Moorers' Bond Hearing - #2

[Madeleine74]

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

There seems to be a lot of confusion about gag orders. They are done to prevent the attorneys, participants, court personnel, defendants, etc. from discussing the case OUTSIDE of hearings or court proceedings and directly to the media or other parties not involved in the case. It means you won't see press conferences held by either side making pronouncements about the case or the people involved. It means you won't see interviews in newspapers by the defense attorneys or state attorneys or court personnel or LE or direct participants in this case.

It does not mean the public and media won't be able to see the hearings or be able to report on information that comes out during or from hearings or court proceedings. Those are fine and not in violation of a gag order.

 

[CarmonCayman]

Exactly Okie. This was NOT a trial. The judge stayed that the rules for bond had changed. He stated that EVERYONE deserves bail. He stated that EVERYONE, until convicted, is presumed innocent. What I got was that the law changed somewhat to state that you can only hold a dependent 6 months without bail. After that he is required to give them bail regardless of the evidence. He also stated he agreed nothing had changed from the first bail hearing to this one. Just the law governing bail. This judge was granting bail no matter what. I still think there is s very good circumstantial case against these two but I will say a few things came out that change my mind of what went down. I would like to see the transcripts of the interview. For instance, I wonder if Tammy knew he called Heather on the Payphone.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[waltzingmatilda]

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.

I agree OkieGranny. I was so frustrated with the judge cutting her off and his interruptions and telling stories of his past cases I was ready to scream! Then at one point he said something to her that sounded downright condescending, as though he was talking down to her, and that made me downright angry! I too still have hope that the state has some compelling circumstantial evidence that we don't know about.

 

[Madeleine74]

Exactly Okie. This was NOT a trial. The judge stayed that the rules for bond had changed. He stated that EVERYONE deserves bail. He stated that EVERYONE, until convicted, is presumed innocent. What I got was that the law changed somewhat to state that you can only hold a dependent 6 months without bail. After that he is required to give them bail regardless of the evidence. He also stated he agreed nothing had changed from the first bail hearing to this one. Just the law governing bail. This judge was granting bail no matter what. I still think there is s very good circumstantial case against these two but I will say a few things came out that change my mind of what went down. I would like to see the transcripts of the interview. For instance, I wonder if Tammy knew he called Heather on the Payphone.

That's inaccurate.

What the judge said is that after a defendant has been held for a substantial amount of time in jail (like held for at least 6 months), the judge then has to consider other factors and just the reason that "there's been no substantial change since last time bail was denied" is no longer a valid reason after substantial time incarcerated. The judge has to assess flight risk, danger to the community, impact to victim's family and safety, etc. The judge is not required to grant bail but if there's no valid reason for defendants to be held they should have bail opportunity.

 

[WideOpen]

I have questions about the 90-95 phone calls Livesays brings up that Heathers employee friends witnessed. Is this new? I wasn't aware of that. These calls came from SM exactly when? Were these all in one day? Can someone refresh my brain on this. TIA.

JMO

 

[CarmonCayman]

I took it differently. I will re listen but what I got is that everyone according to this judge is innocent and deserves bail based on a change that says you cannot hold someone longer than 6 months unless they are those things you said. He would have released Manson.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[WideOpen]

The judge blamed code 171530.....

SECTION 17-15-30. Matters to be considered in determining conditions of release; contempt.

(A) In determining conditions of release that will reasonably assure appearance, or if release would constitute an unreasonable danger to the community, a court may, on the basis of the following information, consider the nature and circumstances of an offense charged and the charged person's:

(1) family ties;

(2) employment;

(3) financial resources;

(4) character and mental condition;

(5) length of residence in the community;

(6) record of convictions; and

(7) record of flight to avoid prosecution or failure to appear at other court proceedings.

(B) A court shall consider:

(1) a person's criminal record;

(2) any charges pending against a person at the time release is requested;

(3) all incident reports generated as a result of an offense charged;

(4) whether a person is an alien unlawfully present in the United States, and poses a substantial flight risk due to this status; and

(5) whether the charged person appears in the state gang database maintained at the State Law Enforcement Division.

(C)(1) Prior to or at the time of a hearing, the arresting law enforcement agency shall provide the court with the following information:

(a) a person's criminal record;

(b) any charges pending against a person at the time release is requested;

(c) all incident reports generated as a result of the offense charged; and

(d) any other information that will assist the court in determining conditions of release.

