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

[la2cabo]

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

MARITAL TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE (Immunity): This provides a spouse the privilege from having to testify as a witness against his/her spouse (the spouse is said to hold immunity from testifying). In California, this privilege means that the witness-spouse may not be even called to testify and the prosecutor is prohibited from calling the witness-spouse to testify against his or her spouse.

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.
*************************************************************************************************************************
MARITAL COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGE: This privilege protects confidential communications made between spouses during marriage (it doesn’t matter if the couple is married at trial, what matters is if the couple was married when the communication was made).

WITNESS-SPOUSE HOLDS PRIVILEGE: The witness-spouse holds the privilege. They cannot be forced to testify, but may voluntarily do so, and their spouse cannot stop them. So if Wife wants to testify against Husband, Husband may not stop Wife from testifying (see People v. McWhorter).

BOTH SPOUSES HOLD THE PRIVILEGE: For communications, the privilege is with both spouses individually. That means even though one spouse is willing to testify about a confidential marital communication, the other spouse may assert the privilege to prevent the testimony of the other spouse (compare this to the testimonial privilege, which is held by the witness-spouse).

DURATION:
Unlike the testimonial privilege, which ends at divorce, the privilege for marital communication goes on after the divorce. So long as the couple was married when the communication was made, it will be privileged. Any communication made after divorce to the former spouse will not be privileged, however.

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

 

[cluciano63]

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.

If the child is his, it is a big deal, a part of her life forever perhaps, if only financially. It may also become public knowledge. Maybe only a few people knew about affair before, but a second affair, with a baby involved, may have been "it" for her. She may have thought the affair (first time) was long over, no one would know in Alaska, etc...but the idea of a baby, maybe Erin leaving her husband, could change all that. Jmo

 

[la2cabo]

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.

I have a 6 year old and she remembers EVERYTHING (except homework)! She can't give days or dates but she definitely remembers events. However, she also has a great imagination and doesn't necessarily know the difference between real memories and stories in her mind that she thinks are memories. I don't know that I would trust the testimony of a 6 year old but I think they could definitely help in the investigation, especially if questioned near the time of the crime.

I hope your experience didn't leave any negative scars on you or your life. Good job being a very young sleuth .

 

[stayhomemommy]

If the child is his, it is a big deal, a part of her life forever perhaps, if only financially. It may also become public knowledge. Maybe only a few people knew about affair before, but a second affair, with a baby involved, may have been "it" for her. She may have thought the affair (first time) was long over, no one would know in Alaska, etc...but the idea of a baby, maybe Erin leaving her husband, could change all that. Jmo

Yes, this could have even been the motive (or part of the motive) for CL. Perhaps he didn't want his parents to find out? JMOO

 

[stayhomemommy]

I have a 6 year old and she remembers EVERYTHING (except homework)! She can't give days or dates but she definitely remembers events. However, she also has a great imagination and doesn't necessarily know the difference between real memories and stories in her mind that she thinks are memories. I don't know that I would trust the testimony of a 6 year old but I think they could definitely help in the investigation, especially if questioned near the time of the crime.

I hope your experience didn't leave any negative scars on you or your life. Good job being a very young sleuth .

Thank you la2cabo. Thankfully, the crime didn't happen to me, but to a neighbor. It was an arson. I saw 3 teen-aged boys douse a shed with gasoline and throw the match. Laughing the whole while! Anyway, they didn't know I could see them from my tree house on my own property. I ran inside and told my parents. They called the police and the police did interview me right away. I told them everything I saw, including who the boys were (they were also neighbors, just from farther down the street). I even told the direction I saw the boys run into the woods after they threw the match, which is where LE found some other evidence. I like to think the information I gave helped the police. They never said either way, at least not to me. But they did get the boys, though. They spent some time in Juvenile Hall.

 

[phantomthought]

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:

Last line in picture caption " the mine featured in this picture is not the mine corwin was found,but it is in the same general area."

 

[RSC]

This is not at all directed to you personally, but towards a lot of comments I have seen on here--AND, I have been guilty of this myself! We all have ideas of whether NL helped or did not help with the murder, or helped to cover up things. The problem I have is that we know very little about her, and for us to say things about how she feels about the murder is not logical. I don't even know how CL feels about it, and he is the one who we know has been arrested!

The only things we know about NL are these:
1. She had a baby at 15 or 16 and married the father soon after
2. She may or may not have said the things about CL to IM as we heard from IM (who is not reliable at this point)
3. On her Pinterest account she has a ton of posts that we CAN use to assess her character at least a little bit, and I'm not sure I see someone who would be proud of a husband for murder. The most I can say is that she was sad and angry about the affair (based on the posts), but who wouldn't be?

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:

 

[RSC]

THANK YOU!!!!
So if I am reading this correctly...after a divorce, she COULD testify about CL but doesn't HAVE to. Is that correct? But she CANNOT release "communications." I take that to mean both physical (like texts) or if he said "I murdered her." But it sounds like she can say "I do not know where CL was on the day of June 28th, but I do know the Jeep was full of tires, rebar and (other things) when he got back, etc etc).

Does that sound right?

MARITAL TESTIMONIAL PRIVILEGE (Immunity): This provides a spouse the privilege from having to testify as a witness against his/her spouse (the spouse is said to hold immunity from testifying). In California, this privilege means that the witness-spouse may not be even called to testify and the prosecutor is prohibited from calling the witness-spouse to testify against his or her spouse.

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.
*************************************************************************************************************************
MARITAL COMMUNICATION PRIVILEGE: This privilege protects confidential communications made between spouses during marriage (it doesn’t matter if the couple is married at trial, what matters is if the couple was married when the communication was made).

WITNESS-SPOUSE HOLDS PRIVILEGE: The witness-spouse holds the privilege. They cannot be forced to testify, but may voluntarily do so, and their spouse cannot stop them. So if Wife wants to testify against Husband, Husband may not stop Wife from testifying (see People v. McWhorter).

BOTH SPOUSES HOLD THE PRIVILEGE: For communications, the privilege is with both spouses individually. That means even though one spouse is willing to testify about a confidential marital communication, the other spouse may assert the privilege to prevent the testimony of the other spouse (compare this to the testimonial privilege, which is held by the witness-spouse).

DURATION:
Unlike the testimonial privilege, which ends at divorce, the privilege for marital communication goes on after the divorce. So long as the couple was married when the communication was made, it will be privileged. Any communication made after divorce to the former spouse will not be privileged, however.

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

 

[BatWoman]

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.

I would suggest that if the child was your alibi witness you would have to give police permission to interview her or you have no alibi.

 

[Dallen]

Last line in picture caption " the mine featured in this picture is not the mine corwin was found,but it is in the same general area."

Well there ya go! Thank you!

 

[cluciano63]

Again, to add to similarities to the Heather Elvis murder case, people are saying the husband was probably acting under the wife's orders. Imo, we know the wife was a conspirator in Heather's case, as she was charged along with him. NL has not been charged, and so far, only said some really astonishingly stupid things. I could see CL deciding this on his own. He made a mess, he cleans it up, in his mind. In Heather's case, SM seemingly had no reason to kill Heather, making me believe it was driven by the wife and maybe even done by her. CL had motive (Imo, alleged pregnancy) and did not need his wife to tell him he had better "fix it".

Jmo

 

[Bernina]

This is not at all directed to you personally, but towards a lot of comments I have seen on here--AND, I have been guilty of this myself! We all have ideas of whether NL helped or did not help with the murder, or helped to cover up things. The problem I have is that we know very little about her, and for us to say things about how she feels about the murder is not logical. I don't even know how CL feels about it, and he is the one who we know has been arrested!

The only things we know about NL are these:
1. She had a baby at 15 or 16 and married the father soon after
2. She may or may not have said the things about CL to IM as we heard from IM (who is not reliable at this point)
3. On her Pinterest account she has a ton of posts that we CAN use to assess her character at least a little bit, and I'm not sure I see someone who would be proud of a husband for murder. The most I can say is that she was sad and angry about the affair (based on the posts), but who wouldn't be?

I believe many are basing their opinions on what LE observed as NL's behavior during the initial interview and her comments to IM, who was also interviewed by LE...that were all on LE's warrant for the ranch, apartment and vehicles.
If LE is going to put weight on that ^^^^ to get the warrant signed by a Judge and served, I think I'm going to take that info as pretty solid for the most part.

 

[stayhomemommy]

This is not at all directed to you personally, but towards a lot of comments I have seen on here--AND, I have been guilty of this myself! We all have ideas of whether NL helped or did not help with the murder, or helped to cover up things. The problem I have is that we know very little about her, and for us to say things about how she feels about the murder is not logical. I don't even know how CL feels about it, and he is the one who we know has been arrested!

The only things we know about NL are these:
1. She had a baby at 15 or 16 and married the father soon after
2. She may or may not have said the things about CL to IM as we heard from IM (who is not reliable at this point)
3. On her Pinterest account she has a ton of posts that we CAN use to assess her character at least a little bit, and I'm not sure I see someone who would be proud of a husband for murder. The most I can say is that she was sad and angry about the affair (based on the posts), but who wouldn't be?

When applying for their marriage application, she was 17. When they actually got married, we don't know. But she was at least 17.

Since the child is 6, we can validly assume (depending on the child's birthday, as NL's is in April of 1991, which makes her 23 now), NL was at least 17 when the child was born.

 

[77DarkHorse7]

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.

Except that relationship did last for at least these past two months? Why should she be less angry that he continued the affair just because the mistress is gone? If he already had an affair twice in those six months(time which included her finding out about it the first time 'round), what should make her think he won't find some other chickee-babe to do it again. Obviously it makes her angry and hurt, just not enough to want to end it with him, and he knows that, so NL finding out is a screwed up motive. And no one's paying child support to a woman who was married to someone else at the time of conception, especially when there's no legal reason to question the parenthood.

 

[Mrs. Gladden]

In wondering if NL was involved in planning or carrying out the death of Erin, I repeatedly go back to the information that was in the Probable Cause Affidavit. Erin told JT (the friend in TN) that Lee was worried if his wife discovered Erin was pregnant, Lee's wife would divorce him and keep him from his child. JT forwarded text messages from Erin to support this claim. So, if NL knew about the pregnancy, either CL wasn't aware that she knew or CL never told Erin that she knew.
I lean toward the belief that NL had no idea about the pregnancy. If that is the case, why would she want Erin dead? Because of the affair? Doubtful, I would think.
Now, did she help cover up the murder. I just don't know. I change my mind daily.

 

[nikb]

Last line in picture caption " the mine featured in this picture is not the mine corwin was found,but it is in the same general area."

I noticed that on the second mine photo (with the guy walking on the board) but I wonder if that's true for the first pic in the article too, where they're showing someone being lowered into a mine. This one:



I must say after seeing this pic and others of mines in the area holy cow those are scary. Seems like it would be SO EASY to accidentally fall into one if it wasn't sealed/covered. I assume based on LE's comments they must have evidence it was more than 'just' a fall. Which makes me think again that CL is really not that bright... or SUPER cocky (I'll get away with it!)... or maybe (I can hope right?) he didn't want Erin to suffer? He could've easily made it look like they went out there together for some sort of tryst and she accidentally fell. She still would've died, sadly, although I bet she would have suffered quite a bit.

Sure he would've had to admit to going somewhere with Erin but it would have been a lot harder to bring charges of murder and "lying in wait" if he just came out and said "we went out there together for one last fling before I moved to Alaska, and she slipped and fell." He could even tack on "I didn't come forward right away because I didn't want my wife/her husband to know." He still would've been in trouble with both LE and his wife, but IMO it wouldn't have been that hard to pass the whole thing off as an accident. I'm assuming they must have something that shows it was more than 'just' an accidental fall. ugh. I'm not even sure I want to know.

