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

[Madeleine74]

If kid is at a fair and talks to a noncustodial adult and the adult says some things and the kid decides to follow the adult and the kid is never seen or heard from again, that's considered a kidnapping. The person who spoke to the kid and said whatever they said to have the kid leave and come with them or go to wherever is going to be charged under the law, even if there was really someone else (non-custodial) waiting for that kid to be brought to them at some point. The kid might be really excited to do whatever it was (see the new puppy, try the new ice cream), but if harm comes to the kid as a consequence of being led away that's a crime. The kid has no idea s/he is in danger, they trust what they're being told, even if they shouldn't.

So Heather was not a minor, but she trusted SM and had no idea harm was waiting for her. SM is a part of what happened to Heather and played a part in the chain of events that caused Heather to disappear. That Heather may have felt excited/hopeful/confused/willing to meet or whatever is not a mitigating factor that removes the elements of the crime.

 

[LBDunes]

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.

According to one juror the friend's outburst was uttering "she was coached" referring to Bri's testimony, when they were sent out of the court. during a sidebar. This was before the judge told them to not speak about anything case related before deliberation. I haven't seen anything about what was said during the proper deliberations.

 

[TTF14]

Agree. Great post.

Agree.

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

Yes

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[kimi_SFC]

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>>>

((((((((Renee110))))))))
:rose:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TTF14]

Ok let's assume she was eager...more than eager to see him. Raring to go! So tell us what that means then.

Exactly. I'm not sure why it matters. She could have called a hundred times, sent a singing telegram, or communicated via carrier pigeon. Doesn't change the outcome.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[barcode]

Ok let's assume she was eager...more than eager to see him. Raring to go! So tell us what that means then.

Tons of intimate partners die at the hands of lovers every day, whether that be gay lovers, intimate partners, husband and wife, a mistress and so on and so on. To me it seems like the kidnapping charge is half baked. For me a more reasonable reference to draw is that HE was killed that evening from something that escalated, not all murders involve sinister planning at the onset. I do not think I need to nail down what they may have fought over or whether or not rough sex got out of hand or a gazillion other things. HE is not less dead by any scenario and the Moorer's are the guilty party.

But I see when arguing for weeks over whether or not SM bought Marlboro's or another brand and the price of cigarettes can go on why this goes on much the same.

 

[Cricket99]

I think you have to take occams razor into account. What is the most likely easiest conclusion to what happened to Heather.

 

[TTF14]

Tons of intimate partners die at the hands of lovers every day, whether that be gay lovers, intimate partners, husband and wife, a mistress and so on and so on. To me it seems like the kidnapping charge is half baked. For me a more reasonable reference to draw is that HE was killed that evening from something that escalated, not all murders involve sinister planning at the onset. I do not think I need to nail down what they may have fought over or whether or not rough sex got out of hand or a gazillion other things. HE is not less dead by any scenario and the Moorer's are the guilty party.

But I see when arguing for weeks over whether or not SM bought Marlboro's or another brand and the price of cigarettes can go on why this goes on much the same.

If the intent was not to kidnap, why hide the truck from cameras at the payphone?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[barcode]

If the intent was not to kidnap, why hide the truck from cameras at the payphone?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

I can not get hung up on that, maybe he did hide the truck, maybe he just happened to park there for reasons other than trying to hide the truck, I just don't see that, there is a bigger elephant to hide and that is SM. Not like he was old and with a cane. I have seen the video's, good that he admitted it was him because one can not decipher what anyone's intentions were on said video.

Why hide the truck if he was going to be seen on video making the call?

 

[magnolia]

If the intent was not to kidnap, why hide the truck from cameras at the payphone?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Why hide your truck, when you know the camera is going to capture an image of you face?

 

[TTF14]

Why hide your truck, when you know the camera is going to capture an image of you face?

It didn't though.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Coldpizza]

Agree. Great post.

Agree.

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

We need a link from MSM for that please, otherwise it's not up for discussion.

Thank you

 

[magnolia]

It didn't though.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

It's been awhile since I watched the video. Do you have the link?

 

[Skully]

I think you have to take occams razor into account. What is the most likely easiest conclusion to what happened to Heather.

I agree, I believe SM and wife are responsible and they have a motive too. But there was a woman, who went missing, last person she was with was a truck driver that she ended up going home with, then, poof.... she is gone, 10 yrs. The mom never quit looking and one day some one on FB sees the missing poster and calls in that she knows her. She went missing from a southern state and ended up in WA. So LE calls mom says she is alive, but up to her if she wants to contact. I get this is not the same, but they had her for dead, missing, gone never to return. I don't think this is HE's case, but I think they need more for a murder charge, or even a kidnapping. I see it, I can connect the dots, but maybe the next jury will see it too.

 

[Skully]

I have a question, when they say "reasonable doubt" do they mean some doubt or doubt to the point it could be something or some one else? How do they determine reasonable when there is only circumstantial evidence or video that shows a person did call, was out that night, most like with the person, but now they are gone.

 

[TTF14]

It's been awhile since I watched the video. Do you have the link?

https://youtu.be/7fa4-ofoyMU

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[nerdgirl]

It's been awhile since I watched the video. Do you have the link?

[video=youtube;7fa4-ofoyMU]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7fa4-ofoyMU[/video]

at 7:03

 

[magnolia]

https://youtu.be/7fa4-ofoyMU

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Thank-you TTF. I tried to find it and was unable to.

 

[Madeleine74]

Tons of intimate partners die at the hands of lovers every day, whether that be gay lovers, intimate partners, husband and wife, a mistress and so on and so on. To me it seems like the kidnapping charge is half baked. For me a more reasonable reference to draw is that HE was killed that evening from something that escalated, not all murders involve sinister planning at the onset. I do not think I need to nail down what they may have fought over or whether or not rough sex got out of hand or a gazillion other things. HE is not less dead by any scenario and the Moorer's are the guilty party.

But I see when arguing for weeks over whether or not SM bought Marlboro's or another brand and the price of cigarettes can go on why this goes on much the same.

What would a full-baked kidnapping charge look like?

Let's say Heather was contacted from a phone number she did not recognize and because that number was not blocked and she didn't know who was calling, she picked up. She's kind of naive (maybe just a dumb kid). She's encouraged to come out. She was more than willing to see SM so heck, why not. She thought whatever he told her about why he was calling her at 1:35am was the truth and she trusted him.

Let's say SM really wasn't going to leave his wife but maybe Heather thought he was. So that's a false pretense. SM picks her up in the truck and is able to get her to turn off her phone (or he takes the phone and turns it off). Either way... we know the phone is off, never to ping to a tower again. At that point is Heather trapped? Was she in a trap but just didn't know it yet? Is anyone else in the truck or just the 2 of them? She must have gotten in willingly, yes? If no, then it was by force. Kidnapping, right?

So she's in the truck willingly and then something happens to Heather. Something that made the M's feel it was time to get rid of the security DVR in their home that would have been able to capture something happening that very night. And 2 (or 3) days after that rendezvous they replaced the older DVR that was in existence on Dec 18 2013 with a new DVR. Moved the monitor, put up a picture on the wall... it's a different system.

And for some reason that new black truck, a truck that has the technical capability of showing exactly where it went on its journeys, manages to (oops) not have any data to show where it was traveling that Dec 18 2013.

Of course this is all very innocent. New security systems are no big deal and SYNC modules on trucks...pffft. Whatever. Can't read anything into that!

So Heather has disappeared. No one intended anything in advance. It was all very innocent... until.... someone made the decision to harm Heather. Heather was not protected. Heather ended up in a trap, a trap where harm befell her. It was only a few minutes...nay... maybe only mere seconds that someone made a decision that ensured Heather would never be seen or heard from again.

And yet... a decision was made at some point. Heather was not free to leave and was not returned safely back to where she was picked up.

 

[nerdgirl]

I have a question, when they say "reasonable doubt" do they mean some doubt or doubt to the point it could be something or some one else? How do they determine reasonable when there is only circumstantial evidence or video that shows a person did call, was out that night, most like with the person, but now they are gone.

from http://www3.ce9.uscourts.gov/jury-instructions/node/338


3.5 REASONABLE DOUBT—DEFINED

Proof beyond a reasonable doubt is proof that leaves you firmly convinced the defendant is guilty. It is not required that the government prove guilt beyond all possible doubt.

A reasonable doubt is a doubt based upon reason and common sense and is not based purely on speculation. It may arise from a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, or from lack of evidence.

If after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant not guilty. On the other hand, if after a careful and impartial consideration of all the evidence, you are convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant is guilty, it is your duty to find the defendant guilty.