The McStay Family Murders - Part Two | #440

Summary

---

RedHanded Podcast Summary

Episode: The McStay Family Murders – Part Two (#440)
Date: March 12, 2026
Hosts: Hannah & Saruti

---

Episode Overview

In this detailed and compelling conclusion to their two-part series, RedHanded’s hosts Hannah and Saruti dissect the investigation, trial, and lingering mysteries surrounding the 2010 disappearance and murder of the McStay family. As the prosecution focused on business associate Charles "Chase" Merritt, the episode explores the full timeline, the evidence (or lack thereof), alternative suspects, and the complications that arose from lost or uncollected evidence. The hosts scrutinize everything from financial motives and alibis to forensic testing flaws, highlighting how, despite a conviction and death sentence, major questions remain unanswered.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. Chase Merritt’s Relationship to the McStay Family

• Chase was the last person to see Joe McStay alive and described Joe as his best friend, though his police interview showed odd gaps in knowledge about Joe and his children (01:43).
• "Best friend or not, though, Chase was sure to hammer home the point... that he had been the one to tell Joe's mum and brother that Joe was missing." — Hannah (01:43)
• Chase had a criminal record (burglary, theft, probation violation), which he admitted to police, claiming helping Joe was worth risking arrest (08:39).

2. The Timeline from Disappearance to Arrest

• On February 4th, 2010, the day the family vanished:
  • Chase claimed he and Joe had a business planning lunch, then several calls followed.
  • Key point: A call from Joe’s phone at 8:28pm was logged, but not received on Chase’s phone, suggesting Chase’s phone was off-grid (03:35–06:40).
  • At 9:32pm, Chase's phone pings miles away from home, contradicting his and his girlfriend Catherine's alibi.
  • "Why was Catherine calling Chase again and again and again? ...At 9:32pm, one call from Catherine to Chase finally did connect. And Chase answered. But... pinged off a tower miles away." — Hannah (04:28)
• Police discovered myriad suspicious activities: off-grid phone periods, fabricated alibi, and financial improprieties (08:17).

3. Financial Motives and QuickBooks Shenanigans

• Joe had lent Chase over $42,000 across rent, food, supplies, and refunds due to shoddy work.
• "Chase was terrible with money... That's actually why Katherine Jarvis refuses to marry him." — Hannah (09:21)
• Chase also borrowed thousands from Joe’s mother after the disappearance (11:08).
• After an accusatory email from Joe over the money, suspicious QuickBooks activity created and deleted checks for Chase, some after Joe vanished (18:40–21:43).
• "Whoever this person was added Chase Merritt as a vendor to the QuickBooks account—lowercase... almost every other vendor's name... was capitalised properly." — Hannah (19:18)
• Serial creation and backdating of checks to Chase implies knowledge of Joe’s (likely) already being missing (26:04).

4. The Evidence (or Lack Thereof)

Phone and Computer Activity

• Each phase of the disappearance was marked by anomalies: off-grid phones, deleted financial records, and more.
• Joe’s devices showed him working and calling Chase after their supposed confrontation, complicating the prosecution’s timeline (28:30–29:48).

Desert Grave & Cell Tower Pings

• Chase's phone pinged near the gravesite two days after the disappearances—a major pillar of the prosecution’s case (30:18–32:39).
• Chase’s attempt to explain this through a visit to his sister was undermined by her inconsistent testimony.

Absence of Forensic Evidence

• No blood or signs of struggle were found in the McStay home, and luminol testing was never done (47:03–48:17).
• "It's quite hard to understand why the prosecution clings so tightly to the murders having happened in the house. Because the reality is there isn't any evidence... In fact, the police brought in three cadaver dogs and they didn't strike." — Saruti (48:17)

5. Alternative Suspects and Theories

• Dan Kavanagh (webmaster/associate) had a clear motive, suspicious bank/IP activity, and benefitted far more financially than Chase, but his alibi rested solely on purportedly being in Hawaii (42:26–46:29).
• "The defense is right when they say Dan has just as much motive, if not more motive..." — Hannah (43:10)
• Michael McStay, Joe’s brother, is suspected in online circles, mostly owing to "if the killer was someone the kids knew" theory (69:21–70:20).

6. Problems with the Trial & Defense

• The prosecution’s case was entirely circumstantial: phone logs, check fraud, and ambiguous DNA—no “smoking gun.”
• Forensic DNA was unusable for CODIS; defense claims of unknown DNA in the graves didn’t disprove Chase’s involvement (51:18–55:15).
• The truck caught on neighbor’s CCTV could not definitively be matched to Chase; prosecution’s expert retracted, further complicating matters—leading to accusations of potential “Brady violation” (mistakenly withholding exculpatory evidence) (55:54–60:26).
• "I honestly don't know what I'm even looking at." — Hannah (55:54)
• Defense was marred by mistakes, including failure to make use of witnesses, mistakes with DNA processing, and refusal to allow key expert testimony (40:09–41:52; 37:38).

7. The Conviction and Lingering Doubts

• Chase was found guilty on all counts and sentenced to death in June 2019 (60:26–60:45).
• The conviction rested on circumstantial evidence and the lack of a viable alternative suspect.
• “...if you put it together, it’s easy to see why the jury ended up feeling like they had beyond a reasonable doubt.” — Saruti (60:50)
• Both hosts express discomfort with the strength of the conviction and its resulting death sentence, especially given so many unanswered questions, untested locations (potential kill site), and missing pieces (81:07–81:32).

---

Notable Quotes & Memorable Moments

• “Why would you call Chase, and not the police? Maybe they were best friends, like Chase says. Maybe.” — Saruti questions the timeline (07:52)
• “I just think, oh, that makes me very uncomfortable when you’re talking about a death penalty case.” — Hannah on incomplete evidence (62:04)
• [On the unreliable QuickBooks checks:] “Even looking at it in lowercase in the script is annoying me.” — Saruti (25:32)
• Hannah’s summary: “I think for me, Dan had a lot more to gain financially from Joe’s death. And there’s nothing concrete about his alibi as to being in Hawaii.” (77:01)
• Saruti’s conclusion: “I think the only thing I'm certain of is there is a massive piece missing. Yes, there is something we do not know. I don't think they ever found the kill site.” (81:07)

---

Timestamps for Important Segments

• Key timeline discrepancies & alibi breakdowns: 03:35–06:40
• Financial motive and QuickBooks manipulation: 09:21–10:44, 18:40–21:43
• Pings near the gravesite, unreliable alibi: 30:18–32:39
• Dan Kavanagh as potential suspect: 42:26–46:29
• Trial problems, DNA & defense failures: 55:54–60:26
• Verdict and hosts’ final reflections: 60:26–81:32

---

Lingering Mysteries & Hosts’ Conclusions

• When and where was the family killed? No blood or signs of struggle at the home.
• Who truly moved/dumped the McStay truck at the border? (Key was found in Joe's pocket, seat adjusted for someone shorter—may have been an impound worker.)
• Was Chase acting alone? Could someone else (Dan, Michael, even Catherine) have been involved or benefited?
• Conviction is understandable given the circumstantial case but problematic with lost evidence and alternative suspects barely pursued.

“Personally, I do think Chase probably did it, but Dan is so fucking dodgy, it's really hard to look away. I think for me, Dan had a lot more to gain financially from Joe's death. And there's nothing concrete about his alibi as to being in Hawaii.” — Hannah (77:01)

“After all this, I think the only thing I'm certain of is there is a massive piece missing…. I don't think they ever found the kill site. I think it's out there somewhere covered in fucking evidence. I guess we'll never know.” — Saruti (81:07)

---

Summary Table: Key Evidence and Issues

| Evidence/Point | Prosecution Argument | Defense/Hosts' Analysis | |---------------------------------------|---------------------------------|---------------------------------| | Off-grid phone activity | Suggests hiding activity | Irregular but not conclusive | | QuickBooks check manipulations | Indicates financial motive | Also could have been Dan’s doing| | Cell tower ping by graves | Points to location knowledge | Tower may have been unreliable | | No evidence in home (no blood, etc.) | Claimed thorough clean-up | Police failed to test properly | | DNA in graves/truck | Chase’s in truck as minor trace | Low-quality, inconclusive | | CCTV white truck footage | Believed to be Chase’s | Could be McStay’s or another | | Dan Kavanagh alibi | In Hawaii, not a suspect | No solid flight evidence, strong motive |

---

Final Takeaway

RedHanded’s deep-dive highlights how, despite a conviction and public closure, the McStay family murders are riddled with unresolved theories, questionable prosecution tactics, and missing evidence. Both hosts acknowledge that Chase Merritt’s behavior and actions look damning, but also emphasize how the case, fraught with investigative shortcomings, may never provide truly satisfying answers: “... it doesn't feel like the strongest conviction for me.” (81:24)

---

Transcript

[Safeway/Albertsons Advertiser]

Safeway and Albertsons have made saving easier than ever with great savings on family favorites this week at Safeway and Albertsons. USDA Choice Beef Boneless Tri tip whole or flankin style ribs bone in our $6.99 per pound member price and asparagus or $1.99 per pound member price plus 16 ounce strawberries 6 ounce raspberries or blackberries are $1.97 each limit 3 member price with digital coupon. Hurry in. These deals won't last. Visit safewayoralbertsons.com for more deals and ways

[The RealReal Advertiser]

to save so you're running out of closet space. The good news? You don't need to stop shopping. You just need to start selling with the RealReal. The RealReal is the world's largest and most trusted resource for authenticated luxury resale. Whether it's that mini bag that can't even fit your phone or those boots you never fully broke in, the RealReal handles everything from photography and copywriting to shipping and pricing. So you can just sit back, get paid and make room for things that actually feel like you. And with 10,000 new arrivals every single day from top designers like Prada, Celine, Louis Vuitton and Loewe, all for up to 90% off retail, you're bound to find something perfectly on brand to fill that extra closet space with. Plus right now you can get an extra $100 to shop when you sell for the first time. Make room for what feels like you go to therealreal.com to start selling and get your extra hundred dollars to keep [e-mail] that's therealreal.com terms apply.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

So by his own admission, Chase Merritt had been the last person to see Joe MC stay alive. Now authorities turn their attention fully to him. Chase had been interviewed by the police for three hours back when the family first vanished, and he described Joe as his best friend. Though reading the transcripts of his interview, it does seem a bit weird that he doesn't know how tall Joe is. When he's asked about Joe's two boys, Chase literally has nothing to say about them. But he's like, yeah, he was my best friend. I don't know, maybe Best friend or not, though Chase was sure to hammer home the point during this interview that he had been the one to tell Joe's mum and brother that Joe was missing. Chase also claimed that he had no motive to hurt Joe or his family. After all, the business was doing great. Why would he want to kill him? Chase even willingly submitted a DNA sample I'm Saruti.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

I'm Hannah.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

And welcome back to Red handed and part two of the McStay family murders. And let's get started today with what happened, according to chase, on the 4th

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

of February, the day the family vanished, Chase said that he and Joe had met up to talk business. Joe was the owner and designer of Earth Inspired products, while Chase was the guy who made the physical water features. And they had an order for 500 waterfalls coming up. It was going to be big work and they needed to plan who is

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

buying 500 waterfall Saudis.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Oh, my God.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Yeah, duh.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

It just makes me think of that, that, like, abandoned Chinese building project that's just in the middle of nowhere and

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

they're like, maybe we just put a waterfall in each one and then people will move in.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

So Chase claimed that to solve the 500 Saudi waterfall problem, he and Joe had had lunch together at a Chick Fil? A near his house. After which they spoke on the phone a handful more times. With the last call coming in from Joe's phone to Chase at 8:28pm this call was listed on Joe's outgoing call log, but not on Chase's incoming calls. But according to Chase and his girlfriend, who's called Catherine Jarvis, they were at home watching a film and both of them saw Chase's phone ring and they both saw Joe's name come up. Apparently they even had an argument because Chase didn't pick up his phone. His girlfriend was telling him off for ignoring people and not dealing with things in the moment they happen. I never pick up the phone.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

I hate picking up the phone.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Unless I'm like, there's maybe three people. I would pick up the phone, phone. It scares me.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

It's just like, why? What now? What's happening? So the problem is, why would a call not be logged on Chase's phone? We know the call happened because it's logged on Joe's outgoing calls. This only makes sense if Chase's phone was off or not able to get signal at the time. And guess what? The police later discovered that during the time that Chase claims to have seen this call come up on his phone, his phone was indeed off grid. Now this looks a bit suspicious because he and his girlfriend both said they saw Joe's call coming through on Chase's phone. This is clearly not true. Though if the phone was off or unable to get signal, which correlates with Chase's phone log not showing this call. So what they're saying just can't be true, it looks even more suspicious when you consider that during this same time period, Chase's girlfriend had tried calling him multiple times. But again, none of these calls had connected. Why? If they were at home together that night, the McStays vanished, watching a film, as they said. Why was Catherine calling Chase again and again and again? Maybe. Maybe he'd misplaced his phone somewhere in the house and she was just trying to help him find it. Problem is, at 9:32pm, one call from Catherine to Chase finally did connect. And Chase answered. But his phone, when he answered this call, pinged off a tower miles away from the tower closest to his house in Rancho Cucamonga. Not making it up. That's what it's called. So he's clearly not at home. Right, if we look at the phone data. So where was he? And why lie? Why lie that you were home together watching a film and that you saw Joe's call come through on your phone? Is it a lie or was it a mix up? But if it's a lie, it really sounds like you're trying to establish an alibi.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

It's also important to note that we don't know who actually made that call at 8:28pm Hello? Please stop murdering me and my children, please. It might have been Joe or it might have been the killer. Which only makes sense if the killer's Chase calling himself from Joe's phone would throw off the timeline for the vanishing investigation. And it would also make it seem like he and Joe were still in touch. Which would be especially helpful if he knew that Joe was already dead.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Now, this call from Joe's phone to Chase's phone at 8:28 was placed 41 minutes after that white truck was caught on the McStay's neighbor's CCTV pulling out of their driveway. Again, we don't know whose truck this was because, like we told you last episode, Joe Chase, Michael McStay, Michael McFadden and Vic Johansson all drove white trucks. And even if the killer didn't have their own white truck, like Dan Cavanagh, they could have just been driving the family's truck. It's way too dark in that footage to see inside the vehicle to see who is driving. You can't even tell what truck it is, let alone who's inside.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

And if we come back to the call, it was the last known activity from Joe McStay's mobile phone. So if he had fled or was abducted or something generally terrible had happened to his family, was this Joe trying to call for help? But why would you call Chase and Not the police. Maybe they were best friends like Chase says. Maybe.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

But as it turned out, Chase was not being quite as transparent as he claimed. Firstly, Chase was an ex felon. His crimes, to be fair, were never violent. But he had served time for burglary, petty theft, and receiving stolen goods. And at the time, he had a probation violation warrant out for his arrest.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

When the police confronted him with this information, Chase said that he knew they would find out, but that helping Joe was more important. So he had been happy to take the risk and raise the alarm to find his friend. He said, my wife and I decided I have to help Joe, even if it messes my life up a bit. He often calls Catherine Jarvis his wife, even though they weren't married. We didn't make a mistake. But it does come across like Chase is trying to paint a picture of himself as this excellently good guy. He's got a wife and a conscience. How could he possibly do anything wrong?

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Chase also did not volunteer information about the email from Joe saying that he owed him $42,000. Now, this money was because Joe had been lending Chase cash regularly. Again, Joe is just like a very, very naive person. Like, everybody said that basically, Chase was terrible with money, terrible with money. And that's actually why Katherine Jarvis refuses to marry him. And Joe just had, like, this spreadsheet on his computer of, like, all of the money he had given Chase for rent, for food, for fuel. Like, everything. Like, Chase is just terrible at money. So some of this money is that. And because Chase is also a gambler, so he loves to lose his money. But it was also because Chase, as it turns out, had been cutting corners on the waterfalls he was making. And so some clients had started complaining and demanding refunds. In the email, Joe explains that the $42,000 included a couple of refunds that were due to poor, poor craftsmanship. And because the setup. And again, this just shows how naive Joe is. The setup was that Joe would design the water feature, Chase would make it, and then Joe would buy them off Chase and then sell them to clients. So if the client wanted a refund, it was Joe who was out of pocket because Chase has already been paid for it.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Right.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Why aren't you setting up a system in which you sell it and then you split the proceeds? You know, you split the profits. You're not paying for it as a supplier, and then Joe's the one who's left in the. If the customer isn't happy. But this is what had been happening, and Joe was out of pocket. And he was pissed. So when investigators found out about the money, especially because Chase hadn't told them about it, it rang a lot of very loud alarm bells.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

And that's not all. There's more to come. It does not stop coming, actually. According to Joe's mum, Susan, Chase had borrowed thousands of dollars from her after Joe had vanished. Chase had told Susan that he needed the money to finish incomplete work for clients whilst Joe was gone, and he claimed that he couldn't access company money, which we'll go on to find out isn't exactly true. So Susan had been writing these checks for Chase from her personal account, thinking that she would be paid back. But she wasn't. And for Chase, habitual gambler and convicted thief, this did not look good.

