trial thread: 04/03/2012

[Macright]

There has been no evidence presented so far to suggest that this was a revenge killing by a "perverse female" or that MR did not know at the time that Victoria first got into his car that this was an abduction for nefarious or sexual purposes. Repeatedly saying that here on this board does not make it so IMO. The defence has had two opportunities to establish an alternate motive for this crime and has not done so with either of the witnesses who could answer this question directly.

MOO

sorry... I was only responding and quoting another poster who used the words "revenge killing by a perverse female" I quoted this in my post ( not my quote) the balance of the post I take credit for:moo: and also the last part about being troubled by the breeding of the dogs that didn't happen..:moo:

 

[Flossie JMO]

Just horrifying how little Tori suffered with these monsters. I saw an image of her little top she wore and the spot she was found online. I pray no other images surface in the public. Tori's family, especially her brother, do not need to ever see those. Nobody does imo.

 

[swedie]

Yup ... abduction cannot be proved medically speaking (what an odd question to ask the guy) ... and while there is nothing in the medical evidence to prove or disprove that a sexual assault took place (due to the condition of the remains) I believe he stated that the autopsy did support the kicking and hammer blows. So no evidence of sexual assault was found.

I did not find that to be an odd question at all, and hopefully I can give you food for thought Cha. Some abductions included bondage on legs, arms, gags, blindfolds. So this is more than likely what the Crown was indicating or the pathologist was suggesting. :moo: HTH

 

[giantalkinghead]

Yes, we're all waiting for that to happen. While he is not compelled to testify, if he doesn't then his only hope is his lawyer confusing the jury enough to create reasonable doubt. The reason not to testify is so the Crown does not have an opportunity to cross-examine and ask questions the answers to which could imply guilt. That, and not letting the jury evaluate him directly is the only reason to keep him off the stand. In my opinion, if he's truly NOT GUILTY then the defence has nothing to fear by letting him testify. If he won't testify, does he have something he's hiding that can point to guilt? I know the jury isn't supposed to think that way, but it's only human nature. JMO

I have to agree with you. He needs to testify so that everyone can hear his side of the story. If the jury is expected to believe that he was duped by TLM... he needs to stand up and tell what happened - IN A BELIEVABLE way... or ROT in Jail. The word of his lawyer would not be enough for me....

 

[Salem]

not if that perverse female with a revenge plot told him she was babysitting TS when she brought her to the car..we don't know when he was told or figured out that this was a kidnapping and may never know unless he takes the stand and we hear his side to this tragedy.. my mind always goes back to the breeding of those dogs that never happened...:moo:

If there was any truth to this "babysitting" theory, the defence would have asked TLM about it while she was on the stand. Her credibility has already been put into question. So... either she would have gone along with it or not, but the defence certainly could have explored the question.

His failure to do so leads one to believe there is no basis in fact for this theory unless the defence brings it up when they present their case in chief.

Salem

 

[Hello_Kitty]

TLM has had years of experience thinking on her feet. She's been fighting for her life (violently) for years, has been in and out of "the system", had street smarts to spare. She didn't have to plan in advance to stage this.

So, theoretically - she bludgeons Tori and decides when all is said and done that she's going to make it look like "You're in this now as far as I am" (or whatever the exact quote was). She removes Tori's lower clothing, stuffs them in a garbage bag with the hammer. Thinking on her feet. Theoretically.

Maybe she grabs a couple of bottle caps and tosses them in Tori's garbage bag. She had green tea. Maybe she never drank any water. But why bother even disposing of them? Take them with you. Your own fingerprints on bottle caps is not a crime. Those caps make my hinky meter go off big time.

If you had committed this horrendous crime, what would you do first, dispose of the body, or leave it lying there while you clean up the other evidence? I know that hiding that body would be my first priority. She was put in garbage bags, carried to her final resting place, and covered in rocks. THEN, one would go about gathering weapon, bloody clothes, cigarette butts, and bottle caps. Too late to put in Tori's garbage bags.

OR ...

Perhaps it was TLM who sexually assaulted Tori. There would still be no DNA evidence and it would explain the lack of clothing. Perhaps.

Why would she NOT want to blame him? You think a sociopath would prefer to take all the blame herself? She's not stupid enough to think that there was zero chance they'd get caught. Remember, for the first while she told LE she knew nothing about this crime. She then told them that she was an innocent dupe, doing MTR's bidding, and he is the one who raped and killed Tori. She stuck to this story for two years before changing it again. It sure doesn't sound to me like someone who'd hesitate to place blame wherever she can ... as the mood suits her.

But, that's JMO.

Well I still don't buy it. And she didn't do this alone, she didn't carry Tori's body to the pile of stones herself and put rocks on top of her, <modsnip>. Even if everything she testified to didn't happen, he was still there and he still helped cover up a murder and that's a crime.

