Theft Analysis Result

It ain't a sweater and it ain't a hoody, its a Mets jersey!   

by Peter Hyatt

Here is the analysis of the theft statement previously posted.  Many comments posted revealed a solid understanding of the principles of Statement Analysis, and just how important it is to stay within principle. 
What did you conclude?
Did the subject steal the sweater?  
The subject has been accused of stealing an expensive sweater that belonged to "Tommy", while he worked for a company supporting Tommy.  I asked the accused to write out a statement of "what happened" and he produced this.  
I analyzed it, and then conducted an "Analytical Interview", which is just another way of saying that I interviewed him with open ended questions, used his language, and then asked questions from the analysis.  This is the natural by product of the teaching of SCAN from Avinoam Sapir which can be found here.

How did your analysis come out?  You can compare it to mine, which follows the original statement. 
"Saturday March 23^rd, Tommy had a small get

together at his house.  Tommy had a monster

 jacket sweater that matched my Jacket. 

I asked Tommy if I could try the sweater

on with my Jacket.  Tommy complied.  I only

had the hoody for about 20 minutes. I

then took off the hoody and laid it

on the back of the recliner.  When I

left the hoody was still on the chair.

On Tuesday, March 26^th, at about 1250pm, Tommy’s

mom found me down town and accused me of stealing his hoody. I told her

as politely

as possible what I knew about the hoody

and where I last saw it.  She went on

about what would happen if the hoody wasn’t found…"

This was an actual case that I was asked into.  Tommy is disabled and the subject worked for the company that supported Tommy.  I conducted the interview with the subject. 

Here is the statement, with analysis added:

"Saturday March 23^rd, Tommy had a small get

together at his house.  

Do you remember the principle that says that where a subject chooses to begin a statement is important, and sometimes even the reason for writing?  The subject was told NOT TO go to Tommy's apartment when he is off duty, as it blurs professional boundary.  It is interesting that the subject felt the need to explain why he went to the apartment off duty.  It was a "get together", which is strictly social.  I did not know this when I analyzed the statement:  I only knew that going to Tommy's "house" (not apartment??) was important to the subject.  

Tommy had a monster

 jacket sweater that matched my Jacket. 

This is exactly how he wrote it out.  Did you notice that which was crossed out?  Did you catch that he capitalized "Jacket" when it was his, but not when it was Tommy's?

Please also note that here, it is a "sweater."  

This is a great statement for learning about change of language. 

Language does not change on its own:  it changes, principally because of a change in reality.  If the change in reality is not justified by the statement, it may ("may") indicate that the subject is not working from memory; that is, deception is present.  This is important to remember because we have two (2) examples of language change and, fortunately for teaching, we have both possibilities in play.

"my Jacket" has a capital "J" to the possessive pronoun, "my", making it more important than Tommy's jacket

Note that the item in question is a "sweater"

I asked Tommy if I could try the sweater

on with my Jacket.  

"asked" is polite language.  We trust the subject to guide us unless the analysis shows otherwise.  I believe, at this point, it was a polite request. 
Note that it is still a "sweater" as it is still in Tommy's possession. 

Tommy complied. 

The polite asking came to an end, and coercion began, as the word "complied" means that the subject's will overcame, as if 'ordered' to hand it over.  It is now in the subject's possession: 

 I only

had the hoody for about 20 minutes. 

In the subject's possession, it is no longer a "sweater" (something I wear) but a "hoody", something a younger person wears, and much 'cooler' than a sweater.  The item has changed possession therefore, the change of language is justified.  The subject is telling the truth and there has been a change in reality.  We now know:

When Tommy has it, it is a sweater.
When the subject has it, it is a hoody.

We will now seek to learn how it ends up, as a sweater, which is Tommy's, or if the subject actually stole it, meaning that it is a "hoody."

Recall the example of change of language from car insurance:  "My car sputtered and died.  I left the vehicle on the side of the road."

It was "my car" while it worked, but when it no longer drove, it became "the vehicle."  Once repaired and running again, it will return to being a "car" and will have the possessive pronoun, "my" attached to it. 

The word "just" is a comparison word.  What is he comparing "20 minutes" to?  This is a strong indication that he had it on much longer than 20 minutes...perhaps even to the point of wearing it out the door?

I

then took off the hoody and laid it

on the back of the recliner.  When I

left the hoody was still on the chair.

Here it remains a "hoody" but we are confronted with another change of language:

"recliner" or "chair."

