roseofsharon
Active Member
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2006
- Messages
- 2,851
- Reaction score
- 13
My point is that USA certainly does report and follow high profile cases occurring in Canada. JUST MOO
I don't think a US rag mag would be interested in a case in Canada and I doubt they would pay $$$ for a pix of MR...they could easily score one from one of the Cdn newspapers and secondly since when has anything that ever happened in Canada ever made the US news... ( no offence to our US posters)..JMO ... the very reason it has been taken down from any news site in Canada makes me believe there is more to this than meets the eye...time will tell....besides it was two people that took the pictures with two separate camera's...JMO one nosey guy I could understand but two...makes one go "what the heck"....
Well it's good to know then that the US media won't be doing the same thing that they did in the Bernardo trial by enticing people with information that is under a ban here in Canada.
MOO
I don't think he wore the jeans as part of his attire during the court hours..more than likely these lawyers keep there court clothes at the court house rather than drag them back and forth each day while the trial is going on.. I am sure the lawyers are assigned a room for the duration of the trial.. he is either commuting daily from Toronto or he is staying at a hotel during court days...so I wouldn't read anything into that photo..just saying...JMO and you are correct Bravo about the court attire...since Canadian law is based on the British system the only thing they don't wear anymore is the wigs which I believe they still wear in the British courts... JMO and actually some lawyers here in Canada still use the word solicitor rather than lawyer...
I don't think he wore the jeans as part of his attire during the court hours..more than likely these lawyers keep there court clothes at the court house rather than drag them back and forth each day while the trial is going on.. I am sure the lawyers are assigned a room for the duration of the trial.. he is either commuting daily from Toronto or he is staying at a hotel during court days...so I wouldn't read anything into that photo..just saying...JMO and you are correct Bravo about the court attire...since Canadian law is based on the British system the only thing they don't wear anymore is the wigs which I believe they still wear in the British courts... JMO and actually some lawyers here in Canada still use the word solicitor rather than lawyer...
What am I missing or what do I don't get? What kind of defence could that be?
What does it matter if there was a gang, drug dept or whatever??? ??
Fact is he knew that Tori didn't come for a ride on her own will. He was surprised when TLM showed up with the little girl? Really? Well we know now for a fact that he was already driving around the school area early in the morning. I am wondering what he was doing there....(appetizer?)
He was driving around a kidnapped girl (at some point in time even our Mr.Biceps must have figured that out) and he still didn't do anything about it.
What does it matter if he killed her or not? He was there, helped cleaning, didn't go to the police afterwards and didn't help to find her body. He was trying hard to hide any involvement). Gang influence? Who cares! Even then he could walk to the police and could have told them what happened. And if he comes with a story that he was scared for his own life then you really have me laughing. How scared he was shows his sexual activity. That didn't seemed to be influenced at all.
Maybe I am watching to much 48 hours but in the US the people that are similar involved in a murder always end up with 1st degree murder.
For Tories family I hope that he gets guilty for the rape too. But this is the only point where I am not so sure that the evidence is enough.
BUT
Even if he doesn't get the guilty there it will be in peoples minds forever (and his future prison inmates). I am sure they will take care of it for hopefully very long 25 years. That is something he will never get of his forehead. That is stamped there for the rest of his life regardless what the outcome of this trial is.
I just had to write all this because my head is spinning
Public access to the Internet effectively nullified the court's order, however; as did proximity to the American border, since a publication ban by an Ontario Court cannot apply in New York, Michigan, or anywhere else outside of Ontario. American journalists cited the First Amendment in editorials and published details of Homolka's testimony, which were widely distributed by many "electronic ban-breakers", primarily on the alt.fan.karla-homolka[12] Usenet newsgroup. Information and rumours spread across a myriad of electronic networks available to anyone with a computer and a modem in Canada. Moreover, many of the Internet rumours went beyond the known details of the case. Newsweek's 6 December 1993 edition, for example, "reprinted without permission" as the correspondent stated, reported: "Another account said that, to keep them from escaping, both girls were hobble[d] by their abductors, who used veterinary surgical instruments to sever tendons in their legs."[13][dubious discuss]
Newspapers in Buffalo, Detroit, Washington, New York and even Britain, together with border radio and television stations, reported details gleaned from sources at Homolka's trial. The syndicated series A Current Affair aired two programs on the crimes. Canadians bootlegged copies of The Buffalo Evening News across the border, prompting orders to NRP to arrest all those with more than one copy at the border. Extra copies were confiscated. Copies of other newspapers, including The New York Times, were either turned back at the border or were not accepted by distributors in Ontario.[11] Gordon Domm, a retired police officer who defied the publication ban by distributing details from the foreign media, was charged and convicted on two counts of contempt of court.
With Crown Attorneys at the Michael Rafferty murder trial in London, ON resting their 12-part case against the accused, the trial draws that much closer to a close, but they're not there yet.
The next step in the trial now depends solely on what Rafferty's defence team decides to do. They will take the next four days to decide whether they will call any witnesses. Any list of witnesses could include Rafferty himself.
The Defence doesn't necessarily have to call anyone, though. As Justice Thomas Heeney reminded the jury Thursday afternoon, "the defence has no onus to prove anything." The burden of proof in Canadian jury trials is always on the Crown.
Jurors won't find out what lawyer Dirk Derstine decides to do until court reconvenes Tuesday.
If the defence decides not to call any witnesses at all, proceedings will move straight toward closing arguments and the eventual deliberation of the jury.
If Rafferty is called to the stand by Derstine, expect him to be testifying for several days.
When Terri-Lynne McClintic took the stand earlier in the trial it took five-and-a-half days before Crown and Defence lawyers wrapped up their respective examinations.
I was watching the video of Rafferty at the detention center (May 8th, 2009) and he has what look like keys in his hand with a dangling loop of some kind of material. My keys have the same kind of strap thingy. Were his keys and strap analyzed for Tori's DNA and his sperm? I can see MR overlooking getting rid of that kind of object or not cleaning it afterwards. JMO
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview....c-act-like-young-lovers-in-surveillance-video
I like how his hands are free and the other two are pulling the luggage around. LOL! JMO
Listening to this interview with Rodney only reaffirms my belied that there is a lot of evidence that the Crown is not able to introduce to the jury, and that's a real shame.
Why didn't we hear anything about the second trip to the movie theatre? The evidence clearly shows them both wearing different clothes and a different time of day. We don't even know if it was the same day.
MOO
I think this is the video from yesterday. 14 min 37 seconds BOTH parts are there at the link. Second clip is 15 minutes 36 seconds.
Crown rests its case in Rafferty trial
http://www.woodstocksentinelreview.com/2012/04/26/crown-rests-its-case-in-rafferty-trial