Thursday, May 5, 2016

Gender and Distancing Language

popular video of SJW cursing/shouting down free speech 
In  a recent bureaucratic 'vote' for an online application, the vote was a lone dissenter and the motion was carried to change the following question for businesses who seek to serve the public.  What is needed to be known is if they house male only, female only, or they have facilities to house both:

A.  Male

B.  Female

C.  Both

The motion carried to change this to:

A.  Male

B.  Female

C.  All 

The lone dissenter may be of either exceptional character, or could be suffering from various irrational fear and of  a most disagreeable hateful disposition.  

Distancing Language 

"I have a fever."

This is a very strong statement and unless mistaken, the subject is not likely being deceptive.  The assertion is strong.  

"I feel feverish" is a single step away from the assertion, and expresses doubt over what one is feeling.  To "feel feverish", one must know what it feels like to run a fever.

"I feel like I have a fever" in an email calling out sick from work?

""I feel sick" is not to say "I am sick" but denotes a feeling related to being "sick"; something the subject would have had to have experienced, in order to make the comparison.  The word "feel" is slight distancing language from what "is", in the sentence of "I am sick."

"I feel like I have a fever" is to weaken the assertion to what one has, to what one senses.  The wording "feel like" presupposes past experience with having a fever.  The person may not be certain, but there is a recognition between symptoms now, and what past experience with a fever has taught the subject.  

A man says, "I am a woman" is a strong assertion.  

"I feel like a woman" presupposes two things:

a.  Women "feel" differently than men

b.  The subject has experience with being a woman and recalls what it felt like to be a woman. 

Note that gap between one that is and one that "feels" and is "like" (2 steps away) is to create distancing language.  

This leads to questions:

1.  What does a woman feel like?
2.  How do you, a man, know what a woman feels like?
3.  When have you experienced being a woman to know what it feels like?
4.  Are you a woman?

The distancing language, itself, suggests the inability to discern, while it asserts that a difference between being a man and being a woman exists. 

This becomes acute child abuse when parents claim, "my little boy says he feels like a little girl...", which has become popular enough to get public statements from schools, as well as  politicians who may find themselves at odds with pediatricians, grandparents, biologists, and science.  

Pronouns are intuitive and assaulting them against science will not remove this instinct.  

Where once someone who makes this false statement about their own body was given help; it is no longer so.  Compassion has been traded for votes.  Deception creeps into every aspect of life and communication.  

Deception is to pass counterfeit linguistic currency.  Sometimes it is even masquerading with religious or ethical language, as a 'moral high ground' position.  

Paypal is moving some business out of North Carolina for telling men to not use women's bathrooms.  They are not, however, moving business out of the list of countries in which those who claim not to be the gender they are, are fined, imprisoned, lashed, and even executed.  Bruce Springsteen is not stopping sales of his albums in these same countries, nor did he cancel his upcoming tour in Italy.  

Curt Schilling was fired from ESPN, and is now being edited out of the "bloody sock" story, which has taken its place in baseball folklore where stories are passed from fathers to sons, generation to generation, of courage and perseverance.  (this, from a Mets fan?)  

No matter how assaulted, both truth and instinct remain. 

 Pronouns are 100% reliable in analysis, without exemption for either religion ("we") or political narrative ("it").  

The Guilty As Prosecutor, Judge, Jury, and Executioner

When listening to the statement of "innocence", especially in press conferences with prepared written statements, listen carefully to what the subject tells you. 

The guilty have a need for justification of what they have done.  This need will influence the rules.  They consider themselves as "good" and must, therefore, rectify their guilt of assault, rape, murder, theft, etc with this self assertion of goodness.  

Many (not all) murderers feel a need to put their victim on trial, which both condemns the victim but it also justifies the action.  This is crucial in analyzing a statement.  It is found to slip into statements where accidental death is claimed.

"The baby wouldn't finish her dinner."  

Now, she is dead, claimed as an accidental death.  

Let him speak. I can predict what you'll hear if you just let him talk, not interrupt him, and not feed him words.  Just ask him, "What happened?" and be quiet.  

In his words, he will attempt to justify his actions.  He is likely to say what a caring parent he is.  

He may even cite some of his history as a parent and the toys he bought for the child at Christmas time.  

