MISTRIAL - Sidney Moorer trial for Kidnapping Heather Elvis, 24 June 2016 #6

[LBDunes]

If they can put SM or TM in jail for any amount of time, I'm for it.

BBM - I would be for that as well. However, I wonder if we took a poll what does everyone think about what the penalty will be? My opinion is at the very most it will be a fine.

 

[mmiller626]

[/B]

BBM - I would be for that as well. However, I wonder if we took a poll what does everyone think about what the penalty will be? My opinion is at the very most it will be a fine.

I agree with you, I think they will be just given a fine, unless they find other reasons to jail them.

 

[Truth Prevails]

I agree with you, I think they will be just given a fine, unless they find other reasons to jail them.

I'm still hanging on for a retrial. I believe they have him on kidnapping, and that he should be sentenced accordingly.

".. .upon conviction, must be imprisoned for a period not to exceed thirty years unless sentenced for murder as provided in Section 16-3-20."
http://kidnapping.uslegal.com/state...laws/south-carolina-kidnappingabduction-laws/

I hope a conviction on SM would then be followed by a trial date for TM, also leading to a conviction and appropriate sentence.

 

[ZooSleuth]

Looks like the original judge is overseeing the gag order violation hearing. That's good news IMO.

 

[Gardenista]

I've been thinking about the pregnancy test and I don't think it had anything to do with luring Heather. I think that he and TM really were trying to get pregnant and they were planning on doing the test & smoking the cigar after offing Heather.

 

[Richmond]

Looks like the original judge is overseeing the gag order violation hearing. That's good news IMO.

This would be good news, but where are you seeing it?

 

[ZooSleuth]

This would be good news, but where are you seeing it?

That is a great question, because after going back I realized I completely misread that part of the article. I must have been skimming and misunderstood it. :blushing:

My bad guys!

 

[PeterThomasFan]

Is it just me or what? BBM I did not sense that during the trial? :waitasec:

Moorer reached out to News13 after prosecutors presented surveillance video showing him buying a pregnancy test on the night Elvis disappeared. Prosecutors suggested throughout the trial that Moorer kidnapped Elvis because she was pregnant.

http://wbtw.com/2016/07/12/judge-to...r-violated-gag-order-during-news13-interview/

I don't even recall the State giving a reason at all.

 

[PeterThomasFan]

So... LE keeps certain items "tight-lipped", "close to the vest", "secret", "gagged", whatever have you during an investigation and before trial. Understood.

The theory of Heather being kidnapped and murdered at PTL was disclosed during the presser announcing the charges of the M's with Saundra Rhodes on February 24th, 2014.

[video=youtube;QX7CiwgxjlA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX7CiwgxjlA[/video]

It was also stated that evidence found at the M's home led to the charge of murder.

“We have had some additional evidence that we located during the search that led us to, giving us probable cause for, the murder charge,” Horry County Police Chief Saundra Rhodes said, but declined to give specifics about the evidence found.

1.) What was the specific evidence found at the M's compound? Was it presented during SM's trial?

2.) What is LE's reasoning for not disclosing the information about Longbeard's until SM's trial?

 

[jillycat]

So... LE keeps certain items "tight-lipped", "close to the vest", "secret", "gagged", whatever have you during an investigation and before trial. Understood.

The theory of Heather being kidnapped and murdered at PTL was disclosed during the presser announcing the charges of the M's with Saundra Rhodes on February 24th, 2014.

[video=youtube;QX7CiwgxjlA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX7CiwgxjlA[/video]

It was also stated that evidence found at the M's home led to the charge of murder.

“We have had some additional evidence that we located during the search that led us to, giving us probable cause for, the murder charge,” Horry County Police Chief Saundra Rhodes said, but declined to give specifics about the evidence found.

1.) What was the specific evidence found at the M's compound? Was it presented during SM's trial?

2.) What is LE's reasoning for not disclosing the information about Longbeard's until SM's trial?

