Trial Thread - 9 May 2012 Judge to give Jury Instructions

[CarrieBean]

After discussing yesterday with my husband the outcome of the closing arguments he said that there is in his opinion not enough evidence to find him guilty in all three points without a doubt. He really believes too that MTR is guilty in everything but worries that the jury can built a verdict on what they have. Is anybody thinking the same?

Tell your husband he is wrong.

 

[~n/t~]

Mike Knoll: quick morning update from Randy Richmond:

The Crown in the first-degree murder trial of Michael Rafferty is expected to finish closing arguments Wednesday.

Rafferty has pleaded not guilty to the kidnapping, sexual assault causing bodily harm and murder of eight-year-old Victoria Stafford of Woodstock April 8, 2009.

The Crown's closing argument would be followed by the judge's charge to the jury.

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/05/09/19735586.html

 

[snoofer]

After discussing yesterday with my husband the outcome of the closing arguments he said that there is in his opinion not enough evidence to find him guilty in all three points without a doubt. He really believes too that MTR is guilty in everything but worries that the jury can built a verdict on what they have. Is anybody thinking the same?

This might be a good time to wager a bet with him for say that dress or purse you have been just drooling over...... Better still...new patio furniture!

 

[nobodyzgirl]

After discussing yesterday with my husband the outcome of the closing arguments he said that there is in his opinion not enough evidence to find him guilty in all three points without a doubt. He really believes too that MTR is guilty in everything but worries that the jury can built a verdict on what they have. Is anybody thinking the same?

I think reasonable doubt has been created, and I also think the Crown's case weighed too heavily on TLM's testimony, and the circumstantial evidence to help with TLM's credibility, the defence was able to poke holes at. JMO

 

[robynhood]

Good morning...Hi ya all.....rockin Robyn has tweeter on ....the are at court house early and I saw this tweet .....but I am sure they will not really know when the Judge will give the Jury instructions as the Crown has to finish....this was said tho on tweeter.....

AM980_Court Crown will finish closing arguments at the Tori Stafford trial today; jury expected to begin deliberations tomorrow http://t.co/ivbN27Y4

 

[~n/t~]

Mike Knoll: @guest - yes. We will have a number of articles to publish once the jury is sequestered.

Comment From Guest
Once the Judge has charged the Jury will all items withheld be available. I know that there was many meetings without jury present and you were unable to report on. Will that now be made available?

Mike Knoll: @b - yes. we will report on it with a live feed like this one.

Comment From b
are you allowed to report the judge's charge to the jury?

 

[Thinkzerz]

Can any juror talk about why they alone choose the verdict that they believed in after the trial is over. Not to talk about why the others decided to choose but what they as a single choose?

 

[~n/t~]

Mike Knoll: @Guest - yes, it's true. Here's a link to a definition: [ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_%28Canadian_law%29"]Murder (Canadian law) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

Comment From Guest
Yesterday the crown said if a person is involved in a kidnapping or sexual assault that leads to death it's cosidered first degree murder...is that true? Do you have a link to a definition of First Degree Murder in Canada?

 

[Yody04]

I think reasonable doubt has been created, and I also think the Crown's case weighed too heavily on TLM's testimony, and the circumstantial evidence to help with TLM's credibility, the defence was able to poke holes at. JMO

that is exactly what he said too. In his opinion TLM messed up everything by changing her testimony and saying that she did the killing. I hate to say it but I have the feeling that he is right. We all want to see this guy locked up for a long time (that's what our hearts want) because that's what we believe. But that's is not the way a Jury can make their verdict. They can only built on things they can proof.....

Another question that came up in this discussion was: what if the jury would say: we can't agree with 1st degree murder but find him guilty of accessory murder? Is that even possible because that's not what he is charged with?

 

[~n/t~]

Can any juror talk about why they alone choose the verdict that they believed in after the trial is over. Not to talk about why the others decided to choose but what they as a single choose?

