Quote:
Originally Posted by markksman
Lol wat
So was she burned first or shot first? You mantiwoc 3s are confusing.
What do you think the lesser charge was for? Do you know why the DA chose to also charge Avery with this? Given the non-existiant understanding of the US Criminal Justice System, I assume no is the answer.
Do you think every time something is done to a murderer victim after they die they are charged with a similar statute?
Again you don't think the prosecution needs a coherent narrative of events to get a legitimate conviction? This is the same exact nonsense that poorskillz started this discussion with. You are telling a jury we don't know how she died or shy she died but this is our guy. That is not how it is SUPPOSED to work.
You guys continue this completely fictional narrative like this was a discussion that ever took place in that jury room.
Lets look at it from the jury seat for a second...
The prosecution did a good job proving the following
A gun owned by SA shot TH in the head in his garage
SA bled inside TH vehicle
Her body was burned in SA's burnpit
Her items were burned outside of SA's door..
TH calls SA at 2:40, doesn't make another call after that.
Sitting in the jury box, there is one conclusion to make on count 1. and imo one conclusion to make on count 2. The jury only agrees with me on the murder charge though. And I can understand why. If a few of them felt that it wasn't proven how exactly she died it is understandable that they could still feel it was proven beyond a reasonable doubt SA killed her without knowing how.
A good analogy of this is the following.. Say you see a video of someone dragging a body to the victims car, The video then shows the person in the video dumping the body and victims car in a lake. Say just before this video there are several witnesses who see the person in the video go inside the victims house and come out with the victims body. There is no DNA evidence recovered for whatever reason. No body is ever recovered.. Do you need to know anything else to convict him of murder? Do you really need to know every detail on how the actual crime took place to reach the conclusion that he is the one that killed the person in question?
Now as for why the state would charge him with the lesser count. Of course I understand. If they reached a not guilty verdict on count 1, there is still counts 2 and 3.. Sort of like a safety net. It is for this very reason why some states allow you to convict on lesser charges for the same crime.. In some states if the prosecution pushes for murder 1 they can still get a verdict of murder2 or even murder 3 in some cases. Even though it is impossible to commit murder 1,2 and 3 in the same crime.