CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #19

[katydid23]

One can speculate as much as one wants, but guilty/not guilty is only based on evidence.

His character, or lack of, is part of the evidence in this case.

The motivation behind the murders has been discussed by the prosecution. And they believe that the defendant owed his boss a lot of money and then began stealing money from him, and needed to hide that theft.

So it is important for the jury to decide if the defendant is indeed stealing and lying.

The defense is trying to say he was not stealing, but that his boss was voluntarily allowing him access to the bank account.

So it is up to the jury to decide which of these two scenarios is more likely. To do so, they need to assess CM's character. Is he capable of theft? Is he likely to steal?

I think his criminal history says YES, quite likely to steal from anyone and everyone, including his own children. In my opinion, he stole from his family when he spent so much time and money at the casinos, when his family was struggling to pay rent and bills.

And this assessment of his character is based upon evidence and testimony. He is a conman and a thief and a liar. FACT.

 

[katydid23]

@Tortoise

Interesting he lies about being given the cheques at lunch again - this is very damning IMO

And then your favorite dog thing. How were those animals doing after a supposed 9 days without food or water?

Merritt: Went out there. They weren’t there. But the dogs were in the backyard. So I fed the dogs. There was no water out for the dogs. So I put a pot underneath the faucet.
Bachman: Okay.
Merritt: And turned the faucet on just a little bit to have it continually drip. I filled it and then just let it drip in. And then I came back and called his mom and said, you know, the dogs were out with no food and no water. You know, that’s not Summer, because the big dog was Summer’s baby.
Bachman: Okay. So describe when you show up at Joe’s house, describe for me what you see.
Merritt: Front door was locked. Dog, when I pulled up, the dogs were barking…
Bachman: Uh-huh.
Merritt: …or the dog. The puppy wasn’t barking. The dog was barking. And the door was locked. So I went around to the backyard to look in the window. And the dogs were back there. Looked in the window. Couldn’t see Joseph, or anything. So I just, I fed the dogs. I ripped open the dog food bag, and because it was raining…
Bachman: Okay.
Merritt …or I think it was raining right then. But if it wasn’t raining then, it had been or was going to. But I knew that, I mean, it was going to be wet…
Bachman: Okay.
Merritt: …or whatever. And so I put the dog food inside the shed because he had it outside in a barrel. And I put the dog food inside in the shed and ripped open the bag, kind of made it so that they could eat. And then I put the pot under the faucet and turned it on and let it, let it drip. And I left. So that’s pretty much all I saw. I mean, it was wasn’t very much to see other than…​

And then later, when he calls Joey's Mom, he tells her that 'someone' was giving the dogs their water and food---leading her to believe that maybe the family went on a spontaneous trip. So he purposely misled her.

 

[mrjitty]

And then later, when he calls Joey's Mom, he tells her that 'someone' was giving the dogs their water and food---leading her to believe that maybe the family went on a spontaneous trip. So he purposely misled her.

Yes

@Tortoise has been hot on the fact that this is a significant mistake in the staging.

Obviously "the real killers" would have no need to put the dogs out and feed them, unless the murder happened in the house. I could believe the McStays put them out during the daytime if they were away from the house - but not feeding them with many days worth of food

My guess is that by the 13th the dogs were a significant practical issue with how Chase staged the scene, because what were they eating? So at this point he has to pretend he has fed them himself that day - because otherwise we are expected to believe the killer had been feeding them all this time.

In practice, the dog/food only works so long as the bodies are not found.

Once the murders are discovered, the dogs indicate clear crime scene staging

 

[Niner]

Tuesday, May 21st:
*Trial continues (Day 52-morning session only) (@ 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 aka Charles Ray Mandel aka Charles Ray Morritt aka Chase Meredith (57/now 62) 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. 7 women & 4 men & 1 ? (alternates include 4 men & 2 women-minus one).
Trial Days (1-50: 1/7/19 thru 5/7/19) reference post #1652 here:
CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #18
5/8/19 Day 51: Judge will allow certain portions of CM’s redacted 2014 interrogation tape related to Feb. 4th & 6th. Jurors viewed CM’s truck in the morning. Jurors back at 1:30pm & when they come back judge said portions of the tape with Merritt will be played. Tape played for jurors. Defense witness: Gary Robinson (Defense investigator). Court adjourned until Monday, May 13, when the defense will finish up with Det. Bachman & show video excerpts from Charles Merritt's police interview. Court will then be dark until Tuesday, May 21.
5/13/19 Day 52: Defense witness: Det. Bachman. Next day for court is Tuesday, 5/21 morning session only.
Tentative Schedule for week of May 20th thru May 24th: NO court: May 20th (Monday). Court with jurors morning only on May 21st (Tuesday), full day of court on May 22nd (Wednesday), May 23rd (Thursday). Dark on May 24th (Friday).

