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

[JMarsh]

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

People forget. And again, this is the reason that perjury is difficult to prosecute. It has to be proven that the error in testimony is a deliberate lie. Where is the PROOF that this was a lie?

 

[JMarsh]

I still need to develop my thinking in this direction but one thing that sticks out to me is that both defence and prosecution agree to a level of staging (normally the defence does not agree there is any staging).

The defence version appears to be the family are forced out of the house on the morning of 5 Feb and murdered at the grave site.

For me this raises 2 curiosities

1. Why is the trooper then not found at the house or dumped close at hand? Why risk driving it so far? The moving of the trooper implies that the grave site is indeed not the murder scene. IMO the trooper was located wherever Joey was murdered. There is no reason to think it was ever driven to the graves. Why stage it?

2. Why is the defence sensitive to the house being the crime scene? If DK did the murders, logically the defence does not know where the murders occurred. Indeed on defence own case, why does it matter if DK found a way to do the murders in the bath tub on morning 5 feb?

Why does the moving of the Trooper prove that the gravesite wasn't the murder scene?

 

[JMarsh]

I have worked on a few of them. If the innocent man is being held without bail there isn't much choice.

If his attorney tells him that his odds of acquittal are higher with a delay.... most are going to be okay with a delay. 4 years isn't very long when compared to life in prison or on death row.




I'm actually reading as a form of education. Learning how people view certain strategies or tactics. Learning what to do or not to do.

I suspect if you are currently engaged in a legal issue this could be helpful, even if the issues at stake are different. I've had a few legal battles myself, and am very interested in the approach these attorneys are taking.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

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.

Then where did it came from? You dont think it originally came from Merritt, and what he said?

What alibi did he give LE when they first interviewed him?

At that time, I don't think watching movies using other electronic devices was all the rave back then.

I just don't see Merritt as the type to watch movies in other ways. He has made a point more or less to convey he is old school.

Why are you skeptical of things that may show Merritt as possibly being deceptive, which puts him in a bad light, and calls into question his credibility?

If this was what he said, and he did, imo, it shows the accused was untruthful at a time, when if innocent, all of his truth would prevail, and it would checkout exactly as he had said, when we already know his alibi tales didn't pass muster?

Just wondering why you are skeptical even about this? He wasn't even home at the time was he when he was supposedly watching the movie?

Imo

 

[Edmo]

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

Wasn't there also a bath mat covered in blood found in one of the graves? I thought I saw a picture of it online and I can't find it for the life of me now.

 

[Tortoise]

San Diego really did fudge this. If I’d been in on his interview, or even if I was tired and hadn’t listened properly the first time and played it back to listen again, I’d have had probable cause warrants out on him immediately, to search his phone and computers, his truck, his storage facilities, his bank account, surveillance cameras, you name it. Based on his phone pings the family could have been found within a month IMO.

That interview less than two weeks after the family’s disappearance speaks to his guilt.

What did they have? -

1. A guy with previous for theft and outstanding warrants. Could have called in an anonymous welfare check if he was so concerned about his warrants.

2. Was going to the house to check on their dog bowls but didn’t go in the window to see if there’s any dead bodies inside.

3. A guy who couldn’t remember his address and plainly did not want them anywhere near his girlfriend.

4. A guy who was waffling and diverting and smarmy.

5. A guy who showed them emails from Joey saying you owe me.

6. Last person to see Joey.

7. Said Joey gave him cheques even though he’d already been printing cheques since the 1st, so he had cheque stock. This is doubly alarming because if Joey did not meet him to hand over cheques he was hiding what really happened – why lie? I accept this wouldn't have come out until they investigated his bank account and Joey’s.

8. Lied about the reason he knew Joey was sitting at his desk, couldn’t think of a reason for knowing that so very obviously invented a story on the fly of hearing the children – it doesn’t compute.

9. Had a vindictive tone when he spoke about Summer and the boys.

10. Spoke about them all in the past tense NOT in relation to questions in the past tense.

11. Couldn't remember if he had been in the Trooper without thinking about it.

12. THE BIGGEST RED FLAG OF ALL – Put Dan K in the frame, ever so - ever so - subtly but as we see if we delve a little deeper – loud and clear. He says he thinks Dan K lives in Hawaii. This is not accidental, it’s no Freudian Slip. He wants detectives to think hmm, this guy’s really not pointing the finger at Dan K! He’s telling us Dan wasn’t here but then it’s starting to smell a little because even though Dan’s not here he’s going to tell us more. It’s obvious chicanery to me. 13 days after the family has disappeared with no sign of murder he tells detectives Joey was so scared of Dan. Joey talked about it all the time. They’d argued! Joey was so scared of Dan he’d paid him a lot of money. Dan K was a brilliant hack you know. Wouldn’t want to piss off Dan K. They get the drift. BUT this is where he gives away his knowledge that Summer and the boys are dead also.

