GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 Aug 2014 - Enrique Arochi kidnapping trial #3

[arkansasmimi]

That's my question because, really, this #4 option is really the only one they can hang their hat on. None of the other options make sense...with the current evidence and testimony.

And, to some degree, this requires the prosecution to say EA had such strong feelings about SB that he suddenly transferred to CM. And, the problem is, why and how?

This is where I was really hoping for teeth mark evidence/testimony again EA. If he had teeth marks that could be matched with dental records of CM on his arm, then all bets are off. You can more easily infer that he was behind her and she was fighting against an assault.

As it stands, I do believe they have evidence of some kind of assault or fight where EA was involved. They just can't say with who. Personally, I think it was either with CM or with somehow HF sent to Plano to pick up CM.

I'm going to stand by my prediction that they do find him guilty. But, considering the evidence we've now seen, and mitigating factors - everyone being drunk and drugged...and several witnesses lying about the degree to which CM was also drunk and drugged (thanks to HF testimony about her condition that night and overall drug use) - I doubt he gets 99 years. I'm thinking 10-25 years.

I am not making a prediction lol I just want as in any case the State to prove their charges. Still waiting for it all to be pulled together

 

[arkansasmimi]

Natalie Solis ‏@Fox4Natalie 1m1 minute ago McKinney, TX
Caron on cross: asked about list of test swabs from Plano police. Says doesn't know if properly pkged before received @FOX4 #arochitrial

Plano Star Courier ‏@planonewspaper 2m2 minutes ago
Defense questions integrity of samples sent to Caron's lab in Virginia #arochitrial

L.P. Phillips ‏@lpphillips 2m2 minutes ago Manhattan, NY
Cross X: Doesn't know what happened to the q-tip (containing the sample) before it got to her. #arochitrial

 

[minor4th]

That's my question because, really, this #4 option is really the only one they can hang their hat on. None of the other options make sense...with the current evidence and testimony.

And, to some degree, this requires the prosecution to say EA had such strong feelings about SB that he suddenly transferred to CM. And, the problem is, why and how?

This is where I was really hoping for teeth mark evidence/testimony again EA. If he had teeth marks that could be matched with dental records of CM on his arm, then all bets are off. You can more easily infer that he was behind her and she was fighting against an assault.

As it stands, I do believe they have evidence of some kind of assault or fight where EA was involved. They just can't say with who. Personally, I think it was either with CM or with somehow HF sent to Plano to pick up CM.

I'm going to stand by my prediction that they do find him guilty. But, considering the evidence we've now seen, and mitigating factors - everyone being drunk and drugged...and several witnesses lying about the degree to which CM was also drunk and drugged (thanks to HF testimony about her condition that night and overall drug use) - I doubt he gets 99 years. I'm thinking 10-25 years.

I think they will be able to prove an aggravating circumstance by strong inference. Essentially, there's no innocent explanation for Christina to be in EA's trunk, and she has been missing ever since - so his purpose for abducting her was to commit a felony

 

[arkansasmimi]

Natalie Solis ‏@Fox4Natalie 52s52 seconds ago McKinney, TX
Caron on cross: some samples were inconclusive @FOX4 #arochitrial

L.P. Phillips ‏@lpphillips 1m1 minute ago Manhattan, NY
Caron: One evidence sample matched Christina Morris. Some results inconclusive. Other items didn't make a match #arochitrial

 

[minor4th]

I predict he will get a life sentence. Minimum 75 years

 

[arkansasmimi]

Alice Barr ‏@AliceBarrNBC5 2m2 minutes ago
Caron says some of the samples they tested came back inconclusive, others were not a match for #ChristinaMorris, but one was. #ArochiTrial

 

[heather.scissorhands]

I'll look for it, unless someone else can find it before I can. Certainly I'm not the only one who heard that because it was discussed numerous times on here.

I 100% know it was stated by someone with authority/expertise. I know it.

 

[arkansasmimi]

I think they will be able to prove an aggravating circumstance by strong inference. Essentially, there's no innocent explanation for Christina to be in EA's trunk, and she has been missing ever since - so his purpose for abducting her was to commit a felony

Honest question. Do they or do they not have to prove the whole statute? or is that just a catch all? Confused on that from your post. TIA

 

[arkansasmimi]

Alice Barr ‏@AliceBarrNBC5 1m1 minute ago
Defense asking if any of the sample is still available for further testing. Caron does not know. #ArochiTrial @NBCDFW

L.P. Phillips ‏@lpphillips 2m2 minutes ago Manhattan, NY
Caron is done. #arochitrial

Natalie Solis ‏@Fox4Natalie 1m1 minute ago McKinney, TX
Caron dismissed but reserved by defense for later testimony @FOX4 #arochitrial

 

[heather.scissorhands]

I'm sorry, you guys, but I do not see how he will be getting a long sentence out of this. I'm still crossing my fingers for a guilty verdict. I can't believe some of you think he will get the maximum or even basically a lie sentence (50+ years)

 

[arkansasmimi]

Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 58s59 seconds ago
Witness excused. Prosecutor requests hearing outside presence of the jury. Jury being sent out #arochitrial

 

[Quailfoot]

I think they will be able to prove an aggravating circumstance by strong inference. Essentially, there's no innocent explanation for Christina to be in EA's trunk, and she has been missing ever since - so his purpose for abducting her was to commit a felony

They're not asked to prove purpose, but intent. Intent, as you know, can vary greatly from preplanned/premeditated (murder one) to sudden and/or accidental (manslaughter).

Lawyer to lawyer here, because I'm a lawyer, but do not practice criminal law: how do you believe the prosecution is proving that he had intent to kidnap her? I lean toward it being sudden, like a "crime of passion," not premeditated. I just don't see any testimony yet of premeditated intent.

You might know more, if you practice criminal law. My background is pretty much strictly corporate.

 

[arkansasmimi]

I'm sorry, you guys, but I do not see how he will be getting a long sentence out of this. I'm still crossing my fingers for a guilty verdict. I can't believe some of you think he will get the maximum or even basically a lie sentence (50+ years)

Per VW tweet, because he has no priors he could get probation from Jury even if found guilty. Dunno aint there yet

 

[minor4th]

Honest question. Do they or do they not have to prove the whole statute? or is that just a catch all? Confused on that from your post. TIA

They can prove any of the aggravating factors - jurors don't have to all unanimously agree on which aggravator is proven.

 

[jnblsm]

You have to understand that an actual jury trial is far different from the grand jury. The grand jury is simply one side - the prosecution - presenting or telling what their evidence will show if they are allowed to commence. They can fudge a bit because defense really has little power in a grand jury setting.

So, the prosecution likely "puffed their wares" a bit on the DNA evidence at the grand jury stage to be able to get to the trial. It's not a bad thing, and more common than you think.

The down side is, because nothing in the grand jury testimony is available to the public, you get a lot of what we had here: parroting of the prosecution's assertions about the amount of DNA, which they could play up to whatever degree they felt necessary to a grand jury, without defense being able to object much, if at all.

I think it was in the grand jury trial. Detective Stamm? I'm looking...

I'd love to see the link to that if you have it

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk

 

[Quailfoot]

Honest question. Do they or do they not have to prove the whole statute? or is that just a catch all? Confused on that from your post. TIA

They just have to prove one of the six areas, matching it with EA's intent (mind set, basically), of course.

 

[arkansasmimi]

Alice Barr ‏@AliceBarrNBC5 1m1 minute ago
Caron steps down. Jury leaves courtroom for more discussion outside their presence. #ArochiTrial @NBCDFW

 

[minor4th]

They're not asked to prove purpose, but intent. Intent, as you know, can vary greatly from preplanned/premeditated (murder one) to sudden and/or accidental (manslaughter).

Lawyer to lawyer here, because I'm a lawyer, but do not practice criminal law: how do you believe the prosecution is proving that he had intent to kidnap her? I lean toward it being sudden, like a "crime of passion," not premeditated. I just don't see any testimony yet of premeditated intent.

You might know more, if you practice criminal law. My background is pretty much strictly corporate.

They prove intent to kidnap her by proving that he actually kidnapped her. She didn't accidentally fall in his trunk and then remain missing for 2 more years.

 

[TCMom]

No one said she was dead based exclusively on dna evidence. People inferred that.

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

Witness A:
"[FONT=&quot]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.

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“It certainly would be consistent with a bodily injury due to the large quantity of her DNA,” he said."[/FONT]


Witness B (completely different person):
"[FONT=&quot]When Lisa King, prosecutor for the felony trial division, asked Stamm if she believes Arochi kidnapped and killed Christina, she answered, “Absolutely.”"

Her mother (not a professional) did say:

[/FONT][FONT=&quot]“I think the hardest part is knowing there’s a lot more DNA than we thought was in the car,” McElroy said after the hearing. “I won’t believe it until I have proof, but [detectives] are so sure [she is not alive], and that’s what’s so hard. I didn’t know it was enough DNA that my daughter could not be alive anymore.”[/FONT]

 

[jnblsm]

I 100% know it was stated by someone with authority/expertise. I know it.

Grand jury trial. Detective Stamm.

Sent from my HTC Desire Eye using Tapatalk