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

Status
Not open for further replies.
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?

On Feb 6th, Chase Merritt's cell was pinging off the tower near the shallow graves. Many believe he buried the bodies at that time.
 
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.

Implied consent is the wrong concept here I think.

As I understand it the defence case is express consent.

i.e. Joey gave CM blank signed cheques and also unsigned cheques and authorised him to sign on his behalf.

However this doesn't really fit with Chase's own evidence where he claimed to have run out of signed cheques and then had to sign for Joey.

So if Joey was presigning the cheques, it doesn't really follow, that after his disappearance, he could be implied consenting to have his signature forged. There was no such course of dealing.

So it really would need to be an express consent.
 
I found an interesting review of Elluma Discovery (the firm Mr La Rock works for) third result down in google results for a site which allows users to rate businesses. Sounds like exactly the type of services one would be looking for in a case such as this.

JMO
 
I found an interesting review of Elluma Discovery (the firm Mr La Rock works for) third result down in google results for a site which allows users to rate businesses. Sounds like exactly the type of services one would be looking for in a case such as this.

JMO

I am flabbergasted that the defence has paid 100K+ for such a shallow analysis

What was so much time spent on?

My guess is the defence thought the IP was a get out of jail free card (which it still might be). Possibly they did not realise the IP's would just be put into basic lookups.

As far as the forensic analysis of hard drives goes obviously 100K is wildly expensive for the work done.
 
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?

CM made many blunders, but backdating the checks to the 4th will be his Waterloo. IMO.

The only reasonable conclusion to this evidence is he backdated them because he knew it would become known that would be the very last day the family was known to be alive.

This activity alone shows his guilt. IMO. It shows no one, but CM, knew what had happened to all 4, and that it all happened on the 4th.

No one else had a clue they were even missing from their home. No one, but CM, which allowed him the opportunity to do as he wished once he made sure Joey wouldn't be able to stop him.

The other evidence against him just adds to his guilt.

The jury will not buy Joey allowed this weird new accounting method. It defies all logic, and common sense based on all the evidence the jury has heard.

It pains me greatly when any defense pretends to think for a murder victim, based on absolutely nothing, when their own accused client is the one who has rendered them voiceless, unable to ever speak or expose the real truth for themselves.

Imo
 
Last edited:
So we learned more about the failed print job.

We already knew the cheque on the 4th ($4000, memo line Paul Mitchell) was created at 7.59 pm and deleted at 8.05 pm.

The failed print job was a QuickBooks cheque-alignment page, sent twice to the printer at 8.02 pm.

I've searched to see what this page might have looked like and why it might have been sent to print. These are the instructions I found for 2018 - and I see it says "After you've printed this form..."
2729_03c.png

How to align preprinted paychecks - QuickBooks Community

I did note that one of Merritt's other cheques was misaligned. I'll see if I can find it. He must have been in too much of a hurry to see it through and sort out the printer on the 4th.

JMO
 
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.

I must agree, Friday.

When Tortoise was kind enough to post that information for all of us it was bone chilling to me when I read it.

Imo
 
And with all this check talk

Why the heck did CM feel the need to pay vendors at the same time paying himself? Let alone before he knew Joey was “missing” geez Louise (Signing JMs name to that check to himself and CM DEPOSITING into his own account is fraud, there is no way around it. I don't care how many rosey colored adjectives you Put in front of this actions. Once he cashed it; fraud. Go to any damn bank and do a questionnaire about it.)

Oh, I know why...because it will look like I’m just doing “business” :rolleyes:

Forget that silly fact that shows I’ve been overpaid and OWE money

The mental gymnastics I have seen about someone helping themselves to checks and money from someone that is missing is mind blowing and actually quite gross imo

Implied consent, expressed consent, Mickey Mouse consent is more like it. No one else was there helping themselves to money

Money is the root of this evil

JMO all that jazz etc
 
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?
Yes, I believe if a person has in the past allowed someone to preform an act then if the same person later does the same or a similar act which would normally be considered a criminal act the DA will not prosecute and inform the potential victim that the case is a civil matter. For instance if you let someone borrow your car and that person later ‘borrows’ your car but without your permission than most DA’s will not prosecute.
 