Sound familiar?

Rather than say, "I didn't rape her", one says, "I have worked in charities for many years" as if to say,

"think of all the developmentally disabled women I could have raped but didn't."

Athletes who test positive for injecting testosterone and cattle efficient hormones into their buttocks, often will refer to how many tests they did not fail.  

This, when offered instead of a denial, is to further weaken the posture of innocence. 

Guilty people use the word "innocent" more than truthful people.  This is because they are, judicially, "not guilty" not because they didn't do it, but because they have not been convicted by a jury of their peers. 

Because this is all they can claim, it is their sole claim, and all they can do is repeat it. 

The repetition, or 'sensitivity' couples with the lack of reliable denial. 

The guilty have a need to put their victim 'on trial.'  

This includes verbally playing "prosecutor" as well as judge and jury, for the audience.  He may have already played the role of executioner.  

In most murders, the guilty subject will find a way to justify his action by condemning his victim, even if subtlety done, but in some familiar homicides, the guilty may actually play the role of prosecutor and defense attorney, showing the deep inner conflict of "having to" kill someone close to them (usually a close family member) while still feeling the 'loss' of the person no longer with them.  

At times, they may almost sound as if they are defending their own victim, but this generally does not last, as self preservation kicks in and rules the day. 

Wednesday, May 4, 2016

Dana Stubblefield Denies Sexual Abuse of Developmentally Disabled Adult

Sexual abuse of developmentally delayed adults (mental retardation, adult autism) is the highest percentage of any group in the United States.  More adults with MR are sexually assaulted than any other group.  They are the most vulnerable of Americans, and prosecuting sexual exploitation of them is near impossible as the victim generally cannot take the stand in her own defense.  Defense attorneys can easily confuse them.

In Statement Analysis, we listen to what one says and do so with the presupposition of de facto innocence; that is, that the person 'did not do it', rather than rely upon judicial innocence, which all possess.

We expect the subject to say that he did not do that which he was accused simply by:

1.  Using the pronoun "I"

2.  Using the past tense verb "did not" (or "didn't")

3.  By naming what he is accused of.

"I did not sexually assault her" is a simple and easy thing for one to say who did not do it.  They have no need to "prove" that which did not happen.  Let's listen to former NFL player, Dana Stubblefied to hear if he denies sexually assaulting the victim.

"I am here to state without any reservations that I am completely innocent of these allegations."

Please note that when he was introduced, a reservation was made:  he would not be taking any questions, his lawyer stated.  

"These allegations are completely false. "

"I have worked my whole career to be part of the Bay Community."

"And I have worked in several communities and charities with the church."

"This is an issue that is very close to me. One of my primary, one of my primary charities is Special Olympics.  Something that is true and dear to my heart."

"This is why these allegations hurt me so badly. "

"But I am not a perfect man."

note in the video where he leaves off reading the prepared statement at this point:  

"However, the allegations against me come after a year after consensual encounter with another woman are all totally false.  I am here today to state this clearly.  On my attorneys advice I won't be answering any questions but I wanted I wanted to hold a press conference to tell the truth and have the truth come out. I will defend myself with all of my strength.  Today we are here to open up this case and give more information to demonstrate that this was a, a con, a consensual relationship. Excuse me.  My attorneys will give you more information on that. But again,  But these charges are, again, completely false.  I look forward to providing, my, sorry, to proving my innocence."

Analysis Conclusion:

Dana Stubblefield has not denied any allegations. We cannot deny the allegations for him.  

Had he said, "I did not sexually abuse her" and "I have told the truth", it would have been reliable.  

The issue is in exploitation; the difference in sophistication between him and a woman with developmental disabilities.  The attorneys attack the victim's credibility, which is expected, but do so without denying the allegation; only that they affirm his judicial innocence.  

The defense attorneys uses many words to impugn the victim and how she needed money and had a work history.  Neither denies the allegation only the outcome.   

"Developmentally delayed people do not apply for jobs and do not post on Facebook...she asked for money 20 times, continually, we have her text messages we will be providing..."  

"The point being that if this incident genuinely  occurred, would someone like this ask for money?"

The attorney allows for this to have occurred. 

Tuesday, May 3, 2016

Amanda Blackburn Murder Part One: Understanding Ideology

We have a murder case investigation that went cold shy 20 years ago, for analysis, that we have been working on.  

The analysis has solved the case, and I believe it is going to end with justice in court.  Knowing who did it is the first step and Statement Analysis has been the single best tool employed, but now what is known must be proven, and in enters forensic experts while the critical interview with the subject is being prepared, as well as collateral interviews gathering information that has affirmed the findings of the investigation. 

It is not a case that is public, but like so many that we do, it is private and when justice is served, none of the analysts who devoted hard work and concentration will receive any public recognition.  

They will know.  

They will feel a great sense of satisfaction and they will say, "all the hard work, not only done here, but in the years of study, testing, preparation and practice, were worth it."

This will be followed by, "What's our next case?" with an eagerness to get back to work.  

Success can be its own reward, but when coupled with justice, there is something deep within human nature that is satisfied when injustice is defeated.  

Statement Analysis takes a subject's verbalized perception of reality, breaks it down into very small parts, examines all the parts, and comes to a conclusion.  Behind all these tiny parts is a belief system that the subject holds. Behind this belief system is his culture.  Behind his culture is a founding ideology.  

Therefore, when we seek to understand one's verbalized perception of reality, we must attempt to learn some basic elements about his belief system, as formed by culture and ideological influences.  Recently, analysts were charged with a cold case murder in which the subject chose to begin his statement 70 years earlier than the date of the murder:  the Great Depression.  This is a priority for him.  He began his statement with a portrait of the victim with the backdrop of the depression of the 1930's, and moved on to the victim being an unwed mother and welfare.   

This is to have a very different cultural view than it does today.  If we enter the statement with the projection of acceptance of these two elements in our culture, we will not understand nor discern if the subject is justifying murder, or showing sympathy for the victim.  There were specific widely held views on both of these topics back then, which reflected the larger ideology that stood behind it.  If you did not know the ideological beliefs, you would not have known if the subject was playing the role of prosecutor or defense attorney...or, as is the case of intimate murder, where deep internal conflicting drives and impulses are in play, both. 

Murderers often find a way to subtly blame their victim, or justify the killing because the victim "deserved" to be murdered. 

This is the mirror opposite of one of the most prolific sentiments expressed today at a shocking murder, such as the Amanda Blackburn murder:  

"She did not deserve to die this way!"  or anything similar.  

In fact, this is an "expected" in analysis, and it is not nullified by religious faith which does not want to indict God, yet recognizes that in the definition of "God", all things are under His control, including death and evil, yet trust (faith) is demanded.  In the Amanda Blackburn murder, this was a typical defense reaction to the distancing (and even indifferent) statements made by the victim's husband. It takes time to process a shocking murder.  

You might say that every murder comes as a shock, but it is not true for those who hold guilty knowledge.  Even those of faith, not willing to indict God with sin (see the ancient book of Job) will lament the way the victim died.  Not willing to lie and alter "God" (destroying the definition) they still feel the shock of such an unnatural death and the language shows this.  Years later, with much processed, the words may begin to soften.  But when there is no "shock", the "shocking" after events, such as forgiveness, are not so very surprising and give us a strong sense of theater, rather than extraordinary faith.  In fact, in the Judeo-Christian ideology (speaking of the Amanda Blackburn murder), there is no statement or promise within the ideology (as found in the Bible) that any "release from the pressure tension or conflict in living the Christian life." Instead, faith is a reaction, or a coping mechanism, where the intellect cannot grasp infinity, and must then trust. This theme, to the contrary, is promised or referenced throughout, both by precept and by example.  Perhaps the greatest single example of this comes from the shortest sentence of the Bible.  In this claim, Christ knew that He was to be unjustly accused, tried and condemned to death and that Jerusalem, the marvelous beautiful city which hosted His Father's Word for centuries, would soon, in just a generation, be destroyed, with even the gorgeous temple torn down, block by block, in the coming invasion and slaughter by 70 AD. 

He claimed to be God, (definition:  all knowing, all controlling, all powerful, perfection, eternal, etc) yet in considering what heartache awaited the inhabitants, with their wealthy properties and beautiful edifices about to become worthless as some would run for their lives while most would not survive, it says, "Jesus wept."

