Behind The Book With Caitlin Rother

Three years ago I did one of my first Q&As with New York Times Bestselling Author of True Crime Caitlin Rother. Now she has returned to doing this Behind The Book discussing her new book Down to the Bone, which will be released on June 24, wherever you get your books! 

Q: Caitlin, I’m glad you’re back! Can you give a brief description of Down to the Bone? 

A: It’s an investigative deep dive into the McStay family murder case. This family of four, with two little boys, mysteriously disappeared from their new house in Fallbrook, CA, in February 2010. The detective initially suspected foul play but spent the next three years investigating it as a missing person’s case. Four years after they went missing—and were featured on the cover of People magazine, their skeletal remains were found in two shallow graves in the Mojave Desert. A year later, one of Joseph McStay’s business associates was arrested, and he was ultimately convicted and sent to death row. This book examines the flaws in the two sheriff’s investigations, challenges the discrepancies in the evidence presented by the prosecution, and discusses the many questions that remain unanswered today.

Q: In the Acknowledgments & Author’s Note section you mentioned that you followed the McStay case from the beginning & read all 300+ pages of search warrant affidavits, attended the preliminary hearing, etc. What drew you to this case? How long did it take you to write this book? 

A: I started gathering research for this book soon after the family went missing, because the story was so strange, and the case got so much media attention. It’s very unusual for a whole family to just vanish like that, especially with two small children, so I could tell it was going to be a big, book-worthy case, and it was. The case went to preliminary hearing, but it dragged on for years as Merritt switched attorneys’ multiple times, which he even attempted to do again during his sentencing hearing. Once I got a contract, I wrote almost an entire book based on my initial research. But then, four months before my deadline, I managed to obtain discovery materials that I’d been trying to get for TWELVE YEARS: investigative files from both sheriff’s agencies that worked on this case, including investigative reports, witness interviews, and background information. This enabled me to weave in a ton of new behind-the-scenes details until it was a book and a half long, so I essentially had to rewrite the entire thing, and cut it down to one book. It’s a very messy case, with many twists and turns.

Q: What do you hope readers learn after reading Down to the Bone? 

A: I hope that this book makes people re-examine their pre-conceived notions about the case and its outcome and realize there was a lot going on behind the scenes and a slew of evidence that never was made public and/or allowed into the trial. The defense argued that their client, Charles “Chase” Merritt, was arrested and tried based on confirmation bias, which is when investigators or prosecutors grab on to one theory, premise, or suspect, and won’t move from that initial determination regardless of evidence to the contrary. I think this book helps to illustrates that contention, as does my previous book, Death on Ocean Boulevard, about the mysterious death of Rebecca Zahau, which was investigated by the same sheriff’s department in San Diego County.     

Q: How is this book different from your other true crime books?

A: This is the first time that one of my books has challenged the evidence gathered and presented at trial to such a degree, laying out the decisions made by investigators and prosecutors (and the judge) along the way, which led to a certain verdict. As a trained investigative journalist, I always try to remain objective, so I never take a position on guilt or innocence in my books. In fact, I try not to even form an opinion because I don’t want readers to read bias into my storytelling. This case, and therefore this book, was different from my previous titles in that there were discrepancies and holes in the prosecution’s case, which led some observers—and Merritt himself—to claim he was wrongly convicted. Let’s just say my previous titles did not motivate me to take that approach. I usually just laid out the evidence gathered by investigators and presented at trial, adding additional details from my own investigation and interviews. This case was just so messy, I wanted to show readers how and why that was, then let them make their own decisions on Merritt’s guilt or innocence.