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

[citygirl]

My impression of the photo of the remains in grave B were that she was lying with her left shoulder down, but that's just a guess.

Joey Sr. was buried with Joey Jr (age 3) according to testimony that I've heard. Gianni (age 4) was buried with Summer.[/QU
So the right cup was found outside of the grave? I thought it was the left cup? Which led me to believe she was oriented more on her left side? So if the little guys skull was the one they found then both graves were invaded by wildlife.I thought it was only one grave that was disturbed.

 

[Tortoise]

@citygirl the left half of the bra was in the grave.

Both graves were disturbed.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

Trueallele can be purchased. If I purchased the software, I can run validation tests myself. I don't need to have a program code to do that. JMO It's either correct or not. I imagine the labs that do have it have to run control samples periodically. JMO

Yeah but you cannot purchase the code. That is what is needed to determine if there are any mistakes.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Sound a Little Familiar?

With all the talk about oh gee he had no violent background so why do you accuse him of being a killer. He he's not a violent person. Try again and do a little research maybe you'll see it differently.

Watch this episode and change some of the circumstances and you have a perfect example of the McStay murders by CM. So much for his nonviolence crap.

Episode: ID Discovery Deadly Secrets "The Devils Allure"

I found this interesting that aired on ID Discovery today. It is about a man who is a professional con artist. He cons older women and takes over their lives and finances. Then when she finds out that he is only after their money and has siphoned her money. Then there is his not having a violent past and never murdered anyone that is known. He kills his latest victim in a rage when she finds out and confronts him.

Reminds me of February 4, 2010 and the possibilities. AMHO

Hi Bob! Nice to see you posting in the trial forum.

I have seen the one you are mentioning.

I wish I had looked at the title given to a certain show I also saw on ID that very much reminds of this case, but I didnt catch the title. Darn it.

Anyway, it was about two men who had been very close friends, and had done business dealings together.

The friend came to this close friend wanting to borrow 250k, iirc, to pay off his gambling debts at the casino.

His friend refused, knowing he would just spend it on more gambling.

The suspect, had no criminal history, much less a history of committing violence against someone.

When his friend refused to loan him the money he murdered his close friend.

Once murdering him he then stole a part of his friend's valuable coin collection as the man lay dead.

He then went, and sold the coin collection he had taken before leaving the murder scene, and went to the casinos using his dead friend's money.

I've seen it a couple of times now since the Merritt trial started. If I should see it again, I will make sure I notice the title given, and will link it here if anyone is interested.

Although I've seen several cases lately where gambling addicts have murdered innocent people, and the motive was for greed, and financial gain. Some of those suspects had no record for violence either

Some of the victims had been murdered by the gambling addict because the victims caught them stealing from them, and threatened to tell the police or the victims had finally refused to loan them any more money to feed their gambling addiction.

Imo

 

[citygirl]

@citygirl the left half of the bra was in the grave.

Both graves were disturbed.

Thanks. Can't believe that I still get things screwed up! Grateful to have you to keep it all straight. Never realized that both graves were disturbed. OMG. So gruesome.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Yeah but you cannot purchase the code. That is what is needed to determine if there are any mistakes.

Hi Frankie!

Your posts along with MrsPC, MM, Tortoise, and Missy has helped me understand the DNA testimony somewhat better.

But I do have another foolish question.

When I read one of your earlier posts you mentioned something about the expert ASSUMES before even testing there are multiple people involved. How does he know if he is wrong, and it's not as many as he assumed?

Why do they make assumptions at the start there're 3 or four individual's DNA present?

On another question. Ha why won't he divulge his code? It reminds me of Facebook not wanting anyone to know how their algorithm actually works, and why it does it the way it does.

I don't understand all of the cloak of darkness this expert seems to have when not wanting to give up the code. Why so secretive?

TIA!

 

[Frankie Hellis]

Hi Frankie!

Your posts along with MrsPC, MM, Tortoise, and Missy has helped me understand the DNA testimony.

But I do have another foolish question.

When I read one of your earlier posts you mentioned something about the expert ASSUMES before even testing there are multiple people involved. How does he know if he is wrong, and it's not as many as he assumed?

Why do they make assumptions at the start there're 3 or four individual's DNA present?

Of another question. Ha why won't he divulge his code? It reminds me of Facebook not wanting anyone to know how their algorithm actually works, and why it does it the way it does.

I don't understand all of the cloak of darkness this expert seems to have when not wanting to give up the code. Why so secretive?

TIA!

Re: the code
The code (the actual software program as it is written) is proprietary. I read (somewhere) an analogy stating that Microsoft doesn’t give up its code to Excel, yet computations are made every day, so why should Perlin have to give up his code, which also makes computations? The hypothetical answer of course is that Perlin’s code either exonerates or convicts people, which is arguably more serious than Excel computations.

