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

[asyousay]

You have to remember that Chase just can not say Joey told him to go into Quick Books and write out cheques because then Chase wouldn’t of had to have set up thing in all lower case letters.

As the prosecution said Chase would know that a Chase Merritt already existed in the quickbooks and all he had to do was go to the pull down menu and his name was already there.

So if Joey had told him to go into the Quickbook account he would of known that obviously as Joey would of told him what to do. That’s just common sense.

 

[missy1974]

Here is food for thought is it possible that DK & Chase worked together on this crime?

But one has been caught and the other one managed to get away Scot free.

Let’s be honest both seem capable of this I hate to say it.

Anything is possible... but then, they didn't like each other at all, did they? I know that was the case after the McStays went missing, but was it like that before as well?

 

[missy1974]

Really couldn't this (what Michael said about CM going in the house) be cleared up by the actual records of the interview? I'm reading it that possibly the confusion is over whatever the wording of the actual question was, and it may have been 'who went in through the window', not whether CM went in the house at all.

During Mike's testimony, on direct, Mike said that CM did NOT go into the house at all on the 13th, they used a photo, Mike put an X where CM was standing (coincidentally by the sliding glass doors) and he said CM didn't go into the house, stating because he had a criminal history he didn't want to go in, they used Mike's 2013 SBSD statement to refresh his memory. They spent quite a bit of time on this in his testimony, including a picture.

On cross... the defense gives Mike his 2010 February 15th statement he gave to SDSD to refresh his memory... and Mike says he went in through the window and then opened the sliding glass door for CM to get into the house.

So it was cleared up by the actual record of the interview, but the defense had to clear it up. The prosecution was using his 2013 statement, not his early statements.

 

[asyousay]

Anything is possible... but then, they didn't like each other at all, did they? I know that was the case after the McStays went missing, but was it like that before as well?

I don’t know but let’s be honest both con artists and leeches so they did probably hate the fact that somebody else was honing in on their free meal ticket. No doubt both took massive advantage of Joeys good nature and didn’t want to share that with others.

IMO

 

[missy1974]

Good morning!

I know others may not find it suspicious at all that this woman just happened to come forward in the latter part of 2018 shortly before trial. However I find it highly suspicious.

If DK is so intelligent and diabolically crafty why would he confess before Merritt went on trial?

All these years he doesnt confess but now conveniently right before the trial he does while knowing all too well there would be a good possibilty Merritt would be the one convicted?

I dont think the state is as worried about this recent witness as some believe.

We know claims made in OS aren't evidence. Imo the state has long investigated and verified DKs alibi. That's just common sense and common practice.

I think the state has long known what the defense strategy was going to be with finger pointing done to SODDI which is common and was used consistently throughout Daron Wint's trial.

If I was a juror I would be highly suspicious of anyone who just came forward right before trial.

Something just doesnt make sense to me after so many have said they believe DK (although deceitful and nasty) but is highly intelligent.

Imo. He really cant be intelligent and be downright stupid as a rock at the same time imo.

Why would he confess to anything before Merritt went on trial knowing if he is convicted DK has gotten away with the murders?

Jmo

I can't find much about this ex of his. I have been looking lol What I have found is not relevant or much at all! It could be that she was told to lock down or delete SM accounts before the trial started though because her name was going to come up JMO

I find it suspicious that DK all of a sudden confesses to her, months before the trial. But I don't see what she has to gain from it?

The only thing that gives me some pause is the knife, and the defense mentioning a knife in one of the graves. If this is information that was not publicly known before she came forward, it's corroborating evidence to her statement. I can't find any information about the knife in the grave mentioned previously, so unfortunately, we will have to wait for it to come out in the trial.

 

[missy1974]

It’s been stated DK’s ex has credibility issues.

To be fair... it was the prosecution that stated that during a motion that they didn't want her to be allowed to testify We have no details about what those credibility issues are, I wish we did.

 

[Tortoise]

During Mike's testimony, on direct, Mike said that CM did NOT go into the house at all on the 13th, they used a photo, Mike put an X where CM was standing (coincidentally by the sliding glass doors) and he said CM didn't go into the house, stating because he had a criminal history he didn't want to go in, they used Mike's 2013 SBSD statement to refresh his memory. They spent quite a bit of time on this in his testimony, including a picture.

On cross... the defense gives Mike his 2010 February 15th statement he gave to SDSD to refresh his memory... and Mike says he went in through the window and then opened the sliding glass door for CM to get into the house.

So it was cleared up by the actual record of the interview, but the defense had to clear it up. The prosecution was using his 2013 statement, not his early statements.

I was referring to the transcript you posted, of the detective's Qs and As.

It seems clear to me that at this point Michael doesn't have a clear memory of it, which is a separate issue from what he said at the beginning, when he could have been answering what he understood to be a question about who entered the house through the window. I don't think he is or was being dishonest.

 

[missy1974]

The quickbooks...

I don't know how the defense get's over that hurdle. I just don't. There is no good explanation for it. The only thing giving them a glimmer of hope at all right now is that fortunately for them DK was just as greedy and just as much of a snake when it came to Joey's money. Both of them were messing with money before anyone even knew they were missing.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

It’s been stated DK’s ex has credibility issues.

Thank you.

If she has credibility issues and that is shown on the stand it could wind up backfiring on the defense.

Imo jurors dont like to feel they are being handed a line of bull and expecting them all to believe it.

They could be incensed and feel their intelligence has been insulted. Never a wise move.

As we know now the jurors in Wints trial wanted proof of someone else's involvement rather than the defense attorneys merely saying so.

If at anytime the jury is shown or feels the defense or any of their witnesses arent being truthful it will call into question ueverything they have claimed.

I do understand the defense attorneys strategy. We see this same kind of SODDI I think more often than any other defense strategy option.

While the defense has no burden whatsoever when proving CM innocent IMO the jury will expect them to show proof of what they have asserted to be true because they are wanting them to believe it is the named person they have told them and not CM. They aren't ever going to assume its true without verifiable evidence just because that is the claim being made.

It's not like them telling the jury they dont know who did it like other SODDI trials where they dont name anyone.

They are specifically targeting DK by name as the guilty one just like the defense did throughout Wints trial.

Most jurors expect the defense will try to place blame on someone else. That can be very risky by even using the blame game when they are there to sit in judgement on the defendant sitting in the courtroom. No one has been charged but him.

I still don't think using an aggressive cross examination tactic style with any of the family members of the 4 victims is wise.

The best defense attorneys I've ever seen for decades when watching trials are the ones who are smooth as silk and are masters at cross examination.

They get the answers they want without ever being aggressive and combative to any of the state's witnesses. None of them take the chance of offending any of the jurors. They do outstanding cross examinations always showing respect.

Imo it shows the jury they are there trying to only seek the truth without it ever it being all about them by not being drama kings or queens.

Both family member who testified had no reason at the time to make a mental note about what happened when and what CM did at any certain time.

Imo that is why they cant genuinely recall. At that time none of the family members knew their family had been murdered nor knew CM was the murderer who walked among them all that time.

Jmo

 

[missy1974]

I was referring to the transcript you posted, of the detective's Qs and As.

It seems clear to me that at this point Michael doesn't have a clear memory of it, which is a separate issue from what he said at the beginning, when he could have been answering what he understood to be a question about who entered the house through the window. I don't think he is or was being dishonest.

No, I don't think Mike was being dishonest at all. I think that it was almost 4 years later, so much had happened in between, and he didn't remember. Add to that, his families remains were just found, he probably already formed an opinion of who did it, his answers were probably a bit bias. I am not faulting him for that at all!

I put this one on the detective and the pro's for misrepresenting it not only in the preliminary hearing, but in the trial as well. Did the prosecution really believe that the defense wasn't going to show Mike his 2010 statements? I also don't think that it made Mike look dishonest in the trial, I think it made him look human... it made the prosecution look dishonest though IMO

 

[missy1974]

Both family member who testified had no reason at the time to make a mental note about what happened when and what CM did at any certain time.

Imo that is why they cant genuinely recall. At that time none of the family members knew their family had been murdered nor knew CM was the murderer who walked among them all that time.

Jmo

RSBM

Exactly! I absolutely agree.

But then why did the prosecution use the 2013 statements to refresh Mike's memory? I didn't have a problem with it... until the defense started questioning him and using his 2010 statements to refresh his memory. Again, I don't think anyone would disagree that his memory of what happened would have been better on February 15th 2010 than it was by November 2013, almost 4 years later. JMO

FWIW I thought Mike saying I don't recall, I don't know, I don't remember didn't make him look shady at all! He did it just as much during his direct testimony as he did during his cross. It's 9 years later, it's understandable.

 

[asyousay]

I must be alone in thinking there is a Big discrepancies between Mike saying Chase was let into the house and then changing his statement to Chase didn’t want to come inside.

It points to what the defense is saying that the prosecution have blinkered vision when it comes to Chase and it fit their agenda for Mike to backtrack in 2013 and say “He acted really suspiciously and wouldn’t come into the house”.

 

[missy1974]

I must be alone in thinking there is a Big discrepancies between Mike saying Chase was let into the house and then changing his statement to Chase didn’t want to come inside.

It points to what the defense is saying that the prosecution have blinkered vision when it comes to Chase and it fit their agenda for Mike to backtrack in 2013 and say “He acted really suspiciously and wouldn’t come into the house”.

You are not alone! It's the "confirmation bias" the defense was talking about.

 

[Bernina]

Another item in the DOS......the graves, ie, a person who knew the area would have done a better job in the location so they wouldn't have been found.
Well, call me crazy but it was a good enough place that the graves weren't found for almost 4 years (3 years, 9 months, and totally by accident) so I call BS. If the dirt biker had NOT been riding illegally on that area of "restricted access" and saw what he saw, their remains may still have been there unfound.

 

[asyousay]

Another item in the DOS......the graves, ie, a person who knew the area would have done a better job in the location so they wouldn't have been found.
Well, call me crazy but it was a good enough place that the graves weren't found for almost 4 years (3 years, 9 months, and totally by accident) so I call BS. If the dirt biker had NOT been riding illegally on that area of "restricted access" and saw what he saw, their remains may still have been there unfound.

Yes it’s purely luck that the bodies were found.

The sickening thing is if the police had done their job correctly at the beginning then they wouldn’t of been reliant on just luck.


All the things Chase did should of been found out straight away if they had investigated properly. Instead they botched it and tons of evidence lost and years of time wasted.


In what world did a family of 4 just up and Leave and go to Mexico abandoning friends, family and the dogs that Summer treated like her children. Also Joey spent years building up his business to just one day without warning leave. It didn’t make sense then and it still doesn’t and LE are to blame for the years wasted.

 

[Tortoise]

I must be alone in thinking there is a Big discrepancies between Mike saying Chase was let into the house and then changing his statement to Chase didn’t want to come inside.

It points to what the defense is saying that the prosecution have blinkered vision when it comes to Chase and it fit their agenda for Mike to backtrack in 2013 and say “He acted really suspiciously and wouldn’t come into the house”.

There is an obvious discrepancy but until I know more I'm not going to side with either side on this. I think context could very well be missing.

For example the detective said that Mike was able to say why CM wouldn't come inside - his prior criminal record. It would be unusual to back up an account with a reason like this if CM hadn't actually said that to Mike. That's why I'm thinking there's a possibility CM didn't want to enter through the window and leave his prints on the window, but was happy to enter through the door and not touch anything. The context that could be missing from the first interview could be Mike's understanding of the question - who went in? Meaning who out of the two of you went in through the window. Or Mike may have asked CM when he first visited the house alone whether he'd gone in through the window and CM said no - because of my priors. He tells the detective that he opened the sliding door for CM to enter so that's another reason for thinking there would be no reason for Mike to say no he didn't then yes he did. By 2013 Mike may only remember CM's first refusal to go in but have forgotten the less memorable event of him standing inside the house.

I think anyway.

 

[Force Ten]

I don’t recall any specific info related to CM changing QB from Web to Desktop. However, CM did admit to having JM’s permission to access QB in an interview with Det. Dugal in July 2011.


Snip


Merritt told San Diego County sheriff’s detective Troy Dugal during a July 7, 2011 interview that Joseph McStay had given him permission to access and use his Quickbooks accounting software program and had been in possession of six blank checks prior to Joseph McStay’s disappearance. Merritt said he used the checks to pay bills and to pay himself for jobs completed, according to search warrants.

Merritt admitted to Dugal he signed Joseph McStay’s name on three of the checks, and claimed the other three checks he had written already had Joseph McStay’s signature on them.

Joseph McStay was going to fire his alleged killer over gambling debt, documents say – San Bernardino Sun

Yeah then when the accounts were frozen he hit the mother of the victim up for more $$$$$. DESPICABLE.

 

[Mica]

Yeah then when the accounts were frozen he hit the mother of the victim up for more $$$$$. DESPICABLE.

I am really looking forward to testimony from both sides related to the financials.

 

[asyousay]

Yeah then when the accounts were frozen he hit the mother of the victim up for more $$$$$. DESPICABLE.

It’s a blur but didn’t the defense say the Saudi job money all went to DK and not Chase so that would explain why Chase never paid her back?

I am wondering if that’s the angle the defense will go with when they justify why he never paid her back.

 

[Mica]

It’s a blur but didn’t the defense say the Saudi job money all went to DK and not Chase so that would explain why Chase never paid her back?

I am wondering if that’s the angle the defense will go with when they justify why he never paid her back.

Wish I could help you out. I had a busy week and was unable to watch. I only caught a bit from each witness. I need to watch the witness videos to get up to date. One thing I do recall is a check Susan wrote to Chase that bounced. IIRC, it was for a decent amount of money. Thought I heard $17,000. Somebody please confirm or correct my post if I’m wrong.