CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #5

[Tricia]

On Feb 4th, 2010 the McStay Family, Joey, Summer, Gianni, and Joseph Jr vanished from their home. It looked like the family simply got up and left their home never to return.

Law Enforcement was convinced that the McStay family ran away to Mexico.

Patrick McStay, Joey's father, along with other loved ones knew there was no way Joey and his family would never flee to Mexico. There was no reason for this scenario presented by law enforcement.

Up until the remains of the family were found buried in the desert on November 11, 2013, Patrick McStay searched for his son and his family.

Family friend Chase Merritt was arrested for the McStay family murders on Nov 7th, 2014 and finally, Merritt's first-degree murder trial is underway.

The McStay forum is in our private section. However, we are making the discussion of the trial public.

Link to prior threads
#1 CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010

Trial Thread #4

 

[Niner]

Wednesday, January 16th:
*Trial continues (Day 7) (@ 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 is now from out of state. Michael McStay. Trial continues on 1/10.
1/10/19 Day 4: State witnesses: Michael McStay (subject to recall). Bruce Carter, He 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. Jackson worked for the last witness. He was a security guard at the parking where vehicle was owed 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.



Am I spelling the detective's name correctly? Is it DuGal or Dugal - ?? The tweeter person has DuGal.

 

[Tricia]

Please continue here.

Thank you

 

[Texas Red]

IMO, if the prosecution, in their attempt to obtain a conviction, must resort to using borderline junk science, the jury is going interpret the tactic as a desperate decoy because there’s no real evidence available.

 

[Mica]

Following

 

[Deleted member 192280]

IMO, if the prosecution, in their attempt to obtain a conviction, must resort to using borderline junk science, the jury is going interpret the tactic as a desperate decoy because there’s no real evidence available.

That's exactly my thought while watching today's live streaming. It's not hard to imagine another expert hired by the defense reaching a different conclusion. Leonid Rudin is not the only expert in the field. "Borderline junk science" pretty much described it. Some jurors probably share this opinion.

 

[Mica]

That's exactly my thought while watching today's live streaming. It's not hard to imagine another expert hired by the defense to reach a different conclusion. Leonid Rudin is not the only expert in the field. "Borderline junk science" pretty much described it.

But the judge agreed to allow Rudin to testify in front of the jury? Is he considered an expert or not?

 

[missy1974]

@Speak Softly said in the last thread:

I've followed this story since the McStays went missing. Now I find out that I live blocks away from the courthouse where the trial is being held. In fact been inside the building, been inside the jury room and several court rooms. I must say I found the people who work there are very nice and friendly. I'll have to start watching the trial by video as there's no way I'll get inside. My heart has always ached for the McStays and especially their families.​

Sorry, couldn't quote. Just letting you know that from what has been reported, the court room hasn't been full. Probably because it's being streamed. If you get a chance to go, it would be great to get a perspective from someone that is there live lol Really missing "reporting" in this case.

 

[missy1974]

But the judge agreed to allow Rudin to testify in front of the jury? Is he considered an expert or not?

Did he? I thought that McGee said he has some issues and they are starting at 9am tomorrow to discuss. Judge just told the witness to come back for 10:30 tomorrow and they "will see".

 

[Deleted member 192280]

And even if the conclusion is that the truck matches CM's, the most you can say is that it matches a vehicle of the same model etc., it will be an 'evidence' no better than the phone calls, pings, etc.

 

[Mica]

Did he? I thought that McGee said he has some issues and they are starting at 9am tomorrow to discuss. Judge just told the witness to come back for 10:30 tomorrow and they "will see".

Ok, thank you for that confirmation.

 

[Texas Red]

But the judge agreed to allow Rudin to testify in front of the jury? Is he considered an expert or not?

An expert as defined by the court is by nature subjective. This science is not new and its critics claim that it’s nothing more than an elaborate form of photoshop, rendering an image by creating pixels out of nothing. The concern comes from the fact that the new image is heavily influenced by the parameters set by the user.

 

[Mica]

An expert as defined by the court is by nature subjective. This science is not new and its critics claim that it’s nothing more than an elaborate form of photoshop, rendering an image by creating pixels out of nothing. The concern comes from the fact that the new image is heavily influenced by the parameters set by the user.

Interesting, thank you. I expect the defense will have an expert to refute his testimony, if the judge even permits him to testify.

 

[missy1974]

Ok, thank you for that confirmation.

That's just what I recall hearing. If someone else heard something different, I hope they speak up

Interesting, thank you. I expect the defense will have an expert to refute his testimony, if the judge even permits him to testify.

I'm sure they will, since McGee seemed to be in direct contact with him (their expert) while asking questions LOL My how the world has changed... experts texting during hearings... witnesses testifying over Skype LOL

I think the judge will let him testify. My concern for the prosecution or the witness in this case is that he didn't seem to be a great witness, he seemed to go on and on and on, to the point that I didn't even recall the question LOL I liked him though, thought it was funny when he was telling McGee it's in his head, it's what he does, he's a number guy

 

[missy1974]

So I'm kind of curious ... last night, there was discussion about the truck being altered and wondering if it was. Now that the images of the 2014 faro scan of the truck somewhat are consistent with the 2010 surveillance video (I won't say it's 100% because even Rudin wouldn't say that).... do you still think it was possibly altered? or is that thought now abandoned?

 

[Force Ten]

IMO, if the prosecution, in their attempt to obtain a conviction, must resort to using borderline junk science, the jury is going interpret the tactic as a desperate decoy because there’s no real evidence available.

Rudin has a Phd in Computer Science, a Masters in Applied Mathematics, a multitude of patents. How do you conclude this is junk science? They're taking actual imagery and producing a clearer replica based on the original imagery.

 

[Texas Red]

Rudin has a Phd in Computer Science, a Masters in Applied Mathematics, a multitude of patents. How do you conclude this is junk science? They're taking actual imagery and producing a clearer replica based on the original imagery.

The process uses algorithms to create pixels based upon a set of perimeters. The defense can easily hire another ‘expert’ in the field who can use the same application with a different set of perimeters and have it match almost any vehicle they choose. I call that junk science and the fact that the prosecution has resorted to such measures, so early in the trial tells me they’ve got nothing. In my opinion CM, is most likely guilty, but the bottom line is the investigation was bungled from the start, critical mistakes were made, evidence was lost to time, and smoke and mirrors are not going to bring it back. CM got lucky, its unfortunate but it happens.

 

[Force Ten]

The process uses algorithms to create pixels based upon a set of perimeters. The defense can easily hire another ‘expert’ in the field who can use the same application with a different set of perimeters and have it match almost any vehicle they choose. I call that junk science and the fact that the prosecution has resorted to such measures, so early in the trial tells me they’ve got nothing. In my opinion CM, is most likely guilty, but the bottom line is the investigation was bungled from the start, critical mistakes were made, evidence was lost to time, and smoke and mirrors are not going to bring it back. CM got lucky, its unfortunate but it happens.

True, they can call another expert, so far that remains to be seen. Imo they won't. Early in the trial speaks revelance, not deception. To me they are not resulting to deceptive measures but speaking more to the truth of what we are looking at - Merritt's truck leaving the possible crime scene.

 

[Mountain Misst]

The process uses algorithms to create pixels based upon a set of perimeters. The defense can easily hire another ‘expert’ in the field who can use the same application with a different set of perimeters and have it match almost any vehicle they choose. I call that junk science and the fact that the prosecution has resorted to such measures, so early in the trial tells me they’ve got nothing. In my opinion CM, is most likely guilty, but the bottom line is the investigation was bungled from the start, critical mistakes were made, evidence was lost to time, and smoke and mirrors are not going to bring it back. CM got lucky, its unfortunate but it happens.

Somewhat confused - do you mean parameters? Perimeters has a totally different meaning.

 

[ThorJanus]

The process uses algorithms to create pixels based upon a set of perimeters. The defense can easily hire another ‘expert’ in the field who can use the same application with a different set of perimeters and have it match almost any vehicle they choose. I call that junk science and the fact that the prosecution has resorted to such measures, so early in the trial tells me they’ve got nothing. In my opinion CM, is most likely guilty, but the bottom line is the investigation was bungled from the start, critical mistakes were made, evidence was lost to time, and smoke and mirrors are not going to bring it back. CM got lucky, its unfortunate but it happens.

agree with you and the psudo ghost image of a white work truck matching CM is hard to swallow for non puter geeks. (i am one kinda). I really want to see some harder evidence to prove guilt. darn!