EVIDENCE - Pro and Con #2

[PeterThomasFan]

Are they still wearing the ankle monitors? Just a random thought after seeing the photo from The State link.

If they do un-hook them, they best un-hook the gag order as well.

Uh wait, isn't it already if SM/TM are posting freely on FB?

 

[PeterThomasFan]

And McCullom was interviewed on air?

(Gag order still in effect because of the kidnapping charge and medicade fraud)

http://wpde.com/news/local/murder-c...tammy-and-sidney-moorer-in-heather-elvis-case

 

[bestill]

It is evident that the M's side thinks they can speak and post freely. It's time for the State to make a statement. If the gag order hasn't been lifted then what happens to the M's? This seems so unfair to Heather and the Elvis family.

 

[1&2&3]

SC only gets one bite of the apple and if they waste that bite and can't prove the charges then that's it forever. By dropping the charges now, the state still maintains the ability to charge them for murder in the future. However, clearly the state doesn't have enough evidence to prove their charges and who knows if they ever will.

Will the state also drop the kidnapping and obstruction charges? Remains to be seen. I could tell this case was weakening by virtue of the fact the solicitor was dragging his heels in litigating it. I wonder why they bothered to charge the M's in the first place.

I felt the sensationalization of the case led to pressure for the M's arrest. I don't see how the kidnapping charges will stand unless they can prove what happened to HE after she was kidnapped. What did they do with her after kidnapping her?

 

[Madeleine74]

I agree. And how is the state going to prove that Heather was in that truck and being driven away.

 

[stillwatersc]

I agree. And how is the state going to prove that Heather was in that truck and being driven away.

They don't have to prove she was in the truck and driven away. The definition of kidnap is broad.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php

SECTION 16-3-910. Kidnapping.

Whoever shall unlawfully seize, confine, inveigle, decoy, kidnap, abduct or carry away any other person by any means whatsoever without authority of law, except when a minor is seized or taken by his parent, is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned for a period not to exceed thirty years unless sentenced for murder as provided in Section 16-3-20.

 

[Madeleine74]

Maybe this will work out in the end...

The state will be able to try them for kidnapping and see if that sticks. If it doesn't and they are acquitted of that, then the state still has the murder charge to use someday *if* they ever get some evidence that they think would convince a jury to convict.

And of course there are still other charges -- the fraud of the medicare and food stamps.

I wouldn't trade places with them, that's for sure! Not for all the Disney passes in the world.

 

[EmmaRose]

Maybe this will work out in the end...

The state will be able to try them for kidnapping and see if that sticks. If it doesn't and they are acquitted of that, then the state still has the murder charge to use someday *if* they ever get some evidence that they think would convince a jury to convict.

And of course there are still other charges -- the fraud of the medicare and food stamps.

I wouldn't trade places with them, that's for sure! Not for all the Disney passes in the world.

This is my feeling too, Madeleine. I wouldn't want that murder charge swinging over my head for years.

Yesterday, honestly, when I heard the charges have been dropped, I couldn't even comment on here because I was upset about it. Now, I'm leaning towards thinking that Richardson felt he didn't have as strong a case as he wants to have and will not risk a murder trial until he knows he can get a conviction. I think if the evidence was weak on the kidnap charges, he would have dropped them too.In the meantime, I feel he is confident there is enough evidence of a kidnapping to put the M's away for a good while-- as well as you mentioned the fraud charges. Hopefully, as they are rotting away serving time for either or both, the truth of Heather's murder will come to light, as the truth eventually does.

By the way, I remember you called this months ago that you doubted there would be a trial.

Let's hope all of us who have spent a lot of time on Heather's case will someday see justice for Heather and family here together.

 

[jillycat]

Maybe this will work out in the end...

The state will be able to try them for kidnapping and see if that sticks. If it doesn't and they are acquitted of that, then the state still has the murder charge to use someday *if* they ever get some evidence that they think would convince a jury to convict.

And of course there are still other charges -- the fraud of the medicare and food stamps.

I wouldn't trade places with them, that's for sure! Not for all the Disney passes in the world.[/QUOTE

This is my feeling too, Madeleine. I wouldn't want that murder charge swinging over my head for years.

Yesterday, honestly, when I heard the charges have been dropped, I couldn't even comment on here because I was upset about it. Now, I'm leaning towards thinking that Richardson felt he didn't have as strong a case as he wants to have and will not risk a murder trial until he knows he can get a conviction. I think if the evidence was weak on the kidnap charges, he would have dropped them too.In the meantime, I feel he is confident there is enough evidence of a kidnapping to put the M's away for a good while-- as well as you mentioned the fraud charges. Hopefully, as they are rotting away serving time for either or both, the truth of Heather's murder will come to light, as the truth eventually does.

By the way, I remember you called this months ago that you doubted there would be a trial.

Let's hope all of us who have spent a lot of time on Heather's case will someday see justice for Heather and family here together.

A nolle pross case is exactly that - admission by the state that there is not enough evidence to pursue prosecution. As for the kidnapping charge, I don't see how the state can reasonably argue that she was kidnapped - how exactly and for what purpose - and then she...went where, according to the state?

 

[JulesInVA]

Me too. I was so upset when I heard the news that I didn't even want to come on Websleuths and reread about it.

I haven't been on here in months, but HE is my girl. I don't know why, but I just want her to have justice so badly. I'm from SC, I know a rebellious, give-em-hell chick when I see her, and I will never be able to let this case go until she's found or someone is convicted. Ran across the news on FB, tried to catch up on all the weirdo pages but they're just too weird. So here I am. Trying to puzzle it out again. Where. Is. Heather?

 

[Madeleine74]

Sadly, there are so many missing persons/murdered and missing that are never resolved. You can be convinced of who did it, but without evidence to prove it the cases can't and won't move forward.

 

[EmmaRose]

A nolle pross case is exactly that - admission by the state that there is not enough evidence to pursue prosecution. As for the kidnapping charge, I don't see how the state can reasonably argue that she was kidnapped - how exactly and for what purpose - and then she...went where, according to the state?

Thanks, jilly cat. I'm not very good with the legal terminology so I appreciate your input.

As for the kidnapping charges, I'm not sure how that works.... Would the state have
to show what happened to Heather after the actual kidnap took place or is having strong evidence that a kidnapping occurred be enough on its own to get a conviction?

 

[Surfside]

Thanks, jilly cat. I'm not very good with the legal terminology so I appreciate your input.

As for the kidnapping charges, I'm not sure how that works.... Would the state have
to show what happened to Heather after the actual kidnap took place or is having strong evidence that a kidnapping occurred be enough on its own to get a conviction?

Kidnapping is not legally defined the way we think of it from a movie. The victim doesn't have to be "taken." It doesn't have to involve moving the victim to a different location. It can simply be the act of holding a person against his/her will. At the end of 2014, a man robbed a string of restaurants in and around Murrells Inlet. In one of the robberies, he forced the staff into the walk-in cooler while he robbed the place. Based on forcing them in there and not allowing them to leave, he was charged with kidnapping.

So, the state doesn't have to show what happened to Heather after the kidnapping took place. They only have to prove that she was in their presence and not allowed to leave that location, for even a second.

 

[jillycat]

Thanks, jilly cat. I'm not very good with the legal terminology so I appreciate your input.

As for the kidnapping charges, I'm not sure how that works.... Would the state have
to show what happened to Heather after the actual kidnap took place or is having strong evidence that a kidnapping occurred be enough on its own to get a conviction?

They just have to prove that whatever was done meets the legal criteria/definition for kidnapping under SC law, and the Solicitor's office has said that kidnapping can be simply preventing a person from leaving,

So, whether they argue that the M's stopped her from driving her car away, grabbed her arm and stopped her from walking off, built an invisible forcefield, or whatever they'll claim constituted kidnapping, it's going to be interesting to see how the state deals with its own limitation of PTL as the crime scene, when Heather seems to have vaporized from the very spot where she was somehow detained and prevented from leaving.

 

[cujenn81]

According to the website of an unrelated SC attorney,

In order to be convicted of kidnapping the Solicitor's office must prove the following occurred:

an abduction, carrying away, confinement or detention
of a human being
without legal justification or cause

Kidnapping charges may accompany allegations similar to the following scenarios:

locking or holding someone in a closet or bedroom
forcibly taking someone from one house to another location
making someone remain seated or otherwise stay in one place during an argument
detaining someone who is having an affair with your partner

Although kidnapping may occur by force, it can also be accomplished by restraint (such as locking or blocking a door) or by trick or deceit (called inveigling).

There is no requirement that the episode last a certain period of time, even the briefest of detention or holding can qualify as kidnapping under South Carolina law.

http://www.cdvlawyer.com/Domestic-Violence/Felony-Domestic-Violence/South-Carolina-Kidnapping.aspx

It sounds to me like all the solicitor has to prove is that they lured her out of the house and to PTL under false pretenses. The amount of time she was there or what may (or may not) have happened to her after that doesn't seem to be a requirement to obtain a conviction, per SC's definition.

 

[lovinlife83]

They just have to prove that whatever was done meets the legal criteria/definition for kidnapping under SC law, and the Solicitor's office has said that kidnapping can be simply preventing a person from leaving,

So, whether they argue that the M's stopped her from driving her car away, grabbed her arm and stopped her from walking off, built an invisible forcefield, or whatever they'll claim constituted kidnapping, it's going to be interesting to see how the state deals with its own limitation of PTL as the crime scene, when Heather seems to have vaporized from the very spot where she was somehow detained and prevented from leaving.

By dropping the murder charge, haven't they removed those limitations? They could either prevent her from leaving PTL and then took her elsewhere or just simply held her at PTL until someone else arrived and took her. Both would be kidnapping at PTL right?

 

[jillycat]

According to the website of an unrelated SC attorney,

In order to be convicted of kidnapping the Solicitor's office must prove the following occurred:

an abduction, carrying away, confinement or detention
of a human being
without legal justification or cause

Kidnapping charges may accompany allegations similar to the following scenarios:

locking or holding someone in a closet or bedroom
forcibly taking someone from one house to another location
making someone remain seated or otherwise stay in one place during an argument
detaining someone who is having an affair with your partner

Although kidnapping may occur by force, it can also be accomplished by restraint (such as locking or blocking a door) or by trick or deceit (called inveigling).

There is no requirement that the episode last a certain period of time, even the briefest of detention or holding can qualify as kidnapping under South Carolina law.

http://www.cdvlawyer.com/Domestic-Violence/Felony-Domestic-Violence/South-Carolina-Kidnapping.aspx

It sounds to me like all the solicitor has to prove is that they lured her out of the house and to PTL under false pretenses. The amount of time she was there or what may (or may not) have happened to her after that doesn't seem to be a requirement to obtain a conviction, per SC's definition.

If I understand the context of kidnapping in this information, it's specific to domestic violence.

 

[jillycat]

By dropping the murder charge, haven't they removed those limitations? They could either prevent her from leaving PTL and then took her elsewhere or just simply held her at PTL until someone else arrived and took her. Both would be kidnapping at PTL right?

The solicitor referenced kidnapping in the context of not being able to leave. If she drove there on her own, it seems their limitation in that context is that she was prevented from leaving PTL, and I don't how they'll prove that.

Even if they argue she was lured, how, and how do they prove it? Because they had phone exchanges and then she drove to PTL? The M's defense are ready for that one.

I don't know. But I guess I just don't trust a case that two years later has on its resume an NP on the murder charge.

 

[cujenn81]

If I understand the context of kidnapping in this information, it's specific to domestic violence.

SC's description is the same whether the kidnapping is DV related or not.

SECTION 16-3-910. Kidnapping.

Whoever shall unlawfully seize, confine, inveigle, decoy, kidnap, abduct or carry away any other person by any means whatsoever without authority of law, except when a minor is seized or taken by his parent, is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned for a period not to exceed thirty years unless sentenced for murder as provided in Section 16-3-20.

HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 16-91; 1952 Code Section 16-91; 1942 Code Section 1122; 1937 (40) 137; 1966 (54) 2151; 1974 (58) 2361; 1976 Act No. 684; 1991 Act No. 117, Section 1.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php

 

[jillycat]

SC's description is the same whether the kidnapping is DV related or not.

SECTION 16-3-910. Kidnapping.

Whoever shall unlawfully seize, confine, inveigle, decoy, kidnap, abduct or carry away any other person by any means whatsoever without authority of law, except when a minor is seized or taken by his parent, is guilty of a felony and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned for a period not to exceed thirty years unless sentenced for murder as provided in Section 16-3-20.

HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 16-91; 1952 Code Section 16-91; 1942 Code Section 1122; 1937 (40) 137; 1966 (54) 2151; 1974 (58) 2361; 1976 Act No. 684; 1991 Act No. 117, Section 1.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php

I guess it was the DV link's referral to 'other kidnapping charges' that created a context for me.

But, I'll say this about the state's case: Even if their next game is to shoot for the lure theory, which apparently will have a 'wouldn't let her leave' angle to it - or something like that - I don't think anyone's ever going to jail for murder, and I think the state has the same problem with kidnapping as it does with murder. It all happened at PTL. And where is Heather?

JMO