CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #10

[mrjitty]

Ah that's interesting, maybe Chase persuaded him that he could deliver them . . .

Sometimes he was also given them and delivered them on site. But Joey had a history of mailing cheques, so there was simply no need to "save gas"

 

[mrjitty]

Merritt gained access to the business account, Contact. Thats how he was able to grab 20k.

"Custom" you mean

 

[InspectorGadget]

Merritt gained access to the business account, Contact. Thats how he was able to grab 20k.

Did he? I didn't realise that.

 

[InspectorGadget]

Did the Quickbooks guy testify what IP addresses the checks were printed from?

 

[Longtimenoc]

Ah that's interesting, maybe Chase persuaded him that he could deliver them . . .

Chase delivered the majority of the checks to the bank where he cashed them. Metro bills were Merritts. He knew that if he didnt pay up that they would be calling JM who routinely bailed Merritt out. Merritt rightly guessed that it be best not to have Metro trying to call Joseph since he was in the process of body disposal and cover up. It all worked and CM. was able to enjoy his days in the Casinos.

 

[Force Ten]

Nope, Mike took the laptop, not the desktop:

The Dell laptop was listed in the San Diego Sheriff’s warrants as being in the kitchen. This is the one Mike removed from the home and later returned.

HP Pavilion ZV6000

Agree, the laptop is completely irrelevant. People just don't want to let it go.

 

[Longtimenoc]

"Custom" you mean

Oh yes Mr J. The checks Merritt wrote were the first checks cashed from that account.

 

[InspectorGadget]

Dan and Joseph were partners. They had been associates for years and together built the web business. Joseph met Merritt just a couple of years prior to the murders. Merritt was a vendor to the business. Vendors arent given carte blanche access to business funds.

Well neither are Web developers . . . isn't that why Joey paid DK out?

 

[asyousay]

Well neither are Web developers . . . isn't that why Joey paid DK out?

DK was not the one in the home of the Mcstays writing out a cheque on the night the family were murdered though?

The cheque that was written and deleted was written out to “chase merritt” not Dan Kavanagh

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Stupid mistakes indeed. Forging those checks and cashing them were so criminal and greedy. How can the DT convince the jury that it was a natural thing to do? Defies all logic.

Yes it does.

Why was CM in Joey's home on the fourth writing a fraudulent check when Joey wasnt there?

How did he know on the 4th Joey was even gone, and wouldn't be returning home alive after that night?

If CM really had no clue where Joey's was that night for all he would know, Joey could have walked in the door of his own home that night at anytime, to find CM at his computer writing bogus checks to himself. But he knew he didnt have to ever worry about that happening. He had made sure of it already.

I really think it's quite obvious, while no one else knew what had happened to Joey, and his family on the 4th, CM DID.

That's why he knew he could do whatever he chose to do without any interference, and he did.

CM didnt even pay MSM when Joey had included funds for supplies, and materials in CMs check which he was to then pay MSM.

So now we are to believe all of a sudden CM is a reputable business owner? With Joey's money of course. LOL!

He wrote the other checks to cover up his own sleazy stealing.

The old congame of trying to cover up the thousands he was taking for himself.

The old con of,,' I'll give them a little while I take a helluva lot.' Lol

Imo

 

[mrjitty]

Did the Quickbooks guy testify what IP addresses the checks were printed from?

Maybe watch the testimony?

 

[InspectorGadget]

DK was not the one in the home of the Mcstays writing out a cheque on the night the family were murdered though?

The cheque that was written and deleted was written out to “chase merritt” not Dan Kavanagh

True, but how was it established that the check to Chase dated 5th was printed in the Fallbrook house?

 

[Funky funky]

And in any event, Chase never told police in his pre-trial statements that he was allowed to do this - so its not in evidence. he told police Joey gave him the cheques.

He will have to testify to it.

MrJitty, I enjoy your posts and the way in which your mind works, you seem very intelligent. My worry is though, that the jury may not have the smarts that you have to piece this all together. Will they know that he must testify to this? I hope and pray that the circumstantial evidence is enough and that Merrit testifies. It will be interesting to see what the defence comes up with.

 

[Tortoise]

The cheque serial numbers don't bear out Merritt's explanation that Joey gave him cheques on the 4th.

