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

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mony Mony said:
Daughtrey made a point at the end of the testimony that it be explicitly clear "in case it comes up later and so there is no confusion" the accident occured on the southbound side. But i am not sure what the point of all of it was. Strange. I guess it may come up later.
Click to expand...

Southbound, would be headed back to Rancho Cucamonga. What time of day was it?
 
wary said:
Okay, here’s a question for those of you who do not think they were killed in the house.

1: were they kidnapped from the house?

2: were they intercepted as they did errands, kept an appointment with someone, etc.?

In the spirit of Missy’s post—no explanation needed.
Click to expand...

As pointed out before, a good explanation had been given as early as in March 2010 by MM:


la2cabo said:
Well, ya know what they say about opinions...everybody has one. :p
Click to expand...

Some are closer to truths than others. :)

Karinna said:
But he's a proven liar, so there is that. If you are talking about CM that is.
Click to expand...

He seems to "lie" at other people's convenience. :cool:

Mony Mony said:
I am amazed at fast you guys are in finding info! I was still in the interwebs trying to find an article like this! You guys can open a forensic investigation company and use Google as your main tool, just like LaRock!
Click to expand...

At least they don't make up stuffs.
 
I think one thing that is certain is the murder victims in this case were obviously transported by vehicle to the gravesite. There is a timeline to all of this as well.
A vehicle on the evening of the murders was seen leaving the McStay driveway, and the McStay family were never heard of again after the 4th. Feb. 2010.
JM was found in a shallow grave wrapped in a blanket, that was more than likely a blanket from the home. The tie downs and electric wire were most likely something someone had in their work truck. So not difficult to join the dots IMO.
 
Karinna said:
Why was this an issue at Trial? Sounds as if a woman lost control of her vehicle on a rain slicked road traffic accident. Not sure why this would factor in to the McStay family murder trial?
Click to expand...
Could it have something to do with the notion of the killer going to the burial site on two separate occasions? I remember early on in the case that they were trying to account for the difference in tire tracks where they found the bodies. It was speculated that one set of tracks was different in appearance because there had been a significant amount of rain between the two trips. (Or tracks)
I don't know how the tire tracks would even be discernable after that length of time, but I know I read about it. At first they thought there were two different vehicles, but then mentioned something about how the ground was wet from rain at one point, which would cause the tire tracks to be different in appearance.
I don't remember the source, though.
Maybe someone else remembers something about that.
It was based on the theory that he made two trips. Imo
 
missingm said:
Don't be so sure. The more I think of it, the more it feels like a trap for the defense. There are other rooms in the house where the killings could have occurred. Also, DK may have a more solid alibi than has been given.
Click to expand...
LE checked the entire house, garage and storage shed. SDSD (the original LE team) stated they found no evidence a crime occurred in the home. The house was only named as the crime scene after the graves were found and the investigation turned over to San Bernardino. Also, the defense isn't concerned with proving DK committed any type of crime. Their only goal is to create reasonable doubt for their client. It doesn't matter what any of us think. We are not the jurors. Fortunately, the jury will make their decision based solely upon the evidence. They will make that decision without prior bias regarding the defendant, DK, or any others associated with the trial. jmho
 
MsBetsy said:
Could it have something to do with the notion of the killer going to the burial site on two separate occasions? I remember early on in the case that they were trying to account for the difference in tire tracks where they found the bodies. It was speculated that one set of tracks was different in appearance because there had been a significant amount of rain between the two trips. (Or tracks)
I don't know how the tire tracks would even be discernable after that length of time, but I know I read about it. At first they thought there were two different vehicles, but then mentioned something about how the ground was wet from rain at one point, which would cause the tire tracks to be different in appearance.
I don't remember the source, though.
Maybe someone else remembers something about that.
It was based on the theory that he made two trips. Imo
Click to expand...
Yes i think you could be right. I do remember that theory as well now you mention it. Wonder if there were any phone pings on his to phone to rule it in or out?
 
