GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #36 *Arrest*

[Lolly85x]

I've wondered what the daily routine is & if EA communicates much with his roomie..

I wonder. I seen a couple of aggrivated kidnapping cases. And one had the murder charge too. Very scary place with some really horrible people.

 

[daisytrail]

Great post! I personally have not looked up "the dog that didn't bark", but you have me curious so I will do that now! To add on to what you are saying, IMO, this reminds me of "you cant prove a negative". If someone said "I don't believe EA had nefarious involvement in the disappearance of CM" and I stated my opinion, which is "I believe EA is nefariously involved in the disappearance of CM", I would bear the burden of proof in that statement, much like a prosecutor does in a criminal case. In owing the burden of proof, I would cite the presence of CM's DNA in the trunk of his car. I could then go on to cite the circumstantial evidence: lies to LE, the injuries (substantial enough for LE to have photographed), the late arrival to work the next day, the odd behavior in cleaning his vehicle in the CCTV footage, the alibi not checking out in regards to the messages to his g/f, the damage to the vehicle, and the cleaning supplies and notes in his trash.
In addition, I could say "so far, it doesn't appear as though anyone else was involved" and someone may dispute that by saying "it would appear as though others were involved". In this exchange, the owner of the latter statement would be responsible for the burden of proof. To ensure I was understanding the theory of proving a negative correctly, I stumbled upon this wikipedia page, which I found fairly interesting, for anyone who would like to read it, it is attached below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

That is a wonderful link which you posted. I bookmarked it to my logic folder. I refer to my logic folder on occasion. I am often handicapped, however, by my complete lack of understanding of statistical analysis. Still, I do have some yearning aspirations to possess skills that defy my declining age. :whoosh:

 

[Mamamerced]

That is a wonderful link which you posted. I bookmarked it to my logic folder. I refer to my logic folder on occasion. I am often handicapped, however, by my complete lack of understanding of statistical analysis. Still, I do have some yearning aspirations to possess skills that defy my declining age. :whoosh:

I love logic, too, DT. My son has a Master's in Statistics and it's just gobbledygook to me, and Nick patronizes me, so my brain really shuts off then. Definitely not my thang, either. Lol

The Dog That Didn't Bark sounds like a Malcolm Gladwell essay or book.

 

[MzOpinion8d]

For all we know it could have been a phone that HF regularly sent received drugs phonecalls/texts to. There's nothing I have seen that says otherwise.

CM's phone records would indicate the number she is calling to reach HF. EA's phone records would do the same. HF's records for the phone attached to that number would indicate the incoming calls/texts. He may have been able to clear some info but there is still a trail that can't be erased. And I am certain that every number that HF had contact with from August 1st on is known to LE due to the drug investigation.

 

[b.humble]

You're welcome. I had to look it up too. It kinda takes the fun out of all of the mugshots you see on the internet with people wearing shirts that say something really stupid or ironic. :giggle:

Ha! I'm glad I'm not the only person who gets a giggle out of unfortunate timing. I've never had the honor of a mug shot, and certainly don't intend on putting it onto a bucket list, but if I ever ended up on the wrong side of the law it would be my luck to be forever frozen in time, wearing only one earring, face covered in mascara streaks, a chipped tooth, and a dirty T-shirt that says "Jesus is my Homeboy"

 

[zippixx]

Ha! I'm glad I'm not the only person who gets a giggle out of unfortunate timing. I've never had the honor of a mug shot, and certainly don't intend on putting it onto a bucket list, but if I ever ended up on the wrong side of the law it would be my luck to be forever frozen in time, wearing only one earring, face covered in mascara streaks, a chipped tooth, and a dirty T-shirt that says "Jesus is my Homeboy"

I have never had a mug shot either, although there are a handful of times where I probably should have... With that said, you can rest assured that if you are arrested in Collin County, they will cover your dirty t-shirt with a nice clean fluffy towel...:cheers:

 

[daisytrail]

This I found very interesting!
Since dealers can't exactly calls the cops for help, they're at the mercy of anyone who feels like ripping them off

.Cairi's brush with unruly dealers was a tad more extreme: After her husband got arrested, her clients knew that she was home alone with a ton of cash and drugs. "A couple of people -- I think I know who it was, old clients -- showed up in ski masks, held a gun to my head, ransacked the house, took a bunch of money, and took off."
http://www.cracked.com/article_21183_6-unexpected-things-i-learned-from-being-drug-dealer.html

I liked this Cracked article, Eileen. I suspect it is more true than not.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Great post! I personally have not looked up "the dog that didn't bark", but you have me curious so I will do that now! To add on to what you are saying, IMO, this reminds me of "you cant prove a negative". If someone said "I don't believe EA had nefarious involvement in the disappearance of CM" and I stated my opinion, which is "I believe EA is nefariously involved in the disappearance of CM", I would bear the burden of proof in that statement, much like a prosecutor does in a criminal case. In owing the burden of proof, I would cite the presence of CM's DNA in the trunk of his car. I could then go on to cite the circumstantial evidence: lies to LE, the injuries (substantial enough for LE to have photographed), the late arrival to work the next day, the odd behavior in cleaning his vehicle in the CCTV footage, the alibi not checking out in regards to the messages to his g/f, the damage to the vehicle, and the cleaning supplies and notes in his trash.
In addition, I could say "so far, it doesn't appear as though anyone else was involved" and someone may dispute that by saying "it would appear as though others were involved". In this exchange, the owner of the latter statement would be responsible for the burden of proof. To ensure I was understanding the theory of proving a negative correctly, I stumbled upon this wikipedia page, which I found fairly interesting, for anyone who would like to read it, it is attached below:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence_of_absence

As I was posting my post (my it is not even evidence post), the proving a negative thought actually crossed my mind! What class was that concept taught in anyway, debate?
I ignored my thought because I'm only expressing my feelings about the case (in some posts). I'm not trying to argue HF did it and not EA; just that the existence of HF and his behavior stands in the way of believing EA acted alone. We're not in the courtroom. Considering LE stated others may have been involved and hasn't recanted the comment afaik, my brain is holding onto the idea.
I'm still wondering but some posters don't approve. I'm not accusing (am I?), I'm still just wondering (about two or three other people actually).
Feelings and hunches don't convict people afaik. They influence our thoughts though.

I'm not familiar with the Sherlock Holmes silent dog explanation either.
I'll have to look that one up tomorrow.

 

[cluciano63]

OT, from what I recall. A dog NOT barking in the night when he should have, turned out to be a major clue in a murder case, lol.

 

[Steleheart]

OT, from what I recall. A dog NOT barking in the night when he should have, turned out to be a major clue in a murder case, lol.

Didn't Nicole Brown have a dog that didn't bark? Maybe it's another case I am thinking of.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

OT, from what I recall. A dog NOT barking in the night when he should have, turned out to be a major clue in a murder case, lol.

If it is the case I'm thinking of that I can't identify at the moment - lol! - the fact the dog didn't bark clued LE that the perp was no stranger.
Sort of like how LE always points out when there aren't any signs of forced entry therefore the victim either knew the perp or opened the door willingly (so at least familiar with the perp).

Is that a logical comparison? It is beyond the highest possible brain functioning time. :cuckoo:

 

[Eileen730]

I believe they wrap a towel around them as to not identify what color or type shirt they have on.
for instance if a crime was committed an the witness saw a man in a red shirt she wouldn't identify the guy by his red shirt they would have to look at faces.

 

[cluciano63]

Kind of OT...but in the current case of the missing teen in the UK (Rebecca) police are stressing a particular car, i.e presumably signs of her were found in car, and asking the public if they had seen it and where, over a three-day period. I can't recall if L.e in Christina's case plastered the media with images of EA's car, asking for help, in that first week or so...hope so. Sometimes they have to forget the secrecy and go to the public ASAP. Jmo

 

[zippixx]

As I was posting my post (my it is not even evidence post), the proving a negative thought actually crossed my mind! What class was that concept taught in anyway, debate?
I ignored my thought because I'm only expressing my feelings about the case (in some posts). I'm not trying to argue HF did it and not EA; just that the existence of HF and his behavior stands in the way of believing EA acted alone. We're not in the courtroom. Considering LE stated others may have been involved and hasn't recanted the comment afaik, my brain is holding onto the idea.
I'm still wondering but some posters don't approve. I'm not accusing (am I?), I'm still just wondering (about two or three other people actually).
Feelings and hunches don't convict people afaik. They influence our thoughts though.

I'm not familiar with the Sherlock Holmes silent dog explanation either.
I'll have to look that one up tomorrow.

BBM I think some posters may not "agree", but it's not that they "don't approve".. (at least that's my way of thinking) Everyone has a right to their opinions & ideas!

 

[daisytrail]

As I was posting my post (my it is not even evidence post), the proving a negative thought actually crossed my mind! What class was that concept taught in anyway, debate?
I ignored my thought because I'm only expressing my feelings about the case (in some posts). I'm not trying to argue HF did it and not EA; just that the existence of HF and his behavior stands in the way of believing EA acted alone. We're not in the courtroom. Considering LE stated others may have been involved and hasn't recanted the comment afaik, my brain is holding onto the idea.
I'm still wondering but some posters don't approve. I'm not accusing (am I?), I'm still just wondering (about two or three other people actually).
Feelings and hunches don't convict people afaik. They influence our thoughts though.

I'm not familiar with the Sherlock Holmes silent dog explanation either.
I'll have to look that one up tomorrow.

I am wondering if HF will be called as a witness, not necessarily because of anything he might know, but to set the stage. After all, they were still living together as a couple when Christina went missing. He would be an extremely problematic witness for the prosecution, I think. I actually have this fear that the defense may try to call him, but then again, I watched too much Perry Mason as a child.

I do think some of the issues which you raise might actually figure into the trial.

 

[cluciano63]

Defense may offer him up as an alternate suspect...but I doubt he will be asked to testify by anyone. Others can fill in what HF might say, since the texts are mainly the issue as far as HF is concerned. They don't really need him for that, unless to state he lost his phone...jmo

 

[b.humble]

As I was posting my post (my it is not even evidence post), the proving a negative thought actually crossed my mind! What class was that concept taught in anyway, debate?
I ignored my thought because I'm only expressing my feelings about the case (in some posts). I'm not trying to argue HF did it and not EA; just that the existence of HF and his behavior stands in the way of believing EA acted alone. We're not in the courtroom. Considering LE stated others may have been involved and hasn't recanted the comment afaik, my brain is holding onto the idea.
I'm still wondering but some posters don't approve. I'm not accusing (am I?), I'm still just wondering (about two or three other people actually).
Feelings and hunches don't convict people afaik. They influence our thoughts though.

I'm not familiar with the Sherlock Holmes silent dog explanation either.
I'll have to look that one up tomorrow.

Goodness, I hope I haven't implied that I'm so self important that I wouldn't approve of another contributors differing opinion or thought. The basis for my post was to spring board from another contributor's thought and add on to it, not that it needed it; just sharing what it made me think of. I also wasn't asking anyone to prove their thoughts or theories to me, I was trying to state that if you have a differing thought or opinion, freely state it, but share with your readers the facts you believe contribute to the theory, not so we can reject it, but so we may receive it with clarity and understanding.
I can only speak for myself, but I enjoy the sharing of ideas and thoughts, even when I don't agree with them. Subjectivity is something that should always be open for respectful debate! If I have caused anyone to feel as though I have "rejected" their thoughts or theories, I apologize, sincerely. If I have come across that way, please allow me to offer a virtual handshake and call a truce to anyone I may have offended. I will also explain something personal about myself that may be helpful to how I am received. I am contrarian by nature; it is how I learn. I don't know if you are familiar with Richard Feynman, but he was a scientist who gave several famous commencement speeches. His exploration of science and the theories he developed come from a basis of humility, a trait I deeply respect and admire. He has a quote where he says scientific integrity is "bending over backwards to show how you may be wrong.", which completely appeals to the contrarian in me. I question everything, myself included, I explore why an idea could be right and why it could be wrong and if anyone perceives me poking holes in their theories please know it's because I poke a dozen, if not more, in my own before posting. I don't post theories for a need to be "right", that's just not interesting, at all. I post for the sake of learning and/or gaining new perspectives I may not have previously stumbled onto on my own. I post because I would like others to poke holes in my theory, where I may have overlooked. Also, here's another trait of mine, when I post thoughts, theories, or facts I tend to over explain and sometimes run the risk of coming across as a know it all, and believe me, I do not know it all. All I am hoping to achieve in that, is to give this community the respect it deserves by over explaining to show that I have put quite a bit of consideration and thought into my thoughts/theories, presenting the facts I believe support it, and articulating it in a way that supports ease of reader's understanding (ex: is what I'm saying easily understandable or is it muddy due to being too heavy on words, or is it not well supported by facts or logic?). That's just me and I don't have to be right, as I stated earlier, that's not interesting. I have learned a tremendous amount from the posters here, even the ones I haven't necessarily agreed with. If I can pay that back, or even forward by I passing a nugget or two along of what I've picked up along the way, then that's all I can hope for!

p.s.: I actually don't remember where I stumbled upon "proving a negative". It has a scientific basis rather than debate and is used in forensics, law, mathematics, and other sciences so I probably came across it in school somewhere.

 

[Steleheart]

Guys, you need to be careful about what your posting when it comes to Hunter. You can discuss the fact that he was arrested and for what but nothing more. He is not a suspect in this case and discussing as fact or theory that he is some how involved with Christina missing is not allowed. Unless you can link to something showing he's involved knock it off!

:bump:

BBM: Honestly I would really hate for the thread to be closed.

We want to find Christina and get her justice.


:cow:

 

[frisson]

Woe, I appreciate your thoughtful, salient posts and most of all your compassion and kindness to fellow posters.

That is all.

 

[Lrc143]

Steve I know her DNA was found but there are ways
to get DNA in a vehicle without murdering a person.

When drugs are the reason a crime is committed there is silence all around.
Lies are told!
No one knows anything or anyone.

Is he guilty maybe probably!
Im just not 100 percent sure.

This Little Lady had a lot going on in her short life and NONE of it was GOOD!

EA is in Jail and not getting out.
HF is in jail ans as I see it hes not getting out.

Way behind, but I feel as though the bold is a rather unfair statement towards CM. She doesn't deserve any of this, no matter what. And yes, I know you are not saying that she deserved it... but it is unfair to say that nothing good was going on in her life.