Weekend Discussion Thread 04/27-30/2012

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wondergirl said:
O/T - I don't know when this picture was taken, presumably a day during the trial.

I thought it was a little odd that a lawyer would be wearing jeans to court, in a high profile case. It doesn't mean much, but, sometimes appearances matter, and I would speculate that this would be one of them.

JMO

michael-rafferty-defence.jpg


http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...ap-up-its-case-in-tori-stafford-murder-trial/
Click to expand...
Whos the chick in the skirt?? never seen her before. This could have been a legal argument day as well
 
Is there a picture of the Judge anywhere? Not a sketch but an actual picture of him. I googled but can't find him. TIA
 
Wondergirl said:
O/T - I don't know when this picture was taken, presumably a day during the trial.

I thought it was a little odd that a lawyer would be wearing jeans to court, in a high profile case. It doesn't mean much, but, sometimes appearances matter, and I would speculate that this would be one of them.

JMO

michael-rafferty-defence.jpg


http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...ap-up-its-case-in-tori-stafford-murder-trial/
Click to expand...

I'm pretty sure that this pic was not taken on a court day. Check 00:35 in the video and the insert for what the lawyers are required to wear in court. This is topped by the traditional black "gown" when court is in session.

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20120301/stafford-trial-jury-selection-london-120301/

Also, this:

1-defence-attorney-dirk-derstine-at-the-tori-stafford-murder-trial-in-london-alex-tavshunsky.jpg


Required judicial wear for various countries is outlined here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_dress#Canada

JMO
 
Wondergirl said:
O/T - I don't know when this picture was taken, presumably a day during the trial.

I thought it was a little odd that a lawyer would be wearing jeans to court, in a high profile case. It doesn't mean much, but, sometimes appearances matter, and I would speculate that this would be one of them.

JMO

michael-rafferty-defence.jpg


http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...ap-up-its-case-in-tori-stafford-murder-trial/
Click to expand...

They wear robes in court, so it doesn't really matter what they wear underneath. I doubt he cares much what the general public thinks of his attire as he is going to/from court, he is there to defend his client, not making a fashion statement - JMO
 
..so from everything that has been published in the papers ...IMo ..it seems to say that the Defense is NOT presenting HOW their Defense will proceed till Monday! ...Hey fellow memebers please give me a thumbs up in the MOST IMPOARTANT part to me>>>>
**** it seemed to say ...IF Rafferty is to take the STAND in Court In LONDON ...the defense MUST do that BEFORE any witnesses are CAlled?????...am I correct ????..
....ASKING because I am THINKING of going to LONDON even tho it is far....( approx 2 hours ) ....and I am sure we will have to GET there real early ! ......I guess he would not be on THE STAND ...MONDAY ????....Please can anyone ..LET ME know if my own assumptuins are CORRECT>>>???...still very concerned and UPSET...it has been a very long time waiting since 2009 like all of us...thanks ..any more info would be GREATLY appreciated ...robynhood
 
A couple of days ago it was reported that two men were snapping cellphone pictures in the courtroom. It was tweeted by reporters and reported on the K104 website (local Woodstock radio station), but yesterday someone looking for the story on K104 said it was gone. I never heard anything about a publication ban concerning the incident, but I didn't see it in the local paper either.

Here's more on it on Jim Bender's blog:

http://jimbenderoxford.blogspot.ca/2012/04/illegal-photos-taken-inside-courtroom.html

(Jim Bender is a local business man and activist who owns a head shop/adult bookstore and has run for public office at various times in the past.)
 
JayFriend said:
A couple of days ago it was reported that two men were snapping cellphone pictures in the courtroom. It was tweeted by reporters and reported on the K104 website (local Woodstock radio station), but yesterday someone looking for the story on K104 said it was gone. I never heard anything about a publication ban concerning the incident, but I didn't see it in the local paper either.

Here's more on it on Jim Bender's blog:

http://jimbenderoxford.blogspot.ca/2012/04/illegal-photos-taken-inside-courtroom.html

(Jim Bender is a local business man and activist who owns a head shop/adult bookstore and has run for public office at various times in the past.)
Click to expand...

Vince's excuse is total BS. Spectators are searched upon entering the courthouse and then again before entering this specific courtroom. Pockets have to be emptied, purses are ransacked, and you're wanded - twice. The guards (3 of them at each station when I attended) tell everyone to turn off all cell phones. When I wasn't sure whether or not I had turned mine off, I was told to stand off to the side and make sure. Also, there are guards inside the courtroom keeping an eye on everything, which is how I think these guys were caught. Despicable conduct, IMHO.

JMO
 
robynhood said:
..so from everything that has been published in the papers ...IMo ..it seems to say that the Defense is NOT presenting HOW their Defense will proceed till Monday! ...Hey fellow memebers please give me a thumbs up in the MOST IMPOARTANT part to me>>>>
**** it seemed to say ...IF Rafferty is to take the STAND in Court In LONDON ...the defense MUST do that BEFORE any witnesses are CAlled?????...am I correct ????..
....ASKING because I am THINKING of going to LONDON even tho it is far....( approx 2 hours ) ....and I am sure we will have to GET there real early ! ......I guess he would not be on THE STAND ...MONDAY ????....Please can anyone ..LET ME know if my own assumptuins are CORRECT>>>???...still very concerned and UPSET...it has been a very long time waiting since 2009 like all of us...thanks ..any more info would be GREATLY appreciated ...robynhood
Click to expand...
I agree I would like to do the same thing so if anyone has any insider info or think he will be on stand on tuesday
 
I feel that the defence is going to really do a number when it comes to what they have planned. Its going to be boring, illogical and go right back to TLM for everything.

I realize that she has already admitted to the crime and I understand all that but I am sorry I dont think for a second she influenced him to do anything, it has nothing to do with a gang, it has to do with two people that should have never crossed paths, just like PB and KH. They were a poisonous combination.

The defence has to come up with something and I guess this is the only angle that might persuade the jury but I really doubt it will work because of all the evidence and his behaviour.

He was chummy chummy with TLM in the detention centre. If that were me I would have gone straight to the police and told him this crazy a@@ Bit_ _ killed this little girl etc etc.. They would have arrested her on the spot no threat to him.

But I guess the defence will just turn around and say he was scared for his life that this gang would kill him if he ratted. blah blah blah. So in reality Derstine is smart going this route because people might buy the fear of the gang as to why he behaved the way he did.

However I am a realist and the gang had nothing to do with why that child died, or their behaviour afterwards and I really hope the jury sees this.
 
JayFriend said:
A couple of days ago it was reported that two men were snapping cellphone pictures in the courtroom. It was tweeted by reporters and reported on the K104 website (local Woodstock radio station), but yesterday someone looking for the story on K104 said it was gone. I never heard anything about a publication ban concerning the incident, but I didn't see it in the local paper either.

Here's more on it on Jim Bender's blog:

http://jimbenderoxford.blogspot.ca/2012/04/illegal-photos-taken-inside-courtroom.html

(Jim Bender is a local business man and activist who owns a head shop/adult bookstore and has run for public office at various times in the past.)
Click to expand...

antiquegirl said:
Vince's excuse is total BS. Spectators are searched upon entering the courthouse and then again before entering this specific courtroom. Pockets have to be emptied, purses are ransacked, and you're wanded - twice. The guards (3 of them at each station when I attended) tell everyone to turn off all cell phones. When I wasn't sure whether or not I had turned mine off, I was told to stand off to the side and make sure. Also, there are guards inside the courtroom keeping an eye on everything, which is how I think these guys were caught. Despicable conduct, IMHO.

JMO
Click to expand...

Yesterday when someone asked what happened I tried to find the story again and no luck, no longer available. I did find this blog also and though it was strange.

Like AG said you are search when entering the courthouse and again when entering the courtroom. There are no extra searches to enter the overflow room, but there are signs everywhere telling you to turn off all phones/PDA’s/notebooks/tablets etc. This Vince guy is a liar, I wonder who he really is?

I just find it very odd how no-one else reported on it and how the story is no longer there. I have to think there was some sort of publication ban and the details of what happened will probably be revealed when the jury begins deliberations
 
What am I missing or what do I don't get? What kind of defence could that be?

What does it matter if there was a gang, drug dept or whatever??? ??

Fact is he knew that Tori didn't come for a ride on her own will. He was surprised when TLM showed up with the little girl? Really? Well we know now for a fact that he was already driving around the school area early in the morning. I am wondering what he was doing there....(appetizer?)

He was driving around a kidnapped girl (at some point in time even our Mr.Biceps must have figured that out) and he still didn't do anything about it.

What does it matter if he killed her or not? He was there, helped cleaning, didn't go to the police afterwards and didn't help to find her body. He was trying hard to hide any involvement). Gang influence? Who cares! Even then he could walk to the police and could have told them what happened. And if he comes with a story that he was scared for his own life then you really have me laughing. How scared he was shows his sexual activity. That didn't seemed to be influenced at all.

Maybe I am watching to much 48 hours but in the US the people that are similar involved in a murder always end up with 1st degree murder.

For Tories family I hope that he gets guilty for the rape too. But this is the only point where I am not so sure that the evidence is enough.
BUT
Even if he doesn't get the guilty there it will be in peoples minds forever (and his future prison inmates). I am sure they will take care of it for hopefully very long 25 years. That is something he will never get of his forehead. That is stamped there for the rest of his life regardless what the outcome of this trial is.


