CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #8

[missy1974]

So are we going to speculate that at the 'off the grid' time the prosecution is pointing to, Chase was actually at a casino?

They are the one's that have pointed out the "off grid" times. I'm just saying their own witness has pointed out in his new charts that they are not all that odd, at least not while he is gambling. We don't have the complete cell records, they do.

 

[katydid23]

So then why did they hold that hearing with Dr. Rudin a few weeks ago? I'm pretty sure it was to find out exactly what he was going to testify to and about and how he came to his conclusions.

That hearing came about because the court had not decided yet if this 'new' kind of computer imaging was going to be allowed in front of the jury.

A normal witness, discussing cell phones or DNA does not have to submit the content of their testimony. Unless they are doing something that is new and perhaps not yet totally proven, etc. Dr. Rudin was forced to argue and defend his research and his findings and its accuracy.

 

[mrjitty]

I am not sure who has actually watched the trial footage of this. It's easy to find, and it's not even very long because the defense will be continuing their cross examination tomorrow because McGee needed time to go through it, and the judge agreed he should have time. Go and watch it and you will understand it better And sloppy.. yep, that's what I said... they have had 4 + years to do this and Smith says he did it last Monday-Wed. For a case that was so rock solid, they sure seem to be scrambling during the trial to prove that he gambled his money?

Look no argument from me.

There should be a rock solid exhibit prepared before trial.

Of course I know why this stuff does not happen in state cases. Pistorius was a classic for this where obvious exhibits were missed

 

[missy1974]

I don't think it is that unusual for the State's experts to go back and shore up places that the defense is pushing back against during cross. Why wouldn't they?

The defense seems to be denying the Chase has a gambling problem. The State is now being forced to go harder in that direction because it is an important foundation of their central argument.

I think it was important that they went back over their data. I don't see any thing wrong with that at all. JMO

I don't think they are denying it as much as they are saying ... so? it's not illegal to gamble. This is a murder trial. IMO they should focus less on gambling and more on the murder.

 

[katydid23]

They are the one's that have pointed out the "off grid" times. I'm just saying their own witness has pointed out in his new charts that they are not all that odd, at least not while he is gambling. We don't have the complete cell records, they do.

Well, I think you just pointed out the difference right there. I think the state will show that when he was 'off grid', he was near the cell tower closest to the graves, and not close to any casinos. JMO

 

[katydid23]

I don't think they are denying it as much as they are saying ... so? it's not illegal to gamble. This is a murder trial. IMO they should focus less on gambling and more on the murder.

LOL, of course they are saying that. 'STOP talking about gambling, it is not an issue.' But I think anyone who knows a problem gambler, someone with a real addiction, will understand it is quite possibly connected to the murder.

 

[mrjitty]

So then why did they hold that hearing with Dr. Rudin a few weeks ago? I'm pretty sure it was to find out exactly what he was going to testify to and about and how he came to his conclusions.

That was an admissibility ruling.

The state discovered the computer model to the defence.

The defence claimed the model was not admissible. The judge received arguments from both sides and decided to allow it.

But the model is a good example of something that has to be discovered.

 

[mrjitty]

LOL, of course they are saying that. 'STOP talking about gambling, it is not an issue.' But I think anyone who knows a problem gambler, someone with a real addiction, will understand it is quite possibly connected to the murder.

Yeah

Unfortunately this case is one where it is so crucial to look at the big picture.

The state is arguing that despite his significant cashflow from Joey, the accused never had any cash at hand. Because he was gambling.

His financial troubles and greed caused him to steal from Joey - something he has a track record of doing.

It is the theft that creates the motive to murder.

IMO it is straw-mannirg to say claim gambling was the motive - that is not the state case.

 

[itsbrookie]

Welcome to websleuths

I remember that ad... I doubt it will make it to trial ;-)

Thank you! I also agree now that it won't, but everyone's replies have been very interesting and informative

 

[Tortoise]

I don't think they are denying it as much as they are saying ... so? it's not illegal to gamble. This is a murder trial. IMO they should focus less on gambling and more on the murder.

The prosecution is not attempting to show that gambling is illegal.

Yes it's a murder trial - the murders of the man who in relation to Chase held the purse strings, and his wife and sons at a time of day when they were most obviously together in the home.

It's completely relevant to show how Chase (mis)managed his finances in the build up to the murders. It's reckless (not to mention indicative of his propensity for risk-taking) for a family man to gamble that sort of money - based on the first 8 months of 2009 over $21000, which averages at over $30,000 per year - and that assumes he arrived with empty pockets, we only know about cash withdrawals while he was there. To not show up for work - not because of ill health according to Sequeida but because of "frequenting the gambling facilities" - how did he know that if Chase didn't tell him? To put himself in a position that his working arrangement could not continue that way. For a man in his fifties to apparently not even have a bank account for a full three months until the day before the murders - this same man who the DT would like the jury to believe Joey entrusted with access to the company's books and blank business cheques.

The jury doesn't know this suited man at the defendant's table from Adam so of course the prosecution needs to set the stage for what occurred. They don't get to hear the details of his prior theft convictions, so it's doubly important that objective evidence is presented in support of how Chase was not someone you would give blank cheques to - given the background that he wasn't measuring up in the fabricating, MSM was pushing for a higher percentage as a result, and he wasn't spending his earnings on putting food into his children's mouths - and how feasibly he was fast becoming an albatross around Joey's neck, since the good man is no longer alive to tell the tale. Of course the icing on the cake is that on the day of his murder a cheque to Chase cleared Joey's account that Joey had not written, only three days after telling him he had overpaid him. I'd say go figure.

This blatant theft was new territory for Joey and anyone denying that - with the evidence that he called his bank twice when he more or less never called them, and logged into QB in between - is not being logical, IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

The prosecution is not attempting to show that gambling is illegal....

This blatant theft was new territory for Joey and anyone denying that - with the evidence that he called his bank twice when he more or less never called them, and logged into QB in between - is not being logical, IMO.

RSBM

Yes exactly - and IMO the defence now has a significant narrative & alibi problem. The rebuttal of all these points - e.g. "non-traditional accounting" requires testimony from the accused.

Otherwise the logical conclusion is that the author of the two Paul Mitchel cheques is the same man whose truck is captured on the security video, is the same man whose DNA is found on the drivers side of the trooper and whose phone pinged at the graves.

Often in these cases the murderer makes one small forensic slip up.

Chase made 5 or 6

So he better to be able to come up with an alibi IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

So are we going to speculate that at the 'off the grid' time the prosecution is pointing to, Chase was actually at a casino?

Looks like it. Lol!

Surely if that is the case the DT will have eye witnesses who saw him there.

He seemed to have been a regular so the pit bosses, and dealers would remember him possibly by his first name.

Plus his player's card keeps a history of the dates/times he was gambling, what tables, for how long, and how much he put in, and when he cashed out. Same thing if he played slots.

So if he was at the casinos at the times in question, I'm sure the first thing his first attorney did was have subpeoned casino camera footage showing that proof, under the direction of his client.

Imo

 

[Tortoise]

Anyone notice how Chase's phone didn't ping from the towers closest to the Starbucks/Chick-fil-A restaurants that lunch time on the 4th?

Joey's phone pinged at the tower closest to Chase's residence at 12.52 pm, and then had moved to the tower closest to the Chick-fil-A by 1.01 pm. Chase's phone didn't move from the two towers closest to his home residence all day, yet there were other towers right next to Starbucks. They spoke on the phone at 1.01 pm so Chase had to have had his phone on to answer that call. Also Chase was calling Cathy literally non-stop between 12.52 and 1.00 pm so his phone was on and it seems unlikely to me that he was driving, parking and ordering Starbucks etc at the same time with his phone not even pinging next to Starbucks.


From his interview:

Yeah. Cos he he, he called me and said um ‘what do you want to eat?’ ‘n I said I like Chick-fil-A and just like that he told me where the Starbucks was told him where it was and I, I got there, I went over and got a Starbucks coffee and then went to Chick-fil-A. Ten minutes later, he, Joseph got there. Mike, there’s there’s no way Michael or Mikey had lunch with Joseph on I know that it was the 4th it was Thursday.

<snip>

Q: Did he usually meet you at Chick-fil-A or did he usually come to your house or here?

A: We met out at Chick-fil-A, my house, um, where, sometimes we met halfway, you know we’d…

So he first says he told Joey where it was but it makes no sense to then say they would sometimes meet there.

<snip>

Yeah, no…he, I’m almost positive now I’m, I’m trying to remember I was trying to remember earlier when I wrote that down, I’m almost positive that he paid for Chick-fil-A with his credit card or ATM or whatever so you’ll probably be able to look that up.


Snippet from Rodriguez re-direct of forensic accountant:

Q: During the opportunity you had to review the particular bank records, did you look at transactions that occurred on or around Feb 4th 2010 from Joseph McStay’s account and the defendant’s account?
A: Yes.
Q: Did you notice any transactions for a chick-fil-a restaurant?
A: No I did not see any.
Q: And when you had that opportunity to review both accounts did it appear that they both used their debit cards or made purchases from restaurants and things like that?
A: Yes.

I don't think the investigators believe they met for lunch.

Cell Tower map: (see attached click to enlarge) The blue blobs are the cell towers for Chase's phone provider AT&T. I've added in the locations of Chase's home address (red house) and the Starbucks (red S) and Chick-fil-A (red C).

 

[Tortoise]

Why would Chase think it was important to try to remember how Joey paid for lunch? Especially since he couldn't really remember anyway. Why would he think that was relevant?

It sounds to me as if it could be to back up the fact of being with him and seeing him pay, which of course suggests otherwise to me because no one would think they were doubted over something so trivial as whether they met for lunch. The investigators only want to know how long he was there and what the purpose was, not whether he really went or not, at least at that stage of the investigation.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Why would Chase think it was important to try to remember how Joey paid for lunch? Especially since he couldn't really remember anyway. Why would he think that was relevant?

It sounds to me as if it could be to back up the fact of being with him and seeing him pay, which of course suggests otherwise to me because no one would think they were doubted over something so trivial as whether they met for lunch. The investigators only want to know how long he was there and what the purpose was, not whether he really went or not, at least at that stage of the investigation.

You are such a gem when you transcribe actual statements for all of us.

All of your theories also so well founded,

I've seen many detectives say over the years when they interview a potential suspect they watch for added details that are offered by the person even though that particular subject hadn't been asked.

They say, the person that may be a potential suspect, tends to embellish some things in great detail that were not even asked, but are purposefully evasive about other things they were directly asked.

He does slip up in many of his statements. I'm sure all of those things, plus all inconsistent statements will be brought to the attention of the jury, during the state's closing. Imo

It sounds like he was trying to convince them the meeting did happen exactly where he told them, but is it true?

Imo

 

[mrjitty]

You are on a tear T!

I don't think the investigators believe they met for lunch.

Nothing Chase said in his pre-trial statement should be believed unless independently verified.

IMO to prove the meeting he needs to testify to it.

 

[Tortoise]

You are on a tear T!



Nothing Chase said in his pre-trial statement should be believed unless independently verified.

IMO to prove the meeting he needs to testify to it.

Speaking of which I'm still undecided whether he will take he stand. His team hasn't alluded to it once and usually they like to use the phrase 'you'll hear it from him...'

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder why his Union Bank account was closed on November 5th 2009.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

You are on a tear T!



Nothing Chase said in his pre-trial statement should be believed unless independently verified.

IMO to prove the meeting he needs to testify to it.

Absolutely the truth.

The DT better cough up credible witnesses that will support anything this man has said or he is going to have to testify to them himself.

If he testifies then it's up to the jury if they find him credible, which IMOO, they will not. Imo, if he takes the stand the prosecutor is going to rip him to shreds on X.. Imo

Even if he testifies on his behalf the defense better have supporting evidence to back up his testimony to increase his credibility.

Just him saying so, aint gonna cut it.

Jurors aren't stupid people. They are aware any defendant has a more vested interest to lie than all other witnesses.

Imo

 

[mrjitty]

Speaking of which I'm still undecided whether he will take he stand. His team hasn't alluded to it once and usually they like to use the phrase 'you'll hear it from him...'

I doubt he will testify - it's too risky