Trial date set for Sidney and Tammy Moorer? #2

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

Status
Not open for further replies.
LBDunes said:
I don't know is this just me, but I feel there is something wrong with this. My Horry News is taking a survey about should the charges have been dropped?

http://www.myhorrynews.com/opinion/...l&utm_source=facebook&utm_campaign=user-share
Click to expand...

What I find interesting is the statement that lack of "direct" evidence is the reason for the dismissal. Is this presumptuous reporting coming from last year's bond hearing remarks, or is it the reason given by the state? I thought the state had not yet officially commented on the reason.

If this statement is true, then the circumstantial case for kidnapping can't be any better than it was for murder. A phone log and the presence of the missing person's car at a boat landing are not "direct" evidence either. But perhaps the state believes it has a stronger circumstantial case on kidnapping because of that evidence.
 
I'm sure there are first hand witnesses to events in this relationship(s), maybe numerous. I think also there may be such witness that will come out regarding the kidnapping.
 
TM herself admitted there was a relationship by her foolish remarks early on about SM being in Heather's car. I think everyone understands there was an affair at the very least.

The kidnapping charges hang on the same evidence as the murder charges and I don't see a witness emerging at this late stage to spill the beans on the entire crime. If someone knows about or witnessed the kidnapping - which by the state's own admission could have simply been not allowing her to leave (who knows what that means in this case...she obviously left the landing) - they also know about the murder. I don't see a witness who knows that much, and would likely have participated, having any incentive for helping out the state.

It seems to me that the problem for the state is their claim that the kidnapping occurred at PTL. So when they suggest that she wasn't allowed to leave, yet she's clearly gone...?

This just looks to me like a circle from which the state can't exit.

Even if they now claim a lure by phone is what constitutes a kidnapping, what happened at the landing?
 
jillycat said:
What I find interesting is the statement that lack of "direct" evidence is the reason for the dismissal. Is this presumptuous reporting coming from last year's bond hearing remarks, or is it the reason given by the state? I thought the state had not yet officially commented on the reason.

If this statement is true, then the circumstantial case for kidnapping can't be any better than it was for murder. A phone log and the presence of the missing person's car at a boat landing are not "direct" evidence either. But perhaps the state believes it has a stronger circumstantial case on kidnapping because of that evidence.
Click to expand...


I agree the phone logs and the car being at the landing are not direct evidence of course. I too wonder how the case for kidnapping might be stronger than murder. Could it be simply that they do not have a body? I do wonder also if the reason they did not go with the murder charges is because of the social media circus surrounding the case. I firmly believe the reason for the negative things being said about the E family is to taint the jury. A lot of the comments I have seen seems to be people feel without a body - no murder. Then throw in the outrageous things being said and it seems some people have come to think there is something amiss. Also, the media has been responsible for misreporting things about the case, particularly My Horry News. I know I recall that they reported that the car was at the landing much earlier in the week than was first reported. Then about an hour later they scrubbed the story without explanation. Everyone wondered about it and only after people contacted MHN they explained the reporter got it wrong. The circumstantial evidence to me is strong if you filter out the social media trash. I don't know if they have more evidence, but from what was released, it does point to at least one of them. That may also be the issue. Maybe in the mind of a juror, if they were to be tried together, they might come away thinking they believe the things the prosecution strung together, but they couldn't reconcile if it was both of them. So it may be a good thing they are being tried separately. If you really think about it, the evidence we know so far would really solidly point to SM for certain. I say that even though I believe TM has a part in it. Another thought is maybe a juror couldn't convict a no body case without DNA, but they could see where the strong circumstantial evidence fits and they know one or both of them lured her to that boat landing. I wonder if at the end of the day one of them gets nailed for it and one doesn't.
 
