CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #9

[katydid23]

You have to listen to it to 'get it'. I tried to transcribe the most important parts. They were talking about what CJ has been saying the whole time, apparently since Feb 2010

If so, then why is the State fighting to get it before the jury, while the defense is fighting to keep it out?

 

[Bernina]

A lot of time has passed, and I think if you are trying to make certain a witness recalls things accurately there might be a temptation to try and jog their memory. This sounds like what was going on.

Which is also called "Tampering with a witness" and/or "Witness intimidation".
He was TOLD, as any defendant is, NOT to discuss his case with ANYONE.
If there was nothing "wrong" with what he was doing, he would have said it over the phone.

 

[cobalt sky]

LE can imply, "threaten", coerce, whatever, when they interview a person.
Was she read her rights or was it a "sit down"? And she certainly isn't a minor, nor did she ask for an attorney.
LE had every reason to tell her she could be implicated, she was his GF, they were living together.
Operative words are "could", "may", "might", etc.
With all of CM's crimes, imprisonments, and probation/parole, CJ is FAR from being naive, she knows the in's and out's of the system.

BBM. Will the jury know about all of that though? I'm just not sure how a jury would react to LE interviewing CJ and threatening her to change her story OR ELSE....and then she doesn't change it, she sticks to her story. Maybe the jury could see this as more evidence of confirmation bias? Just a thought.

 

[katydid23]

LE can imply, "threaten", coerce, whatever, when they interview a person.
Was she read her rights or was it a "sit down"? And she certainly isn't a minor, nor did she ask for an attorney.
LE had every reason to tell her she could be implicated, she was his GF, they were living together.
Operative words are "could", "may", "might", etc.
With all of CM's crimes, imprisonments, and probation/parole, CJ is FAR from being naive, she knows the in's and out's of the system.

And CJ was his alibi in a quadruple murder. The detectives have every right to try and pressure and interrogate her, in order to find out if she is a witness or a conspirator. JMO

 

[katydid23]

I personally think it's all a bit ridiculous. First tie Chase to the act of murder. Then worry about why he did it. (if he did it)

It is absolutely possible that there were money issues, unresolved at the time Joey is killed, that in no way played into his murder.

I think that last sentence would be more likely to be true, if it weren't for the backdated, deleted checks, and the fact that he lied to detectives, telling them Joey gave him that check on Feb4th, at their last meeting.

 

[katydid23]

A lot of time has passed, and I think if you are trying to make certain a witness recalls things accurately there might be a temptation to try and jog their memory. This sounds like what was going on.

If that was all there was to it, why the subterfuge?

 

[katydid23]

You have to listen to it to 'get it'. I tried to transcribe the most important parts. They were talking about what CJ has been saying the whole time, apparently since Feb 2010

If she has been saying this same thing about something since 2010, why did they agree to 'talk about it on Friday' and then discuss it away from the recording? WHY even talk about it at all if she was already testifying the way he wanted?

There must be something more to this, imo, if there was a hearing so the State could get it allowed into evidence.

 

[missy1974]

If so, then why is the State fighting to get it before the jury, while the defense is fighting to keep it out?

Edmo posted something, I responded that she needs to listen to it. Have you listened to it yet? To understand completely what it's all about, one should listen. I transcribed a huge portion of it, but there was more before and after that. As for your questions... you would have to ask the State why they would want it in, or why the defense would want it out.

 

[missy1974]

Which is also called "Tampering with a witness" and/or "Witness intimidation".
He was TOLD, as any defendant is, NOT to discuss his case with ANYONE.
If there was nothing "wrong" with what he was doing, he would have said it over the phone.

Surely they will charge him with that, right?

 

[missy1974]

BBM. Will the jury know about all of that though? I'm just not sure how a jury would react to LE interviewing CJ and threatening her to change her story OR ELSE....and then she doesn't change it, she sticks to her story. Maybe the jury could see this as more evidence of confirmation bias? Just a thought.

Yep. The State might want to be careful what they wish for. The judge has made it clear that if they State uses it, he is then allowing the defense to bring in all her statements, some of those are recorded interviews with SBSD. Do they really want to do that?

JUST MY OPINION <<<< in case it's not clear

 

[katydid23]

Edmo posted something, I responded that she needs to listen to it. Have you listened to it yet? To understand completely what it's all about, one should listen. I transcribed a huge portion of it, but there was more before and after that. As for your questions... you would have to ask the State why they would want it in, or why the defense would want it out.

Haven't listened yet because my 3 yr old grandbaby was here until just now. And now hubby wants me to watch Survivor with him. LOL Afterwards I will listen.

 

[missy1974]

If she has been saying this same thing about something since 2010, why did they agree to 'talk about it on Friday' and then discuss it away from the recording? WHY even talk about it at all if she was already testifying the way he wanted?

There must be something more to this, imo, if there was a hearing so the State could get it allowed into evidence.

There is not more to it IMO

I just heard the 2 hour hearing. First the hearing was about admissibility and discovery. Then the judge went into what they wanted to bring in. That's it. The judge was ruled on some. Some others we did not get to hear because it was this afternoon. I am unsure of the Provecho info ... but may be hearsay/irrelevant anyway. The 4th convo is being allowed, but the Judge gave warning that the defense would be able to also show that it is the same "story" since Day 1.

My guess is, there is no recording because the person that does the recording didn't need to because she was given a transcript of the recordings (this is JMO).

 

[missy1974]

Haven't listened yet because my 3 yr old grandbaby was here until just now. And now hubby wants me to watch Survivor with him. LOL Afterwards I will listen.

I suggest just ignoring the tweets from earlier and listening to the recording. I think the tweets confused the issue.

 

[Bernina]

BBM. Will the jury know about all of that though? I'm just not sure how a jury would react to LE interviewing CJ and threatening her to change her story OR ELSE....and then she doesn't change it, she sticks to her story. Maybe the jury could see this as more evidence of confirmation bias? Just a thought.

I guess if she dresses like a librarian, all bets are off. I don't believe the judge is allowing past offenses in, but the jury DID hear in the interview with LE and CM that he was on probation and had a felony warrant out on him. The defense had been pretty consistent on "moving to strike" when witnesses have ventured into CM's illegal activities. The jury might question her values, and motive to take the stand.

She could possibly not be a very likable person? Or come off as a PTA mom? Who knows.......
As far as "confirmation bias", there were several suspects in the beginning and they were all investigated and cleared, family members, ex's, business associates, etc. The def is pushing DK because he comes off as a real "snot", for lack of a better word. As a juror, I'd be asking myself why the def was pushing DK and NOT making STRONG rebuttals to the testimony, consistently spouting "DK". Their rebuttals have been on the weak side as far as I'm concerned. The prosecution is working with circumstantial evidence, they're already playing with the deck stacked against them. If they can't tie all the fragments together for just one juror, that's it.

 

[mothwings]

I'm "listening" to day 24 part 3 now and thinking how it's weird the days we only have audio for include some of the most significant exhibits—cell phone pings and now these pictures of the graves from Merritt's phone that I've never even heard he had on his phone. It's too bad we don't get to see that.

 

[missy1974]

I'm "listening" to day 24 part 3 now and thinking how it's weird the days we only have audio for include some of the most significant exhibits—cell phone pings and now these pictures of the graves from Merritt's phone that I've never even heard he had on his phone. It's too bad we don't get to see that.

I haven't listened to all of Day 3 yet... maybe with any luck the defense decided to cross exam him for 4 days and we will get video and pics tomorrow

 

[Plumeria5]

I wish we could have seen CM's reaction to what went on today. Are defendants only in street attire when the jury is present?

 

[QueenBofOB]

We know in the Kelsey Berreth murder case that a nurse who was slso the mistress of the accused cleaned the murder sight st the murderer’s request.
Maybe CJ cleaned the blood from the McStay home? Before anyone attempts to accuse me of implicatng or accusing CJ of any wrong-doing or complicity in the McStay murders, she wss a housecleaning lady according to @tenforce. Correct?! This was allegedly how she made a living. Not too far a stretch that CM may have convinced her to clean the house that he committed the murders within if they were even committed there.
Again, I am in no way suggesting CJ was an accomplice let alone that she had knowledge of any crime being committed.
IMHO

That is an interesting theory. Yes, I do recall reading that she earned a living by cleaning. From what Missy wrote, it seemed as though CM was suggesting scenarios and insinuating that he wanted her to agree. That's how MY opinion, anyway.

 

[Edmo]

I wish we could have seen CM's reaction to what went on today. Are defendants only in street attire when the jury is present?

He will probably not sleep well tonight.

 

[missy1974]

That is an interesting theory. Yes, I do recall reading that she earned a living by cleaning. From what Missy wrote, it seemed as though CM was suggesting scenarios and insinuating that he wanted her to agree. That's how MY opinion, anyway.

FWIW that's not how I "heard" it lol I would have liked to have heard the audio for ourselves though, tone of voice... pauses, etc. can have such a change in meaning of words on paper. The judge, when talking about it was reading right from the prosecutors motion if I'm not mistaken, and some of it was transcribed. At one point, CJ interrupts CM to say what they (LE) specifically asked her something... and what she said. The only thing in there that I heard (through the judge) him saying that she should say is that she had 2 detectives jump on her and she didn't know what the hell was going on...

So now my question is... if there were 2 detectives giving her a hard time, and threatening her... is that making up a story? Because McGee does make that accusation and the pro's sure didn't dispute it.