Weekend Discussion Thread 04/27-30/2012

[swedie]

BBM

It is actually not up to his lawyer. MR has the final say on whether or not he will take the stand, his lawyer can advise against him taking the stand, though if MR wants to take the stand, there is nothing Derstine can do to stop it.

AND if MR is innocent he WILL take the stand to declare and prove his innocence. Who in their right mind wouldn't? Respectfully I wouldn't care if my lawyer advised against it. If I was innocent I would be more than eager to share with the people who will determine my faith. MOO IF MR doesn't take the stand, we can pretty much assume he is guilt.

 

[Wondergirl]

Will Rafferty Take the Stand?

The accused and his lawyers, lead by Dirk Derstine don't have to prove anything, but they may feel as though they have to disprove something.

Mainly the testimony of the Crown's key witness.

"On some critical areas Terri-Lynne McClintic didn't adopt the questions put forward by Dirk Dirstine, for example what happened at the Home Depot".

So, in the opinion of legal analyst, Steven Skurka,

"It would seem to me that Rafferty would need to get up and deal with those critical issues".

http://www.cjbk.com/LocalNews/Story.aspx?ID=1695865

 

[swedie]

Maybe he was just never caught or maybe everything he wanted to do was coming to a head when he met TLM. Maybe it was time, he had someone he could confide in with his dark secrets and what he wanted to do and she was more than willing to comply. All it took was one person with the same mind frame and voila, we have his first crime.

First crime that we know of...

 

[tmhco]

Will he testify? http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120430/skurkas-spin-rafferty-defence-trial-120430/

 

[otto]

respectfully...I gather you know that for a fact Otto... (that TS did not know her kidnappers) I believe IMO that she did in fact know one and that was the one who led her from her school and later decided to murder her...that I know as fact..the actual murderer because she (TLM) testified to that action in court...JMO but anything else is just my opinion and I would never state anything as fact without further knowledge..just my own opinion.... just saying.........

That's what the testimony has revealed ... Victoria did not know her kidnappers. They all lived in Woodstock at the time of the abduction. TLM's mother had talked dog breeding with the victim's mother. It's possible that the victim's mother had also crossed paths with MR's mother ... maybe they once spoke in a grocery store line-up. It makes no difference. According to testimony, the victim did not know her kidnappers. Passing each other on the street does not qualify ... in fact, that sort of "knowing" is more like stalking than knowing.

 

[snoofer]

Yet hours later Tori ended up in garbage bags and murdered with a hammer. Many Murderers bag their Victims. Not unheard of. Perhaps the hammer in the car was taken from Rafferty's Mothers home. I wouldn't want any trace with the weapon.

maybe they each needed a hammer for the murder???? MOO

 

[Salem]

STOP with discussing the family please. They are not on trial and don't deserve to have their names spread all over the internet. I am sure they must be horrified at what is transpiring here. Let them have any peace they can find, please.

Salem

 

[swedie]

arrested..yes...first "real crime"..well it depends on what the crime is...murder and rape...no way....being an accessory to a crime...by all means...JMO

How does one explain away Tori's blood mix with sperm in MR's car, driving way down a laneway to a secluded spot, Tori naked from the waist down, his missing back seat, throwing away the murder weapon and all the other incriminating evidence, ect. ect. ect. AND I don't believe we can assume the sperm is some other males sperm. I am by no means a forensic scientist but I believe any sperm prior to MR owning his car would have been long gone after that time lapse of what, three to four year thereabouts. Weather elements, rain, snow, heat and the multiple times MR was known to have cleaned his car over those years would have destroyed sperm. AND that sperm just so happened to be found with Tori's blood. That evidence alone is most damaging and does show rape. HTH and MOO.

 

[Salem]

RS&BBM

TLM = junkie
MR = addict

What's the difference? I always thought they were one and the same.

Salem

 

[Ardy]

There has been nothing entered into evidence in this trial, that shows MR had any previous tendency towards deviant sexual interests.

LE did a criminal record check and MR doesn't have one.

No witnesses indicated any deviant interests.

No cellphone or laptop records show any deviant interests.

From the jury viewpoint at least, MR has no previous deviant interests.

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

 

[Salem]

IIRC stands for "if I remember correctly"

Salem

 

[otto]

RS&BBM

What's the difference? I always thought they were one and the same.

Salem

Junkie v addict ... I thought so too ... slang v english. They both used the same drugs with as much frequency as they could afford.

 

[tmhco]

There has been nothing entered into evidence in this trial, that shows MR had any previous tendency towards deviant sexual interests.

LE did a criminal record check and MR doesn't have one.

No witnesses indicated any deviant interests.

No cellphone or laptop records show any deviant interests.

From the jury viewpoint at least, MR has no previous deviant interests.

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

Maybe he just needed the right partner to send him over the edge. There is always a first time for everything. JMO

 

[Ardy]

Maybe he just needed the right partner to send him over the edge. There is always a first time for everything. JMO

Maybe...it has happened before as it all starts with the first time.

But the jury won't be dealing with "maybe", the way we do.

It is more black and white for them.

Either the evidence is there.......or not.

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

 

[SFB73]

I've lived in the Woodstock area all of my life, I know many people but really do not "know" them, Chances are I've crossed paths in some of my travels with some of the players in this case as my business puts me in the local 7/11 using the postal kiosk almost daily and I know both TLM and MR regularly were in there in the Late hours of the evening. This just proves most of us do not have perfect recall of people unless we interact with them, i can only say i somewhat know one person associated with the case as we both went to the same school at one point in time and he is a very good person who needs to see justice done for his relative in this case, I'm sure no justice dished out by the court will ever be enough for him, but it's all we can hope for right now. So yes, it could be possible that TS may have known of TLM through the dog connection, but really likely didn't "know" her, and if MR was the innocent dupe, would have easilly been able to see through any charade put up by TLM, it would have been obvious that there was no know babysitter relationship right from the get go, since TS was to head home that day for movies and a babysitter was never in the mix for the day. I don't buy it, most reasonable people here don't buy it so the jury surely won't either.

 

[tmhco]

Maybe...it has happened before as it all starts with the first time.

But the jury won't be dealing with "maybe", the way we do.

It is more black and white for them.

Either the evidence is there.......or not.

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

I believe they have more than enough evidence! JMO

 

[Bravo]

Maybe he just needed the right partner to send him over the edge. There is always a first time for everything. JMO

Agree. We of course were never privy as to why these women broke off relationships with Rafferty. I'm sure they just felt something wasn't quite right. He seemed to find the odd one who would fulfill some of his needs. With TLM I think she fulfilled his ultimate need. And her own as well. MOO

 

[Wondergirl]

Court awaits Rafferty's Call

Kruse brings in other lawyers to act like Crowns, with different styles of questioning, to prepare his clients for the tough questioning on the stand.

"If they're not properly prepared, they will be destroyed by a good Crown. The Crowns do this for a living."

If a defence lawyer decides not to call his client, he's faced with another difficult choice. By calling any witness, the defence loses the right to give closing arguments after the Crown.

Some defence lawyers think it's important to have the last word before the judge charges the jury and sends them to make a decision.

"It gives you a chance to address what the Crown has said (in their closing)," Kruse said. "It's not an over-riding concern to me but it is important."

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/04/30/19698706.html

 

[Ardy]

I would imagine that Derstine has also contemplated the order of events remaining in the trial.............and if that would impact on his decision.

If he rests his case, without presenting evidence.........he will present his closing arguments last before the jury goes into deliberations.

He can wait and let the Crown list all their evidence, and then go down the list and rebut each individual item.

He will know exactly what he has to rebut and will be addressing the jury last.

I am thinking of Johnny Cochrane's closing argument in the OJ trial, where he went down the list of evidence and challenged each piece.........concluding it all with the tag line.......If it doesn't fit..........you must acquit.

On the other hand, if Derstine has powerful evidence in support of MR.....he may wish to present his case and then go right into his summary.

It will be interesting to see what happens tomorrow morning.

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

 

[Wondergirl]

Anyone having a trial sleepover?!