trial thread: 3/28/2012

[antiquegirl]

Thanks for posting that Swedie...........

I don't know what prison TLM was being held at, but I would be surprised if it wasn't a maximum security detention centre.

I have visited a couple of Provincial detention centres and they are all maximum security.

They hold people for everything from just arrested and awaiting a bail hearing, to short sentences, to people serving weekends, to those awaiting trial for murder...........and everything in between.

When you visit these places...........you don't reach up and touch their face.

There is plate glass between the visitor and prisoner. You talk to them by phone in front of every window seat. The calls are monitored. The only way to talk in private.......is to cup your hands over your mouth and form the words without making any sound. People don't do hold long conversations that way because it is rather obvious.

Where was TLM being held that MR could touch her face.........and whisper sweet nothings into her ear........like............I always wanted conjugal visits.

What is up with that comment? If he really said that........he is one weird duck for sure.

I should point out that the people I was visiting weren't in for anything serious..........just waiting for a court date for a minor scuffle.

No, this "touching" supposedly occurred before she confessed, so she was just being held for breach of probation. Not sure where, but probably not a maximum security facility. Wasn't the "take the fall for him" and "conjugal visits" conversation supposed to be even before she was arrested? Too tired to look for it. Anyway, I doubt she was in anything but a local jail at the time.

JMO

 

[ChaChaCha]

With all due respect, technically whether we believe her or not, TLMs testimony has been entered into evidence, therefor there is evidence of his involvement in the crime. Moo

The problem with TLM's testimony goes to her creditability .... see bolded parts below - the jury may decide to disregard many of her statements due to inconsistency and whether they believe and rely on what she testified to. I believe that the judge already had specific instructions to the jury regarding her previous statements and the testimony that she gave under oath ... the previous statements were not under oath and were only shown to the jury so that they could hear how the story had changed - ie her creditability.

So although she has "testified" it isn't rock solid "evidence" used in the context of your post (as would be say forensics, videos, etc.) ... I am thinking that the jury is going to have a difficult time convicting MR of the Murder One and Bodily Harm charges unless there are some specific forensics or other evidence yet to be presented that would persuade them to do so beyond a reasonable doubt. They may decide to go with a lesser charge - murder Two? which would net MR fewer years of incarcaration.

I think that the judge will make it pretty clear to the jurors that they are to use their common sense when contemplating TLMs testimony.




http://www.courts.ns.ca/general/resource_docs/jury_instr_model_april04.pdf


II - MID-TRIAL INSTRUCTIONS
69
7.11 Prior Inconsistent Statements of Accused Witness
[1] Like any witness, NOAW may be cross-examined about what s/he said before to other
persons. The fact that NOAW has previously said something different from what s/he testified
here is one of many factors for you to consider when you decide how much or little of NOAW’s
evidence you will believe or rely on in deciding this case.
[2] It is for you to say whether there is any difference between what NOAW said before, and
what s/he testified here on the same subject. It is also up to you to decide whether any difference
affects how much of NOAW’s evidence you will believe or rely on. Consider the nature and
extent of the difference between the earlier and current versions, and any explanation offered for
it (them) by NOAW. Take into account, as well, whether the difference relates to a matter of
importance, or a minor detail. Use your common sense.
[3] Unlike statements by other witnesses, however, you may also consider what NOAW said
before as evidence of what actually happened, even though NOAW does not testify that what s/he
said before was true. It is for you to say how much or little you will rely on what NOAW said
before as evidence of what actually happened.

 

[Kamille]

Not quite true............

MR did lie and deny involvement from the date of abduction until the date of arrest. After that, he has remained silent on the advice of his lawyers, given that he was accused by TLM of murdering VS.

In his legal situation, he couldn't very well talk to anyone but his lawyer.

There has been no evidence presented to date, that MR raped VS.

There is no evidence presented to date, that MR was the type of deviant who would kidnap, rape and murder a little girl.

No criminal past, no complaints about him to police, no ex-girlfriends talking about a sexual deviant personality.........nothing.

Unless there is some evidence of the contrary, I will keep an open mind and not accuse someone of something I know nothing about.

In his situation, if he told the same story to his lawyer upon his arrest, his lawyer would have been insisting that he co-operate with LE and get that nasty rape accusation cleared up while there was still time to do so. No lawyer with a license to practice law in this country would have told him to stay silent at the time of his arrest if everything TLM had said was a lie and he could prove it. By leading them to the crime scene, the evidence and giving up the location of the back seat. If what he is saying now is true, he would have been able to plea down to accessory charges by helping LE and TLM would be locked up as a dangerous offender likely. And to suggest that he told that story to a lawyer and the lawyer said "stay silent and hope they never find the body" is absurd. So maybe he didn't tell that story to his lawyer? But then he fired that lawyer so who knows what he told him.

So Derstine has to try and pick up the pieces and formulate a story that revolves around the discovery evidence because MR let that child rot for two more months. I guess he was hoping and gambling that they'd never find her and then he wouldn't be reluctantly admitting to being there at all. How nice for her family. Nice guy. Too bad even a brilliant lawyer like Derstine couldn't make sense out of anything MR said or did that day or any other day for the last 3 years. TLM's testimony is DIRECT EVIDENCE which can be used to determine his guilt. So there has been plenty of evidence presented so far that he did in fact kidnap and rape Victoria. And there's been circumstantial evidence presented too with more to come. Just as effective.

His lawyer works for him. He can talk to anyone he wants, whenever he wants and he chose not to minimize his involvement in this when he had the chance to do so. Because he couldn't. Finding Victoria at the time of his arrest would have had him pleading guilty to first degree murder and he knew it IMO. He let the DNA evidence rot right along with Victoria because it was his only hope of maybe getting off on a lesser charge (or altogether if she was never found) if not for her blood in his car and other evidence, DNA and circumstantial, yet to be presented. Which the Crown has given us a bit of a sneak peek into in their opening statement.

It's pathetic really.

In my opinion.

 

[swedie]

It's the law in Canada. MTR's car was a 2003 Honda Civic.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daytime_running_lamp#Canada



http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_900587_e.htm

RESPECTFULLY SO. This is the law in Canada. From what I understand murder is also against the law in Canada but that didn't stop MR "if" he murdered Tori or had any part of her abduction or sexual assault. Just to make it clear, I am not meaning to be a smart azz or snarky AG, but you and I may be law abiding citizens. I don't see MR as being such according to all the lies and drug dealings, plus all the other stuff he has been caught up in so far. Especially when being interviewed by LE. BTW I also have a standard vehicle, much newer than MR's. If I slightly pull my emergency brake on, my driving day lights go out, plus I can still drive my car. HTH. :moo:

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I agree, except I think the phrase "possible involvement" would be fair.

I can't do the thumbs up smilie, so I'll just say: "okay, cool."

 

[Kamille]

Especially if it was a folding knife. DNA and blood could get into those tiny intricate hidden areas. MR screwed up in so many areas of trying to cover his hiney, I doubt he thought anything of cleaning up the knife. He could have just tossed it like all the other evidence. Just don't think he was that smart thought. JMHO

Chances are good that she cut wide around the stains so I'm not expecting any blood evidence from the knife really. And if they did wash the seat first I wouldn't expect other DNA either.

MOO

 

[swedie]

(BBM)



http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/news/story/2012/03/23/stafford-rafferty-trial-friday.html

Wonder exactly what will be covered in Chapter 10: The May 15 weekend and Rafferty's actions.

There must be witnesses to come forward stating what MR did that weekend. Unless LE were tracking him without his car. If so, I wonder what MR did with his car that weekend? :what::moo:

 

[Ardy]

I am not sure how exactly that would have taken place, unless LE relaxed the rules to allow contact in order to gain more information.

In the Woodstock courthouse, the prisoner is brought in by LE and kept in cells in the basement until they are called to the courtroom.

They are brought up in an elevator, shackled and accompanied by guards.

They are brought directly into the courtroom and sit at the defense table, accompanied by the guards standing behind them and off to the side.

There is no opportunity to chit chat with the public in that setting.

They leave in the reverse.....shuffle down the hallway and onto the elevator.

Anyone trying to talk to them would not be allowed.

As for in custody...........in Woodstock, the jail cells are located in the back of the police station and visitors aren't allowed back there.

You can visit in a small room located in the lobby, but it has a glass partition wall between visitor and inmate.

Did not LE suspect her of murder at this time?

 

[daisy.faithfull]

The problem with TLM's testimony goes to her creditability .... see bolded parts below - the jury may decide to disregard many of her statements due to inconsistency and whether they believe and rely on what she testified to. I believe that the judge already had specific instructions to the jury regarding her previous statements and the testimony that she gave under oath ... the previous statements were not under oath and were only shown to the jury so that they could hear how the story had changed - ie her creditability.

So although she has "testified" it isn't rock solid "evidence" used in the context of your post (as would be say forensics, videos, etc.) ... I am thinking that the jury is going to have a difficult time convicting MR of the Murder One and Bodily Harm charges unless there are some specific forensics or other evidence yet to be presented that would persuade them to do so beyond a reasonable doubt. They may decide to go with a lesser charge - murder Two? which would net MR fewer years of incarcaration.

I think that the judge will make it pretty clear to the jurors that they are to use their common sense when contemplating TLMs testimony.




http://www.courts.ns.ca/general/resource_docs/jury_instr_model_april04.pdf


II - MID-TRIAL INSTRUCTIONS
69
7.11 Prior Inconsistent Statements of Accused Witness
[1] Like any witness, NOAW may be cross-examined about what s/he said before to other
persons. The fact that NOAW has previously said something different from what s/he testified
here is one of many factors for you to consider when you decide how much or little of NOAW’s
evidence you will believe or rely on in deciding this case.
[2] It is for you to say whether there is any difference between what NOAW said before, and
what s/he testified here on the same subject. It is also up to you to decide whether any difference
affects how much of NOAW’s evidence you will believe or rely on. Consider the nature and
extent of the difference between the earlier and current versions, and any explanation offered for
it (them) by NOAW. Take into account, as well, whether the difference relates to a matter of
importance, or a minor detail. Use your common sense.
[3] Unlike statements by other witnesses, however, you may also consider what NOAW said
before as evidence of what actually happened, even though NOAW does not testify that what s/he
said before was true. It is for you to say how much or little you will rely on what NOAW said
before as evidence of what actually happened.

I understand that, I was only just making the point that it has been entered into evidence, therefore it is evidence.

The post said that there's no evidence of MRTs involvement yet, and I was just pointing out that technically speaking evidence has been entered that does incriminate MTR.

 

[Kamille]

No, this "touching" supposedly occurred before she confessed, so she was just being held for breach of probation. Not sure where, but probably not a maximum security facility. Wasn't the "take the fall for him" and "conjugal visits" conversation supposed to be even before she was arrested? Too tired to look for it. Anyway, I doubt she was in anything but a local jail at the time.

JMO

She was at the Genest Detention Center. That's for youths isn't it? I would imagine the visiting rules were rather lax.

MOO

 

[BorgQueen]

Question: do we know what day MR told TLM that they shouldn't speak any more? I can't remember if that was mentioned? Thanks.

 

[ChaChaCha]

In his situation, if he told the same story to his lawyer upon his arrest, his lawyer would have been insisting that he co-operate with LE and get that nasty rape accusation cleared up while there was still time to do so. No lawyer with a license to practice law in this country would have told him to stay silent at the time of his arrest if everything TLM had said was a lie and he could prove it. By leading them to the crime scene, the evidence and giving up the location of the back seat. If what he is saying now is true, he would have been able to plea down to accessory charges by helping LE and TLM would be locked up as a dangerous offender likely. And to suggest that he told that story to a lawyer and the lawyer said "stay silent and hope they never find the body" is absurd. So maybe he didn't tell that story to his lawyer? But then he fired that lawyer so who knows what he told him.

