The wait for closing arguments discussion thread

[gardenia]

JMO I can see that, and JMO could have been owed to her, or her Mom, in spite of the violence towards her Mom, TLM has stated, link not handy, she loves her Mom, JMO I wondered at the time if that had deeper meaning JMO ONLY

I am sure there is some kind of connection with that too ... TLM wrote about seeking revenge on her enemies & the family of those enemies.

And then someone here just posted that TM said, in an interview with C. Mulligan (2009), that the person who took VS was being "mildly vindictive". Interesting to me how TM tempered the word 'vindictive' with 'mildly' (perhaps in the event that TLM was watching & would hopefully return VS)?

Oh yeah, all of the above is JMO!

 

[Flossie JMO]

So many JMOs.

No, I get they were connected; it was stated that they bought Oxy from CM on several occasions, their phone number at TLM's house, discussed breeding their dogs and ultimately decided against it, etc.

My question was regarding drug debt, as I'm trying to piece together in my mind what the jurors will be able to consider as evidence. I think the consensus on the board was there was no evidence of it presented during the trial, during cross of TM, TLM or any defence witnesses.

Yes I try to be very cautious with JMOs, hence my nickname. I'm not sure if you are asking me a question or not. I posted my opinion, but unfortunately I don't have facts. Wish I did. I do suspect we will hear more soon. JMO ONLY

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Wasn't this the first the Crown had heard of this claim about a woman in a white coat entering the school? Didn't the woman say that she didn't tell LE about it because they didn't ask?

It sure seemed like news to RS.

MOO

If LE did know, they might not have told Rodney.

Here are some of yesterdays tweets from AM 980:

-Carnegie notes she spoke to police twice. First was on April 11th.

-She remembered some circumstances after seeing the video. In May, she spoke to police again.

-She agrees that memories are clearer closer to events than three years later.

-Carnegie says she was asked if she was certain if the woman in white was the same both sightings. Then she just said the jacket stuck out.

-Now she says the whole person was the same. Carnegie notes she was trying to be as helpful as possible.

-Now she says she's sure the woman was the same. Notes now police "didn't ask" about the woman at the school in 2009.

The only two interviews with LE occurred in 2009, one in April and then another in May. But then she said that police didn't ask about the woman at the school in 2009. So that implies that implies there were interviews other than the ones that occurred in April and May of 2009.

Anyway there are all the tweets by AM 980 from yesterday at the beginning of this thread. There's more there but IMO it just confuses things even more.

 

[nettie_82]

I would be curious to know from those of you who believe TLM orchestrated this whole thing, how did they end up outside of Mount Forest where MTR had ties to? I found this post in reading over posts from 2009, it is from an article no longer available. Previously posted by Turbododger

Tori Stafford: Mennonite country shocked
Today, the close-knit Mennonite community here was rocked by the news the remains of a child were found on a narrow gravel laneway they frequently use to negotiate between rural concession roads.

“We don’t understand the commotion,” said Ervin, who didn’t want his last name used.

It was even more bizarre to the community because TVs, phones and radios are forbidden among the conservative religious community, so many hadn’t heard of Tori’s disappearance which had so consumed most of Southwestern Ontario since she was abducted April 8.

I was out picking rocks in that area just a couple days ago.”

What he can't figure out is how someone who didn't know the area would know to stop by there. He called the area like a “needle in a haystack.”

http://lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Loc.../10201391.html

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?t=87690"]It's TORI - Remains Found in Mt. Forest, ON, July 19, 2009 - Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community[/ame]

 

[crazyladi]

A few questions I have, that I think will be answered one day:

"Ms. McDonald told Ms. Mulligan in an interview aired last evening that she has revised her belief that a stranger took her daughter, and now
agrees with friends who "feel somebody who we know has taken Tori and they have no idea, they were just being mildly vindictive, and it
went so far out of control so fast they have no idea what to do now.""http://www.oacas.org/news/09/april/29tori.pdf


bbm, what does that mean? and iirc TM identified TLM as being the woman who took Tori.

There was another comment iirc, and I don't have link handy, that Tori would think it was an adventure or sleep over and would be home soon or something like that. Does anyone have link? Also in TM's testimony she was asked about her reluctance to call police and stated her Mom had in fact reported Tori missing.

There is a comment above with link about TM telling Tori's brother about what happened to Tori and some quote about like people will say things to make themselves feel better?? what does that mean? can someone link please? JMO the issues lie very deep, and there is a lot of anger and blame tossed about JMO ONLY

It's funny I have always felt there was something more but I have a felling it wasn't Tlm she was referring to. Tm and JG probably had a lot of enemies including the ones JG supposedly ripped off.

When you do drugs you don't know who to trust and I really feel she thought it was someone else jmo

 

[Macright]

I didn't question her statement too much at first - didn't see much significance, but didn't question it - it just seemed strange.

It was when I read the article about how she didn't actually make a statement about her going into the school until the 26th of May, 48 days later, that my jaw hit the floor.

TLM's statement has been supported by video, DNA and cell phone evidence. And of course there's the small matter that LE might still be searching for a body if it weren't for her statement. I find her statement, for the most part and in the areas that count, is backed by a lot of physical evidence.

I wonder if at first when she thought that TLM was in fact TS's mother and that is why she didn't want to say too much.. afraid of repercussions in a small town (and the type of people that were involved)...she did mention that she thought it was TS & her mother and said so on the stand...there was so much rumour out there at the time that the perp was indeed TM and that went on for a long time, in fact one of TM's friends was also fingered by the public and the press had their say also..AND of course we all know that the police thought TM was somehow involved...it wasn't until TLM broke that the heat was taken off of TM and it was about that time that the witness was questioned again and she then told them about what she has seen that day... I believe her fully because I really don't think she wanted to be dragged into all of this and she wasn't a friend of the defence but she was a witness whether willingly or unwillingly and she was under oath...the questioning of her by the crown and the type of questions to her about perception and eyesight etc. was very small on their part...I think if JC himself was a witness for the defence he himself would be torn apart by some..JMO JMO

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Wow good catch.

No, because the guy at the tire place was not named Brandon. MTR said that it was maybe Brian or Brad Brad or Brian. MTR said um a lot so maybe that is Brandon's nickname or maybe his last name.😊

But the name Brandon doesn't appear anywhere in the transcript of LE's first interview with MTR.

 

[Sillybilly]

I think you forgot to add she is a grandmother who picks up her grandchildren everyday and she is 60 years old!!!! just saying... not a druggie or someone lusting for blood.... sad isn't it....JMO

With all due respect, I don't care if it was Mother Theresa or the Pope or the Dalai Lama testifying ... her recall is what bothers me. It wasn't a "minute" detail, it was a very significant detail that she didn't bother to mention until something like 6 weeks after her first interview ... because in the first interview "they didn't ask". This is in no way besmerching a grandmother, it is questioning the accuracy of her input on a very, very important issue.

JMO

 

[Wondergirl]

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!

BBM: Yeah, like the fact that SHE killed Tori minus everything else she said about Rafferty!

 

[antiquegirl]

Just because the Crown didn't bring up LE investigating other women in white coats doesn't mean that they didn't do so. It's my understanding that the defence is not required to let the Crown know what their witnesses will say unless that witness is an expert.

I think it is possible that the Crown had no idea that the defence was going to put that grandmother up on the stand. If that's the case then how could they have been prepared to present evidence that showed that LE did talk to other women in white coat.

There are other explanations for why the Crown did not bring it up. Just because the Crown didn't point that out does not mean we should assume there weren't other people wearing coats like that.

(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.

When should the defence notify the existence of defence witnesses?

13. Section 6C now obliges defendants to give the names and contact details of any witnesses "he intends to call" at trial and this must be done within the time limit set down for service of a defence statement if it is not done in the defence statement itself, which typically it will be. This is mandatory and not discretionary and so section 6C must be complied with in summary proceedings whether the defence intend to serve a defence statement or not. If the defendant calls witnesses at trial who have not been named in a notice then the prosecution are entitled to make appropriate comment upon that failure: section 6E(2).

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.

AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court
Carnegie reading from her police statement.

AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court
Carnegie notes she spoke to police twice. First was on April 11th.

JMO

 

[otto]

Perhaps I'm confused, but wouldn't MR have to gone on the stand and actually stated that for the Jury to consider it?

It seems that Derstine's questions of the Crown's witnesses (i.e. of TLM.. if she was babysitting) are being considered as evidence but my understanding is that he would have had to brought in witnesses and/or evidence to those theories? Have I been mistaken? And if I am incorrect, then there is alot more wrong with our courst system then I originally thought. I sure don't want the Jury back there discussing theories of which came thru from the attorney rather then thru evidence/witnesses. I'd like if anyone could let me know if this is possible? thx's

mystic

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.

 

[Dmman]

FYI, I found this article last night. It shed a bit of light on where the thoughts of MTR's family might have been in 2009:

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/2009/05/27/11936266-sun.html

About 2/3 of the way down it reads:

Another Rafferty lawyer, Brennan Smart, slammed the Oxford police chief for describing the case as "strong" in a Sun Media interview. "I think it's not for a police chief to decide," he said. "It for a trier of fact at a later date to determine the strength of this case."