MsBetsy said:
Could it have something to do with the notion of the killer going to the burial site on two separate occasions? I remember early on in the case that they were trying to account for the difference in tire tracks where they found the bodies. It was speculated that one set of tracks was different in appearance because there had been a significant amount of rain between the two trips. (Or tracks)
I don't know how the tire tracks would even be discernable after that length of time, but I know I read about it. At first they thought there were two different vehicles, but then mentioned something about how the ground was wet from rain at one point, which would cause the tire tracks to be different in appearance.
I don't remember the source, though.
Maybe someone else remembers something about that.
It was based on the theory that he made two trips. Imo
Click to expand...
Yes thats it! Thanks great post
 
missingm said:
Don't be so sure. The more I think of it, the more it feels like a trap for the defense. There are other rooms in the house where the killings could have occurred. Also, DK may have a more solid alibi than has been given.
Click to expand...
Agree. I believe DK was a suspect initially, but LE must of found enough on him that he had a solid alibi at the time of the murders. Makes sense to me anyway, because with any crime especially of murder, LE start off with the persons closest to the victim/s first and then anyone else that was known to the victim, when they do their investigations.
And the incriminating statement by Merritt that he was definitely the last person to see Joseph McStay.
 
If you all remember this was all discussed by PM back years ago.
He spoke directly with Patrick Malloy around July/August 2011 about the sale of EIP by DK to Water Feature Supply. The 100K was from that conversation and that was what DK received for the sale. It was not the remaining liabilities that were added to that figure, no it was the figure that was paid to DK. However according to Malloy the 80K was a debt of DK not EIP and the debt was part of the deal to pay DK. Now the suits were against EIP and separate from the complaints filed with the BBB were people and business said they never got their fountains and also never were returned their deposits. If I remember there was a suit filed by a company in Ohio but I'm not sure what happen to that case and neither is PM.
This suit was the three these two against Malloy (which two were charged and arrest for 1 million in drug sales Schneider/Quintero). These jewels sued each other over who would get the owner ship of WFS/EIP.

Water Feature Supply, Inc., Earth Inspired Products, Inc., Matthew Schneider and Joaquin Quintero v Patrick Maloy and GKG.NET Domain Proxy Service / GKG.NET Domain Proxy Service Administrator

Well, this one muddies the water, not the PM suit.
By the the PM suits were dismissed without prosecution. The bank withdrew the suit there was no action of any kind taken.
 
Bobcat1 said:
If you all remember this was all discussed by PM back years ago.
He spoke directly with Patrick Malloy around July/August 2011 about the sale of EIP by DK to Water Feature Supply. The 100K was from that conversation and that was what DK received for the sale. It was not the remaining liabilities that were added to that figure, no it was the figure that was paid to DK. However according to Malloy the 80K was a debt of DK not EIP and the debt was part of the deal to pay DK. Now the suits were against EIP and separate from the complaints filed with the BBB were people and business said they never got their fountains and also never were returned their deposits. If I remember there was a suit filed by a company in Ohio but I'm not sure what happen to that case and neither is PM.
This suit was the three these two against Malloy (which two were charged and arrest for 1 million in drug sales Schneider/Quintero). These jewels sued each other over who would get the owner ship of WFS/EIP.

Water Feature Supply, Inc., Earth Inspired Products, Inc., Matthew Schneider and Joaquin Quintero v Patrick Maloy and GKG.NET Domain Proxy Service / GKG.NET Domain Proxy Service Administrator

Well, this one muddies the water, not the PM suit.
By the the PM suits were dismissed without prosecution. The bank withdrew the suit there was no action of any kind taken.
Click to expand...


hmm okay.... so according to the contract, he was paid 20k + they assumed liabilities + 20% of net profits for 12 months.

Are you saying he was paid 20K + 80K for his own debts + assumed liabilities + 20% of net profits for 12 months?

Sounds like the lawsuits may have been customers then? sorry... just trying to make sense of it all. I had no idea where the 100K amount that Force Ten mentioned had even come from. TIA :)
 
Bobcat1 said:
If you all remember this was all discussed by PM back years ago.
He spoke directly with Patrick Malloy around July/August 2011 about the sale of EIP by DK to Water Feature Supply. The 100K was from that conversation and that was what DK received for the sale. It was not the remaining liabilities that were added to that figure, no it was the figure that was paid to DK. However according to Malloy the 80K was a debt of DK not EIP and the debt was part of the deal to pay DK. Now the suits were against EIP and separate from the complaints filed with the BBB were people and business said they never got their fountains and also never were returned their deposits. If I remember there was a suit filed by a company in Ohio but I'm not sure what happen to that case and neither is PM.
This suit was the three these two against Malloy (which two were charged and arrest for 1 million in drug sales Schneider/Quintero). These jewels sued each other over who would get the owner ship of WFS/EIP.

Water Feature Supply, Inc., Earth Inspired Products, Inc., Matthew Schneider and Joaquin Quintero v Patrick Maloy and GKG.NET Domain Proxy Service / GKG.NET Domain Proxy Service Administrator

Well, this one muddies the water, not the PM suit.
By the the PM suits were dismissed without prosecution. The bank withdrew the suit there was no action of any kind taken.
Click to expand...
Sorry Bobcat, some of us are much newer to this very sad case so not really sure what this all means as far as DK is concerned?
 
Bobcat1 said:
If you all remember this was all discussed by PM back years ago.
He spoke directly with Patrick Malloy around July/August 2011 about the sale of EIP by DK to Water Feature Supply. The 100K was from that conversation and that was what DK received for the sale. It was not the remaining liabilities that were added to that figure, no it was the figure that was paid to DK. However according to Malloy the 80K was a debt of DK not EIP and the debt was part of the deal to pay DK. Now the suits were against EIP and separate from the complaints filed with the BBB were people and business said they never got their fountains and also never were returned their deposits. If I remember there was a suit filed by a company in Ohio but I'm not sure what happen to that case and neither is PM.
This suit was the three these two against Malloy (which two were charged and arrest for 1 million in drug sales Schneider/Quintero). These jewels sued each other over who would get the owner ship of WFS/EIP.

Water Feature Supply, Inc., Earth Inspired Products, Inc., Matthew Schneider and Joaquin Quintero v Patrick Maloy and GKG.NET Domain Proxy Service / GKG.NET Domain Proxy Service Administrator

Well, this one muddies the water, not the PM suit.
By the the PM suits were dismissed without prosecution. The bank withdrew the suit there was no action of any kind taken.
Click to expand...
Thank you, Bobcat, You saved me some time. :)
 
From previous testimony by SB
RSBM
Blake said when she asked Merritt to help pass out fliers during search for her son and family, he refused to help. The prosecutor redirects Blake back to line of questioning about Merritt and the business. She said McStay didn't give Merritt access to a paypal account.

Leticia Juarez on Twitter
Leticia Juarez‏ @ABC7Leticia 19h19 hours ago
Blake did allow Dan Kavanaugh to pull funds to provide child support for McStay's son, Jonah.

Leticia Juarez on Twitter
Leticia Juarez‏ @ABC7Leticia 19h19 hours ago
Blake, Kavanaugh, and Merritt met to go over business accounts. Kavanaugh was placing software on Blake's computer to help keep McStay's business going. This was in March of 2010. The family had been missing for a month by then.
CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010
 
MsBetsy said:
Could it have something to do with the notion of the killer going to the burial site on two separate occasions? I remember early on in the case that they were trying to account for the difference in tire tracks where they found the bodies. It was speculated that one set of tracks was different in appearance because there had been a significant amount of rain between the two trips. (Or tracks)
I don't know how the tire tracks would even be discernable after that length of time, but I know I read about it. At first they thought there were two different vehicles, but then mentioned something about how the ground was wet from rain at one point, which would cause the tire tracks to be different in appearance.
I don't remember the source, though.
Maybe someone else remembers something about that.
It was based on the theory that he made two trips. Imo
Click to expand...

Mystery 'digger' track marks found at McStay family grave site | Daily Mail Online

Also great discussion on this topic in the main McStay forum. Members with time and interest can scroll through the discussion before and after this post.
The Gravesite

Pay particular attention to posts by @Sasquatch
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 106 more.
Total: 2,822 (members: 107, guests: 2,715)

Online statistics

Members online
107
Guests online
2,715
Total visitors
2,822
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
600,784
Messages
18,113,388
Members
230,991
Latest member
DeeKay
Back
Top