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

[atthelake]

TO: CarolinaAsh

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

Thanks

From following previous trials.. I just assumed from where she was seated that was a court clerk

:dunno:

 

[Madeleine74]

The girl sitting next to the judge is his clerk.

Why they have the clerk seated so close to the judge like that, no one knows. It looks strange. But that's who she is and that's her job -- to do whatever administration/fetching he needs.

 

[kimi_SFC]

@CarolinaAsh,
Just chiming in to say that it's so good to have you back again!! I truly appreciate your input & perspective.
:grouphug:
#JusticeForHeather
:candle:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[magnolia]

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 then we have those type people that have the false belief that everything prosecutors say is fact. They always get it right. This type of mind is firmly unreceptive to anything else.

 

[PeterThomasFan]

How to Get Google to Quit Tracking You
BY CHANDRA STEELE
JULY 4, 2016 0 COMMENTS
On Google Maps, the search giant is with you every step of the way. But you can do something about it.

Where you go, Google goes. If you have location services turned on, then Google Maps has keeps track of every step you (and your smartphone) take. Your Google Timeline, introduced last year, can be a true walk down memory lane, but it can also lead straight to you and leave the door to your privacy wide open.

With Timeline, not only can Google Maps show you where you're going, but where you've been. There might also be photographic evidence since Timeline syncs with any shots uploaded to Google Photos.

If you've turned on location services, Google is constantly pinging your phone from cell towers and Wi-Fi and using GPS to see where you are. The frequency with which it finds you can be every few minutes or every few seconds, painting a pretty accurate picture of where you are at all times.

If this all seems less helpful and more harmful, you can remove your location history and tell Google to quit it already and stop following you. Here's how.

[...]

 

[Cricket99]

And then we have those type people that have the false belief that everything prosecutors say is fact. They always get it right. This type of mind is firmly unreceptive to anything else.

I for one, do not believe the prosecution is always right - the accused demeanor, actions, etc. have a lot of influence over my decision - in this case, i believe the actions of the accused (both of them) speak louder than words and prove both their disregard for the law, the courts, the victims family, etc. To me, there was plenty of circumstancial evidence to convict.

 

[Cricket99]

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.



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





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.



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.



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.



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.

Very informative post, CarolinaAsh, and plenty of work - much appreciated! Let's hope the jurors that are speaking out now will sway the judge to recuse himself to protect his public image.

 

[Madeleine74]

What's nice in cases like this is there is digital evidence, video evidence, cell phone evidence, behavioral evidence, and statements by the defendant, so that can be used to help determine and/or corroborate events, times, places, duration.

For instance, we know:

- Movements of Heather's phone. GPS + tower pings + Google Locations help determine Heather's phone movements.

- Number of and length of phone calls between victim and defendant, between victim and her roommate/BFF, victim activity on her social media.

- The exact time certain events occurred and where those events occurred.

- What SM told police the night/morning they came to see him after Heather disappeared. This is direct evidence, not statements interpreted by someone else, and those statements can be compared to SM's actions (cell phone, pay phone, security camera, GPS). If a defendant is caught lying that's another piece of evidence to be considered.

- SM's new truck has a technical capability that will track the truck's movement unless that module is removed or unplugged, or somehow erased. It's a fact the data from Dec 18th 2013 was not found on that module. It's a fact SM purchased the truck in November. Coincidence?

- The M's had a security system to include a monitor on the wall at their house -- a view that showed several different camera views and this existed before Dec 18 2013. A witness who lived in the M's home saw that system and was able to describe it. Two or 3 days after Heather disappeared, that system was removed (or parts of it were removed), the monitor was taken off the wall and a picture replaced where the monitor hung, and a brand new system was purchased (with a new DVR/new hard drive). Coincidence?

- SM was out and about that late night/early morning -- at Walmart, at a pay phone, his truck driving to and away from PTL. That's in contradiction to his MIL's insistence in the media that SM & TM were home all evening/night. Two different security camera systems catch his black truck out and about, one system is close to his house, a system owned by his neighbor. Coincidence?


Using the above evidence it's possible to observe a series of events/people/movements that are linked by time and space. You take away feelings, you take away lay person opinions, and even if you only consider the unrefuted evidence, you can see the connection and contact between victim and perp, which ended in the victim never being seen or heard from again after her phone's last known ping.

 

[New2MB]

what's nice in cases like this is there is digital evidence, video evidence, cell phone evidence, behavioral evidence, and statements by the defendant, so that can be used to help determine and/or corroborate events, times, places, duration.

for instance, we know:

- movements of heather's phone. Gps + tower pings + google locations help determine heather's phone movements.

- number of and length of phone calls between victim and defendant, between victim and her roommate/bff, victim activity on her social media.

- the exact time certain events occurred and where those events occurred.

- what sm told police the night/morning they came to see him after heather disappeared. This is direct evidence, not statements interpreted by someone else, and those statements can be compared to sm's actions (cell phone, pay phone, security camera, gps). If a defendant is caught lying that's another piece of evidence to be considered.

- sm's new truck has a technical capability that will track the truck's movement unless that module is removed or unplugged, or somehow erased. It's a fact the data from dec 18th 2013 was not found on that module. It's a fact sm purchased the truck in november. Coincidence?

- the m's had a security system to include a monitor on the wall at their house -- a view that showed several different camera views and this existed before dec 18 2013. A witness who lived in the m's home saw that system and was able to describe it. Two or 3 days after heather disappeared, that system was removed (or parts of it were removed), the monitor was taken off the wall and a picture replaced where the monitor hung, and a brand new system was purchased (with a new dvr/new hard drive). Coincidence?

- sm was out and about that late night/early morning -- at walmart, at a pay phone, his truck driving to and away from ptl. That's in contradiction to his mil's insistence in the media that sm & tm were home all evening/night. Two different security camera systems catch his black truck out and about, one system is close to his house, a system owned by his neighbor. Coincidence?


Using the above evidence it's possible to observe a series of events/people/movements that are linked by time and space. You take away feelings, you take away lay person opinions, and even if you only consider the unrefuted evidence, you can see the connection and contact between victim and perp, which ended in the victim never being seen or heard from again after her phone's last known ping.

this!!!!

 

[jillycat]

What's nice in cases like this is there is digital evidence, video evidence, cell phone evidence, behavioral evidence, and statements by the defendant, so that can be used to help determine and/or corroborate events, times, places, duration.

For instance, we know:

- Movements of Heather's phone. GPS + tower pings + Google Locations help determine Heather's phone movements.

- Number of and length of phone calls between victim and defendant, between victim and her roommate/BFF, victim activity on her social media.

- The exact time certain events occurred and where those events occurred.

- What SM told police the night/morning they came to see him after Heather disappeared. This is direct evidence, not statements interpreted by someone else, and those statements can be compared to SM's actions (cell phone, pay phone, security camera, GPS). If a defendant is caught lying that's another piece of evidence to be considered.

- SM's new truck has a technical capability that will track the truck's movement unless that module is removed or unplugged, or somehow erased. It's a fact the data from Dec 18th 2013 was not found on that module. It's a fact SM purchased the truck in November. Coincidence?

- The M's had a security system to include a monitor on the wall at their house -- a view that showed several different camera views and this existed before Dec 18 2013. A witness who lived in the M's home saw that system and was able to describe it. Two or 3 days after Heather disappeared, that system was removed (or parts of it were removed), the monitor was taken off the wall and a picture replaced where the monitor hung, and a brand new system was purchased (with a new DVR/new hard drive). Coincidence?

- SM was out and about that late night/early morning -- at Walmart, at a pay phone, his truck driving to and away from PTL. That's in contradiction to his MIL's insistence in the media that SM & TM were home all evening/night. Two different security camera systems catch his black truck out and about, one system is close to his house, a system owned by his neighbor. Coincidence?


Using the above evidence it's possible to observe a series of events/people/movements that are linked by time and space. You take away feelings, you take away lay person opinions, and even if you only consider the unrefuted evidence, you can see the connection and contact between victim and perp, which ended in the victim never being seen or heard from again after her phone's last known ping.

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

 

[magnolia]

I for one, do not believe the prosecution is always right - the accused demeanor, actions, etc. have a lot of influence over my decision - in this case, i believe the actions of the accused (both of them) speak louder than words and prove both their disregard for the law, the courts, the victims family, etc. To me, there was plenty of circumstancial evidence to convict.

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.

 

[jillycat]

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.

Will be interesting to see if what they have on her is pretty much what we know, or, if what they have is what brings their case together for them and allows new murder charges. I guess it depends on what happens to SM. If they can't nail him, I don't know how they're going to get her.

 

[Truth Prevails]

:loveyou:

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..."

This is so good, just thanking it wasn't enough.

It deserves to be framed. Wonderful! :loveyou:

 

[Renee110]

Just showing what type of "cigar" was being purchased. It's in the details (as it should be in a case such as this IMO)!

If I was an "expecting father", I certainly wouldn't purchase a "real" cigar from Wal-Mart.

SLED Agent said that SM purchased a "cigar-like cigarette". Whatever that is.

A pregnancy test - $0.88
LTL Cigar - $3.63
SUBTOTAL: $4.51
TAX: $0.41
TOTAL: $4.92

Most Google searches for LTL points to Swisher brand and a few other brands with a quick search. (aka little cigars).

13:41 - https://youtu.be/HqMQmSul1j4?list=PLR2JAGZzf3U29fLzrfr5Wi6WCGE48Nqel
Also, not saying the "cigar" purchase was not a cigar, but screen-cap really looks like a pack of Marlboro Reds or newer 72's to me. :thinking:

Marlboro doesn't have any cigs that are that cheap. Not even the Special Blends. At least I don't think so. But that pack does look like Marlboro.

 

[Renee110]

I'm sorry .

I think the way Bri answered the questions, hemmed and hawed, definitely did not want to lie, but it wasn't technically a period and she is still trying to protect Heather's privacy to some extent....if you look at it through the view of an abortion, it makes perfect sense.

Also, if she did have a recent abortion and took a pregnancy test, it would probably still come up positive. Those hormones take weeks to exit the system.

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>>>

 

[RANCH]

What's nice in cases like this is there is digital evidence, video evidence, cell phone evidence, behavioral evidence, and statements by the defendant, so that can be used to help determine and/or corroborate events, times, places, duration.

For instance, we know:

- Movements of Heather's phone. GPS + tower pings + Google Locations help determine Heather's phone movements.

- Number of and length of phone calls between victim and defendant, between victim and her roommate/BFF, victim activity on her social media.

- The exact time certain events occurred and where those events occurred.

- What SM told police the night/morning they came to see him after Heather disappeared. This is direct evidence, not statements interpreted by someone else, and those statements can be compared to SM's actions (cell phone, pay phone, security camera, GPS). If a defendant is caught lying that's another piece of evidence to be considered.

- SM's new truck has a technical capability that will track the truck's movement unless that module is removed or unplugged, or somehow erased. It's a fact the data from Dec 18th 2013 was not found on that module. It's a fact SM purchased the truck in November. Coincidence?

- The M's had a security system to include a monitor on the wall at their house -- a view that showed several different camera views and this existed before Dec 18 2013. A witness who lived in the M's home saw that system and was able to describe it. Two or 3 days after Heather disappeared, that system was removed (or parts of it were removed), the monitor was taken off the wall and a picture replaced where the monitor hung, and a brand new system was purchased (with a new DVR/new hard drive). Coincidence?

