cujenn81
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- Dec 26, 2013
- Messages
- 4,337
- Reaction score
- 23,479
Legal analyst in WBTW interview said Tammy should have been tried first ...
Who was the legal analyst? Was it Johnny McCoy?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Legal analyst in WBTW interview said Tammy should have been tried first ...
Maybe because her motive was so much more evident. If you recall, it was even stated at trial that SM had never spoken to her unkindly or threatened her in any way, and he 'cared" for her. TM's hatred of Heather is well-documented, and often by TM herself.
The one day I can't watch live trial/verdict footage .. and I'm off work ... go figure... been getting tweets to update and have to say I'm disappointed .. but if it's true only two were not on the same page, I think a new trial could be a benefit ..
[/B]
BBM - I do not think the hatred of Heather by TM would be enough to convict her. It certainly goes to motive, but for the charge of kidnapping, I find it hard to believe there would have been a unanimous verdict. I don't know how the leap could be made from her hatred of Heather to the opportunity to commit the act. Other than SM saying she was in the truck just the other day, how would they get from point a to z w/o the payphone call? I absolutely think the right thing was done to try SM first.
Perhaps it is blessing in disguise for the Elvis family and for Heather. With the way this trial went and the blatant bias we saw (IMO), I have no question in my mind that if a guilty verdict were rendered SM would have received a light sentence. Maybe with a new judge AND a guilty verdict there is a higher probability of him receiving the max sentence. Heather got life, the least he can get is 30; though still grossly unfair, I'd take it.
The question was why did a lawyer/legal analyst say she should have been tried first. I'm saying maybe (he had that opinion) because her motive is more obvious given her behavior over a period of time. I would never argue that anyone can or should be convicted because they hated the victim.
Agreed. Watching this trial confirmed to me what others from the area have been saying on here, the justice system down there is filled with corruption and incompetence.
Does this mean a new judge and no friends of the defense attorney on the jury? I'm all for that.
I've vacationed in MB three times in my life, and I'm pretty confident I'll never go back since I became aware of Heather Elvis and have read many stories like yours since then.
The question was why did a lawyer/legal analyst say she should have been tried first. I'm saying maybe (he had that opinion) because her motive is more obvious given her behavior over a period of time. I would never argue that anyone can or should be convicted because they hated the victim.
I'm thinking the opposite. Maybe he knows there's not enough evidence to find her guilty, and the prosecution could point to the fact that she was already found not guilty, so she could not possibly be the one driving that truck.
The weather is obviously just as mad about this as we are because it just started raging outside!
It is times like these that I have to remind myself that God is the ultimate Judge and Jury. I feel like I must be bad luck for cases... I followed the CA trial, which undoubtedly should have rendered a guilty verdict (IMO), and well we knew how that turned out. Then this case it comes to a deadlock.
I consider myself a pretty objective person and I have tried to consider the various different scenarios and possibilities - all of which still point to SM and TM being responsible for the disappearance of HE. I truly wonder what the holdouts were for. Did they believe that SM was guilty but just didn't feel like the state proved the kidnapping to have taken place at PTL? I guess that is what frustrates me SOOO much about not only this case but society in general. They confuse reasonable doubt and without a shadow of a doubt. My husband (who had no knowledge of this case prior to this week) believes that he is guilty of whatever ultimately happened to HE; HOWEVER, says that he does not feel the state proved it either. The way he explained his rationale was that they no greater proved she was kidnapped as they might have proved he could have paid her off to disappear from the area. Of course, that is poppycock to me. Point being, some people think this way. Darn those people, husband included - LOL! He won't have a happy wife tonight, I'm afraid.
I had asked my husband last night, considering he would vote NG, if he were the only one or two holding out with NG vote, would he switch since he truly feels SM is guilty of whatever ultimately happened to HE, his response was that he wasn't sure but possibly. Makes you want to bang your head against the wall, doesn't it?
I am looking forward to a retrial, hoping and praying they go forward with one. I think this case was pretty much doomed with bias to begin with considering the Judge knew the defendant and the history there, in addition to KT's friend. The only silver lining is that it wasn't a NG verdict.
Can't wait for happy hour.