MISTRIAL - Sidney Moorer on trial for the kidnapping of Heather Elvis #4

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jury said there were too many unanswered questions.

Nothing to sink their teeth into.

Don't know what happened at landing. Don't know specifics.
 
Yes it is. Look at what has been going on with HCPD too. SMH

I truly do dislike this place. Even more so now.

You were one of the main people pointing out the corruption from the beginning. This trial confirmed it for me (since I am not from the area).
 
Jury said there were too many unanswered questions.

Nothing to sink their teeth into.

Don't know what happened at landing. Don't know specifics.
They all said this or just the two??

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
Just wanted to add to thank him as his analogy is one of the better ones I have heard as to why someone could consider a NG verdict.
Its good to hear how different people view the evidence.

If I was on the jury with him, then I would have to point out that there was no evidence that HE took a flight anywhere else and since her car was found there it points to her not making it through the night. The preponderance of other evidence about SM and TM points to he wanted to "fix it" once and for all. With TM showing physical violence in the past to HE which was described as a black eye and broken nose somewhere and TM slapping SM about HE subject it seems obvious to me that HE did not survive the night. SM either did it himself to keep from getting killed himself by TM or TM was right there along with him. I could even see TM hiding in that truck and jumping out and strangling HE in a fit of rage.

But I am glad to hear others views because it is hard sometimes to see how two people on a jury saw it the other way.

I totally agree with you and we have talked in other cases about the need for better jury instructions before they go back to deliberate.
These are the public and the bottom line is it is a little confusing when it comes to the juror rules of what is considered reasonable doubt and what isn't.

They just read to the jury a few quick instructions and expect the laymen public to be able to understand and I think we can do much better right before deliberations. They should have an hour long class or more before they go back to deliberate.

I really do think a lot of people get hung up on thinking if there is even the slightest chance there could be another possibility of something else happening then we have to give that defendant the benefit of the doubt that he didn't do it. Which is totally not the case IMO.

Common sense and preponderance of evidence has to come into play and our jury instructions need to be more clear for folks.
What did all the evidence just tell us. Are we going to say but a UFO could have landed and took her that night too so we must say NG.
Of course not. We are going to say what did the evidence tell us is guaranteed to have happened.
And that is that they did something to make her disappear that night.

All JMO

I think the instructions were clear and so was the explanation of reasonable doubt. (That doesn't mean someone else would experience it similarly). I keep seeing the sentiment that people are too dumb and thinking in black and white terms to grasp reasonable doubt vs beyond the shadow and I don't think that's the case. I think when a judge instructs that if you have reasonable doubt on even one point of evidence, then you must find NG, a juror is stuck if they don't embrace the entire case.
 
Juror spokesman stated too many unanswered questions. Too many what ifs. Also said the truck was the main concern. He knew SM phoned her at the pay phone but no records of what was said. But after that basically circumstantial.

Personally I think this juror voted guilty and he did state he would have kept on going if he thought possible but 10-2
 
Juror spokesman stated too many unanswered questions. Too many what ifs. Also said the truck was the main concern. He knew SM phoned her at the pay phone but no records of what was said. But after that basically circumstantial.
What was their concern about the truck?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk
 
Juror spokesman stated too many unanswered questions. Too many what ifs. Also said the truck was the main concern. He knew SM phoned her at the pay phone but no records of what was said. But after that basically circumstantial.

No records of what was said??? What about the witness statement (Bri) that told us a lot of what was said?? Were they expecting a recording? What a joke.
 
This just makes me upset, it was a circumstantial case, there was no direct evidence, and they made it clear that circumstantial evidence is to be looked at the same way as direct evidence would be. So disappointing.
 
No records of what was said??? What about the witness statement (Bri) that told us a lot of what was said?? Were they expecting a recording? What a joke.

I think he's referring to physical evidence vs what was said(B). JMO. He did not say anyone's name at all.
 
Just saw a clip of the judge dismissing the jury, and he once again called the case a "dispute." There is a woman missing and presumed dead. SMH at this judge.
 
What was their concern about the truck?

Sent from my SM-G930V using Tapatalk

Not sure what he meant he said the truck, on my phone was trying to write it down so I could give information
 
No records of what was said??? What about the witness statement (Bri) that told us a lot of what was said?? Were they expecting a recording? What a joke.

I really think that jurors should take a qualification test prior to being considered as a juror or maybe even an IQ test even.
 
Perhaps it is blessing in disguise for the Elvis family and for Heather. With the way this trial went and the blatant bias we saw (IMO), I have no question in my mind that if a guilty verdict were rendered SM would have received a light sentence. Maybe with a new judge AND a guilty verdict there is a higher probability of him receiving the max sentence. Heather got life, the least he can get is 30; though still grossly unfair, I'd take it.

I like the way you worded that.
 
Jury said there were too many unanswered questions.

Nothing to sink their teeth into.

Don't know what happened at landing. Don't know specifics.

Good grief, if we had to have a video of every crime we would never have another trial. I'm sorry to say those jurors need common sense. I would love to ask them "Please tell us, what do you think happened to Heather", that's the only question they need to answer.
 
Perhaps it is blessing in disguise for the Elvis family and for Heather. With the way this trial went and the blatant bias we saw (IMO), I have no question in my mind that if a guilty verdict were rendered SM would have received a light sentence. Maybe with a new judge AND a guilty verdict there is a higher probability of him receiving the max sentence. Heather got life, the least he can get is 30; though still grossly unfair, I'd take it.

And maybe Heather's remains will be found and those two can be tried for murder.
 
Juror spokesman stated too many unanswered questions. Too many what ifs. Also said the truck was the main concern. He knew SM phoned her at the pay phone but no records of what was said. But after that basically circumstantial.

Personally I think this juror voted guilty and he did state he would have kept on going if he thought possible but 10-2

I would like to know the first vote tally.
 
Personally and JMO I hope they get a new judge and a new prosecutor

We need Juan Martinez!!!!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
194
Guests online
2,442
Total visitors
2,636

Forum statistics

Threads
589,987
Messages
17,928,742
Members
228,035
Latest member
BossJoss
Back
Top