GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 Aug 2014 - Enrique Arochi kidnapping trial #3

[MIKAYOYO]

If he used his car during to harm her can that be considered a weapon ? How many years here in Texas can he get for this?

Oooh, good point. I think that's where prosecution is going. Moo

 

[allmybecsloveme]

Ok...so she may have sneezed and wiped her boogers in his trunk? Really? That's their defense? Cmon!

That's what those heifers do. That's why I was wondering if it was blood because if not they'll be giving outrageous reasons lol

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[TCMom]

If he used his car during to harm her can that be considered a weapon ? How many years here in Texas can he get for this?

The injury with car may be the aggravating factor they are going for.

5-99 years. But he has poss of probation with NO priors. :-(

 

[catpatrol]

Yet Det in trial has stated at least one that his theory was she went willingly. Has this Det been a witness (sorry lost track, or are you referring to prev hearing / or stuff) TIA

Stamm hasn't testified in trial yet AFAIK. The tweets are from EA's bond hearing in Jan 2015. https://www.scribd.com/document/252830548/EA-Bond-Hearing-Tweets
Stamm did testify that day that she thought there was scuffle/altercation in the garage and that's when she ended up in the trunk. Not sure what she will say in trial.

IMO, either way, Christina didn't end up in that trunk willingly.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Quote Originally Posted by catpatrol View Post
I think Detective Stamm's testimony is being taken out of context at this point, IMO. She testified that she absolutely believes that Enrique killed Christina. She also testified that the DNA in the trunk does not necessarily indicate injury or assault. She is using logical reasoning to opine that the amount of DNA in the trunk of the last person that saw Christina leads her to believe that she was in his trunk, not as a willing passenger, and was likely killed. No big leaps in her reasoning.

twitter.com/RossThaaaBoss/status/555756342481125376
twitter.com/vlwigg/status/555791675792965632
twitter.com/DAnglinFox4/status/555792246931329025
twitter.com/RossThaaaBoss/status/555812432845623296

Quote Originally Posted by arkansasmimi View Post
Yet Det in trial has stated at least one that his theory was she went willingly. Has this Det been a witness (sorry lost track, or are you referring to prev hearing / or stuff) TIA

Went willingly and got in his front seat. Not willingly later when she was put in trunk.

Ok, thanks just trying to keep trial stuff straight as I can for myself. I misunderstood the prev post to mean that - that Det theory was was in trunk only not as a willing passenger as the Witness I referring to theory was she went willing in EA vehicle. (passenger in front not went willing in trunk)

 

[arkansasmimi]

Stamm hasn't testified in trial yet AFAIK. The tweets are from EA's bond hearing in Jan 2015. https://www.scribd.com/document/252830548/EA-Bond-Hearing-Tweets
Stamm did testify that day that she thought there was scuffle/altercation in the garage and that's when she ended up in the trunk. Not sure what she will say in trial.

IMO, either way, Christina didn't end up in that trunk willingly.

Thanks on if had or had not testified yet. JMHO that would confuse me if have another Det testify that she thinks happened in garage and prev theory went willingly from garage. I totally agree, IF she was in the trunk it would not be willingly.

Hopefully they can clarify what kind of bodily fluid the DNA came from. Right now I open minded waiting for that. So far could still be reason why DNA but not necessarily a body. I have no opinion, yet. (I have some confusion lol because of the PPD Det vs Lab results) Hoping the jurors are taking good notes.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Is this the correct Texas Statute that EA is charged under for Agg Kidnapping? ETA: correct Statute per Collin County Court Docket

Charge Information
Charges: Arochi Gutierrez, Enrique Statute Level Date
1. AGG KIDNAPPING 20.04(a)(1-6) PC First Degree Felony 08/30/2014 http://cijspub.co.collin.tx.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=1387104

Sec. 20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person with the intent to:
(1) hold him for ransom or reward;
(2) use him as a shield or hostage;
(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;
(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse him sexually;
(5) terrorize him or a third person; or
(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20.htm

 

[TCMom]

Thanks on if had or had not testified yet. JMHO that would confuse me if have another Det testify that she thinks happened in garage and prev theory went willingly from garage. I totally agree, IF she was in the trunk it would not be willingly.

Hopefully they can clarify what kind of bodily fluid the DNA came from. Right now I open minded waiting for that. So far could still be reason why DNA but not necessarily a body. I have no opinion, yet. (I have some confusion lol because of the PPD Det vs Lab results) Hoping the jurors are taking good notes.

They did say that areas in the home were false positives to bluestar, likely soil - because it has iron which bluestar looks for.

