CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #16

[mrjitty]

It's my understanding that it was the defense that actually showed these transactions in Hawaii in the first place. I only have a pic of what they showed today, we didn't have video during the paypal testimony, so off the top of my head, I don't recall if those specific dates were shown or not. The part shown today showed Feb 8th-17th

All of those records will be exhibited for a larger data range.

The problem with these trials is we never get to see more than glimpses of the full exhibits

 

[missy1974]

So I guess they don't have an answer for the backdated and deleted checks then?

I said that I didn't believe it was in that exchange. Why are you directing that question at me since I was only answering your question and since it wasn't part of that exchange, I don't know what "they" or "Maline" would say to answer your question....

OH no, I did hear that wrong. I thought he said Dan created those checks because I thought he was talking about the ones on the 4th and 5th. Is he attributing those to Joey too?

No, I don't believe the 4th/5th one's were mentioned in that exchange.

But how can they be explained?

Again... why are you directing that at me? And what does that have to do with the question I responded to?

 

[mrjitty]

Right, but if there were ZERO purchases from feb 2nd to Feb 5th, wouldn't the defence have pointed that out when they showed the log?

I think the defense brought it up because it was in discovery and they know the State is going to put it out there eventually, as a 'big moment.'

It's interesting how many transactions there are in the exhibits we've seen

Typical 20something male buying enough food for the next hour or so

 

[mrjitty]

Again... why are you directing that at me? And what does that have to do with the question I responded to?

Because you've said before you are open to the idea that the defence theory of the cheques is the correct one.

Apologies if I have that wrong.

 

[missy1974]

I am going to put it to you that all this witness has done is google the IP address like we have.

He hasn't gone to the provider to find out what was up with that address in 2010

it proves nothing.

No need to be condescending... I absolutely understand how he did it. It's also a piece of evidence now... it's up to the jury to decide if they believe it or not... or up to the State I guess to refute it (I think even the judge told them that at one point) JMO

 

[katydid23]

I said that I didn't believe it was in that exchange. Why are you directing that question at me since I was only answering your question and since it wasn't part of that exchange, I don't know what "they" or "Maline" would say to answer your question....






Again... why are you directing that at me? And what does that have to do with the question I responded to?

I was asking you because you seem as though are leaning towards their theories, if I understand correctly. So I was wondering what you thought about those checks. Did Joey create the one on the 4th as well?

I was just thinking out loud and taking that theory the next step. I apologise if I upset you.

 

[mrjitty]

So I guess they don't have an answer for the backdated and deleted checks then?

Reading it carefully, I think they are going to try to argue Joey did the one on the 1st as a test case that was never cashed to "teach chase"

Then Chase did all the rest.

Of course this doesn't really make sense - is there any evidence they were together on the 1st?

 

[mrjitty]

No need to be condescending... I absolutely understand how he did it. It's also a piece of evidence now... it's up to the jury to decide if they believe it or not... or up to the State I guess to refute it (I think even the judge told them that at one point) JMO

It was not my intention to be condescending

Rather to be critical of a $100K+ technical witness. He has not done his job properly.

The fact that a simple lookup gives inconsistent answers proves this methodology cannot be used to prove DK was in SD because the IP results depend on how the provider has listed the IP ranges in the first place, and whether they have been updated

A serious witness would have worked with the provider.

 

[missy1974]

Right, but if there were ZERO purchases from feb 2nd to Feb 5th, wouldn't the defence have pointed that out when they showed the log?

I think the defense brought it up because it was in discovery and they know the State is going to put it out there eventually, as a 'big moment.'

I have no idea why they did it... I knew there was more to it than just showing the card was used in Hawaii though... and it could be it was the only way to get the IP's in. That's why when I read the tweets, I was hesitant to comment until I actually heard the testimony LOL

 

[katydid23]

It was not my intention to be condescending

Rather to be critical of a $100K+ technical witness. He has not done his job properly.

The fact that a simple lookup gives inconsistent answers proves this methodology cannot be used to prove DK was in SD because the IP results depend on how the provider has listed the IP ranges in the first place, and whether they have been updated

A serious witness would have worked with the provider.

For 350 bucks an hour, I'd expect more than just googling 'WhatIsMyIP'...

 

[mrjitty]

I think the defense brought it up because it was in discovery and they know the State is going to put it out there eventually, as a 'big moment.'

As mentioned a couple of days ago, this witness was competent to testify about Paypal records for both sides. So I think its not so much that the defence wanted to get this out there, but that this witness was a pathway to exhibit records for both sides.

So once the defence "went there" the other transaction record stuff was always going to come in.

If the defence didn't "go there" then the state had no need to call this witness for themselves

 

[missy1974]

Because you've said before you are open to the idea that the defence theory of the cheques is the correct one.

Apologies if I have that wrong.

I really haven't heard their theory though... we get bits and pieces... like today/yesterday, Maline saying that it's their defense that Joey did the Feb 1st cheque... he didn't say anything about the 4/5th one's... so until I hear it... I really can't have an opinion about it... I'm assuming their theory will come with the forensic accountant? who knows... might not come until closing?

There have been hints that Joey was testing it to see if it could be done, that this was a new thing... that they were deleted to hide them from Dan... that Dan was looking at the records somehow... Dan confronted Sequieda's asking what they were doing with Joey before Joey went missing... but they are just hints and questions here and there (some sustained). I honestly just want to see the evidence LOL I won't have the chance to go back to the testimony until probably Sunday... so will see if I missed some things

 

[mrjitty]

For 350 bucks an hour, I'd expect more than just googling 'WhatIsMyIP'...

It surely should have been possible to call a witness from the IP provider to learn about the history of the IP range.

It's almost as if the defence doesn't want those answers

 

[katydid23]

Reading it carefully, I think they are going to try to argue Joey did the one on the 1st as a test case that was never cashed to "teach chase"

Then Chase did all the rest.

Of course this doesn't really make sense - is there any evidence they were together on the 1st?

The problem still is the one on the night of the 4th. Created on Joey's desktop. Then deleted.

There are problems with the defense's attempt to say Joey did that one. He had never deleted any checks like that previously. So why now?

And he had never written checks from that custom account before. So why now? He had Chases' name in the other account, where he always wrote his checks from.

And who writes large checks and doesn't want to keep track of them in their QB ledger?

And he had just sent Chase a memo saying he had been grossly overpaid. So why write him that big check at that time?

Plus we have to believe that Joey decided he wanted Chase to be added to the account and be able to sign Joeys name to large checks that he can create himself remotely. And then tell him to delete any notifications so Joey won't even have a record of how many checks and for how much?

Why would he want a broke, gambling addicted, ex con to have that option?

And Joey decided that days before he and his family went missing.

And the backdating? What is their explanation for that?

 

[missy1974]

I was asking you because you seem as though are leaning towards their theories, if I understand correctly. So I was wondering what you thought about those checks. Did Joey create the one on the 4th as well?

I was just thinking out loud and taking that theory the next step. I apologise if I upset you.

I really think that my posting what the defense has said, what the witnesses say, correcting misinformation, and just giving the contrary view of what the majority posts and runs with really gets misconstrued. I really think that this case is just not as clear cut as some see it... I think that because of that, even if he is convicted, this case will live on for years in public opinion and in appeals. The majority that post here on WS's (I don't find this to be the case elsewhere) believe that Chase is guilty.. which is usually the case, especially once someone is charged and on trial... however, as observers, recognizing the shortcomings of the prosecution or the evidence may or may not make Chase any less guilty IMO

I don't believe what the prosecution is saying... I don't know if I believe what the defense is saying either (we haven't heard it all yet)... it's almost like the truth might lie somewhere in between when it comes to the books/cheques. I also don't think they were killed in the house, so it's hard for me to reconcile that with the Mitchley video and the QB's access that night... I have tried all ways I can think of to make it fit LOL

 

[missy1974]

I am not sure if I missed it in La Rock's testimony or not... did he say anything about the laptop that they got from Cathy Jarvis's mom? I can't believe they didn't get any info off of that computer and we have heard nothing about it, from either side!

 

[Karinna]

The problem still is the one on the night of the 4th. Created on Joey's desktop. Then deleted.

There are problems with the defense's attempt to say Joey did that one. He had never deleted any checks like that previously. So why now?

And he had never written checks from that custom account before. So why now? He had Chases' name in the other account, where he always wrote his checks from.

And who writes large checks and doesn't want to keep track of them in their QB ledger?

And he had just sent Chase a memo saying he had been grossly overpaid. So why write him that big check at that time?

Plus we have to believe that Joey decided he wanted Chase to be added to the account and be able to sign Joeys name to large checks that he can create himself remotely. And then tell him to delete any notifications so Joey won't even have a record of how many checks and for how much?

Why would he want a broke, gambling addicted, ex con to have that option?

And Joey decided that days before he and his family went missing.

And the backdating? What is their explanation for that?

From the search warrants information Merritt had absolutely no authority on Joey's accounts.
He had no business to delete or sign anything on JM's behalf.
Merritt told investigators all kinds of rubbish & that there was no evidence found for that at all.

 

[Niner]

Friday, April 19th:
*Motions Hearing -No Jurors (@ 9am PT) - CA - McStay Family: Joseph (40), Summer (43), Gianni (4) & Joey Jr (3) (Feb. 4, 2010, Fallbrook; found Nov. 11, 2013) - *Charles "Chase" Ray Merritt (57/now 60) arrested (11/5/14) & indicted (11/7/14) of 4 counts of murder with special circumstance; plead not guilty. DP case.
Trial started 1/7/19. Dark on all Fridays. 8 women & 4 men (alternates include 4 men & 2 women).
Trial Days (1-39; 1/17/19 thru 4/11/19) reference post #24 here:
CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #16
4/15/19 Day none: No court today, Merritt has a doctor’s appointment & his attorneys failed to tell the court. Court continues on 4/16.
4/16/19 Day 40: Defense witnesses: Annette Dron, QuickBooks Sales Manager. Sarah Kane, custodian of records, PayPal. Bryan C. La Rock, computer forensic analyst. Court continues on 4/17.
4/17/19 Day 41: Defense witness: Bryan Charles La Rock, computer forensic analyst. Trial continues on 4/18.
4/18/19 Day 42: Defense witness: Bryan Charles La Rock continues on cross. Motions hearing tomorrow, 4/19. Trial continues to Monday, 4/22.
Schedule for week of April 15th to 19th: Court with jurors on April 15 (Monday), April 16th (Tuesday), April 17th (Wednesday), & April 18th (Thursday). Dark on April 19th (Friday)-Motions hearing-no jurors.

 

[Niner]

Oh - question?

pretty good points being made by Imes during about 4 minutes in---first he went over the resume, telling the jury that LaRoque had never worked for the prosecution or LE before. Only the defense.

re bold - is this how you spell his name and not La Rock? as tweeted? TIA!

 

[asyousay]

The problem is as far as I can see is Joey was a nice guy and unfortunately hung around with snakes.


These snakes took advantage when he vanished like Dan. The problem is he was always a con man and vile and unfortunately lined his pockets when Joey died. That’s what con men do and he had zero loyalty towards Joey as why would he?!

Chase at the moment I think still did it but because of the low life’s Joey employed it muddies the water some what.