Poll--Vote On The Indecent Exposure Charges

[justonedrin]

The poll confuses me. It's not like choosing toppings to order a pizza.

The Solicitor's office said they have evidence of I.E. And they told us what it is: pictures taken by TM of her and SM in various sexual positions while out and about and sent to HE's phone (to harass her). Those are unwanted messages, that qualified as I.E. (though there may also be other things as well that they've done), and that's what got them nailed.

then you would vote yes.
its a pretty simple straight forward question.
and it was worded exactly like that to separate the 2 camps--those believing LE has evidence other than the word/alibi of SM that the 2 were out having sex in MB during the hours in question.

 

[PPKik]

The two locations are 10.2 miles apart, takes about 16 minutes to drive per Google Maps.

Thanks! The way the warrants are worded, unless the two places are next to each other which they aren't, I still don't see how the Moorers could be in Conway between the 17th and 18th, and in MB between the 17th and 18th doing whatever it was.

 

[justonedrin]

Thanks! The way the warrants are worded, unless the two places are next to each other which they aren't, I still don't see how the Moorers could be in Conway between the 17th and 18th, and in MB between the 17th and 18th doing whatever it was.

well thats kinda my thinking exactly. SM defense atty said that SM told LE that is what he and TM were doing during the critical hours. kinda like an "alibi". and LE decided to run with it and charge them with IE.

now ---what the prosecuting atty was referring to in the bond hearing about texts of said sex positions is the sticking point. when were they texted? I think that is the confusing part. surely not when SM had just called HE and told her he was leaving SM and wanted to be with her. that would make no sense at all. she would laugh at him. and IMO no way go out at 330 to a dark and desolate place alone to meet with either SM or TM.
I think the texts were sent another time. and if it were not for the gag order I would call a detective and ask a hypothetical and find out. But Im sure they would see right thru that question and refuse to answer
Hence we wait on a trial to find out the exact answer to questions like this and many more too.

and let me address those who want to say--well that is the the DA said in the bond hearing--TM tested HE sex positions right before they lured her out thinking she was going to be with SM.
Well I would point out that LE/DA saying that the murder happened at PTL as recorded in the arrest warrant has not stopped or slowed down all sorts of speculation about the murder happening here and yon all over Myrtle Beach SC, has it?

 

[PPKik]

well thats kinda my thinking exactly. SM defense atty said that SM told LE that is what he and TM were doing during the critical hours. kinda like an "alibi". and LE decided to run with it and charge them with IE.

now ---what the prosecuting atty was referring to in the bond hearing about texts of said sex positions is the sticking point. when were they texted? I think that is the confusing part. surely not when SM had just called HE and told her he was leaving SM and wanted to be with her. that would make no sense at all. she would laugh at him. and IMO no way go out at 330 to a dark and desolate place alone to meet with either SM or TM.
I think the texts were sent another time. and if it were not for the gag order I would call a detective and ask a hypothetical and find out. But Im sure they would see right thru that question and refuse to answer
Hence we wait on a trial to find out the exact answer to questions like this and many more too.

and let me address those who want to say--well that is the the DA said in the bond hearing--TM tested HE sex positions right before they lured her out thinking she was going to be with SM.
Well I would point out that LE/DA saying that the murder happened at PTL as recorded in the arrest warrant has not stopped or slowed down all sorts of speculation about the murder happening here and yon all over Myrtle Beach SC, has it?

Exactly right. And I haven't really checked SC laws, but this has been brought up before. I.E. wouldn't be the same as unwanted "sexting."

Also, I have written this before, but after reading your post, I feel it is important to consider under what circumstances Heather would have gone out to meet either one of the Moorers, especially at 3:30am had they done that sexting.

I have noticed a lot of what is believed has come directly from the solicitor's narrative at the bond hearing. It is just that. A narrative of the prosecution's theory. No facts whatsoever have been proved. Maybe that's why this makes no sense.

 

[Madeleine74]

then you would vote yes.
its a pretty simple straight forward question.
and it was worded exactly like that to separate the 2 camps--those believing LE has evidence other than the word/alibi of SM that the 2 were out having sex in MB during the hours in question.

