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

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
IMO the prosecutor could still question Staub about factors that indicate it might be blood vs. something else - without him actually stating his opinion
 
Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 45s45 seconds ago
Judge: "As I'm sizing up the evidence right now, it's premature." Absence elimination of other things, it's just b/c he says so #arochitrial

Natalie Solis ‏@Fox4Natalie 46s46 seconds ago
Judge is NOT going to allow Dr Staub to testify for state on DNA coming from blood. Says its premature. @FOX4 #arochitrial

Gabriel RoxasVerified account ‏@cbs11gabriel 1m1 minute ago McKinney, TX
Judge Rusch says he will not allow Dr. Staub to opine that he thinks the DNA came from blood. #arochitrial

Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 1m1 minute ago
Judge: I'm not going to let him opine that this is blood at this point #arochitrial
 
Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 50s50 seconds ago
Judge: "We'll see how this continues to evolve. Things change." #arochitrial
 
Natalie Solis ‏@Fox4Natalie 1m1 minute ago
Judge says if things change, his ruling may change @FOX4 #arochitrial
 
Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 45s45 seconds ago
Judge: "As I'm sizing up the evidence right now, it's premature." Absence elimination of other things, it's just b/c he says so #arochitrial

Natalie Solis ‏@Fox4Natalie 46s46 seconds ago
Judge is NOT going to allow Dr Staub to testify for state on DNA coming from blood. Says its premature. @FOX4 #arochitrial

Gabriel RoxasVerified account ‏@cbs11gabriel 1m1 minute ago McKinney, TX
Judge Rusch says he will not allow Dr. Staub to opine that he thinks the DNA came from blood. #arochitrial

Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 1m1 minute ago
Judge: I'm not going to let him opine that this is blood at this point #arochitrial
 
minor4th said:
Looks like judge is not allowing Staub to testify about his conclusion
Click to expand...

Does it really matter for an AK case? Her DNA was in two spots in the back of his trunk and on the trunk lining. I would think that would be enough since he's not facing a murder charge?
 
heather.scissorhands said:
He lied Bc of drugs. She puked. ODed. He panicked.

I don't know. I'm just saying there are a lot of reasons why people lie. I need to know she was actually in that trunk. Not just that she may have puked in that trunk. I mean, I do believe she was, but I want to everyone to see she was. Make sense?
Click to expand...
I think you and I are too literal and look to deeply into things. We need good proof and reasons for things.

I feel I would be a terrible juror for that reason and also because I'm too emotional.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
So, right now we're left with: CM DNA found on 2 samples from trunk mat and 1 from weather stripping. It's too much to be from touch DNA.
 
Plano Star Courier ‏@planonewspaper 2m2 minutes ago
Judge disallows Staub's testimony. #arochitrial

Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 2m2 minutes ago
Judge: "We'll see how this continues to evolve. Things change." #arochitrial

L.P. Phillips ‏@lpphillips 2m2 minutes ago Manhattan, NY
Judge is premature. It fails a 403 analysis. It is his conclusion. If things change my ruling may change. If not I won't #arochitrial

Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 4m4 minutes ago
10-minute break. #arochitrial

Alice Barr ‏@AliceBarrNBC5 4m4 minutes ago Manhattan, NY
I've stepped out of #ArochiTrial to do live shots, keeping updated from inside courtroom. Watch @NBCDFW at 5:00 & 6:00 for the latest.

Natalie Solis ‏@Fox4Natalie 4m4 minutes ago
Judge says if things change, his ruling may change @FOX4 #arochitrial

Scott Sidway ‏@ScottyWK 4m4 minutes ago
On a day the defense really hasn't landed many successful "punches," this is a solid win for them. #arochitrial

Valerie WigglesworthVerified account ‏@vlwigg 1m1 minute ago
Recap: Jury knows Morris' DNA found in 3 areas - 2x on trunk mat, 1 on weather stripping from trunk edge; source of DNA unknown #arochitrial
 
I think they already have enough experts testifying about the DNA that Staub's lack of testimony is not a back breaker for the prosecution.
 
SaintGirl said:
Does it really matter for an AK case? Her DNA was in two spots in the back of his trunk and on the trunk lining. I would think that would be enough since he's not facing a murder charge?
Click to expand...

Yeah, it's just that if the jurors are convinced it's blood, that makes it that much easier to conclude that it was aggravated kidnapping. In the end, I don't think it matters though - he will still be co
 
Quailfoot said:
This is where I am, Heather. For whatever reason, I'm thinking that if she was in the trunk for an extended period of time, there would be more/stronger DNA evidence there, whether it is blood or saliva.

However, with puke, I go with maybe she puked in his car, he had a towel, blanket or whatever that he cleaned up with, then threw it in the back of the car after he let her out or took her to HF or whomever HF texted to pick her up.

NOTE: Not that I think that's what happened. Just going down the list of things that might be presented by the defense to the jury when all is said and done. I still think they find him guilty. I just think all of us were expecting the DNA evidence to be stronger...

...either that or EA has a really good defense team that is good at mucking up the works! That's entirely possible. And, in the end, that's their job.

On thing is for sure, if he is convicted, it can't be overturned on the common assertion that his attorneys didn't provide a vigorous enough defense. Seems to me that they are certainly giving a vigorous defense...which, in my opinion, will make an appeal less likely to succeed.

What possible bases has prosecution not covered that the defense just let go by? None that I can see, so far. This would be an excellent case for young attorneys or law students hoping to go into criminal defense or prosecution to observe.
Click to expand...
This is exactly what I've been trying to get across. Kudos for you using the right words there.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
 
I believe there would have been a lot more DNA if EA had not scrubbed the mat in his car.
 
JMHO Det is not an EXPERT and was going to use someone elses "journal work" that's what I got from it. And he is not from an accredited lab. Det at PPD.
 
I'm heading out. See y'all tomorrow or later tonight.
 
allmybecsloveme said:
This is exactly what I've been trying to get across. Kudos for you using the right words there.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Thanks. But, again, problem for the defense is: EA says she was never in his car at all. So, that's going to have to be overcome if he is to avoid conviction. As sloppy and confusing as some of the DNA testimony has been, you still have on record EA's own testimony to the police about that evening and whether CM was ever in his car.

As far as I can see, if I'm a juror, that may be the point I would keep going back to: he says she was never even in the car, yet DNA evidence says she was - whether it was in the passenger's seat or trunk really wouldn't make a difference to me.

But, that's just me. Who knows what the 12 jurors there will think. I think EA's defense is doing the best they can; but, ultimately, it is likely his own assertions from the get go that could lead to his conviction.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Quailfoot View Post
This is where I am, Heather. For whatever reason, I'm thinking that if she was in the trunk for an extended period of time, there would be more/stronger DNA evidence there, whether it is blood or saliva.

However, with puke, I go with maybe she puked in his car, he had a towel, blanket or whatever that he cleaned up with, then threw it in the back of the car after he let her out or took her to HF or whomever HF texted to pick her up.

NOTE: Not that I think that's what happened. Just going down the list of things that might be presented by the defense to the jury when all is said and done. I still think they find him guilty. I just think all of us were expecting the DNA evidence to be stronger...

...either that or EA has a really good defense team that is good at mucking up the works! That's entirely possible. And, in the end, that's their job.

On thing is for sure, if he is convicted, it can't be overturned on the common assertion that his attorneys didn't provide a vigorous enough defense. Seems to me that they are certainly giving a vigorous defense...which, in my opinion, will make an appeal less likely to succeed.

What possible bases has prosecution not covered that the defense just let go by? None that I can see, so far. This would be an excellent case for young attorneys or law students hoping to go into criminal defense or prosecution to observe.
Click to expand...


allmybecsloveme said:
This is exactly what I've been trying to get across. Kudos for you using the right words there.

Sent from my SAMSUNG-SM-G930A using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

Agree with you both. Could have even happened at the parking garage? She threw up he had something in car let her use and then threw it in trunk? or even was putting something in trunk she threw up or something (thinking out loud) She had been drinking and who know for sure what else and only eaten Ramen noodles. Could have happen prior to ever getting in EA car at parking garage. Met up with HF? Heck I sure dont know but possible for sure JMHO
 
Maybe he will testify and say what happened. Most likely depends on how rest of trial goes JMHO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is Escambia County John Doe (1989)?

Members online

... and 52 more.
Total: 3,867 (members: 53, guests: 3,814)

Online statistics

Members online
53
Guests online
3,814
Total visitors
3,867
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
592,622
Messages
17,972,062
Members
228,845
Latest member
butiwantedthatname
Back
Top