Attorneys For Chase Merritt Twist Facts
This is how attorneys twist the facts:
Evidence against McStay family murder suspect Charles Merritt being challenged by attorney
By Joe Nelson | email@example.com | San Bernardino Sun
PUBLISHED: November 21, 2017 at 6:18 pm | UPDATED: November 22, 2017 at 6:45 am
"Maline said that DNA evidence was a trace amount and was likely mixed with that of Joseph McStay when the two last met up and shook hands following a business meeting at a Chick-fil-A restaurant in Rancho Cucamonga."
We are aware of the vehicle being located through a BOLO issued by the SDSD on February 15th that was towed on February 8, 2010. We also know on February 19th the warrants were served 11 days after the vehicle was said to have been towed from the San Ysidro Mall parking lot. We know that it was towed to an outside impound lot in San Ysidro the night of the 8th of February 2010, but was then towed to the San Diego Sheriff's Impound lot and held in an outside lot until at least the 19th when the warrants were served allowing the vehicle to be forensically tested and evidence collected.
Then we know it was there until the case was turned over to the FBI in April 2013 and all the evidence and the vehicle was turned over to the FBI. So what the public does not know is whether the vehicle was towed from the SD Sheriff's Impound Lot to a location the FBI held impounded vehicles in or if it was outside or inside during the time the FBI had custody of the vehicle.
Then we know that all the evidence and the vehicle were turned over to the San Bernardino Sheriff's Homicide in November 2013 when the remains were found in the desert in Victorville, located in San Bernardino County.
We now can surmise that the vehicle was towed at the least 3 and possibly four times before SB received the vehicle and at least 2 time before the SD Sheriff's Homicide forensics tests were performed on the vehicle for DNA and other evidence.
Here is what is so interesting about the defenses claims of the touch or trace DNA. It has been said by the defense that there was no DNA, either trace or touch found on the outside drivers door handle of the vehicle but there was DNA on the gearshift knob, heating/a/c controls and the steering wheel inside the vehicle. Statements claiming there was no DNA on the outside door handle but inside the vehicle actually make perfect sense if you use common sense and logic. You have to remember that the vehicle was towed at the least 3 times and possibly 4 times before the forensics examinations were done. Also the weather during that period was cold, raining and some days of mist and fog while being in the 40's to 50's.
It is a fact that rain water and rain water containing salt and other contaminates will remove DNA from surfaces exposed to the weather. It is also known that DNA cannot be collected as easily from smooth surfaces (such as paint auto body parts). Add to all of this that if it were raining, misty or foggy at any time the vehicle was towed, that absolutely would remove any dna even better than if it simply rained.
Just another flawed attempt by the defense to try to dissuade people from the truth. It is very simple if there were any DNA of any kind on the outside of the vehicle on any part of the vehicle, it would have been washed away which is probably why there was no DNA on the door handle.
Now it also is clear why the DNA was still on the inside of the vehicle. It was inside and protected from the weather. This shows you how the defense misleads and will try to twist and divert the facts and truth to create doubt.