GUILTY TX - Christina Morris, 23, Plano, 30 August 2014 - #32 *Arrest*

[brado]

No one was hiding. They were all there and 12 were sworn in to testify. But the judge cut short the fishing expedition.

OK I guess. That contradicts what was posted on here yesterday.

From Catpatrol, thread #30 post #703:
"If the Collin County Court Records website is correct, then PP, SB, and SN have not been served their subpoenas so most likely will not be testifying at the hearing this morning.
The two PPD detectives have been served and have returned their subpoenas."

 

[wendiyking]

Six! Completely! the lies, lies, lies and the evidence are pretty convincing. His injuries, his saying he was wasted. However, wasn't walking like he could barely walk, he wasn't injured that night (or limping), he got hurt I(I know, poor baby) that night from the moment we saw him walking in the garage and when he showed up at work LATE at 10ish. He didn't change his tire during those hours (though he may have tried to scrap off paint). The SIGNIFICANT amount of DNA in 2 spot of the trunk and mixed with another. I think he took this beautiful girl and hurt her/ killed her all by his loser self. If anyone was involved, the only involvement I think is close to home and cover up of what he did. IMO , MY OPINION ONLY! and all that jazz

Five and i'll put my house on it [KISS]

 

[VTinTX]

Does anyone have a Twitter account? Would anyone be willing to tweet BF and ask her to confirm/deny that either of the detectives or Dr. Staub testified to hair being found in EA's car yesterday. This is in regards to this CBS article, which was released before the hearing began yesterday, which I have a hard time accepting as fact, yet.

http://dfw.cbslocal.com/2015/01/15/...court/?utm_source=TweetDal&utm_medium=twitter

Thank you!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
(I hate autocorrect on my phone!!!)

 

[catpatrol]

The hearing results are up on the Collin County court records website (http://cijspub.co.collin.tx.us/)

 

[SteveS]

I find it strange that she would text leave the door open, if she knew HF was at the W Hotel as reported by fox news. Did she not know he was at the hotel? 3:50 am and still at the hotel sounds like he spent the night. This just throws a monkey wrench into the whole key things again. http://www.fox4news.com/story/27856631/christina-morris-kidnapping-suspect-hoping-to-get-out-of-jail

"Did she not know he was at the hotel?"

I think she knew what HF was up to, in the same way that EA's gf knew where he was that night. Which is to say, not at all - if the stories about her texts are to be trusted.

Then again, she may have known every detail - or "known" ie suspected but couldn't prove - of what he was up to, with the texts being her attempt to make him fess up that he wasn't at home to let her in.

It's hard for anyone else to decipher the dynamics between a bf-gf and how they operate, and she's not here to explain her thinking so we're left to guess (and maybe be way off base). Maybe it was just as we thought all along, maybe not. All may not have been as it seemed, ya never know.

 

[frisson]

No one was hiding. They were all there and 12 were sworn in to testify. But the judge cut short the fishing expedition.

(You don't have to actually be served the subpoena, if you are notified and simply agree to testify and show up. I suspect LE called them, got cooperation, and told the court, "We'll have them there.")

Interesting. However, I wouldn't characterize due process as a fishing expedition. (imo)

 

[catpatrol]

OK I guess. That contradicts what was posted on here yesterday.

From Catpatrol, thread #30 post #703:
"If the Collin County Court Records website is correct, then PP, SB, and SN have not been served their subpoenas so most likely will not be testifying at the hearing this morning.
The two PPD detectives have been served and have returned their subpoenas."

Sorry, brado, did not mean to be misleading. That was before we heard that 12 witnesses were sworn in and I was basing my opinion on the court records showing they hadn't been subpoenaed. My apologies for the confusion.

 

[Quailfoot]

Interesting. However, I wouldn't characterize due process as a fishing expedition. (imo)

The 4th and 14th Amendments, the Texas Rules of Evidence, The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and the State Bar of Texas agree with you.

Oddly enough, the defense attorney is doing what the law expects, and requires, him to do; which, for the 1,000th time, is good. You want a conviction to be nailed down tight against an appeal.

Crazy, right?

 

[BaeMomma]

...
ITA. I can "think" someone is guilty all day, but in my head I want to see the proof. I don't understand why that's such a big thing for some to grasp. This isn't a contest and comments like "So who thinks EA's innocent now?" are just ridiculous to me...

Well, just FYI you won't ever SEE the proof until this case goes to trial, sorry that's how it works. No sense in thinking others' comments are ridiculous because they are different that yours.

 

[Quailfoot]

OK I guess. That contradicts what was posted on here yesterday.

From Catpatrol, thread #30 post #703:
"If the Collin County Court Records website is correct, then PP, SB, and SN have not been served their subpoenas so most likely will not be testifying at the hearing this morning.
The two PPD detectives have been served and have returned their subpoenas."

Remember, this was just a probable cause hearing. Not everyone's testimony was needed. Probable cause is a lower bar to reach than beyond reasonable doubt, which would be the standard at trial.

Also, they will all testify at some point. Whether that's to the Grand Jury as it is deliberating on whether to indict or during an actual trial. It will likely be both.

 

[SaintGirl]

Six! Completely! the lies, lies, lies and the evidence are pretty convincing. His injuries, his saying he was wasted. However, wasn't walking like he could barely walk, he wasn't injured that night (or limping), he got hurt I(I know, poor baby) that night from the moment we saw him walking in the garage and when he showed up at work LATE at 10ish. He didn't change his tire during those hours (though he may have tried to scrap off paint). The SIGNIFICANT amount of DNA in 2 spot of the trunk and mixed with another. I think he took this beautiful girl and hurt her/ killed her all by his loser self. If anyone was involved, the only involvement I think is close to home and cover up of what he did. IMO , MY OPINION ONLY! and all that jazz

It was actually 10:50 a.m. The only reason I point this out is because it could mean he had 50 more minutes with Christina when he deserved NONE. And thanks for joining our party, we've got a six-pack now.

 

[hockeymom4]

Well, just FYI you won't ever SEE the proof until this case goes to trial, sorry that's how it works. No sense in thinking others' comments are ridiculous because they are different that yours.

We can all have are own opinion. If if that poster thinks they are ridiculous, that is their prerogative. I believe the purpose of their post was that after the affidavits were served and he was arrested, there were many posts asking, so "who think EAs still innocent?" And don't forget the anyone going to eat crow comments. Then yesterday after bond wasn't reduced and the charges stuck, the comments cam again of so, who thinks EAs innocent now? So, that is I believe that point.

 

[SteveS]

The 4th and 14th Amendments, the Texas Rules of Evidence, The Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and the State Bar of Texas agree with you.

Oddly enough, the defense attorney is doing what the law expects, and requires, him to do; which, for the 1,000th time, is good. You want a conviction to be nailed down tight against an appeal.

Crazy, right?

I didn't say a "fishing expedition" was somehow contrary to the legitimate or effective practice of law in a criminal case. I just labeled his actions for what they were -- and they were, indeed, a fishing expedition.

Nor, by the way, is there anything wrong with a judge abruptly slamming the door shut on the lawyer trying to conduct or prolong a fishing expedition -- which also happened yesterday.

Nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

 

[Quailfoot]

Since it seems far fetched that he AK her and threw her in his tunk when they left the garage at 4am (to me), does anyone here believe when LE says he put her in the garage when he left the garage......that they could possibly be talking about the 2nd time he left the garage? I know, nothing ever stated he went back to the garage but they really didn't address the piece about him returning to the SOL area (remember the pinging from Granite pkwy at 4:45).
Did he come back (& enter the garage-maybe the blue martini garage) and that's when AK happened?

If that's the case, then they might have more video of the said altercation, injury &/or SA.

Just thinking out loud, I'm really struggling to believe he AK her at the 4am garage scene.

This is what I've thought most of the way as well. Time near 4 a.m. seems too short, because we know what time she or he were texting from his pone to HF's, and we know the time the camera caught his car leaving the parking lot.

I think they went somewhere together, and whatever happened occurred at that place. Now, based on the phone pings, I believe the most likely place was his house. There is where I believe something went awry, whether a drug overdose or a murder.

My only problem is his return to the shopping area - why? There, any number of turns can be played out. First, as you say, the alleged assault or murder takes place at that point and he puts her in the trunk. Second, he takes her there and a third party is waiting and a fight ensues, she is killed; he takes the body. At one place or the other - house or shopping center she begins to overdose, he panics/possible third party also panics, he takes the body.

If there were no return to the shops, and the time against the first exit from the parking lot wasn't so tight, this thing would be an easier nut to crack.

