Obfuscating,Yes there absolutely is. It's just some choose to conveniently look past it with a "Wait, look over here with DK...."
Obfuscating,Yes there absolutely is. It's just some choose to conveniently look past it with a "Wait, look over here with DK...."
I can see the running lights as well, the outline of them.View attachment 185452 Rudin stated in part 2 that he couldn't see the running lights of the truck in the Mitchley video so he didn't consider those as "identifying points" in his analysis. That's just crazy - even I can see the running lights in screen captures of the Mitchley video. Rudin just proved to me that he's perjuring himself. He even sounded sheepish during this part of his testimony.
He also keeps answering McGee with the comment "with this configuration" (using only the points he used.)
Can't wait for the Prosecution to ask him about *the other configuration.*
Thank you missy for providing the video link to Summer’s brother’s comments. Mike kept coming to check the house and the neighbors fed the dog. CM wasn’t the only one who fed the dog.
Summer’s brother - “Mike’s the one who came and checked on the house. I was in HI. He kept, kept, on coming in and checking on the dogs and realized they hadn’t been home because the dogs were still out and the neighbors said the dogs had been barking a lot. I talked to one of the neighbor’s yesterday. He said that uh, one of the neighbor’s, they noticed the dogs were barking a lot said one of the other neighbor’s came and fed the dogs and stuff.
——————-
Link to MSM article mentioning the neighbors feeding the dogs...
Where did the McStays go?
Witnesses perjuring themselves is nothing new in trials when it comes to DT's, and their need to win at all costs, IMO.Wow, I hope you have solid proof of perjury. Did you listen to his testimony? I did and I believe he had a much clearer video than we can see on our computer screen. He described what he sees and thinks quite clearly. You have made a serious charge against an expert witness. jmo imo
Exactly, and LE didn't find his inconsistent stories credible either.With respect - this doesn't address the problem of Chase's tailored evidence.
In the original Du Gal interview from 17 Feb, Chase claims to visit the house 3 times.
On his "first visit" on what we now know was Tuesday (cellular) he claims the dogs had no water, so he put a full water dish in the shed. Then when he returns on his "second visit" on what he said was Friday, he knew someone was feeding the dogs because the water dish was moved under the dripping tap. He rings Joey's mum to tell her! In this version, Chase doesn't feed the dogs.
Fast forward to the Interrogation.
Chase mentions only one visit. In this version, it is Chase himself who moved the water dish under the dripping tap. No claim anyone was feeding the dogs. No phone call to Joey's mum. He then feeds the dogs himself. Then he claims to drive over to Joey's mums house.
How can these discrepancies be explained?
How could he now think it was he himself who moved the water dish and him who feed the dogs, when on the 17th, only a few days after events, he said someone else did those things?
This is obvious fabrication!
Same question with Qbooks. Did the authorities factually prove this to be true or are you speculating?
Exactly, and LE didn't find his inconsistent stories credible either.
No it was left out, but it's a part of the whole picture. There were others besides CM who fed the dogs. Testimony or not it's a fact based on Summer's brother's comments in the video and MSM articles. On the other hand, the PT has such a strong case it really shouldn't matter.
regarding the dogs, a neighbour phoned to report the dogs abandoned on Sunday the 14th at 3.30 pm.
Or toss it as unreliable.
Witnesses perjuring themselves is nothing new in trials when it comes to DT's, and their need to win at all costs, IMO.
CJ perjured herself as well trying to create an alibi for CM, and Rodriguez did a good job of highlighting that on cross, IMO.
We also saw perjury in the Casey Anthony trial with her mother on the witness stand, so it must be okay?
Although not my idea of Justice.
I recall that it was trace DNA in trooper. Could have happened if they shook hands good-bye on the 4th. Let me put this another way. Is it a fact that CM was in the house on the 4th. Did they put him there via cell phone or witness? Again, is this fact? Same question with Qbooks. Did the authorities factually prove this to be true or are you speculating?
No he did not.Wow, that's some creative writing... Chase made that statement to DuGal during his first voluntary interview following the disappearance. jmo
Keeping it real, how does identifying whose vehicle it was say anything about who was driving it?But keeping it real.... if that is NOT Merritt's truck, isn't important to know who's vehicle it was? or if it was the McStay's leaving in one of their own vehicles?
It's difficult to tell without visual but in the first part of yesterday's testimony I think he refers to a box on the front of the vehicle in the Mitchley video, which he says one explanation could be computer noise but he doesn't think so because he sees it in several different frames (or wtte).I can see the running lights as well, the outline of them.
It's difficult to tell without visual but in the first part of yesterday's testimony I think he refers to a box on the front of the vehicle in the Mitchley video, which he says one explanation could be computer noise but he doesn't think so because he sees it in several different frames (or wtte).
He gets to the vehicle being underground but I'm wondering if in cross-exam it might emerge that he is treating the illumination on the back of the truck as Merritt's rear running light and not a reflection off the latch which is a lower point. I would assume though that the prosecution would have been able to work with him on that possibility, so maybe there was a different reason they didn't use him. I can totally see why the prosecution would not want to do an experiment with the actual truck, because it's impossible to recreate the exact lighting conditions of the night in question. Who knows what other lights were illuminated in the neighborhood that night. I've heard so much testimony about the truck now that I can't remember which testimony it was, it may have been Stutchman's, but they referred to street lights, neighbouring houses with porch lights and security lights etc, even (IMO - not testimony) the truck may have had a stick on reflector in February 2010 which was not there in 2014 when it had been sold and painted.
Like this one -
JMO
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.
I should think they'll cover it during closing arguments. It reinforces Mike's testimony that Merritt told him not to worry about coming out until Saturday because it looked like they'd left someone taking care of the dogs.
I'm not convinced the priors are in evidence owing to a blunder.
I think it's defense strategy to promulgate Chase's lie that he did not call in a welfare check because of his warrants. They needed any excuse in front of the jury more than they needed them to not hear about his criminal record. They know that is very incriminating.
Why do I say Chase was lying about the reasons for not calling in a welfare check, aside from the fact that he could have reported anonymously?
He virtually stopped calling Joey from 5.48 pm on the 4th - the 5 calls he did make to him over the next 3 days were not spread out as if he was trying to reach him at different hours of the day, 2 of those were in the same minute, one of those days he didn't call at all.
He stopped visiting the house.
4 days later he pretended he had called Joey when he hadn't.
That's not someone trying to find out why their best friend isn't answering or showing concern for their welfare. Was sick Joey back in hospital? Did he have a car accident? Did Summer know where he was? He wouldn't know.
So why would he call in a welfare check when he a/ hadn't shown concern for Joey's welfare by making other appropriate enquiries and b/ he had no idea whether there was a welfare concern for the whole family because he hadn't called Summer or even looked for them all?
Even the fact that he went straight to Susan's on the 9th before he went to the house is odd - evidenced by his phone records. I think that's why he told the detectives it happened the other way around. Why would Chase go from not being able to get an answer from Joey's phone to visiting Joey's mum if he didn't even know yet if everything was fine, Joey was ignoring him or taking a break from work calls and could have been at home painting or installing flooring, or Summer could have been at home and able to explain where Joey was?
Contacting someone's mother before you even try to see if they're home or contact the person they live with? To me that is someone who already knows the situation requires parental intervention to resolve it - he goes from virtually no concern and no appropriate enquiries to family need to know about this now. He also told the detectives he told Susan he couldn't find Joey but he hadn't looked for him yet.