Trial Thread, Weekend Discussion May 4-5, 2012 Waiting for Closing Arguments

[Macright]

I must be since we usually do military rd in buffalo and Erie Pennsylvania, grove city etc. buffalo has better deals IMO I will never do Erie again since it was deer hunting season and I was white knuckling it all the way back to our hotel lol.... Best was swerving around deer Carcus back end and swerving around the head 10 seconds later in the dead of night lololol

we take that #81 route to Hilton Head each fall and the highway is littered with deer...they are very small down that way about the size of german sheppards but still if you hit one you are in trouble...I never eat for days after because of the slaughter on the highways...

 

[JayFriend]

MR probably told the police he was innocent.

They didn't let him go.

He pleaded not guilty.

They didn't let him go.

If he takes the witness stand and says he is innocent.

Are they going to let him go?

The point being.............he is charged with 3 serious crimes.

Dirk Derstine is a very capable lawyer. He has trial experience. He knows the strong and weak points of the Crown case and he knows the strong and weak points of his case for the defense.

MR could ignore Derstine's advice, and make his own legal decision.

This old adage would come to mind..........

An accused who legally represents himself has a fool for a client.

When lawyers are in trouble.........they hire other lawyers to represent them.

JMO.................

It is extremely rare that an innocent person is framed by LE for something he didn't do and convicted, but it's happened. A truly innocent person should have no worries testifying in his own defence, especially if there are prosecution witnesses lying on the stand. How else can he defend himself? Surely not through his lawyer's suggestions of what might have happened. Are we to believe there is some conspiracy to convict MTR when he's actually innocent? In my opinion, if he's really not guilty, he should have had no qualms in testifying. However, my understanding from all we've heard so far is that he's very guilty of a lot of things, including participating in the killing. All this would have come out if he'd testified, but it appears his lawyer is gambling on "reasonable doubt" to perhaps have one or two of the charges dismissed and get a lighter sentence. At least that's my opinion. But his lawyer is a good lawyer and he's in the courtroom and we're not, so who are we to second guess him. We're just spinning our wheels here right now. Maybe when we hear the summations by the Defence and Crown we'll be in a better position to guess at what the jury will decide.

 

[roseofsharon]

Hope you are feeling better soon Jezbel ;-)

 

[antiquegirl]

I think everyone agreed that since it wasn't mentioned from the crown because it wasn't of importance

I agree. Had the description of the single shoe suggested even remotely that it could have belonged to MTR, the Crown would have asked the witness to describe it. That shoe was glossed over as irrelevant.

However, I'm very confused about the whole shoes situation. From TLM's testimony:

James Armstrong@jamesarmstrong7Reply
McClintic says #rafferty told her to get rid of shoes. Had extra pair for her and for him.

“He said, ‘We need to get rid of our shoes, so I believe I tossed my pair of shoes out the car window. He gave me a pair of shoes to wear and he put on a different pair of shoes as well then we drove off.”

http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/a...er-trial-woman-says-she-found-discarded-shoes

So, why did LE try to so hard to prove that the men's shoes found in TLM's house belonged to MTR? They appeared to be the same shoes he wore to the bank machine on April 8th, although they couldn't prove it with certainty.

AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court
Now comparing white Puma shoes found in McClintic's home to ones worn by Rafferty in Gallery Cinemas video.

Avery Moore‏@AveryFreeFMNews
Crown is moving on to asking Lanna about a pair of white PUMA soes. A pair of similar PUMAs were found in McClintic's closet

AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court
Also compared Rafferty's shoes to the PetroCanada camera in Guelph.

London Free Press‏@RaffertyLFP
Only one similarity found in PetroCan video due to angle of camera

See Image #118

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/26/19684426.html#next

If MTR wore those shoes on April 8th and discarded them (which would make sense if there was any DNA on them, and as TLM testified), why would they be in TLM's house? IF they were the same shoes as at PetroCan, why would he take them off, give them to TLM to wear, and put on another pair himself? None of this makes any sense to me.

The only explanation I can think of is that MTR had two very similar pairs of PUMA shoes. One pair that he wore on April 8 and tossed out the window (which were never found) and another pair in the car on the same day that he gave TLM to wear and that ended up at her house. It's very strange.

IMO

 

[Alison]

It is too bad we can not watch or at least see clips from the trial. I believe that it would clear up some of the confusion.Even though I am not sure if I could have watched TLM's testimony. JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

I agree. Had the description of the single shoe suggested even remotely that it could have belonged to MTR, the Crown would have asked the witness to describe it. That shoe was glossed over as irrelevant.

However, I'm very confused about the whole shoes situation. From TLM's testimony:





http://www.thestar.com/news/crime/a...er-trial-woman-says-she-found-discarded-shoes

So, why did LE try to so hard to prove that the men's shoes found in TLM's house belonged to MTR? They appeared to be the same shoes he wore to the bank machine on April 8th, although they couldn't prove it with certainty.








See Image #118

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/26/19684426.html#next

If MTR wore those shoes on April 8th and discarded them (which would make sense if there was any DNA on them, and as TLM testified), why would they be in TLM's house? IF they were the same shoes as at PetroCan, why would he take them off, give them to TLM to wear, and put on another pair himself? None of this makes any sense to me.

The only explanation I can think of is that MTR had two very similar pairs of PUMA shoes. One pair that he wore on April 8 and tossed out the window (which were never found) and another pair in the car on the same day that he gave TLM to wear and that ended up at her house. It's very strange.

IMO

That's a good point. I had always assumed those were the shoes he gave her to wear.

“He said, ‘We need to get rid of our shoes, so I believe I tossed my pair of shoes out the car window. He gave me a pair of shoes to wear and he put on a different pair of shoes as well then we drove off.”

Does anyone remember if she ever said he threw his out the window too? I thought she said he did. If he didn't, then he could have given her the shoes he was wearing, maybe because they were smaller than his spare ones. But it wouldn't make sense that he wouldn't need to discard his own as well.

JMO

 

[Salem]

They found VS blood with sperm cells, no semen ... in the general area were other sperms cells were found with no semen and no blood.

Where do sperm cells come from? And it was mixed with Tori's blood, iirc.

Just sayin'

Salem

 

[Ardy]

I always wondered if LE wished they could retract their initial use of the word "nefarious", as it seems LE was mislead and misinformed from the "get go" JMO

The Crown could have used a less inciting term, but in fairness I think Derstine would like to have the word "horrified" back when he described MR's reaction to what TLM had done to VS.

Derstine could have said something like............

And when MR came rushing back to the car, he was aghast.....stunned.....and in shock at what you had done, isn't that the truth?

And when he had recovered himself and was going to call LE........that is when you told him that you would say he did it.......isn't that true?

But you said, if he helped you clean up the evidence.....you wouldn't say he did it.........you wouldn't falsely accuse him.........and you would take the fall for it if it ever came out..........isn't that true.?

I think Derstine would have less difficulty explaining MR's actions after that day.........had he said something like that, rather than use the word "horrified" as he did.

But then, Derstine makes more in a month as a defense lawyer, than my income is for the year.....so who am I to question?

JMO...........

 

[BorgQueen]

I read somewhere that TLM said they got rid of their clothes at the car wash.......and then read somewhere else she said they threw them out the window while driving down the 401

I am thinking we are getting all kinds of bad reporting and it is hard to tell if we are even discussing the same things as the jury will deliberate.

This system of informing the public is a joke.........

JMO.......

I absolutely agree with this. When things don't make sense, I have wondered if it is just dodgy reporting as opposed to proof that something is a lie/untrue/unproven.
Then, after all the tweets confuse the heck out of everybody, a lot of the articles published afterwards tend to be opinion articles. Hard to weed out the facts in those. And they tend to be biased, written by very angry people. And I understand that, but I just can't understand why a reporter can't do his or her job objectively and publish just the facts without throwing in their opinions of the accused.
It has been driving me nuts.


JMO

 

[Alison]

Well if someone feels something is derogatory then we should all respect it not excuse it. JMO

 

[Ardy]

I absolutely agree with this. When things don't make sense, I have wondered if it is just dodgy reporting as opposed to proof that something is a lie/untrue/unproven.
Then, after all the tweets confuse the heck out of everybody, a lot of the articles published afterwards tend to be opinion articles. Hard to weed out the facts in those. And they tend to be biased, written by very angry people. And I understand that, but I just can't understand why a reporter can't do his or her job objectively and publish just the facts without throwing in their opinions of the accused.
It has been driving me nuts.


JMO

Agreed wholeheartedly, especially about the MSM articles after the testimony. They tend to use 50% of the space to repeat the old history of the events..........add in a couple lines of testimony..........and then go off on their own personal tangent.

