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

[missy1974]

IIRC, someone from the L&C "experts" said that the Defense was NOT allowed to accuse a 3rd party of the murders in the trial, due to the Judge's ruling?

hmm well, we have been watching them do just that lol And they were allowed to talk about DK and his ex gf in their opening statement, and they went into detail with what DK supposedly confessed to her.

Was it in one of their clips that they put on youtube? I haven't watched any of those.

 

[Edmo]

hmm well, we have been watching them do just that lol And they were allowed to talk about DK and his ex gf in their opening statement, and they went into detail with what DK supposedly confessed to her.

Was it in one of their clips that they put on youtube? I haven't watched any of those.

IIRC, it is on one of the early testimony days. I believe it was actually from their YouTube stream, where they "interject" their "opinions" about that days of testimonies by their "experts." It was one of the 1st videos I watched, even prior to commenting here on the forum. 100% they stated the Defense could NOT accuse a 3rd party in this trial, based on a court ruling. Perhaps the ruling was even prior to the trial starting? I'm not pulling this out of my arse, I def remember them stating this. It should be somewhere in their videos from the YouTube L&C video collection. 100%

I remember thinking CM was headed for an uphill battle if he couldn't point the finger at someone else.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I don't think so. I don't think he has spoken publicly about it either, maybe @Force Ten knows? I would hope he has retained an attorney, and evaluate whether his testimony could lead to charges. I am talking in regards to the money or EIP. There are so many questions surrounding the financials, it's possible he could incriminate himself by testifying IMO

Thanks.

The judge could easily narrow the scope of his direct examination as to what is relevant in the murder trial itself and what has no relevancy in this case.

I have seen judges who greatly narrowed and limited the scope of what could be asked, and what was off limits.

I don't think the judge wants another trial inside of his trial.

I think since it's been many years ago, and he hasn't had any charges brought against him in all of these many years, he's not that worried about what transpired wayback then.

Filing charges may have expired due to the SOL

Jmo

 

[missy1974]

IIRC, it is on one of the early testimony days. I believe it was actually from their YouTube stream, where they "interject" their "opinions" about that days of testimonies by their "experts." It was one of the 1st videos I watched, even prior to commenting here on the forum. 100% they stated the Defense could NOT accuse a 3rd party in this trial, based on a court ruling. Perhaps the ruling was even prior to the trial starting? I'm not pulling this out of my arse, I def remember them stating this. It should be somewhere in their videos from the YouTube L&C video collection. 100%

I remember thinking CM was headed for an uphill battle if he couldn't point the finger at someone else.

Thank you!!!! I found it! @ about 4:30 of the video. I haven't watched any of these clips before now. It still seems to be unclear though and Cathy says she has tried to get her hands on the ruling to see what has been allowed/disallowed, but she even says, they have allowed some stuff, just not all. And we do know that the judge ruled back in December to allow his ex-gf to testify, there seems to be a line and we are just unaware of where that line is lol

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I wish I hadn't watched that though now lol I don't know who that guy is but he says he thinks there are some appeal issues already Cathy has been quite honest in the L&C chat... so I'm not surprised about her comments that she thinks there is reasonable doubt.

ETA: oh and did you all hear the tidbit about what McG said about Dan? That if Joey buys him out that it isn't going to go well and something about DK's temper.

 

[missy1974]

Thanks.

The judge could easily narrow the scope of his direct examination as to what is relevant in the murder trial itself and what has no relevancy in this case.

I have seen judges who greatly narrowed and limited the scope of what could be asked, and what was off limits.

I think since it's been many years ago, and he hasn't had any charges brought against him in all of these many years, he's not that worried about what transpired wayback then.

Filing charges may have expired due to the SOL

Jmo

You could be right about the Statute of limitations, a felony would be 3 years, a misdemeanour would be 1 year. We were discussing this last week, but in regards to why they didn't charge CM with any kind of theft or fraud. The rule looks subjective, we know from testimony that San Diego didn't have probable cause to get the bank records before the body was found (per DuGal testimony), so even if we go from when the bodies were found, Nov 2013, and at after that time became aware of theft or fraud, that is when the 3 yrs would start IMO With DK, it would depend on whether there is or was a crime and then when it was "discovered". If I was Dan, I would be talking to a lawyer first, even if everything he did was legit.

California's Discovery Rule

It is important to note that the statutory period for bringing a case does not begin until the offense is discovered, or should have been discovered.

California Criminal Statute of Limitations Laws - FindLaw​

 

[Edmo]

I am so angry over their hands, where are they?
Did Chase mutilate those children's bodies?
This crime was demonic and totally devoid of humanity. This is a man who can reach levels below the deepest subterranean muck and acid far beneath hell and all creation.

who could cut off those little hands and hide them somewhere with the purse of their mother, the wallet of their father who fed them and kept them?

this is a demon who slithers through the night.

mOO

I believe if he had cut-off their hands, the Coroner would have testified to finding "toolmarks" at or around their wrists, which she didn't. I believe the rain exposed parts of their bodies (due to the sunken hole/compression) we saw from the pictures of the gravesites, prior to any excavation. It wouldn't take much force from a Coyote/Bobcat to remove them, especially if decompensation has already started. The Prosecution can't prove exactly which "wildlife" had removed their remains.

