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.  

59 comments:

Irespectfullydisagree said...

His use of "we" is insignificant because they are being accused of committing the crime together, and their names are always used in tandem "Tammy and Sidney".
His "embedded confession" is actually mirroring or parroting because he is stating what someone else may think "And if someone else thinks I did this horrible crime". That is different than OJ's spontaneous and taunting "if I did it". It is like if John Doe says "The police think I stole this". You cant claim that that is an embedded confession bc John Doe is stating what someone else THINKS.

Hey Jude said...

Irespectfullydisagree - you maybe did not read this part properly - or the part about 'we' in SA:


' “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.'

Concerned said...

I love how much you teach us with each analysis, Peter.
I would guess ole Sidney is not going to have a very good day after Tammy reads this.
Oh, that SA was admissible in court!

elf said...

He's a little upset over being charged with kidnapping. I'd be a lot more than a littke upset if I was being accused of such a foul crime.

Hey Jude said...

“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.

---
if his kids had nothing to do with anything, he is acknowledging that there was an anything - which he already described as 'this horrible crime' He's saying there was a horrible crime - but leave the kids out of it, they had nothing to do with it. The bit about the kids adds to his 'confession'.

Bottle Cap said...

OT: Anyone want to analyze this denial?

Former Ole Miss offensive lineman Laremy Tunsil suffered two social media hacks Thursday night, one involving a video posted to his Twitter account of him apparently smoking a bong and one on Instagram involving alleged text messages of him asking a staffer for money.

While the alleged hacker’s identity is unknown, Tunsil’s stepfather, Lindsey Miller, denies any involvement in the situation through his attorney after filing a lawsuit against Tunsil on Tuesday.

“Mr. Miller denies any involvement whatsoever in the events that transpired last night,” said Miller’s attorney, Matthew Wilson, in a statement released Friday morning. “When he learned last night that Mr. Tunsil’s accounts had been backed, he was surprised that the posted content even existed. He condemns the unlawful hacking of Mr. Tunsil’s social media accounts and hopes that whoever is responsible is brought to justice quickly.”

disagreeing said...

Hey Jude,

The thing is Sidney is speaking in the context of the fact that in his opinion, he has been found guilty in the public court of opinion, so therefore his statement of ' “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.” is referring to the fact that he has been judged guilty of murder by public opinion OUTSIDE of a courtroom where people are not found guilty without proof. He HAS in fact denied killing Heather...he has said "We didnt kill Heather" but it was found to be inadequate here bc of his use of "we" which is WRONG. What if one of the West Memphis Three had said "We didnt kill them." Would that be an attempt to "spread guilt" with the use of "we" or would he being using "we" because they were ALL being accused of murder?

Nic said...

Peter, that was really fascinating.

Have you (or anyone reading) read about dissolving the dead? (via sodium hydroxide and potassium hydroxide)
https://thewalrus.ca/dissolving-the-dead/

I wonder what would have happened if they had only incarcerated Tammy and left Sydney free (to flail) to support, take care of the kids and run the household. That would have been a lot of pressure for someone as dependant (yes, "ant") as Sydney.

Nic said...

^^
"ant" = noun

disagreeing said...

Also, of interest may be that the guilty do not normally describe the crime they are accused of as "this horrible crime"...they dont...I dont know why but the truly guilty steer clear of acknowledging the gravity of the crime they are being accused of and will not describe the crime as "horrible".

Nic said...

Bottle cap, the quote you posted is third-party (the lawyer said on behalf of his client). Unless the statement is direct from the speaker's mouth there is no point.

disagreeing said...

Think of any guilty people: the Ramsey's...do they ever say what was done to JonBenet was horrible? No. Scott Peterson? No. OJ? No.
Am I wrong?

disagreeing said...

How about Davey Blackburn? Does he ever describe what was done to Amanda as horrible? Far from it. The guilty DO NOT describe the crime committed against the victim as "horrible". Prove me wrong: cite ONE instance where it has ever happened.

Nic said...

disagreeing said:
He HAS in fact denied killing Heather...he has said "We didnt kill Heather"


If someone accused you and your spouse of killing somebody, would you say, "we didn't kill them"? Would you speak for the both of you or would you speak for yourself first, and then your spouse?

What's important to note is that Sidney is speaking to the interviewer. This was not a conference call between Sydney, Tammy and the reporter. He is speaking as "Sidney", not on behalf of himself and Tammy. Therefore, he should naturally put himself first.

Speaking for myself, I would say, "I did not kill XXX. My husband, XXX, did not kill XXX, either. I do not know where [she] is or what happened to her. We have nothing to do with XXX's disappearance."

Nic said...

He HAS in fact denied killing Heather...he has said "We didnt kill Heather"

You said it yourself...

change in pronoun.

"he" doesn't deny killing Heather. He spreads the blame (weakens) the assertion and says "we" didn't kill her.

"he" didn't deny killing Heather.

Nic said...

^^ it wasn't a team effort, he killed Heather.

(To prove his love and devotion to Tammy.) That is typed with 5 pt (my inside voice)

jmo

disagreeing said...

They have been accused of killing her TOGETHER. It is MORE natural to say "We didnt kill her".
He has NEVER been accused of killing her by himself, on his own, he has always been accused of killing her WITH Tammy, so it is the expected that he wpuld say "We". If he said "I"....Tammy is still there with him so wouldnt the assumption be "OK then your wife killed her".

Nic said...

If he doesn't say it, then you cannot say it for him.

lynda said...

I pray that the trial ends in the Elvis family getting some type of justice against this gruesome twosome. I think that Tammy was yelling from the sidelines for Sidney to "do this" do that" to Heather while she watched. I'm sure she worked out some of her rage on poor Heather also, but she made Sidney be the actual murderer. She had to have Sidney do all the hurt because in her twisted mind, this not only punishes Sidney by having him physically/verbally hurt someone he may care for, but also because it would show that Sidney actually chose Tammy over Heather and how much he loves her (Tammy). Sidney became a murderer in large part because of Tammy, would he have murdered had it not been for Tammy and her depraved soul? I doubt it. I don't know how Heather's family can stand seeing and hearing these psychopaths spouting off all the time, and being FREE. ugh, horrible!

Buckley said...

Some of the cases covered here I'm iffy on subject guilt. I don't doubt for a second the Moorers killed Heather.

Anonymous said...

Hey Nic,
Grammar Nazi, here.

It should be "dependent" ENT in your comment. The word dependent means "reliant" in your example.

If you said "Sydney is Tammy's dependant" then the ANT spelling would be correct.

Peter Hyatt said...

Not only did the Moorers kill her, but I believe that Tammy kept her alive longer than necessary, to inflict more punishment upon her.

This post of his statements has more information for those serious in learning to analyze accuracy than many may realize.

I did not go into depth but the word "may" is critical as it proves that he is not using the language of another, and must choose his own words.

Look at the two plural 'denials' and then the singular where he adds the word "horrible"...

If she is a run away from her family, what "horrible" element might be in play?

In his few quotes, there is much more to learn than covered here, but for those of you serious, go over it carefully and work on entering into his verbalized perception of reality.

It is very insightful into his thinking and even personality.

Tammy's words, sadly, are invaluable, for study.

John mcgowan said...

Facebook:

Sidney Moorer

40 mins ·

I see the WMBF clip has been released as well as the Sun News article. I will simply state what's up. For over 800 days I followed every rule, being advised to give things time and that the truth would eventually come out, and ALL charges would be dropped with prejudice due to this jumping the gun false arrest. I waited a really long time for Jimmy to do the right thing. On March 10th he dropped a lot of stuff, but in true Jimmy fashion he made it seem like he did it so he could come back and get me later. Why didn't he just tell the truth and say they screwed up? To keep the Elvi quiet? To keep them from going on national TV? To keep them from calling up his office 24/7? To keep this from getting loud again and scaring away the tourists? Guess what? I CAN BE A LOT LOUDER THAN TERRY. My supporters have been silent and they continue to be quiet, but it's not going to stay that way much longer. Jimmy is now threatening to arrest me for up to a year for speaking out and defending myself. The same Jimmy that has allowed his "friends" to threaten murder, rape, and mutilation. (They followed through on these threats with the pets, remember? Just to show us what they were going to do those kids...) Yeah, he will arrest me for telling the truth which should NOT be a crime in any state, but he allows a group of monsters to do that kind of thing.

