The Phone Calls in the early morning of Dec.18, 2013 (both PayPhone & cells)

I didn't say they need a new theory. They needed a theory that was plausible enough alongside the circumstantial evidence to lead to a prosecution for murder, not a nolle pros. They didn't even get into court. The truth is, if they had a murder case they wouldn't have asked for the NP.

The roommate said Heather told her that SM said he was leaving TM and wanted to see her and she decided to sleep on it. That's all we know. We have no idea what Heather was thinking and why, or why she was driving around, or who had control of phones and when.

Just because we can reason that they did it doesn't equal the state having a case that will stand in court. Obviously, even the state agreed on that and that's why they asked for the NP.

They've saddled themselves with a claim that she was both kidnapped and killed at PTL, and as you say, who's not going to notice that they changed their minds if they extend the crime beyond the landing? I don't know where this is going but it's been over a year and nobody is charged with murder.

Okay you said "I think the state needs to work on its theory." Above you also said they "saddled themselves with a theory." In my opinion, their theory was based on the circumstantial evidence they had. It is what it is. Whether she was harmed at PTL or Longbeards really isn't the issue. If a person or juror does not see the string of circumstantial evidence without every single piece filled in for them, then there won't be a conviction, no matter the charge. I'm just saying I don't know why the mention of Longbeards which seems to be an unknown evidentiary wise to the state comes to mind as the place something happened? It was a point on the timeline. That seems to be all they have on it. What is the difference PTL or Longbeards, if one believes and follows what was presented in court?
 
Okay you said "I think the state needs to work on its theory." Above you also said they "saddled themselves with a theory." In my opinion, their theory was based on the circumstantial evidence they had. It is what it is. Whether she was harmed at PTL or Longbeards really isn't the issue. If a person or juror does not see the string of circumstantial evidence without every single piece filled in for them, then there won't be a conviction, no matter the charge. I'm just saying I don't know why the mention of Longbeards which seems to be an unknown evidentiary wise to the state comes to mind as the place something happened? It was a point on the timeline. That seems to be all they have on it. What is the difference PTL or Longbeards, if one believes and follows what was presented in court?

I've said from the beginning that the state was trying to make a kidnapping and murder fit into a boat landing, in a blink of an eye, leaving no evidence whatsoever, and ending with the Moorer's and a deceased Heather going back to their home where there was also no evidence of a crime or a body disposal. So, Longbeard's as a location where the victim's phone is known to have traveled within a few short hours before her phone activity ended forever seems entirely relevant to the events of that morning.

I believe the state didn't mention Longbeard's until they had to because the car at PTL was the most tangible evidence they had to indicate she was not coming back, and they believed that everything had to hang on that.
 
I've said from the beginning that the state was trying to make a kidnapping and murder fit into a boat landing, in a blink of an eye, leaving no evidence whatsoever, and ending with the Moorer's and a deceased Heather going back to their home where there was also no evidence of a crime or a body disposal. So, Longbeard's as a location where the victim's phone is known to have traveled within a few short hours before her phone activity ended forever seems entirely relevant to the events of that morning.

I believe the state didn't mention Longbeard's until they had to because the car at PTL was the most tangible evidence they had to indicate she was not coming back, and they believed that everything had to hang on that.

BBM - I don't agree that the state didn't mention Longbeards until they had to. There were many things not revealed until the actual trial. In the beginning after the 1st hearing I read legal experts were surprised that so much was revealed in the preliminary hearing.
 
I've said from the beginning that the state was trying to make a kidnapping and murder fit into a boat landing, in a blink of an eye, leaving no evidence whatsoever, and ending with the Moorer's and a deceased Heather going back to their home where there was also no evidence of a crime or a body disposal. So, Longbeard's as a location where the victim's phone is known to have traveled within a few short hours before her phone activity ended forever seems entirely relevant to the events of that morning.

I believe the state didn't mention Longbeard's until they had to because the car at PTL was the most tangible evidence they had to indicate she was not coming back, and they believed that everything had to hang on that.

I agree with this. For the longest time we have tried to put a square peg in a round hole. Basically making a theory fit the known information, that they ambushed her at PTL, resulting in her demise, disposed of her body or grabbed it and left within minutes. IMO, it makes more sense that the crime occurred at LB due to the pings from the phone presented at trial. She was parked there and her phone had movement and then non movement for much longer than the PTL ping and then forever powered off (that we know of). JMO, obviously we can work theories with "fresh eyes" now since the information at the trial(s) has given us a little more to work with.

IMO
 

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
202
Guests online
2,833
Total visitors
3,035

Forum statistics

Threads
594,328
Messages
18,003,066
Members
229,368
Latest member
CumulativeHazard
Back
Top