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

[LookingForClues]

I am on the edge of my seat waiting, still optimistic about a guilty verdict. I remember at the beginning I had a very hard time letting go of the idea that HF was responsible, it took a while to come around. If it weren't for the DNA and lies I wouldn't be so convinced. I am imagining that the jury is hashing out those topics as well and some may need time to get past HF did it. I hope there is that voice of reason like SteveS to keep it on track.

I hear ya! I always thought HF was behind it. Then I thought they both were behind it, working together. I definitely get hung up on all the lies from EA. He is a master liar. It worked for awhile, until everyone started comparing lies. In fact, I take it back that he is a master liar, because if he was, he would have told the SAME lies to everyone. Instead, he told different lies to different people. They called him on it, he changed his lies, but still told lies, just NEW lies. I just don't buy that his lies are because of "fear." I think they are because he is trying to cover his @ss and he got lost in his lies. :liar: :liar:

 

[Doj1234]

This amount of DNA couldn't just be transference off of clothes or off whatever else. This amount of DNA could only be a result of CM physically being in his trunk at some point, one way or another.

I apologize for my lack of understanding, perhaps you could help because when I saw this tweet, my reaction was that the 'expert' not entirely honest.

I could sweat/bleed/slobber or urinate in EA's trunk. I could place my dirty underwear/overnight bag/purse in EA's trunk. I could spit or vomit in EA's trunk. How can an 'expert' claim that the only way I could do these things is by physically being in EA's trunk? I could get the DNA in the trunk in all of these examples without physically being in the trunk. How can the expert say I had to physically be in the trunk with a straight face? Am I missing something? (not being snarky)

I actually think that this is why the prosecution may fail....lack of credibility.

 

[SteveS]

Makes sense except remember defense says she was never in or near his car. They didn't offer a reasonable reason explaining how her DNA got there. They have stuck to the claim they went their separate ways, never in or near his car etc. If the defense isn't offering up that possiblity then it really isn't a relevant possibility in this case. I hope I'm making sense.

Thry blame the cops for her DNA being in his trunk their claim is she didn't deposit it there. No need to give him extra excuses that he didn't even use.

And if she just sneezed, why lie and lie and lie and lie?

The lying is a big deal here, in knowing what happened. Because
1 if CM came to his car and sneezed on it, but went her own way, EA would have had no reason to lie about anything that happened that evening - so the lying with multiple stories always shifting and being reinvented and never checking out helps prove she was in his car somewhere
2 further proof she was in his car was the testimony where the detective showed there was no other realistic way for CM to get out of that garage without being seen on one camera or another
3 once you know she's in his car somewhere, then she's never seen again, you know EA had to have been involved somehow - proof reinforced by the fact EA is trying to hide the fact she even got in his car with his lies
4 if there was an innocent outcome, common sense says EA would have said it long ago
5 and then when you have her DNA found IN HIS TRUNK, and blood, and with all the damage to his person and his car that happened that night, you have the "aha" that 's the finishing nail in his coffin imo

I have no doubts EA abducted and probably killed CM. I remain cautiously confident the jury will figure it out and find him guilty.

 

[Orgona]

:thinking: so if they do not come back with the verdict you expect that makes them what? Not capable of logical thinking in your opinion? I totally agree and very much understand that we did not get the FULL version from tweets. But again, it is ok because I am not one of the 12 that will render the verdict to begin with. But I am appreciative for the tweets and the members who went to court and shared back. I still stick by my opinion. JMHO

No. What I'm saying is that the whole thing seems logical after one looks at the totality of the evidence. Full stop. I'm not placing any title or qualifier onto anybody.
And nobody is saying that you should change your opinion. You are entitled to think and believe whatever you like. I'm not trying to sway you one way or another. Just like you I'm stating my opinion.

 

[TexasT]

Unreal they were not back in 5 min .
Smh


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[arkansasmimi]

I apologize for my lack of understanding, perhaps you could help because when I saw this tweet, my reaction was that the 'expert' not entirely honest.

