weekend discussion thread: 4/14-16/2012

[Hello_Kitty]

Agreed. It makes no sense whatsoever. I just don't understand the logic behind that theory, anyway. Even if it was for a drug debt, what in the world was he doing with a stranger's child in his car. That in itself makes him guilty, doesn't it? :waitasec:

I'm still looking for logic from the defense and I haven't seen anything that comes anywhere close. Heck, they admitted he was there and covered it up.

The Abduction of Children by Strangers in Canada. Nature and Scope

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/omc-ned/abd-rapt-eng.htm

I found this site intersting nt

 

[swedie]

At this point i do beielve so many of us are on the fence with one leg over it. I personally leaning towards the defence, but know in a instant that leg can swing the other way and only basing my opinion on what the crown has proven to me ( Just a typical mom )

We have only heard one side of this so far and thats the side who is trying to convict him and we have strung him up for the worst of the worst crimes someone could commit ( hurting a child ) and we havent heard one thing from the defence.

But, at the very least he needs to be held accountable for what participation he did have and that alone could put him away for life and we will only know the whole story or what we are gonna hear when the defence starts their side

Fortunately that one side we have heard from so far has provided much damaging evidence against MR, including TLM's testimony. Everything is falling nicely into place. How about brutalizing, raping and murdering an innocent child. HtH and :moo:

 

[~n/t~]

Here is some background information on the dangerous offender designation.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2010/10/21/f-dangerous-offender.html

Quoted from the article: "Crown attorneys can seek the designation during sentencing and must show that there is a high risk that the criminal will commit violent or sexual offences in the future."

Was TLM declared one? I haven't seen that anywhere. If not, she can apply for parole 25 year after she was sentenced. She will still be relatively young.

Has the Crown indicated whether or not they are going to seek dangerous offender status for MR?

Russel Williams hasn't been declared one.

No I don't think she has... yet. I believe dangerous offender designation can be requested after sentencing and doesn't necessarily have to be done when charged. I hope they do. If not, we have a serious problem in Canada letting these child murders out of prison to reoffend. Pedophiles, imo, cannot be rehabilitated. No doubt MR will do this again if he's out in 25 years. :moo:

 

[tmhco]

http://www.fbi.gov/philadelphia/pre...women-indicted-on-kidnapping-and-drug-charges

She was held for ransom. As I recall TLM did not have a phone that day. Curious to see what MR phone records will show. JMO

 

[brighidin]

Continuing the dangerous offender angle:
Not many women have been declared a dangerous offender. One is now, another one committed suicide, and this one was declared a dangerous offender, but was set free.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/1999/07/01/neve990701.html

 

[antiquegirl]

Yep, that's what TLM has admitted to. I for one would love to hear MR giving testimony on the stand and being honest. Doubt this will ever happen though. I mean the being honest part. I'm sure he has many buried skeletons he doesn't want anyone to know about, including his bad childhood , how he didn't get along with his brothers/family, mom's common law partner. Then how he was shipped off from home to live with an aunt and uncle. IMHO, what a terrible time to chose to ship your child off; talk about mental turmoil for a kid or teen to deal with. Doesn't sound like he got a grip, as he dropped out of school after only earning one credit. Unfortunately we are not privy to his juvie records if he has one darn. HTH and :moo:

In blue:

So, if everyone believes that MTR is such a liar, especially to past girlfriends and dates, why would these stories be any more believable than the one where he thought he had colon cancer, for example? Maybe he only said he had a "bad childhood" or that he "didn't get along with his brothers/family" to gain sympathy.

But let's say this is true. What exactly does a "bad childhood" mean? Could it be that his mother was divorced, had to work, and he was lonesome? Could it be that he was bullied at school? Could it be that his mom was ill? That they were poor? It could mean anything at all.

Lots of people don't get along with their siblings and other family. As the saying goes, you can pick your nose, but your can't pick your relatives. Doesn't make one a pedophile or murderer.

In purple:

This, too, has not been proven yet, except by what MTR told a girlfriend. Maybe this was a lie, as well. But if not, there could be many reasons why he had to live with relatives, such as his mom having a possible illness, abject poverty again, she had to move and didn't want to uproot him from his school and friends, etc., etc.

My point is we don't have facts, just second-hand information with no explanation for any of it. Yet.

JMO :moo:

 

[tmhco]

I would think that most pedophiles as MR is being alleged to be do not go around getting their friends to abduct young girls for them to molest ... most pedophiles groom their victims over long periods of time and the molestation escalates to intercourse. There is too much danger of getting caught - they prefer to groom a victim sufficiently so that they do not tell... and the abuse can continue. I am sure that children and adults are abducted all the time for drug debts - there was quite the number of them reported last year in Toronto (home invasions where someone was taken from the home) but assuming the victim is returned and the debt satisfied, who is going to call LE???

I think that when Derstine has his turn the whole story will come full circle back to TLM. He is being quiet now. You have to watch the quiet ones lol!

Unless the victim is young enough to manipulate or you dispose of the victim for being too old. JMO

 

[~n/t~]

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-5671683-504083.html

similar but not exactly what you mean but I think in the states it IS common to go after family or threaten family if you owe drug debt. :twocents: I am sure I have seen many cases in the news. Lemme see what I can find.:twocents:

http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/13031/

I myself do not believe this is the case in this case but in general I think that drug dealers and drug debt collectors are and can be a very violent bunch, as violent and as nasty or deviant as the individual who is doing the collecting and enforcing. IMO
http://www.canada.com/national/feat....html?id=ff1de829-a2bf-45b1-bdb1-bc3dea487cdc

http://articles.latimes.com/2000/aug/18/local/me-6698

lots of cases out there IMO
JMO

Thanks for the links but I don't see children being the targets. A lot of juvenile (teenagers) drug crimes but haven't seen where a stranger abducts and murders a small child for a drug debt.

 

[snoofer]

The Abduction of Children by Strangers in Canada. Nature and Scope

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/omc-ned/abd-rapt-eng.htm

I found this site intersting nt

:goodpost: very informative.:twocents:

 

[matou]

Rafferty had the car for a few years I thought.

What year did he purchase his car? I know T Moore testified that it was bought at a used car lot.

Moore testified Rafferty purchased a Blue Honda from a used parking lot in Toronto and they met once at a Henderson Street address in Guelph in May 2009.

http://www.1047.ca/local-news/michael-rafferty-trial

 

[antiquegirl]

Actually, I did check the list and found that it had very few dates of when he actually dated each woman. In most cases, it only says when they "met on POF". So I compared it to AG's list, as well as some tweets, and thus was able to rule out that he had dated 3 of those women that you had quoted, at the same time. I had considered doing a new list with the actual dates, if known, of when they dated, but decided against it since it's totally irrelevant and has nothing to do with whether he's guilty or not.

You're certainly entitled to your opinion. My opinion, which I am equally entitled to as well, is that texting, calling and meeting for coffee to see if you're compatible is neither dating nor using and manipulating.

(RSBM)

Exactly. It was also never made clear (I believe in most of these cases) who contacted whom initially. If your profile is up on a dating site, you're open to contact. It's a safe bet that at least some of these women sent the first MSM message. Now, if I were a guy and had no serious relationship going on (or suspected it was coming to an end), I would not turn down a contact by an attractive woman. He was not engaged and he was not married. He was not in an exclusive relationship that we're aware of. I suspect that this "leaving your options open" is far more common than some of us realize. As I wanted to say about what went on sexually between MTR and TLM - it takes two to tango. I'm not saying that this is a good thing, only that it probably happens far more often than we, as a different generation, may be aware of.

JMO

 

[ChaChaCha]

Thanks for the links but I don't see children being the targets. A lot of juvenile (teenagers) drug crimes but haven't seen where a stranger abducts and murders a small child for a drug debt.

Ahem, TLM is a drug-addicted dealer and a juvenile delinquent. And the victim was IMO not unknown to her. Of course children are the targets - they are easily accesible, naive, easily tricked and small enough to strong-arm if need be.

This is from the link posted above:


"Stranger abduction in Canada is a rare occurrence. However, each incident tends to shock the nation. The stereotypical view held by the public of countless strangers in the community abducting children is usually fuelled by media releases that meticulously describe a tragic kidnapping. These media reports most often heighten national paranoia and inflate child safety concerns.
Tragically, those individuals, predators, who harm children are generally known to the child. Consequently, children have difficulty determining who will harm them and who will not. For this reason, the onus is on parents to screen those persons supervising and caring for their child, and to educate their children on how to stay and play safe .

In 2000 and 2001, there were ninety police reports classified as stranger abduction. It is important to note that the Canadian law enforcement definition of a stranger not only refers to someone totally unknown to the child victim but also refers to relatives, friends, and acquaintances. In comparison to parental abduction cases, where the only threat to the child is from a parent, all children are at possible risk of abduction by a stranger."

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/omc-ned/abd-rapt-eng.htm

 

[brighidin]

The Abduction of Children by Strangers in Canada. Nature and Scope

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/omc-ned/abd-rapt-eng.htm

I found this site intersting nt

Thanks for posting the link. I haven't been able to read it all yet, but so far, a few things have jumped out at me, in the context of this case. In particular:

"The most common motive of child abduction which results in murder is sexual gratification."
and

"Abduction for profit appears to be the least common motivation for offenders. These crimes are often perpetrated by strangers and acquaintances and the victims are generally older school age males."

 

[Hello_Kitty]

I understand what you are saying antiquegirl. And I'm not saying that there has to be a precedent, but I will say that it would be much more obvious if children connected to TLM were going missing than if children connected with MTR were being molested because a missing child is going to draw much more attention than a child that may or may not tell their parents that they are being sexually abused.
.

Snipped and BBM

The fact that TLM said that Tori wasn't young enough and that younger girls are easier to manipulate tells me that if he's done this before that probably most of his victims were just too young to know what was really going on. But even an 8 year old child wouldn't know what was considered sexual molestation if he was just touching her. BTW I'm sure most people here know that you don't have to penetrate someone for it to be sexual molestation, it could be just touching. MTR could have been just touching little girls for a long time before he escalated to rape. (Just saying)

Here is an example: someone touches a little girl/boy innapropriately child does know it is bad becase child is too young and someone tells them they are just playing nurse or some such thing like that.

 

[daisy.faithfull]

Snipped and BBM

The fact that TLM said that Tori wasn't young enough and that younger girls are easier to manipulate tells me that if he's done this before that probably most of his victims were just too young to know what was really going on. But even an 8 year old child wouldn't know what was considered sexual molestation if he was just touching her. BTW I'm sure most people here know that you don't have to penetrate someone for it to be sexual molestation, it could be just touching. MTR could have been just touching little girls for a long time before he escalated to rape. (Just saying)

Here is an example: someone touches a little girl/boy innapropriately child does know it is bad becase child is too young and someone tells them they are just playing nurse or some such thing like that.

That is what I'm afraid of and my heart goes out to all the women with children who dated MTR. I can't imagine what this is like for them.

 

[tmhco]

Ahem, TLM is a drug-addicted dealer and a juvenile delinquent. And the victim was IMO not unknown to her. Of course children are the targets - they are easily accesible, naive, easily tricked and small enough to strong-arm if need be.

This is from the link posted above:


"Stranger abduction in Canada is a rare occurrence. However, each incident tends to shock the nation. The stereotypical view held by the public of countless strangers in the community abducting children is usually fuelled by media releases that meticulously describe a tragic kidnapping. These media reports most often heighten national paranoia and inflate child safety concerns.
Tragically, those individuals, predators, who harm children are generally known to the child. Consequently, children have difficulty determining who will harm them and who will not. For this reason, the onus is on parents to screen those persons supervising and caring for their child, and to educate their children on how to stay and play safe .

In 2000 and 2001, there were ninety police reports classified as stranger abduction. It is important to note that the Canadian law enforcement definition of a stranger not only refers to someone totally unknown to the child victim but also refers to relatives, friends, and acquaintances. In comparison to parental abduction cases, where the only threat to the child is from a parent, all children are at possible risk of abduction by a stranger."

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/omc-ned/abd-rapt-eng.htm

I would say the same thing about MR. JMO

 

[snoofer]

An abduction may occur for many reasons, including a desire to possess a child, sexual gratification, financial gain, retribution, and the desire to kill. Research findings indicate that when a child is killed, the motivation may be either emotion-based , where the abductor seeks revenge on the family; sexual-based , where the offender seeks sexual gratification from the victim; or profit-based , which involves most often ransom for money (Boudreaux et al, 2000 & 2001). Moreover, child homicide usually follows an abduction and is not the reason for the abduction. Abduction-homicide studies have suggested that "a number of abductors kill their victims because of a predisposition to do so" (Hanfland et al, 1997).

The most common motive of child abduction which results in murder is sexual gratification (Boudreaux et al, 2000, Asdigian et al, 1995).
"Sex offences occurred most often in older school age children by non-family male offenders" (Boudreaux et al, 2000). Because they are more independent and free to move about unsupervised, older school age children are commonly targets for abduction.

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/omc-ned/abd-rapt-eng.htm

geesh sounds like this case yet it was written well before this case. IMO

I don't think that this report says an abduction can occur for only one reason and must pick one; it could be a combination of reasons this person decided to abduct a child. It states that usually the child picked is not random. But other studies I have read say it is crime of opportunity. Interesting, that most abducted children also then end up murdered. JMO

 

[antiquegirl]

And he pulled down a long, slippery, secluded laneway, which he more than likely knew was there because...? He threw out his back seat and has not told LE where it is because...? His whole interview with LE was polluted with lies because...? Oh but he visited TLM and took care of CM while TLM was incarcerated because....HE'S a NORMAL and NICE GUY? :waitasec:

(RSBM)

This is an oft-repeated refrain. Do you have a link to show that MTR didn't tell LE what he did with his car seat? The only thing I've ever seen is that LE couldn't find it. There is a big difference there. He may very well have told LE right after his arrest what he did with that seat.

AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court
Griswold says he noticed Rafferty remove the seat and put it in his shed March 29th, 09. He is read his synopsis, now remembers.

Avery Moore‏@AveryFreeFMNews
In cross exam Derstine reminds Griswold of a statement he made to police saying he saw #Rafferty in March take the seat out. Put in shed

AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court
Griswold says he looked through the pile in front of the home. There was a ripped car seat.

AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court
The garbage was out for 4 or 5 days before it was picked up.

JMO

 

[~n/t~]

Ahem, TLM is a drug-addicted dealer and a juvenile delinquent. And the victim was IMO not unknown to her. Of course children are the targets - they are easily accesible, naive, easily tricked and small enough to strong-arm if need be.

This is from the link posted above:


"Stranger abduction in Canada is a rare occurrence. However, each incident tends to shock the nation. The stereotypical view held by the public of countless strangers in the community abducting children is usually fuelled by media releases that meticulously describe a tragic kidnapping. These media reports most often heighten national paranoia and inflate child safety concerns.
Tragically, those individuals, predators, who harm children are generally known to the child. Consequently, children have difficulty determining who will harm them and who will not. For this reason, the onus is on parents to screen those persons supervising and caring for their child, and to educate their children on how to stay and play safe .

In 2000 and 2001, there were ninety police reports classified as stranger abduction. It is important to note that the Canadian law enforcement definition of a stranger not only refers to someone totally unknown to the child victim but also refers to relatives, friends, and acquaintances. In comparison to parental abduction cases, where the only threat to the child is from a parent, all children are at possible risk of abduction by a stranger."

http://www.rcmp-grc.gc.ca/pubs/omc-ned/abd-rapt-eng.htm

Where does it say that children are abducted for drug debts? Where I'm from 18 years old is an ADULT. Furthermore, she was sentenced to life in PRISON. Adult prison. Her accomplice is/was an adult.

The drug theory is hogwash, smokes and mirrors (insert any word you want), it won't change the facts in the case. Victoria was kidnapped for sexual purposes and the facts in the case prove it.

I'm now off the drug debt topic because it's become so ridiculous without any proof whatsoever and totally irrelevant to this trial.

 

[swedie]

what is the point of this trial? Because it is MTR's right and this is all an exercise in futility for him? :what: Wow. Expensive.:twocents:

I wonder what the statistics are on those who plead compared to those who go to trial and are still found guilty. I wonder what the statistics say about which group gets the more servere sentence or is it all equal in the end.:twocents:

IMO it would be very interesting to find out what the expense of this whole case from start to finish will be. MR if/when he's found guilty should have to do hard labour like ditch digging by hand to pay back taxpayers for the waste of money he has brought upon us. We probably won't be getting an Old Age Security Pension raise in the next couple of years thanks to the likes of MR. Raises in taxes too :moo: