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

[Lolly85x]

Good question! Why would he send such a message to her and how did she even know about the other girl?

Perhaps EA's girlfriend had a suspison at the time of EA sleeping/having a relationship with another girl. I'm guessing he lied, and probably denied all of this. Then when he sent that text there relationship has obviously been under massive strain and in turmoil, arguing and he's said that to hurt her.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

OH I thought PPD was instrumental in this. JMO

They are because they found the text message. The actual "crime" happened in Allen, TX proper though.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

"I have to wonder why these charges have been brought and scheduled to go to the GJ before the actual AK charges."

I doubt that's true. The GJ on the AK charge has probably been looking at evidence for months. But I wouldn't be surprised if LE decides to ask for the rape indictment first, and try the rape case first, as a strategic move legally. IMO it would be a really smart legal tactic in the process of getting EA locked away for good while keeping EA from knowing their ongoing investigatory files on Christina's case.

Since when does LE get to decide for the Grand Jury which indictment is handed down first?

 

[Eileen730]

Not me, EA seems like a"lone wolf" to me, no pun intended...

Funny to me he seems like the guy that tags along and will do whatever is asked of him to fit in witht he group.
The phone calls to her as she is walking to the garage are a red flag to me.
Her (numerous) phone calls to HF says to ME she was afraid of something and wanted away from the situation ASAP thus the excuse to go home and get her dog!
If EA was the bothersome guy she would not walk to the garage with him.

JMO

 

[catpatrol]

OH I thought PPD was instrumental in this. JMO

They discovered the information on a cell phone which was being investigated for Christina's case. They then talked to several people about EA and passed the info to APD. I find it hard to believe that would be a huge drain on their resources.

 

[Eileen730]

If he doesn't chase a deal, I have no doubt they'll simply convict him and throw away the key - and maybe eventually convict him for her murder as well. Every day that goes by, with her not being seen or heard from, adds proof to the idea that he must have killed her.

His best choice is to talk and work a deal. But he's been pretty stupid all the way through this, so you may be right in thinking he won't wise up now either.

What if he does NOT KNOW where she is?
Im thinking he keeps saying he didn't do it!
Just WHAT IF he didn't?

I think he was involved but Im not so sure he is the one that killed her.

Im probably wrong I know,,,, but there is just to much nagging at me that says he didn't.

JMO

 

[CatsInTheCradle]

Funny to me he seems like the guy that tags along and will do whatever is asked of him to fit in witht he group.
The phone calls to her as she is walking to the garage are a red flag to me.
Her (numerous) phone calls to HF says to ME she was afraid of something and wanted away from the situation ASAP thus the excuse to go home and get her dog!
If EA was the bothersome guy she would not walk to the garage with him.

JMO

BBM - isn't that the impression we got from the family when the video was released? Comments such as they didn't know him - he wasn't a good friend - part of their group (paraphrasing here), etc.

 

[CatsInTheCradle]

What if he does NOT KNOW where she is?
Im thinking he keeps saying he didn't do it!
Just WHAT IF he didn't?

I think he was involved but Im not so sure he is the one that killed her.

Im probably wrong I know,,,, but there is just to much nagging at me that says he didn't.

JMO

Yikes - I have wondered the same thing. Just WHAT IF he doesn't know? Not saying it is probable but just wanted you to know you are not the only one who has that thought.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

What if he does NOT KNOW where she is?
Im thinking he keeps saying he didn't do it!
Just WHAT IF he didn't?

I think he was involved but Im not so sure he is the one that killed her.

Im probably wrong I know,,,, but there is just to much nagging at me that says he didn't.

JMO

One thing they do not have is a "smoking gun". DNA/blood in his trunk only goes to prove she was there at some point, but not necessarily dead. They obviously have no weapon. They have no confession. They have no witnesses. No crime scene. No body. No way to prove he was even present at the time she was murdered. And "guesses" won't get them very far with a jury. What they do have at this point is reasonable doubt. They have a lot to overcome. This is not the "slam dunk" some believe.

 

[CatsInTheCradle]

One thing they do not have is a "smoking gun". DNA/blood in his trunk only goes to prove she was there at some point, but not necessarily dead. They obviously have no weapon. They have no confession. They have no witnesses. No crime scene. No body. No way to prove he was even present at the time she was murdered. And "guesses" won't get them very far with a jury. What they do have at this point is reasonable doubt. They have a lot to overcome.

BBM - Which is why I believe that they are trying to hurry up the SA charge to show some type of history, reputation, etc. Just my OWN opinion.

 

[SeriouslySearching]

BBM - Which is why I believe that they are trying to hurry up the SA charge to show some type of history, reputation, etc. Just my OWN opinion.

I wonder if they try using the SA conviction (if they do convict him), it could possibly be considered too prejudicial and be tossed out?

 

[Eileen730]

BBM - isn't that the impression we got from the family when the video was released? Comments such as they didn't know him - he wasn't a good friend - part of their group (paraphrasing here), etc.

It also makes me wonder why he was invited there that night.

 

[Lolly85x]

It also makes me wonder why he was invited there that night.

I believe he's friends with people who were there that night. They all went to school together.

 

[Lolly85x]

What if he does NOT KNOW where she is?
Im thinking he keeps saying he didn't do it!
Just WHAT IF he didn't?

I think he was involved but Im not so sure he is the one that killed her.

Im probably wrong I know,,,, but there is just to much nagging at me that says he didn't.

JMO

There's no way EA doesn't know what happened to Christina.

