Trial date set for Sidney and Tammy Moorer? #2

[reasonableguess]

Quoting myself b/c this gives kidnapping merit without any need at all to indicate whether HE is or is not currently alive. In other words, kidnapping fits this scenario, and also accounts for "we have no idea where she is" on both sides.

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."

 

[Madeleine74]

If they try that scenario the state will grill them on why they didn't just take Heather to a hospital to get her help. Slippery slope and I don't see a jury taking kindly to that manufactured story. Plus it will require SM to take the stand to float that deuce and if he takes the stand the state will have him for lunch.

 

[EmmaRose]

If they try that scenario the state will grill them on why they didn't just take Heather to a hospital to get her help. Slippery slope and I don't see a jury taking kindly to that manufactured story. Plus it will require SM to take the stand to float that deuce and if he takes the stand the state will have him for lunch.

And, I just can't imagine SM being any good on the stand, lol

He's not used to thinking. The wife does all that for him IMO.

 

[Delta Dawn]

And, I just can't imagine SM being any good on the stand, lol

He's not used to thinking. The wife does all that for him IMO.

The wife does all the thinking because we all know what he thinks with.

Sent from my SM-N920P using Tapatalk

 

[jillycat]

If you look at the defense motion language concerning the state, the third party guilt motion is more likely related to arguing that the state rushed to judgment and failed to consider or pursue other directions that should have been part of their investigation. I don't think the defense is married to any particular third party scenario.

 

[LBDunes]

If you look at the defense motion language concerning the state, the third party guilt motion is more likely related to arguing that the state rushed to judgment and failed to consider or pursue other directions that should have been part of their investigation. I don't think the defense is married to any particular third party scenario.

BBM - rush to judgement? Yeah, right, they aren't married to any particular scenario. Rush to judgement = lawyer speak. There was no rush here. Lots of people worked on the case. How would it be known to any of us who all was investigated other than the M's. It's not that poor of a case - motive, opportunity, last contact, video surveillance, shifting alibis and phone logs. A matter of fact, I think the case is pretty solid, unless someone is stuck DNA in this forensics age. However, the charge is currently kidnapping, so DNA is not needed.

 

[stillwatersc]

"Rush to judgement?" If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck,.... :rubberducky:

 

[PeterThomasFan]

:thinking: The attorney of Heather Elvis kidnapping suspect Tammy Moorer has filed a motion requesting that she be included at the Monday pre-trial for her husband Sidney Moorer, who is charged with kidnapping and obstruction of justice in the case.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/crime/article72072262.html

 

[bestill]

:thinking: The attorney of Heather Elvis kidnapping suspect Tammy Moorer has filed a motion requesting that she be included at the Monday pre-trial for her husband Sidney Moorer, who is charged with kidnapping and obstruction of justice in the case.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/crime/article72072262.html

Let's think about this. Her trial isn't even scheduled and she's piggy backing on SM's hearing Monday and why did they wait until the last minute Friday afternoon to file the motion? I pray the judge won't let this happen! I think she's scared that SM is going to spill the beans during his trial and she's going down. Just my opinion.

 

[jillycat]

BBM - rush to judgement? Yeah, right, they aren't married to any particular scenario. Rush to judgement = lawyer speak. There was no rush here. Lots of people worked on the case. How would it be known to any of us who all was investigated other than the M's. It's not that poor of a case - motive, opportunity, last contact, video surveillance, shifting alibis and phone logs. A matter of fact, I think the case is pretty solid, unless someone is stuck DNA in this forensics age. However, the charge is currently kidnapping, so DNA is not needed.

I recall when we had this conversation previously about lawyer speak. I said that for me, "rush" means they arrested these two before they had all that they need to successfully prosecute them and get their conviction. Given the NP on murder, it looks like I got that one right so far.

What I said today is, "the third party guilt motion is more likely related to arguing that the state rushed to judgment and failed to consider or pursue other directions that should have been part of their investigation. I don't think the defense is married to any particular third party scenario."

Reading the language of the defense, the references to the state's case are definitely lawyer-speak because they're lawyers who want their clients off the hook. So I don't see them trying to come up with some tale of a particular third party that associates their clients with this crime. I believe they want to simply postulate that another scenario is possible, and in addition to the lack of physical evidence of any crime, they just might get that one to fly. That was my point.

As for DNA, the state waved that one around, only to have to admit that it was Heather's from her own car. ??

The state blew its murder charge. Maybe they can get their kidnapping conviction, maybe they can't. If the defense is successful in their motions, and all the state has left is a theory and car at a landing that wasn't processed when it was found, then the kidnapping charge may drop as well. I personally don't see this as a corrupt judge problem as much as a fumbled case problem. As I said previously, I think Heather and her family deserved more.

