Moorers' Bond Hearing - #2

[TTF14]

I just can't wrap my brain around charging not one, but two people with murder with no body and no physical evidence of a murder. Unless for some reason there is physical evidence and they chose to remain mum about it.

 

[jillycat]

My thoughts on this....from a friend of the family...

This thing doesn't look good in my opinion. The state stood there and flat out admitted that they didn't have ANY direct physical evidence. Circumstantial evidence in the form of a grainy video of a truck that looks like his, text messages, horrendous behavior on social media from TM, an affair on SM's side. Threats etc. I still can't see ANY way possible that they could be convicted unless there is something else. I kept waiting for the solicitor to drop the bomb of some evidence. For them to have NOTHING...is scary. I'm curious how it is that they've spent a year in jail on what amounts to no evidence? How can that be? I just kept telling myself that because of the gag order we didn't know what they have..but it must be pretty damning for them to be able to charge them with murder/kidnapping. God forbid any of us ever get arrested on charges like that based on text messages or the fact that our phone talked to another phone at some point. To me...this doesn't look good.

So having said all of that...WHY have there not continued to be searches or more investigations since they had no evidence for an entire year??? My heart is breaking for Terry Elvis and family!

I think that will also come back to haunt LE. The defense is probably drawing up its next motion as we type that argues LE was so caught up in getting the M's, they ceased looking for the victim. They'll turn this into a case of Heather being victimized a second time by LE because they didn't search hard or long enough to aid or recover her. I see a parade of motions from here.

 

[TTF14]

Were the Caisons at the hearing?

 

[tabinmaine]

has there been a link posted yet where someone can watch the video ?

 

[zelmajane]

This makes me sick. I live two hours from these fools and that is too close.

Anyone think they may go check on the body?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stillwatersc]

Looks like the prosecution was just hiding their hand and hoping for a confession. :badmood:

 

[TTF14]

This makes me sick. I live two hours from these fools and that is too close.

Anyone think they may go check on the body?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

No, I don't think even they are that dumb.

 

[TTF14]

Looks like the prosecution was just hiding their hand and hoping for a confession. :badmood: I think they are guilty but they can't be convicted on nothing.

TM was probably telling the truth when she blurted out that she was told she could be released if she turned on SM.

 

[jillycat]

I just can't wrap my brain around charging not one, but two people with murder with no body and no physical evidence of a murder. Unless for some reason there is physical evidence and they chose to remain mum about it.

The prosecution can't lie to the court, then try to mitigate that lie later. They are compelled to answer truthfully. If you look at the entire case as we understand it, then add what happened today, it makes sense they didn't/don't have squat in direct evidence. They even specifically said they had no video of anything happening to Heather. And they definitely have no confession. What they have is an affair, a lot of drama swirling around the case and the parties involved, a lunatic scorned wife, a lot of social media ranting and gossip, emotional text messages, a vehicle traveling toward PTL where a car was found, and then coming back from that direction, and a missing girl.

I'm sure the circumstantial details include more, but these defense attorneys are going to have a field day with this.

 

[tabinmaine]

Interesting to go back and watch this now, talking about evidence found.... hummmm...

[video=youtube;QX7CiwgxjlA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX7CiwgxjlA[/video]

 

[leighmarker]

What did they find in the home?

 

[TTF14]

The prosecution can't lie to the court, then try to mitigate that lie later. They are compelled to answer truthfully. If you look at the entire case as we understand it, then add what happened today, it makes sense they didn't/don't have squat in direct evidence. They even specifically said they had no video of anything happening to Heather. And they definitely have no confession. What they have is an affair, a lot of drama swirling around the case and the parties involved, a lunatic scorned wife, a lot of social media ranting and gossip, emotional text messages, a vehicle traveling toward PTL where a car was found, and then coming back from that direction, and a missing girl.

I'm sure the circumstantial details include more, but these defense attorneys are going to have a field day with this.

I was thinking about the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial as explained by Madeleine74:

Direct evidence according to legal definition:

- eye witness to the crime
- confession by the perps
- video of the crime being committed


Everything else by legal definition is "circumstantial evidence" believe it or not.

That includes:

- blood
- hair
- fibers
- footprints
- fingerprints

etc, etc, etc.

There was much talk about there being no direct evidene and that's why they got bond. Does there HAVE to be direct evidence to be denied bond? Even if blood (apparently circumstantial evidence) is found?

What is DNA? Direct or circumstantial evidence? If DNA had been in the truck, would that be direct or circumstantial? Did the prosecutor direct any circumstantial blood/hair evidence they might have? I don't think so....maybe because they knew it wouldn't be considered direct evidence and wouldn't help anyway to talk about it at this point???

I may just be talking in circles. I still just can't believe there is no DNA.

 

[trigger]

I just can't wrap my brain around charging not one, but two people with murder with no body and no physical evidence of a murder. Unless for some reason there is physical evidence and they chose to remain mum about it.

I remember solicitor Richardson saying they have mounds and mounds of evidence.SMH

And what about the Grand Jury?

 

[NFYIAMY]

I don't think they like each other anymore

When Tammy entered the courtroom she sat down - looked over at SM and said "hey baby - I love you"

From where I was sitting I couldn't see SM real well so I have no idea if he acknowledged that or not. Was able to slide my seat a but a few minutes later - He sure didn't seem to be looking her way at any time from there forward though.... I was busy when judged announced bond stuff but when I was able to focus their way I did to see any interactions.

I kinda thought it telling that he asked to stay in Berkley county and she asked to go back to horry county.

 

[leighmarker]

I remember solicitor Richardson saying they have mounds and mounds of evidence.SMH

And what about the Grand Jury?

JG was probably given the DNA that was wrong

 

[trigger]

JG was probably given the DNA that was wrong

I think they found a hair in the truck which I guess turned out not to be HE.

 

[Carolina Girl]

Since they have had this gag order for so long, how could they televise the hearing? Gag order should be lifted now.

 

[Dr. Know?]

Video is up. Says it's part 1 though.

http://www.wistv.com/story/27984870...lvis-murder?clienttype=generic&mobilecgbypass

 

[OkieGranny]

Oh, you guys, so gloomy. Here's what I saw: the defense attorneys attacked the evidence and tried to prop up their clients' good character. Did the judge interrupt either of them? I think maybe once, when Tammy's attorney was speaking.

Then it was Livesay's turn, and she was moving in for the kill. But the judge interrupted and the guy sitting next to her had to tap her on the arm before she noticed - that's how focused she was. And the judge kept interrupting, over and over again, throwing her off stride. He told her that a "substantial change" was not the only criteria he could use to grant bond, there was also length of time the accused has been held, and basically he said that was the only criteria he was considering today. Just yanked the rug right out from under her. At that point, I kinda knew we were screwed.

We didn't get to hear Livesay's full rebuttal to allegations that the evidence doesn't exist. We heard a little bit of some of it, but not everything she would have said in response to the defense attorneys' allegations. He kept shutting her down, so now the idea that there's no evidence, the officials screwed up, they jumped the gun or whatever, it's just left hanging out there, unchallenged.

I think what we heard today was very one-sided, so I'm not giving up hope. I wish we could've heard the full argument Livesay was prepared to deliver this morning.

 

[jillycat]

I was thinking about the difference between direct evidence and circumstantial as explained by Madeleine74:

Direct evidence according to legal definition:

- eye witness to the crime
- confession by the perps
- video of the crime being committed


Everything else by legal definition is "circumstantial evidence" believe it or not.

That includes:

- blood
- hair
- fibers
- footprints
- fingerprints

etc, etc, etc.

There was much talk about there being no direct evidene and that's why they got bond. Does there HAVE to be direct evidence to be denied bond? Even if blood (apparently circumstantial evidence) is found?

What is DNA? Direct or circumstantial evidence? If DNA had been in the truck, would that be direct or circumstantial? Did the prosecutor direct any circumstantial blood/hair evidence they might have? I don't think so....maybe because they knew it wouldn't be considered direct evidence and wouldn't help anyway to talk about it at this point???

I may just be talking in circles. I still just can't believe there is no DNA.

There was much discussion here previously over the difference between circumstantial evidence vs direct, with it being noted that physical evidence is not the same as direct evidence. So DNA is not direct evidence in and of itself. It's just another component of physical evidence tying a person or persons to other persons or locations. What happened between those parties and at those locations is another matter. And since two of the parties had an affair, it follows that Heather's DNA might be in any number of places, including the M's home. In fact, I believe LE said publicly that their evidence included DNA. But I think people continued to confuse DNA and any other physical evidence that may have been found, even blood (if that had been or is part of the evidence), with "direct" evidence.

I'm no lawyer and can't speak to points of the law that concern bond vs continued detainment, but clearly this court found the two defendants were eligible for bond.

I don't see today as a surprise or a new twist of any kind. I've always thought LE and the prosecutor have a lot to prove.