CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #2

[Emi]

@LadyL and everyone all the videos of the trial are on youtube under Law and Crime channel there is a playlist

 

[Emi]

deleted

 

[missy1974]

@LadyL and everyone all the videos of the trial are on youtube under Law and Crime channel there is a playlist

I haven't posted links for a few days, but here are some handy one's

Link to Law & Crime Live Trials:

Law & Crime

Direct Link:

Watch: McStay Family Murder Trial


Live Tweets:

Cathy Russon (@cathyrusson) | Twitter
Richard K. De Atley (@RKDeAtley) | Twitter
Leticia Juarez (@ABC7Leticia) | Twitter

Law & Crime youtube channel (will upload the video at the end of the day)

Law & Crime Network

McStay Trial playlist from above link:

McStay Family Murder Trial - YouTube

 

[Niner]

Wednesday, January 23rd:
*Trial continues (Day 10) (@ 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 (57/now 60) arrested (11/5/14) & indicted (11/7/14) of 4 counts of murder with special circumstance; plead not guilty. DP case.
12 jurors & 6 alternates were finalized on Tuesday (12/11/18). 8 women & 4 men, while the alternates include 4 men & 2 women. Dec. 19 hearing will focus on evidence & details about possible jury visits to the both the desert grave sites & the McStay family home in Fallbrook. Trial to start 1/7/19.
1/7/19 Day 1: Judge will allow live stream of trial. Judge gives jurors initial instructions. Judge not happy with the number of cameras in the courtroom. Opening statements are done. Trial continues 1/8.
1/8/19 Day 2: State witnesses: Susan Blake (Joseph's mother). Michael McStay (Joseph’s brother). Trial continues on 1/9.
1/9/19 Day 3: Prosecutor tells the judge Mike McStay doesn't want to be shown on camera today. Judge denies request. State witnesses: Jennifer Michley (or Mitchley), former Fallbrook neighbor of the McStays, she now lives out of state. Michael McStay. Trial continues on 1/10.
1/10/19 Day 4: State witnesses: Michael McStay (subject to recall). Bruce Carter, was security for the San Jacinto Shopping Center mall where the McStay's Isuzu Trooper was towed from on the Mexico Border town of San Ysidro. David Jackson, worked for the last witness. He was a security guard at the parking where vehicle was towed from. Kathleen Conwell, in 2010 she was an animal control officer for San Diego County. Sgt. Michael Tingley, San Diego Co. Sheriff's Office. In 2010, he was a patrol deputy for the Fallbrook area. Trial continues on Monday, 1/14. Will be dark on Fridays.
1/14/19 Day 5: State witnesses: Jeffrey "McGyver" McCargar (he was friends with Joseph & Summer. He introduced them). Det. Troy DuGal, from San Diego Sheriff's office. Tomorrow 1/15 trial will go from 9:30am to 12 noon, as a juror has an appointment.
1/15/19 Day 6: State witness: Ret. Detective Troy DuGal. Trial continues on 1/16.
1/16/19 Day 7: State witnesses: Det. Troy DuGal. Denys Williams, a forensic evidence technician for San Diego County, now retired, since 2014. Trial continues on 1/17.
1/17/19 Day 8: State witnesses: Denys Williams, retired evidence technician with San Diego Co. She took photos inside the McStay home. David Sequeida, employee from Metro Sheet Metal. Joe Sequeida from MSM. Dark on Fridays, continues on Tuesday, 1/22, as Monday the 21st is a holiday.
1/22/19 Day 9: State witnesses: Joe Sequeida, from Metro Sheet Metal. John Bluth, is the motorcycle rider that found the human skull and called police. Sgt. Gary Hart. is with the San Bernadino Sheriff's dept. At the time of this investigation he was a detective. After jurors released for break, one atty (Maline) was scolded by judge for being 20 min late to court for third time. Sgt. Armando Avila (subject to recall), was a detective in the homicide for San Bernardino County at the time the remains were found. Trial continues on 1/23 and will be from 9:30am to 12:30pm.

 

[mrjitty]

The more likely explanation would be, it was done after the crime by locally accessing the computer and then backdating the search data to create the deception of the family traveling to Mexico, thus enhancing the value of dumping the Trooper at the border.

I've also wondered whether JM had talked to CM about planning a trip to Mexico

 

[mrjitty]

Maybe I'm delusional, but wasn't it the defense that said a knife was found in one of the graves? - this being based on a purported confession that DK made to one of his rather compromised girlfriends, who showed up at the last minute, that he had murdered the whole family? I have followed this case from the beginning, and am not aware of the existence a knife ever being mentioned by SB.

I want to see that knife produced, and the girlfriend plunked on the stand. And most certainly the jury will want to see both. Otherwise, the defense can say adios to its credibility.

The evidence recovered from the grave sites will all be in the state exhibits. Most likely as photos.

 

[mrjitty]

So, I have just listened to Sequieda's testimony from today. What I came away with was.... Sequieda's father also had issues with Joseph, he was not happy that Joey wasn't sharing the selling price with them, he even called Joey a crook.

Sequieda talked about CM being "gone" in the time leading up to the family's disappearance... the defense seemed to elude to the fact that CM may have been gone away to install water fountains.

The defense was also trying to get it out that the "missing cheque" was actually about a dispute over some insurance money. A water fountain was damaged during shipping, the insurance paid for it, and they rebuilt it, and hadn't been paid for that.

It seemed like the pro's were trying to get Sequieda to say more about why he didn't trust CM but just couldn't get it out of him!!!

This is what really annoyed me about Maline's X

Starting with the cheque/statement on Thursday , he kept trying to introduce primary evidence under the guise of cross examination by using a state witness who is not a primary source for the info.

Hence the numerous state objections e.g

1. Placing financial documents in front of Sequieda when he did not create them nor ever see them before. How should he testify about them? Why should he be required to interpret them in 2019? This is not what a direct witness does. The witness shall testify as to matters that happened in 2014 that were within his direct experience.

2. Ask the witness to discuss CM's role in installing fountains around the US and internationally. The witness stated he did not have direct knowledge of this. The correct witness with direct knowledge is CM!! Or clients who had fountains installed. Or correspondence with Joey about trips and relevant travel records. Indeed the defence had a fine opportunity to put such exhibits before the witness to ask him if the dates might have been relevant to absences.

Funny they didn't do that!

3. Asking Sequieda to speculate about an argument between CM and his father. The witness may testify as to what he directly observed yet Maline asks him to speculate or give hearsay testimony. Again the defence has the correct witness to testify as to the nature of the argument. i.e the defendant Chase Merritt.

4. Attempting to give Evidence in Chief as counsel by explaining to the witness what made CMs fountain work so market leading. Correct witness is the defendant.

Fortunately the Judge was tight on each occasion - e.g. point 4 is an obvious attempt to put matters not in evidence to the witness.

Clearly behind the scenes, CM is very active in creating counter points to each witness, which the defence then tries to get in front of the jury via X

I realise it is a difficult line for the Judge, as the defence may later introduce some of this stuff via EIC, and this is the one and only chance to put matters to potentially related witnesses.

However I suspect what we saw was much more an attempt to have CM essentially argue with the witness, via his attorney, around matters that CM himself needs to testify to if the defence wishes to use them

 

[mrjitty]

You are not crazy! LOL I heard it too... it was ... odd and seemed to be glossed over!

I can't understand this either

I don't think counsel was listening to the answer as he just kept on with his prep.

 

[mrjitty]

The defense knows it hasn’t been checked out, otherwise they wouldn’t have asked. Number one rule of criminal defense lawyers, don’t ask a question that you don’t already know the answer to.

Again I guess I am just somewhat cynical that claims by the defense in opening will measure up in terms of X and EIC

Seeing as the fact of the murders is not in issue, the only available defence was always identity - someone else did it.

