SC - Heather Elvis, 20, Myrtle Beach, 18 Dec 2013 - #16

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
Woe.be.gone said:
For conversation not argument (I'm afraid to state differing opinions), the initial report in this case isn't proven evidence. Imo logically it isn't because it had not been investigated yet upon its release. We know this because of the errant hospital information that appeared within the report.
When LE proceeded to check out the possibilities stated therein, they wrote on a separate page (someone in LE explained this earlier) their findings. Those are the reports we want to see as they either build upon or cancel out opinions/possibilities given initially. The initial info still has to be substantiated through phone records or by speaking to other witnesses or other methods.

Imo because one person gives two or three possible scenarios as to what may have contributed to HE's disappearance, doesn't prove those scenarios are the only possible explanations or contain the truth about what happened to HE.
The ideas or knowledge of the situations may contain the answer but they have to be proven first before the truth can be determined.
Click to expand...

The reason why the word evidence is even being mentioned is because Detective Squirres mentioned that evidence was leaked. He then continued to discuss the report. It is back a bit. I believe, and I am not alone, that he is referring to the PR. PR's for as long as I have known have been used in trials. Pretty much anything used in a trial is evidence. I went to get a restraining order. All of my PR's were used. I right now am preparing for another trial where I am the Plantiff and I know the PR will be allowed because it documents the event. It will not prove my case, but like in my RO, it establishes the chain of events and details, documents, and establishes truth telling. Because stories change over time. Also, when talking about PR in general, if details are all left off, example, SM was known about but never mentioned. Say it was found out that at the time of the report TE knew about him through BW but no one said anything, that would be very bad and would, especially given things that have occurred...harrassment allegations. That report could be used as evidence in that case. Big stretch, I know.... But, there are many ways to use it. Does it help this type of case, no. But, there are tons of evidence in cases that don't help. I don't know all of this for a fact. This is just based on my experience that I have had in a court room and what I have learned from my lawyer.... Sadly.

Thanks for an ever pleasant discussion. Missed you around here. I always like your posts. Hope you are well.
 
The leaked evidence of most importance would seem to me to be the fact of the calls and the time they ended. JMO
At least, that info seems to be the cause of the storm that has ensued since.
 
JMO, but it appears that OMM is climbing up the insanity ladder.

Just waiting to see what he pulls next.
 
Its an interesting discussion to me about the PR and whether what is said can be used as true "evidence" or not. From watching some trials it seems most things are usually corroborated by supporting evidence. Like if the report says there are certain phone calls made between 2 persons then it seems like during a trial the actual phone records would be brought out. The question I have is this.

Here is a scenerio and worndering if anyone can answer.

Lets say the report says "I (person A) spoke to person B and he said "XXXXXXXX"

If during a trial if person A does not show up at the trial to be questioned directly, then would that be declared as heresay evidence and maybe not admitted ? Or would the jury have to accept that as fact that "XXXXXX' happened?

It seems to me that Person A would have to testify which they usually do. But I have seen where certain policeman dont show up at traffic court and tickets are thrown out so Im trying to see if I am thinking about this properly.

ETA: corrected to make question clearer
 
FYI-a very good read


http://www.careerpoliceofficer.com/PoliceandVictims/police_report_writing.html

You want to have as little involvement as possible in any investigation
where others can blame you for their screw-ups.

The initial phases of any investigation are super critical, and the way you
record basic factual information; your observations; statements by others; evidence collection, and any other actions you
take will determine the success or failure of an investigation.

...your
preliminary report should include every bit of relevant information your investigation produces.

Remember, no information is irrelevant as long as it is pertinent to your investigation. If you develop information which contradicts other information
in your investigation, record that information. No investigation is free of contradictions. Your recognition and attention to contradictions only shows
your thoroughness. The earlier contradictions are noted, the quicker they'll be resolved.


etc..........
 
