Weekend Discussion Thread 3/24-26/2012

[matou]

I think TLM said she heard Tori say 'no please not up the bum' I could be wrong but that's what it really sounded like to me when sitting listening to her testimony that day. That's when TLM said Rafferty responded with 'why has someone done this to you before'

Disgusting. He was blaming her and demeaning her while he was raping her. OMG! JMO

 

[antiquegirl]

I think TLM said she heard Tori say 'no please not up the bum' I could be wrong but that's what it really sounded like to me when sitting listening to her testimony that day. That's when TLM said Rafferty responded with 'why has someone done this to you before'

This is the only Tweet that I have that mentions it:

Gerry Dewan ‏@GerryDewanCTV

McClintic says #Rafferty was trying to penetrate Tori. With Tori saying "No, in the bum." @CTVLondon

This could be interpreted in one of three ways, IMO. (1) It could mean that Tori was asking that it should be in the bum instead of vaginally. (2) Or, it could mean, "No, (not) in the bum". (3) Or it could mean both. In my experience, there are many parents who call that entire area "your bum" with young children - covering both places. So, in that case, Tori could have meant no penetration anywhere. IF this is a direct quote and IF TLM is telling the truth, which is up for debate and yet to proven.

JMO

 

[Jezbel]

Disgusting. He was blaming her and demeaning her while he was raping her. OMG! JMO

I agree while heartily Matou

 

[Jezbel]

This is the only Tweet that I have that mentions it:



This could be interpreted in one of three ways, IMO. (1) It could mean that Tori was asking that it should be in the bum instead of vaginally. (2) Or, it could mean, "No, (not) in the bum". (3) Or it could mean both. In my experience, there are many parents who call that entire area "your bum" with young children - covering both places. So, in that case, Tori could have meant no penetration anywhere. IF this is a direct quote and IF TLM is telling the truth, which is up for debate and yet to proven.

JMO

I agree that Tori could have been referring to her whole area as her bum, not sure how much eight years olds know when it comes to that. When I was sitting in the courtroom that afternoon that's exactly what it sound like TLM was saying. Whether people believe her or not is going depend on evidence presented. I can imagine a little girl crying and begging for a grown man not to do that. If TLM was lying that day on the stand she put on one h**l of a performance.

Moo of course

 

[Alethea Dice]

Okay here are my thoughts.

snipped by me

7) I think that MR went to TLM's house to make sure all the stuff was still there so that she could be incriminated. I dont think he went there to remove it. He knew she was busted and that it was only a matter of time that they figured out he was involved so he had all that time to figure out where he was and his story.


I questioned awhile back why 2 pairs of shoes were taken, from TLM's closet, into evidence. pic#54 in link. If they both threw out the shoes they were wearing, then each put on spare pairs that MR had in his gym bag, why would BOTH pairs end up in TLM's closet????

http://www.am980.ca/Other/McClintic.pdf

I wondered about the second pair of shoes too. Do we know what the second pair is - are they supposed to be the ones that MR wore? If so, why were they in her closet?

I also wondered why the gym bag was in her home. If she walked home that night, why would she take the gym bag with her?

 

[Alethea Dice]

Grilling the Crown's key witness, Terri-Lynne McClintic, Rafferty's lawyer Dirk Derstine outlined a scenario in which Rafferty didn't know McClintic was going to abduct a child.
When she showed up with eight-year-old Victoria, he said, McClintic told a surprised Rafferty it was over a drug debt,
Derstine also suggested to McClintic that she offered Tori to Rafferty as a sexual gift and he rejected the offer.
Then, after pulling into a country lane, the lawyer suggested, Rafferty left the vehicle, returning to find McClintic had killed Tori.
McClintic vehemently denied Derstine's assertions.


http://www.thesudburystar.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3514108


If this is how Derstine worded this, that TLM TOLD MR "it" (i.e. abduction) was over a drug debt, than he participated in the abduction KNOWING what "it" was about (whether the reason for it is true or not). Guilty. Life, no parole. JMO

But this isn't how he worded it. Hence why it's not in quotes. The way it's worded in that article gives the reader the impression that TLM told MR as soon as she showed up with Tori. The article previously linked to by Dilbert did have the quote from Derstine:

"The abduction was your idea," he suggested to McClintic. "You went and lured this girl. You brought her in the car all friendly that Michael thought nothing of it. Later on you told him that the girl was in the car for a drug debt. Still later . . . you offered her to Michael, sexually. When it became clear that he didn't want your gift, you directed him to a rural location on a pretext . . . You said that she could be taken to a safe house. Once you got to that lane you told him to walk away because you wanted to talk to the little girl because she was scared of him. You . . . threw her down and killed her. Mr Rafferty came back after the death, was horrified, but helped you clean up."

