GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #40 *Arrest*

[b.humble]

What about him waking his brother up who was passed out on the couch to get him to go to his bed? This makes me think he took her back to his place where whatever he did to her happened.

Has it been proven or disproven that his brother was actually present that weekend? I've seen both yay and nay; is there anything definitive?

 

[b.humble]

And I can guess who mr XXXX XXXX is ... I take it we cannot discuss him here? Even if we don't name him can we say who we think he is?

A) I'm not a MOD so I can't make the rules, but if you believe there's a theory that aligns with this new Motion, please share!

B) To clarify: I do not think my theory is necessarily a relevant tangent, however, I think so much of this case has required thinking outside of the box so excuse my out loud wonderings.

C) I&#8217;m late on the discussion, but with a group of incredibly smart, insightful people<modsnip> I&#8217;m not a lawyer therefore I don&#8217;t know how the judicial system works. I may be completely wrong on this theory.

One reason I suggest this is due to the defense having already filed a Brady Motion on 9/3/15. Why a second (and with specifications)? Do you have to file them when the court date is shifted in lieu of evidence (ex: ShopVac testing)&#8212;anyone knowledgeable please feel free to comment.

I&#8217;ve not posted in a while. I feel as though I ran out of value-adding ideas a while back and didn&#8217;t want to consume airtime with words in the wind.

In my absence, I&#8217;ve been on lurk, but never gone.

*Name disclosed via public record/court Motion 3/29/16. NOT RECOGNIZING OR SLEUTHING THIS PERSON AS A SUSPECT!!!! I don't want to get in trouble due to suggestion; please modsnip if necessary!

 

[roadrunnermt]

According to EA testimony to Stamm it did happen but we know EA lies so still no rock solid proof. http://starlocalmedia.com/allenamer...cle_14dd4862-9de4-11e4-b48e-5765cf2b7e65.html

 

[roadrunnermt]

Not definitive but out of EA interview with Stamm. Still doesn't mean a lot tho.

 

[SteveS]

Since EA has lied about anything and everything that happened that night, we might be wiser to think that if he said it, it must NOT have happened. Just saying. At the very least, to me it's highly uncertain if only EA has said it happened.

 

[Hatfield]

Arochi preyed on Christina.imo
He probably spent the evening of her disappearance observing and identifying her vulnerabilities, noticing details like frictions between her and her boyfriend while listening to conversations, observing her demeanor and collecting information. He let her feel comfortable, probably flirted but backed off when she rejected his advances.
It's been reported that Arochi let CM use his phone although he lies in an interview and says he doesn't remember letting her use the phone. He remembers everything. Saying he did ten shots and can't remember is all a lie and a bad alibi imo. He walks without staggering in the garage video.

He's cunning and CM was unsuspecting. 3 minutes is a very short time to get someone into the trunk of a car and exit a parking garage. He would have needed to avoid a struggle by creating a lure.
So someone petite had been having fun playing on his new stolen Sprint phone and he happened to have some phones in the trunk of his car that he could make her an exceptionally awesome deal on...well..let me see your phone a minute..oh yeah your gonna like these phones..(pop the trunk) check 'em out...and in you go.
He exits the garage with CM in the trunk and her cell phone in his hand.

With his and her phones turned off I think he drove through the gate at Custer Rd and exited to this location.
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/574...abafd88a11!2m2!1d-96.8210721!2d33.1025293!3e0

With the intention of sexually assaulting Christina I think Arochi stopped the car and let her out of the trunk at which point he got his A$$ kicked. She most likely found a tire iron in the trunk and waited for him to let her out. I imagine the first blow was to his body area and the second blow he blocked with his arm causing those injuries. I can see how at that point she could have made it behind the wheel of the car and tried to escape possibly striking Arochi with the vehicle giving him the limp and then he further damages the car striking it with his fist out of anger. The fight then continues inside the vehicle resulting in bite marks and scratches. Unfortunately in this scenario CM doesn't escape her attacker but she does well in killing his sexual desires and preventing him from carrying out his plan. I don't believe he had time or ability after the struggle and before the cell pings.

I think he left CM there and returned to the parking garage area, turned on CM's phone and headed away from the garage for a few minutes dumped her phone then reversed direction and turned on his phone and headed home. The time and distance to the last cell ping seems to work out.

Per the trash collections at his home I think he cleaned his car and then went back to conceal the remains a couple of days later. In searching I would want to clear that location and any similar locations within the same time line first.

His route;
https://www.google.com/maps/dir/574...9c8813a75e5!2m2!1d-96.820289!2d33.0784527!3e0

As Always JMO

A really good theory.

I hadn't considered how he could have managed to get her in the trunk at the parking garage area in such a short timeframe but I suppose a scenario happening the way you describe it is very possible.

I hope LE is not giving up using all the cell phone information and coming up with locations they suspect he may have put her. If they have some potential locations in mind then maybe cadaver dogs could be used even if a long time has passed.

Its really hard on everyone knowing there is someone who knows where she is and yet wont tell anyone. It makes me question my morals on the use of torture with cases like this one.

I do need to read back and get a better case background of this case. I have only learned a general idea of it and so I would benefit by reading backwards to get a better picture of what facts are known.

 

[Hatfield]

When reading all the references in the link to LE politely asking to view other phone information from other people I would be shocked if they have not got warrants by now and go right to the cell phone providers records of EA phone and even other peoples phone they need to look at.

I am assuming a judge would gladly allow a warrant for EAs phone records and I would hope it would be allowed for some of the other people he spoke with that night.

And even when LE was politely asking to get access to his car it just sounds like maybe LE is being too polite at times. I know LE needs to follow the law but it seems to me they could have used impoundment of the vehicle since they had valid reasons to suspect he was the last person with her.

Its a little concerning to me that they didn't seem to be very aggressive in getting what they needed to look at. I read parts of it sounding like people were telling LE no to things and LE was saying back "ok Mr. Murderer sorry to inconvenience you".
I don't understand why his vehicle could not have been towed on the spot. There seemed to be enough probably cause since they were beginning to catch him in lies and he was last person known to be with her.
Sounds like good enough probable cause to me to legally impound car , phones, and immediately take him downtown for questioning.

Im hoping LE used other channels like warrants and searches that we are not hearing about in that article.


http://starlocalmedia.com/allenamer...cle_14dd4862-9de4-11e4-b48e-5765cf2b7e65.html

 

[Hatfield]

I'm trying not to believe LE could have made grave errors in their interrogation and evidence gathering capabilities but this on the surface looks ridiculous. Below are a couple examples with comments included to what I mean.

"&#8226;Arochi signed consent forms to allow detectives to search his vehicle on Sept. 3. Stamm noticed multiple cellphones in car. She asked for consent to look through the phones, which Arochi denied."

So do I have this right that he already signed consent forms to look in his vehicle and they find phones in the vehicle and LE cannot look at the phones? I wonder if this was a crticial mistake because wouldn't this be like finding a book in the backseat and not opening the book to look at the pages. I would have thought the consent form he already signed gave them permission to look at anything in the car.

"Stamm testified that she does not believe Christina voluntarily got in the trunk."

Ya think? I don't think anybody gets in a trunk voluntarily unless you are just goofing around and since she is missing this wasn't a goofing around situation.


The next example is even worse to me.

"&#8226;When Stamm asked if detectives could process his car on Sept. 4, he said &#8220;not tonight&#8221; because he had a work meeting from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. the next day. Stamm convinced him to return home and get his car, and it was processed that night and returned."

Since when would LE let him go home to get his own car and have time to clean up whatever he could before returning it for processing? WTH?
How about escourting him home and have it towed to LE so it can be processed without him getting to touch it again?

Better yet, where is the warrent to right then and there to confiscate the car?
Surely a judge would have signed a warrant. They are usually on-call for emergeny signing of warrents.
This would have fit the bill for that.

These are the types of things that have me questioning if they had the right expertise at the LE department.
Seems real shoddy for something so serious. I don't get it.
I just hope its not as bad as it seems in this article.


http://starlocalmedia.com/allenamer...cle_14dd4862-9de4-11e4-b48e-5765cf2b7e65.html

 

[SteveS]

Warrants and searches and defendant rights are tricky. If LE messes up and oversteps their bounds, they can lose the ability to use any evidence found PLUS any evidence that flows from it too. So I wouldn't assume that LE was overly cautious but rather that they might have been steering clear of potential landmines that we're not sensitive to.

 

[heather.scissorhands]

I'm trying not to believe LE could have made grave errors in their interrogation and evidence gathering capabilities but this on the surface looks ridiculous. Below are a couple examples with comments included to what I mean.

"&#8226;Arochi signed consent forms to allow detectives to search his vehicle on Sept. 3. Stamm noticed multiple cellphones in car. She asked for consent to look through the phones, which Arochi denied."

