weekend discussion thread: 4/14-16/2012

[crazyladi]

Its funny that there are so many that have such strong feelings about who did what.

I have to admit from the beginning I felt that TM had everything to do with what happened. I was wrong to say that but I still do feel the connection between her JS, Carol, TLM and MTR is so strong that it would be the only coincidence in this case if this were a random kidnapping.

That being said there are far too many coincidences in this case.

Here is what makes me wonder

1) Why was he trolling around the school that morning?
a) He was coincidentally in the same area for some other reason such as? or
b) He was scoping out the scene for the chance to nab a potential victim.

2) Home Depot
a) She didnt tell him what she was getting, she just asked for him to drive her there so she could pick something up.
b) He knew exactly what she was getting and understood exactly what was going to happen next
c) He told her what to get and she complied

3) Tori's was found with no pants
a) She peed on herself
b) she was actually sexually assaulted by MTR
c)TLM planned to frame MTR right in front of him so she could turn around and say he raped her.
d) TLM raped Tori and is trying to frame MTR

4) Tori's blood was mixed with MTRs semen
a) It just so happened the the blood miraculously landed on the exact spot where Toris blood was found
b) She was definitely raped
c) The DNA is inconclusive and proves nothing

5) The missing car seat
a) There car seat is irrelevant
b) The car seat that was seen in MTR's garbage was a different car seat
c) There was never a car seat
d) The car seat was burned somewhere or disposed of so it wouldnt be found

6) TLM testimony about the crime scene
a) She knew the area and everything around it that why she could describe it so well
b) She did what she said she did and took a walk to make sure no one was coming and remembered all what she told LE

7) The mount Forest connection and crime scene
a) MTR knew the location because he knew the area because either had been there before or because he worked and drove around alot and planned to go there to dispose of the body
b) TLM knew the location and told him to go there
c) Neither of them knew the location and it was a random location

8) Hair die
a) It was a coincidence that there was a receipt found that noted 2 hair dies with the same barcodes
b) MTR in fact dropped off the hair die just like TLM said in her testimony

9) The abduction
a) it was TLMS idea
b) it was MTR's idea
c) It was both their idea


10) The bottle caps
a) It was a coincidence that the bottle caps that were found in the bag with Tori were the same caps as the one MTR had in his car
b) MTR was high and didnt think twice and threw the caps in the bag
c) TLM planted them there to frame him later

11) MTR's behavior after the murder
a) He panicked and went along with everyone in the search and prayers for Tori because he was afraid to go to the police
b) He thought that if he could play along with it no one would suspect him
c) He got off with all the media surrounding Tori's disappearance

12) Why didnt he call police
a) He was too afraid that he would be implicated
b) He couldnt call the police because how could he explain his actions
c) He thought TLM was going to take the fall so he had no reason to call them

13) TLM confessing to the murder in January all of the sudden
a) She still has a sick twisted love for MTR that messing with everyones heads about who did what might confuse the jury and he might get let off.
b) she actually did kill Tori
c) She confessed because the inmate she got into a fight with was going to rat her out.

14) The helicopter
a) She really had no clue where Tori's body was
b) she was messing with them to look like she cared

15) The sanded down back door
a) There was blood and stuff on the door so MTR sanded the door to get rid of evidence
b) His car was an ongoing project and there was probably sand disks in his car for months prior to the abduction and murder

16) MTR's relationship with TLM
a) He actually had feelings but was too embarrassed to admit to it because of who she was as a person
b) She was just a booty call and drug connection

17) Reasoning behind MTR serial dating after the murder
a) He needed to take things off his mind
b) He was looking for an alibi someone low enough to tell the police a lie that they were together during the time of the murder
c) This was normal behavior for him

18) Who was the instigator?
a) TLM- She has always wanted to murder someone
b) MR- He fantasized about raping a child
c) Both decided that they were going to act together, MTR to rape and TLM to murder

I am sure there is more but every time I dont know what to think I go back to these situations and ponder them for a while. I still dont know the extent of MR's involvement and I am anticipating tomorrows 8 Witness that will be coming to the stand and Derstine's witnesses later on in the trial.

From what I have seen at this point it would seem really dumb of him not to take the stand to explain his side. Maybe the answer will be clear as day before the jury deliberates.

By all means I dont think that MTR is not guilty but I would like to hear the rest of the case before I full make my decision.

 

[matou]

Jurors in the first-degree murder trial of a man charged with the abduction, sexual assault and death of Victoria (Tori) Stafford will hear more Tuesday about his ties to the area where the Ontario schoolgirl's remains were found.

Read more: http://www.canada.com/Stafford+tria...e+body+found/6469048/story.html#ixzz1sGJeuqEI
​

 

[Macright]

Christine Jessop I believe.

Redrum...

 

[snoofer]

McClintic said she told Rafferty she would take the fall for everything - he had more to lose - a life, a job. "I really had nothing"

Huh???? TLM still thought he had a job???JMO Wonders if MTR told her too that the calls he received were for his legit business as he told the other women. JMO And what does she mean by "a life" did he tell her he was still dance instructing and such?