[Safeway/Albertsons Advertiser]

Safeway and Albertsons have made saving easier than ever with great savings on family favorites this week at Safeway and Albertsons. USDA Choice beef boneless tri tip, whole or flankin style ribs bone in are $6.99 per pound member price and asparagus are $1.99 per pound member price plus 16 ounce strawberries. Six ounce raspberries or blackberries are $1.97 each. Limit three member price with digital coupon. Hurry in these deals won't last. Visit safewayoralbertsons.com for more deals and ways

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

to save the sun shining, birds are singing and all feels right in the world until the and suddenly you lose

[Safeway/Albertsons Advertiser]

your motivation to get out of bed. In fact, one in five people experience

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

some form of depression no matter the

[Safeway/Albertsons Advertiser]

season or time of year.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

At the American Psychiatric association foundation, our vision is to build a mentally healthy nation for all because we want you to live your best life and be your best you all year round.

[Safeway/Albertsons Advertiser]

Please visit mentallyhealthynation.org to learn more. Safeway and Albertsons have made saving easier than ever with great savings on family favorites this week at Safeway and Albertsons. USDA Choice beef boneless trit tip whole or flank and style ribs bone in are $6.99 per pound member price and asparagus are 199 per pound member price plus 16 ounce strawberries, 6 ounce raspberries or blackberries are 197 each. Limit three member price with digital coupon. Hurry in these deals won't last. Visit Safeway or albertsons.com for more deals and ways to save.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Quieres mejor Internet Cox Internet de trecientas megas tiene las velocidades rapidas y com fiables que buscas perfecto para streaming E gaming Y TRA bajar des CAS. Unlimited guarantee. But the question was, was this a man who was simply taking advantage of a horrible situation? Or was there actually any evidence that he had planned and executed the murders in cold blood? To investigators, it started to look quite a lot like the latter when they discovered that in the weeks leading up to the disappearance, Joe had asked his brother Michael to learn how to weld. So was this because he wanted him to take over from Chase in the business? Or was it, as Chase claimed, just because they needed more hands on deck? It's hard to know.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

And then there were the checks and the phone pings. But we're going to save those for the trial because there is one. In November 2014, almost a year after the bodies were found, and five years after the family had gone missing in the first place, the police arrested Chase Merritt for the murders of Joe Summer gianni and Joe Jr. McStay. The trial kicked off in San Diego in January 2019, and even for a death penalty case, it dragged on lasting a whopping six months.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

But don't worry, we are going to stick in this episode to the information that you strictly need to note. If you really truly want to feel like you sat through the whole fucking half a year ordeal, then I would recommend the Discovery documentary series on this case. Two Shallow Graves. It is a mind numbing seven episodes long and it lasts over five hours.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

It's a great band name though.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Yeah. Two Shallow Graves. It's cool. Like the artwork is cool, the name is cool. Fuck me. The documentary Drive on. It is an un bearable slog if I'm honest. Like genuinely I was watching it, I fell asleep so many times and then had to fucking rewind and watch bits over which was just so soul destroying. And I also felt when I was watching it that they're just trying to twist everything and manipulate the audience. Shocker. I know. Who would ever dream of a documentary trying to do such a thing? But it's like really, really clear, especially when you discover the documentary's history because it was originally intended to be one of those documentaries that just follows the defense around, kind of like the staircase situation. But when the family and the prosecution refused to take part, the show's creators agreed to make it more even handed. Whether they achieve that or not is up to you if you can be bothered to watch it. I also thought it's odd that Chase's attorneys didn't take any money from a fundamental that pays for the defense in capital punishment cases. So they had access to Money because it was a capital case. Instead, they agreed a deal with Chase that they would get a percentage of any book, documentary or film rights after the show was done.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Oh, good.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Yeah. And I looked this up because I know that in the UK and in the us, if someone is convicted of a crime, they, because of the Son of Sam laws, they can't profit off that story. But apparently attorneys can. The only question that's out there that I could find is, is it ethical? Lol. It's not illegal.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

The trial was going to be a tough one for the prosecution. It was a purely circumstantial case. There was no smoking gun pointing to Chase being the killer. But circumstantial evidence is evidence and there's quite a lot of it.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Now look, I have to be honest, when I first looked at this case, I was like, Chase so obviously did it. When we were first like planning this episode, I was like, one part, Chase did it. It'll be an interesting story to put together because literally a man who took a sledgehammer to like two children's heads and like, thought he could get away with transformed into a two parter. After I watched the documentary, I was like, yeah, he still did it. But then I read the book down to the Bone by Caitlin Rother, who, fun fact, wrote the Temperance Brennan series which was turned into the TV show Bones.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

There you go.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Which I did enjoy. Yeah, you love Bones back in the day. And after reading that, I will say I'm a little bit confused because there was a lot of information that just wasn't like made enough of a big deal at in trial. But let's go through it all together and see what we think at the end.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

The defense kicked off with the email from Joe that chase owed him $42,000. Like we said, it was sent just three days before the family vanished. And when the police dug a little bit deeper into Joe's QuickBooks account. It's an accounting software. Zero is better. They discovered some very strange transactions. 45 minutes after that email about the money was sent from Joe to chase. On 1 February, someone accessed Joe's QuickBooks account, but not from his house, which is where the email had been sent from.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Whoever this person was added Chase Merritt as a vendor to the QuickBooks account. Now, interestingly, the name was entered all in lowercase, but almost every other vendor's name in there that we can assume was added by Joe McStay had been capitalised properly.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

That would drive me fucking nuts.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Yeah, same. I can't so Once this Vendor was created, two cheques for $2,500 each were generated and then all records of these cheques were then deleted from the ledger.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Then, the next day, 2 February 2010, someone went back into the company's QuickBooks account, again not from any of the McStays computers or the house. And again, two more cheques were created for lowercase Chase Merritt. They were printed and then again they were deleted from the ledger. And that same day, someone cashed those checks.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Two days later, on the day he vanished. So the 4th of February, Joe called his bank. Two minutes later, he called Chase. Then Joe signed into his QuickBooks from his computer. So I think we can say that that login was most likely actually Joe. And then Joe called the bank again. It looks like maybe he's realised that there was money missing, but there were no checks and no, like, payment trail to explain the whole. Because, remember, all the checks that had been created had been deleted from the ledger, likely by someone else, most likely by Chase.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Lowercase Chase.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Exactly.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

And just to be clear, while Chase said that, yes, he had access to the company accounts, it's not clear why. Nothing to do with you. He wasn't a partner, despite the fact he and a lot of people online describe him as such. He's a supplier, a bad one. And he'd never paid himself like that before. And the timing, given the you owe me 42k email, does make it highly suspicious.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

As Joe was making these calls to the bank that day, his phone data placed him in the Rancho Cucamonga area near where Chase lived. And Joe remained in that area until 3:03pm and remember, this is the day that Chase said he and Joe had had a business lunch at Chick Fil A. But we can't say for sure when that lunch actually took place, or even if it did take place, because obviously the police are doing all of this fucking years later by the time they get there. The restaurant CCTV footage has obviously been wiped. There was also no bank transaction or receipt that Chase could provide and no witnesses could place them at the restaurant. All we know is that Joe was in the area where Chase lived that day.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

But during that time, between 12:52pm and 1:01pm, Chase called his girlfriend Catherine, 13 times. 13 times in the space of nine minutes.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

That's a lot.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Catherine didn't pick up, but she did phone him back after the 13th call. If you're about to go to a lunch meeting with your business partner, what in the world is so urgent that you're calling your girlfriend 13 times in nine minutes?

