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

[katydid23]

Well, that's what Smith's new spreadsheets say. The defense did ask him if he knew if they had hotel's in the casino's, implying some were overnight stays, but no way to know.

here's some examples, I will type it out cuz I know sometimes the snips/pics are terrible to look at! These are not all of them, just some that I grabbed. Typing these out, I notice that some he notes the # of hours gap, and in others he doesn't.

01/22/10 5:31PM / 1x (17 hours until next tower hit)

03/21/09 7:35PM/ 1x (13 hrs until next tower hit)

04/03/09 1:56pm - 11:18pm/ 3x (11 hrs until next tower hit)

11/20/09 7:20PM/1x (next hit is on the same tower on 11/21/09 at 1:41AM) <<< added by me over 6 hour gap.

12/15/09 4:55PM - 7:48PM/ 7x (next hit is on the same tower on 12/16/09 at 7:26AM) <<<< added by me: 12 hour gap

12/16/09 7:26AM - 5:01PM/15x

Why would he stay overnight when he was so close to home?

And why spend the money if he is behind on his rent?

He may have had a free room, as a COMP, but if so, that proves he spent a lot of cash at the casino.

Again, there is nothing wrong with spending a lot of cash there, unless your children are about to be evicted because the rent is unpaid.

 

[JMarsh]

Yes. But you're not understanding what that means.

Once again, I spent quite a bit of time on that post including lin quoted from cases that discuss the law.

The state does not have to list what the expert is going to say next to their name when they exchange discovery and witness lists. If the expert has issues a report they must exchange that.

I read the cases you provided. I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of those cases.

 

[gitana1]

In the above cases disclosures were made, or time was given for the defense to get acquainted with the expert witness's testimony.

In People v. Merritt the same thing has occurred. I don't think anyone is claiming that there has been a violation of discovery, only that the DA is presenting evidence, that if it were really germane, was evidence they could have generated years ago. To suddenly present a new report with an interpretation of the ping data that doesn't really prove murder, and when no new science has been applied, is odd. And there are a number of examples of this type of thing, on this case.

And witnesses appear to have been hired very recently, not because they have newly discovered evidence to offer, but because the defense has done so much work on their case.

A man has sat in jail for over four years. The DA should have had their ducks in a row at least four years ago.

I would understand if actual new evidence were discovered, but what the DA is doing seems disingenuous, at best. And I'm being kind.

There hasn't been any violation that I'm aware of, but it doesn't look good.

You may think it's "odd" or doesn't look good. You're entitled to have feelings about that.

But the specific question was asked as to whether this is going to be grounds for an appeal. I explained that it won't. Not successful. I explained that this is not a violation of discovery rules. You challenged that and I cited the law proving it is not a violation.

Feelings aren't fact.

This kind of thing happens a lot, to the defense's chagrin. There's a lot of case law about it. You're free to argue with me but it is not rising to the level of reversible error.

 

[itsbrookie]

Hi everyone, I've been reading here since the family went missing but never had an account until recently.

I am so very disappointed in Law and Crime for discontinuing their coverage of the case, even if only momentarily. Four people lost their lives in a horrific way --and two of them were children. The world needs to see them get the justice they deserve, as well as every piece of evidence in order to support the accuracy of that justice.

One thing that I can't stop thinking about is the advertisement about the family that was posted on Craigslist back in 2012. I wonder if the police know who posted it, if it wasn't them that is. Do any of you think it'll be mentioned in the trial? If this has been covered already in this thread and I missed it, my apologies.

All JMO <3

 

[gitana1]

I read the cases you provided. I respectfully disagree with your interpretation of those cases.

Well first you stated it was a discovery violation. When I cited the law you said it's not a violation. Now you're saying you disagree with my "interpretation" (which is actually a cite of the specific law rather than an interpretation) that states it is not a violation. So I'm a bit confused.

In any event, anyone is free to believe the judge is wrong as is the law I cited and listen to your counsel instead. But I was summoned here to explain whether there were things happening due to discovery issues that could cause grounds for appeal. I'm not here to argue with people.

 

[JMarsh]

You may think it's "odd" or doesn't look good. You're entitled to have feelings about that.

But the specific question was asked as to whether this is going to be grounds for an appeal. I explained that it won't. Not successful. I explained that this is not a violation of discovery rules. You challenged that and I cited the law proving it is not a violation.

Feelings aren't fact.

This kind of thing happens a lot, to the defense's chagrin. There's a lot of case law about it. You're free to argue with me but it is not rising to the level of reversible error.