 

[ilovewings]

One can speculate as much as one wants, but guilty/not guilty is only based on evidence.

You can believe that if you choose to but that is not the case. I have been involved with personal injury litigation for 40 years and have been involved in many trials ( I am not an attorney )- I can tell you without any hesitation, that juries make many of their decisions based on whether they like or don't like the defendant: if a juror believes the defendant is not truthful, they don't like that. Trials are always about more than evidence. Choose to believe it or not- We have had good cases that we could not take to trial because the plaintiff lied in their deposition (usually about stupid stuff),but we knew that if the little itty bitty untruth was brought before the jury, we would lose the case. We had decent facts and the plaintiff sustained damages and injuries due to the defendant's negligence, but credibility is a huge element in a trial. Of course evidence is important, but it is not the only factor in the overall picture of a case and a trial.

 

[mrjitty]

Reposting some of @Tortoise 's transcript from the Dugal interview for comparison

Some clear issues. First this is 9th or 10th. And then second visit on the 12th Sentinel is saying 13th? I know this date is somewhat in dispute?

Second Chase doesn't say he fed the dogs on the 9th/10th. But did claim to water them. Then somebody moved the water dish so the water dripped in - this being proof a mysterious person was looking after the dogs.

I am definitely getting the impression that in 2010 he was building a tale that the dogs had been left out and someone was feeding them - food let out for them. He had never seen that before etc.

Obviously that version was sustainable with the bodies discovered. No murderer comes back to look after your dogs right?

TD: And you, when did you go back down there? And what inspired you to do that?

CM: Um, Monday, Tuesday, I can’t remember whether it was Tuesday or Wednesday, it may have, I, I don’t remember which day it was. Um Joseph’s mum may remember the exact day, I went, I drove over to Joseph’s house, on Tuesday or Wednesday, so it’d be the 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th – 9th or 10th? I believe. Um, because I hadn’t been able to get hold of Joseph and we’ve, we’ve got just tons of, you know bids we were working on,

TD: Ok, let’s say the 9th, did you say the 9th or the 10th was the first time? That would be a Tuesday, February 9th was a Tuesday.

CM: Yeah, 9th or 10th then.

TD: You went down to the house…

CM: To Joseph’s house.

TD: And what did you do?

CM: Knocked on the door, rang the doorbell, his white car wasn’t there, um, dogs were barking, I went back and looked at the dogs,

TD: Did you see any notifications on the door?

CM: No, no. No.

TD: Ok.

CM: Um, went back into the backyard, looked at the dogs, the water dish and the, there was a bag of food just left in the, in the thing, in the shed, and there was, their water dish inside the shed was empty. They had no water. So I filled the water dish and put it back into the

TD: Did it look like that bag was left for a long-term feeding? Or was it a bag that the dogs got to and opened it up?

CM: No, he never kept the dog food in the shed, that’s the first I’ve ever seen the dogs in the shed, ever, they, the dogs stayed in the house, at night they slept in the house, she put, she put the puppy up in the laundry room, I think, there’s a

TD: Dogs [x]?

CM: No, they were out most of the day, almost all day, they were outside, they were inside at night, they, they never kept them outside, never.

TD: Where was the dog food kept, do you have any knowledge?

CM: Yeah, I don’t know I, I, I remember Joseph feeding them but I don’t remember where he got that from.

TD: What I’m getting at and help me with this, cos I don’t know them and I don’t know his dog, but this, if I’m his friend and I walk in the backyard and I see this shed open with a bag of dog food and an empty water bowl, is that normal?

CM: No. No. No. That’s, it, it, it, well especially, I did not, I couldn’t get hold of Joseph all the way from you know Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday, Tuesday or whatever day it was I went down finally went down there I was just like you know I’d left a message saying dude you know call me we’ve gotta get this stuff resolved and, and he never called me back, so I drove up there. When I saw the uhh the water dish was empty, so I filled it up and put it back in the shed, from there I went straight down to his mum’s house,

TD: Did you touch the dog food bag?

