MTR Discussions

[CuriousJorge]

Originally Posted by LadyL

IIRC, some of that info is in dispute, according to at least one school rep. I can't link it though - I read that long ago.

According to this report (3rd paragraph from the bottom) MR's educational background. I have read other reports also where he has apparently lied about his post high school education also. Have not found them yet.

MOO

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/638574

[CuriousJorge]

I spent some time today revisiting the Forensic Astrology forum. Very interesting to go through what these gifted women early in the investigation and prior to the arrests. What I found most interesting was MR's and TLM's charts.

For anyone interested in visiting the Forensic forum if you haven't before, or for quick reference to a post I found shocking, page 7, post #156.

For a chart done, in regards their court appearance on, I believe the day after their arrests, page 14, post 336 and click top link of Tuba's post.

For MR's chart, page 15, post #370 and TLM's chart post #373.

JMO! The stars do not lie.

[nobodyzgirl]

Originally Posted by LadyL

BBM

he's not required to prove his innocence - innocent until proven guilty means that the prosecutor is required to prove guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt!

it's the foundation of the justice system!

he, like most defendants, are told not to speak by their lawyers

his family has probably been told the same thing

again, from my personal experience & also from everything we read about trials and trial lawyers, I know this to be true most of the time

I realize that we see a lot of suspects families talking to the media but they are mostly from the States

we generally don't work that way here in Canada, unless whatshisname big-shot TO lawyer is involved ... but it costs big bucks to hire him

BBM: Exactly!! The basic principle of defence counsel is to disprove everything the Crown is proving, which leads to reasonable doubt, which would likely lead to an acquittal.

As for the big shot lawyer, do you mean Eddie Greenspan by chance?

[maxfactor]

Originally Posted by CuriousJorge

I spent some time today revisiting the Forensic Astrology forum. Very interesting to go through what these gifted women early in the investigation and prior to the arrests. What I found most interesting was MR's and TLM's charts.

For anyone interested in visiting the Forensic forum if you haven't before, or for quick reference to a post I found shocking, page 7, post #156.

For a chart done, in regards their court appearance on, I believe the day after their arrests, page 14, post 336 and click top link of Tuba's post.

For MR's chart, page 15, post #370 and TLM's chart post #373.

JMO! The stars do not lie.

Thanks Jorge for posting those post #s!! I go back through the Forensic Astrology forum every now and then and it really gives me the chills. I followed it along at the time but now that I know more about MTR and TLM it really makes me sick. I do have great respect for the forensic astrologers, they were right on the money all the way along. I've been reading some other posts there tonight which kind of make me wonder. For example post #163 on page 7, then a few posts later is a link to the "first the Yukon" thing from MTR. hmmm...

[CuriousJorge]

Originally Posted by LadyL

can you point me in the direction of someone on here who says they believe he's innocent? I haven't seen anyone say that but I could've missed it

I don't necessarily think he's innocent but am trying to keep an open mind b/c again, that's the foundation of our justice system

honestly, how the heck are you going to get factual info of his innocence before a trial?

do you really think that potential witnesses for either side should be blabbing their potential evidence on the internet? wouldn't that compromise a fair & just trial?

I hope the prosecution doesn't plan on parading as witnesses some of the former flames who have been talking to the media - IMO, their credibility took a plunge when they chose to speak publicly about their sex lives

perhaps no one has gone to the media to protest his innocence because he has no one, except an apparently not-so-problem free mother and/or his 'supporters' have been told to hush (as I alluded to before)

I understand the outrage - I understand the anger - I understand the wanting to line 'em up on a firing range (I really do) but we've got to make an attempt to understand the law before we say things like have been posted in this thread recently and we also better hope that karma doesn't ever bite us in the hiney & we end up trying to defend ourselves from a lynch-mob public

c'mon guys & gals - no one is required to PROVE or PROTEST their innocence in public in this country and their supporters, if they have any, should not be pressured to either

I always get a response like "oh come on, we all KNOW he's guilty" and although I might feel that way, I have to caution myself that we don't KNOW much of anything except that he's been charged

Welcome LadyL! I don't know if you've followed this forum from the beginning, but there have been some sleuthers who have came right out and have have voice their belief that they feel MR is innocent. I will not point fingers but it is here in this forum. If you go back to threads (maybe 13-16ish) you will find them. I have been doing a lot of back reading lately and they are there. Some still remain posting as of fairly recent. Though as of recent they have not so deliberately came right out and protested his innocences, they pussy foot around, KWIM.

