trial thread: 04/03/2012

[myzzy]

Thanks everyone for the updates and thoughts see you in the morning
:what:

 

[Juris_Prudence]

BBM

It was his professional opinion that there was no evidence because of extensive decomposition.

How did we ever convict people before the science of DNA?

MOO

I don't know - but in this day of DNA and scientific advancement, it only seems reasonable to me to expect people to want to see some DNA / scientific proof of guilt kwim? :twocents:

 

[snoofer]

I don't know - but in this day of DNA and scientific advancement, it only seems reasonable to me to expect people to want to see some DNA / scientific proof of guilt kwim? :twocents:

yes, however in this day of DNA/scientific proof, criminal minds are always on the search for creative ways to wash away evidence...their minds kind of are programmed to work that way...just sayin'.:what:

I liken it to the gov't coming up with new ways to catch terrorists and the terrorists always finding new ways to circumvent those new methods with their...um creativity. The criminal mind.

 

[swedie]

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.

At one time I also had young children who on long travels needed to relieve themselves. Never would I have taken the chance of a journey up some unfamiliar, slick, snow covered, approximately 350 metre laneway, just for one of my children to relieve themselves. There would have been enough privacy for Tori to relieve herself in front of MR's car, should he have stopped just inside the laneway. If they feared being seen, I'm sure there were many more side roads within a short distance which MR could have chosen. MOO

I won't be surprised to find out MR knew about this laneway from his past haunts. Chapter 8: Rafferty's connection to the Mount Forest area.

 

[snoofer]

At one time I also had young children who on long travels needed to relieve themselves. Never would I have taken the chance of a journey up some unfamiliar, slick, snow covered, approximately 350 metre laneway, just for one of my children to relieve themselves. There would have been enough privacy for Tori to relieve herself in front of MR's car, should he have stopped just inside the laneway. If they feared being seen, I'm sure there were many more side roads within a short distance which MR could have chosen. MOO

I won't be surprised to find out MR knew about this laneway from his past haunts. Chapter 8: Rafferty's connection to the Mount Forest area.

yes swedie and I am sure, as most people these days are sure....you don't take a strange child in your car...least of all out of the town....and most certainly not to a remote secluded place....i mean...hellooooooo!:twocents:

 

[puppyraiser]

Wasn't the sexual assault charge added much later? If TLM confessed way back in May 09 and included those details, the charge should have been originally included (I would think). So, why was it added more recently? I can't imagine it took almost 3 years to find conclusive evidence........................ or maybe it did due to advances in DNA studies????

ETA, I don't for a second believe TLM's word alone would be enough for the Crown to add sexual assault charges.

 

[Hello_Kitty]

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...ford-died-but-not-how-someone-could-kill-her/

 

[Wondergirl]

What remained of Victoria Stafford 103 days after she disappeared were fragments of a small girl's life, and violent death.

The fragments of the life she loved: two butterfly earrings borrowed from her mother, a piece of a hair barrette and a Hannah Montana shirt adorned with sparkles and the hopeful words, "A Girl can Dream."

The violent death of dreams: Four punctures with radiating fractures to the top of the skull, three possibly from the claw end of a hammer and one from the blunt end.

Fractures to the facial bones. Sixteen ribs with multiple fractures. Underneath the ribs, a five-centimetre long, one-centimetre deep gash on the liver.

And all of it, from the size of the shirt to the model of her skull, held easily in one hand by a pathologist, signs of her youth.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/03/19590666.html

 

[Kamille]

I don't know - but in this day of DNA and scientific advancement, it only seems reasonable to me to expect people to want to see some DNA / scientific proof of guilt kwim? :twocents:

So as long as a body is not found in time in order for DNA evidence to be present then all rapists and murderers should be set free because of the incompetence of LE to find the victims in time? Even though those supposedly innocent people who were actually at the scene of the crime didn't provide LE with the information necessary to lead them there in a timely fashion?

Or if they are clever enough to destroy all DNA evidence, including ripping out the back seat of their car then they shouldn't be convicted?

IMO it is not reasonable to expect to have absolute proof of a crime via DNA evidence. That only happens on TV.

MOO

 

[Ardy]

No doubt we can all agree that none of us want a guilty person to go free.

But, we must trust the system and the jurors to make the right decision, based on the facts.

Everyone charged with a crime is not guilty and everyone who is found not guilty is not always innocent.

All our system can do is it's best effort.

 

[Macright]

Here's the link:

http://www.cbc.ca/connect/new_video.html?ID=2219134762

thank you for that link...very interesting info from that defence lawyer...I wonder if we will see two charges taken off the table when all is said and done..:moo:

 

[matou]

Wasn't the sexual assault charge added much later? If TLM confessed way back in May 09 and included those details, the charge should have been originally included (I would think). So, why was it added more recently? I can't imagine it took almost 3 years to find conclusive evidence........................ or maybe it did due to advances in DNA studies????

ETA, I don't for a second believe TLM's word alone would be enough for the Crown to add sexual assault charges.

Rafferty also faces an additional charge of sexual assault causing bodily harm, reported Delaney. The charge, which is listed on Rafferty's indictment, was laid in June 2010.

I wonder when TLM found out about this additional charge, if she did. This article is dated Jan 16th, just three days after her "confession" on Jan 13th. JMO

Read more: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120116/michael-rafferty-pretrial-begins-120116/#ixzz1r2EGKPun
​

 

[Wondergirl]

The shirt Tori Stafford was discovered in.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...ford-died-but-not-how-someone-could-kill-her/

 

[Wondergirl]

Tori suffered penetrating skull damage. She would have been bleeding from the head wounds, the broken nose. She would have suffered traumatic brain damage and intercranial bleeding. She would also have been bleeding internally from the torn liver, which probably contributed to her death.

“Despite all that,” Dr. Pollanen said, “death will not be immediate.” She may have been choking on her own blood, consistent with Ms. McClintic’s testimony that she heard gurgling from the little girl

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...ford-died-but-not-how-someone-could-kill-her/

 

[Macright]

BBM

It was his professional opinion that there was no evidence because of extensive decomposition.

How did we ever convict people before the science of DNA?

MOO

a lot of times people were wrongly convicted before DNA appeared...many have been released from prisons years later because of DNA testing...(and rightly so) thank god we do have it and I personally don't think anyone should be convicted on circumstantial evidence...and especially on the word of someone with the history of TLM who changes her story so often....

 

[Tahorn]

I wonder if the are going to call TLM back to the stand ...

 

[Wondergirl]

Tori's family members knew this day was coming, but it began with an unexpected shock: the sight of Rafferty wearing a newish looking shirt the same rich purple they have adopted on ribbons and their own clothing to remember their girl and her favourite colour.

Their dismay only deepened as the day went on. Tori's shirt, earrings and barrette were displayed as exhibits, as were two garbage bags that covered her body. No words can, or should, describe the worst of the photographs.

Several times during the day, the details of the autopsy reduced Tori's mother, Tara McDonald, to tears. Her ex-husband and Tori's father Rodney Stafford left the courtroom at one point. Neither returned after lunch.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/03/19590666.html

 

[swedie]

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.

The pathologist would not need prompting for the Crown to bring important information forward kwim. He did not need prompting to mention the butterfly earrings or watter bottle caps IIRC. He states his findings and if the Crown feels he left something of significance out, then yes the Crown would prompt the pathologist for further testimony on his findings. :moo:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/03/rafferty-stafford-trial-tuesday.html

 

[dar107]

This whole choking/sex theory.... to me, if it was a factor - he would have choked or strangled... if he were the murderer... not a brutal blugeoning death. Why deal with all of the blood... why not just smother with the garbage bags. Sorry to be so graphic -- just some questions in my head. I do believe it was TLM who used the hammer. JMO

You make a good point here. If MR knew where he was going, he also knew there were rocks which could be used, broken fence pieces etc. so why the need to take yet another chance by stopping at a Home Depot to buy a murder weapon. The only stop that makes sense to me and would be worth the risk was the drug stop, that is always an addicts priority. If he had fantasized and waited so long for this, where was the urgency.

Then again there is no sense to be made in a crime of this nature.

One thing I am not doubting after today is that TLM savagely murdered this little girl in a blind rage. That is one thing that has come directly from her lips that I truly believe.

I find it incredible that she could take in so much detail of her surroundings and have that much awareness all while a child was screaming to her for help as she was being raped, she was reliving flashbacks of what happened to her as a child, and high as a kite to boot. Either she had been there before or she is extremely intelligent with a photographic memory IMO.

 

[antiquegirl]

BBM

I must say that this baffles me. How much more evidence can we possibly get here considering what we've heard so far?

We have direct evidence from a witness that the reason for the abduction was for sexual purposes. We have no evidence that it was for any other purpose. We have direct evidence from a witness at the scene that a sexual assault occured...twice... on the backseat of the car. We have circumstantial evidence that the back seat of the car is missing and the defendent refused to co-operate with LE in either producing that back seat or leading them to the crime scene even though his lawyer has suggested that he did in fact drive there that day and was present at least for the disposal of the body. And because of that refusal to lead them to the crime scene, the body of the victim was too far decomposed by the time they did find her, based on information again provided by TLM only, to either rule in or rule out a sexual assault. And of course more circumstantial evidence that the victim was found without any clothing from the waist down.

We're not going to get a video of the crime. We're not going to get DNA evidence due to the length of time the body was exposed to the elements. Apparently we're not going to ever see that back seat show up as evidence.

The only thing we may get is direct testimony from MR himself to attempt to explain everything away, subject to an extensive cross examination. Then it will be his word against hers. Two proven liars. So the circumstantial evidence and common sense might be the deciding factor. This isn't a TV show, it's real life. And people tend to try to cover up their crimes as best as they can. So a jury can only make a determination based on the evidence that can be found and presented. And so far, IMO, there is more evidence presented that a sexual assault did occur than not.

MOO

Okay, so the Coles Notes version of your eloquent post shows that to prove a sexual assault, we have:

(1) the circumstantial evidence of Tori being unclothed,
(2) the circumstantial evidence of a missing car seat, and
(3) the direct evidence of testimony from a proven, habitual liar.

That is it. Finis.

We also have the evidence of a renown pathologist testifying that he cannot prove that a sexual assault had taken place. The reason for this is irrelevant for the jury's consideration. They are to consider evidence presented, not the reason for lack of it.

At this point, I'm trying to think like a member of the jury. And so far, I haven't heard enough evidence to convince me. I'm open to a change of heart, depending on what else comes up.

JMO