Weekend Discussion Thread 3/24-26/2012

[swedie]

May 20, 2009 MacLean's Article:

The search for eight-year-old Victoria Stafford has turned into a search for her dead body. Exactly six weeks after “Tori” vanished—last seen in a grainy surveillance video, leaving school hand-in-hand with an unidentified woman—police have charged two people in connection with her abduction and murder, extinguishing all hope that the little girl will be found alive. “We all wanted Tori back safe and sound,” said Det.-Insp. William Renton, announcing the charges at a packed press conference this afternoon. “Unfortunately, two other individuals had different agendas.”

Earlier in the day, both suspects—a 28-year-old man and an 18-year-old woman—made a brief court appearance in Woodstock, Ont., where they were formally arraigned. Michael Thomas Rafferty, who pulled his golf shirt over his face as he was escorted into the building, is charged with abduction and murder.


Added to MTR's charges of abduction and murder, sexual assault causing bodily harm. :waitasec: Makes me wonder if the autopsy did show something. :what:



http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/michael-rafferty/

 

[swedie]

I believe they are both equally guilty. They found each other and both of their evil thoughts made them a match made in hell. I do not buy the stories that the defence is cooking up. MR knew why VS was put into his car. I feel there is more truth coming out of TLM's mouth compared to what MR's team has said so far. I believe that the evidence coming soon will prove so.

Agreed FF. I would like to know who the instigator was. MOO MR=sexual sick fantasy.

 

[Tahorn]

I believe they are both equally guilty. They found each other and both of their evil thoughts made them a match made in hell. I do not buy the stories that the defence is cooking up. MR knew why VS was put into his car. I feel there is more truth coming out of TLM's mouth compared to what MR's team has said so far. I believe that the evidence coming soon will prove so.

Little Tori was murdered and for that no matter what part MR took part off he is guilty. However people need to know that there are girls out there that are just pure evil and it isn't always the man that is the organizer of these crimes.

 

[swedie]

Oh Swedie, my sweets .. ya gotta buy the ones with the pictures :woohoo:

Darn SB is that what I'm doing wrong? :maddening: No more Forte chocolates for me?! :what: Guess I'm going back to Pot of Gold. Then again nah I don't like those cheap imitation waxy chocolates. When you're a chocoholic gotta for the the gusto, only the best. :yesss::woohoo :woohoo:

 

[matou]

Why did Rafferty give his own brother's name to police and didn't give up the ladies' names??? He was especially defensive about the woman from Oakville. WHY? hmmmmm. "I don't feel comfortable..." JMO

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityn...raw-audio-opp-interview-with-michael-rafferty

 

[flipflop]

May 20, 2009 MacLean's Article:

The search for eight-year-old Victoria Stafford has turned into a search for her dead body. Exactly six weeks after “Tori” vanished—last seen in a grainy surveillance video, leaving school hand-in-hand with an unidentified woman—police have charged two people in connection with her abduction and murder, extinguishing all hope that the little girl will be found alive. “We all wanted Tori back safe and sound,” said Det.-Insp. William Renton, announcing the charges at a packed press conference this afternoon. “Unfortunately, two other individuals had different agendas.”

Earlier in the day, both suspects—a 28-year-old man and an 18-year-old woman—made a brief court appearance in Woodstock, Ont., where they were formally arraigned. Michael Thomas Rafferty, who pulled his golf shirt over his face as he was escorted into the building, is charged with abduction and murder.


Added to MTR's charges of abduction and murder, sexual assault causing bodily harm. :waitasec: Makes me wonder if the autopsy did show something. :what:


http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/michael-rafferty/

What was the date that they added the charges. This article was May 20th, no body was found yet, what would they have that showed sexual assault. DNA evidence from gym bag, clothes etc wouldn't be back that quick...would it?

 

[Hello_Kitty]

What was the date that they added the charges. This article was May 20th, no body was found yet, what would they have that showed sexual assault. DNA evidence wouldn't be back that quick...would it?

I didn't know of the additional charge until the trial Altho, Det. Renton believe she was kidnapped for nefarious purposes and I think there was mention of a sexual nature.

 

[antiquegirl]

Why did Rafferty give his own brother's name to police and didn't give up the ladies' names??? He was especially defensive about the woman from Oakville. WHY? hmmmmm. "I don't feel comfortable..." JMO

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityn...raw-audio-opp-interview-with-michael-rafferty

Maybe because the names he did give out (his brother's, TM & JG's) would already be easily accessible to LE without his help. Maybe he was trying to protect his old uninvolved girlfriends from intrusion by LE. In that case, it could be considered chivalrous.

JMO

 

[antiquegirl]

What was the date that they added the charges. This article was May 20th, no body was found yet, what would they have that showed sexual assault. DNA evidence from gym bag, clothes etc wouldn't be back that quick...would it?

No, that kind of evidence would take a lot more time. I believe all they had at that point was TLM's word. They could always withdraw those charges, I think.

JMO

 

[flipflop]

Why did Rafferty give his own brother's name to police and didn't give up the ladies' names??? He was especially defensive about the woman from Oakville. WHY? hmmmmm. "I don't feel comfortable..." JMO

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityn...raw-audio-opp-interview-with-michael-rafferty

After listening to the audio, I thought the same thing. Also with Amanda, he would not give her last name, but gave the area where she lived. Wouldn't be too hard to find, so why not give up her name. She had a child, I wonder if the one in Oakville did too. What or why is he hiding this info, things that make ya go hmmmmmmm.

 

[flipflop]

No, that kind of evidence would take a lot more time. I believe all they had at that point was TLM's word. They could always withdraw those charges, I think.

JMO

They already had him for kidnapping and murder, I just don't see why they would up the charges at that time if all they had was TLM's word. Why wouldn't they wait for forensics, then up the charges. I guess time will tell!!!

 

[Sailor Bug]

I'm not being silly, I honestly don't know what the defence's theory is. I've heard different versions.

We know their theory is TLM was the mastermind.

What is their theory? That MR wasn't there? That MR was there but he turned around at the spot where Tori was murdered and didn't notice anything until it was too late? Where did he go? Take a whizz as some suggested here? Other theories suggested a safe house? Did he think they were taking Tori to a safe house?

Seriously. What is their theory or are they throwing everything on the wall like overcooked spaghetti and see which ones stick?

I have faith the jury will use common sense. He was there. He saw a murdered child and didn't do anything except help her cover it up ?? He lied to the cops in the interview.

Normal people don't do that. They see a crime, they call 911. The fact that he didn't have priors can go either way, imo. It can help the defence but it can also help the prosecution. With no priors, why was he so afraid to report a crime?

I've watched and followed many cases and one thing that "most" jurors do is use their common sense. As a matter of fact, I watched one last night. It was a 48 hour mystery re run of Mike Oakes trial. He claimed self defense but when it came down to verdict time, the jury came back with guilty. The evidence presented showed he disposed of the victim's body. One juror said after deliberating for 3 days, one thing that always came back...if it was self defence, why not call 911? Instead, he got rid of the body (still not found). It makes no sense.

Same thing will happen in this case, imo. The jury will realize that regardless of what he did and/or didn't do (all evidence not presented yet), it will come down to : Why did he not save Tori? Why did he not call 911? If he was not involved, why did he help cover up a murder?

It's called common sense!

bbm

Rafferty may not have had priors but there is documentation that he was involved in a "violent confrontation"

Last month{April as article is May21 2009}, police were called to the home after a violent confrontation between Rafferty and his mother's boyfriend,
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/05/21/9520751-sun.html

This jury will see right through the smoke and mirror defense tactics.
They are using magician illusions that Rafferty was not involved

jmo

 

[Ardy]

As everyone waits for the forensic evidence, I would illustrate problems that can be sometimes encountered as per the OJ Simpson trial.

Like may others, I watched the complete trial and had determined in my own mind that although I believed OJ was "probably" guilty.......I didn't believe the Prosecution had proven their case.

