GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #35 *Arrest*

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
suzyjackson said:
Whilst I'm aware that keys refers to kilos of drugs I can't agree that the picture was a coded message.

IMO over 2lbs, is not an amount that anyone other than the top dealers would be carrying around and also just on a practical level it doesn't seem likely that Christina would go to the trouble of taking and sending a photo of keys when she could just send an untraceable imessage in a fraction of the time.

JMO but would like to hear others theories.

I'm still in KISS mode, she lost the keys, she found the keys, she sent a funny picture maybe with a message about what a klutz she was. We know from her twitter that she has previous for losing her keys.

JMO
Click to expand...
I agree with you. At the time I was interested/confused about the key talk was when it was believed that HF was home asleep. I wasn't interested so much in the keys as I was the text to leave the door unlocked. Now I think she actually did just lose/find her keys and texted to leave the door unlocked because she knew HF was out but would possibly be home before her. Still entertaining the possibility that someone was jacking with her and the keys but I'm not sure it's a code for drugs or anything. That's JMO.
 
Jonni and Anna were on a local Dallas talkshow today "Broadcast". There are a few videos floating around Facebook but none that I can link to. Look around on Team Chrisitna profiles. It's hard to watch.
 
Jonni says the clothes Enrique was wearing were in the dumpster at his house
 
Jonni says the DNA in the trunk of EA's car was confirmed as blood. She says there was saliva underneath the rubber part that closes his trunk
 
You can tell Jonni is nervous/overwhelmed with info... says last time she saw Christina was Christina's 25th b-day

(I watched part 2 before part 1)
 
catpatrol said:
Jonni says the clothes Enrique was wearing were in the dumpster at his house
Click to expand...

Wow. Did LE get these during one of the trash pulls from EA's home? Very interesting...do you know if it was the black shirt?
 
SteveS said:
(IMO AFAIK etc etc)
1 It may be quite some time before it even goes to the GJ. It is up to LE as to when it gets sent there, and I believe their deadline isn't until June. But they could always do it much sooner, if they wanted to.
2 After the GJ issues an indictment, the case gets sent to the criminal (district) court for trial.
3 In the the criminal (district) court, the schedule is under the judge's discretion. Things like the court's case load, disclosure, pre-trial motions, delays in evidence testing, and the amount of evidence in the case can add delays. If at some point they decide to add a murder charge, that can also slow the process.
4 Without anything unusual, we can probably expect to see an AK trial start maybe 4 to 6 months after the indictment, so educ guess says we're probably looking at a trial in the fall (starting Sept-Oct). But if they wait until the last minute to pursue the indictment, then the trial will probably end up early 2016, because they are unlikely to want to have a jury and witnesses tied up during the holidays.
Click to expand...

thanks for this information, and i'm also reminded of something you have eluded to in the past. Waiting as long as possible can't really hurt the prosecution case, and it has to potential to help it by:

1. they find her body.
2. every additional day that goes by with no trace of Christina anywhere adds a little more strength to the argument that something terrible and violent happened to CM.

EA is off the streets so to me its in the prosecutions best interest to stretch it out and at the very least there is nothing to be gained by hurrying.

SteveS i have a question for you since you seem knowledgeable about these things. I don't know much about the legal process, but i remember from school that we have rights against unexplained detention, and a right to a speed trial. I am a little surprised that they are able to hold someone for so long without an indictment. Many times suspects are not arrested until indictments are handed down. SO what are the rules as far as how long you can be held without being indicted there must be some limit.
 
SeeAlice said:
I'm no lawyer & don't know much about Texas criminal procedure or statutes but I don't see how they could convict him for kidnapping unless they have a struggle recorded on video or some text message she managed to send out after the kidnapping. Seems like that charge would be more difficult to prove BARD than murder or manslaughter would be.

Without some kind of evidence, the defense could claim she puked on his shirt or a floor mat and he stuck it in the trunk because of the smell. She wandered near a dumpster, fell in and off she went with the rest of the garbage. (That's not what I think happened but right now it's just as reasonable to me as the abduction.)

JMO
Click to expand...

she fell into a dumpster and was carried away ... this maybe mathematically possible, but IMO is considerably more far fetched that being abducted by someone who lied about everything, was injured that next day, car was damaged the next day, had her DNA in the trunk, was late for work etc. etc. etc.

I think the problem is people are looking at each individual piece and trying to find explanations for each piece. This can be done for some, maybe even most, but it when you look at the totality of them all together is where it becomes IMO beyond a reasonable doubt. For it not to be him you would have to believe that an incredible series of unlikely events all occurred that night. It's like the difference between guessing one of the powerball numbers and guessing all 5 (or is it 6 idk) numbers correctly.

It is easy to confuse beyond a reasonable doubt with beyond any doubt, but they are not the same thing when a jury looks at all the evidence as a whole I think they will see proof beyond a reasonable doubt.
 
catpatrol said:
Jonni says the clothes Enrique was wearing were in the dumpster at his house
Click to expand...

While JM obviously is saying what she's saying, I would respectfully caution that she may not be a person who focuses on precise details. That has been my impression in the past, from hearing what she's saying, and then seeing how it plays out later.

The point is this, and it's not meant to be critical of her, but rather offered for our better understanding of what we know and don't know. She's relating what she THINKS is true, or what she THINKS she heard, or making conclusions that she THINKS are accurate- - but until we actually get to court and hear this info presented under oath, we may be wise to consider that ultimately what's she's saying may be a bit off.

It's always possible - even likely - that she knows more than we have otherwise been told. But some of what's she's saying, that is "news" to us, may possibly be a mistaken belief on her part in reading the same LE info we have also read. In time, it will end up under oath and be offered by someone with more direct knowledge, and then we'll have a better understanding.
 
SteveS said:
While JM obviously is saying what she's saying, I would respectfully caution that she may not be a person who focuses on precise details. That has been my impression in the past, from hearing what she's saying, and then seeing how it plays out later.

The point is this, and it's not meant to be critical of her, but rather offered for our better understanding of what we know and don't know. She's relating what she THINKS is true, or what she THINKS she heard, or making conclusions that she THINKS are accurate- - but until we actually get to court and hear this info presented under oath, we may be wise to consider that ultimately what's she's saying may be a bit off.

It's always possible - even likely - that she knows more than we have otherwise been told. But some of what's she's saying, that is "news" to us, may possibly be a mistaken belief on her part in reading the same LE info we have also read. In time, it will end up under oath and be offered by someone with more direct knowledge, and then we'll have a better understanding.
Click to expand...

If you watch the video, this is very apparent (IMO).
 
Le Singe said:
SteveS i have a question for you since you seem knowledgeable about these things. I don't know much about the legal process, but i remember from school that we have rights against unexplained detention, and a right to a speed trial. I am a little surprised that they are able to hold someone for so long without an indictment. Many times suspects are not arrested until indictments are handed down. SO what are the rules as far as how long you can be held without being indicted there must be some limit.
Click to expand...

The answer to your question is that "it depends." The seriousness and nature of the crime for which the person is arrested impacts the time frame allowed. Also, part of the protection under Texas law is being offered the right to be released on bond. EA has been provided that right, obviously. So LE is well within their authorized scope to proceed as they are doing.

In this case, I believe LE has 6 months, from the time he was first detained under arrest, to formally charge him (ie, get an indictment), or else they will have to release him. That would put the deadline in mid-June, which is why I've been opining that they probably are in no hurry and we may not see any movement any time soon.

However, that doesn't mean they are doing nothing. The GJ can also be used as an investigative tool of sorts, if they wish. The GJ process can compel testimony under oath, without any cross examination, and perhaps LE may use that to learn info that might lead to the whereabouts of CM (by compelling testimony by various members of the Arochi family, for example). So to the extent they want to use it in that manner, it may have been already begun (we would have no way to know). The relevant date for us, and for purposes of satisfying the deadline, is when the GJ deliberations end and a decision on an indictment is made.
 
Dion said:
I'm pretty sure that the keys reference were to drugs, and could be either marijuana or cocaine (rock). If the two keys in the photo referred to 2 kilos, which is a large amount, it would appear to me that it could be split among more than one of the people at the apartment, or possibly EA (or someone else) was doing some dealing on the side. If this is correct, then Christina had both her car keys and her house keys that night, and all the keys references were drug related

I'm not sure if this has been posted before, but see examples below.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Kilo+(or+Key)

Trying to interpret the text Christina sent HF asking him to leave the door open because she has lost her house keys. I don't know if "lost" means a possible lost sale, or if "leave the door open" means he should be open to making a sale. I don't have a clue what that means.

But this has me convinced that Christina's disappearance has more to do with drugs than a sexual motive. It's possible one turned into another, but drugs seem to have played a big part.
Click to expand...


Imo this is way deeper thinking than what it probably was... Her finding her keys..
 
This is O/T - but I just found an article that involves EA's attorney, Keith Gore. I can't find any information to indicate what the end result was, but the gist of the story is that during a murder-for-hire case that Gore was working on, the prosecution thought that Gore was keeping some evidence at his office, so they obtained a search warrant and searched Gore's office. They didn't find what they were looking for.

http://www.dallascriminaldefenselawyerblog.com/2008/08/attorney-client-privilege-in-c.html

http://standdown.typepad.com/weblog/2008/07/tcdla-protests.html

http://www.trialtheory.com/ethics/50_lawyers_showed_up_to_suppor/

The judge that issued the search warrant, Mark Rusch, was same judge for Melinda Muniz trial.
 
Gigglingtoes said:
I have never seen this show but I am wondering if they gave the family new documents or info before releasing to the public in the coming days...
Click to expand...

I would wager they did not. They have no upside to revealing evidence to anyone at this point, and that would include the family. We've learned from the past that LE is only offering the bare minimum to the family.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 258 more.
Total: 1,657 (members: 259, guests: 1,398)

Online statistics

Members online
259
Guests online
1,398
Total visitors
1,657
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
599,604
Messages
18,097,386
Members
230,889
Latest member
Grumpie13
Back
Top