They said they were waiting on that one key piece of evidence before going to trial. Hopefully, they have it and can use it in the kidnapping trial for S. He is the snake that started this mess and it makes me sick seeing him in all of the photos with him smiling with his big teeth. They can point their fingers at TE or anyone else. The fact still remains.....S lied about making the phone call from the pay phone and then changed his story when they had the slithering snake sneaking from out of the bushes on video. He lied to T about the whole affair. First it was 3 times in the back of her car and then he writes it was only a BJ. I hope that maybe somewhere there are some pictures that were taking of S and H while this so called sex and nothing more affair was going on. Both he a T act like the charges are going to be dismissed, but, deep down inside, they have to be a nervous wreck. Love to see them both get convicted of the kidnapping. I hope that LE has that key piece that could put them both where they belong. No more photoshopping. Only orange for you T and S. Then maybe he can wipe that smile off of his face.
 
jillycat said:
If the charges are kidnapping, I can't see how the Court would allow explanations about charges that in the eyes of the Court are not at issue.
Click to expand...
Point taken, but don't you think they will at least have to mention that they believe Heather is deceased but have no evidence to prove she is?
 
LBDunes said:
[/B]

I agree the phone logs and the car being at the landing are not direct evidence of course. I too wonder how the case for kidnapping might be stronger than murder. Could it be simply that they do not have a body? I do wonder also if the reason they did not go with the murder charges is because of the social media circus surrounding the case. I firmly believe the reason for the negative things being said about the E family is to taint the jury. A lot of the comments I have seen seems to be people feel without a body - no murder. Then throw in the outrageous things being said and it seems some people have come to think there is something amiss. Also, the media has been responsible for misreporting things about the case, particularly My Horry News. I know I recall that they reported that the car was at the landing much earlier in the week than was first reported. Then about an hour later they scrubbed the story without explanation. Everyone wondered about it and only after people contacted MHN they explained the reporter got it wrong. The circumstantial evidence to me is strong if you filter out the social media trash. I don't know if they have more evidence, but from what was released, it does point to at least one of them. That may also be the issue. Maybe in the mind of a juror, if they were to be tried together, they might come away thinking they believe the things the prosecution strung together, but they couldn't reconcile if it was both of them. So it may be a good thing they are being tried separately. If you really think about it, the evidence we know so far would really solidly point to SM for certain. I say that even though I believe TM has a part in it. Another thought is maybe a juror couldn't convict a no body case without DNA, but they could see where the strong circumstantial evidence fits and they know one or both of them lured her to that boat landing. I wonder if at the end of the day one of them gets nailed for it and one doesn't.
Click to expand...

I don't think it matters how much in the average person's logical mind that the circumstances that morning point to a crime against Heather perpetrated by the M's. What matters in the end is whether or not the state can string those circumstances together to bear up under the defense strategy and a reasonable doubt standard.

As much as I want to see these two pay for Heather's murder, and though it would never happen I think they should pay with their lives, I think the difference between the public connecting dots and a conviction is a significant one.

The reason for the separate trials may be as simple as SM has an additional charge that potentially supports the more serious charge. There are advantages and disadvantages in joint vs separate trials. Presumably, both sides have a vested interest in which it is based on the specifics of their respective cases.

I've never felt that the lack of a body is an obstacle in itself to conviction, rather, the absence of a body, along with the absence of any evidence of a crime at PTL, or on the M's property is the obstacle.
 
Dixie E said:
They said they were waiting on that one key piece of evidence before going to trial. Hopefully, they have it and can use it in the kidnapping trial for S. He is the snake that started this mess and it makes me sick seeing him in all of the photos with him smiling with his big teeth. They can point their fingers at TE or anyone else. The fact still remains.....S lied about making the phone call from the pay phone and then changed his story when they had the slithering snake sneaking from out of the bushes on video. He lied to T about the whole affair. First it was 3 times in the back of her car and then he writes it was only a BJ. I hope that maybe somewhere there are some pictures that were taking of S and H while this so called sex and nothing more affair was going on. Both he a T act like the charges are going to be dismissed, but, deep down inside, they have to be a nervous wreck. Love to see them both get convicted of the kidnapping. I hope that LE has that key piece that could put them both where they belong. No more photoshopping. Only orange for you T and S. Then maybe he can wipe that smile off of his face.
Click to expand...

BBM:
Dixie E, have you never seen a snake with Chiclets? :snake: :happydance:

:D
 
ZooSleuth said:
Point taken, but don't you think they will at least have to mention that they believe Heather is deceased but have no evidence to prove she is?
Click to expand...

I would think that the court will only allow them to present their kidnapping case under SC's definition of kidnapping. I'm not a lawyer, but I can't imagine that the state can speculate beyond the charges and claim other charges would exist if only they prove them. Even if the court allowed such a direction, a prosecutor would be foolish to make a claim and then say he has no proof for it. JMO
 
Dixie E said:
They said they were waiting on that one key piece of evidence before going to trial. Hopefully, they have it and can use it in the kidnapping trial for S. He is the snake that started this mess and it makes me sick seeing him in all of the photos with him smiling with his big teeth. They can point their fingers at TE or anyone else. The fact still remains.....S lied about making the phone call from the pay phone and then changed his story when they had the slithering snake sneaking from out of the bushes on video. He lied to T about the whole affair. First it was 3 times in the back of her car and then he writes it was only a BJ. I hope that maybe somewhere there are some pictures that were taking of S and H while this so called sex and nothing more affair was going on. Both he a T act like the charges are going to be dismissed, but, deep down inside, they have to be a nervous wreck. Love to see them both get convicted of the kidnapping. I hope that LE has that key piece that could put them both where they belong. No more photoshopping. Only orange for you T and S. Then maybe he can wipe that smile off of his face.
Click to expand...


BBM - He lied before anyone even knew Heather was missing! He lied, because he knew Heather was missing, imo. If they have a some way of proving that TM was in the truck when SM made that call to Heather then his entire made up reason for lieing to police because he "didn't want TM to find out he called Heather" is bunk and that's really strong!
 
jillycat said:
What I find interesting is the statement that lack of "direct" evidence is the reason for the dismissal. Is this presumptuous reporting coming from last year's bond hearing remarks, or is it the reason given by the state? I thought the state had not yet officially commented on the reason.

If this statement is true, then the circumstantial case for kidnapping can't be any better than it was for murder. A phone log and the presence of the missing person's car at a boat landing are not "direct" evidence either. But perhaps the state believes it has a stronger circumstantial case on kidnapping because of that evidence.
Click to expand...

I question the validity of that statement from MHN. There is no official comment yet form the state that I have seen, only the approval to make one. Direct evidence is not a requisite for finding a party guilty of a crime. It certainly helps, but many cases are won without direct evidence. DNA evidence is circumstantial. Lack of evidence in general, not just direct evidence, was the reason for dropping the charges IMO. There's no potential crime scene where the murder took place, no traces of Heather were ever found to prove she's deceased, etc.
 
bestill said:
BBM - He lied before anyone even knew Heather was missing! He lied, because he knew Heather was missing, imo. If they have a some way of proving that TM was in the truck when SM made that call to Heather then his entire made up reason for lieing to police because he "didn't want TM to find out he called Heather" is bunk and that's really strong!
Click to expand...

I'm hoping the jury gives a lot of weight to the fact that they lied to police. We don't even know the extent of how many lies they have been caught in. Hopefully many more than we know of.
 
ZooSleuth said:
I'm hoping the jury gives a lot of weight to the fact that they lied to police. We don't even know the extent of how many lies they have been caught in. Hopefully many more than we know of.
Click to expand...

Just not sure why TM isn't charged with obstructing justice, she's certainly played her part imo, all the crazy fb posts, blaming the Elvis's, bullying the searchers, etc...
 
ZooSleuth said:
I question the validity of that statement from MHN. There is no official comment yet form the state that I have seen, only the approval to make one. Direct evidence is not a requisite for finding a party guilty of a crime. It certainly helps, but many cases are won without direct evidence. DNA evidence is circumstantial. Lack of evidence in general, not just direct evidence, was the reason for dropping the charges IMO. There's no potential crime scene where the murder took place, no traces of Heather were ever found to prove she's deceased, etc.
Click to expand...

The issue of direct evidence came up in the bond hearing. As I said, the state hasn't officially given any reason for the NP to my knowledge. So it seems Horry News should back up its claim.

We've had numerous discussions about types of evidence since the M's were arrested and I don't think anyone believes it has to be direct for a conviction. I've always said that the state's problem is its untenable PTL tale with its narrow timeline and where there's no evidence of a crime.
 
bestill said:
Just not sure why TM isn't charged with obstructing justice, she's certainly played her part imo, all the crazy fb posts, blaming the Elvis's, bullying the searchers, etc...
Click to expand...

SM is charged because they have evidence that he lied. TM's lunacy, however obvious it is that she's in this up to her ears, isn't evidence that she lied about facts known to police about contact with Heather that morning.
 
jillycat said:
the kidnapping - which by the state's own admission could have simply been not allowing her to leave

It seems to me that the problem for the state is their claim that the kidnapping occurred at PTL. So when they suggest that she wasn't allowed to leave, yet she's clearly gone...?
Click to expand...
RSBM: The law doesn't suggest that kidnapping means the victim is never allowed to leave, just that they're not allowed to leave for an unspecified period of time. A story I told a couple weeks ago in the Evidence thread:
At the end of 2014, a man robbed a string of restaurants in and around Murrells Inlet. In one of the robberies, he forced the staff into the walk-in cooler while he robbed the place. Based on forcing them in there and not allowing them to leave, he was charged with kidnapping.
Click to expand...
In this scenario, the robber left and the kidnap victims walked out of the cooler on their own.

So imagine a scenario where Heather was parked at PTL, the Moorers pulled up in their truck and blocked the entrance so she couldn't drive out of the landing. That's kidnapping. Even if Heather had run up the embankment to one of the trailers, and had a resident call the police, the fact that they blocked the entrance so she couldn't drive out of the landing, would constitute the kidnapping. Oh, how I wish that had happened.

My point is that the kidnapping doesn't have to end in a standoff, a recovered body, or a rescue. It can end in the kidnapper(s) taking the victim to another location. It can end in the kidnapper letting the victim go. It can end in the kidnapper leaving, allowing the victim to go on her own. So, the state doesn't have to prove Heather was never allowed to leave PTL. They simply have to prove she was any of the following (for even 5 seconds):

  • unlawfully seized
  • confined
  • inveigled (enticed, lured, or ensnared by flattery or artful talk or inducements)
  • decoyed
  • kidnapped
  • abducted
  • carried away by any means whatsoever without authority of law

I know it's hard to separate the kidnapping and the murder, but the state doesn't have to prove how the kidnapping ended. They only have to prove that it happened.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php
 
Jilly Cat, working off of your statement, " What matters in the end is whether or not the state can string those circumstances together to bear up under the defense strategy and a reasonable doubt standard."

I agree totally with what you said here. The reasonable doubt standard - let's talk about that in the kidnapping charge for SM. The string and the narrative is clear as a bell to me. The only thing that would not be totally clear in SM's case is the motive. The rest of the string and narrative is clear. What has been released in my mind is no doubt that the dots connect from point a to point b. The payphone call, the lie about that, the truck going to PTL, the call to BW, which put a monkey wrench in the payphone call, the clearing of the date, Heather's phone records and the confident assertion that Heather drove her own car to PTL. I would of course have to take into account the defense strategy. I don't know what they would counter with, but one of the main ones would be the black blob. I would have to see the video, but these days video camera quality can be pretty good. It's possible that the quality could be pretty good, but because of the poor lighting on the particular road the image may not be as good as expected? Taking the truck video in isolation I may have reasonable doubt, but because of the time of night the truck was travelling that road coming from the direction of the M's home and the fact many other vehicles of that model were checked out, I would not buy the black blob from the defense. The only question in my mind from what has been released so far is SM's motive. I do think it has a lot to do with TM, but since he is being tried separately that may not come in fully. Without that coming in, the motive that is clear on SM's part is that he lured Heather to PTL. Crime scene or not the last trace of her is where she was lured. Under this scenario I could see the kidnapping charge sticking. JMO
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

DNASolves

Who is DeKalb County John Doe (2022)?

Members online

... and 132 more.
Total: 2,068 (members: 133, guests: 1,935)

Online statistics

Members online
133
Guests online
1,935
Total visitors
2,068
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
602,029
Messages
18,133,529
Members
231,213
Latest member
kellieshoes
Back
Top