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

[matou]

TLM testified that MR threw Tori on the ground and was kicking her. He could have directly contributed to Tori's death. He definitely participated in her death.

#Rafferty - warning again. Very disturbing testimony. Mcclintic says rafferty kicking child on ground

McClintic said Rafferty knocked Tori down onto the ground and began kicking Tori repeatedly near the passenger side of the car.

http://www.1047.ca/local-news/michael-rafferty-trial

 

[snoofer]

Try removing MTR from the equation and TLM from the equation and what do you get.

a. TS abducted; she didn't make it home from school that day
b. TS found, brutally murdered by a hammer, no pants, in garbage bags, disposed of in a rock pile.

What does common sense tell us happened to TS.

Now add in, video sees woman lead TS away to awaiting car at a nursing home.

What does common sense tell us happened to TS.

Video shows there was also a man in the car driving.

What can we reasonably conclude from this.


NOW add in the rest of crown evidence; forget CONJECTURE from the defense. Conjecture is not evidence.

MOO

If you THEN go back and add in conjecture and conspiracy etc then it becomes murky. But that is not evidence. It is pretty clear what happened. IMO

Has defense given any evidence that exonerates MTR or even hints at reasonable doubt? Have I missed something cause I cannot think of one piece of pro defense evidence. MOO

 

[greenthumb]

Try removing MTR from the equation and TLM from the equation and what do you get.

a. TS abducted; she didn't make it home from school that day
b. TS found, brutally murdered by a hammer, no pants, in garbage bags, disposed of in a rock pile.

What does common sense tell us happened to TS.

Now add in, video sees woman lead TS away to awaiting car at a nursing home.

What does common sense tell us happened to TS.

Video shoes there was also a man in the car driving.

What does common sense tell us happened to TS.


NOW add in the rest of crown evidence; forget CONJECTURE from the defense. Conjecture is not evidence.

MOO

If you THEN go back and add in conjecture and conspiracy etc then it becomes murky. But that is not evidence. It is pretty clear what happened. IMO

It's very hard for me to separate the conjecture from the evidence... kind of like trying to unring a bell, IMO. Which is exactly why jurors are to have no previous knowledge of a case and not to discuss or read anything about the case during the trial.

Some conjecture just rings true to me, and some does not.

I cannot be unbiased at this point, I am convinced of his guilt on all charges.

 

[antiquegirl]

Why would TLM need MR to kidnap a child? To take the child to Guelph? To take her to Mount Forest? I don't see this as TLM's idea. The drug debt is spin, IMO, so there is no reason for her to want to kidnap a child, boy or girl. Why would MR need TLM to kidnap a child? Because a girl would seem more trustworthy than a guy sitting in a deathmobile. MR and his car would stand out at a school. JMO

And yet, 90% of non-family abducted children are perpetrated by men (alone). The majority of the remaining 10% would be by female offenders. The number of non-family abducted children perpetrated by a male/female couple is so low that I can't find any statistics for them.

It would seem to me that if MTR had this fantasy, he would not want an accomplice who would be a witness and thus a threat in the future ... especially someone as unpredictable and volatile as TLM, whom he hadn't known long. He had the opportunities, the vehicle, and the strength to commit this crime all by himself. He also could have done it anywhere, preferably not in his own home town and not in a busy area. Children have been grabbed off the streets, from shopping malls, and even from their own bedrooms. Unfortunately, thousands of men have commited this type of crime without a partner.

On the other hand, regardless of the motive (and there are many possibilities there), TLM did need a partner. Without a car, there was no way she could have pulled this off on her own. From everything we have heard, she did not know many people (if any) who owned a car. She needed him.

Whatever occurred after this abduction, I'll let the jury decide. But I'm firm in my conviction that the original idea for it was TLM's and that she knew the victim. Poor little Tori; she didn't stand a chance.

JMO

I found this interesting during my research:

Offender Motivation

An abduction may occur for many reasons, including a desire to possess a child, sexual gratification, financial gain, retribution, and the desire to kill. Research findings indicate that when a child is killed, the motivation may be either emotion-based , where the abductor seeks revenge on the family; sexual-based , where the offender seeks sexual gratification from the victim; or profit-based , which involves most often ransom for money (Boudreaux et al, 2000 & 2001). Moreover, child homicide usually follows an abduction and is not the reason for the abduction. Abduction-homicide studies have suggested that "a number of abductors kill their victims because of a predisposition to do so" (Hanfland et al, 1997).

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/omc-ned/abd-rapt-eng.htm

 

[snoofer]

It's very hard for me to separate the conjecture from the evidence... kind of like trying to unring a bell, IMO. Which is exactly why jurors are to have no previous knowledge of a case and not to discuss or read anything about the case during the trial.

Some conjecture just rings true to me, and some does not.

I cannot be unbiased at this point, I am convinced of his guilt on all charges.

I find it easier to look at just facts and only facts on both sides or lack of. The problem for defense is they are not offering any facts. That is telling to me. They are only offering, "could haves". That is conjecture.

A fact to me from defense would be,
a. a concrete alibi
b. testimony from the other person present that can be backed up by evidence such as what the crown did with TLM. Example, MTR facts presented could be, here is where the hammer is, my fingerprints are not on it - and fingerprinting prooves the statement is true. THAT is evidence and not conjecture. There would be many facts like this able to be presented IF the defendant were innocent. MOO
c. a moment by moment statement by the defendent of what HE did or happened during those hours. Not conjecture from his lawyer.

JMO

Derstine is a seasoned lawyer. He KNOWS what evidence is as opposed to conjecture. IF he had evidence he could present that can be backed up and seen as fact then he WOULD present it. I would have to assume it doesn't exist. MOO

 

[matou]

And yet, 90% of non-family abducted children are perpetrated by men (alone). The majority of the remaining 10% would be by female offenders. The number of non-family abducted children perpetrated by a male/female couple is so low that I can't find any statistics for them.

It would seem to me that if MTR had this fantasy, he would not want an accomplice who would be a witness and thus a threat in the future ... especially someone as unpredictable and volatile as TLM, whom he hadn't known long. He had the opportunities, the vehicle, and the strength to commit this crime all by himself. He also could have done it anywhere, preferably not in his own home town and not in a busy area. Children have been grabbed off the streets, from shopping malls, and even from their own bedrooms. Unfortunately, thousands of men have commited this type of crime without a partner.

On the other hand, regardless of the motive (and there are many possibilities there), TLM did need a partner. Without a car, there was no way she could have pulled this off on her own. From everything we have heard, she did not know many people (if any) who owned a car. She needed him.

Whatever occurred after this abduction, I'll let the jury decide. But I'm firm in my conviction that the original idea for it was TLM's and that she knew the victim. Poor little Tori; she didn't stand a chance.

JMO

I found this interesting during my research:


http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/omc-ned/abd-rapt-eng.htm

Respectfully, I disagree with your post. JMO He needed her to fulfull his sexually deviant fantasy of raping a child. I agree with this part of your post though, "She didn't stand a chance." He wanted to be SURE to get a child. I am very confident that after this trial is over, we will all see how he planned this abduction. JMO

 

[antiquegirl]

TLM testified that MR threw Tori on the ground and was kicking her. He could have directly contributed to Tori's death. He definitely participated in her death.

http://www.1047.ca/local-news/michael-rafferty-trial

Those quotes are from TLM's 2009 "confession". She retracted them during this trial.

AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court
Video ends. McClintic said again (in 2009) Rafferty kicked Tori in the ribs. Says today it was herself.

AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court
McClintic says she also "stomped" Tori, not Rafferty.

CTV London Breaking‏@CTVLondonBRK
Gowdey points out she said Tori was kicked a couple of times in the ribs, and she admits she did it.

James Armstrong‏@jamesarmstrong7
McClintic says parts of her statement in may 2009 wasn't correct.

James Armstrong‏@jamesarmstrong7
McClintic again reaffirms that she was the only one who hit and kicked Tori.

Both versions are considered evidence. Again, we're back to believing what we choose to believe. It's not important what we believe; it's what the jury believes that will determine the verdict.

JMO

 

[OhSoCurious]

JMO I feel that MR thought he could successfully complete this fantasy together with TLM because he found her to be crazy enough to help him out. After the crime was completed I feel he thought he could say "we can't be seen together" and that would end this so called relationship, use her and move on. He probably didn't think of TLM being picked up so soon after the crime, perhaps he didn't even know the extent of her past that she would be picked up for anything. Once she was picked up by LE, he probably was very paranoid and stayed in contact with her, with visits to the detention center to find out what LE was asking, saying, and what TLM was saying. He then realized...Im stuck with this crazy person or else she will spill the beans on me, I have to stay on her good side, I cannot move on from her.
MOO

There was NO EVIDENCE displayed in court that this was a fantasy of Rafferty's. There was plenty of evidence that such horrid displays of rage and brutality could be exercised against poor Tori by TLM. JMO MOO

 

[OhSoCurious]

Respectfully, I disagree with your post. JMO He needed her to fulfull his sexually deviant fantasy of raping a child. I agree with this part of your post though, "She didn't stand a chance." He wanted to be SURE to get a child. I am very confident that after this trial is over, we will all see how he planned this abduction. JMO

There was NO EVIDENCE displayed in court that this was a fantasy of Rafferty's. There was plenty of evidence that such horrid displays of rage and brutality could be exercised against poor Tori by TLM. JMO MOO

 

[OhSoCurious]

And mtr had the same choice so why didn't he? We don't know 100 percent if she brutally killed her. Just because she admitted it doesn't mean she did as there was no evidence found that could say who actually did it. So if you believe she did and not the rape how does that make sense?

They are both guilty as sin in my eyes no matter who actually killed her. They both could have let her go but didn't, they both could have told the truth they both didn't and whatever was said was lies.

I think I am going to go back and remove her testimony and I think at that time I will have decided he is guilty of all three charges jmo

"We don't know 100 percent if she brutally killed her."

It doesn't matter, does it? The jury must go by her testimony on that confession. The judge will remind them and guide them in that direction over his two days with the jury. JMO MOO

 

[crazyladi]

"We don't know 100 percent if she brutally killed her."

It doesn't matter, does it? The jury must go by her testimony on that confession. The judge will remind them and guide them in that direction over his two days with the jury. JMO MOO

It's evidence that can't be trusted. It's he said she said evidence. Do they have to use what wasn't proven by evidence? She may have confessed to it but evidence couldnt prove she killed her. Jmo

 

[LadyL]

attempting to be objective here and for this exercise I'm going to ignore the blood evidence and the cell tower pings and focus on the initial abduction:

is there reasonable doubt? it's my feeling that the evidence has to tie TLM & MR together

is it reasonable to assume that it is Rafferty's car driving by the school? yes
is it reasonable to assume Rafferty was driving the car? yes
is it reasonable to assume that TLM is the one on video walking with Tori? yes

is it reasonable to assume that it is indeed Rafferty's car pulling into the retirement home parking lot? not sure (the image is too far away for even the expert to identify it as Rafferty's car but McClintic testified that's where Rafferty was parked)

is it reasonable to assume that since TLM was seen on video with Tori and seen later on video getting out of Rafferty's car, that Rafferty was (still) driving and Tori was with them? not sure (the answer seems to hinge on TLM's testimony and credibility)

is it too coincidental that Rafferty's car drove by that school at almost the same time that TLM was walking with Tori? in my mind, yes and hopefully the jury's too

that's not proof of kidnapping but it narrows the field of reasonable doubt considerably

 

[antiquegirl]

Respectfully, I disagree with your post. JMO He needed her to fulfull his sexually deviant fantasy of raping a child. I agree with this part of your post though, "She didn't stand a chance." He wanted to be SURE to get a child. I am very confident that after this trial is over, we will all see how he planned this abduction. JMO

The only evidence we have that he actually had such a fantasy or that he planned the abduction is TLM's testimony. This is not enough to convince me. If and when we hear any more verifiable evidence to prove this, I am open to changing my mind.

This again, as with so much of this case, is dependent upon TLM's credibility and everyone's interpretation of it.

JMO

 

[Tahorn]

Not to mention, TLM was the perfect scapegoat. Who better to blame the whole thing on? A troubled, violent 18 year old junkie. Obviously, some are buying into it. JMO

It is very hard to blame an 18 year old female junkie if even one piece of evidence proved a sexual assault ... not a thought out plan.

 

[roseofsharon]

There was NO EVIDENCE displayed in court that this was a fantasy of Rafferty's. There was plenty of evidence that such horrid displays of rage and brutality could be exercised against poor Tori by TLM. JMO MOO

However, we do have the testimony that one of his topics of conversation with his date was abducting children. Now, if a 28 year old man openly discusses the kidnapping of a child with a random date, I can only imagine what he ruminates about in private, i.e. FANTASY!!! Since MTR is a sex and drug addict, IMO, this compulsion to act upon his fantasty just got the better of him and he used TLM (a willing participant) to act out his fantasy. However, IMO, MTR is extremely motivated by money, therefore, IMO, there is something sordid that has not been divulged yet.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/12/19627411.html




MOO

 

[matou]

Anyone who rapes someone, a child or adult, likely fantasied about it. As to evidence, there is sperm mixed with Tori's blood on the INSIDE molding of the rear passenger door, right where TLM said he was with Tori. She is naked from the waist down, she was no doubt raped. JMO

 

[roseofsharon]

The only evidence we have that he actually had such a fantasy or that he planned the abduction is TLM's testimony. This is not enough to convince me. If and when we hear any more verifiable evidence to prove this, I am open to changing my mind.

This again, as with so much of this case, is dependent upon TLM's credibility and everyone's interpretation of it.

JMO

What about MTR's credibility? The jury heard all MTR's lies during his interview with LE .... all his pausing, answering the question with the same question, trying to think of what would be a good answer for LE, so it would take any focus LE may have had off of him.

He didn't know Amanda's last name = BS
He didn't know if Amanada worked = BS
He didn't know Amanda's daughter's name = BS

Add to this, he couldn't even say TS, but referred to her as "the girl that went missing" ....... he's pathetic!!!

MOO

 

[Thinkzerz]

Finally found video links that will work on my iPad.*

MOO:
I watched the part 2 first. I found watching TLM's walk in to home depot very distinctive. Also, the video is so clear in the home depot store. You clearly see the white jacket with the black stripe detail on the sleeve and hood.
So when I watched the Part 1 video link, I have no doubt that the person walking with Victoria at the school was one and the same, TLM.
Amazing how long a minute can seem in a video.

Crown evidence videos ( last chapter)

Part 1

http://www.torontosun.com/videos/fe...intic-surveillance-video-part-1/1595207792001

Part 2

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

There are also other video links.

Awhile back I mentioned that one of the pictures was labelled Petro?Tim Hortons. I was questioned on it and again looked at the pics and that label was gone. I thought i was imagining things. Until I saw this 2nd video ( :23 )and it says Petro Can/Tim Hortons.
I can't remember who asked me about this as they looked and the label was gone. Anyways here it says it in the 2nd video. Glad to know i wasn't going crazy lol. Also people on here said there is no Tim Hortons attached to this Petro Can???

 

[Salem]

Those quotes are from TLM's 2009 "confession". She retracted them during this trial.



Both versions are considered evidence. Again, we're back to believing what we choose to believe. It's not important what we believe; it's what the jury believes that will determine the verdict.

JMO

RBBM - It is what the jury believes that counts. The only part of TLM's statement that was retracted, as far as I am aware, is the stomping and killing. The jury has both the video of the original statement and TLM's testimony - they will decide for themselves where she is lying and where she is not. I know I keep saying this, but it is because the jury has a great advantage over us, as far as this testimony goes.

And given that TLM did not retract the rape, and the physical evidence supports her testimony, it seems highly unlikely that the jury will disregard her statements.

Salem

 

[Bravo]

Agree the plan was not well thought out however i do think certain aspects of it certainly was. When TLM entered HD i think Rafferty was only to happy to have her on video. He drops her off away from her home where he may be seen. All of the cover up and cleaning. His need was fulfilled and so was TLM's. I think Rafferty would be only too happy to let her take the fall. There does seem to be evidence that this had been discussed but happened on the spur of the moment. At least in my mind it does. How often do we see a socio who doesn't think past 10 minutes? I believe that explains much.