecution has for him. He will self-incriminate in no time. Unfortunately for us, I'm pretty sure his lawyer will not let that happen.

I would love to see him testify too. But, I really just can't imagine him doing so - I'll state that if he does I will be truly shocked. How could he possibly explain his way out of everything and come off as a dupe or TLM's puppet?

Shasta
04-30-2012, 02:14 PM
I think and this is only my opinion, that MTR's secretiveness (some of his female friends spoke of this) is one characteristic of a psychopath. Along with other traits, such as his compulsive lies, narcism, his indefatigable "charm," manipulation of women, lack of empathy for a suffering child and failure to do the right thing and report the death of the child, i.e. no moral compass. I've alway thought thus of him: dangerous psychopath.

I hope someone writes a book about MTR with all proceeds going to charities for children-when the trial's over.

I wonder what was on his laptop. Did his lawyer object to the Crown presenting the contents of his laptop as evidence? And why? Would it contain items of interest that might prejudice the jury against MTR's character? What would that be? Something more than regular pornography?

If found guilty of charges, how did he become such a monster? Was he rejected by his natural father? Did he, over time, subsequently displace blame for his lack of a supporting father figure onto his mother and by extension all females? He appears to be so very female-dependant. Did he come to hate most what he depended on most: females? I don't believe he had any respect for women and viewed them only as a means to an end.

I wonder if he found himself in a blended family at one point in his life and became the unloved object of taunts from better-loved step-brothers who considered him weak and substance-less? In his adult life did he have any close male friends or did he consider himself "peerless" in the realm of the masculine? Did his mother over protect him as a means of over compensating for the absence of a reliable father figure? And did he intuit this as wrong and resent her for it? Did he feel unmanned by an all-powerful mother? Was he even able to form close bonds with males? Was he secure in his masculinity?

Or, if he's found guilty, was he just born a psychopath?

JMO, my opinion of TLM is equally low but she's taken the max and this is MTR's trial.

JMO again, two sick twisted psychopaths who enjoyed occasional trips into dark dimensions of cruelty; spoke about their fantasies and carried them out.

Ironically if you compare *what we know* of the backgrounds of TLM and MTR, TLM's background is a recipe for predictable violence, JMO; whereas, MTR's background, or the little we know of it so far, would seem to indicate relative normalcy. Yet, even if his lawyer's claims of his un-involvement in the murder are true, MTR couldn't do the normal thing and report the cruel murder of a child. It seems the person who had the least normal life, TLM, did the more normal thing. I'm not even interested in why she decided to cooperate with LE; I don't think it has much bearing on the facts.

But these two acted together. JMO

Tahorn
04-30-2012, 02:15 PM
You would find chemical indications of blood but no blood-like staining if, for example, someone cleaned it up or rain washed the bloodstain away after some of the blood had a chance to soak into the material. Nothing visible to the eye, but some of the chemicals that indicate blood are still present, left behind in small amounts.

What you mention about "isn't it strange that forensics didn't find more?" is, I think, what forensic experts call the CSI effect. The TV crime shows that are so popular suggest that forensic testing always gives us all the answers, and so today's jurors (and others) are expecting that every case is going to produce a flood of damning forensic evidence. That's just not how it really is in real-life cases. DNA and other materials degrade pretty quickly, depending on the circumstances. Criminals have learned how to clean up and get rid of evidence that they might have left behind in the past. Just finding a drop of the victim's blood mixed with semen/sperm is a significant find.

It makes sense to me that there is more evidence of semen in the front because he was focused on cleaning up the back, where the assault on Tori took place.

Tink

From TLM description of the assault I would have believed VS blood would also be found where TLM and MR was on the front seat.

