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

Status
Not open for further replies.
I think they've mixed up the pictures. There are 2 pairs of shorts. They used the same photo for both pairs. The 2 photos you are showing (that they showed) are the same, but cropped and labelled differently.

Paris, please see my Post #378. There were only one pair of shorts, MTR got them back at some point before his arrest, and the way the evidence was presented on March 14 misled the media and then me. :( I apologize for further misleading you guys.
 
Yep, you are right. As per my follow-up post, the media led us all astray. The order of presentation of the pics by the Crown left everyone believing that the bag and shorts were found in TLM's house. (Wasted most of today for nothing! :banghead:)

Not a waste...you are doing it for Tori.
 
I totally agree, IMO her first confession was the truth no doubt in my mind. I think she only went back on it because she didn't want to testify against him for whatever reason.

The way I see it though is that if MR had the urge to abduct, rape and murder someone, he could have done that very easily by himself. But from all of the months of sleuthing him, I never got the impression that he had it in him to murder someone. He seemed to be a bit of a "wimp" for lack of a better word, and I don’t think he thought of himself as capable of killing someone. I know I never thought him capable, sexual deviant yes, murderer no, which is why it didn’t surprise me one bit when TLM recanted and said that she had killed Victoria. In fact, it made perfect sense to me.

I think his "issues" were/are sexual. I think he was always looking for the "thrill", a new level of arousal because there was something that just wasn‘t “doing it for him“ in normal relationships. We've heard that from many of the women who either posted here or were quoted in the media about various risky or violent requests either before or during sexual relations. And I think that he was struggling with his own demons of just what his "preference" was when it came to sexual encounters. It has been touched on here that he may have seemed "effeminate" or homosexual. Perhaps his demon was that he was actually desiring young children.

So if his ultimate fantasy was to have sex with a young child, he had a problem in that he would also have to murder that child in order not to be "caught". Or he could try to incorporate himself into their lives by living with their mothers. I’m not aware of him actually living with any single mothers with young children for any length of time and I’m not sure how many he “dated” and of that number how many may have kicked him to the curb early on for a variety of reasons, most of them revolving around him being "off" or clingy that have also been touched on here. So the other option was to abduct a random child, a stranger. And it would be very difficult to abduct a young child as an adult male. People are very wary of strange men approaching young children, especially female children, in all situations, but not so much about teenage girls approaching them. If he himself he tried to abduct Victoria in the manner in which it was done, I have no doubt that it would have been unsuccessful. And then there was the problem of what to do with the child after the sexual assault was accomplished.

So enter TLM. A self confessed drug addict and tough talking gangsta, with apparently no issues about harming and/or killing people as noted in her journals/letters, who was enamoured with him. At the time of their meeting, TLM was pretty much dead inside herself and didn't have much respect for either herself or the rest of the human race. Going from day to day just surviving and pumping as much drugs into her system to get through the day as money and supply would provide. I've indicated before that I believe this was a well discussed plan between the two of them. And the trips to single women's homes were the work up to the suggestion, which I don't believe TLM balked at because she was feeling some strong, unusual emotion, for her anyway, towards him and because she was pretty numb to the whole morality issue that harming and killing people was wrong since she’d seen and experienced so much violence already in her short 18 years. So he was right…she’d do anything for a little bit of love.

So now he's got a willing female accomplice who will not only take care of the actual luring of a child, but will take care of the murder of said child when his ultimate fantasy has been satisfied. Do I think that he called TLM back to the car when he was done to take care of the rest, yes I do. Do I think she was tripping out on some flashback from her youth at the time, no I don’t.

MOO
 
On Thursday, the trial heard how Rafferty, while in police custody, asked two undercover officers if they had any OxyContin, the highly addictive prescription pill.
He said if he had 80 mg pills, he took four or five daily. But if he had 40 mg ones, he took dozen or so. And if he had Percocets, also prescription pills, he took 20 to 30 every day.


20-30 percs a day? WOW....JMO


http://www.londoncommunitynews.com/...s-first-peek-at-the-life-of-michael-rafferty/

Rafferty kept saying if he could not get some pills, it was “going to be a hard few days.”

20 to 30 percs a day or 5 oxys!!:eek: That's a lot of percs or oxys phew. Now I believe MR was driving to Guelph to visit BA as she said, about a dozen times or so after April 8/09. MR was most likely there getting more percs to feed his huge drug habit. <modsnip> I cannot believe those around him had no clue. :moo: MR must have been desperate in order to ask fellow inmates (undercover LE) for drugs. Good catch Mr. LE. :floorlaugh:
 
The way I see it though is that if MR had the urge to abduct, rape and murder someone, he could have done that very easily by himself. But from all of the months of sleuthing him, I never got the impression that he had it in him to murder someone.

