Who is Christopher Paul Maya and Michelle Morales-Nakaza? Wiki, Biography, Age, Family, Suspect, Investigation

christopher-paul-maya-and-michelle-morales-nakaza

Christopher Paul Maya and Michelle Morales-Nakaza Wiki – Christopher Paul Maya and Michelle Morales-Nakaza Biography

When explaining what happened to a witness, the suspect accused of the murder and disappearance of a 32-year-old Texas mother of three is said to have been “excited” about shooting the victim in the face. Investigators learned from the same “Witness 1” that the victim and the dating suspect had been in a “toxic” relationship for several years.

The information regarding the alleged relationship between Michelle Morales-Nakaza, 32, and Christopher Paul Maya, 34, comes from an affidavit that Law&Crime was able to get. The victim’s body was discovered on April 10 “in the vicinity of Red Sands in El Paso County,” according to police. A police bulletin stated that the U.S. had located and detained Maya.

Christopher Paul Maya and Michelle Morales-Nakaza Age

Christopher Paul Maya is 34 years old and Michelle Morales-Nakaza is 32 years old.

Christopher Paul Maya and Michelle Morales-Nakaza Incident Detail

The Woodrow Bean store in El Paso, Texas, was surrounded by marshals on Wednesday in a parking lot. Local resident Morales-Nakaza was reported missing on March 31 by her mother after her family ceased hearing from her, according to the El Paso Police Department. Detective Charles Carrillo of the El Paso Police Department signed an affidavit in which he stated that he “believes that the DEFENDANT murdered the Decedent and used the white Toyota Camry to transport the Decedent’s body to Red Sands, where her body was dumped.”

The detective claimed that Morales-Nakaza’s family started to think that “something terrible” had happened to their loved one when she stopped posting on social media and went days without being heard from. According to reports, the mother of three was last seen at a Baskin-Robbins. On April 8, a woman relayed information that a male acquaintance (Witness 1) had shared with her regarding Maya and the murder case. This marked a significant turning point in the investigation.

“Detectives visited with Witness 1, who identified himself as the DEFENDANT’s buddy. The DEFENDANT repeatedly informed Witness 1 that he was going to ‘murder her,’ according to the document, and that the DEFENDANT knew the DEFENDANT and the DEFECTIVE had been in a ‘toxic’ romantic relationship for years. Witness 1 reported seeing them together recently.

Just a few nights prior to Morales-Nakaza’s disappearance, Maya reportedly begged for assistance in removing surveillance cameras that were rolling outside a house. Documents claimed that “witness 1 stated he thought that was suspicious and did not help him.” A flyer for a missing person featuring the deceased was discovered on social media a few days later, according to Witness 1. Police claim that Witness 1 informed them he only become suspicious at that point and spoke with Maya.

The affidavit claimed that “DEFENDANT later confessed to him that he killed the Decedent.” According to the account Maya allegedly gave, she shot the victim once in the face and twice in the chest after presuming she had taken his wallet, which he claimed was gone, when she awoke in a white Toyota Camry. According to the documentation, Witness 1 stated that Maya was “excited about shooting [Morales-Nakaza] and got more excited when he told Witness 1 that part of her face was blown off from the shot.

“Then, according to Maya, he admitted to what he did next. “The DEFENDANT then told Witness 1 that he got rid of her body, the car, his gun, and his personal cell phone in an unknown desert location,” the document stated. Witness 1 reported that he felt compelled to inform a friend, who then phoned the police, about the DEFENDANT’s confession to him. The authorities then verified Witness 1’s claims by contrasting them with information given by a man “Witness 2,” who claimed Maya was the source of the information.

The affidavit added, “Witness 2’s description of the incident matched with the narrative supplied by Witness 1, that the DEFENDANT shot the Decedent and deposited her body in Red Sands. “Witness 2 received this information from the DEFENDANT personally, and he also gave a likely location for the deceased’s remains. According to Witness 2, the DEFENDANT threw her at Red Sands while she was still wrapped in a blue tarp.

Prior to the DEFENDANT confessing to the murder of the Decedent, Witness 2 claimed that he observed the DEFENDANT driving a white Toyota Camry with weeds and filth inside and blood on various parts of the car. The DEFENDANT allegedly acknowledged having killed someone when Witness 2 questioned him about it.Police reported finding a scene in the desert on April 10 that matched the details given by the witness.

The affidavit stated that the two witnesses were “fully identified and deemed credible because their stories were consistent with one another.” It also stated that there was no evidence that suggested Witness 1 and Witness 2 were acquainted. The information they supplied matched the physical evidence that the investigators found, which led to the conclusion that the witnesses were trustworthy.

Read Also: Who was Bernadette Postle Bliefnick? Wiki, Biography, Age, Family, Cause of Death 

About readinfos 7944 Articles
https://readinfos.com/

Be the first to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.


*