My interviews are all based on the murder charge and it was dismissed. If it was dismissed, it no longer has a gag order on it. Right?
Keep in mind that this gag order was asked to be removed from the case over a year ago. However, the motion could not be heard due to no one having jurisdiction over the gag order. If a judge suddenly has jurisdiction over this gag order things will look really fishy. So it couldn't be dropped because no one sees over it, but he can arrest me for speaking the truth on a dropped murder charge? I am very confused here.

Now ask this question. If Jimmy wants me to have a "fair" trial and I choose to discuss the truth about what I've been accused of, it only makes my trial get a better chance of being fair. So which is it? He wants to screw me over and continue to ruin my life, or is it time HE tell the truth so I don't have to?

After 800+ days I finally have my life coming back. I work, I have a place to live that is safe, away from the craziness going on in Jimmy's county, and for the first time in a long time my children are getting back to "normal". Is this why he is threatening me with jail time? He wants me to shut up and let the lies ride on. No, if you choose to keep this thing going people will know the truth BEFORE I go to trial. I still want this trial to be in another county, and I still want it to be handled through another solicitor's office. Let someone else review the garbage you have dispensed! It's only "fair".

Jimmy just know this - if you throw me back in jail for speaking the truth about my dismissed murder charges it will make your kidnapping case look even worse. It will make you look even more deceitful like you are trying to hide things from the public. It will make you look more like a failure, and it will make you the man that once again RUINED THE LIVES OF THREE CHILDREN and an innocent couple. And please understand you might have a couple of friends that pretend to support you, but most are laughing at you behind your back. I've talked with a lot of people in Horry over this past year and no one has anything good to say.

https://www.facebook.com/nala.belkin/posts/1125857387466402

John mcgowan said...

Sidney Moorer
6 April at 20:36 ·
Anyone recall this? 0:56
CORRECTION Solicitor lays out one lie after another...they laid it out all right, and on the 18th of this month they are going to have to answer to every single lie. You will all see what kind of "officials" are running your local offices. It's not good and remember THIS CAN HAPPEN TO YOU TOMORROW if they think they can get away with it! It's time to make changes people!
*Ask yourself why they requested an order to hide under. Ask why their friends had to fabricate evidence. (Thank God they screwed that up and were forced to own up to the lie!) Ask why every time we're supposed to appear in court someone runs away as fast as he can and tries to change things! Why? Let's do this! Come on! Show the people what you've been lying about. The public deserves to see the truth, at least I think so. It's too bad you all can't be arrested for obstruction and perjury, or arrested for receiving "services" outside of your marriage! Hell, I'm in a great mood today. I might release some photos of a certain man cheating on his wifey & two kids with his co worker. Or maybe a snippet from the nanny cams from the morning our house was "raided" when officers thought it was a great idea to stick loaded guns in an 8 year olds face! We'll see.
CORRECTION Most heinous crime scene!? WHAT CRIME SCENE???????
Check out 0:56 when Horry County police chief says this is the most heinous crime she has seen since her job began with HCPD. WHAT CRIME SCENE?????? I'm thinking this one should not be a police chief if she's never experienced a real crime scene, since there IS NOT ONE in this "case"! After all there are real crimes in Horry County on a daily basis and this non existent blank of air is the "worst" she has ever experienced. So, is she a liar that lied to the county she's supposed the be truthful with or is she just not experienced at all? Either way she should not be chief if this is how she conducts business and if this is her "experience". Remember she also told The State paper in an interview that she had us followed from Dec 19th until they KIDNAPPED us in February, but then she told another news source that they thought the Deland body could be HE. She followed us she said, so why tell another lie to the public about a body? Caught in one lie after another... So again, why did she LIE to all of you people following this case?
Who is she protecting? The reputation of Horry? (Tourism dollars $$$)
Her VERY GOOD FRIEND TERRY? (Weird that these two are such "close" friends seeing that he appears to hate black people. Yes, I said appear because in those online posts he seems to hate anyone that's not white.) It's not cool to hate someone because of their skin color by the way. African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, Mexicans....we're all HUMAN beings! Our race does not make us better than another. We are ALL created equal and if you still think that way in 2016 you are completely f'ed up. Just sayin'.
Is she protecting her lawbreaking detectives like Troy Allen Large? Who is she lying for? Tell us, we deserve to know!

https://www.facebook.com/nala.belkin/posts/1109022819149859

Below is the Vt SM is talking about.

http://www.wmbfnews.com/clip/9955444/latest-on-moorer-bond-hearing

Anonymous said...

OT Missy Bever
This has to be the most bizarre case, and no arrests have been made.


Peter, is it significant that he starts out with his alibi?

And emphasizes that he "just got home"?


3- minute interview with Missy Bever's husband:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vK-VrD-5dPQ



John mcgowan said...

FB
Sidney Moorer

1 min ·

?????????????????????????????????????
It's been a few hundred days. You guys find this black Jeep yet? Or was this another LIE? Did someone LIE about seeing this Jeep? Why would someone lie about that and if this wasn't a lie who confessed to taking her? Questions that need answers.

Myrtle Beach police looking for men who claim they have missing Heather Elvis

Published on Feb 7, 2014
Myrtle Beach police are asking for the public's help in finding and identifying the owner and operator of a Jeep, after a report was filed by Terry Elvis, the father of missing Heather Elvis, when the passenger in the Jeep made threats about his missing daughter, according to a Myrtle Beach police report.

YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WKC00bSuWSM

Anonymous said...

Wow! Dang! I wonder how LE feels when they read all that.

Concerned said...

Wow!
Thanks, John, for the FB messages Tammy is posting under Sidney's name.
We knew Peter's latest SA would put her in a tizzy and it has.

lynda said...

I'm going to work on the Missy Bevers transcription of the husband. There is a new youtube vid out that was supposed to be 3 minutes per the husband but turned into a 25 minute interview. Interestingly, he makes a point of saying "For the last 10 months, she has made a point of calling/texting me to tell me she loves me." Hmmm..wonder what happened 10 months ago in the marriage?

Anonymous said...


OT

Here is Missy Bever's father-in-law, he begins by saying he got in from out of town and heard about what had happened.

He is smiling. He looks like and walks a lot like the suspect in the video, what are the chances?


http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/Missy-Bevers-Father-in-Law-Brought-Blood-Stained-Shirt-to-Dry-Cleaner-Search-Warrant-377343901.html

Anonymous said...


I'm sure you all remember the case of Cooper Harris's death in the backseat of his father's car. Here's an update.

http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/01/us/justin-ross-harris-trial-explainer/index.html

"Two years ago, a Georgia family's nightmare became a front-page mystery. Twenty-two-month-old Cooper Harris died after being left in the sweltering back seat of a car in June 2014 while his father, Justin Ross Harris, was at work. What seemed like a tragic accident took a shocking turn when, three months later, a Georgia grand jury indicted Harris on charges of murder."

and:

"In March 2016, the Cobb County district attorney indicted Harris on eight additional counts related to his sexual activity with minors, including two counts of sexual exploitation of minors."

lynda said...

Waiting said,

" Waitingforapology said...
Oh how I wish Sid and Tammy did it, but they did not.
Peter is grasping at straws as he sees plentiful statement samples from Sid come out that do not contain SA guilt indicators.
Peter cites a supposed "embedded confession" that is actually mirroring (saying what another may think as many people DO think it.)
If Peter truly believes Sid and Tammy guilty he would be jumping all over these lengthy FB posts from Sid and tearing then apart like he did (quite well) with Patsy Ramsey and many others where lengthy samples were available. Unfortunately, these length samples clear him of guilt quite apparently...one neednt sit down with a red pen and blue light...so Peter and everyone here are avoiding analyzing them bc they prove he and Tammy did not kill Heather"



Why would you be waiting for an apology? Has Peter offended you personally by blogging about S & T guilt? From what I've seen and read, Peter doesn't "jump all over" anything. He takes statements and analyzes them according to SA which he is an expert in. I would think Peter has other things to do besides waiting for these degenerates to spout off. Good Lord, they (Tammy) posts rants uncontrollably and consistently. To do a SA on everything they have said would take over Peter's life. They (or if this is Tammy, YOU) aren't that important in the scheme of things. Peter has proven over and over again that they (you) are guilty as sin. Hopefully there will be some justice coming.

lynda said...

Also Waiting for an Apology, Thusfar, I have never seen Peter "grasping at straws."

stop_playing_dumb said...

O/T Dellen Millard's jailhouse letters he sent to his girlfriend.

https://www.scribd.com/doc/311265835/Letters-between-Dellen-Millard-and-Christina-Noudga

Peter Hyatt said...

The clarity on an embedded confession and what people think is my point.

What other people "think" must be translated into words.

From whom do these words come?

Can they come from the "other people" who have not spoken them?

They must come, from the subject himself. These are his words. This is what an embedded confession is. I do not know if I have ever seen one man use it twice, but here it is.

Here, and in everything else I have covered, they are deceptive, cannot deny, and this is because they killed Heather Elvis.

From their language, I believe that Tammy was the ring leader but both are guilty. I supported the strategy of separating them, but it failed. Rare is the power and control that a female can have like this.

As one analyst said today, his is the language more suited for D/V victims.

This is not a difficult or challenging case as some are. If this particular statement had not been such a powerful sample to use, I would not have posted it as there is no "who done it?" element to this case.

Peter

Anonymous said...

This update is out of date. The trial started last week.

Anonymous said...

Are you saying the Moorers posted these things? Did they fire their attorneys? Unbelievable. I also heard they hired one of those shady type guys to criminally stalk and harass people who might believe their guilt. He must really love them to do jail time with them. This screams of guilt. I cannot close my mouth right now

Nic said...

Anonymous @ 10:51PM

That is exactly what I am saying. It's a subtle nuance but means a lot.

Note hand holding... and I would like to say they absolutely read hear because after I made note of Sydney being a bottom, he suddenly manned up and was one top!

LE would have broken him had they incarcerated Tammy and left him to flail. jmo

Nic said...

**here

Ugh!

WFA said...

You people are so obnoxious with this case. You dance all around just analyzing the writing samples from Sidney saying well this person must have really wrote it, blah blah. Peter swoops in and deletes non-offensive comments. Just ridiculous. All the FB posts above indicate innocence. If not, analyze any part of them showing that he is lying.

gun in mouth said...

i will make a deal with you pedoclown.
you do the right thing, and i will stop calling you a pedoclown.

Truth lover said...

I agree, I was just going to post this.

Anonymous said...

If you're so convinced this site and SA is ridiculous, WHY are you still here?
Why are you still asking for Peter to analyze FB posts when you've already determined every analysis done thus far is wrong?
Liars can't stand it when they're not believed.

Anonymous said...

https://www.facebook.com/Heather-Elvis-Murder-Case-1388119898077195/

Anonymous said...

Liars hate it when they are not believed and will take the need to persuade to a whole new level. That is why Tammy is on this site demanding apologizes and attacking critical thought. I hope she keeps talking herself into knots because it helps SA students to learn more about deception and the lengths deceitful people will go to deceive!

lynda said...

WFA said...
You people are so obnoxious with this case. You dance all around just analyzing the writing samples from Sidney saying well this person must have really wrote it, blah blah. Peter swoops in and deletes non-offensive comments. Just ridiculous. All the FB posts above indicate innocence. If not, analyze any part of them showing that he is lying.

May 2, 2016 at 8:35 PM


It's already been done Tammy. It's like Peter and everyone else says. It's a slam dunk. Trying to alter your language to show innocence doesn't work. Slither back under the rock you murderous shrew. Peter has better things to do than waste his time anymore on the likes of you

deejay said...

Sidney- 'We didn't kill Heather" Ok, probably a true statement. Tammy orchestrated this crime to expertly punish both Heather and Sidney. Heather's horrible death also forever ties Sidney's fate to Tammy's- he can't confess without condemning them both legally, and his kids to criticism and pain.
Did he ever say 'I didn't kill Heather'. ?? Nope. That is because he did kill Heather. I am going to guess he strangled her, and then he buried her. All while evil Tammy watched.

WFA said...