 

[nikb]

THANK YOU!!!!
So if I am reading this correctly...after a divorce, she COULD testify about CL but doesn't HAVE to. Is that correct? But she CANNOT release "communications." I take that to mean both physical (like texts) or if he said "I murdered her." But it sounds like she can say "I do not know where CL was on the day of June 28th, but I do know the Jeep was full of tires, rebar and (other things) when he got back, etc etc).

Does that sound right?

It's really confusing. It also sounds like CL can essentially 'make' her not testify even if she wants to, depending on which source you read and how you read it.

 

[Bernina]

When you think about it...........the motive could be totally invalid:

1. EC might not have been pregnant
2. It might have been JC's child
3. No one was going to spill the beans to the Military if there wasn't a paternity test down the road
4. NL and CL were on their way to Alaska

So there's a possibility that EC was murdered on sheer speculation by EC, CL, and possibly NL.

But the biggest reason that EC's body never be found? DNA connecting CL to the baby, whereas his family looses all their military benefits because CL was still on "Active Duty" and in an adulterous relationship that could be conceivably proven.

I'm going to take it bit further: During the Viet Nam war, my 1st Ex got his girlfriend pregnant, the minute he turned 17, his folks signed him into the Marines so he could support his GF and soon to be child. During one of his leaves, he got his GF pregnant a 2nd time. Her parents would NOT sign to let their daughter get married.

What if CL was signed, by his parents, into the military because he got NL pregnant? Isn't he a year younger than NL? Nothing says "security" to a teenage gal than having their old man join the military. I've seen this quite a few times, specially in small towns where the job prospects are at a minimal. My son's childhood best friend did this, and while he was in the military, married and divorced 2 underage girls, and had 1 child each from them.........:facepalm: Seriously, dude is on his 3rd marriage and 3rd child, like WTH?

Guess I'm rambling......

 

[Seajay]

When we work on these cases, we NEVER know the people involved. Unless someone comes to join as an insider, who actually does know the people involved?

So we never know them, what they want, what they think, nothing. So everything we discuss here is SPECULATION, based on common sense, our knowledge of crime, etc.

I fail to see why it's an issue that we discuss what these people might have felt or what their motive might have been for any of these crimes here we discuss. If we can't do that, we might as well be like any FB page that we are only allowed to offer prayers to.

Here, we are trying to brainstorm to find out WHY a certain individual would commit a crime. What happened to the harmed or missing person. If we are to take speculation of what these players think and felt off the table, we might as well just go search online for recipes and not bother coming here. Ya know??? IMO, MOO.

 

[Bernina]

In wondering if NL was involved in planning or carrying out the death of Erin, I repeatedly go back to the information that was in the Probable Cause Affidavit. Erin told JT (the friend in TN) that Lee was worried if his wife discovered Erin was pregnant, Lee's wife would divorce him and keep him from his child. JT forwarded text messages from Erin to support this claim. So, if NL knew about the pregnancy, either CL wasn't aware that she knew or CL never told Erin that she knew.
I lean toward the belief that NL had no idea about the pregnancy. If that is the case, why would she want Erin dead? Because of the affair? Doubtful, I would think.
Now, did she help cover up the murder. I just don't know. I change my mind daily.

I'm thinking CL told NL because he was scared he was going to loose his honorable discharge. It was all about the pregnancy and a dishonorable discharge. (I still don't think he's the brightest bulb in the bunch)

Plan A: CL and NL decide pregnancy must go away. CL told EC the NL would divorce him and he'd loose contact with his daughter to convince EC of "other" alternatives, ie, abortion. EC refused. (seriously, this is a bogus excuse by CL, no one can keep you from your child unless you've done something criminal)

Plan B: CL and NL decide EC must disappear. CL pretends to be happy about pregnancy, we'll make it work, let's go celebrate. EC ends up dead in a mine. No body, no crime.

It's not about the affair, NL continued to pack for Alaska even AFTER the texts were given to LE about the pregnancy and the celebratory day in the desert. If NL was angry about this repeat of the affair, she would have left CL. EC's pregnancy was going to destroy everything that NL had planned for herself and her family's future. And NL thoroughly believed this had been "eliminated".

It was all about holding on to the "Honorable Discharge" and the benefits.