This is the answer of 'hyper faith' or 'superman' rather than being utterly devastated by the murder of the "one half of one person" (marriage) when Amanda was cruelly killed.

The Ideology 

I have written that Islam is the world's most successful criminal ideology in human history, eclipsing the inherent theft within communism/socialism, dwarfing the less than 2 decade run of national socialism, and shadowing any specific regime's run of evil.  

No ideology has been more powerful in overcoming entire countries. 
No ideology has led to more specific crimes, including sexual assaults. 
No ideology has been more insulated from reform than Islam.  To even criticize it, no less reform it, calls for the death penalty.  Also, in mimicking the Protestant Reformation, the call was to return to "sola Scriptura" and most people do not want Islam to "reform" by returning to the teaching of the Koran or the life of Mohammad.  This is where rape is taught, even in the religious 'reward' element, and jihad is explicit, including by migration into a land.  

What is lost in all of this is the notion of impact of an ideology, and how this impact shows itself in language.  It is critical for analysts to understand the various cultural ideologies and how they eventually show themselves in action; highlighted for us, specifically, in the verbalized perception of reality. 

With this in mind, I wish to examine  the world's major ideologies and how the verbalized perception of reality has been impacted.  It is important to consider, as we begin, that this is about an ideology and its impact; not about faith, nor religion, though all major ideologies have religious beliefs.  The issue is not "jihad", for in any war, only a small percentage of a population actually fights as soldiers.  The issue is the ideology, itself, that calls for the destruction of others.  If only 1% actually believe the ideology, this is to say, 1,000,000 people today are jihadists.  For 1400 years, this ideology has brought death and destruction; not progress, not civil rights, not justice, not arts, education, nor literature.  It is not 'bad luck', nor is it 'bad genes' or any form of racist belief.  It is the ideology, and how the ideology impacts those within a culture, whether or not they believe the teachings.  

We begin with Christianity, the outworking of Judaism.  This is "Judeo-Christian" thought.  

If you wish to understand the words, you must understand the person.
If you wish to understand the person, you must view the culture.
If you view the culture, you must view the ideology and how it impacts those living with it. 

As we turn to study the murder of Amanda Blackburn, I will give a brief understanding of the ideology that influences the language as well as influence how we react to the statements.  

We will view the basic ideology and the personality of those who simultaneously claim the ideology, while personally opposing it.  

We will view those who do not affirm the ideology, but nevertheless are strongly influenced by it.  A classic example is in the moral argument.  A British comedian, for example, Pat Condel, posts effective videos on You Tube decrying the Islamization of his country and the world at large.  He condemns Islamic ideology by employing Judeo-Christian ideology that he grew up within, and when he is done, he adds in his condemnation of Christianity.  

He uses principle borrowed from Christianity effectively (and accurately) and then condemns the very tools he used, grew up in, and directly benefited from.  He does not understand the 'history of thought' for himself, and for others.  

In fact, the ignorance of the history of thought is a main element within all biological racism.  If those who look upon ignorance and barbaric practice, knew their own history, they'd be incapable of believing in their own genetic superiority.  

To understand the Blackburn murder, we examine the language of the surviving spouse.  We do have some of the victim's language, but it is not about the murder.  The spouse's language has been key to understanding his verbalized perception of reality.  It is his. It is uniquely his.  

We believe what we are told unless strong evidence arises to confront this belief.  

It is critical to understand the driving ideology behind him, any bastardization of the ideology, (and why this is done) as well as his own ambitions, in order to get a full linguistic profile and insight into what happened to Amanda Blackburn. 

Next up:  The Ideology as the backdrop of the murder.  

Monday, May 2, 2016

Fake Hate: Examples


These are always fascinating to review and this is just a small sampling.  Note how many cases were covered here and are missing.  

Sunday, May 1, 2016

Sidney Moorer Embedded Confession

Sidney Moore Gives Embedded Confession into the murder of Heather Elvis 

An "Embedded Confession" is where the brain signals to the tongue to frame the words admitting to the crime.  This is not when one quotes another, directly, but uses his own language to frame the words.  The words must come, only, from the subject, himself, in order to be a confession.  

