trial thread: 3/28/2012

flipflop · Mar 28, 2012

matou said:
They changed their clothes in a VARIETY STORE? So they asked to use the bathroom? There would be surveillance I would think. Usually a variety store doesn't have a public washroom. That's strange. JMO

It is fairly common for a convenient store with gas station to have a public washroom, you usually have to ask for the key as the doors are onthe outside of the store

maxfactor · Mar 28, 2012

matou said:
They changed their clothes in a VARIETY STORE? So they asked to use the bathroom? There would be surveillance I would think. Usually a variety store doesn't have a public washroom. That's strange. JMO

Even if there wasn't any surveillance you would think whoever was working would remember two people coming in, one after the other to change clothing. Very stupid thing to do IMO. But then again I think TLM testified that she put the other clothes over the clean ones till she got back in the car.

matou · Mar 28, 2012

flipflop said:
It is fairly common for a convenient store with gas station to have a public washroom, you usually have to ask for the key as the doors are onthe outside of the store

Did TLM say it was a gas station store? I know that gas stations have washrooms because I've had to use them on road trips. I've never asked to use the washroom at a variety store though. xo

SmoothOperator · Mar 28, 2012

Oops my apologies for the double post am via mobile and it's not letting me just delete :crazy:

flipflop · Mar 28, 2012

matou said:
Did TLM say it was a gas station store? I know that gas stations have washrooms because I've had to use them on road trips. I've never asked a variety store to use their washroom though. xo

she didn't mention a gas station, I was just saying they are common with one.

Tink · Mar 28, 2012

There is one of those coin-operated car washes (where you can clean inside and outside of the car) just off the Hanlon (in Guelph, on the way to the 401). I don't think there is a convenience store right there, though.

Tink

SmoothOperator · Mar 28, 2012

antiquegirl said:
I wonder why he'd bother. His running lights would still have been on and visible from the house. Those are automatic and can't be turned off while you're driving.

Above BBM. . This simply is not true.. while it may be for some by far and wide it is not true for all or the majority of vehicles..

As for the why he chose to do so? Well this doesn't even register on my list of the why would he choose to do such.. moo of course but its obvious to me this person believed he knew what he was doing and this was only one of dozens of details he'd thought he was intelligent enough to cover his tracks and outsmart LE.. IMO he's no different than the hundreds of other predator killers. .they're a dime a dozen in that they always believe in their narcissistic minds that they're different or somehow better, more elite than the hundreds of other predators.. they're not and MR is just simply the one that was caught and facing the music at this present time.. as I said they're a dime a dozen ..he's not the first nor the last of them.. moo of course..

roseofsharon · Mar 28, 2012

When we get to the forensics, if Lillian did not actually launder those running shoes, there may be a soil match scraped from the tread of the shoe to the crime scene.

I would think LE also scraped the tire treads of MTR's car for soil sample matching.

I wonder if LE surreptitiously installed a GPS on the undercarriage of MTR's car after the initial interview.

Moo

antiquegirl · Mar 28, 2012

SmoothOperator said:
Above BBM that simply is not true.. while it may be the case for some vehicles by far and wide it isn't true for all or the majority of vehicles. :moo:

It's the law in Canada. MTR's car was a 2003 Honda Civic.

Canada Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 108 requires DRLs on all new vehicles made or imported after January 1, 1990.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp#Canada

Daytime Running Light Systems

10. (1) No person shall sell or offer for sale a daytime running light system that does not conform to the requirements of the Canadian Standards Association Standard CAN/CSA-D603-88, Daytime Running Light Systems. R.R.O. 1990, Reg. 587, s. 10 (1).

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900587_e.htm

Confusedashell · Mar 28, 2012

This might be a stupid question but if TLM was charged with murder in 2010 that means that she would have to have pleaded guilty???? which would mean that her saying she did it on the stand isn't the first time she said she did it right?? JMO

dilbert · Mar 28, 2012

roseofsharon said:
When we get to the forensics, if Lillian did not actually launder those running shoes, there may be a soil match scraped from the tread of the shoe to the crime scene.

I would think LE also scraped the tire treads of MTR's car for soil sample matching.

I wonder if LE surreptitiously installed a GPS on the undercarriage of MTR's car after the initial interview.

Moo

Why would she testify that she washed the shoes, if she really didn't?

antiquegirl · Mar 28, 2012

roseofsharon said:
When we get to the forensics, if Lillian did not actually launder those running shoes, there may be a soil match scraped from the tread of the shoe to the crime scene.

I would think LE also scraped the tire treads of MTR's car for soil sample matching.

I wonder if LE surreptitiously installed a GPS on the undercarriage of MTR's car after the initial interview.

Moo

(BBM)

The officers decided to return the next day to take a photo of Rafferty's car, similar to one seen on a surveillance video captured near Tori's grade school on the day she disappeared.

However, the car was not in the driveway when police returned to Rafferty's home and it could not be located over the course of the following weekend.

http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2012/03/23/stafford-rafferty-trial-friday.html

Hello_Kitty · Mar 28, 2012

Confusedashell said:
This might be a stupid question but if TLM was charged with murder in 2010 that means that she would have to have pleaded guilty???? which would mean that her saying she did it on the stand isn't the first time she said she did it right?? JMO

TLM was charged with murder in 2009 but blamed MTR, then recanted Janurary 14th, 2012 I believe saying that she was the one that took Tori's life and MTR sexually assaulted TS

antiquegirl · Mar 28, 2012

dilbert said:
Why would she testify that she washed the shoes, if she really didn't?

She didn't just wash them, she soaked them:

But the runners looked in decent shape, so Metcalfe soaked them in soap and warm water to get them ready to take to Goodwill.

Click to expand...

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/28/woman-who-found-mcclintics-shoes-testifies

Confusedashell · Mar 28, 2012

Hello_Kitty said:
TLM was charged with murder in 2009 but blamed MTR, then recanted Janurary 14th, 2012 I believe saying that she was the one that took Tori's life and MTR sexually assaulted TS

I understand that but in 2010 she was actually charged and sentenced to 25 years in jail. That means she pleaded guilty. Which means she said that she killed Tori. Right??? in Jan 2012 there was a new charged added to MR. JMO

maxfactor · Mar 28, 2012

antiquegirl said:
It's the law in Canada. MTR's car was a 2003 Honda Civic.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp#Canada

http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900587_e.htm

Apparently turning them off is as simple as removing a fuse:

I removed my DRL fuse for about 5 months now. Nothing wrong with the car.

http://www.civicforums.com/forums/181-8th-9th-gen/287456-disabling-daytime-running-lights.html

dilbert · Mar 28, 2012

Confusedashell said:
This might be a stupid question but if TLM was charged with murder in 2010 that means that she would have to have pleaded guilty???? which would mean that her saying she did it on the stand isn't the first time she said she did it right?? JMO

We now know that when TLM pled guilty to first degree murder, she was still saying that MR was the actual killer. She was charged with (and pleaded to) first degree because she was present during the kidnapping and murder, which carries a first degree murder charge in Canada.

roseofsharon · Mar 28, 2012

dilbert said:
Why would she testify that she washed the shoes, if she really didn't?

I think I just worded that wrong.

I didn't know the extent to which she cleaned them up for Goodwill, so was thinking if they were just brushed off, soil from the scene may still be in the treads.

Just moo

Confusedashell · Mar 28, 2012

dilbert said:
We now know that when TLM pled guilty to first degree murder, she was still saying that MR was the actual killer. She was charged with (and pleaded to) first degree because she was present during the kidnapping and murder, which carries a first degree murder charge in Canada.

thank you for the clarification. Will her sentence now be changed

dilbert · Mar 28, 2012

roseofsharon said:
I think I just worded that wrong.

I didn't know the extent to which she cleaned them up for Goodwill, so was thinking if they were just brushed off, soil from the scene may still be in the treads.

Just moo

Ahh, I see, thanks for clarifying.

Confusedashell said:
thank you for the clarification. Will her sentence now be changed

I don't see why it would, she got the same sentence whether she was the killer or not.

trial thread: 3/28/2012

Well-Known Member

New Member

#los2188

Sadly what connects all these puzzles is that ther

Well-Known Member

New Member

Sadly what connects all these puzzles is that ther

Active Member

New Member

New Member

Inactive

New Member

Meow Meow Meow Meow.

New Member

New Member

New Member

Inactive

Active Member

New Member

Inactive

DNASolves

Online statistics

Forum statistics