The problem is that there is no entity, aside from their own, that can verify its accuracy. Of all the hundreds of thousands of calculations it makes, the error(s) if they exist, could possibly only be uncovered when a very specific set of variables exist (e.g. an Indian female with German and Slovakian heritage who has green eyes and red hair - I am totally making this up as an example of what specifics might be in play). Something very, very specific and whammo, there is an error.

Without allowing peer reviews of the code, it is unable to be validated as accurate. Perlin says his stating it is accurate should suffice, along with the testing they themselves conducted.

I really think this judge should not have allowed this in.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

Hi Frankie!

Your posts along with MrsPC, MM, Tortoise, and Missy has helped me understand the DNA testimony somewhat better.

But I do have another foolish question.

When I read one of your earlier posts you mentioned something about the expert ASSUMES before even testing there are multiple people involved. How does he know if he is wrong, and it's not as many as he assumed?

Why do they make assumptions at the start there're 3 or four individual's DNA present?


TIA!

Re: the assumption

I don’t know if I can answer this well. It is the nature of probabilistic genotyping that they assume multiple contributors. If you read about it, they always assume more than one. Is this because if it were just one person, the epg would clearly indicate that one person and it would never even make it to the probabilistic phase? I think that is true, but honestly I don’t know. I think if there were one contributor, there would be a profile, even if it were partial, and that would be that. But when there is a mishmash of readings, that is when it is an option to send it off to be genotyped probabilisticly to try and sort out the mish from the mash, so to speak. (Highly technical terms here, lol).

ETA: I messaged a friend of mine, who is proficient with dna to ask him for some insight.

 

[Mony Mony]

RSBM

I don't understand all of the cloak of darkness this expert seems to have when not wanting to give up the code. Why so secretive?

TIA!

My guess is comes down to $$$
Perlin can charge $50,000 and $800/hr. Honestly, I can't blame him for not wanting to give up the code. It was his blood, sweat, and tears that developed this technology. I wouldn't want to give up the goods either.

Perhaps the market will correct itself after this debacle. IMO, at its current technological state, TrueAllele cannot handle extremely degraded DNA. It definitely needs more research. I can't imagine his phone will be ringing off the hook for requests for testing on degraded DNA. All IMO

 

[Frankie Hellis]

RSBM



My guess is comes down to $$$
Perlin can charge $50,000 and $800/hr. Honestly, I can't blame him for not wanting to give up the code. It was his blood, sweat, and tears that developed this technology. I wouldn't want to give up the goods either.

Perhaps the market will correct itself after this debacle. IMO, at its current technological state, TrueAllele cannot handle extremely degraded DNA. It definitely needs more research. I can't imagine his phone will be ringing off the hook for requests for testing on degraded DNA. All IMO

The thing is, other probabilistic genotyping software does give the code, so it can be validated. Cybergenetics does not though. That is why I think the judge should not have allowed it in. The defense could have used another company.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

In People v. Collins, the evidence for a similar program (FST) was not allowed, despite the argument from the creator of the software. Eventually, the creator gave over the source code and it was discovered it omitted potentially important calculations. This was in N.Y.

 

[missy1974]

rsbm

Sgt Armando Avila testified the bra was found at 12 inches deep and two of her ribs were found at 11 inches and 12 inches deep within the grave.

Day 9 Pt 3

Thanks, I will listen to his testimony again. IIRC he documented what others told him, and even the above doesn't tell me what I am wanting to know... was the bra 'with' the ribs? was it beside them? was it as if she was wearing it?

 

[missy1974]

So my guess would be she was lying more on her right side. And not buried very deep. Where did the skull come from? Always confused as to which child was buried with whom? I am thinking it was the youngest as his skull was intact? The older boys were in shards, correct? Based on this I am thinking the baby was buried on top of his mother or maybe next to her? I know this is gruesome to ponder. Just trying to get a visual.

This is probably the best photo I have of Grave B (although I'm still looking) Looking at this one, I would say on her right, but slightly forward or laying on her stomach. I have actually wondered if that is the bra laying on top (just below the skull), but I don't think either lawyer asked what it was Sure looks blackish to me, and some sort of cloth, and we know she wasn't wearing a shirt.

ETA: it might be the backpack... forgot that was in that grave as well.

 

[smr]

Sound a Little Familiar?

With all the talk about oh gee he had no violent background so why do you accuse him of being a killer. He he's not a violent person. Try again and do a little research maybe you'll see it differently.

Watch this episode and change some of the circumstances and you have a perfect example of the McStay murders by CM. So much for his nonviolence crap.