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

I don't know. Let's say that this meeting took place after this call between Chase and Catherine Jarvis between 1pm and 3pm, after which time we know Joe's phone shows him leaving the area. After this meeting, Joe called Chase seven times, with the longest call placed at 5.48pm, which lasted about two minutes. Joe then went to his house, or at least his phone did. And it was also around this time that Chase's phone went off grid. So again, that means he either switched it off or his phone wasn't able to get any signal. And Chase remained off grid until 9:32pm that night. And if you remember from last week's episode, it was during that time that Joe's phone called Chase's at like half past eight. And this is the call that Chase and his girlfriend claimed that they saw ring, even though the call was placed when Chase's phone couldn't receive any calls. And the tower, it pings off an hour later, doesn't place him at his house.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

And as we told you last week, Catherine Jarvis had also tried to call Chase five times between 6:09 and 9:04. Again, an odd thing to be doing if they were at home together, as she claimed they were. And it was also during this time, at 7:47pm, that the McStay's neighbors CCTV footage caught a white truck pulling out of the family's drive. As we said, we don't know whose truck it was for sure because everyone's got a fucking white truck. But we are of the opinion that it is most likely that it was Joe's truck, but he wasn't driving it.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Yeah, as we're going to see, the prosecution is really like, it's Chase's truck. It's Chase's truck. It's Chase's truck. They can't fucking prove it. I think it makes more sense that it's Joe's truck. But anyway, we'll come back to that. It's also within this time frame that someone accessed QuickBooks from the McStay house and wrote a cheque to, you guessed it, Chase Merritt, lowercase, printed it, deleted it and signed out.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Even looking at it in lowercase in the script is annoying me.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

I know I always capitalise names properly and I had to try quite hard to not do it.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

It's okay, you've got the sharp now.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Thank you. Then an hour later, at 9:32pm, like we said, Chase called his girlfriend Catherine and the signal pinged off a tower just south of Rancho Cucamonga in the direction of the McStay home. Then his phone went back off grid until 7:30 the next morning.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

The next day, 5 February, four more cheques were created for lowercase Chase and they were all backdated to the 4th of February and they were all deleted. And this backdating business is very important. Why would anybody backdate these cheques? Unless you knew it might at some point be proven that Joe couldn't have written any checks after the 4th because he's dead, or at least missing.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Why would you backdate them by a day?

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

I don't even know how to write a check.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

It's lost knowledge. We don't need to know anymore anyway.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Crucially, again, this activity on the 5th of February didn't come from the McStays home. And between 3:54pm and 9:17pm that day, Chase's phone went back off grid. It is also important to point out that going off grid regularly wasn't typical behavior. Looking at Chase's previous phone activity, he'd

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

done it a couple of times in October, which his defence brought up, but it's like it's happening a lot in the space of time that joke and his family go missing, which I think is not unimportant. So it's already looking pretty sus and we're not even nearly done. But before we move on, there are a few things I want to mention here. Was Catherine Jarvis lying about Chase being at home with her the night the McStays went missing? It certainly looks like it, because she says, I saw the phone ring. It was Joe, it was this time. But we know that that didn't happen because Chase's phone can't have rung. But I want to be fair, I want to be fair to Catherine Jarvis and I want to highlight some calls that the police secretly recorded between Chase and Catherine after he became a suspect. And these aren't like prison calls, so they know they're being recorded. They don't know they're being recorded. They've been bugged. In one of these calls, Catherine sounds completely confused, asking Chase if she's losing her mind, saying she could have sworn he was at home the night of the 4th of Feb. But maybe she was wrong, maybe it was the night before because that's what the police said. She can't get her dates right and she genuinely sounds baffled. I don't think she sounds like she's trying to get her story straight to help Chase. I think she's just really confused secondly,

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

the calls from Joe's phone to Chase's after the lunch meeting really make it look like Joe was still alive and working with Chase.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Because after that lunch meeting, he leaves Joe's phone, leaves the Rancho Cucamonga area and heads back to the McStays house. Their house is on Avocado Vista Lane, by the way, heading.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

How have you left that until now?

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Totally forgot to put it in the script. He's heading back to his house. Right. And in that time, like we said, he calls Chase several times. So the whole question of when Joe dies, when this happens is really, really confusing. It really makes it look like Joe has to still be alive because his phone is moving away and it's still calling Chase.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

And when Joe gets home, he carried on calling Chase and someone was Accessing the Google SketchUp design program on Joe's desktop. And that matches how the two men often worked. Joe would be designing a new water feature and he would call Chase to talk about it. If they had had some violent bus stop at lunch in which Chase had killed Joe, or if Joe had sack Chase at lunch or they had some massive disagreement, why would they be acting in the way they'd always acted before when they were working together?

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Yeah, it really looks like they are collaborating on a design. It doesn't seem like Joe's dead or he's even sacked Chase, because why would you call someone you've sacked again and again and again while you're designing a water feature?

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

So why would Chase want Joe dead? He's got a lot of debt he needs to pay and Joe is giving him business, he's giving him work. Doesn't make any sense.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

This is the thing, and I do have to say that the defense bring this point up at trial. They say there is no evidence whatsoever that Joe ended his working relationship with Chase. There's no evidence that he cut him off as a supplier, that he sacked him, he fired him, whatever. There's also no evidence that Chase killed him at that point because Joe's phone continues to call him. And also, you could say that could be faked. But Joe is on his laptop and he's the only one that uses a SketchUp program to do designs. Chase doesn't do the designs. So it really looks like Joe is still alive. So if that's the case, then, as the defence said, what motive does Chase have to kill him? But then we have to get back to some highly suspicious activity on Chase's part, because on 6 February, two days after the family went missing, Chase's phone pinged a tower near the desert where the bodies of the McStays would be found four years later. Now, when he was first confronted with this, over four years after the fact, Chase said that if he was in that area on that day, it would only be because he was visiting his sister. And Chase's sister did indeed live near the gravesite, this comedian. The problem is that when his sister was questioned about this initially by police, she told them that her brother hadn't been to visit her in five years.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

You'd give her a heads up, wouldn't you?

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

There's literally video recording, body cam footage of the police turning up at her door asking about her brother. And she's like, I haven't seen him in five years. He works 24 7. He hasn't got time. That's what she says. She only changed her story when she knew why they were asking. So, yeah, she's not the most reliable witness. Now, at trial, Chase's defence tried to explain these indiscrepancies from his sister by saying that the Merritt family had a hard time trusting law enforcement. And this is wild, because Chase's brother, his older brother Bennett, had been arrested and charged with being the Hillside Strangler back in the seventies.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

I quit now.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Now, look, I have to be fair. Bennett Merritt, which, like, is a. Is a weird name to say, Bennett Merritt was ultimately released.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Oh. So was everyone. They arrested everyone for the Hillside Strangler.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

That's the truth. When they caught the real killers, Bono and Bianchi. But just because Chase's brother might not have been a killer doesn't mean Chase isn't. And I get why the defense say this. They're like, look, the family have a hard time trusting law enforcement. That's why she was a bit cagey. But the problem is that his sister is completely unreliable, because one minute she says that he didn't come see her, and then she's like, oh, he definitely came here on that day. I absolutely remember. And at trial, they say, would you like us to play the recording of you saying he hadn't come? She's like, no, no, I don't. I don't. I don't want to hear it. And she says she had just had an operation and she was completely out of it, and that's why she had incorrectly said that.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

But it's not like she got the day wrong.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

She said five years.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Yeah. Hmm. The gravesite is also really near to where Chase grew up, which makes me think that's how he knew about the Remote spot. After all, killers tend to use spaces that they feel comfortable and familiar with. Chase claimed that that location was chosen by the murderer to frame him.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

That's his defense for why it's there. When they're like, you grew up around here, you probably knew that the police don't patrol that area. It's called like unregistered land or something. It's basically like, the police don't patrol that area. There's nothing there. So, like, there's houses on the periphery, which is where Chase grew up and where his sister lived, but he would have known. Nobody goes through there. The police don't go through there. It's fucking, you know, it's a non area. And he's like, well, maybe somebody just knew I grew up around there and I had connections to it and they buried the bodies there to frame me.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

But why?

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Yeah, good question.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

If you're burying bodies out in the middle of nowhere in a place that's good for nothing but burying bodies or maybe cooking meth in a caravan, you're doing that because you don't expect the bodies to be found. So it's not really like a piece of a framing puzzle.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

If you're framing somebody, you frame them in a very obvious way because the body's been found. You don't bury them somewhere you don't think they'd ever be found. And your insurance policy is, I'll bury them somewhere really remote that if they are found, they link to somebody else. It's a bit convoluted.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

And all the people who have been swayed by the documentary and Chase, who now claims that the cell tower data is inexact, they have to realize that when he was first questioned, he never disputed being in the area. On that day, he placed himself in the spot where the graves would eventually be found, 40 miles from his house or his place of work, just 48 hours after his business partner's family vanished

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

in the spot where their bodies would later be found.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

And after he had been confronted by Dead Joe about missing money, all with his phone falling continuously and uncharacteristically off grid repeatedly.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Now, look, I do have to say again, in the interest of fairness, that at trial the defence had an expert who said that the tower by the desert was not relaying information and data correctly. In fact, at the time this was all going down, there was a big, very well publicized, ongoing scandal about how shit AT&T's network was. And that is the network that Chase is with. It was like, you know, it was like in the papers, it was really, really like quite a well known thing. But what's weird is that the defense just kept going on and on and on about how great their expert witness was. He was a man named Vlad Jonovic. But they refused to let him testify. He's sitting there in court and they don't call him to testify. They just tell the jury what he's told them, that the tower's not relaying information clearly. I don't understand why you wouldn't call him to testify, because for a lot of people, me included, Chase's phone pinging off the tower near where the graves are found is like one of the biggest pieces of evidence against him. So it was pretty weird. Now, Chase was furious that they didn't call Vlad to testify. And he said that if he got sent down, he was going to appeal based on ineffective counsel. At which point his lead attorney swiftly dropped out of the entire case. He was just like, I'm sick. I quit. And it was a big humiliating thing for the defense because the prosecution, like, found pictures and videos of him, like the Friday two days before at a bar getting absolutely hammered. And they're like, you were well enough to be at this bar doing shots, but you're not well enough to continue with the trial. It's all such a fucking embarrassing, unprofessional mess. Now, Chase actually sacked another attorney later in the trial and repeatedly asked the judge to be allowed to represent himself.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Oh, boy.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Yeah. And look, I don't know if Chase did it or not. There is certainly a lot that makes him look super fucking guilty. But I do also have to say he had really shitty defence attorneys.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

So we'll do it for them. Let's get back to the timeline, because on 8 February, the day the McStay's truck was parked at that strip mall near the Mexican border, Chase's phone went back off the grid again. And when it came back on, he was driving to his house, coming from the direction of the border. After this, the QuickBooks account was accessed again and another check was made out to lowercase Chase Merritt.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

I do have to ask about him driving back from the border. How did he get it there? If he dropped the McStay family truck at the border and then his phone catches him driving back from the border, how has he taken the other vehicle there and left it there? Uber. How does he have his truck? Oh, I guess we don't know if he was driving back in.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Yeah, we don't know what he was driving.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Yeah, we'll talk About. We'll talk about. We'll talk about the truck later, but

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

a bit more checks first. Again, this check was generated, backdated and it was deleted shortly after, which chase actually called QuickBooks pretending to be Joe McStay. Not great.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Chase said that Joe had asked him to call QuickBooks on his behalf and update the company's QuickBooks account, moving it from an online account to a desktop one. Because Chase claimed in court, Joe hadn't been feeling well. Remember, he's got this mystery illness. And he said that basically he knew if he called QuickBooks he'd potentially be on hold for a very long time. So he had asked Joe to help him out, even though by the time this call was made, Joe and his family had already been missing for four days. So when did he ask you to do this, Chase? Did he ask you to do it four days before he went missing? And you're only getting around to it now, even though you're already like, where the fuck is Joe? Like, do you know what I mean? It's just a weird thing to do at this point. But regardless, when Chase was first questioned about this, about why Joe would ask him to call QuickBooks and do this, Chase said Joe wanted to move money out because he didn't want Summer to see how much money was in the account. Apparently, Summer was a little spend happy and Joe wanted to protect the funds they had.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

But the prosecution were able to find the QuickBooks employee who spoke to Chase that day, and he actually remembered the call because it was so unusual. The employee claimed that Chase had actually asked him to delete the QuickBooks account entirely, to which he had been told he needed to reply to an email that they would send to his email, but obviously it's Joe's email because he's pretending to be Joe. And QuickBooks did send the email, but they did not get a response. In fact, they sent two more verification emails after the first one expired, but none of them were used, probably because Chase couldn't get access to Joe's emails and Joe was already missing.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Now, at trial, Chase changed his story now, claiming that Joe had asked him to move the money and shut down the QuickBooks account to get Dan Cavanagh out of the accounts, because apparently Joe believed that Dan had hacked the QuickBooks account and Joe didn't want him seeing sales that he and Chase had made without him. And yes, Dan Cavanagh, as it turned out, had hacked into the company's QuickBooks account and also he had hacked into Joe's PayPal account. Where he had changed the password, locking Chase out. And Dan Kavanagh had started moving money out of the account into his own account, which, yes, makes Dan look shady as fuck. The problem I have with this story that Chase tells is that there is no indication that Dan did this before Joe went missing. So why would Joe have asked Chase to delete the QuickBooks account? Because of something that hadn't happened yet. It doesn't happen until Joe goes missing.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

The defense fought back that Chase had actually lost out financially after Joe disappeared. Business had dried up for him. No one else wants Waterfalls, apparently.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Well, he just doesn't have access to the network. I think Joe was good at building the business and Chase was good when he tried to actually do a good job at making the Waterfalls. But Chase doesn't know how to run the website. He doesn't have the contacts that Joe's built. So he's just like. He's lost his golden goose, basically. He's lost the man who was funneling work to him.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Dan Cavanaugh, on the other hand, managed to take over Earth Inspired Products and take nearly $200,000 out of the business over the space of 10 months. Which that's not fucking easy.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

No. And at the time when Joe went missing, Dan Cavanaugh, his bank account was overdrawn by $40, like he had no money.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

And Dan managed to sell the company for another 200k. And Dan was the one with the real motive to do something like that. And the defence claimed that there was no evidence at all to back up the fact that he had been in Hawaii. One would assume, if you're the prosecution and your whole argument is that it was Chase and not Dan, you would have pretty solid evidence as to where Dan was.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Yeah, I mean, their entire argument about why they go after Chase rather than look at Dan at all is because Dan is in Hawaii, according to them. Because if you look at Take Out Hawaii and you just look at the bare facts of this case, and yes, I know the phone pings and all of that, Chase and Dan are taking money out of the business. Both of them are doing shady shit, right? Chase is writing these checks, backdating them, stealing the money, but Dan is just hacking into Joe's PayPal and taking money out of there. He's hacking into the QuickBooks account, taking money out there, and then he managed to take over the whole company and sell it. So the defense is right when they say Dan has just as much motive, if not more motive, and acted way more nefariously after than Chase did. He saw way more money from Joe and the McStays and from, you know, the company. So why did you not look at Dan at all? If it's because you say he's in Hawaii, where is the ironclad proof he was in Hawaii? And the prosecution don't present that. They don't provide a flight manifest or a boarding pass or anything to prove that Dan was actually on board these flights. And apparently they, like, contact the investigator that the defense hired and that Patrick had hired, call Homeland Security. But they're like, we only know for sure if somebody's on a flight, if they're on a no Fly list. We don't just track everybody who's getting on a flight and getting off a flight. All the prosecution could say is that Dan had two tickets booked. Dan said that he flew out on 7 January and he flew back on 17 February, nearly two weeks after the family vanished. As it turned out, when the police chased up on this and called Hawaiian Airlines, his flight was actually three days earlier, on 14 February. Why lie about that? Maybe he just forgot. I don't know. It doesn't seem that important because it was still after the family went missing. Because they went missing on the 4th of February. So it's 10 days after. But this is really interesting, and I only found out about this in the book, which is again what makes me suspicious. When the defense got an expert to check the Dan's IP, his online activity placed him in Hawaii on the 14th of January, 2010, as per, you know, he said he was. But then when he logged Back in on 26 January, his IP address now placed him in San Diego almost three weeks before he claimed to have returned to the mainland and more than a week before the McStays vanished. He then went on to make 30 transactions through his bank account from this San Diego IP address until 17 February, the day he claimed he came back from Hawaii. Now, look, could Dan Kavanaugh have been using a VPN? Absolutely. Sure. Like, I think for most people, VPNs weren't on the radar in 2010. But Dan Cavanaugh, he was definitely the kind of man that would have had one. But the defence should have made more of this at trial, especially because the prosecution couldn't fucking prove with clear, solid evidence that Dan was still in Hawaii. This would have given me reasonable doubt as to where Dan truly was. And I don't know why this didn't land with the jury.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

So you can't really definitively say where Dan was at the time of the murders. And he did stand to gain significantly from the killings. He's a solid suspect. Not saying that Chase didn't do it, but it does seem like the police were under pressure to solve the case because of how badly they'd fucked it and how long they'd waited. And because two little children had got their heads smashed in. So perhaps they had their blinkers on when it came to lowercase Chase Merritt.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Another big question at trial was when and where the family had actually died. According to the prosecution, Chase had followed Joe home after their lunch meeting and killed the family in the house. But the defence made it clear at trial that there was no evidence at all that the family had died violently in their own home, as there was no blood and the neighbours didn't hear any screams. And the police had to admit that they hadn't even used luminol in the house to test for blood. What are they doing? So, yeah, we can't say for sure. We can't say for sure what happened. And, yeah, you do have to admit, if they were killed before 7:47, which is when the truck backs out of the driveway and pulls off, assuming they've been killed in the house, which is what the prosecution say, that's not even that late. That's prime time. When everybody's at home, like, cooking dinner, like hanging out, nobody heard a thing. It's a detached shout, but it's like on a fucking street with other houses right next door. And also, if you smash four people's heads in, there's gonna be blood. Now, obviously, the prosecution say Chase Merritt had access to that house for days and days and days later before the McStay family even came by. He had ample time to clean up. And you're right, he did have ample time to clean up. And we will never know if he did a good job or not, because they didn't even use luminol.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

