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

[Ardy]

yes what is HIS reason for getting rid of car seat. LE has THEIR idea on why. MOO Yep another coincidence we r supposed to believe.

Many people believe blood, sperm and other DNA.

Others may believe just blood, if TLM hit TS with the hammer as she was getting out.........or perhaps being dragged out through the back doorway.

Either way, MR would want to get rid of the seat.

I don't find the seat evidence, like a lot of evidence, to contradict what I think is going to be the defense summary.

But, who knows, Derstine could surprise a lot of people and go off onto something else............and we would all be scratching our heads...........

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

 

[snoofer]

Certainly not to get rid of evidence of a crime but perhaps because it was damaged? ....it did have at least one cut in it according to a neighbour.... but TLM was lying when she said she cut the back seat.
How eco-friendly of him to utilize the city-wide large items garbage day and not throw it out along the roadside.

there was talk of that maybe on one of MTR's visits to the salvage yards he found a back seat like his and purchased it WHICH IS the one that was put out for spring pick up. A decoy. He dumped somewhere else the BLOODY seat and didn't want anyone to look for or find it. He put the DECOY seat to the curb in plain sight for neighbours or police so that if they found it; it would show no blood or DNA, also it would look like innocently tossed away. JMO

Remember, the type of mentality who does this sort of crime, thinks they are smart and tries devious ways to deceive ppl and LE. How DO sadistic child rapists behave in their life? MOO It is the same sort of mentality that goes to Genest; knowing what he knew. The same type of mentality that bold face lies to LE in audio interviews. The same mentality that inserts itself into the case joking with the mother of Tori's best freind about what he would do to the person who did this. It is the same mentality that pretends to look for a dead girl; when HE himself knows where she is all along. The same type of mentality that sands his car all over inside. The same type of mentality that sees women as objects and uses them for his needs without regard for their welfare. The same mentality that thinks OTHERS should believe that it was ok for him to take an 8year old in his car and out of the city to the rural.

MTR lies, his life is based on lies. He believes EVERYONE should beleive what he says; he is used to people believing his BS. He wants us to believe this TALL TALE. He thinks that we will rediculously believe his offered story; because he has lied and lied and ppl have believed him year after year. He is caught at the scene of a dead girl brutally raped and murdered during an abduction. What does he do? What he does best. Lies and deceives. And as always, with a smile on his face and a jig to dance. MOO Would this not be the type of behaviour you would expect from a sadistic child rapist murderer? Cat and mouse games and cocky behavior. MOO

 

[Ardy]

I understand that LE can be corrupt, for example Drew Peterson. I also understand that we do do see LE doing things that don't seem to be in the best interests of the public and the victims, Susan Cox Powell comes to mind.

But not all police officers are like this. I think we need some proof, some evidence of this before we start to throw out and discuss the possibility that MTR is being framed, prosecutorial misconduct, lying police officers etc.

As far as we know nothing like this has been brought up in court. And this is the type of issue that defence lawyers bring up.

I would in no way allege that LE or the Crown in this case, have in any way acted in an illegal manner.

I was merely addressing the public perception that all LE are honest and following proper policies and procedures.

In every barrel............there are some bad apples, but given the statistics and some recent scathing admonishments from Judges, it is happening more frequently than most of us would want to believe.

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

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I just wanted to post about this because I've had sometime to think about it. I put the little yellow triangle because although Swedie mentioned it, that was unthread.

I think it is a good idea. I can see it getting tense in the thread, but I think that would be consistent with what the actual jurors are going through.

I agree with Sweedie that we are a tainted jury pool. At this point I have a difficult time keeping straight in my head which is a fact proven here as we have determined here and what is not when it comes to differing news reports. The same with tweets. This I think has added to the situation we find ourselves in frequently on this thread. Not only do we different opinions about MTR's guilt or innocence and different opinions on what should in general constitute reasonable doubt at times we aren't even talking about the same information we are basing our opinion on, YKWIM? I think adding into it what actually is what was presented in court will add to that confusion. Also the jury has seen what really happened in the courtroom as it happened, we would be digesting all that information in a very short period of time.

That being said, I'm only one poster and I don't know if I will participate in the thread until we come to that point. We may not run into the difficulties I am anticipating, we may run into other difficulties and we may not run into any difficulties at all (hardyharhar)

Maybe take it as it goes, if it works, great, if not we can shut it down. Perhaps we could have multiple threads discussing different aspects of what we find out, I think that would be a great way for us to process the information, ya know, by breaking things up in to chunks.

Maybe breaking us into groups, one thread for pro Crown, one pro defence. Like how the had the supporters divided like that outside the Anthony trial, except Websleuth style. Who wants to be the Sharpie Ladie.

I don't know, maybe it comes down to how easy or difficult it is for the mods to monitor different thread, would you all be spread out too thin?

 

[swedie]

They stopped at a Tim Hortons in Guelph and Rafferty got out of the car, asking McClintic if she wanted anything. While Rafferty was away, McClintic says she asked Tori if she needed to use the washroom but the eight-year-old said she didn't want anything. When Rafferty returned, he got angry and told McClintic to cover the girl. McClintic says she mouthed the words "I'm sorry" to Tori.

http://live.cbc.ca/Event/Stafford_murder_trial_5

So.........TLM testified that they pushed VS into the car, kidnapped her and she was held on the floor, under a pea coat all the way to Guelph while MR was frantically scanning the radio for police reports, then they stop at Tim Hortons and while MR is out of the car.........TLM asks VS if she wants to go into the Tim Hortons to take a pee..........and she says NO?

That doesn't even make sense.

Why would VS say no? Of course she would want to go in, so that she could get away from them.

Yet another slip by TLM that VS was kidnapped...........or was she just plain lying once again on the stand?

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

Tori was too terrified to move or think straight by this time. It's quite possible she had already peed herself and was afraid to tell for fear of being hit or beaten. Some people may not have had an eight year old child to know how they act. So I can understand why some question Tori's reactions and thought process on that horrific day. At eight years old you are naive, trusting in most people on one hand but yet afraid of older people and strangers on the other, they are still so new and don't have the full understanding of so much and especially the evilness that lurks in this world. Little eight year olds are just getting the hang of reading and writing, where school becomes more constructive in "work" and less "play". The reasoning part of their brains is still so so immature and they are just coming into logical thinking. IIRC the logical and reasoning part of the brain isn't fully developed until the age of 21. No I do not believe TLM lied about this, I believe Tori was just too scared and didn't think logically and see it as a way to get away from MR and TLM. JMHO

The Child’s Developing Brain Along the bottom is a slider where you can move it along to see how under developed a child's brain is. The older they get the more their brain develops of course. Interesting to see how under developed it is at eight years of age. Yes and at 21 the brain is full developed. HTH

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2008/09/15/health/20080915-brain-development.html

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I would in no way allege that LE or the Crown in this case, have in any way acted in an illegal manner.

I was merely addressing the public perception that all LE are honest and following proper policies and procedures.

In every barrel............there are some bad apples, but given the statistics and some recent scathing admonishments from Judges, it is happening more frequently than most of us would want to believe.

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

I responded the way I did because it seems like people that support MTR often bring up the fact that those types of things happen. I understand that, my opinion though is that we need proof of that, just as we need evidence in determining the guilt or innocence of MTR.

 

[swedie]

The defence seemed odd to many, however it does not seem odd to me. I would bet my last dollar that they could only afford this one witness, as this witness could not testify to MR's character. Anyone else brought forward to testify for him could have possibly opened the whole character issue and I believe this would have put the final nail in MR's coffin. I say this because his lawyer has fought very hard for evidence to be excluded based on it being related to character. The defence would open a door that they fought so hard to keep shut. Makes you wonder what kind of bombshells we are going to hear when the jury is sequestered. JMO

I bet a lot of jaw dropping, gasps and OMG moments. MOO

 

[swedie]

was fishing all day; just catching up now. MOO

What did you catch Snoof? Is it for my supper Saturday night? Am I still invited? Lol *throws kisses*

 

[snoofer]

I just wanted to post about this because I've had sometime to think about it. I put the little yellow triangle because although Swedie mentioned it, that was unthread.

I think it is a good idea. I can see it getting tense in the thread, but I think that would be consistent with what the actual jurors are going through.

