This past week, Pastor Davey Blackburn returned to his home from the gym to find his pregnant wife, Amanda, had been shot in the head, and was unconscious.
He phoned 911.
Within two days, she and her pre born child both died at the hospital.
Police told media that her husband, Davey, was "100%" not a suspect in his wife's murder, and have now reported that surveillance video from neighbors has likely shown the shooter.
There has been a string of robberies in the area and police reported that this is a crime of opportunity, that a criminal intent upon robbery saw Davey leave his home to go to the gym and took this as an opportunity to rob the home, only to be met by Amanda, who, they reported, struggled with the assailant.
At the home at this time was their one year old child, who was unharmed. Police told the assailant through media that they would get him.
The following is Question and Answer as this account has caused much interest here at the blog after I had analyzed the public statement of Davey Blackburn.
Q. Have you concluded that Davey Blackburn is complicit in the death of his wife and pre born child?
The statement has brought me concerns which I outline in the analysis here. These concerns include:
a. A focus upon himself including his job which suggests a sense of 'controlling narcissistic tendencies' including 'divinity' like control and an artificial divorcing from human emotions under the use of religious language.
b. There is no mention of his deceased pre born child.
c. There is no concern for justice for Amanda.
d. There is no concern for a dangerous killer who is free to kill again.
e. There is a rapid "moving on" within him; negating natural human emotions through religious language.
f. There is no 'safety' afforded to Amanda and her pre born child.*
In short, there is enough to be concerned that if he is not complicit in her murder, he has some need of professional intervention. When I reviewed his one hour lecture with his wife, Amanda, after the analysis was posted, my opinion of 'controlling narcissistic tendencies' was affirmed. The seminar also, in my opinion, revealed some strong sexual issues as well as misuse of Scripture regarding sexuality. Sex was a dominant theme and quite revelatory.
He is talented and uses the format of ministry to promote a celebrity like status under the pragmatic guise of reaching young people.
Q. Is it ethical for you to cast suspicion upon a grieving and suffering man?
A. Yes. He did not speak privately to family, friends, or even his church. He spoke to the "nation" (his own words) publicly which presupposes that when anyone speaks publicly, there is an expectation that some will agree and some will not agree, but all will have opinions. When any of us offer a public opinion, we know the public will have an opinion on what we say. I expressed my opinion, and expressed specifically why I have suspicion.
Q. Isn't this a form of religious hatred and bigotry?
My own background allows me for a strong reference point, especially in his perspective which is a strong principle in Statement Analysis itself.
We set up an "Expected Versus Unexpected" scenario which presupposes the writer is innocent and truthful By doing this, we allow ourselves to view what is not expected for analysis. Since I share a background in faith, and a background of being a husband and a father, I am able to better "enter into his shoes" and ask what I might say.
His statement is short, and it was his first after the murder, making it very important. That it is short speaks to how only the most important information is going to be included.
I find that he is the main topic of the statement, more than the victims, with one victim not even mentioned, while he mentions his career as going forward. This is not expected. What is expected?
1. Fear. His wife and pre born child are murdered and the killer, who did this to her head, is on the loose.
2. Despair. I expect to hear heartbreak.
3. Hope. Since he is of faith, I expect a submissive posture to trusting God while not understanding why suffering has come to him.
In his follow up post to the "nation" at large, he said he is, in fact, working on Sunday and that they will "laugh" and "cry" together. Mere days after his wife's death he mentions "laughter" is not expected, nor is it consistent with faith.
There is nothing in Scripture that negates nor suspends human emotions in tragedy. I even cited two examples in my analysis, showing my own reference point: David's mourning over his son, Absolam, and Christ's mourning over Jerusalem.
We have seen in our day a silencing of opinions, especially through labels. When someone disagrees, he is said to be morally unfit to have an opinion, and mentally incapable of expressing it. The two most common silencers are "hate" and "phobia."
My policy is A. If you do not agree with it you are "full of hate" and have an irrational fear against topic A.
This is commonly seen in anonymous postings. When Julie Baker stole $43,000 dollars, I exposed her deception but was said to be "hateful" and "homophobic."
This was asserted rather than address the analysis.
When I analyzed Hillary Clinton, I am "misogynistic" and "partisan."
When I analyzed George W. Bush, I was "playing politics" and "only target" one party.
Rather than have a healthy debate over principle, name calling suggests a form of tyranny that seeks to impose an indefensible position upon others by silencing them. It belies the weakness of the position.
What makes Statement Analysis unique is this:
When someone makes a public statement, anyone listening will have an opinion on whether or not they believe the speaker.
With analysis, the reason for belief or disbelief is plainly stated, allowing for the engagement of dialog. Dialog is the curse of tyrannical imposition of agenda. When one needs to "shout down" a message, they have nothing to add to dialog.
Q. Have you had a lot of nasty comments that needed to be deleted?
A. No. I have been pleasantly surprised. The misuse of the commentary policy is done anonymously and is often agenda driven. The volunteers edit out comments that are like that, and if it is severe enough, it is put in the "spam" folder, where the IP address eventually gets automatically learned for deletion.
Disagreements are always welcome unless they deliberately misuse the principles of Statement Analysis. "Here, the word "but" is used and indicates deception"
This is not a blog to propagate ignorance.
Statement Analysis needs healthy scientific skepticism to improve. When I conclude "deception indicated", my name, reputation and livelihood are on the line.
Q. Doesn't his religion teach against vengeance? Could this be the reason for the absence of justice in his statement? Maybe he thinks God will protect the neighbors?
A. One question at a time:
First the question of vengeance: No, it teaches against personal hatred, but not justice. The justice is assigned to the government and it should be entrusted to such. Where the government fails to procure justice for its people leads to all sorts of trouble. Consider "The Quartering Act" and how this endangered women and children, and forced men to arms.
We have seen cases where citizens have sought their own justice and it rarely ends well.
If he has no concern for his neighbors because God will protect them, it does not address the murder of his wife and the absence of protection and is against his own teaching of love and concern for his neighbor.
It is my opinion that such a brutal, calloused and frightening double murder is almost as bad as it gets, with the only element making it worse is the unknown.
Why was my wife killed?
Will the killer come back for my child?
Will the killer come back for me?
My expectation is that the shock of this being so severe that the very first thing needed is protection for his child, himself, and his vulnerable neighbors.
It is missing and this is of concern to me.
Q. Police have said he is cleared. What are you thinking?
A. I am thinking that police need to clear him as having any connection to the shooter. They have concluded that he is not the shooter.
I am also thinking:
I hope I am wrong about my suspicion. I hope he had nothing to do with it. He needs help, desperately.
Q. Besides the points in the analysis, what else concerns you?
A. Trouble in Marriage
October 27, 2015 Davey and Amanda Blackburn give a "performance" about marriage for their church. Hipster like, front and center, he spoke a great deal about sex, made an inappropriate joke, and talked about the gym.
The "gym" was in relation to sexual temptation. He pays $10 a month to track himself on line. He is, in my opinion, obsessed with sex and projecting this towards young people. He was at the gym where he experiences sexual temptation while she was murdered.
Both Davey and Amanda spoke of serious problems in their marriage.
This was given a specific trigger: pregnancy.
Amanda was three months pregnant when murdered.
The seminar appears, in my own personal opinion to be conducted by someone who over talks his wife, is controlling, very competitive, and it appears like two people who just don't like each other.
Again, this is posted for the public to view and have an opinion. I hope my opinion is wrong.
He said that pregnancy was something that made the marriage worse, while she referenced his work.
In his announcement about his murdered wife, he mentioned his career.
He appears to compete with her for the spotlight and corrects her, with a subtle insult about purity. He then reveals that they negotiated "date nights" because the marriage turned bad immediately after the honeymoon and this "negotiation" including having to have sex before going out to dinner, otherwise he cannot "concentrate" on the dinner.
This is insulting to Amanda and a narcissistic airing out of his problems publicly which only adds to her humiliation.
Q. What does narcissism have to do with your analysis?
A. This is a murder, regardless of who committed it. Any murder investigation begins with the circle of suspects beginning quite small and widening outward. This means that when someone is murdered in her own home, the home is first viewed. When a spouse is murdered, the surviving spouse is first viewed and cleared, and then immediately family and then connections to the family and on to the public at large. In domestic homicides, the spouse is viewed. There is a correlation between narcissistic tendencies and domestic violence, and this is logical. If one believes himself superior as a person, his views will be paramount, and if disagreed with, the narcissistic type can become very upset. The greater the view of oneself, the higher the element of disappointment.
The most dangerous time for a woman in a domestically violent scenario is the first days where she breaks free and he has lost control.
This is not to say that Davey Blackburn is a narcissist. The analysis of his statement showed narcissistic like language, including 'divinity' like attribute noted. The video affirmed this narcissism, even while, at times, giving sound advice to his audience. He is obviously very talented, has a good intellect, but has some serious sexual issues and this should be dealt with privately, not at the expense of a young audience, nor to the humiliation of his wife.
Narcissistic tendencies and violence are related.
Q. Why did you write about Amanda as a "mother"?
A. I found it odd that he did not mention her as a mother, nor about the death of the pre born child, nor even about his one year old being motherless.
For a young man who is a father and just lost his child's mother and the expected baby, it is not expected that this would be missing from his language. Statement Analysis deals with what one says and what one does not say. As an expecting father I recall the months of speaking to my pre born child, playing music for him or her, reading to him or her, and so on. In Statement Analysis, we put ourselves into the shoes of the subject and presuppose innocence. What would an innocent victim say in this circumstance?
Q. What did you make of his address of his wife?
A. There is something very concerning that I did not address in the original analysis.
Heather said, "This is the first time I ever heard a Christian address a deceased loved one without saying, "She is in heaven. She is at home" as a priority."
Does he think she was unworthy of heaven? This question is far more important than you might realize.
Guilty parties do, at times, justify the crime by insulting the victim, with most insults being subtle, or benign appearing. Is that what the sense is here? It is a legitimate question. Since he loaded down his statement with religious language, it is certainly an expectation. The first statement is always so important.
His wife was murdered and these are the first words he committed to the public.
He did not mention his murdered child.
He did not mention his motherless child.
He did not comfort himself with the murdered wife and murdered child in Heaven. I consider this a blaring omission.
When you view the video tape, you may get a better sense of why this is. The video is persuasive and the persuasion is of a very troubled young man in a very bad marriage.
He does not use her name, initially, which is subtle distancing language, even though she is "my wife" and "woman," Where he does use "Amanda" it is about her in relation to others, not to him, nor their child. "Amanda" serves everyone, but this does not include her own children.
Did he not consider her a good "mother"?
Did he not consider her worthy of Heaven?
Is this just a bad marriage where the remaining spouse will suffer, not only from the loss of his wife, but suffer from being left with bitter memories, rather than fond memories?
Or is this a justification of murder?
There is a good deal of focus upon himself, and not upon his child, and how they are to survive without her.
Q. How does social introductions fit in here?
A. We begin with the social introduction and then look to see how he addresses her. Who is she, under which circumstances?
Given his age, and later his obsession with sex, is she his "lover", even in polite terms? His seminar did not seek to stay only in "polite" terms, including his inappropriate joke made at her expense.
She was his wife, and she was the mother of his children. Exception is not only a complete social introduction, but a warmth and closeness that language can reveal.
It was not what the focus was.
Instead, the focus was upon himself and his career.
Q. How do you think this will end?
A. With an arrest.
Hopefully, it will be the dangerous shooter and only the dangerous shooter, with no connection to Davey Blackburn. If so, I hope Davey gets the help he needs as he must face the death of his wife and pre born child, and face life as a single parent. It is a tough road.
This gives me the feel of a show in the name of 'persuasion' of Christianity. He has deliberately addressed the nation and that this is a chance to spread the Gospel.
Q. When do you get involved with police?
A. When I am involved with police on a case, the blog never knows it. This is to protect the integrity of the case and the investigators. If I comment on a case that is in the media, I am not involved in it privately. If a case is posted and I later become involved, I no longer comment on the case.
Keep in mind, these are all public statements that are visible to all.
The successfully prosecuted cases that I assist in do not get published here.
Q. Were you conflicted about posting this story?
A. Yes. I received the request from a Christian woman who felt concerned about the statement and I know that opinions can add to one's hurt, yet I reminded myself that he invited opinions by the public statement. Later, in acknowledging the "national" coverage, I felt more at ease with it. I feel terrible for Amanda's family and wondered how they felt viewing the video of him correcting her, over-talking her, and humiliating her. If she had been my daughter, I would have upset.
I consulted with some trusted friends that are investigators, as well.
Q. What do you mean by "stepping back" from a statement?
A. By this I mean to 'think about it' in general terms and ask myself how I feel about the circumstances. Here, it looks like this:
A man talks about how bad his marriage is, and that having a baby was a trigger, and the gym holds sexual temptation towards infidelity for him. Bad marriage, baby, gym.
Next, his pregnant wife is murdered, along with the pre born child, while he was at the gym.
Then, he releases a statement that is void of anger and sadness and shows no desire for justice nor even catching the killer.
That's a lot of coincidences. That's a statement worthy of a second look.
Q. What would help you decide if he was involved?
A. A statement.
If police release the 911 call, I will analyze it. In many cases, a 2 minute 911 call has shown guilt.
Or, if he is interviewed nationally and the TV interviewer has the presence of mind to say,
"Hey, I am so sorry for your loss and all you are going through and admire your faith. What do you say, however, to those who may think you are involved?"
Hopefully, we would all hear a reliable denial.
Q. What are the possibilities here?
A. The two possibilities here, in general:
a. His wife was the random victim of a home intrusion break in and robbery.
This has some questions, however, and the questions may all have ready answers, but media has either not asked the questions, or police have not provided answers. This includes:
1. Was there a sign of forced entry?
2. If not, why was the door unlocked?
3. Is this the norm? In a neighborhood where break ins have been noted, is this the norm?
4. What was stolen?
5. What was the value of the stolen items?
6. Where was the baby?
With the cruelty of a head shot, this leads to questions of:
7. Why would a robber need to shoot a pregnant woman?
8. Why the head?
9. What would cause the pregnant mother of a one year old to fight a robber? It is more expected that a woman would say, "take what you will, but don't harm me?
10. This leads to: Did she recognize the shooter?
11. Did the shooter fear that she could recall his or her face?
12. Did he have more than just a hoodie to cover his face?
13. Is he a her?
14. Is this an organized gang?
b. Davey Blackburn is involved.
1. Did he meet someone at the gym?
2. Was someone hired to shoot Amanda?
3. Was the last straw another pregnancy?
4. Was the issue of sex between them so severe that it led to this?
5. Was his job so important to him that he would murder rather than divorce and lose his job?
6. Did he have a girlfriend? As months go by, will we hear, "Amanda would want me remarried" and "I have to to avoid sexual..." and so on?
If he is involved, we will look back at the language and learn. We may then consider the subtle justification of the murder of someone 'not worthy' of Heaven, for example.
Or, it could end that he had no connection to the killer, and now is a troubled young man in need of help, who will have few comforting memories, because of the troubled marriage.
I hope he was not involved and get the help he will desperately need as a single father left to cope with an extreme tragedy.
Being in the subject's shoes, what would you say in your initial statement?
One short paragraph only. Leave in comments section.