Does Tammy Moorer show any guilty knowledge, at the time of this posting, about the disappearance of Heather Elvis? This is the question I will seek to answer. My answer will be limited to the time that Tammy Moorer posted this.
Does she show knowledge of a crime committed against Heather by her husband, in this post?
Again, my answer will be limited to the time period she posted this.
What of the disparaging of a victim?
In Statement Analysis, we flag any disparagement of the victim.
This is done because Statement Analysis deals with the "unexpected" in a statement.
Simply put, a victim is in a vulnerable position, and we do not expect to hear anyone disparage a person in such danger or risk, especially after going missing. Even personal animosity is put aside, in the name of humanity, when a person goes missing. Infidelity pales when compared to one in such unknown danger.
What is it about "going missing" that strikes such terror in all, so much so, that it causes even enemies to put aside enmity?
When one is missing, those left behind are left in such terror, pity, wonderment, and fear of the unknown, that it is expected that all anger and hurt will be put aside until the unknown terror passes.
Who disparages victims in Statement Analysis?
The guilty often do.
And, perhaps even more importantly, how do the guilty disparage the victim?
Why do the guilty sometimes disparage a victim?
It may be that the perpetrator of harm against the victim is seeking to justify the action taken against the victim.
This is not to say that Tammy Moorer caused the disappearance of Heather Elvis. It is, however, a terribly inhumane thing for her to do.
Some may point to the rage expressed as a signal that at the time of the posting, Tammy did not know that Heather was in dire danger. For, it may be argued, had she known, she would not have posted such a vile thing, knowing it would make her look guilty.
There is something to this argument worth examining.
In Statement Analysis, the "Expected versus the Unexpected" are seen by putting ourselves into the place of another, thinking, "What would I say?" in any circumstance.
I find that in statements where the victim is blamed, the disparagement is often more subtle, and not the open rage expressed here. The subject may blame the victim, even in the most slight of ways, as a means of justifying his action.
Do we find it here in the angry post by Tammy Moorer?
At the time of the writing/posting of this statement, did Tammy Moorer have guilty knowledge of what happened to Heather?
As distasteful as her posting is (Statement Analysis of it is following), it does not show guilty knowledge, at least of the time of writing, of what happened to Heather.
Let's revisit the analysis with this question in mind:
"Well" is sometimes used when one has been debating within oneself whether or not to make a reluctant admission. In speech, it is a pause, calling our attention to the need to think. In writing, it can be considered the same thing. "Well, I finally decided..." shows the pause of, perhaps, internal debate. Something made her go public, and there was likely debate in her own heart over whether to post it or not.
"Sidney" is not given status of "my husband" which indicates a poor relationship. A complete social introduction would be "my husband Sidney..." and would indicate a good relationship. In context, the negative relationship is appropriate. This can change even in the same statement. Regarding "cheating" he is "Sidney" and not "my husband, Sidney" with the possessive pronoun, "my" being in use.
Please note that in order to "cheat" rules must be broken, or "cheated" against.
This stands in opposition to the "open marriage" she reported later. In a short article in an interview she gave, the writer used few quotes.
"psycho whore" is her first introduction of Heather Elvis.
If you were the injured spouse in infidelity, it is likely that you would have hatred towards the "other woman" in the relationship. But would you call her names if you had killed her, and not been caught yet?
This is her choice of words to describe the "other woman" of whom her husband had a relationship with. This is an interesting choice of words. First, "psycho" indicates negative mental health, while "whore" is used to describe a woman of immodesty. Why would one who claims to be in an "open marriage" call the young missing woman a "whore"? We look for answers within the statement itself.
"who has since went missing" and not "is missing." "Went" is past tense. "Is missing" is present tense and shows its focus on the present distress: a young woman missing. The subject is in the past, which makes sense since she began with Sidney cheated" Her concern is not the welfare of the young woman, nor assisting in her recovery.
"her crazy daddy" is not her "distraught father"
Does this sound like the wording of someone afraid of drawing attention to herself as a possible suspect?
"is threatening" is present tense. Note she does not quote what he said. What if he said, "What would you be like if your child was missing?" and she turned this into a "threat." Threats are often capable of causing an emotional response triggering a quote.
