Saturday, December 31, 2016

Jennifer Williams: Co Conspirator of Fake Hate?



If you wish to enroll in training, please contact www.hyattanalysis.com    Note tuition increase 2017. Congratulations to the analysts who conducted this work and brought it to conclusion.

On December 12, 2016, Jennifer and David Williams stated that they were attacked by an arsonist racist who was still on the loose.  

Jennifer blogged about it in this statement and raised money via Go Fund Me.  
Then she reported that David confessed to it and she is refunding the donations, minus the percentage that Go Fund Me charges.  

David, she said, will be arrested when he is released from a mental health facility. 

Question for Statement Analysis:


Does the subject (statement) have guilty knowledge of the crime?

First, the statement and then the analysis and profile.

I.  The Statement

Breaking My Social Media Silence.

I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December. You see, there is so much that I could say, but I want to say the right things. I wanted to speak wisdom and not perpetuate hate. Sunday night was just like any other school night this year. The kids went to bed at 8. David and I watched TV while I worked from home, something I am glad to be able to do. Then just like any other night, we went to bed. 

In the wee hours of Monday morning I heard, what I though was the transformer behind our house blow. A sound we have heard a number of times and think nothing of. I nudged David awake and asked him if he had heard it too. I don't know if he had heard it, I know he recalls a coherent response, I do not. We both drifted back to sleep without much thought. It was a short time later, that there was a pounding on our door. We were both awake again, rattled this time. Who was banging on our door and what could be so urgent. A father moving his son into a house 4 doors down the street, had heard the explosion too, followed by the sound of a car horn. He was curious about the sound, stuck his head out the front door, saw nothing and went about his business. A short time later his son arrived home from a trip to the grocery store and told him that there was a fire down the street. Both the men came to our aid. David answered the door in his boxers. "Your truck is on fire, is their anyone else in the house." David hurried back to the bedroom to put on some pants. We woke the children before we knew the house itself wasn't on fire. In the middle of the night it is hard to tell the difference between smoke and steam.  The kids and I gathered in the living room waiting for word of all clear or evacuate. I don't know if we were all slow or the fire department was that fast, by the time I reached the back of the house the fire was out. I came back to the house to tell the kids to go back to sleep. "Mom, there is a fire truck at our house, I want to see it." So I let the children outside, far enough that they could see the fire truck, not so close that they could be underfoot or get hurt. Then I ushered them all back in, telling them to go to bed. Reality check, in what world after all of that commotion was anyone going to go back to sleep. I went back around to the back of the house. The gentlemen, who's name I still don't know asked if we knew of anything spray painted on our garage door. I will let the pictures here speak for themselves as I have no desire to type those words. After the fire was out and the smoke had cleared, the firefighters pulled their truck up to the hydrant that is in our front yard. We offered coffee or warm drinks as we all waited for the arson investor to arrive. The kids had still not gone to bed. The firemen offered them a private tour of a fire truck. Yes, even our oldest, who is almost 14, couldn't resist that offer. The arson investigator arrived and after a brief reporting of what they had found and done, the firemen loaded up and left.  I was astounded by the vast knowledge of the arson investigator

As one of our dogs returned home after being let out, or escaping from the back yard in fear, the investigator stopped to help us try to find the other. We wouldn't have any luck with that, but she would be found and returned later in the day. Back to the investigation, evidence was collected. Motives and suspects were discussed. We said good bye to the investigator and went in the house. The children, who had never made it back to bed, were much to my amazement ready to go to school when we came back in the house. I had offered to let them stay home, since they had missed out on sleep. They all said that they were not tired and off to school they went. So there, now you have it, the narrative of the events that occurred.  We have been asked a few questions several times, so I will answer them now. If you have more questions please ask in the comment section below and I will do my best to answer them. Do you know who did this? No, there are 2 people that we know and 2 incidents that we are aware of that this could be tied to. The arson investigator has all of those details and will pursue them. How did the fire start? While the investigator has shared his theory with us, one I fully support, I am not going to broadcast that on the internet. If you know David or Me personally we will happily tell you one on one. 

