CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #17

[oceanblueeyes]

So I am curious.... who right now believes that they were killed in the home still?

I really don't want to debate on whether tarps or plastic was laid down... I don't want to debate whether bags were over their heads... whether it happened in a bathtub... I just want the bottom line answer... no explanations necessary And I don't even care if you think Merritt is 100% responsible or Mickey Mouse did it.....

Do you believe they were killed in the home?

I can only base my answer on the evidence presented, as the jury will do.

It will depend on what was found, and shown to them, rather than what wasn't found. IMO

The items found inside the graves are items that would only be located inside the victims' home.

Imo, the specific items found is totally inconsistent with them being murdered elsewhere, but is very consistent with being murdered at home.

Due to that presented evidence, I do believe they were killed inside of their home, then transported to the desert for burial.

Imo

 

[Mica]

I am amazed at fast you guys are in finding info! I was still in the interwebs trying to find an article like this! You guys can open a forensic investigation company and use Google as your main tool, just like LaRock!

Nope, sorry you're wrong. I used my old notes. Google wasn't my friend this time around.

 

[Mica]

I can even be a cell tower expert now... I have google maps Bet we could charge at least $225 an hour!

Yea, both sides’ “experts” used Google. Imagine that.

 

[Mica]

Agree. I believe DK was a suspect initially, but LE must of found enough on him that he had a solid alibi at the time of the murders. Makes sense to me anyway, because with any crime especially of murder, LE start off with the persons closest to the victim/s first and then anyone else that was known to the victim, when they do their investigations.
And the incriminating statement by Merritt that he was definitely the last person to see Joseph McStay.

Still waiting for proof of DK's solid alibi.

 

[asyousay]

Oh and this doesn’t prove murder but it shows what a rotten person Chase is.

He borrowed money off the victim’s mum and then never even attempted to pay her back.

 

[mrjitty]

Still waiting for proof of DK's solid alibi.

Still waiting for any proof of chase's alibi

 

[asyousay]

Still waiting for any proof of chase's alibi

Yes it’s odd how for large periods of that time span he suffers with lapses of amnesia.

 

[Longtimenoc]

Yes it’s odd how for large periods of that time span he suffers with lapses of amnesia.

Same as the missus, C J. They both have a bad case of CRS.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Still waiting for proof of DK's solid alibi.

Has the defense entered proof about CMs iron clad alibi along with supporting records?

I know his daughter, and CJ tried to give him one, but didn't his own phone records call that into question?

Plus, often juries don't rely on family members of a defendant who they know have a vested interest to cover for the drfendant.

While it would be interesting to know where DK was for the days in question, it's far more relevant in the trial for CMs whereabouts during those days to be verified....like tracking his phone recors showing his locations.

Has DKs phone records been presented by the defense showing he was in the Fallbrook area when they were killed?

I really think it's the defense's job to proof any accusations they make against someone including DK.

That's not the duty of the prosecutors. Their sole duty is to present evidence against the accused on trial.

So far I've not seen the DT prove DK was anywhere else other than where the records showed him to be.

Imo

 

[mrjitty]

Someone should really make a mind map of the circumstantial evidence against Chase

I'd really forgotten the call with Mike

 

[Tortoise]

The prosecution should just listen to McGee to fathom out how Merritt moved them without leaving trails of blood.

Day 8 Part 3 Denys Williams cross-exam 11.10

JM: I want to go to the master closet, start with exhibit 117, this is an overview of that closet correct?
DW: Yes.
JM: Go to exhibit 631. In the closet you saw the dress on the right hanging in the closet?
DW: Yes.
JM: This appears to be maybe a wedding dress?
DW: That’s what I thought it looked like.
JM: Does that appear to be a tear in that wedding dress bag? At the bottom?
DW: Yes.
JM: Does that appear to be a weird way to store a wedding dress?
Objection – calls for speculation, relevance – sustained.
JM: Let me see, when you got married, or did you get married before?
DW: Yes.
JM: Did you wear a wedding dress?
Your honour, objection relevance – sustained.
JM: Aren’t wedding dresses usually stored in a box?
Objection, relevance – sustained.
JM: Did you test this bag for latent prints to see if anybody touched that that shouldn’t have?
DW: No.
JM: Back to 118 these are the clothes that are on the floor correct?
DW: Yes.


--

Sgt Joseph Steers cross-exam Day 13 Part 2 26:14

JM: Mrs Blake also said she went upstairs and noticed the clothes everywhere?
JS: Yes.
JM: And you also noticed that and thought that was important or peculiar?
JS: From photographs I viewed yes.
JM: And she noted something weird about Summer’s wedding dress did she not?
JS: Yes.
Objection, cumulative 352 hearsay – sustained
JM: This is not cumulative your honour this is impeachment of Ms Blake because she didn’t recall this part of her testimony
BI: Actually she testified to it your honour.
J: The objection’s sustained as cumulative.
JM: Didn’t Ms Blake say it was weird that the dress was out of the box that she saw Summer load up in San Clemente?
Objection hearsay – the objection’s sustained as cumulative
JM: Your honour this testimony or evidence has not come in yet it can’t be cumulative.
J: Then it’s hearsay.
JM: She did not remember..
J: The objection is sustained Mr McGee
JM: Prior inconsistent statement [x]
J: The objection is sustained.

--



CM moved their things for them from San Clemente so he knew what was in the house.

Then there's the linear stain on the carpet that looks like it could be bleach from a container that could have been wiped over with bleach before it was moved into the truck. And what looks like a bleached shoe print.



Edited to add - JMO

 

[Mica]

Has the defense entered proof about CMs iron clad alibi along with supporting records?

I know his daughter, and CJ tried to give him one, but didn't his own phone records call that into question?

Plus, often juries don't rely on family members of a defendant who they know have a vested interest to cover for the drfendant.

While it would be interesting to know where DK was for the days in question, it's far more relevant in the trial for CMs whereabouts during those days to be verified....like tracking his phone recors showing his locations.

Has DKs phone records been presented by the defense showing he was in the Fallbrook area when they were killed?

I really think it's the defense's job to proof any accusations they make against someone including DK.

That's not the duty of the prosecutors. Their sole duty is to present evidence against the accused on trial.

So far I've not seen the DT prove DK was anywhere else other than where the records showed him to be.

Imo

Well I would think if LE thoroughly vetted DK, as many here say, the PT would have that evidence on hand and destroy the DT’s theory involving DK. It would put it to bed quickly.

 

[Karinna]

Awkward.

But it makes sense from a business perspective. He was too expensive.

He was a huge liability for JM's business as well with the people JM dealt with, IMO.

 

[Karinna]

Still waiting for proof of DK's solid alibi.

I think the fact he hasn't been arrested and charged yet is some proof.

 

[Karinna]

Well I would think if LE thoroughly vetted DK, as many here say, the PT would have that evidence on hand and destroy the DT’s theory involving DK. It would put it to bed quickly.

I thought they already showed he was in Hawaii at the time?

 

[mrjitty]

The prosecution should just listen to McGee to fathom out how Merritt moved them without leaving trails of blood.

I completely agree. Via the sock puppet counsel effect, Chase tells us what is sensitive in the case, and especially what stuff the prosecution don't know about. This was very evident on Provecho where we got to peer behind the curtain because of the jail house tapes and saw how Chase manipulates witness and counsel to explore something critical in a dishonest way.

Day 8 Part 3 Denys Williams cross-exam 11.10

JM: I want to go to the master closet, start with exhibit 117, this is an overview of that closet correct?
DW: Yes.
JM: Go to exhibit 631. In the closet you saw the dress on the right hanging in the closet?
DW: Yes.
JM: This appears to be maybe a wedding dress?
DW: That’s what I thought it looked like.
JM: Does that appear to be a tear in that wedding dress bag? At the bottom?
DW: Yes.
JM: Does that appear to be a weird way to store a wedding dress?
Objection – calls for speculation, relevance – sustained.
JM: Let me see, when you got married, or did you get married before?
DW: Yes.
JM: Did you wear a wedding dress?
Your honour, objection relevance – sustained.
JM: Aren’t wedding dresses usually stored in a box?
Objection, relevance – sustained.
JM: Did you test this bag for latent prints to see if anybody touched that that shouldn’t have?
DW: No.
JM: Back to 118 these are the clothes that are on the floor correct?
DW: Yes.


--

Sgt Joseph Steers cross-exam Day 13 Part 2 26:14

JM: Mrs Blake also said she went upstairs and noticed the clothes everywhere?
JS: Yes.
JM: And you also noticed that and thought that was important or peculiar?
JS: From photographs I viewed yes.
JM: And she noted something weird about Summer’s wedding dress did she not?
JS: Yes.
Objection, cumulative 352 hearsay – sustained
JM: This is not cumulative your honour this is impeachment of Ms Blake because she didn’t recall this part of her testimony
BI: Actually she testified to it your honour.
J: The objection’s sustained as cumulative.
JM: Didn’t Ms Blake say it was weird that the dress was out of the box that she saw Summer load up in San Clemente?
Objection hearsay – the objection’s sustained as cumulative
JM: Your honour this testimony or evidence has not come in yet it can’t be cumulative.
J: Then it’s hearsay.
JM: She did not remember..
J: The objection is sustained Mr McGee
JM: Prior inconsistent statement [x]
J: The objection is sustained.

--

View attachment 180635 View attachment 180636 View attachment 180637 View attachment 180638

CM moved their things for them from San Clemente so he knew what was in the house.

Then there's the linear stain on the carpet that looks like it could be bleach from a container that could have been wiped over with bleach before it was moved into the truck. And what looks like a bleached shoe print.

View attachment 180639

Edited to add - JMO

Damn this is a really good spot.

I was wondering this about the floors. e.g. did he spot clean but then make them messy again?

He had a lot of time to stage objects around the place

 

[mrjitty]

I thought they already showed he was in Hawaii at the time?

For some even his purchase, travel and call records aren't enough and the IP is "the real truth"

Of course he would have had to fly back to California so I wonder why the defence don't have the PAX logs

 

[Mony Mony]

Still waiting for proof of DK's solid alibi.

CM himself alibied DK during the clubhouse interview. The two timed felon said Dan was in Hawaii the whole time. I know it is not solid proof, but still.........

 

[Cricket28]

Im pretty sure the accident is mentioned in the warrants. Hopefully someone else remembers.

I don't remember anything about the accident in the warrants. There might be something there IDK.

Maybe they're bringing in the accident because of the congestion it caused on the freeway. Trying to tie it in with CM's time frame somehow. I don't know if that makes sense.

The guy knows the area very well. I'm sure he could have avoided the freeway and taken side streets.

MOO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Well I would think if LE thoroughly vetted DK, as many here say, the PT would have that evidence on hand and destroy the DT’s theory involving DK. It would put it to bed quickly.

I understand why you are interested in knowing, but honestly why is it left up to the state? DK has been excluded, and the state is there to produce evidence against the accused which they certainly have done exceptionally well, imo.

If the DT has irrefutable proof showing DK was close to the M home on the 4th then why don't they show it? Surely, if they have such evidence they would be more than happy to produce it.

I just don't think it's fair for it to be left up to the state. Especially since they aren't the ones claiming DK is the real killer.

In closing if the defense does not call DK, and neither does the state, the prosecutors can simply stand up, and ask the jury why the defense did not call DK to testify before them. Especially if they are sure he is the killer.

Imo they will remind the jury the defense could have subpoenaed him to testify, then asking the jury 'why didn't they call him because nothing was preventing them from doing so?' ' did you ever see him testify?' Where was DK since they have told you to believe he is the killer?????' And on, and on, even telling them it's not the state's job to do the work for the defense. Telling them they had no reason to call DK because he was ruled out, and had an alibi the DT hasn't been able to produce irrefutable proof showing otherwise.

If I was the state I wouldnt even call DK in rebuttal since thus far the DT hasn't been able to disprove he was in Hawaii at the time. So I just see no need to do so.

Now they may call others in rebuttal who witnessed DK being in Hawaii. Who knows they very easily could have pics of him or CCTV of DK during the time in question. There are other ways to verify his alibi without calling him like we have already seen.

I wish the DT was as anal about establishing CMs iron clad alibi as they are about DKs.

This tactic has been used many times before in many cases.

The DT will talk about someone being the SODDI guy, yet they never actually call that person to the stand.

Imo, it shows all of this DK unsupported claim is just more smoke, and mirrors, used as nothing more than a diversionary tactic often used by DTs in cases like this.

Imo, the DT knows right now they dont have any concrete supporting evidence that places DK in Fallbrook on the 4th, and many days after.

Jmo