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

[Eileen730]

I can see all this if it were drug related.
He wanted ROCK.
HF is drug dealer.

I think this story would be easier to convince a jury!

 

[SteveS]

Here is a Wikipedia article with a whole slew of them:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_(criminal_law)

Now what I am wondering is if the prosecution has to prove that EA intended these things whether they actually happened or not. I know that sounds strange, but what if someone kidnaps someone for the purpose of rape but for some reason does not actually perform the rape? Is it his intention that counts, in which case there would exploration of his state of mind. I think the fancy legal term is mens rea, which I learned before I skimmed the wiki article by watching Legally Blonde.

For a conviction, the state must prove that the defendant committed the "elements" of the crime ie they have to meet the particulars of a violation of the statute.

The particulars applicable to this case are contained in clause "(a)" (including subclauses) in the statute, and would include
- an abduction,
- done intentionally or knowingly, and
- with an intent listed.
It does not say that the intent had to come to fruition, but if it did, that would make it easier to prove that as an intent. Only one intent needs to be proven to obtain a conviction of AK, the operative word in the statute being the word "or" between the last two items that I have bolded. The indictment itself lists multiple intents that they believe existed, but in the trial the jury only needs to find one to be proven. This provides the state flexibility in the way they prove the charges, and doesn't tip their hand to the defense as to which (if any) of the variations they will focus on in the trial itself.

Here's the AK statute.

§ 20.04. AGGRAVATED KIDNAPPING.
(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person with the intent to:
(1) hold him for ransom or reward;
(2) use him as a shield or hostage;
(3) facilitate the commission of a felony or the flight after the attempt or commission of a felony;
(4) inflict bodily injury on him or violate or abuse him sexually;
(5) terrorize him or a third person; or
(6) interfere with the performance of any governmental or political function.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person intentionally or knowingly abducts another person and uses or exhibits a deadly weapon during the commission of the offense.
(c) Except as provided by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a felony of the first degree.
(d) At the punishment stage of a trial, the defendant may raise the issue as to whether he voluntarily released the victim in a safe place. If the defendant proves the issue in the affirmative by a preponderance of the evidence, the offense is a felony of the second degree.

 

[brado]

Not surprised at all that EA was indicted. Hopefully one step closer to getting some answers. Now on to the arraignment where he will enter his not guilty plea.

 

[cluciano63]

Maybe EA had a "rape kit" in his car.

 

[alterholic]

I think its important to remember a couple of things here:

1) WE DO NOT KNOW EVERYTHING THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT HAS. I feel like the snark has been turned up since I last was on WS looking at this case, and I have to say, I feel like it would be more prudent to civilly discuss either how the charges fit what we know, or what we would need in order to get to the charges. But the back and forth of "well, I don't see how they can charge that because they only have x,y, and z which doesn't mean squat" is getting tiresome. We don't know what else they have. I, for one, believe they've only put enough out there to keep the case moving forward - but they aren't showing the big guns just yet.

2) Speaking of "how they can charge x", LAW ENFORCEMENT IS COVERING THEIR BASES. Whether or not he intended to sexually assault CM is beside the point. Maybe they have something on him for that. Maybe their story is flimsy at best. But, as stated multiple times, they provided THREE possible reasons for the AK charge -- only ONE needs to stick to get him the conviction. Going back to #1, we DO NOT know what all they have.

-----

I hate to admit it, but I'm losing hope in finding CM anytime soon. After six months, he's obviously hidden her well. And, despite being the "right" thing to do, the likelihood of him "giving up" where he hid her is small at best. IF she's dead, and he knows where the body is, giving her up would only solidify a murder charge against him. Some on this thread are doubting the reasoning behind the AK... think about it from his point. Flimsy AK charge to some jurors, possibility of getting NG charge or light sentence vs a body and murder charge. I think JM can protest til the cows come home, it's not going to convince him.

I hope I'm wrong. I hope the protesting is wearing him and his family out. I know I was against the picketing back in October/November when it first started, but I've eaten crow there and can say I'm happy he took the bait. But I just don't know that it'll happen a second time.

The good news is, I've been binge watching Forensic Files and it's given me hope. :laughing: There was an episode the other night where investigators basically knew what was happening, but had to wait to prove it. It took two years, but they got a confession: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=er5nGQCmZ98

Here's hoping this case moves more quickly, for CM and her family.

 

[Eileen730]

But how do they prove HE did it?

The dna in the trunk?
what if someone else had access to that car in those days after?
How do they know the dna ended up in the car that night?

 

[daisytrail]

But how do they prove HE did it?

The dna in the trunk?
what if someone else had access to that car in those days after?
How do they know the dna ended up in the car that night?

If the DNA is in the form of blood and the blood is Christina's, can you tell me what natural circumstance would lead her to get in to his trunk and bleed? I know getting the time when things occurred right when presenting a legal case is important, but certain other items of evidence make it rather narrow here: His physical condition and lateness on returning to work; the condition of the car when he returned to work; the fact that he is on video with her and no one else was when they walked to the garage; the fact that the exited the garage relatively soon after entering it; the fact that his car and hers were parked in close proximity in the garage.

Even in the unlikely circumstance that someone else was directly, physically involved in her kidnapping, this would in no way mitigate EA's own involvement.

I sometimes feel sorry for SteveS here because he does such patient yeoman's work of repeating over and over that she was in the trunk, but the DNA evidence indicates that she was in the trunk.

 

[Eileen730]

If the DNA is in the form of blood and the blood is Christina's, can you tell me what natural circumstance would lead her to get in to his trunk and bleed? I know getting the time when things occurred right when presenting a legal case is important, but certain other items of evidence make it rather narrow here: His physical condition and lateness on returning to work; the condition of the car when he returned to work; the fact that he is on video with her and no one else was when they walked to the garage; the fact that the exited the garage relatively soon after entering it; the fact that his car and hers were parked in close proximity in the garage.

Even in the unlikely circumstance that someone else was directly, physically involved in her kidnapping, this would in no way mitigate EA's own involvement.

I sometimes feel sorry for SteveS here because he does such patient yeoman's work of repeating over and over that she was in the trunk, but the DNA evidence indicates that she was in the trunk.

[modsnip]

What IM trying to say is...
Just because her DNA is in HIS car does not mean HE put her in the TRUNK.


Yes Her DNA is in there but when did it get there?
that morning?
few days after?
did someone borrow the car?


Just questions?

 

[Lrc143]

But how do they prove HE did it?

The dna in the trunk?
what if someone else had access to that car in those days after?
How do they know the dna ended up in the car that night?

I'm thinking that the male DNA mixed with hers WILL be his. I don't doubt that LE already has this info and is just not sharing it. Wish they would though, it sure would clear up a lot of things!

ETA: Not including all the circumstantial evidence they have as well as the physical.

 

[Lrc143]

I think this is important!

Detectives said the DNA profile of an unknown male was also discovered. Plano PD did not have a DNA sample from Arochi to compare the unknown sample to until his Dec. 13 arrest for aggravated kidnapping. It has not been revealed if the sample has tested positive for his DNA.

http://m.starlocalmedia.com/allenam...822-c780-11e4-ac91-e3d0b09e3a70.html?mode=jqm

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

 

[frisson]

[modsnip]

What IM trying to say is...
Just because her DNA is in HIS car does not mean HE put her in the TRUNK.


Yes Her DNA is in there but when did it get there?
that morning?
few days after?
did someone borrow the car?


Just questions?

THIS! ^^^ Eileen

Also, does anyone have the LE interviews with EA? -- the ones played at the bond hearing?
TIA.

 

[Doj1234]

I'm thinking that the male DNA mixed with hers WILL be his. I don't doubt that LE already has this info and is just not sharing it. Wish they would though, it sure would clear up a lot of things!

ETA: Not including all the circumstantial evidence they have as well as the physical.

Much of the case may depend on that DNA, let's hope it tells a clear story. It is hard for me to think of a non-kidnapping possibility that doesn't also involve unicorns and rainbows. But, I would like to hear alternative scenarios that include the evidence that we have.

 

[SteveS]

But how do they prove HE did it?

The dna in the trunk?
what if someone else had access to that car in those days after?
How do they know the dna ended up in the car that night?

IMO there is no reasonable alternative explanation for how CM's DNA could have entered his TRUNK, that would fit the totality of the evidence.

Keep in mind that EA's multiple tales of what happened (or didn't) are part of the evidence. But you can't reconcile those words with the other evidence, and it's not going to be believable for him now to go into the courtroom and come up with some some sort of new explanation of what happened to CM. Common sense is tough on a defendant like EA who invents wild tales to try to mislead LE.

At the end of the day, LE doesn't have to prove the case "beyond any wild explanation that anyone can concoct" but only beyond a "reasonable" doubt, and I don't think there's anything reasonable that the defense can come up with (in light of his own actions and prior explanations) to explain how EA had her DNA in HIS TRUNK without CM having been put there against her will.

 

[suzyjackson]

Evidence does not lie!

People do!

You're right Eileen and it looks like the GJ agree, they didn't believe EA's lies and were convinced enough by the evidence presented to them.

It seems to me that they came to a decision very quickly, is that the usual situation?

