GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 Aug 2014 - Enrique Arochi kidnapping trial #5

[arkansasmimi]

This. Several people are saying they were disappointed in the state's evidence - and yes the burden lies on them - but what about the defense? Their case was so incredibly weak. What were there, 3 testimonies? Maybe 4? Calling the body guard made no sense to me.

And again, where was his alibi? Or family for that matter saying they do a lot cleaning to explain all the empty bottles of cleaners?

We all have cleaning supplies. One WS member even posted they use same Odoban in their home. I do not know what all the other supplies were. But I know in my home and of family members we use many kinds and quantities vary at different times.

Alibi, Defense didn't have to give an alibi at trial. Now if EA had gotten on the stand, all gloves were off. But he didn't. Maybe the Defense felt like the all over the place testimonies from Det on case were enough to create reasonable double. Witnesses worked for me on that. They should have had an all together flow. Wasn't. Even the Lead Det didn't know about the text or call whichever from SB wanting to hang out with EA the next day, 8/30. That should not have happened. They are seasoned officers and should anticipate what is going to be asked and know their cases. Was it Epperson that went back and added a report JUNE 2016 because he thought it was important and NOT in reports how clean the undercarriage was? No vegetation or shrubbery. YET there was and was sent to a botanist?

Defense only put on what they felt needed.
LOL fugitive bodyguard. Sorry that did make me snicker. But JMHO his testimony was that he met CM at Club Travis (iirc on name) and that she was nice and ok then changed 100% percent when HF came up. He helps domestic violence victims iirc.

The other witness besides the cell phone expert was a Forensic Dentist or something like that. That normally is a State witness and the State in THIS case sent her 9 iirc photos. She told them not bite marks. so the let it be. Then there is testimony on the stand of bite marks. IIRC even a Det (Stamm maybe?) mentioned bite marks. And the State had no questions. (they knew) So that was what that was about. JMHO

 

[arkansasmimi]

I thought as soon as the alternate was named to replace the ill juror, they were sent to the hotel. I didn't realize they went back into deliberations with the new juror last night. Thanks.

TCMom would know more on actual timing of jury going back with the alt. It seemed like a while before the tweets came that they were leaving for hotel (could be seemed like it due to WAITING lol) But JMHO depends on the vote of the jury that was holding up unanimous vote. If the ill jury was a hold out then the alt may be also. We just don't know which way was going. BUT I doubt they just went back and packed up stuff to go to hotel without seeing if had right numbers instead of going home. IF they went to hotel soon after, JMHO that means it was more divided. And that makes me think it was due to how long been going still today.

 

[arkansasmimi]

L.P. Phillips ‏@lpphillips · 5m5 minutes ago  Manhattan, NY
Still don't know what the jury's up to, but the guards are all back from lunch. #arochitrial

 

[JDauxa]

I personally haven't used Odoban but have a question for someone who has. Is this cleaner sold as a concentrated product, as in one that you mix with water in a spray bottle to use for everyday cleaning? For example I buy Lysol concentrate and mix with water in a spray bottle. I wouldn't use Lysol concentrate without watering it down. Would this be the same with this Odoban cleaner?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[MIKAYOYO]

Lawyer Pete Schulte @AttyPeteSchulte
Clearly a deadlock right now with the jury on the #arochitrial. I'm dying to know the split. Waiting is the worst part! @FOX4

 

[allmybecsloveme]

I personally haven't used Odoban but have a question for someone who has. Is this cleaner sold as a concentrated product, as in one that you mix with water in a spray bottle to use for everyday cleaning? For example I buy Lysol concentrate and mix with water in a spray bottle. I wouldn't use Lysol concentrate without watering it down. Would this be the same with this Odoban cleaner?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

We used odoban at the daycare I worked at and I loved it so I bought it for home back then. I haven't used it in years ,but it comes in a normal spray bottle. You just spray it normally. However I'm not sure if there is a concentrated version or not.

You can get it at walmart.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[jennapuppy]

I personally haven't used Odoban but have a question for someone who has. Is this cleaner sold as a concentrated product, as in one that you mix with water in a spray bottle to use for everyday cleaning? For example I buy Lysol concentrate and mix with water in a spray bottle. I wouldn't use Lysol concentrate without watering it down. Would this be the same with this Odoban cleaner?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

The gallon-sized jug is a concentrate and I believe that is what was found in EA's trash. I am now an Odoban user thanks to this case and it's strong!

 

[Momoffourboys]

I personally haven't used Odoban but have a question for someone who has. Is this cleaner sold as a concentrated product, as in one that you mix with water in a spray bottle to use for everyday cleaning? For example I buy Lysol concentrate and mix with water in a spray bottle. I wouldn't use Lysol concentrate without watering it down. Would this be the same with this Odoban cleaner?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It comes in aerosol and a concentrate. It is fantastic. I use it all around my house, laundry, cars. Much stronger than any other cleaner I had used.

