CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #12

[mrjitty]

That is definitely a possibility! But we know that he used QB for his own business in the past so I think he surely knew that he could backdate the checks before the 4th. So if he's guilty, it's just odd to me that he would even waste valuable time and risk getting caught at the crime scene and/or incriminating himself by messing around on the computer when he could just backdate the checks remotely as he had done earlier in the week. It wasn't necessary to create the check there at the McStay house but we don't know what he might have been thinking at the time so it's definitely a possibility. IMO.

He didn't backdate the cheques earlier in the week

We shouldn't ascribe perfect logic to the killer. He would have been under intense psychological pressure and short of time

 

[mrjitty]

Well, in his perspective at the time, he wasn't in the right frame of mind. He's not thinking logically. He makes the check and then rethinks about it and deleted the check. But he could have played it out, not deleted the check then calls himself from Joseph's phone. But he didn't do that. He spent the next 25 minutes contemplating what to do and ended up calling himself at 8:28 in order to create a proof of life for Joseph.

Yes I think so

Staging often has mistakes under time pressure

 

[mrjitty]

Because he never BACKDATED any checks on the 1st and 2nd. He created and deleted checks only.

On the 4th , he desperately needed to make certain that backdating checks was possible. Otherwise, he knew he would have to create a bunch of checks himself right then, while the family could still be considered alive and well.

Maybe he was able to figure out that he could backdate that check. So he was satisfied that he could go now and finish these checks the next day and backdate them.

Also had he printed and cashed a cheque from mcstays on the night of the 4th this would have confirmed him as the killer

I would bet he realised this possibility in the end

There would be no way for him to explain how he possessed the cheque

 

[mrjitty]

So why was he making checks and deleting them? It doesn't make sense.

Alternative accounting!

 

[mrjitty]

Why would he have to try it on the 4th if he has already done it on the 2nd?

The one on the 4th wasn't edited and wasn't printed IIRC

Because he knew the mcstays were dead and the 4th was the last possible date.

The cheque on the 4th was deleted IIRC

Joey never deleted cheques in QB on the evidence so far

 

[mrjitty]

The case remains simple

The person who created the first Paul Mitchell cheque is also the killer

 

[Karinna]

Because he knew the mcstays were dead and the 4th was the last possible date.

The cheque on the 4th was deleted IIRC

Joey never deleted cheques in QB on the evidence so far

BBM, Yes that's right.
(quote) from OS
A look into Joseph’s QuickBooks records showed – you’re going to hear more evidence about that video in particular – during that time period at 7.56 pm someone signed in from the McStay’s home computer, the one there at Joseph’s desk, signed in, added a cheque to charles merritt all lower case, deleted the cheque and signed out. The memo was for paul mitchell all lower case, and the cheque was for $4,000.
CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #2

 

[Tortoise]

The case remains simple

The person who created the first Paul Mitchell cheque is also the killer

Unbelievably simple.

And if people needed more evidence -

his phone in the desert,
knowledge they were dead by altering the dates on cheques to the last date Joey could have written them,
a lie to detectives that he got those cheques on the 4th,
a call to purge everything from the QuickBooks servers after the last cheque,
a complete change in his call habits after the 4th,
his lie to Carmen after the weekend about trying to contact Joey,
his alerting the family missing the day after the Trooper was moved to a location in the south, when the desert was north,
no alibis, not even his phone records,
his phone is always in Rancho at the times of the cheque creations, from the 1st to the 8th, without exception.

Too simple.

 

[smr]

You never heard of a 'bro-mance'

Also, his trash talking of Summer leads me to believe that he was jealous of her. JMO

Whoa, it's clear now where this will lead to.

 

[Recidivist]

Whoa, it's clear now where this will lead to.

A conviction?

 

[smr]

A conviction?

How? A conviction? No, that's not clear at all.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Unbelievably simple.

And if people needed more evidence -

his phone in the desert,
knowledge they were dead by altering the dates on cheques to the last date Joey could have written them,
a lie to detectives that he got those cheques on the 4th,
a call to purge everything from the QuickBooks servers after the last cheque,
a complete change in his call habits after the 4th,
his lie to Carmen after the weekend about trying to contact Joey,
his alerting the family missing the day after the Trooper was moved to a location in the south, when the desert was north,
no alibis, not even his phone records,
his phone is always in Rancho at the times of the cheque creations, from the 1st to the 8th, without exception.

Too simple.

Morning Tortoise!

Exactly. I totally agree with you, and MrJitty.

I have said repeatedly throughout this trial it isnt a complex case at all, but straight forward, and quite simple.

It is inline with most all murder cases who weren't complex cases either. Imo, 99 percent of them weren't complex, including this one.

I think it may be more titillating, and interesting for some if its made into being more complex than it really is.

Imo, the simplest route to get from A to Z is usually the correct way to the correct conclusion.

In this one, the logical conclusion points to CM being the sole murderer of the entire McStay family, and no one else.

Yes, its that simple.

Imo.

 

[Tortoise]

Morning Tortoise!

Exactly. I totally agree with you, and MrJitty.

I have said repeatedly throughout this trial it isnt a complex case at all, but straight forward, and quite simple.

It is inline with most all murder cases who weren't complex cases either. Imo, 99 percent of them weren't complex, including this one.

I think it may be more titillating, and interesting for some if its made into being more complex than it really is.

Imo, the simplest route to get from A to Z is usually the correct way to the correct conclusion.

In this one, the logical conclusion points to CM being the sole murderer of the entire McStay family, and no one else.

Yes, its that simple.

Imo.

Good morning ocean.

If it was a movie plot it would be too obvious and boring IMO.

I'm so disappointed with Law & Crime network, they let everyone down so badly.

Still, I think justice for the McStays is on its way, I'm really looking forward to the prosecution getting their teeth into the defense "case".

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Good morning ocean.

If it was a movie plot it would be too obvious and boring IMO.

I'm so disappointed with Law & Crime network, they let everyone down so badly.

Still, I think justice for the McStays is on its way, I'm really looking forward to the prosecution getting their teeth into the defense "case".

Me too. I prefer simple myself, but I know others may not.

Btw, I'm sure Missy will be covering the defense direct examinations, which is greatly appreciated, but do you think you could give a synopsis of the state's cross of each witness?

I wish I had the time to watch all of it myself, but time does not allow me to do so.

I know others who can't watch it either, and would appreciate it as much as I would.

Imo

 

[missy1974]

What his lawyers say is not evidence at trial

I am pretty sure that I didn't say it was evidence.

 

[Tortoise]

Me too. I prefer simple myself, but I know others may not.

Btw, I'm sure Missy will be covering the defense direct examinations, which is greatly appreciated, but do you think you could give a synopsis of the state's cross of each witness?

I wish I had the time to watch all of it myself, but time does not allow me to do so.

I know others who can't watch it either, and would appreciate it as much as I would.

Imo

Ok, I will start out with the intention of doing so but only if it's not to do with DNA and alleles! There may be days where I won't be able to do it right away, so we'll see how it goes.

Katydid usually provides good summaries I have found.

 

[missy1974]

Because he knew the mcstays were dead and the 4th was the last possible date.

The cheque on the 4th was deleted IIRC

Joey never deleted cheques in QB on the evidence so far

You missed the point of the post I responded to. katy was saying that he did it to try to see if backdating could be done, but there is no evidence that he tried or did backdate the cheque on the 4th, and if he had already done the cheques on the 1st and 2nd, he didn't need to "try" anything, he had already done it and knew he could. That then morphed into well 'maybe he looked at the options to see if he could backdate', which of course, there is no evidence of that.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Ok, I will start out with the intention of doing so but only if it's not to do with DNA and alleles! There may be days where I won't be able to do it right away, so we'll see how it goes.

Katydid usually provides good summaries I have found.

Yes, Katy has been such a valuable asset for us all as well.

I do keep up with what you both have posted, and anyone else who updates us on the prosecution's case.

I hear ya about any DNA testimony. Lol

I'm very patient, and understand you have to do it on your own time at your own pace.

Thanks.

Imo

 

[missy1974]

Me too. I prefer simple myself, but I know others may not.

Btw, I'm sure Missy will be covering the defense direct examinations, which is greatly appreciated, but do you think you could give a synopsis of the state's cross of each witness?

I wish I had the time to watch all of it myself, but time does not allow me to do so.

I know others who can't watch it either, and would appreciate it as much as I would.

Imo

Actually, when I listen to testimony, I find that if there is anything they don't want you to know, if it's a good cross, they will get it out So I actually listen to both, well... in this case, I have listened to all of it haha But I will pay attention on cross to look for the problems with the information that came out on direct, which is what I did with the prosecutions case so far. As for posting the defenses theory or points, we are on a discussion forum, and if the only viewpoint represented was the States, then there isn't much to discuss, is there? Most would have convicted after OS's, actually most convicted him before that IMO

I think it's kinda funny that you all think or assume I think Chase is not guilty LOL I am more concerned about what the evidence shows, and so far, I'm underwhelmed by the prosecutions case, and we are at the end of it. I do not think I am the only one, actually I know I'm not. I am interested to see what the defense is going to say, who they call as witnesses, and to see if they can back up some of the things they have implied over the last 2 months. I still want to see that little punk Dan squirm and hope they call him as a witness. He has never had to answer for all the money he took from EIP either.

It's unfortunate that we will no longer have cams there and we will only have audio, which will make it much harder for some to follow. In my notes, I have actually noted the exhibit numbers for some exhibits lol So if some of the same exhibits are used, I might be able to find them in 'video' testimony.

I actually wonder if they pulled a Geragos (defense rest), if he would be convicted.

 

[missy1974]

deleted lol wrong thread