See screenshots below of cheques in Joey's office:
1. Box
2. Close up of box
3. Top cheque in box #4245

#4161 to #4235 = 76 missing cheques

Chase created printed deleted and cashed/banked or gave to Metro the following cheques set out in sequence order, with the dates they were created:

#4236 - February 5th (backdated to 4th) - Metro
#4237 - February 5th (backdated to 4th) - Merritt
#4238 - February 5th (backdated to 4th) - Metro
[#4239 not printed]
#4240 - February 2nd - Merritt
#4241 - February 8th - Merritt
#4242 - February 5th (backdated to 4th) - Merritt

Merritt already had cheque number #4240 on February 2nd, but Joey gave him the ones before it and after it on the 4th!


So what do we have to believe now to believe Chase Merritt?

1. Joey pulled a random cheque out of the box #4240 below the top cheque on or before the 2nd, and gave it to Chase to print.
2. Joey pulled more random cheques out of the box below the top cheque, #4236, 37, 38, 41 and 42, and gave them to Chase on the 4th.
3. Joey took 76 cheques below the top cheque out of the box and out of the house and lost them, or someone other than Chase stole cheques below the top cheque, after the 4th.
4. Chase forged Joey's signature on the exact next cheque in the sequence of the missing cheques that Joey lost or someone stole on or after the 4th.

I don't know why - after the mobile phone evidence of Chase's phone not moving at midday on the 4th - knowing that Chase had to say they met to explain the cheques in his possession after the 4th - with nothing in evidence to say they actually met - knowing that Joey returned to the QB business at 6 pm after his last phone call with Chase - anyone here believes Chase's claim they met at lunch. It is not corroborated by one piece of evidence. It's so easy to see how a defendant's narrative can become a part of the hard facts of the case without anyone questioning it.

So instead of continuing to ask where's the evidence Joey fired him at lunch, the right question should be where is the evidence that they met or even that Joey received Chase's explanation for the forged cheque before he had his head hammered in.

 

[InspectorGadget]

Maybe watch the testimony?

Yes I will watch it again, I don't recall hearing the IP addresses.

 

[mrjitty]

In terms of the profile of the offender, I think it is quite interesting the anger revealed at the crime scene. But this isn't a crime targeted at a single female or younger victim with typical sexual motive

I am interested to look into other cases of murder between business partners/friends?

Not sure how to find them though.

 

[Funky funky]

The cheque serial numbers don't bear out Merritt's explanation that Joey gave him cheques on the 4th.

See screenshots below of cheques in Joey's office:
1. Box
2. Close up of box
3. Top cheque in box #4245

#4161 to #4235 = 76 missing cheques

Chase created printed deleted and cashed/banked or gave to Metro the following cheques set out in sequence order, with the dates they were created:

#4236 - February 5th (backdated to 4th) - Metro
#4237 - February 5th (backdated to 4th) - Merritt
#4238 - February 5th (backdated to 4th) - Metro
[#4239 not printed]
#4240 - February 2nd - Merritt
#4241 - February 8th - Merritt
#4242 - February 5th (backdated to 4th) - Merritt

Merritt already had cheque number #4240 on February 2nd, but Joey gave him the ones before it and after it on the 4th!


So what do we have to believe now to believe Chase Merritt?

1. Joey pulled a random cheque out of the box #4240 below the top cheque on or before the 2nd, and gave it to Chase to print.
2. Joey pulled more random cheques out of the box below the top cheque, #4236, 37, 38, 41 and 42, and gave them to Chase on the 4th.
3. Joey took 76 cheques below the top cheque out of the box and out of the house and lost them, or someone other than Chase stole cheques below the top cheque, after the 4th.
4. Chase forged Joey's signature on the exact next cheque in the sequence of the missing cheques that Joey lost or someone stole on or after the 4th.

I don't know why - after the mobile phone evidence of Chase's phone not moving at midday on the 4th - knowing that Chase had to say they met to explain the cheques in his possession after the 4th - with nothing in evidence to say they actually met - knowing that Joey returned to the QB business at 6 pm after his last phone call with Chase - anyone here believes Chase's claim they met at lunch. It is not corroborated by one piece of evidence. It's so easy to see how a defendant's narrative can become a part of the hard facts of the case without anyone questioning it.

So instead of continuing to ask where's the evidence Joey fired him at lunch, the right question should be where is the evidence that they met or even that Joey received Chase's explanation for the forged cheque before he had his head hammered in.

View attachment 171885 View attachment 171886 View attachment 171887

I totally agree. I can’t understand why the prosecution are satisfied that they met for lunch either. I wish you were on the prosecution!

 

[Longtimenoc]

I agree - it doesn't make sense to me either! But I don't really see why, even if he had killed the family on the 4th, he would have any reason to backdate a check to the 4th when he printed it the next day. At that point no-one knew they were dead and what difference would it have made if he had left it dated 5th? Who would know if he hadn't backdated it? He could have just said that he picked it up from Joey on 5th.

Well I don't think Joey would want Chase to see all of his financial dealings which is why he would have created a separate account. Chase also claimed that Joey owed him for certain jobs.
If Chase is not guilty, and was unable to get a hold of Joey, he may well have written the checks so that he could get on with the Saudi job. He would square it with Joey later. That may be fraud but it doesn't prove murder. He may have gambled it away but it doesn't prove murder.

But he never tried to call Joseph. They normally communicated daily until after the 4th. Didnt he make just one call to JM?

 

[mrjitty]

Yes I will watch it again, I don't recall hearing the IP addresses.

In terms of IDing machines for login the following kinds of things are typically logged

IP
Machine ID
OS & version
Browser & version
User

After that, you can also look at what cookie the local browser might still be holding

So in general, even if unique Machine ID is not logged, there is more than enough ways to tell apart a laptop from a desktop or mobile, and desktops from each other

e.g. if the browser type or browser version is wrong - then it can't be Joey's home desktop.

 

[Tortoise]

I totally agree. I can’t understand why the prosecution are satisfied that they met for lunch either. I wish you were on the prosecution!

I'm impressed with the prosecutors they seem very smart and on top of their case, despite what others here have said about them. I see those disparaging comments as more spin by those who support Merritt.

I think the prosecutors are more than aware that this case requires the piecing together of quite dry boring evidence, and that it had to be that way just to get the information into evidence so they can draw it all together for the jury and give the big picture at the end. I think they most likely will have excellent visuals and show how all the details tie together.

MOO

 

[mrjitty]

The cheque serial numbers don't bear out Merritt's explanation that Joey gave him cheques on the 4th.

See screenshots below of cheques in Joey's office:
1. Box
2. Close up of box
3. Top cheque in box #4245

#4161 to #4235 = 76 missing cheques

Chase created printed deleted and cashed/banked or gave to Metro the following cheques set out in sequence order, with the dates they were created:

#4236 - February 5th (backdated to 4th) - Metro
#4237 - February 5th (backdated to 4th) - Merritt
#4238 - February 5th (backdated to 4th) - Metro
[#4239 not printed]
#4240 - February 2nd - Merritt
#4241 - February 8th - Merritt
#4242 - February 5th (backdated to 4th) - Merritt

Merritt already had cheque number #4240 on February 2nd, but Joey gave him the ones before it and after it on the 4th!


So what do we have to believe now to believe Chase Merritt?

1. Joey pulled a random cheque out of the box #4240 below the top cheque on or before the 2nd, and gave it to Chase to print.
2. Joey pulled more random cheques out of the box below the top cheque, #4236, 37, 38, 41 and 42, and gave them to Chase on the 4th.
3. Joey took 76 cheques below the top cheque out of the box and out of the house and lost them, or someone other than Chase stole cheques below the top cheque, after the 4th.
4. Chase forged Joey's signature on the exact next cheque in the sequence of the missing cheques that Joey lost or someone stole on or after the 4th.

I don't know why - after the mobile phone evidence of Chase's phone not moving at midday on the 4th - knowing that Chase had to say they met to explain the cheques in his possession after the 4th - with nothing in evidence to say they actually met - knowing that Joey returned to the QB business at 6 pm after his last phone call with Chase - anyone here believes Chase's claim they met at lunch. It is not corroborated by one piece of evidence. It's so easy to see how a defendant's narrative can become a part of the hard facts of the case without anyone questioning it.

So instead of continuing to ask where's the evidence Joey fired him at lunch, the right question should be where is the evidence that they met or even that Joey received Chase's explanation for the forged cheque before he had his head hammered in.

View attachment 171885 View attachment 171886 View attachment 171887

This is a fantastic point T

1. He must have been given the 76 cheques or at least some of them before the 4th
2. He never stated the same to the investigators

So basically, none of this fantastic theory of accounting is supported by evidence at trial.

I also add to your analysis - where are the other 69 odd missing cheque blanks?

Did chase destroy this evidence?

failure to exhibit these blanks is a major issue for the defence IMO