Trial Thread 8 May 2012 Wrapping up Closing Arguments

swedie said:

Well there is the other side of the coin Daisy. Just because MR met a lot of women, and played them, it doesn't mean they were into him sexually kwim. He was very hopeful and maybe Tori was a sexual revenge against women as he was becoming very bitter about all the women dumping him. Of course JMHO. See Tori was a little girl and he could manipulator her a lot easier then he could these grown women. Tori was a defenseless tiny child and he took his rejection of women out on her. I think the condom thing was to show women he was ready, willing, available and protected while they were out zipping around in his makeshift sexmobile. You know, take the girl wining and dining (probably at her expense), go parking in the country like he did with TLM and try and have his way with them. He could've pulled out the condoms and said "look I even have protection". MOO. I believe MR was bitter about women and used them for whatever he could get from them. Again MOO.

Click to expand...

I hope for their sake the didn't have sex with him, but if I had just gone out on date with him I would be flipping out.

I have always thought that MTR had woman/rejection issues too, that part of the reason he did what he did was because of that and because he just felt like a loser who had no job, was a high scool drop out and lived with his mother. His life was going nowhere and as many women as he fooled the way he played the field, I'm sure there were women who saw him for what he was.

Alison said:

I did not get mad at one single post today. Nope no siree, you know why? The crown did awesome and nothing anyone says is going to change how I feel they presented.

Click to expand...

The crown is doing a really really great job. They are working very hard to get justice for Victoria.

As for Derstine, he's just trying to get his client the best defense he can, I think it's a losing battle tho and I think DD knows. MOO

Did I read in one article that MR yawned at one point during Gowdey's closing today? I can't find the article anymore tho.

Ardy said:

She was arrested because she breached the probation order which was part of her sentence for stabbing a man.

She is in prison because she was seen on the CASS video abducting TS.

The neighbors identified her. TS informed the police about her.

She could confess or go to trial.

<modsnip>............and she would be found guilty anyways.

So she tried to make a deal...........and took whatever she managed to get.

JMO............

Click to expand...

TLM is a monster IMO. I also believe IMO the partnership between MR and TLM involved acting on 2 fantasies, his to rape and hers to murder. Hence, no surviving witness. We can only thank big brother surveillance technology and the hard work of LE and the public at large in giving solid leads to finally make an arrest.
Story below shows no deal was EVER made with TLM.
There are other articles out there with comments from her council.

http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2882995

By Randy Richmond, London Free Press
Thursday, December 9, 2010 11:55:54 EST AM

Pasted in from article:

She began her day in court replying softly to questions from Justice Dougald McDermid.

You are charged with first-degree murder. What is your plea? McDermid asked.

" Guilty," McClintic replied in a soft monotone.

A charge of kidnapping was dropped.

Several times, McDermid questioned McClintic about her motive for pleading guilty to first-degree murder, making sure she understood she was heading for life in prison.

Her voice breaking, McClintic replied:

"It seems like the right thing to do."

justicefortori said:

Another main point for me when I try to think like a juror, and try to decide with the evidence given whether MTR and TLM acted together on this... is him giving her the money for the murder weapon. TLM didnt have money that day... we know this, it was proven. She didnt have a job. She went to a church or something, and got a food voucher for 25$ the morning of April 8th. Went to FoodLand and got $24 and change worth of groceries. Made sure she didnt go over that 25$... MTR was on camera taking out money to give to TLM. Im suprised the Crown didnt mention that point in his arguements... maybe he did and it just wasnt tweeted.

Click to expand...

very good point! Wasn't sure how it went that day for money for TLM just that read something about food voucher. i hope crown explains that. MOO

antiquegirl said:

I have many, many questions, but it's late so I'll just ask one. The Crown maintains that there was minimal to no blood spatter from Tori's murder because of the garbage bag covering her. So, therefore (according to the Crown) the tiny speck of her blood on the car door moulding could not be from the killing and had to be from the alleged rape. But we heard during TLM's testimony that Tori was killed beside the car. The rear passenger door was open. The poor child was hit with the claw end of a hammer. This reasonably would cause tears and rips in the bag, resulting in blood spatter, which in turn could land on the door frame. If there was no blood spatter, why did both TLM and MTR feel the need to get rid of their clothes and shoes?JMO

Click to expand...

IMO If this blood on the door was from the murder, there would have been alot more. I believe this is from the assault in the back seat.

They got rid of the shoes incase foot prints would later be found. They got rid of the clothing incase someone had spotted them that day wearing them. Or Perhaps MR and TLM got blood on them between the assault and when they covered her in garbage bags. MOO

I have never been on a jury. I was wondering because all TLM statements line up with where they were and throwing the clothes out along with TS found with her pants down. I would think the jury will go by this and not look into the very small what if on MR part. JMO Or do you think they have to talk about all the possibilities before coming up with a verdict?

Thinkzerz said:

I have never been on a jury. I was wondering because all TLM statements line up with where they were and throwing the clothes out along with TS found with her pants down. I would think the jury will go by this and not look into the very small what if on MR part. JMO Or do you think they have to talk about all the possibilities before coming up with a verdict?

Click to expand...

I think they will look closly at the judges instructions and what was presented to them by the Crown and the defence because they do take their job very seriously. Or at least I hope they do. I don't think they will deliberate very long though. The defence didn't present much of a case.