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

[giantalkinghead]

I believe one of MR's shoes were found by the woman along with TLM's shoes, however there was only the one shoe and she ended up throwing it out before coming into contact with police...off to find the tweet!!!

I don't think it was MR shoe... but just and odd shoe unrelated to the case. If it were MR shoe the Crown would have presented it ..

a) to prove TLM testimony
b) to put MR at that location
c) to show need to dispose of MR shoes

 

[flipflop]

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.

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

JMO...the only reason he was ever with TLM was for his sick plan that he talked TLM into helping him with. He never loved her IMO. Once they returned back to Woodstock, probably seeing a larger number of LE in the city out searching for VS, he dumped her at the variety store....to leave her to walk home, they had no idea if an eyewitness saw TLM walk away with VS or not at this time, so to be safe he did not want to be seen with her or have any connection, he didn't need her anymore. Once the video came out, he bought the hair dye and left it at the hydro pole...again didn't want to be seen associating with her. Once she was in the detention center, he visited to find out what LE had been asking her, what she was saying, he did so to stay on her good side so that she would stick with the plan and take the fall for him if need be..as they had discussed

This is a JMO

 

[lightlady]

To me dropping TLM and having her walk home showed a degree of paranoia. I suspect at that time they were kind of giddy that they had gotten away with it so far and terrified that they could still be caught. They were already busy trying to cover tracks, which we see a lot more of in the coming weeks. I doubt very much they were feeling secure at that point that they were home free, and not putting themselves together in public that day on their home turf (similar to MR driving farther down the road for the pickup) was in their plans.

 

[otto]

well you see Otto it would show that TLM told another fib...you see she has testified that she was standing by a tree and TS was walking alone...but this witness now has testified that TLM went into the school and picked up TS..now that takes some guts don't you think..to brazenly walk into a school full of teachers etc. and entice a child to go with you, especially if that child did not know you from Adam...so cross another lie off of her statement... the crown knew this as the woman had told them but they choose to not use her as their witness...I find that very strange....wonder why you don't...JMO

More than300 people were at the scene and those that knew Victoria personally have testified about her activities at the end of that school day. One of the more than 300 people saw someone with a white coat enter the school and later saw Victoria with someone wearing a white coat.

Should we assume that those that knew Victoria are mistaken and are we sure that of the 300+ students and parents, TLM was the only person with dark hair wearing a white coat?

I actually think the defence witness probably saw two different people. In both the Jason Young, and Brad Cooper, trials, there was a woman that was 60+ years old that testified for the defence. In each case, they added a new twist to the evidence - a new twist that contracticted all the other evidence. It seems we have a similar situation here ... a well intentioned person that is mistaken.

 

[otto]

Something was bothering me about TLM's testimony that TS didn't want to go into the Tim Hortons when they stopped there.

And then I figured it out.

TS was abducted at 3:30 pm. We don't know what time she last had a bathroom break but can assume it was sometime before that.

They drove to Guelph and stopped at the Tim Hortons and TS did not have a bathroom break.

They went to BA's and TS did not have a bathroom break.

They went to the Home Depot and TS did not have a bathroom break.

They drove around for another hour or so and arrived at the crime scene around 6:30 pm ?

TS had not had a bathroom break for 3 hours or more. She was probably frightened and cold.

How improbable is it that TS had an "accident" and that is why her clothing was removed?

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

It is pretty much out of the question that an 8 year old female child in the company of a 28 year old man is stripped of all clothing, including shoes, below the waist because she peed her pants. Are there any other wild ideas floating around to explain why an 8 year old girl is stripped of clothing below the waist while in the company of a 28 year old man? ...alien invasion?

I'm trying really hard to think of a reason to excuse the 28 year old man from being in the company of an 8 year old girl that has been stripped of all clothing below the waist ... there isn't one. In fact, it blows my mind that anyone would want to excuse the accused. We know he had extra clothes ... if he was the good guy, why didn't he offer those clothes to Victoria? Why was Victoria left without clothing while he and TLM were throwing extra clothing out the car window?

 

[Heliotrope]

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.






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

He made her walk from the school to the nursing home, and based on the timestamps he most likely drove by her while she was walking up the hill with Tori.

He parked next to the garage to get cash, but then parked in one of the furthest rows far from HD and made her walk.

I still we tend to look at a lot of the testimony with the wisdom of hindsight - they still didn't know at that point if either of them had been spotted / reported at any point, so kept a bit of distance.

Didn't he call home late that evening? It occurs to me out of the blue that maybe that's why he called - he could get a sense from his mother of how much the story was in the news and if there was any specific info linking them to the crime.

 

[giantalkinghead]

Something was bothering me about TLM's testimony that TS didn't want to go into the Tim Hortons when they stopped there.

And then I figured it out.

TS was abducted at 3:30 pm. We don't know what time she last had a bathroom break but can assume it was sometime before that.

They drove to Guelph and stopped at the Tim Hortons and TS did not have a bathroom break.

They went to BA's and TS did not have a bathroom break.

They went to the Home Depot and TS did not have a bathroom break.

They drove around for another hour or so and arrived at the crime scene around 6:30 pm ?

TS had not had a bathroom break for 3 hours or more. She was probably frightened and cold.

How improbable is it that TS had an "accident" and that is why her clothing was removed?

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

This is EXACTLY my point that I've been trying to express as to why I do NOT believe TLM's accounting of the rape !! That poor litle girl had not been allowed to use the washroom since sometime at school. Then we are asked to believe her story of how the rape occured... that poor little girl was subjected to a violent rape by MR... then TLM escorted her to the front of the car for her to take a potty break and escorted back to the car for round two... where TLM tells her she's a brave little girl. There is NO WAY this would have happened !!! She would have never held on to the contents of her bladder through all of this !! This story can't be true and I just can't believe it !!!

Having said that... I don't think that there needs to be the conviction on the rape in order to find MR guilty of first degree murder. It needs to be established that he was aware of the kiddnapping. Where I fall off the fence and find him guilty of the knowledge is this... Why was he parked and waiting up the street ?? This is where his lack of knowledge of the crime breaks down. For me anyhow...

JMO as always....

 

[otto]

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.

I kind of doubt that any jurors have reasonable doubt that MR was involved in the crime in such a way that if he were not there, it would not have happened. Based on law, MR is in it up to his eyeballs.

 

[giantalkinghead]

It is pretty much out of the question that an 8 year old female child in the company of a 28 year old man is stripped of all clothing, including shoes, below the waist because she peed her pants. Are there any other wild ideas floating around to explain why an 8 year old girl is stripped of clothing below the waist while in the company of a 28 year old man? ...alien invasion?

I'm trying really hard to think of a reason to excuse the 28 year old man from being in the company of an 8 year old girl that has been stripped of all clothing below the waist ... there isn't one. In fact, it blows my mind that anyone would want to excuse the accused. We know he had extra clothes ... if he was the good guy, why didn't he offer those clothes to Victoria? Why was Victoria left without clothing while he and TLM were throwing extra clothing out the car window?

JMO... But I quite certain that if I were trying to cover my part of a murder scene... I would NOT leave the victim wrapped in my clothing... just sayin'

and further... how do we know that she hadn't wet/messed in her clothing prior to the stop at the HD. Maybe that was why they originally purchased the garbage bags... to put the wet clothing into... yes the skirt too and possibly jacket - I've experienced children having bathroom accidents. Perhaps they offered her a garbage bag to wrap around herself... who knows really.

While I'm at the HD issue... who's idea was it to purchase the hammer ? It's quite likely that MR already had a hammer in his trunk... I'm pretty sure there was one there when he was arrested. TLM puts the hammer and garbage bags into a shopping bag and then into the trunk of the car. MR may not have been aware she bought the hammer. And final question... my goodness why use a hammer to murder the poor child anyhow ? They had garbage bags. It would have been a whole lot less blood and less violent - had they druged and smothered her with the garbage bags. There is no doubt in my mind that TLM's anger is what killed Victoria.

Sorry about being so graphic - but these are some of the questions that keep bothering me. I guess we'll learn more next week...

MOO

 

[matou]

I kind of doubt that any jurors have reasonable doubt that MR was involved in the crime in such a way that if he were not there, it would not have happened.

