CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #3

[katydid23]

for the most part i consider criminal defense attorneys to be scummy--
they twist the truth and a lot of them just plain ol' lie to the jury
not all of them, but i just have no respect for most of them-
the worst example i can think of was Jose Baez in the Anthony
case-

Sadly enough, both sides can be scummy. Some DAs have also been known to twist the truth and lie to the jury. Both sides try and justify their own behavior by rationalizing it---'my client is innocent' OR 'this defendant is guilty', and 'we must do what we need to do to get the verdict'....

I am a victim's advocate all the way and I am usually firmly planted on the DA's side of the courtroom. But my father was a long time, much heralded defense attorney, who had a lot of integrity. And I saw first hand how sometimes, the state could distort and twist things, even when they had the wrong guy.

 

[missy1974]

I really feel you guys are going down the rabbit hole on this.

There is not one single piece of evidence that DK murdered the McStays

The Prosecution has already twice given evidence of how he was cleared.

1 x documentary evidence
1 x direct testimony explaining that detectives worked the angle and eliminated him

What more do you want?

Ok wait. Let me make myself clear. I believe that Chase did this. I want to see the State prove it, and we all should want that, don't leave any loopholes. We all know that if he is convicted, there will be appeal after appeal. Part of proving he did it is investigating ALL leads, thoroughly IMO For myself, DK and Chase have the same motive, money, so from there, it has to be investigated, LE says they did, the defense says no way. I have not seen any evidence yet that proves either one.

There is no documentary evidence as of yet, and since when do we take someone's word for it that it exists? Never that I know of. It's like saying they can put an officer on the stand, that officer can say that Chase wrote cheques and deleted them, but never showing us with computer forensic evidence. Or that he cashed cheques, withdrew funds, etc but never show us the proof of that.

The DK rabbit hole was dug a long time ago, and IMO he started the digging all on his own. Not going to lie, I can't wait to see the little creep on the stand squirming, regardless of whether the state or defense proves he was in Hawaii or not, I want to see him squirm when they ask him about the money, the sale of EIP, the text messages with Joey, the buy out, etc. I cannot wait to hear his answers. Afterwards, we are either going to be left with some questions still, or those that think he might still have something to do with the crime will feel satisfied that the little creep didn't have anything to do with it and will hopefully end any questions.

IMO if the State has evidence, put that officer that interviewed him and received that evidence on the stand. Have him say it, show the proof and it lessens the theory whenever the Defense keeps bringing it up. Every question that gets sustained is still heard by the jury.

 

[missy1974]

I'm sorry I must have missed the documentary proof of flights? I remember someone testifying (DuGal?) that he was shown a flight reservation or something to that effect? A witness testifying that they believe DK was in Hawaii is not the same as irrefutable proof, something I haven't seen yet. But maybe I missed it? No, I'm not taking their word for it, the nurse in me wants to see DOCUMENTATION!!!

Right, if we took every witnesses word for it, there would be no need for exhibits lol I am a 'need to see it' person myself. Guessing I have trust issues....

 

[missy1974]

The prosecution could be waiting until DK is on the stand and/or another detective can provide the proper testimony. It seems so far the defense has asked every single detective (excluding Smith?) if they verified DK being Hawaii. Imes was mocking the defense irrelevant questions when he asked Smith "Have you ever been to Hawaii?" The Pros isn't addressing it now because they aren't about to let the defense steer the direction of their trial. They have the burden of evidence.

I'm sorry, but I watched some of that testimony this week... it did not all go well for the prosecution. IMO

 

[missy1974]

The prosecution could be waiting until DK is on the stand and/or another detective can provide the proper testimony. It seems so far the defense has asked every single detective (excluding Smith?) if they verified DK being Hawaii. Imes was mocking the defense irrelevant questions when he asked Smith "Have you ever been to Hawaii?" The Pros isn't addressing it now because they aren't about to let the defense steer the direction of their trial. They have the burden of evidence.

I cannot wait to see him on the stand, I will be disappointed if the defense doesn't call him (assuming the State won't)

 

[missy1974]

Was it stated what sites were accessed by Joey’s phone for those two hours when they were supposedly having their lunch meeting?

I don't believe so, and I'm not sure if they would be able to get that data without physically having the phone? Possibly. I know that I have my google chrome on my phone and computer synced. My phone history is shown on my computer. Anyone recall what kind of phone Joey had? I don't even know if we know this, I don't recall every hearing what kind of phones they had.

 

[oviedo]

I don't believe so, and I'm not sure if they would be able to get that data without physically having the phone? Possibly. I know that I have my google chrome on my phone and computer synced. My phone history is shown on my computer. Anyone recall what kind of phone Joey had? I don't even know if we know this, I don't recall every hearing what kind of phones they had.

If either of them were accessing QB online via the cell phone - they would need a smart phone I think?

 

[missy1974]

Does the prosecution's evidence not have to be provided in disclosure before the trial starts?

Yes. AFAIK they have to hand over Inculpatory and Exculpatory evidence if they have it. They can't just come up with documents that they didn't hand over before the trial. I believe the judge could allow it in still if it is something "new". But I think if it is known beforehand, they can't just spring it on the defence. JMO Exculpatory evidence... that is what Brady violations are made of I think.

 

[missy1974]

Off topic, is it me or does Smith resemble Fire Marshall Bill in this screen grab? LOL

I had to google Fire Marshall Bill.... But YES!

 

[missy1974]

There are no signatures on credit card gas purchases in most Cali stations. There are mostly gas pumps with automated ATMs that just take your card and pin number. Are we sure that Joey used a charge card and went inside the station?

I am not even sure that we know he stopped and got gas.

 

[dlkutac]

And SM & JM cell phones, SM purse, and JM wallet were never found iirc. The most reasonable explanation is because the killer wanted people to think that the family disappeared voluntarily and of course they would have taken their cell phones and purse/wallet. But then it's odd that those would not have been tossed in the graves with them as well. I wonder why those items were disposed of separately? Not that it would make a difference in this case, I'm just wondering aloud out of curiosity lol.

The prosecution is implying that almost every towel was missing from the house. Since there were only a few found at the gravesite, there almost had to have been a separate disposal of towels, purse, wallet, cell phones.

 

[katydid23]

Does the prosecution's evidence not have to be provided in disclosure before the trial starts?

Yes, it does. But would specific details about DK be part of the Discovery that is handed over? They would hand over ALL of the pertinent and relevant evidence concerning their case against Chase Merritt. But would they include all of the investigation background from years earlier against a cleared suspect into the discovery?

 

[missy1974]

This underhanded purposefully done tactics done by defense attorneys like these two in this case makes my blood boil!

ALL of it is an orchestrated plan to deceive and pull the wool over the eyes of the jury.

They did every objectionable question asked to set the trap for the state by confusing the jury into thinking the state had something to hide when it was not the case and they knew it.

The defense knew beforehand the improper questions were asked would receive objections and would be sustained every single time by the judge, rightfully so.

The state had no choice but to object to questions that were totally improper to ask. The defense already knew too the state had no choice but to do so.

In every murder trial it is imperative the state gets every objection into the trial record along with each ruling made by the judge in case there is a conviction which later will be automatically up for appeal. It is vitally important.

The once prosecutor now turned defense attorney in this case knows all too well what the state must get on the trial record and now he uses that prior knowledge to his advantage. He now uses it against the state he once worked for and he knows he would have done the very same thing.

DK and what he did or may have not done in the past has no relevancy in this case.

He is not the one accused and he isn't the one on trial and the judge is always very mindful of that fact.

Assumptions, bsseless accusations or out of context statements made by the defense aren't evidence of DKs involvement.

If the defense team actually had evidence proving it was DK and not their accused client, they would have produced that evidence to the governor of CA demanding CM be released.

They would have made it known to the press and anyone who would listen and do it way before trial time.

Yet they didn't because they know they dont have any evidence of DK being involved in any manner.

Its just like with Daron Wint's attorney who wound up having absolutely no evidence to back up their baseless claims it wasnt DW but his two brothers instead, but that didnt stop them from making unsupported claims hoping they could hoodwink the jury into believing it anyway which was an epic fail for them, and their guilty client. The jury refused to drink the koolaid.

I have seen many ethical respectable excellent defense attorneys but IMOO, these aren't two of them. In fact some of the best trial lawyers I've seen have been defense attorneys.

The Meritt attorneys are the kind of attorneys who will do every underhanded trick in their unethical handbook trying to get a quadruple murderer walking free on the streets again.

It's not about making sure CM gets a fair trial. To get a fair trial both sides must be treated fairly.

Imo its far more about their own notoriety and trying to put another notch of wins in their column.

They are hoping one juror will fall for their devious practices meant only to deceive.

It's far better spending more time in jail as CM has been willing to do for years now... than being shipped out to a maximum security prison and a possibility of being on death row if convicted.

So the defense would like nothing better than a hung jury.

So they will continue their orchestrated smoke and mirrors game of deception.

Imo

With all due respect Oceanblueeyes because I respect your opinion's and your wealth of information when it comes to trials... This is the job of Defense attorney's. We might not like them all the time, but they have a job to do and the accused has a constitutional right to be represented, someone has to do it. I figure the better someone is represented, the less chance of a successful appeal later, right? I don't know a lot about the prosecutor's in this case, but they are not new to their job, they know defense tactics, or they should and they should be able to handle that. And Prosecutors are not infallible either, I have watched enough trials and read enough news stories to see some pretty bad prosecutor's as well.....the Duke Lacrosse prosecutor comes to mind.

Maybe someone knows if there were hearings and rulings previously about the Kavanaugh issue? Seems to me that the defense is being allowed a ton of leeway on questioning in regards to him and being able to point the finger at him, and they are even able to call him as a witness, and I'm assuming challenge him on everything from alibi to finances. If there was a ruling on this, the judge must have seen a reason for that? Was there a hearing/ruling on this issue? I have watched many trials where the defense says that someone else did it, but I am not sure that I have watched the defense call them as a witness (assuming the State doesn't and they will, which seems to be the case from what Cathy Russon has reported)

 

[katydid23]

Yes. AFAIK they have to hand over Inculpatory and Exculpatory evidence if they have it. They can't just come up with documents that they didn't hand over before the trial. I believe the judge could allow it in still if it is something "new". But I think if it is known beforehand, they can't just spring it on the defence. JMO Exculpatory evidence... that is what Brady violations are made of I think.

All true. However, the documents might be in the old case files of the police department. And the District Attorneys are the ones that hand over the discovery. Are they going to hand over every piece of paper concerning every prior suspect over the past several years of the police investigation? I think they are expected legally to hand over every document concerning Chase Merritt and that investigation of him as a suspect.

But there may be documents still in police files that concern OTHER SUSPECTS, that the DA would not see as relevant when they handed over the Discovery info.

 

[Bernina]

So.......just how many LE departments and officials have to state, on the stand, that DK was in Hawaii before this nonsense from the defense stops? The prosecution does NOT have to prove the who, what, where, or how of DK, he is NOT the defendant.
I am confident that LE arrested the right suspect and no doubt have enough to convict him. Whether the jury stays the course, we will see.........

 

[missy1974]

All true. However, the documents might be in the old case files of the police department. And the District Attorneys are the ones that hand over the discovery. Are they going to hand over every piece of paper concerning every prior suspect over the past several years of the police investigation? I think they are expected legally to hand over every document concerning Chase Merritt and that investigation of him as a suspect.

But there may be documents still in police files that concern OTHER SUSPECTS, that the DA would not see as relevant when they handed over the Discovery info.

If they didn't hand them over, and if they could possibly have exculpatory evidence, that would be a Brady violation. The defense should literally have a copy of everything in the file that LE and/or the prosecutors have I believe. The original file from San Diego should have gone to San Bernardino, or a copy of it all.

Really, there should be no surprises for either side, they have all the statements, reports, etc. They may not know the strategy or what specifically the State is going to question a witness about, but they should have an idea based of the discovery material.

 

[Tortoise]

The DK rabbit hole was dug a long time ago, and IMO he started the digging all on his own. Not going to lie, I can't wait to see the little creep on the stand squirming, regardless of whether the state or defense proves he was in Hawaii or not, I want to see him squirm when they ask him about the money, the sale of EIP, the text messages with Joey, the buy out, etc. I cannot wait to hear his answers. Afterwards, we are either going to be left with some questions still, or those that think he might still have something to do with the crime will feel satisfied that the little creep didn't have anything to do with it and will hopefully end any questions.

I'm trying to think what grounds either side would have for calling DK as a witness in this murder trial. Unless he knows something relevant to the murder in Merritt's behaviour at the time, inculpatory or exculpatory.

As we know he hasn't been charged and I don't think anyone can put an accusation to him (or anyone else) on the stand that they did it.

I think this might be a massive disappointment for anyone expecting to hear him give answers on any of the above matters set out in your post - it's not the issue of the trial.

As far as the defense case goes it's about showing where the evidence against Merritt is lacking, not about showing who else was in the same country or state that day. That's not evidence of murder even if it is of opportunity. Unless Merritt's defense is he saw or witnessed someone else committing the murders, then he'd have to take the stand and say that. In that case the state would call DK or whoever to rebut the testimony evidence.

That's my understanding anyway, someone let me know if I'm wrong.

It's similar to expecting the evidence of Metro Sheet Metal to prove he stole money from Joey. My understanding is that wasn't the purpose of the testimony because Merritt isn't on trial for theft. It wasn't up for the truth of the matter but what they witnessed the deteriorating situation to have been between Joey and Merritt, and how Merritt was contracted in Joey's business. Again, I don't know if I have that wrong.

 

[missy1974]

I'm trying to think what grounds either side would have for calling DK as a witness in this murder trial. Unless he knows something relevant to the murder in Merritt's behaviour at the time, inculpatory or exculpatory.

As we know he hasn't been charged and I don't think anyone can put an accusation to him (or anyone else) on the stand that they did it.

RSBM

This is why I am wondering if there was a ruling somewhere along the way about this? I know there was a hearing in December where they ruled that the ex gf could testify, her testimony will be that DK confessed to her, I don't know how much closer we can get to accusing him? And I would normally agree that they couldn't do that, but it seems that they are going to be allowed to, or come very very close. JMO

 

[ilovewings]

Sadly enough, both sides can be scummy. Some DAs have also been known to twist the truth and lie to the jury. Both sides try and justify their own behavior by rationalizing it---'my client is innocent' OR 'this defendant is guilty', and 'we must do what we need to do to get the verdict'....

I am a victim's advocate all the way and I am usually firmly planted on the DA's side of the courtroom. But my father was a long time, much heralded defense attorney, who had a lot of integrity. And I saw first hand how sometimes, the state could distort and twist things, even when they had the wrong guy.

i know there some scummy DA's-- that is absolutely true and i know there are defense attorneys with integrity-- i was making a generalization-one thing that really bothers me about DA's who lack integrity is when someome has been wrongly convicted and there is evidence to clear that person, and yet most DA's refuse to admit they made a mistake ( or worse ) that evidence had been p!anted.

 

[minazoe]

isn't DK a hostile witness, automatically? mOO