trial thread: 3/28/2012

I wonder what the jury thinks of the cavalier attitude of Rafferty?

In the prisoner’s box, Mr. Rafferty appeared bored, leaning back in his seat with his eyes closed during most of the testimony.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ori-staffords-death-testifies/article2384078/

Click to expand...

Why would he do that during a Murder trial?? To me a lot of what he is doing in that prisoners box is saying a lot. Eye rolling, head shaking, closing his eyes if he was bored. Like seriously?? You are charged with 1st degree murder and this is how you are behaving? I am telling you that would not be me. If I was not guilty I would be listening to everything very carefully and talking to my lawyer afterwards.

I hope the Jury notices this.

Wondergirl said:

I wonder what the jury thinks of the cavalier attitude of Rafferty?

Click to expand...

All old news to him

Kamille said:

Well if it's relevant and it was still out there and LE couldn't find it then I would be very disappointed in our OPP.

Could have been a flip flop or a high heeled pump so then it wouldn't be relevant but I would think they would establish that. If I was on the jury I'd be scratching my head right now about that shoe. Why mention it and not talk about it?

Heck I'm not even on the jury and I'm scratching my head about that :waitasec:

MOO

Click to expand...

I was thinking they spent a good amount of time establishing where it was found exactly, close to the lilac bush and it made me think that police might have gone back there and searched that specific area again looking for perhaps another shoe? If MR went back and removed evidence, I wonder if he got there first, and found the other one and took it with him?

The witness said she was going to donate TLM's shoes to charity so why didn't she get around to it? She found the shoes in late march or early April. She had them still in her possession on May 30th. She said she thought they'd be a good pair of shoes for someone which also made me think they couldn't have been covered in blood visible to the naked eye because if they had of been she would probably not have had thoughts of donating them kwim?:twocents:

crazyladi said:

Why would he do that during a Murder trial?? To me a lot of what he is doing in that prisoners box is saying a lot. Eye rolling, head shaking, closing his eyes if he was bored. Like seriously?? You are charged with 1st degree murder and this is how you are behaving? I am telling you that would not be me. If I was not guilty I would be listening to everything very carefully and talking to my lawyer afterwards.

I hope the Jury notices this.

Click to expand...

I've said before that he's testifying with his actions. And you'd think the Crown would put an end to that. Maybe they did so now he just looks tired and bored? LOL

MOO

Kamille said:

I've said before that he's testifying with his actions. And you'd think the Crown would put an end to that. Maybe they did so now he just looks tired and bored? LOL

MOO

Click to expand...

Or maybe the crown is allowing it because it could help their case?

I was one of the very few people who didn't think MR went back to collect items... until today. *sigh* :notgood: :doh:

WHY wasn't that single shoe talked about in more detail? Unless they have the other, or they found it at the dump later, or it is irrelevant (coincidentally there, unrelated to the case).... I don't see why it wasn't at least described.

And I was really hoping they found the pieces of the car seat. :anguish:

Metcalfe also said there was a car’s back seat in the same area of the side road for a while. She mentioned it to police since she had heard they were searching for Rafferty’s back seat, but by May 30 it was no longer there.

Click to expand...

http://http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1153092--tori-stafford-murder-trial-woman-says-she-found-discarded-shoes?bn=1

In a public washroom they then changed into different clothes that Mr. Rafferty had brought along, tossing their old garments out of the window as they drove along Highway 401, together with chunks of upholstery from the back seat, Ms. McClintic said. Neither the bits of upholstery nor the seat itself have been found.

Click to expand...

http://http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/woman-who-found-mcclintics-tossed-shoes-after-tori-staffords-death-testifies/article2384078/

I'm thinking that either this wasn't his car seat that Metcalfe had seen, or TLM lied about that part too. If the seat was removed near Highway 6, there would have been no seat to cut chunks out of by the time they were on the 401 outside of Cambridge (after the car wash).

antiquegirl said:

ITA. They should have established it.

I used to do a lot of driving around - both in Toronto and out of town. Never failed to surprise me how many single and even pairs of shoes I'd see on the road and off to the side of the road. Lots and lots of them. Never understood the phenomenon except to think they fell off the backs of pick-up trucks, or kids threw them out the window.

IF the single shoe found by Lillian was one of the pair belonging to MTR, it shouldn't have been far from the missing one. Anyone searching for it should have found it, whether it was LE or MTR himself. If it had been MTR, he would have also picked up the one found by Lillian. So, I suspect this single, missing shoe had no relation to the Shaq pair, which is why no more was said about it. Frustrating for us, but unimportant to the investigation.

JMO

Click to expand...

But how can we or the jury know for sure whether the other shoe that was mentioned is of relevance or not to this case, since it seems that no one asked for any damn details about it? I would think that if it was not relevant, the Crown would want to clear that question up for the jury, and if it was, wouldn't they want us and the jury to know how it was and why? Maybe they did not provide further information on the other shoe because they actually found the other shoe, and perhaps we will hear about it later? :banghead::twocents:

TLM has the silos in the west direction in her two drawings. I thought the silos were north. JMO Can someone post a map of the area with the silos?

drawings: #37, 38 http://www.am980.ca/Other/McClintic.pdf

Juris_Prudence said:

I was thinking they spent a good amount of time establishing where it was found exactly, close to the lilac bush and it made me think that police might have gone back there and searched that specific area again looking for perhaps another shoe? If MR went back and removed evidence, I wonder if he got there first, and found the other one and took it with him?

The witness said she was going to donate TLM's shoes to charity so why didn't she get around to it? She found the shoes in late march or early April. She had them still in her possession on May 30th. She said she thought they'd be a good pair of shoes for someone which also made me think they couldn't have been covered in blood visible to the naked eye because if they had of been she would probably not have had thoughts of donating them kwim?:twocents:

Click to expand...

There seems to be some discrepancy in the press about when the shoes were found.

A woman who lives in the area testified today that in about early April 2009 — the month Tori was killed — she was taking a walk on Sideroad 6 near her home north of Guelph and found a pair of white basketball shoes with blue trim and a single shoe.

Click to expand...

http://http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1153092--tori-stafford-murder-trial-woman-says-she-found-discarded-shoes?bn=1

Software worker Lillian Metcalfe, who lives north of Guelph along the 8th Line, near Hwy 6, told prosecutor Stephanie Venne that late in April or early May she found the Shaq running shoes in a clump of thick grass along Side Road 6.

Click to expand...

http://http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/woman-who-found-mcclintics-tossed-shoes-after-tori-staffords-death-testifies/article2384078/

I really have to think these two drove to Mount Forest after this happened. Why would they go to Cambridge? Doesn't make sense to me. JMO

crazyladi said:

Why would he do that during a Murder trial?? To me a lot of what he is doing in that prisoners box is saying a lot. Eye rolling, head shaking, closing his eyes if he was bored. Like seriously?? You are charged with 1st degree murder and this is how you are behaving? I am telling you that would not be me. If I was not guilty I would be listening to everything very carefully and talking to my lawyer afterwards.

I hope the Jury notices this.

Click to expand...

I noticed descriptions of him 'staring intently with narrowed eyes' at McClintic during her testimony. Bullying without words? Sounds like a scowl.
IMO, his body language is less than appropriate for somebody who has been charged with 1st degree murder (amongst other things), and claims to be 'not guilty'. :moo:

MR's cell phone pinged off the cell tower at 7:45 pm. It's on sideroad 2E between concession road 8 and highway 6. I have it on the Victoria Stafford map. This is where I think the silos are, unless I am mistaken.

http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?msid=...ll=43.971245,-80.665473&spn=0.001984,0.004249

I have been lurking for a while, wanting to post but had a difficult time gathering my thoughts. I figured I will just put my two cents out there no matter how unorganized it may be. I would like to stress from the get-go this is my opinion. In MTR audio interview with the police he said that TLM was a friend and almost scoffed at the officer asking if they were more than friends. IMO TLM did consider MTR her boyfriend or intimate partner of some kind as friends usually don’t get hotel rooms together. You don’t need to demonstrate public signs of affection in order to be a couple, many married couples walk around without holding hands , etc (no marriage jokes). There seems to be a focus on the physical appearance of MTR past girlfriends, I propose that the physical attributes may not have been as important as the psychological ones. Seeking out women who were looking for love, who had a need to be filled and thrived on the attention. Perhaps MTR had the ability to sense the type of man they were seeking and be that man. I am sure we all know someone who has compromised their own beliefs due to the blindness called love and how far someone will go, will depend on how strong they are psychologically.

The evidence that we know of so far puts MTR car in and around all areas of importance. MTR used his bank card, went to Timmies, etc all on video, as well as the cellphone being used to check voice mail. TLM really has only changed her story on who actually did the killing. Pretty much everything still supports that MR was as much of a part of the situation as TLM if not more so and we still don’t have all the evidence.

When a young child is tortured mentally by being held against their will, sexually assaulted, beaten and eventually murdered those responsible should be held fully responsible. It should not be about loop holes and legal wrangling, it should be about accountability, about justice for the child and the family. It should be about preventing future type crimes from happening, as people with the mental capacity to commit such crimes do not learn a lesson by being caught, they learn to how to improve their crimes and beat the system. My hope is that justice is served in the truest sense of the word, by the sentence being based on the crime, not the loopholes.

Alethea Dice said:

Metcalfe also said there was a car’s back seat in the same area of the side road for a while. She mentioned it to police since she had heard they were searching for Rafferty’s back seat, but by May 30 it was no longer there.
http://http://www.thestar.com/news/c...ded-shoes?bn=1

Click to expand...

Alethea Dice said:

I'm thinking that either this wasn't his car seat that Metcalfe had seen, or TLM lied about that part too. If the seat was removed near Highway 6, there would have been no seat to cut chunks out of by the time they were on the 401 outside of Cambridge (after the car wash).

Click to expand...

Yup! Good thinking Alethea

I'm looking for car washes in Mount Forest. help?

Alethea Dice said:

http://http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1153092--tori-stafford-murder-trial-woman-says-she-found-discarded-shoes?bn=1


http://http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/woman-who-found-mcclintics-tossed-shoes-after-tori-staffords-death-testifies/article2384078/

I'm thinking that either this wasn't his car seat that Metcalfe had seen, or TLM lied about that part too. If the seat was removed near Highway 6, there would have been no seat to cut chunks out of by the time they were on the 401 outside of Cambridge (after the car wash).

Click to expand...

There is also the possibility that the seat was removed later, without TLM, and brought back there and left there, although I doubt that. I don't think it was THE seat. I think it was coincidence. I doubt MR would go back to the scene of the crime to dispose of items. Perhaps to retrieve some items, but not dispose of more. :moo:

Alethea Dice said:

http://http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1153092--tori-stafford-murder-trial-woman-says-she-found-discarded-shoes?bn=1


http://http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/woman-who-found-mcclintics-tossed-shoes-after-tori-staffords-death-testifies/article2384078/

I'm thinking that either this wasn't his car seat that Metcalfe had seen, or TLM lied about that part too. If the seat was removed near Highway 6, there would have been no seat to cut chunks out of by the time they were on the 401 outside of Cambridge (after the car wash).

Click to expand...

The car seat was easy to distinguish because it was only the bench. If the woman saw a full car seat, maybe in a different colour then it would be irrelevant.

If she saw a grey bench seat only, then she would have been asked about it.

MOO

Blueginger said:

I have been lurking for a while, wanting to post but had a difficult time gathering my thoughts. I figured I will just put my two cents out there no matter how unorganized it may be. I would like to stress from the get-go this is my opinion. In MTR audio interview with the police he said that TLM was a friend and almost scoffed at the officer asking if they were more than friends. IMO TLM did consider MTR her boyfriend or intimate partner of some kind as friends usually don’t get hotel rooms together. You don’t need to demonstrate public signs of affection in order to be a couple, many married couples walk around without holding hands , etc (no marriage jokes). There seems to be a focus on the physical appearance of MTR past girlfriends, I propose that the physical attributes may not have been as important as the psychological ones. Seeking out women who were looking for love, who had a need to be filled and thrived on the attention. Perhaps MTR had the ability to sense the type of man they were seeking and be that man. I am sure we all know someone who has compromised their own beliefs due to the blindness called love and how far someone will go, will depend on how strong they are psychologically.

The evidence that we know of so far puts MTR car in and around all areas of importance. MTR used his bank card, went to Timmies, etc all on video, as well as the cellphone being used to check voice mail. TLM really has only changed her story on who actually did the killing. Pretty much everything still supports that MR was as much of a part of the situation as TLM if not more so and we still don’t have all the evidence.

When a young child is tortured mentally by being held against their will, sexually assaulted, beaten and eventually murdered those responsible should be held fully responsible. It should not be about loop holes and legal wrangling, it should be about accountability, about justice for the child and the family. It should be about preventing future type crimes from happening, as people with the mental capacity to commit such crimes do not learn a lesson by being caught, they learn to how to improve their crimes and beat the system. My hope is that justice is served in the truest sense of the word, by the sentence being based on the crime, not the loopholes.

Click to expand...

Actually, she's changed her story quite a bit since she was first arrested.

1. She denies all knowledge and involvement
2. She then says she's the woman in the video, but MR raped and killed Tori and it was HIS idea to buy the hammer and bags
3. She then changes her story again and says SHE killed Tori, but MR raped her (Jan 2012)
4. She then says it was HER idea to buy the hammer and bags. (Jan 2012)
5. She quickly recants that and goes back to saying that it was MR's idea to buy the hammer and bags.