CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #15

[Force Ten]

My point is that you can't fault the defense for not testing something with a method that the State clearly has the ability to do as well. Whether they think it will work or not. They are the one's that have to prove he is guilty.

I don't think there is going to be any denying that they found some sort of DNA that swabbing didn't find, or it found more where the swabbing also found low levels of DNA. The question will be what that DNA means, and that will be left up for debate IMO

I really don't understand the logic that they didn't test the sledgehammer because Merritt's DNA might have been on it, how were they so confident in testing any of the evidence found in the grave then? Why even try? Would have been easier to argue that the State could have tried with their own MVac machine and didn't then they tried and got some DNA.

The presence of the mystery DNA doesn't prove Chase is innocent of the murders either so it's all moot imo. Chase's DNA is in the truck, where it shouldn't be, and hypothetically, in the QB, where it shouldn't be. Much greater inferences can be drawn from this than whether or not a highly experienced technician didn't perform a particular test.

It's almost like asking "Why wasn't there a second opinion seeked out?". Because none was needed.

 

[Force Ten]

Weren't Joey and Summer moving the car seats around the vehicles? Weren't the toys found in the Trooper? IMO, unless they submit proof Summer did not drive the Trooper, I will have a hard time believing she did not drive the Trooper. MOO.

Also, surely Joey touched the same household items as Summer. The defense is throwing out the whole "touch DNA" story. Joey and Summer lived in the same house. I am guessing Joey would have touched the same doorknobs, refrigerator handles, hand towels, etc. MOO if the defense wants to present the (ridiculous) "touch DNA" theory, then it would apply to Summer and Joey and their household items as well.

MOO, IMO, etc etc.

Very good point. If we were to go with the touch DNA theory as to Chase's being placed by, Summer's should be showing up in these places as minor, not trace. Joseph obviously had far more contact with Summer than Chase.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

From the article:
But after reviewing 4,500 pages of investigative records, executing 60 search warrants and conducting 200 interviews, investigators zeroed in on Merritt, concluding he had acted alone in killing the family in their own home, San Bernardino authorities said.

Also, still takes my breath away to see those photos of the family.

Thank you for showing exactly what was said about Merritt. The prior excerpt of the link was a little confusing to me, since that was only a belief at the time, when they were found, and not what the ongoing investigation actually uncovered.

They sure did a thorough investigation. Wow. Good for them.

I remember when the 4 WDC victims were first found murdered, that police department also felt at that time, there was more than one involved in committing the 4 murders.

What LE thinks or believes for a time is not based on evidence, but just a mere feeling at that time. But once they throughly investigated that case, they came to the determination that only Daron Wint carried out the 4 murders on his own.

Imo, this is exactly what happened in this case as well. Once all of the evidence had been collected, and a long thorough investigation done, it showed the sole prepetrator was Charles Merritt, and no one else was involved.

Imo

 

[mrjitty]

This is yet more defense strategy of smoke and mirrors.

If we understand that trial lawyers always work to the maxim of never asking a question that they don't already know the answer to, the same most definitely applies to the DNA testing.

McGee has to have accepted the likelihood that Merritt is guilty.

He needs to create the illusion that they are so confident his DNA would not be in the graves that they threw caution to the wind and allowed Suzanna Ryan to do her best to get them some identifiable results. But her lab wasn't even accredited. In many ways it's a sign that the defense trusted the work of Donald Jones. As regards the amplification process I think quite probably useless in is useless amplified. Suzanna Ryan can't say when the DNA got there. Summer's own DNA wasn't on her own underwear and bra. It was always going to be a futile exercise and that's why McGee took it on - someone who touched her underwear fleetingly would leave traces of their DNA behind but she as the wearer and the body that decomposed on the garments wouldn't.

It's all good though - the evidence must withstand scrutiny from every angle. When the verdict comes back which I hope is going to be guilty, we never know what a jury or juror will do, the more mud the defense has thrown at it and the jury has rejected the better.

ALL MOO JMO IMO (with low-level DNA and alleles understanding).

yep.

But her lab wasn't even accredited.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

But her lab wasn't even accredited.

This should have been brought up over and over on cross. I know most here think the prosecution is doing a good job, but I really don’t think they are. The cross examination of this witness is a prime example. He got facts wrong, misunderstood her testimony, and dwelled on inconsequential points. IMO.
I am going to go out on a limb right now and predict they do not get a guilty verdict. It will be quite unfortunate because I think if they would have laid the case out in a more organized manner, prepared their witnesses better, and focused on the strengths of the case, I think they could have done well. Of course the intermittency of trial days is working against them too.