He was the last person seen with her, her DNA is in his trunk, she has never been seen since.

 

[Lolly85x]

I see this case very simply now.

I think he acted alone.
I don't think it was pre-meditated.
I don't think drugs are involved.
I think something happned to make her willingly get into his car, and this is when something has happened.
I think he dumped her body before going to work the next morning.
I think he has simply 'got lucky' as such with where he put her body.
The only other arrest I think could get made is if someone lies and gives false evidence or an alibi etc... But only time will tell.

I don't think this is a drug cartel, drug arrangement gone wrong and he's too scared to speak up.

He knows what he done with Christina. He knows why her DNA is in the trunk of his car.

 

[cluciano63]

I see this case very simply now.

I think he acted alone.
I don't think it was pre-meditated.
I don't think drugs are involved.
I think something happned to make her willingly get into his car, and this is when something has happened.
I think he dumped her body before going to work the next morning.
I think he has simply 'got lucky' as such with where he put her body.
The only other arrest I think could get made is if someone lies and gives false evidence or an alibi etc... But only time will tell.

I don't think this is a drug cartel, drug arrangement gone wrong and he's too scared to speak up.

He knows what he done with Christina. He knows why her DNA is in the trunk of his car.

Exactly my theory, for what it is worth. I think HF is a separate issue...i.e "bad boyfriend" etc...but not a factor here, other than Christina may have stayed in FW if she and HF had been getting along better, therefore avoiding this gathering. And for me, EA's motive was likely the result of not getting what he wanted. Jmo

 

[daisytrail]

I think I just read a post (don't recall by whom and don't really care, tbh) that stated LE has little on EA. ... ... ... Wut?! He was last seen with her, her blood was found in his car trunk, he's told a ton of lies regarding that night, and the list goes on and on. Doesn't seem that inconsequential to me.

A little or a lot, I think the major concern for many people in this thread is, do they have enough, meaning enough to get a conviction from a reasonable jury (assuming there is such a thing as a reasonable jury). If EA is guilty of kidnapping and killing Christina, I don't think anyone here is eager to see him prowling the streets again. Will any woman here who would be willing to accept a ride from him please raise her hand!

I thought not! It is easy to look at the legal aspects of all this as a game, and we who are not part of Christina's family can have some distance from this. We are not the ones still waiting for her to come home. To me, in the midst of this debate is no great legal issue about the age of consent, although that is interesting to debate, but the issues of can they keep this guy off the streets. Some may argue that LE is piling on and the current SA charge against him would not exist if he was not the arrested person in this case of kidnapping Christina. Whether that is true or not, what matters most to me is that he cannot do this again, at least right now. Expediency is not always and awful, cynical thing. Sometimes it is what is done to actually protect people.

 

[daisytrail]

I think I just read a post (don't recall by whom and don't really care, tbh) that stated LE has little on EA. ... ... ... Wut?! He was last seen with her, her blood was found in his car trunk, he's told a ton of lies regarding that night, and the list goes on and on. Doesn't seem that inconsequential to me.

A little or a lot, I think the major concern for many people in this thread is, do they have enough, meaning enough to get a conviction from a reasonable jury (assuming there is such a thing as a reasonable jury). If EA is guilty of kidnapping and killing Christina, I don't think anyone here is eager to see him prowling the streets again. Will any woman here who would be willing to accept a ride from him please raise her hand!

I thought not! It is easy to look at the legal aspects of all this as a game, and we who are not part of Christina's family can have some distance from this. We are not the ones still waiting for her to come home. To me, in the midst of this debate is no great legal issue about the age of consent, although that is interesting to debate, but the issues of can they keep this guy off the streets. Some may argue that LE is piling on and the current SA charge against him would not exist if he was not the arrested person in this case of kidnapping Christina. Whether that is true or not, what matters most to me is that he cannot do this again, at least right now. Expediency is not always an awful, cynical thing. Sometimes it is what is done to actually protect people.

 

[daisytrail]

It is a fact that the brain of males do not fully develop until approximately age 24. Particularly the impulse control area of the brain.

Thank you for this. And this is why it should be against the law for any male to have sex before that age, especially when one considers the risk of male pregnancy.

 

[daisytrail]

Girls have been lying about their ages since the start of time, imo. I know it happened when I was a teen on a regular basis with a few girls wanting to date older guys. However, some of the most dedicated, loving, and lasting relationships were formed then. I know many recent 40th anniversaries which started as 16 year old females dating older guys. Thank goodness we didn't have the government deciding who to hang for falling in love.

And there have many changes in those forty years. I am a contemporary of the period of which you speak, and I can assure you that in that era (60s, 70s) so many legal, cultural and societal changes happened as to make today's world practically incomprehensible. Among those changes: The second wave feminist movement, more young women began working outside the home after marriage (droves, in fact), changes (though far too slow) toward racial equality, a culturally challenging and divisive war (Vietnam), effective and more widespread availability of birth control, the beginning of global corporatism and the decline of American real wages. One of the most societally challenging of these changes has been in the relationship between men and women, and whether one argues that this change was good or bad, the need of women to achieve financial independence and the ability to support children on their own. Having two or three children before the age of 21, vastly handicaps that possibility, and so the state steps in. The Romeo and Juliet laws are a realistic, yet imperfect, attempt to address that problem. They arose from the disparate but parallel efforts of social conservative, fiscal realists, and second wave feminists and victim rights advocates to a change the law protect young women from being exploited sexually by older men. Politics does indeed make strange bedfellows.