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

[Texas Red]

Would it have been after the bodies were found or after CM was arrested?

Yes, after CM was arrested so it must have been about a year after the bodies were found.

 

[Texas Red]

Is this the one you are looking for?

McStay case D.A.: We have the evidence - CNN Video

That's it thank you very much.

 

[Force Ten]

<modsnipped quoted post and response to it>

I haven't watched the detective's testimony as of yet. Mike's testimony was that it was a laptop he took but couldn't turn it on because he didn't have the right cord. Perhaps the detective misspoke, I couldn't see Mike taking the desktop without the cord attached to it.

 

[mrjitty]

No, definitely not. I could never convict in this case. I would have so many questions about whether there was further evidence that was destroyed. If they didn't notice spatter, what else did they miss? I just couldn't convict anyone in this case because of the lack of investigation. Absolutely and then when you add in the investigative screw ups... I honestly don't think there was enough here to bring this case to trial. However, I do have higher standards than the law requires. Which is why I don't work for a prosecutor!

I am quite fascinated by your post - and I should warn you I have a thing for circumstantial evidence!

I wonder what you make of the following questions

1. Do you believe that it will be proven to evidential standard that it was CM who entered the deleted cheques in Quickbooks?
2. Do you believe that it will be proven to evidential standard that CM backdated the cheques to 4 Feb?
3. Do you believe that it will be proven to evidential standard that CM was the one who created a deleted cheque from a computer at the McStay house?

Remember these are only factual inferences a jury must make. Each individual item need not be proven to BARD standard.

Assuming the answer to the questions is yes - do you agree a jury properly instructed might make the following factual inferences? Again it is not required to BARD standard on each point. A jury instead may make natural and obvious inferences on each point.

1. The deleted cheques of 2 feb were the first fraudulent activity - only 48hrs prior to the disappearance. From this a jury may infer a contemporaneous motive.
2. Backdating to 4 february demonstrates knowledge of what day the McStays were murdered. If CM is innocent of murder, why do this? The cheques of 2 and 3 Feb are not backdated. But if you know that the McStays have been murdered, you know that a cheque dated after 4 february will ring alarm bells.
3. The call to Quickbooks from CM's phone fraudulently impersonating McStay asking to delete all data implies knowledge McStay is dead. McStay is not yet seriously missing. Deleting Quickbooks would be insanely dumb if McStay were to come home two days later and discover this! It implies an attempt to cover tracks not from McStay but from investigators, before McStay is even seriously missed.
4. The creation of cashing of fraudulent cheques by CM before the deaths provides a motive for murder
5. The quickbooks & phone log activity of J McStay to his bank and CM after the cashing of the cheques supports the inference he discovered the fraud.
6. CM makes 13 "frantic" phonecalls in 9 minutes following the last call from J McStay. This implies an urgent problem for CM.
7. The creation of the deleted cheque from McStay's house at 7.56 pm invalidates CM's story about how he discovered the McStays were missing and a jury may correctly infer the only logical conclusion is that it places him at the crime scene at the time of the disappearance before anyone knew they were missing. Indeed if we put aside speculation, only the murderer can have created this cheque.

In handling circumstantial evidence, we shall first ask ourselves what facts are proven, and then from those facts, what logical inferences can be drawn.

In my opinion, the evidentially sound inference is that the person who created the deleted the cheques is the murderer.

So then we step back and say, having regard to the total web of circumstantial evidence, is there any reasonable doubt about that?

In my opinion not.

Given CM was caught redhanded with the cheques (in his own name) - that means CM is the murderer.

 

[asyousay]

So Susan wiped away blood splatter?

She also cleaned when she shouldn’t of?

 

[mrjitty]

It was disclosed that CM gave a voluntary DNA sample. If he's really the killer that's quite the calculated risk he took.

I realise in the US justice system, even talking to the police, let alone giving a DNA sample is complete stupidity, as in this case.

But in "missing persons" cases, the accused will frequently do this because she/he needs to maintain the fiction

Obviously if you don't cooperate you will become the hot suspect

I can show any number of cases where the murderer has freely given up key evidence against themselves.

 

[mrjitty]

For someone to clean thoroughly enough to remove blood from every nook and cranny but miss cleaning it off of the dining room table is a bit much to believe. I would guess that it's probably not blood.

IMO the blood is a red herring

I think he didn't clean it from every nook and cranny. Merely what was visible. Then bumbling cops failed to examine the house forensically until too late.

But the real point is, the blood has nothing to do with the identity of the murderer.

We know that whomever did this, managed to conceal it all, which took time.

Which brings up back to the person who created a deleted cheque to CM at 7.56 pm on 4 February.

 

[asyousay]

I realise in the US justice system, even talking to the police, let alone giving a DNA sample is complete stupidity, as in this case.

But in "missing persons" cases, the accused will frequently do this because she/he needs to maintain the fiction

Obviously if you don't cooperate you will become the hot suspect

I can show any number of cases where the murderer has freely given up key evidence against themselves.

Well Said.

Chase’s DNA would of been taken at some point regardless so he may as well of done it off his own back to look like a decent upstanding friend.

 

[mrjitty]

ok, well... that is just odd. IMO

The defense is going to have a field day with this IMO

I guess I am contrarian here but I think this only mattered when no bodies could be found, because then we lacked evidence of the actus reus of murder - i.e death.

Once bodies were found, and the cause of death established, it is also established that whomever did the murders managed to not leave obvious traces at the house.

This is true no matter who did the murders.

How it was achieved is irrelevant to identity.

So while I agree that this negligence makes the police look bad, it does not actually matter. e.g. Even if they found a blood stain years later - what does that show about the guilt of CM?

 

[mrjitty]

Streaming is so bad I think I will watch the canned YT versions one day behind.

 

[mrjitty]

Have faith. It's only the first week. I think we'll be surprised with the evidence in the end.

Agreed

Sometimes crooks get blind lucky, which is then portrayed as forensic genius

This guy was stupid, and left obvious digital tracks.

He was just very fortunate the bodies were not found for years. Most times the bodies turn up quick.

 

[asyousay]

I am relieved some people are so positive in here as this is the first time I am watching a trial and even though Chase appears as guilty as hell some things I still think are easily explained away and I can see theft but it’s a big jump to murdering a family of 4.

I also still think there was suspicious behaviour from other parties involved which don’t add up and casts doubt in my mind.

 

[mrjitty]

Listening to the defence opening - seems very risky they want to focus on "who wanted the family to disappear" and "who stood to gain"

Maybe the guy who stole 10s of K from them?

Also interesting the defence opening stays well clear of their client for their intro and goes straight into their expert team

Basically they know their client is garbage

Clearly their argument about blood is strong - but I think it does not prove what they say it proves.

 

[mrjitty]

I am relieved some people are so positive in here as this is the first time I am watching the trial and even though Chase appears as guilty as hell some things I still think are easily explained away and I can see theft but it’s a big jump to murdering a family of 4.

I also still think there was suspicious behaviour from other parties involved which don’t add up and casts doubt in my mind.

This is exactly why I have become so interested in the handling of circumstantial evidence and the process of legal inference.

IMO if you approach the circumstantial evidence that we know about, in the correct manner, guilt is obvious.

But I agree that if you speculate around individual data points then it is quickly possible to henpeck the prosecution case to death

That's what the defence will seek to do.

But actually that involves logical fallacies.

So for example, the prosecution alleges a deleted cheque was created at the McStays residence on the night of the disappearance. On the face of it, the only natural conclusion - if that is proven - is that CM is lying about everything.

But we can speculate. Maybe someone else interfered with the computer!

But it is not legally legitimate to speculate each data point to death.

The defence case is essentially to impute an illegitimate motive to the prosecution and then engage in speculation

 

[Niner]

Tuesday, January 15th:
*Trial continues (Day 6) (@ 9:30am PT) - CA - McStay Family: Joseph (40), Summer (43), Gianni (4) & Joey Jr (3) (Feb. 4, 2010, Fallbrook; found Nov. 11, 2013) - *Charles "Chase" Ray Merritt (57/now 60) arrested (11/5/14) & indicted (11/7/14) of 4 counts of murder with special circumstance; plead not guilty. DP case.
12 jurors & 6 alternates were finalized on Tuesday (12/11/18). 8 women & 4 men, while the alternates include 4 men & 2 women. Dec. 19 hearing will focus on evidence & details about possible jury visits to the both the desert grave sites & the McStay family home in Fallbrook. Trial to start 1/7/19.
1/7/19 Day 1: Judge will allow live stream of trial. Judge gives jurors initial instructions. Judge not happy with the number of cameras in the courtroom. Opening statements are done. Trial continues 1/8.
1/8/19 Day 2: State witnesses: Susan Blake (Joseph's mother). Michael McStay (Joseph’s brother). Trial continues on 1/9.
1/9/19 Day 3: Prosecutor tells the judge Mike McStay doesn't want to be shown on camera today. Judge denies request. State witnesses: Jennifer Michley (or Mitchley), former Fallbrook neighbor of the McStays, she is now from out of state. Michael McStay. Trial continues on 1/10.
1/10/19 Day 4: State witnesses: Michael McStay (subject to recall). Bruce Carter, He was security for the San Jacinto Shopping Center mall where the McStay's Isuzu Trooper was towed from on the Mexico Border town of San Ysidro. David Jackson. Jackson worked for the last witness. He was a security guard at the parking where vehicle was owed from. Kathleen Conwell, in 2010 she was an animal control officer for San Diego County. Sgt. Michael Tingley, San Diego Co. Sheriff's Office. In 2010, he was a patrol deputy for the Fallbrook area. Trial continues on Monday, 1/14. Will be dark on Fridays.
1/14/19 Day 5: State witnesses: Jeffrey "McGyver" McCargar (he was friends with Joseph & Summer. He introduced them). Det. Tony Dugal, from San Diego Sheriff's office. Tomorrow 1/15 trial will go from 9:30am to 12 noon, as a juror has an appointment.

 

[mrjitty]

@Niner Do you know if DK is on the state witness list?

 

[asyousay]

The timing of the written cheque at the home will also be disputed by the defense I am assuming as wasn’t the Car seen pulling into the drive way at about 7.47pm (I may be out slightly) and then the cheque was written at 8.02pm (?) so how on earth did he manage to substain/kill the family in less than 15 minutes and then calmly sit down at the computer and start writing cheques?

 

[Niner]

@Niner Do you know if DK is on the state witness list?

I have no idea - I don't have access to witness list. I'm not sure if it's been even published somewhere. Sorry!

 

[asyousay]

Can Susan be recalled to explain why she cleaned a crime scene and explain her thinking?

Like the cushions on the couch being moved did Susan do that or was somebody else doing some of this stuff?

(Edited due to predictive text)

 

[mrjitty]

The timing of the written cheque at the home will also be disputed by the defense I am assuming as wasn’t the Car seen pulling into the drive way at about 7.47pm (I may be out slightly) and then the cheque was written at 8.02pm (?) so how on earth did he manage to substain/kill the family in less than 15 minutes and then calmly sit down at the computer and start writing cheques?

The thing about QuickBooks is that it is a cloud service

So it pretty much proves the exact time of creation and my guess is it logged the machine ID which accessed it.