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

[U2forever]

Great Post.

Now, that is indeed a fact. BoomCha!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Skully]

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..."

And that is exactly why a prosecution office won't always arrest someone or put the DP on the table. They know a jury is scared to put the wrong man or woman in jail, or to death. Look at the Casey Anthony case, she got off. If we were talking about the weather, no harm done, but this is people's lives, so even common sense wants DNA or proof positive. I haven't read all of the thread, pings, evidence, but someone could ask, at what point is she dead? I see pings and her timeline with the phone, but do I know that the phone is with SM and not her? They have to find the body. There won't be any DNA or evidence like that, but maybe COD. Prove she was murdered BARD.

 

[magnolia]

And that is exactly why a prosecution office won't always arrest someone or put the DP on the table. They know a jury is scared to put the wrong man or woman in jail, or to death. Look at the Casey Anthony case, she got off. If we were talking about the weather, no harm done, but this is people's lives, so even common sense wants DNA or proof positive. I haven't read all of the thread, pings, evidence, but someone could ask, at what point is she dead? I see pings and her timeline with the phone, but do I know that the phone is with SM and not her? They have to find the body. There won't be any DNA or evidence like that, but maybe COD. Prove she was murdered BARD.

BBM -- And this is what it is all about > People's lives. Feelings for the defendants should not play a part. Harsh criticism of Jurors is not cool. IMO

 

[PeterThomasFan]

But, they still weren't THAT cheap!

I'm a smoker (gross, I know... I need to quit) and I smoke Marlboro Menthols. They almost always have one of those "dollar off pack" promos going on, but even then... I pay over $4 a pack. And that's been true for AT LEAST the last five years.

Actually, I just found this comparison list from July 2013:

https://theawl.com/what-a-pack-of-cigarettes-costs-now-state-by-state-22dd68b2d97b#.4pe9c17n8

The average cost for a pack of Marlboro's in SC in 2013 was $5.55.
(PS. I'm really glad I don't live in NY! GOOD GRIEF.)

FWIW... Here is a random convenience store on 707 that advertises Marlboro's as $4.70 (November 2014).

https://goo.gl/P2HLQ4

 

[Surfside]

And that is exactly why a prosecution office won't always arrest someone or put the DP on the table. They know a jury is scared to put the wrong man or woman in jail, or to death. Look at the Casey Anthony case, she got off. If we were talking about the weather, no harm done, but this is people's lives, so even common sense wants DNA or proof positive. I haven't read all of the thread, pings, evidence, but someone could ask, at what point is she dead? I see pings and her timeline with the phone, but do I know that the phone is with SM and not her? They have to find the body. There won't be any DNA or evidence like that, but maybe COD. Prove she was murdered BARD.

BBM: Except this wasn't a murder trial; it was a kidnapping trial.

 

[barcode]

BBM: Except this wasn't a murder trial; it was a kidnapping trial.

That in itself being the problem, they should have charged murder. You can't expect people to just jump on the bandwagon and support a poorly charged case. I have seen hysteria, desperate, mission like to describe HE on that night. Why do I envision a bungee cord around Heather's waist and her running forward multiple times until she broke loose and was able to see SM that fateful night. I have no doubt that SM killed her, kidnapping, not so much, one simple call by SM but HE is more frantic to make sure that meeting did take place with all of her calls afterwards. I can only speak for myself but I feel a lot of us feel this case was undercharged.

 

[stillwatersc]

I'm not sure that that is true about taking weeks. I lost a baby, and it showed immediately on a pregnant test. Not a blood test, a drugstore test. And this was 10 years ago. JMO>>>

So sorry Renee. :hug:

 

[LBDunes]

That in itself being the problem, they should have charged murder. You can't expect people to just jump on the bandwagon and support a poorly charged case. I have seen hysteria, desperate, mission like to describe HE on that night. Why do I envision a bungee cord around Heather's waist and her running forward multiple times until she broke loose and was able to see SM that fateful night. I have no doubt that SM killed her, kidnapping, not so much, one simple call by SM but HE is more frantic to make sure that meeting did take place with all of her calls afterwards. I can only speak for myself but I feel a lot of us feel this case was undercharged.

BBM - I do not understand the statement you make about Heather being very anxious to see SM and you are convinced of murder? I am struggling to see the point of she frantically and desperately made the calls to see SM? Other than if one chooses to believe she was not honest to Bri how it matters if she came to harm?

 

[barcode]

BBM - I do not understand the statement you make about Heather being very anxious to see SM and you are convinced of murder? I am struggling to see the point of she frantically and desperately made the calls to see SM? Other than if one chooses to believe she was not honest to Bri how it matters if she came to harm?

