Long Easter Weekend Thread (Apr. 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9, 2012)

Later as school was letting out, McClintic said Rafferty parked in a retirement home lot just down the street, and her plan was to pretend she went looking for a girl to kidnap but would come back empty-handed. But as he slowly drove past her, watching her, she decided she would find a child and walk beside them, but not go any further, she said.


http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/03...n_1344023.html

Very interesting part; the last bolded and underlined part about MR driving past TLM and watching her to make sure she was going to follow through with his request/dare.

This is a little confusing..........

Is it alleged that MR parked at the retirement home, and then drove by TLM to ensure she was going to follow through on the abduction, and then returned to the parking lot?

Wouldn't there be video evidence of MR passing TLM prior to the abduction?

TIA............JMO

Check out the video at this link: http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/03/06/19469151.html

Reporter explains a couple of sitings on video of MR's car.

HTH,

Salem

Thanks Salem.......clears up some confusion for me.

Juris_Prudence said:

Above quote snipped for space. Text bolded and colored by me for clarity.

I personally do not believe that TLM had concerns about MR being out amongst other children.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on that. I don't believe TLM cared either way for Tori, or if MTR was out there or not. I think TLM has her own agenda (whatever that is) and acts according to that agenda. I never believed she was sorry, and her pathetic letter of apology to Tara almost made me barf because it was totally insincere, just like Russell Williams written apology to his victims.

But as much as I don't believe TLM is repentent and remorseful, I also don't believe that MTR is innocent. His lawyer suggested he was there and covered up the murder. But Derstine also suggested that TLM told him she was abducting Tori for drugs. He said that he may not have known right away, but that he was told later. Later, could have been anytime during the drive to Guelph, it could have been in Guelph, it could have been driving North out of Guelph. So either way, he knew at one point she was being kidnapped for drugs and did nothing stop it.

ChaChaCha said:

In my opinion TLM is a practiced liar ... she is as sly as a fox. And likely much more intelligent that MR....

In any case, I would think that the judge will caution the jury very carefully about relying on TLM's testimony as she is not credible, was a co-accused and had prior knowledge of the evidence in the case prior to her taking the stand. The judge's warning is called a Vetrovec warning,

Generally, a Vetrovec warning must address the following factors:
a) the evidence of certain witnesses is identified as requiring special scrutiny;
b) the characteristics of the witness that bring his or her evidence into serious question are identified;
c) the jury is cautioned that although it is entitled to act on the unconfirmed evidence of such a witness, it is dangerous to do so; and,
d) the jury is cautioned to look for other independent evidence which tends to confirm material parts of the evidence of the witness with respect to whom the warning has been given.

My understanding is that under some circumstances (especially in lengthy trials that are quite complex) the udge will give the jury "helpful direction on the question of sifting the evidence where guilt or innocence might, and probably will turn on the acceptance or rejection, belief or disbelief, of the evidence of one or more witnesses”.

IMO the jury will be cautioned not to take everything that TLM says as gospel.

Click to expand...

What kind of evidence are you referring to Cha? Besides changing her story on who actually killed Tori, everything she said in the interviews with Smyth is the same, the location, the silos, how and where she was buried etc?

ChaChaCha said:

In my opinion TLM is a practiced liar ... she is as sly as a fox. And likely much more intelligent that MR....

In any case, I would think that the judge will caution the jury very carefully about relying on TLM's testimony as she is not credible, was a co-accused and had prior knowledge of the evidence in the case prior to her taking the stand. The judge's warning is called a Vetrovec warning,

Generally, a Vetrovec warning must address the following factors:
a) the evidence of certain witnesses is identified as requiring special scrutiny;
b) the characteristics of the witness that bring his or her evidence into serious question are identified;
c) the jury is cautioned that although it is entitled to act on the unconfirmed evidence of such a witness, it is dangerous to do so; and,
d) the jury is cautioned to look for other independent evidence which tends to confirm material parts of the evidence of the witness with respect to whom the warning has been given.

My understanding is that under some circumstances (especially in lengthy trials that are quite complex) the udge will give the jury "helpful direction on the question of sifting the evidence where guilt or innocence might, and probably will turn on the acceptance or rejection, belief or disbelief, of the evidence of one or more witnesses”.

IMO the jury will be cautioned not to take everything that TLM says as gospel.

Click to expand...

On what we know so far, since TLM's confession, what has she lied about, besides who wielded the hammer?

Jezbel said:

What kind of evidence are you referring to Cha? Besides changing her story on who actually killed Tori, everything she said in the interviews with Smyth is the same, the location, the silos, how and where she was buried etc?

Click to expand...

I am not really sure Jez .... In a trial, witness testimony is considered evidence, but since TLM and MR were co-accused, and much of the case against MR hinges on her testimony, it seems that the judge will caution the jurors about relying too much on TLM's testimony - that is why the earlier interviews with LE and her criminal records were allowed in - to show the jurors what type of person she is. They can choose to believe all or part of her testimony, or none at all. The LE interviews tho were not under oath (like she cares lol) so they aren't "evidence" but just to show how she changes the story and her behaviour at will. They do not have to believe that MR told her to abduct a child, that any of their "conversations" took place, that he raped the child (assuming no proof is presented). She just isn"t credible, and the judge needs to make sure the jury knows that just in case there is an appeal.

The other part of it is that the jury will be deciding on a finding - Murder 1, Murder 2 or manslaughter depending upon what they feel was the extent of MR's culpability. So it is important that they fully understand that TLM is not credible ... this isn't really a case of guilty or not guilty - the jury has options.

The defence will try to show that TLM is violent, coniving and volatile - and that her mindset on the day TS was abducted was to kill someone - hence the production of the disgusting letters, journal, Facebook, and the music that she was listening to at the time - which the defence will say she used to pump herself up.

The unfortunate part about relying on tweets and news reports is that we cannot hear the background activities - what the judge says to the jurors or to the lawyers ... a lot of the techie stuff is glossed over.

As for her prior knowledge of the discovery materials, much of what was presented in her case will be the same as in MR's case, and the judge will make sure too that the jury is aware of her being privy to the materials which gives her the possible ability to tailor her testimony to line up with the evidence. After all, she lied at her own sentencing, profusely apologized to the family and didn't come clean about the extent of her participation. The family has suffered more and longer because of her deceit.

There are no words to describe how evil she is. I hope she never gets out.

JMO

flipflop said:

On what we know so far, since TLM's confession, what has she lied about, besides who wielded the hammer?

Click to expand...

My post was not about detailing TLM's lies ... it was focused on the procedure at trial when a witness was a co-accused and has credibility issues. Even the Crown brought it up in his opening statement. At this point in the trial the jury cannot determine how much of what she says is the truth and what isn't ... so the Crown, the judge and the defence want the jury to listen very carefully, be aware of TLMs credibility issues and believe whatever parts they deem as truth. As further evidence is presented and witnesses testify the jury will have the additional information they need to reach a verdict. I think we will hear more about TLMs issues when they get to closing statements.

JMO

sillybilly said:

I wrote this poem during Rodney`s K4K marathon, and sent to him as he was enroute to Jasper to release his purple balloon upward to his baby girl.

Today, hearing of all the purple balloons in Woodstock that are paying tribute to this darling child, I will post the poem here (can`t find Victoria`s memorial thread):

The Kiss of a Purple Balloon

Through the mist a shadow lifts
And transcends snow-capped peaks
Onward, upward, silently
Eternity it seeks

A mountain stands in silence
The rivers slow their tune
All nature takes a moment hush
To honour a purple balloon

No clouds hinder passage
As it gently floats above
The breezes sigh in tribute
To a father's gift of love

Carried high on sunbeams
Gliding in the light
Lifting higher, endlessly
Sunshine into starlight

Over there in midnight skies
Barely out of sight
Carried on a moonbeam
Dancing in the night

From golden glints of autumn sun
To a smile from a silver moon
Blue eyes shine from a twinkling star
And a kiss meets the purple balloon

Rest in Peace darling Victoria. You will never be forgotten.

Click to expand...

This is absolutely beautiful, has brought me ... not to a tear, to a sob. This should be published in Victoria's honour. Wonderful Sillybilly!!!

Other inconsistencies between TLM's interviews with police and her testimony in court have been revealed, and I think it is going to be very problematic for the jury. Everything that TLM stated in testimony has to be taken statement by statement and compared against any other known evidence. There is just no way to trust her testimony without doing so.

From the MSM......London Free Press

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/03/23/19543041.html

"McClintic rejected each suggestion, one by one, and was most firm at the idea Tori was offered as a sexual gift."

Her current testimony in court was that the whole purpose of abducting VS was to accommodate MR's alleged sexual desires..........was it not?

"McClintic told police she and Rafferty had driven on April 8 from Woodstock to Guelph, where he directed her to buy a hammer and garbage bags from a Home Depot."

"McClintic, meanwhile, changed her story to police Jan. 14, 2012, and testified in court she was the one who struck the fatal hammer blows that killed Tori."

"He noted Friday that in her Jan. 14, 2012, statement to police she said it was her decision to buy the hammer."

"She was not telling the truth about that, McClintic testified."


TLM tells the truth when it is convenient for her, changes her story if it is convenient for her, and recites the classical......I don't remember......when stuck for a plausible answer.

The best liars insert nuggets of truth into their lies, to support credibility.

I think the next few days of Crown evidence is going to be crucial to their case.

Happy Easter everyone.

Barley caught up but found in one the photos of the evidence something "sticking out" that caught my attention and it has no baring on the case i dont think but just stuck out to me as a "HMM"

The last photo of the entrence to MR home where the entrence table is. there are 2 pairs of shoes, One is pink sandles the other is a pair of running shoes.. THe laces are tied and tucked behind the tounge of the shoe

[/IMG]

It is hard to tell from the picture........but is it the same way they are tied when you buy them from the store?

I know that I always have to change my laces to the old style cross over method, but my son and a lot of his friends leave them as they come from the store because they never tie them up.........just slide their foot in and out.

Hockey skate laces are the same.........some guys prefer them one way and other guys prefer them the other way..........just personal preference.

When the MR trial is over, will the transcripts from TLM's sentencing hearing and this trial be available..........or will they remain sealed?

Ardy said:

Other inconsistencies between TLM's interviews with police and her testimony in court have been revealed, and I think it is going to be very problematic for the jury.
Her current testimony in court was that the whole purpose of abducting VS was to accommodate MR's alleged sexual desires..........was it not?

Click to expand...

Snipped for space:

She has always said that it was MTR that asked her to get him a girl.

It was Derstine's suggestion that she "offered" him Tori, which she is denying.

See the difference?

Ardy said:

It is hard to tell from the picture........but is it the same way they are tied when you buy them from the store?

I know that I always have to change my laces to the old style cross over method, but my son and a lot of his friends leave them as they come from the store because they never tie them up.........just slide their foot in and out.

Hockey skate laces are the same.........some guys prefer them one way and other guys prefer them the other way..........just personal preference.

Click to expand...

If you save the picture and edit it, u can zoom pretty close and notice its tied that way as the other shoe is not, its tied correctly as if someone would tie them on their own. thats why i think i found it more odd.

myzzy said:

Happy Easter everyone.

Barley caught up but found in one the photos of the evidence something "sticking out" that caught my attention and it has no baring on the case i dont think but just stuck out to me as a "HMM"

The last photo of the entrence to MR home where the entrence table is. there are 2 pairs of shoes, One is pink sandles the other is a pair of running shoes.. THe laces are tied and tucked behind the tounge of the shoe

[/IMG]

Click to expand...

I noticed that, too... but it appears to be that way on only one shoe. I dismissed it as a loose shoe tying, and the laces were pulled back behind the tongue (it has happened to me before with shoes with really long laces. I tend to tie laces once, then not again unless they need to be tied...)

ChaChaCha said:

I am not really sure Jez .... In a trial, witness testimony is considered evidence, but since TLM and MR were co-accused, and much of the case against MR hinges on her testimony, it seems that the judge will caution the jurors about relying too much on TLM's testimony - that is why the earlier interviews with LE and her criminal records were allowed in - to show the jurors what type of person she is. They can choose to believe all or part of her testimony, or none at all. The LE interviews tho were not under oath (like she cares lol) so they aren't "evidence" but just to show how she changes the story and her behaviour at will. They do not have to believe that MR told her to abduct a child, that any of their "conversations" took place, that he raped the child (assuming no proof is presented). She just isn"t credible, and the judge needs to make sure the jury knows that just in case there is an appeal.

The other part of it is that the jury will be deciding on a finding - Murder 1, Murder 2 or manslaughter depending upon what they feel was the extent of MR's culpability. So it is important that they fully understand that TLM is not credible ... this isn't really a case of guilty or not guilty - the jury has options.

The defence will try to show that TLM is violent, coniving and volatile - and that her mindset on the day TS was abducted was to kill someone - hence the production of the disgusting letters, journal, Facebook, and the music that she was listening to at the time - which the defence will say she used to pump herself up.

The unfortunate part about relying on tweets and news reports is that we cannot hear the background activities - what the judge says to the jurors or to the lawyers ... a lot of the techie stuff is glossed over.

As for her prior knowledge of the discovery materials, much of what was presented in her case will be the same as in MR's case, and the judge will make sure too that the jury is aware of her being privy to the materials which gives her the possible ability to tailor her testimony to line up with the evidence. After all, she lied at her own sentencing, profusely apologized to the family and didn't come clean about the extent of her participation. The family has suffered more and longer because of her deceit.

There are no words to describe how evil she is. I hope she never gets out.

JMO

Click to expand...

BBM: You say much of the case against MR hinges on TLM's testimony.

It's my opinion, that much of the case against MR hinges on TLM's testimony combined with the corroborating evidence to her testimony. We have seen alot of it so far, and there is much more to come.

Just like the Crown presented to the jury - listen very carefully to what she had to say, and anaylze that in conjuction with the other evidence.

I do wonder, how do you pick and choose what you believe out of TLM's testimony? What are your criteria, for determining the truth?

Also, if TLM is trying to bring down MTR, the innocent dupe, for something he didn't do, why exactly did she decide to say she killed Tori at his trial?

I can follow the hypothetical line of thought for her being the instegator, her planning the abduction, but, in the end, when you get to the part about her all of a sudden changing the details to the fact that SHE killed Tori (when she was already in jail for murder)......you lose me. Something just doesn't line up.


JMO

Juris_Prudence said:

I have no idea why she would give two different confessions, years apart. The only thing I know is that TLM is a proven liar.

Click to expand...

BBM: TLM has also been proven to have told the truth.

I am thinking that the jury is sitting there watching her testimony intently.

All we have is tweets and written articles from reporters.

Maybe they can view it better than we can.

You should have been here for Easter, Tori.

Your Dad should not have to hide eggs at your graveside.

I am so sorry.

Rest in Peace, sweet child.




http://www.theprovince.com/news/Photos+collection+Tori+Stafford+photos/3952770/story.html