Trial Thread, May 1, 2012 Defense begins it case in chief

[OhSoCurious]

I don't have a link. The inconsistencies came out in the Crown's cross and was discussed in the tweets. I think the tweets are around pages 19-20ish.

Again, I'm having a hard time with the argument. What will be proven if it can be shown that TLM targeted TS? How does this absovle MR of the charges? I'm not understanding that?

Salem

I think it might change the Crown's declaration of motive? (to rape a child) If the motive was actually a drug debt and poor Tori was targeted. Just guessing? MOO

 

[Kamille]

IMO.....the jury has two choices.

Either they believe TLM's version of events, or they believe MR's.

The reason for the abduction is a key component of both their versions.

TLM claims she randomly selected a child, because she was under the influence of MR and was carrying out his wishes. Her abduction of VS under those conditions, strengthens her claims that MR sexually assaulted VS and murdered her (as per her first versions of events). As we no know that TLM confessed to the murder, MR can only be found guilty if he participated in the murder, ............or kidnapped or sexually assaulted VS.

If he is found not guilty of kidnapping or sexual assault, he cannot be found guilty of murder, as there was no proof of intent that a murder should take place, or would take place as a result of illegal acts.

MRs version is that TLM kidnapped VS deliberately to hold as collateral for a drug debt. His version of events after that initial contact supports that theory........true of false as it may be.

MR's lawyers are not fighting a murder charge, but the kidnapping and sexual assault.........because without them the murder charge fails.

JMO...........

MR doesn't have a "version". All the jury heard were suggestions by his attorney which is not evidence. And all those suggestions were denied by the direct witness.

So you're suggesting that the jury should use the suggestions or closing arguments of his attorney with absolutely no witnesses or evidence to back it up as a reason to acquit?

Isn't that the same argument as to what happened in the CA trial?

MOO

 

[KMouse]

It puzzles me as to why the Crown didn't present the evidence.

The witness went to the police with this information days after the abduction.

She helped LE start looking for a woman with a white puffy coat, but her testimony wasn't credible enough for the Crown to put her on the stand?

Does Derstine now point to this witness...........and tell them that without him revealing the information, they wouldn't have heard this key testimony.

Does he ask the jury how much other information that doesn't suit the allegations, the Crown hasn't disclosed?

Powerful words in front of the jury........to create reasonable doubt.

JMO...........

Because she has made conflicting statements and there has not been anybody else that has supported her testimony.

So Derstine is going to try and poke a hole in the Crown's case with one witness. One witness who has given conflicting statements. Who is going to believe this one person without any supporting testimony?

 

[Sailor Bug]

Do reporters gather during breaks and discuss their opinions of the case, or does everyone keep to themselves

Mike Knoll: - it's been two months now. Reporters have become friends. Yes, the trial is discussed.

Comment
It could take hours, days, weeks before a verdict comes, once it does will the media covering be given enough time/ notice to get to the court house to cover the verdict?

Mike Knoll: @Mel - we'll be given enough time. It will be tight though.


Is there any international media there?

Mike Knoll: - not to my knowledge.


can TLM or rafferty be interviewed afterwards?

Mike Knoll: @guest - that's up to them and their lawyers. There's no law preventing it though.

so your saying maybe there could not be a verdict today ?? it will take some time

Mike Knoll: @cat - I can confidently say there will be no verdict today.


Will LFP (and other media) potentially have staff at the courthouse during deliberations to be on 'verdict watch' so they can inform reporters/producers that the jury has a question or that there could be a verdict?

When the jury is sequestered, will they talk only at specific times (ie 9-5) or as much as they can / want until a verdict is reached? Could a verdict be announced say at midnight?


Mike Knoll: @Alison - much of this depends on the judge's preference/instructions. Yes, a verdict could be reached at midnight. I've never seen that situation but assume that it wouldn't be delivered in court until the next morning.


Any surprise expressed from media and family/friends of Tori Stafford that the defence wrapped up so quickly? Was it expected that more evidence and witnesses would be called?

Mike Knoll: - we were waiting to hear if Rafferty was going to testify - so yes, there was surprise. There would have been either way.

 

[nettie_82]

MR doesn't have a "version". All the jury heard were suggestions by his attorney which is not evidence. And all those suggestions were denied by the direct witness.

So you're suggesting that the jury should use the suggestions or closing arguments of his attorney with absolutely no witnesses or evidence to back it up as a reason to acquit?

Isn't that the same argument as to what happened in the CA trial?

MOO

The jury can only use those suggestions Derstine made if the witness adopts them as truth...which TLM did not.

 

[Wondergirl]

1:37
Mike Knoll:

@guest - we have video of Rodney's comments today and, all going well, should have them online in a couple of hours.

Tuesday May 1, 2012 1:37 Mike Knoll

1:37

[Comment From Guest Guest : ]

What does Rodney have to say about today?

Tuesday May 1, 2012 1:37 Guest

 

[Wondergirl]

1:51
Mike Knoll:

Lots of questions about what is seen as a skimpy defence. Important to remember the phrase "Burden of Proof" that lies on the Crown in Canadian courts as the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

 

[Sailor Bug]

Mike Knoll: Lots of questions about what is seen as a skimpy defence. Important to remember the phrase "Burden of Proof" that lies on the Crown in Canadian courts as the accused is innocent until proven guilty.

Mike Knoll: @Mike - I'm assuming we'll get a schedule for the next few days of proceedings.

Mike Knoll: @SD - well this chat is better than twitter because it is pulling the twitter feed and I'm quite engaged as far as feedback goes. So it's like Twitter Plus. We will continue to do this every day of court. There are more days to come - it seems as if readers believe this to be the end. The closing statements and the charge to the jury are VERY important and frankly, a reader could just start reading at that point and get the whole story.

 

[Wondergirl]

1:53
Mike Knoll:

@SD - well this chat is better than twitter because it is pulling the twitter feed and I'm quite engaged as far as feedback goes. So it's like Twitter Plus. We will continue to do this every day of court. There are more days to come - it seems as if readers believe this to be the end. The closing statements and the charge to the jury are VERY important and frankly, a reader could just start reading at that point and get the whole story.

Tuesday May 1, 2012 1:53 Mike Knoll

1:51

[Comment From SD SD : ]

Is this chat as good as twitter? Or will there be no more live chats?

Tuesday May 1, 2012 1:51 SD

 

[otto]

Still catching up but ...

Temp Woodstock 2009 ... 4-9 C is cold enough for a winter coat

Mean Temperature 4 °C
Max Temperature 9 °C
Min Temperature -2 °C

http://www.wunderground.com/history...tml?req_city=NA&req_state=NA&req_statename=NA

 

[crazyladi]

I really dont think this was a drug debt at all. JMO

It is easy to say drug debt when they were all druggies and JG ripped off someone. $400 is nothing to kill someone over however I heard of someone killing someone over a $1.

I really think that they needed a defence and MTR was quick to say the parents were crack heads etc. I think the origin of this defence is from MTR.

There were reasons why the Crown didnt ask the witness about MTR and being around their children and what caused the break up. I am sure the defence put a stop to that. JMO

There is a lot that hasnt come out but sorry from what I have seen and heard with the witnesses and the evidence I dont see how he could not be found guilty regardless.

He was the driver and I am sure the plan, TLM knew the school to go to, She took the Tori, easy as pie since she was young and not scary, and they drove off. He could have dropped her off so many times but he didnt. He was there was she was killed because I know a phone addict when I see one and there was no way he wouldnt have been on the phone if he wasnt busy doing something like killing an innocent child. I bet you that guy even brought the phone with him into the gym he was that obsessed by it. So no I dont think there will be anything that changes how I feel. He was there during the whole entire thing and they "ACTED TOGETHER" That is all the judge wants to know. Doesnt matter the extent of the murder just if they acted together and the Crown made that very clear that they did and the defence came up with nothing.

Well why didnt he drop her off?? I guess he would have to say why he didnt do the right thing, but he is a coward so I really dont see him going anywhere but behind bars for 25yrs hopefully.

