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

[Vail]

I don't understand why we don't know more about the second phone EA is said to have had at the first interview. Am I missing something?? Please, if so, fill me in kind WSers. Where the heck is it? Even if it it missing with Christina - wouldn't the data be on his records?! So confused as to why we only have the stolen/wiped phone as evidence. Or do his phone records include both phones? Help! Lol

I remember one of the female detectives testifying that he would not give it to them, and then she was not able to get in touch with him after the last interview they did. The end result was they never got ahold of that phone, but were able to get records of it. I am unclear on whether they found no activity on that phone to be relevant, or it was not in use that night (the sprint phone was). I find this significant because if he, say, stole a phone from sprint, used it the night Christina went missing instead of his day-to-day phone, then wiped it and returned it shortly afterwards, it shows intent of something. Whether it was just covering up other illegal activity or he intended to commit a crime that night is hard to say now because it didn't seem well explored - I personally think if he had pre-meditated anything for that night and the phone was part of it, it was a felony-level drug exchange or directed at Sabrina and Christina just ended up as plan B. JMO

 

[Circleoflife]

I respect your opinion Mimi but I don't share your reasonable doubt, the fact that the Blue Star did react, even lightly, and DNA was in the sample from that reaction, tells me CM was on that trunk mat and lost bodily fluid of some nature, and most likely blood as I don't believe Blue Star reacts to saliva (without blood in it). Plus the DNA on the weatherstripping gasket proves to me she was actually inside the trunk and it could not have been transference or contamination (Fortenberry addresses this in his closing).

Along with all of his story changing and lies, the several empty bottles of cleaning fluids at his house, the post-it with associated items from that night, the phone pings of that night after leaving the parking garage, I simply have no doubt, reasonable or otherwise that EA disappeared her and did great bodily injury to her. That may not have been his intent when she first entered his car but since pings lead investigators to believe that he drove the wrong way from the garage if he were taking her home, and then drove back towards the Shops, at some point he did intend to do her harm.

If an accident occurred, such as was postulated (she didn't want to go where he was driving, jumped out of the car and he unintentionally hit her), why wouldn't he own up to that at some point, knowing he was busted? Much better to concede a terrible accident happened and stupid panic behavior afterwards (hiding her body) than to be charged with kidnapping and possible murder if and when she is found.

Just the way I see it.

I increasingly believe they left to get drugs for the group. I don't think he was taking her home.I base this on texts and HF's behavior. I don't necessarily believe they were meeting him, but somehow he played a role. Something happened along the way or at the designation. EA is guilty of knowing what happened and doing something to her. We may never know the truth but we need to know to find her!

 

[Leader6518]

That's what I was stating in a post up thread. Surely PPD had records for all the phones in his name. Unless it was a burner phone. Was there ever any testimony prior hearings and stuff of him having a different number? They had the phone texts and where sent from from HF and RA phones that were sent from EA phone. They have the phone records from Sprint. IF they were from different phones or phone numbers they did not bring that out in trial. **records of EA and times from/to numbers of HF and RA would confirm if different phone used. SO jmho it was same phone used, not a different phone. PPD alluded to it being the stolen phone or my understanding of testimony.

LE never found the second phone which may explain why there was not testimony regarding it. According to an earlier post/tweet after EA refused to let LE see messages on phones, the stolen one was wiped clean and the second phone disappeared.

I imagine it was not allowed as evidence since it can't be found?

 

[suzyjackson]

LE never found the second phone which may explain why there was not testimony regarding it. According to an earlier post/tweet after EA refused to let LE see messages on phones, the stolen one was wiped clean and the second phone disappeared.

I imagine it was not allowed as evidence since it can't be found?

If EA had both phones with him, and I'm assuming that's pretty likely, I wonder if LE just for their own information were able to identify other phones pinging the same towers at the same time as Christina's and EA's. I don't know if this reverse type of search is possible but I wouldn't have thought it would be an unmanageable number to trace at that time in the morning.

