SC - Heather Elvis, 20, Myrtle Beach, 18 Dec 2013 - #15

[Snowyowl]

Thank you! Thank you! I was beginning to think I had dreamed that. At least I know where that came from. Hopefully I'll be able to sleep now.

YVW-I know that feeling well of remembering you've read it but not being able to pin it down. Like I said B4 reminds me of Lucy telling Charlie Brown to kick the football cuz she won't pull it away this time.
Sleep well now-things are REALLY gonna start getting crazy w/interview today & Valentines day full moon. Hang on for a bumpy ride :twocents:

 

[PPKik]

I can't find her anywhere myself! I also brought up a while ago she isn't in some nationwide places. I didn't see any mention of it on CUE either? I asked B4 cuz it stated on PR case closed?? Does that mean if they have evidence foul play involved it becomes murder??:moo:

The case is definitely not closed, although I have no idea what that means. Probably about the car, only.

I just did find Heather listed on CUE's site, but not until Jan. 6, 2014. You have to search by state, which is really depressing, or date. Since she did not get enteerd until Jan., you will find her listed then, and not in Dec.'s listings.

http://www.ncmissingpersons.org/2014/01/

 

[Snowyowl]

The case is definitely not closed, although I have no idea what that means. Probably about the car, only.

I just did find Heather listed on CUE's site, but not until Jan. 6, 2014. You have to search by state, which is really depressing, or date. Since she did not get enteerd until Jan., you will find her listed then, and not in Dec.'s listings.

http://www.ncmissingpersons.org/2014/01/

while I did find Heather on CUE I meant to say I found no mention of her number NIC # M141740921
I assume each number is case specific?? I found it distressing when I initially saw a tweet about Heather being missing I looked at all the nationwide places & couldn't find anything. I dug deeper and found specific persons. Most other people I know would have just thot it was a hoax and ignored it. That's why I feel it's so important to get things out there.
I also would add I became aware of Heather a full month after missing-so it seems to me there'd be plenty of time to enter,etc??

 

[PPKik]

while I did find Heather on CUE I meant to say I found no mention of her number NIC # M141740921
I assume each number is case specific?? I found it distressing when I initially saw a tweet about Heather being missing I looked at all the nationwide places & couldn't find anything. I dug deeper and found specific persons. Most other people I know would have just thot it was a hoax and ignored it. That's why I feel it's so important to get things out there.

I agree with you. It is strange. Maybe the NCIC number is for law enforcement only. I do know a lot of other information, i.e., criminal, goes into the NCIC, but why HE is listed in so few databases, I don't know.

Most, I believe, need somebody (family, friends, concerned citizen) to enter the person into whatever missing-person database it is.

 

[Snowyowl]

I agree with you. It is strange. Maybe the NCIC number is for law enforcement only. I do know a lot of other information i.e. criminal, goes into the NCIC, but why HE is listed in so few databases, I don't know.

Most, I believe, need somebody (family, friends, concerned citizen) to enter the person into whatever missing-person database it is.

even if it is for LE only,you'd think that case specific number would be noted everywhere.LE all across the world would have a ready reference.Maybe that number should also be included by WS at the start of threads??You never know who might be reading this info??

 

[jillycat]

JMO, but if TE thought HE was calling, texting, IM'ing, PM'ing, DM'ing, Skyping, FaceTiming, or anything else at 6:00 a.m., his remarks would allow for that.

So, whether he says she "went missing", was "last heard from", her last known phone "usage", or his "clock starts ticking" at 3:41, that's his timeline for her disappearance.

That is, he's clear that his clock doesn't start ticking at 6:00.

I don't think he's sticking with that time because he doesn't know what LE knows. Rather, its because of what he does know.

To me, the discrepancy is that simple and was never about time zones or police secrets or texting vs calling. It's more about a crime having been committed quickly and efficiently shortly after Heather returned home from her date. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

 

[Snowyowl]

JMO, but if TE thought HE was calling, texting, IM'ing, PM'ing, DM'ing, Skyping, FaceTiming, or anything else at 6:00 a.m., his remarks would allow for that.