So Derstine has to try and pick up the pieces and formulate a story that revolves around the discovery evidence because MR let that child rot for two more months. I guess he was hoping and gambling that they'd never find her and then he wouldn't be reluctantly admitting to being there at all. How nice for her family. Nice guy. Too bad even a brilliant lawyer like Derstine couldn't make sense out of anything MR said or did that day or any other day for the last 3 years. TLM's testimony is DIRECT EVIDENCE which can be used to determine his guilt. So there has been plenty of evidence presented so far that he did in fact kidnap and rape Victoria. And there's been circumstantial evidence presented too with more to come. Just as effective.

His lawyer works for him. He can talk to anyone he wants, whenever he wants and he chose not to minimize his involvement in this when he had the chance to do so. Because he couldn't. Finding Victoria at the time of his arrest would have had him pleading guilty to first degree murder and he knew it IMO. He let the DNA evidence rot right along with Victoria because it was his only hope of maybe getting off on a lesser charge (or altogether if she was never found) if not for her blood in his car and other evidence, DNA and circumstantial, yet to be presented. Which the Crown has given us a bit of a sneak peek into in their opening statement.

It's pathetic really.

In my opinion.

Excellent post Kamille .... very well thought out indeed and you raise good points. I am at a loss about why MR was not co-operative ... the only thing I can think is that his first lawyer told him to clam up - if I recall correctly, their client/solicitor relationship broke down, and MR had to wait to retain new counsel. Perhaps they had a difference of opinion? I would imagine that MR was aware by that time of TLM's allegations against him as the instigator, rapist, murderer - and we know now that TLM has now said she was the murderer - so he kept quiet.

You are correct though in saying that if he had assisted LE at the time of his arrest there may have been forensic evidence in his favour.

Between the devil and the deep blue sea.

 

[Ardy]

IIf he was an innocent dupe, MR should have done the right and moral thing and called the police right away.

I am not convinced that he would be in any better position today by doing so.

They don't believe him now.............and they wouldn't have believed him then.

TLM is the key. She manages to manipulate just about everyone she comes into contact with.........right up to convincing experienced detectives and Crown attorneys that she is telling the truth...........when she is actually lying through her teeth.

 

[Ardy]

Between the devil and the deep blue sea.

We spend pages expanding on our theories.............and you sum it all up in one line................

 

[swedie]

Nobody is asserting that MR wasn't there.

Even the defense theory has intimated that he was there.

Their theory is basically that MR didn't know that VS had been abducted, didn't rape VS, and didn't murder VS......but he did panic at what had happened and participated in cleaning up the evidence.

Remember that MR was charged with murder, on the basis of TLM's testimony that he murdered VS, which she has since recanted......probably because she didn't know if the police had found the hammer and her fingerprints would have been the only ones on it.

It is not beyond the realm of possibility that the words..........

"you are in it as far as I am" was directed by TLM to MR..........and not the other way around as she claims.

The Crown has known at least since January TLM confessed to using the hammer and murdering Tori. I am positive if they figured the charges against MR were the wrong or inappropriate charges, the Crown would have changed those charges. MR's defense certainly would have made a huge fuss had the Crown tried to charge his with anything without some sort of evidence. All these issues would have been dealt with during the pre-trial.

I'm sure they must have something of evidence to prove the sexual assault (other then TLM's word). I don't buy the theory the Crown added that charge hoping that if MR gets off on the abduction and murder, at least they have something to charge him with (sexual assault). To show sexual assault happened he would have to have been there period.

The defense has already admitted to MR being there and involved. MR transported Tori on her path to murder, which is abduction, whether he knew it or not. And I don't think the jurors are going to buy that. Tori being forced to crouch on the floor of his car. Is that how people normally transport children? MR helped clean up the murder scene and threw away or destroyed evidence. What innocent person does that?! None, not even if you're absolutely terrified of LE. Which I highly doubt any 28 year old man would be, unless of course he was hiding something illegal or was guilty of something. JMHO.

 

[Ardy]

The Crown has known at least since January TLM confessed to using the hammer and murdering Tori. I am positive if they figured the charges against MR were the wrong or inappropriate charges, the Crown would have changed those charges. MR's defense certainly would have made a huge fuss had the Crown tried to charge his with anything without some sort of evidence. All these issues would have been dealt with during the pre-trial.

