SC - Heather Elvis, 20, Myrtle Beach, 18 Dec 2013 - #14

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Woe.be.gone said:
But since when is a victim's father in charge of an investigation?
No disrespect intended but LE needs to provide the updates, not TE.
Please don't tell me my comment isn't victim friendly because it has nothing to do with that. It's the truth when it comes to the facts being uncovered within an investigation. This point has been expressed time and time again from the families of murder/missing victims - that they aren't given details of the investigation and how difficult it is to not know if anything significant has moved the case closer to finding the answers of what happened to their loved one.
I'm interested in what TE has to say, but we don't know if LE tells him everything or anything for that matter. After what his friend did, I bet they don't.

I've never witnessed this phenomenon before where people are looking outside of LE for the facts in a case. LE never considers the victim's family members as the leaders of a case. I've witnessed family members inserting themselves into a case before but not where posters are waiting for information that comes from them that will solve the case.
If TE has that information, LE won't like it if he takes it upon himself to spill whatever it is. The Tuesday interview thing makes no sense (because something has gone on too long - what does that mean anyway?).
Click to expand...

I 100% agree with you and couldn't have said it better if I tried. I hope that LE is sitting beside him because information on this case, as all cases, needs to come from them. It very well may be SM, as many of you are so sure of, but what if it is not, and the circumstantial evidence and the finger pointing is done on tv. You can't take that back once it is done. I am so very thankful everyday, that this page has rules and we are not allowed to discuss a certain page and to sleuth on her until there is a POI.
 
zelmajane said:
Ok, question about TE's upcoming interview.

Let's say he has someone that he strongly suspects. If he mentions that person, is that slander? Or does one have to prove you didn't do something for it to be slander?

Are y'all following me? It was just a thought IMO.
Click to expand...
If TE just gives facts "The last phone activity was x am." "This person's phone was the last person to contact HE's phone." "This person has not been cleared." there is no slander. He could even say that he thinks this circumstantial evidence points to X person being the last person to be in contact with HE. No slander. If he says "X person had something to do with my daughter's disappearance." then we get into the defamation and slander part.
 
cluciano63 said:
But how is what he is or might do going to help bring her home, is my question. I think any chances of SM, TM or anyone close to them (TE's focus apparently) talking or cooperating is gone, due in part to maybe his words or actions. JMO
Click to expand...


I don't think it will make TM or SM speak at all. I don't think they would even if TE hadn't said one word about it. I think it's more about his peace of mind knowing he did everything he could.

It may not be the best way of thinking but look at the cases he has most likely been exposed to over the last few years-BD and ZM have still never been found. And iirc the family played by police rules and kept quiet. Idk....JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Woe.be.gone said:
But since when is a victim's father in charge of an investigation?
No disrespect intended but LE needs to provide the updates, not TE.
Please don't tell me my comment isn't victim friendly because it has nothing to do with that. It's the truth when it comes to the facts being uncovered within an investigation. This point has been expressed time and time again from the families of murder/missing victims - that they aren't given details of the investigation and how difficult it is to not know if anything significant has moved the case closer to finding the answers of what happened to their loved one.
I'm interested in what TE has to say, but we don't know if LE tells him everything or anything for that matter. After what his friend did, I bet they don't.

I've never witnessed this phenomenon before where people are looking outside of LE for the facts in a case. LE never considers the victim's family members as the leaders of a case. I've witnessed family members inserting themselves into a case before but not where posters are waiting for information that comes from them that will solve the case.
If TE has that information, LE won't like it if he takes it upon himself to spill whatever it is. The Tuesday interview thing makes no sense (because something has gone on too long - what does that mean anyway?).
Click to expand...

BBM: And for each action (or lack thereof) there is an equal and opposite reaction. For a very long time, authorities have been noticeably quiet.
I'm not saying that it is right or wrong but what comes after that is a consequence of the protocol that has been applied in this case.
I hope the family remains faithful, positive, and composed during this terrible time. It must be so emotionally debilitating for them.
 
Ghostwheel said:
If TE just gives facts "The last phone activity was x am." "This person's phone was the last person to contact HE's phone." "This person has not been cleared." there is no slander. He could even say that he thinks this circumstantial evidence points to X person being the last person to be in contact with HE. No slander. If he says "X person had something to do with my daughter's disappearance." then we get into the defamation and slander part.
Click to expand...

JMO, I am not sure he even has the correct info about the phone usage.
 
cluciano63 said:
JMO TE was mistaken about the phone info he gave out on NG and also in saying the phone was "turned off" at that time. I am not convinced he is being given any specifics at all, via LE. I think he got hold of SM's name, maybe from BW or her co-workers and ran with it.

That doesn't mean he is wrong in his focus, but I am doubtful he has any privileged info. JMO
Click to expand...
I don't know about privileged information, but he has/had the same access to the phone records as LE. I think those are what he is running with.
 
Ghostwheel said:
I don't know about privileged information, but he has/had the same access to the phone records as LE. I think those are what he is running with.
Click to expand...


And when it comes down to it, really the phone records (and maybe SM) are ALL they have as far as hard evidence....or at least that's what we are to believe.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
cluciano63 said:
JMO, I am not sure he even has the correct info about the phone usage.
Click to expand...
I am curious, do you think that just because of the incorrect times given previously? For myself, I think those times had to do with how the phone activity record is produced. I think TE knows how to read those records now, and he didn't previously. JMO based on how my records look different if I access them on computer, or if I access them on a phone.
 
And I am still feeling like we're getting "Look over here", while something is going on somewhere else.
 
Ghostwheel said:
I am curious, do you think that just because of the incorrect times given previously? For myself, I think those times had to do with how the phone activity record is produced. I think TE knows how to read those records now, and he didn't previously. JMO based on how my records look different if I access them on computer, or if I access them on a phone.
Click to expand...

Maybe he does...I only heard him saying 3:41 and the being off after that, which does not jive.
 
AddysMom7610 said:
It may be a bad idea but dang! What gives? You just get so desperate and it starts being WAY more important to actually bring your child home than possibly prosecute someone on circumstantial evidence, ya know? It may be about never being able to forgive himself for not doing everything in his power (ie tell the public everything they know to scare certain people and/or bring in more leads) to bring her home.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Click to expand...

I can totally understand why he feels that way. I'm just afraid if he does go on the air talking about what he thinks he knows, he's going to damage the investigation.
 
Just wanted to say that after being on all the other pages related to HE ,that I am so glad to be a part of the websleuth community.While I may feel the rules are stricter than I would prefer,Im thankful websleuths runs a tight ship and I am ever so grateful to be here. Trying to catch up with all the new post Ive missed :)
 
Ghostwheel said:
And I am still feeling like we're getting "Look over here", while something is going on somewhere else.
Click to expand...

I agree somewhat. Also I think that what happens Tuesday will be approved by LE. Infact maybe that's why it's not until Tuesday, it's planned and there's a reason. I feel like this is going to end up being pretty big (bc of there being federal agents involved.)

Of course, he could have said do it Tuesday as a sort of... ultimatum to LE. However I don't think that is the case. It does seem that LE is making headway (just not telling specifics) and if that's the case then I don't believe he'd jump the gun. I think he'd only do that if he felt like there honestly was no other option.
 
zelmajane said:
Ok, question about TE's upcoming interview.

Let's say he has someone that he strongly suspects. If he mentions that person, is that slander? Or does one have to prove you didn't do something for it to be slander?

Are y'all following me? It was just a thought IMO.
Click to expand...

Anyone can sue for anything, but as for whether the lawsuit would be thrown out or not...

First, if someone is a public figure, it's a lot harder for them to sue for slander/libel. I am not sure if you become a public figure as soon as you speak to the MSM media, or if takes more than that. I think the Moorers are still considered private citizens, while Terry Elvis is a public figure.

Second, the person has to show that it hurt their reputation, such as losing their job, shunned by friends and family, etc.

Third, you have to demonstrate that the statement made was false. So I think that means that someone else would need to be arrested in Heather's case, or LE would have to announce that the Moorers are not involved, for them to have a case.

Fourth, the bigger the audience the slander/libel is made too, the easier a case the plaintiff will have.

ETA: Lastly, how would the Moorers prove that it something Terry Elvis (or any person) said that caused people to think they were involved, than it was the fact that Sidney had an affair with Heather, he was the last person to talk to her, police haven't cleared them, etc?
 
eileenhawkeye said:
Anyone can sue for anything, but as for whether the lawsuit would be thrown out or not...

First, if someone is a public figure, it's a lot harder for them to sue for slander/libel. I am not sure if you become a public figure as soon as you speak to the MSM media, or if takes more than that. I think the Moorers are still considered private citizens, while Terry Elvis is a public figure.

Second, the person has to show that it hurt their reputation, such as losing their job, shunned by friends and family, etc.

Third, you have to demonstrate that the statement made was false. So I think that means that someone else would need to be arrested in Heather's case, or LE would have to announce that the Moorers are not involved, for them to have a case.

Fourth, the bigger the audience the slander/libel is made too, the easier a case the plaintiff will have.

ETA: Lastly, how would the Moorers prove that it something Terry Elvis (or any person) said that caused people to think they were involved, than it was the fact that Sidney had an affair with Heather, he was the last person to talk to her, police haven't cleared them, etc?
Click to expand...

None of them are public figures. Yes this case has taken a somewhat national public turn, but that doesn't make TE a public figure. If it is found that they are innocent, and it mean a big fat if, the stuff I have read, supports a slander case. Not by Terry, but by plenty of others, including those arrested. I hope it is okay to say that. Of course this is my opinion, as always.
 
carbuff said:
I can totally understand why he feels that way. I'm just afraid if he does go on the air talking about what he thinks he knows, he's going to damage the investigation.
Click to expand...

maybe LE wants him to say a few 'hints' to see reactions. Maybe TE is willing to play the game .........so LE gets alittle more rope to hang some people.
 
carbuff said:
I can totally understand why he feels that way. I'm just afraid if he does go on the air talking about what he thinks he knows, he's going to damage the investigation.
Click to expand...


Well maybe . . . or maybe LE sanctioned an interview. Not that they need to but we do not know what they feel about it or what's been discussed.
Plenty of families in the midst of ongoing investigations have talked to the public/media.

I'm not concerned. I think TE's primary goal is still to bring Heather home and have justice served on the responsible person(s). His goal may change at some point, and maybe it has already, but I'm thinking not yet.
 
CarolinaAsh said:
I agree somewhat. Also I think that what happens Tuesday will be approved by LE. Infact maybe that's why it's not until Tuesday, it's planned and there's a reason. I feel like this is going to end up being pretty big (bc of there being federal agents involved.)



Of course, he could have said do it Tuesday as a sort of... ultimatum to LE. However I don't think that is the case. It does seem that LE is making headway (just not telling specifics) and if that's the case then I don't believe he'd jump the gun. I think he'd only do that if he felt like there honestly was no other option.
Click to expand...


Does anyone know when the federal agents came into the case?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Staff online

Members online

... and 155 more.
Total: 3,447 (members: 156, guests: 3,291)

Online statistics

Members online
156
Guests online
3,291
Total visitors
3,447
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,080
Messages
18,167,177
Members
231,925
Latest member
Missmichelle1932
Back
Top