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

[NFYIAMY]

...he started the chain of events.

(bolded by me)

Jilly - THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT WORDS. In our instructions (the written ones that just like this jury - we asked for as well -- it was CLEAR that guilty vs not guilty basically meant "Did this person start the chain of events that lead to......."

THOSE words are what kept us going and going for days. Trying to establish if the person in our trial started the chain of events.



[/B]

 

[TTF14]

And then there's this: The jury saw surveillance video of Sidney at Wal-Mart purchasing a pregnancy test, about 20 minutes prior to calling Heather from the pay phone.

I still think her calls to him before Dec were because she thought she was pregnant - then in Dec was because she KNEW she was pregnant. Maybe SM bought the pregnancy test to her (home or PTL depending on your theory of if HE was who drove her car to PTL or not) - so they could "see the answer together"? There's a thought. Maybe she drove around because SM told her - "I'll go get a test - then I'll meet you at PTL" and so HE was driving around because she DIDN'T want to be down there in the dark by herself waiting for him (gut instinct maybe?) Ahhhh... Just yet another way to look at this situation.

WHERE IS HEATHER? That's the answer everyone wants - guilty or not guilty. Where is she?

BBM. But, she didn't call him in December until that night (morning) after he called HER from the payphone.

 

[TTF14]

(bolded by me)

Jilly - THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT WORDS. In our instructions (the written ones that just like this jury - we asked for as well -- it was CLEAR that guilty vs not guilty basically meant "Did this person start the chain of events that lead to......."

THOSE words are what kept us going and going for days. Trying to establish if the person in our trial started the chain of events.



[/B]

Curious - what was the trial about?

 

[nerdgirl]

I completely agree with you, another poster upstream posted that he may have suggested meeting at the restaurant therefore HE going there and then going to PTL when SM did not show at the restaurant. While I agree that this is a likely situation, it almost but for sure throws the kidnapping out for all those who are focused on the one payphone call to lure. If he invited her to the restaurant and ultimately things escalated at PTL, say in the heat of passion/argument/whatever.

According to Google, this restaurant closes at 12 AM. Maybe he told her he was working there?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[lstiff]

[/B]

BBM - LOL I have reasonable doubt you know the M's are behind this. :thinking:

Ouch. I know it's not popular and most of us here have an advantage of over 2 years to form opinions and emotional attachments but from a trial standpoint, I and a few others agree with Jillycat about the court case presented. We don't have to all agree on our opinion, we aren't the jury.

IMO

 

[New2MB]

Something that is really bothering me is how he knew when to call her. I think someone mentioned it a few pages ago, if he was at Walmart, how would he know she was home at 1:35? Unless someone else was watching her.
A crime of passion is horrendous enough, but a crime that seems to be premeditated is just more than most people can even fathom.

 

[Surfside]

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:

BUMP

Hoppy asked this morning and I was really hoping she would get a response to this. I've seen a few passing comments about KT having a friend on the jury, but I had to miss the first couple days of the trial. Can anyone fill us in on where this came from? PLEASE????

 

[geevee]

About the foreman - on day 1 the judge told the jurors there was a particular juror seat for the foreperson (and some other stuff I can't recall, he's so long-winded), at the beginning of day 3 he spoke to one juror by name and said that he'd noticed he was sitting in the foreperson seat the past 2 days and that juror said the jury kinda elected or selected him as the foreman, I understand this is the same fellow that stated he was a friend of the defense attny but promised the judge he could be unbiased and over objection of the prosecution team he was seated as a juror.

Jury selection went so quickly it doesn't seem they did individual questioning with each side allowed a specific amount of strikes, maybe that's SC law or just the way this judge handles jury selection, no clue. As we've seen, he didn't read jury instructions as nearly every other judge in the land does but adlibbed it, causing the sort of confusion we've seen so far this morning (and continuing the confusion with his storytelling after they asked their roster of questions). At the moment I think a hung jury would be a victory for the prosecution, at least they'll be able to try him again.

 

[LBDunes]

Ouch. I know it's not popular and most of us here have an advantage of over 2 years to form opinions and emotional attachments but from a trial standpoint, I and a few others agree with Jillycat about the court case presented. We don't have to all agree on our opinion, we aren't the jury.

IMO

I meant that in the most lighthearted way. Sorry if that offended you or was taken to be mean spirited. That was not my intention at all. Apologies to Jillycat if she thought it was anything but lighthearted as well.

 

[NWLady]

IMO, the main thing that will make the jurors find him not guilty is because it has not been proven that it was SM in the truck. And I wish the State/Prosecutor in closing argument when she was talking about decoying would have made the statement to jurors something along the line of for example "even if you have doubt that it was SM in the truck, he can still be found guilty of kidnapping because he/SM is the one who decoyed/LURED Heather out that night" (and maybe State did put it that way, I can not remember though specifically hearing it said that IF there was any doubt that SM was in the truck, he can still be guilty of the kidnapping).

JMO, I definitely 100% feel SM is guilty and also TM is as well!!! So sad it is.

 

[barcode]

If it is not complex enough yet. I could easily find SM guilty of 2nd degree murder but the kidnapping not so sure.

 

[Delta Dawn]

BBM. But, she didn't call him in December until that night (morning) after he called HER from the payphone.

Maybe there is one of the tiny little nuggets of truth? Not necessarily her placing notes on his truck, but that she got a message to him somehow that said she really thought she was pregnant and needed to speak to him.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[nerdgirl]

According to Google, this restaurant closes at 12 AM. Maybe he told her he was working there?

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Also, IMO, the point is not "where" he lured, decoyed, inveigled her to, it is the fact that he did it, and now she is gone. It was his call to her saying that he wanted to be with her and was leaving his wife that persuaded her to leave her home, where she was safe.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

 

[PeterThomasFan]

Alright! Who put on the Mickey Mouse movie? :notgood:

 

[NWLady]

(bolded by me)

Jilly - THOSE ARE VERY IMPORTANT WORDS. In our instructions (the written ones that just like this jury - we asked for as well -- it was CLEAR that guilty vs not guilty basically meant "Did this person start the chain of events that lead to......."

THOSE words are what kept us going and going for days. Trying to establish if the person in our trial started the chain of events.



[/B]

Thank you. I wish the Prosecutor/State would have worded it that way and/or I hope that is in the jury instructions somewhere for these jurors on this case!

 

[Dogface]

Alright! Who put on the Mickey Mouse movie? :notgood:

Is that really up there? :thud:

 

[Surfside]

Alright! Who put on the Mickey Mouse movie? :notgood:

HA! Nah ah.

 

[TTF14]

Also, IMO, the point is not "where" he lured, decoyed, inveigled her to, it is the fact that he did it, and now she is gone. It was his call to her saying that he wanted to be with her and was leaving his wife that persuaded her to leave her home, where she was safe.

Sent from my Nexus 7 using Tapatalk

Right. While I'm curious about her movements, Longbeards, etc., it doesn't change the fact they HE lured her and HIS truck was seen.

 

[Meemaw12]

Well its Friday jury will come back with a verdict or hung by 5:30. Won't want to return Monday.

Nature of juries

IMO



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[kimi_SFC]

Alright! Who put on the Mickey Mouse movie? :notgood:

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk