GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #37 *Arrest*

[SteveS]

Still not disagreeing with you about the legalities of the situation but for me that's only one facet of any crime.
<SBM>
As you know I'm not an American, I know only what helpful posters contribute about the laws in TX but my main interest is in human nature and trying to understand ...

As you do, I would encourage you to look at this sexual coupling NOT through the eyes of a 16-year-old girl but from the perspective of a 22-year-old man. They are NOT the same.

There is a very real (not just "legal") aspect here of EA being someone who is preying on another who would tend to be vulnerable emotionally, for purposes of sexual gratification.

That's incredibly relevant to EA's actions in Aug 2014, and his likely behavior with CM. Having that sort of predatory mindset, experienced, with a desire and willingness to exploit others, can help explain how and why things went down with Christina as they did. I bet she wasn't going to be preyed on, and to him that was an "unacceptable" response on which he acted.

 

[SteveS]

Is rape and SA the same charge in TX? I have seen the word "rape" used here several times. I am a bit confused. If EA raped her, would he not be charged with rape? TIA

Yes, this is very much a charge of rape (in other words, sex without consent of the other party). In Texas, "sexual assault" is the legal term for rape. At her age, the victim was not legally old enough to be able to give consent, unless the other party was about her same age.

 

[hockeymom4]

Is rape and SA the same charge in TX? I have seen the word "rape" used here several times. I am abit confused. If EA raped her, would he not be charged with rape? TIA

Great question. This I very raw, personal and an emotional topic for me. I read the actual penal code for SA of a child, very quickly, and didn't see the word rape in it, but I did read it quickly. It is possible I missed it. based on the case LE is trying to build against EA, I understand why they filed the SA charge, but IMO I feel this is more a statutory rape charge. Of course based on only what I have read.

 

[zippixx]

Like you I've tried to imagine what I would do and I also don't lean towards the dumpster. I think Christina left the garage alive and in the passenger seat and that after whatever went down she was left somewhere secluded (explaining the car damage) and so far the vastness of the area involved has been EA's friend

JMO

...AND, I don't think the dumpster scenario would cause EA to be almost 3 hours late to work. That's the last thing he would want to do.. He's already injured, his car is damaged & has blood in it, he is the LAST person to be seen with her. Surely, you would like to have at least arrived at work on time. But he didn't, because more than likely he was out "somewhere" hiding CM... JMO!

 

[Lrc143]

As are most of CM's inner circle and BF. IMO

Sorry catching up but I am a little confused and can't remember what are facts or not. Wasn't the group CM with that night people she hadn't hung out with in over a year? if so, are they considered inner circle? I swear I read that somewhere. Obviously I agree with the BF part. Thanks!

 

[SaintGirl]

IMO there's no chance EA doesn't get indicted for AK....1 in 69 quadrillion.... Completely unrealistic to act like the SA charge is stronger than the AK charge and is a safety net to keep EA in jail.

If they were just looking for charges to pile on EA (with or without a strong chance of conviction), they missed a few: possession of drug paraphernalia, drinking & driving, & obstruction of justice (who knows what else they found at his house)

I wonder what the reaction would be if LE had found evidence & charged HF w/ SA of a 16 yr old. 100% sure it would be different.

If you can't do the time, don't do the crime. The fact that he lied & told his parents she was 17 tells me he knew what the legal age of consent is. He thought he wouldn't get caught but he did.

JMO

BBM - Excellent point as always, Catpatrol. Makes sense....

 

[catpatrol]

Why, though, does the law deem a 16 year old to be a Child? That's where I get hung up on this issue. Drivers' licenses are issued to 16 Y.O.s. I understand it's the law and EA, probably knowingly, broke it and LE busted him. To me, though, it's a technicality and not a true sexual assualt of a child, which to me carries a similar weight as murder. JMO.

Disagreeing with the law does not give one the privilege of breaking it without consequence. One could also argue that all drugs should be legal, we should all have the free choice of doing whatever we want with our bodies, etc., but unfortunately that's not how the law works. 16 years old CAN legally have sex, they just can't have it with anyone 3 years older than them.

 

[Eileen730]

Ok so the age is 17 but u can be 14 with a 3 yr diff ?

 

[daisytrail]

That's not what I meant to say. Parents with sons are worried about them being victims of false accusations.

False accusations? Some people with a new documentary, the same ones who did the documentary on rape in the military awhile back, were on PBS last night. They cited a mere 2%-8% of reported case as being false accusations. That is pretty low for a crime where there seems to so much contention among the general population about the issue. These people's new documentary is on campus rapes and how colleges cover it up to protect their reputations.

 

[Lrc143]

The thing that has perked my ears most about this new charge is that not only does it show EA's manipulation of everyone (his GF, Jennifer, his mother) but that it shoes that PPD is deeply looking into his past/phones/electronic communications. The only charge they have come up with so far, is another one for EA. If anyone else was involved with CM, wouldn't they have found that by now and brought charges (assuming he communicated with them in some way)? Maybe they will come soon?? (IMO- I don't think so). I just think that if others aren't charged with something (hindering investigation, accomplice) by the time he is indited for the AK, they probably never will be because they didn't find anything to show that EA had help. JMO of course!

