Trial date set for Sidney and Tammy Moorer? #2

[jillycat]

RSBM: The law doesn't suggest that kidnapping means the victim is never allowed to leave, just that they're not allowed to leave for an unspecified period of time. A story I told a couple weeks ago in the Evidence thread:
In this scenario, the robber left and the kidnap victims walked out of the cooler on their own.

So imagine a scenario where Heather was parked at PTL, the Moorers pulled up in their truck and blocked the entrance so she couldn't drive out of the landing. That's kidnapping. Even if Heather had run up the embankment to one of the trailers, and had a resident call the police, the fact that they blocked the entrance so she couldn't drive out of the landing, would constitute the kidnapping. Oh, how I wish that had happened.

My point is that the kidnapping doesn't have to end in a standoff, a recovered body, or a rescue. It can end in the kidnapper(s) taking the victim to another location. It can end in the kidnapper letting the victim go. It can end in the kidnapper leaving, allowing the victim to go on her own. So, the state doesn't have to prove Heather was never allowed to leave PTL. They simply have to prove she was any of the following (for even 5 seconds):

• unlawfully seized
• confined
• inveigled (enticed, lured, or ensnared by flattery or artful talk or inducements)
• decoyed
• kidnapped
• abducted
• carried away by any means whatsoever without authority of law

I know it's hard to separate the kidnapping and the murder, but the state doesn't have to prove how the kidnapping ended. They only have to prove that it happened.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c003.php

I've read and understand the statute. I didn't say Heather was "never" allowed to leave. I said that the Solicitor himself stated that kidnapping isn't necessarily what people think, where a bag is thrown over someone's head and they're hauled off, rather, it can simply be stopping them from leaving (for however long). And I said that she then disappeared altogether after this fleeting kidnapping event. I can't imagine that glaring detail will be excluded. Obviously, there are countless situations where someone grabs another person's arm, blocks their car, or momentarily restricts their access to an exit of some kind in a moment of conflict between the parties. But these common scenarios don't lead to kidnapping trials.

I'm saying that it's going to be tough to prove that two ex-lovers met by their own choice and on their own power at a landing where there's no evidence of a crime, and therefore a kidnapping happened. And that's exactly how the defense is going to spin it, if SM's lawyer even acknowledges that there was contact at the landing between SM and Heather. So far, that's been denied and I think it will continue to be denied.

I actually think it's quite easy to separate the murder from the kidnapping in this situation because it's so implausible that a murder took place that quickly, and then the M's drove back home where they also left no evidence of a crime, and the body apparently vanished into thin air.

The state now has the same circumstantial case it had before this became just a kidnapping case. I have little faith that they can take the same evidence that didn't work for them on those charges and prove to a jury that Heather had her car blocked or her keys grabbed for five seconds, or whatever their preferred hypothesis will be. I frankly think they're hanging their hat on the lie SM told to make their leap to a kidnapping conviction. That's why he's first up at trial, if a trial even happens.

Frankly, I think the state should, at the very least, be deeply ashamed by now. Heather is God knows where, having been murdered, and she and her family deserved more than the state fiddling around for a year promising a trial, only to have to request an NP on the most serious charge. If the state can get SM back to jail, it's a great day. If not, it will hardly be a surprise, just as the NP was not, to me anyway, a surprise.

Whatever happens, Heather will tragically still be missing and denied her dignified laying to rest, and her family will still be suffering.

 

[jillycat]

Jilly Cat, working off of your statement, " What matters in the end is whether or not the state can string those circumstances together to bear up under the defense strategy and a reasonable doubt standard."

I agree totally with what you said here. The reasonable doubt standard - let's talk about that in the kidnapping charge for SM. The string and the narrative is clear as a bell to me. The only thing that would not be totally clear in SM's case is the motive. The rest of the string and narrative is clear. What has been released in my mind is no doubt that the dots connect from point a to point b. The payphone call, the lie about that, the truck going to PTL, the call to BW, which put a monkey wrench in the payphone call, the clearing of the date, Heather's phone records and the confident assertion that Heather drove her own car to PTL. I would of course have to take into account the defense strategy. I don't know what they would counter with, but one of the main ones would be the black blob. I would have to see the video, but these days video camera quality can be pretty good. It's possible that the quality could be pretty good, but because of the poor lighting on the particular road the image may not be as good as expected? Taking the truck video in isolation I may have reasonable doubt, but because of the time of night the truck was travelling that road coming from the direction of the M's home and the fact many other vehicles of that model were checked out, I would not buy the black blob from the defense. The only question in my mind from what has been released so far is SM's motive. I do think it has a lot to do with TM, but since he is being tried separately that may not come in fully. Without that coming in, the motive that is clear on SM's part is that he lured Heather to PTL. Crime scene or not the last trace of her is where she was lured. Under this scenario I could see the kidnapping charge sticking. JMO

I guess we'll see what the defense does with the vehicle video. But what was the lure? And what constituted kidnapping? Even if the defense is well-challenged on the video issue, or, if the defense acknowledges that they met at the landing (I doubt that will happen), what exactly indicates that she was restricted in her ability to leave? Her car is there and she's not. What does this mean?

I'm disturbed by the NP on murder. I don't see how they can do any better with the kidnapping charge, but I could be wrong.

 

[LBDunes]

I guess we'll see what the defense does with the vehicle video. But what was the lure? And what constituted kidnapping? Even if the defense is well-challenged on the video issue, or, if the defense acknowledges that they met at the landing (I doubt that will happen), what exactly indicates that she was restricted in her ability to leave? Her car is there and she's not. What does this mean?

I'm disturbed by the NP on murder. I don't see how they can do any better with the kidnapping charge, but I could be wrong.

BBM - The lure was that he told her, alledgely, that he was leaving his wife. I don't know what was said by him is what mattered. The lure was the phone call itself.

Correct, her car was there and she was not. Presuming one believes that the truck was heading to PTL and also there might be proof it was actually there, then if her car was there and she is not, that means she was taken into the truck, which would constitute kidnapping. I understand what you said about how they could do any better with the kidnapping charge. I say this because the next leap is murder. I say that because I just do not believe this young, socially media active young woman disappeared from the fave of the earth. However, since they do not have any physical evidence from PTL, they may fear the jury could not come back with a just verdict for Heather. In the future if her body is found then they can bring back the murder charge.

 

[jillycat]

BBM - The lure was that he told her, alledgely, that he was leaving his wife. I don't know what was said by him is what mattered. The lure was the phone call itself.

Correct, her car was there and she was not. Presuming one believes that the truck was heading to PTL and also there might be proof it was actually there, then if her car was there and she is not, that means she was taken into the truck, which would constitute kidnapping. I understand what you said about how they could do any better with the kidnapping charge. I say this because the next leap is murder. I say that because I just do not believe this young, socially media active young woman disappeared from the fave of the earth. However, since they do not have any physical evidence from PTL, they may fear the jury could not come back with a just verdict for Heather. In the future if her body is found then they can bring back the murder charge.

I think any reasonable person knows she was murdered.

The state has thus far confined its charge to Heather being kidnapped at the landing. I don't know how they can keep adding to their scenario by having the kidnapping start at her condo via lure by phone and then extend to being taken alive in the truck. If their big fish is a future murder charge, will they switch up their original PTL crime scene scenario to a new one where she was taken somewhere else to be killed?

I've said previously that I believe they ran with the PTL kidnapping/murder scenario because it's the only point in time that the state can connect the three parties at the same location at the same time. They clearly have no idea what happened to her after that, or whether or not the M's went home or elsewhere.

I think they're still stuck with those limitations. JMO

 

[LBDunes]

I think any reasonable person knows she was murdered.

The state has thus far confined its charge to Heather being kidnapped at the landing. I don't know how they can keep adding to their scenario by having the kidnapping start at her condo via lure by phone and then extend to being taken alive in the truck. If their big fish is a future murder charge, will they switch up their original PTL crime scene scenario to a new one where she was taken somewhere else to be killed?

I've said previously that I believe they ran with the PTL kidnapping/murder scenario because it's the only point in time that the state can connect the three parties at the same location at the same time. They clearly have no idea what happened to her after that, or whether or not the M's went home or elsewhere.
I think they're still stuck with those limitations. JMO

Well if any reasonable person knows she was murdered, why would you say they ran with the PTL scene? I don't see the limitations? If he/they kidnapped her, why could he/they have not murdered her elsewhere? If the body is found and let's say that the kidnapping charge sticks, I really don't believe it matters where she was murdered. I doubt there would be any evidence with the body at this point, but as you said any reasonable person knows she was murdered. Reasonable doubt is the standard, so unless you want beyond any doubt, then I don't see limitations. I do not see a problem if the kidnapping charge is successfully prosecuted that it would be a switch that she was murdered in the truck, at their home or anywhere else.

 

[jillycat]

Well if any reasonable person knows she was murdered, why would you say they ran with the PTL scene? I don't see the limitations? If he/they kidnapped her, why could he/they have not murdered her elsewhere? If the body is found and let's say that the kidnapping charge sticks, I really don't believe it matters where she was murdered. I doubt there would be any evidence with the body at this point, but as you said any reasonable person knows she was murdered. Reasonable doubt is the standard, so unless you want beyond any doubt, then I don't see limitations. I do not see a problem if the kidnapping charge is successfully prosecuted that it would be a switch that she was murdered in the truck, at their home or anywhere else.

As I said, I don't believe that because the public can connect dots and conclude she was murdered, the state now has a better case with the same evidence.

It's the state that limited the crime timeline and scene by confining them to PTL.

I guess in a new scenario, the state can argue that their warrant accommodates a kidnapping that began at the condo via a phone lure to PTL, and once she got there the kidnapping expanded to being taken alive by truck. Then a new warrant could reflect that she was murdered somewhere else.

But it sounds to me like this is simply a re-casting of the story-boards to mitigate their loss of the original murder charge and hoping for a new opportunity without the benefit of new evidence. Maybe they can make that work. I don't know.

 

[nosysw]

I've been thinking... And it's been a long time since I've posted so go easy

Could it be possible that LE has a really good idea of exactly what happened to Heather? Remember we talked so many times about how smug TM is about it, that maybe she has a good idea that she can never be found (for whatever reason). Maybe LE knows what that reason is (say someone gave them confidential information), and knows that it happened in such a way that they never would be able to find her, or prove how it was done... So, maybe that's why they gave up the murder charges, but not the kidnapping. KWIM?

 

[TedMac]

I've been thinking... And it's been a long time since I've posted so go easy

Could it be possible that LE has a really good idea of exactly what happened to Heather? Remember we talked so many times about how smug TM is about it, that maybe she has a good idea that she can never be found (for whatever reason). Maybe LE knows what that reason is (say someone gave them confidential information), and knows that it happened in such a way that they never would be able to find her, or prove how it was done... So, maybe that's why they gave up the murder charges, but not the kidnapping. KWIM?

I think you are right about LE possibly knowing what happened to the body. At the time SM & TM were arrested, the Solicitor made a statement to the press something to the effect that Heather's body may not be recoverable. By that, I always felt he had an idea of what may have been done to her. MOO

 

[stillwatersc]

Considering the murder charges...I have not heard where the Elvis's have had Heather declared deceased. Until they are ready for that, IMO it would be more difficult to have a murder trial. (((Prayers for Heather's sweet family.)))

 

[PeterThomasFan]

Considering the murder charges...I have not heard where the Elvis's have had Heather declared deceased. Until they are ready for that, IMO it would be more difficult to have a murder trial. (((Prayers for Heather's sweet family.)))

They haven't yet afaik, but think they should.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...VIDENCE-Pro-and-Con-2&p=11900916#post11900916 / http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...VIDENCE-Pro-and-Con-2&p=11915489#post11915489

 

[stillwatersc]

They haven't yet afaik, but think they should.

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...VIDENCE-Pro-and-Con-2&p=11900916#post11900916 / http://www.websleuths.com/forums/sh...VIDENCE-Pro-and-Con-2&p=11915489#post11915489

Interesting read...

Vanished: When loved ones are presumed dead
Sketchy rules make it difficult to get closure when a loved one disappears.


Found the SC LAW...

SECTION 62-1-507. Evidence of death or status.

In addition to the South Carolina Rules of Evidence, the following rules relating to a determination of death and status apply:

(1) Death occurs when an individual is determined to be dead under the Uniform Determination of Death Act, Section 44-43-460.

(2) A certified or authenticated copy of a death certificate purporting to be issued by an official or agency of the place where the death purportedly occurred is prima facie proof of the fact, place, date and time of death, and the identity of the decedent.

(3) A certified or authenticated copy of any record or report of a governmental agency, domestic or foreign, that a person is missing, detained, dead, or alive is prima facie evidence of the status and of the dates, circumstances, and places disclosed by the record or report.

(4) In the absence of prima facie evidence of death under subsection (2) or (3), the fact of death may be established by clear and convincing evidence, including circumstantial evidence.

(5) A person whose death is not established under the preceding paragraphs who is absent for a continuous period of five years, during which he has not been heard from, and whose absence is not satisfactorily explained after diligent search or inquiry, is presumed to be dead. His death is presumed to have occurred at the end of the period unless there is sufficient evidence for determining that death occurred earlier.

(6) In the absence of evidence disputing the time of death stated on a document described in subsection (2) or (3), a document described in subsection (2) or (3) that states a time of death one hundred twenty hours or more after the time of death of another person, however the time of death of the other person is determined, establishes by clear and convincing evidence that the person survived the other person by one hundred twenty hours.

HISTORY: 1986 Act No. 539, Section 1; Code 1976 Section 62-1-107; 2013 Act No. 100, Section 1, eff January 1, 2014.

