Weekend Discussion thread 04/21-24/2012

[Tahorn]

That's a good point.

If she was handing over "all" the money, why would he have to give her a reason to justify it?

Also, if a person collects welfare and doesn't report the income, they would be committing welfare fraud and be subject to criminal charges and having to pay back all the money collected.

Would claiming to give the money to MR mitigate the damage?

To be accurate and fair, we don't know if she was collecting OW or if she claimed the income. She could claim the income to keep health benefits for her kids and receive no cash from OW..........but if she collected cash benefits..........that would draw some interest.

JMO..........

Since he purchased drugs with the 400.00 that was supposed to be for his car payment ... I tend to believe that the monies was more about drugs then escorting. JMO

 

[Heliotrope]

I'm thinking we're moving on to the next chapter this coming week - "Chapter 12: A recap of the surveillance video"

This is a summary of what I think they might present, but I'm not sure how they'll do it. Will they recall the police officers who spoke about the footage? Or maybe one of the lead investigators giving an overview of everything they pieced together.

What do you guys think? Also, have I missed any key video? Like I've said previously, I think the evidence that is most damaging to the innocent bystander theory is the clip at Home Depot. It shows he was aware of what was coming and was an active participant.


Date / time unknown
MR and TLM on a date at what appears to be a movie theatre

April 8th, 2009

Woodstock
CASS Camera
9:03 AM - MR's car drives north on Fyfe, away from the school

BMO Main Branch ATM camera
11:14 AM - MR at bank machine Woodstock BMO branch, later determined to be $400 withdrawal

Woodstock Esso (Norwich & Parkinson) exterior camera
3:24 PM - MR's car pulls into lot (timestamp later determined to be one hour off, shows 4:24 PM)

Woodstock Esso (Norwich & Parkinson) interior camera
X:XX PM - MR inside the store wearing white jacket [can't locate footage]

Woodstock Esso (Norwich & Parkinson) exterior camera
3:29 PM - MR's car pull out of the lot and turns in the direction of the school

CASS camera
3:30 PM - MR's car again drives north on Fyfe, away from the school

"Outside Art Door" camera
No timestamp - same car is seen continuing north on Fyfe and turning into the nursing home parking lot

CASS camera
3:32 PM - Tori being led north on Fyfe by TLM

"Outside Art Door" camera
No timestamp - TLM and Tori seen continuing up Fyfe, then crossing Fyfe towards the nursing home parking lot, car pulls away moments later

Guelph
Home Depot parking lot camera
5:01:03 PM - MR's car pulling into the parking lot and parking far from the store
5:01:34 PM - MR gets out of car and walks out of shot, presumable to the Petro Can adjacent to Home Depot

Switch to Petro Can interior camera
4:27 PM (according to timestamp) - MR walk into the Petro Can to the corner where the ATM is, from records he tried unsuccessfully to withdraw $100, then successfully withdrew $80
4:28 PM (according to timestamp) - MR exits the Petro Can without buying anything

Switch view back to Home Depot parking lot camera
5:04:15 PM- MR gets back in car
5:04:46 PM - Car pulls closor to Home Depot and parks
5:05:05 PM - TLM gets out and walks towards HD

Switch to interior camera at Home Depot
5:05:45 PM - TLM walks in entrance
5:11 PM - TLM seens walking through indoor gardening section, what appears to be hammer visible in her hand
5:11 PM - TLM at self-checkout
5:12 PM - TLM leaves the store

Switch back to Home Depot parking lot camera
5:13 PM - TLM exits Home Depot with bag, car pulls closer and pops trunk, she get in and they drive off after a close call with a car pulling out of a parking spot

April 9th, 2009
BMO Main Branch ATM camera
2:32 PM - MR at ATM Woodstock BMO branch

 

[Ardy]

This woman was another victim of MR. He took advantage of her, preyed on her like he did with all women. Whether she filed taxes and included her escort income doesn't seem very important in the grand scheme of things.

Another victim?

I guess the theory of MR's incredible ability to victimize a numerous and wide ranging number of women supports the Crown's accusation, based on TLM's testimony, that the kidnapping was a master plan by a skillful manipulator......who apparently simultaneously was dumb as a brick.

My biggest problem with the Crown's case is the beginning.

Based on TLM's testimony, we have to believe.............

Despite having a long list of female encounters, none of whom made any reference to a devious sexual side of MR, one day he woke up and decided to take a child and sexually assault her.

He decided it was a good idea to take a witness along with him.

A witness who was recently released from custody, was a drug addict, and was continually in and out of trouble with the law. Surely he could depend on her to keep a secret like this for the rest of his life.

He decided that rather than drive to Guelph and kidnap a child there, it would be a better idea to kidnap one in Woodstock and drive around with her in the backseat of the car for a couple of hours.

He pulled the battery out of his phone so he wouldn't be tracked leaving Woodstock.........frantically listens to the radio for kidnapping alerts and then decides to insert the battery back into the phone when he arrives at Guelph.......just down the highway.

He decided it would be a good idea to stop at Tim Horton for tea, pick up some drugs at a friends home with his car parked out front of her home and a kidnapped young girl inside, and stick around and "chat" for about 10 minutes.

Then he decided to continue on with the crime.

But let's go back to the actual abduction...............

TLM testified it was totally random.

Out of all the elementary schools in Woodstock, they end up at this one.

Out of all the kids in the school, she picks up VS.

Out of all the dog breeds in the world, she talks about the same breed as VS owns.

She walks VS down the street, passing a woman waiting for her own child and who knows whoever else waiting for their kids or just arriving for their kids, and is unconcerned that she is going to be stopped or approached about why she is with that child.

After all she claims she didn't know VS was TM's daughter. She claimed the abduction was random, so she didn't know who VS parents were or what they looked like.

But she did know TM. Her mother had sold drugs to TM and boyfriend JG on numerous occasions. TM knew her from 2 trips to TLM's house.

All of these "coincidences" and there is more..............

TLM testified...she didn't know why she took a little girl that day, she doesn't know why she didn't escape with VS, and she doesn't know why she murdered VS...........but she has an incredibly clear memory of everything else, apparently good enough to sketch out maps for LE.

At this point, I don't know what the defense theory will eventually be, but I don't know how it could be any more unbelievable than the story TLM spun.

I don't believe TLM..........I have never believed TLM.........and I never will.

MR's involvement in the crime is still to be determined, but I don't believe for a second that TLM was an innocent dupe or victim in this case.

****Not that you said she was..but that appears to be the Crown case.

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

 

[Macright]

just want to say that you all today have made some great points and used some good examples. in regards to yesterdays witness it left me with the understanding that MR and the witness were two consenting adults and I didn't get the feeling that one was more manipulative than the other..it also didn't conclude to me that MR was a pimp...As the witness testified, they both came up with the idea that she would enter the "escort" business in order to make some fast bucks and they would share the proceeds...whether he helped arrange clients..well that I don't know about to date and I am sure those clients will not be coming forth with this info.. the fact that she was using his bank account to deposit money to him was done for a purpose..either she was trying to hide the extra income she was earning from whomever or when he did meet up with her on those two or three days a week they would spend the money together.. she spoke about a "car payment" but surely she knew what he was driving so I wonder if he maybe had leased a car for her and he would make the payments for her (maybe she had no credit)..This woman did not give off vibes that someone could pull the wool over her eyes and with five children I am sure she was not short of a man or two...along with their "escort arrangement" maybe they had another sideline in drug dealing and of course he would need cash up front in order to purchase from suppliers...I think that also was his connection to CM..she would supply the drugs and he would do the selling of them..that is why I still think that "drugs" or "a drug debt" played a big role in this murder...and drugs was an issue with most of the parties in this crime..both sides.... JMO

 

[Tahorn]

This woman was another victim of MR. He took advantage of her, preyed on her like he did with all women. Whether she filed taxes and included her escort income doesn't seem very important in the grand scheme of things.

I respectfully disagree ... CS did not testify that she was forced in to becoming an escort, nor did she testify that MR was abusive. I believe that CS was a women with life experiences and at the time 4 children. Still more to that story ...

 

[otto]

Thank for the recap Heliotrope ... so it is very difficult for MR to argue that he withdrew money from the bank machine at the Petro Can Station but did not immediately give that money to TM so she could buy a hammer and garbage bags.

 

[girlfriday]

It's been a long time since I've followed this case here. Thanks for keeping it going.

I don't see how it matters if a witness or the defendant has said that the car seat was removed from the suspect vehicle in March...because, it seems plausible to me that it could just as easily have been put back in after that, and again removed after April 8. To me, the puzzling part would be why the seat is missing altogether. I would think that someone removing a seat to make room for speakers would keep the seat in storage and not throw it away.

As always, opinions expressed by me are just that - my opinions.

 

[otto]

I respectfully disagree ... CS did not testify that she was forced in to becoming an escort, nor did she testify that MR was abusive. I believe that CS was a women with life experiences and at the time 4 children. Still more to that story ...

I get the impression that MR lied to this woman and manipulated her in order to get money from her. That is the reason why I view MR as preying on her.

 

[Macright]

Another victim?

I guess the theory of MR's incredible ability to victimize a numerous and wide ranging number of women supports the Crown's accusation, based on TLM's testimony, that the kidnapping was a master plan by a skillful manipulator......who apparently simultaneously was dumb as a brick.

My biggest problem with the Crown's case is the beginning.

Based on TLM's testimony, we have to believe.............

Despite having a long list of female encounters, none of whom made any reference to a devious sexual side of MR, one day he woke up and decided to take a child and sexually assault her.

He decided it was a good idea to take a witness along with him.

A witness who was recently released from custody, was a drug addict, and was continually in and out of trouble with the law. Surely he could depend on her to keep a secret like this for the rest of his life.

He decided that rather than drive to Guelph and kidnap a child there, it would be a better idea to kidnap one in Woodstock and drive around with her in the backseat of the car for a couple of hours.

He pulled the battery out of his phone so he wouldn't be tracked leaving Woodstock.........frantically listens to the radio for kidnapping alerts and then decides to insert the battery back into the phone when he arrives at Guelph.......just down the highway.

He decided it would be a good idea to stop at Tim Horton for tea, pick up some drugs at a friends home with his car parked out front of her home and a kidnapped young girl inside, and stick around and "chat" for about 10 minutes.

Then he decided to continue on with the crime.

But let's go back to the actual abduction...............

TLM testified it was totally random.

Out of all the elementary schools in Woodstock, they end up at this one.

Out of all the kids in the school, she picks up VS.

Out of all the dog breeds in the world, she talks about the same breed as VS owns.

She walks VS down the street, passing a woman waiting for her own child and who knows whoever else waiting for their kids or just arriving for their kids, and is unconcerned that she is going to be stopped or approached about why she is with that child.

After all she claims she didn't know VS was TM's daughter. She claimed the abduction was random, so she didn't know who VS parents were or what they looked like.

But she did know TM. Her mother had sold drugs to TM and boyfriend JG on numerous occasions. TM knew her from 2 trips to TLM's house.

All of these "coincidences" and there is more..............

TLM testified...she didn't know why she took a little girl that day, she doesn't know why she didn't escape with VS, and she doesn't know why she murdered VS...........but she has an incredibly clear memory of everything else, apparently good enough to sketch out maps for LE.

At this point, I don't know what the defense theory will eventually be, but I don't know how it could be any more unbelievable than the story TLM spun.

I don't believe TLM..........I have never believed TLM.........and I never will.

MR's involvement in the crime is still to be determined, but I don't believe for a second that TLM was an innocent dupe or victim in this case.

****Not that you said she was..but that appears to be the Crown case.

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

wow...your post blew me away because I am on the same page as you and you explained it so simply,something I could not do...many thanks for that.. also I might add that even though my thoughts are similar to yours in how this all transpired I also don't condone MR for being there and letting the murder take place without trying to intervene..but then I went a little further in my thoughts and placed him away from the scene, maybe on his cell and TLM throws TS out of the car and begins her assault on TS by first stomping on her chest which would have done severe damage at that point and THEN she realizes that what she has done would be fatal in the long run so she then takes the hammer and finishes her off, so to speak with such rage ..maybe rage that has been bottled up inside her since her last breakdown...by the time MR rushes over the initial damage has been done to TS and in the end all he could muster up was to bag up the child and try and cover this up the best way he knew how...at that point he knew he was involved ...his reasons for doing this, well only he can answer that and the fact that he hide this crime until TLM sold him out...for that he deserves to do some time ..the other charges are not believable at this point to me and nothing has been shown by the crown to make me believe otherwise...just saying...JMO

 

[myzzy]

This can be read either way, I seriously doubt seeing him 2 or 3 times a week that she would hand over all her money, someone was paying rent and from what we saw on the video it didnt look like any rental payment was made so i can only conclude that someone else was paying his bills, thus coming to the assumption that she didnt hand over all the money she earned. Out of the woman i think this young lady who was escorting was scorned the most and could see someone stating he took all the money.


Regardless, she handed over a buttload of cash to MR, but other then making him out to be a hussler i dont see the leap to murdering a child because he is a womanizer BUT my leg swung over the other side of the fence im sitting on with the bombshell friday

 

[otto]

This murder has something to do with drugs only because the two murderers regularly used drugs. Both of the accused are equally guilty because they both participated in the crime from beginning to end.

 

[otto]

This can be read either way, I seriously doubt seeing him 2 or 3 times a week that she would hand over all her money, someone was paying rent and from what we saw on the video it didnt look like any rental payment was made so i can only conclude that someone else was paying his bills, thus coming to the assumption that she didnt hand over all the money she earned. Out of the woman i think this young lady who was escorting was scorned the most and could see someone stating he took all the money.


Regardless, she handed over a buttload of cash to MR, but other then making him out to be a hussler i dont see the leap to murdering a child because he is a womanizer BUT my leg swung over the other side of the fence im sitting on with the bombshell friday

I think the "all" or "some" point doesn't make that much difference.

"The shocker was that Rafferty essentially pimped out one girlfriend and proceeded to drain her of more than $16,000 in the following six months.


This came from Charity Spitzig, now just 26 and a mother of five (one child passed away). She connected with Rafferty on Plenty of Fish in April of 2008, she said, met him right away and began what she considered to be a "pretty promising" relationship that was "exclusive, you could say."


She lived in London, Ont., he in Woodstock. Rafferty told her he was in school, taking dance courses and working in the home-renovation business — this was but one version of what he regularly told the women he met — so she wasn't surprised they saw one another only two or three times a week.


She told prosecutor Kevin Gowdey that, as a serious relationship, she was prepared to "invest" in it, and when asked if she loaned money to Rafferty, replied, "We discussed ways for finances to be made easier, me getting into the escort business, which I did, and any monies from there went directly to him."


Bank records show that in the six months from December 2008 to May 2009, Spitzig transferred $16,835 to Rafferty."


http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/national/story.html?id=6494217

 

[SFB73]

just want to say that you all today have made some great points and used some good examples. in regards to yesterdays witness it left me with the understanding that MR and the witness were two consenting adults and I didn't get the feeling that one was more manipulative than the other..it also didn't conclude to me that MR was a pimp...As the witness testified, they both came up with the idea that she would enter the "escort" business in order to make some fast bucks and they would share the proceeds...whether he helped arrange clients..well that I don't know about to date and I am sure those clients will not be coming forth with this info.. the fact that she was using his bank account to deposit money to him was done for a purpose..either she was trying to hide the extra income she was earning from whomever or when he did meet up with her on those two or three days a week they would spend the money together.. she spoke about a "car payment" but surely she knew what he was driving so I wonder if he maybe had leased a car for her and he would make the payments for her (maybe she had no credit)..This woman did not give off vibes that someone could pull the wool over her eyes and with five children I am sure she was not short of a man or two...along with their "escort arrangement" maybe they had another sideline in drug dealing and of course he would need cash up front in order to purchase from suppliers...I think that also was his connection to CM..she would supply the drugs and he would do the selling of them..that is why I still think that "drugs" or "a drug debt" played a big role in this murder...and drugs was an issue with most of the parties in this crime..both sides.... JMO

I don't think leasing companies are in the business of leasing vehicles to people who cant show proper proof of income.... Unless of course the lease was prepaid, but then there would be no need of a payment. Also, isnt there a stipulation for people on assistance that says you cant have assets totalling over X number of dollars and collect welfare?? For all we know the car payment may indeed be true, there are lots of people out there lending money with high interest rates to people who cant get financing from the mainstream institutions. I'm more inclined to think the "car payment" was just more bs strung to yet another female in this case and there was other intentions for the money...surely that car wouldn't have a 400.00 payment on it... But nothing would surprise me now.

 

[Tahorn]

I get the impression that MR lied to this woman and manipulated her in order to get money from her. That is the reason why I view MR as preying on her.

$50 maybe ... $17K doubtful, I believe that it was for drugs. I believe she could not testify to the drugs because she has 4 children. Escorting is not illegal while drugs is.

 

[Jezbel]

Respectfully my point of view is such...... We didn't hear from any of the women that testified that MR was abusive or manipulative because they were not asked what their relationship was like and how it ended. I think if the crown tried that, the defence would have had some serious objections.

Also I don't think it's relevant whether CS was on welfare, she or her character are not on trial here. Yes she said they agreed she would start escorting to earn additional money but we don't know if she was happy to do so or was maybe somewhat coerced into it by MR. I also don't find it strange that MR had to ask her to deposit money, she was a mum of 4 I doubt that each time she earned money she would have the time to run immediately to the bank to deposit it in his account. Almost $17000 was deposited into his account, that's a lot of money so I don't doubt that most of the money she earned went to him regardless of whether it was for drugs or she thought she was helping him through school or not, I am sure she did not intend for it to be spent on shopping trips for other women and their children. She was in love with him, thought they would get married, she has no reason to lie.
Also she may be a tough women now but 3 years ago she could have been a totally different person, 23 yrs old with 4 boys, two being twins and by herself, she may have been lonely, had low self esteem an MR seemed like her night in shining armour. After finding out the man you loved, wanted to marry, was a father figure to your children has been arrested and charge with a crime like this must turn your world around and make you a stronger, more aware and assertive person.

As always moo

 

[gardenia]

Like some on these boards, I do not see these women as "victims" ... I do agree that they have made some unfortunate choices in their lives - and perhaps hooking up with MR is just another one of them.

It seems likely that CS had some previous experience in the "escorting" business ... I mean, I don't think you suddenly wake up with 5 kids & decide to change careers. I would bet that there is a drug connection between CS & MR, which helps explain the reason she is putting $$ into his account. I mean, for what other reason would she be giving him $$ & 'supporting' him? She has 5 kids to care for & he is single & able-bodied... I honestly don't think she was doing this solely for his benefit. JMO!

As always, there is more to the story...

 

[Snoopster]

What was the date for the next deposit into his account? I don't have that video file handy. xo

The next deposit was Apr 22 for $200.

And sorry about not posting the link to the video (where the list of deposits was shown) along with the image in my earlier post. Here it is:

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/20/19660781.html

 

[Macright]

I still think that there is a dark cloud hanging over the head of another player in all this...JMO

 

[Macright]

The next deposit was Apr 22 for $200.

And sorry about not posting the link to the video (where the list of deposits was shown) along with the image in my earlier post. Here it is:

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/20/19660781.html

maybe she took some time off.....JMO

 

[Snoopster]

I think that Canadians are sometimes influenced by what is seen in US trials via talking heads like Nancy Grace. In North Carolina, for example, a person's character can be considered by the jury when deciding a verdict. In Florida, absolutely everything about the case can be released to the public well before a trial. Common law does not allow any information about an investigation to be released before trial and a persons prior bad acts cannot be used when determining whether a person is guilty of a specific bad act.

I think it is important that these rights are protected. I followed the North Carolina cases of Brad Cooper and Jason Young and was really surprised at how much court time was dedicated to smearing the character of the accused. Particularly in the case of Brad Cooper, two weeks of trial time were filled with testimony of the neighbours badmouthing the suspect. At the time, I thought it was a completely irrelevant waste of time, but in the long run, smearing the character of the suspect before presenting evidence of the crime worked in terms of tainting the suspects character and leaving him vulnerable to having all the evidence interpretted in a very negative way.

Otto, I just want to thank you for sharing your legal knowledge with us. I find it very helpful!