Trial date set for Sidney and Tammy Moorer? #2

[U2forever]

Quote Originally Posted by bestill View Post
I'm pretty sure SM aka TM is intimating that Heather is a hooker. Just how are they going to prove that?

Yes, I know .

How dare these two <modsnip>. I don't belLIEve for one second that anyone will think that about HE. Good try TM, too bad it won't work.

Oy vey, cannot stand the fact y'all have a horrible reputation eh. Guess what TM & SM, HE doesn't have a rep, love and peace, love and peace, something y'all are NOT!
How 'bout try crawling back in that hole y'all came slithering out of....
MOOOOO

 

[Madeleine74]

Doesn't matter what they say about Heather now. There is nothing they can say that will remove the evidence that SM called Heather from the payphone, that SM was the last known person she spoke to, that Heather told her roommate right after the call that SM said he was leaving or had just left his wife, and the videos and GPS and phone pings place Heather in the direct and close vicinity of the M's exactly at the time Heather went missing from Peachtree Landing.

Even *if* Heather were a prostitute, there's nothing in the law that allows the killing of a prostitute. We know Heather wasn't one and evidence will come in to show that, but even if she were if wouldn't matter. No human has the right to take the life of another unless they are doing so in self-defense. That doesn't apply here so it's still murder, it's still premeditated, and the evidence isn't going to go away.

 

[U2forever]

Doesn't matter what they say about Heather now. There is nothing they can say that will remove the evidence that SM called Heather from the payphone, that SM was the last known person she spoke to, that Heather told her roommate right after the call that SM said he was leaving or had just left his wife, and the videos and GPS and phone pings place Heather in the direct and close vicinity of the M's exactly at the time Heather went missing from Peachtree Landing.

Even *if* Heather were a prostitute, there's nothing in the law that allows the killing of a prostitute. We know Heather wasn't one and evidence will come in to show that, but even if she were if wouldn't matter. No human has the right to take the life of another unless they are doing so in self-defense. That doesn't apply here so it's still murder, it's still premeditated, and the evidence isn't going to go away.

:clap: :tyou:

 

[Motherof5]

I love that TM,posting as SM, now claims that SM paid Heather. She's such an idiot. Truslow must just cringe considering he's already said that SM admitted to the affair.

 

[bestill]

I hope the witnesses that truly know how SM felt about Heather have an opportunity to testify. The stories that TM is posting are her fantasy, maybe hearing the truth will trigger a TM public meltdown for all to see. You know that SM had to lie about the real details.

 

[PeterThomasFan]

I know the D doesn't have to and will most likely not, but they have yet to offer up an inkling of theory on what they think happened to Heather.

Both McCollum and Truslow are going to put the full burden on the state to prove that the M's are guilty; sticking to the principle of presumption of innocence.

"I'm looking forward to that trial date," said Kirk Truslow, Sidney Moorer's defense attorney. Truslow says Sidney has no knowledge of, nor connection to, any of the facts surrounding the disappearance of Heather Elvis.

"It's being put to me, if your client didn't do it, who did it? And that's a very bizarre thing to say, because that's completely opposite of how the system works," Truslow said. "If I were to say to you, 'You did this, but I believe you didn't do it if you can just go prove who did do it.' That's not how the system works."

Greg McCollum, Tammy Moorer's defense attorney said that, "She's asserted that she's innocent. She was home schooling her children, she loves her family, they love her, and that certainly is not the image that's been portrayed of her, primarily in social media."

When asked if he knew of any information that Tammy met or knew Heather, he responded: "I don't have any information that she met her or knew her."

McCollum says prosecutors haven't yet released evidence, as will be required during the discovery portion of the case, so most of what he's seen is coming from police reports.
"I haven't seen anything so far, that really significantly incriminates her," McCollum said. "What Michael Maely asked if Tammy ever told McCollum that she was innocent.

"I'm not in a position, representing her or anyone else, to start talking about things that she and I have spoken about, there can be some legal implications with that in terms of attorney client privilege, and it's just not something I'd feel comfortable commenting on a direct conversation I've had with her," McCollum responded.

http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/24996...sist-moorers-are-innocent-until-proven-guilty

It was only recent that the M's started to be more vocal about their innocence &#8211; deflecting blame upon the victim's family through a scrupulous source; as well as other channels online. And even still, they are not coming out and directly saying, "I am innocent. I did not do this."

Nor was this done in a tactful or believable way.

At least that is the impression I get. :moo:

 

[Madeleine74]

I know the D doesn't have and will most likely not, but they have yet to offer up an inkling of theory on what they think happened to Heather.

Both McCollum and Truslow are going to put the full burden on the state to prove that the M's are guilty; sticking to the principle of presumption of innocence.

If I were the defense I wouldn't try to do the state's job for them. The burden is always 100% on the state to prove the charges. This is such a fundamental part of our Constitution. In fact, I might have more respect for the defense if they stuck to just doing that rather then doing as many defense teams do--taking a scorched earth strategy.

 

[seattlechiquita]

Yup. As much as it irks me, it is not the defense's job to build a case for innocence. It is the state's burden to prove guilt.

Personally, I think Mickie and Minnie are up to their ears in guilt, but I am not in the jury, nor am I in charge of prosecuting them without a body.

 

[Surfside]

Doesn't matter what they say about Heather now. There is nothing they can say that will remove the evidence that SM called Heather from the payphone, that SM was the last known person she spoke to, that Heather told her roommate right after the call that SM said he was leaving or had just left his wife, and the videos and GPS and phone pings place Heather in the direct and close vicinity of the M's exactly at the time Heather went missing from Peachtree Landing.

Even *if* Heather were a prostitute, there's nothing in the law that allows the killing of a prostitute. We know Heather wasn't one and evidence will come in to show that, but even if she were if wouldn't matter. No human has the right to take the life of another unless they are doing so in self-defense. That doesn't apply here so it's still murder, it's still premeditated, and the evidence isn't going to go away.

Yes. Yes. Yes.

 

[Madeleine74]

I hope the US Constitution and its various articles doesn't irk anyone who resides in this country. Wiser people than most of us set forth these rights. Hundreds of thousands of people have died protecting those very rights through many wars. Taking away someone's freedom is a big deal and the government has to be accountable for doing so. That said, if someone is found guilty by a properly conducted trial, then lock 'em up!

 

[PeterThomasFan]

If I were the defense I wouldn't try to do the state's job for them. The burden is always 100% on the state to prove the charges. This is such a fundamental part of our Constitution. In fact, I might have more respect for the defense if they stuck to just doing that rather then doing as many defense teams do--taking a scorched earth strategy.

BBM

I know this and thanks for reiterating my point.

What I was getting at (sorry if I may have missed the mark in my explanation) is that the M's (not the Defense Attorneys) have never came straight out and explained why they are innocent.

Sure, there was a futile attempt to establish a timeline on FB and their attorney's gave statements of "innocent until proven guilty" along with this statement:

Greg McCollum, Tammy Moorer's defense attorney said that, "She's asserted that she's innocent. She was home schooling her children...

Nothing that clearly persuades doubt or WHY they are innocent.

Instead, all of their energy was quickly turned to blaming the E's and trying to make people feel sorry for them being harassed. :moo:

 

[cujenn81]

BBM

I know this and thanks for reiterating my point.

What I was getting at (sorry if I may have missed the mark in my explanation) is that the M's (not the Defense Attorneys) have never came straight out and explained why they are innocent.

Sure, there was a futile attempt to establish a timeline on FB and their attorney's gave statements of "innocent until proven guilty" along with this statement:



Nothing that clearly persuades doubt or WHY they are innocent.

Instead, all of their energy was quickly turned to blaming the E's and trying to make people feel sorry for them being harassed. :moo:

Deflection at its finest, in my opinion.

TM's attorney said, "She's ASSERTED that she's innocent" (he doesn't say "she IS innocent"). Then, he veers off course by talking about how she was homeschooling her kids, and how she loves her kids and they love her, which has absolutely nothing to do with the question he was asked, nor is it relevant to this case.

I mean, she surely wasn't up at 3 AM teaching her kids math problems on the night that Heather went missing. I don't believe her attorney was trying to say that anyway, but it's further proof that he was dodging the question.

I strongly believe that what someone says (or doesn't say) and how they say it tells us a lot about how they truly feel.

Take the following statement by McCollum, for example:

"I haven't seen anything so far, that really significantly incriminates her."

He used THREE qualifiers (so far, really, and significantly) in one sentence. Qualifiers are descriptive words used to indicate a degree of certainty. People tend to overuse them when they lack confidence in their statements. When used properly, they strengthen; when overused, they weaken.

If you separate out the two qualifiers, 'really' and 'significantly' and rewrite each statement twice---one using the word 'really' and one using the word 'significantly'---it's clear to see what he truly meant.

Without the word 'significantly':
"I haven't seen anything so far, that really incriminates her."

Without the word 'really':
"I haven't seen anything so far, that significantly incriminates her."

See how weak his statements sound?

"So far" is a different type of qualifier---words or phrases known as "weasel words". These qualifiers are used to avoid committing to your statement.

"I haven't seen anything, SO FAR...," lets us know that he's not certain that no other evidence exists, and he isn't sure if he'll be shown incriminating evidence in the future. Therefore, he won't commit to his statement without adding those weasel words, "so far." Those two words can redeem him if it's later proven that incriminating evidence does exist.


These are just a few of my thoughts and opinions about what McCollum has said, anyway. For what it's worth, SM's lawyer has sounded much more confident in his statements. His statements have been few, and those few have been straightforward. That might just mean he's smarter.

 

[PeterThomasFan]

Good post @cujenn81 [emoji2]

 

[U2forever]

Cujenn, thank you for 'weasel words'. I'll put that to good use along with my second favourite, 'sex pest'.
Nothing's too cool for Websleuths school.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[bestill]

cujenn81, even in his recent statement he continues the same:
Tammy Moorer's attorney, Greg McCollum released a statement about the case, saying:"On behalf of Tammy and the rest of us at my firm, we are ready to have the case set and move to a resolution. Tammy is looking forward to her day in court because she believes that will benefit her in the end. We are happy to soon have a trial date set and finally getting to that point."

 

[Madeleine74]

Jurors won't be evaluating and analyzing the media statements of defense attorneys, they'll be looking at the evidence brought forth inside the courtroom. I've seen defense attorneys say things like, "my client has and continues to claim innocence for this crime..." Notice the attorney is not claiming the client is innocent, only that the client claims it to be so.

It's standard defense attorney verbiage, some attorneys are more articulate and careful than others. The vast majority of attorneys never ask their clients if they actually did a crime because they need to defend them and if the client admits the crime, then the attorney cannot allow the client to take the stand and lie. So they assume innocence and proceed that way, even if the attorney knows in his/her heart of hearts the client is guilty. It's like a don't ask/don't tell policy of sorts.

 

[bestill]

Highly doubt they will take the stand but I do believe there's a good possiblity that TM is found in contempt of court, because she can't keep her mouth shut. She'll have an outburst.

 

[cujenn81]

Oh, I definitely get all that.
I was just saying that for me, personally, his statement says a lot about where his head is... or if he, as you put it, knows in his heart of hearts that she's guilty.

 

[ZooSleuth]

Highly doubt they will take the stand but I do believe there's a good possiblity that TM is found in contempt of court, because she can't keep her mouth shut. She'll have an outburst.

Knowing Judge Dennis he will probably let her interrupt witnesses and answer questions for them.

 

[Surfside]

Knowing Judge Dennis he will probably let her interrupt witnesses and answer questions for them.

That made me laugh. Then it made me sad that I laughed. That judge is a hodgepodge of every Southern judge ever portrayed on film. He's a caricature. He makes me cringe.