trial thread: 3/22/2012

[ChaChaCha]

Wimp and manipulator I totally agree CC. Ladies man? Let's say a wannabe ladies man. Great post CC. Speaking of liars, MR was a fabulous liar. We haven't even heard from this guy yet but it's apparent he has told so many lies. I don't even know where to begin. His educational background, his employment, that fact that he was cheating on women and dating more than one at a time. Stealing money from a girlfriend he was living with (maybe freeloading as he was known to do). Oh shall we start with all of MR's lies?! If we dig deep enough he's probably told just as many damaging lies as TLM. Oh let us talk about his violence while we're at it. Weren't the police called to his mother's home because of domestic violence? Could he have been abusive to his mother, no not financially but physically? So who's the better liar and criminal now? JHMO A liar is a liar is a liar no matter how bad the lies are. :moo:

We haven't heard his story yet, so can't determine if he has told lies or whether he will be credible or not ... to be determined

Yup, cheating and sleeping around means that he must have had some success with the ladies ... goodness knows they wouldn't want him for his car :rocker:

Hmmm, domestic violence .... we don't know .... but who is to say that he was abusive physically to his mama? My understanding is that her partner moved out because of the ruckus over financial matters. But TLM did slap her mama a time or two ...

So who is the better liar and criminal now? TLM wins hands down so far.

 

[Salem]

It's NOT a contest. Let's stop with the "one uppers" please. At this point in time, it doesn't appear that either of them is a fine upstanding citizen

Salem

 

[daisy.faithfull]

That is correct.

Okay thanks, just quadruple verifying because I did not think that was the case.

 

[dilbert]

:clap::blowkiss: Great post Kamille! I still want to see this information where it's stated in TM testimony CM or TLM were snub because TM decided she didn't want to breed her dog with theirs. I never heard that before until tonight when Dilbert made that claim. Do you have that link Kamille. TIA

There is no link because I was stating my opinion on what I think is the defence's strategy. I later posted the tweet from Tara's testimony where she said CM phoned her and James and was upset because Tara decided not to breed their dog with hers. TLM very well could have taken that personally, that Tara felt her dog was better than theirs, who knows?

Here is my initial comment.

I believe Derstine is trying to establish that TLM knew that Tori was TM's child and that she killed her out of revenge for a drug debt, or, when TM said she didn't want to breed her dog with theirs, TLM considered that a snub or diss against her and her mother. (TM testified that CM called her and JG and was quite upset that they didn't want to breed their dogs)
In the letters that TLM wrote she mentioned that she didn't like it when people said things about her family that she considered disrespectful.
The defence has also established that TLM is vengeful and wrote at great length at what she'd do to people that wronged her, she even said she'd hurt innocent people connected to those that wronged her.

TLM targets Tori out of revenge against TM and JG because they didn't want to breed dogs with hers = reasonable doubt

MOO

and my comment with the tweet

Linda Nguyen@LindaNguyenPN
She says McClintic called her partner James Goris a few times upset bc they didn't want their dog to breed with hers #ToriStafford #Rafferty

2:29 PM - 7 Mar 12via Twitter for BlackBerry®· Details

 

[antiquegirl]

She wrote those letters in 2008. JMO

TLM also wrote stuff like that in her journal. We weren't told when the latest entry was, unless it was the "script" sometime between April 8th and 12th. Do we have definitive proof of when TLM, CM, TM. and JG first met? April 8, 2009 is just a few short months from 2008.

"Baker recalled a different connection.

"Terri-Lynne, I had heard her name last year, speaking with Tara," Baker said.

"I had a friend who was going to buy the couch that Tara had, and that fell through and I remember (Tara) saying, `Oh no, I'm going to give it to my friend Terri-Lynne.' "

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/CanadaAM/20090521/090521_stafford/

JMO

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I haven't seen anything about what was actually said on Mark Kelley's show so here ya go if anyone is interested.

Mark Kelley spoke with Vincent Clifford who has represented eighteen high profile defendants in the Ottawa area, including being apart of the team that represented Russell Williams. Here's how he sees things:

Derstine is dealing with two different versions of what happened:
1. TLM's version in May 2009: MTR beat and killed Tori
2. Current version: while MTR raped Tori, she is the one who killed Tori

Derstine's strategy is quite simple, he wants the jury to believe TLM's current version. And that while he may be guilty of an underlying charge, he did not murder Tori.

The first option is devastating to the client, while the second allows verdicts other than first degree murder to be considered. The jury might be able to consider manslaughter, or the underlying offenses of sexual assault and kidnapping, and they could even deliberate on an outright acquittal on the homicide charge.

Kelley asks if an acquittal is really possible, and Clifford says that anything is possible (don't we all know that :banghead

There is potential that this strategy could backfire. But what Derstine's has to do is refer to TLM's journals, her letters, her conduct, poems, songs that she liked to convince them that she is capable of committing this homicide on her own, without MTR.

MK asks what the defence now wants from MTR. Clifford answers that probably only two people know the answer to that, MTR and Derstine. But based on his experiences he thinks it is important to remember that the Crown attorney bears the border of proof, of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that MTR killed Tori or was a party to her killing. The Crown does not have to show who swung the hammer, but if they want to convict MTR of the murder as a party they do have to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he had a guilty mind, that he intended to kill her.

This is not verbatim, but close to it.

 

[Shasta]

Thank you, Salem, for helping us re-focus upstream on the victim and not the accused.

So very difficult/painful to follow this case but the members are doing an excellent job keeping us updated.

My prayer for Tori, since the beginning of this horror is that the forensics will be sufficient for the crown to prosecute both McL and MTR. One down and one to go. I've always believed these two individuals were sick and together interacted to bring into the world a third evil thing--a terrible malevolence resulting in the torture, suffering and death of Victoria Stafford.

This case will haunt me until the day I die.

 

[~n/t~]

I haven't seen anything about what was actually said on Mark Kelley's show so here ya go if anyone is interested.

Mark Kelley spoke with Vincent Clifford who has represented eighteen high profile defendants in the Ottawa area, including being apart of the team that represented Russell Williams. Here's how he sees things:

Derstine is dealing with two different versions of what happened:
1. TLM's version in May 2009: MTR beat and killed Tori
2. Current version: while MTR raped Tori, she is the one who killed Tori

Derstine's strategy is quite simple, he wants the jury to believe TLM's current version. And that while he may be guilty of an underlying charge, he did not murder Tori.

The first option is devastating to the client, while the second allows verdicts other than first degree murder to be considered. The jury might be able to consider manslaughter, or the underlying offenses of sexual assault and kidnapping, and they could even deliberate on an outright acquittal on the homicide charge.

Kelley asks if an acquittal is really possible, and Clifford says that anything is possible (don't we all know that :banghead

There is potential that this strategy could backfire. But what Derstine's has to do is refer to TLM's journals, her letters, her conduct, poems, songs that she liked to convince them that she is capable of committing this homicide on her own, without MTR.

MK asks what the defence now wants from MTR. Clifford answers that probably only two people know the answer to that, MTR and Derstine. But based on his experiences he thinks it is important to remember that the Crown attorney bears the border of proof, of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that MTR killed Tori or was a party to her killing. The Crown does not have to show who swung the hammer, but if they want to convict MTR of the murder as a party they do have to provide evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that he had a guilty mind, that he intended to kill her.
This is not verbatim, but close to it.

Thanks for posting that. bbm. There we have it! IIRC, in one of the interviews, Det Smyth mentioned MR's bloody shirt. Do we know if they have his shirt as evidence?

 

[nursebeeme]

morning peeps... I am opening today's thread and doors are going to close here