Court Appearances

[nobodyzgirl]

i'm pretty sure that was a Christie Blatchford article where it said that. i don't recall if it was from "sources" or where she got it from. going to try and find it (although several of her articles have been pulled)

I think you are right Dilbert, that it was in an article written by her, I'll see if I can find it also.

 

[maxfactor]

I think you are right Dilbert, that it was in an article written by her, I'll see if I can find it also.

I distinctly remember seeing a presser by LE, Fraser, and I'm sure it was he who made the "nefarious purposes" statement. Anyone know if there are still links to the LE pressers?

 

[nonfictionrocks]

We really don't know what TLM has claimed and whether she recanted or changed any of those claims in the past few months. If you're referring to the very early reports about "sexual purposes", (a) this was only mentioned once and never directly by LE, but by reporters rushing to get this story out, (b) the word "sexual" was never repeated after these initial reports, but changed to "nefarious", which could mean anything, (c) it was not specified whose "sexual/nefarious purposes" Tori was intended for.

(Respectfully snipped)

AG and dilbert, this is exactly how I remember it playing out and I believe it was City TV's Sue Gambati that started the "sexual purposes" rumour early in the day before the LE Press Conference. Perhaps she didn't actually know the meaning of nefarious or maybe she couldn't pronounce the word. LOL

 

[dilbert]

I distinctly remember seeing a presser by LE, Fraser, and I'm sure it was he who made the "nefarious purposes" statement. Anyone know if there are still links to the LE pressers?

may 20 police pressor is here if anyone wants to watch it again. (i can listen to the sound right now)

http://livestream.com/lfpress/video?dirId=4577449522710396074&clipId=pla_6361230651021453499

 

[Sillybilly]

i find it interesting that people keep discussing the pedophile aspect of this. there have been no sexual charges, only abduction and murder.
the police have never stated this was a sexually based abduction. their words were "nefarious", and even then i don't remember that word coming out of det. renton's mouth, wasn't it a reporter?
possibly there is no evidence to prove a sexual assault occured but my opinion is that sex was not the motive here.

nefarious,who uses that word anymore?

–adjective
extremely wicked or villainous; iniquitous: a nefarious plot.

doesn't sound sexual to me.

LOL, then I must be derned old-fashioned dilbert ... I had used that word about 2 days before the police presser. It seems it is being used interchangeably with "sexual". FWIW, the term "nefarious" is a more general term that could include the more specific reference to sexual, but "sexual" being the far more specific term would not include the more general term "nefarious". Clear as mud ??

Under a kidnapping charge, if there was a sexual component, it does not have to be specified because sexual assault is included as one of the factors in the more broad definition of "kidnapping" within the CCC:

 

[Kamille]

I think you are right Dilbert, that it was in an article written by her, I'll see if I can find it also.

Here is a quote from that article...

"Ms. McClintic has told police that she walked a distance away from the car when Mr. Rafferty allegedly assaulted the little girl.

But if proved in court, the allegations that this young woman actively helped in obtaining a child victim for her boyfriend for the purpose of sexual assault would place her in one of the rarest of categories, the so-called “male-coerced or male-accompanied” female sexual offender."

IMO I do believe that Christie Blatchford was able to read court documents prior to writing that article.

 

[nonfictionrocks]

LOL, then I must be derned old-fashioned dilbert ... I had used that word about 2 days before the police presser. It seems it is being used interchangeably with "sexual". FWIW, the term "nefarious" is a more general term that could include the more specific reference to sexual, but "sexual" being the far more specific term would not include the more general term "nefarious". Clear as mud ??

Under a kidnapping charge, if there was a sexual component, it does not have to be specified because sexual assault is included as one of the factors in the more broad definition of "kidnapping" within the CCC:

Hey SB, I agree that sexual assault need not be specified under the charges when a kidnapping was involved but why would LE choose to use such an ambiguous word as "nefarious" then simply "sexual" to describe the crime? I think that when standing in front of a room full of press, the wording would have been carefully scruntinized by LE before delivery to this audience. JMO

This phrase combined with Maitland's "undercurrents" comment really raises flags for me. What are your thoughts? TIA

 

[Sillybilly]

Hey SB, I agree that sexual assault need not be specified under the charges when a kidnapping was involved but why would LE choose to use such an ambiguous word as "nefarious" then simply "sexual" to describe the crime? I think that when standing in front of a room full of press, the wording would have been carefully scruntinized by LE before delivery to this audience. JMO

This phrase combined with Maitland's "undercurrents" comment really raises flags for me. What are your thoughts? TIA

Here's my recollection, but I think I'm the only person in the world who remembers it this way Because I knew the May LE presser was scheduled, I was tuned in right on time. I was sure that Renton used the term "sexual" right at the end of the conference, because my mind did an "ahaaa" .. but of course when I checked it on video at LFP, that comment was NOT there. The ONLY coverage I saw immediately after that presser was on CTV, and a female reporter in a blue suit (not sure if Sue Sgambiati?) was summing up the presser, so I have to assume it was that female reporter that used the term "sexual". Either it was immediately edited out of the LE presser, or it was the reporter who said it. The term was quickly changed in the media to "nefarious" (they must have gotten that word from me though. LOL)

Re my thoughts on undercurrents ... conjecture here, but IMO, because there MAY have been a possibility that either of the suspects was connected to some type of sex ring (or because of the possibility that the B trial was being given consideration), there would be extensive investigation to rule that in or out.

FWIW .. try googling +"victoria stafford +maitland +undercurrents ... NADA !! LE scrambles behind the scenes to control this stuff. Now, did Maitland say that the undercurrents are huge, or did we WSrs just dream that one up?

 

[matou]

Here's my recollection, but I think I'm the only person in the world who remembers it this way Because I knew the May LE presser was scheduled, I was tuned in right on time. I was sure that Renton used the term "sexual" right at the end of the conference, because my mind did an "ahaaa" .. but of course when I checked it on video at LFP, that comment was NOT there. The ONLY coverage I saw immediately after that presser was on CTV, and a female reporter in a blue suit (not sure if Sue Sgambiati?) was summing up the presser, so I have to assume it was that female reporter that used the term "sexual". Either it was immediately edited out of the LE presser, or it was the reporter who said it. The term was quickly changed in the media to "nefarious" (they must have gotten that word from me though. LOL)

Re my thoughts on undercurrents ... conjecture here, but IMO, because there MAY have been a possibility that either of the suspects was connected to some type of sex ring (or because of the possibility that the B trial was being given consideration), there would be extensive investigation to rule that in or out.

FWIW .. try googling +"victoria stafford +maitland +undercurrents ... NADA !! LE scrambles behind the scenes to control this stuff. Now, did Maitland say that the undercurrents are huge, or did we WSrs just dream that one up?

"The undercurrent of this investigation is huge," Maitland said. "It's top priority, of course . . . we don't release things of evidentiary nature and we don't release how we investigate or what we're doing next or what our steps are. Those types of things are generating the undercurrent that I'm talking about."

http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1625739

 

[Sillybilly]

"I definitely did NOT say that ... I said my "underwear is huge".

 

[Sillybilly]

http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1625739

Thanks matou. I'm wrong again !! Oh well, I had fun with it for a minute or two.

 

[nonfictionrocks]

Here's my recollection, but I think I'm the only person in the world who remembers it this way Because I knew the May LE presser was scheduled, I was tuned in right on time. I was sure that Renton used the term "sexual" right at the end of the conference, because my mind did an "ahaaa" .. but of course when I checked it on video at LFP, that comment was NOT there. The ONLY coverage I saw immediately after that presser was on CTV, and a female reporter in a blue suit (not sure if Sue Sgambiati?) was summing up the presser, so I have to assume it was that female reporter that used the term "sexual". Either it was immediately edited out of the LE presser, or it was the reporter who said it. The term was quickly changed in the media to "nefarious" (they must have gotten that word from me though. LOL)

Re my thoughts on undercurrents ... conjecture here, but IMO, because there MAY have been a possibility that either of the suspects was connected to some type of sex ring (or because of the possibility that the B trial was being given consideration), there would be extensive investigation to rule that in or out.

FWIW .. try googling +"victoria stafford +maitland +undercurrents ... NADA !! LE scrambles behind the scenes to control this stuff. Now, did Maitland say that the undercurrents are huge, or did we WSrs just dream that one up?

I used a few different words and came up with this link:

http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1625739

"The undercurrent of this investigation is huge," Maitland said. "It's top priority, of course . . . we don't release things of evidentiary nature and we don't release how we investigate or what we're doing next or what our steps are. Those types of things are generating the undercurrent that I'm talking about."

Though I wished we WS's made it up!

 

[maxfactor]

I used a few different words and came up with this link:

http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1625739

"The undercurrent of this investigation is huge," Maitland said. "It's top priority, of course . . . we don't release things of evidentiary nature and we don't release how we investigate or what we're doing next or what our steps are. Those types of things are generating the undercurrent that I'm talking about."

Though I wished we WS's made it up!

Bolded by me.

I wonder if she's meaning all the oxy busts that happened there shortly after all this?

 

[Sillybilly]

Bolded by me.

I wonder if she's meaning all the oxy busts that happened there shortly after all this?

That could be too max. Thinking of both Tori's and Mariam's case where we are hearing the words huge, massive, unprecedented ... terms that seem a bit out of the norm for conservative LE.:waitasec:

 

[Kamille]

Hey SB, I agree that sexual assault need not be specified under the charges when a kidnapping was involved but why would LE choose to use such an ambiguous word as "nefarious" then simply "sexual" to describe the crime? I think that when standing in front of a room full of press, the wording would have been carefully scruntinized by LE before delivery to this audience. JMO

This phrase combined with Maitland's "undercurrents" comment really raises flags for me. What are your thoughts? TIA

IMO the reason why LE were hesitant to use the wording "sexual purposes" in their press conference was because they were only going on TLM's story of what happened. They did not have actual evidence that a sexual crime took place. They might not even have it today.

But Tori was obviously not abducted to go shopping so "nefarious" fit the purpose when describing the crime, especially at that time. At that time all they had was TLM's story and corroborating evidence. That still might be the case.

 

[dilbert]

i wish someone would abduct me to go shopping!

 

[nonfictionrocks]

i wish someone would abduct me to go shopping!

OMG - that's is funny but in all seriousness, I wish someone would just do my shopping!

 

[braindrained]

http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=1625739

Renton most definately did say 'sexual purposes'. I made notes on what was being said when I watched the presser live. But the presser was magically edited ASAP!
For this reason I hate technology in some things....too fast on the draw to fix things so everyone will be led to doubt their own sanity when discussing it later on ...:banghead:

 

[puppyraiser]

Tori murder suspect waives right to preliminary trial- story follows regarding TLM.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091216/tori_murder_091216/20091216?hub=Toronto

 

[nobodyzgirl]

Tori murder suspect waives right to preliminary trial- story follows regarding TLM.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20091216/tori_murder_091216/20091216?hub=Toronto

Interesting...trial date will be set in March. Thanks for this Puppyraiser. I understand that MR has another preliminary hearing on Friday. Interesting that the media is back once again, saying MR is the former boyfriend, I don't know that that's ever been actually confirmed.