London Ontario - Tori Stafford murder trial begins jury selection

[matou]

The managing editor of Global Toronto, Dave Trafford, will also be in London to cover the trial and will be live-tweeting the trial.

Read it on Global News: Global Toronto | Trial of man accused of murdering Tori Stafford begins Monday

http://www.globaltoronto.com/trial+...+stafford+begins+monday/6442593948/story.html

 

[swedie]

The province has decided to fast-track the trial of the man charged with murdering Tori Stafford, taking the rare step of quashing his preliminary hearing.

But Ontario's deputy attorney general, Murray Segal, signed a direct indictment Tuesday that means Rafferty will go straight to trial.

"Direct indictments can be used in cases where there are compelling circumstances that require, in the interests of justice, that the matter be brought to trial as soon as possible," said Brendan Crawley, spokesperson for the ministry.

Crawley stressed he could not talk about this case and did not elaborate on the "compelling circumstances" that led to the province's decision.

Direct indictments "are not used very often," he said.

But the lawyer for Michael Rafferty said the decision will only limit his client's rights, not speed up the process.

He also suggested the public will see the move as a way to protect co-accused Terri-Lynne McClintic, expected to testify against Rafferty. "It is not going to speed things up. At the most, maybe a month," lawyer Dirk Derstine said. "I am disappointed. I don't want to see my client being railroaded for the sake of expediency."

Derstine could NOT be anymore wrong in this statement. "The public" would NOT want to protect TLM, the woman who lured Tori away, as Insp. Renton made in his statement for "nefarious and sexual purposes". Of course he's disappointed because by not having a preliminary hearing, he would not be privy to the evidence and the Crowns information. That information would be very helpful in preparing the defenses tactics. JMHO. I cannot see how the denial of a preliminary limited his clients rights. Just another excuse to show his client maybe railroaded? It's not like the officials who made this decision are going against MR's rights, as we all know MR, just like everyone else, has the right to a fair trial. The judge found sufficient evidence against MR to bypass the preliminary. Maybe just another tactic to try and gain sympathy for MR. What I find interesting is Derstine takes any opportunity to speak to the reporters (much like JB did in the CA case), but yet doesn't really have anything of importance to say. MOO

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2010/06/02/14228711.html

 

[nursebeeme]

Mods, will there be a discussion thread for the info coming out of the courtroom, or do we post here? TIA

general discussion will go here:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164825"]Opening Statements 03/05/2012 in MRT's Trial - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


the other thread will be for media updates only:
[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=164836"]trial media and tweet thread (5 March 2012): **no discussion** - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]


**eta: this particular thread will close tomorrow when we open the opening statements general discussion thread

 

[Kamille]

By the way...Paul Bernardo was one of the rare cases of a direct or "preferred" indictment.

 

[matou]

We will collectively weigh the cruel randomness of it all and feel helpless as we consider the what-ifs: What if Tori hadn’t gone back to her classroom to collect her forgotten butterfly earrings? What if Tori hadn’t been walking home alone? What if her older brother Daryn hadn’t been walking a younger student home from school? How different would that Easter weekend have been for the Staffords and McDonalds?

Read it on Global News: Global News | Rafferty trial set to open in London, Ont.

http://www.globalnews.ca/rafferty+trial+set+to+open+in+london+ont/6442593978/story.html

 

[matou]

From May 20th 2009

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/03/04/tori-stafford-murder-trial-set-to-start

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Video clip of Derstine, Rafferty's defense attorney: "We're anxious to see what the Crown's case really looks like."

Doesn't he know?

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/...selection-london-120301/20120301/?hub=SWOHome

I wondered that as well because I thought that the defense is made aware of all of the evidence against the defendant before the trial in pre-trial disclosure. I haven't seen anyone else point that out so I could be wrong.

But I think that even if the defense is given all of this they still do not know how that evidence will be presented to the jury.

 

[Kamille]

I wondered that as well because I thought that the defense is made aware of all of the evidence against the defendant before the trial in pre-trial disclosure. I haven't seen anyone else point that out so I could be wrong.

But I think that even if the defense is given all of this they still do not know how that evidence will be presented to the jury.

It is an odd statement because of all the motions in recent US cases to have evidence thrown out. Is it different in Canada? Were there any motions like that in this case?

 

[matou]

http://www.woodstocksentinelreview....0729&auth=BRUCE%20URQUHART,%20Sentinel-Review

This article from June 2009 reveals that over 300 gigabytes of information was forwarded to Rafferty's first lawyer shortly after his arrest. He was expecting more to come.

 

[Alethea Dice]

That's correct, Daisy. They would have received all of the evidence during disclosure. That disclosure would have included everything, no matter how small or whether it will be used during the trial. For example, every interview conducted whether it amounted to anything usable or not. Because there was no preliminary trial, the Defence doesn't know how, or what pieces, of the evidence will be presented at trial in order to prepare for cross-examination.

 

[Alethea Dice]

It is an odd statement because of all the motions in recent US cases to have evidence thrown out. Is it different in Canada? Were there any motions like that in this case?

