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

[nerdgirl]

What would a full-baked kidnapping charge look like?

Let's say Heather was contacted from a phone number she did not recognize and because that number was not blocked and she didn't know who was calling, she picked up. She's kind of naive (maybe just a dumb kid). She's encouraged to come out. She was more than willing to see SM so heck, why not. She thought whatever he told her about why he was calling her at 1:35am was the truth and she trusted him.

Let's say SM really wasn't going to leave his wife but maybe Heather thought he was. So that's a false pretense. SM picks her up in the truck and is able to get her to turn off her phone (or he takes the phone and turns it off). Either way... we know the phone is off, never to ping to a tower again. At that point is Heather trapped? Was she in a trap but just didn't know it yet? Is anyone else in the truck or just the 2 of them? She must have gotten in willingly, yes? If no, then it was by force. Kidnapping, right?

So she's in the truck willingly and then something happens to Heather. Something that made the M's feel it was time to get rid of the security DVR in their home that would have been able to capture something happening that very night. And 2 (or 3) days after that rendezvous they replaced the older DVR that was in existence on Dec 18 2013 with a new DVR. Moved the monitor, put up a picture on the wall... it's a different system.

And for some reason that new black truck, a truck that has the technical capability of showing exactly where it went on its journeys, manages to (oops) not have any data to show where it was traveling that Dec 18 2013.

Of course this is all very innocent. New security systems are no big deal and SYNC modules on trucks...pffft. Whatever. Can't read anything into that!

So Heather has disappeared. No one intended anything in advance. It was all very innocent... until.... someone made the decision to harm Heather. Heather was not protected. Heather ended up in a trap, a trap where harm befell her. It was only a few minutes...nay... maybe only mere seconds that someone made a decision that ensured Heather would never be seen or heard from again.

And yet... a decision was made at some point. Heather was not free to leave and was not returned safely back to where she was picked up.

*** do not forget that the geolocation data settings that had been turned on for photographs on SM's IPhone was turned off on 12/11/2013, before returning to Horry County from a trip to CA., although, I guess that does not fit into this scenario....

 

[Madeleine74]

*** do not forget that the geolocation data settings that had been turned on for photographs on SM's IPhone was turned off on 12/11/2013, before returning to Horry County from a trip to CA.

Oh ... that can't be anything to imply a plan of any sort. Nahh. It's all very innocent. People are just trying to make stuff up! right?

 

[nerdgirl]

Oh ... that can't be anything to imply a plan of any sort. Nahh. It's all very innocent. People are just trying to make stuff up! right?

I was slow to catch on. turning off of location services on the IPhone was on 12/11/2013.

But lying about calling HE from a payphone was after 12/18/2013.

oh, payphones are still around?

 

[Surfside]

Why hide your truck, when you know the camera is going to capture an image of you face?

As many times as I've watched that video, I have yet to see his face. Could you please steer me to that point in the video? TIA.

 

[Madeleine74]

I was slow to catch on. turning off of location services on the IPhone was on 12/11/2013.

But lying about calling HE from a payphone was after 12/18/2013.

oh, payphones are still around?

Well that too is innocent. I mean what can that possibly mean other than nothing? Sid must have been confused when they asked him about calls that night/morning. It was a trick from the state and that's not fair. Besides, what would be the point of making a call from a pay phone? Everyone knows they'll be on camera sooo... :drumroll:

 

[TTF14]

Well that too is innocent. I mean what can that possibly mean other than nothing? What would be the point of making a call from a pay phone. Everyone knows they'll be on camera sooo...

So make sure to not look at the camera! 😊

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

 

[Madeleine74]

So make sure to not look at the camera! 

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

What camera? They still make pay phones? :thinking:

 

[jillycat]

Wha would a full-baked kidnapping charge look like?

Let's say Heather was contacted from a phone number she did not recognize and because that number was not blocked and she didn't know who was calling, she picked up. She's kind of naive (maybe just a dumb kid). She's encouraged to come out. She was more than willing to see SM so heck, why not. She thought whatever he told her about why he was calling her at 1:35am was the truth and she trusted him.

Let's say SM really wasn't going to leave his wife but maybe Heather thought he was. So that's a false pretense. SM picks her up in the truck and is able to get her to turn off her phone (or he takes the phone and turns it off). Either way... we know the phone is off, never to ping to a tower again. At that point is Heather trapped? Was she in a trap but just didn't know it yet? Is anyone else in the truck or just the 2 of them? She must have gotten in willingly, yes? If no, then it was by force. Kidnapping, right?

So she's in the truck willingly and then something happens to Heather. Something that made the M's feel it was time to get rid of the security DVR in their home that would have been able to capture something happening that very night. And 2 (or 3) days after that rendezvous they replaced the older DVR that was in existence on Dec 18 2013 with a new DVR. Moved the monitor, put up a picture on the wall... it's a different system.

And for some reason that new black truck, a truck that has the technical capability of showing exactly where it went on its journeys, manages to (oops) not have any data to show where it was traveling that Dec 18 2013.

Of course this is all very innocent. New security systems are no big deal and SYNC modules on trucks...pffft. Whatever. Can't read anything into that!

So Heather has disappeared. No one intended anything in advance. It was all very innocent... until.... someone made the decision to harm Heather. Heather was not protected. Heather ended up in a trap, a trap where harm befell her. It was only a few minutes...nay... maybe only mere seconds that someone made a decision that ensured Heather would never be seen or heard from again.

And yet... a decision was made at some point. Heather was not free to leave and was not returned safely back to where she was picked up.

Hiding evidence after a crime is not evidence that the crime included a "lure". It's just evidence that something is being hidden. This is common behavior of persons who commit crimes.

And yes, exactly, it wasn't until someone decided to harm Heather that things became criminal, as far as we know. The "trap" part is just a theory on which the state built a case. It's what I call a "what if".

And let me be clear about that statement:

I am not confused about what "circumstantial" means, or to what extent its compelling. I am not making a claim that unless one has direct or physical evidence such as DNA, that one has no evidence. What I've always said is that the state has a problem with proving that a crime occurred based on phone contact and a car and a truck heading into or toward a boat landing, and a person subsequently disappearing. The state itself said this case is made harder because of its lack of physical evidence and because there's no body. So the state trotted out IE charges and a kidnapping charge, and a luring type kidnapping charge. And now, we have an NP and a mistrial. Is all that really the fault of one judge and two jurors?

The truth is, we have no idea if Heather was lured. Certainly, the witness testimony does not indicate, much less, prove that. That is a theory that is currently failing if this mistrial is the example.

They had a better shot at a murder charge, although my view is that clinging to PTL as the crime scene was not going to fly. And didn't, if the NP is the example.

It seems to me that when there's a rejection of, or at least a failure to embrace the luring claim, a subsequent claim is made that "some" aren't grasping the evidence. I would argue that it's because the evidence is grasped and there's none proving that a lure was used that some of us feel the actual crime here is simply murder. No luring bells and whistles are needed to overcome the standard of reasonable doubt on that one, IMO.

We have no idea if Heather was not free to leave any location. We only know that she is gone, presumably because she is dead, and her likely death can be reasonably tied to contact with SM. If she was where she wanted to be and then was run over, stabbed, burned, bombed, gassed, or machine-gunned, the crime was not kidnapping and preventing her from leaving, it was murder. Period. Why she was where she was is, at this time, simply unknown, and it's troubling to see that a POV that she may well have wanted to be there is being characterized as disparaging of the victim or blaming her for own death.

Heather is dead because she was killed and her killer is responsible for that.

 

[Wyle_E_Coyote]

The truth is, we have no idea if Heather was lured. Certainly, the witness testimony does not indicate, much less, prove that. That is a theory that is currently failing if this mistrial is the example.

They had a better shot at a murder charge, although my view is that clinging to PTL as the crime scene was not going to fly. And didn't, if the NP is the example.

It seems to me that when there's a rejection of, or at least a failure to embrace the luring claim, a subsequent claim is made that "some" aren't grasping the evidence. I would argue that it's because the evidence is grasped and there's none proving that a lure was used that some of us feel the actual crime here is simply murder. No luring bells and whistles are needed to overcome the standard of reasonable doubt on that one, IMO.

Snipped for focus

10 jurors voted guilty. 10 out of 12, 83%, believed BARD that the evidence proved SM was guilty of kidnapping via luring. I don't see that the prosecution's theory was a complete failure.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

 

[jillycat]

Snipped for focus

10 jurors voted guilty. 10 out of 12, 83%, believed BARD that the evidence proved SM was guilty of kidnapping via luring. I don't see that theprosecution's theory was a complete failure.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

I don't view a mistrial as a partial success. I guess another way to say it is, there are no "kinda guilty" defendants.

