Bootsctr: "Is it possible Christina could have had some molly on her that night she was out with friends? Could she have gotten willingly in the car with EA to smoke a joint, popped the molly thinking it would make the trip back to Fort Worth not seem as long and had a reaction? She's seen in the ID Discovery show wearing a molly t-shirt as she is washing her car before she moves out with ALP and in with HF."
As we speculate about all these ideas of what CM might have done, wonder if she did, imagine what possibly could have happened, imagine some drugs and what-not, and so on, it probably needs to be noted that none of this is likely to be said or explored in EA's trial at all. The jury will be looking at a very different range of possibilities..
That's because it takes evidence, not mere speculation that it's possible, to get something into a trial.
If EA wants to testify as to the fact that events like that did happen, then yes the defense could open that door and argue in that direction. (Do I think there's much chance he'll testify? Nope, not at all. That would be a nightmare for the defense imo. But I guess ya never know until we get there.)
So assuming he won't testify, then there'd be no one to claim she took drugs after she left the house, because he's not talking and she's not available. And we have no body with drugs in it, to tell us something. And we probably have no evidence that either CM or EA had drugs on their person. With all due respect to those who are talking about the drugs (only trying to add a bit of perspective, not trying to rain on you or your parade), I haven't seen a single drug-related note that any DA couldn't keep out of this trial on his worst day. Isn't close to the standard.
The drug angle, using what we know, is all a dead-end evidence-wise. Trials are about evidence and what that evidence shows.
