GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 Aug 2014 - Enrique Arochi kidnapping trial #2

[arkansasmimi]

I was unable to catch the morning trial testimony(tweets) so I am going back to where I left off last night and reading to end of last thread. Mods can we have link added to the beginning of the first page for the last thread (s) Thank you muches!

 

[arkansasmimi]

From last thread, was going to tell member that Defendants parents were in court today and give the tweet link. Then this reporter just replied so I will include that too.

Quote Originally Posted by TCMom View Post
That was just the first 20. Probably the ones they expect to see testify this week. There will be LOTS more with 11 days planned.

Today, 05:51 AM#621 Circleoflife http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...accused-of-kidnapping&p=12793107#post12793107 Agree with TCMom. And as for EA's parents not being there, from what we know about them here in Allen and knowing the support they've given him these past two years, I would think they're not present only because they can't be and not because they don't want to be. 

User Actions
Following

Valerie WigglesworthVerified account
‏@vlwigg
.@<modsnip> Arochi's parents won't testify so they are in court. Morris' parents are testifying. Judge ruled they can't be in ct #arochitrial

<mod snip>

 

[jnblsm]

I am on trying to catch up on the thread so I apologize if this has already been discussed but regarding the matter of prior witnesses stating Hunter saw Logan and Logan stating he did not see Hunter....It was stated by the earlier witnesses that CM had gotten a text from HF stating he had seen Logan at the bar and this upset CM, which is likely the reason CM called Logan to see if he was indeed with Hunter or if Hunter was lying. It is a very common trait of abusive/controlling men to often lie in this manner.

I don't think there was anything definitive about whether they actually saw each other (H&L), but I think maybe H saw L somewhere, told C via text or call, stated something derogatory about going to confront him. C begs him not to. He (L) taunts her with this for a couple hours.
Was he mad that she went partying with her friends without him? Maybe he expected her to stay home while he was "working"? Jmo, of course

Sent from my SM-T810 using Tapatalk

 

[MIKAYOYO]

I thought so too but then wasn't it reported last year that the police found no DNA from CM inside his car? That made me question whether she had ever been in the front seat. Could he have cleaned it that well?
Also, I'm anxious to hear about the cell phone data and hopefully about toll road data. I thought we heard EA travelled East on 121 and exited at Custer maybe even pinging around the Allen area before then seemingly returning to the Shops at Legacy area. Then wasn't there some activity later closer to his house. It made me think they rode somewhere together and then something went wrong. I also wondered if he got help to hide what he did and that could be the reason for his silence. He doesn't want to incriminate someone close to him. Just speculating.., it's hard to imagine what could keep him from speaking out if it meant saving his hide, but I have wondered if it had something to do with his family in some way.

Yes good point. I'm all jacked up with this testimony. I can only imagine how the jury feels. Such a cluster f@$_

 

[Latestforever]

I am on trying to catch up on the thread so I apologize if this has already been discussed but regarding the matter of prior witnesses stating Hunter saw Logan and Logan stating he did not see Hunter....It was stated by the earlier witnesses that CM had gotten a text from HF stating he had seen Logan at the bar and this upset CM, which is likely the reason CM called Logan to see if he was indeed with Hunter or if Hunter was lying. It is a very common trait of abusive/controlling men to often lie in this manner.

I totally agree with you about HF being abusive, it feels like he sent her that text to upset her because she was out with her friends and having fun- he knew what button to push to make her miserable.


Another thought that I have had that means nothing in the scheme of things is, that it has been hammered over and over again how Christina did not like to be out at night alone at all. It is almost as if she had a premonition and knew something would happen to her.

 

[SteveS]

Respectfully, BBM,
Respectfully, for ME there is a question if the car was damaged/not damaged at the point that the State was trying to prove/establish. And so far they have raised reasonable doubt with that witness testimony. I have not heard yet the State reason why it was or wasn't relevant -damage. I will await that from trial.

And it is relevant. Everything in a trial is. Hopefully for the State they can prove/get the answer by other testimony. But as someone who hasn't followed and as the jury is suppose to do. I am forming my opinion on what is presented in the COURTROOM.

You keep posting they have proof HE PUT HER IN HIS TRUNK. I await that proof too.

The idea that an existence of or lack of damage to the car at any particular point can somehow create "reasonable doubt" for this particular crime is an absurdity, since the crime wasn't one of someone damaging a car. If the state never proves the car was already damaged? So what. Not trying to be rude, but whether or not the camera could answer that question really isn't that big a deal in this case, because it's just a minor side point.

What has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is the elements of the crime according to statute. Not any of the particulars of the state's theory about exactly how it happened, but rather the general belief beyond a reasonable doubt that this crime happened and that EA did it. The last thing the jurors will hear, before deliberating, will be the judge itemizing those things the state had to prove, so they won't inadvertently try to make the task list bigger than it is. No details of the state's theory will be on that list.

And yep, the state has yet to begin to lay out the evidence to show she was IN HIS TRUNK. They've already laid the groundwork to show that would have been a crime, however, with witness after witness already having said that she never would have been there willingly.

 

[SteveS]

"She [EA's mom] can't be forced to testify in son's trial."

That is not accurate. She can be. But for whatever reason, she's not being asked to. There is a spousal privilege, and several others, but in Texas there is not a parent-child privilege.

 

[MIKAYOYO]

The idea that an existence of or lack of damage to the car at any particular point can somehow create "reasonable doubt" for this particular crime is an absurdity, since the crime wasn't one of someone damaging a car. If the state never proves the car was already damaged? So what. Not trying to be rude, but whether or not the camera could answer that question really isn't that big a deal in this case, because it's just a minor side point.

What has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is the elements of the crime according to statute. Not any of the particulars of the state's theory about exactly how it happened, but rather the general belief beyond a reasonable doubt that this crime happened and that EA did it. The last thing the jurors will hear, before deliberating, will be the judge itemizing those things the state had to prove, so they won't inadvertently try to make the task list bigger than it is. No details of the state's theory will be on that list.

And yep, the state has yet to begin to lay out the evidence to show she was IN HIS TRUNK. They've already laid the groundwork to show that would have been a crime, however, with witness after witness already having said that she never would have been there willingly.

I kind of agree but if it's that cut and dry then why does the prosecution bother asking about injuries to his hands and arm? For the average juror who hasn't convicted him yet, which they are not supposed to, than there are lot of questions not really answered.

 

[Latestforever]

I am wondering if EA's girlfriend at the time is going to be called in, didn't he lie to her about where he was the night of the get together? I can't wait until prosecution gets to lay out all of EA's lies because it has been pretty easy on him so far.

 

[MIKAYOYO]

I am wondering if EA's girlfriend at the time is going to be called in, didn't he lie to her about where he was the night of the get together? I can't wait until prosecution gets to lay out all of EA's lies because it has been pretty easy on him so far.

Agree it's been easy on him so much so it's not very convincing. Moo

 

[windrower]

I have always thought that he forced CM into his car. Maybe overpowered her when she was getting her keys and drug her to his car. I thought that was how the damage could occur if she was fighting and kicked it. Just one possibility. It doesn't take long to grab someone. Especially if by surprise and their cars were parked nose to nose with a space in between.

I'm still catching up on reading, but wanted to ask: Since we know the cars were parked nose to nose with a space between, could EA have hit Christina with his car in the garage? If his car wasn't damaged prior to that night, and perhaps was damaged leaving the garage. Was there any barrier between the fronts of cars where they were parked? And the right sides of the cars would also have to be parallel each other--I don't know the layout or logistics of the garage parking..

 

[windrower]

Could someone have did it to his car? :thinking: but video would have captured that if so. Again what about the video of vehicles entering the garage

If video would have captured someone damaging EA's car, then wouldn't it also have captured whether or not Christina got into his car willingly? I've understood all along that there was no garage video of the parked cars.

 

[Gigglingtoes]

The idea that an existence of or lack of damage to the car at any particular point can somehow create "reasonable doubt" for this particular crime is an absurdity, since the crime wasn't one of someone damaging a car. If the state never proves the car was already damaged? So what. Not trying to be rude, but whether or not the camera could answer that question really isn't that big a deal in this case, because it's just a minor side point.

What has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is the elements of the crime according to statute. Not any of the particulars of the state's theory about exactly how it happened, but rather the general belief beyond a reasonable doubt that this crime happened and that EA did it. The last thing the jurors will hear, before deliberating, will be the judge itemizing those things the state had to prove, so they won't inadvertently try to make the task list bigger than it is. No details of the state's theory will be on that list.

