Trial date set for Sidney and Tammy Moorer? #2

[jillycat]

BBM -- I wonder how the Judge will rule on this. The ravings and rants show motive on Tammy's part. However, she is not the defendant. This is not her trial.

I recall that TM's lawyer said/implied early on that the texts she allegedly sent aren't authenticated, or otherwise known to be hers. Obviously she sent them, but the defense trend has been to hack away at any evidence pointing to conflict between and among the three parties, or even contact between TM and HE. Presumably in the upcoming motions the defense will be working to close any remaining doors to the possibility/probability that the three had an encounter at PTL.

I'm not a lawyer but I do suspect that the hearsay motion might fly. There really is no way to determine what Heather's frame of mind was at the time or what she said. However, that cuts both ways, and there's also no way to know what was said when SM called from the pay phone, or when Heather called SM on his cell. I'm sure there's legal precedent somewhere and this is not the first time a phone conversation has been called into question. But it seems to me that if the BW testimony doesn't fly, neither would claims about what happened between SM and HE in any call.

Who knows what the defense will do with the pay phone call. I've seen references to there being video of SM at or near the pay phone, but don't recall any verified info on that? Can someone please remind or link me?

 

[jillycat]

I don't get the obsession with plea deals. I thought plea deals were very common, maybe even the norm. My co-worker was on a district grand jury and he said most prosecutions did not end in trial but were settled. IMO Tammy Moorer is pushing the attorney's to pursue this angle.

My best guess is that the answer is in the details. What exactly did they want SM to offer up? Because there's surely more to it than 'TM did it'. I'm sure the location of the body was at the top of the state's quid pro quo list.

Also, didn't she blab that they were both offered deals? That's probably true, although the offers might have been different depending on what the state thought they had, and how they perceived the guilt/participation of each M.

At any rate, it sounds like the defense is saying the state hoped to have SM make the case the state couldn't make and the defense wants that presented to a jury.

Since neither has given up the other, I continue to think that the defense lawyers have a good deal of confidence in their cases.

 

[stillwatersc]

Who knows what the defense will do with the pay phone call. I've seen references to there being video of SM at or near the pay phone, but don't recall any verified info on that? Can someone please remind or link me?

I remember the video was brought up or possibly played at an early hearing. They have video of Sidney slithering out of the bushes from behind the trash cans IIRC.

 

[lovinlife83]

I recall that TM's lawyer said/implied early on that the texts she allegedly sent aren't authenticated, or otherwise known to be hers. Obviously she sent them, but the defense trend has been to hack away at any evidence pointing to conflict between and among the three parties, or even contact between TM and HE. Presumably in the upcoming motions the defense will be working to close any remaining doors to the possibility/probability that the three had an encounter at PTL.

I'm not a lawyer but I do suspect that the hearsay motion might fly. There really is no way to determine what Heather's frame of mind was at the time or what she said. However, that cuts both ways, and there's also no way to know what was said when SM called from the pay phone, or when Heather called SM on his cell. I'm sure there's legal precedent somewhere and this is not the first time a phone conversation has been called into question. But it seems to me that if the BW testimony doesn't fly, neither would claims about what happened between SM and HE in any call.

Who knows what the defense will do with the pay phone call. I've seen references to there being video of SM at or near the pay phone, but don't recall any verified info on that? Can someone please remind or link me?

http://m.wmbfnews.com/wmbfnews/db_348198/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=bpZufA54
Fast forward to 10 minutes. Livesay discusses the video.

 

[jillycat]

http://m.wmbfnews.com/wmbfnews/db_348198/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=bpZufA54
Fast forward to 10 minutes. Livesay discusses the video.

The link doesn't work for me. I don't see a way to view a video.

 

[Hoosgirl]

This MSM link has links to the motions:

http://wbtw.com/2016/04/12/attorney-in-heather-elvis-case-wants-key-evidence-thrown-out/

Motion One: https://mgtvwbtw.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/moorer-motion.pdf
Motion Two: https://mgtvwbtw.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/moorer-motion2.pdf
Motion Three: https://mgtvwbtw.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/moorer-motion3.pdf
Motion Four: https://mgtvwbtw.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/moorer-motion4.pdf
Motion Five: https://mgtvwbtw.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/moorer-motion5.pdf
Motion Six: https://mgtvwbtw.files.wordpress.com/2016/04/moorer-motion6.pdf

Motion 5 is interesting. The defense is prepared to offer evidence of 3rd party guilt. Wonder who they are getting ready to throw under the bus?

 

[lovinlife83]

The link doesn't work for me. I don't see a way to view a video.

I just tried it and it's still working for me. I'm on an iPhone, maybe there is a different link for browsers? Idk

 

[meinmyrtlebeach]

Third party guilt. Give me a freakin break. Are they going to now use this opportunity to twist the knife even further in the Elvis family by suggesting TE had something to do with it as they've attempted on social media to portray?

As an aside, about a year or so ago i'm told by someone that the attorney said there is insufficient evidence in this case like he has never seen before. Wonder if he was just bloviating.as most attorneys tend to do trying to sway the public. But I wonder how there is "insufficient" or a lack of evidence...but all of a sudden he wants to suppress a bunch of what the state has. Hmmmm. Lie? Or is he worried?

Some of the chatter on social media seems to be that SM is going to throw TM under the bus with this "third party bs". I tend to disagree though. If he were going to throw her under the bus, wouldn't he WANT all of her crazy rantings and threatening texts to be on full display in court, rather than trying to suppress them?

 

[jillycat]

Third party guilt. Give me a freakin break. Are they going to now use this opportunity to twist the knife even further in the Elvis family by suggesting TE had something to do with it as they've attempted on social media to portray?

As an aside, about a year or so ago i'm told by someone that the attorney said there is insufficient evidence in this case like he has never seen before. Wonder if he was just bloviating.as most attorneys tend to do trying to sway the public. But I wonder how there is "insufficient" or a lack of evidence...but all of a sudden he wants to suppress a bunch of what the state has. Hmmmm. Lie? Or is he worried?

Some of the chatter on social media seems to be that SM is going to throw TM under the bus with this "third party bs". I tend to disagree though. If he were going to throw her under the bus, wouldn't he WANT all of her crazy rantings and threatening texts to be on full display in court, rather than trying to suppress them?

I think the dismissal of the murder charge was punctuation to the poor case the state has, and the defense is now picking apart what's left of any dots that can be connected. The state's problem has always been that there's no evidence of a crime at PTL, there's no evidence of a crime at the M property, and there's no body. If these defense motions fly, the case is over. And it's a case that may not ever yield a successful conviction, even if the defense can't get all that it wants in pre-trial motions. Of course they did it (though I believe they had help), but I've honestly never thought the state has what it needs. JMO

 

[reasonableguess]

I think their 3rd party is a deceased male. I think they'll claim a scuffle, HE was knocked out & they took her to their house to "help" her, realized she was deceased, panicked, & Daddy "took care of it."

 

[U2forever]

I think their 3rd party is a deceased male. I think they'll claim a scuffle, HE was knocked out & they took her to their house to "help" her, realized she was deceased, panicked, & Daddy "took care of it."

I was wondering when this was going to show up. reasonableguess, I have had a hinky feeling about this deceased person for quite some time.

About SM throwing TM under the bus, I think he is too scared of her. I bet he sleeps with both eyes open, chained to the bed or not. lol

 

[jillycat]

I think their 3rd party is a deceased male. I think they'll claim a scuffle, HE was knocked out & they took her to their house to "help" her, realized she was deceased, panicked, & Daddy "took care of it."

And since the deceased male can't confirm or deny this any more than HE can confirm or deny the conversation with BW, I'm not sure how far this will fly.

 

[passionflower]

3rd party? like in deceased daddy?

 

[Hoosgirl]

3rd party? like in deceased daddy?

I can see several possibilities. While I'd like to see it be TM, I doubt it's going to be her. A relative is possible, but I'm afraid they are going to go after TE. I can't imagine a lawyer doing that, but they do seem to be mounting a, er, vigorous defense. And we've all seen the slime articles that have been put out there as so-called journalism. Ugh.

 

[Madeleine74]

That's a slippery slope. Do they admit they were actually with Heather that night? Or will they try to claim that dead daddy, who didn't know Heather, drove out to PTL to meet her there and he 'kidnapped' her? Not believable.

 

[jillycat]

I suspect that all the defense can reasonably offer up in a third party guilt claim without giving up their own clients is one that merely serves as an alternative possibility for the purpose of creating additional doubt that the M's are the perps. I cannot see the defense lawyers going too deeply into specific claims. It's their clients on trial and if they really had any evidence of a third party kidnapper/killer, they'd have dealt that blow to the state by now.

This upcoming motion rodeo strikes me as a direction that's strictly limited to eliminating any links between and among the three parties that morning so that the state's PTL scenario is altogether implausible.

 

[ZooSleuth]

I think their 3rd party is a deceased male. I think they'll claim a scuffle, HE was knocked out & they took her to their house to "help" her, realized she was deceased, panicked, & Daddy "took care of it."

Respectfully, I highly doubt any lawyer would think that this was a good strategy. There is no evidence Heather entered the M's truck or saw them face to face that night, so admitting Heather was even in the presence of SM, TM, or TM's father, let alone that they know for fact that she's deceased, would be very damaging to their defense.

IMO this 3rd party will be SS, ex-boyfriend, somebody unknown to us, or TE. I might be confusing the ex-boyfriend with another case, but I thought in the beginning it was mentioned that HE had an ex who was quickly cleared as a suspect. Also, I don't think their lawyers are stupid enough to think that bringing up the wacky TE conspiracy theories would be a good idea, but they have allowed their client's to constantly spew that angle on social media in defiance of a gag order, so I could be wrong.

 

[lonetraveler]

Motion 5 is interesting. The defense is prepared to offer evidence of 3rd party guilt. Wonder who they are getting ready to throw under the bus?

I will venture a guess that it is TM's father.

http://m.wmbfnews.com/wmbfnews/db_348198/contentdetail.htm?contentguid=bpZufA54
Fast forward to 10 minutes. Livesay discusses the video.

Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk

 

[lonetraveler]

Third party guilt. Give me a freakin break. Are they going to now use this opportunity to twist the knife even further in the Elvis family by suggesting TE had something to do with it as they've attempted on social media to portray?

As an aside, about a year or so ago i'm told by someone that the attorney said there is insufficient evidence in this case like he has never seen before. Wonder if he was just bloviating.as most attorneys tend to do trying to sway the public. But I wonder how there is "insufficient" or a lack of evidence...but all of a sudden he wants to suppress a bunch of what the state has. Hmmmm. Lie? Or is he worried?

Some of the chatter on social media seems to be that SM is going to throw TM under the bus with this "third party bs". I tend to disagree though. If he were going to throw her under the bus, wouldn't he WANT all of her crazy rantings and threatening texts to be on full display in court, rather than trying to suppress them?

Isn't SM residing in the very same house TM is? We already know that she is the dominant half of this relationship. I can only imagine what torture he is going through. I simply can't imagine him having the cajones to risk throwing her under the bus.

Sent from my HTCD100LVWPP using Tapatalk

 

[jillycat]

If he was part of this crime, and I sincerely believe he was, I consider any torture he's experiencing a well-deserved outcome of his cowardice, but nothing in comparison to what Heather experienced the morning she was murdered. And I agree he will not throw his comrade under the bus.

However, I also believe that there is nothing the state or human law can ever do to these two that's as rich in consequences as the greater law of accountability that I simply refer to as the big hand of Karma. This gives me some peace when I see them getting away (for now) with murder and potentially everything else.