Grand Jury Indictment 3/20/14

[Madeleine74]

Remember there was also an indictment from a grand jury. The GJ looked at whatever evidence was presented to them and determined if there was enough evidence to take the case further. Since they voted 'yes,' one can assume there is evidence. Whether there is enough evidence to convince a jury is never known for sure. Not until a jury deliberates and determines the answer to that.

 

[EmmaRose]

Will the Moorers be tried separately or together? Who decides? The DA? Would trying them together be advantageous to the Prosecution? Not sure how all this works.

 

[windygirl]

Remember there was also an indictment from a grand jury. The GJ looked at whatever evidence was presented to them and determined if there was enough evidence to take the case further. Since they voted 'yes,' one can assume there is evidence.

Not necessarily...have you ever heard the phrase "a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich"? Most of the time, the GJ is told there is evidence, presented with something, and basically told that whatever it was they were shown, is enough. Because they aren't determining guilt and because they are relying on the one-sided evidence and testimony presented by the prosecutor, they agree and indict.

Now, that might not have happened in this case, but over time, I've learned a GJ indictment doesn't mean all it's cracked up to mean..

All IMO, MOO

 

[scaredtopost]

I hate there is no new information. And they haven't even set a trial date. If it's frustrating for me, I can only imagine how it is for her dear family. Just thinking of Heather today.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Not necessarily...have you ever heard the phrase "a grand jury will indict a ham sandwich"? Most of the time, the GJ is told there is evidence, presented with something, and basically told that whatever it was they were shown, is enough. Because they aren't determining guilt and because they are relying on the one-sided evidence and testimony presented by the prosecutor, they agree and indict.

Now, that might not have happened in this case, but over time, I've learned a GJ indictment doesn't mean all it's cracked up to mean..

All IMO, MOO

Well, we know about the camera footage, the phone records, and the texts...I think that would be more than enough for the GJ to indict. The question for the criminal trial will be how much more evidence does the prosecution have and how much reasonable doubt can the defense raise about this evidence.

 

[Hatfield]

Well, we know about the camera footage, the phone records, and the texts...I think that would be more than enough for the GJ to indict. The question for the criminal trial will be how much more evidence does the prosecution have and how much reasonable doubt can the defense raise about this evidence.

If I was a member of the jury, One thing that sits very strongly with me so far is when SM was asked whether he had spoken to Heather that night and he basically lied from what I gathered and indicated he had not spoken to her for some time. Only after he was confronted with the information that LE knew about his communication with her did he then change his story.

This alone is huge to me because if you had nothing to hide then why lie about that. That evidence alone is very strong. Then if there is video evidence of him driving a vehicle to or from the landing and if there is video of Heather going to the landing at roughly the same time, well then.....very strong evidence.

During the trial, It will be interesting to find out what other evidence LE may have.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Truslow said he’s looking forward to his own investigation and a chance to look at the state’s evidence instead of the prosecution’s interpretation of the evidence, which was laid out Monday.

“I wish we could try the case this summer,” he said. “With the case that they have I would be ready by this summer, June or July.”

http://www.thestate.com/2014/03/19/3336196/horry-county-prosecutors-not-considering.html

 

[Ghostwheel]

Random thought time. Suppose the Prosecution is saying no death penalty to make sure sympathy is not garnered for not guilty votes due to leaving the Moorer children without any parent. Trying to make sure that anyone who has sympathy for the rest of the family will still be comfortable with a "Guilty" if they know TM and SM will not be put to death.

I was thinking that if it is proven that the M's did kidnap and kill Heather, but something comes to light where the killing portion might possibly have been an accident, having the death penalty or not could have an impact on the jurors decision. There is a difference between true pre-meditated murder, and stupidity gone wrong. IMO.

 

[Ghostwheel]

http://www.thestate.com/2014/03/19/3336196/horry-county-prosecutors-not-considering.html

Good article. However, Truslow is showing ignorance by saying that he hasn't seen the evidence, yet would be ready for a trial this summer. How can he be sure what kind of case the prosecution has if he has not seen all of the evidence? And how can he be ready if he doesn't actually know what kind of case the prosecution has? I'd be worried if that were the attitude of my solicitor. JMO.

 

[Ghostwheel]

If I was a member of the jury, One thing that sits very strongly with me so far is when SM was asked whether he had spoken to Heather that night and he basically lied from what I gathered and indicated he had not spoken to her for some time. Only after he was confronted with the information that LE knew about his communication with her did he then change his story.

This alone is huge to me because if you had nothing to hide then why lie about that. That evidence alone is very strong. Then if there is video evidence of him driving a vehicle to or from the landing and if there is video of Heather going to the landing at roughly the same time, well then.....very strong evidence.

During the trial, It will be interesting to find out what other evidence LE may have.

BBM: This and TM lying about SM's whereabouts that night. His Obstruction of Justice charge says "providing and creating false, misleading and/or inaccurate information regarding the disappearance of Heather Elvis and his activities in the early morning hours". TM's says "providing and creating false, misleading and/or inaccurate information regarding the disappearance of Heather Elvis and her and Sidney Moorer's activities in the early morning hours". So he only lied about himself, but she lied about both of them. Makes you wonder what the questions were.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Random thought time. Suppose the Prosecution is saying no death penalty to make sure sympathy is not garnered for not guilty votes due to leaving the Moorer children without any parent. Trying to make sure that anyone who has sympathy for the rest of the family will still be comfortable with a "Guilty" if they know TM and SM will not be put to death.

I was thinking that if it is proven that the M's did kidnap and kill Heather, but something comes to light where the killing portion might possibly have been an accident, having the death penalty or not could have an impact on the jurors decision. There is a difference between true pre-meditated murder, and stupidity gone wrong. IMO.

It would be difficult to get the DP w/o a body. Showing the jury how the victim suffered in their last moments on Earth, why the case is more horrific than all the others, autopsy photos, method of killing, was sexual assault involved, etc are all factors that would be considered. Also, in SC, can you be sentenced to death if you didn't do the killing?

And there has been a lot of speculation about whether Heather was killed. The police report says it happened at PTL. If the Moorers drove to PTL, shot Heather, grabbed her body, and got out of there, I do not see that as being a case that a jury would vote DP on. However, if Heather was taken in their car, alive, to their house, where they murdered her, I could see that being a case where they get the DP. So perhaps the theory that prosecutor is going with, is not one that would likely get back a DP verdict, so they aren't going to pursue it.

 

[scaredmomof2]

I thought this was pretty interesting...

malice aforethought

n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with police, there is malice aforethought.

Also, regarding the Death Penalty issue, could it be possible the Elvis family (and this is just my opinion,) doesn't believe in it, and doesn't want it pursued?

 

[EmmaRose]

I thought this was pretty interesting...

malice aforethought

n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with police, there is malice aforethought.

Also, regarding the Death Penalty issue, could it be possible the Elvis family (and this is just my opinion,) doesn't believe in it, and doesn't want it pursued?

Well, that sure spells it out as to why the Moorers were charged in this way!

Very fitting description for the "FB lovebirds", oops, should I say "jail birds" -- it's so on the money: general evil and depraved state of mind ....

 

[cluciano63]

I thought this was pretty interesting...

malice aforethought

n. 1) the conscious intent to cause death or great bodily harm to another person before a person commits the crime. Such malice is a required element to prove first degree murder. 2) a general evil and depraved state of mind in which the person is unconcerned for the lives of others. Thus, if a person uses a gun to hold up a bank and an innocent bystander is killed in a shoot-out with police, there is malice aforethought.

Also, regarding the Death Penalty issue, could it be possible the Elvis family (and this is just my opinion,) doesn't believe in it, and doesn't want it pursued?

I don't think the Elvis family would have that kind of input, at least not this early on. LE may need to utilize the possibility of the DP to try to locate Heather and/or get confessions at some point. I think her family could speak out about sentencing after a conviction. Jmo

 

[cluciano63]

OT, just watching an episode of "Snapped" re: Jessica McCord, who with her husband, murdered her ex and his wife (shot and then burned them in trunk of car) in Georgia. They had several young children, yet Georgia decided to seek the DP, so apparently, having kids is not really a factor in deciding, at least not in GA.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

OT, just watching an episode of "Snapped" re: Jessica McCord, who with her husband, murdered her ex and his wife (shot and then burned them in trunk of car) in Georgia. They had several young children, yet Georgia decided to seek the DP, so apparently, having kids is not really a factor in deciding, at least not in GA.

My guess is that they are not seeking the DP because they do not think the jury will vote for it. I am sure it cost (a lot) more money to have a DP trial (plus appeals) that they are not going to go for it unless they are pretty certain it will happen. One possibility is that they are not sure who actually killed Heather, so while that may not matter for getting a murder conviction, trying to get a jury to give someone the DP who may not have killed someone could be extremely difficult.

ETA: Does anyone know of a trial where the defense argued during the penalty phase that their client should not get the DP, because the case is not the worst of the worst, and the DP should be reserved for those cases? Is it common for them to use that sort of argument?

 

[cluciano63]

My guess is that they are not seeking the DP because they do not think the jury will vote for it. I am sure it cost (a lot) more money to have a DP trial (plus appeals) that they are not going to go for it unless they are pretty certain it will happen. One possibility is that they are not sure who actually killed Heather, so while that may not matter for getting a murder conviction, trying to get a jury to give someone the DP who may not have killed someone could be extremely difficult.

ETA: Does anyone know of a trial where the defense argued during the penalty phase that their client should not get the DP, because the case is not the worst of the worst, and the DP should be reserved for those cases? Is it common for them to use that sort of argument?

In the case I mentioned, the couple lured the other couple to their house, so they could kill them, so that was considered to be DP-eligble. Much the same as this case from what we know, except it may never be known how Heather was killed, which is why I think DP is not really possible.

 

[spiritseeker31]

Is the Moorer court date still on this coming Friday??

 

[EmmaRose]

Is the Moorer court date still on this coming Friday??

Hi Spirit--I went over to the Horry County Public Index and the Moorers will be in court on 6/27/2014 at 8:30 for these charges: Obstruction of Justice, Kidnapping, Sex-Indecent Exposure.

As far as the Murder charge, I do not see a court date. If anyone knows more, please post! TIA

 

[EmmaRose]

Also, if I am reading the index correctly, the Medicaid charges are scheduled for October of this year.