Not a big leap for me that he got soil (therefore iron, therefore faint luminescence) contaminated with her DNA in the trunk. We shall see.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Quote Originally Posted by arkansasmimi View Post
Thanks on if had or had not testified yet. JMHO that would confuse me if have another Det testify that she thinks happened in garage and prev theory went willingly from garage. I totally agree, IF she was in the trunk it would not be willingly.

Hopefully they can clarify what kind of bodily fluid the DNA came from. Right now I open minded waiting for that. So far could still be reason why DNA but not necessarily a body. I have no opinion, yet. (I have some confusion lol because of the PPD Det vs Lab results) Hoping the jurors are taking good notes.

They did say that areas in the home were false positives to bluestar, likely soil - because it has iron which bluestar looks for.

Not a big leap for me that he got soil (therefore iron, therefore faint luminescence) contaminated with her DNA in the trunk. We shall see.

OK Now I really AM confused lol. Sorry! I TOOK IT AS Garage was parking garage and not the Home Garage. I speaking of witness in trial stating theory that CM left willingly from the parking garage. So does this other Detective think CM was in the HOME garage? OR that CM was in trunk from the Parking Garage?? TIA

 

[TCMom]

OK Now I really AM confused lol. Sorry! I TOOK IT AS Garage was parking garage and not the Home Garage. I speaking of witness in trial stating theory that CM left willingly from the parking garage. So does this other Detective think CM was in the HOME garage? OR that CM was in trunk from the Parking Garage?? TIA

Yes, you are right. Parking garage, not home garage. Just a correlation that they did use bluestar when they searched Arochi's house and found false positives.

Sorry for the confusion. I was just clarifying where they found the false positives and why it was false (soil/iron)

 

[TCMom]

Is this the correct Texas Statute that EA is charged under for Agg Kidnipping?

Sec. 20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person with the intent to:
(1) hold him for ransom or reward;
(2) use him as a shield or hostage;
(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;
(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse him sexually;
(5) terrorize him or a third person; or
(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20.htm

Looks right, but there is some language in the charges about her being "secreted away" because the Defense attorney commented on that at least twice when I was in there on Tuesday. Not during testimony but random discussion clarification in the court room. Not entirely sure what his point was.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Is this the correct Texas Statute that EA is charged under for Agg Kidnipping?

Sec. 20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person with the intent to:
(1) hold him for ransom or reward;
(2) use him as a shield or hostage;
(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;
(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse him sexually;
(5) terrorize him or a third person; or
(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

Acts 1973, 63rd Leg., p. 883, ch. 399, Sec. 1, eff. Jan. 1, 1974. Amended by Acts 1993, 73rd Leg., ch. 900, Sec. 1.01, eff. Sept. 1, 1994; Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 318, Sec. 4, eff. Sept. 1, 1995. http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20.htm

IF so:

(1) hold him for ransom or reward; *haven't seen implied yet, still unknown where or what just never heard from again
(2) use him as a shield or hostage; *haven't seen implied yet
(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony; *unsure of what possible felony yet
(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse him sexually; *sexually was not able to be testified but little bit of zero evidence (jmho where going on that Statute)
(5) terrorize him or a third person; or *not shown or implied yet
(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function. *not shown or implied yet
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense. *no evidence of weapon used testified to
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree. ****this may be what they are hoping for that EA takes stand and says he let CM out at *advertiser censored*

JMHO, again if this is the correct charging statute. This is what the State has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. @Minor#4 can you help me on this if I am understanding correctly? TIA

ETA from the Collin County Court site BBM Looks like that is the correct Statute http://cijspub.co.collin.tx.us/CaseDetail.aspx?CaseID=1387104


Charge Information
Charges: Arochi Gutierrez, Enrique Statute Level Date
1. AGG KIDNAPPING 20.04(a)(1-6) PC First Degree Felony 08/30/2014

 

[arkansasmimi]

Looks right, but there is some language in the charges about her being "secreted away" because the Defense attorney commented on that at least twice when I was in there on Tuesday. Not during testimony but random discussion clarification in the court room. Not entirely sure what his point was.

I just looked up on the docket page and it is the correct Statute. Not sure got from the Texas Penal Code page http://www.statutes.legis.state.tx.us/Docs/PE/htm/PE.20.htm

JMHO this is what they maybe trying to get, EA to take stand and say he left her at *advertiser censored* ? Otherwise it is a first degree felony

c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

 

[TCMom]

(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree. ****this may be what they are hoping for that EA takes stand and says he let CM out at *advertiser censored*

Snipped for brevity. I will donate $100 to a charity of your choice if EA gets on that stand. I don't think a single person involved in the case thinks or hopes he will take the stand. His lawyer would be a complete dumbass to let him take the stand. He voluntarily went on TV in more than one interview and lied numerous times.

