weekend discussion thread: 4/14-16/2012

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
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 agree.

There are some reasons I can see behind the Crown not wanting to really explore that scenario. They would have to bring TLM's mom, other addicts or dealers, or people connected to organized crime to do so, and it is obvious how the defence could discredit those kinds of people. But since the defence has brought it up as a key feature to their case, I really think its necessary. Possibly they are waiting to see where the defence goes with it before they launch their counter attack and will address it during cross examination or after the defence has pled their case. Doesn't the Crown have the option to do that?

This is the area where I think it is possible that TLM's mom could be called to the stand. Was she upset about a bad drug deal with Tara or James? Was she upset that the dogs were never bred? Did anyone witness CM, or TLM being upset about either one of those things? Is there any evidence to support TLM being an enforcer when it comes to her mother's drug dealing? I know that it's been demonstrated that TLM has a history of violence, but is there anything to indicate she was specifically involved in that aspect of drug dealing?

Once again, I realize that the defence does not have to prove anything, but anything that could bolster their alternate scenario would be helpful.
 
And once they are sentenced to life, all or any payments from the Government should be cancelled....for example PENSION CHEQUES (which inmates were still collecting in 2010, I believe a motion was passed in the last couple of years in regards to the penion cheques)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/briti.../07/09/bc-clifford-olson-pension-lawsuit.html

I wonder if they pay cpp and taxes in jail when they work? Because if they do, they would be able to collect cpp and collect their taxes. I totally agree with you tho that Old Age Pension should not be given to a prisoner who is given a life sentence. You can't take away their cpp if they've paid into it.
 
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


IMO I don't think the drug theory is a "piece of fluff/stuff that anyone is throwing out there"..if I remember correctly that was first mentioned by posters, reporters and I would think it was also in the minds of the LE... we know that CM was selling drugs to TM & JG ..and we now know that MR was either dealing or using drugs so drugs plays a big factor with all these players...we know that JG owed someone $$$$ and I would think that CM would be an easy target for him considering her state of health .. then there is the dog issue which was probably decided upon to pay down a debt.. that fell through...then we have someone like TLM (won't bother describing what I think she is ) who is connected to all of them...CM can't do much in her condition to get payment from JG or anyone else but TLM can...so that is why I believe that TORI was targeted by TLM as a warning but somewhere along the way it developed into something else....I don't think that MR was aware just what TLM really had in mind because if he did I would think he would have driven to that spot from the start rather than detouring around for a pickup of drugs, ATM withdrawals and Timmies... :moo: so no, we can't dismiss the drug connection or the debt owed...it factors into this somehow IMO...it may have started out as a rumour but we have learned since that it was indeed the truth...:moo:
 
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.

I hadn't thought about that. I wonder what they do in cases such as this, because I would think that there is the possibility that anyone who is called to the stand could need to be recalled even if just to clarify something they said.
 
I have problems that MR would plan the crime and then entrust the knowledge of such a crime to someone like TLM, whom he recently met and was a druggie.

If he did, 25 years in jail won't bother him much, because he has no brain.

JMO................
 
I wonder if they pay cpp and taxes in jail when they work? Because if they do, they would be able to collect cpp and collect their taxes. I totally agree with you tho that Old Age Pension should not be given to a prisoner who is given a life sentence. You can't take away their cpp if they've paid into it.

Thanks to the Beast of British Columbia, Clifford Olson, prisoners serving 2 years or more will no longer be eligible to collect OAS or GAINS (I don't see specific reference to CPP, but will check further):

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Canada/20100601/jailed-seniors-legislation-100601/

Probably the only good thing that ever happened related to Olson, other than his demise.
 
I wonder if they pay cpp and taxes in jail when they work? Because if they do, they would be able to collect cpp and collect their taxes. I totally agree with you tho that Old Age Pension should not be given to a prisoner who is given a life sentence. You can't take away their cpp if they've paid into it.

I don't think they earn enough in prison to have to pay income tax and I don't think CPP would also be considered..RW is still receiving his military pension but that is an issue with the military and needs correction fast....that <modsnip> should be receiving zero...:maddening:
 
I imagine it would be a mistake to lean too far either way - one would be just as likely to fall down leaning too far in the opposite direction, abandoning instinct and intuition completely.

Instinct and intuition save a lot of lives - I always tell my son to listen to his 'spider sense'. In this case, my spider sense is tingling. The crown saw fit to detain this creature for nearly 3 years based on an educated consideration of the evidence; I think their spider sense is tingling too.

I don't find there's a witch hunt mentality here, crowds waving tiny virtual torches and pitchforks - I find people reacting normally to an abnormal situation, being disturbed by disturbing stories and feeling repelled by repulsive people. I find it comforting to come here and listen to others have the same reactions as me - I'm a chronic lurker actually, so a big thank you to everyone else for getting it all out there.