I had assumed that the nature of the relationship because of the murder was different with TLM but based on those sentences from TLM and her not knowing what other ppl would testify to...it sounds he used the same lines on her. JMO

 

[Macright]

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.

I have to disagree with you there about RW...I think that there are many crimes out there that may be linked to RW..it's just not worth it to further investigate them at this point..he is behind bars for the rest of his natural life ..I don't think he had a clean slate...he was just too smart to be caught...his downfall was he became too "cocky" and there was someone smarter..ie: the traffic cop who noticed the tires on his car...that is who I give all the credit too..the one that did the interview..he just got lucky because at that point there was no way out for RW...they were on to him... JMO

also the military wanted this over and done with and swept under the carpet...they had a reputation to uphold and had to win the confidence of the public back......end of investigation...IMO

 

[Macright]

McClintic said she told Rafferty she would take the fall for everything - he had more to lose - a life, a job. "I really had nothing"

Huh???? TLM still thought he had a job???JMO

that very quote is what makes it so laughable..she is making herself out as a real hero...yeah........and pigs fly......JMO

 

[flipflop]

I have to disagree with you there about RW...I think that there are many crimes out there that may be linked to RW..it's just not worth it to further investigate them at this point..he is behind bars for the rest of his natural life ..I don't think he had a clean slate...he was just too smart to be caught...his downfall was he became too "cocky" and there was someone smarter..ie: the traffic cop who noticed the tires on his car...that is who I give all the credit too..the one that did the interview..he just got lucky because at that point there was no way out for RW...they were on to him... JMO

Clean past=nothing on his record. Just as MR has nothing that we know of on his record.

 

[matou]

Christine Jessop I believe.

I will wait for Alethea Dice to reply. This doesn't make sense. She is the victim and can be named. JMO

 

[Macright]

Clean past=nothing on his record. Just as MR has nothing that we know of on his record.

there is a difference...RW was smart and educated and no one would ever suspect him of committing a crime...up and coming officer...pilot to the Queen...CO of the largest air base in Canada... married to a director... MR on the other hand is an uneducated, unemployed , druggie and bum...any offences in his past would certainly be noted by LE....IMO

 

[flipflop]

there is a difference...RW was smart and educated and no one would ever suspect him of committing a crime...up and coming officer...pilot to the Queen...CO of the largest air base in Canada... married to a director... MR on the other hand is an uneducated, unemployed , druggie and bum...any offences in his past would certainly be noted by LE....IMO

and both are capable of murder which is the point that I made in my post, it doesn't matter what IQ they have.JMO

 

[Macright]

and both are capable of murder which is the point that I made in my post, it doesn't matter what IQ you have.

I agree...but there was so much evidence with RW..in fact he handed it over to LE on a silver platter.... there is no evidence to date shown for MR other than the video and the word of a liar and ....show me the evidence that connects him to this rape and murder (other than being there, but that hasn't been proven as yet) and I will gladly change my opinion...it would have to be the evidence presented though not a lot of "what if's" JMO

 

[Tahorn]

Question: How would TLM take the fall for everything if MR raped VS?

 

[dilbert]

I will wait for Alethea Dice to reply. This doesn't make sense. She is the victim and can be named. JMO

Pardon? What doesn't make sense?

You brought up the Jessop case in this comment quoted and replied to by Alethea;

[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7795196&postcount=744"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - weekend discussion thread: 4/14-16/2012[/ame]



and it looks to me like she carried her thoughts on that case in this post.



[ame="http://websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7795242&postcount=746"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - weekend discussion thread: 4/14-16/2012[/ame]



My sleuthy skills would lead me to conclude that CJ = Christine Jessop.

Who do you think it refers to Matou?

MOO

 

[brighidin]

From what I have seen at this point it would seem really dumb of him not to take the stand to explain his side. Maybe the answer will be clear as day before the jury deliberates.

By all means I dont think that MTR is not guilty but I would like to hear the rest of the case before I full make my decision.

That is an excellent, well-organized list of all the issues in the case. I doubt we will ever get definitive answers to all of them.

I don't think MR will take the stand. In the Canadian judicial system, the defendant does not have to prove his innocence. it is up to the Crown to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that s/he committed the crime they are accused of.

If Derstine thinks the Crown's case is weak, he would not, IMO, let MR take the stand. If Derstine thinks the jury won't like MR, he would not, IMO, let him take the stand.

That is how I read this, anyway:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/pcvi-cpcv/guide/sech.html#id_6

"The Crown prosecutor must prove that an accused person is guilty. Accused persons do not have to show that they are innocent."

"At any criminal trial, the Crown prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person committed a criminal offence. The judge or the members of the jury cannot find the person guilty if they have a reasonable doubt about the accused person's guilt. Reasonable doubt exists if, after considering all the evidence, they are not completely sure whether the accused person committed the offence."

 

[nobodyzgirl]

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!!!!