I totally get that without the phone this has no evidenciary value but might have yielded some clues as to where he went

 

[allmybecsloveme]

For me personally and my vote does not count toward verdict. But for me, I was disappointed.
State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt to me. From any of the witnesses testimony, I did not see (especially, friends from that night and afterwards testimony)
.
Intent to do bodily harm
Intent to sexually abuse
Intent to terrorize CM

DNA in trunk, does not prove she was IN HIS TRUNK. 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 of a packet of sugar is how it was testified as to the DNA found. The testimony about the storage of CM belongings and car processing same date in same locker? IF contamination happen I do not think on purpose. But there is reasonable doubt for me due to the testimony of various witnesses. JMHO

Edit to add, Nor proven to me that she was even kidnapped. Just assumptions/theory that she changed her mind while in car of EA. And that changes where she was at depending upon which Det you believe theory, in trunk from garage, in front seat left willingly.

No doubt something happen to this young lady. But like not knowing where she is, I don't know what happen to her. Could very well have been with someone else at some point. I just don't know like everyone else.

My issue is that the Blue Star reaction could have been cleaner. Which we know was used.

Also, if the trunk DNA wasn't blood, then it could mean something was put in the trunk that had her saliva or something all over it.

With the evidence given I can't say that he kidnapped her. It seems just as likely that it WAS something like a drug deal gone bad or they saw something they shouldn't have. Something happened, Christina got hurt, he didn't know what to do and was threatened with his life if he said anything.

Now I don't think that happened. But I really just wish there was more evidence. All of the evidence to me tells me absolutely nothing definitively. The DNA is the only damning thing they have and there were issues with that.

My opinion only. I still think he is guilty and I hope he gets life. They did great pulling everything together in closing but I just really was disappointed with the lack of legitimate evidence.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Hoosgirl]

Natalie Solis – ‏@Fox4Natalie

Jury now deliberating 10hrs. Everyone waiting outside ctroom doors. Every time door opens we jump. So far false alarms. @FOX4 #arochitrial
9:30 AM - 21 Sep 2016 from McKinney, TX

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[CuriousinNY]

This wait is killing me. The more time that goes by, the more worried I become.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[arkansasmimi]

If she left with him willingly and exited his car of her own volition, then there is no need for him to lie about walking with her in the parking garage, or lie about the damage to his car, or lie about his injuries. And who would hold onto those lies and take the chances of being convicted for AK if you had a reasonable explanation for it all? To me, his lies have been some of the most damning evidence the prosecution has.

Respectfully, which of his lies proved through testimony from State:

That his lies prove intent to do bodily injury, intent to terrorize or intent to sexual assault?

Also on the leaving willingly, at least 2 PPD testified their theory was she did leave willing in FRONT seat of car. Wise said trunk. Busby she iirc also thought in front. I am just saying charges were not proved to me by testimony and evidence at trial.

 

[dalsglen]

At trial, the Fifth Amendment gives a criminal defendant the right not to testify. This means that the prosecutor, the judge, and even the defendant's own lawyer cannot force the defendant to take the witness stand against his or her will.

If EA were to take the stand, then he could be asked about everything and anything JMHO. And all his interviews and statements used against him to impeach his testimony. There was some testimony that showed not all he said were lies. Yes he lied. And I do not take that lightly. But also can see options why he would that could be reasons of innocence too. Yes it is very suspicious that he last one see with her and she missing but it is not as cut and dry. Testimony from the PPD Witnesses didn't even agree, and Lead Det didn't know about some of the evidence questioned about. JMHO

Sometimes (not saying in this case just in general) truth can be twisted to fit a theory.

Example: boy seen throwing rocks by neighbor. Neighbor gets onto boy, boy leaves area, neighbor goes on about his business. Next morning neighbor sees her car has a broken window. Sees rocks on ground.

Fact boy was throwing rocks, neighbor did get onto boy. Did boy throw the rock that broke window? Neighbor may think so, files police report go trial (hang with me, I know this is out there and a lot diff) But at trial, State could ask the boy only enough questions to make their theory work. Boy throwing rocks, neighbor got onto, boy got mad at neighbor for spoiling his fun.

But what if boy went home after neighbor got on to him and did nothing wrong? What if another kid mowing grass and a rock flew out broke window, no one else sees and he doesn't want to get in trouble so says nothing.

I respect your opinion, and that is your Fifth Amendment Right, and your are free give up that right, if YOU so choose. But only if YOU choose. Doesn't matter what anyone else thinks about it. But a jury is instructed that it can not be held against you for not testifying.
JMHO

Oh I know what youre saying makes sense it just drives me nuts, ya know the whole point being the state and the defence argue their cases, and so should the accused imo. I have no amendment rights though...

 

[cluciano63]

I hope the length of time indicates that they are not hung, at least. Seems like they would know by now if there was no way they would ever agree? Maybe? I think a long deliberation can be good for the prosecution in a case like this...crossing fingers.

 

[arkansasmimi]

I respect your opinion Mimi but I don't share your reasonable doubt, the fact that the Blue Star did react, even lightly, and DNA was in the sample from that reaction, tells me CM was on that trunk mat and lost bodily fluid of some nature, and most likely blood as I don't believe Blue Star reacts to saliva (without blood in it). Plus the DNA on the weatherstripping gasket proves to me she was actually inside the trunk and it could not have been transference or contamination (Fortenberry addresses this in his closing).

Along with all of his story changing and lies, the several empty bottles of cleaning fluids at his house, the post-it with associated items from that night, the phone pings of that night after leaving the parking garage, I simply have no doubt, reasonable or otherwise that EA disappeared her and did great bodily injury to her. That may not have been his intent when she first entered his car but since pings lead investigators to believe that he drove the wrong way from the garage if he were taking her home, and then drove back towards the Shops, at some point he did intend to do her harm.

If an accident occurred, such as was postulated (she didn't want to go where he was driving, jumped out of the car and he unintentionally hit her), why wouldn't he own up to that at some point, knowing he was busted? Much better to concede a terrible accident happened and stupid panic behavior afterwards (hiding her body) than to be charged with kidnapping and possible murder if and when she is found.

Just the way I see it.

I respect your opinion.It is very much ok that we do not share the same opinion. I am not trying to change anyone's opinion. Just stating my own. Evidence and testimony in trial from BODE Lab did not show blood. The DNA was 1+18 zeros of DNA and that amount found as example given in a packet of sugar.

Pros and Def opening and closing statements are not to be considered as evidence. Only what is in the middle meaning witness testimony and evidence entered in.

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)

On the Cell Pings. JMHO from other trials, depending on who wants what the pings help. I have seen cases where Def used and some where State has. SO personally I not sure on the pings. Even Benzink on cross said that EA could have been home at time of pings.

Bottom line what testimony proved by State intent bodily injury/intent sexual assault/intent terrorize any of these? Proof? Or if want to go with the State closing "maybe" this happen or maybe that happened". Maybe isn't proof to me. JMHO (no snark intended honest)

 

[arkansasmimi]

Natalie Solis ‏@Fox4Natalie · 3m3 minutes ago  McKinney, TX
Quiet in hallway outside courtroom during lunch. So far no formal jury questions like yesterday @fox4 #arochitrial

Plano Star Courier ‏@planonewspaper · 3m3 minutes ago
11 hours into deliberations, no verdict yet. #arochitrial

 

[roadrunnermt]

I was extremely disappointed in the lack of DNA evidence. I thought it was a slam dunk and much more. I still think all the other evidence points to he is guilty but if I were a juror I can see having a tiny bit of doubt especially when you think about HF also.

 

[m_brown]

Slightly off topic: but an anecdotal story about serving on a jury.

