Trial Thread, Weekend Discussion May 4-5, 2012 Waiting for Closing Arguments

[antiquegirl]

Thanks for writing this post.

I do have a question for you as I really don't know how court processes, jury etc work.

What if the evidence of the rape is not enough can the jury convict on the possibility that he destroyed the evidence?

I'm no legal expert either, but my guess is this jury can't convict him on anything he hasn't been charged with. First he would need to be charged with other crimes and I think there would have to be a separate trial for those charges unless he immediately pleads guilty to them.

However, I think we need to listen carefully to what the judge says this week. He may give the option to the jury to consider charges not yet brought against him. Sorry, I wish I knew.

JMO

 

[Hello_Kitty]

Weren't the windows open when he was at the gas station after dropping TLM off, before TLM and Tori were in the car?

Yes the windows were down at the gas station which was before they got TS. I imagine they would have put them up whilst driving on the 401.

 

[Ardy]

I thought this was a fairly good article by BA...I don't agree with all of the article but certain statement I thought were right to the point.... just saying...JMO it shows just how much TLM & TS's lives were interwoven..


http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/04/02/a-canadian-tragedy-fit-for-chekhov/

Thanks for the link as I didn't know Ms. Amiel was still writing.

That is a couple who have been through thick and thin, the best of times and the worst of times.

I bet she is overjoyed Conrad is home.

Now there...............was a guy who was framed.

JMO..........

 

[snoofer]

I guess since i haven't posted most of this week since the defence rested i will give my opinion. I wish the defence would have given a solid reason for the events in MR version but i guess we will have to hear final closings to know MR version summed up



I think they charged him wrong and should have and probably will if found anything but guilty but i think 100% guilty of at least accessory after the fact, cover up and hendering a investigation ( those charges i believe he is guilty and should be charged accordingly )


I believe there is reasonable doubt on the "charges". Charges not so much the crime. He is guilty but i think there is enough doubt to say its possible he did not do some of the things being charged




we have seen much more then the jury has seen as we have sleuthed so much that we are able to see the bigger picture sometimes, So im trying ( doesn't always work ) to look at this case without thinking to much on the rumours and the scenarios others have thrown out as the jury should not be swayed from it.

With the videos we have of MR and TLM of that day and after all show him calm cool and collective and nothing saying "panic or worried" as someone with a kidnapped child in the car. Windows down, HD stop, timmy stop, ATM stop ect.

to me that's a key point, it gives me reason to think that maybe up till a much later time ( could be 30 mins could be 2 hours) MR did not know that Tori was in that car against her will. Now is where i have to speculate as to why she would be in that car and as a parent and like so many others here, a child who is abducted is usually done so for sexual purposes.
BUT i do not see how the crown has proven beyond a reasonable doubt that MR "KNEW" he was in the process of kidnapping Tori when TLM approached the car, I believe that she walked as seen in the video calmly and carefree with Tori in tow willingly at that point. What point Tori knew she was abducted we probably will really never know as we only have TLM words as to what was said to Tori to make her go willing. But the question of kidnapping would have to be "When was it known to MR" before, during or after, What do we have that says he knew he was kidnapping Tori?

Forensic Evidence was inconclusive to rape, the only direct link is the semen mixed with a very tiny spot of Tori's blood on the car door frame BUT there is enough doubt that the semen could have been deposited at a previous time and her blood ended up dropping onto one of the many spots of semen inside that car ( How many spots did they find ?? More then the one from all the sexual encounters with the other woman in the car testified in court)

The blood and semen can be from raping Tori but it could be just as likely that since it was testified that MR had sex on multiple occasions in that car that it is possible that the blood was transferred from another method other then rape ( the bag, TLM hands ect) .



I wish we had the answer to why any child is killed, but in the end only the person committing the crime can tell us their state of mind for doing it.




I hear you, and can see why most feel that Tori was raped and I as a parent tend to think the only reason a child is kidnapped is for sexual purposes but this doesn't mean that is the case and the evidence needs to show that it actually happened.