I'm sure they must have something of evidence to prove the sexual assault (other then TLM's word). I don't buy the theory the Crown added that charge hoping that if MR gets off on the abduction and murder, at least they have something to charge him with (sexual assault). To show sexual assault happened he would have to have been there period.

The defense has already admitted to MR being there and involved. MR transported Tori on her path to murder, which is abduction, whether he knew it or not. And I don't think the jurors are going to buy that. Tori being forced to crouch on the floor of his car. Is that how people normally transport children? MR helped clean up the murder scene and threw away or destroyed evidence. What innocent person does that?! None, not even if you're absolutely terrified of LE. Which I highly doubt any 28 year old man would be, unless of course he was hiding something illegal or was guilty of something. JMHO.

I believe the Attorney General waived the pre-trial hearings, perhaps based on the strength and confidence in an eye witness........TLM.

I don't think it would have mattered though........even if TLM said she did the crime, but included all the other sordid details, the outcome would probably have been the same.

You make a good point about VS being on the floor in the backseat. There are I think, 3 possible answers.

1) MR is guilty.

2) TLM is lying and it didn't happen.

3) TLM infomed MR about the "hostage" plan earlier than the defense would like to admit and MR allowed it to continue and therefore didn't want VS seen in his car lest there be repercussions later from an unknown party.

That is a problem with this case........there are multiple possibilities for a lot of the evidence presented thus far.

Hopefully evidence will come out that proves or disapproves the Crown or defense theory.

Since it has been presented already, I think any problems that should arise in the defense theory will doom MR as well. They can't keep changing their alternative theory and remain credible either.

 

[swedie]

I believe the Attorney General waived the pre-trial hearings, perhaps based on the strength and confidence in an eye witness........TLM.

I don't think it would have mattered though........even if TLM said she did the crime, but included all the other sordid details, the outcome would probably have been the same.

You make a good point about VS being on the floor in the backseat. There are I think, 3 possible answers.

1) MR is guilty.

2) TLM is lying and it didn't happen.

3) TLM infomed MR about the "hostage" plan earlier than the defense would like to admit and MR allowed it to continue and therefore didn't want VS seen in his car lest there be repercussions later from an unknown party.

That is a problem with this case........there are multiple possibilities for a lot of the evidence presented thus far.

Hopefully evidence will come out that proves or disapproves the Crown or defense theory.

Since it has been presented already, I think any problems that should arise in the defense theory will doom MR as well. They can't keep changing their alternative theory and remain credible either.

The preliminary hearing was denied not the pre-trial. Pre-trial was held just before jury selection. HTH

The province has decided to fast-track the trial of the man charged with murdering Tori Stafford, taking the rare step of quashing his preliminary hearing.

But Ontario's deputy attorney general, Murray Segal, signed a direct indictment Tuesday that means Rafferty will go straight to trial.

"Direct indictments can be used in cases where there are compelling circumstances that require, in the interests of justice, that the matter be brought to trial as soon as possible," said Brendan Crawley, spokesperson for the ministry.

Preliminary hearings are the norm in Canada and allow a judge to decide if there is enough evidence to go to trial.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2010/06/02/14228711.html

 

[snoofer]

The Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that MR acted with a guilty mind.

http://www.ojen.ca/resource/935



http://www.canadafaq.ca/criminal+law+in+canada/

REASONABLE doubt:moo:

 

[daisy.faithfull]

The Crown must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that MR acted with a guilty mind.

http://www.ojen.ca/resource/935



http://www.canadafaq.ca/criminal+law+in+canada/

From the first link:

The minimum mens rea for manslaughter is whether, on an objective analysis, the act carried a risk of causing harm to the person. That is, if a reasonable person would think that the act would probably cause bodily harm, mens rea is established. The Crown must show that the accused intended the act and that a reasonable person would have known that the act could cause harm or that harm would be a likely consequence. There is no requirement that death be a likely consequence.

It also says that there is no minimum sentence for manslaughter.

Great link

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Question: do we know what day MR told TLM that they shouldn't speak any more? I can't remember if that was mentioned? Thanks.

I think that he might have told her something like that when he dropped her off on April 8th, but i can't find it anywhere in an article. They never did stop talking though.