Trial Thread 10 May 2012 - Judge's Instructions and maybe deliberations!

[otto]

It looks like MR may be in that grey area between the double time and the true sentence. It's my understanding that if he was arrested prior to the change of law, he's grandfathered into the previous law ... so if he spent 3 years in prison prior to sentencing, that counts as 6 years of his sentence. Then, 25 years before being allowed to apply for parole translates into 19 years.

 

[LilyMacBloom]

have to go to Costco..grrr..keep up the good work ladies & gents..

out of curiosity...toothbrushes, p.j. s ...do they have to sleep in the jury room chairs?? or do they get marched down the street to a hotel under guard or something? or do they bring in cots?

 

[Flossie JMO]

have to go to Costco..grrr..keep up the good work ladies & gents..

out of curiosity...toothbrushes, p.j. s ...do they have to sleep in the jury room chairs?? or do they get marched down the street to a hotel under guard or something? or do they bring in cots?

Hotel

 

[Flossie JMO]

Thanks for the tweets, reading them together is helpful imo:

RaffertyLFP: Heeney says you are guilty if you committed the offense or "aided and abetted" the offense

Heeney tells the jury that for a guilty verdict don't need to take the same path on decision tree. Just need the same conclusion on a charge

RaffertyLFP: Heeney said just "being there" a spectator is not being an aider or abettor


Heeney going over aiding and abetting, and the law. Says a principal and an abettor are equally guilty of murder.



Avery Moore ‏ @AveryFreeFMNews
Judge tells jurors they have 2 be sure #Rafferty killed Tori Stafford or was at the scene w/ intent to help McClintic kill her, to be guilty

RaffertyLFP: Heeney is now going thru the individual charges starting with the kidnap charges

Heeney says Rafferty is part of the crime if he knowingly helped McClintic kidnap a child.

If the accused helped the kidnapping, but was unaware, and eventually knew the person had been taken, he is guilty of kidnapping.

RaffertyLFP: Heeney said it is possible to be guilty of kidnapping through "willful blindness" of suspicious circumstances

RaffertyLFP: Heeney said the key point is whether Tori was confined, not to free to move about, or concealed in the car

 

[Oldsoul2]

Mike Knoll: Just a reminder that Randy Richmond will be hosting this live feed tomorrow from the courthouse while the jury deliberates. He has been our lead reporter on this story since Tori vanished. He will answer all your questions about the trial and the things the jury didn't hear.
Randy's chat will start at 10am.


Yay!

The question is will we make until tomorrow morning because if the judge finishes today, they will start deliberating until 9pm tonight and I'm not so sure it will take that long.

 

[giantalkinghead]

The crown and the defence can appeal the decision based on legal arguments. The defence will have to have grounds to appeal, as will the crown, but the defence choice to present one witness does not constitute grounds for appeal.

... of course - the choice to present only one witness would not be grounds. It's not what I meant and that's not what worries me. What worries me is that if he is found guilty of First Degree Murder - he has the right to apply for an appeal. Perhaps the defence presented less witnesses in order to keep it less muddy so to speak in the case of some sort of a retrial or appeal. Keeping in mind that a hung jury = retrial. Maybe they are more confident in the lack of evidence than we think they are. It looks more and more like the only reliable witness/evidence they have is TLM... that's pretty scary IMO.

I sure didn't expect that DNA stuff about the gym bag coming up first thing this morning and I don't like it !!

Let's hope I'm just a WorryWort !!

 

[otto]

You are misunderstanding my point. I did NOT say it is waste of time educating jurors about their responsibilities. I said it IS a waste of time to recap witnesses.

My understanding is that he is presenting law to the jurors and providing direct examples from the testimony, explaining how to interpret the testimony of each of the witnesses. I think that's very important. I don't see his examples as a recap, but as instructions regarding how various types of testimony must be interpretted according to Canadian law. For all we know, the jurors have been watching Nancy Grace and they have a distorted understanding of Canadian law.

 

[CarrieBean]

But how often is anybody ever denied after serving their 25 years?

Hopefully at least once...about 25 years from now.

 

[Kamille]

But how often is anybody ever denied after serving their 25 years?

Serial killers and child murderers are usually denied. Clifford Olsen was. No doubt Paul Bernardo will be. Not sure how TLM and hopefully MR will fair in their parole hearings.

MOO

 

[otto]

But how often is anybody ever denied after serving their 25 years?

Certainly often enough. It all depends on their conduct over the 25 years.

Example: http://www2.canada.com/victoriatime....html?id=e917827a-ac34-4faa-974e-baa74b328475

 

[Sailor Bug]

Going over the connection between Rafferty and McClintic. How they met, what they did before April 8th.

RaffertyLFP: Heeney is continuing to summarize the testimony of various witnesses. He is now going thru McClintic's testimony

Now, Heeney pointing to McClintic's April 8th timeline.

 

[Oldsoul2]

But how often is anybody ever denied after serving their 25 years?