Taking in the time of day, does not seem like she was moving on at all, if you buy that SM told HE he was leaving his wife, then one has to accept she thinks to herself, hey this hot guy is on the market and will be snatched up by another female in moments, I better make sure this does not happen so I will not wait till tomorrow and I will make sure that he sees me first....I can't even write this it just doesn't make sense. She was obviously hellbent on seeing him that night, obviously things went downhill, afterwards, it is easy for me to connect the dots with murder, I can't help it if the prosecutor thought that murder would be hard to prove. As for Bri, I did not mention her, you brought her in, her testimony was not forthcoming, clearly did not want her own statement to be read in court, Was coached and lead by Livesay, obvious, I made posts regarding that while she was testifying.

 

[Madeleine74]

hey this hot guy is on the market and will be snatched up by another female in moments, I better make sure this does not happen so I will not wait till tomorrow and I will make sure that he sees me first

LOLOL

As for Bri, I did not mention her, you brought her in, her testimony was not forthcoming, clearly did not want her own statement to be read in court, Was coached and lead by Livesay, obvious

She was asked by the defense *if* she wanted to hear her interview with police and she said no, she'd rather not. Was she lying there? Did she really want to listen to her own earlier interview?

Bri was asked questions, she answered them. What was she supposed to say that would make it seem 'forthcoming?' All witnesses are lead by the person who is asking them questions in testimony--that's how it works. A witness doesn't just sit in the witness chair and start talking. There is a process followed. Questions are asked by counsel. The witness responds. The jury can decide how much of the witness testimony to believe, not believe, in whole or in part.

Bri's testimony must be devastating because *so much* importance is put on it by spectators. All she did was confirm what other witnesses said in regards to: weight gain, pregnancy possibility, Heather feeling scared/paranoid then eventually being more like herself. Starting to move on in her life/new job/a date/learning to drive a stick shift.

I think what some really dislike is that Heather told her roommate she would "sleep on it" (if she was going to be in contact with SM) and then didn't and decided to see him that night and put some effort into calling him back. Like, 'how can there possibly be a kidnapping unless someone is on her doorstep, gun in hand, forcing her out of her apartment with threat to life and limb?' That girl was willing to go out that night and see that man...sooo...it can't be kidnapping if she wanted to see him!

 

[LBDunes]

Taking in the time of day, does not seem like she was moving on at all, if you buy that SM told HE he was leaving his wife, then one has to accept she thinks to herself, hey this hot guy is on the market and will be snatched up by another female in moments, I better make sure this does not happen so I will not wait till tomorrow and I will make sure that he sees me first....I can't even write this it just doesn't make sense. She was obviously hellbent on seeing him that night, obviously things went downhill, afterwards, it is easy for me to connect the dots with murder, I can't help it if the prosecutor thought that murder would be hard to prove. As for Bri, I did not mention her, you brought her in, her testimony was not forthcoming, clearly did not want her own statement to be read in court, Was coached and lead by Livesay, obvious, I made posts regarding that while she was testifying.

BBM - I can certainly see where you could assess that Bri's statement was coached. I have no issue at all with that.

 

[Surfside]

That in itself being the problem, they should have charged murder. You can't expect people to just jump on the bandwagon and support a poorly charged case. I have seen hysteria, desperate, mission like to describe HE on that night. Why do I envision a bungee cord around Heather's waist and her running forward multiple times until she broke loose and was able to see SM that fateful night. I have no doubt that SM killed her, kidnapping, not so much, one simple call by SM but HE is more frantic to make sure that meeting did take place with all of her calls afterwards. I can only speak for myself but I feel a lot of us feel this case was undercharged.

I don't even know how to respond to this, other than to say I don't think you're looking at the entire definition of kidnapping in South Carolina. It's not limited to abduction. So, I'll just leave this here:

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 and, upon conviction, must be imprisoned for a period not to exceed thirty years unless sentenced for murder as provided in Section 16-3-20.

The commas prior to the bold and underlined, red "or" imply the word "or" - not "and." That means that meeting any ONE of these constitutes kidnapping.

Also, if memory serves, kidnapping was charged from the onset, just like murder. I'm not sure why people would need to "jump on the bandwagon."

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php

 

[Surfside]

I think what some really dislike is that Heather told her roommate she would "sleep on it" (if she was going to be in contact with SM) and then didn't and decided to see him that night and put some effort into calling him back. Like, 'how can there possibly be a kidnapping unless someone is on her doorstep, gun in hand, forcing her out of her apartment with threat to life and limb?' That girl was willing to go out that night and see that man...sooo...it can't be kidnapping if she wanted to see him!