 

[jolady]

Please indulge me, I am just asking that you have an open mind and consider the evidence to date. Is it not possible that: going with the possible defence that MR thought Tori was in the car because of a drug debt, that they pulled over for Tori to go pee. I have many times pulled into secluded lanes seemingly leading to nowhere to let my young girls go pee when travelling. If he walked away from the car and she in fact did have to pee, she would have removed her bottom clothing and then for whatever reason TLM decided to kill her. I find it difficult with the evidence we are privy to so far, to make the leap that MR raped Tori, sat on her, punched her......when TLM has a very violent history, has admitted to kicking, stomping and ultimately killing her. I reserve the right to change my mind if further evidence shows that semen is present on the garbage bag or other evidence (other than TLM's say so) that would lead to that conclusion. But to definitively conclude that MR raped Tori when there is no known history of this type of behavior (I know PB was not known to be a rapist before he was caught). But MR's relationships that we are somewhat aware of do not indicate a violent nature, or a suspicious interest in children. He was with many single mothers, none have come forward to my knowledge to say they suspected he was a pedophile. Then if using common sense IMO or being reasonable IMO I would lean towards suspecting the very violent person who admitted to violent acts as the one who did the punching, stomping that resulted in the ribs being compressed. Again, I in no way think MR is innocent. If the evidence shows that he raped and killed Tori, then he is truly an evil human being but if the evidence shows that he did not but he was obviously there and in a position IMO to stop it then he is a despicable human being but not a rapist or murderer. JMO
It always seems so clear in my head, but difficult to put into words.

 

[Hello_Kitty]

Connect with Mark Hunter discussing today's evidence.

Heh, apparently the Bauman's weren't even aware that there had been a murder on their land until the police and media showed up at their door because they have no tv, internet, or radio. Also, they never use the land at that time of year because it's too wet.

 

[Confusedashell]

Connect with Mark Hunter discussing today's evidence.

do you have the link

 

[roseofsharon]

Please indulge me, I am just asking that you have an open mind and consider the evidence to date. Is it not possible that: going with the possible defence that MR thought Tori was in the car because of a drug debt, that they pulled over for Tori to go pee. I have many times pulled into secluded lanes seemingly leading to nowhere to let my young girls go pee when travelling. If he walked away from the car and she in fact did have to pee, she would have removed her bottom clothing and then for whatever reason TLM decided to kill her. I find it difficult with the evidence we are privy to so far, to make the leap that MR raped Tori, sat on her, punched her......when TLM has a very violent history, has admitted to kicking, stomping and ultimately killing her. I reserve the right to change my mind if further evidence shows that semen is present on the garbage bag or other evidence (other than TLM's say so) that would lead to that conclusion. But to definitively conclude that MR raped Tori when there is no known history of this type of behavior (I know PB was not known to be a rapist before he was caught). But MR's relationships that we are somewhat aware of do not indicate a violent nature, or a suspicious interest in children. He was with many single mothers, none have come forward to my knowledge to say they suspected he was a pedophile. Then if using common sense IMO or being reasonable IMO I would lean towards suspecting the very violent person who admitted to violent acts as the one who did the punching, stomping that resulted in the ribs being compressed. Again, I in no way think MR is innocent. If the evidence shows that he raped and killed Tori, then he is truly an evil human being but if the evidence shows that he did not but he was obviously there and in a position IMO to stop it then he is a despicable human being but not a rapist or murderer. JMO
It always seems so clear in my head, but difficult to put into words.

IMO, these former girlfriends with children, would be too scared to come forward. This guy could walk. MOO

 

[Hello_Kitty]

do you have the link

It's on tv, channel 16 cbcn

 

[roseofsharon]

Please indulge me, I am just asking that you have an open mind and consider the evidence to date. Is it not possible that: going with the possible defence that MR thought Tori was in the car because of a drug debt, that they pulled over for Tori to go pee. I have many times pulled into secluded lanes seemingly leading to nowhere to let my young girls go pee when travelling. If he walked away from the car and she in fact did have to pee, she would have removed her bottom clothing and then for whatever reason TLM decided to kill her. I find it difficult with the evidence we are privy to so far, to make the leap that MR raped Tori, sat on her, punched her......when TLM has a very violent history, has admitted to kicking, stomping and ultimately killing her. I reserve the right to change my mind if further evidence shows that semen is present on the garbage bag or other evidence (other than TLM's say so) that would lead to that conclusion. But to definitively conclude that MR raped Tori when there is no known history of this type of behavior (I know PB was not known to be a rapist before he was caught). But MR's relationships that we are somewhat aware of do not indicate a violent nature, or a suspicious interest in children. He was with many single mothers, none have come forward to my knowledge to say they suspected he was a pedophile. Then if using common sense IMO or being reasonable IMO I would lean towards suspecting the very violent person who admitted to violent acts as the one who did the punching, stomping that resulted in the ribs being compressed. Again, I in no way think MR is innocent. If the evidence shows that he raped and killed Tori, then he is truly an evil human being but if the evidence shows that he did not but he was obviously there and in a position IMO to stop it then he is a despicable human being but not a rapist or murderer. JMO
It always seems so clear in my head, but difficult to put into words.

