EVIDENCE - Pro and Con

[CHERIE.T]

Agreed on all counts.

FWIW, I was generalizing about humanity in my response earlier, not speaking specifically as to anyone involved in this case. And while it's completely ugly of me, I WILL say that I didn't think Tammy was very attractive in her younger (skinnier) photos, and even less so, more recently.

Pretty people commit crimes too. :facepalm:

 

[4evernbluejeans]

Agreed on all counts.

FWIW, I was generalizing about humanity in my response earlier, not speaking specifically as to anyone involved in this case. And while it's completely ugly of me, I WILL say that I didn't think Tammy was very attractive in her younger (skinnier) photos, and even less so, more recently.

Hey Surfside, I know you were generalizing. I just wonder, about the reverse because, IMO HE being dead- takes away any sort of feelings of female threat? IDK I have been a woman my whole life, and I believe in Women-but sometimes I just don't get them. So you mentioned psychology- I am clueless in that area- well except for my intuition! Thanks for your info!

 

[JusticeforHE]

I definitely think that the appearance of the those on trial can have an impact on the public perception and jury pool. If there is a handsome man on trial (ala Scott Peterson) people tend to view them as incapable of committing murder, etc. How could someone that looks that good, ever commit such a horrible crime ?!" type of thinking. Same goes for a woman on trial, but IMO it seems a little reverse with attractive women that are on trial. Women that are in the jury could see them as promiscuous little you know what's and/or be jealous of their looks and that could affect their ruling.

IMO, women tend to be the emotional/more jealous type of the same sex than men are of other men. I can't really see a man being accused of murder and another man in the jury pool thinking "man, he's so good looking, way better than I look, i'm sure he's guilty" type thing. Not saying it never happens cause i'm sure it has/does, but I think it's a lot more uncommon among men.

Appearance in our society now a days has a huge impression on people and unfortunately, IMO we even see it in the media when it comes to missing people, murders, etc. More often than not you'll see the typical missing/murder of an (upper class) white female's case a lot than you would see an older, way less attractive and large female's murder case in the media.

As for TM, well.. her appearance and personality are both ugly inside out and now that her pregnancy fiasco has backfired on her, I think not only will she not garner much sympathy from male jurors (partially due to her appearance and personality). As well as any older women mothers that may have bad experiences with miscarriages or conceiving may have had her sympathy before she ruined her barely there credibility by potentially hitting a soft spot for the mothers if they think she lied about her alleged pregnancy. :croc:

Get used to the bed bugs, TM. Maybe Auntie Lisa will bring you some bed bug killing meds since you "shouldn't have to live like this". :behindbar

 

[Surfside]

Hey Surfside, do you think that in reverse this might be true? Say that some female jurors see HE as a hot skinny chick, who in their view ruined a family, they might vote to acquit?

I absolutely THINK the reverse might be true. Generally, when the "other woman" is attractive, that's who the scorned woman is more angry with. Adversely, if the "other woman" is unattractive, the scorned woman is usually bewildered and more upset with the husband (or cheater). I'm using words like "generally" and "usually" on purpose, here. I doubt I have to tell most of you how difficult it is when you're cheated on. Rage isn't the only thing you feel. You feel betrayed, but you also feel inferior. You feel like there's something about that other woman that's more attractive than you, to your partner; whether it's her looks or her personality. That's a tough pill to swallow. So yeah, I imagine many female jurors may find themselves subconsciously projecting their own personal experiences. And I agree with Eileen's response (RSBM) below:

I think the fact that Heather had an affair could be an uphill battle for the prosecution. There are so many people who have had their marriages ruined by cheating, or saw their parents divorce because of it. Perhaps some women on the jury can relate/or have a fear of their husbands cheating with a hotter, younger woman. Perhaps some people who have personal experience with cheating will understand the rage that you feel. Others might not grasp how you can kill the other woman weeks after the affair ended, and she left your lives. They might think there is no motive due to that.

This. ^

Pretty people commit crimes too. :facepalm:

Obviously. One look at a handful of mugshots ought to clear any doubt about that.