 

[Karinna]

This should have been brought up over and over on cross. I know most here think the prosecution is doing a good job, but I really don’t think they are. The cross examination of this witness is a prime example. He got facts wrong, misunderstood her testimony, and dwelled on inconsequential points. IMO.
I am going to go out on a limb right now and predict they do not get a guilty verdict. It will be quite unfortunate because I think if they would have laid the case out in a more organized manner, prepared their witnesses better, and focused on the strengths of the case, I think they could have done well. Of course the intermittency of trial days is working against them too.

RSBM from @ missy's post #487, page 25
Although it sounds like she is capable of doing the testing and interpreting some of it, she didn't do that (her lab wasn't accredited at the time). She was quite honest about not knowing enough to testify about probabilistic genotyping and Cybergenetics, but she stated she referred the defense to them in case there was more that could be done, which was part of her job, being a consultant.

 

[Karinna]

Thank you for showing exactly what was said about Merritt. The prior excerpt of the link was a little confusing to me, since that was only a belief at the time, when they were found, and not what the ongoing investigation actually uncovered.

They sure did a thorough investigation. Wow. Good for them.

I remember when the 4 WDC victims were first found murdered, that police department also felt at that time, there was more than one involved in committing the 4 murders.

What LE thinks or believes for a time is not based on evidence, but just a mere feeling at that time. But once they throughly investigated that case, they came to the determination that only Daron Wint carried out the 4 murders on his own.

Imo, this is exactly what happened in this case as well. Once all of the evidence had been collected, and a long thorough investigation done, it showed the sole prepetrator was Charles Merritt, and no one else was involved.

Imo

I agree they did a long & thorough investigation to find the perpetrator of the murders of the McStay family.
If CM had any help at all he is not saying, and it looks like the investigation found no evidence of anyone else involved.

 

[missy1974]

This should have been brought up over and over on cross. I know most here think the prosecution is doing a good job, but I really don’t think they are. The cross examination of this witness is a prime example. He got facts wrong, misunderstood her testimony, and dwelled on inconsequential points. IMO.
I am going to go out on a limb right now and predict they do not get a guilty verdict. It will be quite unfortunate because I think if they would have laid the case out in a more organized manner, prepared their witnesses better, and focused on the strengths of the case, I think they could have done well. Of course the intermittency of trial days is working against them too.

Her serology lab wasn't accredited at the time... why bring it up over and over? That is the reason she sent the samples to Bode.

I have to agree with you on the questioning though. I was surprised again by some of the questioning. Never ask a question you don't know the answer to, right? He asked a question about one of the red straps... There wasn't any DNA on A25, right? she checks her notes and says, actually there was low level DNA.. he says 'oh', and then says 'well, was there a strap that didn't have DNA? She says 'that would have been E12' or something lol He also asked her about Jones' technique, which was putting the known sample (Merritt's) on the slide with the sample being looked at, which gave her the opportunity to say that it isn't the best method because it opens the door for contamination, which the defense could have got that out there, but I felt like they weren't attacking the results as much as they were adding to them with the MVac procedure and her opinion.

As for predictions... I never like to predict and it's not over yet.

 

[Texas Red]

I agree they did a long & thorough investigation to find the perpetrator of the murders of the McStay family.
If CM had any help at all he is not saying, and it looks like the investigation found no evidence of anyone else involved.

I agree, the investigation was definitely long but IMO, not thorough. Thorough as defined is “painstakingly careful and accurate, meticulous”. IMO, the quality of the investigation was the antonym of thorough, which is defined as “superficial, careless and partial”.

 

[Texas Red]

Her serology lab wasn't accredited at the time... why bring it up over and over? That is the reason she sent the samples to Bode.

I have to agree with you on the questioning though. I was surprised again by some of the questioning. Never ask a question you don't know the answer to, right? He asked a question about one of the red straps... There wasn't any DNA on A25, right? she checks her notes and says, actually there was low level DNA.. he says 'oh', and then says 'well, was there a strap that didn't have DNA? She says 'that would have been E12' or something lol He also asked her about Jones' technique, which was putting the known sample (Merritt's) on the slide with the sample being looked at, which gave her the opportunity to say that it isn't the best method because it opens the door for contamination, which the defense could have got that out there, but I felt like they weren't attacking the results as much as they were adding to them with the MVac procedure and her opinion.

As for predictions... I never like to predict and it's not over yet.

This is another example of a PT that's outclassed by the DT and in over their heads.
Somewhat like Marcia and Darden up against the dream team.

 

[Karinna]

Her serology lab wasn't accredited at the time... why bring it up over and over? That is the reason she sent the samples to Bode.

