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

[smr]

BBM, JM's mother SB testified at trial to this fact.

SB testified that Kathy Sanchez didn't try to put a cover over a futon, contrary to what Kathy Sanchez testified. So there is a doubt in my mind.

 

[la2cabo]

Dan was the webmaster, by agreement, for EIP. He drove the sales, via search engine. When Joey started making plans for his own shop and wanted to distance himself from DK, et al. There was evidence of a threatening message to JM. Subsequent to that, DK and JM agreed to a buyout plan for the "internet value DK brought to the business. JM's final payment to DK occurred at the same time as the family disappeared. imo

I think the "threatening" IM exchange has been taken out of context. I don't think DK was threatening physical harm and I don't believe Joey took it as that either.

I think all the talk about DK is nothing more than a feable attempt to create reasonable doubt.

 

[smr]

That he was ever arrested for.

Right, he has no violent history that he was ever arrested for. Does this support CM killed the family of 4?

 

[la2cabo]

SB testified that Kathy Sanchez didn't try to put a cover over a futon, contrary to what Kathy Sanchez testified. So there is a doubt in my mind.

The McStay home was 2 levels so it's entirely possible that SB wasn't in the room when Kathy did it.

 

[Tortoise]

Anyone who doesn't usually listen to the audio might want to make an exception for the first part of Part 3 (posted above) - the judge is addressing a whole list of questions from jurors about things including can they ask why there are so many days off and when the case is expected to conclude etc.

ETA - still on track for finishing testimony by end April (paraphrased).

 

[la2cabo]

Right, he has no violent history that he was ever arrested for. Does this support CM killed the family of 4?

He has no violent history that he was convicted for. Unfortunately we have no idea what his complete arrest record consists of.

 

[Tortoise]

Witness is Christina Nash DNA analyst employed by Bode Technology - (testified yesterday afternoon April 9th)

 

[smr]

He has no violent history that he was convicted for. Unfortunately we have no idea what his complete arrest record consists of.

So back to Square One.

1. Some said CM is an ex-con and that makes him more likely to be guilty in this case.
2. I said being ex-con is no support to his being guilty, especially when he had no violent crime history.
3. Some (including this above quoted post) then say he has no known violent crime history.

So??

What point can one make by saying "So-and-so does not have know violent crime history?"

Is it in support of anything?

I hereby let it be known that I, just like CM, have no known history of violent crime.

 

[smr]

d

 

[smr]

I thought he became a POI as early as in March 2010, 3+ years before it's known what happened to the family:

Well, that's how I interpret it. It sounds like a guy speculating how his brother was lured out of the home and used a past example of having to leave. But I guess that indicates a lack of common sense on my part.

My take is that Mike didn't want to get Merritt into trouble. [/MEDIA]

There has been no sign whatsoever that Mike didn't want to get Merritt into trouble.

I think the example I quoted is a sign. If he wanted to get Merritt into trouble he had no need to show reticence.

RSBM, BBM

Given that MM apparently suspected CM from the beginning (March 2010) as shown in that video interview, why would he try not to get CM into trouble? It defies logic.

What made MM suspect CM so early, when:
1. It's not certain if the family has met foul play.
2. CM has not used past tense or said "I was definitely the last person he spoke to", yet.
3. MM was unaware of any evidence that we have seen the PT presented in the court.

So why did he apparently suspect CM? I would like to to know if he voiced his suspicion to the LE, and it will be interesting to see him testify why CM's name was on his lips so quickly in that March 2010 interview.

 

[la2cabo]

So back to Square One.

1. Some said CM is an ex-con and that makes him more likely to be guilty in this case.
2. I said being ex-con is no support to his being guilty, especially when he had no violent crime history.
3. Some (including this above quoted post) then say he has no known violent crime history.

So??

What point can one make by saying "So-and-so does not have know violent crime history?"

Is it in support of anything?

He has a history of violence based on other's accounts, however, he has no CONVICTIONS for it. Plus, him having no convictions doesn't mean he wouldn't murder. I personally don't think him being a felon makes him any more or less of a murderer but it does prove that he doesn't care about following laws.

 

[Texas Red]

I'm just responding to the "ridiculous for the PT to claim the family was killed . . . and by CM alone."

In the Groene case in Idaho, one man entered a home, and controlled and killed the mom, stepdad, and a teenage son, then kidnapped the two younger children. He later killed the kidnapped boy, the kidnapped daughter was rescued.

If Merritt controlled the McStay boys, he could control the parents. One lone man can kill a family, several family annihilators, and other murderers, have shown that to be true.

Merritt was a coworker and family friend, I'm sure Joey had no qualms about turning his back to Merritt, leaving Joey vulnerable to an attack.

Believing it was one person acting alone is not the issue. An 80 year old woman in a walker could overpower a family providing she had the right weapon and training. The part that gives pause is the fact it was done without any evidence being found at the crime scene, no witnesses even though they lived on a residential street with neighbors on three sides, one with video surveillance and poof the family just disappears into thin air. This is the scenario that makes it difficult to fathom that it was one person pulling this off.

 

[smr]

I've seen cases where older men suddenly turn violent, but their motivation isn't so much a psychological tendency towards violence for it's own sake, but IMO a determined and concious decision to be ruthless, because they realize that's the only way they'll get away with it.

For eg, a recent case of a perfectly law abiding man in his 50s, Paul Caneiro, who, with premeditation, shot and stabbed his brother and family (2 children), for money.

Al Blanco, in his late 50's with no criminal record, with premeditation lured, shot and buried his "friend" and employer Sid Cranston, for money.

CM has a long record, going by this article. He didn't clean up his act and get scared straight, in spite of repeated jail time, over several decades. McStay murder mystery: Who is Chase Merritt?

Even though he was repeatedly caught and sent to jail, he continued to commit crimes to steal money. IMO, he may have had enough of getting caught and decided the solution was to be ruthless. ETA, also possibly by then, unlike earlier in his life, he would perceive he had a lot to lose by getting caught

Let's get it clear:

#1. CM has no violent crime history.
#2. #1 does not support either he's guilty or he's innocent.

OTOH, IF CM did have violent crime history, it may help support the likelihood that he committed torture/murder. (Just a bit more in favor of that)

 

[smr]

He has a history of violence based on other's accounts, however, he has no CONVICTIONS for it. Plus, him having no convictions doesn't mean he wouldn't murder. I personally don't think him being a felon makes him any more or less of a murderer but it does prove that he doesn't care about following laws.

Talking about CM having no violent crime history/conviction has only one relevance here: to counter the claim that being an ex-con makes it more likely he's guilty in the murder. That's how the topic came up. It leads nowhere.

 

[Satchie]

So back to Square One.

1. Some said CM is an ex-con and that makes him more likely to be guilty in this case.
2. I said being ex-con is no support to his being guilty, especially when he had no violent crime history.
3. Some (including this above quoted post) then say he has no known violent crime history.

So??

What point can one make by saying "So-and-so does not have know violent crime history?"

Is it in support of anything?

In Canada, it's strictly prohibited for the jury to hear anything about the defendent's criminal record. It's considered likely to unfairly prejudice a jury and violate the right to a fair trial. Past criminal actions or, for that matter, the lack of past criminal actions, have no bearing on whether the person is guilty of the particular crime they are accused of.

My discussing it is purely as speculation about what might have happened.

ETA: this is a discussion forum, some people want to discuss from the pov of the jury and the verdict they will make, but other people like to freely discuss any aspect of the case that interests them, because we're not the jury.

 

[smr]

In Canada, it's strictly prohibited for the jury to hear anything about the defendent's criminal record. It's considered likely to unfairly prejudice a jury and violate the right to a fair trial. Past criminal actions or, for that matter, the lack of past criminal actions, have no bearing on whether the person is guilty of the particular crime they are accused of.

My discussing it is purely as speculation about what might have happened.

^^^ Thank you! I believe it's the same in the U.S. I remember in the very early testimonies by MM, the prosecution started mentioning CM's past crime history by alluding that CM didn't want to enter the house because he had a record. IIRC it was objected by DT.

So I really hope people refrain from citing his ex-con status as an argument in favor of CM being guilty of murder.

 

[Mony Mony]

^^^ Thank you! I believe it's the same in the U.S. I remember in the very early testimonies by MM, the prosecution started mentioning CM's past crime history by alluding that CM didn't want to enter the house because he had a record. IIRC it was objected by DT.

So I really hope people refrain from citing his ex-con status as an argument in favor of CM being guilty of murder.

I don't think the two timed felon is guilty simply because he is a two timed felon. The evidence (IMO) points to CM as the guilty party.

 

[Tortoise]

RSBM, BBM

Given that MM apparently suspected CM from the beginning (March 2010) as shown in that video interview, why would he try not to get CM into trouble? It defies logic.

What made MM suspect CM so early, when:
1. It's not certain if the family has met foul play.
2. CM has not used past tense or said "I was definitely the last person he spoke to", yet.
3. MM was unaware of any evidence that we have seen the PT presented in the court.

So why did he apparently suspect CM? I would like to to know if he voiced his suspicion to the LE, and it will be interesting to see him testify why CM's name was on his lips so quickly in that March 2010 interview.

He made his missing persons report on February 15th.

Who knows what went through his mind between then and March and the realization settled in that they weren't on vacation.

I think his thinking would have gone to properly considering foul play and then looking at Joey's inner circle. Plus Chase was a relative newcomer into Joey's life he'd known him about 3 years and he was a largely unknown quantity to Mike, Joey's contact with Chase was very frequent lending more opportunity for a falling out and contact on the 4th, Chase had told Mike that he met Joey on the 4th, and Joey had already told Susan that he was phasing out Chase because of money issues and gambling, so she might have talked to Mike about that. I'm sure they were discussing all scenarios.

JMO

 

[gitana1]

Right, he has no violent history that he was ever arrested for. Does this support CM killed the family of 4?

Why not? Many murderers have zero history of violent crimes before the murders.

 

[smr]

I don't think the two timed felon is guilty simply because he is a two timed felon. The evidence (IMO) points to CM as the guilty party.

The PT has not proved without a reasonable doubt that this two-timed felon is gulity.

There are many multi-timed felons who never killed.

And by the way, smacking his son (if true--I don't know) is of totally different nature than murdering a family. I know more than a few men who beat up their young sons to discipline them, who are some of the kindest people I've known, and their sons were thankful after growing up. In fact one of my elementary school classmate routinely came to class with a red palm print on his face from his father. Now as a grown man he loves and cares for his father.