Macright
04-30-2012, 02:27 PM
From TLM description of the assault I would have believed VS blood would also be found where TLM and MR was on the front seat.



even though garbage bags were placed over TS I imagine with the force and the rage of TLM as she swung that hammer, there would have been rips in that bag an blood would have fallen on the shoes of TLM..thus the reason for her throwing away her shoes and putting on a pair of MR's..as we know now his car serve him as a second home and he had lots of items of clothing etc. in there so the fact that his gym bag had extra clothing doesn't surprise me..another thing that makes me go WTH is TLM saying that MR got her to cover up the tracks in the snow...since that laneway was rather long did she in fact follow the car all the way to the highway rubbing out the tire tracks all the way...sounds rather farfetched to me....JMO

crazyladi
04-30-2012, 02:45 PM
I'm still puzzled by Derstine's question about whether MTR had a criminal record, and the officer's response. It has always been my understanding that a juvenile record cannot be admitted in court (but I can't find anything to back it up or refute it). IF it is true, then the officer could only respond with regard to an adult record. Am thinking that, had he responded wrt a juvenile record, this could have been possible grounds for mistrial?? Dunno

Also, given MTR's relatives seem to go by a different surname, am wondering if MTR could possibly have a record under another surname. Back in the 1990s, someone I knew married a guy (that i had a really BAD gut feeling about). Turned out he was a convicted pedophile (a 2 1/2 year old baby girl). His criminal record didn't come up because somewhere along the line he reversed the order of his Christian names (i.e. instead of MTZS, he gave MZTS).

MOOs

It is funny that you mention this as my daughters father had two names and one wasnt even legal but he was always arrested under that false name and they had it on record. He only started to use his birth name when there was a warrant out for his arrest or legal matters such as child custody etc.

It is plausible that he has used other names

crazyladi
04-30-2012, 02:50 PM
I think and this is only my opinion, that MTR's secretiveness (some of his female friends spoke of this) is one characteristic of a psychopath. Along with other traits, such as his compulsive lies, narcism, his indefatigable "charm," manipulation of women, lack of empathy for a suffering child and failure to do the right thing and report the death of the child, i.e. no moral compass. I've alway thought thus of him: dangerous psychopath.

I hope someone writes a book about MTR with all proceeds going to charities for children-when the trial's over.

I wonder what was on his laptop. Did his lawyer object to the Crown presenting the contents of his laptop as evidence? And why? Would it contain items of interest that might prejudice the jury against MTR's character? What would that be? Something more than regular pornography?

If found guilty of charges, how did he become such a monster? Was he rejected by his natural father? Did he, over time, subsequently displace blame for his lack of a supporting father figure onto his mother and by extension all females? He appears to be so very female-dependant. Did he come to hate most what he depended on most: females? I don't believe he had any respect for women and viewed them only as a means to an end.

I wonder if he found himself in a blended family at one point in his his life and became the unloved object of taunts from better-loved step-brothers who considered him weak and substance-less? In his adult life did he have any close male friends or did he consider himself "peerless" in the realm of the masculine? Did his mother over protect him as a means of over compensating for the absence of a reliable father figure? And did he intuit this as wrong and resent her for it? Did he feel unmanned by an all-powerful mother? Was he even able to form close bonds with males? Was he secure in his masculinity?

Or, if he's found guilty, was he just born a psychopath?

JMO, my opinion of TLM is equally low but she's taken the max and this is MTR's trial.

JMO again, two sick twisted psychopaths who enjoyed occasional trips into dark dimensions of cruelty; spoke about their fantasies and carried them out.

Ironically if you compare *what we know* of the backgrounds of TLM and MTR, TLM's background is a recipe for predictable violence, JMO; whereas, MTR's background, or the little we know of it so far, would seem to indicate relative normalcy. Yet, even if his lawyer's claims of his un-involvement in the murder are true, MTR couldn't do the normal thing and report the cruel murder of a child. It seems the person who had the least normal life, TLM, did the more normal thing. I'm not even interested in why she decided to cooperate with LE; I don't think it has much bearing on the facts.

But these two acted together. JMO

This was a great well thought out post. I agree with this 100%

crazyladi
04-30-2012, 02:52 PM
I am wondering what will come out after the verdict is read. I am just not understanding why there is no information about him anywhere.

If my name was thrown into something like this I would have people spilling the beans on me and you would have my life story in a matter of days.


There is something mysterious about MTR I am sure of it. Something is being hidden.

Tahorn
04-30-2012, 02:53 PM
It is funny that you mention this as my daughters father had two names and one wasnt even legal but he was always arrested under that false name and they had it on record. He only started to use his birth name when there was a warrant out for his arrest or legal matters such as child custody etc.

