CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #6

[JMarsh]

The murderer didnt 'return' to the home, he was already there. JMO

Not according to the state. The state has Chase Merritt's truck (they claim it is his anyway) leaving the McStay residence at 7:47-then Chase is suddenly on the computer by 7:56.

He had to have returned in some manner.

 

[Tortoise]

The check written (maybe on the 4th) was never printed.

Why would a killer risk returning to the home in which he murdered four people, to write a check he does not even bother to print-and could have written from home?

Do you know if there was ink in the printer?

 

[JMarsh]

Alert:

The check written on Feb 1 and the Check written on Feb 4 have the exact same check #.

 

[JMarsh]

Do you know if there was ink in the printer?

What does that matter? Why write a check in a location where if you are discovered you are certainly in deep doo doo. When you know (and this is from state's evidence) that you can write that very same check and print it, from home?

Chase wrote checks previously that week from a location NOT in the McStay residence. He just bashed in the heads of four people. The house is a mess, he is covered with blood, he just drove his truck away and he comes back to what? Write a check?

Why?

 

[thelmadawg]

But where is the evidence anyone cleaned that home after the family left it?

That's what has been driving me bonkers! I can see that a tile floor replacement woulda-coulda covered up any blood evidence. But with current technology, one would think the walls would show some evidence - yet this potential evidence was somehow successfully covered up - no matter who the culprit.

As an aside, I also don't see how four bodies were removed from the house to the driveway and the truck without a strong possibility of detection. It's among the reasons I've always felt he (i.e. the culprit) accessed the rear of the house to remove the bodies. Sigh . . .

 

[Mica]

They kind of are, but are out of order. But the check written on Feb 1 & the check written on Feb 4 have the exact same check #.

Interesting, I wasn’t aware of this.

 

[mrjitty]

That's what has been driving me bonkers! I can see that a tile floor replacement woulda-coulda covered up any blood evidence. But with current technology, one would think the walls would show some evidence - yet this potential evidence was somehow successfully covered up - no matter who the culprit.

As an aside, I also don't see how four bodies were removed from the house to the driveway and the truck without a strong possibility of detection. It's among the reasons I've always felt he (i.e. the culprit) accessed the rear of the house to remove the bodies. Sigh . . .

I know these aspects are difficult - but the point is these things must have happened no matter who did the murders

Either they were killed in the house, or abducted from it.

The exact method makes no difference to the case. The killer achieved that.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

hmm but people are charged with multiple crimes along with murder all the time, they don't drop those charges because murder is on the table.

Sometimes they dont for there really is no need.
There can't be a more serious charge than 4 premeditated murders with the death penalty attached if convicted.

They were going after the meat, and potatoes and not other lessor charges.

Same thing happened in the Scott Dyleski murder trial. He had committed credit card fraud. LE investigated that, and found he had indeed done that crime , yet they only charged him with first degree murder, and he received LWOP. Another CA case.

They did however have the investigators testify to it like they have done in this case because the judge ruled it was relevant since it was occurring around the same time he plotted and murdered his victim.

Imo

 

[JMarsh]

Interesting, I wasn’t aware of this.

I wasn't either until someone here did a fantastic job of transcribing the prosecutions opening statement. The check written on the 1st is 4093 so is the check written on the 4th.

But that check number is sequentially earlier in order than any of the checks known to be generated by either Joey or Chase in that time frame.

Joey's checks are from in 4100 range; Chase's 4200

 

[citygirl]

We know he made the call. That's it. That's all we know for certain.

We know that Baker claims he believed he was speaking to Joseph McStay. But we don't know much about Baker. We have no real way of determining how accurate Baker was then, or now.

A recording would have cleared up the mystery. Why wasn't that recording secured by investigators?

Good question. I was waiting for that to be discussed further. Difficult time following with audio not so good and having to reboot. Could it be that so many years had passed and it was recorded over? Dunno. Also curious about the questioning by DT about a phone call the day before to a Mr Augustus (I think)? They touched on it but it wasn't clear. Maybe I should look on Law and Crime.

 

[Mica]

I know these aspects are difficult - but the point is these things must have happened no matter who did the murders

Either they were killed in the house, or abducted from it.

The exact method makes no difference to the case. The killer achieved that.

I don’t believe they were killed in the house. I think the state has that wrong just as with the futon cover, IMO. I believe they were either abducted against their will and killed elsewhere, or as Mike said, “they were lured out of the house by somebody they were comfortable with..” (Steph Watts video Part 1)

 

[Mica]

I wasn't either until someone here did a fantastic job of transcribing the prosecutions opening statement. The check written on the 1st is 4093 so is the check written on the 4th.

But that check number is sequentially earlier in order than any of the checks known to be generated by either Joey or Chase in that time frame.

Joey's checks are from in 4100 range; Chase's 4200

What do you make of this?

 

[JMarsh]

Good question. I was waiting for that to be discussed further. Difficult time following with audio not so good and having to reboot. Could it be that so many years had passed and it was recorded over? Dunno. Also curious about the questioning by DT about a phone call the day before to a Mr Augustus (I think)? They touched on it but it wasn't clear. Maybe I should look on Law and Crime.

Law & Crime has a youtube channel. You probably know this already, but you can search "mcstay" and the videos will pop up.

 

[Bernina]

We know he made the call. That's it. That's all we know for certain.

We know that Baker claims he believed he was speaking to Joseph McStay. But we don't know much about Baker. We have no real way of determining how accurate Baker was then, or now.

A recording would have cleared up the mystery. Why wasn't that recording secured by investigators?

2 Q (By Mr. Daugherty) He remembered the call?
3 A Yes, he did.
4 Q It was unusual?
5 A Yes.
6 Q What did he tell you about the phone call?
7 A He stated it was associated with a cell phone number,
8 which cell phone number was Charles Merritt's cell phone number.
9 Q When you say "associated," did the call come from
10 (909) 374-0102?
11 A That's correct.
12 Q He told you that?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Did he tell you whether the person identified himself as
15 someone who worked with Joseph McStay?
16 A He told me the caller identified himself as Joseph
17 McStay.
18 Q And what else did he tell you about the phone call?
19 A He said that he wanted to -- the caller was identifying
20 himself, saying that he wanted to transfer the account to
21 another account, and then once it was transferred and this
22 subscription was canceled, that he needed to delete all of the
23 accounts.
24 Q Now, you reviewed his notes. These were typewritten
25 notes?
26 A Yes, I did.
27 Q Did he say he wrote those?
28 A He did.
State of California VS Charles Ray Merritt: Part Four - Transcript of Charles Merritt Preliminary

So without a recording, the 107 minute conversation memorialized by Ryan Baker in typewritten notes (February 9th, 2010) with an individual claiming to be "Joseph McStay", using Chase Merritt's cell phone (per Chase Merritt's cell phone records) is a "mystery".................?

IMO, I don't see a mystery.

 

[JMarsh]

What do you make of this?

I'm not sure. Because if there was a default check number that just popped up, whenever a check was written on that account, I would think it would be something like 4000. It's odd that is is 4093. That seems very specific.

I really don't know what to make of it.

 

[JMarsh]

2 Q (By Mr. Daugherty) He remembered the call?
3 A Yes, he did.
4 Q It was unusual?
5 A Yes.
6 Q What did he tell you about the phone call?
7 A He stated it was associated with a cell phone number,
8 which cell phone number was Charles Merritt's cell phone number.
9 Q When you say "associated," did the call come from
10 (909) 374-0102?
11 A That's correct.
12 Q He told you that?
13 A Yes.
14 Q Did he tell you whether the person identified himself as
15 someone who worked with Joseph McStay?
16 A He told me the caller identified himself as Joseph
17 McStay.
18 Q And what else did he tell you about the phone call?
19 A He said that he wanted to -- the caller was identifying
20 himself, saying that he wanted to transfer the account to
21 another account, and then once it was transferred and this
22 subscription was canceled, that he needed to delete all of the
23 accounts.
24 Q Now, you reviewed his notes. These were typewritten
25 notes?
26 A Yes, I did.
27 Q Did he say he wrote those?
28 A He did.
State of California VS Charles Ray Merritt: Part Four - Transcript of Charles Merritt Preliminary

So without a recording, the 107 minute conversation memorialized by Ryan Baker in typewritten notes (February 9th, 2010) with an individual claiming to be "Joseph McStay", using Chase Merritt's cell phone (per Chase Merritt's cell phone records) is a "mystery".................?

IMO, I don't see a mystery.

Yeah. And for all we know the guy smoked weed all day. The fact that he wrote it up, doesn't mean he was accurate. And if he was so concerned, why not inform a supervisor?

There was no opportunity to really challenge Baker or his memory. I feel bad for the guy, but he is testifying to something that could get a man put on death row-he has to be able to be properly cross examined.

 

[JMarsh]

I don’t believe they were killed in the house. I think the state has that wrong just as with the futon cover, IMO. I believe they were either abducted against their will and killed elsewhere, or as Mike said, “they were lured out of the house by somebody they were comfortable with..” (Steph Watts video Part 1)

I had previously thought that the idea that they were lured somewhere, not possible, but as I look closely at the very first pictures taken of that home-the ones taken before Dugal arrives-that home looks to me as if no one but the family had been in it.

 

[Plumeria5]

Deleted. I found the answer.

 

[katydid23]

They kind of are, but are out of order. But the check written on Feb 1 & the check written on Feb 4 have the exact same check #.

Interesting. Kind of damning evidence against Chase, imo.
--The checks created on the 1st were not created on the McStay's computer.
--Both checks created on the 1st were deleted.
--Feb 1st was the day that the name 'chase merritt' was added to the custom account.

So IF Chase is telling the truth that he was told to do so, then that was him who made that addition of his name.
And on the 2nd, one of these checks was created again AND CASHED BY CHASE ON THE SAME DAY.

Monday February 1, 2010
12:24 pm Someone logged into Joseph McStay’s Inuit account and created for a new account for a “chase merritt”. There was already an account for “Chase Merritt”.

12:34 A check is produced to “chase merritt” for the amount of $2500. The memo line had “deposit”.

12:37 An identical check was produced.

12:47 The user deletes the check produced at 12:37.

12:52 The user deleted the check produced at 12:34.

Tuesday February 2, 2010

11:27 am Intuit user Joseph McStay created check for “chase merritt” for $0.00 with “deposit, sa, 1001” on the memo line. Check printed.

11:29 Check created for “chase merritt” for the amount of $2495.

11:34 Check for $2495 is deleted.

None of these transactions occurred on any of the McStay computers.

Check for $2495 was cashed by Chase Merritt at Union bank on this day.

Charles Ray Merritt: Timeline of Evidence in the McStay Family Murders


SO THAT IS VERY REVEALING THAT THE CHECK FROM THE 1ST IS THE SAME NUMBER AS THE CHECK FROM THE 4TH. THAT TIES Chase to the creation of the check on the 4th.

 

[mrjitty]

We know he made the call. That's it. That's all we know for certain.

We know that Baker claims he believed he was speaking to Joseph McStay. But we don't know much about Baker. We have no real way of determining how accurate Baker was then, or now.

A recording would have cleared up the mystery. Why wasn't that recording secured by investigators?

If only there was another witness who could testify as to what happened on the call and what he was doing with all these cheques