From the Heather Elvis Timelines thread, Post #5 (some of the links no longer work) and direct quotes from LE/state:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?238748-Timelines-*No-Discussion-Thread*

Feb 24/2014: “The stuff that was found at the house, if we didn’t have a lot of stuff already from two months ago or six weeks ago, it wouldn’t have been that much, but it has added to things we already expected. So we were able to find some extra stuff after what we already knew to be obstruction of justice and indecent exposure. Certainly there was a lot of strategy involved. In one way, this case is similar to others in that the more you look, the more you dig, the more you usually get. We started off with a baseline and that was us being capable of saying we can prove beyond probable cause that these two did, in fact, obstruct justice and public nudity. As we added to it from the search warrant, we found we could get the kidnapping charge. We ran that by a judge and the judge said, ‘Yes.’ So then after we did that, we looked at some more stuff and then we said, ‘Alright, we think we can get the murder charge.’ We showed that to the judge and, of course, we got an arrest warrant… Keep in mind, kidnapping is simply keeping someone from being able to leave. We have this idea that you put a bag over their head and take them out of state. Anytime you’re unable to leave, it is a kidnapping. I think it would be improper to say we found her blouse or we found her toothpaste or whatever…" - Solicitor Jimmy Richardson

Feb 25: ""I can tell you this isn't a case where we are looking for smoking gun. It was just the combination of evidence that was already there and the new evidence just added to that. So we don't have video of them killing her or anything along those lines… I mean we've [convicted without a body] several times. You use circumstantial evidence in a lot of cases to say they are no longer here." - Solicitor Jimmy Richardson

So, they have "stuff", and kidnapping was being characterized as not being able to leave. There was no luring reference, presumably because the entire crime was said to have occurred at PTL.

 

[stillwatersc]

So... LE keeps certain items "tight-lipped", "close to the vest", "secret", "gagged", whatever have you during an investigation and before trial. Understood.

The theory of Heather being kidnapped and murdered at PTL was disclosed during the presser announcing the charges of the M's with Saundra Rhodes on February 24th, 2014.

[video=youtube;QX7CiwgxjlA]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QX7CiwgxjlA[/video]

It was also stated that evidence found at the M's home led to the charge of murder.

“We have had some additional evidence that we located during the search that led us to, giving us probable cause for, the murder charge,” Horry County Police Chief Saundra Rhodes said, but declined to give specifics about the evidence found.

1.) What was the specific evidence found at the M's compound? Was it presented during SM's trial?

2.) What is LE's reasoning for not disclosing the information about Longbeard's until SM's trial?

They were hoping for a confession or tip and needed information not released to the public to verify. IMO

 

[LBDunes]

It was also stated that evidence found at the M's home led to the charge of murder.

“We have had some additional evidence that we located during the search that led us to, giving us probable cause for, the murder charge,” Horry County Police Chief Saundra Rhodes said, but declined to give specifics about the evidence found.

1.) What was the specific evidence found at the M's compound? Was it presented during SM's trial?

2.) What is LE's reasoning for not disclosing the information about Longbeard's until SM's trial?

1. I don't think any physical evidence was presented from the compound at SM's trial. We did have the witness testimony about the surveillance system, which apparently disappeared.
2. As far as the non disclosure about Longbeard's, at the point in time of the press conference, the investigation was ongoing. There could numerable reasons they did not release that information then or subsequently. That was not the only evidence they did not release before trial. I am not sure why that seems to be troublesome out of what was not released. Some disapprove of the gag order and think everything should have been released entirely. Most of the information that was released came from the 1st bond hearing. One of the M's attorneys said to the press at the time, "it was like a mini trial". I remember hearing that and thinking the same thing. Lastly, while we have discussed Longbeards quite a few times, my conclusion on it in the trial is the same. They had no way of narrating a story around that without having other people involved. There was only 1 person on trial. I think the fact that say Heather traveled back to her apartment before setting back out is why they determined she drove herself to PTL. The case had many other strings of evidence in between. The bottom line to the state I think was it began with the payphone call and ended at the disappearance at PTL. They had other evidence to get to the final point in between. Being that the case was all circumstantial every moment was never going to be filled in.

