CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #14

[smr]

Maybe DK can't stack up

They do risk a horrible blunder if the prosecution has hard evidence of Hawaii

What are some of the examples of what you'd consider to be hard evidence of DK in Hawaii?

 

[citygirl]

Better find and tell the source, otherwise it could be rumor. Was it mentioned in the trial? Sounds like it would be a small scale bombshell.

I'm thinking a tad bigger than a small scale bombshell. Like huge!

 

[smr]

One of the things that stood out to me was that they did flyers in Fallbrook and sounds like Chase and Cathy were there... Mike says "oh that's when I met Cathy". I don't recall flyers being handed out in Fallbrook, maybe others would ... @KALI ?

When was that (distributing flyers in Fallbrook)? Around what days?

 

[QueenBofOB]

Are you sure about this? I recall that CJ had a laptop in storage but it belonged to CM, not Joseph.

I recall reading about it, on the website that we aren't supposed to mention here.

 

[katydid23]

In two graves though. He was specific on two graves. How would he know that precisely!!

That’s not a normal turn of phase and stands out like a sore thumb. Even psychics would of been hard pressed to pull that out of the hat.

Maybe he thought the 2adults were buried and the kids were kid napped and sold or trafficked?

 

[smr]

Does anyone know what picture of MM was being talked about at the beginning of yesterday's hearing (before jury entered)?

 

[katydid23]

It's the strangest defense strategy I ever saw.

They had Mike back specifically to infer he did it, so how on earth are they going to put on their case that Dan did it? They remind me of headless chickens.

And when the state says during cross that they were accusing Mike of murder, the defense strenuously objects, saying they never accused him of that....

Which makes no sense because it was obvious that they were trying to put his work truck there on the 4th and remind everyone that he and Summer had argued and that he somehow knew about the burial conditions

So denying that they were trying to blame Mikey seems disingenuous

 

[katydid23]

The remark was "TWO adult shallow graves...".

Maybe he incorrectly believed that the adults would be killed and the children kidnapped?

 

[smr]

And when the state says during cross that they were accusing Mike of murder, the defense strenuously objects, saying they never accused him of that....

Which makes no sense because it was obvious that they were trying to put his work truck there on the 4th and remind everyone that he and Summer had argued and that he somehow knew about the burial conditions

So denying that they were trying to blame Mikey seems disingenuous

Maybe they were just trying to argue that CM's truck was not the only one that could look like the one in the video footage.

 

[katydid23]

When a murderer kills two adults, is it more common that he buries them together in one grave, or that he buries them in two separate, adjacent graves?

And then there were two baby victims.

It’s easier to place 2 bodies per grave because it is easier to dig wide than it is to dig deep. So it is faster to make one hole and make it a bigger width than it is to dig 2 separate holes

 

[katydid23]

Maybe they were just trying to argue that CM's truck was not the only one that could look like the one in the video footage.

Well then they failed because Mikey’s truck had no exhaust pipe in the back

Also they brought up his argument with Summer and his description of the graves before they were found

So obviously they were implying he was a valid suspect

 

[smr]

It’s easier to place 2 bodies per grave because it is easier to dig wide than it is to dig deep. So it is faster to make one hole and make it a bigger width than it is to dig 2 separate holes

Thanks for the tip.

 

[smr]

Well then they failed because Mikey’s truck had no exhaust pipe in the back

That part is not very clear to me in the audio.

 

[smr]

Well then they failed because Mikey’s truck had no exhaust pipe in the back

Also they brought up his argument with Summer and his description of the graves before they were found

So obviously they were implying he was a valid suspect

Like I said in #845 (I think?), it seems to suggest knowledge. There is no evidence of involvement, is there?

 

[katydid23]

I've seen that article/webpage but haven't read it in detail. Does it mention whether most of those were done by drug or cartel related crimes? Just curious.

No. They discuss serial killers who used the desert as burial grounds. And mobsters from Vegas and some spouses who buried their partners

The desert is used by many killers because it is remote and huge and very few people hang out there to find bodies later

 

[smr]

And mobsters from Vegas and some spouses who buried their partners

 

[mothwings]

It seems to that the defense's case is in trouble and they are grasping at anything. We still don't know if Dan or his GF will testify. I would think the if they had that they would not need Mike's testimony. They know their case is done.

Right! And to begin with—if the defense thought the case against Charles Merritt was at all lacking in evidentiary quality—they wouldn't be losing sleep over it, being caught off guard with short directs, yelling speaking objections left and right. I'm sure everyone knows here the defense doesn't have to prove anything. The burden of proof rests at the prosecution's table (or side in this case). It would have been totally okay for the defense not to question any witnesses the entire trial but clearly the case against Charles Merritt is strong. It isn't the "no evidence" case some say it is or the defense would be sitting down all day. The judge's final jury instructions would be enough for an acquittal. It might be a long, debilitating deliberaton but the jury will render a guilty verdict. I think the remains surfaced for a reason and it's certainly not for Charles to get away with it. That poor family.

 

[katydid23]

Like I said in #845 (I think?), it seems to suggest knowledge. There is no evidence of involvement, is there?

So you mean like the killer told Mikey that he buried the bodies in the desert in 2 graves? Why would he say there were crosses?

And why would he tell the brother and uncle that he killed and buried his family?

What makes more sense? A brutal killer tells
A member of the victims family what he did and where he buried them...

Or a grieving family member makes a scary prediction which is based on common sense and is correct?

 

[smr]

So you mean like the killer told Mikey that he buried the bodies in the desert in 2 graves? Why would he say there were crosses?

And why would he tell the brother and uncle that he killed and buried his family?

What makes more sense? A brutal killer tells
A member of the victims family what he did and where he buried them...

Or a grieving family member makes a scary prediction which is based on common sense and is correct?

I don't know.

 

[Mica]

Maline asked Mike if he removed a laptop. He said no.

Maline then said that San Bernardino detectives told Mike in 2013/14 that they couldn't find the laptop - judge sustained prosecution's objection as facts not in evidence.

Maline then asked Mike if he knew a laptop was missing and he said no.

Snip

KAYE: Mike McStay went in and took the video card out of laptop computer and brought home the laptop computer.

RAMOS: Right.

CNN.com - Transcripts