oceanblueeyes
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 26,446
- Reaction score
- 43,776
Seriously? Not even the fact that the juror knew this information going into the trial ? That this is what he/she, in part , based his decision on? OKayyyy.....
How do we know that is even where he got his theory? He doesn't mention he got it from the confession. If he had the writer wouldn't have left that out. Maybe this is what he believes happened.
Jurors are allowed to have their own theory about what they think happened or what they believe the motive was for the murder and jurors don't have to agree with each other on what they believe happened nor do they have to agree on the motive. I would suspect at the time he was convicted all 12 jurors believed his motive was to rape the victim and then he murdered her to render her voiceless like so many other suspects do to their victim/s.
It doesn't take much to think TH was tortured and raped and she WAS shot in the head. He did have a charge against him for mutilating her body even though he was found not guilty on that particular charge iirc. That could lead someone to believe she had been dismembered. Mutilations are very often dismembering the victim's body so I really don't see anything odd about his theory of what he thinks happened to the victim. Some may have compromised on the mutilation charge if they weren't unanimous and agreed to find him NG on that charge. Yet some could have certainly thought he did dismember her body but may have thought the DA didn't put forth enough evidence to render a guilty on that charge.
Also someone said the jury didn't give the *67 any weight when convicting Avery. I didn't see anything stating they disregarded the blocked calls in the linked article. The article pretty much was the written words of the one who wrote the article along with three short quotes by only three of the people who were on the jury.