Do you mean the back of the front seat? IIRC, those tested as being MR and TLM's DNA. Tori was excluded.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/11/michael-rafferty-trial-dna-stafford_n_1417867.html
JMO
Sorry pic 61
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Do you mean the back of the front seat? IIRC, those tested as being MR and TLM's DNA. Tori was excluded.
http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/11/michael-rafferty-trial-dna-stafford_n_1417867.html
JMO
Did you miss the video link back in may 2009 when he was being escorted out of a building. I think it is obvious that many are angry with MR...he was there, he was involved in a murder of an innocent 8 yr old child, he could have saved VS's life if he was innocent like the defence is stating.
I do not think it is a strange statement to make,I think no one will want MR to be their neighbour. He most certainly would not be welcomed back in Woodstock. Do you think RS/JG/TM will not put up some sort of fight to have him removed from the town? If he moved into my neighbourhood I would lock my kids up and most certainly do everything in my power to make him move. I wouldn't care if he was found innocent, nope not one little bit, he wouldn't be my neighbour long. I believe most people who have young children would feel this way if he moved in next to them. JMO
What a ridiculous defence Derstine put on today. He was all over the place, he contradicted himself a few times, and if memory serves me correctly, he even lied about some of the things that happened on the stand. I wish I had made notes of them, as now I can't remember what they were.
If the jury falls for this, I will be very disappointed.
I had a list in my head, but now that I'm posting of course they all flew out, but there is one - Derstine said there was NO evidence that the backseat was in the car on April 8th - that is incorrect. There is a sliver of material with blood on it, that came from the backseat. Tori's blood was on it, that means, in my opinion, the seat was in the car.
Salem
“Mr. Rafferty came back after the death, was horrified, but helped you clean up,” Mr. Derstine said then.
He didn’t repeat most of these elements Monday, suggesting instead at some point “Michael may have come to realize the girl was being held against her will,” and noting only science — the forensic evidence — was silent about whether “poor Tori had been sexually assaulted.”
Really? And that's OK? Hmmmm.....
Oh wow. JMO
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...in-closing-argument-at-stafford-murder-trial/
The sad thing is ... What if his story is true ...
The sad thing is ... What if his story is true ...
He did, but he didn't connect them together, like I said all his statements were disjointed, perhaps that was his strategy, who knows. I hope that crown connects them together.
AM980.ca ‏ @AM980_Court
Rafferty said, according to McClintic, it would be "too heat" to use Armstrong's tools. Had to head to Home Depot
This tweet has me baffled....why would the defence bring this up...to me this proves that TLM and MR discussed the need for a hammer as a murder weapon. MOO
Without McClintic, it becomes apparent Rafferty may not have known about the hammer, or told her to buy it.
RaffertyLFP: Derstine says why would grown man need to tools to kill little girl? He already had a knife in the car
Rafferty said, according to McClintic, it would be "too heat" to use Armstrong's tools. Had to head to Home Depot.
Assuming Rafferty did need tools, he a,ready had a knife in his car. Why would a full grown man need a hammer, he asks?
I had a list in my head, but now that I'm posting of course they all flew out, but there is one - Derstine said there was NO evidence that the backseat was in the car on April 8th - that is incorrect. There is a sliver of material with blood on it, that came from the backseat. Tori's blood was on it, that means, in my opinion, the seat was in the car.
Salem
McLean's testing on the grey material found chemical indications of blood, though none was visible, and while DNA from at least two people, one being male, was present, the minuscule amount of it meant it was unsuitable to be tested further, she said.
Why cut the stain out anyway if you're just going to throw the whole seat out?
In my opiinion, the Crown has to put something together tomorrow that makes sense and is supported by real evidence, not speculation and conjecture, that proves MR is guilty. After today, I think the jury will choose to disregard all of TLM's testimony.
Nobody will want to vote for conviction of such serious charges, based on testimony from such an unreliable witness.
The Crown knew they had a problem with TLM from the outset, and have tried to mitigate the damage, but Derstine has brilliantly brought TLM's credibility as the main issue in the trial.
It is an issue the Crown is probably loathe to defend.
JMO.............
BBM: Just to be clear, you feel the jury will choose to disregard all of TLM's testimony except the part where she says she killed Tori, correct?
The sad thing is ... What if his story is true ...
I don't think in the world..maybe the southern part of Ontario..I've never heard any outrage over the CA case and that was a well known case...maybe outrage in the US..but not here in Canada or elsewhere. most I had heard anyone say was.."oh she more than likely did it" ..JMO actually this case is not followed by many outside those areas (southern Ont.)...most people you mention it to they respond with.."oh that little girl from a few years back...thought someone already confessed and is in jail"....sorry but that's the truth...not everyone follows crimes unless they are in their backyard...so to speak...JMO JMO JMO
You would either have to believe all of her testimony or none at all. Picking and choosing makes no sense.
The Crown backed up her testimony with evidence. I am not sure what people want.
I can assure you there was outrage south of the border.