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

[InspectorGadget]

IIRC no one had it - someone reset it - presumably via accessing Joey's email. I wondered if Mike had been involved in this? Perhaps @Force Ten has an opinion?



3rd party developer access to Joey's paypal account via the API



So when Dan sets up the website shopping cart using paypal as service provider, the website needs a paypal username login so that it can process the transaction on the paypal side, and the funds are credited to the correct account. One way to do this is to use Joey's ID.

But as I understand it, Paypal offers instead, the ability to grant your developer programmatic access to your account, under their own user name. And you can make that highly restricted or broad access

So I guess a very limited access is simply to process credit card payments.

But as I understand you can do almost anything over the API that you can do from the cloud.

e.g. deposits, refunds, statements, payments etc

We really don't know how all this worked.

Am I missing something? Wouldn't it be common sense that Dan would have granted himself the permissions using Joey's Paypal Email? If he asked Joey to do it, he would simply dictate to Joey whatever permissions he needed. In any case, I don't think access would have been an issue at the time they set it up.

It may have become and issue once Dan had been paid out because Joey may not have remembered how to revoke the permissions or had time to do it.

 

[Karinna]

Am I missing something? Wouldn't it be common sense that Dan would have granted himself the permissions using Joey's Paypal Email? If he asked Joey to do it, he would simply dictate to Joey whatever permissions he needed. In any case, I don't think access would have been an issue at the time they set it up.

It may have become and issue once Dan had been paid out because Joey may not have remembered how to revoke the permissions or had time to do it.

Perhaps they should call DK to the witness stand and clear all of this up in the trial so everyone knows exactly what the arrangement was.
And clarify it all once and for all, IMO.

 

[InspectorGadget]

As per SB's trial testimony, she gave DK access to PayPal to take care of support payments to JM's oldest son.

My apologies. I didn't realize she had access.

 

[InspectorGadget]

Perhaps they should call DK to the witness stand and clear all of this up in the trial so everyone knows exactly what the arrangement was.
And clarify it all once and for all, IMO.

Nooo then we would have nothing to discuss lol!

 

[Karinna]

My apologies. I didn't realize she had access.

Yes she testifies here:
McStay Trial Day 31 Part 1 Susan Blake Called by Defense

 

[Karinna]

Nooo then we would have nothing to discuss lol!

True, its like a dog with a bone that won't let go LOL. The DK stuff that is.

 

[Force Ten]

Day 40 part 2. Sarah Kane from Paypal holdings.

I'll check it out. That's one of the ones I hadn't listened to.

 

[smr]

Do you have a post you can give us where any poster said he is simply guilty because he is the defendant? Tia

Personally, I believe Merritt is very much guilty based solely on all of the evidence presented in his trial.

I have no clue what you mean. ??? The 'real suspect' is the one who committed the crime no matter what the defendant's name may be in any given case.

Are you saying when LE announces they have a suspect, and then they are arrested, and charged they arent the suspect?

Anytime LE uses the term 'suspect' it means they have discovered evidence against them that makes them THE suspect status. Other than that they may name someone as a POI without calling them a suspect, meaning they are investigating them, but do not have the evidence at the time to label them the suspect.

Imo

There are more than a few, and I did reply to some. If you could find my replies, or the pages where I replied, then I can quote the original for you.

It's apparent that Dan was heavily involved with the website and there is documentation from Joseph to support that.

There is zero evidence to indicate Chase had Joseph's approval to print checks and forge his signature. There's no pattern of this at all.

There is zero evidence JM would allow DK to sell the business.

The only reason he couldn't is because he was dead.

That's why DK sold the business. Because he probably knew JM was dead.

 

[Karinna]

There are more than a few, and I did reply to some. If you could find my replies, or the pages where I replied, then I can quote the original for you.



There is zero evidence JM would allow DK to sell the business.



That's why DK sold the business. Because he probably knew JM was dead.

BBM, What date & year did DK actually sell whatever it is he actually sold?

 

[Force Ten]

There are more than a few, and I did reply to some. If you could find my replies, or the pages where I replied, then I can quote the original for you.

Couldn't you do that? Why send someone to do your work and verify your claims?

 

[Force Ten]

BBM, What date & year did DK actually sell whatever it is he actually sold?

June 2011

 

[Force Ten]

There is zero evidence JM would allow DK to sell the business.

I never implied Joseph did.

 

[Karinna]

June 2011

Thanks for clarifying Force Ten.

 

[missy1974]

BBM, What date & year did DK actually sell whatever it is he actually sold?

July 9th, 2011. The buyers went to the lawyer over the July 4th weekend with terms and asked him to draw up the papers. Papers were signed on July 9th in his office.

 

[Texas Red]

Couldn't you do that? Why send someone to do your work and verify your claims?

This conversation in itself demonstrates what smr is saying.

 

[smr]

Couldn't you do that? Why send someone to do your work and verify your claims?

Please follow the chain of quotes. It all originated from the following post (BBM):

Are most of these people those that already perceived DK was the killer for years before the trial even began?

I guess I can understand somewhat that outsiders who had made up their minds years ago about this case may want their preconceived biases confirmed.

It's always shocked me how so many on other social media sites care far more about being right than they do about the real suspect being brought to justice.

I've never understood that mindset, but it sure is evident on many other blog sites.

Then of course I see some who believes a defendant isn't guilty no matter who the defendant is. I guess those are ones who have some kind of bias against prosecutors or maybe law enforcement in general.

Imo

Which other social media, which other blog sites were referred to? And
Which posters "believe a defendant isn't guilty no matter who the defendant is", and "have some kind of bias against prosecutors or maybe law enforcement in general" ?

 

[la2cabo]

I never implied Joseph did.

It baffles me how words/posts get so twisted.

 

[Mica]

As per SB's trial testimony, she gave DK access to PayPal to take care of support payments to JM's oldest son.

Was SB the legal administrator or Temporary Conservator of the estate? According to PM, nobody had the authority to access or authorize access to JM’s PayPal account. Maybe he wasn’t aware an administrator had been assigned by the court?

 

[Karinna]

Was SB the legal administrator or Temporary Conservator of the estate? According to PM, nobody had the authority to access or authorize access to JM’s PayPal account. Maybe he wasn’t aware an administrator had been assigned by the court?

I don't know what PM was aware of as far as SB is concerned, or if they were in close contact at that time or not in regards to the EIP business and the difficult situation at the time?

 

[missingm]

Please follow the chain of quotes. It all originated from the following post (BBM):



Which other social media, which other blog sites were referred to? And
Which posters "believe a defendant isn't guilty no matter who the defendant is", and "have some kind of bias against prosecutors or maybe law enforcement in general" ?

Your reply to tell others to look for your posts was about your claim that you see others consider the defendant guilty just because he is the defendent. There is no direct connection to the beginning of your thread. Now you didn't say "other sites", so maybe that is the case?