I was wrong.
I do not recall a case in which a suspect so openly raged in hatred against her victim.
What is the expected?
In Statement Analysis, we set up the "expected"; that is, what we expect to hear.
Guilty persons will generally find a way to justify their behavior by blaming the victim, but in a subtle, suggestive way, like the rapist attempting to suggest that his victim 'asked' for it. Even pedophiles have found small, vile ways to blame the child, yet in a veiled manner. The contempt is concealed, but the 'leakage' takes place.
Tammy Moorer's post, when coupled with the bold charge of murder, while no body remains, if true, tells us not only about the ferocity of her rage, but in her own twisted mind, just how justified she feels about her actions.
The guilty do not want to draw attention to themselves.
This tells me that either police are wrong and Tammy was not involved in the murder or...
Tammy Moorer is unadulterated evil, not only exploding upon an innocent victim, but who, in a "God-like status of Judge over life and death" thinks more of herself than most of us can possibly imagine.
The "grandiose" self view, when taken to its final extreme, means the person considers herself "God", in the giver and taker of life, sense. This entitlement is difficult to grasp by us, because even in today's society of entitlement, this is extreme.
A sexually immoral person herself, she passed not only judgment upon a young girl's indiscretion with her husband, but she passed final judgment, in her mind at least, upon Heather.
As long time readers know, I have not given status of "deception indicated" or "veracity indicated" to a subject only to be found out to be wrong later.
In this case, it was not deception or veracity, but being confronted by the "expected" but not from a guilty party.
Should it be proven in court that Tammy did not murder Heather, that only Sidney did, it will be that her open rage was more in line with the "expected" in the statement. A guilty person does not want to draw attention, particularly, guilty looking attention, to herself. Was this a "double negative" case, therefore, where the subject knows this and goes ahead with the post so as to later claim a guilty person would not show such hatred?
I don't think so.
Going back to the supposition of guilt: that officials would not have dared to bring such serious charges against her, without a body, unless they possessed crucial evidence, we look at her post, with murder in mind.
I must learn from this mistake, knowing that the guilty do not wish to draw attention to themselves with open hatred, instead, leaking out hatred while attempting to "search" or "care" for the victim
Let's revisit the analysis with this question in mind:
She has just been involved in a murder. One might think that a person who commits murder, without a prior record, would be traumatized by the violence of it.
No such trauma seen.
Sidney cheating is on her mind, more than anything else.
Question: How can it be that one has just murdered and disposed of the body of a 20 year old, and not have it dominant in her thoughts?
Answer: Either she didn't do it, or we are looking at someone very, very different than others. The extremity of my thought is seen in the repetition of "very" in my sentence. I'm not even sure if a comma is needed after the first "very" since this is not something I am accustomed to writing. I struggle to show how rare this is.
Sidney cheating on her, not murder, nor fear of being caught, is dominant in the statement.
"psycho whore" is her first introduction of Heather Elvis. She avoids using the name. Even while "missing", the name calling comes before the report of being missing, and even that, only concludes that Sidney is "stupid."
Now we are viewing this from the presumption of guilt, based upon the murder charge. With this in context, think of the word "stupid."
Who is someone that is called "stupid"?
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.
This past tense reference shows no concern for being caught. I have to stand on this. She may be off the charts out of percentages, but it is what it is.
"her crazy daddy" is not her "distraught father"
He must be "crazy", that is "not in his right mind" or "not thinking clearly" to target whom? Her? No, she goes to the claim of threat against her own children and Sidney. One can imagine someone saying to her, "Give me information where Heather is! What if it was your child missing?" and this "God" (her mind) now leaping to...
Here in may be the leakage of marbles.
Do I think Terry Elvis or one of his friends threatened to kill her children? No. I think that it is likely that one would say, "How would you feel if this was your child?" but the "God" heard it from the point of her own guilt: Projection.
"How would you like it if this was your child?" is followed with "How would you like WHAT?"
"what happened to Heather? is the answer.
Tammy's mind goes to death.
"Threatening to kill my children."
I don't think so.
Does this sound like the wording of someone afraid of drawing attention to herself as a possible suspect?
But if she really "did it", not only is she utterly unafraid of drawing attention to herself, she may have just projected that she did, in deed, kill Heather.
"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.
Tammy is "up to the task" of anyone threatening. She is "God", the "Judge" and "Executioner" and has taken life.
Question: did the judge rightfully deny bail as Sidney and Tammy were a threat of violence to the community?
Recall Sidney answering the door with a loaded weapon. I imagine Tammy barking out the orders to him.
"therefore, making Sidney stupid."
Q. Who is stupid?
A. One who is not as smart as the name caller.
Q. Who is the name caller?
A. Tammy Moorer
Tammy is "smart", not "stupid" like Sidney. Tammy is "sane" and not "crazy" like Heather's father.
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. She is unafraid to keep close proximity to the victim. This is not something expected from a guilty person. It is most unexpected.
"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.
She, as "God", is 'smart', not "stupid" like Sidney. She would take care of things that he messed up. He brought this into her life. Terry Elvis is not sane, like her, in her mind.
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 is not concerned about herself being named.
Grandiose thinking, to the extreme.
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. They were unified.
If you research her accounts you will find, according to Moorer's language that Heather Elvis is a "twisted person."
As a "twisted person", the sexually immoral Tammy Moorer had to pass sentence upon her and take care of Sidney's "stupidity" by using her "smartness."
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. This sounds almost juvenile, something an immature teenager would say (along with her foul language), but this is from a middle aged woman.
"I will not tolerate anyone hurting my children because my husband banged a hoe..."
The "God-like" Tammy will not "tolerate", that is, "allow by inactivity or passivity" anyone hurting her children.
She is confident in her ability to control. She may allow her children to live in utter neglect, but it is her control, her choice, and she will not "tolerate", which suggests consequence for one who may try to "hurt" her children.
a. Note the inclusion of the pronoun "I" here, making this statement personal. Powerful.
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.
She is in control, in her mind.
"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. In the context of murder, this now makes sense. Originally I considered that:
"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."
I was wrong.
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. She was deeply "offended" and given her "God like" status, Sidney failed to honor and worship her, and by having sex with someone else, she will take her vengeance and will take away from Sidney what he wanted.
That she murdered Heather may indicate that it was true that Sidney was going to leave Tammy. She would not abide such insult to her grandiose self view.
This is a subject who is feeling extreme pain and humiliation due to her husband's actions. She would turn this on her victim.
"this jerk" is the father of a missing young woman. This is stronger language than what she used on her cheating husband. Her husband is only "stupid."
"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. This proved to be true.
Statement Analysis Conclusion
I wrote: "Tammy Moorer, at the time of this writing, does not show guilty knowledge of what happened to Heather Elvis."
This is not so.
My original reason:
"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."
This is the norm. Tammy Moorer is the exception.
Here, the anger is so deep that the subject (Tammy Moorer) does not care how calloused she appears. She is "justified" in her own mind, as she passed the judgement upon the victim.
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 they were intimate is also minimized.
Tammy Moorer sees herself as smarter than others, more moral than others, and to the point of self importance so high, that she, as her own "God", could judge, condemn, and execute her victim.
I did not see this, and it is likely in future cases, that I will not see it again.
Because the guilty do not wish to draw attention to themselves by openly disparaging the victim. The guilty seek to hide guilt.
If we have 100 similar cases, in the next few years, it is likely that we will not see another Tammy Moorer, female, who believes herself to be divine judge and executioner. Only the insane make such claims and do not care to hide their guilt.
Either Tammy didn't do it, or she did it, and is the rare self-delusioned killer, who believes she did what was right, damn the consequences, and would...
do it again.
Edit: It was generously pointed out by a commentator of a change in language of the post that I did not highlight.
Heather "went" missing.
The tweets have "gone missing."