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

[mrjitty]

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.

Sadly its not this simple because in law we have both the legal & equitable position

So personally I would have done it PMs way - but in a crisis, and as an equitable partner under a gentleman's agreement there is a case to be made that emergency actions to "save the business" would be legitimate - at least at first.

It's important to remember that the legal rights can only be enforced by Joey (and then later his estate).

This is why I think the better argument would have been to hold DK liable to account for profits and sale proceeds.

One needn't think too long about why such litigation hasn't happened.

 

[Karinna]

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

That would be up to the family to take up with a lawyer if they so choose to wouldn't it? Does it also rely on if JM had a will after it was discovered the family was murdered, and who he named in his will as to whom can take legal action against his estate? And how would that all factor in if JM died intestate?

 

[mrjitty]

That would be up to the family to take up with a lawyer if they so choose to wouldn't it? Does it also rely on if JM had a will after it was discovered the family was murdered, and who he named in his will as to whom can take legal action against his estate? And how would that all factor in if JM died intestate?

It would be up to the executors of Joey's estate - named in his will.

I am not sure if what happens if you die intestate in Cali, but I assume executors would be appointed by Court.

But seriously, to try to recover 20K? One can well understand why it hasn't happened whatever the legal position.

 

[mrjitty]

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?

This is also why the backdating proves guilt

Backdating couldn't serve any purpose against Joey himself.

 

[Karinna]

It would be up to the executors of Joey's estate - named in his will.

I am not sure if what happens if you die intestate in Cali, but I assume executors would be appointed by Court.

But seriously, to try to recover 20K? One can well understand why it hasn't happened whatever the legal position.

That's a fair point you make. I think SB testified the accounts were frozen some time in March, 2010.

 

[Karinna]

This is also why the backdating proves guilt

Backdating couldn't serve any purpose against Joey himself.

Exactly. And seeing as it was Merritt's cell phone number that called QB's to get everything deleted, there is no way to spin that either. And as i stated previously that proves to me he knew JM wasn't coming back. The wanting to delete QB's was to cover his tracks just in case he gets caught. But he didn't know when he called that QB's sent 3 emails before anything could be activated because they felt it was very suspicious what he was asking them to do. And of course Merritt didn't reply or couldn't reply back to those emails.

 

[mrjitty]

Exactly. And seeing as it was Merritt's cell phone number that called QB's to get everything deleted, there is no way to spin that either. And as i stated previously that proves to me he knew JM wasn't coming back. The wanting to delete QB's was to cover his tracks just in case he gets caught. But he didn't know when he called that QB's sent 3 emails before anything could be activated because they felt it was very suspicious what he was asking them to do. And of course Merritt didn't reply or couldn't reply back to those emails.

Yes - deleting quickbooks and backdating need to seen together

It could have worked, if he had managed it. No one would know that he didn't receive the cheques on the 4th

 

[Karinna]

Yes - deleting quickbooks and backdating need to seen together

It could have worked, if he had managed it. No one would know that he didn't receive the cheques on the 4th

Yes it might have worked only if he knew Joey wasn't coming back, because Joey would of found out and called QB's to find out why his QB's accounts had been deleted and then the SHTF would of been a huge issue for Merritt once the fraud was reported and investigated and CM would of been back in court again for frauding JM.

 

[InspectorGadget]

Where?

Right here.

 

[InspectorGadget]

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

But the jury mostly don't have a background in trials. They either believe the witnesses or they don't.

 

[mrjitty]

But the jury mostly don't have a background in trials. They either believe the witnesses or they don't.

Completely agree

That is why the defence spent 130K on some speculative IP stuff.

You only need a couple of jurors to buy into it.

One of the most fascinating aspects of this case is the evolution of Chase's accusations. Back in the day, it was all Summer.

 

[mrjitty]

Incidentally it has been great to delve into the Packham case by comparison (South Africa)

There you have a Judge who is nobodies fool, and aggressively questions both sets of counsel. I find the McStay trial Judge to be incomprehensible. He allows so much tomfoolery in his Courtroom.

 

[Niner]

Friday, April 26th:
*Trial continues (DARK) (@ 9:30am PT) - CA - McStay Family: Joseph (40), Summer (43), Gianni (4) & Joey Jr (3) (Feb. 4, 2010, Fallbrook; found Nov. 11, 2013) - *Charles "Chase" Ray Merritt (57/now 60) arrested (11/5/14) & indicted (11/7/14) of 4 counts of murder with special circumstance; plead not guilty. DP case.
Trial started 1/7/19. Dark on all Fridays. 8 women & 4 men (alternates include 4 men & 2 women).
Trial Days (1-43: (1/17/19 thru 4/22/19) reference post #315 here:
CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #17
4/23/19 Day 44: Defense witnesses: Randolph Beasley, forensic consultant on cross. Gregg Stutchman, owner of Stutchman Forensic Labs (specialize in the forensic analysis & enhancement of recorded evidence). Motions hearing on 4/24, jurors in after motion hearing.
4/24/19 Day 45: Hearing without the jury present. Google rep in court. Defense subpoenaed records from Merritt's google account. Judge quashes the subpoena saying it's too broad. Also, Merritt doesn't remember the answers to security questions. Defense witness: Gregg Stutchman, defense video expert (reviewing video from neighbor's house of truck). Court continues on 4/25.
4/25/19 Day none: Attorneys & Judge have hearing at 9am. One of the defense attorneys (McGee) is out to undisclosed health problems, so no court today. Defense expected to rest next week. Court continues to Monday, 4/29.
Tentative Schedule for week of April 29th thru May 3rd: Court with jurors on April 29 (Monday), April 30 (Tuesday), May 1 (Wednesday) and May 2nd (Thursday). Dark on May 3rd (Friday).

 

[mrjitty]

The wonderful Tortoise has helped jog something in my head that I should have thought of before.

Here is the theory

We know that Dan was granted 3rd party developer rights for Joey's Paypal account.

What I think this means is that website can login to Paypal via the API to process transactions - like a new payment - using Dan's login, but sending the money to Joey's EIP account. My understanding is that you do this so you can grant your dev more limited rights to run your e-commerce, without the dev having your master login and thus access to all the crown jewels.

So whereas humans login to a website like paypal via a webpage, when machines communicate with each other over the internet, they do so via an access point called an API . So in the present case, Dan has added a shopping cart to the EIP website. A customer fills in their credit card. The website then uses a "payment gateway" where by it connects to paypal which is going to process the payment and report back to the shopper whether the web payment was successful. What happens in the background is that the EIP website logs on to paypal to send the credit card data over the API. Paypal then does its thing, takes the money, and tells the website what happened. It seems likely to me that this stuff was happening using Dans login. That's why Joey granted him developer rights.

so.... are these regular logins happening over the API rather than a human login?

Because if they are, the IP address shown would always be the IP address of the website rather than Dan's locational IP

If the site was hosted in San Diego and had a fixed IP - this could well explain why "Dans IP" always shows up there as far as Paypal is concerned, even as he was making daily purchases in Hawaii.

It would also explain why Dan is logging in so often.

What might not fit with this theory is Dan's payment request just after the 4th unless he could also generate these via the website?

I wonder if Joey and Dan had sales reporting on the backend of the site, and this is how Dan made the requests based on splits....

my .02c

 

[Mony Mony]

The wonderful Tortoise has helped jog something in my head that I should have thought of before.

Here is the theory

We know that Dan was granted 3rd party developer rights for Joey's Paypal account.

What I think this means is that website can login to Paypal via the API to process transactions - like a new payment - using Dan's login, but sending the money to Joey's EIP account. My understanding is that you do this so you can grant your dev more limited rights to run your e-commerce, without the dev having your master login and thus access to all the crown jewels.

So whereas humans login to a website like paypal via a webpage, when machines communicate with each other over the internet, they do so via an access point called an API . So in the present case, Dan has added a shopping cart to the EIP website. A customer fills in their credit card. The website then uses a "payment gateway" where by it connects to paypal which is going to process the payment and report back to the shopper whether the web payment was successful. What happens in the background is that the EIP website logs on to paypal to send the credit card data over the API. Paypal then does its thing, takes the money, and tells the website what happened. It seems likely to me that this stuff was happening using Dans login. That's why Joey granted him developer rights.

so.... are these regular logins happening over the API rather than a human login?

Because if they are, the IP address shown would always be the IP address of the website rather than Dan's locational IP

If the site was hosted in San Diego and had a fixed IP - this could well explain why "Dans IP" always shows up there as far as Paypal is concerned, even as he was making daily purchases in Hawaii.

It would also explain why Dan is logging in so often.

What might not fit with this theory is Dan's payment request just after the 4th unless he could also generate these via the website?

I wonder if Joey and Dan had sales reporting on the backend of the site, and this is how Dan made the requests based on splits....

my .02c

As I am not a techie, that was hard for me to follow, but i think the above boils down to what the defense's own witness La Rock said: "There are many many many ways to remotely access a computer".

IMO, MOO, etc

 

[mrjitty]

As I am not a techie, that was hard for me to follow, but i think the above boils down to what the defense's own witness La Rock said: "There are many many many ways to remotely access a computer".

IMO, MOO, etc

Yes.

In my theory - its not even human access - its programmatic access. i.e. the website talking to paypal.

 

[InspectorGadget]

Yes.

In my theory - its not even human access - its programmatic access. i.e. the website talking to paypal.

That's a sound theory as far as payments for orders into the Paypal account. For payments out of it, not so much . . . IMO

 

[Texas Red]

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?

I don't believe the DT knows which flight DK supposably took to Hawaii and the manifest would need to be subpoenaed. They can't very well subpoena the manifest for every flight the carrier had scheduled, the judge would rule, as he did with the google subpoena, that it's too broad. As I had said, it's difficult to prove a negative and for some reason DK isn't talking, I wonder why?

 

[Texas Red]

equitable partner under a gentleman's agreement

Applying this terminology to anything DK is involved with is a very generous and liberal use of the word gentleman.

 

[mrjitty]

I don't believe the DT knows which flight DK supposably took to Hawaii and the manifest would need to be subpoenaed. They can't very well subpoena the manifest for every flight the carrier had scheduled, the judge would rule, as he did with the google subpoena, that it's too broad. As I had said, it's difficult to prove a negative and for some reason DK isn't talking, I wonder why?

Nah

They can just ask the carrier to produce the flight records for that named customer within a date range

No need to subpoena every flight.

As far as I can see, the main issue would be how long they are retained.