Hey Surfside, I know you were generalizing. I just wonder, about the reverse because, IMO HE being dead- takes away any sort of feelings of female threat? IDK I have been a woman my whole life, and I believe in Women-but sometimes I just don't get them. So you mentioned psychology- I am clueless in that area- well except for my intuition! Thanks for your info!

BBM: Honey, I'm nothing more than an armchair quarterback, when it comes to the aforementioned social studies (psychology, sociology, and anthropology). I took one too many of those courses in college, and may have come down with "smarty-pants syndrome." :blushing:

Soooo...all this mumbo-jumbo is JMO.

 

[4evernbluejeans]

BBM: Honey, I'm nothing more than an armchair quarterback, when it comes to the aforementioned social studies (psychology, sociology, and anthropology). I took one too many of those courses in college, and may have come down with "smarty-pants syndrome." :blushing:

Soooo...all this mumbo-jumbo is JMO.[/QUOTE]

Bahahhah aaa....Funny I think we all have that at sometime or another! I was an Art Major, soooo pretty much if I wasn't coloring it in, I was thinking about coloring it in-not much in the social sciences. I have also spent my life as a non conformer, so the few friends I have are just as nerdy and non competitive as I am. I was never in with the "cool" crowd... Anyhow, do you think the fact that HE is dead, could lessen that for female jurors?

Idk just thinking, I was young cute and single when Betty Broderick thing happened. I really felt sorry for her, until I saw what she did to her kids-trying to get back at Dan and Linda. I really guess I don't get hurting everyone to destroy one person. Oh bother- eeyore.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I don't think you can say that a female juror would acquit because they are jealous of Heather. First, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Second, the prosecution might not even be able to show pictures of Heather, unless they are relevant to the case. They can't decorate the court room with professional photos of Heather. I also don't like this idea that women are just so jealous, and would ignore the evidence, because the victim was pretty. That is just ridiculous to me.

Another thing is it has been shown that attractive victims get more attention and sympathy, and I am pretty sure it is mostly women who follow these cases, so I don't agree with this idea about women being so jealous and threatened by a murder victim.

 

[JusticeforHE]

I don't think you can say that a female juror would acquit because they are jealous of Heather. First, beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Second, the prosecution might not even be able to show pictures of Heather, unless they are relevant to the case. They can't decorate the court room with professional photos of Heather. I also don't like this idea that women are just so jealous, and would ignore the evidence, because the victim was pretty. That is just ridiculous to me.

Another thing is it has been shown that attractive victims get more attention and sympathy, and I am pretty sure it is mostly women who follow these cases, so I don't agree with this idea about women being so jealous and threatened by a murder victim.

It was never said that a female juror would acquit simply because of jealousy though. It was said that appearances of those on trial (or the victims that are deceased) could have an impact/influence the juror's decision. Meaning it may only influence their decision, not be the sole reason of their decision.

Same with women being more emotionally intelligent than men and that in return can make women more empathetic and their emotions would influence their decisions more than a man. Yes, jurors are supposed to leave any bias/emotional attachment out of a jury trial but that doesn't mean it always happens that way. I researched it a tiny bit and found this.

Scientists consistently find that women possess higher levels of emotional intelligence than men, characterized by a sense of empathy and understanding of others' emotions. In 1995, researchers in Scandinavia discovered that women were better equipped to not only detect, but also mirror, the emotions of others A similar study in 2003 found that women identified and truly experienced the emotions of others, demonstrating superior levels of empathy to those exhibited by men.

Source: http://tinyurl.com/m5unc9t

Also, if women are the ones who follow high profile cases more (unsure of any data to support this though, although I believe it's true) it doesn't mean that they are jealous of the murder victims at all. Even if they were jealous of the murder victim (for whatever odd reason) their opinion on the case wouldn't affect the juror's outcome anyway due to they aren't supposed to speak about the trial outside of the courtroom and are to remain as unbiased as possible.

I'm sure women follow the cases more because, once again, we're more emotionally charged then men. Men are less empathetic than women, and don't really tend to get emotionally attached and as interested in this type of thing like women are. There are exceptions to every rule, so it's possible that a man or men could show more interest in a case than women.. but I think it's unlikely for that to happen frequently, IMO. :crosseyed:

 

[justonedrin]

The video surveillance of the vehicle was sent to the FBI in Quantico, Va., and to the S.C. Highway Patrol’s Multi-Disciplinary Accident Investigation Team with a request to identify the vehicle, Elder said. The agencies sent reports that the truck was a 2013 or 2014 Ford F-150, that is dark with silver toolbox in the bed, a moon roof, silver rims and high-end bulbs in the headlights.

MAIT Team investigators learned there were 82 such trucks registered to owners living in Horry County, so they went and visually inspected 81 trucks, Elder said. She said the last of those trucks was owned by the Moorers, so police got a search warrant and executed it on Feb. 21.


Read more here: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2014/03/22/4114074/surveillance-cameras-a-useful.html#storylink=cpy

this most likely is just a synopsis of the information gathered from these agencies about that video. I would imagine there is some info that is being withheld from the analysis. if they can detail this truck down to the "special head lights" and "moon roof" I would bet they had some other observations that have not been released yet. LE does not have to show ALL their cards just because they choose to show a few. that video from the cameras on the road to PTL must have been of pretty good quality to get these kind of details. I bet they saw other things that have not been released yet. JMHO.

 

[4evernbluejeans]

The video surveillance of the vehicle was sent to the FBI in Quantico, Va., and to the S.C. Highway Patrol’s Multi-Disciplinary Accident Investigation Team with a request to identify the vehicle, Elder said. The agencies sent reports that the truck was a 2013 or 2014 Ford F-150, that is dark with silver toolbox in the bed, a moon roof, silver rims and high-end bulbs in the headlights.

MAIT Team investigators learned there were 82 such trucks registered to owners living in Horry County, so they went and visually inspected 81 trucks, Elder said. She said the last of those trucks was owned by the Moorers, so police got a search warrant and executed it on Feb. 21.


Read more here: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2014/03/22/4114074/surveillance-cameras-a-useful.html#storylink=cpy

this most likely is just a synopsis of the information gathered from these agencies about that video. I would imagine there is some info that is being withheld from the analysis. if they can detail this truck down to the "special head lights" and "moon roof" I would bet they had some other observations that have not been released yet. LE does not have to show ALL their cards just because they choose to show a few. that video from the cameras on the road to PTL must have been of pretty good quality to get these kind of details. I bet they saw other things that have not been released yet. JMHO.

Hey Justonedrin, I agree they probably have a good bit more on video. Not to mention the activities for the 24hrs before they first questioned SM. It seems I also remember that certain traffic lights in MB had cameras installed a couple of years back. I don't know if these are the kind of cameras that only take a picture if someone blows a red light-or if they can be used as CCTV type of surveillance. It really seems like juries expect Perry Mason moments, I hope they have A LOT of good evidence.

 

[NFYIAMY]

I hear what ya'll are saying about jurors not holding a position because of looks, etc.

However - I sat on a jury in the last year - and let me tell you - there were 4 members of that jury that simply DID NOT care about the evidence. They'd made their minds up early on that they didn't like the 'defendant' (he was cocky, rich, etc) and that the case should go to the plantiff's because they were needy, nice, etc.

It SHOULDN'T happen - but it does. It took us a week to get to a verdict - and a LOT of time was spent trying to overcome those people and get them onboard with looking at the EVIDENCE. It was after that trial that my mind changed on saying "I'd ALWAYS want a jury trial".....

Just saying.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I hear what ya'll are saying about jurors not holding a position because of looks, etc.

However - I sat on a jury in the last year - and let me tell you - there were 4 members of that jury that simply DID NOT care about the evidence. They'd made their minds up early on that they didn't like the 'defendant' (he was cocky, rich, etc) and that the case should go to the plantiff's because they were needy, nice, etc.

