GUILTY CA - Erin Corwin, 19, pregnant, Twentynine Palms, 28 June 2014 - #14

[77DarkHorse7]

Snipped and BBM

Why? NL isn't on trial.

Again. The case is circumstantial. That Chris is the ONLY ONE who could have done this. If the two other people with motive are proven to be elsewhere and could not have done this, then those are circumstances that would lead you to conclude Chris is guilty.

The Jury are the finders of fact. They are the ones who get to sort through all of the evidence and decide what is relevant. If you take any of the evidence away from their consideration then you are taking that privilege away from those to whom it belongs, and making a mockery of the system of justice.

The other persons of interest having been checked out is also proof of a thorough investigation.

Plus, Nichole not being on trial is precisely why her alibi must be entered into public record. Her name has been defamed by the situation she's in. Only a declaration of innocence by a court has the potential to make that right. Such declaration being formal, or informal (by being cleared by a thorough verdict against another).

 

[Meemaw12]

Again. The case is circumstantial. That Chris is the ONLY ONE who could have done this. If the two other people with motive are proven to be elsewhere and could not have done this, then those are circumstances that would lead you to conclude Chris is guilty.

The Jury are the finders of fact. They are the ones who get to sort through all of the evidence and decide what is relevant. If you take any of the evidence away from their consideration then you are taking that privilege away from those to whom it belongs, and making a mockery of the system of justice.

The other persons of interest having been checked out is also proof of a thorough investigation.

Plus, Nichole not being on trial is precisely why her alibi must be entered into public record. Her name has been defamed by the situation she's in. Only a declaration of innocence by a court has the potential to make that right. Such declaration being formal, or informal (by being cleared by a thorough verdict against another).

Where during this trial has NL been defamed? The Jury is to consider only evidence presented during the trial.

It's not the Sts job to say anything to this Jury about anyone other than the defendant. The DA said clearly during opening that CL is the only one responsible for Erin's murder. Then he presented his case stating the facts of the case.

The Def couldn't try to say someone else did it if they had prior knowledge of a confession and I strongly believe they did as far back as before the prelim. It would be unethical and due to the confession to the Def they were limited as to how they could proceed in the defense of this monster.

So CL got on the stand and confessed to the murder he committed and evidence proved he did it blaming it on the victim. Coward!!!

Look at my post 198 in this thread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Richmond]

Again. The case is circumstantial. That Chris is the ONLY ONE who could have done this. If the two other people with motive are proven to be elsewhere and could not have done this, then those are circumstances that would lead you to conclude Chris is guilty.

The Jury are the finders of fact. They are the ones who get to sort through all of the evidence and decide what is relevant. If you take any of the evidence away from their consideration then you are taking that privilege away from those to whom it belongs, and making a mockery of the system of justice.

The other persons of interest having been checked out is also proof of a thorough investigation.

Plus, Nichole not being on trial is precisely why her alibi must be entered into public record. Her name has been defamed by the situation she's in. Only a declaration of innocence by a court has the potential to make that right. Such declaration being formal, or informal (by being cleared by a thorough verdict against another).

MOST cases are circumstantial. Even DNA is circumstantial evidence. This is not an anomaly.

What makes you think the other 'persons of interest' weren't checked out? (JC and NL?--were they ever actually named as POIs?) Maybe they were and it is proof of a thorough investigation.

Nichole was never named as a POI that I'm aware of; she hasn't been 'defamed' except possibly by the court of public opinion, over which the justice system has no control. And a court of law does not owe her a 'declaration of innocence.' I don't know where you are coming up with this stuff. Nichole is owed nothing. If she wants to clear her name she can do it through the media if she so chooses.

 

[Voice4theSilent]

Again. The case is circumstantial. That Chris is the ONLY ONE who could have done this. If the two other people with motive are proven to be elsewhere and could not have done this, then those are circumstances that would lead you to conclude Chris is guilty.

The Jury are the finders of fact. They are the ones who get to sort through all of the evidence and decide what is relevant. If you take any of the evidence away from their consideration then you are taking that privilege away from those to whom it belongs, and making a mockery of the system of justice.

The other persons of interest having been checked out is also proof of a thorough investigation.

Plus, Nichole not being on trial is precisely why her alibi must be entered into public record. Her name has been defamed by the situation she's in. Only a declaration of innocence by a court has the potential to make that right. Such declaration being formal, or informal (by being cleared by a thorough verdict against another).

Is this the first trial in the United States that you have followed?

 

[Meemaw12]

LE did an excellent job in this case, they went where the evidence took them. They handed over to the prosecutor and they presented a very strong case against CL. So much so that CL had to testify and confess to the Jury. IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[ArianeEmory]

Ok, time for me to make use of some basic forum features.

Sorry for having quoted.

 

[77DarkHorse7]

Is this the first trial in the United States that you have followed?

Where during this trial has NL been defamed? The Jury is to consider only evidence presented during the trial.

It's not the Sts job to say anything to this Jury about anyone other than the defendant. The DA said clearly during opening that CL is the only one responsible for Erin's murder. Then he presented his case stating the facts of the case.

The Def couldn't try to say someone else did it if they had prior knowledge of a confession and I strongly believe they did as far back as before the prelim. It would be unethical and due to the confession to the Def they were limited as to how they could proceed in the defense of this monster.

So CL got on the stand and confessed to the murder he committed and evidence proved he did it blaming it on the victim. Coward!!!

Look at my post 198 in this thread.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

MOST cases are circumstantial. Even DNA is circumstantial evidence. This is not an anomaly.

What makes you think the other 'persons of interest' weren't checked out? (JC and NL?--were they ever actually named as POIs?) Maybe they were and it is proof of a thorough investigation.

Nichole was never named as a POI that I'm aware of; she hasn't been 'defamed' except possibly by the court of public opinion, over which the justice system has no control. And a court of law does not owe her a 'declaration of innocence.' I don't know where you are coming up with this stuff. Nichole is owed nothing. If she wants to clear her name she can do it through the media if she so chooses.

If proving someone else couldn't have committed the crime is not relevant, ok, if that's just not the way things work in court, why did they make a special point of declaring that Jon's DNA didn't match anything at the crime scene?

Jon isn't on trial either, he 'hasn't been defamed except possibly by the court of public opinion...' why try to prove Jon didn't do it, and not try to prove Nichole didn't do it either? (It actually cost them thousands of dollars to exclude Jon's DNA)

It's simple. Occam's Razor. They -- Can't -- Prove -- It... No alibi, none, zip.

 

[Meemaw12]

NLs DNA could have been all over that car and everything in it, it belonged to her and CL. It should be, Jons however shouldn't be. Plain and simple.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[smc1225]

If proving someone else couldn't have committed the crime is not relevant, ok, if that's just not the way things work in court, why did they make a special point of declaring that Jon's DNA didn't match anything at the crime scene?

Jon isn't on trial either, he 'hasn't been defamed except possibly by the court of public opinion...' why try to prove Jon didn't do it, and not try to prove Nichole didn't do it either? (It actually cost them thousands of dollars to exclude Jon's DNA)

It's simple. Occam's Razor. They -- Can't -- Prove -- It... No alibi, none, zip.

They were giving results of the DNA testing that was done. Why did they test for Erin's DNA? She was deceased. They did DNA testing of anyone close to Erin - that would be Erin, Jon and Chris. Nicole has never been shown to be close to Nicole. She had an alibi for the time this happened. Witnesses put Erin with Chris prior to her going missing. They would have failed in their responsibilities to not test Jon as he was her husband.

Most trials are based on a series of circumstantial evidence that they build one on the other to prove who is responsible. They laid all this out during the trial which is how this works. Now the jury will look at everything in total and make their decision.

And the BBM - I have no idea what you are getting at with this? His DNA was there - Jon's wasn't, Nichole's wasn't. How did it get there?

 

[SeesSeas]

His version of the killing was a LIE because he confessed just to prevent being convicted of Premeditation. So he had to make up a story that left out any signs of premeditation. IN reality, he may have hit her hard from behind, before he began the attack. He may have worn gloves when he got the garrote, but he couldn't say so, because it would lead back to premeditation. JMO

Having the garrote so quickly available shows premeditation.

 

[77DarkHorse7]

They were giving results of the DNA testing that was done. Why did they test for Erin's DNA? She was deceased. They did DNA testing of anyone close to Erin - that would be Erin, Jon and Chris. Nicole has never been shown to be close to Nicole. She had an alibi for the time this happened. Witnesses put Erin with Chris prior to her going missing. They would have failed in their responsibilities to not test Jon as he was her husband.

Most trials are based on a series of circumstantial evidence that they build one on the other to prove who is responsible. They laid all this out during the trial which is how this works. Now the jury will look at everything in total and make their decision.

And the BBM - I have no idea what you are getting at with this? His DNA was there - Jon's wasn't, Nichole's wasn't. How did it get there?

They never tested Nichole's DNA, they didn't exclude Nichole.

That's the second time Nichole's "alibi" was mentioned. Where is this alibi. Anyone have a link? :thinking:

 

[77DarkHorse7]

I wonder if the Amboy Salt Pits have been searched for Erin's phone, keys, and shoes.

I also wonder if testing the Jeep for DNA would be a good idea. To see if any of Erin's unborn child's tissues are in it. That might prove pregnancy and a second murder charge.

 

[Richmond]

They never tested Nichole's DNA, they didn't exclude Nichole.

That's the second time Nichole's "alibi" was mentioned. Where is this alibi. Anyone have a link? :thinking:

It is up to the defense to cast doubt on the state's evidence, not the state's job. If the defense wanted to suggest that someone else did it (Nichole, JC or whoever) they could have done that. Instead Chris got on the stand and confessed. That's the defense's problem, not the state's.

 

[77DarkHorse7]

It is up to the defense to cast doubt on the state's evidence, not the state's job. If the defense wanted to suggest that someone else did it (Nichole, JC or whoever) they could have done that. Instead Chris go on the stand and confessed. That's the defense's problem, not the state's.

Which is exactly why I said to hell with them, unless they had been illegally barred from suggesting someone else was involved.

 

[Knox]

Having the garrote so quickly available shows premeditation.

I wish we would have had more detailed coverage of the trial. I suspect we missed many questions and answers which would have cleared up some of the confusion.

A logical question for the DA to ask would have been, what was Erin doing when he attacked her with the garotte? Is this possibly where the skull fracture comes into play?

I have no doubt this murder was premeditated. But enough common sense to know that what you might plan, might not be the way it actually happens in real life. He clearly lied about the way it down. Snippets of the truth to match the evidence, the rest was to save his azz.

 

[Voice4theSilent]

They never tested Nichole's DNA, they didn't exclude Nichole.

That's the second time Nichole's "alibi" was mentioned. Where is this alibi. Anyone have a link? :thinking:

BBM

LINK PLEASE (I have asked you twice now for links that you have failed to provide.)

 

[la2cabo]

So much BS about his supposed defense just doesn't make sense. IF he wants the jury to believe he just snapped:

Why was he separating from the Marines if he was that upset over not deploying? Was it not a voluntary separation?

He played Russian Roulette for a month? And never succeeded? Does he know he actually had to put a bullet in one of the chambers?

Why did he sit in jail for more than two years just patiently waiting for the chance to give his explanation? What was the point of a surprise confession? Why not bring it up immediately in hopes of making bail?

He was so distraught at what he "suspected" happened to his daughter that he continued to have sex with and allow the supposed "perpetrator" to continue babysitting his daughter for months before he did anything? Come on.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I think he would have been better off putting on no defense versus the crap he pulled out of his behind. The minute he got on the stand and started victim blaming he was screwed. I wonder if his attorney had any idea of what he was going to say? Did Nichole know? CL had to know that there would be 101 ways to discredit his story and it wouldn't fly.

I honestly don't know why he didn't just save everyone the pain of a trial and just confess. He's going to die in prison so why not just get his new life started? Maybe he likes being the center of attention no matter how ugly the circumstances. He's an interesting study for sure.

 

[77DarkHorse7]

BBM

LINK PLEASE (I have asked you twice now for links that you have failed to provide.)

There was DNA consistent with Erin Corwin's DNA on the knob of the propane tank found in the mine shaft where her body was discovered. That DNA excluded both Jon Corwin and Christopher Lee as a match.
Blood removed from the outside of one of the water jugs found in the mine shaft were Erin was discovered contained DNA consistent with Erin Corwin. That DNA also excluded both Jon Corwin and Christopher Lee as a match.
Key found DNA consistent with Erin Corwin's DNA on the rebar handles of the garrote looped around Erin Corwin's neck. That DNA excluded both Jon Corwin and Christopher Lee as a match.
The green t-shirt that was part of the torch found in the mine shaft where Erin Corwin's body was discovered contained DNA that had a one in 16 billion chance of belonging to someone OTHER that Christopher Lee. (The population of the Earth is just 7 billion.) Complicated way of saying the DNA on the shirt belonged to Christopher Lee. DNA on the shirt excluded Erin and Jon Corwin as possible contributors.
Swabs taken from the mouth of the Sprite bottle found in the mine where Erin Corwin's body was discovered had two contributors of DNA, one male and one female. The male contributor was Christopher Lee (with a one in 20 quadrillion chance it was NOT Christopher Lee) and the female contributor was Erin Corwin (with a 1 in 1.4 quadrillion chance it was NOT Erin Corwin). ---- http://erincorwinmurdertrial.blogspot.ca/2016/10/day-eight-dna-evidence-ties-christopher.html

 

[Voice4theSilent]

77DH7-

I don't see where it states they never tested NL's DNA?

 

[Meemaw12]

The prosecution's closing argument in the #ErinCorwin trial:
erincorwinmurdertrial.blogspot.com/2016/11/day-te…
First of two blog posts...


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk