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

[katydid23]

rsbm

And since the call on 4th went to voicemail, with no calls ever made by Joey after that, the defense is only talking about Chase' QB activity on Feb 1st and 2nd.

Right. And on the 1st and 2nd, that call activity between the 2 of them, is no different than it always was. Chase himself has said that Joey called him multiple times a day, sometimes 10 to 20 times.

 

[katydid23]

Which call went to VM? 8:28pm Joey's to Chase's phone call? It didn't connect at all to Chase's phone.

There were 6 other calls that day that went to VM.

 

[Tortoise]

There were 6 other calls that day that went to VM.

Are they talking about Cathy's calls to Chase that went to voicemail between 6 and 9 pm or are they talking about Joey's calls to Chase earlier that day?

 

[katydid23]

Are they talking about Cathy's calls to Chase that went to voicemail between 6 and 9 pm or are they talking about Joey's calls to Chase earlier that day?

Right now I am not clear on that because the defense OBJECTED and the judge cut off that line of questioning.

 

[Alisajo]

They are essentially trying to convict him of that right now. They don't care about the charges because the sentencing is rolled into the quadruple murders. The charges are unnecessary. But the information about what he did is important to the motive behind the murders.

Personally, I think it is clear as day that he wrote those checks his own. He was behind on his rent, but still gambling enough to lose hundreds, if not thousands each month at local casinos.

What are the odds that he was caught up in that type of a gambling binge, and it coincidentally was at the same exact time that his boss secretly decide to give him more access and control of his business checking account, which was same exact time that said boss went missing, along with his entire family?

JMO, I wouldn't trust a Gambler anywhere near my Finances or my Family. I feel they are to similar to a Intravenous Drug Addict, wanting and planning another fix.

 

[missy1974]

Right now I am not clear on that because the defense OBJECTED and the judge cut off that line of questioning.

I think they were talking about CJ's calls to CM, not JM's call to CM at 8:28. We all know that that call doesn't connect and doesn't show on CM's records.

(I went to the time you noted on that video, it wasn't about the calls? but I do somewhat recall that testimony from yesterday, still haven't rewatched it yet)

 

[Tortoise]

Which call went to VM? 8:28pm Joey's to Chase's phone call? It didn't connect at all to Chase's phone.

You're right, I've edited my original post to say 'did not connect'.

But I just noticed they are referring to Joey's calls to Chase going to voicemail (not the one at 8.28 pm but the question follows directly on from the question about that call) - snippet from Katy's transcript:

Q And how many of these calls , that were between the 2, went straight to voicemail?

A Six....

OBJECTION...sustained

[So the prosecution pokes a few holes in that claim by the Defense that all of this QB check activity coincides with calls from Joey. ]

 

[Force Ten]

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.

There's no evidence to indicate Joseph gave any clearance to Chase to either have access to the accounts and certainly not to call QB to pose as him and ask to delete the online books and transfer it to desktop. Let's be logical here. Chase is creating, back dating checks to the 4th and deleting that he admits to but has zero explanation for. He tells detectives he needs Joseph back because he has rent to be paid, yet he has thousands in a newly opened account (probably to hide from CJ). All this while he knows his boss is missing.

Despite all of this, why wouldn't Joseph request QB delete the account HIMSELF? Why wouldn't Joseph write out all these checks to Merritt and MSM HIMSELF and give them to Merritt on the 4th? Clearly there was money in the account.

It is clear why LE narrowed their focus on Merritt. There was no rush to judgement or ignoring other viable suspects, just good detective work.

It doesn't appear at all innocent, this pile of inconsistencies smells ripe.

 

[katydid23]

I think they were talking about CJ's calls to CM, not JM's call to CM at 8:28. We all know that that call doesn't connect and doesn't show on CM's records.

(I went to the time you noted on that video, it wasn't about the calls? but I do somewhat recall that testimony from yesterday, still haven't rewatched it yet)

The time I noted might be very slightly off, because I played and rewound multiple times in order to try and transcribe it. But it is pretty close, just a bit early, imo.

I am not sure they were talking about calls to CJ, because they said specifically, calls 'between the 2 of them', referring to JM and CM.

 

[JMarsh]

There's no evidence to indicate Joseph gave any clearance to Chase to either have access to the accounts and certainly not to call QB to pose as him and ask to delete the online books and transfer it to desktop. Let's be logical here. Chase is creating, back dating checks to the 4th and deleting that he admits to but has zero explanation for. He tells detectives he needs Joseph back because he has rent to be paid, yet he has thousands in a newly opened account (probably to hide from CJ). All this while he knows his boss is missing.

Despite all of this, why wouldn't Joseph request QB delete the account HIMSELF? Why wouldn't Joseph write out all these checks to Merritt and MSM HIMSELF and give them to Merritt on the 4th? Clearly there was money in the account.

It is clear why LE narrowed their focus on Merritt. There was no rush to judgement or ignoring other viable suspects, just good detective work.

It doesn't appear at all innocent, this pile of inconsistencies smells ripe.

The evidence that Joey gave Chase permission to access the QB account is that Chase only accessed CUSTOM. If Chase really wanted to drain Joey's account, and he was stealing passwords, etc, why not go for the full enchilada and delve into the CONTACTS account?

Chase only ever accessed the CUSTOM account, which was generated because of him, and solely for work Joey was doing with Chase. He wrote checks that would be discovered immediately once cashed, so there was no way to hide this activity. Following every incident of check writing on the CUSTOM account, Chase called Joey-even after Joey went missing. And there is no indication that Joey ever altered passwords or alerted any authority to fraud.

There is no indication that Joey was going to fire Chase and every indication that he planned on working with Chase long term.

There is an indication that a change in how they were handling basic accounting and check writing was in the works. That's it. No evidence of anything nefarious, at all.

 

[thelmadawg]

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.

Do we know the date the scan was run

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.

So you are saying that a system scan physically alters the last access date of a cache file? If so, where could I find verification?

 

[JMarsh]

Please excuse if this has come up before -I don't have much time to keep up with this. However, JM is referencing the Mexico travel related computer searches here: Remember that they purchased Spanish language tapes off of Craigslist? Actually, I think Spanish and Italian. IIRC, LE was able to track down the people from whom they purchased them -they were delivered to Joey at a soccer game.

We had long discussions here in the past. So strange -Spanish (perhaps related to travel to Mexico searches) but Italian? Summer was, apparently, infatuated with all-things Italian at the time, but interesting that one would buy two different foreign language programs. I think most of us at the time chalked it up to: Spanish for possible travel to Mexico (considering those computer searches) and perhaps Italian just because. At any rate, I do think those tapes point in the direction of Mexico plans on the part of the McStays.

A

That does seem plausible.

 

[JMarsh]

Do we know the date the scan was run


So you are saying that a system scan physically alters the last access date of a cache file? If so, where could I find verification?

I have to pull up the article, I don't have it handy now, but on-line instructions given on interpreting Encase artifacts there is a warning to be careful not to interpret "last accessed" too literally. Any time a file is "touched" digitally, this can alter the "last accessed" date. The instructions I read stated that more investigation would be needed to determine by what means the file was last accessed.

 

[JMarsh]

Yeah so it's pretty significant info - if the machine was off it wouldn't be running updates and someone had been in there and turned it off after the updates.

It's one thing to talk about eggs being out as unusual but more importantly to my mind would be if the computer was on or off. On doesn't necessarily indicate anything unusual but in the context of the family deciding to go on vacation it probably would be.

Basically, you just solved that riddle. The computers were on. And most people leave their desktops on, especially if they aren't planning on being away for long.

 

[JMarsh]

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?

Yes.

 

[katydid23]

The evidence that Joey gave Chase permission to access the QB account is that Chase only accessed CUSTOM. If Chase really wanted to drain Joey's account, and he was stealing passwords, etc, why not go for the full enchilada and delve into the CONTACTS account?

Chase only ever accessed the CUSTOM account, which was generated because of him, and solely for work Joey was doing with Chase. He wrote checks that would be discovered immediately once cashed, so there was no way to hide this activity. Following every incident of check writing on the CUSTOM account, Chase called Joey-even after Joey went missing. And there is no indication that Joey ever altered passwords or alerted any authority to fraud.

There is no indication that Joey was going to fire Chase and every indication that he planned on working with Chase long term.

There is an indication that a change in how they were handling basic accounting and check writing was in the works. That's it. No evidence of anything nefarious, at all.

I don't see how that is evidence that Joey gave him permission. Why didnt Chase go into the Contacts acct? I can think of two big reasons.

One, there is no difference between the 2. They both drain money from the same bank account, correct? So it doesn't matter.

And two, he probably had no chance to get the info for that account. Probably he had many chances to sit with Joey while Joey logged into the Custom account, because that was specifically set up for Chase's payroll. I am sure that Chase sat with Joey many times while Joey logged in as they discussed the monies owed.

as for this statement, I disagree:" Chase only ever accessed the CUSTOM account, which was generated because of him, and solely for work Joey was doing with Chase. He wrote checks that would be discovered immediately once cashed, so there was no way to hide this activity."

There was in fact one way to hide this activity====>>>kill the account holder.

As for Joey not responding to the fraud, did he have ample time to do so? Only one check was cashed before he went missing. Did he even know about that check yet?

