Weekend Discussion thread 04/21-24/2012

[Heliotrope]

It is a fascinating theory......but it's yours not mine.

JMO..........

No, it's not my theory.

How could such a significant relationship not come to light in the course a trial other than by a concerted effort to conceal it? If not between LE and the Crown, then at least some sort of unspoken agreement between TM and the woman who murdered her child. No, not my theory at all.

My theory is that, in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt, the honourable lawyer for the accused is randomly throwing out a lot of **** and hoping that at least some of it will stick.

 

[snoofer]

Even if the lovely TLM told MTR she was babysitting initially I do not think that a man would take the child in his car and out of town just zipping around WITHOUT express permission from the parent. It DOESNT happen. This is a 28 year old man and ANY 28 year old man had best know that IF he does that parents will be pissed and LE will charge him. Zipping to buy drugs in another town, zipping here and there without permission, without the child restrained properly. That whole theory just makes no sense. Why doesn't it makes sense? Because parents want to know where their child is, EVEN if with a babysitter. No parent would allow it IMO and no man in his right mind would go with a strange kid out of town, zipping around buying drugs with that kid in his car, then to a rural setting in the woods and expect it to be considered innocent behavior. JMO At the very least it is creepy behavior....and considering the end result..... JMO

TLM did not have a vehicle and the parent would know that if she was babysitting. So HIS choice to drive all over and out of town would have been exactly that....HIS choice. HIS choice to take a child out of town, unknown to the parent and without permission. HE would have known that the parent DID NOT know where this child was because she did not have a vehicle. JMO AND obviously the permission was NOT given or the police would not have been called because she was missing.

To me IMO this is the most important part before even consider all of the other overwhelming evidence; I want to hear defense explain how this is not sinister behavior in this day and age. Because that initial act alone has bad data written all over it IMO. Remember it was HIM that went to buy drugs with the child in the car to HIS drug connection, did HE have permission for that, did TLM have permission for that. Yea right; I think not! Nobody takes a kid to another town without permission, I have never heard of something so rediculous for behavior while babysitting. MOO

 

[Bravo]

I'm more upset that the judge, at one point, made disparaging comments to the jury in reference to the Crown's presentation of evidence. I can't find the link but it was after the presentation of cell phone evidence (I think); the judge thereafter commented to the jury about the boring evidence.

Why would the judge verbally demonstrate bias against the Crown? JMO

I hope it's not suggested the judge was trying to be funny because there's nothing comical about this case especially with Tori's family sitting there listening to the cruelty she endured. JMO

I believe the remark was the Questioning was sleep inducing. Words to that effect. I think it's important we remember these are tweets and we are not in the Courtroom. I have been. I have noted the Crown and Judge have been very attentive to the Jurors. Last i was there one of the elder jurors didn't even have half her yawn out when Judge started to say break time and prosecutor was starting to speak of a break also. I was not there that day but we don't know if the Judge was remarking due to a few Jurors yawning. I was impressed how in tune he was to them. It would be my guess the Judge was pointing out it was time for a break. Prosecution hadn't noticed and Judge was pointing out he was losing them. MOO but we are not there to see the context.

 

[otto]

This made me laugh. Pimpness . I totally agree by the way, he totally was the definition of pimp. I do not understand why people think a pimp has to be the guy hanging out on the street making sure his broad is being treated right.

BTW OTTO thank you as well for your insight.

Another point I do not believe that the crown was allowed to ask if he was a sexual deviant due to the whole can not attack his character issues. Correct me if I am wrong.

I don't know for sure, but I think it would go to relevance. IMHO, the women have been introduced as witnesses to demonstrate MR's state of mind at the time of the murder. Whether he was sexually deviant wouldn't really be relevant to the trial - since there are no sexual deviance charges (other than sexual interference with a child). The trial can't be a fishing expedition to infer that there was other sexual deviance during the child rape.

 

[otto]

No, it's not my theory.

How could such a significant relationship not come to light in the course a trial other than by a concerted effort to conceal it? If not between LE and the Crown, then at least some sort of unspoken agreement between TM and the woman who murdered her child. No, not my theory at all.

My theory is that, in the face of overwhelming evidence of guilt, the honourable lawyer for the accused is randomly throwing out a lot of **** and hoping that at least some of it will stick.

Coincidence or conspiracy theory ... it's most likely deductive reasoning based on evidence. I think that there are always one or two holes in the solving of a crime, but if there's enough substance, as with this case, then it's highly unlikely that everyone will interpret the evidence as either coincidence or conspiracy.

 

[SFB73]

Even if the lovely TLM told MTR she was babysitting initially I do not think that a man would take the child in his car and out of town just zipping around WITHOUT express permission from the parent. It DOESNT happen. This is a 28 year old man and ANY 28 year old man had best know that IF he does that parents will be pissed and LE will charge him. Zipping to buy drugs in another town, zipping here and there without permission, without the child restrained properly. That whole theory just makes no sense. Why doesn't it makes sense? Because parents want to know where their child is, EVEN if with a babysitter. No parent would allow it IMO and no man in his right mind would go with a strange kid out of town, zipping around buying drugs with that kid in his car, then to a rural setting in the woods and expect it to be considered innocent behavior. JMO At the very least it is creepy behavior....and considering the end result..... JMO

TLM did not have a vehicle and the parent would know that if she was babysitting. So HIS choice to drive all over and out of town would have been exactly that....HIS choice. HIS choice to take a child out of town, unknown to the parent and without permission. HE would have known that the parent DID NOT know where this child was because she did not have a vehicle. JMO AND obviously the permission was NOT given or the police would not have been called because she was missing.

To me IMO this is the most important part before even consider all of the other overwhelming evidence; I want to hear defense explain how this is not sinister behavior in this day and age. Because that initial act alone has bad data written all over it IMO. Remember it was HIM that went to buy drugs with the child in the car to HIS drug connection, did HE have permission for that, did TLM have permission for that. Yea right; I think not! Nobody takes a kid to another town without permission, I have never heard of something so rediculous for behavior while babysitting. MOO

Nice post!!

Let's simplify it a little.... What parent in their right might would allow TLM to babysit their child??? If I were on the jury, and something like this was even raised or suggested I would immediately respond with the question "would you let your child go with either MR or TLM for an afternoon drive?"

If they present the theory that he thought the child was in TLM's care, it is almost akin to outright calling the jury morons to even think they would entertain that. If that's the defense, I think they are in big big trouble.

 

[Shasta]

I believe the remark was the Questioning was sleep inducing. Words to that effect. I think it's important we remember these are tweets and we are not in the Courtroom. I have been. I have noted the Crown and Judge have been very attentive to the Jurors. Last i was there one of the elder jurors didn't even have half her yawn out when Judge started to say break time and prosecutor was starting to speak of a break also. I was not there that day but we don't know if the Judge was remarking due to a few Jurors yawning. I was impressed how in tune he was to them. It would be my guess the Judge was pointing out it was time for a break. Prosecution hadn't noticed and Judge was pointing out he was losing them. MOO but we are not there to see the context.

Thank you Bravo. It's easy to miss subtleties and mis-perceive context when we're getting everything from twitter. Which is probably the case with my post.

 

[Macright]

Nice post!!

Let's simplify it a little.... What parent in their right might would allow TLM to babysit their child??? If I were on the jury, and something like this was even raised or suggested I would immediately respond with the question "would you let your child go with either MR or TLM for an afternoon drive?"

If they present the theory that he thought the child was in TLM's care, is almost akin to outright calling the jury morons to even think they would entertain that. If that's the defense, I think they are in big big trouble.

totally agree with you there about "what parent would permit TLM to babysit their child" and we now know that TM didn't but MR would not have known that about TLM...she had done some babysitting (or so she had listed on her resume and MR didn't know her that long and maybe had not seen the other side of her behaviour so if she told him that she had to babysit TS he would have no reason not to believe her. Also if TLM had told TS that her mother had sent her to pick her up and babysit her for whatever reason TS probably would not have questioned that either because I think TS knew TLM.. yes MR, without a backseat was lax about letting a child sit in there with no seatbelt etc. but the child may have not known any better as she more than likely was not up on the safety rules considering she was only 8...then they drive to Guelph and continue on with their other stops and maybe it was only then that TS started to get scared...if she were scared when they were in Guelph she could have screamed etc. while he was in the house for 10 minutes...I don't believe at that point even that she knew she was in trouble..something must have happened when they started driving to that spot either on the way or at the spot.. that is what I think but we don't know what transpired between the child and TLM that ended in her death... JMO so it's not a question of a jury believing that a parent would permit TLM to babysit their child but rather is that the story that TLM related to MR and he believed her..

 

[otto]

Ardy, in response to your post above (too long to quote in a reply), as far as MR being as "dumb as a brick" and being capable of victimizing or manipulating a number of women ... yes, I think it's quite possible. Sometimes, people are too stupid to know how stupid they are, but they can recognize a vulnerable person from a mile away. Also, stupid people would make a lot of mistakes during the commission of a crime because of their stupid arrogance (not realizing that other people may be smarter than they).

People like MR and TM probably thought they were flying in the fast lane with their drugs and decadent lifestyle. MR probably thought he was la creme de la creme with women (Mr Dance), lining them up like he was running a pinball machine. Yes, he was stupid enough to think that he could get away with what he did, even though he was careless, even after TM was arrested for an unrelated matter. In fact, he's still trying to get away with it even though there is an eyewitness and overwhelming evidence of his guilt. There's nothing surprising in the fact that MR is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and get away with murder, but he's still dumb as a brick.

Neither MR nor TM were duped. They were on a drug crazed, fantasy mission that involved sexually assualting and murdering a child. They must have talked about it before that day. If they claim today that they don't know why they did what they did that day, it's believable. They were stoned out of their minds and although it seemed like a good idea at the time, it makes no sense to them today ... so they can't explain why they did it. Murderers can rarely explain why they did it in a way that makes sense to anyone else ... as far as I know.

 

[Tahorn]

Nice post!!

Let's simplify it a little.... What parent in their right might would allow TLM to babysit their child??? If I were on the jury, and something like this was even raised or suggested I would immediately respond with the question "would you let your child go with either MR or TLM for an afternoon drive?"

If they present the theory that he thought the child was in TLM's care, it is almost akin to outright calling the jury morons to even think they would entertain that. If that's the defense, I think they are in big big trouble.

TLM listed babysitting of a 8 year old and a 5 year old on her resume, so I don't think the jury will consider that to be impossible. Besides all the people in TLM life were addicts so I doubt they would think twice about TLM babysiting.

 

[SFB73]

So, in the age of cellular communications, when TS started to get a little scared and she possibly asked to call home to her mom, and if she was denied that opportunity wouldn't that raise suspicions of any reasonable 28 year old man in the company of an 18 year old and an 8 year old. When this happened my child was 8 as well and I'm sorry, she knew both her mom and dad have cell phones, knew both numbers and home number as well as grandparents home phone number cause it's real easy.....

The first thought she would have had if scared would be to ask to call someone...Ohhh wait.... Maybe that's why the battery was taken out of the phone... "sorry, you can't call home, my phone is broke..."

 

[Macright]

So, in the age of cellular communications, when TS started to get a little scared and she possibly asked to call home to her mom, and if she was denied that opportunity wouldn't that raise suspicions of any reasonable 28 year old man in the company of an 18 year old and an 8 year old. When this happened my child was 8 as well and I'm sorry, she knew both her mom and dad have cell phones, knew both numbers and home number as well as grandparents home phone number cause it's real easy.....

The first thought she would have had if scared would be to ask to call someone...Ohhh wait.... Maybe that's why the battery was taken out of the phone... "sorry, you can't call home, my phone is broke..."

did TS ask if she could call home? or is that what the confessed murderer TLM testified...I wasn't aware that TS asked that...

 

[snoofer]

TLM listed babysitting of a 8 year old and a 5 year old on her resume, so I don't think the jury will consider that to be impossible. Besides all the people in TLM life were addicts so I doubt they would think twice about TLM babysiting.

However, TS's parents WERE looking for her when she did not return home. I doubt very much TM would have considered TLM babysitting material for her daughter knowing what she knew about TLM and mother. Same goes for jury. Knowing what hey know about TLM; no matter what TLM put on her resume, I doubt the jury would believe most people would consider her babysitting material. Emphasis on MOST. JMO

 

[snoofer]

So, in the age of cellular communications, when TS started to get a little scared and she possibly asked to call home to her mom, and if she was denied that opportunity wouldn't that raise suspicions of any reasonable 28 year old man in the company of an 18 year old and an 8 year old. When this happened my child was 8 as well and I'm sorry, she knew both her mom and dad have cell phones, knew both numbers and home number as well as grandparents home phone number cause it's real easy.....

The first thought she would have had if scared would be to ask to call someone...Ohhh wait.... Maybe that's why the battery was taken out of the phone... "sorry, you can't call home, my phone is broke..."

I assume TS would have wanted to call home as well to ask if the movie was still on with her friends she was looking forward to. I don't imagine she would have been too happy to be sitting in a car when she could be having time with her friends. JMO Kids that age talk on the phone to their friends. If plans changed she would want to talk to her friends and complain about it! She KNEW her friends were coming over and SHE wouldn't be there. JMO

8 year olds are VERY verbal and able to express how they feel with words and they DO! They are all about if something is fair or unfair. JMO

 

[Kittymama]

Ardy, in response to your post above (too long to quote in a reply), as far as MR being as "dumb as a brick" and being capable of victimizing or manipulating a number of women ... yes, I think it's quite possible. Sometimes, people are too stupid to know how stupid they are, but they can recognize a vulnerable person from a mile away. Also, stupid people would make a lot of mistakes during the commission of a crime because of their stupid arrogance (not realizing that other people may be smarter than they).

People like MR and TM probably thought they were flying in the fast lane with their drugs and decadent lifestyle. MR probably thought he was la creme de la creme with women (Mr Dance), lining them up like he was running a pinball machine. Yes, he was stupid enough to think that he could get away with what he did, even though he was careless, even after TM was arrested for an unrelated matter. In fact, he's still trying to get away with it even though there is an eyewitness and overwhelming evidence of his guilt. There's nothing surprising in the fact that MR is trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes and get away with murder, but he's still dumb as a brick.

Neither MR nor TM were duped. They were on a drug crazed, fantasy mission that involved sexually assualting and murdering a child. They must have talked about it before that day. If they claim today that they don't know why they did what they did that day, it's believable. They were stoned out of their minds and although it seemed like a good idea at the time, it makes no sense to them today ... so they can't explain why they did it. Murderers can rarely explain why they did it in a way that makes sense to anyone else ... as far as I know.

Just FYI--we've been referring to Tara as TM and Terri as TLM. It helps avoid confusion.

 

[Macright]

However, TS's parents WERE looking for her when she did not return home. I doubt very much TM would have considered TLM babysitting material for her daughter knowing what she knew about TLM and mother. Same goes for jury. Knowing what hey know about TLM; no matter what TLM put on her resume, I doubt the jury would believe most people would consider her babysitting material. Emphasis on MOST. JMO

you are also correct..the jury would never be expected to believe that TLM was babysitting material and I don't think that is what Dirk is trying to put out there to them...what he MAY put to them is TLM told MR that she was babysitting TS... <modsnip> we know they did their own search and called her friends but I have always felt the alarm should have been sounded earlier.. I believe it was the grandmother who reported her missing to the police.. JMO

 

[otto]

totally agree with you there about "what parent would permit TLM to babysit their child" and we now know that TM didn't but MR would not have known that about TLM...she had done some babysitting (or so she had listed on her resume and MR didn't know her that long and maybe had not seen the other side of her behaviour so if she told him that she had to babysit TS he would have no reason not to believe her. Also if TLM had told TS that her mother had sent her to pick her up and babysit her for whatever reason TS probably would not have questioned that either because I think TS knew TLM.. yes MR, without a backseat was lax about letting a child sit in there with no seatbelt etc. but the child may have not known any better as she more than likely was not up on the safety rules considering she was only 8...then they drive to Guelph and continue on with their other stops and maybe it was only then that TS started to get scared...if she were scared when they were in Guelph she could have screamed etc. while he was in the house for 10 minutes...I don't believe at that point even that she knew she was in trouble..something must have happened when they started driving to that spot either on the way or at the spot.. that is what I think but we don't know what transpired between the child and TLM that ended in her death... JMO so it's not a question of a jury believing that a parent would permit TLM to babysit their child but rather is that the story that TLM related to MR and he believed her..

If MR was an innocent, duped victim, why did he go to the bank machine and withdraw $80 right before he drove to the hardware store, where TM got out of the car to purchase a hammer and garbage bags ... while they had a random child stuffed in the back seat under a coat? Why did MR drive to a secluded area with the child under the coat? Who disposed of the hammer and where is it? Did he allow a babysitter to stuff a child under a coat in the back seat of his car? At what point was he no longer duped? If he is innocent, we would know those answers ... but I doubt that he could give them without implicating himself.

 

[otto]

Just FYI--we've been referring to Tara as TM and Terri as TLM. It helps avoid confusion.

Thank you so much. I'm so sorry. I've been referring to Terri-Lynn McClintic as TM.

I don't think there is anything to say about the mother of the victim other than that the loss of her daughter seems to have destroyed her. Tara is the mother of the victim, right?

 

[Macright]

If MR was an innocent, duped victim, why did he go to the bank machine and withdraw $80 right before he drove to the hardware store, where TM got out of the car to purchase a hammer and garbage bags ... while they had a random child stuffed in the back seat under a coat? Why did MR drive to a secluded area with the child under the coat? Who disposed of the hammer and where is it? Did he allow a babysitter to stuff a child under a coat in the back seat of his car? At what point was he no longer duped? If he is innocent, we would know those answers ... but I doubt that he could give them without implicating himself.

Otto that's just why I have to scratch my head and think why...if he were guilty and this was planned why did he stop at an ATM and withdraw cash..if this were planned why did he have to purchase the hammer and the garbage bags, if this were planned why didn't he have these articles with him before he started out...if this were planned why did he need to stop at a Tim Hortons and drink a coffee/tea...one would think that TLM & MR would be so thrilled with their plan that they would head out right away and get things underway... that is a real puzzle for me... oh oh..I forgot one other small thing..why would he stop at a supplier in Guelph and purchase his drugs and visit with her for 10 minutes all the while having a small kidnapped child in the back seat..he sure took some chances don't you think...don't think you could find another kidnapping where the kidnapper did all those things before doing what he had in mind at the start..makes no sense to me at all..JMO

 

[SFB73]

did TS ask if she could call home? or is that what the confessed murderer TLM testified...I wasn't aware that TS asked that...

No one other than TLM or MR would know that. I think it would be a very likely possibility that a child in this situation with people she didn't know would ask....

How could anyone reasonably believe that during the ride that this child never once questioned as to why she was in that car or where they were going or when she would be returned home to her parents. The moment any doubt was raised about the validity of TLM being in custody of TS is the moment MR needed to do what a logical innocent 28 year old would do and protect the child which is now in his custody as a direct result of being in his vehicle.