Interviews & MSM with/about friends, family, law enforcement etc...

[eileenhawkeye]

30 is the max for kidnapping in SC; the IE could be (IMOO) significant or nothing and some time for the OOJ... If the prosecution does't get the murder conviction, I think the M's financial past will be delved into and could possibly add more time. 40 years for a 42 year old woman and a 38 year old man is pretty much life but I would be concerned about their chance of parole.

I think if they are found NG for murder, it could be NG for kidnapping too. Even if they get decades in prison for other crimes, people will still be outraged that didn't receive jail time for Heather's murder.

 

[nosysw]

Good points, but don't you think that TM will have to take the stand to get that sympathy?

Jeez, I'm not sure. I don't know how sympathetic she would seem in her present state. We know she could put on a great show on line, but not so sure she could do this in person. [modsnip]
Why do you think she won't take the stand (really curious, not being snarky)?

 

[Madeleine74]

Most defense attorneys strongly discourage clients from taking the stand. It's a huge gamble and not one that pays off very often. The state can really grill them on the stand and it can be the worst strategy for a defense. But, sometimes it does pay off. Everything is a risk at trial and one never knows.

 

[CHERIE.T]

But unless they get LWOP or DP for Heather's murder, a lot of people will not consider it justice.

In the long run will what people think mean anything? Trials are supposed to be fair and just. IF the M's are found NG by a jury of their peers , people have to accept the verdict.

 

[SStarr33]

Jeez, I'm not sure. I don't know how sympathetic she would seem in her present state. We know she could put on a great show on line, but not so sure she could do this in person.[modsnip] .

Why do you think she won't take the stand (really curious, not being snarky)?

Didn't get any snark out of that at all

My thought that she will not testify comes from the fact that they have evidence she is guilty and she would be stupid to testify if she is guilty.

I could change my mind about guilt or innocence after seeing ALL the evidence.

Do you think she will testify even if guilty?

 

[magnolia]

In the long run will what people think mean anything? Trials are supposed to be fair and just. IF the M's are found NG by a jury of their peers , people have to accept the verdict.

I agree that people should accept and respect a verdict.

How well did the public take the NG verdict of Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman. Jodi Arias was found guilty and given a life sentence. The public didn't take it well because the Jury didn't give her death. If I recall correctly, one or more of the Jurors received threats.

 

[floridamomma]

Didn't get any snark out of that at all

My thought that she will not testify comes from the fact that they have evidence she is guilty and she would be stupid to testify if she is guilty.

I could change my mind about guilt or innocence after seeing ALL the evidence.

Do you think she will testify even if guilty?

I think she will try. she's been able to twist things to get her way for her whole life, I suspect. in her mind she probably thinks she'll worm her way outta this. now, will her atty be able to convince her to stfu, I think that is the question!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[RoxanneRoxannaDana]

Didn't get any snark out of that at all

My thought that she will not testify comes from the fact that they have evidence she is guilty and she would be stupid to testify if she is guilty.

I could change my mind about guilt or innocence after seeing ALL the evidence.

Do you think she will testify even if guilty?

ITA with the bolded statement. I think that the Ms are guilty because of TM's behavior on-line after HE's disappearance. However, I haven't seen much of anything from LE yet that proves HE has even been murdered.

If I were on the jury, I'd want to see a lot more proof than what has been reported in the MSM before I voted for conviction.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

I agree that people should accept and respect a verdict.

How well did the public take the NG verdict of Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman. Jodi Arias was found guilty and given a life sentence. The public didn't take it well because the Jury didn't give her death. If I recall correctly, one or more of the Jurors received threats.

If they are found not guilty, it will make the outrage over the Anthony and Zimmerman verdicts look like a Department of Agriculture briefing on C-SPAN.

 

[eileenhawkeye]

ITA with the bolded statement. I think that the Ms are guilty because of TM's behavior on-line after HE's disappearance. However, I haven't seen much of anything from LE yet that proves HE has even been murdered.

If I were on the jury, I'd want to see a lot more proof than what has been reported in the MSM before I voted for conviction.

I don't think I have seen a case that has been treated as more of a slam dunk than this one. I would like to see a poll of how many of us think they could get acquitted, but I bet it is a tiny percentage. It is just odd to me how little doubt there is about both of them receiving the maximum charges for every single one of their charges. Even if one thinks they have tons of evidence, there doesn't even seem to be any worry about the verdict going a different way.

Another thing is, I don't understand how in so many unsolved cases, people will claim that LE has tons of evidence, yet can't go to trial because after Anthony verdict, there is a chance of acquittal. Yet, in this case, LE apparently doesn't even need mountains of evidence to get a conviction in a no-body case. It really makes you wonder what Portland LE has against Terri Horman, and the many other people who we are familiar with here on WS.

BTW, I am talking about everywhere there is discussion of the case, not just here.

 

[nosysw]

Didn't get any snark out of that at all

My thought that she will not testify comes from the fact that they have evidence she is guilty and she would be stupid to testify if she is guilty.

I could change my mind about guilt or innocence after seeing ALL the evidence.
Do you think she will testify even if guilty?

Agree with bolded.

I really don't know that much about these cases, to tell you the truth. This is the first one I've followed where there's been an arrest So, I don't really know the percentage of defendants who take the stand, and/or take the stand against their attorney's advice.

From what I know about her, which is obviously just the public information, I would suspect she thinks she can win any one over. We know she was an "actress" as far as what she was putting out on SM, but it seems as if most, or at least many, people were put off by it. But, I suspect she didn't even realize that, so there's not much insight there.

So, she'll probably want to. And, clearly she's used to calling the shots with SM. But what about with WC? Could he have been running her- or was she really daddy's little girl as she would have everyone believe? (He seemed like kind of an angry guy to me, but again, my basis for that is quite limited).

I can see her going against her lawyer's advice. And wanting to testify. But, then again, I would have bet $1000 Terri Horman would never have been able to keep her mouth shut, and follow her attorney's advice, for 3 months. And now it's been years.

 

[Motherof5]

I think she will try. she's been able to twist things to get her way for her whole life, I suspect. in her mind she probably thinks she'll worm her way outta this. now, will her atty be able to convince her to stfu, I think that is the question!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

Agree 100%.

 

[EllaMae]

I don't think I have seen a case that has been treated as more of a slam dunk than this one. I would like to see a poll of how many of us think they could get acquitted, but I bet it is a tiny percentage. It is just odd to me how little doubt there is about both of them receiving the maximum charges for every single one of their charges. Even if one thinks they have tons of evidence, there doesn't even seem to be any worry about the verdict going a different way.

Another thing is, I don't understand how in so many unsolved cases, people will claim that LE has tons of evidence, yet can't go to trial because after Anthony verdict, there is a chance of acquittal. Yet, in this case, LE apparently doesn't even need mountains of evidence to get a conviction in a no-body case. It really makes you wonder what Portland LE has against Terri Horman, and the many other people who we are familiar with here on WS.

BTW, I am talking about everywhere there is discussion of the case, not just here.

IMHO....

LE has the physical evidence that makes it a strong case....Heather's DNA possibly found where it doesn't belong or something like that. There's also the video evidence, all the texts, phone calls, internet postings and the affair that was a huge motive for murder. I think it's the whole big picture with this case...the circumstances surrounding the suspects and the victim plus physical evidence can overcome the lack of a body.

Portland LE has no physical evidence like DNA because Kyron lived with TMH so without a body it is much harder to make an arrest. They still need something more. I think they know she's guilty but can't take it to court yet. So they are playing a waiting game hoping that TMH breaks down, makes a mistake, or that Kyron is found.

I think in the Haleigh Cummings case, Florida LE has the same situation as Portland LE. They know the players but they can't take it to court yet.

 

[OkieGranny]

So I was watching some of the older news videos trying pick up any additional details that didn't make it into print versions of MSM articles about the case, when I came across this awkward exchange between a reporter and TM's attorney:

http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/24996166/defense-attorneys-insist-moorers-are-innocent-until-proven-guilty?autostart=true&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=9955360

Q: Can you say if she's told you "I'm innocent"?

A: The, uh, I wouldn't, you know, I'm not in a position, representing her or anyone else, uh, to, to start talking about things that she and I have spoken about. Uh, there, there can be some, some legal implications with that, uh, in terms of the attorney-client privilege and that's just not something that I would feel comfortable commenting on, a direct conversation that I've had with her.

Technically correct, I suppose, but it's a simple yes or no question and not likely to get him into hot water as long as he's portraying his client as innocent of the charges against her.

Anyway, two questions ahead of the exchange above, he states, "She asserts her innocence."

I dunno, maybe you had to be there, but it totally cracked me up.

 

[Ghostwheel]

I don't think I have seen a case that has been treated as more of a slam dunk than this one. I would like to see a poll of how many of us think they could get acquitted, but I bet it is a tiny percentage. It is just odd to me how little doubt there is about both of them receiving the maximum charges for every single one of their charges. Even if one thinks they have tons of evidence, there doesn't even seem to be any worry about the verdict going a different way.

Another thing is, I don't understand how in so many unsolved cases, people will claim that LE has tons of evidence, yet can't go to trial because after Anthony verdict, there is a chance of acquittal. Yet, in this case, LE apparently doesn't even need mountains of evidence to get a conviction in a no-body case. It really makes you wonder what Portland LE has against Terri Horman, and the many other people who we are familiar with here on WS.

BTW, I am talking about everywhere there is discussion of the case, not just here.

I don't believe most people think it's a slam dunk. It depends on what evidence they have as to whether I think they could be acquitted. (If the state is not going to pursue Death Penalty, then they cannot get the maximum penalty, anyway.) Is it suspicious that the Ms car was going to PTL at the same time Heather was going there? Sure. Could something have happened to her after the Ms left? Sure. Could she have decided to "end it all" at PTL? Sure. Could aliens have come and abducted her? If you believe in that kind of thing, sure. My point being that with what was presented at the hearing (which was only presented to show that the Ms should not have bond, BTW), that wasn't enough to convict them, but it sure showed that there was a lot of information that LE has that the public was unaware of.

And I seem to remember everyone thought the Casey Anthony case was a slam dunk. Just goes to show it depends as much on the jury as the facts. JMO.

 

[Ghostwheel]

So I was watching some of the older news videos trying pick up any additional details that didn't make it into print versions of MSM articles about the case, when I came across this awkward exchange between a reporter and TM's attorney:

http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/24996166/defense-attorneys-insist-moorers-are-innocent-until-proven-guilty?autostart=true&autoStart=true&topVideoCatNo=default&clipId=9955360



Technically correct, I suppose, but it's a simple yes or no question and not likely to get him into hot water as long as he's portraying his client as innocent of the charges against her.

Anyway, two questions ahead of the exchange above, he states, "She asserts her innocence."

I dunno, maybe you had to be there, but it totally cracked me up.

It really is funny when a direct question is asked and the attorney has to scramble to come up with a response that fits the exact question. The answer "No." to the question "Can you say if she's told you "I'm innocent"? means that you cannot say if she has or not. But people will construe that as "No, she hasn't said she is innocent." Then he has to come up with something that is not an out and out lie, either.
"Asserting her innocence" is not the same as saying "I am innocent", and "I am innocent" is not the same as saying "I didn't kill Heather."

 

[JaneyBGood]

They weren't the ones who put themselves in the spotlight. No one knew who they were until Tammy's post ended on on the main FB page. All of her posts were on her personal FB page. Neither Tammy or Sidney have spoken to the media, except the one interview Tammy did with an online blogger.

Oh come on! Tammy clearly loved and lived for the social media war and she knew exactly what she was doing when she posted that vile, vulgar rant about heather missing.....she knew where that post would end up.....anyone with common sense can understand this

 

[JaneyBGood]

I don't see how anything heather did or said or posted has anything to do with her being murdered. It's helpful in building a case against those who murdered her but I can't see how the defense could use it.

Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, this pretty young lady pursued my husband, here look at the postings in her social media. So I killed her, so you see I am innocent. Now can I go back to my outdoor kitchen bigger than all your all houses. Mick and the stones are due for supper.

Just does not work for me as a defense


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Props to the above quote!!! Especially "mick and the stones being due for supper"

 

[OkieGranny]

Okay, well, now that the Iron Curtain has descended and we're cut off from any further officially verified info about the case for the time being, maybe this is a good time to look back on what has been officially stated? Because, IMO, statements made by the officials involved in the case are the most reliable information we have to work with.

I'm afraid I don't have as much confidence in MSM reporting. When a reporter paraphrases a source's words rather than using direct quotes, writing "according to" or "so-and-so said that...," what we're reading is that reporter's own interpretation of whatever was actually said. Information can and does get garbled, misinterpreted, or simply left out. I've found many instances where statements made by officials in video interviews never made it into the written versions of those interviews.

For an example of MSM misreporting, HCPD Capt. Dale Buchanan appeared to ask and answer his own question in the print version of an interview, "Is some of that evidence DNA? Yes." However, in watching the accompanying video, it's clear that it was the reporter who asked the DNA question and Capt. Buchanan simply responded, "Yes."

