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

[Macright]

a little light reading while we wait for the verdict...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ricas-prettiest-prisoners-lets-date-them.html

 

[Thinkzerz]

a little light reading while we wait for the verdict...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ricas-prettiest-prisoners-lets-date-them.html

OMG. I hope MR doesn't have rights to the internet. No pleasure of any kind for him or TLM. JMO

 

[Thinkzerz]

I don't understand why VS wouldn't have taking the offer to go to the washroom when TLM asked her. Makes me think VS didn't feel in danger yet. ????

 

[roseofsharon]

I don't think TLM and SH were both making this up!


http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/12/19627411.html




MOO

 

[Salem]

It is very hard to blame an 18 year old female junkie if even one piece of evidence proved a sexual assault ... not a thought out plan.

Why would it be hard to blame her? We know that females commit kidnapping and rape. I can think of two cases off the top of my head - Sandra Cantu and the stepmom (I can't remember the name). It is rare, but it happens. HERE, though, the evidence doesn't support that theory because Tori's blood was found mixed with sperm cells. And really, no matter how many times I am reminded that it was "sperm cells" and not "semen," I know the ONLY place that sperm cells live - is in semen. So you wash the semen away and what are you left with? Sperm cells. No other way to get there.... only one road and it leads to the same spot every time.

TLM gets her share of the blame, but blaming her does not exonerate MR. She did not act alone - no matter how violent or twisted she is - the evidence shows us, she did not act alone.

They are both to blame - both, in my opinion.

Salem

 

[Macright]

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

 

[Tahorn]

MR's blood mixed with TS blood in the gym bag?

MR could have cut his hand on the sharp edge of one of the rocks he was carrying around, and had his blood mixed with TS blood when he reached into the gym bag.

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

It was his gym bag so his blood being on it is understandable ... didn't TLM testify she carried the bag out of the washroom while still wearing her old cloths on top of the new cloths. Could have transferred VS blood at that point.

 

[tmhco]

It is very hard to blame an 18 year old female junkie if even one piece of evidence proved a sexual assault ... not a thought out plan.

No clothes on her lower half, no explanation from defendant= sexual assault. The defence shifted the burden of proof by suggesting alternate scenarios. The defence presented not one piece of evidence to corroborate said theories. JMO

 

[gbay]

I have been following along but have not posted in this forum. Here are my two cents worth!!

I have concluded that Tori would still be alive if MR was not involved.

In my opinion the crime would not have been committed without his car, without the drugs, without him paying for the hammer and garbage bags, without him driving to a remote location.

I am not 100% sure just what happened there but from everything presented I have concluded that TLM did not do this on her own!!

 

[Tahorn]

Why would it be hard to blame her? We know that females commit kidnapping and rape. I can think of two cases off the top of my head - Sandra Cantu and the stepmom (I can't remember the name). It is rare, but it happens. HERE, though, the evidence doesn't support that theory because Tori's blood was found mixed with sperm cells. And really, no matter how many times I am reminded that it was "sperm cells" and not "semen," I know the ONLY place that sperm cells live - is in semen. So you wash the semen away and what are you left with? Sperm cells. No other way to get there.... only one road and it leads to the same spot every time.

TLM gets her share of the blame, but blaming her does not exonerate MR. She did not act alone - no matter how violent or twisted she is - the evidence shows us, she did not act alone.

They are both to blame - both, in my opinion.

Salem

If MR choose TLM so he could use her as a scape goat ... Then it was not a very good thought out plan.

 

[Tahorn]

No clothes on her lower half, no explanation from defendant= sexual assault. The defence shifted the burden of proof by suggesting alternate scenarios. The defence presented not one piece of evidence to corroborate said theories. JMO

I guess we will hear the alternative theory in the defense closing ...

 

[tmhco]

I guess we will hear the alternative theory in the defense closing ...

Yes, with no corrobagating evidence to back it up. JMO

 

[Mystic]

TLM testified that MR threw Tori on the ground and was kicking her. He could have directly contributed to Tori's death. He definitely participated in her death. http://www.1047.ca/local-news/michael-rafferty-trial

I may be mistaken but wasn't the one injury from the kicking fatal (also the one that proved she was still alive as blood was found in her lungs??)

of course hammers to the head would have also be fatal but from the testimony I understood that she would have died from the kick alone. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I think MR gave the initial kick and hammer blows and TLM was then given the hammer to contribuate her part.. Just the way I see it happening

 

[Ardy]

I find it easier to look at just facts and only facts on both sides or lack of. The problem for defense is they are not offering any facts. That is telling to me. They are only offering, "could haves". That is conjecture.

A fact to me from defense would be,
a. a concrete alibi
b. testimony from the other person present that can be backed up by evidence such as what the crown did with TLM. Example, MTR facts presented could be, here is where the hammer is, my fingerprints are not on it - and fingerprinting prooves the statement is true. THAT is evidence and not conjecture. There would be many facts like this able to be presented IF the defendant were innocent. MOO
c. a moment by moment statement by the defendent of what HE did or happened during those hours. Not conjecture from his lawyer.

JMO

Derstine is a seasoned lawyer. He KNOWS what evidence is as opposed to conjecture. IF he had evidence he could present that can be backed up and seen as fact then he WOULD present it. I would have to assume it doesn't exist. MOO

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...........

 

[tmhco]

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...........

It would not have cost the defence a dime to have MR relate his version of events. JMO

 

[Ardy]

No clothes on her lower half, no explanation from defendant= sexual assault. The defence shifted the burden of proof by suggesting alternate scenarios. The defence presented not one piece of evidence to corroborate said theories. JMO

That is just as speculative as saying TLM removed her clothing because of an "accident".

Both are speculative and not supported by any evidence.

There "could" be lots of other explanations.

As there is no supporting evidence to support any theory......I think it likely the Judge will inform the jury to disregard it in their deliberations.

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

 

[crazyladi]

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...........

How do you figure? Without her testimony there is still a lot of evidence. Mainly his car him driving with Tori's blood inhis car. Sorry even if the had nothing but this they have his bbm movements, tons of video footage etc. without her testimony he will still be found guilty jmo

 

[crazyladi]

That is just as speculative as saying TLM removed her clothing because of an "accident".

Both are speculative and not supported by any evidence.

There "could" be lots of other explanations.

As there is no supporting evidence to support any theory......I think it likely the Judge will inform the jury to disregard it in their deliberations.

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

I'm sorry I think your wrong jmo

 

[Alison]

Too many "coulds" and the threshold of beyond a reasonable doubt becomes increasingly harder to achieve.

It seems to me the Crown had their case all set after 3 years of work, only to have TLM confess to the murder just before the trial started, leaving the Crown with a lot of loose ends in their case, at a point too late to tie them all up.

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

Not to blame the Crown.........they had no control over TLM. Perhaps they could have asked for more time..........but the clock may have been ticking on the right of the accused to a trial

It had already been almost 3 years, and a lengthy delay may have breached the accused Charter rights.

JMO..........

How do we know that the three year delay was not because his defence needed more time? If his rights were breached because of the time delay I am sure it would have been addressed long before the court case. JMO. Also I was saying there are lots of coulds in this case, for example MR could have let VS go when he realized that she was not being babysat (which would have been 2 minutes into the car ride). I personally do not believe the babysitting theory but that is an example of a "could". Also I think people are forgetting the word "reasonable" when they speak of reasonable doubt. While reasonable is subjective to each and every person I believe that it is not reasonable that there was a sperm cell mixed in with VS's blood because he had sex previously in his car and VS's blood accidently got mixed in with this exact spot. I do not think it was reasonable that his blood and VS's were mixed on his gym bag because he cut his hand. I do not believe it was reasonable that he did not recieve or deliver any texts during the time of the apparent assault because of (insert excuse). I also do not believe it is reasonable to not see the whole picture when all evidence (including TLM's statements) and say that there is reasonable doubt.However this is my view on reasonable doubt and I understand that others have a different view on reasonable doubt and I respect that. I just think the picture has to be looked at as a whole JMO...

 

[KMouse]

I have been following along but have not posted in this forum. Here are my two cents worth!!

I have concluded that Tori would still be alive if MR was not involved.

In my opinion the crime would not have been committed without his car, without the drugs, without him paying for the hammer and garbage bags, without him driving to a remote location.

I am not 100% sure just what happened there but from everything presented I have concluded that TLM did not do this on her own!!

This is a statement the Crown needs to present to the jury.

Remove MR out of the equation. Would TLM have acted alone and gone to the school that day to abduct a child, purchase a murder weapon, take them to a remote location and murder them and then hide the body?

When you state it like that it really simplifies it. Thanks