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

[Dixie E]

Why and for what reason did HCDP and the Solicitor's office hold back on releasing information about Longbeard's as soon as it was available? It makes no sense to me! :banghead:

There should have been all-out searches surrounding that whole area, immediately! Where was CUE?

The dumpsters should have been tracked to the landfills and should have been searched thoroughly!

There should have been a "door-to-door campaign" for all residents and businesses within the immediate area asking if they had seen or heard anything that night!

LE/Solicitor should have made the public aware and asked if anyone was in that general vicinity and saw or heard anything suspicious.

I just don't get it!

I agree. I have always said that the landfills should have been searched. Why they didn`t after the Longbeards information became available, that should have been the first thing that they should have done. Is it too late to go to the landfill and get an idea of what part of it would have been used 2 years ago from Longbeards? I have heard of getting searches done in other cases that have gone back a ways. If they have any record of anything in that dump, it may be worth a try to dig where it is possibly where they would have dumped it. I do believe now that we found out about Longbeards that she was placed in the dumpster there.

 

[Meemaw12]

It just occurred to me that what some jurors do is exactly what forum members do on crime threads (propose theories and try to figure out and fill in holes that are often never able to be filled in). So they start questioning things ("what if" this and "what if" that) and of course no answers are forthcoming because the jurors are throwing out questions that have no answers. I mean it's not like the defendant is going to walk into the jury room and say "well this is how it all really went down, since you asked....."

It's futile because no answers emerge , and when a jury does it, it gets them away from their primary job which is to evaluate the evidence and testimony that was presented to them and work with that to see if the state proved the charges BARD. Filling in blanks and proposing "what if" scenarios and theories is not the job of the jury, and in circumstantial cases, it's rare that all the holes can be filled in anyway -- simply because the victim is not there to tell.

It sounded like there were some people on this jury who might have done just that. ("what if...")

And it's entirely possible 2 of the twelve came into the trial thinking not guilty before a word was spoken. Or they like the def attorney, thought he was cute, or didn't like the pros thought she was ugly. Hell might have thought HE deserved whatever happened and it didn't matter. Lots of things could have happened. Ya never know what goes through their minds having nothing to do with evidence.
I doubt in the jury room they ask what if's more like show me the evidence yada yada.

Ever hear a case is won or lost in jury selection?

Thankfully none of us on this forum were on the jury and can have theories about this case to the cows come home as long as we abide by the rules WS sets forth.

IMO


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[LBDunes]

Question - I'm not saying that they searched the area around Longbeards, but how do we know that they didn't? As was said LE sometimes holds back info for very good reasons. Is it being said that they didn't search this area because Longbeards is a new piece of info to us?

 

[Meemaw12]

[/B]

BBM - yes, at least one juror did just that. I believe it was the foreman (was rumored to be, anyway) that said, quoting to WBTW:

“If we were not doing a trial on circumstantial evidence, it would have been a much more way for us to sink our teeth into and come up with a proper verdict,” the juror explained. “But because of the fact there were so many what-ifs, ‘what if this happened,’ ‘what if that happened,’ and things of that nature, we were hopelessly deadlocked.”

http://wbtw.com/2016/06/24/juror-explains-mistrial-in-sidney-moorer-kidnapping-case/


Also, 2 jurors spoke to WMBF and said essentially that the evidence was right in front of them.

http://www.wmbfnews.com/Clip/12550126/jurors-speak-about-split-on-verdict

Hmm so they did ask what if's. There ya go.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[bestill]

Hmm so they did ask what if's. There ya go.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I remember the Judge saying you have to rule based on the evidence and witnesses not on the what if's, am I correct? He should have instructed them again, his instructions were so convoluted, imo. I don't think they understood what they were doing.

 

[Madeleine74]

I think we all realize this. The question is WHY NOT specifically related to Longbeards? It seems like it would have been very helpful for the public to know to jog some memories. Now those memories are 2.5 years old.

Well obviously that's a question for the HCPD, but how do we know they did not ask people who work for LB's or other businesses around there if they saw or heard anything? How do we know they didn't ask for any video surveillance? We are assuming they did not, but is that true?

 

[Meemaw12]

I remember the Judge saying you have to rule based on the evidence and witnesses not on the what if's, am I correct? He should have instructed them again, his instructions were so convoluted, imo. I don't think they understood what they were doing.

I never heard the jury instructions, will try to find them


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[bestill]

I never heard the jury instructions, will try to find them


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I'm looking them too.

 

[Meemaw12]

I'm looking them too.

YouTube

Search lady justic2188 Sidney moorer closing arguments, think that it's it.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bestill]

Here are the Jury Instructions: [video=youtube;s674pHPNLng]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s674pHPNLng[/video]

 

[magnolia]

I think we all realize this. The question is WHY NOT specifically related to Longbeards? It seems like it would have been very helpful for the public to know to jog some memories. Now those memories are 2.5 years old.

BBM -- Thank--You TTF14.

 

[Madeleine74]

A link to a site that contains SC Pattern Jury Instructions

http://dc.statelibrary.sc.gov/handle/10827/15645

 

[Madeleine74]

This is a news posting from Jan 2014. I don't know the areas around SC/MB but here is one article in which the public's assistance was requested. If you read to the bottom you'll see a specific mention of a request for tips and a tent setup for confidential tips to be passed along. Also, CUE was specifically mentioned.

http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/loc...cle_b36b58ce-79b5-11e3-bf84-0019bb30f31a.html



And here's another article from Feb 6, 2014 in which the various searches and investigative measures are discussed and again CUE is mentioned, along with lots of other general information and some specific information. They mention search warrants, searches, polygraphs, CUE and other items.

http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/crime/article_ada6ad1c-8f77-11e3-8ca7-001a4bcf6878.html

 

[bestill]

I listened to the instructions again and I was wrong, it wasn't the Judge that said that.

 

[jillycat]

A link to a site that contains SC Pattern Jury Instructions

http://dc.statelibrary.sc.gov/handle/10827/15645

This is a 105 page document from 1982 discussing everything from dog biting cases to wrong-side driving to criminal matters. Am I missing something in how it relates to two jurors allegedly having trouble hacking through SM's trial evidence?

The judge in this case gave instructions, which included the caution that if there was reasonable doubt of any of the evidence against SM, then that meant the vote must be NG. I think we can tell ourselves that we have the ability to crawl inside a juror's mind and know that he or she is confused by too much TV, or all the 'what if's' traps, but we really don't know the reasoning of the juror, any more than we know Heather's frame of mind or SM's thoughts on blunt rolling.

Two jurors had reasonable doubt and couldn't get past it. Because we want him convicted doesn't make them stupid, poor examiners of evidence, or CSI watchers. I'm sorry, it just doesn't.

 

[RANCH]

I think we all realize this. The question is WHY NOT specifically related to Longbeards? It seems like it would have been very helpful for the public to know to jog some memories. Now those memories are 2.5 years old.

I would hope that any locals that were in that area who knew about Heather's disappearance would have reported any sighting or unusual activity to the local LE.

I'm not sure that LE has to make every situation and every detail known to the public in order to get information from them.

JMO

 

[Madeleine74]

Am I missing something in how it relates to two jurors allegedly having trouble hacking through SM's trial evidence?

Indeed you are missing something. One or more posters were interested in and asked about finding jury instructions. My link goes to the South Carolina digital collection where searches on specific years of instructions for judges, including jury instructions, can be done.

 

[jillycat]

I would hope that any locals that were in that area who knew about Heather's disappearance would have reported any sighting or unusual activity to the local LE.

I'm not sure that LE has to make every situation and every detail known to the public in order to get information from them.

JMO

They don't.

So, since they did release the rest of the log, maybe they felt like PTL or bust, and this was in the way?

 

[jillycat]

Indeed you are. One or more posters were interested in and asked about finding jury instructions. My link goes to the South Carolina digital collection where searches on specific years of instructions for judges including jury instructions can be done.

Yes, the question re: jury instructions for SM's trial. How did we get to 1982 and dog biting cases? Check your link.

FWIW, the video of the judge's instructions for SM's trial is posted up thread. There was a question as to whether or not the judge addressed 'what if's'.

 

[RANCH]

This statement by a juror in this case tells me he didn't have a clue in what his job as a juror was.

“If we were not doing a trial on circumstantial evidence, it would have been a much more way for us to sink our teeth into and come up with a proper verdict,” the juror explained. “But because of the fact there were so many what-ifs, ‘what if this happened,’ ‘what if that happened,’ and things of that nature, we were hopelessly deadlocked.”

For one thing most criminal case's are base solely on circumstantial evidence and juries across America have no problem reaching a verdict from that evidence.

Secondly, saying that were "what if's" that caused a deadlock tells me he didn't understand his job as juror. He's supposed to base his decision on the evidence presented in court and not hypothetical scenarios that can never be proven. JMO

http://wbtw.com/2016/06/24/juror-explains-mistrial-in-sidney-moorer-kidnapping-case/