04-21-2012, 06:06 AM #1Former Member
- Join Date
- Feb 2009
The wait for closing arguments discussion thread
We are now in a wait for the closing arguments to begin:
reposting a few of the warnings:
Salem's warning from last week:
Okay everybody - LISTEN UP! We are not bashing, accusing or blaming Tori's family here. It won't be allowed.
Children walk home from school every day without incident. Parents are not perfect, it's just not possible. Tori's parents DID NOT do this to her. TLM and an accomplice DID. That is where the blame goes.
We had a lot of family bashing in the early parts of this investigation after Tori went missing and a lot of baseless accusations - NONE OF WHICH PROVED TO BE TRUE. Victim and family bashing will not be allowed during this trial.
As some of you may have noticed, the members following this case are dropping in numbers. It's disheartening to us because we need and welcome discussion of both sides of every issue on Websleuths.
Zero tolerance means ZERO tolerance. Please discuss this case with respect to your fellow members. Subtle and veiled harassment and/or talking in code about other members will not be tolerated.
A word of caution on the Alerts in this forum. If you alert a post, make sure it is a clear violation of our Terms of Service. A difference of opinion is not a violation of TOS.
Please note that everything discussed in court and printed/tweeted is now within the realm of discussion. WS has never and does not now have a policy of "innocent until proven guilty." That is for the court room. Here, we discuss, speculate, theorize and judge according to the opinions we develop from following the case.
Keeping that in mind, abuse of our alert system is a good way to find yourself in timeout or worse. Abuse of the alert systems includes, but is not limited to:
Alerting repeatedly on the same poster;
Demanding a specific outcome;
Alerting on the same post more than once.
Once you have alerted a post, move on and don't question the decisions of our Administrators, Moderators or Owners.
Following this trial is very important to our members and we're going to see that they have their day in court. The "zero tolerance" policy in this forum will continue and it will be enforced.
Thank you and please carry on.
Sue aka SoSueMe
Please keep discussion focused on what has been presented in testimony and remember to link up as the partial publication ban is still in place
Last edited by nursebeeme; 05-01-2012 at 05:36 PM.
05-01-2012, 05:34 PM #2Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2008
- sipping coffee at the Purple Rose Theatre
The wait for closing arguments discussion thread
The defense has rested and we are on a break until closing arguments start on Friday, 4 May.
the publication ban is still in effect: please keep discussion focused on what has been presented during the trial.
05-01-2012, 05:48 PM #3Registered User
- Join Date
- May 2012
This is in response to Ardy's comment on last thread.
Oh but Ardy, I believe those witnesses will benefit. We are relying on their testimonies to bring justice for Victoria Stafford! Sometimes doing the RIGHT thing isn't necessarily the easy thing. Escorts, drug addicts & including a murderer! ...these people had a moral & legal obligation to testify against MR!! Not saying TLM had morals about her...
05-01-2012, 05:52 PM #4
Tori Stafford’s father says ‘we never really got all the truth,’ as Michael Rafferty defence rests
Rodney Stafford, father of Tori, outside court on May 1, 2012. He expressed his disappointment that the accused, Michael Rafferty, won't be testifying. “There are lots of unanswered questions. We never really got all the truth,” he said.
05-01-2012, 05:53 PM #5
05-01-2012, 05:54 PM #6
Pam Davies for National Post
A defence witness who cannot be identified (L) recounts her version of what she saw happen to Tori Stafford as she left school on the last day she was seen alive. Michael Rafferty, the man accused of kidnapping, sexually assaulting and murdering 8-year-old Stafford, watches on the right.
05-01-2012, 05:58 PM #7
Did she notice his POS car drive by that day? Where was she parked?
05-01-2012, 05:59 PM #8
Grandma gave conflicting testimony.
Not good for the defense when their only witness was disproved on the stand.
Very weak defense, IMO.
In cross examination, the Crown pointed out that the grandmother's memory conflicted with earlier statements she made to police in 2009.
Derstine announced earlier Tuesday that Rafferty would not testify in his own defence. Rafferty's testimony was considered crucial to counter the story told by McClintic, his former girlfriend, earlier in the trial.
05-01-2012, 06:00 PM #9
05-01-2012, 06:04 PM #10
Q by Reporter: Were you suprised that he didn't get up on the stand (Rafferty)
A by Rodney: No, because if he had of gotten up on the stand, that would have opened up character.
05-01-2012, 06:05 PM #11
Todays witness: am980 tweets in order
-The defense has called a woman who has grandchildren attending Oliver Stephens Public School.
-She picks them up and drops them off at school. Some days, her daughter would join her.
-She drove a green sedan in 2009.
-She's looking at the map of Woodstock and the Oliver Stephens area in the courtroom.
-She's going over the driveways into Caressent Care Retirement Home.
-There are two parking lots, one larger, one smaller.
-The witness would park near Oliver Stephens, parallel to Fyfe Avenue.
-She would park near the teacher's vehicles.
-Showing jurors a labelled map if the area. The witness says she would drive near the front of the school.
-Witness would sometimes go into the school.
-She would arrive between 3:15 and 3:18. First bell at 3:20.
-Her daughter would go into the school, retrieve her kids, and they would get into the witnesses car.
-She arrived at Oliver Stephens at 3:18 on April 8th, 2009.
-Her car had a clear view of the door.
-Showing a photo of the school to the jury. She points out the door.
-On April 8th, the witness says her daughter went into the school, to get her kids.
-At 3:20, she noticed a woman in a white jacket approaching the school.
-Points out where the woman was on an aerial photo of the school.
-She moved towards the front door. Walked past busses parked out front.
-Nearby teachers were helping students get on the bus. Witness says the woman in white went in the front door.
-She says the woman was wearing a heavy jacket considering the weather. She had never seen her before.
-Her grandkids came out after the woman in white approached. They left the parking lot.
-She says she never saw the woman leave the school. There are three exits.
-Parents and busses "take turns" leaving the parking lot, it takes time, not unusual.
-On April 8th, as usual, she went north on fyfe. Saw the woman in white walking on the side walk. Little girl with her was "happy, skipping"
-She says the woman in white was "on a mission", little girl was "talking a mile a minute".
-The woman was walking briskly. The child "seemed to be happy". Witness assumed they were mother and daughter.
-The woman in white had a stern look on her face.
-She draws a circle around the area she saw them on a map. North of OSPS, near CCRH.
-Witness was "driving slowly" when she saw woman in white. Woman was across the street.
-Witness "very confidant" the woman in white at the school and on the sidewalk were the same person.
-She noticed the hair. She is a hair dresser.
-Witness heard a little girl was missing on the news. There were police at the front door of the school the next day
-She saw the CASS video, recognized the woman in white, and notified the police.
-She says she spoke to police "within a week".
-She describes the woman as dark haired, wearing a white jacket and dark pants. She wasn't carrying anything. Again notes "stern face".
-The woman dormant know Michael Rafferty and is "not happy" to testify for the defense.
-No more questions from Derstine.
Carnegie cross examining.
-Carnegie notes she spoke to police twice. First was on April 11th.
-She remembered some circumstances after seeing the video. In May, she spoke to police again.
-She agrees that memories are clearer closer to events than three years later.
-Carnegie says she was asked if she was certain if the woman in white was the same both sightings. Then she just said the jacket stuck out.
-Now she says the whole person was the same. Carnegie notes she was trying to be as helpful as possible.
-Now she says she's sure the woman was the same. Notes now police "didn't ask" about the woman at the school in 2009.
-She was one bus length away from the woman in white, she says.
-Carnegie reading from her police statement.
-She was asked about the woman going in to the school. She notes there were two bus lengths between her and the woman (in 2009).
-Carnegie notes it was less than two bus lengths, according to her. She says it was less.
-She notes it was too warm to be wearing a ski jacket on April 8th, 2009.
-She describes the jacket to the court.
-On April 11th, she was asked detailed questions. She was asked about clothing. Said she couldn't tell what colour the woman's pants were.
-Carnegie asks if the dark pants in the video are effecting her memory. She says no. Carnegie asks if she's sure. She says yes.
-Witness agrees she never saw the person leave the school. She agrees primary students leave through another door.
-One of her grandchildren mentioned the little girl walking with the woman. She only got a "side profile" Carnegie suggested.
-She says she was driving slow. She got a good look.
-Carnegie again notes the white coat was the important feature she saw. She agrees.
-She clarifies the woman seemed to be "on a mission" and walking quickly.
-Carnegie asks if she knows what the choked on the street was saying. She doesn't know.
-She was able to determine the stern look from a side profile, the witness says
-The woman in white wasn't carrying anything, she says. Carnegie confirms that.
-The woman says 8 degrees was on the cooler side. Carnegie suggests to her that was the temperature in Woodstock that day. No more questions.
Derstine asks the witness about May 26th, 2009
-Derstine is reading the statement, it says the white coat woman, with dark hair, was near the school.
-It says she went in the front door. She saw the woman with a little girl later. No more questions.
*Derstine reads an agreed apron fact. There were 326 students attending Oliver Stephens on April 8th, 2009. Derstine rests his case."The dead cannot cry out for justice; it is a duty of the living to do so for them."
★★★★★ ღ♥Lois McMaster Bujold♥ღ ★★★★★
05-01-2012, 06:05 PM #12
05-01-2012, 06:06 PM #13
IMHO the witness for defence today did not do much to change my mind on what happened and I don't believe that with closing arguments it will change either. The only thing different we heard today is that TLM was allegedly seen walking into the school and there is nothing to prove that she in fact walked out of the school with Tori. Of all the people at the school picking up their children not one other person has said they actually saw TLM leave there with Tori. The police were at the school afterwards I am sure they talked to all parents as well. So it's easy for me to think that she walked in, left on her own and waited by the tree for a lone child as she decided it was just too risky to walk out of the school with one.
I think A LOT of TLM's testimony has been backed up by evidence also, including the money withdrawal for the HD purchases, the pings on the cell phone, her accuracy in describing the scene, the hair dye... And so on. The chances of Tori's blood landing on an exact spot of semen that was already there is very low, the chances that it wasn't MR's semen are also very low, the chances that Tori's skirt, tights and shoes were removed for any other reason then for sexual purposes is also very low. I don't believe TLM would have thought to do that just to frame MR. Also the amount of time they were at the scene coincides with TLM's version of events, as I don't think MR would have gone on an hour long walk without his phone. He was familiar with the area TLM was not, so how did she give such a good description of it?
There are many more reasons why I believe MR to be guilty on all 3 counts but I think this post is long enough as is.
Oh and just to add, in no way am I saying I think today's witness wasn't telling the truth as she saw it, but to me it doesn't bring enough reasonable doubt to not think MR is guilty of all the charges.
Of course JMO
Last edited by Jezbel; 05-01-2012 at 07:01 PM.
05-01-2012, 06:06 PM #14Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2006
After watching the video surveillance of OSPS, IMO, TLM clearly has hair down and as she approaches person waiting for their child, she turns her head to hide her face and her long hair assists in this endeavour by covering the left side of her face when her head is turned to look at VS. MOO
05-01-2012, 06:07 PM #15
Sorry for the reposting the same thing. Just I would convict MR just because he had no business being in Mount Forest down that road for TLM to have a "talk" with Tori. Let alone have Tori in Mount Forest. JMO