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

[Karinna]

So, this unethical creep is writing a book about these horrible murders, yet, works for the defence?
Dude. You are NOT Truman Capote or Ann Rule.
I personally see an ambulance chaser looking to make money off the tortured dead bodies of two parents and their two toddlers.
Their are many ways to be a disgusting human being.
In my mind, this is really up there.
Just ugggh.

Agree. Anyone that wants to make profit or advance their career off of a family that was brutally murdered is a , IMO.

 

[UndiscoveredTruth]

Missy1974 already did and didn't find much about him. See her post #571. I don't know how to link a previous post. Sorry.

I don't know how to link to a previous post either lol so I'll just quote it to save others from having to go back and look for it!!

Ok... finally found something on this Wallace guy, although for a "media guy", he sure doesn't market himself as that since I can't seem to find anything LOL

Jon Knautz is the guy making the documentary.. Jon Knautz - IMDb

The documentary is called Two Shallow Graves: The McStay Family Murders Two Shallow Graves: The McStay Family Murders - IMDb

Jon Knautz made another movie called "The Cleaning Lady" The Cleaning Lady (2018) - Full Cast & Crew - IMDb

Robert Wallace is listed as an executive producer. But that is the extent to his credits on imdb Robert Wallace - IMDb

 

[MissJames]

I don't remember seeing anything about it taking place last Thursday. Do you know where you read that? Not saying it didn't happen just saying my memory is shot. Lol

It’s from an article in Press Enterprise by Richard K. DeAtley who also tweets -

 

[la2cabo]

It’s from an article in Press Enterprise by Richard K. DeAtley who also tweets -

Thank you. I just read it when I went back through to re-read some articles. Lol

 

[MsFacetious]

It’s a bit of a problem, because if you ask the jurors if anyone has approached them—you’re shaping their view of the trial. But, taking Wallace’s word for it? I’d certainly hope that the judge isn’t that naive.

I think the appropriate way to handle it would be to include it in the instructions at the end of each day. If it isn't already included in there. I know don't discuss the case with others is in there.

Not sure about if anyone approaches you to discuss the case please inform the court. Or something similar. Not naming sides or a group of people specifically.

Now Missy, you know everyone needs a break from work right?!

What has me a little concerned is that I kind of thought the jury might be anxious to deliberate. After so long being in trial hearing testimony, I thought they might be anxious to discuss it and not break for lunch. Probably best to still take a lunch for their own mental health though.

I get what Missy is trying to say. The DT said Wallace is a part of their team so he would be able to have the same access to Merritt as the attorneys have. As we all know attorneys have certain privileges and access at the courthouse, with their client, etc. and by Wallace being a "member" of the DT the special privileges extend to him, to a degree anyway.

This is very true.

We had a girl who isn't even a paralegal but is considering becoming a lawyer shadow and assist us on a recent case. She was a valuable asset because she had experience with the case's subject matter. She also had technical skills we needed.

She was allowed to visit the incarcerated client, she went into court every day all day, I think the only thing she didn't do was go back to the holding cell at the courthouse. She was basically treated as a lawyer.

I read the article, but thanks LOL My point is that this guy is not a media guy, at least not IMO. He is part of the documentary and IMO they called him the media liason so he could hang with the defense team and get the behind the scene shots. I can't find anything about this guy, which would be strange if he really is a media consultant, but again, JMO.

I'm inclined to agree. I don't think this guy is doing anything except producing the documentary. I don't think he has legal knowledge. I think just like we did with our assistant, if you slap a label on a person they suddenly become part of your team.

 

[ehenson88]

It may well depend on what line of support you have reached.

I've made calls where the first line person cannot even access my accounts.

Meanwhile I recently walked into my local branch in NZ and the person i was meeting had researched a call i made to them months beforehand.

Joe no doubt already knew all the details on the face of the cheque from his banking.

What he needed to do was see the cheque - perhaps he was inquiring about that process. But if he already guessed what had happened or even more likely Chase confirmed it, then he didn't necessarily need to report a forgery at this point

Interesting that you say he needed to see the check. I believe he went to the bank in RC which just so happens to be right near the supposed chik fil a which is convenient. The only other closer restaurant is a Popeyes. I think he was probably in disbelief and didn't see how Chase could have gotten ahold of/forged a check. The only way for him to see the check/proof would have been to go to the local branch where it had been cashed in RC. Which explains why he was radio silent for awhile and just on the internet, he may have had to wait awhile to talk to someone or for them to locate it. Then he went to confront Chase. Explains why he was in RC for a couple hours IMO.

 

[missy1974]

This is very true.

We had a girl who isn't even a paralegal but is considering becoming a lawyer shadow and assist us on a recent case. She was a valuable asset because she had experience with the case's subject matter. She also had technical skills we needed.

She was allowed to visit the incarcerated client, she went into court every day all day, I think the only thing she didn't do was go back to the holding cell at the courthouse. She was basically treated as a lawyer.

I'm inclined to agree. I don't think this guy is doing anything except producing the documentary. I don't think he has legal knowledge. I think just like we did with our assistant, if you slap a label on a person they suddenly become part of your team.

So the above just made me wonder... if this guy was present while his attorney's were meeting with Merritt, recorded or not, would it be protected if he is on the "defense team"? Might be another reason to give him a title.

I know about 6 weeks or so ago, the prosecution was trying to get something from the documentary people, interviews IIRC, but I don't think it really went anywhere, or we didn't hear about it anyway.

 

[MissJames]

I think the appropriate way to handle it would be to include it in the instructions at the end of each day. If it isn't already included in there. I know don't discuss the case with others is in there.

Not sure about if anyone approaches you to discuss the case please inform the court. Or something similar. Not naming sides or a group of people specifically.




What has me a little concerned is that I kind of thought the jury might be anxious to deliberate. After so long being in trial hearing testimony, I thought they might be anxious to discuss it and not break for lunch. Probably best to still take a lunch for their own mental health though.




This is very true.

We had a girl who isn't even a paralegal but is considering becoming a lawyer shadow and assist us on a recent case. She was a valuable asset because she had experience with the case's subject matter. She also had technical skills we needed.

She was allowed to visit the incarcerated client, she went into court every day all day, I think the only thing she didn't do was go back to the holding cell at the courthouse. She was basically treated as a lawyer.




I'm inclined to agree. I don't think this guy is doing anything except producing the documentary. I don't think he has legal knowledge. I think just like we did with our assistant, if you slap a label on a person they suddenly become part of your team.

I understand that Wallace doesn’t approach the status of a lawyer, he’s listed as media liason.
Given JS’s statement , how do you think he will handle Mr. Wallace ?

From Richard K. DeAtley report :

Defense attorney James McGee confirmed to Smith that Wallace “is a member of the defense team,” saying his roles included assisting in the preparation of the trial and acting as a media liaison.

“In some respects, that makes it even more serious,” Smith said, adding that members of the defense team can be held to same standards as the attorneys.

 

[MissJames]

So the above just made me wonder... if this guy was present while his attorney's were meeting with Merritt, recorded or not, would it be protected if he is on the "defense team"? Might be another reason to give him a title.

I know about 6 weeks or so ago, the prosecution was trying to get something from the documentary people, interviews IIRC, but I don't think it really went anywhere, or we didn't hear about it anyway.

I bet you’re right ! That makes sense .
I think the Prosecution is going to throw everything at this .I just don’t see JS as dishing out the maximum , but I think there will be some repercussion for Wallace & possibly the DT.

 

[mrjitty]

Interesting that you say he needed to see the check. I believe he went to the bank in RC which just so happens to be right near the supposed chik fil a which is convenient. The only other closer restaurant is a Popeyes. I think he was probably in disbelief and didn't see how Chase could have gotten ahold of/forged a check. The only way for him to see the check/proof would have been to go to the local branch where it had been cashed in RC. Which explains why he was radio silent for awhile and just on the internet, he may have had to wait awhile to talk to someone or for them to locate it. Then he went to confront Chase. Explains why he was in RC for a couple hours IMO.

Yeah I think Joe would have wanted to see it for two reasons

One - was it printed on his stock? The check was numbered but out of sequence so he must have been wondering how the hell that happened. This is also something he would have investigated in his own office by looking at the remaining blanks - at that point he would have discovered some were missing

Two - what was the signature?

My banking knowledge is misty these days, but IIRC once a cheque goes through clearance following presentation, it goes into storage and you can ask for it to be produced.

I don't know if it would still be held where it was cashed. But maybe if Joe was there soon enough.

In the olden days I think they were returned to the local bank which held your account as part of the clearance process. But I guess nowadays they are just stored centrally somewhere by each bank?

 

[Niner]

Well... I still see "VERDICT WATCH" and not "GUILTY" on the title....

So - about 5 1/2 hours of deliberations for the jurors today per Russon's tweet. IF they deliberated about 4 1/2 hours on Thursday (5/30) as was stated somewhere above. If someone finds out anything different - please post! TIA!

Re checks - I still write checks.... yes, I'm THAT old! LOL!

If I want to "see" my original check I can go online into my bank account, which is in California. They don't "do" checks here!
I can click on the check # and see the front & back.

And I too thank everyone for posting info on what is going on with this trial!

 

[Frankie Hellis]

Yeah I think Joe would have wanted to see it for two reasons

One - was it printed on his stock? The check was numbered but out of sequence so he must have been wondering how the hell that happened. This is also something he would have investigated in his own office by looking at the remaining blanks - at that point he would have discovered some were missing

Two - what was the signature?

My banking knowledge is misty these days, but IIRC once a cheque goes through clearance following presentation, it goes into storage and you can ask for it to be produced.

I don't know if it would still be held where it was cashed. But maybe if Joe was there soon enough.

In the olden days I think they were returned to the local bank which held your account as part of the clearance process. But I guess nowadays they are just stored centrally somewhere by each bank?

Nowadays you can see the front and back on your online banking app. I’ve been trying to remember what it was like in 2010. IIRC, the images of the checks were included in your monthly statement. Prior to that, the actual cleared checks were included in your monthly statement. I can’t remember specifically how it worked in 2010.

 

[Niner]

Tuesday, June 4th:
*Trial continues-Jury Deliberations (Day 3)-VERDICT WATCH! (@ 9am 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 aka Chase Jarvis (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. Jurors started with 8 women & 4 men; now have 7 women & 5 men (alternates started with 4 men & 2 women-alternates left 2 men & 1 woman) 3 jurors were let go.
Trial Days (1-58: 1/7/19 thru 5/30/19) reference post #12 here:
VERDICT WATCH - Closing Arguments- Chase Merritt Charged W/Murder of Joseph, Summer, Gianni and Joe Jr McStay #2
6/3/19 Day 59: Jury deliberates. And while the jurors deliberate; the man who approached the two alternates is named Robert Wallace. He has been in the court audience during the months-long proceedings. All attorneys remain in court, they are trying to see if the alternates are in the courthouse to question them about Wallace. Judge Smith tells the man who approached the jurors, identified as working as a media advisor for the defense, that his inclination is to hold him in contempt. Also told Wallace that among the consequences, if somehow a mistrial is declared, is that he could be held responsible for the costs of the trial. Wallace left the courtroom without comment after affirming the spelling of his name. Smith directs defense attorneys and the man for affidavits about the incident, especially how the man came to contact the alternates. Smith: Affidavits on Thursday (6/6) from defense, prosecutors can submit order to show cause for contempt. Smith orders the man not to be at the courthouse for the rest of the trial. One of the alternates now answering Judge Smith. She said alternates told Wallace they could not talk to him after he approached them to ask for interviews. Now the second alternate: "Right when I walked out the door that guy was on us...it was really awkward." Like the other alternate he said Wallace was told they could not talk to him, bailiff was contacted. Smith thanks him as he also thanked previous alternate.
And also this morning: A hearing this morning in a different courtroom Prosecutor Britt Imes tells @LawCrimeNetwork there are allegations of jury tampering by the defense. Jurors continue deliberations on 6/4. The jurors deliberated 4 ½ hours (on 5/30), about 5 ½ hours on 6/3.
Tentative Schedule for week of June 3rd thru June 7th: 6/3, Monday: Court “might” start a 10am. 6/4, Tuesday. 6/5, Wednesday. 6/6, Thursday (Affidavits due from Defense). 6/7, Friday. Court in session all week for Jury deliberations, including Friday! When Jurors have a verdict there will be a 2-hour time period to get into court (or near your computer) before verdict is read.

