Trial date set for Sidney and Tammy Moorer #1

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.
I wouldn't hire anyone with all those pending charges. I know 'innocent until proven guilty'. Then tell them to demand a speedy trial and get the charges out of the way. Why hire someone who will have to go back to SC for trials and possibly go to prison for the rest of their life?
 
If bond was never granted in the first place.....thanks to the good Judge Dennis.....they wouldn`t have to find a job.....and get to live their Magical Life of Disney. Bond should only have been granted if a firm job was in place and not a big lie that he WOULD, not Could work for his brother. He never had any intentions of that and we all know it. He should be working for his brother and if he would quit, then it should be that he would have to go back to jail. Of all places for them to be going is such a slap in the face to everyone....except of course, the M family and T with her big mouth who is now laughing at everyone. The only reason she isn`t posting anything lately is because she was told not to......but, stay tuned, she can`t and won`t stay silent long. I have looked at her photos and they are so taunting. Just like the ones of her victory pants. She has number 18....the day H went missing along with Victory Strips and Sergeant Strips along with other symbols. Hoping that something big happens in this case and those two are put back to where they belong.
 
If bond was never granted in the first place.....thanks to the good Judge Dennis.....they wouldn`t have to find a job.....and get to live their Magical Life of Disney. Bond should only have been granted if a firm job was in place and not a big lie that he COULD, not would work for his brother. He never had any intentions of that and we all know it. He should be working for his brother and if he would quit, then it should be that he would have to go back to jail. Of all places for them to be going is such a slap in the face to everyone....except of course, the M family and T with her big mouth who is now laughing at everyone. The only reason she isn`t posting anything lately is because she was told not to......but, stay tuned, she can`t and won`t stay silent long. I have looked at her photos and they are so taunting. Just like the ones of her victory pants. She has number 18....the day H went missing along with Victory Strips and Sergeant Strips along with other symbols. Hoping that something big happens in this case and those two are put back to where they belong.

Oh gross! I didn't even notice that. I was distracted by her new sandals she bought to try to hide/camouflage her ankle monitor (then complimented herself on them through her pet's FB account).

In the pic of her and SM alone it even looks like she's giving the finger to the "18" patch. If so, this woman truly is a complete psychopath.
 
I forgot to mention that a gun was also bleached unto her pants.
 
Not directed at you, Dixie E, just using your post as a jumping off point...

I do understand the level of emotion that comes into play in murder cases. But really, having a job should not (and is not) the qualifying factor of being incarcerated and not given bond. It can be one factor that helps tilt the balance towards being allowed out on bond, but it is not the only factor.

As long as someone can be monitored within the bounds required by the court AND the court is reasonably assured the defendant will appear at the time they are required for their trial, AND the defendant is not a danger/threat to the community at large, then they are eligible for release on bond, with conditions. It may not feel fair, but our system is not based on feelings, emotions, and vengeance.

Some will argue that SM and TM are an immediate threat; that hasn't proven to be true. They are being closely monitored and they've been given specific rules by the judge. So far they seem to be complying because if they weren't, they'd be picked up and hauled back to jail.

I know many know this, but I think it's important to remember it is fully the state's burden to prove the charges and litigate the case. It is never ever a defendant's burden to 'prove their innocence.' Even if everyone believes they are 100% guilty, the burden rests solely on the state.

So let's hold the state responsible for their part in this. WHY have they not moved forward with setting a trial date? WHY is the solicitor backing off? The Solicitor is not fighting to keep the M's in state, not one bit. Focus on the state and ask why the state is moving backwards? Because, from what we can see, that is what the state is doing.



If bond was never granted in the first place.....thanks to the good Judge Dennis.....they wouldn`t have to find a job.....and get to live their Magical Life of Disney. Bond should only have been granted if a firm job was in place and not a big lie that he WOULD, not Could work for his brother. He never had any intentions of that and we all know it. He should be working for his brother and if he would quit, then it should be that he would have to go back to jail. Of all places for them to be going is such a slap in the face to everyone....except of course, the M family and T with her big mouth who is now laughing at everyone. The only reason she isn`t posting anything lately is because she was told not to......but, stay tuned, she can`t and won`t stay silent long. I have looked at her photos and they are so taunting. Just like the ones of her victory pants. She has number 18....the day H went missing along with Victory Strips and Sergeant Strips along with other symbols. Hoping that something big happens in this case and those two are put back to where they belong.
 