Summer/JM's hands were missing 70% of their fingers. IF he had cut-off their hands, why would he leave fingers on Summer/JM?

To me, the arms/hands WOULD coincide from the central area of the gravesites, due to rigor mortis (stiffening) of the arms/hands around the length of their waists? Unless, they can PROVE exactly how/where they buried into the grave(s).

I can see where the rain washed away the central portion/collapse of the graves leaving their hands/arms exposed to the elements. Then factor in the smell and it wouldn't take long for starving animals to locate them, IMO.

We also KNOW that their remains were scattered almost 500 feet, in a 305* circle, from the gravesites. I believe if he had cut their hands off, the Coroner would have pointed that out. The Prosecution simply pointed out that they were unable to see if their hands/fingers had shown ANY type of defensive injuries. JMO

 

[missy1974]

If the hands had been "cut-off," I believe the Coroner would HAVE testified to that fact. There would have been "toolmarks" on/near the wrists, IMO. I don't think she testified to that?

RSBM

Now that I read that, I am pretty sure she was asked about any cut marks or signs that a knife came into contact with the bones, she said no.

On another note, I also recall her testifying about the color of Summer's bones. Some were really white, she said because they were exposed. I think it's reasonable to assume like you said... that animals came along and got them

 

[Edmo]

Thank you!!!! I found it! @ about 4:30 of the video. I haven't watched any of these clips before now. It still seems to be unclear though and Cathy says she has tried to get her hands on the ruling to see what has been allowed/disallowed, but she even says, they have allowed some stuff, just not all. And we do know that the judge ruled back in December to allow his ex-gf to testify, there seems to be a line and we are just unaware of where that line is lol

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I wish I hadn't watched that though now lol I don't know who that guy is but he says he thinks there are some appeal issues already Cathy has been quite honest in the L&C chat... so I'm not surprised about her comments that she thinks there is reasonable doubt.

ETA: oh and did you all hear the tidbit about what McG said about Dan? That if Joey buys him out that it isn't going to go well and something about DK's temper.

I don't believe this was the one I watched? I specifically remember the L&C "expert" stating the defense was NOT allowed to accuse a 3rd party. Perhaps, the statement was made as soon as the court had made a ruling? That's what it seemed like to me, at the time. It was precise and stated with confidence. That is what makes me believe it could have been the DAY the ruling was handed down. It HAS been a few weeks though, so I could be mistaken.

 

[wary]

I don't think so. I don't think he has spoken publicly about it either, maybe @Force Ten knows? I would hope he has retained an attorney, and evaluate whether his testimony could lead to charges. I am talking in regards to the money or EIP. There are so many questions surrounding the financials, it's possible he could incriminate himself by testifying IMO

If he’s called to testify, would it be reasonable for the DA to offer him immunity for anything relating to the financials? They wouldn’t prosecute him for that, anyway. Heck, the statute of limitations has probably expired, anyway.

 

[Force Ten]

I don't think so. I don't think he has spoken publicly about it either, maybe @Force Ten knows? I would hope he has retained an attorney, and evaluate whether his testimony could lead to charges. I am talking in regards to the money or EIP. There are so many questions surrounding the financials, it's possible he could incriminate himself by testifying IMO

No idea. The statute of limitations for committing a felony is three years, so DK is way in the clear of prosecution.

 

[mom2chloe]

You could be right about the Statute of limitations, a felony would be 3 years, a misdemeanour would be 1 year. We were discussing this last week, but in regards to why they didn't charge CM with any kind of theft or fraud. The rule looks subjective, we know from testimony that San Diego didn't have probable cause to get the bank records before the body was found (per DuGal testimony), so even if we go from when the bodies were found, Nov 2013, and at after that time became aware of theft or fraud, that is when the 3 yrs would start IMO With DK, it would depend on whether there is or was a crime and then when it was "discovered". If I was Dan, I would be talking to a lawyer first, even if everything he did was legit.

California's Discovery Rule

It is important to note that the statutory period for bringing a case does not begin until the offense is discovered, or should have been discovered.

California Criminal Statute of Limitations Laws - FindLaw​

Does anyone else find the Statute of Limitations ridiculous or is it just me? Violent crimes shouldn’t have one! IMHO
It doesn’t matter when the crime occurred and although we know justice should be swift it should never matter when the crime took place. Ugh

 

[missy1974]

I don't believe this was the one I watched? I specifically remember the L&C "expert" stating the defense was NOT allowed to accuse a 3rd party. Perhaps, the statement was made as soon as the court had made a ruling? That's what it seemed like to me, at the time. It was precise and stated with confidence. That is what makes me believe it could have been the DAY the ruling was handed down. It HAS been a few weeks though, so I could be mistaken.

