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

[JMarsh]

Oh, so you think Chase is unpopular because he is too honest?

Yes. I do.

 

[fridaybaker]

If they were lured out Friday morning, then wouldn't you expect to see a late night/early morning call on JM's phone log? Or is (as you say, DK) going to risk him or his car being seen during daylight at the McStay house? Plus, JM ALWAYS started his calls early... where are his calls from 2/5/2010?

MOO

delete

 

[Karinna]

Karinna, the theory from the DT about the DNA is that it is "transfer" DNA: That the "paintballing" session some time previous, wherein JM and CM drove to/from the session together, Chase sitting in the passenger seat, didn't produce any DNA results (i.e. the on the passenger side of the Trooper) because that "direct" DNA was left, well, some time ago and would have degraded by the time the Trooper was tested.

The places where the DNA was found was much more consistent with being the driver of the Trooper, and was characterized as "Major contributor" =JM; "Minor contributor" = CM; and "Trace contributor" =SM. DT's theory is that this trace DNA from Chase was likely from a handshake or such with Joey very near the time of the disappearance, such as the "lunch meeting at Chik Fil-A".

I think, though, that there are so, so many problems with the whole DNA picture. Firstly, I'm not entirely sure that the steering/driver's side couldn't have been wiped, but not well, which could have resulted in some skewed results in terms of "major/minor/trace. In other words, could it have been wiped, not only not completely, but unevenly?

Also, there is absolutely no evidence that there was ever a handshake between the two. The idea is completely cut out of whole cloth. In fact, many of us have a hard time believing that, if the meeting did indeed happen, it would have ended with a handshake, given the emails/QB/check issues.

There are so many other things, but I do think in this kind of case, where the defendant is well-known to, and has spent much time around the victims and even inside the victims' home, DNA is fairly useless. Not always, of course, but any and every defendant in such a case can claim he "shook hands", etc. with the victim.

Unfortunately, we live more and more in a culture where the "science" is relied upon very heavily. However, as everyone knows, "science" is evolving all the time. It seems in the case of DNA, the results are becoming so exact as to start to become less reliable in some ways, rather than more reliable!

At any rate, in THIS case, I don't put too much stock in the DNA results. Just my opinion.

Thankyou for your post, and what you say is very logical, IMO.

 

[JMarsh]

Thankyou for your post, and what you say is very logical, IMO.

"Logical" but factually inaccurate.

At some point real science has to matter, otherwise we would be forced to prosecute people based on what we feel about them? Oh wait, That's happening now.

 

[Karinna]

Delete

 

[Recidivist]

Yes. I do.

That is a unique perspective on the situation. I think a lot of people feel Chase is unpopular because they believe that he disintegrated the skulls of two babies,, along with their loving parents with a sledgehammer, and then tossed them in the desert to rot.

 

[JMarsh]

That is a unique perspective on the situation. I think a lot of people feel Chase is unpopular because they believe that he disintegrated the skulls of two babies,, along with their loving parents with a sledgehammer, and then tossed them in the desert to rot.

Are you qualified to speak to what "most" people believe? I'm not even sure anyone can make that assessment for this forum alone. I detect lurkers, even here. Who knows what they believe?

I think it's best if we speak for ourselves, right?

 

[Recidivist]

Are you qualified to speak to what "most" people believe? I'm not even sure anyone can make that assessment for this forum alone. I detect lurkers, even here. Who knows what they believe?

I think it's best if we speak for ourselves, right?

Sure, there may be a multitude of folks who feel Chase is in this situation because he is too honest. I'm not one of them.

 

[wary]

Are you qualified to speak to what "most" people believe? I'm not even sure anyone can make that assessment for this forum alone. I detect lurkers, even here. Who knows what they believe?

I think it's best if we speak for ourselves, right?

So, when you said that CM was unpopular because he was too honest, you were speaking only for yourself, right?

 

[fridaybaker]

Are you suggesting speculation based on pure conjecture is more reliable than theories based on vetted science?

There are absolutely times when we can't be certain, but science at least has a foundation that has been proven reliable.

I'm not sure what you mean? I haven't said anything about "speculation based on pure conjecture is more reliable than theories based on vetted science".

I thought I was pretty clear in my post, so I'm not sure what to add to clarify, but I will try: Science is always evolving, so that some things become more refined; others disproven over time, etc. I don't have the time to go back and look through the old posts to re-discuss some of what was discussed earlier; that being that continued "refinement" of DNA can actually, in some ways, make it LESS reliable, rather than MORE reliable.

However, that is just one example. The thrust of my comment was that our culture relies ever more heavily on "science", which is always changing! Things that are accepted as truth one day are disproven or changed on another.

Ballistics is one area in which this is the case. It used to be considered settled "science", and had been for years relied upon in court. Now, not so much. It's actually quite controversial. Patterns of arson is another example. At any rate, I don't think any of this is news to anyone who has followed any science over the years. Try nutrition! "Dietary cholesterol bad". "Well, no -not bad"....Etc. ,etc., etc.

As for speculation as regards this case, I think what many here call "speculation" is what others, including the judge and prosecution, call proper and reasonable "inference" from various bits of evidence. What we see as "speculation" is what the DT talks about, often without having evidence to back up -they throw it out so the jury can hear it and be influenced by it, but it's not really "evidence", in that it isn't properly introduced into court, so that it can be tested in front of the court.

That would require our Dear Chase to actually state it and allow himself to be cross examined about it. Not ever going to happen, in my book, because our dear father figure and all-around-wonderful defendant, couldn't withstand said cross.

My opinion.

 

[JMarsh]

Sure, there may be a multitude of folks who feel Chase is in this situation because he is too honest. I'm not one of them.

Right. You don't feel that way. And I completely respect that. But you do recognize others may feel differently.

 

[JMarsh]

I'm not sure what you mean? I haven't said anything about "speculation based on pure conjecture is more reliable than theories based on vetted science".

I thought I was pretty clear in my post, so I'm not sure what to add to clarify, but I will try: Science is always evolving, so that some things become more refined; others disproven over time, etc. I don't have the time to go back and look through the old posts to re-discuss some of what was discussed earlier; that being that continued "refinement" of DNA can actually, in some ways, make it LESS reliable, rather than MORE reliable.

However, that is just one example. The thrust of my comment was that our culture relies ever more heavily on "science", which is always changing! Things that are accepted as truth one day are disproven or changed on another.

Ballistics is one area in which this is the case. It used to be considered settled "science", and had been for years relied upon in court. Now, not so much. It's actually quite controversial. Patterns of arson is another example. At any rate, I don't think any of this is news to anyone who has followed any science over the years. Try nutrition! "Dietary cholesterol bad". "Well, no -not bad"....Etc. ,etc., etc.

As for speculation as regards this case, I think what many here call "speculation" is what others, including the judge and prosecution, call proper and reasonable "inference" from various bits of evidence. What we see as "speculation" is what the DT talks about, without ever having evidence to back up -they throw it out so the jury can hear it and be influenced by it, but it's not really "evidence", in that it isn't properly introduced into court, so that it can be tested in front of the court.

That would require our Dear Chase to actually state it and allow himself to be cross examined about it. Not every going to happen, in my book, because our dear father figure and all-around-wonderful defendant, couldn't withstand said cross.

My opinion.

I'm sorry. There was zero science in your post. It was entirely conjecture.

 

[JMarsh]

So, when you said that CM was unpopular because he was too honest, you were speaking only for yourself, right?

I'm saying that this is my opinion. But my opinion is also that this may have made him a target of the investigation.

 

[Recidivist]

Right. You don't feel that way. And I completely respect that. But you do recognize others may feel differently.

I respect you too. I do realize there are different opinions. But suggesting Chase is honest is really a stretch, imo... of course.

 

[JMarsh]

I respect you too. I do realize there are different opinions. But suggesting Chase is honest is really a stretch, imo... of course.

Do you think Chase was lying when he said the things he did about Summer and DK?

 

[Cricket28]

It's nonsense

What always happens is that counsel plays only an excerpt.

I'm sure there are many places in that interview where CM will not come across as believable and law-abiding. I don't think the defense is going to play even a fraction of those 8 hours.

MOO

 

[smr]

It would be really exciting to have a testimony on April 1.

 

[Cricket28]

Exactly - it highlights the process of exhibiting vs the process of testimony

Generally a big trial will have voluminous exhibits. So for example, there could be hundreds of pages of phone records. We can't see all these but the jury has them.

But then if you want to discuss what the exhibit means, you have to call a witness who can talk about it in front of the jury. The only other place counsel can interpret exhibits is in opening and closing. Counsel is not allowed to give testimony by proxy(despite what we see in this trial).

So in the present case, the State exhibits the interview. The state can then play snippets (as it has). The state could also call the interviewing detective to discuss the interview and talk the jury through key moments as it happened (direct witness).

So in this case defence counsel has a problem.

He would like to give the defendants complete story but he does not want the defendant to testify. He can play parts of the interview for the jury, but he cannot call any witness to interpret.

So his idea is to play all 8 hrs as a default testimony based on interview from years ago, but which counsel cannot cross on todays knowledge.

Of course the Judge should not allow this and simply say to counsel that the complete transcript can be exhibited.

Ohhh. Ok. Makes sense.

 

[Mica]

From the Court Portal....

 

[mrjitty]

Karinna, the theory from the DT about the DNA is that it is "transfer" DNA: That the "paintballing" session some time previous, wherein JM and CM drove to/from the session together, Chase sitting in the passenger seat, didn't produce any DNA results (i.e. the on the passenger side of the Trooper) because that "direct" DNA was left, well, some time ago and would have degraded by the time the Trooper was tested.

The places where the DNA was found was much more consistent with being the driver of the Trooper, and was characterized as "Major contributor" =JM; "Minor contributor" = CM; and "Trace contributor" =SM. DT's theory is that this trace DNA from Chase was likely from a handshake or such with Joey very near the time of the disappearance, such as the "lunch meeting at Chik Fil-A".

I think, though, that there are so, so many problems with the whole DNA picture. Firstly, I'm not entirely sure that the steering/driver's side couldn't have been wiped, but not well, which could have resulted in some skewed results in terms of "major/minor/trace. In other words, could it have been wiped, not only not completely, but unevenly?

Also, there is absolutely no evidence that there was ever a handshake between the two. The idea is completely cut out of whole cloth. In fact, many of us have a hard time believing that, if the meeting did indeed happen, it would have ended with a handshake, given the emails/QB/check issues.

There are so many other things, but I do think in this kind of case, where the defendant is well-known to, and has spent much time around the victims and even inside the victims' home, DNA is fairly useless. Not always, of course, but any and every defendant in such a case can claim he "shook hands", etc. with the victim.

Unfortunately, we live more and more in a culture where the "science" is relied upon very heavily. However, as everyone knows, "science" is evolving all the time. It seems in the case of DNA, the results are becoming so exact as to start to become less reliable in some ways, rather than more reliable!

At any rate, in THIS case, I don't put too much stock in the DNA results. Just my opinion.

An obvious addendum to all this is if you accept that the killer was known to the victims, then the killer likely wore gloves when he drove the trooper

This would explain why a "Major contributor" from the killer was not found.

Chase slipped up. Probably trace DNA on his glove or something like that.