MTR Discussions

[LadyL]

he gets more privilages because he's awaiting trial, that is the law, even though often times those who are detained while awaiting trial are treated worse than those who have already been sentenced.

an intereseting read, especially the last part

http://www.johnhoward.on.ca/pdfs/fctsh-17.pdf

I've been a visitor in those places and I can attest that the linked report accurately reflects my experiences.

 

[LadyL]

for the record, i'd just like to say i don't think MR is innocent, i do wonder about his level of guilt though.

also, for some, it's not a question of whether he is guilty or innocent, it's the fact that he has not been convicted of any crime and therefore still has the right to a certain level of safety and comfort while awaiting trial. if it were your son or daughter, wouldn't you expect that too?

i'm not saying that's right or wrong, just stating fact and that the people on these facebook groups sound like a bloody lynch mob! i thought canadians were more civilized than that.

i guess i'm just seeing this from another angle.

i have no doubt victoria will receive the justice she deserves.

BBM

we are civilized but realized also that we don't deal with this kind of situation as frequently as perhaps our friends in other countries and so don't know how to distance ourselves & contain our outrage as effectively ... JMO

 

[LadyL]

I have to agree with Jorge. I have yet to see anything to prove his innocence. Nada nothing zilch. He won't speak in his defense and neither does his family. That has bothered me from day one.

BBM

he's not required to prove his innocence - innocent until proven guilty means that the prosecutor is required to prove guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt!

it's the foundation of the justice system!

he, like most defendants, are told not to speak by their lawyers

his family has probably been told the same thing

again, from my personal experience & also from everything we read about trials and trial lawyers, I know this to be true most of the time

I realize that we see a lot of suspects families talking to the media but they are mostly from the States

we generally don't work that way here in Canada, unless whatshisname big-shot TO lawyer is involved ... but it costs big bucks to hire him

 

[LadyL]

All his "supports" are hiding in the woodwork. No one has gone to the media to protest his innocence.

Thanx Max, we're not the only ones who feel this way I'm sure. I'd still like to hear from those on here to who believe in his innocence and "WHY". Not just because he hasn't been proven guilty yet. That not enough, I want factual info and will even give some consideration to hearsay.

can you point me in the direction of someone on here who says they believe he's innocent? I haven't seen anyone say that but I could've missed it

I don't necessarily think he's innocent but am trying to keep an open mind b/c again, that's the foundation of our justice system

honestly, how the heck are you going to get factual info of his innocence before a trial?

do you really think that potential witnesses for either side should be blabbing their potential evidence on the internet? wouldn't that compromise a fair & just trial?

I hope the prosecution doesn't plan on parading as witnesses some of the former flames who have been talking to the media - IMO, their credibility took a plunge when they chose to speak publicly about their sex lives

perhaps no one has gone to the media to protest his innocence because he has no one, except an apparently not-so-problem free mother and/or his 'supporters' have been told to hush (as I alluded to before)

I understand the outrage - I understand the anger - I understand the wanting to line 'em up on a firing range (I really do) but we've got to make an attempt to understand the law before we say things like have been posted in this thread recently and we also better hope that karma doesn't ever bite us in the hiney & we end up trying to defend ourselves from a lynch-mob public

c'mon guys & gals - no one is required to PROVE or PROTEST their innocence in public in this country and their supporters, if they have any, should not be pressured to either

I always get a response like "oh come on, we all KNOW he's guilty" and although I might feel that way, I have to caution myself that we don't KNOW much of anything except that he's been charged

 

[LadyL]

All his "supports" are hiding in the woodwork. No one has gone to the media to protest his innocence.

Thanx Max, we're not the only ones who feel this way I'm sure. I'd still like to hear from those on here to who believe in his innocence and "WHY". Not just because he hasn't been proven guilty yet. That not enough, I want factual info and will even give some consideration to hearsay.

can you point me in the direction of someone on here who says they believe he's innocent? I haven't seen anyone say that but I could've missed it

I don't necessarily think he's innocent but am trying to keep an open mind b/c again, that's the foundation of our justice system

honestly, how the heck are you going to get factual info of his innocence before a trial?

do you really think that potential witnesses for either side should be blabbing their potential evidence on the internet? wouldn't that compromise a fair & just trial?

I hope the prosecution doesn't plan on parading as witnesses some of the former flames who have been talking to the media - IMO, their credibility took a plunge when they chose to speak publicly about their sex lives

perhaps no one has gone to the media to protest his innocence because he has no one, except an apparently not-so-problem free mother and/or his 'supporters' have been told to hush (as I alluded to before)

I understand the outrage - I understand the anger - I understand the wanting to line 'em up on a firing range (I really do) but we've got to make an attempt to understand the law before we say things like have been posted in this thread recently and we also better hope that karma doesn't ever bite us in the hiney & we end up trying to defend ourselves from a lynch-mob public

c'mon guys & gals - no one is required to PROVE or PROTEST their innocence in public in this country and their supporters, if they have any, should not be pressured to either

I always get a response like "oh come on, we all KNOW he's guilty" and although I might feel that way, I have to caution myself that we don't KNOW much of anything except that he's been charged

 

[LadyL]

All his "supports" are hiding in the woodwork. No one has gone to the media to protest his innocence.

Thanx Max, we're not the only ones who feel this way I'm sure. I'd still like to hear from those on here to who believe in his innocence and "WHY". Not just because he hasn't been proven guilty yet. That not enough, I want factual info and will even give some consideration to hearsay.

can you point me in the direction of someone on here who says they believe he's innocent? I haven't seen anyone say that but I could've missed it

I don't necessarily think he's innocent but am trying to keep an open mind b/c again, that's the foundation of our justice system

honestly, how the heck are you going to get factual info of his innocence before a trial?

do you really think that potential witnesses for either side should be blabbing their potential evidence on the internet? wouldn't that compromise a fair & just trial?

I hope the prosecution doesn't plan on parading as witnesses some of the former flames who have been talking to the media - IMO, their credibility took a plunge when they chose to speak publicly about their sex lives

perhaps no one has gone to the media to protest his innocence because he has no one, except an apparently not-so-problem free mother and/or his 'supporters' have been told to hush (as I alluded to before)

I understand the outrage - I understand the anger - I understand the wanting to line 'em up on a firing range (I really do) but we've got to make an attempt to understand the law before we say things like have been posted in this thread recently and we also better hope that karma doesn't ever bite us in the hiney & we end up trying to defend ourselves from a lynch-mob public

c'mon guys & gals - no one is required to PROVE or PROTEST their innocence in public in this country and their supporters, if they have any, should not be pressured to either

I always get a response like "oh come on, we all KNOW he's guilty" and although I might feel that way, I have to caution myself that we don't KNOW much of anything except that he's been charged

 

[LadyL]

All his "supports" are hiding in the woodwork. No one has gone to the media to protest his innocence.

Thanx Max, we're not the only ones who feel this way I'm sure. I'd still like to hear from those on here to who believe in his innocence and "WHY". Not just because he hasn't been proven guilty yet. That not enough, I want factual info and will even give some consideration to hearsay.

All his "supports" are hiding in the woodwork. No one has gone to the media to protest his innocence.

Thanx Max, we're not the only ones who feel this way I'm sure. I'd still like to hear from those on here to who believe in his innocence and "WHY". Not just because he hasn't been proven guilty yet. That not enough, I want factual info and will even give some consideration to hearsay.

can you point me in the direction of someone on here who says they believe he's innocent? I haven't seen anyone say that but I could've missed it

I don't necessarily think he's innocent but am trying to keep an open mind b/c again, that's the foundation of our justice system

honestly, how the heck are you going to get factual info of his innocence before a trial?

do you really think that potential witnesses for either side should be blabbing their potential evidence on the internet? wouldn't that compromise a fair & just trial?

I hope the prosecution doesn't plan on parading as witnesses some of the former flames who have been talking to the media - IMO, their credibility took a plunge when they chose to speak publicly about their sex lives

perhaps no one has gone to the media to protest his innocence because he has no one, except an apparently not-so-problem free mother and/or his 'supporters' have been told to hush (as I alluded to before)

I understand the outrage - I understand the anger - I understand the wanting to line 'em up on a firing range (I really do) but we've got to make an attempt to understand the law before we say things like have been posted in this thread recently and we also better hope that karma doesn't ever bite us in the hiney & we end up trying to defend ourselves from a lynch-mob public

c'mon guys & gals - no one is required to PROVE or PROTEST their innocence in public in this country and their supporters, if they have any, should not be pressured to either

I always get a response like "oh come on, we all KNOW he's guilty" and although I might feel that way, I have to caution myself that we don't KNOW much of anything except that he's been charged

 

[antiquegirl]

can you point me in the direction of someone on here who says they believe he's innocent? I haven't seen anyone say that but I could've missed it

I don't necessarily think he's innocent but am trying to keep an open mind b/c again, that's the foundation of our justice system

honestly, how the heck are you going to get factual info of his innocence before a trial?

do you really think that potential witnesses for either side should be blabbing their potential evidence on the internet? wouldn't that compromise a fair & just trial?

I hope the prosecution doesn't plan on parading as witnesses some of the former flames who have been talking to the media - IMO, their credibility took a plunge when they chose to speak publicly about their sex lives

perhaps no one has gone to the media to protest his innocence because he has no one, except an apparently not-so-problem free mother and/or his 'supporters' have been told to hush (as I alluded to before)

I understand the outrage - I understand the anger - I understand the wanting to line 'em up on a firing range (I really do) but we've got to make an attempt to understand the law before we say things like have been posted in this thread recently and we also better hope that karma doesn't ever bite us in the hiney & we end up trying to defend ourselves from a lynch-mob public

c'mon guys & gals - no one is required to PROVE or PROTEST their innocence in public in this country and their supporters, if they have any, should not be pressured to either

I always get a response like "oh come on, we all KNOW he's guilty" and although I might feel that way, I have to caution myself that we don't KNOW much of anything except that he's been charged

THANK YOU for the voice of reason. ITA with everything you wrote. This is what I've been trying to convey for months now: While there has been no evidence to show MR's innocence, there has equally been no evidence to show his guilt. Neither LE nor the lawyers have given us any information to go on. Anything we may have heard otherwise is merely hearsay. All will come out at the trial.

BTW, WS was having a glitch and your post has shown up multiple times. You may want to delete the duplicates.

 

[roseofsharon]

can you point me in the direction of someone on here who says they believe he's innocent? I haven't seen anyone say that but I could've missed it

I don't necessarily think he's innocent but am trying to keep an open mind b/c again, that's the foundation of our justice system

honestly, how the heck are you going to get factual info of his innocence before a trial?

do you really think that potential witnesses for either side should be blabbing their potential evidence on the internet? wouldn't that compromise a fair & just trial?

I hope the prosecution doesn't plan on parading as witnesses some of the former flames who have been talking to the media - IMO, their credibility took a plunge when they chose to speak publicly about their sex lives

perhaps no one has gone to the media to protest his innocence because he has no one, except an apparently not-so-problem free mother and/or his 'supporters' have been told to hush (as I alluded to before)

I understand the outrage - I understand the anger - I understand the wanting to line 'em up on a firing range (I really do) but we've got to make an attempt to understand the law before we say things like have been posted in this thread recently and we also better hope that karma doesn't ever bite us in the hiney & we end up trying to defend ourselves from a lynch-mob public

c'mon guys & gals - no one is required to PROVE or PROTEST their innocence in public in this country and their supporters, if they have any, should not be pressured to either

I always get a response like "oh come on, we all KNOW he's guilty" and although I might feel that way, I have to caution myself that we don't KNOW much of anything except that he's been charged

A couple of comments FWIW ... I believe MTR stated, while crying, I didn't do anything, which I believe proclaims one's innocence.

Speaking purely from a personal perspective, if I was incarcerated for a crime I had nothing to do with, I would be shouting ... I am innocent to anyone who would listen!!

Another theory I have thought of might be that TLM borrowed MTR's car, took TS somewhere, murdered her, put her in the trunk, then picked MTR up, came up with some reason to go to Guelph and then disclosed to MTR at the HD about TS being dead in the trunk and he may have only helped her dispose of the body. He would still be accessory to murder I know.

JMO

 

[antiquegirl]

A couple of comments FWIW ... I believe MTR stated, while crying, I didn't do anything, which I believe proclaims one's innocence.

Speaking purely from a personal perspective, if I was incarcerated for a crime I had nothing to do with, I would be shouting ... I am innocent to anyone who would listen!!

Another theory I have thought of might be that TLM borrowed MTR's car, took TS somewhere, murdered her, put her in the trunk, then picked MTR up, came up with some reason to go to Guelph and then disclosed to MTR at the HD about TS being dead in the trunk and he may have only helped her dispose of the body. He would still be accessory to murder I know.

JMO

(BBM)

If it were me, I would trust my lawyer and follow his or her instructions to a T. Since I don't have a law degree, to do otherwise would be foolish, IMO. Besides, I personally don't believe that shouting one's innocence would do a bit of good. It would not convince anyone, nor would it get you a release or an acquittal.

MOO

 

[CuriousJorge]

IIRC, some of that info is in dispute, according to at least one school rep. I can't link it though - I read that long ago.

According to this report (3rd paragraph from the bottom) MR's educational background. I have read other reports also where he has apparently lied about his post high school education also. Have not found them yet.

MOO

http://www.thestar.com/news/ontario/article/638574

 

[CuriousJorge]

I spent some time today revisiting the Forensic Astrology forum. Very interesting to go through what these gifted women early in the investigation and prior to the arrests. What I found most interesting was MR's and TLM's charts.

For anyone interested in visiting the Forensic forum if you haven't before, or for quick reference to a post I found shocking, page 7, post #156.

For a chart done, in regards their court appearance on, I believe the day after their arrests, page 14, post 336 and click top link of Tuba's post.

For MR's chart, page 15, post #370 and TLM's chart post #373.

JMO! The stars do not lie.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

BBM

he's not required to prove his innocence - innocent until proven guilty means that the prosecutor is required to prove guilt, beyond a reasonable doubt!

it's the foundation of the justice system!

he, like most defendants, are told not to speak by their lawyers

his family has probably been told the same thing

again, from my personal experience & also from everything we read about trials and trial lawyers, I know this to be true most of the time

I realize that we see a lot of suspects families talking to the media but they are mostly from the States

we generally don't work that way here in Canada, unless whatshisname big-shot TO lawyer is involved ... but it costs big bucks to hire him

BBM: Exactly!! The basic principle of defence counsel is to disprove everything the Crown is proving, which leads to reasonable doubt, which would likely lead to an acquittal.

As for the big shot lawyer, do you mean Eddie Greenspan by chance?

 

[maxfactor]

I spent some time today revisiting the Forensic Astrology forum. Very interesting to go through what these gifted women early in the investigation and prior to the arrests. What I found most interesting was MR's and TLM's charts.

For anyone interested in visiting the Forensic forum if you haven't before, or for quick reference to a post I found shocking, page 7, post #156.

For a chart done, in regards their court appearance on, I believe the day after their arrests, page 14, post 336 and click top link of Tuba's post.

For MR's chart, page 15, post #370 and TLM's chart post #373.

JMO! The stars do not lie.

Thanks Jorge for posting those post #s!! I go back through the Forensic Astrology forum every now and then and it really gives me the chills. I followed it along at the time but now that I know more about MTR and TLM it really makes me sick. I do have great respect for the forensic astrologers, they were right on the money all the way along. I've been reading some other posts there tonight which kind of make me wonder. For example post #163 on page 7, then a few posts later is a link to the "first the Yukon" thing from MTR. hmmm...

 

[CuriousJorge]

can you point me in the direction of someone on here who says they believe he's innocent? I haven't seen anyone say that but I could've missed it

I don't necessarily think he's innocent but am trying to keep an open mind b/c again, that's the foundation of our justice system

honestly, how the heck are you going to get factual info of his innocence before a trial?

do you really think that potential witnesses for either side should be blabbing their potential evidence on the internet? wouldn't that compromise a fair & just trial?

I hope the prosecution doesn't plan on parading as witnesses some of the former flames who have been talking to the media - IMO, their credibility took a plunge when they chose to speak publicly about their sex lives

perhaps no one has gone to the media to protest his innocence because he has no one, except an apparently not-so-problem free mother and/or his 'supporters' have been told to hush (as I alluded to before)

I understand the outrage - I understand the anger - I understand the wanting to line 'em up on a firing range (I really do) but we've got to make an attempt to understand the law before we say things like have been posted in this thread recently and we also better hope that karma doesn't ever bite us in the hiney & we end up trying to defend ourselves from a lynch-mob public

c'mon guys & gals - no one is required to PROVE or PROTEST their innocence in public in this country and their supporters, if they have any, should not be pressured to either

I always get a response like "oh come on, we all KNOW he's guilty" and although I might feel that way, I have to caution myself that we don't KNOW much of anything except that he's been charged

Welcome LadyL! I don't know if you've followed this forum from the beginning, but there have been some sleuthers who have came right out and have have voice their belief that they feel MR is innocent. I will not point fingers but it is here in this forum. If you go back to threads (maybe 13-16ish) you will find them. I have been doing a lot of back reading lately and they are there. Some still remain posting as of fairly recent. Though as of recent they have not so deliberately came right out and protested his innocences, they pussy foot around, KWIM.

JMO-There are also some fence sitters who at one time or another believed he was guilty but have now decided to sit on the fence. I feel this is due to the fact that the some fence sitters have had contact with people who are acquitances with MR. These certain fence sitters don't blatantly come right out and say they believe he's innocent, but I can read between the lines. These people are the ones I like to refer to as "button pushers" or "pot stirrers". They just like to get things going.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs. You are correct in your statement about our justice system and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. We all can draw conclusions from what we have heard, seen and read. It is unfair to say that people cannot judge MR/TLM on what we know so far. Just because these accused have not had their day in court, does not render us incapable of drawing our own conclusions.

Yes we have to keep in mind that not all media reporters can be depended upon, they do make mistakes, or possibly exaggerate, but when information is presented directly from LE we know we are given factual information. LE has presented some pretty strong information for us to go on IMO. We also have the reports from media that help to draw theories also.

With the little bit of information we have so far, just like every other case here on WS, Haleigh, Caylee, Nevaeh to name a few, we go with what we have and what our common sense tells us.

These accused will definately have their days in court. When the veredict comes in and if MR is found not guilty, I will be the first to admit here that I was being very judgemental and narrow minded in my beliefs and harsh in my opinions. But until then I stand by what I know.

Too much of this is happening more and more everyday, to our innocent little children and it's time people started taking a harder look at reality and saying "this could have been my beautiful child". Instead so many people want to give the benefit of the doubt to the accused and say, "but he hasn't had his day in court". Tori did not end up deceased by natural causes, therefore someone took her innocent life, a life that she deserved to live fully. WHO is responsible for taking that away from her????? There are two people sitting in jail right now accused of murdering her, snuffing out her life by means of terror and torment. Imagine what Tori went through in her last hours, just try to imagine. Try to imagine what everyone of those who dearly loved this child are going through on a daily basis. That's all we can do is try to imagine. Unless you've been there, you have no idea. I for one have been devasted by a near loss of a beautiful niece (scarred for life) and this is why I have taken Tori's case personally. I have seen first hand, where justice let me and my loved ones down.

This is what some people base their opinions on. Not the fact that "they haven't had their day in court". When LE stands before the public and announce that they have circumstancial evidence that lead them to the arrests of two people responsible for Tori's death, I don't believe they've made errors. We are not talking about a bank robbery here, we are talking about murder. Yes LE have made mistakes before but with all that has come to light regarding these two, I put all my faith in our hard working LE. Does anyone have any idea how many LE worked on this case? Do you think all these people come to the rational thinking that they should arrest MR "just in case", or just because TLM "say so"? No not in my eyes. I feel I am using my common sense to draw my own conclusions and I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. Believe what you want to believe, because that's what we are all entitled to.

Please do not take this personal LadyL, as it is not intended that way. This is my thinking and I am sharing with anyone who would like to read it. I was in the beginning, answering your question in regards to who is claiming MR's innocence. I got on a rant and so be it. I'm now done. I will refrain from posting any further comments as I feel I (and a few others) have been down played enough and have more important things in life (my beautiful children and loving husband) to do then sit here voicing my sentiments and common sense.

May those responsible for Tori's death, suffer as she did.

BTW IF the verdict comes back on MR being not guilty, I will be back to apologize for my ignorance. May God Bless all of our little children and keep them safe from these monsters that lurk amongst us. May he also give parents the wisdom to protect them from this kind of harm. Unfortunately wisdom is not always enough.

Dear Victoria! You are in a safer place now. Rest in Peace little one!



cir··stance (sûr'kəm-stāns')
n. 1.A condition or fact attending an event and having some bearing on it; a determining or modifying factor.

2.A condition or fact that determines or must be considered in the determining of a course of action.

3.The sum of determining factors beyond willful control. Often used in the plural: a victim of circumstance; work that will begin on Monday if circumstances permit.

4.circumstances Financial status or means: "Prior came of a good family, much reduced in circumstances" (George Sherburn).
5.Detail accompanying or surrounding an event, as in a narrative or series of events.

6.Formal display; ceremony: the pomp and circumstance of a coronation.

7.A particular incident or occurrence: Your arrival was a fortunate circumstance. See Synonyms at occurrence.

ev⋅i⋅dence  /ˈɛvɪdəns/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [ev-i-duhns] Show IPA noun, verb, -denced, -denc⋅ing.
Use evidence in a Sentence
See web results for evidence
See images of evidence
–noun 1. that which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof.
2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign: His flushed look was visible evidence of his fever.
3. Law. data presented to a court or jury in proof of the facts in issue and which may include the testimony of witnesses, records, documents, or objects.

–verb (used with object) 4. to make evident or clear; show clearly; manifest: He evidenced his approval by promising his full support.
5. to support by evidence: He evidenced his accusation with incriminating letters.

—Idiom6. in evidence, plainly visible; conspicuous: The first signs of spring are in evidence.

 

[antiquegirl]

Some still remain posting as of fairly recent. Though as of recent they have not so deliberately came right out and protested his innocences, they pussy foot around, KWIM.

If by "pussy foot around" you mean they remain impartial, non-judgmental, and fair, you are correct. All I have seen (and that includes myself) are members who refuse to make a final, definitive judgment until all evidence is presented at trial.

JMO-There are also some fence sitters who at one time or another believed he was guilty but have now decided to sit on the fence. I feel this is due to the fact that the some fence sitters have had contact with people who are acquitances with MR. These certain fence sitters don't blatantly come right out and say they believe he's innocent, but I can read between the lines.

(BBM)

What you and others "read between the lines" (or infer) from posts is strictly subjective, no fault of the posters, and not necessarily accurate. If some decide to interpret others' words in ways not intended, it can't be helped. This can also be called "jumping to conclusions"

Conversely, I have seen many posts that do blatantly assert as fact that MR is guilty. Most of these have subsequently been deleted, but they have been saved and I could provide quotes, names, dates and times.

These people are the ones I like to refer to as "button pushers" or "pot stirrers". They just like to get things going.

I prefer to describe it as presenting all points of view for the purposes of debate and in the interest of fairness. As a wise poster once pointed out, we are not here to build a case for the Crown. WS is about discussing all aspects of the case, in every direction possible.

Everyone is entitled to their opinions and beliefs. You are correct in your statement about our justice system and everyone is innocent until proven guilty. We all can draw conclusions from what we have heard, seen and read. It is unfair to say that people cannot judge MR/TLM on what we know so far. Just because these accused have not had their day in court, does not render us incapable of drawing our own conclusions.

Exactly! Thanks for proving my point. Those conclusions can be like yours ("guilty until proven innocent"!), or one of innocence, or that of undecided. However, opinions are all they are. Aside from charges being laid, there are no actual facts from which to draw conclusive decisions.

Yes we have to keep in mind that not all media reporters can be depended upon, they do make mistakes, or possibly exaggerate, but when information is presented directly from LE we know we are given factual information. LE has presented some pretty strong information for us to go on IMO.

(BBM)

Like what? Please name one. The only evidence pointing towards anyone's guilt that I can think of is the video tape showing TLM leading Tori away from school. Even that has not been proven to be TLM. Without a close-up of her face, we can only surmise that it is she. As far as I can remember, nothing else provided by LE to the public is definite proof of anyone's guilt. The only other "fact" I can remember is LE stating early on that MR's car was spotted in the Guelph Home Depot parking lot with the suspects and Tori in it. Do they have video of this? We don't know because instead of publishing one, they gave us a blurry one of MR's car in the gas station instead. Is it an eye-witness account? LE has never said. BTW, eye-witness accounts are notoriously unreliable. This is just one report of many that can be found online to attest to this:

"According to one study, 50% of all wrongful convictions result from false identifications"

http://74.125.93.132/search?q=cache...nt&cd=19&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=ca&client=firefox-a

We also have the reports from media that help to draw theories also.

Yes, along with their many mistakes and unverified quotes. As you say, we draw theories - you have yours and others have theirs. Not all will agree.

With the little bit of information we have so far, just like every other case here on WS, Haleigh, Caylee, Nevaeh to name a few, we go with what we have and what our common sense tells us.

No argument there!

These accused will definately have their days in court. When the veredict comes in and if MR is found not guilty, I will be the first to admit here that I was being very judgemental and narrow minded in my beliefs and harsh in my opinions. But until then I stand by what I know.

(BBM)

I will be the first to admit that I "know" almost nothing about evidence that would cause me to form an opinion one way or the other about either MR's innocence or guilt. Thus, I remain impartial until I hear otherwise.

Now, TLM is in a different category. Since she provided LE with what turned out to be an accurate description of where Tori's remains were found, I think we can safely deduce that she has confessed to an involvement in this crime. We can therefore logically form an opinion of guilt without further evidence.

When LE stands before the public and announce that they have circumstancial evidence that lead them to the arrests of two people responsible for Tori's death, I don't believe they've made errors.

While I don't recall the word "circumstantial" being used by LE in this case, it in itself is not enough to obtain a guilty verdict. Guilt must be proven "beyond a reasonable doubt". We will all have to wait and see if the Crown can do this.

We are not talking about a bank robbery here, we are talking about murder. Yes LE have made mistakes before but with all that has come to light regarding these two, I put all my faith in our hard working LE. Does anyone have any idea how many LE worked on this case? Do you think all these people come to the rational thinking that they should arrest MR "just in case", or just because TLM "say so"? No not in my eyes. I feel I am using my common sense to draw my own conclusions and I'm not trying to change anyone's mind. Believe what you want to believe, because that's what we are all entitled to.

(BBM)

That is exactly what we are doing. No one has ever argued this.

Please do not take this personal LadyL, as it is not intended that way. This is my thinking and I am sharing with anyone who would like to read it. I was in the beginning, answering your question in regards to who is claiming MR's innocence.

I repeat: no one has claimed MR's innocence here except Wendell - once! Everyone else, including myself, have stated repeatedly that we are undecided. I have even gone so far as to suggest that MR may be a sociopath and have personally maintained that he probably has some involvement in this crime - although to what extent is uncertain. I've posted this in the past. The interpretation of "undecided" as "innocent" is not our fault.