 

[VTinTX]

So, looking over my notes, I honestly don't think EA thoroughly cleaned his car until after his 1st interview with LE on 9-3-14 (which makes me think he was feeling quite confident....why was he so confident?). That day he only consented to "viewing" his car and denied consent for LE to look through his phones. However, he gives consent the very next day for LE to search his car. If he had cleaned his car (and deleted messages) the day CM disappeared why not give consent on 9-3, why wait 1 day? Also, I don't think the note was a list of "things TO get rid of", I think it was a list of "things ALREADY gotten rid of". I think he was going through everything he had already gotten rid of that could connect him to CM.

OR, it could have been a to-do list and he made it the night of 9-3 after his first interview with LE because he was no longer as confident as he had been. Either way, I thinK EA wrote the note and was the only one aware of it.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Quailfoot]

I didn't say a "fishing expedition" was somehow contrary to the legitimate or effective practice of law in a criminal case. I just labeled his actions for what they were -- and they were, indeed, a fishing expedition.

Nor, by the way, is there anything wrong with a judge abruptly slamming the door shut on the lawyer trying to conduct or prolong a fishing expedition -- which also happened yesterday.

Nothing wrong with calling a spade a spade.

The law calls these probable cause hearings, and they are required by law, both state...and, of course, the pesky Constitution and its 4th and 14th Amendments.

Are you suggesting that probable cause hearings should not be held because some people might mischaracterize them as fishing expeditions? Or, do you believe that courts should go ahead and follow state and federal law, which requires probable cause hearings be given to those accused of committing crimes?

 

[brado]

Sorry, brado, did not mean to be misleading. That was before we heard that 12 witnesses were sworn in and I was basing my opinion on the court records showing they hadn't been subpoenaed. My apologies for the confusion.

No problem. I guess in the flurry yesterday I missed the part where all 12 were sworn in.

 

[frisson]

Quote Originally Posted by MIKAYOYO

ITA. I can "think" someone is guilty all day, but in my head I want to see the proof. I don't understand why that's such a big thing for some to grasp. This isn't a contest and comments like "So who thinks EA's innocent now?" are just ridiculous to me...

Well, just FYI you won't ever SEE the proof until this case goes to trial, sorry that's how it works. No sense in thinking others' comments are ridiculous because they are different that yours.

BBM
I agree with MIKAYOYO. This is not a contest. . Interesting how people see things differently. I find MIKAYOYO's posts respectful of others' views and I read that particular comment as making note of another post that was calling out other posters who were not ready to declare EA guilty on a forum/social media before he is declared guilty in a court of law.

FWIW it's my understanding that someone accused of a crime is to be considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. I do realize the purpose of this site so don't blast me for that please. Sleuthing and caring and trying to make sense of it all is great and helpful. I just find challenging fellow posters counterproductive. And if folks want to believe whatever they believe they should be able to say so without getting admonished en masse.

On a different note, I found it odd and seemingly a violation of rights that EA was presented in jail clothes and shackles. Did I misread or miss something? I thought there was an issue of dignity even for someone accused. Is Texas different or was some special procedure or exception used here? TxYorkieMom probably has an awesome link explaining what I'm trying to address. Or maybe someone who knows Tx law (if the state is an issue) can chime in on it. Thanks in advance.

Justice for Christina.

 

[Quailfoot]

Also, describe how you think a probable cause hearing should go? If a court of law asking detectives, arresting officers, and their experts to justify their arrests is a "fishing expedition," what do you propose the defense ask during a probable cause hearing?

 

[SteveS]

Remember, this was just a probable cause hearing. Not everyone's testimony was needed. Probable cause is a lower bar to reach than beyond reasonable doubt, which would be the standard at trial.

Also, they will all testify at some point. Whether that's to the Grand Jury as it is deliberating on whether to indict or during an actual trial. It will likely be both.

Also, describe how you think a probable cause hearing should go? If a court of law asking detectives, arresting officers, and their experts to justify their arrests is a "fishing expedition," what do you propose the defense ask during a probable cause hearing?

Just to keep things straight, yesterday was NOT a "probable cause" hearing. It was a hearing to address a Writ of Habeas Corpus (basically to challenge the size of the bond specified), plus several other motions. While it ultimately covered some of the same ground as a "probable cause" hearing might cover, it was not one.

ETA - There was not and will not be a "probable cause" hearing in this case. That is not required, since LE obtained an arrest warrant as we have been discussing for quite some time. An arrest warrant and a probable cause hearing are two alternatives provided to allow the same result.