CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #13

[Tortoise]

The brilliance of bringing Cathy and Taylor in first is that many people will doubt their veracity, because, of course, they are not impartial witnesses. But it's clear from the defense's opening and what they've revealed of their trial prep during cross, that as their experts present, Cathy and Taylor's statements will be supported by hard evidence. Bolstering C & T's testimony as the jury reviews it later.

It's funny because my take on it was that they wanted to get these two out of the way at the beginning so that the negative impact might have faded slightly by the time the jury deliberates.

 

[Karinna]

I would say that the fact that Joey called his bank on Thursday the 4th, and didn't alert the rep to fraud is the closest thing we have to proof that he was OK with the check Chase wrote and cashed that week. Plus the fact that Joey didn't alter any of his passwords.

But no, without Joey or an email or someone else vouching for this, we may never know with absolute certainty what the actual arrangement was.

BBM, Do you have proof of why Joey called his bank on the 4th.?

 

[JMarsh]

I think I understand why the defense just has to believe in his innocence. Since they are counting on the proceeds from a documentary in lieu of payment, if he is found guilty he will not be able to benefit from his crime, and the defense team ends up empty handed. But to the defense credit, ya'll are really putting forth the effort. IMO...of course.

Could be. But the proof of this is????

Actually a documentary is worth more, in terms of profit, if Chase is found guilty.

 

[Karinna]

It's highly speculative. I can't really support it with evidence, but the key to me is in the state of the home when it was very first entered by LE. I think that home tells a story. And the keys in Joey's pockets add another piece to this.

Thanks for your reply.

 

[JMarsh]

BBM, Do you have proof of why Joey called his bank on the 4th.?

No. I'm not in a position to ask. I have no probable cause, or rather, authority to make this kind of request. That was the investigator's job, and they never did seem to get the answer on that, did they?

 

[citygirl]

Attempting to listen to CJ's testimony. Very frustrating. Sounds like a bunch of mice going wild in the attic.

 

[Recidivist]

Could be. But the proof of this is????

Actually a documentary is worth more, in terms of profit, if Chase is found guilty.

Perhaps, except that he will be barred from collecting the proceeds. I am not even sure how much money is expected from it, but I bet the lack of interest in this trial has not set well with the high powered attorney's and their support team.

 

[QueenBofOB]

Taylor related a story of how Chase made certain she had the dress she wanted for prom. Maybe that was an irrational purchase, given their finances.

I wonder who he stole the money from, for that prom dress?

 

[JMarsh]

Perhaps, except that he will be barred from collecting the proceeds. I am not even sure how much money is expected from it, but I bet the lack of interest in this trial has not set well with the high powered attorney's and their support team.

He wouldn't be barred. Son of Sam law was overturned. But if he is convicted the court can assess damages to be paid to family of the victims.

I actually would take issue with Merritt's counsel making some financial arrangement around the documentary. I don't know if the the California bar disallows this type of thing, but I don't like it. Feels like a conflict of interest issue, to me.

 

[asyousay]

Which has not delivered on promises made at prelim.

Well the judge doesn’t agree with as he has even said there is enough evidence to have Chase on trial.

Coz the defense team tried to get it throw out last week right?

 

[JMarsh]

Well the judge doesn’t agree with as he has even said there is enough evidence to have Chase on trial.

Coz the defense team tried to get it throw out last week right?

He has to say this. The bar for probable cause at this stage is very, very low.

That was just a technicality. The defense always makes the motion to dismiss, and almost always the judge denies this.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

So from that statement JM calls CM
at 8:28pm. when CM's phone is off.
The defendant’s cell phone does not register a call during that time period.
So doesn't that mean it was a lie that anyone saw Merritt's phone ring and light up if the call doesn't register?

Absolutely. It's a lie. Its impossible, and can't happen, and the jurors will already know this.

Cant make a call or receive any calls when the phone is turned off. Even my small grandbabies know this.

Any cell phone will not light up if it's been turned off.

Off means OFF for a reason! Lol

 

[Bernina]

Kinda ironic that some believe Chase is this bastion of decency when his history is that of a career criminal. He's a hustler, plain and simple. Always a get rich quick deal. He doesn't care how it effects the people and families of those he's ripped off.
Whether he's convicted or not, the world is a better place while he's locked up.

 

[Karinna]

No. I'm not in a position to ask. I have no probable cause, or rather, authority to make this kind of request. That was the investigator's job, and they never did seem to get the answer on that, did they?

Just what's in here
State of California VS Charles Ray Merritt: Part Four - Transcript of Charles Merritt Preliminary

 

[asyousay]

He has to say this. The bar for probable cause at this stage is very, very low.

That was just a technicality. The defense always makes the motion to dismiss, and almost always the judge denies this.

Thanks for the explanation

I know we don’t agree on anything but this is my first trial to watch so I was not aware of this and it’s always good to learn.

 

[JMarsh]

Just what's in here
State of California VS Charles Ray Merritt: Part Four - Transcript of Charles Merritt Preliminary

I've read that transcript numerous times. I KNOW what is in there. Nada.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Well the judge doesn’t agree with as he has even said there is enough evidence to have Chase on trial.

Coz the defense team tried to get it throw out last week right?

He listed so much evidence, and even said there is more evidence that he didn't mention.

 

[citygirl]

Well the judge doesn’t agree with as he has even said there is enough evidence to have Chase on trial.

Coz the defense team tried to get it throw out last week right?

And he spent a good half hour outlining his reasons. I think he even said the DNA in the trooper was strong evidence.

 

[Recidivist]

He wouldn't be barred. Son of Sam law was overturned. But if he is convicted the court can assess damages to be paid to family of the victims.

I actually would take issue with Merritt's counsel making some financial arrangement around the documentary. I don't know if the the California bar disallows this type of thing, but I don't like it. Feels like a conflict of interest issue, to me.

Woot. I actually agree with you. I took some time last night to read up on the Son of Sam Law, and came away thinking the same as you. I do hope the McStay and Aranda family goes after him, and he not benefit any further from this tragedy of his making.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Thanks for the explanation

I know we don’t agree on anything but this is my first trial to watch so I was not aware of this and it’s always good to learn.

JMarsh is correct, but most judges I have seen don't layout as much evidence as this judge did about this case.

It was one of the best, and clearest detailed rulings I've seen when supporting why the case would not be dismissed.

ETA. It has nothing to do with probable cause though. That was met along time ago when the judge ruled this case had enough probable cause at THAT time for it to proceed forward..

That was met way before the ruling the judge did about not dismissing the case.