Trial Thread 4/11/2012

[fats]

Also, the piece of his back seat upholstery with foam attached was found and was cut out using a knife like the one he used. Why cut up his missing seat?JMO

That didn't work so he tossed it?:what:

 

[swedie]

Also, the piece of his back seat upholstery with foam attached was found and was cut out using a knife like the one he used. Why cut up his missing seat?JMO

IIRC a tweet said there was evidence of blood on that car seat material but not sufficient enough to test. :moo:

 

[Hello_Kitty]

no doubt in my mind that Tori was taken for nefarious reasons and MTR is your typical stranger child murderer.JMO

http://thealphabetkiller.com/portrait-of-a-child-abduction-murder/

Very good article, thank you Snoofer.

Wouldn't it be neat if someone would testify as to what kind of profile MR was.

 

[Juris_Prudence]

He washed his shorts. JMO

I missed most of the discussion today so I'm catching up now, pls forgive me if someone pointed this out.

Even if he had washed his shorts, if a visible blood stain had been washed away, would forensics still have been able to determine if there was ever a blood stain there?

Thanks in advance for anyone who may have an answer for me on this one. Thanks to all the people posting tweets today too!

 

[Ardy]

What I don't understand is that if there was DNA evidence remaining in the car, from sexual encounters between MR and TLM from some time before the day of the abduction, why isn't there any DNA evidence from the alleged sexual assault remaining?

 

[matou]

I missed most of the discussion today so I'm catching up now, pls forgive me if someone pointed this out.

Even if he had washed his shorts, if a visible blood stain had been washed away, would forensics still have been able to determine if there was ever a blood stain there?

Thanks in advance for anyone who may have an answer for me on this one. Thanks to all the people posting tweets today too!

I would think so since TLM's shoes did not show any blood on them after they were washed,(I think?) JMO

 

[Kamille]

I missed most of the discussion today so I'm catching up now, pls forgive me if someone pointed this out.

Even if he had washed his shorts, if a visible blood stain had been washed away, would forensics still have been able to determine if there was ever a blood stain there?

Thanks in advance for anyone who may have an answer for me on this one. Thanks to all the people posting tweets today too!

The shorts wouldn't be expected to have had any blood stains as they were given to TLM to put on after they had cleaned up at the car wash/variety store. So it wouldn't matter if he washed them, there would be no blood to wash away.

MOO

 

[Kamille]

What I don't understand is that if there was DNA evidence remaining in the car, from sexual encounters between MR and TLM from some time before the day of the abduction, why isn't there any DNA evidence from the alleged sexual assault remaining?

The evidence of MR and TLMès sexual encounter was found on the front passenger seat. The alleged sexual assault of Victoria took place on the back seat, according to TLM. And for some reason, that seat was removed and is still missing. :waitasec:

MOO

 

[roseofsharon]

Since MTR has had so many girlfriends, lived in Drayton, which was near Mount Forest, imo, rather than the expense of motels, the same road where TS's little body was found, was no doubt where MTR brought many of his dates for his sexual escapades. I never did believe MTR found that road by accident, but this is just IMO.

 

[Juris_Prudence]

Well I'm no forensic expert but if someone had touched the door moudling I think the pattern of the bloodstain would have been more smudged whilst in this case it was a drop, so either it was splatter from the hammer or it was when Tori went to piddle.

When Tori went pee, I thought I read TLM took her in front of the car though? I'm so lost trying to catch up here.... sorry if this has been sorted out already! If it has, no doubt, I'll find out shortly.

 

[Juris_Prudence]

Interesting tweet

Linda Nguyen ‏ @LindaNguyenPN
Scientists also found traces of semen and blood likely belonging to McClintic in some areas of the car #ToriStafford #Rafferty

I'm confused (but what else is new?) How could TLM have semen? Or is this just grammatically incorrect?

Maybe it SHOULD have read: "Scientists also found traces of semen, and blood likely belonging to TLM in some areas of the car"?

 

[Hello_Kitty]

When Tori went pee, I thought I read TLM took her in front of the car though? I'm so lost trying to catch up here.... sorry if this has been sorted out already! If it has, no doubt, I'll find out shortly.

Tori was bleeding after the first assault. TLM testified that Tori bled on the snow, so it's not inconceivable that when TLM took Tori to piddle that some blood would have dropped on the surfaces while she was getting out of the car. That is just my opinion of course.

 

[Hello_Kitty]

AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court
There's a mixture of DNA in the blood spot. Tori's was the "major" female contribution. There was also a minor contribution.

AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court
One nanogram (billionth of a smartie) of DNA is the maximum cutoff. A quarter of that is the minimum.


AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court
Blood spot was also tested for sperm cells The amount of cells tested was below the routine level, so results are subject to higher scrutiny

 

[snoofer]

Very good article, thank you Snoofer.

