CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #17

[Force Ten]

I think they're referring to anyone who disagrees with them and/or thinks Merritt is guilty. JMO

IMO, it's quite obvious that's what is happening here.

By and large, people generally don't buy into conspiracy theories. But there is always the few who do and refute everything to the contrary, no matter what.

 

[Force Ten]

I have seen lots of argument on this thread that the defendant is guilty because he has been arrested.

Where?

 

[Mony Mony]

Was Rudins previous testimony in front of the jury? I went back to listen, and the seemed to refer to his testimony as a "402 hearing".

 

[Force Ten]

Liscio’s manipulation of the Faro scans attempting to match the surveillance video with Merritt’s truck. Although, IMO, this has already come back to bite them. Claiming to have found blood droplets in a photo but not noticed until 9 years later, again, this appears to have now come back to bite them. Questionable phone pings, misrepresenting the jailhouse conversations of the defendant. Overall this is a classic example of bending the evidence to fit the theory of the crime, in a true impartial investigation the suspect is matched to the evidence, IMO, the opposite happened in this case.

"Misrepresenting jailhouse conversations"? Howso?

 

[Force Ten]

Was Rudins previous testimony in front of the jury? I went back to listen, and the seemed to refer to his testimony as a "402 hearing".

No none of it was.

 

[Karinna]

ETA, to my previous post. Can you imagine if JM and his family had of been on some type of extended vacation, and they get back and only for JM to find CM had been successful at wiping out Joey's Quickbooks accounts? What do you think would of happened?

 

[missy1974]

Was Rudins previous testimony in front of the jury? I went back to listen, and the seemed to refer to his testimony as a "402 hearing".

No, they had the 402 hearing and then it was decided that he would come back on Feb 19th. He didn't come back and then it was sometime in March I think (?) that they mentioned Luscio. I Forgot they had Rudin scheduled to come back on the 19th until I listened to it again... interesting that they contacted Luscio on the 18th.

 

[Bobcat1]

Sorry I haven't been following lately.

Reference post #480 and others

As to DK, has anyone seen any documents proving DK was a partner as he claims, no. Just his version of a claimed "gentlemen's agreement" . How convenient that Joseph isn't here to dispute him. Don't read anything into this I do not in any way believe DK had anything to do with the murders and neither does PM.

What would PM say?

I can tell you what I know from past conversations with PM and what he has said on the internet and in interviews and conversations with me. This is MOO from what I have learned through the years.

He has said that he understands that no one had any legal authority to act on Joseph's behalf or to operate EIP. EIP was and remained a "sole proprietorship" since 2006 when PM withdrew from EIP and his partnership with his son Joseph. That was because Joseph's credit had been repaired and he no longer needed to rely on his father's credit. But PM still financial backed Joseph and EIP. No one other than Joseph had any ownership or authority to operate EIP.

Legally when Joseph was known to be missing the only way to "legally" operate EIP required legal filings with a court to be granted authority to act on Joseph and EIP's behalf. None of that was done by anyone in the family or anyone else. Therefore no one had any legal rights to do anything with EIP. Because of what was happening and how it was being done, PM withdrew and did not get involved because he wanted to file with the courts and do it legally and he was disregarded'

You can't simply take over a business without legal authority and operate it without legal authority, which again requires legal filings with the proper court. To open a bank account in a name similar to the EIP name and deposit payments that were payable to EIP is (as I understand) not legal and violates many laws.

This is what I believe and PM believes from what I gathered from my many conversations with him. As I said he has also made some comments about some of this in past interviews and I do believe this is one of the things that has bothered him for a long time.

 

[Force Ten]

Sorry I haven't been following lately.

Reference post #480 and others

As to DK, has anyone seen any documents proving DK was a partner as he claims, no. Just his version of a claimed "gentlemen's agreement" . How convenient that Joseph isn't here to dispute him. Don't read anything into this I do not in any way believe DK had anything to do with the murders and neither does PM.

What would PM say?

I can tell you what I know from past conversations with PM and what he has said on the internet and in interviews and conversations with me. This is MOO from what I have learned through the years.

He has said that he understands that no one had any legal authority to act on Joseph's behalf or to operate EIP. EIP was and remained a "sole proprietorship" since 2006 when PM withdrew from EIP and his partnership with his son Joseph. That was because Joseph's credit had been repaired and he no longer needed to rely on his father's credit. But PM still financial backed Joseph and EIP. No one other than Joseph had any ownership or authority to operate EIP.

Legally when Joseph was known to be missing the only way to "legally" operate EIP required legal filings with a court to be granted authority to act on Joseph and EIP's behalf. None of that was done by anyone in the family or anyone else. Therefore no one had any legal rights to do anything with EIP. Because of what was happening and how it was being done, PM withdrew and did not get involved because he wanted to file with the courts and do it legally and he was disregarded'

You can't simply take over a business without legal authority and operate it without legal authority, which again requires legal filings with the proper court. To open a bank account in a name similar to the EIP name and deposit payments that were payable to EIP is (as I understand) not legal and violates many laws.

This is what I believe and PM believes from what I gathered from my many conversations with him. As I said he has also made some comments about some of this in past interviews and I do believe this is one of the things that has bothered him for a long time.

In light of this, wouldn't Patrick have legal precedent to sue Dan?

 

[travelbug]

He has said that he understands that no one had any legal authority to act on Joseph's behalf or to operate EIP. EIP was and remained a "sole proprietorship" since 2006 when PM withdrew from EIP and his partnership with his son Joseph. That was because Joseph's credit had been repaired and he no longer needed to rely on his father's credit. But PM still financial backed Joseph and EIP. No one other than Joseph had any ownership or authority to operate EIP.

Legally when Joseph was known to be missing the only way to "legally" operate EIP required legal filings with a court to be granted authority to act on Joseph and EIP's behalf. None of that was done by anyone in the family or anyone else. Therefore no one had any legal rights to do anything with EIP.

Please thank PM for, once again, clearing up what actions were and were not legal regarding EIP. Also please let him know that I hope he soon achieves peace and his suffering lessens.

 

[mrjitty]

I agree, the fact that DK being in California is in itself not evidence of guilt. However, the fact that he had lied about it for the purpose of creating a false alibi is evidence of guilt.

It could be used as a circumstantial point yes

But I am still waiting for one fact that places him in Cali, whereas we have multiple evidential points for Hawaii

Why haven't the defence produced the PAX records that would prove their version?

 

[mrjitty]

A flight manifest would go a long way in convincing me.

Agreed

But why don't the defence produce one - seeing as it would slay the Prosecution case?

This is the easiest thing in the world to do, and would free an innocent man?

 

[Karinna]

Sorry I haven't been following lately.

Reference post #480 and others

As to DK, has anyone seen any documents proving DK was a partner as he claims, no. Just his version of a claimed "gentlemen's agreement" . How convenient that Joseph isn't here to dispute him. Don't read anything into this I do not in any way believe DK had anything to do with the murders and neither does PM.

What would PM say?

I can tell you what I know from past conversations with PM and what he has said on the internet and in interviews and conversations with me. This is MOO from what I have learned through the years.

He has said that he understands that no one had any legal authority to act on Joseph's behalf or to operate EIP. EIP was and remained a "sole proprietorship" since 2006 when PM withdrew from EIP and his partnership with his son Joseph. That was because Joseph's credit had been repaired and he no longer needed to rely on his father's credit. But PM still financial backed Joseph and EIP. No one other than Joseph had any ownership or authority to operate EIP.

Legally when Joseph was known to be missing the only way to "legally" operate EIP required legal filings with a court to be granted authority to act on Joseph and EIP's behalf. None of that was done by anyone in the family or anyone else. Therefore no one had any legal rights to do anything with EIP. Because of what was happening and how it was being done, PM withdrew and did not get involved because he wanted to file with the courts and do it legally and he was disregarded'

You can't simply take over a business without legal authority and operate it without legal authority, which again requires legal filings with the proper court. To open a bank account in a name similar to the EIP name and deposit payments that were payable to EIP is (as I understand) not legal and violates many laws.

This is what I believe and PM believes from what I gathered from my many conversations with him. As I said he has also made some comments about some of this in past interviews and I do believe this is one of the things that has bothered him for a long time.

Yes i would imagine no one had any legal right in JM's EIP business affairs without some type of legal permission from the court at the time.
Considering the difficult situation at the time, and on the premise of the information you have relayed from PM, that would also mean SB & MM,(if that includes MM?), had no legal authority to manage the business and keep it afloat in JM's absence either?
Is that a known fact also?

 

[mrjitty]

Sorry I haven't been following lately.

Reference post #480 and others

As to DK, has anyone seen any documents proving DK was a partner as he claims, no. Just his version of a claimed "gentlemen's agreement" . How convenient that Joseph isn't here to dispute him. Don't read anything into this I do not in any way believe DK had anything to do with the murders and neither does PM.

What would PM say?

I can tell you what I know from past conversations with PM and what he has said on the internet and in interviews and conversations with me. This is MOO from what I have learned through the years.

He has said that he understands that no one had any legal authority to act on Joseph's behalf or to operate EIP. EIP was and remained a "sole proprietorship" since 2006 when PM withdrew from EIP and his partnership with his son Joseph. That was because Joseph's credit had been repaired and he no longer needed to rely on his father's credit. But PM still financial backed Joseph and EIP. No one other than Joseph had any ownership or authority to operate EIP.

Legally when Joseph was known to be missing the only way to "legally" operate EIP required legal filings with a court to be granted authority to act on Joseph and EIP's behalf. None of that was done by anyone in the family or anyone else. Therefore no one had any legal rights to do anything with EIP. Because of what was happening and how it was being done, PM withdrew and did not get involved because he wanted to file with the courts and do it legally and he was disregarded'

You can't simply take over a business without legal authority and operate it without legal authority, which again requires legal filings with the proper court. To open a bank account in a name similar to the EIP name and deposit payments that were payable to EIP is (as I understand) not legal and violates many laws.

This is what I believe and PM believes from what I gathered from my many conversations with him. As I said he has also made some comments about some of this in past interviews and I do believe this is one of the things that has bothered him for a long time.

Thanks Bobcat

None of this is particularly surprising from a legal standpoint.

e.g changing the merchant account on the website was an obvious end run to divert customer funds away from Joey's accounts so the funds could be accessed

 

[Karinna]

Agreed

But why don't the defence produce one - seeing as it would slay the Prosecution case?

This is the easiest thing in the world to do, and would free an innocent man?

He is in no way innocent IMO. There is that other very incriminating evidence against him that can't be dismissed IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

In light of this, wouldn't Patrick have legal precedent to sue Dan?

IMO Joey's estate could have sued Dan to account for the proceeds of sale.

 

[mrjitty]

He is in no way innocent IMO. There is that other very incriminating evidence against him that can't be dismissed IMO.

Agreed - but from the point of view of the defence - why on earth do they not blow the prosecution case wide open with the PAX records if DK really was in cali?

Why spend 100K+ on some obscure DNS evidence when you can just pull out his travel?

 

[Karinna]

Agreed - but from the point of view of the defence - why on earth do they not blow the prosecution case wide open with the PAX records if DK really was in cali?

Why spend 100K+ on some obscure DNS evidence when you can just pull out his travel?

BBM, Because i don't think they would do that, because it would probably prove the PT's case that DK was actually in Hawaii. That way there would be no doubt, which is against what the DT are trying to throw into the mix for the jury , IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

By saying that no one else has a clue even though we have seen debit card transactions, ip address, and other testimony is fairly dismissive, imo. And yes, I firmly believe that DK was in Hawaii because that is where all of the evidence points and all I see is a bad Google lookup on an IP (which has been refuted) to suggest otherwise. Is there some other evidence that anyone can point me to?

I agree, and I think it points to confusion around the overall BARD standard in criminal trials, vs evidential proof.

BARD is simply the question we ask at the end of the day, having regard to all the evidence at trial. We don't apply BARD standard to the question "was DK in Hawaii". If we did, then the prosecution becomes impossible because each piece of evidence can be undermined by speculation.

The proper handling of evidential questions is much clearer if you have a strong background in civil trials IMO. Experienced Judges have regard to the weight of evidence and will not hesitate to make natural and obvious inferences based on weight of evidence.

So let's imagine for a moment this is a civil trial

A judge will simply look at ticket purchase, phone records and purchase records, and draw an inference based on the weight of evidence. Namely that DK was most likely in Hawaii in the date range. Same with criminal trials - It does not need to be proven 100%, or beyond reasonable doubt etc etc

Sometimes this might be expressed by saying "prima facie" DK was in Hawaii until the defendant can produce proof otherwise

So at this point the other side have their turn at bat. And this is where I mean that an evidential burden has been raised that they have to fight against. It isn't enough to speculate that it is still possible for DK to have slipped back to California. You need proof positive to back your assertion.

IMO some vague DNS stuff cannot stand against the hard records the state has produced.

Especially any hard nosed judge is going to take a dim view of a defendant who doesn't produce evidence which must have existed if the defence is correct for consideration by the Court.

tldr; put up the passenger records and DK himself or go home.

my .02

 

[mrjitty]

BBM, Because i don't think they would do that, because it would probably prove the PT's case that DK was actually in Hawaii. That way there would be no doubt, which is against what the DT are trying to throw into the mix for the jury , IMO.

Exactly - but this is precisely where the dead eyed High Court Judge of my day would tear counsel a new one.

You can't come to court with a version that implies the existence of certain evidence but then not produce it.

At the very least Counsel should be expected to indicate to the Judge what efforts have been made to obtain it. You often see adverse comment in civil trials for instance where one side produces hard documentation but the other side doesn't produce documentation that it must have.

Criminal trials are of course different, but the defence sure spends a lot of time not producing primary documentation that might back its case.