I agree. If MR's behaviour can be explained away, DD would request that the charged against him be dismissed and the trial would be over. There's still time but I don't think it's gonna happen. There is real evidence that he committed crimes in this case. The crown has a case against him. JMO

 

[tmhco]

To me dropping TLM and having her walk home showed a degree of paranoia. I suspect at that time they were kind of giddy that they had gotten away with it so far and terrified that they could still be caught. They were already busy trying to cover tracks, which we see a lot more of in the coming weeks. I doubt very much they were feeling secure at that point that they were home free, and not putting themselves together in public that day on their home turf (similar to MR driving farther down the road for the pickup) was in their plans.

Agree. Coming back to Woodstock would have sobering. The reality of the crime would have been real. I also believe he used it as a starting point of putting distance between himself and TLM as far as casual encounters until he got a feel for what LE knew. JMO

 

[otto]

JMO... But I quite certain that if I were trying to cover my part of a murder scene... I would NOT leave the victim wrapped in my clothing... just sayin'

MOO

True ... but what is being proposed is that MR was not involved in the crime ... that he is the innocent dupe and that the only reason the 8 year old was mostly stripped naked is because she peed her pants. If there were any truth to that, MR ... the duped gentleman, would have offered her something else to put on.

She was not stripped half naked because she peed her pants. The 28 year old man stripped her because he sexually assaulted her.

 

[crazyladi]

I think there should 3 threads. One for people who believe he is guilty, one for those who don't and one for those who haven't decided. Saves for a lot of bickering. Jmo

 

[flipflop]

I feel that if she pee'd herself, she would have taken off her tights and kept her skirt on to keep herself covered up being in the presence of a strange male. MOO

Also if she just pee'd herself and no rape took place....why were her clothes not with her, why did they throw them out elsewhere?

 

[flipflop]

I think there should 3 threads. One for people who believe he is guilty, one for those who don't and one for those who haven't decided. Saves for a lot of bickering. Jmo

Not bickering IMO...I like hearing how others take things into account. Can you imagine the jury....12 different minds hearing the same things. ..just like us here on this thread. This threads helps you see things in ways that you have not thought of. No one has to agree with the way I see things, nor do I have to agree with their opinions. I like it the way it is.

 

[crazyladi]

It's not like he had six weeks to clean it up. Does anyone know why he threw his backseat in the garbage anyway, coincidence? JMO

Not bickering IMO...I like hearing how others take things into account. Can you imagine the jury....12 different minds hearing the same things. ..just like us here on this thread. This threads helps you see things in ways that you have not thought of. No one has to agree with the way I see things, nor do I have to agree with their opinions. I like it the way it is.

For the most part ya it's fine but some post seem to be out of line and argumentative. Either way I don't care just a suggestion. I listen to it all to see if there is something I missed

 

[giantalkinghead]

I feel that if she pee'd herself, she would have taken off her tights and kept her skirt on to keep herself covered up being in the presence of a strange male. MOO

Also if she just pee'd herself and no rape took place....why were her clothes not with her, why did they throw them out elsewhere?[/quote]

Sorry to both you and Otto... I edited my original quote above. I'm not all that experienced in posting to message boards !

I edited to read perhaps they offered her a garbage bag to wrap herself in. Whatever... I do believe he is guilty and should get life. Just still not conviced on the rape theory.

BBM above... who knows when they threw out her clothing... it could have been done right after the HD in a garbage dumpster. The problem is TLM testimony if laced full of lies. It's hard to determine what to believe and what to discount.. the Jury has their work cut out for them indeed !

MOO

Have a great day everyone... I'll check back tonight and try to catch up again..
Cheers !

 

[tmhco]

For the most part ya it's fine but some post seem to be out of line and argumentative. Either way I don't care just a suggestion. I listen to it all to see if there is something I missed

It makes me crazy sometimes too, as I believe the evidence speaks for itself. I do need to see the different view point for my own sanity. If he is aquitted it will help me thru it. JMO

 

[Jezbel]

Hope you are feeling better soon Jezbel ;-)

Thanks Roseofsharon, I am glad I don't have to talk to participate here, my throat is on fire.
BTW Rose of Sharon look beautiful in bloom

 

[Jezbel]

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

It wouldn't surprise me if he did, my other half is a trainer freak and always pumas, all of his are very similar too, when one pair starts wearing out, he will buy a shiny new pair and use the old for work/gym/gardening etc.