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

[Madeleine74]

I agree with 1 through 6. However, I started having problems with the good judge before the trial. I started not liking the judge in the bond reconsideration hearing. Do you see any of that? I swear he interrupted Livesay 3 words into a sentence. I don't think she got a complete sentence in without an interruption. He also was very long winded in his folk tales at that proceeding. Someone (here) said he is the type of person if you ran into at a cocktail party you would never get away from. I had a good laugh from that. Thanks whoever it was.

Yes I did see the bond reconsideration hearing. That also is when I really got a taste of this judge's style and it was not to my liking. Yes, I do remember how the state could not get a whole sentence in but the defense attorney was allowed great leeway to talk at length. Since this judge clearly does not work well with female attorneys in his courtroom, the state would do themselves a huge favor if they got the male attorney to take the lead *if* this judge is going to continue to preside over this case. The judge isn't going to suddenly become enlightened about his boorish behavior and the state knows he is biased...

 

[magnolia]

Bri was a very good witness in that she was consistent in her testimony, she repeated what was said to her in that call, she admitted her own anger at Heather even picking up the phone when that mystery call came in.

As far as Heather not being truthful... how does it change the fact that a crime occurred?

Heather was allegedly upset and crying and she was apparently not expecting to hear from SM. So if SM says something (anything) to encourage or persuade her to come out that early morning and she is led into a trap of some kind (even if he didn't personally plan the trap itself), he's still guilty under the law. Not believing the victim is a little bit of victim-blaming by jurors, IMO. But even if one is convinced there's more to the story than what Heather told Bri, how does that change what happened to Heather into not being a crime?

Did Heather consent to being 'disappeared?' Did Heather consent to being removed from wherever it occurred and consent to being kept from getting back to her car and back to her apartment? If no then a crime occurred.

The trajectory of Heather's car & cell phone and SM's truck both heading to PTL around the same time doesn't change. Heather being disappeared (harmed) doesn't change. None of it makes SM innocent if SM participated in or allowed harm to come to Heather that early morning. Thus a juror's opinion about Heather's truthfulness is irrelevant because the end result doesn't change.

BBM -- Are you saying all Jurors should just automatically believe the victim in every case. If a Juror ever questions the truthfulness of a victim, that juror is victim blaming.

No one even hinted that questioning HE's truthfulness changed the fact that a crime was committed. The Juror didn't say anything close to that...nor did I.

 

[RANCH]

Bri was a very good witness in that she was consistent in her testimony, she repeated what was said to her in that call, she admitted her own anger at Heather even picking up the phone when that mystery call came in.

As far as Heather not being truthful... how does it change the fact that a crime occurred?

Heather was allegedly upset and crying and she was apparently not expecting to hear from SM. So if SM says something (anything) to encourage or persuade her to come out that early morning and she is led into a trap of some kind (even if he didn't personally plan the trap itself), he's still guilty under the law. Not believing the victim is a little bit of victim-blaming by jurors, IMO. But even if one is convinced there's more to the story than what Heather told Bri, how does that change what happened to Heather into not being a crime?

Did Heather consent to being 'disappeared?' Did Heather consent to being removed from wherever it occurred and consent to being kept from getting back to her car and back to her apartment? If no then a crime occurred.

The trajectory of Heather's car & cell phone and SM's truck both heading to PTL around the same time doesn't change. Heather being disappeared (harmed) doesn't change. None of it makes SM innocent if SM participated in or allowed harm to come to Heather that early morning. Thus a juror's opinion about Heather's truthfulness is irrelevant because the end result doesn't change.

You make some very good points.

Even if Heather did lie to Bri about what SM said to her, and I have no reason to believe she did, that doesn't change what happened afterwards. And that's the crux of this case. JMO.

 

[magnolia]

You make some very good points.

Even if Heather did lie to Bri about what SM said to her, and I have no reason to believe she did, that doesn't change what happened afterwards. And that's the crux of this case. JMO.

Actually, what SM said to Heather during the call is very relevant to the State's theory that Heather was lured.

 

[magnolia]

My problem is I don't really understand how that was gleaned from Bri's testimony. And while it's possible Heather may not have been truthful, I do have a problem being able to tell so from Bri's testimony.

BBM -- I can't speak for the Juror. For me, it was other testimony as well.

 

[PeterThomasFan]

It was confirmed KT's friend was a NG by the Elvis family:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...al-media-discussion-3&p=12666491#post12666491

That's messed up.

 

[poppygirl]

The odds that Sidney will luck out again and have a friend of his or of his atty sit on his jury are low. This judge needs to step down now or be forced down.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bestill]

I am just furious about this http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/crime/article87382727.html!!

This JUDGE should be disciplined. We need to share this all over social media so that the public is aware of the shenanigans going on with this case!

 

[magnolia]

The very last comment,(as of this morning) is very true.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/new...e87382727.html

 

[Madeleine74]

Bestill,

Thank goodness for a mistrial then. If there can't be a fair and impartial trial then there's really no point to having a trial. Hopefully any friends of either side or the judge will not make it onto the next jury. And maybe the state will actually have an equal chance.

I think we need to be cognizant of there being a certain segment of the populace that if they don't see a video of the crime actually being committed by the perp (in high definition), blood/hair/fibers found on the perp and victim, and a fingerprint left by the perp in the victim's blood, they don't believe there is enough evidence to determine guilt nor even necessarily believe a crime was committed.

 

[Truth Prevails]

You make some very good points.

Even if Heather did lie to Bri about what SM said to her, and I have no reason to believe she did, that doesn't change what happened afterwards. And that's the crux of this case. JMO.

I take it the same way. If we totally discount Bri's testimony, we are still left with all the evidence showing SM called Heather, plus the proximity of their locations during the next two hours, then climaxing with Heather never being seen or heard from again.

 

[Madeleine74]

I take it the same way. If we totally discount Bri's testimony, we are still left with all the evidence showing SM called Heather, plus the proximity of their locations during the next two hours, then climaxing with Heather never being seen or heard from again.

No amount of spin can change the simple fact that Sidney initiated a call to Heather at 1:35am, a mere 15 minutes after he purchased a pregnancy test at Walmart. And there is also no evidence that these 2 were in contact before this phone call occurred.

People can imagine any conversation they like between the 2, but it was SM who made a point to be in touch with Heather and it was SM's truck seen on video heading to PTL at the same time as Heather's car and cell phone. SM was involved in what happened to Heather and it wasn't mere coincidence that Heather was 'disappeared' and never seen or heard from again. The chain of events, as caught on video and through digital records, links them all together.

 

[PeterThomasFan]

Since this (mis)trial was all over the local news, it's going to be even harder to find a jury in Horry County that hasn't heard about it and formed an opinion already IMO.

 

[RANCH]

Bestill,

Thank goodness for a mistrial then. If there can't be a fair and impartial trial then there's really no point to having a trial. Hopefully any friends of either side or the judge will not make it onto the next jury. And maybe the state will actually have an equal chance.

I think we need to be cognizant of there being a certain segment of the populace that if they don't see a video of the crime actually being committed by the perp (in high definition), blood/hair/fibers found on the perp and victim, and a fingerprint left by the perp in the victim's blood, they don't believe there is enough evidence to determine guilt nor even necessarily believe a crime was committed.

Video and audio recordings because you need that to know exactly what the suspect said to the victim. You can't use circumstantial evidence to come to a conclusion. JMO

 

[Truth Prevails]

Should have been a mistrial from the start IMO.

Next trial needs to move out of SC with a new Prosecutor to boot.

But the judge really cut the prosecutor off at her knees. I think she did a thorough and distinguished job under the circumstances.

 

[RANCH]

I take it the same way. If we totally discount Bri's testimony, we are still left with all the evidence showing SM called Heather, plus the proximity of their locations during the next two hours, then climaxing with Heather never being seen or heard from again.

Excellent. You understand how circumstantial evidence works.

 

[Madeleine74]

So many times I hear or read someone opine, "well it's only a circumstantial case."

Uh yeahhhh.

As are the vast majority of all murder cases.

Except in this particular case it isn't "only" circumstantial. You actually have video showing the perp doing 2 of the activities that morning on top of unimpeachable digital evidence.

 

[LBDunes]

I don't know that anyone has totally discounted Bri's testimony. I can only speak for myself. I certainly didn't discount all.

What SM said to Heather during the pay phone call conversation is very relevant to the State's luring theory.

What I don't get is if you didn't weigh other data and testimony against Bri's testimony to come up with you don't believe what Heather said to Bri, what could SM have said to Heather, that would have negated the kidnapping theory? I just don't see how Bri's testimony, taken in isolation could lead to the belief Heather was not honest about what SM said? What was said then? I don't see how it just can be thought Heather lied what SM said based on nothing?

 

[magnolia]

I take it the same way. If we totally discount Bri's testimony, we are still left with all the evidence showing SM called Heather, plus the proximity of their locations during the next two hours, then climaxing with Heather never being seen or heard from again.

I don't know that anyone has totally discounted Bri's testimony. I can only speak for myself. I certainly didn't discount all. :loser:

What SM said to Heather during the pay phone call conversation is very relevant to the State's luring theory. I don't believe anyone is just using their imagination to invent what was said. We have two versions of that phone call. The hysteria does not fit Heather's version of what was said. IMO As for the Juror that came to the same conclusion, what was she left with.

 

[Madeleine74]

Hey RANCH,

It's ironic that circumstantial evidence is discounted in lieu of direct evidence, but when you have more than just circumstantial evidence, such as the victim speaking to someone about what just occurred to them and their feelings about what just occurred, a mere 2 hours before their disappearance, said victim's statements are imagined to be something else or just not believed. If there had been an eye witness to something that night, that person's story might also not be believed. And not just Heather, but you have a someone who lived in the Moorer home for a period of time, who personally saw the security system setup to include the monitor on the wall, who came to court and testified to what he saw, and he's called a liar by some folks out there.

Thus for some people, there simply cannot be any evidence that would allow them to convict a person because to them witnesses are unreliable or outright liars, every possible "what if" scenario can't be answered, and unless they can actually see and hear the crime occurring, they doubt some or even most aspects of a case.