Detectives had a missing family. They didn’t have a missing Joey, they had an entire family missing. What could it be?

a/ They’ve voluntarily gone missing.

b/ they’ve come to harm accidentally.

c/ they’ve been murdered.

By giving them the low down on Dan (he and Joey argued a year ago, Joey was scared, don’t want to mess with Dan, could have been hacking), Chase wants to insinuate that Dan K was a thorn in Joey’s side and had a motive to murder Joey. So we take out a/ and b/ and he’s thinking c/, Joey has been murdered. But that has to be joined with the rest of the family being murdered – it’s inconceivable to think Joey was murdered by Dan, and Summer and the two boys were murdered in an unconnected incident on the same day. Joey’s murder doesn’t exist without the family’s murder by bringing in c/.

The problem is there is no evidence the family was murdered and Chase has no reason to suspect Dan would murder Summer and the boys. The murder of 3 and 4 year old children is an extremely rare event and likely to be the least likely scenario imaginable. An argument between business partners does not lead one to the conclusion that a wife and two children became a target. He weaves Dan into the conversation so casually but it’s done deliberately with no basis in logic.

It would be enough to make me investigate Chase because his pushing them in that direction after only 13 days shows consciousness of guilt IMO.

 

[QueenBofOB]

Of course they will assert that the DA's accounting is wrong. It will be expert vs expert. Both sides will be able to make a case for their set of numbers. It won't be cut and dry or easy to know which is correct.

The important thing is, what did Joey and Chase believe about the money. It doesn't really matter what the forensic accountants say right now. What matters most is what Joey and Chase thought and what they argued about.

If Joey believed he overpaid Chase and didn't owe him any big money, that is what matters, in looking at the possible motive.

The week the family vanished, Joey handed over a check to Chase for 100 bucks. Chase wrote himself checks for about 12k. Big difference between their view of how much Chase was owed from that business account, it seems to me.

I get the impression, that the $100 check was so stupid, LOSER, IDIOT GAMBLER CM could open a new checking acct. Maybe the one he had was closed, because of so many bounced checks. For someone making such exorbitant amounts of money (JM paid him something like $173,000!!?!?), he obviously didn't know the first thing about how to handle it.

 

[missy1974]

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

But it's also in the preliminary hearing that it was based off of Jarvis's memory, not his own (I think he said the same in an interview) Could be a good ploy by him, or it could be that he really didn't recall 13 days later, and in the case of Hanke, 4 years later.

I don't know, but these aren't Merritt's words, these are words from a detective in the preliminary hearing, and IMO there were numerous things that I have found so far that were misrepresented, I have no way of knowing if this is one of them. I wonder if we will be able to hear those interviews as well?

I am married to someone that has a horrible memory.... I could tell him that we went to McDonald's and Walmart on Feb 4th and then we came home and watched movies, and he would believe me and then say it's his memory, doesn't make it true.

 

[missy1974]

Then where did it came from? You dont think it originally came from Merritt, and what he said?

What alibi did he give LE when they first interviewed him?

At that time, I don't think watching movies using other electronic devices was all the rave back then.

I just don't see Merritt as the type to watch movies in other ways. He has made a point more or less to convey he is old school.

Why are you skeptical of things that may show Merritt as possibly being deceptive, which puts him in a bad light, and calls into question his credibility?

If this was what he said, and he did, imo, it shows the accused was untruthful at a time, when if innocent, all of his truth would prevail, and it would checkout exactly as he had said, when we already know his alibi tales didn't pass muster?

Just wondering why you are skeptical even about this? He wasn't even home at the time was he when he was supposedly watching the movie?

Imo

So where do you suppose he watched the movies he rented at Blockbuster? If he really didn't have a TV or didn't know enough to watch it on his computer or laptop? Or maybe he just went there for the popcorn?

I am not sceptical of things that make Merritt out to be a liar... I'm sceptical of taking what is in the PH at face value at this point. For some of the info, that is all we have right now.

And for me..... I will base opinions on the facts, not on rumour. You all are free to think he's a liar because he was too stupid to figure out how to watch a movie if he didn't own a TV (which I still don't know as a fact). I will base my opinion on the fact that I see he made 2 purchases at Blockbuster, which indicates to me that he did indeed know how to watch a movie, TV or not ;-) Still doesn't prove that he did watch them.. but IMO shows that he at least intended to.

 

[missy1974]

Wasn't there also a bath mat covered in blood found in one of the graves? I thought I saw a picture of it online and I can't find it for the life of me now.

Cathy russon's tweets possibly?

 

[JMarsh]

But it's also in the preliminary hearing that it was based off of Jarvis's memory, not his own (I think he said the same in an interview) Could be a good ploy by him, or it could be that he really didn't recall 13 days later, and in the case of Hanke, 4 years later.

I don't know, but these aren't Merritt's words, these are words from a detective in the preliminary hearing, and IMO there were numerous things that I have found so far that were misrepresented, I have no way of knowing if this is one of them. I wonder if we will be able to hear those interviews as well?

I am married to someone that has a horrible memory.... I could tell him that we went to McDonald's and Walmart on Feb 4th and then we came home and watched movies, and he would believe me and then say it's his memory, doesn't make it true.

There is one more possibility and that is that Chase was at the casino during some of these times when his memory fails him. He was on probation, and though the terms of his probation don't appear to restrict gambling, he may not have wanted to admit to this.

I don't think gambling leads to murder very often, but if there are issues with the court it might be something he didn't want law enforcement to know. There was a bench warrant for his arrest when he was first interviewed. This was for failure to appear. Even if Chase lied, the lie may have been to cover up other activity than murdering his only source of steady income, and that source's family.

 

[JMarsh]

Cathy russon's tweets possibly?

There have been no items discovered, either in the grave or the home, that have been proven to have blood on them.

 

[Force Ten]

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.

Good find. Iirc Merritt told detectives he didn't have a tv. It's either in the warrants or the prelim. There was also something he said that led me to believe they weren't living together, which is peculiar. He did pay for something at blockbuster but on the 12th and 15th, not the 4th. Joseph surely didn't call him then.

Something to note, he went to Olive Garden the 10th, spent $94. Most likely took the whole family out (we recently did the same thing for a seating of 7 with an $80 tab). So, if Chase is late in paying rent as he told detectives, why is he spending lavishly? How is it CJ is not questioning this???

 

[Bernina]

Really, really sketchy that CM can remember minute details about the Chik-fil A meeting, which hasn't been verified by video, an employee, and/or a payment on a credit card statement (yet), but not what he was doing that evening, the last time his employer supposedly tried to contact him.
There is no evidence as to where CM met JM on the 4th. YET.

I have yet to see a valid alibi for where CM was the 4th, 5th, and 8th, 9th.

Most people who are self employed have a schedule written on paper (remember Day Planners"?), the computer, or their phone with appointment, jobs, deadlines, payment due, etc.

Nothing, in the trial, has been said to give CM an alibi for the 4th, 5th, 8th, and 9th. There's a vague memory by Carmen that CM was in the Metro Office the 8th or 9th, but, again, that's vague. Barring THAT, no one has given CM an alibi.

Waiting for CM's alibi for his whereabouts because I have yet to hear it from any of the witnesses, ON THE STAND, per what CM claims in pre-trial. interviews/statements.

 

[Force Ten]

Ooh I didn’t realise he still doesn’t have an alibi for the night of 4 Feb. I know he originally suggested he was at home watching a TV (he never had) but assumed he had come up with something more plausible for the afternoon and eve this poor family was murdered.

Does he have an explanation for why his phone was off grid so much from that afternoon until 9th? I hear he rarely went off grid previous to that and that was his girlfriend’s comment!

He originally stated he couldn't remember anything after 5 pm. A lot could be read into that. He is afterall being asked about it weeks later. To me though, it doesn't sit well. His gf was calling him, leaving VM and he finally calls her back at 9:32. I think that would jar my memory a bit, certainly not be at home watching a movie with the person who's trying to get a hold of me.

His memory is quite clear though when recounting the days after that, where he went, did, times and who he spoke to.

 

[Edmo]

There have been no items discovered, either in the grave or the home, that have been proven to have blood on them.

Not yet at least. IIRC, one of the LE team was displaying two "pieces" of a bath mat(s) that had blood on them for the picture. It shocked me because I didn't remember seeing this during the testimony about what they found in the graves. Maybe they haven't presented it yet?

 

[missy1974]

I get the impression, that the $100 check was so stupid, LOSER, IDIOT GAMBLER CM could open a new checking acct. Maybe the one he had was closed, because of so many bounced checks. For someone making such exorbitant amounts of money (JM paid him something like $173,000!!?!?), he obviously didn't know the first thing about how to handle it.

I considered this, that maybe his original Union account was having issues, but then he supposedly deposited a cheque there on the 5th.

 

[cobalt sky]

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

Susan originally said that she spoke to Joey on the afternoon of the 4th. Now she says the last time she spoke to Joey was in late January. CLEARLY this discrepancy means she must have murdered the McStays.

See how silly this is?

 

[missy1974]

There have been no items discovered, either in the grave or the home, that have been proven to have blood on them.

You are right, sorry. But @Edmo may be looking for a pic that Cathy tweeted, she was tweeting many in those first few weeks.

 

[JMarsh]

This is an area where I feel there is need for law reform

I prefer the English reforms where the accused must disclose some types of facts he intends to rely on pre-trial to police.

e.g. if you have an Alibi that you were elsewhere, it is absurd you can wait till the end of the trial to disclose it on the stand.

This is true in California as well. Both sides have to reveal discovery. They can keep work product and strategy from each other, but any evidence that either side has must be disclosed.