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

[LBDunes]

Should have been a mistrial from the start IMO.

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

BBM - I was curious, what do you mean by "Should have been a mistrial from the start"?

 

[Knox]

Can someone refresh my memory as to why the State did not think it was in their best interests to try Sid and Tammy together? I remember discussing but don't remember the details.

Also, isn't it up to the administrative court to decide if the Judge presides over the next trial? I wonder what the basis is for that decision? Does a mistrial have any bearing? Since the trial was televised would they watch the footage? Juror interviews; criticizing him for allowing KTs friend to sit on the jury. And now what we know per the comment regarding the outburst and how the Judge chose to deal with that tidbit?

 

[magnolia]

[/B]

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?

No one is basing their opinion on nothing LBDunes. I happen to believe the Juror used a common sense approach in weighing the hearsay testimony. If you choose to believe HE was to the point of being hysterical over her version of the conversation, that is your right. I respect and accept your opinion. However, for some people, including myself, it does not make sense. No need to go into why it doesn't make sense. It has all been discussed here before.

We could toss this back and forth for days and neither one of us is going to change anything. That said, we need to agree to disagree. :loser:

 

[nerdgirl]

Can someone refresh my memory as to why the State did not think it was in their best interests to try Sid and Tammy together? I remember discussing but don't remember the details.

Also, isn't it up to the administrative court to decide if the Judge presides over the next trial? I wonder what the basis is for that decision? Does a mistrial have any bearing? Since the trial was televised would they watch the footage? Juror interviews; criticizing him for allowing KTs friend to sit on the jury. And now what we know per the comment regarding the outburst and how the Judge chose to deal with that tidbit?

I do not think it was the state:

"During pre-trial motions on Monday, Truslow argued the charges were not sufficiently connected and should be tried separately. Prosecutors argued Moorer obstructed justice to cover up kidnapping."

http://wbtw.com/2016/06/15/charges-...to-be-tried-separately-in-heather-elvis-case/


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[PeterThomasFan]

BBM - I was curious, what do you mean by "Should have been a mistrial from the start"?

Maybe a bit of an overstatement on my part. There were many factors leading up to this trial that caused an unpropitious outcome.

I'm pretty sure you know what they all are.

 

[Knox]

I do not think it was the state:

"During pre-trial motions on Monday, Truslow argued the charges were not sufficiently connected and should be tried separately. Prosecutors argued Moorer obstructed justice to cover up kidnapping."

http://wbtw.com/2016/06/15/charges-...to-be-tried-separately-in-heather-elvis-case/


Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Thanks for the link. I'm on my phone and can't figure out how to link the latest news article-Jurors Speak. In that piece there is a blip from the Solicitors Office; Jimmy made it sound like it was the State's choice not to try them together. I stand corrected now.

 

[stillwatersc]

Yes. It's the comment at the bottom of this article:

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/crime/article87382727.html

Juror comment! I wish the juror that commented would get a media interview so we could more openly discuss this. Pretty much confirmed all our fears of what could happen from DAY 1 of the trial.

 

[nerdgirl]

Thanks for the link. I'm on my phone and can't figure out how to link the latest news article-Jurors Speak. In that piece there is a blip from the Solicitors Office; Jimmy made it sound like it was the State's choice not to try them together. I stand corrected now.

Sorry, maybe I am wrong, that was about the charges being separated for Sidney. Still looking..

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[LBDunes]

Sorry, maybe I am wrong, that was about the charges being separated for Sidney. Still looking..

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

This is a quote from Richardson, from that article about the jurors speaking from The Sun News: (The he is a juror stating he thought the case would be stronger if SM & TM were tried together)

He said he thought if the state tried Tammy, 43, and Sidney Moorer together it would have been a stronger case.

Fifteenth Circuit Solicitor Jimmy Richardson said the state has considered that option, along with others in the case, and decided it wasn’t in their best interest to do so. He declined to discuss details behind their strategies due to a gag order, which prevents legal parties and Tammy and Sidney Moorer from discussing the case.

Read more here: http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/crime/article87382727.html#storylink=cpy

 

[cujenn81]

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.

I agree 100%.
However, I cringed when NL opened her closing arguments by pointing out that this was a purely circumstantial case. Not because of the overwhelming circumstances that point to SM (those are good things), but because I think many jurors don't fully understand what the word means. I think a lot of jurors hear that word--circumstantial--and then immediately assume (incorrectly) it means "weak".

 

[RANCH]

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.

Very good post.

I liken circumstantial evidence at trial to what a lot of people call the use of common sense in their everyday life. You take what makes the most sense in any given situation and come up with a conclusion of what happened or what needs to be done. JMO

 

[PeterThomasFan]

There are 3 sides to every story. What he said, what she said, and what really happened.

 

[magnolia]

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.

BBM -- In this case, you have an extreme human reaction that does not fit her version of a conversation. You have evidence of approximately 15 outgoing phone calls which totally negates the "moved on with my life" narrative,IMO. You have witness testimony and evidence that HE was not upfront about her intentions. You have witness testimony the roommate very much disapproved of any interaction between the two parties involved. I could go on but, I will stop here. I happen to believe the Juror questioned the truthfulness of the hearsay testimony based on the above. IMO

In this case, I don't think anyone can say, the victim's statements are imagined to be something else or just not believed. Not when the one who has doubts about the truthfulness can provide a valid reason of why they have doubts. I once served on a Jury that involved testimony from a LE officer. In deliberations, one Juror dug his heels in and said he did not believe the officer. When asked, he would not provide an answer as to why he did not believe him.. I think this is the type situation you are describing. A Juror or person who can offer no reason of why s/he does not believe the witness testimony.

In my world, Jurors are not required to believe all testimony from witnesses for the State. They have the right to reject all or part of any witness testimony. They have the right to determine how much weight to give witness testimony. They also have the right to use common sense and their own life experiences. :loser:

Reposted: I failed to quote the post I was replying to.

 

[Madeleine74]

Very good post.

I liken circumstantial evidence at trial to what a lot of people call the use of common sense in their everyday life. You take what makes the most sense in any given situation and come up with a conclusion of what happened or what needs to be done. JMO

Thanks! As we witness all too often, common sense isn't really common afterall. If I wake up and look out my window (say, in January, in Rhode Island) and there is snow on the ground, but I didn't see it snowing at all the night before, I could do either of 2 things:

1. Assume (with my common sense) that it snowed overnight -- or --
2. Believe that maybe someone with a truckload of 'snow' came and dumped it all over my yard to make it look like it snowed.

Those who have trouble with common sense and don't understand circumstantial evidence would think option 2 might be as likely as option 1. Afterall, you didn't *see* it snowing so "what if...." the 2nd scenario happened!?! Even if there's there's the slightest possibility that it could have happened, that possibility will be grasped onto because, "hey it could'a happened..."

 

[RANCH]

Thanks! As we witness all too often, common sense isn't really common afterall. If I wake up and look out my window (say, in January, in Rhode Island) and there is snow on the ground, but I didn't see it snowing at all the night before, I could do either of 2 things:

1. Assume (with my common sense) that it snowed overnight -- or --
2. Believe that maybe someone with a truckload of 'snow' came and dumped it all over my yard to make it look like it snowed.

Those who have trouble with common sense and don't understand circumstantial evidence would think option 2 might be as likely as option 1. Afterall, you didn't *see* it snowing so "what if...." the 2nd scenario happened!?! Even if there's there's the slightest possibility that it could have happened, that possibility will be grasped onto because, "hey it could'a happened..."

That's why the juror who had a problem with all of the "what if's" is confused and a poor juror. He didn't use common sense.

 

[1&2&3]

That's why the juror who had a problem with all of the "what if's" is confused and a poor juror. He didn't use common sense.

Unfortunately there are many people in our world like this. We deal with them daily and don't realize it. They are trained to do a job a certain way. Don't ask or expect them to use common sense if something different needs to be done as they are lost.

 

[CarolinaAsh]

Question: will there be a new prosecutor and judge for the new trial? I hope so.

I don't believe there will be a new judge unless he is forced to step down. But he may be because a lot of people are sending in complaints to the SC State Supreme Court's office about it. As for the prosecutor, I don't think so, maybe, but I think there's a reason that Ms. Livesay was the primary speaker.

Bumping for @CarolinaAsh
We were not told where the cell phone pinged, but the other number was on the projector- it is listed above in the call log

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Thanks!!! The temptation to call that number, it's strong, but I'll resist.

I think you would be surprised by how many people here don't even recognize the name "Moorers" in passing conversation. Usually, if you say "the couple who's suspected of killing Heather Elvis," you get an "oh, right" in response. Most people need context in regards to those two.

I understood why they were let out on bail, even if I didn't like it. I was a little relieved when they moved to Florida, because that meant I wouldn't see them anywhere and have to attempt to hide my disgust. What I wasn't, though, was bitter or hostile in regards to Judge Dennis for those two decisions. The first problem I had with him, as an "honorable" judge was when it came out that he was former friends with SM's father. It would have been honorable for him to step aside. The second time I had a major problem with him was when I watched the way he treated Livesay vs. how he treated Truslow. I had to muzzle my inner voice, which was screaming "you sexist p.o.s!"

Quoting myself to say that the second major problem I had with him was actually when he allowed KT's friend to be seated on the jury. The lopsided treatment of Livesay was 3rd.

Combining quotes. 110% agree. Not only are some people super self centered and therefore haven't paid attention to this at all, but with this being such a transient area there are so many who have recently moved here who have no idea about the case at all. The 20+ people I work with only know her name because of me, and don't know the Moorers name at all. I'd be willing to bet out of the families who come in and out of our place each day, about 100, that 90 of them don't know about the case at all.

I totally agree with you about the change of venue and a new prosecutor. I don't know about the venue change but I think a new prosecutor is very likely.

They tried the venue change, their bond and everything was held in Charleston, but it didn't help. For one, it's the same judge, he's a circuit judge, so they'd move with him, and it's an undue hardship on the victim's family and witnesses.

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.

Meh, I dunno. I think it might be ok. There are so many people new to the area in the past 2 years that didn't hear the original news and so may not know and wouldn't have paid attention. Plus not many people watch the news anymore unless there's a specific reason.

Can someone refresh my memory as to why the State did not think it was in their best interests to try Sid and Tammy together? I remember discussing but don't remember the details.

Also, isn't it up to the administrative court to decide if the Judge presides over the next trial? I wonder what the basis is for that decision? Does a mistrial have any bearing? Since the trial was televised would they watch the footage? Juror interviews; criticizing him for allowing KTs friend to sit on the jury. And now what we know per the comment regarding the outburst and how the Judge chose to deal with that tidbit?

They were hoping one of them would turn on the other to save their own bacon. Also the only one who can remove the judge now is the State's Supreme Court or the Judge himself.

 

[Knox]

@CarolinaAsh. I thought the Judge said, he did not know if he would preside over the case if it was retried. It would be up to the Administrative Court. Anyone else hear that?

 

[Richmond]

@CarolinaAsh. I thought the Judge said, he did not know if he would preside over the case if it was retried. It would be up to the Administrative Court. Anyone else hear that?

I heard that. But I think the judge is such a narcissistic <modsnip> that he will want to re-try the case. He didn't recuse himself the first time around--it was high profile and televised--I think he will do whatever he can to stay on the case. I wish they could get the first judge back. He seemed to actually be impartial.

 

[GeeEm]

TO: CarolinaAsh

Did you or anyone else know or figure out who the blonde girl was sitting next to the judge?

Thanks