 

[m_brown]

Lawyer Pete Schulte @AttyPeteSchulte
Clearly a deadlock right now with the jury on the #arochitrial. I'm dying to know the split. Waiting is the worst part! @FOX4

[emoji849]eye roll to that attorney. 'Clearly' ? There is a lot of information and testimony in this case. I wouldn't assume that they are deadlocked at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[arkansasmimi]

BBM. The DNA in his truck is pretty damning evidence, IMO. From what I understand it wasn't found in part of the trunk that would be easy to get contaminated. She couldn't have just sneezed and her DNA got in there in the locations it was found. Besides, by his account she was never near his car... Regardless of how small the amount of DNA is, it was in there. I'd be willing to bet that they could go search his trunk for my DNA and they wouldn't find any at all... I was never near his trunk or IN his trunk. The fact that he swears she was never there but there is evidence to the contrary seals it up for me.

I tried to reply to this but WS page locked up try again lol.
Respectfully, I do not pretend to know how CM DNA got on trunk mat or trunk weather stripping.
I do not know where on the mat the 2 circled areas were at, but the Jury knows exactly and will use that to form their opinion. (I saw VW say back drivers side. Is that up near the rear wheel hub on drivers side? over under the brake light area? near the weather stripping area? JMHO depending on actual placement of those circled areas could change my opinion but I do not know.)
Def was trying to say contamination due to the storage (in butcher paper iirc or maybe a box?) There were various things like the Det driving his car without gloves that gave me the wth thoughs and thus reasonable doubt that something innocently could have happened. Don't know)
Again, Lead Det Busby conceded that just because DNA there does not mean she was there Paraphrasing but it was on cross and somewhere in comments 200 or so.
JMHO

 

[Doj1234]

[emoji849]eye roll to that attorney. 'Clearly' ? There is a lot of information and testimony in this case. I wouldn't assume that they are deadlocked at this point.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

If you didn't care for THAT, you will probably not like his take on the verdict either
http://www.fox4news.com/good-day/206804674-video

 

[LookingForClues]

Cleaning supplies are found in all homes and trash. No receipts of when purchased or even fingerprints from them as to who handled them (that I remb seeing texts or reference of)

Respectfully snipped for focus.

If this was your son, and those cleaning supplies belonged to you not him -- you purchased them and you used them -- wouldn't you testify to that effect so people would know he wasn't responsible for them being in the family's household trash? I know that I would. So, why didn't anyone in his family testify to this? That bothers me.

I know that EA doesn't have to prove anything. But if you were a defendant, would you leave that up to "the hope" that people will have doubt if you could actually prove something to the contrary? Would you let your child possibly go to prison if you could provide the information/testimony to help him? If there's a reasonable explanation for all the cleaning supplies, rags and towels in the trash, then I would address it.

P.S. In the time it took me to type this (FedEx delivery interrupted me), everyone started to talk about the cleaning supplies! We all sound like we are passionate about cleaning! LOL

 

[Leader6518]

The contamination theory was repeated disproved and note that the defense did NOT produce an expert to say the amount of DNA in his trunk could be caused due to contamination or transference. In fact every DNA expert and scientist testified that the only way that much DNA could be IN HIS TRUNK is if it came directly fom Christina.

The defense has not provided a reasonable reason for her DNA to have ended up there.

We've gone back and forth about how she could have thrown up on the trunk, and a whole bunch of other theories but interestingly enough the defense didn't go there? Why? Because that's not what happened. We haven't gotten anything from the denfense on what did happen from the one living person who knows. His lawyer could have easily offered up any of those scenarios if it was the truth.

But all EA does is lie. And the evidence doesnt.

I think some of the confusion about DNA amounts comes from confusing the substances that carries the DNA with DNA. During the Caylee trials a scientist explained touch DNA and other sources of DNA. Per the scientist, touch DNA (skin sloughed off when you touch something) has to be replicated to produce enough of a chain to get a profile. There are DNA rules that apply to how much replication can be admitted into court.

DNA from bodily fluids produce plenty of DNA with long chains to get the profile of the person with no replication necessary. So, the DNA amount in fluids is way higher than in touch DNA. The reference to a pack of sugar was a reference to how much DNA was found when dealing with a microscopic organism. That was a lot of DNA chains as opposed to the partial DNA chain that would come from touch DNA.

I hate it when lawyers take advantage of people not being experts on a subject and try to fool them by lying by omission. Kind of like mechanics taking advantage of someone who is unfamiliar with the system on a vehicle.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Quote Originally Posted by MIKAYOYO View Post

Lawyer Pete Schulte @AttyPeteSchulte
Clearly a deadlock right now with the jury on the #arochitrial. I'm dying to know the split. Waiting is the worst part! @FOX4

[emoji849]eye roll to that attorney. 'Clearly' ? There is a lot of information and testimony in this case. I wouldn't assume that they are deadlocked at this point.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Respectfully they "clearly" are. They do not have all 12 jurors agreeing on guilty or not guilty. They do not retry the case then vote. They have an initial vote. People who disagree say vote not guilty they discuss why they feel not guilty. And work from whatever point the differences in votes are. Some may change their vote along the discussion. They are at a deadlock though.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Respectfully snipped for focus.

