Moorers' Bond Hearing

[Motherof5]

With that last interview from Mrs. C, he's a kid, who did nothing wrong except have a fling. I got red hot with that! But to save face, I think they'd welcome him right back.

Based on what I've seen elsewhere, I don't think they're too happy with him. IMO, they claim SM has done nothing wrong because TM has claimed all along that she and SM were together and not with Heather. If the C's now say anything bad about SM, it won't look good for TM and her lies. JMO


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Leomoon80]

With that last interview from Mrs. C, he's a kid, who did nothing wrong except have a fling. I got red hot with that! But to save face, I think they'd welcome him right back.

Who is Mrs C? Is it his mother in law?

Oh well, I guess so .... or this is a coincidence:

This is not the first time police have been involved in a dispute on Caison's property.

Tammy's husband Sidney Moorer, also charged for the kidnapping and murder of Heather Elvis, was arrested in 2011 for assault along with Caison. These charges stem from an incident involving their neighbor Edward Miller over a property dispute. That neighbor says he still fears for his safety after repeated threats from Caison.

Jennifer Garrett also filed an assault report against William Caison on January 19, 2014. She said she was helping search for Heather Elvis near William Caison's property in January when he rushed toward her.

"He raised a stick and was very close to me and said 'I'm going to - I don't care if you're a woman - I'm going to bash your "blanking" head in,'" Garrett said.

Maybe TM nee C violence or temper runs in her family..
http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/25029...wmbf-news-anchor-michael-maely-of-trespassing

 

[Knox]

Based on what I've seen elsewhere, I don't think they're too happy with him. IMO, they claim SM has done nothing wrong because TM has claimed all along that she and SM were together and not with Heather. If the C's now say anything bad about SM, it won't look good for TM and her lies. JMO
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Mrs C has already contradicted herself. As I said earlier, the 'C' family needs to keep crib notes on their media interviews. The TRUTH never changes!!!

There is a SM thread downstairs, maybe you could outline what you have seen elsewhere? I'm curious about that.

 

[OkieGranny]

We now have a pre-trial discussion thread — see you there!

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?267185-Trial-date-set-for-Sidney-and-Tammy-Moorer

 

[jillycat]

Sydney looking to get his bail lowered...lawyers says he can't be legally convicted for Heather's murder? Not sure I understand that...

http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/27750...s-motion-to-reduce-bond-in-heather-elvis-case

The motion was filed December 30 and states, “the discovery provided not only contradicts the State's representations at the initial bond hearing, but further establishes that Sidney Moorer could not be legally convicted of the crimes charged.”

Regardless of the type of evidence presented, the bottom line will be, does the evidence presented meet the reasonable doubt standard, and specifically that of SC. Here is a discussion of the standard by an SC atty who practices criminal law. He refers specifically to a case where the standard wasn't met, and how that defies a lawful conviction.
http://www.jimcourtneylaw.com/?p=277

The section below is what concerns me about the M's (emphasis mine):

"Plainly stated, the judge should have dismissed the case because the state could not prove an element of the case. What element? The “who” of who did it. According to well settled law, the prosecutor must prove every element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt. In South Carolina the law is that “the trial court should grant a directed verdict when the evidence merely raises a suspicion that the defendant is guilty” (State v. Odems, 395 S.C. 582, 586, (2011)).
It is a key point to remember that they must prove who did it beyond a reasonable doubt. The evidence that was presented did show with some circumstantial evidence that he might have done it, but they must prove he did do it beyond a reasonable doubt. Since there was some doubt, and definitely no witnesses who saw him do anything, the judge should have thrown it out."

It appears SM's lawyer believes, or at least at this stage is claiming, that the prosecution does not have sufficient evidence against SM to gain a conviction under SC law. Of course no lawyer is going to acknowledge a client's guilt and anything can happen at trial. But it's possible to have a wealth of compelling circumstantial evidence and not meet the standard of reasonable doubt. Short of one or both of the M's videotaping each other participating in the crime and giving the damning evidence to LE, I think they have a secrecy pact that thus far has served them both well.

I personally think anything is possible in this case. I also think the M's and the attys have additional confidence because the remains are unlikely to ever be recovered.

 

[Surfside]

Who is Mrs C? Is it his mother in law?

Yes, TM's mother.

 

[stillwatersc]

With that last interview from Mrs. C, he's a kid, who did nothing wrong except have a fling. I got red hot with that! But to save face, I think they'd welcome him right back.

That's what Heather did, but she died for it. :cry:

 

[NWLady]

Can someone please put the link for the basement/parking lot area? It's been so long that I can't remember how to get there. Thanks in advance.

 

[OkieGranny]

Here you go:

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?237941-Heather-Elvis-case-social-media-discussion

 

[kimi_SFC]

OkieGranny you are the best!

:loveyou:
:yourock:


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hoosgirl]

Sydney looking to get his bail lowered...lawyers says he can't be legally convicted for Heather's murder? Not sure I understand that...

http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/27750...s-motion-to-reduce-bond-in-heather-elvis-case

The motion was filed December 30 and states, “the discovery provided not only contradicts the State's representations at the initial bond hearing, but further establishes that Sidney Moorer could not be legally convicted of the crimes charged.”

Interesting wording ... can't be legally convicted, but not "he didn't do it". JMO!

 

[TedMac]

Sydney looking to get his bail lowered...lawyers says he can't be legally convicted for Heather's murder? Not sure I understand that...

http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/27750...s-motion-to-reduce-bond-in-heather-elvis-case

The motion was filed December 30 and states, “the discovery provided not only contradicts the State's representations at the initial bond hearing, but further establishes that Sidney Moorer could not be legally convicted of the crimes charged.”

BBM I believe that Sidney and Tammy should be released on $0.00 bail-the same day that Heather walks back into her family's home and embraces her mom, dad and sister. Until then, their sorry asses should stay where they are.

 

[JerseyGirl]

Sidney Moorer's defense attorney, Kirk Truslow, is requesting a second bond hearing for Sidney Moorer. The motion suggests the defense has found the state's evidence contradicts what put Sidney behind bars in the first place.

http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/27751546/heather-elvis-murder-trial-date-set-for-sidney-tammy-moorer

 

[jillycat]

Sidney Moorer's defense attorney, Kirk Truslow, is requesting a second bond hearing for Sidney Moorer. The motion suggests the defense has found the state's evidence contradicts what put Sidney behind bars in the first place.

http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/27751546/heather-elvis-murder-trial-date-set-for-sidney-tammy-moorer

From the above article:

"Billy Monckton has been practicing law for 22 years.The former prosecutor says it's typical for the defense to file repeated requests for bond especially since Sidney has been in jail for almost a year now with his wife Tammy, charged with Heather Elvis' murder, but he says this motion could be different.

"In my opinion, it could hurt the state's case, if they've presented inaccurate information to the judge already," Monckton added."


There will be motions. And more motions. A lot is likely to happen, at least on paper and through legal wrangling, before trial. And if the lawyers keep chipping away long enough, what goes to trial may be a big departure from what is currently floating through the evidence and paperwork. Or, there may not be a trial. Or only one person will go to trial. I think there's so much to the story and what really happened, and what LE knows vs what it can prove under the law, and what the M's know and will never disclose, that this is going to have an ending with some surprises.

 

[Ghostwheel]

From the above article:

"Billy Monckton has been practicing law for 22 years.The former prosecutor says it's typical for the defense to file repeated requests for bond especially since Sidney has been in jail for almost a year now with his wife Tammy, charged with Heather Elvis' murder, but he says this motion could be different.

"In my opinion, it could hurt the state's case, if they've presented inaccurate information to the judge already," Monckton added."


There will be motions. And more motions. A lot is likely to happen, at least on paper and through legal wrangling, before trial. And if the lawyers keep chipping away long enough, what goes to trial may be a big departure from what is currently floating through the evidence and paperwork. Or, there may not be a trial. Or only one person will go to trial. I think there's so much to the story and what really happened, and what LE knows vs what it can prove under the law, and what the M's know and will never disclose, that this is going to have an ending with some surprises.

Jumping off your post for the bolded part. In my mind, even if the evidence presented at the first bond hearing does NOT contradict what the discovery shows, the defense has now planted a seed of doubt out there. Now all the evidence will be looked at with a microscope, to make sure whether there is or is not contradictory evidence. It's a smart move, even if there isn't contradictory evidence, but possibly evidence that would need an expert to verify. I'm not sure if it is still that case, but in 2010, draft expert reports and communications between counsel and expert witnesses were protected by the work-product doctrine. While they still have to give full disclosure of the expert’s opinions and the facts or data used to support them, the facts or data can be interpreted different ways, and it might take the actual testimony of an expert witness to show how they got to the conclusion in a way that dispels reasonable doubt.

What Sidney's attorney has done is make people wonder if the evidence that has been seen so far has been misrepresented.

 

[Madeleine74]

Attorneys not involved in the case but interviewed by the media always try to get a salacious or controversial soundbite in when asked their opinion about a case or about other attorneys actions in a case. Notice this attorney used the following words in his remarks: "MAY" "IF" "COULD" etc. This attorney has no idea what evidence the state has so he is speculating and making some broad assumptions around some what-if scenarios.

 

[jillycat]

Attorneys not involved in the case but interviewed by the media always try to get a salacious or controversial soundbite in when asked their opinion about a case or about other attorneys actions in a case. Notice this attorney used the following words in his remarks: "MAY" "IF" "COULD" etc. This attorney has no idea what evidence the state has so he is speculating and making some broad assumptions around some what-if scenarios.

I see nothing "salacious" or "controversial" about an expert in criminal law weighing in on how other experts in criminal law think and behave before the court, and how that might affect the state's case. It is, after all, a defense attorney's nature and job to negatively affect the state's case. His use of the language "MAY" "IF" "COULD" suggests that he is not claiming knowledge of the case, and is instead considering what this type of motion can mean in this type of case, based on his trial experience in criminal court. I'm sure he's had plenty of motion filing rodeos of his own to speculate about defense lawyer actions.

And since SM's attorney is involved with the case and has seen discovery, we can be certain he is going to seek every legal remedy possible to free his client and that any motion he files is for the purpose of vigorously defending SM and separating him from the activities of 12/17-12/18 2013.

I'm not one to place all my faith in LE's case simply because they're LE. I've always said maybe they have what they say they have, and maybe they don't. We'll see. But they're going to get a run for their money by any defense team, and in my view, we don't know who has the best hand until the trial unfolds and the reasonable doubt standard is tested.

That's just my personal opinion in the face of claims that Heather was killed at PTL in approximately 3 minutes, then she "left" with the perps, and yet LE said early on they don't know how she died and they didn't know where she could be, nor did/do they believe they ever would know. Just a hunch, but I think any defense attorney would have a field day with that one, whether involved with the case or not.

We'll see what the state has and in the meantime, there is likely to be a lot of opinion offered up because of the interest in Heather's case. Discernment goes a long way and I can respect a defense lawyer's perspective over idle speculation by non-experts or members of the media. JMO

 

[jillycat]

Jumping off your post for the bolded part. In my mind, even if the evidence presented at the first bond hearing does NOT contradict what the discovery shows, the defense has now planted a seed of doubt out there. Now all the evidence will be looked at with a microscope, to make sure whether there is or is not contradictory evidence. It's a smart move, even if there isn't contradictory evidence, but possibly evidence that would need an expert to verify. I'm not sure if it is still that case, but in 2010, draft expert reports and communications between counsel and expert witnesses were protected by the work-product doctrine. While they still have to give full disclosure of the expert’s opinions and the facts or data used to support them, the facts or data can be interpreted different ways, and it might take the actual testimony of an expert witness to show how they got to the conclusion in a way that dispels reasonable doubt.

What Sidney's attorney has done is make people wonder if the evidence that has been seen so far has been misrepresented.

I'm sure the defense wants to get some strategic licks in and some groundwork in place before the jury selection starts, but I also suspect the state's case has or is going to have some problems. I will not be surprised that there might be teeth to motions concerning contradictions between evidence thus far presented and what will hold up under the reasonable doubt standard. However, the state obviously has info we can't imagine. So unless someone decides to roll and there are outright admissions that lead to a deal of some kind, I think the defense is rolling up its sleeves for quite a go round.

 

[stillwatersc]

http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=1153121

The hearing will be held Jan. 30 at the Charleston County Judicial Center

Will this be open to the public? Any Charleston, SC 'sleuthers able to attend?

 

[passionflower]

With so many charges against them, could they make bond and then go back to jail anyway?
Is it a ploy to see what they do or say (to find HE) IF they ever got out even for a day?
IMO LE has enough to convince a judge to leave them in jail...................