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

[passionflower]

this is 2012 stats but found it interesting.....http://www.statista.com/statistics/195327/murder-in-the-us-by-relationship-of-victim-to-offender/

 

[cluciano63]

A local said city solicitor= DA there, a while ago.

 

[cluciano63]

I hope the "damaging calls" were PM's.

 

[carolinagurl]

I've wondered this myself and I did some research about search warrants and digital/internet files. From the info I've gathered, LE is NOT required to inform the owner of the records if they are issued a search warrant from a judge. So if LE has obtained a search warrant for the social media records/data of anyone other than HE, I'd venture to say the owner probably isn't aware the records are in LE's possession.

ETA: And I assume the individual who has proven to be the last known person to have communicated with HE (calls, PMs, texts, or otherwise) would be someone LE would have enough probable cause to obtain those warrants on... based just on the fact that they were the last one with whom she had contact. Point being: I'm fairly confident LE has already obtained any available SM records on that/those person(s).

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Thanks cujenn81-
It also makes me wonder if the search warrant was issued for a specific time (dates) for the social media accts, or if there is a continuous monitoring of those accts.

 

[Ghostwheel]

RE: Phone activity being damaging. Whether calls or texts, the damaging part may come into play depending on what initiators/recipients of those calls said about the calls (For example: did an initiators/recipient say that they only called once, and there were really fifteen calls? Did they initially say they only sent a text and it was a phone call? Did they say they had no contact after the 3:41 call and they did? ). Also, it might depend on who initiated the calls and subsequent pings on both parties phones. (not that TE would know necessarily know about the pings on the second parties phones, but he might). And in general, IMO, middle of the night phone calls to someone who disappears really soon after, if not immediately after, are damaging to credibility (have a detrimental effect on) unless followed with a good explanation or an alibi.

What gives me the most hope is that even though T-Mobile does not keep text information, other carriers do. The initiators/recipients phones might have any text conversation and those records should be in LE hands.

And I haven't caught up, but what HE said to BW is not hearsay (her words, specifically). What HE said SM said IS hearsay (because BW did not hear SM directly--unless they were on a group call)

 

[Foxfire]

this is 2012 stats but found it interesting.....http://www.statista.com/statistics/195327/murder-in-the-us-by-relationship-of-victim-to-offender/

Yes, the homicide victim statistics link that you posted is very interesting passionflower. Unknown & stranger relationship numbers far exceed all the other homicides combined. These are considered the most difficult homicides for investigators to solve. Many, if not most grow cold, imo, due to many of the victims being transient; tourist, homeless, runaways, and prostitutes, etc. Some of the victims in the unknown relationship category are deemed throwaways, or sadly referred too as the less dead; meaning very few investigative resources are used in their homicide investigations. Homicides due to gang violence and drug deals gone bad can also be included in the investigations that quickly grow cold..

Ironically I was just checking to see what classes were being offered at the upcoming 2014 CUE missing person conference; 'Breaking the Silence'. One is by Sheryl McCollum, Director, Cold Case Investigative Research Institute -

Topic: How “Throwaway” People Become Cold Cases

http://www.all-about-forensic-science.com/cold-cases.html

Cold Cases: Leaving No Stone Unturned <sniped to comply with 10% copyright rule>

All the obstacles that hamper homicide investigations in their early phases contribute to cold cases. Cold cases may even allow more murders to be committed. People who have killed once, if not arrested, may continue to kill. Police failure to solve murder cases and to put the offenders behind bars often leaves the community feeling helpless. If they feel the police are not doing their job in protecting the community and witnesses of crimes, members of the community may also be less willing to cooperate with police.

 

[EmmaRose]

I am thinking maybe he DID leave his wife...at least for the night, and was out on his own and decided to track down Heather. That would make more sense than all of that phone activity from home, with wife there. Maybe he was hoping ti spend the night at her place, but she said no, only agreeing to meet elsewhere.

This, to me, definitely makes more sense. It would explain why Heather was upset, knowing his leaving would set his wife off and blame her for the break-up. Maybe the back and forth calls were OMM reassuring Heather that it would be safe to meet him. I don't picture him as a killer, but I can picture someone else easily fitting that role. That person, already jealous for months and possibly scheming to eliminate her competition all along, was furious her husband left her, enraged at the thought of him running to Heather, so she followed him to avenge her competition. After the fact, I think she convinced OMM to keep his mouth shut about what she did, threatening him that all the evidence points his way. I believe he may have had some role in transportation and disposal, as she already had a place in mind. Because he may have had limited involvement, he won't come forward with the truth. JMO

 

[bettiepageturner]

Did TE say the phone calls from that night were damaging? I was thinking about SM's initial excuse&#8212;that he was only calling HE to tell her to stop calling him. But if that was a panicked response and they have months of records showing relatively equal phone-call initiation, I would assume that's even more damning than a night's worth of back and forth phone calls. The latter still leaves room for a stranger abduction but the former immediately implicates him in a lie. And if the excuse for that is OMW's presence during questioning, you'd think he could call LE back later or get them alone somehow. Don't you think LE would practice discretion in exchange for full, upfront honesty? MOO

 

[cujenn81]

Thanks cujenn81-

It also makes me wonder if the search warrant was issued for a specific time (dates) for the social media accts, or if there is a continuous monitoring of those accts.

Yeah I know... that could be anyone's guess.

I'm fairly certain LE has to indicate the specific dates and time frames they are requesting to search and they must be relevant to the investigation (i.e. LE would probably be granted a warrant for any dates/times after the individual met HE but would not be granted access to dates/times prior to that because they wouldn't be relevant.)

As far as what type of probable cause/suspicion/evidence is required on LE's part to obtain a warrant to keep any active SM accounts under continuous surveillance (if that's even possible), I have no idea. That's definitely something to think about though.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Foxfire]

RE: Phone activity being damaging. Whether calls or texts, the damaging part may come into play depending on what initiators/recipients of those calls said about the calls (For example: did an initiators/recipient say that they only called once, and there were really fifteen calls? Did they initially say they only sent a text and it was a phone call? Did they say they had no contact after the 3:41 call and they did? ). Also, it might depend on who initiated the calls and subsequent pings on both parties phones. (not that TE would know necessarily know about the pings on the second parties phones, but he might). And in general, IMO, middle of the night phone calls to someone who disappears really soon after, if not immediately after, are damaging to credibility (have a detrimental effect on) unless followed with a good explanation or an alibi.

What gives me the most hope is that even though T-Mobile does not keep text information, other carriers do. The initiators/recipients phones might have any text conversation and those records should be in LE hands.

And I haven't caught up, but what HE said to BW is not hearsay (her words, specifically). What HE said SM said IS hearsay (because BW did not hear SM directly--unless they were on a group call)

Hopefully new precedent was established in the BBPD Lt. Drew Peterson trial concerning hearsay rulings;

Sep 08, 2012 · A 2008 law tailored to Drew Peterson ... Hearsay Rule Vexed ... It was the first case in Illinois history to permit the use of hearsay evidence, ..http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=drew+peterson+hearsay+evidence+ruling

 

[Snowyowl]

I believe he said it to lure her out... I do not believe he meant it at all.


I believe I'd have to know any prior history. There ARE certainly some men with multiple babies and not only wives,but girlfriends on the side. Some men like that persona and some wives even tolerate it as long as they keep paying the bills. Heck, there are even some women who'll seek that kind of man out in order to live supported. It's a crazy world out there and I can't begin to understand if there's any logic to it.
Of course,there's also clueless,naive women who fall for all these manipulating lies and comments. It's easy to imagine you've found that "perfect" love and you'll be in love forever.:moo:

 

[cluciano63]

I wonder if SM also called anyone else during those hours.

