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

[la2cabo]

Cabo, people who don't have arguments rely on rudeness. I hope you're not done for the evening, as I think there are still some interesting points to be made, and you surely can be counted on to make a quite a few.

Awe thank you. I'll be back tomorrow. I don't deal well with rudeness.

 

[LadyL]

For Dan to pull off a scam, and pretend to be in Hawaii, so he could sneak back to Fallbrook and kill the McStay Family, would take a lot of time, a lot of money and much help from others. And how do you convince anyone to help you kill toddlers?

He'd have to start the planning in early January, when the round trip airline tix were purchased. And he'd have to get someone in Hawaii to help him in his quadruple murder plans. And probably someone in San Diego too if he wanted to sneak around when he returned.

He would be spending a lot of cash to carry this out. He'd need two sets of round trip tickets, one for the original flight, then one to sneak back and forth with.

And he'd need a burner phone. And he would have to give his debit card to someone and his cell. So there would be a lot spent by the other person trying to pretend he was there. And whatever compensation he would pay them for helping him murder 4 people.

And then his expenses for flying back and getting to Fallbrook to do the murders.And compensation for his helper back in Cali.

It sounds like a pretty large task and an expensive one. Would it be worth the effort financially?

It is hard for me to believe that he could or would be able to pull this off.

it's laughable isn't it?

 

[floridagrrl]

CM had permission given to him by JM's implied consent, demonstrated by past acts. It seems pretty clear to me, why all the confussion?

You repeat this almost daily. There is no such thing as implied consent when it comes to forging someone else’s name to someones checks! It is fraud and forgery. Period.

 

[QueenBofOB]

We don't know, he said he wasn't near there in the police interview, so he would have to testify to that (and admit to having lied before).

As a convicted felon, he is not supposed to touch any guns.

 

[la2cabo]

You repeat this almost daily. There is no such thing as implied consent when it comes to check signing someone else’s name to someone else’s checks! It is fraud and forgery. Period.

I don't even sign my husband's name to a check because I know it's fraud and he actually tells me to do it.

 

[fridaybaker]

I have to say, in this entire thread, one of the most interesting pieces of information I've learned came just this evening: Chase's phone pinging in the vicinity of the McStay's on the 3rd.

 

[smr]

Hmmm, anyone wanna talk about JOSEPE-LAP?

 

[Karinna]

Hmmm, anyone wanna talk about JOSEPE-LAP?

Has the issue been raised at Trial? Discussed at Trial?

 

[LadyL]

It was said that the probation officer took the computer... just a guess, but I bet he was contacting someone on facebook who he shouldn't have been JMO

like who?

this is really intriguing to me

 

[smr]

Has the issue been raised at Trial? Discussed at Trial?

Yes. Starting 43:20 mark:

 

[katydid23]

CM had permission given to him by JM's implied consent, demonstrated by past acts. It seems pretty clear to me, why all the confussion?

You mean that if I give an employee a blank check, and sign it, and tell him to use it to buy metal supplies for our work project, then that is IMPLIED CONSENT that this same employee can take as many blank checks as he wants from me, make them out to himself, delete any trace of them from my Quickbooks log, forge them and then cash them?

 

[katydid23]

It's not something that they'd find in an investigation it's evident because it had been done many times before with no complaint from JM because he didn't have an issue with it.

Wrong.

If I want to take a check or two, sign it, and give it to an employee so he can pick up supplies he needs, that is fine. Because I have the check numbers written down in my check log, and a notation that I gave it to that employee and I will be told by them where they used it and for what and the amount. So I can track it.

That is not the same thing as an employee having dozens of unsigned blank checks, taken from the middle. of my pile. And that employee deleting any trace of that check from my check logs, and then forging my name to it, and putting it in their own account.

Any and every boss would have an issue with that.

 

[katydid23]

IMO, it has never been proved that CM deleted anything.

Really? What about the check that was created on the 5th of Feb and then cashed by Chase?
Are you saying Chase didn't create, delete and then cash these checks?


