weekend discussion thread: 4/14-16/2012

[Jezbel]

I think Derstine tried to explain why MTR was talking about TLM in a way that would make it look that way, but I don't think everyone was talking about Tori to the point that if someone was not talking about her it would be obvious they were involved somehow.

Intact, I think the way MTR discussed the abduction did stand out from what other people were saying. He didn't just talk about the abduction, he said that he had inside information about the abduction and TLM. I don't see that as an attempt to blend in and just look normal. He spoke about his connection to TLM and talked about assisting with the search.

And didn't BA also testify that MR had told her that the girl in the car with him the day Tori was abducted was TLM?

Why would you tell someone that the person you were with is suspected of abducting a child that same day they were with you in another city?

JMO

 

[Macright]

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.

I agree jury members are human but they also took an oath to put aside any personal feelings/or gut feelings and make their decision based on the evidence presented to them..I would hope that is the case in this crime also...if the evidence is not there how can they convict...:moo:

 

[Flossie JMO]

JMO I think TLM started in the car, with punches to Tori's face. She appears to have done that one more than once in the past, with similar injuries to her mother in one incident imo.

 

[Oldsoul2]

It seems were always back to TLM and what kind of person she is, what she has done etc...She is in prison and that part is already over. The only debate is in regards to her testimony about what happened that day and MR's involvement. This is MR's trial, not TLM's nor IMO does going over TLM's short comings change MR's culpability in this crime. This is all I'm hearing from the defense as well, moving on to what he did, what he said, what was found in his car, what was his motif..just because he hasn't spoken and she has doesn't mean she's the only guilty party.

 

[Ardy]

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.

Au contraire..............

Juries consider the judge's instructions as most serious.,

Any individual juror who didn't believe they had to strictly follow the judge's instructions, would soon be informed of their duty by the other jurors.

Random speculation wouldn't be tolerated by the others.

IMO........

 

[Ardy]

It seems were always back to TLM and what kind of person she is, what she has done etc...She is in prison and that part is already over. The only debate is in regards to her testimony about what happened that day and MR's involvement. This is MR's trial, not TLM's nor IMO does going over TLM's short comings change MR's culpability in this crime. This is all I'm hearing from the defense as well, moving on to what he did, what he said, what was found in his car, what was his motif..just because he hasn't spoke and she has doesn't mean she's the only guilty party.

TLM may be in jail, but she recently testified in this trial.

It is upon her testimony that the Crown has built it's case.

The reason for TLM bringing VS to MR's car is an essential part of the Crown case showing the intent and knowledge required to find guilt on the charges.

TLM's testimony and credibility as a truthful witness are important issues.

JMO

 

[matou]

JMO I think TLM started in the car, with punches to Tori's face. She appears to have done that one more than once in the past, with similar injuries to her mother in one incident imo.

How do you think she did that? TLM was in the front seat of the car and Tori was in the back. Do you mean when she was "alone with Tori" as per Derstine's defense strategy? Do you think she entered the back of the car-with-no-seat and started pounding on Tori? For what? Because she wanted to start punching out a little girl? Did she also remove Tori's tights and underwear? She was into MR, not Tori. If she raped Tori, why would she not do it right in front of Rafferty and with him participating? Anyway I see it, I see MR raping Tori. I also strongly believe Rafferty punched Tori in the face and smashed it in and then placed a bag over her face after he raped her. I've seen with my own eyes the result of such violence on a young girl's face and the damage to her skull at the hands of her rapist and killer. I think rapists are violent people too.

Additionally, (not related to the quoted post) why would MR have a child in the back of his car if it didn't have a back seat? Where was Tori sitting? If she was crouched down on the floor of the rear of his car, why did he allow that? Why would he drive to Guelph and run his druggie errands and proceed to drive further away from Woodstock with a child sitting on a seatless back seat, that is, if the defense is going to go with him already having removed his back seat (just speculating)? TLM was seen in the front seat of the car at B Armstrong's by BA herself. Tori was not seen. WHY? If Tori was going for a ride, where was she? Why wasn't she sitting upright in the back of the car???? Because she was abducted and Rafferty knew Tori was abducted, in my opinion.

JMO MOO

 

[Hello_Kitty]

TLM may be in jail, but she recently testified in this trial.

It is upon her testimony that the Crown has built it's case.
The reason for TLM bringing VS to MR's car is an essential part of the Crown case showing the intent and knowledge required to find guilt on the charges.

TLM's testimony and credibility as a truthful witness are important issues.

JMO

It isn't just her testimony, it's also based on evidence. And the evidence corroborates her story IMO. Whilst she may be a liar, there are alot of elements of her story that matches with the evidence. And remember, that the jury may consider all or part or none of her earlier version of her testimony as well.

I've never followed a case like this before, this is my first one and probably my last. I can't bear to think of that little girl's suffering and I really hope justice is served.

 

[Jezbel]

How do you think she did that? TLM was in the front seat of the car and Tori was in the back. Do you mean when she was "alone with Tori" as per Derstine's defense strategy? Do you think she entered the back of the car-with-no-seat and started pounding on Tori? For what? Because she wanted to start punching out a little girl? Did she also remove Tori's tights and underwear? She was into MR, not Tori. If she raped Tori, why would she not do it right in front of Rafferty and with him participating? Anyway I see it, I see MR raping Tori. I also strongly believe Rafferty punched Tori in the face and smashed it in and then placed a bag over her face after he raped her. I've seen with my own eyes the result of such violence on a young girl's face and the damage to her skull at the hands of her rapist and killer. I think rapists are violent people too.