In this article, he not only gives an embedded confession, but gives two, specifically choosing his own language, to affirm that he committed this crime.  

This is an article in which the journalist claimed to have spent almost 2 hours on the phone, yet gives few quotes. 

Consider this:  Sidney Moorer, the subject, has all the information.  The journalist (IR) interviewing him, has none of the subject's information.  

Why not let the subject's own words speak for him?

Here is the article, with quotes in italics and emphasis added. 

Consider what you expect him to say:

"I didn't kill Heather Elvis.  I didn't cause Heather's disappearance."

This is very simple to say and the most common response from those who did not commit the crime. 

Kidnapping suspect Sidney Moorer opened up about the past two and a half years since he and his wife, Tammy, were charged in connection with 20-year-old Heather Elvis’ December 2013 disappearance. 
Moorer, 40, talked for roughly two hours over the phone from his Florida home about his claims of corruption in Horry County, the threats he, Tammy, 43, and his three children have endured, including guns shot at them, pet mutilations and stalkings, and what life is like for him in the Sunshine state versus Horry County. 

The Case 

“I honestly think, and as horrible as it sounds, I honestly think that law enforcement and the solicitor’s office, mainly Jimmy Richardson, I really think they let that mob mentality go, hoping that we would be killed,” Sidney Moorer said over the phone April 23.

Does the subject believe this?

Note the assertion is that those in authority, particularly Jimmy Richardson, allowed public anger to grow hoping it would lead to the murder of Tammy and Sidney Moorer. 

What would you say if you believed this?

The word "think" is a weak assertion, and contextually, it is appropriate.  What is added to this, however, changes the assertion:

1.  He "honestly thinks" weakens his assertion.
2.  He repeats this phrase further weakening his assertion.  
3.  He added "think" a third time, weakening it yet again; but he is not finished weakening his own assertion:
4.  He "really" thinks, making this third 'thought' now qualified with 'really', showing the needless emphasis.  

Conclusion:  he is stating what he does not believe.  

Context:  Even so, if you were in his shoes and were innocent factually of this crime, would you not add that point in?  'He wants them to kill us, and I didn't kill Heather Elvis!" to drive home the affront of such malicious injustice.

Sidney Moorer has no such righteous indignation.  

The mob murder is bad enough, but of an innocent man further aggravates he crime. 

Yet, this is not the case for the subject.  

He is deceptively moving the topic away from his crime to the tangent, showing the need to make the topic off the table for the journalist.  

Moorer spoke openly, but at times was barred from delving into certain topics because of the gag order put in place by Judge Steven John in March 2014 at the request of the state – an order Moorer said the state hides behind.

This is not to say that there were things he said he could not talk about but to allow that he was being obedient to the gag order.  Yet no such interpretation is needed for Mr. Richardson: 

Horry County Solicitor Jimmy Richardson said he didn’t want to comment on Moorer’s claims because the gag order is still in place, and he said with a trial coming up on kidnapping and obstruction of justice charges in June, it was more important than ever not to violate it.

“The gag order is in place to make sure that Sidney Moorer gets a fair trial, and as we close in on the date here in June it’s more and more important that there isn’t any pretrial publicity, especially coming from the state,” Richardson said.

The State has no such objection, nor should they, to Sidney Moorer speaking out as the more he speaks, the more insight he gives.  

Sidney Moorer said in the beginning of the investigation that authorities gave people just enough information to lead them to believe he and wife Tammy were responsible for Elvis’ disappearance, without releasing any of the questions they themselves had about the Moorers’ possible involvement in the incident.

Here is where we expect to hear the Reliable Denial...again. 

Elvis was reported missing Dec. 19, 2013, after Horry County police found her car, which was registered to her father, parked at the Peachtree boat landing in Socastee, and remains missing. She was last seen Dec.17, 2013 and last heard from Dec. 18, 2013.

Ideally, for them it would have been the perfect situation because they would never have had to prove anything,” Sidney Moorer said of his claims that authorities wanted him and Tammy killed.
There is no way in hell I will ever get a fair trial in Horry County

Yet still no denial of the murder.  

Murder charges against the couple were dropped by the solicitor’s office in March; however, the charges can be brought back if the state chooses to reinstate them.

I guess I was happy, but still a little upset, because I really feel like if they charge you with that they should have to prove it,” 

This challenge of proof is the bravado we often hear from the guilty, with the taunt of 'catch me if you can' rather than simply denying the murder.  If he did not kill Heather, there would be nothing to prove. 

Sidney Moorer said of the murder charges being dismissed.
He would have preferred to have his day in court on those charges, because he worries about the state bringing them back, Moorer said.

“The fact that it’s been dismissed without prejudice means that it could come back up at any time in the future,” Richardson said of the murder charges.

If new evidence is found, the charges could come back for the Moorers, and Richardson didn’t want to move forward on the murder charges now for fear of double jeopardy if new evidence surfaces later, he said.

They’ve screwed me once. Why wouldn’t they do it again,” Sidney Moorer said. “I mean they’ve got the perfect opportunity to do it again for the rest of my life. But this is the problem they’ll run into: we didn’t commit the crime. Therefore, they will never, ever find any legitimate evidence that we did this.”

"We didn't commit the crime" 

1.  The pronoun "I" (he, alone, is speaking)
2.  "The crime" is to avoid the specific allegation. 

This is "unreliable" and shows the need to go plural.  Yet, the absence of the reliable denial (repeatedly) is sufficient but he is not finished:

"Therefore, they will never ever find any legitimate evidence" has 2 more problems:

Besides avoiding to deny it as the reason, he uses "never ever" which is closely associated with deception, as it shows a statistical identity with deception and the need to persuade rather than truthfully report, and...

what they find will "never ever" be "legitimate" evidence. 

Here he classifies evidence that must be "legitimate."

Here he tells us that finding evidence is possible and when it is found, the defense will call it "illegitimate" as evidence.  The journalist should have asked him the difference between legitimate evidence and evidence that is not legitimate.  The answer may have been most useful for the investigation.  This could be something that a trained journalist could have served the profession by using the appropriate follow up question, regardless of personal opinion of guilt or innocence.  

Moorer signals his own concern of law enforcement finding more evidence.  

On April 18, Judge Markley Dennis ruled to allow the state’s forensic expert to testify against the Moorers at the kidnapping and obstruction of justice trial Sidney Moorer is set to have in June.
Moorer looks forward to his day in court, but is concerned, he said.

There is no way in hell I will ever get a fair trial in Horry County,” he said.

This is to anticipate a guilty verdict of some sort.  This is yet another place to assert a reliable denial for himself.  

Moorer wants the trial held elsewhere, but said he couldn’t speak about a change venue due to the gag order.

Guilty people like to go to the word "we" as to psychologically 'hide' in a crowd, or attempt to mitigate or lessen guilt by psychologically spreading it around to others.  This is something that children frequently do.  This theme continues with both the 'thinning' of guilt, but to use:

a.  tangent to change the topic
b.  indict the criminal justice system

with both avoid simply stating that he did not do it.  Consider that he just said that there was no way in hell "I" would get a fair trial, not "we"; 

the context is fair trial for himself.  Listen to him:  

“Innocent people go to prison every day. I’m fairly confident that this will end like it should, and we’ll both be found not guilty for a crime we didn’t commit. I kinda wonder where they’re going with this. Do they even care about what really happened, or is it just about convicting or not convicting us at this point?”

Note the denial goes from "I" to "we" and is unreliable.  "crime we didn't commit" is repeated.  

Does this statement hold for Horry County?

Moorer said he feels some people are treated unfairly in Horry County.

We don't have a quote here, but "some people" are treated unfairly.  Does this include himself?  If so, "I can't get..." and "I have really angered people..."

You really can’t piss off the wrong people in Horry County because it really is a good ole boys system,” he said.

Here is an attempt to indict the system, again.  This is not wise. Would you, as an actual innocent (not just judicially innocent) feel the need to both avoid telling the journalist that you did not kill the victim, while continuing to insult the prosecutors?

Tammy Moorer did what killers generally do not do:  she railed against the victim while she was still missing, openly, rather than in a subtle manner. 

Here, Sidney shows a similar pattern:  he is incapable of denying what he did, but he is capable of insulting the prosecution, helping fill them with resolve, and further angering the watching nation.  

This is who they are, and why I have written, reluctantly, about what the last hours of Heather Elvis' life was likely most cruel in torment, especially from Tammy.  

Tammy, the dominating figure of the two, was separated from Sidney, with the hope that the weaker of the two would speak.  This was a good strategy, in spite of its failure.  It was easy to underestimate Tammy's dominance over him.  It is rare. 

This is a shadow or echo of Tammy's 'attack personality' whereas, for example, when a person is missing, a guilty person may praise police.  He is insulting and taunting law enforcement.  This is likely Tammy's influence over him. 

Sidney Moorer said he and Elvis were involved for roughly five or six weeks from about September to October 2013, but he said they didn’t have a “deep” relationship.

He wants the audience (think, Tammy) to consider that he simply used Heather and that it was just a casual relationship.  This is likely what he told Tammy and what the older and considerably aesthetically unfortunate  Tammy told herself, yet listen to his language 

We didn’t sit around and have long discussions about her feelings and stuff like that. She told me some things about her family life and stuff like that,” Sidney Moorer said.

In looking back at his time with her, he uses the pronoun "we", which is something Tammy should well consider.  The word "we" is to show unity and cooperation. 

Regarding "her family life", this is to follow script.  Tammy made certain to taunt and re-visit her rage upon the victim's family and has slandered them mercilessly, further giving insight into how Heather likely suffered before death, and further showing to all, including prosecutors, just how cruel and vicious her character really is.  

Moorer said he could not discuss how their involvement came to a close due to the gag order.

He now wants us to think Heather tired to "get away" from her "family life", furthering the cruelty of the dominating Tammy, yet here, his own words betray him: 

“Honestly, I think she really tried to get away. Where she is now? I really have no idea. … There’s no way for me to begin to guess,” he said when asked where he thought Elvis was.

Deception Indicated.

Note the need to use "think" is appropriate for one who does not know, yet we have the additional use of "honestly", indicating a desire to "really" be believed here (patterned deception) and that she did not "try" to get away, but "really tried", with "tried" past tense, indicating failure.  Since she has not been found, this "failure" indicates that he is lying and knows that she did not get away.  If he was innocent and did not know where Heather was, knowing that she has not been found, he would not have said she "tried" to get away, but "she got away" from...

He is, here, giving away the information that he knows Heather did not "get away" from anyone, including him and Tammy.  

Yet, the liar is not finished. 

There's no way for him to even "begin" to guess, is strong distancing language, while then to complete the lie, he not only uses the unreliable "I have no idea" but his brain, in less than a millisecond in time, chooses to qualify this lie with "really", showing the need to even add this even further. 

This is extreme distancing language from the claim to not know where she is. 

Deception indicated:  He knows where Heather's remains can be found.  

Moorer said Elvis often spoke about leaving the area, and pointed out that her social media account reflected that as well with posts expressing a desire to go elsewhere.
Moorer said he thought the focus on Elvis gets lost in all the noise about him and his wife and their case.

Threats and effects on the Moorer family

Moorer said his family has been terrorized since he and Tammy were named as suspects in Elvis’ disappearance.
Moorer filed police reports with Myrtle Beach police and the Georgetown County Sheriff’s Office in two separate incidents in early 2014 involving suspects pointing guns or shooting at him.
On Feb. 20, 2014, Moorer told Myrtle Beach police he was in a parking lot on the 7500 block of North Kings Highway when two men pulled up in a truck beside him and pointed what appeared to be a shotgun at him, according to the police report.
Moorer was able to run inside and lock himself in and call police, and police were unable to find the suspects’ vehicle, the report states.
On Feb. 6, 2014, Sidney, Tammy and their three children were traveling on Ocean Highway in Georgetown County when Sidney Moorer said a truck came up fast from behind him, and the truck was about 50 feet away when he said he heard two gunshots ring out, according to a Georgetown County Sheriff’s Office police report.
The truck then slowed down and shut off its lights. Moorer said he lost sight of the truck and fled deeper into Georgetown County to call police. GCSO authorities said they didn’t see any damage to Moorer’s truck, according to the report.
The night of Feb. 6, 2014 was the same night a fundraiser was held at the Boathouse Waterway Bar and Grill in Myrtle Beach where money was raised to find Elvis.

