SC - Heather Elvis, 20, Myrtle Beach, 18 Dec 2013 #27***ARREST**

[imamaze]

Can you elaborate on the above bolded text? Would that be discussable in the parking lot thread since that is for the social media?

Ohhhh that's a good question LBDunes! I'm going to alert this post so Salem can see it and she can give us an answer on that one. I'm thinking no but I don't go to the Parking Lot thread that often to be up on the rules there.

Oh Salem... :smile:

 

[imamaze]

Has sommthing happened to the social media thread. I cant find or access it

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

 

[thisisme93]

A dear a close friend of mine was abducted and murdered years back in the state of Wv. The same two men traveled to South Carolina a few days after and also abducted and murdered a woman from SC. Due to SC allowing the death penalty the parents of my friend made the heartbreaking decision not to bring them to trial in WV. My main reasoning for this post is to praise and thank the SC justice system, both men were charged with murder and given the DP. I have faith that the justice system will show no mercy to the monster(s) that committed such a vile act and prove what JUSTICE is for the precious memory of HE and for family and friends. Prayers.

---------------------------------------------------------------
So sorry about your friend :/ May you and their family find peace and healing in such a senseless tragedy.

 

[Thorn]

Has sommthing happened to the social media thread. I cant find or access it

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk

Here is the link to the new sm thread. HTH

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community

ETA Ima beat me to it!

 

[Ghostwheel]

Police photographed the home during the search. The report also says investigators learned something "which gave cause for concern during the investigation," but what was learned was redacted from the report.

http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/crime/article_66cc6880-a9eb-11e3-926a-0017a43b2370.html

Have we discussed what this could have been? Theories? I am confused by the red X on TE door. What is even the point? I guess the M's have supporters but really, why?

BBM: The phrase is 'learned something "which gave cause for concern during the investigation,"'. Pulling the sentence apart, the thing that was learned was during the investigation, not necessarily during the search. To me, this means a possibility that when LE went to the house a previous time to ask questions, they might have seen the state of the house, and unsanitary conditions would be cause for concern in any family home. That is one theory. Another theory is that, if LE had communication devices belonging to the Moorers, they could have seen/read things on those devices *during the course of the investigation* that gave them cause for concern regarding home life situations. This applies to any animals which may have looked as if they were neglected. These are only theories as to the wording in the sentence.

 

[Ghostwheel]

Re: x on the door

My dog was stolen from in my home. I had security cameras with in days. Why doesn't TE have them yet?

(We got her back).

Maybe because he doesn't own the building his business is in? The owners might not allow anything to be installed under normal circumstances. Now that something has been damaged (by paint), the building owner might allow a camera if he/she did not before. Just a thought.

 

[1&2&3]

Just a comment, defense lawyers always paint their clients as innocent! From Ghostwheel's
Quoted statement from Sidney's lawyer, WHAT a huge change in his statement and knowledge!

Just my thought, wonder if Truslow will want off the case now that evidence points trial (guilty)! JMO

 

[paris_paris]

Re: x on the door

My dog was stolen from in my home. I had security cameras with in days. Why doesn't TE have them yet?

(We got her back).

O/T... 2 days ago an ex-inlaw of mine came home to find his dog missing... a large black lab. The door wasn't locked, but there was blood on a broken window. The window was broken out. Somebody found the dog covered in blood and took her to the vet. The vet said the blood on the dog was not from the dog.

A stranger had walked in the front door and the dog cornered them in another room. They had to break the window to get out, and the dog followed them.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

I would think that guilt would promote right action. It doesn't appear that either of the accused feels badly enough to come clean on where Heather's body can be found.

They may have been stressed that they were the prime suspects, or TE may have agitated them into paranoia, but I doubt they felt or feel guilty. They set out to murder Heather and they disposed of her in a manner that keeps her well-obscured, because that's what they wanted. They only thing they likely feel badly about is getting caught and ending up in jail.

Since the evidence hasn't been revealed yet (we're putting our faith in LE), we don't know the totality of the evidence.
I know the chances seem slim and everyone here believes the Moorers are responsible for Heather's disappearance but what if only one of them really knows what happened (where Heather is)?

What if, for some reason, neither of them know where Heather is?

Until we hear all the evidence, how can we be sure?

If only one of them knows where Heather is though, then they'd be unable to turn on each other for the purpose of revealing her location. But they could turn on one another to say he or she committed murder. Still, the one who knows, wouldn't tell where they put Heather. But we're assuming they both know, right?

 

[poppygirl]

Interesting. Contrast the phrase in that article "Truslow said the few details that were made available to him left him "perplexed" as to why his client would be named a suspect."

with this article:

"After sitting down for the first time with Sidney Moorer this weekend, his defense attorney Kirk Truslow said he was able to go through some of the evidence the prosecution has collected so far.

Upon seeing the evidence, he believes the case will go to trial."
http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/24810574/inside-the-courtroom-murder-charges-read-for-the-first-time-in-front-of-elvis-family

In the article I posted, Sidney's attorney doesn't seem to be perplexed anymore if he now thinks the case will go to trial. IMO, he must have seen some evidence that looks like it IS evidence.

