I'm surprised no one has picked up on why there also may be a lot more activity Than normal around the school at the time the google car was gathering photos for street view.
The truth does not cease to exist because it is ignored. ~ Aldous Huxley
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......
Fyfe isn't really a street where you can get up to great speeds on, no need for police to setup speed traps in that school zone... But they do in a couple other school zones in the city, but nothing like I've seen in some USA cities where they actually have police there during dismissal times etc where the speed limit changes during school dissmisal times.
That retirement/nursing home was built in a time when cameras were not considered to be needed, I remember going there to visit relatives as a child and that was over 30 years ago, I'm sure they've been added inside the building and on doors, but not sure about any cameras on the parking lots etc... Obviously those could be seen if there were any.
Regarding parking his car in front of OS public school, if MR had no intention of picking up VS that day, why would he park in front of the school?
We don't know what happened that day, so it is possible that TLM asked if she could take the ride to Guelph with him, and asked him to meet her at the CC parking lot.
Maybe he arrived early and decided to get some gas, or go looking for TLM and that is why he is seen driving around.
Perhaps TLM was coming from somewhere in that area........selling drugs, visiting a relative or friend,...........it's possible.
TLM could have been angry about something, saw VS coming out of the school, and picked up with her there...........telling MR the babysitting story when she arrived at the CC parking lot.
If TLM told VS they were going to see TLM's dog, how did TLM get VS to go to the car in the parking lot and get in..........without a big struggle?
Did she drag VS to the car? Did VS fight with her?
All I recall TLM saying is that she "pushed" VS into the car.
The would mean VS was at the side of the car with the door open.........but how did TLM get VS into that position..........without telling her some kind of story about babysitting at the least?
TLM's testimony doesn't add up here...........and the Crown didn't pursue it for some reason.
The Crown hasn't pursued a lot of things, in this trial.
Unless the Crown is waiting for the last minute to pull a rabbit out of the hat, I think (IMO) that what he didnít ask his witnesses is as significant as what he did.
So many people have expressed concern for the women MTR contacted and dated. The Crown questioned at least a dozen (roughly), correct? If he didnít ask them whether or not they had children, I assume that they didnít. If they did, he would have wanted to drive that point home (that MTR deliberately chose single moms). From what I have read, it was actually a small minority of them who had kids. Of the seven on the stand on April 13, only two testified to having children. One of these, (SL, age 50) he never even met in person.
More importantly, he didnít ask even one of these women if they had so much as an inkling of suspicion that MTR was unduly interested in her child(ren) in an inappropriate way. This was his chance and he didnít ask. Why not? Because he knew that the answer would be negative and would not establish any such predilection in the accused.
It is MOO that MTR had no history of pedophilia. The Crown had three years to try find some evidence of this and the opportunity to bring the juryís attention to it seems to have passed. There is only TLMís dubious word that MTR had any sexual interest in children. As of 2:00 p.m. on April 8th, when he dropped TLM off at the employment centre and told her he was leaving town and would see her the next day, there was no plan to abduct and sexually assault a child. But according to TLM, the plan was suggested to her less than an hour before Tori was kidnapped - kidnapped by her.
The Crown also did not ask any of these women if MTR showed any physically aggressive behaviour toward them ... suggesting that he could be violent. He didnít ask if he had ever threatened them. He didnít even ask them if MTR had a bad temper.
I have checked again with my lawyer friend, and both the Crown and the defence are entitled to ask any questions of their witnesses that may be relevant to the charges. They do know in advance what the answers to their questions will be. They can and do try to establish anything via testimony that will bolster their own case. And this is why Justice Heeney advised the jury that they may NOT consider MTR being a "philandering cad" as part of the evidence. As despicable as he may have acted towards women, it does not have anything to do with his charges of kidnapping, murder, or sexual assault.
IMO, there were a lot of questions the Crown could have asked that he did not. Now, Iím looking forward to what questions the defence will ask.
Men are apt to mistake the strength of their feeling for the strength of their argument. - William E. Gladstone