weekend discussion thread: 4/14-16/2012

[~n/t~]

I believe she was asking you for a link from the judge vs from a talking head.

I don't believe we will find this out until instruction is read to the jury anyhow. It is one of those things that we will have to wait to find out :moo: most likely

Thank you. I think it's important to stick to the facts in this case and not speculation from TH's.

Michael Rafferty is charged with 1st degree murder, kidnapping and sexual assault on a minor. Those are the charges. Not 2nd, Not 3rd., Not manslaughter.:moo:

 

[Salem]

RBBM

Poor TLM. Necro made her write sick things, MR made her abduct Tori, some other kid made her nuke her dog. Who made her allegedly assault the other inmate in January? Who made her stab the person at the bus stop? Who made her throw the rock through the window at the OPP office? Who made her choke the man in Sudbury? Who made her punch that girl in the face (unprovoked) in 2006? What about all the other threats and assaults on other youths in custody? Who made her assault her mother, not once, but three different occasions? Oh yes, those last three were her mother's fault. One time she poked her, one time she made her lose a job, and one time she burned her with a cigarette. Who'd she do the credit card fraud for? Someone must have made her do that too.

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy whatsoever for TLM. Nobody made her do any of those things. She made a conscious choice and she did them, all on her own.

JMO

You need to link the bolded items up, please. Some of this stuff was never mentioned at the trial, so it is unclear where this info came from.

Please link it, or the post will have to be removed.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[snoofer]

Hmmmm, Max, if he had a bloody nose or cut lip wouldn't someone have noticed this afterwards. Also, I don't know if Tori, an 8 year old child would think of headbutting someone even if she is a feisty little girl, she was still in a horrifying situation which most adult would have a hard time dealing with, never mind a child. She was probably just too terrified and in pain

However, I guess it could have happened by accident if she was unconscious by that time. :moo:

ever try to put a pair of shoes on a child sitting on your knee who doesn't want their shoes on? Head butt? I can see in a struggle this could happen just by the nature of it being a struggle.:twocents: In this case a struggle for her life.

 

[dilbert]

Your link is not backed up with the statements you or Chacha stated as FACT that the jury can go for a lesser charge. They are speculations by a defense attorney who is not involved in this case/trial. I'm asking you to provide me with a link by anyone involved in this trial - CROWN, DEFENSE OR JUDGE HEENEY that the jury in the Michael Rafferty murder trial has the option to vote for a lesser charge.

Like I said last night, I have not seen it anywhere from anyone directly involved in THIS trial.

TIA

I am so terribly sorry if your interpretation of my comment is different from how I stated it but I'm pretty sure it was very clear that I did not state it as fact, I said RW's former defence lawyer mentions that...

It has been posted several times over the past two weeks ... including a scenario based on his participation and mea culpa. The judge will instruct the jury prior to their being sequestered.

Always glad to help you back up your statements, Cha.

This is where Russell Williams former lawyer discusses the case and mentions that the jury can find MR guilty of a lesser charge.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV Shows/Connect with Mark Kelley/ID=2213971998

MOO

 

[Ardy]

"PERHAPS" "POTENTIALLY" - He is speculating.

Please provide a direct quote from Judge Heeney stating that this jury has the option to go for a lesser charge. TIA

So is it all or nothing for the Crown?

JMO

 

[Flowercb]

I think Tori was picked at random. If we are to believe TLM's testimony that MR commented on Tori not being young enough it would support random. I cant see this being revenge for a drug debt. I thinks it's just Defense spin. It is my belief the abduction,rape and murder of an innocent child suited their own sick agenda's. Cant help but wonder if Rafferty's obsession following the crime was pure enjoyment on his part? His trophy. MOO

TLM may have chosen Tori for her revenge without having told MTR. He may have asked for a child and she chose the child that would meet both their needs.:moo:

 

[~n/t~]

It has been posted several times over the past two weeks ... including a scenario based on his participation and mea culpa. The judge will instruct the jury prior to their being sequestered.

This is the post I was referring to stating fact and there is nothing to back up this statement.

 

[Salem]

It has never been stated that she was looking specifically for Tori- I should have worded that differently. My thoughts were if people think the kidnapping was due to a debt then one would have to think TLM was trolling for Tori.

And it is the defense's theory. While not said in those exact words, the defense claims that TLM targeted Tori for a drug debt/grievence.

Salem

 

[dilbert]

This is the post I was referring to stating fact and there is nothing to back up this statement.

It's common knowledge the judge will instruct the jury before they begin to deliberate. You don't think he'll instruct them as to whether they can or can not find him guilty of a lesser charge? As Ardy says, if it's all or nothing, the judge will instruct the jury in that regard as well.

MOO

 

[~n/t~]

It's common knowledge the judge will instruct the jury before they begin to deliberate. You don't think he'll instruct them as to whether they can or can not find him guilty of a lesser charge? As Ardy says, if it's all or nothing, the judge will instruct the jury in that regard as well.

MOO

I think the Crown is confident with the 1st Degree Charge. They could've gone for 2nd or manslaughter prior to the trial and they did not. Therefore, it is my belief that they will go for all in this case.

 

[nursebeeme]

So is it all or nothing for the Crown?

JMO

no one knows yet Ardy... we have a loooong way to go until we get to jury instruction

 

[Salem]

It's common knowledge the judge will instruct the jury before they begin to deliberate. You don't think he'll instruct them as to whether they can or can not find him guilty of a lesser charge? As Ardy says, if it's all or nothing, the judge will instruct the jury in that regard as well.

MOO

It is NOT common knowledge that the judge will instruct to lesser charges. The link from the defense attorney does not confirm this assertation.

Generally speaking, based on US law, the judge will not instruct the jury on lesser charges UNLESS the prosecutor has asserted them. As in the CA trial (just using for example because most WSers are aware of it), CA was charged with Murder 1 - but the prosecution understood they might not get this conviction, so they basically put all the charges before the jury - Murder 2; manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Jury acquitted on all.

The question on the board - based on ChaCha's earlier post, that was stated as fact, is: Does the crown have to include these lesser charges in the Murder 1 charge, in order for the judge to instruct the jury that they can find on a lesser charge or does that happen automatically - may the jury (in Canada) always convict on a lesser charge then the one brought forth by the Crown?

Hope I didn't boggle that too much and it is understandable?

Salem

 

[snoofer]

Knowing what we know about child abductions in general. Was not this outcome predictable most especially for LE. Is it really a leap of any sorts that these two characters TLM and MTR who we KNOW had Tori in their car are responsible for her brutal murder? As upsetting as this case is to LE and to the public from LE perspective this case is CLASSIC IMO. Let's face it when a young girl is abducted and murdered what is the usual reason when their is a man involved. Do we need an actual video? I think LE and the crown have sewn up this case. IMO

 

[Wondergirl]

I am not sure if the options extended to the jury are case-by-case, or standard. I will try and find the answer. The following may be useful, as it was recent, in Ontario, and the same Rule of Law may apply (if there is one), but, I am not sure.

In the recent Canadian high profile, Shafia Honour Killing Murder Trial in Kingston, ON, the Judge issued a 200 Page Charge to the Jury.

In part, here is what he had to say:

In his 200-page charge to the jury, Judge Robert Maranger said jurors can deliver a verdict of second-degree murder against some or all of the three accused. The lesser charge doesn't require the same proof of planning and premeditation.

In the case of first-degree, Maranger told jury members in Kingston, Ont., that they must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused killed the four victims and that the killings were planned and deliberate, he said.

"A planned murder is one that is committed as result as of the scheme or plan that has been previously formulated or designed," he said.

For each of the accused, he told the jury, the verdicts available to them are first-degree murder or second-degree murder. He reminded the jury that the accused do not have to prove their account of events. The burden of proof falls on the Crown.


Aiding and abetting

Maranger also instructed the jury on the aspect of aiding and abetting. In Canadian law, a defendant can be found guilty of an offence if the Crown proves, beyond a reasonable doubt, that a person either assisted in the commission of an offence by the principal offender or encouraged a principal offender to commit an offence.

The Crown does not have to prove both, the judge told the jury.

"Please remember the question for you to decide is what the accused actually intended," he said. "If you are left with a reasonable doubt whether the accused had intent to aid or abet, you'd find the accused not guilty."

Earlier, Maranger said prosecution would face a near impossible task to prove with absolute certainty every element of their case
.
Their responsibility is to find proof beyond a reasonable doubt, Maranger told the jury.

Maranger asked them to carefully consider the evidence presented before them during the extensive four-month trial and cautioned them that their responsibility is significant. They are expected to begin deliberations today after more than four months of witnesses, arguments and evidence.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/story/2012/01/27/shafia-trial.html

3 options available, judge tells jury in Shafia murder trial

The 12 jurors can find each accused guilty of first- or second-degree murder, or they can find them not guilty, Judge Robert Maranger of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice said, in his closing remarks to jurors.


Read more: http://www.montrealgazette.com/news...murder+trial/6062409/story.html#ixzz1sERLHexA

He then explained the difference between first and second degree murder.

In the case of first degree, the jury must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt not only that the accused murdered the four victims, but also that murders were planned and deliberate.

A planned murder is one that is committed as result as of the scheme or plan that has been previously formulated or designed," he said.

The judge told the jury that for them to convict on first degree murder, they have to ask themselves several questions and be satisfied with the response.

1.The time and place of the offence as described in the indictment.

2. The identity of the accused.

3. That the accused caused the death of the victims.

4. That the accused caused the deaths unlawfully.

5. That the accused had the state of mind required for to commit murder.

6. That the murder was planned and deliberate.

The first two questions are uncontested, the judge said.

 

[dilbert]

It is NOT common knowledge that the judge will instruct to lesser charges. The link from the defense attorney does not confirm this assertation.

Generally speaking, based on US law, the judge will not instruct the jury on lesser charges UNLESS the prosecutor has asserted them. As in the CA trial (just using for example because most WSers are aware of it), CA was charged with Murder 1 - but the prosecution understood they might not get this conviction, so they basically put all the charges before the jury - Murder 2; manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Jury acquitted on all.

The question on the board - based on ChaCha's earlier post, that was stated as fact, is: Does the crown have to include these lesser charges in the Murder 1 charge, in order for the judge to instruct the jury that they can find on a lesser charge or does that happen automatically - may the jury (in Canada) always convict on a lesser charge then the one brought forth by the Crown?

Hope I didn't boggle that too much and it is understandable?

Salem

Originally Posted by dilbert View Post
It's common knowledge the judge will instruct the jury before they begin to deliberate. You don't think he'll instruct them as to whether they can or can not find him guilty of a lesser charge? As Ardy says, if it's all or nothing, the judge will instruct the jury in that regard as well.

MOO

First, I stated that the judge will instruct the jury before they leave to deliberate. I'm referring to basic jury instructions heard at the end of a crimminal trial. IF the jury is allowed to find MR guilty of a lesser charge, which I think they can after listening to an experienced Canadian defence lawyer say it's possible, then the judge will instruct the jury about that too.

I was under the impression that the the lesser charges had to be included in the CA trial because it was a capital case?

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lesser_included_offense"]Lesser included offense - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

In murder cases, however, where a convicted defendant may face capital punishment, the Supreme Court has held that the court must instruct the jury that they may find the defendant guilty of a lesser included offense such as voluntary manslaughter.[1] The reasoning for this ruling is that jurors given the options of convicting a less culpable killer or letting him go free might opt to convict of a more serious crime than the facts warrant. Therefore, they must have at least one option that falls in between these extremes.

MOO

 

[Sillybilly]

It is NOT common knowledge that the judge will instruct to lesser charges. The link from the defense attorney does not confirm this assertation.

Generally speaking, based on US law, the judge will not instruct the jury on lesser charges UNLESS the prosecutor has asserted them. As in the CA trial (just using for example because most WSers are aware of it), CA was charged with Murder 1 - but the prosecution understood they might not get this conviction, so they basically put all the charges before the jury - Murder 2; manslaughter and involuntary manslaughter. Jury acquitted on all.

