Weekend Discussion Thread 04/27-30/2012

[otto]

AK wasn't guilty, they have the actual killer.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito got into each other's psyches really fast, just like TLM and MR. That is not disputed.

 

[Alethea Dice]

So ... if it was about hatred and rage about her own childhood, then ... might he have been pushing her buttons?

Don't know. Personally, I don't believe her. If she really was angry about her own childhood, and really wanted to stop what was happening to Tori, and really doesn't want him to be able to do it to any other children, then why didn't she use the hammer on him?

JMO

 

[Salem]

Let's drop the AK/RS conversation please. It is off topic and doesn't belong here.

Thanks,

Salem

 

[otto]

Don't know. Personally, I don't believe her. If she really was angry about her own childhood, and really wanted to stop what was happening to Tori, and really doesn't want him to be able to do it to any other children, then why didn't she use the hammer on him?

JMO

I think she gets off on seeing suffering in others ... like the puppy in the microwave.

I think her hammer assault on a young child was about reliving her own experiences but viewing it from the predator, rather than victim, perspective. She loved her partner in crime and had no empathy for the victim ... so stopping the abuse only meant stopping the jealousy she felt when MR wanted someone else.

 

[Ardy]

The Genest video showed a small portion of the visits. I'd be interested in seeing what the other approximately 45 minutes of each visit was like.

I was wondering about that as well.

I didn't think it was allowed as evidence to show edited versions.

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

 

[otto]

Let's drop the AK/RS conversation please. It is off topic and doesn't belong here.

Thanks,

Salem

The only similarity I see relates to the "getting into each other's psyches really fast".

"Vronsky reminds us that there is nothing especially new or unique to the Bernardo Homolka crimes. The case is similar to the Moors murders in England in the 1960s, when Myra Hindley and Ian Brady, tortured, raped, and killed several children, recording their cries on audio tape," Vronsky says. Nor is Homolkas rape of her younger sister particularly unique; husband and wife serial killers Fred and Rose West in England raped and murdered their own daughter."

...

"Vronsky describes the case of husband and wife serial killers Charlene and Gerald Gallego in California and Nevada in the late 1970s. Exactly like Homolka, Charlene lured teenage female victims in shopping mall parking lots into her husbands van. The couple would then rape and torture the girls before driving them out into the desert and killing them. In one case Charlene had bitten off the nipple of one of her victims. Another victim was buried alive by the couple. They killed at least ten girls between 1978 and 1980, sometimes murdering pairs of teenage victims. They were identified after their car was linked to a kidnapping and murder of a teenage couple on their high school prom night outing but police at first could not believe that a married couple were capable of such horrific murder rapes."

http://financeswests.com/ears/r12e214331mi/

 

[Ardy]

I think she gets off on seeing suffering in others ... like the puppy in the microwave.

I think her hammer assault on a young child was about reliving her own experiences but viewing it from the predator, rather than victim, perspective. She loved her partner in crime and had no empathy for the victim ... so stopping the abuse only meant stopping the jealousy she felt when MR wanted someone else.

If what you say is true, there would be questions about MR's intent that VS be killed.

I don't believe that is what the Crown is alleging happened, because it would fall short of fulfilling the elements of the charge of first degree murder.

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

 

[Alethea Dice]

I was wondering about that as well.

I didn't think it was allowed as evidence to show edited versions.

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

It shouldn't be IMO. The edited pieces showed only what the Crown needed to make their point. How the visits started and ended doesn't mean the entire visit was all hugs and giggles and cracking backs.

JMO

 

[otto]

If what you say is true, there would be questions about MR's intent that VS be killed.

I don't believe that is what the Crown is alleging happened, because it would fall short of fulfilling the elements of the charge of first degree murder.

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

I disagree. MR knew perfectly well when he wrote that "good things" were coming his way, and he cruised back and forth in front of the elementary school that morning and afternoon, that he intended to follow through on his sick fantasies with TLM helping him kidnap a young girl. His only complaint was that the kidnap victim "wasn't young enough".

Do we know who called who first on Apil 8? How did they end up getting together that day?

 

[otto]

It shouldn't be IMO. The edited pieces showed only what the Crown needed to make their point. How the visits started and ended doesn't mean the entire visit was all hugs and giggles and cracking backs.

JMO

The edited version on the news may or may not be the same as what was viewed in court. If what was viewed in court was presented as evidence with time stamps, then what difference does it make if other footage that is not evidence was not presented in court?

 

[Ardy]

The crown has grounds to appeal a not guilty verdict and will often be granted a new trial. That is not possible in the US .. so in terms of whether the defendant has all the advantage in Canada, this is a point where the defendant has a balancing disadvantage.

I would have to respectfully disagree.

Neither side can appeal a verdict. They can appeal on grounds of legal errors during the trial. A higher court would have to be convinced the errors were substantial and grievous and had an affect on the verdict.

There is a very high threshold to meet for a successful appeal.

JMO.

 

[Alethea Dice]

The edited version on the news may or may not be the same as what was viewed in court. If what was viewed in court was presented as evidence with time stamps, then what difference does it make if other footage that is not evidence was not presented in court?

I believe I made my point in my previous post. The jury only saw the edited tape. It leaves the impression that the entire visits were nothing but hugs and happiness. It's not unusual for people to hug when they arrive and hug when they leave. The larger portion of the visits could have been entirely different. It's misleading if it's meant to show what their visits were like.