I guess those voting "no" believe LE is lying to the public because Elders (of the Solicitors office) said what they had. She didn't say ALL they had, but she did give enough to prove they had something to back up those charges.

Ultimately it will be up to a jury to determine the believability of any evidence presented and what weight to give it, if any. But if they have what they say they have and it's verifiable, then I would consider that proof.

 

[SStarr33]

Exactly right. And I haven't really checked SC laws, but this has been brought up before. I.E. wouldn't be the same as unwanted "sexting."

Also, I have written this before, but after reading your post, I feel it is important to consider under what circumstances Heather would have gone out to meet either one of the Moorers, especially at 3:30am had they done that sexting.

I have noticed a lot of what is believed has come directly from the solicitor's narrative at the bond hearing. It is just that. A narrative of the prosecution's theory. No facts whatsoever have been proved. Maybe that's why this makes no sense.

FYI, here is the law:

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c015.php

And I wonder if the sexts were sent after they killed her as further alibi?

 

[PPKik]

FYI, here is the law:

http://www.scstatehouse.gov/code/t16c015.php

And I wonder if the sexts were sent after they killed her as further alibi?

Thanks for taking the time to look it up. That's a wild page of statutes!

I don't know, but if TM did sext, it is a different Code number and it doesn't fit with the charges of I.E., or the time frame of LE, sworn in the warrants that this activity happened between Dec. 17th and Dec. 18th in Conway and MB.

If they were sent after, it would have been way after 3:41am. Could that be why LE has said Heather and Sidney were communicating until 6am? But if Heather's phone really went off the radar at 3:41am, even her phone could not have been communicating.

Where would they have been sent from?


ETA: SECTION 16-15-130. Indecent exposure; breastfeeding.


SECTION 16-15-250. Communicating obscene messages to other persons without consent.

 

[SStarr33]

I don't know, but if TM did sext, it is a different Code number and it doesn't fit with the charges of I.E., or the time frame of LE, sworn in the warrants that this activity happened between Dec. 17th and Dec. 18th in Conway and MB.

Correct. Sexting is SECTION 16-15-250

 

[justonedrin]

I guess those voting "no" believe LE is lying to the public because Elders (of the Solicitors office) said what they had. She didn't say ALL they had, but she did give enough to prove they had something to back up those charges.

Ultimately it will be up to a jury to determine the believability of any evidence presented and what weight to give it, if any. But if they have what they say they have and it's verifiable, then I would consider that proof.

that would be a NEGATIVE. those voting NO are most likely IMO saying that LE only has the WORD from SM that he and the MRS. were in those locations doing the nasty. he admitted to that to create an alibi. you know, to clear him and the MRS from being involved in the disappearance/murder of HE. better to be thought a crazy sex starved nut than a murder suspect. at least in my book.

 

[CHERIE.T]

The two locations are 10.2 miles apart, takes about 16 minutes to drive per Google Maps.

Maybe the Ms were neeked ...pretending they were doing
"whatever" when they took the pics. Maybe they took the first picture, drove 16 mins to the second
location, got neeked again and snapped another posed pic?
Idk.... Just guessing until trial.

 

[justonedrin]

I guess those voting "no" believe LE is lying to the public because Elders (of the Solicitors office) said what they had. She didn't say ALL they had, but she did give enough to prove they had something to back up those charges.

Ultimately it will be up to a jury to determine the believability of any evidence presented and what weight to give it, if any. But if they have what they say they have and it's verifiable, then I would consider that proof.

and Madeleine as I said earlier-the warrants state that HE was kidnapped and murdered at PTL---but you can go back and read hundreds of posts saying the posters dont believe that is the way it transpired. do they think LE is "lying"? No they dont. but they just believe that there could be other explanations for the evidence/timeline. and that is the same case that we have here about the IE/texts from TM on the night in question. IMO.
sometimes you just have to think outside the box and be willing to go out on a limb. matters not really--cause the trial will shake out the facts/truth and most likely hold some surprises too.

 

[CHERIE.T]

and Madeleine as I said earlier-the warrants state that HE was kidnapped and murdered at PTL---but you can go back and read hundreds of posts saying the posters dont believe that is the way it transpired. do they think LE is "lying"? No they dont. but they just believe that there could be other explanations for the evidence/timeline. and that is the same case that we have here about the IE/texts from TM on the night in question. IMO.
sometimes you just have to think outside the box and be willing to go out on a limb. matters not really--cause the trial will shake out the facts/truth and most likely hold some surprises too.

daum! :loveyou: :dance:

 

[Madeleine74]

No, that's not the same at all. The question is very specific and it's not about PTL or what happened at PTL or what the warrant from PTL says, or thinking outside of any box, but nice strawman there!

The poll question was: does LE have evidence that SM/TM committed I.E.? Nearly 90% of poll respondents voted "yes, LE has evidence of this I.E. crime."

This is a B&W issue. LE either has evidence or they don't have evidence. If they charged the M's without evidence then that would be a (big) problem. Any attorney worth their salt would get the charges thrown out if they could, especially if there is no evidence of such a crime.

I opined that those who voted "no," meaning "LE does not have evidence of the M's committing I.E. acts," must therefore believe LE has falsely charged the M's of these crimes and by LE saying they do have evidence, they (LE) are lying. That's a reasonable conclusion to draw for those voting LE does not have evidence linking the M's to I.E. acts.

 

[Ghostwheel]

Im sorry but reading that back I feel like I didnt clarify exactly what I meant by LE evidence.
heres what I should have written

YES----LE has video or some kind of evidence of SM and TM on late Dec 17th-early Dec 18th at the 2 locations specified in the warrant which will show the exact time----separate and standing on its on merit apart from SM's word/confession that he and TM were in those locations having sex at the aforementioned times/dates/locations as spelled out in the warrants.

NO ----they do not have the stand alone evidence corroborating SM's word--they only have SM's word of same.

No, that's not the same at all. The question is very specific and it's not about PTL or what happened at PTL or what the warrant from PTL says, or thinking outside of any box, but nice strawman there!

The poll question was: does LE have evidence that SM/TM committed I.E.? Nearly 90% of poll respondents voted "yes, LE has evidence of this I.E. crime."

This is a B&W issue. LE either has evidence or they don't have evidence. If they charged the M's without evidence then that would be a (big) problem. Any attorney worth their salt would get the charges thrown out if they could, especially if there is no evidence of such a crime.

I opined that those who voted "no," meaning "LE does not have evidence of the M's committing I.E. acts," must therefore believe LE has falsely charged the M's of these crimes and by LE saying they do have evidence, they (LE) are lying. That's a reasonable conclusion to draw for those voting LE does not have evidence linking the M's to I.E. acts.

If you see the quoted post above yours right here, the original question was modified by the original poster because the original poster realized that the poll wording wasn't specific enough. The question is really "Is there more evidence than SMs word?" (That quote is the second post on this poll thread)

I think this poll might be skewed a bit because of the original wording, BTW. There is no way to change a vote if you read the poll first, then read the clarification later and realized you hadn't voted the way you meant to. JMO.

 

[fairest of them all]

I have a question and I have asked this question before elsewhere in another thread and I don't remember if it was answered. My question is: if someone exposes the body of a person that is unconscious or deceased (murdered), on camera, could they be charged with indecent exposure for exposing someone else? For example, if transporting a victim in the bed of a truck, and passing within view of a surveillance camera?
Speculation/question only

 

[PeterThomasFan]

At the bond hearing on Friday, January 30th, SM's attorney said that Sidney told LE that he and his wife had consensual sex in a vehicle and that's when LE charged the M's with 2 counts each of indecent exposure.

I'm not sure what actual evidence LE would have to prove this other than SM telling them this?

 

[justonedrin]

At the bond hearing on Friday, January 30th, SM's attorney said that Sidney told LE that he and his wife had consensual sex in a vehicle and that's when LE charged the M's with 2 counts each of indecent exposure.

I'm not sure what actual evidence LE would have to prove this other than SM telling them this?

EXACTLY!!! thanks Peter--thats why I did the poll--I could see way back then that there was only SM's word--u know--he was trying to create an alibi. or maybe explain why he may have been seen in those areas that night at those times And I just wondered if anyone else thought that as well. glad to see it come out at the bond hearing