CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #18

[Texas Red]

Who was 2500 miles away and not creating and backdating checks.

What difference does it make where DK was when he stole money from the PayPal account? You're the one that said such activity is evidence of murder. When it comes to stealing JM's money CM wasn't any more complicit than DK, so, they both must be subjected to the same scrutiny. Unless of course the agenda being pursued is something other than justice.

 

[katydid23]

Please explain how you believe forging a check is evidence of murder?

Because of the way in which it was done and the timing of the theft.

The backdating of that check, to the 4th, when it was actually created on the 5th, is very damning evidence. Why would Chase need that check to be dated back to the 4th?

He told the detectives that Joey gave him those checks on the 4th, at their lunch meeting. That's why he needed the backdating done.

Because Chase, and only Chase, knew that Joey was not alive after the 4th. So he knew he shouldn't have a check from Joey if it was created on the 5th.

So forging and backdating those checks are solid evidence, in my opinion, that Chase knew Joey was already dead on the 4th, because he killed him.

 

[katydid23]

What difference does it make where DK was when he stole money from the PayPal account? You're the one that said such activity is evidence of murder. When it comes to stealing JM's money CM wasn't any more complicit than DK, so, they both must be subjected to the same scrutiny. Unless of course the agenda being pursued is something other than justice.

It's the timing that makes the difference. Who met with Joey on the day he went missing?

Who was stealing from joey AT THE TIME he and his family vanished?


DK's pay pal shenanigans happened afterwards, not during the disappearance.

 

[Niner]

Thanks for the person who testified yesterday. So no one else?

K - here's what I have - this is an update in red:

Friday, May 3rd:
*Trial continues DARK (@ 9am PT) - CA - McStay Family: Joseph (40), Summer (43), Gianni (4) & Joey Jr (3) (Feb. 4, 2010, Fallbrook; found Nov. 11, 2013) - *Charles "Chase" Ray Merritt aka Charles Ray Mandel aka Charles Ray Morritt aka Chase Meredith (57/now 60) arrested (11/5/14) & indicted (11/7/14) of 4 counts of murder with special circumstance; plead not guilty. DP case.
Trial started 1/7/19. Dark on all Fridays. 7 women & 4 men & 1 ? (alternates include 4 men & 2 women-minus one).
Trial Days (1-47: 1/7/19 thru 4/30/19) reference post #492 here:
CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #18
5/1/19 Day 48: Defense witnesses: Dennis Shogren, defense financial accountant. Sgt Joseph Steers, re: the Mitchley awning. Detective Daniel Hanke, re: the paintball documentation. Trial continues on 5/2.
5/2/19 Day 49: Detective Daniel Hanke. Trial continues on Tuesday, 5/7.
Tentative Schedule for week of April 29th thru May 3rd: Court with jurors on April 29 (Monday), April 30 (Tuesday), May 1 (Wednesday) and May 2nd (Thursday). Dark on May 3rd (Friday).
Tentative Schedule for week of May 6th thru May 10th: May 6th (Monday)-NO court-Judge not available. Court with jurors on May 7th (Tuesday), May 8th (Wednesday). May 9th (Thursday)-NO court (for a juror). Dark on May 10th (Friday).
Tentative Scheduled for week of May 13th thru May 17th: Closing arguments now expected the week of May 13th.

 

[mrjitty]

It's perhaps worth a laws 200 level re-up on what has to be proved in terms of this murder trial.

Both the mens rea (intent) and actus reus (conduct) of the offence must be proved.

So in this case, the prosecution has already showed that the family were found in shallow graves with their heads stoved in. A sledge hammer matching the injuries was found in the grave. It is therefore a natural and obvious conclusion that someone murdered them with the hammer.

The defence does not contest any of these points. Therefore the only issue at trial is whether the defendant did it.

Rather than mount a genuine innocence/alibi type defence - the main defence argument is that there is a reasonable possibility someone else did the murders. And more specifically that DK did the murders. Their broader allegation according to their opening is that DK shows the prosecution didn't investigate properly. However the way their evidence has played, they focussed rather more on how he might be the killer.

Strictly speaking for the defence to be successful the allegation cannot be fanciful or speculative. There must be a foundation of evidence to support a real possibility of an alternate killer. I am sure the state will make this point in closing and this is what the defence have been trying to establish vis-a-vis DK with motive and fake alibi.

Whether or not we agree with the DK evidence, it is certainly the case that the defence has introduced evidence they say implicates DK. Therefore in accordance with the burden of proof in criminal trials, onus is on the State to rule out DK as a reasonable possibility. One way to do this is to provide an strong foundation of evidence that DK was in Hawaii at the time (Alibi). It is not necessary to prove DK was 100% in Hawaii or rule out speculative schemes with someone else having his bank card. IMO pointing to evidence which shows it most likely he was in Hawaii is sufficient for the jury to accept his alibi as an obvious inference. Motive largely falls apart at that point as the evidence of DK's greed all kicks in post 4 Feb 2010.

What about the 4 killers in 2 teams? I think the prosecution with attempt to reject this as mere speculation. I mean of course its always possible that Joey was secretly involved in organised crime and that a professional team was sent to take out the family - but there is simply no evidence of this at trial IMO.

So endeth the actively pleaded defence component

At this stage the State must still prove Chase did it. Phew!

I know the public always wants to see that trace of forensic evidence to tie the defendant to the crime scene ( e.g. in a famous NZ case a spec of brain matter on a shirt sleeve)

But this case IMO has that forensic evidence - but digital rather than biological.

Any evidence that shows Chase knew the family was dead before they were reported missing, 100% establishes him as the killer. The backdating, even without all the rest, proves he knew IMO - and he lied about it in his pretrial statements.

Ironically Forensic dude sealed the case for me. He set out a multiyear course of dealing showing exactly how Joey ran his business, and how he issued payments to Chase. Suddenly that multi year course of dealing changed in scarcely credible way - chronologically tied to Joey's death.

With DK, the course of dealing changes 6 days after Joey was missing - but at a time where DK already had ample evidence that something was wildly wrong.

This evidential aspect does not need to be proved BARD.

IMO a rational jury should accept the State has shown that Chase started creating cheques outside the ordinary course of dealing, including deleting, backdating and forging. He also lied about this, yet now claims an innocent yet scarcely credible course of dealing, but will not testify to the same. Thus the obvious inference is CM was stealing, and backdated because he knew Cheques dated after the 4th would show him as the murderer.

Having accepted the above, and looking at the rest of the circumstantial evidence (i am not going though all that - we know what it is!!) the jury then asks itself is this proven beyond reasonable doubt?

IMO yes.

my .02c

 

[mrjitty]

Because of the way in which it was done and the timing of the theft.

The backdating of that check, to the 4th, when it was actually created on the 5th, is very damning evidence. Why would Chase need that check to be dated back to the 4th?

He told the detectives that Joey gave him those checks on the 4th, at their lunch meeting. That's why he needed the backdating done.

Because Chase, and only Chase, knew that Joey was not alive after the 4th. So he knew he shouldn't have a check from Joey if it was created on the 5th.

So forging and backdating those checks are solid evidence, in my opinion, that Chase knew Joey was already dead on the 4th, because he killed him.

It's this simple point that resolves the whole case.

 

[mrjitty]

Having stewed over it, I am in the process of reverse engineering Forensic Dudes testimony

As it's clear he decided to fanboi for the defence and leave out critical analysis - I have been thinking of what is missing from his core analysis of the ledgers.

One key point of his testimony which Maline illegitimately adduced (as usual) was supposedly that in these kinds of manufacturing/engineering companies, it is common practice for the financial controllers to give presigned cheques to the project managers, who then fill in the details and hand them to suppliers (e.g. on site)

This was intended to be the proof of "alternative accounting". So Joey gives Chase a bunch of presigned blanks. Chase fills out the details either for himself, or for MSM. Presumably this was supposedly happening already, and the new aspect was Chase printing them in QB instead of handwriting. The testimony was more innuendo that anything else - the usual problem being only Chase could testify to this.

There are obvious issues with this - e.g. why would Joey give Chase presigned cheques that he can make out to himself LOL. Vendors makes some sense but i really can't imagine giving a partner vendor authority to pay himself from my bank account!!

But perhaps more interesting is the following. Cheques had never been printed from the Custom QB before. Presumably the defence version is that this is why they were deleted - because Joey did his cheques from Contact. But this leaves some spectacularly unanswered questions.

The custom business had been running multi-year and had 6 figure turnover - we have seen the ledgers for it (excel). Joey regularly cut dozens and dozens of cheques for vendors and for Chase - yet all from contact, or handwritten. So how did Joey actually use Quickbooks in his business? Especially what was the purpose of the custom QB account?

It seems a logical assumption at this point that Joey used Contact as the master books for his entire business (dropship and custom). Custom business cheques were being created in contact. So maybe all the other custom rev and expenses were reflected there? (to avoid having two sets of books). But then what the reason for the custom QB account at all? Why did Forensic guy not bother about this?

The reason I ask all this, is if you wanted to prove alternative accounting, you need the reason why the cheques were deleted.

Surely the only reason can be that the cheques should be on the contact side, and Joey didn't want Chase in there. So he gives Chase access to custom to cut cheques. But custom is only to record different stuff and we don't want the cheques in both books - so they are deleted and Joey will add the cheque to contact records later.

So where is all this analysis?

Why did forensic guy not bother to dig in to how cheques were normally recorded in contact? How were handwritten cheques handled? e.g the one for $100 given to Chase shortly before the murders?

And especially was thefirst dodgy cheque recorded in the contact QBs?

One can only imagine this kind of analysis didn't support the defence case.

 

[Tortoise]

More evidence of premeditation.

Merritt opened a bank account on February 3rd.

April Coronado testified that it was very common for their tellers to phone the issuer of the cheque to obtain authorisation for its encashment (as opposed to its deposit in a bank account).

This shows planning for the cheques he would be writing after the 4th and Joey not being alive to authorise encashment, IMO.

 

[mrjitty]

Having stewed over it, I am in the process of reverse engineering Forensic Dudes testimony

As it's clear he decided to fanboi for the defence and leave out critical analysis - I have been thinking of what is missing from his core analysis of the ledgers.

One key point of his testimony which Maline illegitimately adduced (as usual) was supposedly that in these kinds of manufacturing/engineering companies, it is common practice for the financial controllers to give presigned cheques to the project managers, who then fill in the details and hand them to suppliers (e.g. on site)

This was intended to be the proof of "alternative accounting". So Joey gives Chase a bunch of presigned blanks. Chase fills out the details either for himself, or for MSM. Presumably this was supposedly happening already, and the new aspect was Chase printing them in QB instead of handwriting. The testimony was more innuendo that anything else - the usual problem being only Chase could testify to this.

There are obvious issues with this - e.g. why would Joey give Chase presigned cheques that he can make out to himself LOL. Vendors makes some sense but i really can't imagine giving a partner vendor authority to pay himself from my bank account!!

But perhaps more interesting is the following. Cheques had never been printed from the Custom QB before. Presumably the defence version is that this is why they were deleted - because Joey did his cheques from Contact. But this leaves some spectacularly unanswered questions.

The custom business had been running multi-year and had 6 figure turnover - we have seen the ledgers for it (excel). Joey regularly cut dozens and dozens of cheques for vendors and for Chase - yet all from contact, or handwritten. So how did Joey actually use Quickbooks in his business? Especially what was the purpose of the custom QB account?

It seems a logical assumption at this point that Joey used Contact as the master books for his entire business (dropship and custom). Custom business cheques were being created in contact. So maybe all the other custom rev and expenses were reflected there? (to avoid having two sets of books). But then what the reason for the custom QB account at all? Why did Forensic guy not bother about this?

The reason I ask all this, is if you wanted to prove alternative accounting, you need the reason why the cheques were deleted.

Surely the only reason can be that the cheques should be on the contact side, and Joey didn't want Chase in there. So he gives Chase access to custom to cut cheques. But custom is only to record different stuff and we don't want the cheques in both books - so they are deleted and Joey will add the cheque to contact records later.

So where is all this analysis?

Why did forensic guy not bother to dig in to how cheques were normally recorded in contact? How were handwritten cheques handled? e.g the one for $100 given to Chase shortly before the murders?

And especially was thefirst dodgy cheque recorded in the contact QBs?

One can only imagine this kind of analysis didn't support the defence case.

I think I made a mistake in here

Cheques were created in the custom QB by Joey over a multi-year course of dealing

But then why delete cheques to key suppliers like Chase and MSM?

Unless you are trying to falsify your records?

 

[mrjitty]

More evidence of premeditation.

Merritt opened a bank account on February 3rd.

April Coronado testified that it was very common for their tellers to phone the issuer of the cheque to obtain authorisation for its encashment (as opposed to its deposit in a bank account).

This shows planning for the cheques he would be writing after the 4th and Joey not being alive to authorise encashment, IMO.

So would the bank have called Joey about the 2 Feb cheque?

Chase would know about this because he had no bank account for months

 

[Longtimenoc]

It's perhaps worth a laws 200 level re-up on what has to be proved in terms of this murder trial.

Both the mens rea (intent) and actus reus (conduct) of the offence must be proved.

So in this case, the prosecution has already showed that the family were found in shallow graves with their heads stoved in. A sledge hammer matching the injuries was found in the grave. It is therefore a natural and obvious conclusion that someone murdered them with the hammer.

The defence does not contest any of these points. Therefore the only issue at trial is whether the defendant did it.

Rather than mount a genuine innocence/alibi type defence - the main defence argument is that there is a reasonable possibility someone else did the murders. And more specifically that DK did the murders. Their broader allegation according to their opening is that DK shows the prosecution didn't investigate properly. However the way their evidence has played, they focussed rather more on how he might be the killer.

Strictly speaking for the defence to be successful the allegation cannot be fanciful or speculative. There must be a foundation of evidence to support a real possibility of an alternate killer. I am sure the state will make this point in closing and this is what the defence have been trying to establish vis-a-vis DK with motive and fake alibi.

Whether or not we agree with the DK evidence, it is certainly the case that the defence has introduced evidence they say implicates DK. Therefore in accordance with the burden of proof in criminal trials, onus is on the State to rule out DK as a reasonable possibility. One way to do this is to provide an strong foundation of evidence that DK was in Hawaii at the time (Alibi). It is not necessary to prove DK was 100% in Hawaii or rule out speculative schemes with someone else having his bank card. IMO pointing to evidence which shows it most likely he was in Hawaii is sufficient for the jury to accept his alibi as an obvious inference. Motive largely falls apart at that point as the evidence of DK's greed all kicks in post 4 Feb 2010.

What about the 4 killers in 2 teams? I think the prosecution with attempt to reject this as mere speculation. I mean of course its always possible that Joey was secretly involved in organised crime and that a professional team was sent to take out the family - but there is simply no evidence of this at trial IMO.

So endeth the actively pleaded defence component

At this stage the State must still prove Chase did it. Phew!

I know the public always wants to see that trace of forensic evidence to tie the defendant to the crime scene ( e.g. in a famous NZ case a spec of brain matter on a shirt sleeve)

But this case IMO has that forensic evidence - but digital rather than biological.

Any evidence that shows Chase knew the family was dead before they were reported missing, 100% establishes him as the killer. The backdating, even without all the rest, proves he knew IMO - and he lied about it in his pretrial statements.

Ironically Forensic dude sealed the case for me. He set out a multiyear course of dealing showing exactly how Joey ran his business, and how he issued payments to Chase. Suddenly that multi year course of dealing changed in scarcely credible way - chronologically tied to Joey's death.

With DK, the course of dealing changes 6 days after Joey was missing - but at a time where DK already had ample evidence that something was wildly wrong.

This evidential aspect does not need to be proved BARD.

IMO a rational jury should accept the State has shown that Chase started creating cheques outside the ordinary course of dealing, including deleting, backdating and forging. He also lied about this, yet now claims an innocent yet scarcely credible course of dealing, but will not testify to the same. Thus the obvious inference is CM was stealing, and backdated because he knew Cheques dated after the 4th would show him as the murderer.

Having accepted the above, and looking at the rest of the circumstantial evidence (i am not going though all that - we know what it is!!) the jury then asks itself is this proven beyond reasonable doubt?

IMO yes.

my .02c

You have nailed it Mr. J. Thanks for the excellent post. The posters who challange Merritts guilt bring out the best responses from you and others and keep this board lively!

 

[Tortoise]

Here is the extent of my notes:
Bruce Carter. San Ysidro Village/Sentinel Security
Cannot park overnight
Stores close by 9 and around 10 they start towing
private party tow but must notify the police that it’s been towed
Exhibit 140 - towing form
Reported to SDPD at 23:30. Plate 3TAE045
VIN JACDJ58V9T7906?94
96 Isuzu Trooper
4498 Camino De La Plaza
————
Cross
Do not service Los America’s Outlet
———-
David Jackson. San Ysidro Shopping Center
Worked for Sentinel/Bruce Carter
Worked 2/8/2010 either 6-11 or 2-11pm
Tow company took photos prior to towing, photos are time-stamped 11:01
3-4 parking places over, in front of the Pink Zone
No idea when it entered the lot
———
Cross
Tow sheet has erroneous time towed on it. It should be 23:xx, not 22:xx and it was written over

————
End



Wasn’T Murray one of the guys who partially filled out the tow sheet? I seem to remember someone only partially filled something out.

Jackson testified that Murray couldn't write too well because of his age so Jackson filled in parts of the tow sheet for him.

 

[Tortoise]

So would the bank have called Joey about the 2 Feb cheque?

Chase would know about this because he had no bank account for months

We haven't heard that they did, and there is no teller note to that effect on the front of the cheque. I think we'd have heard from the defense if Joey had authorised it.

 

[mrjitty]

We haven't heard that they did, and there is no teller note to that effect on the front of the cheque. I think we'd have heard from the defense if Joey had authorised it.

Remind me - was the bank account opened with the first forged cheque? Or was it with the $200 handwritten cheque?

I think you are correct to focus on this stuff - and it is what Forensic Man failed to do.

What was the ordinary course of business? What is the reason for departures?

I would love to know what happened when Chase lost his bank account in Oct 2009?

 

[Tortoise]

Remind me - was the bank account opened with the first forged cheque? Or was it with the $200 handwritten cheque?

I think you are correct to focus on this stuff - and it is what Forensic Man failed to do.

What was the ordinary course of business? What is the reason for departures?

I would love to know what happened when Chase lost his bank account in Oct 2009?

It was opened with the $100 cheque on 3rd.

He cashed the forged cheque on the 2nd.

 

[mrjitty]

Another question I had is why Joey would have wanted so many different job cheques issued at once.

I mean if it were me, I pay multiple invoices at once, and then issue one cheque for the grand total. I don't issue like 3 different Saudi cheques and 2 MSM cheques at the same time.

Again I would have liked to know his ordinary course of dealing here, and MR touched on timing of payments but Forensic man hadn't bothered to look at it

So MR obviously suspects like me, that Chase would get his various Saudi cheques over time if it was in two payments like the bigger 15% jobs. But if it was all in one payment (which many jobs now were with the smaller amounts) - wouldn't he just get one combined cheque?

Ditto MSM - if they send two invoices - don't you normally pay both with one cheque?

So not impossible Joey preferred to have a cheque per invoice but .... questions?

 

[Tortoise]

Remind me - was the bank account opened with the first forged cheque? Or was it with the $200 handwritten cheque?

I think you are correct to focus on this stuff - and it is what Forensic Man failed to do.

What was the ordinary course of business? What is the reason for departures?

I would love to know what happened when Chase lost his bank account in Oct 2009?

The other thing is we've seen no proof that Joey had ever emailed him the figures before. The inclusion of the off ledger debts makes me think it was outside the normal course of their dealings.

 

[mrjitty]

The other thing is we've seen no proof that Joey had ever emailed him the figures before. The inclusion of the off ledger debts makes me think it was outside the normal course of their dealings.

Yes.

What if Joey wasn't the fuzzy lovey puppy so often portrayed, but was actually a bit sharp?

What if he'd largely finished squeezing DK's big take on the Dropship ecommerce (worth as much as 200K p/a apparently) - and was now just paying him small %s of sales

What if he'd finished squeezing the fat out of Chase's 65% and now had that 50% cost base so nicely screwed down with MSM? (MSM called him a crook!)

What if he now planned to recover that 27.8K on Provecho and Levine while the Chase rev was there for the taking?

If he was planning to trim Chase right down, and bring function in house, he needs to recover that money while Chase still has some cash flow to do it from...

 

[Tortoise]

Another question I had is why Joey would have wanted so many different job cheques issued at once.

I mean if it were me, I pay multiple invoices at once, and then issue one cheque for the grand total. I don't issue like 3 different Saudi cheques and 2 MSM cheques at the same time.

Again I would have liked to know his ordinary course of dealing here, and MR touched on timing of payments but Forensic man hadn't bothered to look at it

So MR obviously suspects like me, that Chase would get his various Saudi cheques over time if it was in two payments like the bigger 15% jobs. But if it was all in one payment (which many jobs now were with the smaller amounts) - wouldn't he just get one combined cheque?

Ditto MSM - if they send two invoices - don't you normally pay both with one cheque?

So not impossible Joey preferred to have a cheque per invoice but .... questions?

I think Merritt pooed his pants when he phoned MSM on the day of his interview with DuGal and discovered they'd held onto the cheques because they didn't look right.

Shame San Diego were so lax with their investigation - especially knowing they were dealing with a felon and being told by the bank's own fraud examiner the signatures on the cheques were inconsistent, including the cheque on the 2nd and Joey's phone calls to the bank which they had on his phone records.

IMO

 

[oceanblueeyes]

You must then assume the same with DK rifling the PayPal account.

Huge difference between the two men.

Location, location, location, and times/dates they transpired.

Imo