Closing Arguments- Chase Merritt Charged W/Murder of Joseph, Summer, Gianni and Joe Jr McStay #2

[Frankie Hellis]

Right? He could be trying to remember what brand of tampons his wife told him to pick up on his way home. Or maybe he has been holding in a poop. You know how some guys (aka my husband) get when they are due for their "bathroom time". It's like they can't even process how to adult until they've gone through their home ritual, and after that, the belly needs to be full of food before an actual flicker of emotion can be had.

Lol. Throughout this trial, I have had a theory about the judge. I think he regularly poops (well, hopefully anyway) and that is why he interrupts for those breaks as forceful as he does. I mean when it is time for a break, he doesn’t care what is happening, it is break time baby!

 

[Frankie Hellis]

RSBM

I've always been fascinated by this, and indeed it is why I joined Websleuths in the first place.

On the Knox case I got in a very detailed and heated debate with a maths professor about the Pistorius testimony. Though we agreed on Knox, she was convinced Pistorius version was largely true, because it better fitted the witness evidence. She approached it in a very analytical/probabilistic way.

As a former lawyer, I was convinced Pistorius testimony was inherently unreliable, and that he had reverse engineered it having heard the State case. IMO i was a quite a lot more cynical than her as to how a defence strategy worked.

But to prove who was right, required a micro level of analysis that i sort of feel is beyond the Court process and indeed the trial Judge largely failed to confront the evidence at all, throwing her hands in the air and simply ignored large amounts of circumstantial evidence, including incredibly, all the crime scene photos.

Ultimately, although i think it will never be possible to know what happened that night in detail, some very industrious posters were able to reverse engineer some of the tailoring, and show how some honest mistakes from the witnesses could be fitted back together.

Indeed the Prosecutor had implored the judge to focus on the big picture which the witnesses all agreed on, rather than focus on micro-explanations for each point, which taken together, were highly implausible.

IMO that is exactly what we are seeing in this case. There is no plausible explanation for the totality of Chase's conduct.

I've come around to the conclusion that people get seduced by highly speculative explanations about cheques, DNA, cell, IP addresses etc etc which are balanced on the head of a pin

Well she was an idiot anyway, IMO.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

If Cathy Russon's estimate is right, they have deliberated for 17 hours. Taking into account the start stops since that is over 4 days with lunch breaks, how much time have they actually deliberated? There is a lot for these jurors to go through and discuss. They haven't been able to discuss it all this time, maybe some have questions about things that weren't clear to them, maybe they are looking at some of the 100's of exhibits that were introduced into evidence. 17 hours is really not that long when you haven't been able to discuss and work through some of these things all these months like we have. Or maybe I'm completely wrong and they are split haha But I just don't think they have had substantial time to deliberate.

I have been saying for quite awhile that I think the best outcome for this trial would be a hung jury. As much as no one wants to have to watch another trial, or don't want to see the families go through this again, it seems to me anyway, to be the best outcome.

For those that think the trial was terribly run and that there are/were issues, will you feel the same way if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict? Will you then be okay with the 'system'? and how this trial was run? Will you be concerned that it will overturned on appeals?

L&C has been showing another trial in California, also in deliberations, they are doing 9-4:30 (and also took an 1 1/2 hour lunch break yesterday) The trial wasn't as long, and it's not a murder case, but from what I saw the trial was run in a much better or "normal" way IMO

All JMO

I cant answer for anyone else of course, but my issue is how this jury has deliberated so nonchalantly with a few hours here, and a couple of hours there. Two hour lunches.

I have never seen any other death penalty trial jurors do this. None.

Imo for me the verdict is relevant. It's the bizarre manner in which they have deliberated.

That will not change no matter what verdict they may render.

Jmhoo

 

[LadyL]

But I'm sure they can do dabs on break time being it's legal in California.

What's a dab?

 

[Longtimenoc]

I don't think they have even asked for any readbacks in a case as lengthy and complex as this.

 

[Hte2w8]

I'm concerned on an appellate level.
I believe we are going to be doing this all over again.
I wanted it to be done right the first time so it would be over.
That didn't happen, that isn't happening and it is infuriating to me.

I believe we will be back on another verdict watch on this case in the future.

This had been my guy instinct from the beginning as well.

 

[Longtimenoc]

I cant answer for anyone else of course, but my issue is how this jury has deliberated so nonchalantly with a few hours here, and a couple of hours there. Two hour lunches.

I have never seen any other death penalty trial jurors do this. None.

Imo for me the verdict is relevant. It's the bizarre manner in which they have deliberated.

That will not change no matter what verdict they may render.

Jmhoo

And the laughing and chattering in the halls is so inappropriate. No excuses for it in such a sad case.

 

[Hte2w8]

I am very worried.
I thought within a very short time there would be a 'Guilty' result.
Their discussions and info are possibly not as extensive as here, and it appears things are not as clear to the Jurors.
MOO.

I mentioned this before deliberations started and some we people scoffed at the possibility there could be a hung jury. It's not necessarily that CM is guilty or innocent, just that it's not as clear to the jury as it is to the people here who have followed the case for years.
In any case, my personal opinion is the jury hasn't deliberated enough yet to know whether they can or can not reach a verdict.

 

[LadyL]

If Cathy Russon's estimate is right, they have deliberated for 17 hours. Taking into account the start stops since that is over 4 days with lunch breaks, how much time have they actually deliberated? There is a lot for these jurors to go through and discuss. They haven't been able to discuss it all this time, maybe some have questions about things that weren't clear to them, maybe they are looking at some of the 100's of exhibits that were introduced into evidence. 17 hours is really not that long when you haven't been able to discuss and work through some of these things all these months like we have. Or maybe I'm completely wrong and they are split haha But I just don't think they have had substantial time to deliberate.

I have been saying for quite awhile that I think the best outcome for this trial would be a hung jury. As much as no one wants to have to watch another trial, or don't want to see the families go through this again, it seems to me anyway, to be the best outcome.

For those that think the trial was terribly run and that there are/were issues, will you feel the same way if the jury comes back with a guilty verdict? Will you then be okay with the 'system'? and how this trial was run? Will you be concerned that it will overturned on appeals?

L&C has been showing another trial in California, also in deliberations, they are doing 9-4:30 (and also took an 1 1/2 hour lunch break yesterday) The trial wasn't as long, and it's not a murder case, but from what I saw the trial was run in a much better or "normal" way IMO

All JMO

I'm not ok with the way this trial was run regardless of the outcome.

 

[Longtimenoc]

Me too, and I really do have a lot of faith in jurors, but I'm beginning to worry about THESE particular jurors.

Jmho

Maybe the juror who was observed to be quiet and aloof is the only one of 12 who is taking the job seriously.

 

[Recidivist]

What's a dab?

A dab is a bong hit of pot. (marijuana)

 

[missingm]

I'm edging closer and closer to the worry club, asking myself if these are the actions of reasonable-minded people.

I am not worried yet. They are still well within the time to weigh the pieces of evidence in a circumstantial case. Hopefully they are simply budgeting blocks of time to address each part. I think we can have a verdict either late today or tomorrow.

Of course I expect at least one round of questions for the judge. Those questions will be very telling. If they reach a verdict without any questions, I wouldn't know what to expect.

 

[Force Ten]

Scott Peterson's trial was also 5 months. That verdict took 7 days and I thought it was too fast. However, that case was much more normally handled. I would feel better if this jury took their time and went over everything for another week. Just because of how ridiculous the case has been. I worry a quick verdict would only be more grounds for an appeal.

Did that trial go Monday through Friday though? A lot are comparing this to other trials and this one has been anything but that.

 

[gitana1]

RSBM

I've always been fascinated by this, and indeed it is why I joined Websleuths in the first place.

On the Knox case I got in a very detailed and heated debate with a maths professor about the Pistorius testimony. Though we agreed on Knox, she was convinced Pistorius version was largely true, because it better fitted the witness evidence. She approached it in a very analytical/probabilistic way.

As a former lawyer, I was convinced Pistorius testimony was inherently unreliable, and that he had reverse engineered it having heard the State case. IMO i was a quite a lot more cynical than her as to how a defence strategy worked.

But to prove who was right, required a micro level of analysis that i sort of feel is beyond the Court process and indeed the trial Judge largely failed to confront the evidence at all, throwing her hands in the air and simply ignored large amounts of circumstantial evidence, including incredibly, all the crime scene photos.

Ultimately, although i think it will never be possible to know what happened that night in detail, some very industrious posters were able to reverse engineer some of the tailoring, and show how some honest mistakes from the witnesses could be fitted back together.

Indeed the Prosecutor had implored the judge to focus on the big picture which the witnesses all agreed on, rather than focus on micro-explanations for each point, which taken together, were highly implausible.

IMO that is exactly what we are seeing in this case. There is no plausible explanation for the totality of Chase's conduct.

I've come around to the conclusion that people get seduced by highly speculative explanations about cheques, DNA, cell, IP addresses etc etc which are balanced on the head of a pin

It's like a hydra. There are explanations for each, separate issue - "well that can be explained by..."

But no accounting for the "coincidence" that all these issues have to be explained away, one by one, in relation to one person.

When you have to work that hard to find excuses for every bit of circumstantial evidence against a defendant, you're working too hard to make the circumstances fit what you want them to be. At a certain point it becomes illogical not to see the bigger picture and realize no one person is going to have to have that many separate coincidences that need to be resolved, unless they're guilty.

But I actually don't think most people get seduced by such speculative explanations. Or should I say not involuntarily.

Yes, there are some who are gullible enough. However I think most who accept explanation after explanation, even when the explanations are so thin and you have to work so hard to get there, have a reason for wanting to.

In some cases it's a sympathy for the defendant. Sometimes it's dislike of a victim.

Often it's projection due to a belief that the system is "corrupt" and did them or a loved one wrong. Or that they were "lied" about in the past so they're going to side with an accused every time.

There's also often a deep distrust of LE and the government that can come into play.

Many times it's people who view this as a game they're playing and their job is to be defense counsel and try to dismantle the state's case.

And sometimes it's just people who want to be contrary. They like to stir the pot so they're going to take an oppositional position regardless of logic or reason.

It's interesting to try to figure out the psychology.

 

[Force Ten]

I'm reserving my opinion based on what happens in the first hour of deliberations today.

I think 9 am start yesterday shows a good attitude. It could also be something they reluctantly agreed to because they didn't start deliberations until 1.30 pm on Tuesday, but who knows.

The 2 hour lunch and only 2 hours of deliberations yesterday afternoon seems like it could be that they finalized their deliberations and no reason to hang around longer but didn't notify the court because of the 2 hour notice period. If they had given notice of a verdict at 2 pm the court would only just be reconvening at 4 pm, and even that could be delayed given how slowly things always run there.

So if they had a verdict yesterday then I would expect it to be apparent in the first hour today.

If the first hour goes by without hearing from them I will join the worry club, big time. Then I will probably start hoping for a hung jury. I'm fighting off my wild imaginings of catastrophe.

Yes. I feel we'll have the verdict by lunch. I wonder how long it takes for 12 people to sign off on a murder of 4.

 

[LadyL]

A dab is a bong hit of pot. (marijuana)

Well surely that wouldn't be allowed if alcohol isn't allowed.

 

[Kittybunny]

Count me in the "Starting to Worry A Little" camp. Fingers crossed that today is the day.

 

[My3Sons]

I spent several days at Jodi Arias' first trial. The jury came and went through the same hallway and elevators as everyone else. Any time they went anywhere, they had to pass by all of the media, spectators, and families. There were times they would come into the hall and it would get eerily quiet, and people would stare at them, as if they hoped they could tell what they were thinking. It had to be horribly awkward for them. So, they would always travel in packs, always in conversation, careful not to look around or make eye contact with anyone. Sometimes in their conversations there were smiles and laughter. I get that there is not a huge crowd waiting at the McStay courthouse, but there are clearly some, and I am sure the jury feels their eyes watching them as they come and go. I just don't think we can glean anything from the observation of them leaving the courthouse yesterday.

I am troubled by them leaving so early yesterday, particularly after a 2 hour lunch break. Maybe it means they were at an impasse and wanted to give everyone a break. Maybe it means they have a verdict and wanted to sleep on it. Maybe it means one of them had somewhere to be and had asked ahead of time that they break early (although if that were the case you would think they wouldn't have taken an extended lunch break)...we will never know, unless afterward they talk.

 

[la2cabo]

Do you know if the female juror, who became nauseous after the grave pics of the McStay's were shown, is still on the jury?

No I don't but I'll try to find out.

 

[ehenson88]

I cant answer for anyone else of course, but my issue is how this jury has deliberated so nonchalantly with a few hours here, and a couple of hours there. Two hour lunches.

I have never seen any other death penalty trial jurors do this. None.

Imo for me the verdict is relevant. It's the bizarre manner in which they have deliberated.

That will not change no matter what verdict they may render.

Jmhoo

I've been giving it some thought and wondering what kind of jobs these people have that are accommodating a 6 month leave of absence. The thought crossed my mind that they probably work for a company who is still giving them regular pay, or possibly unemployed. Either way the remaining jurors don't seem to be in a rush whatsoever. Maybe they are taking their time because they enjoy being on the jury and aren't ready to return to work. I could see them setting a deadline for the verdict as of this morning or tomorrow morning just because it would finish out the week for them before going back to real life.