If this was your son, and those cleaning supplies belonged to you not him -- you purchased them and you used them -- wouldn't you testify to that effect so people would know he wasn't responsible for them being in the family's household trash? I know that I would. So, why didn't anyone in his family testify to this? That bothers me.

I know that EA doesn't have to prove anything. But if you were a defendant, would you leave that up to "the hope" that people will have doubt if you could actually prove something to the contrary? Would you let your child possibly go to prison if you could provide the information/testimony to help him? If there's a reasonable explanation for all the cleaning supplies, rags and towels in the trash, then I would address it.

P.S. In the time it took me to type this (FedEx delivery interrupted me), everyone started to talk about the cleaning supplies! We all sound like we are passionate about cleaning! LOL

Defense attorney is who chooses who will testify that will best help in his defense. The time for that would be during investigation. They said they have no proof of when purchased (PPD testimony)

If I were the defendant I would listen to what my attorney advises.

As to the question what I would do. It not relevant here because I do not know the whole background of who knows what. Only what is presented at trial. Forming my opinion on that only. That is what the jury is to do also. Evidence not Emotion. Or why didn't *advertiser censored* testify to *advertiser censored*.

LOL on us and our supplies. Lawd I have tons, buy some on sale, then something else may not like but still have. I do not see that a huge jmho

 

[SuperTmo]

I tried to reply to this but WS page locked up try again lol.
Respectfully, I do not pretend to know how CM DNA got on trunk mat or trunk weather stripping.
I do not know where on the mat the 2 circled areas were at, but the Jury knows exactly and will use that to form their opinion. (I saw VW say back drivers side. Is that up near the rear wheel hub on drivers side? over under the brake light area? near the weather stripping area? JMHO depending on actual placement of those circled areas could change my opinion but I do not know.)
Def was trying to say contamination due to the storage (in butcher paper iirc or maybe a box?) There were various things like the Det driving his car without gloves that gave me the wth thoughs and thus reasonable doubt that something innocently could have happened. Don't know)
Again, Lead Det Busby conceded that just because DNA there does not mean she was there Paraphrasing but it was on cross and somewhere in comments 200 or so.
JMHO

BBM - oohhhh...interesting. When VW said back drivers side, I interpreted it to mean the back of the trunk, meaning the deepest part of the trunk, furthest from the bumper, if that makes sense. I can see how it could be interpreted to be back drivers side meaning the very end of the car, closest to the bumper. This is why we should get to watch trials live!

 

[SailorMoon]

TO TC MOM -- (it didn't quote!!)

OH NO!!!! So so sorry.

 

[m_brown]

Respectfully they "clearly" are. They do not have all 12 jurors agreeing on guilty or not guilty. They do not retry the case then vote. They have an initial vote. People who disagree say vote not guilty they discuss why they feel not guilty. And work from whatever point the differences in votes are. Some may change their vote along the discussion. They are at a deadlock though.

Thanks Mimi. Respectfully, that would mean that as soon as they do an initial vote and don't agree, they are deadlocked. That is just not how I interpret the word deadlock, I guess. To me, deliberating is not deadlock. We have no idea how long they are choosing to take in 'discussion'. Sure, if they come out in 5 mins and state they cannot reach an agreement, then, ok they have been deadlocked. I just feel it is too 'early' to assume they are deadlocked. Every jury is different. There are no rules as to when they take votes, etc.

JMO [emoji854] and I still think the use of the word 'clearly' by the twitter attorney is dramatic.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Leader6518]

I don't think any of us can fathom what the jury is thinking or how the case presented is perceived by them. We all have a very different perspective because we have followed the case here, read a lot of MSM, watched video documentation, heard speculation, conflicting reports, hearsay and rumor. In the end I think a lot comes down to how the jury internalizes the crime and evidence, what their private trust is of law enforcement, their impression of the lawyers, and finally their gut feeling when sizing up Arochi. The DNA+missing Christina is the one element I think takes root in the subconcious, but of course that is just a guess because it is just impossible to know for now.

And don't forget that we also are more aware of reasonable doubt, and other court issues than the average juror. In so many cases of jurors finding not guilty when there is significant evidence, it is because they do not have an understanding of what "reasonable" means in reasonable doubt. Then you have DT that misrepresent it during their opening and closing arguments. In the Caylee Anthony murder trial the DT kept saying beyond a shadow of a doubt, which is not correct, but that is what many people think of instead of reasonable doubt. Reasonable doubt infers there will be some doubt because you were not an eye witness to the crime. But a reasonable person will put all the evidence together and come to the most reasonable explanation for all the evidence to work.

Someone once said that if you have to expend much effort to explain away evidence, your explanations are not reasonable.

 

[arkansasmimi]

I don't think they went back to deliberate after the sick juror was replaced, everyone stayed in the courtroom and judge made arrangements for the hotel, according to tweets.

ETA:

From above:



Thanks TCMom, I didn't recall seeing a tweet stating the jury went back to deliberate.

JMHO that to me means that the ill juror was not a hold out and that the votes were disproportioned somewhat. Even moreso that it almost 12 hrs later that juror got the case.