CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #14

[smr]

Can someone fill me in on the schedule again. I remember seeing the schedule. Is there no court til April 4th as of now? When can we expect more audio videos being uploaded?

I think tomorrow morning half day hearing.

 

[QueenBofOB]

I'm reading Pt.17 of the transcripts and how "interesting," that CM is crying poor to the investigators, even telling a sad story of how "hard" this lack of $ is on CJ.
He lies constantly. About everything.

 

[smr]

He lies constantly. About everything.

No one could possibly know whether he lies about everything except himself.

 

[mothwings]

I think there is no question this is what everyone watching this trial is in agreement with everyone else (except for the killers themselves). The difference is in who one believes to be the murderer(s). Therefore, if one is not committed in saying Chase is evil and belongs to hell, that is only because one is not convinced Chase was the murderer, not that one does not want the murderer to go to hell or one does not care about the family.

This case is even more brutal if you don't believe there is a hell.

Trials more tense knowing what is at stake.

Acquittals more inclined to nausea.

Alas, that is life.

 

[smr]

Acquittals more inclined to nausea.

True for those who are convinced CM is the murderer.

 

[missy1974]

I think there is no question this is what everyone watching this trial is in agreement with everyone else on (except for the killers themselves). The difference is in who one believes to be the murderer(s). Therefore, if one is not committed in saying Chase is evil and belongs to hell, that is only because one is not convinced Chase was the murderer, not that one does not want the murderer to go to hell or one does not care about the family.

At this point, I am not sure I will ever be sure. I wish I was sure, then I'm sure it would be easier in my own mind to just believe he is evil and everything he does and says is evil. I am just not sure. I'm happy it's not me that will have to make that decision, that is about the only thing I am sure of

 

[missy1974]

Can someone fill me in on the schedule again. I remember seeing the schedule. Is there no court til April 4th as of now? When can we expect more audio videos being uploaded?

I believe there is testimony in the morning tomorrow, no jury in the afternoon, but a hearing with Beasley, the defense CSI guy, I think it's about the blood spatter as the prosecution has filed a motion to exclude that part of his testimony IIRC. As far as we know, testimony on Thursday as well.

 

[smr]

I am not sure I will ever be sure.

Or maybe you are sure that you will never be sure.

 

[Karinna]

At this point, I am not sure I will ever be sure. I wish I was sure, then I'm sure it would be easier in my own mind to just believe he is evil and everything he does and says is evil. I am just not sure. I'm happy it's not me that will have to make that decision, that is about the only thing I am sure of

In any trial i have watched there is never 100% certainty if a defendant is absolutely guilty as charged. Unless there is a video tape of them actually committing the crime, the case has to be weighed on the preponderance of evidence presented for a Jury to deliberate with.
Beyond a reasonable doubt, doesn't mean without any doubt whatsoever.
IMO the LE got the right perp. in this case from what i have read so far.

 

[katydid23]

No one could possibly know whether he lies about everything except himself.

Really? You don’t think it is possible for others to know that he’s lying about things?

How did he get so many customers and coworkers writing about his lying and stealing on Rip Off Reports if others didn’t recognize him as a liar?

 

[mrjitty]

That is, to a certain degree, true. However, we are talking about a family that suddenly vanished for no apparently reason, where foul play was likely, which, I assume, is not the case when someone asked about your mother (God forbid).

What I think we can say is it revealed his internal frame of reference.

Over the course of the interview, he chose and used that tense repeatedly and freely without prompt.

Then we have to interpret why that was.

For instance, if LE were to ask "tell us about your business with Joey" and he answers "we had some great projects coming up" use of past tense there may only indicate he believes the projects are now lost.

For me is use of past tense is broader and more indicative that from his reference point Joey is not coming back.

 

[mrjitty]

@Tortoise

Spinning your transcript on it's head - its interesting what is not in there.

There isn't any future oriented stuff about a world where Joey comes back. He has not really been missing that long,

I would have expected more content from lived experience. Your business partner is missing. How are you coping with that? What are you doing to bridge the gap until he (hopefully) returns? There is no future oriented content.

Then I think this sentence has been hiding in plain sight ...

But I, my wife and I talked about it, and we decided you know what? this is just too important to put it off, even, even if it screws up my life a little bit, Joseph’s life is, is at stake it’s not like everything, it’s not like it’s, you know, a few days in jail or whatever it is, his life is at stake and that’s a lot more important than my little sh1it.

I have read this comment many times but never stopped to think about it till now. I get the idea. He wants to say Joey is more important than his own legal problem. But then he stumbles and doesn't use that kind of natural framing.

Joey's life is at stake? Not even conditional "may be be at stake"

This seems to be narrative building to me.

 

[mrjitty]

@Tortoise

This is also fascinating. Who told who where Starbucks was?

SF: You got there first?

CM: Yeah. Cos he, he called me and said um ‘what do you want to eat?’ ‘n I said I like Chick-fil-A and just like that he told me where the Starbucks was, told him where it was and I, I got there, I went over and got a Starbucks coffee and then went to Chick-fil-A.

It's s shame the detectives didn't have better interviewing skills. I realise they don't want to interrupt natural flows, but I do think they needed to circle back to drill down.

I see some obvious reasons why this is not an account from experiential memory and concealing of missing info.

Why does he correct being told where the Starbucks was?

Where is "there" that he gets to? IMO there is missing information here.

"I went over". What is meant by this? I think this speaking from a visual map here, but its strange all the detailed is stripped out.

I really wish they'd come back to this and asked drill down questions.

Where did you arrive at? What time was it? What did you eat? What was Joey wearing. When did Joey leave?

sigh.

 

[Niner]

Wednesday, April 3rd:
*Trial continues (Day 35)-Jurors-am/Other hearing-pm (@ 9:30am PT) - CA - McStay Family: Joseph (40), Summer (43), Gianni (4) & Joey Jr (3) (Feb. 4, 2010, Fallbrook; found Nov. 11, 2013) - *Charles "Chase" Ray Merritt (53 @ time of crime/now 60 (61 on 5/2)) arrested (11/5/14) & indicted (11/7/14) of 4 counts of murder with special circumstance; plead not guilty. DP case.
Trial started 1/7/19. Dark on all Fridays. 12 jurors & 6 alternates were finalized on Tuesday (12/11/18). 8 women & 4 men, while the alternates include 4 men & 2 women.
See Trial Days 1 (1/7/19) thru Day 34 (3/19/19) reference post #309 here:
CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #14
3/20/19 Update: Judge and counsel only. Re Status hearing re Subpoena duces tecum (Microsoft). Trial continues with jurors on 4/3.
3/25/19: Motion Filed: Non-Party Microsoft Corporation's Motion To Quash Defendants Subpoena Duces Tecum; Declaration Of Amanda Murray In Support Of Non Party Microsoft Corporation; Motion To Quash Defendants Subpoena Duces Tecum. Will be heard on April 11.
3/26/19 Update: Today's hearing (6 mins long) dealing with defense response to subpoenas from state for interviews with Merritt conducted by documentary crew. Prosecutor Melissa Rodriguez said the defense filed an additional response "under seal", hearing delayed to April 11.
3/27/19 Update: Pros filed an additional motion (at some point I'm not sure when) to exclude some of the testing and testimony of Beasley, and Pros still has not received all of the discovery, defense can't respond to pros without knowing what his report is, he will put the footage on a thumb drive and give it to the pros, pros motion will be heard April 3rd pm. Jury will hear testimony in am.


Schedule for week of April 1st to 5th: DARK on April 1 (Monday) and April 2 (Tuesday). April 3 (Wednesday)-Morning session only for jurors. Afternoon session Motion hearing re testimony of Beasley. Court on April 4 (Thursday). DARK on April 4 (Friday).
Schedule for week of April 8th to 12th: Court on April 8 (Monday), April 9 (Tuesday), and April 10 (Wednesday). April 11 (Thursday)-NO jurors-Other hearing: Microsoft & Google Motion to Quash Defendants Subpoena Duces Tecum & Documentary crew interview w/Merritt. DARK on April 12 (Friday). Jurors informed they should have the case by end of April.

 

[missy1974]

@Tortoise

This is also fascinating. Who told who where Starbucks was?



It's s shame the detectives didn't have better interviewing skills. I realise they don't want to interrupt natural flows, but I do think they needed to circle back to drill down.

I see some obvious reasons why this is not an account from experiential memory and concealing of missing info.

Why does he correct being told where the Starbucks was?

Where is "there" that he gets to? IMO there is missing information here.

"I went over". What is meant by this? I think this speaking from a visual map here, but its strange all the detailed is stripped out.

I really wish they'd come back to this and asked drill down questions.

Where did you arrive at? What time was it? What did you eat? What was Joey wearing. When did Joey leave?

sigh.

I am not trying to be critical at all because I appreciate the transcriptions, but if they are going to be analyzed word for word, you should be sure that it is what it says first. What you quoted above is IMO not what is said in the interview.

That excerpt can be found at 1:19:30 of Day 10 Part 3

The way I hear it is:

He called me and said um, where do you want to eat? I said I like Chick-Fil-A, just like I was telling you where the Starbucks was, told him where it was and I probably got there, I went over and got a Starbucks coffee and then went to Chick-Fil-A. 10 minutes later, he, Joseph got there.

BBM is what I hear differently or what is missing from the transcription.

Earlier in that same video (at 52:50), Dugal is on the phone and Fiske asks him where Chick-fil-A is and where it is in relation to the Wendy's and Starbucks, his answer is inaudible... and again at 57:30ish, Fiske makes a comment 'at the same complex we used the restrooms at the Wendy's' (which the Chick-Fil-A is not near Wendy/Starbucks, but it's within minutes according to google)

*I just want to note that Tortoise does say 'Once again please note this is based on my interpretation of the audio and may contain errors' So I think it's important to keep that in mind when picking it apart, it's always good to listen or double check before reading too much into it, one word can change the meaning, one missing word can change it, and taking one statement, not in context can change it. JMO

 

[mrjitty]

I am not trying to be critical at all because I appreciate the transcriptions, but if they are going to be analyzed word for word, you should be sure that it is what it says first. What you quoted above is IMO not what is said in the interview.

That excerpt can be found at 1:19:30 of Day 10 Part 3

The way I hear it is:

He called me and said um, where do you want to eat? I said I like Chick-Fil-A, just like I was telling you where the Starbucks was, told him where it was and I probably got there, I went over and got a Starbucks coffee and then went to Chick-Fil-A. 10 minutes later, he, Joseph got there.

BBM is what I hear differently or what is missing from the transcription.

Fair point.

Although I am not sure it improves his answer a great deal.

The 10 mins later bit is not missing - it's in T's next section

 

[mrjitty]

@Tortoise

Listening to the tape - I found this which seems to be a major slip up

TD: And February 4th was the last time you talked?

CM: Absolute the last time I talked to him, the last time I talked to him was, was on that, the last time I talked to him he left here, went home,

TD: Chick-fil-A

CM: Right​

Unfortunately DuGal corrects the mistake for him? But seeing they are not sitting in CFA "here" seems to be a major slip?

Unless "here" means the Rancho Cucamonga area generally?

This is a great example of why you should let the witness speak and not interrupt!

 

[mrjitty]

And related to that

SF: Were you, ok help me out, when you arrived was he there?

CM: No. No,

SF: Did you get there first?

CM: This is down in Rancho Cucamonga

SF: Correct. When you, who left there first? you were there…

CM: Errrrrr, me.

SF: You got there first?

CM: Yeah.​

Why does he need to ask which location is being referred to?

 

[Niner]

@Tortoise

Listening to the tape - I found this which seems to be a major slip up

TD: And February 4th was the last time you talked?

CM: Absolute the last time I talked to him, the last time I talked to him was, was on that, the last time I talked to him he left here, went home,

TD: Chick-fil-A

CM: Right​

Unfortunately DuGal corrects the mistake for him? But seeing they are not sitting in CFA "here" seems to be a major slip?

Unless "here" means the Rancho Cucamonga area generally?

This is a great example of why you should let the witness speak and not interrupt!

I was going to post the same thing - on he left here.... here to me would be his apt. complex.....

 

[mrjitty]

@Force Ten or anyone else

As locals - what might "down in Rancho Cucamonga" mean with reference to the apartment complex?

In the interview, Chase seems to say CFA was only 6 blocks away