CM: …………I don’t remember. I don’t remember touching the b, no I don’t think so,
​

Then on the 12th

CM: Um, went and knocked on the door, um went to a couple of the neighbours to see if they had seen him but all the damn neighbours were, none of them were home, um went into the backyard, and that’s when I called Mikey and J…and Jo’s mum and said somebody’s taking care of the dogs, because the water bowl that I filled I put it in the sh, in the shed, was now in the backyard, underneath the faucet, somebody had put it under the faucet, and, and the water dripped in it, sort of like they were taking care of the dogs, so I told, I told um Mikey that and I told his mum that, and his mum said well if he’s having somebody to take care of the dogs and I said well somebody’s taking care of the dogs, I said but I don’t know whether HE’S having somebody take care of the dogs, I said somebody moved the water dish for sure but I said I don’t think Joseph would put these dogs out there, I don’t think he would leave them outside. I think he would have somebody you know, I said I think he would probably put them in a, one of those little dog hotels, you know, that that’s the type Joseph is,
​

So some clear differences here, in that he claims someone was looking after the dogs because of the moved water dish

but in the interrogation video, he said it was himself who did that!

LOL!

​

 

[Tortoise]

If you look at the cell phone testimony there are plenty of opportunities for him to have been in Fallbrook feeding the dogs.

Friday the 5th his phone is dark from just before 4 pm until 9.17 pm when he re-surfaces travelling north on the i15. Then he is dark again until 10.46 am the next day, in the high desert.

Saturday the 6th he is in the desert until early afternoon when he returns to Rancho. His phone goes dark at 3.14 pm until 10.35 am the next day.

Sunday the 7th 5.17 pm is his last call of the day and then he is dark until 7.26 am the next morning.

Monday the 8th - early hours around 2 am there is activity on Joey's computer.

Tuesday the 9th he goes there at about 2.30 pm after visiting Susan Blake.

Wednesday the 10th his phone goes dark at 4.15 pm until the next day.

Thursday the 11th his phone goes dark at 3.47 pm until the next day.

Friday the 12th he is mooching around at 4.31 am in San Bernardino so I doubt he went home at all that night.

Saturday the 13th he is in Fallbrook with Mike.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Morning all!

Of course the character or lack of moral character of any defendant comes front, and center in every trial.

I'm not sure why anyone thinks this defendant should be an exception. Why should he be excluded?

Unfortunately, for these 4 victims or even for the defendant's own family they didn't create the immoral character CM has chosen during his adult life.

It is what it is.. based solely on this is the way CM chose to live his life. The blame of all of those bad choices is totally on CM.

Believe me, if he had been a man with a strong moral compass the DT would introduce it every time they could...even in questions they knew would be ruled objectionable, and sustained.

The character or lack thereof of any defendant always matters. It will be a concern for the jury when they weigh CMs interviews.

Is he known as a truth teller or is he the kind of man who lacks truth telling abilities? It goes to the amount of credibility the jurors will be willing to give him when dissecting his statements throughout.

The jury can weigh his moral character themselves based on what they have heard from CM himself.

Are his statements always consistent? Do they make logical sense based on the other evidence they have heard? Does his statements line up with other testimony, and evidence? Does he seem purposefully evasive repeatedly saying he doesnt recall or he doesn't know? Does he try to use others to establish facts he should have known himself passing the responsibility to someone else? What does the jailhouse interviews reveal about CM?

Why the DT decided to play more of his interview with LE, I have no clue. All it did in the end is give another chance for the jury to weigh his credibility. Imo they will notice at first how nervous he was in the beginning.

They will also notice he felt it necessary to bring records with him without being asked. What innocent person does that?

This shows he had COG at the time, and exposed that he knew it was just a matter of time before they were going to figure out he was the killer.

He was trying to get out in front of the evidence he knew they were going to find.

The jury has so many ways to weigh CMs lack of moral character. They even have the DTs very own witness, CJ, who exposes even further just how bad his character is. Imo.

The most revealing aspect of bad character evidence is it all centers around stealing, greed, and ripping many off. It supports the state's theory of financial greed/gain being the motive.

When CJ said CM cares about no one it shows he was perfectly capable of murdering the McStays, and never blinking an eye.

CM is WITHOUT any conscience at all for other human beings, and that is what it takes to murder these two parents, and the two small boys he murdered.

Imo, the DT has done much more to help the state's case than helping their guilty client. SMH

IMHO

 

[mrjitty]

It's made difficult because we don't know which of the 3 visits he is discussing in the interrogation IMO

So he could be talking about

9th/10th (tue/wed)
or the 12th (fri)
or the 13th/14th (sat/sun)

It can't be the last time (the 14th I think) because Mike was with him that time. It seem to recall from testimony the visit with mike might have been the 13th?

Either way there seem to be other differences to his interrogation version.

Merritt: I couldn’t get a hold of him. I think it was on a Saturday. I’m also positive. But, again, it’s been – it’s a little vague. But if it was that day, then I went… sometime in the middle of the day – I don’t remember exactly when I drove out. And I stopped at Joseph’s mom’s house said, ‘Have you heard, heard from Joseph? Haven’t seen him or haven’t been able to get a hold of him, and we’ve got some projects that we’re in the middle of. And I need to talk to him about this and that,’ you know. And she said that she hadn’t heard from him in a couple of weeks.
Bachman: Okay.
Merritt: And I said, ‘Well, I need to get a hold of him. So, I’m heading out there. I’ll have him call you.’
Bachman: Okay.
Merritt: And she called his brother. He said, ‘I haven’t talked to him in over a week.’ And so I said, ‘Well, I’m heading out there. I’ll have him give you a call or I’ll give you a call back.’
Bachman: Okay.
​

Now here is the Dugal version of the 9th / 10th

when I saw the uhh the water dish was empty, so I filled it up and put it back in the shed, from there I went straight down to his mum’s house,
​

and the 12th

that’s when I called Mikey and J…and Jo’s mum and said somebody’s taking care of the dogs
​

What appears to have happened IMO, is now the the 2 visits before the Mikey visit are now only one visit, and he has changed the order of whether he goes to Joey's mum before or after

My guess - there probably is only one visit - he invented the second one to create the story of someone feeding the dogs - and he did it only with a call.

In the interrogation version - its also improved. He doesn't go to Joey's mums house before but after finding the dogs

What we have to remember is he probably made neither of those visits. That's why he can't keep it straight about whether he visited her before or after.

IMO the last time he was at Joeys was the 8th

 

[Tortoise]

Just to say also, regarding the dogs, a neighbour phoned to report the dogs abandoned on Sunday the 14th at 3.30 pm.

A welfare check had been carried out during the week (pursuant to Dan's call on 10th) and nothing was found to be amiss.

I think a/ the neighbours would have called in about the abandoned dogs before the 14th if they were not being fed and were constantly barking. Even if neighbours are usually out at work Mon-Fri they would have heard them the weekend of the 6th/7th, and b/ the welfare check would not have turned up nothing being amiss if the dogs were making a racket and distressed.

So I think he was going there daily to feed them until the 13th. Mike would have left them food on the 13th and already by the 14th mid-afternoon the dogs were being bothersome enough for the neighbours to report it.

 

[mrjitty]

If you look at the cell phone testimony there are plenty of opportunities for him to have been in Fallbrook feeding the dogs.

Friday the 5th his phone is dark from just before 4 pm until 9.17 pm when he re-surfaces travelling north on the i15. Then he is dark again until 10.46 am the next day.

Saturday the 6th he is in the desert until early afternoon when he returns to Rancho. His phone goes dark at 3.14 pm until 10.35 am the next day.

Sunday the 7th 5.17 pm is his last call of the day and then he is dark until 7.26 am the next morning.

Monday the 8th - early hours around 2 am there is activity on Joey's computer.

Tuesday the 9th he goes there at about 2.30 pm after visiting Susan Blake.

Wednesday the 10th his phone goes dark at 4.15 pm until the next day.

Thursday the 11th his phone goes dark at 3.47 pm until the next day.

Friday the 12th he is mooching around at 4.31 am in San Bernardino so I doubt he went home at all that night.

Saturday the 13th he is in Fallbrook with Mike.

This is the next thing I was going to ask about T!

(I never nerded out on the cell data)

Can I check through the following?

Tuesday the 9th he goes there at about 2.30 pm after visiting Susan Blake.

Do you have him in fallbrook from the from cell data? Does this map to Susan's testimony? In the interrogation, he claims he went to Joey's mums AFTER one of these visits. but with Dugal it is BEFORE.

Does cell data place him at Fallbrook on any other days? e.g he claimed to make calls from the house.

that’s when I called Mikey and J…and Jo’s mum and said somebody’s taking care of the dogs

 

[mrjitty]

Just to say also, regarding the dogs, a neighbour phoned to report the dogs abandoned on Sunday the 14th at 3.30 pm.

A welfare check had been carried out during the week (pursuant to Dan's call on 10th) and nothing was found to be amiss.

I think a/ the neighbours would have called in about the abandoned dogs before the 14th if they were not being fed and were constantly barking. Even if neighbours are usually out at work Mon-Fri they would have heard them the weekend of the 6th/7th, and b/ the welfare check would not have turned up nothing being amiss if the dogs were making a racket and distressed.

So I think he was going there daily to feed them until the 13th. Mike would have left them food on the 13th and already by the 14th mid-afternoon the dogs were being bothersome enough for the neighbours to report it.

