trial thread: 3/15/2012

[Tugela]

Exactly if he wasn't planning on killing her what was he going to do with her? That's why it's hard to believe that he did not plan on it. Did he not know why TLM was going into Home Depot? It was his car--I doubt anyone else but him was driving it. :moo::twocents:

Maybe, but Tori may not have been in it. If McClintic had stashed her somewhere after the abduction, Rafferty could argue that he didn't know anything about what was going on. He might even say that she had the car that day, or most of it, and that he had no idea who was driving it. To overcome that the prosecution will have to present some evidence to circumvent those arguments.

The problem for the prosecution as I see it is that so far there has been no evidence presented actually connecting Rafferty to the crime - it has all been McClintic's allegations, which we have seen has changed between confession and the trial.

 

[Tugela]

She testified that:


* To her concerns about taking a polygraph test, Rafferty said: " That's OK, because you didn't do anything. You have nothing to hide.' I replied that's right.' "


http://www.stratfordbeaconherald.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3502371

Except smash the kids head in with a hammer? That doesn't sound very consistent to me. This woman is lying.

 

[flipflop]

What makes you think that Rafferty and/or Tori were in the car at that point, other than what McClintic claims? It sounds somewhat unlikely to me.

When TLM came out of home depot...who was driving the car that drove over to pick her up???? My guess is MR with VS in the backseat.
TLM said they drove to the MF area where VS's remains were found, LE has evidence that MR's phone was used in this location. So if you are saying MR was not in the car, who do you think was driving?

 

[flipflop]

Maybe, but Tori may not have been in it. If McClintic had stashed her somewhere after the abduction, Rafferty could argue that he didn't know anything about what was going on. He might even say that she had the car that day, or most of it, and that he had no idea who was driving it. To overcome that the prosecution will have to present some evidence to circumvent those arguments.

The problem for the prosecution as I see it is that so far there has been no evidence presented actually connecting Rafferty to the crime - it has all been McClintic's allegations, which we have seen has changed between confession and the trial.

From reading the headers of the chapters (#4-11) they all seem to be geared towards MR...so I think they are building up to his involvement.

It was reported that MR's and VS's blood was found on his car.

 

[Tugela]

When TLM came out of home depot...who was driving the car that drove over to pick her up???? My guess is MR with VS in the backseat.
TLM said they drove to the MF area where VS's remains were found, LE has evidence that MR's phone was used in this location. So if you are saying MR was not in the car, who do you think was driving?

He could be driving but not know what TLM had done. She could have stashed VS somewhere, and then gone to the Home Depot. There is nothing to show that it was him driving the car either, it could have been a third person. The video doesn't show him, so there is no direct link to the crime for him.

When the items she claims they disposed of where recovered, they only linked back to her, not him.

The change of story regarding who actually did the killing is not helping, thats for sure.

The prosecutions problem is going to be making that connection.

 

[Tugela]

From reading the headers of the chapters (#4-11) they all seem to be geared towards MR...so I think they are building up to his involvement.

It was reported that MR's and VS's blood was found on his car.

Finding MR's blood in the car shouldn't be a surprise since it is his car. There is no immediate reason to believe that it is connected to the VS killing, if it exists. If TLM used the car to kidnap VS, then her blood might well be in the car. The problem will be to connect them since you would expect to find evidence of MR in the car irrespective of whether he was involved or not.

To make a connection they are going to have to find either VS's DNA on some personal item of his that shouldn't have it, or find MR's DNA on VS's person.

 

[SmoothOperator]

The problem for the prosecution as I see it is that so far there has been no evidence presented actually connecting Rafferty to the crime - it has all been McClintic's allegations, which we have seen has changed between confession and the trial.
He could be driving but not know what TLM had done. She could have stashed VS somewhere, and then gone to the Home Depot. There is nothing to show that it was him driving the car either, it could have been a third person. The video doesn't show him, so there is no direct link to the crime for him.

When the items she claims they disposed of where recovered, they only linked back to her, not him.

The change of story regarding who actually did the killing is not helping, thats for sure.

The prosecutions problem is going to be making that connection.

You may wanna read up on the facts of the case..

Police seized his vehicle and found evidence of Tori's blood on the rear passenger door moulding. Blood found on a Goodlife fitness bag inside the car was a mixture of Tori and Rafferty's blood.

"Listen carefully to the DNA evidence. It will tell you a lot," Gowdey said.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/05...0court hears

 

[~n/t~]

He could be driving but not know what TLM had done. She could have stashed VS somewhere, and then gone to the Home Depot. There is nothing to show that it was him driving the car either, it could have been a third person. The video doesn't show him, so there is no direct link to the crime for him.

When the items she claims they disposed of where recovered, they only linked back to her, not him.

The change of story regarding who actually did the killing is not helping, thats for sure.

The prosecutions problem is going to be making that connection.

I don't think it'll be a problem. They just haven't gotten there yet.

 

[~n/t~]

Right, and what I'm saying is #9 was taken at the same housing complex Tara used to live in, whether it's the same unit, who knows? KWIM??

Do you have a link confirming it was taken at the SAME housing complex? TIA

 

[~n/t~]

Can someone please direct me to the list of verified locals for this case, if any. I looked at the front page but didn't see it. Thank you.

 

[~n/t~]

The laces on the shoes are spotless. Are these really the shoes?

pg. 43 http://www.am980.ca/Other/McClintic.pdf

Were these the shoes she changed into AFTER the crime? Trying to catch up. I was caught up in the Rusty Sneiderman trial yesterday. TIA

 

[matou]

Were these the shoes she changed into AFTER the crime? Trying to catch up. I was caught up in the Rusty Sneiderman trial yesterday. TIA

No, these are the shoes she threw out the window after leaving the location at Mt. Forest. MR's shoes were also thrown out. Her shoes look like the ones we can see in the Home Depot video. They look so clean though, after sitting either in a ditch or on the side of a road.

jmo

 

[matou]

Can someone please direct me to the list of verified locals for this case, if any. I looked at the front page but didn't see it. Thank you.

There are no verified locals for this case that I know of. Many posters state that they are from the area or are familiar with the area. HTH

 

[matou]

Hmmmm. I looked at an overhead view of the apartment complex near Oliver Stephen Public School at Fyfe and Parkinson and the units on Fyfe are much larger than the ones backing up to the school and others. I tought Tara lived somewhere on the Fyfe part of the complex. The floor plans could be similar but most homes are, in my opinion ie. if there are 2 stories, the bedrooms are on the second floor and there will be a bathroom upstairs, etc. JMO

 

[matou]

I guess we'll find out soon enough if the resident of that unit testifies to knowing MR and if she was a single mom at the time. JMO

 

[nursebeeme]

new thread is open:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=165987"]trial thread: 3/16/2012 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]