GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #32 *Arrest*

[brado]

Do any of y'all know the status of any searches being conducted at this time? Without JMom on here, it's not as easy finding out.

 

[hockeymom4]

I'm so very sorry you had that happen. Thank you for the link. Hugs

Thanks. That is very kind of you. I appreciate it.

 

[Dion]

I'm confused about the dna evidence. On the one hand, LE are saying that there is no evidence of sexual assault and dna does not show if physical injury occurred. But, they also say that there was blood evidence found, despite a cleaning agent having been used. If they have blood evidence, wouldn't that be a sign that violence occurred?

from yesterdays court hearing:

• Detective testifies dna found on rubber sealant inside of EA trunk
• Christina's dna also found on trunk mat (more than just touch dna)
• Dna in trunk was Christina's and at least one other person (unknown male)
• They didn't have EA's dna at time of the forensic testing of the trunk
• There is no evidence of SA and dna does not show if physical injury occurred
• A forensic tool called Blue Star showed 2 spots luminesced faintly showing presence of blood in EA's vehicle.

It was reported by Star local media that Rick Staub, Plano PD Crime Scene Investigation manager, testified that criminalists used a forensic tool called Blue Star to test for blood in Arochi’s vehicle. When the substance was sprayed in the trunk, two spots “luminesced faintly,” which Staub said indicated the presence of blood.
it also appeared a cleaning agent had been used on the mat, which is still undergoing tests at the lab

http://starlocalmedia.com/allenamer...80c-9d2f-11e4-94a7-ff06623ae6a4.html?mode=jqm

 

[brado]

I am good and need no further information. I provided to you what the DOJ states is SA. This is accurate information. Unless you found something that was incorrect? Please let me know if you did. I have the specifics for my state as well, as I went through this myself over 16 years ago.

I meant the royal "your" not you specifically - sorry about that. Just wanted to show the State of Texas' definition as Texas law would apply in this case.

Also, sorry to hear about your experience. Hope the perp was sentenced to the maximum amount of time.

 

[Doj1234]

Do any of y'all know the status of any searches being conducted at this time? Without JMom on here, it's not as easy finding out.

Tomorrow at 9:00 at Allen HS.

 

[daisytrail]

Sorry I will not defend a drug dealer.
IMO he is a very bad man!

There can be a lot of blur between using and dealing. People get swept up in stuff. They get addicted and, in turn, addict others. It can be notonly all about the profits. It can be about the scene. I asked a friend who had a problem how she shook her addiction to meth. Did she have rehab? Turns out, rehab is not so easy to come by. She said she did, "People, places, and things." This is a method of distancing oneself from the scene.

 

[wendiyking]

I'm not sure the dogs can be discussed, but I know they were in MSM.... so perhaps. Christina's pup is with Jonnie (read somewhere) and I believe a I read that the dog EA was up close and personal with had to be given away prior to the last post of him with the dog. If I am remembering right, he explained it on his photo on FB when someone asked. P.S. GO PATS!

This may be ot but I've wondered this for a while, being the animal lover I am, where are both dogs now????

 

[SteveS]

I said, him touching her. My link is for the entire US. It is the DOJ site. The Goverment, they are over every state. This is accurate information, as this was provided to me when I was SA years ago.

Sorry to hear about your experience, and hope you're okay.

FYI these charges are state charges, not federal, so they do not use federal definitions, but will rather be according to how the state of Texas defines that offense for its citizens. While federal laws apply to Texas citizens as well, in order to prosecute using federal definitions and federal law, the defendant must be arrested under federal procedure, and be prosecuted by a federal judge using federal process in a federal court. This is certainly not that.

 

[CatsInTheCradle]

From what I read, the state believes it is a capital murder case, but the investigation is still open and they don't have probable cause yet for the murder charge. I believe the murder charge will come in time.

ETA: Ag Kidnapping is not a lesser charge, it's just a different charge.

How could it not be a lesser charge? Is there the death penalty for AK?

 

[CatsInTheCradle]

Hallelujah! A verified attorney!! Welcome!
I am curious: if LE is using someone's phone for evidence in one case, would another group of LE be able to use the same phone records for evidence in another totally different case? Or would using it for evidence in the second case possibly interfere with the first? As in possibly reveal info that LE does not want revealed too soon?
Any input, minor4th?

That's what I said too Cookie....yay a verified attorney. Poor person will probably be inundated with questions like the SAR dog person was lol.

 

[darring21]

For aggravated kidnapping all they need is to "inflict bodily injury on the victim." There doesn't need to be provable sexual assault. A significant amount of her DNA IN HIS TRUNK and injuries to EA might be enough for a conviction and certainly enough to hold him in jail while LE builds their case.

The obsession about the AK charge is bewildering to me. LE seems to be methodically building a case. They've already demonstrated they have additional evidence when forced to show their hand. They undoubtedly have more evidence and they've appeared to be competent and professional. They'll upgrade the charges when they're confident with their evidence.

 

[hockeymom4]

Sorry to hear about your experience, and hope you're okay.

FYI these charges are state charges, not federal, so they do not use federal definitions, but will rather be according to how the state of Texas defines that offense for its citizens. While federal laws apply to Texas citizens as well, in order to prosecute using federal definitions and federal law, the defendant must be arrested under federal procedure, and be prosecuted by a federal judge using federal process in a federal court. This is certainly not that.

I was posting the definition of SA. That was what the conversation was about. What I thought SA was versus what she thought SA was, so I pulled a general description off a Federal website, since we all live in different states. The conversation was not about charges, it was about what does SA mean.

I meant the royal "your" not you specifically - sorry about that. Just wanted to show the State of Texas' definition as Texas law would apply in this case.

Also, sorry to hear about your experience. Hope the perp was sentenced to the maximum amount of time.

 

[CookieM]

I'm confused about the dna evidence. On the one hand, LE are saying that there is no evidence of sexual assault and dna does not show if physical injury occurred. But, they also say that there was blood evidence found, despite a cleaning agent having been used. If they have blood evidence, wouldn't that be a sign that violence occurred?

from yesterdays court hearing:

• Detective testifies dna found on rubber sealant inside of EA trunk
• Christina's dna also found on trunk mat (more than just touch dna)
• Dna in trunk was Christina's and at least one other person (unknown male)
• They didn't have EA's dna at time of the forensic testing of the trunk
• There is no evidence of SA and dna does not show if physical injury occurred
• A forensic tool called Blue Star showed 2 spots luminesced faintly showing presence of blood in EA's vehicle.


http://starlocalmedia.com/allenamer...80c-9d2f-11e4-94a7-ff06623ae6a4.html?mode=jqm

I'm no attorney, nor do I play one on WebSleuths (lol) but from what was relayed to us via tweets yesterday, I think that was just the typical back and forth lawyer stuff.

If they have not gotten full results of the DNA they can't say whether it was for sure blood or semen or vaginal fluids. Even if it were fluids typically present in a sexual encounter, that might not mean it was an assault -- for certain. Even if it were blood, just finding it, even in the trunk doesn't say that for certain it was the result of physical harm being done. Now, to ME, finding that sort of DNA of a missing person on the floor mat of the trunk of the last person she was seen with seems pretty cut and dry that something bad happened; what exactly? I don't know.
But I imagine the questioning was the typical: Do we know for certain or can we be 100% sure? Well no. So I think that's what was meant.
Kindof like if someone is leaving the house wearing a raincoat and carrying an umbrella. You see them go out the door and think: obviously it's raining. But until you actually look for yourself you can't be 100% certain. It could be that they are just a weirdo and accessorize that way.
Bad example maybe, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say.
I think the lawyers were just trying to show that there can be some doubt about what the evidence could mean.

 

[SteveS]

I'm confused about the dna evidence. On the one hand, LE are saying that there is no evidence of sexual assault and dna does not show if physical injury occurred. But, they also say that there was blood evidence found, despite a cleaning agent having been used. If they have blood evidence, wouldn't that be a sign that violence occurred?

from yesterdays court hearing:

• Detective testifies dna found on rubber sealant inside of EA trunk
• Christina's dna also found on trunk mat (more than just touch dna)
• Dna in trunk was Christina's and at least one other person (unknown male)
• They didn't have EA's dna at time of the forensic testing of the trunk
• There is no evidence of SA and dna does not show if physical injury occurred
• A forensic tool called Blue Star showed 2 spots luminesced faintly showing presence of blood in EA's vehicle.


http://starlocalmedia.com/allenamer...80c-9d2f-11e4-94a7-ff06623ae6a4.html?mode=jqm

It's hard to know the exact meaning of that tweet without a transcript. But my takeaway was that the questions were pointed at the DNA itself, being found in the trunk.

I suspect the exchange may have been something like this, in a boiled down form ...

Yes officer, you found DNA - but does any of that DNA provide evidence that a sexual assault occurred against CM?
No sir.
Does any of it provide evidence that a physical injury happened to CM?
No sir.

It is only saying what the DNA can tell us. But beyond the DNA, there was more.

 

[SaintGirl]

For aggravated kidnapping all they need is to "inflict bodily injury on the victim." There doesn't need to be provable sexual assault. A significant amount of her DNA IN HIS TRUNK and injuries to EA might be enough for a conviction and certainly enough to hold him in jail while LE builds their case.

The obsession about the AK charge is bewildering to me. LE seems to be methodically building a case. They've already demonstrated they have additional evidence when forced to show their hand. They undoubtedly have more evidence and they've appeared to be competent and professional. They'll upgrade the charges when they're confident with their evidence.

:goodpost:

 

[Eileen730]

I'm no attorney, nor do I play one on WebSleuths (lol) but from what was relayed to us via tweets yesterday, I think that was just the typical back and forth lawyer stuff.

If they have not gotten full results of the DNA they can't say whether it was for sure blood or semen or vaginal fluids. Even if it were fluids typically present in a sexual encounter, that might not mean it was an assault -- for certain. Even if it were blood, just finding it, even in the trunk doesn't say that for certain it was the result of physical harm being done. Now, to ME, finding that sort of DNA of a missing person on the floor mat of the trunk of the last person she was seen with seems pretty cut and dry that something bad happened; what exactly? I don't know.
But I imagine the questioning was the typical: Do we know for certain or can we be 100% sure? Well no. So I think that's what was meant.
Kindof like if someone is leaving the house wearing a raincoat and carrying an umbrella. You see them go out the door and think: obviously it's raining. But until you actually look for yourself you can't be 100% certain. It could be that they are just a weirdo and accessorize that way.
Bad example maybe, but hopefully you get what I'm trying to say.
I think the lawyers were just trying to show that there can be some doubt about what the evidence could mean.

But did You stay at a Holiday Inn Last night?

Sorry I had to!

 

[misslu]

Well, he's sure setting himself up for a possible lifetime of misery...all to cover for a drug overdose? Hmmm. And the drugs also hopped up and scratched and bruised him. I just don't think a drug overdose is plausible with what we know at this point.

Didn't say that was my theory, I was just answering a question. I can respect that it seems a stretch, although I'm pretty sure things like that do happen.
The same hmmm could be said about the SA assault theory, IMO.
The common denominator with this group seems to me to be drugs, so worth talking it out at least.

 

[misslu]

For aggravated kidnapping all they need is to "inflict bodily injury on the victim." There doesn't need to be provable sexual assault. A significant amount of her DNA IN HIS TRUNK and injuries to EA might be enough for a conviction and certainly enough to hold him in jail while LE builds their case.

The obsession about the AK charge is bewildering to me. LE seems to be methodically building a case. They've already demonstrated they have additional evidence when forced to show their hand. They undoubtedly have more evidence and they've appeared to be competent and professional. They'll upgrade the charges when they're confident with their evidence.

Thank you for that. Tilley stated that this is just what they needed to make an arrest. And from what some of the posters put up regarding the law, I think AK with SA as their motive was the safest charge at this time. I believe several things will change and come to light before this is over.

 

[MIKAYOYO]

Well, just FYI you won't ever SEE the proof until this case goes to trial, sorry that's how it works. No sense in thinking others' comments are ridiculous because they are different that yours.

I don't think others comments are ridiculous because they differ from mine. I'm pretty sure my thoughts line up quite well with most. My ridiculous comment was toward the passive aggressive comments of "Who thinks EA is innocent now?" It's very condescending. IMO That's how I took it.

We can all have are own opinion. If if that poster thinks they are ridiculous, that is their prerogative. I believe the purpose of their post was that after the affidavits were served and he was arrested, there were many posts asking, so "who think EAs still innocent?" And don't forget the anyone going to eat crow comments. Then yesterday after bond wasn't reduced and the charges stuck, the comments cam again of so, who thinks EAs innocent now? So, that is I believe that point.

Thank you, HM. Exactly.

BBM
I agree with MIKAYOYO. This is not a contest. . Interesting how people see things differently. I find MIKAYOYO's posts respectful of others' views and I read that particular comment as making note of another post that was calling out other posters who were not ready to declare EA guilty on a forum/social media before he is declared guilty in a court of law.

FWIW it's my understanding that someone accused of a crime is to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I do realize the purpose of this site so don't blast me for that please. Sleuthing and caring and trying to make sense of it all is great and helpful. I just find challenging fellow posters counterproductive. And if folks want to believe whatever they believe they should be able to say so without getting admonished en masse.

On a different note, I found it odd and seemingly a violation of rights that EA was presented in jail clothes and shackles. Did I misread or miss something? I thought there was an issue of dignity even for someone accused. Is Texas different or was some special procedure or exception used here? TxYorkieMom probably has an awesome link explaining what I'm trying to address. Or maybe someone who knows Tx law (if the state is an issue) can chime in on it. Thanks in advance.

Justice for Christina.

And thank you, Frisson!

Yes, I asked if anyone still thinks EA had absolutely nothing to do with this. And I am genuinely curious if anyone thinks that. Sorry if that is perceived as a ridiculous question by some, but I would honestly like to know if anyone thinks that and why? As I have said before, I think EA is responsible. There's so much pointing to him BUT as an aside, I was reading through a wiki page of cases that had been featured on the television show Unsolved Mysteries but had later been solved. The page highlighted each original case with the original suspects and then included a blurb once the case had been solved.

I was surprised at the number of times the original suspect did not end up being the responsible party. It gave me pause about this case for sure, but I still think the evidence points to EA. I agree this is not a contest and we all want the case to be solved correctly. For instance, I think the OD theory is far fetched at this point, but if we find out definitively that an OD is what happened, I will be happy that her family has answers. And I've never said anything about my fellow sleuthers eating crow. The only person I want eating crow is the responsible party.

My sincere apologies if I perceived your question wrong. I took it as condescending and passive aggressive.

I thought it was a fair question as there continues to be posters who think he is innocent. I would like to hear their thoughts as well.

As for the number of times the original suspect did not end up being the responsible party, I think that does apply to this case. Didn't we all have Hunter tried and convicted at the beginning?

I have seen maybe ONE person say they thought he was innocent, and that's their opinion. It is a fair question if OP was genuinely curious, but as I said above I didn't take it that way, and I apologized for misunderstanding.

 

[BaeMomma]

Yes it does glow but... You know how something's only glow if you hold them by the light first? So I just got curious and pulled down my back seat in my Camaro and crawled into the trunk. ( not an easy task lol ) it's pitch black in there and I could not see the release lever AT ALL..

OMG! I cant imagine why they would work that way, terrible flaw IMO. Thanks for testing it out but geez....why pass a law to protect kids who accidently lock themselves into the trunk while playing to find out that it's useless in that case.