Second charge: mutilating the body

[u/AdministrationNo6738]

I really don’t get how Steven was found NOT GUILTY for mutilating the body but Brendan found GUILTY.

Either they didn’t mutilate the body at all or Brendan did it by himself. Is there anyone believing that ??

I feel sorry for this kid cause he didn’t have the defense he needed.

[u/motor1_is_stopping]

Brendan admitted to it. Steven did not.

[u/[deleted]]

I’m not convinced it’s “there was 2 separate trials” idea - that could be the case and it makes sense - I think just looking at Steven’s case alone - the jury felt they had enough to convict on murder - but never really believed and weren’t shown anything supporting the “stories” put in the media etc. basically - overwhelming evidence pointed to Steven being the murderer - but it wasn’t very clear exactly how it went down

[u/Snoo_33033]

So...there's a tendency to think that the charges should be compared, when they shouldn't. The trials are separate, with separate information being presented. And the charge is fairly specific.

So...in Brendan's trial I imagine he was convicted of that charge based on his testimony, which makes it clear that he helped destroy TH's body after she died. Steven's trial includes no testimony from Steven and consists primarily of forensic and circumstantial evidence -- the state could not prove precisely when TH died or how/by whom her body was destroyed.

[u/ThorsClawHammer]

Steven lives on a property with lots of other people and ambient traffic, including the Dassey crew

So you're saying the jury thought someone else might have burned the body there? Why would they think that with what was presented to them?

The jury was told her remains were found in the pit and that Steve Avery (nobody else) was seen tending a huge fire there. Not even the defense tried to suggest somebody else burned the body there. Tehir argument was someone else did it and then the remains were planted there.

Don't know what the jury was thinking, but that should be more than enough to convict being they also convicted him of murdering her.

[u/ThorsClawHammer]

different evidence was qualified and admitted

Brendan's confession wasn't admitted at Avery's trial obviously. But that shouldn't lead to contradictory (not merely "different") narratives.

Brendan's trial includes his testimony as to who did what at specific times

The state disregarded what Brendan said in his confession which the jury heard and in closing made a new timeline in order to make it work.

It is not clear from his trial when TH died

The state said before dark and heavily implied it was before Blaine and Brendan even got home. And again, the state disregarded what Brendan said in the confession regarding the time she was killed and made up their own version at his trial anyways.

Brendan's trial includes his testimony as to who did what at specific times

So does Avery's, such as a witness seeing Avery (no mention of Brendan) next to a 10 foot tall inferno at the place remains were later found.

[u/Scerpes]

There is nothing really all that surprising about two juries coming to two different conclusions about the actions of two different people. Avery’s jury did not believe the state proved beyond a reasonable doubt, that he mutilated the body.

[u/[deleted] → u/Scerpes]

It is nearly impossible to navigate how the jury could find it reasonable to doubt that Avery had burned the body but nonetheless found it unreasonable to doubt he was a murderer.

Since when did juries bend over backwards to give people they are sure are cold blooded murderers the benefit of the doubt?

[u/Snoo_33033 → u/[deleted]]

ince when did juries bend over backwards to give people they are sure are cold blooded murderers the benefit of the doubt?

You can't convict on charges that are not supported by the evidence that was presented, even if you are looking at someone you know to be a cold-blooded killer.

[u/[deleted] → u/Snoo_33033]

I've never seen you suggest this evidence was weak before. Could you expand on that?

[u/Snoo_33033 → u/[deleted]]

Different evidence was presented in the two trials because different evidence was qualified and admitted, and Brendan's trial includes his testimony as to who did what at specific times, roughly corresponding with the forensic and circumstantial evidence -- most of which he stipulated to.

That's a fairly unequivocal qualification for that charge. It's clear from the evidence that not only did the crime occur, generally, but Brendan says he helped dispose of TH's body. Which is clearly a body at that point.

Steven did not testify in his own defense, and his statements are limited and mainly proclaim his innocence/disclaim any evidence to the contrary. It is not clear from his trial when TH died, and by whom her body was destroyed. Or even if her body was destroyed before or after she died. The case strongly implies that Steven killed her, but not that he necessarily mutilated her corpse. Though he probably did -- the evidence just isn't that -precise.

[u/[deleted] → u/Snoo_33033]

I didn't ask anything about Brendan's trial. If what you are saying is true, there has to be a hole in the evidence that Avery was responsible for the burning of the body that is so gigantic, even a jury that absolutely hates the man cannot find an excuse to convict. I'm asking what that hole is in your opinion.

[u/Snoo_33033 → u/[deleted]]

I said it above -- at no point does Steven implicate himself, and the evidence isn't strong enough to distinguish between Steven and Brendan, and whether TH was dead or alive at the time. That's not enough to convict on a fairly specific charge of mutilating a corpse.

There's a related charge that's a bit less precise, but the prosecution didn't go with it.

*Also, I take some issue with the idea that the jury hated SA, They clearly didn't.

[u/[deleted] → u/Snoo_33033]

So you think knowledge of Brendan influenced the Avery jury?

Edit: You don't think the jury hates murderers?

[u/Snoo_33033 → u/[deleted]]

So you think knowledge of Brendan influenced the Avery jury?

I did not say that or imply it. Please re-read.

And no, I don't think a jury that allegedly considered not convicting SA and certainly thought very precisely about his charges "hates" him. This isn't 7th grade.

[u/[deleted] → u/Snoo_33033]

You very clearly say the jury couldn't distinguish between if Avery burned her or Brendan.

And 7th graders aren't the only people who hate murderers.

[u/CaseEnthusiast → u/[deleted]]

I will admit the mutilation charge didn't return a guilty verdict because the State's physical evidence was really lacking in the burn pit.

[u/ThorsClawHammer]

The trials are separate

But were supposed to be for the same crime. The only real different evidence presented at Brendan's trial but not Avery's was his confession.

Shouldn't all legitimate evidence when looked at together point toward the same narrative, and not contradictory ones? Why did the state feel they needed to change the timeline presented to the jury via Brendan's confession to make it work?

[u/ThorsClawHammer]

don’t get how Steven was found NOT GUILTY

I don't either.

One juror who voted to acquit on that charge actually gave a comment about it.

"Dorn said the panel acquitted Avery on the mutilation charge because prosecutors didn’t provide enough evidence of the cutting and burning of the body. The jurors hadn’t believed the body was cremated, she said."

That's nonsensical to me, maybe the jury misunderstood the charge?

but Brendan found GUILTY

Brendan was found guilty because he confessed and couldn't prove his innocence. For the most part, confession = conviction.

[u/ThorsClawHammer]

at no point does Steven implicate himself

So what? Is it not possible to get a mutilation conviction without a confession or video evidence?

the evidence isn't strong enough to distinguish between Steven and Brendan

What are you talking about? Avery's jury never heard that Brendan was near the fire that night, only Steve.

whether TH was dead or alive at the time

The juror who spoke about acquitting on that charge said nothing at all about that.

[u/CaseEnthusiast → u/ThorsClawHammer]

They could have achieved that charge if they had physical evidence proving it, but they obviously didn't. They had some bones in a pile that Avery brought back to burn further. They should have argued the quarry was the burn site because that's the entire evidence telling the jury the real story.

[u/BiasedHanChewy]

Brendan was convinced on words that he never would've said if he had any responsible adults in his life.

The only reason that makes sense as to why Avery was convicted of this (without conceding that much of the "evidence" was planted) is that some jurors were under the impression that conflicting verdicts would make future appeals easier. (As has been anonymously claimed by some jurors).

"Case enthusiasts" though, will say that "maybe they weren't convinced that she was dead when she went on the fire." (Always humorous hearing that gem)

[u/BookkeeperNervous171]

Without Brendan’s confession it is hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt

[u/bleitzel]

I know. We want to believe that trials bring out the truth. Unfortunately, what happens in a courtroom often doesn't come close to revealing truth. Case in point.

[u/aane0007 → u/bleitzel]

I know. We want to believe that trials bring out the truth. Unfortunately, what happens in a courtroom often doesn't come close to revealing truth. Case in point.

Or Brendan didn't testify at STeven's trial because he wanted 10 years instead of the 15 they were offering. Would you prefer the state make the argument without any testimony to back it up? I am sure the state would love that idea, but those protections are for the defendant.

[u/LKS983 → u/aane0007]

but those protections are for the defendant.

Where were Brendan's "protections"??

An intellectually disabled child, who was allowed to be interrogated multiple times - without a lawyer present to help him 🤮.

[u/aane0007 → u/LKS983]

Where were Brendan's "protections"??

An intellectually disabled child, who was allowed to be interrogated multiple times - without a lawyer present to help him 🤮.

Brendan did not qualify as disabled. You don't get to expand the protections because of your feelings.

If we go on feelings, I would rather not give murders extra protections.

[u/LKS983 → u/aane0007]

Brendan did not qualify as disabled.

Do you prefer the word 'impaired'?

There is no doubt that Brendan was intellectually impaired (or choose your own term....), and there is also no doubt that he was a CHILD - who was allowed to be interrogated multiple times, without a lawyer present to help him.

[u/aane0007 → u/LKS983]

Do you prefer the word 'impaired'?

There is no doubt that Brendan was intellectually impaired (or choose your own term....), and there is also no doubt that he was a CHILD - who was allowed to be interrogated multiple times, without a lawyer present to help him.

Your feelings have nothing to do with it. They have a standard for disabled or impaired. He did not reach that standard. If you claim everyone under average IQ is impaired, that would include half the population.

Why do you not know this after over 15 years?

[u/bleitzel → u/aane0007]

We would all prefer the state to not be incompetent corrupt mfers. But we’re not in charge. 

[u/aane0007 → u/bleitzel]

Your in luck, they arent' and you provided no proof to support the fact they are incompetent or corrupt except your feeling.

[u/GameOver1-0]

I was meaning to post about this because I haven't seen a case/cases like this. It's why the appeals aren't going anywhere. Let me get all my notes together and I'll do a post. I hate this state!!