GUILTY CA - Erin Corwin, 19, pregnant, Twentynine Palms, 28 June 2014 - #11

[nikb]

Maybe because the mother's "right to choose" was violated? IDK.

Maybe. That makes sense to me actually, but then is that murder? Or is it more of a civil rights type violation? I'm just trying to think through why he possibly hasn't been accused of a second offense for the death of the fetus (if there was one). Of course it could still be coming.

 

[Hippiemomof5]

I'm thinking more along the lines of clothing, shoes, or things that were used to clean up. Seems those would be more likely found in a duffle bag? And maybe I'm confused!

Yeah, they showed up at the ranch not expecting detectives to be there interviewing IM. They had the black duffle bag and acted shady about it. The potato gun was found in the car. I'd think clothes or something would be found in the bag as well. It doesn't make sense to me that NL would be worried about them finding a potato gun, whether it be in the garage or in the car or duffle bag. If clothes were found in the duffle bag, obviously nothing too incriminating was on it or he would have been charged with murder then.

 

[moonbeams]

Good question, thought it wouldn't surprise me. Anyone know?

Well for one, if they weren't married they wouldn't have been living on base in base housing.

You're not given married quarters and allowed to have your girlfriend live with you. Even if CL had housing based on a legal child, visitors have a limit as to how long they are allowed to stay in housing.

The military will need to see paperwork that you are, in fact, married. You can't just show up and say "Here's my new spouse!!!"

It doesn't have to be anything more than a civil service with a justice of the peace. But you DO have to gave official paperwork.

 

[Dmacky]

BBM

What does this mean, everyone? I think about? Italian?

I totally agree?

It means bolded by me.

a sentence in a comment you want to reply to, that stands out. I used your question as an example.

 

[RSC]

By law, it's murder/homicide. But it needs to be proven that she was pregnant first, and how far along she was, and that may not be possible a month after her death.

Maybe. That makes sense to me actually, but then is that murder? Or is it more of a civil rights type violation? I'm just trying to think through why he possibly hasn't been accused of a second offense for the death of the fetus (if there was one). Of course it could still be coming.

 

[77DarkHorse7]

It means bolded by me.

a sentence in a comment you want to reply to, that stands out. I used your question as an example.

If that's a joke, it's very funny. Otherwise it's kind of disturbing.

On the subject of marriage and base housing, I'm not saying they didn't claim to be married. I am saying, where's the wedding pictures? Did they ever have the actual ceremony?

 

[RSC]

This is a really interesting thought!
Under California law, it looks like the one being testified AGAINST holds the privilege, so I take that to mean that if they are still married, CL can request that NL NOT testify. Perhaps LE is working with NL on a "deal" after all?

"Under this section, a married person in California may not be called as a witness in a case in which his or her spouse is a party, unless there is express consent from the spouse holding the privilege. The person that holds the privilege is the person the testimony is going to be used against (not the person who is testifying)."

http://www.corelawgroup.com/can-spousal-privilege-prevent-spouse-testifying/

Not sure about this, but if they were not married when the trial begins, and she thinks it is to her benefit, she may testify for for the state. Lawyer does not want that to happen.

 

[tvscum]

If EC was between 5 weeks and 12 weeks pregnant, her "baby" would have be between the size of a sesame seed and a plum. If it was the size of a sesame seed, I can see why they are having trouble finding out if she was pregnant and who the father was after 7 weeks in a mine shaft.

http://www.countdownmypregnancy.com/pregnancy/how-big-is-your-baby.php

 

[77DarkHorse7]

This is a really interesting thought!
Under California law, it looks like the one being testified AGAINST holds the privilege, so I take that to mean that if they are still married, CL can request that NL NOT testify. Perhaps LE is working with NL on a "deal" after all?

"Under this section, a married person in California may not be called as a witness in a case in which his or her spouse is a party, unless there is express consent from the spouse holding the privilege. The person that holds the privilege is the person the testimony is going to be used against (not the person who is testifying)."

http://www.corelawgroup.com/can-spousal-privilege-prevent-spouse-testifying/

I'm not sure they're gonna get her to divorce him just so they can get her to try and coax a confession out of him after the divorce goes through. What's the point of that? Not to mention, I really don't think they can hold up a murder trial while a divorce is litigated.