He may not have. He had a lot of checks going out to many vendors. And he had possibly given Chase a few checks for emergency supplies, etc. It is a possibility that he did not know, for sure, what that check was about.

Early on in the case, Chase had told Patrick that he and Joey had argued at lunch, but then had worked it all out. I think Joey may have confronted Chase at lunch, asking about that check, and Chase, being the conman/grifter that he is, had a quick BS explanation. But Chase probably realized it was not going to hold. JMO

 

[katydid23]

Yes.

Why didnt Chase have an explanation for why he deleted and backdated when he was interviewed about that bu Dugal?

 

[MsRyber]

@Tortoise - I believe you are the "keeper" of the check #s - ??

I've put this together - and have some questions on which check #s go with the amounts, if you don't mind my asking?
re check #s

Monday, February 1 continued –
12:24pm – user Joseph McStay added Charles Merritt as a vendor. Per Preliminary hearing – page 104: this transaction did NOT happen from either the McStay’s desktop or laptop. It looks like CM created vendor account ("charlesmerritt" lower case) in Quickbooks using his computer and printed a couple test checks for $2,500 that he never cashed.
12:34pm – a check made out to charles merritt, all lower-case letters, for amount of $2500 – memo line “deposit” per Preliminary hearing – page 104
12:37pm – another check added to charles merritt, for same amount $2500 – memo line “deposit” per Prelim. Hearing – page 104. Check #s 4093 & 4092. (ref: CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #4 post #906 by Tortoise.

12:38pm – user printed check written at 12:24pm. Check #s?
12:47pm – user deleted check written at 12:37pm. Check #s?
12:52pm – user deleted check written at 12:34pm. Check #s?

ck 4092 = $2500; ck 4093 = $2500 - both deleted.


Tuesday, February 2
*11:27am – CM - check for zero dollars created, printed, deleted. Per Prelim hearing (page 106) user added check to Charles Merritt in the amount of zero dollars – memo line “deposit, sa. 1001”.
11:28am – user printed the check written at 11:37am.
11:29am – user added check to charles merritt amount of $2495 – memor line “deposit sa, 1001”, check dated 2-2-10 per Prelim hearing page 107 and none of this occurred on McStay’s desktop or laptop. (CM then printed out and CASHED a check for $2,495 to a Union Bank account. It's possible this first check was actually CASHED against Joseph McStay's Union Bank account, but it was not clear. Not sure if CM also had a Union Bank account.)
11:34am – user printed check written at 11:29am – per Prelim hearing (page 108) – check cashed on 2-2-10 at Union Bank by CM.

check # for $2495?


Wednesday, February 3–
CM opens a Bank of America account with $200 check; $100 deposited and another $100 taken as cash; check from EIP consistent with Joseph McStay handwriting - per Prelim hearing page 129-130.

check # for $200?


Thursday, February 4
1pm - Joey called his Union Bank. The same bank where CM had cashed the $2,495 check two days earlier. IMO, this is when JM first found out Chase had cashed the fraudulent check. This also would be around the time of the lunch meeting in Rancho Cucamonga.

1pm – 3pm - per CM received a legitimate $200 handwritten check from JM. CM used that check to open a B of A account.

7:59pm - someone used the McStay Desktop computer to create (@ 7:59pm) and delete (@ 8:05pm) a Quickbooks check for $4,000. This check was never deposited or cashed. The memo line on this check said, Paul Mitchell check dated 2-4-10. Per Prelim hearing page 109 – transaction from McStay’s desktop;

check # for $4000?
Note:
DEVICE 4 -
Index 2 - intuit - 8:03:23 pm (file name is check[1].htm screenshot of webpage showing check made out to chase merritt $4000.
Index 3 - intuit - 7:59:42 (selectprint[1].htm) Print Checks Setup shows check again made to charles merritt $4000.00, check #4093 (showed current balance as $89, 724.50)

Is that correct - I have this from the prelim hearing....

But then we have this - below - ??


Friday, February 5
12:06pm – user added check (#4093) to charles merritt for $4500 – memo line: Paul Mitchell, dated 2-5-10 per Prelim hearing page 111. Per Prelim hearing page 114 – check was cashed on 2-5-10 by Charles at Union bank. (Flurry of checks created, printed, deleted. A $4,500 check was CASHED at Union Bank. Metro Sheet Metal checks were written ($1650 & $250) and later delivered in person to Metro by CM. $2,350 check was printed and deposited in B of A. The checks on this date that were cashed/deposited appeared to have forged Joseph McStay signatures.)
12:12pm – user printed check written at 12:06pm; date changed 2-4-10;
12:19pm – user added metro sheet metal as vendor.
12:21pm – user added check to metro sheet for $1650 (check #4236) – memo line: “Misc. Manufactuer”, check backdated to 2-4-10 per Prelim hearing page 113.
12:25pm – check written to Metro Sheet Metal for $250 (check #4238, backdated to 2-4-10 and printed.
12:29pm – user added check to charles merritt for $6505 – memo line: “Balance SA (1001)”, check backdated to 2-4-10. This check is printed.
12:33pm – another check written to Charles Merritt for $2350, backdated to 2-4-10. This check deposited at Bank of America by CM (page 114 Prelim hearing).
12:38pm – user deleted check written at 12:29pm – per Prelim hearing page 112. ($6505 ck)

Do I have the correct check #s?
check # 4093 = $4500
check # 4236 = $1650
check # 4238 = $250
check # for $6505 ?
check # for $2350?

February 8 –
2:20pm – QuickBooks activity – user added check to Charles Merritt for $6,500 memo line: “saudi arabia final”, check backdated to 2-4-10 per Prelim hearing page 115; check was printed and deleted and deposited into CM’s BofA account on the next day Feb. 9th.
2:44pm – user canceled QuickBooks online subscription.

check # for $6500 ?


Thanks a bunch. I shall put the check #s on my Timeline list.

I'm just going to put this out there. Good chance that Chase, on his home computer, did not have the necessary info to be able to print a cheque properly. Especially if the EIP cheques had logo etc, on them. You can't just put an empty cheque into any old printer and expect it to print exactly the same. All printers align differently. It is possible that Chase printed the first couple off and the print (ie. twenty-five hundred...................xx) part of the cheque wasn't in line with how it looked on Joey's machine. If it was too far off, he would have to play around with the print properties and adjust where the xxxxxxx xxxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx's go for printing on his own machine. It was likely a huge pain in the bum.

Does anyone know if Joey actually saw the cleared cheque? Even back in 2010, I know here in Canada, you can login to your online banking and see all cheques printed as a .pdf. It shows a snapshot of the front, and the back. On the bank statement, normally, it would just show the cheque amount and cheque number. You have to drill down by selecting the cheque number to then be shown the actual cheque.

We know JM put the call in to his bank. In Quickbooks (thinking back to 2010), if I tried to print a cheque that was already assigned (printed), it would give me a "warning" that says "Cheque Number not in sequence. Expected cheque number is (what Quickbooks thinks the number should be based on the double entry accounting it does). Would you like to use that cheque number or would you like to continue?

He could easily deduce that there were a) cheques missing b) cheques recorded in Quickbooks that he didn't print. You can also look in the cheque register in Quickbooks or activity register and see if things have been created/changed/deleted, and who (user) did what activity.

That phone call to the bank. The bank would be able to tell him a cheque was cashed, the amount and to whom. However, Quickbooks would have literally given him a play-by-play of what happened from February 1st until February 4th. And since JM obvs had the administrator account, he would be able to see all recent activity any number of methods.

Do you think JM just up and accused CM of stealing? I'm thinking he was able to find out exactly what CM had been doing by simply clicking on history in QB.
Something aroused his suspicion.
Remember in QB, you "match" transactions that clear to what you originally posted. (Double entry accounting)
So you go onto QB and it updates all linked activity. A cheque clears the bank and "sits" in the column of whatever bank account it was debited/credited from. Then you "match" it to the transaction you posted. If there was a cleared cheque for $2495 and nothing in QB to match it to, JM would have to manually create a transaction (aka a bill), post it, then pay it. Once it is marked PAID in QB, when the cheque is cashed, it will say something like "Cheque #230 $165.40 matched to Invoice #128745 12/12/2015 Comcast $165.40" and the match will show up in green. Then you click submit and QB marked the entry as resolved.
If there was no entry, and JM couldn't find the cheque stub/documentation, he would know right away that something wasn't right. He could look in the history to see who/where/what/when the cheque was created. QB tracks....everything.

I know I haven't contributed anything yet to this thread, but I've been reading all of the QB stuff and as a user of QB, the "gotcha" moment that JM must have had with CM and being able to prove it using QB has my nerdy brain swirling.

 

[JMarsh]

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.

The hand written check for 100 or 200 was dated the 2nd and deposited by Chase on the 3rd.

 

[Plo_Koon]

JMO, I wouldn't trust a Gambler anywhere near my Finances or my Family. I feel they are to similar to a Intravenous Drug Addict, wanting and planning another fix.

IMO, you are 100% correct. I used to date a gambling addict who was addicted to slot machines. She was 300 times worse than any drug addict I've known. For example, her 6 year old child has COPD and is going to die without a lung transplant. She takes the checks she gets sent for her daughter, as well as 's she has set up and uses it to gamble with. Has left so many utility bills unpaid with balances that she actually had to put the cable, electric, and water in her daughter's name.