CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #18

[mrjitty]

The State only played the section of the 2014 interrogation pertaining to his whereabouts on the 6th.

Judge was mistaken in that he thought they'd played sections pertaining to the 4th and the 6th.

I think that might be where the State's issue lies, but I could be wrong. My guess is the defence wants to bring in the whole of 2014 tape because otherwise the trial ends without an 'official' word from Merritt about his whereabouts on the 4th. All there is from him about the 4th is the 2019 jailhouse tape.

I'm confused about what they were discussing with the judge about conversations brought in allowing them to do this, maybe it is that the State brought in the conversation through the glass?

IMO

You are correct about the 4th/6th thing

I might have missed this recording when i was travelling - do you know what day it was?

I had assumed they were talking about the tape they played in the prosecution opening - but you are correct - it is a tape about where he was in the 6th

So filling in the blanks - maybe this became admissible via her testimony

 

[missy1974]

it's the 8 hour LE interview relating to detective Bachman discussed at the end of day 48

Maline submits the defence is entitled to play the entire interview redacted for all polygraph material

State submits under "356" they are not entitled to.

Judge summarises defence contention that if the State plays an interview about something Chase said in conversation 1, then the defence can produce a similar conversation from a different tape re conversation 2 months or years later or earlier.

Judge indicates he believes the defence contention is incorrect but that they will have a hearing with submissions on the matter.

oh ok, you said the end of his testimony... so I went to the end and there was no sidebar, but there was a hearing lol He didn't end until the next day ;-) I don't have time to listen at the moment, but I do recall that coming up. I would guess that they are either not playing, have been told they can't, or just going to show a small portion if they think they could end this week, there just isn't enough time in their "court days".

 

[Karinna]

I must be the only one who doesn't care if they put out more evidence of his alibi or not. To me it's just a sideshow and there is way too much evidence against Merritt to give DK even a second blink.

If the case was only about motive then I'd understand and say no one should be charged, but it's not, it's about Merritt's giant footprints being all over the murders, figuratively speaking. If people want DK's alibi in stone then they aren't convinced, to the required standard, it was Merritt. I don't think anything would satisfy people who think DK did it in terms of alibi evidence, barring him being in a police cell on the relevant dates. Anything could be manufactured such as people who saw him lying or being scared of him, other people using his phone and bank card etc. But that's JMO.

No you're not the only one that thinks that. At this point i agree, it is just a sideshow. At least Merritt can't say he didn't have a good defense, IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

California Code, Evidence Code - EVID § 356 | FindLaw

Cheers

What I am totally unclear on is why the 8 hour recording is not admissible in the first place?

 

[mrjitty]

oh ok, you said the end of his testimony... so I went to the end and there was no sidebar, but there was a hearing lol He didn't end until the next day ;-) I don't have time to listen at the moment, but I do recall that coming up. I would guess that they are either not playing, have been told they can't, or just going to show a small portion if they think they could end this week, there just isn't enough time in their "court days".

Yeah I don't know if they had this hearing yet. It probably happened off camera.

 

[missy1974]

You are correct about the 4th/6th thing

I might have missed this recording when i was travelling - do you know what day it was?

I had assumed they were talking about the tape they played in the prosecution opening - but you are correct - it is a tape about where he was in the 6th

So filling in the blanks - maybe this became admissible via her testimony

Day 26 Part 2 Bachman's testimony

 

[Tortoise]

You are correct about the 4th/6th thing

I might have missed this recording when i was travelling - do you know what day it was?

I had assumed they were talking about the tape they played in the prosecution opening - but you are correct - it is a tape about where he was in the 6th

So filling in the blanks - maybe this became admissible via her testimony

 

[mrjitty]

I could be wrong but I think the 6th came in because of Juanita's testimony.

I'm not sure if there was a 2010 interview? Do you mean the informal interview on Feb 17th with DuGal? Because he didn't discuss where he was on the 6th or the night of the 4th in that interview. They only asked him about the 8th based on recovering the Trooper that night.

Part of the 2010 interview was played in the opening and in that interview he gives his version for the 4th

So I think maybe they claim this opens up his 2014 version for the 4th?

At least that is what I understood by the judge referring to conversations years apart.

It's pretty clear 356 only refers to matters within the same document/recording etc

 

[mrjitty]

wheres the transcript mate!

 

[Tortoise]

Cheers

What I am totally unclear on is why the 8 hour recording is not admissible in the first place?

I'm not clear either but I think it might have to do with police records not actually being in testimony until they are testified to. Which sounds obvious but IYSWIM.

So if the prosecution didn't bring it in, tactically, then the other side can't answer to it.

JMO

 

[Tortoise]

Part of the 2010 interview was played in the opening and in that interview he gives his version for the 4th

So I think maybe they claim this opens up his 2014 version for the 4th?

At least that is what I understood by the judge referring to conversations years apart.

It's pretty clear 356 only refers to matters within the same document/recording etc

BBM Only up until the phone call at 5.48 pm though. Defense wants his alibi in for after that I'm sure.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

I'm not clear either but I think it might have to do with police records not actually being in testimony until they are testified to. Which sounds obvious but IYSWIM.

So if the prosecution didn't bring it in, tactically, then the other side can't answer to it.

JMO

OK - so short version the defence tried to create a version explaining the 6th but he gave inconsistent interview

I am not sure about the rest of it - i PMed @gitana1

usually it is the state wanting to bring these interviews in - so presumably it was all done legit i am not sure why the defence can't produce it as a pre-trial statement?

 

[Tortoise]

wheres the transcript mate!

I've actually got part of it done but the audio was so bad there are too many gaps to post it.

 

[mrjitty]

I've actually got part of it done but the audio was so bad there are too many gaps to post it.

Anyway it seems the significance of what he said is claiming he wasn't up by the gravesites on the 6th?

Trying to figure out if there is any point watching it.

 

[asyousay]

hmmm no a knife specifically, but the bra being cut has. I believe in Heather Radeleff's testimony (Crime scene specialist) and I'm sure more but can't recall at the moment lol It's more pointing it out that it 'appears' to have been cut.

Thank You

It being cut is interesting as if Chase is going to rape her why wouldn’t you rip it off?. Taking the time to cut it off seems weird to me.

 

[Tortoise]

Anyway it seems the significance of what he said is claiming he wasn't up by the gravesites on the 6th?

Trying to figure out if there is any point watching it.

Nah, don't bother unless you're into watching body language that is. I found it interesting.

He says he wasn't there but if he was he was at his brother's or sister's. They show him his phone records and he says it's impossible they show him being there, the only time he was there was after the graves were discovered.

 

[Tortoise]

POLL set up.

POLL - Where were the McStays Murdered?

 

[Mony Mony]

I must be the only one who doesn't care if they put out more evidence of his alibi or not. To me it's just a sideshow and there is way too much evidence against Merritt to give DK even a second blink.

If the case was only about motive then I'd understand and say no one should be charged, but it's not, it's about Merritt's giant footprints being all over the murders, figuratively speaking. If people want DK's alibi in stone then they aren't convinced, to the required standard, it was Merritt. I don't think anything would satisfy people who think DK did it in terms of alibi evidence, barring him being in a police cell on the relevant dates. Anything could be manufactured such as people who saw him lying or being scared of him, other people using his phone and bank card etc. But that's JMO.

I want the DK evidence so the defense will shut their pie holes about DK being the killer. I believe DK was in Hawaii, and don't really want to hear the defense throw out that theory anymore. Enough is enough.

IMO MOO etc etc

 

[Tortoise]

I want the DK evidence so the defense will shut their pie holes about DK being the killer. I believe DK was in Hawaii, and don't really want to hear the defense throw out that theory anymore. Enough is enough.

IMO MOO etc etc

BBM I must admit that would be good.

 

[geevee]

Thank You

It being cut is interesting as if Chase is going to rape her why wouldn’t you rip it off?. Taking the time to cut it off seems weird to me.

I haven't looked at the pic of the cup with the paint on it in a while but is there any dried paint around the cut area? If the bra had been cut before paint got on it, you'd think there would be paint on the cut.

And does the bra being cut before she was killed and paint got on it affect the way the paint drips dried since the cup would likely fall away from the body with the bra being cut in half?