London Ontario - Tori Stafford murder trial begins jury selection

[antiquegirl]

I wonder what the rational was behind picking so many women.

One expert opinion about that here:

“A jury that won’t be swayed by sympathy and emotions,” said Segal, adding that she would definitely want to see more women on the jury. “They have a different way of looking at evidence. Some of the pieces of evidence will be graphic and you will need someone with a strong composition.”

Women are also more analytical, she says."

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1137244--search-begins-for-jury-in-tori-stafford-murder-trial

 

[swedie]

My looseleaf opinion on so many women being chosen, is that the defense is looking to lay the blame on Tori's Mother and TLM, and some scheme they cooked up, and they will try to paint TM as a bad Mom, and will hope that the females, who may themselves be mothers, will go for that theory. This is just one possible reason.

The occupations of the jurors seem quite good, for a random panel, so, that is a good thing, IMO.

I am really hoping that justice is served in this case. It seems to me, from what has been released, that it has been off to a good and fair start. There have been lots of warnings, precautions etc. Everyone wants it done right the 1st time.

Great post and points WG. I gave thought to this also about how much the defense will try and pull TM into the blame. Hopefully the jurors will see through that tactic, if the defense tries to use that. I am sure TLM's examination on the stand will have a lot of effect on the jurors, especially once they see the actual evidence to support her statement. Hopefully she will be truthful because logically at this point, there really would be not reason for her to lie. She will be doing at least 15 years and if she's hoping for the faint hope clause, she better show herself to be trustworthy during her testimony as this could affect her 15 years from now. She does deserve the full 25 IMHO, but I am not the one who will be making that decision 15 years from now.

 

[dilbert]

Great post and points WG. I gave thought to this also about how much the defense will try and pull TM into the blame. Hopefully the jurors will see through that tactic, if the defense tries to use that. I am sure TLM's examination on the stand will have a lot of effect on the jurors, especially once they see the actual evidence to support her statement. Hopefully she will be truthful because logically at this point, there really would be not reason for her to lie. She will be doing at least 15 years and if she's hoping for the faint hope clause, she better show herself to be trustworthy during her testimony as this could affect her 15 years from now. She does deserve the full 25 IMHO, but I am not the one who will be making that decision 15 years from now.

Hopefully the jurors will be able to determine, from the facts presented, what is truth and what is not, and not base their decision on the assumption that everything the defence says and does is merely a "tactic".

MOO

 

[swedie]

Anybody have any guesses on who the first witness will be?

I guess TLM. At the bottom of this article: McClintic may be called as a Crown witness as early as next week. Her testimony is expected to span several days.

http://www2.canada.com/calgaryherald/iphone/news/national/story.html?id=6235055

 

[nonfictionrocks]

My looseleaf opinion on so many women being chosen, is that the defense is looking to lay the blame on Tori's Mother and TLM, and some scheme they cooked up, and they will try to paint TM as a bad Mom, and will hope that the females, who may themselves be mothers, will go for that theory. This is just one possible reason.
The occupations of the jurors seem quite good, for a random panel, so, that is a good thing, IMO.

I am really hoping that justice is served in this case. It seems to me, from what has been released, that it has been off to a good and fair start. There have been lots of warnings, precautions etc. Everyone wants it done right the 1st time.

BBM

I don't have a problem with this tactic. It is as believable as any story either of the above mentioned have made up. IMO

 

[Wondergirl]

"It was revealed in court Thursday that she may be called as a Crown witness as early as next week. Her testimony was expected to span several days."

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/0...-more-plus-two-alternates-still-to-be-picked/

One expert opinion about that here:

“A jury that won’t be swayed by sympathy and emotions,” said Segal, adding that she would definitely want to see more women on the jury. “They have a different way of looking at evidence. Some of the pieces of evidence will be graphic and you will need someone with a strong composition.”

Women are also more analytical, she says."

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1137244--search-begins-for-jury-in-tori-stafford-murder-trial

Thanks for the interesting article link.

Here are a few more perspectives from lawyers. <modsnip>

Aaron Harnett points out that lawyers don&#8217;t have all information to make a meaningful distinction about potential jurors.

&#8220;All you get is their name, age and profession,&#8221; he said. &#8220;I am inclined to simply go with the first 12 who don&#8217;t look deranged.&#8221;

Sam Goldstein agrees with him.

&#8220;There is no magic to picking jurors,&#8221; he said. &#8220;You pick people who look like they are going to be interested in what is going on. Sometimes women are harder on women and sometimes they are not.&#8221;

Goldstein, a well-known criminal lawyer in Toronto, says when he was a Crown lawyer, senior Crowns would say don&#8217;t pick up teachers because they are too sympathetic. &#8220;And you know what defence lawyers say? Don&#8217;t pick teachers, they are not sympathetic.&#8221;

One thing all lawyers agree on is that race won&#8217;t matter.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1137244--search-begins-for-jury-in-tori-stafford-murder-trial

 

[maxfactor]

Anybody have any guesses on who the first witness will be?

I wonder if it will be LE, Jim Smyth maybe if he was the one who questioned MR.

 

[margaret_diane]

I wonder if it will be LE, Jim Smyth maybe if he was the one who questioned MR.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/Su...rder+details+Stafford+case/3951191/story.html

According to this article Det. Symth did indeed interview TLM:
"Interviewing McClintic was OPP Detective-Sergeant Jim Smyth, a behavioural science specialist who became famous this October for coaxing a shock confession from Colonel Russell Williams, the air force commander who raped and murdered two women."

I saw this article recently about him:
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/1...-interrogation-techniques-derail-murder-case/

- reading that made me wonder what impact his involvement in Tori's case could have over how the trial plays out. If I were a defence attorney working on this case, I'd be all over that. It will be interesting to see how this all plays out in court, if Det. Smyth is called to testify.

 

[antiquegirl]

I wonder if it will be LE, Jim Smyth maybe if he was the one who questioned MR.

I think you're onto something there. Even if Smyth didn't question MTR, he did question TLM. But they may start with LE who were involved earlier, like the ones who got the original missing child report and those who searched for her. I'm definitely leaning towards LE being the first on the stand.

JMO

 

[Sparklin]

Derstine has stressed to reporters several times the public does not know the full story of the case.

&#8220;The allegations in this case are horrible. It&#8217;s very important everybody keep an open mind and not rush to judgment. Many different people can form various scenarios in their minds about what may have happened or what could have happened. What&#8217;s important is that they listen to what happens in the courtroom.&#8221;

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/0...ori-stafford-murder-trial-defence-lawyer-says

*************
bbm = I couldn't do it ~ imo

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I think you're onto something there. Even if Smyth didn't question MTR, he did question TLM. But they may start with LE who were involved earlier, like the ones who got the original missing child report and those who searched for her. I'm definitely leaning towards LE being the first on the stand.

JMO

Me too. I think the beginning is a good place to start.

 

[matou]

Trial starts Monday, March 5th 2012.

Finally.

http://cd989.com/2012/03/michael-ra...-2009-murder-of-8-year-old-victoria-stafford/

 

[Sparklin]

Where are they now???

As days went by and there was no trace of the little girl, her family became the news, the fodder for gossip. There was the apologetic dad, the attractive mom, the angry stepdad, the biker uncle, the cop leading the investigation &#8212; theirs were the faces and voices people saw and heard throughout the drama.
They were thrust into the intense media spotlight as the abduction unfolded into murder when Tori&#8217;s body was found in July 2009.

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario...-tori-stafford-murder-case-where-are-they-now

 

[matou]

I wonder what the rational was behind picking so many women.

I think the defense team avoided men as they would react more viscerally to the crimes he is accused of. MOO The team is also likely looking for a sympathetic response in case Rafferty cries during the trial. This will likely backfire. MOO

 

[antiquegirl]

The jury members are chosen equally between the Crown and the defence representative. Either side can veto a prospective juror during voir dire. Ultimately, the panel is comprised of members approved by both sides.

"Crown or defence counsel may "challenge" each panelist who has been called. A challenge simply means that either lawyer does not want you to serve as a juror in that particular case."

http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/jury-duty.htm#e

"the Canadian voir dire is curtailed significantly, with little dialogue between the lawyers and jury pool. The voir dire is a truth-seeking process where the lawyers try to cleanse the jury pool from any unfair prejudice or bias that may jeopardize the fairness of the proceedings."

http://www.canadalegal.info/ref-canada-criminal-law/canada-criminal-law-courts.html

 

[nursebeeme]

Jurors have been told the trial is expected to last between 2 1/2 and three months, possibly extending into June.

http://cd989.com/2012/03/michael-ra...-2009-murder-of-8-year-old-victoria-stafford/


wow.... that is a long time!

 

[swedie]

Hopefully the jurors will be able to determine, from the facts presented, what is truth and what is not, and not base their decision on the assumption that everything the defence says and does is merely a "tactic".

MOO

I have great faith in judge Heeney and he really seems on the ball so to speak. He has made so many things clear to the jurors in this case and even eliminated people who have vacations booked, imagine that. :rocker:Still MHO of how CA got away with no sentence for murdering CMA (jurors rushed to judgement because someone had a vacation/cruise booked)PLUS they were not informed about circumstantial evidence. In Jeff Ashton's recent book, he pointed out how the jurors had many concerns, questions and requests during the trial about being able to watch a football game, having access to certain movies (including childrens' movies), wanting pretzels in the jurors room, (self absorbed) but when it came to asking questions during deliberations, they had no questions. JMHO but I believe this jury pool were not the brightest bunch. A good example is how CA's lawyer used the molestation "tactic" and how GA found CMA in the pool "tactic". "Tactics" JB used but never was able to prove or produce one shred of the possibility these situations happened, to back the defenses claims. Yes these are "tactics" defense lawyers like to use to try and show reasonable doubt. I am fully aware it is not up to the defense to prove anything, just argue the Crowns theories.

It will be very hard for MR's defense to argue away most of the potential evidence the Crown will present especially DNA, blood, video surveillance, finger prints, cell phone pings, a few examples. <modsnip>I can safely say with the instructions the jurors have received from Judge Heeney and more instructions to follow, he will make it his number one mission, the jurors are well informed, know everything they need to know while determining MR's fate on those final days.

Some are also familiar with this case in which Judge Heeney also presided over and he must have done a great job informing the jury panel, as we know how this trial ended.
Bandidos massacre
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2009/04/01/f-mass-murder-timeline.html

Having great faith justice will be served in this sickening and senseless case, for which a pretty, innocent, bright, little, eight year old girl was abducted, tortured, raped and murdered. She was stolen from her loved ones and friends. It's hard to define justice in a case such as this, but to have those responsible locked away, is the best we can do, it will have to do. One less threat of harm to little children. It will have to do. :innocent:JMHO.

 

[maxfactor]

http://cd989.com/2012/03/michael-ra...-2009-murder-of-8-year-old-victoria-stafford/


wow.... that is a long time!

That's what I thought! There must be a lot of evidence and witnesses to get through!

 

[maxfactor]

I was thinking today about the man who was standing down the street waiting for his son. It's quite possible he saw the car pull away, in fact he might have seen it sitting at the nursing home, it appears that he would have walked down that way to wait for his son. I'm sure he will be a witness, wasn't he the one who helped with the sketch of TLM?

 

[maxfactor]

I think the defense team avoided men as they would react more viscerally to the crimes he is accused of. MOO The team is also likely looking for a sympathetic response in case Rafferty cries during the trial. This will likely backfire. MOO

That's a good point! I believe it's been written quite often that he cries a lot. Men might just roll their eyes at that but women would be more emotional. Hard to say how they might see that.