weekend discussion thread: 4/14-16/2012

[daisy.faithfull]

Or maybe the information was so prejudicial against the dealer that the rules of evidence kept it from being presented to the jury.

Just sayin'

Salem

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what that means. Is it possible to explain it? Thank you!

 

[snoofer]

Since MTR is charged with two crimes is there a possibility that he will receive sentences for both so he could ultimately end up serving more than twenty-five years locked up?

ya I don't know. I suppose in theory they could run consecutively; it just seems in canada that they receive concurrent sentences. Served at the same time. It just doesn't seem right that a child is dead and can no longer live but yes this person will get to go back to their life after a certain amount of time. JMO

 

[Sillybilly]

Since MTR is charged with two crimes is there a possibility that he will receive sentences for both so he could ultimately end up serving more than twenty-five years locked up?

No daisy ... under Canadian law, life sentences must be concurrent rather than consecutive (case in point, Russ Williams ... 2 life sentences for 2 convictions of first degree murder but will only serve the 25 years until he can apply for parole. Doesn't mean the parole will be granted tho ... Olson spent more than 25 years because his parole kept being denied).

from:
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/2005-sntnce-how-eng.aspx

Second, although under Canadian law, any sentences imposed in addition to a life or indeterminate sentence must be concurrent rather than consecutive, the principle of adding parole ineligibility periods now also applies where a lifer receives an additional definite sentence. This ensures that receipt of a new sentence has a direct impact on the offender’s parole ineligibility period. However, the parole ineligibility periods may only be added to a maximum of 15 years from the date of the last sentence imposed.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

ya I don't know. I suppose in theory they could run consecutively; it just seems in canada that they receive concurrent sentences. Served at the same time. It just doesn't seem right that a child is dead and can no longer live but yes this person will get to go back to their life after a certain amount of time. JMO

It is very upseting to me. It's so horrible that nothing can bring Tory back, but I wish that the punishment could be more fitting to the crime. I can't even imagine how horrible it will be to Tory's loved ones when these two are released from prison.

 

[Salem]

Unfortunately it happens more then we want to know about, plenty of mothers allow their child to be raped over and over again just to keep the bread winner in the home ... KH gave her sister to PB, and since they weren't married yet one can only assume it was to trap him ...

It does happen and it most cases it happens because the perp makes it known that is what they want.

Salem

 

[snoofer]

No daisy ... under Canadian law, life sentences must be concurrent rather than consecutive (case in point, Russ Williams ... 2 life sentences for 2 convictions of first degree murder but will only serve the 25 years until he can apply for parole. Doesn't mean the parole will be granted tho ... Olson spent more than 25 years because his parole kept being denied).

from:
http://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/res/cor/rep/2005-sntnce-how-eng.aspx

:what: wow we need sentencing changes in this country.:twocents:

 

[Salem]

Since MTR is charged with two crimes is there a possibility that he will receive sentences for both so he could ultimately end up serving more than twenty-five years locked up?

He's charged with three crimes, I think? 1st Degree Murder, Kidnapping and Criminal Sexual Assault, right?

3 25 year sentences would not be long enough, in my opinion. If found guilty and sentenced to 25 years that means he would be between 53-56 years old when he got out, depending on whether he is given credit for the 3 years he has served. :GASP:

That is a pretty light sentence, imo

Salem

 

[Tahorn]

Yes, but I think in those kinds of situations the mother knows that the abuser wants that? What would make TLM think out of the blue that TLM would want that kind of gift? Did TLM have a habit of offering her boyfriends this kind of gift? Had she abducted any children in the past to give as gifts?

Children of sexual abuse often repeat the abuse. We don't know what happen to TLM but it is possible she was also given as a gift. She testified she started Using drugs at eight years of age and also banged drugs with her stripper mother. Something horrible happened to her.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/05/21/9520756-sun.html

 

[Salem]

I'm sorry, I don't really understand what that means. Is it possible to explain it? Thank you!

Yes - sorry not to be more clear.

In the US, we have what is called the Federal Rules of Evidence (FRE). FRE 403 - (this is the rule that was used to exclude the tape of CA when little Caylee was found) says:

"Although relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury, or by consideratin of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative evidence."

