MTR Discussions

[CuriousJorge]

More info on Bail and Court Procedure link

http://www.ask.com/bar?q=in+canada+...VvZ+rU2ztwM5vToEPu+s+QSiZ0=&tsp=1256059558256

Bail Review

Either side (the accused or the prosecutor) can apply to the superior court (in British Columbia, the B.C. Supreme Court) for a review of the bail decision made by a Justice. The judge who does the review can consider not only evidence and transcripts of witnesses' testimony from the original bail hearing, but can also hear new evidence from either side. He or she can then either uphold or overrule the decision of the Justice. If the application for review is unsuccessful, no further application can generally be made until 30 days have passed [s.520].

Quote by NBG
CJ, Are you sure that he has been denied bail? This is the third time I've asked that question, and still have not received an answer.

NBG I do not count three times where you've personally asked me to answer your question. It's neither here nor there. I will have to say NO to your answer as to whether MR was denied bail. Personally I believe that if bail was even requested, the public would be privy to this information. Many of Tori's family members and reporters sat in court the day after the arrest and a week later, and there was no mention of MR or his attorney asking for bail. HM stood before reporters and did not make any announcement as to whether bail would be sought. Therefore in my own personal opinion they knew he would most likely be denied bail, given the evidence before them, so they never requested bail.

If a request for bail was sought, as far as the Justice of the Peace or the Judge saying "Mr. Rafferty we have denied you bail for your safe because you know that if we release you, your life could be at stake", is ridiculous. It would go something like, "Mr. Rafferty you have denied bail because we feel you could be a flight risk or a repeat offender. Therefore to protect the public's safety, you have been denied".

As AG mentioned, MR's lawyer would have advised him as to whether it would be reasonable to request bail. Yes I believe for his safety, HM probably advised MR it would be best if he remained behind bars.

The evidence and information MR's lawyer had (within the 24 hour window) would be a good indication as to why or why not ask for bail. In my personal opinion, there is solid evidence there, enough to make his arrest and enough to know that they woudn't even consider asking for bail because they knew it would be denied anyhow.

And you are correct NBG, we all are entitled to our opinions, theories. I'm not jumping all over anyone for placing theirs. I'm simple stating mine or posting information that points to my opinion.

I did question AG in regards to how she felt regarding the Girrido case because PG and NG haven't had their day in court to prove their guilt or innocence. So does she not drawn an innocent/guilty theory on them yet? Just because someone has not had their day in court doesn't mean I or anyone else have to sit on the fence. When there is information brought forward (which I've asked for many times but no one has nothing), to lead me to believe or doubt his involvement in TS murder, then I will reconsider my thinking. In the meantime, I have my own theories and information to go on and I feel that LE have (sufficient evidence) the two persons behind bars that are responsible for Tori's death.
Quote from NBG post #327
On the other side, they actually had Bernardo's DNA and they let him out walk out of the police station, because it wasn't even tested, so I wouldn't put a lot of stock on DNA at this point.

My response to this is that if they would have tested the DNA immediately, PB/KH's victims could still be alive today. This has nothing to do with DNA not being sufficient evidence, that has to do with following up on investigating. Therefore your point here makes no sense. DNA is an excellent evidentary tool. So let's say they found MR's DNA on TS belongings or on her remains, I would say his goose is cooked.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

NBG I do not count three times where you've personally asked me to answer your question. It's neither here nor there. I will have to say NO to your answer as to whether MR was denied bail. Personally I believe that if bail was even requested, the public would be privy to this information. Many of Tori's family members and reporters sat in court the day after the arrest and a week later, and there was no mention of MR or his attorney asking for bail. HM stood before reporters and did not make any announcement as to whether bail would be sought. Therefore in my own personal opinion they knew he would most likely be denied bail, given the evidence before them, so they never requested bail.

He was never denied bail, because of the seriousness of his charge HE MUST APPLY for a bail review with the Superior Court, and as far as I can tell he has not done that, and no doubt his lawyer has advised against it, normally people charged with 1st degree murder rarely request bail, for obvious reasons.