Not going to happen. Write it down.

Very respectfully, of course.

 

[arkansasmimi]

L.P. Phillips ‏@lpphillips 3m3 minutes ago Manhattan, NY
We are back. First witness for the state is Nicholas Bradford, DNA analyst. #arochitrial

Plano Star Courier ‏@planonewspaper 3m3 minutes ago View translation
State calls Nicholas Bradford, DNA analyst #arochitrial

Hannah VanHuss Davis ‏@hannahdinhd 1m1 minute ago
Breford was involved in @PlanoPoliceDept investigation into #christinamorris disappearance #wfaa #arochitrial

Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 3m3 minutes ago
Trial resumes. Next witness: Nicholas Bradford, DNA analyst for BODE #arochitrial

Natalie Solis ‏@Fox4Natalie 3m3 minutes ago McKinney, TX
Next witness Nick Bradford, DNA analyst @FOX4 #arochitrial

Hannah VanHuss Davis ‏@hannahdinhd 3m3 minutes ago
State calls 1st witness of the afternoon Nick Bredford DNA analyst #arochitrial #christinamorris

Alice Barr ‏@AliceBarrNBC5 1m1 minute ago
My summary of #ArochiTrial Day 7 so far, vid. from 11 AM report, DNA came after & is in article @NBCDFW http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Enrique-Arochi-Kidnapping-Trial-Day-7-393551771.html … via @nbcdfw

 

[arkansasmimi]

L.P. Phillips ‏@lpphillips 32s32 seconds ago Manhattan, NY
Bradford: Works for a private lab #arochitrial

 

[arkansasmimi]

:thinking: Back as in rear of car or back of trunk (near back seat or gas tank back of trunk)?

@vlwigg Valerie, can u classify loc of spots on trunk mat? 5cm, drivers side. Was it front near opening or back further in the trunk? Thks

Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 1m1 minute ago
.@XXXX Areas toward back on driver's side. There are half circles marked on mat by criminalists. Can't see actual spots #arochitrial

 

[arkansasmimi]

Hannah VanHuss Davis ‏@hannahdinhd 2m2 minutes ago
State" What happens when you receive samples from police department?"
Witness explaining process of receiving DNA samples #arochitrial

Hannah VanHuss Davis ‏@hannahdinhd 3m3 minutes ago
Witness works at private lab in Virginia as a DNA analyst #arochitrial #christinamorris

 

[arkansasmimi]

Plano Star Courier ‏@planonewspaper 49s50 seconds ago
Bradford said his lab tested swabs taken from rubber weather stripping on the edge of Arochi's Camaro trunk #arochitrial

Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 2m2 minutes ago
Bradford's lab tested the swab taken from the rubber weather stripping on the edge of the Camaro trunk opening #arochitrial

Natalie Solis ‏@Fox4Natalie 2m2 minutes ago McKinney, TX
Bradford: looking at DNA sample log @FOX4 #arochitrial

Hannah VanHuss Davis ‏@hannahdinhd 3m3 minutes ago
State" What happens when you receive samples from police department?"
Witness explaining process of receiving DNA samples #arochitrial

Hannah VanHuss Davis ‏@hannahdinhd 40s41 seconds ago
Some samples had more than one contributor according to DNA analyst on #christinamorris case #arochitrial

 

[arkansasmimi]

Natalie Solis ‏@Fox4Natalie 2m2 minutes ago McKinney, TX
Bradford: explaining DNA extraction from one of the swabs & amount of DNA found. Described amount as "a lot" @FOX4 #arochitrial

Alice Barr ‏@AliceBarrNBC5 2m2 minutes ago
New DNA expert, Nicholas Bradford, on the stand now in #ArochiTrial @NBCDFW

L.P. Phillips ‏@lpphillips 3m3 minutes ago Manhattan, NY
Bradford: Did a DNA extraction from a swab from the Morris case. found "quite a bit" of DNA #arochitrial

Plano Star Courier ‏@planonewspaper 1m1 minute ago
Bradford said the quantity of DNA they found was roughly equivalent to a sample taken directly from a person #arochitrial

Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 1m1 minute ago
Bradford testifies 7.5 nanograms per microliter of DNA present, "which is quite a bit... a touch sample would be much lower" #arochitrial

L.P. Phillips ‏@lpphillips 55s55 seconds ago Manhattan, NY
Bradford: talking the difference between pictograms and nanograms. Might as well be explaining the Kardashians to me #arochitrial