The question on the board - based on ChaCha's earlier post, that was stated as fact, is: Does the crown have to include these lesser charges in the Murder 1 charge, in order for the judge to instruct the jury that they can find on a lesser charge or does that happen automatically - may the jury (in Canada) always convict on a lesser charge then the one brought forth by the Crown?

Hope I didn't boggle that too much and it is understandable?

Salem

Might be different here in the frozen north Salem. My recollection in the Pickton trial is that he was charged with 6 counts of First Degree but found guilty of 6 counts of Second Degree. I distinctly recall that the verdict was a shock to the public, so it seems it was not initially asserted by the Crown, therefore i'm suspecting it must have been part of the judge's instructions. Am trying to find those instructions online.

ETA: IMO, MTR would have to be found Not Guilty on the sexual assault AND the abduction charges before they could consider Second Degree.

 

[Alethea Dice]

RBBM

Originally Posted by Alethea Dice
Poor TLM. Necro made her write sick things, MR made her abduct Tori, some other kid made her nuke her dog. Who made her allegedly assault the other inmate in January? Who made her stab the person at the bus stop? Who made her throw the rock through the window at the OPP office? Who made her choke the man in Sudbury? Who made her punch that girl in the face (unprovoked) in 2006? What about all the other threats and assaults on other youths in custody? Who made her assault her mother, not once, but three different occasions? Oh yes, those last three were her mother's fault. One time she poked her, one time she made her lose a job, and one time she burned her with a cigarette. Who'd she do the credit card fraud for? Someone must have made her do that too.

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy whatsoever for TLM. Nobody made her do any of those things. She made a conscious choice and she did them, all on her own.

JMO

You need to link the bolded items up, please. Some of this stuff was never mentioned at the trial, so it is unclear where this info came from.

Please link it, or the post will have to be removed.

Thanks,

Salem

My original post was in response to Swedie's post #534 ([ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7792620&postcount=534"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - weekend discussion thread: 4/14-16/2012[/ame]), in which she had stated her beliefs on why TLM did what she did. The first bold, "some other kid made her nuke her dog", came from that post.

Originally posted by Swedie

Necro music dared/prompted her to write sick things in her journals, letters, MR dared he to abduct Tori and I wouldn't be surprised to find out some other kid dared her to nuke her dog.

The rest were all covered in the trial while TLM was on the stand. I have now gone through and collected the various tweets that gave this information.


RaffertyLFP: Derstine goes over McClintics criminal record - threw rock at police station, credit card fraud, assault

RaffertyLFP: The first assault conviction on McClintic's record was for hitting her mother

RaffertyLFP: McClintic explained she had argument with mother and boyfriend Said mother poked her, she got angry and "snapped"

RaffertyLFP: Derstine suggested McClintic screamed obscenties at her mother, choked her and punched her

RaffertyLFP: Court is shown photo of McClintic's mother with a nasty black eye

RaffertyLFP: Derstine said the injures fractured Carol McClintic's cheekbone and sinus

RaffertyLFP: When McClintic told her mother had lost part of sight in one eye in assault she said "that's what she needed - a reality check"

Gerry Dewan ‏@GerryDewanCTV McClintic says she says her mother caused her to be fired from her job.

Gerry Dewan ‏@GerryDewanCTV McClintic says in another altercation, her mother burned her with a cigarette and she hit her mother in the back of the head.

Adrian Morrow‏@AdrianMorrow McClintic also has previous arrests for credit card fraud, throwing a rock through the window of an OPP office.

RaffertyLFP: In 2006 she was charged with assault in Sudbury for choking a man McClintic said she can't even recall the incident

RaffertyLFP: On another occasion in 2006 she was charged for punching a girl in the face and put into detention

Adrian Morrow‏@AdrianMorrow Derstine describes other McClintic assaults, including choking a man in Sudbury and an "unprovoked attack" on a woman.

11:55 RaffertyLFP: In detention McClintic ran up a long list of infractions for threatening and assaulting other youth in custody

Gerry Dewan ‏@GerryDewanCTV Derstine says she was eventually arrested on a warrant on the stabbing incident, and taken to the Genet Youth Centre in London



More about the stabbing incident at the bus stop here:

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

Another page, "Locked Up," described an actual incident where McClintic stabbed a person during a robbery.

Derstine asked her about the event, which resulted in her incarceration between September 2007 and July 2008.

McClintic approached two men waving a knife and demanding money or drugs. She stabbed one of them, and when police arrived she refused to drop her weapon even though police had their guns drawn. She also got into a physical altercation with the officers, punching one in the face.

In describing the event, Derstine suggested McClintic had no remorse.

McClintic said she "didn't feel certain emotions" at the time.

Derstine said McClintic had worn a blue bandana during the robbery. In court, Derstine showed a picture that she later posted on her Facebook page, in which she was also wearing a blue bandana — a decision the defence lawyer suggested was a bid by McClintic to present a violent, tough image.

(Sorry, but the connecting links will not work from this computer. Seems the links work if done the old fashioned way.)

HTH

 

[Hello_Kitty]

ever try to put a pair of shoes on a child sitting on your knee who doesn't want their shoes on? Head butt? I can see in a struggle this could happen just by the nature of it being a struggle.:twocents: In this case a struggle for her life.

Well I have no kiddies. But thank you for pointing that out, I can see how that can happen now

 

[Macright]

My original post was in response to Swedie's post #534 (Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - weekend discussion thread: 4/14-16/2012), in which she had stated her beliefs on why TLM did what she did. The first bold, "some other kid made her nuke her dog", came from that post.



The rest were all covered in the trial while TLM was on the stand. I have now gone through and collected the various tweets that gave this information.


RaffertyLFP: Derstine goes over McClintics criminal record - threw rock at police station, credit card fraud, assault

RaffertyLFP: The first assault conviction on McClintic's record was for hitting her mother

RaffertyLFP: McClintic explained she had argument with mother and boyfriend Said mother poked her, she got angry and "snapped"

RaffertyLFP: Derstine suggested McClintic screamed obscenties at her mother, choked her and punched her

RaffertyLFP: Court is shown photo of McClintic's mother with a nasty black eye

RaffertyLFP: Derstine said the injures fractured Carol McClintic's cheekbone and sinus

RaffertyLFP: When McClintic told her mother had lost part of sight in one eye in assault she said "that's what she needed - a reality check"

Gerry Dewan ‏@GerryDewanCTV McClintic says she says her mother caused her to be fired from her job.

Gerry Dewan ‏@GerryDewanCTV McClintic says in another altercation, her mother burned her with a cigarette and she hit her mother in the back of the head.

Adrian Morrow‏@AdrianMorrow McClintic also has previous arrests for credit card fraud, throwing a rock through the window of an OPP office.

RaffertyLFP: In 2006 she was charged with assault in Sudbury for choking a man McClintic said she can't even recall the incident

RaffertyLFP: On another occasion in 2006 she was charged for punching a girl in the face and put into detention

Adrian Morrow‏@AdrianMorrow Derstine describes other McClintic assaults, including choking a man in Sudbury and an "unprovoked attack" on a woman.

11:55 RaffertyLFP: In detention McClintic ran up a long list of infractions for threatening and assaulting other youth in custody

Gerry Dewan ‏@GerryDewanCTV Derstine says she was eventually arrested on a warrant on the stabbing incident, and taken to the Genet Youth Centre in London



More about the stabbing incident at the bus stop here:

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



(Sorry, but the connecting links will not work from this computer. Seems the links work if done the old fashioned way.)

HTH

thank you AD for taking the trouble to post all of the above info again..I knew it was there as I remembered reading it when she was on the stand...I consider myself to have a good memory but thanks for refreshing it...:seeya::angel:

 

[JayFriend]

Part of the judge's instructions to the jury will contain something to the effect that they are NOT to interpret the defendant's failure to take the stand as an indication of either guilt or innocence.

At this time, I strongly feel MTR is guilty on all charges against him, but am certainly open to changing that opinion, depending on what the defence presents.

Yes, that is always the case. However, it will be obvious to anyone but a moron that if the defendant does not take the stand it's because he has nothing to gain and an awful lot to lose. How can a jury member not realize that in spite of what the judge says? Thankfully juries are human. If they were robots, just following the letter of the law and the judge's instructions, they could just be dispensed with and let the judge decide.