It is plausible that he has used other names

TM and VS have different last names too ... So do many mothers and children especially after divorces ... Means nothing

nobodyzgirl
04-30-2012, 02:54 PM
In view of the totality of the crimes and the horrific nature of them, could any jury member really believe that the 18 year old woman was calling all the shots and the 28 year old man was just tagging along without any control over anything ... even though he was driving the car, he had prior history with the location of the body, he withdrew money moments before the purchase of the murder weapon, he had a knife throughout the crime and the blade of the knife is now missing, the young girl was found half undressed and murdered, he did not report the crime, he attempted to get away with it through lies and manipulation, and so on?

What "nagging question" could the jury have regarding his complicity in the crimes.

I would love to see MR testify. He thinks he's a smart guy, too smart to need a formal education. In fact, he's so stupid he doesn't realize how stupid he is ... so I would really like to see him get on the stand and try to wiggle out of the questions the prosecution has for him. He will self-incriminate in no time. Unfortunately for us, I'm pretty sure his lawyer will not let that happen.

BBM

It is actually not up to his lawyer. MR has the final say on whether or not he will take the stand, his lawyer can advise against him taking the stand, though if MR wants to take the stand, there is nothing Derstine can do to stop it.

Tahorn
04-30-2012, 02:56 PM
I am wondering what will come out after the verdict is read. I am just not understanding why there is no information about him anywhere.

If my name was thrown into something like this I would have people spilling the beans on me and you would have my life story in a matter of days.


There is something mysterious about MTR I am sure of it. Something is being hidden.

Publication Ban ...

Tahorn
04-30-2012, 02:59 PM
even though garbage bags were placed over TS I imagine with the force and the rage of TLM as she swung that hammer, there would have been rips in that bag an blood would have fallen on the shoes of TLM..thus the reason for her throwing away her shoes and putting on a pair of MR's..as we know now his car serve him as a second home and he had lots of items of clothing etc. in there so the fact that his gym bag had extra clothing doesn't surprise me..another thing that makes me go WTH is TLM saying that MR got her to cover up the tracks in the snow...since that laneway was rather long did she in fact follow the car all the way to the highway rubbing out the tire tracks all the way...sounds rather farfetched to me....JMO

Also TLM coat, I believe she threw away because it was covered in blood from her attacking VS and not because MR cleaned himself off with it ...

crazyladi
04-30-2012, 03:00 PM
Publication Ban ...

Yes but wont that all come out after?

crazyladi
04-30-2012, 03:04 PM
TM and VS have different last names too ... So do many mothers and children especially after divorces ... Means nothing

I understand that but couldnt it be possible that he used different name for possible other crimes? This is where I was going with that.

Macright
04-30-2012, 03:10 PM
I understand that but couldnt it be possible that he used different name for possible other crimes? This is where I was going with that.


don't they finger print in Canada when someone is picked up for a crime...if so his fingerprints would have been on file and bingo....JMO so this leads me to believe that he has never been picked up or charged with other crimes...I would hate to think that Canada's finest would have missed that....JMO

crazyladi
04-30-2012, 03:16 PM
don't they finger print in Canada when someone is picked up for a crime...if so his fingerprints would have been on file and bingo....JMO so this leads me to believe that he has never been picked up or charged with other crimes...I would hate to think that Canada's finest would have missed that....JMO

How many times have police pulled people over or have pulled up their supposed name in the police car only to find out there is no record. People lie and it depends on the offence, some police let people go without arresting them.

All in all I dont think it matters if he has a record at all. You could be someone with a record a mile long but never kill someone or you could be like PB no record and kill 3 people..... JMO

Macright
04-30-2012, 03:16 PM
Yes but wont that all come out after?


maybe if a certain journalist (and I use that handle loosely) decides to write her take on this...I understand the publication ban in force now but at the start when all of this was transpiring we read a lot about TLM..but nothing about MR... I remember at the time when TLM was taking her daily airings in the chopper that TM at her daily news conference mentioned that TLM was only taking advantage of the nice weather and the chopper rides and maybe a MacDonalds thrown in on the side...it seems she did not believe TLM at that time....JMO