GUILTY Australia - JS, 32 y.o. man, charged w/ murder of 9 y.o. girl , Mt Wilson, 13 January 2022 #3

[katydid23]

Th defence sure did have a red hot go at muddying the waters and creating reasonable doubt. Hopefully the jury can see through it all.

I hope the jury thinks carefully about the 'motive' the defense set forth for Kalista to kill her girl.

They said she'd be angry because C wanted to go with JS to the venue, and she'd feel rejected...

That does not make sense according to what was set forth about the reason for the family vacation. Kalista reportedly WANTED her girl to love and accept her new stepfather. That was the whole plan.

So why would she shoot her in the face for that?

 

[discostu]

It’s a new day.. I’m crossing everything that there’s news of a verdict this morning, or at least before the day is out. I feel like the longer it takes the more likelihood that at least one of the jurors has significant doubts about Stein’s involvement which means it’s not as clear cut for them as for those of us watching from home.

 

[katydid23]

It’s a new day.. I’m crossing everything that there’s news of a verdict this morning, or at least before the day is out. I feel like the longer it takes the more likelihood that at least one of the jurors has significant doubts about Stein’s involvement which means it’s not as clear cut for them as for those of us watching from home.

Yep, I have same concerns.

Those of us watching from home have the backstory already. But the jury is getting a kind of sterilised, short story version from both sides. They don't know about his p__o___rn charges [I don't think] so that's a problem.

And I am not sure how believable or rational Kalista came across. Could there be reasonable doubt because both seem unlikeable and untrustworthy?

 

[Sdow]

Yep, I have same concerns.

Those of us watching from home have the backstory already. But the jury is getting a kind of sterilised, short story version from both sides. They don't know about his p__o___rn charges [I don't think] so that's a problem.

And I am not sure how believable or rational Kalista came across. Could there be reasonable doubt because both seem unlikeable and untrustworthy?

That’s what I don’t get, why hasn’t this been bought before the court. Surely that gives a bigger picture to the whole scenario. I would have thought the prosecution would be chomping at the bit to include that information.

 

[katydid23]

That’s what I don’t get, why hasn’t this been bought before the court. Surely that gives a bigger picture to the whole scenario. I would have thought the prosecution would be chomping at the bit to include that information.

I'm not sure how it works in Australia, but in US courts it probably would not be allowed into evidence. It would be considered 'prejudicial' and suppressed unless perhaps they could prove the child was SA'd---then maybe it could be allowed in?

And I do understand the reason for the prejudicial concerns. Let's say a teen has been arrested for neighborhood burglaries. And a year later there is a burglary where a homeowner was shot and killed.

If they put the teenager on trial for that murder, and immediately told the jury that he had done some burglaries previously, would that prejudice the jury against him, unfairly? Because just knowing he had stolen from homes previously does not mean he is a violent killer....so it is a hard legal decision.

 

[discostu]

I'm not sure how it works in Australia, but in US courts it probably would not be allowed into evidence. It would be considered 'prejudicial' and suppressed unless perhaps they could prove the child was SA'd---then maybe it could be allowed in?

I’m pretty sure it works the same way here, it’s meant to give the defendant the best opportunity for a fair trial.. could you imagine being on a jury though and finding someone not guilty based on specific evidence but then later discovering that they had a long history of similar offences or were a known predator?

I understand the intent so I know it’s not necessarily a flaw in the system but it definitely also brings (sometimes significant) limitations.

 

[katydid23]

I’m pretty sure it works the same way here, it’s meant to give the defendant the best opportunity for a fair trial.. could you imagine being on a jury though and finding someone not guilty based on specific evidence but then later discovering that they had a long history of similar offences or were a known predator?

I understand the intent so I know it’s not necessarily a flaw in the system but it definitely also brings (sometimes significant) limitations.

Yes, I totally agree...I kind of feel that way here now....wishing the jury knew about his p. charges because it could explain a very possible motive---and the missing underwear would tie it all together for them...

 

[Observe_dont_Absorb]

That’s what I don’t get, why hasn’t this been bought before the court. Surely that gives a bigger picture to the whole scenario. I would have thought the prosecution would be chomping at the bit to include that information.

Surely this info is directly pertinent to the case in question?

 

[JBowie]

But the jury is getting a kind of sterilised, short story version from both sides. They don't know about his p__o___rn charges [I don't think] so that's a problem.

AFAIK, any such charges would be considered prejudicial to a fair trial in this case and would not be allowed under court rules.

An accused's criminal record is not raised until during sentencing. Even then, I'm not sure that charges -- as opposed to convictions -- are brought up.

 

[Sdow]

I'm not sure how it works in Australia, but in US courts it probably would not be allowed into evidence. It would be considered 'prejudicial' and suppressed unless perhaps they could prove the child was SA'd---then maybe it could be allowed in?

And I do understand the reason for the prejudicial concerns. Let's say a teen has been arrested for neighborhood burglaries. And a year later there is a burglary where a homeowner was shot and killed.

If they put the teenager on trial for that murder, and immediately told the jury that he had done some burglaries previously, would that prejudice the jury against him, unfairly? Because just knowing he had stolen from homes previously does not mean he is a violent killer....so it is a hard legal decision.

That makes sense. I wonder how many guilty criminals get off for evidence that is not included though because it’s seen as prejudiced but it actually forms a very important part of the case. Where there’s smoke there’s usually fire. Imagine if JS gets off for this and something like the material he had access to could have swayed the jury. I believe he is guilty as hell and would be very angry if he got off if evidence that was critical to the case was not included as it has been. A defendant has rights to a fair trial but the victims needs to have rights as well. I know that’s idealistic and there’s a reason our courts are designed this way it just feels unjust at times.

 

[Marg944]

I wonder what these websites were…… and if they were ever discussed in the trial…. From a news article back in March of this year.

“On Monday, Justice Helen Wilson confirmed that Mr Stein would face a seven-week trial in the NSW Supreme Court at Parramatta on May 6.

Prosecutor Ken McKay SC said the Crown would seek to rely on evidence of websites Mr Stein had accessed in the lead-up to January 12 when Charlise disappeared.”


Another question….. I wonder if the visit to the Mt Wilson property by the judge, jury and legal eagles ever happened? Nothing has been reported about it.

https://www.news.com.au/national/nsw-act/courts-law/justin-stein-to-face-trial-in-may-over-alleged-murder-of-charlise-mutten/news-story/904591f5c3bb662708493c60bd108c87

 

[SouthAussie]

Surely this info is directly pertinent to the case in question?

A judge can weigh up the probative value VS whether the evidence is too prejudicial. The judge needs to rule on which is the highest likelihood.
All hashed out between the judge, the prosecution, and the defence prior to trial.


It requires the ‘probative value’ of the evidence to be weighed against the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant. This again requires that the evidence be taken at its highest in the effect it could achieve on the assessment of the probability of the existence of the facts in issue.

Edmond, Gary --- "Icarus and the Evidence Act: Section 137, Probative Value and Taking Forensic Science Evidence 'at its Highest'" [2017] MelbULawRw 22; (2017) 41(1) Melbourne University Law Review 106

 

[drsleuth]

Jury deciding 'who pulled the trigger' on schoolgirl

www.9news.com.au

To convict Stein, the jury must be satisfied there was no reasonable possibility that Kallista Mutten shot her own daughter, Justice Helen Wilson told the group on Thursday.
"The issue is not how Charlise died, it's who pulled the trigger," Justice Wilson said.
Mutten denied having any involvement in her daughter's death and broke down in tears when faced with the accusation in court.
Crown prosecutor Ken McKay SC told jurors it was open to them to find Stein had drugged and fatally shot Charlise.

 

[Kemug]

I feel some sympathy for Kallista, in spite of her past life and actions. If she had never taken up with her lowlife partner, she may have been able to get off the drugs and make something of her life, who knows? As it is, not only did he drag her down further, into drugs and crime, but she became so dependent on his "love" and approval. I think she is to be pitied rather than condemned, and I certainly don't believe she ever harmed Charlize.

 

[katydid23]

Jury deciding 'who pulled the trigger' on schoolgirl

www.9news.com.au

To convict Stein, the jury must be satisfied there was no reasonable possibility that Kallista Mutten shot her own daughter, Justice Helen Wilson told the group on Thursday.
"The issue is not how Charlise died, it's who pulled the trigger," Justice Wilson said.
Mutten denied having any involvement in her daughter's death and broke down in tears when faced with the accusation in court.
Crown prosecutor Ken McKay SC told jurors it was open to them to find Stein had drugged and fatally shot Charlise.

To convict Stein, the jury must be satisfied there was no reasonable possibility that Kallista Mutten shot her own daughter, Justice Helen Wilson told the group on Thursday.

Ugh, wording it that way concerns me. I guess it is true but it sounds like it makes it very hard to convict him. I hope the judge stressed the word 'reasonable.'

 

[Marg944]

Dammit!!!!

Looks like they are not fully convinced.

Jury sent home for weekend in schoolgirl murder case

A jury will take a break over the long weekend before returning on Tuesday to consider the fate...

www.illawarramercury.com.au

“But at 1pm on Friday, Justice Helen Wilson sent the jury home after they requested access to a transcript of evidence given by the accused's mother, Annemie Stein.”

Verdict on hold in Charlise Mutten murder trial as jury are sent home

The jury first retired on Thursday to decide if Stein murdered schoolgirl Charlise Mutten, 9, by shooting her in the face but have yet to reach a verdict.

www.dailymail.co.uk

 

[JLZ]

Dammit!!!!

Looks like they are not fully convinced.

Jury sent home for weekend in schoolgirl murder case

A jury will take a break over the long weekend before returning on Tuesday to consider the fate...

www.illawarramercury.com.au

“But at 1pm on Friday, Justice Helen Wilson sent the jury home after they requested access to a transcript of evidence given by the accused's mother, Annemie Stein.”

Verdict on hold in Charlise Mutten murder trial as jury are sent home

The jury first retired on Thursday to decide if Stein murdered schoolgirl Charlise Mutten, 9, by shooting her in the face but have yet to reach a verdict.

www.dailymail.co.uk

Taking their job seriously.

 

[Eloise]

Dammit!!!!

Looks like they are not fully convinced.

Jury sent home for weekend in schoolgirl murder case

A jury will take a break over the long weekend before returning on Tuesday to consider the fate...

www.illawarramercury.com.au

“But at 1pm on Friday, Justice Helen Wilson sent the jury home after they requested access to a transcript of evidence given by the accused's mother, Annemie Stein.”

Verdict on hold in Charlise Mutten murder trial as jury are sent home

The jury first retired on Thursday to decide if Stein murdered schoolgirl Charlise Mutten, 9, by shooting her in the face but have yet to reach a verdict.

www.dailymail.co.uk

I think its a very good sign when juries are going over everything with a fine tooth comb and ensuring their verdict is absolutely rock solid.

As an example, Lucy Letby's jury took a long time to deliberate and they asked questions that had a lot of people assuming they were seeking to find her innocent. They were just doing the best they could to go through everything methodically and ensure real justice was done.

 

[drsleuth]

Sayle Newson's Jury deliberated for more than 2 weeks, before handing down a guilty verdict & had they no questions at all!!

Jealous kickboxer boyfriend in court outburst after being found guilty of murdering Carly McBride

Seven years after Carly McBride was killed in the NSW Hunter Valley, her boyfriend Sayle Kenneth Newson has been found guilty of her murder.

www.abc.net.au

 

[SouthAussie]

Interesting that they want to review Annemie Stein's testimony. Perhaps looking at whether there is any reasonable possibility that KM killed her own daughter.


.... she heard the schoolgirl's voice hours after police allege the nine-year-old was already dead.
.... described the girl as 'very intelligent, good-natured, very polite and a bit cheeky'.
.... the voice called her by one of her pet family names, Narelle or Muriel, but was accused of having 'added to your evidence'
.... court was played a recording of her interview at Springwood police station two days after her son's call in which she appeared to deny hearing anyone in the background.
.... she believed Charlise's mother Kallista Mutten and her son had split up.
.... by the week in which Charlise disappeared, she never wanted Ms Mutten back at her Mount Wilson property
.... Ms Mutten 'was like a train wreck' ... had 'had enough of her behaviour, mood swings, ups and downs'.
.... Ms Mutten had left the property messy 'with Ouija boards and glue everywhere'
.... didn't approve of Ms Mutten's 'aggression' with Charlise
.... despite the split, her son was picking up Charlise and her mother and bringing them back to her family's Mount Wilson property for the night
.... next day her son called her and was 'hyperventilating' and told her: 'The car's gone, Kallista's gone, Charlise's gone.'
.... Charlise had been left with a female antiques auction assessor.
.... conversation recorded on a body-worn camera, Ms Stein said she asked her son if he'd got the woman's name.
.... police officer replied 'hopefully you would have her details because you wouldn't let a nine-year-old go off with a stranger'.
.... 'That's what doesn't add up,' Ms Stein responded.


BTW This is also the article that says Annemie spent Xmas Day with Charlise and co.

Shock courtroom claim about schoolgirl's tragic death

The mother of accused murderer Justin Stein is testifying at his trial over death of schoolgirl Charlise Mutten, and said she heard schoolgirl's voice hours after police say child was dead.

www.dailymail.co.uk