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

[mrjitty]

Nope. But his lack of a criminal history doesn't mean he is less likely to have committed the crimes he standing trial for.



The converse is not true. While a lack of a violent criminal history doesn't mean he is less likely to be guilty, a criminal history of a non-violent crime shows something about his character and propensity to break the law.

Yes and IIRC the priors are in evidence because the defence made a blunder and raised them in their pleadings. So the State may now reference them in terms of the accused's character - especially relevant when it appears the accused was stealing from the victim Joey McStay

 

[mrjitty]

Oh wow, for real??? Never heard of sending a naughty 4 year old child to his/her room for some time out? Or removing a favorite toy until they do what you require them to do? You know, things like that where there is no hitting involved, but you can still get the child to do whatever it is you need them to do.

This is why NZ banned smacking.

The "PC gone mad" brigade clutched their pearls but we have amongst the worlds worst rates of child abuse and violence - leading in tragic cases to deaths.

The problem LE was having is that people would savagely beat their children and then hide behind Chase style excuses - making prosecution difficult.

So in the end it was just more efficient to stop everyone from smacking so there is zero tolerance for violence against children

 

[mrjitty]

I had to read this over and over to try and process the conclusion that you come to.

Are you around 4 yr olds very often? If so, can you imagine spending 2 hours spanking them repeatedly? Seriously, does that seem like a loving thing to do? It seems abusive to me.

4 yr olds are fragile and they have very short attention spans. And they are very sensitive. There is no way that little boy saw that as a loving experience with a loving father

The apology for this kind of abuse is perhaps the most sickening aspect and why it remains way too prevalent

 

[scandinavian girl]

This is why NZ banned smacking.

The "PC gone mad" brigade clutched their pearls but we have amongst the worlds worst rates of child abuse and violence - leading in tragic cases to deaths.

The problem LE was having is that people would savagely beat their children and then hide behind Chase style excuses - making prosecution difficult.

So in the end it was just more efficient to stop everyone from smacking so there is zero tolerance for violence against children

"the members of the Swedish parliament were the first in the world to vote for the prohibition. The law was implemented 1 July 1979."

for those interested

Smacking children banned

 

[mrjitty]

"the members of the Swedish parliament were the first in the world to vote for the prohibition. The law was implemented 1 July 1979."

for those interested

Smacking children banned

Yes.

A lot of people misunderstand these laws because they only want to smack their child mildly on the behind.

But it isn't about that - its about the monsters who hide behind the grey areas in the law

 

[mrjitty]

In the last couple of days I have seen a couple of posters suggest that we don't yet know if Chase created the deleted cheques and we have to wait for all the defence evidence.

But please let's remember that in the middle of the day on 5 Feb, someone created, deleted, printed and banked a cheque with memo line Paul Mitchel.

That person was Chase.

It can not have been Joey that created that cheque on any reading of the defence evidence.

Chase did not see Joey on the 5th and according to the defence case, Joey was lured from the house on the morning of the 5th.

Logically therefore, it was also Chase who created, printed and deleted the cheques after Joey's death, it was also him who did the others - e.g. 2 Feb.

 

[travelbug]

I'm just happy to have an actual trial being conducted again. I'm very familiar with CA courts, but have never before seen one this poorly conducted. Now if we could just get video coverage again. jmo

 

[Niner]

