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

[Karinna]

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

Reading this reminded me of Terri Horman getting in big trouble for taking someone else's vehicle and driving it. IIRC she was arrested at the time.

 

[Karinna]

(quote)
MARIN COUNTY, Calif. – The stepmother of missing Portland boy Kyron Horman has been arrested in California for driving a stolen vehicle.

Terri Horman was arrested Friday in a residential area at 1:24 p.m. in Belvedere, an upscale neighborhood just outside of San Francisco. She was charged with taking a vehicle without owner's consent and booked into the Marin County Jail.
Terri Horman arrested for driving stolen vehicle in California

 

[Texas Red]

Where is the proof Joey allowed Merritt to sign EIP cheques?

It really is an exercise in futility to go back and forth over this matter. I’ve explained several times why I believe my argument applies to this situation. You obviously do not agree, which is fine, you have your opinion and I have mine, without different opinions this site would be pretty boring. So, let’s move on, I’m certain there’s something else we can find to disagree about.

 

[floridagrrl]

I do not believe that's the case, please cite.

I’ll bite

CM added himself as a vendor a couple days before account holder is murdered
Implied consent too?

 

[la2cabo]

CA VC 10851(a) Unauthorized Use of Vehicle

Even if the owner of the vehicle has previously given consent to the defendant to drive the vehicle it does not necessarily mean that the defendant had consent at any particular time thereafter.

 

[Mony Mony]

I do not believe that's the case, please cite.

It is against the law. CA VC 10850

Law section

(b), the consent of the owner of a vehicle to its taking or driving shall not in any case be presumed or implied because of the owner’s consent on a previous occasion to the taking or driving of the vehicle by the same or a different person.

 

[la2cabo]

It really is an exercise in futility to go back and forth over this matter. I’ve explained several times why I believe my argument applies to this situation. You obviously do not agree, which is fine, you have your opinion and I have mine, without different opinions this site would be pretty boring. So, let’s move on, I’m certain there’s something else we can find to disagree about.

Why don't you explain in detail how it is Joey gave implied consent?

 

[Tortoise]

Has the defense even touched on verifying CMs alibi for the all of the times in question?

Tia

Night of the 4th Cathy testified he was at home and (paraphrased) there was nothing unusual about her calling him six times for three hours from 6 pm to 9 pm. I don't recall what she said about him calling her back at 9.32 pm from 20 miles away, I guess she didn't remember, she only remembered him being there and not picking up the 8.28 pm call from Joseph. But to her credit she did concede she told detectives that she could have sworn this all happened on a Friday night, when we know the 4th was a Thursday.

So there's his alibi for the 4th.

Oh and jury heard the jailhouse recording (2019) and the wiretapped call (2014) where they discussed it all.

And they had a massive argument about him not picking up Joseph's call, I can only think due to some premonition or other that something dreadful was going to go down with the McStay family.

For the 6th his sister backtracked on what she told Sgt Smith in 2014, which was that he hadn't been to her house in 5 years, which strangely tallied with his July 2009 phone pings.

 

[la2cabo]

Night of the 4th Cathy testified he was at home and (paraphrased) there was nothing unusual about her calling him six times for three hours from 6 pm to 9 pm. I don't recall what she said about him calling her back at 9.32 pm from 20 miles away, I guess she didn't remember, she only remembered him being there and not picking up the 8.28 pm call from Joseph. But to her credit she did concede she told detectives that she could have sworn this all happened on a Friday night, when we know the 4th was a Thursday.

So there's his alibi for the 4th.

Oh and jury heard the jailhouse recording (2019) and the wiretapped call (2014) where they discussed it all.

For the 6th his sister backtracked on what she told Sgt Smith in 2014, which was that he hadn't been to her house in 5 years, which strangely tallied with his July 2009 phone pings.

I wonder how much intimidation it took to get his sister to change her story?

 

[Tortoise]

It really is an exercise in futility to go back and forth over this matter. I’ve explained several times why I believe my argument applies to this situation. You obviously do not agree, which is fine, you have your opinion and I have mine, without different opinions this site would be pretty boring. So, let’s move on, I’m certain there’s something else we can find to disagree about.

So no proof then.

 

[asyousay]

Am I being thick here ( I probably am) but if Joey had given Chase permission to write out cheques why would he just not add him to the accounts?

Why was Chase foraging Joey’s signature if he had Joeys consent?

If everything was above board then Chase would not of needed to forge cheques as it’s illegal.

 

[Karinna]

Am I being thick here ( I probably am) but if Joey had given Chase permission to write out cheques why would he just not add him to the accounts?

Why was Chase foraging Joey’s signature if he had Joeys consent?

If everything was above board then Chase would not of needed to forge cheques as it’s illegal.

Exactly & that was my point in my previous post about that.

 

[floridagrrl]

Am I being thick here ( I probably am) but if Joey had given Chase permission to write out cheques why would he just not add him to the accounts?

Why was Chase foraging Joey’s signature if he had Joeys consent?

If everything was above board then Chase would not of needed to forge cheques as it’s illegal.

Ding ding ding

Not thick at all

Some are implying their opinions as facts
That is not the case

You are on the money

No pun intended I swear

 

[asyousay]

Exactly & that was my point in my previous post about that.

Yes but some posters seem utterly convinced that he had permission hence my post.

It just doesn’t add up and nobody who runs a business would do this.

Even if you take away Chase’s past misdemeanors and say he was a nice chap and had no past convictions a boss still wouldn’t risk their business in such a fashion.

IMO

 

[Tortoise]

Yes but some posters seem utterly convinced that he had permission hence my post.

It just doesn’t add up and nobody who runs a business would do this.

Even if you take away Chase’s past misdemeanors and say he was a nice chap and had no past convictions a boss still wouldn’t risk their business in such a fashion.

IMO

I think it's only one poster, from what I've seen.

The evidence actually contradicts this. When Patrick was involved in the EIP business he was set up as an authorised signatory on the account, according to CM.

 

[Recidivist]

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.

How do you know what most DA's would or wouldn't do?

 

[missy1974]

like who?

this is really intriguing to me

not all that intriguing lol He was on probation for 3 years from incidents in 2011, around the time he was searching how to get rid of facebook messages... he was charged with felony DV. Probation took his computer, so the logical conclusion to me is that he was contacting someone via his computer that he shouldn't have been. JMO McGee said they subpoenaed the probation officer that took the computer, who has since retired.

Mica posted a link earlier in the thread.

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

 

[la2cabo]

not all that intriguing lol He was on probation for 3 years from incidents in 2011, around the time he was searching how to get rid of facebook messages... he was charged with felony DV. Probation took his computer, so the logical conclusion to me is that he was contacting someone via his computer that he shouldn't have been. JMO McGee said they subpoenaed the probation officer that took the computer, who has since retired.

Mica posted a link earlier in the thread.

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

I don't know if DK had any restraining orders filed against him as a result of the DV charges/convictions but if he did it would be a violation for him to be contacting them via FB.

 

[Force Ten]

Yes but some posters seem utterly convinced that he had permission hence my post.

It just doesn’t add up and nobody who runs a business would do this.

Even if you take away Chase’s past misdemeanors and say he was a nice chap and had no past convictions a boss still wouldn’t risk their business in such a fashion.

IMO

No you wouldn't allow this for someone who has a history of theft and went to jail for it. Even though Chase was making upwards of $170k a year, Joseph had to pay for Chase's rent and Cathy's car repairs because of Chase's gambling problem. On top of the fact Chase owed Joseph $42,845 and he made sure to remind him of that on February 1st.

 

[Frankie Hellis]

Okay here is my next question...

In going through my screen shots, the attached one seems to be checks written by Joey for Chase. Am I correct with this assumption?

If so, isn’t it interesting Joey had to pay $400 for Jarvis’ car? I would have thought the prosecution would have pointed out just how bad Merritt’s finances were for him to need someone else to pay 400 for a car repair for their girlfriend. Maybe a missed opportunity for the prosecution?

ETA: I added another screenshot to help identify where the snip came from.