Semen on a garbage bag would not prove a rape either. MOO

 

[Macright]

If there was any truth to this "babysitting" theory, the defence would have asked TLM about it while she was on the stand. Her credibility has already been put into question. So... either she would have gone along with it or not, but the defence certainly could have explored the question.

His failure to do so leads one to believe there is no basis in fact for this theory unless the defence brings it up when they present their case in chief.

Salem

this is as close to what I can find from previous posts that the Defence suggested that MR knew nothing was amiss at the time when TLM brought TS to the car...http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/03/23/19543041.html

the babysitting theory is mine alone as I would think he would have asked her why they were stopping at a school and why this child was in the car...it's just my own opinion (and the defence it seems) that maybe MR did not know the purpose at the time and it was only later when he was informed by TLM...MOO

 

[snoofer]

No. One doesn't take their bottoms off completely to relieve themselves.

Tori must have been so cold:rocker:

 

[Confusedashell]

It's on tv, channel 16 cbcn

is it over

 

[Ardy]

not if that perverse female with a revenge plot told him she was babysitting TS when she brought her to the car..we don't know when he was told or figured out that this was a kidnapping and may never know unless he takes the stand and we hear his side to this tragedy.. my mind always goes back to the breeding of those dogs that never happened...:moo:

Then.............one would have to disagree with the premise that TLM didn't specifically target VS.

The defense alluded to several facts during their cross examination of TLM, including her relationship with JG and TM, TLM's aunt living only a few doors down from TM, and the rumours of a drug debt, which have now been verified in testimony by TM.

I have a feeling that the defense will return to the beginning when they begin their examination of the events.

 

[Hello_Kitty]

Please indulge me, I am just asking that you have an open mind and consider the evidence to date. Is it not possible that: going with the possible defence that MR thought Tori was in the car because of a drug debt, that they pulled over for Tori to go pee. I have many times pulled into secluded lanes seemingly leading to nowhere to let my young girls go pee when travelling. If he walked away from the car and she in fact did have to pee, she would have removed her bottom clothing and then for whatever reason TLM decided to kill her. I find it difficult with the evidence we are privy to so far, to make the leap that MR raped Tori, sat on her, punched her......when TLM has a very violent history, has admitted to kicking, stomping and ultimately killing her. I reserve the right to change my mind if further evidence shows that semen is present on the garbage bag or other evidence (other than TLM's say so) that would lead to that conclusion. But to definitively conclude that MR raped Tori when there is no known history of this type of behavior (I know PB was not known to be a rapist before he was caught). But MR's relationships that we are somewhat aware of do not indicate a violent nature, or a suspicious interest in children. He was with many single mothers, none have come forward to my knowledge to say they suspected he was a pedophile. Then if using common sense IMO or being reasonable IMO I would lean towards suspecting the very violent person who admitted to violent acts as the one who did the punching, stomping that resulted in the ribs being compressed. Again, I in no way think MR is innocent. If the evidence shows that he raped and killed Tori, then he is truly an evil human being but if the evidence shows that he did not but he was obviously there and in a position IMO to stop it then he is a despicable human being but not a rapist or murderer. JMO
It always seems so clear in my head, but difficult to put into words.

One of his past girlfriends actually indicated he had a penchant for chocking and bondage. Not saying that's enough to go and rape a little girl, but it's not normal sex most people engage in.

 

[Juris_Prudence]

I did not find that to be an odd question at all, and hopefully I can give you food for thought Cha. Some abductions included bondage on legs, arms, gags, blindfolds. So this is more than likely what the Crown was indicating or the pathologist was suggesting. :moo: HTH

But wouldn't the Crown have asked that specifically? Wouldn't they have just asked if there was evidence of bondage or restraints used on Tori? Why would the Crown leave that for the jury to speculate on when he could have just clarified it straight up by asking whether there was evidence that might support the idea of bondage or restraints? I thank you for your thoughts I really do. Your posts, and those of others have really made me think more about this case and the evidence being presented, so I hope you guys don't mind when I seek clarification, or question your posts & the possible theories being put forward. I know I certainly don't mind it when others do this to my posts.

 

[maxfactor]

I really need to add my two cents here... has anyone thought that perhaps little Tori had wet or dirty ( pooped ) pants beause she wasn't allowed to use a washroom since she was school ? An 8 year could easily have had an accident. Perhaps TLM in a fit of rage ordered that she take off her clothing and then beat her to death. Perhaps the rape never happened. There needs to be proof over and above TLM's testimony ( IMO ) in order to prove the rape. So far - it just isn't there. This does NOT at all say that I don't want MR to be found guilty.... I just would like it if there were more concrete evidence. Praying that *IF* he *DID* indeed commit the crime - there will be DNA evidence to prove it happened.

MOO

Then where was her skirt?

 

[Sillybilly]

They weren't 'nearly' they were completely gone and so were her shoes, and tights.

I mis-spoke in an earlier post when I referred to Tori's slacks and undies. She was in fact not wearing slacks, but was wearing a skirt that day, so it would not have been necessary for her to remove it to relieve herself.