Weekend Discussion Thread 04/27-30/2012

[antiquegirl]

Just curious, AG. What is the spectator's view of the jury? Are they blocked from view to protect their identity? Or are they in plain sight?

They're in plain sight off to the left of the courtroom on slightly elevated seats (IIRC). How well you can see them depends on how tall you are and where you're sitting. I guess one can get the best view of them as they enter and exit the room via the front doors. But because spectators sit at the far back and are at the same level as all the media people in front of them, the best view is of the judge and the witnesses on the stand because they're more highly elevated.

I'm guessing that no one is allowed to stand during the proceedings. That would be the best way (if standing in the back, right-hand side of the room) to get pics of anything in the courtroom. Are you implying that these men were trying to get pics of the jury? Because that's interesting.

JMO

 

[Wondergirl]

I'm glad MTR got his trial. It meant he had to sit in the same room with RS and face him. Each day MTR went to his trial seeing RS would be a constant reminder to him of what a man does and what he did not do and those horrid things he did do. JMO I would think that MTR would feel very small in the same room with RS.

BBM: Unfortunately, I disagree, Snoofer.

MTR SHOULD feel very small, being in the same room with Rodney.

As Rodney said in his interview, Rafferty has been cool as a cucumber. In other words, no remorse, little expression, certainly no horrified behaviour, and no conscience.

JMO

 

[Wondergirl]

I think the defense team got that info thrown out. JMO. We know all about TLM and the defense were all over that but nothing much about their client has come out at all. Why not?

The info will all come out when the jurors go to deliberate.

The LFP and others have expressedly said so.

Sounds to me that there is ALOT of info about the accused that is going to hit the fan.

JMO

11:35

[Comment From Phil Phil : ]

Usually,when a murder case wraps up,and jury is sequestered prior to reaching a verdict,additional "info" on accused's past is revealed. Will you be reporting on this,if applicable?

Wednesday April 25, 2012 11:35 Phil

11:36

Mike Knoll:

@Phil - yes. Once the jury is sequestered we will have much additional reportage.

 

[Salem]

First off, I would like to apologize if these things have already been discussed, but I haven't had the time to keep up with all of the posts.

In yesterday's thread I believe it was Heliotrope who asked if there was a 'silent juror' in the courtroom, watching, observing and reporting back to legal counsel. I would imagine there might be, but, in a similar vein, why wouldn't the defense counsel have someone (or more than one) monitoring what is going on here on this board? ....checking out how we are responding to different evidence, out theories, etc. We would be like a shadow jury and they would have a window into our thoughts.


And, just a random thought, did we hear of many instances of "Mr. dance instructor" going out dancing?

We have discussed this is passing - but never hurts to discuss it again. We know this happened in the Caylee Anthony case. There were articles written about it in MSM and some of the articles even discussed what the watchers were looking at when reviewing different boards.

Also, in the Madeleine McCann case there was much talk about using paid posters to try to influence the public perception. I don't know if that was ever proven but it was an interesting concept.

I think we always need to be aware that others are watching, everywhere. Not just here and not just crime boards. If you look at the number of members and guests that have been on WS for the last 24 hours, it says WS has had 16,000 guests (not members) in the last 24 hours.

Also there have been 82 visitors to this thread since it opened Fri morning. We know not all of those visitors have posted.

I firmly believe that this internet technology is changing the way the law happens. It many, many ways and one of the most important, is in the ability for the average person to follow and even in a sense, participate, in trials.

Salem

 

[antiquegirl]

We have discussed this is passing - but never hurts to discuss it again. We know this happened in the Caylee Anthony case. There were articles written about it in MSM and some of the articles even discussed what the watchers were looking at when reviewing different boards.

Also, in the Madeleine McCann case there was much talk about using paid posters to try to influence the public perception. I don't know if that was ever proven but it was an interesting concept.

I think we always need to be aware that others are watching, everywhere. Not just here and not just crime boards. If you look at the number of members and guests that have been on WS for the last 24 hours, it says WS has had 16,000 guests (not members) in the last 24 hours.

Also there have been 82 visitors to this thread since it opened Fri morning. We know not all of those visitors have posted.

I firmly believe that this internet technology is changing the way the law happens. It many, many ways and one of the most important, is in the ability for the average person to follow and even in a sense, participate, in trials.