Maybe they will get their unanimous Guilty next time. Possibly depends on change of venue. Then, working backwards once more, they'll presumably go for the obstruction that was part of the kidnapping, that was part of the murder that may or may not be charged.

Or something like that.

 

[LBDunes]

Why hide your truck, when you know the camera is going to capture an image of you face?

Could be several things:

Maybe the thinking was that those convenience store videos are never that clear, especially outside of the store, without light.
You can't think of everything even in the best laid plans.

 

[Truth Prevails]

Snipped for focus

10 jurors voted guilty. 10 out of 12, 83%, believed BARD that the evidence proved SM was guilty of kidnapping via luring. I don't see that the prosecution's theory was a complete failure.

Sent from my SM-N920V using Tapatalk

Nor do I. And perhaps I am being bold to say this, but I don't think they do either. That is most likely why they are saying there will be a re-trial. And I hope that comes to fruition.

 

[Truth Prevails]

If the intent was not to kidnap, why hide the truck from cameras at the payphone?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Or ... why sneak through the night to call a former mistress--one to whom he had sent a picture showing himself and his wife having oral sex?

 

[EmmaRose]

I've been trying to catch up.... I have questions about Longbeards. Did Heather go inside or did anyone actually see her there? Do we know she was actually in possession of her phone and car at that time and that no one else had them? Could something have happened to her here? I read she parked over by dumpsters. As a woman, I would never park in an area that someone could pop out from. I don't know. This whole Longbeards thing has me curious. On Trip Advisor, one commenter says the restaurant is out in the middle of nowhere. Sounds creepy.

 

[Truth Prevails]

One of the definitions of kidnapping in SC includes this word which ties to my false pretenses post above.


in·vei·gle

/inˈvāɡəl/

verb

verb: inveigle; 3rd person present: inveigles; past tense: inveigled; past participle: inveigled; gerund or present participle: inveigling



: to persuade (someone) to do something in a clever or deceptive way


2

: to get (something) in a clever or deceptive way



http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inveigle

And let's add "decoy" -- as in Heather was decoyed away from the safety of her apartment. Definition from your link:

2
: someone or something used to lure or lead another into a trap;

 

[barcode]

Or ... why sneak through the night to call a former mistress--one to whom he had sent a picture showing himself and his wife having oral sex?

That's an easy answer, first of all, you may be the only one here that thinks SM sent that picture, everything I have seen is that most agree TM sent those photos. I suppose SM also sent the text are you ready to meet the Mrs? As to why SM would prefer to call a nice looking twenty year old over his frumpy wife....

 

[magnolia]

Could be several things:

Maybe the thinking was that those convenience store videos are never that clear, especially outside of the store, without light.
You can't think of everything even in the best laid plans.

So, he goes to the trouble of hiding his truck being fully aware that a camera will capture his image. Unknown to him is just how much of his image will be captured. Unknown to him what the clarity of his image will be. As he stands there for five mins., engaging in a conversation to lure Heather out, he is not at all concerned about who he might encounter in the parking lot who could identify him. All is fine because he hid his truck.

 

[Truth Prevails]

Exactly. I'm not sure why it matters. She could have called a hundred times, sent a singing telegram, or communicated via carrier pigeon. Doesn't change the outcome.

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Exactly. Because by making that phone call to Heather, SM inveigled or decoyed her. He set the trap with that call. She would have never left her apartment if SM had not made that call. All her phone calls that night (after his), all of her further actions that night (after his phone call to her), were in response to that first phone call to her, from him.

 

[magnolia]

Or ... why sneak through the night to call a former mistress--one to whom he had sent a picture showing himself and his wife having oral sex?

Did any of the witnesses testify they actually saw that photo or were they just told about it. Just curious. Can't recall.

btw, if you can link to that part of the trial where a witness testified to seeing it, I would really appreciate it.

 

[LBDunes]

So, he goes to the trouble of hiding his truck being fully aware that a camera will capture his image. Unknown to him is just how much of his image will be captured. Unknown to him what the clarity of his image will be. As he stands there for five mins., engaging in a conversation to lure Heather out, he is not at all concerned about who he might encounter in the parking lot who could identify him. All is fine because he hid his truck.

Why do people rob stores with video cameras trained on them? To quote you earlier, we will just have to agree to disagree.