"therefore, making Sidney stupid." Note that Sidney cheating on her does not make him stupid, but the reaction from Terry Elvis, desperate to find his daughter, has made Sidney "stupid." Is this because he chose the wrong woman to cheat with? Is this because the woman he cheated with went missing? Has Sidney told her the truth about their relationship? She feels that he has brought this trouble into her household.
Has Sidney told her the truth about his last contact with Heather Elvis?
"this girl" is now her second choice of words after "pyscho whore" she is now "this" (close) and "girl", not "woman."
That she calls Heather "this" girl, signaling closeness, is not expected to be heard if she had committed any violence against Heather. In violent statements, we see more distancing language.
"naming him!" uses an exclamation point. Note what triggers an exclamation point and what does not.
Heather Elvis going missing does not trigger exclamation point.
Sidney cheating does not trigger exclamation point. That he is "named" is very important to her, with the context being social media account. This is used to 'prove' that it is not his fault. He is only "stupid" but she is the "pyscho whore."
She then calls him "my husband" when she does not know what to call him. At the time of this posting, she is not done with him. He is "my" (possessive pronoun) "husband" (title). Although not a good relationship, he is still hers at the time of this writing.
If you research her accounts you will find, according to Moorer's language that Heather Elvis is a "twisted person."
What has changed in context to cause "pyscho whore girl" to turn into a "twisted" "person" (gender neutral)?
"I could care less seeing that I had a boyfriend of my own for the past couple of years" is a sentence in the negative (care less) making it important.
Note that as a married woman, he "cheated" on her, but she had a boyfriend "of my own" for the past couple of years.
Note the words "of my own" are in correlation to what? These words are in direct correlation to Sidney's relationship to Heather. It is an acknowledgment that Heather was, in the language of Tammy, Sidney's girlfriend. She does not say she had a boyfriend the past couple of years, but a boyfriend "of my own", versus Sidney's own.
Is this why she called Heather a "whore"? Is her boyfriend "stupid"? This is a soft term, and not one of anger. He "cheated" but he is only "stupid." She boasts of her own cheating as justification.
One might wonder if this is a projection of her own hypocrisy and duplicity, yet it is an admission of sorts that there was not just a "banging" of a "hoe" but of a relationship between Sidney and Heather.
Note "my children" and not "our" children. This is consistent with "my husband" as when someone says "our" children, there is often a need to 'share' custody (unless one is speaking for both parents). This "sharing" can be anything from adoption, foster care, or step parenting. When it is found in marriage, it may indicate that divorce has been spoken about.
Note that she does not affirm that she had an affair: only that she could "not care less"; which is what her statement is about. She does not say "I had a boyfriend" on its own terms, but only that she could care "seeing", leaving one to wonder if someone else "sees" it differently. She may be deceitful about having a boyfriend.
"I will not tolerate anyone hurting my children because my husband banged a hoe..."
a. Note the inclusion of the pronoun "I" here, making this statement personal.
b. Note the word "because" explains why she will not allow anyone to hurt her children: as she feels the need to explain why she would, now, be protective.
c. "my husband" is possessive pronoun.
One might ask if this mother has previously allowed someone to "hurt" her children, unrelated to infidelity. This "hurt" could be physical or emotional. This is her reason to protect her children. What about other incidents in which infidelity was not involved?
Please note that according to McClish research (and many subsequent confirmations), "three" is called "the liar's number"; that is, a number often found within lies.
Please note that she claimed that her husband cheated on her for 2 months.
It is possible that Sidney Moorer lied to her, minimizing the number of sexual contacts that he engaged in. Note that the location of sexual contact is given, which may be an attempt to portray the lack of care and lack of forethought by her husband. This is also likely a lie he told her, one of which she chooses to believe.
"and nothing more" may be entering into the language of Sidney. Note to Tammy: you can ask the following questions of your husband;
1. What does "nothing" look like?
2. Where did "nothing" take place?
3. How often did "nothing" happen?
"I could care less what he screwed around with"
Unlike her own "boyfriend", here, Heather elvis is now reduced to "what" instead of "person." This is a depersonalization of Heather Elvis. It could be from extreme pain of being humiliated in his cheating, or it could be that she knows something more and has a different need to depersonalize Heather Elvis. I think it is the former.
Note that this is her second "care less" sentence, in the negative. This is a very important sentence. The first one she sought to prove how she could "care less" because she had a boyfriend, which was asserted only weakly, and not reliable.
Here, the "what" is something she cares less over.
Taken together, it is likely that she cares acutely what he did. This is a subject who is feeling extreme pain and humiliation due to her husband's actions.
"this jerk" is the father of a missing young woman. This is stronger language than what she used on her cheating husband.
"stalking my family" indicates that Terry Elvis believes that the answer to his daughter's plight rests within Sidney Moorer, and whatever he shared with his wife.
Statement Analysis Conclusion
Tammy Moorer, at the time of this writing, does not show guilty knowledge of what happened to Heather Elvis.
The disparagement among the guilty is subtle. Remember, the guilty do not wish to be seen as guilty, but in a positive light, which is why the disparagement is done in a subtle, almost 'leaking' manner.
Here, the anger is so deep that the subject (Tammy Moorer) does not care how calloused she appears. If she had caused harm to Heather she would not want to bring suspicion upon herself with an angry rant.
Because she did not cause Heather's disappearance, she does not care how cheap, immature, or vindictive she appears. Nor is she concerned about how much of her own base character is revealed in her choice of language.
Her attempt to minimize her own pain is thin. Her lack of concern for Heather Elvis' plight indicates extreme hurt and she blames Heather rather than her own husband for his infidelity. She wants to portray the relationship as one sided yet chooses language that places Heather into the status of "girlfriend" rather than "hoe", "whore", etc.
She does not make a strong assertion that she has a boyfriend, but rather shows an immature (wife and mother) 'tit for tat' self respect grab, which does not portray her in a positive light. I doubt her assertion (at the time of the writing only) of having a boyfriend "for years", even though it shows her own moral standard's uneasy ground. This is likely why she chose to speak to one who would embrace her immorality, instead of asking strong questions.
At the time of the writing, she still loves her husband, who has lied to her about the nature of his relationship with Heather Elvis, suggesting it was deeper than Tammy Moorer wishes to have seen, and the number of times is also likely minimized.
Tammy Moorer, at the time of writing this, did not appear to have guilty knowledge of what happened to Heather, instead, freely insults and taunts Heather and her father, which shows an expectation that, perhaps, Heather, herself, might have a strong come back, herself.
Tammy Moorer does not assert her husband's innocence, nor even his ignorance, of the disappearance of Heather Elvis.
It is likely that Mrs. Moorer has her doubts.
Since the time of this posting, however, things may have changed.
The desperate father is a "jerk", which is stronger language than her husband being "stupid", and she saves the most venom for the younger woman.
"Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned" is evident within her posting.
In spite of her defense of her husband, we may see a change in language, over time, as more details of the affair comes out, and a shifting of blame away from the young victim, and more towards Sidney Moorer.
It may be that Sidney and Tammy Moore have refused to cooperate with police. This may be due to fear of being falsely accused, but it is not due to fear of embarrassment, as Tammy "airs it out" for the world to read. She might claim to a willing blogger that she was in an "open marriage", yet, makes claims of "cheating", which suggest otherwise.
That these two are, in the very least, bizarre characters, is not surprising, given the dirty laundry she aired and the timing of its airing, but if they have refused to cooperate with police, and have refused to polygraph, and he, Sidney Moorer had a relationship with Heather, it is that they have a reason:
not to cooperate;
not to polygraph,
and not to help find Heather.
That Tammy Moorer railed against a missing young woman is abhorrent, it does indicate that at the time of this writing, she likely did not have knowledge of what happened to Heather Elvis.
After all that has come out and been said, including her speaking to a blogger, and her refusal to help the family, it may be increasingly likely that Sidney Moorer has confided in his wife, thinking that she cannot be compelled to testify against him.
For the sake of a young, 20 year old woman, with her entire life ahead of her, Tammy Moorer should carefully consider the one who's side she is choosing to defend.
She defended Sidney Moorer, the older one of the two, by minimizing his action, while attacking a young girl, barely out of her teens, who has now been missing for more than 6 weeks.
The disparagement of Heather Elvis does not indicate guilty knowledge, as it is not subtle, nor wrapped in a deceptive feigning of being concerned for her well being.