CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #6

[JMarsh]

Separate or not, it doesn't explain or excuse Merritt's actions. How is not a valid argument? Chase had no business writing himself checks. And backdating. And deleting.

Even if that is true, which I am no longer convinced that it is-it still doesn't add up to murder. Where is the evidence linking Chase to any act of murder?

 

[JMarsh]

I'm wondering the same thing.

This is one of those instances where you will have to do your own research. But it is important to look at Joey's life. Who did he love? What were his choices? And further to this, where is the proof that Joey had any intention of firing Chase? So far, not one witness has been presented to support this claim?

Not McGyver.
Not the mother.
Not the brother.
Not Joe Sequieda.

No one has stated that Joey told them that he intended on firing Chase.

 

[dlkutac]

Then why didn't Chase drain Joey's accounts? Why didn't he write more checks if that was his purpose? The defense has promised they are bringing in a forensic accountant, and according to the opening statement from the defense, all amounts are in keeping with what Chase was owed. Why would a person kill for money they would be paid anyway?

The purpose of accessing Joey's Contacts account, if one were intent on stealing, is that there would be much more information there, including bank balance totals. And Chase might have been able to perform withdrawls, bypassing the check writing process. If you are going to kill a family of four, wouldn't you want a little more in return? He could have stolen 100k and fled to Mexico with his family. Why didn't he.

Good question. It might be that he simply messed up in a big way and thought he could clean it up without much disruption to his life. Showing restraint became part of the plan. A spur of the moment fit of anger resulting in Joey's death, necessitating cleanup of the family. He wasn't planning on stealing everything. If he had been, he could have done it with one check on February 1st. Cash it and run. Money was not directly the motive. It was incidental.

 

[missy1974]

The Custom account was only used for a running balance on the business, NOT to print checks from. That's been repeated over and over again from the stand. Like your standard book keeping ledger that you reconcile you debits, credits, etc, etc. The Contact account had everything paid in and out, business and personal. Once again, as stated on the stand.

This has nothing to do with the Vendor list.

For a very long time, and since this trial started, I can't count how many time's I have read "why did he put in charles merritt" when it already existed on the vendor's list. It did NOT exist on the CUSTOM account vendor list.

 

[Force Ten]

I don't have time, but Chase didn't testify on this, his defense pointed it out. At this point I'm leaving it to others to do their own research. I only have time to do my own, and I've answered all the questions you asked that are in regard to my opinion. Anything else, best to watch for yourself. Come to your own conclusions.

Okay. So I should do your research for you to provide for your points. Got it.

The defense have been nothing but deceptive and petty throughout the trial. Kind of like Merritt has been.

 

[JMarsh]

Good question. It might be that he simply messed up in a big way and thought he could clean it up without much disruption to his life. Showing restraint became part of the plan. A spur of the moment fit of anger resulting in Joey's death, necessitating cleanup of the family. He wasn't planning on stealing everything. If he had been, he could have done it with one check on February 1st. Cash it and run. Money was not directly the motive. It was incidental.

Yes. All possible. Are any of these ideas supported by evidence?

 

[Plo_Koon]

Yes and it has also been asserted that Joey and Chase were embarking on a new method by which Chase was going to receive checks.

Who was this asserted by other than CM or his defense?

 

[JMarsh]

Okay. So I should do your research for you to provide for your points. Got it.

The defense have been nothing but deceptive and petty throughout the trial. Kind of like Merritt has been.

OK.

 

[JMarsh]

Who was this asserted by other than CM or his defense?

No one. But who aside from the DA asserted that there was theft?

 

[missy1974]

Separate or not, it doesn't explain or excuse Merritt's actions. How is not a valid argument? Chase had no business writing himself checks. And backdating. And deleting.

It does explain why he didn't just choose "Charles Merritt" or "I design Charles" or "Metro Sheet Metal" from the vendor list.

