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

[mrjitty]

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

One thing that drove me round the bend of the pistorius case is I don't believe the various clocks used to time events were ever synced

So if you are comparing the time on a computer to a time on a video camera to a network time on a mobile network you really want to know how those clocks compared to absolute local time!

 

[JMarsh]

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

Ha. Point taken.

 

[JMarsh]

One thing that drove me round the bend of the pistorius case is I don't believe the various clocks used to time events were ever synced

So if you are comparing the time on a computer to a time on a video camera to a network time on a mobile network you really want to know how those clocks compared to absolute local time!

That's a really important point. But if investigators didn't make certain the times of events were accurate, then what does that say about their investigation overall?

 

[Alf]

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.

This is enough evidence for you that this man murdered, covered up, and buried 4 human beings?

 

[mrjitty]

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.

Contemporaneous notes are the awesome

As a baby lawyer this was drummed into my head on day one.

Stop everything and write that letter to the Judge!

In 9 years time he will read it!

 

[Alf]

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)

1000% agree.

 

[dlkutac]

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.

The check number that pops up is the next sequential number after the last number which was printed or input into the system, even if you enter them out of order. So, if one day you print/input check number 305, the next time you use it, it will auto fill with 306. If five days later you print or input check number 267, the next time you use the system it will auto fill with 268. It can easily be overridden.

 

[JMarsh]

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.

Or it indicates that there is something off in the interpretation of the computer forensic evidence. Encase is a basic program. It shows usage in a very linear manner. It doesn't necessarily relate the whole story of what transpired with a computer at a given time and date. For that information you need a true computer "wonk" someone who knows all the variables. I don't think the state ever employed anyone like this to analyze their Encase findings.

As in, maybe the state got it wrong.

 

[JMarsh]

The check number that pops up is the next sequential number after the last number which was printed or input into the system, even if you enter them out of order. So, if one day you print/input check number 305, the next time you use it, it will auto fill with 306. If five days later you print or input check number 267, the next time you use the system it will auto fill with 268. It can easily be overridden.

Interesting. But why would the same check number pop up, when there had been other checks generated in the interim, between when the number first shows up, and when it shows up again?

 

[katydid23]

This is enough evidence for you that this man murdered, covered up, and buried 4 human beings?

Did I say this was enough evidence?
NO, I said it was damning evidence because it puts Chase in the McStay home, on the 4th, when he told LE he had his last contact with Joey at 3 pm.

So it shows that Chase lied, and that he was actually in the home, at the time some say the family vanished. And he was in the home, creating checks made out to himself. He wrote out fraudulent checks totaling to 15k that week.

 

[mrjitty]

Ha. Point taken.

I am old fashioned but High Court Judges back in my day would take a dim view of these sorts of arguments if the defence do not call the one guy who has personal knowledge of all these things.

Fine to call your experts and muddy the waters but counsel cannot start trying to put in evidence matters that exist only within the personal knowledge of the accused.

 

[thelmadawg]

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.

Then let's hope the circumstantials are 1) incontrovertible and 2) presented in a lucid narrative that is absolutely clear to the average juror. I'm a bit worried.

 

[katydid23]

Or it indicates that there is something off in the interpretation of the computer forensic evidence. Encase is a basic program. It shows usage in a very linear manner. It doesn't necessarily relate the whole story of what transpired with a computer at a given time and date. For that information you need a true computer "wonk" someone who knows all the variables. I don't think the state ever employed anyone like this to analyze their Encase findings.

As in, maybe the state got it wrong.

I don't think one has to be an advanced expert to see what day the name 'chase merritt' was added, or to see if a check was deleted or not.

I bet they had those facts correct. JMO

 

[mrjitty]

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)

IMO the how and where doesn't matter - it was achieved by someone.

 

[mrjitty]

Then let's hope the circumstantials are 1) incontrovertible and 2) presented in a lucid narrative that is absolutely clear to the average juror. I'm a bit worried.

After the Pistorius case I have given up on the idea that even incontrovertible evidence is enough

 

[JMarsh]

I am old fashioned but High Court Judges back in my day would take a dim view of these sorts of arguments if the defence do not call the one guy who has personal knowledge of all these things.

Fine to call your experts and muddy the waters but counsel cannot start trying to put in evidence matters that exist only within the personal knowledge of the accused.

I have some theories about Chase, that I cannot really support, but I do think for a number of reasons, he might not make a good witness, even if innocent. And if he takes the stand that might open the door up to his past, which would be highly prejudicial to his case.

I actually think the defense is doing a good enough job in their rebuttal, that Chase won't need to take the stand. I believe the story the defense wants told, is being told. And it is convincing.

And though this next might seem contradictory to arguments I'm making now, I was once 100% convinced of Chase's guilt. I was sure he did it. The state's narrative is what started me questioning my beliefs.

 

[katydid23]

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.

Moving one's truck out of the driveway is not necessarily the same was 'returning' to the scene of the crime. If he wasnt done yet, then he wasnt returning, he was just moving things around. JMO

 

[JMarsh]

Moving one's truck out of the driveway is not necessarily the same was 'returning' to the scene of the crime. If he wasnt done yet, then he wasnt returning, he was just moving things around. JMO

Why would he do this? He's not moving an armoire, he's moving four people he just murdered. Why return to write a check he could have written from home?

Really stop and think about that for a moment.

 

[Mony Mony]

Re: the vanished QB recording.
I am wondering if the call was destroyed because the caller (Chase) was not advised the call was being recorded. I work with a large company that records calls, but we have to provide the disclaimer or else the call is not useable. I don’t know if they are destroyed, but if an issue arises and the caller was not informed of the recording, we cannot continue listening to the recording.

 

[JMarsh]

I don't think one has to be an advanced expert to see what day the name 'chase merritt' was added, or to see if a check was deleted or not.

I bet they had those facts correct. JMO

But you might need to be an advanced expert to properly interpret what it means.