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

[nikb]

I'm still not convinced the military would've even bothered to re-enlist him and then dishonorably discharge him, even if Erin was pregnant and the child was his. He wasn't a high ranking officer, and he wasn't going to be a problem for them anymore once he moved. Now that the case has gotten so much publicity, maybe they will... but if he had just quietly moved away to Alaska I think they would've ignored the whole thing. JMO of course. It really gets me thinking about the motive.

 

[tvscum]

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.

The MSM articles are split on the age of the child, 6 or 7.

http://www.georgianewsday.com/news/...rder-erin-corwin-to-keep-family-together.html

http://www.militarytimes.com/articl...Marine-wife-Erin-Corwin-cover-People-Magazine

 

[phantomthought]

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:

View attachment 57713

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.

If you click the arrow on the bottom right of the picture you posted the picture enlarges and that caption comes up on the picture of them lowering someone down.

 

[nikb]

If you click the arrow on the bottom right of the picture you posted the picture enlarges and that caption comes up on the picture of them lowering someone down.

Oh I see it now, thanks! I still stand by the rest of my post, but good to know about the mine photo.

 

[Fascinated1]

:gaah: I feel like I'm reading a comment by a defense lawyer that can be taken 2 ways! :bricks: to ready for folks that are defense folks coming to threads , perhaps to test the waters for "reactions" to differing statements they can throw out for their client

Such a great observation--have been wondering this myself!!

 

[stayhomemommy]

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......

BBM: CL is older than NL. His birthday is September 89. Hers is April 91.

 

[tvscum]

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?

Here's how I understand it but I am not an attorney:

NL can never testify about private communications she had with CL during their marriage, whether she agrees to or not. (There are some limited exceptions that probably don't apply here).

If divorced at time of trial:
NL can be called to the witness stand whether she agrees to or not. She can be compelled to testify about any events she witnessed before, during, or after the marriage. She can be compelled to testify about private communications before or after the marriage only.

If married at time of trial:
NL cannot be called to the witness stand unless she agrees to it. This is her decision. If she agrees to be called, she can be compelled to testify about any events she witnessed before, during, or after the marriage. She can be compelled to testify about private communications before the marriage only.

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

http://www.shouselaw.com/privilege.html

 

[77DarkHorse7]

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.

There is only one source -> the legislated Evidence Codes for the State of California. The blog that keeps popping up is attempting to interpret (and not very well, I must say) those codes.

If your talking about communications (confessions to spouse etc.) apply this:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=00001-01000&file=980-987

In a criminal trial (where the victim is outside the family unit), unless the defendant allows it, the other spouse can't enter private spousal conversations into evidence, PERIOD! (spousal, meaning while they were/are married)

Any other testimony a spouse could possibly offer (what they saw, how their spouse appeared that day, etc) is covered by this:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=00001-01000&file=970-973

A married person has the explicit right not to bear witness against their spouse, and the prosecution cannot even call them to the stand without a written waiver by said spouse.
(and this section does not expressly state the privilege does not survive divorce, a judge would have to decide it's ambiguous intent)

 

[cluciano63]

Jmo I do not really think the military figured much into CL's motive, just the idea of his family and home life being wrecked, all due to Erin (in his mind). Whether baby was his or not, whether she was even pregnant or not, Imo, he believed she was and that she was behaving in a way that threatened his plans for the future. He could never be sure she was not not going to pop up some years down the line, i.e if she and JC split up, and ask for support. And he may have sworn to his wife that he had never been with Erin after Jan. or Feb, whenever she initially discovered the affair. So he would have that to deal with as well.

I really think he never expected Erin to be found and that at least some people would believe she had run off, or killed herself in despair. And truly, LE may not have gone ahead with murder charges if she hadn't been found. So he probably thought he had a good chance of never being charged. Maybe NL suspected something as soon as she heard about Erin being missing, which was likely before official word was out to the public, and he told her "no body, no crime" so she repeated it. She may have heard rumors as early as late Sat. that Erin could not be found.

All Jmo obviously

 

[Seajay]

I'm still not convinced the military would've even bothered to re-enlist him and then dishonorably discharge him, even if Erin was pregnant and the child was his. He wasn't a high ranking officer, and he wasn't going to be a problem for them anymore once he moved. Now that the case has gotten so much publicity, maybe they will... but if he had just quietly moved away to Alaska I think they would've ignored the whole thing. JMO of course. It really gets me thinking about the motive.

From what my Navy Ret. friend told me from the beginning, I have to agree with you. Only high ranking personnel, who could use their position to their advantage in an affair are usually on the military's radar for bring brought up on charges. A Corporal in the Marines, probably not. IMO

 

[nikb]

Jmo I do not really think the military figured much into CL's motive, just the idea of his family and home life being wrecked, all due to Erin (in his mind). Whether baby was his or not, whether she was even pregnant or not, Imo, he believed she was and that she was behaving in a way that threatened his plans for the future. He could never be sure she was not not going to pop up some years down the line, i.e if she and JC split up, and ask for support. And he may have sworn to his wife that he had never been with Erin after Jan. or Feb, whenever she initially discovered the affair. So he would have that to deal with as well.

I really think he never expected Erin to be found and that at least some people would believe she had run off, or killed herself in despair. And truly, LE may not have gone ahead with murder charges if she hadn't been found. So he probably thought he had a good chance of never being charged. Maybe NL suspected something as soon as she heard about Erin being missing, which was likely before official word was out to the public, and he told her "no body, no crime" so she repeated it. She may have heard rumors as early as late Sat. that Erin could not be found.

All Jmo obviously

I completely agree with everything you said. Especially, I think he thought she'd just disappear, he'd skip off to Alaska and start his new life, and the "problem" was gone.

 

[Hippiemomof5]

I'm trying to understand this... If my husband murders someone, and he confesses to me that he's murdered someone, I can not testify against him!? Is this correct?

 

[Jo in Calif]

I'm trying to understand this... If my husband murders someone, and he confesses to me that he's murdered someone, I can not testify against him!? Is this correct?

That is correct, unless he gives his permission for you to do so.

 

[nikb]

I'm trying to understand this... If my husband murders someone, and he confesses to me that he's murdered someone, I can not testify against him!? Is this correct?

I think that's right, if I'm reading the laws correctly. I don't understand it at all.

 

[tvscum]

There is only one source -> the legislated Evidence Codes for the State of California. The blog that keeps popping up is attempting to interpret (and not very well, I must say) those codes.

If your talking about communications (confessions to spouse etc.) apply this:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=00001-01000&file=980-987

In a criminal trial (where the victim is outside the family unit), unless the defendant allows it, the other spousecan't enter private spousal conversations into evidence, PERIOD! (spousal, meaning while they were/are married)

Any other testimony a spouse could possibly offer (what they saw, how their spouse appeared that day, etc) is covered by this:
http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=00001-01000&file=970-973

A married person has the explicit right not to bear witness against their spouse, and the prosecution cannot even call them to the stand without a written waiver by said spouse.
(and this section does not expressly state the privilege does not survive divorce, a judge would have to decide it's ambiguous intent)

Isn't that what I just posted in #587?

Under your Evidence Code:
970. Except as otherwise provided by statute, a married person has
a privilege not to testify against his spouse in any proceeding.

The entire code section only applies to married people, not divorced people.

 

[cluciano63]

That is correct, unless he gives his permission for you to do so.

I think the wife could tell police and then they could investigate and find evidence (hopefully) and not need testimony. Or is telling the police "testimony"?
Imo it is a very stupid law. Some spouses do not even live together, haven't for years, just never divorced. How much protection do killers need to have? If the wife is making it up for spite, she won't get far with it, people do that all the time. But if a person, wife or not, knows who murdered another person, it is insane they cannot testify to their knowledge. I mean, if someone plans a murder in CA, they should get married first, I guess.

Jmo

 

[tvscum]

Bottom line:
Private marital communication is off limits. If NL is married, she doesn't have to take the stand. If NL gets divorced, she does.

I think the wife could tell police and then they could investigate and find evidence (hopefully) and not need testimony. Or is telling the police "testimony"?
Imo it is a very stupid law. Some spouses do not even live together, haven't for years, just never divorced. How much protection do killers need to have? If the wife is making it up for spite, she won't get far with it, people do that all the time. But if a person, wife or not, knows who murdered another person, it is insane they cannot testify to their knowledge. I mean, if someone plans a murder in CA, they should get married first, I guess.

Jmo

She can tell the cops anything she wants.

 

[moonbeams]

We need Gitana (I think that's her name) to come in here and help us out with the spouse testifying issue!

 

[moonbeams]

I think the wife could tell police and then they could investigate and find evidence (hopefully) and not need testimony. Or is telling the police "testimony"?
Imo it is a very stupid law. Some spouses do not even live together, haven't for years, just never divorced. How much protection do killers need to have? If the wife is making it up for spite, she won't get far with it, people do that all the time. But if a person, wife or not, knows who murdered another person, it is insane they cannot testify to their knowledge. I mean, if someone plans a murder in CA, they should get married first, I guess.

Jmo

I was always under the impressing that it was the spouse's CHOICE whether or not they wanted to testify. But if they wanted to, they could!? But couldn't be forced to.


This law is freaking CRAZY!

 

[MzOpinion8d]

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?

Page 12 of the search warrant document says NL was being detained along with CL at that time due to the belief both might try to destroy or conceal evidence. That, along with the statements reportedly said by NL to the ranch owner IM, give me a pretty good idea of her mindset.

LINK: https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1225468-1765-001.html