CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #17

[Mica]

From the Complaint Filing Document
(quote)
"NOTICE: The above offense is a serious felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 1192.7(c) and a violent felony within the meaning of Penal Code section 667.5(c)." "NOTICE: Conviction of this offense will require you to provide specimens and samples pursuant to Penal Code section 296. Willful refusal to provide the specimens and samples is a crime."It is further alleged as to count(s) 1, 2, 3, 4 that the offenses charged in counts One, Two, Three, and Four are a special circumstance within the meaning of Penal Code Section 190.2(a)(3).
http://www.sbcountyda.org/Portals/8/HighProfileCases/Charles Ray Merritt.pdf

Correct, Special Circumstance (3)...which is this according to Section 3 of the Penal Code....

(3) The defendant, in this proceeding, has been convicted of more than one offense of murder in the first or second degree.


And to confirm...nothing about robbery/theft.

Snip

Ramos announced that four counts of murder have been filed, as well as a special circumstance of multiple murders, making Merritt eligible for the death penalty.

Business associate arrested for murder of McStay family at Fallbrook home

 

[Karinna]

Correct, Special Circumstance (3)...which is this according to Section 3 of the Penal Code....

(3) The defendant, in this proceeding, has been convicted of more than one offense of murder in the first or second degree.


And to confirm...nothing about robbery/theft.

Snip

Ramos announced that four counts of murder have been filed, as well as a special circumstance of multiple murders, making Merritt eligible for the death penalty.

Business associate arrested for murder of McStay family at Fallbrook home

Yes it relates to the charges of the crimes and punishments if convicted.
(quote)
Universal Citation: CA Penal Code § 190.2 (through 2012 Leg Sess)
(a) The penalty for a defendant who is found guilty of murder in the first degree is death or imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole if one or more of the following special circumstances has been found under Section 190.4 to be true:

(1) The murder was intentional and carried out for financial gain.

(2) The defendant was convicted previously of murder in the first or second degree. For the purpose of this paragraph, an offense committed in another jurisdiction, which if committed in California would be punishable as first or second degree murder, shall be deemed murder in the first or second degree.

(3) The defendant, in this proceeding, has been convicted of more than one offense of murder in the first or second degree.
Etc.
2011 California Code :: Penal Code :: PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680] :: CHAPTER 1. Homicide :: Section 190.2

The point of my post was in reply to another poster in regard to the theft of the victim's money and impersonating the victim Joseph McStay for monetary gain for committing the murders.

 

[Mica]

Yes it relates to the charges of the crimes and punishments if convicted.
(quote)
Universal Citation: CA Penal Code § 190.2 (through 2012 Leg Sess)
(a) The penalty for a defendant who is found guilty of murder in the first degree is death or imprisonment in the state prison for life without the possibility of parole if one or more of the following special circumstances has been found under Section 190.4 to be true:

(1) The murder was intentional and carried out for financial gain.

(2) The defendant was convicted previously of murder in the first or second degree. For the purpose of this paragraph, an offense committed in another jurisdiction, which if committed in California would be punishable as first or second degree murder, shall be deemed murder in the first or second degree.

(3) The defendant, in this proceeding, has been convicted of more than one offense of murder in the first or second degree.
Etc.
2011 California Code :: Penal Code :: PART 1. OF CRIMES AND PUNISHMENTS [25 - 680] :: CHAPTER 1. Homicide :: Section 190.2

The point of my post was in reply to another poster in regard to the theft of the victim's money and impersonating the victim Joseph McStay for monetary gain for committing the murders.

I don’t see Special Circumstance 1 listed in the Charges on the Court Portal. I only see 3. Ramos never mentioned Special Circumstance 1 either. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.

 

[Karinna]

I don’t see Special Circumstance 1 listed in the Charges on the Court Portal. I only see 3. Ramos never mentioned Special Circumstance 1 either. We’ll have to agree to disagree on this.

Sure that's fine. The Special Circumstances are the counts 1,2,3, and 4 of murder aren't they? It is a quadruple murder case.
I don't know what Ramos said, but that is the Law of California, regarding statutes per the links.
It would be good to have a lawyer weigh in to clarify,

 

[mrjitty]

In actuality the defense doesn't "need" to offer "us" anything. They have, however, done an excellent job of casting doubt about the veracity of the prosecution evidence. jmho

This is only true at a general level

If the defence wishes to create doubt via specific pleadings I.e someone else did the murder, then the defence must establish a factual foundation

 

[la2cabo]

That's not what she said in her testimony.

I'm sure the jury saw right through her LIES.

 

[Mickey Mouse]

I'm guess I'm in the minority...but I do not understand anyone opining that Kavanaugh might be responsible for the murders instead of Merritt, with the mountain of circumstantial evidence that most definitely exists against Merritt. It just boggles my mind.

I'm not even going to post any more and think I'll just wait for the Guilty verdict on this one.

Nah, there was a poll a week or two ago, almost everyone here believes CM is guilty. There's only a few that don't.

POLL

 

[la2cabo]

[QUOTE="Texas Red, post: 15017178, member: 135582"]The whole network in the Rancho area was defective, I was there and had the same problem, I was constantly connecting to distant towers, it would put my phone into roam mode and it eventually voided my contract.[/QUOTE]


Can you please provide a link? I worked in the area every day and NEVER had problems connecting nor did my phone ever go in to roaming mode.

 

[floridagrrl]

I disagree

Google has come a long way in 10-15 years IMO So has the information available online.

I’m coming to you Missy as you girl are on the ball with this case and a wealth of info, I for one thank you. We might not agree on some topics, but I still highly respect your knowledge everything McStay case.

Quick question you might now. The IP addresses issue. Was it presented if DKs laptop that indicated SD area for the IP was through WiFi? Data plan? Remote router? This dude was a computer guy. I could see him having different avenues with a remote server type deal based in San Diego
Was curious.

 

[Karinna]

Every death penalty trial I've ever followed had special circumstances attached.

Its those special circumstances that raises it up to the highest level becoming a death penalty case.

From what I understand the state only has to produced one qualifier only.

There are multiple choices the state had to choose from in this case. Imo.

1..Multiple murders.

2...Killed for financial gain.

3...2 victims were under the age of 12 when murdered.

4...the murders were extremely heinous, and cruel.

Imo

Thanks for clarifying and that is what i would think it means as well.

 

[Bernina]

how do you figure this shows he was in Hawaii? IMO it shows that he dialed an 808 number and received calls from 808 numbers. It also shows he called a 707 and a 949 number, but I doubt that means he flew back to California quickly to make those calls.

That's just the basic customer bill, where's the tower/ping info? Where's the"forensic" breakdown? Are they NOT showing it because it shows information they don't want known?

It doesn't even show where the call originated on either end.

That's a totally stripped down call log. Our call logs we access online for our cells show locations at both ends. We don't have VPN. I know there was another log of Dan's they showed. Why didn't they dissect Dan's calls like they did CM's?

ATM's have video capture.

Airlines have manifests, security video, and ID requirements.

His Hawaii landlord didn't see him? Bring him in. But if a person is in Hawaii surfing, they're going to be sleeping on the beach instead of packing up and high tailing it back home every night. My brother and his friends did that for years before he permanently moved there.

Put his Paypal debit card in someone else's possession.
<modsnipped>

 

[Texas Red]

Correct, Special Circumstance (3)...which is this according to Section 3 of the Penal Code....

(3) The defendant, in this proceeding, has been convicted of more than one offense of murder in the first or second degree.


And to confirm...nothing about robbery/theft.

Snip

Ramos announced that four counts of murder have been filed, as well as a special circumstance of multiple murders, making Merritt eligible for the death penalty.

Business associate arrested for murder of McStay family at Fallbrook home

You're absolutely correct, if the complaint were referencing a special enhancement for theft it would include 190.2(a)(1).
The complaint only references 190.2(a)(3) because the alleged crime included multiple homicides. There is absolutely NO reference to theft.

 

[missy1974]

I’m coming to you Missy as you girl are on the ball with this case and a wealth of info, I for one thank you. We might not agree on some topics, but I still highly respect your knowledge everything McStay case.

Quick question you might now. The IP addresses issue. Was it presented if DKs laptop that indicated SD area for the IP was through WiFi? Data plan? Remote router? This dude was a computer guy. I could see him having different avenues with a remote server type deal based in San Diego
Was curious.

The IP's that were introduced were only from the logs that PayPal produced under subpoena by the defense. It is what PayPal captured, there is no information from a laptop or any other device, or about any device used to access it.

There were some IP's that were captured that were considered mobile IP's, similar to what we saw in Joey's phone records when his phone connected to the internet.

In cross exam, the questions were posed about VPN's, networks, remote access, etc. But they were just questions. I wish either side had asked the PayPal chick about using VPN's or proxy's to access PayPal because doing a google search and looking at TOS there seems to be conflicting answers.

Hope that helps?

 

[missy1974]

That's just the basic customer bill, where's the tower/ping info? Where's the"forensic" breakdown? Are they NOT showing it because it shows information they don't want known?

It doesn't even show where the call originated on either end.

That's a totally stripped down call log. Our call logs we access online for our cells show locations at both ends. We don't have VPN. I know there was another log of Dan's they showed. Why didn't they dissect Dan's calls like they did CM's?

ATM's have video capture.

Airlines have manifests, security video, and ID requirements.

His Hawaii landlord didn't see him? Bring him in. But if a person is in Hawaii surfing, they're going to be sleeping on the beach instead of packing up and high tailing it back home every night. My brother and his friends did that for years before he permanently moved there.

Put his Paypal debit card in someone else's possession.
<modsnipped>

I don't disagree with you Bernina, but it should be pointed out that it was the prosecution that produced that phone record in cross exam of La Rock. If I was a juror, I would be asking that exact question. If the prosecution has that ping information it should have been presented. Because neither side produced it, I have to wonder if either side even has it. JMO

I disagree that the defense has to produce the "proof" of anything. I think it was the job of the investigators to eliminate Dan as a suspect considering the information they had. From interviews with family and friends, they had info that Joey was cutting him out, they had info that Joey was paying him off, they had info that Joey was at the end of that payout, they had info that he taken money from PayPal (or should have), they had info that he sold the business. If they also have irrefutable proof that he was in Hawaii, wouldn't that be part of the case files? Wouldn't that be part of discovery? Would the defense really go to these lengths if there was a document in all of the case files that show without a doubt that he was in Hawaii? I just can't see that IMO I think this is what the defense has been saying, that LE had tunnel vision, they didn't investigate Dan as an alternate suspect, and that he also had a financial motivation here. I don't think they have to prove he did it, they have to lay it all out there and hope the jury sees it as reasonable doubt.

Here is a really good paper on the SODDI/SODDI 2.0 defense. There are going with the 2.0 version in this case IMO
https://www.luc.edu/media/lucedu/law/students/publications/llj/pdfs/vol47/Imwinkelried.pdf

When an accused urges a conventional SODDI defense, he or she presents evidence to show that a third party committed the crime with which the accused is charged. The SODDI defense 2.0 is a variation on that theme; here the accused presents evidence to show that the police failed to diligently investigate the guilt of a third party who plausibly committed the charged crime.

 

[asyousay]

Would DK of spent time with the boys does anybody know?

 

[wary]

In actuality the defense doesn't "need" to offer "us" anything. They have, however, done an excellent job of casting doubt about the veracity of the prosecution evidence. jmho

They ‘need’ to offer us certain things if we’re going to believe their theory of the case as laid out in the opening statement.

Unless, of course, we desperately need to believe what they say.

Moo, of course.

Of course, it’s not necessary to believe the defense’s theory of the case, in order to believe that the prosecution hasn’t proven theirs beyond a reasonable doubt.

Edited to add an afterthought.

 

[missy1974]

Would DK of spent time with the boys does anybody know?

According to Joey (in an email) they called him "Uncle Dan".

 

[asyousay]

According to Joey (in an email) they called him "Uncle Dan".

Thank You, I vaguely remember that now you mention it. I just hadn’t heard of him being around the new house at all.

 

[missy1974]

Thank You, I vaguely remember that now you mention it. I just hadn’t heard of him being around the new house at all.

I was looking for a link that I could post, but can't find one that I know won't get deleted lol If anyone is interested, just google McStay Uncle Dan and you should be able to find it I'm sure it's mentioned in the McStay Forum as well somewhere

 

[floridagrrl]

The IP's that were introduced were only from the logs that PayPal produced under subpoena by the defense. It is what PayPal captured, there is no information from a laptop or any other device, or about any device used to access it.

There were some IP's that were captured that were considered mobile IP's, similar to what we saw in Joey's phone records when his phone connected to the internet.

In cross exam, the questions were posed about VPN's, networks, remote access, etc. But they were just questions. I wish either side had asked the PayPal chick about using VPN's or proxy's to access PayPal because doing a google search and looking at TOS there seems to be conflicting answers.

Hope that helps?

Yes, helps very much! Thank you!
So interpretation wide open

Again, thank you