Chase Merritt SENTENCED TO DEATH for murder of McStay Family POST TRIAL THOUGHTS

New Posts

Tortoise said:
Part 3 of yesterday's hearing - James McGee

Click to expand...

@Tortoise

I find this fascinating because IMO the defence's own expert interpretation matches my own theory. CM had indeed been at the gravesite with his phone off, and then turned on his phone on the freeway travelling at high speed because he felt it was safe to do so. That is what causes him to change sites.

The obvious problem with this, is it is not exculpatory. The prosecution never said CM was at the sites with shovel in hand ringing people. But these calls place him in the neighbourhood.

So interesting to see him admit the freeway idea.

And also shows the issue with Vlad as a witness. He potentially incriminates CM
 
@Tortoise

I agree with your theory about Chase not liking to be out of control.

One reason he wants to fire Maline (IMO), beyond it being his usual tactic, is that he has painted himself in to so many corners with current counsel with his sock puppeting and lies.

We are now in the absurd scenario with CM (in effect) attacking McGee - his own counsel. But eventually he needs fresh marks to start his new story afresh, including blaming small suit and McGee for all of this.
 
A fascinating admission by McGee (who pretty much threw CM under the bus)

A supposed defence contention is that when CM was at home ringing Cathy he was changing azimuth

But of course the defence did not produce the testimony for this to show where CM was when he made the calls ;)

This was an ongoing issue with the defence case - lack of primary evidence as to where CM was.
 
katydid23 said:
This court day was set for TWO HEARINGS.


Post Judgement Motions Hearing and Sentencing (@ 8:30am PT)

But Maline weaselled in and filed 2 extra motions 15 minutes before court began. So that threw things out of whack. And then Maline kept talking about all of these details that should have just been handed over earlier in a filed motion. Instead of being looked over before court and ruled upon earlier, the judge had to take a lot of extra time with the newest motions that had been filed that day.
Click to expand...

I find the Judge very good on his knowledge of the case

Indeed this is kind of an easter egg where we get Judicial summing up of the evidence. I so much prefer these, and don't like the US system for that reason, compared to UK / NZ where you get a proper summing up.

But from my upbringing, the procedure is just so strange,

No NZ Justice would tolerate such nonsense.
 
mrjitty said:
@Tortoise

I find this fascinating because IMO the defence's own expert interpretation matches my own theory. CM had indeed been at the gravesite with his phone off, and then turned on his phone on the freeway travelling at high speed because he felt it was safe to do so. That is what causes him to change sites.

The obvious problem with this, is it is not exculpatory. The prosecution never said CM was at the sites with shovel in hand ringing people. But these calls place him in the neighbourhood.

So interesting to see him admit the freeway idea.

And also shows the issue with Vlad as a witness. He potentially incriminates CM
Click to expand...
Exactly. I'm sure they would have liked to have put Vlad on, just not have him subjected to cross-examination. The decision not to put him on shows the tightrope the defense was always walking, never being able to go any distance because it would be instant checkmate.
 
Tortoise said:
Exactly. I'm sure they would have liked to have put Vlad on, just not have him subjected to cross-examination. The decision not to put him on shows the tightrope the defense was always walking, never being able to go any distance because it would be instant checkmate.
Click to expand...

Yes.

His real value was helping on X of the state witness

The problem with his as primary witness is he risks being forced into damaging admissions if he spins his freeway theory

And he has no hard facts for his other ideas
 
I hope this gets what he deserves, a whole family murdered due to jealousy / greed. I remember hearing about this case when it was an unsolved mystery, the family just "vanished into thin air" - so glad it was solved and somebody is going to pay.
 
mrjitty said:
@Tortoise

I find this fascinating because IMO the defence's own expert interpretation matches my own theory. CM had indeed been at the gravesite with his phone off, and then turned on his phone on the freeway travelling at high speed because he felt it was safe to do so. That is what causes him to change sites.

The obvious problem with this, is it is not exculpatory. The prosecution never said CM was at the sites with shovel in hand ringing people. But these calls place him in the neighbourhood.

So interesting to see him admit the freeway idea.

And also shows the issue with Vlad as a witness. He potentially incriminates CM
Click to expand...
Yep, that’s been my contention as well. It’s not absurd to believe his phone would switch towers when in travel. McGee said he felt it would be “impossible” for it to switch to another tower 6 miles away in 4 minutes. Really? Not if he’s traveling 70-80 mph which is typical on the freeway.
 
Force Ten said:
Yep, that’s been my contention as well. It’s not absurd to believe his phone would switch towers when in travel. McGee said he felt it would be “impossible” for it to switch to another tower 6 miles away in 4 minutes. Really? Not if he’s traveling 70-80 mph which is typical on the freeway.
Click to expand...

Yep
 
Just working through the Judge's decision
  • Ineffective assistance of counsel
    • Judge reviewed the authorities
    • High bar to be met for a mistrial
    • Especially the accused cannot complain about informed tactical decisions made in the course of the trial, even if other attorneys might disagree
    • Much of the pleadings was irrelevant as came down to the tactical decision of McGee per his testimony
    • McGee has discussions with expert after Boles testimony. Both expert and McGee agreed calling expert would be counter productive
    • Key reason was expert helped achieve far more than expected in X of Boles. McGee understood the position and made informed tactical decision
    • McGee made informed decision in best interests of client - whether or not CM disagreed with it
    • (this makes policy sense - you can't second guess the tactical decisions made at trial just because you lose)
  • Terminating cell towers
    • McGee did in fact make reference to terminating azimuth.
    • Maline's argument false on the evidence
    • Boles explained in detail why a call may originate at once tower and bounce off others
    • Originating tower is generally picked by the phone (the strongest signal to connect to)
    • Range of towers is up to 20 miles. Phone may select a tower far away to connect to for origination. (e.g due to traffic)
    • Network may then shift the call to another tower for network management reasons. Doesn't mean phone is moving.
  • Utilisation of additional phone company records that defense did not have
    • Not true
    • Boles testified he used AT&T records that both sides had to make maps
    • He consulted a database he could access, simply to see if correlated or to check for problems
    • McGee also X-ed Boles on this (gets very technical) but did not change Azimuth's used.
  • McGee had commanding knowledge of technical data
    • was able to utilise knowledge to bring out defense arguments in examination
    • e.g. Boles said change in azimuth meant phone moving south - McGee bought this out
  • Boles never testified that CM was right at grave site
  • CM said was never in desert
    • despite giving hypothetical answer about where he would be if he had been there
    • Sister said he never visited and had not been there for more than 5 years
    • So no explanation as to how his cellphone could be in that general area
    • The general area is out in the desert. Not in Victorville. No explanation from the defence.
  • McGee's representation was at the higher end.
    • Demonstrated high level of knowledge/issues
    • Argued forcefully that State's case was inaccurate.
    • Held: finding against defence on Ineffective assistance of counsel
  • Defence ultimately was given access to critical data
    • Defence did use that info in X
    • Held: No discovery violation
 
Judge's findings (cont.)

Was there sufficient evidence to support the verdict?
  • Is Court satisfied of guilt beyond reasonable doubt?
    • (Court's role as 13th juror)
    • Judge reviewed legal standard
    • Judge summarises primary points of evidence
  • Notes tensions
    • between defendant/summer
    • plans to expand business with more welders (CM looks very pissed off shaking head)
  • Cheques written on Joseph's account
    • Deleted
    • First time it ever happened
  • Feb 4th Meeting somewhere in Rancho
    • Joseph called Union Bank 2x before that meeting
    • Following that numerous calls between Joe & Merrit
    • Seems to accept meeting was at Chick-Fil-A or nearby
  • Cheques cashed by Merrit
    • No receipts/accounting
    • Corroborates Joe's reasons for wanting to terminate relationship
  • After meeting - Feb 4th
    • Joe drives home
    • Defence presented evidence that CM was home entire evening of Feb 4th
    • He was confronted with evidence that in early evening his wife CJ was calling him repeatedly but he did not answer
    • No cell phone tower info in relation to those calls.
    • In middle of that timeframe, call from Joe's phone in Fallbrook area to CM. Did not show on CM's records.
    • Indicate call was made - CJ and daughter said saw the call, and saw the call on screen but did not answer
    • Lead to argument about CM not answering call
    • Problem of that scenario is that CM was not in the apartment at that time (missed calls from CJ)
    • Explanation is that was in club house. But that means that he must have been there all that time and could not have got Joe's call for everyone to see.
    • Not reasonable or believable
    • Calls CJ back after 4hrs of missed calls - so he is still not back in apartment (ping evidence)
  • Activity in McStay residence
    • Chqs made out to CM
    • Record of that was deleted
    • Either done by Joe or killer
    • must be CM. who else would make out chqs to CM?
  • After feb 4th
    • Joe had lots of VMs
    • None from CM his business partner
    • Additional chqs to CM, deleted and cashed
    • CM contacted Intuit and wanted account deleted
    • Intuit evidence - rare request.
    • Intuit sent email to Joe. No reply
  • CM's work post 4 feb
    • Work not done
    • GC had to pay extra money and CM still did not complete fountaint
    • Other instances of problems with CMs work
    • All this info corroborates financial motive ----> CM taking funds from the business
    • corroborates Metro's evidence
    • corroborates Joe's stated intention to phase CM out of the business
  • Bodies buried between Feb 5th-11th
    • Cell evidence proves CM in the area of grave sites on 6th
    • Lots of evidences about Azimuths
    • CM denied being in area
    • Sister denied he was visiting in area
  • Feb 8th - Trooper found
    • Procedure was to tow cars
    • We know it got there sometime on feb 8th but not what time
    • CM's DNA on steering wheel and gear shift
    • CM said he never drove the trooper but sat on passenger side
    • Suggests CM was the one who drove Trooper to the border
 
Last edited:
Judge's summary (cont).
  • Detective Interview
    • CM was referring to Joe in past tense
    • Unusual in their experience - people tend to stay in present tense when loss has not yet sunk in
    • Asked CM about that - he had no explanation
    • Inconsequential alone at that time - missing 2 weeks at the time
  • CM's phone
    • Had forensic evidence regarding crime in phone
    • grave site tire tracks
    • Joes phone records
    • Photos of Joe and CM at Grave
    • Standing alone Inconsequential but in totality with other circumstantial evidence - > has significance
  • Defence presented vigorous defence
    • Finance issues
      • Argued that Joe had given blanks to CM for him to create chqs for expenses
      • In light of history, explanation was not reasonable or believable
    • DK was at least in same position as CM as regards suspicion
      • DK was in charge of Web, but was being phased out
      • After disappearance, DK benefited financially
      • Significantly it was DK who sold business and retained sale profits
      • Compelling case was made DK had the same motive
      • However there was no credible evidence connected DK to crimes
      • Nothing placed him at crime scene of grace sites
      • Nothing connecting him to trooper
      • Addition evidence placed DK in Hawaii
      • Evidence did not suggest DK was likely the killer
      • No reasonable doubt raised
      • But that evidence still served and important point
      • Demonstrated presence of motive alone not sufficient to prove guilt.
      • Financial evidence in relation to DK as to motive insufficient - nothing to show he was involved in crime.
      • (Key failing of defence case here, to link DK to crime)
    • DNA
      • Trooper DNA said to be trace only
      • If he was driver - it should be major.
      • Defence raised possibility of transfer DNA
      • Couple of problems with that although studies indicate possible
      • Few actual cases where transfer DNA established
      • No foundation for any basis for transfer DNA
      • Would need to be evidential foundation of direct content between CM and Joe. No such evidence presented.
      • Argument that they probably shook hands but no evidence it happened.
      • What if Joe went to bathroom and washed hands? No evidence again - all speculative.
    • Cell evidence - discussed above
    • DNA evidence from graves
      • Acidic soil
      • Animal activity - exposed remains (e.g. Summer) to elements for up to 6 months
      • Flooding in area
      • Decomposition also destroys DNA
      • Evidence of other human activity in area
      • DNA degraded ---> expert evidence no useful evidence would survive that
      • Checked various areas like knots in the cords where DNA would be protected - but none found
      • Defence evidence of MVAC procedure - well after they had been examined by the state
      • Ryan was asked if DNA would still be present. She said she could not say if it would survive
      • MVAC sample analysis - significantly degraded
      • Can not say if peaks below threshold are noise or real profile
      • Partial results from summer's bra cups
      • Brings is to TrueAllele
        • Claims significantly lower analytical threshold
        • Even at that low level of 10 RFU's there was no data
        • Reduced to 5 RFUs to try to ID DNA within the noise levels
        • Witness indicated what Judge would describe as random hits / results
        • Potential mixtures of partial DNA at those locations
        • Software did not produce DNA profile of any individual
        • Attempted to determine statistical probability of whether known individuals could be the contributor
        • CM and McStays were eliminated as source
        • Witness said any material in touch with soils / decomp fluids etc would show no useable DNA
        • Best demonstrated by Summers bra. Wore for the day, tightly. Cut off, pulled off. Yet not a trace of Summers DNA anywhere on it.
        • Yet argument is someone else touched it briefly and their DNA survived
        • Not believable / not reasonable
 
Judge's summary (cont).
  • Security video
    • Much was made of Mitchley video
    • Video is of limited significance
    • Recounts history of the video
    • Sometime her system stopped working from after 4th - 15th Feb
    • Not a complete surveillance
    • Does not show truck arriving or any other vehicles
    • If it is CMs truck leaving, and if the evidence is that the McStays were still at home until Joe's call, then exculpatory!
    • But defence said its not his truck!
    • Best analysis was by Dr Rubin - said in 402 hearing could not exclude CMs truck, but changed mind (error)
    • Tended to exclude CMs truck
    • Said what was needed was live test which would be definitive
    • Neither side did this test.
    • No definitive conclusion could be made.
  • Holes in prosecution case
    • Cause of death - blunt force trauma
    • Where is the bloody crime scene?
    • No evidence of such a crime scene or a clean up
    • Clean ups rarely successful
    • Leads to conclusion, they were not killed in house
    • Where killed? No answer to that. Potential hole in prosecution case.
    • Additional issue. If they were taken on late 4th or early 5th but not buried till 6th (state case) where were they kept?
    • There is no answer for that
    • Could be considered significant holes. A jury could say this was reasonable doubt.
    • The Jury however, found that the totality evidence showed CM was guilty despite not having those answers
  • Held
    • Evidence sufficient to support guilt beyond reasonable doubt
    • Motion denied.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 122 more.
Total: 3,193 (members: 123, guests: 3,070)

Online statistics

Members online
123
Guests online
3,070
Total visitors
3,193
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,180
Messages
17,964,683
Members
228,714
Latest member
hannahdunnam
Back
Top