The wait for closing arguments discussion thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
I would think it would pretty much be confined to any reason TLM would have picked VS as her target.............or possibly comments that were said by her after the day of the crime.

Drug acquaintances, fellow inmates, we wouldn't know until they testified.

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

Unless there was no "reason," and VS was abducted at random, as TLM testified and as the evidence overwhelmingly suggests, to my mind.

s
 
IMO It's because people need someone to blame and being the fact that she was her mother and she was a drug addict which in turn exposed herself and by proxy her children to very shady people, that maybe people feel if she had lived a more proper life this wouldn't have happened. IMO I say, it's partially true but not the reason this happened. It is an aweful crime, painful and an awful burden to bare for her and Rodney.

I think she was blamed because there had been alot of cases recently (back in 2009) where one parent or the other were involved in the death of their children. In Canada in 2009 there was the case of Penny Boudreau who killed her daughter Karissa.

The year 2009 got off to a bad start. On January 3, a couple killed their three children in Chicoutimi and while the father killed himself, the mother survived. On February 21, a cardiologist (Guy Turcotte) stabbed his three children in Piedmont. On March 24, a mother killed her 9-year-old son before taking her own life in Saint-Élie-d'Orford. A week later, two young girls were found dead in Laval with their mother as the prime suspect. That's just in Quebec.

I think that these types of killings were not really brought forward until the Susan Smith case in the US, the one that drowned her children. It horrified the world I think that a mother would kill her own children. And unfortunately I think it caused LE to look at the parents more closely when that type of crime happens.

The most famous death of child caused by parents in Canada, was the case of Aurore Gagnon in Quebec in 1920. She died of exhaustion and blood poisoning from some 52 wounds inflicted by her stepmother, Marie-Anne Houde, and her father, Télesphore Gagnon.

I remember as a child born in Quebec that story used to scare the hell out of me.
 
I respect your opinion.

I take the other view.

Given where they all lived, walked around, parents having contact on many occasions, I would find it more difficult to believe TLM didn't either know VS or knew of her from someone.

If the last defense witness is correct, and I have no reason to question her credibility, and TLM went into the school.............she was looking for VS.

That raises the question in the article I posted in a previous post..................

How was TLM so bold to take a child and know she wouldn't run into interference from the child's parent?

In my opinion, TLM knew no one would be there to pick up VS that day.

TLM said she ran some "drug errands" that day........

Did we ever learn who was buying the drugs from TLM that day?

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

I’m going to jump in here, I get what your saying, but how would TLM know that Tori would not be picked up that particular day?

On the drug question, weren’t they buying drugs, I think I recall TLM saying that MR called her to get drugs and they went and picked them up for him?
 
I’m going to jump in here, I get what your saying, but how would TLM know that Tori would not be picked up that particular day?
On the drug question, weren’t they buying drugs, I think I recall TLM saying that MR called her to get drugs and they went and picked them up for him?

Im guessing that she didn't, BUT if she knew VS was TM's daughter, she could walk away with VS, if TM came along, she would just say....have a nice day and continue on her merry way....she didn't come along...so she took VS.
 
I think there is something to the observation that Derstine could be setting things up for an appeal. His defence seems so odd to me, calling one witness. But on the other hand I know there is a lot we are missing due to the publication ban. Still, one witness?

But why would a lawyer set things up for an appeal in this way, by throwing the case? Wouldn't he give it his best shot and then find some other reason for appeal if he could? The fact that there are so many issues being discussed without the jury being present tells me that there is a possibility that Derstine is trying. So would that rule out ineffective counsel appeals?

I don't know what to think.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

One thing I am wondering about as well is how much will knowing the back stories that will be revealed will affect people's opinion of Tara. If we learn that the EOA angle was not supported by evidence will people drop the issue? The same goes for this drug debt stuff.

Waiting for the publication ban to be lifted is difficult as it seems that much of the posts lately are focused on Tara. I hope we learn that she was not connected via a drug debt to what happened to Tori. I hope that if we do as we wait for the verdict this type of negative speculation about Tara will decrease.
 
I respect your opinion.

I take the other view.

Given where they all lived, walked around, parents having contact on many occasions, I would find it more difficult to believe TLM didn't either know VS or knew of her from someone.

If the last defense witness is correct, and I have no reason to question her credibility, and TLM went into the school.............she was looking for VS.

That raises the question in the article I posted in a previous post..................

How was TLM so bold to take a child and know she wouldn't run into interference from the child's parent?

In my opinion, TLM knew no one would be there to pick up VS that day.

TLM said she ran some "drug errands" that day........

Did we ever learn who was buying the drugs from TLM that day?

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

Daryn was supposed to walk with her actually. He walked a disabled person home, then came back to pick up TS, however when he got there TS was gone already. TM said that only herself and her mother knew that the "children" would walk home alone that day. So TS was supposed to walk with her brother, not by herself.
 
I think there is something to the observation that Derstine could be setting things up for an appeal. His defence seems so odd to me, calling one witness. But on the other hand I know there is a lot we are missing due to the publication ban. Still, one witness?

But why would a lawyer set things up for an appeal in this way, by throwing the case? Wouldn't he give it his best shot and then find some other reason for appeal if he could? The fact that there are so many issues being discussed without the jury being present tells me that there is a possibility that Derstine is trying. So would that rule out ineffective counsel appeals?

I don't know what to think.

I guess we will have to wait and see.

One thing I am wondering about as well is how much will knowing the back stories that will be revealed will affect people's opinion of Tara. If we learn that the EOA angle was not supported by evidence will people drop the issue? The same goes for this drug debt stuff.

Waiting for the publication ban to be lifted is difficult as it seems that much of the posts lately are focused on Tara. I hope we learn that she was not connected via a drug debt to what happened to Tori. I hope that if we do as we wait for the verdict this type of negative speculation about Tara will decrease.

Would Dirk want this to go onto another trial with it being legal aid????
 
Im guessing that she didn't, BUT if she knew VS was TM's daughter, she could walk away with VS, if TM came along, she would just say....have a nice day and continue on her merry way....she didn't come along...so she took VS.

True, that could be the case. I just really am not sure they knew each, I don't think TM would have perjured herself on the stand, so I will choose to believe her testimony on the subject.
 
Would Dirk want this to go onto another trial with it being legal aid????

Do you mean would Derstine want MTR to be defended by another lawyer through legal aid or if Derstine would want to defend MTR again being paid at the reduced rate? Because Derstine is being paid less than his normal fee for defending MTR right?

Neither scenario makes sense to me, I can't see what his motivation would be for that?

What do you think?
 
Let's move it on over the weekend thread, Guys.

Thanks,

Salem
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
178
Guests online
2,292
Total visitors
2,470

Forum statistics

Threads
589,984
Messages
17,928,651
Members
228,032
Latest member
Taylor Sage
Back
Top