Even the famous detective was affected by emotion and had to compose himself on the stand, as I recall... and he's a proven giant-killer, God love him. [Disclosure - I am 'too personal and attached' to Detective Staff Sergeant Smyth.]

:tyou::goodpost:
 
Here's something on mens rea, I think it was something that dar originally brought to our attention.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea#Canada

The Supreme Court of Canada has found that the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms guarantees a minimum requirement for the mental state of various crimes. For example, the crime of murder must include a mental requirement of at least subjective foresight of death. For crimes where imprisonment is a sanction, there is a requirement of at least a defence of due diligence.

The test for the existence of mens rea may be:
(a) subjective, where the court must be satisfied that the accused actually had the requisite mental element present in his or her mind at the relevant time (for purposely, knowingly, recklessly etc) (see concurrence);
(b) objective, where the requisite mens rea element is imputed to the accused, on the basis that a reasonable person would have had the mental element in the same circumstances (for negligence); or
(c) hybrid, where the test is both subjective and objective.
 
TLM telling officials anything could also just be a part of her fantasizing/delusional lies. JMO

Do we have any examples where TLM is delusional or fantasized about anything regarding MR and this crime?

We have information that she told two lies, big ones for sure, but two just the same to LE at the time of her confession. Well actually the only way we have that information that she lied is because she recanted to tell the truth. Otherwise we still would have no information that she lied. Yes she lied to LE during her initial questioning regarding Victoria...so did MR. I don't think she was either delusional or fantisizing, she was covering both hers and his butts. So in which case was she delusional and fantasizing...the time when she said it was MR who killed Victoria or the time when she said she killed her?

And the dog incident from her childhood does not need to be brought up again. It is horrific information for sure, but a lie told at 8 years old does not apply to this situation. And there are other incidents of children doing this in the news. Hopefully none of them grow up to be murderers.

Frankly, the circumstances around how this revelation has come about have not been put into context and they are hearsay. I am actually surprised that it was permitted in Derstine's suggestion. But then the judge has no idea what he's going to say and if the Crown didn't object to that suggestion then they are at fault. This is a desperate and manipulative defense, that's for sure. Forget the circumstantial and forensic evidence against the client and go straight for the direct evidence witness to shift blame. But then most defense strategies on a guilty person are.

MOO
 
In Canada, the courts clearly believe that the expression, "beyond a reasonable doubt", requires clarification for the benefit of the jury. The key ruling discussing this is R. v. Lifchus where one of the four issues addressed was whether a trial judge should provide a jury with an explanation of the expression. Following R. v. Brydon[3] the Supreme Court of Canada, in R. v. Lifchus[4], answered in the affirmative. In part, they wrote "The correct explanation of the requisite burden of proof is essential to ensure a fair criminal trial..."

The Court then addressed the second of the four issues before it by providing a lengthy discourse on the elements of a proper charge to the jury regarding the concept of "reasonable doubt". The Court did not prescribe any specific wording to be used by a given trial judge, but rather made recommendations outlining elements that should be included in the charge as well as elements that should be avoided.

The elements that should be included in the charge were: [4]
the standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt is inextricably intertwined with that principle fundamental to all criminal trials, the presumption of innocence;
the burden of proof rests on the prosecution throughout the trial and never shifts to the accused;
a reasonable doubt is not a doubt based upon sympathy or prejudice;
rather, it is based upon reason and common sense;
it is logically connected to the evidence or absence of evidence;
it does not involve proof to an absolute certainty; it is not proof beyond any doubt nor is it an imaginary or frivolous doubt; and more is required than proof that the accused is probably guilty &#8209;&#8209; a jury which concludes only that the accused is probably guilty must acquit.

The elements to be avoided in the charge were: [4]
describing the term &#8220;reasonable doubt&#8221; as an ordinary expression which has no special meaning in the criminal law context;
inviting jurors to apply to the task before them the same standard of proof that they apply to important, or even the most important, decisions in their own lives;
equating proof &#8220;beyond a reasonable doubt&#8221; to proof &#8220;to a moral certainty&#8221;;
qualifying the word &#8220;doubt&#8221; with adjectives other than &#8220;reasonable&#8221;, such as &#8220;serious&#8221;, &#8220;substantial&#8221; or &#8220;haunting&#8221;, which may mislead the jury; and
instructing jurors that they may convict if they are &#8220;sure&#8221; that the accused is guilty, before providing them with a proper definition as to the meaning of the words &#8220;beyond a reasonable doubt&#8221;.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_a_reasonable_doubt"]Reasonable doubt - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]
 
(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.





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

So this is now considered acceptable "dating" behaviour? Using multiple women for whatever needs you have at any given time? I bet if you asked the 10 or so women involved in this they'd think differently. I bet a few of them will never get over this. To just brush it off like it's no big deal is kind of disrespectful to each and every one of them IMO.

MOO
 
IMO I don't think the drug theory is a "piece of fluff/stuff that anyone is throwing out there"..if I remember correctly that was first mentioned by posters, reporters and I would think it was also in the minds of the LE... we know that CM was selling drugs to TM & JG ..and we now know that MR was either dealing or using drugs so drugs plays a big factor with all these players...we know that JG owed someone $$$$ and I would think that CM would be an easy target for him considering her state of health .. then there is the dog issue which was probably decided upon to pay down a debt.. that fell through...then we have someone like TLM (won't bother describing what I think she is ) who is connected to all of them...CM can't do much in her condition to get payment from JG or anyone else but TLM can...so that is why I believe that TORI was targeted by TLM as a warning but somewhere along the way it developed into something else....I don't think that MR was aware just what TLM really had in mind because if he did I would think he would have driven to that spot from the start rather than detouring around for a pickup of drugs, ATM withdrawals and Timmies... :moo: so no, we can't dismiss the drug connection or the debt owed...it factors into this somehow IMO...it may have started out as a rumour but we have learned since that it was indeed the truth...:moo:

Whether the drug dealing/debt owed is or is not a red herring has not really been addressed by the Crown or the defense. Our various opinions regarding that aspect of the case is not the point of the current discussion of that issue. The point of the current discussion is how that aspect of the case has been addressed in court. Just wanted to make that clear, sorry if I did not do so before.:)
 
So, according to this by Derstine, which I think may have been overshadowed by the unbelievable fact that he admitted MTR helped in this crime (I expected him to 100% deny MTR involvement), the Defense is going to try and argue that MTR "came back".

Where did he go?

Up the lane? Somewhere else completely? Alibi?

That is what happened on April 8 2009, Dirk Derstine, Rafferty’s lawyer, said as he confronted McClintic on Friday and outlined the defence’s theory for the first time.
“Mr. Rafferty came back after the death ... he was horrified but helped you (clean up),” Derstine told McClintic, adding that she was the mastermind behind the horrific plot to kill Tori.

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/a...intic-was-killing-s-mastermind-lawyer-charges

McClintic denied it vehemently.
 
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

I was talking about Derstine, not people here. And it was alluded to, but not answered definitively. IMO.

It might be related. I don't know. I'm not discounting anything: that is why I said I wish it had been discussed more at length, and that the Crown had questioned the person who apparently had the debt.

Like daisy said a post or two above me, I'm referring to how it has been addressed in court, how the Crown approached it, and how the defense is using it; I'm not referring to posters here.
 
Actus reus, sometimes called the external element or the objective element of a crime, is the Latin term for the "guilty act" which, when proved beyond a reasonable doubt in combination with the mens rea, "guilty mind", produces criminal liability in the common law-based criminal law jurisdictions of Canada, Australia, India, Pakistan, South Africa, New Zealand, England and Wales, Ireland and the United States. In the United States, some crimes also require proof of an attendant circumstance.

In order for an actus reus to be committed there has to have been an act. Various common law jurisdictions define act differently but generally, an act is a "bodily movement whether voluntary or involuntary."[2] In Robinson v. California, 370 U.S. 660 (1962), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a California law making it illegal to be a drug addict was unconstitutional because the mere status of being a drug addict was not an act and thus not criminal.

An act can consist of commission, omission or possession.

Omission involves a failure to engage in a necessary bodily movement resulting in injury. As with commission acts, omission acts can be reasoned causally using the but for approach. But for not having acted, the injury would not have occurred. The Model Penal Code specifically outlines specifications for criminal omissions:[3]
1.the omission is expressly made sufficient by the law defining the offense; or
2.a duty to perform the omitted act is otherwise imposed by law (for example one must file a tax return).
So if legislation specifically criminalizes an omission through statute; or a duty that would normally be expected was omitted and caused injury, an actus reus has occurred.wikepedia

It is the law that you must report child abuse or endangerment IMO. If you are aware or witness abuse and do not report it you are partially responsible for injury to a child. IMO:moo::twocents: Would a reasonable prudent person have taken a child into the car and left town limits for any reason; should that person be held accountable then for what happens to that child. In this case under his care and with his act of transporting her to the scene the child ended up murdered and disposed of and as the crown believes raped. 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

This is considered baiting and is against TOS. If there is another site out there that posters should be aware of or that has information you think would be helpful - link it up. If the link comes up asteriks (*****) that means it is not allowed at WS. If that happens - then the information nor site may be discussed.

Thanks,

Salem
 
So, according to this by Derstine, which I think may have been overshadowed by the unbelievable fact that he admitted MTR helped in this crime (I expected him to 100% deny MTR involvement), the Defense is going to try and argue that MTR "came back".

Where did he go?

Up the lane? Somewhere else completely? Alibi?

Colon cancer appointment? In all seriousness, I bet he went to wherever TLM said she went...the place where you can see the silos, was it?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
79
Guests online
159
Total visitors
238

Forum statistics

Threads
608,633
Messages
18,242,707
Members
234,401
Latest member
CRIM1959
Back
Top