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

[missy1974]

What I mean by spending money is someone had to buy a round trip airline ticket to Hawaii in his name, and he had to give his debit card to someone from those dates, which spanned about 6 weeks, and they used it all over Hawaii.

So he spent a lot of money to then go steal not much more than that from Joey.

And he did transfer cash to his account, but I believe even the defence has said Joey was on a payment plan buying him out. And that next transfer he made was one of those last payments.

He also gave some money to Chase to try and keep the company going.

He bought a round trip ticket to Hawaii? Did they show that?

Did I miss the amounts of the transactions in Hawaii? I don't know that the amount spent in Hawaii was more or less than what he took from paypal from the 10th -13th (these are the only dates/transactions I am using because at this point the family hadn't even reported them missing and believed they could have been on vacation)

So you are saying he gave the money he sent to himself from Joey's paypal account from the 10th-13th to Chase? Can you provide a source for that? He didn't even meet Chase until the 17th IIRC.

 

[missy1974]

Yeah, I think that is a unanimous agreement with everyone he's a punk, and at some point, pilfered from Joseph or at least EIP.

coming back to this post...

apparently not unanimous

I'm all for anyone having a belief that Chase is guilty... but minimizing what Dan did does not make Chase any more guilty. JMO

 

[katydid23]

ok... nevermind... I think I found it myself... and I think you may have misinterpreted it @katydid23 ... correct me if you heard something else that I missed and please provide a time.

From about 6:45 from the video katydid posted:

2 cheques were created in QB's on February 1st 2010 and then deleted. The district attorney's made a big deal about the fact that they're attributing that conduct to Chase, however our position is that Joseph wrote and deleted those checks as demonstrated by the evidence we presented today so if if Joseph is writing those checks and deleting them he has a reason to delete them too and the reason he is deleting the checks is this is all being hid from Dan Kavanaugh

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?

 

[missy1974]

Perhaps the prosecution didn't think the defense would focus on minute, irrelevant details, such as when Joseph called Chase 10 minutes or 40 minutes after he wrote a check for Chase. On top of that, not knowing the context of those calls. But the 'expert' witness inferred Joseph called him about it. That's their whole testimony today, or a great portion of it, Joseph's trend to call Chase after writing the checks leading up to the call on February 4 at 8:27. A lot of inference without evidence.

The prosecution turned the defense witness into mincemeat by pointing out his own bias overlooking many things that he should have verified and tested against his own findings.

What about the checks written after the 4th? The prosecution never offered where these were produced but I imagine it could be from the 'Josephe-Lap' La Rock testified he couldn't link anything to because it wasn't provided (because it's missing).

A laptop is missing and we don't know where Chase made the checks, but we do know he made them because we know he cashed them. But according to Chase, Joseph gave them to Chase on the 4th, despite the fact they were produced after this date and backdated.

A truck strongly resembling Merritt's truck is pulling out of the Mcstay driveway on the very evening everything for them stops.

I think the defense screwed La Rock with only giving him a certain amount of the evidence and not everything. That being said though, he was able to make his point more than once that there was a missing laptop, that it was either never acknowledged or never found by Schroeder and/or LE.

IMO the State would have been better off just acknowledging that there was a missing laptop, Chase stole it... but instead they are trying to deny that it existed? I also mentioned earlier that Imes bringing up the Feb 5th stuff... Schroeder changed his opinion on that, that it was a system scan and not a 'user'.. why bring it up again? silly IMO

On that note... I'm going out to the casino... LOL I won't be long I'm sure haha

 

[missy1974]

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.

 

[Karinna]

so you can make sense of that phone record? Can you tell me where in that phone record it "proves" that Dan was in Hawaii?

I don't need to prove anything. The investigators proved DK was not involved in the murders, because if they had anything at all on DK he along with CM would of been named a suspect. I can't claim to know better that the LE that did the investigation. An investigation far as i know either rules people in as suspects or rules them out. It's a process of elimination, IMO. They normally start with family members first and friends, acquaintances, co workers etc. when investigating a crime of this magnitude.

 

[Mony Mony]

So missed most of the testimony today, but did Imes run the McStay IP address? And it came back Iowa? LOLOLOL! But, but, but, Dan's came back in California so his transactions in Hawaii must be bogus!

 

[Force Ten]

coming back to this post...

apparently not unanimous

I'm all for anyone having a belief that Chase is guilty... but minimizing what Dan did does not make Chase any more guilty. JMO

That is not what I was implying. Dan and Chase's transgressions appear to be completely separate. For Dan, he saw an opportunity because Joseph appeared to not be there, for many months, to hold Dan accountable. So he did take advantage on some level.

For Chase it was only a day since the disappearance before he took advantage. There is a vast difference.

 

[katydid23]

That is not what I was implying. Dan and Chase's transgressions appear to be completely separate. For Dan, he saw an opportunity because Joseph appeared to not be there, for many months, to hold Dan accountable. So he did take advantage on some level.

For Chase it was only a day since the disappearance before he took advantage. There is a vast difference.

Worse than that---Chase began creating checks to himself and deleting any notation of them, then cashing in, BEFORE Joey went missing.

 

[katydid23]

Here is why I don't understand about the dates of DK's debit card transactions and phone calls etc, in Hawaii.

If there were no transactions or calls emanating from Hawaii around Feb2nd-through the 5th---wouldn't the defence have already come out and shown those logs and records?

I think the State hasn't done so because they will possibly show those transactions or calls in their rebuttal?

 

[katydid23]

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

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

 

[mrjitty]

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

But how can they be explained?

 

[mrjitty]

one piece of evidence shows he was in Hawaii... Another says he was in San Diego or that area... they both can't be true. The transactions could be explained by giving his card to someone (maybe a girlfriend?)... the IP's could be explained by a VPN, but neither have been "proven".

This is why I say I am not sure... which doesn't automatically conclude for me that "Dan did it", but it does bring in some doubt about Hawaii. Unfortunately, we don't have all the discovery, LE interviews, etc. I really wish we did (I've been spoiled in other cases where we have everything) I actually believe that at least Maline really does believe Dan did this LOL I'm not so sure of that ... but they are doing their job and creating reasonable doubt IMO

The defence are the ones that have to prove DK came back secretly from Hawaii and they have failed to do this.

 

[mrjitty]

They need to get an IP expert up there to verify IP addresses are not 100% reliable, and explain how it all works, IMO.

Agree

I wish they would do this.

The Iowa example shows why you can't use the IP lookup to "prove" DK was in San Diego

All the devs I have known use proxy, VPN and anonymous browsers on the regular. Especially those big into filesharing etc.

But even without those factors, it is a remarkable coincidence that at least one lookup list links that IP address to Hawaii

That is nothing DK is controlling

So golly what a coincidence that the IP address he was using, was at some point, or in someway linked to Hawaii

 

[mrjitty]

one piece of evidence shows he was in Hawaii... Another says he was in San Diego or that area... they both can't be true.

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.

 

[Karinna]

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.

Agree, and IMO it doesn't really verify anything to the jury. It's all too sketchy and not sure the jurors would be confident in accepting it one way or another.

 

[Karinna]

I also think the investigators have more to prove DK was in Hawaii at the time, and more than his IP to prove that, IMO.
We don't know who all the witnesses were that could of been questioned during their investigation as to his whereabouts at the time either?
ie) Was he working in Hawaii at the time for an employer?
Do independent witnesses remember seeing him there, in a store?
Was there cctv footage of him in Hawaii somewhere?
Etc.

 

[mrjitty]

Do you need a picture with Dan holding a dated newspaper standing in front of Kilauea to bring you over the threshold to concede that he was actually there?

Right

I am a firm believer in evidential foundation.

It's the defence who need an evidential foundation that DK had secretly slipped back into Cali to create a suspicion he is involved. (Even that is tenuous because there is not one piece of evidence to link DK to the murders). So burden is on defence to create at least some suggestion he was in cali.

Prosecution have

1. 2 LE witnesses saying DK was investigated but had an alibi.
2. evidence of travel
3. phone records showing local numbers hawaii numbers being called over the period.
4. banking records showing purchases in hawaii over the period.

IMO this is more than enough to create a prima facie view that DK was in Hawaii.

The IP stuff isn't enough. e.g why haven't the defence looked for DKs travel records to slip back into cali? What about people who knew him? What about the witness himself?

in the age of terror, that passenger record is logged for sure - if it exists

this is the weakest of sauce

But the X is actually a great example of how when the defence seeks to create evidential foundation, the prosecution acts to disprove

The prosecution doesn't have to disprove every wild theory in advance.

 

[missy1974]

Here is why I don't understand about the dates of DK's debit card transactions and phone calls etc, in Hawaii.

If there were no transactions or calls emanating from Hawaii around Feb2nd-through the 5th---wouldn't the defence have already come out and shown those logs and records?

I think the State hasn't done so because they will possibly show those transactions or calls in their rebuttal?

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

 

[katydid23]

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

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.'