CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #3

[Texas Red]

The wasfirst thing that comes to mind is—which vehicle is caught on the neighbor’s security camera? Doesn’t the prosecution feel confident that it was NOT the Trooper? So, what vehicle would it be? Was Summer’s truck ruled out?

I've pretty much totally discounted that video, first of all we don't know if the time stamp is correct and it's far from certain the make and model of vehicle captured in the video.

 

[Texas Red]

I wonder if the state has offered immunity to Jarvis? Her testifying against CM would lock up the case for them.

 

[wary]

I agree this is distinctly possible if we assume CFA never happened. (only source for the location is CM?). A simpler version is he kills him in the storage locker. Then the reason Joey is packaged is the simple need to sling him out of there and onto a truck later on.

However in that scenario, he needs to offload his phone to his girlfriend, and she will need to answer the 5:47 call and switch the phone off. Then somehow, Chase needs to get his phone back in order to call her again around 9.30pm. I think it is stretching credibility that the 9.30 call is faked

One issue with this theory though, is why kill the rest of the family now?

Killing the rest of the family would stem from a desire to get away with the crime. (And possibly hatred, too. And then there’s the checks written after the 4th.) But, if Summer is alive, she reports Joey missing immediately. She tells the police that Joey drove up to meet with Merrit. The ChickFilA tapes won’t have been erased. Merrit’s truck may have DNA on it—or the floor of the storage unit may. The Isuzu has to turn up somewhere. Memories and records are more fresh. (Okay, as I think things over it seems likely that San Diego would have marked him down as ‘voluntarily missing,’ and not investigated at all. But Merrit couldn’t have known that.)

 

[ThorJanus]

Were they talking about the trooper or the suspects truck? I thought it was the truck but I'm sure someone else will have a definite answer for you.

The spoiler mentioned my prosecutor mentioned it during the time line on the 4th of Feb. 2010. I believe I was watching live.

Please forgive me for my long absence. I have been going over my notes about the spoiler Mr. Daugherty mentioned near the opening of this trial about the Isuzu trooper shown in the video footage as leaving the the house due to the absence of tailpipe. I have heard so many different theories over the last 8 years. The prosecution is showing that the trooper drove away from the home sometime between 8-9 pm on the night of Feb. 4. 2010. I am so confused over this, can anyone out there confirm or deny this?

It appears that the video footage shows a vehicle driving by but it was not the trooper because the exhaust pipe is seen on right hand side of the vehicle. Again another boondoggle. I see it that the only proof JM was home would be the futon cover.

seen at 26:00 on screen.

 

[thelmadawg]

The SA deal as far as I am aware was not the multi million pound contract. That was in the pipeline and that was a deal to install waterfalls around some company in the U.S I thought. But it’s been 8 years so I could be totally wrong.

While the Ryah deal was a nice project, apparently Joey had been contacted by a national car wash to install fountains at all their locations - a million dollar plus contract. Unfortunately, even had JM lived, the car wash sized down its plans for economic reasons after his disappearance. I don't have the details now, but at the time I researched it and I think it was something like Mr. Carwash

 

[Force Ten]

I've seen more than one poster comment that Merritt made several attempted calls to Jarvis. Is this somewhere in testimony or OS and I missed it?

If Jarvis had Merritt's phone and she knew where he was (or not) she would not be making several calls to him that night. Logically anyways.

The SA job was $84K, far less than a million. I believe the multi-million dollar deal was for Paul Mitchell Salons or a line of nationwide car washes. This info comes from Patrick I think but I'm sure there is other info on this elsewhere. It was supposed be spread out over several years totalling 5 million.

If I'm not mistaken LE confirmed that Joseph's phone pinged a tower near the Chik-fil-a. It's seems that Joseph may have arrived first prompting him to call Merritt a 1:00 "Hey I'm here, where are you?". The call was also a minute or less long. According to Merritt thee meeting lasted 1 1/2 hours not 2. He may be a liar but there's no reason to believe this wasn't to the truth. JM calls Merritt again at 3 and then at 3:30. JM supposedly made a bank deposit that day but it hasn't been confirmed if it was Rancho Cucamonga or Temecula, before the meeting or after. It would make sense if it was after, seeing that JM may have met to get the money back from Merritt.

I was thinking about DK being in Hawaii (from January 4th). He received several payments from Joseph while there. It would be quite easy to verify that he withdrew the money while being there. That would make for a pretty solid alibi.

 

[A lucas]

It was outlined in the OS - he called the bank before he got to Rancho Cucamonga:

"What he found was that on February 4th at 11.51 Joseph calls a number 949-492-8090 that is associated with Joseph’s bank in San Clemente the Union Bank in San Clemente. He doesn’t call that number all that often, he has called it in the past around the time they were buying the house they were moving in, he doesn’t call it all that often.

A few minutes later he calls the phone number associated with the defendant 374-0102 two minutes later he calls the defendant.

After that 11.56 he signs into his QuickBooks and then signs out two minutes later. At this point that February 2nd cheque has cleared the bank. After he logs out of QuickBooks and not having seen the cheque because it was deleted on the ledger again calls his bank at 12.15. That’s a different number, same bank.

While he’s doing this he’s travelling 15 northbound in the general area of Lake Elsinore.

He arrives in the Rancho Cucamonga area and his cell phone is communicating with towers in the Rancho Cucamonga area – at 12.52 there’s a call to the defendant, at 1.01 there’s another call to the defendant and at 3.03 is the last time that his phone makes contact with that tower in Rancho Cucamonga."

Re the 11:51am call to the bank. Do you think there will be a written record of JM’s call held by the bank confirming that he rang querying the missing amount? I really hope so...

 

[mrjitty]

I am fascinated by the following from the Search Warrants

The list of people who had access to the McStay house on Tues 8th is pretty small

A forensic examination was conducted on the computer hard drive belonging to Joseph McStay. The forensic examination was conducted by the Hi-Tech Crimes division of the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department. The examination revealed that on February 8th, 2010, the internet to the computer was accessed and the address of 17037 Brookhurst Street, in the City of Fountain Valley. Investigators determined this location has a total of five suites and one of the suites to the location belonged to a former customer of EIP.

Another suite was occupied by T-Mobile, with a customer service center and sales department. Based upon my training and experience, I know suspects in murder investigations will take victim's phones in order to discard them or alter evidence within the phones that may incriminate the suspects. Cellular phones commonly known as smart phones, such as the Google phones owned by the victims, are typically password · protected which would protect a suspect from being able to access the phones. A way to gain access to the . CBS\J\I 1 4 - 1 5 9 3 phones is to take the phones into the cellular phone provider's customer which in this case would be a T-Mobile such as the one at 1703 7 Brookhurst Street, and have a store employee access the phones for them.​

 

[ThorJanus]

I ask myself why I have become so interested in this case. I have to say that it was the volunteer missing BS what caught my attention eight years ago. I am an avid surfing fan and it just broke my heart looking at those two little boys, coming from So Cal, so tragic. Not until recently I believed that this could not have been done by one person. During the recent holiday my own neighborhood was rattled by a triple homicide. The grown son, 43 y/o murdered his mother, sister and family friend with a kitchen knife and beating in their home. He didn't have time to plan disposing of their bodies and was interrupted by the police and shot 27 times and died. If only the McStay family had a real friend looking out for them. So far I am not impressed with the prosecution's evidence. No blood in the house and no DNA found in the graveside of the defendant. Cell tower and Quickbook, is so far, all the physical evidence. They have the bodies. My understanding of the DNA in the trooper was more than likely secondary exposure from handshake contamination. Let me know if I am wrong about this.

 

[asyousay]

Thank You for the posters who remember it was for a Car Wash Company. I can’t go back and edit my post to alter it from shopping malls.

 

[Tssiemer]

I have a question.
As a juror, if I don't "buy into" a specific part of the prosecution testimony is that automatic doubt and there for I would vote "not guilty"?

 

[asyousay]

I've seen more than one poster comment that Merritt made several attempted calls to Jarvis. Is this somewhere in testimony or OS and I missed it?

If Jarvis had Merritt's phone and she knew where he was (or not) she would not be making several calls to him that night. Logically anyways.

The SA job was $84K, far less than a million. I believe the multi-million dollar deal was for Paul Mitchell Salons or a line of nationwide car washes. This info comes from Patrick I think but I'm sure there is other info on this elsewhere. It was supposed be spread out over several years totalling 5 million.

If I'm not mistaken LE confirmed that Joseph's phone pinged a tower near the Chik-fil-a. It's seems that Joseph may have arrived first prompting him to call Merritt a 1:00 "Hey I'm here, where are you?". The call was also a minute or less long. According to Merritt thee meeting lasted 1 1/2 hours not 2. He may be a liar but there's no reason to believe this wasn't to the truth. JM calls Merritt again at 3 and then at 3:30. JM supposedly made a bank deposit that day but it hasn't been confirmed if it was Rancho Cucamonga or Temecula, before the meeting or after. It would make sense if it was after, seeing that JM may have met to get the money back from Merritt.

I was thinking about DK being in Hawaii (from January 4th). He received several payments from Joseph while there. It would be quite easy to verify that he withdrew the money while being there. That would make for a pretty solid alibi.

Actually there is all the reason in the world torn a chase to lie about his lunch with Joey if he was putting the gears in motion to kill him. He has successfully muddled the waters.

It makes perfect sense Chase didn’t go to lunch and have a huge confrontation in front of people. Chase is obviously quick to anger so I see no vision where lunch wouldn’t of gone south if they had met up.

It also explains why Joey is constantly online at lunch. If he was indeed in a meeting with Chase for 2 hour that makes zero sense.

 

[MsFacetious]

I am still stunned by the trial schedule. Where I am that would never happen. They would have given it to a judge that worked full time.

Here our trials are 8am - 5pm with a half hour lunch break! There is no waiting for witnesses or running out of them. You subpoena ALL of your witnesses so there are plenty at the courthouse. The judge would lose it if we had to adjourn early due to lack of witnesses!

Occasionally we take one break before lunch and one after. Generally between witnesses, or when a witness needs to calm down. Everyone would have a complete fit about this schedule. It's just mind blowing to me.

 

[mrjitty]

If Jarvis had Merritt's phone and she knew where he was (or not) she would not be making several calls to him that night. Logically anyways.

This is why overall i think the phone evidence does not support this theory

It seems far more likely he was calling her in a panic earlier and then she was calling him not knowing where he was

If they were in cahoots - this phone activity is really dumb

 

[MsFacetious]

I have a question.
As a juror, if I don't "buy into" a specific part of the prosecution testimony is that automatic doubt and there for I would vote "not guilty"?

It would depend on which part of the testimony you don't believe. If it's something minor then it's not a big deal. If it's a central element of the crime, then yes.

If you believe a witness has lied about something you can disregard ALL of their testimony. You CAN, you are not required to.

 

[mrjitty]

I am still stunned by the trial schedule. Where I am that would never happen. They would have given it to a judge that worked full time.

Here our trials are 8am - 5pm with a half hour lunch break! There is no waiting for witnesses or running out of them. You subpoena ALL of your witnesses so there are plenty at the courthouse. The judge would lose it if we had to adjourn early due to lack of witnesses!

Occasionally we take one break before lunch and one after. Generally between witnesses, or when a witness needs to calm down. Everyone would have a complete fit about this schedule. It's just mind blowing to me.

Agreed - its absurd.

 

[asyousay]

This is why overall i think the phone evidence does not support this theory

It seems far more likely he was calling her in a panic earlier and then she was calling him not knowing where he was

If they were in cahoots - this phone activity is really dumb

Well regardless she was in cahoots with him as she lied about the alibi. She would of also of know he was missing for multiple hours in the hours and days after they vanished.

So unless she was a computer moron then she would of had suspicions about his actions but she chooses to lie for him.

 

[asyousay]

I am still stunned by the trial schedule. Where I am that would never happen. They would have given it to a judge that worked full time.

Here our trials are 8am - 5pm with a half hour lunch break! There is no waiting for witnesses or running out of them. You subpoena ALL of your witnesses so there are plenty at the courthouse. The judge would lose it if we had to adjourn early due to lack of witnesses!

Occasionally we take one break before lunch and one after. Generally between witnesses, or when a witness needs to calm down. Everyone would have a complete fit about this schedule. It's just mind blowing to me.

Yes the amount of money that must be wasted is laughable.


I thought the UK was bad as I had days where I went in and then was sent home a few hours later but this is case is on a whole another level. It’s like the Jury’s life’s don’t matter at all.

 

[Texas Red]

I have a question.
As a juror, if I don't "buy into" a specific part of the prosecution testimony is that automatic doubt and there for I would vote "not guilty"?

It all depends upon what part of the prosecution’s theory of the crime that you doubt. If, as I suspect you’re doubting where the murders occurred, but you have little doubt of CM being the culprit then, IMO, you would certainly vote guilty.

 

[mrjitty]

Well regardless she was in cahoots with him as she lied about the alibi. She would of also of know he was missing for multiple hours in the hours and days after they vanished.

So unless she was a computer moron then she would of had suspicions about his actions but she chooses to lie for him.

Agree

But this is why I find the big picture to be most incriminating

Whether or not he had his phone with him, the key point is he turned it off, and she kept calling it. Then he calls her back around 9.30pm

Yet she is his alibi.

So we know beyond any real doubt that he was incognito and she didn't know where he was.

That's where the staging speaks so loudly, regardless of the underlying detail.

Why was he trying to hide where he was?