Poll: Guilty or not guilty?

Will Michael Rafferty be found guilty of first degree murder in the case of Victoria Stafford?

It's difficult to vote when we haven't heard any of the evidence against him, a poll like this is a little premature, don't you think?

What do we have against MR, we know his car was used...was he driving? What else do we have on him??????

I cannot make a judgement based on his car being used.

I agree with Dilbert and Flipflop. There is not enough evidence out there for me to cast my vote at this point and time.

I would like to hear from the 5 that voted yes. What did you base you vote on????

I would caution anyone with insider information about the case to not post anything about it anywhere.
People can give their own personal feelings about their choice if they wish to. This poll is to vote based on any previous info they have gleaned from this case and also just to "go with their gut." JMO

flipflop said:

I would like to hear from the 5 that voted yes. What did you base you vote on????

Click to expand...

I have based my decision on a lot of things. The most important being that LE put a tremendous amount of time and effort on this case. They believe without a doubt they got the right perps, they know what the evidence is, we don't, but I am sure they would not have stopped searching if they weren't sure. A lot of sleuthing was done here as well. We may not know the specific evidence but I think we learned enough to form opinions. I don't want to go into depth too much because we all need to be careful not to say things that will jeopardize the case. Some things that really stick out in my mind are:

-Good things are comming my way ( that's how he spelled coming)
-The back seat of his car is missing
-It's my opinion that he is the one driving the car in the gas station video and as I am from Woodstock originally and know the area well the timing works. It is a very short drive between CC and the gas station
-even though it needs to be taken with a grain of salt I believe there is truth in TLM's original statement to LE

These are just a few things, I have a lot of thoughts that I would rather not post here. I usually have good intuition about things and my gut tells me he is the one. The how's and why's will come out at trial.

I voted yes because it's obvious that TLM was the other perpetrator here. And she has given LE a detailed account of what happened that day. She was not alone. This is huge. Just think of all the other cases we follow on here where the evidence is circumstantial at best and there are no eyewitness accounts and they are convicted. We have the other participant here telling the jury exactly what happened. MR has no alibi for that day and evidence likely points to him as the other participant so I really don't see how his defence is going to get him a not guilty verdict.

I think TLM's testimony will be riveting. She has taken responsibility for her part and she is not wasting the taxpayer's dollars with a trial. Nor did she try to cut a plea deal like Homolka. While the defence is going to try to smash her credibility with her past actions, her actions when she confessed are going to outweigh that in the minds of jurors IMO. She was instrumental in bringing Victoria home to her family and took responsibility for her part in this horror. That will count for something.

Because there was a kidnapping involved, MR has no choice but to go for broke here, and I can understand why he has chosen to considering his family is willing to provide him with decent legal counsel, but unless he has indisputable evidence that he could not have been the other person, and obviously he does not, then he is going to be charged for this crime.

There is no reasonable doubt here. Either he was there or he wasn't. No one can not have any alibi for approximately 7 hours of the day unless it was the middle of the night and they were home alone sound asleep.

Personally I think he is wasting the taxpayers and his mother's money but that's his right.

MOO

Kamille said:

I voted yes because it's obvious that TLM was the other perpetrator here. And she has given LE a detailed account of what happened that day. She was not alone. This is huge. Just think of all the other cases we follow on here where the evidence is circumstantial at best and there are no eyewitness accounts and they are convicted. We have the other participant here telling the jury exactly what happened. MR has no alibi for that day and evidence likely points to him as the other participant so I really don't see how his defence is going to get him a not guilty verdict.

I think TLM's testimony will be riveting. She has taken responsibility for her part and she is not wasting the taxpayer's dollars with a trial. Nor did she try to cut a plea deal like Homolka. While the defence is going to try to smash her credibility with her past actions, her actions when she confessed are going to outweigh that in the minds of jurors IMO. She was instrumental in bringing Victoria home to her family and took responsibility for her part in this horror. That will count for something.

Because there was a kidnapping involved, MR has no choice but to go for broke here, and I can understand why he has chosen to considering his family is willing to provide him with decent legal counsel, but unless he has indisputable evidence that he could not have been the other person, and obviously he does not, then he is going to be charged for this crime. There is no reasonable doubt here. Either he was there or he wasn't. No one can not have any alibi for approximately 7 hours of the day unless it was the middle of the night and they were home alone sound asleep.

Personally I think he is wasting the taxpayers and his mother's money but that's his right.

MOO

Click to expand...

How do you know his mother or his family is actually footing the bill? Are you 100% sure that his lawyer wasn't hired through legal aid (which a lot of criminal lawyers do).

We have no way of knowing what his defence counsel has in way of refuting the evidence, they do not have an obligation to provide disclosure to the Crown (unless there are special circumstances i.e., the Bernardo tapes that were found in the ceiling), only the Crown has an obligation to provide full disclosure. No one actually knows whether TLM tried to make a deal or not. Just because her lawyer said she didn't try, doesn't mean there wasn't an attempt. Anyway, this all JMHO.

Thanks Kamille, great post. I agree with everything you've stated. I also have to wonder if LE have received tips and witness testimony of seeing him in the car at the HD in Guelph.

nobodyzgirl said:

How do you know his mother or his family is actually footing the bill? Are you 100% sure that his lawyer wasn't hired through legal aid (which a lot of criminal lawyers do).

We have no way of knowing what his defence counsel has in way of refuting the evidence, they do not have an obligation to provide disclosure to the Crown (unless there are special circumstances i.e., the Bernardo tapes that were found in the ceiling), only the Crown has an obligation to provide full disclosure. No one actually knows whether TLM tried to make a deal or not. Just because her lawyer said she didn't try, doesn't mean there wasn't an attempt. Anyway, this all JMHO.

Click to expand...

MR dismissed his original legal aid lawyer. And I'm not sure legal aid would provide him with a lawyer from a big shot law firm out of Toronto considering the extra travel costs but even if the new lawyer(s) are being paid through legal aid, that's even worse. Now he is wasting more of our tax dollars.

If MR had any kind of an alibi for where he was that day, he would not be sitting in jail right now. His electronic data (computer, cell phone, home phone) does not keep him out of the areas in question or LE would never have charged him. The cell phone data might actually put him in the areas. There are no independent witnesses to say absoluetly that he was somewhere else that day or again, LE would not have charged him. I believe he stated he was at home the whole time. And no one was there. Pretty convenient that his mother also claimed that she got home quite late from work that night I believe.

Why on earth would TLM's lawyer lie about an attemt to cut a plea deal knowing full well that this information would show up at the trial? Do lawyers usually lie about stuff like that to mess with their client's and their own credibility? Especially after the Holmolka fiasco? I highly doubt it.

The prosecution will present TLM's testimony that he was there, they will present the electronic data and any other evidence they have to tie him and his car to the area at the time of the crime. The defence can only try to prove that TLM is lying and that the electronic data and any other evidence LE may have does not prove anything. He has no alibi but then lots of young 28 year old men spend 7 hours home alone on a Friday with absolutely no communication via phone or computer with anyone. Because if the phone was on and he was at least receiving texts or calls, even if he didn't respond they know where the phone was. If it was off for the entire 7 hours and it was the first time in weeks that no one could get a hold of him during the day because the phone was off, that looks a little suspicious.

That would be some bad luck if he decided to have a nap from 3:30pm-10:30pm and turned his phone off and lent his precious car to his girlfriend and she and another guy used it to kidnap and murder a little girl. The nerve of her after he gassed it up and everything for her just before the abduction. What are the odds? :waitasec:

MOO

matou said:

Will Michael Rafferty be found guilty of first degree murder in the case of Victoria Stafford?

Click to expand...

There is an important distinction here that makes it impossible to vote. The question is not whether we think Rafferty is guilty, but whether he will be found guilty. This means trying to predict what the jury's conclusions will be based on the presented evidence.

Not only do we currently have no (or little) evidence, but without knowing what the defence team has up their sleeves, it's impossible to predict the outcome of a trial. Guilty people are found innocent all the time and vice versa. Very minor technical glitches can cause a case to get tossed out.

I can't possibly predict how this will play out during the trial, so I will abstain from voting. I just hope that justice is served and that if MTR is guilty, he will be judged as such and get what's coming to him.

JMO

A lot of you have excellent and valid points of your opinions. Great posts.

Just my :twocents: and MOO. The fact alone that MR is sitting in jail right now accused of such a heinous crimes speaks volumes 'to me'.

We do not know what evidence LE have, but by Jimminy, they must have something substantial. We do not put people in jail just because we "think" they "might" be involved. Nor do we jail them for their own protection.

Of course there are others that have faced imprisonment and have been found not guilty in a court of law. JMO but usually these other people/cases have family and loved ones publicly speaking out for them to protest their innocents.

Not only that but we usually get glimpses of info, for example, say in this case, "his vehicle was spotted at a local gas station with the female driving". Something of that nature. I'm leaning toward surveilence cameras at the nursing home and elsewhere, cell phone pings and DNA.

This is a sleuthing forum and we are all entitled to our opinions right? Above is JMOO and my :twocents: I'm not trying to sway anyone away from their opinions, just thought I would post mine.

Sorry for what you had to go through Victoria. May you RIP little angel. May those who are responsibile for your violent and untimely death pay to the full extend of the law.

I posed the question the way I did and no one is forced to vote (voting on this poll IS possible BTW).

Matou I would like to thank you for letting me know I was in the wrong thread. I am slowing finding my way around this maze hahaha. At a turtles pace of course. Thank you for welcoming me. :gthanks:

It is very interesting to read everyones comments on this poll. So many of you have done a lot of sleuthing into what the evidence could be, time lines and the rest. I found it somewhat difficult to cast on the poll because I like to give the accused some slack until the trial is over, or as evidence becomes known. I have been a bit more swayed in my decision to give my thought based partially on Toris fathers reactions to MR. He would have more information on this case then we the public do. I am not saying he knows much more, but I feel he definately knows more than we do. MOO

Given RS last statement, speaks volumes to me.

Tho your hearts are heavy and your souls are weary Rodney, Tara and Daryn, take comfort in knowing Victoria is now in the arms of our loving Lord.

Just in case people still aren't clear on this: just make a prediction about what you think the outcome will be based on what you feel.

For example: Q: Will Dallas win the Superbowl this year? Yes or No. That's it that's all.

Comment if you want about how you voted. If you don't want to vote, then don't.

The question is not whether or not you think MR is guilty as someone previously noted.

Matou, is there a way to add options?

such as
c) not sure
and d) I hope so

Kamille said:

That would be some bad luck if he decided to have a nap from 3:30pm-10:30pm and turned his phone off and lent his precious car to his girlfriend and she and another guy used it to kidnap and murder a little girl. The nerve of her after he gassed it up and everything for her just before the abduction. What are the odds? :waitasec:

MOO

Click to expand...

And the way his friends were talking about his love of cars, I highly doubt MR would have lent(sp?) his car to anyone, especially not to a not-so-serious girlfriend (if she was actually that).

swedie said:

We do not know what evidence LE have, but by Jimminy, they must have something substantial. We do not put people in jail just because we "think" they "might" be involved. Nor do we jail them for their own protection.

Click to expand...

Furthermore, if they do need protection, surely there are better places than spending two or three years in jail.

Hello_Kitty said:

And the way his friends were talking about his love of cars, I highly doubt MR would have lent(sp?) his car to anyone, especially not to a not-so-serious girlfriend (if she was actually that).

Click to expand...

This is what the young generation call "friends with benefits". Catch my drift?! :Banane59:

In most of the media reports they claim MR and TLM as BF/GF. Ack who cares what they were, other then possible partners in crime.