London Ontario - Tori Stafford murder trial begins jury selection

[matou]

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.

I think the women will be more sympathetic to Tori's family if they see them crying in court or on the witness stand. JMO

 

[swedie]

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


wow.... that is a long time!

Hi Nurse! :seeya:Yes it seems quite lengthy, but let's hope the Crown has a lot of evidence to present and many professional witnesses to go through. I would imagine they will be calling many police officers, forensic experts, technology forensic experts (computers, cellphones, video surveillance ect), corner, medical examiner, investigators who were at the crime scene, DNA experts, TLM's testimony which they are saying could take days, the neighbours who phoned in with tips, friends/girlfriends of MR, family members, witness who provided the composite sketch of TLM, other potential witnesses (cashier from HD, witnesses in the parking lot, TH, at Tori's school or along the route to MR's car). How's that for a start?! This is just guess work on my part, but it's a start. I'm sure there is going to be many more people than this called to the stand.

 

[dilbert]

With all due respect Swedie, and I do not mean this to be snarky in any way, but one simply can not compare Dirk Derstine to Jose Baez.

Jose failed the bar more than once, has had several complaints lodged against him, he's a former bikini salesman who cannot pay his bills and his house is in foreclosure. He got lucky, and not because he's a good lawyer.

Dirk Derstine has 30 murder trials under his belt, 70 jury trials and "is a regular instructor in trial advocacy seminars, most recently for the Ontario Bar Assocation seminar on cross-examination techniques."
http://derstinepenman.com/index.php/component/option,com_fabrik/Itemid,52/

I stand by my comment you quoted, the jury is by law, ordered to decide guilt or innocence on the facts presented in the courtroom, if they disregard evidence because they believe it not to be factual, then that is one thing, but to simply disregard any of the evidence the defence presents simply because they think it's a "tactic" would put them in failure of doing their job as a juror.

This is all part and parcel to having an open mind, knowing that both the crown and defence lawyers play a vital role in the administration of legal justice. Not that one (the crown) is the only one with the true facts and that the other (the defence) is only there to tell made up stories.

MOO

 

[matou]

Good retrospective video at this link:

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/03/02/the-tori-stafford-saga

 

[nursebeeme]

yes this is going to be a loooooong trial... that being said we must all be on our best behavior.

I am bumping up Salem's warning for general information if anyone has not seen it yet:

Good morning everybody! We are opening a thread in the Trials forum until we can move Tori's forum here.

Please remember all the rules. And because this case is still under a modified publication ban, we can only discuss what is in the MSM, so be prepared to LINK your information.

Keep the following in mind:

First - a difference of opinion is NOT a TOS violation. Cheerleading for EITHER side is not a TOS violation, BUT being snarky and disrespectful about that opinion IS.

Second - if a post offends you, ALERT it. Remember, if you respond, it is on you and you may find yourself suffering the consequences for it.

Third - we are moving toward a zero tolerance policy. That means if you are snarky and rude, you may find yourself on TO.

Fourth - the mods will NOT be taking the time to send you pm's and hash it out. You will just see that you can no longer post.

Snarkyness includes avatars and siggy lines that are being used to convey messages you know you can't outright post.

If you have questions or concerns, PM a mod - DO NOT post them in the thread. Remember all the TOS and rules, please.

Thank you,

Salem

 

[dilbert]

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


wow.... that is a long time!

This to me does not sound like a slam dunker, MR's DNA on Tori's remains would prove he was involved without a reasonable doubt.

Does it take 2 1/2 to 3 months to explain DNA evidence to the jury?

 

[matou]

This to me does not sound like a slam dunker, MR's DNA on Tori's remains would prove he was involved without a reasonable doubt.

Does it take 2 1/2 to 3 months to explain DNA evidence to the jury?

There are three charges, each with evidence to get through, so this may take more time.

 

[nursebeeme]

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=161134"]Please read - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

moderation note: we are not discussing the case or forensics until these things are appropriately released during the trial. Thank you for your sensitivity to this.

 

[swedie]

With all due respect Swedie, and I do not mean this to be snarky in any way, but one simply can not compare Dirk Derstine to Jose Baez.

Jose failed the bar more than once, has had several complaints lodged against him, he's a former bikini salesman who cannot pay his bills and his house is in foreclosure. He got lucky, and not because he's a good lawyer.

Dirk Derstine has 30 murder trials under his belt, 70 jury trials and "is a regular instructor in trial advocacy seminars, most recently for the Ontario Bar Assocation seminar on cross-examination techniques."
http://derstinepenman.com/index.php/component/option,com_fabrik/Itemid,52/

I stand by my comment you quoted, the jury is by law, ordered to decide guilt or innocence on the facts presented in the courtroom, if they disregard evidence because they believe it not to be factual, then that is one thing, but to simply disregard any of the evidence the defence presents simply because they think it's a "tactic" would put them in failure of doing their job as a juror.

This is all part in parcel to having an open mind, knowing that both the crown and defence lawyers play a vital role in the administration of legal justice. Not that one (the crown) is the only one with the true facts and that the other (the defence) is only there to tell made up stories.

MOO

And with all due respect to you also Dilbert, I'm not sure what your point is in this post? First off just to clarify, I know all about JB, as I mentioned I read JA's book. Awesome book btw! :great: It's probably unfortunate the jurors in CA's case didn't know JB history, for if they did, maybe they would have placed less trust and belief in him and his method of defense or tactics (in CA's case, lies) for which he used to try and sway the jury with reasonable doubt. The definition of tactic to the best of my understanding is: a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result. All lawyers, whether Crown or defense use tactics. Everyone uses tactics. Some parents use tactics to get their children to do chores, schoolwork, some boss use tactics as incentives for their employees. Please don't get hung up on a single word Dilbert, no offense, but I think you may not understand the meaning of tactic. There's no evil intent in my use of the word "tactics". HTH. I will certainly agree with you in your part bolded, underlined and italicized above.

 

[matou]

Renton entering the London courthouse for jury selection on Feb 27th.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/03/02/the-tori-stafford-saga

 

[dilbert]

There are three charges, each with evidence to get through, so this may take more time.

Hypothetically speaking, DNA could prove guilt of all three charges very quickly, a 2 -3 month case sounds like a circumstantial one.
No reason to fear that though, many a murderer has been convicted on circumstantial evidence only.

MOO

 

[dilbert]

And with all due respect to you also Dilbert, I'm not sure what your point is in this post? First off just to clarify, I know all about JB, as I mentioned I read JA's book. Awesome book btw! :great: It's probably unfortunate the jurors in CA's case didn't know JB history, for if they did, maybe they would have placed less trust and belief in him and his method of defense or tactics (in CA's case, lies) for which he used to try and sway the jury with reasonable doubt. The definition of tactic to the best of my understanding is: a plan, procedure, or expedient for promoting a desired end or result. All lawyers, whether Crown or defense use tactics. Everyone uses tactics. Some parents use tactics to get their children to do chores, schoolwork, some boss use tactics as incentives for their employees. Please don't get hung up on a single word Dilbert, no offense, but I think you may not understand the meaning of tactic. There's no evil intent in my use of the word "tactics". HTH. I will certainly agree with you in your part bolded, underlined and italicized above.

My point is, a smart lawyer does not have to make up stories to clear his client, a dumb one does. MOO

 

[dilbert]

My original response to you Swedie was regarding your comment to Wondergirl's scenario that she thought the defence would try to present to the jurors.
[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7654071&postcount=102"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - London Ontario - Tori Stafford murder trial begins jury selection[/ame]


You said; "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 took that to mean that you hope the jurors all know that all defence attorney's do is create spin to poke holes in the crown's case. This is true, it is their job to poke holes, to create reasonable doubt, but they cannot simply make up some fairytale story and present it, they have to have proof of what they present. (not to be mistaken with having to prove their client innocent, they don't have to). Further, jurors should not disregard a defence lawyers theories simply because they think it's all spin, they should only disregard it because they feel the evidence doesn't support it.

MOO

 

[nursebeeme]

Peeps, if you are stating an opinion make sure you include that in your post. And remember, everyone is entitled to their opinion... And once again, if you have not read the rules that I just bumped please do so. There is going to be zero tolerance during this trial.

