CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #2

[Niner]

Hey!

snipped by me....
By week 5 by having a dark day every week they have wasted an entire full week of testimony that could have been heard by the sitting jurors advancing the trial much further along

During the laboriously long trial of CM I am sure we will have other trials happening here and if so they will be held and fully completed before Merritt's case is even close to completion.

Totally agree with what you wrote!!

And yes, there are trials starting Tuesday, 1/22 - 2 in fact, plus El Chapo's trial.

And really hoping this doesn't run until Fall!

 

[la2cabo]

Hi Niner..my very informative friend.

Here is my own opinion on CA trials. Jmo though.

I still find it quite odd how little time is really spent during CA trials.

There are countless judges all over the country who have jampacked schedules but in almost all states other than CA the judges expects the attorneys to actually work long hour full days.

Most judges run a tight ship especially when it comes to making sure time is not being wasted. When they say there will be a 15 minute break they make it clear to everyone they better be ready to go after 15 minutes....not 16 minutes. They do not take many of those either.

One of our best friends is Superior Court judge who has been on the bench for over 35 years and has presided over many murder trials by jury.

I asked him his opinion on CA trials and the way they are handled so differently than almost any other state. He said he could only comment on how it's done in most states.

He said it is very important to keep any trial moving at a fluid pace. If it doesn't happen it stalls other cases behind it that are set for trial.

He said first and foremost... all officers of the court (both state and defense attorneys along with presiding judge) are always mindful they are asking jurors to take valuable time away from their own duties and daily lives.

It's not cost effective to have so much wasted downtime either in the long run.

He also said dragging any trial out when unnecessary causes backlogs. If he has other matters to attend to he does that before or after the trial day has ended.

So it has never made any sense to me why CA trials are infamously known to take much longer than necessary to complete trials.

It is one of the main factors I dislike when wanting to follow a CA trial to completion. There seems to be no reasonable timeline ever for it to be over.

At first it was said this trial would last 4 months now the tentative timeline has already stretched into 6 months. Imo that is shameful and so unfair to the jurors. Its hurry up and be there and then wait and wait and wait.

By week 5 by having a dark day every week they have wasted an entire full week of testimony that could have been heard by the sitting jurors advancing the trial much further along

During the laboriously long trial of CM I am sure we will have other trials happening here and if so they will be held and fully completed before Merritt's case is even close to completion.

Some of those cases could also include mass murder victims with the death penalty on the table like this one yet the defendant in those other cases will have both phases completed if the defendant is found guilty before this one is over.

In the past we have seen and discussed those cases when the trial was happening. Brutal mass murder cases just like this one in CA and none that I can recall took 6 months to complete and that is only a guesstimate for how long the guilt phase will last.

Fgs should he be found guilty it's no telling how long the sentencing phase will last.

With these defense attorneys we still may be here in late fall!

I truly do want to follow this case to its completion but I'm not sure I can knowing how so much unnecessary valuable time is being wasted.

Jmoo

California is notorious for it's love of wasting money. If any of the jurors have planned vacations, appointments, etc. there will be further delays as well. It's very, very frustrating.

 

[Deleted member 192280]

This case could have a real breakthrough if, some day, the DNA found at the grave site is matched to someone.

The judge is semi retired so he doesn’t work Fridays.

Why is a semi-retired judge be assigned to such a big, potentially long trial??

 

[Plumeria5]

Has it ever been established if that was the McStay's sledgehammer? If it was, CM had no plan on how he was going to kill them?

 

[Bernina]

To clarify, with "MM" do you mean Mcgyver? MM has always been Michael Mcstay here. How does "DK" (Dan Kavanaugh) fit in here?

Too many initials.......MM(McGuyver), NOT DK.

 

[Deleted member 192280]

Is Patrick McStay Joseph's stepfather? Is so, is his biological father still alive?

 

[Bobcat1]

Excuse me but Patrick is by law Joeys father. When there is a legal adoption the birth certificate and legal documents show that person as the "father" not the adopted father and not a stepfather. The fact they're not blood relatives is not relevant other than to the adoptee and adopter. It is not only disrespectful but it is in many cases, hurtful to most of these families. I know Patrick and it is disturbing to him because Joey loved his FATHER Patrick and he truly loves Joey. They both had no concerns about anyone else as such. But if your asking is the other man still alive, the answer is yes, but he has never as I'm told had any contact since they lived in Ohio in the 70's.

 

[Mica]

Excuse me but Patrick is by law Joeys father. When there is a legal adoption the birth certificate and legal documents show that person as the "father" not the adopted father and not a stepfather. The fact they're not blood relatives is not relevant other than to the adoptee and adopter. It is not only disrespectful but it is in many cases, hurtful to most of these families. I know Patrick and it is disturbing to him because Joey loved his FATHER Patrick and he truly loves Joey. They both had no concerns about anyone else as such. But if your asking is the other man still alive, the answer is yes, but he has never as I'm told had any contact since they lived in Ohio in the 70's.

Is was very dispespectful of Det. Dugal to even mention it and it was an unnecessary comment, IMO.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Excuse me but Patrick is by law Joeys father. When there is a legal adoption the birth certificate and legal documents show that person as the "father" not the adopted father and not a stepfather. The fact they're not blood relatives is not relevant other than to the adoptee and adopter. It is not only disrespectful but it is in many cases, hurtful to most of these families. I know Patrick and it is disturbing to him because Joey loved his FATHER Patrick and he truly loves Joey. They both had no concerns about anyone else as such. But if your asking is the other man still alive, the answer is yes, but he has never as I'm told had any contact since they lived in Ohio in the 70's.

Patrick is Joey's father. Period. A father doesnt have to have the same bloodline to be the greatest father a child will ever be blessed to have.

Simply having the same blood in the veins does not automatically make a good father nor a good mother for that matter. Love comes directly from the heart and it's obvious Patrick loves his son dearly.

Bless Patrick for being such a deeply caring father to Joey. His deep love and devotion to his son is why he never gave up seeking justice for what happened to Joey and his beautiful family.

Imo

 

[mom2chloe]

I agree that the reference to Joey’s father even being mentioned is both irrelevant and inexcusable. Families are made of love. Recent posts have also reiterated the fact that not only were the McStays victims but CM’s own children are victims too. They likely have done without basic needs as food, clothing and the safety and security that comes from having a roof over your head and a warm comfy bed to sleep in every night. I find Force Ten’s implication that CM opened a checking account under the radar to hide his finances, stolen or legitimate, from the mother of his kids to be realistic and alarming. He made sure he had money to gamble but none to feed and clothe his children. IMO CM is the epitome of a sorry excuse for a man. Collateral damage includes CJ. IMHO

 

[Deleted member 192280]

Ok, sorry I truly didn't mean to hurt any feelings. Was interested to know the relationship between the two brothers.

 

[Force Ten]

I agree that the reference to Joey’s father even being mentioned is both irrelevant and inexcusable. Families are made of love. Recent posts have also reiterated the fact that not only were the McStays victims but CM’s own children are victims too. They likely have done without basic needs as food, clothing and the safety and security that comes from having a roof over your head and a warm comfy bed to sleep in every night. I find Force Ten’s implication that CM opened a checking account under the radar to hide his finances, stolen or legitimate, from the mother of his kids to be realistic and alarming. He made sure he had money to gamble but none to feed and clothe his children. IMO CM is the epitome of a sorry excuse for a man. Collateral damage includes CJ. IMHO

And yet most likely CJ will testify on his behalf. I do wonder if it's out of fear or because he fathered her children. I can't really bring myself to believe that she truly believes in his innocence. She had to have questions, looking back at times and occurrences, of things he said as well. Woman's intuition. She's calling him 5 times on the night of the 4th and can't get a hold of him. If a woman can't get a hold of her man, alarm bells will go off. SHE'S GOING TO REMEMBER THAT. Then she finds out the family is missing (I wonder when he said something), she would start piecing things together pretty quickly when she realized the dates.

 

[mrjitty]

Back of Business Card:

View attachment 164864

A few screenshots of the cheques and carbon copy cheques and business card found in the Trooper (in the pocket behind the front passenger seat) as taken from trial day 8, part 1, Denys Williams' testimony

i find these business card notes very interesting

JM was on the road that day - i wonder if they are notes from his call with the bank

 

[mrjitty]

It's not hearsay - his testimony was of first hand knowledge. The jury can decide if they believe the witness or not.

Metro isn't a client, it was working with McStay and Merritt to manufacture the water features. I think it was all coming to a head in early February and possibly Joey wouldn't have continued the partnership.

IIRC there is also an email exchange between Metro boss and Joey in which Joey explains that CM was supposed to pay Metro from his contract fees, but seeing he hasn't Joey will have to pay.

I need to find this but I haven't been able to google it up.

I am sure it is in the prelim hearing materials.

 

[asyousay]

California is notorious for it's love of wasting money. If any of the jurors have planned vacations, appointments, etc. there will be further delays as well. It's very, very frustrating.

This is different then as in the UK they won’t pick you for a trial if you have holidays booked for during the trial as it would be stupid to do so. You have to explain to the judge when called why you can not sit on the trial and then he will excuse you.

 

[mrjitty]

The problem is they can’t prove that Joey McStay did say those things as it’s hearsay and if Joey McStay was bad mouthing his employee to clients then why would he of continue to hire him as he was obviously damaging his business?!

Actually IIRC the testimony can be used to prove Joey did say that - but not to prove the truth of the content of the statement

The hearsay rule can get technical at times.

Let's say you see me stumbling down the street blind drunk at 5am shouting "my no good business partner has ruined me!". Other evidence at trial shows that my business partner forged cheques and took lots of money out of the business.

You can testify as a direct witness.

e.g.

You looked at your watch and it was 5am
mrjitty appeared to be drunk
mrjitty was shouting

You can even testify mrjitty was shouting "my no good business partner has ruined me!"

However this would only be proof of my behaviour that you observed - it can't be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted (literally you heard me say it). mrjitty has to testify to it himself as the person who made the statement.

However this could still be very relevant to the trial, and the jury could infer things from it. e.g. mrjitty's erratic behaviour might indicate a bad shock that very day such as to cause him to stay out all night drinking

So in this case, the supplier clearly came to believe that CM was ripping off JM. And that belief, and the evidential basis for it, is highly relevant.

 

[mrjitty]

And yet most likely CJ will testify on his behalf. I do wonder if it's out of fear or because he fathered her children. I can't really bring myself to believe that she truly believes in his innocence. She had to have questions, looking back at times and occurrences, of things he said as well. Woman's intuition. She's calling him 5 times on the night of the 4th and can't get a hold of him. If a woman can't get a hold of her man, alarm bells will go off. SHE'S GOING TO REMEMBER THAT. Then she finds out the family is missing (I wonder when he said something), she would start piecing things together pretty quickly when she realized the dates.

I wonder if she has some exposure?

I believe CM acted alone on the murders, and he must have driven to the crime scene in his truck. I think he left the trooper at the crime scene that night because he could not have moved 2 vehicles and I refuse to believe he would leave his own truck at the crime scene. Indeed i suspect he left the crime scene pretty much as is with bodies etc that night. i think he then thought about it overnight, and took a chance on returning and staging the crime scene.

So sooner or later, someone has to help him with the two trucks - possibly by dropping him off at the McStay residence or close by.

 

[Tortoise]

Actually IIRC the testimony can be used to prove Joey did say that - but not to prove the truth of the content of the statement

The hearsay rule can get technical at times.

Let's say you see me stumbling down the street blind drunk at 5am shouting "my no good business partner has ruined me!". Other evidence at trial shows that my business partner forged cheques and took lots of money out of the business.

You can testify as a direct witness.

e.g.

You looked at your watch and it was 5am
mrjitty appeared to be drunk
mrjitty was shouting

You can even testify mrjitty was shouting "my no good business partner has ruined me!"

However this would only be proof of my behaviour that you observed - it can't be used to prove the truth of the matter asserted (literally you heard me say it). mrjitty has to testify to it himself as the person who made the statement.

However this could still be very relevant to the trial, and the jury could infer things from it. e.g. mrjitty's erratic behaviour might indicate a bad shock that very day such as to cause him to stay out all night drinking

So in this case, the supplier clearly came to believe that CM was ripping off JM. And that belief, and the evidential basis for it, is highly relevant.

Exactly, it's not the truth of what Joey said about Merritt but the truth of whether Joey said it.

That is what the judge explained to the jury.

So Joey could have said it and been lying, but that was what Metro believed Merritt was doing, if the jury believes the witness.

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder if she has some exposure?

I believe CM acted alone on the murders, and he must have driven to the crime scene in his truck. I think he left the trooper at the crime scene that night because he could not have moved 2 vehicles and I refuse to believe he would leave his own truck at the crime scene. Indeed i suspect he left the crime scene pretty much as is with bodies etc that night. i think he then thought about it overnight, and took a chance on returning and staging the crime scene.

So sooner or later, someone has to help him with the two trucks - possibly by dropping him off at the McStay residence or close by.

Do you mean crime scene as in the desert or the house?

 

[Tortoise]

IIRC there is also an email exchange between Metro boss and Joey in which Joey explains that CM was supposed to pay Metro from his contract fees, but seeing he hasn't Joey will have to pay.

I need to find this but I haven't been able to google it up.

I am sure it is in the prelim hearing materials.

I've seen it on another site but I don't know how to find the preliminary hearing transcript here to quote the relevant portion.

It's pages 121-122.