CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #18

[katydid23]

I thought I explained that. Don't you think a juror may wonder why has Dan fled town? Could it be that he did do the things the defense is accusing of? If not why wouldn't he show up in tell us he didn't do it and where he was? Do you not agree with this analogy?

Also, if the jurors are going to wonder why Dan won't take the stand and tell them he didn't do it, don't you think they will wonder the same about Chase?

 

[Bennettfit]

Also, if the jurors are going to wonder why Dan won't take the stand and tell them he didn't do it, don't you think they will wonder the same about Chase?

Yes, of course, but they're going to wonder that anyway the difference now is they have Dan to also wonder about.

 

[smr]

Within Sight Of Trial’s End, Merritt’s Defense In A State Of Exhaustive Collapse | SBCSentinel

"After testimony concluded on Wednesday, a bleary-eyed Maline explained to the Sentinel why he, McGee and Guerard are being so exacting and driving themselves to the point of disintegration.
“In most cases, the defense needs only to demonstrate to the jury that there is reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt to prevail,” he said. “This case is different, way different. You have babies – a three-year-old and a four-year-old – whose heads were beaten in with a hammer. Showing that there is some doubt our client did this will not suffice, not in this case. We have to prove by a country mile that he is absolutely innocent. We can’t let anything that the prosecution does or says go unchallenged.”

 

[katydid23]

Yes, of course, but they're going to wonder that anyway the difference now is they have Dan to also wonder about.

But Chase HAS TO be there to answer to the accusations. Dan doesn't because he hasn't been charged with anything. So no big mystery that he would try to stay away if possible.

 

[Bennettfit]

But Chase HAS TO be there to answer to the accusations. Dan doesn't because he hasn't been charged with anything. So no big mystery that he would try to stay away if possible.

We were talking about taking the stand, now your talking about being there? There's no point in continuing this debate, you see it one way I see it another but what's important is the way the jury sees it, we'll just have to wait and see.

 

[geevee]

We were talking about taking the stand, now your talking about being there? There's no point in continuing this debate, you see it one way I see it another but what's important is the way the jury sees it, we'll just have to wait and see.

Wait and see what? CM isn't taking the stand and DK isn't going to show up so the defense can pummel him with false charges that the DA's office never considered bringing. Not much to wait for except the expected outcome. Unless of course the defense quits on it and the judge has no choice but to declare a mistrial.

 

[Recidivist]

I'd advise him to start a go-fund-me account. He could tell people he's a victim of the justice system and seek their good will, he seems to have many supporters out there. I also think he's now eligible for SS retirement benefits.

He would have had to pay into SS, in order to get the retirement benefits. I doubt that he did.

 

[Karinna]

He would have had to pay into SS, in order to get the retirement benefits. I doubt that he did.

Agree, and would bet it all went down the tubes at the casinos. IMO

 

[MsFacetious]

Well. Wow. That took quite a dramatic turn.

Wow...Prosecutor saw McGee Saturday night out drinking & dancing!!! Claiming defense is deliberately using stall tactics to delay trial.

I hope he has more than just a few minutes of observation to back up such an accusation. There are people who use a wheelchair, but can walk a few yards. Just because you see them walking doesn't mean they are faking their condition.

There are plenty of conditions that might allow a couple of hours of feeling decent, especially at night rather than first thing in the morning.

Does McGee have a history of faking illness to get out of trial?
A history of unethical behavior?
Or is this supposed to just be the first time it's ever happened?
Is Chase just so wonderful that McGee is willing to tarnish his career to delay his fate?

Cathy Russon‏ @cathyrusson 11s12 seconds ago
#McStay - Cross examination of defense investigator: You didn't look anywhere in Hawaii, did you? (for Kavanaugh) No.

That would be pretty cost prohibitive for the defense. If asking for the court to fund the trip, I can see the state objecting it was extravagant to send the PI on a tropical vacation.

Really want to stick with you on this , Missy.
But this is big time. Like end of game time.
Is it physical or is it psychological?
And how much leeway should be given for this
I am really thrown by the PT stating the man is out drinking and dancing.

I witnessed a recent case which had 2 defense attorneys. The lead attorney did the majority of the work, had most of the knowledge and did the majority of the questioning. But he totally worked himself to death. He actually fell asleep in court.

I think it would have been much better if he'd requested a delay to actually get some sleep.

Birds of a feather flock together! Who wants to work when you can gamble and or drink and dance the night away?! I work with people who have a tendency for the exact same and it’s a disgraceful despicable work ethic particularly when you are servicing others. Shameful yet not surprising! IMO

The Prosecutor was there as well, I guess they could both be unethical? However, since they were both there I'm guessing it wasn't exactly a rave.

I'm a bit intrigued as to exactly what event they were both attending. I'd think they'd not want to associate as catty as this trial has been.

I hope the jurors are smart enough to realize DK was investigated and to date that LE have found no evidence to tie him to this horrific crime. He has never been arrested and charged for it either. Without solid evidence against DK there is no case to answer.

I think if that is true, the state should have no problem just showing the evidence that DK was in Hawaii. I mean is it really worth fighting to keep DK's name out of it, when you could just display the proof?

I would NOT want a jury to assume someone was investigated. Because they aren't always investigated. That's how people get wrongly convicted, because the state gets confirmatory bias and doesn't investigate anyone else.

I hope the state simply shows the proof, so that the jury doesn't have to wonder.

Within Sight Of Trial’s End, Merritt’s Defense In A State Of Exhaustive Collapse | SBCSentinel

"After testimony concluded on Wednesday, a bleary-eyed Maline explained to the Sentinel why he, McGee and Guerard are being so exacting and driving themselves to the point of disintegration.
“In most cases, the defense needs only to demonstrate to the jury that there is reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt to prevail,” he said. “This case is different, way different. You have babies – a three-year-old and a four-year-old – whose heads were beaten in with a hammer. Showing that there is some doubt our client did this will not suffice, not in this case. We have to prove by a country mile that he is absolutely innocent. We can’t let anything that the prosecution does or says go unchallenged.”

THIS IS 100000% TRUE.
There are certain cases where you don't go in with the presumption of innocence. You go in guilty until PROVEN innocent. Maline is completely accurate on this. They do have to go above and beyond what a regular defense would need to do. No doubt about it.

We just dealt with a case where the defense thought they'd demonstrated innocence, (with an electronic alibi for starters) but the jury convicted because the correct suspect wasn't allowed to be introduced at all.

The correct suspect also was NEVER investigated. At all. Period. They found the defendant and decided he did it and quit investigating. At least one witness lied to cover for the true suspect, but we couldn't point that out either. It was appalling.

So, the jury convicted the one they had in front of them, even though there absolutely was not evidence to support the conviction because they wanted to hold someone accountable.

This jury will likely be looking for any justification to hold someone responsible for these brutal crimes. If there isn't another suspect offered and if everything the state says isn't rebutted, the defense will end up with a client on death row regardless of guilt.

 

[Karinna]

Well. Wow. That took quite a dramatic turn.




I hope he has more than just a few minutes of observation to back up such an accusation. There are people who use a wheelchair, but can walk a few yards. Just because you see them walking doesn't mean they are faking their condition.

There are plenty of conditions that might allow a couple of hours of feeling decent, especially at night rather than first thing in the morning.

Does McGee have a history of faking illness to get out of trial?
A history of unethical behavior?
Or is this supposed to just be the first time it's ever happened?
Is Chase just so wonderful that McGee is willing to tarnish his career to delay his fate?




That would be pretty cost prohibitive for the defense. If asking for the court to fund the trip, I can see the state objecting it was extravagant to send the PI on a tropical vacation.




I witnessed a recent case which had 2 defense attorneys. The lead attorney did the majority of the work, had most of the knowledge and did the majority of the questioning. But he totally worked himself to death. He actually fell asleep in court.

I think it would have been much better if he'd requested a delay to actually get some sleep.




The Prosecutor was there as well, I guess they could both be unethical? However, since they were both there I'm guessing it wasn't exactly a rave.

I'm a bit intrigued as to exactly what event they were both attending. I'd think they'd not want to associate as catty as this trial has been.




I think if that is true, the state should have no problem just showing the evidence that DK was in Hawaii. I mean is it really worth fighting to keep DK's name out of it, when you could just display the proof?

I would NOT want a jury to assume someone was investigated. Because they aren't always investigated. That's how people get wrongly convicted, because the state gets confirmatory bias and doesn't investigate anyone else.

I hope the state simply shows the proof, so that the jury doesn't have to wonder.




THIS IS 100000% TRUE.
There are certain cases where you don't go in with the presumption of innocence. You go in guilty until PROVEN innocent. Maline is completely accurate on this. They do have to go above and beyond what a regular defense would need to do. No doubt about it.

We just dealt with a case where the defense thought they'd demonstrated innocence, (with an electronic alibi for starters) but the jury convicted because the correct suspect wasn't allowed to be introduced at all.

The correct suspect also was NEVER investigated. At all. Period. They found the defendant and decided he did it and quit investigating. At least one witness lied to cover for the true suspect, but we couldn't point that out either. It was appalling.

So, the jury convicted the one they had in front of them, even though there absolutely was not evidence to support the conviction because they wanted to hold someone accountable.

This jury will likely be looking for any justification to hold someone responsible for these brutal crimes. If there isn't another suspect offered and if everything the state says isn't rebutted, the defense will end up with a client on death row regardless of guilt.

I have read that DK was investigated and was co operative with LE.
There is no evidence that ties DK to the crime. Police can't arrest and charge someone with such a heinous crime with no evidence because the charges certainly wouldn't stick on no evidence and just hearsay. IMO.

 

[MsFacetious]

I have read that DK was investigated and was co operative with LE.
There is no evidence that ties DK to the crime. Police can't arrest and charge someone with such a heinous crime with no evidence because the charges certainly wouldn't stick on no evidence and just hearsay. IMO.

Has the jury read that he was investigated? Because they are the ones who will be making this decision.

No good legal team leaves that out there hanging if they can just show proof the guy was out of state. It's reckless to not show that proof if it exists. This is a quadruple murder case. You dot all your i's and cross all your t's.

 

[missy1974]

Has the jury read that he was investigated? Because they are the ones who will be making this decision.

No good legal team leaves that out there hanging if they can just show proof the guy was out of state. It's reckless to not show that proof if it exists. This is a quadruple murder case. You dot all your i's and cross all your t's.

Good to see you back!

 

[missy1974]

Within Sight Of Trial’s End, Merritt’s Defense In A State Of Exhaustive Collapse | SBCSentinel

"After testimony concluded on Wednesday, a bleary-eyed Maline explained to the Sentinel why he, McGee and Guerard are being so exacting and driving themselves to the point of disintegration.
“In most cases, the defense needs only to demonstrate to the jury that there is reasonable doubt about the defendant’s guilt to prevail,” he said. “This case is different, way different. You have babies – a three-year-old and a four-year-old – whose heads were beaten in with a hammer. Showing that there is some doubt our client did this will not suffice, not in this case. We have to prove by a country mile that he is absolutely innocent. We can’t let anything that the prosecution does or says go unchallenged.”

From the article... I wonder if this is something the defense told the writer? or if he is assuming?


Accompanying that will be the testimony of Dr. Leonid Rudin, who was retained as an expert witness for the district attorney’s office but who was then shunned by the prosecution when his scientific analysis led him to the conclusion that the vehicle seen in the Mitchley video does not match Merritt’s truck. It was the defense team’s intention that McGee would carry out the examination of Rudin.

 

[mrjitty]

Well, it just looks very UNPROFESSIONAL to be drinking and dancing out at night, at a professional Legal event, when you are simultaneously putting a major trail at jeopardy of a mistrial, because you are too ill to be in the courtroom.

It is not a good look for McGee to do that during a trial, while he is claiming he is too deathly ill to proceed.

Flabbergasted.

Counsel has some serious explaining to do.

 

[MsFacetious]

Good to see you back!

I never left. Just too disappointed in the justice system to post. This juvenile behavior annoyed me enough I guess.

 

[mrjitty]

At what point in the trial has Imes EVER given you the impression that he respects McGee? This bickering has been going on for months. JMO

And why would you respect him?

The conduct of the defense team is outrageous, and this is just the latest example.

 

[mrjitty]

I never left. Just too disappointed in the justice system to post. This juvenile behavior annoyed me enough I guess.

I have never seen anything like this.

 

[missy1974]

I never left. Just too disappointed in the justice system to post. This juvenile behavior annoyed me enough I guess.

Have you ever seen anything like it? LOL I have watched a few trials in my time... I cannot recall anything like it.

 

[mrjitty]

Gosh, I hope he didn't! It's sad enough that Imes was spending the night watching McGee instead of having a good time himself without snapping pictures as proof. I mean, really and then to bring it up in a court room fill of people instead of having a chat to the judge in private. That just says more about Imes than it does about McGee in my opinion. Seriously, Imes must be really desperate to stoop so low. MOO

The Court room is the correct venue to bring it up when the Judge is actively discussing a continuance

 

[missy1974]

And why would you respect him?

The conduct of the defense team is outrageous, and this is just the latest example.

Just the defense team though, right? Not the prosecution... not the judge?