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

[RSC]

Thanks. I think this is the same one that I posted yesterday--and I still don't see anything re: if they divorce. It says "married" person, but the only mention of "former spouse" is re: bringing a charge against your former spouse (right?)

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

 

[77DarkHorse7]

Thanks. I think this is the same one that I posted yesterday--and I still don't see anything re: if they divorce. It says "married" person, but the only mention of "former spouse" is re: bringing a charge against your former spouse (right?)

"while they were husband and wife"

 

[appleeye]

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.

This is ONLY my opinion... I believe that his wife will be the one that made the decision to end her life. I think that he was a pawn in her plan and that eventually it will be found out that it was a do her or I end things type thing. She may not have wielded the weapon but I think she made the choice. That's why she bragged that she will never be found, etc.

 

[Peppery]

I'm not sure what it means, but if Chris was worried Nichole would divorce him if she found out about Erin's pregnancy, is it possible Nichole didn't know anything about his plan/pregnancy until after Erin was gone? Not that he came home like "guess what I did today just because I love you so much?" but if Nichole knew Erin was pg before she was murdered, Chris no longer had to worry about her finding out.

Not sure where I'm going with this I definitely think he's guilty, and she played a part in some of it, but there had to be more to his motive. Was it all financial? Something more? Plain vindictiveness?

 

[77DarkHorse7]

Okay, here's what I don't get, If NL was so invested in her husband getting away with something, why would she make statements about his involvement to a woman who is widely considered to be the town chatterbox gossiper and rightly so? I think Nichole found out what happened, after the fact, and did everything she could think of( short of walking up to a deputy and telling him her husband did it ) to get him caught. She still loves him, she can't have him hate her, but she also won't let a murderer off the hook.

 

[la2cabo]

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!

Yes, it is very confusing! I think partially because there are 2 different types of privileges. One privilege ends with divorce and the other doesn't. I must have read the article at least 10 times and I'm still not 100% clear on the subject. :dunno:

 

[la2cabo]

Okay, here's what I don't get, If NL was so invested in her husband getting away with something, why would she make statements about his involvement to a woman who is widely considered to be the town chatterbox gossiper and rightly so? I think Nichole found out what happened, after the fact, and did everything she could think of( short of walking up to a deputy and telling him her husband did it ) to get him caught. She still loves him, she can't have him hate her, but she also won't let a murderer off the hook.

Above BBM: How do we know this?

 

[77DarkHorse7]

Yes, it is very confusing! I think partially because there are 2 different types of privileges. One privilege ends with divorce and the other doesn't. I must have read the article at least 10 times and I'm still not 100% clear on the subject. :dunno:

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

....and to prevent another from disclosing, a communication if he claims
the privilege and the comunication was made in confidence between
him and the other spouse while they were husband and wife.

 

[appleeye]

Okay, here's what I don't get, If NL was so invested in her husband getting away with something, why would she make statements about his involvement to a woman who is widely considered to be the town chatterbox gossiper and rightly so? I think Nichole found out what happened, after the fact, and did everything she could think of( short of walking up to a deputy and telling him her husband did it ) to get him caught. She still loves him, she can't have him hate her, but she also won't let a murderer off the hook.

I disagree.. I think it was bravado and a bit of honour. She likely felt proud that he did this for her. Just MHO

 

[stayhomemommy]

Untapped gold mine was site of Erin Corwin body

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...corwin-marine-wife-murder-gold-mine/14741271/

 

[klily444]

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.

My opinion: The affair was supposed to be over, so the continuance of the affair would be yet another betrayal to NL. Also, I don't think she could deal with THEIR money being paid to HER (EC) for 18 years, and another child out there that was created while they were married. She would be too angry for that relationship to last.

 

[klily444]

Okay, here's what I don't get, If NL was so invested in her husband getting away with something, why would she make statements about his involvement to a woman who is widely considered to be the town chatterbox gossiper and rightly so? I think Nichole found out what happened, after the fact, and did everything she could think of( short of walking up to a deputy and telling him her husband did it ) to get him caught. She still loves him, she can't have him hate her, but she also won't let a murderer off the hook.

I think NL is a narcissist and although it's apparent that the town chatterbox is just that, NL felt she was "special" to IM and IM would never betray HER trust. This line of thinking is also what would push someone to do something irrational to someone who has snubbed, rejected, or betrayed a narcissist.

 

[Dallen]

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.

