Closing Arguments- Chase Merritt Charged W/Murder of Joseph, Summer, Gianni and Joe Jr McStay #2

Status
Not open for further replies.
Delete
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-5-31_18-5-23.png
    upload_2019-5-31_18-5-23.png
    11.1 KB · Views: 34
Trying to delete. Lol
 

Attachments

  • upload_2019-5-31_18-6-25.png
    upload_2019-5-31_18-6-25.png
    11.1 KB · Views: 23
Sigh.... There should be two polls... One to vote on guilt or innocence, and one to vote how you think the jury will find... guilt, acquit or hang.

They are different and not necessarily linked. I have seen some great cases in which the juries acquitted because they didn't understand evidence and interpreted testimony differently. It only takes one to not understand the charges, the evidence, the testimony or to misinterpret any of those things.
I think most people here have an incredible grasp of the case, and may even know it better than the prosecution and/or defense. Because of that, you have the context necessary to put the pieces of the puzzle together. I am not suggesting the jury doesn't understand this case, I'm merely saying I have seen cases proven beyond the standard, that resulted in acquital and hung jury's.
I hope that doesn't happen here. A retrial would be emotionally devastating for the family.
ETA when I say there should be, I mean I would like to see how the results from the two polls would differ, not that I actually think someone should have created two.
 
Last edited:
If all the jurors are at least fairly bright people with no big hangups, I think they will have a guilty verdict by noon on Tuesday. Since most of the evidence was driven home strongly by the Prosecutors, and argued very weakly by the defense, the jurors will not likely need to review very much of the evidence. Especially if at least a few of them had taken detailed notes during all of the key points throughout the trial. Worst case scenario, in my opinion: 1 or 2 jurors need to be patiently walked through the key points, or shown why certain claims by the defense don't hold any weight at all. In this case, I suppose it could drag on through Wednesday or even Thursday. I really can't imagine how it could go any longer than that.

I'm guessing a couple jurors will not comprehend circumstantial evidence as I've found in past deliberations. Hopefully they can be shown the way to logically and engage in rational discussions.
 
Bad news??

These attorneys have no idea what they're talking about. 3 DNA samples found in the graves "the defense needs to jump on that". Umm, the attorneys are done bozo.

<modsnip - rude>
Dang you beat me to it. I was going to say let me guess, talking heads who watched little, if any of the trial, are voicing their opinions based on watching a clip that lasted a few seconds? Too funny. :rolleyes:
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dang you beat me to it. I was going to say let me guess, talking heads who watched little, if any of the trial, are voicing their opinions based on watching a clip that lasted a few seconds? Too funny. :rolleyes:

Defense attorney talking heads, voicing opinions after watching a tiny clip of the defense’s closing. What could be more unbiased?
 
Bad news??

These attorneys have no idea what they're talking about. 3 DNA samples found in the graves "the defense needs to jump on that". Umm, the attorneys are done bozo.

<modsnip - rude>

Dang you beat me to it. I was going to say let me guess, talking heads who watched little, if any of the trial, are voicing their opinions based on watching a clip that lasted a few seconds? Too funny. :rolleyes:

Defense attorney talking heads, voicing opinions after watching a tiny clip of the defense’s closing. What could be more unbiased?

Prosecution does backtracking...

Where were they killed? Melissa in rebuttal: "Nobody has said to you they were murdered in the house. Nobody from the PT has stood up here and said to you, all four of those people were murdered in that house!"

^^ Well Daugherty did exactly that in the opening statement: @1:14


When were they buried? The 6th, because CM's phone pinged in the area on the 6th. Now: "Nobody has ever said that to you!"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Prosecution does backtracking...

Where were they killed? Melissa in rebuttal: "Nobody has said to you they were murdered in the house. Nobody from the PT has stood up here and said to you, all four of those people were murdered in that house!"

