Trial Thread 4/12/2012

[Sillybilly]

Yea.........I believe she said somewhere that she didn't know exactly when she decided to "implicate" him.

I would strongly suggest that she implicated him a few weeks after the murder when she confessed in May 2009. Or did i miss something here?

 

[swedie]

That was Kamille.

Did anyone watch Connect with Mark Kelly tonight? They had an expert on speaking about the CSI effect.... This ties in exactly with what Kamille was saying about solving a crime the good old fashioned way.

Thanks for that info HK. :seeya: Sounds interesting...do you have a link by chance? Please.

 

[swedie]

I would strongly suggest that she implicated him a few weeks after the murder when she confessed in May 2009. Or did i miss something here?

Nope you're not missing anything SB. IMO women scorned, if that is what's being suggested...tough beans, MR deserved to be ratted on. He did the crime so he must do the time. :crazy::boohoo::behindbar :moo:

What's the saying "suck to be MR"? :floorlaugh:

 

[Ardy]

That was Kamille.

Did anyone watch Connect with Mark Kelly tonight? They had an expert on speaking about the CSI effect.... This ties in exactly with what Kamille was saying about solving a crime the good old fashioned way.

I agree that people have been brainwashed to believe that everything is black and white and guilt or innocence can be proven through science.

The problem I think, is that the Crown's opening statement implored the jury to listen to what the DNA evidence told them. I am not sure what has been presented by the Crown lives up to their opening statement.

We can't blame the Crown though. When they were preparing this case over years, they believed TLM's testimony that MR committed the murder was true. They built their case around her testimony and corroborating evidence.

Then she changed her testimony and what was supposed to the "supporting" evidence has come front and center.......JMO

 

[swedie]

One might summize that with all these women on the go, it would be illogical for TLM to accuse him of this assault charge, as she has done. One might almost summize that for a year in jail, she stewed over him seeing many woman and thought she might come up with a super story. Just thinking out loud, how a spiteful and vindictive woman might act. It took her quite awhile to come forth with that aspect of the kidnapping, did it not? JMO

The whole story came out all at once IIRC in TLM's interrogation interview with Det. Smyth on May 19, 2009. The only thing that has changed about her story is that it was her who stomped and beat Tori. She said she just couldn't imagine herself being so horrible to a child. TLM otherwise has stuck to what happened to Tori and why. Again I have found nothing to show TLM is a habitual liar like her partner in crime has proven to be.

TLM supplied the framework to the puzzle and all the pieces are nicely fitting into that framework of hers. IMHO the Crown's case is strong, well presented and the jurors are the ones to make that final decisions regardless of what any of us believe is lacking or not lacking. MR was there involved; done deal. :moo:

 

[swedie]

I agree that people have been brainwashed to believe that everything is black and white and guilt or innocence can be proven through science.

The problem I think, is that the Crown's opening statement implored the jury to listen to what the DNA evidence told them. I am not sure what has been presented by the Crown lives up to their opening statement.

We can't blame the Crown though. When they were preparing this case over years, they believed TLM's testimony that MR committed the murder was true. They built their case around her testimony and corroborating evidence.

Then she changed her testimony and what was supposed to the "supporting" evidence has come front and center.......JMO

I see much supporting evidence throughout this whole case so far; everything is falling into place in accordance with TLM's testimony/evidence. TLM told a counsellor in January 2012, that she was the one who stomped and hit Tori with the hammer. The Crown does not have to build their case on who did that part because TLM already confessed. The evidence speaks for itself, so there is no need for the Crown to twist anything.

The defense may twist things in order to cause reasonable doubt with the jury but hopefully the jury will catch onto the defenses tactics and see the evidence in its true light and form. I give this jury credit for being able to sit through so many days of disgusting and grueling testimony.

I feel confident they are a realistic bunch of decent human beings with common sense. Bless their hearts. :blowkiss:
Justice for Tori :moo:

 

[Maple1]

Question:
If they don't want to present evidence that would not bolster their case, then why did they present the hairs from the pea coat? These were not matched to Victoria right? How did this help their case? I hope they're going somewhere further with that because that one, I just don't understand. :twocents:

I think they have to show results one way or the other on the items sent forward for full DNA test results. Otherwise defense would bring it up. They would have information of all testing results in discovery. Crown is wisest to show all results.
:moo:

 

[Hello_Kitty]

Just finished catching up.

Thanks for that info HK. :seeya: Sounds interesting...do you have a link by chance? Please.

I don't have a link, it is on tv, cbcn on channel 16 cogeco. But I imagine they will have it available online on cbc.ca

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Just finished catching up.




I don't have a link, it is on tv, cbcn on channel 16 cogeco. But I imagine they will have it available online on cbc.ca

They do, here's the link to his past shows that are on line. It's the 4.12.12 episode.
http://www.cbc.ca/connect/new_video.html?ID=222321492

 

[SmoothOperator]

JMO........The jury isn't reading forum pages or newspaper articles filled with speculation or condemnation of MR. They aren't reading opinions on his love life, employment choices, or living arrangements.

They are listening attentively to the evidence.

The evidence relating to the charge of sexual assault thus far is.............

Testimony from TLM.

No evidence of sexual assault from pathology report.

No evidence of sexual assault from DNA evidence.

I don't see any jury convicting on no evidence.

 

[otto]

The whole story came out all at once IIRC in TLM's interrogation interview with Det. Smyth on May 19, 2009. The only thing that has changed about her story is that it was her who stomped and beat Tori. She said she just couldn't imagine herself being so horrible to a child. TLM otherwise has stuck to what happened to Tori and why. Again I have found nothing to show TLM is a habitual liar like her partner in crime has proven to be.

TLM supplied the framework to the puzzle and all the pieces are nicely fitting into that framework of hers. IMHO the Crown's case is strong, well presented and the jurors are the ones to make that final decisions regardless of what any of us believe is lacking or not lacking. MR was there involved; done deal. :moo:

That's the crazy thing about this murder. If TL was so upset about what was happening to the child, why didn't she stomp out MR? TL is talking crazy psycho-babble if she expects us to believe that she was upset about the assault on the child and so she killed the child. That's the opposite of what normal people do.

If MR was upset about what was happening to the child, he should have done something. They were both involved in the abduction, the assualt and the murder. There's really nothing for MR to argue. He should be a man and accept what he has coming ... whimpering about whether he is guilty of murder is a waste of everyone's time.

 

[otto]

I agree that people have been brainwashed to believe that everything is black and white and guilt or innocence can be proven through science.

The problem I think, is that the Crown's opening statement implored the jury to listen to what the DNA evidence told them. I am not sure what has been presented by the Crown lives up to their opening statement.

We can't blame the Crown though. When they were preparing this case over years, they believed TLM's testimony that MR committed the murder was true. They built their case around her testimony and corroborating evidence.

Then she changed her testimony and what was supposed to the "supporting" evidence has come front and center.......JMO

Regardless of opening statements about DNA, the case is about whether MR had something to do with the murder. DNA connects MR to the murder through the sexual assault. Even if his accomplice claims to have held the hammer and hammer blows contributed to he death, it was the combination of events that resulted in the death - and there's little doubt that they were both involved. He cannot reasonably claim that he fully intended to return Tori to her mother after buying a hammer and garbage bags while driving to the place where the murder occurred. He was driving ... he had every opportunity to stop what was happening.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

The whole story came out all at once IIRC in TLM's interrogation interview with Det. Smyth on May 19, 2009. The only thing that has changed about her story is that it was her who stomped and beat Tori. She said she just couldn't imagine herself being so horrible to a child. TLM otherwise has stuck to what happened to Tori and why. Again I have found nothing to show TLM is a habitual liar like her partner in crime has proven to be.

TLM supplied the framework to the puzzle and all the pieces are nicely fitting into that framework of hers. IMHO the Crown's case is strong, well presented and the jurors are the ones to make that final decisions regardless of what any of us believe is lacking or not lacking. MR was there involved; done deal. :moo:

And speaking of Connectiions With Mark Kelley, this is what Vincent Clifford said (paraphrased, close to verbatim) when he was on the show:

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 )

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.

I think that is good point Sweedie, because looking back on TLM's behavior she proved herself to be a hideous person even before the abduction, yet we haven't seen anything that specifically demonstrates she is a chronic liar. If anything she seemed to flaunt her bad behavior.

I see much supporting evidence throughout this whole case so far; everything is falling into place in accordance with TLM's testimony/evidence. TLM told a counsellor in January 2012, that she was the one who stomped and hit Tori with the hammer. The Crown does not have to build their case on who did that part because TLM already confessed. The evidence speaks for itself, so there is no need for the Crown to twist anything.

