CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #7

[mrjitty]

I recall it as he had pulled over and called her or pulled over while he was talking to her. But I did find this.


Exclusive interview: Mothers of McStays determined to find family - *Inquiry into Mexican travel discovered *FBI resources called in *Joseph McStay hadn't been well for months

Blake has an added concern. She said her son hadn’t been feeling well for a few months before the family disappeared.

“My son had been sick since last August and he’s normally a very healthy person,” said Blake. “He’s an excellent surfer and soccer player. I even went to the hospital with him to try and see what was wrong; we thought maybe it was stress.”

Blake described Joseph’s symptoms as something similar to vertigo and said he complained of feeling “woozy.”

“When I last talked to my son, on February 4, he said he still didn’t feel good,” said Blake, adding that she has provided the Sheriff’s Dept with information she had on her son’s recent healthcare visits.

I can see how everyone went down the rabbit hole on this case between 2010-2014

 

[MsFacetious]

I recall it as he had pulled over and called her or pulled over while he was talking to her. But I did find this.


Exclusive interview: Mothers of McStays determined to find family - *Inquiry into Mexican travel discovered *FBI resources called in *Joseph McStay hadn't been well for months

Blake has an added concern. She said her son hadn’t been feeling well for a few months before the family disappeared.

“My son had been sick since last August and he’s normally a very healthy person,” said Blake. “He’s an excellent surfer and soccer player. I even went to the hospital with him to try and see what was wrong; we thought maybe it was stress.”

Blake described Joseph’s symptoms as something similar to vertigo and said he complained of feeling “woozy.”

“When I last talked to my son, on February 4, he said he still didn’t feel good,” said Blake, adding that she has provided the Sheriff’s Dept with information she had on her son’s recent healthcare visits.

Yeah... I could have sworn it ended up not being that same day. Maybe I'm crazy though.

 

[mrjitty]

I don't see how she could avoid testifying. If one side doesn't call her the other will. She's too central to the case to not be called.

Anyone who doesn't want to hear legal rambling should probably skip my posts.




Well actually over here it's more complicated than that under the law, believe it or not! I actually just researched this issue last month. (We have every intention of introducing the defendant's prior ourselves but we wanted to have the first word on it to the jury.)

So to bring in a prior conviction of a defendant to impeach them if they testify. The current rules in my state require that there needs to be an element of untruthfulness, dishonest act or false statement otherwise it shall be excluded.

The phrase "dishonest act" only applies to a narrow subset of criminal convictions, thus the crime must include the elements of a dishonest act or false statement for the prior conviction to be admissible.

According to the Supreme Court "theft" does NOT meet the criteria of a dishonest act or false statement unless a fraudulent act or deception is involved (i.e. theft by deception or identify fraud.)

I was rather surprised myself at this finding. However it made sense once I thought about it. You can be charged with theft without being dishonest. There are misunderstandings, forgetting to return a rental, etc but fraud or deception means the intent was there.

These little nuances in the law complicate things a lot!

This is a good catch - i forgot about all this (it's 20+ years since I studied evidential procedure )

Of course the key question is whether he will actually testify in the first place.

His priors seem to have been allowed in by accident, which creates a weird history of stealing from his employers

So I suspect a Court would be on safer ground impeaching his credibility on that basis - but yeah then we get into the whole dangers of similar fact evidence as well.

Phew

 

[HelenK]

The James Spring thing is a little confusing, because on the stand, Dugal stated that Patrick McStay hired Spring.

Patrick did not hire Spring. It was Michael and, I believe, Susan.

The Spring/IR3 is a mysterious happening in this case. He was hired because of his deep, validated connections with Mexico. He went to Mexico, searching for the family, following lead after lead. He returned, empty handed, disillusioned, and angry. Ultimately, he wrote a small, but quite detailed report about Joey's and Summer's cell phones pinging off of the two towers on the old Bonsall Bridge. Both cell phones, along with Summer's purse, have never been found. Apparently, the authorities did not agree with nor deny the report. Strangely, the day after the graves were found, the IR3 website was taken down. Ultimately, James Spring was dismissed as a fraud.

Up until the disappearance of the McStays, Spring was certainly not considered to be a fraud. I have always questioned why he would have written that report at all if it was a lie. For what purpose? It didn't make any sense then, and it doesn't now.

I've been to that old, abandoned bridge. Walked over it. At that point in time, the river beneath would have been raging (as I'm sure it is right now). Can't help but have this gnawing feeling that the Bonsall Bridge has seen what we seek to know.

But, maybe that's because it's ....................... mysterious.

By the way, I read recently, somewhere down the line, that the bridge is a well-known paintballing area - obviously during dry months.

Here is the report: New cell tower info indicates that the missing McStay family was in Bonsall. | iR3: International Rescue & Recovery Resource

 

[HelenK]

Yeah... I could have sworn it ended up not being that same day. Maybe I'm crazy though.

You're not crazy. It was later determined that Susan did not talk to Joey on the 4th.

 

[Sharyne]

Did Susan sit down at Joey's computer on the 4th, and write out a check in her name as payee?

I'm a bit confused here. Is there testimony saying it's a fact CM did that? Because, if so that really makes me lean towards him as definitely being guilty.

 

[Sharyne]

I don't see how she could avoid testifying. If one side doesn't call her the other will. She's too central to the case to not be called.

Anyone who doesn't want to hear legal rambling should probably skip my posts.




Well actually over here it's more complicated than that under the law, believe it or not! I actually just researched this issue last month. (We have every intention of introducing the defendant's prior ourselves but we wanted to have the first word on it to the jury.)

So to bring in a prior conviction of a defendant to impeach them if they testify. The current rules in my state require that there needs to be an element of untruthfulness, dishonest act or false statement otherwise it shall be excluded.

The phrase "dishonest act" only applies to a narrow subset of criminal convictions, thus the crime must include the elements of a dishonest act or false statement for the prior conviction to be admissible.

According to the Supreme Court "theft" does NOT meet the criteria of a dishonest act or false statement unless a fraudulent act or deception is involved (i.e. theft by deception or identify fraud.)

I was rather surprised myself at this finding. However it made sense once I thought about it. You can be charged with theft without being dishonest. There are misunderstandings, forgetting to return a rental, etc but fraud or deception means the intent was there.

These little nuances in the law complicate things a lot!

I do NOT consider your posts rambling at all, I learn a lot from them and I thank you.

 

[mrjitty]

I'm a bit confused here. Is there testimony saying it's a fact CM did that? Because, if so that really makes me lean towards him as definitely being guilty.

It's an inference the jurors could make rather than testimony

 

[Sharyne]

The BTK Killer, who was an older gentleman, ALSO killed a family of 4 with 2 kids. So, a single person can kill a family w/o any help. Just sayin.

And IIRC their dog was out in the back yard too.

 

[mrjitty]

Chase Merritt has a history of theft by fraud. One of the ways he stole money from people was by taking down payments for water fountains, and then never getting back to the customers.

I know the prosecution had one witness along these lines.

I suspect the evidence here is more of dishonesty and conning. I agree Chases pattern of work tends to suggest criminal intention rather than mere breach of contract

On any view he is completely untrustworthy

 

[HelenK]

Of course they can. But a random killer is not going to sit down at the computer and create and delete a check for 'chase merritt' the night of the 4th.
And I cannot think of one reason on Earth that Joey would have done so.

And I don't believe a random killer would have driven the family car to the border, especially so many days after the murder.

Random killer(s) and mobs/gangs probably can be safely (and no doubt have been) ruled out. The modus operandi of either of them does not square with what befell the McStay family -

 

[mrjitty]

But now I notice people are comparing what Susan can remember now, 9 years later, compared to what Chase could remember 13 days after the disappearance when he knew more or less immediately that Joey disappeared and Susan didn't find out for 5 days. That's comparing apples with oranges.

Yes.

Also what I find strange in making special allowances for Chase, is that it is not hard to work out where you were, even if you make mistakes at first.

For instance you can ask me where I was on Tuesday night 10 days ago. In general, I would be at home with my family - so that is likely to be my first answer.

If you then say we have cell data putting you in the neighbouring suburb at 7pm, that is when I remember I had a teacher meeting at school.

So I agree there is potential to get my nights mixed up, but if my business partner is missing an I am being quizzed by detectives about potential murder/abduction, I can actually account for every single one of the last 10 nights if I work at it.

What I will find odd is if Chase never accounts for where he was that night because we know he was not watching movies with Jarvis.

 

[mrjitty]

I have read a few posts... this morning, and before, that says that Chase didn't have a TV.... do you all mean physically having a TV or cable? Is there a link to this information?

In everything I have heard, and even in his LE interview, I think 'watching movies' was mentioned more than once. Don't have to have cable to watch movies, actually don't have to have a TV either if you have a computer or laptop. And if he couldn't watch movies, why would he go to Blockbuster? (see attachment purchases on 2/12 and 2/15 went through the bank on 2/16) 2/15 was President's Day, IIRC when CM asked CJ what they did on President's Day in the recorded LE interview, she said we watched movies.

I misremembered

The quote is per Detective Hanke at Prelim.

He claimed to be watching TV but then changed this to watching a movie with Jarvis because he didn't have TV

Both answers are incorrect as cell evidence proves he was not with Jarvis.

 

[Tortoise]

But most people in the same situation as Chase would not be calling LE if they couldn't get in touch with a business associate for a couple days, especially over a weekend

rsbm

Zero calls to Joey on the Saturday when Chase was in Victorville (calling Cathy so his phone was connecting). Two calls to Joey at the same time on Sunday at around 3pm. Zero calls to Joey Monday morning.

That is not his usual pattern which has been posted in the thread recently. Carmen testified he told her he had been trying to get in touch with Joey all weekend. That was a lie.

 

[katydid23]

I'm a bit confused here. Is there testimony saying it's a fact CM did that? Because, if so that really makes me lean towards him as definitely being guilty.

There is testimony leading us to it being a fact.

Who else sat down and created a check written to lower case 'chase merritt'? That check was recreated the next day and cashed by Chase.

I'd like to see the defense try and explain why Joey would have created that check.

 

[mrjitty]

rsbm

Zero calls to Joey on the Saturday when Chase was in Victorville (calling Cathy so his phone was connecting). Two calls to Joey at the same time on Sunday at around 3pm. Zero calls to Joey Monday morning.

That is not his usual pattern which has been posted in the thread recently. Carmen testified he told her he had been trying to get in touch with Joey all weekend. That was a lie.

This is the kind of reason why I believe Chases statements should only be believed where independently verified.

Did he make any statements to the investigators in terms of insights which turned out to be true?

 

[Tortoise]

This is the kind of reason why I believe Chases statements should only be believed where independently verified.

Did he make any statements to the investigators in terms of insights which turned out to be true?

I don't know who he said it to but he said at some point he didn't believe that was the McStays walking over the Mexican border.

 

[Tortoise]

His previous pattern of calling Joey at weekends

Jan:

2 6
3 14

9 12
10 5

16 3
17 4

23 3
24 8

30 6
31 5

per post here CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #7

 

[mrjitty]

I don't know who he said it to but he said at some point he didn't believe that was the McStays walking over the Mexican border.

I mean in terms of his statements on the 4th and beyond.

Has anything he said ever really checked out?

e.g. he said he met with Joey for lunch but is vague about it. However there is a 2 hr gap in calls between them so I think that he at least did meet Joey somewhere.

 

[Tortoise]

I mean in terms of his statements on the 4th and beyond.

Has anything he said ever really checked out?

e.g. he said he met with Joey for lunch but is vague about it. However there is a 2 hr gap in calls between them so I think that he at least did meet Joey somewhere.

It didn't escape me that the prosecutor said in his opening 'if there was a meeting'.

In one of my scenarios I have Joey calling Chase to say he's arrived and needs to go to the bank (as he told Patrick) and suggests meeting at Chase' home. Chase has to be expecting it's going to get difficult and is probably the end of the road now. So Chase does not want to see him, he knows Joey probably now knows he stole at least one blank cheque and has probably seen the activity including the deletion on QB custom account. He doesn't know even if Joey is going to see the cheque he cashed when he goes into Union Bank to make his deposit, he imagines the worst.

Chase calls Cathy frantically and says if Joey shows up tell him you don't know where I am. He then speaks to Joey and says 'I've got a few difficulties whatever I'm stuck out at wherever at the moment, I'll meet you at ChickfilA if I get done here doing whatever. Cathy's home with the kids and she doesn't want us there' (like he got the detectives to meet him away from Cathy).

So Joey does his business at the bank and sits waiting for Chase to show up doing internet business while he's waiting. He calls him at 3 pm to say 'I'm leaving, come by the house later when you're ready, I'll call you when I get home.'

He calls Chase at 5.45 pm to say he's home. Chase turns off his phone before he heads down there, which shows me premeditation. Joey logs onto QB at about 6 pm.

I don't know if Joey would be on the internet constantly during lunch if he's discussing all this stuff about QB with Chase.

MOO