MISTRIAL - Sidney Moorer on trial for the kidnapping of Heather Elvis #5

[Surfside]

BBM... if that was the case, is there no other payphone that was closer to her apartment? Why go all the way back to Seaboard?

Please understand, I don't have answers for this theory. I came up with it off the top of my head to make the point that the pregnancy test could easily be inserted into the story that night. That said, since it's the 21st century, I wouldn't be surprised if there were no other payphones between the River Oaks and 10th Ave North. If there's any merit at all to my fabricated scenario and if there are other payphones closer than that one, would SM have known the locations of those payphones? If I was out and about and my phone was dead or I didn't have it with me, I would be screwed if I needed a payphone in case of emergency. I can only tell you where a few are, and the only reason I know where those are, is because of this case. I honestly get excited when I see one, because they're so few and far between these days.

 

[geevee]

Swisher Sweets!

That def implies they were purchased for marijuana use. IMO

I think it looks much more like a pack of Marlboros than cigars.

ETA: Have to amend that, I don't see any versions of Marlboros that have the white along the top of the pack as in the screenshot, but I don't think it matches the Swishers either.

 

[cujenn81]

Not definitely. My ex smoked these a lot and was not a pot smoker.

True.
It's not necessarily the case... but many people do use that brand for marijuana use. I still think the reason for the cigar purchase was to smoke MJ but that's just a personal opinion of mine.

 

[magnolia]

The following are my opinions on this case (unpopular or not):

As others have already said, I think this case is much less convoluted than it may seem. I don’t think HE was pregnant, I think that was a theory presented by the prosecution which they felt would be more likely to result in a guilty verdict for the M’s. I do think SM and TM are both equally culpable in this case. Read on… lease: :moo:

Is it possible that SM did want to leave TM? IMO, SM and TM’s relationship was unequal, abusive, and irrational. I think a lot of arguing had been going on in the M household and things finally came to a head. Maybe SM finally got brave and decided to leave TM that night, but TM responded with the “I think I might be pregnant/missed my period” card in an attempt to keep him. SM probably agreed to get a pregnancy test for TM that late at night, not only to squash that claim, but also so he’d be able to leave to house and have a chance to call HE. SM probably feared being followed and the imminent justice of TM if he didn’t go get the pregnancy test right away. I don’t think the cigar was celebratory but more for stress relief? We have no knowledge as to whether or not he smoked regularly but I know many men who smoke cigars the way people smoke cigarettes.

I think HE and SM did care about each other and, in the months leading up to HE’s disappearance, began communicating again in a manner they felt TM wouldn’t be able to track ever since the affair had “blown up” and become not-so-inconspicuous. Maybe a valid reason for the pay phone calls that night? They may have used Snapchat as well. SM probably did not want to use his phone as much since he knew it was being tracked by TM, or maybe TM took it from him completely.

According to BW, HE had stated that she was going to “sleep on it” with regard to seeing SM that night. However, I think SM made this seem like a desperate situation to HE and asked for her help in leaving TM. Maybe they met at LB’s earlier in the night and then HE agreed to wait for SM at PTL so he could get some things from his house. Shortly after, I think TM caught up to HE or HE and SM somehow and SM ended up siding with his wife. It seems like HE felt SM was a “pushover” with his wife, maybe HE tried to stand up to TM for SM?

I don’t think BW was fully aware of all of the happenings in SM and HE’s relationship because HE was probably ashamed since she knew BW and many others didn’t approve. I also feel that SM cared about HE on a spectrum. He cared for HE enough to leave TM to be with her, but not enough to fess up to participating in her disappearance after the fact. Maybe TM even threatened SM with his children, framing him, and who knows what else? These types of abusive and controlling relationships can be unbelievable.

All IMO, I don’t know how all of this fits with the timeline but at some point when I have more time, I’ll type something up. Again, let me say I do NOT feel that SM is innocent or less responsible in this.

Thanks for any input; I have really enjoyed reading everyone’s theories and opinions on this case over the years. Keep on sleuthing. :loveyou:

Thanks for sharing with us. It's entirely possible all went down this way. I do see a few holes in your theory tho.

BBM -- I don't understand why Heather would drive all the way to PTL to wait on Sidney. It's not like he didn't have his own vehicle. Why create a situation where Heather had to leave her car? If Tammy caught up with anyone it would have had to be Sidney and Heather together in his truck. Heather's car was parked at the landing. If Tammy left the house, headed in the direction of PTL, why wasn't her car captured on the same cameras that captured SM's truck.

I do agree that Heather was not pregnant. Also, that the pregnancy was a theory presented by the pros which they felt would be more likely to result in a guilty verdict for the M's.> this was very obvious to me. Sorry to say, the witnesses did not do a good job selling this theory.

 

[Madeleine74]

This faulty conclusion keeps being presented based on a premise that hasn't been advanced - that any perceived room for reasonable doubt in this case equals a claim that the M's aren't the perps. ?

Quite frankly, when the state announced it had DNA! on the tails of searching the Moorer home and making their arrests, and it turned out to be the DNA of the victim from her own car, I wondered if the authorities had seen too much TV and got a little too excited. And then. Nolle Prosequi.

No idea what "multiple strange actions" means to you, but I would argue that it's a sweeping generalization to view people as essentially too lacking in reasoning skills to credibly posit something besides the "obvious". If it was all so obvious, we wouldn't need trials and juries and cross and re-directs.

This case is complicated and while it's easy to try it from our computers, the truth is, we're spectators, much like TV viewers ourselves, and not a jury who is tasked with reviewing evidence and asking, "Does any evidence before me lead me to doubt that's reasonable?" When I refer to doubt in this case, I mean the legal standard and the instructions given by the court, not a belief or fantasy that someone else kidnapped/killed HE.

Sometimes the mundane and simple truth is, someone's dead who shouldn't be, persons in the known chain of events did it, and circumstantial evidence may or may not lead to a united heel-clicking conclusion by a jury. This doesn't mean there's a conspiracy, corruption, stupidity, or too much TV. JMO

My conclusion in this case is that the state proved the charges. 10 of the jury members agreed with that. 2 of the jury members did not agree.

I watched the trial testimony (each witness), listened to the questions and answers, and saw, piece by piece, links being made. In less than 4 days of testimony the state presented their case with multiple witnesses and the defense did their cross examination. You call that complicated, I call that not complicated.

It's a well-known fact in legal circles that the proliferation of CSI-type shows have created an expectation by some jurors serving in the 21st century. It's talked about all the time by legal pundits, mentioned by attorneys to their jurors, and is 'a thing' that can be a factor in cases. A case in which DNA is not in evidence is often a hurdle that has to be overcome because some jurors expect to see it.

I don't think there was a conspiracy (I don't believe in them) or corruption (corruption by whom?). There might have been stupidity (2 jurors confusion over time zone data and not being able to get past it?). The judge also made some calls that had many people scratching their head, me included.

 

[Madeleine74]

If I'm trying to call your powered-off cell phone, will it show up on either of our records?

It would likely show up on the record of the person making the call. It would show up on the detailed call records that the consumer doesn't get to see -- these would be the type of log files that exist at the cell carrier and that police have to subpoena to get. Then they get a representative from the cell provider to testify to the detailed record in court.

 

[CarePsych]

Thanks for sharing with us. It's entirely possible all went down this way. I do see a few holes in your theory tho.

BBM -- I don't understand why Heather would drive all the way to PTL to wait on Sidney. It's not like he didn't have his own vehicle. Why create a situation where Heather had to leave her car? If Tammy caught up with anyone it would have had to be Sidney and Heather together in his truck. Heather's car was parked at the landing. If Tammy left the house, headed in the direction of PTL, why wasn't her car captured on the same cameras that captured SM's truck.

I do agree that Heather was not pregnant. Also, that the pregnancy was a theory presented by the pros which they felt would be more likely to result in a guilty verdict for the M's.> this was very obvious to me. Sorry to say, the witnesses did not do a good job selling this theory.

ETA clarification: Thanks for the reply! I probably didn't make the part about HE waiting at PTL clear enough. PTL is very close to the M's house, almost 4 miles IIRC. Reasonable for walking or bicycling? Maybe HE was waiting there as a "just in case" type of preemptive action in case TM took the truck from SM. I think it is a reasonable thought. I've had a friend wait up the road from my house (that I shared with my then boyfriend) so that I could collect some of my personal belongings during a chaotic break up.

Sent from my LGMS631 using Tapatalk

 

[Surfside]

Swisher Sweets!

That def implies they were purchased for marijuana use. IMO

ETA: The time lapse between the purchase at Walmart and the phone call might have been used to roll the blunt and smoke it (or part of it). Maybe to ease his nerves about calling and setting things in motion?

You beat me to it! I knew those were Swisher Sweets as soon as I saw the zoom-in. I don't know if that means he was definitely using them to smoke weed, but it's highly likely. That would also explain the time delay between Wal-Mart and the payphone. It may even explain the paranoia and sneaking around at the payphone, but being oblivious to the camera.

 

[Madeleine74]

There's also an assumption that Heather knew what SM's new black truck looked like, had she seen it before?

We don't know if she knew or not. The solicitor in her closing opined that Heather got out of her own car because she recognized the person who had driven up, whether he mentioned to her he now had a black truck, or he rolled down the window and waved, or he got out of his truck altogether.

 

[jillycat]

Did you watch the entire trial from start to finish live or taped? I ask because all the points you made were very valid. You brought up the part about the DNA mistake. I don't think it applied in this trial, since it was not the murder charge. So, other than that, I think all the things you touched on were very valid points. Given that, if you did watch the entire trial, what would your verdict have been? I will say mine would have been guilty.

I watched it live and taped, with the latter being for the purpose of review. I watched the BW and cell phone investigator testimonies twice and the first times were live. The only parts I didn't see at all were the testimony of SS and one of the TK witnesses. My reference to the DNA issue is not meant to be related to this trial and its outcome. It's a point concerning the greater history of the case of the state, which in my view, has troublesome issues that run the course of the entire case.

Some background that may help to understand my thinking:

I never thought these two would be convicted for murder because I believed/still believe that the state's (original) PTL theory that included the murder was/is implausible. I was not surprised at the NP the state had to finally request. I also thought the IE was irrelevant unless it could be tied to activities that directly pertained to Heather or the crime against her. I thought it was just another way to rack up enough charges to get the M's arrested and keep them in jail until a search could be done on their property and give the state its murder charge. I took heat for that, as if my observation equaled sympathy for the M's. In reality, my point was that the state had weaknesses in its case and was wasting time and resources trying to give it additional teeth that would only be knocked out later by defense motions.

I always felt that there was more activity that morning than the PTL scenario explained about her disappearance, and that harm quite possibly came to her earlier on the timeline. It was argued in the past that the information showed that she hung out at her place after the call from SM, she became more melancholy, she then called SM, then rushed to meet him and subsequently vanished, therefore nothing else went on. Now we see that it did, and while there's still an argument that what happened in the end confirms the original theory, I disagree that's a reasonable argument. I've recently personally experienced a police attitude that first impressions are the guide and then you work backwards to confirm your impressions. That's not only a logic failure but an impediment to finding the truth.

I think when a victim is moving around as much as Heather did after saying she was going to sleep on things, it's reasonable to ask what changed and why. And I don't think trying to get in Heather's head and read her mind as the state did when it said she was being sucked into the 'creepin around' lure is sufficient to discard all her pre-PTL movements. I think it's a way of saying that since there's no physical evidence of a crime or scene and they can't find a body, the state can't afford to examine locations and activities that don't neatly appear to place SM and HE in the same place at the same time. If who called and who owned the truck and who knew the victim is the basis for SM's guilt, it's going to be interesting when TM's turn comes. My guess is she walks because she appears nowhere in the chain of events.

I also find it untenable that some will argue that the M's would never risk driving her car and leaving it there as a ruse or plant, but that they would risk meeting her there on the tails of a documented phone link up and commit kidnapping and murder.

In regard to how I would have voted, I don't know for sure. I think it's very different to pick apart a case for over two years from behind a computer and examine it up one side and down the other with scores of people where all evidence isn't known vs sitting in deliberations. Both have benefits and curses. If I had to call it based on what I know from being a member here, I think the lure theory is lacking and assumes SM had it in for Heather because she was pregnant, though the theory doesn't include why suddenly, around 1:00 a.m. on 12/18, he decided that he would buy a test and then based on its results, kill her. I don't see phone activity and Heather's decision to go to PTL proof of a lure or a desire to commit murder. I frankly think there was more contact than we know about and something escalated and she's now dead. I don't know when it happened or which M did what. But I've re-examined my previous idea that it was pre-meditated.

 

[Sunshynn]

This is a great question. I would think that would show up on the phone records of the person making the call but not the records of the person with his/her phone powered off.

If you left a voice message for the person whose phone was turned off, I would think it would show up on both of your records.

 

[Teche]

So, Heather wasn't exactly honest with Bri about her intentions. What else was she not honest about during that conversation.

IMO: She may not have been dishonest. It could be due to the complexity of the relationship, HE had a change of heart.

 

[Surfside]

I think it looks much more like a pack of Marlboros than cigars.

ETA: Have to amend that, I don't see any versions of Marlboros that have the white along the top of the pack as in the screenshot, but I don't think it matches the Swishers either.

Not to mention, if Wal-Mart is selling Marlboros for $3.63, why are we not all in the business of buying and reselling them?

 

[magnolia]

My thoughts as well.

In most cases the story ends up being something a lot simpler than what people imagine it to be. The human mind loves a good story and creative imaginations endeavor to create one in the gaps. The truth is usually much more mundane and with fewer steps.

In this case we know that at 1:19am with 100% certainty Sid purchased a cheap preg test (and a cigarello of some kind). We also know with 100% certainty that Sid called Heather at 1:35am. We know that Heather's car was at PTL by 3:35am and we know Heather was never seen or heard from again. We know with 100% certainty at least some of what Sid said to Heather when he called her and we know this because Heather herself told Bri a few minutes after the call.

In my mind all the events are linked by time and space. I don't need to know what all occurred to know that it was something bad, something illegal, involved luring/kidnapping, and SM was directly involved.

Madeleine, there are other circumstances and testimony in this case that need to be considered. For me, it is not as simple as you make it out to be. Did you watch the trial?

BBM -- No, I am not 100% certain exactly what Sidney said to Heather during the pay phone call conversation. You seem to consider the testimony as if it was proven fact. That is fine, but, some people need actual proof of what was said. My hesitation to fully accept the testimony as truth has nothing to do with Bri. It has to do with Heather and other reasons she had for possibly not telling Bri the whole truth about the conversation. People pick up on certain things during a trial that they simply can't ignore. I'm not saying Sidney did or didn't tell Heather he was leaving his wife. I'm just not totally convinced he did.

Yes I watched the trial each evening as the parts were posted on YouTube.

I believed each witness as I saw them testify. I took what they said at face value. The defense did not successfully impeach any testimony that I saw, nor did they present any witnesses of their own.

The thing that is simple to me is based on the instructions given by the judge, the law, and the evidence *I* saw, I can say I was convinced BARD that SM did in fact lure H.E. out that night and that if not for SM luring her out, she would not have ended up missing, her vehicle would not have ended up at PTL.

BBM

It doesn't matter that the defense didn't impeach the testimony. We cannot know with 100% certainty what Sid said to Heather when he called her. It was hearsay testimony.The Judge, the law and the evidence have nothing to do with it. There is no direct absolute proof of what was said during the Sidney/Heather conversation.

 

[LBDunes]

In regard to how I would have voted, I don't know for sure. I think it's very different to pick apart a case for over two years from behind a computer and examine it up one side and down the other with scores of people where all evidence isn't known vs sitting in deliberations. Both have benefits and curses. If I had to call it based on what I know from being a member here, I think the lure theory is lacking and assumes SM had it in for Heather because she was pregnant, though the theory doesn't include why suddenly, around 1:00 a.m. on 12/18, he decided that he would buy a test and then based on its results, kill her. I don't see phone activity and Heather's decision to go to PTL proof of a lure or a desire to commit murder. I frankly think there was more contact than we know about and something escalated and she's now dead. I don't know when it happened or which M did what. But I've re-examined my previous idea that it was pre-meditated.

Fair enough. That is why I asked if you viewed the trial live or taped. You are right about sitting behind a computer and actually being a juror. I do think though if anyone has viewed the entirety of the trial then they can make a decision as if they were on the jury. I'm not saying I have not had theories and questions. I am saying I honestly did not think about them when I reviewed the entire trial. Can you separate any of your prior theories and questions and come up with a verdict on just the evidence and witnesses in the actual trial?

 

[cujenn81]

Not to mention, if Wal-Mart is selling Marlboros for $3.63, why are we not all in the business of buying and reselling them?

And I think they specifically said cigar, right? But that would be a valid question and business venture!

 

[jillycat]

My conclusion in this case is that the state proved the charges. 10 of the jury members agreed with that. 2 of the jury members did not agree.

I watched the trial testimony (each witness), listened to the questions and answers, and saw, piece by piece, links being made. In less than 4 days of testimony the state presented their case with multiple witnesses and the defense did their cross examination. You call that complicated, I call that not complicated.

It's a well-known fact in legal circles that the proliferation of CSI-type shows have created an expectation by some jurors serving in the 21st century. It's talked about all the time by legal pundits, mentioned by attorneys to their jurors, and is 'a thing' that can be a factor in cases. A case in which DNA is not in evidence is often a hurdle that has to be overcome because some jurors expect to see it.

I don't think there was a conspiracy (I don't believe in them) or corruption (corruption by whom?). There might have been stupidity (2 jurors confusion over time zone data and not being able to get past it?). The judge also made some calls that had many people scratching their head, me included.

Nope, I did not call the trial or presentation of the case complicated, I said this case is complicated.

To save time, I'm catching up into the same net the claims of biased/corrupt judges, jury selection conspiracy theory, and statements that most people think trials are TV shows.

There's a difference between some jurors in the 21st century and your suggestion that most people (I'm giving you some room here, you actually indicated people generally) rely on CSI to guide their real-life deliberations. In other words, it's implausible that most folks sit through an entire real life trial then dismiss all the real life evidence and real life instructions, and then run with how things work in a TV show. IMO

So did the two NG's watch too much TV or did they simply have reasonable questions that led to reasonable doubt? I think we should let them speak to that and stay out of their minds. Conversely, did the 10 guilty's watch too much TV where the prosecution usually gets its perp and a conviction and then they votes accordingly?

Let me say it this way - I think there's a difference between rebutting a claim and psych assessing the person making the claim.

 

[jillycat]

Fair enough. That is why I asked if you viewed the trial live or taped. You are right about sitting behind a computer and actually being a juror. I do think though if anyone has viewed the entirety of the trial then they can make a decision as if they were on the jury. I'm not saying I have not had theories and questions. I am saying I honestly did not think about them when I reviewed the entire trial. Can you separate any of your prior theories and questions and come up with a verdict on just the evidence and witnesses in the actual trial?

]
Well, yes, that's why I would likely vote NG. It's not even reasonable in the first place to come up with a verdict based on my or anyone else's opinion and prior theory.

I'm getting the impression that there's an assumption that because it was claimed or said in court, it must be fact. I reject that.

 

[Sunshynn]

BBM

It doesn't matter that the defense didn't impeach the testimony. We cannot know with 100% certainty what Sid said to Heather when he called her. It was hearsay testimony.The Judge, the law and the evidence have nothing to do with it. There is no direct absolute proof of what was said during the Sidney/Heather conversation.

I agree with this.
We can all assume (based on Heather's actions) what was said in the SM/HE payphone call.
But, the call to her roommate cast doubt on what was actually said.
Heather did not mention (or BW did not say that HE mentioned to her) that SM invited Heather to meet him anywhere that fateful night. According to BW, HE told her that he wanted to get back together and leave his wife and that was what she was going to sleep on. Not that she was going to sleep on meeting him.

 

[CarePsych]

I agree with this.
We can all assume (based on Heather's actions) what was said in the SM/HE payphone call and the information that Heather gave to her roommate.
However, Heather did not mention (or BW did not say that HE mentioned to her) that SM invited Heather to meet him anywhere that fateful night. According to BW, HE told her that he wanted to get back together and leave his wife and That was what she was going to sleep on. Not that she was going to sleep on meeting him.

I thought BW's testimony was that she had asked HE if she was "going to see him" and HE replied saying she was going to "sleep on it". Correct me if I'm wrong, my memory might be flawed on that. But I'm also in agreement that we can't be sure about anything that was said in the HE/SM phone conversation.

Sent from my LGMS631 using Tapatalk