I could sweat/bleed/slobber or urinate in EA's trunk. I could place my dirty underwear/overnight bag/purse in EA's trunk. I could spit or vomit in EA's trunk. How can an 'expert' claim that the only way I could do these things is by physically being in EA's trunk? I could get the DNA in the trunk in all of these examples without physically being in the trunk. How can the expert say I had to physically be in the trunk with a straight face? Am I missing something? (not being snarky)

I actually think that this is why the prosecution may fail....lack of credibility.

Busby even conceded that she need not be physically in trunk to have that DNA there. I am not meaning to be snarky either. I think it is hard sometimes for people who know more than some on an issue or that have followed trials to think different than just common people who are chosen on a jury. Who are to be unbiased. JMHO

 

[CookieM]

I apologize for my lack of understanding, perhaps you could help because when I saw this tweet, my reaction was that the 'expert' not entirely honest.

I could sweat/bleed/slobber or urinate in EA's trunk. I could place my dirty underwear/overnight bag/purse in EA's trunk. I could spit or vomit in EA's trunk. How can an 'expert' claim that the only way I could do these things is by physically being in EA's trunk? I could get the DNA in the trunk in all of these examples without physically being in the trunk. How can the expert say I had to physically be in the trunk with a straight face? Am I missing something? (not being snarky)

I actually think that this is why the prosecution may fail....lack of credibility.

I think this was where Lovetodance was going with her post earlier about her husband sneezing all over the trunk. (Correct me if I am wrong, Lovetodance!) DNA on the seal of the trunk and in the back part of the trunk isn't screaming at me that a body was actually placed there. If they said that when they removed the mat and there was a large area that looked like a pool of blood collected in the trunk, or even if there were multiple areas of DNA farther in the trunk, then it would seem as if she was actually IN there. I thought one witness even said that it wasn't touch DNA but that if something with considerable amount of body fluid was left sitting in the trunk it could have transferred that way. I just don't think that what was presented is enough to say that she was actually put in there.

I thought they would have more evidence to support that theory. I'm sure the jury is having a tough time with this decision. I would be.
moo

 

[SteveS]

Thanks for your help! I found both of those references, but not the one where I THOUGHT it put the 2-and-2 together way back when. I could have sworn that EA says something along the lines of, "I went straight home and my brother was asleep on the couch. He can tell you that I was home by about 4:30 AM."

So, maybe that was just my brain, connecting his "I went straight home" in the early stories with the "My brother was asleep on the couch and I woke him" in the early stories, in conjunction with someone else saying early on that if he went straight home, he would be there around 4:30.

:sigh: My husband is going to tease my that my "memory like an elephant is getting Alzheimer's."

It needs to be mentioned that this lie of an "alibi" by EA was presented in court as part of the evidence by the state, and mentioned again in closing, even though afaik it wasn't tweeted about when it was presented.

 

[Orgona]

I apologize for my lack of understanding, perhaps you could help because when I saw this tweet, my reaction was that the 'expert' not entirely honest.

I could sweat/bleed/slobber or urinate in EA's trunk. I could place my dirty underwear/overnight bag/purse in EA's trunk. I could spit or vomit in EA's trunk. How can an 'expert' claim that the only way I could do these things is by physically being in EA's trunk? I could get the DNA in the trunk in all of these examples without physically being in the trunk. How can the expert say I had to physically be in the trunk with a straight face? Am I missing something? (not being snarky)

I actually think that this is why the prosecution may fail....lack of credibility.

You could indeed sweat and urinate and bleed into any trunk alright but you can't do any of this when according to the one you was with says you wasn't even there, not even near to it.
You can sweat/bleed/urinate into the trunk, but you have to be extremely close to the trunk to get the sweat/urine/blood into it. How do you do that if you wasn't even close to it? How do you do that to the back of the trunk? You have to at least lean into the trunk...

 

[CuriousinNY]

Whose to say EA didn't buy a new mat for the trunk?! He had several days before someone looked in his trunk.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[bellesnwhistles]

You could indeed sweat and urinate and bleed into any trunk alright but you can't do any of this when according to the one you was with says you wasn't even there, not even near to it.
You can sweat/bleed/urinate into the trunk, but you have to be extremely close to the trunk to get the sweat/urine/blood into it. How do you do that if you wasn't even close to it? How do you do that to the back of the trunk? You have to at least lean into the trunk...

And why was he using a squeegee on his trunk the next day? He would have had no idea she missing yet

 

[arkansasmimi]

No. What I'm saying is that the whole thing seems logical after one looks at the totality of the evidence. Full stop. I'm not placing any title or qualifier onto anybody.
And nobody is saying that you should change your opinion. You are entitled to think and believe whatever you like. I'm not trying to sway you one way or another. Just like you I'm stating my opinion.

Thanks for the clarification. Was not trying to be snarky but I was just asking if that what you thought only because you said (bbm)

If you are a Juror you heard much more than we red throughout the tweets. There always was a clarification in redirect. According to what I have read in the tweets, the state handled very well dubious questions in redirect.
The problem could be if some of the Jurors don't use their logical thinking and fells into the guilt trip the defense presented at closing. They used various dubious statements at closing too to confuse the Jury. If the Jury is smart and is capable of logical thinking they have enough evidence. I don't mind if they deliberate long. At least this way they will have no regret whatever they decide.

 

[Orgona]

DAAAAMMNNN, Orgona, you betta preach lol!

I literally LOVE your post. Not just like, not just support, we're talking a standing ovation, in public, around my phone kind of love.

OMG now I'm blushing. :blushing: Are you sure you are not exaggerating a tiny bit? LOL

 

[arkansasmimi]

Valerie Wigglesworth Verified account  ‏@vlwigg · 7m7 minutes ago
It's 5:15 pm & no word from jury. Judge planning to let jurors deliberate til about 9:30 pm again. I'll be her waiting #arochitrial

 

[arkansasmimi]

Whose to say EA didn't buy a new mat for the trunk?! He had several days before someone looked in his trunk.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

:thinking: but how would DNA get on the new mat?

I confused to as to what they are calling trunk mat. I have both a lining that looks kinda like carpet and then a stiffer looking square MAT that goes on top . I took it to mean the linking? Hope I making sense. Also if a new lining was put in I think it would be very obvious and I don't remember hearing that theory at all even in closing. JMHO

 

[Vail]

Can someone explain why the jury is not able to have copies of the transcript?

 

[Orgona]

Is the Jury still deliberating? Unfortunately I have to go to sleep. Here is almost 00.30.
I'm thinking about Christina's family right now. How difficult this waiting must be for them. I hope they have a loving support network around them.

 

[SteveS]

Busby even conceded that she need not be physically in trunk to have that DNA there. I am not meaning to be snarky either.

"Respectfully" imo you have repetitiously made way too much of a detective's honest answer to an extreme theoretical. You can literally ask that question about any DNA found anywhere in any trial, because in theory, any DNA could have gotten there in some sort of wildly absurd way. But in real life, the DNA of CM who according to EA went to a different garage from EA and had never ever been at or in his car would not have magically migrated to the INSIDE of his TRUNK. And I'd expect that the prosecution would have clarified the reality on rebuttal.

 

[Doj1234]

You could indeed sweat and urinate and bleed into any trunk alright but you can't do any of this when according to the one you was with says you wasn't even there, not even near to it.
You can sweat/bleed/urinate into the trunk, but you have to be extremely close to the trunk to get the sweat/urine/blood into it. How do you do that if you wasn't even close to it? How do you do that to the back of the trunk? You have to at least lean into the trunk...

Thx! EA's lies are the ONLY thing IMO that even makes this case close. If EA is found guilty, it's his own fault because he should have known to shut-the-hell-up from the beginning. The pings, dna and video testimony don't impress me very much. But, the lies upon lies....

 

[arkansasmimi]

Just in case your following for info:
[video=twitter;778726524841103360]https://twitter.com/lpphillips/status/778726524841103360[/video]