Moorers' Bond Hearing - #2

[NFYIAMY]

I think the arrest was fine based on what we had before and if they just found out about the DNA, it is understandable. I want to get to the bottom of Elder's potential lying about the FBI.

If memory serves me correctly (and that's a big IF).... At the first bond hearing Elder said it (the video) was SENT to the FBI but I don't remember if she attributed the info about the video to what the FBI said or to what the local authorities determined. Have to try & go back through my notes & see if there's anything there that I noted regarding where she said that info came from.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Madeleine74]

I have thought since the day they were arrested that they were guilty but they didn't find any DNA? That was a lab error? They dont have any concrete proof that the car was theirs? I am in serious doubt that these two are responsible.

Tammy being angry at Sid for cheating isn't that jaw dropping. And I would like to know what exactly they found at the Moorer home. So far pretty ambiguous information there.

I can't believe how much things have changed in my own head since Thursday in regards to this case. The scenario I keep coming back to is that SM did want to get back together with Heather and something accidental happened. Maybe she fell in or something. All I know is that I haven't pegged TM or SM for being too sharp and able to pull off a crime and leave literally nothing behind.

[modsnip]

Yes DNA was collected but the lab made an error in saying HE's DNA was found in the M's truck. That apparently was not true, but whatchagonnado? Did the DNA error form the basis of them being arrested or were those results delivered after arrest?

You still have to wonder why SM just HAD to call HE out of the blue after 1:30am that early morning of 12/18/13. What was so urgent? This wasn't a txt msg or email, this was a phone call. From a pay phone. And then you have to wonder why HE then called SM back several times and then caused herself, her car, and her phone to be at PTL, calling SM 3 more times as she arrived, literally minutes before she disappeared. You have to wonder how it is that some other random person (not SM or TM or anyone connected with them) would go to PTL at that exact same time and that other random person would decide to abduct HE and kill her and cause her to disappear. I mean what are the odds of all this bad luck happening to the Moorer's -- that HE was disappeared the same night/morning SM decides to suddenly get back in touch with her, the same night/morning that both Moorer's are out of the house?

An accident? How's that? Why was HE never found? Her phone never found? How many accident victims are never recovered and no personal effects of theirs are ever recovered?

The jury will be instructed to use their common sense in addition to all the circumstantial evidence and witness testimony.

 

[Eileen730]

I'm sorry you're falling for the defense team's tricks and based only on what they are saying during a bond hearing.

Yes DNA was collected but the lab made an error in saying HE's DNA was found in the M's truck. That apparently was not true, but whatchagonnado? Did the DNA error form the basis of them being arrested or were those results delivered after arrest?

You still have to wonder why SM just HAD to call HE out of the blue after 1:30am that early morning of 12/18/13. What was so urgent? This wasn't a txt msg or email, this was a phone call. From a pay phone. And then you have to wonder why HE then called SM back several times and then caused herself, her car, and her phone to be at PTL, calling SM 3 more times as she arrived, literally minutes before she disappeared. You have to wonder how it is that some other random person (not SM or TM or anyone connected with them) would go to PTL at that exact same time and that other random person would decide to abduct HE and kill her and cause her to disappear. I mean what are the odds of all this bad luck happening to the Moorer's -- that HE was disappeared the same night/morning SM decides to suddenly get back in touch with her, the same night/morning that both Moorer's are out of the house?

An accident? How's that? Why was HE never found? Her phone never found? How many accident victims are never recovered and no personal effects of theirs are ever recovered?

The jury will be instructed to use their common sense in addition to all the circumstantial evidence and witness testimony.

I don't think anyone here doubts that the persons responsible are TM and SM.
but we need some evidence. and so far It appears we don't have much!

JMO

 

[Eileen730]

Have these 2 ever taken Polygraphs?

 

[Schmaley]

Also, madeleine74, I understand your anger but it should be directed at the prosecution here. They have really dropped the ball here.

 

[Madeleine74]

People are using the terms "no real evidence" "no direct evidence" "only/just circumstantial evidence"

It would be wise to understand the 2 types of evidence and what comprises each type. (hint: forensic evidence is still "circumstantial evidence" by legal definition). It's often the most compelling evidence, but technically, it's still "only circumstantial").

Also, 95%+ of murder cases are "only circumstantial cases."

The law makes no difference in the types of evidence and which type a jury should consider. Both types are to be treated the same -- i.e. both types are evidence.

 

[Eileen730]

Another thing common sense in a trial does not work. As we saw in the Casey Anthony case.
You need evidence. witnesses, something that convinces the jury these ppl did this crime.

 

[Madeleine74]

I don't think anyone here doubts that the persons responsible are TM and SM.
but we need some evidence. and so far It appears we don't have much!

JMO

I think that's because the trial hasn't started yet. There have been 2 bail hearings and little snippets of evidence shown. I doubt we know more than 10 - 15%% of whatever will comprise the total case.

 

[PeterThomasFan]

Have these 2 ever taken Polygraphs?

I believe so but, polygraphs are inadmissible in court.

 

[jillycat]

Yet another thing that gets me is the indecent exposure charges. LE charge the M's with 2 counts each of indecent exposure after SM told them he had consensual sex with his wife in his vehicle. Huh?

You mean to tell me that if I told a LEO that I stole a candy bar from the store that I could get arrested for shoplifting? I never hear that before.

At the very end of the hearing on Friday (before they cut the cameras off), you could hear the judge asking why the bond was set so high for those misdemeanor offenses.

IMO, those charges will get dropped or won by the defense.

I think the IE direction was a side show and a means of extracting the M's from their property and getting them into custody to facilitate a search that gave the police what they called "stuff" for their probable cause. I said this previously and some felt I was sympathetic to the M's. Not at all. As I said then, I meant, and still believe, that the IE charges are irrelevant to the case unless they were associated with the timeline and activities of the crime. I think those charges will not stick and we're going to be seeing more motions.

There was previous discussion here of whether or not LE had video, or just SM's disclosure, and now we know for certain that the charges are a result of remarks, not evidence.

 

[Madeleine74]

Another thing common sense in a trial does not work. As we saw in the Casey Anthony case.
You need evidence. witnesses, something that convinces the jury these ppl did this crime.

Common sense is the quality most needed and it's what the vast majority of juries are told to use ("their good everyday common sense"). And also people who will agree to follow the rules given are needed too.

You also need a judge who won't put someone on the jury who says during their voir dire, "I don't believe it's my place to judge anyone."

You need a judge who will allow the state to present their witnesses and evidence without constant interruptions and grandstanding.

Judge Belvin Perry was a blowhard and was at much at fault for that catastrophe as anyone. The judge in this case, with his preening and lecturing, reminded me a bit of Perry.

 

[Eileen730]

I believe so but, polygraphs are inadmissible in court.

Yes I know But im NOW curious if they passed or failed these tests.
Polygraphs are an investigative tool to rule out....
Good place to start an investigation imo

 

[Schmaley]

[modsnip]

Yes DNA was collected but the lab made an error in saying HE's DNA was found in the M's truck. That apparently was not true, but whatchagonnado? Did the DNA error form the basis of them being arrested or were those results delivered after arrest?

You still have to wonder why SM just HAD to call HE out of the blue after 1:30am that early morning of 12/18/13. What was so urgent? This wasn't a txt msg or email, this was a phone call. From a pay phone. And then you have to wonder why HE then called SM back several times and then caused herself, her car, and her phone to be at PTL, calling SM 3 more times as she arrived, literally minutes before she disappeared. You have to wonder how it is that some other random person (not SM or TM or anyone connected with them) would go to PTL at that exact same time and that other random person would decide to abduct HE and kill her and cause her to disappear. I mean what are the odds of all this bad luck happening to the Moorer's -- that HE was disappeared the same night/morning SM decides to suddenly get back in touch with her, the same night/morning that both Moorer's are out of the house?

An accident? How's that? Why was HE never found? Her phone never found? How many accident victims are never recovered and no personal effects of theirs are ever recovered?

The jury will be instructed to use their common sense in addition to all the circumstantial evidence and witness testimony.

You say literally minutes before she disappeared but I haven't seen any timeline that can specify the time she went missing. The time she got the phone calls and left for ptl is clear. Where are you finding anything other than a broad time frame from then to when her car went missing? I am seriously inquiring because maybe I have missed something.

 

[Schmaley]

And yes I do have to wonder why he called at 1:30 out of the blue and furthermore why he lied about it. It boggles my mind and makes me very uneasy about their involvement. But that isn't good enough for me to be convinced they have done it.

 

[PeterThomasFan]

Yes I know But im NOW curious if they passed or failed these tests.
Polygraphs are an investigative tool to rule out....
Good place to start an investigation imo

I hear ya. I'd love to take one someday. I know already that I'd fail it miserably – even telling the truth.

 

[Madeleine74]

The defense in 30 min of uninterrupted argument managed to cast significant doubt. They weren't corrected or admonished or told "this isn't the place to discuss evidence." They didn't have the judge interrupting them every 3 minutes. They took advantage of the time the judge gave them and they did a great job at presenting their viewpoint. But it's just that -- the defense's viewpoint and with no cross examination or challenge. No expert witnesses. Just defense attorneys talking, saying whatever they wanted to say.

 

[Madeleine74]

You say literally minutes before she disappeared but I haven't seen any timeline that can specify the time she went missing. The time she got the phone calls and left for ptl is clear. Where are you finding anything other than a broad time frame from then to when her car went missing? I am seriously inquiring because maybe I have missed something.

The timeline was presented in the first bond hearing, which is available online and can be viewed. The last time her phone pinged was included on the timeline. Her car never went missing--it was found at PTL, with the doors locked. Her cell phone was missing and was no longer pinging to any tower.

 

[AddysMom7610]

I have to agree with Madeline. I think they still have a good case against the Moorers. When we think of circumstantial evidence, we think of "he said/she said" and that sort of thing. But really circumstantial evidence can be much more. Not to mention the common sense aspect that Madeline brought up. BUT I will say without any DNA (if that is the case) at all and without a body, the defense just has to show that she could've run off. They only have to show reasonable doubt. That's their only burden. The state is stuck with proving without a shadow of a doubt that they are guilty. It scares me, honestly. I really don't know which way this will go.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eileen730]

I cant imagine who else would have done this.
but where did they take her?

 

[Eileen730]

I hear ya. I'd love to take one someday. I know already that I'd fail it miserably – even telling the truth.

Not really!
I think most of us would pass.