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

[magnolia]

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.

• The phone calls and times are fact.
• The videos and times are fact.
• The shopping at Walmart, what was purchased, by whom, and the time for that is fact.
• The date Sid bought the new truck is fact.
• The features of that new F150 are fact.
• Heather thinking she might be pregnant due to sudden weight gain is fact (unless you think she was lying to all her friends)
• Heather being on a date that Dec 17th night is fact.
• Picture of Heather taken as she learned to drive stick shift is fact.
• Heather being home in time to receive that 1:35am call from SM on pay phone is fact.
• Heather receiving pictures of SM and someone engaged sexual conduct is fact.
• Heather receiving multiple calls and harassing texts is fact.
• SM calling Heather's cell phone around 1:35am from that pay phone is fact.
• SM parking his black truck behind some dumpsters/bushes and walking through them and up to the pay phone is fact
• The movement of HE's phone and the movement of her vehicle ending up at PTL is fact.
• The DVR/security system being removed and a new one being purchased by the M's is fact.
• The 'black box' SYNC system not having data for Dec 18th is fact.
• Heather calling Bri at 1:44am is fact.
• Heather's vehicle spotted at PTL around 4:15am Dec 18th by an office on duty is fact
• Heather never being seen or heard from again is fact
• Heather's phone never connecting to any tower again after 3:41am Dec 18th is fact
• A black truck matching the description of the F150 appearing on security video twice the morning of Dec 18 and analyzed by a known and regarded expert to match the physical characteristics of SM's truck is fact.
• A black truck matching SM's truck driving by a neighbor's security camera around 3:50am* Dec 18 (*corrected for EST instead of DST) is fact.

Madeleine, respectfully, I believe you may have taken Jillycat's comment out of context. She did not say there were no facts presented in court. Of course there were facts. We all know the facts of the case. However, everything said and claimed in court was not a fact.> That is a fact.

 

[jillycat]

But wait there's more:

• Sidney lying more than a couple times to police during their investigation of a missing person is fact (and it's on audio as well)
• Sidney locking his truck upon exiting and taking the remote/key with him while at Walmart and then unlocking it upon return is fact (and is seen on video).
• Movement of Heather's phone is fact (and is corroborated by GPS and/or Google locations at every point.)
• Heather's phone never before pinging from the tower near PTL until Dec 18 2013 is fact.
• Heather moving in with Bri and the time frame of that happening is fact.
• Heather interviewing for a new job and getting that new job is fact.
• Heather posting on social media and date/times of that is fact.
• SM & TM being on a trip to CA for upwards of 3 weeks is fact.
• SM's phone pinging off various towers as they travel is fact.
• SM's phone being powered off or unable to transmit at various times is fact.
• SM's phone being powered on and connecting to towers at various dates/times is fact.
• Phone call dates/times/duration/towers pinged are fact.
• Location of phone(s) while phone calls made/received are fact (towers pinged + GPS + Google Locations when available)

And there's even more:

None of this supports a theory that she was "lured" by SM to a boat landing for more crimes against her. After a pregnancy test. Or something like that.

I would think of it like this: A juror can believe a defendant is guilty of a crime against the victim, and even the crime brought before the court, but not see that the evidence and the theory of what happened and where and when are plausibly linked.

Maybe the state will stop clinging so hard to a bada bing PTL crime and consider that a theory involving where she spent the most time that morning is a useful next direction.

 

[LBDunes]

@ Jillycat Yes, I just wrote a little post that I thought the pregnancy being brought up was more trouble than it was worth. Since there was no witness to affirm there was a /neg result. You have said you don't buy the lure to PTL to pee on a stick theory and I couldn't agree with you more. However if I was to theorize about the purchased test, it could be that she was kidnapped at PTL and then taken somewhere else to do the test. I have no problem not knowing they did not present a video of her car travelling. Since I firmly believe what was presented, I feel there was not any video of the route she took.

 

[escape2sc]

I was thinking about that too, and here's my thoughts on why TE didn't want it searched. I think TE was nervous that there may have been pot or a pipe in Heather's car. I think she was a typical 19 year old, and it wouldn't surprise me if she did smoke on occasion. There has been no evidence that she ever smoked pot, (and I really don't see anything wrong if she did smoke) but that's the only reason why I can think that TE didn't want it searched. This is MOO and I don't want to sound like I think Heather did anything wrong, just my theory.
.

I could understand TE thinking this way for a day but two days with no one hearing from or seeing Heather and her car abandoned ? By the end of the first 24 hours with no sign of my daughter , no cell phone activity , nothing ? I wouldn't care what LE might find in her car I would insist the car be examined ! JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

In South Carolina:

Kidnapping is the crime of taking a person against their will to an undisclosed location. This may be done for ransom or in furtherance of another crime, or in connection with a child custody dispute.


According to the laws of South Carolina, whoever shall unlawfully seize, confine, inveigle, decoy, kidnap, abduct or carry away any other person by any means whatsoever without authority of law, except when a minor is seized or taken by his parent, is guilty of a felony.

Further, if two or more persons enter into an agreement, confederation, or conspiracy to violate the provisions of Section 16-3-910 and any of such persons do any overt act towards carrying out such unlawful agreement, confederation, or conspiracy, each such person shall be guilty of a felony.

S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-910
[ii] S.C. Code Ann. § 16-3-920


in·vei·gle
inˈvāɡəl/
verb
verb:

• persuade (someone) to do something by means of deception or flattery.
  synonyms: entice, tempt, lure, seduce, beguile; wheedle, cajole, coax, persuade
  
  
  decoy:

• lure or entice (a person or animal) away from an intended course, typically into a trap.

 

[jillycat]

@ Jillycat Yes, I just wrote a little post that I thought the pregnancy being brought up was more trouble than it was worth. Since there was no witness to affirm there was a /neg result. You have said you don't buy the lure to PTL to pee on a stick theory and I couldn't agree with you more. However if I was to theorize about the purchased test, it could be that she was kidnapped at PTL and then taken somewhere else to do the test. I have no problem not knowing they did not present a video of her car travelling. Since I firmly believe what was presented, I feel there was not any video of the route she took.

I thought about that too, given the fleeting trip to PTL, but after the dust settled, I can't wrap my head around orchestrating a kidnapping, first by lure to a desolate landing at that hour, and then a grab and go at that landing to get her to take a pregnancy test at yet another location, then to kill her, there or perhaps even somewhere else. What if she was negative? Were they going to say "Oops, our bad" and let her go? Or were they going to kill her anyway? If the latter was the case, sheesh, what a rodeo to get to their goal. Seriously, this is not making sense to me.

 

[escape2sc]

RSBM: Not a blatant hole, so much as a "what I don't understand" situation. I mentioned this earlier on the Evidence thread. What I don't understand is why SM would've gone to that Wal-Mart if it was a pregnancy test for his wife. The one in Surfside is 4 miles closer to the compound.

Where is Sticky Fingers located ? Maybe SM was truthful about working at Sticky Fingers that night and the Walmart on Seaboard was closer ?

 

[LBDunes]

And there's even more:

None of this supports a theory that she was "lured" by SM to a boat landing for more crimes against her. After a pregnancy test. Or something like that.

I would think of it like this: A juror can believe a defendant is guilty of a crime against the victim, and even the crime brought before the court, but not see that the evidence and the theory of what happened and where and when are plausibly linked.

Maybe the state will stop clinging so hard to a bada bing PTL crime and consider that a theory involving where she spent the most time that morning is a useful next direction.

I disagree with none of this supports the lure. Unless you don't believe Bri's account. The man was deceptive about "I'm leaving my wife, I want to be with you" and you string together all the lies he told. Especially getting rid of the original video equipment, then I personally see premeditation. Unless I am mistaken, when he made that call, it fit the legal definition of the charge. He set in motion the crime. Also, I do not think the state should now put forth a new theory. That would be a mistake on their part. I believe she was kidnapped at PTL.

 

[TTF14]

Where is Sticky Fingers located ? Maybe SM was truthful about working at Sticky Fingers that night and the Walmart on Seaboard was closer ?

Maybe, but if so, he sure was a busy man! So far we've heard (not in court) that he was around town having sex with his wife in various spots, working, at home, at Walmart, at the pay phone, clipping coupons.

He must have been way too exhausted after all of that to be out at 3:30AM on his way to PTL......

 

[escape2sc]

I disagree with none of this supports the lure. Unless you don't believe Bri's account. The man was deceptive about "I'm leaving my wife, I want to be with you" and you string together all the lies he told. Especially getting rid of the original video equipment, then I personally see premeditation. Unless I am mistaken, when he made that call, it fit the legal definition of the charge. He set in motion the crime. Also, I do not think the state should now put forth a new theory. That would be a mistake on their part. I believe she was kidnapped at PTL.

I am not sure if she was kidnapped at PTL or whatever happened happened at Long Beard's. Prior to Heather being at Long Beard's the 2nd time, Heather was trying to reach SM at the pay phone number. Immediately after leaving Long Beard's , Heather called SM's cell phone number and there was a 4+ minute phone call. Either Heather met SM at Long Beard's and was told to call his cell phone number, or someone else was in control of Heather's cell phone and knew to call Sidney's phone.

 

[TTF14]

I disagree with none of this supports the lure. Unless you don't believe Bri's account. The man was deceptive about "I'm leaving my wife, I want to be with you" and you string together all the lies he told. Especially getting rid of the original video equipment, then I personally see premeditation. Unless I am mistaken, when he made that call, it fit the legal definition of the charge. He set in motion the crime. Also, I do not think the state should now put forth a new theory. That would be a mistake on their part. I believe she was kidnapped at PTL.

For me, luring is confirmed by him calling her from a pay phone and HIDING while doing so. Why the heck would he do that if he didn't have bad intentions? The lying about talking to her, disabling of the sync module and disposal of the surveillance equipment don't speak to luring, but they do speak to pre-meditation (most likely) and covering up of a crime.

 

[CarePsych]

It looks like Sticky Fingers is located at/near Coastal Grand Mall and is a mile away from the Seaboard St. Walmart.

 

[Surfside]

Where is Sticky Fingers located ? Maybe SM was truthful about working at Sticky Fingers that night and the Walmart on Seaboard was closer ?

It's next to Coastal Grand Mall, basically on the corner of Harrelson and Seaboard. It's a mile from the Seaboard Walmart, but a mile in the opposite direction from the compound. Was he supposed to be doing maintenance work at Sticky Fingers? If so, I'm not sure why he would need to be dressed in one of their t-shirts that time of night. The restaurant closes at 10:00, and sometimes they close a little early in the dead of winter.

I don't know. I just don't believe one single thing coming from that side, so I can't help but to try to poke holes in everything any of them has claimed.

 

[LBDunes]

I thought about that too, given the fleeting trip to PTL, but after the dust settled, I can't wrap my head around orchestrating a kidnapping, first by lure to a desolate landing at that hour, and then a grab and go at that landing to get her to take a pregnancy test at yet another location, then to kill her, there or perhaps even somewhere else. What if she was negative? Were they going to say "Oops, our bad" and let her go? Or were they going to kill her anyway? If the latter was the case, sheesh, what a rodeo to get to their goal. Seriously, this is not making sense to me.

Agree, I don't think they were going to say "Oops, our bad" if the test was negative when she took it somewhere else. I believe she was lured to PTL for reasons to do her harm from the evidence presented. So, a question for you and anyone else, if I discounted the pregnancy test, would I be wrong to still find a guilty verdict, since I weighed all the other evidence and testimony and came to that conclusion?

 

[LBDunes]

It's next to Coastal Grand Mall, basically on the corner of Harrelson and Seaboard. It's a mile from the Seaboard Walmart, but a mile in the opposite direction from the compound. Was he supposed to be doing maintenance work at Sticky Fingers? If so, I'm not sure why he would need to be dressed in one of their t-shirts that time of night. The restaurant closes at 10:00, and sometimes they close a little early in the dead of winter.

I don't know. I just don't believe one single thing coming from that side, so I can't help but to try to poke holes in everything any of them has claimed.

If SM was working at that place that night, why would Truslow not present a document to prove that? He could have shown something that work was performed that night, without putting SM on the stand, no?

 

[Surfside]

If SM was working at that place that night, why would Truslow not present a document to prove that? He could have shown something that work was performed that night, without putting SM on the stand, no?

EXACTLY! Hell, he could've put the restaurant's GM on the stand. Was the trial the first time we heard the Sticky Fingers alibi?

 

[escape2sc]

Agree, I don't think they were going to say "Oops, our bad" if the test was negative when she took it somewhere else. I believe she was lured to PTL for reasons to do her harm from the evidence presented. So, a question for you and anyone else, if I discounted the pregnancy test, would I be wrong to still find a guilty verdict, since I weighed all the other evidence and testimony and came to that conclusion?

Discounting the pregnancy test still leaves the phone calls . It can't just be strange coincidence and SM's bad luck to contact HE for the first time since Nov. just 2 hours before she disappears. And HE trying to contact SM just minutes before her phone stops completely . The truck on video during those final minutes. SM lying about calling her from the pay phone . Guilty sounds reasonable.

 

[Madeleine74]

if I discounted the pregnancy test, would I be wrong to still find a guilty verdict, since I weighed all the other evidence and testimony and came to that conclusion?

You would not be wrong.

 

[escape2sc]

If SM was working at that place that night, why would Truslow not present a document to prove that? He could have shown something that work was performed that night, without putting SM on the stand, no?

Since the State couldn't prove where he was after the pay phone call, I don't understand why the State didn't have his work records to prove where he wasn't .

 

[TTF14]

Agree, I don't think they were going to say "Oops, our bad" if the test was negative when she took it somewhere else. I believe she was lured to PTL for reasons to do her harm from the evidence presented. So, a question for you and anyone else, if I discounted the pregnancy test, would I be wrong to still find a guilty verdict, since I weighed all the other evidence and testimony and came to that conclusion?

Not at all. I'm thinking the whole pregnancy test thing, while relevant I'm sure, might have just muddied the waters and made it an unnecessary distraction.