Weekend Discussion Thread 04/27-30/2012

[gardenia]

We have heard evidence that there were a lot of drugs in that car - we can only hope VS was sedated.

 

[snoofer]

refuting devils advocate:

Scenario. TLM thinks someone owes her money or drugs.

Takes TS; tells MTR babysitting. TS acts normal.
MTR goes to care home to pick TLM up where she told him to.

TLM contacts that someone and says a. give me money or b. return drugs You have til such and such a time or you don't get TS back.

Something goes wrong. The "someone" a. can't get the money together b. no longer has the drugs.

Meanwhile someone else has called LE; didn't know there was this bargaining going on.
MTR stops for money, he likes to have it on him. TLM says great I have to go to HD for something. MTR doesn't question.

The first someone tells TLM; police have been called, drop her off somewhere.
TLM thinking about what to do; tells MTR TS is kidnapped. Asks MTR to find somewhere quiet so she can think things out. MTR takes her to the rural spot. He goes for a walk and thinks about the crap position he has been put in.

TLM gets panicked, thinks about jail...kills TS. She is pissed, everything has gone wrong, wrong wrong. She takes it out on TS. She regains composure; then thinks I can blame it on MTR.
MTR returns from walk; holy crap TLM killed her. TLM tells him help me clean up or I will have my gang after you. Her gang told her not to let those others get away with stiffing her.
Covers up crime.
MTR cleans up; still pondering what he should do. He is afraid of this murderer and her gang

Goes about her life til picked up by LE on probation violation.
MTR knows he is in between rock and a hard place so he keeps on TLM good side and visits etc so she doesn't sick her gang on him or his family, lies to LE and hopes that nothing will lead back to them

How would defense get past;
a. he did not have the right to have TS in his car; he may have thought he did, but legally he did not...it is kidnapping as he did not have the permission. Or is that not legally the case.
b. when he was informed TS was kidnapped, at that very moment of finding out; why did he not 1. protect Tori from the kidnapper ie never leave her for a moment with TLM 2. call police 3. flat out refuse to clean up and leave the area and call LE Fear is not an excuse to disobey the law, is it? In the immediate sense he was bigger than TLM, had a knife. So he failed to protect TS, didn't report the crime, messed with a crime scene, and lied to LE during a crime investigation, and got rid of evidence...because he was afraid of his immediate self or fear of down the road of TLM and her gang. Did she have a gun? Could he have not crashed the car if that was the case.

Was he truly more afraid of TLM at that moment and her gang in the future than he would be of LE, prison, the disgust of society and his family?

Legal experts, IF a scenario like that presented itself, would the law excuse his illegal behavior because he was afraid for his safety?? Second thought perhaps if in hands of a jury it would depend on how they feel?

The judge would I guess lay down guidelines for the law.

Not so sure the law would allow you to let a young life pass because you knowingly leave the child with a kidnapper alone and not be held legally accountable or allow you to cover it up out of fear and not be held legally accountable. JMO Does anyone know where the law stands on that?

If that were the case then the charges would be what? MOO

Perhaps Otto can speak to the legal aspects in a scenario such as that. You seem to have a good grasp of the law and lawyery stuff :O)

 

[otto]

And how does that relate to the escort and drug debt scenario ... or is that unrelated?

 

[crazyladi]

Okay so I have read all of these posts over the weekend and I'm sorry there is no way Mtr didn't know vs was kidnapped period. I'm sorry that is ridiculous.

He knew exactly what was going on.

I think they took her originally so he could rape her and they stopped at home depot because they realized who she was and there was no way to bring her back without tm finding out it was TLM that was involved.

He didn't walk away he was there the whole time or he would have been on his phone.

I think he truly believed that she would take the fall and he was trying to make sure if it.

He had many secrets and I don't think he confided in too many people and that is why there is much known about him.

The crown did a great job and they stayed with the facts of what happened.

I don't buy all of these post that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Two mentally unstable people met one day and they both acted on their deep dark fantasies.

The jury will not be fooled.

He will be in jail and they will find him guilty of all charges.

JMO

 

[snoofer]

And how does that relate to the escort and drug debt scenario ... or is that unrelated?

unrelated i guess in that scenario lol MOO, except that he was in addition to a dupe he was a drug dealer and receiver of escort money. How is that. MOO

What does the law say if this scenario is presented Otto.

 

[Ardy]

In Canada, intent is a crucial element in all criminal charges.

For the jury to find MR guilty of kidnapping, the Crown must first prove that all of the elements of the charge were fulfilled.

Was it MR's intent to kidnap VS.....or was he unknowingly involved?

As to cleaning up the crime scene, MR has not been charged with obstruction of justice or any of a number of charges he could be charged with for this offense.

I would be confident that if found not guilty on the current charges, the Crown would lay charges against him for those offenses.

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

 

[Ardy]

Whatever happened to the pea coat?

The pea coat was supposed to be a crucial piece of evidence, that many thought would support TLM's testimony that VS was hidden in the back seat area covered by it.

The pea coat was recovered. It was examined. It did have lots of DNA on it.

But it didn't have any DNA from VS on it.

How could that be?

No hair fibers......no saliva........no mucus...........nothing from VS.

Forensics could tell if the coat had been cleaned.......but mentioned nothing about the presence of cleaning fluids.

Was TLM lying or telling the truth?

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

 

[Ardy]

Snoofer..........

Your devil's advocate synopsis is pretty much what I expect the defense case will be...........but they will need supporting testimony or evidence.......IMO.

We will see what they bring to court.

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

 

[maxfactor]

Okay so I have read all of these posts over the weekend and I'm sorry there is no way Mtr didn't know vs was kidnapped period. I'm sorry that is ridiculous.

He knew exactly what was going on.

I think they took her originally so he could rape her and they stopped at home depot because they realized who she was and there was no way to bring her back without tm finding out it was TLM that was involved.

He didn't walk away he was there the whole time or he would have been on his phone.

I think he truly believed that she would take the fall and he was trying to make sure if it.

He had many secrets and I don't think he confided in too many people and that is why there is much known about him.

The crown did a great job and they stayed with the facts of what happened.

I don't buy all of these post that he was in the wrong place at the wrong time.

Two mentally unstable people met one day and they both acted on their deep dark fantasies.

The jury will not be fooled.

He will be in jail and they will find him guilty of all charges.

JMO

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you have said!!! I also think that what Derstine did for MR was to have certain things excluded from evidence. It may be because those things would go to his character, I'm not sure. Judging from the timing of days off for legal arguments I think the Crown wanted to ask questions of some of those women that the defense wasn't going to let them ask. I still am wondering about his laptop also. There was another day off court for legal arguments during the Blackberry chapter. I think there is a lot that we don't know and won't know until the jury deliberates. Maybe Otto could answer something for me, if evidence was excluded that could have gone to motive, say sexual proclivities or violence and he is found not guilty by this jury, can the Crown appeal on the basis that the evidence should have been allowed? This is all just MOO of course.

 

[roseofsharon]

Whatever happened to the pea coat?

The pea coat was supposed to be a crucial piece of evidence, that many thought would support TLM's testimony that VS was hidden in the back seat area covered by it.

The pea coat was recovered. It was examined. It did have lots of DNA on it.

But it didn't have any DNA from VS on it.

How could that be?

No hair fibers......no saliva........no mucus...........nothing from VS.

Forensics could tell if the coat had been cleaned.......but mentioned nothing about the presence of cleaning fluids.

Was TLM lying or telling the truth?

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

It appears MR is wearing his pea coat in the video at the bank machine, but it is very odd that blonde hairs were removed from the coat for examination, but were not TS's. I think the hairs were on the coat, not positive on that. Maybe TLM was mistaken about what covered TS in the back of the car; it could have been something else. There was certainly enough back there to use something else. MOO

 

[swedie]

MR is guilty in my opinion and here's why I believe.

