trial thread: 04/03/2012

[snoofer]

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

and right where we are now...is why KH was given a deal. To get that extra info that they needed that was being held back. Not that I agree with deals but at the same time....do we want him to walk possibly because dna evidence was destroyed or degraded?:twocents:

I hope they are continuing to investigate and talk to her.:twocents: what a horrible choice for LE.

 

[matou]

Do the jurors see the purple ribbons outside of the courthouse and associate that with Tori? Would they notice the colour the defendant is wearing and connect it to Tori? This could look bad for MR. JMO

 

[Juris_Prudence]

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

Well, with respect, its happening right before our eyes in this case (not just on tv). A lot of people on the forum have said they will require some concrete evidence to prove that a sexual assault took place, and was committed by MR, so apparently, some people do think its quite reasonable to have absolute proof that the accused is guilty of the rape charge. I think we can agree to disagree on this point no?:twocents:

 

[Hello_Kitty]

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/

Poor baby :'(

 

[swedie]

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.

:goodpost: Should say GREAT POST. I've thought this many of times when using that similes. Smart thinking SB. :seeya:

BTW I only give credit where credit is due. Thanks.

 

[matou]

What did MR do at his job at Better Beef in Guelph? This is where he met Barbara Armstrong, the woman who sold him the percosets on April 8th 2009.

 

[Macright]

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

OMG are Coles Notes still in print...how much cramming did I do from reading them just before an exam...:fence:

 

[flipflop]

What did MR do at his job at Better Beef in Guelph? This is where he met Barbara Armstrong, the woman who sold him the percosets on April 8th 2009.

IIRC he worked in the slaughter house at Better Beef and yes BA worked there as well.

 

[Macright]

Do the jurors see the purple ribbons outside of the courthouse and associate that with Tori? Would they notice the colour the defendant is wearing and connect it to Tori? This could look bad for MR. JMO

they would have to be very narrow minded to let that affect their final decision..:fence::moo: it may have been an honest mistake on the part of whoever is providing him his clothing...:moo:

there was a murder trial in Boston a few years ago (very sad..Mother and baby shot by husband) and the family of the victims wanted to wear a particular flower in memory of the victims to court each day and the courts would not permit it... just saying......

 

[Hello_Kitty]

Quote:
Originally Posted by giantalkinghead
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


Originally Posted by dar107
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.


Posted by me

I don't think anyone (at least not everyone) at this point still believes that MR killed VS, much less by choking her. I brought that up as a possible reason why MR would like violent sex or be violent.

I think the point of contention at this moment is whether MR did in fact rape TS.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

Will Derstine even cross examine the pathologist? I doubt it. JMO

In my opinion, If he wasn't planning on cross examining him, they would have dismissed him at the end of the proceedings today and let him go back to jis busy and demanding job. I can't see him being called to the stand tomorrow only for the defence to say, no questions for this witness, it would be a waste of the pathologist's time and the defence counsel wouldn't want to tick him off by doing that, who knows when he'd be called as an expert for another case that Derstine was the defence for. I suppose it is possible, though not very likelyto happen in my opinion.

 

[Ardy]

It is difficult to heed Judge Heeney, and consider the facts, detached from the natural emotions that swell up in us all.

But, we must soldier on. We must set aside our emotions and give careful attention to the protections in law that many of us expect would be accorded to any of us. For justice to prevail.........it must be so.

I believe, in my own heart, there were 5 people at the scene that day.

TLM, MR, VS........Satan and Jesus.

Satan would argue that the evil was his. He owned and claimed it as his own. Jesus would say you can have the vessel but I am taking the spirit with me.

I am fervently hoping that as the blows reigned down upon her, VS was already in the loving arms of Jesus, smiling that beaming smile of hers upon his face, leaving the devil with an empty vessel to wreak his madness upon.

If I can't believe that...........then there is no God.

The world is only full of evil.