So now he's got a willing female accomplice who will not only take care of the actual luring of a child, but will take care of the murder of said child when his ultimate fantasy has been satisfied. Do I think that he called TLM back to the car when he was done to take care of the rest, yes I do. Do I think she was tripping out on some flashback from her youth at the time, no I don’t.

MOO

Respectfully snipped by me. Wow. What a well articulated thoughtful post. Really, when you put it this way, all the pieces come together. Thanks for this, Kamille.
 
What if the supposed drug debt of JG's was to Rafferty? Might be a new motive not previously discussed?
Although, I'm not convinced a drug debt had anything to do with the abduction and murder.

You could be onto something puppy. But then I go back to Tori was a random child and MR telling TLM Tori was too old. :eek: I just had a very terrifying thought. Makes me sick to think about it but, it would be interesting to know about some of these women MR befriended and dated. Did they have children younger than Tori and did sexual things happen to them? I sure hope LE has been in contact with every woman with children MR has come into contact with and thoroughly questioned them. Maybe one of these women will take the stand to suggest something happened to their child and this could show MR's sexual motivation/deviance of children, to back up the sexual assault charges against Tori. :moo:
 
I hope this works! Interesting legal opinion.

http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.com/2012/04/tori-stafford-trial-if-michael-rafferty.html?m=0

I may need some advice on how to link articles here!

That is a great article, thanks for posting the link!!

Im thinking we will hear more on the hair dye purchase on april 11th, when the blackberry chapter comes up, as I am sure TLM and MR texted back and forth on this topic. JMO

I* don't think TLM had a money in her phone.

TLM did not have her own cell phone and used her mom's IIRC. If they were texting back and forth I can't see her not deleting anything her mom would find suspicious. Are text messages retrievable from the carrier/manufacturer after they are deleted from the phone? :waitasec:

I would think so but not positive.....anyone know for sure?

My experience working for Fido and Rogers as a CSR is that no text messages cannot be retrieved unless someone never deletes their messages. Text messages are not stored on a central server, they are stored on the phone until deleted.

The way I see it though is that if MR had the urge to abduct, rape and murder someone, he could have done that very easily by himself. But from all of the months of sleuthing him, I never got the impression that he had it in him to murder someone. He seemed to be a bit of a "wimp" for lack of a better word, and I don&#8217;t think he thought of himself as capable of killing someone. I know I never thought him capable, sexual deviant yes, murderer no, which is why it didn&#8217;t surprise me one bit when TLM recanted and said that she had killed Victoria. In fact, it made perfect sense to me.

I think his "issues" were/are sexual. I think he was always looking for the "thrill", a new level of arousal because there was something that just wasn&#8216;t &#8220;doing it for him&#8220; in normal relationships. We've heard that from many of the women who either posted here or were quoted in the media about various risky or violent requests either before or during sexual relations. And I think that he was struggling with his own demons of just what his "preference" was when it came to sexual encounters. It has been touched on here that he may have seemed "effeminate" or homosexual. Perhaps his demon was that he was actually desiring young children.

So if his ultimate fantasy was to have sex with a young child, he had a problem in that he would also have to murder that child in order not to be "caught". Or he could try to incorporate himself into their lives by living with their mothers. I&#8217;m not aware of him actually living with any single mothers with young children for any length of time and I&#8217;m not sure how many he &#8220;dated&#8221; and of that number how many may have kicked him to the curb early on for a variety of reasons, most of them revolving around him being "off" or clingy that have also been touched on here. So the other option was to abduct a random child, a stranger. And it would be very difficult to abduct a young child as an adult male. People are very wary of strange men approaching young children, especially female children, in all situations, but not so much about teenage girls approaching them. If he himself he tried to abduct Victoria in the manner in which it was done, I have no doubt that it would have been unsuccessful. And then there was the problem of what to do with the child after the sexual assault was accomplished.

So enter TLM. A self confessed drug addict and tough talking gangsta, with apparently no issues about harming and/or killing people as noted in her journals/letters, who was enamoured with him. At the time of their meeting, TLM was pretty much dead inside herself and didn't have much respect for either herself or the rest of the human race. Going from day to day just surviving and pumping as much drugs into her system to get through the day as money and supply would provide. I've indicated before that I believe this was a well discussed plan between the two of them. And the trips to single women's homes were the work up to the suggestion, which I don't believe TLM balked at because she was feeling some strong, unusual emotion, for her anyway, towards him and because she was pretty numb to the whole morality issue that harming and killing people was wrong since she&#8217;d seen and experienced so much violence already in her short 18 years. So he was right&#8230;she&#8217;d do anything for a little bit of love.

So now he's got a willing female accomplice who will not only take care of the actual luring of a child, but will take care of the murder of said child when his ultimate fantasy has been satisfied. Do I think that he called TLM back to the car when he was done to take care of the rest, yes I do. Do I think she was tripping out on some flashback from her youth at the time, no I don&#8217;t.

MOO

Very good post Kamille and it makes alot of sense. That's what I have believed myself from the beginning and I hope it can be proved with more evidence, can't wait to hear the forensic evidence.
 
FWIW, I don't believe the media let anyone astray with any reporting r.e the shorts. It was never stated that those particular items were found at TLM's house, although the Puma shoes were in her closet as can be seen in the photo. <modsnip>. JMO
 
I hope this works! Interesting legal opinion.

http://jmortonmusings.blogspot.com/2012/04/tori-stafford-trial-if-michael-rafferty.html?m=0

I may need some advice on how to link articles here!

Great article and very thoroughly explained. Thanks for that tmhco. I presume this is how the jurors will see it "if" they buy the defense's story. And IMHO that is a big if.

The Court carefully distinguished wilful blindness, where the accused knows something is wrong and decides to suppress that knowledge, from recklessness, where the accused does not know even though, reasonably, the accused ought to have known. The Court says: "While a failure to inquire may be evidence of recklessness or criminal negligence, as for example, where a failure to inquire is a marked departure from the conduct expected of a reasonable person, wilful blindness is not simply a failure to inquire but... "deliberate ignorance"."

The defence "I see nothing" is no defence at all.
 
Absolutly spot on correct ! No one... NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO GO THROUGH what little Victoria's family is going through. Not ever !!

The problem is the trial is *HIS* right, not Victoria's or her family's right. He has more rights, right now, than Victoria. Bizzare as it may seem... he has the *right* to a fair trial and most importantly it has to appear that it was fair. That's why we need to hear all of the facts before finding guilt.

At times it appears in the Canadian Justice system that the criminal has more rights than the victim. MOO

May Tori's family find strength this Easter weekend

Respectfully I disagree. Victoria has the right along with her family to see JUSTICE is served for the deliberate heinous acts committed against her while in the custody of TLM and MR.:moo:
 
FWIW, I don't believe the media let anyone astray with any reporting r.e the shorts. It was never stated that those particular items were found at TLM's house, although the Puma shoes were in her closet as can be seen in the photo. <modsnip>. JMO

Well this guy did, and others too because I didn't even find this guy's blog until last week and I thought the shorts and bag were found in her home too. (Which, at the time I thought was odd because in the Crown's opening statement they said the Good Life bag was found in Rafferty's car.)

MOO

http://www.newstalk1010.com/blog/raffertyevidence/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10360097

McClintic testified that, as they drove away from the scene of Stafford's death, she took off her shoes and threw them out of the car window into a field along Sideroad 6. Police eventually found those shoes (picture 1).

She also claims that she and Rafferty stopped at a convenience store in Cambridge that night, separately using the washroom to change their clothes. McClintic testifed that Rafferty gave her his white Puma shoes, basketball shorts and t-shirt to change into, packed into a blue gym bag. Police found items matching those descriptions in McClintic's home when they executed a search warrant after her arrest (pictures 2 and 3).
 
Well this guy did, and others too because I didn't even find this guy's blog until last week and I thought the shorts and bag were found in her home too. (Which, at the time I thought was odd because in the Crown's opening statement they said the Good Life bag was found in Rafferty's car.)

MOO

http://www.newstalk1010.com/blog/raffertyevidence/blogentry.aspx?BlogEntryID=10360097

[/b]

Doesn't say WHICH items were found in her home, only that items were found in her home i.e. the shoes. JMO

The images are identical and the tags are identical. The labels underneath are identical. Easily checked. So did she give these items back or did he take them?

slide 56 http://www.am980.ca/Other/McClintic.pdf

slide 54 http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/05/19599961.html
 
Doesn't say WHICH items were found, only that items were found in her home i.e. the shoes. JMO

The images are identical and the tags are identical. The labels underneath are identical. Easily checked.

slide 56 http://www.am980.ca/Other/McClintic.pdf

slide 54 http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/05/19599961.html

I disagree, it clearly says that the shoes, shorts and gym bag were found during the search of TLM's house after her arrest.

Easily checked by whom? Not us, because we didn't see the contents seized from MR's car until yetserday - the date of the article posted is back in March (15th).
So between March 15 and April 5, we were all led to believe the shoes, shorts and gym bag were found at TLM's house.

It definitely is a media error, it's blatent and plain as day, hopefully the same mistake wasn't made in court documents.

MOO
 
I wonder why this issue was never brought up to TLM? Can't think of anyone who would be more able to answer the question.

I suppose the interior was "whitewashed" prior to that day. We at least know the dash was so why not the rest of the car. I guess maybe the Crown already found out that it had been done previously and decided not to bother to bring it up because it was irrelevant?

One thing that interests me is that we never found out where MR got the car. It was a 2003 wasn't it? Only 5-6 years old. Not very old for a car, especially a Honda. Did he buy it new? Did he have it since he was 23 and made payments on it for 3,4 or 5 years?

Or did he buy it as a beater from someone else who trashed the interior for whatever reason? Or was there something funky in or on the interior that needed to be whitewashed when he bought it? How long had he owned the car before this crime and if he bought it used where did he get it from? Did a previous owner add the hood scoop or did he?

How does a 5-6 year old car look so bad? Especially if it's only had one owner?

MOO

You brought up some really interesting question Kamille. If his car was his baby as some suggested, why would he do such a shoddy if not laughable job? For someone who was conscientious about latest fashions and wore designer clothes, it's mind boggling as to why he did what he did to his car, his baby. DS was over last night for supper and a visit and I was showing him the evidence pictures and he literally LOLed and shook his head. He said he could see a young teen doing something like this to an old beater, but couldn't understand the mentality of a 28 year old male doing that unless his brain was fried on drugs or he was trying to cover something up such as a crime. Also from what he could tell the hood scoop is not real, it's decoration. That was his opinion.

There must have been a good reason MR did this to his car. I believe it was to disguise the bright blue colour it was. I wonder if MR had tried to abduct another child or children in the blue car and came very close to getting them. Is it possible he was afraid those children may have reported him in his blue car? Therefore by painting it black, that would take him out of the picture? I IMHO believe MR was up to no good way before TLM came into the picture and MR was unsuccessful in his previous attempts. Just like the PB case. PB started raping and attacking women on his own long before KH came along. But then he met KH and he found someone who was willing to take it to another level. I thank God every day these two were caught before they sought out anymore victims. :moo:
 
JMO......It is difficult to tell by the pictures, but it looks like the plastic interior parts were sanded after the white substance was applied, because there are distinct grinding marks apparent in some areas. I believe LE also found a couple of sanding discs in the car, which had a white substance on them, which would indicate they were used after the white substance was applied.

Judging by the amount of sanding through almost the entire interior, there must have been a lot to try to hide, if that was the purpose.

This brings up a question on TLM's testimony..........as I believe she stated that MR threw VS out onto the ground and then she started the assault.

If TLM's testimony was true, why would there be a need for such an extensive cleanup of the interior of the car?

Tori was lying on the ground on the passenger side near the back of the car. That goes to show why the back door on the passenger side looks like MR tried to sand away evidence. Blood, DNA? It will most certainly be interesting to see if and what evidence forensics found on that door.:moo:
 
I disagree, it clearly says that the shoes, shorts and gym bag were found during the search of TLM's house after her arrest.

Easily checked by whom? Not us, because we didn't see the contents seized from MR's car until yetserday - the date of the article posted is back in March (15th).
So between March 15 and April 5, we were all led to believe the shoes, shorts and gym bag were found at TLM's house.

It definitely is a media error, it's blatent and plain as day, hopefully the same mistake wasn't made in court documents.

MOO

Going by the evidence tag#, the shorts go inline with items removed from MR's house/car...they start in 7000's, TLM's are in the 2000's.

How would media get ahold of the MR pic at the time of TLM's evidence being shown.....im confused.
 
Nope. The "second" pair of shorts were seized from MR's car during the early afternoon of May 19, 2009. The "first" pair were supposedly found and photographed in TLM's room a few hours later on the same day. TLM had been jail for weeks prior to that.

Supposedly two pairs of identical shorts with identical stains found hours apart in two different places by LE. A mix-up in LE labeling? A mix-up by the presentation of evidence in court? A "plant" putting MR's shorts into TLM's house? I'm very confused.

JMO

The labelling of the photos do not conclusively state that the shorts where found in her house at all. Interesting theory about a "plant" though. The police planting evidence or MR? I'm very interested. JMO The photos were easily accessible (made public) for anyone to compare and conclude that they are the same photos. JMO
 
20 to 30 percs a day or 5 oxys!!:eek: That's a lot of percs or oxys phew. Now I believe MR was driving to Guelph to visit BA as she said, about a dozen times or so after April 8/09. MR was most likely there getting more percs to feed his huge drug habit. And people thought Tori's mom was a druggie for one oxy a day? TM's was nothing in comparison to MRs. I cannot believe those around him had no clue. :moo: MR must have been desperate in order to ask fellow inmates (undercover LE) for drugs. Good catch Mr. LE. :floorlaugh:

Excessive drug usage for sure.

It's hard to believe that anyone can live with such high levels in their system.

Rafferty must have had a very high/built up or tolerance to opiates.

I wonder if he had ever experienced an overdose?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
103
Guests online
1,313
Total visitors
1,416

Forum statistics

Threads
591,795
Messages
17,958,966
Members
228,607
Latest member
wdavewong
Back
Top