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t62c001.php

Good info PTF. Bringing forward. Thanks.

 

[Madeleine74]

It's not scientific. Someone could vote multiple times. It means nothing in the big picture. Don't forget, there are also a lot of people who are anti-government anti-police and so on.

 

[Madeleine74]

Direct evidence = an eyewitness to the crime, a confession by the perp, or a video showing the crime being committed. Everything else, by legal definition, is "circumstantial" evidence. This includes all physical evidence, forensics, etc etc. Most criminal cases are 'only' circumstantial.

 

[LBDunes]

As I said, I don't believe that because the public can connect dots and conclude she was murdered, the state now has a better case with the same evidence.

It's the state that limited the crime timeline and scene by confining them to PTL.

I guess in a new scenario, the state can argue that their warrant accommodates a kidnapping that began at the condo via a phone lure to PTL, and once she got there the kidnapping expanded to being taken alive by truck. Then a new warrant could reflect that she was murdered somewhere else.

But it sounds to me like this is simply a re-casting of the story-boards to mitigate their loss of the original murder charge and hoping for a new opportunity without the benefit of new evidence. Maybe they can make that work. I don't know.

It has been a while, but I looked at the warrant for the charges and described below are the details of the kidnapping charge:

The warrants for the murder charges state that Tammy and Sidney Moorer "did unlawfully, without just or sufficient cause, murder Heather Elvis with malice forethought. The kidnapping warrants state that the couple "did unlawfully seize, confine, kidnap, abduct or carry away Heather Elvis by any means whatsoever without the authority of the law."

What it looks like to me, as far as the kidnapping, it wouldn't be a recasting of the story or require a new warrant. The warrant has a wide range of what happened. Are they saying they don't know what happened or it is in the range? Would a juror have to know the exact detail, if PTL was the last known place that she was? Without going back over the narrative, in the end it will hinge on what is found to be credible in the string of evidence.

 

[Madeleine74]

The wording is done so that they don't exclude any possibility. It's a standard charge, wording-wise, matching the statute.

 

[LBDunes]

Direct evidence = an eyewitness to the crime, a confession by the perp, or a video showing the crime being committed. Everything else, by legal definition, is "circumstantial" evidence. This includes all physical evidence, forensics, etc etc. Most criminal cases are 'only' circumstantial.

We'll have to see the outcome. I think the circumstantial evidence at worst is pretty compelling. I just get the feeling as you pointed to forensics, that in this DNA age, people may not be able to reach a unanimous verdict for the murder charge, without DNA. I'm thinking that hurdle may not be as insurmountable on the kidnapping charge.

 

[Madeleine74]

It may be a very difficult hill to climb, I agree. The thing is, 'kidnapping' doesn't necessarily involve any bodily harm. Someone threatened or under duress might comply to try and avoid injury or death. Heather could have willingly gotten into that black truck but then was subdued and not allowed to leave and at that point the kidnapping charge is valid.

 

[jillycat]

It has been a while, but I looked at the warrant for the charges and described below are the details of the kidnapping charge:

The warrants for the murder charges state that Tammy and Sidney Moorer "did unlawfully, without just or sufficient cause, murder Heather Elvis with malice forethought. The kidnapping warrants state that the couple "did unlawfully seize, confine, kidnap, abduct or carry away Heather Elvis by any means whatsoever without the authority of the law."

What it looks like to me, as far as the kidnapping, it wouldn't be a recasting of the story or require a new warrant. The warrant has a wide range of what happened. Are they saying they don't know what happened or it is in the range? Would a juror have to know the exact detail, if PTL was the last known place that she was? Without going back over the narrative, in the end it will hinge on what is found to be credible in the string of evidence.

The warrants say that she was both kidnapped and murdered at PTL. So, I would assume the state needs to prove this, or come up with a different story and prove that one, along with changing up the timeline.

 

[jellybeanz]

The ball is now in JR's court.

His story for the jury, needs to be better than whatever the defence can come up with.

The Defence will need to deflect an awful lot of circumstantial evidence.

JR has to nail his facts at every opportunity

 

[rob]

I think you are right about LE possibly knowing what happened to the body. At the time SM & TM were arrested, the Solicitor made a statement to the press something to the effect that Heather's body may not be recoverable. By that, I always felt he had an idea of what may have been done to her. MOO

I also think LE knows what probably happened and have shared that with the Elvis family. They seem to accept that she is gone and only wish to find her body and get justice. I can't wait to hear what the phone call friend has to say. I feel that will answer a lot of questions.
Where could her body be? They are located on the Atlantic coast and all you need is a boat. Wouldn't it be great if some fisherman snagged onto a container and pulled it in?
All MOO only