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

[missy1974]

No as he isn’t on trial here so why would the prosecution need to explain something that has no baring on Chase’s actions?

So you mean that Dan being owed money doesn't need explaining not the spreadsheets?

 

[la2cabo]

Who called Quickbooks impersonating Joseph McStay? CHASE MERRITT! That in and of itself speaks volumes IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

While I agree both Dan and Chase seemed quick to help themselves to Joey's money, I feel there are significant legal differences to consider.

Lack of consent is part of the test for theft, but you also need to have the intention to permanently deprive the owner of his property. I suspect the defence of both of them (if they had ever been charged) would have been that the money was taken in the furtherance of the course of business. So where the claimed intent was to save Joey's business, theft might be hard to make out, even where they take money personally for their time. It was after all a crisis, and they needed money to operate. So while I certainly would struggle to believe the pair of them, it doesn't really surprise me that they weren't charged with theft - especially with the family involved.

I see Chase's forged cheques as qualitatively different because they include fraud (the forged signature) and I can't see how you can argue they were in the furtherance of business when Joey was not missing for more than a few days at the time, or was not even missing.

Anyway - I hope this is a useful addition to the discussion

 

[Mony Mony]

There is also no proof Dan was "owed" anything. I have yet to see someone qualified to decipher those spreadsheets.... the best explanation I have had so far is actually from @bessie and that was 5 years ago, before CM was charged, before there was a trial. We are 4 months into this trial and they still haven't been explained in a coherent way to this jury.

Here are some old posts (from 2014)if you are interested:
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/chase-merritt-2.231004/page-55#post-10249042
https://www.websleuths.com/forums/threads/chase-merritt-2.231004/page-56#post-10250607

I was only talking about CM not being owed anything and per Joey, CM was overpaid. That was his belief at the time he wrote the email. Unfortunately, he got his head bashed in shortly after sending the email. He didn't have an opportunity to review his calculations.

 

[Texas Red]

But CM is the one that is on trial, so there must be proof that he is the guilty one.

This is the old standby ad hoc defense used when there is no rational explanation.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

So you mean that Dan being owed money doesn't need explaining not the spreadsheets?

I'm not understanding. Why would that need explaining in the murder trial against Charles Merritt?

I could see it being relevant if the McStay family sued DK in civil court.

Did they ever do that or has LE brought criminal charges against DK based on what's on the spreadsheet, and what transactions transpired?

I agree with asyousay, I dont see what bearing it has in someone else's murder trial either. This isnt a civil trial against DK.

Imo

 

[mrjitty]

Would you consider misrepresenting the ownership of a business in order to sell it to an unsuspecting buyer fraudulent intent?

I think if DK "sold" something that he knew did not belong to him to an unsuspecting buyer that would be criminal, if his intention was to deprive Joey of the proceeds.

But I don't know enough about what was actually sold.

e.g. was it essentially the URL with associated SEO rank? Did it include the site?

Who were those things registered to? could DK make a claim to own them?

What was the intent in selling? What happened to the money?

I wouldn't like to venture an opinion on the thin info we have.

For example, if they just let the business die, then the value would go to zero.

 

[la2cabo]

I'll be the first to admit I know little to nothing about web hosting or whatever it was that DK did for EIP, however, hasn't it been proven that DK did not sell EIP but rather something to do with the internet stuff?

 

[asyousay]

So you mean that Dan being owed money doesn't need explaining not the spreadsheets?

@oceanblueeyes explained it a lot better than I could.

 

[katydid23]

But IF Joey did find out about those cheques, she didn't know about it... because nobody seems to know if he knew, so there was no other conversation contradicting the statement that he was adding to and keeping Chase as a welder. So there should be no confusion here IMO

Thank You for making my point for me, ..... Nobody seems to know if Joey knew about the fraudulent checks created by Chase because Joey went missing on the very day the first check would have cleared his bank.

Is that a coincidence?

I think it is much more than a coincidence, I think it is a motive for the murders.

 

[missy1974]

I'm not understanding. Why would that need explaining in the murder trial against Charles Merritt?

I could see it being relevant if the McStay family sued DK in civil court.

Did they ever do that or has LE brought criminal charges against DK based on what's on the spreadsheet, and what transaction transpired?

