CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #11

[missy1974]

From Daniel Hanke's testimony
(quote)
Q Did you also review or speak with someone who reviewed
Joseph’s bank accounts?
A Yes.
Q Was that at Union Bank?
A Yes.
Q Which? Did you review it or —
A Yes, I reviewed it and spoke with Detective Ryan Smith.
Q Okay. With regard to the Custom account, were any checks from, you said it was opened in January of 2008, from January of 2008 until February 1st, 2010, were any checks listed on QuickBooks or written from QuickBooks on the Custom side of the
account?
A On the Custom side, no.
Q So, all the checks during that time period were listed on
the other account?
A On the Contact account, yes.
Q Okay. On February 1st, 2010, were you able to tell from the records provided by Intuit whether there was any activity that day, on February 1st?
A Yes, I could.
Q What did you learn?
A I learned that a user — it showed that Joseph McStay logged onto the account, so that was Joseph McStay’s I.D. and password logged onto the account. And there was a vendor added, charles merritt, all lower-case letters;
Q Why was it significant to you that charles merritt was all lower case?
A When I looked at the Contact account, Charles Merritt was already a vendor in the Contact account. And there were checks written to Charles Merritt in the Contact account. And in that account it had Charles Merritt with a capital C, the rest of the
name of Charles was lower case, and there was a capital M and the rest of Merritt was lower case. In this account it was all lower case and it was a new vendor added.

Hi Karinna!!! Nice to see you over here

It's important to understand that the Custom and the Contact accounts were 2 separate QB's online accounts. They had to different log ins/pswds. Joey even paid 2 fee's monthly for them.

 

[Cricket28]

very interesting article. I wonder if this is the issue?

Tech companies are hindering criminal investigations, under outdated law


Tech companies are hindering criminal investigations, under outdated law


Although Google tipped off cops about the child files that had crossed its network, the company refused to give them access to his Gmail account -- despite the fact that police had a search warrant.

Google's argument: The data is "out of jurisdiction." In other words, some data in that Gmail account is stored on Google servers outside the United States -- and, since a ruling last year that is now before the Supreme Court, technology companies are not required to turn over that information.

Since the legal decision, major technology companies such as Microsoft and Yahoo have begun defying judges' orders in criminal investigations, refusing to turn over potentially crucial digital evidence of crimes. Their actions are impeding hundreds of criminal investigations, according to public testimony to Congress and interviews with law enforcement officials by CNN. These cases include ones of human trafficking, drug smuggling, and fraud.

Google (GOOGL), Microsoft (MSFT), and other companies say they're caught amid a duty to their customers, clashing interpretations of an outdated American law, and increasingly stringent privacy laws abroad. "In the absence of consistent legal doctrine, we're deferring to the judgment of the most senior federal court to rule on the issue," Google told CNN in a statement.

Microsoft's deputy general counsel, David Howard, also issued a statement to CNN: "This outdated law doesn't serve today's law enforcement needs, nor does it adequately protect people's privacy. We're particularly troubled that if the US government requires companies to turn over their customers' data abroad, other governments may follow this example and seek the private information of American people and businesses."

Until last year, technology companies routinely gave American law enforcement whatever information was listed in a search warrant, no matter where it was stored.

That kind of pisses me off. Well, hopefully the Supreme Court can put a strong ruling in place that these companies can't ignore.

MOO

 

[mom2chloe]

Who is Baker in this case? A blogger?

And is there any proof that he is a real live human being? I recall he may have had a wife who was ill but in hindsight, I am wondering if he is legit. TIA!

 

[Karinna]

Hi Karinna!!! Nice to see you over here

It's important to understand that the Custom and the Contact accounts were 2 separate QB's online accounts. They had to different log ins/pswds. Joey even paid 2 fee's monthly for them.

Thanks missy, and same to you,
Haven't really followed the McStay case on here much, but want to see Justice for the McStay family, so trying to follow this Trial. Still reading up on a lot of the things that happened in this very sad case.
Yes JM's accounts were separate and i believe Merrit somehow got into them but not sure exactly how he came by that information early in February 2010? I also believe Joey could of been tipped off by someone as to the suspicious activity on his accounts.

 

[Karinna]

And is there any proof that he is a real live human being? I recall he may have had a wife who was ill but in hindsight, I am wondering if he is legit. TIA!

Thanks for clarifying.

 

[Bernina]

So I believe the defense asked for some data/info from google and microsoft, which did not arrive. I wonder what they are trying to get from them?

My brother was an employee and a cub-contractor for Microsoft in Seattle for years.
All I can say to the court is good luck trying to get them or any paperwork.

 

[Cricket28]

I don't recall seeing it. In what format?

I don't know. Recidivist might know though.

 

[Karinna]

That kind of pisses me off. Well, hopefully the Supreme Court can put a strong ruling in place that these companies can't ignore.

MOO

Does SCOTUS have any jurisdiction in international laws though? If that would be affected though, i'm not sure?

 

[Karinna]

My brother was an employee and a cub-contractor for Microsoft in Seattle for years.
All I can say to the court is good luck trying to get them or any paperwork.

Agree.

 

[mom2chloe]

Thanks for clarifying.

Someone who has been around this case from the early days will give us the info on RB. Their memory is much clearer!

 

[Cricket28]

Yes, he did. I remember seeing them there also.

I don't recall seeing it. In what format?

Recidivist, do you know? TIA

 

[Recidivist]

If you saw them... did they look like a true copy? or do you believe them to be true?

Since I don't trust RB, I would have doubts about bein g a true and accurate copy. Someone asked about the format, and it was just lines of data. I reformatted to excel which made it easier to read.

 

[Recidivist]

And is there any proof that he is a real live human being? I recall he may have had a wife who was ill but in hindsight, I am wondering if he is legit. TIA!

There is no proof that he is a human being. Not like most of us anyway.

 

[missy1974]

Since I don't trust RB, I would have doubts about bein g a true and accurate copy. Someone asked about the format, and it was just lines of data. I reformatted to excel which made it easier to read.

So far from what I can see and what has been shown in the trial, they seem to be the same. But who knows

 

[Tortoise]

Ok, but would you agree that these were 2 separate accounts, with 2 separate log in's (emails and passwords), that showed 2 separate ledger's right? He couldn't log into Contact and see Custom, or vise versa.

Him logging into his Contacts account on the 1st and 2nd has nothing to do with what was done in the Custom's account and it would not allow him to see what was done in the Custom account.

The only time anyone logged into the Custom account on the 1st and 2nd was when those cheques were added/edited/deleted.

If we are looking at this in the context of him saying something to Mike on the 1st, there is no indication that he was looking at his Custom account after that cheque was added/deleted on the Custom account (at 12:32-12:52pm on the 1st), the next log in is on the 2nd when the next cheque was added/printed/deleted. First cashed cheque by Chase was on the 2nd, and IMO there is no way he could have known about it before that.

He or someone did log into the Custom QB's account on the 4th, for 1 minute I think. Show sign in at 11:56, sign in 11:57, sign out 11:58.

My response was only to your post:

Could be, but if he was looking for a cheque that maybe he forgot about or was looking for a cheque written for that specific amount, he was looking in the wrong account if he never wrote cheques out of the Custom account. IMO The cheques all had the same account number on them, no way to distinguish which QB account it came from, Custom or Contact.

In the context of telling Mike about this - I don't know that it's possible to piece this together without knowing if the call records are complete, which date the call happened, which phone was used, etc. It seems it relates to what actually transpired on the 4th so I wouldn't be surprised if the conversation did take place on the 4th. For instance there is a 6 minute call number withheld on Joey's phone just before he called the bank. That could be from an office number where Mikey was working rather than his cell phone.

Would he have thought to link it when he found out the family was missing on the 9th? It's easy to say they should have suspected foul play with what we know now but they were all thinking the family was just on vacation, you don't imagine little children have been murdered, it's the last thing that would ever enter your head IMO. Mikey was not able to recall the dates - and we know what his state of mind was - when it developed into a missing persons situation 11 days later.

JMO

 

[missy1974]

My response was only to your post:



In the context of telling Mike about this - I don't know that it's possible to piece this together without knowing if the call records are complete, which date the call happened, which phone was used, etc. It seems it relates to what actually transpired on the 4th so I wouldn't be surprised if the conversation did take place on the 4th. For instance there is a 6 minute call number withheld on Joey's phone just before he called the bank. That could be from an office number where Mikey was working rather than his cell phone.

Would he have thought to link it when he found out the family was missing on the 9th? It's easy to say they should have suspected foul play with what we know now but they were all thinking the family was just on vacation, you don't imagine little children have been murdered, it's the last thing that would ever enter your head IMO. Mikey was not able to recall the dates - and we know what his state of mind was - when it developed into a missing persons situation 11 days later.

JMO

I can agree with the fact that we aren't sure because we may not have complete records. The only thing that gives me pause then is that the prosecution seemed okay enough with it that they wrote it on the calendar for the jury. If they have any indication that the call happened after the 1st, I think it's negligent of them not to bring that up in the trial, but I guess it's not over yet. JMO

 

[Force Ten]

Since I don't trust RB, I would have doubts about bein g a true and accurate copy. Someone asked about the format, and it was just lines of data. I reformatted to excel which made it easier to read.

So he could have got it here.

 

[Mony Mony]

Someone who has been around this case from the early days will give us the info on RB. Their memory is much clearer!

I recall Tricia interviewed RB on BlogTalk Radio.

 

[Force Ten]

There is no proof that he is a human being. Not like most of us anyway.

THIS! On point!!

 

[Mica]

There is no proof that he is a human being. Not like most of us anyway.

He made $1000 donation to Patrick’s Go Fund Me. Right, not like most of us.