Weekend Discussion Thread 04/27-30/2012

[otto]

Are investigators really able to gather all the evidence??? IMO, there is much more to this story that will never be revealed and since MR and TLM are both liars, IMO, it will be interesting to see what version of the events on April 8, 2009, the jury will believe. That's all. MOO

I don't think the jury will have any difficulty finding MR guilty of 1st degree murder and it will have nothing to do with whether they believe either of the suspects. They were both parties to the offence. TLM confessed and MR has been placed as being by her side from beginning to end.

Parties to offence

21. (1) Every one is a party to an offence who

(a) actually commits it;
(b) does or omits to do anything for the purpose of aiding any person to commit it; or
(c) abets any person in committing it.

Marginal note:Common intention

(2) Where two or more persons form an intention in common to carry out an unlawful purpose and to assist each other therein and any one of them, in carrying out the common purpose, commits an offence, each of them who knew or ought to have known that the commission of the offence would be a probable consequence of carrying out the common purpose is a party to that offence.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-6.html#h-5

A person commits culpable homicide when he causes the death of a human being,

(a) by means of an unlawful act;
(b) by criminal negligence;
(c) by causing that human being, by threats or fear of violence or by deception, to do anything that causes his death; or
(d) by wilfully frightening that human being, in the case of a child or sick person.

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-46/page-108.html

 

[snoofer]

It is quite conceivable that both MR and VS thought that TLM was babysitting.

so in affect TLM just used MTR as the cab drive??? To get to the destination of her murder plans??? Bit far fetched don't you think? MOO

Then why not just pull TS into a bush and kill her. Why get a ride with MTR. MOO

 

[Ardy]

so in affect TLM just used MTR as the cab drive??? To get to the destination of her murder plans??? Bit far fetched don't you think? MOO

Then why not just pull TS into a bush and kill her. Why get a ride with MTR. MOO

Without accusing MR of sexually assaulting VS, and claiming that was the motivation for the abduction.............how could TLM explain any reason MR would murder VS as she first claimed?

Maybe TLM didn't intend to murder VS, but her plan wasn't working out very well, the police had become involved and she went into a rage because she knew she was going back to jail. She was after all, released on probation for a previous stabbing.

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

 

[otto]

so in affect TLM just used MTR as the cab drive??? To get to the destination of her murder plans??? Bit far fetched don't you think? MOO

Then why not just pull TS into a bush and kill her. Why get a ride with MTR. MOO

Even if he provided cab service, he was there from beginning to end, should have reasonably known that something was wrong, did nothing to intervene on behalf of the victim and then proceeded to cover up the crime. He's as guilty as the confessed murderer.

 

[antiquegirl]

I think that, given the suspicions about TLM's involvement in the murder of a young child, exceptions would be made when she had visitors ... if only to observe who wanted to stay longer, what the interactions were like, the frequency of visits and so on.

According to the Tweets, TLM had only 6 approved visitors: her mother, her aunt, her lawyer, her welfare worker, her parole officer, and (not approved until April 27) MTR. I don't suppose that anyone there, other than MTR, would be under suspicion by LE. Strangely, he waited 10 days after approval before his first visit (May 8) and then had only one more (May 12) before he was arrested.

As I wrote before, I do not believe that LE were quite suspicious enough ... or why didn't they add audio surveillance to her visits? They have admitted to bugging TM's house and implied that there was other surreptitious audio surveillance going on (I assume that was the "limo ride" sting, and probably others), so why not this? My opinion is that, in spite of what TLM's neighbours told LE, TLM and MTR were not serious suspects until May 14th or May 15th - AFTER MTR's last visit to Genest.

MTR was present for TLM's hearings for the parole violations on May 14 and 15th. So was LE. On the day of the 2nd appearance, LE took TLM aside to a private room in the courthouse and had a talk with her. I'm guessing that that's when they asked her about MTR. She had to tell them that he was her boyfriend because that's what she listed on her detention centre application to allow him phone calls and visits.

On that same night (May 15), LE shows up at MTR's house to interview him. When asked if he is TLM's boyfriend, he laughs and says they're just friends. I think this is when LE became seriously suspicious, except still not enough to take him in for questioning right then and there. Instead, they lost him for the next four days, in spite of him scooting all over London.