 

[otto]

On female murderers with a male accomplice:

"Vronsky reports that female serial killers are not as rare as we think: 16 percent of known serial killers in the United States between 1800 and 1995 were females and accounted for between four hundred and six hundred victims. Seventy-five percent of these female serial killers appeared on the scene since 1950 and a third committed their crimes with an accomplice, frequently a male."

http://financeswests.com/ears/r12e214331mi/

 

[Ardy]

It shouldn't be IMO. The edited pieces showed only what the Crown needed to make their point. How the visits started and ended doesn't mean the entire visit was all hugs and giggles and cracking backs.

JMO

It was pretty obvious the Crown edited the video to show what they wanted to show..........but I am wondering why Derstine is just letting a lot of things slide by.

I also wondered why he didn't object to all that testimony from endless females testifying to nothing relevant to the trial.

I also wondered about the "escort" and why he didn't ask her how she made a living for herself if she gave all her money to MR. Her answer could have shown that her integrity as a witness was compromised.

Maybe letting the Crown carry on..........and gathering up things for appeal at a later date........if needed?

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

 

[Alethea Dice]

Canada
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms includes provisions such as section 11(h) prohibiting double jeopardy. But often this prohibition applies only after the trial is finally concluded. Canadian law allows the prosecution to appeal from an acquittal. If the acquittal is thrown out, the new trial is not considered to be double jeopardy because the first trial and its judgment would have been annulled. In rare circumstances, a court of appeal might also substitute a conviction for an acquittal. This is not considered to be double jeopardy either - in this case the appeal and subsequent conviction are deemed to be a continuation of the original trial.

For an appeal from an acquittal to be successful, the Supreme Court of Canada requires that the Crown show an error in law was made during the trial and that the error contributed to the verdict. It has been suggested that this test is unfairly beneficial to the prosecution. For instance, Martin L Friedland, in his book My Life in Crime and Other Academic Adventures, contends that the rule should be changed so that a retrial is granted only when the error is shown to be responsible for the verdict, not just one of many factors.

http://www.sccs.swarthmore.edu/users/08/ajb/tmve/wiki100k/docs/Double_jeopardy.html

 

[otto]

I would have to respectfully disagree.

Neither side can appeal a verdict. They can appeal on grounds of legal errors during the trial. A higher court would have to be convinced the errors were substantial and grievous and had an affect on the verdict.

There is a very high threshold to meet for a successful appeal.

JMO.

"In Canada, unlike in the United States, the Crown (the prosecution) can appeal an acquittal (a finding of not guilty at trial) or a sentence imposed after conviction (whether at trial or on a guilty plea).

The Crown’s ability to appeal is strictly limited by law and therefore exercised very rarely. This means that if you have been served with a Notice of Appeal by the Crown, there is likely to be a strong basis in law to challenge the outcome at trial."

http://www.criminallawappeals.ca/Crown-Appeals.php

Guy Paul Morin was tried three times, eventually convicted, conviction eventually overturned on the basis of DNA evidence. Apparently the technicalities were not that difficult to define.

I'm pretty sure that the crown could present a good argument for appeal if MR is found not guilty ... somehow, that legal argument would be found.

 

[otto]

It was pretty obvious the Crown edited the video to show what they wanted to show..........but I am wondering why Derstine is just letting a lot of things slide by.

I also wondered why he didn't object to all that testimony from endless females testifying to nothing relevant to the trial.

I also wondered about the "escort" and why he didn't ask her how she made a living for herself if she gave all her money to MR. Her answer could have shown that her integrity as a witness was compromised.

Maybe letting the Crown carry on..........and gathering up things for appeal at a later date........if needed?

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

Why show evidence that is meaningless? The video is like still photos ... some are relevant, some not ... why show footage that isn't evidence of anything? The defence can certainly show the entire video if they feel that something in the video refutes the point made by the video.

On what grounds could the defence object to testimony about what MR was doing shortly before and after the murder?

The escort's income is not the point ... all that matters for the purposes of the trial is how much money she gave to MR on the morning of the murder, on the afternoon of the murder, why she gave him money, during what time period and how much in total. Her overall income has nothing to do with the trial. Her character is not in question ... all that matters is what she can tell us about the suspect.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I don't know how this stuff is possible. And that is the problem because not all of these people have a red sign over their heads that say sicko like TLM. Maybe people saw the sickness in MTR, but it seemed like he fooled a lot of people. It's terrifying.

I don't have children, but if I did I would be a nervous wreck.

 

[Ardy]

"In Canada, unlike in the United States, the Crown (the prosecution) can appeal an acquittal (a finding of not guilty at trial) or a sentence imposed after conviction (whether at trial or on a guilty plea).

The Crown’s ability to appeal is strictly limited by law and therefore exercised very rarely. This means that if you have been served with a Notice of Appeal by the Crown, there is likely to be a strong basis in law to challenge the outcome at trial."

http://www.criminallawappeals.ca/Crown-Appeals.php

Guy Paul Morin was tried three times, eventually convicted, conviction eventually overturned on the basis of DNA evidence. Apparently the technicalities were not that difficult to define.

I'm pretty sure that the crown could present a good argument for appeal if MR is found not guilty ... somehow, that legal argument would be found.

The Crown can apply for anything it wants, but unless there are very strong grounds for appeal............the Supreme Court of Canada won't even hear the case.

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

 

[daisy.faithfull]

If MTR did that her was going to molest Tory, knowing TLM was so obviously sick it makes it all the more likely he knew TLM would kill Tory even if they did not specifically plan it that way.

I think both of them knew what the other was capable and likely to do even if it was not a plan they spoke about.