 

[DexterMorgan]

It's actually pretty simple... Doesn't matter if she consented or not bc she legally by the law wasn't of consenting age so he committed a crime. Whether websleuthers think she wanted sex or not with him doesn't matter. She admitted to sex and was underage and that's a wrap.

Then they should take him to trial on that before this case. That way he can get sentenced for the statutory rape. This will insure more time to investigate the location of cm before his real trial starts. Now if he asked for a speedy trial on this cm case then the prosecutor will be forced to go in with only what he has now. So there is definitely strong evedince in this case but not enough for 1rst degree murder. Maybe only manslaughter, if his lawyer can manipulate the jury. So charge him with the statutory rape today in order to have more time on the murder case.

 

[BaeMomma]

Why, though, does the law deem a 16 year old to be a Child? That's where I get hung up on this issue. Drivers' licenses are issued to 16 Y.O.s. I understand it's the law and EA, probably knowingly, broke it and LE busted him. To me, though, it's a technicality and not a true sexual assualt of a child, which to me carries a similar weight as murder. JMO.

Here's why 16 is below the age of consent in Tx.
http://www.crimevictimsinstitute.org/documents/Adolescent_Behavior_3.1.11.pdf

"Although &#8220;statutory rape&#8221; is rarely used in the language of the laws, the term is typically recognized as encompassing the intent of several other named laws such as sexual assault, sexual assault of a minor, rape of a child, corruption of a minor, carnal knowledge of a minor, unlawful carnal knowledge, sexual misconduct, or child molestation, to name a few. The predominant rationale of statutory rape laws is to protect minors who are said to be incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse or other sexual activities, due to their lack of experiences to make mature, informed decisions.4 It is believed that youth below the age of consent are less likely to understand and consider the potential consequences of sexual activities, such as sexually transmitted diseases, and pregnancies. These minors are also argued to be unequal to adults, socially, economically, and legally. Because of this, statutory rape laws have been introduced to reduce the power adults may have over minors. These laws do consider that minors will consent to sex. It is the basis for the laws that even if minors consent, adults cannot engage in sexual activities with them because of the power they have over minors. What the laws do not consider is that minors are consenting to have sex with other minors or slightly older peers who do not have power over them.
The wording of these laws encompass teenage relationships making it equally illegal for, say a 17 year old to be sexually intimate with a 16 year old boyfriend or girlfriend. However, because the laws were not originally written to prosecute such cases, the law was rarely enforced among teen couples. In 1995, however, a study was published that caused many states to toughen their statutory rape laws, widening the net to include more teen romances. Landry and Forrest (1995)5, found that half the teenage pregnancies of girls aged 15-17 were the result of teenagers having sexual relationships with men who were 20 years of age or older. "

Just a snippet, lots more explanation in the link.

 

[daisytrail]

This is a general observation, not to excuse EA in any way but ime affairs of the heart aren't as black and white as this.

I can't agree that every instance of underage sexual contact involves predatory behaviour, it's not always that simple. I'd really like to know if Jennifer is on board with this charge.

I'm not disagreeing with you on the law Steve but as someone who was once a 16 year old girl I think we have a differing viewpoint.

A little historical perspective may be in order here: Previously the age of consent was 18. Parents who simply did not much like their daughter's being sexual in anyway or decided that they did not like the boyfriend could simply use statutory rape laws to find a way to end the relationship. The current Romeo and Juliet-type laws actually acknowledge the reality of human attraction. We may not always agree with how they are written in the details, but I think most people can agree that, while young women love to have older boyfriends all too often, they may not be ready to deal with a man in his 20s and the more sophisticated maneuvers that he may employ to obtain sex. People are not often comfortable thinking about those aspects of sex that are actually tied to power rather than desire. I think the laws are a way to protect young women and men who think that they may be having a great dramatic romance, when in reality they are being cynically manipulated.

 

[SteveS]

[numbering/sections added to Dexter's post to make it easier to delineate my response]

1 Then they should take him to trial on that before this case. That way he can get sentenced for the statutory rape. This will insure more time to investigate the location of cm before his [AK] trial starts.

2 Now if he asked for a speedy trial on this cm case then the prosecutor will be forced to go in with only what he has now.

3 So there is definitely strong evedince in this case but not enough for 1rst degree murder. Maybe only manslaughter, if his lawyer can manipulate the jury. So charge him with the statutory rape today in order to have more time on the murder case.

1 I wouldn't be surprised if we see him on trial for the rape first. The sequence is up to LE. And, as you note, if he's in jail for up to 20 years for rape, they have more time to continue to investigate using the AK evidence, without revealing that evidence to the defense.
2 The defense has no way to force a "speedy trial" and the revealing of evidence while the process remains (technically) in the "investigatory" stage, which is where it is right now. It moves to the trial stage once there's an indictment, and it is my belief that they may have until mid-June before we have an indict-or-release deadline for the AK arrest. Of course, if by that time he's already locked up on rape charges, then they can choose to miss that deadline (and be able to continue to investigate without having to show the results to the defense) without a risk of him hitting the streets.
3 There's no real reason to rush on AK charges, or on murder. If they try and convict him on the rape first, and he's locked up for a long time, their next deadline on either might not be until Aug 2017 (not that I think they'd want to wait that long).

 

[Mamamerced]

Disagreeing with the law does not give one the privilege of breaking it without consequence. One could also argue that all drugs should be legal, we should all have the free choice of doing whatever we want with our bodies, etc., but unfortunately that's not how the law works. 16 years old CAN legally have sex, they just can't have it with anyone 3 years older than them.

I'm not arguing for EA; thrilled LE nailed him again. I'm being philosophical regarding the emotional weight of the terminology used for the offense. I think it weakens the seriousness of the act in the minds of many. "Under the age of consent" to me is a more accurate term than "child", just as "manipulation or coercion" are more accurate than "sexual assualt/rape", in this instance.
I am in complete agreement that EA broke the law, probably knowingly, and has been rightfully busted.
Please don't misjudge my intent.

 

[catpatrol]

I'm not arguing for EA; thrilled LE nailed him again. I'm being philosophical regarding the emotional weight of the terminology used for the offense. I think it weakens the seriousness of the act.

I respect your opinion and I'm not trying to argue either. I don't think the emotional weight or seriousness of the act is actually known to anyone other than the victim.

 

[georgiasblu]

Sorry catching up but I am a little confused and can't remember what are facts or not. Wasn't the group CM with that night people she hadn't hung out with in over a year? if so, are they considered inner circle? I swear I read that somewhere. Obviously I agree with the BF part. Thanks!

Not the OP but I remember an interview with Jonni and Anna where where Jonni said something along the lines that those kids were,like her own and visa versa. It was a local style talk show with three women.

 

[suzyjackson]

I've just looked up the ages of consents in different states and I see that in OK it's 16 but for a few miles we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

The last thing I want to do is start an arguement but it's easy to see why not everyone agrees that a 22 year old having sex with a 16 year old is in itself an cast iron indicator of preditory behaviour.

Am I right to think that if EA had taken Jennifer to a room in one of the casinos HF visited with posters he would have committed no crime at all? The emotional impact on Jennifer would however have been the same which is why that is the key issue for me.

 

[Eileen730]

Here's why 16 is below the age of consent in Tx.
http://www.crimevictimsinstitute.org/documents/Adolescent_Behavior_3.1.11.pdf

"Although &#8220;statutory rape&#8221; is rarely used in the language of the laws, the term is typically recognized as encompassing the intent of several other named laws such as sexual assault, sexual assault of a minor, rape of a child, corruption of a minor, carnal knowledge of a minor, unlawful carnal knowledge, sexual misconduct, or child molestation, to name a few. The predominant rationale of statutory rape laws is to protect minors who are said to be incapable of consenting to sexual intercourse or other sexual activities, due to their lack of experiences to make mature, informed decisions.4 It is believed that youth below the age of consent are less likely to understand and consider the potential consequences of sexual activities, such as sexually transmitted diseases, and pregnancies. These minors are also argued to be unequal to adults, socially, economically, and legally. Because of this, statutory rape laws have been introduced to reduce the power adults may have over minors. These laws do consider that minors will consent to sex. It is the basis for the laws that even if minors consent, adults cannot engage in sexual activities with them because of the power they have over minors. What the laws do not consider is that minors are consenting to have sex with other minors or slightly older peers who do not have power over them.
The wording of these laws encompass teenage relationships making it equally illegal for, say a 17 year old to be sexually intimate with a 16 year old boyfriend or girlfriend. However, because the laws were not originally written to prosecute such cases, the law was rarely enforced among teen couples. In 1995, however, a study was published that caused many states to toughen their statutory rape laws, widening the net to include more teen romances. Landry and Forrest (1995)5, found that half the teenage pregnancies of girls aged 15-17 were the result of teenagers having sexual relationships with men who were 20 years of age or older. "

Just a snippet, lots more explanation in the link.

Yet you can have sex at 14 as long as the other person is only three years older. I mean hello!
14???

 

[catpatrol]

I've just looked up the ages of consents in different states and I see that in OK it's 16 but for a few miles we wouldn't even be having this discussion.

The last thing I want to do is start an arguement but it's easy to see why not everyone agrees that a 22 year old having sex with a 16 year old is in itself an cast iron indicator of preditory behaviour.

Am I right to think that if EA had taken Jennifer to a room in one of the casinos HF visited with posters he would have committed no crime at all? The emotional impact on Jennifer would however have been the same which is why that is the key issue for me.

I believe it's actually a federal crime to take a minor across state lines for that purpose. JMO