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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mony Mony said:
I really hope they tested the hair and were able to get usable results.
Click to expand...

I'm confused. Lol!

Why is the testing just being done now? The defense has had just as much right, and time to test any evidence they select if they think it points to someone else being the killer.

If they have identifiable DNA profiles they can file a motion before the judge asking that it be put into CODIS.

Have they done so? Judges give wide latitude to let the defense test any evidence they believe may be exculpatory.

The only drawback for the defense is if it identifies their client, the state is made aware of all results.

CA is a reciprocal discovery state, iirc. Each side also has the same rights to do their own testing.

As far as her other testimony, I dont think it proves anything one way or the other.

What does an above ground study have to do with this case since the victims weren't placed above ground?

Again can someone explain to me the defense's explanation why they want the jury to believe the Trooper evidence is simply CMs transfer DNA, but then they want the jury to believe the total opposite, believing the degraded DNA found inside of the two graves is somehow suppose to point to the killers?

Tia
 
oceanblueeyes said:
I'm confused. Lol!

Why is the testing just being done now? The defense has had just as much right, and time to test any evidence they select if they think it points to someone else being the killer.

If they have identifiable DNA profiles they can file a motion before the judge asking that it be put into CODIS.

Have they done so? Judges give wide latitude to let the defense test any evidence they believe may be exculpatory.

The only drawback for the defense is if it identifies their client, the state is made aware of all results.

CA is a reciprocal discovery state, iirc. Each side also has the same rights to do their own testing.

As far as her other testimony, I dont think it proves anything one way or the other.

What does an above ground study have to do with this case since the victims weren't placed above ground?

Again can someone explain to me the defense's explanation why they want the jury to believe the Trooper evidence is simply CMs transfer DNA, but then they want the jury to believe the total opposite, believing the degraded DNA found inside of the two graves is somehow suppose to point to the killers?

Tia
Click to expand...

I don't know if indeed they are just now testing the hair, or if they did at all. Susanna said she carefully placed the hair in an envelope? and mailed it back to San Bernardino. She never said she tested it, and it would be foolish if they did. It is up to the prosecution to prove CM is the killer.

The old adage applies: a good lawyer never asks a question he doesn't know the answer to.
 
Mony Mony said:
I don't know if indeed they are just now testing the hair, or if they did at all. Susanna said she carefully placed the hair in an envelope? and mailed it back to San Bernardino. She never said she tested it, and it would be foolish if they did. It is up to the prosecution to prove CM is the killer.

The old adage applies: a good lawyer never asks a question he doesn't know the answer to.
Click to expand...

True. It ironic that many times the defense doesnt dare test any of the evidence before trial. But if they are convicted, then when on appeal, they do want certain items tested.

Imo
 
oceanblueeyes said:
Again can someone explain to me the defense's explanation why they want the jury to believe the Trooper evidence is simply CMs transfer DNA, but then they want the jury to believe the total opposite, believing the degraded DNA found inside of the two graves is somehow suppose to point to the killers?
Click to expand...
Because both examples are a possibility, which in turn create reasonable doubt. The job of the DT is to create as much reasonable doubt as they possibly can and IMO, they’re successfully doing so.
 
Mica said:
We don’t know how Summer really felt about either one of them. However, MM testified there was a problem between them.

MM said he and Joey were very close. Yet, he was never at the Avo house, IIRC. I wonder if Summer didn’t want MM in her home after the argument in July. It might have been enough to have severed ties completely. JMO.
Click to expand...

I really dont believe that tiff was enough for them to sever ties completely.

It just didnt amount to that big of a deal. Imo.

What's sad is neither one was given any chance to reconcile. CM robbed them both of that opportunity each one deserved to have.

Jmo
 
Last edited:
Texas Red said:
Because both examples are a possibility, which in turn create reasonable doubt. The job of the DT is to create as much reasonable doubt as they possibly can and IMO, they’re successfully doing so.
Click to expand...

Ok, Perhaps to you. Lol!

My opinion of course is much different which is why we are on a discussion site. imo

To me its putting forth two completely opposing arguments. Like wanting their cake, and eat it too. It will not fly imoo.

When it points to CM, the accused murderer, then its just only benign transfer.

Yet when its degraded DNA then they want the jury to believe the complete opposite, that it is not only benign transfer, but that of the supposed killers.

Those two opposite arguments will not be overlooked by the jurors.

I'm very well aware of what defense attorneys do. I also know reasonable doubt is very hard to achieve. If it was so easy to obtain then the vast majority of cases wouldnt end in convictions.

The high hurdle is the doubt must be reasonable, and not merely some fanciful doubt or an imaginary doubt.

Imo
 
Mica said:
McGee is lead counsel for CM and Daugherty and Imes are both lead counsels for the PT.
Click to expand...