 

[yupikgirl]

If I am to try and believe/think that she was put in the trunk by someone else...then why does it all stop at EA? That's where I get hung up. If she didn't leave with him the evidence would go another direction. Her car, phone, etc. didn't go anywhere else. For me to believe any of this I would have to believe that EA is taking the fall for someone else IMO. I don't believe that IMO. Is it possible? Maybe. Is it probable? Not IMO

 

[Doj1234]

[modsnip]

What IM trying to say is...
Just because her DNA is in HIS car does not mean HE put her in the TRUNK.


Yes Her DNA is in there but when did it get there?
that morning?
few days after?
did someone borrow the car?


Just questions?

You are right in that the DNA doesn't provide any time or date stamp and EA isn't the only person to ever drive the car I'm sure. Those are minor hurdles, IMO, for the prosecution to overcome given the lies that EA told. The next step would be to provide a believable alternative answer as to how the DNA got there. Maybe there are others, but the first that comes to mind is that he was framed. But, by who and why? My problem with that is that i would have to jump to a conspiracy theory that probably involved cartels and gangsters. It's just too much for me to jump there with what we know.

 

[zippixx]

You're right Eileen and it looks like the GJ agree, they didn't believe EA's lies and were convinced enough by the evidence presented to them.

It seems to me that they came to a decision very quickly, is that the usual situation?

Yes, and apparently the judge felt the same way at the bond & probable cause hearing. The decisions are made quickly. when the evidence is obvious... jmo

IMO, the defense has their work cut out for them... and personally, I don't believe "someone borrowed his car" is gonna fly with a jury.

 

[zippixx]

You are right in that the DNA doesn't provide any time or date stamp and EA isn't the only person to ever drive the car I'm sure. Those are minor hurdles, IMO, for the prosecution to overcome given the lies that EA told. The next step would be to provide a believable alternative answer as to how the DNA got there. Maybe there are others, but the first that comes to mind is that he was framed. But, by who and why? My problem with that is that i would have to jump to a conspiracy theory that probably involved cartels and gangsters. It's just too much for me to jump there with what we know.

Yep... way too sloppy for a conspiracy..

 

[daisytrail]

[modsnip]

What IM trying to say is...
Just because her DNA is in HIS car does not mean HE put her in the TRUNK.


Yes Her DNA is in there but when did it get there?
that morning?
few days after?
did someone borrow the car?


Just questions?

Thank you for your very courteous reply, Eileen. I do feel that there may be some confusion and I want to make absolutely sure I understand what you are trying to say with your questions. For instance, are you trying to ask if anyone here has absolute proof in the form of answers to your questions. I would say not at this point because at this point there are many things that are just not knowable. LE may know some of these but the best people here can do is talk about what is plausible or probable given reasonable scenarios.

I would like to ask that you present your alternative scenario that may be in the back of your mind when you ask these questions, but not yet explicitly stated. I would be saddened if I thought that you felt censored and thus restricted in your ability to be frank.

I am going to number your questions and very simply restate them so that they may be dealt with individually:

1. Christina's DNA is in the trunk of EA's car, did it get there that morning?
2. Did it get there a few days after?
3. Did someone else borrow EA's car?

Now, I know that some people may feel that they are inhibited from being frank about their doubts. However, there is certainly a way to posit various scenarios that fit those doubts by simply not using names. Or one could even make up names! One could say for instance that John Doe and John Smith were also involved in the crime.

To the first matter on the list, I will acknowledge that there are different ways that Christina's DNA could have ended up in the trunk without her actually ever having been there, but I think these are unlikely. So I am going to assume that Christina's DNA is in the trunk because she was there. Now my question to you is do you affirmatively believe that it did not get there that morning? If so, why do you believe that?

To the second matter on the list. It is not impossible that it got there later. One possibility is that Christina exited the garage in the passenger seat. Therefore, the time she ended up in the trunk would have been later maybe? So where was she until she was put in the trunk? Please posit your alternative scenario.

To the third question on the list, I will have to say that the word 'borrow' means with permission. If someone borrowed the car, that person would have had to have EA's permission. Who would that be in your scenario? Or did you mean to use a word besides 'borrow?'

It would get us some distance, I think, if you would acknowledge that the burden of proof lies with the believer. Many of us in agreement with the evidence provided by LE have offered our scenarios. It would be a shame if you were not given the same opportunity to theorize upon your own questions. I do not believe TOS would prevent you from doing so, providing that you are discreet about names. You clearly believe something is up. Do you believe someone is trying to frame EA? For what motive? Do you believe LE has falsified or manipulated evidence? Again, from what motive?

Just questions.

 

[BaeMomma]

Great post Daisytrail!