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

[MichaelCorleone]

View attachment 171558

But wasn’t there a spreadsheet attached to it that made it clear as to who overpaid whom?

 

[missy1974]

That will not go over well with the jury, no way, no how. IMO.

Jurors already look with a very deep yellow jaundice eye anyway when any family member of the accused testifies.

Her inconsistent statements from when it was much fresher in her mind, until the sudden change now will not help her brother.

Her flippant attitude won't either.

Imo

Or if you watch the video, it was the question asked. She answered it truthfully, it was the questioning and answering.

just read the tweets since we don't have an upload yet:


Rodriguez: Who did you live with in 2010? Juanita Merritt: I didn't live with anyone, that's why Chase came to stay and help me. Rodrguez: 2010? Merritt: Yes Rodriguez: Isn't it true you told a detective that as of 2010 you hadn't seen him in 5 years? Juanita: No

Rodriguez: Isn't it true that you told the detective you had only seen him one time prior in 2009, you met him and Cathy at a Coco's with the kids? Juanita: That's not the only time I saw my brother.

Now this is from Smith on direct:
She said the last time she had seen Chase was 5 years earlier. Talked to him maybe once every 6 months. Smith said Juanita told him if she wanted to see his kids she would go to Rancho Cucamonga to see "Cathy and the kids."

Cross examination. Maline: Did Miss Merritt say she hadn't see Chase at all in 5 years or that he hadn't been to house in 5 yrs? Smith: He hadn't been to her house in 5 yrs. Maline: So she didn't say she hadn't seen him 5 yrs. Smith: That's correct.

No wonder she was laughing at them!!!!!! Again, if they had just prepped for the witness, that all could have been avoided. Smith seems to agree that she DID NOT SAY she hadn't seen him in 5 years.

 

[cobalt sky]

I've always wondered if she lied to Smith thinking she was helping Chase, and now she's telling the truth.

Yes, this is entirely possible. Remember that Chase had a criminal record, it is not uncommon for family to not want to get involved and/or want to protect their loved ones. She may have originally been saying she hadn't seen Chase in an effort to distance herself from him in order to protect him. It's important for everyone to remember that not every family is like your own. This type of behavior in families with criminal pasts is very common. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but that's the way it is. Ultimately the jury will decide whether her testimony if credible and/or important to the case.

 

[Tortoise]

But wasn’t there a spreadsheet attached to it that made it clear as to who overpaid whom?

I have only seen what they put on the overhead during DuGal's testimony, which didn't show a whole page or the column headings as far as I could see. Maybe it's been put up another time and I missed it.

 

[MichaelCorleone]

I have only seen what they put on the overhead during DuGal's testimony, which didn't show a whole page or the column headings as far as I could see. Maybe it's been put up another time and I missed it.

If I can figure out how to post it, I will. Assuming I have it, which I think I do.

 

[missy1974]

Yep, I notice that "drooling" is usually a by-product associated with taking more than the recommended amount of said narcotics.

or a side effect of having multiple strokes.

 

[Tortoise]

No wonder she was laughing at them!!!!!! Again, if they had just prepped for the witness, that all could have been avoided. Smith seems to agree that she DID NOT SAY she hadn't seen him in 5 years.

rsbm.

The fact she told Smith she saw him elsewhere and not at her house means it doesn't alibi him for the 6th.

 

[missy1974]

Go back and read that email Joseph sent to him on the first. How do you reconcile that email with Chase being owed money?

I wonder why the prosecution hasn't brought that email into evidence? They have talked about it, but we haven't actually seen it..

 

[katydid23]

I saw him quite often...

I wasn't even in my right mind when I was talking to the officer...

Does the prosecution even talk to their witnesses before they put them on the stand? LOL

Yes, they do, and I believe this witness helps the prosecution. They were able to read the jury the original testimony of hers, where she said he hadn't been to her home in years, She used to meet him at CoCo's.

But now she claims she was out of her mind at that time. I think she is lying now, and it is up to the jury to decide for themselves-----is she lying now or was she lying then?

 

[missy1974]

I am pretty sure I have a screen print of this email. I will have to look at it to see if it can be interpreted another way.

please share if you do!

 

[Funky funky]

Yes, this is entirely possible. Remember that Chase had a criminal record, it is not uncommon for family to not want to get involved and/or want to protect their loved ones. She may have originally been saying she hadn't seen Chase in an effort to distance herself from him in order to protect him. It's important for everyone to remember that not every family is like your own. This type of behavior in families with criminal pasts is very common. You don't have to like it or agree with it, but that's the way it is. Ultimately the jury will decide whether her testimony if credible and/or important to the case.

It works both ways though, she could also be lying now to protect him.

 

[MichaelCorleone]

I have only seen what they put on the overhead during DuGal's testimony, which didn't show a whole page or the column headings as far as I could see. Maybe it's been put up another time and I missed it.

I see what you mean. I have 2 screenshots and I figured out that Merritt got 65% of the total for each project. The next columns show payments made to him, but there is not enough of the document to conclude whether he had been paid as much as he should have been paid or if he was actually overpaid.

If you read the actual email, it is ambiguous as to whether Merritt was owed money or if he owed money to Joseph. I think the prosecution is going to be in trouble with that exhibit.

 

[cobalt sky]

View attachment 171558

Are there other emails in the string to put this particular email into context?

 

[katydid23]

I think Smith said it was recorded. I don't know if that would be a good thing to play it or not lol

That was pretty brutal to watch. She said she was not in her right mind during that interview, couldn't even pick out that it was Smith that was interviewing her, he is in the courtroom. She has had a few strokes, and had just had back surgery and was heavily medicated with pain killers, to the point she was drooling (her words).

Then how did she remember all of the details that she told Detective Smith at the time? He said she was not drooling or acting debilitated. Who should we believe?

 

[cobalt sky]

It works both ways though, she could also be lying now to protect him.

I agree, that's why I said that it will have to be up to the jury to decide what to believe.

 

[missy1974]

rsbm.

The fact she told Smith she saw him elsewhere and not at her house means it doesn't alibi him for the 6th.

Ok, but you would agree that she never said she hadn't seen him in 5 years? THAT is the question that was asked of her, and she kinda laughed (in a "that's ridiculous" way) and said No. Rodriquez asked the wrong question. That is on her, not the witness. Smith answering in direct said that she did say she hadn't seen him in 5 years... only after cross did he agree that she had only said not at her house. Did anyone ask her if they met down the street? In Victorville? I'm not even talking about the 6th, and I'm not sure that Rodriquez even asked about the 6th, did she? She sat down before she got there LOL

 

[missy1974]

Yes, they do, and I believe this witness helps the prosecution. They were able to read the jury the original testimony of hers, where she said he hadn't been to her home in years, She used to meet him at CoCo's.

But now she claims she was out of her mind at that time. I think she is lying now, and it is up to the jury to decide for themselves-----is she lying now or was she lying then?

read the statement, not testimony, where she says she was high on drugs and drooling and couldn't even recall that it was Smith that interviewed her. Okie dokie then.

 

[missy1974]

I see what you mean. I have 2 screenshots and I figured out that Merritt got 65% of the total for each project. The next columns show payments made to him, but there is not enough of the document to conclude whether he had been paid as much as he should have been paid or if he was actually overpaid.

If you read the actual email, it is ambiguous as to whether Merritt was owed money or if he owed money to Joseph. I think the prosecution is going to be in trouble with that exhibit.

I think I have the same spreadsheets... they are very very confusing!!!!!

 

[Tortoise]

I wonder if this is the same sister who walked out of the hearing yesterday. I think the tweet said that sister was on oxygen.

 

[citygirl]

I think Smith said it was recorded. I don't know if that would be a good thing to play it or not lol

That was pretty brutal to watch. She said she was not in her right mind during that interview, couldn't even pick out that it was Smith that was interviewing her, he is in the courtroom. She has had a few strokes, and had just had back surgery and was heavily medicated with pain killers, to the point she was drooling (her words).

Poor girl! Do you believe her? Plan to watch tonight.