Weekend Discussion thread 04/21-24/2012

[Ardy]

Very good post, AG..........and it reflects much of what I have been wondering.

The Crown accused MR of "nefarious" reasons for kidnapping VS, and had the opportunity to strengthen their accusation against MR.........but failed to ask the questions that would have accomplished that.

Anything that MR had said to anyone regarding an interest in little girls, would be as eligible as evidence as anything found on a computer of such an interest.

If LE found websites on a computer owned by MR, that contained images of young girls, or searches about abduction.......or anything relating to the charges against him...........they would be entered into evidence.

It happens all the time when LE seize the computers of pedophiles, and find improper images on them. Those images are all entered into evidence.

I agree that good lawyers never ask a question for which they don't already know the answer...........and they don't ask questions that will not bolster their own case.

As we have seen in this trial, the Crown didn't see fit to bring up TLM's past and her writings...........and had it not been for the defense, the jury would never have known about this important evidence.

Every time the Crown fails to go into greater detail, I wonder about 2 things.

Either they aren't allowed to discuss it legally..........or they don't want to.

As always JMO.......................

 

[Ardy]

TLM was leading VS down the sidewalk, and from the video of them leaving the parking lot, we see MR's car drive up to the sidewalk and leave. Therefore his car was waiting within the parking lot.

TLM would have to lead VS into the parking lot and towards MR's car.

I believe an already hesitant (as it appeared in the video) little girl, would see the car door open and know it had nothing to do with looking at a dog.

If TLM's testimony is true.......I believe she would have had to drag a kicking and screaming VS into the car.

TLM didn't testify to that. She testified that she pushed VS into the car, which means VS had to be standing right beside the open back door.

More likely to me, TLM told VS a story about looking after her for awhile, or taking her home to her mom's house.

Then I ask myself..............why would TLM lie about this detail?

The answer that I come up with is that it didn't fit her original accusation that MR abducted and killed VS.

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

 

[Salem]

JMO ..TM testified that VS did not know TLM..then she testified that VS would not walk away with strangers...anyone else see something wrong with those two sentences...JMO

No. I think it is perfectly normal for a child to do the opposite of what the parent thinks the child will do. I watched "My Child Would Never Do That" put on by NBC's Dateline program last night. Quite the eye opener. All parents should watch that program.

Salem

 

[brighidin]

Very good post, AG..........and it reflects much of what I have been wondering.

The Crown accused MR of "nefarious" reasons for kidnapping VS, and had the opportunity to strengthen their accusation against MR.........but failed to ask the questions that would have accomplished that.

Anything that MR had said to anyone regarding an interest in little girls, would be as eligible as evidence as evidence found on a computer of such an interest.

If LE found websites on a computer owned by MR, that contained images of young girls, or searches about abduction.......or anything relating to the charges against him...........they would be entered into evidence.

It happens all the time when LE seize the computers of pedophiles, and find improper images on them. Those images are all entered into evidence.

I agree that good lawyers never ask a question for which they don't already know the answer...........and they don't ask questions that will not bolster their own case.

As we have seen in this trial, the Crown didn't see fit to bring up TLM's past and her writings...........and had it not been for the defense, the jury would never have known about this important evidence.

Every time the Crown fails to go into greater detail, I wonder about 2 things.

Either they aren't allowed to discuss it legally..........or they don't want to.

As always JMO.......................

Why would the crown bring up letters TLM wrote before she met MR? She isn't on trial. She is already in jail, as you know, for her part in the crime. The only people who want to keep re-trying TLM are the defense.

As to the first bolding: respectfully, unless you have evidence that everyone who rapes little girls is a pedophile, the lack of computer images means nothing. Maybe he is just a sadistic psychopath. Rape isn't about sex either, so the fact that he was able to get women to sleep with him doesn't exclude him from possibly being a rapist.

Does he even have his own computer? In any case, if you followed the Hailey Dunn case, you would see that when more than one person shares a computer, it is difficult to charge one individual with child *advertiser censored*.

 

[swedie]

actually I don't bother with pictures...I am familiar with areas around school having done the school run for many years...I know what a scene looks like and I also know as I previously stated why parents try and avoid a crowded parking lot and move further along...maybe the next place to park was also full of those parents that won't park at the school so that is why MR moved on to the home area...funny though one would think he would have been worried about camera's at that home because I would think they would have them considering all the drugs that they would have in there... Just saying... JMO also most area's around a school have a very slow speed and at least where I live there is usually a cop in the area to enforce that speed limit...just saying......

Guess he didn't think HD, convenient stores, Timmies or ITMs had video cameras either. I don't think MR thought too much about anything that day other then raping a little girl. He could hardly contain himself as he pulled into that secluded laneway. moo

 

[brighidin]

No. I think it is perfectly normal for a child to do the opposite of what the parent thinks the child will do. I watched "My Child Would Never Do That" put on by NBC's Dateline program last night. Quite the eye opener. All parents should watch that program.

Salem

I haven't seen it, but as I posted the other night, I am fairly certain that my daughter would go with a stranger if she was presented with a 'sick mom' or 'lost dog' scenario. I have taught her about strangers and not to ever go with anyone...ever!! But she is a a loving, empathetic innocent 7 year old that loves her Mom and loves dogs. That is why abductors use those scenarios: they know kids will fall for them, despite what their parents have taught them.

 

[Salem]

You believe she wasn't classified as a dangerous offender because she confessed? From my understanding that can be done at anytime, she may still yet. JMO

And I would think that the Crown would be wanting to do something to add to her punishment for lying. She got a life sentence basically for kidnapping, and assisting in the murder. Now, she has said it was actually her that did the murder. I would think the Crown would not want to see that go unpunished.

I don't know - just seems logical that they would give her Danderous Offender status now.

Salem

 

[girlfriday]

Very good post, AG..........and it reflects much of what I have been wondering.

The Crown accused MR of "nefarious" reasons for kidnapping VS, and had the opportunity to strengthen their accusation against MR.........but failed to ask the questions that would have accomplished that.

Anything that MR had said to anyone regarding an interest in little girls, would be as eligible as evidence as evidence found on a computer of such an interest.

If LE found websites on a computer owned by MR, that contained images of young girls, or searches about abduction.......or anything relating to the charges against him...........they would be entered into evidence.

It happens all the time when LE seize the computers of pedophiles, and find improper images on them. Those images are all entered into evidence.

I agree that good lawyers never ask a question for which they don't already know the answer...........and they don't ask questions that will not bolster their own case.

As we have seen in this trial, the Crown didn't see fit to bring up TLM's past and her writings...........and had it not been for the defense, the jury would never have known about this important evidence.

Every time the Crown fails to go into greater detail, I wonder about 2 things.

Either they aren't allowed to discuss it legally..........or they don't want to.

As always JMO.......................

All this perhaps looks good for MR. But, we must keep in mind, that an entire month went by where he was on the lamb and therefore was able to cover his tracks and dispose of and tamper with evidence. The items tested after TLM's 'confession', would not reasonably have been expected to be ripe with forensics from the crime. Sounds to me like it would have been much smarter for MR to have come forward, right away, - while the evidence could have perhaps supported his claims.

This is just my opinion.

 

[Ardy]

The impression I got from TLM's testimony was that some of it sounded rehearsed and beyond the usual conversational language skills of an uneducated drug addict.

Her testimony that she didn't understand how she could be involved in such a "heinous" crime........for example.

From whom did she borrow that phrase?

Her testimony sounded contrived when she says she doesn't know why she didn't do anything to save VS........she suffered flashbacks.

From which counsellor or psychology doctor did she borrow that concept?

Years of interation with LE, social workers, probation officers, doctors.......have all had an effect on TLM.

She knows exactly what they want to hear........and she gives it to them.

She is street smart, canny, and a survivor.........but she also possesses the fatal flaw of many criminal minds.

She thinks she is smarter than everyone else.

She has made mistakes. It is up the defense to point them out to the jury.

As always JMO.......................