Anon 945,

Quite the contrary. I dont think SA is bull, I never said that, I believe SA is amazingly accurate and reliable. SA is the reason I believe Sidney and Tammy to be innocent.
Also, to the other anon, Im not Tammy, and if you are so great at SA you should know that. Just like posters here should realize the FB posts from Sidney's page being shared here are actually written by Sidney, not Tammy, since they do not match her writing style.
It is YOU PEOPLE who do not trust statement analysis. Keep in mind, Peter's entire take on this case began when he plummeted into confusion and defensiveness after "taking back" his initial statement analysis of Tammy's bitchy facebook post. He initially said SA says that Tammy had no involvement, then backpedaled saying it was the one time he's been wrong. From there it was all downhill with actual censorship employed to prevent statement analysis of all parties.

~mj said...

Mr. Hyatt has yet to post based on what one "wants" to say or does not "want" to say. He posts on analysis. Period. That is what distinguishes him, a professional, from internet trolls. That is what makes this website so valuable to his profession as well. So in light of all of us visiting the online version of a professional's office, let's keep it on topic.

This is not a debate. Ask a question if you have one, get an answer, and be on your way. State your observations and either accept the SA explanation of things or don't. Reading and participating here is a privilege, not a right. Either learn something from it or respectfully disagree and move on.

I too found it quite unsettling that Sydney was able to say "may" hear - in his second embedded confession - he has accepted that as a possibility. Under no circumstances would I ever accept it as a possibility that when my young children were 50 they would hear about a crime that I "had" committed, as if my guilt were unquestionable. It is unthinkable, as an innocent person to prepare for the eventuality that some 40 years down the road people will speak of this incident as a conclusion to the matter, that I did it? No way. Maybe if I was in fear of the truth not coming out due to a gag order, I might accept that or worry that, some 20, 30, or 40 years down the road my family would be remembered as the ones that were accused of a heinous crime. But I would never accept that people would see me as the one who did it.

Further, the most shocking was his end to that one, not that he was innocent or even that he and Tammy were innocent, but instead because of a lack of ability to "prove" guilt. When one has the need to rely on whether something can be proven or not, we have far surpassed whether a crime was committed or not, we are clearly being told a crime was committed - just that this particular person cannot be proven to be the perpetrator of said crime. Which flies directly in the face of his weak assertion that Heather took off.

lynda said...

WFJ...MJ didn't say anything about your privilege to read here, she asked that if you have a question, ask it and move on. This isn't a blog to bash Peter. It's his blog that he takes an inordinate amount of time to educate people FOR FREE about SA. If you want to bash him, start your own Bash Peter Blog.

Nic said...

The same Jimmy that has allowed his "friends” to threaten murder, rape, and mutilation. (They followed through on these threats with the pets, remember? Just to show us what they were going to do those kids...) Yeah, he will arrest me for telling the truth which should NOT be a crime in any state, but he allows a group of monsters to do that kind of thing.


murder, rape and mutilate

I highly doubt “they” did this (rape) “with” the pets.

The threats which were followed through on appear out of order… murder then rape, unless necrophilia has come into play.

If they’re “pets” why say, “the”? Why not say “their” or “our”, if they are known “pets”.

“those” kids
distancing, non specific, whose “kids"?

________________

My interviews are all based on the murder charge and it was dismissed. If it was dismissed, it no longer has a gag order on it. Right?

an innocent couple.

he doesn’t declare themselves innocent/dismissed of murder, he speaks of an unknown innocent couple.

He does not issue a reliable denial.


_____________________


THIS CAN HAPPEN TO YOU TOMORROW if they think they can get away with it!


It's too bad you all can't be arrested for obstruction and perjury, or arrested for receiving "services" outside of your marriage.

Hell, I'm in a great mood today.

Here Sydney issues a reliable statement about the County dropping murder charges against him and his wife.

Nic said...

^^ Further to the charges left on the table, there are kidnapping and obstruction, but I don't believe "perjury" is.

If I'm correct, I call "leakage" regards Sidney and Tammy Moore thinking "they can get away with" LYING about their involvement in the kidnapping and murder of Heather Elvis and obstructing LE in the course of their investigation.

If I am correct, then it speaks to Sydney's knowledge of what happened to Heather/where she could be. (murdered)

jmo

Nic said...

The same Jimmy that has allowed his "friends” to threaten murder, rape, and mutilation.

The word friends, is in quotation highlighting, sarcasm.

The group of monsters Jimmy has allowed to follow through with murder, rape, and mutilation are not his friend.

Murder, rape, and mutilation

Rape and mutilation are together. Sidney’s interviews have been about the dismissed (not acquitted,) murder charge. Here he introduces rape and mutilation along with murder — two other crimes for which he and Tammy have not been charged outside of murder (dismissed,) and obstruction.

Jimmy’s enemies are a group of monsters. Group is plural and by definition, not just a couple of people. He classifies the group as “monsters”, so all equally culpable.

For someone who doesn’t know what “really” happened to Heather, he recants a lot of detail about who and what.

_________________

Prayers for Heather. Godspeed the Elvis family.

Nic said...

Taking Sydney at his word:

My interviews are all based on the murder charge and it was dismissed.

The charge was dropped (by the prosecution) not dismissed (by the judge). Sidney and Tammy's fate still hang in the balance with the prosecution.

He doesn't issue a reliable denial about his involvement.

His interviews/what he has chosen to publicly address/state are based on "the" murder charge he was initially charged with. The subject of that murder is Heather Elvis. So I will take him at his word that what he chooses to speak about is Heather's murder. As such, contrary to what he said in an interview (that he really doesn't know what happened to her,) he acknowledges she was murdered and he acknowledges where she was murdered and to some extent who was involved.

pets

domesticated animal kept for pleasure and companionship. The animal itself, otherwise not of origin to the home/does not belong. Animals who live under human "care" are captive.

"those kids"

Within the home where the pet is kept captive is a group of people; the people comprising of authority (parent/s) and "those" kids.

"those"
distancing, the subject of "those kids" stands in witness to what they do/what they have done.


"group"
as stated above is a collection of people, all deemed monsters by Sydney. Group as stated above is more than a couple of people. Group is a collection. The group is together.

Sydney has, in the past, stood accused of violence along side his father-in-law, Bill Caison. Bill Caison coincidentally threatened Heather's searchers with bodily harm when he deemed them too close to his property/house. Bill Caison is the father of Tammy Moorer. The Moorer's residence sits adjacent to the Caison home on Caison's property.

What did Sydney say those kids do with the pet?

They mutilated it.
They raped it.
They murdered it.

By dropping the murder charge, Sydney says (Jimmy) "allows a group of monsters to do that kind of thing."
________________

What I post is my opinion based my application of statement analysis principles of public statements made by Sydney Moore.



Nic said...

*did with the pet

WFA said...

Lynda,
That is such bull to say I bashed Peter: having already clarified that I am not criticizing Peter or his SA abilities, his intentions or motives, I am wondering now about people's ability to comprehend.
Nic, I will reread what you wrote, because having read it once I literally do not understand what you are saying.
I do not understand what point you are making about Jimmy, pets, etc....what are you trying to say?

WFA said...

Nic,
OK, I read through a second time, and your analysis which seems to focus on the "friends" who are "monsters" hurting the pets is just all over the place. Initially, I could follow you...I believe at first you were saying he is lying about threats being issued against the kids and carried through on with the pets. I disagree. The language shows he is telling truth about threats made and some kind of harm done to pets, although he does not specify what exactly was done.

Jennifer Adams said...

The statement that stood out most to me is that he used the phrase "horrible crime," when - at this point - NO CRIME has been proven to have been committed. I have my own opinions about this (Tammy killed Heather and Sidney aided her in doing so but was not the aggressor), but from a legal standpoint - Heather is just a missing person.
Her social media accounts show a desire to be "elsewhere" which could lead to speculation that she fled the county, state, and/or country. There is no body. No confession. No crime scene riddled with forensic evidence of a murder OR a kidnapping. The physical evidence of an actual crime is sadly lacking - yet Sidney calls whatever happened to Heather a "HORRIBLE crime"?
This would lead me to believe that he knows exactly what happened to her and that it was, indeed, horrible AND a crime.

Anonymous said...

Peter, it would be most interesting to hear your analysis of Polly Caison's comments after Sidney Moorer's trial, the interview can be found on WMBF. Kirk Truslow, Sidney's own attorney did not provide a defense which speaks volumes about his guilt. Polly Caison made claims Sidney and Tammy were home yet she did not testify on their behalf. Irene Moorer, Sidney's mother has never has spoken publicly. Sometimes what someone doesn't say really says a lot.