weekend discussion thread: 4/14-16/2012

[Macright]

difference between Canadian legal system and the USA legal system...interesting read..

http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/committees/CL983500pub/newsletter/200906/koonar.pdf

 

[Ardy]

I am not a legal eagle, by any means, so this maybe a dumb comment. I understand the distinction between 1st degree/second degree/manslaughter, but in the case of kidnapping, does intent matter? If you kidnap someone, you kidnap them, right? Are there lesser degrees of kidnapping?

Or maybe you were just referring to the murder charge.

There have been many versions of the charges reported by the media, but from what I understand the charges against him are:

First degree murder.

Kidnapping for the purpose of unlawful confinement.

Sexual assault causing bodily harm.

If you look at the sexual assault charge.......there are two parts.

The first is sexual assault.......which could include anything from touching without consent to intercourse. The second part of the charge is "causing bodily harm" which means that physical injury resulted from the assault.

To prove this charge, the Crown must first prove that the charge is appropriate for the circumstances. They must prove both that there was a sexual assault and that bodily injury did occur.

Once the Crown proves all the elements of the charge, they proceed to prove the accused did commit the offense.

It should also be noted that when TLM confessed to the crime and implicated MR, his charges were amended from abduction (which carries a 5 year maximum penalty) to the current kidnapping for the purpose of unlawful confinement charge (which carries a possible life sentence).

JMO

 

[Ardy]

So is it likely that if all 12 jurors had a very bad feeling about the defendant and felt reasonable doubt as to his innocence based on everything they'd heard in evidence, they would find him guilty just on the judge's say-so? How could they live with themselves? Are members of the jury allowed to talk to the press after it's all over? Ever?

In the Canadian justice system, everyone is presumed innocent, until proven guilty by the state.

Therefore, it is the duty of the Crown (who represent the citizens of Canada) to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, that the elements of the charge were fulfilled, and the accused did the crime with the intention of doing so.

The jury will not be considering the reasonable doubt of MR's innocence, because he is already presumed to be innocent.

They will be considering all of the evidence and testimony provided by the Crown to prove he is guilty. They will consider the evidence presented in rebuttal by the defense. Then they make a decision if the Crown did provide the evidence of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.....and find the accused guilty. If the jury determines the Crown has failed to provide the above said evidence........they must acquit the accused.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

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

BBM

And we know what happened in that case, don't we? Do you think $1.25 million made up for those 3 years wrongfully spent in general population in prison? And there has still been no justice for that poor child.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

So is it likely that if all 12 jurors had a very bad feeling about the defendant and felt reasonable doubt as to his innocence based on everything they'd heard in evidence, they would find him guilty just on the judge's say-so? How could they live with themselves? Are members of the jury allowed to talk to the press after it's all over? Ever?

After the verdict is rendered the members of the jury are not allowed to talk to the media after the case is over, if they do and are caught they can be charged with contempt of court, which is a criminal offense.

 

[Alethea Dice]

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

And when the burden of proof is set too low, an innocent person loses their freedom and justice is never found - look at CJ. There has to be a balance and all evidence has to be considered.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

Your Sister-In-Law is a He?

Son-in-law.

 

[Flowercb]

And when the burden of proof is set too low, an innocent person loses their freedom and justice is never found - look at CJ. There has to be a balance and all evidence has to be considered.

Do you think MTR is innocent? Just wondering.

 

[Macright]

Oh yeah? Well, my dad could beat up your dad!

If we both asked, I bet we would get three different answers. Lawyers. lol

more than likely...

 

[Alethea Dice]

Do you think MTR is innocent? Just wondering.

Innocent of everything? Probably not. But I will wait until I hear both sides before making a final decision. I've gone back and forth a lot, from one side of the fence to the other. I'm just not convinced yet from what has been heard so far, and I can't put any credence to TLM's testimony. There are too many pieces of it that just don't make sense to me.

JMO

 

[Flowercb]

Innocent of everything? Probably not. But I will wait until I hear both sides before making a final decision. I've gone back and forth a lot, from one side of the fence to the other. I'm just not convinced yet from what has been heard so far, and I can't put any credence to TLM's testimony. There are too many pieces of it that just don't make sense to me.

JMO

I'm glad I am not a juror in this case. I can imagine what is going to happen in that room when the jury is deliberating, and it is not going to be "friendly".MOO

 

[Wondergirl]

But if TLM is such a liar then we should not believe anything she says, including the confession that she was the one to hold the hammer.

This is a great point, Puppyraiser, and one which I keep coming back to.

Many of the arguments raised here for the Defense, reiterate the fact that TLM is a great big LIAR.

Okay, ITA. TLM is a great big LIAR.

On the other hand, she has also been TRUTHFUL.

How do you determine which of TLM's statements to believe?

Do you choose to believe her statements which best serve your pre-conceived notion of guilt?

Or do you try and corroborate her statements with the evidence presented?

This is not the first case with a witness who is a murderer themselves, nor will it be the last.

Do you corroborate her testimony or not?

JMO

 

[Macright]

I'm glad I am not a juror in this case. I can imagine what is going to happen in that room when the jury is deliberating, and it is not going to be "friendly".MOO

well I think that the ones selected were selected for a good reason and I have faith in them and the legal system and I am sure after everything that is presented to them they will make the right decision for MR and the public...they will use their heads and not their hearts...as someone who is not connected to either the victim or the accused I have nothing to lose no matter what they decide...I just hope that it is the right decision...JMO The real murderer is already locked up and with her background, I hope forever...this one should do his time for the right reasons and the charges should be proven without any doubt... I must have faith in the system and accept it no matter what the outcome...

 

[Salem]

difference between Canadian legal system and the USA legal system...interesting read..

http://apps.americanbar.org/buslaw/committees/CL983500pub/newsletter/200906/koonar.pdf

Okay you guys - I am too tired to read all these links now, they will have t wait until tomorrow. I do appreciate them, very much. Very interesting stuff (at least to me).

Thanks!

Salem

 

[puppyraiser]

This is a great point, Puppyraiser, and one which I keep coming back to.

Many of the arguments raised here for the Defense, reiterate the fact that TLM is a great big LIAR.

Okay, ITA. TLM is a great big LIAR.

On the other hand, she has also been TRUTHFUL.

How do you determine which of TLM's statements to believe?

Do you choose to believe her statements which best serve your pre-conceived notion of guilt?

Or do you try and corroborate her statements with the evidence presented?

This is not the first case with a witness who is a murderer themselves, nor will it be the last.

Do you corroborate her testimony or not?

JMO

Thanks Wondergirl- that's the point I was trying to make but couldn't put the words together to express it properly.

 

[maxfactor]

And when the burden of proof is set too low, an innocent person loses their freedom and justice is never found - look at CJ. There has to be a balance and all evidence has to be considered.

Who is CJ?

 

[dilbert]

Who is CJ?

Christine Jessop I believe.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

But if TLM is such a liar then we should not believe anything she says, including the confession that she was the one to hold the hammer.

If she is such a liar why should we believe her original statement that MR yielded the hammer. Evidence has shown TLM is the one with the violent past and the record for assault, etc. She has recently been charged again with assault while in prison, it would appear she is still violent and reacts violently. Defense counsel has shown through evidence that MR does not have a record and so far I have not heard one witness say he was violent or they were afraid of him, just that he appeared needy.

The Crown stated her credibility would be an issue and to listen to the evidence closely to see it how it corroborates with her statement. I have done that with the evidence presented thus far regarding the actual act of murder and it has led me to believe that TLM murdered Tori. JMO

 

[flipflop]

If she is such a liar why should we believe her original statement that MR yielded the hammer. Evidence has shown TLM is the one with the violent past and the record for assault, etc. She has recently been charged again with assault while in prison, it would appear she is still violent and reacts violently. Defense counsel has shown through evidence that MR does not have a record and so far I have not heard one witness say he was violent or they were afraid of him, just that he appeared needy.

The Crown stated her credibility would be an issue and to listen to the evidence closely to see it how it corroborates with her statement. I have done that with the evidence presented thus far regarding the actual act of murder and it has led me to believe that TLM murdered Tori. JMO

Recent history has shown us that you can have a clean past and still be capable of a vicious murder of an innocent person......do the initials RW ring a bell!!!! If RW had a girlfriend (with a past like TLM's) along side him during his crimes, the blame could easily be placed on her too.

By a clean past...I mean a clean record!!!!

 

[brighidin]

Thx Dilbert .... I am going to piggyback on your post.

IMO the reason that MR has been charged with First Degree Murder is because Tori's death occurred during an abduction and alleged sexual assault.

Here is the excerpt from the Canada Criminal Code that I have bolded for clarity:

Murder One
Hijacking, sexual assault or kidnapping

(5) Irrespective of whether a murder is planned and deliberate on the part of any person, murder is first degree murder in respect of a person when the death is caused by that person while committing or attempting to commit an offence under one of the following sections:
(a) section 76 (hijacking an aircraft);
(b) section 271 (sexual assault); (c) section 272 (sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm);
(d) section 273 (aggravated sexual assault);
(e) section 279 (kidnapping and forcible confinement); or (f) section 279.1 (hostage taking).

Second degree murder
(7) All murder that is not first degree murder is second degree murder. R.S., 1985, c. C-46, s. 231;
R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.), ss. 7, 35, 40, 185(F), c. 1 (4th Supp.), s. 18(F);
1997, c. 16, s. 3, c. 23, s. 8;
2001, c. 32, s. 9, c. 41, s. 9;
2009, c. 22, s. 5.


Murder reduced to manslaughter 232. (1) Culpable homicide that otherwise would be murder may be reduced to manslaughter if the person who committed it did so in the heat of passion caused by sudden provocation.

IMO Manslaughter is likely not a consideration.

JMO

Thanks ChaChaCha.
This is what I was told today as well (well, not all the Code citations, but the general gist of it). And, that the judge will spell this all out for the jury before they deliberate.