I'm not saying that it has anything to do with guilt or innocence. But when opinions are based off of false or misleading information, I think that needs to be examined. There has been a lot about these 2 different accounts that has been interpreted wrongly over the years IMO.

 

[MsRyber]

He didn't need access to the Contact account to drain Joey's account. Checks could be created equally easily from both accounts. The money was in the bank, not the QB accounts. But he did appear to show some restraint. I'm speculating that Chase was trying to convey things were business as usual by not draining every cent on day two.

I did notice something strange about the check printing starting Feb 1st. Whoever printed system assigned check 4093, printed on stock 4240, did not seem to have any trouble aligning the check. Whereas, the first check printed by Merritt on the 5th, system assigned 4095, printed on stock 4237 gave him 1/2 hour of trouble. It was reset five times trying to get it printed before it was completely deleted. I would assume if the same printer was used on both the 1st and the 5th, it would not have been so much trouble, as evidenced by the fact the second check he printed on the 5th gave him no problem. He learned the alignment. So, where was the check on Feb 1st printed? They should have tried to tie devices to those check transactions yesterday. The compartmentalization of duties in piecing the case together makes this whole thing so much harder to follow.

The transaction from Joey's home is still completely bizarre. On Feb 4th, 7:59 p.m. check in the amount of $4000.00 to charles merritt, created at McStay House, blank audit history, not printed, deleted, not cashed. No apparent reason for this transaction to exist. Activity on the custom account from the McStay home makes no sense in terms of speculation about a newly established business procedure. (imo)

Plus, we still have the check stock which Chase had in his possession with no signatures - per his own admission.

Any chance Quickbooks was still logged on (with cheque screen open) on a separate computer? You'll get "another user is using the system" error when you attempt to save or print a transaction, unless you have multi-user license. It becomes read-only until the other user is logged off. Even if someone isn't using making key strokes, can still be showing as an active session. My boss and I used to run into this little issue all the time. He would have the CoA open and I'd want to edit a customer record and I was "locked down" until he logged off. I could only delete stuff that I had created under my own username/profile, not his. Peachtree was also notorious for this.

 

[JMarsh]

Any chance Quickbooks was still logged on (with cheque screen open) on a separate computer? You'll get "another user is using the system" error when you attempt to save or print a transaction, unless you have multi-user license. It becomes read-only until the other user is logged off. Even if someone isn't using making key strokes, can still be showing as an active session. My boss and I used to run into this little issue all the time. He would have the CoA open and I'd want to edit a customer record and I was "locked down" until he logged off. I could only delete stuff that I had created under my own username/profile, not his. Peachtree was also notorious for this.

That is a really good question.

 

[missy1974]

There has been some serious confusion about all of this "vendor list" stuff.

I didn't get screenshots, I will do that later when I actually get to watch it again, but I did make these notes:

Backend user custom account info shows the username (eipcustom) and the email ([email protected])… West testifies that those would be needed to verify the account.

Backend user contact account info shows username (eipjd) and the email ([email protected])

CUSTOM ACCOUNT - billing started in January 2008 - separate from contact account

CONTACT ACCOUNT - billing started in September 2005 - separate from custom account.
​

These 2 accounts were absolutely 2 SEPARATE accounts. They had different user names, different emails, and different subscriptions... they also had 2 different vendor lists. During testimony, they showed those lists. The contact one had Charles Merritt and Idesign. But the custom one only had 4, which included the new charles merritt and msm one's. IMO the thought that Chase or whoever didn't need to add Charles Merritt to the vendor list because it already existed is no longer a valid argument.

Give me a few minutes and I will see if I can find them in the testimony and take snips.

Replying to my own post so it's together.

For anyone that cares to look at the actual testimony about the vendor lists, it starts at 14:00. There were 26 pages of contacts for the Contact side. One page with 4 vendors on the Custom side (screenshot attached)

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Force Ten]

It does explain why he didn't just choose "Charles Merritt" or "I design Charles" or "Metro Sheet Metal" from the vendor list.

I'm not trying to be difficult. Maybe I'm just not seeing what you're saying, it's lost on me. What explains it?

 

[dlkutac]

Yes. All possible. Are any of these ideas supported by evidence?

I'm working off a modified version of your theory that he never intended to kill Joey, but trying to make it fit to circumstantial evidence. I'd say there is as much evidence for this idea as the idea that they were setting up a new system...exactly zero direct evidence. If Chase wrote the check on the 1st without Joey's knowledge, it was small enough that it would appear he was trying to get away with something he could explain away later.

 

[JMarsh]

Did CM admit to trying to delete the QB account and the back dating of checks during the initial police interview? He was really concerned about being honest and forthcoming due to his outstanding warrant. I can't remember if he did or not. Thanks

He did not go into that kind of depth. But he did admit to printing checks and signing a couple.

 

[JMarsh]

I'm working off a modified version of your theory that he never intended to kill Joey, but trying to make it fit to circumstantial evidence. I'd say there is as much evidence for this idea as the idea that they were setting up a new system...exactly zero direct evidence. If Chase wrote the check on the 1st without Joey's knowledge, it was small enough that it would appear he was trying to get away with something he could explain away later.

I agree with you, unless Chase testifies, we have no direct evidence of this new arrangement. The jury will most likely have to come to their own inference.

 

[missy1974]

He didn't need access to the Contact account to drain Joey's account. Checks could be created equally easily from both accounts. The money was in the bank, not the QB accounts. But he did appear to show some restraint. I'm speculating that Chase was trying to convey things were business as usual by not draining every cent on day two.

I did notice something strange about the check printing starting Feb 1st. Whoever printed system assigned check 4093, printed on stock 4240, did not seem to have any trouble aligning the check. Whereas, the first check printed by Merritt on the 5th, system assigned 4095, printed on stock 4237 gave him 1/2 hour of trouble. It was reset five times trying to get it printed before it was completely deleted. I would assume if the same printer was used on both the 1st and the 5th, it would not have been so much trouble, as evidenced by the fact the second check he printed on the 5th gave him no problem. He learned the alignment. So, where was the check on Feb 1st printed? They should have tried to tie devices to those check transactions yesterday. The compartmentalization of duties in piecing the case together makes this whole thing so much harder to follow.

The transaction from Joey's home is still completely bizarre. On Feb 4th, 7:59 p.m. check in the amount of $4000.00 to charles merritt, created at McStay House, blank audit history, not printed, deleted, not cashed. No apparent reason for this transaction to exist. Activity on the custom account from the McStay home makes no sense in terms of speculation about a newly established business procedure. (imo)

Plus, we still have the check stock which Chase had in his possession with no signatures - per his own admission.

Did you catch the testimony from Schroeder about the printer? He was asked something about it on Thursday, so over the weekend, he went back and looked into it.

During redirect, he said there was 2 documents sent to the printer on the 4th that didn't print, and when he tried to look at the info, he couldn't get an image it was garbled. I was disappointed that Daugherty didn't ask him the time of the print jobs that day.

I made a note of it because it seemed like the defense was asking in a "we know something you don't know" kind of way.

 

[MsRyber]

One more little diddy about QB. If you try to delete a vendor, it cannot have any transactions attached to it that have been cleared. Otherwise, you have to go into the audit tab, and unclear the transactions, delete the transactions, all of which will still show up in the audit trail. You can't just create a vendor, do some stuff, and delete the vendor. QB will still show the activity, and give you the time and who of all of the intermediary steps taken.

 

[JMarsh]

Did you catch the testimony from Schroeder about the printer? He was asked something about it on Thursday, so over the weekend, he went back and looked into it.

During redirect, he said there was 2 documents sent to the printer on the 4th that didn't print, and when he tried to look at the info, he couldn't get an image it was garbled. I was disappointed that Daugherty didn't ask him the time of the print jobs that day.

I made a note of it because it seemed like the defense was asking in a "we know something you don't know" kind of way.

I thought the same thing when I watched it last night.