I have to agree with you on the questioning though. I was surprised again by some of the questioning. Never ask a question you don't know the answer to, right? He asked a question about one of the red straps... There wasn't any DNA on A25, right? she checks her notes and says, actually there was low level DNA.. he says 'oh', and then says 'well, was there a strap that didn't have DNA? She says 'that would have been E12' or something lol He also asked her about Jones' technique, which was putting the known sample (Merritt's) on the slide with the sample being looked at, which gave her the opportunity to say that it isn't the best method because it opens the door for contamination, which the defense could have got that out there, but I felt like they weren't attacking the results as much as they were adding to them with the MVac procedure and her opinion.

As for predictions... I never like to predict and it's not over yet.

I'm okay that the jury got the information about the non accreditation and the fact the samples were sent on for further test results. And as you say we have yet to hear the testimony for that with the expert witness that interpreted the results. Although i don't really know what will be gained from that?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Her serology lab wasn't accredited at the time... why bring it up over and over? That is the reason she sent the samples to Bode.

I have to agree with you on the questioning though. I was surprised again by some of the questioning. Never ask a question you don't know the answer to, right? He asked a question about one of the red straps... There wasn't any DNA on A25, right? she checks her notes and says, actually there was low level DNA.. he says 'oh', and then says 'well, was there a strap that didn't have DNA? She says 'that would have been E12' or something lol He also asked her about Jones' technique, which was putting the known sample (Merritt's) on the slide with the sample being looked at, which gave her the opportunity to say that it isn't the best method because it opens the door for contamination, which the defense could have got that out there, but I felt like they weren't attacking the results as much as they were adding to them with the MVac procedure and her opinion.

As for predictions... I never like to predict and it's not over yet.

Why was she even called if she wasnt accredited in the first place? That seems odd to me.

Why not just call an expert with accreditation to do all the testing, and result to begin with?

I do agree about predictions.

I'm certainly not of the belief there will be a full out NG.

I dont think it will even be a hung jury, but if it is it will widely favor the state, and they will quickly retry the case.

The state has so much to work with during their 2 part CA.

Imo that is when they will succinctly layout all of the evidence against CM for the jury.

Imo

 

[Karinna]

It will be interesting to find out what the mystery DNA was exactly that survived at the graves for 3+ years, whereas any other DNA didn't and wasn't detected?
Wonder what the nature of the mystery DNA is? Blood, skin cells, fingerprints, saliva, hair and whatever else it was that survived for such a long time?

 

[Karinna]

Why was she even called if she wasnt accredited in the first place? That seems odd to me.

Why not just call an expert with accreditation to do all the testing, and result to begin with?

I do agree about predictions.

I'm certainly not of the belief there will be a full out NG.

I dont think it will even be a hung jury, but if it is it will widely favor the state, and they will quickly retry the case.

The state has so much to work with during their 2 part CA.

Imo that is when they will succinctly layout all of the evidence against CM for the jury.

Imo

BBM, good question. Maybe they couldn't get anyone else?

 

[missy1974]

Why was she even called if she wasnt accredited in the first place? That seems odd to me.

Why not just call an expert with accreditation to do all the testing, and result to begin with?

I do agree about predictions.

I'm certainly not of the belief there will be a full out NG.

I dont think it will even be a hung jury, but if it is it will widely favor the state, and they will quickly retry the case.

The state has so much to work with during their 2 part CA.

Imo that is when they will succinctly layout all of the evidence against CM for the jury.

Imo

BBM - For the same reason that Denys Williams was or any other CSI tech that takes samples for the State testifies. She took the samples with the MVac. IMO if they called Bode and Cybergenetics without calling her first, there would be questions about who and how the samples were collected and there would be foundational questions.

It's pretty clear in her testimony IMO Even the prosecutor knew not to harp on her not having accreditation at the time... she was in the process of getting it, got it in August 2018, this isn't something that you just apply for and get, there are standards that need to be met.

Accreditation - American Association for Laboratory Accreditation

 

[missy1974]

I have been looking in all the testimony to see if I could figure out where the left bra was found in the grave. The best I can come up with is in Radeleff's testimony on Day 11 part 4 - McGee asks her if the bra was found in the center of the grave, she says yes half of it was, the left half. I was looking because the prosecutor mentioned 'if it was under the body' with decomposition, would they expect to find Summer's DNA. But I can't find that it was under the body...pictures or testimony, does anyone recall this anywhere in testimony?
I have glanced through Dr. C's, Radeleff's, Armando's, Dr. Gray's but may have missed it.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

BBM - For the same reason that Denys Williams was or any other CSI tech that takes samples for the State testifies. She took the samples with the MVac. IMO if they called Bode and Cybergenetics without calling her first, there would be questions about who and how the samples were collected and there would be foundational questions.