Two years ago this month I was seated as a juror on the trial of a 25 year old who the prosecution claimed had negligently discharged a firearm in front of his house at a group of teen boys. He claimed he only fired a warning shot into the air and was only acting on self defense as he thought a robbery or break in was occurring and he had been broken into before. It was a '2 day' trial in which we were selected in the morning, heard testimony that afternoon and following morning and were sent to deliberate that afternoon. It was sort of 'understood' that we were expected to reach a verdict by the end of the second day. I know the court couldn't force us to do so, but there was this sort of unwritten and unspoken understanding. Interesting.

This of course is no where near the caliber of Christina's case -but I thought it might be interesting to share. I think many of us started off with guilty - I know I was leaning that way. I think we did go around the table and count off at the beginning. But as we started discussing and asked for further instruction from the judge - it was almost as if there was an epiphany. We deliberated for 2-3 hours going back and forth and lamenting the fact that the prosecution never recovered what we felt would be key evidence such as shell casings, etc. (CSI effect as the prosecution put it)

But eventually the Forman put it very simply with a question to us: 'Can we convict this person with what the prosecution has presented to us?' Or something very simple along those lines. We went around the table and one by one said 'No.' Simple as that - not guilty.

That was it. They did not have the type of evidence juries WANT to see. Of course this was not a high profile case - no budget for ballistics testing or stuff of that nature. But things can change with a jury quickly. They could be going back and forth and then all of a sudden - it can become very simple and straightforward.

All that being said - I do not ever wish to be in the situation these jurors are in. While the whole process was fascinating - I do not ever want to be seated on such a trial!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jennapuppy]

I believe as the prosecution said, his injuries show that there was intent to do bodily injury. He said that he got into a fight, and there is the kernel of truth among the lies. The person he fought was Christina. JMO

 

[SuperTmo]

I believe as the prosecution said, his injuries show that there was intent to do bodily injury. He said that he got into a fight, and there is the kernel of truth among the lies. The person he fought was Christina. JMO

I agree. EA could have made up any story he wanted about how he was injured. He picked the words he said; he introduced the topic of him being in a fight.

The time the jury has been deliberating doesn't really concern me yet because I feel like they had to start from scratch with the new juror.

 

[LookingForClues]

As I have said before, I don't think we can make a decision based solely on the tweets from the trial. The jurors are hearing and seeing so much more. I certainly would love to see all the exhibits! In fact, many of the tweets were done while the jury was OUT of the courtroom due to legal arguments, so we know some things that the jurors don't know, as well as some things that had never been released to the public before. I think the only way to be fair in our judgment is if we are in that courtroom, hearing the case in full as presented by each side.

That said, it is interesting to see what our fellow sleuthers think about the case and how it was presented.

:moo:

 

[geevee]

I increasingly believe they left to get drugs for the group. I don't think he was taking her home.I base this on texts and HF's behavior. I don't necessarily believe they were meeting him, but somehow he played a role. Something happened along the way or at the designation. EA is guilty of knowing what happened and doing something to her. We may never know the truth but we need to know to find her!

I might find that plausible except HF stopped answering her texts well before EA and CM left the apartment. We don't know the time that he was selling drugs to the undercover officer but LE must believe it was timely enough that he couldn't have had anything to do with her disappearance, esp. considering no pings from EA/CM phones anywhere near where HF's phone pinged. I really don't think HF was involved, but do think at least CM thought EA was taking her home when she got into his car.

 

[dalsglen]

Slightly off-topic but my kid fractured his arm at football practice this morning and we've been dealing with that. Waiting to get in to the ortho now. So I have that chaos AND waiting for the verdict to come back. Argh, stress!

Hope hes ok TC!! Luckily for me I was prescribed beta blockers yesterday for a hand tremor, no stress!!

 

[bradfordsleuth]

I think that the Prosecution did a great job of outlining his countless lies and having so many people testify that they don't remember any scratches or marks on him from that night. The DNA was a little bit of icing on the cake.
I am hoping for a verdict today or I am going to get a wee bit nervous that there is a chance he will be found Not Guilty. Gosh, I hate even typing that...or even thinking that there is a remote chance of that.

Here's a question....if he is found guilty, can the verdict be appealed? (Canadian here and not all that familiar with U.S. law)