Calgarypuck Forums - The Unofficial Calgary Flames Fan Community
Old 05-13-2012, 11:17 AM   #81
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan View Post
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.
__________________
There are brave men outside of our gates, lets go kill them
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2012, 11:37 AM   #82
trublmaker
First Line Centre
 
trublmaker's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: in the belly of the beast.
Exp:
Default

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?
trublmaker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2012, 11:45 AM   #83
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

I don't think you can get a warrant after you've made a discovery using a illegal method.
__________________
There are brave men outside of our gates, lets go kill them
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2012, 12:17 PM   #84
Iowa_Flames_Fan
Referee
 
Iowa_Flames_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the hill
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch View Post
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.
Iowa_Flames_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Iowa_Flames_Fan For This Useful Post:
Old 05-13-2012, 06:42 PM   #85
VO #23
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan View Post
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?
VO #23 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to VO #23 For This Useful Post:
Old 05-13-2012, 10:30 PM   #86
valo403
Franchise Player
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trublmaker View Post
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.
valo403 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to valo403 For This Useful Post:
Old 05-15-2012, 05:44 AM   #87
VO #23
Scoring Winger
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Exp:
Default

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/
VO #23 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to VO #23 For This Useful Post:
Old 05-16-2012, 06:49 AM   #88
Iowa_Flames_Fan
Referee
 
Iowa_Flames_Fan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Over the hill
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VO #23 View Post
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/
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.
Iowa_Flames_Fan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2012, 08:04 AM   #89
Northendzone
Franchise Player
 
Northendzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

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......
Northendzone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2012, 09:21 AM   #90
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

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
__________________
There are brave men outside of our gates, lets go kill them
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-16-2012, 10:14 AM   #91
Northendzone
Franchise Player
 
Northendzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

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.......
Northendzone is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2019, 01:45 PM   #92
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

Thought I'd bump this


https://twitter.com/statuses/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
__________________
There are brave men outside of our gates, lets go kill them
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2019, 03:19 PM   #93
dissentowner
Franchise Player
 
dissentowner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: SW Ontario
Exp:
Default

I think her treatment was unfair too, she should have it much worse.
dissentowner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2019, 03:58 PM   #94
Nyah
First Line Centre
 
Nyah's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2012
Location: The Kilt & Caber
Exp:
Default

She's a monster. I hope she's having a tough time if it. She's earned that.
Nyah is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2019, 05:08 PM   #95
CaptainCrunch
Norm!
 
CaptainCrunch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Exp:
Default

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.
__________________
There are brave men outside of our gates, lets go kill them
CaptainCrunch is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 10:25 AM   #96
blankall
Ate 100 Treadmills
 
blankall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Exp:
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by VO #23 View Post
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.
blankall is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-15-2019, 12:24 PM   #97
Northendzone
Franchise Player
 
Northendzone's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Exp:
Default

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
__________________
I really like bikes and bike related discussions......
Northendzone is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
death penalty , rot in hell

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:37 AM.

Calgary Flames
2017-18




Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright Calgarypuck 2016