IMHO, this is when LE started coming down on TLM like a ton of bricks. They told her that they talked to her "boyfriend" and he denied that they were BF/GF. They probably told her that he laughed and dropped the names of a bunch of other women he was seeing. And voila! Within four days, TLM "confesses" and blames everything on MTR except for the walking away with Tori part. Didn't she even initially say that she left Tori with MTR and went on her merry way? Typical TLM revenge, if you ask me.

(Above contains some undisputed facts and some guesswork on my part.)

JMO

 

[snoofer]

MR didn't have permission to be with VS, but he may have thought TLM did.

If it was not his intent to kidnap VS, or sexually assault her..........there can be no finding of first degree murder, because TLM has confessed to the murder.

Therefore what MR's intentions were relating to the abduction are the most important part of the case.

If the defense can show evidence that TLM abducted VS for her own reasons, that would provide support for a lack of intent by MR.

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

yes with her interaction with even the guards you get a picture of oppositional and defiant type person, every small thing is a production and an exercise in futility. Many times in that situation the consequences are delayed, because it is a youth facility, as this person would always be a write-up, always be on reprimand. JMO No I do not think that MTR controlled TLM nor do I think she controlled him...except for one small thing MTR tried...to keep her mouth shut with manipulation. MOO As would be expected, she didn't do what he told her. Once TLM found out she was being manipulated; she sang like a bird! JMO I don't think she necessarily wanted revenge; I think it is the nature of oppositional and defiant people to "do the opposite" when they realize that someone is trying to control them or manipulate their emotions. Rebel even at the cost to themselves. I think she sent him a message; loud and clear. JMO

 

[otto]

According to the Tweets, TLM had only 6 approved visitors: her mother, her aunt, her lawyer, her welfare worker, her parole officer, and (not approved until April 27) MTR. I don't suppose that anyone there, other than MTR, would be under suspicion by LE. Strangely, he waited 10 days after approval before his first visit (May 8) and then had only one more (May 12) before he was arrested.

As I wrote before, I do not believe that LE were quite suspicious enough ... or why didn't they add audio surveillance to her visits? They have admitted to bugging TM's house and implied that there was other surreptitious audio surveillance going on (I assume that was the "limo ride" sting, and probably others), so why not this? My opinion is that, in spite of what TLM's neighbours told LE, TLM and MTR were not serious suspects until May 14th or May 15th - AFTER MTR's last visit to Genest.

MTR was present for TLM's hearings for the parole violations on May 14 and 15th. So was LE. On the day of the 2nd appearance, LE took TLM aside to a private room in the courthouse and had a talk with her. I'm guessing that that's when they asked her about MTR. She had to tell them that he was her boyfriend because that's what she listed on her detention centre application to allow him phone calls and visits.

On that same night (May 15), LE shows up at MTR's house to interview him. When asked if he is TLM's boyfriend, he laughs and says they're just friends. I think this is when LE became seriously suspicious, except still not enough to take him in for questioning right then and there. Instead, they lost him for the next four days, in spite of him scooting all over London.

IMHO, this is when LE started coming down on TLM like a ton of bricks. They told her that they talked to her "boyfriend" and he denied that they were BF/GF. They probably told her that he laughed and dropped the names of a bunch of other women he was seeing. And voila! Within four days, TLM "confesses" and blames everything on MTR except for the walking away with Tori part. Didn't she even initially say that she left him with MTR and went on her merry way? Typical TLM revenge, if you ask me.

(Above contains some undisputed facts and some guesswork on my part.)

JMO

According to the prepared answers that TLM was going to give police, she was going to tell them that she met with a friend after speaking with Victoria. Police would have asked for the name of the friend, and then MR would have been at the top of the suspect list.

From previous posts, it sounds like there were privacy issues at play in the detention centre ... simlar to jail. Can investigators wire tap a table in a public visiting area in a jail? In fact, a wiretap application would have to be made for all tables and areas in the visiting area, since choice of seat would be random. I'd be surprised if that was ever possible.

 

[antiquegirl]

Even if he provided cab service, he was there from beginning to end, should have reasonably known that something was wrong, did nothing to intervene on behalf of the victim and then proceeded to cover up the crime. He's as guilty as the confessed murderer.

I think that this is where Derstine may consider using the mens rea defence. If he does, it's anyone's guess whether or not it will fly with the jury.

JMO

 

[otto]

I think that this is where Derstine may consider using the mens rea defence. If he does, it's anyone's guess whether or not it will fly with the jury.