Won't your insurance cover it? The homeowner's insurance only covers vehicles that can not be registered to be driven on the road. It would cover the garage door, but the amount of our deductible is grater than the cost of a new door. The Harley was not currently insured or registered as it had a bad voltage regulator. I had lowered the insurance coverage on the truck in September or October to liability coverage only and arson is only covered under comprehensive.  UPDATE: Did you know your homeowners insurance will pay to clean your concrete driveway? With the addition of the driveway and a few other miscellaneous melted items, we have exceeded our deductible in damages. The estimated damage done to our home and personal property covered by insurance was just under $1,739, after subtracting our deductible and  depreciation we were issued a payment of just over $168.00  Why wasn't your motorcycle in the garage? Anyone who has asked that has never seen the amount of tools David owns. Is this, or why is this, considered a hate crime; aren't you white? Yes this is considered a hate crime. It is considered a hate crime because of what was painted on the garage door. Yes, we are white. It just so happens that we aren't as racist as someone would like us to be. Tell me about the GoFundMe campaign. David and I do not have direct access to this account and had no knowledge of it's creation. It was set up by a dear friend and David's sister. We are very appreciative and would like nothing more that to be able to thank and hug each person who has given to the campaign. As you can imagine, there are expenses that we were not intending to have 2 weeks before Christmas, and this campaign and the generosity shown has lifted a burden. What can I do to help? So many people have asked this question. I am overwhelmed by the generosity and love that has been show to our family. I don't have a specific answer to this question though. At first my obvious answer was, do you have a car I can borrow? Days after, here are my thoughts. I am not going to tell any one how they can help. If you feel like helping, if you have an idea that would benefit anyone, not just my family, do it. Show love in every place and any place available to you. If you have the means to help someone going through a rough patch, do it. So now that all of that has been said... Racism is not comfortable subject. There are many who would like to pretend that it doesn't exist. There are those who believe racism only exists because, we continue to talk about it. I am not going to argue with anyone about the existence of racism or why it continues. What happened at my house is the cold hard evidence that it does exist and that it continues. The questions is what am I going to do about it?  What are you going to do about it? In spite of what was meant to cause fear, I am going to continue to love, without regard to race, gender, age, religion, sexual preference or orientation. I am going to acknowledge the experience of those who are discriminated against daily. I will stand up for what I know to be true and right, even when it is uncomfortable to do so. I am going to pick up the pieces and create something beautiful. I am going to embody the cliche "Be the change you want to see in the world."




Statement Analysis gets to the truth.  


II.  The Statement with the notes of a team of analysts who worked through the statement 







   Does the subject (statement) have guilty knowledge of the crime?
2.      If so, what does content reveal
3.      What does the PERSON tell us about herself

Breaking My Social Media Silence.

Allegation:  Arson and “hate speech”


1.      Background
2.    Experiences
3.    Priority
4.    Personality traits



BreakinMy Social Media Silence.

without the pronoun “I”?
“my” Social Media Silence –
a.      she takes ownership of
b.    likely spends much time
c.     the ‘norm’ is to be very vocal on social media
d.    she has been “un-silent” elsewhere
e.     there is more information to be heard –
f.      suppressing information in reverse:  It is challenging for her to keep her mouth shut on social media

“I don’t remember” in an open statement”       Education – writing skills (background)


I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December.

a.      break silence on social media
b.    she is now writing on social media, in the sense of a “blog”
c.     she begins with “I”, psychologically strong
d.    verb:  have stayed” imperfect past tense –this has NOT been easy for her. The event was December 12th, and this statement was approximately December 19th. This short period of time, 1 to 2 weeks max, is very trying for her. This is very long.  Emotion is building up in intensity.  It is not only difficult for her to be silent, (she has not been!) but the pressure is escalating.  “breaking” a pattern? Is something “Broken” for the subject?

The need to be heard ---this acute (priority) for the subject?

Question:  When someone has an acute need to be heard, what should be explored?
Answer:  That the subject has been ‘silenced’ in possible trauma (experience)

e.     “silence” and “quiet” =  “quiet” is now qualified.  She has NOT been silent. She has only been “pretty quiet” thus far.

‘quiet’ is the lesser of silence’;  quiet speaks to volume, silence speaks to the absence of volume

“Silence” is now “quiet”, which is further sensitive with “pretty.”  Is there anything within the context that justifies this change of language?  If not, the analyst should consider:   possible deception. 





Conclusion:  The change of language is justified in context.  She would have to “talk me out” of this later. 
  


I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December.

about what happened  --arson and “Nigger Lover” spray painted on garage.
Passivity but it is also minimizing language. 

‘catching readers’ attention encouraging them to read more to learn…”

Narrative Building or ‘story telling’ –creative/right brain –

appears to need to be heard; likes attention, very regular poster on social media –struggles with being quiet or silent….good grammar, possible trauma victim (need to be heard) –selfish, attention seeker,

I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December.

“our” home shows sharing of the home.  Not “my” but “our” –
“home” is where we sleep.  Sleep is a situation of vulnerability –
When a “home” is violated or “intruded upon”, it is often very personal.  She began with “I” and the expected is “my home” –of a mother and wife, who is the “nester” of the home. 

“home” --- “house” –

Our "home" is where we sleep.  We are most vulnerable while sleeping, therefore when a crime takes place at or in or against our home, while we are sleeping the language will show acute intrusion and not passivity.  

"House" is often attacked, while "home" is safe.  Will this pattern emerge?  When under attack, some will separate it as "house" because "home" must be safe.  While calling it her "home", we must now consider that she may have known that there was no danger to herself or her children  (mother=nester) 


I have stayed pretty quiet about what happened at our home on Monday the 12th of December.

Why?  Why the need to write/say it this way?

Why not, “On Monday, the 12th of December, we were ______...”

What is more important, her or what happened?
Answer:  her
What is important about her?
Answer:  her communication (silence/quiet):  “herself and her silence” takes precedent over “what happened” on the exact date. 

If the date came first, it would be more like a “report” rather than “narrative building” or “story telling” ---emotion over the logical; something that is less reliable than a report. 




You see, there is so much that I could say, but I want to say the right things.

 I wanted to speak wisdom and not perpetuate hate.


a.      “you see” is “of course” in S/A.  This wants acceptance without explanation.  We need explanation.  We only “see” what one tells us plainly otherwise we do not "see" anything.
b.    “could” addresses limitation. 
c.     “but” indicates the explanation:  I want to say the right things.”  This subject is concerned about what comes out of her mouth.  For one with a need to be heard, this topic (arson/’hate crime’)  has told us that she must limit herself.  She can say the “wrong” things possibly.  She is aware of who is listening (audience; which is going to be very important in a moment), so we ask:

Who is the audience?

Context tells us:  the audience is the public, reading this statement.  There is a problem with this, however.

The change to past tense tells us:  there was a different audience. 

Let’s let the statement affirm or deny this:

Did she speak to someone else prior to this address?  If so, that communication should be considered very important to her. 

We should now consider whether or not her HUSBAND is taking the fall for the wife. 

a.      her husband
b.    the message itself
c.     the arson investigator (police/authorities)

Please consider that if this is an embedded confession:

1.      Did husband have relationship with black female?
2.    Only husband’s items were targeted
3.    The pronoun “our” with “home” suggests possible marital discord.


Will these traits show up in her? 


 Sunday night was just like any other school night this year.

normal” in S/A 101 tells us that this was anything but normal.  This is akin or consistent with narrative building instead of reporting.  It is acceptable only after lengthy processing time (usually years)

2016 is the year. 
School year is Sept to June
This year, specifically, is her time frame.

Please note that outside the statement we have learned that in January of THIS year, she sought money from the public via Go Fund Me. 

*What was this year like?
*how were the finances this year?
*how were the bills this year?

When does the event start? This is a dual question.  This means there are two beginning points for us in analysis.

1.      Measuring the form
2.    When does it begin for her 

8pm when the kids went to bed. 

What happened began, in the subject’s perceived reality, only AFTER the kids (eyewitnesses) went to bed. 


The kids went to bed at 8.

potential witnesses are removed from the story. (narrative)  This includes one she said is almost "14 years old."  Please consider the possibility of mother wanting children not only "outside" the realm of witness, but as part of her mothering technique; easily bothered by them being "underfoot" and explore for Neglect.  

David and I watched TV while I worked from home, something I am glad to be able to do. Then just like any other night, we went to bed. 

a.      David and I”  ISI but is this blog article written to those who already know David?  If so, the ISI is reduced.  If not, the ISI stands alongside the other indicators of a troubled relationship. 
b.    when “we” is not used, but “David and I” (separate people) there is sometimes a situation where one watched TV while the other read or was on the I phone or something similar.  Generally speaking, “and I” with TV means there was conversation that took place. 
c.     Context:  kids are removed from this “social” time.  If this was conversation, it was only AFTER the kids were no longer there. 
d.    timing is involved.  They both watched TV but she did something else:  she worked from home. 
e.     she is glad to not have to go to a job to work.  We work to earn money. 
f.      Then” now skips over time.  Here we have indication of some form of conversation that is being skipped over. 
g.     “home” is where the ‘invasive’ activity took place (incongruent) and it is where she likes to work from.  “Home” is very important to the subject.  One should ask about the mortgage and bills. 
h.    “alibi” building:  Her viewpoint or linguistic disposition towards the place of attack is very positive. 
Therefore, she COULD not have done this, because she is very “glad” to be there.  This is alibi building.

Whatever happened began at 8pm and had to have the kids out of the scene first. 
She loves her home.


Did he complain about money and her needing to help him by getting a job outside the home and she answered “I will raise money!”

“just like any other night” to be the normal factor x two.  It is very sensitive. 
Also there is something here that

A “confession by pronoun” in 80% of cold or closed unsolved case files. 

we went to bed” = this tells us that whatever was discussed during the “social activity” (TV) and about working from home, came to resolution.  They are united in this account.

Assertion:  She is involved in this. 

Will the rest of the statement affirm or negate this assertion?



In the wee hours of Monday morning I heard,


the language of “story telling” is also a most inexact time.  Consider this with we went ot “bed” not to “sleep.”
Most people have an alarm clock, phone, or some form of electronic device and know the exact time of awakening.  Due to the trauma of having a house under attack (arson-attempted murder as fire easily goes out of control), the high level hormonal response would know the exact time.  This is narrative building with words chosen to enhance the emotions of readers, rather than truthfully report a crime.  



what I though was the transformer behind our house blow.

She tells us of what she did not hear; her misinterpretation.  This is also narrative versus reporting. 

“the” transformer, not “a” transformer:  Why is the article here important?  What does it indicate?   

The use of the article, “the” is only appropriate in the narrative IF a transformer has been spoken about previously.  This is a very strong signal of scripted language. This fits with the pronoun “we” 

Also:  house v home?





 A sound we have heard a number of times and think nothing of.

An attempt to hide guilt within a crowd ----
Note that "we" have heard (needing others) of that which they do not think of (rule of negative).  This is a deceptive editing here that is following a script rather than reporting from memory that was experienced.  She is consistent in "story telling" language. 


 I nudged David awake and asked him if he had heard it too. I don't know if he had heard it, 

“Scripted language” does not come from experiential memory, therefore, it often sounds awkward unless there is a very talented liar behind it, and even then, it has holes in it! 

Since “awake” is unnecessary, we now should doubt that David was asleep.  She does not tell us David was asleep but wants us to interpret it by her “nudge”; thus continuing to stay with a script written from non-experienced memory.  This could come from the discussion over TV, a book, a movie, etc.  IT is not her own.

We will now note the "need to convince us" that they were asleep while avoiding telling us this directly.  Always note when someone uses the plural on activities that should be limited to singular.  




I know he recalls a coherent response, I do not. We both drifted back to sleep without much thought.

Deception Indicated

“wee hours” avoids directly telling us what time the fire started (unexpected) even though she uses the exact date (expected). 

2am ?

Question:  When did this hate crime begin?

(remember, our answer is not from forensics, but from the language and when we are faithful to the language, the forensics will match)

Answer:   at 8, according to the subject.  This is critical in the narrative.  It did not begin with a loud noise in the "wee hours" IF you are listening to the subject.  This puts the author (subject) in control of the story and addresses premeditation by Jenny. 

yet, the story started at 8PM

deception----

 It was a short time later, that there was a pounding on our door. We were both awake again, rattled this time.  (emotion)

Consider “rattle” with spray paint can as sensory language.  We now must consider that the subject likely handled the can of spray paint.  If David did the painting, it is likely that she, herself, either shook the can, or she heard David shaking the can.    

Who was banging on our door and what could be so urgent.

The narrative continues by building suspense and asking questions.  This is consistent with scripted language and is not a reliable report of what happened. 


 A father moving his son into a house 4 doors down the street, had heard the explosion too, followed by the sound of a car horn.

She has a need for her audience to know that she does not know who this is;
She has a very strong need to slow down the pace, giving unnecessary and irrelevant detail to avoid getting to “what happened.”
Additional and unnecessary details are often a sign of “NTP” that “it must be true” because these small details are verifiable.

a--true
b--true
c--true
d: here is where we slip in deception

experienced and accomplished liar.  She is a habitual liar and interviews with family/friends will confirm.  


He was curious about the sound, stuck his head out the front door, saw nothing and went about his business.


In an arson and “hate crime”, the subject introduces the word “business”
Business  is associated with money.
She began with “broke”

The pace is slowed down dramatically;
She has gone out of chronological order to give us additional and unnecessary personal information about the man who “pounded” on “our” door. 
Second use of “door”;  explore within the relationship as well as childhood sexual abuse. 