So, if she wasn't tied up and gagged with a bag over head, it's not kidnapping? :thinking:

 

[LBDunes]

LOLOL




She was asked by the defense *if* she wanted to hear her interview with police and she said no, she'd rather not. Was she lying there? Did she really want to listen to her own earlier interview?

Bri was asked questions, she answered them. What was she supposed to say that would make it seem 'forthcoming?' All witnesses are lead by the person who is asking them questions in testimony--that's how it works. A witness doesn't just sit in the witness chair and start talking. There is a process followed. Questions are asked by counsel. The witness responds. The jury can decide how much of the witness testimony to believe, not believe, in whole or in part.

Bri's testimony must be devastating because *so much* importance is put on it by spectators. All she did was confirm what other witnesses said in regards to: weight gain, pregnancy possibility, Heather feeling scared/paranoid then eventually being more like herself. Starting to move on in her life/new job/a date/learning to drive a stick shift.

I think what some really dislike is that Heather told her roommate she would "sleep on it" (if she was going to be in contact with SM) and then didn't and decided to see him that night and put some effort into calling him back. Like, 'how can there possibly be a kidnapping unless someone is on her doorstep, gun in hand, forcing her out of her apartment with threat to life and limb?' That girl was willing to go out that night and see that man...sooo...it can't be kidnapping if she wanted to see him!

BBM - that is exactly my thinking on this. And about the sleep on it statement. I look at that statement differently I guess. If someone says they are going to sleep on it, that shows to me there is indecision and shows someone grappling with what to do. When I have slept on something, more times than not I couldn't sleep. Another thing about moving on, sometimes that is easier said than done. I don't find someone saying they have moved on, when they are lying to themselves and their friends too unusual.

 

[Madeleine74]

So, if she wasn't tied up and gagged with a bag over head, it's not kidnapping? :thinking:

Well not quite... she'd also need to be holding up a newspaper with the current date to prove it was really happening that day and of course the obligatory ransom note made from cut out words from magazines.

 

[Hatfield]

[/B]

BBM - that is exactly my thinking on this. And about the sleep on it statement. I look at that statement differently I guess. If someone says they are going to sleep on it, that shows to me there is indecision and shows someone grappling with what to do. When I have slept on something, more times than not I couldn't sleep. Another thing about moving on, sometimes that is easier said than done. I don't find someone saying they have moved on, when they are lying to themselves and their friends too unusual.

Interesting discussion.

JMO
I think the part that is strong for me is knowing it was on false pretenses. She was lured out under false pretenses in a sneaky fashion to get her to come out. If he had not told her he was leaving his wife then I doubt HE would have gone out to meet him. SM made it out to be a desparate situation. A now or never type situation almost.

I am guessing he told her other things we didn't get to hear like he had no place to go. He was literally on the street and things like that. Which all contributed to her thinking she should go ahead and meet up with him that night.

I also think that HE was a very private person for a lot of things and I don't think she told Bri all of what he said to her. Even if she did at the time then we know HE had another conversation with SM and some of those other things may have come out in the other contact so Bri may have not known about other things they discussed.

The problem with the verbal parts of the conversation is the state had very little to be able to show the jury.
I do think we know enough to be sure that HE was lured out under false pretenses since we were told HE was told by SM that he was leaving his wife. And SM denies this totally. So someone is lying and I dont think its Bri who did any lying. I think Bri did hear that from HE and so I have to assume SM told HE that he was leaving his wife.
So the false pretenses contributes to the luring IMO.

Which kidnapping then gets proved to me.

 

[Madeleine74]

[/B]

Another thing about moving on, sometimes that is easier said than done. I don't find someone saying they have moved on, when they are lying to themselves and their friends too unusual.

The hidden point is to insinuate the victim may not really be a victim but a participant in whatever happened, which means they are (at least somewhat) to blame for whatever happened to them, and their willingness to leave the safety of their home implies a kidnapping could not have occurred unless they were forced. That's not the law, but that's the belief held by many, even after hearing or reading what the law actually says.

And what isn't acknowledged is that a kidnapping can occur even if the victim doesn't realize it until they are unable to return or leave where they are, which may happen minutes or even hours later than the initial contact.

Wherever Heather ended up after leaving her place to meet SM, she was never seen or heard from again. To conclude there was no kidnapping is to conclude Heather was not held at any time, was not in a trap of any kind, had freedom to leave whatever situation she was in and was not stopped.

 

[lstiff]

Madeleine, I really don't think anyone is struggling with the question of who dunnit.

If common sense and basic logic are the guides, it follows that there's simply a difference between viewing circumstantial evidence as lesser evidence, and viewing the lure theory advanced by the state as not bearing up under a reasonable doubt standard.

It seems to me that the state's problem is their marriage to a theory that doesn't even include bringing Heather's greater activities that morning into the mix (I wouldn't call theorizing that she needed a drive to Longbeard's to decide whether or not to go to PTL, "inclusion").

I guess another way to look at it is this:

While compelling in tying the victim and the accused together in relationship history and activities that morning:

-The circumstantial evidence doesn't include any physical evidence of a crime at the scene or in the vehicle the victim supposedly was lured into
- The circumstantial evidence doesn't include any evidence from the perp's home
- There's no body
- The victim spent more time at Longbeard's than the crime scene, trying to make contact with her kidnapper (and killer)
- The victim had to call the kidnapper multiple times over a period of time to make that contact

Looking at all this and setting feelings aside about the judge, the jury, handshakes and an alleged conspiracy by the Court to save Sidney, it makes for common sense that while the Moorer's dunnit, no one knows anything about a lure, including, apparently, the state's star witness who talked to the victim and can only report that the SM wanted to be with Heather, and Heather said she was going to sleep on it. Based on what Heather told the witness, there was no attempt that we know of to separate Heather from her home that morning.

This may well get into a case of Heather, perhaps, not fully disclosing to BW what was actually discussed between her and SM. But we can reason that whatever was said, it was not 'PTL or Bust'.

So, many, probably all, can strongly agree that Heather is missing and deceased at the hands of the Moorers. It's the lure to the landing part that may or may not be true based on her many other activities before she called SM and they, presumably, decided to go to PTL. I say presumably because I really think Longbeard's is the elephant in the room.

Maybe the state should have stuck with what's obvious and stayed out of so much theory. Working backwards to make the crime neatly fit into a scenario that had all things occurring at PTL certainly didn't work well for the state in hanging on to their other charges.

JMO

Agree. Great post.

My post was not specific to this case. I was referring to people and trials in general.

I agree with you in part. I strongly believe SM was involved. However, I am not sold on the State's (Lured to PTL) theory. I don't have the same strong belief about TM because I have seen no evidence she was involved. Although I agree with you, I can't conclude someone is guilty based on their demeanor and actions. I need to see some evidence she was involved.

Agree.

Interesting discussion.

JMO
I think the part that is strong for me is knowing it was on false pretenses. She was lured out under false pretenses in a sneaky fashion to get her to come out. If he had not told her he was leaving his wife then I doubt HE would have gone out to meet him. SM made it out to be a desparate situation. A now or never type situation almost.

I am guessing he told her other things we didn't get to hear like he had no place to go. He was literally on the street and things like that. Which all contributed to her thinking she should go ahead and meet up with him that night.

I also think that HE was a very private person for a lot of things and I don't think she told Bri all of what he said to her. Even if she did at the time then we know HE had another conversation with SM and some of those other things may have come out in the other contact so Bri may have not known about other things they discussed.

The problem with the verbal parts of the conversation is the state had very little to be able to show the jury.
I do think we know enough to be sure that HE was lured out under false pretenses since we were told HE was told by SM that he was leaving his wife. And SM denies this totally. So someone is lying and I dont think its Bri who did any lying. I think Bri did hear that from HE and so I have to assume SM told HE that he was leaving his wife.
So the false pretenses contributes to the luring IMO.

Which kidnapping then gets proved to me.

I agree and when you explain it like that, it makes sense to me.


I read an article yesterday (?) from the jury members and the one who reported to the judge about the friend of KT having an "outburst". I'm a few pages behind, has that been shared here?

JMO

 

[Hatfield]

One of the definitions of kidnapping in SC includes this word which ties to my false pretenses post above.


in·vei·gle

/inˈvāɡəl/

verb

verb: inveigle; 3rd person present: inveigles; past tense: inveigled; past participle: inveigled; gerund or present participle: inveigling



: to persuade (someone) to do something in a clever or deceptive way


2

: to get (something) in a clever or deceptive way



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inveigle

 

[Hatfield]

I read an article yesterday (?) from the jury members and the one who reported to the judge about the friend of KT having an "outburst". I'm a few pages behind, has that been shared here?

JMO

Im not sure if it has been shared yet because I am behind too. LOL

That is interesting to hear. I wonder about the details of what that friend juror said during deliberations. He may have had a lot of influence on certain jurors. I think we are lucky it was a mistrial and not a NG verdict.