MISTRIAL - Sidney Moorer on trial for the kidnapping of Heather Elvis #4

[TTF14]

My hope is the jury 's inquiries on facts from the trial are positive.

SM is so guilty of kidnapping HE, a second look at information is hopefully to strengthen the jury's mind on conviction.

IMO, LE does not have a strong enough case to attempt to take TM to trial on kidnapping.

I agree. I don't know whether or not it will go to trial, but if it does, I hope they have some evidence we don't know of. Being an a$$clown on social media after the fact doesn't make her guilty of kidnapping. Just of being a terrible human being.

 

[jillycat]

I think the problem making a case for anything other - there would be other texts, phone calls, whatever and there isn't. --- or she just happened to decide to go to a remote location late at night......and she just went *poof*? PTL as far as I know isn't a heavy serious crime place at all.....

Exactly, she just went poof? That was the state's apparent position after they said she was murdered with lightening speed at PTL.

Just trying to understand the 'he lured her to PTL so she drove to a restaurant first and hung out' theory. My point is not that the M's aren't guilty. My point is that there are disconnects in the theory and people and phones and vehicles aren't fully accounted for, so who did what and where and when exactly? That would be my question as a juror, based on the only theory and circumstances the state gave me.

 

[U2forever]

My hope is the jury 's inquiries on facts from the trial are positive.

SM is so guilty of kidnapping HE, a second look at information is hopefully to strengthen the jury's mind on conviction.

IMO, LE does not have a strong enough case to attempt to take TM to trial on kidnapping.

BBM:
You may be right 1&2&3. She may get very lucky, too bad she cannot be convicted on her horrible actions over the past 2 and a half years, thats not how our justice system works, but in the end Karma will get her. Karma will be her worst enemy along with herself.

 

[Wagara]

I am from SC and I believe that is correct and is why the prior murder charge was dropped. I just wish the PT had pushed 'the hand of one is the hand of all.'

Sent from my ALCATEL A564C using Tapatalk

 

[NFYIAMY]

That tells me that they want to have a verdict today if at all possible.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

I hope so. Long trial I was juror on (Same courthouse (and I'm 99% positive same courtroom)... different judge) - we had to ask for lunch AND dinner for the days we were deliberating --- and we DID hope that we would reach a decision every single day. It just took 3+ days to go through evidence over and over and over again - to put the best puzzle we could out of the pieces we had.

 

[Hatfield]

@Jillycat
JMO
The thing is that we know he lured her away because he told HE that he was leaving his wife and wanted to be with her per Bri testimony.
IMO it does not matter if TM or anyone else is also involved. If I was juror then SM is definitely guilty because he started the chain of events. He is guilty in initial luring and its his truck.
So he is in it up to his eyeballs. He lured her that night and started it and I don't even care if he was dropped off before HE met her demise. He is also guilty IMO because he started the whole thing and involved with the planning.

 

[popsicle]

Did the judge instruct the jury that closing arguments aren't evidence and should not be considered as such? I can't remember and don't want to listen to it again. tyia

 

[Surfside]

I need to go to the grocery store but I know they'll file in the minute I leave and I'll miss it. GRRRR!

Ha! Jenn, I felt the same way when I ran out to pick up some food. I was trying to read WS at every stoplight. Hurry back, safely.

 

[Motherof5]

I agree. I don't know whether or not it will go to trial, but if it does, I hope they have some evidence we don't know of. Being an a$$clown on social media after the fact doesn't make her guilty of kidnapping. Just of being a terrible human being.

Have we seen the journals that TM was keeping on the entire Elvis family? That was brought up at the first bond hearing. Maybe they are being saved for her trial?

 

[Meemaw12]

Also, if HE was talking to anyone else other than SM on the pay phone or cell phone calls ie TM she would never have left her house that night. So it had to be him. Plus he admitted to talking to her.

IMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jillycat]

I just wrote a post about some of these questions swirling around in people's minds and wondered if people on the jury would be asking themselves things like this.



Bri said she was going to sleep on it. She couldn't sleep and was occupying herself/her mind with Tumblr. Then she decided to drive around thinking should I/shouldn't I call him. The preggo test has to fit? Well if it was to snatch her and force her to take the test, what would have been a better place to snatch her than the darkest road possible? You can't be sure SM was in the truck after the payphone call and Heather feared TM, but she would meet her at PTL. What was SM doing in the gaps in time? Why does that matter if the chain ended with his truck going to and fro after the last time Heather's phone log ended?

I would hope that looking at the end of the chain and working backwards to affirm that it tells the story the state advanced is not how this jury approaches deliberation.

And where was SM and TM during all this phone and restaurant rodeoing? And Heather was not just driving. She was at the restaurant twice for a total of nearly half an hour.

As for the pregnancy test and forcing her to pee on a dark road, or snatching her to take her to pee somewhere else, I just have some trouble with that. Surely, there was an easier way to get a pregnancy confirmation than grabbing her and forcing the answer. He wanted to be with her? There was some news or suspicion that she was pregnant? Then, 'Ok, let's meet, I'll even spring for the test, and let's see if we have something to celebrate.' That's how that lie would have gone down. And maybe it did. So why was she at a restaurant and then a dark boat landing?

I know the M's are behind this, but I honestly don't know who did what and when. And neither does the state.

 

[LBDunes]

Exactly, she just went poof? That was the state's apparent position after they said she was murdered with lightening speed at PTL.

Just trying to understand the 'he lured her to PTL so she drove to a restaurant first and hung out' theory. My point is not that the M's aren't guilty. My point is that there are disconnects in the theory and people and phones and vehicles aren't fully accounted for, so who did what and where and when exactly? That would be my question as a juror, based on the only theory and circumstances the state gave me.

You shouldn't be thinking about the murder charge if you were on the jury now. The charge is kidnapping.


If you're trying to understand are these questions reasonable? If you are going by only the testimony and the narrative the solicitor layed out my question is why do you see disconnects in the solicitors theory. Who did what in between could have many scenarios. I think you are overthinking everything if you would have questions about the narrative layed out by Livesay in the closing. That's fine. So, do you feel that the SM attorney casted enough doubt in his presentation?

 

[Meemaw12]

@Jillycat
JMO
The thing is that we know he lured her away because he told HE that he was leaving his wife and wanted to be with her per Bri testimony.
IMO it does not matter if TM or anyone else is also involved. If I was juror then SM is definitely guilty because he started the chain of events. He is guilty in initial luring and its his truck.
So he is in it up to his eyeballs. He lured her that night and started it and I don't even care if he was dropped off before HE met her demise. He is also guilty IMO because he started the whole thing and involved with the planning.

Yes yes yes!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TTF14]

Did the judge instruct the jury that closing arguments aren't evidence and should not be considered as such? I can't remember and don't want to listen to it again. tyia

Why not?

 

[jillycat]

@Jillycat
JMO
The thing is that we know he lured her away because he told HE that he was leaving his wife and wanted to be with her per Bri testimony.
IMO it does not matter if TM or anyone else is also involved. If I was juror then SM is definitely guilty because he started the chain of events. He is guilty in initial luring and its his truck.
So he is in it up to his eyeballs. He lured her that night and started it and I don't even care if he was dropped off before HE met her demise. He is also guilty IMO because he started the whole thing and involved with the planning.

Hatfield, for all we know she was done in before PTL was a blip on the screen and the rest is details. So we can all speculate about the lure.

 

[lstiff]

Ahhhh I see they ordered lunch, that's good. RL calls so please keep updating here! Thanks in advance!!

 

[NFYIAMY]

Exactly, she just went poof? That was the state's apparent position after they said she was murdered with lightening speed at PTL.

Just trying to understand the 'he lured her to PTL so she drove to a restaurant first and hung out' theory. My point is not that the M's aren't guilty. My point is that there are disconnects in the theory and people and phones and vehicles aren't fully accounted for, so who did what and where and when exactly? That would be my question as a juror, based on the only theory and circumstances the state gave me.

And then there's this: The jury saw surveillance video of Sidney at Wal-Mart purchasing a pregnancy test, about 20 minutes prior to calling Heather from the pay phone.

I still think her calls to him before Dec were because she thought she was pregnant - then in Dec was because she KNEW she was pregnant. Maybe SM bought the pregnancy test to her (home or PTL depending on your theory of if HE was who drove her car to PTL or not) - so they could "see the answer together"? There's a thought. Maybe she drove around because SM told her - "I'll go get a test - then I'll meet you at PTL" and so HE was driving around because she DIDN'T want to be down there in the dark by herself waiting for him (gut instinct maybe?) Ahhhh... Just yet another way to look at this situation.

WHERE IS HEATHER? That's the answer everyone wants - guilty or not guilty. Where is she?

 

[lstiff]

I hope so. Long trial I was juror on (Same courthouse (and I'm 99% positive same courtroom)... different judge) - we had to ask for lunch AND dinner for the days we were deliberating --- and we DID hope that we would reach a decision every single day. It just took 3+ days to go through evidence over and over and over again - to put the best puzzle we could out of the pieces we had.

Hey Hoppy! Nice to see you :seeya:

 

[LBDunes]

I would hope that looking at the end of the chain and working backwards to affirm that it tells the story the state advanced is not how this jury approaches deliberation.

And where was SM and TM during all this phone and restaurant rodeoing? And Heather was not just driving. She was at the restaurant twice for a total of nearly half an hour.

As for the pregnancy test and forcing her to pee on a dark road, or snatching her to take her to pee somewhere else, I just have some trouble with that. Surely, there was an easier way to get a pregnancy confirmation than grabbing her and forcing the answer. He wanted to be with her? There was some news or suspicion that she was pregnant? Then, 'Ok, let's meet, I'll even spring for the test, and let's see if we have something to celebrate.' That's how that lie would have gone down. And maybe it did. So why was she at a restaurant and then a dark boat landing?

I know the M's are behind this, but I honestly don't know who did what and when. And neither does the state.

BBM - LOL I have reasonable doubt you know the M's are behind this. :thinking:

 

[barcode]

Exactly, she just went poof? That was the state's apparent position after they said she was murdered with lightening speed at PTL.

Just trying to understand the 'he lured her to PTL so she drove to a restaurant first and hung out' theory. My point is not that the M's aren't guilty. My point is that there are disconnects in the theory and people and phones and vehicles aren't fully accounted for, so who did what and where and when exactly? That would be my question as a juror, based on the only theory and circumstances the state gave me.

I completely agree with you, another poster upstream posted that he may have suggested meeting at the restaurant therefore HE going there and then going to PTL when SM did not show at the restaurant. While I agree that this is a likely situation, it almost but for sure throws the kidnapping out for all those who are focused on the one payphone call to lure. If he invited her to the restaurant and ultimately things escalated at PTL, say in the heat of passion/argument/whatever.