CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #8

[missy1974]

PF is a total *******. While reading the court documents/articles on this yesterday, I had read something that PF's mistress had purposefully left blood evidence (I believe it was near the fireplace) as she wanted the police to find it. If she hadn't done that, could it have been completely missed? Sure was nice of her to preserve some blood evidence but couldn't warn the police or Kelsey the 3 other times PF solicited her murder.

yep... so much more to that case than just 'the family found blood', I'm not going into the details, I was following that prelim the other day and it's horrible. On top of that, I am not so sure they can or should be believing Idaho gf anyway!

On the surface the 2 can be compared... but listening to the details, I don't think so.

 

[Tortoise]

By the end of Shroeder's testimony, I kind of felt sorry for him. He was asked to pull specific reports, that's what he did, so not his fault that he didn't know certain things or didn't have other reports that were done by the FBI previous to him running reports. And not his fault that he wasn't given those to review before testifying and giving his opinion of what he found. I am 99.9999% sure we will hear (if we get a stream haha) way more about the computers. As for the "he must think the jurors are idiots" ... you mean like when the prosecution had Schroeder say that someone, a user, accessed the bookmark on the HP on the 5th, when in fact it was part of a system scan? Again, I'm not fully faulting Schroeder for that, if he didn't have the big picture, but the prosecution definitely had the FBI report. JMO

How do you view the evidence that two computers were accessed on the 8th a minute apart? And what do you think the defense strategy was?

 

[Force Ten]

Thanks Force Ten! I do recall that in the search warrants, just not the day.

I was trying to figure out if it was more likely that he dug the graves on the 5th... burial on the 6th... now I have watched the video with the rain that day... I just can't see digging in that kind of rain...

carry on... LOL

Sorry typo I misspoke, it rained early morning on the 6th.

 

[Plo_Koon]

yep... so much more to that case than just 'the family found blood', I'm not going into the details, I was following that prelim the other day and it's horrible. On top of that, I am not so sure they can or should be believing Idaho gf anyway!

On the surface the 2 can be compared... but listening to the details, I don't think so.

I was in no way attempting to compare the two cases. Just food for thought/breakfast.

 

[JMarsh]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>

Not everyone who gambles murders a family of four. That is the connection the DA clearly wants made. Hey, ignore the fact that we have zero evidence tying the defendant to this crime-find him guilty by way of his other conduct. Innuendo-over-hard-evidence-prosecution.

 

[Force Ten]

I don't see anything wrong with him looking deeper into some of the cash withdrawals. Sure, he should have looked into all of that earlier. But the detectives do not have the time and resources that some of the defense experts have. They are doing a lot of cases, all at once.

I think he looked into it in response to some of the things the defense said recently, about Chase using the money from the cash withdrawals to buy business supplies. And they were lumping some of the GPA and APC withdrawals into that list.

That spurred Smith on to look deeper into what these transactions were for. And lo and behold---they were CASINOS.

Why shouldn't the state report that if they just found it now? It is new evidence. Should they ignore it?

I haven't watched yet but maybe Ryan or the prosecution had renewed interest due to something a witness testified to. I see nothing wrong with this, whether it be the prosecution or the defense. Imo it's petty to challenge it. Either it's evidence or it's not. Cut and dry.

 

[missy1974]

Not being a lawyer, my question is as follows: If the state is doing something that is as egregious as it's been made out to be then why doesn't the judge step in or do something? Has the defense been objecting and been overruled?

This judge hasn't done a lot things. He doesn't hold court times until 4:30 every day... he doesn't make appointments on his days off, etc. LOL I do think the judge is being fair in the sense that he is allowing time before they finish crossing Smith... he is making allowances for experts to be there on certain dates, or to be able to read transcripts... but it seems that the prosecution is the one saying that Merritt is guilty, and they are still doing reports to prove it? shouldn't it have been completed before this went to trial? Shouldn't they have had a forensic accountant looking at things and filing discovery before the trial started? This judge might be allowing it, but what about the next one's that might be hearing these appeals? I'm curious to know if it may cause an issue down the road.

That's why I would love to have a legal opinion. I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on the internet

 

[Plo_Koon]

Hey, ignore the fact that we have zero evidence tying the defendant to this crime-find him guilty by way of his other conduct. Innuendo-over-hard-evidence-prosecution.

ZERO evidence? Amazing they got all the way to a trial with ZERO evidence.

 

[JMarsh]

This judge hasn't done a lot things. He doesn't hold court times until 4:30 every day... he doesn't make appointments on his days off, etc. LOL I do think the judge is being fair in the sense that he is allowing time before they finish crossing Smith... he is making allowances for experts to be there on certain dates, or to be able to read transcripts... but it seems that the prosecution is the one saying that Merritt is guilty, and they are still doing reports to prove it? shouldn't it have been completed before this went to trial? Shouldn't they have had a forensic accountant looking at things and filing discovery before the trial started? This judge might be allowing it, but what about the next one's that might be hearing these appeals? I'm curious to know if it may cause an issue down the road.

That's why I would love to have a legal opinion. I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on the internet

I think there is a chance as well that the judge doesn't want to overwhelm the jurors. We are at home, we can eat, exercise etc. while all this sophisticated information is being delivered. But the Jury just has to sit there taking notes. And this evidence is involved and complicated. I think with a trial this long, the judge is aware that jury-burnout is a possibility, so breaks are needed.

This is like taking advanced courses in physics and anatomy. This evidence is not just-Joe saw Ralph kill Agnes. It's really tough information to absorb and understand, well enough, to decide the fate of a man's life.

