Bieber, Bethesda & Blackmail

Much has been said lately in some media in London, Ontario about pop music star Justin Bieber’s alleged responsibility to give a large part of his fortune to save the Bethesda Centre--a home for pregnant teenage girls in the city--from closing. The reason? His mother, Pattie Mallette, stayed at the centre when she was 18 and pregnant with him. 
Pressure
The public pressure on Justin to give a large lump sum of his own money for this cause seems enormous sometimes. Many people imply and say, in letters to the editor and newspaper columns, it’s now Justin’s job to repay the Bethesda Centre; that it's his job to show, with his money, how grateful he is for what the centre did for his mother, and by extension, for him, all those years ago. 
But I assume Justin's mother has, at least once, thanked the Bethesda Centre for its help all those years ago. If so, is that not enough? In my view, people are wrong to think Justin should be obligated to give any money at all, just because he's wealthy; and just because his mom stayed at the centre for a time just before he was born.

The Apparent Dilemma

The Bethesda Centre is run by the Salvation Army, which, according to various news reports, said in February 2012 it would need $1.5 million to ensure the centre could stay open for between three to five years; instead of just on a year-to-year basis. 
Various news reports say the Salvation Army claims it can’t keep operating the centre with an annual budget shortfall of $300,000. The Salvation Army reportedly has set a deadline of May 31, 2012 as the date by which all of the $1.5 million must be raised; or the Salvation Army will supposedly make the decision to close the centre; if not right away, then at a specified date in the near future.

A Complicated Situation?

In fairness, I have not read any reports indicating the Salvation Army has ever said publicly it hopes or believes Justin Bieber, or anyone else for that matter, should help rescue the Bethesda Centre financially. 
And no doubt this overall situation could be more-complex than it might seem at first glance. Is the solution really just as simple as some organization or some person--such as Justin Bieber--coming up with enough money to ensure the Bethesda Centre could stay open for a few years; and not just year-to-year?
Questions
In these contexts, I think the following questions are worth considering:
1) Is there more to the story than meets the eye? 
2) Would there really be no more problems regarding the Bethesda Centre if the Salvation Army received $1.5 million by May 31, 2012?
3) Does the Salvation Army even want the Bethesda Centre to stay open? If not, why? 
4) Did the Salvation Army purposely set the required dollar amount needed to keep the centre open so high--at $1.5 million--because it knew raising that much money in such a short period of time would be nearly impossible? 

5) Ultimately, is the Salvation Army actually hoping for a negative outcome, for some reason, so it can justify closing the Bethesda Centre?

Giving In  
By all accounts Bieber has already given in to some of the public pressure for him to rescue or at least help the Bethesda Centre. He apparently has committed part of the proceeds from his latest tune, Turn to You, which he reportedly wrote as a tribute to his mother, to go to the centre. 
On May 15, 2012 one news source reported, “On Saturday (May 12, 2012), the Help Save Bethesda committee announced that Bieber would be donating a portion of the revenues from his single to their campaign” (http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/good-news/justin-bieber-mother-day-song-helps-save-ontario-171526758.html).

Apparently, though, the total amount to be donated from the sales of Bieber’s new song won’t be known for some time; likely well after the Salvation Army’s apparently rigid deadline of May 31, 2012. 
Despite Justin’s gesture in this regard, however, it isn’t good enough for many people, who wrongly believe he should do even more.

Justin's Money, Just in Time? 
Shauna Rae, a Saturday columnist with The London Free Press, reminds us of just how much money Bieber actually has, just so everyone knows he’s got more than enough to single-handedly save the Bethesda Centre. She notes he was recently named to Forbes magazine’s “top three most powerful celebrity category—his fame and social media machine racking up 55-million smackeroos” (London Free Press, May 19, 2012).

But Rae contradicts herself: On one hand she implies Bieber is being unfairly pressured to save the Bethesda Centre; on the other hand she says outright he should give the Salvation Army all the money it needs or wants, right now.

No Pressure, but Show us the Money

“Obviously no one should feel pressured to give,” Shauna Rae says (London Free Press, May 19, 2012). Here, she seems generous in her thinking, presumably alluding to unfair expectations many people seem to be putting on Bieber to cough up the cash to save the Bethesda Centre. 
But like many others, Rae also seems to be salivating at the thought of Justin handing over a large part of his fortune and giving it to the Salvation Army/Bethesda Centre: “Why doesn’t the kid just donate the money? Why doesn’t he just write a cheque, instead of making them (Bethesda Centre) wait until the final hour to see if the song he crafted sells enough…to save the day…Just cut them a cheque, Biebs, it’ll make you feel fantastic” (London Free Press, May 19, 2012).

Emotional Blackmail & Guilt

Many private citizens, including Shauna Rae in her newspaper column, shamefully and unfairly use the enormous power of guilt and emotional blackmail to get young Justin to feel responsible for saving the Bethesda Centre from threatened closure. 
Why? Because Justin is famous and wealthy beyond belief for someone his age, 18--the same age his mom was when she stayed at the centre and benefited from its support services while pregnant with him. 
Notably, Rae and others are implicitly trying to get Justin to feel responsible for the lives and futures of untold numbers of pregnant teenage girls he will never know; and for whom he is actually not responsible.  

And Justin's mother, regardless of any sentiment she might feel for the centre because of her own youthful experiences there, should be first in line telling these vultures to back off and leave her son alone.  

Abhorrent Tactics
Those who are trying to get Justin Bieber to save the Bethesda Centre are being unfair, unreasonable, and displaying abhorrent behavior in preying on him just because he is so young and has money; and just because these girls at the Bethesda Centre are--only because of their pregnancies--like his mom when she stayed there for a time while pregnant with him.

This is not Justin Bieber’s Dilemma

Ultimately, can any reasonable person really believe that Justin Bieber--who is only 18 years old, notwithstanding his wealth--is actually morally, financially, and/or emotionally obligated to bail out the Bethesda Centre just because his mom stayed there once while pregnant with him, nearly two decades ago?

If Justin still lived in Stratford, Ontario, where he was raised, and if he was not rich and famous, would anyone expect him to fork over part of his money—maybe from working at an ‘ordinary’ job with ‘ordinary’ wages, to help save the Bethesda Centre, just because the centre helped his mother when she was a girl?  
Because of the public campaign to get as much money as possible from Justin to save the Bethesda Centre, will all sons and daughters of every former teen mother who ever stayed there be on the hook financially, later in their own lives, to rescue the centre whenever it's having money troubles? 
Or will this happen only if the sons and daughters are young, rich and famous and presumed to be easy targets--just like Justin Bieber?

Rafferty #2: The Sentence

Victoria (Tori) Stafford’s family and friends can finally begin to move on with their lives, to some degree, after today’s sentencing of Michael Rafferty, 31. Late last week he was convicted by a jury of kidnapping, first-degree murder, and sexual assault causing bodily harm in the 8-year-old girl’s death on April 8, 2009. Rafferty chose to not testify at his trial. His partner in crime, Terri-Lynne McClintic, 21, previously pleaded guilty to first-degree murder and is already serving a life term with no chance of parole for 25 years. Today was Rafferty’s turn.

The Sentence

Rafferty was sentenced to life in prison for first-degree murder, with little or no chance of parole “until at least 25 years have elapsed since his arrest" (Globe and Mail, May 15, 2012). He was also sentenced to two 10-year terms, agreed to by the Crown and Defence, for the sexual assault and the abduction, to run concurrently with the life term--meaning those 10-year terms are rolled into the 25 year term, not in addition to it. 
In addition, Rafferty is also banned for life from having firearms, was placed on the sex-offender registry, and must provide DNA samples. He will be able to apply for parole after serving 15 years, under the so-called “faint hope” clause of the Criminal Code. The federal government actually killed that clause last year, "but because Tori’s murder predated the change, the old rules apply. Few such applications succeed, however, and in this instance the chances of Mr. Rafferty walking the street then – if ever – appear remote” (Globe and Mail, May 15, 2012).

Powerful Victim Impact Statements

Before Rafferty was sentenced, several of Victoria's survivors--her parents, grandparents, Grade 3 teacher and others--read their predictably poignant victim impact statements in court; detailing their ongoing heartbreak and loss. The statement from Tori’s older brother Daryn, now 14, was read to the court on his behalf by a Crown Prosecutor.

Daryn spoke of his closeness and love for his little sister--his best friend; and his guilt for not being with her and protecting her when she was kidnapped in broad daylight outside her school by McClintic. Daryn said he said he and Tori had a typical brother-sister argument just minutes before she was abducted; he didn't know he would never see her again.

Rafferty Apologized but Denied Guilt 

At sentencing, paradoxically, Rafferty apologized to Victoria's family but maintained he is not guilty. “I am a very definite part of why Victoria is not here today.” Apparently he did not appreciate how this latter statement contradicts his claim that he is not guilty. 
Rafferty proclaimed at sentencing that while “I am guilty of many things, and for that I am ashamed,” he stands behind his not-guilty plea. He also said he would like to speak to Tori’s mother, Tara McDonald “privately” to tell her something she does not know (Globe and Mail, May 15, 2012). 
McDonald, though, reportedly has said she has no interest in speaking privately with Rafferty.
“I still disagree with the conviction on these three charges...” said Rafferty. “I am truly sorry to all the family...not that has any bearing coming from my mouth.” In addressing Tara McDonald, he said, “Nobody has all the pieces of the puzzle and I am willing to give them” (Toronto Star, May 15, 2012). Interestingly, Rafferty again seemed to not realize that his apology, above, appears to negate his claim that he is not guilty of the crimes against Victoria Stafford. 
Why Just Victoria's Mother?

If Rafferty really wanted to do an iota of good before starting his life term, why did he offer to give the so-called missing pieces of the puzzle only to Victoria Stafford's mother, Tara McDonald? Why did he want to speak privately only with her, and not with Victoria's mother and father together; or even with Tori's entire family? The answer to these two questions might be in the trial evidence about Rafferty's attraction to certain kinds of women. 

Broken Women
Rafferty's history with women, on display during his trial, indicates his attraction to 'broken women,' and his apparent need to control and dominate females he perceived as emotionally and intellectually weaker, and less-capable than he is; or was. This suggests cowardice, and a fear of being with women who were smarter, emotionally stronger, and more-confident and more-accomplished than he was. He must have known he'd be less-able to con and control women with those positive characteristics. So he avoided them.

Rafferty seemed to have a need for women he perceived as having personal problems, such as loneliness, low self-esteem and drug use; like himself. Some testimony during his trial indicated he often seemed alone and desperate to have the women he contacted online reply to his initial contact with him. When the women responded favorably, Rafferty would make his move. He seemed to perceive himself as their savior; believing and convincing them he was the one who could brighten up their lonely lives. 

Narcissism? Need for Control?

Was Rafferty demonstrating his own low self-esteem by trying to build those women up to make himself feel worthwhile and important? Was he demonstrating his narcissism and need to control others? Regardless, he rightly believed many of those women would fall for his flattery and shy little boy routine. Instinctively, Rafferty must have sensed they would believe he had done something wonderful for them--even he had just paid attention to them. 
Then the women would be indebted to Rafferty, and probably do anything he asked; hence, he was in control. Such was the case with one young woman Rafferty first met online and who eventually agreed with his suggestion that she should become an 'escort' and give all of her earnings to him; in other words, she agreed to be his hooker and to let him be her pimp. Ultimately she gave him about $16,000 over several months, which he apparently used, in part, to spend on other women while the 'escort' was convinced she and Rafferty were in an 'exclusive' relationship; that she was his only girlfriend.

A Perfect Storm

But nobody seemed to exemplify this kind of desperation for attention as much as Terri-Lynne McClintic, Rafferty's co-convicted killer. His need for control and power, and her need or desperation for attention and love came together at the right time for both; but, sadly, with tragic consequences for little Victoria Stafford and her family. 
McClintic's own personal history is wretched by any standards: childhood drug use alone and with her mother, violence, little formal education, and jail; culminating in abducting a little girl, who happened to be Victoria, at Rafferty's suggestion, she claimed; and either killing or helping to kill Victoria. As McClintic said after Victoria's murder, Rafferty once told her, mockingly she thought, 'You'll do anything for a little bit of love, won't you?'

McDonald the Final Victim?
Considering the kind of women to whom Rafferty generally was attracted, when he offered at sentencing to meet privately with Tara McDonald and give her 'all the answers,' he might have perceived her as his final victim; another 'broken woman' because of the trauma he inflicted on her by raping and killing her little girl; and because she had some well-known personal issues, such as her drug addiction--which had been public knowledge since the search for her daughter began. 
McDonald had even bought drugs from Terri-Lynne McClintic's mother on at least one occasion before McClintic abducted Victoria on April 8, 2009. Rafferty would have known of all of this; either because McClintic told him, or because he apparently followed news coverage of Victoria's disappearance, which initially included speculation about McDonald's character as a drug addict, before he and McClintic were arrested. 
One Last Con? 
So, in offering to meet with McDonald privately, with none of her strong support system present, perhaps Rafferty perceived her as one last easy mark he could charm and manipulate, because of her perceived vulnerability and weakness. Maybe he hoped he could score one last con before heading off to prison; maybe to garner her support or affection or sympathy, or understanding, in one way or another; as sick as that seems, considering he kidnapped, raped, and killed her 8-year-old daughter.  
Stranger things have happened. Perhaps Rafferty would have used the private meeting to mock McDonald, as McClintic felt he mocked her after she kidnapped a small girl who turned out to be Victoria Stafford, supposedly at his urging. Any of these potential scenarios seems possible. Rafferty has amply demonstrated he will do anything to satisfy his own needs. And if he did think he could trick Tara McDonald into something, or elicit her sympathy by meeting with her privately, this would seem in line with his character where women are concerned, as his trial showed only too well.  

Judge Not Swayed by Rafferty's Denial 

The trial judge, Mr. Justice Thomas Heeney, who has been widely-praised for doing everything possible to ensure Rafferty got a fair trial, didn’t buy his denial of guilt in the little girl’s kidnapping, rape, and murder.

“You sir are a monster,” he told the sniffling 31-year-old killer. "You have snuffed out the life of a beautiful, talented, vivacious little girl. a ‘tomboy diva’ in the trustful innocence of childhood. And for what? So that you could gratify your twisted and deviant desire to have sex with a child. Only a monster could commit such an act of pure evil (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/you-sir-are-a-monster-judge-tells-rafferty-at-sentencing/article2433161/).

If Rafferty lives out his full sentence, if he doesn't die by his own hand or someone else's first, he will be nearly 60 years old when he has even a faint chance of being released.

 

Rafferty Verdict Fair

By now, most people who even remotely follow Canadian news know that 31-year-old Michael Rafferty has been found guilty of kidnapping, first-degree murder, and sexual assault causing bodily harm in the death three years ago of 8-year old Victoria (Tori) Stafford of Woodstock, Ontario. His accomplice and partner in depravity, Terri-Lynne McClintic, pleaded guilty two years ago to first-degree murder. Rafferty is to be sentenced for his crimes on Tuesday, May 15, 2012. The heinous and unspeakably cruel details of their actions have been well-documented in the media and do not have to be repeated here.

Judge Disallowed Police Search of Electronics

There has been some criticism in the media, though, about the judge’s decision to not allow into evidence what police found on Rafferty’s computer and other electronic devices located in his home and car. Police had search warrants for his home and car, but not specifically for the electronic equipment. Police said they assumed they could search and seize anything, including the electronic gear, found in Rafferty’s car and home; apparently believing the search warrants were all-encompassing. 

The judge, Mr. Justice Thomas Heeney of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice disagreed. He said police should have had a separate search warrant to search Rafferty’s electronic equipment and because they didn’t, evidence found on Rafferty’s computer and other electronic gear would not be admitted as evidence. 

Honest Mistake by Police

Heeney acknowledged the police acted in good faith during the illegal searches of Rafferty's electronics, and said police believed they knew the law in these regards. But he said at the very least the police were “careless” in not finding out, with certainty, whether they needed a separate search warrant for the electronics.  
So far, there has been no public suggestion that police conducted the illegal or unconstitutional search of Rafferty’s electronic equipment out of malice. Presumably it was an honest mistake or ineptitude that nevertheless could have had dire consequences for the Crown and children in our society at large. 
What if Rafferty had been acquitted if the Crown's remaining evidence against him, without the electronics evidence, wasn't strong enough? 
What if evidence from Rafferty's electronics, which would have been admitted if police had used the proper search warrant, would have convicted him? 
What if Rafferty then went on to rape and kill other children as a result of the police's 'honest mistake?' 
As it is, however, the Crown's case stood up without the electronics evidence.
Internet Searches Predicted Crimes?

The incriminating evidence found by police on Rafferty’s electronic devices showed his predilection for child rape and murder, which Heeney forbade the jury to hear; this evidence was released to the media and public once the jury began deliberating on Rafferty’s future, such as it is, on Friday, May 11, 2012. 

The relevance of Rafferty’s particular internet searches to his and McClintic’s crimes against Victoria Stafford cannot be ignored. Police found evidence that in the weeks before kidnapping, raping, and killing little Tori, Rafferty had searched the internet for information about child rape, nude pre-teen children, and had watched movies about kidnapping and murdering small girls. 
Did Rafferty's internet searching actually predict and set in motion the chain of events that resulted in Tori's horrible last day of her life?

In McClintic’s testimony against Rafferty—if she was truthful--she testified Rafferty initially complained that Tori, at just 8 years of age, was too old and he wanted someone even younger. McClintic also testified Rafferty said, as they drove away from Tori’s school, with the girl hidden in the back seat, ‘You know I’m going to ______ her, right?’
While a pathologist testified decomposition of Victoria's body made it impossible to determine if she was sexually assaulted, the implicit evidence spoke volumes: her poor battered body was naked from the waist down, when her remains were finally found. Why? There seemed only one logical conclusion, which the jury also determined. 

Realistically, this helpless 8-year-old child would not have willingly taken off most of her clothes in front of two adult strangers. Someone did it for, or to, her.

Judge was Right

I believe the judge was right to not allow the illegally-obtained evidence from Rafferty’s computer and other electronic devices into trial. Imagine the outrage from the public and media if he had not been cautious and allowed the illegal evidence to be admitted--and if Rafferty successfully appealed his convictions, or got off altogether, on grounds that his electronic gear was searched illegally. 

Better Cautious than Reckless
So, Heeney had at least two choices: be cautious or reckless. By being cautious, he seemed to do all he could to ensure Rafferty got a fair trial. The judge did not give the jury the chance to find Rafferty guilty with evidence that was wrongly obtained, especially since that particular evidence could bias the jury against Rafferty for his perceived character alone—regardless of whether he actually committed the crimes.

If Heeney had been reckless, he would have ignored his concern that police inadvertently botched their searches of Rafferty’s electronic equipment; and he could have hoped the jury would try to be fair with the illegally-obtained evidence. Clearly, the judge didn’t think this option was good enough, and I agree.

If Heeney had been reckless and allowed the evidence from Rafferty’s electronic equipment into trial, the judge also could have been perceived as condoning the illegal police search; and colluding with police to sabotage Rafferty’s rights—all of which would have done a huge disservice to the justice system overall.

Potential Damage to Defence

The evidence from the wrongful search of Rafferty's electronic gear potentially could have destroyed the defence’s unproven theory that Rafferty had no interest in sex with children or murder. But his lead attorney, a good legal aid lawyer, Dirk Derstine, might have had a good case for either a mistrial, or at least demanding the jury not be allowed to consider that particular evidence.
Defence Disavowed Rafferty’s Violence

During Rafferty’s trial, Derstine implied his client was just a hapless dope and dupe who drove the car and helped McClintic clean up after she savagely killed little Victoria Stafford; and he implied his client wasn’t interested in sex with children or murder.
Derstine theorized--but didn’t prove—that McClintic engineered the plan from start to finish: she kidnapped Tori on her own without being asked or told to do so by Rafferty; she offered the little girl to Rafferty as a ‘sexual gift’ which Rafferty declined; and she killed the child in the car when Rafferty went for a walk on McClintic’s instructions. 

After Rafferty’s guilty verdict, Derstine was asked by the media how it felt, or what it was like defending Rafferty. His answer was evasive, saying every person “in our system” deserves a strong and effective defence in a court of law; adding that just as Victoria Stafford was somebody’s child, so is Michael Rafferty.

The difference, however, is that Victoria Stafford’s life as somebody’s child, with all its potential hope, accomplishments, loves, and happiness with her family and friends, was snuffed out with unimaginable brutality and cruelty by Rafferty and McClintic before it really began.

And Rafferty? He gets to live out the rest of his wretched life, albeit in a little cubicle among the worst offenders imaginable, unless he commits suicide or is killed first.