Monday, December 7, 2015
Amanda Blackburn Murder: Psychology In Words
The murder of Amanda Blackburn has caught the interest of the public in spite of the arrest of the killer.
This is unusual. It should be 'case closed', at least, for the public.
Next, the interest is focused upon the victim's husband, Davey Blackborn.
Davey Blackburn, himself, is the single person most responsible for this level of suspicious interest.
Then, we note that the interest is that is upon the victim's husband is not due so much because he is a pastor of a church, but because he, himself, has driven suspicious attention towards himself which seems to increase each time he speaks.
Initially, police said that he was "100%" not involved, which may have been in reference to the fact that he was at his gym, on video, during the shooting. This may be the case.
One of the most unusual observations I have about this case is that there is an overwhelming number of people who suspect involvement, such as hiring someone to murder his wife, but it comes not so much from those who despise faith or religion, as a popular 'whipping boy' of today, but it is from this self-identified group, as well as those who's interest is only in the murder case, sans agenda, that have the strongest doubts.
There have been very few agenda driven comments that when the veneer is stripped away say, "Blackburn is guilty because Christians are hateful irrational bigots who carry guns and kill widows and orphans..."
Very few, indeed.
Blackburn, himself, has 'united' those of faith who want justice with those who do not profess faith but who's interest lies in justice.
The question to examine is this:
Is Blackburn capable, psychologically, of orchestrating his wife's death?
Another way to look at this is: What would we have known about this case had Blackburn either not spoken, or had given "the expected" in short appearances?
What if he had said, "Please pray for me and my son. I love Amanda and the killers need to be caught..." and then later, "I had nothing to do with her death" when asked by Fox News what it was like to be under suspicion due to statistics. When the issue of suspicion is raised, the expected answer from innocence is "too numb" to care and not to allow any possible guilt. Why? Because he was not involved. The question is 'low impact' (in its expectation), but once met with, "For us, we have nothing to hide", we have both the bizarre plural pronoun, and the challenge to find what is hidden.
The interest in the case would not be criminal. In analysis, I would have concluded: no further investigation into the husband is needed.
With the crass advertising, the interest would have only been from those inside the Christian faith as they debate the use of her death in promotion. It would not have been here, at the Statement Analysis blog, but relegated to Christian magazines and periodicals.
Here deception is primary with criminal elements often associated. Once a murder is solved, the case is dropped.
Not so here, and this is due to the husband's own words, and then later, the public words of his mentor.
We would know only what the media has printed: A murder, an arrest, and a grieving husband. The 911 call would have, possibly, been released and the analysis would have concluded:
"No guilty knowledge" by the caller.
In fact, this case might have been used to show not only what a reliable denial is, but what a truthful 911 call looks like.
This is not yet the case.
It was Davey Blackburn's own words that brought about such suspicion. People openly wondered how a grieving man could expend so much on advertising while his wife lay dead and her killers on the loose.
We look for the psychology behind the crime; patterns of behavior, revealing a personality; etc.
In San Bernadino, we looked to understand why a man and his wife would kill people who had previously thrown them a baby shower. With Islam, we find the source even as the killer's father admitted to a European news outlet, that his son was devout and had made contact with The Islamic State, ISIS. He did that which he believed, of which his personality was formed by, so that when a Jew who professes Christ told him that Islam was "not a religion of peace", the killer asserted that it was, while building bombs in his garage. The ideology that calls for death also tells followers to deceive to advance its cause.
In the murder of Amanda Blackburn, we have the actual killer under arrest.
With Blackburn, we do not know if he is directly involved in Amanda's murder. We look for both behavioral and linguistic signals that begin to form a portrait. This is why those interested in justice are not only observing him, but are listening to him.
Control, and loss of control.
Ability to talk others out of anything
Minimization of the death
Subtle insult of the victim making her 'worthy' of death
The overt complaints about the victim while alive
The linguistic obsession of career
The warning of spousal impact upon career.
These are all small points but begin to add up. As those interested in justice have actually listened to Blackburn himself, they have heard someone not only who is smooth, but one who will not simply twist Scripture to his liking, but one who will "invent" 'Scripture' as to take linguistic authority over others.
In this, we have what defines a cult.
After taking linguistic authority (the audience states openly to be under Divine Authority, as written; so the speaker 'added' to verbalized revelation. It matters little if he began with "God spoke to my heart", as if the target of God's speech gave him a 'pass' on the claim of extra-biblical revelation. His own language moved to direct quote, which removes any defense of him.
Blackburn has now established authority over all others, claiming to have conversed with the Almighty, and having received marching orders of great importance through his wife's death.
If you think that this is 'too much reading into' his words, consider that this status of authority that the 30 year old claimed one week ago, was quickly seized in his first proclamation as having heard from God:
He used his 'divine authority' to criticize or berate the congregation he stood before. This is to say to his father in law:
'your church is dead. The shepherd has not fed his flock. What has the shepherd been doing instead of feeding and protecting his sheep?"
It is a stinging rebuke of the pastor's work. If this is his father-in-law's church and work, Blackburn shows his authority over him.
This is not a man devastated by his wife's murder. "The family is devastated" but not "me," This is not a man unaware of his claim of having heard directions from God outside the 'by laws and constitution" of the church. You may have missed this call, but he did not. It empowered him enough to issue a stinging rebuke of his father in law's church.
Which man stood in authority?
What does this tell us?
This tells us that if Davey Blackburn orchestrated, hinted, suggested, or outright paid for his wife's death, he did so because of 'divine authority.'
This is inside of him; not in reality. 'Amanda gave her life so his church could have life' is his theme.
Amanda did not give her life; it was violently taken from her, in gruesome detail, against her will. Whether or not tests prove she was legally sexually assaulted, the removal of her clothes tells us that this was a sexual assault.
Since her clothing was removed, therefore, is there any issue of "sex" that we should know about?
Yes. The husband complained publicly that the victim did not meet his sexual needs to the point of having an 'agreed settlement' of sorts, which debased her to the point of being a non-person unworthy of being heard at the dinner table unless she first engaged in sex.
We have a man who believes he hears directly from the Almighty, in which he is told of great things to happen; things beyond history books,.
We have a man who believes this is because of his wife's death.
We have a man who complained about his wife, sexually, who was sexually assaulted in her death.
We have a man who warned future pastors about wives, of who's own wife wanted to leave him because of his work.
We have a man with so much "sample" available to the public, that a profile, itself emerges.
Of recent days, readers have commented on the 'dented grill' story rightfully pointing out that Blackburn had stronger pronoun connection with a grill, as he did with failure to obtain numbers of congregants, than he did with his own wife's death.
Readers point to his reaction to his wife's denting of a grill as a signal of just how self centered he is.
I think readers miss something critical:
It is not someone losing his temper over a dented grill that is so important here:
It is that the event was important enough to enter the language where the language has been seen (this is the context).
It is even more important than many may realize as seen in the need to bring this public.
Remember the tweet that Amanda was not "well read" as a subtle insult? Now take this insult in context and re-play his video performance called Q&A and see:
Since she was not "well read", is this why he interrupted her, over talked her, and corrected her?
The larger context helps focus.
I have written extensively about the association between "water" and sexual abuse/sexual homicide over the last several years and how 'water' enters the language.
We saw last week that his "Q & A" with Divinity took place in the shower. I wrote that it was not the "shower" that was striking; we all take showers and we all do much thinking in a relaxing shower.
Rarely, however, do we have the need to make a statement of such; and even more rare would be a statement about a shower after one's own wife has been murdered in a homicide in which she had her clothing removed.
Davey Blackburn 'stood naked in the shower with Divinity' is something that criminal psychologists point to as an extreme need to be cleansed and the cleansing is statistically related to sexual activity. Could it be that he was thinking of his wife? Yes. Yet, this is not something he articulated. What came immediately after the shower was not about Amanda, but himself, with 'history making greatness' to ensue.
I liken it to parents who say "I love you" to their children at night.
For investigators, this is a signal of a bad relationship.
Everyone says "good night! I love you" to their children; it is that Statement Analysis points to the need to say this in, for example, police or child abuse investigations, where the parent is describing the entire day. It is not conclusive, but when it is in a written statement, it is a signal for the professional to learn: has this parent ever been accused of child abuse by family, friend, or a professional?
Often, it proves to be so.
It is the setting that is so important. Consider where Blackburn felt the need to assert this:
The shower: the need to tell this in public, in a church, where forgiveness and cleansing are offered by God, of Whom forgiveness may come.
On video, in the Q&A, where he has both audio and visual communication and can deride the victim while promoting himself (again, both in words and visually).
What are some of the psychological factors that have arisen from the language and video, both before and after the murder?
A. Narcissistic personality traits, as himself, the 'front and center' of performances, including choreographing, theatrics and self promotion. That 'his' grill is dented makes public news, blaming his wife, but it was his sexual needs, not hers, that was made as front and center as his own dress, appearance, antics and camera angles. For people of faith, the greatest example of narcissism may be in his verbalized connection (using the pronoun "I") with disappointment; a negative emotion. Not a negative emotion associated with Amanda's death, but in comparison to the single greatest outward sign of love a Christian can witness: a human life saved. He took that which a missionary may strive an entire lifetime for, and used it to negatively compare that they did not reach their goal of numbers. This leads to the 3rd trait (C), "Obsession"; first:
B. Sociopathic like indifference towards the victim. "I love you" is, in context, expected in deaths of loved ones, and as memorials and in statements. Repeatedly, he gave no linguistic connection between himself and the victim. This is not only distancing language, but extreme distancing language.
When his mentor said, "there's something very wrong with that boy" he not only identified something that seemed undefinable to him, his language verified this very thing. Even the word "that" shows distancing, and the need to be 'fixed' came through a woman.
Extreme distancing is seen in "the family is devastated" which is to, emotionally and linguistically, avoid, "I am devastated" in any form.
Blackburn described a scene in which his high school entirely separated themselves from him, including not just adults, but peers. Whatever he did was enough to harm many to an extreme. He verbalized no empathy for the victims of his "lie", only concern for himself; his "reputation."
The anti-social like traits show such extreme distancing that his own motherless child was said that "we will dialog" with him, using both "we" as distancing language, and "dialog" as if this child were a patient in a clinic.
The egotistically insult he placed upon his father-in-law's church was acute. He, in authority, was able to undrape the older man's work stating they were 'dry bones' that needed "life", which came from Amanda's 'death.'
That no rebuke or silencing took place at that point tells us of the subordinate role the older man has taken to the young man.
C. Career Ambition and Obsession is something that was highlighted above and is understandable in his high school story (self promotion) and his college story where his ambition took a terrible hit where he was dropped 2 letter grades for "1 remark"; where his focus is on the resulting consequence to himself and not to impact upon others. (B)
That his mentor is obsessed with numerical 'success' is seen in his memorial 'sermon.' Count the number of times he mentions himself in some form or another, and compare it to the number of times a Christian minister, speaking at a memorial service, used the term "resurrection" to see the meaning.
Or, count the specific number of traits he assigns to Amanda that made her beautiful or lovely, and compare it to the number of times he referenced his own traits or career.
This is the perfect storm of destruction: a troubled but extremely talented young male meets with an obsessive career driven minister who's approach to Scripture is pragmatic; he will cause it to say whatever it is that brings in his 'success' and then 'sell' his success in any way he can. This is why it is easy to predict the future "attack" of such. I have often shown this to be the pattern of liars, and have cited a number of them, including Lance Armstrong, Billie Jean Dunn, and others who, once exposed, go on the offensive. It is a principle noted in Scripture, itself, which is ironic given the nature of this case. Matthew 7:6 "...do not cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them underfoot and turn again to attack you...'
Dr. Martin Lloyd Jones showed in context how Christ gently and kindly spoke to those in open sin (the woman at the well, Nicodemus, the Quisling tax collector) , versus how he spoke to those who knew the truth but deliberately twisted it. These were the wild bore like who did ask questions, not to learn, but to use against Him. The 'pearls', that of value, is truth which exposes them, and once exposed, they trample it, and they turn "again" (second time) and go on the offensive. Dr. Lloyd-Jones pointed out that Christ even treated Pilate differently from Herod: He even gave Pilate a few words, but to the knowledgeable Herod?
Not a breath.
The Words Christ used to the religiously knowledgeable who grew rich from twisting of Scripture reflected harshness, insult and condemnation, in stark contrast to those in trouble, in need of assistance.
The presupposition of those Words is this: they are condemned because they lied. They knew what they were doing. They were not "in error" but they lied and twisted Scripture for personal gain. This is the 'liar' who first receives the truth about himself, tramples, or insults it (rather than answer it) and then attacks.
This is not only because they have been revealed for who they are, but because they have no answer to offer.
Rather than refute facts, they reveal the dearth of their stance and openly attack, instead.
When a deceptive person is seen as such, the anger boils. When someone is deliberately and knowingly use Scripture to gain illicitly, when exposed, they have nothing from which to refute, so they attack.
Lance Armstrong did it verbally, with law suits, and by pressuring others into assistance in destroying those who dared expose him by the value of words.
Those who claim to be "fully cooperating" with police, often turn in anger and condemnation, once they have been seen as lying and the police are accused of everything from bumbling to outright fraud to criminal behavior...all instead of saying, "I didn't do it."
It is this principle we use to obtain "admissions" in interviewing, as they will not "confess", as "confession" is to admit what one has done, and agree that it was morally or ethically wrong. We seek admissions in criminal cases. We do not need a killer to admit it was 'morally wrong' to kill; just that he idd it.
Psychologically, could Blackburn have orchestrated his wife's death? We know he is capable of capitalizing on it, but is there anything in his personality or background that suggests he could be capable of such an emotionless, or 'heartless' act?
The open minded must consider not only that he may have been, but perhaps, there is nothing in his background or personality that even hints that he could have.
How obsessed was, and is, Davey Blackburn?
We have the testimony of his own words, which began with his first released statement that focused upon his career.
We have the incessant promotion with the advertising jingle connected to Amanda's death with "the best is yet to come" bumper sticker phrase.
We have the testimony of Amanda, herself, who told the audience listening precisely when the marriage turned bad: the day the honeymoon ended and he went to 'work.'
His obsession is so acute that even under criticism, he continues to advertise. The obsession shows itself in control which is the element of domestic violence that limits the violence.
The need to control is to orchestrate anything and everything for a specific end.
We saw this from a man who should have been incapable of saying much other than crying and professing love for his wife and fear of the killers. No fear of the killers on the loose, he had the wherewithal to even tell people how to dress and what to say to media and, most of all, "invite as many people as you can..."
This was not 'expected' in the scenario.
Husbands would not give a damn about their careers at this point. The Christian defender of Blackburn is not even permitted to use, 'yes but he cares about salvation more than anything', if not for his negative portray of "16 people" 'receiving salvation.' He took this away from his own defenders.
I am often critisized for saying "those in Domestically violent relationships rarely experience violence" but not from those who live them.
For many, the first act of violence is the last, and the woman leaves. But note that I wrote "those in...", that is, those who stay.
They rarely, if at all, experience violence because they have learned that they are under his control from the threat of violence. They live life on eggshells.
Recall the theft investigation where a suspect was asked to write out what happened the day of the theft and wrote,
"I woke up, got dressed, brushed my teeth, and went to work..."
to which I told the owner that this was a strong signal that her employee was a victim of Domestic Violence. The owner, shocked, asked how I could possibly know this, since she, herself, had been trying to get the young woman to move out.
I showed her that personal hygiene in a statement is in less than 10% of female statements and it signals that the subject (writer) is concealing information of a personal nature, very often statistically linked to D/V.
Objection: Statement Analysis does not interpret.
Answer: Agreed. Statement Analysis is not reinterpreting the brushing of the teeth. In fact, as written, it is very likely to be true. We believe what one tells us unless reason is given to the contrary.
We believe she brushed her teeth, but question:
Why did she need to tell this in an investigation into theft?
I believe Blackburn was in the shower. My question is about his need to state this fact.
In the above case, her boyfriend's gang had been involved in thefts, including at this company. This was what she was concealing.
The one in D/V lives her life under the control of another, who is a tyrant, ruling by the threat of violence. She mentions personal hygiene because it is a short time in life that is so important to her that she mentions it: for a few minutes, she has control over something in life, with, perhaps, the bathroom door locked and the perp asleep. For a few minutes, she feels normal, and perhaps even safe.
The need to control is often seen in D/V and domestic homicide and when control is lost (or threatened), the violence can break out.
In the years of working with D/V victims and then with Susan Murphy Milano, the height of danger comes when the perpetrator either loses control, or feels he is about to, including in the first 48 hours after she moves out. The rage of having lost that which he had almost 'divine like' control, increases in the first hours and days, and then drops after several days, slowly. It is still a dangerous time, but statistically, less danger with each passing day.
We then consider:
*Did Amanda threaten to do what she had said she wanted to do earlier, and leave him?
To say that Blackburn is 'controlling' and 'obsessed' is to understate.
What if Blackburn, himself, lived under this threat?
He said that pregnancy was a turning point that made his marriage worse.
Amanda was 12 weeks pregnant when murdered.
Amanda complained about his work obsession.
His work -numbers success obsession is so extreme that those who would normally be predisposed to defend him (Christians) are among the most vocal critics.
His control over all things: was it beginning to come unglued?
This is important for us to understand from Blackburn's linguistic expression of his reality; in other words, what he has told us:
After the honeymoon was over, the marriage went immediately downhill. Amanda wanted her husband, but her husband wanted his career and sex from her.
When Amanda was pregnant with Weston, eventually, sexual activity decreased.
The husband now said that marriage got worse.
When Amanda gave birth to Weston a son was born to Blackburn. People have commented that most, if not all photos, of the three of them have Blackburn, himself, holding the child. This is not Statement Analysis. Yet, consider it:
The language of the father in the most critical time of Weston's young life, is distinctly and unexpectedly distant. The photos and the language appear opposites.
The video production shows 'front and center' of Blackburn, himself. From pulling out a gun in a 'sermon' to the clothing designed to accentuate his muscles (something not lost on his mentor), to the minimizing and insulting of Amanda, he is the focus of all. This has led to consideration of the photos being, not family photos, but 'photo ops' from one who 'works a room' and is 'selling' above all else.
Amanda now became pregnant again.
Was this "all too much" to bear?
Psychologically, we have someone who's words reveal a lack of empathy for his fellow man, a blind ambition for success, defined by him as numbers of followers, and one who's narcissistic like displays show f focus on self, even during the most tragic of all events.
His mentor's statement, that something was 'wrong' with him, agrees with what not only his mentor's own choice of words showed, but that were affirmed by his best friend's words, too. If Blackburn is angry, perhaps he should be angry at these two men.
But the mentor's opinion is also supported by the video appearances of Blackburn himself, as well as Blackburn's stories of both high school and college: something is very wrong with him.
The use of Amanda's murder to advertise tells us that something is very wrong with him.
The lack of emotional connection to Amanda or even his own son, shows something is very wrong with him.
Yet, all of this pales compared to the egotistical display of the 'divine shower encounter' where he 'red flags' for sexual abuse language, in which he now claims to have heard from God Himself, that not only did Amanda die so that the church could "live", but that Blackburn, himself, would be part of something so important that history has not yet seen such things.
If you think this was hyperbole, listen to what he also said:
mere weeks after his wife's murder, while starting off saying he did not know if he could even 'speak', he then took his new divinely granted authority to rebuke his audience. The father corrects the children; the teacher corrects the student, the instructor corrects the attendees: that is, the establishment of authority.
For those who are people of faith, they note the authority did not come from the Bible; it came from God, Himself.
It came in the shower.
The shower is where we are cleansed.
Davey Blackburn may have nothing to do with the orchestration of his wife's murder. He may have not met anyone associated with the killer in custody.
He was in a bad marriage of which pregnancy made it worse.
He was in a bad marriage where she opposed his powerful ambition.
He said he was at the gym, the place of his sexual temptation.
He said his wife did not meet his sexual needs.
His wife was murdered in a sexual assault, with the removal of her clothes being distinctly part of this murder.
His wife was murdered on the very day and time he goes to the gym, along with the very day he speaks with the very same person at the very same time, each and every week.
The door was unlocked.
On this call, which is made every week, at the same time, for the same length of time, to the same person, the longest part of the call came while he sat outside the house, while Amanda lay bleeding out, dying.
It all may be coincidence.
The coincidental nature of the case, itself, is extreme and enough to bring suspicion, but it is the husband, himself, who has, and who has continued to, bring attention to himself. Even his 'tweet' had an element of insult of Amanda, while another signaled that he did not like being "alone", though she has been dead mere weeks.
The murder of Amanda changed to "Amanda's story" and the inability to refrain from using it to advertise is noted.
The coincidental nature of the case is strong.
The linguistic nature of the case reveals guilt, though the source of the guilt is not clear.
The behavioral aspect of the case, including the lack of fear of the killer, and the ongoing advertisement is very odd.
Statistically, the murder of pregnant women is most often from the husband or boyfriend.
Perhaps the release of the 911 call will clear Blackburn from the position of Statement Analysis.
It is that Blackburn is seen psychologically from his words and his behavior, and the question, "Could he be capable of such a thing?"is answered.
His statements, videos, and statements of those closest to him indicate that something is very wrong with him.
The words indicate an indifferent, emotionally disconnected ambitious egotist, who believes he has heard from the Almighty, and is on a mission. This is coupled with a strong intellect, talent for theatrics and good looks, suggests success.
The subject has revealed himself of one capable of such a thing, especially through the grandiose coupled with the lack of human empathy. He is not 'psychologically' or 'linguistically' cleared.
Amanda died so the church could live.
This is a chilling statement.