weekend discussion thread: 4/14-16/2012

[daisy.faithfull]

Actus rea. Assuming we take defense explanation. He found out later from TLM that she was taken into his car for drug debt. The moment he realized this actus rea was in play. Kidnapping, what actions did he follow next and what was the result. Tori was brutally murdered and his actions or inaction (actus rea) is still responsible IMO.

Yes, but to be found guilty of the current charges, they have to establish mens rea. That's important here in order for him to get the life sentence. :moo:

 

[Flowercb]

Actus rea. Assuming we take defense explanation. He found out later from TLM that she was taken into his car for drug debt. The moment he realized this actus rea was in play. Kidnapping, what actions did he follow next and what was the result. Tori was brutally murdered and his actions or inaction (actus rea) is still responsible IMO.

At the very least he is guilty of this! MOO

 

[Flowercb]

Yes, but to be found guilty of the current charges, they have to establish mens rea. That's important here in order for him to get the life sentence. :moo:

Legalise. Last time I head the term mens rea was on the movie Legally Blond.

 

[snoofer]

Bolded and coloured by me above...

IMO this is exactly where the defence's story starts to break down. If MTR was in his car, in the parking lot waiting at the top of the hill for TLM and Tori ... for either reason - drug debt or sexual purposes... then he was aware of the kidnapping. If he was aware of the kidnapping ... Murder 1st degree... Period. Throw away the key

MOO

EXACTLY! He was waiting for TLM to come back from the school and then LEFT TOWN with a "strange child to him" and in that act...an innocent child was kidnapped, raped and brutally and with malice killed. MOO

 

[snoofer]

Legalise. Last time I head the term mens rea was on the movie Legally Blond.

actus rea is important too; what actions did he take or inaction that resulted in the kidnap, rape and brutal death of TS. MOO

Truly, a 28 year old man takes a strange child in his car and leaves town.......an 8 year old girl. It does not take a genious from ________ to figure out how this story would end. MOO Totally predictable outcome.

haha Totally Blonde; hilarious movie, loved it!

 

[giantalkinghead]

EXACTLY! He was waiting for TLM to come back from the school and then LEFT TOWN with a "strange child to him" and in that act...an innocent child was kidnapped, raped and brutally and with malice killed. MOO

At this point - IMO - they don't even have to prove the rape. Kidnapping and the violent murder are more than enough to find 1st degree murder.

I think I've finally found the reason for me to fall off the fence !!

 

[nobodyzgirl]

When you said it hasn't been proven that he was there do you mean when the actual murder took place, because it has been proven he was there, by his lawyer?

During cross examination, his lawyer suggested to TLM that MR was horrified at what she had done and helped clean up, he also suggested to TLM that she could confirm or deny that the scenario played out that way, she vehemently denied it. He did not confirm that his client was there or that he participated in murder. I do understand that it is likely just semantics, though in the mind of a lawyer it is entirely different, a suggestion from confirming the facts. He was showing the jury there are a few ways it could have happened and not just the way TLM stated, thereby creating reasonable doubt and poking holes at the evidence the Crown has presented. jMO

 

[snoofer]

During cross examination, his lawyer suggested to TLM that MR was horrified at what she had done and helped clean up, he also suggested to TLM that she could confirm or deny that the scenario played out that way, she vehemently denied it. He did not confirm that his client was there or that he participated in murder. I do understand that it is likely just semantics, though in the mind of a lawyer it is entirely different, a suggestion from confirming the facts. He was showing the jury there are a few ways it could have happened and not just the way TLM stated, thereby creating reasonable doubt and poking holes at the evidence the Crown has presented. jMO

interesting. MOO

 

[snoofer]

In the act of taking a "strange child" out of town; a reasonably prudent person would know that by law this act is kidnapping without express permission from the parent to the person driving the car. During the commission of a kidnapping, the kidnapper bears responsibility for the end result of what happened to the victim IMO. And if he didn't know it was illegal and called kidnapping; too bad so sad, ignorance of the law is no excuse. And that is a legal term MOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO He had NO PERMISSION from her parents to take TS in his car OR out of town and during this act this beautiful child died a gruesome death. IMO

 

[daisy.faithfull]

True..........parking is banned near schools and everyone parks down side streets and away from the school. , School staff, school buses and handicap vans use up whatever little parking there is.

It isn't unusual to see kids walking up the street to meet up with their parents parked somewhere.

Which always brings a question to mind, about TLM not knowing VS.

How would she know that someone wasn't waiting for VS further down the road........or in the very parking lot that MR parked in at Caressant Care?

TLM and VS even passed at least one adult ( I believe she testified) on the street who was waiting for her own child.

How did TLM know VS wasn't her child?

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

Regarding the "how did TLM know Tori wasn't her child?":
That's a good question, but I think in general it's easy to see the difference between people that are walking in the same area or close to one another and people that are walking with one another. MOO

And then regarding the "everyone":
That word got me to thinking, does everyone know how the system works when it comes to parking around a school/picking children up?

I know about that stuff because I've picked children up from school, but it is very different from when I was in school. Is is a given that MTR would have been aware of the system? Of course TLM would have been in the car with him so she could have told him, but still it makes me wonder why there is no video of the car approaching/slowing school parking lot entrances that are normally open and then moving on when it's discovered they are blocked off. That could possibly demonstrate that MTR wasn't merely innocently driving around the school, but casing the area. Can't say for sure of course, but it just made me go hmmmmmmmmmm.

MOO

 

[daisy.faithfull]

actus rea is important too; what actions did he take or inaction that resulted in the kidnap, rape and brutal death of TS. MOO

Truly, a 28 year old man takes a strange child in his car and leaves town.......an 8 year old girl. It does not take a genious from ________ to figure out how this story would end. MOO Totally predictable outcome.

haha Totally Blonde; hilarious movie, loved it!

Actus rea is important, but it's presence alone won't get him convicted of 1st degree muder. In order for MTR to be convicted of 1st degree murder they have to prove that MTR acted with a "guilty mind"/mens rea, that he knew the moment Tori got into his car that she would likely end up dead. So mens rea is an important element to the Crown's case too.

 

[snoofer]

Actus rea is important, but it's presence alone won't get him convicted of 1st degree muder. In order for MTR to be convicted of 1st degree murder they have to prove that MTR acted with a "guilty mind"/mens rea, that he knew the moment Tori got into his car that she would likely end up dead. So mens rea is an important element to the Crown's case too.

yes the guilty mind. Would a reasonable person take a strange child in their car and out of town without EXPRESS permission from the child's parents if it were not for nefarious reasons. In this day and age absolutely not. I believe this shows mens rea. MOO

I believe crown has proven actus rea and mens rea IMO

 

[snoofer]

Just my opinion, but when its really emphasized that the defence is making suggestions, it really emphasizes that the defence is putting stuff out there that may have no factual basis what so ever.

feelers IMO Guessing defense is not getting fuzzy warm feeling MOO

 

[snoofer]

As a parent, even if the child came back safe. I would have the strange man charged for taking my child in his car and taking child out of town. I would so be on the horn to LE over it. AND I have no doubt that LE would enforce the charge of kidnapping if any man took a strange child into their car even if the child was returned safe. It would STILL be kidnapping as this strange man DID NOT have parental permission to take this child in car or out of town. The fact that this child is also DEAD makes that strange man culpable of that death. MOO As well, implied permission would not be enough considering the seriousness of a stranger male taking a child out of town. MOO

 

[daisy.faithfull]

During cross examination, his lawyer suggested to TLM that MR was horrified at what she had done and helped clean up, he also suggested to TLM that she could confirm or deny that the scenario played out that way, she vehemently denied it. He did not confirm that his client was there or that he participated in murder. I do understand that it is likely just semantics, though in the mind of a lawyer it is entirely different, a suggestion from confirming the facts. He was showing the jury there are a few ways it could have happened and not just the way TLM stated, thereby creating reasonable doubt and poking holes at the evidence the Crown has presented. jMO

Just my opinion, but when it is emphasized that the defence is just making suggestions, it really emphasizes the fact that what they are saying may have no factual basis whatsoever.

ETA: sorry that this is a repost, I didn't think the first post posted.
I understand that it is just semantics, and I understand that the Crown bears the burden of truth, just saying....

 

[Jezbel]

During cross examination, his lawyer suggested to TLM that MR was horrified at what she had done and helped clean up, he also suggested to TLM that she could confirm or deny that the scenario played out that way, she vehemently denied it. He did not confirm that his client was there or that he participated in murder. I do understand that it is likely just semantics, though in the mind of a lawyer it is entirely different, a suggestion from confirming the facts. He was showing the jury there are a few ways it could have happened and not just the way TLM stated, thereby creating reasonable doubt and poking holes at the evidence the Crown has presented. jMO

Yes I understand lawyer speak. Derstine still won't be able to deny MR wasn't present when TS was in the car because her blood was found in his car and we know TLM wasn't driving it, so IMO it has been proved he was in fact there.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

yes the guilty mind. Would a reasonable person take a strange child in their car and out of town without EXPRESS permission from the child's parents if it were not for nefarious reasons. In this day and age absolutely not. I believe this shows mens rea. MOO

I believe crown has proven actus rea and mens rea IMO

Unfortunately, I can see some idiot doing that. You would think that someone wouldn't do that, but there are those out there that don't think responsibly when it comes to many aspects of life, including what is or is not appropriate to do with children.

My fear is that someone on the jury could think, "Well, what if TLM told MTR that she had to pick up someone's child from school?".

And then even if he did know that TLM was kidnapping Tori, I'm afraid a jury member could think, "Well that doesn't mean he would think Tori would die as a result of being held for ransom for a drug debt."

Yes, that juror would be giving MTR a heavy dose of benefit of the doubt, but I'm afraid that is a possibility.... I think Caylee's trial has left me this

 

[snoofer]

Unfortunately, I can see some idiot doing that. You would think that someone wouldn't do that, but there are those out there that don't think responsibly when it comes to many aspects of life, including what is or is not appropriate to do with children.

My fear is that someone on the jury could think, "Well, what if TLM told MTR that she had to pick up someone's child from school?".

And then even if he did know that TLM was kidnapping Tori, I'm afraid a jury member could think, "Well that doesn't mean he would think Tori would die as a result of being held for ransom for a drug debt."

Yes, that juror would be giving MTR a heavy dose of benefit of the doubt, but I'm afraid that is a possibility.... I think Caylee's trial has left me this

in law; ignorance of the law is no excuse.

yes some would be foolish enough to do it; but if reported by parents to LE that their child was taken in car by strange man and out of town...LE can and prob would IMO charge the person with kidnapping and that idiot would learn very quickly it is illegal. MOO It is illegal by law.

And by law he would be responsible IMO for any harm afterward that came to this child. IMO Legally you cannot just take a strange child in your car and out of town. And it is not a loaf of bread it is a child; it takes express permission not implied permission. IMO Under the law I would think that implied permission COULD be inferred if talking about a music player or something; but not for a child. I would think by law it takes EXPRESS permission. IMO

 

[daisy.faithfull]

This is a great point, Puppyraiser, and one which I keep coming back to.

Many of the arguments raised here for the Defense, reiterate the fact that TLM is a great big LIAR.

Okay, ITA. TLM is a great big LIAR.

On the other hand, she has also been TRUTHFUL.

How do you determine which of TLM's statements to believe?

Do you choose to believe her statements which best serve your pre-conceived notion of guilt?

Or do you try and corroborate her statements with the evidence presented?

This is not the first case with a witness who is a murderer themselves, nor will it be the last.

Do you corroborate her testimony or not?

JMO

This is a great post!

 

[Flowercb]

Quote:
Originally Posted by daisy.faithfull
Just my opinion, but when its really emphasized that the defence is making suggestions, it really emphasizes that the defence is putting stuff out there that may have no factual basis what so ever.


I was surprised that the defence was allowed to do that. Derstine was suggesting things to TLM and asking her to agree or disagree. I have seen stuff like this objected to in American court cases on television. MOO.