Hatfield said:
Its an interesting discussion to me about the PR and whether what is said can be used as true "evidence" or not. From watching some trials it seems most things are usually corroborated by supporting evidence. Like if the report says there are certain phone calls made between 2 persons then it seems like during a trial the actual phone records would be brought out. The question I have is this.

Here is a scenerio and worndering if anyone can answer.

Lets say the report says "I (person A) spoke to person B and he said "XXXXXXXX"

If during a trial if person A does not show up at the trial to be questioned directly, then would that be declared as heresay evidence and maybe not admitted ? Or would the jury have to accept that as fact that "XXXXXX' happened?

It seems to me that Person A would have to testify which they usually do. But I have seen where certain policeman dont show up at traffic court and tickets are thrown out so Im trying to see if I am thinking about this properly.

ETA: corrected to make question clearer
Click to expand...

from what I've seen it can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction,state,judge or even attorneys (objections,etc) but I'm no pro :moo:
 
eileenhawkeye said:
Most people didn't know about SM until the report. So I think whoever leaked the report did it so people would suspect SM. But from what LE is saying, it sounds like they didn't want the report made public. Well, some reasons would be so SM wouldn't know he was on their radar, and so people don't interfere with the investigation. Too late now. I hope whoever leaked the report is happy, and realize that they may have hindered the case.
Click to expand...


SM had back and forth communications with HE from 2:00-6:00am and that is in addition to the call that prompted HE to call BW. All of that happened right after the last time that HE was seen alive and well by anyone(date). The last communications made with HE's phone were to SM.....then poof...she's missing and LE calls SM. I think it's safe to assume that after being questioned by LE, SM knew that he was on LE's radar and that was before we saw the PR.
 
Hatfield said:
Its an interesting discussion to me about the PR and whether what is said can be used as true "evidence" or not. From watching some trials it seems most things are usually corroborated by supporting evidence. Like if the report says there are certain phone calls made between 2 persons then it seems like during a trial the actual phone records would be brought out. The question I have is this.



Here is a scenerio and worndering if anyone can answer.



Lets say the report says "I (person A) spoke to person B and he said "XXXXXXXX"



If during a trial if person A does not show up at the trial to be questioned directly, then would that be declared as heresay evidence and maybe not admitted ? Or would the jury have to accept that as fact that "XXXXXX' happened?



It seems to me that Person A would have to testify which they usually do. But I have seen where certain policeman dont show up at traffic court and tickets are thrown out so Im trying to see if I am thinking about this properly.



ETA: corrected to make question clearer
Click to expand...


IMO person A has to show up. According to the Sixth Amendment: A defendant has a right to cross examine his accusers and confront witnesses.
A police report alone does not allow for this.
This is precisely why tickets get thrown out if the officers do not show up.
 
Good morning! Can mods or experienced members tell me: Will there ever come a time where we can discuss the various social media sideshows in this case? Like after the trial or anything? Or if MSM published stories about said sideshows?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
Money Girl said:
JMO, but it appears that OMM is climbing up the insanity ladder.

Just waiting to see what he pulls next.
Click to expand...

It will most certainly start with: "Well, there was a white truck . . ."

Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2
 
Aint Bee said:
All I can say is, they live on that road.
Click to expand...

I'm thinking they may have been taken into custody (is that another way to say arrested) for something besides Heather's case. I would be shocked if LE is willing to charge them without finding Heather first.
 
Please please let this be serious movement in this case!!!

Sent from my HTC Flyer P510e using Tapatalk HD
 
from the article...wonder what this is about

The warrant was served as an attempt to identify potential evidence based on new information obtained through expert analysis of previously seized surveillance tapes and financial discrepancies filed with the State of South Carolina on behalf of the people living in the home, according to the release.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 109 more.
Total: 3,404 (members: 110, guests: 3,294)

Online statistics

Members online
110
Guests online
3,294
Total visitors
3,404
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
604,108
Messages
18,167,578
Members
231,934
Latest member
TCpsyche
Back
Top