Bravo
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Messages
- 20,354
- Reaction score
- 64,581
TLM strikes me as the type that you would see coming, whereas MR seems like the kind that would sneak up behind you.
Absolutely!!!!
TLM strikes me as the type that you would see coming, whereas MR seems like the kind that would sneak up behind you.
JMO:
well I am a female and after reading about TLM and her lifestyle and what she has done and is capable of... I know who I would be afraid of and that would even be in broad daylight... I don't equate her with "weaker sex" because I have never believed that a woman is the weaker sex (well maybe when it comes to putting out the garbage or changing a tire)..MR I have not heard anything about him being a violent person only somewhat of a con artist and yes a liar so I could handle that no problem at all because I don't think he could hurt me physically. and that would be my fear....JMO
Question. Your probably not 8 years old and trapped in a car with him/them to test your theory. Tori was. I am sure you read the ME's report. Yep just a stand up guy.
I'm of the opinion that the premeditation happened in the days before the abduction. When I hear that he discussed abducting children with women, I think he was testing the water. I think that he tested the water with TLM and discovered that she was prepared to go along with the idea. I would like to see his computer records ... I'm curious about what he liked to read and if it related to other child abduction cases.
"Once, Ms. Hodge said, they had a little chat about abducting kids, surely a fascinating subject for a child worker and a man who would soon be charged with precisely that crime.
It was he who raised the topic, she said. He said how people take kids, abduct them, and they [the kids] grow up thinking theyre [the kidnappers] like their real parents, she said."
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com...m-witnessing-horrifying-tori-stafford-murder/
I had no idea that if the defense called witnesses they could not do a closing argument. That is very different from here in the States, where it is expected that the defense will call witnesses and present a closing argument.
Wow. That makes it hard for the defense, in my opinion.
Salem
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/30/19698706.html
"If a defence lawyer decides not to call his client, he's faced with another difficult choice. By calling any witness, the defence loses the right to give closing arguments after the Crown"
I think that there's an advantage to having the last word. If the defence presents witnesses, then the crown has the last word.
"Closing arguments:
Prosecution closing argument. The prosecution makes its closing argument, summarizing the evidence as the prosecution sees it, and explaining why the jury should render a guilty verdict.
Defense closing argument. The defense makes its closing argument, summarizing the evidence as the defense sees it, and explaining why the jury should render a not guilty verdict--or at least a guilty verdict on a lesser charge.
Section 651 determines who closes first. If defense presents evidence or the defendant testifies, then defense closes first."
http://www.julianhermida.com/polnotesoverview.htm