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

[matou]

Update about the trial:

As a result the Jury will get a third consecutive day off and not return until Monday – that’s when Defense Lawyer Dirk Derstine will make his closing arguments in the morning, then the Crown will present its closing arguments Monday afternoon and lead into Tuesday.

Heeney will charge the jury on Wednesday with final instructions and guidance that will likely continue on into Thursday.

Following Heeney’s instructions, the rest of the trial will be in the Jury’s hands.

http://www.1047.ca/local-news/michael-rafferty-trial

 

[matou]

As previously decided, Rafferty's lead defence counsel, Dirk Derstine, will still be the first to deliver his closing argument on Monday. However the Crown - which was originally supposed to close on Tuesday - will now start its closing argument Monday afternoon following the Defence; likely continuing into Tuesday.

http://www.newstalk1010.com/raffertytrial/

 

[Salem]

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

But what, really is the different viewpoint? I freely admit that I am not understanding the defense's position. TLM is violent and TLM targeted Tori - okay, I can buy that. How does that exonerate MR? He still drove the child to the place of the crime, he spent 1 1/2 hours there, without his phone (that's not believable), his blood was mixed with Tori's, his blood was mixed with TLM's and Tori's - was that on the fabric scrap? How does TLM's violence provide reasonable doubt about these facts? I'm not seeing it?

Salem

 

[JayFriend]

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

It matters little what the defence "suggests", it's just conjecture and fantasy if Rafferty didn't testify.

 

[Alethea Dice]

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.

Because TLM didn't accept Derstine's suggestion, I believe it isn't considered evidence in the trial. However, the defence's theory of what happened can, and perhaps must, be taken into consideration by the jury when reaching a verdict.

An affirmative defense is a type of legal defense that can be raised by a defendant in support of his or her side of a case. As a general rule, through an affirmative defense, a defendant presents additional facts that serve to diminish the civil claims or criminal charges being brought against him or her. This is done without arguing against any pertinent elements of the alleged crime. In other words, the defendant agrees with the facts presented by the plaintiff or prosecution but also introduces additional facts that mitigate the defendant's liability or culpability.

The effect of most affirmative defenses is to either reduce - or excuse altogether - a defendant’s liability in a civil case or culpability in a criminal case. Exoneration or liability or culpability occurs even if a plaintiff is able to show that the facts supporting the plaintiff’s case are true. If an affirmative defense is sought in a case, a judge typically instructs the jury on the specific defense theory at hand. The jury must then take that defense into consideration when rendering a verdict in the case.

http://www.wisegeek.com/what-is-an-affirmative-defense.htm

We will have to wait and see what the Judge's instructions to the jury are.

JMO

 

[Salem]

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.

Not necessarily a waste - Derstine may have had the experts and the experts found they agreed with the Crown's experts - so instead of spending additional money to call them to the stand, Derstine just did a good job of cross examining the Crown's experts.

And I do think Derstine did a good job at the cross. He did raise issues and the got the scientist to say that the science could not determine which of the two killed Tori.

Just a thought,

Salem

 

[Salem]

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.

As with many words, often there is more than one meaning. When used in a condescending or disparaging manner, the word is considered name calling and it will be removed.

Hope that helps,

Salem

 

[Hello_Kitty]

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

I think the reason why he dropped her off where he did, is #1 she asked him to? and #2 Her mother didn't like him much, so she may have asked him to so her mother wouldn't see him, #3 she also told her mom that the police chased her all the way to London and that's why she was late, so I think she may have had a cerfew from her probation. So MTR dropping her off in her driveway wouldn't have made sense. #4 Maybe he dropped her off cuz he didn't want her nosy neighbhours to catch sight of him in her driveway on the night they just happened to have murdered a little girl in case he got caught.