JMO-There are also some fence sitters who at one time or another believed he was guilty but have now decided to sit on the fence. I feel this is due to the fact that the some fence sitters have had contact with people who are acquitances with MR. These certain fence sitters don't blatantly come right out and say they believe he's innocent, but I can read between the lines. These people are the ones I like to refer to as "button pushers" or "pot stirrers". They just like to get things going.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs. You are correct in your statement about our justice system and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. We all can draw conclusions from what we have heard, seen and read. It is unfair to say that people cannot judge MR/TLM on what we know so far. Just because these accused have not had their day in court, does not render us incapable of drawing our own conclusions.

Yes we have to keep in mind that not all media reporters can be depended upon, they do make mistakes, or possibly exaggerate, but when information is presented directly from LE we know we are given factual information. LE has presented some pretty strong information for us to go on IMO. We also have the reports from media that help to draw theories also.

With the little bit of information we have so far, just like every other case here on WS, Haleigh, Caylee, Nevaeh to name a few, we go with what we have and what our common sense tells us.

These accused will definately have their days in court. When the veredict comes in and if MR is found not guilty, I will be the first to admit here that I was being very judgemental and narrow minded in my beliefs and harsh in my opinions. But until then I stand by what I know.

Too much of this ***** is happening more and more everyday, to our innocent little children and it's time people started taking a harder look at reality and saying "this could have been my beautiful child". Instead so many people want to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused and say, "but he hasn't had his day in court". Tori did not end up deceased by natural causes, therefore someone took her innocent life, a life that she deserved to live fully. WHO is responsible for taking that away from her????? There are two people sitting in jail right now accused of murdering her, snuffing out her life by means of terror and torment. Imagine what Tori went through in her last hours, just try to imagine. Try to imagine what everyone of those who dearly loved this child are going through on a daily basis. That's all we can do is try to imagine. Unless you've been there, you have no idea. I for one have been devasted by a near loss of a beautiful niece (scarred for life) and this is why I have taken Tori's case personally. I have seen first hand, where justice let me and my loved ones down.

This is what some people base their opinions on. Not the fact that "they haven't had their day in court". When LE stands before the public and announce that they have circumstancial evidence that lead them to the arrests of two people responsible for Tori's death, I don't believe they've made errors. We are not talking about a bank robbery here, we are talking about murder. Yes LE have made mistakes before but with all that has come to light regarding these two, I put all my faith in our hard working LE. Does anyone have any idea how many LE worked on this case? Do you think all these people come to the rational thinking that they should arrest MR "just in case", or just because TLM "say so"? No not in my eyes. I feel I am using my common sense to draw my own conclusions and I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. Believe what you want to believe, because that's what we are all entitled to.

Please do not take this personal LadyL, as it is not intended that way. This is my thinking and I am sharing with anyone who would like to read it. I was in the beginning, answering your question in regards to who is claiming MR's innocence. I got on a rant and so be it. I'm now done. I will refrain from posting any further comments as I feel I (and a few others) have been down played enough and have more important things in life (my beautiful children and loving husband) to do then sit here voicing my sentiments and common sense.

May those responsible for Tori's death, suffer as she did.

BTW IF the verdict comes back on MR being not guilty, I will be back to apologize for my ignorance. May God Bless all of our little children and keep them safe from these monsters that lurk amongst us. May he also give parents the wisdom to protect them from this kind of harm. Unfortunately wisdom is not always enough.

Dear Victoria! You are in a safer place now. Rest in Peace little one!



cir·cum·stance (sûr'kəm-stāns')
n. 1.A condition or fact attending an event and having some bearing on it; a determining or modifying factor.

2.A condition or fact that determines or must be considered in the determining of a course of action.

3.The sum of determining factors beyond willful control. Often used in the plural: a victim of circumstance; work that will begin on Monday if circumstances permit.

4.circumstances Financial status or means: "Prior came of a good family, much reduced in circumstances" (George Sherburn).
5.Detail accompanying or surrounding an event, as in a narrative or series of events.

6.Formal display; ceremony: the pomp and circumstance of a coronation.

7.A particular incident or occurrence: Your arrival was a fortunate circumstance. See Synonyms at occurrence.

ev⋅i⋅dence  /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc⋅ing.
Use evidence in a Sentence
See web results for evidence
See images of evidence
–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

–verb (used with object) 4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.

—Idiom6. in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence.

[antiquegirl]

Some still remain posting as of fairly recent. Though as of recent they have not so deliberately came right out and protested his innocences, they pussy foot around, KWIM.

If by "pussy foot around" you mean they remain impartial, non-judgmental, and fair, you are correct. All I have seen (and that includes myself) are members who refuse to make a final, definitive judgment until all evidence is presented at trial.

JMO-There are also some fence sitters who at one time or another believed he was guilty but have now decided to sit on the fence. I feel this is due to the fact that the some fence sitters have had contact with people who are acquitances with MR. These certain fence sitters don't blatantly come right out and say they believe he's innocent, but I can read between the lines.

(BBM)

What you and others "read between the lines" (or infer) from posts is strictly subjective, no fault of the posters, and not necessarily accurate. If some decide to interpret others' words in ways not intended, it can't be helped. This can also be called "jumping to conclusions"

Conversely, I have seen many posts that do blatantly assert as fact that MR is guilty. Most of these have subsequently been deleted, but they have been saved and I could provide quotes, names, dates and times.

These people are the ones I like to refer to as "button pushers" or "pot stirrers". They just like to get things going.

I prefer to describe it as presenting all points of view for the purposes of debate and in the interest of fairness. As a wise poster once pointed out, we are not here to build a case for the Crown. WS is about discussing all aspects of the case, in every direction possible.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs. You are correct in your statement about our justice system and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. We all can draw conclusions from what we have heard, seen and read. It is unfair to say that people cannot judge MR/TLM on what we know so far. Just because these accused have not had their day in court, does not render us incapable of drawing our own conclusions.

Exactly! Thanks for proving my point. Those conclusions can be like yours ("guilty until proven innocent"!), or one of innocence, or that of undecided. However, opinions are all they are. Aside from charges being laid, there are no actual facts from which to draw conclusive decisions.

Yes we have to keep in mind that not all media reporters can be depended upon, they do make mistakes, or possibly exaggerate, but when information is presented directly from LE we know we are given factual information. LE has presented some pretty strong information for us to go on IMO.

(BBM)

Like what? Please name one. The only evidence pointing towards anyone's guilt that I can think of is the video tape showing TLM leading Tori away from school. Even that has not been proven to be TLM. Without a close-up of her face, we can only surmise that it is she. As far as I can remember, nothing else provided by LE to the public is definite proof of anyone's guilt. The only other "fact" I can remember is LE stating early on that MR's car was spotted in the Guelph Home Depot parking lot with the suspects and Tori in it. Do they have video of this? We don't know because instead of publishing one, they gave us a blurry one of MR's car in the gas station instead. Is it an eye-witness account? LE has never said. BTW, eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. This is just one report of many that can be found online to attest to this:

"According to one study, 50% of all wrongful convictions result from false identifications"

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache:...ient=firefox-a

We also have the reports from media that help to draw theories also.

Yes, along with their many mistakes and unverified quotes. As you say, we draw theories - you have yours and others have theirs. Not all will agree.

With the little bit of information we have so far, just like every other case here on WS, Haleigh, Caylee, Nevaeh to name a few, we go with what we have and what our common sense tells us.

No argument there!

These accused will definately have their days in court. When the veredict comes in and if MR is found not guilty, I will be the first to admit here that I was being very judgemental and narrow minded in my beliefs and harsh in my opinions. But until then I stand by what I know.

(BBM)

I will be the first to admit that I "know" almost nothing about evidence that would cause me to form an opinion one way or the other about either MR's innocence or guilt. Thus, I remain impartial until I hear otherwise.

Now, TLM is in a different category. Since she provided LE with what turned out to be an accurate description of where Tori's remains were found, I think we can safely deduce that she has confessed to an involvement in this crime. We can therefore logically form an opinion of guilt without further evidence.

When LE stands before the public and announce that they have circumstancial evidence that lead them to the arrests of two people responsible for Tori's death, I don't believe they've made errors.

While I don't recall the word "circumstantial" being used by LE in this case, it in itself is not enough to obtain a guilty verdict. Guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". We will all have to wait and see if the Crown can do this.

We are not talking about a bank robbery here, we are talking about murder. Yes LE have made mistakes before but with all that has come to light regarding these two, I put all my faith in our hard working LE. Does anyone have any idea how many LE worked on this case? Do you think all these people come to the rational thinking that they should arrest MR "just in case", or just because TLM "say so"? No not in my eyes. I feel I am using my common sense to draw my own conclusions and I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. Believe what you want to believe, because that's what we are all entitled to.

(BBM)

That is exactly what we are doing. No one has ever argued this.

Please do not take this personal LadyL, as it is not intended that way. This is my thinking and I am sharing with anyone who would like to read it. I was in the beginning, answering your question in regards to who is claiming MR's innocence.

I repeat: no one has claimed MR's innocence here except Wendell - once! Everyone else, including myself, have stated repeatedly that we are undecided. I have even gone so far as to suggest that MR may be a sociopath and have personally maintained that he probably has some involvement in this crime - although to what extent is uncertain. I've posted this in the past. The interpretation of "undecided" as "innocent" is not our fault.


MOO



(Respectfully snipped)

[nobodyzgirl]

"So far, only one side of the story has been told," said Giordano, a lawyer with Toronto's Derstine Penman firm. "We'll be going to trial on this matter.

"We're vigorously defending Mr. Rafferty."

Appearing by video from the Chatham Jail, Rafferty, 28, was quiet during his few moments in court, speaking only when asked to confirm his name. Assistant Crown attorney Michael Carnegie told the court that arrangements for preliminary hearing dates would be made in the near future.

"We're still engaged in the ongoing disclosure process with my friend's office," Carnegie said.

With another "pre-trial discussion" scheduled for Dec. 4, the case was adjourned until Dec. 18 to allow for continued disclosure of evidence.

"You can give me a call later on if you choose," Giordano said to Rafferty before he was led away.

http://www.oxfordreview.com/ArticleD...aspx?e=2173170

hmmm, interesting the Crown has stated that preliminary hearing dates will be scheduled in the near future and another pre-trial discussion to take place December 4. Things are definitely moving forward in the MTR case. I'm guessing that this case makes it to trial before TLM's case.

[antiquegirl]

Originally Posted by nobodyzgirl

"So far, only one side of the story has been told," said Giordano, a lawyer with Toronto's Derstine Penman firm. "We'll be going to trial on this matter.

"We're vigorously defending Mr. Rafferty."

Appearing by video from the Chatham Jail, Rafferty, 28, was quiet during his few moments in court, speaking only when asked to confirm his name. Assistant Crown attorney Michael Carnegie told the court that arrangements for preliminary hearing dates would be made in the near future.

"We're still engaged in the ongoing disclosure process with my friend's office," Carnegie said.

With another "pre-trial discussion" scheduled for Dec. 4, the case was adjourned until Dec. 18 to allow for continued disclosure of evidence.

"You can give me a call later on if you choose," Giordano said to Rafferty before he was led away.

http://www.oxfordreview.com/ArticleD...aspx?e=2173170

hmmm, interesting the Crown has stated that preliminary hearing dates will be scheduled in the near future and another pre-trial discussion to take place December 4. Things are definitely moving forward in the MTR case. I'm guessing that this case makes it to trial before TLM's case.

BBM - So, this would definitely indicate that MTR will plead not guilty.

BBM - If TLM pleads guilty (which I think is very likely), there won't be a trial for her and her arraignment could still precede MTR's trial, no? Wouldn't her case move more quickly if there is no defense to be prepared?

[Summersolstice]

It is not uncommon for police to use investigative strategies, such as manipulating information.

Let's take the example of the police saying that MR's car was spotted in the Guelph Home Depot parking lot. They let people assume that the still photo taken from the video was the Guelph Home Depot parking lot. However, people from Guelph said that it sure didn't look like the Home Depot parking lot. It wasn't. It was an Esso station in Woodstock.

Initially, the photo did not show a time stamp. Later photos showed a time stamp, and we learned from the gas station owner that the time on the camera was incorrect. This may have hindered the police investigation if they did not verify the time on the camera for themselves. Little details like this are important. Some businesses don't bother switching video cameras to DST.

This detail of the time made many believe the photo was, indeed, taken in Guelph. There was time to travel to Guelph after picking Tori up in this scenario -- barely.

They let people jump to incorrect conclusions, intentionally I would say. Why? We don't know. Maybe they didn't actually know that MR/TLM went there, but hoped someone would come forward to give a statement saying that they saw them.

They obviously knew all along that this photo was taken in Woodstock. They took the video for evidence.

[nonfictionrocks]

Originally Posted by antiquegirl

BBM - So, this would definitely indicate that MTR will plead not guilty.

BBM - If TLM pleads guilty (which I think is very likely), there won't be a trial for her and her arraignment could still precede MTR's trial, no? Wouldn't her case move more quickly if there is no defense to be prepared?

AG, this is an excellent point, TLM's case could come to a conclusion quicker though I believe that there is plenty going on behind the scenes as far as LE is concerned so there could very well be some bombshells still to drop. JMO

[ChaChaCha]

Originally Posted by Summersolstice

It is not uncommon for police to use investigative strategies, such as manipulating information.

Let's take the example of the police saying that MR's car was spotted in the Guelph Home Depot parking lot. They let people assume that the still photo taken from the video was the Guelph Home Depot parking lot. However, people from Guelph said that it sure didn't look like the Home Depot parking lot. It wasn't. It was an Esso station in Woodstock.

Initially, the photo did not show a time stamp. Later photos showed a time stamp, and we learned from the gas station owner that the time on the camera was incorrect. This may have hindered the police investigation if they did not verify the time on the camera for themselves. Little details like this are important. Some businesses don't bother switching video cameras to DST.

This detail of the time made many believe the photo was, indeed, taken in Guelph. There was time to travel to Guelph after picking Tori up in this scenario -- barely.

They let people jump to incorrect conclusions, intentionally I would say. Why? We don't know. Maybe they didn't actually know that MR/TLM went there, but hoped someone would come forward to give a statement saying that they saw them.

They obviously knew all along that this photo was taken in Woodstock. They took the video for evidence.

I so totally agree with what you have said! I am inclined to believe that TLM is guilty and that she was the instigating party because we have seen a portion of the video with her leading Tori away, and her assisting LE in locating her remains. I absolutely believe that MR had some involvement - but I am not sure to what extent. I understand that LE likely arrested him for good reason - but what that is exactly I am not sure. Obviously he has some culpability - my understanding of the charges is that the first degree charge is levied when a child dies as a result of being kidnapped/abducted (which was indeed the case) and so is a valid charge under the circumstances. In any case, it will all come out at trial.

On a different note, there is no doubt in my mind that TLM is the greater evil and I am inclined to believe that it is she who is the sexual predator/sadist/molester more so than MR and that she did indeed target Tori both as an act of vengance upon TM and to satisfy her own bizarre fantasies.

I am content though to wait until the trials begin to hear the evidence.

All this fence sitting has left a sliver up the crack of my *ss. Hopin that TLM pleads out first even though the evidence will be suppressed until MR's trial.

[ChaChaCha]

Here is a perfect and recent example of two people who were each originally charged (OPP) with EIGHT counts of first degree murder in a local case.

http://pbdba.lfpress.com/cgi-bin/pub...685&s=massacre

ST. THOMAS -- A bail hearing is set for Thursday for one of the men charged in the Bandidos massacre.

Eric Niessen, 45, of Monkton in Perth County, is charged with eight counts of being an accessory after the fact.

He was originally charged with eight counts of first-degree murder along with four others following the discovery of eight dead Bandidos bikers on Elgin County's Stafford Line on April 8.

He and his common-law wife, Kerry Morris, 46 -- the only woman charged -- both had their charges revised to accessory after the fact in the days following their arrest at the farm of Wayne Kellestine, 57, in Dutton-Dunwich.

There was a publication ban in place for quite some time prior to the main event trial, although the charges against the two had been properly dealt with. The removal of the ban revealed that one of the men charged, Eric Niessen, 46, of Monkton, a self-described Bandido supporter, pleaded guilty to obstruction of justice in October, 2008 in connection with the case. He was sentenced to two years in jail.

Charges of obstruction of justice and being an accessory after the fact were withdrawn against another of the accused, Kerry Morris (female).

The publication ban effectively left the public believing that the two were still facing first degree murder charges, and unaware of their "lesser involvement" until such time as the trial began. It must have been extremely difficult on both of them - the man was retained in custody - the woman released on bail - during the time leading up to the trial. Very hush.

As I said, perfect example of over-charging. The charges were not reduced until the preliminary hearing stage - which was about a year after the crimes were committed. It is still possible that the Crown may revise the charges against MR to lesser charges of accessory after the fact or obstruction of justice (although unlikely since the victim died during the course of a kidnapping and that is an extenuating circumstance).

It will be interesting to hear exactly what the charge(s) will be against MR when his court date finally arrives.

[nonfictionrocks]

I was intrigued back in August when I posted this after coming across this article published in the Toronto Star

Originally Posted by nonfictionrocks

Since it has been quiet here on this thread I have spent some time catching up on the Bandido Trial and reading back on the many articles the Toronto Star's Peter Edwards wrote. I found this very interesting article regarding a woman K. Morris who was originally involved with the Massacre and charged with first degree murder. The article states:

Morris was originally among the eight people charged with eight counts of first-degree murder after the massacre of eight members of the Bandidos biker gang, whose bullet-riddled bodies were found in vehicles along a muddy side road near the southwestern Ontario hamlet of Shedden on April 8, 2006.

Morris spent six weeks in custody before charges against her were reduced to being an accessory after the fact and obstruction of justice, and she was released on bail.

Those charges were dropped as well on Oct. 15, but the media was barred from reporting that until now because of a publication ban.

http://www.thestar.com/article/284798

It is interesting to note that this article is written a year and a half after her arrest and the media was just able to finally mention this charge getting dropped!

Makes me wonder what really is going on in this case that is not being reported by the media at this time.

What are we, the public, really not hearing about in this case?

[Summersolstice]

Originally Posted by nonfictionrocks

I was intrigued back in August when I posted this after coming across this article published in the Toronto Star



What are we, the public, really not hearing about in this case?

The information about EN and KM has been out there, but was buried in the news. By this I am referring to KM's name being mentioned in early reports of the arrest, but later I recall reading that there was a publication ban against releasing her name. Too late. We already knew.

I still wonder about the mystery woman in the murder of SD. This woman set up SD, then witnessed the murder and was forced to clean up. She testified against the killers at the trial.

The SD murder is relevant to PS and JF and so, it seems, to the Shedden Bandidos trial.

What were EN and KM doing there, and what role did they play?

The back-door deals and paid informants are things we may never know about. The VS murder is mostly about what we don't know, and a lot of which we never will.

[flipflop]

MR's next court date is April 23rd.

[robynhood]

Michael Rafferty did attend Crosby Height Public school when he was young .The school is located in the south end of Richmond hill It is located around Yonge street and north of Major Mackenize .THe kids going to that elementary school would have gone to the high school he claims to have graduated from but we all now he only got 1 credit there!....robynhood...I know the area well as I used to live there and was empolyed with the York region board when I was teaching around 10 years ago!

[matou]

I think the courts are going to uncover plenty of lies about this guy e.g. his education, his apparent job as a contractor, his use of drugs, women in his life. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a juvenile record, like TLM. JMO

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/638574

[swedie]

Originally Posted by matou

I think the courts are going to uncover plenty of lies about this guy e.g. his education, his apparent job as a contractor, his use of drugs, women in his life. I wouldn't be surprised if he has a juvenile record, like TLM. JMO

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/638574

I agree with you on this point Matou. I was reading some media reports today and it became apparent to me that MR lied quite a bit. But when I looked back on reports of TLM's I could not find info showing her as a habitual liar. At least not like MR. Her reports were more along the spectrum of her hard knock life. I saw TLM was a lost soul and looking to belong, to be loved or to fit in somewhere in society. Unfortunately she meet up with MR who probably gave her false hope, promises and lies. Do I feel sorry for TLM? Not at all. I tend to believe once caught, she was honest with LE and did try to help in locating TS. Taking into account she was high on drugs and more then likely did not paying much attention to directions travelled, she had a hard time leading LE to TS.

Yes MR's lies will come back to haunt him during his trial. I am feeling pretty certain TLM (and others, friends, exes) will help to reveal his many lies, which will not help his defence. JMHO matou so please don't throw rotten tomatoes at me please lol.

More lies
http://www.thestar.com/article/637413

and more. Interesting hmm
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...TorontoNewHome

[matou]

What happened with MTR's first lawyer? Was he fired? Did he get permission to be removed as counsel for fear of losing this case?

[swedie]

This link provides us with the name of MR's first and second lawyer. It doesn't give reason as to why the change Matou. I'm going with your second guess. Lol, typical lawyer jargon what S. Reid claims in his statement (below). Isn't that what every suspect hopes his lawyer will do for them, uh hello?! TS remains hadn't even been found at the time of his statement. Her remains could be what sinks MR's ship. Fight the alleigations all you like, but evidence is unchangable. JMHO

http://www.cp24.com/servlet/an/local...d?hub=CP24Home

Hal Mattson is out as Rafferty's counsel and replaced by Scott Reid of the Toronto-based law firm Derstine-Penman.

Reid would not say why Rafferty made the change, adding he intends to "vigorously defend" Rafferty and challenge the allegations.

I know MR has more than one lawyer on his case from that firm, S. Reid and D. Dirkstine. The old saying "two heads are better than one", not always.

[SaMy]

Hi everyone. I realize this isn't a really active topic right now but I'm feeling a need to chime in at this point (for no particular reason). I went to Alexander Mackenzie H.S. from '94 - '99 and was introduced to MTR in '94 at a party by some friends who knew him from a church group (if memory serves me correctly). I was 14 yrs old at the time. I have NO recollection of him ever attending school with me, though I understand the school confirmed he received a credit from there. Only that he was a friend of a particular crowd of guys I associated with and that he left me with a bad taste in my mouth. Anyways...I thought I could pipe up on "Cundy" and a little bit about Richmond Hill and why his living there doesn't mean he has some hidden means to access attorneys...

Originally Posted by Turbododger

Rafferty could indeed be a maiden name, Maxfactor, though not likely, I don't think that was very common 30 years ago, to do that. JMO

Good thinking, though, think outside the box.

That leaves the question, how are the names Cundy and Murphy related here?

FWIW I was introduced to him as Mike Cundy in '94 and I remember he had an older brother whose already been discussed on this thread I believe.

Originally Posted by bleedingheart

The Richmond Hill address MTR gave as a one time residence. Is this not a wealthy area of Toronto??? This makes me wonder sometimes if the politician Rafferty had this address also at one time . JMOO.
This is still a thought of mine simply because I am nosey and would like to know where all the money is comming from for M.R defense and those expensive lawyers.

Richmond Hill is a suburb about 20 - 30 mins. north of TO and not all of it is wealthy. Richmond Hill has government housing projects, mansions and everything in between. I have no idea where he lived.

[parcheesy]

I think it's too bad that the jury was only given info on who MR sent and received text messages with, but not the actual content. It's possible that nobody has the actual content of the text messages. I remember years ago, if I read when my bill online, the content was there. Then when texting really took off, my cell phone company said they were going to stop tracking that information. I never saw text content on my bill again.

[Sailor Bug]

Originally Posted by CuriousJorge

According to this report (3rd paragraph from the bottom) MR's educational background. I have read other reports also where he has apparently lied about his post high school education also. Have not found them yet.

MOO

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/638574

Thanks for the article CJ


Rafferty claimed on his MySpace page to have graduated from Alexander Mackenzie High School, but the Richmond Hill school says it didn't happen. Rafferty only attended from Sept. '95 to March '96, acquiring just one credit, a York Region school board spokesman said.

Rafferty also claimed he studied to be a chef at George Brown, but on a cursory search the college found no record, a spokesperson said.

Jim Bender, owner of Lady Godiva's Adult Emporium, which is also Woodstock's pipes and bongs supplier, says Rafferty used to come in often to buy water pipes. "He looked worse for wear the last time I saw him" early this year, he said.