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

[la2cabo]

I wonder if Merritt has ever been the target of a CPS (Child Protection Services) investigation? I wish those records were made public.

 

[Cricket28]

Did you hear what CJ, the mother of his children , said to him in her rant about his cold, callous obstinate behavior?

All of the above, and some want to label him a loving caring father? It is a riddle to me

RSBM

CJ even testified that CM wasn't a part of TJ's life (his oldest daughter) for many years. It was only after CM and CJ got back together that he was in TJ's life. Loving father???

MOO

 

[MrsPC]

I know it's been posted before but just thought I'd repost what the process will be once the defense finishes their side:

Criminal Court Process

After the prosecutor and defense present their witnesses, a prosecutor can call rebuttal witnesses to rebut defense testimony. The defense can call a surrebuttal witness to rebut the prosecution’s rebuttal witnesses. Once all the testimony is concluded and all the evidence introduced, the attorneys usually get together with the judge to go over the instructions in the law that the judge reads to the jury. After the judge and lawyers decide on what instructions will be given, closing arguments are presented by each side. The prosecution gets to talk to the jury twice during this phase. It gets the first word and the last word, with the defense closing argument nestled in between.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Also, IMO, they decided NOT to test the sledgehammer because they did not want to risk the extremely low possibility of it coming back positive for CMs DNA. It would be hard to explain that one away with the touch DNA theory.

Suzanna wanted to test the limits of what we know about DNA and where it could be found and how long it would last. Why stop at the sledgehammer? Oh yeah, right, they were constrained by the budget and couldn't afford the $900.

Fgs, what a lame excuse. Imo, I'm sure CMs supporters would have been happy to contribute the $900.00 needed.

Imo

 

[Cricket28]

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.

http://sbcsentinel.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Sentinel-01-18-19.pd

The following day, February 5, 2015, according to prosecutors, between six minutes after noon and 33 minutes after noon at his home in Rancho Cucamonga, Merritt used the internet to fraudulently gain access to Joseph McStay’s Quickbooks account for McStay’s company, Earth Inspired Products, and issued himself a $4,500 check backdated to February 4 which he printedand deleted, issued a $1,650 check to Metro Sheet Metal backdated to February 4 which he printed and deleted, issued another $250 check backdated to February 4 to Metro Sheet Metal which he printed and deleted and issued himself another $6,505 check backdated to February 4 which he printed and deleted. All of the checks, according to prosecutors, bore Joseph McStay’s
forged signature. Merritt then, according to prosecutors, immediately drove to the Union bank in Rancho Cucamonga and cashed the $4,500 check.

BBM

Those checks were not written from the McStay's computers. If Joey had written them, there would have been no reason to backdate them to the 4th. Chase hand delivered the checks to MSM. Chase cashed that $4,500 chk at Union Bank right after it was created. Plus, he doesn't deny creating those checks.

I don't understand where the argument is coming from.

MOO

 

[travelbug]

Fgs, what a lame excuse. Imo, I'm sure CMs supporters would have been happy to contribute the $900.00 needed.

Imo

Testing the sledge was the responsibility of the PT. The question should be why they chose not to test it. As pointed out up-thread, there would be crevices where the head and handle meet that should retain DNA. Why wasn't it tested as soon as the bodies were located. The PT excuse is cost and "no need to test it". The DT has no reason to test it because the PT didn't release any evidence, from the sledge, that needed to be refuted. jmho

 

[QueenBofOB]

This gives good insight into who Joey was. I'm so sad how he was brutally tortured and murdered. I pray that somehow, he did not have to see what was done to his family.
I think the prosecutors should have the jurors read this. It shows what a human he was, instead of just a name. Imo

JM was an INCREDIBLE friend, father and husband. He was dependable, responsible, kind and caring. There are so many times throughout the day, when I think of this family and I am completely overcome with emotion.

 

[citygirl]

RSBM

CJ even testified that CM wasn't a part of TJ's life (his oldest daughter) for many years. It was only after CM and CJ got back together that he was in TJ's life. Loving father???
sts
MOO

He was back in time to insist that she get her favorite prom dress, no matter the cost.

