weekend discussion thread: 4/14-16/2012

[OhSoCurious]

I am not sure how a "drug debt" theory can negate a rape charge. There have been cases in the news that have included rape as a sexual crime but also rape of family members has been used by drug dealers as punishment for drug debt failure to pay in other cases. So to me the "reason" for the rape is irrelevent. What is more important is did the crown proove a rape occurred or not. JMO

The assumption that rape is only a sexual crime is antiquated. Rape for example in war is used to humiliate, punish, subjugate. It can also be a combination of sexual and for perceived punishment. JMO A victim could also be raped to punish someone other than the victim but to send a message to someone else IMO. These types of things have happened in war and in some criminal cases for ions. JMO I think it can get pretty complicated so I think it would be better for each side to deal with the evidence at hand; was there a rape period.:moo:

Didn't say a drug debt could negate a rape charge. Once again, IMO nothing can negate a rape or murder charge of a child. The drug debt was referring to a kidnapping charge. JMO

 

[OhSoCurious]

Just interested to know who you are calling that name?

TLM has proven herself to be such. Nuking a dog, robbing a knife point, killing a child, etc. JMO

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/03/22/stafford-rafferty-trial-thurs.html

 

[brighidin]

(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.
Unavailable? Surely a cache is available. No worries. The LFP story I will post below touches on their relationship.





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.

Who said anything about a serious relationship? They were seeing each other. I think that has been established already. Sex isn't a barometer of how serious a relationship is. Some people might do it 100 times in a month and don't consider themselves in a serious relationship. Some people might not do it at all, and consider themselves boyfriend and girlfriend. Besides, she didn't even call him back after the first night, and he came looking for her. Why do that if he's not that into her??

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?

According to the testimony, MR was on the phone a lot when he met with these other women. Maybe he was on the phone a lot when he was with TLM. He LIED to the other women as to the reason he was on the phone (changing dance times, construction work, etc). Maybe he told TLM he was talking to his colon cancer doctor. Maybe she didn't care. Who knows.

I also believe that MTR didn't lie during his interview with LE when he laughed and denied that TLM was his girlfriend.


He lied about a lot of things in that interview. If there is a magic 8 ball website that tells us what was true and what was not, I don't know about it. Anyone have the link? none of us can know what he told the truth about.

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.

TLM's thoughts on the relationship with MR are available in the tweets and testimony. She told a worker at the detention centre he was her boyfriend, and as someone just posted above me, she knew they weren't exclusive. Seems pretty clear to me.

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.

LOL. I can't imagine a 28 year old junkie would get the reference, but it's possible that he told TLM he would help Carol in order to keep TLM quiet about his involvement. There is no evidence that he would do things like that out of the goodness of his heart.

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:

Well, that's Derstine's Hail Mary. He tried to throw that to the wall to see if it would stick during his cross of TLM. Didn't work, IMO. I have yet to see a smidgen of evidence or testimony to support this dubious claim, regardless of how many times it's repeated here.

JMO

My responses to the bolded parts are in red. here is a link to the LFP article that talks a bit about the relationship.
http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/03/15/19505826.html

 

[snoofer]

Didn't say a drug debt could negate a rape charge. Once again, IMO nothing can negate a rape or murder charge of a child. The drug debt was referring to a kidnapping charge. JMO

ok thanks.:twocents:

 

[Alethea Dice]

Neither a drug debt nor a sexual assault assault has to be proven as motive .. fact is that MTR was admittedly present during an abduction in which a child was murdered. That in itself should justify a Guilty verdict.

MOO

That's correct. All the Crown has to prove is that MR knowingly and willingly acted together with TLM in committing the abduction and/or murder.

Proving that the sexual assault happened or was the motive would help their case tremendously.

JMO

 

[Ardy]

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.

If someone looks at one specific part of the justice system, they may view it as unfair for one side or the other, but centuries of debate and consideration have formed and shaped the system, so that in it's entirety it is a pretty balanced system.

Let us not forget the defense is responding to allegations by the Crown, which means the prosecution has access to unlimited manpower resources, such as LE investigators, crime lab experts..........and unlimited financial resources.

Given those resources, everyone accused of a crime is deemed to "innocent until proven guilty" and it is up to the Crown to use the resources available to it to prove.......beyond a reasonable doubt.........all the elements required for each criminal charge.......and that the crime was committed by the accused.

The crimes charged against MR include the element of "intent".........which I believe is going to prove a key point in the verdict.......JMO

 

[jolady]

Respectfully. I would like to point out that can go both ways, some are so determined that he didn't do it that they aren't able to do as the Crown asked, look at all the evidence and see how so much of it corroborates what TLM has said. She may be a drug addict and be seriously messed up but that does not mean that she has no morals or compassion, I think there has been evidence showing that she is indeed a person devoid of morals and compassion, she admitted to putting a dog in a microwave and murdering a child with a both sides of a claw hammer. it also does not mean that she is a pathological liar, I have only seen a few instances where it can be shown that she has lied. Not defending her because she is as guilty as him IMO, but the evidence and witnesses are showing that the majority of what she said is true IMO. For those who feel he didn't sexually assault Tori, that's fine but I would be interested to know why those people feel he should be found not guilty of first degree murder, remember it only has to be proven that they both participated in the events leading to Tori's death. I am not convinced that he raped Tori (I sincerely hope he didn't for the family's sake and Tori's of course), but you are mistaken in thinking that I in any way want his charges lessened because of it. He is guilty. 100% IMO but I am interested in knowing the truth about why Tori was taken. If TLM initiated the abduction and he was unaware initially then IMO that will change the charge but if he was the initiator then 1st degree murder all the way even if he did not wield the hammer. TLM's testimony aside, I'd be interested to hear how all the other evidence and testimony excludes MR from the crime. Even if we assume that he didn't know about it until Tori was in his car, how would those people explain his actions from there. I can't explain his actions, others have tried in previous posts and their guess is as good as anyones. It's become very obvious now that he had a substance abuse problem also and that he was a pathological liar. I think it's a shame that the jury probably won't hear what he said to the police the night he was arrested, that would be very telling IMO.

RBBM my response in purple
Please know that although we may think differently about what went on (I haven't come to any conclusions yet though) I believe all of us here agree that Tori was abducted by TLM and knowingly or unknowingly by MR and this resulted in her violent death. They are both guilty. I am not looking for excuses to get him off just speculating on what happened in between.

 

[Sillybilly]

The crimes charged against MR include the element of "intent".........

<rsbm>

Not sure what you mean by the above Ardy :waitasec:

If by "intent" you mean "motive", it is not necessary that a motive be proven.

If I were to flat-out kill someone, umpteen people saw me do it, and nobody every discovered why I did it, it doesn't negate the fact that I did it.

 

[Ardy]

It may be worthwhile to consider the charges against MR and the "elements" which constitute each charge.

Perhaps, we can then gain a clearer understanding of what each side is attempting to do.

The jury will consider each charge.......and if "all" of the elements of the charge are proven and they believe the accused is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of committing the act..........they can render a verdict of guilty on that charge.

If the jury finds that an element of the charge is unproven..........they cannot find the accused guilty of the charge.

As I understand the charges against MR being:

Kidnapping for the purpose of unlawful confinement, sexual assault causing bodily harm, and first degree murder.........all of the charges include proving the element of "intent".

JMO.......

 

[Flowercb]

For the record:


http://www2.canada.com/topics/news/story.html?id=3951599

It would be interesting to hear CM's version of the "truth", but I seriously doubt we will ever see it.

JMO

I hate to sound callous, but shouldn't CM be dead by now. She was supposedly terminal with colon cancer at the start of this case. Then again, I guess they all have colon cancer!:floorlaugh: Don't mean to laugh at true colon cancer patients but these wannabees floor me (CM, TLM and MR all have colon cancer, right).:moo::floorlaugh:

 

[Ardy]

<rsbm>

Not sure what you mean by the above Ardy :waitasec:

If by "intent" you mean "motive", it is not necessary that a motive be proven.

If I were to flat-out kill someone, umpteen people saw me do it, and nobody every discovered why I did it, it doesn't negate the fact that I did it.

Not motive.......but state of mind.....

Did he person know, or should have known, or should have known their actions would cause a certain result......such as the death of another person.

In simpler terms...........you can't "accidentally" murder someone.

There are other, lesser charges that cover that scenario.

The Judge will go into great detail at the conclusion of the trial with his charge to the jury.

JMO

 

[brighidin]

I hate to sound callous, but shouldn't CM be dead by now. She was supposedly terminal with colon cancer at the start of this case. Then again, I guess they all have colon cancer!:floorlaugh: Don't mean to laugh at true colon cancer patients but these wannabees floor me (CM, TLM and MR all have colon cancer, right).:moo::floorlaugh:

I think it was allegedly intestinal cancer. When did MR tell the girl he had colon cancer? I wonder if he stole the cancer idea from CM? I can't imagine that she would have much credibility on the stand though, considering that she is a long time addict.

 

[maxfactor]

RBBM my response in purple
Please know that although we may think differently about what went on (I haven't come to any conclusions yet though) I believe all of us here agree that Tori was abducted by TLM and knowingly or unknowingly by MR and this resulted in her violent death. They are both guilty. I am not looking for excuses to get him off just speculating on what happened in between.

Snipped from your post Jolady

I am not convinced that he raped Tori (I sincerely hope he didn't for the family's sake and Tori's of course), but you are mistaken in thinking that I in any way want his charges lessened because of it. He is guilty. 100% IMO but I am interested in knowing the truth about why Tori was taken. If TLM initiated the abduction and he was unaware initially then IMO that will change the charge but if he was the initiator then 1st degree murder all the way even if he did not wield the hammer.

I most definitely was not referring to you jolady. I'm mostly trying to understand why those who feel he should be found not guilty feel that way.:seeya:

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Since the drug debt seems to be an important element to the defence's case, I would think it would be in their best interest to show that the person who JG stole the drugs from is somehow connected to TLM. If they cannot do so the whole drug debt as the driving force behind the abduction looks even more like a red herring.

I hope that the Crown did ask about that and we just don't know about it because if they can show that the debt had nothing to do with TLM wouldn't that be a simple way to poke holes in the defence's alternate scenario?

Right now it looks to me like the best thing that could happen for the defence would be a witness that could testify that the drug debt was to TLM or someone connected to her. The defence does not have to prove anything, but something like that would really help their case. Otherwise it could end up looking like a he said, she said situation with a bunch of evidence presented by the Crown that backs up TLM's version of events. Not good for the defence :moo:

 

[Sillybilly]

Not motive.......but state of mind.....

Did he person know, or should have known, or should have known their actions would cause a certain result......such as the death of another person.

In simpler terms...........you can't "accidentally" murder someone.

There are other, lesser charges that cover that scenario.

The Judge will go into great detail at the conclusion of the trial with his charge to the jury.

JMO

<bbm>

If we presume that MTR did not rape or kill VS, then possibly "state of mind" could consider why he failed to act when any reasonable person should have known that a child being beaten over the head with a hammer was sure to result in her death. If Derstine can somehow raise reasonable doubt of MTR being in the immediate area of the attack (took a walk), then possibly this could diminish his involvement in the eyes of the jury ??

 

[Ardy]

<rsbm>

Not sure what you mean by the above Ardy :waitasec:

If by "intent" you mean "motive", it is not necessary that a motive be proven.

If I were to flat-out kill someone, umpteen people saw me do it, and nobody every discovered why I did it, it doesn't negate the fact that I did it.

Canadian law presumes that we can't "accidentally" commit some crimes.

Technically under Canadian law an assault occurs if I push someone, or threaten to push someone.........without their consent...........and if I intended to push or threaten them.

Merely brushing up against someone is not assault, unless it was intended.

That is a little different concept than motive.

 

[brighidin]

Since the drug debt seems to be an important element to the defence's case, I would think it would be in their best interest to show that the person who JG stole the drugs from is somehow connected to TLM. If they cannot do so the whole drug debt as the driving force behind the abduction looks even more like a red herring.

I hope that the Crown did ask about that and we just don't know about it because if they can show that the debt had nothing to do with TLM wouldn't that be a simple way to poke holes in the defence's alternate scenario?

Right now it looks to me like the best thing that could happen for the defence would be a witness that could testify that the drug debt was to TLM or someone connected to her. The defence does not have to prove anything, but something like that would really help their case. Otherwise it could end up looking like a he said, she said situation with a bunch of evidence presented by the Crown that backs up TLM's version of events. Not good for the defence :moo:

I really wish the Crown would have called JG to testify as to who he ripped off. That way this "theory" could be put to rest, or substantiated, whatever the case may be. As it is, it is just another piece of.... stuff.... that some people are throwing to the wall in order to somehow lessen MR's alleged involvement in the crime.

imo

 

[Hello_Kitty]

Exactly. His behaviour points to guilt.:moo: This is why all his activity is important. Why else do you think the Crown brought in all these women he dated. It showed his attitude and lack of remorse. His behaviour is not normal for the situation.:moo:

Concience of guilt... that's what they have to prove to find him guilty. And you're correct, there is plenty in his behaviour that points to guilt. (IMO)

 

[Sillybilly]

I really wish the Crown would have called JG to testify as to who he ripped off. That way this "theory" could be put to rest, or substantiated, whatever the case may be. As it is, it is just another piece of.... stuff.... that some people are throwing to the wall in order to somehow lessen MR's alleged involvement in the crime.

imo

In fairness to those who are considering this aspect, it was testimony in court ... so those folks aren't really throwing any more "stuff" than those who do not believe it is related.

ETA: "it" being the drug debt

 

[Ardy]

I really wish the Crown would have called JG to testify as to who he ripped off. That way this "theory" could be put to rest, or substantiated, whatever the case may be. As it is, it is just another piece of.... stuff.... that some people are throwing to the wall in order to somehow lessen MR's alleged involvement in the crime.

imo

I checked back.........and TM testified before TLM (when Derstine used cross examination as the opportunity to introduce the alternate defense theory).

TM testified on March 7 and TLM on March 14......if the dates are correct.

If after testifying, TM was in attendance at court, and JG was in attendance at court, I don't believe they could be recalled as witnesses, to rebut the defense theory introduced during TLM's testimony.

Is there anyone else who could testify, who wasn't in court or reading about the case in the media?

Perhaps the Crown didn't anticipate the drug theory defense in advance, and the lack of questions to TM by Derstine was purposeful, as the defense just wanted to leave it alone and not press further at that time?

It could be all meaningless............or not...............

We shall see who and what the defense presents to the trial.........JMO.