My understanding is it is illegal for the jurors to talk about anything to do with the trial after a verdict is reached.

 

[matou]

The Chapters again:

the crown will present its case in chapters:

Chapter 1: The day of the kidnapping. The surveillance video showing Rafferty driving up the street outside Tori's school and McClintic walking Tori up the street. Witnesses from and around Oliver Stephens public school will talk about seeing Tori.
An identification officer will use photographs and maps to show the route from Woodstock to Guelph.
Tori's mother, Tara McDonald, will testify about the frantic hours the family spent looking for Tori.

Chapter 2: Terri-Lynne McClintic. "She was an essential part of all that happened," Gowdey said. "I expect her credibility will be a major issue in this case."

Chapter 3: Guelph -- video surveillance and bank records detailing the events there.

Chapter 4: the Mount Forest death scene, which the jury will visit. "It will be difficult to go to the very place where this happened, I know that, but understanding the crime scene is crucial to understanding the crime," Gowdey said. Photographs, some of them graphic, will be used to explain "exactly how the killing happened."
"Unfortunately it is only through them that you can fully understand (the) evidence," Gowdey said.

Chapter 5: Police interaction with Rafferty.

Chapter 6: The searches of Rafferty and McClintic's residences and the evidence found.

Chapter 7: The Honda Civic. What was found inside.

Chapter 8: Rafferty's connection to the Mount Forest area.

Chapter 9: Comments Rafferty made to friends after April 8. "He had some interesting things to say to other people about Terri-Lynne McClintic and about the kidnapping itself," Gowdey said.

Chapter 10: The May 15 weekend and Rafferty's actions.

Chapter 11: The BlackBerry. The BlackBerry allowed police to track his movements April 8 and after.

Chapter 12: A recap of the surveillance video.
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/r.../19463111.html

 

[~n/t~]

RaffertyLFP: Waiting for Rafferty trial to resume. Crown Attorney Kevin Gowdey expected to wrap his final arguments today

 

[antiquegirl]

Good morning. Carried over from the previous thread re my question about the tiny blood stain on the car door moulding.

daisy.faithfull

If the blood got there when TLM killed Tori I would think there would be more splatter/cast off.

flipflop

If this blood on the door was from the murder, there would have been alot more.

James Armstrong‏@jamesarmstrong7
Gowdey shows garbage bag that covered Tori's head. Numerous holes in the bag.

London Free Press‏@RaffertyLFP
Gowdey suggests that shampooing and cleaning removed most of the evidence from the car - one spot was cut out

James Armstrong‏@jamesarmstrong7
A thorough washing can remove DNA evidence, Gowdey recalls expert testimony - #RAfferty allegedly shampooed car after murder

If I were on the jury (and I'm thankful that I'm not), I'd have "reasonable doubt" as to how and when that little bit of Tori's blood ended up and remained on the open side of the door. As others here have pointed out, it would be an easy spot to miss when the rest of the car was cleaned.

flipflop

They got rid of the clothing incase someone had spotted them that day wearing them.

I'm sorry, flip, but I don't understand the reasoning here. If there was no blood on the clothing, how would keeping them be incriminating? I can see why TLM would get rid of the white jacket (CASS video with Tori, although she wasn't aware of it yet), but why the rest of it? They were entitled to own and re-wear those clothes. Both eventually ended up on security videos wearing them (without Tori). I'd think that not having them would be more suspicious than having them (if they didn't contain DNA).

Along the same line of questions, why did MTR not dispose of the pea coat? TLM testified it covered Tori. It would have either remained in the back of the car or been re-donned by MTR during the alleged sexual assault. And yet, not a shred of DNA was found on it connecting it to Tori. No scientific expert testified that there were dry cleaning chemicals found on it, nor evidence that it had been washed (shrinkage, soap residue, etc.).

During his cross-examination Rafferty’s lawyer, Dirk Derstine, asked McLean whether she can put Rafferty and Tori in the car together at the same time. She replied that that is not something DNA evidence can do.

http://981freefm.ca/london-ontario-news/raffertys-car-under-the-microscope/

JMO

 

[tmhco]

After discussing yesterday with my husband the outcome of the closing arguments he said that there is in his opinion not enough evidence to find him guilty in all three points without a doubt. He really believes too that MTR is guilty in everything but worries that the jury can built a verdict on what they have. Is anybody thinking the same?

Show him this statement. Says it all too me.

"Rafferty, 31, has pleaded not guilty and his lawyer, Dirk Derstine, spent the previous day casting McClintic, already serving a life sentence for the murder, as the lone homicidal “engine” behind Tori’s slaying. He refloated his vague theory she snatched the little girl to exact a ransom for a drug debt and Rafferty had no idea what was going on when his former girlfriend asked him to wait in the car while she picked Tori up from Oliver Stephens Public School.

But rather than standing by in horror later as McClintic struck the child repeatedly with a hammer, motivated only by her own demons, Gowdey told jurors Rafferty was actually the mastermind behind the ugly tableau. That this was never about an unsubstantiated drug debt, this was about a man who wanted to rape a child.

It's the only motive that makes one lick of sense.
JMO

 

[Tahorn]

After discussing yesterday with my husband the outcome of the closing arguments he said that there is in his opinion not enough evidence to find him guilty in all three points without a doubt. He really believes too that MTR is guilty in everything but worries that the jury can built a verdict on what they have. Is anybody thinking the same?

I feel the same way your husband feels. However since I was not present in the court room to see the body language of the witnesses, nor to see the autopsy photos, (they must have an impact emotionally) ... I am not sure which way they vote.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

Can any juror talk about why they alone choose the verdict that they believed in after the trial is over. Not to talk about why the others decided to choose but what they as a single choose?

They are not allowed to say anything that happened while deliberating, if they do, they could find themselves in court with their very own charges to defend.

 

[Sailor Bug]

Mike Knoll: - archived feeds here: http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/03/23/19539806.html


Good Morning, Do you have the link to Rafferty's interview that was played yesterday afternoon for the jury?

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/03/23/19542366.html


Crown will finish closing arguments at the Tori Stafford trial today; jury expected to begin deliberations tomorrow http://bit.ly/KQa8Am

 

[Confusedashell]

that is exactly what he said too. In his opinion TLM messed up everything by changing her testimony and saying that she did the killing. I hate to say it but I have the feeling that he is right. We all want to see this guy locked up for a long time (that's what our hearts want) because that's what we believe. But that's is not the way a Jury can make their verdict. They can only built on things they can proof.....

Another question that came up in this discussion was: what if the jury would say: we can't agree with 1st degree murder but find him guilty of accessory murder? Is that even possible because that's not what he is charged with?

I have to agree 100% with both of you guy. As much as I want him locked up and to throw away the key I am afraid he is going to walk after 10 years and that is still young enough to continue on his savage if he pleases. JMO

 

[matou]

I would think that carrying Tori's dead body would have caused some leaking of blood on to TLM's and MR's clothing, regardless of the garbage bags. JMO

 

[gbay]

that is exactly what he said too. In his opinion TLM messed up everything by changing her testimony and saying that she did the killing. I hate to say it but I have the feeling that he is right. We all want to see this guy locked up for a long time (that's what our hearts want) because that's what we believe. But that's is not the way a Jury can make their verdict. They can only built on things they can proof.....

Another question that came up in this discussion was: what if the jury would say: we can't agree with 1st degree murder but find him guilty of accessory murder? Is that even possible because that's not what he is charged with?

It is my understanding that if they find him guilty of kidnapping and/or sexual assault and either or both lead to her death than he is also guilty of first degree murder.

If we look at TLM, when she was charged she said MTR wielded the hammer but she was still charged with first degree murder!!