The McStay Family Murders: Part Five (Conclusion)

0:00 Speaker 1: Warning. Kind of Murdery contains adult themes, explicit language, and descriptions of violence. It is not suitable for anyone, and we recommend you stop listening now.

0:18 Speaker 2: True Crime with a dash of the paranormal, the garish, the strange in the darkly comic. A podcast that's about more than just murder. It's my very own pocket dimension, home to a curated collection of bizarre and compelling stories, the unsolved, the unsettling, and the unbelievable. I cover it all just so long as it's kind of murdery.

0:41 Speaker 3: Hey, everybody, I just wanted to start out today by saying, thank you so much for being here. I really do appreciate it. And I know that sounds like something that any podcast host just kind of says at the beginning and maybe doesn't really mean it. But you know that old saying time is money. That's really true. And things are so expensive these days that your time is worth more than ever and you're choosing to spend it listening to me talk. So I really do mean it. I really do appreciate you being here.

1:12 Speaker 3: I am Zevan Odelberg, and this is kind of Murdery and we have arrived at part five, the final episode of The Mixday Family Murders. And yes I did say part five. So if you haven't listened to parts one through four yet, go do that and then come back and join us. And I will, as always say to you a seat, maybe even warm it up for you. And if you're all caught up, we got a lot to get to. So I'm not gonna waste your time waddling around and rambling anymore. This is it, Part five of kind of Murderies.

1:46 Speaker 3: The mix Day Family Murders starts now. The court room in San Bernardino was built for volume, by which I mean physical space, not raised voices, high ceilings, pale walls, wood benches, polished by decades of restless hands, and by the time opening statements began, it held a different kind of pressure, not noise, but compression. Reporters filled the rear. Rose family members took seats in clusters that did not intermingle. The defendant sat at the defense table in a suit that fit correctly, hands folded posture.

2:32 Speaker 3: Still, the state went first. Deputy District Attorney britt Ems did not begin with a timeline. He began with the manner of death. He spoke on a controlled cadence, not theatrical, but deliberate, describing blunt forced traumata skulls, the number of blows required to fracture bone, the size and weight of the three pound sledge hammer recovered near the graves. He did not speculate about rage. He spoke about in ten. It was blow after blow after blow to a child's skull, a three year old and a four year old.

3:08 Speaker 3: He told the jury, that's an intentional killing. The words hung there. From that point forward, the state's narrative moved backward in time, away from the desert and toward February fourth, twenty ten. The prosecution's version of events was linear and disciplined. Joseph McStay left his Fallbrook home that afternoon to meet Charles Chase Merit for lunch at a Chick fil A at Rancho Cucamonga. The meeting lasted several hours. They discussed business, custom water features, vendor payments, outstanding balances.

3:40 Speaker 3: It was the last confirmed in person contact between Joseph and Charles Merit. That night, at a twenty eight p m. Joseph's phone placed a call to Merit. The state emphasized the time stamp the prosecution characterized it as significant. The final documented communication from Joseph's device, Merrit did not answer after that silence, no outgoing calls, no emails, no credit card activity, no financial movement from Joseph or Summer. According to the prosecution, this abrupt cessation of activity did not indicate a family leaving voluntarily.

4:16 Speaker 3: It indicated finality. IIMs then turned to motive. He introduced jurors to earth inspired products Joseph's decorative fountain business. It had grown substantially in the years leading up to twenty ten. There were custom projects, large builds, a potential deal that Joseph's father would later describe as worth up to nine million dollars. Merit, a fabricator and welder, worked with Joseph on the construction side of custom installations. The state described a financial imbalance that Merit owed Joseph's significant sums approximately forty two thousand dollars.

4:50 Speaker 3: They referenced emails and accounting records that, in the prosecution's telling, showed mounting tension over money. The motive, as framed by the state, was simple, the race debt seas opportunity. The prosecution did not yet detail the physicality or mechanics of the killings. They maintained that the McStay family was murdered in their Fallbrook residence and transported north to the desert. They would later argue that the lack of visible blood did not negate that conclusion. For now, they kept the picture tight.

5:22 Speaker 3: Joseph and Summer were alive in the afternoon. By night, all communication ended. Four days later, the family's a Zuzu trooper was discovered near the Mexican border. Three years later, their bodies were located in two shallow graves near Victorville. The through line was intent. Ims returned to the sledge hammer. He described where it was found in proximity to the graves, partially buried. He described the injuries documented by forensic experts, fractured skulls, blunt forced trauma, consistent with repeated strikes.

5:54 Speaker 3: He did not embellish, He used anatomical language, and his implications did not require amplification. Throughout merit sat with little visible reaction. He occasionally leaned toward his attorney, Rajan Malin, but did not interrupt or display outward agitation. The defense table remained quiet, absorbing the state's architecture. I'ms then addressed behavior after February fourth. According to the prosecution, someone accessed Joseph's Quickbook's account after the disappearance and backtated checks worth around fifteen thousand dollars on February fourth to create the appearance of legitimate payment.

6:32 Speaker 3: The state asserted that those digital fingerprints metadata embedded in accounting software would demonstrate manipulation. They indicated that checks were written to Merit or vendors associated with him. They pointed to a call placed to Quickbook's customer service by a man identifying himself as Joseph McStay, seeking to delete the account entirely. The prosecution claimed that the phone used to make that call belonged not to Joseph, but to Merit. The argument was cumulats. Each element alone might invite dispute.

7:02 Speaker 3: Together, The states said they told a coherent story. The defense had not yet responded in detail. They would not do so until their own opening, But even before Maline stood to speak, the adversarial shape of the trial had formed. The prosecution's case rested not on a single eye witness or a singular forensic discovery in the home, but on a lattice of financial records, phone data, and circumstantial inference. When Moline rose, he did not attack the emotion of the desert. He attacked the certainty of the state's timeline.

7:35 Speaker 3: He told jurors the case was built on assumption that no blood was found in the mic stay home, that no forensic evidence placed Merit inside a murder scene, that the state could not pinpoint the exact location of cell phone pings beyond a general geographic area. He suggested that suspicion had hardened into accusation without direct proof, but the first act belonged to the prosecution. They presented a narrative that began with business tension and ended in the desert. They framed the absence of activity on a February fifth not as a mystery, but a consequence.

8:10 Speaker 3: They described the eight twenty eight p m phone call as a final opportunity missed. They treated financial irregularities as behavior inconsistent with innocence. The court room absorbed it all in silence. At this stage, the state's theory was clean motive, money, opportunity, lunch meeting, and proximity means sledge hammer aftermath manipulated accounts and phone data. The prosecution did not need spectacle. The facts arranged in sequence were intended to be enough. Whether they were enough would depend on how the defense fractured the prosecution's sequence in the days ahead.

8:48 Speaker 3: The prosecution did not begin with blood. It began with paper. On a large screen in the court room, jurors were shown a series of checks drawn from Earth inspired products. The dates printed on the check read February fourth, twenty ten, the same day Joseph McStay and his family vanished. The amounts varied several thousand dollars at a time. In total, prosecutors argued roughly fifteen thousand dollars had been written to Merit or to vendors connected to him in the days immediately after the mix days disappeared.

9:18 Speaker 3: Deputy District Attorney Britt Eimes did not raise his voice. He walked the jury through the numbers slowly, calmly. Joseph McStay had emailed Merit on February first, twenty ten, three days before the disappearance, stating that Merrit owed the company approximately forty two thousand dollars for prior work and over payments. The figure was not disputed in court. It was printed in black and white in the email. The tone of the message was business like, but firm payment needed to be addressed. Then came the metadata.

9:50 Speaker 3: San Bernardino County investigators testified that although the checks bore the date February fourth, forensic examination of the quick books records showed they were actually created several days later. The electronic time stamps embedded in the accounting software reflected creation dates after the McStay family had already gone silent. Prosecutors argued that checks had been backdated to make it appear as though they were written during a routine business day. The defense objected to characterization.

10:18 Speaker 3: They did not dispute that Merritt wrote the checks. They disputed the implication. Rajmlin, Merrit's defense attorney, rose and suggested an alternative explanation. Backdating was not unusual in small businesses. Payments were sometimes injured after the fact. The metadata showed when injuries were input into quick books, but not when physical checks were handed over. There was no witness who saw merit Forge's signature. There was no surveillance video of him alone at a computer altering records.

10:45 Speaker 3: The jury was reminded that Joseph and Merritt had met for lunch on February fourth at a Chick fil A in Rancho Cucamonga. The meeting itself was not disputed. What occurred during that meeting was. Prosecutors suggested that Joseph may have conn fronted Merit about the forty two thousand dollars debt. They implied termination of falling out a financial reckoning. They did not present an audio recording of that lunch. They presented inference built on timing and money. The defense countered with context.

11:15 Speaker 3: Merit had been a welder and a fabricator on custom Fountain projects. Payments often flowed unevenly. Vendors were paid as materials were ordered. Cash flow could be erratic. Writing a check after a meeting did not equate to murder. The prosecution shifted to bank activity. After February fourth, there was no further phone usage from Joseph's cell phone beyond the evening call records, no outgoing emails, no logins to business accounts under his name, but the quick Book's injuries continued. Someone was accessing the system.

11:47 Speaker 3: Investigators testified that a call had been placed to QuickBooks customer service from a phone registered to Merit. The caller identified himself as Joseph McStay and attempted to delete the company's accounting records. The senative refused, citing lack of proper authentication credentials that call was logged. The defense again pushed back the identity of the caller was based on phone records, not a recorded voice. Confirmed in court, the jury did not hear an audio clip of Merritt's voice on the line.

12:16 Speaker 3: They heard a customer service employee recount that someone claiming to be Joseph had called from a number later associated with Merit. For his part, Iimes returned to the money. Approximately forty two thousand dollars was owed by Merit to mix Stay. Approximately fifteen thousand dollars was written to Merit or his associates in the days after the family disappeared. If Merrit owed Mixtay forty two thousand dollars, might mic Stay hesitate to write Merit checks for another fifteen And then there was the potential nine million dollar deal Joseph was reportedly negotiating, according to testimony from his father, Patrick McStay.

12:55 Speaker 3: The prosecution's position was simple. Financial pressure can create mone motive. A debt can become leverage, a termination can become escalation. The defense warned the jury about stacking numbers into narrative. Owing money is not homicide. Entering payments into accounting software is not evidence of violence. Suspicion built on spreadsheets still requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. There was no confession introduced in this fase. No eye witness placing Merit inside the Mixday home on the night of February fourth, no blood in his truck, no murder weapon tied to his fingerprints.

13:33 Speaker 3: The prosecution leaned heavily on pattern and proximity, on the convergence of debt, timing, and digital activity. The court room grew quiet when the prosecution displayed the February first email again. The forty two thousand dollars figure appeared on the screen, clear and unambiguous. The jurors looked at the number, then at Merit seated at the defense table. The defense did not deny the number. They denied the inclusion money can create tension, it does not by itself prove a killing. That tension between arithmetic and accusation settled over the room as the state prepared to move beyond paper and into geography.

14:13 Speaker 3: The numbers were specific, The question was whether they were enough. The prosecution left the spreadsheets behind and moved to the desert. A map of the High Desert was displayed for the jury. Cell tower coverage, radiating outside and irregular arcs. FBI Special Agent Kevin Bowles testified about the technical limits of cell site location data. The evening of February sixth, twenty ten, two days after the McStay family was last heard from a phone associated with Charles Merritt, connected to a tower that serviced an area near where the bodies would eventually be discovered in November twenty thirteen.

14:51 Speaker 3: The prosecution did not claim GPS precision. They did not claim a pinpoint burial location. They claimed presents within a general coverage era. Bulls explained that cell tower pings can establish a broad zone, not a specific coordinate. In rural areas, towers cover larger swaths of terrain. The data showed Merrit's phone in the High Desert region on February sixth, That was a fact entered into the evidence. The defense seized on the limitations. Under cross examination, Bolls acknowledged that the technology could not place the phone at the grave site itself.

15:26 Speaker 3: It could not confirm whether Merret was standing on that stretch of Mojave Desert or driving along Interstate fifteen miles away. The agent concluded that you can get a general idea of where in the High Desert, but not an exact location. The jurors heard the phrase general area more than once. Prosecutors layered the geography over familiarity. Testimony established that Merrit had grown up in the High Desert, he knew the terrain, he had family connections in the region. The implication was familiarity the kind that would make make a remote desert burial site less daunting.

16:02 Speaker 3: The defense countered with ordinary travel, the High Desert was not an exotic destination. It was reachable by freeway. Visiting family or passing through did not equate to transporting four bodies. They reminded the jury that no witness had seen Merit in possession of the mixed days after February fourth. No soil from the grave site was found in his vehicle. No shovel, no tarp, no fiber evidence was presented tying him physically to the graves. Then the sledge hammer entered the frame. A three pound sledge hammer had been recovered from one of the graves.

16:38 Speaker 3: Prosecutors argued it was consistent with the blunt force trauma identified in autopsy findings. They did not present fingerprints from the hammer tying it to Merit. They did not present DNA linking him to the handle. The argument was inferential that a man who fabricated custom fountains would be familiar with tools of that size and weight. The defense objected to cairecharacterizing tool familiarity with evidence of homicide. Thousands of contractors and welder's own sledge hammers ownership does not imply use in murder.

17:09 Speaker 3: No hardware store received connected Merit to that specific hammer. No witness placed it in his hand. The prosecution returned briefly to February fourth. At a twenty eight p m. Joseph mcstay's phone placed a call to Merit. Phone records confirmed the outgoing call. Merrit did not answer. The call lasted seconds. The prosecution suggested that the call was significant because it was the final documented attempt at contact between the two men. They did not claim the call contained a plea for help.

17:40 Speaker 3: There was no recording, they suggested timing. The defense reframed it as routine. Joseph and Merritt spoke frequently about business matters. Multiple calls that day were not unusual. The fact that Merritt did not answer one call did not transform it into prophecy. The prosecution structure was cumulative debt of approximately forty two thousand dollars, roughly fifteen thousand dollars in post disappearance checks, a February sixth phone paying in the high desert, a sledge hammer buried with the bodies a final mist call at eight twenty eight p m.

18:14 Speaker 3: Individually, each piece had room for argument. Together, the state argued they formed a coherent pattern. The defense did not attempt to dismantle every piece of that pattern entirely. Instead, they focused on doubt. Metadata does not equal murder. Cell tower data does not equal burial. Debt does not equal motive beyond speculation. Tool familiarity does not equal weapon identification. A missed phone call does not equal guilt. By the close of this first phase of testimony, the jurors were left weighing interpretation against limitation.

18:49 Speaker 3: The prosecution had offered specificity, dollar amounts, time stamps, tower sectors. The defense had offered constraint technological boundaries, missing physical links, absence of direct evidence. No confession had been introduced, No eyewitness had testified to seeing Merit commit violence. What stood in the record were numbers, logs, and geography, and the question of whether those elements aligned crossed the threshold from suspicion into proof beyond a reasonable doubt. The courtroom did not erupt.

19:22 Speaker 3: It tightened. The state rested on structure. The defense prepared to dismantle it. They began by refusing the narrative of the prosecution had constructed. Rajmlin did not open with numbers. He opened with absence. No blood was recovered from Charles Merritt's truck, No blood was recovered from his home. No blood was recovered from tools seized from his possession. The mixedday residence itself had yielded no definitive forensic evidence tying Merit to a homicide inside the home. The defense repeated this plainly, methodically, without flourish.

19:57 Speaker 3: If four people had been bludgeoned to death inside that f Abrook house, the defense argued, the physical evidence would not have evaporated walls, flooring, upholstery, vehicles, something would have retained biological trace. The state had presented nothing linking Merit to a violent scene. The prosecution's theory was that the killings occurred in the McStay home on February fourth, twenty ten, and that the bodies were transported to the desert afterward. The defense questioned whether the crime scene had ever been definitively established.

20:28 Speaker 3: No crime scene photographs of blood pools were shown to the jury. No luminol hits tied to merit were introduced as conclusive. The defense then shifted to the Issuzu trooper. The vehicle had been towed from a parking lot near Sanya Sidro on February eighth, twenty ten. Prosecutors had pointed to Merritt's DNA found on the Asuzu's steering wheel and gear shift. Under cross examination, forensic analysts acknowledged that Merritt was a quote trace contributor unquote. The amount of DNA recovered was small, it was consistent with casual transfer, the kind that could occur through ordinary contact.

21:05 Speaker 3: Merritt had worked with Joseph. They met in person, they shook hands, they sat in the same vehicle during business discussions. Transfer was not impossible. The defense emphasized that if Merritt had driven the trooper from Fallbrook to Sanya Sidro up approximately ninety minutes, one would expect him to be the primary DNA contributor on the steering wheel. He was not. The prosecution maintained that DNA evidence placed Merit inside the vehicle. The defense reframed it as evidence that he had been inside the vehicle at some point, not necessarily on February fourth, or during the transport of bodies.

21:42 Speaker 3: Then came the cell data again. Kevin Bules had testified that Merritt's phone pinged off a tower serving the High Desert region on February sixth, twenty ten. Under defense questioning, Bulls reiterated that cell tower data in rural areas is imprecise. Coverage sectors can span miles. A phone can acting to a tower does not prove presence at a specific coordinate. The defense drew out the limitations carefully. The phone could have been traveling along Interstate fifteen. It could have been near a different location within the same coverage zone.

22:13 Speaker 3: It could not be placed at the grave site itself. That was conceded on the record. The prosecution had argued that Merritt's familiarity with the High Desert supported opportunity. The defense responded that familiarity does not establish action. Merit had family connections in the region. Travel to the area was not inherently suspicious. No surveillance footage, no toll records, no eyewitness testimony placed him at the burial site. The defense then returned to the financial evidence. Yes, there was an e mail dated February first stating that Merritt owed approximately forty two thousand dollars.

22:49 Speaker 3: The defense did not dispute the email's existence, They questioned the motive theory built upon it. Business debts are resolved through negotiation, through termination, through litigation, not necessarily through homicide. There was no written termination notice presented in court. There was no documented confrontation at the February fourth lunch meeting. As for the roughly fifteen thousand dollars in checks entered into quick books after February fourth, the defense suggested an administrative explanation rather than criminal intent.

23:19 Speaker 3: In small operations, injuries can lag behind physical payment. Metadata shows when information was input, not when agreements were made. The jury was reminded that quickbook logs are not eye witnesses. The court room dynamics shifted subtly. The state had presented structure and accumulation. The defense presented fracture. Where was the murder weapon tied to merit. Where was the blood? Where was the direct evidence that he was inside the Mixday home on the night of February fourth? Where was the witness who saw him with the family after the Chick fil A lunch?

23:52 Speaker 3: Each question was posed not theatrically, but clinically. The defense did not claim to know who killed the mix Days in this way, They claimed only that the state had not eliminated reasonable doubt. By the time the morning session adjourned, the jury had heard two competing frameworks, one built on convergence, money, metadata movement, the other built on absence, no blood, no precise location, no direct witness. The prosecution's case was not undone, but it had been tested, and the defense was not finished.