 

[Niner]

Nowadays you can see the front and back on your online banking app. I’ve been trying to remember what it was like in 2010. IIRC, the images of the checks were included in your monthly statement. Prior to that, the actual cleared checks were included in your monthly statement. I can’t remember specifically how it worked in 2010.

Yes, you are correct. They had a page with your checks on it. But don't remember if the back of the check was shown.... memory problems! LOL!

 

[Frankie Hellis]

Re: the Wallace guy

If he is the executive producer, he is the money behind the film. They most likely dubbed him a “media liaison” to give him access to the trial, as he probably wanted to be peripherally involved. You can’t tell the guy paying for your venture that he can’t be involved if he wants to be. IMO, he is loosely connected to the defense in that he is paying for the documentary, or whatever is being filmed. He’s not really a part of the defense team, per se, but he is affiliated with them.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

Yes, you are correct. They had a page with your checks on it. But don't remember if the back of the check was shown.... memory problems! LOL!

Yeah, I don’t think you could see the backs of the checks. I think they included just images of the fronts back then. If you wanted a back, you had to request it and they would make it available in your inbox when you signed into your online app.

 

[wary]

Yes, you are correct. They had a page with your checks on it. But don't remember if the back of the check was shown.... memory problems! LOL!

I think they showed the back of the check—after all, if you wrote a check, you’d want to know who cashed it! And that’s how I remember it.

 

[katydid23]

Re: the Wallace guy

If he is the executive producer, he is the money behind the film. They most likely dubbed him a “media liaison” to give him access to the trial, as he probably wanted to be peripherally involved. You can’t tell the guy paying for your venture that he can’t be involved if he wants to be. IMO, he is loosely connected to the defense in that he is paying for the documentary, or whatever is being filmed. He’s not really a part of the defense team, per se, but he is affiliated with them.

In my opinion, he was a part of the defense team, and here is why I say this. The documentary was said to be 'following the defense attorneys' through out the trial. So RW was going to attend private DT meetings, attend the hearings with the judge and PT, go on back to the DT office after the trial each day, maybe be there on their work days between court days, etc.

At that point, you are a part of the defense team, in my opinion. You are included in strategy meetings and private discussions with the client, etc etc.

Wait until the 'documentary' comes out. It will be a long commercial for their defendant's innocence, imo. That is the purpose of the project.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

I think they showed the back of the check—after all, if you wrote a check, you’d want to know who cashed it! And that’s how I remember it.

The sad thing is, I’m sure I have all my statements from then. From then and the 2 decades prior . I seriously need to purge some crap from this house.

 

[mrjitty]

Nowadays you can see the front and back on your online banking app. I’ve been trying to remember what it was like in 2010. IIRC, the images of the checks were included in your monthly statement. Prior to that, the actual cleared checks were included in your monthly statement. I can’t remember specifically how it worked in 2010.

Thanks for the info.

I believe it is significant because the one guy this fraud could not be concealed from was Joe. That tells you something - especially about the backdated cheques on the 5th