jury is out until Wednesday 21 March: general discussion thread

[antiquegirl]

I did notice in the link provided above by FlipFlop that the Shaq shoes photo shows a plastic shopping bag - the shoes are either in / on top of the bag in one of the photos. I wonder if the shoes were found inside the plastic bag?

Can anyone think of any feasible reason why a grocery store shopping bag would be included in this picture if the shoes were not found in them? Even if LE put them into something in the interval between when they were found and when they were photographed, I would think they'd have something more professional and standard than supermarket bags. The fact that this pic was shot outdoors makes me think it was very close to, if not the exact, location where they were discovered.

And yes, it looks clean, but so do the shoes. Hopefully, someone from LE will explain this on the stand.

JMO

 

[matou]

TLM's shoes are size 6 based on the Shaq shoes.

slide 44: http://www.am980.ca/Other/McClintic.pdf

 

[margaret_diane]

That bag is spotless. I doubt it. JMO

Ya I was noticing that as well but if the bag didn't have anything to do with the shoes, why is it in the photograph? It can't be an evidence collection bag can it? I always thought the evidence collection bags would look different. I don't know how but maybe they'd be clear, ziplock style and would have a label area or something. I didn't think an evidence collection bag would be just an ordinary plastic shopping bag (which is what it looks like to me).

If its not somehow connected to the shoes, then wouldn't placing the shoes in / on it risk cross contaminating the shoes?

Of course I'm just thinking and wondering out loud here what do the rest of you think? :twocents:

 

[matou]

Slide 43 with the bag is not showing up as being outside as the other photos are.

 

[matou]

The photos of the shoes aren't even on the same surface, notice the bumps on the black surface with the bag.

 

[margaret_diane]

I wonder if impressions of bone breakage of Tori's ribs can show the outline of a shoe or boot imprint and shoe size can be determined from this?

I thought of the same question yesterday, and found out that if there was skin still on that part of the body, then its possible the bruising might show a tread pattern (which might help show which shoes did the damage). The bruising might have ended up larger than the actual shoe size though due to the process of inflamation and swelling in the area. Good question though.:twocents:

 

[margaret_diane]

Slide 43 with the bag is not showing up as being outside as the other photos are.

Actually, thats not necessarily true - I see that there is a black something (case?) under the shoes in one picture. I suspect #43 shows the shoes in or on top of the same case. I note the bright light behind the shoes, and suspect that it is sunlight. Its too bright to be from a flash alone in my view. A flash would have also likely caused glare off the surface of the shoes along the white parts (at least a little) and likely off the black surface scratches of the box / case as well. If it were a flash, the lighting would have been more evenly distributed, and you wouldn't likely have the harsh shadow along the back of the shot, in the back right side. That to me looks like a sun shadow. :twocents:

 

[swedie]

Cell phone records and cell tower mapping, video surveillance clips, DNA and photographic evidence will fill in the story of Tori's last day, with much of the personal testimony provided by the woman who lured Tori to her death.

But jurors don't have to determine which actions Rafferty and McClintic took individually, only that together they killed Tori, said Gowdey as he neared his quietly dramatic ending to an opening delivered in measured, sombre tones.

"Your task will be to decide whether they acted together when they picked up Tori … whether they acted together when they … bought the garbage bags and the hammer, whether they acted together when they took to Tori to an isolated location where all of her clothing was removed but her T-shirt, whether they acted together to bring about the sexual assault of Tori, whether they acted together when Tori was killed, when she was placed in garbage bags and when heavy rocks were placed on top of her."

http://www.parisstaronline.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3492354

The Crown is asking the jurors to make one simple decision and I cannot perceive them getting bogged down with all the "she said, he said" rhetoric. They will look at the evidence that puts the two of them together during Tori's final few hours of her life. JMHO but I don't think this is going to be a hard task for the Crown to prove.

As we know first degree murder also includes the death of a child which happens during the act/crime of abduction.

 

[Hello_Kitty]

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1514060259001

Max I know you woudn't post a link that leads to a virus, but given my suspicious nature, I usually don't click on links that I don't know what they are about.


So (perhaps mods can answer this) is it possible to title your links (not just max, everyone), or even give a brief desc of what it is.

 

[matou]

The photo with the bag is likely taken at the location on the back of the police forensics van. It is not on the same surface as the other photos (looks like a holding case for the forensics unit). JMO

 

[antiquegirl]

Sorry, but I have totally forgotten the relevance or point behind all this discussion of TLM's shoes. What was it again? They've been entered into evidence as belonging to TLM, as having been worn by her on April 8th, as having been discarded by her out of the vehicle after the crime, and having been found by LE. If she didn't fear that there was some sort of evidence on them, why would she have tossed them away? Whether there is or not will be shown later in the trial.

MY evidence question is why did MTR not dispose of the incriminating journal that he allegedly helped create. He had been to TLM's house at least once to fetch clothes for her after her arrest.

He brought her clothes for court appearances.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article...-mcclintic-offered-to-take-fall-for-beau?bn=1

He was concerned enough about her being caught that he allegedly told her to change her appearance and bought her hair dye. TLM had six weeks to tell him where it was exactly. Did she not tell him the notes existed, or did she lie about his help in forming the alibi? :waitasec:

JMO

 

[matou]

According to slide # 37, TLM states that the clothes and shoes were thrown out at the unpaved road a few minutes after passing the house accross the lane.

http://www.am980.ca/Other/McClintic.pdf

 

[matou]

Sorry, but I have totally forgotten the relevance or point behind all this discussion of TLM's shoes. What was it again? They've been entered into evidence as belonging to TLM, as having been worn by her on April 8th, as having been discarded by her out of the vehicle after the crime, and having been found by LE. If she didn't fear that there was some sort of evidence on them, why would she have tossed them away? Whether there is or not will be shown later in the trial.

MY evidence question is why did MTR not dispose of the incriminating journal that he allegedly helped create. He had been to TLM's house at least once to fetch clothes for her after her arrest.

http://www.thestar.com/news/article...-mcclintic-offered-to-take-fall-for-beau?bn=1

He was concerned enough about her being caught that he allegedly told her to change her appearance and bought her hair dye. TLM had six weeks to tell him where it was exactly. Did she not tell him the notes existed, or did she lie about his help in forming the alibi? :waitasec:

JMO

If the shoes were not relevant, they would not be exhibited as evidence in the case. JMO

 

[Salem]

~Respectfully snipped~

Yes, I do but maybe I watch too many legal shows. If her confession was the only lead to MTR and if her initial confession was thrown out, how else otherwise would he be implicated?

The key here is that her initial confession was not "thrown out," she recanted it. There is a huge difference. If her confession was thrown out because of legal issues, there would be a question regarding any evidence collectes as "fruit of the poisonious tree." But, so far we have not heard that there was any legal reason TLM's first confession could not be used in court. If there is no legal issue, then evidence collected from investigating TLM's statement would be allowed, unless there is an issue with that particular piece of evidence. Just because TLM recanted, doesn't mean what she said will not be used against her.

HTH,

Salem

 

[antiquegirl]

The Crown is asking the jurors to make one simple decision and I cannot perceive them getting bogged down with all the "she said, he said" rhetoric.

(Respectfully snipped)

But they already have! Every part of TLM's testimony that included "he said/she said" statements were asked by the Crown and answered by her. She did not volunteer any of this info. One of the most important pieces of instructions that witnesses get is to answer all questions as briefly as possible and not add any elaboration. She will very likely be cross-examined by the defence on a lot of it. Both sides are trying to establish her lack of credibility and for opposite reasons.

JMO

Resist the temptation to be helpful, to volunteer information or to become the teacher. Remember this is not the time or place for putting on your case. Just answer the question that is asked! Then stop and wait until the next question. The most frequent mistake made is volunteering information. Don’t! Just answer the question and then stop!

http://www.emory.edu/oris/depos.htm

 

[Hello_Kitty]

I'm still leaning towards it being TLM that killed Tori, even after today's testimony.

Is it possible that forensic evidence could show which direction the blows likely came from?

I'm convinced it's her as well, however, I don't think she did it in a fit of rage, the more I think about her putting the bag over TS's head, the more I think that doesn't fit with the rage thing. It looks to me like she's still in denial that she can be such a monster as to have done this after TS asked for help.:moo:

I think MR goaded her, manipulated her into killing TS or they agreed before hand that he would do his thing and she would do the killing. Obviously neither of them bothered to look up the law on murder in first degree in canada.:moo:

 

[antiquegirl]

~Respectfully snipped~

The key here is that her initial confession was not "thrown out," she recanted it. There is a huge difference. If her confession was thrown out because of legal issues, there would be a question regarding any evidence collectes as "fruit of the poisonious tree." But, so far we have not heard that there was any legal reason TLM's first confession could not be used in court. If there is no legal issue, then evidence collected from investigating TLM's statement would be allowed, unless there is an issue with that particular piece of evidence. Just because TLM recanted, doesn't mean what she said will not be used against her.

HTH,

Salem

Sorry, Salem, but there may be a bit of a misunderstanding here. It's the question of NFR having used the past tense instead of the subjunctive one by mistake in her phrase "if her initial confession was thrown out". What she meant was ""if her initial confession were thrown out" (or "were to be"). She was talking about a hypothetical situation that could possibly happen in the future, not one that already has.

(NFR has gone out of town for the day, and I know what she intended, so I've taken the liberty of explaining in her absence.)

Thank you for your explanation.

 

[mareseatoats]

I agree with what you are saying in the bbm paragraph. However, once I saw the evidence pic of the map she drew of the area (where they left VS)
Her 2 drawings are evidence pic #37&38 which are done to perfection as to how the area looks. For someone who was supposedly in a drug induced mind altered state she remembered these finer details of this area and they are correct and match the said area (yes I have been there):

-paved road
-drew the laneway with the bend at the top
-laneway kind of hidden
-lane had slight decline then inclined
-gravel/dirt laneway
-rock pile and trees
-she labels which kind of tree was where (called them leafless trees and green trees which I think she meant coniferous and deciduous) as this is what matches the area.
-rough looking fence
-swampy area
-trees line the field
-can't see house from top of laneway
-creek approx 1 foot wide
-silo couple of fields over
-silo and red barn in another direction
-open fields beyond the rock pile
-house across road
-stone light coloured
-modern one floor bungalow
-house slightly raised from road
-on angle, angle driveway with incline
-trees behind house
-shallow peaked roof
-big front window
-possible ditch

Each item is labeled on the map in the correct location. From being out there myself, I cannot think of one other detail which could have been added...she left nothing out!
For a drug induced mind...these details are all correct. She drew this map on June 1.

Yes she has lied about who used the hammer, but from this, I do believe other things she has said. I believe this is why the jury is going to this site as it really is unbelievable how her map exactly matches this area.

pics are here 37 & 38
http://www.am980.ca/Other/McClintic.pdf

Yes, amazing how detailed and accurate her sketch is - isn't it? Uncanny. She's so sketchy on many details yet on this issue, she's bang on. Considering, by her testimony, she was heavily under the influence, it boggles the mind how exact this is. Almost like she'd been there before.......

 

[dar107]

Does anyone know when TM changed her story from MR yielding the hammer, to her being the one who stuck the fatal blows? I am really confused on this, I thought it was within a short period of time after her initial statement that it was RM, and thought that was in her testimony but now looking back I cannot find anything that states that. Was it before her sentencing, sometime after, was it only when she took the stand last week that her story changed? Did the crown know she was going to say that it was her? Originally I thought that it was just before they upgraded her charge to first degree...........but now I am lost.

 

[Salem]

(Respectfully snipped)

But they already have! Every part of TLM's testimony that included "he said/she said" statements were asked by the Crown and answered by her. She did not volunteer any of this info. One of the most important pieces of instructions that witnesses get is to answer all questions as briefly as possible and not add any elaboration. She will very likely be cross-examined by the defence on a lot of it. Both sides are trying to establish her lack of credibility and for opposite reasons.

JMO



http://www.emory.edu/oris/depos.htm

BBM - These instructions are for the giving of a deposition. Generally, when you give a deposition - it is for the "other" side. Here, where TLM is the prosecution's witness - she is being asked to "tell her story."

When she is crossed by the defense, then her answers should follow the instructions, basically.

HTH,

Salem