Please note that pronouns and articles 'don't lie'.  Pronouns and articles are not part of our internal, personal, subjective dictionaries, but are instinctive.   He did not say that he laid it on the back of "a recliner", but "the" recliner.  The recliner had yet to be introduced.  This is red flagged for possible deception. 

Next, we find that "the recliner" became "the chair."  We ask ourselves:

"Is there anything in the text that suggests a change of reality?"
I see that there is nothing here to justify the change.  Therefore, it is likely that the subject is not working from memory, and is not keeping track of his language.  This is a strong indication that he is lying.  When one is not working from memory, it is easy to get language mixed up.  When one is working from memory, a change in language is a change in reality.  This is why the sweater/hoody issue remains the same:  
Tommy has a sweater, but the subject has the much cooler hoody. 

On Tuesday, March 26^th, at about 1250pm, Tommy’s

mom found me down town and accused me of stealing his hoody. 

Here he introduces someone in the statement in an incomplete social introduction.  He did not say "Tommy's mother, Gloria" but "Tommy's mom", which indicates a poor relationship according to SCAN social introduction.  We are now on alert to learn if anything in the statement (and later in the interview) will affirm or deny the principle.  

I told her

as politely

as possible what I knew about the hoody

"as politely as possible" tells us that he was restraining himself and that this was not pleasant.  (The interview revealed very harsh words between them, and Tommy's mother's personal animosity towards the subject)

Note "what I knew about the hoody" is to avoid saying "that I did not take it" as this place was the perfect spot to deny the accusation that he was faced with. 

In a lengthy interview, he said many words but none included "I did not take the sweater" or "I did not take the hoody"

I was seeking to learn if the hoody would return to being a "sweater", which would have suggested that it was in Tommy's possession, yet, it remains a "hoody"

and where I last saw it.  She went on

about what would happen if the hoody wasn’t found…"

She threatened him.  

This statement has almost all truthfulness to it, except about laying the hoody down on any chair.  This is where the change of language showed deception. 

When it was with the owner, it was a sweater, but when it was with the subject, it was a "hoody."

In the interview, the subject kept his written statement on his lap, often referring to it.  He had asked if this was okay to do, and I assured him it was. 

I asked open ended questions and allowed nature to take its course: that is, he was able to see that he was caught.  

As I sometimes do, I left a copy of my analysis on the table, including using a red pen (above) and wrote "deception indicated" on it, and excused myself to go to the bathroom. 

When I came back, he was visibly unnerved by it.  

My job was to get to the truth. 

Do you recall the teaching on "Sermonizing?"

When someone lectures you on something, it is always a sensitive issue.  This subject lectured me about theft.  His father and uncle were both thieves, he told me, and had served time.  He hated thieves, he said, more than drug dealers!  He lectured me at length about theft. 

How did it end?

He confessed. 

He was embittered that Tommy could afford such a fancy hoody while not working, while he, the subject, had gone to school with Tommy and now worked for Tommy but could still not afford such a fancy hoody. 

For this, he lost his job and admitted that he, like his father before him, was a thief.  

There is more to this analysis than what I have posted, but suffice for now, it is a great sample of change of language principle.  Often, a change in language indicates the subject is working from memory and is truthful.  The change is seen in the change of reality: 

"I pulled my gun from its holster and fired my weapon twice at the suspect, and re-holstered the gun."
When it was not in use, it was a "gun", but when it was in use, it changed into a "weapon."  Once it was done being a "weapon", it returned to being a "gun."  This is an indicator of veracity. 

I once worked with a pretty co-worker who did not like certain neighborhoods and told a new worker, "I like going out to that neighborhood with Peter.  He is a good man to have along."
A year later, I heard her say almost the same thing to yet another new worker, yet with a subtle change:  "You should ask Peter to go with you there.  He is a good person to have along."

I asked her if she had a crush on me a year ago.  She was caught off guard and said, "well, yes I did."
I pointed out that she had just called me a "person" and asked her what caused her to change and she said, "I met Heather!"
It was Heather's presence that turned me from being a "man" (gender specific) to a "person" (gender neutral). 
I wonder if she is reading this now...and laughing at me!  

Did you enjoy the exercise?  Please let me know in the comments if you like this type of work.  On many statements, I have not only the analysis, but the benefit of having conducted an interview, or speaking to the Interviewer, and know the entire case. 
As some of you already know, sometimes you can know more about a case from a statement than an investigator working the case might know, even if for a short time! 

Humility in Analysis

One cannot learn if one can't see the need to learn.


Do you remember Mr. Sapir's "40% more" teaching?

It is amazingly accurate.

He teaches that when the same statement is analyzed by you, later in time (after emotional connection is broken...perhaps even forgotten), the same statement will yield up to 40% more information.

I have found this to be true, time and time again.

It is also why group analysis is such a blessing, though only if you are among others familiar with the language of humility.

It works especially well in doing anonymous letters, as the analyst must possess the temperament to say:

"Here, I am sure it is a white female" after 2 lines.

"Now, on line 7, I see that it is a male, not a female..."

"I change my mind yet again, as this is someone who is not educated..."

This type of openness and 'willingness to be wrong' allows for the analyst to be at the mercy of the statement:

Exactly where the analyst belongs.

We must be at the mercy of the statement.  The statement should not be at the mercy of our opinion or theory.

We put 'total faith' into the subject to guide us, unless something tells us otherwise.  This is the norm. This is the "expected" in analysis.

Signing one's name means signing one's reputation "on the line" for all to see, saying "Deception Indicated" with one's own name, written clearly for the record.

No anonymous stones thrown.

More about the 40% Factor to come...

Heather Elvis: Terry Elvis' Poem

You can throw your rocks and hide your hand

You can work in the darkness against your fellow man

We all know God made both black and white He promises us

"What's done in the dark will be brought into the light"

Men do evil from the beginning of time

Life is cruel even when we put it to rhyme

Smiles are faked by those who deceive us day by day

God allows them to have their way

The price of sin has long been told

Cast your rocks as the price unfolds

Seek His face to escape His wrath

For to walk with God you must walk His path.

I have seen the darkness as it drew me near

I have danced with evil as it stoked my fear

The road to redemption is clearly seen

Check your hands and heart, make sure they are clean

God accepts us for who we are

He knows the mark we all miss by so far

There is room for all in the Kingdom He built

Confess your sins and shed your guilt

Time is fleeting, it screams by without a care

Cling to grace and his mercy, it is always there

Lord protect and comfort us as these days progress

Shine your guiding light that we might not digress

Let multitudes of angel wings comfort our child

Hear our wishes and prayers and words spoken mild

Lord bring Heather home I beg once more

Grant us the peace we all cry for.

Spike Lee Statement On Whites Moving Into Black Neighborhoods

Recently, Director Spike Lee spoke out against white people moving into black neighborhoods in Brooklyn.  Many people might think that white people and black people living together in the same neighborhood is a realization of civil rights' hopes of yesteryear.

Here is his statement:

“Here’s the thing: I grew up here in Fort Greene. I grew up here in New York. It’s changed. And why does it take an influx of white New Yorkers in the south Bronx, in Harlem, in Bed Stuy, in Crown Heights for the facilities to get better? The garbage wasn’t picked up every f***** (edited) day when I was living in 165 Washington Park. P.S. 20 was not good. P.S. 11. Rothschild 294. The police weren’t around. When you see white mothers pushing their babies in strollers, three o’clock in the morning on 125th Street, that must tell you something.”

Statement Analysis Exercise: Theft

Many companies assign internal investigations to Human Resources for resolution.
In this case, an expensive sweater was stolen and HR asked the accused to write out a statement.

By asking all participants to write out a statement of "What Happened?" companies are able to solve crimes, small or great, even when law enforcement either cannot, or chooses not to.

Companies with such training will find that as they solve cases, they will gain a reputation for truth gathering and may discourage shrinkage.

Enter into this statement.  Don't just analyze it, enter into it.  Learn what happened, and learn the nature of relationships between people.

The "Subject" is the author.
"Tommy" is the victim who has reported that the Subject stole his expensive sweater.

The company sought to learn the truth.

I will post analysis later...

                                                    Sweaters versus Hoodies!

                                    I'm a sweater guy, who owns but a single hoodie... this is a hint!


Can you solve it?  Remember, language does not change on its own!

"Saturday March 23^rd, Tommy had a small get

together at his house.  Tommy had a monster

 jacket sweater that matched my Jacket. 

I asked Tommy if I could try the sweater

on with my Jacket.  Tommy complied.  I only

had the hoody for about 20 minutes. I

then took off the hoody and laid it

on the back of the recliner.  When I

left the hoody was still on the chair.

