Long Easter Weekend Thread (Apr. 5, 6, 7, 8, & 9, 2012)

[swedie]

Really?




http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/03/23/19543041.html

OH I'm so glad you brought that forward for me, as that would be a huge red flag to the jurors. During MR's police interview May 15, 2009, MR stated he did not know TM or JG. Now the defense is saying it was a drug debt abduction and MR knew that. In reality, I am sure TLM would have discussed with MR her boyfriend some, if not all of the drug debt details including names while on that long death drive. The drug abduction theory is not going to get off the ground, let alone fly IMHO.

And the defense has done nothing yet to suggest otherwise. Even when TM was on the stand. That would have been a huge opportunity to drive that theory home. All they could come up with was trying to paint TM a bad mother for allowing her daughter to walk home one, and the only day alone. :moo:

 

[Ardy]

If found guilty of her recent assault charges, TLM would serve no more time in jail. She would serve the sentence concurrently with the life sentence.

And now she is contemplating if she will plead not guilty?

Why not.............she would get some visits from her lawyer to chit chat, some reading material from the Crown, a trip to court once in awhile.........nice change from the daily routine.

Something tells me we haven't heard the last of TLM.

 

[brighidin]

If found guilty of her recent assault charges, TLM would serve no more time in jail. She would serve the sentence concurrently with the life sentence.

And now she is contemplating if she will plead not guilty?

Why not.............she would get some visits from her lawyer to chit chat, some reading material from the Crown, a trip to court once in awhile.........nice change from the daily routine.

Something tells me we haven't heard the last of TLM.

Maybe. Of course, she could have plead not guilty to first degree murder if she wanted a change of scenery. A murder trial lasts longer than an assault one, I would assume. I doubt this will be the only time she finds herself in trouble in jail though.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

If found guilty of her recent assault charges, TLM would serve no more time in jail. She would serve the sentence concurrently with the life sentence.

And now she is contemplating if she will plead not guilty?

Why not.............she would get some visits from her lawyer to chit chat, some reading material from the Crown, a trip to court once in awhile.........nice change from the daily routine.

Something tells me we haven't heard the last of TLM.

It makes sense to me that TLM would actually want to be incarcerated, she can do whatever horrible things she can get away with relatively few consequences compared to what she would experience if she lived in the real world.

 

[BorgQueen]

It makes sense to me that TLM would actually want to be incarcerated, she can do whatever horrible things she can get away with relatively few consequences compared to what she would experience if she lived in the real world.

IMO she DOES want to be incarcerated. Not only can she 'bully' others and establish authority amongst other inmates, but she is 'safe' there. She hasn't had any safety or structure for her entire life. She has that in prison. It is a level of comfort she has never experienced. Plus, not only is everybody on the 'outside' safe from her, but she is relatively safe from others AND herself there. It really is the best place for her, and she probably knows it, in my opinion. Not at all surprised that she did this. Won't be surprised when it happens again. And I won't be surprised when she is denied parole in 25 years. :moo:
At least one of the two who hurt Tori will never get out. If the accused is found guilty, I hope he also never sees the light of day.

:moo:

 

[Tugela]

The woman TLM assaulted. What I found interesting is AM was told by the judge, see my bolded sentence below. This makes me wonder if TLM will get the faint hope clause as nothing has come close to that judges statement to McIntyre. All reports about TLM's sentencing just say life sentence 25 years no chance of parole.:waitasec: I pray she gets at least 25 years.

No chance of parole for 25 years
After being convicted of first-degree murder, McClintic was given a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, which carries the chance of parole in 25 years.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/12/09/tori-stafford-mcclintic.html

Bobcaygeon woman gets life in prison.A McIntyre found guilty of murder of Ajax man in 2007.

Following the verdict, Justice Salmers sentenced Ms. McIntyre to the obligatory sentence of life with no parole for 25 years. The judge noted the Criminal Code allows Ms. McIntyre to apply for a review of her sentence after 15 years; the provision is commonly referred to as the “faint hope clause”.[/I]

http://www.mykawartha.com/news/news/article/812692

Faint hope means exactly that. You can apply for parole, but the chances of it being granted are faint. She would have to turn her life around completely and be a model citizen in prison for that to happen, and I think that is pretty unlikely.

 

[Tugela]

It makes sense to me that TLM would actually want to be incarcerated, she can do whatever horrible things she can get away with relatively few consequences compared to what she would experience if she lived in the real world.

Well, ya, in theory there is nothing else that can happen since she is allready in prison, most likely for the rest of her life.

In practice though there is allways something to lose. You might cross another bigger meaner prisoner who could make your life a living hell. If you break the rules enough whatever little luxuries you might have could be taken away. There are lots of things that can happen to you if you don't play by the rules, such as they are.

 

[Tugela]

-There'd be proven to be no evidence of sexual assault, if that is not what happened and he had called police right away
-his fingerprints would not be on the hammer
-he'd at least have the moral standing of not letting her family flounder for months, not knowing where their baby girl was
-his story would make a lot more sense if he'd spoken up immediately


<modsnip> :waitasec:

No it wouldn't. She would have said that it was him, they would have believed her (as they did when she claimed that), arrested him and sent him to prison for the rest of his life.

If you had lived a moral straight arrow life you might think that the truth would come out if you were in a situation like that, but that isn't how things work. You would have to prove your innocence, guilt would be assumed, and doing that is not as easy as you seem to think. All the prosecution would need is to persuade a jury that there was no reasonable doubt (not absolute proof), which is not hard to do because most juries go into court rooms assuming that if you are prosecuted you are likely guilty. Unless the prosecutor is clearly stretching you would allmost certainly be convicted.

Someone like Rafferty who lives a dubious life would certainly be streetwise about that, and if they find themselves in that sort of situation I can guarentee you that 99% of the time they will keep quite about it because they are not stupid.

Given what we know about McClintic his story is plausible. He is not going to be able to prove it though, and the prosecutor is probably not going to be able to prove that she is telling the truth. That leaves it with the jury and as I said, unless there is a clear cut case one way or the other a jury will allmost allways convict.

Even if he was the one to come forward to the police at the start, he would still be standing where he is now, facing exactly the same situation.

A word of advice, if you ever find yourself in a similar situation, you are best advised to keep quite about it, unless you really want to spend most of the rest of your life in prison.

 

[~n/t~]

No it wouldn't. She would have said that it was him, they would have believed her (as they did when she claimed that), arrested him and sent him to prison for the rest of his life.

If you had lived a moral straight arrow life you might think that the truth would come out if you were in a situation like that, but that isn't how things work. You would have to prove your innocence, guilt would be assumed, and doing that is not as easy as you seem to think. All the prosecution would need is to persuade a jury that there was no reasonable doubt (not absolute proof), which is not hard to do because most juries go into court rooms assuming that if you are prosecuted you are likely guilty. Unless the prosecutor is clearly stretching you would allmost certainly be convicted.

Someone like Rafferty who lives a dubious life would certainly be streetwise about that, and if they find themselves in that sort of situation I can guarentee you that 99% of the time they will keep quite about it because they are not stupid.

Given what we know about McClintic his story is plausible. He is not going to be able to prove it though, and the prosecutor is probably not going to be able to prove that she is telling the truth. That leaves it with the jury and as I said, unless there is a clear cut case one way or the other a jury will allmost allways convict.

Even if he was the one to come forward to the police at the start, he would still be standing where he is now, facing exactly the same situation.

A word of advice, if you ever find yourself in a similar situation, you are best advised to keep quite about it, unless you really want to spend most of the rest of your life in prison.

Out of the almost 35 million people in Canada, there have been only 2 cases (that I'm aware of) of murdering duos. I seriously doubt any of us would be found in a similar situation driving along the 401 with a murderous madwoman/man unless we CHOSE to do so.

 

[~n/t~]

IIRC initially, the investigation focused on TM and rumors of drug debts.

Given Woodstock's small population of 20 somethings, only 3 high schools, and one methadone clinic, and few hangouts to choose from, and the much more limited number of oxy addicts, I would be more surprised that they didn't know each other.........than did.

Getting a supply of drugs is more important to an oxy addict than anything else, so it wouldn't be surprising if some people aren't disclosing everything they know.

bbm
People? Who are you referring to? TIA

 

[Tink]

No it wouldn't. She would have said that it was him, they would have believed her (as they did when she claimed that), arrested him and sent him to prison for the rest of his life.

If you had lived a moral straight arrow life you might think that the truth would come out if you were in a situation like that, but that isn't how things work. You would have to prove your innocence, guilt would be assumed, and doing that is not as easy as you seem to think. All the prosecution would need is to persuade a jury that there was no reasonable doubt (not absolute proof), which is not hard to do because most juries go into court rooms assuming that if you are prosecuted you are likely guilty. Unless the prosecutor is clearly stretching you would allmost certainly be convicted.

Someone like Rafferty who lives a dubious life would certainly be streetwise about that, and if they find themselves in that sort of situation I can guarentee you that 99% of the time they will keep quite about it because they are not stupid.

Given what we know about McClintic his story is plausible. He is not going to be able to prove it though, and the prosecutor is probably not going to be able to prove that she is telling the truth. That leaves it with the jury and as I said, unless there is a clear cut case one way or the other a jury will allmost allways convict.

Even if he was the one to come forward to the police at the start, he would still be standing where he is now, facing exactly the same situation.

A word of advice, if you ever find yourself in a similar situation, you are best advised to keep quite about it, unless you really want to spend most of the rest of your life in prison.

But I think the point is that if he had said something right away, the evidence would have been there to show he was innocent and to contradict TLM's statements. She says he sexually assaulted Tori; there would have been proof that he did not. She says he hit her with a hammer; the hammer would have had only her fingerprints on it. They might have even been able to find his footprints in the snow/mud when he went off on his "walk" while TLM killed Tori. It seems to me the reason for delaying was to give evidence time to disappear.

Tink

 

[Oldsoul2]

A BIG mistake was made by the prosecution in the Casey Anthony trial, (the number of hits she made searching for chloroform was wrong) and LE in MR's case have already stated they didn't examine evidence until a few days ago, IMO, that didn't look too good, whether the info was relevant or not.

They're human, mistakes are made, it happens, not so shocking to me.

MOO

That was an error made by the programmer of the software and relayed to the prosecution. It was searched on the computer regardless and in no way should have been searched in the first place and IMO it did not have any bearing on her innocence. The jury would have still found her innocent because they had no common sense. It was LUCK for the defense that it occurred but NOT a mistake the prosecution made.

 

[Oldsoul2]

Really?

Quote:
Derstine presented an alternative villain and scenario for the jury.

"The abduction was your idea," he suggested to McClintic. "You went and lured this girl. You brought her in the car all friendly that Michael thought nothing of it. Later on you told him that the girl was in the car for a drug debt. Still later . . . you offered her to Michael, sexually. When it became clear that he didn't want your gift, you directed him to a rural location on a pretext . . . You said that she could be taken to a safe house. Once you got to that lane you told him to walk away because you wanted to talk to the little girl because she was scared of him. You . . . threw her down and killed her. Mr Rafferty came back after the death, was horrified, but helped you clean up."


http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/03/23/19543041.html

This is called a defense theory, not necessarily the truth. IMO if we were to believe every single word that comes out of criminal defense lawyers mouth we would be living in a more dangerous world than we already do. They are trained to attempt to convince a jury that their client is innocent, that's what their paid for.

 

[Oldsoul2]

IIRC initially, the investigation focused on TM and rumors of drug debts.

Given Woodstock's small population of 20 somethings, only 3 high schools, and one methadone clinic, and few hangouts to choose from, and the much more limited number of oxy addicts, I would be more surprised that they didn't know each other.........than did.

Getting a supply of drugs is more important to an oxy addict than anything else, so it wouldn't be surprising if some people aren't disclosing everything they know.

IMO there is only one other plausible scenario should MR's DNA be non existent or the evidence does not support the rape. It might be as simple as, like a lot of other cases, where time has rendered the evidence impossible to conclude, decomposition, outside in the elements etc... IMO, he shouldn't have been there, he aided in a crime and lied, he is 100% guilty of something. The only other possibility is that these people, being in the world of drugs and problematic people, took Tori to those woods so someone else could rape her.

I agree with one of your points, severe drug addicts only care where their next fix is coming from and that requires money. Also, they keep their mouth very shut when it comes to abduction and rape of children or they lose their life, whether they are in or out of prison. I'm not saying this happened but it's the only other possible reason to my logic. Rodney said "we will never know what really happened" even though he has heard all of this as we have. IMO I do not believe he is referring to who per say struck the final blow. Does MR and TLM deserve to go to prison for life either way IMO YES

 

[~n/t~]

IMO there is only one other plausible scenario should MR's DNA be non existent or the evidence does not support the rape. It might be as simple as, like a lot of other cases, where time has rendered the evidence impossible to conclude, decomposition, outside in the elements etc... IMO, he shouldn't have been there, he aided in a crime and lied, he is 100% guilty of something. The only other possibility is that these people, being in the world of drugs and problematic people, took Tori to those woods so someone else could rape her.

I agree with one of your points, severe drug addicts only care where their next fix is coming from and that requires money. Also, they keep their mouth very shut when it comes to abduction and rape of children or they lose their life, whether they are in or out of prison. I'm not saying this happened but it's the only other possible reason to my logic. Rodney said "we will never know what really happened" even though he has heard all of this as we have. IMO I do not believe he is referring to who per say struck the final blow. Does MR and TLM deserve to go to prison for life either way IMO YES

There has been no evidence (so far) to suggest anyone else was there besides the convicted killer and her accomplice. I guess the defence can do a Jose Baez and throw that out there like he did in the CA case that everyone but Casey Anthony was the murderer including her own father and Kronk who found Caylee's remains. I'm hoping this jury has a lot more common sense than the ones in that trial. It still doesn't justify his cover up of the crime scene, imo. If he was there, he was there for a reason and the only logical explanation is what the Crown has presented against the accused child kidnapper, rapist, murderer.

