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

[swedie]

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

Above post about TLM walking from the convenient store. Maybe TLM wanted to walk from there to avoid her mother seeing MR's car dropping her off and asking all kinds of questions.

This post: How could the Crown present it if the woman threw the shoe away? Her words that she found a male shoe fits very much into TLM's testimony that their shoes were thrown out along the roadway. It's not everyday you see discarded shoes along a gravel road in the middle of nowhere and I believe she stated it was odd for that sort of finding IIRC. MR's defense has admitted or suggested that MR was at the scene, so what's the biggie about the shoes? IMHO it just backs up another point for TLM. MOO

Lillian Metcalfe testified she thought it was unusual to find a pair of blue and white basketball shoes, along with a single shoe, during an evening walk on Side Road 6, just north of Guelph, Ont., in late April or early May that year.

http://www.canada.com/news/Tori+Stafford+trial+Woman+found+killer+shoes+side+road/6372140/story.html

 

[Hello_Kitty]

So I don't know whether or not to believe TLM would have taken her to the bathroom. Different perps do different things. Some of them make sense and some of them don't. :Moo: I don't think the bathroom trip is significant.

Snipped for brevity:

I don't think the bathroom trip @Timmies is significant either, in fact there are many little tiny details that are coming up on this board that I think is just nitpicking, JMO.

And I think that we are giving a 8 year old child way too much credit as to what she would have done. She may have been a spirited little child, but IMHO I think that TS would have been way too frightened (frozen like a deer caught in the headlights) to react the way we may expect she would.

Jessica Lunsford (10 years old) is a good example of that. Her kidnapper hid her in his closet and told her to remain there while he reported for work. She could have escaped, yet she didn't. He raped her, then he tricked her into getting into two garbage bags by saying he was going to 'take her home'. He instead buried her alive.

 

[BorgQueen]

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.

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

While I personally agree that there IS enough evidence, there are multiple posters on this forum alone that do not agree. Some appear to believe the accused was an 'innocent dupe', others appear to believe he may have been framed, and others feel he is guilty of other charges (such as accessory after the fact, or obstruction of justice). To them, the evidence presented is not enough. I absolutely disagree with these people, but if WS was the jury, the jury would be hung. It is possible that at least one juror feels the same as some of the posters here that do not think he is guilty as charged. They exist, and their opinions are no less valid than ours, even if we can not bring ourselves to see things from their point of view.

Do I find this worrying? Yes, I do, because in my opinion, MR IS guilty. Of course I hope they come back with a verdict of guilty of all charges, but I have to prepare myself for every possibility. The possibility of a hung jury, or an acquittal, is there. Perhaps the possibility is small, but it is still there.


Don't take me as trying to be argumentative. I am not at all, as I agree that he is guilty. But the fact is, not everybody does.


JMO.

 

[Tahorn]

From my understanding, committing a crime of kidnapping, sexual assault and murder of a very young child is not something you plan and participate in with a partner unless you are sure you have some sort of control and or you are submissive due to intimidation either physiologically or physically.

For me the evidence shows MR had relationships with several women that did not work out the way he may have wanted so where would this idea he could control any women let alone TLM come from, certainly not his experiences with women.

For me the evidence shows the TLM had the predisposition to believe that kidnapping VS and killing her for some false sense of revenge would be acceptable and possible celebrated with those in her life she respected. (Letters between TLM and KP)

Hey I could be wrong, and maybe more evidence will surface once the jury is in deliberation and/ or was presented and missed between tweets. But if I were on jury, there is no evidence to show a sexual assault and without it the motive for the kidnapping would not be sexually motivated, and since TLM testified she killed VS I would be hard pressed to convict on 1st degree …

 

[Hello_Kitty]

mais qui...

I'm not sure what you mean by 'mais qui' but I was responding to your post that the string of women, (which you called 'd***ies' I won't say the word because apparently it is a bad word) were testifying because they were corroborating the crown's timeline and not because they wanted to show that MTR was a cad.

 

[crazyladi]

Geez...........first time I have seen that information.

Is that from a media source?

TIA..

Yes its in the links on this site

 

[Alethea Dice]

I could be wrong Tahorn, but in the early threads I thought it was somehow determined that the witness and child in the video were on the west side of Fyfe and TLM and Tori on the east side.

Maybe some other posters will have better recall on this.

They appear to both be on the west side of the street. TLM and Tori pass behind the witness.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY6GQVJz3HE&feature=related"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bY6GQVJz3HE&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Maple1]

To qualify for legal aid services, you must be financially eligible, and your legal matter must be one that LAO covers.
Shows income level tier of defendants applying.

http://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/getting/eligibility.asp

The Big Case Management (BCM) program*
governs the most costly and complex criminal trial defences funded by Legal Aid Ontario (LAO).

When a lawyer applies and knows it will go above $75,000:
Exceptions Committee
If the district area director's review of the opinion letter provided by counsel reveals that a budget is likely to exceed $75,000, counsel will receive a written invitation requesting her or his attendance at an Exceptions Committee meeting.

http://www.legalaid.on.ca/en/info/bigcasemgmt.asp

Annual billing limits:*
All lawyers have an annual billing limit of 2,350 hours per fiscal year, regardless of tier level.
See this section:
What are the billing limits?
The annual dollar billing limits are as follows:
*
2011-12
Tier I. - $211,006.50
Tier 2. -*$237,382.31 ---- I think the rafferty trial is in this category, IMOP
Tier 3. -*$263,758.13


APPEALS:
Big Case Management for appeals
Although the $20,000 threshold applies, Big Case Management for appeals to the Ontario Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada has a separate process.
If you believe a matter is likely to qualify, you should forward a letter to LAO's provincial office (Attention: Big Case Management Appeals). The letter should set out the details concerning the appeal. It should also include supporting documentation such as the original opinion letter, and appropriate time requirements to complete the appeal.

