trial thread: 3/22/2012

[Flowercb]

To me it seems pretty obvious (as I have said before) he is trying to paint her a liar, which she is, he will try to make the jury believe that she made up the story of MTR sexually assaulting Tori. In fact he may try to make the jury believe MTR wasn't there at all and unless crown has good evidence that he was ... well ...

How far is a defence attorney willing to go...If he knows his client is guilty or has a strong feeling--this is disgusting. MOO:moo:

I wonder if his family stands behind him.

 

[matou]

The motive is sexual IMO, not a vindictive action at all by TLM. MOO

 

[~n/t~]

In fairness, I do have to admit that reading tweets versus being in court is not the same at all and body language, tone of voice, may play some role for this jury. It's not the same.

 

[dilbert]

That kidnapping Tori was her idea and MR just went along for the ride?

We don't know for sure yet, but hopefully we'll find out what the truth is through the questioning (sometimes lengthy) of witnesses. That is, as long as the judge doesn't rush everyone along like the judge did in Casey Anthony's trial.

 

[dilbert]

The motive is sexually IMO, not a vindictive action at all by TLM. MOO

That's possible too, maybe TLM kidnapped Tori so she could rape her.

MOO

 

[ChaChaCha]

IMO, she is the most relevant witness the Crown likely has, as she is the one that pointed the finger at MTR. She was there, who better to give an account of the timeline of events and what actually happened than an actual eyewitness, and the one who admitted to kidnapping Tori and murdering her. If the judge thought the cross examination was irrelevant, he would have asked where the defence is going with this line of questioning, though it seems clear to me where he is going with it, again JMO.

Actually, there is a long form that is completed by both the prosecution and the defence teams prior to the trial starting ... it sets out all sorts of information required for scheduling purposes, what screens or monitors are required, where the accused is going to sit (the judge needs to give his approval before the accused can sit at the lawyer's table). It lists each and every exhibit, all the witnesses and the approximate amount of time each lawyer expects to spend with them. It also spells out each side's case and arguments - so the judge knows well ahead of time what the focus of each side will be. These guys don't just pop up and down in their seats whenever they have a random thought - it is carefully orchestrated ... so everyone knew going in that TLM would testify for at least five days. Whew! Makes me feel like I am at work, and I am off this week!!! Durn!!! Let me know if you would like the link to the form on the Govt of Canada website lol!

 

[Hello_Kitty]

Again, it doesn't matter who initiated it or who gave the blows to Tori's little head. If he was there, he's guilty. Period.

How is the jury supposed to find him guilty if there are no questions, no trial, we don't know he's guilty, that's why there is due process?

 

[matou]

LOL....I'm not so sure. Maybe he dosed off a few times...like me! Does the jury really care if TLM was listening to music on her IPOD. Really?

I don't think there has been a successful case to demonstrate the effects of music and crime. I know it's been attempted several times but she could have been listening to Tom Jones on her ipod so who cares? JMO

 

[~n/t~]

Does MR have an alibi?

 

[matou]

That's possible too, maybe TLM kidnapped Tori so she could rape her.

MOO

And if she did and Rafferty was there, then he's still guilty. Life, no parole. JMO

 

[~n/t~]

I don't think there has been a successful case to demonstrate the effects of music and crime. I know it's been attempted several times but she could have been listening to Tom Jones on her ipod so who cares? JMO

Exactly. That's what I've been trying to get at. Who cares if she was listening to music on her IPOD or what she was listening to. She admitted to all kinds of horrific details. She admitted guilt. She said she murdered Tori. How much more do we need to know? Does it really matter if she targeted Tori because there were alleged rumours in Woodstock about Tara and James having a drug debt? :waitasec:

 

[Hello_Kitty]

We don't know for sure yet, but hopefully we'll find out what the truth is through the questioning (sometimes lengthy) of witnesses. That is, as long as the judge doesn't rush everyone along like the judge did in Casey Anthony's trial.

He's also likely trying to trip her up in more lies by asking her the same questions over and over. Again, demonstrating to the jury that she's a liar.

 

[matou]

Does MR have an alibi?

Yes, he was with Terri-Lynne McClintic. JMO

 

[~n/t~]

How is the jury supposed to find him guilty if there are no questions, no trial, we don't know he's guilty, that's why there is due process?

