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

[Cortne]

Grand jury has to meet and indict EA. If they indict, there will be a trial. If they no-bill, he'll be free. Getting a indictment is easy, though. So, expect a trial in 2016, if not late 2015.

If they find CM, or she shows up, timetable would obviously be accelerated.

Do you believe they will indict in your opinion?

 

[Eileen730]

Grand jury has to meet and indict EA. If they indict, there will be a trial. If they no-bill, he'll be free. Getting a indictment is easy, though. So, expect a trial in 2016, if not late 2015.

If they find CM, or she shows up, timetable would obviously be accelerated.

So when can we expect a grand jury?
Soon?

and thanks for the info

 

[ptown]

http://m.starlocalmedia.com/allenam...31e-b3a1-11e4-9240-13f88c3a4b9b.html?mode=jqm

New Brittany F article

 

[suzyjackson]

http://m.starlocalmedia.com/allenam...31e-b3a1-11e4-9240-13f88c3a4b9b.html?mode=jqm

New Brittany F article

That article has left me speechless, I know I've metaphorically shaken my head before about US attorneys but really ...

"Mr. Gore and I are proud and privileged to represent Enrique.” said Steve Miears.

What, what, what? How can it be a privilege? How can you be proud to represent a proven liar?

Mr Miears certainly has some interesting views, I'd really like to know what SteveS will make of it.

 

[SteveS]

Did the law finally step in a keep them from continually putting up posters in the Arochis neighborhood? Yes. This was due to neighbor complaints.

Yes and no. The poster law is usually ignored, but it is technically illegal to put up posters except on your own property, and LE simply enforced the law when some of the neighbors said something about it. However, it is NOT illegal to stand on the sidewalk and hold those posters, so the Morris family has chosen to do that instead.

If they keep it up, the law will likely step in again. Free speech does not entail harassment or disrupting peaceable enjoyment in one's own home.

LOL no they won't. There is no "step in again" on the protests, because they are not illegal. The first amendment protects the rights of the Morris family to legally protest and air their issues in public, where they may be seen or heard by the ones they wish to hear them. The sidewalk is public property and available to anyone for them to stand and to use for such a legal purpose.

The law protects the Arochi's by creating very broad limits for those protests, but it does NOT force the protesters to stop as long as they stay with those boundaries. It appears that Christina's family is following the law, so they will be able to continue as they wish.

The Arochi's always have the option to come out and talk. Or to close the blinds and simply ignore what's going on outside. And no one is accusing them of doing anything illegal, so there's no lawsuit potential.

 

[Quailfoot]

Do you believe they will indict in your opinion?

Yes. Only the prosecutors present evidence to a Grand Jury; so, evidence is not challenged. Also, the burden is only "probable cause", not "beyond reasonable doubt" as is the standard in the trial phase. And, the finding for probable cause does not have to be unanimous, as it does with a beyond a reasonable doubt finding in the trial phase.

 

[Quailfoot]

Yes and no. The poster law is usually ignored, but it is technically illegal to put up posters except on your own property, and LE simply enforced the law when some of the neighbors said something about it. However, it is NOT illegal to stand on the sidewalk and hold those posters, so the Morris family has chosen to do that instead.



LOL no they won't. There is no "step in again" on the protests, because they are not illegal. The first amendment protects the rights of the Morris family to legally protest and air their issues in public, where they may be seen or heard by the ones they wish to hear them. The sidewalk is public property and available to anyone for them to stand and to use for such a legal purpose.

The law protects the Arochi's by creating very broad limits for those protests, but it does NOT force the protesters to stop as long as they stay with those boundaries. It appears that Christina's family is following the law, so they will be able to continue as they wish.

The Arochi's always have the option to come out and talk. Or to close the blinds and simply ignore what's going on outside. And no one is accusing them of doing anything illegal, so there's no lawsuit potential.

You are confused about how the First Amendment works. These are private actors, not state entities. There is no right for a private party to harass another private party and use Free Speech as a shield. This was the reason for the creation of harassment and stalking statutes.

 

[SteveS]

That article has left me speechless, I know I've metaphorically shaken my head before about US attorneys but really ...

"Mr. Gore and I are proud and privileged to represent Enrique.” said Steve Miears.

What, what, what? How can it be a privilege? How can you be proud to represent a proven liar?

Mr Miears certainly has some interesting views, I'd really like to know what SteveS will make of it.

LOL thanks for asking, but I don't see anything that makes me raise my eyebrows. It was a whole bunch of attorney speak, really, and if he didn't say stuff like that, he's not very good at advocating for his client.

Despite all the evidence of his guilt, EA has NOT been convicted, and it's absolutely fair, and to be expected, for his attorney to keep pointing that out. In fact, it would be alarming if he did NOT say stuff like this. He's bribed by EA, to say what EA wants everyone to hear - don't forget that.

At the same time, it's just as fair for those of us who are NOT paid by EA, to notice the damning evidence that all points to EA, and draw the obvious conclusion. We certainly don't start throwing stones until the jury has spoken, but we don't have to abandon our common sense while waiting for the jury.

 

[Quailfoot]

LOL thanks for asking, but I don't see anything that makes me raise my eyebrows. It was a whole bunch of attorney speak, really, and if he didn't say stuff like that, he's not very good at advocating for his client.

Despite all the evidence of his guilt, EA has NOT been convicted, and it's absolutely fair, and to be expected, for his attorney to keep pointing that out. In fact, it would be alarming if he did NOT say stuff like this. He's bribed by EA, to say what EA wants everyone to hear - don't forget that.

At the same time, it's just as fair for those of us who are NOT paid by EA, to notice the damning evidence that all points to EA, and draw the obvious conclusion. We certainly don't start throwing stones until the jury has spoken, but we don't have to abandon our common sense while waiting for the jury.

When was EA convicted of bribery? And, what official or state action was Mr. Miears engaged in that EA tried to influence?

 

[Momoffourboys]

Did the law finally step in a keep them from continually putting up posters in the Arochis neighborhood? Yes. This was due to neighbor complaints.

If they keep it up, the law will likely step in again. Free speech does not entail harassment or disrupting peaceable enjoyment in one's own home.

Again, CM's family has plenty of notice that the EA's parents say they don't know anything about CM's whereabouts. They now have it in a news report from the free platform they gave EA's attorney.

Yes. Only the prosecutors present evidence to a Grand Jury; so, evidence is not challenged. Also, the burden is only "probable cause", not "beyond reasonable doubt" as is the standard in the trial phase. And, the finding for probable cause does not have to be unanimous, as it does with a beyond a reasonable doubt finding in the trial phase.

You are confused about how the First Amendment works. These are private actors, not state entities. There is no right for a private party to harass another private party and use Free Speech as a shield. This was the reason for the creation of harassment and stalking statutes.

Thank you, Qualifoot, for your posts. Much appreciated.

 

[trex]

When was EA convicted of bribery?

Pretty sure Steve is referring to what defense attorneys are paid to do, lol. He's paid to make that guy look like the all american hero of the day, regardless if he actually thinks he's guilty or not. He's gotta talk all the smooth fluffy talk & say things like "how proud he is to be representing EA".. which is sickening to me. But that's what he's paid to do.. I think Steve's term bribe was just a play on words.. I get it

 

[SteveS]

You are confused about how the First Amendment works. These are private actors, not state entities. There is no right for a private party to harass another private party and use Free Speech as a shield. This was the reason for the creation of harassment and stalking statutes.

(Disclaimer: I am not rendering a legal opinion, just a personal opinion.) I am not "confused" as to what the law mandates for the Morris family. And I suspect they will continue unabated in what they are doing, but that choice is entirely up to them.

 

[SteveS]

When was EA convicted of bribery? And, what official or state action was Mr. Miears engaged in that EA tried to influence?

LOL thanks for noticing and underlining my hyperbole. EA pays his attorneys incredibly well to say what he wants said, doesn't he? Bribery works! :smile:

 

[DietDrPepper]

How come we no longer have any VI's on Christina's thread? I hope all is okay with them. It just seems as if it's been quite some time that I have seen one of them post?

I'm wondering if a VI could answer a question I'm curious about. What exactly was the very last statement said in court before Judge Smith stopped the Jan-15 hearing? Was it absolutely Blue Star related?

Do we know if Brittany Feagans' news reports on StarLocalMedia.com are in the exact sequence that the testimony happened. She is a writer, and the notes have to be readable, I understand that.

Judge denies bond reduction for man charged with kidnapping Christina Morris
Several hours into the hearing, Judge Smith interrupted Staub mid-testimony and said there was enough probable cause to charge Arochi with aggravated kidnapping.

From the courtroom: Arochi probable cause hearing notes
-- Rick Staub, Plano PD Crime Scene Investigation manager
-- 24 years of experience as a lab director with a PhD in genetics.
-- DNA was sent to Virginia-based Bode Technology Group and the University of North Texas.
-- Morris’ DNA profile was developed at UNT using a soda can from her vehicle and samples from her biological parents.
-- Criminalists used Blue Star to locate two spots indicating the presence of blood in the trunk. The samples contained a mixture of Morris’ DNA and at least one other person. They did not have Arochi’s DNA at the time to compare.

 

[frisson]

You are confused about how the First Amendment works. These are private actors, not state entities. There is no right for a private party to harass another private party and use Free Speech as a shield. This was the reason for the creation of harassment and stalking statutes.

Yes. THIS ^^^^
That is all

 

[ptown]

We need to look into requesting the transcript from cc. I am curious also about what the tweets didn't tell us

 

[Lrc143]

We need to look into requesting the transcript from cc. I am curious also about what the tweets didn't tell us

I would love to see those. and EA recorded interviews. It would be interesting indeed. I get the idea from the new BF article that EA is NOT going to be giving a CM location anytime soon and that he is going to forge a head with 'it wasn't me'. I am curious to see what the defense will be and how they will explain away certain things. I think this will go all the way to trial, I dont see EA taking a plea. We could be in for a long ride. Poor CM.

 

[darring21]

The Texas statute on Harassment is:

§ 42.07. HARASSMENT. (a) A person commits an offense if,
with intent to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment, or embarrass
another, he:
(1) initiates communication by telephone, in writing,
or by electronic communication and in the course of the
communication makes a comment, request, suggestion, or proposal
that is obscene;
(2) threatens, by telephone, in writing, or by
electronic communication, in a manner reasonably likely to alarm
the person receiving the threat, to inflict bodily injury on the
person or to commit a felony against the person, a member of his
family or household, or his property;
(3) conveys, in a manner reasonably likely to alarm
the person receiving the report, a false report, which is known by
the conveyor to be false, that another person has suffered death or
serious bodily injury;
(4) causes the telephone of another to ring repeatedly
or makes repeated telephone communications anonymously or in a
manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment,
embarrass, or offend another;
(5) makes a telephone call and intentionally fails to
hang up or disengage the connection;
(6) knowingly permits a telephone under the person's
control to be used by another to commit an offense under this
section; or
(7) sends repeated electronic communications in a
manner reasonably likely to harass, annoy, alarm, abuse, torment,
embarrass, or offend another.

The Texas Law on Stalking from the Texas Attorney General is:

Intent of stalker: Stalker has the intent or the knowledge that his/her actions will instill fear of death or bodily injury to the victim or a member of the victim's family or household. Threats can be explicit (e.g.-stating that he is going to kill the victim) or implied (e.g.-veiled threats, hurting the family pet). Threats have to be aimed at a specific person; they cannot be general threats. Threats may be conveyed by the stalker or by someone acting on behalf of the stalker.

Conduct of stalker: Conduct has to occur on more than one occasion and be directed towards the victim and/or the victim's family or household members. More than one police report is not required. The acts may include threatening contact by mail or by phone, or damaging the victim's property.

So, for those that have accused the victim's family of harassment and stalking <mod snip>, perhaps you could give some evidence of it?

 

[Cortne]

The Arochi's are victims as well, minus the one sitting in jail. Its not like this is an Anthony family coverup or van der Sloot.

jmo

 

[darring21]

Libel is a civil procedure and is basically spreading written lies about someone that causes damages.

More specifically:

Sec. 73.001. ELEMENTS OF LIBEL. A libel is a defamation expressed in written or other graphic form that tends to blacken the memory of the dead or that tends to injure a living person's reputation and thereby expose the person to public hatred, contempt or ridicule, or financial injury or to impeach any person's honesty, integrity, virtue, or reputation or to publish the natural defects of anyone and thereby expose the person to public hatred, ridicule, or financial injury.

Sec. 73.005. TRUTH A DEFENSE. The truth of the statement in the publication on which an action for libel is based is a defense to the action.

I'm not sure why there are a few on this board that are quick to accuse the victim's family but I'd suggest any accusations include some type of proof.