GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #40 *Arrest*

[zippixx]

Just curious jnblsm, why do you find the name (Captain Klingelberger) interesting?

 

[jnblsm]

Just curious jnblsm, why do you find the name (Captain Klingelberger) interesting?

Because "interesting" was the first word I could type.
There hasn't been anything regarding Christina's disappearance that has made me happy. The name just made me smile a little.

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk

 

[bradfordsleuth]

I hate even typing this.

If they do find Christina's remains, what are the chances there is any of EA's dna remaining on her to actually tie him to her demise?

I have this fear that if she is found deceased, the cause of death will be 'undetermined.'

Can they still prosecute him without knowing how she died?
JMO

 

[cluciano63]

Often they can determine homicide without exact cause of death, i.e "by homicidal violence" if the remains show signs of violence. But if she died during kidnapping, it is murder anyway, as far as I know.

 

[bradfordsleuth]

So legally, do you know if there is room for EA to backtrack and say "It was an accident" if there is evidence of violence?

 

[zippixx]

So legally, do you know if there is room for EA to backtrack and say "It was an accident" if there is evidence of violence?

I guess EA could say whatever he wants, but who is gonna believe him, with his track record? With that said, who knows? Maybe it was an accident.. He just needs to fess up to whatever happened & put an end to this torture that CM's family & friends are going through.

 

[bradfordsleuth]

If LE believes that Hunter has any info that can be used in the case against EA, can they subpoena him to testify?
Ie: with regards to the text messages?

 

[Batman's Mommy]

So legally, do you know if there is room for EA to backtrack and say "It was an accident" if there is evidence of violence?

If she is found, his silence up until that point would out weigh anything he would have to say about it. He hasn't tried to tell anyone where she is which equates, IMO, to him not wanting anyone to find her.

JMO, the only thing that he could say about "it being an accident" would be that she was found, at this point.......

ALL JMO :moo:

 

[zippixx]

If LE believes that Hunter has any info that can be used in the case against EA, can they subpoena him to testify?
Ie: with regards to the text messages?

BBM
If I'm reading the information on the link posted below correctly, I believe the answer is yes (at the discretion of the court).

"As a general rule, independent of statutory considerations, the writ of habeas corpus ad testificandum under American law may be resorted to for the purpose of removing a person confined in a jail or prison to enable him to testify as a witness. The issuance of such a writ lies within the sound discretion of the court, or the judicial officer having the power to compel the attendance of witnesses. Relevance and materiality are of consideration in such matters. The constitutional right of an accused to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses does not necessarily extend to compelling the attendance of person in prison. This right is not violated by a statute which makes the right to the production of a witness confined in prison upon the discretion of the court."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subpoena_ad_testificandum

 

[SteveS]

If LE believes that Hunter has any info that can be used in the case against EA, can they subpoena him to testify?
Ie: with regards to the text messages?

Assuming he has info that's relevant, helpful, and that he will share in court, what is it that you are wondering would disqualify him from being able to testify?

I've always thought HF might be asked to testify by both sides, as he certainly knew the victim, he was in contact with her throughout the evening to some extent, and it seems very possible the defense will try to get the jury to think of him as an alternate suspect somehow.

 

[SteveS]

So legally, do you know if there is room for EA to backtrack and say "It was an accident" if there is evidence of violence?

As zippixx noted, they probably wouldn't have to find any additional evidence with her body (if it were to be found) in order to get him convicted in this trial. It's going to be hard for EA to try to insert an argument that "accidents happen" when he's claimed repeatedly that he knows nothing, and when that supposed "accident" ended with him hiding her and not telling where she ended up. I would add that the fact he put her IN HIS TRUNK is extremely damning, and next-to-impossible to argue into an accident, as she would not have been there for her welfare (in conjunction with some sort of accident), nor would she have been in his trunk willingly. That's an abduction.

 

[jnblsm]

As zippixx noted, they probably wouldn't have to find any additional evidence with her body (if it were to be found) in order to get him convicted in this trial. It's going to be hard for EA to try to insert an argument that "accidents happen" when he's claimed repeatedly that he knows nothing, and when that supposed "accident" ended with him hiding her and not telling where she ended up. I would add that the fact he put her IN HIS TRUNK is extremely damning, and next-to-impossible to argue into an accident, as she would not have been there for her welfare (in conjunction with some sort of accident), nor would she have been in his trunk willingly. That's an abduction.

Especially knowing there's evidence of her being IN HIS TRUNK! (That's for you, Steve)

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk

 

[JnRyan]

If Christina is not found, I don't see where EA's possible statement that it was an "accident" helps him. If he even admits to an accident, the possible counter is, "Then where is she, EA?"

Actually, if they find Christina, that would be when he probably starts saying it was an "accident" and he put her in the trunk AFTER she was deceased.

I believe the forensic evidence of her in the trunk is going to do him in. The hairs in the vacuum cleaner are just an extra nail in the coffin for good measure. He's gone too long without telling his story. And that assumes his story and the truth are the same.

 

[bradfordsleuth]

I wasn't sure based on the fact that he is already incarcerated if he can be called to testify. More to the point...could he use his testimony as a bargaining chip to have his current jail time reduced?

 

[Batman's Mommy]

Assuming he has info that's relevant, helpful, and that he will share in court, what is it that you are wondering would disqualify him from being able to testify?

I've always thought HF might be asked to testify by both sides, as he certainly knew the victim, he was in contact with her throughout the evening to some extent, and it seems very possible the defense will try to get the jury to think of him as an alternate suspect somehow.

I wasn't sure based on the fact that he is already incarcerated if he can be called to testify. More to the point...could he use his testimony as a bargaining chip to have his current jail time reduced?

RBBM

In regards to SteveS, I agree. I think that both sides would want his testimony, but if one side does not, they could move to impeach based upon his incarceration(although I doubt it would be upheld because his crime doesn't call his "honesty" into question, like burglary/robbery.) This was what I thought bradforthsleuth was initially questioning.

In regards to bradforthsleuth, IMO, the answer is No. His sentence directly relates to his crime, and is not contingent upon anything else. Although he would be a good witness, the AK case has nothing to do with him.

ALL JMO

 

[pappa rob]

RBBM

In regards to SteveS, I agree. I think that both sides would want his testimony, but if one side does not, they could move to impeach based upon his incarceration(although I doubt it would be upheld because his crime doesn't call his "honesty" into question, like burglary/robbery.) This was what I thought bradforthsleuth was initially questioning.

In regards to bradforthsleuth, IMO, the answer is No. His sentence directly relates to his crime, and is not contingent upon anything else. Although he would be a good witness, the AK case has nothing to do with him.

ALL JMO

No it has nothing to do with him, but deals have been cut for totally unrelated people who had info the DA wanted.. It all depends on what the info is.

 

[SteveS]

1 If HF has relevant testimony, yes, he could be brought to the courtroom to testify, even though he is under incarceration.
2 The fact that he is otherwise incarcerated doesn't somehow disqualify his ability to be a witness, as it does not erase what he might know.
3 I would suspect that if he has relevant and helpful information, HF would willingly testify, rather than be a reluctant witness who has to be bribed to speak, in light of the fact that EA abducted and probably killed his girlfriend.
4 The prosecution would not need HF's permission to call him as a witness, nor would the defense for that matter.

 

[SteveS]

RBBM

In regards to SteveS, I agree. I think that both sides would want his testimony, but if one side does not, they could move to impeach based upon his incarceration...

Respectfully, there is no such thing as a "motion to impeach." Instead, "impeaching" a witness is basically the act of an opposing attorney cross-examining the witness, or presenting conflicting testimony from other sources or from the witness himself, in a way that makes the jury disbelieve the witness's testimony. But whether he is actually impeached or not is not determined by a judge's ruling (a motion), or even in the courtroom itself, but rather by the jury's eventual response when they deliberate on a verdict.

 

[bradfordsleuth]

Thank you to each person who responded to my questions and for all of the helpful info. I have been following along (mostly in silence) and seem to ask more questions than provide any answers to this case.

I appreciate the opinions and ideas from each and every one of you and what has been done to contribute to help find Christina. Honestly....thinking back to my early twenties.....it could have been me in that situation.

Right now I am so hoping for answers that I am going back to re-read the earlier threads in hopes that some little tidbit of info may stand out with an 'aha' answer to what actually happened.

I really wish the VI's would come back and post again....even Christina's friend (Cookiez? - the one who never got verified) who saw her that night may hold some helpful info for us to dissect.

I know that her family must miss her terribly.
May tomorrow be the day they find answers.

 

[Batman's Mommy]

Respectfully, there is no such thing as a "motion to impeach." Instead, "impeaching" a witness is basically the act of an opposing attorney cross-examining the witness, or presenting conflicting testimony from other sources or from the witness himself, in a way that makes the jury disbelieve the witness's testimony. But whether he is actually impeached or not is not determined by a judge's ruling (a motion), or even in the courtroom itself, but rather by the jury's eventual response when they deliberate on a verdict.

Thank you for the clarification! :loveyou: