GUILTY CA - Erin Corwin, 19, pregnant, Twentynine Palms, 28 June 2014 - #14

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

jnblsm said:
Am I the only one that has a problem with Nichole wearing white pumps after Labor Day?

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...



I think it depends on where you are from. I've worn white pants and white shorts after Labor Day this year. It's been freaking hot! However once the weather cools down I won't.
 
jnblsm said:
Am I the only one that has a problem with Nichole wearing white pumps after Labor Day?

Sent from my HTC One_M8 using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
I don’t have “a problem with Nichole wearing white pumps after Labor Day.”
I’m a native Floridian.
FLORIDIANS wear white all year.
I think CALIFORNIANS also wear white all year.
Not sure about ALASKANS.
 
How does spousal privilege play into this, or does it? Thinking they can put Nichole on the stand, but her attorney can tell her not to answer any of the questions?
 
EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 970-973

970. Except as otherwise provided by statute, a married person has
a privilege not to testify against his spouse in any proceeding.



971. Except as otherwise provided by statute, a married person
whose spouse is a party to a proceeding has a privilege not to be
called as a witness by an adverse party to that proceeding without
the prior express consent of the spouse having the privilege under
this section unless the party calling the spouse does so in good
faith without knowledge of the marital relationship.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=00001-01000&file=970-973

This site explains it really well: http://www.shouselaw.com/marital-privilege.html#1.2

Sounds like she won't have to testify unless she chooses to.
 
SeesSeas said:
I don’t have “a problem with Nichole wearing white pumps after Labor Day.”
I’m a native Floridian.
FLORIDIANS wear white all year.
I think CALIFORNIANS also wear white all year.
Not sure about ALASKANS.
Click to expand...

Well they do make some really cute white parkas. So I guess maybe they do? :thinking:
 
Voice4theSilent said:
EVIDENCE CODE
SECTION 970-973

970. Except as otherwise provided by statute, a married person has
a privilege not to testify against his spouse in any proceeding.



971. Except as otherwise provided by statute, a married person
whose spouse is a party to a proceeding has a privilege not to be
called as a witness by an adverse party to that proceeding without
the prior express consent of the spouse having the privilege under
this section unless the party calling the spouse does so in good
faith without knowledge of the marital relationship.

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=00001-01000&file=970-973

This site explains it really well: http://www.shouselaw.com/marital-privilege.html#1.2

Sounds like she won't have to testify unless she chooses to.
Click to expand...

I assume they are going to call her and ask her questions about the molesting. I would think that wouldn't fall under spousal?
 
It will be interesting to see how this plays out. The DA obviously knows about spousal privledge, but he put her on notice for his rebuttal. What about LL, can a child be made to testify? I wonder if she is even in California?
 
moonbeams said:
I assume they are going to call her and ask her questions about the molesting. I would think that wouldn't fall under spousal?
Click to expand...

But the conversation was only between she and Chris. They never reported to the police or CPS?
 
I think the def opened the door when she was mentioned. Gives the DA the right to question her.

I think I have that correct. The judge told her to be there so she must have to
Testify. And her little girl too.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Voice4theSilent said:
77DH7 -

You are trying to get the evidence to fit into YOUR idea of how you think it should have occurred. CL didn't do what a mastermind criminal would do to destroy evidence, etc. because he was sloppy and wasn't a mastermind criminal. He lied about the affair. His wife knew he lied about the affair, that is enough to explain away her comments. She didn't need to know. Maybe he told her what he did and maybe that is what she was talking about. Everything you list can be explained away. Witnesses are wrong ALL of the time in cases such as these. They think they see something they don't. Or they see it somewhere else There were probably a lot of tracks out at her car. The police bluffed and said his tracks were there so he confessed that he had been by her car. One person in court stated there was testimony that his tracks were there and another person testified that they weren't. Doesn't matter. He confessed to being there. An absence of evidence doesn't mean the evidence wasn't there; sometimes it just can't be collected, is compromised by people after the crime, etc. Again, all of the evidence you claim proves he isn't guilty can be easily explained away....you just aren't flexible enough to see that people act in a myriad of ways before, during and after a crime and just because their actions don't fit into how you think they would act or should act doesn't mean that it isn't what they did. He confessed to murdering her. CL is guilty, regardless of how you think he should have acted differently if he were guilty.
Click to expand...

BBM

I have given examples of how I think it could have occurred. The reason I can do this, and not have people thinking I'm schizophrenic, is that there are gaps in the physical evidence which allow me to do this. There shouldn't be any.

I am the first person who would tell you eyewitnesses are wrong all of the time. Which is why I give no credence to them, as far as proving someone committed a guilty act. I included Michael Beasley's testimony because some people choose to believe the eyewitness testimony of the neighbors, friends, army comrades etc. and Michael's account seems to be at least partially corroborated by physical findings. My thought is if you are willing to believe some of the eyewitnesses, why not all of them. What makes the Malakies right and Michael Beasley wrong?

In our system of justice, at least the North American system of justice, the accused doesn't need to be proven innocent. They are proven guilty or they aren't. And yes, my theories can easily be explained away, because the same lack of evidence that allows for alternative theories (like mine), also allows mine to be argued against.

There are literally thousands of people sitting in prison right now, who didn't commit the crime they were accused of. 1500 people in the last quarter century have been exonerated based on physical evidence. That's not including people who don't have a loud enough voice, or don't have an advocate. Amongst them, 38% of young convicts were there because they confessed to a crime they didn't commit. 11% of adults. http://journalistsresource.org/stud...tice/interrogation-lie-bluff-false-confession It sounds really sad for them. But what that really means is thousands (1000s) of killers have gotten off scott free, occasionally because someone was weak, or over-coerced and they cracked under pressure. Most of the time it just means in that moment the person believed it was in their best interest to lie and say they did it.

That's what's going on here. Whether he did it or not, Chris isn't confessing because it really is the truth. He's doing it because at this moment, when his back is up against the wall it is absolutely in his best interest to say he did kill Erin, because it allows him to introduce evidence that greatly reduces his culpability and besides, everyone already thinks he did it anyways. And if he gets a jury to buy the story, he can actually walk free of this completely. The charge of first degree murder, the only charge, is locked in. Double Jeopardy is attached. If they find he didn't plan it, Chris walks away a free man. So whether or not he did this horrific thing, it makes perfect sense to confess. The only place for a confession in court is what comes after the guilty act (actus reus) has been proven: the mens rea phase.

Getting back to my original point, there should not be any gaps in the physical evidence. This is not the case against the crack dealer down the street, selling to teenagers. This is a Death Penalty case, the stakes are much higher here, as they should be. The physical evidence needs to be completely sown up, proven over and over. Such as: his prints and touch DNA on the murder weapon, and his sweat drops in her eyes and mouth. His prints and handwriting on a sheet of paper planning the murder.

Everyone is talking about the so called CSI Effect, and how people shouldn't be expecting this level of identification etc. But the real problem is the court system. It has been coasting for decades, allowing perjured witness testimony as if it were fact. They've gotten lazy with it. If they put half of the resources that go into finding, prepping, securing, relocating, retrieving, protecting, and buying eyewitness testimony into improving forensic identification techniques, and criminalistic databases, there'd be so much more accurate proof, and so much less gang and drug violence, it would be amazing. Right now, they don't even have a fully functioning shoeprint database.

I'll close with this: There is nothing in the physical evidence that puts Chris' hands on that garrote OVER Nichole's. Nothing. That is totally unacceptable in a death penalty case.
 
Knox said:
But the conversation was only between she and Chris. They never reported to the police or CPS?
Click to expand...

I guess they can ask direct questions regarding what she saw on LL? And why she never called the police and why she allowed LL to still be babysat by Erin. So I can see where that isn't spousal.
 
moonbeams said:
I assume they are going to call her and ask her questions about the molesting. I would think that wouldn't fall under spousal?
Click to expand...

My (uneducated) interpretation of the law is that she can be called but can refuse to answer any questions that would incriminate her husband (this would include the molestation questions?) I also think that her daughter can be called and will be expected to answer any questions asked of her. I could be wrong though.

If she isn't in California she will be expected to get to California if the judge told NL (her guardian) to produce her for the upcoming court proceedings. I assume she is here though, as her grandmother and mother are?
 
Voice4theSilent said:
My (uneducated) interpretation of the law is that she can be called but can refuse to answer any questions that would incriminate her husband (this would include the molestation questions?) I also think that her daughter can be called and will be expected to answer any questions asked of her. I could be wrong though.

If she isn't in California she will be expected to get to California if the judge told NL (her guardian) to produce her for the upcoming court proceedings. I assume she is here though, as her grandmother and mother are?
Click to expand...

I don't know how it all works, either.

I wonder if LL will be questioned in open court? Or if all our sources of information (i.e. Beth) and any other spectators will have to leave?
 
77DH7 -

He confessed. End of story. He even recreated how he did it. This isn't a "Brendan Dassey grey area" confession we are talking about here but a full-fledged "I did it and here is how I did it, let me show you specifically in detail with a life size dummy how I did it" confession. HE DID IT!

As far as witnesses go, of course the Jury can pick and choose which ones are believable and which aren't. That is in their discretion. I would believe a neighbor and friend of CL's testifying to what they saw and experienced over someone driving by an abandoned car (which wasn't significant at the time) trying to recollect days later a non event that they *may* have witnessed, from a distance away.