:confused: I wonder if McGee is lead counsel because he's retained? I know that in defense OS McGee says that Maline was the first one who got involved in the case and decided to bring McGee in. Maline is also the one sitting directly next to Chase at the defense table.

Oh well. I guess it really doesn't matter anyway. LOL :p
 
oceanblueeyes said:
I dont think they are comparable though. Mike and his family didnt live close by.

However it seems Summer was having to deal with MM on a daily basis, so much so, the neighbors thought he lived there.

I think that caused Summer much more stress, than a brother in law who didnt even live close by.

I think Summers main thorn in her side, was Merritt around the time they were all murdered.

Jmo
Click to expand...

BBM

Do you mean CM, OBE?
 
Texas Red said:
Because both examples are a possibility, which in turn create reasonable doubt. The job of the DT is to create as much reasonable doubt as they possibly can and IMO, they’re successfully doing so.
Click to expand...
Both are a possibility, but the defense can't prove that the two had contact with each other, let alone even met that afternoon. Chase's account for the meeting was a sorting of bumbling lies. Imo.
 
Cricket28 said:
:confused: I wonder if McGee is lead counsel because he's retained? I know that in defense OS McGee says that Maline was the first one who got involved in the case and decided to bring McGee in. Maline is also the one sitting directly next to Chase at the defense table.

Oh well. I guess it really doesn't matter anyway. LOL :p
Click to expand...

Maline was appointed by the court and worked along with Mettias. When Mettias was fired, CM wanted to keep Maline. McGee was then retained. I think Maline is still court appointed. JMO
 
I'd still like to know what the DNA was found on. I haven't listen to all of Ryan's testimony, did she say what it was on?

For me, if it was on anything but the murder weapon, it's all irrelevant. It's just the defense trying to make the state look like it missed things or wasn't thorough enough with evidence.
 
Mailine was not court appoint AIR. He became the choice of CM and McGee then joined the team because Maline is not Death Penalty Qualified by the State of California and McGee is. CM filed for indigent status and the court then granted the indigent status allowing Maline and McGee to represent CM and to be paid by the State. AIR
 
LadyL said:
[bbm]

what kind of knot was it?
Click to expand...

upload_2019-4-6_11-8-54.png

upload_2019-4-6_11-11-55.png

One knot was at his neck... the other one was tied to the red strap at his waist.

Speaking of the electrical cord ..... When questioning Suzanna Ryan, I noticed McGee referenced the cord as 2 separate items. Item # E-11 (exhibit 994, which I guess the exhibits are the photos of the actual item of evidence). And Item # E-15 (exhibit 997).
I believe E-11 has the male part attached.

Plus the coroner, Dr. Changsri, said in her testimony... “Around the pelvic area there is a white electrical cord that is tied to a red strap that’s knotted in the back. There’s also an S-shaped metal hook that’s attached to that strap. On the neck area, there’s a white electrical cord tied in the back.”

Were there 2 cords?

MOO
 
Cricket28 said:
View attachment 178272

View attachment 178273

One knot was at his neck... the other one was tied to the red strap at his waist.

Speaking of the electrical cord ..... When questioning Suzanna Ryan, I noticed McGee referenced the cord as 2 separate items. Item # E-11 (exhibit 994, which I guess the exhibits are the photos of the actual item of evidence). And Item # E-15 (exhibit 997).
I believe E-11 has the male part attached.

Plus the coroner, Dr. Changsri, said in her testimony... “Around the pelvic area there is a white electrical cord that is tied to a red strap that’s knotted in the back. There’s also an S-shaped metal hook that’s attached to that strap. On the neck area, there’s a white electrical cord tied in the back.”

Were there 2 cords?

MOO
Click to expand...

I haven't listened to all of it, but I did note that there were 2 cords as well Cricket.
 
Susanna cited a study with a very small sample size showing the last user of a steering wheel was the major contributer in the mixed DNA samples. That is such a small sample size!
Force Ten said:
I'd still like to know what the DNA was found on. I haven't listen to all of Ryan's testimony, did she say what it was on?

For me, if it was on anything but the murder weapon, it's all irrelevant. It's just the defense trying to make the state look like it missed things or wasn't thorough enough with evidence.
Click to expand...

She did not test the murder weapon. DNA was found on the following:
White cord-partial DNA, 4 level
Left cup of bra-some DNA, 9 level
Right cup of bra-some DNA 19 LoSi? level
Red strap-found hair! DNA 4 LoSi? level
3 red straps with one black hook-some/partial DNA

I don't believe she said one way or another if these were usable samples for DNA analysis.

All MOO, IMO etc etc
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 144 more.
Total: 2,316 (members: 145, guests: 2,171)

Online statistics

Members online
145
Guests online
2,171
Total visitors
2,316
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
603,334
Messages
18,155,084
Members
231,708
Latest member
centinel
Back
Top