Salem

(RSBM)

I'm just curious why they would do this. How would public perception have any effect on the jury and their ultimate verdict? (Or the judge, if there is no jury?) Am I mistaken in believing that in Canada at least, they are not permitted to read about the case during the trial? Certainly not during deliberations.

IMHO, the public has an unrealistic view of their actual influence on the outcome of criminal trials. A very good example of this is the CA debacle.

JMO

 

[Salem]

(RSBM)

I'm just curious why they would do this. How would public perception have any effect on the jury and their ultimate verdict? (Or the judge, if there is no jury?) Am I mistaken in believing that in Canada at least, they are not permitted to read about the case during the trial? Certainly not during deliberations.

IMHO, the public has an unrealistic view of their actual influence on the outcome of criminal trials. A very good example of this is the CA debacle.

JMO

From the Caylee Anthony case, it was reported after the trial that there were media/internet watchers that did exactly what Snoopster was suggesting. They sat on the boards and then reported back to the defense. The information was used to influence the direction of the defense. One of the woman actually gave an interview - I don't have a link, it is buried in the Anthony case media files - but I will look to see if a thread was set up to discuss as it seems there was. It was speculated by posters here that the prosecution should have also used this technique to stay on top of their presentation.

The public should NOT have any influence on the outcome of a criminal trial - but I think they have more influence now with the internet then they ever had before.

Salem

 

[robynhood]

I hope this interview with Rodney Strafford is ok to post as I personally never saw it on here....IMO it probably was posted but I missed it here and just read above that is was done ....Sorry if this is a re post ...IMO it is Important ...so here it is Tori's father opinon on the crown resting his case and defense goes forward Mon. Apr. 30 , 2011........robynhood ..here is the link I just found ...agains sorry if it is a repeat!

Rodney Stafford Interview | CTV Londonwww.ctvlondon.ca/2012/04/rodney-stafford-interview/

 

[otto]

In Canada, court dress is identical to that previously (pre-2008) in use in England, except that wigs are not worn. Bar jackets are worn under the gown, though QCs and Judges have more elaborate cuffs than other lawyers. Barristers are required to "gown" for the Courts of Appeal and Superior-level courts of the provinces and territories, as well as the Federal Court of Appeal and the Supreme Court of Canada. The donning of business attire is acceptable by barristers in "inferior" provincial and territorial courts; court dress is also permitted, though rarely worn. Judges of the Supreme Court of Canada wear red robes with white fur trim on ceremonial occasions together with tricorne hats; however, they wear black gowns when hearing cases. Judges of all other federal and provincial courts wear black gowns, sometimes adorned with various sashes and crests which depend on the level of court and the province in which the case is heard. All Canadian judges also wear black court waistcoats with white collar and tabs.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_dress#Canada

I find the discussions about official court clothing interesting, in part because there was a similar, long discussion about the subject during the Italian trial of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito ... except in that case there was an awful lot of criticism over the fact that official court clothing was worn by the officers of the court. It was as though the concept was so foreign that it was held up for ridicule as something that was archaic and backwards - medieval; a reflection of a culture that was out of step with the present. I think its more the norm in most countries for court oficials to wear official clothing.

I'm curious whether there was ever a time in US history when officers of the courts wore official clothing.

 

[otto]

Considering I don't for a second believe the "escort" friend of MR was simply handing over all her money to MR, because he was some kind of Svengali, I am thinking there is more to the debt theory than we presently know.

MR was picking up drugs from various sources , and people were depositing money into his account...............to me that looks like drug trafficking. It doesn't mean MR was the man behind it all though. He might have just been the errand boy and go between.

If there is more the defense should be able to reveal it all.

After all, they have MR sitting right there with all the information.

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

The "escort" woman that gave MR $16,000 believed that he was the "one" and that they would eventually get married. She was "investing" in her future. Unless there was evidence that she was a drug dealer, I think we have to believe the testimony that was presented ... she was in love, foolish and had her priorities all screwed up.

 

[otto]

Just curious, AG. What is the spectator's view of the jury? Are they blocked from view to protect their identity? Or are they in plain sight?

The jury is normally in plain site along the side of the courtroom. Another interesting point in Canadian law is that jurors can't discuss the deliberations, or publish books about the case after the fact - they can't profit from their civic duty.

