CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #12

[Texas Red]

I respectfully disagree. It's not a reversible error. This judge is a highly seasoned judge. He knows his rulings are sound. This isnt his first rodeo.

They have shown jailhouse video in other trials showing the defendant was trying to coerce a witness in the case.

It's up to the jury to determine if he did or did not try to coerce a witness he knew would be testifying in his case.

Adding an additional charge to a man who is the accused in a death penalty case already is ridiculous, and a waste of time.

This evidence is relevant to THIS case.

Imo

“This judge is a highly seasoned judge”

Very tactful of you using the above statement instead of just say that he’s over the hill. IMO, the judge is no longer playing with a full deck. Time will tell the outcome of this ruling but hopefully, it will be a moot point.

 

[Force Ten]

I respectfully disagree. It's not a reversible error. This judge is a highly seasoned judge. He knows his rulings are sound. This isnt his first rodeo.

They have shown jailhouse video in other trials showing the defendant was trying to coerce a witness in the case.

It's up to the jury to determine if he did or did not try to coerce a witness he knew would be testifying in his case.

Adding an additional charge to a man who is the accused in a death penalty case already is ridiculous, and a waste of time.

This evidence is relevant to THIS case.

Imo

I agree. Chase had committed multiple crimes as it is. This is peripheral and just more an indication of his guilt. Let's start with the fact they willfully didn't use the phone, more than once and with two separate people. More bell ringing. The jury is not going to ignore that, regardless of what was said.

On that, is Mechelle going to testify? And what about her ex-friend?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Why do you think the prosecution didn’t call Jarvis?

By the way, I don’t watch crime shows.

She would make a much better witness if called in the state's rebuttal. IMO

Oh I agree, not all of the jurors will watch true crime shows, but I have no doubt there will be plenty on the jury who does who can easily explain the SOPs to other jurors. It's very well known even for anyone who just follows trials on a blog site.

Crime channels are some of the most watched channels, so millions do watch these shows.

They can even watch Law, and Order type shows or other police dramas to know this is what LE does while trying to seek the truth.

Imo

 

[Force Ten]

“This judge is a highly seasoned judge”

Very tactful of you using the above statement instead of just say that he’s over the hill. IMO, the judge is no longer playing with a full deck. Time will tell the outcome of this ruling but hopefully, it will be a moot point.

Can you pinpoint why you conclude he's "no longer playing with a full deck"? He seems pretty sound imo.

 

[missy1974]

So do the defense start on Monday?

Trial will resume on Tuesday, the State rested with a motion to reopen on Tuesday because they have another witness that wasn't available until then.

I'm actually wondering if it will even be Tuesday, it will depend on whether the new witness has a detailed report IMO otherwise I am sure there will be a 402 (?) hearing, like what we saw with Dr. Rudin. JMO

 

[Bernina]

From the article,

“The prosecution argued that the majority of the calls didn't include anything of any consequence until they reached the witness intimidation in February. The prosecution said that they believe Merritt attempted to influence the upcoming testimony of Cathy Jarvis, who was Merritt's girlfriend at the time of the murders. The defense took exception to the notion that Merritt attempted to tamper with a witness.”

CM, said nothing incriminating regarding the offense he’s charged with. If the prosecution feels that a separate crime, witness tampering, was committed then charge him accordingly with a separate offense. If this article is correct and the judge is going to allow this into the record. IMO, the judge is committing a reversible error that the appellate court will overturn if he is in fact convicted.

I'm sure CM got a "write up" by the guards for circumventing the visitation rules and more than likely had what little privileges he has taken away for a period of time.

CM has been told by his attorneys NOT to discuss the case with anyone but them. The Judge even acknowledged this.

No reversal, no error. You can't turn a jail infraction by an inmate, influencing or intimidating a witness, and using those fruits from the visit in court into overturning a conviction.

 

[missy1974]

From that article....interesting:

"The judge denied the motion, and Jarvis will testify for the prosecution and the recordings will be played for the jury at some point."

I believe if she is called it will be by the defense. I can't recall if that was said in court, or if it was from Cathy Russon.

 

[Recidivist]

Why do you think the prosecution didn’t call Jarvis?

By the way, I don’t watch crime shows.

Because they didn't need her.

 

[Texas Red]

Can you pinpoint why you conclude he's "no longer playing with a full deck"? He seems pretty sound imo.

The fact that he's allowing the recordings into evidence is a good start.

 

[missy1974]

Why do you think the prosecution didn’t call Jarvis?

By the way, I don’t watch crime shows.

If there is any truth to what was said in court by McGee, her account of what happened has not changed. I don't think that helps the prosecution at all.

This is what McGee said in court:

McGee tells the judge, I can inform the court that the interviews that Ms. Jarvis had with LE, that is what she kept telling them, that is a review of the conversation, and the officers kept telling her that can't be right, you're wrong, he wasn't there, she like no, he was there, I saw his phone, she has said that since Feb 2010, and they started trying to trip her up, saying well what about this? and trying to change her testimony and change her statement, they were trying to realistically manufacture evidence that he wasn't home. And she was very clear in Feb 2010, she's been very clear in all emails with other people and very clear with SB, he was home when that phone rang, I saw it ring and I wondered why he wasn't picking it up. So this is not Mr. Merritt trying to convince Ms. Jarvis what to say, this is a rendition of the statements she has said since day 1. Even though LE tried to get her to change her story, I shouldn't say that, SBSD tried to get her to change that story, she has stuck to it, and she (someone says something).. McGee: even under threat of arrest, they were threatening her if you are going with this, then you're an accomplice and we are going to arrest you too, she still held her ground, that's what happened, and that's what the conversation was, it was not Mr. Merritt trying to tell her what to say, it was a reminder of the recorded conversation and the contents of it.

 

[Mica]

Because they didn't need her.

That’s right. They have all the evidence they need.

 

[Recidivist]

Here is an article about Judge Smith. He has something in common with the defendant, in that he enjoys poker. (Texas Hold Em)

https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...50ae276e473a3/1520370069452/smith-michael.pdf

 

[Mica]

If there is any truth to what was said in court by McGee, her account of what happened has not changed. I don't think that helps the prosecution at all.

This is what McGee said in court:

McGee tells the judge, I can inform the court that the interviews that Ms. Jarvis had with LE, that is what she kept telling them, that is a review of the conversation, and the officers kept telling her that can't be right, you're wrong, he wasn't there, she like no, he was there, I saw his phone, she has said that since Feb 2010, and they started trying to trip her up, saying well what about this? and trying to change her testimony and change her statement, they were trying to realistically manufacture evidence that he wasn't home. And she was very clear in Feb 2010, she's been very clear in all emails with other people and very clear with SB, he was home when that phone rang, I saw it ring and I wondered why he wasn't picking it up. So this is not Mr. Merritt trying to convince Ms. Jarvis what to say, this is a rendition of the statements she has said since day 1. Even though LE tried to get her to change her story, I shouldn't say that, SBSD tried to get her to change that story, she has stuck to it, and she (someone says something).. McGee: even under threat of arrest, they were threatening her if you are going with this, then you're an accomplice and we are going to arrest you too, she still held her ground, that's what happened, and that's what the conversation was, it was not Mr. Merritt trying to tell her what to say, it was a reminder of the recorded conversation and the contents of it.

Thank you. This is what I was remembering. And you’re correct, this doesn’t help the prosecution.

 

[Edmo]

I believe if she is called it will be by the defense. I can't recall if that was said in court, or if it was from Cathy Russon.

In one of the LE press conferences, they said they had interviewed CJ numerous times, so the DT has her interrogation record. Will see if the DT calls her or not. I suspect she will NOT be helpful for CM.

 

[Mica]

In one of the LE press conferences, they said they had interviewed CJ numerous times, so the DT has her interrogation record. Will see if the DT calls her or not. I suspect she will NOT be helpful for CM.

Well, through the years she refused to change her testimony and even under pressure and threat of being arrested as an accomplice. She stuck to her story which was Chase and his phone were home when the last call came in. She was reinforcing her story to Chase which helps him. Chase has an alibi for that evening.

 

[geevee]

Well, through the years she refused to change her testimony and even under pressure and threat of being arrested as an accomplice. She stuck to her story which was Chase and his phone were home when the last call came in. She was reinforcing her story to Chase which helps him. Chase has an alibi for that evening.

If he was home that evening, why was she calling him several times (and he not answering)? And how did his phone ping in Mira Loma at 9:32 p.m.?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I'm sure CM got a "write up" by the guards for circumventing the visitation rules and more than likely had what little privileges he has taken away for a period of time.

CM has been told by his attorneys NOT to discuss the case with anyone but them. The Judge even acknowledged this.

No reversal, no error. You can't turn a jail infraction by an inmate, influencing or intimidating a witness, and using those fruits from the visit in court into overturning a conviction.

Now that you mentioned it, why was CJ even allowed to visit the defendant?

The state or defense would have served her with a subpoena at least 30 days away from the trial date. So she certainly knew she was going to be called to testify, and so would CM.

Why was she allowed to discuss her testimony with the defendant of all people?

There is a good legal reason why witnesses who haven't testified yet, must remain outside of the courtroom until they are called to testify, unless the judge makes an exception which is usually for family members of the victims. Once that happens they can remain in the courtroom.

So hasn't her testimony been tainted by the defendant?

Imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

If he was home that evening, why was she calling him several times (and he not answering)? And how did his phone ping in Mira Loma at 9:32 p.m.?

The jury will be thinking the very same thing, Geevee.

So let her get up there, and stick to her 'story.' I hope she does.

The jury will decide if she is credible or not based on the very evidence you have listed.

Based on the evidence is she truthful or is she lying trying to cover for her babies' daddy?

Imo

 

[missy1974]

If he was home that evening, why was she calling him several times (and he not answering)? And how did his phone ping in Mira Loma at 9:32 p.m.?

This reminded me to go and look up where they lived. Something in Chase and Cathy's jailhouse convo that I wasn't understanding was that he said something about going to the clubhouse to watch a movie and also mentioned a computer room. I also recall that he was interviewed in the clubhouse by Dugal/Fiske.

Does anyone know... did they live in the Terra Vista apartments? Is this them???

Homecoming at Terra Vista | Apartment Homes For Rent Rancho Cucamonga

Some of the amenities...

• 15,800 square foot clubhouse, with Wi-Fi for residents in clubhouse area
• Movie theater, library, billiard lounge, game room and business center

They actually look pretty nice... lol Was not what I was expecting

 

[oceanblueeyes]

If there is any truth to what was said in court by McGee, her account of what happened has not changed. I don't think that helps the prosecution at all.

This is what McGee said in court:

McGee tells the judge, I can inform the court that the interviews that Ms. Jarvis had with LE, that is what she kept telling them, that is a review of the conversation, and the officers kept telling her that can't be right, you're wrong, he wasn't there, she like no, he was there, I saw his phone, she has said that since Feb 2010, and they started trying to trip her up, saying well what about this? and trying to change her testimony and change her statement, they were trying to realistically manufacture evidence that he wasn't home. And she was very clear in Feb 2010, she's been very clear in all emails with other people and very clear with SB, he was home when that phone rang, I saw it ring and I wondered why he wasn't picking it up. So this is not Mr. Merritt trying to convince Ms. Jarvis what to say, this is a rendition of the statements she has said since day 1. Even though LE tried to get her to change her story, I shouldn't say that, SBSD tried to get her to change that story, she has stuck to it, and she (someone says something).. McGee: even under threat of arrest, they were threatening her if you are going with this, then you're an accomplice and we are going to arrest you too, she still held her ground, that's what happened, and that's what the conversation was, it was not Mr. Merritt trying to tell her what to say, it was a reminder of the recorded conversation and the contents of it.

She knows lying to investigators can get her jail time so of course she is going to stick to her story.

She had no clue at that time the phone data would prove her wrong.

The jury will go with what makes the most sense,based on the phone evidence they will be able to see, and hold in their hands during deliberations.

I think it's a gift for the state she is going to stick to her original story.

She certainly isnt the first ex to testify for a defendant.

Imo, she won't believed any more than the others were. Jurors go by evidence, and not just because a witness says something is so.

That's not evidence of anything except a witness statement with a biased slant.

Jurors already know these kind of witnesses have a vested interest to lie, imo. Visiting him in jail several times even years later will help establish the biases held by CJ.

What she will testify to will go against all of the compelling evidence the jury has already heard.

Will they ignore it all, and believe CJ? Imo, absolutely not.

Imo