GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #39 *Arrest*

[heather.scissorhands]

Afaik, it is not the job of the defense to carry the burden of proof.
Until the defense is privy to the evidence LE has turned over to the prosecution, how are they supposed to know the evidence they're defending against?
The defense has the right and the need to see the evidence beyond the initial reasons LE submitted to obtain warrants. The evidence came after the warrants.
We've not heard complete details about the DNA found in the trunk.
Why wasn't it found during the first two inspections of EA's vehicle?
The first inspection might have been just a quick look though.
Then, some confusion about how the rest unfolded which is why I want to hear the evidence presented in court.
The car was looked at three times. It wasn't until the third time the larger DNA evidence turned up?
I'm a bit confused and can't be helped until I hear the evidence presented by the prosecution as they explain how and when the DNA was discovered and submitted to the lab.
And explain exactly what the evidence consists of too!

BBM. I am worried about this because, as of right now, we really need the car and/or the house to be the crime scene.

They don’t have a body, they don’t have a cause of death if there was a death, and they don’t have a location (besides the car). I think the defense will argue that they went to a 2nd location and she went off on her own. I know there is DNA in the trunk, ok you guys, I don't need to be reminded, but I think they will try to fight the DNA evidence. Maybe bc it was so faint?

 

[SteveS]

BBM. I am worried about this because, as of right now, we really need the car and/or the house to be the crime scene.

They don’t have a body, they don’t have a cause of death if there was a death, and they don’t have a location (besides the car). I think the defense will argue that they went to a 2nd location and she went off on her own. I know there is DNA in the trunk, ok you guys, I don't need to be reminded, but I think they will try to fight the DNA evidence. Maybe bc it was so faint?

"we really need the car and/or the house to be the crime scene"

I don't agree at all. "Where did X happen" is not an element of the crime that the state must prove in any way. In addition, are you focusing on a crime that's not on trial? This case is probably not any more complicated than proving "he put her in his trunk" - ie abducted her - at some uncertain location.

"I know there is DNA in the trunk, ok you guys, I don't need to be reminded, but I think they will try to fight the DNA evidence."

You say that as if the DNA in the trunk is no biggie, when it is really the core of LE's case. Of course they will "try to fight" the DNA evidence, because they really have no choice in the matter.

But the fact they will try to "fight" the evidence doesn't mean they can really win on that front. And the difficult task of trying to cast doubt will be compounded by all the secondary evidence that tends to point to the same thing - the fact he was the last person she was known to be with, all his lies, the fact he showed up the next day very late to work, with his car and his person showing evidence of a struggle, and telling all sorts of conflicting stories about what happened.

"I think the defense will argue that they went to a 2nd location and she went off on her own."

He took her there after abducting her in his trunk? Then what happened after doesn't erase the fact he committed the crime. And, common sense says she didn't simply wander away once he abducted her, and simply forget to return home. That is such an unlikely story that I can't see the defense using it.

 

[heather.scissorhands]

I'm not saying the defense is smart, Steve. I'm just saying what I think might happen at the trial. Where both sides will argue this case.

 

[heather.scissorhands]

And, I do think the prosecution has a much stronger case (even of agg kidnapping) if they have a body/person, a crime scene, a witness, a strong motive or a cause of death. You can't really argue that, although I see no reason to argue anyway.

 

[SteveS]

And, I do think the prosecution has a much stronger case (even of agg kidnapping) if they have a body/person, a crime scene, a witness, a strong motive or a cause of death.

Sorry, but I don't agree at all. From the sidelines, it would seem like "more" should always be better, but it isn't always helpful. Extraneous issues can confuse the thinking of jurors, just like it does here.

If you have CM in the courtroom testifying, of course that helps. If you have a clear statement from EA revealing a desire to do the crime for some reason, of course that helps. Those are relevant. But trying to postulate a death, and where it might have occurred, that just muddies the waters.

This is a trial about an abduction, which is proven by the fact that EA put her IN HIS TRUNK where she never would have been willingly or for her welfare, and imo it makes no sense to complicate it. Simple case, simple proof, KISS and make it easy for the jury to see and convict.

 

[Doj1234]

"I know there is DNA in the trunk, ok you guys, I don't need to be reminded, but I think they will try to fight the DNA evidence."

You say that as if the DNA in the trunk is no biggie, when it is really the core of LE's case. Of course they will "try to fight" the DNA evidence, because they really have no choice in the matter.

But the fact they will try to "fight" the evidence doesn't mean they can really win on that front. And the difficult task of trying to cast doubt will be compounded by all the secondary evidence that tends to point to the same thing - the fact he was the last person she was known to be with, all his lies, the fact he showed up the next day very late to work, with his car and his person showing evidence of a struggle, and telling all sorts of conflicting stories about what happened.

SteveS, you probably already know that I tend not to give LE statements unchallenged credibility and my bias has become more skeptical over the last 8 months. I don't ask this to be a pain in your side but, can we really depend on DNA evidence , especially 'faint' DNA evidence? And can we be certain about the testimony of the 'experts?