Wouldn't it be neat if someone would testify as to what kind of profile MR was.

yes I would like to hear where the specialists say he fits into a profile.:moo:

 

[Hello_Kitty]

I'm confused (but what else is new?) How could TLM have semen? Or is this just grammatically incorrect?

Maybe it SHOULD have read: "Scientists also found traces of semen, and blood likely belonging to TLM in some areas of the car"?

I think it's grammatically very incorrect. Women don't have "semen" they have vaginal fluids, but not semen.

 

[Juris_Prudence]

I'm worried that MR may have wanted to kidnap Lane or her kid. JMO

Lane had a kid? Is the media already reporting this woman's life story? I haven't seen it yet (not doubting you Matou, just catching up).

 

[Kamille]

What I got from the evidence today is pretty simple. IMO

1)Tori's blood was determined to be found in that car ( TLM testified she was killed outside of the car, no reason for any blood to be in that car in the first place in three locations)

2) MR has had lots of sex in his car so having his sperm in there is very possible but as I understood it, the door handle had Toris blood and MRs sperm, was he left handed or right handed should he have touched himself and than opened the door, what's the chances of the two mixing in this tiny little sample if he didn't rape her?

3) The evidence has proven that Tori died from multiple blows to the head and showed broken ribs and a lacerated spleen. (TLM testified she was kicked and struck with a hammer outside the car) Why would I or a jury believe this all transpired in the car or that it is remotely possible that all this happened and than they put Tori back in the car which is why there are blood stains everywhere?

IMO Sorry folks, I would still conclude MR raped her if I was on this jury based on this evidence

I didn't get quite the same conclusions as you did Oldsoul2.

I understood that there was one blood spot on the door moulding that tested positive for Victoria's DNA. That spot was also tested for sperm and there was a second individuals DNA indicated but it was too miniscule to get an actual DNA profile. So on a sperm test on that drop of blood, it was positive but they couldn't get an actual profile. I believe they could only get 1 marker? And that same blood spot was repeated in a smaller amount on the frame of the vehicle which would have been transfer from the original blood spot when the door was closed.

I also understood that there were 3 other blood stains on the front passenger seat. One on the seat itself and two on the back of the seat. The one on the front of the seat tested positive for MR and TLM's DNA. The two on the back of the seat were a mixture but Victoria was ruled out. So she was ruled out of all three blood stains on the front passenger seat.

So basically all I got out of all that is there was one blood spot on the door moulding of the car, transferred to the frame when the door was closed. And in that blood spot was Victoria's DNA and the possiblility of sperm or some other DNA (still not clear on that) but not in a high enough density to test for a positive DNA match to anyone.

So there is very little forensic DNA of a sexual assault on Victoria in the car. Not surprising if the sexual assault took place in the manner in which TLM described it. Victoria's blood and DNA would only likely have been found on MR and on the lower seat portion of his back seat if it happened in the way in which she described with Victoria in MR's lap. And since he was not wearing clothing from the waist down either and supposedly threw his shirt away along with TLM's coat and the bench portion of the seat, where exactly would they be able to find that evidence now?

Amazing how that worked out isn't it? Just another example of the forensics matching up to what TLM said. And there was no blood splatter at all from Victoria in the car so the attack with the hammer must have happened outside the vehicle. Another co-incidence?

TLM's story has not produced one hole yet that I'm aware of.

MOO

 

[brighidin]

Thanks to everyone who posted the tweets today. I can read at work, but not login.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2012/04/11/rafferty-stafford-dna-evidence.html

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...rom-tori-stafford-court-hears/article2398421/

Here are some summaries about today's proceedings. Sorry I don't read the National Post or the Sun.

 

[nobodyzgirl]

IMO nope. That fact that the preliminary hearing was done away with, would not give the defense any indication of what the Crown was going to ask the witness. The defense would only be privy to a witness list. And Salem found in the one tweet, this friend of MR's who testified today said the inside was clean. I took that to mean that only the dash was whitewashed, not the rest of the interior. She also claimed the back seat was still in the car in late March 2009. :moo: HTH.]

A prelim is used to see if there is enough Evidence to proceed to trial and has absolutely nothing to do with disclosure. Disclosure would have been provided well before the prelim was expected to take place. The defence would do their own research on the list of witnesses the Crown provided and would have a very good indication of why the Crown was calling that witness and have a good handle on the types of questions that would be asked.

 

[Hello_Kitty]

I didn't get quite the same conclusions as you did Oldsoul2.

I understood that there was one blood spot on the door moulding that tested positive for Victoria's DNA. That spot was also tested for sperm and there was a second individuals DNA indicated but it was too miniscule to get an actual DNA profile. So on a sperm test on that drop of blood, it was positive but they couldn't get an actual profile. I believe they could only get 1 marker? And that same blood spot was repeated in a smaller amount on the frame of the vehicle which would have been transfer from the original blood spot when the door was closed.
MOO

Snipped for space and BBM

Thank you Kamille because that is exactly the way I understood the semen in the bloodspot to mean.