Page 19 of 24 FirstFirst ... 9101112131415161718192021222324 LastLast
Results 451 to 475 of 578

Thread: Trial Thread 4/12/2012

  1. #451
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    3,389
    Quote Originally Posted by daisy.faithfull View Post
    If MTR is found guilty of all charges, he only serves one twenty-five year "life" sentence, right?
    Yes 25 years for 1st degree murder. Unless they can show he's a dangerous offender he may serve longer. He probably will not get a chance for parole until 25 years.

    IMO the abduction and murder charges have been proven. Although he was not the one to abduct Tori, he put TLM up to it, knowing she would. The chances of him pulling off an abduction on his own would be much more difficult. The murder charge will stick because MR helped TLM dispose of Tori no matter what he claims he was doing while TLM was swinging that hammer. IMO he's guilty because he didn't go to LE with what he stumbled upon after his little stroll, IF we are to believe the defense's theory. Personally I don't buy it.

    Now it's just a case of showing the sexual assault which would back up motive as to why Tori was abducted. With all these women coming forward testifying they had a relationship with MR, goes to show his need for sex and not necessarily to show he was seeking a long term relationship. There is sexual dysfunction going on somewhere in MR's mind and relationships. It would interesting and helpful to see a psychiatric report on him.
    RIP Tim. Justice will prevail

    RIP sweet Tori.

    May 15/12, Michael Rafferty guilty; 25 years with no chance of parole. R.I.H. P.O.S.

  2. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to swedie For This Useful Post:


  3. #452
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    186
    With all this DNA evidence, or lack thereof, I think we are forgetting one major factor which will come into play when the jury deliberates this case. The majority of us all have a certain amount of common sense, while I am sure that the jury will be instructed to decide only on the facts presented it is only human nature to trust your gut and go with what most of our common sense tells us about this case.

    Also, MR is charged with three crimes, First Degree Murder, Sexual Assault and Kidnapping. The Crown knew going into the trial there wouldn't be enough conclusive physical evidence to link MR to a sexual assault however they did have TLM version of the story. Sometimes psychical evidence isn't present but circumstantial or eyewitness testimony is strong enough to sway to conviction, did Rafferty sexually assault Victoria? My opinion is a most certain yes. What other possible explanation could there be for MR to be in the presence of Victoria Stafford, have her in his vehicle on a remote road 1 hour plus away from the child's home? Not to mention a pit stop along the way to purchase garbage bags and a hammer? Clearly my mind says both were up to no good and this was a premeditated act.(first degree murder)

    If they cant convict on the sexual assault, he clearly isn't out of the woods on the kidnapping charges. Does anyone know about the kidnapping chargers, if a child is kidnapped held against their will and dies during the abduction, does that not carry a life sentence as well?? If death occurs during a sexual assault that too is also punishable by life? According to my read of the criminal code of Canada death during a kidnapping would also put him away for 25 years??? Yes or No??


  4. #453
    Quote Originally Posted by swedie View Post
    I guess it will be up to the jurors who to believe. So far TLM's testimony stands on firm ground IMHO. MR is really starting to appear more and more like a sexual deviant and capable of abducting children, especially with this latest woman's testimony. It's not looking hopeful for MR.

    Someone may come forward yet to back up TLM's testimony that the seat was there shortly after Tori's death. Maybe TLM didn't actually cut chunk out of the material, but moreso slit it open enough to dig in to pull out chucks of foam. A slit would be less noticeable and less noticeable foam was missing
    What was TLM's actual testimony on this point? I have seen tweets that say she cut out parts of the seat, and threw the foam out the window:


    Cynthia Mulligan‏@CityCynthia

    #rafferty - McClintic says Rafferty told her to use a knife to cut out parts of back seat. Threw the stained foam out the window


    But I have read nothing to suggest that she made a slit in the seat so it would be less noticeable. I would think that if she had made tiny slits so it wouldn't be noticeable, then someone would have clarified that with her while they had her on the stand. The way the tweet is worded, I'm apt to take the statement literally to mean that she testified that she cut out chunks of the seat and threw foam out the window.

    This is not to say I do or do not believe the testimony, just that she testified to chunks, not slices KWIM?

  5. #454
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    7,320
    Quote Originally Posted by SFB73 View Post
    With all this DNA evidence, or lack thereof, I think we are forgetting one major factor which will come into play when the jury deliberates this case. The majority of us all have a certain amount of common sense, while I am sure that the jury will be instructed to decide only on the facts presented it is only human nature to trust your gut and go with what most of our common sense tells us about this case.

    Also, MR is charged with three crimes, First Degree Murder, Sexual Assault and Kidnapping. The Crown knew going into the trial there wouldn't be enough conclusive physical evidence to link MR to a sexual assault however they did have TLM version of the story. Sometimes psychical evidence isn't present but circumstantial or eyewitness testimony is strong enough to sway to conviction, did Rafferty sexually assault Victoria? My opinion is a most certain yes. What other possible explanation could there be for MR to be in the presence of Victoria Stafford, have her in his vehicle on a remote road 1 hour plus away from the child's home? Not to mention a pit stop along the way to purchase garbage bags and a hammer? Clearly my mind says both were up to no good and this was a premeditated act.(first degree murder)

    If they cant convict on the sexual assault, he clearly isn't out of the woods on the kidnapping charges. Does anyone know about the kidnapping chargers, if a child is kidnapped held against their will and dies during the abduction, does that not carry a life sentence as well?? If death occurs during a sexual assault that too is also punishable by life? According to my read of the criminal code of Canada death during a kidnapping would also put him away for 25 years??? Yes or No??
    Yes that is correct, the death during a kidnapping is enough grounds for him to be convicted of first degree murder. I think the sexual assault ties into the motive for the kidnapping in the first place which is why it is being discussed. They have to prove that the intent was to kidnap Victoria. And to prove that it is good to know a motive. And common sense does dictate that a 28yr old man would know better than to take a random child on a 1hr journey to visit his drug supplier on the say so of an 18yr old drug addict. Especially as we are know hearing, he didn't have a backseat in his car and the child had nowhere to sit but on the floor? And she didn't balk at this at all? Even though she didn't know either of them? Common sense. It's a wonderful thing.

    MOO

  6. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to Kamille For This Useful Post:


  7. #455
    Quote Originally Posted by Shasta View Post
    Steven D'Souza ‏ @cbcsteve
    Witnesses going quickly now.Crown using them all to establish that #Rafferty threw out back seat of car after Tori's disppearance #sl

    I know some here don't believe what's bolded above but if you consider the opposite--that the car seat was gone before the TS abduction, then the Crown would have brought forth the Tennyson neighbours of MTR only to sabotage it's own case. The Crown would not do this. Derestine's questions to the neighbours had the desired effect of confusing the witnesses and testimony. But I don't think he established reasonable doubt in this instance. Especially with the numbers of witnesses corroborating each other on the car seat. JMO

    Agree that we are all entitled to our opinions.
    Question:
    If they don't want to present evidence that would not bolster their case, then why did they present the hairs from the pea coat? These were not matched to Victoria right? How did this help their case? I hope they're going somewhere further with that because that one, I just don't understand.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Juris_Prudence For This Useful Post:


  9. #456
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    242

    DNA Evidence

    Quote Originally Posted by Kamille View Post
    Yes that article pretty much suggests that McLean has stated that the entire science of DNA is unreliable and they have no idea if blood stains or any other stains are really just multiple stains on top of each other. Or how sperm would get somewhere when there is no trace of semen.

    I have never trusted the science of DNA. There are just too many possibilities and variables for me. Although I do think it's useful in determining identity markers only.

    MOO
    I believe the DNA was "most likely" from a sperm faction. (on the car door frame). That coupled with Tori not having pants and TLM testimony it is reasonable to deduct there was a sexual assault. Too many coincidences for me. JMO

  10. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to tmhco For This Useful Post:


  11. #457
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    653
    For those of you wondering about the 40 yr. old who testified this afternoon and no name was given...

    Linda Nguyen ‏ @LindaNguyenPN
    Her name is covered under a publication ban. She said he told her he was trying to help a friend who was in jail (Terri-Lynne McClintic)
    Our memories shape us, providing a backdrop for our daily lives, a context for our actions, a rationale for our sometimes dubious decisions. Who we are today is inextricably woven through with memories of who we were yesterday, and the days before that.

  12. The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to nettie_82 For This Useful Post:


  13. #458
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    17,302
    Quote Originally Posted by SFB73 View Post
    With all this DNA evidence, or lack thereof, I think we are forgetting one major factor which will come into play when the jury deliberates this case. The majority of us all have a certain amount of common sense, while I am sure that the jury will be instructed to decide only on the facts presented it is only human nature to trust your gut and go with what most of our common sense tells us about this case.

    Also, MR is charged with three crimes, First Degree Murder, Sexual Assault and Kidnapping. The Crown knew going into the trial there wouldn't be enough conclusive physical evidence to link MR to a sexual assault however they did have TLM version of the story. Sometimes psychical evidence isn't present but circumstantial or eyewitness testimony is strong enough to sway to conviction, did Rafferty sexually assault Victoria? My opinion is a most certain yes. What other possible explanation could there be for MR to be in the presence of Victoria Stafford, have her in his vehicle on a remote road 1 hour plus away from the child's home? Not to mention a pit stop along the way to purchase garbage bags and a hammer? Clearly my mind says both were up to no good and this was a premeditated act.(first degree murder)

    If they cant convict on the sexual assault, he clearly isn't out of the woods on the kidnapping charges. Does anyone know about the kidnapping chargers, if a child is kidnapped held against their will and dies during the abduction, does that not carry a life sentence as well?? If death occurs during a sexual assault that too is also punishable by life? According to my read of the criminal code of Canada death during a kidnapping would also put him away for 25 years??? Yes or No??
    Yes it does. If he was there, he is just as guilty as TLM of murder.

    So far, we know Tori was in his car. Surveillance video proves TLM lured Tori from school. Surveillance video proves TLM was him when Tori was "missing". We have TLM's testimony and so far her testimony has credibility except we don't know why she changed her original story that MR was the one who wielded the hammer but that doesn't matter because as an accomplice, he's just as guilty. Sperm and blood DNA matching Tori was found in the car. He lied to police officers. He disposed of his back car seat.

    IMO, the Crown has proven their case beyond reasonable doubt. If the defenders can provide a reasonable explanation as to why the accused child kidnapper, rapist and killer had a stranger's child in his car, drove 2 hours to an isolated location so the convicted murderer can have a chat with the 8 year old child, I'll listen. Can't wait.
    Last edited by ~n/t~; 04-12-2012 at 07:51 PM. Reason: typo
    Justice for Holly Bobo🎀

  14. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to ~n/t~ For This Useful Post:


  15. #459
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    653
    Quote Originally Posted by ~n/t~ View Post
    Yes it does. If he was there, he is just as guilty as TLM of murder.

    So far, we know Tori was in his car. Surveillance video proves TLM lured Tori from school. Surveillance video proves TLM was him when Tori was "missing". We have TLM's testimony and so far her testimony has credibility except we don't know why she changed her original story that MR was the one who wielded the hammer but that doesn't matter because as an accomplice, he's just as guilty. Sperm and blood DNA matching Tori was found in the car. He lied to police officers. He disposed of his back car seat.

    IMO, the Crown has proven their case beyond reasonable doubt. If the defenders can provide a reasonable explanation as to why the accused child kidnapper, rapist and killer had a stranger's child in his car, drove 2 hours to an isolated location so the convicted murderer can have a chat with the 8 year old child, I'll listen. Can't wait.


    Not too long ago another Sleuther here reminded all of us there was a time before DNA. I think it may be appropriate to remind everyone once again of this. There comes a time when good old common sense comes into play. In the good old days before DNA I believe all the witnesses so far in this case would have proven the Crown's case.
    Last edited by nettie_82; 04-12-2012 at 07:56 PM. Reason: Adding to this...
    Our memories shape us, providing a backdrop for our daily lives, a context for our actions, a rationale for our sometimes dubious decisions. Who we are today is inextricably woven through with memories of who we were yesterday, and the days before that.

  16. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to nettie_82 For This Useful Post:


  17. #460
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by nettie_82 View Post
    For those of you wondering about the 40 yr. old who testified this afternoon and no name was given...

    Linda Nguyen
    <modsnip>
    Last edited by Salem; 04-12-2012 at 09:19 PM. Reason: fix quote - entire post was quote, so I added a <modsnip> so it would post

  18. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jezbel For This Useful Post:


  19. #461
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Posts
    7,320
    Quote Originally Posted by Juris_Prudence View Post
    Question:
    If they don't want to present evidence that would not bolster their case, then why did they present the hairs from the pea coat? These were not matched to Victoria right? How did this help their case? I hope they're going somewhere further with that because that one, I just don't understand.
    Because the prosecution always presents everything that is found. They don't try to hide things and twist anything in their favour. They want the right person convicted just as much as everyone else does.

    And FWIW, the fact that there was no DNA from Victoria ANYWHERE on that coat or in that car says to me that there was a lot of cleaning going on in those six weeks. He's admitting that she was in the car for over 2 hours, his coat was in the car and yet, other than a blood spot on a door moulding that one wouldn't normally catch, especially when the door is probably usually closed, there is no DNA evidence of Victoria in there. Not even one hair.

    MOO

  20. The Following 16 Users Say Thank You to Kamille For This Useful Post:


  21. #462
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,975
    Quote Originally Posted by snoofer View Post
    he mentioned on the audio with LE...told LE we will just call her "Leslie" for some reason i am thinking that is the oakville one
    Leslie? Hmm. I missed that.

    Have we heard from a Leslie yet? The one who "got him lots of jobs"?

  22. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to Wondergirl For This Useful Post:


  23. #463
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    407
    Ok strange, tapatalk is not quoting properly hmmmm

    Anyways regarding my above post that didn't show properly I wrote:
    I asked earlier if anyone has any ideas as to why her name would be under a publication ban, could it be to do with her career?

  24. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to Jezbel For This Useful Post:


  25. #464
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    13,582
    Why would sperm, MR's or some other unknown male's, be on the moulding of the door and randomly layer itself over such a tiny speck of Tori's blood (assuming layering of cell types is what the defense is indicating)? First of all, the door would have to be open for BOTH those cell types to mingle randomly. I think MR or Tori had touched the side of the OPEN rear passenger door and the cells mixed, blood and sperm. This DNA proves the rear back door was open to have this happen, as described by TLM and also indicates a rape. Sperm, with usable DNA or not, is sperm. It comes from a male and is a sex cell, the male gamete. I suppose it will be explained that Rafferty had lots of sex in the back of his car after Tori was murdered, even without a back seat present (ouch, pretty uncomfortable) and he touched the back of the open door frame with his messy hands.

    How many times did he clean the car out after Tori died? I know his car was messy but maybe he shampooed a few times in there. Maybe he got one of his many girlfriends to help? JMO

  26. The Following 13 Users Say Thank You to matou For This Useful Post:


  27. #465
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Posts
    3,389
    Quote Originally Posted by Ardy View Post
    JMO........The jury isn't reading forum pages or newspaper articles filled with speculation or condemnation of MR. They aren't reading opinions on his love life, employment choices, or living arrangements.

    They are listening attentively to the evidence.

    The evidence relating to the charge of sexual assault thus far is.............

    Testimony from TLM.

    No evidence of sexual assault from pathology report.

    No evidence of sexual assault from DNA evidence.

    I don't see any jury convicting on no evidence.
    There is circumstantial evidence at best.

    Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directly—i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

    On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.

    Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

    Testimony can be direct evidence or it can be circumstantial. If the witness claims they saw the crime take place, this is considered direct evidence. For instance, a witness saying that the defendant stabbed the victim is direct evidence. By contrast, a witness who says that she saw the defendant enter a house, that she heard screaming, and that she saw the defendant leave with a bloody knife gives circumstantial evidence. It is the necessity for inference, and not the obviousness of a conclusion, that determines whether or not evidence is circumstantial.

    Validity of circumstantial evidence
    A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence". [2] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.


    More info here:
    [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence"]Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
    RIP Tim. Justice will prevail

    RIP sweet Tori.

    May 15/12, Michael Rafferty guilty; 25 years with no chance of parole. R.I.H. P.O.S.

  28. The Following 12 Users Say Thank You to swedie For This Useful Post:


  29. #466
    Quote Originally Posted by BorgQueen View Post
    One thing that has been proven about the accused, beyond all reasonable doubt, is that he has very little respect for others, if any at all.
    All these women that he was dealing with AT ONCE... yikes. How disrespectful.
    All of his lies to others...
    And if the defences suggestion/theory is at all true, that Rafferty did not kill or rape Tori, but did in fact help clean up TLM's mess and kept this big secret, leaving Tori under a pile of rocks... that is the ultimate disrespect for human life.

    Guilty or not, he is a disrespectful, vile creature. JMO.



    ETA: this business about the sperm not coming from semen made my head spin. Oh, yes, Rafferty sneezed. Sperm cells everywhere. Right?
    Is it still disrespectful if the women in question knew he was not exclusive with him? I haven't heard any of the ex's testify that he was cheating on them. I haven't heard them say they didn't know about his other g/f's kwim? Maybe they had an arrangement that they could each date other people? Just a thought.

  30. The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Juris_Prudence For This Useful Post:


  31. #467
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    609
    Quote Originally Posted by Juris_Prudence View Post
    What was TLM's actual testimony on this point? I have seen tweets that say she cut out parts of the seat, and threw the foam out the window:


    Cynthia Mulligan‏@CityCynthia

    #rafferty - McClintic says Rafferty told her to use a knife to cut out parts of back seat. Threw the stained foam out the window


    But I have read nothing to suggest that she made a slit in the seat so it would be less noticeable. I would think that if she had made tiny slits so it wouldn't be noticeable, then someone would have clarified that with her while they had her on the stand. The way the tweet is worded, I'm apt to take the statement literally to mean that she testified that she cut out chunks of the seat and threw foam out the window.

    This is not to say I do or do not believe the testimony, just that she testified to chunks, not slices KWIM?
    If Rafferty was throwing out the seat in the junk pickup, maybe he didn't want someone else to take it. When everyone was looking for the seat, whoever took it would have put 2 and 2 together and turned it over to the police. But if he made a large cut in it, nobody would take it and it would go straight to the landfill. JMO.

  32. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to JayFriend For This Useful Post:


  33. #468
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    winterpeg
    Posts
    1,426
    Quote Originally Posted by Juris_Prudence View Post
    Question:
    If they don't want to present evidence that would not bolster their case, then why did they present the hairs from the pea coat? These were not matched to Victoria right? How did this help their case? I hope they're going somewhere further with that because that one, I just don't understand.
    I think the crown is putting all the science out on the table now, so that the defense can't use it to their advantage as much as they want to. If everything was sent for forensic testing, but the Crown only present the blood on the door frame, the jury would be wondering WTH? and the defense could presumably bring forth all the items that didn't test conclusively.

    By asking the experts to speak to all the testing, the Crown is saying to the jury: look, after the accused allegedly cleaned the car and had 6 weeks to clean and dispose of things, there is still evidence that Tori was in his car. Maybe not as much as we would have liked, but some, nonetheless.

    I think it was a pre-emptive strike.

    IMO

  34. The Following 18 Users Say Thank You to brighidin For This Useful Post:


  35. #469
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    2,767
    Quote Originally Posted by matou View Post
    Why would sperm, MR's or some other unknown male's, be on the moulding of the door and randomly layer itself over such a tiny speck of Tori's blood (assuming layering of cell types is what the defense is indicating)? First of all, the door would have to be open for BOTH those cell types to mingle randomly. I think MR or Tori had touched the side of the OPEN rear passenger door and the cells mixed, blood and sperm. This DNA proves the rear back door was open to have this happen, as described by TLM and also indicates a rape. Sperm, with usable DNA or not, is sperm. It comes from a male and is a sex cell, the male gamete. I suppose it will be explained that Rafferty had lots of sex in the back of his car after Tori was murdered, even without a back seat present (ouch, pretty uncomfortable) and he touched the back of the open door frame with his messy hands.

    How many times did he clean the car out after Tori died? I know his car was messy but maybe he shampooed a few times in there. Maybe he got one of his many girlfriends to help? JMO
    Excuse the graphic, but I thought it may have gotten there via a drip from TS post rape, i.e. already two fluids combined, but scientifically separated by the lab to show blood and semen. Just MOO

  36. The Following 11 Users Say Thank You to roseofsharon For This Useful Post:


  37. #470
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by matou View Post
    Why would sperm, MR's or some other unknown male's, be on the moulding of the door and randomly layer itself over such a tiny speck of Tori's blood (assuming layering of cell types is what the defense is indicating)? First of all, the door would have to be open for BOTH those cell types to mingle randomly. I think MR or Tori had touched the side of the OPEN rear passenger door and the cells mixed, blood and sperm. This DNA proves the rear back door was open to have this happen, as described by TLM and also indicates a rape. Sperm, with usable DNA or not, is sperm. It comes from a male and is a sex cell, the male gamete. I suppose it will be explained that Rafferty had lots of sex in the back of his car after Tori was murdered, even without a back seat present (ouch, pretty uncomfortable) and he touched the back of the open door frame with his messy hands.

    How many times did he clean the car out after Tori died? I know his car was messy but maybe he shampooed a few times in there. Maybe he got one of his many girlfriends to help? JMO
    Matou I so agree, it would all be just too much of a coincidence, also what are the probabilities that of the blood/sperm happening at different times? I understand what the defense was trying to say but I am surprised the crown didn't ask what the probability of any of those scenarios happening? I would think it would be slim.

    Oh and didn't his gf's testify that they did most of the driving, so if the defense tries to say he had a lot of sex in his car after, I don't think that will fly either.

    JMO

  38. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Jezbel For This Useful Post:


  39. #471
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Location
    Toronto
    Posts
    13,582
    Quote Originally Posted by roseofsharon View Post
    Excuse the graphic, but I thought it may have gotten there via a drip from TS post rape, i.e. already two fluids combined, but scientifically separated. Just MOO
    True, but the blood/sperm stain is not on the bottom of the door frame, it's on the side.



    http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/r.../19623401.html

  40. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to matou For This Useful Post:


  41. #472
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    17,302
    Quote Originally Posted by brighidin View Post
    I think the crown is putting all the science out on the table now, so that the defense can't use it to their advantage as much as they want to. If everything was sent for forensic testing, but the Crown only present the blood on the door frame, the jury would be wondering WTH? and the defense could presumably bring forth all the items that didn't test conclusively.

    By asking the experts to speak to all the testing, the Crown is saying to the jury: look, after the accused allegedly cleaned the car and had 6 weeks to clean and dispose of things, there is still evidence that Tori was in his car.

    I think it was a pre-emptive strike.

    IMO

    Brilliant!
    Justice for Holly Bobo🎀

  42. The Following 8 Users Say Thank You to ~n/t~ For This Useful Post:


  43. #473
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    7,975
    Quote Originally Posted by Jezbel View Post
    Ok strange, tapatalk is not quoting properly hmmmm

    Anyways regarding my above post that didn't show properly I wrote:
    I asked earlier if anyone has any ideas as to why her name would be under a publication ban, could it be to do with her career?
    But why would the courts deem one person's profession more important than another?

    Why not protect all the witnesses names in this sordid case, kwim?

  44. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to Wondergirl For This Useful Post:


  45. #474
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    609
    Quote Originally Posted by Juris_Prudence View Post
    Question:
    If they don't want to present evidence that would not bolster their case, then why did they present the hairs from the pea coat? These were not matched to Victoria right? How did this help their case? I hope they're going somewhere further with that because that one, I just don't understand.
    I wondered about that too. However, if the Crown has to disclose all the evidence they have gathered, then it would be better for them to bring it out rather than hiding it and have the defence bring it out on cross and make the Crown look like they tried to hide it. I don't know how it all works, but that may be the reason. Some of you legal eagles can set me straight.

  46. The Following 9 Users Say Thank You to JayFriend For This Useful Post:


  47. #475
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Posts
    407
    Quote Originally Posted by Wondergirl View Post
    But why would the courts deem one person's profession more important than another?

    Why not protect all the witnesses names in this sordid case, kwim?
    I know what you mean and have no idea WG, it is bugging me though. Maybe she is being called back to testify again at a later date?

  48. The Following 6 Users Say Thank You to Jezbel For This Useful Post:


Page 19 of 24 FirstFirst ... 9101112131415161718192021222324 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Trial Thread 4/5/2012
    By nursebeeme in forum Victoria Stafford
    Replies: 389
    Last Post: 04-05-2012, 03:42 PM
  2. trial thread: 3/23/2012
    By nursebeeme in forum Victoria Stafford
    Replies: 575
    Last Post: 03-24-2012, 12:17 PM
  3. trial thread: 3/22/2012
    By imamaze in forum Victoria Stafford
    Replies: 568
    Last Post: 03-23-2012, 07:30 AM
  4. trial thread; 3/6/2012
    By nursebeeme in forum Victoria Stafford
    Replies: 433
    Last Post: 03-07-2012, 08:40 AM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •