We are known by our speech.
"Out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks"
Did Tammy Moorer make Heaher Elvis pay the ultimate price of the rage of Tammy Moorer?
Did Tammy get Sidney to lure Heather out that night, so that she could get 'revenge' for infidelity?
Who Did Tammy blame: Heather or her husband, Sidney?
The "heart" is the seat of the intellect and affections; what we think, and how we feel about what we think. What we feel is based upon what we think so that when our thinking is wrong, our emotions follow suit. If you were told that Person A just insulted your child, you would be angry at Person A, yet if Person A actually did not insult your child, but assisted your child, your emotions would be wrong.
Wrong.
We reveal ourselves by the words we speak. What do we know about Tammy Moorer?
Unfortunately, in the one interview she gave, few direct quotes were afforded us, instead we are left to the opinion of the Interviewer. This is a critical mistake in the gathering of information. In Analytical Interviewing, we allow the subject to control the interview, and guide us with her own words. We listen, and do not interpret. We then take the very words given to us, and frame our questions based upon the subject's own words, allowing the subject to interpret for us.
When President Clinton said, "
I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Ms. Lewinsky"he did not lie.
Look at the strength of the statement:
1. The pronoun "
I"
2. The past tense verb "
did not"
3. The specific allegation
"sexual relations."
This is a reliable denial.
The only thing missing was that Clinton's personal, subjective, internal dictionary gave "sexual relations" the definition of "intercourse"; according to both him, and Ms. Lewinsky, who he explained to her that they did not have "
sexual relations" in his understanding. Later, he said, "
while being technically true, I misled the American people..."Much deception comes from sentence by sentence truthful words. Later, President Clinton was seen with a black eye. He said that he liked to "
roughhouse on the White House lawn with Chelsea."
He did not say that he got the black eye from roughhousing with Chelsea. Some think that after his explanation that "sexual relations" was strictly intercourse, that his wife, Hilary, did not share his personal, internal, subjective dictionary.
In teaching this principle, I ask investigators to tell me what they think of when I say a word, instructing them to quickly write down their thought.
I say, "boy" and the responses from investigators in the class shows how varied the personal, internal, subjective dictionary is.
One will think of her seven year old son playing Little League, while another thinks of his new-born grandson, just days old, while yet another thinks of his son, 21 years old, in combat. In just this quick experiment, there is a disparity of 21 years between people of the same culture, in the same room.
In Analytical Interviewing, we seek to enter into the subject's personal, internal, subjective dictionary in order to "decode it", as taught in the
SCAN Technique.
Recently, I was watching "The Armstrong Lie" documentary in which Tyler Hamilton said he saw Lance Armstrong doping, even while shaking his head "no", which could lead people to thinking he was lying.
He was telling the truth.
Body language analysis must establish a baseline. Many people shake their head "
no" while telling the truth, if they feel shame, or even disbelief.
Armstrong's claim was that his comeback in 2009 was to "prove" he could do it without drugs, which was the common conclusion, and that he denied using in 2009.
Not so.
He did not outright lie. He said, "I wanted to show them how I could compete clean." This is not to say, "I did not use EPO during the 2009 Tour" or "I did not use a blood transfusion" as was alleged before a particular shocking stage result in which his power, missing up to that point, suddenly showed up (along with spiked red cell count that should have headed south).
He did not lie.
He deceived.
Listening to the words chosen, a person will reveal himself, and what is important to him. In an investigation, we let the subject control the interview, something seemingly anathema to many in law enforcement, as they are often taught, "Control the interview."
Here is why we do not control the interview:
If the person "did it", what do you think the person is thinking about while talking?
If the subject wishes to go off in a tangent, we note the need to avoid certain questions and will take the words employed, and seek to gently bring the subject back to the allegation. This means patience, something that not all interviewers have.
Heather Elvis, 20, went missing on December 17th, 2013. While she was missing, Tammy Moorer posted the following.
In an interview, we were not given many of her words, and when a journalist is not trained and reported that "Tammy denied...", readers here know that this statement, itself, is unreliable. Often we have seen headlines of one "denying" an accusation, only to listen to the interview and note that the subject did not deny the allegation. This is quite common today.
The writer wrote that according to Tammy, the only thing she was guilty of was loving Disney.
The writer says Tammy wants us to know that the "love triangle" had nothing to do with Heather's disappearance, and then adds that there was no "love triangle", begging the question: how did it have nothing to do with Heather's disappearance if it did not exist?
The article doesn't include quotes, instead editorializes and is a wasted opportunity for information that could have been vital to finding Heather Elvis. A course in shorthand, and an understanding that "out of the abundance of the heart the mouth speaks" could have given valuable information to Heather's father, Terry Elvis, and the investigators.
When disparaging a victim, the guilty often use subtle language, whereas this is blatant
and initially led me to believe that in writing such harshness, may not have been told by her husband of what happened to Heather.
I must re-think this opinion, as it may prove wrong, in light of the arrest of Tammy on sexual charges and obstruction, and now on kidnapping.
Since most guilty only disparage the victim in subtle ways, does this open rage give us insight into the rage that may have been lashed out upon young Heather Elvis by Tammy?
This is a frightful and sobering thought. It is all too much to bear.
Yet, we are known by our words. Look at where Tammy places the blame for infidelity inspite of the 'open marriage' where they could only cheat by rules.
What words does she use to describe her husband, Sidney Moorer, versus the words she reserves for Heather Elvis, victim:
Sidney: stupid,
Heather: "psycho", "whore", "crazy" parentage, "twisted person", "hoe"
That she started her post with her husband's cheating, we note that in Statement Analysis that often where someone begins a statement may be the reason for the writing. This leads to:
Husband cheating versus young girl in peril (missing). Which is the priority?
The post is 27 lines.
Lines about infidelity: 21
Lines about missing Heather: 1
Lines about Terry Elvis: 5
The math indicates that the emphasis of her post is upon her husband's infidelity, with not only a strong disparagement of the victim, but nothing written about Heather's plight.
This is not expected. Even the guilty often masquerade the animosity towards the victim.
Yet, the baseness and shear viciousness of her post may suggest otherwise:
Does she seek to justify what may have happened to Heather Elvis?
The hatred burns.
We are all known by our words. The "abundance" of the heart (intellect/emotions) is extreme, even with the brain's connection to even childhood abuse, for example, seemingly 'unmanned' in the consciousness, while the body, itself, seems to remember the trauma, for the rest of the person's life.
Now that Tammy Moorer, like her husband, has been charged with kidnapping in relation to Heather Elvis, the above post sounds like a lethal dosage of rage from a very evil, twisted woman. As she has been the one to speak for the two, did she coerce her husband into luring Heather out that fateful night?
Will Sidney Moorer crack in jail, while Tammy remains locked into her rage?
What to make of the self-professed Mickey Mouse/Disney addict who is now charged with kidnapping?
This immoral 'open marriage' yet "Sidney cheated on me" paradox of twisted living and practiced deceit now comes to center stage in what could prove to be a sexual homicide...
yet, Heather is not found, and in spite of the charges and the length of time, we continue to pray for her return...
Stay tuned.
