MISTRIAL - Sidney Moorer on trial for the kidnapping of Heather Elvis #4

[NFYIAMY]

I know this is verdict watch thread - but I didn't get a chance to post in those before they closed.

I am wondering about theses calls:

22 calls to Sidney from Heather in November. Drastically less than previous months.

39 calls to Heather from Sidney in November.

6 to Sidney from Heather in December. None from Sidney.

I wonder if the November calls from Heather could have been the "I'm late - I might be pregnant" calls - then the 6 to Sydney (and the notes she left) - was after she got a pregnancy test that wasn't "Error" ----

I can't find the dates they said she did the pregnancy test at Tilted Kilt.

Would that timeline match up: She is late -------> She has gained weight in body and chest

Hope what I typed makes sense


IS there a timeline of those events anywhere? Or based on just those things?

 

[Tulessa]

Got a feeling he's gonna walk.

 

[concernedmother]

Wouldnt it be something if he walks and she is found guilty? Maybe why SM allowed her to be thrown under the bus? So she could take the wrap?

 

[concernedmother]

I doubt there will even be a verdict today if the jurors are that confused.

 

[barcode]

Got a feeling he's gonna walk.

If it does not come back before noon, I am sure he will be walking. I was not pleased with the closing by the pros.

 

[nerdgirl]

I doubt there will even be a verdict today if the jurors are that confused.

I am with you.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[NFYIAMY]

I have another question (SORRY) I'm sure it's been discussed but I've searched and can't find anything with details:

What is the deal with a friend of Truslow being on jury - and I thought I heard there was an attorney on the jury?

Attorneys/Lawyers shouldn't be able to be jurors (IMO) :banghead:

 

[TTF14]

I know this is verdict watch thread - but I didn't get a chance to post in those before they closed.

I am wondering about theses calls:

22 calls to Sidney from Heather in November. Drastically less than previous months.

39 calls to Heather from Sidney in November.

6 to Sidney from Heather in December. None from Sidney.

I wonder if the November calls from Heather could have been the "I'm late - I might be pregnant" calls - then the 6 to Sydney (and the notes she left) - was after she got a pregnancy test that wasn't "Error" ----

I can't find the dates they said she did the pregnancy test at Tilted Kilt.

Would that timeline match up: She is late -------> She has gained weight in body and chest

Hope what I typed makes sense


IS there a timeline of those events anywhere? Or based on just those things?

All six calls from HE to SM in December were in the early morning hours of the 18th, AFTER he initiated contact with her from the pay phone.

 

[rob]

I have confidence in SC juries. I think they will find him guilty. I hope so, anyway.
All MOO

 

[TTF14]

If it does not come back before noon, I am sure he will be walking. I was not pleased with the closing by the pros.

I remember from OJ's trial that a quick verdict is usually not guilty and a longer verdict is more often guilty, but I do not know how accurate that is.

 

[barcode]

All six calls from HE to SM in December were in the early morning hours of the 18th, AFTER he initiated contact with her from the pay phone.

Why would it not be 16?

 

[TTF14]

Why would it not be 16?

Do you mean because of calls to the pay phone? I was not counting those. But, regardless, my point was that they were all that night, and not before he contacted her first.

 

[waltzingmatilda]

One recent sleepless night I turned on the ID channel. I can't recall if it was Dateline or 20/20 but it was a murder case with only circumstantial evidence. The prosecuter discussed how difficult it is to prove a case on circumstantial evidence. He said the main thing for juries to remember when the defense offers an illogical theory is "Is this possible? " And when the Prosecution offerers a theory is "Is this reasonable". This particular case had a guilty verdict. I hope this jury asks these two questions of themselves during deliberations.

Is it possible someone else was driving SM's truck around in the middle of the night...TM. the neighbor kid who smoked weed, Polly? Yes. Is it reasonable since SM was the one seen on camera at two locations and creeping about in the middle of the night that any one else was drivng his truck? NO!

I hope the jury gets it!

 

[bestill]

Erin MacPherson ‏@ErinWPDE [video=twitter;746350847014150144]https://twitter.com/ErinWPDE/status/746350847014150144[/video]
Moorer family just got on the elevator. They're leaving the third floor of the courthouse. #MoorerTrial

 

[magnolia]

I doubt there will even be a verdict today if the jurors are that confused.

I would imagine this case would be overwhelmingly confusing for any Juror.

 

[barcode]

I remember from OJ's trial that a quick verdict is usually not guilty and a longer verdict is more often guilty, but I do not know how accurate that is.

This one has to be unanimous, can not recall if that was so with OJ I have a hard time seeing all twelve jurors saying guilty bard based on what I saw BUT I only saw last day.

 

[Makaroni]

Congratulations to you and your partner for tomorrow I hope you have many more happy anniversarys to come.

Thank you so much!

 

[atthelake]

Pretty sure the reason they wanted the list of evidence was so they could quickly find what they were looking for. If you have a pile of evidence with only numbers you're having to cross reference everything. Why can't they get the list?

I have been shocked at many trials I have followed that they will not give them a list. Perhaps it is because it would take too long to come to agreement on the description for every exhibit between the prosecutor and the defense attorney?

:dunno: but if I recall correctly it has happened previously in trials

 

[escape2sc]

I hope the jury concentrates on the 4 minute phone call between Heather and Sidney's phone at 3:17 . After that phone call , Heather immediately drives to PTL and within minutes of her disappearing the truck is on the videos. I hope they realize Heather would not of talked to Tammy for 4 minutes , it had to be Sidney. Heather would NEVER of agreed to meet Tammy , it had to be Sidney she was meeting. And I hope all the jurors have daughters !

 

[NFYIAMY]

FWIW I've been on juries in Horry Co. -----I think I understand what's going on in that jury room. I went and looked (I kept all my notes to the judge from a very long trial I sat on and was foreman)......and that reminded me of a lot of things.

1st - My guess is that they did an initial annyomous vote (yes/no) on paper put in a bowl or something - then opened and tallied. From there - they started discussing the why's and why not's. Someone on the jury (or more) doesn't understand the judges instructions or is asking about each of those things..... The case I started on was fairly evenly split 6 guilty and 4 not guilty. It took us days to reach a verdict --- and I can promise you it wasn't as serious a case as this one. If I remember correctly it took as many days as the trial lasted for us, the jury, to come to a verdict (For whatever that's worth - it's different all the time).

My first note to the judge (and I think that may have been in this trial, too) was if we could have notepads and pens to use during the trial. In our case - the judge did not allow us to have those things - basically for the same reason this judge was hesitant - that if we were writing a note - we might miss something more important.

Our jury sent at least 3 notes to the judge that we believed we were hopelessly deadlocked. When you send the judge a note that doesn't require the jury to come back into the courtroom (and deadlocked ones didn't) - he would write back to us on the same piece of paper - and basically said all three times: Keep working on it.

Just a little insight.

Also - I hope that whoever the jury foreman is understands things like if any juror had made ANY comment - even if it was about the shoes the solicitor was wearing - that probably should go to the judge. One of the hold outs in the case I just described had made a comment about the defendant "not wearing socks with his dress shoes and how stupid that looked". Had I known then - what I know now - I would have let the judge know about that as it clearly showed prejudgment - that when we finally go to deliberate for a verdict came out strong - those shoes with no socks made him simply not like the guy - and it took us days of going over evidence and insisting that he somehow prove why he was voting guilty before we were able to move past his objection and guilty verdict.