5/15/2012--Sentencing

[swedie]

Kinda OT but worth noting IMO. All charges against H. Mattson have been quashed in regards to tampering with witness in another case. I have not been able to find a link but will post one when it becomes available. H. Mattson was MR court appointed lawyer upon his arrested May 2009. For whatever reason H. Mattson did not end up defending MR and MR ended up hiring D. Derstine.

 

[Mystic]

I believe it would have been tossed out regardless, even if the search warrant had not been faulty because it showed the kind of character Rafferty had and it. It was biased towards him and perhaps would have led the jurors to convict based on his character.

hope you don't mind me using your post to share my opinion

the search warrent was not faulty, it just happened to be a point in time that changes were in the works around laptops and warrants and the judge wanted to error on the side of that occuring... an appeal issue


I don't believe the child *advertiser censored* or movie were biase towards MR. For me.. charactor is how many women he slept with etc... the child *advertiser censored* & abduction 'imo' relates specifically to the crime he was being charged with (not charactor) and it showed a likely hood that he was interested in child rape, abduction. It should have come in. We are very lucky the Jury voted as they did.

I hope that this is one of the things that RS pushes forward... that there is 'no tolerance' nor any 'loop-holes' that evidence which is indicative to a crime against a child be held back.. no 'matter what'. This warrant issue is crap in my opinion, this crime was horrific, there was excellect information on that laptop showing that MR was planning and prone to do this crime. That isn't charactor. Personally, I don't care if MR slept with a different women a day and 2 each night on the week-ends.. that he had child *advertiser censored* and had just downloaded movies of child abduction is what I am concerned with. The laws, technicalities around warrants need to have lee-way in these situations. I truly hope something changes because I see how easily the Jury could have voted not guilty or a much lessor sentence. Such that that information wasn't included I now do not believe they can make him a dangerous offender and therefore keep him locked away for the remaining days of his life.

This post is not directed at you at all, its all about how I feel so strongly regarding this warrant that requires upgrading. We, as a society have given criminals so many loop holes to avoid conviction in the name of not having wrongful convictions... yet that may still happen anyhow. I don't believe when we thought up 'A fair Trial' we meant to allow criminals the opportunity to go free to commit far worse.

MR won't win any Appeal, there would be such an outcry here in Ontario, I for one would be calling every MP, MPP and PM. I think its time for a change to change some legal tehnicalities to ensure there is 'no tolerance' with crimes against our children. Tori's ordeal just breaks my heart and that there was a remote possibility MR could have gone free because good evidence was held back really irks me... kwim

 

[BorgQueen]

hope you don't mind me using your post to share my opinion

the search warrent was not faulty, it just happened to be a point in time that changes were in the works around laptops and warrants and the judge wanted to error on the side of that occuring... an appeal issue


I don't believe the child *advertiser censored* or movie were biase towards MR. For me.. charactor is how many women he slept with etc... the child *advertiser censored* & abduction 'imo' relates specifically to the crime he was being charged with (not charactor) and it showed a likely hood that he was interested in child rape, abduction. It should have come in. We are very lucky the Jury voted as they did.

I hope that this is one of the things that RS pushes forward... that there is 'no tolerance' nor any 'loop-holes' that evidence which is indicative to a crime against a child be held back.. no 'matter what'. This warrant issue is crap in my opinion, this crime was horrific, there was excellect information on that laptop showing that MR was planning and prone to do this crime. That isn't charactor. Personally, I don't care if MR slept with a different women a day and 2 each night on the week-ends.. that he had child *advertiser censored* and had just downloaded movies of child abduction is what I am concerned with. The laws, technicalities around warrants need to have lee-way in these situations. I truly hope something changes because I see how easily the Jury could have voted not guilty or a much lessor sentence. Such that that information wasn't included I now do not believe they can make him a dangerous offender and therefore keep him locked away for the remaining days of his life.

