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

[Bernina]

His daughter is also 6 years old.I wonder if she could be the reason he went into the marines and subsequently got married and somehow he resented it.So when EC told him she was pregnant he felt like it was happening to him all over again and he was not going to have it.

:yeahthat:

 

[Bernina]

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=00001-01000&file=970-973

Do you have a link for that? I'm trying to figure out if she can willingly testify against him if divorced.

 

[Knox]

They never said this. Some people came to this conclusion based on the sheriff's "technology" comment. More likely they meant internet searches about the mines in the area. Not actual phone pings.

I watched a Dateline episode recently in which cell phone pings played a big part.

The killer took a guy out on a boat, shot him and dumped his body overboard. He did such a good job on cleaning the boat, there was no evidence of what took place. However, LE did look at the pings on the two phones. If you mapped them side by side, they traveled to the exact same spot at the same time, and came back the same way.

I know Erin's phone was turned off, but we certainly don't know exactly when. IMO, we are going to see some evidence similar to the above. At least on the way out to the mine, and briefly while they were actually there. It's certainly not a far-fetched conclusion to arrive at, MOO.

 

[77DarkHorse7]

I watched a Dateline episode recently in which cell phone pings played a big part.

The killer took a guy out on a boat, shot him and dumped his body overboard. He did such a good job on cleaning the boat, there was no evidence of what took place. However, LE did look at the pings on the two phones. If you mapped them side by side, they traveled to the exact same spot at the same time, and came back the same way.

I know Erin's phone was turned off, but we certainly don't know exactly when. IMO, we are going to see some evidence similar to the above. At least on the way out to the mine, and briefly while they were actually there. It's certainly not a far-fetched conclusion to arrive at, MOO.

Oh yes, they definitely use phone pings in investigations all the time.

 

[77DarkHorse7]

This also triggered me to try to figure out whether NL could testify against him if she divorces him, though I haven't clearly determined that. 77DH, I know you said that it wouldn't make a difference because they were married at the time, but I didn't see that in the law--if you find it, will you post it? It's driving me crazy not to know!!

Perhaps this is a stretch, but...If my husband did something like this and I was not involved at all, and divorcing him meant I could testify against him, you bet your bottom that I would file. If I didn't, it stands that someone would suspect perhaps I was involved, after all...

Unless she conspired with him he's covered by privilege:

http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=00001-01000&file=980-987

 

[Dallen]

In regards to the question of if we think NL was present during the murder, I don't think so. IMO she would've had to have a sitter for their daughter. Being out in 100 degree heat, doing such a heinous crime, off the beaten path an hour or two out, etc. I guess technically she wouldn't have to have a sitter, but by now, a 6 yr old would've given up details of what she saw in the desert that day. I'm just rambling now, but no sitter has come forward....unless the sitter was IM.

 

[Bernina]

Bryan Hulsey verdict in, in case you've been following. Will be read in about 15+ minutes (11:45 am Az time)

 

[cluciano63]

If NL is charged with any part of this, it would seem she could then possibly exchange testimony for immunity? Maybe?

 

[appleeye]

In regards to the question of if we think NL was present during the murder, I don't think so. For the simple fact that she would've had to have a sitter for their daughter. Being out in 100 degree heat, doing such a heinous crime, off the beaten path an hour or two out, etc. I guess technically she wouldn't have to have a sitter, but by now, a 6 yr old would've given up details of what she saw in the desert that day. I'm just rambling now, but no sitter has come forward....unless the sitter was IM.

I think it is important to note that a person that would help with a murder may not consider a sitter for their child. Clearly, their thoughts are compromised and perhaps a little off. Also, it would not be abnormal for a kid to be dropped at a friend's house for a couple of hours or for mom to scoot out while on a playdate. I have seen the question... what would they do with their daughter a couple of times... pretty sure the best parents wouldn't be out murdering someone so there is a possibility that the child was there or with a sitter or with a friend or left at home. It happens with some good parents.

What I do not understand is why he would bother murdering her if he was leaving a couple of days later for Alaska? Seems like some hefty collateral damage for a situation that would have fixed itself with distance.

 

[appleeye]

Honest question... why do we care if they were married? Is it because she may not have to be called to the stand based on this?

Just unsure of the affect of their marital status on the case. What are the legalities of common law marriage in this state?

 

[la2cabo]

Honest question... why do we care if they were married? Is it because she may not have to be called to the stand based on this?

Just unsure of the affect of their marital status on the case. What are the legalities of common law marriage in this state?

The reason for questioning whether or not they are legally married is due to the fact that they won't have to testify against each other since they are, in fact, legally married.

The State of California does not recognize common law marriage.

 

[Dallen]

I think it is important to note that a person that would help with a murder may not consider a sitter for their child. Clearly, their thoughts are compromised and perhaps a little off. Also, it would not be abnormal for a kid to be dropped at a friend's house for a couple of hours or for mom to scoot out while on a playdate. I have seen the question... what would they do with their daughter a couple of times... pretty sure the best parents wouldn't be out murdering someone so there is a possibility that the child was there or with a sitter or with a friend or left at home. It happens with some good parents.

What I do not understand is why he would bother murdering her if he was leaving a couple of days later for Alaska? Seems like some hefty collateral damage for a situation that would have fixed itself with distance.

