Statistics of murdered pregnant women show that the husband/boyfriend is the most likely suspect. Familiar homicide investigations begin with family and move outward in suspects as each family member is cleared.
Fox News reported this normal suspicion but also added that the victim's husband's initial written statement was narcissistic which surprised them, given the circumstances. Jeanine Shapiro said that it was all about the husband and his career. To this, Statement Analysis agreed.
Police announced that the lone gunman who caused Amanda Blackburn's arrest as well as two others associated with it, who were in the area, robbing other homes, though there has been no reported violence in any other home than Blackburn's.
I have asked experienced investigators, analysts and professionals what they could say to help support the premise that Davey Blackburn has no association with those who killed his wife.
I asked the same of the public, with readers to submit reasons why they could or should believe that the husband has no connection to the killers.
I. That Which Suggests Guilty Association with gang
II. That Which Suggests No Association with gang
By putting one in proximity to the other, it allows for easy to comparison. In either case, police investigation will be lengthy to learn the truth.
I. Guilty Association
3. Lack of Denial
II. No Guilty Association
1. Police: no arrests, nor announcements
2. Religion examined.
I. Guilt Association
1. The coincidental nature of the case:
The pastor described having a bad marriage made worse by pregnancy. His pregnant wife was killed. This, alone, has led some detectives to say, "What are the odds?"
The victim said that bad marriage was due to his career focus. His initial statement showed that his career took precedence and even warned potential future pastors that wives can "slingshot" a pastor to success or hinder the career. His wife competed for his attention with his career.
Two days before she was killed, he used a gun on stage where he was video taped using it as a prop. She was killed by a gun.
Personality: his mentor said that something was "wrong" with him. The husband said that in junior year of high school he "told a lie" which caused an entire school to be disappointed in him; teachers, administrators, and coaches. This one "lie" caused his friends to pull from him, even, leaving him utterly alone. His next school year was in a new school in a new state suggesting that this one "lie" caused his family to move to another state and his father to leave his own career work.
That something is "wrong" is further evidenced in his video performances, obsession with sex, projection of his own sex drive, and the insult and humiliation of his wife, who failed to satisfy him sexually. That these are all public statements, alone, suggests that his mentor was correct, but his language shows a distinct "anti-social" and "narcissistic" tone.
The murder took place while he was at the gym, a place where he said he experienced sexual temptation. In spite of knowing that there were break ins, the door was unlocked and in his call to his best friend, he stayed outside the house for 40 minutes, on the phone, while his wife lay bleeding out.
Statement Analysis: Guilty language evidenced.
This was seen in the extreme distancing language, including the pronoun "we" where only "I" is indicated. Parents of young children even recognize this factor where a person 'hides' his guilt in a crowd of others.
He showed no fear of the killer for himself, his son, or his neighbors.
He did not mention his unborn son but used the death to advertise for his career, repeatedly.
He did not say he loved Amanda, nor that Amanda loved him.
His language about capturing the killer was weak;
His language minimized the murder into "event" and "circumstances" and not murder.
The distancing was extreme: "the family was devastated", and "we will dialog with Weston"
The language of advertising was incessant, from slogans used, to "Amanda's Story", all while the killer remained at large.
Blackburn was asked to deny involvement, but did not issue a denial.
When publicly confronted with the accusation, he did not deny involvement, but only said, "For us, we have nothing to hide."
In Statement Analysis, when one says, "I have nothing to hide" instead of "I didn't do it", it is an invitation to "look for that which has been hidden."
By using "we", and affirming it with "us", he indicated that he is hiding something and it is with the assistance of at least one other person.
a. He accepted that police had to suspect him;
b. He did not deny the allegation
c. He used the language of guilt with "for us, we have nothing to hide."
Question: Then how is it that he could not have done it?
II. No Guilty Association
Police have only arrested the shooter and two associates and have not publicly connected him to the gang members.
This is the sole answer I have received in support of the theory of no association: that it has yet to be found.
Each theory as to why the language indicated guilt or distance, presented did not explain the lack of human grief, or the lack of fear of the unknown killer, or how, in the face of such tragedy, he could focus so precisely upon advertising, to the point of quoting numbers.
For many, it came back to, "but what about the odds?"
In seeking to explore the case, I sought, within myself, as well as detectives, analysts, and other experts to find something to buttress the theory that the husband could not possibly be involved. This includes ever meeting the gang members, or those who, in organized crime (gang) were above the actual arrested members.
With all those I have consulted, none were able to come up with a reason to clear him other than "thus far" police have not linked him. Cold case detectives regularly deal in cases where guilty suspects have been cleared in the initial investigation. It is an element of cold case work that is difficult, but a norm.
Readers, too failed to come up with anything either.
Therefore, we ask:
Does the subject's own religion make him less likely to have involvement?
The husband could not be the killer because, as Fox News said, he is "a man of God."
This would mean that his religious beliefs would restrain any temptation greatly. This resistance to crime would be seen in:
1. Devout: A close adherence to the tenants of religion, with no known compromising, twisting, or negating for the purpose of personal gain. Since Christianity teaches "thou shalt not", is he devout in his beliefs, making it a powerful influence away from crime, or does he display a cavalier attitude in which any tenant or aspect of the faith be changed to suit his priorities, thus weakening the overall influencing effect?
2. Background: A strong history void of troubling behavior or any indications that one has any form of psychological indicator of trouble.
A peaceful non-trauma background with no history of psychological disturbance, combined with devout adherence to truth would serve as 'buffers' or influences away from criminal behavior.
Therefore, he could not be associated because of his strong belief, refusing to alter the beliefs, and a stable upbringing with no hint of psychological disturbance.
Even in the presence of both of these elements, one can still commit serious crime, but these two would be considered things one would have to 'overcome' to commit such a crime.
Therefore, if he is known to 'twist' or negate Scripture, and if he has some signals of serious disturbance in childhood, "Religion" would not be considered a good 'reason' to support the "no association" theory.
There are two things that weaken this defense:
1. His pragmatic view of religion
2. His background story of "the lie"
This means that he is free to be "unconventional" in his approach to Scripture. (This is not the genuine disagreements that people have; but an actual twisting in order to fulfill priority).
What does his language tell us about:
a. His priorities
b. His marriage
His language shows what he defines "success" as being numbers in attendance and is similar to the language of his mentor. This is a pragmatic or "unconventional" view and his statement of "doing whatever it takes" is evident in the videos. The videos, themselves, suggest one who is not 'restrained' by traditional, historical Christianity, and likely need no further explanation.
*Pragmatic view of Scripture found within his drive for numerical success. This is also evidenced in the language of his mentor:
They say "whatever it takes" and they both have a willingness to depart from historic creeds and norms of Christianity for the purpose of popularity and numerical increase.
For those unfamiliar with the evangelical world, it means a willingness to "reinterpret" or simply ignore entirely any teaching or practice of the church which will not lead to numerical success.
In this sense, Blackburn's own message about wives of ministers impact on the career, as well as his own wife's statement about considering leaving him because he was only about his career now will focus on a belief that is not likely to lead to success:
The evangelical church seeks marriage counseling from those in successful marriages and a divorce (Amanda's desire to leave him) would have derailed his career terribly. His career, according to his language, is his supreme passion.
In his high school "lie" story, we are told that his whole world came crashing down from just one lie; leaving the reader to guess what telling of a single lie could cause such impact, from his own teachers to school faculty to his family to his own peers, to possibly having a forced relocation of his entire family to another city and another school.
Actions cause trouble, but a single lie? Even a false accusation of another would be something school officials would not likely be devastated over unless the lie was an action that...
devastated lives within the school.
If others were devastated, he affords them no sympathy in his post, but was concerned about one thing and one thing only:
His reputation. This was his concern.
What one lie could be so horrific to wreck his reputation?
What one lie could be of such a nature as to not only have adults turn from him, but peers?
I do not know, but can only guess.
It is rare to consider something that would unite both groups while it is easy to think of something that would upset adults, but teens would rally around, or, that would upset the teens, yet the adults would be more like, "you did the right thing, son", even if his friends felt betrayed.
What is so strange about this is that the lie cost him his friends. Most male 17 year olds have gotten in some trouble and are very unlikely to abandon a friend unless he betrayed a friend, or lied about something even worse. Betraying a friend might cost friends, but not teachers, faculty, coaches and parents.
It would have to be something that is an affront to everyone, including teenaged boys. Teens are quite forgiving of each other, often consoling each other with, "yeah, I almost did the same thing..." empathy or, "the adults don't understand."
About the worst possible scenario I have come up with would be a false allegation of sexual abuse against a male teacher with himself as the victim.
This, if shown to be a lie, would be something that would disgust the community at large, and even disgust teenaged boys and cause them to pull away from their friend. It is not just a "lie" but an attempted indictment of an utter disgusting nature that even after rescinded, will leave observers wary of he of whom the accusation was aimed.
This is something that would unite adults and teens in disgust.
Beyond that, all the bad things teens do are well known to schools and churches who generally work to help the offender, rather than pull away from him. In his post looking back, he wrote that he never felt so "utterly alone", which means others did not reach out to fix whatever he had done.
If the career is an obsession so powerful that even a murder is seen only in how it will bring in more customers, what would a divorce have done to one so deeply obsessed with success?
Could a twisted mind obsessed on numbers success who is already shown a willingness to 'change' or twist Scripture to fit his career, so conceive of a way of being free from Amanda without a divorce?
Was this something his mentor saw in him that alarmed him enough to say that he was not 'right'?
The high school story is alarming, but so is taking out a gun as a prop, two days before your wife is murdered; a wife of whom you openly stated was in a bad marriage along with the unborn child, who also had the open statement of how bad pregnancy made marriage. So is the public statements about his sex drive, and the victim's inadequacies, and so much else that he has done "in the name of religion" that has caused Christians to recoil in discomfort, embarrassment and disgust.
The high school lie story showed a distinct lack of empathy for its victims.
Then, marriage could make or break his career, something so important to him that it trumped even his wife's murder, within his language.
Now, divorce, the career ender, is no longer a possibility.
How lucky is that?
When one's own wife is brutally murdered and the killer on the loose and the husband shows no fear but can quote the exact number of new customers you can masquerade it any way you wish but the truth remains:
priority was and is just as Fox News said.
This masquerading of guilt in religious language is not something that goes over well with both police, who have, in many cases, "heard it all", as well as those who see the priority and drive for success for what it is.
Don't think for a minute that they are not saying to themselves,
"nobody is this lucky."
That his son is left bereft of his own mother is highlighted that "we" will "dialog" with him?
Did the father of the child say this, or a child psychologist hired by the family?
When it was said that "the family is devastated", was this the husband of the victim speaking ,
or did a counselor hired by the family say it?
There is but one point that suggests that Blackburn is not connected to this murder and this is the fact that police have not found a connection...yet.
Everything else says contrary:
His language, his behavior and even his pragmatic religious language fails to convince otherwise.
Police have a lengthy investigation ahead of them and they are dealing with a man who is very talented, in possession of a strong intellect and who has a tremendous drive to succeed in life, at all costs. Did it cost Amanda her life, or is this all one big coincidence?
That he lacks human empathy was initially evidenced in his statement issued publicly, and then in his videos, his quest for numbers, and even in the high school "lie" account, where any possible grasp of the pain he inflicted upon others is absent replaced instead by his concern over his reputation.
When Amanda was murdered, he was incapable of saying "I love Amanda" and "Amanda loved me", and even in the subsequent corrected statements with "complete social introduction" and the mentioning of the unborn child, he still could not refrain ambition.
To have your wife murdered, in her own home, and her clothes torn off her would terrify anyone unless you knew the killer would not return for you, your son, or your neighbors.
This can be masqueraded with religious language but it will be a masquerade that is noted.
As his mentor properly sensed, there is something very wrong with him and if there is no association, he has done is best to make it appear that there is.
This is to conclude that neither religion nor upbringing would support the theory of no connection.
Thus far, we have only that police have yet to announce an association on one side and a detailed list of coincidental circumstances on the other.
Which is it?
*The robbery in the area does not explain the bizarre reaction and language.
Question: Would mental illness be so acute that one would have:
a. distancing language
b. indicators of guilt
c. no fear of the killer
yet still retain such powerful ambition as to make everything associated with this murder into a selling point?
There continues to be unanswered questions.