GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 Aug 2014 - Enrique Arochi kidnapping trial #3

[truetexan]

Is this the same blanket maybe http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...arie-Morris-23-Plano-30-August-2014-35/page60

 

[allmybecsloveme]

It was on Facebook comments.......when I saw it.

Do what you wish, just saying I remember it being deleted lol multiple x

I think it was even talked about in court.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk

 

[Gigglingtoes]

Is this the same blanket maybe http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...arie-Morris-23-Plano-30-August-2014-35/page60

ohhhh shitoke mushrooms..

 

[SteveS]

If the defense doesn't put up CA, will the prosecution be able to bring up in closing he was EA's alibi for getting home?

The prosecution can use anything and everything that EA said, especially (but not limited to) what he said to them, and it would generally be admissible as long as they have the other party to the conversation on the stand.

On the broader topic of all the things EA has said, they've already done a very solid job of getting EA's lies entered into the record repeatedly, without EA ever taking the stand, haven't they? That both closes the door for him to give yet another version of "the truth" by testifying, and also cuts his knees out from under him because he gets stuck with the lies he told - that help show his guilt - as his "official" side of the story for the jury.

 

[Gigglingtoes]

The prosecution can use anything and everything that EA said, especially (but not limited to) what he said to them, and it would generally be admissible as long as they have the other party to the conversation on the stand.

On the broader topic of all the things EA has said, they've already done a very solid job of getting EA's lies entered into the record repeatedly, without EA ever taking the stand, haven't they? That both closes the door for him to give yet another version of "the truth" by testifying, and also cuts his knees out from under him because he gets stuck with the lies he told - that help show his guilt - as his "official" side of the story for the jury.

Do you mean the news reporter that interviewed him being put up there or EA himself when you say "the other party to the conversation"

 

[SaintGirl]

I don't know that they'd want to provide him an "alibi". If he doesn't provide one for himself, I don't think the State would introduce the possibility that he had an alibi. To my knowledge, nothing about CA has been brought up at all, even in Opening arguments.

My arm chair prosecutor mind thinks that if CA doesn't take the stand, it's a perfect opportunity to say to the jury you didn't hear from the the one person EA said saw him between the hours of 3 - 11 am. Why? Maybe he didn't want to perjure himself.

 

[SteveS]

Do you mean the news reporter that interviewed him being put up there or EA himself when you say "the other party to the conversation"

Even though the question asked was about some specific interview or conversation, I really was trying to make the answer more general. My point was - Whoever EA has talked to, in the history of ever, can generally be called into court to testify, and tell what EA said in that conversation. As long as the content is relevant to the case, of course, and one side or the other wants to use it. That could include an EA conversation with a reporter, a brother, a friend, a stranger, LE, whoever. There are a few exceptions, but they are very limited.

 

[MIKAYOYO]

The prosecution can use anything and everything that EA said, especially (but not limited to) what he said to them, and it would generally be admissible as long as they have the other party to the conversation on the stand.

On the broader topic of all the things EA has said, they've already done a very solid job of getting EA's lies entered into the record repeatedly, without EA ever taking the stand, haven't they? That both closes the door for him to give yet another version of "the truth" by testifying, and also cuts his knees out from under him because he gets stuck with the lies he told - that help show his guilt - as his "official" side of the story for the jury.

Even though the question asked was about some specific interview or conversation, I really was trying to make the answer more general. My point was - Whoever EA has talked to, in the history of ever, can generally be called into court to testify, and tell what EA said in that conversation. As long as the content is relevant to the case, of course, and one side or the other wants to use it. That could include an EA conversation with a reporter, a brother, a friend, a stranger, LE, whoever. There are a few exceptions, but they are very limited.

This is where I'm curious. Is what he talked about with others not hearsay? And again I ask about Casey Anthony, what was she saying prior to her trial? Wasn't it totally different than what was presented as defense? I know that's Florida but just am curious.

 

[DietDrPepper]

Valerie Wigglesworth ‏@vlwigg yesterday
Judge: Will anyone say we cracked the code? Prosecutor: No, your honor. The code is not cracked. #arochitrial

If we find out later that the letters spell out where he left Christina, I'm going to blow a gasket in my brain. The message may be in Spanish.

Did LE ever take the jar of oil and letters to a chemist to find out what's in it? Why haven't they brought it to a brujo to let someone see it and smell it? I'll bet they could find one in Dallas if they enlist the help of Spanish-speaking local LE in a border town or Houston to make some inquiries. They have until Monday. Git 'er done.

 

[Gigglingtoes]

Even though the question asked was about some specific interview or conversation, I really was trying to make the answer more general. My point was - Whoever EA has talked to, in the history of ever, can generally be called into court to testify, and tell what EA said in that conversation. As long as the content is relevant to the case, of course, and one side or the other wants to use it. That could include an EA conversation with a reporter, a brother, a friend, a stranger, LE, whoever. There are a few exceptions, but they are very limited.

Any thoughts as to why his brother isn't on the witness list even though he was there when he got home PER EA

 

[MIKAYOYO]

Any thoughts as to why his brother isn't on the witness list even though he was there when he got home PER EA

IMO we haven't seen the defense witness list. Only 20 witnesses have been sworn in and IMO that's just prosecution. I could totally be wrong but it seems about right unless defense plans on not calling any witnesses and surely that's not the case. Moo

 

[SteveS]

This is where I'm curious. Is what he talked about with others not hearsay?

The rule is that it would be considered hearsay if neither of the participants in the conversation were on the witness stand telling about it. In other words, if some outsider came into court and wanted to tell about the content of a conversation between EA and his neighbor, the outsider's information about that conversation is hearsay, and is only allowed under some exception to the hearsay rule.

But the neighbor can generally testify about what was said by each of them, and so can EA, as each was there and part of the conversation.

(Respectfully, I don't want to use analogies from other trials, or discuss their details here, because it can be confusing and those events have no ramifications on this trial.)

 

[TCMom]

IMO we haven't seen the defense witness list. Only 20 witnesses have been sworn in and IMO that's just prosecution. I could totally be wrong but it seems about right unless defense plans on not calling any witnesses and surely that's not the case. Moo

The 20 who were sworn in were just the first "possible" 20. It was a housekeeping measure to move things along. I watched a number of people get sworn in on Tuesday 1 by 1 as they came in to testify. And at least 1 was skipped because the judge recognized him and said "I swore you in the other day, didn't I?"

 

[MIKAYOYO]

The 20 who were sworn in were just the first "possible" 20. It was a housekeeping measure to move things along. I watched a number of people get sworn in on Tuesday 1 by 1 as they came in to testify. And at least 1 was skipped because the judge recognized him and said "I swore you in the other day, didn't I?"

So there could be more right?

 

[TCMom]

So there could be more right?

Oh yes, absolutely.

 

[Orgona]

I'm always surprised that some people think they know everything which was said in court after only reading 20-30 tweets of each reporter about the court proceedings of 6 to 8 hours. Not to mention that those tweets from different reporters are sometimes even conflicted. It's a given that what we can read in the tweets is just a tiny bit of what was said in court. This is not all of the data and testimony the Jury has heard, just the amount of data which the journalists decided to share with us and what they think is important or interesting.There is a lot we didn't hear, so we are not in the position to say that the prosecution hasn't given/shown enough, as we could only say that if we sat through the day of testimonies and heard everything.

By the way by "some people" above I didn't mean anybody in particular. Just thinking out loud.

In this case even with this little shared information I already have heard enough. It's clear Christina was in his trunk. It's also clear she wouldn't get inside there willingly. It's clear EA lied countless times, like about where he parked, and that he left Christina in the parking garage. Cearly Christina's phone went with EA from the garage and their phone pings together after that, most likely until Christina's battery died as she said in a text that it would happen. Is also clear EA and his car sustained injuries after leaving the Shops at Legacy, and he lied about that too. Nobody has seen any injuries on EA that night while they all went out together and nobody saw him limping. After he parted the group, a few hours later he suddenly had bruises (and scratches IIRC) and was limping too. All this is not even close to being all what was shown and said to the Jury, there is much more extra detail we have no idea about because we weren't in the courtroom. The best examples are the reports written by TCMom. They are much more detailed than what we have heard from the press. Thanks again TCMom!

 

[Gigglingtoes]

They just had a prosecutor on the news saying the concerns with viewing the Camaro today are the logistics of setting up the court reporter to record it all, the protection of the identity of the jurors and the media trying to make a big circus with it.

 

[SaintGirl]

Tow truck has brought Camaro to courthouse. [video=twitter;776755569554100224]https://twitter.com/mhernandezwfaa/status/776755569554100224[/video]

 

[SaintGirl]

Police officer to testify before jury views Camaro.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2016/09/16/jurors-in-christina-morris-case-could-leave-to-see-car/

 

[SaintGirl]

More video of Camaro for the non-Tweeters
[video=twitter;776759224093114370]https://twitter.com/vanessabrowntv/status/776759224093114370[/video]