 

[Plo_Koon]

This judge hasn't done a lot things. He doesn't hold court times until 4:30 every day... he doesn't make appointments on his days off, etc. LOL I do think the judge is being fair in the sense that he is allowing time before they finish crossing Smith... he is making allowances for experts to be there on certain dates, or to be able to read transcripts... but it seems that the prosecution is the one saying that Merritt is guilty, and they are still doing reports to prove it? shouldn't it have been completed before this went to trial? Shouldn't they have had a forensic accountant looking at things and filing discovery before the trial started? This judge might be allowing it, but what about the next one's that might be hearing these appeals? I'm curious to know if it may cause an issue down the road.

That's why I would love to have a legal opinion. I'm not a lawyer, I just play one on the internet

I understand what you're saying, but as devil's advocate, if the prosecution or a detective hears something in court that makes them think, and then that person goes home that night and does some more work and discovers NEW evidence/information -- should the prosecution then just ignore that information and not bring it up in the trial? Even though it may help the jury in their decision?

 

[thelmadawg]

I've been wondering this myself

They seem to be caught between a pure "it was DK what done it 'guv" strategy, and just general muck raking.

I suspect DK has a strong alibi, in which case he maybe works more in terms of muddying the waters - just trying to establish the idea that we can't rule out that someone else did it

I think we can safely say the defense is presenting a combination of smoke and mirrors and the SODDI (Some other dude did it) defense.

They are also trying to set the judge up for an appeal should they lose. There's nothing wrong with this approach, AFAIK.

Apparently, however, the SODDI defense was weak enough that the judge only allowed certain evidence for DK to be introduced.

So ultimately it comes down to whether the PA team can provide a case for beyond a reasonable doubt (BARD) or the DT can confound the jury with some worthy fact and fiction. To me, Maline is sort of a disaster, while Magee whether posturing or challenging is a worthy DT member.

 

[Force Ten]

Force, do you know who CM talked to on his calls while he was near the grave site? We'll probably miss that info without the stream.

Per the prelim Boles testified that CJ called him many times (4 or 5?) and called her back around 1130. This seems to be a problematic pattern between these two that week.

 

[Edmo]

The feed I watch on does not have any talking heads inserting their commentary. It is just a straight feed into the courtroom. Are the talking heads on site? Is it possible they will leave a camera in the courtroom? Wishful thinking, I know!

The Talking Heads are from the L&C Youtube channel.

 

[missy1974]

How do you view the evidence that two computers were accessed on the 8th a minute apart? And what do you think the defense strategy was?

IIRC Shroeder said many times in his testimony that his main focus was Device 4, not Device 5 which is the HP. Also, from my notes, I have that the defense asked him if there was any activity on the 8th on that computer and he said he did not know. Without going back and looking at the testimony, I am not sure if this info was brought out in direct testimony or defense testimony? But I don't have that info in my notes from his direct testimony. (I have just gone back to Day 17 where they turn "their attention to Device 5" 43:14 Day 17 Part 1 , and I didn't hear this Feb 8th access time mentioned in direct, doesn't mean it wasn't, I'm curious now to know if this was something that the defense brought out, or the pro's)

Personally, I don't know how they explain the Device 4 access at 2amish, let alone Device 5.... but after watching that testimony in totality, if you can come away feeling that you have full knowledge of that internet activity, I don't know what to tell you LOL There is more to what he testified to, and I suspect we will hear more later, either on the prosecution side or the defense side. I wouldn't be surprised if the prosecution has now hired someone to look at all the doc's, including the one's from the FBI, I would... because the defense sure left it with a feeling of "we know something you don't know". BUT JMO.

I'm curious to know what your thoughts are about the prosecution showing a bookmark was accessed, one file of 27,000 accessed at that time, and having Schroeder testify that it was user accessed? And then the defense showing, and Schroeder agreeing, that it was part of a scan, and system accessed?

 

[mrjitty]

Per the prelim Boles testified that CJ called him many times (4 or 5?) and called her back around 1130. This seems to be a problematic pattern between these two that week.

Yes - her calls basically show when he was offline.

 

[mrjitty]

ZERO evidence? Amazing they got all the way to a trial with ZERO evidence.

Chase is really an unlucky guy

 

[missy1974]

Sorry typo I misspoke, it rained early morning on the 6th.

oh lol Ok then... so tell me desert people.... and locals.... just how wet would it have been there???? Are we talking rushing water? standing water? I'm just a prairie girl, but I know when we have dry spells and it rains heavy, we get a lot of "standing water" because the ground can't absorb it quick enough. I'm just trying to understand the conditions when Chase (or anyone) was digging holes and burying bodies.

 

[Edmo]

It's still gambling, that's why I wasn't "getting it". I still haven't watched the testimony, think I'm just gonna leave it until tomorrow, been a long day here.

I am not a card player, but have heard stories IMO it can cost a lot more if you are playing cards, and sometimes the games are hours and hours and hours. I am not sure of the loss/winnings in poker. Meaning, I might play with $200 or $500, but what can I expect for a return if I'm "winning"? Are we talking 1000's? Maybe we have a poker player that can enlighten us?

There is a "Hollywood Actors" movie about them playing Poker in an underground game that started at a club: Viper Room in Hollywood. The movie titled "Mollys Game." Toby Maguire/Ben Affleck gambled piles of cash.

 

[missy1974]

I was in no way attempting to compare the two cases. Just food for thought/breakfast.

I get it and I need something to read with my coffee

 

[Edmo]

I cannot understand why a murder case of this magnitude was given to a part-time judge.

To me, this case is equally equivalent to the Manson Murders. Even more so by "burying" them in the desert.