I have heard of RW and the difference with that case and this case is he pled guilty to his crimes and didn't recant his statement nor did he say he had an accomplice, they also had direct evidence linking him to his crimes, tire track, shoe imprint, CDs, etc. I am sure the Crown had more though they didn't need to introduce it as he pled guilty and it went directly to sentencing.

this case doesn't have the murder weapon or forensic evidence on the murder weapon linking MR, they only have the statement of TLM that I have heard of so far. I have yet to hear evidence that puts the hammer in MR's hand, other than TLM's original statement. According to evidence MR does not a have record and none of his friends said he was violent. The Crown had ample opportunity to show he was violent and never been caught, they didn't do that, nor do I recall them even asking, I am sure during their due diligence they would have had asked if he was violent, if they were afraid of him and if so why. I will assume no one said he was violent and that is why they never asked. JMO

 

[snoofer]

RaffertyLFP:
One story was to tell police that Tori asked McClintic about her dog to explain their presence in the video [via Twitter] There was no dog with TLM or in car that day; so this story would suggest as a cover story that Tori knew previously that TLM had a dog? Did TLM forget Tori wasn't supposed to know her or did MTR forget that? Supposed to be random and they didn't know her.
RaffertyLFP:
The journal also outlines the cover story for day of crime about she and Rafferty going shopping in Oakville. This supports that cover stories were being thought out as in the above.
RaffertyLFP:
McClintic said Rafferty came up with the various cover stories

When they were thinking of cover stories either together or separate. Did they forget they weren't supposed to know Tori?

TLM said she told Tori she had dog with her in car come see it.

But the cover stories AFTER the murder the excuse if asked why on video talking to Tori was that Tori asked her about her dog. How did she know TLM had dog. Make sense? If Tori was supposed to be the one who talked to her and then they went separate ways. The idea of the "story" was to explain why Tori talked to her on tape. So the cover story would not have been that TLM brought up dog; as that is the typical let's steal a kid story. Make sense? Is like when making the cover stories they were throwing stuff out there but forgot they were not supposed to know Tori. JMO

 

[flipflop]

I agree...but there was so much evidence with RW..in fact he handed it over to LE on a silver platter.... there is no evidence to date shown for MR other than the video and the word of a liar and ....show me the evidence that connects him to this rape and murder (other than being there, but that hasn't been proven as yet) and I will gladly change my opinion...it would have to be the evidence presented though not a lot of "what if's" JMO

You stated that evidence has proven that TLM's is the one with a violent past. So I responded with RW had a clean past (clean record) just as MR does!!!!! Im not talking about what evidence each case has or doesnt have. Just stated this as you do not have to have a violent past to be guilty of murder. I am not comparing the cases, just their clean records prior to the crimes. Please go back and read the post 759

 

[dilbert]

Furthermore, we are able to write out Michael Rafferty and Terri-Lynne McClintic but most of us don't, it's just easier, faster and habitual to type out the initials.

MOO

 

[flipflop]

I have heard of RW and the difference with that case and this case is he pled guilty to his crimes and didn't recant his statement nor did he say he had an accomplice, they also had direct evidence linking him to his crimes, tire track, shoe imprint, CDs, etc. I am sure the Crown had more though they didn't need to introduce it as he pled guilty and it went directly to sentencing.

this case doesn't have the murder weapon or forensic evidence on the murder weapon linking MR, they only have the statement of TLM that I have heard of so far. I have yet to hear evidence that puts the hammer in MR's hand, other than TLM's original statement. According to evidence MR does not a have record and none of his friends said he was violent. The Crown had ample opportunity to show he was violent and never been caught, they didn't do that, nor do I recall them even asking, I am sure during their due diligence they would have had asked if he was violent, if they were afraid of him and if so why. I will assume no one said he was violent and that is why they never asked. JMO

<modsnip>..I am not comparing the cases....I was comparing their clean records!!!!!!! Both RW and MR had/have nothing on their records.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

That is an excellent, well-organized list of all the issues in the case. I doubt we will ever get definitive answers to all of them.

I don't think MR will take the stand. In the Canadian judicial system, the defendant does not have to prove his innocence. it is up to the Crown to prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, that s/he committed the crime they are accused of.

If Derstine thinks the Crown's case is weak, he would not, IMO, let MR take the stand. If Derstine thinks the jury won't like MR, he would not, IMO, let him take the stand.

That is how I read this, anyway:
http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/pi/pcvi-cpcv/guide/sech.html#id_6

"The Crown prosecutor must prove that an accused person is guilty. Accused persons do not have to show that they are innocent."

"At any criminal trial, the Crown prosecutor must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused person committed a criminal offence. The judge or the members of the jury cannot find the person guilty if they have a reasonable doubt about the accused person's guilt. Reasonable doubt exists if, after considering all the evidence, they are not completely sure whether the accused person committed the offence."

BBM

It is ultimately up to MR if he will take the stand. Derstine can protest and advise against it all he wants, if MR wants to take the stand, Derstine can't stop him from taking the stand.