CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #19

[travelbug]

You forgot to mention the laundry list of evidence against Merritt such as the check writing, forging Joey's signature, calling QB and pretending to be Joey, cell phone pings at the very site where the bodies were recovered, etc., etc.

As I stated in my post, I am only stating the evidence as it will be heard BY THE JURORS. The PT phone piping evidence has been successfully refuted by the DT experts. That means there is no proof that CM was near the gravesite or near the Falbrook crime scene. A great many posters did not listen to the DT trial audio or watch the video. Tortoise and missy1974 have diligently posted transcripts. A great number of facts, rather than conjecture, can be found there in support of the DT presentation. I learned long ago not to rely upon the opinion of others when making a decision.

I-might add that I don’t know a single person on either side of this trial or any of their friends/relatives. Quite frankly I’m glad, it allows me to be objective regarding both sides. I do know enough about LE and the court system to say IMO this case has been mishandled by everyone connected to it since day 1 and that fact alone may mean the responsible party(ies), whether CM or another will never face justice.

 

[missy1974]

As I stated in my post, I am only stating the evidence as it will be heard BY THE JURORS. The PT phone piping evidence has been successfully refuted by the DT experts. That means there is no proof that CM was near the gravesite or near the Falbrook crime scene. A great many posters did not listen to the DT trial audio or watch the video. Tortoise and missy1974 have diligently posted transcripts. A great number of facts, rather than conjecture, can be found there in support of the DT presentation. I learned long ago not to rely upon the opinion of others when making a decision.

I-might add that I don’t know a single person on either side of this trial or any of their friends/relatives. Quite frankly I’m glad, it allows me to be objective regarding both sides. I do know enough about LE and the court system to say IMO this case has been mishandled by everyone connected to it since day 1 and that fact alone may mean the responsible party(ies), whether CM or another will never face justice.

Boles testimony about those cell pings was unfortunately on a day that we didn't have video, it was not easy to follow but I did take notes and IMO the pings didn't "place" him at the grave sites, but they did place him in Victorville, there is a lot in there about initiating/ending towers, what that means in Boles opinion, etc. I know what my opinion is of it, but for anyone that has the time, should listen to the testimony carefully and piece it together. IMO he was 'moving', wasn't stationary and none of the pings "placed" him at the grave sites. Which could mean that when he was burying them, no calls took place so there was nothing there to "show" that.

Also, IMO, this is just another piece that the defense will say that LE formed their theory around. That they had to have been buried on the 6th, because otherwise they couldn't place Merritt there. But do the tire tracks support it was Merritt? Does the timing of the rain that day and Merritt's pings that day support that? Does the fact that the desert and this area being frequent burial/dumping site support that? Where did Merritt hide the bodies for 2 days? What evidence supports that?

I personally still have so many questions... I can see both sides of a lot of the evidence in this case... and at this point I don't think I would be confident in convicting, but that's not my decision

 

[Bernina]

If I was local, I would probably try LOL But I'm not... so can't haha I just cannot see why the defense wouldn't want to get him on the stand, even the prosecution seems to believe he would plead the 5th, why wouldn't the defense? That would be way better than the juror's hearing that the PI couldn't find him.

I don't know why Dan just doesn't come forward... the defense has accused him of some pretty serious crimes in court and in the media (according to the pro's, I haven't looked for any articles stating that) and if he is innocent, shouldn't he be screaming it from the rooftops like some have thought Merritt should have been doing all these years? JMO

He would be deemed a "hostile witness" by the defense.
He did his due diligence by supporting his alibi for the dates in question. The PT investigated his claims, they cleared him.
Any other person of interest would have done the same thing. If any of us had provided similar evidence and been cleared, would we want to be drug into a murder trial because the DT says it's not enough proof?? I certainly wouldn't.
If the State cleared MY alibi, I'm not going to be drug into court. I can't legally be forced to comply.
Have we seen any contempt of court charges laid against DK?
If any of the teams were serious, you bet they'd have filled that when the trial started.

 

[Texas Red]

Have we seen any contempt of court charges laid against DK?
If any of the teams were serious, you bet they'd have filled that when the trial started.

Filled what? What are you talking about?

 

[KALI]

That is ALL I can hope for in this State of California.
I, really and truly hope that he suffers every single day of the rest of his miserable life.
Yes. I think that Chase Merritt killed and tortured this family.
Yes, I want him to finally start paying for ALL of the horrible things he has done throughout his lousy as a human being's life.
FINALLY, I want him to be found accountable and reap what he has sown throughout his 60 plus years on this planet.
Being sent to death row with a severely limited and harsh existence is exactly where this thing should be.
This is my opinion.

No doubt, protective custody/segregated. 21 hours in a cell, 1 hour out.

 

[Force Ten]

Boles testimony about those cell pings was unfortunately on a day that we didn't have video, it was not easy to follow but I did take notes and IMO the pings didn't "place" him at the grave sites, but they did place him in Victorville, there is a lot in there about initiating/ending towers, what that means in Boles opinion, etc. I know what my opinion is of it, but for anyone that has the time, should listen to the testimony carefully and piece it together. IMO he was 'moving', wasn't stationary and none of the pings "placed" him at the grave sites. Which could mean that when he was burying them, no calls took place so there was nothing there to "show" that.

Also, IMO, this is just another piece that the defense will say that LE formed their theory around. That they had to have been buried on the 6th, because otherwise they couldn't place Merritt there. But do the tire tracks support it was Merritt? Does the timing of the rain that day and Merritt's pings that day support that? Does the fact that the desert and this area being frequent burial/dumping site support that? Where did Merritt hide the bodies for 2 days? What evidence supports that?

I personally still have so many questions... I can see both sides of a lot of the evidence in this case... and at this point I don't think I would be confident in convicting, but that's not my decision

Of course, the ping evidence does not place him there at the actual site. The defense was pretty effective in relaying that and I think the jury will see that. If we stick to the pings, the defense has no qualms about them being accurate if we go back to the Rancho Cucamonga pings and whatnot, placing him at home, then we have to accept that the Victorville pings to be valid. They happened when they did, where they hit and Merritt was not sitting on a sofa in the clubhouse.

His sister offered up a slight possibility why his phone pinged the towers but there is no other footprint to suggest that Chase was up in that area for any reason. Chase says he wasn't up there and can't explain the pings. The very weekend his friend/employer went missing, he should have had total recall what he was doing then, imo. Absolute total recall.

Where did he hide them for two days? Was it two days? There is so much about the events we don't know about. Jurors can't/shouldn't assert assumptions beyond the scope of reason. What has been presented in testimony is opportunity? Merritt had more than enough time to cleanup. More than enough time to relocate and conceal the bodies. More than enough time to dispose of the bodies. We know there are two sets of tracks. It is unlikely these tracks were made at the same time, maybe not even the same day. It could have been on seperate days, for whatever reasons. One set in pre-rain, the other set in post-rain.

It's nearly impossible to drill down what happened, when it happened, why it happened, etc. We have multiple digital footprints of Merritt's activity prior to and post-disappearance that is alarming. These reasons among many more are the just a part of where I stand on Merritt's guilt.

No disrespect to you, or others who are yet to be convinced he's guilty, it's unfathomable to me that at this point in the trial we don't all see that this man murdered these people. That's JMO. The evidence is there. Overwhelmingly, imo. I have been looking at this case everyday for 8+ years and in the last 4 years of reviewing, I find something new about this man and his past or this case almost on a daily basis. I don't think it has to do with confirmation bias, but a desire to seek for the truth. Of course, I'm not alone in that. Many other people care about this case that much.

We're all adults here and I hope we can have a discussion as such, if anyone feel a need to respond.

Whether Chase is found guilty or not, I know in my heart this man committed these crimes. I will rest easy when he receives his sentence.

 

[mrjitty]

Another trial day wasted huh?

Where are the witnesses promised in the opening?

poor.

 

[missy1974]

No disrespect to you, or others who are yet to be convinced he's guilty, it's unfathomable to me that at this point in the trial we don't all see that this man murdered these people. That's JMO.

I can understand this, because I feel that it's unfathomable to me that at this point anyone can think that the prosecution has done a good job and has proved what you believe, that he is guilty. I came into this trial with some knowledge of what happened back in 2010, didn't closely follow it after that first year or so, but never questioned whether they got the right guy until the prosecution presented their case. I also think at this point, many of us are not going to change our minds. We have heard the bulk of the evidence, regardless of a verdict, I think the debate will go on. If he is convicted, it will be interesting to see what happens, if it's a hung jury, it will be interesting to see if the prosecution will change their presentation of their case, and if he is acquitted, those that think he is guilty will just keep saying it. JMO

 

[missy1974]

Have we seen any contempt of court charges laid against DK?

Wouldn't they have to actually serve him with a subpoena to then lay contempt charges if he doesn't show up?

 

[mrjitty]

Of course, the ping evidence does not place him there at the actual site.

Right.

This is a silly strawman that Maline keeps running with. It's unlikely he used his phone graveside while digging. Rather the pings place him in the neighbourhood - just one more suspicious coincidence.

My belief is he made a slip up in his logic. He got back on to the main road where he felt safe, and turned his phone back on - after all what is suspicious about driving down the highway? He is visiting family right?

But he made the guilty mistake of forensically obscuring his phone only from the specific location rather than the general area.

Only once the bodies were discovered did his faulty thought process become obvious.

Why was he in that area with his phone off?

It's in this manner that he actually tied his phone to the sites by geo and chrono

This sort of mistake is common in staging because the perp works to a narrative that they are writing in their head.

 

[mrjitty]

A great number of facts, rather than conjecture, can be found there in support of the DT presentation.

RSBM

There is a single, bloody hook at the centre of the state case. Chase backdated the cheque on the 5th, because he knew he needed to be able to say Joey gave it to him on the 4th. This is the single (digital) forensic slip up that places him in the gun for murder. It's shows awareness of Joey's disappearance before Chase could have known. (Alternative accounting hadn't been dreamed up on the 5th of Feb).

The Forensic Accountant needed to offer some explanation to rebut this. But despite all his focus on the "forensics" of the accounts, he spectacularly failed to do so. In fact he didn't even prepare analysis of this in his reports. As Chase himself will not explain it, and lied about it to detectives the only available, reasonable inference, IMO, is that he knew Joey was not going to be around to sign any more cheques.

This single point leads inexorably to a guilty verdict IMO, and I will explain why.

Under the correct handling of circumstantial evidence, we must have regard to the entire net of proven points. Starting from that central barb and then radiating out.

So for example, when examining the calls to delete quickbooks, our further inferences must be coloured by the backdating. He was covering his tracks, just like he backdated to cover his tracks. Nothing else is sensible. This ripples through the web of evidence as we make further inferences.

The defence want to speculate each point of evidence away in isolation and keep us from looking at the big picture.

They want you to start on the outskirts of the case, down in the weeds in Hawaii - instead of in the heart - with a man backdating and forging a cheque from his boss, murdered only hours before ...

They hope you will ignore that one central barb that Chase is squirming on, that can never be innocently explained.

They hope you will overlook how he lied about to LE and how his forensic witness who he paid 10s of K felt it best not to even mention it. Not to even bother to tell the jury how Joe normally did his cheques.

Sadly some jurors will probably fall for it.

 

[mrjitty]

Also, IMO, this is just another piece that the defense will say that LE formed their theory around. That they had to have been buried on the 6th, because otherwise they couldn't place Merritt there. But do the tire tracks support it was Merritt? Does the timing of the rain that day and Merritt's pings that day support that? Does the fact that the desert and this area being frequent burial/dumping site support that? Where did Merritt hide the bodies for 2 days? What evidence supports that?

RSBM

With respect, you are engaged in a form of logical fallacy here.

They were in fact buried in the desert by someone, following the 4th of Feb.

Any circumstantial evidence that places Chase in the vicinity in those days is evidence that can support guilt, and gives an indication of timing, if accepted.

There is no need for the State to prove in reverse they were in fact buried on the 6th, for it to hold water.

There are numerous other guilty verdicts where the state has not shown the location of the interim storage site, or the date of dumping.

It's not critical to the elements of the crime.

 

[Karinna]

RSBM

You are engaged in a form of logical fallacy here.

They were in fact buried in the desert by someone, following the 4th of Feb.

Any circumstantial evidence that places Chase in the vicinity in those days is evidence that can support guilt, and gives an indication of timing, if accepted.

There is no need for the State to prove in reverse they were in fact buried on the 6th, for it to hold water.

Yes exactly. I certainly hope the PT drives this home for the jurors in their closing statements so it sticks firmly in their minds before deliberation.

 

[mrjitty]

As I've mentioned before, staging is just about my favourite thing.

The usual mistake is that amateur staging points back to what is being concealed.

IMO Chase's mistake was that with the bodies buried, he felt safe in Victorville. His forensic awareness extended only to not allowing his phone to pinpoint the gravesites (he made the same mistake on the 4th). Once the bodies are safely in the ground - and he is safely on the road - he was no longer concerned about locational data.

Had he really been thinking, he needed to anticipate the bodies being found. So for example, a far better staging is to drive to his sisters with his phone on, "forget" his phone there, do the burial, then come back to his phone. This creates a complete digital cover story.

He made the same mistake on the 4th. By turning off his phone, he created a complete Chrono for the crime.

The better staging was to leave the phone on but not take it with him.

 

[Karinna]

I can understand this, because I feel that it's unfathomable to me that at this point anyone can think that the prosecution has done a good job and has proved what you believe, that he is guilty. I came into this trial with some knowledge of what happened back in 2010, didn't closely follow it after that first year or so, but never questioned whether they got the right guy until the prosecution presented their case. I also think at this point, many of us are not going to change our minds. We have heard the bulk of the evidence, regardless of a verdict, I think the debate will go on. If he is convicted, it will be interesting to see what happens, if it's a hung jury, it will be interesting to see if the prosecution will change their presentation of their case, and if he is acquitted, those that think he is guilty will just keep saying it. JMO

BBM, Respectfully, i don't think anyone is trying to change anyone's minds and i guess in that sense i speak for myself.
But without any facts in evidence CE or direct against Merritt there would be no Trial.
Most murder trials all have a degree of CE, and still end up with a conviction against the named perpetrator of the crime.
And even murder cases with no location of the murder victim are also successfully prosecuted.

 

[mrjitty]

The Judge already ruled neither side can state or imply DK is hiding or on the run.

This is where I take issue with the Judge's slack control of his Court room because this is exactly what happened despite his ruling.

His reason to allow this evidence was simply because the State will argue the defence failed to call logical witnesses. So it is of course it is fair enough that the defence be afforded an opportunity to evidence efforts to serve him. However this needed to be exceedingly tightly controlled because "DK in hiding" is implicit from the failure to serve.

The prosecution exploited this in reverse. "Did you check in Hawaii?"

This question creates an obvious (and likely false) impression the state knows DK is in Hawaii.

So now in closing - this will be an utter circus.

 

[Niner]

Thursday, May 9th Update:
*Trial continues on Monday (Day 52) (@ 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 (1-50: 1/7/19 thru 5/7/19) reference post #1652 here:
CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #18
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 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).

 

[Tortoise]

As I stated in my post, I am only stating the evidence as it will be heard BY THE JURORS. The PT phone piping evidence has been successfully refuted by the DT experts. <RSBM>

The defense has not (yet) put on its cell phone expert, and hasn't indicated it is going to.

At halftime this was the Judge's summation of the cell phone evidence and his comments about the DT in relation to all of his summation about the PT's case:

"And then we have the cell phone cell tower locations principally relating to February 6th 2010 - FBI Agent Boles. That information indicates that from at least, well there was a phone call at 10.46 am from the defendant’s cell phone in the area of Mojave Drive near Oro Grande, which is certainly in the general area of where the bodies were buried. Then between 11.30 and 11.52 am there were a series of calls that had originated from the tower above the grave sites with an 85 degree azimuth as the first contact which would place the cell phone in a cone going out from the cell tower and included within that cone is the grave sites. There was another phone call at 1.30 pm with the originating azimuth of 170 degrees with a terminating tower in Victorville and the 170 degree azimuth of the originating call and the azimuth of the terminating call in Victorville was also in a cone that would have included the grave sites. So it places Mr Merritt’s cell phone in the area of the grave sites for a considerable period of time on February 6th. That becomes somewhat more significant given the geography of that area. If we had a cell phone in a location in a cone in the middle of a city whether the city is San Bernardino, Victorville or Rancho, and within that cone is an area where a crime occurred or a body was left might not be that significant because there is a lot of other residences a lot of other businesses a lot of other locations where people could be within that cone, not so where the area where the bodies were buried. The cone going out from the cell tower which includes the area of the grave site is mostly open desert, if you go far enough south you eventually do get into the city of Victorville but placing the cell phone in that general area which is mostly desert is certainly more significant than it would be if it were all city area.

Now certainly all of that information that I’ve just gone over was subject to considerable cross-examination and I have no doubt that Mr McGee and Mr Maline could give their closing argument now on that information and, which would probably take the better part of a day and with a different argument, different analysis, different inferences and different conclusions to be drawn. But that really is not the standard for the court to look at with regard to an 1118.1 motion to dismiss. The standard on 1118.1 motion is not that all other analysis or conclusions can be eliminated but rather the standard is IF the jury were to accept, and of course I’m not going through every exhibit, I’m not going through every item of evidence, and every point that the prosecution may argue, that supports a verdict of guilty, I’m only considering what the court considers the primary or major factors, there are a lot of other potential issues that the prosecution may argue support guilt but I’m not considering those in the 1118.1 motion. So as I was saying, the standard is not that can the court eliminate all of those other analyses or conclusions but rather the standard on the 1118.1 motion to dismiss is IF the jury were to accept the prosecution’s evidence and arguments and analyses and conclusions AND conclude that that is sufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and therefore return a verdict of guilty, and thereby by inference was rejecting the defense evidence the defense arguments and the defense analyses, WOULD that decision by the jury be supported by substantial evidence. The points that I just went through in the court’s view do support or would support such a finding by the jury. So the court finds that if the jury accepted the prosecution’s evidence, arguments and conclusions and returned a verdict of guilty that there is substantial evidence to support such a finding. For those reasons the motion to dismiss pursuant to Penal Code Section 1118.1 is denied."

 

[mrjitty]

At this time of a trial, being old school, my thoughts always tend towards veracity and credibility.

So much of evidential discussion on sites like websleuths tends to be micro-analytical/speculative about the factual matrix.

"Where the family murdered in the house?" "Did Joey really meet Chase for lunch? What's the GEO on DK's IPs?"

It is natural that it dominates discussion, but under my training, was only 50% of evidence handling.

Quite simply, whose evidence should be preferred as regards credibility and veracity?

It was in this area where I had major disagreements with other posters in the Pistorius trial. So much discussion was micro analysis of his testimony step by step. In my opinion, most of his testimony should have been thrown out the window with Reeva's testimony. Ultimately the Supreme Court agreed. His version was inherently unlikely and contradictory, such that one had no clear idea what his defence actually was.

In such circumstances ones version lacks probity and belongs in the dustbin, except where independently verified.

In this case, Chase is not testifying, and of course we cannot infer guilt directly from that.

But the question remains - whose evidence should be preferred?

For me the impression has solidified that the defence case lacks veracity and has some serious credibility issues.

Country simple - they have lied to me and tried to deceive me a few too many times, and about some big stuff.

I am the first to accept the problems with the details of the prosecution case. Stuff has not always come up to brief. However reviewing the opening, I don't feel that has been active efforts to deceive.

The defence likewise has had some strong evidential moments but there is some deeply troubling aspects when i refer back to their opening

1. Lack of veracity.

When examining veracity we essentially evaluate accuracy.

For example, the Defence Opening about the whole DK business simply doesn't match up to known facts. And these are facts that they knew at the time of opening. We aren't talking about the truck business where each side has their own expert and the argument gets down in the weeds. We are talking about very specific allegations made about the investigation which were cut from whole cloth. Maline was being deceptive, with the intentionally to actively mislead the jury about the facts. Then furthermore, he does not deliver on multiple promised testimony

There are more examples that this, but in short when the defence case lacks veracity on their more critical plank of argument - i prefer the side that makes it's case more transparently. The State has not made wild claims about DK. They simply produced the evidence they had in a calm, measured but always confident way.

2. Issues of credibility.

Of course in any trial years later, there are significant issues with witness testimony. But I didn't feel any State witness set out to lie to the Court. Indeed several of them had opportunities to really stitch Chase up but didn't take them. Even bungling Dugal appeared to bungle in a lazy but honest way.

On the defence side, I felt the DNA evidence had high credibility (even though i believe it lacks probity). Forensic man was also strong on Joey's ledgers.

However I believe the defence case lacks credibility in two mission critical areas.

First the accused has no credible alibi and worse, the defence sought to procure perjured testimony. This is immediately disqualifying for me. All that evidence goes in the dustbin. So we are left in a situation where the accused has no active alibi.

Second there is no credible evidence of "alternative accounting". The defence argument is inherently implausible, offends common sense and contradicts pre-trial statements. Counsel again made claims in opening but refuses to produce the witness who can testify from personal knowledge. Over $31K was spent on a forensic accountant who failed to offer any evidence on the matter.

Without direct testimony from a plausible witness, "alternative accounting" also belongs in the dustbin.

This means the central spike of the prosecution case cannot be credibly countered - namely the backdating

tldr; for reasons of credibility and veracity, i broadly prefer the State case and see no grounds for accepting the defence version as reasonably possible.

 

[Tortoise]

This is where I take issue with the Judge's slack control of his Court room because this is exactly what happened despite his ruling.

His reason to allow this evidence was simply because the State will argue the defence failed to call logical witnesses. So it is of course it is fair enough that the defence be afforded an opportunity to evidence efforts to serve him. However this needed to be exceedingly tightly controlled because "DK in hiding" is implicit from the failure to serve.

The prosecution exploited this in reverse. "Did you check in Hawaii?"

This question creates an obvious (and likely false) impression the state knows DK is in Hawaii.

So now in closing - this will be an utter circus.

More to the point, IMHO, is that the defence failed to call their logical witness Riccobene. I look forward to that being put under Miss Rodriguez' microscope.