All I'm saying is a lot of the cross questions are irrelevant to this trial. If the defense would question TLM about MR's whereabouts and make her admit that she wasn't sure what time he picked her up or where he was when Tori was kidnapped etc etc....I see that as relevant. Not what music she was listening to or her gangsta wannabe letters behind bars or her Shitzu breeding. It has nothing to do with this trial.

Where was MR? Did he pick her up? Was Tori in his car? Did he drive them to Mt. Forest? Was he there when the crime occurred?

Or was he eating pizza in Vancouver?

 

[dilbert]

The relevance of whether she was listening to music is that she told one story to the police, that she was listening to music, then on the stand said she was talking to Tori.
The parent that was a witness testified and said TLM and Tori were NOT talking.

Why would TLM say on the stand that she was talking to Tori when she really wasn't? Is she lying about that too? Someone said this before, but if the defence can prove she's still lying on the stand about certain things, then it's possible that she's lying about other things too, like the motive for the kidnapping for example. (more reasonable doubt)

MOO

 

[roseofsharon]

Actually, there is a long form that is completed by both the prosecution and the defence teams prior to the trial starting ... it sets out all sorts of information required for scheduling purposes, what screens or monitors are required, where the accused is going to sit (the judge needs to give his approval before the accused can sit at the lawyer's table). It lists each and every exhibit, all the witnesses and the approximate amount of time each lawyer expects to spend with them. It also spells out each side's case and arguments - so the judge knows well ahead of time what the focus of each side will be. These guys don't just pop up and down in their seats whenever they have a random thought - it is carefully orchestrated ... so everyone knew going in that TLM would testify for at least five days. Whew! Makes me feel like I am at work, and I am off this week!!! Durn!!! Let me know if you would like the link to the form on the Govt of Canada website lol!

:tyou: -- I'm learning a lot!!!!

 

[matou]

Did the lawyer play a song in court today? If he did, then how is that relevant except to shock the jury with the lyrical content? JMO

 

[~n/t~]

The relevance of whether she was listening to music is that she told one story to the police, that she was listening to music, then on the stand said she was talking to Tori.
The parent that was a witness testified and said TLM and Tori were NOT talking.

Why would TLM say on the stand that she was talking to Tori when she really wasn't? Is she lying about that too? Someone said this before, but if the defence can prove she's still lying on the stand about certain things, then it's possible that she's lying about other things too, like the motive for the kidnapping for example. (more reasonable doubt)

MOO

I must not be getting the reasonable doubt thing. Why does it matter if she was talking to Tori or not. I've never ever heard that being brought up in any of the trials I've followed over the years. I've never heard a defense attorney ask a witness if they were talking to their victim or listening to music? Motive doesn't need to be proven as far as I know and besides, she admitted to guilt.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

To me, since we didn't hear opening statements from the defence it is difficult to say exactly where they are going with TLM. I think there have been some great ideas about that though.

I can't see what is going on in the court room, but based on the time they are spending without the jurors I think the judge is being careful and conscientious about what he is allowing in court.

I think that the defence could be trying to show that TLM had significant ties to Tori. That they seem to be really emphasizing this makes me wonder if there is a lot of evidence to show that MTR knew nothing about Tori or her family. I don't think that matters and I don't think it mattered to TLM who she took. IMO TLM was just looking for a child who was by themselves sadly that child was Tori. But I can still see how the defence could use this to support the argument that TLM was the driving force behind everything if TLM was the one who was the leader from the very start of the actual crime, the moment they abducted Tori.

With that established I think the defence could then suggest that TLM was the one who initiated discussions about kidnapping not just based on her very active fantasy life of horrific crimes but by talking specifically abut a child she knew, or a mother and her boyfriend who she wanted to get back at that had a child. YKWIM? This would be to throw a wrench into the testimony that it was MTR that began talking about breaking into single mothers homes, that it was MTR that was the driving force behind trolling schools.

And then maybe they could suggest that since TLM was the driving force, the one running the show in the vengful planning and execution of the abduction, the defence could argue that everything that is coming out of her mouth has absolutely nothing to with the truth. That she is saying what she is because she is wants revenge, this time against MTR, and she is running the show again victimizing poor MTR.

I don't buy that line of thought, mainly because TLM specifically targeting Tori and/or Tara is at the center of such a theory. Its all just my two cents about where the defence could be going.

 

[~n/t~]

Did the lawyer play a song in court today? If he did, then how is that relevant except to shock the jury with the lyrical content? JMO

Hey maybe the shock factor will work. They'll be so disgusted with TLM and the fact that MR was even involved with her they'll throw 12 strikes against him.