It SHOULDN'T happen - but it does. It took us a week to get to a verdict - and a LOT of time was spent trying to overcome those people and get them onboard with looking at the EVIDENCE. It was after that trial that my mind changed on saying "I'd ALWAYS want a jury trial".....

Just saying.

I can definitely believe that there are juror members who will vote based on how they feel about a victim and killer, instead of on the evidence. I actually think that happens a lot more than we want to think, not just w/ acquittal, but even with the punishment given. I think this is common in sexual abuse cases, where the defense is able to get the jury to sympathize with the defendant, and see the victim as a liar, mistaken, etc, and then get an acquittal or a very low sentence.

Also, what are the rules for showing a picture of the victim? Is it allowed during the whole trial, or just the penalty phase? How many can they show? Are there rules about how recent the picture must be? I have only watched bits and pieces of trials, but I feel like pictures of the victim are not allowed...? I do remember one trial where the prosecution made a collage of the victim's pictures...I think...

 

[Surfside]

I sat on a jury in the last year - and let me tell you - there were 4 members of that jury that simply DID NOT care about the evidence. They'd made their minds up early on that they didn't like the 'defendant' (he was cocky, rich, etc) and that the case should go to the plantiff's because they were needy, nice, etc.

It SHOULDN'T happen - but it does. It took us a week to get to a verdict - and a LOT of time was spent trying to overcome those people and get them onboard with looking at the EVIDENCE. It was after that trial that my mind changed on saying "I'd ALWAYS want a jury trial".....

Just saying.

Thank you, Hoppy, for this real-life example, of the point I was trying to convey. :tyou:

 

[4evernbluejeans]

Thank you, Hoppy, for this real-life example, of the point I was trying to convey. :tyou:

Yes Hoppy! Thank you and Surfside both. I have to say that "stubborn ignorance" is the most difficult to deal with. I hope we do not see such with The M's juries.

 

[4evernbluejeans]

Thank you, Hoppy, for this real-life example, of the point I was trying to convey. :tyou:

It was never said that a female juror would acquit simply because of jealousy though. It was said that appearances of those on trial (or the victims that are deceased) could have an impact/influence the juror's decision. Meaning it may only influence their decision, not be the sole reason of their decision.

Same with women being more emotionally intelligent than men and that in return can make women more empathetic and their emotions would influence their decisions more than a man. Yes, jurors are supposed to leave any bias/emotional attachment out of a jury trial but that doesn't mean it always happens that way. I researched it a tiny bit and found this.


Source: http://tinyurl.com/m5unc9t

Also, if women are the ones who follow high profile cases more (unsure of any data to support this though, although I believe it's true) it doesn't mean that they are jealous of the murder victims at all. Even if they were jealous of the murder victim (for whatever odd reason) their opinion on the case wouldn't affect the juror's outcome anyway due to they aren't supposed to speak about the trial outside of the courtroom and are to remain as unbiased as possible.

I'm sure women follow the cases more because, once again, we're more emotionally charged then men. Men are less empathetic than women, and don't really tend to get emotionally attached and as interested in this type of thing like women are. There are exceptions to every rule, so it's possible that a man or men could show more interest in a case than women.. but I think it's unlikely for that to happen frequently, IMO. :crosseyed:

Thanks for posting this, very interesting read. I would have to say, more than anything else-I personally go by instinct first. But-I do keep an open mind. If you give me evidence, I am not going to spit in your eye because of my instinct.

 

[CHERIE.T]

I can definitely believe that there are juror members who will vote based on how they feel about a victim and killer, instead of on the evidence. I actually think that happens a lot more than we want to think, not just w/ acquittal, but even with the punishment given. I think this is common in sexual abuse cases, where the defense is able to get the jury to sympathize with the defendant, and see the victim as a liar, mistaken, etc, and then get an acquittal or a very low sentence.

Also, what are the rules for showing a picture of the victim? Is it allowed during the whole trial, or just the penalty phase? How many can they show? Are there rules about how recent the picture must be? I have only watched bits and pieces of trials, but I feel like pictures of the victim are not allowed...? I do remember one trial where the prosecution made a collage of the victim's pictures...I think...

Bbm, gosh I just had the name on the tip of my tongue...there was a murder trial I followed a few years ago...the female murder victims picture was up for most of the trial.
just found this
Advocates for showing murder victims photos in court gather at state capitol
http://www.wrcbtv.com/story/2502248...ctims-photos-in-court-gather-at-state-capitol

 

[Softail]

Thought I would add this here. Yesterday a man was convicted of murdering his wife. Her body has never been found. The jury found there was enough circumstantial evidence to convict.

Husband found guilty in 1991 murder of his wife

http://kxan.com/2014/06/10/jury-deliberating-husbands-fate-decades-after-wife-disappeared/

Convictions do happen with no body.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

Thought I would add this here. Yesterday a man was convicted of murdering his wife. Her body has never been found. The jury found there was enough circumstantial evidence to convict.

Husband found guilty in 1991 murder of his wife

http://kxan.com/2014/06/10/jury-deliberating-husbands-fate-decades-after-wife-disappeared/

Convictions do happen with no body.

Yes, there have been about 352 no-body convictions through April 2014. The records start in the early 1800's, so likely no no-body cases before that or just no records of them. A very tiny percentage compared to the number of murders a year and the number of missing persons.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

No-body cases in SC. The results:

-One defendant confessed. Both sentenced to DP.
-Defendant pleaded guilty
-Resulted in a mistrial
-Only sentenced for kidnapping, not murder. Got 12 years.
-Sentenced to LWOP
-Sentenced to 20 years
-Mistrial
-Sentenced to LWOP
-Sentenced to 40 years
-Sentenced to life
-Sentenced to LWOP

http://www.nobodycases.com/no_body2.pdf

 

[rob]

I'm thinking about the looks of the people involved in this case. When i first started reading about this (here in SC), as a 53 yr old female, I thought more of HE as my child, than TM as my peer. More like, what if that was my daughter, than, I could be in Tammy's shoes.
Most people, who watch the news, have heard something about this case in SC, so i'm thinking the M's will be going down, IF the evidence if anything like I expect it to be.

In May, I was on jury duty, and in the group of twelve, there was a 20 yr old boy, who acted like a 12 yr old. I thought, he's going to be a problem. But when we started to deliberate, he was with the the group, and a woman, who was really nice, went out on a tangent alone. She KNEW fireman who thought they were the police, so this defendant probably thought it also. Therefore she assumed he was lying and guilty. Finally, because she didn't want to come back for the 5th day, she went with the group and found him innocent. I don't know if I trust in juries anymore either.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I'm thinking about the looks of the people involved in this case. When i first started reading about this (here in SC), as a 53 yr old female, I thought more of HE as my child, than TM as my peer. More like, what if that was my daughter, than, I could be in Tammy's shoes.
Most people, who watch the news, have heard something about this case in SC, so i'm thinking the M's will be going down, IF the evidence if anything like I expect it to be.

In May, I was on jury duty, and in the group of twelve, there was a 20 yr old boy, who acted like a 12 yr old. I thought, he's going to be a problem. But when we started to deliberate, he was with the the group, and a woman, who was really nice, went out on a tangent alone. She KNEW fireman who thought they were the police, so this defendant probably thought it also. Therefore she assumed he was lying and guilty. Finally, because she didn't want to come back for the 5th day, she went with the group and found him innocent. I don't know if I trust in juries anymore either.

Regarding looks of the people involved, this is about photographs of the victim being allowed in a SC trial:

Further, a

photograph should be excluded if it is calculated to arouse the sympathy

or prejudice of the jury or is irrelevant or unnecessary to substantiate

facts. State v. Livingston, 327 S.C. 17, 488 S.E.2d 313 (1997).

That makes me think that the only photograph of Heather that will possibly be allowed is perhaps the one where she is in the car?

. http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/opinions/displayOpinion.cfm?caseNo=24924