court in recess until 3/13/2012 general discussion thread

[greenthumb]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Blatchford+Small+police+force+united+investigate+Stafford/6273383/story.html

In the days that followed, sex offenders living in the area were interviewed; recent parolees too; wiretap authorizations sought and granted; a composite sketch of the mystery woman drawn and released.


Just that first week, and this was before the Ontario Provincial Police came in to help and the investigation swelled and was officially named Project Wigan, Woodstock officers canvassed 2,500 homes.

BBM

Wiretaps authorizations... hmmm... wonder whose conversations were tapped?

IMO, Woodstock LE really stepped up to the plate on this right from the get go, although I have heard criticisms... canvassing 2,500 homes within a week, that is a massive undertaking.

 

[crazyladi]

In my opinion, I think they have to put her on the witness stand, she was there, so she is likely the only person that will be able to say he was with her that fateful day, which is why the Crown has acknowledged that her credibility could be an issue, because he's likely concerned the jury won't believe her statements when she mentions this (especially if no one else can corroborate seeing the two of them together). A lot of what we have seen so far, only shows TLM by herself (I get it is still early days, though the Crown really hasn't shown any evidence linking MTR to the case - again JMO).

I was just saying this to my friend today. There has never been mention of where he was during that time. Its very interesting.

 

[matou]

I was just saying this to my friend today. There has never been mention of where he was during that time. Its very interesting.

All of the photos of MR`s car I`ve seen link him to the area at the time. Also:

The pair then went to a Petro Canada gas station in the north end of Guelph, where a video camera caught Rafferty heading to the ATM machine. He took out cash, got back in the car and drove closer to a nearby Home Depot.

McClintic went in and paid cash at the self-serve for garbage bags and a hammer.

http://www.parisstaronline.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3492354

He`s on camera near the HD. We`ll find out more soon.

Photos entered into evidence: http://www.scribd.com/doc/84386320/Rafferty-Trial-Evidence

 

[nettie_82]

This is of no relation to this case, but in case some of you have been following...

Mariam Makhniashvili likely alive at time of fall: police

http://news.sympatico.ctv.ca/home/mariam_makhniashvili_likely_alive_at_time_of_fall_police/2120e3cc

 

[Sparklin]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Blatchford+Small+police+force+united+investigate+Stafford/6273383/story.html



BBM

Wiretaps authorizations... hmmm... wonder whose conversations were tapped?

IMO, Woodstock LE really stepped up to the plate on this right from the get go, although I have heard criticisms... canvassing 2,500 homes within a week, that is a massive undertaking.

If I'm not mistaken, Tara's phone was tapped.

 

[matou]

If I'm not mistaken, Tara's phone was tapped.

I think you`re right. JMO

 

[matou]

TLM's resume PDF file (11 pages): http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/34/b9/e84af1e84141b1804f40d7927bd9.pdf

 

[Oldsoul2]

TLM's resume PDF file (11 pages): http://media.thestar.topscms.com/acrobat/34/b9/e84af1e84141b1804f40d7927bd9.pdf

This why she was up to make money some how. I really believe MR offered her a cut or something for her participation. They met before to talk at a coffee shop, not online, not by phone and new information released states that she was walking her dog around the area for days before this happened. Premeditation is why she got a maximum sentence IMO even though she eventually cooperated, probably why they allowed the parole options because she is testifying. All that *** about not knowing what she was going to do that day is all carp, my guess is LE already knew the whole story and if her statements were going to be published before MR's trial and used at the trial, it might be considered hearsay that he pre-planned it. No one was there to hear it. Her credibility is imperative and assumed questioned. Instead of that approach, once you've waived your trial and sentenced, note you were there, testify in court that he was there, period, there's evidence to back that one up. Premeditation will come out on it's own MOO

 

[daisy.faithfull]

In my opinion, I think they have to put her on the witness stand, she was there, so she is likely the only person that will be able to say he was with her that fateful day, which is why the Crown has acknowledged that her credibility could be an issue, because he's likely concerned the jury won't believe her statements when she mentions this (especially if no one else can corroborate seeing the two of them together). A lot of what we have seen so far, only shows TLM by herself (I get it is still early days, though the Crown really hasn't shown any evidence linking MTR to the case - again JMO).

The Crown did mention Barbara Armstrong who's house MTR allegedly visited to buy drugs. She might have seen TLMc, or its possible MTR said something about TLMc waiting.

If BA and TLMc are called and asked about this incident and their stories match up I think it could give TLMc's account more credibility.

AM980.ca ‏ @AM980_Court (Sparklin)
Crown says the accused visited Barbara Armstrong, a friend of Rafferty's in Guelph to buy drugs. Tori was in the car, but was not seen.

If TLMc is called I think that the Crown does have other evidence to back up her claims that she was with MTR.

:moo:

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I agree with you about not underestimating the defence team. There really hasn't been very much for him to cross-examine at this point in my humble opinion, which is why his crosses have been brief, if at all. I do wonder if he has requested a right to recall a certain witness at a later day, that hasn't been mentioned in the tweets.

I can't see MR taking the stand, most defence lawyers advise for their client not to take the stand, because as you said, he could incriminate himself depending on his personality, may garner no sympathy from the jury if they hear him speak.

Okay, I have questions about how that.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witness"]Witness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Recalling a witness means calling a witness, who has already given testimony in a proceeding, to give further testimony. A court may only give leave to a party to recall a witness to give evidence about a matter adduced by another party if the second party's testimony contradicts evidence given by the original witness on direct examination.
[edit]

I think I get what's being said, but can anyone give me examples or just maybe elaborate a little more so that I can get a better understanding why a request to recall a witness would be granted.

I don't get the "contradicts evidence" part because its my understanding is that people such as experts that testify or people like Tara can be recalled regardless. YKWIM?

TIA

Another ETA: Is a sig showing up for me?

 

[Alethea Dice]

This why she was up to make money some how. I really believe MR offered her a cut or something for her participation. They met before to talk at a coffee shop, not online, not by phone and new information released states that she was walking her dog around the area for days before this happened. Premeditation is why she got a maximum sentence IMO even though she eventually cooperated, probably why they allowed the parole options because she is testifying. All that *** about not knowing what she was going to do that day is all carp, my guess is LE already knew the whole story and if her statements were going to be published before MR's trial and used at the trial, it might be considered hearsay that he pre-planned it. No one was there to hear it. Her credibility is imperative and assumed questioned. Instead of that approach, once you've waived your trial and sentenced, note you were there, testify in court that he was there, period, there's evidence to back that one up. Premeditation will come out on it's own MOO

BBM
In Canada, 1st degree murder is an automatic life sentence with no parole for 25 years.

In cases of murder, the sentence is automatically a life sentence whether that’s first degree murder or second degree murder.
In cases of second degree murder, the judge has the ability to fix the period of parole ineligibility anywhere between 10 and 25 years with recommendations from the jury, if they choose to make them. If you’re convicted of first degree murder, you automatically receive a life sentence with parole eligibility at 25 years.

http://info.lawyershop.ca/criminal/index.php/archives/2008/11/27/the-sentences-resulting-from-first-degree-murder-second-degree-murder-and-manslaughter/


I don't believe that her walking the dog in the area is new information. This was reported by the neighbours as her story for why she could have been the person in the video.

McClintic told neighbours it could have been her in the video because of events the day before and the day of the abduction.

"She said that could have been her in the video because the day before (the abduction) she had been walking with a dog around the school area and some little girls had been talking to her and petting her dog," said next-door neighbour Jessica McDonald, 30.

"The day that Tori was abducted, she said it could have been her on the surveillance because she was talking with a little girl and the little girl kept asking her where was her dog."

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/05/22/9532666-sun.html?cid=MKTNBPTorontoSUN___EN20080611NB3

 

[~n/t~]

Okay, I have questions about how that.

Witness - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia



I think I get what's being said, but can anyone give me examples or just maybe elaborate a little more so that I can get a better understanding why a request to recall a witness would be granted.

I don't get the "contradicts evidence" part because its my understanding is that people such as experts that testify or people like Tara can be recalled regardless. YKWIM?

TIA

Another ETA: Is a sig showing up for me?

My understanding is when a witness is recalled by the opposing party it is to ask direct questions versus cross questions relating to the testimony that had just been given. In other words, as an example, the prosecution did not ask TM if she or anyone in her family knew the defendant MR. The defense could not go there because it wasn't asked. When the defense calls her as a witness for direct questioning, he can ask that question.

A request needs to be made so the witness is on standby for a recall. They can't go out of town or vacation, etc. Some cases are tried in different towns so it allows the witness to make arrangements.

HTH

One example is Cindy Anthony in the Casey Anthony case. She was a prosecution witness but then was recalled by the defense. There were other prosecution witnesses in that case that were recalled including Detective Melich.


ETA: I don't see your sig.

:moo:

 

[Oldsoul2]

BBM
In Canada, 1st degree murder is an automatic life sentence with no parole for 25 years.


http://info.lawyershop.ca/criminal/index.php/archives/2008/11/27/the-sentences-resulting-from-first-degree-murder-second-degree-murder-and-manslaughter/


I don't believe that her walking the dog in the area is new information. This was reported by the neighbours as her story for why she could have been the person in the video.


http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/05/22/9532666-sun.html?cid=MKTNBPTorontoSUN___EN20080611NB3

1st degree murder is with intent which I believe is premeditated murder if I'm correct. TLM walking her dog in the area was news to me. I had never heard that information before.

 

[dar107]

My understanding is when a witness is recalled by the opposing party it is to ask direct questions versus cross questions relating to the testimony that had just been given. In other words, as an example, the prosecution did not ask TM if she or anyone in her family knew the defendant MR. The defense could not go there because it wasn't asked. When the defense calls her as a witness for direct questioning, he can ask that question.

A request needs to be made so the witness is on standby for a recall. They can't go out of town or vacation, etc. Some cases are tried in different towns so it allows the witness to make arrangements.

HTH

One example is Cindy Anthony in the Casey Anthony case. She was a prosecution witness but then was recalled by the defense. There were other prosecution witnesses in that case that were recalled including Detective Melich.


ETA: I don't see your sig.

:moo:

If the case is that the defense plans to call TM back for direct questioning, would she still not be allowed to sit in on the trial? I am sure I saw a tweet from Cynthia Mulligan that TM would now be allowed in the courtroom.

 

[dilbert]

1st degree murder is with intent which I believe is premeditated murder if I'm correct. TLM walking her dog in the area was news to me. I had never heard that information before.

You're correct, a premeditated murder in Canada is 1st degree, however, TLM and MR were not charged with 1st degree because the Crown believes the crime was premeditated, they were charged with 1st degree murder because Tori's death occurred during the commission of a kidnapping and/or sexual assault. Even if Tori died accidentally, (which we all know she didn't), the charge would still be first degree. That charge carries an automatic life sentence.

1st Degree Murder
This is the most serious charge of murder. It includes acts that are:

1) planned and deliberate; -or-

2) instances involving: contracted murder, murder of a police officer (any peace officer performing his duties), hijacking, sexual assault, kidnapping, terrorism, criminal harassment, criminal organizations, intimidation.

The criminal code thus automatically deems murders that occur during the commission of several other offences as automatically 1st degree, even if they are not planned and deliberate.

Also, murder of a peace officer in the course of his duties is 1st degree, even if not planned and deliberate. For instance, Richard Kachkar was automatically charged with 1st degree murder in the killing of Toronto police officer Ryan Russell, despite that he likely did not plan the act of killing beforehand.

http://www.accused.ca/murder.htm

 

[~n/t~]

If the case is that the defense plans to call TM back for direct questioning, would she still not be allowed to sit in on the trial? I am sure I saw a tweet from Cynthia Mulligan that TM would now be allowed in the courtroom.

Right. That is my understanding. She can't attend if she's a witness. Do we know for sure if she will be called by the defense? I don't remember seeing a tweet about that.

IMO, calling TM would be a big mistake for the defense. Regardless of her drug use, she's not the one on trial. I think they did enough on cross. They tried to paint her as a bad mom. A drug addict who didn't make arrangements to have her daughter picked up from school. So do they expect the jury to believe it's all TM's fault?

I don't think she'll be called.:moo:

 

[Alethea Dice]

If the case is that the defense plans to call TM back for direct questioning, would she still not be allowed to sit in on the trial? I am sure I saw a tweet from Cynthia Mulligan that TM would now be allowed in the courtroom.

There was another tweet where someone asked if TM was done now or if she would be called back, and Cynthia Mulligan stated that she was done.

<mod snip>
FavoritedFavorite · Close Open Details @CityCynthia is Tara now done or is their intentions of calling her back to testify?

7 Mar Cynthia Mulligan &#8207; @CityCynthia
Reply RetweetedRetweet Delete FavoritedFavorite · Close Open Details
@boxersmart Tara McDonald is done testifying.

https://twitter.com/#!/CityCynthia

I'm not sure how this works. I thought that the defense had to request the option of recalling a crown witness. If they don't request it, they can't recall later. JMO

 

[flipflop]

CityCynthia Cynthia Mulligan

<mod snip> Tara McDonald is now allowed to attend the trial

 

[Hello_Kitty]

Right. That is my understanding. She can't attend if she's a witness. Do we know for sure if she will be called by the defense? I don't remember seeing a tweet about that.

IMO, calling TM would be a big mistake for the defense. Regardless of her drug use, she's not the one on trial. I think they did enough on cross. They tried to paint her as a bad mom. A drug addict who didn't make arrangements to have her daughter picked up from school. So do they expect the jury to believe it's all TM's fault?

I don't think she'll be called.:moo:

BBM

I think TM showed a great deal of self-restraint. During those daily press conferences she appeared to have a short fuse... but she did well on the stand in the face of those insinuations by the defence lawyer.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

My understanding is when a witness is recalled by the opposing party it is to ask direct questions versus cross questions relating to the testimony that had just been given. In other words, as an example, the prosecution did not ask TM if she or anyone in her family knew the defendant MR. The defense could not go there because it wasn't asked. When the defense calls her as a witness for direct questioning, he can ask that question.

A request needs to be made so the witness is on standby for a recall. They can't go out of town or vacation, etc. Some cases are tried in different towns so it allows the witness to make arrangements.

HTH

One example is Cindy Anthony in the Casey Anthony case. She was a prosecution witness but then was recalled by the defense. There were other prosecution witnesses in that case that were recalled including Detective Melich.


ETA: I don't see your sig.

:moo:

Okay, that's what I thought, that helps a lot. I just wanted to make sure because that wiki threw me for a loop. Thanks!

I wish there were somewhere else on the web besides wiki that had a better explanation of the ins and outs and everything in betweens of the legal system. Anyone know of anything like that? Especially Canada's since I'm here in the US...