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

[HelenK]

I believe Katy put up the post showing many gambling addicts have committed murder, because another poster said being addicted to gambling, doesnt make them into being a murderer. snip
Imo

The post was in reply to mine inquiring about a post by Alf stating that Joey was a crook who was stealing from people, and I asked for links supporting that claim. Those links all dealt with Merritt, not Joey.

 

[Funky funky]

Yes, grief is certainly devastating. Agree. <modsnipped> I haven’t been back to the chat since. I don’t have much time to follow this case. And with all the delays and dark days in the courtroom in addition to the problems with the stream I pretty much gave up. I thank all here for all the updates and discussion related to the trial.

Hi, can you tell me how I would access the Law and Crime chat please? I’ve heard there are about half a dozen other McStay forums but have only located 2 so far, I enjoy reading different opinions on this case. TIA!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The BTK Killer, who was an older gentleman, ALSO killed a family of 4 with 2 kids. So, a single person can kill a family w/o any help. Just sayin.

How true. Unfortunately, many murderers of all ages, over the years have murdered multiple victims at one time.

Many of them have been capable of murdering way more than four, with many of the victims being adult victims, who weren't nearly as defenseless as two tiny children would be , yet they accomplished it all by themselves, including all the aftermath, and coverup after they had murdered their victims..

Imo

 

[citygirl]

I think the company name was TSG. I can't recall the guys name though that was also attached to it as well.

ETA: found it.

Jon Knautz - IMDb

You are too much! Thanks.

 

[katydid23]

I don't see how she could avoid testifying. If one side doesn't call her the other will. She's too central to the case to not be called.

Anyone who doesn't want to hear legal rambling should probably skip my posts.




Well actually over here it's more complicated than that under the law, believe it or not! I actually just researched this issue last month. (We have every intention of introducing the defendant's prior ourselves but we wanted to have the first word on it to the jury.)

So to bring in a prior conviction of a defendant to impeach them if they testify. The current rules in my state require that there needs to be an element of untruthfulness, dishonest act or false statement otherwise it shall be excluded.

The phrase "dishonest act" only applies to a narrow subset of criminal convictions, thus the crime must include the elements of a dishonest act or false statement for the prior conviction to be admissible.

According to the Supreme Court "theft" does NOT meet the criteria of a dishonest act or false statement unless a fraudulent act or deception is involved (i.e. theft by deception or identify fraud.)

I was rather surprised myself at this finding. However it made sense once I thought about it. You can be charged with theft without being dishonest. There are misunderstandings, forgetting to return a rental, etc but fraud or deception means the intent was there.

These little nuances in the law complicate things a lot!

Chase Merritt has a history of theft by fraud. One of the ways he stole money from people was by taking down payments for water fountains, and then never getting back to the customers.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

The post was in reply to mine inquiring about a post by Alf stating that Joey was a crook who was stealing from people, and I asked for links supporting that claim. Those links all dealt with Merritt, not Joey.

Oh I'm so sorry I misunderstood.

I thought you were referring to Katy's post listing the many murderers who were gambling addicts, and how them being a gambling addict was the motive for why the murders occurred.

My bad. Again, I'm sorry for misunderstanding your post.

 

[Mica]

I think the company name was TSG. I can't recall the guys name though that was also attached to it as well.

ETA: found it.

Jon Knautz - IMDb

Yes, that’s it!

 

[Mica]

Hi, can you tell me how I would access the Law and Crime chat please? I’ve heard there are about half a dozen other McStay forums but have only located 2 so far, I enjoy reading different opinions on this case. TIA!

Lawandcrime.com

 

[missy1974]

Hi, can you tell me how I would access the Law and Crime chat please? I’ve heard there are about half a dozen other McStay forums but have only located 2 so far, I enjoy reading different opinions on this case. TIA!

The L&C chat is on the right side of the trial when viewing on a computer. I don't see it when I am on my phone though.

<modsnipped>

 

[Funky funky]

The L&C chat is on the right side of the trial when viewing on a computer. I don't see it when I am on my phone though.
I have sent you a private convo
Oh, I only usually watch on my phone. <modsnipped>

 

[cobalt sky]

Chase and Joey talked multiple times a day, every day. They worked together on big projects, day after day and had to coordinate many things.

Joey and his mother rarely spoke more than once every week or 2 , it seems. Not all that unusual with busy families.
Joey spoke to his father frequently, but his father lived out of state. He wouldn't have the same knowledge that Chase would about what was the last day that Joey was in communication mode.

What I found most interesting was the det4ctive saying that Chase had a very clear, accurate memory of everything up until 5 pm on that day. Then his mind goes blank in terms of where he was and what he was doing.

Chase and Joey had only known each other a couple years, they were friends and business associates. Not blood. Yes they worked closely together and talked on the phone every day. But most people in the same situation as Chase would not be calling LE if they couldn't get in touch with a business associate for a couple days, especially over a weekend, and especially knowing that the family had several projects going on and two active little boys that would likely keep him busy.

Once Chase began to feel that something was wrong, he went to Joey's family instead of calling LE himself. There could be numerous reasons for this. One, he had warrants. Two, we don't know what things Joey may have told Chase, for example Chase maybe had remembered that Joey was worried about CPS and took off for a while, and didn't want to bring LE into the picture right away until hopefully hearing back from Joey. Three, there could have been other reasons why Chase would not want to bring LE into the picture right away that would not be appropriate for me to speculate about here so I'm not going to. And four, the most likely reason, is that he most likely just didn't feel it was his place to contact LE, and felt more comfortable letting Joey's family make that decision.

He went directly to Susan's house to tell her about his concern about the family. He didn't contact LE at that time because Joey's family didn't ask him to. Instead, they asked him to monitor the movement of dog bowls. It is absurd to criticize Chase for not calling LE right away when Joey's own blood didn't call them either! Once Joey's family was notified, the onus was on them as to how to handle the situation. The number of times they talked on the phone during the week is imo completely irrelevant.

 

[katydid23]

To put all of this into perspective, with Chase's and even Cathy's memory. Today is February 17th, exactly 9 years ago, CM was interviewed. Can you all remember what you did on the 4th? the 5th? the 6th? the 7th? the 8th? I can't LOL And I have a kicka$$ memory.

I had to look at a calendar, even looked at text messages to see if I could recall what I was doing those evenings (which is kinda funny considering one of those days my son had a bday LOL). Not saying that Chase made stuff up, but I don't know if faulting Cathy for her memory is warranted. JMO

Chase was called in for an interview. He should have known he was going to be asked about the last time he saw Joey. Wouldn't he expect that they would ask him about what else he did on that last day? He already said her knew he was one of the POIS. Why didn't he look at old calendars, notes, receipts, for clues to jog his memory before the interview.

 

[katydid23]

Chase and Joey had only known each other a couple years, they were friends and business associates. Not blood. Yes they worked closely together and talked on the phone every day. But most people in the same situation as Chase would not be calling LE if they couldn't get in touch with a business associate for a couple days, especially over a weekend, and especially knowing that the family had several projects going on and two active little boys that would likely keep him busy.

Once Chase began to feel that something was wrong, he went to Joey's family instead of calling LE himself. There could be numerous reasons for this. One, he had warrants. Two, we don't know what things Joey may have told Chase, for example Chase maybe had remembered that Joey was worried about CPS and took off for a while, and didn't want to bring LE into the picture right away until hopefully hearing back from Joey. Three, there could have been other reasons why Chase would not want to bring LE into the picture right away that would not be appropriate for me to speculate about here so I'm not going to. And four, the most likely reason, is that he most likely just didn't feel it was his place to contact LE, and felt more comfortable letting Joey's family make that decision.

He went directly to Susan's house to tell her about his concern about the family. He didn't contact LE at that time because Joey's family didn't ask him to. Instead, they asked him to monitor the movement of dog bowls. It is absurd to criticize Chase for not calling LE right away when Joey's own blood didn't call them either! Once Joey's family was notified, the onus was on them as to how to handle the situation. The number of times they talked on the phone during the week is imo completely irrelevant.

I wasnt saying that Chase should have reported them missing. That wasnt the question I resounded to.

I was explaining why Chase would know he was actually missing, before any of the others would recognize it. And also why Chase should have been able to remember what was happening on the 4th, as opposed to other family members, who had no contact with Joey that day. JMO

Here is the post I was replying to:

So if it's a triggering event, and it's the reason why Chase should recall what he did that night, why can't the same be said for his family?

 

[missy1974]

Chase was called in for an interview. He should have known he was going to be asked about the last time he saw Joey. Wouldn't he expect that they would ask him about what else he did on that last day? He already said her knew he was one of the POIS. Why didn't he look at old calendars, notes, receipts, for clues to jog his memory before the interview.

Did he not do just that? He had notes, he had emails. So when everyone hear's he has notes, they say that is very telling, and it's so he can stick to the "story" and it makes him a conning thief. Just stop and think about this for a minute... IF he is not guilty, why would he think he would have to know where he was that night or any day or night after that when he was asked on the Feb 17/10? Remember... everyone thought they were missing, they found the Trooper at the border, there was no sign they were killed, much less in that home. So he recounted the last time he saw Joey, this is what I would expect him to be asked about and remember and make notes on, and he did.

NOT saying that what he said or didn't say is the truth, but I can see both sides of this. I know some can't, and it doesn't matter what I or anyone else says, for the most part opinions have already been formed.

 

[katydid23]

Did he not do just that? He had notes, he had emails. So when everyone hear's he has notes, they say that is very telling, and it's so he can stick to the "story" and it makes him a conning thief. Just stop and think about this for a minute... IF he is not guilty, why would he think he would have to know where he was that night or any day or night after that when he was asked on the Feb 17/10? Remember... everyone thought they were missing, they found the Trooper at the border, there was no sign they were killed, much less in that home. So he recounted the last time he saw Joey, this is what I would expect him to be asked about and remember and make notes on, and he did.

NOT saying that what he said or didn't say is the truth, but I can see both sides of this. I know some can't, and it doesn't matter what I or anyone else says, for the most part opinions have already been formed.

No, I was talking about notes from a calendar etc, to remind him where he was that night. He was going there to speak to detectives.

I am stopping to think---and if my boss was missing, and I was telling people I was the last person he saw, I'd expect the detectives would want an alibi from me. Even if I was innocent, I'd be expected to show some evidence of that because of other things I had already said.

Chase had initially told LE that the reason for the lunch meeting was for Joey to give Chase some checks dated Feb 4th. Later on we find out those checks were backdated from the 5th, and then deleted. Very shady.

 

[Mica]

<modsnipped quoted post>

So you think playing games and intentionally withholding information during witness testimony is okay? I don’t for any reason. It’s makes one less credible, IMO.

I actually thought the real reason Mike chose not to remember things was because he told so many different versions of stories to the media (as evidenced in print and video) that he was unable to answer truthfully. JMO

 

[katydid23]

As to the statement above, that 'some people have already formed their opinions and can't see both sides...'

Some people are looking at everything AS A WHOLE.

Others are taking it piece by piece, and coming up with alternate , although unlikely, explanations for those same circumstances.

One can always find those outlier explanations. Hey Maybe Joey decided inexplicably to start writing checks from an account he never wrote them from before, and maybe he told Chase to start writing himself checks and told him to backdate and delete them, as a new type of accounting practice. And Joey said. yah, sign my name, no problem.

And maybe Chase said he saw joeys 8:28 pm call that night, and didnt pick up because he talked to Joey so many times that day already, but then when we find out that call couldn't have been seen by Chase, so we say 'hey, he just misspoke, and he didnt remember,' he was thinking of the wrong night, he didnt lie.

We can do that to explain and justify EVERY SINGLE piece of circumstantial evidence, and then say Chase is innocent. But is it accurate?

When I look at the whole big picture, it is harder to explain away those circumstantial issues.

When I look at those checks that were backdated to the 4th, deleted and then CASHED by Chase, it looks damning if I have other pieces of information in mind. Like Chase telling LE in an early interview that Joey gave him those checks. And now we know that's not true.

 

[missy1974]

As to the statement above, that 'some people have already formed their opinions and can't see both sides...'

Some people are looking at everything AS A WHOLE.

Others are taking it piece by piece, and coming up with alternate , although unlikely, explanations for those same circumstances.

One can always find those outlier explanations. Hey Maybe Joey decided inexplicably to start writing checks from an account he never wrote them from before, and maybe he told Chase to start writing himself checks and told him to backdate and delete them, as a new type of accounting practice. And Joey said. yah, sign my name, no problem.

And maybe Chase said he saw joeys 8:28 pm call that night, and didnt pick up because he talked to Joey so many times that day already, but then when we find out that call couldn't have been seen by Chase, so we say 'hey, he just misspoke, and he didnt remember,' he was thinking of the wrong night, he didnt lie.

We can do that to explain and justify EVERY SINGLE piece of circumstantial evidence, and then say Chase is innocent. But is it accurate?

When I look at the whole big picture, it is harder to explain away those circumstantial issues.

When I look at those checks that were backdated to the 4th, deleted and then CASHED by Chase, it looks damning if I have other pieces of information in mind. Like Chase telling LE in an early interview that Joey gave him those checks. And now we know that's not true.

BBM
Just be clear... here is my full statement... NOT saying that what he said or didn't say is the truth, but I can see both sides of this. I know some can't, and it doesn't matter what I or anyone else says, for the most part opinions have already been formed.

And I don't think I have said Chase is innocent?

Looking at things as a whole is what should be done... but when the whole truth is put forth in the trial. I personally am finding that many things thought to be facts aren't really facts. I went into this trial with an opinion. That opinion is not so strong anymore. Honestly, I don't know how the defense explains the backdated cheques, and right now it is there best evidence (and possibly the Feb 6th pings). IF the defense can come up with a plausible, believable explanation for it, IMO the prosecution might be in trouble.

AGAIN, all JMO.

 

[Plumeria5]

"Riding the waves in heaven". I didn't know what the inscription on the McStay family headstone said until I enlarged it just now.

https://www.findagrave.com/memorial/120355678/joseph-mateo_martelli-mcstay

Notice the little stone with the happy face on it. I wonder if one of the family members made it.

 

[mom2chloe]

This is coming out of left field but maybe one of CM and CJ’s kids had a birthday during the time he was trying to get her to recall what they were doing? Some event that could entice her recall and back up his alibi?

I bought two copies to help him get to trial. I read it so long ago that I've forgotten a lot of it. What I love most about Patrick's interviews and his book is when he tells personal stories about the family. It's very endearing.

This is sad if true. I envision CJ writing a book but if PM actually wrote a book it breaks my heart. Can anyone clarify whether he did indeed write something or is this the Rick Baker job that’s been previously referred to? TIA!