So do I have this right that he already signed consent forms to look in his vehicle and they find phones in the vehicle and LE cannot look at the phones? I wonder if this was a crticial mistake because wouldn't this be like finding a book in the backseat and not opening the book to look at the pages. I would have thought the consent form he already signed gave them permission to look at anything in the car.

"Stamm testified that she does not believe Christina voluntarily got in the trunk."

Ya think? I don't think anybody gets in a trunk voluntarily unless you are just goofing around and since she is missing this wasn't a goofing around situation.


The next example is even worse to me.

"&#8226;When Stamm asked if detectives could process his car on Sept. 4, he said &#8220;not tonight&#8221; because he had a work meeting from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. the next day. Stamm convinced him to return home and get his car, and it was processed that night and returned."

Since when would LE let him go home to get his own car and have time to clean up whatever he could before returning it for processing? WTH?
How about escourting him home and have it towed to LE so it can be processed without him getting to touch it again?

Better yet, where is the warrent to right then and there to confiscate the car?
Surely a judge would have signed a warrant. They are usually on-call for emergeny signing of warrents.
This would have fit the bill for that.

These are the types of things that have me questioning if they had the right expertise at the LE department.
Seems real shoddy for something so serious. I don't get it.
I just hope its not as bad as it seems in this article.


http://starlocalmedia.com/allenamer...cle_14dd4862-9de4-11e4-b48e-5765cf2b7e65.html

I was pretty shocked when there was a video of Christina's mother at Christina's house. They showed her closet and shoes and things like that. What shocked me was it didn't seem like police had done a search. And I've never heard a report that they did a search ever at Christina's home.

Also, I never heard a report of them searching the apartment she was last at. I think that's bizarre. It's all bizarre. I think that her not being reported for 4 days was peobably what threw things off.

 

[heather.scissorhands]

I know they did trash pulls at Enrique's. Did they do a search of the home as well? I had to take two benedryl, so my memory is failing me.

 

[JnRyan]

I know they did trash pulls at Enrique's. Did they do a search of the home as well? I had to take two benedryl, so my memory is failing me.

I believe they did search the house the day they arrested him and towed off his car.

 

[JnRyan]

Warrants and searches and defendant rights are tricky. If LE messes up and oversteps their bounds, they can lose the ability to use any evidence found PLUS any evidence that flows from it too. So I wouldn't assume that LE was overly cautious but rather that they might have been steering clear of potential landmines that we're not sensitive to.

Also, a good investigator uses whatever technique and approach they believe will work depending on the individual and the situation and what evidence they have already obtained. I don't what investigators had on the 4th in the way of interviews and video. If they can get EA to voluntarily give up his car for a search that might work best. Also, if they return it and say they are done with the car, he might let his guard down believing his car has been cleared.

 

[zippixx]

04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress: Search Warrant for Defendant's Camero Vehicle Obtained by Warrant by September 26, 2014

04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress Evidence and Records Search Obtained by Court Order Concerning a Facebook Account Allegedly Associated with the Defendant's Use of Facebook

04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress: Defendant's Facebook Account Records and Data Obtained by Warrant of December 29, 2014


04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress: Search Warrant for Defendant's "Shop Vac" Obtained by Warrant of October 15, 2014


04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress Evidence and Records Obtained by Court Order Dated Nocember 11, 2014 Concering Bank Records Allegedly Associated with the Defendant's Bank Accounts

https://apps.collincountytx.gov/JudicialRecords/Case/1387104/100/Other|Inmate Detail

 

[JnRyan]

04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress: Search Warrant for Defendant's Camero Vehicle Obtained by Warrant by September 26, 2014

04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress Evidence and Records Search Obtained by Court Order Concerning a Facebook Account Allegedly Associated with the Defendant's Use of Facebook

04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress: Defendant's Facebook Account Records and Data Obtained by Warrant of December 29, 2014


04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress: Search Warrant for Defendant's "Shop Vac" Obtained by Warrant of October 15, 2014


04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress Evidence and Records Obtained by Court Order Dated Nocember 11, 2014 Concering Bank Records Allegedly Associated with the Defendant's Bank Accounts

https://apps.collincountytx.gov/JudicialRecords/Case/1387104/100/Other|Inmate Detail

Oh, what the heck, why doesn't the lawyer just ask the court to send the poor boy home and forget about the whole thing. :gaah:

 

[Steleheart]

04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress: Search Warrant for Defendant's Camero Vehicle Obtained by Warrant by September 26, 2014

04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress Evidence and Records Search Obtained by Court Order Concerning a Facebook Account Allegedly Associated with the Defendant's Use of Facebook

04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress: Defendant's Facebook Account Records and Data Obtained by Warrant of December 29, 2014


04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress: Search Warrant for Defendant's "Shop Vac" Obtained by Warrant of October 15, 2014


04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress Evidence and Records Obtained by Court Order Dated Nocember 11, 2014 Concering Bank Records Allegedly Associated with the Defendant's Bank Accounts

https://apps.collincountytx.gov/JudicialRecords/Case/1387104/100/Other|Inmate Detail

Desperately grasping at straws. Toss it at all the wall and see what sticks.

MOO

 

[b.humble]

04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress: Search Warrant for Defendant's Camero Vehicle Obtained by Warrant by September 26, 2014

04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress Evidence and Records Search Obtained by Court Order Concerning a Facebook Account Allegedly Associated with the Defendant's Use of Facebook

04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress: Defendant's Facebook Account Records and Data Obtained by Warrant of December 29, 2014


04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress: Search Warrant for Defendant's "Shop Vac" Obtained by Warrant of October 15, 2014


04/01/2016 Motion

Comments: Motion to Supress Evidence and Records Obtained by Court Order Dated Nocember 11, 2014 Concering Bank Records Allegedly Associated with the Defendant's Bank Accounts

https://apps.collincountytx.gov/JudicialRecords/Case/1387104/100/Other|Inmate Detail

Wow....HOLD THE PHONE&#8212;IMO, that seems very telling. The laundry list of motions indicates Gore has received a very thin file of exculpatory evidence.

From what I gather, the defense hasn&#8217;t yet crafted a plausible (at minimum) narrative, capable of explaining away real and/or circumstantial evidence. Unless PPD has shown gross negligence of EA&#8217;s Amendment rights, which I seriously doubt, this is a literal Hail Mary from the defense and EA should be terrified.

 

[leep]

Am I right in thinking a certain little someone's goose is well and truly cooked.
Don't defence have to give a reason why they want certain evidence throwing out not just because it's looks bad and is proberbly going to fry his client.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jen Darme]

I'm trying not to believe LE could have made grave errors in their interrogation and evidence gathering capabilities but this on the surface looks ridiculous. Below are a couple examples with comments included to what I mean.

"•Arochi signed consent forms to allow detectives to search his vehicle on Sept. 3. Stamm noticed multiple cellphones in car. She asked for consent to look through the phones, which Arochi denied."

So do I have this right that he already signed consent forms to look in his vehicle and they find phones in the vehicle and LE cannot look at the phones? I wonder if this was a crticial mistake because wouldn't this be like finding a book in the backseat and not opening the book to look at the pages. I would have thought the consent form he already signed gave them permission to look at anything in the car.

RSBM

In June, 2014, in Riley v California the Supreme Court ruled that in order to search a cell phone police must have either the consent of the owner or a warrant except under "compelling" emergencies. Prior to the ruling, many jurisdictions were already following similar procedures.

The ruling showed the Court is firmly clueful about digital information and how cell phones are used:

The Justice Department, in its Supreme Court briefs, said cellphones were not materially different from wallets, purses and address books. Chief Justice Roberts disagreed.​

“That is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon,” he wrote.​

He detailed the distinction in the ruling. There are excerpts at the third link below.


NY Times: Major Ruling Shields Privacy of Cellphones
NY Times: Cellphone Ruling Could Alter Police Methods, Experts Say
NY Times: Between the Lines of the Cellphone Privacy Ruling

 

[Hatfield]

RSBM

In June, 2014, in Riley v California the Supreme Court ruled that in order to search a cell phone police must have either the consent of the owner or a warrant except under "compelling" emergencies. Prior to the ruling, many jurisdictions were already following similar procedures.

The ruling showed the Court is firmly clueful about digital information and how cell phones are used:

The Justice Department, in its Supreme Court briefs, said cellphones were not materially different from wallets, purses and address books. Chief Justice Roberts disagreed.​

&#8220;That is like saying a ride on horseback is materially indistinguishable from a flight to the moon,&#8221; he wrote.​

He detailed the distinction in the ruling. There are excerpts at the third link below.


NY Times: Major Ruling Shields Privacy of Cellphones
NY Times: Cellphone Ruling Could Alter Police Methods, Experts Say
NY Times: Between the Lines of the Cellphone Privacy Ruling

That's interesting and fairly recent too. Thanks.

Its no wonder LE didn't want to touch the phone. They may have done the right thing afterall. I think I owe the officer an apology.