There is also info on budgets for experts, etc. Canada tries to make the trial process as equal as possible. Destined may of very well had separate DNA testing and other experts but chose not to introduce in his defense case.

 

[Hello_Kitty]

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...........

Too bad for MR that TLM refuted that suggestion. So his suggestion of what happened can't be considered by the jury. And I think the videos of MR visiting TLM after the crime shows that he was in it just as much as she was.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I'm not sure what you mean by 'mais qui' but I was responding to your post that the string of women, (which you called 'd***ies' I won't say the word because apparently it is a bad word) were testifying because they were corroborating the crown's timeline and not because they wanted to show that MTR was a cad.

'mais qui' in high school French means 'but who?'

 

[brighidin]

There is also info on budgets for experts, etc. Canada tries to make the trial process as equal as possible. Destined may of very well had separate DNA testing and other experts but chose not to introduce in his defense case.

Thanks for the link and info.

I wonder if he did. If he did have his own experts, and chose not to call them, that can definitely be characterized as a waste of legal aid's money.

 

[Hello_Kitty]

to me the fact he knew the area or the spot means nothing...JMO still doesn't mean he raped and murdered the child...JMO we don't know his reasons for going to that spot...JMO we can surmise all we like but the bottom line is WE DON'T KNOW....we know what the outcome was but we don't know what came between...JMO

MR could have taken the stand to tell us why he went down that laneway.

 

[Hello_Kitty]

'mais qui' in high school French means 'but who?'

I know what it means I'm french. I was wondering if Macright knew what she had written. I guess I can't say the word here, I don't know why it's bad, perhaps cuz it is a sexist word?

 

[Hello_Kitty]

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

So the teacher's testimony that TS went back to get her earrings then returned to the line was innacurate? And the testimony of an old lady who seemed a bit confused about what she saw was accurate?

 

[Salem]

While I personally agree that there IS enough evidence, there are multiple posters on this forum alone that do not agree. Some appear to believe the accused was an 'innocent dupe', others appear to believe he may have been framed, and others feel he is guilty of other charges (such as accessory after the fact, or obstruction of justice). To them, the evidence presented is not enough. I absolutely disagree with these people, but if WS was the jury, the jury would be hung. It is possible that at least one juror feels the same as some of the posters here that do not think he is guilty as charged. They exist, and their opinions are no less valid than ours, even if we can not bring ourselves to see things from their point of view.

Do I find this worrying? Yes, I do, because in my opinion, MR IS guilty. Of course I hope they come back with a verdict of guilty of all charges, but I have to prepare myself for every possibility. The possibility of a hung jury, or an acquittal, is there. Perhaps the possibility is small, but it is still there.


Don't take me as trying to be argumentative. I am not at all, as I agree that he is guilty. But the fact is, not everybody does.


JMO.

I hear what you are saying here, but remember the jury has the benefit of ALL the testimony. We only have tweets. From the tweets, in my mind, there is no reasonable doubt. Making excuses for someone's awful behavior does not erase the actual physical evidence the Crown has presented and so far, there has not been a plausible defense of the accused given, in my mind. Even when you exclude TLM's testimony (and the jury won't be doing that), there is no plausible reason for MR to have done the things that it has been (my opinion) proven he did. There is no way he went for an hour and 1/2 walk without his phone. That didn't happen - it is unreasonable to believe it did, to me. So then, what was he doing for the hour and 1/2?

The jury will have the benefit of comparing TLM's original confession with her testimony. The only difference between the two is who actually murdered Tori. Her story was consistent in other regards and has been confirmed by extrinsic evidence in the videos, atm, HD and drug buying. Also the shoes and the ripping/tearing of the back seat. All those pieces have been confirmed.

I would be absolutely stunned if they did not find MR guilty. TLM's violence does not raise a reasonable doubt as to MR's involvement in this crime, to my way of thinking.

Salem

 

[Hello_Kitty]

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

Why were her shoes, skirt, and coat removed? If she'd had an accident, logic would say only her pannies and tights should have been removed, her shoes should have been put back on, and she should have had her skirt and coat on as well.

 

[snoofer]

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

Shudders to think of him on the streets. MOO

 

[Hello_Kitty]

[bbm]

really? I remember that incident but never heard the follow-up ...

quite frankly, I believe there's too many criminals that 'walk' because police don't have the right to look through a cellphone without a warrant

I don't want to make this a political debate, but I disagree with your statement, I don't think police should have the right to look through anything without a warrant. That's why I'm opposed to Bill-C-30 in Canada. Police shouldn't have the right to do whatever they want. This is isn't just about cell phones, it's about your right to privacy.

 

[Bravo]

I dont see the reason Tori was nude from the waist down being she had a toileting accident. Why would these 2 even care if she had. Considering what was about to happen.

 

[snoofer]

I dont see the reason Tori was nude from the waist down being she had a toileting accident. Why would these 2 even care if she had. Considering what was about to happen.

Likely defense will suggest that TS was clothed and fine when he left for a walk at the scene and when he returned she was dead with no pants on. MOO Because if not defense would have to explain why he didnt give his shorts with drawstring to Tori if she had soiled herself. JMO