GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #31 *Arrest*

[Gigglingtoes]

They subpoenaed 2 of the PPD detectives from the affidavit.

ETA:

Leave it to cat patrol, the bomb.com to include this so we don't have to search the Internet

 

[misslu]

Does anyone know if the ID show is reairing? I was out of the country and missed it. Wish I had DVR'd it!!

Never mind, I clicked on the thread posted. (Duh!) Interesting stuff! Off to play catch up...

 

[Bootsctr]

Does anyone know if the ID show is reairing? I was out of the country and missed it. Wish I had DVR'd it!!

It's not showing again this week. There are links posted to Youtube of the Lone Star Mystery on CM's ID thread though - if you can watch YouTube.

 

[Bootsctr]

Leave it to cat patrol, the bomb.com to include this so we don't have to search the Internet

Yes, she's the cat's meow! :cat: :heart:

 

[SaintGirl]

Jmo, I think what we know about EA and the arrest is pretty strong as groundwork for a circumstantial case, of kidnapping at least and possibly even murder. Many cases are circumstantial for the most part; usually these types of crimes do not come with eye witnesses, photos of the act, etc. If I were to hear about EA's lies, possible injuries, the car cleaning, the being late to work, the DNA of the missing person in his trunk, his being on video with her just before she was never heard from all (all texting stopped, etc...) honestly I would lean toward conviction right now. And I was really pro-EA at first, in thinking he was nothing more than an innocent bystander.

Jmo

I agree with you....I would lean that way as well. DNA in the trunk is not circumstantial and coupled with everything you listed above....

 

[Gigglingtoes]

Is it unusual for LE to be subpoenaed? I would imagine the defense is trying to get some info from them that justifies the $1 mil bond.

No.
I once had a dumb cop write me a ticket that was supposed to be for Jay walking (yes california is insane) and he wrote the wrong code down for the ticket and gave me a traffic violation. I had to get the court to re open the case bc I had to just pay it to not get into trouble and they had to subpoena him to tell his "side" of the story. It was really not an interesting story!!! La tee da I crossed when the hand was blinking and not the little green man.

Obviously it wasn't a missing person case (bc here I am!) but I'm sure cops get subpoenas for their versions of events on all types of cases.

 

[SaintGirl]

Does anyone know if the ID show is reairing? I was out of the country and missed it. Wish I had DVR'd it!!

If it hasn't already been posted.... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1KntVsaAB40&feature=youtu.be&app=desktop

 

[Bootsctr]

Is he missing?

:dunno: I certainly want to hear more of his story.... :notgood:

 

[SaintGirl]

They are subpoenas duces tecum, so probably for the two detectives - Busby and Stamm. It just means that they have to bring the evidence (not just part of this evidence) to show the court/defense that supports the arrest warrant/charge. The defense attorney is simply mapping the possible appeal and gathering evidence...as is required by the state bar for a vigorous defense.

In this case, I think the defense is looking for transcriptions of all witness statements. Also, reviewing police/prosecution's actions vis-a-vis the Rules of Evidence and Civil Procedure.

I think many people believed this attorney was a step down from Paul Johnson or the one the court thought it had appointed. To this point, though, he seems pretty capable.

Well he spelled Paulina's last name wrong. Not sure that's a great start. (of course it could be typo....)

 

[Gigglingtoes]

She also had to be at work on Saturday. Why didn't she just call in sick from PP's apartment to her job instead of insisting on driving back to Fort Worth?

Maybe she didn't have any sick days.

 

[Gigglingtoes]

I'll search for you.

I think I have a link for u

 

[Bootsctr]

Well he spelled Paulina's last name wrong. Not sure that's a great start. (of course it could be typo....)

fftopic: But speaking of car-cleaning and lies and LE being subpoenaed and DNA of a missing person being found in a trunk and now misspelled words, does anybody remember what word Jose Baez spelled wrong on one of his posters he used in court? :floorlaugh: Yeah! That was one for the books. Now he's got a death penalty case under his belt. Certainly boosted his career. Sorry for the fftopic: Back to Christina.