Other than the two that were released, the motions made in the pre-trial are currently subject to a ban.

 

[Alethea Dice]

I'm sure that all of her interviews with LE, where she confessed and gave them info as to what took place, were taped and will be used as evidence. So if she is going to contradict it will be noted. There is also her unedited statement of facts.

MOO

ETA: Actually I see it to her disadvantage that she is not going to be prepared for the "gruelling" cross examination and won't know what the defense is going to ask her. To suggest, as MR's lawyer has, that anything has been done to make things easy on TLM is ludicrous IMO.

I think the point is that she only has to go through that cross-examination once. She gave her statement of facts at her hearing, which would have been based on what she told LE in their interviews. She will not have the added stress of being cross-examined at the preliminary and again at the main trial.

JMO

 

[nettie_82]

I have to wonder if the accused will be taking the stand?!

 

[Alethea Dice]

But the lawyer for Michael Rafferty said the decision will only limit his client's rights, not speed up the process.

He also suggested the public will see the move as a way to protect co-accused Terri-Lynne McClintic, expected to testify against Rafferty. "It is not going to speed things up. At the most, maybe a month," lawyer Dirk Derstine said. "I am disappointed. I don't want to see my client being railroaded for the sake of expediency."

Derstine could NOT be anymore wrong in this statement. "The public" would NOT want to protect TLM, the woman who lured Tori away,

Snipped by me for space

I'm a little confused by this. Where does he say that "the public" wants to protect TLM? I read that statement to mean that the public will see it as a way that the Crown is protecting her.

JMO

 

[margaret_diane]

It is an odd statement because of all the motions in recent US cases to have evidence thrown out. Is it different in Canada? Were there any motions like that in this case?

If there were such motions, I think we'd be banned from discussing them given the ban on pre-trail motions. Wouldn't we?

 

[Kamille]

Expediency? It's been almost 3 years since Victoria was murdered. I wouldn't say anything was done with expediency. They've had a lot of time to pour over the evidence IMO. :waitasec:

MOO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Expediency? It's been almost 3 years since Victoria was murdered. I wouldn't say anything was done with expediency. They've had a lot of time to pour over the evidence IMO. :waitasec:

MOO

This is exactly what Mr. Derstine is saying. The spokesperson for the Ministry said that "Direct indictments can be used in cases where there are compelling circumstances that require, in the interests of justice, that the matter be brought to trial as soon as possible". Mr. Derstine stated "It is not going to speed things up. At the most, maybe a month". He hasn't commented on whether they've had time to go over the evidence, only that they don't have a chance to assess the case, compare witnesses' testimony, and plan how they will counter that testimony.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

It is an odd statement because of all the motions in recent US cases to have evidence thrown out. Is it different in Canada? Were there any motions like that in this case?

It is an odd statement because of all the motions in recent US cases to have evidence thrown out. Is it different in Canada? Were there any motions like that in this case?

I'm not in Canada, I'm in Arizona, USA. Go Coyotes! I don't think we are supposed to talk about that as it applies to Victoria's case.

But here's the wikipedia:
R. v. Stinchcombe
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._Stinchcombe

R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326 is a landmark Supreme Court of Canada decision on the disclosure of evidence in a trial and is considered by most to be one of the most significant criminal law cases of the decade. The Court found that the Crown had a duty to provide the defence with all evidence that could possibly be relevant to the case, regardless of whether the Crown plans to call that evidence at trial or not, or whether it helps or hurts the Crown's case. This case put to rest the long standing issue of whether the Crown could purposely deny the defence evidence that the Crown found would be harmful to their case.

 

[dilbert]

The defence receives full disclosure of evidence, but like Alethea said, it's everything, whether it's relevant or whether the Crown uses it at trial or not. That is a lot of information to go through and process. What Derstine was referring to in Matou's post, ([ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7659999&postcount=157"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - London Ontario - Tori Stafford murder trial begins jury selection[/ame]) is that he doesn't know HOW the Crown will present it's case, meaning, he doesn't know what evidence/information he will present from the disclosure received. Also, because the defence's motion for a preliminary inquiry was denied, the defence does not get a chance to "test" the Crown's witnesses and see how that evidence "stands up" to cross examination. Therefore the defence is at a disadvantage going in to trial because he is not prepared fully on how the Crown will proceed.

Hope this makes sense, HTH

 

[nonfictionrocks]

Snipped by me for space

I'm a little confused by this. Where does he say that "the public" wants to protect TLM? I read that statement to mean that the public will see it as a way that the Crown is protecting her.
JMO

BBM

That is exactly how I see it, you know me, part of the public speaking here. The crown only wants her confession read into record not anything she might have said at a preliminary hearing because her confession could start to be broken down. And inbetween the preliminary trail and the trial, the defense would have time and opportunity to seek out information that could very well refute her testimony. This way they only have one chance at her. If Rafferty is found guilty, could this not be a foundation in which he might build an appeal?]

Mark my words, she will be out early under the faint hope clause if she does a good job in the next several weeks.