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

[fridaybaker]

I'm still hoping someone can explain what "benign" DNA is.

I can't speak for Ocean, but I interpreted it to mean "non-incriminating".

 

[Cricket28]

A great way to learn about DNA is through the exhibits Kathleen Zellner published with her motions for the Steven Avery case. I'll get a link for those, or Missy may have one handy.

We don't always leave DNA. And no one, to my knowledge can say conclusively, why we sometimes leave it and sometimes we don't. Hygiene, it seems, can be a factor. So if you wash your hands a lot, you will likely leave less DNA than someone who rarely washes their hands.

What I suspect in the encounter between Joey and Chase on the 4th is, that before eating lunch that day both men washed their hands. So DNA from others they touched would either have been diminished or washed off.

They had a lunch that lasted a few hours, it would seem. And in that time they may have touched their face, or wiped their hands on pants, built up perspiration, who knows. At the end of the lunch they shake hands, or bro-hug, or pass off an object to each other. Say, Joey hands Chase checks, Chase hands Joey a cup, or paperwork-this may never be known for certain.

Joey gets in his Trooper, now Chase's DNA is on his hands, and there is just enough for DNA to be left primarily on the steering wheel, in slight amounts on other objects. And again, because we don't always leave DNA, not everything Joey touches gets DNA on it (one of the reports I posted mentions that the more pressure applied to an object, the more DNA left). This theory would explain why there is substantially more DNA left on the steering wheel, because when driving that is where the driver would place the most pressure.

There was the question as to why when Chase was in the Trooper 6 weeks prior, his DNA was not left on the passenger side of the Trooper. That could be because he was in one of those paint-ball outfits, and kept his gloves on. Or again, after playing paint ball he relieved himself, and washed his hands just prior to getting in the Trooper.

Lots of variables with this stuff.

I still wonder why there wasn't any fingerprint evidence.
It would have been interesting if LE swabbed CM's truck when the Trooper was swabbed....to compare results.

MOO

 

[JMarsh]

I still wonder why there wasn't any fingerprint evidence.
It would have been interesting if LE swabbed CM's truck when the Trooper was swabbed....to compare results.

MOO

Chase was on probation when the family went missing, I wonder why his truck wasn't searched then. They could have done this without a warrant, I think. And I don't get the sense that they even asked to do this.

That would have settled a lot of questions, right then and there.

 

[Cricket28]

I think the only thing to come of it, was that Chase took another at least almost $16000.00 from Susan Blake.

I hope CJ has been paying attention, with a calculator in her hand.

 

[fridaybaker]

delete -responding to wrong post.

 

[mrjitty]

I hope CJ has been paying attention, with a calculator in her hand.

What i find fascinating is she pours her heart out to CM and gets back monosyllabic answers.

Amazing she can't see how lacking in empathy he is.

Is there really a human in there?

 

[fridaybaker]

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?

Totally disagree. Firstly, you have misquoted this poster, who posted "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."...

This is completely legitimate. It's that poster's opinion, and mine as well. And yes, I believe there are others here who share it -is it really indiscernable, after the hundred of posts here that there are quite a few folks who hold that or something quite similar? Really? Why the argument?

Am I, or that poster, not qualified to make a judgement based on hundreds of posts here that we "think" there are lot's of people who believe something. You are free to disagree with it, but why the dressing down, so to speak?????

 

[Cricket28]

I must say I find Cali procedure bizarre

I don't get why the defence can call Susan again when they already had opportunity to X

But aren't you only allowed to ask questions in cross examination that pertain to the questions asked on direct? Or do I have that wrong?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I'm still hoping someone can explain what "benign" DNA is.

Sure.

What I meant is the defense is claiming CMs DNA being in the Trooper was merely from transfer for benign reasons (claiming it was just from an unverified, totally unsupported handshake) instead of it being found because of nefarious reasons.

Instead of it really showing he was inside the Trooper on the driver's side because he drove it to the border they choose the benign reason of a handshake, instead of nefarious reasons why it's been found there.

But of course they want the jury to also believe the DNA trace evidence in the graves was not mere transfer because of benign reasons, but wants the jury to believe that trace evidence means those are the true killers' DNA.

They want to have it mean two entirely different things.

1. CMs? Aw shucks it only happened because Joey shook the hand of the man who had been stealimg from him. I'm sure all victims do that when dealing with criminals!! Just kidding!!! Just kidding!

2. Now they are reversing their positions entirely.

The trace DNA found at the graves now all of a sudden, means everything, which is the total opposite of what they want the jury to believe about CMs DNA being found in the very vehicle belonging to the murder victims. The same vehicle we all know was driven to the border.

Those two opposing positions will fall flat. Imo they want to have it both ways, and IMO the jury will pick up on that in a nano second.

 

[JMarsh]

Totally disagree. Firstly, you have misquoted this poster, who posted "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."...

This is completely legitimate. It's that poster's opinion, and mine as well. And yes, I believe there are others here who share it -is it really indiscernable, after the hundred of posts here that there are quite a few folks who hold that or something quite similar? Really? Why the argument?

Am I, or that poster, not qualified to make a judgement based on hundreds of posts here that we "think" there are lot's of people who believe something. You are free to disagree with it, but why the dressing down, so to speak?????

Again, no science incorporated here. If one is going to say that "most" people feel a certain way, a poll is in order. Unless you can show evidence to support your claim.

 

[Mony Mony]

I still wonder why there wasn't any fingerprint evidence.
It would have been interesting if LE swabbed CM's truck when the Trooper was swabbed....to compare results.

MOO

Per the linked article, fingerprints can deteriorate rather quickly. Also, temperature can affect the quality of the prints. And from personal experience, if the surface is too dusty or dirty, a print can be very difficult to obtain (Had a burglary at my home once, and the window sill was super dirty, cop said cannot lift anything off of it due to the dirt, dust, and grime)

UCSB Science Line

 

[JMarsh]

Sure.

What I meant is the defense is claiming CMs DNA being in the Trooper was merely from transfer for benign reasons (claiming it was just from an unverified, totally unsupported handshake) instead of it being found because of nefarious reasons.

Instead of it really shows he was inside the Trooper on the driver's side because he drove it to the border they choose the benign reason of a handshake, instead of nefarious reasons why it's been found there.

But of course they want the jury to also believe the DNA trace evidence in the graves was not mere transfer because of benign reasons, but wants the jury to believe that trace evidence means those are the true killers' DNA.

They want to have it mean two entirely different things.

1. CMs? Aw shucks it only happened because Joey shook the hand of the man who had been stealimg from him. I'm sure all victims do that when dealing with criminals!! Just kidding!!! Just kidding!

2. Now they are reversing their positions entirely.

The trace DNA found at the graves now all of a sudden, means everything, which is the total opposite of what they want the jury to believe about CMs DNA being found in the very vehicle belonging to the murder victims. The same vehicle we all know was driven to the border.

Those two opposing positions will fall flat. Imo they want to have it both ways, and IMO the jury will pick up on that in a nano second.

And how would we know this, one way or the other, for certain?

 

[Mony Mony]

Delete

 

[JMarsh]

But aren't you only allowed to ask questions in cross examination that pertain to the questions asked on direct? Or do I have that wrong?

An attorney is not limited on cross to what was asked on direct.

 

[asyousay]

Really?

Have you watched the documentary?

No but I am British so know all about the case as it’s been shoved down our throats since it happened and unless you are implying the Mcstays were abandoning their children night after night to go to go and have dinner and drink. Then refuse to answer important questions about said “abduction” then it has no bearing on this case.

 

[Cricket28]

That Joey was looking to start his own warehouse, basically excluding Metro Sheet Metal, and getting rid of Dan completely is huge. That is new, and that seems very important because it might even expand the pool of suspects.

And considering Joe Sequieda's testimony that his father called Joey a thief , with the above, also adds a bit of intrigue.

Azusa (MSM) is almost 2 hrs from Fallbrook...so the fact that JM wanted something more in his backyard was not a big deal. Especially if Sequieda was giving him a hard time about how much JM sold the fountains for. As far as getting rid of Dan, that is not new information. IMO

In fact, now I am more convinced than ever that Joey was also on the road to severing ties with CM. IMO, JM wanted to set up a local shop and leave major headaches (CM, DK, MSM) behind.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

Again, no science incorporated here. If one is going to say that "most" people feel a certain way, a poll is in order. Unless you can show evidence to support your claim.

He said "a lot" not most

Please don't misquote.

 

[JMarsh]

No but I am British so know all about the case as it’s been shoved down our throats since it happened and unless you are implying the Mcstays were abandoning their children night after night to go to go and have dinner and drink. Then refuse to answer important questions about said “abduction” then it has no bearing on this case.

Unfortunately it is impossible to really have this discussion if you haven't watched the Netflix documentary, because that documentary looks at more than the disappearance. It examines the court of public opinion, among other issues relevant to this case.

 

[JMarsh]

Azusa (MSM) is almost 2 hrs from Fallbrook...so the fact that JM wanted something more in his backyard was not a big deal. Especially if Sequieda was giving him a hard time about how much JM sold the fountains for. As far as getting rid of Dan, that is not new information. IMO

In fact, now I am more convinced than ever that Joey was also on the road to severing ties with CM. IMO, JM wanted to set up a local shop and leave major headaches (CM, DK, MSM) behind.

MOO

No. The news was not surprising, but it was new. What are the objective, verifiable indications that Joey was severing ties with Chase?

 

[Cricket28]

I think it's interesting that the defense is interested in the table.

If Chase didn't do it, what do they care about proving where the blood was shed?

It seems they must think it's proven Chase was in the house!

JMO

You're right. The defense's "theory" is the family was not killed in the house. Maybe they're afraid some of Chase's blood is on the table.
He did have a sliced hand right after Feb 4.

MOO

 

[JMarsh]

You're right. The defense's "theory" is the family was not killed in the house. Maybe they're afraid some of Chase's blood is on the table.
He did have a sliced hand right after Feb 4.

MOO

Or perhaps the defense would like to locate and test that table to settle the matter once and for all.