weekend discussion thread: 4/14-16/2012

[Kamille]

I assume you're talking about AC and TLM for before, but who are the 4 after? Or do you consider having one coffee date actually "dating"?

Numbers 1,3,7,8 &14 from the list. I realize that is 5 but I'm not sure if 3 & 7 are the same person so I gave him the benefit of the doubt and knocked it down one.

And to say that he wasn't still "dating" TLM after the crime would be incorrect. They may not have been able to go to the movies or anything but he was still "courting" (which in his world is more like manipulating) her while she was in detention. She believed they were still an item. Told officials in the detention centre that he was her boyfriend.

MOO

 

[Alethea Dice]

Interesting read. Too bad Derstine didn't read this before MR's trial. I did find it rather odd in which the defense did not give an opening statement. I have been looking into information as to why Derstine waived his right to presenting an opening statement, which I always felt was critical in showing the accused innocence or raise a reasonable doubt. From all the articles I have read so far, it sounds like a big mistake not to give an opening statement.

Respectfully snipped for space.

This would all be very interesting if this case was being tried in Michigan. However, it's not. This trial is taking place in Canada. As dar107 already pointed out in her post [ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7789587&postcount=209"]#209[/ame], the procedure is a little different in Canada.

The judge in the Robert Pickton murder trial on Friday rejected three conditions sought by the Crown and will allow defence lawyers the unusual opportunity to make their opening statement immediately after the Crown.

In a criminal trial, the Crown begins first and usually provides the jury with an opening statement that summarizes the facts it says will establish its case. It also provides the jury with a summary of evidence it is expected to lead.

Then it begins calling witnesses.

When it finishes its case, the defence then has the option of making an opening statement and calling witnesses.

The procedures of a criminal trial in Canada are:

1. Plaintiff’s opening – the plaintiff outlines for the judge or jury the factual basis of the claims he or she expects to prove.
2. Plaintiff’s witnesses – the plaintiff and the plaintiff’s witnesses give their evidence (this is called direct examination), are cross-examined by the defendant, and then re-examined by the plaintiff, if necessary.
3. Defendant’s opening – the defendant explains to the judge or jury what his or her evidence will show and what it means to the defence.
4. Defendant’s witnesses – the defendant gives his or her evidence, calls defence witnesses who give their evidence (direct examination), are cross-examined by the plaintiff, and then reexamined by the defendant’s lawyer (or the defendant if he or she is self-represented), if necessary.
5. Rebuttal witnesses – once the defendant has finished with his or her witnesses, the plaintiff can call rebuttal witnesses who can give evidence on issues that came up for the first time in the evidence of the defendant’s witnesses, but for nothing else. Then the defendant can cross-examine these witnesses.

 

[Alethea Dice]

This laneway could have been a nice little hideaway for employees of the landscaping crew to take a bit of a break and have lunch. Quiet, serene, out of sight from peering eyes, slug back a couple of cold ones lol. Also someone else said when they did their landscaping, they were taken to a rock pile to collect rocks. MR may have been at this location doing just that; collecting rocks. Tuesday will bring more telltale evidence. :moo:

I would hope that, if this were the case, the Crown would have brought that up in their questioning. Perhaps they still will. However, judging by the Defense's cross examination, I won't hold my breath waiting for it.

London Free Press@RaffertyLFPReply
Cross examine begins. Derstine ask about trucks that Cruickshank's firm used

London Free Press@RaffertyLFPReply
Derstine asks about number of employees. Cruikshank says 12

AM980.ca@AM980_CourtReply
Derstine asks Cruickshank to describe the truck owned by the business. Can't recall if it had one or two seats.

AM980.ca@AM980_CourtReply
He also asks if he knew where all employees were at any given day. He says yes, that's why they had the work plans. No more questions.

If he was zipping around that laneway during work, he would have had to have done it with another employee.

AM980.ca@AM980_CourtReply
He worked with others because his drivers license was suspended.

JMO

 

[Sillybilly]

Top pay is $6.90 a day.

And that was in 1995

 

[JayFriend]

Does a publication like that protect the woman who testified from anyone posting her name on facebook or twitter too? JMO

Posting on Facebook or Twitter (or on a public forum like this one) is still "publishing". I suppose one could tell someone else by private email, but even that's dangerous today with so many people forsaking the rules of netiquette and publicly leaking private communications.

 

[Sillybilly]

AM980.ca@AM980_CourtReply
He worked with others because his drivers license was suspended.

The way that is worded makes it sound that, if he had had his licence, he would have been able to work alone.

Regardless, it doesn't mean he didn't go there on his own when his licence was reinstated, and when he was not at work.

 

[OhSoCurious]

Numbers 1,3,7,8 &14 from the list. I realize that is 5 but I'm not sure if 3 & 7 are the same person so I gave him the benefit of the doubt and knocked it down one.

And to say that he wasn't still "dating" TLM after the crime would be incorrect. They may not have been able to go to the movies or anything but he was still "courting" (which in his world is more like manipulating) her while she was in detention. She believed they were still an item. Told officials in the detention centre that he was her boyfriend.

MOO

TLM telling officials anything could also just be a part of her fantasizing/delusional lies. JMO

 

[snoofer]

:moo:The defense leading up to the trial seemed to suggest there would be some shocking revelations that will show his client is innocent. I cannot help but wonder if that is why we have not seen much action from the defense thus far. Is there going to be some sort of "show stopper" when defense has it's turn. I cannot fathom what that would be; but I get the feeling that we need to hold on to our hats! JMO I sure hope and pray that justice is served at the end of this trial; as Tori so deserves that it does. I just cannot fathom what sort of defense that will be offered and it seems that it has been kept close to the vest and defense is just "waiting patiently" for their turn. MOO I DO believe that after both sides are presented that the TRUTH will win out in such an important and provincially expensive case. It would be terribly disheartening if after this case it does not feel as though justice was done properly; so I am going to have faith that at the end of the case; it will all come full circle and the right verdict will be formed.

 

[OhSoCurious]

Posting on Facebook or Twitter (or on a public forum like this one) is still "publishing". I suppose one could tell someone else by private email, but even that's dangerous today with so many people forsaking the rules of netiquette and publicly leaking private communications.

Bottom line is we and all others should respect and protect her anonymity.

 

[JayFriend]

Interesting read. Too bad Derstine didn't read this before MR's trial. I did find it rather odd in which the defense did not give an opening statement. I have been looking into information as to why Derstine waived his right to presenting an opening statement, which I always felt was critical in showing the accused innocence or raise a reasonable doubt. From all the articles I have read so far, it sounds like a big mistake not to give an opening statement. I can give a few reasons of my own as to why I believe Derstine failed to give an open statement:

1. He wanted to hear how the Crown was going to present everything and hear what each witness had to say before he can spin his theory on what happened.

2. Derstine knows or feels with great certainty there is no way he can convince the jurors MR is not guilty of abduction, sexual assault causing bodily harm and murder of Tori, based on evidence including witnesses and expert witnesses testimony. He already knows MR is guilty of abduction and murder under the criminal code.

3. Derstine is not as brilliant as some people speculate or claim he is or he himself has portrayed himself to be.

4. Derstine doesn't really give a carp how this case plays out, he's still getting his 15 minutes of fame for representing this high profile case. In the end, he will do his little interview outside London's courthouse and say I tried, but it's impossible to argue a case like this with overwhelming evidence. We will appeal the decision.

It still boggles my mind Derstine has had ample opportunities to cross examine numerous witnesses, to raise doubt in the jurors minds, but has yet he failed to do so.
What really was an ah ha moment for me was when he asked McLean if the blood, sperm and DNA evidence showed MR had sex with Tori. That was a huge red flag for me. Derstine was only worried about the sexual assault charges. Derstine may as well said ok I know I cannot argue away the abduction or murder charges and because you McLean, have not been clear with your technical explanation let's throw this question out there about the sex, common sense tells us, we all know something happened between MR and Tori in order for you to find their blood and DNA mixed.
MOO that's all!

The Defense Must Open
The defendant in a criminal case needs a good theme, just as
much as, if not more than, the plaintiff in a civil case. For example:
“This is a case of self-defense.” Or if you can carefully talk about
the burden of proof in opening statement, you have made great
strides in improving your chances of an acquittal or a hung jury.
Even when you have no real defense, never waive the opportunity
to communicate with the jury. Get up and say something! Stress
how important it is to everyone, not only the defendant, that the
safeguards of the presumption of innocence be rigorously applied.
Explain that the presumption of innocence does not end when the
trial starts, but continues until and unless the prosecution presents
believable evidence to the jury’s satisfaction beyond a reasonable
doubt on each and every element of the charged offenses.
In both state and federal court, I have too often seen defense
counsel announce to the court, “Your Honor, we will reserve our
opening statement.” Without showing outward emotion, I cringe.
Reserve your opening? Reserve what? The prosecution has just
painted a picture of your client as a person who deals in drugs and
conspires with those who sell them. Drugs have permeated our
society and ruined thousands of lives, even some of the children,
spouses, and friends of the jurors. Counsel must get up and change
that picture or at least neutralize it—by showing that your client
did not knowingly, with specific intent, violate the controlled substance laws. Defense counsel must remember that you are trying
the case to the jury and not the judge. The rule of primacy dictates
that defense counsel make an opening statement. You must defuse
and neutralize the rule of primacy. Get up! Get up! Get up! Talk
about how the burden of proof never shifts to the defendant. Tell
the jurors in opening that “not guilty” means “not proved guilty.”
Early on, you must touch the hearts and minds of the jurors by
showing how wrong these charges against the accused are. If you
wait until the prosecution rests to begin your opening statement
in a criminal case, you have—with rare exception—just sent your
client to prison. Every criminal defense lawyer should know that
it is an uphill climb. The criminal defendant is at a disadvantage
from the beginning. The jury is thinking, He or she must have
done something wrong; otherwise there would not be a trial.