Yes, I believe if a person has in the past allowed someone to preform an act then if the same person later does the same or a similar act which would normally be considered a criminal act the DA will not prosecute and inform the potential victim that the case is a civil matter. For instance if you let someone borrow your car and that person later ‘borrows’ your car but without your permission than most DA’s will not prosecute.
Joey never gave Merritt unsigned blank checks, gave Merritt permission to utilize the check writing feature of QB or instruct Merritt to forge his signature to any checks.

There are many people sitting in jail today charged and convicted of taking a car without owner's permission and they've had permission in the past.
 
Implied consent is the wrong concept here I think.

As I understand it the defence case is express consent.

i.e. Joey gave CM blank signed cheques and also unsigned cheques and authorised him to sign on his behalf.

However this doesn't really fit with Chase's own evidence where he claimed to have run out of signed cheques and then had to sign for Joey.

So if Joey was presigning the cheques, it doesn't really follow, that after his disappearance, he could be implied consenting to have his signature forged. There was no such course of dealing.

So it really would need to be an express consent.
I understand what you’re saying however, I believe the act of JM giving CM signed blank checks created a situation for an implied consent argument to be made. As I stated earlier it’s up to the jury to decide.

This site explains the difference between expressed and implied consent.
What is express consent ? - Definition from WhatIs.com
 
Yes, I believe if a person has in the past allowed someone to preform an act then if the same person later does the same or a similar act which would normally be considered a criminal act the DA will not prosecute and inform the potential victim that the case is a civil matter. For instance if you let someone borrow your car and that person later ‘borrows’ your car but without your permission than most DA’s will not prosecute.
Where is the proof Joey allowed Merritt to sign EIP cheques?
 
Yes, I believe if a person has in the past allowed someone to preform an act then if the same person later does the same or a similar act which would normally be considered a criminal act the DA will not prosecute and inform the potential victim that the case is a civil matter. For instance if you let someone borrow your car and that person later ‘borrows’ your car but without your permission than most DA’s will not prosecute.
But where in this case is there verification of this apart from Merritt's statements to LE? And if JM had allowed such activity previously, which i don't believe at all, then why did Merritt act deceptively about it all after the McStay family had been murdered? No one has said this was common practice with JM in regard to authorizing CM to do anything of the kind.
 
Joey never gave Merritt unsigned blank checks, gave Merritt permission to utilize the check writing feature of QB or instruct Merritt to forge his signature to any checks.

There are many people sitting in jail today charged and convicted of taking a car without owner's permission and they've had permission in the past.
I do not believe that's the case, please cite.
 
Yes, I believe if a person has in the past allowed someone to preform an act then if the same person later does the same or a similar act which would normally be considered a criminal act the DA will not prosecute and inform the potential victim that the case is a civil matter. For instance if you let someone borrow your car and that person later ‘borrows’ your car but without your permission than most DA’s will not prosecute.

Respectfully that makes no sense to me.

What one does with permission isn't even comparable to someone who didnt have any permission whatsover at the time. Imo, thats comparing apples to oranges.

By that logic that would mean if someone ever loaned someone money in the past they now have a right to come in, and rob them. Which of course is a criminal act if anyone takes anything they have no legal right to have.

Just like it's a crime when anyone takes a vehicle without permission.

Do you have a link that most proescutors wouldnt bring criminal charges when a suspect has stolen a vehicle when they didnt have permission to take it? Tia
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
77
Guests online
731
Total visitors
808

Forum statistics

Threads
589,925
Messages
17,927,735
Members
228,002
Latest member
zipperoni
Back
Top