CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #11

[citygirl]

lol On the 2nd upload the top portion (for today's hearing) said Google and Microsoft, below it just states the contempt hearing is scheduled for Monday:

https://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachments/5b24221d-8a3f-426b-958c-37f3315f4567-jpeg.173116/

So what does this mean?

 

[oceanblueeyes]

who is being looked at for contempt? Let me guess, the defense bringing charges against the Pros?

What does OSC mean?

 

[MichaelCorleone]

What does OSC mean?

Office of Special Counsel?

 

[Cricket28]

Then why didn't he publish them?

He did Force Ten. On his blog. That's where I got the copy I have.

MOO

 

[Tortoise]

Could be, but if he was looking for a cheque that maybe he forgot about or was looking for a cheque written for that specific amount, he was looking in the wrong account if he never wrote cheques out of the Custom account. IMO The cheques all had the same account number on them, no way to distinguish which QB account it came from, Custom or Contact.

Although Joey did log-in to the Contacts account on Feb 1st and Feb 2nd.

And he logged-in to the Custom account for the first time that week on Feb 4th.

 

[Tortoise]

What does OSC mean?

I think it's order to show cause.

 

[Cricket28]

Yeah, seems like he couldnt stop himself from bragging that he was taller, and no doubt he thought he was stronger too. I don't know how stronger he really was when he had to resort to using a sledgehammer to murder them all.

CM is such a raging narcissistic psychopath.

They must put down others in order to build themselves up to others into being something they arent. They cant help themselves.

Cricket, let me ask you something if you know please.

I read that in the hearing held today it was to include the defense turning over their witness list.

My question. Doesn't CA have the reciprocal discovery rule, and what is expected of the state....is also required by the defense?

If so, that means all discovery, and witness list for the DT had to be turned over 30 days before trial.

There are to be no surprise for either side. Each one is entitled to know what witnesses will be saying in general including short summaries, and who they are from the way I understand reciprocal. I know that's the way it is in many other states.

So why is the defense just now getting around to turning over their witness list this late in the game to the state, along with summaries as to what each one are going to testify to on the stand? Tia.

Imo

Unfortunately I don't know the answers OBE. However, I've sent a text to my nephew who is an attorney here in CA. He usually gets back to me right away....but he is young, single, and ready to mingle and it's Friday. lol
I'm sure I'll talk to him by tomorrow.

With all the moaning the DT did regarding notification of witnesses by the state, this doesn't surprise me at all. YKWIM?

MOO

 

[Recidivist]

He did Force Ten. On his blog. That's where I got the copy I have.

MOO

Yes, he did. I remember seeing them there also.

 

[geevee]

So what does this mean?

It means lawyers for google and microsoft have to appear before the judge on Monday and show cause why the judge shouldn't order them (or the company they represent) to turn over whatever was required by them in the subpoena. I hope we get to see the hearing.

 

[Mica]

I think it's order to show cause.

Yes

 

[Bernina]

Unfortunately I don't know the answers OBE. However, I've sent a text to my nephew who is an attorney here in CA. He usually gets back to me right away....but he is young, single, and ready to mingle and it's Friday. lol
I'm sure I'll talk to him by tomorrow.

With all the moaning the DT did regarding notification of witnesses by the state, this doesn't surprise me at all. YKWIM?

MOO

BBM

There was plenty of that after trial ended on Thursday. Both sides are kinda playing fast and loose with the "rules". It'd be kinda nice if these "long trials" were overseen by a judge and court that ran 5 days a week and asked on day one if all the appropriate filings, lists and paperwork were in order for both sides.

Sometimes I wonder if the defense is getting paid by the word, they do have a tendency to beat around the bush, but JMO.

 

[katydid23]

So I believe the defense asked for some data/info from google and microsoft, which did not arrive. I wonder what they are trying to get from them?

 

[katydid23]

very interesting article. I wonder if this is the issue?

Tech companies are hindering criminal investigations, under outdated law


Tech companies are hindering criminal investigations, under outdated law


Although Google tipped off cops about the child *advertiser censored* files that had crossed its network, the company refused to give them access to his Gmail account -- despite the fact that police had a search warrant.

Google's argument: The data is "out of jurisdiction." In other words, some data in that Gmail account is stored on Google servers outside the United States -- and, since a ruling last year that is now before the Supreme Court, technology companies are not required to turn over that information.

Since the legal decision, major technology companies such as Microsoft and Yahoo have begun defying judges' orders in criminal investigations, refusing to turn over potentially crucial digital evidence of crimes. Their actions are impeding hundreds of criminal investigations, according to public testimony to Congress and interviews with law enforcement officials by CNN. These cases include ones of human trafficking, drug smuggling, and fraud.

Google (GOOGL), Microsoft (MSFT), and other companies say they're caught amid a duty to their customers, clashing interpretations of an outdated American law, and increasingly stringent privacy laws abroad. "In the absence of consistent legal doctrine, we're deferring to the judgment of the most senior federal court to rule on the issue," Google told CNN in a statement.

Microsoft's deputy general counsel, David Howard, also issued a statement to CNN: "This outdated law doesn't serve today's law enforcement needs, nor does it adequately protect people's privacy. We're particularly troubled that if the US government requires companies to turn over their customers' data abroad, other governments may follow this example and seek the private information of American people and businesses."

Until last year, technology companies routinely gave American law enforcement whatever information was listed in a search warrant, no matter where it was stored.

 

[missy1974]

Although Joey did log-in to the Contacts account on Feb 1st and Feb 2nd.

And he logged-in to the Custom account for the first time that week on Feb 4th.

Ok, but would you agree that these were 2 separate accounts, with 2 separate log in's (emails and passwords), that showed 2 separate ledger's right? He couldn't log into Contact and see Custom, or vise versa.

Him logging into his Contacts account on the 1st and 2nd has nothing to do with what was done in the Custom's account and it would not allow him to see what was done in the Custom account.

The only time anyone logged into the Custom account on the 1st and 2nd was when those cheques were added/edited/deleted.

If we are looking at this in the context of him saying something to Mike on the 1st, there is no indication that he was looking at his Custom account after that cheque was added/deleted on the Custom account (at 12:32-12:52pm on the 1st), the next log in is on the 2nd when the next cheque was added/printed/deleted. First cashed cheque by Chase was on the 2nd, and IMO there is no way he could have known about it before that.

He or someone did log into the Custom QB's account on the 4th, for 1 minute I think. Show sign in at 11:56, sign in 11:57, sign out 11:58.

 

[Force Ten]

He did Force Ten. On his blog. That's where I got the copy I have.

MOO

I don't recall seeing it. In what format?

 

[missy1974]

It means lawyers for google and microsoft have to appear before the judge on Monday and show cause why the judge shouldn't order them (or the company they represent) to turn over whatever was required by them in the subpoena. I hope we get to see the hearing.

It probably has something to do with log in's or something. Google and Microsoft own everything lol

 

[missy1974]

Yes, he did. I remember seeing them there also.

If you saw them... did they look like a true copy? or do you believe them to be true?

 

[missy1974]

very interesting article. I wonder if this is the issue?

Tech companies are hindering criminal investigations, under outdated law


Tech companies are hindering criminal investigations, under outdated law


Although Google tipped off cops about the child *advertiser censored* files that had crossed its network, the company refused to give them access to his Gmail account -- despite the fact that police had a search warrant.

Google's argument: The data is "out of jurisdiction." In other words, some data in that Gmail account is stored on Google servers outside the United States -- and, since a ruling last year that is now before the Supreme Court, technology companies are not required to turn over that information.

Since the legal decision, major technology companies such as Microsoft and Yahoo have begun defying judges' orders in criminal investigations, refusing to turn over potentially crucial digital evidence of crimes. Their actions are impeding hundreds of criminal investigations, according to public testimony to Congress and interviews with law enforcement officials by CNN. These cases include ones of human trafficking, drug smuggling, and fraud.

Google (GOOGL), Microsoft (MSFT), and other companies say they're caught amid a duty to their customers, clashing interpretations of an outdated American law, and increasingly stringent privacy laws abroad. "In the absence of consistent legal doctrine, we're deferring to the judgment of the most senior federal court to rule on the issue," Google told CNN in a statement.

Microsoft's deputy general counsel, David Howard, also issued a statement to CNN: "This outdated law doesn't serve today's law enforcement needs, nor does it adequately protect people's privacy. We're particularly troubled that if the US government requires companies to turn over their customers' data abroad, other governments may follow this example and seek the private information of American people and businesses."

Until last year, technology companies routinely gave American law enforcement whatever information was listed in a search warrant, no matter where it was stored.

I'm torn on this.... lol I would like to think that we have some sort of privacy, yet, I can see the need for them to comply with LE for criminal investigations.

I think we will see way more of this now that we have google home's and echo's. They are always listening to us

Thanks for posting that @katydid23

 

[Karinna]

From Daniel Hanke's testimony
(quote)
Q Did you also review or speak with someone who reviewed
Joseph’s bank accounts?
A Yes.
Q Was that at Union Bank?
A Yes.
Q Which? Did you review it or —
A Yes, I reviewed it and spoke with Detective Ryan Smith.
Q Okay. With regard to the Custom account, were any checks from, you said it was opened in January of 2008, from January of 2008 until February 1st, 2010, were any checks listed on QuickBooks or written from QuickBooks on the Custom side of the
account?
A On the Custom side, no.
Q So, all the checks during that time period were listed on
the other account?
A On the Contact account, yes.
Q Okay. On February 1st, 2010, were you able to tell from the records provided by Intuit whether there was any activity that day, on February 1st?
A Yes, I could.
Q What did you learn?
A I learned that a user — it showed that Joseph McStay logged onto the account, so that was Joseph McStay’s I.D. and password logged onto the account. And there was a vendor added, charles merritt, all lower-case letters;
Q Why was it significant to you that charles merritt was all lower case?
A When I looked at the Contact account, Charles Merritt was already a vendor in the Contact account. And there were checks written to Charles Merritt in the Contact account. And in that account it had Charles Merritt with a capital C, the rest of the
name of Charles was lower case, and there was a capital M and the rest of Merritt was lower case. In this account it was all lower case and it was a new vendor added.

 

[Karinna]

Who is Baker in this case? A blogger?