And yep, the state has yet to begin to lay out the evidence to show she was IN HIS TRUNK. They've already laid the groundwork to show that would have been a crime, however, with witness after witness already having said that she never would have been there willingly.

I totally get what you're saying but you're thinking like a lawyer again and not a juror.

 

[MIKAYOYO]

If video would have captured someone damaging EA's car, then wouldn't it also have captured whether or not Christina got into his car willingly? I've understood all along that there was no garage video of the parked cars.

I'm curious as to how they know how they were parked if no video. Did they take his word for it or others? Just another detail I'm curious about

 

[jnblsm]

"She [EA's mom] can't be forced to testify in son's trial."

That is not accurate. She can be. But for whatever reason, she's not being asked to. There is a spousal privilege, and several others, but in Texas there is not a parent-child privilege.

I'm proud of you for not using your phrase with this post, Steve. Baby steps... ([emoji12])

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk

 

[SteveS]

For the average juror who hasn't convicted him yet, which they are not supposed to, than there are lot of questions not really answered.

True. It's incredibly early in the testimony. No matter what they think of what they have seen so far, no way any juror has seen enough to convict, at this point.

Let me be clear, I am not trying to minimize the idea that the state has to provide enough solid evidence that helps the jury come to the conclusion. BUT my point is, no specific piece of evidence itself, or no particular witness, or no part of a state's theory about how it all happened, has to be believed "beyond a reasonable doubt" in order for there to be a conviction. The jurors just have to eventually be able to decide EA did the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.

 

[arkansasmimi]

The idea that an existence of or lack of damage to the car at any particular point can somehow create "reasonable doubt" for this particular crime is an absurdity, since the crime wasn't one of someone damaging a car. If the state never proves the car was already damaged? So what. Not trying to be rude, but whether or not the camera could answer that question really isn't that big a deal in this case, because it's just a minor side point.

What has to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt is the elements of the crime according to statute. Not any of the particulars of the state's theory about exactly how it happened, but rather the general belief beyond a reasonable doubt that this crime happened and that EA did it. The last thing the jurors will hear, before deliberating, will be the judge itemizing those things the state had to prove, so they won't inadvertently try to make the task list bigger than it is. No details of the state's theory will be on that list.

And yep, the state has yet to begin to lay out the evidence to show she was IN HIS TRUNK. They've already laid the groundwork to show that would have been a crime, however, with witness after witness already having said that she never would have been there willingly.

<modsnip> What and how it is presented in the courtroom is what is important for "these charges" at this point.

The State fought pretty hard on this line of questioning, making anyone listening (and reading tweets) believe it was an important piece of evidence. The State was trying to make a point for later on if nothing else. The Witness was very confusing and conflicting in his testimony (yes there was damage, no there wasn't, then unable to tell). Will it be a big deal later? I have no idea as I will have to await how it fits together. JMHO

Take care.

 

[bellesnwhistles]

I wonder if the jury will see tapes of him being interviewed initially. I hope so because they will see all the holes in his story

 

[SteveS]

"The State fought pretty hard on this line of questioning, making anyone listening (and reading tweets) believe it was an important piece of evidence."

You can read whatever you want into the fact that the state would fight for its case in court. From my experience, it would be odd if they didn't.

More importantly, it may not have been clear perhaps because the tweets were a bit hazy, but the state won this skirmish.

The defense on cross got the expert to say that the video was "consistent with" what you would see if you saw damage to the car, and when he said yes, then they wanted to make it into an assertion that the expert had seen damage. But that is not what he said - it was a trickily worded cross, and he answered honestly. The prosecution felt it was deceptive and left a misleading impression. The jury didn't see the debate that ensued, as they were led out of the courtroom before it was discussed. The judge eventually sided with the state but cautioned the expert to be precise with his wording when the jury came back, and the prosecution was allowed to come back and let the expert clarify to the jury that he was NOT saying he saw damage on the car, that it could be lighting or shadows or damage or who knows what so no one can tell for sure.

As I said before, it wasn't a major loss for the defense. But they really were hoping to have the expert leave a much different impression with the jury.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Would be so hard for a parent/family member. Especially if they follow what the Judge says.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...accused-of-kidnapping&p=12788995#post12788995
Jobin Panicker &#8207;@jobinpnews 30s31 seconds ago
Judge instructs witnesses to NOT discuss case or watch trial media. #ArochiTrial @wfaachannel8