So it's quite hard to understand why the prosecution clings so tightly to the murders having happened in the house. Because the reality is there isn't any evidence that the McStays died there. In fact, the police brought in three cadaver dogs and they didn't strike anywhere on the property. So it's entirely plausible that the McStays were abducted from the house and killed somewhere else, likely in the desert or on the way. And we have no idea where the killing could have happened. And Chase's phone was conveniently off grid at the time the family vanished, but it did ping two days later, off a tower near where the bodies were found. Was that him going back to the scene of the crime to check on the bodies to make sure that they were still buried after some very heavy rainfall in the area? Maybe.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

And look, people will say, well, why would he be so careful as to put his. His phone off when he's going to the family's house to kill them? But then he's stupid enough to leave his phone on when he goes back there to check on the graves two days later? Maybe. Maybe. And look, I already said AT&T's coverage was their network was shit. So, like, can you take any of that seriously? I don't know. But it's not something that can just be ignored. And then there was a question of timing. The prosecution argued that the family had died on the night of the 4th of February, the last day the family was seen or heard from, while the defence claimed that whatever had happened to Summer and the kids must have happened on the morning of the 5th of February. So the next day, not the 4th. Why? Not because of forensics or anything like that, since their bodies had been in the ground for four years before they were found, but because in the kitchen, breakfast stuff was out. Milk, eggs, coffee. And. Yeah, okay, I get it. Like, I do find it hard to square all of that. And the reason the defence makes such a big deal of this is because if this timeline is correct and the family actually died or were abducted on the morning of the 5th as they were having breakfast, well, they could prove that Chase was driving to LA for a job on the morning of the 5th, so he couldn't possibly have killed or abducted them. So shifting that timeline even to the next morning is huge for them. Now, I don't think it was that impactful. I don't think it really landed with the jury because really all they have to point out is the fact that there's eggs out, there's coffee out, it looks like breakfast. But it was worth a shot from the defense because they are, after all, just trying to poke holes in everything that the state presented. I also did think it was weird that. Why has someone not got her glasses on if it's morning or night? Does morning make more sense that she hasn't put her glasses on yet because she's basically blind at night is what the family say, but she's not sat around in the house with the lights off. So I don't know. I really don't know when or where the family were killed. And that is one of the biggest, most confusing Things about this entire story.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

The big gotcha piece from the defence was DNA findings. The defense claimed that their forensics expert had found three unidentified DNA profiles in the items from the graves that didn't belong to Chase Merritt and didn't belong

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

to any of the victims.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Therefore, according to the defence, Chase couldn't be the killer. It's not how that works. And there were other issues as well, mainly because the bodies and items in the graves had been out in the desert for four whole years by the time they were found. There's very, very little usable DNA evidence in there. And so the defence had used the M Vac system on eight of the items found in and around the graves. They found DNA on five of the eight, including Summer's bra. But interestingly, they didn't test the sledgehammer, which is strange. If you're picking and choosing items to test, the first one's going to be the murder weapon, suspected murder weapon. M Vac is like a little tiny wet vacuum that sounds disgusting. That can be used to collect trace DNA samples from challenging surfaces. And the expert does cite this as a reason for why the sledgehammer wasn't processed, because the little wet hoover works best on ridged or porous materials, which a sledgehammer is not. But the expert did have to concede when the prosecution pointed out that the sledgehammer's handle is very obviously ridged, that it was ridged.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

And look, that's definitely a problem. But the bigger problem for me is that M Vac is quite notorious because while it is highly sensitive and can help experts get DNA profiles using smaller samples and like you said, off more challenging surfaces, it also massively increases contamination risk and can result in the recovery of complex, low quality mixed DNA profiles. So there's a big trade off when you're using an M Vac. And the thing that makes me really unconvinced by these mystery DNA samples is that the M Vac process didn't find Joe's DNA on things like the cord that had been tied around his own body. It also didn't find Summer's DNA on her own, brah. But it found mystery killer's DNA. Come on. It just. It just makes the whole thing seem like a total waste of time.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Yeah, I hate tiny wet hoover.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

The defense also tried to claim that the prosecution were refusing to have the DNA samples run through CODIS, which is obviously the FBI's DNA database. So the defense are basically like, we found these three unidentified samples. They are going to lead to the true killers of this situation. But the police and the prosecution refused to allow us access to CODIS because it's a scandal, which again, looks like the state trying to control the narrative and basically railroad Chase. But the prosecution made it clear that they couldn't run the MVAC DNA samples through CODIS because they were too low quality. And they explained this in a lot of detail. But basically, when you have like, very low quality DNA samples, like, you can't run it through CODIS because the computer would need to fill in too many of the missing gaps and then it would make it an unreliable test. They also pointed out, and this did make me laugh, the prosecution pointed out at trial, how the defense, when they found these three DNA samples, before they could check them against Chase, before they could, you know, do anything with them. They just know we found some DNA. They have to fill in paperwork at that point to say that they want to have it, you know, put forward to run through cotis. And they don't do that. And they're like, why didn't you do that? Is it because you didn't know it wasn't Chase's? And they're like, we didn't see the tick box.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

It's exactly what you want from your attorney. Yeah, but there is other DNA evidence that's worth discussing. Chase was asked if he had ever driven Joe's truck and he said no, he had not. But investigators found Chase's DNA on the McStay's steering wheel and gear stick. Defence claimed that it was just transfer DNA. Maybe Chase and he had shaken hands and then Joe drove home. But they did have to admit that the findings could also be consistent with someone attempting to wipe down the truck like you would if you were removing evidence.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Again, it's just confusing to me. I don't really know where to land on it because they do find it, but they do find Chase as a minor contributor. Summer and Joe's DNA shows up as major contributors. So it is a bit confusing. And also, I do think it's weird that maybe Chase just cleaned some bits of the truck better than others, but they don't find his DNA on, like the, the door handle to get into the driver's side. They only find it on the steering wheel and the gear shift, which, like, you could say he just wiped those bits down better. I don't know. It's such. It's not a huge amount of DNA. But it was quite funny to me. The prosecution had an expert in because the defense was saying it was just. It could just be transfer from Them shaking hands. This expert for the prosecution said, we did studies on the amount of DNA that was found on the steering wheel and the gear on the gear stick. And for that amount of transfer DNA to have happened, Joe and Chase would have had to shaken hands for two minutes straight. And I was like, again, how, like, provable is that? I don't know, maybe they were holding hands, I don't know. But I'm just gonna put everything out there because I don't want anyone to accuse me of leaving anything out. And I also can't allow myself to leave anything out because I have spent weeks learning all of this. So right now, let's get on to whose truck it was in the neighbor's CCTV footage. This turned into a huge thing at trial. Like we said, so many people in this bloody case drove white trucks. It literally could have been anyone. And also, the CCTV footage is basically just black with two headlights and, like, the outline of a white truck. Like, it is so hard to see anything definitive at all. So, yeah, I honestly don't know what I'm even looking at. The problem here at trial was that the prosecution had initially had an expert who was willing to testify that it was Chase's truck. But the problem for the prosecution was, during the course of this expert looking at the footage and taking his measurements and doing all that, the expert changed his mind and said, actually, it's definitely not Chase's truck. To me, that doesn't prove Chase is innocent or guilty, because like I said, I actually think it's just the McStay's truck. But the prosecution have to say it's Chase's truck to place him at the scene. So obviously, when the prosecution's expert turned around to them and said, I actually don't think it's Chase's truck, which is your entire argument. The prosecution were like, thanks for your help. We don't need you anymore. And they cut him loose. Now, this expert was shocked because he was actually offering his services pro bono. And he was like, in all my years of being an expert, I've never seen anything like this. And I was like, you've never seen anything like this? Of course they got rid of you because you were gonna say something that was completely opposed to their theory. Right. You can say that's poor work, which I would agree with. But of course, they're not going to let this guy testify. And the defense claimed at trial that not only had the prosecution cut this expert loose, but that they had hidden this evidence from them. Right. The defense found out that this expert had pulled out and they started calling for a mistrial, stating that this amounted to a Brady violation, which is basically when prosecutors come upon exculpatory evidence that would be useful for the defence and then don't share that information with the defence, because of course, in the US you have discovery and I kind of can see where they're coming from. But the judge ruled against a mistrial when the judge found out that the prosecutors had actually emailed the defense about this expert, saying that they weren't going to use him anymore, but that they were free to talk to him if they wished. And basically the prosecutor says, it's all very confusing. I don't really understand it, but if you want to talk to him, you can talk to him. Though it did look like they deleted a bunch of text messages from this expert where he's explaining to them why it's not Chase's truck. The prosecutor just says, I wanted to free up space in my phone, which does make it look a bit dodgy. And there are a lot of people who are very hot out there about this being a Brady violation, which is actually a felony. Wow. And a lot of people saying that the prosecutor should have actually gone to prison for this and saying that the judge was biased in their favor, blah, blah, blah. I don't know. The prosecution definitely did email the defense and say, you can have him, but they don't share details.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

