Weekend Discussion Thread 3/24-26/2012

[Ardy]

I am thinking it is more than likely he thought that she would never rat on herself! As it turns out, TLM murdered TS with a hammer (I still shudder at that) - he may have thought that the chances of her confessing that she is a murderess were slim to none. As it turned out, he didn't smell a rat lol.

If he thought there is any honour among drug addicts.......he is whacked out.

They spend much of their time stealing from each other and ripping each other off.

 

[ChaChaCha]

No doubt the Crown will do all they can to discredit the "drug theory" of the defense, so I suspect the defense may present information that shows LE had at least one similar theory early in the investigation. JMO

Hmmmmm, interesting see as how both TM and TLM are Crown witnesses, and the Crown questioned each of them quite casually about the drug debt. Both TM and TLM answered very succinctly but vaguely and never offered up any additional details - TLM did confirm that JG had ripped someone off for some oxys, but did not say who, and TM said if I recall correctly that TLM did not owe her any money but may have owed others.

The Crown brought up the drug debt scenario before the defence did - almost as if it was acknowledging that a drug debt may have come into play and diffusing any shock value the drug debt may have had on jurors if the defence had brought it up in a more inflammatory manner.

There are over a hundred witnesses on the list for this trial ... very possible that the question of the drug debt and who owed what to whom will come up again. I think it is an integral part of the defence's strategy to show that TLM was the instigator of this crime. I doubt ever so much that Carol will be called, but hey, we may get hear from JG. To some of these addicts three or four hundred bucks is a huge fortune.

JMO

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I'm thinking there was some evidence on TS's body. The charge is sexual assault with bodily harm, right? If there was no evidence of the harm and they only had TLM's word, I don't think they would have charged the "bodily harm" part.

Salem

I really hope so, thank you for pointing that our!

 

[flipflop]

A description of VS was all they needed.........and a description of the victim is often all there is.

At the time the criteria required

-description of abductor
-desription of car
-description of child under the age of 18

Nothing, at the time, led LE to believe that she was abducted, she was missing.

 

[crazyladi]

I find that a lot of what we have talked about here being theories that are now being presented in court such as "drug debts" "a gift to MR" etc. He had a lot of time and so did many to look around the internet. How do we know he didnt take his defense off or what someone else has said? JMO

 

[jbrady]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned before, but I've only been able to make it through 7 pages of this thread so far. Two things stick out for me, when considering Rafferty's side of the he said/she said.

1. It tests my common sense to the LIMIT to try to think that Rafferty knew there was an abducted child in the car, he drove her out of town, knew she was killed, and then said NOTHING. He seems to be all about securing his freedom in this (not talking to police and always speaking through a lawyer), so why not just secure your freedom from the start and GTFO of that situation as soon as she was done murdering that child?

Anyways, there are TOO many things for me to ever believe option 1.

2. Why didn't Derstine use the defense:

"TLM asked MR for a ride for her and her Niece/Daughter/Little Sister/Cousin/WHATEVER to Guelph, where they would drop the girl off at a farmhouse. Murdering ensues without MR's knowledge (defense could dream up a series of ultimate scenarios for this lie, too, I'm sure), and drives TLM home. Heck, they could even argue that he DID see the murdering happen and DID clue in that it was TS when questioned by cops, and it would still work. My point is: if they are going to construct a defense that aims to remove him from the responsibility of this, why not go the whole way with it, why not say that he didn't know he was 'kidnapping' anyone at all? Wouldn't that even go more with their idea that TLM was the one to 'drive' this engine? Unless, of course... he is telling the truth about the whole thing, or they somehow somewhere have some sort of 'proof' that he did know he was taking part in the kidnapping.

 

[ChaChaCha]

I'm thinking there was some evidence on TS's body. The charge is sexual assault with bodily harm, right? If there was no evidence of the harm and they only had TLM's word, I don't think they would have charged the "bodily harm" part.

Salem

Could "bodily harm" be that TLM said that MR had kicked TS? I think so ...

 

[Hello_Kitty]

At the time the criteria required

-description of abductor
-desription of car
-description of child under the age of 18

Nothing, at the time, led LE to believe that she was abducted, she was missing.

You're correct Flip, the law was changed after Tori went missing. I believe it's called Tori's Law? Not sure if that was official or not.

 

[matou]

Section 272 – Sexual Assault With A Weapon, Threats to a Third Party or Causing Bodily Harm:
Somebody sexually assaults you and is armed with, or uses, a weapon, or, forces you to have sex by threatening to do injury to somebody else, (for example: they threaten to hurt your brother or sister if you don't do it), or, they injure you.

http://www.sacc.to/sya/crime/law.htm

 

[crazyladi]

I wonder what ties MR has to Mount forest. Didnt he work at some meat slaughtering place around there?

I still can honestly say that the reason that TLM couldnt find the body is that she wasnt from around there, didnt have a car and would have no idea how to get back to where they were because it was foreign to her but not to him. I wouldn't be surprised if he brought other people there before.

 

[dilbert]

Could "bodily harm" be that TLM said that MR had kicked TS? I think so ...

If there is trauma to prove a sexual assault, but not the presence of semen, then I would conclude that it's plausible to say TLM raped her (use your imagination)
She nuked a puppy, it wouldn't shock me in the least to find out she raped Tori too.

MOO

 

[snoofer]

I wonder if the LE is working on any other missing children cases that might implicate one of them IMO

 

[nettie_82]

If there is trauma to prove a sexual assault, but not the presence of semen, then I would conclude that it's plausible to say TLM raped her (use your imagination)
She nuked a puppy, it wouldn't shock me in the least to find out she raped Tori too.

MOO

In Derstine's cross examination last week I am almost positive I read a tweet somewhere about TLM writing in her journal about raping an inmate. It stood out to me at the time, because I know it crossed my mind that maybe she was the one who had done it to Tori I need to hunt down that Tweet now.

 

[dilbert]

The mixture of MR's and TS's blood on the gym bag can be easily explained by the defence as well if they're going to maintain the theory that MR helped with the cleanup only.
While moving TS's body to the rockpile, her blood could have transferred to his hands, and while covering her up he could have cut his hand on a jagged rock.
If he touched his gym bag shortly after, that would explain how the mixture of his and TS's blood got there.
It doesn't prove he murdered her, only that he was present at some point after.

MOO

 

[daisy.faithfull]

If there is trauma to prove a sexual assault, but not the presence of semen, then I would conclude that it's plausible to say TLM raped her (use your imagination)
She nuked a puppy, it wouldn't shock me in the least to find out she raped Tori too.

MOO

I think that depends on what kind of trauma. If its crushed pelvic bones, I would think that would more likey indicate male perpetrator. Moo If its trauma to tissue then that could be either one.

 

[Wondergirl]

I find that a lot of what we have talked about here being theories that are now being presented in court such as "drug debts" "a gift to MR" etc. He had a lot of time and so did many to look around the internet. How do we know he didnt take his defense off or what someone else has said? JMO

A poster here alluded to the fact that MTR possily needs glasses now, because he has been doing ALOT of reading while in jail.

It seems no small coincidence that so far, much of what the Defence has brought up in this case, was all posted about on various Facebook Groups and WS etc.

I guess there is one good thing. We know that the Crown is ready for just about anything, because there is nobody who was more aware of all the social media forums than LE, and they had many, many eyes on the front end, and likely the back end.

You would be hard pressed to find a LEO that doesn't want "justice" brought about for Victoria, so, I feel sure in stating they have worked extra hard on this case, and have dotted their i's and crossed their t's.

JMO

 

[flipflop]

I wonder what ties MR has to Mount forest. Didnt he work at some meat slaughtering place around there?

I still can honestly say that the reason that TLM couldnt find the body is that she wasnt from around there, didnt have a car and would have no idea how to get back to where they were because it was foreign to her but not to him. I wouldn't be surprised if he brought other people there before.

The meat slaughtering place was Better Beef in Guelph. There are a couple of meat slaughtering places around MF, he possibly could have worked at any of them. One of them is about 3km from where VS was found.

 

[dilbert]

Sorry if this has already been mentioned before, but I've only been able to make it through 7 pages of this thread so far. Two things stick out for me, when considering Rafferty's side of the he said/she said.

1. It tests my common sense to the LIMIT to try to think that Rafferty knew there was an abducted child in the car, he drove her out of town, knew she was killed, and then said NOTHING. He seems to be all about securing his freedom in this (not talking to police and always speaking through a lawyer), so why not just secure your freedom from the start and GTFO of that situation as soon as she was done murdering that child?

Anyways, there are TOO many things for me to ever believe option 1.

2. Why didn't Derstine use the defense:

"TLM asked MR for a ride for her and her Niece/Daughter/Little Sister/Cousin/WHATEVER to Guelph, where they would drop the girl off at a farmhouse. Murdering ensues without MR's knowledge (defense could dream up a series of ultimate scenarios for this lie, too, I'm sure), and drives TLM home. Heck, they could even argue that he DID see the murdering happen and DID clue in that it was TS when questioned by cops, and it would still work. My point is: if they are going to construct a defense that aims to remove him from the responsibility of this, why not go the whole way with it, why not say that he didn't know he was 'kidnapping' anyone at all? Wouldn't that even go more with their idea that TLM was the one to 'drive' this engine? Unless, of course... he is telling the truth about the whole thing, or they somehow somewhere have some sort of 'proof' that he did know he was taking part in the kidnapping.

When Derstine revealed last week what could be the defence's theory, I got the impression that MR didn't know that Tori was being kidnapped. He's not going to go in to complete specifics of his defence until it's his turn to present his side of the case.

MOO

 

[matou]

I think that if TLM wanted to molest and rape Tori, she would have sat in the back with Tori and done so while MR was driving. However, I saw in the Home Depot parking lot surveillance tape that TLM exited and entered Rafferty's car from the front passenger side. That would mean she sat in the front all the way to Mount Forest, unless they stopped somewhere before that. JMO

 

[jbrady]

[/B]

When Derstine revealed last week what could be the defence's theory, I got the impression that MR didn't know that Tori was being kidnapped. He's not going to go in to complete specifics of his defence until it's his turn to present his side of the case.

MOO

But wouldn't you get the impression that the little girl is being kidnapped if she is being held on a 'drug debt' and taken to a 'safe house'? Why even get into that in the first part-- why not have those motives become clear to MR by TLM after Tori had been murdered? Using a child as a drug debt and taking her to a safe house just screams "kidnapping" to me, and perhaps the jury too... though I wasn't in the courtroom to hear the exact way he laid it all out.