CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #7

[oceanblueeyes]

I think you are right. From that article that I posted...

He was initially represented by a Victorville attorney, then decided he wanted to represent himself to speed up the progress in the case. Merritt retained the Mattias firm May 20.

All I know is no one can waive their constitutional right to have a speedy trial, but the defendant themselves. It's solely their constitutional right, and never their attorneys to make.

They have to waive this constitutional right before the presiding judge, and its recorded into the record when they stand before the judge. Ever word said becomes documented into the court record forever no matter who the defendant is.

I've always thought it would be far better to opt for a speedy trial whether the defendant knows they are innocent or guilty.

The advantage would be with the defendant because it wouldn't leave ample time for the prosecutors to put their case together, including being able to get all the forensic results returned in time.

If Cesar Lauren had opted for a speedy trial, instead of it being held a year after he was brought back from Mexico, the state wouldn't have had time to get the damaging results back from the lab on the crowbar murder weapon, which is what sealed his fate. The results had only comeback in 17 days before his trial began due to long backlog issues at the labs.

Imo

 

[mrjitty]

LOL! I think it would be awfully hard to tell LE in great detail what movie he was watching on TV when he didnt even have a TV. LOL

Yep

I don't see how you can mistakenly think you watched a movie on a TV you don't have.

He was definitely lying and being deceptive with the whole "phone a girlfriend" ruse

 

[missy1974]

I have read a few posts... this morning, and before, that says that Chase didn't have a TV.... do you all mean physically having a TV or cable? Is there a link to this information?

In everything I have heard, and even in his LE interview, I think 'watching movies' was mentioned more than once. Don't have to have cable to watch movies, actually don't have to have a TV either if you have a computer or laptop. And if he couldn't watch movies, why would he go to Blockbuster? (see attachment purchases on 2/12 and 2/15 went through the bank on 2/16) 2/15 was President's Day, IIRC when CM asked CJ what they did on President's Day in the recorded LE interview, she said we watched movies.

 

[mrjitty]

I have read a few posts... this morning, and before, that says that Chase didn't have a TV.... do you all mean physically having a TV or cable? Is there a link to this information?

In everything I have heard, and even in his LE interview, I think 'watching movies' was mentioned more than once. Don't have to have cable to watch movies, actually don't have to have a TV either if you have a computer or laptop. And if he couldn't watch movies, why would he go to Blockbuster? (see attachment purchases on 2/12 and 2/15 went through the bank on 2/16) 2/15 was President's Day, IIRC when CM asked CJ what they did on President's Day in the recorded LE interview, she said we watched movies.

IIRC the issue was he said he was at home watching a movie with CJ when the last call came in. But this had to be changed to her house. I might have this round the wrong way

But then the pings prove his phone was not on and he wasn't with CJ anyway.

 

[missy1974]

All I know is no one can waive their constitutional right to have a speedy trial, but the defendant themselves. It's solely their constitutional right, and never their attorneys to make.

They have to waive this constitutional right before the presiding judge, and its recorded into the record when they stand before the judge. Ever word said becomes documented into the court record forever no matter who the defendant is.

I've always thought it would be far better to opt for a speedy trial whether the defendant knows they are innocent or guilty.

The advantage would be with the defendant because it wouldn't leave ample time for the prosecutors to put their case together, including being able to get all the forensic results returned in time.

If Cesar Lauren had opted for a speedy trial, instead of it being held a year after he was brought back from Mexico, the state wouldn't have had time to get the damaging results back from the lab on the crowbar murder weapon, which is what sealed his fate. The results had only comeback in 17 days before his trial began due to long backlog issues at the labs.

Imo

Right, and my understanding is that Mattias asked to be removed when Chase would NOT waive his right to a speedy trial, which a speedy trial was his constitutional right. So that contradicts that he was delaying, doesn't it? It's somewhat ironic that it's a constitutional right, yet when a defendant does not waive his right, his lawyer asks to be removed because the defendant will not waive that right, it actually results in a delay.

From everything I've read, both sides delayed in this case for various reasons. In the end, I think Chase is getting an exceptional defense, which should hopefully lessen any ineffectiveness of counsel claims down the road, so it all worked out.

 

[missy1974]

IIRC the issue was he said he was at home watching a movie with CJ when the last call came in. But this had to be changed to her house. I might have this round the wrong way

But then the pings prove his phone was not on and he wasn't with CJ anyway.

I'm not talking about on the 4th specifically. I'm talking in general. There have been posts that have said "Chase didn't even own a TV", sorry, I can't recall all who posted it lol Sometimes, I read something and then forget to go back to it. @A lucas mentioned it again this morning, which reminded me! So I'm curious if anyone has actual PROOF that he did not have a TV and could not watch movies.

 

[missy1974]

IIRC the issue was he said he was at home watching a movie with CJ when the last call came in. But this had to be changed to her house. I might have this round the wrong way

But then the pings prove his phone was not on and he wasn't with CJ anyway.

Ok, I have another question...

Do we know where CJ was on the 4th? Was she at home? Was she at work? I wonder if we will find out where she was because of her pings.

ETA: I don't want to know where she said she was, I want to know where her cell phone was LOL

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The prosecution thinks Joey did get home though, I haven't heard any indication or even hint that he didn't by them. Maybe they know he did? a purchase or something on the way home?

I think the defense is saying that there is no way that 4 people were bludgeoned to death in that home, so it has to be somewhere else. The prosecution's case has to have it at the home on the evening of the 4th to "fit".

I also don't think the home was staged, but that's JMO

Regardless of how this trial ends, I think there will always be some unanswered questions. Did Joey make it home that day? Did Chase or someone force them out of the house and kill them?

I dont think the prosecutors are trying to 'fit' anything.

They are simply going by the CE that points to the home as being the location where the murders most likely happened.

I'm sure if they had any circumstantial evidence pointing to it being done elsewhere they would present it to the jury. So I'm not sure why you think they have to 'fit' where it happened especially since they have no legal burden to prove where it happened.

Imo, they are saying it happened in their home based solely on what the CE shows them this is where it happened.

If the CE amassed showed it happened elsewhere then the state would present that to the jury for they wouldnt have any reason not to do so.

The jury is there to solely decide if the accused, murdered the 4 victims as charged, BARD. It does not matter where he may have killed them.

They are there to decide whether they believe he is the murderer of all 4, BARD. They are not there to decide, BARD where it happened.

Jmo

 

[missy1974]

Yep

I don't see how you can mistakenly think you watched a movie on a TV you don't have.

He was definitely lying and being deceptive with the whole "phone a girlfriend" ruse

Just seeing this now... and the snip of the post you replied to...

from oceanblueeyes:
LOL! I think it would be awfully hard to tell LE in great detail what movie he was watching on TV when he didnt even have a TV. LOL​

3 mentions of him not even being able to watch a movie because he didn't have a TV in just the last 2 pages. So opinions of him being a liar are based off of false information IMO. And don't get me wrong, there are many other things that can be picked out that may make him out to be a liar, but are you all sure?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The prosecution thinks Joey did get home though, I haven't heard any indication or even hint that he didn't by them. Maybe they know he did? a purchase or something on the way home?

I think the defense is saying that there is no way that 4 people were bludgeoned to death in that home, so it has to be somewhere else. The prosecution's case has to have it at the home on the evening of the 4th to "fit".

I also don't think the home was staged, but that's JMO

Regardless of how this trial ends, I think there will always be some unanswered questions. Did Joey make it home that day? Did Chase or someone force them out of the house and kill them?

I dont think the prosecutors are trying to 'fit' anything.

They are simply going by the CE that points to the home as being the location where the murders most likely happened.

I'm sure if they had any circumstantial evidence pointing to it being done elsewhere they would present it to the jury. So I'm not sure why you think they have to 'fit' where it happened especially since they have no legal burden to prove where it happened.

Imo, they are saying it happened in their home based solely on what the CE shows them this is where it happened.

If the CE amassed showed it happened elsewhere then the state would present that to the jury for they wouldnt have any reason not to do so.

The jury is there to solely decide if the accused, murdered the 4 victims as charged, BARD.

It does not matter where he may have killed them. The sole question for the jury, is did he murder all 4, BARD, based on all of the evidence in its entirety.

They are there to decide one thing only, and that is whether they believe he is the murderer of all 4, BARD. They are not there to decide, BARD where it happened.

Jmo

 

[missy1974]

I dont think the prosecutors are trying to 'fit' anything.

They are simply going by the CE that points to the home as being the location where the murders most likely happened.

I'm sure if they had any circumstantial evidence pointing to it being done elsewhere they would present it to the jury. So I'm not sure why you think they have to 'fit' where it happened especially since they have no legal burden to prove where it happened.

Imo, they are saying it happened in their home based solely on what the CE shows them this is where it happened.

If the CE amassed showed it happened elsewhere then the state would present that to the jury for they wouldnt have any reason not to do so.

The jury is there to solely decide if the accused, murdered the 4 victims as charged, BARD. It does not matter where he may have killed them.

They are there to decide whether they believe he is the murderer of all 4, BARD. They are not there to decide, BARD where it happened.

Jmo

When I say "fit", I mean because of Chase's cell pings. They can't place him in Fallbrook the morning of the 5th or even later in the day on the 5th. So it has to be the 4th at the home. Even the 4th timeline is pretty tight, we have discussed it here. 5:50pmish to 9:32, with the drive back and forth, fit in the QB's access, fit in the truck leaving at 7:47pm, fit in that he had to have been there before 7pm (because of the video they have).

ETA: They don't have to show where it happened, but they definitely have to place Chase where they think it happened IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Right, and my understanding is that Mattias asked to be removed when Chase would NOT waive his right to a speedy trial, which a speedy trial was his constitutional right. So that contradicts that he was delaying, doesn't it? It's somewhat ironic that it's a constitutional right, yet when a defendant does not waive his right, his lawyer asks to be removed because the defendant will not waive that right, it actually results in a delay.

From everything I've read, both sides delayed in this case for various reasons. In the end, I think Chase is getting an exceptional defense, which should hopefully lessen any ineffectiveness of counsel claims down the road, so it all worked out.

No matter the circumstances though, it still remains only the defendant can waive that right which belongs solely to them, and no one else.

Since he has willingly sat in jail for many years now, within in the allotted time to waive it he did waive his right.

If not the judge would have no other recourse but to toss the case way back then.

Imo

 

[missy1974]

No matter the circumstances though, it still remains only the defendant can waive that right which belongs solely to them, and no one else.

Since he has willingly sat in jail for many years now, within in the allotted time to waive it he did waive his right.

If not the judge would have no other recourse but to toss the case way back then.

Imo

I completely understand ocean.... but what I'm saying is, according to articles written back then, Mattias asked to be removed when Chase wouldn't waive that right. There seems to be something wrong with that, doesn't there?

I understand that his lawyers didn't think they could be ready for trial, but if it's up to the defendant and ONLY the defendant to waive that right, when he doesn't, his lawyer quits and he's blamed for delaying? LOL It's a bit ironic IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

When I say "fit", I mean because of Chase's cell pings. They can't place him in Fallbrook the morning of the 5th or even later in the day on the 5th. So it has to be the 4th at the home. Even the 4th timeline is pretty tight, we have discussed it here. 5:50pmish to 9:32, with the drive back and forth, fit in the QB's access, fit in the truck leaving at 7:47pm, fit in that he had to have been there before 7pm (because of the video they have).

ETA: They don't have to show where it happened, but they definitely have to place Chase where they think it happened IMO

I think they are doing a very good job in linking CM to the murders, no matter where it may have occured.

I do think the jury will be able to link all of the CE showing it most likely occured inside of their home, and will not have convincing evidence showing it happened elsewhere.

By what has been presented thus far, it does point to their home being where they were murdered.

Imo

 

[Tortoise]

22 Q Was he able to describe for you what he did after he had
23 his meeting with Joseph McStay?
24 A I believe he said he went home.
25 Q Was he able to tell you whether he remembered what he did
26 the rest of that evening?
27 A I asked him. He said that he watched TV, and then later
28 he told me they didn't have TV at the time, so he must have been
123
1 watching a movie at his residence.

State of California VS Charles Ray Merritt: Part Four - Transcript of Charles Merritt Preliminary

 

[missy1974]

22 Q Was he able to describe for you what he did after he had
23 his meeting with Joseph McStay?
24 A I believe he said he went home.
25 Q Was he able to tell you whether he remembered what he did
26 the rest of that evening?
27 A I asked him. He said that he watched TV, and then later
28 he told me they didn't have TV at the time, so he must have been
123
1 watching a movie at his residence.

