Current Trial The Murder of 9yo Charlise Mutten - Blue Mountains * Justin Stein Sentenced to Life in Prison

[maggiethecat]

We have to be logical and look at the evidence. K might not be a fit Mother but is there any other evidence pointing to K aside from Stein blaming her? I personally can’t see any aside from Stein’s account after he changed his story several times.

Exactly and shes probably going to live in a self made prison for a long time!

 

[MrsBlueSky]

This finding was delivered today in Qld and I think that's what truthseeker was trying to tell us also applies in this case:

Failure as a parent​

In his sentencing submission, prosecutor David Nardone said it had taken one hour and 19 minutes before Eatts noticed her two youngest sons were missing.

"At best she was unaware … at worst she was unconcerned," Mr Nardone said.

 

[Spectrix]

Its so obvious to me, it was the mother, so if she gets away with this, just hoes to show what the justice system is like
number 1: if youre child is Missing ... theres no way you would not be fretting,
Number 2: you would definitely not be More distressed over ur partner cheating than your daughter missing.
Number 3: you would not be Sleeping.
it was her.

This finding was delivered today in Qld and I think that's what truthseeker was trying to tell us also applies in this case:
Failure as a parent

While truthseeker made some valid points, my interpretation is that he/she is using evidence of Kallista's shortcomings as a parent to imply that she is guilty of murder. I don't believe he/she is necessarily aware of the level of evidence supporting the prosecution's case that Stein committed the act (or has chosen to ignore it).

(Although I still like the theory that truthseeker's post is evidence of Stein or his mum signing up to BigFooty)



Edit - though wouldn't it be fitting if Kallista Mutten could be tried for Manslaughter or Gross Negligence over her part in the debacle?

 

[MrsBlueSky]

Edit - though wouldn't it be fitting if Kallista Mutten could be tried for Manslaughter or Gross Negligence over her part in the debacle?

I think that is what truthseeker was hoping for.
IMO all he/she had to do was put IMO to the post.

 

[Underarrest_]

While truthseeker made some valid points, my interpretation is that he/she is using evidence of Kallista's shortcomings as a parent to imply that she is guilty of murder. I don't believe he/she is necessarily aware of the level of evidence supporting the prosecution's case that Stein committed the act (or has chosen to ignore it).

(Although I still like the theory that truthseeker's post is evidence of Stein or his mum signing up to BigFooty)



Edit - though wouldn't it be fitting if Kallista Mutten could be tried for Manslaughter or Gross Negligence over her part in the debacle?

I just hope justice is served because that’s the least that can happen in the name of this little girl.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I just cannot imagine that Kallista would be mentally present to form any kind of intent, or plan, to kill her own daughter for - what?

She had wanted (she said) for Charlize to form a positive relationship with Stein, as a father figure. She was obviously envisioning a rainbows and unicorns future of a happy family in the future.

Unfortunately her judgement had become impaired over a long period of time, due to her drug dependence, and she was vulnerable and easy prey for a sociopath like Stein.

He was/is a master manipulator and his only aim is self-preservation.

 

[maggiethecat]

I totally agree Dogs R us ! She was so busy in building a fantasy scenario in her head about her future with the murderer that she was oblivious to reality and I think it hit her like a ton of bricks when she got back to wildenstein and took the murderers car . That’s when she should have called police but she was drug effected, manipulated and obviously spinning out of control with realizations of the situation.

So she takes his car back and he assaults her… he’s probably lucky she didn’t have access to the gun because in another scenario she would have shot him and that’s probably what he deserved

 

[MrsBlueSky]

I totally agree Dogs R us ! She was so busy in building a fantasy scenario in her head about her future with the murderer that she was oblivious to reality and I think it hit her like a ton of bricks when she got back to wildenstein and took the murderers car . That’s when she should have called police but she was drug effected, manipulated and obviously spinning out of control with realizations of the situation.

So she takes his car back and he assaults her… he’s probably lucky she didn’t have access to the gun because in another scenario she would have shot him and that’s probably what he deserved

I don't know how the law treats manipulation.
In the Greg Lynn thread, I saw today provocation isn't a reason to unlawfully kill someone.
So in the opposite, can manipulation be seen as a way of getting off a charge of providing assistance to a murder.
In the Lynn case the judge told the jury not to be caught up in their personal feelings for the victims - set your morals aside etc.
Again in the opposite, in the Charlise case would a judge take into account the mother being under the influence of drugs etc if she was charged like truthseeker was after and not put her in jail.
You are allowed to commit a crime under exceptional circumstances, even kill someone.
Kallista did the opposite and basically tried to hide afaik. Would that help her if she was charged with being an accessory.
Very convoluted but does anyone know what I mean?
Truthseeker may have been onto something but the mum may have legal reasons for avoiding a jail term if charged.

 

[Spectrix]

Again in the opposite, in the Charlise case would a judge take into account the mother being under the influence of drugs etc if she was charged like truthseeker was after and not put her in jail.
You are allowed to commit a crime under exceptional circumstances, even kill someone.
Kallista did the opposite and basically tried to hide afaik. Would that help her if she was charged with being an accessory.
Very convoluted but does anyone know what I mean?
Truthseeker may have been onto something

MrsBlueSky First things first, truthseeker appears to think KM murdered Charlise. They are suggesting that Kallista's actions (or inactions more specifically) were an indication that she was actually the culprit of the shooting. See quote for reference:

Its so obvious to me, it was the mother, so if she gets away with this, just hoes to show what the justice system is like

it was her.

MrsBlueSky, I believe what you are suggesting in your previous post pertains to Kallista's actual culpability to be charged either as an accessory to murder or to negligence in respect to her shortcomings in caring for Charlise so I will try to respond to those.

In the case of being an accessory to murder, there was some suggestion to this possibility brought up early in the case due to a couple of reasons. Kallista was involved in the theft of two weapons from a neighbouring property, including the 22 calibre rifle used to kill Charlise.
Kallista was also implicated in a conversation with Stein on January 13th, while Stein was at bunnings on his way to dumping CM's body. The conversation reportedly was in regards to buying Sandbags and floating the boat, and without context, you would be forgiven for thinking that indicated that Kallista had knowledge of CM's death and/or was an accessory at least to disposing of the body.

The context turned out to be particularly important as it was later shown that Kallista was working under the assumption that Stein had taken the boat with him in the search for CM, who she believed to be missing.

As far as the 22 Calibre Rifle is concerned, while KM was implicated in the original theft of the gun in the months prior to the shooting, there isn't any suggestion that she had anything to do with the actual shooting.

So no, she can't be charged as an accessory to murder.

In regards to other avenues such as negligence - this part is IMO only.
Kallista was absolutely negligent in allowing CM to come to Sydney to visit in the first place. She lied to her own parents (CM's grandparents) saying that she and Stein were clean, when neither of them were. The pair of them were actively using junkies, who had met each other in Prison.
KM left her daughter alone with Stein so that she could stay at the caravan park and get off her face. She then went to Sydney with Stein to buy more drugs instead of returning to Mt Wilson to care for her (apparently) sick daughter, and then even when she realised that CM was missing, she took days to contact the police. By all accounts she was a rotten mum and I sincerely hope that she doesn't ever attempt to breed again.
As far as actually bringing charges - it is very unlikely. Being under the influence of drugs is not regarded by the court as an excuse, but certainly it could be argued that Kallista was manipulated to some extent by Stein. That is what she would have you believe at least, anything to separate herself from responsibility and culpability.

And none of that has anything to do with the fact that Stein turned out to be a kiddy fiddling murderer. Kallista is not expected to have possibly seen that one coming. Stein acted completely alone in that regard.

So that leaves Kallista without charge - even for the break and enter, the judge took pity and offered a short suspended sentence (no jail time, don't do it again kind of affair, even though KM was fresh out of jail on other charges).

After all is said and done, Charlise Mutton appeared to be an intelligent, happy and delightful little girl, she had a great relationship with her grandparents who had custody, had aspirations of becoming a vet and had her whole life ahead of her. It just seems such a senseless waste of life.
The Grandparents adored her and did their absolute best for her, and my heart goes out to them. They will have a lifetime of feeling partially responsible just for agreeing to let Charlise visit her mum, and knowing of the horrors that unfolded when she was left alone with Stein.

That poor girl drew the short straw being born to that mother and being lured into that terrible situation that was supposed to be a fun happy christmas holiday.

Anywoo, hope I answered some of your questions and it's not too off topic.

 

[MrsBlueSky]

MrsBlueSky First things first, truthseeker appears to think KM murdered Charlise. They are suggesting that Kallista's actions (or inactions more specifically) were an indication that she was actually the culprit of the shooting. See quote for reference:



MrsBlueSky, I believe what you are suggesting in your previous post pertains to Kallista's actual culpability to be charged either as an accessory to murder or to negligence in respect to her shortcomings in caring for Charlise so I will try to respond to those.

In the case of being an accessory to murder, there was some suggestion to this possibility brought up early in the case due to a couple of reasons. Kallista was involved in the theft of two weapons from a neighbouring property, including the 22 calibre rifle used to kill Charlise.
Kallista was also implicated in a conversation with Stein on January 13th, while Stein was at bunnings on his way to dumping CM's body. The conversation reportedly was in regards to buying Sandbags and floating the boat, and without context, you would be forgiven for thinking that indicated that Kallista had knowledge of CM's death and/or was an accessory at least to disposing of the body.

The context turned out to be particularly important as it was later shown that Kallista was working under the assumption that Stein had taken the boat with him in the search for CM, who she believed to be missing.

As far as the 22 Calibre Rifle is concerned, while KM was implicated in the original theft of the gun in the months prior to the shooting, there isn't any suggestion that she had anything to do with the actual shooting.

So no, she can't be charged as an accessory to murder.

In regards to other avenues such as negligence - this part is IMO only.
Kallista was absolutely negligent in allowing CM to come to Sydney to visit in the first place. She lied to her own parents (CM's grandparents) saying that she and Stein were clean, when neither of them were. The pair of them were actively using junkies, who had met each other in Prison.
KM left her daughter alone with Stein so that she could stay at the caravan park and get off her face. She then went to Sydney with Stein to buy more drugs instead of returning to Mt Wilson to care for her (apparently) sick daughter, and then even when she realised that CM was missing, she took days to contact the police. By all accounts she was a rotten mum and I sincerely hope that she doesn't ever attempt to breed again.
As far as actually bringing charges - it is very unlikely. Being under the influence of drugs is not regarded by the court as an excuse, but certainly it could be argued that Kallista was manipulated to some extent by Stein. That is what she would have you believe at least, anything to separate herself from responsibility and culpability.

And none of that has anything to do with the fact that Stein turned out to be a kiddy fiddling murderer. Kallista is not expected to have possibly seen that one coming. Stein acted completely alone in that regard.

So that leaves Kallista without charge - even for the break and enter, the judge took pity and offered a short suspended sentence (no jail time, don't do it again kind of affair, even though KM was fresh out of jail on other charges).

After all is said and done, Charlise Mutton appeared to be an intelligent, happy and delightful little girl, she had a great relationship with her grandparents who had custody, had aspirations of becoming a vet and had her whole life ahead of her. It just seems such a senseless waste of life.
The Grandparents adored her and did their absolute best for her, and my heart goes out to them. They will have a lifetime of feeling partially responsible just for agreeing to let Charlise visit her mum, and knowing of the horrors that unfolded when she was left alone with Stein.

That poor girl drew the short straw being born to that mother and being lured into that terrible situation that was supposed to be a fun happy christmas holiday.

Anywoo, hope I answered some of your questions and it's not too off topic.

Thank you very much, Spectrix.
That's what I was asking.
I wonder if that would have influenced truthseeker's strong opinions or if he's just a one-eyed Stein supporter who wouldn't ever admit the mum wasn't fully (or even partly) responsible.

 

[Run n Spread]

That's a week of deliberations.
Pretty standard but another week you maybe looking at a hung jury situation

 

[Spectrix]

That's a week of deliberations.
Pretty standard but another week you maybe looking at a hung jury situation

I shudder at the thought of this person walking free after this incident and having the opportunity to repeat the offence on another poor girl

 

[jason_recliner]

That's a week of deliberations.
Pretty standard but another week you maybe looking at a hung jury situation

There must be unreleased information. Based on what's been published I would have delivered my verdict within an hour.

 

[CodyRose]

I shudder at the thought of this person walking free after this incident and having the opportunity to repeat the offence on another poor girl

Little chance of that occurring imo

 

[Run n Spread]

There must be unreleased information. Based on what's been published I would have delivered my verdict within an hour.

They do need to go through the evidence properly. That's why I was surprised they didn't have transcripts already.

I shudder at the thought of this person walking free after this incident and having the opportunity to repeat the offence on another poor girl

You must have followed this case closely. Where did you find out about the stuff on the phone and not included stuff?
This sort of offence is the absolute worst of the worst. Death penalty imo.
But there have been cases of incorrect conviction so you need to be bloody sure.
From what's reported I reckon guilty but the jury as is proper is going over this with a fine tooth comb
Was there any evidence not included?

 

[jason_recliner]

They do need to go through the evidence properly. That's why I was surprised they didn't have transcripts already.

Yes but a week is more than enough to process the evidence made public.

 

[Spectrix]

Was there any evidence not included?

As far as I'm aware the child sex exploitation videos found on Steins phone were not included.
He was charged separately for that offense. Really odd since it would have given the prosecution easy motive, that Stein would drug and subsequently kill the girl.

There must be unreleased information. Based on what's been published I would have delivered my verdict within an hour.

Even without the CSA videos I would have thought it was an open shut case. I think you're right about unpublished evidence.

The only recent info we have about the jury's issues is that they had asked for various transcripts -

"Justice Helen Wilson sent the jury home after they requested access to a transcript of evidence given by the accused's mother, Annemie Stein.

Jurors, who have now been deliberating for about five hours, have previously asked for transcripts of the testimony of both Mr Stein and Charlise's mother, Kallista Mutten."

Edit - One thing that I imagine is muddying the waters is that the spoken statements of each of those three people are all over the place. Each of them lied and changed their stories multiple times.

 

[sydney_gws]

As far as I'm aware the child sex exploitation videos found on Steins phone were not included.
He was charged separately for that offense. Really odd since it would have given the prosecution easy motive, that Stein would drug and subsequently kill the girl.



Even without the CSA videos I would have thought it was an open shut case. I think you're right about unpublished evidence.

The only recent info we have about the jury's issues is that they had asked for various transcripts -

"Justice Helen Wilson sent the jury home after they requested access to a transcript of evidence given by the accused's mother, Annemie Stein.

Jurors, who have now been deliberating for about five hours, have previously asked for transcripts of the testimony of both Mr Stein and Charlise's mother, Kallista Mutten."

Edit - One thing that I imagine is muddying the waters is that the spoken statements of each of those three people are all over the place. Each of them lied and changed their stories multiple times.

It could be just one or two jurors thinking there is some doubt, mother could have in a drug induced state shot her daughter.
The case against Stein is in my view strong, but not as strong as I thought it would be.

 

[jason_recliner]

It could be just one or two jurors thinking there is some doubt, mother could have in a drug induced state shot her daughter.
The case against Stein is in my view strong, but not as strong as I thought it would be.

What evidence is making you question Stein's guilt?

 

[sydney_gws]

What evidence is making you question Stein's guilt?

I hadn't thought he would say the mum did it.
I don't believe him, but can it be proven what he said is incorrect?
It requires jury to think the same as Chris Dawsons judge in his case, rejecting what he ìs saying as complete lies.
I don't think if I was on the jury I would be voting not guilty by the way.

 

[Underarrest_]

Do we know the time of C death? I thought it was somewhere here.
I thought it was before K got back to the ranch because she was with Stein buying and doing drugs.

 

[Dogs_R_Us]

I hadn't thought he would say the mum did it.
I don't believe him, but can it be proven what he said is incorrect?
It requires jury to think the same as Chris Dawsons judge in his case, rejecting what he ìs saying as complete lies.
I don't think if I was on the jury I would be voting not guilty by the way.

Again, as with all cases in which there are no witnesses, the jury must either accept the accused’s explanation or they don’t. And the accused is going to use all means possible to deflect guilt elsewhere. Obviously no one can prove it’s a pack of lies. It comes down to probabilities. Otherwise anyone telling a semi-plausible tale that can’t be disproved would have to be believed and exonerated.

 

[Spectrix]

What evidence is making you question Stein's guilt?

It's possible that it's more about lack of evidence. Things that were missing due to the amount of time passed, blood spatter, gunshot residue on shoes or clothes. Witnesses who heard gunshots etc. Witnesses to the actual event.

And the jury haven't been made aware of the child sex exploitation stuff on Steins phone either. That scenario along with the fact that CM was found without underwear and having been drugged paint a crystal clear picture that the jury are not permitted to look at.

 

[jason_recliner]

It's possible that it's more about lack of evidence. Things that were missing due to the amount of time passed, blood spatter, gunshot residue on shoes or clothes. Witnesses who heard gunshots etc. Witnesses to the actual event.

And the jury haven't been made aware of the child sex exploitation stuff on Steins phone either. That scenario along with the fact that CM was found without underwear and having been drugged paint a crystal clear picture that the jury are not permitted to look at.

I'm not sure if the underwear is significant. She was found clothed. If the implication is that she was abused then he dressed her, why not put on her underpants as well? I'm wondering if she just wasn't wearing any, possibly because one had been washed for her.

 

[Run n Spread]

As far as I'm aware the child sex exploitation videos found on Steins phone were not included.
He was charged separately for that offense. Really odd since it would have given the prosecution easy motive, that Stein would drug and subsequently kill the girl.



Even without the CSA videos I would have thought it was an open shut case. I think you're right about unpublished evidence.

The only recent info we have about the jury's issues is that they had asked for various transcripts -

"Justice Helen Wilson sent the jury home after they requested access to a transcript of evidence given by the accused's mother, Annemie Stein.

Jurors, who have now been deliberating for about five hours, have previously asked for transcripts of the testimony of both Mr Stein and Charlise's mother, Kallista Mutten."

Edit - One thing that I imagine is muddying the waters is that the spoken statements of each of those three people are all over the place. Each of them lied and changed their stories multiple times.

He is clearly an absolute piece of shit.
The location needs to be proven thou.
And there is an alternative theory that may be possible?