I interpreted his statement differently, ie that he meant that they didn't have enough for a conviction, so no chance of a plea...sounded more confident that there would be a trial because they expect to win...JMO

 

[Woe.be.gone]

O/T... 2 days ago an ex-inlaw of mine came home to find his dog missing... a large black lab. The door wasn't locked, but there was blood on a broken window. The window was broken out. Somebody found the dog covered in blood and took her to the vet. The vet said the blood on the dog was not from the dog.

A stranger had walked in the front door and the dog cornered them in another room. They had to break the window to get out, and the dog followed them.

So the dog is completely okay?

Good dog!!!

Good somebody too!

 

[Cgs]

Maybe because he doesn't own the building his business is in? The owners might not allow anything to be installed under normal circumstances. Now that something has been damaged (by paint), the building owner might allow a camera if he/she did not before. Just a thought.

I don't know if TE owned his building or not, but any changes/additions to the outside of the building would have to be approved by Market Commons which has fairly rigid rules. Also, the owner(s) would probably want to take into consideration the privacy of any upstairs tenants before installing cameras. FWIW.

 

[Woe.be.gone]

Some of us were thinking that the way they worded it "learned something" instead of found/saw something meant that someone in the house had told them something

ETA: but we are not allowed to discuss the minor children

An interesting observation Lovejac.

Maybe when asked, someone answered honestly and innocently (not even knowing why they were being asked), 'oh yes I saw that lady (or Heather) at my house'.

 

[Cgs]

I interpreted his statement differently, ie that he meant that they didn't have enough for a conviction, so no chance of a plea...sounded more confident that there would be a trial because they expect to win...JMO

That's how I interpreted it as well.

 

[NFYIAMY]

Did anyone here SEE the red X? I'm curious to where it was located on the door and how big or small it was.....

 

[cluciano63]

I can't quite believe that a business owner is parented from installing security cameras...maybe someone else with a business in the same area can confirm?

I know it is not PC to say so...but oh how I wish a different man had caught Heather's interest last summer...

JMO

 

[paris_paris]

So the dog is completely okay?

Good dog!!!

Good somebody too!

Yup. Good dog is completely OK. Somebody out there is likely covered in dog bites... and cuts from broken glass.

 

[Ghostwheel]

Since the evidence hasn't been revealed yet (we're putting our faith in LE), we don't know the totality of the evidence.
I know the chances seem slim and everyone here believes the Moorers are responsible for Heather's disappearance but what if only one of them really knows what happened (where Heather is)?

What if, for some reason, neither of them know where Heather is?

Until we hear all the evidence, how can we be sure?

If only one of them knows where Heather is though, then they'd be unable to turn on each other for the purpose of revealing her location. But they could turn on one another to say he or she committed murder. Still, the one who knows, wouldn't tell where they put Heather. But we're assuming they both know, right?

I'm not sure what everyone else is assuming. I think this way:

If both killed and know where Heather is, neither will say anything. There isn't an upside unless they are handed some really sweet deal, and I can't think of one that would be acceptable.

If neither killed Heather, but know where she is, they would have said so by now. (If she had run away from life)

If neither killed Heather, or know where she is, all they can do is find some way to refute the reported evidence that LE has. And both will say nothing.

If one killed Heather, and both know where she is, the one that didn't kill her is still an accessory after the fact. Once again, there is no up side to saying anything unless they get some kind of sweet deal. We aren't up to the sweet deal point, yet. That might come Monday.

If one killed Heather and the other has no idea what is going on, either A) They are pretty darned stupid or the one who killed her is incredibly brilliant or B)They would have had to have been in two completely different places during the time what happened to Heather happened AND NOT NOTICED OR CARED WHERE EACH OTHER WAS. Say SM was home with <Mod Snip> and TM was out killing Heather. How would SM not know TM wasn't home? And how would he not wonder where she was at, especially if Heather went missing that night. Same reversed. Unless <Mod Snip>, and TM and SM were just out wandering aimlessly separately, I just cannot see one having no idea what happened if the other is guilty in this particular case. So calling this thought "One killed Heather and knows where she is and the other didn't kill her and doesn't know where she is", the one that doesn't know could only bargain with any information they would be willing to give about the other one being missing, and anything suspicious from that timeframe. And since they didn't come forward in the beginning, a sweet deal may not be on the table.

I forgot, If both killed Heather, and they have no idea where she is at (put in the river, left somewhere but the body is no longer there, what have you), they have nothing to bargain with except telling on the other. If both are equally guilty, any deal they get will not be very sweet at all, so no real advantage to saying anything.

Yes, I really do run all those things through my head (plus some), which is why I am fence sitter extraordinaire....

 

[cluciano63]

I wonder if her SM posts will be allowable in opening or closing arguments? Could it be a double edge sword kind of like in the Zimmerman trial?

Defense will want Heather's SM in, if they plan to try to convince the jury she may have run off and is not dead. If one side gets SM in, the other side likely will too, IMO.

 

[ATasteOfHoney]

Maybe because he doesn't own the building his business is in? The owners might not allow anything to be installed under normal circumstances. Now that something has been damaged (by paint), the building owner might allow a camera if he/she did not before. Just a thought.

I think it depends on what type of system is being used. If a tenant wants to have a removable securtiy system (and there are many types), it would be considered a "fixture" and should be allowed. I doubt if a landlord (lessor) would prevent a tenant (lessee) from having a removable fixture such as a security system on their property. Should be no problem.