232807
232830

Canada  

Child killer can't appeal

UPDATE: 10:15 a.m.

Ontario's highest court has dismissed an appeal by the convicted killer of eight-year-old Victoria Stafford.

Michael Rafferty was sentenced to life in prison in 2013 with no chance of parole for 25 years for kidnapping, sexual assault causing bodily harm and first-degree murder in the death of the Woodstock, Ont., girl.

Rafferty's accomplice, Terri-Lynne McClintic, pleaded guilty in 2010 to first-degree murder.

Rafferty's lawyer, Paul Calarco, argued earlier today that the judge made several errors, including failing to warn the jury against relying on the testimony of McClintic, and arguing that she could have been the driving force behind the murder.

Calarco also said some of Rafferty's actions after the killing — such as cleaning his car, disposing of clothing and giving a false alibi — were "equally consistent" with being an accessory after the fact.

The appeal court judges dismissed Rafferty's appeal before hearing the Crown's arguments.


ORIGINAL: 6:55 a.m.

The man convicted of killing eight-year-old Victoria Stafford seven years ago will ask Ontario's top court for a new trial Monday, trying to pin the blame on his accomplice.

Michael Rafferty was sentenced to life in prison in 2012 with no chance of parole for 25 years for kidnapping, sexual assault causing bodily harm and first-degree murder in the death of the Woodstock, Ont., girl.

His former girlfriend, Terri-Lynne McClintic, pleaded guilty in 2010 to first-degree murder, initially telling police Rafferty killed the girl, but testifying at his trial that she delivered the fatal blows.

Rafferty's lawyer, Paul Calarco, argues in documents filed with the Court of Appeal for Ontario that the judge made several errors, including failing to warn the jury against relying on the testimony of McClintic, "a person of unsavoury character, with a serious history of violence and lying."

The Crown's case was strongest on the kidnapping count, Calarco concedes, but since forensic evidence could not prove a sexual assault, that conviction was almost entirely dependent on McClintic's version of events, he argues.

"While the Crown had some evidence against Mr. Rafferty, the worst aspects of the case depend almost entirely on McClintic's evidence," Calarco writes.

"It was essential the trial judge give a clear, sharp warning against relying on her in the absence of substantial corroboration."

But the Crown argues there was in fact a significant amount of corroboration.

"Her testimony was supported by a compelling body of confirmatory evidence, including surveillance video footage; cellphone records; cell tower location data; forensic evidence; and analysis of the victim's blood and DNA from the appellant's car," Crown lawyers Howard Leibovich and Randy Schwartz write in documents filed with the court.

Defence at trial asked the judge not to give jurors such a warning, the Crown notes. The judge concluded that the jury could assess McClintic's demeanour in videotaped police statements, as well he took into account that the defence could cross-examine her, the Crown argues.

"The trial judge gave a fair and balanced charge and provided the jury with all the requisite tools to properly assess McClintic's testimony without highlighting the confirmatory evidence," the lawyers say.



More Canada News



229228