weekend discussion thread: 4/14-16/2012

[snoofer]

In TLM's video she stated that MTR said to her (I am going to have sex with her.) IF that is what was said then what exactly did TLM think the initial abduction was for if later he says to her as a revelation that he is going to have sex with her. It makes it sound like this was an afterthought a "bonus" for MTR in addition to what the original motive was. IMO I think it was sexual motive from the get go as that would fit into what is the usual in these horrible cases. But that is not what TLM inferred by what she said MTR said. JMO Make sense?

 

[ChaChaCha]

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.

Gosh, I never said the article said that at all? In any case I haven't seen one whit of EVIDENCE that there was a sexual assault by MR (and no, TLMs word doesn't count for anything in my book) so now I am off the sexual assault topic because it has become so ridiculous without any proof whatsoever and its relevance (or non-relevance) IMO will become readily apparent once the defence has its say.

Just saying ...

 

[snoofer]

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:

There must be a prison in Ontario next to a rock quarry he could work at all day splitting rock.:seeya::twocents: But TLM should have to push the wheel-barrel if that is the case. MOO

 

[antiquegirl]

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.

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

From the same testimony:

AM980.ca‏@AM980_Court

Rafferty bought the Honda Civic in 2007, from a used car lot.

HTH

 

[Hello_Kitty]

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:

I think the whole drug debt discussion is ridiculous as well, it hasn't even been proven. And the only possible person who would owe MR or TLM a drug debt would be TM, and TM says she didn't owe anyone drug money, and the only other is JG and no one has confirmed yet that he owed that to either TLM or JG.

 

[swedie]

If one wants to argue that TLM has never offered a child to a boyfriend before, then the same argument can be made that MTR has no record of having molested children before. Neither has been proven.

I fail to understand why people want a precedent for everything. Yes, having statistics or a history of similar behaviour would bolster an argument, but it's not necessary. Everyone has to start somewhere. Or, if you prefer, there's a first time for everything.

Each person is unique, as is the way his/her mind works. How and when impulses or whims become reality would vary from one human to the next.

JMO

And statistic show pedos and rapists are sexual deviants and are not normal.

Wow I would think the majority of us are falling behind in life if there's a first time for EVERYTHING? :what: So many horrible things in life I chose not to make them a first time for excellent reasons. What a scary thought process if one has to experience everything in life. :moo:

 

[ChaChaCha]

Do you have a link to that information that the jury can convict on a lesser charge? I must've missed it. TIA

It has been posted several times over the past two weeks ... including a scenario based on his participation and mea culpa. The judge will instruct the jury prior to their being sequestered.

 

[Hello_Kitty]

In TLM's video she stated that MTR said to her (I am going to have sex with her.) IF that is what was said then what exactly did TLM think the initial abduction was for if later he says to her as a revelation that he is going to have sex with her. It makes it sound like this was an afterthought a "bonus" for MTR in addition to what the original motive was. IMO I think it was sexual motive from the get go as that would fit into what is the usual in these horrible cases. But that is not what TLM inferred by what she said MTR said. JMO Make sense?

The actual quote was "you know i'm gonna f*** her right"? Notheless, good catch Snoofer. So I'm confused, so what was the original intention of them kidnapping Tori then?

 

[JayFriend]

If anything, I feel sorry for all of the women (except TLM) who got mixed up with MTR. They got a raw deal at the time and continue to get one with being forced to testify in court, adding to the horror and humiliation. That only two of them (so far) got anonymity from the media is unfair. IMO, none of their full names should have been allowed to be published. They could have used initials, as we do here, or first names and last initials. ITA that they will never get over this.

JMO

I fully agree that if one or two are privileged enough to not have their names published, then all of them should have been afforded the courtesy.

 

[snoofer]

The actual quote was "you know i'm gonna f*** her right"? Notheless, good catch Snoofer. So I'm confused, so what was the original intention of them kidnapping Tori then?

:waitasec: ya i dunno but those are the questions we are left with from her testimony if it is to be believed.:moo:

 

[dilbert]

It has been posted several times over the past two weeks ... including a scenario based on his participation and mea culpa. The judge will instruct the jury prior to their being sequestered.

Always glad to help you back up your statements, Cha.

This is where Russell Williams former lawyer discusses the case and mentions that the jury can find MR guilty of a lesser charge.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV Shows/Connect with Mark Kelley/ID=2213971998

 

[Hello_Kitty]

:waitasec: ya i dunno but those are the questions we are left with from her testimony if it is to be believed.:moo:

Maybe he really wanted to abduct a little girl and raise her as his own?

 

[Hello_Kitty]

I fully agree that if one or two are privileged enough to not have their names published, then all of them should have been afforded the courtesy.

My understanding from the link posted earlier in the thread concerning that is that you have to apply to the judge to get your name and profession from being published. Maybe the others didn't or didn't know about it.

 

[swedie]

She ADMITTED to her GODMOTHER in 2012 that she put the puppy in the microwave and LIED about it after, she ADMITTED on the stand that she put the dog in the microwave. Why would she lie about that if she didn't do it? That's enough for me to prove she did it.

Lets be fair, if MR admitted to someone that he put a puppy in the microwave, even though there were no other proof he did it, you and a whole bunch of other people would believe it to be true. So why not believe TLM did that?

Regarding TLM fighting in prison, that is not surprising to me that SHE did that, after all we've heard of her propensity for violence. She lied on the stand when she said she had changed, when really she hadn't changed at all. She wasn't fighting to protect herself, she manipulated the prison peer to peer program in order to get the one inmate (that said bad things about her) alone so she could beat her up. Act of revenge? Oh yes.

Regarding the last part of your post, I am not denying MR lied to cover up his involvement in the crime, he lied just as much about it as TLM did. No doubt about that. My original post on this subject was referring to the lies he told all his "dates", I don't see how those lies are relevant to his guilt/innocence in this case.



That's very interesting that he would bring this up considering, in the same suggestion, Derstine said MR declined the offer. Maybe he brought it up because it's the truth?

MOO

I believe TLM told the truth then just as she did when she was on the stand. What I believe is going on with TLM is she needs prompting and encouragement for her to react. TLM works on dares. Necro music dared/prompted her to write sick things in her journals, letters, MR dared he to abduct Tori and I wouldn't be surprised to find out some other kid dared her to nuke her dog. It would be interesting to know how old she was when she nuked her cute doggy. Four? Maybe 12? Age would play a big roll in the nuking of the dog. I would think a four year old child without a role model in her life might not know the consequences of what nuking a dog would do. So she wanted to hear it (scream){of course that was the defenses wording}. TLM may have wanted to hear it bark. Just as some child would knock on a door to hear their dog bark. We do not know what her rationale was for nuking her dog so I think we should not use that against her.:moo:

 

[antiquegirl]

I'm mostly trying to understand why those who feel he should be found not guilty feel that way.:seeya:

(RSBM)

I don't recall anyone here having said that "he should be found not guilty". But I speak only for myself when I say that I am still impartial because we have not yet heard ALL the evidence. So far, I've only heard part of the Crown's case.

I am convinced that it was TLM who physically abducted Tori. I am convinced that it was TLM who physically murdered Tori. I am convinced that Tori was in MTR's car and that he was aware of it. I am convinced that he knew Tori was dead and didn't go to LE with this information.

I am not (yet) convinced that it was MTR who planned this crime. I am not (yet) convinced that MTR sexually assaulted Tori.

After the defence has finished presenting their case, and both sides have given their closing arguments, I will then decide, based on all the evidence whether or not MTR is guilty of one, two, or all three charges. Like the jury.

JMO

""we need and welcome discussion of both sides of every issue on Websleuths." SoSueMe

 

[snoofer]

:twocents:

The actual quote was "you know i'm gonna f*** her right"? Notheless, good catch Snoofer. So I'm confused, so what was the original intention of them kidnapping Tori then?

and what is TLM's version of if questioned and asked that question :what:

 

[ChaChaCha]