And in the end, on 10 June 2019, the jury returned a verdict of guilty on all counts and Chase Merritt was sentenced to death. I always forget that California is a death penalty state.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

I mean, he's. He's not going to be executed, but yes, he is on death row.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

The guilty verdict, not really that surprising. Probably what convinced the jury was the irregular phone activity that was right around the time of the crime. Also, Chase lies a lot and there's all of that quickbook stuff and his phone pinging where it did, which was near the graves and his DNA was in Joe's truck. It is all circumstantial, but if you put it together, it's easy to see why the jury ended up feeling like they had beyond a reasonable doubt.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

I think the problem is right without another viable suspect who could also have gained from this because everyone is so certain that Dan was in Hawaii, I can see why the jury believe that nobody else could have done this other than Chase. With the evidence that they're presented with, I'm not surprised that they came back with guilty.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

The death penalty, though, is Quite surprising for a purely circumstantial case, but I think it can be put down to the emotion that anyone would feel around, like how violent the killings were and also babies.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Absolutely. This was a big, big, big case at the time. Like, Nancy Grace was talking about it every single night. Like, it was huge. People were very angry. And especially when a motive comes down to something like murder and you smash the heads of two children. And like, I think that's why the death sentence got the green light here. Now, look, I've said that I can understand why the jury got to a point where they were beyond reasonable doubt, but there are still a lot of questions that remain unanswered. Firstly, when and where was the family killed? Who dumped the McStays truck at the border? Because. And this is really important. And again, I just feel like this trial went on for six months and I feel so sorry for the jury. It was so much information to take in. I'm like, what do they even know to, like, focus on? I think the defense did a piss poor job and the prosecution were kind of dodgy. But this is really important. Potentially. The key to the McStay's truck was actually found in Joe's pocket, but it obviously wasn't him who parked the family's fucking truck at the border because he's buried 150 miles away from it. Now, obviously the key in Joe's pocket could have been a copy. They could have had two sets of keys, every docket. Yes, that's entirely possible. The other set of keys were never found. Or whoever did it could have kept the bodies somewhere for days, then dumped the truck, then planted the keys on Joe and then buried him in the desert. Again, I don't really know why you would go to that much effort, but again, it's enough to like, make things look a bit murky, which again, just highlights, I think, how much evidence was lost. I think the police just never found the kill site. I don't think the family were killed at the house. I think they were abducted from the house, but I don't think they were killed there. Which means there's a whole extra place, potentially with loads more evidence that the police never found. So this entire case you're dealing with investigating a quadruple homicide with an entire scene potentially missing, and with all the other evidence that you do have being four years too late. And I just think, oh, that makes me very uncomfortable when you're talking about a death penalty case. Now, this is also quite an interesting point and maybe Hannah, as A car driver. You can shed some more light on this. When they found the truck at the border, the seat had been set. The driver's seat had been set for someone far, far shorter than the detective who examined it. This detective was 6 foot 1. Chase, 6 foot 2. Joe, 5 foot 9. Summer, 5 foot 5. They estimated that the car had been set for somebody much less than 6 foot. So again, it asks the interesting question of if it wasn't Chase, who dropped the car off there? Because the seat would have been set for somebody who was 6 foot 2 who dropped the truck at the border. Some people suspect his girlfriend, Catherine Jarvis, who is not 6 foot 2. Policy. I just don't see it. I don't think so. I feel like their entire relationship with Catherine Jarvis trying to make Chase be a more responsible person. I don't see that she's suddenly just like, yeah, let's kill these people and I'll dump their truck there and whatnot. Like, she just doesn't strike me as that kind of person. I think she just wanted Chase to grow up and, like, be a good man and be a good husband and be a good father. I don't see her doing this. But then it does ask the question of who dumped the truck. I did wonder if it was towed away. Did they just tow the truck away, or does somebody get in and, like, move things around? Because then they could have. They could have been the ones that reset the seat

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

when your car gets towed, because no one's going to come and pick it up, are they? So maybe when it gets to, like, the impound lot or wherever they take it to.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

To drive it into a store, you

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

have to drive it to park it. So it is possible. Yeah. I also think. And obviously murdering someone is much ruder, but if you drive someone else's car and you don't put the seat back as you found it, I think that is so incredibly rude. It's so annoying. It's so annoying.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Yeah. I saw this thing, and it was like, you're being chased. You're running towards your car, and then it's like a guy opening the car, he's like, but your girlfriend drove the car last, and it's like this. So, yeah, I think a lot of people make a lot about this. They want to implicate Katherine Jarvis. I think it was just the person at the impound lot moving the car into a parking space. I don't think we have any proof that it wasn't set to chase. And look, a question I do still have is If Chase dumped the truck at the border, how did he get back? I don't know. They don't find any video footage of him dropping the car off. Obviously, if they did, that'll be a fucking. That'll be a fucking smoking gun. I don't know. I don't know. But look, the prosecution basically say at trial, we don't need to prove when or where or how the murders happened. We just need to prove that Chase is the killer.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

But then who was on the footage? Who got out of the truck?

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

They're basically saying, if you look at the footage, it's like the truck is backed into the. Like in front of the garage. So whoever abducted or moved the bodies out of the house could just have, like, done it through the garage into the cargo hold of the truck and then driven away, and you never see who's driving it.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

But, I mean, the. The four people at the border.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Oh, I don't know who they are. They're just randoms. They're just. They're just a random bunch of people. Random family that happened to be going into Mexico that vaguely fitted the physical type and makeup of this family.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

And they were vaguely near the truck.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

No, they're crossing the border nowhere near the truck. They're not getting out of the truck. It's just a family of four walking over the Mexican border. Oh, if they got out of the truck, I'd be like, that's why they think it's that family. No, no, they're just crossing the border two hours after the truck was parked there.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

And the how did the killer get back from the border? Question also opens up something else the prosecution did. Didn't really want to deal with. Was this quadruple homicide the work of one person or a pair of people? It's absolutely possible that one person could have done it alone. All they would have needed is a gun or a knife and some ropes. Maybe they threatened the family, maybe the kids, and then they forced one of the adults to tie the other one up, and then you can tie up the one who's done the tying, and then you drive off in the truck and you beat them to death with a sledgehammer.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

It's entirely possible. So many people online are like, this cannot have been the work of one person. How could one man control four people?

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Well, look, two of them are babies.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Exactly. What. What are we talking about? I really, really don't think it's that hard. People comply. Especially when their families are in danger. People comply because they think they're going to Survive. You take out Joe. He's the biggest threat. Once Joe's out. What's the challenge here? What's the challenge here? I think maybe maybe Joe was killed at the house because his body is treated differently, because it's wrapped in a cloth and bound up with cord. Is he killed first? We don't even know if he was killed days before. Probably not, because there's no calls that I found from Summer to Joe in that time being like, where the fuck are you? But is Joe killed first and then whoever's done it has done it at the house and then they have to kill Summer and the kids? I don't know, but it's certainly possible that one person did this.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Although a lot of people do suspect that Chase was working with someone else. Maybe Michael McStay.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

He's the favourite online. Chase and Michael as a team, which I'm like, really?

