GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #38 *Arrest*

[Steleheart]

Well, that just beats everything. You wouldn't believe the wringer I was put through for daring to suggest that perhaps the DNA was from CM OD'ing and vomiting on EA's shirt and then he threw the shirt in the trunk of his car. (I think I did a pretty good job though: esophogeal erosions from purging & vomiting bulimia, which I still believe she likely suffered from, unless she was much heavier into uppers than has been revealed. A certain migraine medication can be used off-label for the treatment of bulimia.)

Thank you.

JMO

I don't think it's a wringer and I don't think you should feel squeezed in it And I should clarify that in that post I linked after the above one with the warrant and affidavit, I posited that she peed from fear. Or something and I think it was Zip who pointed out the flaw in that thought, but I neglected to go back and look again for that post. The important thing is that we can do the best we can to use our own knowledge, research, experience, but in all honesty, this case hasn't progressed yet and without news everything said is See N Say and nothing is personal. I hope.

the :cow: says -

 

[zippixx]

Meh, whatever. I'll wait for some real facts before I accuse anyone of being a murderer. Just the way I roll.

Haven't seen a photo of the dad but IMO, that teeny tiny frame doesn't appear to run in the family.

JMO

Respectfully (again), I believe the information in the arrest warrant are "real facts", along with the sworn testimony at the hearing.. The charge is AK, not murder.. (yet)

 

[heather.scissorhands]

We do not know all the facts.

And, so far, I believe a jury could have reasonable doubt and that's all it takes for EA to walk. The case is even weaker until we have a body, and even then, the body will be so decomposed it's going to e hard to prove how she died (unless there is blunt force or bullets, as was stated above.)

 

[heather.scissorhands]

And, I know that the defense does not have to do anything but shoot holes in the prosecution's theory. They do not have to provide evidence. I will be very interested to see how they handle this. Jose Baez and co were able to divert a jury with a lot of unprovable theories (father molested CA so she grew up lying, father found a lifeless Caylee in pool and made CA cover it up, the meter man who found Caylee's remains wanted award money and planted them there, etc, etc, etc...) Ridiculous. Unprovable. She is now a free woman.

 

[daisytrail]

We do not know all the facts.

And, so far, I believe a jury could have reasonable doubt and that's all it takes for EA to walk. The case is even weaker until we have a body, and even then, the body will be so decomposed it's going to e hard to prove how she died (unless there is blunt force or bullets, as was stated above.)

Respectfully, no one ever knows all the facts about anything that is complicated. That is why closure is so difficult. That is why science still lists gravity as a theory. That is why philosophers continue to debate. Even the term reasonable doubt is about what is reasonable to most people, and since we are not all alike . . . Viewpoints are as various at human beings.

I am actually very interested to know the difference between blood, vomit, saliva, and urine. (And I never thought I would write a sentence like that one!)

 

[cluciano63]

We do not know all the facts.

And, so far, I believe a jury could have reasonable doubt and that's all it takes for EA to walk. The case is even weaker until we have a body, and even then, the body will be so decomposed it's going to e hard to prove how she died (unless there is blunt force or bullets, as was stated above.)

I think they will have enough to show A + B = C to a reasonable doubt extent...jmo they obviously have more info than we know.

 

[zippixx]

Respectfully, no ever knows all the facts about anything that is complicated. That is why closure is so difficult. That is why science still lists gravity as a theory. That is why philosophers continue to debate. Even the term reasonable doubt is about what is reasonable to most people, and since we are not all alike . . . Viewpoints are as various at human beings.

I am actually very interested to know the difference between blood, vomit, saliva, and urine. (And I never thought I would write a sentence like that one!)

I'm certainly not an expert, but (from what I have read) each has a different DNA makeup & show up with different test procedures. Here is some information on that subject (good ol' Google):

http://forensicsciencecentral.co.uk/biology.shtml

 

[heather.scissorhands]

Respectfully, no ever knows all the facts about anything that is complicated. That is why closure is so difficult. That is why science still lists gravity as a theory. That is why philosophers continue to debate. Even the term reasonable doubt is about what is reasonable to most people, and since we are not all alike . . . Viewpoints are as various at human beings.

I am actually very interested to know the difference between blood, vomit, saliva, and urine. (And I never thought I would write a sentence like that one!)

And this is exactly the reason I can NOT say without a doubt that he will be convicted. Because we do not know all the facts. Quite a few people have already decided this is an open and shut case, without having all the facts. I find that very confusing. I mean, Yall have seen people get a not guilty verdict, right? I just don't think ANYONE can say with certainty what happened to Christina. With the exception of EA, of course.

 

[daisytrail]

And this is exactly the reason I can NOT say without a doubt that he will be convicted. Because we do not know all the facts. Quite a few people have already decided this is an open and shut case, without having all the facts. I find that very confusing. I mean, Yall have seen people get a not guilty verdict, right? I just don't think ANYONE can say with certainty what happened to Christina. With the exception of EA, of course.

But they do have enough facts to go to trial. Are you in a particular position to uncover more actual facts? I do not mean random facts about drugs. I do not mean articles about Jaguars and Eternal Eden. What you have been able to do thus far is make clear that you have suspicions. You do not have a factual tie-in to Arochi. Do you have any idea how many 20-somethings use drugs of some type of another? No other demographic uses illegal drugs more! Oh the horror! So who is it that you want to see indicted? Every drug user in that demographic? Everyone who has ever offered someone else a drug? Everyone on who has ever sold or traded? Everyone with a prescription for Adderall who has ever borrowed an Adderall from someone else who has a subscription? Christina herself?

To me, your suspicions are like a shotgun searching for a target and seeing dozens. There is a whole huge world of possibilities, but sooner or later one has to focus. Neither the prosecutor or the defense can function in the trial without focus of some sort, even if it is only a strategy on how to defeat the other side.

No one can predict for certain what a jury will do. All the prosecution can do is their very best job with the facts available. If you think you have useful information for them, I hope that you have personally contacted them. If you cannot get in touch with them by phone, then try writing a letter.

 

[zippixx]

But they do have enough facts to go to trial. Are you in a particular position to uncover more actual facts? I do not mean random facts about drugs. I do not mean articles about Jaguars and Eternal Eden. What you have been able to do thus far is make clear that you have suspicions. You do not have a factual tie-in to Arochi. Do you have any idea how many 20-somethings use drugs of some type of another? No other demographic uses illegal drugs more! Oh the horror! So who is it that you want to see indicted? Every drug user in that demographic? Everyone who has ever offered someone else a drug? Everyone on who has ever sold or traded? Everyone with a prescription for Adderall who has ever borrowed an Adderall from someone else who has a subscription? Christina herself?

To me, your suspicions are like a shotgun searching for a target and seeing dozens. There is a whole huge world of possibilities, but sooner or later one has to focus. Neither the prosecutor or the defense can function in the trial without focus of some sort, even if it is only a strategy on how to defeat the other side.

No one can predict for certain what a jury will do. All the prosecution can do is their very best job with the facts available. If you think you have useful information for them, I hope that you have personally contacted them. If you cannot get in touch with them by phone, then try writing a letter.

:goodpost::ditto::yeahthat:

 

[heather.scissorhands]

But they do have enough facts to go to trial. Are you in a particular position to uncover more actual facts? I do not mean random facts about drugs. I do not mean articles about Jaguars and Eternal Eden. What you have been able to do thus far is make clear that you have suspicions. You do not have a factual tie-in to Arochi. Do you have any idea how many 20-somethings use drugs of some type of another? No other demographic uses illegal drugs more! Oh the horror! So who is it that you want to see indicted? Every drug user in that demographic? Everyone who has ever offered someone else a drug? Everyone on who has ever sold or traded? Everyone with a prescription for Adderall who has ever borrowed an Adderall from someone else who has a subscription? Christina herself?

To me, your suspicions are like a shotgun searching for a target and seeing dozens. There is a whole huge world of possibilities, but sooner or later one has to focus. Neither the prosecutor or the defense can function in the trial without focus of some sort, even if it is only a strategy on how to defeat the other side.

No one can predict for certain what a jury will do. All the prosecution can do is their very best job with the facts available. If you think you have useful information for them, I hope that you have personally contacted them. If you cannot get in touch with them by phone, then try writing a letter.

<modsnip>Just because they have enough to go to trial doesn't mean they automatically get a guilty verdict. I'm worried about the jury finding reasonable doubt.

And, well, my suspicions are just that. <modsnip>

Yes, I have talked to Christina's friends. I listen. I know they were doing drugs. I know there were a lot of complex relationships. I know that HF and EA texted about "good Rock" right before Christina went missing. I know a PI suspected that drugs were the motive for this crime. I'm not talking crazy talk. This is all part of this case.

<modsnip> We are allowed to disagree.

<modsnip> I think we are all using different brains to analyze this situation BECAUSE NONE OF USKNOW WHAT HAPPENED. and it's 100% ok for some of us to continue questioning this case and the motive. Otherwise, we might as well let it drop to the 4th page until the trial.

<modsnip>

 

[SteveS]

Are you in a particular position to uncover more actual facts? I do not mean random facts about drugs. I do not mean articles about Jaguars and Eternal Eden. What you have been able to do thus far is make clear that you have suspicions.

The point you make is insightful, and the snippet above ties into the point I've been trying to make about the trial itself.

The point is, trials are not a dumping ground for any fact anyone wants to mention. And with some well-defined exceptions, the witnesses are not there for opining or drawing conclusions (that's what the jury does).

On a semi-related point, it's being repeatedly said that "the defense does not have to provide evidence," and that's certainly true when they don't offer a case of any sort (which sometimes happens). But it should be noted that to the extent the defense puts witnesses on the stand, it's always and only to provide "relevant evidence" in some sense of the term.

 

[heather.scissorhands]

And, I know that the defense does not have to do anything but shoot holes in the prosecution's theory. They do not have to provide evidence. I will be very interested to see how they handle this. Jose Baez and co were able to divert a jury with a lot of unprovable theories (father molested CA so she grew up lying, father found a lifeless Caylee in pool and made CA cover it up, the meter man who found Caylee's remains wanted award money and planted them there, etc, etc, etc...) Ridiculous. Unprovable. She is now a free woman.

SteveS, can you please explain how the defense was able to use unprovable evidence in the Casey Anthony case for me? That's part of why I cant seem to comprehend what you are trying to say. No disrespect.... I'm seriously curious why the defense was able to make completely unprovable theories that sidetracked the jury? I don't believe the defense was the only reason she got off, so you don't have to explain where the prosecution went wrong or any of that. Just please explain to me how they were able to construct their defense on completely no proveable evidence?

 

[Bootsctr]

I'm not looking at dozens of people, just 5: HF, PP, SN, ALP and EA. I think the defense can create reasonable doubt w/o a body and w/o a confession. I don't think it is a slam dunk case at this point. W/O a body, maybe Christina found a way to slip away to a better life w/o HF. I know, I know, the DNA and the dog. :waiting: for the trial. :gaah:

 

[heather.scissorhands]

After rereading a few of y'alls posts responding to me, 'm kind of getting the feeling that what y'all are really telling me is to relax and know that everything is going to be ok. To stop questioning or thinking Because LE has this totally figured out and that it's only a matter of time before EA is convicted and that's that. The facts we know, especially once added in with facts we don't, makes this a slam dunk case for the prosecution. So, I'm just wasting my time and your time in having suspicions and doubts.

Am I right?

 

[Bootsctr]

<modsnip>Just because they have enough to go to trial doesn't mean they automatically get a guilty verdict. I'm worried about the jury finding reasonable doubt.

And, well, my suspicions are just that. <modsnip>

Yes, I have talked to Christina's friends. I listen. I know they were doing drugs. I know there were a lot of complex relationships. I know that HF and EA texted about "good Rock" right before Christina went missing. I know a PI suspected that drugs were the motive for this crime. I'm not talking crazy talk. This is all part of this case.

<modsnip> We are allowed to disagree.

<modsnip> I think we are all using different brains to analyze this situation BECAUSE NONE OF USKNOW WHAT HAPPENED. and it's 100% ok for some of us to continue questioning this case and the motive. Otherwise, we might as well let it drop to the 4th page until the trial.

<modsnip>

:ditto: :goodpost: :cheers:

 

[brado]

Nothing wrong with questioning, especially given the fact that Christina has not been found. I don't see anyone stating this case is a slam dunk - no case ever is. Keep in mind that EA has been indicted for aggravated kidnapping, not murder. I can only assume that LE has gone over every lead/clue they have and that all roads lead to EA.

 

[heather.scissorhands]

Ha, thanks, bootsctr! sorry that got snipped all to heck. I didn't think it was that bad, but hey, I'm fairly forward, so im sure it was...

OT: And, Daisy, I like you, so none of this is personal to me. I'm still working on Mystique 'scase with the anime community. I had her picture out at my autograph panels and several kids have reposted her picture. Unfortunately, I have no leads on that at all.

 

[SteveS]

SteveS, can you please explain how the defense was able to use unprovable evidence in the Casey Anthony case for me? That's part of why I cant seem to comprehend what you are trying to say. No disrespect.... I'm seriously curious why the defense was able to make completely unprovable theories that sidetracked the jury? I don't believe the defense was the only reason she got off, so you don't have to explain where the prosecution went wrong or any of that. Just please explain to me how they were able to construct their defense on completely no proveable evidence?

Let me apologize that I can't speak to the Casey A trial's details, because I didn't really follow that case to any real degree. I know some very broad strokes, and that's it.

But if you want to know how an "alternate theory" gets inserted into a case, I can speak to that. I'm going to guess as to how the CA trial went, and my apologies if I am not exact on details.

The alternate ideas in that trial must have started and used lots of "evidence" of some sort, otherwise the jury wouldn't have been able to hear them, so the idea that it all came from thin air using "no provable evidence" couldn't be accurate. The defense might have used evidence showing others who factually had access to the girl, and then added evidence showing other facts about those others, and then more facts that were relevant in indicating possible motives those others might have had, and going from there to build an alternate theory based on pieces tied together, ie a theory created using fact after fact of circumstantial evidence.

In creating that alternative, they wouldn't have simply put someone on the stand to say, "Hey, what if the father did it? What if a neighbor did it?" A witness can only testify to what they KNOW (or believe they know).

Hope that helps. :smile:

Oh, and by the way, I think the biggest problem for EA will be in finding an "alternate explanation" to use that fits the evidence and also gets him off the hook. He's created some huge logical traps. It would have to explain why she was put in his trunk, which is difficult to try to make meaningless without also claiming she's dead, and further complicated by his claim that he doesn't know what happened to her and by the fact that he hasn't produced her body. Each of those kinda pulls in its own direction.

 

[daisytrail]

Ha, thanks, bootsctr! sorry that got snipped all to heck. I didn't think it was that bad, but hey, I'm fairly forward, so im sure it was...

OT: And, Daisy, I like you, so none of this is personal to me. I'm still working on Mystique 'scase with the anime community. I had her picture out at my autograph panels and several kids have reposted her picture. Unfortunately, I have no leads on that at all.

I actually think that you would find her case more satisfying. I don't know what you said to me. I am not going to worry about it. However, I sense a great and understandable frustration. It is just that you don't have the tie-in to Arochi that amounts to admissible evidence. It may be a long way to trial. Sometimes things just are what they are.