 

[Oldsoul2]

I brought this post over from yesterday as I feel it is fitting to MR. Does anyone else see the similarities? Very odd, that both of my links to sites worked yesterday but do not work now...hmm. Anyhow I have posted two more links. Interesting read. HTH.

I really wonder if MR was really not "into" women. Could it be he actually disliked women and used them for what he could get out of them? Were women the only sex he could have a friendship with as opposed to males? Did he feel neglected and abandoned by his mother at some point in his life? He was shipped off to live with relatives for some time. Wonder how long? I would be interested in knowing why his parents divorced? Was his birth father ever in his life or was MR the result of an affair and his real father never knew about him or didn't care about him? Just because he had many women coming and going doesn't mean he really cared about them. There are men who hate women but will use them to their advantage. So many questions and not enough answers Answers we may never know. MOO

The misogynists. You may have heard of them. But what you may not know is that they can be anywhere around you. They are notoriously hard to spot. They do not come with a label attached to them, and they may even come across as woman lovers.

http://www.lifescript.com/life/relationships/hang-ups/how_to_tell_if_your_guy_is_a_misogynist.aspx

http://www.lovesicklove.com/2011/07/men-who-hate-women.html

Is it just me or does anyone else believe MR holds many of these traits/characteristics? IKES!! MOO

Also, these men fear other men but never fear women. His total lack of respect for women is very apparent, IMO there HAS to be some dynamic we don't know about in regards to his relationship with his mother, no question.

 

[otto]

(RSBM)

I'm just curious why they would do this. How would public perception have any effect on the jury and their ultimate verdict? (Or the judge, if there is no jury?) Am I mistaken in believing that in Canada at least, they are not permitted to read about the case during the trial? Certainly not during deliberations.

IMHO, the public has an unrealistic view of their actual influence on the outcome of criminal trials. A very good example of this is the CA debacle.

JMO

That's right. A Canadian jury is not allowed to watch the news, read the paper, or be involved in any discussions related to the case - they are in a media blackout, so they cannot be influenced by public perception.

Hopefully, the prosecutor and defence counsel have formalated solid arguments based on evidence and testimony and do not need to rely on forum discussions to form trial strategies. I think a big difference is that in the US, much of the evidence is released to the public well before the trial. This gives the public a lot of time to come up with theories - some of which may appeal to US court officials. In Canada, the evidence is first learned by the public at the time it is heard in court, so the jury and the public hear it at the same time. I'm not convinced that there's any real advantage for the prosecutor or defence counsel to see what is being said on forums.

 

[Oldsoul2]

From the Caylee Anthony case, it was reported after the trial that there were media/internet watchers that did exactly what Snoopster was suggesting. They sat on the boards and then reported back to the defense. The information was used to influence the direction of the defense. One of the woman actually gave an interview - I don't have a link, it is buried in the Anthony case media files - but I will look to see if a thread was set up to discuss as it seems there was. It was speculated by posters here that the prosecution should have also used this technique to stay on top of their presentation.

The public should NOT have any influence on the outcome of a criminal trial - but I think they have more influence now with the internet then they ever had before.

Salem

Interesting you brought this up because my biggest beef with that defense team was their own constant complaining about the possible media influence on their clients verdict, costing the state of Florida and its tax payers more money than any other trial in history. Yet they used the media to get their angle to get their client off on a crime IMO she clearly committed. Not only did the jury get duped but the public paid for her to walk. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black. My point is there is no way to prevent the public from stating their opinion, here on WS or anywhere else and whether were watching it live from a courtroom or following via twitter, the system will always use public opinion some way some how.

 

[otto]

From the Caylee Anthony case, it was reported after the trial that there were media/internet watchers that did exactly what Snoopster was suggesting. They sat on the boards and then reported back to the defense. The information was used to influence the direction of the defense. One of the woman actually gave an interview - I don't have a link, it is buried in the Anthony case media files - but I will look to see if a thread was set up to discuss as it seems there was. It was speculated by posters here that the prosecution should have also used this technique to stay on top of their presentation.

The public should NOT have any influence on the outcome of a criminal trial - but I think they have more influence now with the internet then they ever had before.

