CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #7

Status
Not open for further replies.
What about it?

POI, only applies to his sitting jury BEFORE any testimony is heard.

After then the presumption can quickly erode away at any time as more damaging testimony is heard.

Imo

I would agree, as evidence is presented, that presumption of innocence will be impacted, but wouldn't it be important to the concept of due process, to hear all the evidence before coming to a determination?

Isn't a fair trial predicated on the belief that it is only with the totality of the evidence that we can make a fair and impartial determination as to guilt?
 
During the police interview, CM produced a copy of an email Joey sent CM indicating there was an overpayment to CM totalling $173k. CM did some kind of wacky math explaining that he really wasnt overpaid that amount and that there was a "running tab".

I know this isn't definitive proof such as a promissory note, but it does show that at least in Joey's mind, CM has been overpaid.

Thanks MM.

I know CM is a career conman, and conmen are notorious pathological liars, but some of what he has said is totally bizarre.

He was overpaid by Joey in the tune of a whopping 173K, and then comes up with this whacky story (excuse) that doesn't even make a lick of sense.

It truly shows pathological liars are fully convinced everyone including the police, will buy their outlandish lies without question. Ugh.

I've seen detectives on different shows talk about this very same thing when interviewing murderers. They said the suspects really believed LE would buy it all and always thinking they were much smarter.

Imo
 
missy said:
@ Tortoise unfortunately, I can't bring your post over now.

Just high lite the post you want - right click - copy - and paste over here in the Reply box. Put [ quote = Tortoise ] in front of the stuff - and at the end put [ / quote ] without the spaces! :)

JMarsh said:
What are everyone's thought on due process? Presumption of innocence?

In a court of law - yes! But this is a discussion forum - so people have already decided or close to it - or NOT! on guilt or innocence.... JMO
 
Thanks MM.

I know CM is a career conman, and conmen are notorious pathological liars, but some of what he has said is totally bizarre.

He was overpaid by Joey in the tune of a whopping 173K, and then comes up with this whacky story (excuse) that doesn't even make a lick of sense.

It truly shows pathological liars are fully convinced everyone including the police, will buy their outlandish lies without question. Ugh.

I've seen detectives on different shows talk about this very same thing when interviewing murderers. They said the suspects really believed LE would buy it all and always thinking they were much smarter.

Imo
Thanks MM.

I know CM is a career conman, and conmen are notorious pathological liars, but some of what he has said is totally bizarre.

He was overpaid by Joey in the tune of a whopping 173K, and then comes up with this whacky story (excuse) that doesn't even make a lick of sense.

It truly shows pathological liars are fully convinced everyone including the police, will buy their outlandish lies without question. Ugh.

I've seen detectives on different shows talk about this very same thing when interviewing murderers. They said the suspects really believed LE would buy it all and always thinking they were much smarter.

Imo

I think you might be misinterpreting this a little. What the DA points to in opening isn't that Chase owed 173K, the claim that the DA made is that Chase owed about 42K. Which is still a lot, but again the defense claims these numbers are inaccurate and that their forensic accountant can explain why.

Which goes back to the question of due process. Isn't it important if we believe in fair trials, to make certain we are understanding the evidence correctly-there is a big difference between a 173K debt and a 42k debt--and isn't it also important, before determining what those numbers actually prove, to hear from the forensic account as well as the DA?
 
Imo, thus far, the defense case has been about a hundred excuses, combined with wanting the jurors to be gullible enough to believe in mere
coincidences. Oh, and the biggest absurdity they want the jurors to believe what CM has supposedly said, when the jurors know CM has the most vested interest than anyone to lie.

Along with totally unsupported multiple assumptions of possible could haves, and might haves again without supported evidence.

MrJitty, is correct, to affirm anything that has been said by the DT that CM supposedly said, CM must testify.

And oh how I wish he will testify. That would be the highlight of the case.

I suspect he will only "testify" via sock puppet attorney

It's too risky to take the stand and better to have his attorney's spout hearsay on his behalf.
 
What are everyone's thought on due process? Presumption of innocence?

If I was a juror, it would be a major requirement for me to come in with a presumption of the defendant's innocence. The state would have to prove, step by step, beyond a reasonable doubt, this man's Guilt.

As a bystander, watching from the sidelines, I am looking at things that have not been submitted to the jury, that may have been deemed too prejudicial. I can have my own opinions about the defendant's guilt or innocence.
 
I suspect he will only "testify" via sock puppet attorney

It's too risky to take the stand and better to have his attorney's spout hearsay on his behalf.

Is hearsay allowed? And you are an attorney, I'm very curious to get your take on due process and presumption of innocence.
 
Replying to my own post, if you go by the phone logs, nothing appears to have changed in Joey and Chase's relationship just prior to the family going missing. If anything, it would appear they are ramping up on their communication as they increase the volume of the fountains they are building together.

A ramping up of the amount of communication does not necessarily mean those calls were positive.

And we do not know if 'they' were increasing the volume of fountains they were going to build together.
 
I think you might be misinterpreting this a little. What the DA points to in opening isn't that Chase owed 173K, the claim that the DA made is that Chase owed about 42K. Which is still a lot, but again the defense claims these numbers are inaccurate and that their forensic accountant can explain why.

Which goes back to the question of due process. Isn't it important if we believe in fair trials, to make certain we are understanding the evidence correctly-there is a big difference between a 173K debt and a 42k debt--and isn't it also important, before determining what those numbers actually prove, to hear from the forensic account as well as the DA?

The problem is that it only matters what Joey thought in 2010 and what Chase said in response.

It is largely irrelevant how different accountants may interpret the accounts in 2019
 
It is entirely possible the $173k balance is incorrect.

The point is, JM documented that amount and sent it via email to CM. Maybe JM didn't agree with CM wacky accounting.

Again, maybe JM math was wrong, but he doesn't have the benefit of a forensic accountant now.
 
It is entirely possible the $173k balance is incorrect.

The point is, JM documented that amount and sent it via email to CM. Maybe JM didn't agree with CM wacky accounting.

Again, maybe JM math was wrong, but he doesn't have the benefit of a forensic accountant now.

Agreed. That is exactly right.

The email shows what Joey believed in 2010. Only Chase can testify to what conversations happened 9 years ago.

Even if an expert can speculate Joey had his sums wrong, the expert cannot testify as to what Chase believed or said in 2010.
 
I think you might be misinterpreting this a little. What the DA points to in opening isn't that Chase owed 173K, the claim that the DA made is that Chase owed about 42K. Which is still a lot, but again the defense claims these numbers are inaccurate and that their forensic accountant can explain why.

Which goes back to the question of due process. Isn't it important if we believe in fair trials, to make certain we are understanding the evidence correctly-there is a big difference between a 173K debt and a 42k debt--and isn't it also important, before determining what those numbers actually prove, to hear from the forensic account as well as the DA?

I’m not as well informed on this trial as many of the dedicated members are. But did the state also hire a forensic accountant to review the financials or are they relying on testimony from the detectives?
 
It is evidence. But not testimony that can be tested under x

The trouble is CM lied in that interview and police did not have the information they have now

And he left out key info, specifically that he had permission to make himself some checks and back date them. He tried to explain away a lot of things, but never mentions that key detail. Hmmmmm
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
180
Guests online
818
Total visitors
998

Forum statistics

Threads
589,938
Messages
17,927,928
Members
228,007
Latest member
BeachyTee
Back
Top