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

Discussion in 'Trials' started by Tricia, Jan 9, 2019.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. asyousay

    asyousay Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,747
    Likes Received:
    2,418
    Trophy Points:
    113


    Maybe he became arrogant as he thought he had gotten aaay with it?


    Or he had a massive argument with his girlfriend and made threats to scare her and told her what he had done to the Mcstay?

    Who knows at this stage but it’s intriguing to see what happens and too see if there is is any truth in the story.
     
    minusfour, Lilibet, missy1974 and 3 others like this.
  2. Tortoise

    Tortoise Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,749
    Likes Received:
    16,511
    Trophy Points:
    113
    So that might be the answer, they didn't want to break it apart from the trial for murder since they might not then be able to bring up his conviction on the theft aspect during the murder trial, since it's not a similar offense.
     
  3. Bernina

    Bernina Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,600
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    63
    My thoughts are DK was the tech guy. Wouldn't JM have had him do the QB's transfer from Web to Desktop? Obviously, CM had to lie to bank officials because he wasn't authorized to make the changes unless under the guise of being JM.
     
  4. Mica

    Mica Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,208
    Likes Received:
    6,877
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I thought JM was planning to part ways with DK?
     
  5. Bernina

    Bernina Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,600
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    63
    If that was the plan, wouldn't JM have had DK do any "tech" housekeeping before they parted ways? But, then again, the DF wants us to believe that JM WANTED QB switched from Web to Desk.........First time I've heard this scenario.
     
  6. coastal

    coastal Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    1,703
    Likes Received:
    188
    Trophy Points:
    63
    You're right. Dan was the SEO (Search Engine Optimization) guy, who set up the website for EIP. I assume the job of "setting up" a business would include installing an accounting program like Quickbooks, and that any SEO would have at least a passing familiarity with that program. As Niner's notes up-thread show (thanks, Niner!), whoever it was that used Joey's Quickbooks that Feb. didn't mess around with figuring out the program. They just went in and used it. I have used Quickbooks, and while it is easy to use and understand, it isn't necessarily intuitive enough for a first-time user to just "get". IMO. It seems to me that whoever wrote those checks from Joey's account must have known what they were doing, and how to do it, and that there was a plan in place before they started. Could Merritt have known Quickbooks? Sure, but it doesn't really seem like his area of expertise, IMO.

    If I remember correctly, one of Merritt's brothers has some technical skills, but I don't remember who.
     
  7. asyousay

    asyousay Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,747
    Likes Received:
    2,418
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You have to remember that Chase just can not say Joey told him to go into Quick Books and write out cheques because then Chase wouldn’t of had to have set up thing in all lower case letters.

    As the prosecution said Chase would know that a Chase Merritt already existed in the quickbooks and all he had to do was go to the pull down menu and his name was already there.

    So if Joey had told him to go into the Quickbook account he would of known that obviously as Joey would of told him what to do. That’s just common sense.
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019 at 11:32 AM
  8. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,844
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Anything is possible... but then, they didn't like each other at all, did they? I know that was the case after the McStays went missing, but was it like that before as well?
     
    Lilibet, Mica, Bernina and 1 other person like this.
  9. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,844
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    During Mike's testimony, on direct, Mike said that CM did NOT go into the house at all on the 13th, they used a photo, Mike put an X where CM was standing (coincidentally by the sliding glass doors) and he said CM didn't go into the house, stating because he had a criminal history he didn't want to go in, they used Mike's 2013 SBSD statement to refresh his memory. They spent quite a bit of time on this in his testimony, including a picture.

    On cross... the defense gives Mike his 2010 February 15th statement he gave to SDSD to refresh his memory... and Mike says he went in through the window and then opened the sliding glass door for CM to get into the house.

    So it was cleared up by the actual record of the interview, but the defense had to clear it up. The prosecution was using his 2013 statement, not his early statements.
     
    Aluev, minusfour, Lilibet and 3 others like this.
  10. asyousay

    asyousay Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,747
    Likes Received:
    2,418
    Trophy Points:
    113

    I don’t know but let’s be honest both con artists and leeches so they did probably hate the fact that somebody else was honing in on their free meal ticket. No doubt both took massive advantage of Joeys good nature and didn’t want to share that with others.

    IMO
     
    Cortne, minusfour, Mica and 2 others like this.
  11. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,844
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I can't find much about this ex of his. I have been looking lol What I have found is not relevant or much at all! It could be that she was told to lock down or delete SM accounts before the trial started though because her name was going to come up JMO

    I find it suspicious that DK all of a sudden confesses to her, months before the trial. But I don't see what she has to gain from it?

    The only thing that gives me some pause is the knife, and the defense mentioning a knife in one of the graves. If this is information that was not publicly known before she came forward, it's corroborating evidence to her statement. I can't find any information about the knife in the grave mentioned previously, so unfortunately, we will have to wait for it to come out in the trial.
     
  12. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,844
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To be fair... it was the prosecution that stated that during a motion that they didn't want her to be allowed to testify :) We have no details about what those credibility issues are, I wish we did.
     
    minusfour and Mica like this.
  13. Tortoise

    Tortoise Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,749
    Likes Received:
    16,511
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I was referring to the transcript you posted, of the detective's Qs and As.

    It seems clear to me that at this point Michael doesn't have a clear memory of it, which is a separate issue from what he said at the beginning, when he could have been answering what he understood to be a question about who entered the house through the window. I don't think he is or was being dishonest.
     
    minusfour likes this.
  14. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,844
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The quickbooks...

    I don't know how the defense get's over that hurdle. I just don't. There is no good explanation for it. The only thing giving them a glimmer of hope at all right now is that fortunately for them DK was just as greedy and just as much of a snake when it came to Joey's money. Both of them were messing with money before anyone even knew they were missing.
     
    Cortne, Aluev, minusfour and 2 others like this.
  15. oceanblueeyes

    oceanblueeyes Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    23,147
    Likes Received:
    10,651
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Thank you.

    If she has credibility issues and that is shown on the stand it could wind up backfiring on the defense.

    Imo jurors dont like to feel they are being handed a line of bull and expecting them all to believe it.

    They could be incensed and feel their intelligence has been insulted. Never a wise move.

    As we know now the jurors in Wints trial wanted proof of someone else's involvement rather than the defense attorneys merely saying so.

    If at anytime the jury is shown or feels the defense or any of their witnesses arent being truthful it will call into question ueverything they have claimed.

    I do understand the defense attorneys strategy. We see this same kind of SODDI I think more often than any other defense strategy option.

    While the defense has no burden whatsoever when proving CM innocent IMO the jury will expect them to show proof of what they have asserted to be true because they are wanting them to believe it is the named person they have told them and not CM. They aren't ever going to assume its true without verifiable evidence just because that is the claim being made.

    It's not like them telling the jury they dont know who did it like other SODDI trials where they dont name anyone.

    They are specifically targeting DK by name as the guilty one just like the defense did throughout Wints trial.

    Most jurors expect the defense will try to place blame on someone else. That can be very risky by even using the blame game when they are there to sit in judgement on the defendant sitting in the courtroom. No one has been charged but him.

    I still don't think using an aggressive cross examination tactic style with any of the family members of the 4 victims is wise.

    The best defense attorneys I've ever seen for decades when watching trials are the ones who are smooth as silk and are masters at cross examination.

    They get the answers they want without ever being aggressive and combative to any of the state's witnesses. None of them take the chance of offending any of the jurors. They do outstanding cross examinations always showing respect.

    Imo it shows the jury they are there trying to only seek the truth without it ever it being all about them by not being drama kings or queens.

    Both family member who testified had no reason at the time to make a mental note about what happened when and what CM did at any certain time.

    Imo that is why they cant genuinely recall. At that time none of the family members knew their family had been murdered nor knew CM was the murderer who walked among them all that time.

    Jmo
     
    Last edited: Jan 12, 2019 at 12:00 PM
  16. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,844
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No, I don't think Mike was being dishonest at all. I think that it was almost 4 years later, so much had happened in between, and he didn't remember. Add to that, his families remains were just found, he probably already formed an opinion of who did it, his answers were probably a bit bias. I am not faulting him for that at all!

    I put this one on the detective and the pro's for misrepresenting it not only in the preliminary hearing, but in the trial as well. Did the prosecution really believe that the defense wasn't going to show Mike his 2010 statements? I also don't think that it made Mike look dishonest in the trial, I think it made him look human... it made the prosecution look dishonest though IMO
     
    GarAndTeed, minusfour and Bernina like this.
  17. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,844
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    RSBM

    Exactly! I absolutely agree.

    But then why did the prosecution use the 2013 statements to refresh Mike's memory? I didn't have a problem with it... until the defense started questioning him and using his 2010 statements to refresh his memory. Again, I don't think anyone would disagree that his memory of what happened would have been better on February 15th 2010 than it was by November 2013, almost 4 years later. JMO

    FWIW I thought Mike saying I don't recall, I don't know, I don't remember didn't make him look shady at all! He did it just as much during his direct testimony as he did during his cross. It's 9 years later, it's understandable.
     
  18. asyousay

    asyousay Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    3,747
    Likes Received:
    2,418
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I must be alone in thinking there is a Big discrepancies between Mike saying Chase was let into the house and then changing his statement to Chase didn’t want to come inside.

    It points to what the defense is saying that the prosecution have blinkered vision when it comes to Chase and it fit their agenda for Mike to backtrack in 2013 and say “He acted really suspiciously and wouldn’t come into the house”.
     
  19. missy1974

    missy1974 Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    4,844
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are not alone! It's the "confirmation bias" the defense was talking about.
     
    MsFacetious, minusfour, Mica and 2 others like this.
  20. Bernina

    Bernina Well-Known Member

    Messages:
    10,600
    Likes Received:
    187
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Another item in the DOS......the graves, ie, a person who knew the area would have done a better job in the location so they wouldn't have been found.
    Well, call me crazy but it was a good enough place that the graves weren't found for almost 4 years (3 years, 9 months, and totally by accident) so I call BS. If the dirt biker had NOT been riding illegally on that area of "restricted access" and saw what he saw, their remains may still have been there unfound.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page



  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice