VERDICT WATCH Closing Arguments- Chase Merritt Charged W/Murder of Joseph, Summer, Gianni and Joe Jr McStay

[LadyL]

95/9

POLL - Did Chase Merritt murder the McStay family?

edit 96/9

 

[Bernina]

That line should definitely go in the documentary...LOL

Heck, they could call the documentary " The Loser in the Cowboy Hat". If the shoe, er, hat fits....

 

[Karinna]

Heck, they could call the documentary " The Loser in the Cowboy Hat". If the shoe, er, hat fits....

Good one Bernina, i like that title , LOL.

 

[Alisajo]

Heck, they could call the documentary " The Loser in the Cowboy Hat". If the shoe, er, hat fits....

I agree.

Who hides under a 10 Gallon hat to give an interview? Chase Merritt, fact.

 

[missy1974]

Lest we forget they have a team of cameras following them for a documentary.

How can we forget? Imes brings it up whenever he opens his mouth He did it again today ...

 

[geevee]

How can we forget? Imes brings it up whenever he opens his mouth He did it again today ...

I've watched a lot of trials but have never seen a documentary being filmed during the trial. I'd like to say I'm surprised the judge allowed it, but he's shown us he runs a pretty loose courtroom.

 

[HelenK]

How can we forget? Imes brings it up whenever he opens his mouth He did it again today ...

Imes continually brought up the subject of following cameras at the same time he was doing his prosecutorial thing? Wow, I wonder how he managed to do that. Must have the gift of gab big time. But then, he is a lawyer .......

 

[HelenK]

I've watched a lot of trials but have never seen a documentary being filmed during the trial. I'd like to say I'm surprised the judge allowed it, but he's shown us he runs a pretty loose courtroom.

Also, his courtroom is in California .............................

 

[missy1974]

I've watched a lot of trials but have never seen a documentary being filmed during the trial. I'd like to say I'm surprised the judge allowed it, but he's shown us he runs a pretty loose courtroom.

Me either, or if they were, the lawyers (pros or defense) didn't continue to bring it up during the trial, in questioning, or in the closing arguments I think the guy filming was actually even allowed to be at some hearings before the trial, but I'm not sure.

Making a Murderer on Netflix was just that though. The makers of the documentary were actually the "pool camera" for that trial because it was televised. Netflix didn't exist at the time, but picked it up years later.

 

[mrjitty]

well, he just clarified something that I thought I heard the judge say this morning.. that the defense doesn't have to prove anything LOL they don't have to give an alibi, etc. I still want to hear the words of the judge again, but it was something that took me off guard when listening to jury instructions ..

The judge gives that instruction in every summing up

It's part of the boiler plate due to the burden of proof

 

[KALI]

So, this is the answer?
Potential recognition in the media world?
Forget about the victims, someone might put me in a book or on television?
I, do personally find that disgusting. I really do.
So many lives have been forever heartbroken by the cruel murders of this loving, and innocent family.
To try to make fame or fortune from their horrible deaths is beyond comprehension to me.
I cannot imagine the pain Joey and Summer's family are going through, listening to some attorney trying to make himself a notoriety off of the horrific murders of their family members.

Lest we forget they have a team of cameras following them for a documentary.

 

[mrjitty]

But the State has to PROVE guilt. The defense doesn't have to prove anything, right? What did McGee say? They could sit over there and play cards all day if they wanted to? LOL

BIB

This aspect of trials seems to cause continuous confusion.

Thanks to burden of proof, the defence could indeed play cards for the whole trial, because they don't need to prove innocence. But McGee didn't choose that strategy.

Burden of proof on the state is not the same as saying the defence doesn't need to prove anything from an evidential standpoint.

Indeed the defence just spent a month on calling evidence, precisely because there is tactical pressure on them to prove a few things.

In essence, the opening set out some affirmative claims from the defence. e.g. "confirmation bias", "alibi", "4 killers" etc etc

So there is in fact evidential onus upon the defence to prove facts in relation to those matters where they are being used to create reasonable doubt.

Because of the affirmative pleadings, I would say the defence certainly needs the jury to prefer some of the defence evidence - at least enough to create a reasonable possibility someone else did the murders.

 

[mrjitty]

For a defense that doesn’t have to prove anything. They sure have spent a hella lot of time trying to muddy the water.

BIB

Yes. Take for example the Alibi.

The defence ask the jury to infer chase was at home. The state say the evidence shows he 'went dark" creating the opportunity to go to Fallbrook.

In order to establish the defence inference as a real possibility, McGee needed to establish enough evidence via CJ and the cell stuff in order that the jury thinks there was a reasonable chance he was at home. If the jury don't believe CJ, then he has no alibi and the State argument he was in Fallbrook becomes persuasive.

This is why talking about inferences and evidence is much more important than the presumption of innocence.

It's true the defence doesn't have to prove any one evidence point, but tactically, if they failed to prove anything - then their whole case is in the trash.

 

[mrjitty]

Heck its been proven in some no body murder convictions....

Bodies were found in this case and CM Cell phone places him at the site

Some cases have crime scenes some don't

I believe the mountains of circumstantial evidence in this case was able to prove to the jury that nobody other than CM committed these crimes

Something I learned some weeks ago is technically the grave sites is called the "crime scene"

.02c

 

[mrjitty]

My top line thoughts:

Imes did a great job of telling the story with a day to day flow as the defendant did the murders, dumped the bodies, forged cheques, dumped the trooper, cleaned up etc.

This is powerful because as explained its not just the 4th where Chase lacks an alibi. He lacks an alibi for all of the key times over 5 days. Context context.

Second, i think the photo of the cell towers commanding the gravesites nailed it for me. I know he probably was on the road and not at the graves but it just felt like a big moment.

Third - the cheques business. When you talk through it blow by blow, now that we know the detail, there can be no explanation other than fraud. We've talked about it forever, but it was nevertheless impressive to hear someone walk thru it.

I find it significant that neither the defence nor any poster here has an explanation for the backdating.

Imes was laser sharp - there can be only one reason Chase did it.

 

[mrjitty]

<modsnip: quoted post was removed>

I can get past the truck. I can get past the "not going in" to the residence with Mike McStay. I can get past the pings/no pings, no alibi. I can even get past the not reporting them missing. I can get past the "were they murdered in the house or in the desert?" The dogs being fed/not fed. Summer liking/hating Chase and vice versa. All of that.

I just can't get past the lack of calling Joey right after he disappeared, given CM and JM's calling patterns. If that was the only thing riding on my decision, I'd think he wasn't guilty BARD. It's the cancelling of the Quickbooks account. Pretending to be JM to cancel something, considering there were contracts outstanding, vendors with balances, customers with balances. There was no evidence brought forth that there was to be an account migration, or how the vendors would be paid, customers would be invoiced etc. You just don't shut down an active company account when you have all of this business going on. And why would you have multiple cheques made out to yourself when your boss had just given you one that you deposited?

And why would all of this activity occur, and then be backdated to the 4th specifically? If this was all legit, approved by Joey, why not any other day on the calendar other than the day he goes missing? I can't see that as coincidence. He backdated them for a reason. He backdated them because he knew Joey and Summer's phones were not going to show any normal activity after that. What he didn't know was how long it would take people to discover they were missing. If he dated them for the 6th and they were reported missing on the 5th, he would be caught. He had no choice but to backdate them. He couldn't be sure there wouldn't be an immediate search, or what was going to happen in the first few days after he murdered them.

It's too bad he didn't call Joey constantly, like he had before he gone missing. He would have seemed more believable. He made himself a suspect by doing things out of the ordinary. And he would have got away with it, if it hadn't been for those pesky unaligned cheques.

Top post

 

[Niner]

Latest poll results:

Did Chase Merritt murder the McStay family?
This poll will close on Jun 17, 2019 at 2:34 PM.

1. *Guilty 98 vote(s) 91.6%
2. Not Guilty 9 vote(s) 8.4%

POLL - Did Chase Merritt murder the McStay family?

 

[Karinna]

My top line thoughts:

Imes did a great job of telling the story with a day to day flow as the defendant did the murders, dumped the bodies, forged cheques, dumped the trooper, cleaned up etc.

This is powerful because as explained its not just the 4th where Chase lacks an alibi. He lacks an alibi for all of the key times over 5 days. Context context.

Second, i think the photo of the cell towers commanding the gravesites nailed it for me. I know he probably was on the road and not at the graves but it just felt like a big moment.

Third - the cheques business. When you talk through it blow by blow, now that we know the detail, there can be no explanation other than fraud. We've talked about it forever, but it was nevertheless impressive to hear someone walk thru it.

I find it significant that neither the defence nor any poster here has an explanation for the backdating.

Imes was laser sharp - there can be only one reason Chase did it.

BBM, ITA there is no other explanation for the backdating that CM's guilt for what he had done in JM's accounts. And in trying to cover up his crime i believe he also knew JM was not coming back.
CM knew if he were to be found out deleting JM's QB's account and check fraud he was in deep trouble with JM.
And with Merritt already being a twice convicted felon before all of this, he would of more than likely known about California's 3 strike law IMO.
(quote)
California's Three Strikes sentencing law was originally enacted in 1994. The essence of the Three Strikes law was to require a defendant convicted of any new felony, having suffered one prior conviction of a serious felony to be sentenced to state prison for twice the term otherwise provided for the crime. If the defendant was convicted of any felony with two or more prior strikes, the law mandated a state prison term of at least 25 years to life.

On November 6, 2012 the voters approved Proposition 36 which substantially amended the law with two primary provisions:

1. The requirements for sentencing a defendant as a third strike offender were changed to 25 years to life by requiring the new felony to be a serious or violent felony with two or more prior strikes to qualify for the 25 year-to-life sentence as a third strike offender; and
2. The addition of a means by which designated defendants currently serving a third strike sentence may petition the court for reduction of their term to a second strike sentence, if they would have been eligible for second strike sentencing under the new law.
   California’s Three Strikes Sentencing Law - criminal_justice

 

[Niner]

Wednesday, May 29th:
*Trial continues (Day 57) (@ 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 aka Chase Jarvis (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 & 3 men & 1 + 1 gender unknown? (alternates include 3 men & 2 women-minus one; 5/28: Juror #9 (man) being let go due to illness).
Trial Days (1-55: 1/7/19 thru 5/23/19) reference post #32 here:
CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #20
5/28/19 Day 56: Judge Michael A. Smith is letting them know that Juror #9 is being replaced with an alternate. He is also giving them additional photos of Merritt's work truck they have viewed in person. Judge gave juror instructions. Judge Smith tells jurors they will consider either 1st degree murder, 2nd degree murder or not guilty in the deaths of the McStay family. Supervising Deputy District Attorney Britt Imes gave final argument. Defense closing argument from James McGee. Court adjourned until 9am PDT tomorrow morning, 5/29. James McGee will continue with is closing argument. Jury will not be deliberating on this Friday, although they will be for succeeding Fridays, depending on the length of deliberations.
Tentative Schedule for week of May 27th thru May 31st: NO court-Memorial Day Holiday: May 27th (Monday). May 28th (Tuesday)-Closing Arguments, May 29th (Wednesday)-Defense continues closing; Jury deliberates, May 30th (Thursday)-Jury deliberates or Verdict? Dark on May 31st (Friday).

 

[katydid23]

My top line thoughts:

Imes did a great job of telling the story with a day to day flow as the defendant did the murders, dumped the bodies, forged cheques, dumped the trooper, cleaned up etc.

This is powerful because as explained its not just the 4th where Chase lacks an alibi. He lacks an alibi for all of the key times over 5 days. Context context.

Second, i think the photo of the cell towers commanding the gravesites nailed it for me. I know he probably was on the road and not at the graves but it just felt like a big moment.

Third - the cheques business. When you talk through it blow by blow, now that we know the detail, there can be no explanation other than fraud. We've talked about it forever, but it was nevertheless impressive to hear someone walk thru it.

I find it significant that neither the defence nor any poster here has an explanation for the backdating.

Imes was laser sharp - there can be only one reason Chase did it.

I agree. And when I heard McGee enthusiastically jump up saying he wanted to go in 5 minutes, I thought OH OH---here comes a strong rebuttal, here we go.

But it was very weak, imo, at least the way he began. He seemed very arrogant and snide, and made a lot of accusations, out and out calling Imes a liar. That one line, where he said ' I look you straight in the eyes, don't turn my back so I can lie to you unlike the prosecution'----very snide and slick.

It was also very slick how he made a big deal about FACTS FACTS FACTS, not hatred and sympathy----then he goes on to making up a whole bunch of speculative scenarios and tried to sell them as FACTS. Like that 'Phone/Events timeline. A bunch of hogwash, made out of whole cloth.

He has no idea what those calls were about. But he tries to say that , it's a fact, every time Chase created a fraudulent check, he called Joey 20 minutes later to tell him about it. He tries to make it a 'pattern' and use it to overlook the stolen cash.

Oh, and that slap talking was not effective, imo. It was annoying. But I hope he continues it because I think the jury will dislike it. lol

He also misrepresented what the DA said. McGee said that the state claims that Chase 'was fired' that day. I never saw it claimed that he was fired. They said they were not even sure if the meeting even took place.

The state's contention was that Chase was close to being fired, and Joey was catching on to the stolen checks. We don't know that he was fired. Maybe he was just confronted, and told that he needed to pay it back by working it off?

But McGee went full on ahead with this false statement that the states entire case falls apart if Chase wasn't 'fired' at lunch time. It made Mcgee look dishonest, imo.