 

[Gigglingtoes]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5qAj0Hu2XS8

Ta da!

 

[Bootsctr]

I think I have a link for u

Where should I look?

ETA: Never mind! Ask and you shall you receive. Thanks Gigglingtoes!

 

[SteveS]

Jmo, I think what we know about EA and the arrest is pretty strong as groundwork for a circumstantial case, of kidnapping at least and possibly even murder. Many cases are circumstantial for the most part; usually these types of crimes do not come with eye witnesses, photos of the act, etc. If I were to hear about EA's lies, possible injuries, the car cleaning, the being late to work, the DNA of the missing person in his trunk, his being on video with her just before she was never heard from all (all texting stopped, etc...) honestly I would lean toward conviction right now. And I was really pro-EA at first, in thinking he was nothing more than an innocent bystander.

Jmo

It's interesting and admirable you say that. I saw an NBC Dateline murder case documentary on Saturday, and it was amazing as it showed how hard it is for people who become "invested" in one particular suspect, early in a case when not much is known. When that turns out not to be the person who did it, there are many who simply refuse to accept what the evidence turns out to be saying.

In the TV documentary, it was about a trusted Hispanic farm hand Robert who was killed by a rigged bomb out in the fields where he worked. Early on, it was believed that Pete, a hot-headed son-nephew of the owner, who had had run-ins with Robert, had done it. But, he didn't really fit the profile as to the ability to having the skill to create the intricate bomb. Soon thereafter, LE began to get some taunting mail from the killer about the bomb and about killing the deceased's brother who also worked on the farm, and from it they were able to (a) find proof that the letters must have come from Paul, a cousin of Pete who also lived on the farm but had a history of major violence that had been buried legally (Pete had no criminal record and no history of violence), and (b) found DNA on the mailing that, while they couldn't get enough DNA to prove it was Paul, it was enough that definitively eliminated Pete and left Paul as the only who was a "possible" match. All the evidence pointed to the cousin, and lots of it eliminated the first guy from being possible.

The DNA evidence was not allowed at trial, since it wasn't enough to say it had to be Paul and the judge wouldn't even allow the suggestion. He also barred the testimony about his violent past, since it was a different case. Despite that, Paul was convicted, and the evidence was so compelling that the jury didn't have to deliberate very long.

But, the documentary noted, a large number of people in the small town still - without any proof, and with a conviction and a mountain of proof to the contrary - to this day believe that Pete did it and Paul was wrongfully accused, or still try to contrive convoluted ways that Pete must have been involved too (a possibility that LE examined, and found didn't fit the facts at all). It's so hard to let go, when we focus on one suspect, to adjust the focus elsewhere when the evidence goes there.

 

[Bootsctr]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=5qAj0Hu2XS8

Ta da!

That is a most excellent link :tyou: :heartbeat:

 

[Gigglingtoes]

It's interesting and admirable you say that. I saw an NBC Dateline murder case documentary on Saturday, and it was amazing as it showed how hard it is for people who become "invested" in one particular suspect, early in a case when not much is known. When that turns out not to be the person who did it, there are many who simply refuse to accept what the evidence turns out to be saying.

In the TV documentary, it was about a trusted Hispanic farm hand Robert who was killed by a rigged bomb out in the fields where he worked. Early on, it was believed that Pete, a hot-headed son-nephew of the owner, who had had run-ins with Robert, had done it. But, he didn't really fit the profile as to the ability to having the skill to create the intricate bomb. Soon thereafter, LE began to get some taunting mail from the killer about the bomb and about killing the deceased's brother who also worked on the farm, and from it they were able to (a) find proof that the letters must have come from Paul, a cousin of Pete who also lived on the farm but had a history of major violence that had been buried legally (Pete had no criminal record and no history of violence), and (b) found DNA on the mailing that, while they couldn't get enough DNA to prove it was Paul, it was enough that definitively eliminated Pete and left Paul as the only who was a "possible" match. All the evidence pointed to the cousin, and lots of it eliminated the first guy from being possible.

The DNA evidence was not allowed at trial, since it wasn't enough to say it had to be Paul and the judge wouldn't even allow the suggestion. He also barred the testimony about his violent past, since it was a different case. Despite that, Paul was convicted, and the evidence was so compelling that the jury didn't have to deliberate very long.

But, the documentary noted, a large number of people in the small town still - without any proof, and with a conviction and a mountain of proof to the contrary - to this day believe that Pete did it and Paul was wrongfully accused, or still try to contrive convoluted ways that Pete must have been involved too (a possibility that LE examined, and found didn't fit the facts at all). It's so hard to let go, when we focus on one suspect, to adjust the focus elsewhere when the evidence goes there.

And now no one has to watch it thanks to Steve it's all here :giggle:

I saw that episode too. I'm a dateline lover. It does prove a valid point too.

 

[Bootsctr]

It's interesting and admirable you say that. I saw an NBC Dateline murder case documentary on Saturday, and it was amazing as it showed how hard it is for people who become "invested" in one particular suspect, early in a case when not much is known. When that turns out not to be the person who did it, there are many who simply refuse to accept what the evidence turns out to be saying.

In the TV documentary, it was about a trusted Hispanic farm hand Robert who was killed by a rigged bomb out in the fields where he worked. Early on, it was believed that Pete, a hot-headed son-nephew of the owner, who had had run-ins with Robert, had done it. But, he didn't really fit the profile as to the ability to having the skill to create the intricate bomb. Soon thereafter, LE began to get some taunting mail from the killer about the bomb and about killing the deceased's brother who also worked on the farm, and from it they were able to (a) find proof that the letters must have come from Paul, a cousin of Pete who also lived on the farm but had a history of major violence that had been buried legally (Pete had no criminal record and no history of violence), and (b) found DNA on the mailing that, while they couldn't get enough DNA to prove it was Paul, it was enough that definitively eliminated Pete and left Paul as the only who was a "possible" match. All the evidence pointed to the cousin, and lots of it eliminated the first guy from being possible.

The DNA evidence was not allowed at trial, since it wasn't enough to say it had to be Paul and the judge wouldn't even allow the suggestion. He also barred the testimony about his violent past, since it was a different case. Despite that, Paul was convicted, and the evidence was so compelling that the jury didn't have to deliberate very long.

But, the documentary noted, a large number of people in the small town still - without any proof, and with a conviction and a mountain of proof to the contrary - to this day believe that Pete did it and Paul was wrongfully accused, or still try to contrive convoluted ways that Pete must have been involved too (a possibility that LE examined, and found didn't fit the facts at all). It's so hard to let go, when we focus on one suspect, to adjust the focus elsewhere when the evidence goes there.

Sounds like I missed a good one... I'm not so much focused on one suspect as focused as more than one person being involved. Everyone says EA is dumb as dirt then how has he pulled off hiding CM's body so well? I am of the belief EA could have handed Christina off to someone else and that is why LE is having a hard time finding a body. Now, I cannot rule out the fact he simply dumped her in a dumpster and that her remains will never be found. But in my mind, I don't have proof that she is deceased either, and it seems that NOBODY is talking yet. Maybe somebody will talk on the 15th. That is my hope!

 

[Gigglingtoes]

:dunno: I certainly want to hear more of his story.... :notgood:

Idk what your emojis and subliminal message is lol
You must feel he's holding back info I guess..?

 

[Bootsctr]

And now no one has to watch it thanks to Steve it's all here :giggle:

I saw that episode too. I'm a dateline lover. It does prove a valid point too.

Before DNA, cases were solved mostly by circumstantial evidence. The world is a changing though. :floorlaugh: Cell phone pings aren't DNA either and just because someone's cell phone pings somewhere doesn't mean that person was actually there, only the cell phone. :razz: :blowkiss: :dance: :slap: :whoosh: