The wait for closing arguments discussion thread

[brighidin]

I see we are beating the old mildly vindictive dead horse again.

 

[otto]

(RSBM)

With all due respect, I disagree. All witness testimony is considered evidence and both sides have to have full disclosure of what evidence will be presented at trial.

http://www.mondaq.com/x/148584/Violent+Sexual+crime/Defence+Disclosure+In+The+Magistrates+Court

The Crown was aware that this witness would be called by the defence and what her testimony would be. He was prepared and tried to dispute her testimony by quoting her original statement to LE back in 2009.

JMO

That's not true. In Canada, the prosecution has full disclosure of all witnesses, including gramma, to the defence. The defence is only required to disclose a list of expert witnesses to the prosecution.

Your link is for UK law.

 

[SFB73]

Doing precursory runs of being questioned is not unusual at all. Both to make the witness comfortable and for the attorney to get a feel for how their witness is going to react to questioning. If your defense is well enough funded it is not unusual for them to have full mock trials, try different approaches until they get a jury to go their way.

There was one in Florida with a DJ that was accused of cruelty to animals. Short version is they had done a stunt on the air where a wild hog was killed by a licensed hunter and barbqued. On the air they played all sorts of sound effects that made it sound worse than it was and they ended up being charged even though the hog was wild and was killed by a licensed hunter in the manner outlined in the hunting and wildlife rules. Their defense did a full mock trial, three times. First two times they tried different approaches that kept the defendant off the stand, mock jury convicted them both times, third time they put the defendants on the stand to explain themselves, someone cross examined them as the prosecutor was likely to do. Mock jury acquitted them. That is the approach they took at the real trial. Defendant on the stand knew exactly what their attorney would ask, and they had the benefit of mock runs with a stand in prosecutor so that didn't rattle them. Acquitted in real life. Expensive approach but effective!

I am sure TLM did some dry runs so they could see how she was going to hold up on the stand. Did defense try a mock run with MR on the stand? Never know, that seems like a futile effort to me, but they might have thrown it against the wall to see if Mr. Charming could make an appearance.

Bubba had a few more dollars to throw around prepping for his trial than MR... I really think the only reason MR didn't plead guilty or confess to the crime was because he knew pleading not guilty would buy him some time before going to prison, if he truly was innocent many things should have been done differently by him from the time TS got into his car until his arrest, he didn't act like an innocent person would have acted having known what happened (as he was there) on April 8 2008.

If I we're an innocent man on trial for my life and that was the best defense my council could muster, I'd be very very dissapointed... I guess it's like the old saying, you get what you pay for.... OJ walked away a free man because of a high priced team of lawyers who put doubt into every piece of evidence presented by the state. I don't see much doubt cast by the defense on any of the Crowns case, infact admitting to helping "clean up" after putting an 8 year old child in his car pretty much sealed his fate, unless the defense can explain everything in closing, its likely safe to turn out the lights, MR's dance party is finally over.

 

[matou]

All this drug debt talk reminds me of the early forum discussions blaiming Victoria's mother for her disappearance. Who supposedly had this drug debt, who was it owed to and how does Victoria's disappearance fit into this scenario?

This drug dept talk is the story the DEFENDANT was spinning to his friends at the time. His LIES to deflect attention away from himself. JMO

 

[Ardy]

I certainly haven't followed every step of the trial, but it seems to me that the defence attempted to discredit each witness, or introduce the evidence they wanted the jury to hear, through cross examination. The only witness the defence needed to complete their theory, which I assume will be presented as reasonable doubt during closing arguments, was the one eyewitness.

I suspect that what Derstine will say is that there are two ways to interpret all of the evidence: the prosecution's way and his way ... then it's for the jury to sort it out.

I believe you are right.

The closing arguments aren't evidence, but both sides will use the evidence to reflect their side of the story.

An example.......

The Crown will assert they have ample scientific evidence that shows MR sexually assaulted VS and they will present the results.

Derstine will take the same scientific evidence and show that the experts had to testify there was no conclusive evidence MR sexually assaulted VS.

Both sides can go down the list.....and fortify their side

What I am curious about is if the Crown will try to explain TLM's writings, and statement to her godmother......or will they leave it alone.

JMO.......

 

[otto]

I have followed the trial every step of the way in fact the crime from the start and I never saw Dirk try to discredit any of the crown's witness's called EXCEPT the one who confessed to the murder and described how she beat and stomped and kicked and then used her hammer to destroy and kill and an innocent child...the reason he attempted to discredit her was because she told so many lies..JMO it's funny though, the many that still have doubts and maybe are still on the fence did not and have not said too much about the crown's witness's other than a big "wow" sometimes.... I have never heard a word about discrediting anything that they had to say ...only comments I have heard were not about what they had to say but how would that have any bearing on this crime..ie: character being a cad...(gotta love that word cause I haven't heard that word only from an old movie)..humour of the judge...gotta love him...JMO JMO the defence calls one witness (that the crown could have used but discarded)and the poor thing is torn apart...strange eh!!! JMO

If the defence did not elicit information from witnesses, then he must have remained silent. If he asked questions during cross examination, it was to elicit information that suported his theory.

 

[maxfactor]

Bubba had a few more dollars to throw around prepping for his trial than MR... I really think the only reason MR didn't plead guilty or confess to the crime was because he knew pleading not guilty would buy him some time before going to prison, if he truly was innocent many things should have been done differently by him from the time TS got into his car until his arrest, he didn't act like an innocent person would have acted having known what happened (as he was there) on April 8 2008.

I agree that MR was probably trying to stay out of the Federal Pen for as long as possible. He got switched from London to Chatham jail because other inmates were yelling at him. If that scared him he must be shaking in his boots about going to the big house.JMO.

 

[Macright]

That is a very, very serious allegation if you are implying that LE did not inform the defence about this woman because that would imply that they did not give the defence all of the evidence they collected.

Just because the Crown didn't mention this woman it doesn't mean that they were withholding that information. They might not have thought it was relavent. They also might never have thought the defence would call her because :moo: her testimony doesn't seem very reliable, for example why didn't she tell police during her first interview with them.

Also:





Which is it, yes or no?

Since we have no evidence to back up what the grandmother said, in some ways TLM's testimony is more reliable than grandma. I'm not saying that she is lying, I'm just saying that the witness herself agreed that her memory is affected by the passage of time.

did not say the crown did not disclose this info to the defence...said that the crown did not use it because it didn't fit their story line. JMO JMO so that is why the defence used her.....I have used JMO JMO..I don't think it is required to use those after every sentence especially since mine always run together..... but maybe on this board I might need to reconsider using JMO after each statement...JMO JMO

 

[otto]

This drug dept talk is the story the DEFENDANT was spinning to his friends at the time. His LIES to deflect attention away from himself. JMO

It's sad to see that this theory is still being tossed around now that there is a clear understanding of who was involved in the murder.

 

[otto]

did not say the crown did not disclose this info to the defence...said that the crown did not use it because it didn't fit their story line. JMO JMO so that is why the defence used her.....I have used JMO JMO..I don't think it is required to use those after every sentence especially since mine always run together..... but maybe on this board I might need to reconsider using JMO after each statement...JMO JMO

It's quite likely that the crown did not have gramma as a witness because her story changed ... making her not credible.

 

[snoofer]

I agree that MR was probably trying to stay out of the Federal Pen for as long as possible. He got switched from London to Chatham jail because other inmates were yelling at him. If that scared him he must be shaking in his boots about going to the big house.JMO.

yep and might have thought the media storm would die down by trial....ooops! MOO

 

[Ardy]

All this drug debt talk reminds me of the early forum discussions blaiming Victoria's mother for her disappearance. Who supposedly had this drug debt, who was it owed to and how does Victoria's disappearance fit into this scenario?

Although drug use was initially denied during the early days of the investigation, and drug connections were denied.......court testimony confirmed the rumors were true.

TM testified that she did not have a drug debt.........but her boyfriend ripped somebody off for $400 worth of pills.

The Crown didn't ask who JG ripped off............and TM didn't say.

TM and JG were buying drugs from CM, and people assumed the drug debt was to her...........unless they were also buying from someone else as well.

There is a lot more background information of bizarre happenings at that time, but people can't discuss them on this website because of the TOS.

JMO..........

 

[antiquegirl]

Your reference may be of use for a case being tried in the U.K., but, would seem irrelevant here in Canada.

JMO

It is my understanding that the laws in the U.K. for criminal trials are pretty much the same as they are in Canada. If you have information to show otherwise, specific to disclosure, I'd really appreciate a link to it. TIA

The Crown was fully prepared with copies of this witness's statements to LE from 2009 and at the ready for cross examination. Hard to understand how this was accomplished had he not had the information prior to her appearance.

MOO

 

[brighidin]

Although drug use was initially denied during the early days of the investigation, and drug connections were denied.......court testimony confirmed the rumors were true.

TM testified that she did not have a drug debt.........but her boyfriend ripped somebody off for $400 worth of pills.

The Crown didn't ask who JG ripped off............and TM didn't say.

TM and JG were buying drugs from CM, and people assumed the drug debt was to her...........unless they were also buying from someone else as well.

There is a lot more background information of bizarre happenings at that time, but people can't discuss them on this website because of the TOS.

JMO..........

BBM
Because of the publication ban, or because WS sees the family as victims?

 

[Flossie JMO]

All this drug debt talk reminds me of the early forum discussions blaiming Victoria's mother for her disappearance. Who supposedly had this drug debt, who was it owed to and how does Victoria's disappearance fit into this scenario?

JMO I do not blame TM, she has my utmost sympathy. The supposed drug debt TM testified to is what makes me curious.

 

[Hello_Kitty]

I simply cannot believe how many posters question the defence's witness' testimony! She has no bias ... she is just a lady who saw something a bit unusual & made a mental note of it. To question her because in one interview she said the pants were dark, and in another said they were black (?) or blue (?). Or to question her credibility because of some minute details from the interviews ... wow!

Yet some posters quote TLM's testimony like it is the gospel ... I don't get it!

You can't believe that and I can't believe there are still posters that are still seeing MTR as an innocent dupe even after everything we've heard and the evidence!

To address your post tho, I personally do not discredit her testimony, I just think she is a bit confused as to what she saw and apparantly I am not the only one, the crown also questioned her memory.

 

[otto]

Although drug use was initially denied during the early days of the investigation, and drug connections were denied.......court testimony confirmed the rumors were true.

TM testified that she did not have a drug debt.........but her boyfriend ripped somebody off for $400 worth of pills.

The Crown didn't ask who JG ripped off............and TM didn't say.

TM and JG were buying drugs from CM, and people assumed the drug debt was to her...........unless they were also buying from someone else as well.

There is a lot more background information of bizarre happenings at that time, but people can't discuss them on this website because of the TOS.

JMO..........

Even if Victoria's mother dated someone that had a drug debt, that still doesn't make a connection to MR and TLM murdering Victoria.

 

[Flossie JMO]

Funny, most Moms I know would 'subject' themselves to a pack of pissed-off pitbulls if it was for their child's sake. JMO ONLY.

JMO, not those I know,and I adore Pits

 

[Flossie JMO]

Even if Victoria's mother dated someone that had a drug debt, that still doesn't make a connection to MR and TLM murdering Victoria.

JMO I am not sure about that, and from the testimony we heard it was TLM that murdered Victoria

 

[Dmman]

That's not true. In Canada, the prosecution has full disclosure of all witnesses, including gramma, to the defence. The defence is only required to disclose a list of expert witnesses to the prosecution.

Your link is for UK law.

Just so I have this straight:

A) The crown has to grant full disclosure to defense pre-trial. Witnesses, expert findings??

B) The defense did NOT have to disclose their witness to the crown until day of testimony? Because she was not classified as an expert?

Very interesting. However I'm still quite shocked today they used the Grandmom witness who's accounts were slightly different in police reports.

An off topic question...can someone tell me what "LE" stands for???