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

[Bennettfit]

No that's one I did today about the location of the murders.

This is the guilty/not guilty poll -

POLL

Well, that answers the question to my first comment.

 

[Cricket28]

RSBM


......if you are sure Chase is guilty.

And even if you don't......

 

[Cricket28]

I've said all along I wish they'd take the death penalty off the table. California will never put Merritt to death and taking it off the table would simplify the case, in my opinion.

I agree!! 100%! Chase will die of old age before he ever sees the death penalty sentence carried out, if that is the punishment he receives.

MOO

 

[Cricket28]

If God forbid a mistrial is declared then it will take us beyind the ten year mark for justice for the Mcstays.

Oh my word! Can you imagine going through all this again?

 

[la2cabo]

Oh my word! Can you imagine going through all this again?

Can you imagine the families going through all this again? Joey and Summer's families have gone through so much already.

 

[Cricket28]

Personally I don't think he's asking to withdraw. I think that would have been heard first thing in the morning before they started the session.

IMO McGee is an excellent lawyer. I think the defense is in trouble without him, even at the end of the trial. I'm worried about a mistrial.

 

[Cricket28]

I thought that about the seating arrangements but then I thought it was probably due to the set up of the courtroom because the prosecution was off camera nowhere to be seen.

I can tell you this... the courtroom is much smaller than it appears. The PT and the DT are literally sitting side by side.

MOO

 

[MrsPC]

It's just my crazy hunch but I think the defense cooked something up prior to court convening today. When Maline was flunking out with Bachman - Maline was standing next to McGee and McGee wrote something down. Maline didn't even waste a *second* to look at it. Then court adjourned early for lunch and they went into the ex parte hearing.

 

[la2cabo]

It's just my crazy hunch but I think the defense cooked something up prior to court convening today. When Maline was flunking out with Bachman - Maline was standing next to McGee and McGee wrote something down. Maline didn't even waste a *second* to look at it. Then court adjourned early for lunch and they went into the ex parte hearing.

Hmmm. I wonder what it could be?

 

[gitana1]

So what does that mean exactly?

Sorry! I was in a hurry so I didn't fully explain. In essence what that means is that if an attorney posits a theory in which a third-party is accused of something instead of their client, they have a privilege against a possible defamation suit. So they cannot be sued or rather, if they are they have a clear defense.

This privilege applies to other litigation scenarios as well.

 

[missy1974]

Cathy Russon‏ @cathyrusson 1m1 minute ago
#McStay - Before the jury was sent to lunch the judge addressed a request made by "several jurors" to see Merritt's truck in person. The judge is arranging for them to see it.

so my first thought with this was.... how is it that SEVERAL jurors come to ask the same question if they are not allowed to discuss the case? They all just coincidentally asked the same random "can we see the truck in person" question? I was listening at work... and have had time to think about it before getting home and I'm surprised no one here has wondered yet lol

 

[Tortoise]

It's just my crazy hunch but I think the defense cooked something up prior to court convening today. When Maline was flunking out with Bachman - Maline was standing next to McGee and McGee wrote something down. Maline didn't even waste a *second* to look at it. Then court adjourned early for lunch and they went into the ex parte hearing.

Maline was ready to move onto playing the recording and the prosecution objected because it hadn't been ruled on yet by the judge following last week's objection.

The court reporter then had to get the transcript of the part that had already been played to the jury by the prosecution, before they went into chambers.

 

[Longtimenoc]

Do you think he's guilty?

You've got a lot of catching up to do...

 

[MrsPC]

Maline was ready to move onto playing the recording and the prosecution objected because it hadn't been ruled on yet by the judge following last week's objection.

The court reporter then had to get the transcript of the part that had already been played to the jury by the prosecution, before they went into chambers.

yes but did you see McGee writing something down?

 

[Cricket28]

I imagine the defense would at least file a motion for such as their Hail Mary.[/QUOT

Guilty, hands down.

Hands down!!

MOO

 

[gitana1]

So what does that mean exactly?

Sorry! I was in a hurry so I didn't fully explain. In essence what that means is that if an attorney posits a theory in which a third-party is accused of something instead of their client, they have a privilege against a possible defamation suit. So they cannot be sued or rather, if they are they have a clear defense.

This privilege applies to other litigation scenarios as well.

 

[Cricket28]

I don't know it could be he's guilty but it seems the state is trying to hide something as demonstrated by the witness that just testified. What are they trying to hide?

And the defense hasn't done the same throughout the trial? What are THEY trying to hide???

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

so my first thought with this was.... how is it that SEVERAL jurors come to ask the same question if they are not allowed to discuss the case? They all just coincidentally asked the same random "can we see the truck in person" question? I was listening at work... and have had time to think about it before getting home and I'm surprised no one here has wondered yet lol

Maybe, in all the time they have hanging around outside the courtroom they collectively write questions they'd like to ask the judge. I don't know if that counts as discussing the case.

 

[missy1974]

Maline was ready to move onto playing the recording and the prosecution objected because it hadn't been ruled on yet by the judge following last week's objection.

The court reporter then had to get the transcript of the part that had already been played to the jury by the prosecution, before they went into chambers.

I thought the defense and the judge went into chambers ex-parte? (in regards to McGee) I was expecting the live stream to come back afterwards with them discussing the video, but it didn't lol

 

[Tortoise]

yes but did you see McGee writing something down?

Yes, I think it was another question about...guess who...Kavanaugh.