In the end my opinion is he should spend quite a number of years in prison reflecting on his actions that day, I believe he will serve the 25 years at least and I believe that in the end justice will be served for Tori

Not sure I understand that point. BOTH TLM and MTR behaved the same, carefree in public on the day TS went missing. And BOTH TLM and MTR behaved the same, carefree in public on the videos after her death. See THAT is how I think callous, cold, murderous people behave. Not like the rest of us. IMO but that sentence doesn't express why HE didn't do anything as you suggested other than after the fact. MOO

Possible? Anything is possible.
Probable? Most likely

To believe that MTR is not guilty; one would have to make an awful lot of allowances and excuses for his behaviors and choices that day and after the murder. MOO

 

[Sillybilly]

Thanks for writing this post.

I do have a question for you as I really don't know how court processes, jury etc work.

What if the evidence of the rape is not enough can the jury convict on the possibility that he destroyed the evidence?

Not sure if you mean convict on the sexual assault or on a lesser charge. If you mean convict on the sexual assault, they might look at the totality of the forensic evidence as not being enough. If however they believe TLM's testimony that evidence was disposed of, combined with his inability or unwillingness to produce the missing seat, they may believe that constitutes "consciousness of guilt" wrt the sexual assault. All told, they could still convict on that particular charge.

JMO

 

[swedie]

I have been following along but have not posted in this forum. Here are my two cents worth!!

I have concluded that Tori would still be alive if MR was not involved.

In my opinion the crime would not have been committed without his car, without the drugs, without him paying for the hammer and garbage bags, without him driving to a remote location.

I am not 100% sure just what happened there but from everything presented I have concluded that TLM did not do this on her own!!

I 100% agree and WELCOME GBAY!!

JUSTICE FOR TORI!!! <3

 

[antiquegirl]

I'm not sure if this has been pointed out, so I thought I would. First of all, I believe that if MTR is convicted on all three counts, he will not get out of prison in 25 years. I'm fairly certain that in that case, he will spend the rest of his life there.

It's pretty easy for us to sit here and play armchair detectives, reach conclusions, and decide what verdict we would like to see. The jury is in the much more difficult position of deciding the fate of a fellow human being, with the worst case scenario of locking him in a cage for the rest of his natural life. Unlike us, they are supposed to set aside their emotions, consider the evidence, and need to be absolutely certain that this is the fate he deserves. This will be part of the judge's instructions, one way or another.

I believe that it is also important to remember that there are three separate charges here. They can convict on none, one, two or all three. Additionally, the judge may provide them with alternate considerations. This may have been discussed during the legal arguments we were not privy to. The jury has a very burdensome task ahead and I predict that the final decision is going to take a while. Of course, I could be wrong.

JMO

 

[Ardy]

It's a little late for the defence to offer evidence that Victoria voluntarily stripped naked from the waist down.

You are assuming TS voluntarily removed her own clothes.

There is no evidence of that. It is purely speculation.

Any "theory" about why TS clothing was removed is only speculation.

No one theory is any better than any other.

This is true for almost all of the "evidence" presented by the Crown, and probably why the defense didn't feel the need to refute testimony that actually helped them more than the Crown.

There were times during the Crown presentation when I wondered which side I was hearing.

One classic example...........is the attack on TLM by the Crown, trying to get her to change her story about murdering TS.

From the defense point of view, there is nothing better than having the Crown attack it's own witness credibility for you.

Another is the days and days of pathology and forensic testimony.

Normally the Crown produces the evidence that proves their case and the defense experts offer a different opinion to refute the findings of the Crown expert.

There was nothing for the defense to refute. There was no proof of assault.

What would they do......put on an expert witness to say.......I agree with their experts?

I think the defense is very comfortable with the way this trial has gone.

Derstine has steadily been extracting the key points for the jury that they will be considering.

I doubt the jury will be deliberating about the search miles being equal to trips to the moon, but they may very be deliberating the testimony of the last witness and how it conflicts with the testimony of TLM.

Just my opinion though..........everyone has one.

JMO.........

 

[BorgQueen]

This post lands at random. It is a response to various comments made, but not to any poster in particular. Just a few opinions on what I have been reading...

1) To suggest that VS stripped naked from the waist down voluntarily, in my opinion, comes off as blaming the victim. "Oh, she must have soiled herself, so she took her clothes off. It was her own fault she was found without most of her clothes on"*. Seriously?!? I find this offensive, personally. JMO. It is unlikely a child her age would do that. Perhaps a 2 year old that is potty training, absolutely frustrated that he/she soiled themselves and removed their clothes, but NOT an 8 year old girl with two strangers. JMO.

* not a direct quote from anybody.

2) About MR's intelligence, or lack of: it does not take any amount of intelligence to manipulate people. It takes creativity. One does not need to be able to read, write, do math, or understand how the universe was created in order to manipulate others for their own personal gain. It takes creativity and experience. Trial and error. It is a self-taught skill, nothing that can be learned in school. His level of intelligence is not relevant. JMO

3) I was going to say something else, but got distracted and can't remember what it was, so it obviously isn't very important. Ha.



All MOO. JMO, IMO, etc.

 

[OhSoCurious]

This post lands at random. It is a response to various comments made, but not to any poster in particular. Just a few opinions on what I have been reading...

1) To suggest that VS stripped naked from the waist down voluntarily, in my opinion, comes off as blaming the victim. "Oh, she must have soiled herself, so she took her clothes off. It was her own fault she was found without most of her clothes on"*. Seriously?!? I find this offensive, personally. JMO. It is unlikely a child her age would do that. Perhaps a 2 year old that is potty training, absolutely frustrated that he/she soiled themselves and removed their clothes, but NOT an 8 year old girl with two strangers. JMO.

* not a direct quote from anybody.

2) About MR's intelligence, or lack of: it does not take any amount of intelligence to manipulate people. It takes creativity. One does not need to be able to read, write, do math, or understand how the universe was created in order to manipulate others for their own personal gain. It takes creativity and experience. Trial and error. It is a self-taught skill, nothing that can be learned in school. His level of intelligence is not relevant. JMO

3) I was going to say something else, but got distracted and can't remember what it was, so it obviously isn't very important. Ha.



All MOO. JMO, IMO, etc.

JMO ... It is for this very reason that I do not understand why people say TLM was not smart enough to engineer this crime or capable enough to carry it out.

by BorgQueen: "It does not take any amount of intelligence to manipulate people. It takes creativity. One does not need to be able to read, write, do math, or understand how the universe was created in order to manipulate others for their own personal gain. It takes creativity and experience. Trial and error. It is a self-taught skill, nothing that can be learned in school. His level of intelligence is not relevant."

 

[Ardy]

Very true. But only if the defence were aware that those witnesses even existed. Hypothetically, if TLM had a plan to sell Tori to a human trafficking ring, but decided to blame MTR instead for whatever reason, the defence would have no idea, no proof, and no one from this ring would step up to offer this information. There are other possibilities that could involve illegal activity that would not come to light unless that person offered up the information. I am NOT saying any of this is even remotely true ... only that there could be players that the defence may not know about.

Personally, I am not certain that TLM told LE everything or that she was truthful about what she did tell them.

JMO

I would add..........the defense doesn't have the luxury of having the police conduct the interviews, but would rely on perhaps 1 or 2 private investigators, if they could afford them.

A private investigator is not a police officer and cannot require anyone to even talk to them. All a potential witness had to say is "I know nothing about it.......take a hike".

There wouldn't be much point bringing a witness to court if you hadn't interviewed them and didn't know what they would say. The defense "could legally" require them to attend..........but the witness could just say, "I don't know anything".

I would imagine.........even without a drug debt being part of this crime.......there was a ripple among the drug crowd in Woodstock and area. Everyone scrambling to erase messages and trying to hide an connection to the case.

JMO............

 

[swedie]

I may be mistaken but wasn't the one injury from the kicking fatal (also the one that proved she was still alive as blood was found in her lungs??)

of course hammers to the head would have also be fatal but from the testimony I understood that she would have died from the kick alone. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think MR gave the initial kick and hammer blows and TLM was then given the hammer to contribuate her part.. Just the way I see it happening

Oh I certainly agree Mystic, he used some sort of violence throughout the whole horrible case. According to TLM MR yelled at the two of them, on numerous occasions and I'm sure he used threats or violence while TLM was in HD and at other times, I bet besides the sexual assault, he used other forums of violence against Tori. I hate to think what went on in his car, which TLM didn't testify to before they arrived at that laneway. Tori more than likely made it very hard for him to have the sick sexual fantasy he imagined he was going to have and struck her or punched her. TLM was not there to see it as she was taking in her surroundings and being lookout. In most pictures MR is wearing rings on his fingers. If he punched Tori, his ring very well could have cut into his finger causing it to bleed. I would much rather thing Tori fought back and wounded him good causing his to bleed. Hopefully she head butted him in the mouth and what BA thought was a cold sore was actually a wound from Tori. I said this before but IMHO the reason why Tori was laying moaning on the ground outside his car is because he did something very violent to her besides the sexual assault. MR is sick, sick, sick and I remain absolutely positive he will be found guilty on all three charges. All MHO.

 

[swedie]

We should remember though, that the defense didn't mount an extensive investigation to present to the jury.

Most defendants simply couldn't afford the cost to do that. In this case, the Crown spend millions of dollars on the investigation. Few defendants could pay the cost of an equal investigation.

The justice system is structured cognizant of the imbalance of power between the Crown and defendants, so LE and the Crown perform the investigation and the defense need only refute the evidence provided by the Crown. THe defense has no need to prove an alternative theory in whole, but can suggest the possibility of alternative conclusions to the Crown evidence.

In this case, if TLM's testimony were not present, the Crown would have no case against MR at all.

I believe the jury verdict will depend heavily on their perception of TLM's testimony as honest and reliable.

JMO...........

Respectfully I do not see it that way. The Crown has provided much solid and circumstantial evidence to nail MR. The blood, cell phone pings, missing back seat, all the evidence found in his car, all the women who testified against him, the fact he returned his BB and asked about erasing it or something to that fact, shopping for new running shoes, all the video evidence of him at the ATM machine, his car in HD parking lot, the video of MR driving around OSPS numerous times, the fact that he lied to LE about Tori and many other people, his seat on the curb, all of the disposed of evidence belonging to Tori and those are just a bit of what quickly came to my mind. MOO

 

[Ardy]

I'm no legal expert either, but my guess is this jury can't convict him on anything he hasn't been charged with. First he would need to be charged with other crimes and I think there would have to be a separate trial for those charges unless he immediately pleads guilty to them.

However, I think we need to listen carefully to what the judge says this week. He may give the option to the jury to consider charges not yet brought against him. Sorry, I wish I knew.

JMO

Not a legal expert either, but as I understand it..........

A jury can find a person guilty of a lesser offense, if all of the elements of the charge are not proven.....but all of the elements of a lesser offense are proven.

For example..............

If a person is charged with sexual assault causing bodily harm, they may be found not guilty of that charge......but found guilty of the lesser charge of sexual assault, if the sexual assault was proven but the bodily harm wasn't.

I think the fact that each charge has "elements" that must be proven to show the charge was appropriate under the circumstances, and then it must be proven that the accused did commit the said crime, causes some confusion.

One of the standard elements is the "intent" of the accused.

JMO........

 

[OhSoCurious]

Perception is always so interesting. I would not concur that "all the women who testified against him" had much damning to say? That entire week seemed like such a waste of time. Even the judge felt compelled to remind the jury that week may have deduced that he is a cad but not much more from my understanding.

MOO/IMO/JMO

 

[BorgQueen]

JMO ... It is for this very reason that I do not understand why people say TLM was not smart enough to engineer this crime or capable enough to carry it out.

by BorgQueen: "It does not take any amount of intelligence to manipulate people. It takes creativity. One does not need to be able to read, write, do math, or understand how the universe was created in order to manipulate others for their own personal gain. It takes creativity and experience. Trial and error. It is a self-taught skill, nothing that can be learned in school. His level of intelligence is not relevant."

JMO, I think they are both capable enough to engineer and carry out this crime. Alone, or together.

To carry on with tiring comparisons: Neither Bernardo nor Homolka *needed* the other to carry out the crimes they did. They just wanted each other to do it. More fun together, I suppose? That is, until Homolka got angry and "spilled the beans"...



JMO

 

[swedie]

That is just as speculative as saying TLM removed her clothing because of an "accident".

Both are speculative and not supported by any evidence.

There "could" be lots of other explanations.

As there is no supporting evidence to support any theory......I think it likely the Judge will inform the jury to disregard it in their deliberations.

JMO.............

It's call circumstantial evidence at it's best. Most case are decided on circumstantial evidence. The peeing accident is too far fetched as TLM I'm sure would not give one hoot about Tori peeing herself as she knew she was going to kill her anyway. Makes no sense. Some will say "well she was just going to talk to Tori and lost it". Nope not buy that. If that was the case, why did she premeditate and purchase a hammer?? If one is believing she staged the rape to blame it on MR, why did TLM change her mind and confess to being the one who killed Tori when she could have left the blame with him?

Yes these are all going to be questions the jurors are going to come up with, discuss and realize in the end they will see Tori was abducted for sexual/nefarious purposes. MR was the one who dare an 18 year old gansta wannbe, high on drugs, leading a loser life who admitted she would take the fall for him. HTH and MOO.

 

[OhSoCurious]

JMO, I think they are both capable enough to engineer and carry out this crime. Alone, or together.

To carry on with tiring comparisons: Neither Bernardo nor Homolka *needed* the other to carry out the crimes they did. They just wanted each other to do it. More fun together, I suppose? That is, until Homolka got angry and "spilled the beans"...



JMO

I cannot even see their brief, flitting "relationship" being compared to that of the husband and wife team. JMO

 

[swedie]

It would not have cost the defence a dime to have MR relate his version of events. JMO

We know MR did not testify because he is guilty IMPO. An innocent person will do whatever no matter what their lawyer advises, to clear themselves. Even if it cost millions, one should never turn down the opportunity to defend their innocence, especially when he isn't footing the bill anyway.

 

[swedie]

Okay - here is the link (originally posted by Wondergirl): http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/esc-cde/scje-cdej/p7.html

These are just the guiding principles and every set of jury instructions will differ somewhat depending on the charges, evidence and circumstances. But the principles say:

"(1) instruction on the relevant legal issues, including the charges faced by the accused;
(2) an explanation of the theories of each side;
(3) a review of the salient facts which support the theories and case of each side;
(4) a review of the evidence relating to the law;
(5) a direction informing the jury they are the masters of the facts and it is for them to make the factual determinations;
(6) instruction about the burden of proof and presumption of innocence;
(7) the possible verdicts open to the jury; and
(8) the requirements of unanimity for reaching a verdict."

So, it appears to me, that yes, the jury will be able to consider the theories of the defense and any facts that support the theory. I think the defense is going to be at a disadvantage though, because they have no facts, or at least is seems they have no facts from the tweet info that we have.

Salem

Absolutely Salem, the defense has no facts so all the jurors will be getting is a possible fabricated story which coincides with the Crown's facts...maybe. I can hardly wait to hear their spun story. All the defense had was one unreliable witness MOO.