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

[Tortoise]

@Bobcat1 thanks for the updates. Do you know if the cameras are coming back imminently or only for closing arguments?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Well fgs! What a big letdown.

And the defense didnt have enough respect to advise the court so they could save the jury another trip for nothing?

It's good cameras are back tomorrow though.

 

[Bobcat1]

All I know is I was told the camer

@Bobcat1 thanks for the updates. Do you know if the cameras are coming back imminently or only for closing arguments?

All I know is they will be returning. What I believe is they are coming back for the closings. However if DK testifies I would think they might be there for that.

 

[Bobcat1]

Can anyone remember what day it was that the jurors questioned the judge about the delays in the scheduling? Was it the 4th or the 11th?

 

[asyousay]

Just more delaying by the defense. It’s ridiculous that they can waste everybody’s time.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

Bobcat1 said: ↑
Just got this from PM.

Camera's will be back.

defendant had a doctor’s appointment today and his attorneys didn’t bother to tell anyone.
Wondering if it was a scheduled or last minute appt?

I


It was a prior scheduled appointment and not a last minutes appointment. No excuses! The defense attorneys were aware and didn't notify the court or PT.

I vote for sanctions!

 

[Plo_Koon]

So maybe Chase should not have asked MM to check on MM's brother? Would that make him look less guilty?

No, it wouldn't make him look less guilty because there's a bunch of other things already making him look guilty.

 

[Bernina]

The jurors shouldn't know anything anyway.

I thought I had read somewhere that at pretrial hearings this was an issue and the doc appointments are made without anyone knowing, they just come and get the inmates when it's time to go? Does anyone know? Maybe someone who has worked in the system can answer that.

Yes, inmates know they have appointments. One's going through a trial usually get a specific time where untried inmates will get a day without a specific time.

 

[geevee]

Just got this from PM.

Camera's will be back.

defendant had a doctor’s appointment today and his attorneys didn’t bother to tell anyone.

BBM

I just find that a little difficult to believe, but considering all of the defense delays, I suppose it wouldn't be that surprising.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

@missy1974

Following on!



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.​

Oh this takes me back to the Knox days. That is where I learned all about Bayesian probability and Less Wrong and all that. IIRC, Schneps had a few inaccuracies in her book. I believe we are on opposite sides of the Knox fiasco - we probably crossed paths in the past.

I agree the judges often don’t understand. Heck, most people don’t understand. Probability and statistics are not my forte, but I will keep at it until I understand it as best I can. The weight of a circumstantial evidence web may be great, however the pieces of circumstantial evidence comprising the web must be valid enough to be considered as evidence. There are plenty of botched investigations that produce BS, for lack of a more technical term. I don’t think this case is one of those, but if you look at the futon cover for example, this could be all wrong. If it is not likely the futon cover, then that piece needs to be tossed. (Much like the Nike shoeprints with concentric circles on the bottom being owned by Sollecito).

When each piece is weighed, then a decision about the entire picture can be evaluated. Most jurors accomplish this intuitively, and not by any Bayesian method, but it could probably be said that there is some sort of such a method going on in our heads every time we make a decision.

 

[missy1974]

Yes, inmates know they have appointments. One's going through a trial usually get a specific time where untried inmates will get a day without a specific time.

Thanks, that makes sense. I can see why they don't tell them times, so they can't try and plan something I guess.

 

[Tortoise]

Can anyone remember what day it was that the jurors questioned the judge about the delays in the scheduling? Was it the 4th or the 11th?

According to the youtube video (day 37 part 3) it says April 9th.

 

[Mony Mony]

Well, I sure hope the decision to bring back the cameras does not get rescinded. After all, they pulled the cameras due to delays, etc. And wouldn't you know it, the day L&C decides to come back, another delay. Uggggg

 

[mrjitty]

Oh this takes me back to the Knox days. That is where I learned all about Bayesian probability and Less Wrong and all that. IIRC, Schneps had a few inaccuracies in her book. I believe we are on opposite sides of the Knox fiasco - we probably crossed paths in the past.

I agree the judges often don’t understand. Heck, most people don’t understand. Probability and statistics are not my forte, but I will keep at it until I understand it as best I can. The weight of a circumstantial evidence web may be great, however the pieces of circumstantial evidence comprising the web must be valid enough to be considered as evidence. There are plenty of botched investigations that produce BS, for lack of a more technical term. I don’t think this case is one of those, but if you look at the futon cover for example, this could be all wrong. If it is not likely the futon cover, then that piece needs to be tossed. (Much like the Nike shoeprints with concentric circles on the bottom being owned by Sollecito).

When each piece is weighed, then a decision about the entire picture can be evaluated. Most jurors accomplish this intuitively, and not by any Bayesian method, but it could probably be said that there is some sort of such a method going on in our heads every time we make a decision.

I think we agree about the general approach. The fact finder must first ask what facts does it accept as proved? Of course anything that is speculative must be discarded. Where I think most people go wrong is speculating explanations for facts that have been proved in a piecemeal fashion, instead of viewing the big picture.

Even Judges are not immune to this - see Pistorius

 

[Frankie Hellis]

I think we agree about the general approach. The fact finder must first ask what facts does it accept as proved? Of course anything that is speculative must be discarded. Where I think most people go wrong is speculating explanations for facts that have been proved in a piecemeal fashion, instead of viewing the big picture.

Even Judges are not immune to this - see Pistorius

Or even what facts it accepts as, say 80% likely. I think there are pieces that can’t always be proved or disproved, but which pieces may be likely to point to guilt or non-guilt. For instance, in this case, the 8:28 phone call. We will never know if Joey dialed that phone or if someone else dialed it, either purposefully or accidentally. We can each decide what we *think* happened. Some may assign it in the likely-Merritt-did-it category in a effort to cover or during the commission of the crime or likely-someone-else-did-it.

I’m not so sure anything sepeculative must be discarded. There is a certain amount of speculation to circumstantial evidence in all trials, I think.

 

[MsRyber]

What I see in those posts is that because CM is on trial for murder, therefore everything about him is bad.

I think people have pointed out things, in their opinion, that make him smarmy. In isolation, those particular smarmy things don't make one a quadruple murderer. But, from a fallible human perspective, negative qualities, especially a few combined in one person, leads to (sometimes unfair) suspicion about everything about that person. I agree that that can seem very judgmental.

Nice people can be murderers too. But they just don't arouse as much suspicion right off the bat. Best example (Canada): Colonel Russell Williams. Had people judged him as fast as they judged the "weird guy" down the street, a couple of murders could have been prevented. And maybe because as humans, we are apt to judge the first things we see about a person (looks, house, vehicle, job) as the person's actual "worthiness" and "goodness". IMO. And we get it wrong. A LOT.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

I think people have pointed out things, in their opinion, that make him smarmy. In isolation, those particular smarmy things don't make one a quadruple murderer. But, from a fallible human perspective, negative qualities, especially a few combined in one person, leads to (sometimes unfair) suspicion about everything about that person. I agree that that can seem very judgmental.

Nice people can be murderers too. But they just don't arouse as much suspicion right off the bat. Best example (Canada): Colonel Russell Williams. Had people judged him as fast as they judged the "weird guy" down the street, a couple of murders could have been prevented. And maybe because as humans, we are apt to judge the first things we see about a person (looks, house, vehicle, job) as the person's actual "worthiness" and "goodness". IMO. And we get it wrong. A LOT.

I thought he was the “weird guy” down the street.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The delay today with CM being a no show reminds of all the customer complaints CM had about not finishing the job. Ha! I'm sure he wishes his off day was being spent at the casino.

Why didnt they make it early or later in the evening so they could at least get a few hours of testimony in.

I find it very hard to believe his lawyers didnt know ahead of time about his appointment.

Imo

 

[UndiscoveredTruth]

That may not help score any points with the good Judge or the jurors.

LOL They can't talk!!! I mean, the trial has progressed at the rate it has because the Judge had dental appointments, among other things. This trial has been moving at a snails pace for a very long time now! There have been many excuses from both sides, heck all sides lol which has caused delays, i.e. dental appointments, doctors appointments, witness delays (both sides). Having said that, I refuse to blame only, one side, for why this trial is taking so long to get through and to be honest, find it rather amusing that so many folks are! To each their own though!

On a brighter note...looking forward to having the camera's back in the courtroom!

 

[UndiscoveredTruth]

The delay today with CM being a no show reminds of all the customer complaints CM had about not finishing the job. Ha! I'm sure he wishes his off day was being spent at the casino.

Why didnt they make it early or later in the evening so they could at least get a few hours of testimony in.

I find it very hard to believe his lawyers didnt know ahead of time about his appointment.

Imo

It's disappointing, yes! I don't know of anyone who takes a WHOLE day off for a doctors/dental appointment. An hour or two at the very most, okay, but a whole day, especially when a trial is in progress is simply not on!! Ah well, I think I'm immuned to the delays now lol.