I agree with Sweedie that we are a tainted jury pool. At this point I have a difficult time keeping straight in my head which is a fact proven here as we have determined here and what is not when it comes to differing news reports. The same with tweets. This I think has added to the situation we find ourselves in frequently on this thread. Not only do we different opinions about MTR's guilt or innocence and different opinions on what should in general constitute reasonable doubt at times we aren't even talking about the same information we are basing our opinion on, YKWIM? I think adding into it what actually is what was presented in court will add to that confusion. Also the jury has seen what really happened in the courtroom as it happened, we would be digesting all that information in a very short period of time.

That being said, I'm only one poster and I don't know if I will participate in the thread until we come to that point. We may not run into the difficulties I am anticipating, we may run into other difficulties and we may not run into any difficulties at all (hardyharhar)

Maybe take it as it goes, if it works, great, if not we can shut it down. Perhaps we could have multiple threads discussing different aspects of what we find out, I think that would be a great way for us to process the information, ya know, by breaking things up in to chunks.

Maybe breaking us into groups, one thread for pro Crown, one pro defence. Like how the had the supporters divided like that outside the Anthony trial, except Websleuth style. Who wants to be the Sharpie Ladie.

I don't know, maybe it comes down to how easy or difficult it is for the mods to monitor different thread, would you all be spread out too thin?

great idea MOO

 

[Ardy]

Your opinion is very reasonable, and one I know we would all adopt.

I haven't seen any posting claiming that LE, the Crown, or the defense is doing anything illegal in this trial.

Rather I think, some posters are questioning the tactics on each side, recognizing that the Crown has a scenario that they are entirely focused on proving and on the other side the defense is trying to prove their scenario.

Neither side is interested in proving the other side's case.

That has nothing to do with morals, ethics, or illegal activities.

It is simply the nature of the beast.

That is what they do, because the legal system is designed that way.

JMO.........

 

[swedie]

I read it to read that MR was already inside the TH when TLM asked VS if she needed to go to the bathroom.

What an odd question to ask a kidnapped little girl.

If VS had said yes, are we to believe that TLM would have taken her into the TH?

JMO......

IMO TLM may have been looking for an excuse to get out of the mess she was in. And yes I do believe IF Tori would have said yes, TLM would've taken her in and rescued her. That would have been her deciding point.

 

[Ardy]

IMO TLM may have been looking for an excuse to get out of the mess she was in. And yes I do believe IF Tori would have said yes, TLM would've taken her in and rescued her. That would have been her deciding point.

TLM did present it that way.........although she did have multiple chances, so I don't know.

I was interested in your other post about human brain development, as I have learned a bit about that the past few years.

As they can now map the brain neurons firing and know which part of the brain performs certain functions, they now know why teenagers give parents so much trouble.

Our brains grow rapidly twice in our lifetime......as a baby and as a teenager.

In the teen years, as the brain grows all the information is moved around to accomodate the growth. It is "temporarily" place here and there.......not unlike a computer hard drive gets fragmented over time with bits of information here and there.

This explains why teenagers, who were model children, suddenly become rebellious, angry at their parents, and start taking risks.

TLM was not only a teenager, suffering the usual problems with her brain moving things around, but she was a long time drug user.

Her use of drugs would certainly have affected the ability of her brain to function properly.

One of the trademarks from studies is that they can't explain why they do things, such as lash out in anger.........or sulk in their rooms.

It isn't difficult to understand why TLM has trouble explaining many things. She doesn't really know why she does things.

But......I think we need to be careful with people like her, because she would also have trouble separating fact from fiction.

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

 

[swedie]

For me all the women that testified they dated MR proves to me that MR knew he did not have the control over women people think he did. They met, they dated, sex, no sex and did not work out. If he was the master manipulator these women would have been walk through fire for him from the testimony I heard that was not the case.

Some people have great gut instincts and I believe many of these women did, and it didn't take long for them to realize MR was not a good choice in more ways than one. They were also strong independent women who had experience in the dating field, all around his age or older and TLM was a newbie to the dating scene. Plus she lacked much of what these other women had in many ways, shapes and forms...a little bit of love. MOO

 

[swedie]

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

How so? LE were the ones in charge of the investigation. Nefarious meaning evil, wicked and sinful. You don't believe what happened to Tori was nefarious? Just curious what your definition is about what happened to Tori if you don't mind sharing. Personally I find the word nefarious very fitting. MOO

 

[swedie]

Of further interest, with respect to Canadian Law, the following are listed as common issues that can arise during deliberations, and cause orders for a new trial.