I don't think it has anything to do with their ability to be good parents. ****** parents aren't necessarily murderers and murderers aren't necessarily ****** parents.

A 6 yr old would've already been talking if she had any details to tell. She would've mentioned (very early on) who she stayed with that day, if she was left alone, if she saw someone being shot or tortured, if she took a road trip to the middle-of-nowhere desert, etc. Heck, maybe LE already has some of this info and NL will be sitting right next to CL before we know it.

 

[Dmacky]

I was just reading this article for the 2nd time, and this just jumped out at me! This is HUGE guys!!!

CL's alibi for the day is he went hunting.

Christopher Brandon Lee also asked a witness about the best way to dispose of a body and told investigators he was collecting tires the morning Corwin disappeared. A tire also was found at the mine shaft.

Who is this witness???



http://www.desertsun.com/story/news...opher-lee-murder-charge-erin-corwin/14294995/

 

[la2cabo]

I think it is important to note that a person that would help with a murder may not consider a sitter for their child. Clearly, their thoughts are compromised and perhaps a little off. Also, it would not be abnormal for a kid to be dropped at a friend's house for a couple of hours or for mom to scoot out while on a playdate. I have seen the question... what would they do with their daughter a couple of times... pretty sure the best parents wouldn't be out murdering someone so there is a possibility that the child was there or with a sitter or with a friend or left at home. It happens with some good parents.

What I do not understand is why he would bother murdering her if he was leaving a couple of days later for Alaska? Seems like some hefty collateral damage for a situation that would have fixed itself with distance.

BBM: I agree with you except for the fact that CL most likely thought Erin was pregnant with his child and he was concerned that if NL found out she'd leave him and he wouldn't be allowed to see his 6 year old child that he has with NL. I also believe him not wanting to pay child support may have played a very small part in his decision to kill Erin.

 

[cluciano63]

Jmo I think possible child support played a huge role in his motive. Even an idiot knows they can see their children after a divorce. Even inmates can see their kids. I don't believe he thought he would never see his child. I do believe he would be thinking about two decades of payments.

 

[RSC]

Even further...even if NL WANTS to testify, she cannot if CL doesn't agree to let her (if they are married).

The reason for questioning whether or not they are legally married is due to the fact that they won't have to testify against each other since they are, in fact, legally married.

The State of California does not recognize common law marriage.

 

[appleeye]

I don't think it has anything to do with their ability to be good parents. ****** parents aren't necessarily murderers and murderers aren't necessarily ****** parents.

A 6 yr old would've already been talking if she had any details to tell. She would've mentioned (very early on) who she stayed with that day, if she was left alone, if she saw someone being shot or tortured, if she took a road trip to the middle-of-nowhere desert, etc. Heck, maybe LE already has some of this info and NL will be sitting right next to CL before we know it.

A 6 year old would be talking? I am guessing it would be a stretch for an innocent child to be questioned by authorities about any of this.

My thoughts are that their judgement is off. You can't write them off as people that make the best decisions for their child when their child will have to see one or maybe both of them incarcerated for the rest of their lives.

And also, while I am at it. I don't think that testifying against each other will come into play. I believe she will be charged right along side of him for some reason or another.

Parents that have their children's best interest at heart do not kill people.

 

[appleeye]

Jmo I think possible child support played a huge role in his motive. Even an idiot knows they can see their children after a divorce. Even inmates can see their kids. I don't believe he thought he would never see his child. I do believe he would be thinking about two decades of payments.

I do think that they thought they were too smart for the law. This "quick fix" seemed to be the better plan. Strange way of thinking but I am not a murderer so maybe that is why I can not understand it.

If this is why it happened, one would have to assume that he thought that Erin would sue him for custody. My thinking with them in Alaska... Erin didn't have to come clean ever. Especially with adoption in Erin's past, really anything could be explained away.

Her husband knew she was pregnant and knew about the affair... he clearly loved her enough to set it aside and make things work. It was hasty of CL to do away with her when she seemed to not be a threat to him.

 

[RSC]

Thanks! Although now I'm a little confused:
"DURATION: This privilege terminates with divorce. This means that there is no privilege to refuse to testify after the marriage ends. However, the privilege protects matters that occurred before or during marriage; what is relevant is whether the spouses are married at the time of trial."

BBM: It says that the privilege protects matters that occurred during marriage, but then it says it is relevant whether the spouses are married at the time of trial. This seems contradictory to me. Help!

The below site explains the 2 different privileges relatively clear. It can be somewhat confusing so I tried to find the site that was easiest to interpret:

http://adissolutionsolution.wordpre...ileges-testifying-and-marital-communications/

 

[77DarkHorse7]

[/B]

BBM: I agree with you except for the fact that CL most likely thought Erin was pregnant with his child and he was concerned that if NL found out she'd leave him and he wouldn't be allowed to see his 6 year old child that he has with NL. I also believe him not wanting to pay child support may have played a very small part in his decision to kill Erin.

I don't understand this motive either. Why would Erin being pregnant change NL's mind about staying together with Chris? One minute it's "sure he's been tomcatting around, but I can forgive him, we'll move back home and work on this" the next minute it's "Oh no, Erin MIGHT be pregnant with a child that MIGHT be Chris' and he MIGHT have to pay child support so now we're DEFINITELY through"? ... Makes no sense to me.