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

[JMarsh]

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.

You seem to know QBs really well. What is your take on the QBs activity?

 

[missy1974]

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?

The fact that they were 2 separate accounts. Being in the Custom account didn't allow him to access anything in the Contact account including the vendor list.

 

[missy1974]

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

Maline is annoying IMO LOL but his questions do give me some insight.. he was asking questions like he was about the bookmark. IF there is additional info about the printer, he must not have been able to ask Schroeder about it, otherwise I'm sure he would have. IIRC the defense wanted asked that he be subject to recall, so we may see Schroeder again.

 

[JMarsh]

Maline is annoying IMO LOL but his questions do give me some insight.. he was asking questions like he was about the bookmark. IF there is additional info about the printer, he must not have been able to ask Schroeder about it, otherwise I'm sure he would have. IIRC the defense wanted asked that he be subject to recall, so we may see Schroeder again.

I don't find him annoying at all. I think he knows exactly what he is doing. It is easy to forget that, though the DA may have the mic now, so to speak, this is the defense's opportunity to prep. Won't know until the state rests, but I would imagine that just about everything the defense is doing right now is laying the foundation of the case they will be presenting.

 

[dlkutac]

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.

Ooh, I missed that. Have to go back and find it. Thank you!

 

[Force Ten]

The fact that they were 2 separate accounts. Being in the Custom account didn't allow him to access anything in the Contact account including the vendor list.

How does that give him a pass to do what he did?

 

[MsRyber]

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?

My guess is that he thought he would be able to create a new vendor, write/cash the cheques and delete the vendor account afterwards. BUT, in order to delete the vendor record entirely, he'd have to be an administrator anyways, so once he was in the vendor record, he was kinda stuck there and semi-screwed, if he was being nefarious.

I get the concept of this separate account for tracking purposes, but I don't understand why they didn't just have one big payable and as cheques are made to CM, it just reduces the payable. All he would have to do is click "Pay Vendor Invoice" and put in the amount he wanted to pay him and it would just make the balance smaller. We know JM loaned CM some money. Guessing he didn't want it "on the books" since CM wasn't a shareholder. He could have just put CM in as a customer as well, and use the payable (what he owed Chase) to offset the receivable (what Chase owed him), but that would take a couple journal entries which it doesn't look like JM did much of.

 

[missy1974]

Ooh, I missed that. Have to go back and find it. Thank you!

Some of it is from Thursday, some from the beginning of testimony on Day 18, some from the end of his testimony on Day 18 part 2, IIRC. It was little tidbits here and there. I found it interesting that Schroeder went back over the weekend and reviewed the printer spool (?).

 

[JMarsh]

My guess is that he thought he would be able to create a new vendor, write/cash the cheques and delete the vendor account afterwards. BUT, in order to delete the vendor record entirely, he'd have to be an administrator anyways, so once he was in the vendor record, he was kinda stuck there and semi-screwed, if he was being nefarious.

I get the concept of this separate account for tracking purposes, but I don't understand why they didn't just have one big payable and as cheques are made to CM, it just reduces the payable. All he would have to do is click "Pay Vendor Invoice" and put in the amount he wanted to pay him and it would just make the balance smaller. We know JM loaned CM some money. Guessing he didn't want it "on the books" since CM wasn't a shareholder. He could have just put CM in as a customer as well, and use the payable (what he owed Chase) to offset the receivable (what Chase owed him), but that would take a couple journal entries which it doesn't look like JM did much of.

I guess because I've mostly worked in very small companies or for myself, I get what the defense is asserting was going on here.

When I worked in a corporation, everything was linear and there were no exceptions to accounting procedures. But in a small company there can be less conventional methods used. I guess we'll see.

 

[Force Ten]

I'm wondering the same thing.

I'm pretty sure I know who they're implying. A family member who went to jail over an unpaid debt. But it's a ludicrous inference.

 

[Tortoise]

Wow.

It's actually a requirement at WS to back up statements of fact with links to the source of the information.

 

[missy1974]

How does that give him a pass to do what he did?

I don't think I said it did, did I?