If they could just go in and listen........and then write an accurate daily description of events.......it would be much better.

But.........just look at the headlines they use.........and it is all about selling papers, so they pump up the gossip.

JMO..........

 

[Ardy]

I do watch live Canadian trials often......the Supreme Court of Canada.

Now that.............is about as droll as it gets............

Informative though...........how the Judges interrupt the lawyers and ask detailed questions on some statement the lawyer has just said.

We are fortunate in Canada to have such a distinguished, intelligent, and common sense smart panel of Judges on our Supreme Court.

JMO..........

 

[Macright]

nothing is gospel unless one hears it from the horses' mouth so to speak..slants are put on all reports especially some of those newspapers and they inflict their own personal feelings into their report.......to be honest I think if the courts continue to ban camera's at trials they should also ban these "tweeters"...they only tweet what they think is important and the rest is missed...and then everything gets blown out of whack and is in turn taken as fact....JMO

 

[Alison]

nothing is gospel unless one hears it from the horses' mouth so to speak..slants are put on all reports especially some of those newspapers and they inflict their own personal feelings into their report.......to be honest I think if the courts continue to ban camera's at trials they should also ban these "tweeters"...they only tweet what they think is important and the rest is missed...and then everything gets blown out of whack and is in turn taken as fact....JMO

I agree, look at the times there was a typo ( putting april 8th instead of 9th etc) thus resulting in all of us scratching our heads trying to figure stuff out.

 

[Alethea Dice]

I generally follow a 5 or 6 tweets at the same time, hoping to get a more complete picture. However, I still find that, many times, a question will be tweeted and the witness' answer isn't. You're left wondering what that answer was. I found that a lot when Derstine was cross-examining.

 

[antiquegirl]

It just seems people try to equate "nefarious" with rape for their convenience of proving a point. It has a broader definition of course. JMO

I find it premature and reprehensible that this word, along with "sexual" was used within hours after the arrests - long before any DNA or other test results would have become available. They had only TLM's word for the motive at the time.

This article is timed and dated 07:41 a.m., May 20, 2009:

The station also reported that "police sources" say that the girl's abduction was not a random act but being viewed as an "opportunistic crime" and Tori may have allegedly been sought for "nefarious" or sexual purposes.

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009/05/20/9510611-sun.html

From the trial, we also know now that the only bases for MTR's arrest were TLM's word, a superficial similarity between MTR's car and images on a grainy video, and an informal 1/2 hour interview with the accused. Contrary to wide speculation here, LE had no photographs or videos from the crime scene, no phone or computer records yet, no shoes, no journal, no hair dye box, no DNA, nothing. IMO, it was mostly TLM's confession that led to his arrest.

JMO

 

[Ardy]

It is extremely rare that an innocent person is framed by LE for something he didn't do and convicted, but it's happened.

It happens a lot more than people think.

In 100 recent cases across Canada, police used illegal techniques, excessive force and racial profiling, then covered it up with false testimony.

http://www.thestar.com/investigations

 

[Alethea Dice]

Even after they had the car and the DNA, the DNA expert's last comment after going through all the evidence found in the car was:

AM980.ca@AM980_CourtReply
"Not a lot of useful information coming out of this for you," McLean says of those tests.

Then they went on break and came back to interrupt her testimony with the woman who was leaving the country the next day.

 

[Salem]

If this were the case, you would think they'd want to finish as soon as they were out of the area and leave their errands until afterwards. Why risk even more time to allow for that radio report and the chance of being caught with her in the car.

JMO

Well this is easy, because he needed his drugs. He wasn't doing anything without them. He even turned his phone back on. Priorities - drug addicts don't go far without their drugs. I think he had dry mouth and that's why they stopped at the tea place and to waste a little time until BA would be back and ready to meet them. And we all know why they stopped at HD and MR drove around and parked in such a way as to avoid the security camera. That didn't work too well, though.

Salem

 

[tmhco]

It happens a lot more than people think.

In 100 recent cases across Canada, police used illegal techniques, excessive force and racial profiling, then covered it up with false testimony.

http://www.thestar.com/investigations

My goodness! Why even try anyone? Corrupt LE, False witness testimony the Crown prosecuting all the poor innocents! We should just scrap the system and open the doors to the prisons. JMO