CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #15

[Meemaw12]

No, it is cross.

ETA: I’m going to give him a minute. He started out over-hammering a point I don’t believe he should have over-hammered (a new word). He might get better.

Think I’m behind on listening. Sorry

 

[citygirl]

That voice is Sean Daugherty, I had to skip ahead because I was intrigued to find out who you were talking about but I haven't listened to it yet so I can't comment on his cross-examination.

It was very good, IMO.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

It was very good, IMO.

Really?

I thought he should not have hammered the whole how-much-are-you-making and you’re-doing-it-for-publicity thing. My take is that she was probably well liked as a witness and that line of questioning was petty and went on for way too long. It makes one think he can’t refute what she testified to, so he’s going to make her look like she was a witness for her own gain. I dunno. Maybe I’m being too harsh.

 

[travelbug]

I can't make a decision until all of DT presentation is complete. I'm particularly interested in the DNA research.

 

[travelbug]

Really?

I thought he should not have hammered the whole how-much-are-you-making and you’re-doing-it-for-publicity thing. My take is that she was probably well liked as a witness and that line of questioning was petty and went on for way too long. It makes one think he can’t refute what she testified to, so he’s going to make her look like she was a witness for her own gain. I dunno. Maybe I’m being too harsh.

I absolutely agree and for the exact same reasons you have stated.

 

[citygirl]

Really?

I thought he should not have hammered the whole how-much-are-you-making and you’re-doing-it-for-publicity thing. My take is that she was probably well liked as a witness and that line of questioning was petty and went on for way too long. It makes one think he can’t refute what she testified to, so he’s going to make her look like she was a witness for her own gain. I dunno. Maybe I’m being too harsh.

I did, Frankie. But we are so limited in assessing the testimony especially without any video. She obviously is smart with good credentials. It took a full 30 minutes to cover them. I tried hard on the third upload to pay attention and still got lost. But that's just me. Hard to know how she came off to the jury. Daugherty was on her right out of the gate, I agree. But it is vitally important for the jury to know what he exposed. This defense team spent over $20,000 for her testing and testimony. IMO, any seasoned juror is not that impressed with all of this "present but below the reported level"," lower level data" that needs new software to interpret it. It just doesn't fly, IMO.

 

[Mony Mony]

Any DNA bombshells? I haven't heard anything earth shattering. Am I missing something?

 

[la2cabo]

No proof of murder.

And I would not try to speak for the jurors.

If not Merritt then who? Who do you think the evidence points to? How does a person justify/explain all of the "coincidences" that do point to Merritt?

 

[katydid23]

No proof of murder.

And I would not try to speak for the jurors.

It is evidence connecting him to the Murders for a couple of reasons

If it puts him in the McStay home on the 4th, which it appears to do, then it links him to the murders

It also goes to motive for the murders. If he is embezzling from his boss, in a way that will become obvious to that boss any day, then that is a strong motive since he is an ex con thst would get a long sentence if charged again with theft

 

[katydid23]

No proof of murder.

And I would not try to speak for the jurors.

Also, I am not speaking FOR the jurors. I am speaking to common sense

Very few people, jurors or not, are going to believe the nonsense about Joey suddenly, on the day he disappears, deciding to hand over 76 checks from the middle of his numbered roll, to a troubled employee that has a long criminal record for theft and has a severe gambling addiction and is dead broke and behind on his rent

 

[Mica]

Also, I am not speaking FOR the jurors. I am speaking to common sense

Very few people, jurors or not, are going to believe the nonsense about Joey suddenly, on the day he disappears, deciding to hand over 76 checks from the middle of his numbered roll, to a troubled employee that has a long criminal record for theft and has a severe gambling addiction and is dead broke and behind on his rent

I probably missed it, but did they find those 76 checks in CM’s possession?

 

[katydid23]

I probably missed it, but did they find those 76 checks in CM’s possession?

I am not sure. I think that Chase admitted to having them but I could be wrong

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Who is cross examining Suzanna Ryan? I do not agree with what they are doing!

I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but I hope the state asked her how much she is costing the taxpayers. The defense sure did the same thing to the state's expert.

I bet it was more than the state expert who did the 3D imaging.

Is cross over or will they continue the next trial date? Tia

Imo

 

[Tortoise]

Really? It doesn’t sound like him to me.

I am interested to know how you feel about the cross when you get there.

Yes it is him, he did the opening speech. I think he comes across as caring passionately about the case and very zealous.

And it's her job - if she's not expecting to be hauled over the coals for the fee she's being paid then she shouldn't be there.

The victims' own brother/uncle endured worse.

JMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

It was very good, IMO.

Oh thank you, CG!

Im just coming back on the forum, and was wondering how the cross went.

Are they through cross examining her? Tia

Imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Yes it is him, he did the opening speech. I think he comes across as caring passionately about the case and very zealous.

And it's her job - if she's not expecting to be hauled over the coals for the fee she's being paid then she shouldn't be there.

The victims' own brother/uncle endured worse.

JMO

It's always good to have a passionate prosecutor who believes in their case.

I love to see the 'fire in the belly' kind of prosecutors, rather than those who are stiff, and sound unattached.

Imo

 

[missy1974]

I am not sure. I think that Chase admitted to having them but I could be wrong

He did not admit to having them that I recall.

 

[smr]

Also, I am not speaking FOR the jurors. I am speaking to common sense

Common sense would make one roll eyes on learning MM's removing his missing brother's computer/hard drive shortly after the family went missing and before LE could access them.

 

[smr]

It also goes to motive for the murders. If he is embezzling from his boss, in a way that will become obvious to that boss any day, then that is a strong motive since he is an ex con thst would get a long sentence if charged again with theft

Motives for torturing?

 

[missy1974]

I haven't had a chance to listen to it yet, but I hope the state asked her how much she is costing the taxpayers. The defense sure did the same thing to the state's expert.

I bet it was more than the state expert who did the 3D imaging.

Is cross over or will they continue the next trial date? Tia

Imo

BBM

I wonder if it was more than BOTH 3D experts? They did have Dr. Rudin, who they decided not to call before they hired Lucio. I recall Lucio being asked how much he was being paid, but don't recall the amount lol Personally, I think it's a ridiculous question for any expert from either side. Are they expected to do their work and give up their time for free for every single case? Would make business a bit hard to sustain. IMO