GUILTY Australia - J 32 y.o. Justin Stein, charged w/ murder of 9 y.o. Charlise Mutten, Mt Wilson, 13 January 2022 #3

[SouthAussie]

Did you get the sense that he was even remotely credible? Is it likely that anyone would believe his stories other than his mum?

It’s so hard to determine from the media reports how good a case the prosecution has made so I’m just hopeful the jury has seen through all of the rubbish and will make the right call. I feel a little nervous that they’re about to wrap it up and let the deliberations happen tbh.

It is a bit nerve-wracking when they pit one drug addict against another.

imo

 

[Marg944]

Did you get the sense that he was even remotely credible? Is it likely that anyone would believe his stories other than his mum?

It’s so hard to determine from the media reports how good a case the prosecution has made so I’m just hopeful the jury has seen through all of the rubbish and will make the right call. I feel a little nervous that they’re about to wrap it up and let the deliberations happen tbh.

Brilliantly put discostu! I also am nervous. From the media reports, I have seen how much information is not reported on, so I have tried to present to all here on WS the information as if you are also with me in the court. It is hard to know what the jury have heard because of the lack of media reports, but let’s hope the jury can see through the lies.

Stein behaved exceptionally, he kept eye contact with who ever was questioning him and was the first to stand when the Judge was to leave the room. Perhaps he could be seen as remotely credible to the untrained….??????

IMHO

 

[JBowie]

It is a bit nerve-wracking when they pit one drug addict against another.

imo

IMO neither of them could be trusted to tell the truth, however, the jury knows that one of the pair had access to rifles, bought 100kg of sand and drove all over Sydney looking for a place to dump a body. Further, the corpse contained traces of a drug used by that same person.

 

[Webbie2021]

I keep thinking of that happy innocent 9 year old girl put in the 'care' of two drug-addicted convicted criminals, one of whom shoots up in a public toilet, <modsnip>

The grandparents, into whose care she was placed by a court, must have been on another planet to let her be with KM and JS unaccompanied.

There has been a lot of criticism of the grandparents, but the grandfather's testimony explained very well why they allowed Charlise to spend Christmas with her mother.

Firstly, they were "under the impression that both [Kallista and Stein] had cleaned their act up."

Secondly, they were under the impression that Charlise would be with Kallista, Kallista's fiance and her fiance's mother, and that they would all be based at Wildenstein, with a short holiday by the river as well. So even if they had concerns about drug use, they probably assumed Stein's mother's presence provided an extra level of safety for Charlise as well as some confirmation that Kallista and Stein were indeed clean and sober. Obviously Stein's mother wasn't there, but the grandparents weren't to know that.

Thirdly, and perhaps most importantly, Charlise wanted to go. She loved her mother with an "unconditional love," hoped Justin would be a "good father" and cried when a previous holiday with her mother had to be cancelled. The grandparents kept in regular contact with Charlise until she was killed, and they had no reason to believe she was unsafe or unhappy.

As I've said before, it's extremely difficult for grandparents with custody of children to balance concern for the safety of the child with the child's emotional needs. Charlise, quite reasonably, had a longing to spend time with her mother, and it would have been very difficult for the grandparents to say no all the time.

Moreover, if Kallista was clean as they supposed, they may have felt it likely she would sue for full custody, or at least increased custody. Allowing Charlise some time with her mother may have been a strategic move to maintain the status quo, i.e. to avoid turning Kallista into an enemy, and to stop her going to the courts and saying "my parents won't even let me spend Christmas with my own daughter." Courts are often inclined to want to reunite children with their mothers, and that would have been a frightening prospect for Charlise's grandparents.

The grandparents are not to blame for Charlise's death. They weren't "on another planet." They were the only stable, loving family this little girl had, and they gave her a happy and safe childhood. They certainly don't need anyone reminding them that the holiday that resulted in their beloved granddaughter's death was not a great idea. They deserve all the compassion we have.

The person to blame for Charlise's death is the person who shot her. Let's save our outrage for the killer.

 

[JBowie]

they were "under the impression that both [Kallista and Stein] had cleaned their act up."

Given KM's drug and criminal history, I'd be wanting more than an impression.

 

[Webbie2021]

Given KM's drug and criminal history, I'd be wanting more than an impression.

Well now you're just critiquing the bereaved grandfather for his choice of words on the stand at his granddaughter's murder trial. Would it have been better if he'd said "we were assured?"

Obviously they had more than an "impression." They thought Kallista was clean, and they thought the visit would be supervised by Justin's mother. We don't know why or how they were persuaded that Charlise would be okay, but I think we can safely assume they had no idea she'd be at risk of death. Worst case scenario Charlise calls her grandparents to say something's wrong and she wants to come home.

Of course it's easy to say this would never happen to us, we'd be a whole lot more careful, they must have been "on another planet." We always do this when harm comes to children - we as a nation did it to Lindy Chamberlain.

But it doesn't take much more effort to demonstrate some compassion, understand that these people had a long track record of stepping up to parent a grandchild nobody else could or would take care of, and they didn't deserve the loss they're suffering.

 

[JBowie]

these people had a long track record of stepping up to parent a grandchild nobody else could or would take care of

I have not read it said anywhere that nobody else could or would take care of the child.

Would it have been better if he'd said "we were assured?"

IMO, it would have been better if he (or they) had accompanied the kid and assured himself (or themselves) or otherwise at the same time.

Sure, at the end of the day they were not responsible for this little girl's death, but they were her legal guardians.

 

[katydid23]

Given KM's drug and criminal history, I'd be wanting more than an impression.

Addicts can be very convincing and manipulative, especially with their loved ones.

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Stein is on the witness stand again today, wearing dark blue suit, white shirt and dark blue tie. I would have thought he would have handcuffs on, but he doesn’t.

I think being allowed to wear a suit (or clothes of one's choice) and not handcuffs is all part of the 'fair trial' protocol these days? JMO MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Addicts can be very convincing and manipulative, especially with their loved ones.

Also this perpetrator's seemingly got a mother who enables and facilitates his sickness and scheming. On face value, she must have seemed like a reassuring and trustworthy person to be involved in the child's welfare.

Re: JS having a sexually transmitted disease or infection (per KM searches because his penis was bleeding after they had sex), has it ever been established whether he did or didn't? I assume his penis was scrutinised by detectives. If he SA the poor child she may have fought or scratched him doesn't bear thinking about. JMO MOO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

So does that mean she is still clinging to hopes the jury will believe his stupid version of the murder? Otherwise I'd think she'd want to mitigate somewhat by explaining his mental health issues, etc.

I think it means that JS doesn't meet the bar for a diagnosable disorder that means he can't process or comprehend situations and that his already diagnosed severe mental health issue, schizophrenia, is also not the explanation for his crime. This would probably be agreed by forensic psychiatrists / detectives looking for evidence in his statements and interviews as to whether he was in psychosis (which doesn't come and go within the space of one day) or whether he was in fact being organised, cohesive, planned, and deceitful.

Had JS claimed culpability right from the outset and said 'the voices' made him do it or somesuch, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to dispute his account of being psychotic, temporarily or otherwise, and psychosis can absolutely be used as a firm argument that someone isn't culpable for their crimes. JS chose to construct a cover story in a very organised way it seems and has not referred to schizophrenia as a reason, so his defence has chosen not to suggest he goes down the route of playing on a severe and very distressing mental health problem as an excuse for his alleged crimes, which is an honourable and upstanding choice IMO. Sadly some people do perpetrate harms when psychotic and unaware of what they're doing - those incidents are a saddening and heartbreaking situation for all involved

JMO MOO

 

[discostu]

I think it means that JS doesn't meet the bar for a diagnosable disorder that means he can't process or comprehend situations and that his already diagnosed severe mental health issue, schizophrenia, is also not the explanation for his crime. This would probably be agreed by forensic psychiatrists / detectives looking for evidence in his statements and interviews as to whether he was in psychosis (which doesn't come and go within the space of one day) or whether he was in fact being organised, cohesive, planned, and deceitful.

Had JS claimed culpability right from the outset and said 'the voices' made him do it or somesuch, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to dispute his account of being psychotic, temporarily or otherwise, and psychosis can absolutely be used as a firm argument that someone isn't culpable for their crimes. JS chose to construct a cover story in a very organised way it seems and has not referred to schizophrenia as a reason, so his defence has chosen not to suggest he goes down the route of playing on a severe and very distressing mental health problem as an excuse for his alleged crimes, which is an honourable and upstanding choice IMO. Sadly some people do perpetrate harms when psychotic and unaware of what they're doing - those incidents are a saddening and heartbreaking situation for all involved

JMO MOO

I agree with this.. except the part about him constructing a cover story in an organised way from what we’ve heard of his story has multiple versions, historical changes and (from yesterday) lots of “confusion” around events and their timings!

I’m glad he’s not trying to blame his mental health though.

 

[JBowie]

I’m glad he’s not trying to blame his mental health though.

Same here. These days it seems that in many cases the first thing the defence tries is the unfit to stand trial due to mental issues claim.

 

[Megnut]

I feel for the grandparents.... who made a calculation... to allow C a vacation. In a lovely setting. With what sounded like supervision. To go along way toward bridging a healthier relationship with K while creating a new history of trust and cooperation.

How could they ever have imagined murder was the missing variable? No one could have anticipated that.

How it could have gone -- K gets to practice mothering, C gets to spend time with her mother on holiday. That his mother was represented, probably gave a confidence that he was vouched for. Senior adults taking baby steps to trust junior adults....

To hold them responsible for a crime of this magnitude, was it neglectful on their part? I suggest it was careful. Measured. I bet they held their breath, planning go hold it until she was safely returned, like sending a child off to summer camp, where you thought you were stretching your heartstrings to trust the intermediate caregivers.

They were betrayed in the worst way.

I'm sure, when they made the decision, their hearts were in the right place....

It's just that his were in the wrongest of places.

JMO

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

I agree with this.. except the part about him constructing a cover story in an organised way from what we’ve heard of his story has multiple versions, historical changes and (from yesterday) lots of “confusion” around events and their timings!

I’m glad he’s not trying to blame his mental health though.

Yes! A chaotic and conflicting series of cover stories would be more to the point.

I'm sure if he'd have thought it through sooner, he'd have blamed a mental health episode - however, he was hoping to get off, blame someone else, and be at free liberty for the rest of his life (as opposed to being detained and medicated, albeit in a psychiatric facility).

 

[SouthAussie]

Secondly, they were under the impression that Charlise would be with Kallista, Kallista's fiance and her fiance's mother, and that they would all be based at Wildenstein, with a short holiday by the river as well.

Charlise did spend time with Stein's mother. I just re-read an article the other day where it states that they all spent Christmas together. Of course I can't find that link again at the moment ... but I will post it if I stumble on it again.
This likely explains why Stein's mother has been able to comment about her impressions of Charlise.
And perhaps the maternal grandparents were able to speak with Charlise on Christmas Day when Stein's mother was present.

There is also a comment, reproduced by the DM from the maternal grandmother's FB page, where she states she was "struggling quite a bit" after allowing Charlise to visit her mum. Link

As @katydid23 said, addicts can be very convincing and manipulative.

imo

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

One day his mother is going to have to live with the fact that she seemingly acted as a lure. Without her this crime may never have been facilitated to take place. How much of what she said or did played a part in the agreement to let CM go, I wonder, and how many false promises or fake assurances were made by her I wonder? Grooming is the word that comes to mind.

 

[SouthAussie]

One day his mother is going to have to live with the fact that she seemingly acted as a lure. Without her this crime may never have been facilitated to take place. How much of what she said or did played a part in the agreement to let CM go, I wonder, and how many false promises or fake assurances were made by her I wonder? Grooming is the word that comes to mind.

Kallista thought that Stein was amazing, treats her good, completely loyal, she has no worries, she knew his heart was with her. As stated by her friend in this article.

But it seems to me that he is another pervert who preys on a mother with a child. Evidently, he put up a fairly good front and drew her in. Allowed Kallista to go ahead and plan their 'wedding', while he was planning how to get her child alone.

imo

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

Kallista thought that Stein was amazing, treats her good, completely loyal, she has no worries, she knew his heart was with her. As stated by her friend in this article.

But it seems to me that he is another pervert who preys on a mother with a child. Evidently, he put up a fairly good front and drew her in. Allowed Kallista to go ahead and plan their 'wedding', while he was planning how to get her child alone.

imo

Agreed. I was thinking of his own mother. How much of a role as a lure was she (unwittingly because even the most sick person would not have estimated her son could do this)? How many phoney promises did she make about how she'd be constantly present and assisting / supervising the couple I wonder?

 

[JLZ]

I think it means that JS doesn't meet the bar for a diagnosable disorder that means he can't process or comprehend situations and that his already diagnosed severe mental health issue, schizophrenia, is also not the explanation for his crime. This would probably be agreed by forensic psychiatrists / detectives looking for evidence in his statements and interviews as to whether he was in psychosis (which doesn't come and go within the space of one day) or whether he was in fact being organised, cohesive, planned, and deceitful.

Had JS claimed culpability right from the outset and said 'the voices' made him do it or somesuch, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to dispute his account of being psychotic, temporarily or otherwise, and psychosis can absolutely be used as a firm argument that someone isn't culpable for their crimes. JS chose to construct a cover story in a very organised way it seems and has not referred to schizophrenia as a reason, so his defence has chosen not to suggest he goes down the route of playing on a severe and very distressing mental health problem as an excuse for his alleged crimes, which is an honourable and upstanding choice IMO. Sadly some people do perpetrate harms when psychotic and unaware of what they're doing - those incidents are a saddening and heartbreaking situation for all involved

JMO MOO

I think Justin might have a fair defence of mental incompetence. I suggest that his counsel would like to run that defence, even on a provisional basis: he didn't shoot her, but if he did, he wasn't responsible because he barely has a brain. But that her client won't let her say that. Apparently there are circumstances where counsel can override a client's instructions on raising mental incompetence. Perhaps Ms D previously raised the possibility of that happening and the judge would prefer it wasn't sprung just before he has to sum up.

I wonder if he's gone through examination as to his fitness to be tried.