This post is not directed at you at all, its all about how I feel so strongly regarding this warrant that requires upgrading. We, as a society have given criminals so many loop holes to avoid conviction in the name of not having wrongful convictions... yet that may still happen anyhow. I don't believe when we thought up 'A fair Trial' we meant to allow criminals the opportunity to go free to commit far worse.

MR won't win any Appeal, there would be such an outcry here in Ontario, I for one would be calling every MP, MPP and PM. I think its time for a change to change some legal tehnicalities to ensure there is 'no tolerance' with crimes against our children. Tori's ordeal just breaks my heart and that there was a remote possibility MR could have gone free because good evidence was held back really irks me... kwim

BBM
Bouncing off bolded comment...

While I do think the judge ultimately made the right choice, he followed the law, I think that law should be different. If child pornograpy is found, even if obtaining it breached rights, etc, it should be considered admissible. No matter what. Any of the other information (all the women, although most of them were single mothers...) isn't even needed. And the person who was in possession of this should be charged for it. No, it wouldn't change MR's sentence, but it would be on his record.

 

[tmhco]

There would have been little point. The sentences for child *advertiser censored* and even pedophiles are quite brief, under 2 years. Besides, criminals are protected under our concurrent sentencing rule, so even 100 charges of child *advertiser censored* wouldn't make the sentence any longer.

Right, but I was wondering if it could have been a way to introduce it without it being considered "character" evidence.

 

[Heliotrope]

I absolutely agree it shouldn't be considered character evidence. 'Deviant' sex is one thing - S&M, fetishes, etc - these are consenting adults and we live in a capitalist society. That's character evidence, and should be omitted.

To consume child *advertiser censored* is to participate in the continuum of violence against children. It's a pattern, it's evidence.

 

[Alethea Dice]

The problem with the computer search could have very easily been avoided. They knew the laws were changing. Both the Justice of the Peace and the OPP forensics detective explicitly told the investigating officers that they needed a separate warrant specific to the search of the hard drive. They already had the computer, it was going nowhere, and they had lots of time to get the warrant. It's highly unlikely that the request would have been denied. In spite of that, the officer in charge chose to ignore the advice and went ahead with the search without obtaining the warrant. IMO, the judge made the right decision to avoid a mistrial or further grounds for a chance at a successful appeal.

JMO

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/05/15/judge-was-right-to-keep-raffertys-laptop-out-of-the-trial/

 

[Yody04]

Hi everybody, I found another very interesting link about MTR
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1177612--michael-rafferty-conman-womanizer-murderer

I found it under the news from: whosyourneighbour.ca

 

[Alethea Dice]

There seems to be some confusion regarding dangerous offender status and how it affects a convicted criminal. It's very rare for someone sentenced to life to be given the dangerous offender status because it would be redundant. The only reason that Paul Bernardo was declared a dangerous offender was because the Crown requested it, rather than holding trials on the additional 33 charges he faced. Robert Picton may get it because he has only been charged with a few of the 49 kills he has admitted to, due to a lack of evidence.

Someone who has received a life sentence remains in jail for life, with the chance to apply for parole after 25 years. Even if granted parole, they are monitored for the rest of their life.

A dangerous offender is sentenced for an indeterminate time (could be for life), but is eligible for parole after only 7 years. If granted parole, again they are monitored for life.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0613-e.htm#E-Sentencing

E. Sentencing
Unless the court finds that a less severe measure(36) will adequately protect the public, a dangerous offender designation will result in an indeterminate prison sentence.(37) Thus, no statutory release date is set.(38) However, a dangerous offender imprisoned for an indeterminate duration is eligible for day parole after four years’ imprisonment(39) and for ordinary parole after seven years.(40) Dangerous offenders who are paroled are monitored for the rest of their lives.(41) If they continue to present an unacceptable risk for society, they will stay in prison for life.(42)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/10/21/f-dangerous-offender.html

 

[Mystic]

BBM
Bouncing off bolded comment...

While I do think the judge ultimately made the right choice, he followed the law, I think that law should be different. If child pornograpy is found, even if obtaining it breached rights, etc, it should be considered admissible. No matter what. Any of the other information (all the women, although most of them were single mothers...) isn't even needed. And the person who was in possession of this should be charged for it. No, it wouldn't change MR's sentence, but it would be on his record.

thanks BorgQueen, yes I agree, the Judge did the what he had to. I totally agree with the rest of what you said and hope what I wrote came thru that way LOL because that's what I meant.

 

[swedie]

Hi everybody, I found another very interesting link about MTR
http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1177612--michael-rafferty-conman-womanizer-murderer

I found it under the news from: whosyourneighbour.ca

Yody your link provided is for the Star and news from May 11, 2012. Do you have the correct link please and TIA!

 

[flipflop]

If it weren’t for Terri-Lynne McClintic, his former lover, he may have gotten away with it all.

What a scary thought!!!! Even though TLM is the scum of the earth, I am grateful that she came forward with the info that she did!!!!

A friend remembers he was unemployed but managed to always dress in the latest fashion

I wonder what he did back then for money, was he pimping back then, selling drugs????



http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/article/1177612--michael-rafferty-conman-womanizer-murderer

 

[swedie]

There seems to be some confusion regarding dangerous offender status and how it affects a convicted criminal. It's very rare for someone sentenced to life to be given the dangerous offender status because it would be redundant. The only reason that Paul Bernardo was declared a dangerous offender was because the Crown requested it, rather than holding trials on the additional 33 charges he faced. Robert Picton may get it because he has only been charged with a few of the 49 kills he has admitted to, due to a lack of evidence.

Someone who has received a life sentence remains in jail for life, with the chance to apply for parole after 25 years. Even if granted parole, they are monitored for the rest of their life.

A dangerous offender is sentenced for an indeterminate time (could be for life), but is eligible for parole after only 7 years. If granted parole, again they are monitored for life.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/ResearchPublications/prb0613-e.htm#E-Sentencing



http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/10/21/f-dangerous-offender.html

BUT the huge difference here in MR's case is he will not be able to apply for parole in seven years. #1 He has not been classified a dangerous offender, he is classified as a child murderer, abductor and sexual predator; the worst of the worst and will serve at least 15 years (faint hope clause which IMHO he will get laughed out of the parole hearing room). #2 MR has no previous charges of violence. MR will not be allowed to file for parole again until 2034. At this time he may get paroled but I have a strong feeling he will never be free IMHO. Laws are always changing and I wouldn't be surprised to see many of these child perps serving a much longer sentence some time soon down the road.

I believe your post only refers to someone who may be a pedophile, sexual perpetrator or commit a crime of violence and their crimes do not include death as an end result. If MR had been found to have raped women or sexually assaulted children or worse, murdered another person, he could very well classify for a dangerous offender and I'm certain the Crown would have seen to that, ensuring MR's chances such as PB or RW ever walk free again. Dangerous offenders get that title by committing horrible heinous crimes such as I mentioned above on more than one victim. That is where they would earn that title. Because MR had no previous convictions of sexual assault or murder, abduction, violent crimes against anyone else (that we are aware of, or charged with), he doesn't carry the dangerous offenders label. HTH and MOO.

Changes to the Criminal Code of Canada in 2008 require some repeat offenders convicted three or more times of violent crimes or sex crimes to prove that they are not a danger to society.

Putting the onus on the offender rather than on the Crown makes it easier to designate some repeat offenders as dangerous offenders, which effectively can put them behind bars for life.

Dangerous offenders can apply for parole after seven years, but the indeterminate sentence usually equals a life sentence.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/10/21/f-dangerous-offender.html

So as I mentioned in a previous post, if women were victims of MR and came forward, and if sufficient evidence was found to support their claim, MR very well could be classified a dangerous offender who would never walk free every again. MOO

 

[Yody04]

Yody your link provided is for the Star and news from May 11, 2012. Do you have the correct link please and TIA!

this one?
http://www.whosyourneighbour.ca/index.html

 

[swedie]

The problem with the computer search could have very easily been avoided. They knew the laws were changing. Both the Justice of the Peace and the OPP forensics detective explicitly told the investigating officers that they needed a separate warrant specific to the search of the hard drive. They already had the computer, it was going nowhere, and they had lots of time to get the warrant. It's highly unlikely that the request would have been denied. In spite of that, the officer in charge chose to ignore the advice and went ahead with the search without obtaining the warrant. IMO, the judge made the right decision to avoid a mistrial or further grounds for a chance at a successful appeal.

JMO

http://www2.macleans.ca/2012/05/15/judge-was-right-to-keep-raffertys-laptop-out-of-the-trial/

The reason it was excluded?

Back in 2009, when police were conducting the investigation, the law was unclear on the issue of a separate search warrant for a computer in a dwelling house. In 2012, however, the courts now deem a computer to be a “place” and although a warrant may be obtained for a home, a computer within the home requires yet another warrant.

Although that is the law today, in 2009 it was clearly not. Yet the presiding judge, in Tori’s case, felt police at the time ought to have predicted this nonsensical legal devolution. Consequently his honour excluded the perverse computer data from being presented in evidence at trial. The jury never heard it!?!

Thankfully Rafferty was nonetheless convicted of first degree murder. But consider what might have occurred had things ended otherwise, because a judge precluded key evidence. Would he be free to roam your community?

In this case the entire benefit went to the accused, a despicable child killer and rapist, who, through complicity of legalese, improved his chances to beat the rap, and still protests his innocence, despite what was discovered on his laptop.

Immunity from evidence that clearly illustrate criminal conduct and motivation because of a questionable procedural error is not justice. The courts seem to need a reminder. They exist to protect us all, not just the Michael Rafferty’s of the world.

— Mike Sutherland is president of the Winnipeg Police Association.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/05/23/sutherland-jeopardizing-us-all

 

[swedie]

this one?
http://www.whosyourneighbour.ca/index.html

Thank you Yody. I must have been mistaken. I thought you posted some new information on MR. Although US; great site and info and thank you for that. MOO

 

[crazyladi]

[/B]

Hi CL! I was wondering if your pictures turned out from the vigil and cemetery and if you were still going to post them. We haven't seen many from the vigil and I'm looking forward to seeing more...please! :blowkiss:

Sorry I have been so busy just got them uploaded this morning

 

[crazyladi]

[/B]

Hi CL! I was wondering if your pictures turned out from the vigil and cemetery and if you were still going to post them. We haven't seen many from the vigil and I'm looking forward to seeing more...please! :blowkiss:

Here are some videos, I was holding some things so my hand isnt as steady as it should have been LOL

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLwlZX5hq8Q&feature=channel&list=UL"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PLwlZX5hq8Q&feature=channel&list=UL[/ame]

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x2owejGfCs&feature=channel&list=UL"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-x2owejGfCs&feature=channel&list=UL[/ame]

 

[crazyladi]

I wish I got the whole song on the first video because it was a beautiful song

 

[Yody04]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...onal+Post+-+Top+Stories)&utm_content=My+Yahoo

after so many years. That is simply amazing.

One more question. Does anybody else receive PM's from people that believe in MTR's innocents?

 

[Oldsoul2]

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...onal+Post+-+Top+Stories)&utm_content=My+Yahoo

after so many years. That is simply amazing.

One more question. Does anybody else receive PM's from people that believe in MTR's innocents?

Ha! Are you saying that people still think he is innocent? That he had nothing to do with the fact that Tori is no longer here?? I would have to say to them Go move to pinellas county.