 

[citygirl]

Testing the sledge was the responsibility of the PT. The question should be why they chose not to test it. As pointed out up-thread, there would be crevices where the head and handle meet that should retain DNA. Why wasn't it tested as soon as the bodies were located. The PT excuse is cost and "no need to test it". The DT has no reason to test it because the PT didn't release any evidence, from the sledge, that needed to be refuted. jmho

I think it was smart lawyering on their part. They had so much CE and knew they had their man. It's even more interesting to me that the DT didn't do it. Neither side wanted to touch it.

 

[geevee]

Also, IMO, they decided NOT to test the sledgehammer because they did not want to risk the extremely low possibility of it coming back positive for CMs DNA. It would be hard to explain that one away with the touch DNA theory.

Suzanna wanted to test the limits of what we know about DNA and where it could be found and how long it would last. Why stop at the sledgehammer? Oh yeah, right, they were constrained by the budget and couldn't afford the $900.

Yet they can pay Perlin $800.00 an hour/$50,000.00 for this TrueAllele(sp?) report that really seems to me is only showing what might be found had the DNA been in better shape. If anyone gets more out of it, please elucidate.

 

[MrsPC]

I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this correctly but in cross examination of Dr Perlin it appears that on more than 1 item of evidence...Cybergenetics did not include (or purposely excluded) some individual/particular alleles in their report...and these particular alleles just happen to be alleles found in Merritt's DNA profile.

 

[fridaybaker]

Testing the sledge was the responsibility of the PT. The question should be why they chose not to test it. As pointed out up-thread, there would be crevices where the head and handle meet that should retain DNA. Why wasn't it tested as soon as the bodies were located. The PT excuse is cost and "no need to test it". The DT has no reason to test it because the PT didn't release any evidence, from the sledge, that needed to be refuted. jmho

Someone slap me if I'm out in the ether on this, science not being my baliwick and time to thoroughly consider the plethora of DNA-related testimony not available, but is this the answer?

In some ways, DNA is a double-edge sword. The "public" -us lay people, have been sort of trained to maintain the notion that DNA is everything. Everything you need for a conviction/acquittal is represented by the presence or absence of DNA. Yet, it's incredibly complex, and there are other pieces of evidence that usually need to be addressed, often of far greater than importance than DNA and, sometimes, DNA just isn't very useful, especially in some trials.

Hence, PT's and DT's often approach and handle it with trepidation. In this case, I would think that maybe the PT thinks that, after so much time buried in the desert, the sledgehammer, a key piece of evidence, wouldn't yield any DNA, or at least no "viable" DNA, especially if he had used gloves. What would the jury think? "Well, obviously this is the murder weapon, and guess who's DNA isn't on it?" We'd better acquit. (Sort of like "If the glove doesn't fit, you have to acquit". Nonsense of course, but effective nonsense.)

Now, the DT is trying to use the lack of testing to say the dirt bag didn't do it -that the PT is afraid it wouldn't reveal DNA, so didn't have it tested. If they are trying to say/intimate this, shouldn't they have to test the sledgehammer? They are the ones putting forth that the lack of testing and, therefore, DNA, on it is evidence for innocence. The PT isn't putting forth any such argument. I don't know the answer to that question legal-wise, but I do think that this is the crux of it.

Think about it: The PT is between a rock and a hard place with respect to the hammer. Had they tested it and it came back negative for DNA (fairly likely, given the circumstances, apparently) the jury would, simply by social conditioning, think that this information acquits the defendant. Likewise, the DT would beat this like a drum: "Why would the PT test it for DNA if they didn't expect any to be on it? Surely, they expected it to result in DNA if they tested it, so this key piece of evidence, which the PT expected to yield the defendant's DNA, came up clean."

The PT decides not to test it to avoid this problem, and the DT uses the lack of testing to posit innocence -they were afraid to test it because they knew it wouldn't show any DNA. Rock, meet hard place.

 

[geevee]

I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this correctly but in cross examination of Dr Perlin it appears that on more than 1 item of evidence...Cybergenetics did not include (or purposely excluded) some individual/particular alleles in their report...and these particular alleles just happen to be alleles found in Merritt's DNA profile.

Maybe I'm not up to that point yet, but really??

 

[asyousay]

That Chase story about his son is deeply disturbing.

Why on earth would you think that was ok and then even tell people the story?

My parents didn’t agree with spanking so I have never been hit by them as they both agreed that that wasn’t the way to teach us.

That’s not to say at some stages I didn’t deserve a good kicking from them as I could be a little looking back at my childhood but Chase it seems took it to extremes. Thats not how a loving responsible father behaves .

 

[citygirl]

Someone slap me if I'm out in the ether on this, science not being my baliwick and time to thoroughly consider the plethora of DNA-related testimony not available, but is this the answer?

In some ways, DNA is a double-edge sword. The "public" -us lay people, have been sort of trained to maintain the notion that DNA is everything. Everything you need for a conviction/acquittal is represented by the presence or absence of DNA. Yet, it's incredibly complex, and there are other pieces of evidence that usually need to be addressed, often of far greater than importance than DNA and, sometimes, DNA just isn't very useful, especially in some trials.

Hence, PT's and DT's often approach and handle it with trepidation. In this case, I would think that maybe the PT thinks that, after so much time buried in the desert, the sledgehammer, a key piece of evidence, wouldn't yield any DNA, or at least no "viable" DNA, especially if he had used gloves. What would the jury think? "Well, obviously this is the murder weapon, and guess who's DNA isn't on it?" We'd better acquit. (Sort of like "If the glove doesn't fit, you have to acquit". Nonsense of course, but effective nonsense.)

Now, the DT is trying to use the lack of testing to say the dirt bag didn't do it -that the PT is afraid it wouldn't reveal DNA, so didn't have it tested. If they are trying to say/intimate this, shouldn't they have to test the sledgehammer? They are the ones putting forth that the lack of testing and, therefore, DNA, on it is evidence for innocence. The PT isn't putting forth any such argument. I don't know the answer to that question legal-wise, but I do think that this is the crux of it.

Think about it: The PT is between a rock and a hard place with respect to the hammer. Had they tested it and it came back negative for DNA (fairly likely, given the circumstances, apparently) the jury would, simply by social conditioning, think that this information acquits the defendant. Likewise, the DT would beat this like a drum: "Why would the PT test it for DNA if they didn't expect any to be on it? Surely, they expected it to result in DNA if they tested it, so this key piece of evidence, which the PT expected to yield the defendant's DNA, came up clean."

The PT decides not to test it to avoid this problem, and the DT uses the lack of testing to posit innocence -they were afraid to test it because they knew it wouldn't show any DNA. Rock, meet hard place.

Great post. Totally agree. Both sides had reason not to go there. I think the PT was smart. They had the QB's and the backdated checks. Very damaging. If the DT is so confident of their client's innocence why didn't they do it?

 

[MrsPC]

Geevee - it was briefly but yep, that's what I interpreted.

 

[geevee]

Geevee - it was briefly but yep, that's what I interpreted.

Any idea about what time on the video it was?

 

[MrsPC]

Any idea about what time on the video it was?

no, sorry..I would have to re-listen to it. I can try to do that later today.

 

[Tortoise]

Testing the sledge was the responsibility of the PT. The question should be why they chose not to test it. As pointed out up-thread, there would be crevices where the head and handle meet that should retain DNA. Why wasn't it tested as soon as the bodies were located. The PT excuse is cost and "no need to test it". The DT has no reason to test it because the PT didn't release any evidence, from the sledge, that needed to be refuted. jmho

BBM Do you have a source for testimony that the PT did not test the sledgehammer please.

TIA

 

[geevee]

Deleted the evaporated audio, I think a new upload is in the works.