CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #16

[MrsPC]

Thanks for looking @MrsPC! At least I know someone else can't find it either LOL And thanks for the info on Hunter... although, being retired shouldn't stop him from testifying (unless there are health issues). IIRC Jones is also retired. Not that I think anything is nefarious about him not testifying, it's just usually part of the process in the trial... it's like the defense couldn't just call Cybergenetics... had to start with Ryan, then Nash, then Pujols, then Perlin. It's a chain of custody thing, lays the foundation for the next person.

I did find the testimony that I listened to again way more interesting now than I did at the time, some of the questions asked make more sense now. I also didn't take notes those first few weeks lol

One thing I would like to know is... the stats on just how many bodies are found in that area. Dr. Gray was asked about that, I recall it early in the trial, but hearing it again, I want to know the Stats now. She was asked about Stoddard Wells Rd and said she had been out there at least a dozen times, and when asked if was common, she said as common as other places along the 15. Asked about finding bodies between Victorville and Barstow, she said they are pretty frequent. I can tell by googling that it happens, I know that. But I'm a number's person, how many is 'pretty frequent' It sounded like she didn't even need directions from the deputy that called her.

I liked Dr. Gray though! Her job is not fun and it can also be boring testimony, but she didn't make it boring and I liked that her demeanour didn't change between prosecutor/defense

I agree - re-listening to previous testimony makes more sense to me now too. What's not fun is re-hearing/reading about the trauma that each of the family members sustained. Their murders were viciously brutal. I was reading about the main injury to Joseph which was to the base of his skull (which indicates he was struck from behind.) He was struck so hard that besides the enormous damage to his skull, it fractured the hard palate of his mouth. I just hope the jury gets it right.

 

[Karinna]

He raised concern and asked and persuaded MM to visit the house.

As a tactic to make himself appear concerned, but as we know from following other cases that that doesn't mean a perpetrator of a crime is innocent. Far from it. And IMO it goes toward CM being conniving. If he premeditated this crime he would of given all of that some thought, seeing as he was in daily contact with JM, at least 12 phone calls a day, and as he purported to be JM's friend it would of looked very odd if he hadn't shown some concern as to JM's whereabouts. JMO.

 

[Niner]

Monday, April 15th:
*Trial continues (Day 41/Day 40 on L&C) (@ 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 (57/now 60) 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. 8 women & 4 men (alternates include 4 men & 2 women).
Trial Days (1-36; 1/17/19 thru 4/5/19) reference post #393 here:
CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #15
4/8/19 Day 37 (Day 36 on L&C): Defense witness: Suzanna Ryan, described & demonstrated the M-Vac forensic DNA collection system. Trial continues on 4/9.
4/9/19 Day 38 (Day 37 on L&C): Defense witnesses: The judge is addressing a whole list of questions from jurors about things including can they ask why there are so many days off & when the case is expected to conclude etc. Defense witnesses: Kathy Sanchez, Summer’s cousin. Sgt. Ryan Smith. Christina Nash, DNA analyst employed by Bode Technology. Trial continues on 4/10.
4/11/19 Day 39: Defense witnesses: Christina Nash, DNA analyst employed by Bode Technology. Beatriz Pujols, Forensic Analyst from Cybergenetics. Dr. Mark Perlin, founder of Cybergenetics & the creator of the TrueAllele®technology. Trial continues (without jurors @ 8:30, jurors back at 9:30am) on 4/11.
4/11/19 Day 40: (Day 39 on L&C): Motions were vacated related to Google, Microsoft, & TSG Documentary (interview w/Merritt). Defense witness: Dr. Mark Perlin. Trial continues on Monday, 4/15.
Tentative Schedule for week of April 15th to 19th: Court with jurors on April 15 (Monday), April 16th (Tuesday), April 17th (Wednesday), & April 18th (Thursday). Dark on April 19th (Friday).

 

[mrjitty]

@Frankie Hellis

Continuing over here!

According to the Harvard Journal of Law and Technology cite Missy posted, Thr President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology (“PCAST”) report calls for both large-scale scientific studies on common sets of samples, to establish foundational validity of a method, as well as internal developmental validation studies by individual forensic laboratories to assess the as-applied validity in a particular setting.

I definitely think it is not widely accepted. It’s competitors have had better success with their testimony being allowed into cases, but that is because they provide access to their source code, and thus their process is more easily validated.

I don’t know if there was even a Frye hearing for this in the McStay case, but there should have been!

I worked at an AI company about 10 years ago - this was when it was much more an emerging tech and talk about AI's like Siri/Alexa blew our minds. My company's tech was essentially powerful algos that could trawl big data and ran on big iron (hardware). How fast things moved.

So in general I am a big believer that AI will revolutionise all complex data industries - DNA will be no exception. But it was a bit of a wild west back in the day and proving your proprietary tech was hard - especially because clients who used it (and liked it) wanted it to be their secret weapon and wouldn't tell anyone!

So I think the way this kind of stuff works is an industry slowly develops and gets established, but whether one tech really works, or works better than another? Can it work in this specific case? In the early days its hard to say.

And of course no one is going to buy TrueAllele and spend a crap tonne of money on large scale and use case testing - especially if the company itself appears to have no interest in doing it!

Probably there should be a joint effort between federal or state law enforcement and private providers to validate.

But I agree with the defence complaints that you are essentially found guilty via a black box algo.

 

[mrjitty]

@missy1974

Following on!

I'm guessing that the judge disagree's with you since he allowed it and he heard the arguments for and against... and I think McGee and Maline would as well, and they are defense attorney's lol I wonder how they would argue about this in the future if it's used against one of their clients as that is typically how it's brought into the courts, by the prosecution, just like I wonder how the pro's would argue for it. Could make for an interesting "quandary".

As an aside I am not sure many Judges actually understand this stuff.

I remember talking to the author of the book Math on Trial in relation to the Knox and Pistorius cases.

Especially how an understanding of Bayesian probability might turn trials on their heads. Short version, the weight of a web of circumstantial evidence may be far great than people realise.

But it's interesting judges don't get any formal training in logical deduction, induction or probability - even though it could well be key to their roles.

https://www.amazon.com/Math-Trial-Numbers-Abused-Courtroom/dp/0465032923

In Math on Trial, mathematicians Leila Schneps and Coralie Colmez describe ten trials spanning from the nineteenth century to today, in which mathematical arguments were used—and disastrously misused—as evidence. They tell the stories of Sally Clark, who was accused of murdering her children by a doctor with a faulty sense of calculation; of nineteenth-century tycoon Hetty Green, whose dispute over her aunt's will became a signal case in the forensic use of mathematics; and of the case of Amanda Knox, in which a judge's misunderstanding of probability led him to discount critical evidence—which might have kept her in jail. Offering a fresh angle on cases from the nineteenth-century Dreyfus affair to the murder trial of Dutch nurse Lucia de Berk, Schneps and Colmez show how the improper application of mathematical concepts can mean the difference between walking free and life in prison.​

 

[Tortoise]

He raised concern and asked and persuaded MM to visit the house.

But he avoided calling in a welfare check.

 

[Tortoise]

So we have to ask, did the defense succeed in introducing reasonable doubt with their DNA evidence?

Are we to believe that 2, 3 or 4 persons' touch DNA survived in the grave while the four victims' DNA, specifically on the items Summer had been wearing, her underwear and bra, underwear (not under the body) bra (under/with the body or at depths below bones found) did not survive?

Even if the multiple unknown persons' touch DNA (how long does it take to touch a knot - seconds?) did miraculously survive on 'protected' areas (knots, grooves) of items which might not have belonged to the McStays, the electrical cord and the red strap, there could never be any conclusions drawn as to when it got there (before the murders or during the murders) or who owned and had used the items - did the perpetrator use his own cord/strap or steal them from a work site, a skip, or off the back of someone else's truck?

Was the perpetrator who had planned this burial likely to be wearing gloves so as to not leave DNA and using items in the body disposal that belonged to someone else so they would not be linked back to him, or had he purchased brand new items that would have been handled during packaging and shop display?

Was it LE contamination? Not according to Perlin, because it, whatever 'it' was (most likely bacteria IMO) was too degraded. (At least that's my understanding - someone correct me if I misunderstood).

IMO, with not one jot of McStay DNA the whole exercise was futile.