Two weeks ago, we had the FBI crime lab admit that practically all 'expert' testimony prior to 2000 was flawed and overstated. A week earlier we had the former head of Atlanta's crime lab sue the police chief and prosecutor because he was fired as a result of testifying honestly but his testimony didn't support the prosecution of a case. There have also been challenges to DNA accuracy in other cases as well. Last month a prosecutor did a mea culpa because he withheld evidence when he was younger and more ambitious.

I realize that it's an evolving science and that the knife cuts both ways as far as freeing inmates because of DNA proof. But, with 'faint' DNA evidence, I would think that the defense might be able to challenge the science and implementation of the science successfully.

At the end of the day, I want EA convicted if guilty, but just see some potential challenges in front of the prosecution in preventing a juror to not doubt the evidence. If I sat on the jury, I would certainly need to be convinced.

 

[heather.scissorhands]

Sorry, but I don't agree at all. From the sidelines, it would seem like "more" should always be better, but it isn't always helpful. Extraneous issues can confuse the thinking of jurors, just like it does here.

If you have CM in the courtroom testifying, of course that helps. If you have a clear statement from EA revealing a desire to do the crime for some reason, of course that helps. Those are relevant. But trying to postulate a death, and where it might have occurred, that just muddies the waters.

This is a trial about an abduction, which is proven by the fact that EA put her IN HIS TRUNK where she never would have been willingly or for her welfare, and imo it makes no sense to complicate it. Simple case, simple proof, KISS and make it easy for the jury to see and convict.

BBM. Well, they are handing over a tarabyte of evidence for a no body case, we have to assume a lot of it is circumstantial or DNA based, right? Ad that's ALOT, right?

 

[SteveS]

SteveS, you probably already know that I tend not to give LE statements unchallenged credibility and my bias has become more skeptical over the last 8 months. I don't ask this to be a pain in your side but, can we really depend on DNA evidence , especially 'faint' DNA evidence? And can we be certain about the testimony of the 'experts?

Two weeks ago, we had the FBI crime lab admit that practically all 'expert' testimony prior to 2000 was flawed and overstated. A week earlier we had the former head of Atlanta's crime lab sue the police chief and prosecutor because he was fired as a result of testifying honestly but his testimony didn't support the prosecution of a case. There have also been challenges to DNA accuracy in other cases as well. Last month a prosecutor did a mea culpa because he withheld evidence when he was younger and more ambitious.

I realize that it's an evolving science and that the knife cuts both ways as far as freeing inmates because of DNA proof. But, with 'faint' DNA evidence, I would think that the defense might be able to challenge the science and implementation of the science successfully.

At the end of the day, I want EA convicted if guilty, but just see some potential challenges in front of the prosecution in preventing a juror to not doubt the evidence. If I sat on the jury, I would certainly need to be convinced.

If you want to assume that LE is a bunch of crooks and the evidence is being faked, this discussion is pointless, and a trial is meaningless, because no evidence can have any value. I don't buy it. Count me out.

 

[SteveS]

BBM. Well, they are handing over a tarabyte of evidence for a no body case, we have to assume a lot of it is circumstantial or DNA based, right? Ad that's ALOT, right?

~shrug~ That's not the trial. It's simply the discovery process. But the state expects to present their case in only a few days, which tells me they are doing what a good prosecutor does - - making plans to avoid having the jury wade through a TB of evidence, and instead working to paint a simple focused story that clearly shows EA's guilt and that's easy to follow.

 

[Jazz]

Body found today in lake ray hubbard

 

[Latestforever]

Body found today in lake ray hubbard

Body appears to be a man in his thirties.

http://www.wfaa.com/story/news/loca...5/03/body-found-at-lake-ray-hubbard/26826735/

 

[zippixx]

SteveS, you probably already know that I tend not to give LE statements unchallenged credibility and my bias has become more skeptical over the last 8 months. I don't ask this to be a pain in your side but, can we really depend on DNA evidence , especially 'faint' DNA evidence? And can we be certain about the testimony of the 'experts?

Two weeks ago, we had the FBI crime lab admit that practically all 'expert' testimony prior to 2000 was flawed and overstated. A week earlier we had the former head of Atlanta's crime lab sue the police chief and prosecutor because he was fired as a result of testifying honestly but his testimony didn't support the prosecution of a case. There have also been challenges to DNA accuracy in other cases as well. Last month a prosecutor did a mea culpa because he withheld evidence when he was younger and more ambitious.

I realize that it's an evolving science and that the knife cuts both ways as far as freeing inmates because of DNA proof. But, with 'faint' DNA evidence, I would think that the defense might be able to challenge the science and implementation of the science successfully.

At the end of the day, I want EA convicted if guilty, but just see some potential challenges in front of the prosecution in preventing a juror to not doubt the evidence. If I sat on the jury, I would certainly need to be convinced.

Respectfully, there was not "faint" DNA. Fact is, there was a "substantial amount" of CM's DNA. I think you may be confusing "faint DNA" with: When the substance was sprayed in the trunk, two spots “luminesced faintly,”.

Rick Staub, Plano PD Crime Scene Investigation manager, testified that criminalists used a forensic tool called Blue Star to test for blood in Arochi’s vehicle. When the substance was sprayed in the trunk, two spots “luminesced faintly,” which Staub said indicated the presence of blood.
“It certainly would be consistent with a bodily injury due to the large quantity of her DNA,” he said.

ETA: Just a reminder: 1 in 69.08 QUADrillion (there are approximately 7.125 Billion people on the planet)

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1384021-morris-docs-121914.html#document/p1

http://starlocalmedia.com/allenamer...cle_1793280c-9d2f-11e4-94a7-ff06623ae6a4.html

 

[Helen_Ready]

Respectfully, there was NOT "faint" DNA. Fact is, there was a "substantial amount" of CM's DNA. I think you may be confusing "faint DNA" with: When the substance was sprayed in the trunk, two spots “luminesced faintly,”.

Rick Staub, Plano PD Crime Scene Investigation manager, testified that criminalists used a forensic tool called Blue Star to test for blood in Arochi’s vehicle. When the substance was sprayed in the trunk, two spots “luminesced faintly,” which Staub said indicated the presence of blood.
“It certainly would be consistent with a bodily injury due to the large quantity of her DNA,” he said.

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1384021-morris-docs-121914.html#document/p1

http://starlocalmedia.com/allenamer...cle_1793280c-9d2f-11e4-94a7-ff06623ae6a4.html

Thanks Zippi, that was a good reminder about what the search warrant said. A "substantial amount" indicates to me that Christina was hurt pretty bad.... maybe the quantity of blood was so much that's the reason why she believes Christina is no longer alive.

 

[MIKAYOYO]

Respectfully, there was not "faint" DNA. Fact is, there was a "substantial amount" of CM's DNA. I think you may be confusing "faint DNA" with: When the substance was sprayed in the trunk, two spots “luminesced faintly,”.

Rick Staub, Plano PD Crime Scene Investigation manager, testified that criminalists used a forensic tool called Blue Star to test for blood in Arochi’s vehicle. When the substance was sprayed in the trunk, two spots “luminesced faintly,” which Staub said indicated the presence of blood.
“It certainly would be consistent with a bodily injury due to the large quantity of her DNA,” he said.

ETA: Just a reminder: 1 in 69.08 QUADrillion (there are approximately 7.125 Billion people on the planet)

http://www.documentcloud.org/documents/1384021-morris-docs-121914.html#document/p1

http://starlocalmedia.com/allenamer...cle_1793280c-9d2f-11e4-94a7-ff06623ae6a4.html

I still wonder why they haven't charged him with murder if such a large amount of DNA and Stams belief she was murdered. Moo

 

[zippixx]

I still wonder why they haven't charged him with murder if such a large amount of DNA and Stams belief she was murdered. Moo

Probably easier to get an AK conviction at this point. LE will still have plenty of time to slap a capital murder charge on him.. (jmo)

 

[MIKAYOYO]

Probably easier to get an AK conviction at this point. LE will still have plenty of time to slap a capital murder charge on him.. (jmo)

They will NOT get a capital murder charge if he is tried of AK only. The AK is needed for the capital part of the murder.

Just one more reason why I am still concerned about their case. MOO

ETA, he will NOT get 99 years either if he's convicted. Wishful thinking on so many people's part. JMO

 

[zippixx]

They will NOT get a capital murder charge if he is tried of AK only. The AK is needed for the capital part of the murder.

Just one more reason why I am still concerned about their case. MOO

ETA, he will NOT get 99 years either if he's convicted. Wishful thinking on so many people's part. JMO

Correct.. I am speaking of a separate indictment for murder, after this case is tried.

 

[Doj1234]

If you want to assume that LE is a bunch of crooks and the evidence is being faked, this discussion is pointless, and a trial is meaningless, because no evidence can have any value. I don't buy it. Count me out.

I'm illustrating that the DNA evidence isn't an absolute answer. I'm uncertain what the defense might be able to use but they will be able to produce a cogent, compelling defense. I'm sure that prosecution will be able to produce a narrative and probably additional scientific evidence. But, IMO, it just takes one skeptic in the jury.

 

[zippixx]

I'm illustrating that the DNA evidence isn't an absolute answer. I'm uncertain what the defense might be able to use but they will be able to produce a cogent, compelling defense. I'm sure that prosecution will be able to produce a narrative and probably additional scientific evidence. But, IMO, it just takes one skeptic in the jury.

I could maybe see your concern, if all LE had was a small amount of DNA. But it sounds like they have quite a bit, along with all the other evidence (just what we know of!) to tie in with their case. The DNA might just be the icing on the cake! I guess we'll all find out in about 6 months.. should be quite interesting.

 

[MIKAYOYO]

Correct.. I am speaking of a separate indictment for murder, after this case is tried.

Yes, but you said capital murder and my point is they will not get capital murder if they try him on AK alone. MOO

AK is the special circumstance that would make a murder case a capital one.