 

[antiquegirl]

I did question AG in regards to how she felt regarding the Girrido case because PG and NG haven't had their day in court to prove their guilt or innocence. So does she not drawn an innocent/guilty theory on them yet?

(Snipped for brevity)

I did not respond to this because I can't possibly have an opinion on a case with which I have no familiarity whatsoever. Nor am I interested, as I have my hands full with the two cases I'm already following. Sorry.

 

[CuriousJorge]

Therefore my opinion is if MR could show "just enough" theory, evidence or cause a reasonable doubt of this involvement, he would have asked for bail. He is entitled to it regardless as to what his lawyers recommend.

Putting myself in someone's place of being "wrongful convicted" I would go against my lawyers recommendation, put my evidence on the table, and I'm sure that if I had enough supporters, they'd all be banning together to raise my bail money. Bail money would not be needed up front or possibly ever. As long as the accused follows the legal requirements put forth by the court. The surety would just have to show you are capable financially of paying it, should the accused not follow legal instruction while out on bail. Once release, I'd be shouting from the roof tops of my innocence. I'd be calling every media outlet and giving them every detail of the case that I was aware of.

I believe as one of his "rights" MR could have sought bail. I believe he's not the brightest crayon in the box, but in this regard he used his smarts to remain uner the wing of legal protection behind bars.

For the most typical offenses that occur every day in courts, we see bails ranging from $500 to $2000 or $3000. If the offence is very serious or the capacity of the individual and the surety to pay is higher, then bail can be set at very high amounts.

The purpose of the bail amount is to make sure that both the accused person and the surety recognize the seriousness of the situation and will keep to the conditions of the bail in order not to risk losing a significant amount of money. If there’s any breach or violation of the bail, not only can the accused person be re-arrested and charged with a Failure to Comply, but the accused person and the surety are potentially liable for the bail amount.

At the time that bail is decided, the surety doesn’t usually pay anything. An exception might be made for people who are outside the jurisdiction of the court. Generally, bail takes the form of a non-deposit bail. The surety has to show that he or she has assets to cover the bail amount; and if the accused doesn’t comply with the conditions of bail, the surety can lose the money that was promised.

Sureties don’t go to jail if the accused person breaches, but they will lose their money. There’s a common misconception that the government doesn’t come after the money that is pledged by a surety. That’s not true. The government certainly is entitled to do it and in many cases, they do. The government can seek a portion of the bail or the entire bail amount. I have seen many cases in which they seek all of it. So a person should not sign bail and act as a surety unless they are confident that they can influence the behavior of the individual that they’re signing bail for. If, in spite of their efforts, the accused doesn’t listen to them and breaches the conditions of bail, the surety can go back to court and withdraw their support of surety.
It should also be noted that posting bail has nothing to do with the guilt or innocence of the accused. So long as the accused person complies with all the terms of their bail, no money will be seized from the surety even if the accused is found guilty at the end of the day. As a surety, you are not vouching for the accused’s innocence – you are vouching for their conduct while they are out on bail.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

Criminal liability

In a recent Ontario case (December 2001), a mother acting as surety for her son was found guilty of breach of recognizance after her son violated a bail condition requiring that he reside with her. The court found the mother guilty as a party to the commission of the offence by her son. The son lived at the new address for a few months; his mother had visited him and phoned him there. Noting that the mother could control her son by revoking her suretyship, the court ruled that her failure to stop him from breaching the condition showed an intention to aid him in carrying out the offence. (this is the last paragraph in the attached link)

http://www.criminal-lawyer.on.ca/bail-4.html

 

[CuriousJorge]

Criminal liability

In a recent Ontario case (December 2001), a mother acting as surety for her son was found guilty of breach of recognizance after her son violated a bail condition requiring that he reside with her. The court found the mother guilty as a party to the commission of the offence by her son. The son lived at the new address for a few months; his mother had visited him and phoned him there. Noting that the mother could control her son by revoking her suretyship, the court ruled that her failure to stop him from breaching the condition showed an intention to aid him in carrying out the offence. (this is the last paragraph in the attached link)

http://www.criminal-lawyer.on.ca/bail-4.html

and your point being...?? I don't understand why this was brought here.:waitasec:

I think I and others have posted enough legal garjon regarding bail and surety. This is just your example of a surety being held criminally responible for someone they posted bail for and took into their custody. Obviously this mom could have gone to LE and ask that her son be taken back into custody, as he was not following the rules set before him by the court of law. Shame on her for allowing her son to mistreat her this way and thumb his nose at society as a whole and the criminal system. Shame on both of them.

 

[nonfictionrocks]

Criminal liability

In a recent Ontario case (December 2001), a mother acting as surety for her son was found guilty of breach of recognizance after her son violated a bail condition requiring that he reside with her. The court found the mother guilty as a party to the commission of the offence by her son. The son lived at the new address for a few months; his mother had visited him and phoned him there. Noting that the mother could control her son by revoking her suretyship, the court ruled that her failure to stop him from breaching the condition showed an intention to aid him in carrying out the offence. (this is the last paragraph in the attached link)

http://www.criminal-lawyer.on.ca/bail-4.html

nobodyzgirl, thank you for your legal insight - I said months ago that innocent or guilty, at this point MR is much safer in prison. I would take my chances in the middle of the night with the correctional officers and Bandidos over an hysterical bunch of people on my front lawn brandishing torches and a noose.

What are your thoughts on MR's pre-trial meetings? How is this possible if, as others have alluded, the defence is not in possession of full disclosure of all the evidence? TIA

 

[nobodyzgirl]

Your comment was sureties only lose their money, and my point was, a surety can actually be found guilty if the accused breaches a bail condition, depending on the situation.

The one thing I will agree with you is the discussion on bail has been exhausted, since it really is a non-issue in this case as the accused has not requested a bail hearing, and it's unlikely to happen, which is what I tried to reiterate earlier, though the discussion continued. If you notice, I didn't comment on anything else in your post, even though my view and opinion is different from yours, because you are entitled to your view and your opinion, and because I don't agree with all of it, doesn't mean I actually have to debate each point and issue with you, which I chose not to do, other than point out one fact as noted above, just so the discussion about bail would end.

 

[Turbododger]

nobodyzgirl, thank you for your legal insight - I said months ago that innocent or guilty, at this point MR is much safer in prison. I would take my chances in the middle of the night with the correctional officers and Bandidos over an hysterical bunch of people on my front lawn brandishing torches and a noose.

What are your thoughts on MR's pre-trial meetings? How is this possible if, as others have alluded, the defence is not in possession of full disclosure of all the evidence? TIA

October 1, 2009:

The Crown says the disclosure of evidence to McClintic's lawyer is "an ongoing, extensive process."

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/704053

 

[nonfictionrocks]

October 1, 2009:

The Crown says the disclosure of evidence to McClintic's lawyer is "an ongoing, extensive process."

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/704053

My question was in regards to MR's case, unless they have recently married and now share the same last name though it is usually customary for the female to take the male's last name.

 

[Turbododger]

My question was in regards to MR's case, unless they have recently married and now share the same last name though it is usually customary for the female to take the male's last name.

Well, either way, the crown is still disclosing evidence, presumably to both defendants.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

nobodyzgirl, thank you for your legal insight - I said months ago that innocent or guilty, at this point MR is much safer in prison. I would take my chances in the middle of the night with the correctional officers and Bandidos over an hysterical bunch of people on my front lawn brandishing torches and a noose.

What are your thoughts on MR's pre-trial meetings? How is this possible if, as others have alluded, the defence is not in possession of full disclosure of all the evidence? TIA

Nonfictionrocks, I completely agree with you, I'd stay in jail and take my chances, because at least there is security through the correctional officers instead of out there on your own.

As for the pre-trial, I'd have to say that the discussion of having MR moved to another facility took place, as it happened rather expeditiously after the meeting

Pre-Trial conferences can take place over the course of numerous meetings, and generally they are wide-ranging, though it's a good time for defence to provide the Crown with information they may not have obtained, as their evidence comes in from the police and at that point they review it to see if they can press charges, so it is a good opportunity for the defence to provide evidence that is beneficial to their client (in this case MR), admissibility of certain evidence, alternate lesser charges, any Charter infringements. A number of things occur during these conferences and it doesn't necessarily mean that the defence is ready for trial. There will still be several remands, which are so the courts know the case is progressing. I really don't see this going to trial until some point in 2010. HTH

Disclosure can continue right up until trial. DNA tests take time to come back, etc., so as the Crown receives it, they forward it along.

 

[CuriousJorge]

Your comment was sureties only lose their money, and my point was, a surety can actually be found guilty if the accused breaches a bail condition, depending on the situation.

The one thing I will agree with you is the discussion on bail has been exhausted[/COLOR], since it really is a non-issue in this case as the accused has not requested a bail hearing, and it's unlikely to happen, which is what I tried to reiterate earlier, though the discussion continued. If you notice, I didn't comment on anything else in your post, even though my view and opinion is different from yours, because you are entitled to your view and your opinion, and because I don't agree with all of it, doesn't mean I actually have to debate each point and issue with you, which I chose not to do, other than point out one fact as noted above, just so the discussion about bail would end.

There are times when some people need to reread what they post in order not to misconstrue someone else's posts. I'm referring to the underlined above in your quote. Your grammar makes it sound like I'm claiming a surety lose their money, which is not what I posted. If you'd like to reread, here is what I said. At the time that bail is decided, the surety doesn’t usually pay anything. An exception might be made for people who are outside the jurisdiction of the court. Generally, bail takes the form of a non-deposit bail. The surety has to show that he or she has assets to cover the bail amount; and if the accused doesn’t comply with the conditions of bail, the surety can lose the money that was promised.[/B

Second quoted by you above (in bold), I am questioning you but not expecting a response, even though you expected me to answer supposidly for the third time, one of my statements about MR being denied bail. My question is, do you know if MR had requested a bail hearing? Anyone can request a bail hearing, even those accused of murder, and it would be one of MR's civil rights to request one.

You are absolutely right in your statement (in red above, blue below), by which you say you don't have to debate with me. That is your choice by all means use it. There may be other sleuthers here that may be interested in the bail information. As the saying, it's not all about you. In green your sentence. I never said that I felt the topic of bail had been exhausted. Again reread if you like. I think I and others have posted enough legal garjon regarding bail and surety. You have assumed my feelings of not wanting to discuss the subject of bail. To clarify again, I was simply making reference to what was the relevance of the story you posted as we got a better picture on bail procedure.

NBG you are the one who personally asked me to clarify your question (#329): CJ, Are you sure that he has been denied bail? This is the third time I've asked that question, and still have not received an answer. You asked me a question, but then you don't want an answer. Then you claim that MR never asked for bail. :waitasec: If you would have read correctly my meaning was obviously. I guess I should start every sentence with I believe, I speculate, I guess, MOO, I assume, I guess...See it highlighted in blue below?

In my post #326, fourth paragraph my quote: Bail is not granted to just anyone. They do not give bail to anyone who could pose harm to the public, be a flight risk and a few other reasons. I believe they have exact evidentary proof to show why he hasn't been given that option of bail. Something has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt to deny him bail. A judge would be privy to all info gathered so far and would be the one to make that decision whether to allow bail. Obviously the deciding judge felt MR does not deserve bail. HMM wonder why?!!!

Unfortunately that is how topics turn to arguments because some people take some posts as a personal attack on themselves. It's not about you. It's about murderers and an innocent dead child. People come here to voice their beliefs, theories and personal opinions. As it's been suggested many times before, if you're going to attack, attack the post and not the poster. By my pointing these errors out to you, I am attacking your post, grammar and how my wording has been misconstrued by you. People can draw many different conclusions from an improperly worded sentence. So if you're going to quote someone, do it properly and make sure you understand their meaning.

I will make it very clear that I personally feel that MR and TLM are both guilty in the death of Tori. To what degree either one was involved, I do not know. I have read and heard enough at this point to lead me to my decision at this time. Until they have had their day in court, I will stand by my belief. So, with that in mind, do not feel obligated to read my posts and try to persuade me otherwise. To anyone who can show me why they feel MR is innocent, I have an open mind. Not one who is pro MR or a fence sitter has even had a smidgin of thought, nada zip saying why they think he might be innocent or possibly framed.