MOO



(Respectfully snipped)

 

[nobodyzgirl]

"So far, only one side of the story has been told," said Giordano, a lawyer with Toronto's Derstine Penman firm. "We'll be going to trial on this matter.

"We're vigorously defending Mr. Rafferty."

Appearing by video from the Chatham Jail, Rafferty, 28, was quiet during his few moments in court, speaking only when asked to confirm his name. Assistant Crown attorney Michael Carnegie told the court that arrangements for preliminary hearing dates would be made in the near future.

"We're still engaged in the ongoing disclosure process with my friend's office," Carnegie said.

With another "pre-trial discussion" scheduled for Dec. 4, the case was adjourned until Dec. 18 to allow for continued disclosure of evidence.

"You can give me a call later on if you choose," Giordano said to Rafferty before he was led away.

http://www.oxfordreview.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2173170

hmmm, interesting the Crown has stated that preliminary hearing dates will be scheduled in the near future and another pre-trial discussion to take place December 4. Things are definitely moving forward in the MTR case. I'm guessing that this case makes it to trial before TLM's case.

 

[antiquegirl]

"So far, only one side of the story has been told," said Giordano, a lawyer with Toronto's Derstine Penman firm. "We'll be going to trial on this matter.

"We're vigorously defending Mr. Rafferty."

Appearing by video from the Chatham Jail, Rafferty, 28, was quiet during his few moments in court, speaking only when asked to confirm his name. Assistant Crown attorney Michael Carnegie told the court that arrangements for preliminary hearing dates would be made in the near future.

"We're still engaged in the ongoing disclosure process with my friend's office," Carnegie said.

With another "pre-trial discussion" scheduled for Dec. 4, the case was adjourned until Dec. 18 to allow for continued disclosure of evidence.

"You can give me a call later on if you choose," Giordano said to Rafferty before he was led away.

http://www.oxfordreview.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=2173170

hmmm, interesting the Crown has stated that preliminary hearing dates will be scheduled in the near future and another pre-trial discussion to take place December 4. Things are definitely moving forward in the MTR case. I'm guessing that this case makes it to trial before TLM's case.

BBM - So, this would definitely indicate that MTR will plead not guilty.

BBM - If TLM pleads guilty (which I think is very likely), there won't be a trial for her and her arraignment could still precede MTR's trial, no? Wouldn't her case move more quickly if there is no defense to be prepared?

 

[Summersolstice]

It is not uncommon for police to use investigative strategies, such as manipulating information.

Let's take the example of the police saying that MR's car was spotted in the Guelph Home Depot parking lot. They let people assume that the still photo taken from the video was the Guelph Home Depot parking lot. However, people from Guelph said that it sure didn't look like the Home Depot parking lot. It wasn't. It was an Esso station in Woodstock.

Initially, the photo did not show a time stamp. Later photos showed a time stamp, and we learned from the gas station owner that the time on the camera was incorrect. This may have hindered the police investigation if they did not verify the time on the camera for themselves. Little details like this are important. Some businesses don't bother switching video cameras to DST.

This detail of the time made many believe the photo was, indeed, taken in Guelph. There was time to travel to Guelph after picking Tori up in this scenario -- barely.

They let people jump to incorrect conclusions, intentionally I would say. Why? We don't know. Maybe they didn't actually know that MR/TLM went there, but hoped someone would come forward to give a statement saying that they saw them.

They obviously knew all along that this photo was taken in Woodstock. They took the video for evidence.

 

[nonfictionrocks]

BBM - So, this would definitely indicate that MTR will plead not guilty.

BBM - If TLM pleads guilty (which I think is very likely), there won't be a trial for her and her arraignment could still precede MTR's trial, no? Wouldn't her case move more quickly if there is no defense to be prepared?

AG, this is an excellent point, TLM's case could come to a conclusion quicker though I believe that there is plenty going on behind the scenes as far as LE is concerned so there could very well be some bombshells still to drop. JMO