So, whether he says she "went missing", was "last heard from", her last known phone "usage", or his "clock starts ticking" at 3:41, that's his timeline for her disappearance.

That is, he's clear that his clock doesn't start ticking at 6:00.

I don't think he's sticking with that time because he doesn't know what LE knows. Rather, its because of what he does know.

To me, the discrepancy is that simple and was never about time zones or police secrets or texting vs calling. It's more about a crime having been committed quickly and efficiently shortly after Heather returned home from her date. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

I tend to agree w/that except for 1 thing. You can only definitively make reasoned rationales according to your frame of reference. I hadn't really thot of all the new & different ways of communicating until mentioned by others and I thot I was reasonably web savvy.
I don't know if TE has any background in all these new ways kids can figure out how to get around things?

 

[PPKik]

JMO, but if TE thought HE was calling, texting, IM'ing, PM'ing, DM'ing, Skyping, FaceTiming, or anything else at 6:00 a.m., his remarks would allow for that.

So, whether he says she "went missing", was "last heard from", her last known phone "usage", or his "clock starts ticking" at 3:41, that's his timeline for her disappearance.

That is, he's clear that his clock doesn't start ticking at 6:00.

I don't think he's sticking with that time because he doesn't know what LE knows. Rather, its because of what he does know.

To me, the discrepancy is that simple and was never about time zones or police secrets or texting vs calling. It's more about a crime having been committed quickly and efficiently shortly after Heather returned home from her date. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

That all makes perfect sense, and I didn't like getting bogged down in time zones, differences between pm's, texting, talking apps, and SM places I've never heard of, after a certain point.

But as of Sunday's blog talk radio appearance, TE claimed that he didn't even have some really basic information, and I doubt he could get pings (to know where HE was) without a subpoena. LE has to do that unless TE is in involved litigation or a criminal action (or LE gave him investigative information), so I think LE has to have more information with at least a dozen search warrants.

I don't know how TE, and apparently no one else, could know that a crime happened quickly after Heather returned home. She still had to get to PTL.

Your post is entirely logical and well-reasoned, until I start asking those nagging questions that don't add up. I do agree that there is/are smoke and mirrors, but not necessarily in the same places.

If there weren't so many inconsistent statements, it would much easier for me to see this in the logical and straight forward way you do

 

[jillycat]

I tend to agree w/that except for 1 thing. You can only definitively make reasoned rationales according to your frame of reference. I hadn't really thot of all the new & different ways of communicating until mentioned by others and I thot I was reasonably web savvy.
I don't know if TE has any background in all these new ways kids can figure out how to get around things?

I don't think TE lacks awareness that there's more than one form of "usage"/"activity". I think he's saying there was a point at which Heather was no longer involved in that activity, and he believes that was 3:41.

According to his remarks, he believes/knows the roommate and the date had contact with HE after she arrived home. So, along with correlative phone records TE has seen, they're the likely parties to have supplied information to TE that supports his belief Heather was off the grid at/by 3:41.

This goes back to to the infamous discrepancy between the roommate's report re: HE's upset over OM's remarks about wanting to be with her, and OM's statement that he only called to tell her not to call.

There is documented behavior that separates those who had no problem reporting the nature of their communications with HE, and those who can't seem to get it straight.

 

[Aeronomy]

JMO, but if TE thought HE was calling, texting, IM'ing, PM'ing, DM'ing, Skyping, FaceTiming, or anything else at 6:00 a.m., his remarks would allow for that.

So, whether he says she "went missing", was "last heard from", her last known phone "usage", or his "clock starts ticking" at 3:41, that's his timeline for her disappearance.

That is, he's clear that his clock doesn't start ticking at 6:00.

I don't think he's sticking with that time because he doesn't know what LE knows. Rather, its because of what he does know.

To me, the discrepancy is that simple and was never about time zones or police secrets or texting vs calling. It's more about a crime having been committed quickly and efficiently shortly after Heather returned home from her date. The rest is smoke and mirrors.

BBM -
I don't think he knows all of what they know, but you're right, it does appear there's something more he knows. 3:41 stands out for reason.
And yet LE has confirmed cell phone communications between HE and SM until 6:00 am.

"Investigators also confirmed earlier reports of cell phone communications between Heather Elvis and Sidney Moorer, a 38-year-old Horry County man with whom police records state she had a relationship history, as late as 6 a.m. Dec. 18." http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/crime/article_ada6ad1c-8f77-11e3-8ca7-001a4bcf6878.html

Way back, the switching of SIMs had been mentioned. Whenever they're switched the information is recorded by the cell provider...and it's also not something that shows up when one logs into their account. But it would definitely be something the cell provider would be able reveal to LE. The 3:41 time stood out again when I read this article...

http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=987555#.UvnuxZX-vIX

"Police say she was last seen at her parents house on Tuesday night and the last time her cell phone pinged was Wednesday, Dec.18 at 3 a.m."

It seems that could explain a lot of confusion in a way...

...but then again, if something like that happened, then how could the police report already contain the 6 am communication information??? **:banghead:**

 

[PPKik]

I don't think TE lacks awareness that there's more than one form of "usage"/"activity". I think he's saying there was a point at which Heather was no longer involved in that activity, and he believes that was 3:41.

According to his remarks, he believes/knows the roommate and the date had contact with HE after she arrived home. So, along with correlative phone records TE has seen, they're the likely parties to have supplied information to TE that supports his belief Heather was off the grid at/by 3:41.

This goes back to to the infamous discrepancy between the roommate's report re: HE's upset over OM's remarks about wanting to be with her, and OM's statement that he only called to tell her not to call.

There is documented behavior that separates those who had no problem reporting the nature of their communications with HE, and those who can't seem to get it straight.

Your view may turn out to be completely right...the way things happened.

Would you consider that the roommate's version in the PR and the OMM's version in the PR are both hearsay to us? They are not even sworn statements. How do we know who is being completely truthful? Some of this report seems to be second or third generation hearsay: the report says that the roommate says that HE said that the OMM said, etc. On top of that, police reports can have errors, omissions, and biases.

You wrote: "According to his remarks, he believes/knows the roommate and the date had contact with HE after she arrived home. So, along with correlative phone records TE has seen, they're the likely parties to have supplied information to TE that supports his belief Heather was off the grid at/by 3:41."

Wouldn't TE have shared this with the HCPD, if these two didn't tell the HCPD themselves?

One point I have not brought up before though I find it extremely disquieting.

HE, according to the PR, was involved with another man sometime before moving in with BW.

Then, she gets a call (presumably at night) from the OMM saying he is leaving his wife. The timing seems especially odd.

HE was "happy after the date," or she was "crying because OMM was leaving his wife." (There's still a third version, but I can't look for it tonight. Didn't she tell her mother she had a fun date? Or maybe I'm hallucinating)

The only way I can make it all fit is to ignore about half of what I've read and heard in the PR, the PC and the interviews.

 

[jeandrews]

According to PR: "At this time, Victim has been entered NCIC, listed as Missing, with corresponding NIC# M141740921."

 

[PPKik]

BBM -

[snipped respectfully for space only]


http://www.carolinalive.com/news/story.aspx?id=987555#.UvnuxZX-vIX

"Police say she was last seen at her parents house on Tuesday night and the last time her cell phone pinged was Wednesday, Dec.18 at 3 a.m."

It seems that could explain a lot of confusion in a way...

...but then again, if something like that happened, then how could the police report already contain the 6 am communication information??? **:banghead:**

Are the police still saying that 3am was the last ping? I know that was said for at least a month, and that news report is dated a week after Heather went missing. They likely got a lot more information from the cell records since then.

I think the police report contained the cell information because TE said he checked his T-Mobile bill. Pings would have to be subpoenaed. I tried to get that information from my cell phone company and they do not give it out. #:banghead:

 

[Aeronomy]

Are the police still saying that 3am was the last ping? I know that was said for at least a month, and that news report is dated a week after Heather went missing. They likely got a lot more information from the cell records since then.

I think the police report contained the cell information because TE said he checked his T-Mobile bill. Pings would have to be subpoenaed. I tried to get that information from my cell phone company and they do not give it out. #:banghead:

I have no idea what's correct anymore.

It just happened to be in that article. It was from December. That's the only one I've come across that indicated the police referencing a time frame for pings. It wasn't ever edited to reflect any new information and no other information I've come across references any other time for pinging. Maybe it means something, maybe it means nothing.

The police report includes incorrect information, MSM has reported incorrect information and it seems just about every individual involved has provided incorrect or conflicting information...I'm going to back out of believing any of it at this point and just wait.

 

[jillycat]

Your view may turn out to be completely right...the way things happened.

Would you consider that the roommate's version in the PR and the OMM's version in the PR are both hearsay to us? They are not even sworn statements. How do we know who is being completely truthful? Some of this report seems to be second or third generation hearsay: the report says that the roommate says that HE said that the OMM said, etc. On top of that, police reports can have errors, omissions, and biases.

First of all, I don't know what happened to Heather or what time. And I certainly see that police reports can have errors. So I've taken the timelines in the phone records reported and reasoned that unless the media, LE, and TE are all lying or consistently reporting incorrect information, there is relevance to the 3:41 timeline that keeps rearing its head.

Here's what I don't understand. This entire case is one of multiple people claiming what other people said. This includes LE. Yet when I've noted that, I've encountered reactions about doubting TE, time zones, text vs calling, and assumptions that when two phones are communicating, we can somehow know who is using them.

What I also notice is that in order to make things "fit", the date has to be clueless about what time he dropped off Heather. He has to be so devoid of awareness about when he left her condo, it's reasonable that he arrived home at 3:00 from a drive that doesn't take 45 minutes. Why is that?

You wrote: "According to his remarks, he believes/knows the roommate and the date had contact with HE after she arrived home. So, along with correlative phone records TE has seen, they're the likely parties to have supplied information to TE that supports his belief Heather was off the grid at/by 3:41."

Wouldn't TE have shared this with the HCPD, if these two didn't tell the HCPD themselves?

I have no reason to believe he didn't. Do you mean there's a discrepancy between his 3:41 timeline and LE's reference to 6:00? Yes, i've said that many many times. I guess i want to know now is how LE knows Heather was in control of her phone at 6:00. I get that two phones were going back and forth then. Do we know for sure Heather was using her phone? How does LE know this without Heather to confirm it?

One point I have not brought up before though I find it extremely disquieting.

HE, according to the PR, was involved with another man sometime before moving in with BW.

Then, she gets a call (presumably at night) from the OMM saying he is leaving his wife. The timing seems especially odd.

HE was "happy after the date," or she was "crying because OMM was leaving his wife." (There's still a third version, but I can't look for it tonight. Didn't she tell her mother she had a fun date? Or maybe I'm hallucinating)

The only way I can make it all fit is to ignore about half of what I've read and heard in the PR, the PC and the interviews.

I don't see a connection, based on your remark, between another boyfriend and the call from OM.

I've raised the other issues myself and encountered claims that she went to the restroom to communicate with the roommate and OM, or she was texting them in the truck while on the date, and the date didn't notice she was upset. Again, SS seems to be the token character for utter lack of awareness of what's going on around him. I don't understand this. Particularly since he was the first and only one cleared.

 

[cluciano63]

I wonder if the Dec. reference to pings was a media assumption.
I tend to go with LE on the phone records, but TE does not, for whatever reason.

I sure hope the trunk of her car was checked...

 

[PeterThomasFan]

I can understand if TE felt something was wrong and was not focusing on a prosecution case at that time & just reeling in his mind "something is wrong". I certainly do not see any fault whatsoever and I don't think anyone I trust does as he is not LE and regardless what is done is done. The car must have been processed shortly thereafter day(s) and even though it may have been driven home (not sure about this or the gloves) it may pose a defense lawyer challenge, but maybe not such a huge challenge IF so and so was previously in the car anyway. I would be interested in what problems pertaining to this case could happen, because the car was not secured? I can see defense challenges, but not a total loss, am I wrong?

BBM

Yes and No IMO.

My thoughts have always been that PTL should have been considered a crime scene from the very beginning!

If you found a love one's car oddly abandoned and couldn't get in touch with them right away, wouldn't you freak out? I know I would.

There are many things that the original scene could have told LE:

• Where/how was the car parked?
• Which way were car tires pointing?
• Was a door or window ajar?
• Were any of the doors locked/unlocked?
• How was the seat adjusted?
• How was the steering wheel adjusted?
• How were mirrors adjusted?
• Was the car engine warm?
• What station was the radio set to?
• What did the tires look like? Was there fresh mud/dirt? Was it dry?
• Was there any trace evidence in or around the car? (fingerprints, hair, footprints, cigarette butts, spit, trash, clothing, condoms, food wrappers, beer/soda cans, drug paraphernalia)
• What did the floor mats look like? Fresh/wet/dry dirt? Plant matter? Seed heads? Stones transferred into car? Footprints?
• Were there any unusual odors in the car?
• How much gas was in the car?
• How many miles were on the car?
• Were pictures taken immediately?
• Were there any tire transfer tracks leading out of the landing?
• Was there any DNA evidence collected?
• Was there a complete inventory taken of HE's car?

I could probably go on, but you get the gist.

All of the above could be damaged/contaminated after the fact and would be harder to prove in Court if they were not properly and officially documented, IMO.

*Remember the OJ crime scene? All the LE, Press, and gawkers that converged on the scened ruined a lot of the original scene and evidence.

:banghead:

 

[SharetheLight]

Can someone please provide a link to the statement from either LE or MSM that says TE wore gloves while driving the car home from PTL
And
A link to the statement from MSM or LE that says HE license was found in the car?
I thought it was determined these were rumors but there's been a lot of mention on here about these two "facts".
Does anyone have a link to help a sista out?
Thank you to anyone who can help me.

Also it's my understanding that The xojane article is an essay TE wrote. It is not a news article/interview that gets continually updated as new news comes in.
It also doesn't appear things have been deleted as I have many screen shots of the first article/essay and it still looks the same.
If anyone has any screen shot to prove otherwise I know it can't be posted but please let me know.
Thanks again.

 

[SharetheLight]

I agree Dee. I don't think there was damming evidence in that car anyway and I know not for one minute did TE think he was not going to see his daughter again anytime soon. Also I think TE drove the car home and then looked into HE's cell phone records online, he probably got BW's phone number that way and that's when he knew what time HE was one the phone on the 18th and when the last time she used her phone.

I agree with all of this. TE has a flare with words. I do not think the twenty minutes he mentions started when the officer arrived or when he got to PTL. I tend to believe the twenty minutes he mentions is his way of saying once he started looking into things, a picture quickly began to emerge that Heather was not a walk away.

 

[Hatfield]

Someone brought up this possbility and I think it is a very good chance this happened.

After the roomate got the call from HE and HE was upset it is logical to think that maybe the roomate at some point called HE back to check on her. Especially if HE had told her she was going to meetup with someone.

If the roomate and HE were in constant communication it is possible that the roomate knows at what point the communication stopped with HE.

I think this is very possible. Once communication stopped then the roomate probably got concerned. But probably not enough to think something so terrible like this happened so she didnt call LE or anything. Once the roomate found out HE was missing then the roomate knew she had valuable info and it seems she quickly helped LE.

So if something like this happened then LE may have a good timeline on when HE could no longer use her phone. With only what we know this seems to indicate that things happened quickly once she met with whoever she was meeting with.

I think things escalated very quickly after she met with whoever took her. What I cant seem to determine is if it was planned in advance or if it was somone who went out of control immediately.

I tend to lean towards planned in advance due to lack of evidence. Because if not then I would think a vehicle would have evidence if the proper vehicles were checked and no evidence found.

I wish we knew what vehicles and places were searched. And I hope LE searched them carefully. There was another case where 1 speck of blood was found in a home and it was very hard to see. Another case I saw where only 1 hair was found. So a very careful search is needed sometimes.