1. MR was very familiar with the Mount Forest, Guelph area
2. For a little chat, there was no need to drive to this secluded spot
3. Tori found naked from the waist down and I do not believe TLM staged this because
4. Tori's blood and sperm factions mixed and found on door moulding of MR's car
5. There was probably more blood and sperm evidence but it was all cleaned away with the trip to the car wash that night and also Jessica M. testified she had helped MR clean his car. MR probably made numerous attempts to cleaning evidence from his car after Tori's rape and murder also
6. The rates are very high on children being abducted for sexual assault
7. MR allowed Tori in his car when in reality he would know if caught, he could be charged with abduction
8. He went to ATM to take money out for TLM to purchase the murder weapon
9. If Tori wasn't abducted and she was afraid of MR, why didn't he insist TLM take her into HD with her
10. The videos putting him in Guelph at the ATM stop, HD where we see him getting out of his car on the driver side, back in and then driving a bit closer to HD where we see TLM getting out of the passenger side and back in after shopping
11. Police state Tori was abducted for nefarious and sexual purposes and do not allude to drug debt theory
12. MR telling TLM, we can't keep her and we can't take her back, you know I'm going to F&^% her, you're in this just as far as I am, you'd do anything for a little bit of love, good things are comming (sic) my way
13. MR driving past OSPS at least three times that day
14. MR parked in the nursing home parking lot hoping no one would see them shoving Tori into MR's car
15. All the women MR was using for financial and sexual gain who he showed no respect to
16. His cell phone pings
17. MR did not use his BB during the time he supposedly went for a walk while TLM staged rape and murder Tori hoping to blame the only person she felt loved her
18. MR was addicted to his BB and it's inconceivable he would not take it with him on his little walk
19. A little chat with Tori which could have taken place right there in MR's car while MR was not present
20. Tori's and MR's blood found on MR's gym bag
21. The missing back seat from MR's car
22. The little piece of material found on the floor of MR's car showing his back seat was cut to remove blood and semen evidence
23. The lack of Derstine trying to plant reasonable doubt in his cross examinations of all the witnesses and lack of cross examining some witnesses
24. Derstine being evasive as to whether any witnesses will take the stand
25. Derstine being evasive as to whether MR will take the stand in his own defense
26. MR's facial expressions during some witnesses testimony
27. MR's lack of interest while some witnesses on the stand, especially those with scientific evidence (telling strong evidence)
28. Changing of clothing after the murder and burial
29. Throwing away evidence
30. If he was duped, one would think MR may have wanted to hold onto at least the murder weapon to prove TLM's DNA was on it. No he got rid of everything, so he thought
31. There was no logical reason why MR didn't take TLM and Tori into BA's house and especially when she testified he didn't seem to be in a hurry, spending about ten minutes with her
32. TLM's statements she abducted Tori for MR at his request
33. TLM's testimony
34. MR's lies to LE during interview
35. His claims and even posts on sites claiming to be searching or wanting to search for Tori when he knew all along where she was and what happened to her.
36. MR's lies about his unsubstantiated education and careers
37. MR's secretive life and past troubled life according to some women
38. MR's shady life style; pimping, unemployed, seemingly lack of male friends
39. The purchase of the hair dye by MR for TLM to disguise herself three days after the murder and two days after the CASS video came to light
40. His shoes found in TLM house
41. Found his dupe in TLM who would do anything including an abduction for his sick sexual desire. Anything for a little bit of love.

These are just some of the reasons I believe he will be found guilty. MOO
Anyone feel free to add on. Would be interesting to see someone compile a list as to why MR is not guilty. Again Moo

 

[maxfactor]

Whatever happened to the pea coat?

The pea coat was supposed to be a crucial piece of evidence, that many thought would support TLM's testimony that VS was hidden in the back seat area covered by it.

The pea coat was recovered. It was examined. It did have lots of DNA on it.

But it didn't have any DNA from VS on it.

How could that be?

No hair fibers......no saliva........no mucus...........nothing from VS.

Forensics could tell if the coat had been cleaned.......but mentioned nothing about the presence of cleaning fluids.

Was TLM lying or telling the truth?

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

I don't remember seeing a tweet where they were asked if the coat had been cleaned and I can see how that question might be prejudicial so perhaps the Crown wasn't able to ask it. On the other hand why didn't Derstine ask that question? If the coat had not been cleaned that would have been in MR's favor. Now that I think about it there were a lot of questions that Derstine should have asked and didn't. Maybe he knew what the answers would be. MOO

 

[snoofer]

I don't remember seeing a tweet where they were asked if the coat had been cleaned and I can see how that question might be prejudicial so perhaps the Crown wasn't able to ask it. On the other hand why didn't Derstine ask that question? If the coat had not been cleaned that would have been in MR's favor. Now that I think about it there were a lot of questions that Derstine should have asked and didn't. Maybe he knew what the answers would be. MOO

Very good point!!!

Crown could be holding back too; I believe they get rebuttal of defense evidence if I remember my high school law class. Now don't laugh Otto, I got the highest mark on the exam my teacher told me. ;O)

 

[Salem]

I agree wholeheartedly with everything you have said!!! I also think that what Derstine did for MR was to have certain things excluded from evidence. It may be because those things would go to his character, I'm not sure. Judging from the timing of days off for legal arguments I think the Crown wanted to ask questions of some of those women that the defense wasn't going to let them ask. I still am wondering about his laptop also. There was another day off court for legal arguments during the Blackberry chapter. I think there is a lot that we don't know and won't know until the jury deliberates. Maybe Otto could answer something for me, if evidence was excluded that could have gone to motive, say sexual proclivities or violence and he is found not guilty by this jury, can the Crown appeal on the basis that the evidence should have been allowed? This is all just MOO of course.