JMO

It's rather difficult to admit that he knowingly helped cover up the crime, but was unaware that a crime had been committed. He would have to have an IQ of about 60 to make that claim. Let's suppose this 28 year old man thought it was perfectly normal to take a child from her school, drive her to a secluded place, remove half her clothes and violently murder her. Then, he knew enough was wrong that he helped cover up the crime and then did everything he could to prevent investigators from discovering that crime ... that just doesn't add up. Even duped men know how to do the right thing after the fact when a child has been abducted and murdered.

 

[Heliotrope]

Just for reference:

proof -/pruf/ noun
1. evidence sufficient to establish a thing as true, or to produce belief in its truth.
2. anything serving as such evidence: What proof do you have?
3. the act of testing or making trial of anything; test; trial: to put a thing to the proof.
4. the establishment of the truth of anything; demonstration.
5. Law . (in judicial proceedings) evidence having probative weight.

Note that proof doesn't have to be an HD, surround-sound video of the event, a la Girl with a Dragon Tattoo, to be considered proof. Sorry if that upsets people...JMO.

 

[antiquegirl]

According to the prepared answers that TLM was going to give police, she was going to tell them that she met with a friend after speaking with Victoria. Police would have asked for the name of the friend, and then MR would have been at the top of the suspect list.

From previous posts, it sounds like there were privacy issues at play in the detention centre ... simlar to jail. Can investigators wire tap a table in a public visiting area in a jail? In fact, a wiretap application would have to be made for all tables and areas in the visiting area, since choice of seat would be random. I'd be surprised if that was ever possible.

Of course there are privacy issues everywhere, including TM's home. That shouldn't deter a missing child/suspected murder investigation, as long as a warrant is issued. I've asked around and was told it should be no problem obtaining one. I'm also pretty sure that the technology exists to bug an entire room for sound with just one device. (According to the video, MTR and TLM were the only ones there for both visits.) Besides, those privacy issues didn't seem to extend to video surveillance.

We must not underestimate the powers of LE when they are determined. The problem is, as I wrote, I don't think they were determined enough at that point. Hindsight is 20/20 and I bet they wish now they had been more suspicious at the time. Not that they would ever admit it.

Just MOO!

 

[antiquegirl]

It's rather difficult to admit that he knowingly helped cover up the crime, but was unaware that a crime had been committed. He would have to have an IQ of about 60 to make that claim. Let's suppose this 28 year old man thought it was perfectly normal to take a child from her school, drive her to a secluded place, remove half her clothes and violently murder her. Then, he knew enough was wrong that he helped cover up the crime and then did everything he could to prevent investigators from discovering that crime ... that just doesn't add up. Even duped men know how to do the right thing after the fact when a child has been abducted and murdered.

ITA. I'm not disputing any of that. All I'm suggesting is that Derstine may use the mens rea defence to get his charges reduced from 1st to 2nd degree murder, claiming that MTR had no idea at the time of the abduction that it was indeed an abduction and that a murder would ensue.

I am looking forward to what the defence will say this week and when they're done, what the judge's instructions to the jury will be.

JMO

"The mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") of murder is either an intention to kill ... or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_English_law#Mens_rea_.28intention.29

 

[otto]

Of course there are privacy issues everywhere, including TM's home. That shouldn't deter a missing child/suspected murder investigation, as long as a warrant is issued. I've asked around and was told it should be no problem obtaining one. I'm also pretty sure that the technology exists to bug an entire room for sound with just one device. (According to the video, MTR and TLM were the only ones there for both visits.) Besides, those privacy issues didn't seem to extend to video surveillance.

We must not underestimate the powers of LE when they are determined. The problem is, as I wrote, I don't think they were determined enough at that point. Hindsight is 20/20 and I bet they wish now they had been more suspicious at the time. Not that they would ever admit it.

Just MOO!

Do you have a reference for wiretap applications being approved for tables in a public visiting area in a jail or detention centre? How are the rights of all other people using that public area protected?

In my opinion, it's always challenging to make a wiretap application ... nothing routine about it. I'm curious ... what sort of sources are saying it's not a problem to get a wiretap application approved for public spaces?

 

[otto]

ITA. I'm not disputing any of that. All I'm suggesting is that Derstine may use the mens rea defence to get his charges reduced from 1st to 2nd degree murder, claiming that MTR had no idea at the time of the abduction that it was indeed an abduction and that a murder would ensue.

I am looking forward to what the defence will say this week and when they're done, what the judge's instructions to the jury will be.

JMO

"The mens rea (Latin for "guilty mind") of murder is either an intention to kill ... or an intention to cause grievous bodily harm"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_in_English_law#Mens_rea_.28intention.29

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.