"People can say what they want about me. I’m an adult. … It’s OK. Fine. And even if someone thinks I did this horrible crime. Fine. But my kids had nothing to do with anything. "

For one who did not "do it", nothing is fine, nothing is acceptable or "OK" because he did not do it; not even being an "adult" allows for the acceptance of belief of guilt by anyone, no less the public.  

These people should not have custody of their children.  

Now note the most important part of his statement. 

This is an embedded confession.  

Consider the powerful change in language from his two other 'denials' where he began with "we"

"We didn't commit this crime" has now changed to:

"I did this horrible crime."  

As he reports what people think, all the while avoiding the simple, "I didn't kill Heather Elvis", he used the unreliable denial employing both 'assistance' with Tammy ("we"), while only referring to it as "this crime."

But when he is psychologically alone, ("I"), he not only admits it, but tells us that it is "horrible."

Now, if Heather has run away, there has been no crime and certainly no "horrible" crime.  She has gotten away from her family, which has been the tangent used all along.  

Here, he now owns, via what others "think" that he, alone, sees this as not only a crime, but a "horrible" crime.  This is far away from one who ran away or mysteriously disappeared. 

This is something that should be rehearsed in the ears of the jury.  

It also tells you why law enforcement took the chance of separating them with the hope of him confessing.  

This suggests that the actual killing of Heather Elvis was very likely at the insistence of Tammy Moorer, one who's language has shown, from the beginning, is the ring leader, and utterly emasculates and dominates Sidney. 

Tammy's rage was severe:  aging, and living in a bizarre Disney fantasy life, Sidney broke her power of control when he went with the pretty and much younger Heather, of whom he relates to, now, with the word "we."  This was to break the chains that Tammy had over him and his penance has been his loyalty to her while in prison.  

Yet, there is something within Sidney Moorer that admits that what they did was "horrible" to Heather.  This is key.  

While Tammy raged and raged giving us insight into the suffering that she inflicted upon the victim, even to use the word "horrible" is to step back into a semblance of humanity; something not in the language of Tammy Moorer. 

“People can say what they want about me. I’m an adult. … It’s OK. Fine. And even if someone thinks I did this horrible crime. Fine. But my kids had nothing to do with anything,” he said.



The family has been working on piecing their lives back together since leaving Horry County last fall.

“I feel safer where I’m at,” Moorer said.

While the family rebuilds piece by piece, Moorer said things will never be the same for them.

“Our lives are ruined forever,” he said. “My son may be 50 years old one day and someone may approach him and be like, ‘Your dad killed Heather Elvis.Even though it’s never been proven.”

Here is another embedded confession.  The key is the word "may."

When one quotes another, it is not an embedded confession.  Here we have the Law of Economy (shortest sentences; long to short), we see the additional language, especially the word "may" here:

"your dad killed Heather Elvis" is his second confession of what he did.  

He does not follow it with, "even though "I didn't kill her" but he again recognizes that the only wall of protection between him and guilt is this:  "it's never been proven."

This is a statement where the allegations are addressed repeatedly by him, without issuing a reliable denial; the simplest of all statements. 

But he has embedded, within his own statements, a confession of his own language which is essential. 

He may ascribe the first to what he thinks people may "think" but he has no one else's words but his own, and he added "horrible" to the statement. 

In the second, he gives a hypothetical statement from a non-exisisting person, and the words of the person must be put in the imaginary person's mouth making the words come only from Sidney Moorer. 

In this, he confesses again, followed by the basis of the confession:  they have not been able to prove otherwise.  

From there, he went on to tell us just how dominant Tammy's personality is:  people want to kill them, threaten them and go after their children, but for Tammy to move?  

Most of the people who have given him and his family a hard time are people who have lived in the area for less than 10 years, and he said Tammy’s family has lived in the county for more than 150 years.
That’s her home. No matter how much people don’t like that. That’s her home,” Moorer said.

Note it is "her" home (repeated) and not "our" home.  Tammy's antagonistic rage is something that will not lessen with threats against even her children.  This provides further insight into how 'powerful' Sidney perceives her to be, and further shows why he did not give in during prison.  

Analysis Conclusion:

We have two embedded confessions that Sidney Moorer killed Heather Elvis. 

These quotes should be heard by the jury.