I just had to write all this because my head is spinning
 
Yody04 said:
What am I missing or what do I don't get? What kind of defence could that be?

What does it matter if there was a gang, drug dept or whatever??? ??

Fact is he knew that Tori didn't come for a ride on her own will. He was surprised when TLM showed up with the little girl? Really? Well we know now for a fact that he was already driving around the school area early in the morning. I am wondering what he was doing there....(appetizer?)

He was driving around a kidnapped girl (at some point in time even our Mr.Biceps must have figured that out) and he still didn't do anything about it.

What does it matter if he killed her or not? He was there, helped cleaning, didn't go to the police afterwards and didn't help to find her body. He was trying hard to hide any involvement). Gang influence? Who cares! Even then he could walk to the police and could have told them what happened. And if he comes with a story that he was scared for his own life then you really have me laughing. How scared he was shows his sexual activity. That didn't seemed to be influenced at all.

Maybe I am watching to much 48 hours but in the US the people that are similar involved in a murder always end up with 1st degree murder.

For Tories family I hope that he gets guilty for the rape too. But this is the only point where I am not so sure that the evidence is enough.
BUT
Even if he doesn't get the guilty there it will be in peoples minds forever (and his future prison inmates). I am sure they will take care of it for hopefully very long 25 years. That is something he will never get of his forehead. That is stamped there for the rest of his life regardless what the outcome of this trial is.


I just had to write all this because my head is spinning
Click to expand...

Just had to type I agree 100 percent...this whole case has taken over my live since 2009 ...when I watched cp24 while they searched for OUR ANGEL ..I cried my eyes out! NIGHTLY ...IMo I NEVER knew Tori but ...my heart is aching over this whole DARN TRIAL ...Big time ...IMO the evidence is overwhelming and I cannot understand at all How the defense will proceed...IMO it shall be horrible as I feel this there is no way they can dispute those videos ...and IMO ...Rafferty did not appear ....exasperated when he visited TLM just after the MURDER and I am Certain POOR TORI was raped ..IMO I feel most of what TLM said was the TRUTH...do not undertsand her change in who MURDERED Tori BUT as you said does it really matter ????...It Does not to me ! ....IMO ..it is clear he participated ...it was his car caught on video all over the place on that nightmare of a day>>> APRIL 8 , 2009 ...the end and that is IMO ...concretely ...robynhood!
 
robynhood said:
Just had to type I agree 100 percent...this whole case has taken over my live since 2009 ...when I watched cp24 while they searched for OUR ANGEL ..I cried my eyes out! NIGHTLY ...IMo I NEVER knew Tori but ...my heart is aching over this whole DARN TRIAL ...Big time ...IMO the evidence is overwhelming and I cannot understand at all How the defense will proceed...IMO it shall be horrible as I feel this there is no way they can dispute those videos ...and IMO ...Rafferty did not appear ....exasperated when he visited TLM just after the MURDER and I am Certain POOR TORI was raped ..IMO I feel most of what TLM said was the TRUTH...do not undertsand her change in who MURDERED Tori BUT as you said does it really matter ????...It Does not to me ! ....IMO ..it is clear he participated ...it was his car caught on video all over the place on that nightmare of a day>>> APRIL 8 , 2009 ...the end and that is IMO ...concretely ...robynhood!
Click to expand...

I have no doubt in it either that he raped the poor little one. Unfortunately in court it is not about what we believe. It is about what can be proofed. And that's my worry.
 
Wondergirl said:
O/T - I don't know when this picture was taken, presumably a day during the trial.

I thought it was a little odd that a lawyer would be wearing jeans to court, in a high profile case. It doesn't mean much, but, sometimes appearances matter, and I would speculate that this would be one of them.

JMO

michael-rafferty-defence.jpg


http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...ap-up-its-case-in-tori-stafford-murder-trial/
Click to expand...

Prosecutors change into their "penguin" suits and gowns at the courthouse, then back into their street clothes when they leave. The penguin suit is a jacket with tails, specific type of pants ...

"In Canada, court dress is identical to that previously (pre-2008) in use in England, except that wigs are not worn. Bar jackets are worn under the gown, though QCs and Judges have more elaborate cuffs than other lawyers."

ref: wikipedia: court dress

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/William_Ballantine_Vanity_Fair_5_March_1870.jpg
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 228 more.
Total: 4,750 (members: 229, guests: 4,521)

Online statistics

Members online
229
Guests online
4,521
Total visitors
4,750
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,340
Messages
17,967,799
Members
228,753
Latest member
Cindy88
Back
Top