Anyway, it seems like it might be helpful to have as many direct quotes as possible collected in one place to use for reference purposes, so I went back through many dozens of news articles and video reports about the case and pulled together all the direct quotes and official statements by members of LE or the prosecutor's office that I could find. Probably missed a few, but I did my best to be thorough. Am posting them now in chronological order in three sections: the period following Heather's disappearance, the period following the search and arrests, and the bond hearing.

 

[OkieGranny]

Direct quotes and official statements by members of LE or the prosecutor's office regarding the investigation into Heather's disappearance, linked to sources:

Dec 20, 2013 — Statement released by the Horry County Police Department: "Law Enforcement utilized the Horry County Police boat, the Myrtle Beach Police boat, the DNR boat and the HCFR boat, along with a SLED helicopter to search the area of the Intracoastal Waterway where her vehicle was located. There is no sign that she is in or near the water at this time."

Dec 20 — Horry County Police Lt. Robert Kegler: "I can't get into specifics but it is a very active investigation every angle possible is being worked… I can't get into the location on where [Heather's cell phone] gave anyone signal or anything like that. That information wasn't something we have established. It was something provided to us."

Jan 3, 2014 — Horry County Police Lt. Robert Kegler: "The CUE center are organizing the searches, determining where we are going to be, they are the ones who are obtaining the volunteers…we are working hand-in-hand with them… Immediately after her disappearance was reported, we were on boats, four different boats in the waterway close to where her vehicle was located. We had a helicopter in the air from SLED assisting us. Searches have been conducted on horseback, on foot.”

Jan 6 — Horry County Police Lt. Robert Kegler: "Our major crimes detectives are continuing to investigate her disappearance around the clock. We are working hand-in-hand with the CUE Center ... [and] we are following up on every lead that comes in… There's no definite sign leading one way or the other [regarding foul play] at this point."

Jan 6 — Horry County Police Lt. Robert Kegler: "Some [people being interviewed] are cooperative, some are not."

Jan 8 — Horry County Police Lt. Robert Kegler: "I’ve got a thick three ring binder full of tips. Tips are coming in by telephone, e-mail and Facebook…. Nothing has been fruitful so far… [Heather's date] has since been interviewed and cleared. He is not a suspect."

Jan 10 — Horry County Police Lt. Robert Kegler: "Following up on the tips, interviewing people, conducting interviews, and going out and talking to people and we're hoping that we come up on something soon… There is an influx of tips and social media is a part of that reason but we stress no matter how minute the detail that you may think it is, we want you to give it to us anyway. Let us determine if there is anything to it or not because your small detail may be something we need in order to find Heather."

Jan 11 (video) — Horry County Police Lt. Robert Kegler: "There's no clear indication of why she left the apartment again after the date. There is no obvious signs of anything that occurred at the apartment."

Jan 12 — Horry County Police Lt. Robert Kegler: "There are no concrete leads as to where she is right now or if there are any suspects involved in her disappearance."

Jan 22 — Horry County Police Lt. Robert Kegler: "The case is difficult for anybody to talk about, but [the investigation] is very active at the same time."

Feb 6 — Horry County Chief of Police Saundra Rhodes: "As a mother, obviously [solving this case is] important to me. When I go home at night, I don't have to wonder why there's an empty chair. I would like to give this community a sense of peace… We feel like we have a good opportunity to solve this case. We have a few theories. It is not at a standstill. What I don’t want is a community fearful of being out at night… Most 20-year-olds who live by social media would've posted something by now. She lived by her cell phone and social media… [CUE ground searches] are a resource anybody in law enforcement would be lucky to have. In the beginning, it’s important to conduct these ground searches. [Currently] we have found less of a need for ground searching… The reality is that we don’t have anything that we can share publicly. We’re still working on it diligently. The leads have not stopped, which is a plus… We're fairly comfortable that she drove [to Peachtree Landing] herself."

Feb 6 — Horry County Police Lt. Chip Squires: "Everything indicates that she drove [to Peachtree Landing. We do not have anything that indicates she did not drive there."

Feb 11 — Horry County Police Lt. Chip Squires: "[The unauthorized leak of information is] the kind of information that you don't want out there. It taints the case… Everybody knows what's in [the original police] report. That means whoever's listening to that report, whether they had any involvement or not. That means who's responsible for it knows what's in that report… We've tried to keep information that we didn't want out there that would hinder the prosecution of the case or hinder our investigation."