http://www.michbar.org/journal/pdf/pdf4article1805.pdf

Sorry for quoting the whole, long post, but I'm just too lazy to snip and bold right now and want to get to the end of the thread.

My belief as to why Derstine didn't make an opening statement is that he didn't want to tip his hand how he proposes to create doubt among the jurors. So far, while questioning TLM, he's put forth a far-fetched theory about what might have happened at the crime scene, but that's all. The spin will really begin in earnest during closing arguments. If he laid out his plan ahead of time, the Crown could tailor its presentation to counteract the defence's theories. Remember, the Crown had to fully disclose all its evidence ahead of time, but the defence has to disclose nothing, unless it's physical evidence. This is a game of chess where the defence knows all the moves the Crown can make but not vice versa. Derstine is a sly fox. He didn't make an opening statement, but he's concocting his closing arguments on the fly. All he has to do is plant enough seeds of doubt and confusion in the minds of the jury and he has the case won.

 

[OhSoCurious]

:moo:The defense leading up to the trial seemed to suggest there would be some shocking revelations that will show his client is innocent. I cannot help but wonder if that is why we have not seen much action from the defense thus far. Is there going to be some sort of "show stopper" when defense has it's turn. I cannot fathom what that would be; but I get the feeling that we need to hold on to our hats! JMO I sure hope and pray that justice is served at the end of this trial; as Tori so deserves that it does. I just cannot fathom what sort of defense that will be offered and it seems that it has been kept close to the vest and defense is just "waiting patiently" for their turn. MOO I DO believe that after both sides are presented that the TRUTH will win out in such an important and provincially expensive case. It would be terribly disheartening if after this case it does not feel as though justice was done properly; so I am going to have faith that at the end of the case; it will all come full circle and the right verdict will be formed.

From reading this board from day one, I can see that there have been many potential defenses and theories posted. It seems most of the population just doesn't want to read and comprehend such possibilities. I might even predict that the shocking revelations/show stopper has been detailed here or in a like forum before. There is just such rage and need to find him guilty of all charges that there is little room to contemplate such "reasoning". JMO

 

[JayFriend]

IMHO punishment should be to put MR in with the general population of the prison. Why are these sickos protected? They don't deserve to be. :moo:

Well, lynch mobs seem to be more prevalent on the inside than the outside and they're illegal. Not sure what the difference is between "solitary" and "protective custody". Is there?

 

[snoofer]

Sorry for quoting the whole, long post, but I'm just too lazy to snip and bold right now and want to get to the end of the thread.

My belief as to why Derstine didn't make an opening statement is that he didn't want to tip his hand how he proposes to create doubt among the jurors. So far, while questioning TLM, he's put forth a far-fetched theory about what might have happened at the crime scene, but that's all. The spin will really begin in earnest during closing arguments. If he laid out his plan ahead of time, the Crown could tailor its presentation to counteract the defence's theories. Remember, the Crown had to fully disclose all its evidence ahead of time, but the defence has to disclose nothing, unless it's physical evidence. This is a game of chess where the defence knows all the moves the Crown can make but not vice versa. Derstine is a sly fox. He didn't make an opening statement, but he's concocting his closing arguments on the fly. All he has to do is plant enough seeds of doubt and confusion in the minds of the jury and he has the case won.

Does defense typically spend as much time as the crown (weeks wise) laying out the defense when it is their turn??? I agree I think Derstine is playing it sly and not really revealing much about the line of defense he will offer.:moo:

 

[matou]

From reading this board from day one, I can see that there have been many potential defenses and theories posted. It seems most of the population just doesn't want to read and comprehend such possibilities. I might even predict that the shocking revelations/show stopper has been detailed here or in a like forum before. There is just such rage and need to find him guilty of all charges that there is little room to contemplate such "reasoning". JMO

Then it wouldn't be that shocking, would it? It would be suspicious. JMO

 

[snoofer]

Well, lynch mobs seem to be more prevalent on the inside than the outside and they're illegal. Not sure what the difference is between "solitary" and "protective custody". Is there?