At this point, no, nothing has risen to an issue that is likely to be overturned on appeal. But both parties are required to alert the other side to their complete list of expert witnesses as well as reports as to what they will be testifying to (although the DA has argued reports are not legally required-but the judge seems to be siding with the defense on this).

 

[JMarsh]

Well first you stated it was a discovery violation. When I cited the law you said it's not a violation. Now you're saying you disagree with my "interpretation" (which is actually a cite of the specific law rather than an interpretation) that states it is not a violation. So I'm a bit confused.

In any event, anyone is free to believe the judge is wrong as is the law I cited and listen to your counsel instead. But I was summoned here to explain whether there were things happening due to discovery issues that could cause grounds for appeal. I'm not here to argue with people.

I have never stated there was a discovery violation involved in the instant case. However you wrote that there was no obligation for the DA to disclose expert witnesses ahead of time, or to disclose their "reports" for the subject on which they would be testifying. And that is what I am disagreeing with.

Expert witnesses and the content of the testimony must be disclosed ahead of the testimony being given.

 

[JMarsh]

Hi everyone, I've been reading here since the family went missing but never had an account until recently.

I am so very disappointed in Law and Crime for discontinuing their coverage of the case, even if only momentarily. Four people lost their lives in a horrific way --and two of them were children. The world needs to see them get the justice they deserve, as well as every piece of evidence in order to support the accuracy of that justice.

One thing that I can't stop thinking about is the advertisement about the family that was posted on Craigslist back in 2012. I wonder if the police know who posted it, if it wasn't them that is. Do any of you think it'll be mentioned in the trial? If this has been covered already in this thread and I missed it, my apologies.

All JMO <3

I've always thought it was someone from one of the message boards who placed that add. I think it was done as a lark, or to stir up conversation. I don't know this for a fact, but I came to this conclusion because there was a woman with a blog on missing persons who claimed she knew the identity of the person who placed the add, and later stated that she had it on authority that it wasn't "real".

 

[Force Ten]

How did he "put into google"? Also, WHAT did he put into google? I suppose what I'm saying is that if he had longitude/latitude coordinates, and he put those specific points into Google Maps to plot the information out into a viewable, easy-to-understand format then what is the issue there? It's just one of hundreds or thousands pieces of evidence that the jury will see and use to base a reasonable (hopefully) decision, IMO.

Right, you don't need to be a cell phone expert, or an expert at anything, to look at and enter longitude/latitude coordinates. The defense I'm guessing knows where these towers are and know the times they were pinged and how many.

The defense knows what they're doing, just like when Maline accused Rodriguez of misconduct. Or when they accused Smith of mishandling evidence with the disc being sent to them by mistake.

All in front of the jury.

 

[Force Ten]

I have never stated there was a discovery violation involved in the instant case. However you wrote that there was no obligation for the DA to disclose expert witnesses ahead of time, or to disclose their "reports" for the subject on which they would be testifying. And that is what I am disagreeing with.

Expert witnesses and the content of the testimony must be disclosed ahead of the testimony being given.

This is really ridiculous to carry on about this. It was a spreadsheet regarding Smith's notations on the cell tower pings by the casino. This is not earth shattering. Obviously, no one is going to change their mind no matter where they stand on the issue. It's petty imo.

Can we move on?

 

[Force Ten]

We are not even going to get the you tubes at the end of the day this week, are we? I thought those you tubes were created from the footage from LandC.

What about the Doc guy? He's filming everyday as well? He's going to make some money off this but would really it effect his documentary to show raw footage?

 

[Force Ten]

Hi everyone, I've been reading here since the family went missing but never had an account until recently.

I am so very disappointed in Law and Crime for discontinuing their coverage of the case, even if only momentarily. Four people lost their lives in a horrific way --and two of them were children. The world needs to see them get the justice they deserve, as well as every piece of evidence in order to support the accuracy of that justice.

One thing that I can't stop thinking about is the advertisement about the family that was posted on Craigslist back in 2012. I wonder if the police know who posted it, if it wasn't them that is. Do any of you think it'll be mentioned in the trial? If this has been covered already in this thread and I missed it, my apologies.

All JMO <3

The Craigslist add was put out by a woman who thought she knew who was driving the Trooper through the desert with child seats in order to show some proof of life for the family after the disappearance. This person was acquainted to her through a family member IIRC. All of it was of course bogus and a misinterpretation of actual events.

