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

[MIKAYOYO]

Respectfully Snipped By Me and Respectfully Bolded By Me.

Boots forgive me. It's late here in Massachusetts, but I just don't understand;
If you were conscious how would you pop both the hood And the trunk??
Did Christina actually know there was a release for both in the trunk compartment?
What lever? We touched on this but did we find there was "in fact" a lever she would have known?

Are we, again using a theory as fact?

I'm not Boots, but in my (lack of) knowledge of vehicles, the hood and trunk are one and the same. I know they aren't really, but for me the two words are interchangable. I think Boots is saying what he/she would do if he/she were stuck IN THE TRUNK and conscious, and is speculating on what Christina would/could have done if that was possible. After all, the one fact we know is she was IN THE TRUNK. MOO

 

[Latestforever]

I have to refresh often to get my thanks button back.

My format is completely different now. I can't find a thanks button to save my life. LOL. Thanks for all of y'all's posts. Good all of you good people!

 

[SteveS]

Time to go (everything is going wrong with posting, tried to quote and thanks won't work).
Before I do, I thought Tilley's remark about if we knew was after the trunk DNA was public.
Can't figure it out now but that's why the remark seems strange to me.

It's hard to keep the sequence of events straight. And ultimately, it really isn't that important to memorize the sequence, is it?

I do know that each time that something new has happened, we've gotten new bombshell info against EA. So I still think we're a long ways away from knowing the full depth and breadth of the evidence against EA. I wonder what we'll learn this week.

 

[SteveS]

Hello all! I'm new here.. but live in the area. I also agree, she must have gotten in the car because she trusted him. No other reason.. I also think EA offered her a ride to get her dog or to party more.. He was her high school peer... so I do believe she thought he wasn't a real threat..

Welcome :smile: and your words sure do highlight what a mistake in judgment she made, if she initially was in his car voluntarily. Ugh.

 

[Steleheart]

IMO:
I've been posting on here since early November & never once had the feeling that anyone was dictating to me what to post, what to believe, or what not to believe. I read posts & sometimes I agree, sometimes I don't... sometimes i comment, sometimes I don't. Many times I scroll & roll.. Sometimes I take a few days off..
But, I'm just not seeing any sign of anyone saying what is ok to post.. Maybe some are too thin-skinned... or maybe I'm naive (lol).. dunno
JMO & IMO!!

I realize I am woefully behind and I apologize. But I really needed to respond here Zip...

Thank you so much for your objective viewpoint always. Thoughtful, respectful, effective.... -

Without trying to start a meeting of the Mutual Admiration Society, I just wanted to tell you that sometimes when I want to react, I stop and I say '"well let me see what Zippi says". I DO!.

I actually do.

Thanks.

 

[Latestforever]

It's hard to keep the sequence of events straight. And ultimately, it really isn't that important to memorize the sequence, is it?

I do know that each time that something new has happened, we've gotten new bombshell info against EA. So I still think we're a long ways away from knowing the full depth and breadth of the evidence against EA. I wonder what we'll learn this week.

Steve glad you are here. Daisytrail had a good question that I want to jump off of.
How is premeditation determined? Can is be split secondish or is it longer. IE could EA have and infatuation/ obsession for Christina but never thought he would have the opportunity then, when the chance presented itself to walk her to her car, drive her somewhere and his advances were denied causing him to act against her; could premeditation factor in here?

 

[Teamjustice]

Welcome :smile: and your words sure do highlight what a mistake in judgment she made, if she initially was in his car voluntarily. Ugh.

So many times we trust folks when we shouldn't.. and this case proves such.. I also believe CM didnt feel threatened in the apartment... EA was hitting on her friend.. and he got pissed she didnt give in to his advances. I just think she thought... he wasnt gonna do anything to her since clearly his attraction was not on her.. He is a pig. Sorry if thats not allowed.

 

[MIKAYOYO]

It's hard to keep the sequence of events straight. And ultimately, it really isn't that important to memorize the sequence, is it?

I do know that each time that something new has happened, we've gotten new bombshell info against EA. So I still think we're a long ways away from knowing the full depth and breadth of the evidence against EA. I wonder what we'll learn this week.

BBM, I disagree. In the instance I was talking about (when Tilley's quote was made) for me, what he was referring to was the fact her DNA was in the trunk. His quote came before they released that information.

As with the unknown male DNA, many (including me) thought it could be someone else but then later we learned PPD didn't even have his DNA until he was arrested. That's an important sequence of events to know, IMO.

 

[Steleheart]

I'm not Boots, but in my (lack of) knowledge of vehicles, the hood and trunk are one and the same. I know they aren't really, but for me the two words are interchangable. I think Boots is saying what he/she would do if he/she were stuck IN THE TRUNK and conscious, and is speculating on what Christina would/could have done if that was possible. After all, the one fact we know is she was IN THE TRUNK. MOO

They are not, LOL. The hood covers the engine and the trunk covers the luggage /utility compartment. In UK the thing over the 'motor' is the boot.

If she were UNDER THE HOOD The car would have died. I am not making fun of you (yesiam).


:loveyou:

 

[Steleheart]

BBM, I disagree. In the instance I was talking about (when Tilley's quote was made) for me, what he was referring to was the fact her DNA was in the trunk. His quote came before they released that information.

As with the unknown male DNA, many (including me) thought it could be someone else but then later we learned PPD didn't even have his DNA until he was arrested. That's an important sequence of events to know, IMO.

^

 

[MIKAYOYO]

They are not, LOL. The hood covers the engine and the trunk covers the luggage /utility compartment. In UK the thing over the 'motor' is the boot.

If she were UNDER THE HOOD The car would have died. I am not making fun of you (yesiam).


:loveyou:

Ha! I actually kinda know the difference, but I do say hood (where the oil goes) instead of trunk sometimes. I drive a van, so I really only have a hood. (stopmakingfunofme)

 

[Suthrnqt]

Subscribing....

 

[Teamjustice]

They have searches almost every weekend.. I wish they would find her... or EA just tells the truth.. So sad for both family's... But EA's family is protecting him, IMO.. and I don't know how any Mother on earth could sleep, knowing their son has information on what happened to a missing person who's DNA was found in his trunk.. a large amount on DNA.

Where is Christina Morris, EA?

 

[SteveS]

Steve glad you are here. Daisytrail had a good question that I want to jump off of.

How is premeditation determined? Can is be split secondish or is it longer. IE could EA have and infatuation/ obsession for Christina but never thought he would have the opportunity then, when the chance presented itself to walk her to her car, drive her somewhere and his advances were denied causing him to act against her; could premeditation factor in here?

Premeditation is really an out-of-date word, because it was parsing a concept that people eventually realized was too presumptive: the ability to mind-read the knowledge of why someone does a crime and when they started thinking it. And the term implies more than it ever truly meant, which necessitated all sorts of explanations to set the record straight.

AFAIK you'll no longer find such a term used anywhere in the Texas statutes.

But the underlying concept still exists as a core legal distinction. While it's not quite so black-white as this, to me it's explained very simply, as doing something on purpose, or not. There's not an extended time period that has to be defined, though the more instantaneous, then the more it moves into another category. And then there are further distinctions after that.

Intentional, on purpose, starts with or rooted in a thought
Reactive, impulsive, starts with or rooted in an action
Accidental, negligent, starts with or rooted in a mistake

 

[MIKAYOYO]

They have searches almost every weekend.. I wish they would find her... or EA just tells the truth.. So sad for both family's... But EA's family is protecting him, IMO.. and I don't know how any Mother on earth could sleep, knowing their son has information on what happened to a missing person who's DNA was found in his trunk.. a large amount on DNA.

Where is Christina Morris, EA?

Oh, is the Arochi family free game now?

 

[Teamjustice]

Oh, is the Arochi family free game now?

No, they are not... some things in life Ill never understand.. and this happens to be one of them..

I just feel IMO, if the shoe was on the other foot, they would want to bury their child too, and want to know what happened.

Just my opinion..

 

[MIKAYOYO]

No, they are not... some things in life Ill never understand.. and this happens to be one of them..

I just feel IMO, if the shoe was on the other foot, they would want to bury their child too, and want to know what happened.

Just my opinion..

I agree, and I'm sure she must know he's guilty of harming Christina. But, we have no idea what she's tried to do to get him to talk. Unless she helped him hide the body, I cannot blame her and it's my understanding we aren't even supposed to go there at all. JMO

 

[Latestforever]

Premeditation is really an out-of-date word, because it was parsing a concept that people eventually realized was too presumptive: the ability to mind-read the knowledge of why someone does a crime and when they started thinking it. And the term implies more than it ever truly meant, which necessitated all sorts of explanations to set the record straight.

AFAIK you'll no longer find such a term used anywhere in the Texas statutes.

But the underlying concept still exists as a core legal distinction. While it's not quite so black-white as this, to me it's explained very simply, as doing something on purpose, or not. There's not an extended time period that has to be defined, though the more instantaneous, then the more it moves into another category. And then there are further distinctions after that.

Intentional, on purpose, starts with or rooted in a thought
Reactive, impulsive, starts with or rooted in an action
Accidental, negligent, starts with or rooted in a mistake

Thank you for your reply, it is very informative. The last three lines are what made the light bulb go on for me.

 

[Teamjustice]

I agree, and I'm sure she must know he's guilty of harming Christina. But, we have no idea what she's tried to do to get him to talk. Unless she helped him hide the body, I cannot blame her and it's my understanding we aren't even supposed to go there at all. JMO

We aren't suppose to go where at all? Please, let me know... I'm new on the forum and sure don't want to break rules!! This is just my opinion!

 

[MIKAYOYO]

We aren't suppose to go where at all? Please, let me know... I'm new on the forum and sure don't want to break rules!! This is just my opinion!

We aren't to discuss EA's family in accusatory terms and/or as being accomplises to his crime.

And welcome.