I think the point is being lost here... 2 accounts, 2 different lists, that was why he had to add his and msm's names... that is why he couldn't just pick a name from the vendor list (Charles Merritt, or I design Chase or Metro Sheet Metal) like everyone has assumed he could have over the years. AGAIN, not saying anything about innocence or guilt. I am looking at the evidence... the evidence presented in the trial... in the trial thread LOL

I originally replied to your post CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #6

in that post you stated:
Joseph already had two vendor accounts for Merritt - Charles Merritt and Idesign Chase. There would be no need to create an extra account for "chase merritt" as was done on the 1st.​

This above, is factually incorrect based on the testimony that I heard.

 

[dlkutac]

Some of it is from Thursday, some from the beginning of testimony on Day 18, some from the end of his testimony on Day 18 part 2, IIRC. It was little tidbits here and there. I found it interesting that Schroeder went back over the weekend and reviewed the printer spool (?).

My first inclination in thinking about an attempted check printing at the McStay house would be that Chase was having trouble with alignment there as well. Every time you use a new printer, it becomes trial and error to get a check aligned. Perhaps Mr. Merritt felt pressed for time for some reason and nixed the idea of printing it at the McStay house in favor of doing it at home where he had more time and less bodies laying around.

 

[MsRyber]

How does that give him a pass to do what he did?

Exactly. Why did he need to create a new vendor (himself) when he was already a vendor?

It would tell him he couldn't create a vendor called Charles Merritt. It would tell him that that vendor already exists. To me, it shows some sort of pre-event thought process. A cheque needed to be created, but couldn't be created in CM's actual name. How come?

 

[JMarsh]

It's actually a requirement at WS to back up statements of fact with links to the source of the information.

I actually do this. I'm just not going to repeat the same evidentiary support over and over again. And stating where information can be found IS backing up a claim. I'm not required to watch the trial for someone, am I?

I told @forceten where the support for my claims was.

 

[Tortoise]

I actually do this. I'm just not going to repeat the same evidentiary support over and over again. And stating where information can be found IS backing up a claim. I'm not required to watch the trial for someone, am I?

At what point was other people's drug use - sorry gambling - mentioned in the trial?

 

[Force Ten]

I don't think I said it did, did I?

I think the point is being lost here... 2 accounts, 2 different lists, that was why he had to add his and msm's names... that is why he couldn't just pick a name from the vendor list (Charles Merritt, or I design Chase or Metro Sheet Metal) like everyone has assumed he could have over the years. AGAIN, not saying anything about innocence or guilt. I am looking at the evidence... the evidence presented in the trial... in the trial thread LOL

I originally replied to your post CA - Joey, Summer, Gianni, Joseph Jr McStay Murders - Feb 4th 2010 #6

in that post you stated:
Joseph already had two vendor accounts for Merritt - Charles Merritt and Idesign Chase. There would be no need to create an extra account for "chase merritt" as was done on the 1st.​

This above, is factually incorrect based on the testimony that I heard.

NM.

 

[missy1974]

Exactly. Why did he need to create a new vendor (himself) when he was already a vendor?

It would tell him he couldn't create a vendor called Charles Merritt. It would tell him that that vendor already exists. To me, it shows some sort of pre-event thought process. A cheque needed to be created, but couldn't be created in CM's actual name. How come?

Please read my posts (they even have links to evidence) There was NOT already a vendor called CHARLES MERRITT in the CUSTOM ACCOUNT. It was on the CONTACT ACCOUNT. I am leaning towards agreeing with @travelbug ... we made need separate threads to discuss actual evidence vs. not evidence and what people have thought for years and theorize.

and I'm thinking it's time for me to take a break haha

 

[JMarsh]

At what point was other people's drug use - sorry gambling - mentioned in the trial?

I've never mentioned any drug use.

 

[JMarsh]

Please read my posts (they even have links to evidence) There was NOT already a vendor called CHARLES MERRITT in the CUSTOM ACCOUNT. It was on the CONTACT ACCOUNT. I am leaning towards agreeing with @travelbug ... we made need separate threads to discuss actual evidence vs. not evidence and what people have thought for years and theorize.

and I'm thinking it's time for me to take a break haha

Thank you for your commentary.