Weekend Discussion thread 04/21-24/2012

snoofer · Apr 21, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

Do you have the video link handy???

snoofer · Apr 21, 2012

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

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

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

agrees, I am willing to listen to the defense side but he sure does make me angry as from the crown case so far he seems guilty as heck, but willing to change my mind if defense changes my mind. I do believe in innocent til prooven guilty in theory but we are human and this is WS lol. I can be easily swayed one way or the other IF good evidence is presented. No worries I know you are not picking on me

JMO I don't believe defense has shown their hand yet just a few feelers; this has been a shocking case; maybe defense has some shockers too. At end of day though I think this will come full circle and I think all the truth will come out and we will get justice for Tori. Patiently waiting. JMO

matou · Apr 21, 2012

OMG, I thought snoopster and snoofer were the same person, names almost the same. Sorry, I thought I was asking the person with the screenshot.

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

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

snoofer · Apr 21, 2012

matou said:
OMG, I thought snoopster and snoofer were the same person, names almost the same. Sorry, I thought I was asking the person with the screenshot.

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

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

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

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

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

otto · Apr 21, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

otto · Apr 21, 2012

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

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

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

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

otto · Apr 21, 2012

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

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

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

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

link

otto · Apr 21, 2012

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

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

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

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

myzzy · Apr 21, 2012

Im so glad its the weekend, i sat on the friday thread wondering where everyone was not noticing that it had been closed and moved to the weekend thread lol..

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

otto · Apr 21, 2012

myzzy said:
Im so glad its the weekend, i sat on the friday thread wondering where everyone was not noticing that it had been closed and moved to the weekend thread lol..

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

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

~n/t~ · Apr 21, 2012

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

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

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

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

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

MOO

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

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

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

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

IMO

~n/t~ · Apr 21, 2012

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

link

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

otto · Apr 21, 2012

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

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

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

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

IMO

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

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

SFB73 · Apr 21, 2012

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

snoofer · Apr 21, 2012

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

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

very good point! JMO

JayFriend · Apr 21, 2012

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

While MR's rabbit-like behaviour may be despicable, it's not illegal. Pimping, however, is criminal activity. The judge may instruct the jury to disregard unsavoury character, but can he instruct them to disregard criminal behaviour?

otto · Apr 21, 2012

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

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

Ardy · Apr 21, 2012

myzzy said:
Im so glad its the weekend, i sat on the friday thread wondering where everyone was not noticing that it had been closed and moved to the weekend thread lol..

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

That's a good point.

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

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

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

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

JMO..........

Shasta · Apr 21, 2012

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

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

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

otto · Apr 21, 2012

Ardy said:
That's a good point.

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

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

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

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

JMO..........

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

Weekend Discussion thread 04/21-24/2012

New Member

New Member

#los2188

New Member

Verified Expert

Verified Expert

Verified Expert

Verified Expert

Just me!

Verified Expert

New Member

New Member

Verified Expert

New Member

New Member

Well-Known Member

Verified Expert

New Member

New Member

Verified Expert

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics