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

[Ardy]

Respectfully snipped

I beg to differ, here. There is hard, physical evidence against MR. Maybe he would not have been caught, is that what you mean? But, once caught, there is plenty of evidence to tell the story. Most notably, Tori's blood in his car.

Salem

If we took the bold part of your post as one small example.............

The experts found TS blood in MR's car. That is direct, unrefuted evidence.

The experts did not say how..........or when........it got there.

Circumstantial evidence is not speculative opinion.

In order to qualify as circumstantial evidence, it must be linked to a known and proven fact.

The Crown cannot link the blood to a sexual assault.........as the experts testified there was no evidence a sexual assault took place.

The Crown can link the blood to a murder........as the body of TS was found murdered.

To do is speculative.........but it is linked to a fact, nonetheless.

The defense may challenge the validity of the Crown's linkage of the evidence to the fact.......by substituting a different possible scenario.

In this instance.........the fact the blood is on the floor does not determine who caused the blood to be on the floor., or what caused it to be there.

Justice Heeney has listened very carefully to the trial, and trial judges are quite experienced at presiding over jury less trials, so he will spend the 2 days going over each piece of evidence and determining if the evidence is linked together with a known fact and should or should not be allowed in deliberations by the jury.

My wife sat on a first degree murder trial jury many years ago, and although she cannot discuss the details of jury deliberations, she did say the jury paid very close attention to what the Judge told them they could consider.. .......and that is all they considered, despite some frustration.

JMO..........

 

[Salem]

Respectfully snipped

The defense will be only too happy to inject some doubt into the spaces left open by the Crown's case.


JMO..........

It seems to me it is too late now to inject doubt. Whatever doubt was going to be injected should have been done, with a summary of it during the closing argument. There is no presentation of new evidence allowed in closing arugments - it is what it is, and the closing should sum it up and stress the key points.

Are you feeling like the defense has not yet injected doubt into those spaces? Are you still waiting for the defense to put something on the table that will stand up to the Crown's case?

Just wondering how you are feeling about what has been done to this point?

Salem

 

[Ardy]

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

You are right that the defense didn't produce much evidence of their own, but they have lots of Crown evidence they can use to refute the specific charges against MR.

I use the term "specific charges" because despite MR being revealed as a low life, immoral with no conscience...........(assuming the defense doesn't dispute the fact he was there when TS was murdered and helped hide the evidence), he isn't charged with those offenses at this time.

I think Justice Heeney might have let too many witnesses take the stand, who offered nothing of evidence relating to the charges, before he finally cut if all off and instructed the jury to ignore the testimony.

We will learn if Derstine allowed the witnesses to testify and then objected so that all of their testimony is thrown out as a whole. All about the timing of the objection maybe?

Should be an interesting charge to the jury........don't know how we are going to get much of it by tweets though.

JMO.....

 

[Ardy]

Respectfully snipped

It seems to me it is too late now to inject doubt. Whatever doubt was going to be injected should have been done, with a summary of it during the closing argument. There is no presentation of new evidence allowed in closing arugments - it is what it is, and the closing should sum it up and stress the key points.

Are you feeling like the defense has not yet injected doubt into those spaces? Are you still waiting for the defense to put something on the table that will stand up to the Crown's case?

Just wondering how you are feeling about what has been done to this point?

Salem

I think the defense has done a very good job of using short and direct cross examination to get their point across.

The defense cross examinaion of TLM was stellar. She is the star witness for the Crown.........and her credibility and reliability as an honest witness was severely challenged. In addition Derstine asked TLM specific questions that she denied.........and at the end of the trial presented a witness whose testimony directly contradicted that of TLM. The jury was left to believe either TLM or the grandmother. This is an ideal situation for the defense....comparing someone with TLM's record of accomplishments with a Grandmother.

The pathologist and forensics experts testified at length and presented a large amount of scientific data...........but at the end of the day Derstine forced them to both say..........they could not prove a sexual assault had taken place. That would have been left pretty clear to the jury members.

In his summation, Derstine can tie together TLM 's lies with the lack of "conclusive" scientific proof and question the validity of the Crown's assertions.

I think the defense was as effective as it could have been, given the restricted budget they had and the high probability that any witnesses involved in illegal activity wouldn't step forward to testify on MR's behalf.

I am thinking I would really like to be sitting there for the summaries......but doubt there will be any room and I am not lining up for anything anymore.

JMO........

 

[flipflop]

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

That is why I stated it was JMO at the beginning of my statement
I also ended with a MOO just incase you missed the JMO at the start!!!

 

[Wondergirl]

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...........

BBM 1: The truth is free.

BBM 2: In this case, if TLM's testimony were not present, the Crown would not have MTR's cell pings.

If the Crown did not have MTR's cell pings, LE may not have found Victoria's remains.

There is no denying MTR is involved.

JMO

 

[flipflop]

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

This list could go on and on....

he didn't know Terri Lynns last name....BS
when asked what he knew about the missing girl....he said he heard the helicopters....BS...this was a hot topic of his with many

 

[flipflop]

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???

This particular TH's is just a drive thru that is attached to Petro....not your typical TH's

 

[roseofsharon]

Just would like to say that the info I read in reference to MR speaking with on the topic of abductions with someone was the fact that people kidnap children in order to sometimes have a child of their own and the child grows up thinking the abductor is their parent..I never read that he was into "kidnapping a child"....just saying....JMO

Respectfully, I think he was. IMO, it was a fantasy he wanted to become a reality and he found the perfect dupe! Just MOO

 

[antiquegirl]

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

I believe IMHO that this piece of evidence was one of several that was taken entirely out of context and twisted about to make it look different than what it actually was. Derstine should have clarified this during his cross.

The fact is that MTR and SH didn't start seeing each other until April 14 - a mere six days after Tori disappeared. It was a huge topic of discussion in Woodstock and the surrounding areas. The way I see it is that MTR and SH were talking about it like everyone else. Theories and possibilities were bandied about by all. While they were discussing Tori's situation specifically, the conversation led to speculation that some children are abducted to be raised by the kidnappers as their own.

Again, this single conversation took place after Tori's disappearance. He did not, in MOO, express a fantasy about abducting children, but was expanding on the topic of child abduction in general. I can't believe for a moment that he would express a fantasy like that, especially with someone he only dated for 2 - 3 weeks. I also don't believe that abducting and keeping the child was in the plan at any time by either MTR or TLM.

JMO

"We did talk one time about abducting kids and how they take the kids and make them be like their own," ex-girlfriend Sarah Hodge, 31, testified, elaborating a few seconds later, "how people take their kids and abduct them and they just grow up thinking that they're their real parents."

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/12/rafferty-trial-continues-to-probe-dna

 

[Wondergirl]

I'm not sure missing clothes is evidence of anythiing, but if the Judge did allow it for consideration, he cannot allow the Crown to assert the missing clothes are indications of a sexual assault, without allowing the defense to offer alternative reasons for the missing clothes.

JMO..........

BBM: The Defense had their time to offer all their alternative reasons and evidence, you know, the truth, as to what happened to Victoria's clothes.

They blew it.

Derstine offered nothing.

If he is allowed to start throwing out alternatives now, it will come across a day late, and a dollar short, to the jury, if you ask me.

That is just my opinion though.

JMO

 

[roseofsharon]

Agree to disagree.

Since VS was linked to MR and to TLM that theory doesn't make sense.

MR had a lot of experience with women, so it would be illogical to believe he would trust any women to keep the rape of a child a secret without some kind of control ... Control he did not have, over TLM or any other women ...

Tell me it was a kidnapping for finicial gain that went terribly wrong and I would buy that ...

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

 

[roseofsharon]

I believe IMHO that this piece of evidence was one of several that was taken entirely out of context and twisted about to make it look different than what it actually was. Derstine should have clarified this during his cross.

The fact is that MTR and SH didn't start seeing each other until April 14 - a mere six days after Tori disappeared. It was a huge topic of discussion in Woodstock and the surrounding areas. The way I see it is that MTR and SH were talking about it like everyone else. Theories and possibilities were bandied about by all. While they were discussing Tori's situation specifically, the conversation led to speculation that some children are abducted to be raised by the kidnappers as their own.

Again, this single conversation took place after Tori's disappearance. He did not, in MOO, express a fantasy about abducting children, but was expanding on the topic of child abduction in general. I can't believe for a moment that he would express a fantasy like that, especially with someone he only dated for 2 - 3 weeks. I also don't believe that abducting and keeping the child was in the plan at any time by either MTR or TLM.

JMO


http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/12/rafferty-trial-continues-to-probe-dna

Respectfully, the fact that he would even go there verbally with someone or even be with someone, less than 24 hours after what he had been involved in, IMO, is someone with a guilty conscientious and by talking about kidnapping/abducting children that live as the kidnapper's child is his way of "ugly coping" (Jose Baez). MOO

 

[Macright]

I believe IMHO that this piece of evidence was one of several that was taken entirely out of context and twisted about to make it look different than what it actually was. Derstine should have clarified this during his cross.

The fact is that MTR and SH didn't start seeing each other until April 14 - a mere six days after Tori disappeared. It was a huge topic of discussion in Woodstock and the surrounding areas. The way I see it is that MTR and SH were talking about it like everyone else. Theories and possibilities were bandied about by all. While they were discussing Tori's situation specifically, the conversation led to speculation that some children are abducted to be raised by the kidnappers as their own.

Again, this single conversation took place after Tori's disappearance. He did not, in MOO, express a fantasy about abducting children, but was expanding on the topic of child abduction in general. I can't believe for a moment that he would express a fantasy like that, especially with someone he only dated for 2 - 3 weeks. I also don't believe that abducting and keeping the child was in the plan at any time by either MTR or TLM.

JMO


http://www.torontosun.com/2012/04/12/rafferty-trial-continues-to-probe-dna

what you posted above is how most took what that witness testified... as you said it was the talk of the town and outside of that area at the time...lord knows I might have even said the same myself in the course of conversations that were discussed at the time...I actually find it difficult to try and make something out of that..I am sure if he had suggested or mentioned that it was a lifetime ambition of his to abduct a child the witness would have testified the same as she was under oath and a crown witness..I believe the reason she didn't was because that was all he meant and he is correct in making that statement because that has happened to children that have been abducted in the past.. I believe that is what a jury would take it as also and I doubt if they would even consider that statement when they get together to decide the outcome.. I would be totally surprised if they convict him on rape or even murder because someone else has confessed to the crime and said it was her alone...the most they could convict him on would be the fact that he helped with the disposal of TS body...It would shock me if our justice system convicts him on 1st degree for that but I would expect manslaughter to be their only recourse...all I can say is if the 1st degree sticks that be prepared for a long drawn out appeal because rightly IMO they have not proved rape nor knowledge at the start of a kidnapping and of course it would be foolish to consider murder because the self confessed murderer is already serving a sentence for that...she only fingered him for a rape etc..she did not say he did the deed nor that he even helped her to do it...JMO JMO JMO

 

[Macright]

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

I personally think that statement was just another lie on the part of TLM..she was "juicing it up" for shock.....JMO

 

[Ardy]

In my view, the last witness for the defense will be a big part of Derstine's opening. She was there......she saw TLM walk behind the teachers and right into the front door of the building.

She drove to the school, so her vision is fine.

She saw the very same woman.......TLM........walking along the sidewalk.

Unless TLM has an identical twin, who was also wearing a white puffy jacket, who was also at the school that day at the same time...........and walked into the front doors of the building..........TLM walked in to the front doors of the school looking for TS.....no doubt in my mind.......or I think the jurors.

TLM also denied the woman's statement she was walking quickly with TS following.

That is an obvious lie and supports the witness testimony over TLMs.

From there.......Derstine is going to show how each piece of evidence shows TLM had planned the abduction and lied all the way to Mount Forest.

JMO........

 

[Thinkzerz]

Is court back in Monday or Tuesday?

 

[flipflop]

I don't think TLM is a scape goat ... I think she is a violent unpredictable junkie whose rage has stabbed two people, beaten her mother twice, microwaved a dog and admitted to killing an innocent little girl. (that's what we know)

What I don't believe is MR manipulating TLM into participating in a brutal kidnapping for rape. big risk no gain, involving TLM ...

He had access to children and manipulating skills to lure them ... Why involve TLM?If the crown said TLM and MR kidnapped VS because they wanted a ransom or even money owed for a drug debts ... but during the abduction TLM lost control and beat VS breaking her ribs ... Then they decided to kill her for they believed she was already dying from the aspirating blood ... They took her bottoms off so when she was found they would look for a sexual predator, after all that is everyone first thought when a little girl goes missing. I would believe that ....

The problem lies in the crown is asking the jury to believe MR motive was based on a sexual assault which included TLM a girl with a history and nothing to gain by keeping his secret.

It takes time to developed trust, and I don't believe MR trusted TLM with his life.

This is all MOO....
He involved TLM to place the blame on her... TLM was the one to go to the school and take VS, visible for all to see....notice how MR parked out of the way. MR withdrew money before they went to HD, notice how he didn't want a paper trail with his ATM card at HD. TLM went in to buy the hammer and garbage bags....notice how MR stayed in his car away from the front of the store. MR thought he had a perfect plan, to keep himself out of the limelight and TLM in it.

I believe that MR involved TLM as it would be easy to blame her for this crime as she has the past that fits the bill. Again, this is all MOO.

 

[Tahorn]

what you posted above is how most took what that witness testified... as you said it was the talk of the town and outside of that area at the time...lord knows I might have even said the same myself in the course of conversations that were discussed at the time...I actually find it difficult to try and make something out of that..I am sure if he had suggested or mentioned that it was a lifetime ambition of his to abduct a child the witness would have testified the same as she was under oath and a crown witness..I believe the reason she didn't was because that was all he meant and he is correct in making that statement because that has happened to children that have been abducted in the past.. I believe that is what a jury would take it as also and I doubt if they would even consider that statement when they get together to decide the outcome.. I would be totally surprised if they convict him on rape or even murder because someone else has confessed to the crime and said it was her alone...the most they could convict him on would be the fact that he helped with the disposal of TS body...It would shock me if our justice system convicts him on 1st degree for that but I would expect manslaughter to be their only recourse...all I can say is if the 1st degree sticks that be prepared for a long drawn out appeal because rightly IMO they have not proved rape nor knowledge at the start of a kidnapping and of course it would be foolish to consider murder because the self confessed murderer is already serving a sentence for that...she only fingered him for a rape etc..she did not say he did the deed nor that he even helped her to do it...JMO JMO JMO

a lot of this case bothers me, for certain statements and or incidents I have been guilty of saying and doing myself ... When Tori first went missing I had hoped it was someone desperate for a child (best case seniario) ...Years ago a coworker and I went camping, and at the last minute my coworker ended up babysitting her friends kid and I suggested bringing him along since he was the same age as my daughter ... At no time did I talk to the mother, I assumed the mother was ok with it, after all she trusted my coworker or at least that is what I assumed ... I'll tell you one thing, after hearing the comments on this site ... I will never ever do that again ...

 

[snoofer]

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...........

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