HTH,

Salem

 

[JayFriend]

Since MTR is charged with two crimes is there a possibility that he will receive sentences for both so he could ultimately end up serving more than twenty-five years locked up?

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I've only heard of sentences being served concurrent, not consecutive in Canada. I don't really know why that is, but it gets them through the system faster. Until recently we also had two-for-one credit for time in detention before trial. That would be 6 years off now, if convicted, but I believe the government has now abolished that.

 

[dilbert]

Do we have any examples where TLM is delusional or fantasized about anything regarding MR and this crime?

We have information that she told two lies, big ones for sure, but two just the same to LE at the time of her confession. Well actually the only way we have that information that she lied is because she recanted to tell the truth. Otherwise we still would have no information that she lied. Yes she lied to LE during her initial questioning regarding Victoria...so did MR. I don't think she was either delusional or fantisizing, she was covering both hers and his butts. So in which case was she delusional and fantasizing...the time when she said it was MR who killed Victoria or the time when she said she killed her?

And the dog incident from her childhood does not need to be brought up again. It is horrific information for sure, but a lie told at 8 years old does not apply to this situation. And there are other incidents of children doing this in the news. Hopefully none of them grow up to be murderers.

Frankly, the circumstances around how this revelation has come about have not been put into context and they are hearsay. I am actually surprised that it was permitted in Derstine's suggestion. But then the judge has no idea what he's going to say and if the Crown didn't object to that suggestion then they are at fault. This is a desperate and manipulative defense, that's for sure. Forget the circumstantial and forensic evidence against the client and go straight for the direct evidence witness to shift blame. But then most defense strategies on a guilty person are.

MOO

I'm having a difficult time figuring out how people can so easily discount TLM's lies. The lies she told were HUGE, potentially life altering lies. She lied and said someone brutally killed a child, when it was, in fact, SHE who killed that child. Compare that to MR's lies to the women he dated and conversed with online and I fail so see how that makes him more evil than her.

She didn't tell just two lies either, she lied to the police numerous times.
At first she denied any and all involvement, that's a lie. How many times was she asked about her involvement and how many lies did she tell in order to throw the suspicion off of her. More lies. The accusation of rape could be another potentially life altering lie, as well as the lie she told about who's idea it was to buy the hammer and garbage bags.

She LIED to Tori in order to lure her to the car, she LIED to her family after she nuked the little puppy...LIES LIES and MORE LIES.

The most telling lie, IMO, is the lie she told on the stand while Derstine was reading all those letters she had written in juvie, letters full of violent thoughts and ideas about hurting people. She LIED on the stand, UNDER OATH and stated that was a long time ago, she's not like that anymore. Another lie. The very next day Derstine presented information showing TLM had violently assaulted a fellow inmate THIS YEAR!!, as well as statements she made to her godmother, that she had no remorse and would kill again.

How anyone can even begin to compare the lies she told to the ones MR told about his career choice, I'll never understand.
Yes, MR lied to the police too, but so did TLM, and her lies IMO were far more damaging than the ones MR told.

MOO

 

[Tahorn]

It does happen and it most cases it happens because the perp makes it known that is what they want.

Salem

In most cases the perp grooms their victims ... They don't advertise their desires ...


http://crime.about.com/od/sex/p/pedophile.htm

 

[kmclaren]

I don't understand how killing, kidnapping and raping a child or any ONE of those charges can get you only 25 years or less with parole etc. I think a life sentence should be just that; until they die in jail. JMO

But a life sentence is a life sentence, it's only that they become eligible for parole after 25 years. Lots of nasty criminals in Canada have been there a lot longer than 25 years. Many rot and die in prison (Clifford Olson, Wayne Boden, Dale Nelson and Roch Theriault come to mind).

It's discussed in myth #2 & #10 on the Parole Board of Canada's website!

http://pbc-clcc.gc.ca/infocntr/myths....shtml#mythtwo

2. Myth: Parole is automatically granted when an inmate becomes eligible for parole consideration.

Reality: Parole is not automatically granted when inmates become eligible.

Because an offender is eligible for parole does not mean that it will be granted. In fact, PBC denies full parole to approximately six out of ten offenders at their first parole review date.

