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

[Treelights]

http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/11816083/t-kirk-truslow

Sidney's apparent lawyer

from your link... he represents clients who need help with their cases in

"White Collar Fraud and Murder." along with other criminal charges.

http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/11816083/t-kirk-truslow

 

[eileenhawkeye]

You know who else has a profile there? The paternal aunt of missing baby Ayla Reynolds. I forget her name - Elisha something, I think DiPietro. She was in the home (along with others) the night Ayla "poofed."

Very odd, this exploretalent thing.

Here is the link: http://www.exploretalent.com/elishadipietro


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think the most likely explanation is that those websites attract people with similar qualities...

 

[Eileen730]

Sidney is 5'8? I think Tammy was saying she's 5'9.

Tammy is a legend in her own mind!

 

[tiredblondy]

South Carolina law in regards to indecent exposure

SECTION 16-15-130. Indecent exposure; breastfeeding.

(A)(1) It is unlawful for a person to wilfully, maliciously, and indecently expose his person in a public place, on property of others, or to the view of any person on a street or highway.

(2) This subsection does not apply to a woman who breastfeeds her own child in a public place, on property of others, to the view of any person on a street or highway, or any other place where a woman and her child are authorized to be.

(B) A person who violates the provisions of subsection (A)(1) is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined in the discretion of the court or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 16-413; 1952 Code Section 16-413; 1942 Code Section 1442; 1932 Code Section 1442; Cr. C. '22 Section 383; Cr. C. '12 Section 390; 1906 (25) 84; 1965 (54) 577; 1993 Act No. 184, Section 180; 2006 Act No. 269, Section 2, eff May 2, 2006.

SECTION 16-15-140. Repealed by 2012 Act No. 255, Section 14, eff June 18, 2012.

SECTION 16-15-250. Communicating obscene messages to other persons without consent.

It is unlawful for a person to anonymously write, print, telephone, transmit a digital electronic file, or by other manner or means communicate, send, or deliver to another person within this State, without that person's consent, any obscene, profane, indecent, vulgar, suggestive, or immoral message.

A person who violates the provisions of this section is guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction, must be fined in the discretion of the court or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.

I agree with Topcat. I think the last SECTION 16-15-250 is the reason for the obscenity charges and it was the reported picture HE received on her phone!

 

[SharetheLight]

I've had two kids. Two c-sections, and I'm the same age as TM (which is extremely difficult for me to believe after seeing the photos from today/yesterday, but I digress).....there's no way in HELL I'd be sending a picture of my naked body to my husband's hot young 20 year old lover!

Hahahaha this post just made my day because I was thinking the same thing. No matter how great I MAY think I look it will not compare to a fit firm 20 year old.

 

[floridamomma]

I've had two kids. Two c-sections, and I'm the same age as TM (which is extremely difficult for me to believe after seeing the photos from today/yesterday, but I digress).....there's no way in HELL I'd be sending a picture of my naked body to my husband's hot young 20 year old lover!

haha!!! idk, I've had four kids. might be good revenge, I could gross someone out!

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[eileenhawkeye]

So were these attorneys randomly assigned to the case, or did they seek it out for publicity? I find it interesting that neither is a true public defender.

 

[floridamomma]

I hope they are sweating possible pending charges.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk

 

[SharetheLight]

So what's up with Sid? No lawyer? No bond posted?

I thought in one media report it said mr and mrs were meeting with their respective attys separately. So I don't know why his isn't being talked about.
And IMO he is smart for not posting bond if he can't go anywhere anyway. You pay a bondsman and you don't get your money back. For all we know the charges coming could allow for a no bond status.

Eta: I see SM's lawyer is finally named.

 

[sleepinoz]

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

"In this particular case they saw fit to charge smaller charges to start with but I'll assure you a lot heavier charges are coming," said Horry County Solicitor Jimmy Richardson.

 

[iziguzag]

My problem with this is I don't think he was probably all that attracted to her (who would be compared to HE?), which makes me wonder if some of these sexcapades weren't made up. And I'm thinking she was probably more a sex withholder (more dominance). So, I'm starting to question why they would be doing it in public if it was doubtful if they were even doing much in private. JMO. Just throwing stuff out there.

JMO ... but I see it as the opposite, using sex to control him. I could see her trying to be "wild and adventurous". After all, she now is trying to compete with an attractive 20 year old.

 

[OtherEyes]

the date the photo was taken is on the bottom of the screen

Google earth just says 2014 but I was just wondering about the changes to the middle island between the driveways and possibly "new green, recently planted trees in that area?
Look at both photos in this article.
http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/2014/02/21/4046857/police-have-two-in-custody-related.html

 

[Eileen730]

I thought in one media report it said mr and mrs were meeting with their respective attys separately. So I don't know why his isn't being talked about.
And IMO he is smart for not posting bond if he can't go anywhere anyway. You pay a bondsman and you don't get your money back. For all we know the charges coming could allow for a no bond status.

He could be talking and cant go home!

 

[nosysw]

I agree with Topcat. I think the last SECTION 16-15-250 is the reason for the obscenity charges and it was the reported picture HE received on her phone!

Could be but it still doesn't make sense why he would be charged for the same charge. I really don't think they both sent it to her from separate phones. :waitasec:

 

[Ghostwheel]

So now I have to wonder if the Obstruction of Justice charge against BB was just laying grounds for a similar charge to get TM and SM into custody and a search warrant on their property ( like cell phones and computers). Thinking out loud...

 

[TTF14]

I agree with Topcat. I think the last SECTION 16-15-250 is the reason for the obscenity charges and it was the reported picture HE received on her phone!

Hmmm.....this says "anonymously" though?

 

[RANCH]

So were these attorneys randomly assigned to the case, or did they seek it out for publicity? I find it interesting that neither is a true public defender.

I'm not sure. Maybe this county assigns/asks for more experienced volunteer defense attorney's for high profile cases.

High profile cases are good for a private practice defense attorney no matter the outcome. It keeps the phone ringing. MOO.

 

[escape2sc]

Once the more serious charges are filed, is the Defense given immediate access to evidence ?

 

[2Hope4]

I have a question....do you get a hair brush in jail?

 

[Kelannsha]

Playing catch-up here....but MSM reports that "the arrests were made in connection to the HE case" so then the charges must directly related to HE as opposed to just them getting it on in public places caught on video right?