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

[crazyladi]

He is guilty and it doesn't matter the amount of money the crown has, I really think the defense had nothing that's why they had no other witnesses. Had nothing to do with money. The coward got a fair trial and he will be found guilty without a reasonable doubt. Jmo

 

[crazyladi]

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

It does simplify it. IMO if Tlm was going to kill anyone I don't think her first thought would be a child or to follow through with it without a car etc

 

[Alison]

Tax evasion and welfare fraud.......if either or both of them are collecting OW benefits and not reporting the income.

Maybe still to come.........??

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

The woman who testified should not be subjected to any types of charges for doing her civic duty in testifying against MR. To me this would be cruel and unusual punishment. I am sure the crown worked something out with her. JMO.

 

[tmhco]

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.............

Yes, coupled with the eyewitness testimony, VS blood/ unknown Sperm mixture and no explanation from the defendant, I believe it is the obvious conclusion. The doubt has to be REASONABLE. JMO

 

[KMouse]

It does simplify it. IMO if Tlm was going to kill anyone I don't think her first thought would be a child or to follow through with it without a car etc

It does to me. If MR did not exist I don't believe Tori would be abducted and murdered.

 

[crazyladi]

It does to me. If MR did not exist I don't believe Tori would be abducted and murdered.

I am confused with your response lol. I said that it DOES simplify things. Anyways without her I believe she would be alive today. Two twisted people met each other and both got what they wanted in the end minus getting caught

 

[Tahorn]

Seems to be working for you. JMO

I don't think TLM is a scape goat ... I think she is a violent unpredictable junkie whose rage has stabbed two people, beaten her mother twice, microwaved a dog and admitted to killing an innocent little girl. (that's what we know)

What I don't believe is MR manipulating TLM into participating in a brutal kidnapping for rape. big risk no gain, involving TLM ...

He had access to children and manipulating skills to lure them ... Why involve TLM?

If the crown said TLM and MR kidnapped VS because they wanted a ransom or even money owed for a drug debts ... but during the abduction TLM lost control and beat VS breaking her ribs ... Then they decided to kill her for they believed she was already dying from the aspirating blood ... They took her bottoms off so when she was found they would look for a sexual predator, after all that is everyone first thought when a little girl goes missing. I would believe that ....

The problem lies in the crown is asking the jury to believe MR motive was based on a sexual assault which included TLM a girl with a history and nothing to gain by keeping his secret.

It takes time to developed trust, and I don't believe MR trusted TLM with his life.

 

[Tahorn]

The woman who testified should not be subjected to any types of charges for doing her civic duty in testifying against MR. To me this would be cruel and unusual punishment. I am sure the crown worked something out with her. JMO.

It doesn't mean the money she gave him wasn't to supply her with drugs.

 

[tmhco]

I don't think TLM is a scape goat ... I think she is a violent unpredictable junkie whose rage has stabbed two people, beaten her mother twice, microwaved a dog and admitted to killing an innocent little girl. (that's what we know)

What I don't believe is MR manipulating TLM into participating in a brutal kidnapping for rape. big risk no gain, involving TLM ...

He had access to children and manipulating skills to lure them ... Why involve TLM?

If the crown said TLM and MR kidnapped VS because they wanted a ransom or even money owed for a drug debts ... but during the abduction TLM lost control and beat VS breaking her ribs ... Then they decided to kill her for they believed she was already dying from the aspirating blood ... They took her bottoms off so when she was found they would look for a sexual predator, after all that is everyone first thought when a little girl goes missing. I would believe that ....

The problem lies in the crown is asking the jury to believe MR motive was based on a sexual assault which included TLM a girl with a history and nothing to gain by keeping his secret.

It takes time to developed trust, and I don't believe MR trusted TLM with his life.

I disagree that access to children would be sufficient to kidnap a child. He wanted a child with no links to himself. A child would be wary of an adult male trying to woo them with puppies . A teenage girl, not so much.

She was just as responsible as he so he had no reason to believe she would confess. I doubt very much he knew she had violated probation and would be picked up. She also told him she would take the rap. That was reason enough at the time. He easily pursuaded her to kidnap a child and he took this as devotion. He was just cocky enough to believe she would take the fall. JMO

 

[Sillybilly]

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.............

The accused has not been charged with sexual assault based on the Crown believing Tori had an accident. He has been charged based on testimony (whether to be believed or not) supported by forensic evidence of sperm cells mixed with Tori's blood and circumstantial evidence being she was naked from the waist down. The forensic expert testified that it would not be expected to find definitive evidence, given the length of time before Tori's body was found. The whole picture is formed by looking at the totality of the information as it relates to an abduction, rape and ultimate murder.

There is no evidence or testimony whatsoever that Tori had an "accident". Not even a defence "suggestion" will constitute testimony. An accident is PURE speculation (and I have seriously been trying to consider that theory in trying to come up with reasonable doubt, and sorry ... it just doesn't cut it with me). Again, MTR had an opportunity to take the stand and present a different version (oh yes, we all know that his lawyer will put theories out there on his behalf), but there isn't a shred of testimony or evidence, even circumstantial, that supports that theory ... it is simply PURE speculation.

JMO

 

[Tahorn]

I disagree that access to children would be sufficient to kidnap a child. He wanted a child with no links to himself. A child would be wary of an adult male trying to woo them with puppies . A teenage girl, not so much.

She was just as responsible as he so he had no reason to believe she would confess. I doubt very much he knew she had violated probation and would be picked up. She also told him she would take the rap. That was reason enough at the time. He easily pursuaded her to kidnap a child and he took this as devotion. He was just cocky enough to believe she would take the fall. JMO

Agree to disagree.

Since VS was linked to MR and to TLM that theory doesn't make sense.

MR had a lot of experience with women, so it would be illogical to believe he would trust any women to keep the rape of a child a secret without some kind of control ... Control he did not have, over TLM or any other women ...

Tell me it was a kidnapping for finicial gain that went terribly wrong and I would buy that ...

 

[Salem]

Lay off the witnesses. No calling them names, disguised as terms of endearment, not discussing their personal lives, no discussing possible charges against them.

In this case - they are innocent people who came forward, either willingly or not, to present testimony in the trial of MR for the kidnapping, sexual assault and 1st degree murder of Tori Stafford. That's it. The end.

You may discuss their trial testimony, but no personal lives or other extra details.

This is the final warning. I will issue a minimum 5 day TO for anyone that posts disparaging remarks about any witness after this post.

Salem

 

[Ardy]

post removed as per moderator post.

 

[Salem]

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 disagree the judge will tell the jury to disregard that Tori was found without her clothing. I think the judge will tell the jury that they must look at ALL the evidence and make logical and reasonable inferences from the evidence presented and that the members of the jury may rely on their own common sense and experiences to make those inferences. The evidence is to be considered as a whole.

That's what I think the judge will say. Also, I think we have model jury instructions linked up in this thread back on the early pages? I think?

Salem

 

[OhSoCurious]

And more light reading while we wait. Just so people may not surprised with a verdict. This case struck me with having some likenesses:

http://www.thespec.com/news/canada/...first-degree-murder-michelle-liard-walks-free

 

[Ardy]

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...

As we don't know the contents of the legal arguments, the subject of Charter Right breaches may have already been discussed and ruled on.

JMO..........

 

[Salem]

Respectfully snipped

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...........

I beg to differ, here. There is hard, physical evidence against MR. Maybe he would not have been caught, is that what you mean? But, once caught, there is plenty of evidence to tell the story. Most notably, Tori's blood in his car.

Salem

 

[Ardy]

I disagree the judge will tell the jury to disregard that Tori was found without her clothing. I think the judge will tell the jury that they must look at ALL the evidence and make logical and reasonable inferences from the evidence presented and that the members of the jury may rely on their own common sense and experiences to make those inferences. The evidence is to be considered as a whole.

That's what I think the judge will say. Also, I think we have model jury instructions linked up in this thread back on the early pages? I think?

Salem

I'm not sure missing clothes is evidence of anythiing, but if the Judge did allow it for consideration, he cannot allow the Crown to assert the missing clothes are indications of a sexual assault, without allowing the defense to offer alternative reasons for the missing clothes.

JMO..........

 

[Salem]

I'm not sure missing clothes is evidence of anythiing, but if the Judge did allow it for consideration, he cannot allow the Crown to assert the missing clothes are indications of a sexual assault, without allowing the defense to offer alternative reasons for the missing clothes.

JMO..........

Yes, the judge can allow the jury to consider the missing clothes as evidence of sexual assault. The defense will do what they can and those theories will probably be allowed for consideration.

Let me see if I can find the jury instruction link and find something in there that addresses this....

Give me a minutes because my family is seeking my attention at the moment.

Salem

 

[Salem]

Okay - here is the link (originally posted by Wondergirl): http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/esc-cde/scje-cdej/p7.html

These are just the guiding principles and every set of jury instructions will differ somewhat depending on the charges, evidence and circumstances. But the principles say:

"(1) instruction on the relevant legal issues, including the charges faced by the accused;
(2) an explanation of the theories of each side;
(3) a review of the salient facts which support the theories and case of each side;
(4) a review of the evidence relating to the law;
(5) a direction informing the jury they are the masters of the facts and it is for them to make the factual determinations;
(6) instruction about the burden of proof and presumption of innocence;
(7) the possible verdicts open to the jury; and
(8) the requirements of unanimity for reaching a verdict."

So, it appears to me, that yes, the jury will be able to consider the theories of the defense and any facts that support the theory. I think the defense is going to be at a disadvantage though, because they have no facts, or at least is seems they have no facts from the tweet info that we have.

Salem