I agree with asyousay, I dont see what bearing it has in someone else's murder trial either. This isnt a civil trial against DK.

Imo

I didn't say anything with Dan needed explaining.... LOL

I was talking about the spreadsheets... the spreadsheets as far as I can tell, don't even include anything to do with Dan, his buyout or payoff or whatever you want to call it.

 

[mrjitty]

I'll be the first to admit I know little to nothing about web hosting or whatever it was that DK did for EIP, however, hasn't it been proven that DK did not sell EIP but rather something to do with the internet stuff?

The only real value in the business was the current sales book and the sales pipeline

The pipeline was essentially all via search engine rankings

So what you would really be buying was the URL (to which the page rank attaches), plus the backlinks (key at the time) plus the SEO optimised webpages. Throw in some small change for the shopping cart systems etc.

But we'd need to read the contract to know how the sale was structured.

 

[Texas Red]

that would be criminal, if his intention was to deprive Joey of the proceeds.

Well it certainly would be ironic if the fact that DK knew JM was dead and wouldn't be deprived by the sale of the business was the very caveat that prevented him from having criminal intent.

 

[Force Ten]

because the cell tower CM was located closest to in RC was experiencing severe weather so the signal switched to the Victorville cell tower that was not experiencing severe weather and could handle the call even though it was located further away.

And to clarify CM’s phone didn’t ping at the gravesite it pinged off of the Victorville cell tower located miles away from the gravesites.

A cell tower that Merritt's phone shouldn't have been pinging.

 

[mrjitty]

Well it certainly would be ironic if the fact that DK knew JM was dead and wouldn't be deprived by the sale of the business was the very caveat that prevented him from having criminal intent.

That wouldn't make any difference.

Anyway, i can't venture an opinion about a contract I haven't read.

 

[missy1974]

Thank You for making my point for me, ..... Nobody seems to know if Joey knew about the fraudulent checks created by Chase because Joey went missing on the very day the first check would have cleared his bank.

Is that a coincidence?

I think it is much more than a coincidence, I think it is a motive for the murders.

You are incorrect. The first cheque cleared on the 2nd. 2 days prior to Joey going missing. If he found out between the 2nd and the 4th, he never told anyone, otherwise I am sure we would have heard about it in testimony already. Mike saying something about Joey and his bank account in his last conversation... well... from the records I see, he talked to Joey the last time on Feb 1st, before that cheque cleared.

 

[la2cabo]

The only real value in the business was the current sales book and the sales pipeline

The pipeline was essentially all via search engine rankings

So what you would really be buying was the URL (to which the page rank attaches), plus the backlinks (key at the time) plus the SEO optimised webpages. Throw in some small change for the shopping cart systems etc.

But we'd need to read the contract to know how the sale was structured.

So in essence we really have no idea what DK sold or if he had the right to sell it? One would think the family would've put a stop to it if it belonged to Joey.

 

[Mica]

I'll be the first to admit I know little to nothing about web hosting or whatever it was that DK did for EIP, however, hasn't it been proven that DK did not sell EIP but rather something to do with the internet stuff?

I don’t know much about internet stuff either, but EIP was an internet based company. That internet based company is still doing business as Earth Inspired Products after DK sold it. So, in effect, he sold the business, IMO.

Did JM buy out DK to remove him as SEO? McGyver and PM have stated the buyout (payoff) was complete before the family went missing. If true, DK had no business selling anything related to EIP, IMO.

Water Fountains | Shop Wall, Floor, And Custom Water Features

 

[Bernina]

It wasn't CM who made threat to JM?

“Now, I, Summer & Kids know the 'Real You' and what you would potentially do to harm me and my family"

Did JM write the above to CM or DK? Has JM written similar words to CM

That is SOOOOO out of context, you might want to read the entire exchange. it's about the website, NOT doing physical/deadly harm to the McStays.

 

[mrjitty]

So in essence we really have no idea what DK sold or if he had the right to sell it? One would think the family would've put a stop to it if it belonged to Joey.

I think it's wild speculation without reading the contract.

I would also guess, that the family would have felt by that stage, that Joey had abandoned the business or met misfortune so they should get what they could for it.

Of course that might not be strictly legal - at least at civil law.