 

[maxfactor]

Renton entering the London courthouse for jury selection on Feb 27th.

http://www.winnipegsun.com/2012/03/02/the-tori-stafford-saga

I feel almost as bad for LE that worked this case as I do for Tori's family. They really did an amazing job and put their heart and soul into finding poor little Tori.MOO

 

[matou]

I feel almost as bad for LE that worked this case as I do for Tori's family. They really did an amazing job and put their heart and soul into finding poor little Tori.MOO

The OPP rocked this case once they got involved. The honour salute they did for Tori when her remains where transported out of Mount Forest is so touching. JMO

 

[ChaChaCha]

Hello all .... just me checking in. I cannot believe that three years have now passed and the trial will start on Monday (or will it be Tuesday in keeping with the schedule set by the court?) I am hoping to be able to attend at least one day over the next few weeks ... London is about an hour from me. I would prefer, of course, to attend on a day when TLM is testifying ... just so that I can look directly at her. I am very curious as to what she will testify to since she has already been sentenced and cannot be charged again for the same crime ... I am sure we all remember the "Deal With the Devil" several years back which was also subject to a publication ban prior to his trial. Does anyone recall how many years Holmoka was sentenced to for her part in the Bernardo murders? Was it 15 based on her confession to her part in the crimes (later found to have been downplayed) and her agreement to testify against Bernardo? Just wondering how comparable the sentences given Homolka and TLM are.

 

[nonfictionrocks]

Hello all .... just me checking in. I cannot believe that three years have now passed and the trial will start on Monday (or will it be Tuesday in keeping with the schedule set by the court?) I am hoping to be able to attend at least one day over the next few weeks ... London is about an hour from me. I would prefer, of course, to attend on a day when TLM is testifying ... just so that I can look directly at her. I am very curious as to what she will testify to since she has already been sentenced and cannot be charged again for the same crime ... I am sure we all remember the "Deal With the Devil" several years back which was also subject to a publication ban prior to his trial. Does anyone recall how many years Holmoka was sentenced to for her part in the Bernardo murders? Was it 15 based on her confession to her part in the crimes (later found to have been downplayed) and her agreement to testify against Bernardo? Just wondering how comparable the sentences given Homolka and TLM are.

Hey Cha, nice to see you. I think Homolka got 12 years (surely someone will correct me if I am wrong) and when she came up for parole she refused and did the whole sentence instead. TLM is sentenced to 25 years but she could be eligle for the "faint hope clause" and could technically be out much earlier. In fact she might do only a little more time than Homolka and she has served almost 3 years already. We are assured that TLM did not get "a deal with the devil" but I wonder if she was made aware of the "faint hope clause" during her "interview".

 

[flipflop]

She struck a deal with prosecutors (later dubbed the "deal with the devil") and pleaded guilty to manslaughter in the deaths in exchange for a 12-year prison sentence

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/06/16/f-bernardo-homolka-timeline.html

Hello all .... just me checking in. I cannot believe that three years have now passed and the trial will start on Monday (or will it be Tuesday in keeping with the schedule set by the court?) I am hoping to be able to attend at least one day over the next few weeks ... London is about an hour from me. I would prefer, of course, to attend on a day when TLM is testifying ... just so that I can look directly at her. I am very curious as to what she will testify to since she has already been sentenced and cannot be charged again for the same crime ... I am sure we all remember the "Deal With the Devil" several years back which was also subject to a publication ban prior to his trial. Does anyone recall how many years Holmoka was sentenced to for her part in the Bernardo murders? Was it 15 based on her confession to her part in the crimes (later found to have been downplayed) and her agreement to testify against Bernardo? Just wondering how comparable the sentences given Homolka and TLM are.

 

[swedie]

My point is, a smart lawyer does not have to make up stories to clear his client, a dumb one does. MOO

Agreed Dilbert, and evidence will provide the truth. The crown will present it and the jury will weigh it in their minds and make their verdict based on that evidence. I stand by my belief and faith in our police services, justice services, and partially in the statement made by Police Chief Ron Fraser shortly after the arrests, "there is evidence "This is a strong case," Fraser said, "and it becomes stronger as time goes on and we do our jobs."
And the fact the preliminary hearing was squashed, which in many cases happens for different reasons, but JMHO I draw on these types of statements: Preliminary hearings are the norm in Canada and allow a judge to decide if there is enough evidence to go to trial.

"I think a preliminary hearing is useful for ferreting out the truth," Derstine said. 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.

http://www.thebarrieexaminer.com/PrintArticle.aspx?e=1583087

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

I have that "gut" feeling we have a fantastic jury, with a wide array of professions and skills and the evidence presented plus witnesses' testimonies will bring forth great justice in this case. MOO.