it seems that when it is high profile case or involving rape and or children; the inmates are put in protective custody which results in the inmate being in cell by self 23 out of 24 hours a day which would be similar to solitary except maybe less punitive???? Perhaps different type of cell or privilages ie protective they might get tv and ammenities but in solitary for punishment they might not get "privileges"? I don't think it would be a very good existence either way, but they wouldn't be subjected to physical harm as much.:moo:

I am curious in Canada if there is a distinction made in how one is housed in prison for example before conviction and after. If a suspect is incarcerated while waiting for trial and presumed innocent until prooven guilty in court of law, then I would assume that they are treated differently and accorded privilages that would be substantially different from a prisoner who has been convicted of the crime and is now considered guilty. Does anyone know if that is the case??? MOO

 

[OhSoCurious]

Then it wouldn't be that shocking, would it? It would be suspicious. JMO

Yes shocking to naysayers and I said or "on like forums". Clearly people following the case are missing "something", according to Derstine. That "something" should be exceptional to most that are already convinced he is guilty of all charges. JMO

 

[Wondergirl]

From reading this board from day one, I can see that there have been many potential defenses and theories posted. It seems most of the population just doesn't want to read and comprehend such possibilities. I might even predict that the shocking revelations/show stopper has been detailed here or in a like forum before. There is just such rage and need to find him guilty of all charges that there is little room to contemplate such "reasoning". JMO

BBM: JMO, but, it seems obvious to anyone reading here or like forums since the beginning, that MTR's entire defense is being spun from Internet rumour mill and innuendo.

After all, MTR HIMSELF was spinning the rumours.

It comes as no suprise that Derstine is following along that path. Why not? BS baffles brains.

Fortunately, there is irrefutable scientific evidence that in the end negates speculation.

Victoria was with MTR, her blood is in his car, he is on video as such, he lied, attempted to cover the crime etc.

Those are facts, not Internet innuendo.

 

[antiquegirl]

Numbers 1,3,7,8 &14 from the list. I realize that is 5 but I'm not sure if 3 & 7 are the same person so I gave him the benefit of the doubt and knocked it down one.

And to say that he wasn't still "dating" TLM after the crime would be incorrect. They may not have been able to go to the movies or anything but he was still "courting" (which in his world is more like manipulating) her while she was in detention. She believed they were still an item. Told officials in the detention centre that he was her boyfriend.

MOO

(RSBM)

From these Tweets and a now unavailable article from The Globe & Mail, I got the distinct impression that TLM listed MTR as her "boyfriend" only so that he would be able to visit her in the detention centre.

James Armstrong‏@jamesarmstrong7

McClintic told authorities that #rafferty was helping her take care of her mom to get him on approved contact list.

Avery Moore‏@AveryFreeFMNews

McClintic says she got #Rafferty on her contact list at London detention centre by listing him as her boyfriend. Only connection with mom.

TLM may have been hoping that he'd become her boyfriend, but I don't believe that either of them actually believed that he already was. According to her testimony, they only had sex three times during the two months or so they were together. That doesn't sound to me like a serious relationship. We also know that he was in contact with many other women during that period. How could this have escaped her attention, unless she didn't see him very often?

I also believe that MTR didn't lie during his interview with LE when he laughed and denied that TLM was his girlfriend. Seems obvious to me that a sexual encounter or three did not equal a BF/GF relationship in his mind. Was he using her for drugs and a bit of sex? More than likely. Did she hope it would become more than that? Probably. But I don't believe even she was delusional enough to think that they were in a romantic relationship.

I think it's entirely possible that MTR was helping her out by driving her around for household errands (and to pick up drugs, I suppose), maybe even trying to do a Henry Higgins to her Eliza Doolittle. I believe he did enlist his mother to give CM furniture and that he agreed to look after CM while TLM was in jail. He considered TLM a "friend" of sorts (with a few benefits), which is what he told LE on the 15th and to a few other people who have testified and may still testify.

It's also feasible to me that TLM tried to cement this relationship by offering up Tori to him as "a gift" and he refused. :moo:

JMO

 

[OhSoCurious]

I would be disappointed if MTR's entire defense was from Internet rumour mill and innuendo. I would like to read quotes from Derstine or court room tweets that refer to Internet rumour mill and innuendo. Can they be shared here because if I read them, maybe they were interpreted differently by some? JMO

 

[flipflop]

I would be disappointed if MTR's entire defense was from Internet rumour mill and innuendo. I would like to read quotes from Derstine or court room tweets that refer to Internet rumour mill and innuendo. Can they be shared here because if I read them, maybe they were interpreted differently by some? JMO

The drug debt as a motive is one of those rumours....MR told GF's from POF about it, did he start this rumour? Perhaps it is true??? It has been a rumour on here from the start as well.