24:26 Speaker 3: The defense next turned to time. On the stand was Sarah Taylor Jarvis, Charles Merritt's oldest daughter. She testified that she was present on the evening of February fourth, twenty ten, when Joseph McStay called her father. She remembered the call because it led to an argument between her parents. Merritt's phone rang, he looked at it, he did not answer. Sarah Jarvis placed the timing of the call in the evening. The prosecution had built its timeline around the assumption that the McStay family was killed on February fourth.

24:57 Speaker 3: The eight twenty eight pm out going call call from Joseph's phone to Merrit was already in evidence. What Sarah Jarvis's testimony suggested was that Merrett was at home when the call came in. She described the setting without embellishment, a domestic environment, her parents in the same room, a dispute about Merrett's habit of ignoring calls. The call from Joseph went unanswered. That was the detail she remembered. Under cross examination, Deputy District Attorney Melissa Rodriguez pressed her on precision.

25:27 Speaker 3: You're certain it was February fourth, You're certain it was Joseph McStay. You're certain of the time. Jarvis acknowledged that she was recalling an event from nine years earlier. Memory is not a time stamped document. The prosecution then introduced phone records indicating that the call in question was out going from Joseph's phone at eight twenty eight p m. They questioned whether the call she remembered matched the data, or whether she was conflating routine calls that were common between the two men.

25:55 Speaker 3: Rodriguez also addressed Jarvis's involvement in her father's defense. You've actually assisted in your dad's defense with the case, right, she asked. Jarvis responded, I mean I've tried to be involved. I think they are patient with me, tolerate me. Maybe because I'm going to law school this fall. I'm trying to keep up with what is happening. The exchange was measured, but the implication was clear. The prosecution sought to suggest bias. The defense sought to present memory on redirect. Rajmalin asked a different question.

26:27 Speaker 3: In the entire four and a half year period that you've been visiting your dad, has he ever once told you to lie for him? Jarvis answered tearfully no. The jury observed not just the words, but the demeanor, memory versus motive, loyalty versus fabrication. The defense then introduced testimony from Catherine Jarvis, the mother of Merret's children. She described Merit as creative, focused on fabrication and building rather than bookkeeping. She testified that she had handled much of the household in business finances during earlier ventures.

27:00 Speaker 3: Her portrayal was of a man who worked with his hands, not someone meticulously orchestrating digital cover ups. The prosecution countered by returning to a twenty fourteen interview Catherine had given to detectives in which she described Merritt as quote irresponsible with money unquote. When asked whether she had used that phrase, she acknowledged that she had. The defense did not argue that financial tension never existed. They argued that financial disorganization does not equate the calculated murder.

27:30 Speaker 3: They reminded the jury that Merritt had continued working on projects in twenty ten even after the mixt Days disappeared. He had not fled the state, He had not altered his identity. He had remained visible. The prosecution, in rebuttal questioning, implied that visibility does not in the gate guilt. Criminal defendants often remain in plain sight. The issue was not flight, It was whether the pattern of conduct pointed toward intent. That eight twenty eight p m. Phone call hung in the air again, If Merritt was home now that evening, as his daughter testified, what did that mean for the prosecution's theory of when and where the murders occurred.

28:07 Speaker 3: The defense did not claim to have solved the timeline. They claimed only that the timeline was not fixed beyond doubt. By the close of the afternoon session, the jury had heard emotional testimony from family members and pointed questioning from the state. The financial narrative had been softened by human context, the technological narrative had been constrained by acknowledged limits. Reasonable doubt was not declared, but it was suggested the defense had not yet rested, and they closed their case by widening the lens.

28:39 Speaker 3: If Charles Merit did not kill the McStay family, then someone else did. The defense did not need to prove who that someone was. They needed only to demonstrate that the investigation had focused too narrowly, too quickly, and had failed to exhaust other viable possibilities. They began with access Joseph mcstay's business, Earth Inspired. The products had multiple individuals with administrative privileges at different times. The website back in could be accessed remotely, passwords were sometimes shared.

29:09 Speaker 3: Small businesses do not always maintain airtight compartmentalization. The defense asked jurors to consider whether digital injuries in quick books or access to financial records necessarily pointed to one individual. They revisited the business conflict with Dan Cavanagh. By twenty eleven, Cavanaugh had sold Earth inspired products to an outside company for approximately two hundred and fifty thousand dollars. Patrick McStay had testified that Joseph did not authorize that sale. Of course, Joseph couldn't have he was missing at the time, but Patrick set in court that Cavanagh owned nothing.

29:46 Speaker 3: The defense did not accuse Cavanagh outright in this phase. They raised the fact that there had been tension over ownership and control. They pointed to the transfer of the company after Joseph's disappearance. They reminded jurors that investigators had considered Kavanagh a person of interest early in the reopened homicide investigation. The prosecution objected to characterization beyond evidence. The judge sustained were appropriate, and the defense stayed within documented testimony. Then came the handling of the Mixtay home.

30:16 Speaker 3: Joseph's brother, Michael McStay had entered the house through a window on February thirteen, twenty ten, before it was formerly processed as a homicide scene. He removed a computer and an SD card, later stating that he had done so with the belief that digital information might help locate his missing family. The defense highlighted that the home had not been sealed immediately, family members had cleaned food from the kitchen, items had been removed. If forensic evidence was absent, the defense suggested jurors should consider whether the integrity of the scene had been compromised early in the investigation.

30:51 Speaker 3: They did not accuse Michael of wrongdoing. They introduced the concept of lost evidence. The prosecution countered that the absence of blood what evidence did not prove a killing had not occurred in the home. Homicides can be cleaned, scenes can be staged. Lack of visible forensic recovery does not equal absence of violence. The defense shifted again. They reminded the jury that no DNA belonging to Merit had been found on the sledge hammer recovered from the graves, no fingerprints, no skin cells conclusively tied to him.

31:23 Speaker 3: The hammer itself was not traced to a specific purchase by Merit. It was a common tool. The prosecution maintained that forensic absence does not equate to innocence. Not every murder weapon retains recoverable prints after years buried in desert soil, back and forth, back and forth. By the time The defense rested they had presented a mosaic of doubt, alternative access to business accounts, ownership disputes with Kavanaugh, scene contamination at the Mixed Day residence, limitations of cell tower data, lack of direct forensic link between merit and the murder weapon.

31:59 Speaker 3: They did not provide a complete alternative theory. They did not identify a single replacement perpetrator with certainty. They didn't need to. The standard was not who might have done it. The standard was whether the state had eliminated reasonable doubt. The courtroom shifted once more as both sides prepared for closing arguments. The jurors now held two competing narratives, one of financial motive, metadata and desert geography, the other of investigative blind spots, technological limits, and incomplete proof.

32:29 Speaker 3: What remained was interpretation. The state would soon ask for conviction, the defense would ask for restraint for acquittal. The jury would decide which story held. Closing arguments began without theatrics. Deputy District Attorney Britt IIMs stood before the jury and returned to the structure he had built over weeks of testimony. He did not reopen every exhibit. He selected the pieces he believed formed a line that could not be broken. On February first, twenty ten, Joseph McStay emailed Charles Merit, stating that Merritt owed the company approximately forty two thousand dollars.

33:04 Speaker 3: That number was not hypothetical, It was documented in writing. It was not framed as a casual oversight. It was framed as money do. On February fourth, Joseph met Merit for lunch in Rancho Cucamonga. The meeting was confirmed by both sides. That same evening, at eight twenty eight pm, Joseph's phone place to call to Merit. The call lasted seconds. Merrit did not answer. After that night, there was no further verified contact from Joseph McStay, no emails, no banking activity initiated by him, no additional phone usage beyond what was already entered into evidence.

33:38 Speaker 3: Within days, approximately fifteen thousand dollars in checks were entered into Earth Inspired Products Quickbook system, payable to Merit or to vendors connected to him. The electronic metadata showed those injuries were created after February fourth, but backdated to that day. IMS did not ask the jury to speculate about why someone might backdate a check. He suggested that backdate and creates the appearance of normalcy. It situates a financial transaction before a disappearance, rather than after it.

34:07 Speaker 3: Then he moved to geography. On February six, twenty ten, Merrit's phone connected to a cell tower servicing the High Desert region near where the Macday family's remains would be discovered. In November twenty thirteen, the FBI agent had testified that cell tower data provides a general location, not a pinpoint. The prosecution did not claim pinpoint. They claimed presence within the service area. Imes layered familiarity onto that presence. Merit had grown up in the High Desert. He knew the terrain the burial site was not random wilderness.

34:38 Speaker 3: To him, it was a region he understood. The sledge hammer recovered from one of the graves weighed three pounds. Autopsy testimony established blunt force trauma consistent with a heavy instrument. Imes did not claim the hammer bore Merrit's fingerprints. He argued that the type of weapon aligned with a man accustomed to working with tools of that size. He then addressed the defense's core argument absence no blood in Merit's truck, no direct forensic tie between merit and the hammer. No eyewitness to the killings.

35:09 Speaker 3: Tims acknowledge those gaps. He told the jury that murder cases are often built from circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial does not mean speculative, It means inferred from connected facts. The law does not require an eyewitness to convict, it requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He urged the jurors to consider convergence debt of approximately forty two thousand dollars financial injuries totaling roughly fifteen thousand dollars after the disappearance a February fourth lunch meeting an eight twenty eight p m missed call a February sixth high desert cell tower connection a burial site in terrain familiar to the defendant.

35:48 Speaker 3: He did not raise his voice. He repeated the timeline February first, February fourth, February sixth. He asked the jury to look at the sequence and decide whether it was coincidences or cause. When Rajmalin rose for the defense, he did not attempt to dismantle the timeline. He questioned the strength of its joints. Dead is not a motive for murder, he said, business resolves disputes through civil mechanisms. The forty two thousand dollars email proved tension, not violence. The fifteen thousand dollars in quick book injuries proved accounting activity not homicide.

36:23 Speaker 3: He returned to the cell tower testimony. General area was the phrase repeated under oath the high desert spans miles. Being within a coverage sector does not equal being at a grave site. No GPS or veillance footage, no eyewitness. He reminded the jury that Merit's DNA and the Azuzu trooper was a trace contributor, casual transfer was possible. He reminded them that the sledge hammer bore no identifiable print tied to Merit. He reminded them that no blood evidence linked Merit to a killing inside the Mixday home.

36:55 Speaker 3: Mauleine emphasized that the state had not even proven where the murder occurred. The prosecution theorized the Falbrook residence, yet no conclusive forensic evidence established it as the crime scene. He urged the jury to resist narrative neatness. He suggested that the state had built a story that fit its chosen suspect while overlooking alternative explanations and investigative missteps, including early access to the mix stay home before it was treated as a secured homicide case. The arguments did not escalate into shouting.

37:29 Speaker 3: They narrowed. The jurors were instructed that circumstantial evidence is not inferior to direct evidence, but that each element must be weighed carefully. They were reminded that reasonable doubt is not imaginary doubt. It must be grounded in reason. The judge delivered the final instructions on the elements of first degree murder and special circumstances. If the jury found Merit guilty, they would proceed to a penalty phase. If not, he would walk. When the attorneys sat down, the courtroom did not erupt.

38:00 Speaker 3: The jurors filed out to deliberate. The numbers were now in their hands, approximately forty two thousand dollars, approximately fifteen thousand dollars February fourth, February sixth, and a desert that had held its silence for three years. The decision would determine whether that silence had been broken beyond a reasonable doubt. The jury returned with a guilty verdict, and the courtroom shifted once again. After the guilty verdict was read. The question of whether Charles Chase Merit killed Joseph in Summer mis day and their two young sons was no longer before the jury that decision had been made.

38:41 Speaker 3: What remained was punishment, because San Bernardino had charged Merit with four counts of first degree murder with special circumstances. As the case entered the penalty phase, the jurors now had two options, life in prison without the possibility of parole or death. The prosecution did not need to prove guilt again. They needed to argue aggravation. They began by revisiting the manner of the killings, but with sharper focus. The Mixtays had been buried in two shallow graves in the Mojave Desert near Victorville.

39:13 Speaker 3: Joseph and his younger son were placed together in one grave. Summer and Johnny were placed in the other. Each had been killed by blunt force trauma. Prosecutors emphasized the vulnerability of the children four years old and three years old, and the physical force required to inflict the injuries documented by forensic pathologists. The weapon recovered near the graves, the three pound sledge hammer that was shown to be consistent with the skull fractures. Again returned to the narrative. Jurors had already heard this in the guilt phase, but in the penalty phase it was framed differently, not as evidence of identity but as evidence of brutality.

39:51 Speaker 3: The prosecution also returned to motive, this time in moral terms rather than evidentiary ones. They revisited the approximately four forty two thousand dollars in bad checks that Merit had written to himself from Earth inspired products and its quick book accounts in the weeks surrounding the murders. They referenced Merret's gambling activity that showed tens of thousands of dollars moving through casino transactions in the months before and after February tenth. The implication was that financial pressure had escalated into violence, and that Merit was clearly a man already struggling with self control.

40:30 Speaker 3: Then they introduced aggravating background. Jurors learned of Merit's prior convictions, including burglary and receiving stolen property. These were not presented as proof of murder. That issue was closed, but as part of the calculus jurors were legally allowed to consider in determining punishment. The defense responded with mitigation. They did not challenge the facts of the death. They did not reargue the desert. Instead, they tried to humanize Merit before twelve people who had just convicted him of killing a family of four.

41:03 Speaker 3: They called family members. His daughter, Sarah Taylor Jarvis, who had testified during the guilt phase, appeared again. She spoke about visiting her father in jail over four and a half years. She described him as present, as engaged, as someone who never asked her to lie for him. The defense returned to the moment from earlier testimony. In the entire four and a half year period that you have been visiting your dad, has he ever once told you to lie for him? No, she said. The defense asked jurors to weigh not just the crime, but the person they saw in court, a father, a man who maintained his innocence, someone whose family continued to stand beside him.

41:42 Speaker 3: They argued that life without parole was punishment enough that he would die in prison regardless the execution could not restore the Mictay family. Throughout the penalty phase, Merit remained composed. He took notes, he leaned toward his attorneys during side bars. He did not display visible emotion. When photographs were revisited, Observers in the gallery described him as steady, sometimes expressionless, occasionally shaking his head slightly. During prosecution arguments, the jury instructions were lengthy and technical.

42:15 Speaker 3: Jurors were told that they were not required to impose death even if aggregating factors outweighed mitigating ones. The decision was moral and individualized. They were instructed to consider the totality of circumstances. Deliberations began. Unlike the guilt phase, which had stretched over several days, the penalty deliberations were shorter. Jurors requested transcripts of specific testimony. They reviewed evidence exhibits. They asked for clarification on instructions regarding special circumstances.

42:45 Speaker 3: When they returned, the courtroom was again full. Family members of Joseph and Summer McStay sat together. Patrick McStay was present, so were other relatives. Some held photographs of the children. There were no outbursts as the clerk read the decision. The jury recommended death under California law. At the time, the judge formerly imposed the sentence. Charles Merritt was sentenced to death for the murders of Joseph mxsday, Summer mix Day, Gianni McStay, and Joseph Junior mcx stay. There was no applause, no visible reaction from Merit beyond a tightening of his jaw.

43:20 Speaker 3: He did not address the court. He did not confess, He did not apologize. After sentencing, reporters asked him if he wanted to speak. He maintained that he was innocent. California's death penalty system does not move quickly. Governor Gavin knew Some's moratorium on executions meant that while Merrit was sentenced to death, no execution date would be set. The sentence functioned in practical terms as indefinite incarceration on death row. Outside the court house, reactions divided along familiar lines.

43:52 Speaker 3: Joseph's father, Patrick, spoke to reporters about closure, though he did not use that word lightly. He reiterated his belief that justice had been served. Other family members described the sentence as appropriate given the loss of the two young children. Supporters of Merit continued to question aspects of the investigation. They referenced the defense's arguments about alternative suspects about alleged gaps in the timeline about whether financial evidence proved homicide or merely mismanagement.

44:23 Speaker 3: Some pointed to the complexity of digital access within Earth inspired products. Others questioned the interpretation of cell phone pings in the desert. But these questions were just that Merit was no longer a suspect. He was a convicted murderer sentenced to death. The court room emptied slowly. Jurors avoided eye contact with the gallery. The McStay family members gathered their belongings deliberately. Detectives who had worked the case for nearly a decade stood along the back wall before exiting through a side door.

44:56 Speaker 3: The case that began as a missing person's report in February tith twenty ten, had concluded in formal terms nearly ten years later. In fact, the jury had recommended death for Merit nine years later, in June of twenty nineteen, but after Merit filed a motion to fire his attorney and a motion for a retrial, actual sentencing took another seven months. There was no retrial, and so it was indeed nearly ten years later. On January twenty first, twenty twenty, Charles Merit was sentenced to death. He filed an appeal.

45:36 Speaker 3: That appeal was automatic. In a capital case, the California Supreme Court would review the entire trial record, transcripts, motions, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, looking for reversible error. The process would take years. Capital appeals in California often do outside the formal appellate tract. The case took on a second life in the public sphere. In d Investigative journalists revisited the evidence. Documentary crews examined the trial footage. One series entitled Two Shallow Graves, presented extended access to both prosecution and defense teams, offering viewers a layered look at strategy and argument.

46:16 Speaker 3: It did not retry the case, but it amplified the questions that surfaced during the proceedings. Years after his sentencing, Merit has continued to maintain his innocence. He did not confess, he did not recant, he did not offer an alternative perpetrator by name and open court. His public statements have centered on wrongful conviction claims and criticism of investigative interpretation. The state's position has not changed from the perspective of the San Bernardino County District Attorney's office.

46:46 Speaker 3: The case is closed, four counts of first degree murder, four special circumstances findings, a death sentence imposed. The investigative file, once active with missing persons, flyers and border surveillance reviews, has moved to the archives. The physical locations remain. The house in Falbrook still stands, a two story property with a small yard and a driveway that once held the family's vehicles. The Mojave Desert remains wide and indifferent, wind moving across terrain that concealed two shallow graves for more than three years.

47:19 Speaker 3: The Sanya Sied Report of injury continues to process travelers daily, long after that February eighth, twenty ten footage that briefly suggested the Micstays had walked away voluntarily. The murders of Joseph McStay, Summer mix Stay, Johnny McStay, and Joseph Junior are no longer a mystery in the eyes of the court. A jury has rendered its decision. A judge has imposed punishment. The criminal case ended in the court room. The questions for some did not. But the law has spoken, and we can only pray that its decision brings a modicum of comfort.

47:56 Speaker 3: To the mic stays grieving family. I'll see next next week on Thursday, February twenty sixth, with a new kind of Murdery story. Thanks again for being here, and if you like the show, please do tell your friends, your family, anyone you know who enjoys a true crime podcast. I certainly would appreciate it. I'm Zevan Odleberg and this has been kind of Murdery.

48:22 Speaker 1: If you like the show, please subscribe, review and tell your friends. You can find us on social media at kinda Murdery or email at kindamurderyat gmail dot com.