^^ Well Daugherty did exactly that in the opening statement: @1:14


When were they buried? The 6th, because CM's phone pinged in the area on the 6th. Now: "Nobody has ever said that to you!"
Shall we discuss the DT's opening statement? Let's start with DK's ex girlfriend, Riccobone...
 
Prosecution does backtracking...

Where were they killed? Melissa in rebuttal: "Nobody has said to you they were murdered in the house. Nobody from the PT has stood up here and said to you, all four of those people were murdered in that house!"

^^ Well Daugherty did exactly that in the opening statement: @1:14


When were they buried? The 6th, because CM's phone pinged in the area on the 6th. Now: "Nobody has ever said that to you!"

Conclusion:
Sean Daugherty = Nobody

tenor.gif
 
Prosecution does backtracking...

Where were they killed? Melissa in rebuttal: "Nobody has said to you they were murdered in the house. Nobody from the PT has stood up here and said to you, all four of those people were murdered in that house!"

^^ Well Daugherty did exactly that in the opening statement: @1:14


When were they buried? The 6th, because CM's phone pinged in the area on the 6th. Now: "Nobody has ever said that to you!"
There's no back peddling. He also said "We don't have the answers" to how it happened.
 
I'm guessing a couple jurors will not comprehend circumstantial evidence as I've found in past deliberations. Hopefully they can be shown the way to logically and engage in rational discussions.
I’m having a hard time finding the correct way to express my concern about complicated expert testimony .
The results aren’t the complicated part , it’s the college course(s) given to the jurors with the expection they will be able to comprehend everything & use it in a way that adds to the “whole” of the evidence , rather than bogging them down on certain points they may, or may not , have truly understood.
I think the fact that the experts , themselves , understand the science behind the results , should be all that’s necessary for much (not all) of what is brought into current trials .
Jurors are suppossed to be made up of our “peers” , not would be experts. Keep it simple & straight foward as much as possible. JMHO
 
I’m having a hard time finding the correct way to express my concern about complicated expert testimony .
The results aren’t the complicated part , it’s the college course(s) given to the jurors with the expection they will be able to comprehend everything & use it in a way that adds to the “whole” of the evidence , rather than bogging them down on certain points they may, or may not , have truly understood.
I think the fact that the experts , themselves , understand the science behind the results , should be all that’s necessary for much (not all) of what is brought into current trials .
Jurors are suppossed to be made up of our “peers” , not would be experts. Keep it simple & straight foward as much as possible. JMHO

I’m reminded of the DNA “college course” the jurors endured in the OJ Simpson trial.

How O.J. Simpson trial introduced courts to DNA
 
Sigh.... There should be two polls... One to vote on guilt or innocence, and one to vote how you think the jury will find... guilt, acquit or hang.

They are different and not necessarily linked. I have seen some great cases in which the juries acquitted because they didn't understand evidence and interpreted testimony differently. It only takes one to not understand the charges, the evidence, the testimony or to misinterpret any of those things.
I think most people here have an incredible grasp of the case, and may even know it better than the prosecution and/or defense. Because of that, you have the context necessary to put the pieces of the puzzle together. I am not suggesting the jury doesn't understand this case, I'm merely saying I have seen cases proven beyond the standard, that resulted in acquital and hung jury's.
I hope that doesn't happen here. A retrial would be emotionally devastating for the family.
ETA when I say there should be, I mean I would like to see how the results from the two polls would differ, not that I actually think someone should have created two.
The poll suggested would be a complete guess as to how 12 people no one here knows will be thinking.

That would be a poll then on how 12 strangers interpreted the evidence, or their level of understanding? How informative would that be - would it be decided by the expected level of the jurors' IQs, or their age/gender/life experience, whether they liked the attorneys, whether they're annoyed about how they've been treated over 5 months, or how some other jury on some completely different case returned an unexpected verdict?

How does one vote on 12 strangers' opinions without basing it on one's own own opinion of the case?

No poll can be accurate - that would have to include questions and rely on honest answers, including some who may have an agenda signing up to disrupt the poll, such as have you listened to all the evidence, what is your understanding of reasonable and unreasonable doubt, what is your understanding and belief about circumstantial evidence, did you start out at the beginning of trial with a particular bias, did you know about the case before trial started, etc etc.

If you are on a jury and the prosecution hasn't proven the case to you "beyond a reasonable doubt" it is a vote of not guilty, it's not a vote of "hung jury".

Why doesn't someone start that poll on how the 12 strangers, unknown entities, will vote? Isn't it more a poll on jury behaviour? What is the difficulty in voting based on one's own opinion? Is it doubts that are really not 'reasonable' doubts, or is it based on one's self-doubt? Some might be that way inclined - to doubt their own decisions and dislike making judgments. It would be more useful to my mind to discuss those individual doubts here and resolve that, as the jury will be doing.

JMO
 
Prosecution does backtracking...

Where were they killed? Melissa in rebuttal: "Nobody has said to you they were murdered in the house. Nobody from the PT has stood up here and said to you, all four of those people were murdered in that house!"

^^ Well Daugherty did exactly that in the opening statement: @1:14


When were they buried? The 6th, because CM's phone pinged in the area on the 6th. Now: "Nobody has ever said that to you!"

Imo, that is not what Melissa was saying.

It's clear no prosecutor has the burden of proof when it comes to the murder location.

The state is allowed to have a THEORY based on what the gravesite evidence shows them. Imes layed out that theory using the compelling evidence showing it is a very reasonable logical conclusion.

What Melissa told the jury is true. The state has never told them conclusively they know for sure it DID happen inside their home, and no where else.

She even used the examples the DT putforth about it coulda..might have, may have happened on the 5th, and murdered else where.

Melissa even showed the jury how unreasonable that DT assumption is based on what was found at the gravesite along, and on the bodies.

No one was there when CM murdered them all. Like most all murderers they do their violent deeds in the secrecy of darkness without any living eye witnesses.

The jury can come to their own conclusions as to where it may have happened.

The state even told them that, and 6 can believe it happened in the home, 6 can believe it happened else where. Etc.

They do not have to have unanimous opinions on where it happened, what, how, exactly when or even why it happened.

None of those things are burdens the state must prove. They clearly laid out the legal burden required under law in the state's closing to the jury.

Imo, even before being selected to serve as a juror they were told the legally required burden they are there to decide. Imes mentioned that in his closing.

The jury knows they are not there to decide where, when, how, what or even what the motive happened to be.

They clearly know they are there to decide one thing only. Is CM guilty BARD of murdering all four members of the McStay family.

It's the same sole legal burden of proof in any murder case for all prosecutors in every state.

It includes all missing body murder cases where all of those other things remained uknown nor were they required for any defendant to be convicted BARD.

Jmho
 
Last edited:
I’m having a hard time finding the correct way to express my concern about complicated expert testimony .
The results aren’t the complicated part , it’s the college course(s) given to the jurors with the expection they will be able to comprehend everything & use it in a way that adds to the “whole” of the evidence , rather than bogging them down on certain points they may, or may not , have truly understood.
I think the fact that the experts , themselves , understand the science behind the results , should be all that’s necessary for much (not all) of what is brought into current trials .
Jurors are suppossed to be made up of our “peers” , not would be experts. Keep it simple & straight foward as much as possible. JMHO

Morning MissJames!

Imo, the experts will be a wash.

The expert opinions will not decide this case one way or the other.

The jury will use all of the other overwhelming CE facts that are not based on only individual differing expert opinions.

Imo
 
I think she’s great .
I agree, and MR did an excellent closing arguments for the state, laying out precisely what the jurors need to focus on when they deliberate. I really can't see the jury should have too many problems in coming to a unanimous verdict because the evidence was presented in a very understandable and no nonsense way. IMO.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
85
Guests online
2,549
Total visitors
2,634

Forum statistics

Threads
590,011
Messages
17,928,979
Members
228,038
Latest member
shmoozie
Back
Top