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

[Bernina]

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.

Anyone. who has used Quickbooks, knows you have to add a person to the account and give that individual specific access to manipulate those accounts. It's the same with managing a web site, your email account, your online banking, your online bill paying...............

It's NOT innocent to me.

 

[missy1974]

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

BBM above
Good morning ocean!

To clarify... he looked it up shortly after the bodies were found. The false identity thing, it sounded like it was something connected to an article about the McStay's. AND... it should be said again, this was NOT in testimony, not yet. It was information that we heard before testimony during a motion hearing.

The live stream was awful the last few days, I sure hope they get it together for next week, they have a 4 day weekend again, someone somewhere should be able to figure it out... or I'm going to send @mrjitty in to fix it LOL L&C put their livestream with the commentators on yesterday because it was a better feed, but they did have just the live testimony feed still at the bottom of the page (had to scroll down to find it)

 

[JMarsh]

This is why I get so anorak nerdish about evidential procedure. We have to be very focussed on what things are in evidence, before we jump to the process of inference.

To my mind the prosecution have proven a number of facts which give rise to a natural and obvious inference of fraud by chase.

So you might say, this is now a prima facie conclusion the jury can and should reach unless and until the defence proves some facts going the other way.

mere speculation about advanced accounting strategies and DK access belongs on websleuths rather than in the Courtroom, unless the defence can raise these things as live issues at trial via evidence.

What precisely has the prosecution proven?

 

[JMarsh]

Anyone. who has used Quickbooks, knows you have to add a person to the account and give that individual specific access to manipulate those accounts. It's the same with managing a web site, your email account, your online banking, your online bill paying...............

It's NOT innocent to me.

I have used quickbooks. In much in the same way that Chase and Joey appear to have been using it. I'm not seeing what is suspicious about it. And all the above that you give an example of, IS what happened. Joey appears to have given Chase access to the second account, Joey just didn't add a new license to his account.

What I suspect is that Joey wanted Chase to have his own account, and maybe even start paying for it himself. Which is why Joey put Chase to the task of setting up his own desktop version. That's speculative on my part. But that seems to be where the Quickbooks accounts were headed: Two completely separate desktop accounts.

 

[Bernina]

I have used quickbooks. In much in the same way that Chase and Joey appear to have been using it. I'm not seeing what is suspicious about it. And all the above that you give an example of, IS what happened. Joey appears to have given Chase access to the second account, Joey just didn't add a new license to his account.

What I suspect is that Joey wanted Chase to have his own account, and maybe even start paying for it himself. Which is why Joey put Chase to the task of setting up his own desktop version. That's speculative on my part. But that seems to be where the Quickbooks accounts were headed: Two completely separate desktop accounts.

All of this....according to CM, a known con and liar.

NOTHING shows that Joey gave Chase permission. If there had been permission, Joey would have added Chase on as an admin. You can't argue that Joey DID add him as a admin, where's your proof?
Nothing indicates that was the direction the Quickbooks account was "going".

Has anyone testified "Oh, yeah, Joey made Chase an admin on the Custom account", "Joey gave Chase permission to write checks", "Joey's going to setup Chase on his Quickbook accounts"?

Chase wasn't even a PARTNER in EIP. Did he make a monetary investment? Was he going to buy part of EIP from Joey? Was his name on the business registry?

He was nothing more than the guy who did the plumbing and lights for the fountains. Metro was doing all the welding. Anyone who's had a fish tank and strung Christmas lights, with a bit of hands on training, could figure out his job.

All Chase looks like to me is a glorified gopher. He's a legend in his own mind.

 

[A lucas]

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.

So on week one Joey gives CM all his access details to his custom account and gives the fraudulent and distrustful sub contractor a masterclass on how to create cheques, delete them, sign them on his behalf.

After all that effort, on week two he asks CM to cancel said account.

And all this just happened to be when the family were slaughtered and put in the desert.

May sound innocent to you but sounds like pure fiction to me.

 

[Bernina]

If JM's check book was found in the Trooper, CM could have forged the $100 (some have said $200) check CM claims JM gave him on the meeting of the 4th.
JM had no reason to give CM a check for $100.

 

[mrjitty]

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.)

It's my fault for getting too far into the weeds

I guess the tldr version is "he who asserts must prove"

One of the most common examples of this is alibi evidence. It doesn't do to waltz into Court and have your attorney announce it wasn't you at the murder because you were at home at the time. You will need evidence if you want your alibi to be seriously weighed.

Where this stuff gets interesting is if the defence can indeed produce enough evidence to raise something as a real issue (e.g. DK did it) the onus will then be on the prosecution (as usual) to disprove it.

So you still only need enough evidence to raise doubt.

 

[missy1974]

If JM's check book was found in the Trooper, CM could have forged the $100 (some have said $200) check CM claims JM gave him on the meeting of the 4th.
JM had no reason to give CM a check for $100.

That cheque was from February 2nd. Deposited on Feb. 3rd, was used to open a new account.

 

[ThorJanus]

What precisely has the prosecution proven?

I have tried to follow this trial but just don't have the stamina. At this moment as much as one does not like the way CM looks or the suspicious actions, he does have a defense. At this point I just want to reiterate that he is still innocent until proven guilty. We only have an alleged cell tower ping close to the grave sites. So far I do not believe the prosecutor has presented this as evidence. Still waiting.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

BBM above
Good morning ocean!

To clarify... he looked it up shortly after the bodies were found. The false identity thing, it sounded like it was something connected to an article about the McStay's. AND... it should be said again, this was NOT in testimony, not yet. It was information that we heard before testimony during a motion hearing.

The live stream was awful the last few days, I sure hope they get it together for next week, they have a 4 day weekend again, someone somewhere should be able to figure it out... or I'm going to send @mrjitty in to fix it LOL L&C put their livestream with the commentators on yesterday because it was a better feed, but they did have just the live testimony feed still at the bottom of the page (had to scroll down to find it)

Thank you Missy! Unfortunately, I don't have time to sitdown, and listen the hours it would take to do so. That's why I'm in, and out of this forum every day.

But that makes no sense to me. Maybe I'm missing something though. This is without a doubt the most confusing trial I've ever in my life tried to follow.

The tweets are almost nonexistent, and when they are posted it's just short snippets among hours of testimony.

Other than that , I am having to rely on how posters interpret the testimony, and that isnt even consistent either.

Why wasn't it entered? It certainly is a very important piece of CE?

What doesn't make sense to me is why would he have anything relating to creating a fake identity after they were discovered.

If this was done shortly after their bodies were discovered how does fake identities even come into the equation since the bodies were the McStay family?

Did they show the actual news article where it stated in it anything about fake identities. If it came from an article the state would have presented that. Who in court said it came from a new article? If it was in an article then why would he have the need to search fake indenties?

Did it show a pic of the article he had where it stated anything in it about creating a fake identity, and the discovery of their bodies? Is there a link to this news article?

I know you don't agree, but the timing of when he supposedly did this is very important especially after he knew the bodies were no longer secreted away.

As an aside. JMarsh I don't see the need to berate me. I clearly said in my prior post, I was confused as to what was really said.

I still am, so much so, I'm seriously considering trying to get updates through media articles that sums up each week of testimony.

This is just not working for me the way information is coming in, mostly from posters who aren't even in the courtroom, and have admitted they are having a hard time even hearing what all was said.

I really wish we had transcribed words from the court at the end of each day to go by.

It would make all the difference in the world to those who arent able to watch all of the live streaming, I'm not the only one who is unable to do so. Imo

 

[Bernina]

39:07 The phone calls that went to Voice mail..........

 

[thelmadawg]

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?

I may not be understanding, but does it really make any difference whether the scan shows particular information or it's pulled from the hard drive in another way? In both events, it is pulling actual information from the cached files, albeit for different reasons.

 

[missy1974]

Thank you Missy! Unfortunately, I don't have time to sitdown, and listen the hours it would take to do so. That's why I'm in, and out of this forum every day.

But that makes no sense to me. Maybe I'm missing something though. This is without a doubt the most confusing trial I've ever in my life tried to follow.

The tweets are almost nonexistent, and when they are posted it's just short snippets among hours of testimony.

Other than that , I am having to rely on how posters interpret the testimony, and that isnt even consistent either.

Why wasn't it entered? It certainly is a very important piece of CE?

What doesn't make sense to me is why would he have anything relating to creating a fake identity after they were discovered.

If this was done shortly after their bodies were discovered how does fake identities even come into the equation since the bodies were the McStay family?

Did they show the actual news article where it stated in it anything about fake identities. If it came from an article the state would have presented that. Who in court said it came from a new article? If it was in an article then why would he have the need to search fake indenties?

Did it show a pic of the article he had where it stated anything in it about creating a fake identity, and the discovery of their bodies? Is there a link to this news article?

I know you don't agree, but the timing of when he supposedly did this is very important especially after he knew the bodies were no longer secreted away.

As an aside. JMarsh I don't see the need to berate me. I clearly said in my prior post, I was confused as to what was really said.

I still am, so much so, I'm seriously considering trying to get updates through media articles that sums up each week of testimony.

This is just not working for me the way information is coming in, mostly from posters who aren't even in the courtroom, and have admitted they are having a hard time even hearing what all was said.

I really wish we had transcribed words from the court at the end of each day to go by.

It would make all the difference in the world to those who arent able to watch all of the live streaming, I'm not the only one who is unable to do so. Imo

The lack of tweets is amazing to me!!! Cricket said that there was reporters there, I guess they aren't tweeting, or I can't find them LOL

The searches/screenshots weren't entered into evidence because it was a motion hearing that the court was dealing with before testimony started yesterday. They had a late start because a juror had a medical appt., so I guess they were trying to use that time wisely.

The identity thing. The judge said that there was a search related to change of identity, but the title of the search was "how to change identity, the strange story of the McStay family" (which was an article... fwiw, I searched for an article with that name and couldn't find it lol) The judge originally excluded it (assuming pre-trial motions) because there was no indication that Merritt ever took any steps to conceal his identity, move, hide, etc. The State filed a motion for reconsideration... they want to still bring in things from CM's phone, the judge still finds that most is irrelevant... EXCEPT 3 or 4 items, in conjuction with each other he thinks is relevant....from my notes: Allow the people to put on evidence with regard to close up photo of tire tracks, a search related to US borders (then the reference to changing identity) and screenshot of Joey's cell phone records and contact list.

The judge says that there are contrary arguments, and it will take time, but he is allowing those items that are bolded in now.

I hope that helps and clears it up a bit for you!

The judge had heard the arguments pre-trial, with witnesses telling him what these things were. We didn't get to see the screenshots or the article, and we won't until someone is on the stand and they are entered into evidence.

I do agree that the timing is everything. If it was a search for 'How to change your identity, the strange story of the McStay family' doesn't indicate to me that he was searching on how to change his identity. (there have been many many articles about them changing identity, and Summer having changed her's, more than once). He did however do a search related to US borders, that to me is probably more relevant IMO Because nothing seems to be what they say it is... I will reserve judgement LOL

If you would like to listen to it yourself... this youtube should start at the time or not LOL it starts at 9:40 ... that the judge was discussing all of this:

 

[Plo_Koon]

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?

This is just IMO, but it sort of reads like you are saying that the state is being deceptive and implying things? I just don't see the correlation between a witness changing their opinion and the prosecution being deceptive. I personally don't think what you referenced was glossed over. I definitely took notice of it, but it simply didn't change my opinion or feelings on whether the right person is on trial.

 

[thelmadawg]

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.

Great, would you send me info so I can cancel your QuickBooks info? Seriously there is no factual information to suggest Chase had any authorizations at all to cancel or write checks or whatever. JM was the only administrator. Any other speculations are just that as far as I can see.

 

[missy1974]

I may not be understanding, but does it really make any difference whether the scan shows particular information or it's pulled from the hard drive in another way? In both events, it is pulling actual information from the cached files, albeit for different reasons.

It does make a difference. One requires someone to physically be at the computer and clicking or typing things in. A scan does not require anyone to be on the computer, clicking or typing things on the keyboard, or even in the home.

So the State says that Merritt MUST have been in the home, or implied it, because an Intuit bookmark was accessed on the 5th. And then we find out that it was part of a system scan or the system accessed the file and not the user, that is a big difference IMO.

 

[missy1974]

This is just IMO, but it sort of reads like you are saying that the state is being deceptive and implying things? I just don't see the correlation between a witness changing their opinion and the prosecution being deceptive. I personally don't think what you referenced was glossed over. I definitely took notice of it, but it simply didn't change my opinion or feelings on whether the right person is on trial.

It does read like that, because that is how I feel about it. They literally took one little snip, one file from 27,000 other accessed files around that same time, and had Schroeder testify that it was USER accessed. Of course that bookmark was an Intuit/QB's bookmark.

Here is the testimony from Day 17 on direct about the bookmark (43:54):

 

[Tortoise]

It does make a difference. One requires someone to physically be at the computer and clicking or typing things in. A scan does not require anyone to be on the computer, clicking or typing things on the keyboard, or even in the home.

So the State says that Merritt MUST have been in the home, or implied it, because an Intuit bookmark was accessed on the 5th. And then we find out that it was part of a system scan or the system accessed the file and not the user, that is a big difference IMO.

I still haven't listened to testimony yet - I'm about to.

What about the computer activity at 2 am on the 8th - did they cover that do you know?

 

[Plo_Koon]

I have used quickbooks. In much in the same way that Chase and Joey appear to have been using it. I'm not seeing what is suspicious about it. And all the above that you give an example of, IS what happened. Joey appears to have given Chase access to the second account, Joey just didn't add a new license to his account.

What I suspect is that Joey wanted Chase to have his own account, and maybe even start paying for it himself. Which is why Joey put Chase to the task of setting up his own desktop version. That's speculative on my part. But that seems to be where the Quickbooks accounts were headed: Two completely separate desktop accounts.

Just out of curiosity, are you saying that ALL of Chase's actions on the QB account were on the up and up? Deleting checks and all that?