This case is not about drug wars and gansters. It's a case is about a senseless murder of an 8 year old girl.

 

[Alethea Dice]

The woman TLM assaulted. What I found interesting is AM was told by the judge, see my bolded sentence below. This makes me wonder if TLM will get the faint hope clause as nothing has come close to that judges statement to McIntyre. All reports about TLM's sentencing just say life sentence 25 years no chance of parole.:waitasec: I pray she gets at least 25 years.

No chance of parole for 25 years
After being convicted of first-degree murder, McClintic was given a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment, which carries the chance of parole in 25 years.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/12/09/tori-stafford-mcclintic.html

Bobcaygeon woman gets life in prison.A McIntyre found guilty of murder of Ajax man in 2007.

Following the verdict, Justice Salmers sentenced Ms. McIntyre to the obligatory sentence of life with no parole for 25 years. The judge noted the Criminal Code allows Ms. McIntyre to apply for a review of her sentence after 15 years; the provision is commonly referred to as the “faint hope clause”.[/I]

http://www.mykawartha.com/news/news/article/812692

With all due respect, we have no idea what the Judge said when sentencing TLM due to the ban on her hearing. There have been many reports of TLM's eligibility to apply for the faint hope clause. Here are just four:

A life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years is automatic for a first-degree murder conviction. McClintic may apply for the so-called faint hope clause after 15 years

.

First-degree murder carries an automatic life sentence with no chance of parole for 25 years, but McClintic could apply for parole under the so-called faint hope clause in 15 years.

McClintic will be eligible for parole in 15 years under the faint hope clause in the Criminal Code. Her confession, co-operation with police and guilty plea may be factors helping her cause.

McClintic was given an automatic life sentence without chance of parole for 25 years, except under Canada’s so-called “faint hope” clause that could lead to release after 15 years.

However, I agree with Tugela. With the way she's starting out, unless things change drastically, I doubt that she would get it.

 

[ynotdivein]

It would appear that there is some confusion about the use of the abbreviation "GTH."

For the sake of clarity, if one's intent is to be helpful to another poster, one should use the common WS abbreviation HTH, or "hope that helps."

If one's intent is that another poster go to a hot place, one should probably take a break from posting for a moment to compose oneself.

HTH.

 

[brighidin]

No it wouldn't. She would have said that it was him, they would have believed her (as they did when she claimed that), arrested him and sent him to prison for the rest of his life.

If you had lived a moral straight arrow life you might think that the truth would come out if you were in a situation like that, but that isn't how things work. You would have to prove your innocence, guilt would be assumed, and doing that is not as easy as you seem to think. All the prosecution would need is to persuade a jury that there was no reasonable doubt (not absolute proof), which is not hard to do because most juries go into court rooms assuming that if you are prosecuted you are likely guilty. Unless the prosecutor is clearly stretching you would allmost certainly be convicted.

Someone like Rafferty who lives a dubious life would certainly be streetwise about that, and if they find themselves in that sort of situation I can guarentee you that 99% of the time they will keep quite about it because they are not stupid.

Given what we know about McClintic his story is plausible. He is not going to be able to prove it though, and the prosecutor is probably not going to be able to prove that she is telling the truth. That leaves it with the jury and as I said, unless there is a clear cut case one way or the other a jury will allmost allways convict.

Even if he was the one to come forward to the police at the start, he would still be standing where he is now, facing exactly the same situation.

A word of advice, if you ever find yourself in a similar situation, you are best advised to keep quite about it, unless you really want to spend most of the rest of your life in prison.

Wait. What? I've bolded a few parts of your post that I think need clarification.

Respectfully, can you provide links to the studies you consulted that show juries go into court with a presumption of guilt. Thanks.

Also, please clarify what you mean by MR's dubious life. As the defense has shown, and as others have pointed out here, he didn't have a criminal record.

Are you suggesting that if someone has information pertaining to the disappearance and murder of a small child, they should not tell law enforcement what they know, or else they will go to jail?

 

[Kittymama]

If I should ever find myself in a similar situation, which I'm pretty sure I wouldn't because I get suspicious when things don't make sense, you can bet I'll be going to the police and taking my chances. I'd much rather take my chances than allow a murdered child's family to go through the anguish of not knowing what happened. They can't just throw someone in jail for life without a trial. And in that trial, they'd find...no evidence. If that was the way it happened.

But it didn't. :twocents:

 

[Salem]

I cant seem to find a link that directs to something in particular with Swagga electronics

Here is one link http://www.zazzle.ca/swagga+electronics

Or swagga speakers? http://www.zazzle.ca/swagga+speakers this is what I think they are

Can you link this up for us, please crazy? I googled also and found that Swagga seems to mean someone's personality or demeanor. Just interested in where you found this info.

Thanks,

Salem