 

[otto]

I didn't follow the early part of the trial, but I assumed that the babysitting comments related to opening statements from the defence. Regarding Opening Statements from defence (mentioned early in thread):

"Opening statements:

After a court employee reads the criminal charges to the jurors, the prosecution and then the defense make opening statements to the judge or jury. These statements provide an outline of the case that each side expects to prove. The Crown has an obligation to aid the jury in arriving at the truth and cannot be biased or impartial in her opening statement."

http://www.julianhermida.com/polnotesoverview.htm

 

[Wondergirl]

well, you cannot argue with the forensics (just sayin')

Worth repeating.

 

[Kamille]

I didn't follow the early part of the trial, but I assumed that the babysitting comments related to opening statements from the defence. Regarding Opening Statements from defence (mentioned early in thread):

"Opening statements:

After a court employee reads the criminal charges to the jurors, the prosecution and then the defense make opening statements to the judge or jury. These statements provide an outline of the case that each side expects to prove. The Crown has an obligation to aid the jury in arriving at the truth and cannot be biased or impartial in her opening statement."

http://www.julianhermida.com/polnotesoverview.htm

The defense did not have an opening statement. The babysitting angle was suggested by them during TLM's cross. She denied it.

MOO

 

[Bravo]

All i can say is I'm glad Derstine didn't go with "Ugly Coping" LOL Sorry just trying to lighten the load.

 

[Wondergirl]

10:37
RaffertyLFP:

The woman said the white jacket woman came out of school door near where the teachers were putting kids on the buses [via Twitter]

Tuesday May 1, 2012 10:37 RaffertyLFP

RaffertyLFP: Her grandchildren came out of the front door after the white jacket woman went in the front

Her grandkids came out after the woman in white approached. They left the parking lot.

She says she never saw the woman leave the school. There are three exits.

Something is DEFINITELY up with Grandma's testimony. I think she is confused, and not a reliable witness, unless the tweets are incorrect.

1. She says the woman came out of the school.

2. She says the woman went in the front, then her Grandchildren came out (how could she see the woman leave, then?)

3. She says she never saw the woman leave the school.

Which is it?

JMO

 

[Bravo]

I feel for this witness today. I believe she believes what she saw. Eye witness is one of the least reliable. Any group of us here could be witness to the same scenario and report back. I can say with great certainty our reports would differ. It is the human factor.

 

[impatientredhead]

From what I can see Grandma can only help with the kidnapping charge. That of course assumes that defense has a really stellar closing argument. Maybe he has a snowballs chance in hell of selling the image that Tori skipped along with a woman she seemed to know (to see puppies with a woman her mother had discussed making puppies with).

Maybe maybe maybe the jury says okay they looked normal to everyone else out there, why not MR.

But the murder charge? There is no glossing over the fact that you stood by while your girlfriend crushed a childs skull with a HAMMER. A hammer you pulled money out of an ATM and sat in the car with said child while she bought it.

Seems to me defense is not triaging the charges very well.
Kidnapping is the least of his problems.

 

[Allanae]

I am a bit behind here. I would think the teacher is a more credible witness about Tori leaving the school. I would assume the teacher was one of the first people contacted (even before the tape was found to have Tori walking away with someone) and her accounts of that afternoon would be accurate. More accurate than a grandmother observing a whole driveway/sidewalk of children leaving a school and all the people walking up to and away from the school. If you are driving, I don't care how slow you are going, you can not catch all the details about a child "skipping" behind someone. Especially with two children in the vehicle that were just picked up!

In the videos that day it looks like a lot of people were wearing big warm jackets too. The mother that was waiting for her children (who testified) at the top of the hill was wearing a big bulky coat too, which looks like it was a big coat down past the bum, as a few other people seen in video. I think her saying that she noticed the jacket because of the nice weather makes her a bit wishy washy as I think most people would have been at the beginning of April, including most children at the school! All JMO of course.

 

[Ardy]

I was hoping MR would take the stand, but didn't seriously believe he would.

There is no requirement for him to take the stand, and the jury will take no inference from it. They will directed by the judge that it doesn't infer innocence of guilt.

Sitting on the witness stand and saying you didn't do something, is about equivalent to telling the police you are innocent..........doesn't do much good.

Very few defendants testify, and juries perform their duties.

JMO..........