CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #13

[Tortoise]

BBM - That's what really annoys me about this case. This far in, we shouldn't even have to be asking questions like this. The details of key pieces of evidence like this should have been made crystal clear by the prosecution by now. But it seems that there are many facets of the state's case that are still hazy. Whether that's due to incompetence or by design is the question imo.

rsbm

[Day 29 Part 3 11.22]

Pros: Were you aware of facts that show that that phone call from Joseph McStay to the defendant's cell phone was never actually received by the defendant's cell phone?
TJ: I am not aware of anything like that.
Pros: You've been sitting in trial though, right?
TJ: Yes.
Pros: And that's just a piece of evidence that you actually didn't hear?
TJ: Well I don't want to talk about phone records cos I'm not versed in them, but it's my understanding that there...
Pros: My question to you is solely - is that evidence that you actually heard?
TJ: Possibly.
Pros: Did you have a conversation with your dad about that?
TJ: I mean we talk about the case all the time, so probably.


How is it not crystal clear? Where was the defense's objection to them misleading the witness?

There are no other calls made to Chase's phone that did not show up in his records. Not one. So the defense has not proven that this call could have been received. The only uncertainty has been manufactured here and is pure spin of the testimony IMO.

I think it's absolutely revealing that TJ's testimony changed over the course of seconds from not being aware, to possibly hearing it to probably discussing it with her dad.

 

[Tortoise]

Do you recall if we had cell phone pings on JM's 8:28 call that night?

Yes it was in Fallbrook.

 

[citygirl]

Yes it was in Fallbrook.

Thanks!

 

[MsRyber]

Yes. And many cases that relied too heavily on cell phone data have been overturned on appeal. I believe that traditional cell phone data will be seen as controversial as bite-mark evidence. It's really good that cell phones are now equipped with GPS. I think it will make this science much more exact.

Absolutely. That's why those cheques, trying to cancel Quickbooks (showing the call came from CM's phone). It's all just in tandem. Even the 'meh' science (3D vehicle stuff which didn't impress me), this particular call/no call/maybe a call really isn't important. I don't care about the daughter's testimony. I don't care about the neighbour's camera. I just don't believe a jury is going to be able to reconcile the theft and backdated cheques, with the debt he owed. Add that to the testimony of the witnesses who said CM was being phased out of the business (and the actual bank records that show he wasn't getting the jobs/cut of $ he was previously earning), along with the bank records that show that he was broke, then peak money in Feb 2010, then back to hovering at $0, and the gambling, and the pings in the desert, and the bodies found near his sister's place, and the 'passed tense' statements, and the 'I was the last person to see him alive', and the statements about his heart issues/medical issues (yet no records he went to the hospital despite saying he was treated), and the, and the, and the, and you end up with a circumstantial case that just adds up to (at this point), a lot of overcome. This reminds me a lot of the Scott Peterson case, where it's just "too much" to "reasonably" be able to explain every.single.point. away. And that, to me, is the kicker. The reasonable doubt part is slowly eroding, imo. Explain away the camera evidence. Ok. Explain away the 3D imaging. Fine. Explain away the cell phone stuff. Ok. But you are still left with stolen cheques, bank records, a man pretending to be his supposed best friend to cancel his ACCOUNTING PROGRAM that runs a business that supposedly has so much business, and all of this before the family is even reported missing? Why? What "reasonable" explanation is there to do that? That's where it is falling apart for me. There is no reasonable explanation for doing that. The family wasn't "missing" at that point. And he was trying to cancel the very thing that ran the business. That's what I need to hear from CM. Why he did that.

 

[mothwings]

Pros: And that's just a piece of evidence that you actually didn't hear?
TJ: Well I don't want to talk about phone records cos I'm not versed in them, but it's my understanding that there...
Pros: My question to you is solely - is that evidence that you actually heard?
TJ: Possibly.
Pros: Did you have a conversation with your dad about that?
TJ: I mean we talk about the case all the time, so probably.

Thanks for transcribing this part. During this, I thought she started losing balance in her testimony and made a pretty obvious slip-up! I feel sorry for this girl but her testimony seemed tampered. I got the impression she was just scared to perjure herself (IMO). Obviously naive as far as a pursuant to a career in law.

 

[JMarsh]

I agree there is a lot of different info. on this case and can get confusing at times. But all in all i have gone back over some of the Prosecution OS and i think they laid it all out pretty well for the court. IMO.
As some have said it's not a real complex or difficult case if we go with Occam's razor.

Occam's razor? Not sure how Occam's razor applies here. If we were to apply that as a theorem then the McStay family went to Mexico to start a new life.

 

[JMarsh]

Absolutely. That's why those cheques, trying to cancel Quickbooks (showing the call came from CM's phone). It's all just in tandem. Even the 'meh' science (3D vehicle stuff which didn't impress me), this particular call/no call/maybe a call really isn't important. I don't care about the daughter's testimony. I don't care about the neighbour's camera. I just don't believe a jury is going to be able to reconcile the theft and backdated cheques, with the debt he owed. Add that to the testimony of the witnesses who said CM was being phased out of the business (and the actual bank records that show he wasn't getting the jobs/cut of $ he was previously earning), along with the bank records that show that he was broke, then peak money in Feb 2010, then back to hovering at $0, and the gambling, and the pings in the desert, and the bodies found near his sister's place, and the 'passed tense' statements, and the 'I was the last person to see him alive', and the statements about his heart issues/medical issues (yet no records he went to the hospital despite saying he was treated), and the, and the, and the, and you end up with a circumstantial case that just adds up to (at this point), a lot of overcome. This reminds me a lot of the Scott Peterson case, where it's just "too much" to "reasonably" be able to explain every.single.point. away. And that, to me, is the kicker. The reasonable doubt part is slowly eroding, imo. Explain away the camera evidence. Ok. Explain away the 3D imaging. Fine. Explain away the cell phone stuff. Ok. But you are still left with stolen cheques, bank records, a man pretending to be his supposed best friend to cancel his ACCOUNTING PROGRAM that runs a business that supposedly has so much business, and all of this before the family is even reported missing? Why? What "reasonable" explanation is there to do that? That's where it is falling apart for me. There is no reasonable explanation for doing that. The family wasn't "missing" at that point. And he was trying to cancel the very thing that ran the business. That's what I need to hear from CM. Why he did that.

Most of what you have presented here is either highly speculative or has been successfully debunked by the defense under cross.

 

[missy1974]

BBM - That's what really annoys me about this case. This far in, we shouldn't even have to be asking questions like this. The details of key pieces of evidence like this should have been made crystal clear by the prosecution by now. But it seems that there are many facets of the state's case that are still hazy. Whether that's due to incompetence or by design is the question imo.

As for the restaurant sounds, did Chase actually say that? Or was it another "mistake" by the family member, like the McStay family was seen on the Michely video all getting into the Trooper and leaving?

About the cell records....I really think Bole's thought what he put in his report was right. He wasn't IMO And the defense showed that. I would like to think the prosecution also thought it was correct. And even Bachman testified that although they can lie to a suspect in police questioning, he did believe what was told to him about the cell records. So when a starting point starts with flawed information, that should be taken into consideration IMO of course

 

[JMarsh]

This is silly. You assert that the "proof is in the child" You think the daughter accruing student loans to become a lawyer is because she loves her dad". Well, all that your opinion, and nothing but. Not evidence. Opinion.

Seriously, I've followed along on most of the posts here, and yours, in particular, are virtually always demanding "evidence" -"where's the evidence?" "Unless you can point to testimony to support your claims...". Good grief. You're simply applying your opinion to testimony.

I actually have an opposite opinion: I don't think for five seconds that said daughter's becoming a lawyer says anything about love. Nothing. Zip. Zero. Nada.

All the testimony in the world can't "prove" that she "loves her dad". Nothing in her testimony is "proof".

It's not my opinion, it is what Taylor testifed to. Are you actually listening to the trial?

 

[JMarsh]

About the cell records....I really think Bole's thought what he put in his report was right. He wasn't IMO And the defense showed that. I would like to think the prosecution also thought it was correct. And even Bachman testified that although they can lie to a suspect in police questioning, he did believe what was told to him about the cell records. So when a starting point starts with flawed information, that should be taken into consideration IMO of course

It's not so much that Bole's was wrong-although he admits to some error in his original analysis-it's just that his report is incredibly superficial. You'll see when the defense presents. If they deliver on their opening statement promise, I think you'll see how inadequate Bole's analysis is.

 

[asyousay]

rsbm

[Day 29 Part 3 11.22]

Pros: Were you aware of facts that show that that phone call from Joseph McStay to the defendant's cell phone was never actually received by the defendant's cell phone?
TJ: I am not aware of anything like that.
Pros: You've been sitting in trial though, right?
TJ: Yes.
Pros: And that's just a piece of evidence that you actually didn't hear?
TJ: Well I don't want to talk about phone records cos I'm not versed in them, but it's my understanding that there...
Pros: My question to you is solely - is that evidence that you actually heard?
TJ: Possibly.
Pros: Did you have a conversation with your dad about that?
TJ: I mean we talk about the case all the time, so probably.


How is it not crystal clear? Where was the defense's objection to them misleading the witness?

There are no other calls made to Chase's phone that did not show up in his records. Not one. So the defense has not proven that this call could have been received. The only uncertainty has been manufactured here and is pure spin of the testimony IMO.

I think it's absolutely revealing that TJ's testimony changed over the course of seconds from not being aware, to possibly hearing it to probably discussing it with her dad.

She seems to suffer with the same brain lapses as her father.

 

[JMarsh]

Does anyone know who will be tweeting this today?

 

[katydid23]

There is testimony about that?

Shouldn't have said 'testimony' ---t was in OS, so came from attorneys, not witnesses.
But it was also in the 'police interview' tapes as well.

 

[missy1974]

rsbm

[Day 29 Part 3 11.22]

Pros: Were you aware of facts that show that that phone call from Joseph McStay to the defendant's cell phone was never actually received by the defendant's cell phone?
TJ: I am not aware of anything like that.
Pros: You've been sitting in trial though, right?
TJ: Yes.
Pros: And that's just a piece of evidence that you actually didn't hear?
TJ: Well I don't want to talk about phone records cos I'm not versed in them, but it's my understanding that there...
Pros: My question to you is solely - is that evidence that you actually heard?
TJ: Possibly.
Pros: Did you have a conversation with your dad about that?
TJ: I mean we talk about the case all the time, so probably.


How is it not crystal clear? Where was the defense's objection to them misleading the witness?

There are no other calls made to Chase's phone that did not show up in his records. Not one. So the defense has not proven that this call could have been received. The only uncertainty has been manufactured here and is pure spin of the testimony IMO.

I think it's absolutely revealing that TJ's testimony changed over the course of seconds from not being aware, to possibly hearing it to probably discussing it with her dad.

You don't know what chase's phone records do and do not show because we don't have them and have yet to hear from an expert that actually knows how to read the AT&T call records. JMO IF the records never show a 'missed call' how do you suppose they show that in the records? They need a qualified person to testify or cross reference records.... we will see what they show in the coming weeks I guess

 

[MsRyber]

So from that statement JM calls CM
at 8:28pm. when CM's phone is off.
The defendant’s cell phone does not register a call during that time period.
So doesn't that mean it was a lie that anyone saw Merritt's phone ring and light up if the call doesn't register?

The funniest part about this is we are entertaining the fact that Chase was actually at home, and that his alibi is legit. Let's give him ALL the leeway, but say every single bit of circumstantial evidence the prosecution has mentioned is junk. That's what it feels like, a bit. We don't know he was home. It is just as likely he was at the McStay residence, killing them and stuff.

 

[missy1974]

Thanks for transcribing this part. During this, I thought she started losing balance in her testimony and made a pretty obvious slip-up! I feel sorry for this girl but her testimony seemed tampered. I got the impression she was just scared to perjure herself (IMO). Obviously naive as far as a pursuant to a career in law.

I got the impression she knows what their expert will say and she didn't want to be the one to state it. JMO

 

[Mony Mony]

Absolutely. That's why those cheques, trying to cancel Quickbooks (showing the call came from CM's phone). It's all just in tandem. Even the 'meh' science (3D vehicle stuff which didn't impress me), this particular call/no call/maybe a call really isn't important. I don't care about the daughter's testimony. I don't care about the neighbour's camera. I just don't believe a jury is going to be able to reconcile the theft and backdated cheques, with the debt he owed. Add that to the testimony of the witnesses who said CM was being phased out of the business (and the actual bank records that show he wasn't getting the jobs/cut of $ he was previously earning), along with the bank records that show that he was broke, then peak money in Feb 2010, then back to hovering at $0, and the gambling, and the pings in the desert, and the bodies found near his sister's place, and the 'passed tense' statements, and the 'I was the last person to see him alive', and the statements about his heart issues/medical issues (yet no records he went to the hospital despite saying he was treated), and the, and the, and the, and you end up with a circumstantial case that just adds up to (at this point), a lot of overcome. This reminds me a lot of the Scott Peterson case, where it's just "too much" to "reasonably" be able to explain every.single.point. away. And that, to me, is the kicker. The reasonable doubt part is slowly eroding, imo. Explain away the camera evidence. Ok. Explain away the 3D imaging. Fine. Explain away the cell phone stuff. Ok. But you are still left with stolen cheques, bank records, a man pretending to be his supposed best friend to cancel his ACCOUNTING PROGRAM that runs a business that supposedly has so much business, and all of this before the family is even reported missing? Why? What "reasonable" explanation is there to do that? That's where it is falling apart for me. There is no reasonable explanation for doing that. The family wasn't "missing" at that point. And he was trying to cancel the very thing that ran the business. That's what I need to hear from CM. Why he did that.

Day 10 Part 3 at about the 1:00 mark, the two timed felon explains he was trying to swap out QB because Summer had a spending problem. Ooookkkkkk, suuurrreeeee

 

[missy1974]

Shouldn't have said 'testimony' ---t was in OS, so came from attorneys, not witnesses

I don't even know if it was in OS and I'm not at home to look, maybe @Tortoise knows

 

[MsRyber]

Most of what you have presented here is either highly speculative or has been successfully debunked by the defense under cross.

Not the attempted cancellation of the QB account, from CM's phone. That is damning. Absolutely without a doubt. It was attempted before they were reported missing. That is not okay, doesn't make sense, and is not speculative at all. It was attempted.

 

[JMarsh]

I got the impression she knows what their expert will say and she didn't want to be the one to state it. JMO

The brilliance of bringing Cathy and Taylor in first is that many people will doubt their veracity, because, of course, they are not impartial witnesses. But it's clear from the defense's opening and what they've revealed of their trial prep during cross, that as their experts present, Cathy and Taylor's statements will be supported by hard evidence. Bolstering C & T's testimony as the jury reviews it later.