On Tuesday, March 26^th, at about 1250pm, Tommy’s

mom found me down town and accused me of stealing his hoody. I told her

as politely

as possible what I knew about the hoody

and where I last saw it.  She went on

about what would happen if the hoody wasn’t found…"

Conspiracy Theories and Leanne Bearden

I have read some disturbing comments here in the Statement Analysis blog, and we have deleted many more, about what happened to Leanne Bearden.

The most disturbing element for me is the erroneous use of the principles of Statement Analysis in an attempt to fit analysis to a presupposed theory, rather than allowing the statements to build a theory.

Leanne committed suicide.

There are those (mostly "anonymous") who believe that Leanne was murdered.  As 'proof', they are using principles of statement analysis in error, out of context, producing false results.

Here is one such Anonymous post:

"Anonymous said...
And Peter, don't you always say that in a list of things, order matters? This from the 5K website:

Please email us with any questions and we will get back to you as soon as possible. Thank you!

donations@leannebearden5k.com
rsvp@leannebearden5k.com
questions@leannebearden5k.com
February 24, 2014 at 11:08 PM  "


Note how the Anonymous poster begins with a "challenge" to me, as if I am responsible for the fundraising, as if she can use my words to justify her application.

I found the fundraising distasteful, just as I did the lack of initial information by the family, leading to "sightings" far from the location of suicide.  I am wary of fund raising in general, but that is just me. Others may not find it distasteful, but helpful.  Some may want to raise money for depression victims, in Leanne's name.  It is their business, but it does not indicate murder.   I found the distancing language present, but this fits a suicide, as the guilt of survivors is terrible.  I found the reward to be strange, but not so strange when considering suicide was known as likely, early on.

These things may be distasteful or may be unusual,  but they are not indicative of murder nor deception.  

As to pet names, "terms of endearment", actually, this must be placed in context for appropriate analysis:

Josh Bearden used pet names on Facebook ("terms of endearment") after his wife's body was found. The anonymous postings believe this is also indicative of murder.  That is not something that is Statement Analysis.  It is folly.

As to his posting, what is the setting?

It is a memorial!  It is expected that he would use terms of endearment or pet names for her in a memorial.

Anonymous postings "flagging" the "pet names" (terms of endearment), and attempting to squeeze it into a murder case, make a mockery of principle.

In a police statement in which a crime is suspected, the term of endearment is red flagged.  Think of the context!

In a memorial post, a term of endearment or pet name is expected, not unexpected.


It has a feel that Anonymous  Posters have a theory, "murder", and that everything Josh Bearden says is being shoved into the theory.

In Statement Analysis, we do not begin with a theory, but allow the words to guide us.  We have "total faith" in the subject's words to guide us.

This is an erroneous application of principle.

Even Leanne smiling for the camera is sighted as "proof" that the family is lying about depression.  This ignorance is astounding.

There are videos on the History Channel that show Jews in concentration camps smiling for the camera, right before their death!  This is a common occurrence.

People who live with depression suffer along with the victim.  Loved ones suffer, and the Bearden family will suffer for a very long time.  Distancing language is common because of guilt.  The guilt is related to the suicide.

Loved ones will always ask themselves what they could have done differently, what they could have said differently.

Josh Bearden will suffer this, more than anyone else, for the rest of his life.

I hope he finds peace.

He used distancing language in reporting his wife missing.  The police made a statement that sounded more like a condolence offering than anything else.

Take both of these together and conclude:

They knew.

As to the photographs of Leanne smiling "proving" murder:  People with acute depression have good days, too.  The pictures may show actually how hard Josh Bearden worked to lift his wife's spirits.

Only the closest loved ones of acute depression victims know how deeply they, the loved ones, suffer, day to day.  Only they know the effort it takes, sometimes hourly, to keep the victim "up" and functioning.

Only the closest loved ones know how to sleep with one eye open, fearful of suicide.

Only the closest loved ones know how to "walk on eggshells", fearful of saying the wrong thing and being the one who "finally" sets off the suicide.

Husbands and wives argue.

It is reality.

Yet, if one spouse suffers from depression, the pressure to avoid arguments, itself, can lead to arguments, passive-aggressive outbursts, and take its toll on the physical health of the loved one, as he may expend incessant energy to keep his wife from suicide.

In Josh Bearden's statements, he was not deceptive.  He is unusual, as his lifestyle showed, but unusual is not guilt.  How many people do you know travel the globe the way he and his wife did?  I don't know any.

The conspiracy theorists in this case need to now post elsewhere.  The conspiracy postings are foolishness and can only hurt Leanne's loved ones.  The misapplication of Statement Analysis does a disservice to Statement Analysis, and this blog.

I hope that Leanne's plight will help other serious depression victims to get help, and that loved ones of victims will get support.

God bless the surviving family with peace.

Heather Elvis Case On Nancy Grace

I often take the transcripts from the program and analyze for truth and deception.  In this case, the withheld information is deliberate by law enforcement, who have boldly charged the Moorers with Heather's murder.  

When this story broke, I analyzed the statements of Heather's father, and indicated truthfulness.  

I have not had statements from Sidney Moorer, as he let Tammy do the speaking for him, and when Tammy did speak, the blogger did not quote her, only writing that she "denied" involvement, which, for regular readers, means something very different than most.  

Statement Analysis is in bold type.   Priority is seen within the short statement. 

GRACE: Live, Myrtle Beach. As we go to air tonight, two in custody in connection with the disappearance of a young 20-year-old girl Heather Elvis. We learned cops believe Elvis, a victim of a couple, a married couple`s quote, open marriage. But even though these two are behind bars at this hour, we still don`t know, where is Heather Elvis? 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: We have not located Heather. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Sidney Moorer and Tammy Moorer were taken into custody. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Charged with murder.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Cadaver dogs searching both their cars and their house. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The evidence that we located there led to the charge of murder. 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

GRACE: Out to Michael Smith, editor of Carolina Forest Chronicle. Michael, thank you for being with us. I don`t understand how these two are implicated in the disappearance of 20-year-old Heather Elvis. She goes out that night on a date, nice guy, totally cooperating with police, (inaudible), and then suddenly she`s just gone? How does a couple with a, quote, open marriage, what did they have to do with Heather Elvis and why is there a murder charge? 

MICHAEL SMITH, CAROLINA FOREST CHRONICLE: Right. Thanks for having me, Nancy.

 Well, in the police records, Sidney Moorer, he`s the husband, acknowledged to having a relationship history with Heather Elvis, and he says in the report he tried to break it off, but police noted that there were some discrepancies in the story, including the roommate who had told police that Sidney wanted to leave his wife to be with Heather. And that, of course, goes against what was on their Facebook pages, which were taken down just today. 

It is expected that Sidney Moorer would attempt to deceive police about the relationship.  

GRACE: Joining me right now, I`m hearing in my ear, in addition to Lieutenant Kegler from the police department, Terry and Debbie Elvis are with us, Heather`s mother and father. Mr. and Mrs. Elvis, thank you for being with us. 

You know, when I`m hearing this, the whole thing just makes me sick. To think of these two in a so-called open marriage? 

TERRY ELVIS, FATHER: Thank you, Nancy, for taking the time to visit with us again and help us 

keep a spotlight on finding our daughter. At this time, we`re still looking for Heather. It really hasn`t 

changed our focuses as a community, and they do have people in custody that have been charged, but 

we`re still trying to find our daughter, and we`re still seeking as much assistance as possible to locate

 her. 

Where someone begins a statement is always important and can sometimes be the reason for the statement.  Here the subject makes his goal clear:

"help us keep a spotlight on finding our daughter"

Please note that "our" is used, as Terry Elvis and Debbie Elvis are appearing together.  This is the expected.  

Note the repetition.  In spite of the murder charges, the repetition shows the importance:  Heather is not found.  

This is the goal. 

GRACE: Everyone, we are talking about a missing 20-year-old girl, Heather Elvis. Tonight, two people are behind bars in connection with her disappearance, and I am not accepting, Debbie Elvis, that she`s dead. I am not accepting it. They have not found a body. And these two, now these two are somehow implicated. I was just showing you the picture of Sidney and Tammy Moorer, ages 38 and 41, who claim they have an open marriage. Not for one minute do I believe, Debbie Elvis, this guy was trying to break something off with Heather Elvis. I don`t believe that for a minute. 

I agree with Nancy Grace, as per the roommate.  Heather going out on a date with a young man may have been a real trigger for Sidney. 

DEBBIE ELVIS, MOTHER: I don`t -- since we haven`t been told all the evidence that they have, we really are at a loss to form opinions. We`re just -- we`re still searching for answers ourselves until the police are able to tell us more information. 

The two have been charged with murder, but police have not shared "all the evidence" with the family, who then struggle to make sense of the senselessness.  They know some, but not enough for a conclusion.

A conclusion is a big step towards closure. 

Nancy Grace recognizes this and directly asks, "Why were they charged with murder?"

GRACE: With me are Terry and Debbie Elvis on the disappearance of their girl, Heather. To Lieutenant Robert Kegler with the Horry County Police Department, Officer Tegler, thank you for being with us. Why are they charged with murder? Why are police convinced, sheriffs convinced that this is a murder case? 

KEGLER: Well, we have been investigating the disappearance of Heather for two months, and it`s been day and night that we have been working on her case. And during the course of our investigation, our task force has been able to obtain enough evidence to show that murder has taken place, and as a result of that, we have charged both Sidney and Tammy Moorer with the charge of murder. 

Skillfully avoids giving out information. 

GRACE: Listen, I know you can`t comment on the evidence specifically, but I know you have searched the home and found disturbing evidence. Is that the evidence that makes you believe a murder has occurred? 

Nancy Grace ran the red light and asked again, "is that the evidence...?"referring to the evidence in the home rather than the surveillance tape.  

KEGLER: Yes. Like we said, we did a search warrant on Friday, the 21st. And there was multiple pieces of evidence that were taken from the home of the property of the Moorers. And that evidence has been gone through, is still being gone through. As a result of that search warrant, we were able to get enough probable cause to secure murder one`s for both the Moorers. 


1.   The answer is "yes" to the question about evidence found in the home.  
2.  The pronoun "we" immediately is produced in the self reference.  Please note that "we" did not say before, this should have been "Like I said, we did a search..." 

What does the change in pronoun likely suggest?

The subject is nervous about not wanting to give out information.  

The subject confirms, however, that there were "multiple pieces of evidence"

This investigation may likely become studied by other law enforcement departments for its successful processing of information that led them, without a body, to "murder one" charges.

                                                      It is impressive.  

The surveillance tape likely yielded information, but it was within the home that we will eventually learn, that police analyzed and made their bold conclusion.  


GRACE: And this hour, our prayers continuing for Heather Elvis. Her parents with us, Terry and Debbie. The tip line, 843-915-tips. There is a $30,000 reward to help bring home Heather Elvis. At this hour, a married couple with a so-called open marriage behind bars in connection with her disappearance, but still, where is Heather? 

Statement Analysis of 911 Call Missing Newborn

Statement Analysis of 911 Calls comes from the teaching of Avinoam Sapir (www.lsiscan.com) in which students are taught to line up "The Expected versus The Unexpected", with analysis dealing with the 'unexpected' as cause for pausing. 

Here is a call regarding four day old Caden. 

What is expected from the mother making the call?  What will the priority be?

Recall the 911 call of Misty Croslin, when she reported that 5 year old Haleigh Cummings went missing.  Analysis of the 911 call showed that Misty Croslin's priority was to establish an alibi for herself, rather than report a missing child. 

As in the 911 call of Sergio Celis, father of missing 7 year old Isabel Celis.  His priority was to clear himself, and his call showed "guilty knowledge" of what happened to his daughter. 

Here is the transcript with Statement Analysis in Bold type.   The conclusion of the analysis is also in bold type. 

GRACE: And tonight, to Wisconsin suburbs. A four-year-old baby, baby Caden, snatched from his 

little bassinet by a woman who fakes pregnancy with a fake pregnancy belly. She`s got a fake stroller,

 she`s got baby clothes, but then after she steals the baby, she abandons the baby and leaves him for 

dead in freezing temperatures. 


GRACE: Straight out to Dan O`Donnell, anchor at WISN. Dan, what happened? 

DAN O`DONNELL, WISN: Little Caden`s mother, Brianna, woke up in an absolute panic to find that Caden was missing from his bassinet, an almost unspeakable, unbelievable occurrence. She called 911 immediately. 

GRACE: Let`s take a listen to that 911 call. 

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Rock County, 911. Where is the emergency? What`s the address? And what city? 

The question is not "what happened?" but "Where?"

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Beloit, Wisconsin. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is that Beloit Township? 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: What`s going on? 

This is the open ended question that allows the subject to speak for herself, indicating her priority.  Where one begins a statement is often the reason for the statement, and often indicates priority. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: My son is missing. 

This is the expected. 

Note "my son" is possessive pronoun, taking appropriate ownership.
Note priority:  "is missing", not "I was sleeping"

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. How old is your son? 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He`s four days old. 

Note direct answer to question.  

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: He`s what?

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: He`s four days old.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Four days old? 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. 

And there was a knife laying next to my bed. 

We note the posture of the knife is given.  Please note the article, "a" in "a knife", which shows that the knife is not recognized.   Often when an inanimate object's posture if given, the question should be posed:  Did the subject place it there? 

The articles, however, are used correctly.  Guilty subjects sometimes confuse articles, which, like pronouns, are instinctive. 
UNIDENTIFIED MALE: There was a knife laying next to your bed? 

He correctly uses her language rather than introducing his own. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Is there any blood on the knife? 

A natural question. Remember, time is short for this interview and the 911 operator does a good job. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: No. I picked it up and seen it was a knife and then I threw it back down 

and looked over and my baby was gone. 

Note the order:

1.  I picked it up
2.  Seen it was "a" knife ("the knife" is one already recognized)
3.  Threw it down
4.  Looked over 

"my baby" is not "my son"; both taking ownership.   She has introduced him as "my son" and here, the vulnerable "baby" is used.  

What is the difference?

In the former, it is an introduction.  While being "gone", in the latter, he is a "baby"

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Okay. 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Can you just please have the police here? 

Exasperation which is recognized by the operator: 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: You`re not slowing help down by talking to me, I`m just trying to get more 

information, okay? Is your boyfriend the child`s father? 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Yes. 

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: OK. All right. Why is he yelling? What`s going on? 

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: Huh? 

(END VIDEO CLIP)

There is naturally questions about how a mother could sleep through her baby's kidnapping, and substance abuse should always be explored.  

The call does not indicate guilty knowledge, and the priority indicates the missing child's wellbeing.  

Heather Elvis Case: Murder Without A Body

Many prosecutors are slow to move on a murder case without a body.  Even as Terry Elvis expressed his frustration towards law enforcement, it was frustration only due to Heather not being found, and, as he made it clear, not an indictment of their work, nor their dedication.

Yet, without a body, law enforcement has the courage to go forward with murder charges without a body.

What does this suggest?

Before we go into suggestion, it does show a strong and likely passionate conviction within the prosecutorial team to seek justice for Heather.  Do not think, even for a moment, that this is a calloused machine that operates by numbers.  What we may be seeing is men and women with children of their own, and Heather's youthful age is something that has gotten to us all.

Heather was just 20 years old.  Most kids at that age are still living at home and are still in school.  At 20, parents are not ready to let go; not even close.

Heather had made a poor decision to get involved romantically with a bad man, many years her senior. This was likely a source of contention between her and those who loved her, and it may have been that it was Heather, not Sidney, was breaking it off.

Each and every claim from camp Moorer will either be viewed through the lens of Statement Analysis, or with a grain of salt.

If we have direct quotes from either of the Moorers, Statement Analysis will tell us if they are deceptive or not, but if it is their supporters making such claims, it is something different.

When one lies, the lie itself is discerned because of intent.  When one intends to deceive, it is within the intention that we are able to discern.  Yet, when one repeats a lie, believing it, there is no intention to deceive and it will not be discerned.

For example, if I drive a red car, but deceptively describe myself as the owner of a blue car, given enough words, you might see the lie.  But if Person A believes me and repeats the lie about the red car, no deception will be evident.

From the Moorers I expect to hear them blame Heather.  I expect nothing but a follow through of the viciousness that Tammy displayed in her Facebook posting; something so vicious that it led me to think that she may not have had guilty knowledge.  The post, itself, does not indicate guilty knowledge.

Most guilty parties will seek to present themselves in the most positive manner; like thug Justin DiPietro, employing "yes sir" and "yes ma'am" when speaking to 911.  Gone is the vile street language and contempt he holds for society, as he sought to present himself in a respectful posture.

Tammy Moorer did not care how badly it made her appear:  her hatred burned as she blamed the young girl, while buying into the lies of her husband.  Guilty people often leak out their contempt, yet Tammy let it all hang out for all to see.  This is an insight into the character that Heather met up with that fateful morning.

Heather had gone out with a young man, of whom police cleared, and appeared to be on the proper road, once again.  This date may have been the answer to prayer, as anyone would be concerned about someone so young being exploited by the middle aged Sidney Moorer.

Somehow, in some way, Sidney Moorer was able to get Heather to leave the safety of her apartment, and meet him where, it appears, a surveillance camera was in operation.

The attorneys for the State have boldly charged both Moorers with "murder", after initially charging them with lesser crimes, which may have been tactical moves in a larger strategy for justice.  I applaud them.

What was it that has given them the confidence to charge the Moorers with murder, in spite of no body?

It may be that what was seen on the surveillance video was so extreme that they were confident no person could survive such;

it may be an eye witness to the crime, in which they would have strong confidence in;

it may be that physical evidence left behind by the Moorers is so much, and so strong, as to give them the boldness to make this conclusion...

it also may be things within the interviews of Sidney and Tammy Moorer that the physical evidence, including any video, has confirmed.

Tammy Moorer is older than her husband, and was unafraid to post her hatred of Heather Elvis.  This, itself, is not only unexpected, but frightfully chilling.

The connection to Disney will only heighten the 'chilling factor' and it may be that Hollywood has stood up and taken notice.  "Pennywise the Clown" still haunts those who remember the movie, "It" (or the book) and the obvious disconnect between "Mickey Mouse" and violent deliberate kidnapping and murder is something that will likely be explored in criminal circles, psychological circles, and by Hollywood.  Tammy Moorer, likely the dominant of the two, will continue to blame Heather, much to the anguish of Heather's family.

When Sidney Moore first spoke to police, he misled them, but quickly realized that phone records would link him, so he admitted that he called Heather (not the other way around) to tell her to leave him alone, that it was over.

I do not believe him.

I believe that Tammy, the dominant force, full of envy of the younger, beautiful woman, with full realization of her own aging, may have pushed Sidney to contact Heather, if, and this is a big if, if it was not that Sidney, himself, was enraged that Heather had successfully broken away from his older, mature, seemingly sophisticated control.

Remember: A woman in a domestically violent relationship is in the most danger in the hours and days after she breaks off the relationship.  This is when the abuser loses his control, and the violence can erupt.

Was this the case?

Or, was it Tammy, plotting her own form of revenge?

I don't know, yet, which it was, but Statement Analysis will get to the truth, if and when Sidney Moorer and Tammy Moorer speak out.  The expected?  They will blame Heather.

The truth?  It will be something different.

These two Mickey Mouse weirdoes in their "open marriage" will now have to face justice and should, by every account, give to Terry Elvis the location of Heather's remains, if only to assuage the anger of a public who has demanded answers from Sidney Moorer from the beginning.

Left behind is the incessant pain of the Elvis family who will likely be faced with a myriad of confusing and conflicting emotions, hurting over Heather, while demanding justice.  Satisfaction with justice, however, will not bring their precious Heather back to them.

Like many of you, I squeezed my daughter just a little bit tighter after interviewing Terry Elvis on radio.  I did not sleep that night, as the frustration in his voice, even in all of his heroic attempts to stay on topic, has echoed deep within me.  He and I are about the same age, love our families, and share a similar faith.

Tammy Moorer posted her vile hatred, unafraid of what the world would think of her.  Sidney parsed his words more carefully on Facebook:

"A few years ago the neighbor attacked my handicapped father in law.  I  pulled the neighbor off of him and all three of us got arrested. Long story short, all charges were dropped. For some reason people think I'm ashamed of this. I'd do it again in a heartbeat if someone attacked my father in law today."

"A few years ago the neighbor attacked my handicapped father in law.  I  pulled the neighbor off of him and all three of us got arrested. Long story short, all charges were dropped. For some reason people think I'm ashamed of this. I'd do it again in a heartbeat if someone attacked my father in law today."

Interesting how he introduced "a neighbor" with the article, "the" to start his post.  

Note also "Long story short" is a skipping over of time and information.  

He tries to portray himself as a hero, which is the expected, but Tammy lets it all hang out and shows her open contempt of Heather Elvis and her father Terry Elvis.  

Now she is charged with murder.  Now he is charged with murder.

Heather Elvis' blood is crying out from the ground for justice.

Horry County law enforcement has shown that it is up to the task.

We have not seen silly bickering about jurisdiction, nor any hedging of their bets.

They went for it, and are on the line, now, not for just a few charges, but for kidnapping.

I tip my hat to them.

Murder without a body has been done before, but we have all heard various district attorneys throughout the country telling families that they "need the body" in case after case.

Horry County.

Horry County took courageous and extraordinary steps, and I salute them for it.