(2) The arresting law enforcement agency shall inform the court if any of the information is not available at the time of the hearing and the reason the information is not available. Failure on the part of the law enforcement agency to provide the court with the information does not constitute grounds for the postponement or delay of the person's hearing.

(D) A court hearing these matters has contempt powers to enforce the provisions of this section.

HISTORY: 1962 Code Section 17-300.2; 1969 (56) 383; 2005 Act No. 106, Section 8, eff January 1, 2006; 2008 Act No. 280, Section 16, eff June 4, 2008; 2010 Act No. 273, Section 9, eff June 2, 2010; 2012 Act No. 286, Section 1, eff June 29, 2012; 2014 Act No. 144 (S.19), Section 2, eff April 7, 2014.

jmo

ETA; ETA; I apologize for no link, taken from SC legislature code of laws

 

[GodsGirlE]

^^^What OkieGranny said. I'm keeping in perspective that this was a bond hearing; there is plenty more to be revealed at the trial. I believe that had Livesay had been allowed her full rebuttal, we wouldn't feel quite as gloomy about today's outcome. As annoyed as I was at the judge's waxing nostalgic, he did keep the hearing focused on the issue of bond for the accused. It is what it is. Above all, I pray for the Elvis family. I can't even begin to imagine their anguish--these hearings must be akin to having an open wound continually ripped open again at the first hint of progress toward healing.

Let justice be served for Heather!

 

[OkieGranny]

Anyway, hitching up my britches and moving on, I am disappointed that today's hearing wasn't a cavalcade of jaw-dropping info like the March 17 bond hearing. Not that it probably should be, but you know what I mean.

The only new info I picked up is that there are two co-workers of Heather's from the Titled Kilt ready to testify about 90 to 95 missed calls from Sidney. One of those co-workers was reinterviewed specifically for this hearing to make sure that their potential testimony has't changed.

 

[margarita25]

I'm sorry, but is this the freaking library and it's story time or is this a court room?!??!

I have never in my life heard a Judge tell stories like this one is. It's ridiculous.

Agreed.

 

[CarmonCayman]

All this hearing did was release two murderers into the community and delay their trial and conviction and give their supporters something to hold onto. I'm not feeling as down as some others. I think we got a few tidbits like the 90 calls and the texts being on the Ms home computer and the speakerphone calls with S and T that we didn't have before.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[OkieGranny]

I have questions about the 90-95 phone calls Livesays brings up that Heathers employee friends witnessed. Is this new? I wasn't aware of that. These calls came from SM exactly when? Were these all in one day? Can someone refresh my brain on this. TIA.

JMO

Oops! You posted while I was composing. Great minds and all that, lol.

I'll have to go back and listen to it to be sure exactly what was said. Possibly one of those co-workers was her roommate? And how long was that before Heather vanished? Was it after the Ms came home from their trip out west?

 

[EmmaRose]

I had a bit of trouble understanding some of what was being said. Did I hear Truslow say that the state was having some evidence retested?? TIA

 

[margarita25]

I liked the part about SM "coming out from behind the dumpsters" then using the pay phone.

 

[tarheelslim]

the speakerphone calls with S and T that we didn't have before.

What's up with this part? I haven't seen this mentioned.

 

[jillycat]

I don't feel gloomy or down. I've never thought LE should have declared she was killed at PTL, or that they had direct or enough physical evidence, to prove their case. Maybe their circumstantial case will fly. Anything could happen. And maybe someone will roll before it's over. But I've never thought the arrest assured a conviction in this case, and have always felt that LE boxed itself in by claiming Heather was killed between the time the M's car allegedly pulled into PTL and drove off shortly thereafter. JMO

 

[tarheelslim]

I liked the part about SM "coming out from behind the dumpsters" then using the pay phone.

Could you elaborate? Is there video of him using the payphone?

 

[waltzingmatilda]

I liked the part about SM "coming out from behind the dumpsters" then using the pay phone.

LOL! The visual of SM trying to be all stealth and come from the dumpsters to use the pay phone is comical because apparently the cameras caught him anyway.

 

[PeterThomasFan]

The judge blamed code 171530.....

<snipped to shorten>

ETA; ETA; I apologize for no link, taken from SC legislature code of laws

http://www.judicial.state.sc.us/summaryCourtBenchBook/HTML/CriminalE.htm

 

[TTF14]

Could you elaborate? Is there video of him using the payphone?

Yes, please elaborate. Also someone said something about a speaker phone conversation between S and T? What was that about?