Often, depending on the crime, they can drag it forever if they choose to. How many criminals are in prison still in Canada that got the max 25 years? There is no longer sentence than that and yet they are there 30-40 years

 

[greenthumb]

Thanks for the tweets, reading them together is helpful imo:

RaffertyLFP: Heeney says you are guilty if you committed the offense or "aided and abetted" the offense

Heeney tells the jury that for a guilty verdict don't need to take the same path on decision tree. Just need the same conclusion on a charge

RaffertyLFP: Heeney said just "being there" a spectator is not being an aider or abettor
Heeney going over aiding and abetting, and the law. Says a principal and an abettor are equally guilty of murder.



Avery Moore ‏ @AveryFreeFMNews
Judge tells jurors they have 2 be sure #Rafferty killed Tori Stafford or was at the scene w/ intent to help McClintic kill her, to be guilty

RaffertyLFP: Heeney is now going thru the individual charges starting with the kidnap charges

Heeney says Rafferty is part of the crime if he knowingly helped McClintic kidnap a child.

If the accused helped the kidnapping, but was unaware, and eventually knew the person had been taken, he is guilty of kidnapping.
RaffertyLFP: Heeney said it is possible to be guilty of kidnapping through "willful blindness" of suspicious circumstances

RaffertyLFP: Heeney said the key point is whether Tori was confined, not to free to move about, or concealed in the car

BBM

I'm confused... so he could be found not guilty of the murder charge if the jury believes he was just there as a spectator?

But may be found guilty of kidnapping if they believe that Tori was confined or concealed in the car?

But if he knew she was kidnapped, would it matter if he was just a spectator? wouldn't he still be guilty on the murder charge?

 

[matou]

@AM980_Court Going over the connection between Rafferty and McClintic. How they met, what they did before April 8th.


‏ @RaffertyLFP
Heeney is continuing to summarize the testimony of various witnesses. He is now going thru McClintic's testimony

 

[Kamille]

... of course - the choice to present only one witness would not be grounds. It's not what I meant and that's not what worries me. What worries me is that if he is found guilty of First Degree Murder - he has the right to apply for an appeal. Perhaps the defence presented less witnesses in order to keep it less muddy so to speak in the case of some sort of a retrial or appeal. Keeping in mind that a hung jury = retrial. Maybe they are more confident in the lack of evidence than we think they are. It looks more and more like the only reliable witness/evidence they have is TLM... that's pretty scary IMO.

I sure didn't expect that DNA stuff about the gym bag coming up first thing this morning and I don't like it !!

Let's hope I'm just a WorryWort !!

You can't just appeal because you didn't like the outcome. There has to be legal errors made in the original trial before the Supreme Court will even consider it. I don't think there has been any legal errors made and I don't think the Supreme Court will think so either. But everyone tries. What do they have to lose?

MOO

 

[~n/t~]

My understanding is that he is presenting law to the jurors and providing direct examples from the testimony, explaining how to interpret the testimony of each of the witnesses. I think that's very important. I don't see his examples as a recap, but as instructions regarding how various types of testimony must be interpretted according to Canadian law. For all we know, the jurors have been watching Nancy Grace and they have a distorted understanding of Canadian law.

I'll repost the tweet and then I'm off this topic because we're obviously not interpreting the tweets the same way. The key words "recapping" and "stream of ex girlfriends".


Linda Nguyen ‏ @LindaNguyenPN
Court is on another 15 min break. Judge has just finished recapping stream of ex-girlfriends who came to testify against #Rafferty in trial

 

[Sailor Bug]

McClintic said Rafferty wanted a younger girl. Going over her meeting with Tori.

RaffertyLFP: Heeney is reading McClintic's testimony on how Tori was abducted

Mike Knoll: Here's a tweet from 2 minutes ago that didn't make it through:

Heeney said he is going to skip some of the Blackberry technical evidence since the jury has it all

 

[matou]

Jurors in Michael Rafferty trial told by judge to disregard defence proposition

The jury that will soon be deliberating in the case of the man accused of killing eight-year-old Victoria Stafford is being told to disregard a defence proposition.

Read more: http://www.timescolonist.com/news/J...+proposition/6599387/story.html#ixzz1uU7sOTbl
​

 

[Flossie JMO]

But how often is anybody ever denied after serving their 25 years?

I don't have stats but there was one just recently who killed a mountie: http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/story/2012/04/26/calgary-kay-bowen-kowalsczyk.html


another awhile back who disgustingly raped tortured choked and bludgeoned to death with a brick a 16 year old school girl he abudcted from a bus stop in Mississauga: http://www.murderpedia.org/male.D/d/dobson-david-james.htm

and of course Clifford Olson, may he never rest in peace:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/899001--serial-killer-clifford-olson-denied-parole

 

[~n/t~]

@AM980_Court Going over the connection between Rafferty and McClintic. How they met, what they did before April 8th.


‏ @RaffertyLFP
Heeney is continuing to summarize the testimony of various witnesses. He is now going thru McClintic's testimony

Another example. Why is it necessary for the judge to recap how Rafferty and McCLintic met? That's all in testimony.

Is he giving his closing arguments or what? This is weird.