Smart said he has "resolved to say very little until we get some disclosure of fact," and the Rafferty family is similarly reluctant to speak out.

One relative suggested to The Free Press the family has serious reservations about Rafferty's charges.

"We just want the truth to come out," Jon Cundy said. "If anyone has any sort of (strange) feeling (about the case), there's a lot of people having that feeling."

Well I guess there were jaw dropping moments to follow for MR family. If I were informed my son, brother, uncle was driving a vehicle that transported an 8 year old girl to her death...I'd be far away from him & that courthouse too!
You can't help but to feel for that family as well. It has to be soul destroying to find out a person you love committed such a heinous, vicious, brutal, disgusting, vile act upon a child.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

no I think the crown heard this before yesterday...it was just that they chose not to bother with it because it didn't fit with their story that TLM kidnapped TS off the street.....it was the first time that RS heard it but that means nothing because the LE probably, since they were not going to use her, did not inform RS...I doubt if RS was informed of much pertaining to the trial...they would not divulge that info even to RS...IMO this being written that the witness ONLY mentioned this yesterday is the cause of a lot of mean things being said about her credibility....JMO she just didn't throw this out yesterday....

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:

-She (she being the witness) agrees that memories are clearer closer to events than three years later.

-Carnegie asks if the dark pants in the video are effecting her memory. She says no. Carnegie asks if she's sure. She says yes.

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.

 

[otto]

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?

 

[Ardy]

yes but it is very possible they do not think he is innocent IMO in which case they would NOT want to support him. MOO But yes I get what you mean; there are other ways to support IF you thought he was innocent besides sitting in the courtroom. Also, MTR might have told his family he didn't want them there. We don't know. But at first glance it looks telling for sure. MOO

Perhaps if they were in the courtroom, they wouldn't be able to talk to him during all the breaks in testimony etc............but can talk to him when he is with his lawyer via cellphone?

He is presumed innocent.........so I don't see why he couldn't talk to them.

JMO

 

[Wondergirl]

(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

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

JMO

 

[Macright]

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 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

 

[Maple1]

That is quite possible. Here is what I think. MR harboured a secret fantasy to be with a little girl. The subject is so taboo that he never acts on it. Enter TLM. She is a junkie, has a lengthy criminal record and is prone to violence. Not the typical POF conquest. They immediately become intimate, he realizes that she has low moral character and that she is completely infatuated with him. With this knowledge he feels comfortable sharing his fantasy. The rest is history.

I see no reason on earth, drug debt, gang initiations or revenge that would involve an 8 year old child. There is only one reason, other than custodial issues, that anyone would abduct a young girl.

TLM may have known who VS was but that has no bearing on why she took her. JMO

IMO, I think in the few dates the subject of fantasy came up. His to rape a young girl and TLM's to commit murder. Derstine's repeated use of TLM liking the Necro lyrics, her personal diaries/writing AND confession to her godmother of little regret in the murder show how this duo came up with a not so perfect crime.

They could of almost gotten away with it, except for all the survellience video.
It is the video of TLM with Tori leaving the school yard that detective Smith used skillfully to get her to confess. He found the remaining elements of humanity she had left. IMHO, as much as TLM has lied in her life and over the course of the last 3 years, she is also the reason the crown may win this trial.
Without her help, would they of ever found Tori's remains? She pointed the finger at MR but LE corroborated her confession point by point during much of this trial. IMHO, I for one believe her when she stated during cross that she was not the only guilty one here.
MR's initial interview with police on May 15th, 2009 was almost complete lies/evasion other than maybe his mother's name. And since his arrest on May 19th, 2009 I think he has remained silent (which is of course his right).

 

[brighidin]

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!

No one accepts TLM's testimony like it is gospel. Much of what she says has been corroborated by other evidence.

As for the defense's witness, if you go back and read the tweets, the crown was able to show that her story was possibly influenced by other factors, nevermind that it was completely uncorroborated. No one thinks she is "biased." She made it clear she wasn't happy to be testifying in his defense and I haven't read a post that didn't express empathy towards her. Eyewitness testimony is extremely problematic; it isn't personal.

imo

 

[Dmman]

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?

There's nothing I'm even interested in hearing about this after the trial. It has nothing to do with TLM...MR & Tori Stafford & April 8, 2009. IMO

Even IF someone had a debt...it would be so uncommon for a child abduction to take place. Taking someone's car, burning someone's house, breaking bones maybe...but not taking a child & making no order of ransom. Doesn't make one bit of logical sense to me. I would've like to be here when this was being discussed a couple of years ago. I would like to hear someone tell me a theory in this case.