Poll--Vote On The Indecent Exposure Charges

[justonedrin]

I would like to see where we stand on the Indecent Exposure Charges.
here is the situation: they were both charged with an exact location and an estimated date of indecent exposure. SO---

LE has video or some kind of evidence of SM and TM on late Dec 17th-early Dec 18th at the 2 locations specified in the warrant which will show the exact time----

OR they do not.

so can we vote yes they have the evidence of it or no they do not. thats it. a simple yes or no. No discussion. just your gut feeling. Will not affect the case either way really, Im just curious how we feel about these specific charges that were brought against the M's.

 

[justonedrin]

Im sorry but reading that back I feel like I didnt clarify exactly what I meant by LE evidence.
heres what I should have written

YES----LE has video or some kind of evidence of SM and TM on late Dec 17th-early Dec 18th at the 2 locations specified in the warrant which will show the exact time----separate and standing on its on merit apart from SM's word/confession that he and TM were in those locations having sex at the aforementioned times/dates/locations as spelled out in the warrants.

NO ----they do not have the stand alone evidence corroborating SM's word--they only have SM's word of same.

 

[Makaroni]

:sick: Yes ... I think they do have some evidence of IE.

 

[SStarr33]

They said they sent pictures to Heather, right? So they must have the evidence.

 

[Tawny]

Just spent way too long reading through threads in this forum, and now I'm hooked.

THANKS A LOT YOU GUISE :floorlaugh:

I think they have evidence. Confiscated cell phones with photos sent?

 

[justonedrin]

right above my first post there is a small box where you vote yes or no. just click beside your answer so that you are included in the number of votes.

right now its 27 to 5 in favor of yes they have additional evidence

 

[Catlady2]

I wish this question was worded differently. I had to put no. I think they have text and a confession but no video.

 

[NFYIAMY]

I believe they have a confession and I'm not sure about cell phone evidence (unless they found images/videos on TM or SM's phones - and then those would be time stamped and such so that changes things). They don't have Heather's cell phone - and I don't believe (could be wrong) that the phone company would have actual IMAGES/VIDEOS that were sent to her phone (as opposed to texts or phone calls made etc). I know both areas and I have been at both areas and I do not believe they have VIDEO from either place.

 

[justonedrin]

I wish this question was worded differently. I had to put no. I think they have text and a confession but no video.

but thats why I worded it that way--I want to know if people think LE could have charged the IE on their own merit/evidence or if they had to have the confession from SM. It is pretty much undisputed that SM confessed to those acts. So then the sticking point is if LE could substantiate the claim with video etc. In my mind those 2 scenarios are worlds apart.

 

[floridamomma]

yes, I think they have video.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[STANDREID]

It's only indecent if they are ugly and out of shape.:blushing:

 

[PPKik]

I don't think they have it. LE has changed their stories too many times, and also they have both incidences happening in two different places between the same two times. That's impossible in this universe.

And I agree with STANDREID.

 

[CarmonCayman]

I have not seen LE change their story at all. They release what they want us to know and are vague in purpose because they can be. They don't have them in two places at the same time and I don't recall that ever being said. They have two acts happening at two different locations in between specific dates. Unless.... See post below

 

[CarmonCayman]

I don't think they have it. LE has changed their stories too many times, and also they have both incidences happening in two different places between the same two times. That's impossible in this universe.

And I agree with STANDREID.

Unless the two places are two far apart to have happened in the time frame, then you may be on to something. I don't know the area like others so if the times and locations don't work out mathematically then great catch!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[PPKik]

Unless the two places are two far apart to have happened in the time frame, then you may be on to something. I don't know the area like others so if the times and locations don't work out mathematically then great catch!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CarmonCaymon I am trying not to beat this into the ground because it doesn't seem to be a big concern to anyone, except me, so maybe there is an explanation out there that will make sense, eventually, but...


Whatever changed in the bond hearing from what was in the original charges is anther part of this confusion.

Right now I don't have the addresses handy, but the two incidences (allegedly) occurred in Conway and MB, both between Dec. 17th and 18th.

How could they do whatever: "marital relations," faked sex, generalized exposure, sexting, texting, both between Dec. 17th and 18th in two places that are at least 20 minutes apart? Then I guess they had to park to do whatever it was, taking more time.

I found this:

"According to arrest warrants, the Tammy's indecent exposure charges stem from an incident at Broadway at the Beach. The warrant says between December 17th and 18th of 2013, she indecently exposed herself at 1325 Celebrity Circle in Myrtle Beach. The second exposure charge is from between December 17th and 18th at Atlantic Avenue and Century Circle in Conway."

http://www.wbtw.com/story/24785283/two-people-in-custody-in-the-heather-elvis-case

And this:

"Elder said during initial interviews with police, the Moorers admitted to going to different areas of the Myrtle Beach area in the early morning hours of Dec. 18 after Elvis’ disappearance to have sexual relations. Those incidents led to the indecent exposure charges."

http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/arti...7a43b2370.html


ETA: Something is wrong on my computer and it won't let me use Google maps, or go to Disboards. If you can Google those addresses and post the distance between those addresses that would be great.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Kidnapping and murder most likely will get those charges dropped when all is said and done. It's just a good charge that adds to the motive/facts. It goes towards motive and the minds of both of the M's. Is it too prejudicial? poor baby... jmo

 

[waltzingmatilda]

I voted yes there is evidence of IE charges based on LE's statement that TM took pictures and sent (texted) them to Heather. Heather's phone is missing but I feel sure LE has checked out TM & SM's phone records and if TM did indeed send the pics of those two having 'marital relations in a vehicle' to Heather would that not be considered IE?
I'm not sure that those activities could be captured by security cameras at the locations but if the cell phone pics do exist and show that the M's were having relations in a vehicle in a public place and sent to Heather then that would be IE, IMO. I just wish we had a timeline of when the alleged picture texts were sent. My opinion could change depending if the texts were sent before or after 3:41 am 12-18-13.

 

[OkieGranny]

Unless the two places are to far apart to have happened in the time frame, then you may be on to something. I don't know the area like others so if the times and locations don't work out mathematically then great catch!

The two locations are 10.2 miles apart, takes about 16 minutes to drive per Google Maps.

 

[Aeronomy]

I voted yes, because it just doesn't seem a good idea to arrest them based on their word??? I mean...oy...I don't even know what I mean, but if they arrested them on their word of doing it, and then still arrested them on their word of not doing something else, if there were no concrete evidence on one of those particular charges at least, then I don't know, it just wouldn't seem like a good idea...so yeah, I'm thinking they do.

I'm wondering though, could it be they said they were here and here and LE obtained video of both places confirming they were there, but took their word for what it may have seemed like they (LE) thought they could see in the video?

wow - too wordy! sorry!

 

[Madeleine74]

The poll confuses me. It's not like choosing toppings to order a pizza.

The Solicitor's office said they have evidence of I.E. And they told us what it is: pictures taken by TM of her and SM in various sexual positions while out and about and sent to HE's phone (to harass her). Those are unwanted messages, that qualified as I.E. (though there may also be other things as well that they've done), and that's what got them nailed.