 

[nosysw]

mods , thanks for the V Day break , MS Topcat says she appreciated it:seeya:

Above SBM:

Did I miss another shutdown? It seems when you're my age, and can't seem to stay up later than eleven or so (even on Valentine's Day) you miss all the excitement. I should have figured it out when I could catch up so quickly this morning. :floorlaugh:

 

[SharetheLight]

I believe he said it to lure her out... I do not believe he meant it at all.





I believe I'd have to know any prior history. There ARE certainly some men with multiple babies and not only wives,but girlfriends on the side. Some men like that persona and some wives even tolerate it as long as they keep paying the bills. Heck, there are even some women who'll seek that kind of man out in order to live supported. It's a crazy world out there and I can't begin to understand if there's any logic to it.

Of course,there's also clueless,naive women who fall for all these manipulating lies and comments. It's easy to imagine you've found that "perfect" love and you'll be in love forever.:moo:

Agree that their history is important. Call me crazy but I do not think the person being referred to has the means to support multiple families, nor do I think they are married to someone who would tolerate their spouse having another family (whoever that would consist of), nor do I think HE was the type of person who would want to share the love interest in her life. I know we have the obvious but I think, based on the limited knowledge I have, that SM must've made a statement that he would leave in order to keep HE around, probably many times depending on the length of their relationship.

As to the original point I don't know if he meant it (he left or was leaving) or not. I do believe he wanted to mean it.

 

[hockeymom4]

Hopefully new precedent was established in the BBPD Lt. Drew Peterson trial concerning hearsay rulings;

Sep 08, 2012 · A 2008 law tailored to Drew Peterson ... Hearsay Rule Vexed ... It was the first case in Illinois history to permit the use of hearsay evidence, ..http://www.bing.com/search?setmkt=en-US&q=drew+peterson+hearsay+evidence+ruling

I think the hearsay of Stacey, who was missing, so her testimony was given by her Pastor, was very compelling and so important to the case. I remember this case very well because I live her and I remember the jury saying how difficult to allow the hearsay, but that they didn't have to agree with the decision for it to be allowed, but for to decide if it the evidence was credible.

I think in this case, BW could explain what she knew about their relationship but anything she was told would be hearsay. I do understand both sides of this argument. The defense doesn't get to cross examine and plaintiffs can paint the picture worse than it is for court. I think there are ways around it though. I have witnessed a trial where they were able to work there way around the hearsay. So, I am fully confident that if something had happened to HE and if it was SM, they will get around it with a good lawyer. There always is a way.

 

[TTF14]

This, to me, definitely makes more sense. It would explain why Heather was upset, knowing his leaving would set his wife off and blame her for the break-up. Maybe the back and forth calls were OMM reassuring Heather that it would be safe to meet him. I don't picture him as a killer, but I can picture someone else easily fitting that role. That person, already jealous for months and possibly scheming to eliminate her competition all along, was furious her husband left her, enraged at the thought of him running to Heather, so she followed him to avenge her competition. After the fact, I think she convinced OMM to keep his mouth shut about what she did, threatening him that all the evidence points his way. I believe he may have had some role in transportation and disposal, as she already had a place in mind. Because he may have had limited involvement, he won't come forward with the truth. JMO

Very well said and I completely agree with everything you said. I've also thought he just doesn't seem to me like he has it in him. Of course I've never met him, but.....[modsnip]

 

[nosysw]

Very well said and I completely agree with everything you said. I've also thought he just doesn't seem to me like he has it in him. Of course I've never met him, but.....[modsnip].

I agree...IMO he is too weak to have done this on his own. He may have had limited involvement but I don't think he came up with the idea. Whether he was a willing partner, or involved after the fact, I don't know. But, I do believe it is likely that someone involved him in some way, and now has the means to keep him quiet.

Sad, really.

 

[AddysMom7610]

I agree that based on what I know about him, he couldn't/wouldn't do this on his own. I think possibly he felt trapped with wifey and his release was HE. But it ended very tragically. I'm glad to hear they are still actively searching. This gives me hope that she will be found.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Dee10]

I agree...IMO he is too weak to have done this on his own. He may have had limited involvement but I don't think he came up with the idea. Whether he was a willing partner, or involved after the fact, I don't know. But, I do believe it is likely that someone involved him in some way, and now has the means to keep him quiet.

Sad, really.

I totally agree. I also have a problem thinking was this pre-planned because of the multiple exchanges, especially the pm's. But we also don't know what the pm's stated; they could very well could be alibi messages but if they were back 'n forth???

 

[cujenn81]

Ok, I just did a bit more research (I seriously need a life, LOL) about what is required from LE to obtain a search warrant for social media records/data and what is required to gain authorization to intercept electronic communications (and I assume this would include authorization to keep surveillance on a social media account... but I'm not 100% sure because I'm far from a lawyer and the legal jargon bogs me down at times).

Here's what I found:
(PS. I snipped a bunch of sentences in these lengthy paragraphs because of all the "...or any attorney acting in place of the Attorney General or Deputy General or Assistant Deputy Attorney General... or any other attorney who can be assumed as such... thereof... of competent jurisdiction... in conformity with XYZ of this order... under sections 1, 2, & 3..." verbiage to avoid the word bog in my brain. However, I included the link where you can read the paragraphs in their entirety, if you wish to do so.

Title 18 U.S. Code § 2510 - Definitions

(4) “intercept” means the aural or other acquisition of the contents of any wire, electronic, or oral communication through the use of any electronic, mechanical, or other device.

(8) “contents”, includes any information concerning the substance, purport, or meaning of that communication;

(15) “electronic communication service” means any service which provides to users the ability to send or receive wire or electronic communications;

(17) “electronic storage” means—
(A) any temporary, intermediate storage of a wire or electronic communication incidental to the electronic transmission; and
(B) any storage of such communication for purposes of backup protection

Title 18, Part 1, Chapter 119, § 2516 – Authorization for interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications

(1) The Attorney General, may authorize an application to a Federal judge for an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire or oral communications by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, or a Federal agency having responsibility for the investigation of the offense, when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of—

(a) any offense punishable by death or by imprisonment for more than one year

(2) The principal prosecuting attorney of any State may apply, and such judge may grant an order authorizing or approving the interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications by investigative or law enforcement officers having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made, when interception may provide or has provided evidence of the offense of murder, kidnapping, gambling, robbery, bribery, extortion, or dealing in narcotic drugs, marijuana or other dangerous drugs, or other crime dangerous to life, limb, or property, and punishable by imprisonment for more than one year, or any conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing offenses.

(3) Any attorney for the Government may authorize an application to a Federal judge for an order authorizing or approving the interception of electronic communications by an investigative or law enforcement officer having responsibility for the investigation of the offense as to which the application is made, when such interception may provide or has provided evidence of ANY Federal felony.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/part-I/chapter-121

******

FACEBOOK POLICY

US Legal Process Requirements
We disclose account records solely in accordance with our terms of service and applicable law, including the federal Stored Communications Act (“SCA”), 18 U.S.C. Sections 2701-2712. Under US law:

• A valid subpoena issued in connection with an official criminal investigation is required to compel the disclosure of basic subscriber records , which may include: name, length of service, credit card information, email address(es), and a recent login/logout IP address(es), if available.

• A court order issued under 18 U.S.C. Section 2703(d) is required to compel the disclosure of certain records or other information pertaining to the account, not including contents of communications, which may include message headers and IP addresses, in addition to the basic subscriber records identified above.

• A search warrant issued under the procedures described in the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure or equivalent state warrant procedures upon a showing of probable cause is required to compel the disclosure of the stored contents of any account, which may include messages, photos, videos, wall posts, and location information.

Notification
Law enforcement officials who believe that notification would jeopardize an investigation should obtain an appropriate court order or other process establishing that notice is prohibited. Law enforcement officials may also request nondisclosure if notice would lead to risk of harm. If your data request draws attention to an ongoing violation of our terms of use, we will take action to prevent further abuse, including actions that may notify the user that we are aware of their misconduct.

https://www.facebook.com/safety/groups/law/guidelines/