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

[Niner]

Wednesday, February 6th:
*Trial continues (Day 16) (@ 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. Trial started 1/7/19. Dark on Fridays.
Skipping Day 1 thru 6 – reference post #1180 here: CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #2
Skipping Day 7 thru 11 – reference post #1121 here: CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #3
Skipping Day 12 thru 14 – reference post #898 here: CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #4
1/31/19 Day 15: State witnesses: Det. Ryan Smith. Carmen T. Garcia, worked for Metro Sheet Metal from 2007. Michael Dominick Bosillo, works for T-Mobile in Dallas, Custodian Records Testifier. David Lipnitzky, custodian of records from AT&T. No testimony on Monday or Tuesday, Tuesday late morning (~10:30am) they will be discussing motions. On Tuesday they are going to meet & take video depo of Ryan Baker, the customer service rep from Quickbooks. Jury back on Wednesday, 2/6.
2/5/19: Trial today w/NO JURY. Expect arguments regarding testimony from the QuickBooks rep that spoke to a "Joseph McStay" on Feb 8, 2010, however prosecutors say the phone used to make the call was Charles Merritt's. The gist is Ryan Baker, QuickBooks customer service rep is having surgery and prosecution wants to have him appear via video before surgery on Thursday. Defense says they want him there. Defense says they have not been given doctor's notes to prove the witness is having surgery or to prove he cannot travel. They are now arguing about the process of testifying by Skype. Dr Leonid I Rudin and it's a 402 hearing, is a professional photogrammeographer. Master of Science in Mathematics and Phd in Photography. Testifying re truck leaving the Fallbrook home. Judge says to come back tomorrow at 10:30. The defense says that at 9am, they want to have a meeting about the lack of timely discovery from the state.

 

[mrjitty]

Signing on ...

 

[katydid23]

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.

I think this presentation is a response to the defense's exhibit, in which they do a power point 2-d model to try and prove that the headlights are too low [or something like that] to be whatever vehicle the state theorizes is on that tape....

So if you are going to submit that exhibit into evidence, why not the one in response?

 

[asyousay]

I am new to trials and I am just wondering from other people’s experiences are Trials always this petty?

Sometimes it’s like watching school children in a playground.

 

[coastal]

Following...

 

[mrjitty]

I am new to trials and I am just wondering from other people’s experiences are Trials always this petty?

Sometimes it’s like watching school children in a playground.

I find that as well.

IMO this Judge is not every good at controlling his court room

 

[Tortoise]

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?

I'll respond because it was me who originally queried whether it was possible he had modified the truck, ie. bought a new (or second hand) utility body (truck bed) for it after the murders, which would of course be clear of any forensic evidence.

After watching the 402 I wasn't left knowing which available identifiers of the truck (lights) would have increased the certainty of it being Merritt's truck. If it was a different utility body in the video, the original body could be a fraction longer or shorter for example, and we know the depth would be inches shorter, meaning the tail lights might match up better. Of course the opposite might be true and it could rule it out.

It doesn't alter the fact that it warrants investigation to my mind, even if it rules it out as the truck in the video, because disposing of the truck bed before its sale is highly suspicious - why go to the bother if it's going to be sold and why in the months after the murders - and it would explain for the jury why the truck they examined would never produce any forensics. It's another strike against him if there's any truth in it, just like he cancelled his phone contract.

MOO

I loved listening to Dr Rudin's presentation by the way. I don't think the jury would have any trouble following it, there were some mind-dazzling explanations for me being the most non-scientifically minded person you would ever meet, but I understood a lot of it. The biggest takeaway for me was that the Trooper was ruled out. So a truck not belonging to the family was reversed into their driveway that night - it's not looking good for the breakfast abduction in daylight. Whatever truck it was, it left the house just before 8 pm. Around the same time the home computer was accessed to print and delete a cheque for Merritt, which if it was Merritt (!) and he did go around the back to re-enter the house via the vacant plot of land behind the fence, and via the open window, puts him there in my estimation for another 15 minutes at least. So that puts the time to about 8.15 pm. Joey's phone called his phone at 8.28 pm but it didn't connect. Cathy left five voicemails for Merritt between 6.09 pm and 9.04 pm. Merritt's phone connected at Mira Loma at 9.32 pm when he called her back, which is an hour's drive north from Fallbrook. He was in the toilet so I've read recently, during those missed phone calls. He is either guilty or very unlucky and maybe had a bad case of constipation that night, in the eyes of those who think he is not guilty.

 

[mrjitty]

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.

A close acquaintance had long experience as an expert witness in trials. In his case mainly planning cases.

It is of course true that naughty developers can always find an expert to support their case against the local authority with some junk testimony

However his experience was that in general the Court is good at determining who has done real science and is offering the Court genuine assistance, and who is simply a paid shill

 

[mrjitty]

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.

Agreed

I think the point is not whether you can create another model if you make different assumptions, but rather than you can get an excellent match on CM's truck based on the available data.

I wonder if the logic might escape the Jury though. It will be very human to want this evidence to 100% prove it's chase's truck. But it could never do that unless the video included the plate.

What we are saying is that Chase's truck fits the video very nicely. So for it to really be some other truck is quite unlikely IMO.

So yet one more circumstantial point in the web.

 

[mrjitty]

So a truck not belonging to the family was reversed into their driveway that night - it's not looking good for the breakfast abduction in daylight.

Yes yes yes!

This is why it is so key to examine the web of circumstantial evidence and then move to draw inferences from the totality of what is proven, rather than speculating each evidence point.

We can have 1000 theories of Mr Chase with the Hammer in the storage locker but this places a strange vehicle at the house, at a time when all comms from the family go dark. Whatever the detail of the murders - this is when the murder sequence was in train. i.e the evening of the 4th

This is critical!

Whatever truck it was, it left the house just before 8 pm. Around the same time the home computer was accessed to print and delete a cheque for Merritt, which if it was Merritt (!) and he did go around the back to re-enter the house via the vacant plot of land behind the fence, and via the open window, puts him there in my estimation for another 15 minutes at least. So that puts the time to about 8.15 pm. Joey's phone called his phone at 8.28 pm but it didn't connect. Cathy left five voicemails for Merritt between 6.09 pm and 9.04 pm. Merritt's phone connected at Mira Loma at 9.32 pm when he called her back, which is an hour's drive north from Fallbrook. He was in the toilet so I've read recently, during those missed phone calls. He is either guilty or very unlucky and maybe had a bad case of constipation that night, in the eyes of those who think he is not guilty.

Precisely

This is why it is the combination of truck video, Quickbooks and phone evidence seen together that is so important, rather than each in isolation.

We have the opportunity (going dark), we can place him at the crime scene (QBs and video) and his alibi collapsed.

 

[Niner]

I'm quoting you again -

Whatever truck it was, it left the house just before 8 pm. Around the same time the home computer was accessed to print and delete a cheque for Merritt, which if it was Merritt (!) and he did go around the back to re-enter the house via the vacant plot of land behind the fence, and via the open window, puts him there in my estimation for another 15 minutes at least. So that puts the time to about 8.15 pm. Joey's phone called his phone at 8.28 pm but it didn't connect. Cathy left five voicemails for Merritt between 6.09 pm and 9.04 pm. Merritt's phone connected at Mira Loma at 9.32 pm when he called her back, which is an hour's drive north from Fallbrook. He was in the toilet so I've read recently, during those missed phone calls. He is either guilty or very unlucky and maybe had a bad case of constipation that night, in the eyes of those who think he is not guilty.

Excellent!

Oh - and by the way...

Niner they didn't include the jury site visit as a trial day, so Tues Jan 29th was Day 13 and Thurs Jan 31st was Day 14

But - they went on the grave site visit on Tuesday, Feb. 5th - which would have been day 16. I'll just keep my #s on the days. I think the tweeter was wrong....

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I'll respond because it was me who originally queried whether it was possible he had modified the truck, ie. bought a new (or second hand) utility body (truck bed) for it after the murders, which would of course be clear of any forensic evidence.

After watching the 402 I wasn't left knowing which available identifiers of the truck (lights) would have increased the certainty of it being Merritt's truck. If it was a different utility body in the video, the original body could be a fraction longer or shorter for example, and we know the depth would be inches shorter, meaning the tail lights might match up better. Of course the opposite might be true and it could rule it out.

It doesn't alter the fact that it warrants investigation to my mind, even if it rules it out as the truck in the video, because disposing of the truck bed before its sale is highly suspicious - why go to the bother if it's going to be sold and why in the months after the murders - and it would explain for the jury why the truck they examined would never produce any forensics. It's another strike against him if there's any truth in it, just like he cancelled his phone contract.

MOO

I loved listening to Dr Rudin's presentation by the way. I don't think the jury would have any trouble following it, there were some mind-dazzling explanations for me being the most non-scientifically minded person you would ever meet, but I understood a lot of it. The biggest takeaway for me was that the Trooper was ruled out. So a truck not belonging to the family was reversed into their driveway that night - it's not looking good for the breakfast abduction in daylight. Whatever truck it was, it left the house just before 8 pm. Around the same time the home computer was accessed to print and delete a cheque for Merritt, which if it was Merritt (!) and he did go around the back to re-enter the house via the vacant plot of land behind the fence, and via the open window, puts him there in my estimation for another 15 minutes at least. So that puts the time to about 8.15 pm. Joey's phone called his phone at 8.28 pm but it didn't connect. Cathy left five voicemails for Merritt between 6.09 pm and 9.04 pm. Merritt's phone connected at Mira Loma at 9.32 pm when he called her back, which is an hour's drive north from Fallbrook. He was in the toilet so I've read recently, during those missed phone calls. He is either guilty or very unlucky and maybe had a bad case of constipation that night, in the eyes of those who think he is not guilty.

I found Dr. Rudin's summation very mesmerizing. This is the very kind of testimony I tend to enjoy the most.

Human brains are stimulated by visuals. I think the jury will be enthralled by his testimony, and will listen, and watch very closely.

Jurors tend to like testimony who have visuals included. It is very easy for anyone to understand. I think the jury will give him their full attention throughtout. He comes across as honest, and sincere in his findings. Imo.

They will remember what he said, and what he will show them as he explains to them how he came to his conclusions.

Imo, it will make logical sense to them, and not a bunch of complicated babble. Jurors tend to appreciate evidence they can easily understand and it sticks with them.

These type of forensic mathematical aides are becoming seen in various degrees on different subject matters. I think juries expect to see new advancements due to all of the great advances we've made overall in the criminal justice system.

We have to remember at one time many things weren't accepted to be entered into trials as evidence. Iirc Ashton was the first prosecutor in the country to introduce a DNA profile into a rape trial which he won. Even though now it has become accepted evidence.

Everything recognized, and now fully accepted to be entered in cases today always had to have a first time.

I missed some of it though. Did Dr. Rudin say he has done this before even if it was in a civil trial?

This is one I do plan to rewatch from beginning to end since this type of testimony is the kind I find most interesting above many other types of testimony.

I see no reason the judge will not let the state call this very learned man. The judge knows he also has to make sure the state is given a fair trial, and usually gives them wide latitude since they have the burden of proof.

In the end, it will be up to the jury to decide what weight it will be given.

Imo, they will take this into consideration when weighing all of the other CE facts that will be entered in its totality.

As an aside:

Your comment about CMs possible very long prolonged constipation problem made me think of hearing very OLD people complain of having that very same problem. Ha

Imo

 

[Tortoise]

But - they went on the grave site visit on Tuesday, Feb. 5th - which would have been day 16. I'll just keep my #s on the days. I think the tweeter was wrong....

My post -

Niner they didn't include the jury site visit as a trial day, so Tues Jan 29th was Day 13 and Thurs Jan 31st was Day 14

They went on the site visit on Weds Jan 30th - see your post here

CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #3

 

[mrjitty]

I found Dr. Rudin's summation very mesmerizing. This is the very kind of testimony I tend to enjoy the most.

Human brains are stimulated by visuals. I think the jury will be enthralled by his testimony, and will listen, and watch very closely.

Jurors tend to like testimony who have visuals included. It is very easy for anyone to understand. I think the jury will give him their full attention throughtout. He comes across as honest, and sincere in his findings. Imo.

They will remember what he said, and what he will show them as he explains to them how he came to his conclusions.

Imo, it will make logical sense,to them, and not a bunch of complicated babble. Jurors tend to appreciate evidence they can easily understand and it sticks with them.

These type of forensic mathematical aides are becoming seen in various degrees on different subject matters. I think juries expect to see new advancements due to all of the great advances we've made overall in the criminal justice system.

Just because it appeals to my inner nerd, I am wondering what the technically correct jury instruction would be for this model. I am sure this judge will just fudge it and tell them to weigh its importance if they accept the testimony.

Dr. Rudin has essentially mapped 2D data (video) into a 3D virtualised space.

IMO the logically correct approach is that the trooper cannot provide a fit for the data. Nor can numerous other trucks. The defendants truck provides a good fit.

So the logical conclusion is the vehicle in the video, is likely similar to (or the same as) the defendant's truck (if you accept the Drs evidence)

Anyway - this is way down in the weeds.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Agreed

I think the point is not whether you can create another model if you make different assumptions, but rather than you can get an excellent match on CM's truck based on the available data.

I wonder if the logic might escape the Jury though. It will be very human to want this evidence to 100% prove it's chase's truck. But it could never do that unless the video included the plate.

What we are saying is that Chase's truck fits the video very nicely. So for it to really be some other truck is quite unlikely IMO.

So yet one more circumstantial point in the web.

I think the jury is going to have a helluva time convincing themselves this piece of circumstantial evidence is just another coinkydink.

What are the odds that another truck like the defendant's was seen located at the McStay location the very night they were said to have been murdered?

When the jury links all of the CE together in its totality during deliberations they will either have to believe it's just full of coincidences like the defense wants them to believe or they don't buy what the defense wants them to believe.

We'll eventually see what they believed, but it sure is taking a lot of wasted time getting to that point in time.

Jurors want to do their civic duties so it makes me feel sorry for these jurors who's own life has been put on hold.

Imo

 

[missy1974]

I'll respond because it was me who originally queried whether it was possible he had modified the truck, ie. bought a new (or second hand) utility body (truck bed) for it after the murders, which would of course be clear of any forensic evidence.

After watching the 402 I wasn't left knowing which available identifiers of the truck (lights) would have increased the certainty of it being Merritt's truck. If it was a different utility body in the video, the original body could be a fraction longer or shorter for example, and we know the depth would be inches shorter, meaning the tail lights might match up better. Of course the opposite might be true and it could rule it out.

It doesn't alter the fact that it warrants investigation to my mind, even if it rules it out as the truck in the video, because disposing of the truck bed before its sale is highly suspicious - why go to the bother if it's going to be sold and why in the months after the murders - and it would explain for the jury why the truck they examined would never produce any forensics. It's another strike against him if there's any truth in it, just like he cancelled his phone contract.

MOO

I loved listening to Dr Rudin's presentation by the way. I don't think the jury would have any trouble following it, there were some mind-dazzling explanations for me being the most non-scientifically minded person you would ever meet, but I understood a lot of it. The biggest takeaway for me was that the Trooper was ruled out. So a truck not belonging to the family was reversed into their driveway that night - it's not looking good for the breakfast abduction in daylight. Whatever truck it was, it left the house just before 8 pm. Around the same time the home computer was accessed to print and delete a cheque for Merritt, which if it was Merritt (!) and he did go around the back to re-enter the house via the vacant plot of land behind the fence, and via the open window, puts him there in my estimation for another 15 minutes at least. So that puts the time to about 8.15 pm. Joey's phone called his phone at 8.28 pm but it didn't connect. Cathy left five voicemails for Merritt between 6.09 pm and 9.04 pm. Merritt's phone connected at Mira Loma at 9.32 pm when he called her back, which is an hour's drive north from Fallbrook. He was in the toilet so I've read recently, during those missed phone calls. He is either guilty or very unlucky and maybe had a bad case of constipation that night, in the eyes of those who think he is not guilty.

It wasn't just directed at you Tortoise But thanks for answering! I didn't see the beginning of his testimony where it excluded the Trooper, I will have to go back and watch that, but I believe you guys lol

I liked him too, but I worry if they let him go on and on and on the point can get lost... which they probably won't in front of the jury anyway. I can't imagine the judge won't allow it. This so far is the best evidence I have seen, the only thing that seemed to be questionable was the wheelbase was off, which is something that cannot be changed on a vehicle. I expect the defense will harp on that.. well, and the parking lights. I won't be surprised if Dr. Rudin worked on that last night haha

 

[Deleted member 192280]

Mr. Rudin is Mr. So-and-so. He says "so" about every third sentence on average.

 

[missy1974]

I missed some of it though. Did Dr. Rudin say he has done this before even if it was in a civil trial?

RSBM

I don't know the answer to that, but I did go and look up his company last night to get a better understanding of what he does and who he is. I am not sure about him personally testifying, but if I understand correctly his software is used by LE and others, and I would imagine those video's are used in court, I don't imagine he would have to personally testify in every case, his software does that for him (if that makes sense lol).

Someone on the last thread mentioned that he testified a long time ago, I've included that from their "about" section from the company website. The last sentence was BBM... I read it and I couldn't help but think that San Diego sure could have used this software when looking at that Mexico border video back in 2010!!!!!!

Cognitech – forensic video analysis software, 3D video photogrammetry

From Cognitech's website:

Cognitech was founded to provide cutting edge image processing and analysis technology for applications in law enforcement, forensics and in bio-medical fields. In 1993, Cognitech played a major role in the trials of the four men charged with the beating of trucker Reginald Denny in the Los Angeles rioting following the verdicts in the Rodney King case. Photographs and videotapes were enhanced and analyzed with Cognitech’s unique proprietary methods and used by the prosecution to positively identify and convict the criminals. Cognitech’s image processing algorithms and techniques have been approved for use in the court of law through a variety of important decisions by US and international courts. The California Court of Appeals has accepted Cognitech’s novel forensic video enhancement techniques into U.S. Courts in an important decision on forensic video, the 1992-1996 Criminal Law and Procedure Citation, 96 Daily Journal DAR. 8023, which is the first such decision in a US Court. In addition to providing the most advanced software and hardware products to law enforcement agencies worldwide, Cognitech operates the state of the art forensic imaging lab, advancing Cognitech’s software products by working on challenging forensic cases throughout the world.

In 1994, Cognitech, Inc. introduced a revolutionary commercial product: Video Investigator™, a comprehensive professional video processing software suite designed for law enforcement organizations and security agencies. Cognitech’s Video Investigator™ is comprised of over one hundred image and video processing plug-in tools that include novel capabilities to super-resolve the low resolution of CCTV videos (Cognitech’s FrameFusion™), restoring images degraded by noise and blur, video stabilization, mosaic, automatic software based demultiplexing (a Cognitech US Patent awarded technique first discovered by Cognitech), motion and shape analysis. The Cognitech software suite also contains unique proprietary video photogrammetry tools to measure the true size of people and objects in videos and still images and to perform various bio-metric identification tasks.

 

[Bernina]

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.

Cognitech - Forensic Video Processing & 360° Photogrammetry

"Borderline Junk Science" that's been accepted in the US Court of Law since 1994?

When the def has to go to irrelevant things like running lights , which can have many variables, ie, dim or high voltage bulbs, dusty or dirty lenses, I'd call THAT a desperate decoy.

 

[Tortoise]

It wasn't just directed at you Tortoise But thanks for answering! I didn't see the beginning of his testimony where it excluded the Trooper, I will have to go back and watch that, but I believe you guys lol

I liked him too, but I worry if they let him go on and on and on the point can get lost... which they probably won't in front of the jury anyway. I can't imagine the judge won't allow it. This so far is the best evidence I have seen, the only thing that seemed to be questionable was the wheelbase was off, which is something that cannot be changed on a vehicle. I expect the defense will harp on that.. well, and the parking lights. I won't be surprised if Dr. Rudin worked on that last night haha

BBM can you explain what you mean by that?

There wasn't anything that would mean he had to exclude the vehicle, and I must have missed this part or misunderstood it, but I do know the wheels aren't visible in the Mitchley video.