If you would like information that I can provide, I'd be glad to answer. If you're posting in a condescending way, you're more than likely asking for debate, not just by me but by anyone.

con·de·scend (kŏn'dĭ-sěnd')
intr.v. con·de·scend·ed, con·de·scend·ing, con·de·scends

To deal with people in a patronizingly superior manner.

Just a reminder. There is the ignore button that works very well for those who wish not to read certain people's post if they find they are taking the information too much to heart.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

I am happy to respond to your question CJ. I do not know for an actual fact whether or not he requested a bail hearing, I can only assume that he has not, since there was nothing noted in the newspapers or on the internet. I would suspect because of the media attention to this case, had MR requested a bail hearing, and had he been denied, it would have been reported in the newspaper.

I am actually not posting in a condescending or a patronizing manner, nor do do I need the definition of what it means, and I'm sorry if that's how you viewed my posts, because it was not my intention and I guess it was just a miscommunication in the way the posts were read, which unfortunately happens when you are reading typed words instead of an actual voice conversation where there are inflection in the words.

This is the first time that I actually felt you were attacking me personally and not my posts. I'm well aware of what the forum is about. I don't feel obligated to read your posts, or anyone's posts actually and my intention is to not change your thoughts on this case, just as your opinion does not change mine. I have formed my own thoughts and once this case goes to trial, I will be able to better decide on innocent/guilty, etc. based on the evidence that is provided.

 

[bmuzz]

Hi all! I've been a lurker, but never a poster so I decided to finally create an account and get in on the discussion.

My question is: Does anyone know where Rafferty was living between 1999 and 2001? A time line of his different residences would be nice.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

Hi all! I've been a lurker, but never a poster so I decided to finally create an account and get in on the discussion.

My question is: Does anyone know where Rafferty was living between 1999 and 2001? A time line of his different residences would be nice.

Welcome aboard mbuzz! I can't remember off the top of my head, I'd have to go back through some of the posts and see if I could find that information.

 

[bmuzz]

Welcome aboard mbuzz! I can't remember off the top of my head, I'd have to go back through some of the posts and see if I could find that information.

Thanks!

I remember reading about him living in Richmond Hill around '95 and '96, in Toronto in '01, but nothing in between! I'll be looking around, too.

 

[flipflop]

Thanks!

I remember reading about him living in Richmond Hill around '95 and '96, in Toronto in '01, but nothing in between! I'll be looking around, too.

According to classmates.com Michael Rafferty went to school:

Drayton Junior High School, Drayton, ON, 1992-1995
Crosby Public School, Richmond Hill, ON, 1994-1995
Alexander Mackenzie High School, Richmond Hill, ON, 1995-1998

 

[LadyL]

According to classmates.com Michael Rafferty went to school:

Drayton Junior High School, Drayton, ON, 1992-1995
Crosby Public School, Richmond Hill, ON, 1994-1995
Alexander Mackenzie High School, Richmond Hill, ON, 1995-1998

IIRC, some of that info is in dispute, according to at least one school rep. I can't link it though - I read that long ago.

 

[antiquegirl]

According to classmates.com Michael Rafferty went to school:

Drayton Junior High School, Drayton, ON, 1992-1995
Crosby Public School, Richmond Hill, ON, 1994-1995
Alexander Mackenzie High School, Richmond Hill, ON, 1995-1998

I think we determined that this was all wrong. The first and second schools overlap in time frames and someone in authority at Alexander Mackenzie said MR only went there for a year. It has been rumoured that after AMHS, he moved and finished high school elsewhere, although no one knows where. At some point, he lived in Guelph for a while, but now I can't remember when - presumably after he graduated from high school.

The above from classmates.com is an example of MR both making a mistake and probably deliberately lying about the time spent at AMHS when filling out their registration form

MOO

ETA

The Star link (http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/638574) no longer works, but here is a quote:

"Rafferty claimed on his MySpace page to have graduated from Alexander Mackenzie High School, but the Richmond Hill school says it didn't happen. Rafferty only attended from Sept. '95 to March '96, acquiring just one credit"