 

[itsbrookie]

I've always thought it was someone from one of the message boards who placed that add. I think it was done as a lark, or to stir up conversation. I don't know this for a fact, but I came to this conclusion because there was a woman with a blog on missing persons who claimed she knew the identity of the person who placed the add, and later stated that she had it on authority that it wasn't "real".

Wow, that is an interesting take. If true, that person should buy themselves a lottery ticket because they made an unbelievably lucky guess as to the area the trooper was 'seen in', if they had no knowledge of the crime. In every other sense, that theory would ring true for me. However, I just can't see how they knew to mention the High Desert, when at that time no-one had even suggested that area as being somewhere that the McStays could be. Hmmmm

All JMO

 

[itsbrookie]

The Craigslist add was put out by a woman who thought she knew who was driving the Trooper through the desert with child seats in order to show some proof of life for the family after the disappearance. This person was acquainted to her through a family member IIRC. All of it was of course bogus and a misinterpretation of actual events.

Oh okay, was this confirmed? I just can't believe she managed to accidentally guess the right general area!

All JMO

 

[JMarsh]

Oh okay, was this confirmed? I just can't believe she managed to accidentally guess the right general area!

All JMO

Actually I saw on an earlier page on this thread that someone else mentioned Jerrie Dean "Missing Persons in America" had said she had been in contact with the person who placed the add. And my recollection is that Jerrie later said the add was kind of a hoax.

Here's the story:

Missing Persons of America: Identity of person who posted Craigslist ad about the McStay Isuzu trooper comes forward

 

[itsbrookie]

Actually I saw on an earlier page on this thread that someone else mentioned Jerrie Dean "Missing Persons in America" had said she had been in contact with the person who placed the add. And my recollection is that Jerrie later said the add was kind of a hoax.

Here's the story:

Missing Persons of America: Identity of person who posted Craigslist ad about the McStay Isuzu trooper comes forward

That is so bizarre! This case is surrounded by so much oddity. I guess they came up with the High Desert area because it is such a large space. I'm sorry for bringing up an aspect of this case that is apparently solved! I really appreciate this information and your insight, thank you.

All JMO

 

[Force Ten]

Actually I saw on an earlier page on this thread that someone else mentioned Jerrie Dean "Missing Persons in America" had said she had been in contact with the person who placed the add. And my recollection is that Jerrie later said the add was kind of a hoax.

Here's the story:

Missing Persons of America: Identity of person who posted Craigslist ad about the McStay Isuzu trooper comes forward

But it wasn't a hoax, That would mean the person who posted it willfully presented it as such, which was not the case. They legititmately felt what they were posting was truth, in their perspective.

 

[JMarsh]

That is so bizarre! This case is surrounded by so much oddity. I guess they came up with the High Desert area because it is such a large space. I'm sorry for bringing up an aspect of this case that is apparently solved! I really appreciate this information and your insight, thank you.

All JMO

I agree. There are oddities on this case. And now that we are losing the trial coverage this case is likely going to fall down the rabbit hole again.

 

[mrjitty]

Do you know many high court judges?

I haven't followed it so I can't comment on whether the process being employed there equates to tomfoolery or not. What has been happening besides the issue of the expert info (which doesn't seem like anything unusual to me).

Hi @gitana1

Sorry if my post came off the wrong way. This is the first US case I ever followed, and I have been somewhat staggered by the procedure and case management. But as I don't know any US procedure so I am very interested in the detailed authorities you posted re discovery and testimony. Other US posters have told me that the trial management is far from normal - perhaps this is just "one of those cases". The Judge already dressed down both sets of counsel for poor conduct, but I find him very lax compared to the Judges i was familiar with back in the day.

I was a lawyer for a factory firm in NZ in a former life. Hence my fascination in the trials.

What i mostly find strange with this case is the timetabling. It's predicted to last up to 6 months and they don't do fridays. Also the day to day schedule seems very slack. By comparison, a very complex trial at home took 11 weeks.

What also really jars me is the near constant objections though i realise this is different in the US. Back home I would expect counsel to manage the witness to deliver Evidence in Chief without leading, calling for speculation or hearsay. I would also not expect defence counsel to constantly stray into speculation/hearsay on X. If you did so you would soon earn a ticking off from the bench! Overall I get the feeling this Judge is too lax with counsel on how they examine the witnesses and handle the exhibits.

But I don't know what is normal in California. There is certainly ill will between the State and Defence teams, which seems to be driving some unprofessional conduct.

Cheers
J

 

[itsbrookie]

I agree. There are oddities on this case. And now that we are losing the trial coverage this case is likely going to fall down the rabbit hole again.

That is true and so sad! Lack of evidence leads only to speculation