 

[jillycat]

[/B]

1. I don't think any physical evidence was presented from the compound at SM's trial. We did have the witness testimony about the surveillance system, which apparently disappeared.
2. As far as the non disclosure about Longbeard's, at the point in time of the press conference, the investigation was ongoing. There could numerable reasons they did not release that information then or subsequently. That was not the only evidence they did not release before trial. I am not sure why that seems to be troublesome out of what was not released. Some disapprove of the gag order and think everything should have been released entirely. Most of the information that was released came from the 1st bond hearing. One of the M's attorneys said to the press at the time, "it was like a mini trial". I remember hearing that and thinking the same thing. Lastly, while we have discussed Longbeards quite a few times, my conclusion on it in the trial is the same. They had no way of narrating a story around that without having other people involved. There was only 1 person on trial. I think the fact that say Heather traveled back to her apartment before setting back out is why they determined she drove herself to PTL. The case had many other strings of evidence in between. The bottom line to the state I think was it began with the payphone call and ended at the disappearance at PTL. They had other evidence to get to the final point in between. Being that the case was all circumstantial every moment was never going to be filled in.

I really wonder why they left out such an obvious portion of the timeline that showed a link between HE and SM that morning. And why at first the kidnapping charge was about not letting someone leave, and then it was about luring from a pay phone. (I think the latter came into being when they lost the murder charges.)

I'm sure there was a lot of evidence they decided they didn't need, such as whatever they found at the house and greater property that gave them probable cause for murder but interestingly didn't make it to trial. They had DNA, then they didn't. They had "stuff" but they didn't use it.

Then they had to let go of 5 charges and now they have a mistrial.

Since it's so obvious that the M's are both in this up to their necks, I just wonder why their victim's known activities, or, the activities of her phone right before her disappearance aren't relevant to her case. (It seems to be a problem that Heather didn't know what phone she was calling or where to meet SM until she tracked him down.)

Do you think the state can continue to cling to the PTL kidnapping theory and work their way to murder charge via a pay phone kidnapping theory and the elimination of the Longbeard's timeline?

I'm asking because I think they thought that if the last road led to PTL, the PTL kidnapping/murder theory was in the bag, so they worked backwards to line up their case with that boat landing (minus Longbeard's).

Yet it took work on Heather's part for the lure to work.

I'm hoping they didn't kick anything to the curb that might benefit Heather or nail the Moorer's. It's kind of like deciding early on they weren't going to find her and not scheduling more searches unless they got a tip.

I guess I'd like to know what "stuff" means in investigative language. I'd like to know why there was a claim of DNA discovery when it was simply that of the victim's from her own car.

And I'd like to know to what extent the Longbeard's area was given any attention in the greater investigation. I think that's a reasonable question given the amount of time her phone spent there.

 

[nerdgirl]

I really wonder why they left out such an obvious portion of the timeline that showed a link between HE and SM that morning. And why at first the kidnapping charge was about not letting someone leave, and then it was about luring from a pay phone. (I think the latter came into being when they lost the murder charges.)

I'm sure there was a lot of evidence they decided they didn't need, such as whatever they found at the house and greater property that gave them probable cause for murder but interestingly didn't make it to trial. They had DNA, then they didn't. They had "stuff" but they didn't use it.

Then they had to let go of 5 charges and now they have a mistrial.

Since it's so obvious that the M's are both in this up to their necks, I just wonder why their victim's known activities, or, the activities of her phone right before her disappearance aren't relevant to her case. (It seems to be a problem that Heather didn't know what phone she was calling or where to meet SM until she tracked him down.)

Do you think the state can continue to cling to the PTL kidnapping theory and work their way to murder charge via a pay phone kidnapping theory and the elimination of the Longbeard's timeline?

I'm asking because I think they thought that if the last road led to PTL, the PTL kidnapping/murder theory was in the bag, so they worked backwards to line up their case with that boat landing (minus Longbeard's).

Yet it took work on Heather's part for the lure to work.

I'm hoping they didn't kick anything to the curb that might benefit Heather or nail the Moorer's. It's kind of like deciding early on they weren't going to find her and not scheduling more searches unless they got a tip.

I guess I'd like to know what "stuff" means in investigative language. I'd like to know why there was a claim of DNA discovery when it was simply that of the victim's from her own car.

And I'd like to know to what extent the Longbeard's area was given any attention in the greater investigation. I think that's a reasonable question given the amount of time her phone spent there.

BBM Same here.

Another thing to keep in mind though, is what 'evidence' or 'stuff' was thrown out due to pretrial motions being filed by KT.

 

[LBDunes]

@ Jillycat

And why at first the kidnapping charge was about not letting someone leave, and then it was about luring from a pay phone. (I think the latter came into being when they lost the murder charges.)


I think in the media an a general example of kidnapping was used - "not letting someone leave" and also thinking of it as "puting a bag over someone's head". They presented kidnapping in the trial as defined by the statute, which had several elements. You do not think the elements were met and I do. I separate the stuff outside of the trial, such as the general statement about kidnapping.

Do you think the state can continue to cling to the PTL kidnapping theory and work their way to murder charge via a pay phone kidnapping theory and the elimination of the Longbeard's timeline?
Yes I think they will cling to the kidnapping theory. The elimination of Longbeards? Again, what elimination? They didn't leave out that location in the trial. IMO they had no evidence of what she drove there for, if it was her phone, if someone else was driving her car and no idea of why she was parked at dumpsters. I think career professionals looked through the evidence and investigators could not find anything at Longbeards other than the data from the phone.

Yet it took work on Heather's part for the lure to work. I don't understand that? I am totally open to thinking she was very willing to set out to meet SM. Does not mean his intentions were just to hook up or were they more nefarious?

Since it's so obvious that the M's are both in this up to their necks, I just wonder why their victim's known activities, or, the activities of her phone right before her disappearance aren't relevant to her case. (It seems to be a problem that Heather didn't know what phone she was calling or where to meet SM until she tracked him down.)
BBM - totally agree both M's are into it. As far as the victim's activities or that of her phone at Longbeards in the trial I cannot see them using her phone rather than her without involving someone other than the 1 single defendant that was on trial. As far as Heather didn't know what phone she was calling. I believe she didn't know when she answered the first call.
I do believe that we both believe the end result is the same. The difference is I apparently place emphasis on different things, which of course is fine. You have many more questions than I do. Without any further evidence I am afraid those questions will never be answered.

 

[Truth Prevails]

BBM Same here.

Another thing to keep in mind though, is what 'evidence' or 'stuff' was thrown out due to pretrial motions being filed by KT.

View attachment 98191

Excellent point, here; and thanks for the jpeg with a snippet of the motion. I think the state's hands were tied in a lot of ways, and still they did a good job.

 

[Gardenista]

From the Heather Elvis Timelines thread, Post #5 (some of the links no longer work) and direct quotes from LE/state:
http://www.websleuths.com/forums/showthread.php?238748-Timelines-*No-Discussion-Thread*

Feb 24/2014: “The stuff that was found at the house, if we didn’t have a lot of stuff already from two months ago or six weeks ago, it wouldn’t have been that much, but it has added to things we already expected. So we were able to find some extra stuff after what we already knew to be obstruction of justice and indecent exposure. Certainly there was a lot of strategy involved. In one way, this case is similar to others in that the more you look, the more you dig, the more you usually get. We started off with a baseline and that was us being capable of saying we can prove beyond probable cause that these two did, in fact, obstruct justice and public nudity. As we added to it from the search warrant, we found we could get the kidnapping charge. We ran that by a judge and the judge said, ‘Yes.’ So then after we did that, we looked at some more stuff and then we said, ‘Alright, we think we can get the murder charge.’ We showed that to the judge and, of course, we got an arrest warrant… Keep in mind, kidnapping is simply keeping someone from being able to leave. We have this idea that you put a bag over their head and take them out of state. Anytime you’re unable to leave, it is a kidnapping. I think it would be improper to say we found her blouse or we found her toothpaste or whatever…" - Solicitor Jimmy Richardson

Feb 25: ""I can tell you this isn't a case where we are looking for smoking gun. It was just the combination of evidence that was already there and the new evidence just added to that. So we don't have video of them killing her or anything along those lines… I mean we've [convicted without a body] several times. You use circumstantial evidence in a lot of cases to say they are no longer here." - Solicitor Jimmy Richardson

So, they have "stuff", and kidnapping was being characterized as not being able to leave. There was no luring reference, presumably because the entire crime was said to have occurred at PTL.

Does anyone remember when the state made the luring part public? I think Bri's mom posted what he said on the payphone call on SM, but I feel like the state did not give the details until after they were arrested.

 

[Gardenista]

BBM Same here.

Another thing to keep in mind though, is what 'evidence' or 'stuff' was thrown out due to pretrial motions being filed by KT.

Was this granted by the judge? I googled and all I could find was the submission

 

[nerdgirl]

Was this granted by the judge? I googled and all I could find was the submission

I cannot find anything to say either way. I guess it could have been withdrawn. However, I feel like we were not shown any of the items on that list during the trial, and we all know there are some.

http://www.myhorrynews.com/news/crime/article_19263e62-3189-11e6-824f-3be86c3f6071.html



From the above article:
"Dennis told the court that he would make his decision by tomorrow morning and contact the attorneys at that time.

Truslow also withdrew numerous motions that he had considered making.

A lot of the motions we filed will probably be better argued as they come up during the trial,” Truslow said. “There’s so much stuff in this case, from phones and everything else, it’s hard to determine what we’re talking about.

“I can’t object to 80,000 things, so I need to see what is going to be used and then take them as they come rather than try to predict,” he concluded.

 

[jillycat]

@ Jillycat

And why at first the kidnapping charge was about not letting someone leave, and then it was about luring from a pay phone. (I think the latter came into being when they lost the murder charges.)


I think in the media an a general example of kidnapping was used - "not letting someone leave" and also thinking of it as "puting a bag over someone's head". They presented kidnapping in the trial as defined by the statute, which had several elements. You do not think the elements were met and I do. I separate the stuff outside of the trial, such as the general statement about kidnapping.

Do you think the state can continue to cling to the PTL kidnapping theory and work their way to murder charge via a pay phone kidnapping theory and the elimination of the Longbeard's timeline?
Yes I think they will cling to the kidnapping theory. The elimination of Longbeards? Again, what elimination? They didn't leave out that location in the trial. IMO they had no evidence of what she drove there for, if it was her phone, if someone else was driving her car and no idea of why she was parked at dumpsters. I think career professionals looked through the evidence and investigators could not find anything at Longbeards other than the data from the phone.

Yet it took work on Heather's part for the lure to work. I don't understand that? I am totally open to thinking she was very willing to set out to meet SM. Does not mean his intentions were just to hook up or were they more nefarious?

Since it's so obvious that the M's are both in this up to their necks, I just wonder why their victim's known activities, or, the activities of her phone right before her disappearance aren't relevant to her case. (It seems to be a problem that Heather didn't know what phone she was calling or where to meet SM until she tracked him down.)
BBM - totally agree both M's are into it. As far as the victim's activities or that of her phone at Longbeards in the trial I cannot see them using her phone rather than her without involving someone other than the 1 single defendant that was on trial. As far as Heather didn't know what phone she was calling. I believe she didn't know when she answered the first call.
I do believe that we both believe the end result is the same. The difference is I apparently place emphasis on different things, which of course is fine. You have many more questions than I do. Without any further evidence I am afraid those questions will never be answered.

Actually, it was the Solicitor who defined kidnapping in a statement he made and he referred to the part of the statute where it means not letting someone leave.

And yes, in the phone log that was released in the media (which came from LE/state), Longbeard's was eliminated from the timeline (because, in my opinion, it interferes with the PTL narrative).

I haven't seen any evidence of why she drove to Longbeard's or PTL, but I think it's reasonable that it was to meet up with SM in both cases.

Other than the testimony of the cell guy, I haven't seen anything at all about Longbeard's (aside from the state's claim that she went there to decide if she should meet SM/drive to PTL) so I don't think we know what the career professionals did with the Longbeard's part of the timeline. But my guess is, they couldn't link it to PTL so they left it out. Because the state needs all three parties, or at least two of them, to be at that boat landing at the same time to have a case. So, even if this crime began at Longbeard's, the crime still has to have occurred at PTL from the state's perspective.

I don't know that a theory of them using her phone has to be in the equation for Longbeard's to be relevant. And no matter how many people are/were on trial, Longbeard's is still part of the timeline. I also don't think the number of questions posed makes Longbeard's relevant or irrelevant. And, I don't think we'll ever know why the state didn't know whose DNA it had, nor will we likely discover why authorities said there was evidence that gave them probable cause for a murder warrant, but it seems it wasn't sufficient or relevant at trial.

I do find it interesting that the lure happened during the pay phone call, but the victim had to find the perpetrator before the purpose of the lure could come to pass.