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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
SteveS said:
No telling what he may have said, and it may be a big to-do about nothing. But I can't imagine that the court would disallow the use of those conversations. There is no legal "right to privacy" on a public phone conversation in prison. LE is allowed to snoop around and listen to what suspects say in public, without announcing they are listening. It's called gathering evidence.
Click to expand...

In the 2 county jails in which I have worked, there are signs posted saying all calls are recorded. If there aren't, doesn't it seem like it's the defense attorney's job to inform his client to be discreet during phone calls?
 
zippixx said:
Here's a fairly recent article about hair DNA. Apparently, hair is not the best or easiest source to obtain DNA...

http://www.forensicmag.com/articles...na-testing-and-forensic-analysis-hair-samples
Click to expand...

That was interesting! Thanks for that link. It's a bit disheartening though to think that the hairs may not even yield the DNA samples they are looking for: the article talked about how the probability of getting a good DNA sample was pretty low, even with a root attached, and without a root even lower, especially if the hair was colored/bleached.

It seems like this is definitely a delay tactic, since even WE knew about the ShopVac incident way back when. (Oye! The ShopVac!! Second only to The Keys in the list of topics to make you want to rip your hair out! --No pun intended, due to topic being discussed at the moment!!)

Additionally, the reports are that they already found a substantial amount of her DNA in his trunk, so what does an errant hair add to the evidence?? They were hanging around each other all night. They had been at PP's apartment partying. Surely they could have sat on the same couch even. She is seen wearing a hat in the video, but in the photo of the 5 girls early in the evening she doesn't have it on. Who knows? He could have even put that hat on his head for a minute and one of her hairs got on his jacket which later got in his car.

For the record, I do believe she was in his vehicle that night, so I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying is that a hair seems pretty insignificant if they have so much DNA evidence in the trunk of his vehicle already. That's my concern here. Do they really have enough rock solid evidence?? Is the DNA evidence from the trunk actually a substantial amount of blood? Could it actually be something else that would allow the defense to reason it away? That's worrisome. I thought the prosecutors had this in the bag, but now I'm questioning what they need this delay for. Even having enough evidence for the AK conviction would land him in jail and they could have YEARS to find her and build a case for murder against him. Are they worried they don't even have enough to make the AK charge stick? Definitely concerning.
 
I agree on the worrisome aspect to law enforcement now wanting to delay the trial for this hair testing. I am having difficulty looking at this as much more than insecurity from the prosecution on the case that they have.

However, a couple of thoughts that I've had that could be involved are:
1) a delay tactic designed to put the rape trial ahead of the AK trial;
2) a delay tactic to provide a few more weeks in the hope of finding CM's body;
3) a delay tactic simply because prosecution likes the idea that incarcerating the most likely perp without a conviction is in the greater good of society, after all, they may lose when trial occurs;
4) Prosecution is concerned that too much of their evidence has been acquired illegally and won't be allowed in the trial.

Personally, I hope that the judge is able to see through the ruse and doesn't grant the delay. Prosecution has had enough time to test this type of evidence so if they missed the testing because of their own laziness, then EA shouldn't be hurt because of it.

On a side note, I also find the comment in the article regarding EA slumping his shoulders at pre-trial was interesting. If I was innocent (or even guilty, but felt like I would be found not guilty), I would slump my shoulders as well at the idea of being in jail for a few weeks longer than necessary because the prosecution has been slow to test.
 
CookieM said:
That was interesting! Thanks for that link. It's a bit disheartening though to think that the hairs may not even yield the DNA samples they are looking for: the article talked about how the probability of getting a good DNA sample was pretty low, even with a root attached, and without a root even lower, especially if the hair was colored/bleached.

It seems like this is definitely a delay tactic, since even WE knew about the ShopVac incident way back when. (Oye! The ShopVac!! Second only to The Keys in the list of topics to make you want to rip your hair out! --No pun intended, due to topic being discussed at the moment!!)

Additionally, the reports are that they already found a substantial amount of her DNA in his trunk, so what does an errant hair add to the evidence?? They were hanging around each other all night. They had been at PP's apartment partying. Surely they could have sat on the same couch even. She is seen wearing a hat in the video, but in the photo of the 5 girls early in the evening she doesn't have it on. Who knows? He could have even put that hat on his head for a minute and one of her hairs got on his jacket which later got in his car.

For the record, I do believe she was in his vehicle that night, so I'm not disputing that. All I'm saying is that a hair seems pretty insignificant if they have so much DNA evidence in the trunk of his vehicle already. That's my concern here. Do they really have enough rock solid evidence?? Is the DNA evidence from the trunk actually a substantial amount of blood? Could it actually be something else that would allow the defense to reason it away? That's worrisome. I thought the prosecutors had this in the bag, but now I'm questioning what they need this delay for. Even having enough evidence for the AK conviction would land him in jail and they could have YEARS to find her and build a case for murder against him. Are they worried they don't even have enough to make the AK charge stick? Definitely concerning.
Click to expand...

Maybe they think someone else was there possibly!
 
Doj1234 said:
I agree on the worrisome aspect to law enforcement now wanting to delay the trial for this hair testing. I am having difficulty looking at this as much more than insecurity from the prosecution on the case that they have.

However, a couple of thoughts that I've had that could be involved are:
1) a delay tactic designed to put the rape trial ahead of the AK trial;
2) a delay tactic to provide a few more weeks in the hope of finding CM's body;
3) a delay tactic simply because prosecution likes the idea that incarcerating the most likely perp without a conviction is in the greater good of society, after all, they may lose when trial occurs;
4) Prosecution is concerned that too much of their evidence has been acquired illegally and won't be allowed in the trial.

Personally, I hope that the judge is able to see through the ruse and doesn't grant the delay. Prosecution has had enough time to test this type of evidence so if they missed the testing because of their own laziness, then EA shouldn't be hurt because of it.

On a side note, I also find the comment in the article regarding EA slumping his shoulders at pre-trial was interesting. If I was innocent (or even guilty, but felt like I would be found not guilty), I would slump my shoulders as well at the idea of being in jail for a few weeks longer than necessary because the prosecution has been slow to test.
Click to expand...

I agree, I hope the delay is denied, even if her hair was found it's too easily explained away by the defense, the prosecution does not need to help them create reasonable doubt, if they had enough evidence to charge him, go to trial with it and stop hoping a smoking gun will turn up. I do think EA did it, I don't think anyone else could have disappeared her, go to trial and prove it, prosecution, you had the evidence to charge him, you better have it to convict him.
 
It's somewhat unclear to me what the true significance of the "found hairs" might be. No matter where the hairs originated from, they could be "transfer" hair, from anyone CM or EA was in contact with, or anyone that rode in his car & could be viewed as just that, by either the prosecution or defense. Maybe LE wants to slam EA & his defense with some more type of evidence, in hopes of a confession...? Or else, they just want every bit of evidence possibly obtainable, to leave the jury with no doubt.. Or maybe as another poster stated, they want the SA case to come first.. dunno...

ETA: Why it is just now being analyzed for evidence is beyond me...:thinking:
 
zippixx said:
It's somewhat unclear to me what the true significance of the "found hairs" might be. No matter where the hairs originated from, they could be "transfer" hair, from anyone CM or EA was in contact with, or anyone that rode in his car & could be viewed as just that, by either the prosecution or defense. Maybe LE wants to slam EA & his defense with some more type of evidence, in hopes of a confession...? Or else, they just want every bit of evidence possibly obtainable, to leave the jury with no doubt.. Or maybe as another poster stated, they want the SA case to come first.. dunno...

ETA: Why it is just now being analyzed for evidence is beyond me...:thinking:
Click to expand...

I really feel for Jonni ad family. I hate that this is being drug out further and over something they have had for a long time. I really hope it's not a case of them having nothing and trying to grasp at straws. They obviously have enough for the indictment so why he delay on this and the just now testing hair. I don't get itt. Are they possibly feeling like they're close to finding her body so they are hoping to get tthe murder indicttment? I don't know but itt sucks that Christina's family is suffering and just want justice alreay.
 
The Texas Dept. of Public Safety does this type of forensic testing at only 4 labs...in the GIANT state of Texas.

This shopvac was not immediately dismantled when it arrived at the lab. It was logged into evidence, assigned a priority...and sat there for most of the last year while the forensic technicians worked on other cases that came in before this case.

I agree, it's frustrating. But, I'm glad the DA is making every effort to collect evidence to convict EA. M

It's also not uncommon for these high profile cases to take 2 or more years to finally go to trial. If it's not the state asking for a continuance...the defense team is requesting one.

I haven't been here lately, but still follow this case since I live in the area.

Still hoping for a miracle but feel she's gone and EA is responsible.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
alwaysonmymind said:
The Texas Dept. of Public Safety does this type of forensic testing at only 4 labs...in the GIANT state of Texas.

This shopvac was not immediately dismantled when it arrived at the lab. It was logged into evidence, assigned a priority...and sat there for most of the last year while the forensic technicians worked on other cases that came in before this case.

I agree, it's frustrating. But, I'm glad the DA is making every effort to collect evidence to convict EA. M

It's also not uncommon for these high profile cases to take 2 or more years to finally go to trial. If it's not the state asking for a continuance...the defense team is requesting one.

I haven't been here lately, but still follow this case since I live in the area.

Still hoping for a miracle but feel she's gone and EA is responsible.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...
That is why I think that the judge should not grant the delay. If it was assigned such a low priority to begin with ( for reasons stated above, it probably SHOULD have low priority), there isn't a valid reason to hold up proceedings for results.

It probably doesn't matter to anyone except EA, and only to him if he is innocent. If prosecution has everything that they have stated before, they certainly don't need more evidence that CM was in the car. Now if it's AP or HFs hair and they say that they haven't ever been in the car, that would be different...
 
Doj1234 said:
That is why I think that the judge should not grant the delay. If it was assigned such a low priority to begin with ( for reasons stated above, it probably SHOULD have low priority), there isn't a valid reason to hold up proceedings for results.

It probably doesn't matter to anyone except EA, and only to him if he is innocent. If prosecution has everything that they have stated before, they certainly don't need more evidence that CM was in the car. Now if it's AP or HFs hair and they say that they haven't ever been in the car, that would be different...
Click to expand...

RBBM
Yeah, now that would be crazy....:eek:
I guess we just have to wait and see.:waiting:
 
Doj1234 said:
...there isn't a valid reason to hold up proceedings for results.
Click to expand...

I certainly disagree with this thinking.

A trial is not a game to be won, but rather a quest for justice and truth for victims and accused.

Ultimately the ability to have the results of evidence-testing offers more light to be shed on the case, and a quest for justice and truth would not be enhanced by saying, "Sorry, we'll never know legally if that evidence mattered or not, because in April we decided to start the trial on Nov 30 no matter what, justice be damned!"

Is that a bit melodramatic? Perhaps. But on the other hand, there are 4 factors at play here that make this much ado about nothing:
1 Nov 30 was just a date that was arbitrarily picked in the 1st place, by all 3 parties (the court, the DA, the defense) because it gave everyone time to make sure they have cleared calendars and about 6 months to work their pre-trial process.
2 There is nothing sacred about starting the trial in 6 months-ish on Nov 30, that gets lost by starting it in 6.5 or 7 months instead.
3 The schedule adjustment is being requested and made several months in advance. If we were on the eve of trial and then one side or the other asked for a delay of several months, that would be different. But this feels like a delay where one party has an issue, and is working with the others to keep them in the loop as to the ramifications, and that's how the courts are supposed to work.
4 While it's not something most of us deal with on a regular basis, this is simply life in the courts. They recognize that while they want to prevent foot-dragging, time factors have to be allowed in considerations of justice. There are other cases to be tried, other evidence in the queue at state testing labs, and everyone has lots of tasks on their plate. Sometimes you have to adjust, and they do.
 
SteveS said:
I certainly disagree with this thinking.

A trial is not a game to be won, but rather a quest for justice and truth for victims and accused.

Ultimately the ability to have the results of evidence-testing offers more light to be shed on the case, and a quest for justice and truth would not be enhanced by saying, "Sorry, we'll never know legally if that evidence mattered or not, because in April we decided to start the trial on Nov 30 no matter what, justice be damned!"

Is that a bit melodramatic? Perhaps. But on the other hand, there are 4 factors at play here that make this much ado about nothing:
1 Nov 30 was just a date that was arbitrarily picked in the 1st place, by all 3 parties (the court, the DA, the defense) because it gave everyone time to make sure they have cleared calendars and about 6 months to work their pre-trial process.
2 There is nothing sacred about starting the trial in 6 months-ish on Nov 30, that gets lost by starting it in 6.5 or 7 months instead.
3 The schedule adjustment is being requested and made several months in advance. If we were on the eve of trial and then one side or the other asked for a delay of several months, that would be different. But this feels like a delay where one party has an issue, and is working with the others to keep them in the loop as to the ramifications, and that's how the courts are supposed to work.
4 While it's not something most of us deal with on a regular basis, this is simply life in the courts. They recognize that while they want to prevent foot-dragging, time factors have to be allowed in considerations of justice. There are other cases to be tried, other evidence in the queue at state testing labs, and everyone has lots of tasks on their plate. Sometimes you have to adjust, and they do.
Click to expand...
Obviously it was low priority to begin with. LE could also wait until next March to decide to test his toothbrush at home for DNA. But, that probably wouldn't tell them anything so I doubt that they pursue THAT justice and truth. The point is there is little to gain by the testing.
 
NUMBERING ADDED FOR CLARITY IN REPLY
Doj1234 said:
1Obviously it was low priority to begin with. LE could also wait until next March to decide to test his toothbrush at home for DNA. But, that probably wouldn't tell them anything so I doubt that they pursue THAT justice and truth. 2 The point is there is little to gain by the testing.
Click to expand...

"1 Obviously it was low priority to begin with."

Nah, it was a case of "being stuck in a long line" to begin with. And each case gets in at the back of the line, because all the other tests already in line are attached to trials with specified dates as well, each of which is just as important to someone as this case is to us and those involved personally. As much as we focus on the EA trial here, it is not The Case Ahead of All Other Cases in the courts, in life, in the real world, and it doesn't get treated as such.

That's a large part of what this pre-trial was all about, set about halfway to trial. It's to see how the parties are coming in the prep, and if there are any issues that necessitate a delay. As it turned out, they had one with the testing schedule, so are looking closer to see if an adjustment will need to be made - and if they have to modify the start date by a bit, it's not the biggie people are imagining. It's all just part of the process.

"2 The point is there is little to gain by the testing."

That may be YOUR belief, but I certainly disagree. I think the testing is incredibly relevant, because ya don't know what you don't know. Sure it MIGHT be nothing - but it also might be key to the cause of justice.

And deciding in advance whether WE (the bystanders) care about finding out about certain evidence is not how our justice system determines things. A trial is the venue in which the parties to the case argue about the relative importance, and THE JURY decides what's important and what isn't.

When all is said and done, this may turn out to be key evidence - or, not. But unless it's tested, we can never know, and months prior to trial, imo no court is going to take actions that preclude the ability to properly examine evidence by getting necessary tests.
 
zippixx said:
It's somewhat unclear to me what the true significance of the "found hairs" might be. No matter where the hairs originated from, they could be "transfer" hair, from anyone CM or EA was in contact with, or anyone that rode in his car & could be viewed as just that, by either the prosecution or defense. Maybe LE wants to slam EA & his defense with some more type of evidence, in hopes of a confession...? Or else, they just want every bit of evidence possibly obtainable, to leave the jury with no doubt.. Or maybe as another poster stated, they want the SA case to come first.. dunno...
Click to expand...


BBM

I believe you're right on with this.It seems like they have what they need to convict EA but the more evidence the better. If the defense should find a way to disprove some of the evidence, the DA will still have more in their bag of tricks.

But for the life of me I can't understand why that vac hasn't been tested already. In the beginning when the evidence began to stack up the shop vac was right up there in importance (at least for me).
EA was the last one seen with CM, he was late for work the next day, he was seen wiping something off the trunk of his car while pumping gas, Christina's DNA was found in the trunk, he was seen using the shop vac to clean his car on Sat and LE pulled trash twice and found cleaning supplies. Even a rookie cop should have known to check that vac for evidence. I hope this hiccup isn't going to be SOP for this case when it does get to trial.

JMO
 
Sweetgrits said:
I believe you're right on with this.It seems like they have what they need to convict EA but the more evidence the better. If the defense should find a way to disprove some of the evidence, the DA will still have more in their bag of tricks.

But for the life of me I can't understand why that vac hasn't been tested already. In the beginning when the evidence began to stack up the shop vac was right up there in importance (at least for me).
EA was the last one seen with CM, he was late for work the next day, he was seen wiping something off the trunk of his car while pumping gas, Christina's DNA was found in the trunk, he was seen using the shop vac to clean his car on Sat and LE pulled trash twice and found cleaning supplies. Even a rookie cop should have known to check that vac for evidence. I hope this hiccup isn't going to be SOP for this case when it does get to trial.

JMO
Click to expand...

RBBM

I agree. I mean, I'm no cop, but I would've thought they would have really checked out the contents of the vacuum long ago. It could have contained fibers from what she was supposed to be wearing, fibers or hair with dried blood or "other DNA" on them, some plant or seed that would lead them to a certain area... the list goes on and on. All those possibilities seem like good enough reason to have checked out the contents of the vacuum and alerted LE to what it contained.

Who knows? Maybe they did and knew that there were hairs... but come on, what vacuum isn't going to suck up a hair? And one from a retail store should definitely have plenty.

So yeah, who knows what the real story is with the vacuum and the investigating of the contents.
 
alwaysonmymind said:
The Texas Dept. of Public Safety does this type of forensic testing at only 4 labs...in the GIANT state of Texas.

This shopvac was not immediately dismantled when it arrived at the lab. It was logged into evidence, assigned a priority...and sat there for most of the last year while the forensic technicians worked on other cases that came in before this case.

I agree, it's frustrating. But, I'm glad the DA is making every effort to collect evidence to convict EA. M

It's also not uncommon for these high profile cases to take 2 or more years to finally go to trial. If it's not the state asking for a continuance...the defense team is requesting one.

I haven't been here lately, but still follow this case since I live in the area.

Still hoping for a miracle but feel she's gone and EA is responsible.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Good information, thanks! I had no idea there was such a backlog and so few testing facilities.. I'm curious if all the other evidence has been gone through & analyzed (all the stuff from his residence & the car).
 
CookieM said:
RBBM

I agree. I mean, I'm no cop, but I would've thought they would have really checked out the contents of the vacuum long ago. It could have contained fibers from what she was supposed to be wearing, fibers or hair with dried blood or "other DNA" on them, some plant or seed that would lead them to a certain area... the list goes on and on. All those possibilities seem like good enough reason to have checked out the contents of the vacuum and alerted LE to what it contained.

Who knows? Maybe they did and knew that there were hairs... but come on, what vacuum isn't going to suck up a hair? And one from a retail store should definitely have plenty.

So yeah, who knows what the real story is with the vacuum and the investigating of the contents.
Click to expand...

I know it could be iffy to find only Christina's hair but there could have potentially other evidence. They could have found broken fingernails, jewelry or parts of her clothing like buttons. I know I should let this go but to me, it's beyond crazy.

I so wish Christina would be found. It's time, her poor family has suffered enough.
 
Sweetgrits said:
I know it could be iffy to find only Christina's hair but there could have potentially other evidence. They could have found broken fingernails, jewelry or parts of her clothing like buttons. I know I should let this go but to me, it's beyond crazy.

I so wish Christina would be found. It's time, her poor family has suffered enough.
Click to expand...

Oh I totally agree!! That's what I am saying. The vacuum could have contained a treasure trove of evidence -- which is why I think it should have been processed earlier. The thing is, we are not hearing about anything other than hairs needing to be tested for DNA. Of course, this doesn't mean there are not other things, but you know, we just discuss what's put out there. So for now it's the hair found in a vacuum that we've heard that he used a year ago.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 85 more.
Total: 2,408 (members: 86, guests: 2,322)

Online statistics

Members online
86
Guests online
2,322
Total visitors
2,408
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
591,530
Messages
17,953,982
Members
228,522
Latest member
Cabinsleuth
Back
Top