Moorers' Bond Hearing - #2

[Eileen730]

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

What do they have that made this a murder case?

 

[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!

I think a couple folks have stated they are now doubting whether TM and/or SM are involved. I've seen "accident" suggested as the cause of HE's disappearance and alleged death and "SODDI" (some other dude did it) but it wasn't the M's.

 

[bestill]

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

Sad thing is they had time to dispose of her before anyone knew she was missing. No telling what kind of searches are on their computers.

 

[Madeleine74]

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

My anger, if I have any, is towards the judge, as I was not impressed at how he conducted that bond hearing. I can't opine about the prosecution yet since I haven't seen the presentation of their case in chief.

 

[jillycat]

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.

It was the court and the state who referenced "direct evidence" as not being the type of evidence we'll see in this case. And it's the solicitor who has indicated all along, and has now said straight out, that this is strictly a circumstantial case, and DNA is not part of the circumstantial evidence. The latter is potentially troublesome, given LE's previous statement that DNA is part of the evidence. Now we see that it's Heather's DNA from her car, which makes sense since she drove her car. But this discovery doesn't help the case.

"Only circumstantial" vs "direct" begins to have some teeth when one is the correlative linking of things that reasonably lead to a conclusion, and the other is a video of a murder, or witness to a murder, or confession and details of a murder. What's wise then, in my opinion, is to know remember that circumstantial evidence implies by nature that there are alternative explanations, which this defense already referenced in memoranda. I have no doubt that the defense is fully prepared to take what is in discovery and weave a picture and evidence trail of support for other explanations.

In my reading of many posts, It seems to me that people are aware of the differences in types of evidence, but frankly with no body, with a claim she was murdered at a scene that appears to have had no evidence of a murder, and with the police themselves saying on record they have no idea how she was killed or if they'll ever know, and stating they may never find her, the "circumstantial" case will need to be extremely compelling to meet the reasonable doubt standard. And it's the latter that matters in the end, not the type of evidence or what we call it. JMO

 

[AddysMom7610]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the roommate was out of town. I think this was premeditated and TM thought long and hard about where to put her body. They knew they would have more time until someone realized she was missing. But I must stop myself because I think I'm getting off topic of the bond hearing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Eileen730]

My anger, if I have any, is towards the judge, as I was not impressed at how he conducted that bond hearing. I can't opine about the prosecution yet since I haven't seen the presentation of their case in chief.

Im not sure he enjoyed doing what he did and I think his storytelling was stalling.
but to keep these ppl in jail with no direct evidence was not an option for him. It was only the bond hearing.
I think everyone there that day knew that was going to happen. No big surprise for them only for us!

 

[Madeleine74]

It's true there is no direct evidence. There's no:

- eyewitness to the crime besides the perps

- no confession to the crime by the perps

- no video of the crime being committed.


There's also no forensic evidence that was found in the M's black truck of HE's.

What else exists that hasn't yet been presented we don't know.

I said it before, but if the state isn't confident they can convince 12 jurors of guilt then they should drop the charges now rather than waste their one bite of the proverbial apple.

Which makes me wonder why the defense attorneys didn't submit motions to this judge asking for murder charges to be dismissed altogether?

 

[Motherof5]

Solicitor Jimmy Richards was asked if the bond hearing changed his confidence in the case and his response was.....I can't say,you know, that I'm confident, but nothing has changed.

Well...that's depressing.


http://www.wbtw.com/story/27990451/horry-county-solicitor-responds-to-moorer-bond-being-set

 

[Eileen730]

I don't think it's a coincidence that the roommate was out of town. I think this was premeditated and TM thought long and hard about where to put her body. They knew they would have more time until someone realized she was missing. But I must stop myself because I think I'm getting off topic of the bond hearing.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Like most crimes I think it was pure luck!
and most criminals will remain silent till the body is found then bargain for their future!

 

[Eileen730]

It's true there is no direct evidence. There's no:

- eyewitness to the crime besides the perps

- no confession to the crime by the perps

- no video of the crime being committed.


There's also no forensic evidence that was found in the M's black truck of HE's.

What else exists that hasn't yet been presented we don't know.

I said it before, but if the state isn't confident they can convince 12 jurors of guilt then they should drop the charges now rather than waste their one bite of the proverbial apple.

Which makes me wonder why the defense attorneys didn't submit motions to this judge asking for murder charges to be dismissed altogether?

Oh I think that's a coming! One step at a time.

 

[jillycat]

What do they have that made this a murder case?

Exactly. This is the legal question and it's what will be tested in a court room. Not definitions of evidence or how we think of them. I've not encountered anyone here who reduced circumstantial evidence to claims of he said/she said. Given the lengthy discussions of phone records alone, I believe most folks here recognize how circumstantial cases are built. But what makes this a murder at the hands of the M's is going to be pounded on by the defense.

 

[Madeleine74]

We have to remember that even if remains are found it doesn't mean it will definitively point to the identity of the killer. It would confirm HE's death and would probably confirm death via homicide, but unless there is some particular injury to skeletal remains found, an M.E. wouldn't be able to determine cause of death.

 

[Madeleine74]

One of the things the jury will see is evidence that proves contact that night and morning between HE and SM.

They'll see phone records, they'll hear from HE's roommate who received a call from HE, they'll see CCTV video of SM at or near the payphone that was used to call HE after 1:30am on 12/18/13. They'll see the GPS/ping map showing the movement of HE's phone toward PTL, they'll see a black truck on video going towards PTL.

Those items and possibly more will place HE's car and HE's phone, and by inference, HE, in vicinity of the M's at or around the time she went missing from the last place her car was and which also happens to be the last place her phone transmitted from.

There may well be other evidence within that timeframe that we are unaware of at this point.

 

[Eileen730]

I have a question.
What if HE committed suicide?

 

[Eileen730]

One of the things the jury will see is evidence that proves contact that night and morning between HE and SM.

They'll see phone records, they'll hear from HE's roommate who received a call from HE, they'll see CCTV video of SM at or near the payphone that was used to call HE after 1:30am on 12/18/13. They'll see the GPS/ping map showing the movement of HE's phone toward PTL, they'll see a black truck on video going towards PTL.

Those items and possibly more will place HE's car and HE's phone, and by inference, HE, in vicinity of the M's at or around the time she went missing from the last place her car was and which also happens to be the last place her phone transmitted from.

There may well be other evidence within that timeframe that we are unaware of at this point.

Painted a picture of a man having an affair!

 

[Eileen730]

did he try to call her after she vanished?\I cant remember anymore!

 

[bestill]

You know those phone records will show a lot, not only who was calling who, but most importantly did the calls suddenly end the night she disappeared.

 

[Eileen730]

You know those phone records will show a lot, not only who was calling who, but most importantly did the calls suddenly end the night she disappeared.

Yes because if he didn't know something happened to her he would continue calling her right?
Esp if he was leaving his wife for her!

 

[NFYIAMY]

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.

Unfortunately we do not know how much more there is.....or if there's much more.

What if......we have seen the bulk of it?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk