Friday, May 6, 2016
Amanda Blackburn Murder Ideology Part Two
Ideology is the basis for culture. You may not ascribe to the ideology, but you have been greatly influenced by its outworking; that is, by culture.
Your language reflects this.
You have a culture in your nation. You also have a culture in your home, at your place of work, along with any religious or social societies of which you belong.
There are some cases in which the ideology, itself, is a direct and powerful influence upon the language, more so than just the culture.
In understanding language, the culture is important. In understanding the culture, the ideology should be, in the very least, something the analyst is familiar with.
In the Amanda Blackburn murder, I am preparing analysis on the ideology and the culture and it is important but I have a very different reason for doing so than most might consider.
I have reported many times regarding Islamic crime, but I rarely post articles (and teachings) about the contextual work within Statement Analysis. Much of it is too complex for casual reading, and is part of a much larger teaching, point by point, element by element, in which the student is presented with a statement that has obvious cultural reference points where he or she must counter our own cultural bias and projection, in order to the get to the truth. In the criminal activity in Europe, it is important to understand the ideology first, the culture next, and how this is thus reacted to by the host nation. Generally, projection is first noted, but when this fails, deception enters to protect the narrative.
It is complex, which means that it takes much to cover; far more than in a blog, but also it becomes something often misunderstood, which I have learned from some 'rebuttal' posts over the years.
"Well, if you are saying this is cultural, than that means that in this other case..."
These "other cases" that are cited are often very simple cases where guilt is indicated, but the emotions run high. It is as if to search for a reason why the analysis can't be right.
Statement Analysis is very complex, and its simplest forms are posted here on the blog. They serve their purposes, including inspiring some to dedicate themselves to obtaining knowledge. Those who do not grow beyond the blog cannot put their name on analysis for very long: the first error will be the last and credibility is lost and the science indicted. This was the result of the UK testing I have cited in the past. Yet speak to one who has studied at length and listen to the confidence he or she shows in solving any case where human communication is not hindered, and then move on to the actual track record.
It is impressive.
I am privileged to work with professionals from all walks of life, who share a desire for truth. Narrative trumps truth for many today, but not among the professional analysts. They don't "have a dog in the fight" but if they feel they have a 'puppy', they readily talk about it, seeking to counter its influence.
All of us 'root' for one thing or another, including a belief that this sports hero, or that politician will 'save the day.'
It is also unpleasant when one is seen as deceptive.
I recall an email I received years ago from a well educated, polite and respectful gentleman who happened to be a baseball fan who's love of the game is intense.
He read my analysis of Ryan Braun's denial of PEDs.
He thought that Ryan Braun was "very persuasive" and used so many terms to "really prove" how he did not put a needle of hormones in his rear end.
Mr. Braun's denial has become part of the "101 teaching" that is useful in introducing principle, and leading analysts to conclusions.
His denial was goofy.
It was, technically, "unreliable", which does not mean "deception indicated" for us.
In his denial was embedded information, including that his PEDs were administered via needle, not some 'random infestation of Mexican or Chinese beef'; the latest excuse in professional sports.
The statement, in its entirety, revealed one who:
a. Used PEDs
b. Had a tremendous need to persuade
c. Cared about his reputation
d. Had used, likely, for quite some time
e. Was willing to not stop talking until the audience gave in;
but there was something else his statement and subsequent statements showed.
It showed a willingness to bring harm to others, even if only castigating a Fedex employee.
It may seem to be minor ("only") but the man who made $46,800 salary to support his family has lost far more than Braun's weekly paycheck of $46,800 during his suspension. Consider the devastation for one to lose his job in this case, or in the attacks of Lance Armstrong where he sought to (and succeeded in some degrees) to destroy men and their entire businesses. He sought to destroy one woman by impugning her reputation as a woman. It was cruel, petty and it also revealed his own depths of just how low he would go, instinctively, to protect himself. He called the Irish masseur a "whore" to the public, which included everyone in her field of employment (athletics) and it is unknown how this impacted
This is a personality trait of a habitual liar; not a panic or embarrassed liar.
The habitual liar is a life long deceiver, who learned early in childhood years, that he, himself, is more important than anyone else in the world. He has honed his craft his entire life and it is now instinctive for him. In any day by day situation, it is not his impulse to, for example, put others first before him. This is the element of 'sacrifice' inherent in all societies: one sacrifices, or one is sacrificed due to the inequality and complexity of life.
The habitual or "pathological liar" will, whenever called upon, harm others to protect self. At times, this desire to harm one who dares question, or who actually contradicts (such as a witness) is realized with action. Sometimes the action is civil, other times it is in the form of a threat, intended to intimidate, frighten, or even coerce its target. Sometimes the action is violent. But there is another element that is important in advanced analysis and profiling, to consider:
Sometimes, this action of harm was not even necessary in the overall case, elevating the emotional demand for some form of 'satisfaction' over the insult.
In interviewing pathological liars, it seems that no payment is enough. They do not feel 'full' or 'complete' and the animosity may go underground (passive aggressive) and the need to insult remains. This is sometimes evident in the words of praise: a touch of vinegar masqueraded by a strong intellect.
It was for revenge, and the emotional satisfaction the liar receives in seeing what he calls "justice." It is not justice.
Liars will emotionally bristle, for years, over those who dared disagree with them. They harbor, nurture, and protect this bitterness, even as it may be taking years off their own lifespan, as something of great value.
We feel it, within, and have a need to "make things right." Sometimes this desire to make things right even takes years where we have put it out of our mind, but something arises and we feel a need to straighten that which our tongue made crooked. This is a reflection from childhood.
It is precisely what I use to protect companies against illicit claims.
We cannot project this childhood lesson upon others lest we err in our final analysis and leave ourselves, the company, or the public at large, at serious risk.
The liar lies, and he, too, also has a need to "make things right" but not as you and I do. He needs to 'even the score' or 'balance the books.'
Because the insult of not being believed is more than just an insult; it is an insult that brings him right back to childhood, and it strikes at the core of his very being.
You have not disagreed with what he said: you have exhaustively condemned who he is, as a human being.
You and I do not 'hear' what he hears and with this in mind, consider the ancient proverb that talks of those who do not sleep unless they have brought trouble to someone.
In the murder of Amanda Blackburn, the language of the victim's husband has not only been cited for deception, but noted for its bizarre nature. Simply put, it is not expected for a grieving husband to use such distancing language from his wife that it appears "extreme", just as it is most unexpected for someone, in any field, to talk about 'business success' above and beyond linguistic concern for the two victims of this brutal murder.
Some have dismissed this as cultural (or ideological) while others think it is psychological disturbance, such as extreme narcissism joined to religious language.
It is not. These do not understand the dynamics of a clash between ideology and personal gain.
It will take some time to reach this point, and some effort on the part of readers to wade through detail. I recognize that as a "blog", the expectation is short and to the point. In this case, I think the high level of interest and emotions (note the length of sentences within the comments) justifies the content.
This is what I hope to get readers to consider:
When one knows the truth of an ideology but deliberately treats it with deception ("deception" must include intent; as error or inaccuracy doesn't necessitate deception) for a discernible purpose, this activity reveals a very specific personality trait.
When it is coupled with a strong intellect, it is even more pronounced.
Without grasping this clash, or contradiction, one will not understand the 'why' of the language in this murder case. The theme of the upcoming article is this very thing: what type of personality does it take to know the truth, and deliberately alter, edit, destroy, imbalance, or even negate, for a singular purpose, publicly, employing all of his skills and energy to do so?
Although this will be addressed in detail, it is not about legitimate differences and arguments among those who genuinely seek the truth.
It is a pragmatic lie that is distinctly deceptive and it is for a singular purpose, and this purpose is employed publicly.
For this classification, these elements must be present:
1. Direct Knowledge
2. Purposeful goal (pragmatism with resolve)
3. Very Strong Intellect
4. Courage, or element of fearlessness; not easily discouraged
5. Unyielding position
6. Public stance (which allows for public challenge). This is important because any pragmatic view can be adopted without being challenged. Consider what politicians have done the last few years when caught, hypocritically going directly against their words previously embraced. Instead of being in the spotlight and being condemned as a hypocrite, they are praised. Why?
"My position evolved."
This leaves one with no reference point, ever, for anyone, on any issue.
With the element of religious ideology, it takes a very specific personality type to stand before public scrutiny and use deception.
As we look at the ideology first, the deception second, and the results of the deception, we see a personality type emerge for us. We take this with us as we analyze the words within the murder case to learn:
Do the words affirm this type?
Do the words deny this type?
Are the words indifferent?
With this answer, we then move on to the final analysis and conclusion.
It gives a large portrait, yes, but more importantly, it allows the truth seeker to enter the shoes of the subject and understand his verbalized perception of reality in a much deeper and accurate manner.
That which appears 'mysterious' loses some of the 'unknown' when the ideology conflict is recognized.
It rectifies much for the listener.
It is worth the study.