Below is a detailed account of all the checks written on the 5th between Noon and 12:30 on February 5th, taken from the preliminary transcript:

12:06 P.M., user added check to charles merritt, all lower case letters, for $4,500 and no cents. Memo line states, “paul mitchell,Check was dated February 5th, 2010 back dated to February 4th. check deleted at 12:38. check cashed at union bank by defendent

At 12:12 P.M., user printed check written at 12:06 P.M after that the date was edited It was changed to February 4th, 2010

At 12:19 P.M., user added metro sheet metal, in lowercase letters, as a vendor Metro Sheet Metal was already in the Contact account as Metro Sheet Metal Co. “Metro” was spelled with a capital M, capital S, capital M, capital C for Company. And that was another vendor being indicated all lower case letters on the other account.

At 12:21 P.M., user added check to metro sheet metal, all lower case letters, for $1,650. Memo line stated, “Miscellaneous Manufacturer,” and the check was backdated to February 4th of 2010.printed then deleted

12:25 P.M to Metro Sheet Metal, for $250 back dated to February 4th of 2010

At 12:29 P.M., user added check to charles merritt, all lower case letters, for $6505 Memo line states: “Balance SA.
(1001), period. And that check was backdated to February 4th,2010 printed
Then deleted

At 12:33, check written to Charles Merritt for $2,350?backdated to February 4th, 2010 printed then deleted.deposited into Bank of America by defendent

Sometime after 12:39, user deleted checks from Quickbooks account.
Then deleted

At 12:33, check written to Charles Merritt for $2,350?backdated to February 4th, 2010 printed then deleted.deposited into Bank of America by defendent

Sometime after 12:39, user deleted checks from Quickbooks account.

 

[katydid23]

The defense is going to have a very hard time convincing anyone that Joey created those checks himself.

Chase cashed one of them and gave the others to MSMetals. How did Joey get those checks to Chase in order for that to happen?

If Chase was the one that created these checks, why did he backdate and delete them? Joey wasn't around for him to tell him about the amounts, and that he was cashing them. Why delete them before he could give him that info for accounting purposes?

And why backdate them to the 4th?

 

[katydid23]

I've read hundreds of comments here regarding CM and how he for years had been stealing from JM, perhaps you should ask them for specifics.

we heard some specifics during a few testimonies.

 

[Mony Mony]

So it is curious that La Rock was allowed to speak about QB and monies owed. I thought he was a computer forensic analyst. It appeared he was venturing into forensic accounting. IMO

 

[katydid23]

Do you understand the difference between "explicitly approved" and implied consent? If not look it up and that will answer your question.

For it to be 'implied consent', the later actions have to be THE SAME for consent to be implied.

There were ZERO previous actions where Joey himself deleted any checks he had created, and ZERO previous actions where he created checks from the custom account to pay Chase.

It had never happened before that Joey created a check for Chase, backdated and deleted it.

So I see no implied consent for the checks Chase created on the 5th from Joeys QB account and backdated, deleted from the logs, and then cashed for himself.

 

[katydid23]

So it is curious that La Rock was allowed to speak about QB and monies owed. I thought he was a computer forensic analyst. It appeared he was venturing into forensic accounting. IMO

He was trying to pave the way for the upcoming forensic Accountant testimony. I think the Pros team held their fire a little because the defense was trying to get them to reveal what their arguments in cross are going to be. I think they want to keep their ammo dry for now.

 

[asyousay]

Chase himself said Joey was honest and dotted his I’s and T’s so that doesn’t exactly sound like somebody who would willingly commit fraud does it?

 

[Sharyne]

I can't recall which court day it was and it probably was after court (without jury in room) when both sides were going through things with the judge, but Imes stated DK's phone did not ping anywhere near Fallbrook on the 4th nor near Victorville on the 6th, I'm hoping we will see the evidence of that at some point. The only reason I can think of that the state hadn't shown it during their CIC is because DK is not on trial (but I can understand why the defense hasn't lol).

What is so important about the 6th? Is there proof that something occurred with the McStays that day? I know the 4th is the last day they were visually seen. Did I miss something happening with them that somebody knows what happened?