Not directed at you, Dixie E, just using your post as a jumping off point...

I do understand the level of emotion that comes into play in murder cases. But really, having a job should not (and is not) the qualifying factor of being incarcerated and not given bond. It can be one factor that helps tilt the balance towards being allowed out on bond, but it is not the only factor.

As long as someone can be monitored within the bounds required by the court AND the court is reasonably assured the defendant will appear at the time they are required for their trial, AND the defendant is not a danger/threat to the community at large, then they are eligible for release on bond, with conditions.It may not feel fair, butour system is not based on feelings, emotions, and vengeance.

Some will argue that SM and TM are an immediate threat; that hasn't proven to be true. They are being closely monitored and they've been given specific rules by the judge. So far they seem to be complying because if they weren't, they'd be picked up and hauled back to jail.

I know many know this, but I think it's important to remember it is fully the state's burden to prove the charges and litigate the case. It is never ever a defendant's burden to 'prove their innocence.' Even if everyone believes they are 100% guilty, the burden rests solely on the state.

So let's hold the state responsible for their part in this. WHY have they not moved forward with setting a trial date? WHY is the solicitor backing off? The Solicitor is not fighting to keep the M's in state, not one bit. Focus on the state and ask why the state is moving backwards? Because, from what we can see, that is what the state is doing.

Good post M. I would like to emphasize the BBM.
 
Bouncing off your "JMO comment" @scaredtopost...

Depending on the employer and who performs a background check (in-house vs. consumer reporting agency), pending charges and other info related to the hiree will be checked (see below).

BBM

From Privacy Rights Clearinghouse – Fact Sheet 16: Employment Background Checks: A Jobseeker's Guide

According to a study conducted by the Society for Human Resource Management, approximately two-thirds of organizations conduct criminal background checks on all of their job candidates. Whether you are hired or promoted may depend on the information revealed in a background check. Job applicants and existing employees as well as volunteers may be asked to submit to background checks. For some jobs, screening is required by federal or state law.

[...]

Does a criminal record mean I can never get a job?

Not necessarily. The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has said that use of criminal history may sometimes violate Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This can happen, the EEOC says, when employers treat criminal history differently for different applicants or employees.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) says that a person cannot be denied employment based on a criminal record alone. Instead, the decision to hire or not must be based on a “business necessity,” which requires the employer to consider:

  • The nature and gravity of the offense or offenses.
  • The time that has passed since the conviction and or completion of the sentence.
  • The nature of the job held or sought.
EEO laws apply in employment situations whether the employer hires a third-party screening company or not. The Fair Credit Reporting Act (FCRA) requires compliance with EEO laws.

The EEOC has issued extensive guidelines for employers in considering the criminal history of a job applicant or employee. To aid in compliance with Title VII, the EEOC guidelines provide employers with examples of best business practices.

From EEOC Guidelines – Consideration of Arrest and Conviction Records in Employment Decisions Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964

2. Arrests

The fact of an arrest does not establish that criminal conduct has occurred.101 Arrests are not proof of criminal conduct. Many arrests do not result in criminal charges, or the charges are dismissed. Even if an individual is charged and subsequently prosecuted, he is presumed innocent unless proven guilty.​

[...]

2. What Is Included in a Background Check?

Background reports can range from a verification of an applicant's Social Security number to a detailed account of the potential employee's history and acquaintances. Information included in a background check will depend to some extent on the employer and the job involved. For many jobs, a state or federal law requires the employer to conduct a background check. Jobs that involve work with children, the elderly or people with disabilities are examples of jobs that will almost certainly require a criminal background check. Some employers search social networking sites such as Facebook for the profiles of applicants.

Here are some of the pieces of information that might be included in a background check. Note that many of these sources are public records created by government agencies.

  • Driving records
  • Vehicle registration
  • Credit records
  • Criminal records
  • Social Security no.
  • Education records
  • Court records
  • Workers' compensation
  • Bankruptcy
  • Character references
  • Medical records
  • Property ownership
  • Military records
  • State licensing records
  • Drug test records
  • Past employers
  • Personal references
  • Incarceration records
  • Sex offender lists
IMO, there is certainly the possibility that any employer could perform a background check and find out info that Sidney St Clair Moorer was charged with murder, kidnapping, obstruction of justice, and indecent exposure. A simple Google search will tell you that.

Whether or not they hold any of the charges against him is really up to hiring company. They definitely cannot discriminate against him for any pending charges (or even a conviction under certain circumstances).

My thing is, how many employers actually tell you why they didn't hire you? Slim to none in my experience. They just don't call you back, or give you some generic answer.

I cannot see how Disney (of all places) would overlook any type of murder-related charge (conviction or not). It's not like they couldn't give some other excuse for not hiring him. :moo:

I appreciate your opinion PTF and find your post informative. However, my JMO was from working in HR for county government as well as a private company. I've submitted and received checks through 3 different companies. All have options to search either statewide or nationwide but only return results of crimes individuals have been charged with. The statewide search was less expensive but they were not cheap. For the amount of checks a corporation like Disney would have to run, I can't imagine them doing anything more extensive, JMO, MOO... I also doubt they have time to Google each employee in every department. This being said, I don't think we know for sure if he was even hired by Disney so none of this may matter at all. Personally, I think they should still be in jail, but again, that's JMO.
 
I don't believe Sidney has a job with Disney. The M's have to be hurting for money. Why work for minimum wage when he could make much more doing construction. :waitasec: That doesn't make too much sense to me.
 
IF he's an employee at a DIS company, then there might be significant discounts to visit the park for family... just one possible perk. Again, I'm *not* saying he is an employee. I certainly don't know.
 
IF he's an employee at a DIS company, then there might be significant discounts to visit the park for family... just one possible perk. Again, I'm *not* saying he is an employee. I certainly don't know.

Those discounts won't pay the rent and put food on the table. A single person would have a hard time making ends meet on a cook's wages. The M's are a family of five.
 
I don't believe Sidney has a job with Disney. The M's have to be hurting for money. Why work for minimum wage when he could make much more doing construction. :waitasec: That doesn't make too much sense to me.

I get the feeling SM's family does not think very highly of TM and vice versa. TM said they pretty much cut off communication with SM's family (prior to the HE incident). I wonder if that strained relationship is a reason why SM is not working with his brother. They entertained the idea to get them out of jail, but once they were free TM shot it down and wouldn't let SM go because it would either mean SM is off on his own working in another city or TM goes with him and has to be around her in-laws.
 
Possibly, or perhaps SM never intended to work with his brother in the first place, and only pretended to be interested in that offer. Either way, SM lied to the court and the judge doesn't seem to care.
 
I don't know if I can share the screenshot, but there is a new cast member (CM) listing for SM, direct from the CM portal. CMs can look up other CMs. The job is in Epcot. Many of those restaurants are not Disney owned. They may have their own background check or he could of known someone to help him get the position.

Sent from my A3-A20 using Tapatalk
 
The taunting pictures and posts will happen more frequently over time. They believe they've gotten away with murder. Maybe this move to FL will be the thing that trips her up. If you give TM enough rope, she's going to hang herself. Maybe that's exactly what the state is betting on...
 
I appreciate your opinion PTF and find your post informative. However, my JMO was from working in HR for county government as well as a private company. I've submitted and received checks through 3 different companies. All have options to search either statewide or nationwide but only return results of crimes individuals have been charged with. The statewide search was less expensive but they were not cheap. For the amount of checks a corporation like Disney would have to run, I can't imagine them doing anything more extensive, JMO, MOO... I also doubt they have time to Google each employee in every department. This being said, I don't think we know for sure if he was even hired by Disney so none of this may matter at all. Personally, I think they should still be in jail, but again, that's JMO.
Yeah, it really comes down to how much money a company is willing to pay for a background check. The seasonal positions and turn-over rates could also factor in. Plus, a background check could also be interpreted differently by every single hiring manager.
 
Now that they've moved to Florida, can't they apply for welfare? Fresh start - without the South Carolina record on their backs. Is it a state to state thing?
 
If the restaurant is not Disney owned, it may not do any background check.
It is very possible it is a temporary, or seasonal position for the Food & Wine Festival. They need a lot of people for that event, there is a lot of food and drink kiosks that keep a long line of customers all day long. I would imagine they hire hundreds for this. Some probably get hired on permanently afterwards.

Sent from my A3-A20 using Tapatalk
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
80
Guests online
1,497
Total visitors
1,577

Forum statistics

Threads
606,719
Messages
18,209,386
Members
233,943
Latest member
FindIreneFlemingWAState
Back
Top