Rafferty found guilty
- Thread starter ogibowt
- Start date
There are certain rules/code among the criminals in prison. Child killers/molesters are not in everyone's good books, hence the gen pop see that it is their duty to impose their criminal justice.
Being reported that an appeal is "likely".
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/michael-rafferty-likely-to-appeal-conviction
http://news.ca.msn.com/top-stories/michael-rafferty-likely-to-appeal-conviction
Good thing the evidence that was kept from the jury is now public, he'll be convicted again even faster if the appeal goes though. :thumb:
Yes, but any possible future jury will know more about Rafferty and he'll be convicted even faster.
Yes, and he would have got away with it if not for one camera capturing Terri's image. There are many more sickos who go unknown.
actually, i've been avoiding all tv about the case as it is so sick. when i heard the police had erred on getting warrants, i was afraid he might get off. there was more to that story tho. remember, oj got off. it can happen with a poor prosecution or strong defence. and throw in police errors! very close.
Appeals in murder cases are common that doesn't mean they often succeed.
In some jurisdictions they are even automatic and are paid for by the "state."
In some jurisdictions they are even automatic and are paid for by the "state."
Further to what Oagre said everyone does and should have the right to counsel even in horrific cases such as this.
However, one has the right to decline to represent someone and there are plenty of lawyers who will not represent murder defendants and not just because of the length of time they may be incarcerated if found guilty and their experience in defending such cases.
sorry...the cost of housing, feeding and entertaining these fucks is way too many hard earned tax dollars wasted on low lifes
.... and the day we get the wrong guy and execute him too soon, where will you be?
Still with that old canard, when more intelligent folk have moved on.
Just ask the victims of coroner Dr Charles Smith how they feel the death penalty.
I think that you deeply misunderstand everything about the criminal trial system. The evidence was obviously suppressed by the judge, either due to a Charter argument by the Defence or because the Defence successfully argued that the evidence was so prejudicial that it would have distracted the jury from concentrating on the immediately relevant facts of the case and thus rendering a reliable verdict.
The appeal to the Ont CA - and eventually to the SCC - focuses exclusively on technical errors made by the judge in - allegedly - the Crown's favour. It's not an invitation to the CA to consider non-admissible evidence contrary to accused. Were it so, why would the accused appeal?
I have a problem with on one hand having such faith in the jury system and at the same time not having enough faith in the jury that the judge feels it necessary to surpress certain facts because they may be prejudicial.
To further pevert this by allowing an appeal because the jury heard facts that someone thinks they had no right to hear.....c'mon. At some point this is just lawyers going around in circles.
To further pevert this by allowing an appeal because the jury heard facts that someone thinks they had no right to hear.....c'mon. At some point this is just lawyers going around in circles.
I fully understand this. Just pointing out that if he appealed that he'd be convicted faster because of the additional knowledge the jury will have. He won't get an untainted jury that doesn't have previously suppressed facts.
The evidence was in some cases obtained without a warrant. So although this guy was convicted, I think the cops still need to review what they did as the investigation was VERY sloppy and they initially focused on Tori's parents as they were the most convenient target. So the cops got lucky in spite of their incompetence. I hope the parents still sue them.
