Quote:
Originally Posted by yeotaJMU
Another question is how the jury ruled that he /SA was guilty of murder but not mutilation of the corpse
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts
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
Quote:
Originally Posted by PoorSkillz
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by housenuts
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.
From Strang's cross-examination of Dr. Eisenberg:
Q As you sit here, and on the evidence you have, one or both of those gunshots, as easily, could have been fired into the skull of a dead person as into the skull of a living person; true?
A That is possible.
Q Which -- Not only possible, it's true, isn't it?
A Yes. In the absence of being able to reconstruct the skull, um, I would agree with you.
Q And -- and you've completed the work that you've been able to do on reconstruction of this skull?
A To the best of my ability, yes.
Q All right. And if the gunshot wounds were fired into the skull after the person was dead, then the gunshots did not cause the death of the person, did they?
A That would be a correct assessment.
Q
If the gunshots did not cause the death of the person, then, as we go back to manner of death as homicide, the evidence you have for homicide is the burning or destruction of the bones that you saw?
A
That is correct.
....
Q All right. And the law in the state of Wisconsin includes, among other possible crimes, but two relevant here, first degree intentional homicide, that is, intentionally causing the death of a human being, you understand that?
A Yes.
Q And a crime called mutilation of a corpse, you understand that --
A Yes, I do.
Q -- as well?
And if one is living, then the defendant or the person is incapable of mutilating a corpse, because it -- you know, if you're living, you're not a corpse; correct?
A
Correct.
Q All right. So you understand, here, that
these folks to your left will have to make a distinction between homicide on the one hand and mutilating a corpse on the other? You understand that?
A Yes, I do.