State of California VS Charles Ray Merritt: Part Four - Transcript of Charles Merritt Preliminary

So at least I know where it came from, which was not directly from Merritt. I will wait to see if the prelim and actual trial says the same thing, as I have become sceptical when it comes to what was testified to in the PH. JMO

But just because he didn't have a TV, doesn't mean he couldn't watch movies.

 

[JMarsh]

There was a family of 4, 2 being children, that actually make us want the actual person to be held accountable for their demise. So far, the county of San Bernardino has SAID that they believe/can prove CM as the culprit. They ARE proving him to be the culprit, so far. IMO.

We have months to go and many of us might change our minds. Until then, we have to take it day by day.

Are the

I suspect my training causes me to approach this somewhat differently to you, as I mainly came up with the analytical approach of senior judges in civil cases as opposed to juries.

In my opinion the veracity of the accused pre-trial statements shall be first tested in helicopter view. Here we discover that the accused has a dishonest track record. So this will cause us to carefully test how specific reference points of his statements jibe with external facts.

For me, at high level, a Judge would note that the accused's evidence is at best broadly misleading. There is strong evidence of fraud against Chase, all of which he concealed in his statements. One cannot simply brush this aside. This calls the veracity of his statements completely into question. One continues the inquiry and discovers his alibi evidence is also contradicted by the facts - all of which he has never explained.

Indeed one struggles to think of insights offered by Chase that broadly checked out

So in my opinion, the correct legal methodology is to throw all of Chase's exculpatory pre-trial statements in the evidential rubbish bin.

Furthermore, if one infers fraud (I believe a natural and obvious inference) one must also conclude that Chase lied to the investigators via omission and deception.

So I realise one can still maintain that Chase was perhaps confused about his alibi, but I believe any cold eyed judge, given the accused's dishonesty, would reach a different conclusion. On 4 Feb, Chases business partner and best friend, a man he was utterly dependent on financially, disappeared into thin air. The idea you can't work out where you were that evening is frankly laughable. 9 years later we still have no explanation.

Final comment on this - I think the handling of Chase's statements once more shows the danger of not seeing the wood for the trees

Is this in the UK? Because the system here works very differently from what you describe.

 

[JMarsh]

So at least I know where it came from, which was not directly from Merritt. I will wait to see if the prelim and actual trial says the same thing, as I have become sceptical when it comes to what was testified to in the PH. JMO

But just because he didn't have a TV, doesn't mean he couldn't watch movies.

People forget what they were doing on a given night sometimes. There has to be something more than that he just forgot whether he was watching cable or a dvd. And again, none of this ties Chase directly to the murder of four people. If we were all convicted on mistakes in memory the prisons would be overflowing more than they already are.

Where is the evidence that ties Merritt to the act of murder?

 

[mrjitty]

So at least I know where it came from, which was not directly from Merritt. I will wait to see if the prelim and actual trial says the same thing, as I have become sceptical when it comes to what was testified to in the PH. JMO

But just because he didn't have a TV, doesn't mean he couldn't watch movies.

The point is, he gave a 100% incorrect Alibi to the detective

How can he think he watched TV if he didn't have one? It makes no sense.

Likewise how can he believe he saw the last call ever from Joseph?

And how can he be watching a movie with Jarvis when she was calling him the whole time?

I don't know how much clearer it can be that he was lying to Detective Hanke

 

[JMarsh]

The prosecution thinks Joey did get home though, I haven't heard any indication or even hint that he didn't by them. Maybe they know he did? a purchase or something on the way home?

I think the defense is saying that there is no way that 4 people were bludgeoned to death in that home, so it has to be somewhere else. The prosecution's case has to have it at the home on the evening of the 4th to "fit".

I also don't think the home was staged, but that's JMO

Regardless of how this trial ends, I think there will always be some unanswered questions. Did Joey make it home that day? Did Chase or someone force them out of the house and kill them?

They showed a snippet of Joey's phone log (I forget which day now) and it shows him pinging the tower he pings when home at that 5;47 call and on earlier texts as well. I may have taken a screen shot. I'll see if I can find it. Joey's phone made it home. And Chase's phone pings in Rancho at 5:47, so if anything happened during this time period, there were other people involved in the killings than just Chase. If you are suggesting that Chase killed Joey at or just after their meeting that day.