Episode: ID Discovery Deadly Secrets "The Devils Allure"

I found this interesting that aired on ID Discovery today. It is about a man who is a professional con artist. He cons older women and takes over their lives and finances. Then when she finds out that he is only after their money and has siphoned her money. Then there is his not having a violent past and never murdered anyone that is known. He kills his latest victim in a rage when she finds out and confronts him.

Reminds me of February 4, 2010 and the possibilities. AMHO

I'm not sure anyone said he had no violent background so why do you accuse him of being a killer. The "violent background" topic came up only because some were essentially saying that Chase's being an ex-con made him likely guilty of the murder.

So let's see:

1. Some (let's call it Party X) claim the ex-con status, together with the other evidence the PT have, point to CM as being guilty of murdering the family.

2. Party Y (me and I believe a few others) point out that:
(1) Ex-con status has no bearing on whether he's guilty or not.
(2) CM's ex-con status does not even involve violence.

3. Party X now say that it's possible to be not violent and yet still be guilty of murder.

Soooo??? What's your argument? What are you trying to conclude?
That CM is ex-con? (True, but so what?)
That CM is violent? (No evidence and no conviction)
That CM is guilty of murder? Because he's an ex-con? or because some non-violent people do commit murder?

Let me add:
It's possible to be an ex-con and not guilty of murder.

And if CM is not guilty, would that still "sound a little familiar"?

 

[Mony Mony]

This is probably the best photo I have of Grave B (although I'm still looking) Looking at this one, I would say on her right, but slightly forward or laying on her stomach. I have actually wondered if that is the bra laying on top (just below the skull), but I don't think either lawyer asked what it was Sure looks blackish to me, and some sort of cloth, and we know she wasn't wearing a shirt.

ETA: it might be the backpack... forgot that was in that grave as well.

Can I ask what does it matter where the bra was?

 

[missy1974]

Can I ask what does it matter where the bra was?

Curious after the testimony last week and Daugherty saying it was, or saying if it was. I'm guessing I will never find out lol Because I still can't find where. A depth still doesn't tell me where in grave it was.

 

[Karinna]

Curious after the testimony last week and Daugherty saying it was, or saying if it was. I'm guessing I will never find out lol Because I still can't find where. A depth still doesn't tell me where in grave it was.

I don't think the information you're looking for is out there, not from my internet searches to answer your question anyway. But maybe someone else with more knowledge about the case knows where to find it? Would it have been mentioned in earlier threads at the time of the discovery of the graves in the case?

 

[Karinna]

The thing is, other probabilistic genotyping software does give the code, so it can be validated. Cybergenetics does not though. That is why I think the judge should not have allowed it in. The defense could have used another company.

Do you know if the TrueAllele is generally accepted in the wider scientific community? Because if not, it shouldn't have passed the Frye standard of allowing it as admissable. If there was a hearing for that, IMO.

 

[MsBetsy]

Curious after the testimony last week and Daugherty saying it was, or saying if it was. I'm guessing I will never find out lol Because I still can't find where. A depth still doesn't tell me where in grave it was.

From what I remember, there were two parts found in separate areas, described as in the North part of the grave, and the South part. There was also an incision, as if cut, but I don't remember what part of the bra it was located.
But that may have been information from a few years ago so I don't remember where I read it.
But it definitely wasn't described as being still on the body. Imo

 

[Force Ten]

I'm not sure anyone said he had no violent background so why do you accuse him of being a killer. The "violent background" topic came up only because some were essentially saying that Chase's being an ex-con made him likely guilty of the murder.

So let's see:

1. Some (let's call it Party X) claim the ex-con status, together with the other evidence the PT have, point to CM as being guilty of murdering the family.

2. Party Y (me and I believe a few others) point out that:
(1) Ex-con status has no bearing on whether he's guilty or not.
(2) CM's ex-con status does not even involve violence.

3. Party X now say that it's possible to be not violent and yet still be guilty of murder.

Soooo??? What's your argument? What are you trying to conclude?
That CM is ex-con? (True, but so what?)
That CM is violent? (No evidence and no conviction)
That CM is guilty of murder? Because he's an ex-con? or because some non-violent people do commit murder?

Let me add:
It's possible to be an ex-con and not guilty of murder.

And if CM is not guilty, would that still "sound a little familiar"?

I may be wrong but I believe it was actually yourself stating he had no violent background.

No, of course of Merritt being an ex-con doesn't indicate he's a killer. I think you're drawing your own conclusions on that. His ex-con status (it is lengthy as well) reflects a pattern of thievery and deception. Many thieves, petty and professional have graduated from stealing to outright murder.