jury is out until Wednesday 21 March: general discussion thread

[dilbert]

(Respectfully snipped)

I'd like to look at this from a different angle.

• She is the one who did the actual abducting. She could have refused.
  
  
• She could have changed her mind and let Tori go on the way to the car.
  
  
• She could have fled the car with Tori while he went into Tim Hortons.
  
  
• She could have fled the car with Tori while he was using the ATM.
  
  
• She could have fled the car with Tori while he was purchasing drugs in Guelph.

• She is the one who purchased the murder weapon.
  
  
• She could have gone into Home Depot, used their phone and called LE to report the abduction.

• She could have seized that hammer while Tori was allegedly abused and used it on MR to protect Tori.
  
  
• She could have used the hammer on MR instead of Tori after the alleged abuse.
  
  
• She could have gone to LE when she got home ... or anytime after that.
  
  
• She could have confessed any time within the six weeks before it was finally coerced out of her.

But she didn’t do any of these things. If everything she testified this week is true, there are no excuses good enough. She had multiple chances to prevent this terrible disaster, but she did not. And when she did confess six week later, she lied and said MR murdered Tori.

It is MOO that TLM is at least as culpable as MR. His role is yet to be proven and I anxiously await the evidence that he did everything TLM has accused him of. TLM -- the self-admitted liar, junkie, and coward with six prior convictions on her sheet.


JMO

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Without a doubt!

I'm so angered by TLM trying to make it sound like she was trying to help Tori, or comfort her. That I just cannot buy, not at all.

I don't know how much of that people are really accepting as genuine, but I wonder if that would be different if TLM were a male accomplice, YKWIM?

 

[ynotdivein]

Does anyone know if the jurors in this trial are allowed to take notes? :waitasec:

 

[swedie]

A liar does not necessarily make someone a murderer. :moo:
:moo: Let the evidence speak for itself, as I am positive it will; loud and clear, no doubt about it. I am anxiously waiting for judgement day. :woohoo:

 

[swedie]

Jurors can take note

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I believe I heard that it is, but it's like how it is here where they cannot take them with them.

I was thinking about the notes a bit ago because I was wondering what happens to them after the trial. The jurors can't take them. It would be interesting to see what they zero in on.

 

[swedie]

Does anyone know if the jurors in this trial are allowed to take notes? :waitasec:

Yes the jurors can take notes but they must be handed in and secured at the end of each day of the trial.

 

[swedie]

I believe I heard that it is, but it's like how it is here where they cannot take them with them.

I was thinking about the notes a bit ago because I was wondering what happens to them after the trial. The jurors can't take them. It would be interesting to see what they zero in on.

The notes which are taken by the jurors are shredding/destroyed at the end of the trial. HTH

 

[daisy.faithfull]

The notes which are taken by the jurors are shredding/destroyed at the end of the trial. HTH

That makes sense, thank you

 

[dilbert]

Interesting tidbits I found; pleading not guilty, even if you are guilty, does not make you a liar, it means you are making the Crown PROVE you are guilty.

If I am guilty, don't I have to plead guilty?
Pleading not guilty, even if you committed the crime with which you are charged, is okay. It is not the same as lying and will not be held against you by the court if you change your plea to guilty later or lose at trial. Pleading "not guilty" is a way to preserve your options -- including your opportunity to enter into a plea bargain with the prosecutor and your opportunity to go to trial and make the prosecutor prove the case against you.

http://legal.asua.arizona.edu/misdemeanor.html

and

How do you plead?
Before the trial, at an “arraignment hearing,” the court may ask you how you plead – guilty or not guilty. This is called entering a plea. If you don't do so, the court will enter a plea of “not guilty” for you. Pleading “not guilty” does not mean that you deny you committed the offence. It means that you are making the Crown prove the case against you, if they can. If you plead not guilty, the judge presumes you are innocent unless the Crown proves that you are guilty.

http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/criminal/211.aspx

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Interesting tidbits I found; pleading not guilty, even if you are guilty, does not make you a liar, it means you are making the Crown PROVE you are guilty.



http://legal.asua.arizona.edu/misdemeanor.html

and



http://www.cba.org/bc/public_media/criminal/211.aspx

Cool. That link is from University of Arizona! :rocker: I'm in Phoenix, but I'm a U of A gal!

 

[~n/t~]

Tori's death evil beyond words

As more details emerge about Tori Stafford's murder, Canadians have been reduced to almost speechless horror.

http://www.timescolonist.com/news/Tori+death+evil+beyond+words/6318642/story.html

 

[~n/t~]

Listening to the police video clips played for the jury, Tori's mother, Tara McDonald, wept at the helplessness of her little girl. Her father, Rodney Stafford, clenched his fists at how he couldn't protect her. And McClintic sat sniffling in the witness box, watching herself on the screen.

http://www.torontosun.com/2012/03/16/mcclintic-insists-she-killed-tori

 

[~n/t~]

"I'm not somebody who targeted children," said McClintic. "I don't know what happened that day."

They also made a promise that if they were caught, she would take the blame because he had more to lose, said McClintic.


"I said I would take the fall for everything," she testified Wednesday. "I would say that it was all me."

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Mc...bout+Tori+Stafford+slaying/6313832/story.html

 

[~n/t~]

Tori Stafford trial: McClintic’s claim she was killer contradicts previous statement

McClintic was not clear when she decided to implicate Rafferty in Tori’s murder.

Gowdey questioned her many times but McClintic stuck to her story.

“Are you still insisting that your evidence earlier this week was correct,” he asked.

“Yes.”

“That it was you held the hammer.”

“Yes.”

“That you were the one who did the kicking.”

“Yes.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/article...c-reviews-early-statement-made-to-police?bn=1


bbm

IMO, forensics will show that Rafferty & Tori's DNA is on the hammer and his shoes not McClintic's.

 

[~n/t~]

The issue of who killed Tori, Mr. Gowdey told the jurors in his opening statement, isn't necessary for the jurors to decide: It is the prosecution theory that from start to finish, from the taking of the little girl to the disposal of her body under a pile of rocks in the countryside, this was as joint an enterprise as there can be, that they acted together.

What is not in dispute is that Ms. McClintic is either the one who walked away as Tori called her name, or she did that and she killed her: It seems the classic difference without a distinction.

http://www.nationalpost.com/related/topics/Legal+niceties+soften+brutality/6317541/story.html

 

[margaret_diane]

Wow, AG. That is one thought provoking post for so late on a Friday night after an especially harrowing week of "testimony".

I am suspicious of the townhouse complex she pointed out right next to the school, remember she could not find the other house located right in Woodstock but provided pretty good detail to a location about 100kms to where Tori was found.

If one was looking to "tie up a single Mom", would they not seek a more isolated location such as RW did. Rafferty had a car, why would he target a populated townhouse complex where people are living practically side by side and on top of each other with paper thin walls? Personally (and of couse JMO) this whole conversation, both sides of it, happened in her head only. She was the one with gangsta aspirations, a very serious drug addiction and who knows WTH else?

I agree with you on the townhouse issue and also think its unlikely that a discussion about kidnapping an adult female single mom would revolve around such a populated area. The only way this would be true in my opinion is if TLM was being, "mildly vindictive" towards someone in one of those homes.

TLM wants us to believe that she was in a drug induced mind altered state, but she can apparently recall all sorts of details such as where they went, who said what, who did what to whom etc. She lies and lies and lies!!

It has occurred to me that perhaps she suffers from some Dissociative Identity Disorder. Perhaps there is more than one mind controlling that woman's body. For those unfamiliar with what this is, or how it could apply to TLM, you can read more about it here:
http://www.webmd.com/mental-health/dissociative-identity-disorder-multiple-personality-disorder

 

[margaret_diane]

I think it was a good thing that TLM lied about Rafferty, as it got the ball rolling faster. From the numbers stated in the below tweets, chances are many of them implicate MR to the crime anyways. With LE originally investigating TLM, I believe within time LE would have figured him out!!

.AM980: Scoyne says there are 1,100 exhibits that have been seized in this investigation.

AM980: 84 exhibits were sent to the OPP centre of forensic science. Scoyne calls that number "unusually large".

AM980: Rafferty wasn't a suspect in the case until mid-May. He was first questioned because of his relationship with McClincic.

If I were the lawyer for MR, I'd have had an issue with the statement by the officer in question that the number was "unusually large" -- even if it is true, its prejudicial in my view. I hope he objected to this - its hard to have to rely on tweets as the only way to get live info on this trial! I wish we could see when someone raises an objection etc. I wish we could see the body language, and facial expressions of all the players -- I wish we here in Canada had court tv like they do in the states!! Why don't we anyhow?

 

[Talina]

There was a break in testimony previously for a couple of days and now this break in testimony. Are there some holidays they are dealing with or is something else causing these breaks?

TIA

 

[margaret_diane]

(Respectfully snipped)

I'd like to look at this from a different angle.

• She is the one who did the actual abducting. She could have refused.
  
  
• She could have changed her mind and let Tori go on the way to the car.
  
  
• She could have fled the car with Tori while he went into Tim Hortons.
  
  
• She could have fled the car with Tori while he was using the ATM.
  
  
• She could have fled the car with Tori while he was purchasing drugs in Guelph.

• She is the one who purchased the murder weapon.
  
  
• She could have gone into Home Depot, used their phone and called LE to report the abduction.

• She could have seized that hammer while Tori was allegedly abused and used it on MR to protect Tori.
  
  
• She could have used the hammer on MR instead of Tori after the alleged abuse.
  
  
• She could have gone to LE when she got home ... or anytime after that.
  
  
• She could have confessed any time within the six weeks before it was finally coerced out of her.

But she didn’t do any of these things. If everything she testified this week is true, there are no excuses good enough. She had multiple chances to prevent this terrible disaster, but she did not. And when she did confess six week later, she lied and said MR murdered Tori.

It is MOO that TLM is at least as culpable as MR. His role is yet to be proven and I anxiously await the evidence that he did everything TLM has accused him of. TLM -- the self-admitted liar, junkie, and coward with six prior convictions on her sheet.


JMO

Well put AG! I want to add to it:
SHE is the one who decided to implicate MR in the crime only AFTER he told her that he loved her, but was not IN LOVE with her.

Perhaps she was being, "mildly vindictive"?