Thursday, April 11th:
*Trial continues (Day 38) -Other Hearing-(no jurors until 9:30am) (@ 8:30am PT) - CA - McStay Family: Joseph (40), Summer (43), Gianni (4) & Joey Jr (3) (Feb. 4, 2010, Fallbrook; found Nov. 11, 2013) - *Charles "Chase" Ray Merritt (57/now 60) arrested (11/5/14) & indicted (11/7/14) of 4 counts of murder with special circumstance; plead not guilty. DP case.
Trial started 1/7/19. Dark on all Fridays. 12 jurors & 6 alternates were finalized on Tuesday (12/11/18). 8 women & 4 men, while the alternates include 4 men & 2 women.
Trial Days (1-36; 1/17/19 thru 4/5/19) reference post #393 here:
CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #15
4/8/19 Day 37 (Day 36 on L&C): Defense witness: Suzanna Ryan, described & demonstrated the M-Vac forensic DNA collection system. Trial continues on 4/9.
4/9/19 Day 38 (Day 37 on L&C): Defense witnesses: Kathy Sanchez, Summer McStay's cousin. Sgt. Ryan Smith. Christina Nash, DNA analyst employed by Bode Technology. Trial continues on 4/10.
4/11/19 Day 39: Defense witness: Christina Nash, DNA analyst employed by Bode Technology. Trial continues (without jurors until 9:30am) on 4/11.
Schedule for week of April 8th to 12th: Court on April 8 (Monday), April 9 (Tuesday), and April 10 (Wednesday). April 11 (Thursday)-Other hearing: Motion Hearing is for Motions to Quash Defendants Subpoena Duces Tecum related to Google, Microsoft, & TSG Documentary (interview w/Merritt) @ 8:30am & then jurors back at 9:30am. DARK on April 12 (Friday). Jurors informed they should have the case by end of April.

 

[mrjitty]

The backdating of the Paul Mitchell cheque to the 4th is the bright shiny evidential point that proves murder.

There is just no way to explain it that does not involve foreknowledge of Joey's disappearance.

Even if we take a charitable view of the defence theory despite Chase not testifying, and say Chase backdated that cheque because it was the day he saw Joey, how would that backdating work against Joey himself? Joey would know he didn't create the cheque and give it to Chase.

The reason can only be for Chase to lie that he was given the cheque by Joey on the 4th

But we know 1000% he wasn't given the cheque by Joey on the 4th

So why would he do this unless he did the murders?

I fail to see how a forensic accountant can explain this away

And if this was all Joey's idea to backdate and delete - well I am sorry - that requires testimony from the accused.

 

[Karinna]

This is why NZ banned smacking.

The "PC gone mad" brigade clutched their pearls but we have amongst the worlds worst rates of child abuse and violence - leading in tragic cases to deaths.

The problem LE was having is that people would savagely beat their children and then hide behind Chase style excuses - making prosecution difficult.

So in the end it was just more efficient to stop everyone from smacking so there is zero tolerance for violence against children

Right. But what CM did to his son wasn't just a smack on the butt, he outright abused the little boy for a 2 hour session. Where was the mother in all of this i wonder? And it makes me shudder to think what else he did to his children in that regard? He's a .

 

[Karinna]

His past criminal history is relevant to his stealing from Joey in this case IMO

And that theft goes to motive.

Very much so. IMO

 

[Karinna]

For real.

And it was my opinion, so why the "???"?

I stand by my opinion. I actually didn't and don't know much about what kind of a person he is, but, I repeat: that account actually made a positive impression of Chase on me. He sounds like a loving father.

BBM, And those words are mine and i stand by them.
I'm sorry, but i am just gobsmacked at the logic is all. But that's just me.

 

[Tortoise]

Yes and IIRC the priors are in evidence because the defence made a blunder and raised them in their pleadings. So the State may now reference them in terms of the accused's character - especially relevant when it appears the accused was stealing from the victim Joey McStay

I'm not convinced the priors are in evidence owing to a blunder.

I think it's defense strategy to promulgate Chase's lie that he did not call in a welfare check because of his warrants. They needed any excuse in front of the jury more than they needed them to not hear about his criminal record. They know that is very incriminating.

Why do I say Chase was lying about the reasons for not calling in a welfare check, aside from the fact that he could have reported anonymously?

He virtually stopped calling Joey from 5.48 pm on the 4th - the 5 calls he did make to him over the next 3 days were not spread out as if he was trying to reach him at different hours of the day, 2 of those were in the same minute, one of those days he didn't call at all.
He stopped visiting the house.
4 days later he pretended he had called Joey when he hadn't.

That's not someone trying to find out why their best friend isn't answering or showing concern for their welfare. Was sick Joey back in hospital? Did he have a car accident? Did Summer know where he was? He wouldn't know.

So why would he call in a welfare check when he a/ hadn't shown concern for Joey's welfare by making other appropriate enquiries and b/ he had no idea whether there was a welfare concern for the whole family because he hadn't called Summer or even looked for them all?

Even the fact that he went straight to Susan's on the 9th before he went to the house is odd - evidenced by his phone records. I think that's why he told the detectives it happened the other way around. Why would Chase go from not being able to get an answer from Joey's phone to visiting Joey's mum if he didn't even know yet if everything was fine, Joey was ignoring him or taking a break from work calls and could have been at home painting or installing flooring, or Summer could have been at home and able to explain where Joey was? Contacting someone's mother before you even try to see if they're home or contact the person they live with? To me that is someone who already knows the situation requires parental intervention to resolve it - he goes from virtually no concern and no appropriate enquiries to family need to know about this now. He also told the detectives he told Susan he couldn't find Joey but he hadn't looked for him yet.

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

BBM

In the event that he did not murder the family, would your belief about him lying change or not?

No, his lies are still lies, it's more than a belief, they are verifiable lies.

 

[fridaybaker]

If he did it... how could he be that confident knowing his DNA was found in the Trooper? Even if he wore gloves while committing the murders... and wore gloves while driving the Trooper... if he left DNA in one spot, what would make him so confident he didn't leave it in another?

Hi Missy! I'm thinking that's why he put himself in the Trooper for paintball. Paintball is sort of "hedging the bets"; whilst saying he actually drove the Trooper is a "red flag". It seems like the sort of oblique things that liars do.

 

[Mony Mony]

I'm not convinced the priors are in evidence owing to a blunder.

I think it's defense strategy to promulgate Chase's lie that he did not call in a welfare check because of his warrants. They needed any excuse in front of the jury more than they needed them to not hear about his criminal record. They know that is very incriminating.

Why do I say Chase was lying about the reasons for not calling in a welfare check, aside from the fact that he could have reported anonymously?

He virtually stopped calling Joey from 5.48 pm on the 4th - the 5 calls he did make to him over the next 3 days were not spread out as if he was trying to reach him at different hours of the day, 2 of those were in the same minute, one of those days he didn't call at all.
He stopped visiting the house.
4 days later he pretended he had called Joey when he hadn't.

That's not someone trying to find out why their best friend isn't answering or showing concern for their welfare. Was sick Joey back in hospital? Did he have a car accident? Did Summer know where he was? He wouldn't know.

So why would he call in a welfare check when he a/ hadn't shown concern for Joey's welfare by making other appropriate enquiries and b/ he had no idea whether there was a welfare concern for the whole family because he hadn't called Summer or even looked for them all?

Even the fact that he went straight to Susan's on the 9th before he went to the house is odd - evidenced by his phone records. I think that's why he told the detectives it happened the other way around. Why would Chase go from not being able to get an answer from Joey's phone to visiting Joey's mum if he didn't even know yet if everything was fine, Joey was ignoring him or taking a break from work calls and could have been at home painting or installing flooring, or Summer could have been at home and able to explain where Joey was? Contacting someone's mother before you even try to see if they're home or contact the person they live with? To me that is someone who already knows the situation requires parental intervention to resolve it - he goes from virtually no concern and no appropriate enquiries to family need to know about this now. He also told the detectives he told Susan he couldn't find Joey but he hadn't looked for him yet.

JMO

Wow Tortoise. Very well said and eye opening!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Wow Tortoise. Very well said and eye opening!

That's our Tortoise!

Such an amazing sharp mind who has the great ability to put it all together for us to understand.

Imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

His past criminal history is relevant to his stealing from Joey in this case IMO

And that theft goes to motive.

Yes, it goes to the heart of the matter. Very relevant.

Imo

 

[shannon.spike.1]

I think Merritt victimized people to feed his gambling addiction, not his family.

I have to respectfully disagree--he was unable to pay his family's rent on numerous occasions due to his gambling addiction, thus victimizing his family. CM had zero guilt about whom he victimized to feed his gambling addiction.

 

[missy1974]

Hi Missy! I'm thinking that's why he put himself in the Trooper for paintball. Paintball is sort of "hedging the bets"; whilst saying he actually drove the Trooper is a "red flag". It seems like the sort of oblique things that liars do.

But being a lying liar, if he knew he had driven the Trooper, saying he had driven it once when Joey wasn't feeling well or something makes more sense to me than being a passenger. jmo

It still doesn't really answer my curiosity of why he would take that chance with this cybergenetic testing. Again jmo