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

[Quailfoot]

Thank you. THIS ^^

I was thinking the same. These are sincere questions, (and I get it now why people specify that even though I consider all questions sincere) but pardon if my words lose their connotation or intended gentle tone at times in writing. But I, too, was wondering... how should the proceedings have been conducted differently so as not to be characterized as a fishing expedition? What happened that should not have happened? Or what happened that was against the law? I'm just curious and asking for follow up and others' thoughts. I admit I'm sincerely asking bc the posts were so fast yesterday that I was speed reading and skimming and trying to keep up. Clearly I may have missed something and if so I'll stand corrected. TIA. Also is it not a plus that things are done lawfully the first time around such that appeal does not come heavily into the picture? (And I do realize appeals occur many times anyway, but some cases stand on more solid ground and have different salient points than others... depending on how proceedings are conducted) (imo)

Every accused has the option to skip steps and go straight to trial. But, that's not likely to occur here.

Therefore, it will drag out as the defense asserts all of his client's rights under the law. Which, for the 1,001st time, you want because you don't want any possible conviction overturned.

Just a couple of examples of recently overturned convictions in Texas:
http://www.click2houston.com/news/22yearold-mans-murder-conviction-overturned/30520326
http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-texas-death-row-20141105-story.html
http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/hannah-overton’s-capital-murder-conviction-overturned - In this one ineffective counsel cited
http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...erturned-sexual-abuse-convictions-dna-testing
http://www.forensicmag.com/news/201...erturned-sexual-abuse-convictions-dna-testing

 

[hibiscus31]

Internal bleeding is very common in overdoses. Also, blood can come out of nose, mouth and other openings in the body (sorry don't want to be graphic)

Not sure If it's a very large amount though, which seems to be the case here. You can look up foam cone, which is mostly linked to heroin od's to get a better idea. I agree, though, sounds like some other sort of trama IMO.

Found a link with some info on foam cone

https://www2.fbi.gov/publications/leb/2009/april2009/overdose.htm

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.

 

[daisytrail]

Since there is a discussion of the presumption of innocence, I think it might be useful to see how that term is used and defined in law:

www.legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/presumption-of-innocence

Note that it is incumbent upon the government and the courts to prove guilt. However, we the ordinary public, may presume what we wish unless we are sworn to serve on a jury.

 

[hockeymom4]

I keep trying to figure this out. Yesterday LE said they believe CM left in his trunk and previously said it was due to a SA. So, what I am thinking is for this to happen, they would have to enter the garage, it hits on her, she rejects, he attacks her and throws her in the trunk. All under two minutes. I guess it is possible. I still think she got in willingly. They decided to go get the "good rock" someone and something went wrong along the way and he and/or someone else put her in the truck. He then drove back, possible to drop someone off at SOL at their car or home. Maybe there were three of them in the car at some point.

 

[Mamamerced]

It was actually 10:50 a.m. The only reason I point this out is because it could mean he had 50 more minutes with Christina when he deserved NONE. And thanks for joining our party, we've got a six-pack now.

6 pack with a spare. Have always believe EA to be the perp, with SA as the motive. I'm totally onboard the SteveS refrain-train......Christina was IN EA's TRUNK and EA surely comes across as a sociopath to me. Moo.

 

[Coldpizza]

Here's the deal guys on HF as some of you have concerns.

LE said HF was at the hotel. HF said he lost his phone. LE has not contradicted HF regarding his phone.

You can discuss the drugs and what has been said in MSM.

You can speculate about the phone calls and texts from EA's phone to HF the night Christina disappeared.

He has not been named a POI, so accusing him of being involved in her disappearance is not okay.

If something changes we will revisit.

 

[brado]

BBM
I agree with MIKOYOYO. 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 post 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.

That's just it - this is a forum, not a court of law. People have theories and come on here to discuss them. Some of those theories have to do with who they think committed the crime.

Two more things:
1. After the hearing yesterday someone posted on here wanting to know if those that think EA acted alone still believe it & if so how could they? That's what others are responding to.
2. The eating crow comments were in reaction to getting bashed repeatedly on here for, among other things, supporting the protests in front of EA's house.

 

[hibiscus31]

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.

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.

 

[Quailfoot]

I keep trying to figure this out. Yesterday LE said they believe CM left in his trunk and previously said it was due to a SA. So, what I am thinking is for this to happen, they would have to enter the garage, it hits on her, she rejects, he attacks her and throws her in the trunk. All under two minutes. I guess it is possible. I still think she got in willingly. They decided to go get the "good rock" someone and something went wrong along the way and he and/or someone else put her in the truck. He then drove back, possible to drop someone off at SOL at their car or home. Maybe there were three of them in the car at some point.

Which is why I think the SA scenario is farfetched and that they should be trying him for murder instead. The one detective said that they have no evidence of SA, but that she believe EA killed her.

Okay. So, why are we messing around in AK when the detectives believe it was murder? There are cases with murder convictions without the body; AK, not so much.

 

[Eileen730]

So he's not a great guy. There's a lot of Hunters out there. I've dated most of em. But not one awful thing he's done has convinced me he could kill a person. EA ON THE OTHER HAND....

Drugs!
Drugs Killed 2 teens in the club he was allegedly selling in.

he is a drug dealer!

 

[brado]

I keep trying to figure this out. Yesterday LE said they believe CM left in his trunk and previously said it was due to a SA. So, what I am thinking is for this to happen, they would have to enter the garage, it hits on her, she rejects, he attacks her and throws her in the trunk. All under two minutes. I guess it is possible. I still think she got in willingly. They decided to go get the "good rock" someone and something went wrong along the way and he and/or someone else put her in the truck. He then drove back, possible to drop someone off at SOL at their car or home. Maybe there were three of them in the car at some point.

Regarding the Sexual Assault: why can't it be SA as the motive? Not that the SA occurred in the parking garage. To me, this is what LE is saying.

One scenario: he subdues her, puts her in the trunk while in the parking garage. Easily doable in the time frame given. He drives to his house or other location to commit what motivated him in the first place, SA.



All my opinion only.

 

[BaeMomma]

@BF_StarNews: Plano PD spokesman said next step in #EnriqueArochi case is for PD to file case with DA's office. No timeframe on that. #ChristinaMorris

 

[Quailfoot]

That's just it - this is a forum, not a court of law. People have theories and come on here to discuss them. Some of those theories have to do with who they think committed the crime.

Two more things:
1. After the hearing yesterday someone posted on here wanting to know if those that think EA acted alone still believe it & if so how could they? That's what others are responding to.
2. The eating crow comments were in reaction to getting bashed repeatedly on here for, among other things, supporting the protests in front of EA's house.

Agree 100%. And, because we are "sleuthing" why are all angles not considered valid? I don't think anyone here believes EA did nothing and is completely innocent.

And, the drug angle makes the thing difficult, as even the P.I. investigating the case has already said:

“[The people she was with] like to party, and I think it all stems from drugs,” she said. “I’ve tried to tell these people that do drugs that I don’t really care about the drugs. I don’t care what you’re putting in your veins or down your throat. I want Christina, and I want you to tell me things. Then you can go back to popping your pills or whatever.”

http://starlocalmedia.com/allenamer...cle_c1cb872e-7b15-11e4-ad49-772baa4e4ed8.html

 

[frisson]

That's just it - this is a forum, not a court of law. People have theories and come on here to discuss them. Some of those theories have to do with who they think committed the crime.

Two more things:
1. After the hearing yesterday someone posted on here wanting to know if those that think EA acted alone still believe it & if so how could they? That's what others are responding to.
2. The eating crow comments were in reaction to getting bashed repeatedly on here for, among other things, supporting the protests in front of EA's house.

I agree completely. That was exactly what I was saying. Bashing goes both ways and it doesn't help, in my opinion. I said in my post that I do understand this purpose of this site. Please, I do know that this is not a court of law. Gees. However, I think everyone should be able to voice their feelings, thought, theories without getting blasted. I also enjoy posts about the laws that may be now or may become later applicable to this case..... even though this is not a court of law. I think laws, consequences, procedures, and possible outcomes are all relevant to the discussion as well as evidence and anything lese that is fact and can be verified (iow, not rumor) (imo).

 

[BaeMomma]

@BF_StarNews: Well guys, I'm exhausted. I'll be tweeting more details from the #EnriqueArochi hearing tomorrow. 'Nite and pray for #ChristinaMorris!

Does this mean she will be tweeting additional info today, from yesterday's hearing? Or does it mean today there is additional court room meetings that she will be tweeting about?

 

[cluciano63]

Jmo, LE saying that there is no evidence of a sexual assault does not mean that this is not their theory. Just that no physical evidence has shown up.

 

[SaintGirl]

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.

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?

 

[hibiscus31]

What gets me about not wanting to speculate that EA might be guilty until he is proven so in a court of law is that circumstantial evidence (I'm not sure I would even call it that, but I've got no other word for it) pointing to someone else's involvement is actually being speculated about. You don't want to speculate about someone when there is evidence from LE on said person, but you want to speculate about someone who has no evidence from LE? That's what I don't get. And this is not directed at people who think maybe someone else is involved.

 

[hockeymom4]

Regarding the Sexual Assault: why can't it be SA as the motive? Not that the SA occurred in the parking garage. To me, this is what LE is saying.

One scenario: he subdues her, puts her in the trunk while in the parking garage. Easily doable in the time frame given. He drives to his house or other location to commit what motivated him in the first place, SA.



All my opinion only.

I don't believe it is SA at all. I believe it was all drug related. This is based on the testimony yesterday, based on the statement from the PI and everything I have heard thus far. But, in the scenario I listed above i said he tried in the garage to SA (that was me saying him hitting on her) her and she rejected her causing him to attack her and put her in the trunk. I for sure don't see attacking to the point of knocking her out. Then her becoming conscious. Then him trying to SA her somewhere. Then them fighting. Then him knocking her out agin. If a SA happened, I think it was when they were in the garage. Maybe she was trying to leave and he went to hug her and touched her.

 

[Quailfoot]

Regarding the Sexual Assault: why can't it be SA as the motive? Not that the SA occurred in the parking garage. To me, this is what LE is saying.

One scenario: he subdues her, puts her in the trunk while in the parking garage. Easily doable in the time frame given. He drives to his house or other location to commit what motivated him in the first place, SA.



All my opinion only.

It's not that it can't be, it's that a detective on a stand has now said they have no evidence of it. But, she says she "absolutely" believes EA murdered her.

Okay, so cut to the chase and really turn up the heat on this guy with a murder charge, in my opinion. If he didn't SA, he is never going to admit it. And, because they the basis for the AK charge, it's more vulnerable, in my opinion, to appeals upon conviction.

Murder? Not so much. They have the death penalty in Texas. Throw that charge at him and see how long he stays silent, is my point. If he's got murder one hanging over his head, what hope does he have? With AK, he stands a better chance at the appellate, and maybe even the trial, level.

I think a murder charge would have him singing like a bird if others are involved. Or, making up another story. At which point, a jury either believes or doesn't believe him. If they don't, and all the ducks are in a row legally, BAM - conviction with little or no chance to be overturned on appeal, in my opinion.