GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #38 *Arrest*

[alterholic]

Good post, DaisyTrail!

Eileen, I LOVE that you're playing devil's advocate. Seriously, I do.

However, IMO, *if* there was ANY possibility that she did not end up in that trunk on that morning as a direct result of EA - I have to ask WHY he hasn't said anything yet. This guy went on TV and lied NUMEROUS times about everything under the sun.

To ME, if the DNA did NOT get there that morning, WHY did he lie initially about entering the garage with her? From the get go, he distanced himself from that garage at 3:58 AM. When he got caught on camera, he then distanced himself from being near CM's parked car. Two red flags for me.

To ME, if someone had BORROWED his car, WHY did he tell officers initially he took Bethany (I think? Have to go look. Anyway, the alternate route from 121) home that morning? To ME, that would be one of the first things I would say: "Woah woah woah, This car has not been in my possession." To my knowledge, that never happened in ANY interview. Personally, I think he's one of "those" car guys -- very proud of his sports car and if I were taking bets I'd say he didn't allow most, if any, to DRIVE it - let allow BORROW it. Mom, dad, brother.. maybe, but what would they be doing with CM? AWFULLY coincidental if so.

I understand your points and I think they are valid. You cannot timestamp DNA. But at this point, the fact that alternatives have not been offered AND lies have been told to skew the assumptions made by LE is pretty telling.

The ONLY skew I can partially see is that he may be scared of someone/something (ie cartel) and isn't talking and truly may not know what happened to CM if he dropped her to someone, BUT that doesn't change the AK charge.

 

[zippixx]

Good post, DaisyTrail!

Eileen, I LOVE that you're playing devil's advocate. Seriously, I do.

However, IMO, *if* there was ANY possibility that she did not end up in that trunk on that morning as a direct result of EA - I have to ask WHY he hasn't said anything yet. This guy went on TV and lied NUMEROUS times about everything under the sun.

To ME, if the DNA did NOT get there that morning, WHY did he lie initially about entering the garage with her? From the get go, he distanced himself from that garage at 3:58 AM. When he got caught on camera, he then distanced himself from being near CM's parked car. Two red flags for me.

To ME, if someone had BORROWED his car, WHY did he tell officers initially he took Bethany (I think? Have to go look. Anyway, the alternate route from 121) home that morning? To ME, that would be one of the first things I would say: "Woah woah woah, This car has not been in my possession." To my knowledge, that never happened in ANY interview. Personally, I think he's one of "those" car guys -- very proud of his sports car and if I were taking bets I'd say he didn't allow most, if any, to DRIVE it - let allow BORROW it. Mom, dad, brother.. maybe, but what would they be doing with CM? AWFULLY coincidental if so.

I understand your points and I think they are valid. You cannot timestamp DNA. But at this point, the fact that alternatives have not been offered AND lies have been told to skew the assumptions made by LE is pretty telling.

The ONLY skew I can partially see is that he may be scared of someone/something (ie cartel) and isn't talking and truly may not know what happened to CM if he dropped her to someone, BUT that doesn't change the AK charge.

BBM
If for some incredibly strange & unlikely reason there was "Big-Time" involvement (which is completely beyond my belief), I sorta doubt "they" would leave anyone around to talk about it... (imo)

 

[Lolly85x]

I'm trying so hard to think how CM's DNA ended up in the trunk, without EA's assistance, and I can't think of any logical explanation.

LE have more evidence, I'm sure of that. But even with what we know now, I can't see any other explanation than EA commuting this horrendous crime.

One thing that does play on my mind is the phone pings... Why did he go home. Then return.
I'm guessing there will be hundreds of phone's pinging from towers. Would LE be able to tell if anyone else's phone pinged around the same time as EA and CM. Say if EA went somewhere to pick someone up for some reason, then returned to the shops, and there phone pinged? Would LE need a warrant or anything to trace who the pinged phone belong to. (Hope that makes sense it's s bit long winded)

 

[daisytrail]

I'm trying so hard to think how CM's DNA ended up in the trunk, without EA's assistance, and I can't think of any logical explanation.

LE have more evidence, I'm sure of that. But even with what we know now, I can't see any other explanation than EA commuting this horrendous crime.

One thing that does play on my mind is the phone pings... Why did he go home. Then return.
I'm guessing there will be hundreds of phone's pinging from towers. Would LE be able to tell if anyone else's phone pinged around the same time as EA and CM. Say if EA went somewhere to pick someone up for some reason, then returned to the shops, and there phone pinged? Would LE need a warrant or anything to trace who the pinged phone belong to. (Hope that makes sense it's s bit long winded)

I am thinking those pings, if they are the only ones that LE have, are going to be the most difficult challenge for the prosecutor for constructing a narrative that the jury can follow and make sense of. One other hand, I cannot see how they will be useful to the defense. Any thoughts?

As things stand right now, I just cannot see EA taking the stand to explain it all. He would have to hone his skills at lying, I'm a thinking.

 

[Lolly85x]

I am thinking those pings, if they are the only ones that LE have, are going to be the most difficult challenge for the prosecutor for constructing a narrative that the jury can follow and make sense of. One other hand, I cannot see how they will be useful to the defense. Any thoughts?

As things stand right now, I just cannot see EA taking the stand to explain it all. He would have to hone his skills at lying, I'm a thinking.

I doubt he will say anything, which in my mind speaks volumes.

I'm hoping LE has more pings, and can show more of a pattern. Maybe not CM but EA's phone should have certainly remained pinging. Even during the night until he went to work, there should be a trail... Unless he switched his phone off, not a crime I know, but adds to my suspicion.

 

[Doj1234]

I am thinking those pings, if they are the only ones that LE have, are going to be the most difficult challenge for the prosecutor for constructing a narrative that the jury can follow and make sense of. One other hand, I cannot see how they will be useful to the defense. Any thoughts?

As things stand right now, I just cannot see EA taking the stand to explain it all. He would have to hone his skills at lying, I'm a thinking.

Thinking through the pings also... LE wasn't just dumping useless information into the affidavits, so to mention them in the affidavit makes me wonder. It is almost like it is a start to further evidence that was never complete. Perhaps LE was in front of the judge verbally adding color to that piece because they didn't want to publicly release something. **im referring to the granite park pings**

 

[SteveS]

Lrc143, Zippixx, Doj1234, Yupikgirl, Daisytrail, Alterholic, Lolly85x

You each make excellent points in a different unique ways, that all highlight the same truth.

(From what we know) LE has a compelling case with all kinds of evidence to prove EA did this crime, and EA has no believable answer to that case.

It can be theorized that "something else happened" but that something else has to be believable enough that it makes the jury have serious doubts about LE's version of events. A vague "maybe something else happened" isn't enough with evidence (including the actions and statements of EA) like this. EA needs to have an OBVIOUS and EASILY-UNDERSTOOD-AND-BELIEVED answer in court, to explain all the hard evidence plus his own actions and lies that point the finger squarely at himself, and no one here at WS has ever come up with one. (I don't think one exists, frankly.)

And ultimately, CM's trial will be about getting to the truth and to justice, not a game where EA tries out one magic story after another to let him wriggle out of the consequences of committing kidnapping and perhaps murder, and jurors understand that. They will not be eager to let a bad guy walk free, and will act accordingly imo.

 

[Lolly85x]

I'm putting my money on EA saying 'he doesn't remember that night' 'he blacks out when drinking/taking drugs' I can hear it now!

 

[SteveS]

I am thinking those pings, if they are the only ones that LE have, are going to be the most difficult challenge for the prosecutor for constructing a narrative that the jury can follow and make sense of. One other hand, I cannot see how they will be useful to the defense. Any thoughts?

1 The pings we know of make one obvious, clear, easy point. The point they make: we have further confirmation that CM was in EA's car, as she traveled the same path as EA and at the same time. Combined with the DNA, it leaves no doubt she was somewhere in that car when he exited the garage at 3:58 or so.

2 I don't see any narrative problem. LE's narrative doesn't need to explain every step EA took from 3:58 to 11 am or later. The crime is about CM, and what happened to her, so it's not about proving precisely when, but rather that at some point, maybe 3:57 or maybe some time later, she was IN HIS TRUNK and there's your AK. Once the crime was fully committed (ie, she is IN HIS TRUNK), then where he went and what he did afterward is kinda irrelevant to the point that he committed the crime already. (We do want to discover where he went later, to try to find CM, but "where is she" isn't the crime itself.)

3 I think there are likely to be other pings, that show more things, but if those other things are irrelevant to the crime itself, then they don't matter.

 

[Doj1234]

I'm putting my money on EA saying 'he doesn't remember that night' 'he blacks out when drinking/taking drugs' I can hear it now!

Me too, they won't go over very well to the jury though since he offered factual explanations in his police and televised interviews. To explain what happened, then claim blackout after PPD confronts you on the errors won't fly.

 

[Doj1234]

1 The pings we know of make one obvious, clear, easy point. The point they make: we have further confirmation that CM was in EA's car, as she traveled the same path as EA and at the same time. Combined with the DNA, it leaves no doubt she was somewhere in that car when he exited the garage at 3:58 or so.

2 I don't see any narrative problem. LE's narrative doesn't need to explain every step EA took from 3:58 to 11 am or later. The crime is about CM, and what happened to her, so it's not about proving precisely when, but rather that at some point, maybe 3:57 or maybe some time later, she was IN HIS TRUNK and there's your AK. Once the crime was fully committed (ie, she is IN HIS TRUNK), then where he went and what he did afterward is kinda irrelevant to the point that he committed the crime already. (We do want to discover where he went later, to try to find CM, but "where is she" isn't the crime itself.)

3 I think there are likely to be other pings, that show more things, but if those other things are irrelevant to the crime itself, then they don't matter.

Ah yes, that was the reason for the granite park pings to be in the affidavit, thx!

 

[Woe.be.gone]

IMO- I do not think this is an important as other things.

Here is how I see it and of course I could be wrong:

1. EA was arrested withing a few days of CM's DNA hit on his car
2. LE collected DNA evidence from his car but could not tell a.) it was CM until it was tested and b.) that there were two profiles until it was tested
3. We don't know if LE asked him.. if they did, I would bet he said NO
4. I don't think LE would have had enough for a SW for his DNA UNTIL CM's DNA came back as positive (which they got when he was arrested).

This is my opinion obviously, seems like regular police procedure. I don't think they can just take DNA willy nilly, they need a reason and CMs DNA hit was that reason. Starting to feel like SteveS with my numbered bullet points

LE can ask people whose names come up surrounding a case to give their DNA "willy nilly".
The person has the right to say yes or no.
Those who say "yes" are usually omitted from the suspect list immediately upon LE receiving their DNA profile.

 

[zippixx]

LE can ask people whose names come up surrounding a case to give their DNA "willy nilly".
The person has the right to say yes or no.
Those who say "yes" are usually omitted from the suspect list immediately upon LE receiving their DNA profile.

BBM
That is correct. LE probably asked him for it, but also advised that it was his choice at the time.... and I guess EA said "no thank you".. That is why LE did not have his sample...

Here is some easy-to-read info on DNA collection. This is dated 2008, so it should still be accurate.

http://www.councilforresponsiblegenetics.org/pageDocuments/I6W7Q3D7RM.pdf

 

[Woe.be.gone]

From the beginning, one of the issues within the case is that LE made a statement they were still investigating. LE made clear throughout that they haven't ruled anybody out
(beyond the AK charge I guess).

There are many cases when LE proclaims they believe the suspect acted alone.
Therefore, it isn't surprising some of us wonder if anybody else is involved with Christina's disappearance.

For the posters who believe EA acted alone, even though they don't come right out and say it, believe anyone who questions someone else may be involved must be clueless idiots.
How are LE's comments justified or why should we not believe LE?

At least now, it took long enough, EA will be brought to trial on the AK charges.
Hope the trial is scheduled asap so we can all hear all of the evidence LE has gathered.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

What's going on within WS?
My last post showed up three times and I've lost the ability to set the number of posts per page.

 

[SCHMAE]

I'm putting my money on EA saying 'he doesn't remember that night' 'he blacks out when drinking/taking drugs' I can hear it now!

That'll be pretty hard to do after having had talks with LE about the parking garage, etc., but I'm sure he will try. You are right.
Did we determine that the new charges are related to his gf? TIA

ETA By 'we' I mean ' you '

 

[zippixx]

From the beginning, one of the issues within the case is that LE made a statement they were still investigating. LE made clear throughout that they haven't ruled anybody out
(beyond the AK charge I guess).

There are many cases when LE proclaims they believe the suspect acted alone.
Therefore, it isn't surprising some of us wonder if anybody else is involved with Christina's disappearance.

For the posters who believe EA acted alone, even though they don't come right out and say it, believe anyone who questions someone else may be involved must be clueless idiots.
How are LE's comments justified or why should we not believe LE?

At least now, it took long enough, EA will be brought to trial on the AK charges.
Hope the trial is scheduled asap so we can all hear all of the evidence LE has gathered.

The way I see it, LE doesn't owe "us" a thing, as far as information, on an active investigation. What they have chosen to say publicly is only what they want us to hear & may or may not be what is actually going on.. and I, for one, have absolutely no problem with that...

 

[BaeMomma]

I personally don't think it's being clueless or idiotic to wonder if anyone else is involved, but what evidence is there to support that?

LE statement that they haven't ruled anyone out....is this the sole reason (of evidence) for thinking others are involved?

Serious question, WBG I really want to understand.

I think we should all be able to discuss theories, except there is a lot of frustration from both sides when thoughts, inquiries, assumptions aren't fully explained in detail. When they're just thrown out without depth or explanations based on currently known evidence it's not easy to repsond and discuss or accept other points of view.

 

[jennapuppy]

From the beginning, one of the issues within the case is that LE made a statement they were still investigating. LE made clear throughout that they haven't ruled anybody out
(beyond the AK charge I guess).

There are many cases when LE proclaims they believe the suspect acted alone.
Therefore, it isn't surprising some of us wonder if anybody else is involved with Christina's disappearance.

For the posters who believe EA acted alone, even though they don't come right out and say it, believe anyone who questions someone else may be involved must be clueless idiots.
How are LE's comments justified or why should we not believe LE?

At least now, it took long enough, EA will be brought to trial on the AK charges.
Hope the trial is scheduled asap so we can all hear all of the evidence LE has gathered.

My personal opinion is that LE may have believed that someone possibly helped EA dispose of evidence after the crime had been committed. (ie: the "to do" list that was found in the garbage). That doesn't necessarily mean that someone helped him to plan and carry out the kidnapping - just that afterwards he asked someone to help him clean up and cover his tracks.
IMO

 

[Woe.be.gone]

The way I see it, LE doesn't owe "us" a thing, as far as information, on an active investigation. What they have chosen to say publicly is only what they want us to hear & may or may not be what is actually going on.. and I, for one, have absolutely no problem with that...

For what purpose though? LE doesn't owe us a thing, okay, but why make a statement regarding suspects at all? To keep everyone on edge and wondering?