Trial Thread 4/12/2012

Status
Not open for further replies.
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. :twocents:

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. :waitasec:

MOO
 
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:twocents:

Leslie? Hmm. I missed that.

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

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]
 
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.
:moo:


ETA: this business about the sperm not coming from semen made my head spin. Oh, yes, Rafferty sneezed. Sperm cells everywhere. Right? :what: :waitasec: :doh:

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. :twocents:
 
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? :twocents:
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.
 
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. :twocents:

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
 
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
 
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
 
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.

dynamic_resize


http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/12/19623401.html
 
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!
 
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?
 
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. :twocents:
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.
 
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?
 
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. :twocents:

I agree. I don't think it is necessarily a big deal to date multiple people. Other than TLM (and I think he was using her for a very different purpose), they were all the same age as, or significantly older than, MR. Not naive. There is a reason why people use the term cougars. ;)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
124
Guests online
2,320
Total visitors
2,444

Forum statistics

Threads
589,996
Messages
17,928,856
Members
228,037
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top