We've already seen on X that when the prosecution testifies to documentary evidence supporting the DK alibi, this is somehow "failing to investigate his guilt"

My guess is that the prosecution failed to discover anything incriminating about DK, but also nothing to 100% rule him out. it's always a wild possibility after all!

It's down this garden path of misdirection that the defence hopes to lead the jury, as opposed to focusing on the evidence that proves CMs guilt

 

[HelenK]

The evidence recovered from the grave sites will all be in the state exhibits. Most likely as photos.

The prosecution stated what was found in the graves in its opening statement. There was no mention of a knife. Why would this be withheld, I wonder?

 

[Tortoise]

On the timeline in the other forum, it's listed as January 28th...

No Time - Passport search on family desktop - Someone using the McStay's computer search for information about travel to Mexico and passports for children days before they disappeared. Also, a search of the McStay's computer showed someone had gone to the information website About.com to inquire about travel into Mexico and passports for children.

Looking at the communication between JM and CM that day, I don't know that CM would have been in their home that day?

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/mcstay-family-comprehensive-timeline.285143/#post-14733757

But it's eerily close to the date Merritt started printing cheques - February 1st. Somehow or other he had to have stolen a batch of blank cheques, the serial numbers for which were in the #4000 range and the ones in Joey's office were in the #4200 range.

Prosecution Opening Statement : "The sequence of cheques is before the cheques that were found in Joseph’s office.."

 

[mrjitty]

The prosecution stated what was found in the graves in its opening statement. There was no mention of a knife. Why would this be withheld, I wonder?

Nothing will be withheld as there is no trial by ambush.

The contents of the graves will be exhibited - most likely by photos. They also will have been discovered by the defence.

Usually the investigator who oversaw the recovery, or the forensic photographer, would produce the exhibits of everything discovered.

We have to see what it up with all of this. I am not so familiar with US procedure so I don't know if the witnesses produced their own exhibits or whether its all in evidence.

But it seems from the trial video that Sgt Armando is indeed reviewing the grave contents.

 

[mrjitty]

So, I have just listened to Sequieda's testimony from today. What I came away with was.... Sequieda's father also had issues with Joseph, he was not happy that Joey wasn't sharing the selling price with them, he even called Joey a crook.

Sequieda talked about CM being "gone" in the time leading up to the family's disappearance... the defense seemed to elude to the fact that CM may have been gone away to install water fountains.

The defense was also trying to get it out that the "missing cheque" was actually about a dispute over some insurance money. A water fountain was damaged during shipping, the insurance paid for it, and they rebuilt it, and hadn't been paid for that.

It seemed like the pro's were trying to get Sequieda to say more about why he didn't trust CM but just couldn't get it out of him!!!

Sequieda could not say the real reason because the warning from the previous workshop was hearsay

However he was able to state on redirect that he was in fact so warned, and the quality of Chase's welding etc was so poor, he had to be supervised at all times.

To be honest Joey's operation sounded a bit cowboy to me and I have some sympathy for MSM

MSM were treated only as a supplier, but provided almost all the capability to do the work, including tools and premises.

Joey's business would have operated a lot better without Chase IMO - but it also seems like Joey wanted to stay in the business development / entrepreneur end and not be much involved on the operations

 

[asyousay]

Sequieda could not say the real reason because the warning from the previous workshop was hearsay

However he was able to state on redirect that he was in fact so warned, and the quality of Chase's welding etc was so poor, he had to be supervised at all times.

To be honest Joey's operation sounded a bit cowboy to me and I have some sympathy for MSM

MSM were treated only as a supplier, but provided almost all the capability to do the work, including tools and premises.

Joey's business would have operated a lot better without Chase IMO - but it also seems like Joey wanted to stay in the business development / entrepreneur end and not be much involved on the operations

The more I hear the more it makes me question why Joey kept on preserving with Chase. Why on earth did he not fire him sooner if his work was abysmal?

I assumed Chase was good at his job so Joey could look the other way on certain things but now we are hearing he wasn’t that good at that even.

