trial thread: 04/03/2012

[snoofer]

Yes, she did. What an interesting little detail to include. :waitasec: Why didn't they toss those caps in with the empty bottles and other evidence they removed from the scene? Sounds suspiciously like they were planted in there on purpose.

And if they did find MTR's fingerprints on them? It only proves that he was at the scene, which has already been suggested by the defence. Whether the water was drunk, or used to clean up, can never be determined. Either way, it proves nothing more than what has already been established. So far, at least.

JMO

my guess is they cleaned up the scene and tied up the bags that they were taking with them to dispose of....and the caps were found afterwards and tossed in with the bag with Tori to stay at the scene...likely for no other reason other than the other bags were already cinched and away and was easier to toss in with Tori....<modsnip> IMO

 

[maxfactor]

There is certainly that possibility, but why? And she held onto them during the brutal "stomping" and hammer attack by TLM, and then after she had passed away? Muscles relax before rigor mortis sets in. I'm just not seeing it. But you're right, it's still early.

JMO



http://www.deathreference.com/Py-Se/Rigor-Mortis-and-Other-Postmortem-Changes.html

.

Rigor mortis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I wasn't suggesting that the caps were found in Tori's hands merely that she could have been holding them, perhaps for comfort, kids will pick up and hold onto things. I'm just suggesting another possibility than TLM snapped back out of her rage quick enough to think of putting them in the bag with Tori to implicate MR.:moo:

 

[Juris_Prudence]

Cleaning up a crime scene IS committing a crime, and second, would you do that if you played no part in that crime? Don't think he would be sitting in a box right now on trial for murder and rape and detained for the last 3 years if he would have told the truth about the crime he apparently didn't commit.

:truce:
I did not say that he did not commit a crime. I said that the bottle caps, even if they had his prints on them wouldn't prove he did commit a crime. With prints on them, the bottle caps would prove that he touched a bottle cap, at some point, but would not prove when (whether it was during the commission of a crime).

 

[Ardy]

The Crown charged MR with sexual assault, and now their own witness testifies there is no evidence of a sexual assault taking place?

That can't be good for the Crown.

 

[Juris_Prudence]

The Crown charged MR with sexual assault, and now their own witness testifies there is no evidence of a sexual assault taking place?

That can't be good for the Crown.

The Crown must have known going into trial that there was no physical evidence of sexual assault on Tori's remains. This makes me wonder whether there is other evidence that we have yet to hear that might prove a sexual assault did happen.

 

[Salem]

The Crown charged MR with sexual assault, and now their own witness testifies there is no evidence of a sexual assault taking place?

That can't be good for the Crown.

That's not what I understood the testimony to be. I thought the Dr. said there was no biological evidence and that it was not reasonable to expect biological evidence with the state of decomp, but that Tori was missing some of her clothing and circumstantially it could be inferred that a sexual assault had occurred.

That's just the way I understood it.

Salem

 

[Sillybilly]

The Crown charged MR with sexual assault, and now their own witness testifies there is no evidence of a sexual assault taking place?

That can't be good for the Crown.

Dr. Pollanen testified that "it is not reasonable to expect to find any".

[ame="http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showpost.php?p=7752248&postcount=145"]Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - trial thread: 04/03/2012[/ame]


Presumably not reasonable to find any due to the degree of decomposition.

JMO

 

[swedie]

Maybe the defences way of saying" we know this is gonna be a hard day today"...IMO like the idea might have come from the lawyers possibly. Likely a lot of people are going to feel very angry today more so than the others and if they look over and see the purple maybe it might deflect the anger???

Where does the money come from for his clothes? Most young people unemployed don't own so many suits IMO

MTR was on welfare at the time of the murders...do we know if MTR was as well??JMO

MR's suits, shirts and ties are courtesy of taxpayers. More than likely purchased by his defense. Scary thought about shopping at Good Will, Salvation Army or Value Village. You may end up buying clothing or shoes worn by murderers. :what::moo:

 

[AbbeyR]

Kamille posted this in a previous thread, and I think it's worth repeating:

I don't know why it's expected that there has to be forensic DNA to prove the sexual assaults when there is direct witness evidence and a lot of circumstantial evidence to prove it. There is direct evidence presented already that the motive for this crime was sexual. There is no evidence, direct or otherwise to suggest any other motive.

I guess this is what they call the "CSI effect". Victoria's body was left out in the elements for almost 31/2 months. The chances of any DNA evidence of anything other than what may have been in her system such as drugs is slim to none IMO.

But the circumstantial evidence of an assault is there, with more to come. So is the direct witness evidence....(snipped for space) Put all the evidence puzzle pieces together and determine logically what makes the most sense. That's what the jury will be required to do. Because somehow, Victoria Elizabeth Stafford ended up deceased, without clothing from the waist down, under that rock pile. We did have sexual assault and murder trials long before the science of DNA was invented. And people were convicted based on other forms of evidence.

To suggest that only DNA evidence can prove a crime is a dangerous slope that our criminal justice system may be slipping down IMO....

 

[Ardy]

The Crown must have known going into trial that there was no physical evidence of sexual assault. This makes me wonder whether there is other evidence that we have yet to hear that might prove a sexual assault did happen.

If they have no other evidence, it is going to make me wonder why they didn't drop that specific charge............because an unproven charge will allow the defense to hammer away at the Crown's whole case, in closing arguments.

I remember when Johnny Cochrane went down the list of Crown allegations or evidence that ended up questionable.

He used the now famous......."if it doesn't fit............you must acquit" line and went down the list and check marked each one.

The jury acquitted OJ because of all those unproven facts.

 

[KMouse]

I'm assuming that he is saying there weren't any visual signs of sexual assault, possibly signs when the biological samples were processed???

I agree. The pathologist would only be stating what he observed. Therefore it is not unreasonable that tears and trauma to those parts of the body would not be visible due to the state of decomposition, especially in those areas. I wish this was explained.
The media is all over the "no signs of sexual interference". Grrrrrr

 

[Hello_Kitty]

Linda Nguyen&#8207;@LindaNguyenPN

Court told Pollanen could not find evidence of "sexual interference" on the remains but this "could not be reasonably expected to be found"

Just as I suspected. Yep...they'll be resolving this case the old fashioned way IMO. Unless we have 12 people who need DNA evidence to convict...the "CSI effect". In which case we really have a problem with our court system.

MOO

BBM Yes, because her remains were too badly decomposed. That statement in my opinion means it doesn't mean it didn't happen.

Agreed Kamille

 

[giantalkinghead]

CBC News Alerts &#8207; @CBCAlerts

Stafford trial told no evidence of sexual interference . Jury hears girl's body was too decomposed. #Rafferty

Sounds more inconclusive at this point anyhow.... Let's hope that IF he's responsible ... there will be DNA evidence. I thought that the Crown at the beginning of the trial addressed the jury and said sonething like the DNA will speak to you... let's hope so !


MOO

 

[Juris_Prudence]

MR's suits, shirts and ties are courtesy of taxpayers. More than likely purchased by his defense. Scary thought about shopping at Good Will, Salvation Army or Value Village. You may end up buying clothing or shoes worn by murderers. :what::moo:

I don't recall seeing any media links to support that MR was collecting welfare, or that he is in receipt of legal aid. Do you happen to have a link for this? I would be interested in seeing it. TIA. :seeya:I do see that what you posted was yoo (your opinion only) but if there *is* some evidence to support the idea that MR was on welfare, and/or in receipt of legal aid, I'd still be interested to see it.

 

[Sillybilly]

That's not what I understood the testimony to be. I thought the Dr. said there was no biological evidence and that it was not reasonable to expect biological evidence with the state of decomp, but that Tori was missing some of her clothing and circumstantially it could be inferred that a sexual assault had occurred.

That's just the way I understood it.

Salem

ITA Salem.

Dr. Pollanen is qualified to give an expert opinion, so his inference that an assault occurred is important.

Reminds me of the ME in Caylee's case stating that they would not expect to find duct tape on a child's remains. In Tori's case, had she not been sexually assaulted, they would not expect to find her naked from the waist down. The information has to be considered in light of all other circumstances set out.

 

[KMouse]

Kamille posted this in a previous thread, and I think it's worth repeating:

It is the "CSI effect" and I am sure Derstine will be playing that card.
When we get to the forensics I hope that the crown and the witnesses do a good job of dispelling the CSI malarky.

 

[Sailor Bug]

Jury is now returning.

RaffertyLFP: Court back in session after lunch break, Dr. Michael Pollanen continuing testimony about autopsy on remains of Tori Stafford

 

[~n/t~]

RaffertyLFP:
Court back in session after lunch break, Dr. Michael Pollanen continuing testimony about autopsy on remains of Tori Stafford. [via Twitter]

 

[giantalkinghead]

I agree. The pathologist would only be stating what he observed. Therefore it is not unreasonable that tears and trauma to those parts of the body would not be visible due to the state of decomposition, especially in those areas. I wish this was explained.
The media is all over the "no signs of sexual interference". Grrrrrr

The problem is " reasonable doubt "... without DNA or some sort or forensic evidence all the Crown has is TLM. If I were on the jury - I don't "think" that I could convict on TLM alone.... MOO sorry

Still hoping for DNA !

 

[matou]

@AM980_Court

• Jury is now returning.