Yes - this would also explain about why he gets the days and order of events mixed up.

He was there so often, and has to use real world memories to create his supposed timeline.

e.g was it the 9th or the 10th?

Probably it was both so he includes both dates.

It is also bizarre that he went to Joey's 3x in total according to his story, yet hardly called him.

 

[Tortoise]

This is the next thing I was going to ask about T!

(I never nerded out on the cell data)

Can I check through the following?



Do you have him in fallbrook from the from cell data? Does this map to Susan's testimony? In the interrogation, he claims he went to Joey's mums AFTER one of these visits. but with Dugal it is BEFORE.

Does cell data place him at Fallbrook on any other days? e.g he claimed to make calls from the house.

He told DuGal he went to Susan's after going to Fallbrook - which is not true. You must have missed my posts highlighting the discrepancy of him going straight to worry Joey's mother before he'd even been to the house to ask Summer where Joey was.

Yes it's in the cell phone data - on the 9th he is in the area of Susan Blake's residence from 1 - 2 pm and at the Fallbrook location straight from there for about 10 minutes (time to top up the food) then he's going back north again from there to the location of the casino at Pechanga.

Cell phone records also place him in Fallbrook on Sat 13th and not there on Sunday the 14th.

 

[Tortoise]

He would have a very hard time trying to remember for the detectives which days he was legitimately there if he was there every day.

I think too he would want to be vague because it's easier that way to say I was never sure about it, if someone saw him. That's the way practiced liars work - so they can expand on the lie not box themselves in.

IMO

 

[mrjitty]

He told DuGal he went to Susan's after going to Fallbrook - which is not true. You must have missed my posts highlighting the discrepancy of him going straight to worry Joey's mother before he'd even been to the house to ask Summer where Joey was.

Yeah - I missed that part of the trial while travelling. So that is a really great point actually. Seems he improved the version by the time of the interrogation.

Yes it's in the cell phone data - on the 9th he is in the area of Susan Blake's residence from 1 - 2 pm and at the Fallbrook location straight from there for about 10 minutes (time to top up the food) then he's going back north again from there to the location of the casino at Pechanga.

Cool - this is what I was interested to know. So the DuGal version is actually the version that maps to the call data, and confirms it was Tuesday not Wednesday.

Cell phone records also place him in Fallbrook on Sat 13th and not there on Sunday the 14th.

So this is key to the case IMO

By the time of the interrogation he seems to have dropped an entire dog visit - the one where he supposedly figured out someone else was feeding the dogs. This is likely at a time when he was much more aware of his cell records.

In the Dugal interview, he creates space for an extra visit on friday 12th, and has moved Mikey to Sunday 14th

So Mikey is Sat 13th. Neighbours call about the dogs on the 14th

The visit on the 12th has to get dropped because his cell records don't support it.

 

[mrjitty]

He would have a very hard time trying to remember for the detectives which days he was legitimately there if he was there every day.

I think too he would want to be vague because it's easier that way to say I was never sure about it, if someone saw him. That's the way practiced liars work - so they can expand on the lie not box themselves in.

IMO

Yes - if you look at the Dugal interview carefully, the days he potentially visited the dogs are

9th, 10th, 12th, 13th 14th

So that is every day except thursday - but even then the friday visit was vague enough to be thursday if need be.

 

[MrsPC]

Any wagers on whether McGee will be ready to proceed with Dr Rudin today or do you think Maline will ask for another delay?

 

[Mony Mony]

Any wagers on whether McGee will be ready to proceed with Dr Rudin today or do you think Maline will ask for another delay?

My guess is McGee is ready, however, Rudin could not accommodate a half day of testimony and will be there tomorrow . So.....my guess.....no testimony today......IMO

 

[Mony Mony]

IMO, Rudin is going to backfire on the defense. He previously stated that he was able to match the faro scan to the Trooper but the position of the Trooper did not make sense, so they had to discard that result. He stated the Trooper appeared to be taking off into space like a rocket.
And he repearedly stated the scans matching the two timed felon's truck were within the acceptable margin of error.

All IMO

 

[MrsPC]

IMO, Rudin is going to backfire on the defense. He previously stated that he was able to match the faro scan to the Trooper but the position of the Trooper did not make sense, so they had to discard that result. He stated the Trooper appeared to be taking off into space like a rocket.
And he repearedly stated the scans matching the two timed felon's truck were within the acceptable margin of error.

All IMO

Problem is Rudin didn't previously testify in front of the jury. It was only the Judge & attorneys present. (If I recall correctly it was a 402 Hearing)