I'm not Otto, but from what I understand from the posting of others, the appeal will have to be based on judicial error during the trial. That means if some evidence was excluded and the Crown finds it necessary to appeal, they will have to show, on a legal basis, that the judge made an error. In the US that argument would be made based on prior precedent. Not sure how it is done in Canada.

Salem

 

[Salem]

I don't remember seeing a tweet where they were asked if the coat had been cleaned and I can see how that question might be prejudicial so perhaps the Crown wasn't able to ask it. On the other hand why didn't Derstine ask that question? If the coat had not been cleaned that would have been in MR's favor. Now that I think about it there were a lot of questions that Derstine should have asked and didn't. Maybe he knew what the answers would be. MOO

I would also caution that the question may very well have been asked and answered, but the info was not tweeted. The jury has a lot more info then we do.

I know a few posters have been in court but they are not allowed to say anything about anything that was not in the media - so they couldn't tell us, even if they knew.

It's a good point you make that if the question was not asked by the defense, there was probably a reason for it.

Salem

 

[Macright]

He was a party to the offence if he willingly did nothing to prevent it. When TLM was kicking the victim, holding a hammer ready to strike her - surely he could predict the outcome ... yet he did nothing.

respectfully..do you know for a fact that he did nothing...the kicking and the stomping would have eventually led to her death...she was only a mite of a little girl and I would imagine TLM used a lot of force when she stomped on that little girl crushing her ribs and damage to her liver and god knows what other organs of her body....I wish people would not state things as fact but use the symbol IMO...this is how things are taken out of context and people run with it as actual fact...and by the way what has his age got to do with anything...yes he was 28 and the other thing was ten years younger but she was a lot more street wise than he was..he could have been the same age and the results would have been the same... another thing...people state for a fact that because there was a male involved and the child was found without clothing that therefore there had to be a rape...huh...yes if MR was the only one there besides TS..then yes I could see how people could think that..stands to reason BUT in this case we had a person like TLM also there and I won't go into detail about her because we all know just what kind of an evil despicable person she is...JMO

 

[paris_paris]

Snoofer..........

Your devil's advocate synopsis is pretty much what I expect the defense case will be...........but they will need supporting testimony or evidence.......IMO.

We will see what they bring to court.

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

I've been away all weekend and just reading the last page and Snoofer's synopsis.

Had an "omg" moment... what if Snoofer was Derstine testing out his synopsis here to see how we would pick it apart and then he could adjust it to something more believable.

sorry Snoofer :/

 

[Macright]

Let's suppose that he didn't see the murder. Any responsible, upstanding man that was driving around the countryside with a stranger's child would have spoken with the child when he was alone with her (while TLM was purchasing the murder weapon). Are we to believe that Victoria did not ask him to let her go, that she did not communicate her distress in any way, that MR was completely unaware that what he was doing was wrong? That's impossible.

maybe at that time TS still thought that TLM was babysitting her and maybe he did speak with her..we don't know that he didn't...there is no audio from inside of the car....JMO

 

[crazyladi]

respectfully..do you know for a fact that he did nothing...the kicking and the stomping would have eventually led to her death...she was only a mite of a little girl and I would imagine TLM used a lot of force when she stomped on that little girl crushing her ribs and damage to her liver and god knows what other organs of her body....I wish people would not state things as fact but use the symbol IMO...this is how things are taken out of context and people run with it as actual fact...and by the way what has his age got to do with anything...yes he was 28 and the other thing was ten years younger but she was a lot more street wise than he was..he could have been the same age and the results would have been the same... another thing...people state for a fact that because there was a male involved and the child was found without clothing that therefore there had to be a rape...huh...yes if MR was the only one there besides TS..then yes I could see how people could think that..stands to reason BUT in this case we had a person like TLM also there and I won't go into detail about her because we all know just what kind of an evil despicable person she is...JMO

How do you know she was more streetwise?

 

[Macright]

How do you know she was more streetwise?

well her record that has been released in court and other sources led me to that conclusion...haven't heard anything like that about MR.other than taking $$$ from an escort for their arranged business deal....JMO I think we can assume that TLM was not teaching sunday school....JMO