Salem

That would require that the defendant agree to pay for someone to read forums and that he/she have funds to pay for the service. I suppose it's possible, but I doubt that it has ever happened in Canada. Prosecutors that I know impose their own media blackout during trial because they do not want exposure to opinions about the trial progress and direction. They are doing a job, for better or worse, and are doing the best they can.

Another point about Canadian law that may make a difference is that prosecutors are not elected in Canada, like they are in the US. They are regular lawyers that apply for the job, work their way up the ranks and can keep the job for life if they choose. Although they want to "win" as badly as any prosecutor, their job, promotions and future are not on the line when they try a case.

 

[JayFriend]

We have discussed this is passing - but never hurts to discuss it again. We know this happened in the Caylee Anthony case. There were articles written about it in MSM and some of the articles even discussed what the watchers were looking at when reviewing different boards.

What is "MSM"?

 

[Shasta]

What is "MSM"?

main stream media

 

[greenthumb]

Not directly related to this case, but I found this description of withdrawal from Oxy interesting...

The symptoms of withdrawal are excruciating. It's like having barbed wire pulled through your veins.”

And there's another problem: if you're already on a methadone program when you go to jail, they make sure that you continue treatment. But if you're not on the program, you can't get on it in jail. Instead you face about a week of acute withdrawal and then a chemically induced depression for 12 to 18 months.

“In jail, (prisoners) have no education around their addiction, no access to counselling and when they come out of jail they're no further ahead in accessing services for addictions. It's a huge set-up for them to fail.”

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2012/04/27/car-theft-oxy-linked-in-a-big-way

I cannot say it I find it displeasing to imagine that the first week of MR's jail time was very, very unpleasant for him. And am I correct that there was a time when he was on suicide watch? Perhaps due to the 12-18 months of chemically induced depression - because IMHO, it would not be from remorse, since he has displayed absolutely no sign of having a consience.

Just MOO.

 

[Yody04]

I was searching around for some information about Tori's law.
I found an old article and want to share this part about MTR. That was shortly after his arrest.

*A 28-year-old man, Michael Thomas Rafferty, is facing charges of kidnapping and first-degree murder.

Rafferty, who is said to be on suicide watch in a London, Ont. prison and is in isolation, is expected to make a video appearance in court on Thursday.

His lawyer, Hal Mattson, said his client is having a difficult time adjusting to his situation.

"It is a difficult thing when you've never been in a jail cell and you've never been in jail before and you're charged with a serious crime like this," told CTV News. "It's very difficult, for anybody."
*
I am wondering if he got used to the cell now

 

[Flossie JMO]

I think the defense team got that info thrown out. JMO. We know all about TLM and the defense were all over that but nothing much about their client has come out at all. Why not?

IME it's the norm, much of what is out about TLM came out after her trial. We'll have to wait and see if there is more info about MR.

Friends and I were discussing the 1994 Stark trial for the abduction and murder of 14 year old Julie Ann Stanton in Pickering. She was his daughter's best friend. It was huge then to have a first degree murder conviction with no body or crime scene. Her remains were found a few years after the trial. Horrible, but at least her remains were found, unlike Liz Bain.

Anyway, the jurors were not told about Stark's past, including serving time for stabbing a hitch hiker and I don't recall what else. I remember being really startled at the time. JME

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Not directly related to this case, but I found this description of withdrawal from Oxy interesting...

The symptoms of withdrawal are excruciating. It's like having barbed wire pulled through your veins.”

And there's another problem: if you're already on a methadone program when you go to jail, they make sure that you continue treatment. But if you're not on the program, you can't get on it in jail. Instead you face about a week of acute withdrawal and then a chemically induced depression for 12 to 18 months.

“In jail, (prisoners) have no education around their addiction, no access to counselling and when they come out of jail they're no further ahead in accessing services for addictions. It's a huge set-up for them to fail.”

http://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/2012/04/27/car-theft-oxy-linked-in-a-big-way

I cannot say it I find it displeasing to imagine that the first week of MR's jail time was very, very unpleasant for him. And am I correct that there was a time when he was on suicide watch? Perhaps due to the 12-18 months of chemically induced depression - because IMHO, it would not be from remorse, since he has displayed absolutely no sign of having a consience.

Just MOO.

If someone is using Oxy and is addicted to it do they have withdrawals if they have to use Percocets?