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

[Tortoise]

Hi all - I am a noob to the thread but intend to follow the trial.

I read up on the Mcstay case first when the bodies were found.

Wild case, and seriously poor work initially from LE has made things hard for the prosecution.

But as usual, not finding the bodies for so long is a problem.

Hey mrjitty, just in case you didn't know Law & Crime Network are live-streaming the trial and they upload each day's testimony at the end of the day.

Here is the link to their McStay trial youtube playlist - if you click play and then on the bottom right corner to watch on youtube.

 

[Tortoise]

Actually it doesn't bring up the playlist - I don't know how to link it so that comes up. Maybe go to their channel and select McStay Family Murder Trial Law & Crime Network

 

[Mica]

Here's a further quote from the transcript:

15 MR. IMES: May the record reflect the witness has
16 identified the defendant?
17 THE COURT: The record will so reflect.
18 Q (By Mr. Imes) And is this the individual that Michael
19 McStay was referring to?
20 A Yes, sir.
21 Q You said ultimately, at some point, they were in contact
22 with each other, the defendant and Mike McStay. What was the
23 result of that contact?
24 A They ended up meeting out at the McStay, Joseph and
25 Summer's house out in Fallbrook to go and check on them.
26 Q And when was that?
27 A That was on February 9th.
28 Q February 9th or February 13th?
37
1 A You know what, can I double-check the dates on that, sir?
2 Q Since my memory is different than yours, would it refresh
3 your recollection to see who's correct?
4 A Yes, sir.
5 MR. IMES: With the Court's permission, may he refer to
6 his report?
7 THE COURT: Sure.
8 (Brief pause.)
9 THE WITNESS: Yeah, I stand corrected, sir. I'm sorry,
10 he met Mr. Merritt out there on February 13th, 2010.

If you listen to the whole of redirect which isn't very long (I'm not saying you haven't Mica but for the benefit of the thread - starting at 24:47 in the testimony I linked above CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 ) it starts with Mike being asked about his mindset on that Monday when he made the missing persons report and he says he was worried and distraught and agrees that there is a possibility he jumbled up dates because of that and because he had nothing in front of him, calendars, notes or phone records etc, to prompt his memory. From the above transcript it's clear that Det. Bachman was mixing up the 9th with the 13th.

These are two different timelines. Patrick contacted MM on the 9th about checking on the family after receiving an email from DK. MM very well could have driven by the house on Feb. 9th as the detective testified.

MM went to the home with CM on the 13th not the 9th, as the detective corrected himself.

 

[mrjitty]

Hey mrjitty, just in case you didn't know Law & Crime Network are live-streaming the trial and they upload each day's testimony at the end of the day.

Here is the link to their McStay trial youtube playlist - if you click play and then on the bottom right corner to watch on youtube.

Thanks!

 

[Tortoise]

These are two different timelines. Patrick contacted MM on the 9th about checking on the family after receiving an email from DK. MM very well could have driven by the house on Feb. 9th as the detective testified.

MM went to the home with CM on the 13th not the 9th, as the detective corrected himself.

I realise they're different timelines but it's clear the detective had the 9th in his head when he was talking about what happened (MM and CM going to the house) on the 13th, so equally he could have meant the 13th in his earlier answer. It wasn't his recollection that prompted him to correct himself but the questioner and then the records.

 

[Timekeeper65]

Maybe he was confident because he had a legitimate reason - he needed it to fulfill the Saudi order and was trying to keep business going - although that wouldn't account for the backdating. I dont think he knew how to access the PayPal. Does anyone remember someone quoted SB as saying, when she was cleaning up in the house "Summer wont need that where she is".

Trash reported by the book “author”.

 

[mrjitty]

I guess i am contrarian here but i think the prosecution case vs CM is very strong at first blush.

The Quickbooks fraud implies foreknowledge of McStay's disappearance

McStay himself would have realised the fraud almost immediately when his bank balance did not reconcile to his Quickbooks.

The reason to delete the cheques was a reasonably successful attempt to hide the theft from cursory observation within Quickbooks. Similarly review of the bank statements would not necessarily raise alarm bells unless you reconciled vs Quickbooks. But why would anyone be doing this?

IMO from the perps point of view the key was to steal the money fast before bank accounts might be locked down.

Also cheques obviously could not be written after McStay "disappeared"

But no one knew he had disappeared on the 5th!

 

[mrjitty]

I think the blood is a great example of how Juries can be confused

We know the deceased were bludgeoned to death so there was blood and a lot of it.

Yet people going into the house did not initially suspect anything

But this is true no matter who committed the murders.

It doesn't really say anything about guilt or innocence, because no matter how strange it seems, it happened.

Just adding to this now watching the opening address.

The prosecution seem to allege that the paint evidence proves Summer was killed at the house. Paint dripped on her. And paint got on the murder weapon.

 

[mrjitty]

The cell phone evidence is pretty alarming

What are the chances the accused stole from the McStays then went dark on his phone just as they were being murdered?

 

[Tortoise]

I guess i am contrarian here but i think the prosecution case vs CM is very strong at first blush.

The Quickbooks fraud implies foreknowledge of McStay's disappearance

McStay himself would have realised the fraud almost immediately when his bank balance did not reconcile to his Quickbooks.

The reason to delete the cheques was a reasonably successful attempt to hide the theft from cursory observation within Quickbooks. Similarly review of the bank statements would not necessarily raise alarm bells unless you reconciled vs Quickbooks. But why would anyone be doing this?

IMO from the perps point of view the key was to steal the money fast before bank accounts might be locked down.

I agree, and the date of the backdated cheques implies knowledge of date of disappearance. Put that together with his phone going off grid and it's a no-brainer. However, I have read some of the things he is reported to have said to/in the Daily Mail after their bodies were found and I will say, IMO, he is well practiced and adept in the art of deception and manipulation, except for his one fatal error within hours of their reported disappearance of speaking of them all in the past tense. If he gives evidence I think he will be a good liar and it was evident to me from the short excerpts I read of his press interview that he had worked out that his strategy would be to heap praise upon Joey.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

I agree, and the date of the backdated cheques implies knowledge of date of disappearance. Put that together with his phone going off grid and it's a no-brainer. However, I have read some of the things he is reported to have said to/in the Daily Mail after their bodies were found and I will say, IMO, he is well practiced and adept in the art of deception and manipulation, except for his one fatal error within hours of their reported disappearance of speaking of them all in the past tense. If he gives evidence I think he will be a good liar and it was evident to me from the short excerpts I read of his press interview that he had worked out that his strategy would be to heap praise upon Joey.

MOO

The calls to Quickbooks from the accused phone claiming to be McStay are pretty slam dunk.

 

[Tortoise]

The calls to Quickbooks from the accused phone claiming to be McStay are pretty slam dunk.

Were those calls not from the accused's own phone? That's my recollection.

eta Sorry I'd misread your post. That is what you said.

 

[mrjitty]

I agree, and the date of the backdated cheques implies knowledge of date of disappearance.

Yes. That "coincidence" leads to an obvious inference that he knew no cheques could be plausibly issued after the 4th

I don't see what else is needed for a guilty verdict myself.

 

[mrjitty]

Were those calls not from the accused's own phone? That's my recollection.

Yes! After McStay had disappeared. Asking to delete all Quickbooks data. What a coincidence!

 

[mrjitty]

The fact that a deleted cheque was created from the computers at the McStay house places Merrick at the murder scene

Maybe I need to double check this - but that was my understanding of what happened.

 

[Tortoise]

The fact that a deleted cheque was created from the computers at the McStay house places Merrick at the murder scene

Maybe I need to double check this - but that was my understanding of what happened.

That's my understanding. This is a pattern of deceptive behaviour linked to one man - CM.

 

[asyousay]

Yes. That "coincidence" leads to an obvious inference that he knew no cheques could be plausibly issued after the 4th

I don't see what else is needed for a guilty verdict myself.

You need to prove murder , theft doesn’t automatically = murder unfortunately.

 

[missy1974]

Here are the handy dandy links to everything The McStay youtube playlist with all the trial video's is at the bottom!

Link to Law & Crime Live Trials:

Law & Crime

Direct Link:

Watch Live: 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

 

[Tortoise]

You need to prove murder , theft doesn’t automatically = murder unfortunately.

Theft alone doesn't but dates and other circumstances such as being at the crime scene (circumstantial evidence) with phone off etc can lead to a conclusion of murder.

 

[asyousay]

Theft alone doesn't but dates and other circumstances such as being at the crime scene (circumstantial evidence) with phone off etc can lead to a conclusion of murder.

Yes it looks completely damning on paper but if this trial is going on for 4-6 months we have a hell of a long way to go.

I want to know how he supposedly murdered a family of 4 but didn’t leave a ton of evidence in the home. As we saw at the beginning of the trial that house upstairs was carpeted and downstairs had a ton of rugs yet where is the blood splatter?

All we know is the futon cover vanished but he hardly murdered all 4 on the couch and even then blood would of soaked though.