The law gives PBC absolute discretion in decisions to grant or deny parole. In arriving at a decision, Board Members consider the risk that the offender may present to society if released and determine if, and to what extent, that risk can be managed in the community. The protection of society is the overriding consideration in any release decision.

10. Myth: A life sentence in Canada means that offenders only have to serve 25 years before they are released.

Reality : A life sentence means life. Lifers will never again enjoy total freedom.

Offenders, convicted of first-degree murder, serve life as a minimum sentence with their first parole eligibility set by law at 25 years. For offenders convicted of second-degree murder, the judge may set parole eligibility at a point between 10 and 25 years.

Lifers can only be released from prison if granted parole by the Board. Unlike most inmates who are serving a sentence of fixed length, i.e. 2, 10, or 20 years, lifers are not entitled to statutory release. If granted parole they will, for the rest of their lives, remain subject to the conditions of parole and the supervision of a CSC parole officer. Parole may be revoked and offenders returned to prison at any time if they violate the conditions of parole or commit a new offence.

Not all lifers will be granted parole. Some may never be released on parole because they continue to represent too great a risk to re-offend.

 

[LimeCola]

I hadn't thought about that. I wonder what they do in cases such as this, because I would think that there is the possibility that anyone who is called to the stand could need to be recalled even if just to clarify something they said.

In the case of the man who murdered my family-member, I was the first witness on the stand in his trial. I was not allowed in the court until after my testimony; but afterwards, I was allowed to attend the rest of the trial with the expressed permission of the Defense and the Crown who agreed to allow me to be in the courtroom. I think they decided that there was not much I would add if called again.

I also wanted to add that I'm pretty sure the trial I was part of took place in the same courtroom that they are using for MR, so similar rules would apply.

 

[flipflop]

I'm having a difficult time figuring out how people can so easily discount TLM's lies. The lies she told were HUGE, potentially life altering lies. She lied and said someone brutally killed a child, when it was, in fact, SHE who killed that child. Compare that to MR's lies to the women he dated and conversed with online and I fail so see how that makes him more evil than her.

She didn't tell just two lies either, she lied to the police numerous times.
At first she denied any and all involvement, that's a lie. How many times was she asked about her involvement and how many lies did she tell in order to throw the suspicion off of her. More lies. The accusation of rape could be another potentially life altering lie, as well as the lie she told about who's idea it was to buy the hammer and garbage bags.

She LIED to Tori in order to lure her to the car, she LIED to her family after she nuked the little puppy...LIES LIES and MORE LIES.

The most telling lie, IMO, is the lie she told on the stand while Derstine was reading all those letters she had written in juvie, letters full of violent thoughts and ideas about hurting people. She LIED on the stand, UNDER OATH and stated that was a long time ago, she's not like that anymore. Another lie. The very next day Derstine presented information showing TLM had violently assaulted a fellow inmate THIS YEAR!!, as well as statements she made to her godmother, that she had no remorse and would kill again.

How anyone can even begin to compare the lies she told to the ones MR told about his career choice, I'll never understand.
Yes, MR lied to the police too, but so did TLM, and her lies IMO were far more damaging than the ones MR told.

MOO

MR told quite a few lies himself...I agree not as damaging as TLM, but he still told them....

Did you ever see TLM wear a white coat -no

Ive seen her wear long dressy coats a black one and a white one.

He stated he was not into drugs

Were you intimate with TLM - no, just friends, just friends

what were you doing april 8 - just zipping around town, I don't really know.

Ever gone out of town with TLM - never gone anywhere with TLM

Do you know anything about the missing little girl - I heard the helicopters! ....seemed to be a hot topic with his GF's

These are just a few that I can recall from the interview.

Plus all the lies told to GF's about his career etc.

He didn't know who the girl was in the white coat from the video

 

[dilbert]

MR told quite a few lies himself...I agree not as damaging as TLM, but he still told them....

Did you ever see TLM wear a white coat -no

Ive seen her wear long dressy coats a black one and a white one.

He stated he was not into drugs

Were you intimate with TLM - just friends, just friends

what were you doing april 8 - just zipping around town, I don't really know.

Ever gone out of town with TLM - never gone anywhere with TLM

Do you know anything about the missing little girl - I heard the helicopters!

These are just a few that I can recall from the interview.

I agree he told lies, even said that in my comment. The lies he told though, were a result of the lies TLM told.

Just think, if TLM had not lied to Tori in order to lure her away, Tori would most likely be alive and this trial would not be taking place.

TLM told the first and most damaging lie.

What I'm failing to understand is the importance placed on the lies MR told in his personal dating life. Those lies did not hurt anyone, whereas that one lie TLM told to Tori, hurt many, and the lies MR told to the police after, are the result of that one crucial lie.

MOO

 

[Hello_Kitty]

I don't think they earn enough in prison to have to pay income tax and I don't think CPP would also be considered..RW is still receiving his military pension but that is an issue with the military and needs correction fast....that <modsnip> should be receiving zero...:maddening:

I'm pretty sure it would be against their constitutional right to deny them CPP if they have paid into it from a job previous to their incarceration. (Just because they are prisoners doesn't mean they don't have rights) Altho, if you have a link to prove otherwise, I'd like to see that. Thanks Macright

 

[tmhco]

I'm having a difficult time figuring out how people can so easily discount TLM's lies. The lies she told were HUGE, potentially life altering lies. She lied and said someone brutally killed a child, when it was, in fact, SHE who killed that child. Compare that to MR's lies to the women he dated and conversed with online and I fail so see how that makes him more evil than her.

She didn't tell just two lies either, she lied to the police numerous times.
At first she denied any and all involvement, that's a lie. How many times was she asked about her involvement and how many lies did she tell in order to throw the suspicion off of her. More lies. The accusation of rape could be another potentially life altering lie, as well as the lie she told about who's idea it was to buy the hammer and garbage bags.

She LIED to Tori in order to lure her to the car, she LIED to her family after she nuked the little puppy...LIES LIES and MORE LIES.

The most telling lie, IMO, is the lie she told on the stand while Derstine was reading all those letters she had written in juvie, letters full of violent thoughts and ideas about hurting people. She LIED on the stand, UNDER OATH and stated that was a long time ago, she's not like that anymore. Another lie. The very next day Derstine presented information showing TLM had violently assaulted a fellow inmate THIS YEAR!!, as well as statements she made to her godmother, that she had no remorse and would kill again.

How anyone can even begin to compare the lies she told to the ones MR told about his career choice, I'll never understand.
Yes, MR lied to the police too, but so did TLM, and her lies IMO were far more damaging than the ones MR told.

MOO

Are you discounting her entire testimony then? I think the crown has shown that most of it has proven true. I think she is a vile creature who has serious issues but I just can't take her for the mastermind some of you give her credit for.

I see a woman with serious anger issues who acts out, not plans ahead. I have heard no testimony thus far that she has ever followed thru with anything she threatened. She is impulsive. JMO

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Children of sexual abuse often repeat the abuse. We don't know what happen to TLM but it is possible she was also given as a gift. She testified she started Using drugs at eight years of age and also banged drugs with her stripper mother. Something horrible happened to her.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/2009/05/21/9520756-sun.html

That is true, but why did she think that MTR would be interested in sexually abusing a child? The defence didn't say that TLM took Tory so she could abuse her, the defence said that TLM took Tory as a gift to MTR so he could molest her.

Can anyone show me any kind of data that indicates it is common for child sex abuse survivors to abduct children for their partners to molest when that partner has said nothing to indicate they are interested in molesting a child? Because :moo: that is very different than molesting a child on one's own, turning one's back while their child is raped or giving a child to someone who has asked for that.

Are there any missing children that TLM gave as gifts to her other boyfriends, or was MTR special? If MTR was "special" it would make the most sense to me that he was because none of TLM's other boyfriends expressed interest in something so hideous.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

In the case of the man who murdered my family-member, I was the first witness on the stand in his trial. I was not allowed in the court until after my testimony; but afterwards, I was allowed to attend the rest of the trial with the expressed permission of the Defense and the Crown who agreed to allow me to be in the courtroom. I think they decided that there was not much I would add if called again.

I also wanted to add that I'm pretty sure the trial I was part of took place in the same courtroom that they are using for MR, so similar rules would apply.

Thank you, I appreciate you sharing that. I'm so sorry that you had to go through that.