CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #18

[Karinna]

Has the jury read that he was investigated? Because they are the ones who will be making this decision.

No good legal team leaves that out there hanging if they can just show proof the guy was out of state. It's reckless to not show that proof if it exists. This is a quadruple murder case. You dot all your i's and cross all your t's.

I would think the Jury will be able to see that information when they go into deliberation from what the PT has as evidence to that effect.
(quote)
KAVANAUGH: No involvement and no knowledge of who might have done it. I was in Hawaii for over a month before he disappeared.

KAYE: And the evidence we uncovered seems to indicate that Kavanaugh was in Hawaii around the initial days of the McStay's disappearance.
CNN.com - Transcripts

 

[mrjitty]

Well. Wow. That took quite a dramatic turn.

I hope he has more than just a few minutes of observation to back up such an accusation. There are people who use a wheelchair, but can walk a few yards. Just because you see them walking doesn't mean they are faking their condition.

There are plenty of conditions that might allow a couple of hours of feeling decent, especially at night rather than first thing in the morning.

Does McGee have a history of faking illness to get out of trial?
A history of unethical behavior?
Or is this supposed to just be the first time it's ever happened?
Is Chase just so wonderful that McGee is willing to tarnish his career to delay his fate?

These are all interesting questions, but of course Imes himself has some knowledge of what the defence team has claimed about McGee's condition in the last weeks.

Clearly Imes felt it was incongruous to what had been told to the Judge. To my mind at least, the defence has some explaining to do.

One would also say, when one is verging on seeking a continuance in such a big murder trial - it was rather a stupid thing for McGee to do?

Of course there may be an innocent explanation, but after Maline's efforts to secure perjured testimony for one thing, I am now rather slow to believe them about anything. IMO this is a dirty team.

 

[mrjitty]

Just the defense team though, right? Not the prosecution... not the judge?

IIRC I have been one of the Judge's biggest critics from the start.

 

[MsFacetious]

Have you ever seen anything like it? LOL I have watched a few trials in my time... I cannot recall anything like it.

No.
Even the travesties of justice I've watched myself were not the circus act this case has been.

 

[mrjitty]

THIS IS 100000% TRUE.
There are certain cases where you don't go in with the presumption of innocence. You go in guilty until PROVEN innocent. Maline is completely accurate on this. They do have to go above and beyond what a regular defense would need to do. No doubt about it.

We just dealt with a case where the defense thought they'd demonstrated innocence, (with an electronic alibi for starters) but the jury convicted because the correct suspect wasn't allowed to be introduced at all.

The correct suspect also was NEVER investigated. At all. Period. They found the defendant and decided he did it and quit investigating. At least one witness lied to cover for the true suspect, but we couldn't point that out either. It was appalling.

So, the jury convicted the one they had in front of them, even though there absolutely was not evidence to support the conviction because they wanted to hold someone accountable.

This jury will likely be looking for any justification to hold someone responsible for these brutal crimes. If there isn't another suspect offered and if everything the state says isn't rebutted, the defense will end up with a client on death row regardless of guilt.

NZ had a famous case like this which we all followed breathlessly in the 90s

It was an abduction and rape of an 11yr old complainant. The complainant identified the accused - her neighbour. The DNA evidence pointed to a different offender. The defence believed this cleared the accused. The Prosecution made up a strange story about DNA transfer in the washing machine. Verdict: Guilty.

It took years to reverse this, because the verdict was one theoretically open to the jury.

Subsequently the real offender was convicted from the DNA profile. It seemed the victim was in trauma somehow and wrongly identified her neighbour as the perp. She still does to this day, but accepts he is innocent

 

[mrjitty]

Has the jury read that he was investigated? Because they are the ones who will be making this decision.

No good legal team leaves that out there hanging if they can just show proof the guy was out of state. It's reckless to not show that proof if it exists. This is a quadruple murder case. You dot all your i's and cross all your t's.

Just to be clear - yes they have - but this will mainly emerge in rebuttal.

It's been possible to piece together than the defence team has had various items of alibi evidence since 2016 at least.

What now needs to happen is for the prosecution to produce and discuss them all cohesively together.

 

[mrjitty]

I thought I explained that. Don't you think a juror may wonder why has Dan fled town? Could it be that he did do the things the defense is accusing of? If not why wouldn't he show up in tell us he didn't do it and where he was? Do you not agree with this analogy?

What evidence is there that Dan fled town?

For all you know, Dan is still in town, or moved away years ago.

 

[mrjitty]

I am leaning towards preferring a mistrial now.

I think the judge has completely lost control of the procedure.

 

[mrjitty]

No, I don't agree. If the detectives had already investigated me for the crime, and then charged someone else, and I was innocent---NO WAY would I want to be dragged into court and used as a decoy by a team of defense attorneys.

I'd stay as far away from that courthouse as I could. And that wouldn't mean I was guilty. Just smart.

I think DK's main jeopardy is that he helped himself to Joey's money. I dunno about statute of limitations etc but personally it would not seem smart to testify about all that stuff - even if only because he might get sued to account for the $$

 

[Niner]

Thursday, May 9th:
*Trial continues –No court today (@ 9am PT) - CA - McStay Family: Joseph (40), Summer (43), Gianni (4) & Joey Jr (3) (Feb. 4, 2010, Fallbrook; found Nov. 11, 2013) - *Charles "Chase" Ray Merritt aka Charles Ray Mandel aka Charles Ray Morritt aka Chase Meredith (57/now 62) arrested (11/5/14) & indicted (11/7/14) of 4 counts of murder with special circumstance; plead not guilty. DP case.
Trial started 1/7/19. Dark on all Fridays. 7 women & 4 men & 1 ? (alternates include 4 men & 2 women-minus one).
Trial Days (1-47: 1/7/19 thru 4/30/19) reference post #492 here:
CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #18
5/1/19 Day 48: Defense witnesses: Dennis Shogren, defense financial accountant. Sgt Joseph Steers, re: the Mitchley awning. Detective Daniel Hanke, re: the paintball documentation. Trial continues on 5/2.
5/2/19 Day 49: Defense witnesses: Sgt. Daniel Hanke (re visit to San Ysidro). Sgt. Gary Hart (re home phones) & Sgt. Edward Bachman (re FARO scan & DK's alibi). Had only morning session. Trial continues on Tuesday, 5/7.
5/7/19 Day 50: Defense witness: Det. Edward Bachman Lead Investigator San Bernardino (asked about his investigation to verify Lavanaugh's alibi). Jury goes to early lunch. Before the jury was sent to lunch the judge addressed a request made by "several jurors" to see Merritt's truck in person. The judge is arranging for them to see it. The defense & judge are in chambers with the court reporter. Maline asked the judge for an ex parte hearing & motioned that it may have something to do with McGee. Defense is asking for a continuance due to attorney McGee's "condition". Judge says as far as the rest of the evidence if McGee & his doctor think he can continue next week then they will, if not they may have to talk about a continuance depending on predicted length of time. Defense witness: Det. DuGal. Trial continues on 5/8.
5/8/19 Day 51: Judge will allow certain portions of CM’s redacted 2014 interrogation tape related to Feb. 4th & 6th. Jurors viewed CM’s truck in the morning. Jurors back at 1:30pm & when they come back judge said portions of the tape with Merritt will be played. Tape played for jurors. Defense witness: Gary Robinson (Defense investigator). Court adjourned until Monday, May 13, when the defense will finish up with Det. Bachman & show video excerpts from Charles Merritt's police interview. Court will then be dark until Tuesday, May 21.
Tentative Schedule for week of May 6th thru May 10th: May 6th (Monday)-NO court-Judge not available. Court with jurors on May 7th (Tuesday), May 8th (Wednesday)-Defense expected to rest. May 9th (Thursday)-NO court (for a juror). Dark on May 10th (Friday).
Tentative Schedule for week of May 13th thru May 17th: Court with jurors on May 13th (Monday). Rest of the week dark.
Tentative Schedule for week of May 20th thru May 24th: May 20th (Monday)-NO court. Court with jurors on May 21st (Tuesday), May 22nd (Wednesday), May 23rd (Thursday). Dark on May 24th (Friday).


Hopefully I have all the dates correct.... kind of hard to follow you guys and the tweets!

 

[mrjitty]

I guess it depends upon the type of circumstantial evidence you're talking about but by nature most circumstantial evidence in itself is nothing more than conjecture.

The development of the common law trial system in multiple countries over 100s of years kind of disagrees with that conclusion.

 

[mrjitty]

I really feel for this prosecution team. Every time the mud is slung in their direction they ask for a hearing on it and it's denied. These are serious allegations the defense just tosses around and they should be entitled to a hearing.

JMO

It's reminding me of the Roux fiasco

If it may please the Court, I shall bring hard evidence to prove my client screams like a woman!

These corrupt cops have framed my client with a duvet and curtains!

 

[mrjitty]

This morning's short video is posted, for anyone who missed it.

So some obvious beefs here

1. The report was written last night and then "discovered" as they are sitting their addressing the judge. This is all clearly seat of the pants or worse. LOL. Also report only covered DK, not the other witnesses.

2. Implication is allowing service evidence essentially invites speculation about DK. Fair point IMO.

3. Obviously in closing the state will highlight the defence's failure to call logical witnesses (outside of the defendant). Hence why the defence need this.

I think a fair balance would have been an extremely limited examination as to service efforts. But i have sympathy for the prosecution point that the PI witness doesn't prove any facts in dispute. All he does is raise improper speculation and open the whole door to the 5th amendment discussion.

The Ricobene one is even worse. This is the defence's witness and their failure to produce her is all on them

I really hope the State now goes and finds him

For me there is a heavy suspicion that the defence don't actually want either of these 3 witnesses to testify

 

[mrjitty]

Part II (and IMO more serious)

Maline's dodgy transcript. For me it's simply unthinkable and embarrassing that you would screw this up but however.

One could make allowances that he is simply overworked (this is the kind of work an assistant would action and very carefully check).

But when he keeps doing this kind of thing, one gets the impression (per Imes) that he was trying to pull a fast one here.

ETA - seems likely Maline simply emailed the State the redacted transcript with lots of mistakes, at least some of which he later fixed.

 

[mrjitty]

#McStay - Prosecution tells the judge during arguments over Kavanaugh this morning, "There are reasons we didn't call him and those reasons are protected by work product."

This was possibly the most fascinating aspect of the exchange and got to what is really going on here.

Per Daugherty, what the defence is really trying to tunnel into is that the State didn't call this witness and then pretend that then the defence tried to get him.

In reality, neither side wish to call this witness for tactical reasons. For the State, he will simply plead the 5th as Daugherty indicated.

i think for the defence the risk is that he doesn't plead the 5th and proceeds to fit Chase up. DK can testify to discussions involving Chase when the defence cannot call CM to rebut. per Daugherty's argument, the Court is potentially opening up the contents of the defense opening.

Danger Will Robinson! So in reality neither side is serious about this witness. The defence prefers speculation that DK is "on the run"!

Riccobene is even worse. She is a defence witness and Maline interviewed her. So potentially the State could now call Maline They could delve into how the defence sequestered this junkie.

I feel the Judge is reaping the whirlwind here because he allowed so much nonsense in the first place.

The risk the defence is running is that their opening hangs in tatters.

But they are trying to replace that with "DK is on the run!"

 

[mrjitty]

So the Judge finally made some effort to chew out Maline when he wanted to examine the witness on attempts to locate all 3 witnesses, but only had a discovery report on DK from the night before.

So then Maline says oh then we have to bring this witness back later.

So the clear implication is that they deliberately haven't bothered to create/discover the report on the 2 women, so as to cause a big delay.

Cleary the "both sides" argument wore thin with the Judge who pointed out it was more frequently Maline doing this.

But what I don't understand is why the Judge allows that explanation in the first place. Why not demand counsel explain himself for the here and now?

i.e. why are two people missing out of the report?

it continues to amaze me that the judge allows this.

 

[Karinna]

What evidence is there that Dan fled town?

For all you know, Dan is still in town, or moved away years ago.

Yes exactly, and it's not like he is a fugitive running from the law,LOL.

 

[mrjitty]

If Maline pulled that snide comment in my Court room i stand him up and dress him down

I would also tell him in no uncertain terms not to bring unprepared witnesses to my Courtroom.

You get your slot. If he is not ready to testify, thats your tough luck unless you have a bloody good explanation.

This staggers me really.

Oh sorry your honour my witness is not ready but i'll be bringing him back sometime?

What self respecting judge allows such tomfoolery?

The only kudos I will give the judge is his patience in front of extreme provocation - however i think he is being unrealistic that we are "nearly finished" after just reviewing how more than a month was lost thanks to defence silliness

 

[Tortoise]

Just to be clear - yes they have - but this will mainly emerge in rebuttal.

It's been possible to piece together than the defence team has had various items of alibi evidence since 2016 at least.

What now needs to happen is for the prosecution to produce and discuss them all cohesively together.

Even if the police didn't fully investigate his alibi, the case would at best be that it's speculative that DK assisted CM with the murders. With zero evidence they conspired.

If CM and DK were charged together as co-conspirators, based on an IP address in San Diego and competing transactions in Hawaii including purchase of flights, and a photo of him there, and an ex-girlfriend who laid charges against him and detests him but also testifying he was in Hawaii with her, and no evidence of a conspiracy, the case against DK wouldn't have made it through the preliminary stages.

CM would not be off the hook with all the evidence he was at the crime scenes of the house, the Trooper and the graves.

No one has seen a shred of evidence DK did this and yet it is claimed based on sheer speculation of a motive, that this creates doubt over all the many strands of evidence against CM. Including physical DNA on the steering wheel in larger quantities than Joey's own wife, and not an iota of evidence they even met for lunch, let alone that he touched anything of Joey's on the 4th.

I need to pinch myself sometimes.

JMO

 

[mrjitty]

Only thought on process server testimony.

Seems to be clear that LE may know where DK is (seems likely they'd be up to speed on this)

 

[Karinna]

If they really wanted DK badly enough they would of found or located him to serve a subpoena on him by now.
This BS with DK is just a diversionary tactic by the defense. It means nothing IMO. Just wasting court time.