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

[Ardy]

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.

The Crown provided a lot of information in this trial, but a lot of it may not rise to the level of circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence is information that supports a known fact.

The Crown has to prove a sexual assault took place, before TS missing clothing would be circumstantial evidence of a sexual assault. The missing clothing does not prove a sexual assault occurred. It isn't necessary to speculate on what other implication missing clothing could mean.

The Judge will instruct the jury on what parts of the Crown presentation is considered circumstantial evidence and may be included in their deliberations and which parts were information that is unrelated and should not be part of their deliberations.

JMO........

 

[swedie]

Respectfully, he also lacked self-control over many aspects of his life, especially on April 8, 2009. I also believe TLM regarding testifying to MTR and his self pleasuring up the laneway. What kind of person does this in front of a child. How despicable is this? MOO

A person such as MR full of adrenaline and sexual anticipation, which he had to contain himself for for two hours. He probably thought he was being humorous, that's how sick he is. Wonder what he was doing in the car while TLM was in HD? Yep pretty sick and despicable MOO.

 

[swedie]

MTR had all kinds of free time in prison to write up what he wanted his defense to present for him ie where the hammer was so he could proove it was not his prints on it for example. He could have thought of all kinds of stuff IF he was innocent. The trouble becomes when if he is not innocent. Then yes MTR would have a difficult time coming up with info for his defense. MOO

We shall see tomorrow what defense has to say for MTR. MOO

I bet the defense is going to be pretty cut and dry now that I think about it. There isn't going to be a lot of detail and fancy footwork the Crown can squash on them. It's going to be a very simple story...mostly lies of course. The more detail and spin the defense puts into, the more the Crown can throw reasonable doubt or prove their theory wrong. Just another prediction from me and MOO of course.

 

[Ardy]

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.

That "one" defense witness is going to be worth 100 women going on the stand to testify MR is a "cad", and days of expert testimony that basically said they couldn't prove anything, in my opinion.

With a simple defense of only one witness, Derstine called into question the dubious integrity of TLM's testimony and the whole reason for the abduction.

Simplicity extraordinaire for the jury..........believe TLM or believe the grandmother.

If the jury believes grandmother..........they would know that TLM sat on that witness stand and lied directly to their faces.

Hmmmmm.

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

 

[BorgQueen]

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

I have seen many comparisons, so I used such comparisons to make a point:
People who are capable of committing such a crime do not *NEED* others to carry it out. They are capable of doing it on their own, but *CHOOSE* to do it with others, as a team, for whatever reason. JMO. It is always a major risk to commit such a crime with another individual, but it is a risk some appear to be willing to take.
If the accused is guilty as charged, then he and TLM were a team. In my opinion, that would be where the comparisons with that other team end. In any event, the 'teamwork' is a choice. It doesn't mean that the individuals are incapable of committing the crime without the other half of the team. Just that they chose not to (at that point in time). Who is to say either TLM, or MR (if guilty) would not have done something similar on their own eventually? IMO, they are both equally as capable of carrying this out on their own, and that has nothing to do with intelligence, or lack of.

JMO.

 

[Ardy]

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

One of the things I will remember from this trial is the glaring difference in presentations of each side.

The Crown presented weeks of testimony and information, often questionable as to it's purpose, such as the long list of POF acquaintances, and even the detailed compilation of LE efforts to find TS.........which actually came up empty until they obtained the cellphone pings, and on and on..........

As compared to the simplicity of the defense presentation.

After long periods of expert testimony on taking the car here, and checking this, and data this and data that................

Derstine wanders up and basically says........well that was all very interesting, did you find anything?

And they say..........nothing conclusive......no proof of an assault.

And then one witness for the defense.....who directly contradicts the testimony of TLM.

The credibility of a grandmother no less, against the credibility of TLM.

It will be interesting to see which presentation was more effective.

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

 

[Ardy]

I always thought that statement that MR was "self pleasuring" while he drove down a slippery narrow farm lane, changing gears and holding in the clutch, meant MR had at least one extra arm.

I wonder if TLM was drifting in and out of consiousness from drug over use, and was dreaming or hallucinating some of the things she said.

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

 

[swedie]

Would have, could have, should have....I am sure MR is kicking himself now for involving TLM in the plan and not carrying it out himself. JMO

MR's a coward. And the chances of him carrying it off by himself would be pretty difficult. He knew what he was doing all along with TLM; he was grooming her. He's probably kicking himself for not doing TLM in and leaving her under the rock pile with Tori. MOO

 

[swedie]

That "one" defense witness is going to be worth 100 women going on the stand to testify MR is a "cad", and days of expert testimony that basically said they couldn't prove anything, in my opinion.

With a simple defense of only one witness, Derstine called into question the dubious integrity of TLM's testimony and the whole reason for the abduction.

Simplicity extraordinaire for the jury..........believe TLM or believe the grandmother.

If the jury believes grandmother..........they would know that TLM sat on that witness stand and lied directly to their faces.

Hmmmmm.

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

So you think? Hmm time is ticking and will soon tell. Hold onto your hats folks.

 

[BorgQueen]

I always thought that statement that MR was "self pleasuring" while he drove down a slippery narrow farm lane, changing gears and holding in the clutch, meant MR had at least one extra arm.

I wonder if TLM was drifting in and out of consiousness from drug over use, and was dreaming or hallucinating some of the things she said.

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

BBM:

I have always thought it was possible that various things TLM has said were not true, but not exactly an intentional lie. Hallucinations, dreams, flashbacks, all could have mixed up with her memory of events. She has some extreme psychological problems (I am not a qualified psychologist, so I will not speculate as to what she may suffer from, but I think it is obvious that she is not of sound mind). She may very well think she is telling the complete truth, but some elements of this 'truth' may not be fact.
JMO

In my opinion, the only parts of her testimony that can be considered 'fact' are the bits and pieces that have been backed up with evidence. The rest of it can be disregarded. Not all may be false, but not all may be true. Some may be intentional lies, and some may be unintentional. We really don't know, do we?

JMO.

 

[swedie]

Circumstantial evidence is used during a trial to establish guilt or innocence through reasoning. This indirect evidence is the result of combining different, but seemingly unrelated, facts that the prosecution uses to infer the defendants guilt.

Most criminals are careful not to generate any direct evidence while they are committing a crime. Because of this, courts often depend on circumstantial evidence to determine the facts of the case.

An example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of the defendant around the time that the alleged crime took place. If the defendant was charged with embezzling or stealing a large amount of money, and then went out and bought a brand-new car, the purchase of the car could be used as circumstantial evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt.

Criminal prosecutors depend on circumstantial evidence to prove their case. Civil cases are often based expressly on circumstantial evidence, when trying to establish or deny liability.

It is a popular misconception that circumstantial evidence carries less weight or importance than direct evidence. This is only partly true. While direct evidence is generally seen as more powerful, most successful prosecutions rely greatly on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial evidence often has an advantage over direct evidence because it is more difficult to suppress or fabricate.

There are some legal experts who would even argue that circumstantial evidence is more persuasive than direct evidence.

http://www.probablecause.org/circumstantialevidence.html

 

[Ardy]

BBM:

I have always thought it was possible that various things TLM has said were not true, but not exactly an intentional lie. Hallucinations, dreams, flashbacks, all could have mixed up with her memory of events. She has some extreme psychological problems (I am not a qualified psychologist, so I will not speculate as to what she may suffer from, but I think it is obvious that she is not of sound mind). She may very well think she is telling the complete truth, but some elements of this 'truth' may not be fact.
JMO

In my opinion, the only parts of her testimony that can be considered 'fact' are the bits and pieces that have been backed up with evidence. The rest of it can be disregarded. Not all may be false, but not all may be true. Some may be intentional lies, and some may be unintentional. We really don't know, do we?

JMO.

I also wonder about MR's state of mind right now, and how that would relate to the defense decision not to have him take the stand.

Let us say for argument sake........he is innocent of these charges.

He has spent 3 years in jail, and the last couple of months in the detention center at Exeter Road, which isn't a very pleasant place. In fact, it is so bad that some local Judges were giving 3 for 1 for time spent there and were openly criticizing the conditions there.

Now is MR's trial...........his chance to prove his innocence.

The emotions bottled up inside him........sitting there listening to TLM spin her stories, the Crown presenting all the women in his past life, and on and on..............and MR told to sit nice and don't display any emotion.

Keep it all bottled up tight.

And then go on the stand? He might explode in a burst of tears, or anger at having been put in jail for 3 years...........or who knows what.

To expect him to calmly and collectively answer the barbed questions and personal attacks that would come at him from the Crown..........might be a bit much to expect.

TLM did testify.........but at his trial, notably not at her own.

Much as I would have liked to hear from him........I think the defense decision was wise under the circumstances.

JMO........

 

[Ardy]

An example of circumstantial evidence is the behavior of the defendant around the time that the alleged crime took place. If the defendant was charged with embezzling or stealing a large amount of money, and then went out and bought a brand-new car, the purchase of the car could be used as circumstantial evidence to prove the defendant’s guilt.

http://www.probablecause.org/circumstantialevidence.html

Clipped for brevity.........

This is pretty much what I said previously, I think.

The embezzlement of the funds would be a known fact. The purchase of the new car is a known fact. They would have the sales contract, ownership of the vehicle, and sales persons to verify the transaction as a fact. The fact that the vehicle was paid for in cash would be further proof the purchase provided circumstantial evidence of embezzlement.

The new car purchase would then become circumstantial evidence of embezzlement.

Even with the car purchase, I would think that single fact wouldn't be enough to prove embezzlement. The Crown would also have to prove the embezzler had access to the funds, it was their intent to steal the funds, and that the funds had in fact been embezzled.

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

 

[BorgQueen]

I also wonder about MR's state of mind right now, and how that would relate to the defense decision not to have him take the stand.

Let us say for argument sake........he is innocent of these charges.

He has spent 3 years in jail, and the last couple of months in the detention center at Exeter Road, which isn't a very pleasant place. In fact, it is so bad that some local Judges were giving 3 for 1 for time spent there and were openly criticizing the conditions there.

Now is MR's trial...........his chance to prove his innocence.

The emotions bottled up inside him........sitting there listening to TLM spin her stories, the Crown presenting all the women in his past life, and on and on..............and MR told to sit nice and don't display any emotion.

Keep it all bottled up tight.

And then go on the stand? He might explode in a burst of tears, or anger at having been put in jail for 3 years...........or who knows what.

To expect him to calmly and collectively answer the barbed questions and personal attacks that would come at him from the Crown..........might be a bit much to expect.

TLM did testify.........but at his trial, notably not at her own.

Much as I would have liked to hear from him........I think the defense decision was wise under the circumstances.

JMO........

I tend to agree that, guilty or not, MRs state of mind is not likely stable at the moment. If innocent, he could have made himself look guilty on the stand. If guilty, he could have made himself look much worse. Kind of a lose/lose situation putting him there, and while many would have liked to hear what he has to say, for the defence, and for the sake of a fair trial (leaving no room for a mistrial!), it was probably best he did not take the stand. Nothing is stopping him, later on, from calling upon the media to tell his side of the story.




JMO!

 

[Hello_Kitty]

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

The point of their testimony was not for the jury to know that he was a 'philandering cad' but to corroborate the crown's timeline, so IMO 'that week wasn't a waste of time' and certainly not the jury's waste of time.

 

[myzzy]

Good Morning

You have to make me put on my tin foil thinking cap this morning huh?

TLM and MR did both seemed to act carefree from the videos and acted in the same manner as if nothing was happing out of the ordinary. But only one has admitted to the crime and one has not. We must take that into consideration and because of this we have to figure out which parts are probable and which are not.

The crown HAS TO prove beyond a reasonable doubt that MR assisted or kidnapped Tori and KNEW full well that he was in the commission of kidnapping when Tori stepped into that vehicle.

Take away the murder and the rape charges and just look at the kidnapping. Separating the 3 charges and judging them separately is how i have been looking at the case.

Forgive me if my answers are not making sense as its first thing in the morning and no coffee.

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

 

[gbay]

I have to think that some of the evidence is what MR didn't do. Most people that found themselves in a situation that saw them witness such a horrific crime (as MR is implying he did) would have tried to stop it, try to call 911, try to get help or just leave the scene!! He did none of these things. Once back to everyday life I would think an innocent person would try and distance themselves from the monster that had committed the crime. Instead he does none of that. In fact he is seen hugging her!! Innocent...I think not!!

 

[crazyladi]

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

The sexual assault is what I mean. If They believe TLM can they use that evidence of her testimony to convict because the missing car seat and its where abouts etc.

 

[crazyladi]

Good Morning Everyone!!!

This is going to be a very interesting week. I will have to tell my boss I am too busy to work LOL...

 

[Thinkzerz]

http://www.torontosun.com/videos/fe...intic-surveillance-video-part-2/1595205607001

In this video around 3:05 MR looks to be microwaving something in the store. Was this mentioned? What all did he buy in there or did he buy anything? opps sorry it was the cashier i was looking at.