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

[missy1974]

I haven't watched the last 2 days yet, but dine with a view was a bookmark accessed on Feb 4th I seem to recall. How do we know that wasn't a system scan also?

Probably because it wasn't 1 of 27000 files accessed within minutes of that bookmark being accessed. I believe the EnCase report Schroeder looked at during the break from the FBI had more detail. (this testimony is found at the end of part 1/beginning of part 2 from yesterday)

 

[Niner]

The witness, Detective Shroeder, testified on Thursday

I have him testifying on Wednesday - Day 18 per post #1281 - did he continue his testimony yesterday too?
I only have Hanke as testifying yesterday....

just want to keep it straight on my notes!

 

[katydid23]

I said I wondered about a missing laptop... I didn't say the defense did LOL They probably know exactly where it is otherwise I doubt they would have asked.

The knife was from us posters here, hearing it incorrectly ;-)

Listen, you can have your opinion, and you are free to have it. I am also free to have an opinion, and I'm also free to want more information before I form an opinion. I honestly can't see how anyone can form an opinion with the way this is trial is going, but hey, that's just my OPINION. Most here had made up their mind long before this trial started (whether guilt or innocence), some are just waiting to see the evidence and want to discuss it.

You make it sound like the defense is making stuff up, I don't think it's all made up, again MY OPINION. I noticed that everyone glossed over the fact that the defense got a STATE WITNESS to change his opinion about someone using the computer in the home on the 5th, why? because the State didn't give that witness the complete information. If it turns out by the end of the trial that I don't think he did it, I believe that will be my turning point. The defense is being deceptive and implying things? What about the State? Do they get a pass?

Yes. You wondered about a 'missing laptop' because they implied there was one. There might not even be one, or if there is one, it might be irrelevant. But it doesn't necessarily mean there is a laptop being hidden by the prosecution. JMO :-]

And the knife thing was not just us 'hearing it incorrectly.' That was purposely worded in such a way, as to make it sound like there was a knife, found buried in the grave. Pretty slick....JMO

I do agree with you that both sides are playing this game though. :-[

 

[Tortoise]

Probably because it wasn't 1 of 27000 files accessed within minutes of that bookmark being accessed. I believe the EnCase report Schroeder looked at during the break from the FBI had more detail. (this testimony is found at the end of part 1/beginning of part 2 from yesterday)

Ok thanks I'll wait to comment until I've caught up with watching testimony.

 

[missy1974]

So my question is how do you know enough to say DK accessed Joey's emails because Joey didn't keep his info private? These could be emails DK legitimately had knowledge of without hacking in which I think is the inference.

You are right, he may have had a legitimate reason. But he also may not have, we won't know until we see the evidence. I can see him having access to incoming emails, I can't see him having access to whatever Joey did with those emails, but maybe he did!

 

[missy1974]

I have him testifying on Wednesday - Day 18 per post #1281 - did he continue his testimony yesterday too?
I only have Hanke as testifying yesterday....

just want to keep it straight on my notes!

sorry... it's late here... it would be your Wednesday LOL

 

[missy1974]

Yes. You wondered about a 'missing laptop' because they implied there was one. There might not even be one, or if there is one, it might be irrelevant. But it doesn't necessarily mean there is a laptop being hidden by the prosecution. JMO :-]

And the knife thing was not just us 'hearing it incorrectly.' That was purposely worded in such a way, as to make it sound like there was a knife, found buried in the grave. Pretty slick....JMO

I do agree with you that both sides are playing this game though. :-[

IIRC after he asked about the laptop with the user Giuseppe Black (still not sure if it was black lol), he again asked "but you didn't know the FBI reports existed before he did his reports?" So I assume it's not really "missing". I sure hope not lol He mentioned the fbi reports a lot... I hope we get to hear more about them since they probably have way more info in them.

 

[mrjitty]

It will be rather funny at the end though if Chase doesn't testify and the judge has to instruct the jury there is nothing in evidence about call content and the defense can't use it in their closing. Would that be how it works?

In the procedure I am familiar with (which may be different) a High Court Judge would do a summing up to the jury.

It's quite a difficult area due to the right to silence. Ordinarily adverse comment cannot be made on failure of the accused to testify.

However I believe where the accused "speaks thru his attorney mouthpiece" - in essence the defence is asserting knowledge of the content of the conversations without placing the evidence before the Court.

So in such case I think the Judge could note in summing up that no such evidence as to the content of the conversations was produced, and the jury should therefore take note accordingly - provided he does not stray into making an adverse comment on failure of accused to testify.

 

[mrjitty]

lol I must be tired and it's time for bed... I don't understand your question? DK said that "emails were piling up and going unanswered". No specific email.

We have to be so careful with this kind of hearsay

He may have been referring to email conversations he was copied in

 

[Tortoise]

In the procedure I am familiar with (which may be different) a High Court Judge would do a summing up to the jury.

It's quite a difficult area due to the right to silence. Ordinarily adverse comment can not be made on failure of the accused to testify.

However I believe where the accused "speaks thru his attorney mouthpiece" - in essence the defence is asserting knowledge of the content of the conversations without placing the evidence before the Court.

So in such case I think the Judge could note in summing up that no such evidence as to the content of the conversations was produced, and the jury should therefore take note accordingly - provided he does not stray into making an adverse comment on failure of accused to testify.

Yes it's done differently in the States. Each side does a closing speech and then the judge instructs the jury on legal matters but he doesn't sum up the evidence.

 

[mrjitty]

Yes it's done differently in the States. Each side does a closing speech and then the judge instructs the jury on legal matters but he doesn't sum up the evidence.

At the end of the day, the Judge is responsible for procedure in his Court room and has lots of tools at his disposal to make sure matters are placed into evidence and not speculated into existence. Lots of this can happen in chambers and sidebars.

Of course there are dark arts where defence attorney can paint narratives somewhat beyond the scope of the evidence. This is the advantage of going second.

But my feeling is that like Justice Masipa in Pistorius, this is a weak and lazy judge, who isn't enforcing much legal rigour

One aspect of this is why the hell are so many interlocutory matters over admissibility happening on the fly.

 

[jackiekenn]

Is there not testimony that QBs sent 3 emails to joey - none of which were answered?

I have also seen no evidence that Joey's email was accessed

YES I remember this testimony clearly also he sent 3 email to CFM what chase acting as Joey on that phone call wanted to do with the QB and all 3 were never opened and followed through

 

[Bernina]

Right

As I understand it, an authorisation for the deletion was emailed to the master email address on the account.

As Chase did not have access to Joey's email, he could not progress it.

Authorization was emailed and 2 additional follow up notifications were sent out.

3 .........3 emails. 3 emails to the master admin of the Custom account.

So right, Chase has authorization from JM. In CM's dreams.

 

[Bernina]

We do not know that DK was fraudulently accessing his emails. He may have been, but maybe not. Maybe there are other ways that he knew the emails were piling up. I work a lot for my husband on his projects so many times people CC me on their work emails to him. If he wasnt answering his emails and they were piling up, I'd know about it, but I don't have his password.

And yes, his QB was accessed by Chase. Chase is a long time conman/grifter/thief. Joey was not. So Chase got one over on him for sure.

But that doesn't mean that Joey voluntarily gave his passcodes or log in info to Chase. JMO

Dk would be not be looking at emails to the master admin, he was probably talking about emails to the EIP web site. There would be no reason for emails to be going to the master admin about EIP when that email was for Quicken.

 

[TessDeco]

Maybe Dan included an email counter app on the EIP website where he could see the number of new EIP "emails piling up" but couldn't actually access the email account itself? IDK. Just a guess.

Happy Friday!

 

[oceanblueeyes]

mrjitty said: ↑
While I am all for discussing theories, currently I attach no seriousness to the idea that Chase was authorised to create these cheques for the following reasons

1. The obvious prima facie conclusion is these cheques are fraudulent - that natural inference holds until disturbed

2. A course of dealing in running the custom account including deleting cheques actually cashed cannot be spoken into existence by defence counsel

3. Such course of dealing must be evidenced at trial - burden is on the defence to raise it as an issue

4. Such course of dealing cannot be evidenced by experts - it must be evidenced by those with direct knowledge e.g Testimony from CM

I feel like we are going down a rabbit hole that the defendant himself will not testify to.



The sentence that you bolded is in the context of the previous one. It does not imply that, legally, a defendant isn't considered innocent until guilty. Kindly re-read entire text and respond to its meaning. (I don't mean to say that you are deliberately changing its meaning.)

And whereas you find that the emphasis of this thread is "CM is guilty, go ahead and try to prove him innocent", I really beg to differ. I find that most here are quite willing to entertain State's evidence that seems questionable and to evenly consider all of it. I find some excellent minds here, and am quite impressed most of the discussion for or against said evidence.

As far as who else may have wanted this family to disappear -who knows? Many people, perhaps. Many people may want me to disappear. But what does that have to do with all of the circumstantial evidence that points to Chase Merritt being responsible: Writing himself/cashing checks from Joey's account without being able to provide evidence (at least so far) that he was authorized to do so, right at the time the family went missing; his DNA found in the truck; his statements that he was the last person to see them; the bodies being buried near a place he had a connection to (and his phone pinged near shortly after the family were seen alive) etc., etc., etc.