They have not proved that DNA could or would last that long in that environment, or that it was human DNA, or even if they had proved it was human and could have survived - that it was related to the crime/perpetrator, or that the perpetrator was careless and left DNA despite going to extraordinary lengths to conceal the murders.

It was an outright failure for the defense IMO.

All MOO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

It is a shame that in his sixty plus years of living, he has very little to show, little to be proud of, and few, if any redeeming qualities. I don't think one should expect wonderful and uplifting things to be said about someone on trial for the murders of an entire family. If there is anything good about him, or what he has done with his life, there will be an opportunity to share that during the penalty phase of the trial.

If his past felony convictions were for other type felony crimes it wouldnt be relevant in the guilt phase.

It certainly will be if he is convicted. Then all past criminal history will become known to the jury as they decide punishment.

However, it is very relevant during this phase due to CMs own illegal activity concerning Joey's QB. It shows a consistent pattern to steal from others.

This is why the judge allowed it in plus even the defense has brought out CM had a warrant out for his arrest, and worried he would be arrested if he came in for a police interview.

The same thing happened in the CA Phil Spector trial. Several women testified about how he had terrorized them over the years by waving his firearm around in a threatening manner.

In all of those cases PS was never charged, and convicted, yet they were same like pattern acts which are admissible under CA law.

In this case, CM was charged, and convicted twice.

CM is no different than any other murder defendant on trial. There will always damaging things brought forth during any trial against any defendant. So he is no exception nor should he be.

Even some of his own defense witnesses themselves have testified to disparaging things about CMs life, and his past history including ripping off so many people.

His past history is consistent with the evidence found, showing he was also ripping off the man he is accused of murdering.

Unfortunately, that is the type of life he chose to live. So he has no one to blame, but himself for it all coming to light now. It is what it is. Many times what is done in darkness will come to the light one day.

As far as CM being the one to finally alert the family the McStays were missing. Well how many times have we seen cases where it's the murder suspect themselves, that calls 911 or reports the victims missing? Way too many to count who have used the ploy CM used.

Imo

 

[mrjitty]

So we have to ask, did the defense succeed in introducing reasonable doubt with their DNA evidence?

Are we to believe that 2, 3 or 4 persons' touch DNA survived in the grave while the four victims' DNA, specifically on the items Summer had been wearing, her underwear and bra, underwear (not under the body) bra (under/with the body or at depths below bones found) did not survive?

Even if the multiple unknown persons' touch DNA (how long does it take to touch a knot - seconds?) did miraculously survive on 'protected' areas (knots, grooves) of items which might not have belonged to the McStays, the electrical cord and the red strap, there could never be any conclusions drawn as to when it got there (before the murders or during the murders) or who owned and had used the items - did the perpetrator use his own cord/strap or steal them from a work site, a skip, or off the back of someone else's truck?

Was the perpetrator who had planned this burial likely to be wearing gloves so as to not leave DNA and using items in the body disposal that belonged to someone else so they would not be linked back to him, or had he purchased brand new items that would have been handled during packaging and shop display?

Was it LE contamination? Not according to Perlin, because it, whatever 'it' was (most likely bacteria IMO) was too degraded. (At least that's my understanding - someone correct me if I misunderstood).

IMO, with not one jot of McStay DNA the whole exercise was futile.

They have not proved that DNA could or would last that long in that environment, or that it was human DNA, or even if they had proved it was human and could have survived - that it was related to the crime/perpetrator, or that the perpetrator was careless and left DNA despite going to extraordinary lengths to conceal the murders.

It was an outright failure for the defense IMO.

All MOO

I think it was essentially a shell game so they could say they "found" the DNA of 4 unknown people, when actually that was the assumption they made.

The Bacterial DNA was a bad moment.

And like you I don't believe you would find three men's DNA on summers underwear but not her own.

 

[missy1974]

I think it was essentially a shell game so they could say they "found" the DNA of 4 unknown people, when actually that was the assumption they made.

The Bacterial DNA was a bad moment.

And like you I don't believe you would find three men's DNA on summers underwear but not her own.

I still think the recovered DNA was run with and without the bacterial artifact, but didn't have time this weekend to go back and listen to it all. Beatriz Pujols testified about that. With or without the bacterial artifact, it didn't match the the known references.

There were peak alleles on the different items that didn't match any of them, McGee went over them with him and then went over who had what alleles in those positions, they didn't match.

I still believe that they found DNA, and it was degraded, but it's like any other DNA, we can know it's there but not know how it got there. I don't believe it from any specific testimony, it's from the testimony as a whole, including Jones'. I said after his testimony that the defense would have to convince me that DNA could and did survive... they did, but I don't know if that would be enough for me as a juror to say, 'oh look, his DNA isn't there' or 'that DNA didn't match', and that's because the defense did such a good job with some of the DNA witnesses discussing secondary transfer (and partially from my own research on secondary transfer). Because the DNA had signs of degradation, I don't know how it could be contamination IF it was stored correctly after it was excavated.

All JMO

 

[smr]

But he avoided calling in a welfare check.

He had no obligation. I would expect family members and relatives to care more about their family than a business partner and friend.

 

[missy1974]

I agree - re-listening to previous testimony makes more sense to me now too. What's not fun is re-hearing/reading about the trauma that each of the family members sustained. Their murders were viciously brutal. I was reading about the main injury to Joseph which was to the base of his skull (which indicates he was struck from behind.) He was struck so hard that besides the enormous damage to his skull, it fractured the hard palate of his mouth. I just hope the jury gets it right.

I went through Dr. C's testimony again last week or the week before The thing about being able to go back to testimony and it making more sense now... we have the ability to do that, the jury really doesn't. They will when they get to deliberate, but hope they all took good notes, this trial has been way too long IMO

 

[smr]

As a tactic to make himself appear concerned, but as we know from following other cases that that doesn't mean a perpetrator of a crime is innocent. Far from it. And IMO it goes toward CM being conniving. If he premeditated this crime he would of given all of that some thought, seeing as he was in daily contact with JM, at least 12 phone calls a day, and as he purported to be JM's friend it would of looked very odd if he hadn't shown some concern as to JM's whereabouts. JMO.

So maybe Chase should not have asked MM to check on MM's brother? Would that make him look less guilty? And MM's keeping delaying to visit his brother's house is a sign of concern for his brother's family?

 

[Tortoise]

He had no obligation. I would expect family members and relatives to care more about their family than a business partner and friend.

I was referring to the word "concern". He hadn't even gone to the house to see if Joey was there when he told Susan he couldn't find Joey - the family that he visited so frequently, almost every other day, before the murders.

Susan and Mike weren't frequent visitors and after they found out they thought there was a good possibility they were on vacation, which is not a sign of not caring.

 

[Tortoise]

I went through Dr. C's testimony again last week or the week before The thing about being able to go back to testimony and it making more sense now... we have the ability to do that, the jury really doesn't. They will when they get to deliberate, but hope they all took good notes, this trial has been way too long IMO

I think closing arguments should refresh them on every relevant argument, for and against.

 

[smr]

I was referring to the word "concern". He hadn't even gone to the house to see if Joey was there when he told Susan he couldn't find Joey - the family that he visited so frequently, almost every other day, before the murders.

Susan and Mike weren't frequent visitors and after they found out they thought there was a good possibility they were on vacation, which is not a sign of not caring.

MM in his latest testimony said:
"I never believed it was voluntary missing. I said that from Day One."
That is a false statement. He was not concerned at all before and after Chase asked him to check the house. He didn't want to visit the house before, he wasn't worried after, saying they may have gone for vacation.

 

[Tortoise]

I really hope we get cameras back for the closing arguments.

 

[smr]

I really hope we get cameras back for the closing arguments.

On this I fully agree with you. The sooner the better.

 

[Tortoise]

MM in his latest testimony said:

"I never believed it was voluntary missing. I said that from Day One."

That is a false statement. He was not concerned at all before and after Chase asked him to check the house. He didn't want to visit the house before, he wasn't worried after, saying they may have gone for vacation.

Day one is an expression, and does not mean he entertained thoughts about them being permanently missing from the first phone call on February 9th, applying common sense and worldly experience, in my opinion.

 

[Force Ten]

MM in his latest testimony said:
"I never believed it was voluntary missing. I said that from Day One."
That is a false statement. He was not concerned at all before and after Chase asked him to check the house. He didn't want to visit the house before, he wasn't worried after, saying they may have gone for vacation.

Day one, as to mean the day he reported them missing.