 

[Tortoise]

Did anyone else catch something weird during Sequidas testimony? Part 1, right around the 22 minute mark. Maline is asking him if chase ever talked to him about his and Joey's relationship .. Pros is objecting, overruled and then Sequidas says something like: "he (chase) said they discussed business which seemed awkward, lying in bed...."
Am I hearing this right?! That chase told Sequida he and Joey would lie in bed together and discuss business? Almost implying Joey and chase were more than friends?? Somebody help me out here and tell me I'm crazy.

My impression is that he didn't mean it literally and I think he meant to say 'being in bed with' which is a common expression, rather than 'lying in bed with'. I interpret it to mean it seemed awkward to Sequeida that there were these business-related disagreements when they were also friends of long-standing.

 

[mrjitty]

The more I hear the more it makes me question why Joey kept on preserving with Chase. Why on earth did he not fire him sooner if his work was abysmal?

I assumed Chase was good at his job so Joey could look the other way on certain things but now we are hearing he wasn’t that good at that even.

I think he felt he needed him, as he didn't have any other tradesman who could work in with MSM

It's interesting because the business was really picking up financially after the financial crisis, but at the same time it seems to have been falling apart between the key partners (not unusual when big jobs start arriving).

January looks like a turning point.

 

[mrjitty]

My impression is that he didn't mean it literally and I think he meant to say 'being in bed with' which is a common expression, rather than 'lying in bed with'. I interpret it to mean it seemed awkward to Sequeida that there were these business-related disagreements when they were also friends of long-standing.

I think that is the only explanation for what he said

I take it to mean the conversation was awkward for Sequeida as they were in business with both JM and CM

 

[oceanblueeyes]

If you dug the graves without backing in your actions would be exposed to anyone that happened to drive by.

Ita!

The bodies were in the back of the vehicle. It's no different than anyone else who benignly has cargo in the back of their vehicle and back up to offload it. Some even do this when off loading their groceries at home.

In his case since his vehicle was filled with dead bodies he would do exactly as you have said. That way the vehicle would block the view of anyone if they should pass by.

They would just see only the front of his vehicle and the view would be blocked as to what was happening behind his vehicle.

Plus he wouldn't have to move the bodies nearly as far to put them all in the 2 graves since they had to be in the back. Imo

As far as digging two separate graves I think he had two motives in mind by doing so.

1. It is much easier to dig two graves than one very large grave that would have to be able to hold all 4 bodies. It wouldn't be nearly as obvious either as it would be if a large area had been dug for all four bodies. A larger grave would have had more of a chance of being noticed because it would look just like the size of a grave. Larger shallow graves dug by murderers also have large air pockets since the soil is not compacted tightly around the victims and are prone to collapse.

2. By separating them even in death it gave him some type of sick satisfaction he had separated both parents from being buried all together with their two little boys. No longer would they be a close family unit always together like they always had been when alive.

Jmo

 

[tmar]

Could something like that be done remotely? I know when I have had computer problems a tech can control my computer and they sounded like they were from India.

When I have problems with laptop or phone, often they are remotely accessed by the Company I call.
Someone with such skills, probably can access the McStay's computer.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Is it true they are only having three hours of court today after already having so many dark days off?

If true I think the defense is purposefully trying to make this trial come to a crawl. They are trying to inflame the jurors wanting them to hold it against the state. I've seen this same tactic used before by other DTs.

One even consistently shows up late without having enough respect to notify the judge.

Their cross examinations are laboriously long and dragged out unnecessarily imo.

So how can the state ever be prepared to have witnesses for a full day of testimony when the cross of witnesses seem to be so uncommonly long?

This is putting all state witnesses on hold and in limbo not even knowing what day they may even get to testify.

Many witnesses can only be there on a certain date but even those witnesses are being held hostage by the crosses that seem to drone on forever and ever.

Most trials I have seen the presiding judge would have already strongly admonished the defense to move along way before now.

Imo