Discussion in 'Trials' started by Tricia, Jan 9, 2019.
I can see the running lights as well, the outline of them.
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!
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.
Exactly, and LE didn't find his inconsistent stories credible either.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
No he did not.
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....
Keeping it real, how does identifying whose vehicle it was say anything about who was driving it?
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 -
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...
Just zeroing in on BIB
9th goes to Susan's AFTER Fallbrook
12th goes to Fallbrook and calls Susan/Mike that someone is looking after the dogs
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
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.
I found your post and it was a reply to me lol! I must have missed it
This is a very interesting idea!
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?
Agreed. He clearly was trying to engineer someone else to do it.
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.
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"