CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #8

[katydid23]

What is the story about JM's Mother lending CM $$$ ? I see people mention it on here, but I haven't heard what happened? Thanks

Mother Provides Emotional Testimony in McStay Family Murder Trial

Mother Provides Emotional Testimony in McStay Family Murder Trial

Jurors in San Bernardino heard emotional testimony from the mother of Joseph McStay in the McStay family murder trial family Tuesday.

In court, Susan Blake described her interactions with Charles "Chase" Merritt, who is accused of killing the family of four and burying their bodies in the high desert.


She told jurors about Joseph McStay's business associate, who is accused of the murders. Blake said he was the first one to alert her that no one could get a hold of Joseph.

She also claimed that she asked Merritt to help spread the word about the missing family members, but he quote "refused."


Blake says during the months following the disappearance, Merritt constantly tried to get money from Joseph McStay's business account to complete jobs.

At times, Blake claimed, Merritt was aggressive and combative.

"He asked for funds to keep the business going, at the time, I would do anything to help my son. I'm probably not in my right mind anyways at that time."

Blake told jurors that she gave Merritt more than five thousand dollars to complete jobs in the months after the family went missing.

Investigators say Merritt was paid $17,000 by a customer after work had been completed on a job.

Blake said Merritt promised to pay her back the money he borrowed, but she never received any money.

 

[Edmo]

Mother Provides Emotional Testimony in McStay Family Murder Trial

Mother Provides Emotional Testimony in McStay Family Murder Trial

Jurors in San Bernardino heard emotional testimony from the mother of Joseph McStay in the McStay family murder trial family Tuesday.

In court, Susan Blake described her interactions with Charles "Chase" Merritt, who is accused of killing the family of four and burying their bodies in the high desert.


She told jurors about Joseph McStay's business associate, who is accused of the murders. Blake said he was the first one to alert her that no one could get a hold of Joseph.

She also claimed that she asked Merritt to help spread the word about the missing family members, but he quote "refused."


Blake says during the months following the disappearance, Merritt constantly tried to get money from Joseph McStay's business account to complete jobs.

At times, Blake claimed, Merritt was aggressive and combative.

"He asked for funds to keep the business going, at the time, I would do anything to help my son. I'm probably not in my right mind anyways at that time."

Blake told jurors that she gave Merritt more than five thousand dollars to complete jobs in the months after the family went missing.

Investigators say Merritt was paid $17,000 by a customer after work had been completed on a job.

Blake said Merritt promised to pay her back the money he borrowed, but she never received any money.

Thank you Katy.

 

[MrsPC]

From yesterday's testimony - bottom line - Merritt's cellphone pinged February 5th off cell tower only 1 mile from the gravesite. That's huge IMHO!

 

[missy1974]

I don't gamble, mostly, but would find it addictive, cause I don't like losing . But isn't the point here that he ostensibly was gambling with funds gained from the fraudulent checks? Not sure if the PA will be able to come full circle with this, but I suspect they will.

As far as I can tell, they are saying the February 2010 cheques were obtained without Joey's permission. All the rest... are just cheques and they were in business together for years before Feb 2010. From what little I watched of the testimony with his financials... he was always a gambler, him going to the casino in Feb/Mar 2010 is not a new thing for him, and actually, I was surprised to see that he didn't spend more at that time. <<< but that's with the note that I have only glanced at this testimony, so will definitely watch for more when I sit and listen to it all

 

[missy1974]

I don't recall if it was mentioned in the testimony but do we have any information whether either computer was left on? An 'automated virus scan' can only run if the computer was already booted up; 2:00 a.m. is a fairly typical default time for auto scans to run, but only if the computer is already on.

Gosh I wish we weren't going to be missing any testimony, our own "trial record" is going to have vast black holes that may be difficult to fill in.

I had the same question geevee after Schroeder's testimony. I wish someone had asked Mike when he was on the stand if he had to "shut down" the computer or computers when he took them or when he looked at them, were they all left on. Or SDSD should have noted something like that, no?

We now KNOW that the one computer was turned on, on Feb 5th, because a scan did run, another thought was a quick power surge/failure. I have a laptop, so of course if the power flickers I have a battery backup, but my hubby's tower will flick off and on, and if it restarts it will open any programs that are on the startup menu when it starts up.

I do believe there is way more to the computers. JMO

 

[missy1974]

From yesterday's testimony - bottom line - Merritt's cellphone pinged February 5th off cell tower only 1 mile from the gravesite. That's huge IMHO!

ahhh I gotta go catch up LOL on the 5th? I know they say he buried them on the 6th. Maybe this is why some were discussing him going there on the 5th.

Where is the nearest casino in Victorville? LOL I'm laughing... but serious lol The other day I am sure I saw a $500 withdrawal, from the 6th.

 

[missy1974]

Mother Provides Emotional Testimony in McStay Family Murder Trial

Mother Provides Emotional Testimony in McStay Family Murder Trial

Jurors in San Bernardino heard emotional testimony from the mother of Joseph McStay in the McStay family murder trial family Tuesday.

In court, Susan Blake described her interactions with Charles "Chase" Merritt, who is accused of killing the family of four and burying their bodies in the high desert.


She told jurors about Joseph McStay's business associate, who is accused of the murders. Blake said he was the first one to alert her that no one could get a hold of Joseph.

She also claimed that she asked Merritt to help spread the word about the missing family members, but he quote "refused."


Blake says during the months following the disappearance, Merritt constantly tried to get money from Joseph McStay's business account to complete jobs.

At times, Blake claimed, Merritt was aggressive and combative.

"He asked for funds to keep the business going, at the time, I would do anything to help my son. I'm probably not in my right mind anyways at that time."

Blake told jurors that she gave Merritt more than five thousand dollars to complete jobs in the months after the family went missing.

Investigators say Merritt was paid $17,000 by a customer after work had been completed on a job.

Blake said Merritt promised to pay her back the money he borrowed, but she never received any money.

What is all unclear in these financials still is what was paid to EIP and Dan, what was given to who for what and when. On the surface it looks bad, but I do not think that Chase had access to the EIP money that was coming in and if it was the family and/or Dan that was receiving this money. I was hoping we would have seen more of this when the Forensic Accountant testified, but we didn't. I think it's important to look at it as a whole, and I don't doubt that Dan also may have screwed over Susan (and the family). JMO because a lot of what has been out there for years, is not really verified I don't think.

 

[Force Ten]

Per the prelim Boles testified that CJ called him many times (4 or 5?) and called her back around 1130. This seems to be a problematic pattern between these two that week.

Posting to correct my own post. I don't know if CJ called Merritt at all on the 6th, just that he called her 1130, 1131, 1132, 1134 and 1152.

I wonder if the call kept dropping or if he was trying get a hold of her like on the 4th.

 

[missy1974]

Posting to correct my own post. I don't know if CJ called Merritt at all on the 6th, just that he called her 1130, 1131, 1132, 1134 and 1152.

I wonder if the call kept dropping or if he was trying get a hold of her like on the 4th.

How do we know that he "kept trying to get a hold of her on the 4th"? Could they not have been dropped calls too? They were short calls IIRC is it that they were trying to have a conversation and because the calls were being dropped, it shows as so many repeat calls like that? Arggggh you guys are gonna make me go look to see if I can find the times again haha

 

[mothwings]

Does anyone know when the prosecution is supposed to rest?

 

[missy1974]

Does anyone know when the prosecution is supposed to rest?

I don't think we have heard anything on cam's about that at all.

If I had to guess.... Christmas?

 

[missy1974]

How do we know that he "kept trying to get a hold of her on the 4th"? Could they not have been dropped calls too? They were short calls IIRC is it that they were trying to have a conversation and because the calls were being dropped, it shows as so many repeat calls like that? Arggggh you guys are gonna make me go look to see if I can find the times again haha

Replying to my own post lol

The best I can do is direct anyone that wants to look at Chase's cell info a bit better for length of calls, and to who, is to watch the testimony. In the settings I had to slow it down to .25 or .5, I will give the time the defense starts questioning as 55:40 because they show the call records from their computer and it's much clearer, but McGee scrolls through the records, you have to pause and hope you get a clear pic, it's a bit frustrating and I would have to take a ton of ss's to be able to capture it all.

ETA: 58:19 is probably the best shot at the 4th calls before he met with Joey.

 

[Tortoise]

I don't recall if it was mentioned in the testimony but do we have any information whether either computer was left on? An 'automated virus scan' can only run if the computer was already booted up; 2:00 a.m. is a fairly typical default time for auto scans to run, but only if the computer is already on.

Gosh I wish we weren't going to be missing any testimony, our own "trial record" is going to have vast black holes that may be difficult to fill in.

I was having a quick flick through Schroeder's cross-examination and I heard this little snippet earlier -

Start at 18.00 in video

Maline: And that Feb 8th 2010, does it have a time associated with it?
JS: Yes it does.
RM: And what is that?
JS: 2.08 am.
RM: Around the same time that we saw for the eMachine correct?
JS: Correct.
RM: Same timeframe 2.06, 2.07, 2.08
JS: Correct.
RM: And that's am correct?
JS: Correct.
RM: Does it appear that the 2.08 access was a site called MSN. com is that correct?
JS: Yes.
RM: And that in 2010 that was a common opening page, would you agree in 2010? MSN?
JS: Yes it was.
RM: Ok so does that activity there suggest that all that was done on the HP was that the computer was booted up to its opening page? Is that what that activity would suggest?
JS: I would wouldn't say the computer was booted up but the application could have been opened, the internet explorer could have been opened, which was presented with that page yes.
RM: And there's no following searches like we saw on the eMachine correct - that you were able to identify?
JS: None are identified in the exhibit I'm looking at no.

So does this mean they agree the HP was not already on?

ETA strikethrough and word edit

 

[Tortoise]

So this Kevin Boles guy - what is his title? And he did go before Ryan Smith? Just want to get my notes straight!

TIA!

He is Kevin Boles, Special Agent with FBI. He went after Smith.

 

[Edmo]

I was having a quick flick through Schroeder's cross-examination and I heard this little snippet earlier -

Start at 18.00 in video

Maline: And that Feb 8th 2010, does it have a time associated with it?
JS: Yes it does.
RM: And what is that?
JS: 2.08 am.
RM: Around the same time that we saw for the eMachine correct?
JS: Correct.
RM: Same timeframe 2.06, 2.07, 2.08
JS: Correct.
RM: And that's am correct?
JS: Correct.
RM: Does it appear that the 2.08 access was a site called MSN. com is that correct?
JS: Yes.
RM: And that in 2010 that was a common opening page, would you agree in 2010? MSN?
JS: Yes it was.
RM: Ok so does that activity there suggest that all that was done on the HP was that the computer was booted up to its opening page? Is that what that activity would suggest?
JS: I would say the computer was booted up but the application could have been opened, the internet explorer could have been opened, which was presented with that page yes.
RM: And there's no following searches like we saw on the eMachine correct - that you were able to identify?
JS: None are identified in the exhibit I'm looking at no.

So does this mean they agree the HP was not already on?

If they are talking about "booting up," yes. However, I have never experienced a PC/Laptop booting up/restart with an internet "web page" being opened? Mine have always asked for my password in order to get to the desktop.

 

[katydid23]

Katy, the amounts shown on the graphs, did they show the thousands Joey had loaned him? Did it show where he had deposited that money?

Do you know if the state has casino records showing CM paid those debts off at the time they were given to him or did he take the loaned money, and use it to do more gambling?
=============================================================================

I wish I could answer those questions. I cannot, for a combination of reasons: the horrid streaming connection made my feed go in and out, my real life intruded, and much of the testimony seemed confusing.

 

[missy1974]

I was having a quick flick through Schroeder's cross-examination and I heard this little snippet earlier -

Start at 18.00 in video

Maline: And that Feb 8th 2010, does it have a time associated with it?
JS: Yes it does.
RM: And what is that?
JS: 2.08 am.
RM: Around the same time that we saw for the eMachine correct?
JS: Correct.
RM: Same timeframe 2.06, 2.07, 2.08
JS: Correct.
RM: And that's am correct?
JS: Correct.
RM: Does it appear that the 2.08 access was a site called MSN. com is that correct?
JS: Yes.
RM: And that in 2010 that was a common opening page, would you agree in 2010? MSN?
JS: Yes it was.
RM: Ok so does that activity there suggest that all that was done on the HP was that the computer was booted up to its opening page? Is that what that activity would suggest?
JS: I would say the computer was booted up but the application could have been opened, the internet explorer could have been opened, which was presented with that page yes.
RM: And there's no following searches like we saw on the eMachine correct - that you were able to identify?
JS: None are identified in the exhibit I'm looking at no.

So does this mean they agree the HP was not already on?

I think Schroeder says I WOULDN'T say the computer was booted up....

made me go listen because the 'but the application was opened' statement after it. This is questioning is probably why I am wondering about them being "booted" up at that time for whatever reason.

I have followed other cases where we can actually see the discovery for ourselves LOL I have read some of these Encase reports that they can do, they are very detailed and even include boot up times, shut down times, ect. And because the defense kept mentioning those FBI reports that were done and were obviously more detailed, I suspect we will hear more later. JMO

 

[Tortoise]

I don't think it was Schroeder himself that was trying to pull a fast one. He was asked to do specific reports, he did them. I think someone probably did a "intuit" file search, or "quickbooks" file search, and came away with that 1 of 27000 file and didn't look at the complete records or didn't think the defense would. BUT JMO

rsbm

So you don't believe Schroeder did the searches himself?

 

[Longtimenoc]

I haven't watched it, but I do intend to watch everything now that there is going to be a 2 week gap in livestreaming. My post came from the report in the SBC Sentinel which laid it out as follows (bbbm):

his analysis of a clone of the hard drive of the eMachine computer in the McStay home shows that a series of Google searches were carried out on the device on February 8, 2010 between 2:06 a.m. and 2:07 a.m. Schroeder said he was not able to make a determination of whether the items searched for within the span of two minutes had been typed in or clicked on from a pull down menu. Schroeder said he was not aware of any other activity on that computer. He said most of his analytical focus was on the eMachine, as opposed to activity on another computer in the home, a Hewlett Packard, which was last accessed on February 8, 2010 at 2:08 a.m. On that Hewlett-Packard, it was determined that the computer had briefly opened to the msn.com home page, which in 2010 was a common opening page. That was all that was booted up to the computer’s opening page. Schroeder indicated there were no following searches on that machine he could identify.
Schroeder said he was not aware of the FBI regional computer forensic lab’s report on the same machines. A subsequent exchange with Maline gave rise to the impression that the Hewlett-Packard computer might not have been accessed by an individual but had rather been stimulated by an automated virus scan.
Fuller Context Undercuts Circumstantial Elements Of Merritt Prosecution | SBCSentinel




When I watch it I'll be able to get a better idea of whether he was trying to pull a fast one but since I'm having to guess I think most likely he wouldn't have tried that knowing the defense would have pulled him up on it and used it to make him look incompetent or dishonest so I think it was most likely human error and he hadn't run that enquiry to see if it was a scan. It's possible he used certain key-word search terms and that came up in his results, meaning he would miss all the other thousands of files that would have shown it was a system scan.

Why didn't they just look to see if they had a virus scanner loaded and if so what times were they scheduled to run?

 

[missy1974]

If they are talking about "booting up," yes. However, I have never experienced a PC/Laptop booting up/restart with an internet "web page" being opened? Mine have always asked for my password in order to get to the desktop.

My hubby has an older computer, tower. His does not require a password. I think all passwords can be bypassed on windows computers, at least all I have owned (may have been one silly version that we couldn't). My laptops, we keep pswd protected.

Things that open on start up can be found in the startup menu... I have certain programs I have that open on start up. Some probably come up as an "internet access", just as an example, my 'weather eye'. Sometimes dumb programs have it automatically start on start up.

I don't know if this is the case here, I think we need more info to understand exactly what happened here. I, for one, am not willing to just believe someone was there doing it without some proof that it's the only thing that could have happened. They burned me on the Feb 5th bookmark, which was really a scan LOL