- SM was out and about that late night/early morning -- at Walmart, at a pay phone, his truck driving to and away from PTL. That's in contradiction to his MIL's insistence in the media that SM & TM were home all evening/night. Two different security camera systems catch his black truck out and about, one system is close to his house, a system owned by his neighbor. Coincidence?


Using the above evidence it's possible to observe a series of events/people/movements that are linked by time and space. You take away feelings, you take away lay person opinions, and even if you only consider the unrefuted evidence, you can see the connection and contact between victim and perp, which ended in the victim never being seen or heard from again after her phone's last known ping.

Your post shows the plethora of evidence that points towards the defendants guilt.The digital ,video, cell phone, behavioral and statement evidence should be enough to meet the legal requirement for proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

For some apparently that isn't enough. They want physical evidence of a crime and a body. They call the victim's actions and truthfulness into question in an attempt to justify the two jurors verdict of not guilty. Those things are not required for a jury to vote guilty in this case.

JMO.

 

[PeterThomasFan]

Marlboro doesn't have any cigs that are that cheap. Not even the Special Blends. At least I don't think so. But that pack does look like Marlboro.

Cigs were a lot cheaper in 2013 in SC.

 

[Renee110]

• The phone calls and times are fact.
• The videos and times are fact.
• The shopping at Walmart, what was purchased, by whom, and the time for that is fact.
• The date Sid bought the new truck is fact.
• The features of that new F150 are fact.
• Heather thinking she might be pregnant due to sudden weight gain is fact (unless you think she was lying to all her friends)
• Heather being on a date that Dec 17th night is fact.
• Picture of Heather taken as she learned to drive stick shift is fact.
• Heather being home in time to receive that 1:35am call from SM on pay phone is fact.
• Heather receiving pictures of SM and someone engaged sexual conduct is fact.
• Heather receiving multiple calls and harassing texts is fact.
• SM calling Heather's cell phone around 1:35am from that pay phone is fact.
• SM parking his black truck behind some dumpsters/bushes and walking through them and up to the pay phone is fact
• The movement of HE's phone and the movement of her vehicle ending up at PTL is fact.
• The DVR/security system being removed and a new one being purchased by the M's is fact.
• The 'black box' SYNC system not having data for Dec 18th is fact.
• Heather calling Bri at 1:44am is fact.
• Heather's vehicle spotted at PTL around 4:15am Dec 18th by an office on duty is fact
• Heather never being seen or heard from again is fact
• Heather's phone never connecting to any tower again after 3:41am Dec 18th is fact
• A black truck matching the description of the F150 appearing on security video twice the morning of Dec 18 and analyzed by a known and regarded expert to match the physical characteristics of SM's truck is fact.
• A black truck matching SM's truck driving by a neighbor's security camera around 3:50am* Dec 18 (*corrected for EST instead of DST) is fact.

Great Post.

 

[Renee110]

But wait there's more:

• Sidney lying more than a couple times to police during their investigation of a missing person is fact (and it's on audio as well)
• Sidney locking his truck upon exiting and taking the remote/key with him while at Walmart and then unlocking it upon return is fact (and is seen on video).
• Movement of Heather's phone is fact (and is corroborated by GPS and/or Google locations at every point.)
• Heather's phone never before pinging from the tower near PTL until Dec 18 2013 is fact.
• Heather moving in with Bri and the time frame of that happening is fact.
• Heather interviewing for a new job and getting that new job is fact.
• Heather posting on social media and date/times of that is fact.
• SM & TM being on a trip to CA for upwards of 3 weeks is fact.
• SM's phone pinging off various towers as they travel is fact.
• SM's phone being powered off or unable to transmit at various times is fact.
• SM's phone being powered on and connecting to towers at various dates/times is fact.
• Phone call dates/times/duration/towers pinged are fact.
• Location of phone(s) while phone calls made/received are fact (towers pinged + GPS + Google Locations when available)

Again....Great Post.

 

[cujenn81]

Cigs were a lot cheaper in 2013 in SC.

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.)