5/15/2012--Sentencing

<rsbm>

A law firm would not have made those errors, so that tells me the request for the extension was done by MR himself.

Yeah, it's obvious now, but he must've gotten some legal advice. I doubt MR is well-versed in law to be using such words like "evidenciary", etc :) Someone must've told him what to say. KWIM? He's not too bright.
 
Yeah, it's obvious now, but he must've gotten some legal advice. I doubt MR is well-versed in law to be using such words like "evidenciary", etc :) Someone must've told him what to say. KWIM? He's not too bright.

He has had 4 months of pen life...perhaps he has been hitting the law books.
 
from:
http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/n...files+notice+murder+appeal/7037057/story.html




So, at least there are two hurdles he has to jump ... firstly, a judge has to approve the extension (which may or may not happen), and hopefully the good Judge will turf it before it even gets to the second hurdle which is the Appeal court itself (which may or may not be successful).

LOL ... i think the first judge should turf it based on two technicalities:



(do we assume he meant "comprehend"? LOL)

And his dates are just wrong:



The Honourable Judge Sillybilly of the Court of Websleuths has determined that this extension not be granted. :denied: Court adjourned :)

BBM: I do believe that is what he meant. What a dumb *advertiser censored** . The irony is thick.

Judge Silly Billy of the Court of Websleuths..........I LIKE it!!:floorlaugh:


*
 
That was funny. I wonder where his Mother stands? Does she still believe he is Innocent? We never heard from her in the end. I was standing a few feet away from her the day she came out of Court and gave her presser. Speaking to his Innocence. I stood and watched her and her male friend walk away to their car surrounded by press. She had her cane and it all seemed so surreal yet pathetic.

I think the main reason why she showed up to begin with was because Dirk needed a pity vote from the jury. JMO
 
The reason he is filing the appeal for this is because he cant file for the assault or kidnapping because they have way too much evidence on him and he wouldnt stand a chance at a second trial. Now if his lawyer if he can even get one says that TLM confession should not have been allowed as evidence there might be a problem. That is how I see it. He clearly knows his goose is cooked with the other charges. I also think that it was TLM that actually did the killing and that is why he is appealing because he thinks that the jury thought he hit her as well, but I think the jury knew better by asking all the questions they did to be clear on how to find him guilty and to what charges. I dont think the murder vote was the one they were confused with. He was there, it was his car, his money for the hammer and he chose to not bring her home. He was there when it happened so it makes him just as guilty because he could have stopped her.

That is just my two cents. He makes me so sick and I really dont want to have to go through another trial like the last one, it consumed my life and I cant imagine what it did to her family. Gawd...

This crap makes me so angry.
 
Great to see all the ole faces here from Trial. Who da thunk we would be back here at this late date. Thanks for all the updates everyone.
 
I think the main reason why she showed up to begin with was because Dirk needed a pity vote from the jury. JMO

I have to say i did pity her. Not in the way a Defense Lawyer would wish :floorlaugh: I started vocalizing my shock and awe at her words then promptly shut up. I was so close to the press i didn't want the cameras turned on me after. I'm sure my mouth was hanging open as i stood and watched them slink off to the car :banghead:
 
I have to say i did pity her. Not in the way a Defense Lawyer would wish :floorlaugh: I started vocalizing my shock and awe at her words then promptly shut up. I was so close to the press i didn't want the cameras turned on me after. I'm sure my mouth was hanging open as i stood and watched them slink off to the car :banghead:

hahahhaha.. Man i have a big mouth I think I would have said something LOL :floorlaugh:
 
Great to see all the ole faces here from Trial. Who da thunk we would be back here at this late date. Thanks for all the updates everyone.

I knew he would appeal, just didn't know when and frankly very insulted at his excuse that he wasn't able to file an appeal based on the fact that he wasn't able to get to a phone. I'm sure he was able to call his mother. I hope the appeals judge will see through that 's BS excuse. It sounds like a "my dog ate my homework" kind of excuse :)
 
:banghead:

I don't even know what to say. I am not even surprised, but at the same time I am. If that makes any sense. It probably doesn't.

Anyway... his reasons are ridiculous. This is just his last ditch attempt at gaining control. Causing pain. He seems to enjoy causing pain and ruining lives. That is all this is about. His sick pleasure.


He is where he belongs. The jury didn't fail anything. The judge didn't, either.

:jail:
 
These words right out of this monster's mouth makes him guilty in the death of Tori Stafford. Notwithstanding though, I do believe that I am a very definite part of why Victoria is not here today. He's so stupid in his appeal he chooses to lay fault on the judge instead of fighting one of the three charges. For this he will lose. Sadly this appeal will not bring an end to this case nor will it bring Tori back. I am not sure of the legal process and what MR's rights are if his appeal is denied, but sadly I don't think we've heard the last from him. I believe he can use what is termed collateral attack, reversal of judgement. I don't think he will go away quietly. Does anyone know what other options he has if his appeal is denied?

I've wondered many a times if TM ever did pay him a visit. And if so, what did he have to say?

To Tara McDonald, for the past three years I've had so much to say on my behalf.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/15/michael-raffertys-statement-to-the-court
 
These words right out of this monster's mouth makes him guilty in the death of Tori Stafford. Notwithstanding though, I do believe that I am a very definite part of why Victoria is not here today. He's so stupid in his appeal he chooses to lay fault on the judge instead of fighting one of the three charges. For this he will lose. Sadly this appeal will not bring an end to this case nor will it bring Tori back. I am not sure of the legal process and what MR's rights are if his appeal is denied, but sadly I don't think we've heard the last from him. I believe he can use what is termed collateral attack, reversal of judgement. I don't think he will go away quietly. Does anyone know what other options he has if his appeal is denied?

I've wondered many a times if TM ever did pay him a visit. And if so, what did he have to say?

To Tara McDonald, for the past three years I've had so much to say on my behalf.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/05/15/michael-raffertys-statement-to-the-court

He may appeal to the supreme court of Canada... not sure how that process works tho. As for Tara visiting him, I doubt she would have (since she said she would not). That may have pissed this off and he's now retaliating. I agree with alot of people that this is his way of drawing this out to cause more anguish to the family. I don't think he's had enough attention yet.
 
http://m.torontosun.com/2012/05/15/michael-raffertys-statement-to-the-court


This little tidbit was part of the 's statement to the family:

"Notwithstanding though, I do believe that I am a very definite part of why Victoria is not here today"

He admits himself he's part of why Tori isn't alive, in court, in front of everyone!!:banghead:

HK we had the same train of thought about what he said in court. :seeya:

I don't believe MR has been doing anything in KP except crying because he's being picked on hahaha. MR is as stupid and evil as they come. No doubt in my mind it's probably his mother who is doing the leg work for him about the appeal. He is probably only allotted a certain amount of time on the phone and limited to calls. So he probably used up all his calls and time on calling mommy, no doubt the only person left in his life to support him. IMHO if she was smart, she should disown this she calls son. All JMHO.
 
He may appeal to the supreme court of Canada... not sure how that process works tho. As for Tara visiting him, I doubt she would have (since she said she would not). That may have pissed this off and he's now retaliating. I agree with alot of people that this is his way of drawing this out to cause more anguish to the family. I don't think he's had enough attention yet.

Bolded above: Is that not where his appeal is being dealt with already? :waitasec:
 
HK we had the same train of thought about what he said in court. :seeya:

I don't believe MR has been doing anything in KP except crying because he's being picked on hahaha. MR is as stupid and evil as they come. No doubt in my mind it's probably his mother who is doing the leg work for him about the appeal. He is probably only allotted a certain amount of time on the phone and limited to calls. So he probably used up all his calls and time on calling mommy, no doubt the only person left in his life to support him. IMHO if she was smart, she should disown this she calls son. All JMHO.

His Mother will probably never face the fact that her son is a monster. And I agree that he is probably whining alot in prison, he definitely showed everyone in that police interview how much of a whiner he is. I'm not sorry for him, the more his life is made uncomtable the better. :)
 
Bolded above: Is that not where his appeal is being dealt with already? :waitasec:

No, his appeal would be in a provincial court of appeal first. Then he can appeal to supreme court of canada if there is a reason to. If the supreme court of canada denies another apeal, then after that it's over. My brother appealed to the British Columbia court of appeals, then he went to the supreme court, that was his last stop.

Swedie, I am trying to find a document concerning appeals. I found this site:

http://www.attorneygeneral.jus.gov.on.ca/english/about/pubs/criminal_appeal.asp


In which court will the appeal be heard?

The court will be different depending on the type of crime. Cases that usually have less serious penalties are called "summary conviction offences." These cases are appealed to the Superior Court of Justice, and are heard before a judge of that court in the community where the trial was conducted.

Cases that usually have more serious maximum penalties, such as murder, are called "indictable offences", and are appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, which usually sits at Osgoode Hall, 130 Queen St. West, Toronto.

And the site for info on the Supreme Court of Canada:


http://www.scc-csc.gc.ca/faq/faq/index-eng.asp#f1

1. What is the role of the Supreme Court of Canada?

The Supreme Court of Canada is the court of last resort (or the highest court) in Canada. As the final general court of appeal it is the last judicial resort of all litigants. Its jurisdiction embraces both the civil law of the province of Quebec and the common law of the other nine provinces and three territories. As it is a general court of appeal, the Supreme Court of Canada can hear cases in all areas of the law.


"What are the criteria for granting leave to appeal?

The Supreme Court Act states that an application for leave to appeal may be granted if the Supreme Court of Canada finds that the case

raises an issue of public importance and
should be decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The case must raise an issue that goes beyond the immediate interests of the parties to the case."



In my brother's case, the reason why he was granted an appeal by the Supreme Court of Canada is because of a potential "breach of his rights to self-incriminatio" that could potentially affect all other such cases in the future. My brother incriminated himself at his first trial, upon appealing to the Provincial Court of Appeals, his original testimony incriminating himself was allowed into evidence Hence, another appeal to the Supreme Court to decide if the law had made errors in admitting his self-incriminating statements. It was decided that it should be allowed because at the time, the charter of rights did not exist, the charter was only signed into law in 1982. His original trial was in 1980.

This link explains why my brother's case went to the supreme court of canada - this is only the case of whether his charter rights were violated and not the original transcript of the trial. http://scc.lexum.org/en/1985/1985scr2-350/1985scr2-350.html
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
75
Guests online
706
Total visitors
781

Forum statistics

Threads
589,923
Messages
17,927,699
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top