PDA

View Full Version : Court Appearances



Turbododger
09-03-2009, 03:40 PM
This is a place to post information regarding the court appearances by each of the accused.

COURT APPEARANCES:

Terri-Lynne McClintic & Michael Rafferty May 20, 2009

Terri-Lynne McClintic & Michael Rafferty May 28, 2009

Michael Rafferty June 12, 2009

Terri-Lynne McClintic June 23, 2009

Michael Rafferty July 17, 2009

Terri-Lynne McClintic August 12, 2009

Michael Rafferty August 21, 2009

Michael Rafferty September 25, 2009

Terri-Lynne McClintic October 1, 2009

nobodyzgirl
09-25-2009, 02:29 PM
Pre-Trial Meeting - October 8
Next Court Appearance for MR is October 16

KivaSupporter
10-02-2009, 01:04 PM
Oct 01, 2009 06:08 PM
THE CANADIAN PRESS

WOODSTOCK, Ont. – A woman charged in the slaying of an eight-year-old southern Ontario girl made her first court appearance in more than 1 1/2 months on Thursday.

Terri-Lynne McClintic, 19, appeared via video link before a judge and was remanded in custody until her next court date on Nov. 27.

She remains in custody at the London-Middlesex Detention Centre.

---Snip---

Rafferty appeared in court Sept. 25, at which time a judicial pre-trial meeting was set for Oct. 8.

One of Rafferty's lawyers, Scott Reid, said that meeting will essentially lay the groundwork for an upcoming preliminary hearing.

Rafferty will then make another video court appearance on Oct. 16.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/704053

Turbododger
10-02-2009, 03:10 PM
At the most recent court appearance by the woman accused of murdering eight-year-old Victoria "Tori" Stafford, it took less than two minutes to learn that she won't be back in court for two months.

Terri-Lynne McClintic, 19, was only briefly on the television screen yesterday while Crown attorney Geoff Beasley explained to the court the reason for requesting the two-month delay until her next video appearance. Because of the sheer amount of evidence in this high-profile case, the Crown's office is still in the midst of providing disclosure to McClintic's lawyer, Jeanine LeRoy.

"It's an ongoing and extensive process," Beasley said.

While LeRoy wasn't able to make the brief appearance, Woodstock lawyer Trudy Mauth talked with McClintic by telephone to inform the 19-year-old about the Nov. 27 date of her next appearance.

After McClintic's August court appearance. LeRoy told the Sentinel-Review the Crown had already provided her office with the equivalent of a computer hard drive in terms of evidence. With the continuing investigation into Tori's kidnapping and murder by police, there is the potential of substantial amount of forthcoming evidence in the case.

http://woodstocksentinelreview.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1779683


BBM: Since the investigation is still continuing, and more evidence is expected, there must be alot going on behind the scenes in this case.


Rest in Peace, little Tori, Justice will Prevail.

Turbododger
10-07-2009, 09:02 AM
I wonder if the public will know what happens in the pre-trial meeting tomorrow?

maxfactor
10-07-2009, 05:24 PM
Love the quote from Rex Murphy, I watched that on TV and he really meant it.
Puts into words the disgust and horror that most of us are feeling.

trigger
10-07-2009, 10:05 PM
I wonder if the public will know what happens in the pre-trial meeting tomorrow?

Gee I hope so. If not im sure we will here about on the internet/news. Do you have any idea of what time?

trigger
10-08-2009, 07:41 PM
TLM appeared in court today, nothing said about her demeaner, but she appeared before the Judge on video.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/704053

Turbododger
10-08-2009, 08:00 PM
I guess we won't hear anything about the Judicial Pre-Trial Meeting today (wishing Pepper was here, RIP)

TLM appeared in court on the 1st, Trigger, just so you know.

We will have to look for information on October 16th.

Turbododger
10-08-2009, 08:41 PM
Criminal Court Procedures in Ontario

There are many steps that an accused must take before having a trial, preliminary hearing, or even a guilty plea. These steps are generally ordered as follows:
) Going to Court for the First Time
2) Bail Hearings / First Appearances
3) Disclosure
4) Crown pre-trials / Resolution Meetings
5) Judicial Pre-trials
6) Preliminary Hearing
7) Trial
8) Verdict
9) Sentence
10) Appeal


http://www.criminallawyerintoronto.ca/Court%20Procedures%20in%20Ontario/Criminal%20Court%20Procedures.htm

Turbododger
10-08-2009, 08:43 PM
Judicial Pre-trials: Meeting with the Judge to Narrow Issues
"What is a 'judicial pre-trial' and why can't I sit in when my lawyer is discussing the case with the Crown and Judge?"
A "Judicial Pre-trial" is very similar to a "Crown Resolution Meeting". The difference is that now these discussions are made in front of a judge. The judge can help further narrow the issues and may be able to convince one party to resolve if their is an impasse in negotiations.

These proceedings are done in Chambers or in closed court so accused persons are usually not permitted to attend. With the accused not present, Crown and Defence counsel can discuss the case much more frankly and without reservation since any admissions or concessions that the lawyer may make on behalf of his or her client is not binding until the client accepts it.

Judicial pre-trials are also very helpful in negotiating the best possible resolution agreement since there is the objective opinion of the judge who will suggest a reasonable sentence. The added benefit is that presiding judge of the pre-trial can accept a plea that same day and the accused will know what they are going to be sentenced to since the judge will express his or her opinion on an appropriate sentence.

http://www.criminallawyerintoronto.ca/Court%20Procedures%20in%20Ontario/Criminal%20Court%20Procedures.htm

nonfictionrocks
10-08-2009, 08:56 PM
Judicial Pre-trials: Meeting with the Judge to Narrow Issues
"What is a 'judicial pre-trial' and why can't I sit in when my lawyer is discussing the case with the Crown and Judge?"
A "Judicial Pre-trial" is very similar to a "Crown Resolution Meeting". The difference is that now these discussions are made in front of a judge. The judge can help further narrow the issues and may be able to convince one party to resolve if their is an impasse in negotiations.

These proceedings are done in Chambers or in closed court so accused persons are usually not permitted to attend. With the accused not present, Crown and Defence counsel can discuss the case much more frankly and without reservation since any admissions or concessions that the lawyer may make on behalf of his or her client is not binding until the client accepts it.

Judicial pre-trials are also very helpful in negotiating the best possible resolution agreement since there is the objective opinion of the judge who will suggest a reasonable sentence. The added benefit is that presiding judge of the pre-trial can accept a plea that same day and the accused will know what they are going to be sentenced to since the judge will express his or her opinion on an appropriate sentence.

http://www.criminallawyerintoronto.ca/Court%20Procedures%20in%20Ontario/Criminal%20Court%20Procedures.htm

Last we heard from MR's lawyer was that he "might" be pleading not guilty - perhaps he has had a change of heart? It certainly is going to be one long week!

trigger
10-08-2009, 09:43 PM
Last we heard from MR's lawyer was that he "might" be pleading not guilty - perhaps he has had a change of heart? It certainly is going to be one long week!

Yes it is going tobe a long week. The might be...hmmmm. We will see. Its going to be so hard on her family when the trial starts. Are there going to be 2 trials? If he mans up to what he did I will be totally shocked though. It really doesn't happen. I will always have the video of her walking along with TLM in my head. Poor little baby.

Turbododger
10-08-2009, 09:54 PM
I don't think you will see Rafferty plead guilty. He will fight it all the way.

TLM is another story, IMO. I think she will plead guilty.

nonfictionrocks
10-08-2009, 10:38 PM
I don't think you will see Rafferty plead not-guilty. He will fight it all the way.

TLM is another story, IMO. I think she will plead guilty.

TD, I don't understand. Do you mean MR will fight it all the way by pleading not guilty? If he pleads "guilty" how would he fight it all the way - wouldn't the court just take his statement and sentence him accordingly. Again, not trying to start an arguement I am still on cold meds - LOL.

It would certainly be a fiasco justicely speaking if TLM were to even consider entering a "not guilty" plea. Even if she claims that she was "taken advantage of or threatened by" an older more sophisticated individual, would her or her laywer believe that the Canadian public would fall for this BS again! KH burned that bridge for TLM (and others like her) a long time ago!

Turbododger
10-09-2009, 03:53 PM
TD, I don't understand. Do you mean MR will fight it all the way by pleading not guilty? If he pleads "guilty" how would he fight it all the way - wouldn't the court just take his statement and sentence him accordingly. Again, not trying to start an arguement I am still on cold meds - LOL.

It would certainly be a fiasco justicely speaking if TLM were to even consider entering a "not guilty" plea. Even if she claims that she was "taken advantage of or threatened by" an older more sophisticated individual, would her or her laywer believe that the Canadian public would fall for this BS again! KH burned that bridge for TLM (and others like her) a long time ago!

You are right, NFR, thanks!

I meant, MTR WILL plead not-guilty. He will fight it all the way. No way he is admitting anything.

trigger
10-16-2009, 09:31 AM
http://cd989.com/modules/news/article.php?storyid=17868

Geez this is the only article I could find.

maxfactor
10-16-2009, 10:24 AM
Here is one from the London Free Press
http://bing.search.sympatico.ca/?q=londonfreepress&mkt=en-ca&setLang=en-CA I can't get the link right but it is the first story under news.
The man charged with abducting and killing Victoria (Tori) Stafford has been moved to jail in Chatham.

Michael Thomas Rafferty appeared in a Woodstock courtroom today via a video link from the Chatham jail.

Rafferty had been at Elgin-Middlesex Detention Centre in London.

His counsel, Laura Giordano would not provide details yesterday on the reasons for the move. "I can't comment as to why he was moved."

She said it happened recently.

makes me sick to think that he might have been moved for safety reasons

nettie_82
10-16-2009, 10:38 AM
This is OUTRAGEOUS!

Jenny44
10-16-2009, 10:51 AM
What is the difference in the jails, should he have stayed in London?

nettie_82
10-16-2009, 11:04 AM
Chatham jail is said to be a much more laid back jail with many more perks! But I will let someone else speak more on that who has more info about that particular jail. I have just heard that he has coffee, phone, books, tv, lengthy visits, etc. I believe it only has 53 beds but is still classified as maximum security according to this.
http://windsoressex.cioc.ca/record/WIN2901

maxfactor
10-16-2009, 11:07 AM
Chatham jail is said to be a much more laid back jail with many more perks! But I will let someone else speak more on that who has more info about that particular jail. I have just heard that he has coffee, phone, books, tv, lengthy visits, etc. I believe it only has 53 beds but is still classified as maximum security according to this.
http://windsoressex.cioc.ca/record/WIN2901

Tori doesn't have any of those things :furious:

puppyraiser
10-16-2009, 11:07 AM
Chatham seems to be the place they send prisoners who are having a somewhat difficult time in their current location. Chatham is a smaller city.... maybe less chance of other inmates knowing the case or family members of the victim.


And yes, there does seem to be a few more "perks" since it is a smaller jail.

antiquegirl
10-17-2009, 01:49 AM
If and when this man is tried and convicted in a court of law, I will join you in your outrage and fury. But until that time, as a Canadian and a believer in our justice system, I will set aside my torch and pitchfork until that verdict comes in.

dilbert
10-17-2009, 02:00 AM
If and when this man is tried and convicted in a court of law, I will join you in your outrage and fury. But until that time, as a Canadian and a believer in our justice system, I will set aside my torch and pitchfork until that verdict comes in.

agreed!!!

CuriousJorge
10-17-2009, 10:02 PM
Are You One of These? And if so, Which One are You???

I laughed so hard when I read this.

http://expertaccess.cincom.com/2009/09/cynics-brown-nosers-and-fence-sitter’s/

CuriousJorge
10-19-2009, 12:10 AM
I listened to the press conference again tonight and it brought back such sadness and a lot of questions.

The fact that TLM was originally charged with Accessory after the Fact of Murder says volumes in itself. MR's charges have always remained First Degree Murder. Just leaves me with raw nerves thinking how this murder played out. Some people are absolute monsters. Obviously she played a role in TS's death, by leading her to her death, but my gut tells me someone played a bigger role in her death.

For anyone who is interested in watching the live conference again from May 20th, announcing the arrests
http://woodstocksentinelreview.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1547533

nobodyzgirl
10-19-2009, 02:09 PM
I listened to the press conference again tonight and it brought back such sadness and a lot of questions.

The fact that TLM was originally charged with Accessory after the Fact of Murder says volumes in itself. MR's charges have always remained First Degree Murder. Just leaves me with raw nerves thinking how this murder played out. Some people are absolute monsters. Obviously she played a role in TS's death, by leading her to her death, but my gut tells me someone played a bigger role in her death.

For anyone who is interested in watching the live conference again from May 20th, announcing the arrests
http://woodstocksentinelreview.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1547533

The fact that TLM's charges were changed from Accessory after the Fact to First Degree, actually lead me to believe that she played a much larger role in this and could very well have instigated the entire thing. LE must have had the evidence to substantiate it which they provided to the Crown to get her charge changed to First Degree.

antiquegirl
10-19-2009, 02:21 PM
The fact that TLM's charges were changed from Accessory after the Fact to First Degree, actually lead me to believe that she played a much larger role in this and could very well have instigated the entire thing. LE must have had the evidence to substantiate it which they provided to the Crown to get her charge changed to First Degree.

I think that LE was playing her with the lesser charges in order to get her to cooperate with information about Tori's whereabouts. Once she provided them with an approximate location, or way to find it, they upgraded the charges - fully having intended to do so right from the beginning.

We have to remember that LE already had the video evidence of TLM leading Tori away, after which the little girl was not seen alive again. We know what Canadian law states - that anyone involved in an abduction where a death occurs is automatically charged with First Degree Murder, regardless of who is responsible for the death. LE must have known this when TLM was initially charged.

"First degree murder is a murder which is (1) planned and deliberate, (2) contracted, (3) committed against an identified peace officer, (4) while committing or attempting to commit one of the following offences (hijacking an aircraft, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping and forcible confinement or hostage taking), (5) while committing criminal harassment, (6) committed during terrorist activity, (7) while using explosives in association with a criminal organization, or (8) while committing intimidation.[51]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder


MOO

nobodyzgirl
10-21-2009, 01:48 PM
Judicial Pretrial - October 30, 2009

Court Appearance - November 12, 2009

http://woodstocksentinelreview.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2136290

nonfictionrocks
10-22-2009, 09:32 PM
I was listening to the podcast on the arrest of Michael Sandham of Bandido fame in Manitoba and near the end of the audio recording the police officer mentions that there are members of the media hanging around the perimeter of his house and offers to place a blanket over Michael's head when he is climbing into the back of the cruiser. I was wondering if this is some kind of standard operating procedure that LE offer this to someone about to enter a media gauntlet as most "prisoners" are in handcuffs and would need some assistance covering their heads with their own shirts or jackets. We saw TLM enter the court with her lawyer (and police officers) but she may have been advised against it prior to her arrival but we only saw MR leaving the court being escorted out by LE.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/bandidos/2009/10/22/11491921.html

nobodyzgirl
10-22-2009, 10:29 PM
I was listening to the podcast on the arrest of Michael Sandham of Bandido fame in Manitoba and near the end of the audio recording the police officer mentions that there are members of the media hanging around the perimeter of his house and offers to place a blanket over Michael's head when he is climbing into the back of the cruiser. I was wondering if this is some kind of standard operating procedure that LE offer this to someone about to enter a media gauntlet as most "prisoners" are in handcuffs and would need some assistance covering their heads with their own shirts or jackets. We saw TLM enter the court with her lawyer (and police officers) but she may have been advised against it prior to her arrival but we only saw MR leaving the court being escorted out by LE.

That's a really good question NFR. I'm not sure if it is standard procedure or not, though when I think about it, a lot of times when someone is arrested, they seem to have their head covered (or at least that what I've noticed). I know that M. Sandham was an ex-police officer in Winnipeg, so they may have asked him because of that alone. Someone may know better than I that can answer the question.

CuriousJorge
10-23-2009, 10:08 PM
Reading through some oldie posts, I came upon this post #183, page 8. If PepperFritz knew anything regarding pleas, I believe this to be the case. No matter what evidence they have against MR...see bold below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittymama
If both MTR and TLM plead guilty, will that mean this case will just quietly go away? We'll never find out what happened, how TLM got Tori to go with her, who did what, what the motivation was, etc? Nothing at all?

Quote response:
Originally posted by PepperFritz
When someone pleads Guilty to a crime, they must make a full "recounting" of the crime in open court before a judge. So everything would become public knowledge at that point.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Kittymama
Also, is there any possibility of MTR pleading "Not Guilty" if the evidence against him, which he and his lawyer are of course privy to, is irrefutable?

Quote response:
Originally posted by PepperFritz
Sure. It's often those cases which DO go to trial. The evidence is so overwhelming that the Crown does not offer the accused a deal, so he figures he's got nothing to lose by his lawyer trying to argue reasonable doubt. In most cases the Crown would offer a deal just to avoid the expense of a trial. However, in a high-profile case like this where there is strong public feeling, they don't really have that option. So if MR wants to go to trial -- no matter how overwhelming the evidence is against him -- then there will be a trial.

christine2448
10-24-2009, 03:27 PM
Passing on what DC/Mabel told me in e-mails and PMs

If u share someone's private messages or private emails, make sure you have their permission to do so, otherwise, your breaking the rules. Headsup, TIA.

antiquegirl
10-24-2009, 03:36 PM
If u share someone's private messages or private emails, make sure you have their permission to do so, otherwise, your breaking the rules. Headsup, TIA.

Thanks, Christine, but I was referring to the past. Even then I did have their permission. However, since this practice has been discouraged, I no longer do it.

flipflop
10-29-2009, 09:42 PM
MTR has a judical pretrial set for Oct 30 (tomorrow) what happens at these judical pretrials?

dilbert
10-29-2009, 10:37 PM
MTR has a judical pretrial set for Oct 30 (tomorrow) what happens at these judical pretrials?

it's a continuation of the meeting they had earlier this month.


The negotiations with the Crown can take place over one or more meetings and the discussions are wide ranging. Sometimes, one side has to get more information or input, be it from the police officer or witness or from the client. The meetings may involve discussions of guilt or innocence, weaknesses and strengths of the case, and alternate lesser charges. We may discuss the admissibility of certain evidence. We discuss whether there have been any Charter infringements and any applications that need to be brought to assert those infringements.

this explains it quite well.

http://info.lawyershop.ca/criminal/index.php/archives/2009/06/13/what-happens-at-pre-trial-conferences-and-judicial-pre-trial-conferences/

antiquegirl
10-29-2009, 11:23 PM
it's a continuation of the meeting they had earlier this month.



this explains it quite well.

http://info.lawyershop.ca/criminal/index.php/archives/2009/06/13/what-happens-at-pre-trial-conferences-and-judicial-pre-trial-conferences/

Thanks, Dilbert. This was very helpful. I'm interested in this part:

"This is called the judicial pre-trial conference or JPT. If after this meeting, we cannot agree on a way to resolve a charge, then we need to set a date for the trial."

What does it mean "a way to resolve a charge"? Does it mean that it will be decided if the charges stay or are dismissed? Presumably, if they're not dismissed (IMO, unlikely), can we hope that a date will be set for the trial tomorrow? If so, will the media be informed?

dilbert
10-30-2009, 05:48 PM
Thanks, Dilbert. This was very helpful. I'm interested in this part:

"This is called the judicial pre-trial conference or JPT. If after this meeting, we cannot agree on a way to resolve a charge, then we need to set a date for the trial."

What does it mean "a way to resolve a charge"? Does it mean that it will be decided if the charges stay or are dismissed? Presumably, if they're not dismissed (IMO, unlikely), can we hope that a date will be set for the trial tomorrow? If so, will the media be informed?

you know, i was wondering about that myself and if this meeting is kind of like when someone is indicted in the US by a grand jury.
i have no knowlegde of the law aside from what i find when i google, so i'm wondering if these meetings are to decide if there is enough evidence to go to trial or where plea bargains are worked out?

someone told me that these meetings are never publicized but we may learn the outcome on Nov. 12 2009, MR's next court appearance.

dilbert
10-30-2009, 05:55 PM
also, keep in mind this is written by a defense attorney but this was interesting as well.


It’s at this time that I have a chance to provide the Crown with information that they would not otherwise have in the hopes that I can convince the Crown to change their view or their position regarding the case. It’s important to remember that, when the case comes in from the police, the Crown reviews it and comes to an initial assessment but they haven’t heard anything about the other side. This is the time that I have the opportunity to provide certain information that may be beneficial to my client’s case.

nobodyzgirl
10-31-2009, 03:05 PM
you know, i was wondering about that myself and if this meeting is kind of like when someone is indicted in the US by a grand jury.
i have no knowlegde of the law aside from what i find when i google, so i'm wondering if these meetings are to decide if there is enough evidence to go to trial or where plea bargains are worked out?

someone told me that these meetings are never publicized but we may learn the outcome on Nov. 12 2009, MR's next court appearance.

The meetings are never publicized. They are only between Crown, Defense and the judge.

ChaChaCha
11-12-2009, 09:53 PM
http://www.cjbk.com/news/565/1021458

The lawyer for the man accused of kidnapping and murdering eight-year-old Victoria Stafford is asking for the public's ``patience'' .

Following a brief video court appearance today by Michael Rafferty, lawyer Laura Giordano said the public needs ``to keep an open mind'' about her client.

She said that so far, ``only one side of the story has been told.''

nonfictionrocks
11-23-2009, 07:18 PM
TLM's next court date is this Friday the 27th - I wonder if she will enter a plea?

nobodyzgirl
11-24-2009, 09:36 AM
TLM's next court date is this Friday the 27th - I wonder if she will enter a plea?

It will likely be just another remand, though it would be nice if she did plea. This is just my opinion, I can see TLM's counsel trying to make a plea bargain and if Crown says no, I could see her pleading not guilty and taking her chances with a jury.

maxfactor
11-24-2009, 10:56 AM
It will likely be just another remand, though it would be nice if she did This is just my opinion, I can see TLM's counsel trying to make a plea bargain and if Crown says no, I could see her pleading not guilty and taking her chances with a jury.
I agree with you! I somehow don't think she will plead guilty. There's always the possibility that things happened just like she said and she will want to get a lesser sentence. I could be very wrong but my gut is telling me that MR asked her to do this. Still makes her guilty as hell but we will see!

nonfictionrocks
11-24-2009, 07:03 PM
I agree with you! I somehow don't think she will plead guilty. There's always the possibility that things happened just like she said and she will want to get a lesser sentence. I could be very wrong but my gut is telling me that MR asked her to do this. Still makes her guilty as hell but we will see!

I can easily see TLM pleading not guilty too. The video footage of her is not extremely clear and a lawyer could claim that it could have been various other women, LE initially thought it could be TM then her buddy Sara and a few other women that were picked up all the while TLM was detained (reasonable doubt here for a jury). Or, because she did not actually lead LE directly to TS but in the general vicinity, she could claim that MR made her look away from the road or avert her eyes, poor abused thing that she is (again some reasonable doubt for a jury). What we can reasonably assume here is that whether TLM pleads guilty or not guity she will be putting the entire blame on MR.

I tend to agree with Cha in her belief that MR probably has sung like a bird already.

Maxfactor, I too could be very wrong but my gut feeling is telling me that TLM is not only the instigator of this plan but also the murderer. Unless we hear anything more from a reliable source, which for the life of me I cannot figure who that might be right now, I guess we have to wait until the trials.

Kamille
11-27-2009, 10:17 AM
It’s interesting how we’ve all come together here and read all of the “rumours” and facts about this case and yet we’ve still come up with a few different ways of looking at this. Some feel that TLM is the main instigator and others feel it is MR. I think others believe that there is a bigger picture in all of it. Just goes to show how difficult it is going to be to sit on a jury in this case.

Personally, IMO, I still contend that MR is a sexual deviant and a deceiving con man who was most likely able to convince a messed up young girl to do something for him “out of love”. I think her behaviour after the fact indicates that at least she had no idea that this abduction would lead to a murder. I actually don’t think he intended it to happen either. I see this as more of a “grooming” exercise gone wrong. Sexual predators have to start somewhere (assuming this was a first time for either of them) and if the intent was for them to gain a young girl’s trust and initiate some sexual advances towards her, then by her mother’s own admission, they picked the wrong child. From all accounts, Tori would have given them a very hard time and MR at least would have known he‘d be busted for the attempt.

I think TLM was freaked out by what happened but I also think she was desperate to hang onto MR and kept quiet until LE pointed out to her that he was not as enamoured with her as she might have been led to believe. At that point I’d assume she got angry and was resigned to the fact that once again someone had used and deceived her. Her background suggests that she was used to being treated poorly by the people who claimed to love her. She had nothing to lose really by telling her version of the events. Most of her life has been spent in and out of detention situations and there is really nothing on the outside for her. No school, no job, no family other than a mother who was by no means a good one and now no “great” boyfriend. She probably finds some comfort in the structure of a detention environment and the best way to get revenge on that “boyfriend” was to tell LE what happened. Did she downplay her role when telling the story? Maybe. But then again, maybe her role really was just as the person who enticed Tori to go with her to meet her “friend“ and then an accessory after the fact to hiding the body. Either way, the charges are appropriate because she is just as responsible for Tori’s death so she should be charged the same as MR.

MR’s lawyer is telling people to be patient, we’ve only heard one side of the “story”. But here’s the thing… TLM told her side with no legal representation so any manipulation of the story was done strictly on her own. And LE are very good at poking holes in a badly told story. Apparently pretty much everything she said happened matched up to the evidence that they had collected and they were able to collect more from her version. I don’t think TLM is savvy enough to be able to con and deceive LE with a story full of lies. MR on the other hand, has not told his side of the story and he has good legal representation, which he even changed out to get the best he could, who have upwards of a year to polish up that side of the story by getting all of the evidence against him and coming up with ways in which to manipulate that evidence. Standard defence practice that TLM doesn’t have the benefit of considering she implicated herself right from the beginning.

My money is on TLM’s version being as close to what actually happened as we’re ever going to know.

Jenny44
11-27-2009, 10:37 AM
Hi Kamille, ITA with your "version" and I am extremely curious to hear MR's side of the story, (also the evidence that LE have) to be able to put this sad crime all together.

nobodyzgirl
11-27-2009, 11:31 AM
http://www.oxfordreview.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2196413

The woman accused of murdering Victoria "Tori" Stafford made a brief court appearance via video link Friday morning, only to learn that the matter had been adjourned until Dec. 16.

I have had ongoing discussions with Miss LeRoy about this matter," said Crown Attorney Geoff Beasley. "There have been ongoing discussions in respect to the massive disclosure."

nonfictionrocks
11-27-2009, 12:38 PM
http://www.oxfordreview.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2196413

The woman accused of murdering Victoria "Tori" Stafford made a brief court appearance via video link Friday morning, only to learn that the matter had been adjourned until Dec. 16.

I have had ongoing discussions with Miss LeRoy about this matter," said Crown Attorney Geoff Beasley. "There have been ongoing discussions in respect to the massive disclosure."

BBM

This line again reinforces my belief that there is way more to the "troubled teenage girl abducts a little girl for her evil boyfriend" story. I wouldn't underestimate the deviousness of TLM; she is a lot more savvy and probably smarter than most of the characters introduced so far. JMO

nobodyzgirl
11-27-2009, 01:13 PM
BBM

This line again reinforces my belief that there is way more to the "troubled teenage girl abducts a little girl for her evil boyfriend" story. I wouldn't underestimate the deviousness of TLM; she is a lot more savvy and probably smarter than most of the characters introduced so far. JMO

ITA NFR. I think she has learned a few tricks, given that she's been in and out of detention centres and likely has a pretty good idea of how the system works. The statement about numerous discussions about disclosure makes me think that her lawyer is trying to work a plea and getting a reduced sentence - that's JMO however.

Kamille
11-27-2009, 02:28 PM
BBM

This line again reinforces my belief that there is way more to the "troubled teenage girl abducts a little girl for her evil boyfriend" story. I wouldn't underestimate the deviousness of TLM; she is a lot more savvy and probably smarter than most of the characters introduced so far. JMO

BBM


That’s true. I don’t see her as being an “innocent” participant in whatever the plan was at all. TLM herself, as has been reported, was the victim of sexual assault at least once as a young child. And I’ve not read anything that indicated that she received any counselling from that nor was the perpetrator charged with the crime. The only thing I’ve read is that her mother “kept him away from her”. What kind of message is that to a young girl? And did her mother really keep him away from her? Who knows. Considering her mother’s lifestyle and career choice, there could have been other instances of her being “groomed” and ultimately abused by the various men in her mother’s life. So with that in mind, it could very well have been her idea to entice a child for MR. She may even have been well versed in just how to accomplish this if she herself had been a victim. Who really knows what this girl endured while living with her mother. I can only imagine. But whatever happened to her growing up, I'm sure it helped shape the person who she ultimately became. And considering that her mother appears to have made a living off at least one aspect of the sex trade, and she was assaulted at least once by a man in her mother's life, her views on the sexual abuse of children might be pretty skewed.

What I don’t think she considered was that if the child was not easily coerced into their “game“, what the ultimate possibilities were when that child might have reacted rather loudly and violently to her situation. Neither I think did he. And I don’t think either of them were prepared for what ultimately did happen, whatever that was. If this was a planned abduction and murder, I don’t see the need for the stop at HD in the middle of the disposal, they would have been prepared. Of course we have no idea what they stopped for but you’d think that if the murder was planned, they wouldn’t be stopping to do some shopping with a body in the car, if that is in fact what happened.

If she’s lying about anything here, I’d say it was about who’s idea it was to do this in the first place. The rest of the story probably played out pretty much as she claims it did.

Just my opinion only of course.

nonfictionrocks
11-27-2009, 02:42 PM
ITA NFR. I think she has learned a few tricks, given that she's been in and out of detention centres and likely has a pretty good idea of how the system works. The statement about numerous discussions about disclosure makes me think that her lawyer is trying to work a plea and getting a reduced sentence - that's JMO however.

I agree with you NBG. However I have one question: during MTR's pre-trial meetings would TLM's lawyer be privy right away to what is discussed during these sessions. I know that the Crown must provide entire disclosure to both accused. I am under the impression that neither accused have to provide any details of their position to the Crown (unless they are looking to make a deal) and if this is true, neither defense lawyers would know what tale of woe the other will be coming out of their corner with. With neither set of lawyers getting rich on on either of the accused here and, if the evidence is so "cut and dry", what possibly could be the reason for delaying the trials other than behind the scenes deal making.

nonfictionrocks
11-27-2009, 03:17 PM
BBM


That’s true. I don’t see her as being an “innocent” participant in whatever the plan was at all. TLM herself, as has been reported, was the victim of sexual assault at least once as a young child. And I’ve not read anything that indicated that she received any counselling from that nor was the perpetrator charged with the crime. The only thing I’ve read is that her mother “kept him away from her”. What kind of message is that to a young girl? And did her mother really keep him away from her? Who knows. Considering her mother’s lifestyle and career choice, there could have been other instances of her being “groomed” and ultimately abused by the various men in her mother’s life. So with that in mind, it could very well have been her idea to entice a child for MR. She may even have been well versed in just how to accomplish this if she herself had been a victim. Who really knows what this girl endured while living with her mother. I can only imagine. But whatever happened to her growing up, I'm sure it helped shape the person who she ultimately became. And considering that her mother appears to have made a living off at least one aspect of the sex trade, and she was assaulted at least once by a man in her mother's life, her views on the sexual abuse of children might be pretty skewed.

What I don’t think she considered was that if the child was not easily coerced into their “game“, what the ultimate possibilities were when that child might have reacted rather loudly and violently to her situation. Neither I think did he. And I don’t think either of them were prepared for what ultimately did happen, whatever that was. If this was a planned abduction and murder, I don’t see the need for the stop at HD in the middle of the disposal, they would have been prepared. Of course we have no idea what they stopped for but you’d think that if the murder was planned, they wouldn’t be stopping to do some shopping with a body in the car, if that is in fact what happened.

If she’s lying about anything here, I’d say it was about who’s idea it was to do this in the first place. The rest of the story probably played out pretty much as she claims it did.

Just my opinion only of course.

BBM

Again, I could be wrong but I don't think that murder was ever part of whatever the plan was supposed to be and that none of the players considered it could be a possible outcome either. I also am inclined to believe that if it were not for Grandma walking into the Police Station that day in April and reporting TS missing, this forum would not exist today. JMO

nobodyzgirl
11-27-2009, 03:26 PM
I agree with you NBG. However I have one question: during MTR's pre-trial meetings would TLM's lawyer be privy right away to what is discussed during these sessions. I know that the Crown must provide entire disclosure to both accused. I am under the impression that neither accused have to provide any details of their position to the Crown (unless they are looking to make a deal) and if this is true, neither defense lawyers would know what tale of woe the other will be coming out of their corner with. With neither set of lawyers getting rich on on either of the accused here and, if the evidence is so "cut and dry", what possibly could be the reason for delaying the trials other than behind the scenes deal making.


TLM's lawyer would not be informed of anything that is discussed during those meetings.

You are correct, NFR, Crown must disclose everything to defence, though there is no obligation on the part of the defence to disclose anything to the Crown. Ultimately the onus lies on the Crown to prove their case and it's the defence's basic job to refute all evidence.

I don't think they are purposely delaying the trials, it's just how the wheels justice spin in Canada - very slow. My opinion is that TLM's lawyer is trying to get a plea of some sort, or having the charges reduced. MTR's lawyer said that they were pleading not guilty, so it makes me wonder if all the evidence they have against him is just circumstantial, or it's just a game they are playing in the media so they don't show their hand to TLM's lawyer, meanwhile trying to work a deal of some sort out with the Crown - I guess only the parties involved really know what's going on.

dilbert
11-27-2009, 03:32 PM
i find it interesting that people keep discussing the pedophile aspect of this. there have been no sexual charges, only abduction and murder.
the police have never stated this was a sexually based abduction. their words were "nefarious", and even then i don't remember that word coming out of det. renton's mouth, wasn't it a reporter?
possibly there is no evidence to prove a sexual assault occured but my opinion is that sex was not the motive here.

nefarious,who uses that word anymore?

–adjective
extremely wicked or villainous; iniquitous: a nefarious plot.

doesn't sound sexual to me.

antiquegirl
11-27-2009, 03:40 PM
If she’s lying about anything here, I’d say it was about who’s idea it was to do this in the first place. The rest of the story probably played out pretty much as she claims it did.

(Respectfully snipped and BBM)

We really don't know what TLM has claimed and whether she recanted or changed any of those claims in the past few months. If you're referring to the very early reports about "sexual purposes", (a) this was only mentioned once and never directly by LE, but by reporters rushing to get this story out, (b) the word "sexual" was never repeated after these initial reports, but changed to "nefarious", which could mean anything, (c) it was not specified whose "sexual/nefarious purposes" Tori was intended for. Here are some of the ambiguous reports shortly after the arrests. I have underlined the notable points:

"Although police officially won't comment upon the couple's alleged motive, The Globe and Mail has learned that they believe the crime was sexual in nature."

http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090520.tori21/BNStory/National

"The station also reported that “police sources” say that the girl's abduction was not a random act but being viewed as an "opportunistic crime" and Tori may have allegedly been sought for "nefarious" or sexual purposes."

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/05/20/9510611-sun.html?cid=MKTNBPTorontoSUN___EN20080611NB3

What I'm saying is that until the public gets full disclosure from either a confession or trial testimony, we can't say for sure what exactly TLM has "claimed". About the only thing that's certain is that, based on the helicopter rides, she must have admitted to at least having first-hand knowledge of where the remains were left.

JMO

dilbert
11-27-2009, 03:42 PM
thanks for those quotes AG, i was looking for a few to post.

antiquegirl
11-27-2009, 04:18 PM
thanks for those quotes AG, i was looking for a few to post.

Glad to help. :)

The one thing I haven't been able to find is where TLM was purportedly claiming that she walked away from the car while MTR did whatever he was supposed to be doing - whether it was a sexual assault, the murder, or both - wasn't made clear if I remember correctly. Does anyone recall where this rumour originated? I find it difficult to believe that it came from LE directly, as this is not something they would share, even if they had proof.

And for the record, I don't believe that TLM walked away from anything, except maybe the truth.

JMO

dilbert
11-27-2009, 04:28 PM
Glad to help. :)

The one thing I haven't been able to find is where TLM was purportedly claiming that she walked away from the car while MTR did whatever he was supposed to be doing - whether it was a sexual assault, the murder, or both - wasn't made clear if I remember correctly. Does anyone recall where this rumour originated? I find it difficult to believe that it came from LE directly, as this is not something they would share, even if they had proof.

And for the record, I don't believe that TLM walked away from anything, except maybe the truth.

JMO

i'm pretty sure that was a Christie Blatchford article where it said that. i don't recall if it was from "sources" or where she got it from. going to try and find it (although several of her articles have been pulled)

nobodyzgirl
11-27-2009, 04:39 PM
i'm pretty sure that was a Christie Blatchford article where it said that. i don't recall if it was from "sources" or where she got it from. going to try and find it (although several of her articles have been pulled)

I think you are right Dilbert, that it was in an article written by her, I'll see if I can find it also.

maxfactor
11-27-2009, 06:49 PM
I think you are right Dilbert, that it was in an article written by her, I'll see if I can find it also.

I distinctly remember seeing a presser by LE, Fraser, and I'm sure it was he who made the "nefarious purposes" statement. Anyone know if there are still links to the LE pressers?

nonfictionrocks
11-27-2009, 06:53 PM
We really don't know what TLM has claimed and whether she recanted or changed any of those claims in the past few months. If you're referring to the very early reports about "sexual purposes", (a) this was only mentioned once and never directly by LE, but by reporters rushing to get this story out, (b) the word "sexual" was never repeated after these initial reports, but changed to "nefarious", which could mean anything, (c) it was not specified whose "sexual/nefarious purposes" Tori was intended for.



(Respectfully snipped)

AG and dilbert, this is exactly how I remember it playing out and I believe it was City TV's Sue Gambati that started the "sexual purposes" rumour early in the day before the LE Press Conference. Perhaps she didn't actually know the meaning of nefarious or maybe she couldn't pronounce the word. LOL

dilbert
11-27-2009, 07:18 PM
I distinctly remember seeing a presser by LE, Fraser, and I'm sure it was he who made the "nefarious purposes" statement. Anyone know if there are still links to the LE pressers?

may 20 police pressor is here if anyone wants to watch it again. (i can listen to the sound right now)

http://livestream.com/lfpress/video?dirId=4577449522710396074&clipId=pla_6361230651021453499

sillybilly
11-27-2009, 08:11 PM
i find it interesting that people keep discussing the pedophile aspect of this. there have been no sexual charges, only abduction and murder.
the police have never stated this was a sexually based abduction. their words were "nefarious", and even then i don't remember that word coming out of det. renton's mouth, wasn't it a reporter?
possibly there is no evidence to prove a sexual assault occured but my opinion is that sex was not the motive here.

nefarious,who uses that word anymore?

–adjective
extremely wicked or villainous; iniquitous: a nefarious plot.

doesn't sound sexual to me.

LOL, then I must be derned old-fashioned dilbert ... I had used that word about 2 days before the police presser. It seems it is being used interchangeably with "sexual". FWIW, the term "nefarious" is a more general term that could include the more specific reference to sexual, but "sexual" being the far more specific term would not include the more general term "nefarious". Clear as mud ??

Under a kidnapping charge, if there was a sexual component, it does not have to be specified because sexual assault is included as one of the factors in the more broad definition of "kidnapping" within the CCC:

Kamille
11-27-2009, 08:31 PM
I think you are right Dilbert, that it was in an article written by her, I'll see if I can find it also.

Here is a quote from that article...

"Ms. McClintic has told police that she walked a distance away from the car when Mr. Rafferty allegedly assaulted the little girl.

But if proved in court, the allegations that this young woman actively helped in obtaining a child victim for her boyfriend for the purpose of sexual assault would place her in one of the rarest of categories, the so-called “male-coerced or male-accompanied” female sexual offender."

IMO I do believe that Christie Blatchford was able to read court documents prior to writing that article.

nonfictionrocks
11-27-2009, 08:39 PM
LOL, then I must be derned old-fashioned dilbert ... I had used that word about 2 days before the police presser. It seems it is being used interchangeably with "sexual". FWIW, the term "nefarious" is a more general term that could include the more specific reference to sexual, but "sexual" being the far more specific term would not include the more general term "nefarious". Clear as mud ??

Under a kidnapping charge, if there was a sexual component, it does not have to be specified because sexual assault is included as one of the factors in the more broad definition of "kidnapping" within the CCC:

Hey SB, I agree that sexual assault need not be specified under the charges when a kidnapping was involved but why would LE choose to use such an ambiguous word as "nefarious" then simply "sexual" to describe the crime? I think that when standing in front of a room full of press, the wording would have been carefully scruntinized by LE before delivery to this audience. JMO

This phrase combined with Maitland's "undercurrents" comment really raises flags for me. What are your thoughts? TIA

sillybilly
11-27-2009, 09:12 PM
Hey SB, I agree that sexual assault need not be specified under the charges when a kidnapping was involved but why would LE choose to use such an ambiguous word as "nefarious" then simply "sexual" to describe the crime? I think that when standing in front of a room full of press, the wording would have been carefully scruntinized by LE before delivery to this audience. JMO

This phrase combined with Maitland's "undercurrents" comment really raises flags for me. What are your thoughts? TIA

Here's my recollection, but I think I'm the only person in the world who remembers it this way ;) Because I knew the May LE presser was scheduled, I was tuned in right on time. I was sure that Renton used the term "sexual" right at the end of the conference, because my mind did an "ahaaa" .. but of course when I checked it on video at LFP, that comment was NOT there. The ONLY coverage I saw immediately after that presser was on CTV, and a female reporter in a blue suit (not sure if Sue Sgambiati?) was summing up the presser, so I have to assume it was that female reporter that used the term "sexual". Either it was immediately edited out of the LE presser, or it was the reporter who said it. The term was quickly changed in the media to "nefarious" (they must have gotten that word from me though. LOL)

Re my thoughts on undercurrents ... conjecture here, but IMO, because there MAY have been a possibility that either of the suspects was connected to some type of sex ring (or because of the possibility that the B trial was being given consideration), there would be extensive investigation to rule that in or out.

FWIW .. try googling +"victoria stafford +maitland +undercurrents ... NADA !! LE scrambles behind the scenes to control this stuff. Now, did Maitland say that the undercurrents are huge, or did we WSrs just dream that one up? ;)

matou
11-27-2009, 09:24 PM
Here's my recollection, but I think I'm the only person in the world who remembers it this way ;) Because I knew the May LE presser was scheduled, I was tuned in right on time. I was sure that Renton used the term "sexual" right at the end of the conference, because my mind did an "ahaaa" .. but of course when I checked it on video at LFP, that comment was NOT there. The ONLY coverage I saw immediately after that presser was on CTV, and a female reporter in a blue suit (not sure if Sue Sgambiati?) was summing up the presser, so I have to assume it was that female reporter that used the term "sexual". Either it was immediately edited out of the LE presser, or it was the reporter who said it. The term was quickly changed in the media to "nefarious" (they must have gotten that word from me though. LOL)

Re my thoughts on undercurrents ... conjecture here, but IMO, because there MAY have been a possibility that either of the suspects was connected to some type of sex ring (or because of the possibility that the B trial was being given consideration), there would be extensive investigation to rule that in or out.

FWIW .. try googling +"victoria stafford +maitland +undercurrents ... NADA !! LE scrambles behind the scenes to control this stuff. Now, did Maitland say that the undercurrents are huge, or did we WSrs just dream that one up? ;)


"The undercurrent of this investigation is huge," Maitland said. "It's top priority, of course . . . we don't release things of evidentiary nature and we don't release how we investigate or what we're doing next or what our steps are. Those types of things are generating the undercurrent that I'm talking about."

http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1625739

sillybilly
11-27-2009, 09:27 PM
http://i809.photobucket.com/albums/zz15/sillybillyyyy/ConstMaitland.jpg

"I definitely did NOT say that ... I said my "underwear is huge".

sillybilly
11-27-2009, 09:28 PM
http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1625739

Thanks matou. I'm wrong again !! Oh well, I had fun with it for a minute or two.

nonfictionrocks
11-27-2009, 09:28 PM
Here's my recollection, but I think I'm the only person in the world who remembers it this way ;) Because I knew the May LE presser was scheduled, I was tuned in right on time. I was sure that Renton used the term "sexual" right at the end of the conference, because my mind did an "ahaaa" .. but of course when I checked it on video at LFP, that comment was NOT there. The ONLY coverage I saw immediately after that presser was on CTV, and a female reporter in a blue suit (not sure if Sue Sgambiati?) was summing up the presser, so I have to assume it was that female reporter that used the term "sexual". Either it was immediately edited out of the LE presser, or it was the reporter who said it. The term was quickly changed in the media to "nefarious" (they must have gotten that word from me though. LOL)

Re my thoughts on undercurrents ... conjecture here, but IMO, because there MAY have been a possibility that either of the suspects was connected to some type of sex ring (or because of the possibility that the B trial was being given consideration), there would be extensive investigation to rule that in or out.

FWIW .. try googling +"victoria stafford +maitland +undercurrents ... NADA !! LE scrambles behind the scenes to control this stuff. Now, did Maitland say that the undercurrents are huge, or did we WSrs just dream that one up? ;)

I used a few different words and came up with this link:

http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1625739

"The undercurrent of this investigation is huge," Maitland said. "It's top priority, of course . . . we don't release things of evidentiary nature and we don't release how we investigate or what we're doing next or what our steps are. Those types of things are generating the undercurrent that I'm talking about."

Though I wished we WS's made it up!

maxfactor
11-27-2009, 09:36 PM
I used a few different words and came up with this link:

http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1625739

"The undercurrent of this investigation is huge," Maitland said. "It's top priority, of course . . . we don't release things of evidentiary nature and we don't release how we investigate or what we're doing next or what our steps are. Those types of things are generating the undercurrent that I'm talking about."

Though I wished we WS's made it up!
Bolded by me.

I wonder if she's meaning all the oxy busts that happened there shortly after all this?

sillybilly
11-27-2009, 10:02 PM
Bolded by me.

I wonder if she's meaning all the oxy busts that happened there shortly after all this?

That could be too max. Thinking of both Tori's and Mariam's case where we are hearing the words huge, massive, unprecedented ... terms that seem a bit out of the norm for conservative LE.:waitasec:

Kamille
11-27-2009, 10:16 PM
Hey SB, I agree that sexual assault need not be specified under the charges when a kidnapping was involved but why would LE choose to use such an ambiguous word as "nefarious" then simply "sexual" to describe the crime? I think that when standing in front of a room full of press, the wording would have been carefully scruntinized by LE before delivery to this audience. JMO

This phrase combined with Maitland's "undercurrents" comment really raises flags for me. What are your thoughts? TIA

IMO the reason why LE were hesitant to use the wording "sexual purposes" in their press conference was because they were only going on TLM's story of what happened. They did not have actual evidence that a sexual crime took place. They might not even have it today.

But Tori was obviously not abducted to go shopping so "nefarious" fit the purpose when describing the crime, especially at that time. At that time all they had was TLM's story and corroborating evidence. That still might be the case.

dilbert
11-28-2009, 01:17 AM
i wish someone would abduct me to go shopping! ;)

nonfictionrocks
11-28-2009, 01:53 AM
i wish someone would abduct me to go shopping! ;)

OMG - that's is funny but in all seriousness, I wish someone would just do my shopping!

braindrained
12-14-2009, 02:35 PM
http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1625739

Renton most definately did say 'sexual purposes'. I made notes on what was being said when I watched the presser live. But the presser was magically edited ASAP!
For this reason I hate technology in some things....too fast on the draw to fix things so everyone will be led to doubt their own sanity when discussing it later on ...:banghead:

puppyraiser
12-16-2009, 01:02 PM
Tori murder suspect waives right to preliminary trial- story follows regarding TLM.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091216/tori_murder_091216/20091216?hub=Toronto

nobodyzgirl
12-16-2009, 01:09 PM
Tori murder suspect waives right to preliminary trial- story follows regarding TLM.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091216/tori_murder_091216/20091216?hub=Toronto

Interesting...trial date will be set in March. Thanks for this Puppyraiser. I understand that MR has another preliminary hearing on Friday. Interesting that the media is back once again, saying MR is the former boyfriend, I don't know that that's ever been actually confirmed.

maxfactor
12-17-2009, 12:17 AM
Here's the article from the Sentinel Review
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2224441

nobodyzgirl
12-18-2009, 11:41 AM
Looks like MR is also ready to go to trial, and his lawyer says he'll be prepared pleading not guilty (which we already knew). Now the question is, who will get their trial first. I know that TLM is scheduled for another court appearance in March, MR's next appearance is in February, though they will be discussing legal issues, wonder if one of the issues will be reducing/dropping charges.

From his lawyers statement, makes me wonder if they are planning a plea bargain, and if they don't like what they hear they will plead not guilty and take the chance they can prove reasonable doubt.

http://www.oxfordreview.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2228262

WOODSTOCK – A preliminary hearing in the Michael Rafferty case could begin in the early summer next year.

Rafferty, charged with abduction and first-degree murder, made a brief video appearance in court Friday morning.

His next video appearance is set for Feb. 17, 2010.

Crown attorney Brian Crockett said a preliminary hearing is scheduled for between June 21 and July 13, 2010.

Rafferty, 28, and Terri-Lynne McClintic, 19, were charged in connection with the disappearance of eight-year-old Victoria Stafford in April.

February's appearance is for a focus hearing, where the Crown and defence are to discuss legal issues in advance of the preliminary hearing.

After Friday's appearance, where Rafferty was remanded in custody at the Chatham Jail, a lawyer representing him said he was prepared to go to trial.

"Mr. Rafferty is prepared to plead not guilty," said Laura Giordano of the Toronto-based firm Derstine Penman.

"He will be going to trial."
Giordano asked the public to keep an open mind about the case.

"I would ask the public to be patient. This will all come out at trial," she said.

Kamille
12-18-2009, 12:59 PM
IMO, the only defense that I see MR and his lawyers trying here is a complete not guilty defense...as in, he wasn't involved at all. They might approach it as TLM is setting him up and while he knew her, he wasn't there that day and whatever happened, maybe TLM had help but it wasn't him and she's pointing the finger at him out of anger or revenge and protecting someone else.

I don't think they are going to admit to any involvement on MR's part, what would be the point? I also don't think MR has admitted to any involvement...to anyone. Conmen and pathological liars very rarely "fess up" to anything. They'll play the con out to the bitter end. Even when confronted with the evidence that they're lying, they still never admit it. It's unlikely that he would get a lesser charge or any kind of a plea deal if he did admit to his possible role in this (which again, I don't think he ever will...to anyone) so I think they will try to argue away all the circumstantial evidence and put TLM's character in question as a reliable witness. Go for broke so to speak and hope they can get an aquittal based on reasonable doubt.

If the prosecution is relying on that video of him in the gas station as proof that he was involved, and that is the only video of him and his car that they have, then he can just say he was gassing up (if in fact he did) to go for a long drive by himself, which he apparently liked to do. So there's his alibi right there. He was out all night driving around by himself and the defense have the video of him alone getting gas to prove it.

I sincerely hope that LE have a lot more than that video and TLM's story to go on.

swedie
03-13-2011, 04:11 AM
I think that LE was playing her with the lesser charges in order to get her to cooperate with information about Tori's whereabouts. Once she provided them with an approximate location, or way to find it, they upgraded the charges - fully having intended to do so right from the beginning.

We have to remember that LE already had the video evidence of TLM leading Tori away, after which the little girl was not seen alive again. We know what Canadian law states - that anyone involved in an abduction where a death occurs is automatically charged with First Degree Murder, regardless of who is responsible for the death. LE must have known this when TLM was initially charged.

"First degree murder is a murder which is (1) planned and deliberate, (2) contracted, (3) committed against an identified peace officer, (4) while committing or attempting to commit one of the following offences (hijacking an aircraft, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping and forcible confinement or hostage taking), (5) while committing criminal harassment, (6) committed during terrorist activity, (7) while using explosives in association with a criminal organization, or (8) while committing intimidation.[51]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder


MOO

Thank you for this information Antiquegirl. I have been reading on some of these threads, gaining some information and I am amazed by all the work you people have done on Tori's case.

So with this information you have posted from wikipedia, if it stands correct, if the Crown can show/prove that MR was with TLM through the abduction and up until TS demize, MR will be held responsible also. I guess that would make sense, as it would show that MR was present and did nothing to deter TLM from carrying out her morbid act against TS.

I have been following another case here at WS and there is much talk about cell phone pings. Is there any of that information on this case? I know MR had a bb, but have cell phone records been exposed?

antiquegirl
03-14-2011, 10:51 AM
Thank you for this information Antiquegirl. I have been reading on some of these threads, gaining some information and I am amazed by all the work you people have done on Tori's case.

So with this information you have posted from wikipedia, if it stands correct, if the Crown can show/prove that MR was with TLM through the abduction and up until TS demize, MR will be held responsible also. I guess that would make sense, as it would show that MR was present and did nothing to deter TLM from carrying out her morbid act against TS.

That is correct. I'm not sure, but there may be a possibility that MR can plead to 2nd degree murder, but according to the law, he didn't even have to be present for the actual murder -- if he was there for any part of the abduction, he is held accountable for Tori's death.


I have been following another case here at WS and there is much talk about cell phone pings. Is there any of that information on this case? I know MR had a bb, but have cell phone records been exposed?

To the best of my knowledge, there has been no media exposure of any evidentiary nature related to this case, including phone records.

(We can only assume that LE's revelation of MR's vehicle at the gas station and Home Depot will turn out to be evidence, but they have only asked for witnesses and have not explicitly stated that these will be used as evidence during the trial.)

swedie
03-15-2011, 09:11 PM
Thank you Antiquegirl. I know there was much talk of his bb. I could not find anything in the media about it, but there was information (maybe rumors) that came out about repairs to it and it was the company who retreived information from his bb and turned it over to LE. LE also impounded his vehicle looking for evidence. I would believe this could be used as evidence also. If TS's DNA was found in it. It doesn't necessarily mean MR was present when TS was in his car, but it's still evidence. I guess if LE have cell pings of where he travelled that day in his car and where TS's body was found I believe that would be evidence enough to charge him with 1st degree murder. This would show he was there through the abduction right through to the murder and did not deter TLM, which would make him just as guilty.

matou
03-15-2011, 10:29 PM
The Oxford Police released info about residents living within a 50 minute distance from Guelph to check their properties for anything suspicious. How LE got this 50 minute distance wasn't revealed to my knowledge and could possibly be linked to the use of a cell phone or video capture of the suspect vehicle somewhere. If the phone was used as a time device, then the phone was on and likely pinged out there. The drive time from the Guelph Home Depot to the location of the remains is about 57 minutes.
http://www.nationalpost.com/most-popular/story.html?id=1621086

swedie
03-17-2011, 02:46 AM
Thank you Matou :seeya: In this day and age of technology, I bet this is exactly how LE found TS. Cell phone pings and towers. Next I bet the best evidence they have is DNA and the videos. My gut tells me that TLM's testamony isn't going to be what the jury rely solely on. Actually it would be ridiculous it they did of course, but something tells me that our modern day technology spoke volumes when solving this case. Even if it's accient technology, such as fingerprints, I would guess there were many of those left at the scence. I don't believe whoever took Tori's life thought she'd ever be found or that they would ended up suspects. JMHO.

Thank you Lord for bringing Tori home and giving her family some closure.

swedie
03-17-2011, 03:06 AM
Oh also, I just read this article Matou, thank you, and this paragraph "to me" says so much. I want to believe that after their arrests, TLM was fully cooperating with LE and by this time she had probably told them everything that transpired. At this point in the game, why would it be to her benefit to lie? As was stated by her attorney, she was not looking for a plea deal. JMO also, she may have come to terms with her sentence by this time. Could it be, prison seemed like a better life for her, then the one she had existed in? I wonder why also, so many people seem to doubt that they were bf/gf? In this day and age, age means nothing to so many. It also says in the article that the suspects car was involved. I know that doesn't necessarily mean that he was involved, but what are the chances? Did TLM have a license? If so, how could she gain control over TS should TS start to get scared and try to flee? So many questions, answers are coming, but it still doesn't bring a beautiful innocent child back to her loving family.

Late on Tuesday night, police arrested Ms. McClintic, who lived in a ramshackle row house in Woodstock with her mother, charging her with abduction and aiding her boyfriend, Michael Thomas Rafferty, 28, who is charged with abduction and first-degree murder.

swedie
04-26-2011, 03:28 AM
Once MR's trial starts, it will be interesting to see who will be called to give testimony. I did some reading on TS's forum over the weekend, it appears he had friends who posted on here with information about him early on. "If" they are subpoenaed, I wonder which side will call upon them? I have compiled two lists, one for the crown and one for defense. Of course we do not know for fact at this point, who will be subpoenaed, but I thought it would be interesting to see what we can come up with as potential people. Please feel free to help, I believe your insight could help. Thanks kindly sleuthers. :blowkiss:

For the Crown

-TLM
-TLM's mother
-Detective/s
-Coroner
-Forensic expert
-Digital Forensic expert
-The owner of the gas station where video surveillance was obtained
-Possible witnesses from HD/cashier
-The man seen in the school video, who appeared to be waiting for his child
-TLM's next door neighbours/Racine, MacDonald and the other woman
-TLM's friend (Karla ?) the female who MR gave a ride to and she saw something scarey in his trunk.
-MR's ex girlfriend who claimed MR stole money from her.


For the Defense

-MR's mother
-Drivenchick MR's ex girlfriend
-Wendell best friend
-Forensic expert


Any more suggestions anyone? Thank you.

otto
04-26-2011, 03:38 AM
She was in his car, with him driving, throughout. The only thing he can argue is that he was there, but he didn't kill her. Maybe he'll say that she went into a jealous rage and he was helpless until it was too late. Would that reduce his sentence to less than 25 years, or reduce the time that he has to wait for parole eligibility?

maxfactor
04-26-2011, 12:31 PM
She was in his car, with him driving, throughout. The only thing he can argue is that he was there, but he didn't kill her. Maybe he'll say that she went into a jealous rage and he was helpless until it was too late. Would that reduce his sentence to less than 25 years, or reduce the time that he has to wait for parole eligibility?

I fully expect that MR will try to blame this on TLM, I don't think it is going to matter to his sentence though, after all they both knew Tori was gone, they covered her up and hid her. He could have called 911 if he wanted to. I wonder if any finger prints were found on the garbage bags that were placed over Tori, or on any of her belongings. I hope so. I believe LE has a lot more evidence than we could ever know, I wouldn't be surprised if they even have the car seat. I don't see anywhere that says they are still looking for it. I think it was posted on one of the websites for LE and I can't find it now.

maxfactor
04-26-2011, 12:33 PM
Once MR's trial starts, it will be interesting to see who will be called to give testimony. I did some reading on TS's forum over the weekend, it appears he had friends who posted on here with information about him early on. "If" they are subpoenaed, I wonder which side will call upon them? I have compiled two lists, one for the crown and one for defense. Of course we do not know for fact at this point, who will be subpoenaed, but I thought it would be interesting to see what we can come up with as potential people. Please feel free to help, I believe your insight could help. Thanks kindly sleuthers. :blowkiss:

For the Crown

-TLM
-TLM's mother
-Detective/s
-Coroner
-Forensic expert
-Digital Forensic expert
-The owner of the gas station where video surveillance was obtained
-Possible witnesses from HD/cashier
-The man seen in the school video, who appeared to be waiting for his child
-TLM's next door neighbours/Racine, MacDonald and the other woman
-TLM's friend (Karla ?) the female who MR gave a ride to and she saw something scarey in his trunk.
-MR's ex girlfriend who claimed MR stole money from her.


For the Defense

-MR's mother
-Drivenchick MR's ex girlfriend
-Wendell best friend
-Forensic expert


Any more suggestions anyone? Thank you.

I think you could add to the Crown's list the employees of the car wash in Guelph, and I think the Crown probably would have questions for MR's mother, his girlfriend and his close friends, especially regarding his car seat.

dilbert
04-26-2011, 04:01 PM
She was in his car, with him driving, throughout. The only thing he can argue is that he was there, but he didn't kill her. Maybe he'll say that she went into a jealous rage and he was helpless until it was too late. Would that reduce his sentence to less than 25 years, or reduce the time that he has to wait for parole eligibility?

As far as I understand it, if he was with her at all that day during the time Tori was abducted, and the crown can prove that, then he cannot get a reduced sentence for any reason. In Canada, a death that occurs during a kidnapping, even if accidental, is first degree murder, which is a life sentence.

His only hope is if the crown cannot prove he was there, at all.


First degree murder now consists of 4 forms of homicide: murders that are planned and deliberate, murders of police or custodial officers killed in the line of duty, murders committed in the course of specified criminal acts (hijacking, sexual offences or kidnapping) or murders committed by a person who has been convicted of first or second degree murder. Second degree murder now constitutes all other murders.

http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0003825

matou
04-26-2011, 04:34 PM
I fully expect that MR will try to blame this on TLM, I don't think it is going to matter to his sentence though, after all they both knew Tori was gone, they covered her up and hid her. He could have called 911 if he wanted to. I wonder if any finger prints were found on the garbage bags that were placed over Tori, or on any of her belongings. I hope so. I believe LE has a lot more evidence than we could ever know, I wouldn't be surprised if they even have the car seat. I don't see anywhere that says they are still looking for it. I think it was posted on one of the websites for LE and I can't find it now.

Fingerprints on the garbage bags...good thinking! The police haven't been asking for the car seat and I think Renton was asked about it at the presser when Tori was found. He said that it would be helpful but it didn't seem to be urgent anymore by the way he responded. It could also be that LE has it. Also, the police released the info about the car 2 or 3 days after MR's arrest. It makes me think he wasn't with his car when he was arrested. JMO

swedie
04-26-2011, 07:57 PM
Remember when LE hauled away a dumpster and they were searching lakes near Guelph? My hinky meter tells me that TLM told them that "stuff" was deposited in a dumpster and some in a lake. We have many items that could have been disposed of, such as a hammer, maybe extra garbage bags, rear car seat, Tori's clothing, her Hannah Montana bag, her coat. It was at the very same time TLM was helping LE search by helicopter, LE were searching dumpsters and lakes. I posted on another thread recently mentioning lakes and MR's car seat. If my memory serves me correctly, there was mention of butterfly earrings, her broken hairband and now I just read her Hannah Montana T-shirt were found with her remains but no mention of the other items I listed above. Dumpster and lake I bet. If so, I hope LE found all.

Edited statement of facts. Last paragraph
http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Edited+statement+facts+Tori+Stafford+case/3951650/s

Hi Otto :seeya: I still go back to the first breaking report and feel this is the way it played out. Don't forget though, this is the media's perception/info and they did not know what LE had for information at that time. They upgraded TLM's charges to give her a lengthy sentence also and because she was equally responsible in Tori's demise. It is JMO but I think MR and TLM "knew" how their sadistic crime was going to play out. JMHO

Teri Lynn McClintic is charged with abducting Stafford from her parents Tara McDonald and Rodney Stafford. She was also read charges of assisting Michael Thomas C. S. Rafferty in escaping the area.

Rafferty was read charges of having abducted Stafford, and then, in Woodstock or elsewhere in Ontario, having murdered her. McClintic was read a third charge of having been an accessory to murder after the fact.

The station also reported that “police sources” say that the girl's abduction was not a random act but being viewed as an "opportunistic crime" and Tori may have allegedly been sought for "nefarious" or sexual purposes

http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1575460&archive=true

I wonder if MR could face the dangerous offenders designation???

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/10/21/f-dangerous-offender.html

matou
04-26-2011, 08:16 PM
As far as I understand it, if he was with her at all that day during the time Tori was abducted, and the crown can prove that, then he cannot get a reduced sentence for any reason. In Canada, a death that occurs during a kidnapping, even if accidental, is first degree murder, which is a life sentence.

His only hope is if the crown cannot prove he was there, at all.



http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/index.cfm?PgNm=TCE&Params=A1ARTA0003825

I guess he doesn't have any hope then. JMO

swedie
04-26-2011, 08:16 PM
I think you could add to the Crown's list the employees of the car wash in Guelph, and I think the Crown probably would have questions for MR's mother, his girlfriend and his close friends, especially regarding his car seat.

Thanks Max:seeya: You are right, the Crown will more then likely do cross examination of some/all of the defenses witnesses, just as the defense will do the same with the Crown's witnesses. I didn't add them to the list because I think we can pretty much expect that to happen.

For the Crown
-TLM
-TLM's mother
-Detective/s
-Coroner
-Forensic expert
-Digital Forensic expert
-The owner of the gas station where video surveillance was obtained
-Possible witnesses from HD/cashier
-The man seen in the school video, who appeared to be waiting for his child
-TLM's next door neighbours/Racine, MacDonald and the other woman
-TLM's friend (Karla ?) the female who MR gave a ride to and she saw something scarey in his trunk.
-MR's ex girlfriend who claimed MR stole money from her.
-employee/owner of car wash
-MR's old acquintances who talked to media about him and his possible lies.
-principal/teachers from high school
-past employer/employees

For the Defense
-MR's mother
-Drivenchick MR's ex girlfriend
-Wendell best friend
-Forensic expert

I guess I should not assume, but is DC and Wendell still "friends/girlfriend" with MR? Anyone know? If not, they could be called by the Crown. Looking for more, anyone please help.:seeya:

swedie
04-26-2011, 08:36 PM
i find it interesting that people keep discussing the pedophile aspect of this. there have been no sexual charges, only abduction and murder.
the police have never stated this was a sexually based abduction. their words were "nefarious", and even then i don't remember that word coming out of det. renton's mouth, wasn't it a reporter?
possibly there is no evidence to prove a sexual assault occured but my opinion is that sex was not the motive here.

nefarious,who uses that word anymore?

–adjective
extremely wicked or villainous; iniquitous: a nefarious plot.

doesn't sound sexual to me.

See my post #96 Dilbert. The LE said they feel Tori was abducted for nefarious or sexual purposes. It is in that article.

swedie
04-26-2011, 09:56 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dangerous_offender

On October 17, 2006, the Canadian government introduced legislation that would make it easier for Crown prosecutors to obtain dangerous offender designations. The proposed amendments would provide, among other things, that an offender found guilty of a third conviction of a designated violent or sexual offence must prove that he or she does not qualify as a dangerous offender.[4] (Under current legislation, the Crown must prove that the individual qualifies as a dangerous offender; the proposed amendment would reverse the onus for individuals convicted of three violent offences– they would have to prove that despite the three convictions, they do not qualify as dangerous offenders.)

So I guess MR if found guilty would not have to worry about the dangerous offenders fate. PB more than likely got it because of the numerous rapes and at least the 3 murders of KF, LM, Karla's sister.

maxfactor
04-26-2011, 11:05 PM
See my post #96 Dilbert. The LE said they feel Tori was abducted for nefarious or sexual purposes. It is in that article.

I don't have a link for it Swedie but I remember watching the news and seeing LE saying " nefarious and sexual purposes", the link was pulled down within a few days if I remember correctly.

swedie
04-26-2011, 11:06 PM
I think you could add to the Crown's list the employees of the car wash in Guelph, and I think the Crown probably would have questions for MR's mother, his girlfriend and his close friends, especially regarding his car seat.

For the Crown
-TLM
-TLM's mother
-Detective/s
-Coroner
-Forensic expert
-Digital Forensic expert
-The owner of the gas station where video surveillance was obtained
-Possible witnesses from HD/cashier
-The man seen in the school video, who appeared to be waiting for his child
-TLM's next door neighbours/Racine, MacDonald and the other woman
-TLM's friend (Karla ?) the female who MR gave a ride to and she saw something scarey in his trunk.
-MR's ex girlfriend who claimed MR stole money from her.
-owner/employee of the car wash
-principal from MR's high school/teachers
-former employees/employer

For the Defense
-MR's mother
-Drivenchick MR's ex girlfriend
-Wendell best friend
-Forensic expert

Thank you for that suggestion Max! :seeya:You are correct Max the Crown will more then likely cross examine any witness for the defense, and visa versa. I just thought I would do it this way knowing there will be cross examinations. Even though Drivenchick and Wendell were friends at the time of TS's demise, does anyone know if they still are friend/girlfriend? Why I'm asking is because they may not be anymore and they may be witnesses for the Crown if that is the case.

I have also corrolated a list of "possible evidence" on the Forensic thread if anyone can think of more things to add, be my guest. Thanks! :tyou::thumb:

swedie
04-27-2011, 02:57 AM
I don't have a link for it Swedie but I remember watching the news and seeing LE saying " nefarious and sexual purposes", the link was pulled down within a few days if I remember correctly.

Hi Max. If you go to my post #96, I have linked it there. It is the second link, but I also copy and pasted that part from the article in my post. Actually I will bring the link here.
copy and paste from article.
The station also reported that “police sources” say that the girl's abduction was not a random act but being viewed as an "opportunistic crime" and Tori may have allegedly been sought for "nefarious" or sexual purposes.
Here is the link and it is about half way through the article.
http://www.thewhig.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=1575460&archive=true
HTH