The defense may twist things in order to cause reasonable doubt with the jury but hopefully the jury will catch onto the defenses tactics and see the evidence in its true light and form. I give this jury credit for being able to sit through so many days of disgusting and grueling testimony.

I feel confident they are a realistic bunch of decent human beings with common sense. Bless their hearts. :blowkiss:
Justice for Tori :moo:

And then here is a paraphrased quote from Vincent Clifford's appearance on Connections:

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

.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Tomorrow will conclude the sixth week of trial.

 

[snoofer]

:doh::angel:Women MR was involved with around the time of Tori's death:angel::what:

-TL McClintic - 21, GF helped MR abduct Tori for alleged sexual/nefarious purposes.

-A. Lane - met MR in grade six and reconnect in 2009 through FB

Miss WS - GF at the time of his arrest. Dated for five to six weeks.

-J. Wood - woman known to MR. She was in her Honda in GLF parking lot day of his arrest. Her car also seized by LE.

-Amanda - MR admitted to LE during taped interview May 15/09, he dated her a few times. MR claimed Amanda was a friend of TM and her daughter a friend to Tori.

-Kate - MR spoke about Kate (not real name), would not tell LE her real name.

-B. Armstrong - ex lover, met at BBeef/work, had girly talks with MR, supplied oxy drugs numerous times to MR including the day Tori was murdered.

-Miss Unknown (Pub ban) - 37, MR met her on POF April 12/09, MR told her about TLM in detention centre being questioned about Tori's abduction.

-S. Hodge - 31, C&Y worker MR met on POF April 14/09, saw each other every day for two and a half weeks. Said he was a dance instructor. She mostly drove them around, MR on phone setting up dance appointments. MR told her he took oxy, he thought he had colon cancer. MR spoke to her about people abducting children raising them as their own. Obsessed with Tori's case listening to news and reading newspaper.

-T. Moore aka Tam Tam, met MR on Yahoo 2003. MR bought car in 2007 from used car lot in TO. Noticed May 9/09 back seat and rear carpet missing from MR's car.

-M. LaBute, MR met her at her workplace Staples March 09, saying he was new in town. She told MR she wasn't interested, described MR as nervous and needy. Spent a lot of time on phone keeping track of his workers claiming to own contracting business.

Eleven women who had contact with MR around the time of Tori's death. Wonder where the men are? No male friends? :waitasec: MOO

FRIDAY = "COMMENTS MADE TO FRIENDS".

well done to the women who walked into court with their head held high yesterday, under the staring eye of MTR..it had to be very tough for them.:twocents: Although I would surmise they would have been glad to help in a child murder investigation.:twocents:

 

[~n/t~]

Regardless of opening statements about DNA, the case is about whether MR had something to do with the murder. DNA connects MR to the murder through the sexual assault. Even if his accomplice claims to have held the hammer and hammer blows contributed to he death, it was the combination of events that resulted in the death - and there's little doubt that they were both involved. He cannot reasonably claim that he fully intended to return Tori to her mother after buying a hammer and garbage bags while driving to the place where the murder occurred. He was driving ... he had every opportunity to stop what was happening.

Exactly, otto. If you don't mind, I'd like to add not only did he have the opportunity to stop it himself, he also had opportunity to call for help. He had his blackberry, his car. Instead evidence shows he was there, he is/was connected to Mt. Forest, he picked the spot, he drove the car, he helped dispose of Victoria and drove the convicted killer back home after all that. Any reasonable person would sit back and say,,,,,wait a sec,,,,if he's so innocent, what in the world was he doing there and why did he not call for help? Also, we have to remember he told cops he hardly knew his accomplice, furthermore, he told the cops he didn't know "that missing girl" except from rumours and that she went to the same school as a friend's child. He lied to the cops, he covered up the crime (from evidence presented). So one can conclude that he did what he's accused of. There is no other logical explanation or reason to think otherwise.

:moo:

 

[snoofer]

Just finished catching up.




I don't have a link, it is on tv, cbcn on channel 16 cogeco. But I imagine they will have it available online on cbc.ca

That was a very interesting video Hello Kitty; thanks.:seeya::twocents:

 

[snoofer]

If anything, what happened to Tori made him hungrier for sex. JMO

or was he deliberately trying to create a fog. How can I rape children if I date so many adult women???IMO But perhaps is behavior after the murder showed more that he had a "problem".:twocents: