trial thread: 04/03/2012

[antiquegirl]

This was my initial thought with the description given by the Dr. of "compression." I was thinking a squeezing, like a super strong bear hug.

It will be interesting to read the news reports and see how this testimony is quoted. So far there have been several different words used. I would really like to know exactly what the Dr. said.

Salem

Salem, it's hard to know what the pathologist said "exactly", as every reporter Tweets his/her own version. But, as n/t posted, this is one:

London Free Press‏@RaffertyLFP

Kicking, stomping, compression of the chest listed as ways could be injured.

And a couple of others:

AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court

Tori was burried under rocks. Which added to the injuries found on her body.

Avery Moore‏@AveryFreeFMNews

Pollanen says children's ribs tend to be more resilient and pliable than adult ribs

Based on the above Tweet, and the fact that there has been no testimony suggesting otherwise, I find it very hard to believe that any of the rib fractures occurred as a result of a bear hug. It seems much more feasible to me that the "kicking, stomping" and/or heavy rocks on top of Tori (all in evidence) were the cause of the fractures.

JMO

 

[Ardy]

You don't think that it's possible to conclude that Tory was sexually assaulted because the only evidence supporting that charge is TLM's testimony and various other circumstantial evidence, right?

Interesting that you can take TLM's word, which is also supported by circumstantial evidence, that she killed Tory, yet that is not the case when it comes to the sexual assault charge.

I'm not saying there is anything wrong with that, yet if that is the case i don't get why is it difficult for you to understand how some people have reached the conclusion that MTR raped Tory.

Certainly it is possible that a sexual assault occured, but at this point, TLM's testimony is the only evidence that it did. The pathologist stated there was no evidence of a sexual assault (which doesn't mean it didn't happen.........just that there is no evidence it did).

What circumstantial evidence is there that a sexual assault took place?

This is just my opinion at this point. Others have reached a different opinion at this point.

I respect their opinion.

 

[mkozub]

Could the mods please open the thread for today??!! PLS?

There is one already from what I can see.

 

[captaincanada]

Certainly it is possible that a sexual assault occured, but at this point, TLM's testimony is the only evidence that it did. The pathologist stated there was no evidence of a sexual assault (which doesn't mean it didn't happen.........just that there is no evidence it did).

What circumstantial evidence is there that a sexual assault took place?

This is just my opinion at this point. Others have reached a different opinion at this point.

I respect their opinion.

Without forensic evidence to suggest that this assault took place I don't see how MR can be convicted of the sexual assault. JMO

 

[Kittymama]

There is one already from what I can see.

Yeah, but it's locked.

 

[Kittymama]

Ardy, I also find your posts about women not knowing how to use a hammer offensive. It's really not rocket science, and I'd find it hard to believe that there's anyone, male or female, who doesn't know how to use a hammer properly. But whoever wielded this one wasn't concerned about proper use. They just wanted to destroy in the most vicious way possible.

 

[crazyladi]

If I was to use a hammer to do what they did I would not have used the claw and I really think that everyone would do the same. I think its automatic in everyones brain to use it the right way even children. Why use the claw? What was the purpose of it? That is the question really, not debating if it was her or him because everyone knows how to use a hammer period.

 

[~n/t~]

I sent Salem a PM and also went to flag down a mod and sent her a message as well. Maybe one of them will come by.

In the meantime grab a coffee and donut.

 

[~n/t~]

RaffertyLFP:
Court set to resume. Ontario's chief forensic pathologist Dr. Michael Rafferty expected to face cross-examination. [via Twitter]

 

[nobodyzgirl]

New Thread is open now:

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=167896"]Trial Thread 4/5/2012 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[JayFriend]

<bbm>

I disagree on the bolded part. When Dr. Pollanen addressed the lack of DNA with his expert interpretation that "it is not reasonable to expect to find any", the jury are certainly allowed to consider that expert opinion as to the reason why DNA evidence could not be produced.

Since this board does not nest quotes, here is the bolded part of antiquegirl's quote:

We also have the evidence of a renown pathologist testifying that he cannot prove that a sexual assault had taken place. The reason for this is irrelevant for the jury's consideration. They are to consider evidence presented, not the reason for lack of it.

I wondered earlier whether Rafferty's DNA could be found in Tori's remains, but maybe there's nobody here with the knowledge to answer that. I guess you can Google "what destroys DNA". It seems that strong detergents and bleaches would destroy it, but would DNA disappear in decomposing human remains over time? My guess would be no, but it would be an insurmountable task to find it, at least with the resources pathologists have in Canada. Back when DNA first began to be used for identification, it took weeks of lab work by many technicians to catalogue a single sample. Now the process is automated and computerized and much faster, but still not virtually instant like you see on CSI.

 

[myzzy]

The shirt Tori Stafford was discovered in.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...ford-died-but-not-how-someone-could-kill-her/

Using your post for image

Does the shirt seem like its pulled to the side of the torn/cut sleeve? as if being grabbed and stretched?

If a body is never found...does it mean there was no murder. People have been trialed and convicted in absence of a body.:twocents:

I believe its much harder to prove murder without a corpse, It happens more often now then it did 10 years ago iu think.


As for the sexual assult, I personally would want some physical proof it happed before convicting someone soley on sexual assult. And up to this point in the case I do not believe the Crown has estabilished enough proof to show me that a sexual assult transpired. Now, once the case is all over and the defence has had its turn in explaining what happened that night according to their client MR, my opinion may change, as taking the WHOLE CASE evidence into consideration and may believe that chances are a sexual assult did happen by looking at everything as a whole.

Personally, At this point, I do not think the Crown has proven beyond a doubt that MR comminted Kidnapping ( Have yet to see it his side, could be a dupped ) Sexual assult ( No physical evidence only circumstantial evidence) and Murder ( TLM testified that MR did not kill Tori and as of yet nothing to state he took part in the murder )

Now, we have yet to hear anything from the defence so anything can happen and the evidence that we have yet to hear about or even know about has not come out yet. They may have something in evidence that we have no clue about and will turn the whole case on a dime. We the public only hear what they want us to hear. We also have seen daily, how the tweets get twisted by a word or two as this is not a OFFICAL transcript and we are going on the tweets to convict MR.

Im not saying he is innocent by any stretch of the imagination as he has and had some responsibilty in the cover up of Tori's death at the very least and should be punished for those crimes regardless of the outcome of this case. BUT, they have only charged him with Kidnapping, Sexual Assult and murder. I assume that if he is found not guilty that the crown will recharge him with accessory after the fact or something like that, they wont just let him go scott free in my opinion

 

[Juris_Prudence]

I would obviously take the liar (maybe ex liar) who is speaking up and hope that she is telling some truths. :moo: Maybe she has found God in prison in the last three years, like many prisoners do. She swore on the bible to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help her God. :moo:

How much did the bible mean to her when she murdered Tori? How much did the truth matter to her when she lied in her testimony (either she lied when she gave her original confession and signed the agreed statement of fact, or she lied in January and on the stand recently when she stated it was she who killed Tori). :twocents:

 

[Juris_Prudence]

I'm wondering if the doctor concluded that the ribs were not fractured as a result of someone sitting on her because the pressure to her rib cage would have been more diffuse resulting in a different fracture pattern than what would be expected when a person is kicked.

I'm also wondering if it could be inferred from the amont of blood in the lungs when the liver was damaged in relation to Tory's death therefore telling us if it occurred during the sexual assault or immediately before she died.

I think if the ribs were / could have been damaged as a result of the alleged sexual assault, Dr. Pollanen would have said so. If he neglected to point this out, odds are the Crown would have given him a direct question about it. Since he did not testify to that effect, I do not accept that her ribs could have been broken during the alleged sexual assault. :twocents: However, there may be other evidence that has yet to be put forward that might prove the alleged sexual assault.:twocents: