CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #13

[mrjitty]

A great way to learn about DNA is through the exhibits Kathleen Zellner published on her motions for the Steven Avery case. I'll get a link for those, or Missy may have one handy.

We don't always leave DNA. And no one, to my knowledge can say conclusively, why we sometimes leave it and sometimes we don't. Hygiene, it seems, can play a factor.

What I suspect in the encounter between Joey and Chase on the 4th is, that before eating lunch that day both men washed their hands. So DNA from others they touched would either have been diminished or washed off.

They had a lunch that lasted a few hours, it would seem. And in that time they may have touched their face, or wiped their hands on pants, built up perspiration, who knows. At the end of the lunch they shake hands, or bro-hug, or pass off an object to each other. Say, Joey hands Chase checks, Chase hands Joey a cup, or paperwork-this may never be known for certain.

Joey gets in his Trooper, now Chase's DNA is on his hands, and there is just enough for DNA to be left primarily on the steering wheel, in slight amounts on other objects. And again, because we don't always leave DNA, not everything Joey touches gets DNA on it (one of the reports I posted mentions that the more pressure applied to an object, the more DNA left).

There was the question as to why when Chase was in the Trooper 6 weeks prior, his DNA was not left on the passenger side of the Trooper. That could be because he was in one of those paint-ball outfits, and kept his gloves on. Or again, after playing paint ball he relieved himself, and washed his hands just prior to getting in the Trooper.

Lots of variables with this stuff.

Or maybe he was not in the trooper 6 weeks prior

 

[JMarsh]

Purely a guess, but the defense may have wanted to suggest one of them was stepping outside of the marriage. This mystery third person would become a convenient alternate suspect and motive.

I recall chatter about this way back when. I never believed it.

Or, perhaps the defense wanted to show that just because Joey had problems with a person, he didn't give up on them completely.

The difference in Joey's relationship to Chase, from what he had with Dan can be seen clearly in the phone logs. There is no tapering off between Joey and Chase, in fact the week Joey goes missing, they see each other and speak more than they had in the three months prior. Whereas with Dan, it's obvious there isn't much more communication than is absolutely necessary.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

How would the defense be linking family counselling to their murder?

I don't understand why their personal matters are relevant.

One of them didnt off the other one, and the children, and then bury themselves in the desert.

I havent listened to the audio yet. Is this when the judge said to Maline he was going to find him in contempt of court if he didnt stop asking irrelevant objectionable questions?

Imo this is nothing more than a diversionary tactic often used by defense attorneys, imo.

 

[mothwings]

I agree, and think it's a low act to call grieving family members to the stand for the DT.
IMO the Prosecutors are the voice or should be for the victims and their families.

Right, Susan is clearly traumatized. I can't imagine Susan possibly being involved in murders of her grandkids and son and I doubt the jury is going to reach that conclusion. They are not off to a good start by any means.

 

[JMarsh]

Right, Susan is clearly traumatized. I can't imagine Susan possibly being involved in murders of her grandkids and son and I doubt the jury is going to reach that conclusion. They are not off to a good start by any means.

I don't think that the defense was trying to hint at Susan being involved, only that her memory is fallible, or perhaps even self-serving. Susan did almost commit perjury at one point. Or mis-remembered in a way that appeared to be less than completely truthful.

From what I gathered her initial testimony to Inv. Hanke in 2014 wasn't that Joey was going to fire Chase, but was simply going to expand his operation, and this included Chase as part of the expansion. On direct she said Chase was going to be fired, but she pulled back from this, and we will likely be hearing more about this when the defense brings Inv. Hanke back to the stand.

Susan is an example of what is known as a "hostile" witness. I don't mean that she was hostile, only she was clearly uncooperative at times. And perhaps less than entirely truthful.

 

[mrjitty]

Or, perhaps the defense wanted to show that just because Joey had problems with a person, he didn't give up on them completely.

The difference in Joey's relationship to Chase, from what he had with Dan can be seen clearly in the phone logs. There is no tapering off between Joey and Chase, in fact the week Joey goes missing, they see each other and speak more than they had in the three months prior. Whereas with Dan, it's obvious there isn't much more communication than is absolutely necessary.

Of course the other difference is that Joey didn't get murdered after his problems with DK

After Chase started stealing, Joey got murdered and his comms tapered off overnight to zero

 

[mrjitty]

I don't understand why their personal matters are relevant.

One of them didnt off the other one, and the children, and then bury themselves in the desert.

I havent listened to the audio yet. Is this when the judge said to Maline he was going to find him in contempt of court if he didnt stop asking irrelevant objectionable questions?

Imo this is nothing more than a diversionary tactic often used by defense attorneys, imo.

One trawls the high seas hoping fish jump in the boat

Strange that the defence has all these amazing witnesses promised in the opening yet McGee opens with CJ, the daughter, and then a multi hour trawling of Joey's mum.

Then he wants to play 8 hrs of audio

What about all his star witnesses? Can it be that after all the defence whining, he can't manage to get his experts on deck to testify in a prompt manner?

 

[mrjitty]

Susan is an example of what is known as a "hostile" witness.

LOL

She is a state witness for the prosecution. She never was a defence witness.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Right, Susan is clearly traumatized. I can't imagine Susan possibly being involved in murders of her grandkids and son and I doubt the jury is going to reach that conclusion. They are not off to a good start by any means.

Imo, It's never a wise move for the defense to poke, and prod, any traumatized family members of the murdered victims.

Imo, it highly offensive to jurors who have seen the victims remains, and know what the families have had to already endure.

It's rather cruel, and selfish to do so, imo.

I don't know what they think they've gained except giving the jury the opportunity to be highly ticked off.

 

[Recidivist]

I don't think that the defense was trying to hint at Susan being involved, only that her memory is fallible, or perhaps even self-serving. Susan did almost commit perjury at one point. Or mis-remembered in a way that appeared to be less than completely truthful.

From what I gathered her initial testimony to Inv. Hanke in 2014 wasn't that Joey was going to fire Chase, but was simply going to expand his operation, and this included Chase as part of the expansion. On direct she said Chase was going to be fired, but she pulled back from this, and we will likely be hearing more about this when the defense brings Inv. Hanke back to the stand.

Susan is an example of what is known as a "hostile" witness. I don't mean that she was hostile, only she was clearly uncooperative at times. And perhaps less than entirely truthful.

I don't recall the judge declaring her a hostile witness. Did I miss that?

 

[Karinna]

LOL

She is a state witness for the prosecution. She never was a defence witness.

Exactly.

 

[JMarsh]

This is one of the reports from the Avery collection of exhibits. These are world renowned scientists, and though not exactly germane to this disuccsion, there is a lot to be learned about DNA from these reports. I have a feeling the defense on the Merritt case will present even more evidence around this.

There's another one that is even more relevant, but I'm having trouble finding it.


http://www.stevenaverycase.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/015-Affidavit-of-Dr-Reich.pdf

Here is the site for this:

Avery’s Appeals Documents – Steven Avery Trial Transcripts and Documents

 

[Recidivist]

Imo, It's never a wise move for the defense to poke, and prod, any traumatized family members of the murdered victims.

Imo, it highly offensive to jurors who have seen the victims remains, and know what the families have had to already endure.

It's rather cruel, and selfish to do so, imo.

I don't know what they think they've gained except giving the jury the opportunity to be highly ticked off.

I think the only thing to come of it, was that Chase took another at least almost $16000.00 from Susan Blake.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

LOL

She is a state witness for the prosecution. She never was a defence witness.

Yep. The jury knows she is not on the side of the defense even though she was forced to testify in their case.

 

[JMarsh]

I don't recall the judge declaring her a hostile witness. Did I miss that?

Maline didn't ask for this, but the judge did allow Maline to lead at times, which is what is allowed when a witness is "hostile". The judge allowed a good bit of leading questions on direct. Usually you are only allowed leading questions on cross.

 

[mrjitty]

I don't recall the judge declaring her a hostile witness. Did I miss that?

A hostile witness would be where the defence compelled DK to testify and he gave testimony against the defence (as is likely)

The defence could apply to the Judge to have the witness declared hostile which allows more aggressive questioning.

Susan was already called as a state witness.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I think the only thing to come of it, was that Chase took another at least almost $16000.00 from Susan Blake.

What a snake he truly is.

He not only murders her son, and family, but he can't wait to scam her out of money too.

Beyond reprehensible.

 

[JMarsh]

I think the only thing to come of it, was that Chase took another at least almost $16000.00 from Susan Blake.

Wow. You missed a lot then. That was one of the most jam packed interviews on the stand so far.

 

[mrjitty]

Yep. The jury knows she is not on the side of the defense even though she was forced to testify in their case.

I must say I find Cali procedure bizarre

I don't get why the defence can call Susan again when they already had opportunity to X

 

[Karinna]

Imo, It's never a wise move for the defense to poke, and prod, any traumatized family members of the murdered victims.

Imo, it highly offensive to jurors who have seen the victims remains, and know what the families have had to already endure.

It's rather cruel, and selfish to do so, imo.

I don't know what they think they've gained except giving the jury the opportunity to be highly ticked off.

Totally agree Ocean. It upsets me a great deal being a bereaved mother myself. Poor Susan to get grilled by the defense attorney to verify things that happened 9 years ago when she was going through all that, to try to get her to look like she might be being untruthful. Shame on them IMO.