05-13-2012, 11:17 AM
|
#81
|
Norm!
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
Requiring our law enforcement officers to themselves follow the law is not a "technicality." Sorry, it just isn't.
I don't think you're understanding the point of my post above--the point is not to compare what happened here to what has happened in past instances in Canadian judicial history. It's to point out that when we consider whether to exclude evidence because of a violation of a Charter-protected right, we don't consider whether a guy was guilty, or whether the evidence shows that he's, as you put it, "sick."
There's absolutely no doubt that Rafferty WAS a sick, disgusting and evil human being. But that is absolutely not the point. The point is always the evidence in the abstract. The judge made a discretionary call that the way this evidence came to be in the hands of the police was not lawful, and that its admission would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
Saying that the justice system should ignore violations of the law (what you call "technicalities") is not the answer. The answer is for investigators to be more circumspect in obeying the law while they are enforcing it. In a free society, that's not that much to ask.
And I'll say again: this outcome is better. I'm not sure why you can't understand that a guilty verdict without the use of evidence that is of questionable admissibility is better than one that uses that evidence and gives the accused another argument on appeal for getting a new trial.
|
As a side note, there is no doubt in my mind that there will be an appeal. I can't help but think that the jury convicted more on the emotion and on Rafferty acting like an a$$ during the trial then on the actual evidence.
It just seems to me that some of the revisits during jury description were looking for reasons to convict as oppossed to looking at the evidence of it.
To be honest the concern is with the woman changing her story during her testimony. Little in the way of forensic evidence of an actual sexual assault due to the condition of Tori's body.
A lack of evidence, a lack of reason (Because of the laptop being excluded)
Poor witnesses.
I have little doubt that this will go through a re-trial, and I have little doubt that with the lack of the laptop evidence in front of a different jury that the conviction becomes a lot less different.
The jury got it right thank god, but reading back through what happened in the trial, I'm amazed that it happened.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
05-13-2012, 11:37 AM
|
#82
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: May 2011
Location: in the belly of the beast.
|
so is there anyway they can get a warrant and then use the contents of the laptop when it goes to appeal? They found it with a legal warrant what stopped them from getting a warrant for the contents? or is it like unringing the bell after they looked inside?
|
|
|
05-13-2012, 11:45 AM
|
#83
|
Norm!
|
I don't think you can get a warrant after you've made a discovery using a illegal method.
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
05-13-2012, 12:17 PM
|
#84
|
Referee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the hill
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch
As a side note, there is no doubt in my mind that there will be an appeal. I can't help but think that the jury convicted more on the emotion and on Rafferty acting like an a$$ during the trial then on the actual evidence.
It just seems to me that some of the revisits during jury description were looking for reasons to convict as oppossed to looking at the evidence of it.
To be honest the concern is with the woman changing her story during her testimony. Little in the way of forensic evidence of an actual sexual assault due to the condition of Tori's body.
A lack of evidence, a lack of reason (Because of the laptop being excluded)
Poor witnesses.
I have little doubt that this will go through a re-trial, and I have little doubt that with the lack of the laptop evidence in front of a different jury that the conviction becomes a lot less different.
The jury got it right thank god, but reading back through what happened in the trial, I'm amazed that it happened.
|
There probably will be; but jury findings of fact are entitled to a good deal of deference on appellate review, and given that there is considerable circumstantial evidence tying him to the crime, along with the testimony of an eyewitness (who was found as a fact to be telling the truth when she said Rafferty did it and to be lying when she said he didn't) I think it's unlikely that this verdict will be overturned.
Sometimes the justice system works very well. It's not perfect, and it's rarely pretty, but this is one of those times that we should all just agree that the court got it right and not obsess over the minutiae of what evidence did and didn't get in.
|
|
|
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-13-2012, 06:42 PM
|
#85
|
Scoring Winger
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan
There probably will be; but jury findings of fact are entitled to a good deal of deference on appellate review, and given that there is considerable circumstantial evidence tying him to the crime, along with the testimony of an eyewitness (who was found as a fact to be telling the truth when she said Rafferty did it and to be lying when she said he didn't) I think it's unlikely that this verdict will be overturned.
Sometimes the justice system works very well. It's not perfect, and it's rarely pretty, but this is one of those times that we should all just agree that the court got it right and not obsess over the minutiae of what evidence did and didn't get in.
|
Yep. Surely the defence will try and appeal this, but there would have to be a pretty major error in law for leave to appeal to be granted. The jury's emotions have nothing to do with it - we only have to worry if the judge screwed something up. And his tossing of the computer evidence shows that he took a pretty even-handed and careful approach to this stuff.
The judge's erring on the side of caution with his ruling on evidentiary issues could be what saves this case from a retrial. Now wouldn't that be ironic?
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to VO #23 For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-13-2012, 10:30 PM
|
#86
|
Franchise Player
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by trublmaker
I never ever said anything about one verdict being better than the other. I know the judge didn't want this to come back on an appeal, I'm talking about this ruling saying that what's on a computer found in the course of a legal search warrant can't be used because the contents of the computer are now considered basically a residence. You can use the computer for evidence just not what's on it. I'm glad the jury got it right but again what if they got it wrong because they didn't know everything
|
That's not true at all. Evidence in the computers contents would be fully admissible had the police followed the law when obtaining it. As stated above, this is about requiring investigators to follow the law, giving them a free pass just because we think this guy is guilty opens the door to a number of terrifying outcomes.
|
|
|
The Following User Says Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-15-2012, 05:44 AM
|
#87
|
Scoring Winger
|
A fascinating interview with Rafferty's defence lawyer about the case and the role of the defence lawyer in a democracy.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle2431559/
|
|
|
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to VO #23 For This Useful Post:
|
|
05-16-2012, 06:49 AM
|
#88
|
Referee
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the hill
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VO #23
|
I have an immense amount of respect for him; he serves a vital function in our justice system, and he gets vilified for it.
And let's face it: it takes a special kind of person to be able to act for a person like Rafferty and then go home afterwards to his own family. I don't think I could ever have done it, not because I believe it's wrong, but because I don't have the stomach for it.
|
|
|
05-16-2012, 08:04 AM
|
#89
|
Franchise Player
|
on the radio this morning they were reporting that rafferty received a life sentence - bye bye.......this goof still maintains his innocence.........hopefully there is a special place in the after life for him......
|
|
|
05-16-2012, 09:21 AM
|
#90
|
Norm!
|
Kind of bone chilling when you consider that this was probably done to add more pain to the family
Quote:
Rafferty was asked if he had anything to say before being sentenced to life in prison, the automatic penalty for first-degree murder. He stood up and addressed Tori's mother Tara McDonald directly, saying he would give her "all the pieces of the puzzle," if she wanted to hear them away from the court, members of the media and spectators.
Read more: http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/To...#ixzz1v2wRcVeL
|
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
05-16-2012, 10:14 AM
|
#91
|
Franchise Player
|
that was a difficult article to read........what a piece of human crap for saying that..........i can not even begin to wrap my head around why or how an adult (in this case two adults) could do that to a child.......
|
|
|
05-14-2019, 01:45 PM
|
#92
|
Norm!
|
Thought I'd bump this
https://twitter.com/user/status/1128382804952268800
Quote:
he is apparently not happy with her change of environment.In a court application filed April 30, 2019, she complains the transfer led to the loss of her liberty and the decision to move her was “unreasonable and procedurally unfair, and therefore unlawful.”
Her lawyers asked the Court of Queen’s Bench of Alberta to evaluate whether the decisions to transfer her and also for an award of costs.
|
Part of me thinks she's doing this to torture the victim
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
05-14-2019, 03:19 PM
|
#93
|
Franchise Player
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
|
I think her treatment was unfair too, she should have it much worse.
|
|
|
05-14-2019, 03:58 PM
|
#94
|
First Line Centre
Join Date: May 2012
Location: The Kilt & Caber
|
She's a monster. I hope she's having a tough time if it. She's earned that.
|
|
|
05-14-2019, 05:08 PM
|
#95
|
Norm!
|
Retracts her application
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/londo...ntic-1.5135797
This makes me think that she did it for attention
Quote:
Court documents suggest that McClintic's application was not supported by any evidence. The judge also raised issue with the court having the jurisdiction to hear the application, given McClintic is no longer in Alberta.
|
__________________
My name is Ozymandias, King of Kings;
Look on my Works, ye Mighty, and despair!
|
|
|
05-15-2019, 10:25 AM
|
#96
|
Ate 100 Treadmills
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by VO #23
Yep. Surely the defence will try and appeal this, but there would have to be a pretty major error in law for leave to appeal to be granted. The jury's emotions have nothing to do with it - we only have to worry if the judge screwed something up. And his tossing of the computer evidence shows that he took a pretty even-handed and careful approach to this stuff.
The judge's erring on the side of caution with his ruling on evidentiary issues could be what saves this case from a retrial. Now wouldn't that be ironic?
|
Contrary to popular belief, appeals are not an automatic way for guilty parties to get out of their crimes on technicalities. The vast majority of appeals end in failures. Not going to get into the legal test, but the appeal judges cannot overturn a finding a fact unless it's pretty far out there.
|
|
|
05-15-2019, 12:24 PM
|
#97
|
Franchise Player
|
i'd be curious to know who drove her compensation request. was it her, or her lawyer/a lawyer/a kind of lawyer.
she sure seems to be more "visible" in prison than her boyfriend/accomplice has been
__________________
If I do not come back avenge my death
|
|
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:59 PM.
|
|