CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #16

[Texas Red]

Actually, once Joey found out about the thievery he was found dead in the desert!

According to your own statement "I'll agree there was definitely a pattern of thievery" he hadn't 'just' found out about it.

 

[oceanblueeyes]

So what? He sent a text? Could have easily been before he found out CM was stealing from the business.

Hi Plo!

Did he show any text exchanged between the two men around the time CM was helping himself to Joey's funds?

Any relevant texts on the 4th or the first days in February? If they have prior texted or emailed each other in the past, then why not show all texts between them both around the most important timeline?

Has this expert produced any of CMs own texts? If not, why not? Tia!

Imo, the one sent by Joey earlier is irrelevant fluff filler. Everyone knows Joey was a nice guy, and it's a common message to send to vendors, or subs.

There was a lot of water over the bridge since then. So much so, Joey, and his entire family wound up being murdered.

So things had drastically changed right before they were all murdered or we wouldn't be following the death penalty trial of Charles Merritt.

If I was the prosecutor I would point blank ask this hired gun where is his supporting evidence Joey was teaching the ex felon how to take money out of Joey's personally owned business.

Imo

 

[Force Ten]

IMO, the fact that JM allowed CM to do so, he never filed a police report about it and continued to do business with CM means implied consent was granted by JM for CM to do so, which in turn means it was in fact not thievery and there's no prosecutor in the land that will charge a person with theft after such a pattern is established.

The "pattern" started on February 1 and Joseph may have not been discovered it until the 4th. It's not known what Joseph's next intentions were. Probably not good for Chase though.

 

[Karinna]

Excellent point! If Merritt had consent to sign checks why was Joey supposedly giving presigned blank checks to Merritt? It's a bunch of hogwash IMO.

He's a liar. And the reason he was arrested & charged with the murders.

 

[Texas Red]

Oh well when he is fried for murdering babies the theft will be the least of anybody’s concerns.

That's not the point. The theft according to the prosecution is the motive for the murders. With no theft there's no motive. IMO, the prosecution had better start looking elsewhere because they have nothing here.

 

[Mony Mony]

That's not the point. The theft according to the prosecution is the motive for the murders. With no theft there's no motive. IMO, the prosecution had better start looking elsewhere because they have nothing here.

Wait, I thought the motive was the monies owed by the two timed felon to his boss? And that he was getting phased out? And that the gravy train had come to an end?

 

[Texas Red]

If Merritt had consent to sign checks why was Joey supposedly giving presigned blank checks to Merritt?

CM may have expended all of the signed checks and accounts still needed to be paid. What's really the difference between having blank pre-signed checks or having CM sign for JM. JM obviously trusted CM or he wouldn't have provided him with the blank pre-signed checks in the first place.

 

[Karinna]

That's not the point. The theft according to the prosecution is the motive for the murders. With no theft there's no motive. IMO, the prosecution had better start looking elsewhere because they have nothing here.

Greed is often a motive for murder. CM needed money and JM cut him off IMO the day he handed Merritt a check for $100. Merritt needed more to support his addiction and didn't have enough to cover rent. He also owed JM around $43,000 as per JM's email to CM on the 1st. February.

 

[asyousay]

That's not the point. The theft according to the prosecution is the motive for the murders. With no theft there's no motive. IMO, the prosecution had better start looking elsewhere because they have nothing here.

You are one of the few claiming no theft though.

The back dating of checks is very suspicious and forgeing checks isn’t Joey giving him permission to do that.

As somebody said he would just make me a co signer yet he didn’t do that.

Joey was above board according to reports so I have yet to see any proof that Joey had told him to take blank checks and just forge his signature when he needed to do so.


The only one claiming Joey gave permission to write out forged checks is funny enough the one on trial for murder. He has zero evidence of what he is claiming.

 

[mrjitty]

CM may have expended all of the signed checks and accounts still needed to be paid. What's really the difference between having blank pre-signed checks or having CM sign for JM. JM obviously trusted CM or he wouldn't have provided him with the blank pre-signed checks in the first place.

BIB

The difference is fraud.

 

[Texas Red]

Wait, I thought the motive was the monies owed by the two timed felon to his boss? And that he was getting phased out? And that the gravy train had come to an end?

That's hardly a motive, If being in debt is a motive for murder 80% of adults in the country are suspect.

 

[mrjitty]

Apparently, implied consent, is a foreign concept in the legal system you're familiar with.

Well I have actually been to law school and am fully qualified - so its not so foreign. Indeed the US gets its common law from the UK!

But such concepts require a devilish thing called proof.

As I have said multiple times, the whole reason we have signing authority is because it is proof to the world of consent.

Absent signature - prima facie no consent

The party who wishes to allege consent in fact - has the onus to prove.

 

[Texas Red]

BIB

The difference is fraud.

With implied consent there is no fraud.

 

[mrjitty]

How can there be a pattern of dealing when the first cheque was created on the 2nd and Joey was dead on the 4th?

The rest were created after he was dead!

 

[mrjitty]

With implied consent there is no fraud.

Evidential burden on the defence to establish a factual foundation.

And given Joey is dead, the only person who can testify to it is the defendant.

 

[Texas Red]

Indeed the US gets its common law from the UK

Just because some of law here is based upon English Common Law doesn't mean they're the same.

 

[Texas Red]

the only person who can testify to it is the defendant.

Maybe he will after all, unlike others he has nothing to hide.

 

[Force Ten]

IMO, the most likely reason is DK was using a VPN to make it appear he was somewhere other than his actual location, if he was careless or the VPN was disconnected while he was online his actual IP and location would be exposed such a scenario explains the IP behavior mentioned in your comment.

Considering this one must ask why was he using a VPN? One reason would be he was in Hawaii and wanted to make it appear he was in the San Diego area, but why? The other reason would be he was in the San Diego area but wanted to make it appear he was in Hawaii and with this scenario I think the reason he would do so is quite obvious.

People who use VPN's do it for protection against hackers and other intrusive entities. I don't see this as nefarious at all. If Dan was trying to hide himself, he would have used a proxy. No brainer.

 

[mrjitty]

Just because some of law here is based upon English Common Law doesn't mean they're the same.

Amazingly enough we do learn this

My law library had complete reports for NZ, UK and US. I did my hons project on a US aspect of law.

(this was before LexisNexis)

 

[oceanblueeyes]

Maybe that's how things work with legal procedure elsewhere but it's not the case here.

Of course it is. Even if not a legal burden they have subliminally shifted the burden of proof by what they have asserted to the jury to be true.

Once any defense puts forth to the jury someone specifically (by name) is the real killer, you can bet the bank, the jury is going to want to have irrefutable proof as to what they have asserted is factually true.

After all what they are really asking this jury to do is to set aside all of the compelling evidence entered thus far pointing to CM only, and now believe DK is SODDI instead.

They are the ones who declared this to be true in OS. Now the jury will expect them to man up proving what they have asserted.

Imo, they would have been much better off if they had made the SODDI suspect more generic by not naming anyone else specifically by name. Proclaiming they really dont know who did it, but know it wasnt the one accused on trial.

The DT in the Daron Wint quadruple murder case mistakenly did the very same thing specifically naming his two brothers as the (cough cough) real killers.

They crashed, and burned, because in the end, they were unable to produce any evidence to the jury this was remotely true, even though the DT had asserted it would be shown during the trial when they did their own OS.

IMO. It's never wise to over promise anything to any jury, and then not produce what they have promised.

Jmo