3.4.2 other judge-jury relations

Thank you for the legal information WG. Very interesting indeedy. I will predict the jury will look over all the evidence again during deliberation. They will go through all the motions and talk amongst themselves just to clarify why they all believe MR is guilty of each charge. Again gut reaction tells me they won't be deliberating any more than 12 hours to reach a verdict. MOO.

TLM's testimony paints a very clear and thorough picture and the Crown's evidence goes hand in hand with her testimony. MR did not take the stand to protest his innocence in which an innocent person would do considering he is being charged with the most heinous crimes possible. AND the fact of spending the next 25 years behind bars, in a segregated cell. We're not talking about theft charges here, we're talking a big part, if not all of someones life. NO lawyer would stop me from taking the stand if I was innocent. We must not lose sight that it is Derstine working for MR and not the other way around. Derstine must follow what his client wants. MOO

 

[swedie]

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.................

Well Derstine better step up to the plate and get a move on it. He's running out of time and IMHO he's done zip, nadda, zilch thus far in raising reasonable doubt to the jurors. His dissecting TLM on the witness stand could backfire on him in MOO. They could be seeing it as "birds of a feather flock together". WTH was MR hanging around someone like TLM for? Both up to no good and troubled, devious minds, "it takes one to know one", kwim? MOO

 

[swedie]

Don't start fighting and bickering. If you can't respond respectfully - then MOVE PAST THE POST. There is no rule that says you have to respond to every post or that you have to respond to posts you disagree with. JUST MOVE PAST IT.

Salem

Hi Salem! It's a full moon tonight And tomorrow night it is going to be even bigger, bringing the moon closer to the earth's atmosphere. Be prepared, boy scout's motto. Lol. *throws kisses*.

 

[BorgQueen]

Well Derstine better step up to the plate and get a move on it. He's running out of time and IMHO he's done zip, nadda, zilch thus far in raising reasonable doubt to the jurors. His dissecting TLM on the witness stand could backfire on him in MOO. They could be seeing it as "birds of a feather flock together". WTH was MR hanging around someone like TLM for? Both up to no good and troubled, devious minds, "it takes one to know one", kwim? MOO

While he hasn't raised reasonable doubt for me, I disagree that he hasn't done it for the jurors.
Many posters here believe there is reasonable doubt and do not think the accused is guilty as charged. JMO, but it is safe to assume that there is at least one juror that shares this opinion of reasonable doubt.
Mr. Derstine may not have raised reasonable doubt for me, you, and other posters here, but he has for some other posters here. That tells me that he IS doing his job.
IMO, the crown does not have this one 'in the bag'. If some posters here don't believe the accused is guilty as charged, it is possible that some jurors don't believe it either. I expect deliberations to last quite a long time. JMO. What my opinion of the accused is is rather irrelevant, as I am not a member of the jury.

JMO.

 

[robynhood]

....here is a beautiful tribute song for tori http://youtu.be/N3z0fruRxdQ ....I hope this lonk worked from you tube ....sent to me from woodstock as they want her memory to live on...tear jerker so get some kleenxex....RIP our little angel...Tori you will never be forgotten...we have captured many hearts...I pray JUSTICE for Tori is seen NEXT week ...thanks robynhood.

 

[giantalkinghead]

Quote:
14 Mar AM980.ca ‏ @AM980_Court
They got back to Woodstock. He dropped her off at Starlight Variety. He didn't want to be seen near her house.

I always wondered why he made her walk home. If they'd been together most of the day, what difference would it make if he was seen near her house when they got back. Why would he need to distance himself from her if it was all his plan? Surely, under the circumstances, it wasn't to protect her.

This statement left me wondering as well and makes no sense. Why make her walk home to distance himself. They had no knowledge of the video ..why distance yourself ? There certainly was no problem in keeping in touch when he was visiting her at the detention cente. To me JMO this is just one of the parts of the story that TLM cooked up between her initial statements of confession to LE and her evidence presented on the stand. I'm certain there were many statements that just were not true. Could be due to the drugs effect on her memory and/or that she is a compulsive liar. So the jury has their work cut out as to which and what to believe....MOO