 

[Hello_Kitty]

In my opinion, If he wasn't planning on cross examining him, they would have dismissed him at the end of the proceedings today and let him go back to jis busy and demanding job. I can't see him being called to the stand tomorrow only for the defence to say, no questions for this witness, it would be a waste of the pathologist's time and the defence counsel wouldn't want to tick him off by doing that, who knows when he'd be called as an expert for another case that Derstine was the defence for. I suppose it is possible, though not very likelyto happen in my opinion.

Does everyone just skip over my posts!!



AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court


Carnegie has finished. Derstine will cross examine Pollanen tomorrow. Done for the day.

 

[snoofer]

It is difficult to heed Judge Heeney, and consider the facts, detached from the natural emotions that swell up in us all.

But, we must soldier on. We must set aside our emotions and give careful attention to the protections in law that many of us expect would be accorded to any of us. For justice to prevail.........it must be so.

I believe, in my own heart, there were 5 people at the scene that day.

TLM, MR, VS........Satan and Jesus.

Satan would argue that the evil was his. He owned and claimed it as his own. Jesus would say you can have the vessel but I am taking the spirit with me.

I am fervently hoping that as the blows reigned down upon her, VS was already in the loving arms of Jesus, smiling that beaming smile of hers upon his face, leaving the devil with an empty vessel to wreak his madness upon.

If I can't believe that...........then there is no God.

The world is only full of evil.

That is beautiful.

 

[Kamille]

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

Well that is one way of simplifying and disregarding everything the crown has presented so far.

The renowned pathologist also said that he can't prove that a sexaul assault did not take place. And the reason is very relevent. This poor child's genitals were too decomposed to determine one way or the other. And the defendent could have prevented that. But chose to remain silent and let that decomposition just continue on for a couple more months.

So I guess for a certain percentage of the average public, unless you get it on tape or have definitive DNA evidence...a crime did not occur.

MOO

 

[swedie]

If that is in fact true, between 2 consenting adults, I don't find that shocking or violent. JMO

I find that type of sex disturbing but that's JMHO. Choking is dangerous and can cause brain damage or death. The brain that is starved for oxygen will be damaged.

WTH is wrong with some peoples' minds. Whatever happened to good old lovemaking? :moo: HISTORY below. The more I think about it, the more I believe MR may have suffered from erectile dysfunction for many reasons, but that's just my theory and opinion. Could he have choked Tori, (as was stated by an ex girlfriend in the MSM), to get some cheap thrill? Highly likely. I wonder if any of these ex girlfriends will be called to testify?

Deaths often occur when the loss of consciousness caused by partial asphyxia leads to loss of control over the means of strangulation, resulting in continued asphyxia and death. While often asphyxiophilia is incorporated into sex with a partner, others enjoy this behaviour by themselves, making it potentially more difficult to get out of dangerous situations.[12] Victims are often found to have rigged some sort of "rescue mechanism" that has not worked in the way they anticipated as they lost consciousness.

HISTORY: It was first used as a treatment for erectile dysfunction.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erotic_asphyxiation"]Erotic asphyxiation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

 

[brighidin]

Does everyone just skip over my posts!!

Lord know I do.

Just kidding. :giggle:

IMO the cross examination will be reinforcing the no evidence of sexual assault testimony we heard today.

 

[snoofer]

I have faith in God, the crown, karma and this jury...that justice will be served.

 

[OhSoCurious]

Circumstantial evidence

Circumstantial evidence is the evidence about the circumstances or surroundings in which the crime occurred. It does not actually prove that the accused person committed the crime, but it suggests that the link is possible. Suppose a detective finds the fingerprints of an accused person on the safe from which jewels were stolen. This evidence links the person to the safe -- it indicates that the person touched the safe -- but it doesn’t prove the person opened the safe or stole the jewels.

http://www.canadianmysteries.ca/en/4247.php

 

[Sillybilly]

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

<bbm>

I disagree on the bolded part. When Dr. Pollanen addressed the lack of DNA with his expert interpretation that "it is not reasonable to expect to find any", the jury are certainly allowed to consider that expert opinion as to the reason why DNA evidence could not be produced.