Weekend Discussion Thread 3/24-26/2012

[ChaChaCha]

Section 272 – Sexual Assault With A Weapon, Threats to a Third Party or Causing Bodily Harm:
Somebody sexually assaults you and is armed with, or uses, a weapon, or, forces you to have sex by threatening to do injury to somebody else, (for example: they threaten to hurt your brother or sister if you don't do it), or, they injure you.

http://www.sacc.to/sya/crime/law.htm

www.sacc.to is a general website. According to the Criminal Code of Canada, "Bodily Harm" has its own definition:“bodily harm” means any hurt or injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and that is more than merely transient or trifling in nature;

There is also another definition for "Grevious Bodily Harm" which translates into injuries that will cause death.

So I am thinking that rather than relying on the www.sacc.to explanation, that Assault Causing Bodily Harm is injury to a person that interferes with the health or comfort of the person and ya da ya da .... so the kicks that TLM says that MR delivered to TS on the ground would be "Bodily Harm" since TLM fatally injured TS with the hammer blows ... TS may not have died from the kicking that TLM says he did ... but likely did herself anyways.

Interesting how the charges go - if the jury doesn't believe TLM on the kicking allegation, they can aquit on that charge.

JMO

 

[dilbert]

But wouldn't you get the impression that the little girl is being kidnapped if she is being held on a 'drug debt' and taken to a 'safe house'? Why even get into that in the first part-- why not have those motives become clear to MR by TLM after Tori had been murdered? Using a child as a drug debt and taking her to a safe house just screams "kidnapping" to me, and perhaps the jury too... though I wasn't in the courtroom to hear the exact way he laid it all out.

Derstine suggested that the topic of the drug debt and safe house came later, not when Tori got in the car. I will try to find the tweet or article where it's quoted, again.

 

[dilbert]

But wouldn't you get the impression that the little girl is being kidnapped if she is being held on a 'drug debt' and taken to a 'safe house'? Why even get into that in the first part-- why not have those motives become clear to MR by TLM after Tori had been murdered? Using a child as a drug debt and taking her to a safe house just screams "kidnapping" to me, and perhaps the jury too... though I wasn't in the courtroom to hear the exact way he laid it all out.

Derstine suggested that the topic of the drug debt and safe house came later, not when Tori got in the car. I will try to find the tweet or article where it's quoted, again.

"The abduction was your idea," he suggested to McClintic. "You went and lured this girl. You brought her in the car all friendly that Michael thought nothing of it. Later on you told him that the girl was in the car for a drug debt. Still later . . . you offered her to Michael, sexually. When it became clear that he didn't want your gift, you directed him to a rural location on a pretext . . . You said that she could be taken to a safe house. Once you got to that lane you told him to walk away because you wanted to talk to the little girl because she was scared of him. You . . . threw her down and killed her. Mr Rafferty came back after the death, was horrified, but helped you clean up."

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/03/23/19543041.html

 

[matou]

The charge is sexual assault causing bodily harm.

Michael Thomas Rafferty, 31, who has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder, sexual assault causing bodily harm and abduction in the death of the Grade 3 student.

Section 272 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/22/stafford-rafferty-trial-thurs.html

 

[Salem]

Could "bodily harm" be that TLM said that MR had kicked TS? I think so ...

Could be.... I don't know really. I'm just thinking it was the "sexual assault" that caused the bodily harm. I'm not experienced with looking up Canada's statutes and how they all work. Are they similar to the US's? ARe they numbered and every state has a different one?

Salem

 

[Kamille]

No doubt the Crown will do all they can to discredit the "drug theory" of the defense, so I suspect the defense may present information that shows LE had at least one similar theory early in the investigation. JMO

If the defence has a "drug debt theory" then why didn't they establish it when they had the chance to when cross examining both TLM and TM. I don't think a debt to CM or TLM by JG or TM is ever going to be established because it didn't exist. But the defence will keep it dangling I'm sure.

MOO

 

[Kamille]

I wonder what ties MR has to Mount forest. Didnt he work at some meat slaughtering place around there?

I still can honestly say that the reason that TLM couldnt find the body is that she wasnt from around there, didnt have a car and would have no idea how to get back to where they were because it was foreign to her but not to him. I wouldn't be surprised if he brought other people there before.

MR lived in Drayton Ontario. Very close to the crime scene when talking rural areas IMO.

 

[ChaChaCha]

The charge is sexual assault causing bodily harm.

Michael Thomas Rafferty, 31, who has pleaded not guilty to first-degree murder, sexual assault causing bodily harm and abduction in the death of the Grade 3 student.

Section 272 of the Criminal Code of Canada.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/22/stafford-rafferty-trial-thurs.html

Ahhhh, much better ....Thanks for the heads up.... Here is the charge, the criteria and the punishment - my bold...

(xii) section 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm),272. Sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm


272. (1) Every person commits an offence who, in committing a sexual assault,

(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation of a weapon;

(b) threatens to cause bodily harm to a person other than the complainant;

(c) causes bodily harm to the complainant; or

(d) is a party to the offence with any other person.

Punishment

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable

(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of

(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and

(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;

(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and

(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.

 

[Salem]

Well I found this:

Sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm
272. (1) Every person commits an offence who, in committing a sexual assault,
(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation of a weapon;
(b) threatens to cause bodily harm to a person other than the complainant;
(c) causes bodily harm to the complainant; or
(d) is a party to the offence with any other person.
Marginal noteunishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;
(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.


Here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-130.html#docCont

It could mean any of the things I bolded. It may just mean that he was with TLM when she committed an offense. Hard to say.

Salem

 

[JayFriend]

2. Why didn't Derstine use the defense:

"TLM asked MR for a ride for her and her Niece/Daughter/Little Sister/Cousin/WHATEVER to Guelph, where they would drop the girl off at a farmhouse. Murdering ensues without MR's knowledge (defense could dream up a series of ultimate scenarios for this lie, too, I'm sure), and drives TLM home. Heck, they could even argue that he DID see the murdering happen and DID clue in that it was TS when questioned by cops, and it would still work. My point is: if they are going to construct a defense that aims to remove him from the responsibility of this, why not go the whole way with it, why not say that he didn't know he was 'kidnapping' anyone at all? Wouldn't that even go more with their idea that TLM was the one to 'drive' this engine? Unless, of course... he is telling the truth about the whole thing, or they somehow somewhere have some sort of 'proof' that he did know he was taking part in the kidnapping.

First of all, Derstine is not an evil man. He would not dream up false scenarios, although he can certainly suggest alternatives to what the Crown is saying. Either Rafferty told his lawyer everything exactly as it happened, or made up a good story and stuck to it. Unless his lawyer has strong suspicions he's clearly lying, he has to base his defence on what he's told in good faith.

 

[ChaChaCha]

Well I found this:

Sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm
272. (1) Every person commits an offence who, in committing a sexual assault,
(a) carries, uses or threatens to use a weapon or an imitation of a weapon;
(b) threatens to cause bodily harm to a person other than the complainant;
(c) causes bodily harm to the complainant; or
(d) is a party to the offence with any other person.
Marginal noteunishment
(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable
(a) if a restricted firearm or prohibited firearm is used in the commission of the offence or if any firearm is used in the commission of the offence and the offence is committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, or in association with, a criminal organization, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
(i) in the case of a first offence, five years, and
(ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, seven years;
(a.1) in any other case where a firearm is used in the commission of the offence, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of four years; and
(b) in any other case, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.


Here: http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-130.html#docCont

It could mean any of the things I bolded. It may just mean that he was with TLM when she committed an offense. Hard to say.

Salem

Man, for an American you are FAST!!!:woohoo:

 

[JayFriend]

2. Why didn't Derstine use the defense:

"TLM asked MR for a ride for her and her Niece/Daughter/Little Sister/Cousin/WHATEVER to Guelph, where they would drop the girl off at a farmhouse. Murdering ensues without MR's knowledge (defense could dream up a series of ultimate scenarios for this lie, too, I'm sure), and drives TLM home. Heck, they could even argue that he DID see the murdering happen and DID clue in that it was TS when questioned by cops, and it would still work. My point is: if they are going to construct a defense that aims to remove him from the responsibility of this, why not go the whole way with it, why not say that he didn't know he was 'kidnapping' anyone at all? Wouldn't that even go more with their idea that TLM was the one to 'drive' this engine? Unless, of course... he is telling the truth about the whole thing, or they somehow somewhere have some sort of 'proof' that he did know he was taking part in the kidnapping.

Something else I forgot to mention before. I don't believe TLM was familiar with the Guelph area, but it used to be MR's old stomping ground. I really can't see her suggesting they drive there, other than her knowing his familiarity with the area.

 

[dilbert]

First of all, Derstine is not an evil man. He would not dream up false scenarios, although he can certainly suggest alternatives to what the Crown is saying. Either Rafferty told his lawyer everything exactly as it happened, or made up a good story and stuck to it. Unless his lawyer has strong suspicions he's clearly lying, he has to base his defence on what he's told in good faith.

:goodpost:

In addition to your post, I think it's dangerous for people to assume that all defence lawyers do is make up lies. Not everyone charged with a crime is, in fact, guilty.

MOO

 

[ChaChaCha]

I find that a lot of what we have talked about here being theories that are now being presented in court such as "drug debts" "a gift to MR" etc. He had a lot of time and so did many to look around the internet. How do we know he didnt take his defense off or what someone else has said? JMO

LOL! They certainly weren't listening to me, cause if they had they would have blamed the darned Banditos

 

[antiquegirl]

Is he comparing himself to Carol? hmmmmm

LOL, I don't think so. There was a lot of overlapping conversation going on in the interview. Put into context the conversation went:

JOHNSON: Terri-Lynne then has opened up to you as a friend then and told you about her mom

RAFFERTY: well I’m like her [Johnson interrupts here]

JOHNSON: like her real mother

RAFFERTY: well I’m the only person she knows who doesn’t do drugs or doesn’t you know I’m not in that group of people

I think he was about to say that he was assigned the role of Carol's caretaker or watchdog, or some such word that he couldn't come up with.

If you read the entire transcript, MTR has a habit of using the word "like" as what linguists call a placeholder. It serves the same function as "um" and "uh" and "er". He does this a lot. The transcript is riddled with "like"s. Take this paragraph:

"to see the drug yeah like my mom and I have tried to tried to help out a bit um like when we heard when Terri got picked up cuz Terri’s I think she’s trying to keep her mom out of like trouble or something, I don’t really know"

JMO

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86510694/TRANSCRIPT-Michael-Rafferty-interview-with-OPP-2009-05-15

ETA: Oops, sorry, I'm still catching up. I now see that Dilbert has already explained this.

 

[JayFriend]

The mixture of MR's and TS's blood on the gym bag can be easily explained by the defence as well if they're going to maintain the theory that MR helped with the cleanup only.
While moving TS's body to the rockpile, her blood could have transferred to his hands, and while covering her up he could have cut his hand on a jagged rock.
If he touched his gym bag shortly after, that would explain how the mixture of his and TS's blood got there.
It doesn't prove he murdered her, only that he was present at some point after.

MOO

Yes, it can be easily explained that way, but the jury would have to believe that story.

With a over a hundred witnesses and couple months to go, we're far from a verdict. I hope the Crown has some big ammunition saved for the end.

 

[Hello_Kitty]

LOL! They certainly weren't listening to me, cause if they had they would have blamed the darned Banditos

Trial isn't over yet

 

[dilbert]

Something else I forgot to mention before. I don't believe TLM was familiar with the Guelph area, but it used to be MR's old stomping ground. I really can't see her suggesting they drive there, other than her knowing his familiarity with the area.

Actually, she testified that she spent time growing up in Guelph and Fergus.

RaffertyLFP:
McClinitc says her family moved from Woodstock when she was 18 months old moved around including Guelph and northern Ontario [via Twitter]

Adrian Morrow ‏ @AdrianMorrow
McClintic has lived across the province -- Guelph, Fergus, Sturgeon Falls -- grew up without any siblings. Her mother was on ODSP as she

Adrian Morrow ‏ @AdrianMorrow
grew up. Her biological mother and Carol McClintic worked together as dancers before she was born.

 

[Hello_Kitty]

LOL, I don't think so. There was a lot of overlapping conversation going on in the interview. Put into context the conversation went:

JOHNSON: Terri-Lynne then has opened up to you as a friend then and told you about her mom

RAFFERTY: well I’m like her [Johnson interrupts here]

JOHNSON: like her real mother

RAFFERTY: well I’m the only person she knows who doesn’t do drugs or doesn’t you know I’m not in that group of people

I think he was about to say that he was assigned the role of Carol's caretaker or watchdog, or some such word that he couldn't come up with.

If you read the entire transcript, MTR has a habit of using the word "like" as what linguists call a placeholder. It serves the same function as "um" and "uh" and "er". He does this a lot. The transcript is riddled with "like"s. Take this paragraph:

"to see the drug yeah like my mom and I have tried to tried to help out a bit um like when we heard when Terri got picked up cuz Terri’s I think she’s trying to keep her mom out of like trouble or something, I don’t really know"

JMO

http://www.scribd.com/doc/86510694/TRANSCRIPT-Michael-Rafferty-interview-with-OPP-2009-05-15

ETA: Oops, sorry, I'm still catching up. I now see that Dilbert has already explained this.

Yeah, like all the kids use that these days. Like it's not just kids that do it, like I do that too, and I find it annoying!!

But anyway, TLM's video confession was also pepppered with "likes". It was reallyt difficult to understand her as well.

 

[JayFriend]

A poster here alluded to the fact that MTR possily needs glasses now, because he has been doing ALOT of reading while in jail.

They both don't wear glasses in their earlier profile pictures, but that can be put down to vanity. Also, they have access to all kinds of free medical care in jail that they don't have to try and fit into a busy schedule, so I bet they have the best glasses our money can buy.