 

[Macright]

Guess he didn't think HD, convenient stores, Timmies or ITMs had video cameras either. I don't think MR thought too much about anything that day other then raping a little girl. He could hardly contain himself as he pulled into that secluded laneway. moo

ah but that is my point...any fool today would know that there are camera's everywhere you turn...but if someone had NOTHING to hide or was not doing anything wrong why would they worry about cameras..NOW if someone had a small child on the floor of their car covered with a pea jacket and were on their merry way to rape and murder this child..well then one would think that they would worry about being seen on a camera...the ATM machine..the Tim Hortons and the Home Depot...maybe a short detour to a house to pick up their supply of drugs but I am sure they would not have taken chances of being seen on camera... so that's why I cannot go with the flow and state that MR knew before he started out that all of this was going to transpire and could hardly contain himself...JMO JMO

 

[brighidin]

No, you didn't miss anything, my mistake and I fixed my post - MR said he knew OF Tara.

Salem

I think he threw TM's name around in the LE interview because he observed just how vilified TM was in the press and online. People really thought TM had something to do with Tori's disappearance, and, imo, he exploited that. He used that to try and get LE off his trail.

imo

 

[Macright]

No. I think it is perfectly normal for a child to do the opposite of what the parent thinks the child will do. I watched "My Child Would Never Do That" put on by NBC's Dateline program last night. Quite the eye opener. All parents should watch that program.

Salem

I agree..a lot of small children will do the opposite of what they are told but that is not what I meant by that post of mine...to me those two statement contradict each other...I think that there should have been another word inserted there...that's all I meant....JMO

respectfully....

 

[Ardy]

Why would the crown bring up letters TLM wrote before she met MR? She isn't on trial. She is already in jail, as you know, for her part in the crime. The only people who want to keep re-trying TLM are the defense.

As to the first bolding: respectfully, unless you have evidence that everyone who rapes little girls is a pedophile, the lack of computer images means nothing. Maybe he is just a sadistic psychopath. Rape isn't about sex either, so the fact that he was able to get women to sleep with him doesn't exclude him from possibly being a rapist.

Does he even have his own computer? In any case, if you followed the Hailey Dunn case, you would see that when more than one person shares a computer, it is difficult to charge one individual with child *advertiser censored*.

Well.........my view would be that if TLM's letters were known to the Crown, they should have brought them in and questioned TLM on them.

The defense brought them in and questioned TLM on them.

A trial is the search for the truth, and the danger for the Crown is the jury will trust the defense to do a better job of doing that.

As always JMO..................

 

[Macright]

I think he threw TM's name around in the LE interview because he observed just how vilified TM was in the press and online. People really thought TM had something to do with Tori's disappearance, and, imo, he exploited that. He used that to try and get LE off his trail.

imo

it wasn't just the various websites and press that vilified TM..IMO LE play some games with TM also...JMO

 

[swedie]

No. I think it is perfectly normal for a child to do the opposite of what the parent thinks the child will do. I watched "My Child Would Never Do That" put on by NBC's Dateline program last night. Quite the eye opener. All parents should watch that program.

Salem

What a kwinkydink Salem, I watched the same program on the internet last night. I was not surprised in the least by what those children did. Allowed a strange man to take their pictures and gave their names and addresses. Got inside his truck...OMG, and people believe Tori must have known TLM to go with her?! I for one, certainly do not believe Tori knew TLM and TLM admitted Tori was a random abduction from day one. This was a random child abduction for nefarious/sexual purposes; which is typically why children are abducted, and mainly girls. MOHO.

 

[Ardy]

All this perhaps looks good for MR. But, we must keep in mind, that an entire month went by where he was on the lamb and therefore was able to cover his tracks and dispose of and tamper with evidence. The items tested after TLM's 'confession', would not reasonably have been expected to be ripe with forensics from the crime. Sounds to me like it would have been much smarter for MR to have come forward, right away, - while the evidence could have perhaps supported his claims.

This is just my opinion.

You're right.......no responsible person would have hid the crime like he did.

Personally, if he is innocent of the charges, but guilty of hiding the crime, I couldn't care less if they give him 25 years in prison for it. Tough luck to him, in my opinion.

But justice for VS and her family, means the right people are convicted of the right crimes they committed and given a deserving punishment.

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

 

[Macright]

Well.........my view would be that if TLM's letters were known to the Crown, they should have brought them in and questioned TLM on them.

The defense brought them in and questioned TLM on them.

A trial is the search for the truth, and the danger for the Crown is the jury will trust the defense to do a better job of doing that.

As always JMO..................

I can hardly wait for the defence to have their turn and it will be so interesting to see what they have up their sleeve..we know that they cannot say anything that they can't prove nor can they lie.... funny thing is all these lawyer are usually friends outside of court and sometimes socialize...funny isn't it when they go head to head in a court room...they are all cut from the same cloth so to speak...JMO

 

[snoofer]

ah but that is my point...any fool today would know that there are camera's everywhere you turn...but if someone had NOTHING to hide or was not doing anything wrong why would they worry about cameras..NOW if someone had a small child on the floor of their car covered with a pea jacket and were on their merry way to rape and murder this child..well then one would think that they would worry about being seen on a camera...the ATM machine..the Tim Hortons and the Home Depot...maybe a short detour to a house to pick up their supply of drugs but I am sure they would not have taken chances of being seen on camera... so that's why I cannot go with the flow and state that MR knew before he started out that all of this was going to transpire and could hardly contain himself...JMO JMO

Except by that theory (red) then we would have no crime, no robberies, other kidnappings, etc. Criminals are tracked all the time by video at stores etc. Even in London, England where CCTV cameras scope every street the entire city, police have tracked robbers, terrorists, murders leaving their house in the morning, followed them to the scene of the crime and then back home again, step by step. Even thought anyone living in London, England knows of the CCTV cameras, crime still occurs. Criminals while going about their criminal day forget about the cameras, like background noise. JMO

Just like the average person goes about their day; not thinking about the fact that they could be on camera as it is such a part of life; so goes the day of a criminal. MTR was doing so much criminal activity and ignoring the fact that if investigated by LE he is likely on camera somewhere doing this criminal activity as well and didn't think anything of that.

 

[LadyL]

The impression I got from TLM's testimony was that some of it sounded rehearsed and beyond the usual conversational language skills of an uneducated drug addict.

Her testimony that she didn't understand how she could be involved in such a "heinous" crime........for example.

From whom did she borrow that phrase?

Her testimony sounded contrived when she says she doesn't know why she didn't do anything to save VS........she suffered flashbacks.

From which counsellor or psychology doctor did she borrow that concept?

Years of interation with LE, social workers, probation officers, doctors.......have all had an effect on TLM.

She knows exactly what they want to hear........and she gives it to them.

She is street smart, canny, and a survivor.........but she also possesses the fatal flaw of many criminal minds.

She thinks she is smarter than everyone else.

She has made mistakes. It is up the defense to point them out to the jury.

As always JMO.......................

so you think that if a word wasn't previously in her vocabulary that she's manipulating the court?

 

[brighidin]

Well.........my view would be that if TLM's letters were known to the Crown, they should have brought them in and questioned TLM on them.

The defense brought them in and questioned TLM on them.

A trial is the search for the truth, and the danger for the Crown is the jury will trust the defense to do a better job of doing that.

As always JMO..................

Hi Ardy
I get what you are saying. This is how I see it though:

The purpose of the trial, from the Crown's perspective, is to prove the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. TLM's guilt has been established. The letters are not relevant to the Crown's case against MR.

The defense's best best is to pin as much of this on TLM as they can. That (how evil and sociopathic TLM is) is one of their best chances to create reasonable doubt in the jury's mind and that is why Derstine brought up the letters. I think it is also why Derstine keeps reminding the jury that TLM listens to violent rap music.

I don't think lawyers are out to find the truth. The Crown has a job to do and so does the defense, that is their focus. ETA: I am not saying they would lie; just that their focus is either prosecuting someone, or defending someone, that is it.

IMO