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

Status
Not open for further replies.
View attachment 185452 Rudin stated in part 2 that he couldn't see the running lights of the truck in the Mitchley video so he didn't consider those as "identifying points" in his analysis. That's just crazy - even I can see the running lights in screen captures of the Mitchley video. Rudin just proved to me that he's perjuring himself. He even sounded sheepish during this part of his testimony.

He also keeps answering McGee with the comment "with this configuration" (using only the points he used.)

Can't wait for the Prosecution to ask him about *the other configuration.*
I can see the running lights as well, the outline of them.
 
Thank you missy for providing the video link to Summer’s brother’s comments. Mike kept coming to check the house and the neighbors fed the dog. CM wasn’t the only one who fed the dog.

Summer’s brother - “Mike’s the one who came and checked on the house. I was in HI. He kept, kept, on coming in and checking on the dogs and realized they hadn’t been home because the dogs were still out and the neighbors said the dogs had been barking a lot. I talked to one of the neighbor’s yesterday. He said that uh, one of the neighbor’s, they noticed the dogs were barking a lot said one of the other neighbor’s came and fed the dogs and stuff.

——————-
Link to MSM article mentioning the neighbors feeding the dogs...

Where did the McStays go?

With respect - this doesn't address the problem of Chase's tailored evidence.

In the original Du Gal interview from 17 Feb, Chase claims to visit the house 3 times.

On his "first visit" on what we now know was Tuesday (cellular) he claims the dogs had no water, so he put a full water dish in the shed. Then when he returns on his "second visit" on what he said was Friday, he knew someone was feeding the dogs because the water dish was moved under the dripping tap. He rings Joey's mum to tell her! In this version, Chase doesn't feed the dogs.

Fast forward to the Interrogation.

Chase mentions only one visit. In this version, it is Chase himself who moved the water dish under the dripping tap. No claim anyone was feeding the dogs. No phone call to Joey's mum. He then feeds the dogs himself. Then he claims to drive over to Joey's mums house.

How can these discrepancies be explained?

How could he now think it was he himself who moved the water dish and him who feed the dogs, when on the 17th, only a few days after events, he said someone else did those things?

This is obvious fabrication!
 
Wow, I hope you have solid proof of perjury. Did you listen to his testimony? I did and I believe he had a much clearer video than we can see on our computer screen. He described what he sees and thinks quite clearly. You have made a serious charge against an expert witness. jmo imo
Witnesses perjuring themselves is nothing new in trials when it comes to DT's, and their need to win at all costs, IMO.
CJ perjured herself as well trying to create an alibi for CM, and Rodriguez did a good job of highlighting that on cross, IMO.
We also saw perjury in the Casey Anthony trial with her mother on the witness stand, so it must be okay?
Although not my idea of Justice.
 
With respect - this doesn't address the problem of Chase's tailored evidence.

In the original Du Gal interview from 17 Feb, Chase claims to visit the house 3 times.

On his "first visit" on what we now know was Tuesday (cellular) he claims the dogs had no water, so he put a full water dish in the shed. Then when he returns on his "second visit" on what he said was Friday, he knew someone was feeding the dogs because the water dish was moved under the dripping tap. He rings Joey's mum to tell her! In this version, Chase doesn't feed the dogs.

Fast forward to the Interrogation.

Chase mentions only one visit. In this version, it is Chase himself who moved the water dish under the dripping tap. No claim anyone was feeding the dogs. No phone call to Joey's mum. He then feeds the dogs himself. Then he claims to drive over to Joey's mums house.

How can these discrepancies be explained?

How could he now think it was he himself who moved the water dish and him who feed the dogs, when on the 17th, only a few days after events, he said someone else did those things?

This is obvious fabrication!
Exactly, and LE didn't find his inconsistent stories credible either.
 
Same question with Qbooks. Did the authorities factually prove this to be true or are you speculating?

RSBM

The defence admit it was Chase in their pleadings.

This same strange demand for proof that it was Chase who made the QB call came up just the other day from a different poster. Is this some theory that is loose on the internet somehow?

In any event, if you are not up to speed with the defence case I would refer you to the defence opening statements on You Tube.
 
Exactly, and LE didn't find his inconsistent stories credible either.

It's obvious he put the dish under the faucet then had the brainwave to claim to DuGal someone else did it and this mysterious someone was looking after the dogs because the family had gone away.

Fast forward to the bodies being found in shallow graves. Suddenly it's no longer clever to claim a mysterious someone was looking after the dogs, because it reveals that the murderer was doing it.

This is always the problem with amateur crime scene staging. The narrative creation always leads away from the killer.

So if you reverse the flow, you can see the "show runner" at work.
 
No it was left out, but it's a part of the whole picture. There were others besides CM who fed the dogs. Testimony or not it's a fact based on Summer's brother's comments in the video and MSM articles. On the other hand, the PT has such a strong case it really shouldn't matter.

The problem is because it isn't testimony, the dates aren't resolved.

As @Tortoise points out, Mike din't go there until the 13th. And the neighbours don't call to report the dogs until the 14th. And Dugal is not on site until the 15th.

regarding the dogs, a neighbour phoned to report the dogs abandoned on Sunday the 14th at 3.30 pm.

If someone was feeding the dogs as Chase claimed to DuGal, why did Chase later say it was him who fed them in the interrogation?

Also if someone was feeding them, wouldn't there be rather more evidence than just a water dish? Like an actual used bowl?

I feel like the defence have goofed big time by introducing this.
 
Or toss it as unreliable.

I've long held the view that the video is permissive. ie the truck could be CMs truck but is not proven.

If it was proven to be likely to be CM's truck then he is guilty straight away

In my analysis I am only using it on the basis that CM is not ruled out.

For me what makes him guilty of murder are the Mitchell cheques. So the defence then needs evidence to rule Chase out.
 
Witnesses perjuring themselves is nothing new in trials when it comes to DT's, and their need to win at all costs, IMO.
CJ perjured herself as well trying to create an alibi for CM, and Rodriguez did a good job of highlighting that on cross, IMO.
We also saw perjury in the Casey Anthony trial with her mother on the witness stand, so it must be okay?
Although not my idea of Justice.

I doubt it is perjury.

He seems an oddball which is what posters said about him during the 402.

I think he has likely wrecked his reputation and a trial expert there. Who would ever hire him again? Its obviously fine for a witness to come to what he believes to be the correct conclusion. But to do it while giving evidence for your client is poor obviously.
 
I recall that it was trace DNA in trooper. Could have happened if they shook hands good-bye on the 4th. Let me put this another way. Is it a fact that CM was in the house on the 4th. Did they put him there via cell phone or witness? Again, is this fact? Same question with Qbooks. Did the authorities factually prove this to be true or are you speculating?

Yes. Cell phone records showed that Chase called quickbooks. Chase doesn't deny calling quickbooks. Chase says it was alternative accounting that caused him to call quickbooks to cancel it for Joey because Summer spent too much money. There has literally not been a doubt about the quickbooks call being Chase. Not even from Chase.

It can be helpful to search for something if you aren't sure about it. Since there has been a lot discussed and a lot of threads.... going on 20 threads just for the trial itself. Searching can help answer a lot of questions for you.
 
Wednesday, May 22nd:
*Trial continues (Day 54) (@ 9:30am 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.
5/13/19 Day 52: Defense witness: Det. Bachman. Next day for court is Tuesday, 5/21 morning session only.
5/21/19 Day 53: Defense witness: Dr. Rubin (FARO scan). Trial continues on 5/22.
Tentative Schedule for week of May 20th thru May 24th: NO court: May 20th (Monday). Court with jurors morning only on May 21st (Tuesday), full day of court on May 22nd (Wednesday), May 23rd (Thursday). Dark on May 24th (Friday).



Seems like I'm off one day... again.... or is it L&C....
 
I can see the running lights as well, the outline of them.
It's difficult to tell without visual but in the first part of yesterday's testimony I think he refers to a box on the front of the vehicle in the Mitchley video, which he says one explanation could be computer noise but he doesn't think so because he sees it in several different frames (or wtte).

He gets to the vehicle being underground but I'm wondering if in cross-exam it might emerge that he is treating the illumination on the back of the truck as Merritt's rear running light and not a reflection off the latch which is a lower point. I would assume though that the prosecution would have been able to work with him on that possibility, so maybe there was a different reason they didn't use him. I can totally see why the prosecution would not want to do an experiment with the actual truck, because it's impossible to recreate the exact lighting conditions of the night in question. Who knows what other lights were illuminated in the neighborhood that night. I've heard so much testimony about the truck now that I can't remember which testimony it was, it may have been Stutchman's, but they referred to street lights, neighbouring houses with porch lights and security lights etc, even (IMO - not testimony) the truck may have had a stick on reflector in February 2010 which was not there in 2014 when it had been sold and painted.

Like this one -

004.jpg


JMO
 
Last edited:
It's difficult to tell without visual but in the first part of yesterday's testimony I think he refers to a box on the front of the vehicle in the Mitchley video, which he says one explanation could be computer noise but he doesn't think so because he sees it in several different frames (or wtte).

He gets to the vehicle being underground but I'm wondering if in cross-exam it might emerge that he is treating the illumination on the back of the truck as Merritt's rear running light and not a reflection off the latch which is a lower point. I would assume though that the prosecution would have been able to work with him on that possibility, so maybe there was a different reason they didn't use him. I can totally see why the prosecution would not want to do an experiment with the actual truck, because it's impossible to recreate the exact lighting conditions of the night in question. Who knows what other lights were illuminated in the neighborhood that night. I've heard so much testimony about the truck now that I can't remember which testimony it was, it may have been Stutchman's, but they referred to street lights, neighbouring houses with porch lights and security lights etc, even (IMO - not testimony) the truck may have had a stick on reflector in February 2010 which was not there in 2014 when it had been sold and painted.

Like this one -

004.jpg


JMO

Yes, it is NEVER good to do an 'experiment' in the middle of a trial. [ if the gloves dont fit, ya must acquit]

It is like asking a question you don't know the answer to, only worse...:eek:
 
He told DuGal he went to Susan's after going to Fallbrook - which is not true. You must have missed my posts highlighting the discrepancy of him going straight to worry Joey's mother before he'd even been to the house to ask Summer where Joey was.

Just zeroing in on BIB

Dugal version:

9th goes to Susan's AFTER Fallbrook
12th goes to Fallbrook and calls Susan/Mike that someone is looking after the dogs

Interrogation version

Unknown day - goes to Susan's BEFORE Fallbrook (matches cellular). No call about the dogs.

So I agree the interrogation version makes absolutely zero sense. Why would he go all the way to Joey's mums house before he went over to Fallbrook to talk to Summer, or discover Joey was hospitalised or whatever?

Yet this is clearly what he actually did do - and it was in fact the 9th.

So he clearly knew already that going to the house held no answers. I wonder if that is why he changed it in the dugal version?

Do you have a link to your original posts on this matter?

The staging fascinated me.

Oh to be able to listen to all 8 hrs of the interrogation at high quality
 
Last edited:
I should think they'll cover it during closing arguments. It reinforces Mike's testimony that Merritt told him not to worry about coming out until Saturday because it looked like they'd left someone taking care of the dogs.

The reaction of Susan and Mike is rather more understandable having delved into this.

Chase was the one who actively planted the idea that Joey had gone away
 
It's not the identity of the truck which proves his guilt. If it is his truck it adds to the evidence, the reverse is not true.

What puts him there is the cheque and the knowledge of it the next day. He didn't need to wear gloves to hide his fingerprints - he left his calling card - he thought he could erase the ledger later but couldn't.

Given that Joey was going to discover the theft and that the cheque was deleted and hidden from Joey, it doesn't take a genius IMO to work out that the murders were premeditated and he may or may not have decided to use his own or any vehicle in his plan.

Evidence pointing to premeditation, in my opinion -

1. Being in the vicinity of the house on the 31st, 2nd and 3rd. Phone also dark on the 4th before 9.36 am, traveling northbound on the i15.
2. The 76 missing cheques taken from underneath the cheques in Joey's box, running on from serial numbers Merritt printed.
3. Custom account activity starting on the 1st and practice cheques.
4. Cheque drawn on the 2nd to set up a template for new normal course of business while Joey is not missing, but knowing Joey will discover it.
5. Opening a bank account on the 3rd, because he knew the days of receiving cheques he could cash were over.
6. Phone dark after his last call with Joey at 5.48 pm.

All MOO
 
@Tortoise

I found your post and it was a reply to me lol! I must have missed it

I'm not convinced the priors are in evidence owing to a blunder.

I think it's defense strategy to promulgate Chase's lie that he did not call in a welfare check because of his warrants. They needed any excuse in front of the jury more than they needed them to not hear about his criminal record. They know that is very incriminating.

This is a very interesting idea!

Why do I say Chase was lying about the reasons for not calling in a welfare check, aside from the fact that he could have reported anonymously?

He virtually stopped calling Joey from 5.48 pm on the 4th - the 5 calls he did make to him over the next 3 days were not spread out as if he was trying to reach him at different hours of the day, 2 of those were in the same minute, one of those days he didn't call at all.
He stopped visiting the house.
4 days later he pretended he had called Joey when he hadn't.

Agreed - the dog stuff combined with the lack of calls is odd. e.g if you were about to drive all the way over to Fallbrook - wouldn't you call first? Seems obvious. And surely you would call Summer?

That's not someone trying to find out why their best friend isn't answering or showing concern for their welfare. Was sick Joey back in hospital? Did he have a car accident? Did Summer know where he was? He wouldn't know.

So why would he call in a welfare check when he a/ hadn't shown concern for Joey's welfare by making other appropriate enquiries and b/ he had no idea whether there was a welfare concern for the whole family because he hadn't called Summer or even looked for them all?

Agreed. He clearly was trying to engineer someone else to do it.

Even the fact that he went straight to Susan's on the 9th before he went to the house is odd - evidenced by his phone records. I think that's why he told the detectives it happened the other way around. Why would Chase go from not being able to get an answer from Joey's phone to visiting Joey's mum if he didn't even know yet if everything was fine, Joey was ignoring him or taking a break from work calls and could have been at home painting or installing flooring, or Summer could have been at home and able to explain where Joey was?

This is key IMO. It just makes no sense at all. So he tailored it for DuGal.

But then in the interrogation, he knew he had to stick to what the phone records said. So then he also became the dog feeding guy.

Contacting someone's mother before you even try to see if they're home or contact the person they live with? To me that is someone who already knows the situation requires parental intervention to resolve it - he goes from virtually no concern and no appropriate enquiries to family need to know about this now. He also told the detectives he told Susan he couldn't find Joey but he hadn't looked for him yet.

IMO the lack of inquiries with the neighbours is also odd - surely as a first step? When this all goes down it is only the 9th. Yet already Joey's mum? Even when he hasn't been over there.

And in the Dugal version, he indicates he is there again on the 12th which is when he tells Mikey and Susan someone is feeding the dogs.

i.e. he was establishing the disappearance, but making it seem unnecessary to involve the police.

He was manipulating Mikey and Susan right from the start.

He choose them as the ones who would be at the centre of the "disappearance"
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
174
Guests online
2,319
Total visitors
2,493

Forum statistics

Threads
589,962
Messages
17,928,373
Members
228,020
Latest member
DazzelleShafer
Back
Top