 

[jillycat]

"Rush to judgement?" If it looks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck,.... :rubberducky:

Except for the part where the state lost its murder charge because the court requires evidence and the state had none. So, this is not about my doubt that the M's killed Heather. It's about what can the state prove under the rules of law and evidence.

Does anyone believe that this "third party" business is about something other than arguing that the state got it wrong? Look at what the defense said about the state's failures. Not my argument, it's theirs.

 

[Hoosgirl]

:thinking: The attorney of Heather Elvis kidnapping suspect Tammy Moorer has filed a motion requesting that she be included at the Monday pre-trial for her husband Sidney Moorer, who is charged with kidnapping and obstruction of justice in the case.

http://www.myrtlebeachonline.com/news/local/crime/article72072262.html

What the heck happened to the gag order in this case?

 

[PeterThomasFan]

The hearing will begin at 10:30 according to FHEFB page.

WMBF News will be bringing you the latest from inside and outside the courthouse, with live updates on WMBF News Today from 5 a.m. to 8 a.m., plus a live-stream and live blog of the proceedings beginning at 9 a.m.

Watch the livestream and follow the live blog above on Monday morning – mobile users, tap here to view.

http://www.wmbfnews.com/story/31728688/sidney-moorer-to-appear-at-pre-trial-hearing-on-monday-april-18

 

[PeterThomasFan]

What the heck happened to the gag order in this case?

Right!?

 

[LBDunes]

I recall when we had this conversation previously about lawyer speak. I said that for me, "rush" means they arrested these two before they had all that they need to successfully prosecute them and get their conviction. Given the NP on murder, it looks like I got that one right so far.

What I said today is, "the third party guilt motion is more likely related to arguing that the state rushed to judgment and failed to consider or pursue other directions that should have been part of their investigation. I don't think the defense is married to any particular third party scenario."

Reading the language of the defense, the references to the state's case are definitely lawyer-speak because they're lawyers who want their clients off the hook. So I don't see them trying to come up with some tale of a particular third party that associates their clients with this crime. I believe they want to simply postulate that another scenario is possible, and in addition to the lack of physical evidence of any crime, they just might get that one to fly. That was my point.

As for DNA, the state waved that one around, only to have to admit that it was Heather's from her own car. ??

The state blew its murder charge. Maybe they can get their kidnapping conviction, maybe they can't. If the defense is successful in their motions, and all the state has left is a theory and car at a landing that wasn't processed when it was found, then the kidnapping charge may drop as well. I personally don't see this as a corrupt judge problem as much as a fumbled case problem. As I said previously, I think Heather and her family deserved more.

I have to ask, just how did the state blow it? When you say rush before what they needed, what would your opinion of that be? I stated earlier motive, opportunity, video, phone records, defendants lying, sneaky payphone call to victim. What else could they get that they needed. What was fumbled?

 

[ZooSleuth]

I have to ask, just how did the state blow it? When you say rush before what they needed, what would your opinion of that be? I stated earlier motive, opportunity, video, phone records, defendants lying, sneaky payphone call to victim. What else could they get that they needed. What was fumbled?

They should have never charged them with murder in the first place. IMO it's wrong to charge people without the evidence needed to convict them, and clearly they never had the evidence to support a murder charge. It seems like in this case they charged them with murder and were confident that they would roll over on each other, or they would find a "smoking gun" and neither of those things happened so they dropped it.

 

[jillycat]

I have to ask, just how did the state blow it? When you say rush before what they needed, what would your opinion of that be? I stated earlier motive, opportunity, video, phone records, defendants lying, sneaky payphone call to victim. What else could they get that they needed. What was fumbled?

My opinion is that if you have to NP your main charge, you didn't have a case, which means you shouldn't have charged the person(s) in the first place. So I have to ask, how did they succeed if they had to request a NP from the court?

 

[jillycat]

They should have never charged them with murder in the first place. IMO it's wrong to charge people without the evidence needed to convict them, and clearly they never had the evidence to support a murder charge. It seems like in this case they charged them with murder and were confident that they would roll over on each other, or they would find a "smoking gun" and neither of those things happened so they dropped it.

That's exactly what happened.

 

[magnolia]

They should have never charged them with murder in the first place. IMO it's wrong to charge people without the evidence needed to convict them, and clearly they never had the evidence to support a murder charge. It seems like in this case they charged them with murder and were confident that they would roll over on each other, or they would find a "smoking gun" and neither of those things happened so they dropped it.

I agree. I think public pressure also played a role. IMO

 

[LBDunes]

My opinion is that if you have to NP your main charge, you didn't have a case, which means you shouldn't have charged the person(s) in the first place. So I have to ask, how did they succeed if they had to request a NP from the court?

IMO, they did not have to NP the main charge. The success is unknown for the charge that was NP. That would have been up to the jury. I have to ask what would they have to have for the murder charge to satisfy your criteria?