I find the State's case quite compelling so far, FWIW.

Morning Fridaybaker!

So do I. Very compelling, and getting more so as each day passes.

Among trying to read through what all was testified to yesterday, with some thinking something was said, but not sure, makes it so confusing for me to really even know what was testified to in its entirety.

This absolutely is the worst trial I've ever followed.

But out of what I could make out that came out yesterday, the piece of evidence that stood out to me the most was shorty after the McStays went missing CM was looking up how to go to Mexico, and create a false identity.

If I even have that right, since I've become quite confused the longer this goes on with some posting certain things, and then others have a totally different view of the same testimony.

But there is no way I can endure the live streaming of this trial. One thing that drives me bonkers is when the commentators talk endlessly right in the middle of when testimony is ongoing.

It's like they think the viewers are too stupid to think for themselves, and at times the chatting parrots have their own biased slant.

Anyway, that was the piece of evidence I found most compelling even though others were also important.

Imo

 

[oceanblueeyes]

At the end of the day, the Judge is responsible for procedure in his Court room and has lots of tools at his disposal to make sure matters are placed into evidence and not speculated into existence. Lots of this can happen in chambers and sidebars.

Of course there are dark arts where defence attorney can paint narratives somewhat beyond the scope of the evidence. This is the advantage of going second.

But my feeling is that like Justice Masipa in Pistorius, this is a weak and lazy judge, who isn't enforcing much legal rigour

One aspect of this is why the hell are so many interlocutory matters over admissibility happening on the fly.

The state's closing is always in two parts.

The state goes first, then the defense follows, but then the state gets back up and finishes the second part of their closing at the end before jury instructions.

This happens because it's the state who has the legal burden of proof,

Imo

 

[JMarsh]

Authorization was emailed and 2 additional follow up notifications were sent out.

3 .........3 emails. 3 emails to the master admin of the Custom account.

So right, Chase has authorization from JM. In CM's dreams.

Chase never claimed to have Master Administrator authorization. He was only attempting to cancel the on-line Quickbooks account specific to his work with Joey: CUSTOM. He and Joey may not have realized that Chase would need the master authorization info to do this OR Chase was setting things in motion and believed Joey would take care of that end of things when he reappeared.

It all seems pretty innocent to me.

 

[JMarsh]

Morning Fridaybaker!

So do I. Very compelling, and getting more so as each day passes.

Among trying to read through what all was testified to yesterday, with some thinking something was said, but not sure, makes it so confusing for me to really even know what was testified to in its entirety.

This absolutely is the worst trial I've ever followed.

But out of what I could make out that came out yesterday, the piece of evidence that stood out to me the most was shorty after the McStays went missing CM was looking up how to go to Mexico, and create a false identity.

If I even have that right, since I've become quite confused the longer this goes on with some posting certain things, and then others have a totally different view of the same testimony.

But there is no way I can endure the live streaming of this trial. One thing that drives me bonkers is when the commentators talk endlessly right in the middle of when testimony is ongoing.

It's like they think the viewers are too stupid to think for themselves, and at times the chatting parrots have their own biased slant.

Anyway, that was the piece of evidence I found most compelling even though others were also important.

Imo

It helps if you present the actual information. It was NOT right after the family went missing that Chase took screen shots with his phone of the graves or of an article that was again NOT about changing identity in general, but was instead an article about the McStays and whether they had changed their identity. And all this took place right after the bodies were found in 2013.

The pictures Chase took of the graves and of the tire tracks were probably for the book he intended on writing. In fact some of those pictures, I suspect were included in the Daily Mail article on Chase and his possible book.

 

[JMarsh]

From what I saw of Hanke today... his demeanor and his professionalism is how I expect a law enforcement officer to be on the stand I liked him... and I think he is likeable, the pro's needed a likeable officer up there lol I liked Schroeder as well, although he seemed bored as heck sitting there LOL

If investigators erred here, it doesn't also follow that they are bad investigators. I totally get why they thought Chase did this. My concern, though, is that they didn't dig deeper into the evidence to be absolutely certain.

So much time is lost on these investigations if they pursue a conviction and the person in their crosshairs is the wrong person. If Chase is innocent, even more evidence has been lost in the last four years. I think when it comes to digital forensics, of all kinds, the counties have to hire more expertise. They need to hire consultants who specialize in the engineering around ping data and in digital forensics.