mrjitty said:
↑
While I am all for discussing theories, currently I attach no seriousness to the idea that Chase was authorised to create these cheques for the following reasons
1. The obvious prima facie conclusion is these cheques are fraudulent - that natural inference holds until disturbed
2. A course of dealing in running the custom account including deleting cheques actually cashed cannot be spoken into existence by defence counsel
3. Such course of dealing must be evidenced at trial - burden is on the defence to raise it as an issue
4. Such course of dealing cannot be evidenced by experts - it must be evidenced by those with direct knowledge e.g Testimony from CM
I feel like we are going down a rabbit hole that the defendant himself will not testify to.
The sentence that you bolded is in the context of the previous one. It does not imply that, legally, a defendant isn't considered innocent until guilty. Kindly re-read entire text and respond to its meaning. (I don't mean to say that you are deliberately changing its meaning.)
And whereas you find that the emphasis of this thread is "CM is guilty, go ahead and try to prove him innocent", I really beg to differ. I find that most here are quite willing to entertain State's evidence that seems questionable and to evenly consider all of it. I find some excellent minds here, and am quite impressed most of the discussion for or against said evidence.
As far as who else may have wanted this family to disappear -who knows? Many people, perhaps. Many people may want me to disappear. But what does that have to do with all of the circumstantial evidence that points to Chase Merritt being responsible: Writing himself/cashing checks from Joey's account without being able to provide evidence (at least so far) that he was authorized to do so, right at the time the family went missing; his DNA found in the truck; his statements that he was the last person to see them; the bodies being buried near a place he had a connection to (and his phone pinged near shortly after the family were seen alive) etc., etc., etc.
I find the State's case quite compelling so far, FWIW.