Here is the thing though... we KNOW they have allowed a certain amount in. We know that they are going to let the ex gf testify, we saw what the defense said her statement to them was, so the judge is allowing some. Unless someone gets a hold of the order, I don't know if we will know what is and isn't allowed until it happens. And actually, by what Cathy said in the video, decisions are being made as they are going along as well.

 

[missy1974]

Does anyone else find the Statute of Limitations ridiculous or is it just me? Violent crimes shouldn’t have one! IMHO
It doesn’t matter when the crime occurred and although we know justice should be swift it should never matter when the crime took place. Ugh

Just so it's clear...there is no SOL on murder.

Murder, other offenses punishable by death or life imprisonment, embezzlement of public funds: none;

California Criminal Statute of Limitations Laws - FindLaw

When looking at any of the statute of limitations, this is important: does not begin until the offense is discovered, or should have been discovered

 

[katydid23]

Here is the thing though... we KNOW they have allowed a certain amount in. We know that they are going to let the ex gf testify, we saw what the defense said her statement to them was, so the judge is allowing some. Unless someone gets a hold of the order, I don't know if we will know what is and isn't allowed until it happens. And actually, by what Cathy said in the video, decisions are being made as they are going along as well.

If the defense is allowed to put DK's ex gf on the stand, to testify under oath, that DK confessed in great detail, that he killed the entire family........Hung Jury or Not Guilty due to reasonable doubt, IMO

She is going to reveal to the jury how DK faked his Hawaiian alibi, and it might make the investigators look inept...

 

[KALI]

I cannot wrap my mind around Chase Merritt cutting off 8 hands.
IT is a worthy discussion however.
What is the likelyhood of animals running off with dead peoples hands?
Not just one body, but four?
If Chase Merritt removed their hands, I think it would have been at the gravesite. Then with what weapon?
And why?
Dental records would probably have identified the victims as well as DNA.
Was he in a crazed frenzy?
Well, yes, obviously he was in a crazed frenzy to have bludgeoned these little boys and there parents to death.
But, would that crazed frenzy last for hours as he drove to the dessert and dug their graves?
Did he Merritt partake in drugs?

Exactly.

We will never know the depths he went to make sure each one of them suffered unimaginable pain.

In the end, I think all of us don't want to play a smoke and mirror game, but we want the truth, and the person who did these horrendous acts to be held fully responsible.

The truth although brutal points to Merritt starting on day one!

We can't ignore all of the CE facts entered thus far that shows he is the one who did all of these horrific acts against his four helpless victims.

The evidence to come will continue to mount and show he solely did this and no one else.

As an aside.

Someone mentioned they are allowing him to accuse DK.

I'm not so sure that is true since the judge shut them down each, and everytime yesterday by sustaining every objection the state objected to concerning DK.

Will they keep asking improper questions about DK anyway only to be objected to by the state while knowing the objections will be sustained?

Absolutely. This is how this defense team rolls.

Imo

 

[Edmo]

Here is the thing though... we KNOW they have allowed a certain amount in. We know that they are going to let the ex gf testify, we saw what the defense said her statement to them was, so the judge is allowing some. Unless someone gets a hold of the order, I don't know if we will know what is and isn't allowed until it happens. And actually, by what Cathy said in the video, decisions are being made as they are going along as well.

What IS CJ going to testify to? What did the Defense say she would testify to? This just keeps getting better !

 

[Edmo]

If the defense is allowed to put DK's ex gf on the stand, to testify under oath, that DK confessed in great detail, that he killed the entire family........Hung Jury or Not Guilty due to reasonable doubt, IMO

She is going to reveal to the jury how DK faked his Hawaiian alibi, and it might make the investigators look inept...

I believe the "ex gf" is referring to Cathy Jarvis, CM's ex gf, right?

 

[katydid23]

I believe the "ex gf" is referring to Cathy Jarvis, CM's ex gf, right?

Oh, I thought he was speaking about DK's ex gf. They spoke about her during OS, and put a large overhead projector with a bullet point list of the confession she testified to.

 

[Edmo]

I cannot wrap my mind around Chase Merritt cutting off 8 hands.
IT is a worthy discussion however.
What is the likelyhood of animals running off with dead peoples hands?
Not just one body, but four?
If Chase Merritt removed their hands, I think it would have been at the gravesite. Then with what weapon?
And why?
Dental records would probably have identified the victims as well as DNA.
Was he in a crazed frenzy?
Well, yes, obviously he was in a crazed frenzy to have bludgeoned these little boys and there parents to death.
But, would that crazed frenzy last for hours as he drove to the dessert and dug their graves?
Did he Merritt partake in drugs?

The *only problem I have with this theory: The Coroner would HAVE testified their hands were actually cut off. She stated there were NO visible toolmarks showing this. I think the prosecution was simply trying to explain to the jury that because fingers were missing, they were UNABLE to prove that "defensive markings," hands/fingers broken from the victims, due to being missing, could prove they "put up a fight" while being bludgeoned to death, IMO.

 

[Edmo]

Oh, I thought he was speaking about DK's ex gf. They spoke about her during OS, and put a large overhead projector with a bullet point list of the confession she testified to.

I have NEVER heard/seen that presentation, so maybe you are correct !