Additionally, (not related to the quoted post) why would MR have a child in the back of his car if it didn't have a back seat? Where was Tori sitting? If she was crouched down on the floor of the rear of his car, why did he allow that? Why would he drive to Guelph and run his druggie errands and proceed to drive further away from Woodstock with a child sitting on a seatless back seat, that is, if the defense is going to go with him already having removed his back seat (just speculating)? TLM was seen in the front seat of the car at B Armstrong's by BA herself. Tori was not seen. WHY? If Tori was going for a ride, where was she? Why wasn't she sitting upright in the back of the car???? Because she was abducted and Rafferty knew Tori was abducted, in my opinion.

JMO MOO

Great Points Matou!!

Question, did Alexis.L testify also that the back seat was in the car prior to the abduction? I beleive they broke up April 1, 2009.

I will have to look at the tweets at some point :waitasec:

 

[Flowercb]

I think at the end of the day, each of us have to ask ourselves, Do I think MTR is guilty? If the answer is yes explore what made you come to that conclusion--if you don't feel he is guilty explore what made you come to that conclusion.

The scary thing is when the burden of proof is set too high and a guilty person goes free--look at CA. I think the prosecutors wanted the jurors to use common sense. There was none in that case.

I hope that doesn't happen here. MOO MOO

 

[Oldsoul2]

TLM may be in jail, but she recently testified in this trial.

It is upon her testimony that the Crown has built it's case.

The reason for TLM bringing VS to MR's car is an essential part of the Crown case showing the intent and knowledge required to find guilt on the charges.

TLM's testimony and credibility as a truthful witness are important issues.

JMO

I said only in regards to her testimony of what happened that day and his involvement. Talking about how she punched people, hurt her animal, beat her mother etc...is not relevant at this point IMO. We know she is disturbed, look what she participated in. We wouldn't know the story of VS at all if she hadn't told it cause he certainly has kept his mouth shut and he was given the same opportunity to talk. No one here has heard a peep from him so far all TLM's testimony has been backed up by evidence so what is there to speculate about IMO whether TLM is a liar, if she lied the evidence wouldn't match

 

[Ardy]

It isn't just her testimony, it's also based on evidence. And the evidence corroborates her story IMO. Whilst she may be a liar, there are alot of elements of her story that matches with the evidence. And remember, that the jury may consider all or part or none of her earlier version of her testimony as well.

I've never followed a case like this before, this is my first one and probably my last. I can't bear to think of that little girl's suffering and I really hope justice is served.

Exactly true.......and it is the legal right and obligation for the defense to highlight any discrepancies in her testimony, and question her credibility as a truthful witness, so the jury can consider it's decision based on all the factors.

JMO..........

 

[Sillybilly]

Great Points Matou!!

Question, did Alexis.L testify also that the back seat was in the car prior to the abduction? I beleive they broke up April 1, 2009.

I will have to look at the tweets at some point :waitasec:

Here's the WS page with the tweets re Alexis' testimony. Basically, their relationship ended April 1, but her only reference to seeing the back seat in the car was March 23.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=168433&page=16

HTH

 

[Oldsoul2]

I think at the end of the day, each of us have to ask ourselves, Do I think MTR is guilty? If the answer is yes explore what made you come to that conclusion--if you don't feel he is guilty explore what made you come to that conclusion.

The scary thing is when the burden of proof is set too high and a guilty person goes free--look at CA. I think the prosecutors wanted the jurors to use common sense. There was none in that case.

I hope that doesn't happen here. MOO MOO

Thank you for that post, it couldn't have been said better.

Unfortunately alot of people don't have common sense.

 

[Salem]

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:


3 options available, judge tells jury in Shafia murder trial

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.

So, for me this answers the question. The Crown brought forth charges of 1st degree murder, but also included 2nd degree murder. The jury was instructed they could find either charge.

There does not appear to be any instruction that says the jury could also find for manslaughter or involuntary manslaughter. So it appears to me that the Crown does have to include the lesser forms of murder in the charge.

THANKS Wondergirl!

Salem

 

[myzzy]

some interesting points today, some i had not thought of before.. makes you go hmmmmm

 

[Salem]

Great Points Matou!!

Question, did Alexis.L testify also that the back seat was in the car prior to the abduction? I beleive they broke up April 1, 2009.

I will have to look at the tweets at some point :waitasec:

And which woman held the flashlight when MR worked on his speakers? When was that. I'll go find the list....

Salem

 

[Hello_Kitty]

I said only in regards to her testimony of what happened that day and his involvement. Talking about how she punched people, hurt her animal, beat her mother etc...is not relevant at this point IMO. We know she is disturbed, look what she participated in. We wouldn't know the story of VS at all if she hadn't told it cause he certainly has kept his mouth shut and he was given the same opportunity to talk. No one here has heard a peep from him so far all TLM's testimony has been backed up by evidence so what is there to speculate about IMO whether TLM is a liar, if she lied the evidence wouldn't match

You know, also if he was so innocent why the heck didn't he call LE anonymously to tell them where Tori's remains were hidden.

 

[maxfactor]

You know, also if he was so innocent why the heck didn't he call LE anonymously to tell them where Tori's remains were hidden.

Very, very good point kitty!!! He could have very easily done that.

 

[flipflop]

You know, also if he was so innocent why the heck didn't he call LE anonymously to tell them where Tori's remains were hidden.

Good point HK!!!

...he didn't want her found as he knows he is guilty
...he was getting a thrill reading the headlines
...he was getting a thrill watching everyone search for an innocent girl that he had all the inside information about