I hope this link is okay to post...
State of California VS Charles Ray Merritt: Part One - Transcript of Charles Merritt Preliminary
It has the preliminary hearing transcripts from 2015, the link is to part 1, if you look on the right side, you will see the links to 2-5. I have not completely read it all and some I read quickly so will hopefully have some time to read it again before next week. I was looking for any mention of a knife, and I have still not been able to find it!
This past weeks testimony, we heard a lot about dates and who called who when, I notice that there is some talk about that in the preliminary hearing as well.
Here are a few things that stood out to me, from the testimony of Edward Bachman, a detective with the San Bernadino County Sheriff's Dept:
4 A Michael actually talked to his father, Patrick, who was
5 alerted of the missing family by Joseph's business partner,
6 Charles Chase Merritt.
7 Q Was that on February 8th of 2010?
8 A Yes, sir.
9 Q Did Michael indicate to you the last time he had actually
10 spoken to Joseph was about February 4th of 2010?
Wasn't it DK that called Patrick?
23 Q Did Michael tell you that he attempted to contact
24 Mr. Merritt after being alerted to the concerns by their father,
25 Patrick?
26 A Yes.
27 Q And how did, having not met Mr. Merritt before, how did
28 Michael contact the defendant?
36
1 A I believe Michael actually got a call from Merritt.
2 Merritt contacted him out of the blue and was trying to find
3 Joseph. Which prompted Mike to start looking into it, also.
From testimony this past week, the above is not true. Merritt contacted SB first.
11 Q (By Mr. Imes) Can you tell us, what did Michael tell you
12 transpired when he met with the defendant at Joseph Sr.'s,
13 residence on the 13th of February, 2010?
14 A So, on that date, it was a Saturday. They had checked
15 all around the house to see if they could find anyone inside --
16 or find any way inside. Michael said that Mr. Merritt located a
17 back window that was unsecured, unlocked. And told Michael
18 where he located the window. Michael ultimately wanted to get
19 inside to see if anyone was inside, or try to find any type of
20 contact information for Joseph, Sr., and Summer. So, he opened
21 the window and ended up climbing inside.
22 Q Did the defendant go in?
23 A No.
24 Q Did he, Michael, indicate if there was a reason why the
25 defendant didn't go in?
26 A He said because Mr. Merritt had a criminal past --
27 MR. TERRELL: Objection. Irrelevant, your Honor.
28 THE COURT: Sustained.
So here is where Mike says CM didn't go it. This is information obtained in 2013. But then right afterwards, the officer says this:
13 Q What did Michael indicate to you he did when he did enter
14 the Joseph, Sr., family home?
15 A He said that he ended up, I believe, going around to the
16 front door. He opened the front door, and Mr. Merritt came
17 inside with him. Michael started looking around the house to
18 see if he could find any type of contact information.
19 Michael knew that Summer's family, or Summer's mom lived
20 in Big Bear, so he was trying to find any kind of contact phone
21 numbers or information he could to try and track down where the
22 family was at. He still believed that the family had just gone
23 on vacation.
24 Q Did Michael indicate to you that he observed what he
25 thought was unusual behavior by the defendant while in the house
26 on February 13th?
27 A Yes.
28 Q What was that behavior he observed?
39
1 A Just that he didn't want to walk around the house. He
2 wanted to basically stay sequestered in the lower portion while
3 Michael was looking around.
So he did go in! lol I had to re-read this a few times because even this past week, the prosecution had Mike testify and they went into great detail to show that CM did NOT go into the house that day.
The above is just from part 1... I read more interesting things which I will share as I keep reading
I understand that SBSD didn't come into this until the bodies were found; however, it doesn't appear to me that they used early reports to base things off of and instead used Mike's 2013 recollection. For example, Mike saying CM didn't go in the house on the 13th. It was shown in testimony this week that Mike in his first interview on Feb 15/10 said that CM DID go into the house and that Mike let him in through the sliding glass doors. I don't know if this shows "confirmation bias" with the SBSD, which is what CM's defense is saying, or if it shows "confirmation bias" on Mike's part? It was almost 4 years after they went missing, I am almost sure that the McStay's had their own theories about what happened and who could have done it by this time. IMO I don't know if it will make a difference with the jury, but reading the above stood out to me only because of the testimony we heard this week and I thought I would share