 

[BorgQueen]

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

Oh, I absolutely agree with you. I fail to understand how reasonable doubt can be raised in the minds of others, but it does appear that it has for some reason. In my opinion, the arguments I have read so far (re: reasonable doubt) just don't make sense to me. I find them to be an absolute stretch, and kind of similar to the fiction of soap operas. To me, the evidence presented is good enough for me to come to the conclusion that the accused is guilty, as charged. And I do wish I was able to compare TLMs testimony with her original confession. It would help me determine when I think she is lying and when she is telling the truth. But, the evidence presented so far has very much connected with most of her testimony. A few things can't be proven ("he said this" stuff, and who exactly held the hammer), but considering the rest of the evidence, I see no reasonable doubt.
I, too, would be shocked if he was not found guilty, but the fact that there are people who see reasonable doubt worries me that perhaps a juror or two see it, too. This is not a man I want walking the streets with my child, or any other child. If he is guilty and gets away with it, I have no doubt that he would do it again. The other day, on the bus, I passed a school as the kids were let out. So many children, many younger than Tori was, walking without an adult or even an older sibling. The thought of him walking free is terrifying. But it is still a possibility, even if that possibility is very small.


JMO

 

[Hello_Kitty]

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....

It's possible TS thought she had the feeling that she had to pee. It doesn't mean that she actually pee'd, TLM said she saw blood on the snow. And like I said before, TS may have wanted the rape to stop so asked to go pee. It doesn't mean TLM lied.

For everyone here that believes she is lying about the rape, she sure has alot of little details that most liers wouldn't think about. When you lie you try to make it as simple as possible. Who'd think of saying that when TS asked to pee, that TLM saw her bleeding on the snow, it's one of those little details that makes it more likely that TLM did tell the truth.

 

[Hello_Kitty]

Had Tori soiled herself earlier in the trip, it seems even clearer to me that MR should have known they were NOT babysitting and that they were taking this girl for the wrong reasons, leading to guilty on kidnapping and hence murder. I agree with others that no girl will remove all her clothes in the company of strangers, even if they were soiled.
I also sadly believe that the effects of a rape could lead a little girl to believe she needed to go to the potty.

Exactly what I'm trying to say.

 

[Salem]

@BorgQueen - I wish I could say don't worry but we have all seen a slam dunk case turn into an acquittal before - so I do worry.

And send up lots of positive thoughts and wishes on the moon that the jury gets it right.

Salem

 

[otto]

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 think there's quite a big difference between a forum discussion and jury deliberations. For example, a jurist cannot claim that 'maybe Victoria peed and that's why she was missing clothing' because there is no evidence supporting that claim. The jury simply can't come up with "what if" responses to omit evidence from consideration. The babysitting theory has been discussed here, but without evidence that TLM babysat Victoria, or the MR believed that TLM had a job as a babysitter at that time (not years earlier), there's no reason to consider the babysitting theory. The jury has to go with the evidence; no more, no less, we don't.

 

[BorgQueen]

Still, I worry. And I will continue to worry until the verdict is in.
I do remain hopeful, though.

 

[tmhco]

But what, really is the different viewpoint? I freely admit that I am not understanding the defense's position. TLM is violent and TLM targeted Tori - okay, I can buy that. How does that exonerate MR? He still drove the child to the place of the crime, he spent 1 1/2 hours there, without his phone (that's not believable), his blood was mixed with Tori's, his blood was mixed with TLM's and Tori's - was that on the fabric scrap? How does TLM's violence provide reasonable doubt about these facts? I'm not seeing it?

Salem

Once bitten, twice shy. I believe he is guilty on all counts.

 

[Hello_Kitty]

BBM - I absolutely agree with the statement bolded above, and I hope that this case does bring us, as a society, to see some of what you term 'the real issues'. But, IMO, that is just one side of the coin - because I do not think this case is entirely about the wreck of a human being that is TLM. I think the collaboration of TLM, with all her issues, and MR, with his distinct and separate issues, conjured up 'the perfect storm' of evil. So, in my mind, I cannot dismiss that the crime was sexually motivated - I think that was his motivation. I believe MR was a master manipulator, and that TLM would have done anything that she thought would impress or please him. Because she lacks a conscience and cares about just a very few people - her mom, for one... maybe her godmother... and for a brief time, MR... because she really believed he cared about her, and for a neglected, abused, discarded child like TLM, just imagine how powerful a currency that 'little bit of love' is.

I think he, OTOH, recognized in her a willingness to go to any lengths at all, without qualms, to satisfy him. I believe her when she testified that he goaded her by saying she was all talk... and that played right into her second most valued currency... protecting her 'tough girl' status. And I think that he possibly never really thought she'd do it... I think it could have been one of those things that got started from a flippant comment, a dare... and that once the ball was rolling, neither of them could/would back down. And that once Tori was in the car, it was too late and they 'couldn't keep her and they couldn't take her home'... and so he thought he may as well indulge his sick fantasy first, which led him to say 'you know I'm going to rape (or some other word) her, right?'

Doesn't make much difference to me if TLM went in the school seeking Tori because she knew her or knew of her, or if she was outside and picked Tori because she was walking alone... I believe TLM went to the school to get a girl, on a 'dare' from MR and that they both are entirely responsible in Tori's death, regardless of who held the hammer.

All just MOO.

Great post Greenthumb. I feel every bit of what you said to be true.

 

[otto]

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 …

MR used people ... he didn't have relationships. He used them and moved on. The escort woman is a good example of how he used women. He used TLM because he could. I suspect that MR believed that if TLM lured a child and committed the murder, then he would not face the same charges.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Okay, for what it is worth, here is my thinking on the detail that her bottoms were missing and why I do not think it is likely that they were gone because of an accident.

I don't think she would have removed her own bottoms if she had soiled her pants because think being bottomless in front of strangers in that weather would be very uncomfortable, more uncomfortable than continuing to wear them. People, even kids, do not usually take dirty things off until they can replace them with something clean anyway.

Would TLM have noticed and taken the time to remove the dirty clothes before murdering her? That does not seem reasonable to me.

If Tori peed in her pants before they reached Mt. Forrest, I dont think mtr or tlm would have noticed.

The only reasonable explanation for why TLM or MTR would have needed to remove Tori's pants if they were not aware they were wet would be for nefarious purposes.

 

[snoofer]

Oh, I absolutely agree with you. I fail to understand how reasonable doubt can be raised in the minds of others, but it does appear that it has for some reason. In my opinion, the arguments I have read so far (re: reasonable doubt) just don't make sense to me. I find them to be an absolute stretch, and kind of similar to the fiction of soap operas. To me, the evidence presented is good enough for me to come to the conclusion that the accused is guilty, as charged. And I do wish I was able to compare TLMs testimony with her original confession. It would help me determine when I think she is lying and when she is telling the truth. But, the evidence presented so far has very much connected with most of her testimony. A few things can't be proven ("he said this" stuff, and who exactly held the hammer), but considering the rest of the evidence, I see no reasonable doubt.
I, too, would be shocked if he was not found guilty, but the fact that there are people who see reasonable doubt worries me that perhaps a juror or two see it, too. This is not a man I want walking the streets with my child, or any other child. If he is guilty and gets away with it, I have no doubt that he would do it again. The other day, on the bus, I passed a school as the kids were let out. So many children, many younger than Tori was, walking without an adult or even an older sibling. The thought of him walking free is terrifying. But it is still a possibility, even if that possibility is very small.


JMO

When a teenager gets caught with cigarettes or marijuana...what is the first thing they say.....

it's not mine; I am holding it for someone.

But we know it is not true, but I suppose it COULD be true. Once in a blue moon it is true. But overwhelmingly it is not true. The little bugger IS smoking cigarettes or marijuana. Some parents will want to believe the lie. But it is a lie.

This case is like that IMO. Common sense tells us what happened. But what does MTR/defense say....yep I was there but I didn't do it.

Whatever. (rolls eyes) It's a lie. MOO

This seems a similar situation. JC himself could come down to earth and MTR would still lie to him. MTR never learned growing up that good, bad or ugly you tell the truth. Deny, deny, deny. Let's face it MTR was a bad guy, who lied, deceived and lived a criminal life because he COULD. He learned that he DID NOT have to be held accountable to anyone for his actions.

MTR's criminal activities escalated over time because he was never held accountable for them each step of the way. The question is...will he be held accountable this time. MOO
JMO

 

[Tahorn]

MR used people ... he didn't have relationships. He used them and moved on. The escort woman is a good example of how he used women. He used TLM because he could. I suspect that MR believed that if TLM lured a child and committed the murder, then he would not face the same charges.

Exactly, he used them ... He didn't control them ... Rape is about power, not seduction ...