 

[kmclaren]

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.

But then Derstine has suggested MTR had taken a little walk so wouldn't have seen any of this... Even if I try really hard to believe that, I can't and if I were on the jury I think I'd find it an insult to my intelligence. Especially given that such a Blackberry addict like MTR didn't use his "walk away while Tori is murdered time" to catch up on his texts, messages and calls he had missed over the past 3 hours. IMO, he's guilty as charged...

 

[otto]

But then Derstine has suggested MTR had taken a little walk so wouldn't have seen any of this... Even if I try really hard to believe that, I can't and if I were on the jury I think I'd find it an insult to my intelligence. Especially given that such a Blackberry addict like MTR didn't use his "walk away while Tori is murdered time" to catch up on his texts, messages and calls he had missed over the past 3 hours. IMO, he's guilty as charged...

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.

 

[antiquegirl]

Do you have a reference for wiretap applications being approved for tables in a public visiting area in a jail or detention centre? How are the rights of all other people using that public area protected?

In my opinion, it's always challenging to make a wiretap application ... nothing routine about it. I'm curious ... what sort of sources are saying it's not a problem to get a wiretap application approved for public spaces?

I asked one friend who is a lawyer and another who has worked as a law clerk for 20 years. The problem that usually arises is not about getting a warrant, but about installing wiretaps without one. Even those are currently permitted when it's deemed an emergency.

The RCMP started wiretapping immediately after they learned of the kidnapping and only obtained the necessary judicial authorization 24 hours later.

At trial, the judge ruled the police violated the Charter of Rights, but admitted the wiretap evidence anyway.

The ruling made it clear that allowing police the power to intercept a private communication without a warrant does not inherently represent a charter breach.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/13/supreme-court-wiretap-law_n_1423416.html

I'm only going by what I was told, do not have time for more research, and am merely stating my opinion - that a detention centre already equipped with video cameras, and where a child's life is at stake, would fall under the type of situation where a judge would not hesitate to issue a warrant for a wiretap ... had LE been suspicious enough to apply for one. There would be no need to activate it until the meeting between MTR and TLM took place and deactivated afterward.

All MOO!

 

[tmhco]

But then Derstine has suggested MTR had taken a little walk so wouldn't have seen any of this... Even if I try really hard to believe that, I can't and if I were on the jury I think I'd find it an insult to my intelligence. Especially given that such a Blackberry addict like MTR didn't use his "walk away while Tori is murdered time" to catch up on his texts, messages and calls he had missed over the past 3 hours. IMO, he's guilty as charged...

You read my mind. That is the nail in the coffin! JMO

 

[otto]

I asked one friend who is a lawyer and another who has worked as a law clerk for 20 years. The problem that usually arises is not about getting a warrant, but about installing wiretaps without one. Even those are currently permitted when it's deemed an emergency.

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2012/04/13/supreme-court-wiretap-law_n_1423416.html

I'm only going by what I was told, do not have time for more research, and am merely stating my opinion - that a detention centre already equipped with video cameras, and where a child's life is at stake, would fall under the type of situation where a judge would not hesitate to issue a warrant for a wiretap ... had LE been suspicious enough to apply for one. There would be no need to activate it until the meeting between MTR and TLM took place and deactivated afterward.

All MOO!

It seems like the quotes selected from the article relate to the BC ruling before it was struck down by the supreme court ... what the artcle actually says is that the supreme court did not uphold the BC court decision to allow wiretap without a warrant.

From your link: "Supreme Court Strikes Down Emergency Exception, Requires Warrants"

"The Supreme Court of Canada has struck down a law that allowed police to immediately start wiretaps in urgent cases without getting a search warrant."

Additionally, law clerks and lawyers have little to do with wiretap applications. Prosecutors write them up and, from what I've heard, they meticulously comb through the document after they draft it to ensure that there is not one single error ... any small error results in the application being rejected. It is no small feat to make a wiretap application and I seriously doubt that one would ever be granted for a public space in a detention centre.

 

[roseofsharon]

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.

Unless TLM had given TS something to sedate her enough to induce sleep and then perhaps there was no opportunity for MR to converse with TS before arriving at the crime scene. MOO

Footnote: However, this is just a possible scenario, however, I really think TS probably did tell MR she wanted to go home several times throughout this time and I don't think MR thought TLM was babysitting. IMO, he was in the plan all the way and IMO, the mastermind. MOO