It's funny how they are trying to find détails about avery.
But keep quoting kratz who has Proven reccord of drug and sex addiction and who was a predator to women he was supposed to défend.
No problem at all for the integrity of the prosecutor

And linking things that don't even match what they're saying.

It's a good encore to the standing O.

Do you think it's best to ignore further details about Avery?

Do you think attacking Kratz's character makes it easier to ignore further details about Avery?

Regardless, no one is quoting Kratz when discussing this list of Steven's dirty deeds.

Please note Poorshillz doesn't seem to know what "evidence" means.

I find it amazing that Krantz continues to assert these items of "evidence" as being left out of the documentary when the Court specifically excluded them from the trial.

If Krantz believes his case is so obvious, why does he need to keep dredging up "evidence" that was not allowed in the case - why can't he simply stand on the merits.

Poorshillz does not seem to realize that disputed items contested in limine are not matters of judicial truth, they are simply items of potential evidence that are being ruled on as potentially admissible at trial. Due to the potential prejudice to either party, in limine motions take place prior to the jury being seated so that the Court does not have to attempt to "unring a bell" if the item(s) is/are disputed when raised at trial.

Even if the judge admitted the State's items per the motion, that does not mean the Court accepts the merits of the evidence; it simply means that the State could go forward and call witnesses to testify on those asserted matters.

Given Krantz' unethical behavior in this case, it is fair to assume there was a lot more smoke than fire in these potential evidence points. Indeed, most of these items were purportedly related to the charges of rape, mutilation, etc. - all dismissed for no evidence.

kratz must be having a really hard time since MAM release and will have some super tought time for a few years at the very least.
Considering how many pros said that he was supposed to be trained to identify coerced confession and didn't and send dassey for 10 years in jail for most likely no reason, a civil lawsuit could be huge, let alone avery lawsuit and possible major **** up on that side aswell.

Another question is how the jury ruled that he /SA was guilty of murder but not mutilation of the corpse

Jury found that based on the evidence Avery did not burn her body. Not sure why the guilty trio itt keeps talking about the bonfire and the bones when jury decided he didn't do that

Because there was no(or not enought) evidence of mutilation but the jury thought they had enought for the murder.

The only relevance that motion has to this matter is what it reveals about Poorskillz and Fraley: Neither one of them is interested in a fair trial.

The matters were properly ruled inadmissible. It is a fundamental rule that a defendant is to stand trial for the act he is accused of, not collateral issues. SA's character is not on trial; having him have to also defend against non-relevant and highly prejudicial allegations as opposed to what he was actually charged with is not fair. Just raising these "allegations" puts the defendant in an untenable spot because the jury is misled as to the true nature of the case. Even if SA successfully diffuses these character attacks, it still poisons the jury.

Krantz shares the same view as his groupies Fraley and Poorshillz: Despite knowing full well this "character evidence" was excluded at trial, he brings it up to the public as if it supports his conviction.

SA's character is not on trial. Of course, one may have their own opinion of SA (in my case, I do not think he is a person of high moral character and I have argued that point with LITS) but it has zero to do with whether he murdered T.H.

If Krantz has shown us anything, it is that he is particularly adept at character assassination. However, he seems quite satisfied to dish it out, but he certainly can't take it.

That just doesn't add up to me, who do they think burned the body then?

The truth is only the jury knows.

What follows is mainly speculation on my part:

We don't know for sure the exact details of Steven's crime - for all we know, it's possible that Steven burnt her while she was still alive.

It is known that the deliberations took 20+ hours.

I assume the deliberation for murder came first.

I assume at some point a majority of the jury was voting "guilty", but there were probably a couple of people who it was very difficult to convince to vote "guilty".


2 possible scenarios (not exhaustive) at this point:

1. Vote-trading, as one juror has claimed, where there's a couple of stubborn "not guilty" voters creating a deadlock and the rest of the jury says "listen, if you just vote guilty on the murder, we'll vote not guilty on the mutilation, ok?". The stubborn voter(s) agrees.
   
   
   
2. No vote-trading. Most people have decided Steven is guilty, but there's 1 or 2 that aren't quite convinced. They've bought into the defense's conspiracy theory and so it seems no amount of evidence can convince them (just look ITT for examples of this). After 20 hours of deliberation, the stubborn "not guilty" voter(s) gives in and votes "guilty". Maybe the tensest 20 hours of the jury's lives are now over with.
   
   Then comes the "mutilation of a corpse" charge. The stubborn "not guilty" voter(s) need convincing again. At this point Steven is already going to jail for life. The majority of the jury wants to go home. They don't want to do this all over again. They decide to just say "fine, not guilty". Win/win in everyone's minds, but not for Steven.

Again, this is mainly speculation. Only the jury really knows.

Hey Oski, I would actually like your opinion on something! Try to remain objective and give your thoughts on this reddit post from over a month ago:

^^ that seems like a fair process

At some point she was dead and her corpse was mutilated. Even if burned while alive, she dies at some point during the burning process and the corpse is further mutilated.

Okay, but now try explaining that to the lostinsauce on the jury.

meh, rather than explaining, I'd rather just think Avery is not guilty of murder, but agree to vote him guilty of murder if lostinsauce agrees to vote not guilty of mutilation.

It s way more complicated than it seems , there s allegation of pressure inside the jury, some of them were family of cop there, and some jury have declared they feared for their security if they didnt vote guilty.

I propose that if anyone's a crazy/dumb person in this scenario, it is the one who agrees to vote "guilty" on "murder" when they don't believe it's true just so others will vote "not guilty" on "mutilation" even though they don't believe it's true.

Can we establish this much?

One juror was the father of a deputy (there are no other jurors with known direct relations to cops). The defense was well aware of this during jury selection. The man was open and honest about this fact.

The defense questioned the man as to whether he was open to believing cops could lie and plant evidence. The man said yes, and he even shared a personal incident he had with cops in the past.

The defense chose not to use one of their peremptory strikes on the man.

The defense chose not to attempt to strike the man for cause.

If the defense attempted to strike this man for cause and was denied, it would have been a great thing to bring up in Avery's appeals.

It is reasonable to assume that the defense wanted this man on the jury.

You quoted my post, but I'm not sure if you actually read it...