MISTRIAL - Sidney Moorer on trial for the kidnapping of Heather Elvis #5

[Madeleine74]

I understand that BUT I was thinking from the way it was laid out, that the phone call was the LURE in the kidnapping charge.

Yes true. It was in the phone call that SM established contact with Heather that night/morning, allegedly letting her know he missed her and wanted to be with her. We know the phone call did happen, we know the time, and we know he made it from that pay phone. We know it occurred after her date with SS ended and we know she was at home in her apartment when the phone call came in. We know they spoke almost 5 minutes.

However, if you think what Heather told Bri about the phone call is not true, then there's nothing that is going to be persuasive. Heather's actions after the phone call (the going out and eventually meeting up with someone and then never being seen again) implies her action was as a result of her contact with SM through that first phone call.

 

[TTF14]

Yes true. It was in the phone call that SM established contact with Heather that night/morning, allegedly letting her know he missed her and wanted to be with her. We know the phone call did happen, we know the time, and we know he made it from that pay phone. We know it occurred after her date with SS ended and we know she was at home in her apartment when the phone call came in. We know they spoke almost 5 minutes.

However, if you think what Heather told Bri about the phone call is not true, then there's nothing that is going to be persuasive. Heather's actions after the phone call (the going out and eventually meeting up with someone and then never being seen again) implies her action was as a result of her contact with SM through that first phone call.

And hence, her fate.

 

[barcode]

Yes true. It was in the phone call that SM established contact with Heather that night/morning, allegedly letting her know he missed her and wanted to be with her. We know the phone call did happen, we know the time, and we know he made it from that pay phone.

However, if you think what Heather told Bri about the phone call is not true, then there's nothing that is going to be persuasive. Heather's actions after the phone call (the going out and eventually meeting up with someone and then never being seen again) implies her action was as a result of her contact with SM through that first phone call.

BBM Which I can agree with that, what I can not agree on is pre-meditation from time of phone call, perhaps the call was like that of many other calls between the two, but something escalated when they met in person, whether that be pushing HE to take a PT or anything else.

 

[Madeleine74]

BBM Which I can agree with that, what I can not agree on is pre-meditation from time of phone call, perhaps the call was like that of many other calls between the two, but something escalated when they met in person, whether that be pushing HE to take a PT or anything else.

You're thinking of "pre-planning" which is actually different than "premeditation." Premeditation is the legal standard and that can be proved when 2 or more people come in contact and a conscious determination is made by 1 or more of them that the other(s) needs to be kidnapped (or murdered). It can literally take place in a matter of seconds between thought and action. Pre-planning a crime never has to be proved, although if there is evidence of it, it's icing on the cake.

One element of kidnapping is the 'luring' (aka inveigling) and the phone call to Heather is certainly indicative of that. There are other elements of kidnapping that can also be applied. One can say that it was that phone call that persuaded Heather to leave her apartment that early morning and thus began a chain of events that ended in her disappearance. If someone is attempting to lure someone else out and into a trap of some sort, their behavior would be both purposeful (they mean to do it)/pre-planning and premeditated (they got them in their trap and kept going, knowing they intended to do what they were doing regardless of outcome).

 

[stillwatersc]

Can you do that with no body or evidence proving she's dead? I really wish the Elvis family could do something to shut them up. I've never seen such outrageous behaviour. You would think they would be quiet as a church mouse and grateful to have more time to be with their family. They don't even know what the state is going to do and they are acting like psycho's on social media, unless maybe they do know what the state is planning and that set the recent firestorm off.

For once, they are not acting.

 

[atthelake]

Sitting at the bar then patio at Longbeards. ;-) Wonder if I should play some pool and ask the two guys playing questions? The bartender knows one of the jurors that is a schoolteacher but hasn't talked to him since the trial. She said she would be talking to him in July.

Signs on the doors say" concealed weapon permit holders are welcome in these premises "

 

[stillwatersc]

Angie Pipkin's murder trial had a change of venue!

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...-32-Aynor-17-Jan-2014&p=12664136#post12664136

http://wpde.com/news/local/trial-date-set-for-man-accused-of-killing-angie-pipkin

Randy Gale Robinson's case is slated to be in court starting the week of Nov. 14, 2016.
The 16th Circuit Solicitor's Office, which covers York and Union counties, will handle the case after a conflict of interest locally.

 

[Dixie E]

I was wondering if they have any video footage from the resturant`s parking lot that HE and SS were at together to see if maybe SMs truck was around there. It seems like they may have been followed.

 

[nerdgirl]

Sitting at the bar then patio at Longbeards. ;-) Wonder if I should play some pool and ask the two guys playing questions? The bartender knows one of the jurors that is a schoolteacher but hasn't talked to him since the trial. She said she would be talking to him in July.

Signs on the doors say" concealed weapon permit holders are welcome in these premises "

do you see any surveillance cameras?

 

[jillycat]

Sitting at the bar then patio at Longbeards. ;-) Wonder if I should play some pool and ask the two guys playing questions? The bartender knows one of the jurors that is a schoolteacher but hasn't talked to him since the trial. She said she would be talking to him in July.

Signs on the doors say" concealed weapon permit holders are welcome in these premises "

I'd like a better understanding of where the roadway/retention pond ( I think that was the reference...I thought I'd heard RR tracks but I believe it was roadway) area is in proximity to the restaurant and dumpster area if that's possible.

 

[LBDunes]

I guess I just don't see all the conspiracy at every turn to set the M's free. There will probably be a new trial. I doubt that KT is excited about that, and there's always a risk when you put something before a jury, and I don't know if a mistrial is a gift in a case where 10 people wanted him convicted.

Or the state could surprise us and pack it in. I just think both sides have obstacles and this probably could have been resolved far sooner with different approaches. I also think it can't be a morale booster for the state to have lost out on so many points and charges with its resume now including a nolle pros and a mistrial.

But I think the state can't reasonably just dump this case and let the M's walk, so maybe it will come up with a new and better strategy.

What would the new and better strategy entail?

 

[jillycat]

[/B]

What would the new and better strategy entail?

No idea, it just seems they might want to have one. For starters, I think the pregnancy test/creepin around theory is just that - a theory. People can also rationally reason that this was a guy who called a former lover and that alone isn't a kidnapping mission, particularly when TM is in the mix with her woman scorned rage and texting theater, and there's witness testimony of Heather's fear of her and lack of fear of SM. There's a difference between a theory of luring based on a call and a disappearance, and evidence of a luring linked to a crime scene that has evidence of a crime. It's reasonable to see SM in the mix, but I can see how a jury can't unanimously conclude that the dots all equal SM kidnapping her for essentially a second kidnapping that led to murder. I realize murder isn't on the table but, seriously, she's gone. So, it's a case of something escalated in a meeting, or, there was plan to grab and kill her. I don't know if that ever gets clear in a deliberation concerning SM's behavior.

I think a kidnapping charge (in this case) with no murder charge is almost harder than murder. I recall we had discussion here about a kidnapping not quite hitting the mark with a jury because it's not tied to an endgame, essentially. So, SM might have been a guy who decided to resume a previous arrangement, and got wrapped around the rest of the crime, but the latter isn't necessarily enough to convict him of kidnapping ala luring because he lied to cover up something larger that involves another person.

 

[TTF14]

No idea, it just seems they might want to have one. For starters, I think the pregnancy test/creepin around theory is just that - a theory. People can also rationally reason that this was a guy who called a former lover and that alone isn't a kidnapping mission, particularly when TM is in the mix with her woman scorned rage and texting theater, and there's witness testimony of Heather's fear of her and lack of fear of SM. There's a difference between a theory of luring based on a call and a disappearance, and evidence of a luring linked to a crime scene that has evidence of a crime. It's reasonable to see SM in the mix, but I can see how a jury can't unanimously conclude that the dots all equal SM kidnapping her for essentially a second kidnapping that led to murder. I realize murder isn't on the table but, seriously, she's gone. So, it's a case of something escalated in a meeting, or, there was plan to grab and kill her. I don't know if that ever gets clear in a deliberation concerning SM's behavior.

I think a kidnapping charge (in this case) with no murder charge is almost harder than murder. I recall we had discussion here about a kidnapping not quite hitting the mark with a jury because it's not tied to an endgame, essentially. So, SM might have been a guy who decided to resume a previous arrangement, and got wrapped around the rest of the crime, but the latter isn't necessarily enough to convict him of kidnapping ala luring because he lied to cover up something larger that involves another person.

I really wish we knew when the data disappeared from the module. Was it disabled before-hand or deleted after the fact?

 

[jillycat]

I really wish we knew when the data disappeared from the module. Was it disabled before-hand or deleted after the fact?

I think that's a great question.

 

[LBDunes]

No idea, it just seems they might want to have one. For starters, I think the pregnancy test/creepin around theory is just that - a theory. People can also rationally reason that this was a guy who called a former lover and that alone isn't a kidnapping mission, particularly when TM is in the mix with her woman scorned rage and texting theater, and there's witness testimony of Heather's fear of her and lack of fear of SM. There's a difference between a theory of luring based on a call and a disappearance, and evidence of a luring linked to a crime scene that has evidence of a crime. It's reasonable to see SM in the mix, but I can see how a jury can't unanimously conclude that the dots all equal SM kidnapping her for essentially a second kidnapping that led to murder. I realize murder isn't on the table but, seriously, she's gone. So, it's a case of something escalated in a meeting, or, there was plan to grab and kill her. I don't know if that ever gets clear in a deliberation concerning SM's behavior.

I think a kidnapping charge (in this case) with no murder charge is almost harder than murder. I recall we had discussion here about a kidnapping not quite hitting the mark with a jury because it's not tied to an endgame, essentially. So, SM might have been a guy who decided to resume a previous arrangement, and got wrapped around the rest of the crime, but the latter isn't necessarily enough to convict him of kidnapping ala luring because he lied to cover up something larger that involves another person.

If you turn this around some of the things you said about luring and end games some of the people on the jury got. The statute for the kidnapping charge in SC has a number of prongs if you will. When initially I heard about the kidnapping charge in relation to PTL I had a hard time understanding it myself. So, if they retry SM maybe they can frame the argument better to drive home that the luring does meet the kidnapping charge. Other than that, the things you cited about the raging wife, while true, won't be emphasized, if SM is again retried.

 

[poppygirl]

How is the jury tainted?

Friend of Truslows, the defense atty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jillycat]

If you turn this around some of the things you said about luring and end games some of the people on the jury got. The statute for the kidnapping charge in SC has a number of prongs if you will. When initially I heard about the kidnapping charge in relation to PTL I had a hard time understanding it myself. So, if they retry SM maybe they can frame the argument better to drive home that the luring does meet the kidnapping charge. Other than that, the things you cited about the raging wife, while true, won't be emphasized, if SM is again retried.

I have no idea what will be emphasized, but in discussing how a jury could have problems with the luring part, I think that in light of what was said about all the relationship dynamics (that include TM), I can see how a jury can reason that none of this points to proof of a kidnapping by SM. Even the state said she hopped into a vehicle because it was someone she knew, or thought she knew. And then....who knows.

 

[jillycat]

Friend of Truslows, the defense atty.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And he voted how?

 

[poppygirl]

And he voted how?

Doesn't matter. We're not privy to deliberations. He could've cast doubt despite his vote, which is rumored to have been not guilty. Regardless, He never should've been seated. My Opinion.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LBDunes]

I have no idea what will be emphasized, but in discussing how a jury could have problems with the luring part, I think that in light of what was said about all the relationship dynamics (that include TM), I can see how a jury can reason that none of this points to proof of a kidnapping by SM. Even the state said she hopped into a vehicle because it was someone she knew, or thought she knew. And then....who knows.

You don't think it's a possibility they didn't understand the statute?