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

[jillycat]

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

It doesn't matter how he voted, but he tainted the jury?

I'm sorry to see rumor driving this train.

My opinion before the verdict was that he never should have been seated because if there not a conviction, it would be said that there was a conspiracy or corruption.

 

[poppygirl]

It doesn't matter how he voted, but he tainted the jury?

I'm sorry to see rumor driving this train.

My opinion before the verdict was that he never should have been seated because if there not a conviction, it would be said that there was a conspiracy or corruption.

Then it sounds like we agree. He should've never been seated.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jillycat]

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

I can't speculate on what they understood but understanding the statute and believing that we can know SM called her to lure her to a greater fate are very different.

I think if all men who call former lovers for a meeting are convicted of a kidnapping lure, we're going to have build more jails.

 

[jillycat]

Then it sounds like we agree. He should've never been seated.




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, we do not agree that a conclusion that the jury was tainted based on the presence of this person, no matter how he voted, is a reasonable conclusion.

 

[LBDunes]

I can't speculate on what they understood but understanding the statute and believing that we can know SM called her to lure her to a greater fate are very different.

I think if all men who call former lovers for a meeting are convicted of a kidnapping lure, we're going to have build more jails.

If the end game result is that their lover disappears from the face of the earth then those former lovers should be in jail. So you don't agree with the provision in the statute?

 

[jillycat]

[/B]

If the end game result is that their lover disappears from the face of the earth then those former lovers should be in jail. So you don't agree with the provision in the statute?

And let's not even have trials. Can't we just send them to jail on the basis of 'he called' and 'she's gone'?

No, because I don't think his call was proven to be a lure, or that there is room for reasonable doubt (for reasons I've already stated), it does not follow that I reject the provision in the state statute.

 

[Meemaw12]

I can't prove it but there is no doubt in my mind it was pre-planned. SM just happens to call HE after she had a date. After no contact for over a month. No way. I still say someone who knew HE told SM and or TM HE was going on a date that evening. Maybe innocently but the Ms knew.

SM and TM go cross country on a vaca and still are talking about HE, SM said they talked, cried, TM slapped him, he didn't slap her back in the car during the trip. TM was not going to let it go, forgive and move on.

The first chance they got they killed her. IMO it was that night thinking the new guy would be blamed. Their hands are clean. Even down to using a pay phone to hide involvement.

Up to their ears in this

Do I have it right TM???

IMO




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[barcode]

. After no contact for over a month.

I do not buy the no contact for over a month, I do buy no contact that we know of.

 

[poppygirl]

No, we do not agree that a conclusion that the jury was tainted based on the presence of this person, no matter how he voted, is a reasonable conclusion.

Then we agree to disagree lol.

I've deliberated with a jury. You can play devil's advocate, really make any argument you want and vote a different way. You see it right on this discussion board. So yes, Truslow's plant could've made NG arguments and then voted guilty.

IMO, he should've never been seated.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nerdgirl]

I'm kind of not sure what we are debating.

Regardless of how he/she voted, the fact that there was a juror that could be biased due to the fact that he/she was an acquaintance/friend of one of the solictors/lawyers/attorneys raises questions about the outcome, no matter what it is. I would think that extreme care would have been taken to avoid having a juror that might be biased, but I guess not. IMO.

 

[Meemaw12]

I do not buy the no contact for over a month, I do buy no contact that we know of.

According to testimony

They were gone at least from (not sure when they left)

11-23 NM
11-23 AZ
11-24 to 11-27 LV
11-29 CA
12-6 TX
12-7 TN
12-10 to 12-11 GA

Nothing on HE cell from them during that time iirc.

Home for a week when HE went missing.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[TTF14]

I'm kind of not sure what we are debating.

Regardless of how he/she voted, the fact that there was a juror that could be biased due to the fact that he/she was an acquaintance/friend of one of the solictors/lawyers/attorneys raises questions about the outcome, no matter what it is. I would think that extreme care would have been taken to avoid having a juror that might be biased, but I guess not. IMO.

My thoughts exactly. I have no idea how he voted but that does not change the fact that he should have been excused. It certainly doesn't prove that friends of those involved should be allowed on juries.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[bestill]

How can you have a civil wrongful death suit with no body? With OJ there was a body and it was clearly murder.

The Elvis's can't even declare her dead for seven years from her disappearance. How can those two have gotten away with this? I'm so disgusted. Not only did he take advantage of a naive young woman, she just went poof - like the home surveillance, her family has been taunted by the M's and our community has been drawn into their self created drama! It's unbelievable.

 

[lovinlife83]

The judge alluded to there being enough proof for a civil suit, didn't he?

 

[nerdgirl]

The judge alluded to there being enough proof for a civil suit, didn't he?

I think you are correct. was trying to find it earlier.

 

[LBDunes]

How can you have a civil wrongful death suit with no body? With OJ there was a body and it was clearly murder.

The Elvis's can't even declare her dead for seven years from her disappearance. How can those two have gotten away with this? I'm so disgusted. Not only did he take advantage of a naive young woman, she just went poof - like the home surveillance, her family has been taunted by the M's and our community has been drawn into their self created drama! It's unbelievable.

I agree, it doesn't seem like you could have a civil case w/o a body, but there definitely have been murder cases with no bodies that have resulted in convictions. That is why I asked earlier about some talking head or lawyer supposedly on WMBF saying they should file a civil case. I guess that may have been a rumor too? I looked at the WMBF site online and didn't see anything about it. I was curious to see if that was said what was the reasoning behind it.

 

[poppygirl]

I think you are correct. was trying to find it earlier.

I think it was in response to the defense atty's motion for a directed verdict.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[LBDunes]

The judge alluded to there being enough proof for a civil suit, didn't he?

I think he said something alluding to that. The standard in a civil suit is lower. It's a preponderance of evidence, vs. reasonable doubt in a criminal case.

 

[TTF14]

I do not buy the no contact for over a month, I do buy no contact that we know of.

I do. He was traveling with his controlling wife, and living in a camper. They were never apart. She probably even frisked him when he went into a public restroom! I don't think he had any way to contact her. Now, when he got back? Maybe.

 

[jillycat]

I would think that whether or not the Elvis family 'should' file a civil suit hangs on whether or not they desire to and then have the financial resources and emotional strength to go through a civil trial. They should be prepared to hear a lot of less than flattering testimony about Heather and their home life because that's where the atty for SM/TM will head, and with far more rope than a criminal court would allow.

Certainly if they believe in the merits of a civil trial and choose that as a remedy and road to justice for Heather, they should file suit. But they and their daughter will be dragged through the mud mill because that's how these suits roll. And, since the M's have no significant resources, they will never see a dime in damages, whatever that means in the context of the loss of a precious child. JMO