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

But if you do believe that story, usually the argument is that Chase kept pointing the finger at Dan at trial because he knew that he couldn't go after Michael McStay without implicating himself, because

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Michael was absolutely a viable suspect. But the defense had never, ever bring him up. They only ever go after Dan.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Chase and Michael McStay went to the house together when the family first went missing. But that doesn't mean they did it together.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

I don't really see it.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Although this theory does answer for some why the killer murdered the kids. Maybe some people find it easier to chalk that up to Michael McStay because they're related.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Well, I think it's because people are like, why'd you kill the kids? They're three and they're four. They couldn't identify a random person, but they could identify somebody they knew. If the killer was somebody the family knew, Uncle Michael or Uncle Chase, quote unquote, Uncle Chase. But, you know, the kids would have known them. So let's talk about what we think happened. I personally tend to agree with the prosecution's theory that Chase was a thief and that he got caught stealing from Joe. There had clearly already been issues with the quality of the products that Chase was, you know, delivering. And maybe Chase discovered that Joe had also asked his brother Michael to start learning to weld. And maybe he realized he was at risk of being axed and he tried to fill his boots with as much money as he could before that happened. But Joe worked it out and confronted him. Then there's a fight, because Chase knows that if Joe calls the police, he will be back inside. Because remember, he's got A record. He's out on probation. He knows it's going to be. It's going to be a bad time for him. So Chase kills Joe. Probably not in a planned way, but more of like spur of the moment fight when Joe confronted him. Because a lot of people like, is $42,000 really worth killing over? Like, you know, Joe was very understanding. Like he'd already lent him all this money. I'm sure Chase could have talked him round. Like, you know, it's not millions and I buy that. I don't think it was planned. I can see it have been like a fight that got out of control

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

and Joe's body is treated differently to the others.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Yeah.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

What's still quite sticky though, is why. And when did Chase kill Joe's family, Sama gianni and Joe Jr? Doesn't seem likely that Chase killed Joe when they met up because Joe was using SketchUp for hours afterwards and speaking to Chase on the phone, it feels too sophisticated a ruse for Chase to have manufactured.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Yeah, some people like, oh, he did kill him during that Chick Fil a meeting. And then he carried on calling him and using his laptop on SketchUp to make it look like Joe was still alive. I just don't think Chase was thinking about that.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

He can't even capitalize his own name.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

No.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

At best, we think Chase managed to talk Joe around at lunch and they were okay. And that's why Jo carried on working and calling Chase and discussing designs. But Chase knew that it would only be a matter of time before Joe realized that Chase was up to no good. So did Chase decide that killing Joe was his only option? Or did Chase go to them at St's house and they had a fight there and he. I don't know, he's worried about being discovered so he just decides to kill Summer and the kids as well.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

It's really weird. It's. It seems like such a weak motive.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Yeah, it really. I think that's the problem.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

It feels so weak. Whereas Dan Kavanagh's motive is so much stronger. Like he genuinely is entitled and psychopathic enough to believe that he deserves a share of this business, that he. Literally all he does is manage the fucking website. He has so much more to gain from this. But that doesn't necessarily mean just because somebody's got a stronger motive that somebody with a weaker motive didn't kill them. This could still have felt like high stakes for Chase. And another thing I do want to point out here, which again, not mentioned in the documentary, very, very buried down somewhere But Patrick, Joe's dad, did say that Joe didn't trust banks. Joe had been sued quite a few times and he had also gone bankrupt before and he didn't trust Mags. So according to Patrick, Joe kept quite a lot of money in his house in cash. Did Chase know that? Did Chase know that there was a big, big sum of money in the house that would provide a bit more motive for me than 42,000.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Yeah.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Dollars worth of debt. But I don't know. And look, when it comes to where did Chase do it, there was something interesting that I did hear in an interview. Right, Play you a clip now. And this comes from a police interview with Chase and he's talking about the last day that he saw Joe alive. The question from the detective is, when did you last see Joe? Now listen to it. As you're listening to it, I will point out the fact that Chase is asked, when did you last see Joe? But he's answering, when did I last talk to Joe? So let's listen.

[Chase Merritt (Interviewee)]

So, so what's the last time you. Actually, I knew you had seen him on a. Right. The last time I talked to him, he was sitting at his desk at home because I needed to talk to there. Was he. After we went over this stuff, there was still a question on the. Through box for the electrical on one of the waterfalls, but he had it at home. He had the drawings at home. So when he got there, he called me and we went over that fairly quickly. And he was sitting. I know he was sitting at his desk at home. And I could hear the kids in the background just like always. They were always screaming. But that was the last time we talked to him is probably If I were just 5ish. 5, maybe 5, 30ish.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

I don't know.

[Chase Merritt (Interviewee)]

He never said anything about going anywhere. There was a stressful situation.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Right.

[Chase Merritt (Interviewee)]

I talked to him at least twice on his way home.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

And look, that's the thing. He says, the last time I talked to him, he was sitting at his desk at home. How would you know that if you were just on the phone? He says, the last time I talked to him, he was sitting at his desk at home. And then he almost seems to catch himself because then he's really doubling down on it. And. Oh, he was sitting at his desk at home. I could hear the kids screaming in the background. Like they're always screaming. Like he's really trying to paint this picture of them just being on the phone. But then how would you know he was sitting at his desk? Maybe I'm reading too much into it, but it feels like you were looking at him sitting at his desk at home and that's the last time you saw him. Which would place chase at the McStays house, which he never tells anybody. He says they were only speaking on the phone. I don't know. It could again entirely be an over. Over scrutinizing of like a small thing that he says. But it is weird and I don't know. The whole thing is a very, very confusing case. Personally, I do think Chase probably did it, but Dan is so fucking dodgy, it's really hard to look away. I think for me, Dan had a lot more to gain financially from Joe's death. And there's nothing concrete about his alibi as to being in Hawaii. And also, Chase didn't have any violent record, whereas Dan Kavanaugh had two prior charges for domestic violence and drugs. You'll just look at Dan Cavanaugh and you can see he's. He's very drug addled, shall we say? And again, I'm not saying that it's impossible for Chase to have done this. There are so many wrong ends in this case, it is impossible to know for sure.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

And if anyone is wondering why on earth the defence didn't scream about Tracy Rickabenny, Dan's old friend that we told you about last week, who told the police that Dan had confessed to her. Well, they did tell the jury what she said, but decided against calling her to testify or even showing the jury her police interview. Maybe because it's because she doesn't come across as credible. Maybe she is, maybe she isn't. I'm not sure I will say something that came up when I did. Eddie Lee Sexton is. There were a lot of interviews with people in the book, which is where the evidence of, like, him killing cats and stuff like that came from. Those police interviews with people who knew him, neighbors, stuff like that. They weren't included at trial because the prosecution were like, there's one of them in particular. And they were like, she had mistrial written all over her. Too dangerous.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Yeah, yeah.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

And I can see that. Maybe I can say, I don't know

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

why the defense don't call. Well, other than the fact that she's unreliable. Yeah, because the prosecution are like, we don't fucking need you. You're not helping us at all. But the defense, if their whole argument is it's Dan, they've got somebody who's saying, dan confessed to me to doing these murders, but they never call her. They don't even show the video footage. And I think it's because, A, they were terrible defence attorneys and B, because I think they suspected that she just doesn't come across as very credible.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

I think it has to be that.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

So, yeah. Today, Chase Merritt is sat on death row in San Quentin. But like I said, it's much more likely that he'll probably just die before he's ever executed. And his daughter, who studied to become a lawyer, still advocates for her father. But to be honest, I don't see any movement on this case. And the McStays, well, they set up a memorial bench overlooking Joe, Summer Gianni and Joe Junior's favourite beach. And they say although this was never an outcome any of them even dreamed of, they can rest knowing at least Joe, Summer, gianni and Joe Jr are all together in heaven now. It's just a really sad story. And, like, look, whoever did it, if it was for money, like, it just is so diabolical. The only other people that, like, we haven't discussed in this is that there were some accusations that maybe Joe was mixed up in, like, drug running because he was delivering fountains all over the world. Were there cartels? Were there, like, people, you know, was he, like, slipping drugs into these shipments into these water features? Again, there's no evidence of that whatsoever. People are just saying it. There was also an accusation that he was suing a Mexican restaurant who had commissioned a water feature. They had fitted it and then they were refusing to pay for it. And there was accusations that that Mexican restaurant was actually run by a cartel that were using that restaurant to launder money. And I'm like, maybe, but why would they spend money on getting a water feature put in? It could just be a shitty restaurant that they launder money through.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

I simply must have a fountain.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

We have to make it look like people are coming here. So, again, no evidence for any of that. I think it's Dan or it's Chase and I honestly don't know who. What.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

After all this, I think the only thing I'm certain of is there is a massive piece missing. Yes, there is something we do not know. I think you're right. I don't think they ever found the kill site. I think it's out there somewhere covered in fucking evidence. I guess we'll never know.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

And look, I can understand why the jury convicted Chase, but it doesn't feel like the strongest conviction for me.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

No, I agree. Doesn't feel right.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

And I certainly don't think he should be on death row, but that's it, guys. That's it.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

There you go. Now you can go.

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Yes. Thank you all for coming. Listening to my TED Talk on the McStay family murders is a big one. Only have done it now.

[Saruti (Podcast Host)]

Goodbye,

[Hannah (Podcast Host)]

Sa.