As does this one:

http://www.am980.ca/channels/news/local/Story.aspx?ID=1675265

``The abduction in this case was your idea... you went and lured this girl and brought her in the car all friendly and Michael thought nothing of it,'' Derstine suggested. ``Later on you told him that the girl was in the car for a drug debt and still later...you offered her to Michael, sexually.''

The difference being that MR did not know that she was being abducted at the time of letting her into his car.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

He was more scared of her talking then of the police seeing him with her.:turkey: (I couldn't find a chicken so I had to use a turkey--he's both anyway, :floorlaugh

I agree that that could be the case if MTR was an active participant in the crime.

I was just saying that if MTR was an innocent bystander that walked away and returned to find a little girl murdered why did he continue to see TLM?

In the interview with LE he indicated that his relationship with TLM was based on trying to be a positive influence in her life. If that was the case I would think that after seeing TLM brutally kill Tori wouldn't you think that he would see that TLM was beyond any help he could give her and therefore not go see her at the detention facility?

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Hmmm, I have a blackberry, as do many of the people I know.

When a blackberry is acting up, it is time to do a "hard reset" which involves removing the battery for a short period of time. I am guilty of doing this as well (gulp) from time to time. If I was driving on the 401 I might remove the battery and leave it out until I reached my final destination.

In my opinion we will hear testimony that MRs blackberry had been acting up and that is the only reason he removed the battery while driving. Having reached his destination he would then have time and two hands to reinsert the battery and boot up.

I am not going to comment on blackberry pings because I am pretty sure this will be addressed in a subsequent chapter of the trial. JMO

I had a Blackberry for a bit as well. I'd pull the battery out for a second and put it back in. It makes sense that MTR wouldn't want to put the battery back in place while driving, but if that's the case wouldn't he have not removed the battery while he was driving? It's my understanding that he did remove the battery while he was driving.

 

[flipflop]

I wondered about the second pair of shoes too. Do we know what the second pair is - are they supposed to be the ones that MR wore? If so, why were they in her closet?

I also wondered why the gym bag was in her home. If she walked home that night, why would she take the gym bag with her?

we don't know where the gym bag was found, where did you read this?

 

[matou]

We don't know if that bag is Rafferty's gym bag. I'm guessing Daisy means the bag with the shorts in it from the photographic exhibits. JMO

 

[daisy.faithfull]

I am not sure if what part of the body blood came from can be determined, but it is possible that there were other indications of sexual assault (broken pelvic bone, for example). They must have some sort of evidence to back up the 'sexual assault' charge. Unfortunately, it may or may not be DNA evidence.
:moo:

I was wondering the same thing about broken bones etc that could indicate that Tori was raped. It's a possibility that the defence could argue that they occurred when they placed the rocks over her body though.

I was also wondering if they might have found MTR's sperm mixed with Tori's blood.

Both are circumstantial evidence, but a case based on circumstantial evidence is not always a weak case.

Circumstantial Evidence's Wikipedia
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circumstantial_evidence"]Circumstantial evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Validity of circumstantial evidence
A popular misconception is that circumstantial evidence is less valid or less important than direct evidence. This is only partly true: direct evidence is popularly, but mistakenly, considered more powerful. Many successful criminal prosecutions rely largely or entirely on circumstantial evidence, and civil charges are frequently based on circumstantial or indirect evidence. Much of the evidence against convicted American bomber Timothy McVeigh was circumstantial, for example. Speaking about McVeigh's trial, University of Michigan law professor Robert Precht said, "Circumstantial evidence can be, and often is much more powerful than direct evidence". [2] The 2004 murder trial of Scott Peterson was another high-profile conviction based heavily on circumstantial evidence.
Indeed, the common metaphor for the strongest possible evidence in any case—the "smoking gun"—is an example of proof based on circumstantial evidence. Similarly, fingerprint evidence, videotapes, sound recordings, photographs, and many other examples of physical evidence that support the drawing of an inference, i.e., circumstantial evidence, are considered very strong possible evidence.
In practice, circumstantial evidence can have an advantage over direct evidence in that it can come from multiple sources that check and reinforce each other.[3] Eyewitness testimony can be inaccurate at times,[4] and many persons have been convicted on the basis of perjured or otherwise mistaken testimony.[5] Thus strong circumstantial evidence can be a more reliable basis on which to determine a verdict. Circumstantial evidence normally requires a witness, such as the police officer who found the evidence, or an expert who examined it, to lay the foundation for its admission. This witness, sometimes known as the sponsor or the authenticating witness, is giving direct (eye-witness) testimony, and could present credibility problems in the same way that any eye witness does.
However, there is sometimes more than one logical conclusion inferable from the same set of circumstances. In cases where one conclusion implies a defendant's guilt and another his innocence, the "benefit of the doubt" principle would apply. Indeed, if the circumstantial evidence suggests a possibility of innocence, the prosecution has the burden of disproving that possibility.[6]

Sadly, we've seen juries return verdicts that seem to indicate they don't understand this... Cough, cough, Pinellas County, cough, cough......

 

[daisy.faithfull]

DNA evidence – linked to both Tori and Mr. Rafferty – will be central to the prosecution’s case, the jury heard, as will be Mr. Rafferty’s cellphone records that evening.
“Please listen to the DNA evidence, it will tell you a lot,” Mr. Gowdey said.

He had a missing poster of Tori in his house....this freaks me out, a memento? JMO

* A search of Mr. Rafferty’s home turned up a “missing” poster of Tori.

-After police questioned him, Mr. Rafferty tried to get rid of his car, Mr. Gowdey said, and removed its back seat, which has never been recovered. He also tried to switch cellphones.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news...ars/article2358818/singlepage/#articlecontent

Having the mising poster makes it even less likely that he would not know Tori's name. MTR's intview with LE doesn't make him look too good :moo: The only thing working in his favor is that he agreed to talk to the detectives without an attorney.

 

[antiquegirl]

Apropos of nothing recently posted, but only to make a point:

The lying has not stopped. As recently as 11 days ago, TLM is still changing her story.

March 13, 2012 – TLM testifies under oath to the Crown:

Cristina Tenaglia‏@cristina_CHCHTV

Crown: why were you buying that hammer #McClintic : "cause thats what i was instructed to do."

Steven D'Souza‏@cbcsteve

McClintick says she didn't ask why she was buying items and #Rafferty didn't tell her

March 23, 2012 – TLM testifies under oath to defence attorney Derstine:

AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court

McClintic says she lied about the hammer purchase in January 14th statement.
Said she decided to buy the hammer.

So, once a pathological liar, always a pathological liar. Even now, even when “she has nothing to lose”. How do we know what to believe? More to the point, how will the jury know what to believe? Hopefully, we and they will believe the direct evidence so far presented and that will be presented.

Personally, I believe that if TLM actually intended to take the fall for MTR, she wouldn’t have falsely implicated him as the murderer for two years. I believe that she blabbed about her own role in that unspeakable bludgeoning to one too many “friends” who eventually dropped the dime on her in January. This forced her to tell the real truth (under the clever guidance of a counselor) on January 13th of just this year. She then went on to beat the crap out of the snitch while still in detention. And yet, she still can’t make herself give up the whole truth. It’s totally against her nature.

MOO

 

[daisy.faithfull]

We don't know if that bag is Rafferty's gym bag. I'm guessing Daisy means the bag with the shorts in it from the photographic exhibits. JMO

I don't think that I mentioned anything about a gym bag

 

[matou]

But this isn't how he worded it. Hence why it's not in quotes. The way it's worded in that article gives the reader the impression that TLM told MR as soon as she showed up with Tori. The article previously linked to by Dilbert did have the quote from Derstine:



As does this one:

http://www.am980.ca/channels/news/local/Story.aspx?ID=1675265



The difference being that MR did not know that she was being abducted at the time of letting her into his car.

He drove by the school 3 times that day. At 9:04 am, at 3:05 pm , and at 3:30 pm. Why? To abduct a stray kid who could have wandered in too late that morning? He may have thought Oliver Stephen finished at 3 or 3:05pm. What time does St. Michael's school in Woodstock finish for the day? I wonder if there is footage of his car around there too? Or witnesses who saw his vehicle around that school too. He was the reason for the abduction. He wanted a kid. JMO

http://www.scribd.com/doc/84386320/Rafferty-Trial-Evidence slides 21-23

 

[Alethea Dice]

we don't know where the gym bag was found, where did you read this?

Sorry, flipflop, my mistake. I thought that the bag in the evidence pictures with the shorts was his bag. On doing a search, it appears that his gym bag was found in the car.

Police seized his vehicle and found evidence of Tori's blood on the rear passenger door moulding. Blood found on a Goodlife fitness bag inside the car was a mixture of Tori and Rafferty's blood.

http://www.ottawasun.com/2012/03/05/tori-stafford-murder-trial-gets-underway

I guess his bag will probably be presented when they cover the dna evidence portion of the trial.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Apropos of nothing recently posted, but only to make a point:

The lying has not stopped. As recently as 11 days ago, TLM is still changing her story.

March 13, 2012 – TLM testifies under oath to the Crown:






March 23, 2012 – TLM testifies under oath to defence attorney Derstine:



So, once a pathological liar, always a pathological liar. Even now, even when “she has nothing to lose”. How do we know what to believe? More to the point, how will the jury know what to believe? Hopefully, we and they will believe the direct evidence so far presented and that will be presented.

Personally, I believe that if TLM actually intended to take the fall for MTR, she wouldn’t have falsely implicated him as the murderer for two years. I believe that she blabbed about her own role in that unspeakable bludgeoning to one too many “friends” who eventually dropped the dime on her in January. This forced her to tell the real truth (under the clever guidance of a counselor) on January 13th of just this year. She then went on to beat the crap out of the snitch while still in detention. And yet, she still can’t make herself give up the whole truth. It’s totally against her nature.

MOO

I think forensic and other circumstantial evidence will make or break the Crown's case. It looks like the only direct evidence presented will be TLM's testimony as direct evidence is only evidence that, by definition, comes from an eye witness who saw the crime being committed, nothing more.

ETA: I should say that direct evidence is only evidence that is seen, heard, or in some other way sensed of the crime being committed. Direct evidence is not limited to what is seen.

Wikipedia for direct evidence:
[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_evidence"]Direct evidence - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]


Direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion (in criminal law, an assertion of guilt or of innocence) directly, i.e., without an intervening inference.[1] Circumstantial evidence, by contrast, directly supports the truth of evidence, from which the truth of the assertion may be inferred.

For example: a witness who testifies that he saw the defendant shoot the victim gives direct evidence. A witness who testifies that he saw the defendant fleeing the scene of the crime, or a forensics expert who says that ballistics proves that the defendant’s gun shot the bullet that killed the victim both give circumstantial evidence from which the defendants’s guilt may be inferred.

In direct evidence a witness relates what he or she directly experienced. (Usually the experience is by sight or hearing, though it may come though any sense, including touch or pain. State v Famber, 358 Mo 288, 214 SW2d 40.)

 

[crazyladi]

That comment also struck me hard :'( , that poor baby. I wonder if Tori was just referring to her private parts as her bum. Being only eight, she wouldn't label the different areas, in general I think an eight year old would call it just that. It could be also TM may have talked to her about not letting anyone touch her down there and she may have referred to it as her bum. JMO. So heartbreaking.

My daughter is 8 and knows th difference. I think she was saying what she was reffering to IMO

 

[Alison]

Hey guys, I just wanted to address the issue of fetal alcohol syndrome. Someone asked is TLM could be. In my opinion, she does not display any of the physical characteristics associated with FAS. http://www.aafp.org/afp/2005/0715/p279.html. However that does not mean she does not have fetal alcohol effects or some type of other disorder associated with drug or alcohol abuse. I thought Casey Anthony had fragile X syndrome after observing her for a while.

 

[~n/t~]

(Respectfully snipped and BBM)

I'm troubled by the frequent use of the word "admitted" when referring to Derstine's questions in court. A defence attorney would never incriminate his own client. His questions to TLM where MTR's presence at the crime scene are merely suggestions as part of a hypothetical alternate scenario to the one previously claimed by her. If you're going to take that part of his questioning as an "admittance" of a fact, then you also have to take as facts the rest of Derstine's claims, such as these:




You can't pick and choose which parts of Derstine's suggestions are fact and which are fiction. He admitted nothing. He was merely suggesting a different scenario.

As well, we have to consider Judge Heeney's instructions to the jury:


At this point in the trial, there has been no direct evidence presented to show that MTR was at the crime scene. Presumably there will be some to come.

JMO

Defence then suggest that #rafferty was no where near his car when Tori was killed.That he came back to find Tori dead.

A suggestion by a defense attorney claiming "he came back to find Tori dead" is enough, imo admission that his client was indeed at the crime scene of a murdered child.

I suggest the Crown will prove it is what it is.