It's pretty clear in her testimony IMO Even the prosecutor knew not to harp on her not having accreditation at the time... she was in the process of getting it, got it in August 2018, this isn't something that you just apply for and get, there are standards that need to be met.

Accreditation - American Association for Laboratory Accreditation

So the other expert defense witnesses don't know how to extract or collect these same samples themselves using the same method she used?

Was the state present when she did this collection? That's usually standard protocol when any evidence is taken out to be tested.

I understand that others who collects evidence that it will be tested by other forensic experts.

But what I'm trying to ask is could the other defense experts have collected the same thing she collected, and then produced their own results from their own testing?

Do they always get someone else to do it or can they also do the same testing as she did, and it's always collected by someone else altogether, and then its sent to them?

I may be mistaken, but didnt she recently just turnover her report to the state right before testifying?

If she was accredited way back in August 2018 then why didn't she do her own analysis as an accredited expert now? After all that's been 7 months or more ago.

The trials I've seen where the defense uses these kind of experts, they do both. They collect the evidence they are going to test, and then testify as to their findings on the same evidence that was personally collected, and processed by them, and render their conclusions.

Tia

 

[oceanblueeyes]

BBM, good question. Maybe they couldn't get anyone else?

Yes it's quite odd.

I don't think I can remember any defense case calling an expert that wasnt accredited when they tested the evidence.

I could understand somewhat if she said she only collected it, but she gave her own unaccredited expert analysis of her results.

These kind of defense witnesses I've always seen are always accredited experts who do the collection of items, then do the testing themselves rendering their result. They dont pass it off to another expert that I can recall.

Why not get an accredited expert to begin with?

There are many large private accredited labs who collect the evidence, test it, and renders their results during a trial.

With her not even being accredited at the time she did all of this, it may call into question with the jury, wondering why the defense used someone who didnt even have accreditation at the time, when all of this was done.

It doesnt matter if she later was accredited.

Its the fact the jury knows she wasn't, when she did the testing at the time.

I'm sure the state will point that out during closing.

Jmo

 

[missy1974]

I have copied your questions and put my answers in red @oceanblueeyes

So the other expert defense witnesses don't know how to extract or collect these same samples themselves using the same method she used?

I don't know because they haven't testified, sounds like the MVac is pretty common but expensive to use on a regular basis because everything needs to be sterile and new when taking new samples.

Was the state present when she did this collection? That's usually standard protocol when any evidence is taken out to be tested.

Doesn't sound like it and they didn't make a big deal over it.

I understand that others who collects evidence that it will be tested by other forensic experts.

But what I'm trying to ask is could the other defense experts have collected the same thing she collected, and then produced their own results from their own testing?

Possibly, but again, the State doesn't seem to have an issue with how Ryan did the Mvacing.

Do they always get someone else to do it or can they also do the same testing as she did, and it's always collected by someone else altogether, and then its sent to them?

Who is they? Again, if it's the other witnesses, the haven't testified yet.

I may be mistaken, but didnt she recently just turnover her report to the state right before testifying?

No clue when she gave them her report. It must not have been an issue since I don't recall it being mentioned. JMO

If she was accredited way back in August 2018 then why didn't she do her own analysis as an accredited expert now? After all that's been 7 months or more ago.

Why would she if it had already been done, obviously prior to August 2018? She had confidence in Bode and their analysis, apparently they are the largest private lab in the U.S. and she had worked there previously and was familiar with their policies, procedures and standards.

The trials I've seen where the defense uses these kind of experts, they do both. They collect the evidence they are going to test, and then testify as to their findings on the same evidence that was personally collected, and processed by them, and render their conclusions.

There is nothing 'normal' in this trial. IMO she was brought on as a consultant, in that process while looking at Jones' report and bench notes and seeing that low level DNA was found on some items, she thought that it was possible that the MVac may have been able to pick up more DNA then the double swab collection method used by Jones. She had the ability to do that collection and did. The question wasn't asked, but maybe Bode would have charged more? Maybe the State wasn't willing to send it to Bode? I don't know the reason because it wasn't something the prosecution brought up LOL

Tia

Your welcome!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

It will be interesting to find out what the mystery DNA was exactly that survived at the graves for 3+ years, whereas any other DNA didn't and wasn't detected?
Wonder what the nature of the mystery DNA is? Blood, skin cells, fingerprints, saliva, hair and whatever else it was that survived for such a long time?

It's hard to believe these DNA profiles were there but none was found of the female victim who had worn this very same bra?

So none of the victims DNA was found? None?

Yet their dead skin cells, muscles, tissue, skin slippage,all full of their own DNA, were inside of the graves all during the decomposition stages,with these same items?

Did they test the backpack?

Imo