 

[RSC]

If she knows he is guilty, she then testifies against him. It has nothing to do with a confession.

I'm not sure they're gonna get her to divorce him just so they can get her to try and coax a confession out of him after the divorce goes through. What's the point of that?

 

[Knox]

And I thought the potato gun was what was in the black duffel back...sigh. I guess I need to go back and re-read.

No, the potato gun was (as stated by the minor girl who was helping them move) in the trunk of the green car.

 

[77DarkHorse7]

If she knows he is guilty, she then testifies against him. It has nothing to do with a confession.

She can't testify about communications she had prior to the divorce. Anything that happened while they were married is privileged. IF they were married, that is.

 

[Hippiemomof5]

If EC was between 5 weeks and 12 weeks pregnant, her "baby" would have be between the size of a sesame seed and a plum. If it was the size of a sesame seed, I can see why they are having trouble finding out if she was pregnant and who the father was after 7 weeks in a mine shaft.

http://www.countdownmypregnancy.com/pregnancy/how-big-is-your-baby.php

I don't believe they physically look for a baby in a scenario like this (an early pregnancy, decomp), I'm guessing they'll be running tests to find out instead. This is moo, I'm not a doctor, csi, coroner, etc.

 

[nikb]

<snipped for space and clarity>
On the subject of marriage and base housing, I'm not saying they didn't claim to be married. I am saying, where's the wedding pictures? Did they ever have the actual ceremony?

Um well technically all they had to do was show up, make the vows in front of a justice of the peace, and sign the forms. I was kind of shocked when my husband and I went to get our license and afterwards they basically said "oh by the way you're now legally married, do you want to have a ceremony here [at the court house] or do you have something else planned?" We were technically married that day but didn't have our actual "wedding" until about a month later. This was in California. I don't know if Alaska is different or where they officially got married. There may not be photos, a gown, reception, etc.

I have little doubt that the military checked out their paperwork and they're legally married, but I must admit it adds an interesting layer to this case if they did the quick court-house thing as opposed to a full blown wedding.

 

[la2cabo]

She can't testify about communications she had prior to the divorce. Anything that happened while they were married is privileged. IF they were married, that is.

In post #383 moonbeams kindly explained that in order to live in base housing as a couple CL would have had to provide written PROOF of the marriage. I'm confident they were married at the time of the crime.

 

[nikb]

She can't testify about communications she had prior to the divorce. Anything that happened while they were married is privileged. IF they were married, that is.

If you're allowed to say within TOS, where is this coming from that they may not have even been married?

 

[moonbeams]

Um well technically all they had to do was show up, make the vows in front of a justice of the peace, and sign the forms. I was kind of shocked when my husband and I went to get our license and afterwards they basically said "oh by the way you're now legally married, do you want to have a ceremony here [at the court house] or do you have something else planned?" We were technically married that day but didn't have our actual "wedding" until about a month later. This was in California. I don't know if Alaska is different or where they officially got married. There may not be photos, a gown, reception, etc.

I have little doubt that the military checked out their paperwork and they're legally married, but I must admit it adds an interesting layer to this case if they did the quick court-house thing as opposed to a full blown wedding.

It may have been a shot gun wedding. There really is no discussion on this, they ARE married based on everything we know about the military.

 

[Knox]

That's interesting though. Why would that be incriminating??

I've thought of that too. It crossed my mind, he used that gun to stun Erin, then do whatever he did to her. That doesn't make a lot of sense, but many things he did were dumb.

 

[RSC]

Where do you see that? (I believe you, I just don't see it)
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=00001-01000&file=970-973

She can't testify about communications she had prior to the divorce. Anything that happened while they were married is privileged. IF they were married, that is.

 

[Knox]

Good question, thought it wouldn't surprise me. Anyone know?

A poster found their marriage application online somewhere. Personally, I do not doubt they are legally married.