I wouldn't doubt they've interviewed her. Not a stretch at all, when the actions of both parents are in question and she was said to have spent the day with one of those parents. I understand their judgement is off. There's definitely no questioning that. But that doesn't mean they would have their child partake in their actions or leave her at home for 3 or 4 hours alone. We also can not write them off as unfit parents. IMO one doesn't have anything to do with the other.

 

[klily444]

I wouldn't doubt they've interviewed her. Not a stretch at all, when the actions of both parents are in question and she was said to have spent the day with one of those parents. I understand their judgement is off. There's definitely no questioning that. But that doesn't mean they would have their child partake in their actions or leave her at home for 3 or 4 hours alone. We also can not write them off as unfit parents. IMO one doesn't have anything to do with the other.

I would be concerned though that (a) a 6 year olds statement would not hold up in court, and (b) they don't remember time/days. It all depends on when the child was interviewed, but if it was more than two days, I'd say she would not be able to accurately say that she was with so and so at this time on this day. She could easily confuse it with another day.

 

[Dallen]

Untapped gold mine was site of Erin Corwin body

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...corwin-marine-wife-murder-gold-mine/14741271/

If this pic is accurately a pic of the mine where she was found, that makes like 5 supposed pics/videos of it now, none which look the same. This looks much more like the description we recently read.
:desert::desert::desert:

 

[Dallen]

I would be concerned though that (a) a 6 year olds statement would not hold up in court, and (b) they don't remember time/days. It all depends on when the child was interviewed, but if it was more than two days, I'd say she would not be able to accurately say that she was with so and so at this time on this day. She could easily confuse it with another day.

Which is why in my original post about this I said "early on", as in the first day they questioned the Lees.

If a POI supposedly spent the time in question with an individual, they would question them, regardless of age. They have specialists, licensed psychologists and therapists, that are trained to do this. I'm not talking about Detective Joe Smo interviewing a 6 yo. I would be very very disappointed to find out they hadn't interviewed her. I'm really not even sure why this point is so important now...

 

[rose222]

This is ONLY my opinion... I believe that his wife will be the one that made the decision to end her life. I think that he was a pawn in her plan and that eventually it will be found out that it was a do her or I end things type thing. She may not have wielded the weapon but I think she made the choice. That's why she bragged that she will never be found, etc.

I disagree.. I think it was bravado and a bit of honour. She likely felt proud that he did this for her. Just MHO

I agree. While I don't think that Nicole was present during the murder I do think that this was her master plan. And I too think that she is proud of her husband for doing this and feeling reassured that he loves the family enough to get rid of the enemy. Of course she's also mad at him for not being able to 'keep his stories straight'. :scared::notgood:

 

[stayhomemommy]

I would be concerned though that (a) a 6 year olds statement would not hold up in court, and (b) they don't remember time/days. It all depends on when the child was interviewed, but if it was more than two days, I'd say she would not be able to accurately say that she was with so and so at this time on this day. She could easily confuse it with another day.

I am not sure of the legality of questioning a child without parental permission. Also, I can tell you, from personal experience, I witnessed a crime as a 4-year-old that I still remember the details of very vividly! I was questioned by police back then (this was nearly 40 years ago), but my statements did not make it to court. However, they (I believe) were used to help investigate so they could find proof connecting the perps to the crime, which they did.

 

[maskedwoman]

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.

I do get where you are coming from. As nutty as it is, murderers clearly believe they are "justified" in killing. How dare that person mess with my family, my job, my whatever. And they apparently never consider that they might get caught. I don't understand that thinking since most of them DO, in fact, get caught but it must be true. I mean, if you asked someone straight out if they would trade 30 years of their life to get rid of one person, how many people (who aren't psychos) would actually say "I'll take that deal"? Very few, I suspect. And yet, over and over, people do kill and they do get caught, and they do go to prison for a long time. It's baffling.

It's certainly possible that IM watched their daughter that day, but I think it's very unlikely that NL would have left her 6 year old home alone to go kill or help kill Erin. In apartments, someone is very likely to notice that both of them left and the child did not. If she got another sitter for that day, I think LE would have figured that out. And I think it's even less likely that she would have taken the child with her to do either of those things. That's frankly depraved and, if LE had any evidence of that, I think they would have acted on it by now for the child's sake. JMO

 

[Dallen]

Maskedwoman, you said what I wanted to say, but much more clearly. Ha!