I don't have the skepticism that you have towards our legal system so we will just have to agree to disagree on all of that.

At the end of the day, absent ANY proof that he actually committed the crime he is accused of, he confessed to the murder he is on trial for. He will not be walking...I can guarantee you that.
 
I live in California and wear white all year 'round.....but I'm a rebel like that.... :rocker:
 
Even if Erin had molested LL (WHICH SHE DIDN'T!), that does not absolve CL of being guilty of murder...
 
Voice4theSilent said:
I don't have the skepticism that you have towards our legal system so we will just have to agree to disagree on all of that.
Click to expand...

OUR legal system. Correct. The legal system of the State of California in the Great United States of America.
 
77DarkHorse7 - Thanks for keeping us on our toes here.
I, too, have significant skepticism in regards to achieving ‘justice’ in our American judicial system.
I’m doing some research on Double Jeopardy in relation to CL’s charge of PC187(A)-F: Murder.
I’ll come back atcha in a short while and we can all banter about the specifics until court resumes Tuesday.
Does this case have a Verified Attorney chiming in at all?
77DarkHorse7 said:
BBM

I have given examples of how I think it could have occurred. The reason I can do this, and not have people thinking I'm schizophrenic, is that there are gaps in the physical evidence which allow me to do this. There shouldn't be any.

I am the first person who would tell you eyewitnesses are wrong all of the time. Which is why I give no credence to them, as far as proving someone committed a guilty act. I included Michael Beasley's testimony because some people choose to believe the eyewitness testimony of the neighbors, friends, army comrades etc. and Michael's account seems to be at least partially corroborated by physical findings. My thought is if you are willing to believe some of the eyewitnesses, why not all of them. What makes the Malakies right and Michael Beasley wrong?

In our system of justice, at least the North American system of justice, the accused doesn't need to be proven innocent. They are proven guilty or they aren't. And yes, my theories can easily be explained away, because the same lack of evidence that allows for alternative theories (like mine), also allows mine to be argued against.

There are literally thousands of people sitting in prison right now, who didn't commit the crime they were accused of. 1500 people in the last quarter century have been exonerated based on physical evidence. That's not including people who don't have a loud enough voice, or don't have an advocate. Amongst them, 38% of young convicts were there because they confessed to a crime they didn't commit. 11% of adults. http://journalistsresource.org/stud...tice/interrogation-lie-bluff-false-confession It sounds really sad for them. But what that really means is thousands (1000s) of killers have gotten off scott free, occasionally because someone was weak, or over-coerced and they cracked under pressure. Most of the time it just means in that moment the person believed it was in their best interest to lie and say they did it.

That's what's going on here. Whether he did it or not, Chris isn't confessing because it really is the truth. He's doing it because at this moment, when his back is up against the wall it is absolutely in his best interest to say he did kill Erin, because it allows him to introduce evidence that greatly reduces his culpability and besides, everyone already thinks he did it anyways. And if he gets a jury to buy the story, he can actually walk free of this completely. The charge of first degree murder, the only charge, is locked in. Double Jeopardy is attached. If they find he didn't plan it, Chris walks away a free man. So whether or not he did this horrific thing, it makes perfect sense to confess. The only place for a confession in court is what comes after the guilty act (actus reus) has been proven: the mens rea phase.

Getting back to my original point, there should not be any gaps in the physical evidence. This is not the case against the crack dealer down the street, selling to teenagers. This is a Death Penalty case, the stakes are much higher here, as they should be. The physical evidence needs to be completely sown up, proven over and over. Such as: his prints and touch DNA on the murder weapon, and his sweat drops in her eyes and mouth. His prints and handwriting on a sheet of paper planning the murder.

Everyone is talking about the so called CSI Effect, and how people shouldn't be expecting this level of identification etc. But the real problem is the court system. It has been coasting for decades, allowing perjured witness testimony as if it were fact. They've gotten lazy with it. If they put half of the resources that go into finding, prepping, securing, relocating, retrieving, protecting, and buying eyewitness testimony into improving forensic identification techniques, and criminalistic databases, there'd be so much more accurate proof, and so much less gang and drug violence, it would be amazing. Right now, they don't even have a fully functioning shoeprint database.

I'll close with this: There is nothing in the physical evidence that puts Chris' hands on that garrote OVER Nichole's. Nothing. That is totally unacceptable in a death penalty case.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 169 more.
Total: 468 (members: 170, guests: 298)

Online statistics

Members online
170
Guests online
298
Total visitors
468
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,435
Messages
18,254,048
Members
234,650
Latest member
Ebelden
Back
Top