Their many problems with their evidence, and their scrambling around in mid-trial left many uneasy as to the accuracy of their evidence.

One of the most crucial items of evidence was the blood smattering found at the back gate of his ex-wife's home. There was a trail of blood from the front of the home where the bodies were found all the way to the back gate and beyond.

The blood contained the DNA of NS, RG, and OJ.

Also contained in the blood, which was discovered by the defense DNA experts, was a certain chemical which is found in a powdery form inside test tube containers, such as the type used by the police forensic team to store the blood samples.

When revealed, the defense immediately claimed the blood had been stored in the containers and moved to the scene of the crime. They said it had been placed there by corrupt LE.

The prosecution were baffled, and immediately tried to explain the presence of the chemical in the blood. They discovered the chemical was contained in a certain type of burger from McDonalds..........and the testimony was that OJ had eaten that kind of burger just before the murders occurred.

Later tests revealed though, that this chemical could not be ingested and then transferred through the blood stream, and the prosecution was left without an explanation.

Years later, a documentary did an investigation and found the chemical was only contained in the "sauce" on the burger........and quite likely would have been transferred to the hands of OJ. Even had he washed his hands, some residue would remain and mix with his blood if cut at the scene of the crime.

Had the prosecution known that...............the results of the trial could have been much different.

And so..........we wait for the forensic evidence and hope it proves what happened. I somewhat doubt that it will............but we can hope, because the Crown's case is being picked apart, little by little, fact by fact.........from the discovery of TLM's writings and journals describing a similar scenario to recanting and admitting to the murder. and recanting that she bought the hammer, to recently learning that it was her using MTR's cellphone to call people.

I certainly don't want a guilty party being let off because of technicalities, or an innocent party found guilty.......and sincerely hope the evidence is there and it is irrefutable.

 

[JayFriend]

Why did Rafferty give his own brother's name to police and didn't give up the ladies' names??? He was especially defensive about the woman from Oakville. WHY? hmmmmm. "I don't feel comfortable..." JMO

http://www.citytv.com/toronto/cityn...raw-audio-opp-interview-with-michael-rafferty

My guess is that none of those relationships ended amicably and if LE spoke to the women, they could cast him in a bad light. Also, as any guy would tell you, it's none of the cop's business.

 

[Ardy]

I don't know if many people would want their friends and acquaintances to know they were being questioned by police about a missing child.

Maybe the names of someone who could help prove they couldn't be involved, but not beyond that.

 

[Ardy]

Nobody knows if TLM could have threatened MTR or his family.........it is exploring different possible explanations for certain actions.......at this point.

What we do know for sure is that TLM was certainly capable of it.

 

[Hello_Kitty]

My guess is that none of those relationships ended amicably and if LE spoke to the women, they could cast him in a bad light. Also, as any guy would tell you, it's none of the cop's business.

I disagree that it wasn't the cops' business. Altho I do agree that he probably didn't want the cops to know HIS business.

 

[Sillybilly]

I don't know if many people would want their friends and acquaintances to know they were being questioned by police about a missing child.

Maybe the names of someone who could help prove they couldn't be involved, but not beyond that.

It's not up to the interviewee to determine what information to provide or withhold or what should be considered by LE. It is a criminal offence to lie to officers conducting a criminal investigation. MTR shouldn't have been concerned about his own sorry when police were investigating a missing/murdered child case. They weren't there trying to locate a loaf of bread that went missing from the 711.

 

[matou]

http://www.lfpress.com/news/london/raffertytrial/2012/03/21/19530086.html

 

[lightlady]

It is always interesting to look at this board and see how we can all hear exactly the same thing and form such different opinions. I have never served on a jury, but this one is going to have an interesting time.
In my mind it is all going to come down to reasonable doubt. Just having another story that could work doesn't seem to mean you have reasonable doubt. You have to convince the jury that scenario is plausible. Right now I am not yet buying the defense scenario, but there are many more days to come.