CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #14

[Tortoise]

Merritt did open a new account with $100 that first week of February, but do we know it was because his other one was closed or overdrawn? I don’t think that was part of any testimony. I may be wrong, but I sure don’t remember it.

What were they using to show all the casino withdrawals? That had to be a bank statement of some sort, no?

His bank account was closed by the bank on 5th November 2009.

They showed casino withdrawals for the period they had bank statements for, which was Jan 2009 to Aug 2009, and then Feb 3rd 2010 to May 2010.

They also brought in phone ping evidence at casinos plotted by GPS coordinates for the year from Feb 8th 2009 to Feb 13th 2010.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Yes, he apparently knew the desert there very well.

Most murderers place their victims in areas they consider their comfort zones..

CM was comfortable, and very familiar with the desert terrain.

CM, was no excepion. He did the same as many others.

Imo

 

[Tortoise]

Joseph Junior was born on January 31st 2007.

Chase told detectives he met Joey 2 1/2 to 3 years prior to Feb 2010. This puts their first meeting within the period February 2007 to August 2007.

The following was Cathy's testimony - I'm not sure what to make of it. Presumably it was very close to the time they met, presumably when Summer was pregnant in 2006 or Jan 2007, so it's not really a sign that the relationship had changed over time.


RM: Let’s talk about the year 2009 leading into 2010. Were you still, you and your family still socially going out to dinner with Joseph when he was, I guess he would, well my question is did you do that?

CJ: Yeah every once in a while I mean it wasn’t like we did it every day or anything but it was maybe you know once a month or something.

RM: And did you get a chance to observe the relationship between Joseph and Mr Merritt?

CJ: Yes.

RM: What did it appear to you, were they friends, just business, what was it?

CJ: Uh no they were more than business partners um I remember an occasion where we were having dinner and Joseph was actually you know being very open about being very nervous about having a second child with Summer and um he was you know…

RM: That was a conversation you guys had

CJ: That was a conversation we all had at dinner yes.

 

[Mica]

Presumption of innocence only means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution - it doesn't mean Jurors have to start out assuming innocence.

A juror is allowed to decide he is guilty at any point in the trial. The jury is a blackbox and we can't look inside.

As for the wider application, it is often overlooked that the State is in fact assuming guilt and is telling us they believe Chase is guilty to BARD standard

So citizens do not need to presume innocence either. Presumption of innocence has no application outside the Court House.

There are many examples of this - e.g. where a employee is charged with rape, they might be suspended or even fired before the trial, based on evidence to hand and risk to colleagues.

One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.

presumption of innocence

 

[Tortoise]

Gianni would have been 9-10 months old also when Summer conceived Joseph Jr, so I imagine with the pregnancy and already having a baby to look after any parent would have been nervous - that's hard work! I think saying Joey was "being very open" about this is an attempt to portray a problem in their relationship which Joey confided in Chase and Cathy, people he'd only just met, but I think it's a mischaracterisation because Joey and Summer got married around that time.

JMO.

 

[Karinna]

It's very time consuming. Imo if Bennett's was linked, he would have been arrested by now.

Agree and i would think they have had enough time by now to process the DNA

 

[Frankie Hellis]

Presumption of innocence only means that the burden of proof is on the prosecution - it doesn't mean Jurors have to start out assuming innocence.

A juror is allowed to decide he is guilty at any point in the trial. The jury is a blackbox and we can't look inside.

As for the wider application, it is often overlooked that the State is in fact assuming guilt and is telling us they believe Chase is guilty to BARD standard

So citizens do not need to presume innocence either. Presumption of innocence has no application outside the Court House.

There are many examples of this - e.g. where a employee is charged with rape, they might be suspended or even fired before the trial, based on evidence to hand and risk to colleagues.

Logic problem with your statement...
If jurors don’t have to start out with the presumption of innocence and the state is assuming guilt, but yet PoI only has application inside the courthouse, then it is only the defense and/or the judge who are left to have a presumption of innocence.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

I'm curious about the DNA swab they took from CM's brother, didn't he live really close to the gravesite?

I think they thought there was more than one culprit in the murders, so they took his swab too. The defense probably wants to show the cops were just trying everyone to see who they could get a match on. You can be sure if the brother’s DNA matched anything, we would know about it by now.

 

[Tortoise]

One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.

presumption of innocence

So how is this case different than say Rebecca Zahau where you opined Adam killed her before any jury had deliberated on the evidence?

Rebecca Zahau Wrongful death trial begins. Trial coverage and discussion #4

 

[Frankie Hellis]

It's one of my favourite visuals

click on image to enlarge
View attachment 175960

My other two favourites:

phone pings in desert:
View attachment 175961

and

click on link to open
Rob McMillan on Twitter

Excellent visual! Thank you.

 

[mrjitty]

One of the most sacred principles in the American criminal justice system, holding that a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. In other words, the prosecution must prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, each essential element of the crime charged.

presumption of innocence

Yes I am very familiar with the concept as I am a qualified barrister

The point is, this refers only to the burden of proof upon the prosecution inside the Court room.

It does not however

1. Mean that jurors must wait to hear all evidence before deciding the verdict - they could decide in the first hours and nothing further changes their mind.

2. Mean that private citizens must presume the defendant is innocent - in fact, the state operates on the basis that the defendant is guilty.

It's a common misconception that the presumption of innocence means that people charged with crimes must be presumed innocent by society at large but actually that is not the case. You may recall that Chase, while enjoying the presumption of innocence within the bounds of the courtroom, has spent the last 4 years in jail on suspicion of murder

There is no requirement upon anyone to listen to all the evidence before forming a view.

However according to due process and natural justice, the defendant has the opportunity to present a full defence

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Oh I believe Chase HATED Summer. With a passion.

MOO

No doubt about it. Imo.

His abnormal seething hatred against Summer was as big of an addiction for CM as his insatiable gambling addiction. Imo.

The hatred of Summer, and his addition to gambling both consumed his life.

Imo

 

[Tortoise]

I can't imagine living in a society where we are not allowed to hold beliefs until a jury has ruled on what we must think, and then agree with them. The concept is absurd.

 

[mrjitty]

Logic problem with your statement...
If jurors don’t have to start out with the presumption of innocence and the state is assuming guilt, but yet PoI only has application inside the courthouse, then it is only the defense and/or the judge who are left to have a presumption of innocence.

You are advancing a common misunderstanding of what "presumption of innocence" means

So to be clear - "presumption of innocence" just means that if you are accused of a crime, you don’t have to prove you are innocent. It is the job of the prosecutor to prove you are guilty.

So the presumption of innocence refers only to the burden of proof - and places it with the prosecution - and this means trials operate in a certain way. But thats it.

the "standard of proof" in criminal cases is Beyond Reasonable Doubt (BARD)

So prosecution must discharge the burden AND meet the standard. Standard and Burden are commonly mixed up but standard is the real question at trial.

Burden has nothing to do with the jury. It is procedural. i.e. the prosecution must prove and there is never (with limited exceptions) any burden on the defence to prove anything.

The jury must only decide if the prosecution met the standard of proof. (BARD)

The jury don't presume anyone is innocent. Indeed they may strongly suspect guilt from the outset.

I hope that makes it a bit clearer

 

[Frankie Hellis]

Yes I am very familiar with the concept as I am a qualified barrister

The point is, this refers only to the burden of proof upon the prosecution inside the Court room.

It does not however

1. Mean that jurors must wait to hear all evidence before deciding the verdict - they could decide in the first hours and nothing further changes their mind.

2. Mean that private citizens must presume the defendant is innocent - in fact, the state operates on the basis that the defendant is guilty.

It's a common misconception that the presumption of innocence means that people charged with crimes must be presumed innocent by society at large but actually that is not the case. You may recall that Chase, while enjoying the presumption of innocence within the bounds of the courtroom, has spent the last 4 years in jail on suspicion of murder

There is no requirement upon anyone to listen to all the evidence before forming a view.

However according to due process and natural justice, the defendant has the opportunity to present a full defence

Re: number 1
Why, then, does the judge admonish them not to think about the case or deliberate about it until the end? I don’t think they’re supposed come to a decision until they’ve heard all the evidence. This is not saying it is human to maybe lean one way or the other as you listen to testimony, but they’re really not supposed to decide until it is over.

 

[mrjitty]

I can't imagine living in a society where we are not allowed to hold beliefs until a jury has ruled on what we must think, and then agree with them. The concept is absurd.

yes it simply doesn't work like that.

Indeed because of the differing standards of proof and rules in civil and criminal matters, you can be sacked from your job, even though you get found not guilty - just one example. Your employer need not "presume innocence"

I've noticed a common misconception that "presumption of innocence" somehow means we all have to presume accused people are innocent until all evidence is presented.

But it actually just means the accused does not have to prove his innocence - and governs only criminal trial procedure.

 

[mrjitty]

Re: number 1
Why, then, does the judge admonish them not to think about the case or deliberate about it until the end? I don’t think they’re supposed come to a decision until they’ve heard all the evidence. This is not saying it is human to maybe lean one way or the other as you listen to testimony, but they’re really not supposed to decide until it is over.

They are not supposed to deliberate as a group until then end - because it could cause a legal error if they failed to consider relevant evidence. However that is not to do with presumption of innocence - that would be a legal error in decision making. So for instance in a judge trial where we get written reasons , the judge might fail to address some key testimony and that could lead to a succesful appeal.

But in practice, each juror is a black box. We don't know how and when they individually decided.

So it would be perfectly legit for me to decide Chase is obviously guilty from the opening statements, and then never change my mind, so long i believe BARD is met.

 

[Tortoise]

Interesting case I've been following in South Africa, where there is no jury system, and the judge determines the verdict - Jason Rohde found guilty of murdering his wife and staging her death as a hanging suicide.

The defence has lodged an appeal against the conviction and one of their contentions is that the judge had already made up her mind before she heard closing arguments because she delivered her very lengthy judgement which would have taken days to write, the very next day.

Of course she sat through all the evidence and there was no obligation on her to wait until she'd heard counsels' summaries of it before she applied her mind to it, IMO. Looking forward to hearing what the appeal court says about it.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

I wish they would take the death penalty off the table especially since my wonderful state doesn't follow through with it anyway. I'm afraid more than one juror might think with their emotions rather than go with what the evidence actually points to. Very few people want to be responsible for sentencing a person to death.

I'm not sure that is really true about your state though. CA has over 700 inmates on death row.

It seems the problem that is occurring is after all the time, and great effort over 700 juries took to come to their serious decision, its the government who thumbs their nose to those jury decisions by not carrying them out.

As far as this case, I dont think they will come to their decision in the guilt phase based on emotions.

However if CM is convicted, no doubt the murder of two small boys will be weighed heavily. How could it not? His acts were pure evil, and diabolical. He's truly one of the worst of the worst.

In fact it is one of the legal prongs that qualifies this to be a death penalty case, because both little boys were way under the age of 12 when brutally murdered.

Then it's compounded with other DP legal prongs, because all 4 murders were extremely heinous, and cruel, plus the motive was for financial gain.

If convicted. If there is any sympathy to be found, it will not be for the monster who brutally, and sadistically murdered a mommy, daddy, and their two tiny defenseless sons, in cold blood.

Jmo

 

[Mony Mony]

Missy, you have convinceď me that CM likely paid for SOME of the fountain supplies out of the $19k received for the Provecho fountain. Remember though, CM had a habit of helping himself to Joey's supplies, so I cannot be sure he didn't the same in this case. Thanks, Missy.

CM still agreed to split the loss with Joey by his own admission.

Also, per that email chain, I think it is pretty clear Laurel blamed CM for the delays. And we know per CJ, CM had a nasty habit of not finishing projects, walking away, and pissing everybody off. IMO, the Provecho deal going sour rests squarely on CM. IMO, he most definitely should have paid Joey back every red cent of that $19k. Once again, CM screwed the pooch.