I believe TLM told the truth then just as she did when she was on the stand. What I believe is going on with TLM is she needs prompting and encouragement for her to react. TLM works on dares. Necro music dared/prompted her to write sick things in her journals, letters, MR dared he to abduct Tori and I wouldn't be surprised to find out some other kid dared her to nuke her dog. It would be interesting to know how old she was when she nuked her cute doggy. Four? Maybe 12? Age would play a big roll in the nuking of the dog. I would think a four year old child without a role model in her life might not know the consequences of what nuking a dog would do. So she wanted to hear it (scream){of course that was the defenses wording}. TLM may have wanted to hear it bark. Just as some child would knock on a door to hear their dog bark. We do not know what her rationale was for nuking her dog so I think we should not use that against her.:moo:

TLM lied the big one at her sentencing hearing .... and then she mouthed all sorts of drivel to the family about how sorry she was and how she was touched by Tori durin the short time they spent together. Her credibility is shot with me! It doesn't matter how old she was when she nuked the dog - she did it, and statistically speaking it was a big red flag for things to come. Undeniably she is evil and has been lying very well since she was a kid. No excuses for her behaviour with the dog, and no excuses for what she did to an innocent child.

|" Acts of cruelty to animals are not mere indications of a minor personality flaw in the abuser; they are symptomatic of a deep mental disturbance. Research in psychology and criminology shows that people who commit acts of cruelty to animals don’t stop there—many of them move on to their fellow humans. “Murderers ... very often start out by killing and torturing animals as kids,” says Robert K. Ressler, who developed profiles of serial killers for the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI).(1)"

 

[dilbert]

I believe TLM told the truth then just as she did when she was on the stand. What I believe is going on with TLM is she needs prompting and encouragement for her to react. TLM works on dares. Necro music dared/prompted her to write sick things in her journals, letters, MR dared he to abduct Tori and I wouldn't be surprised to find out some other kid dared her to nuke her dog. It would be interesting to know how old she was when she nuked her cute doggy. Four? Maybe 12? Age would play a big roll in the nuking of the dog. I would think a four year old child without a role model in her life might not know the consequences of what nuking a dog would do. So she wanted to hear it (scream){of course that was the defenses wording}. TLM may have wanted to hear it bark. Just as some child would knock on a door to hear their dog bark. We do not know what her rationale was for nuking her dog so I think we should not use that against her.:moo:

It's irrelevant what age TLM was when she nuked the puppy, she was old enough to lie about it after and blame the injuries on a neighbourhood dog, that to me proves she knew it was wrong to put the dog in the microwave in the first place.

MOO

 

[OhSoCurious]

No, here they just stab or shoot each other. Mostly stab. Lots of stabbings here.

It was n/t asking for a case: Have any of you heard of a gangster or drug dealer kidnapping and murdering a child for revenge on a parent? Any cases out there? I can't think of any.
_______________________________________________________________________________________________

A quick Google comes up with this, as recent as last week. Go figure:

http://www.wfmz.com/news/news-regio...s-say/-/121418/10282730/-/qtfesn/-/index.html

 

[snoofer]

(RSBM)

I don't recall anyone here having said that "he should be found not guilty". But I speak only for myself when I say that I am still impartial because we have not yet heard ALL the evidence. So far, I've only heard only part of the Crown's case.

I am convinced that it was TLM who physically abducted Tori. I am convinced that it was TLM who physically murdered Tori. I am convinced that Tori was in MTR's car and that he was aware of it. I am convinced that he knew Tori was dead and didn't go to LE with this information.

I am not (yet) convinced that it was MTR who planned this crime. I am not (yet) convinced that MTR sexually assaulted Tori.

After the defence has finished presenting their case, and both sides have given their closing arguments, I will then decide, based on all the evidence whether or not MTR is guilty of one, two, or all three charges. Like the jury.

JMO

""we need and welcome discussion of both sides of every issue on Websleuths." SoSueMe

I think IMO many of us can straddle the fence on guilt or innocence daily in this case; back and forth depending on the tweets we see or hear. And when the defense presents I am sure there will be some swaying of opinions for some. I much respect your neutrality until both sides are presented. Myself I am swayed daily and I lean towards guilt but I do not leave out the possibility that the defense is holding back and could sway my opinion that way depending on thier presentation. I would make a terrible juror as I am easily swayed on a daily basis.:twocents: and I have more faith in LE than I do in lawyers as I think LE is more impartial IMO.