 A short time later his son arrived home from a trip to the grocery store and told him that there was a fire down the street.

The narrative language continues with verifiable points suggesting overall deception. 

What is the race of this father/son?



 Both the men came to our aid.

These men are given positive linguistic dispositions by her.  She did not want to “hate” so the race should be known here.  Not only is this a positive view, but she knows a lot about these two men (including their relationship and what they were both doing) even though she was watching TV while working, and was asleep.  The need to give verifiable detail suggests an unverifiable point is coming. 


David answered the door in his boxers.

It is of priority that she tell us what David was wearing when he answered the door.  Of anything she could tell us, this is what she has chosen to do so.  It is, therefore, very important to her. 

Here we have the third “door” in her statement.
She wants us to know before the arson and hate attack, that David is in his underwear.  People will report what is most important to them. 
NTP that they were NOT DRESSED and NOT committing these crimes. 
In spite of the intention to persuade, she still chooses language that is associated with both deception and trauma. 

The need to persuade us that they were asleep strongly suggests that they were not asleep.  The need to portray David as undressed seeks to further buttress that they were asleep. 

This is to anticipate the allegation:  you were not asleep.  You were outside, dressed, committing this crime.  She is defending David where no accusation has been made.         Hina

That she felt the need to add “doors” to her statement should be viewed with “our” and her need to be heard. 

The unity between them is very strong (“we”, even to the point of knowing each others’ thoughts) and it is very difficult to believe she did not have guilty knowledge of what he had done (according to her later statement that he confessed).  



 "Your truck is on fire, is their anyone else in the house."


Who said this?

To whom was this said? 

father-son (relationship)

There is reduced commitment to this as a question by not assigning it to one or the other.   


Note it is “house” here, too. 


David hurried back to the bedroom to put on some pants.

a.      “hurried” is unnecessary.  No one thinks he took a nap before
b.    David is now ‘important’ as he is being given linguistic attention.  Before this, the “son” had more attention on his “shopping trip” to the grocery store. 
c.     “to” tells us why he went to the bedroom.  This is very sensitive information. 
d.    “some pants” is not “his pants.”  She has a need that is causing emphasis, to make us believe that HE DID NOT HAVE PANTS ON.  She is telling us, via the lens of analysis that he did have pants on.  He may have had to take them OFF when he answered the door! 
e.     David is now acting independently of the subject, who had previously relied very heavily upon “we”


We woke the children before we knew the house itself wasn't on fire.

The unity returns.
The “kids” are now “children” (risk)
She gives us the knowledge of both, refusing to think for herself.  She is so closely unified with him that it is in every point except the pants.
House (distancing, expected in danger).  When combined with “children”, the subject (Jennifer) may have had fear that the fire could spread. 

*Did she have to remind him to take off his pants before answering the door?


 In the middle of the night it is hard to tell the difference between smoke and steam.  

‘Universal’ commentary:  She does not say, “I had trouble telling the difference” (because she did not) as she avoids a direct lie.  At this point, she likely assessed the fire, and knew that the “children” could now be “kids” again: 


The kids and I gathered in the living room waiting for word of all clear or evacuate.

Mild, passive, and additional (narrative/story telling)

 I don't know if we were all slow or the fire department was that fast, by the time I reached the back of the house the fire was out.

I came back to the house to tell the kids to go back to sleep.


 "Mom, there is a fire truck at our house, I want to see it." So I let the children outside, far enough that they could see the fire truck, not so close that they could be underfoot or get hurt.

“children” (risk) returns but in WHAT SPECIFIC CONTEXT??

Good mom! 

Neglect and/or abuse. 

Then I ushered them all back in, telling them to go to bed.

 Reality check, in what world after all of that commotion was anyone going to go back to sleep.

insomnia is likely part of her reality


 I went back around to the back of the house.


The gentlemen, who's name I still don't know asked if we knew of anything spray painted on our garage door.

spray painted” and “rattled”
Gentleman:  complimentary (ingratiating)



 I will let the pictures here speak for themselves as I have no desire to type those words

Look at this great mom who is also above racism.

 The NTP of personal greatness suggests the subject, herself, has two issues:
one with parenting
one with racism. 
“type” versus “spray paint”

The arson "investor" arrives.  

After the fire was out and the smoke had cleared, the firefighters pulled their truck up to the hydrant that is in our front yard. We offered coffee or warm drinks as we all waited for the arson investor to arrive.


“Business” and now “investor” 
Note the subject’s refusal to be “alone” in the statement here, even offering drinks.
Note how wonderfully hospitable she is.  (ingratiating)
Note the timing of hospitality is very important to the subject.  When is she (we) so wonderfully hospitable? (in her perception of reality)

She is wonderfully hospitable specifically in the time where she was waiting for the arson investigator to come. 

We “all” waited.  She will NOT be alone with the arson investigator. 

The arson investigator can become an investor when he gives the all clear about the wonderful hospitable, fantastic mother subject. 

MONEY

The kids had still not gone to bed. The firemen offered them a private tour of a fire truck. Yes, even our oldest, who is almost 14, couldn't resist that offer.

The arson investigator arrived and after a brief reporting of what they had found and done, the firemen loaded up and left.


 I was astounded by the vast knowledge of the arson investigator

Please note the “intrusion” of the powerful pronoun “I” supplanting the constant use of “we” here.  The arson investigator is very important to her, the subject, herself. 
Next, note that she has gives a very positive linguistic disposition of her view of him.  This is ingratiating. 
When it comes to the arson investigator, she stands alone. 

This may be because she is the one who conceived of this plan. 

As one of our dogs returned home after being let out, or escaping from the back yard in fear,

 the investigator stopped to help us try to find the other. 

look at the wonderful relationship we have with the wonderful arson investigator who was so NOT concerned about us being guilty that he took time out of his job, in the middle of the night, to help us find our doggie. 

Child protective services need to explore animal abuse/neglect



We wouldn't have any luck with that, but she would be found and returned later in the day. Back to the investigation, evidence was collectedMotives and suspects were discussed



We said good bye to the investigator and went in the house.


From “I” to “we” again (guilt)
“goodbye” is to portray the relationship as positive; a linguistic signal that it was not good at this point. 

Now, consider if this is correct; the “goodbye” (S/A 101) means trouble.

The use of “the house” is the first ‘expected’ usage.


The children, who had never made it back to bed, were much to my amazement ready to go to school when we came back in the house.

Child abuse.



 I had offered to let them stay home, since they had missed out on sleep.

Great mother portrayal in language  = child abuse. 


 They all said that they were not tired and off to school they went.


1.      The emphasis on “all” is unnecessary
2.    “off to school they went” is passive, removing responsibility for them going to school (concealing).
This is another indicator of child abuse. 



So there, now you have it, the narrative of the events that occurred.  

minimizing language in a narrative form.   Confession. 

We have been asked a few questions several times,

interrogation


 so I will answer them now. If you have more questions please ask in the comment section below and I will do my best to answer them.

Do you know who did this?

No, there are 2 people that we know and 2 incidents that we are aware of that this could be tied to. The arson investigator has all of those details and will pursue them.

How did the fire start?

While the investigator has shared his theory with us, one I fully support, I am not going to broadcast that on the internet. If you know David or Me personally we will happily tell you one on one 

If you doubted that it was just David, simply listen to her. About who did this, she will not “broadcast” it but the first names to enter about the responsibility is “David” and “Me” (with “Me” in capitalization)



Won't your insurance cover it?

Cover what?
What is “it?”

She has not told us of damage yet. 

Her answer tells us that someone has done her homework, although about fire setting, she has been “astonished” at what the arson investor, investigator, knows. 

She should be.



The homeowner's insurance only covers vehicles that can not be registered to be driven on the road. It would cover the garage door, but the amount of our deductible is grater than the cost of a new door. The Harley was not currently insured or registered as it had a bad voltage regulator.


 I had lowered the insurance coverage on the truck in September or October to liability coverage only and arson is only covered under comprehensive.


 UPDATE: Did you know your homeowners insurance will pay to clean your concrete driveway?

With the addition of the driveway and a few other miscellaneous melted items, we have exceeded our deductible in damages. The estimated damage done to our home and personal property covered by insurance was just under $1,739, after subtracting our deductible and  depreciation we were issued a payment of just over $168.00 


 Why wasn't your motorcycle in the garage?

Anyone who has asked that has never seen the amount of tools David owns.

Please note:  she has avoided answering the question. 


Is this, or why is this, considered a hate crime; aren't you white?

Yes this is considered a hate crime. It is considered a hate crime because of what was painted on the garage door. Yes, we are white. It just so happens that we aren't as racist as someone would like us to be.

Earlier, she projected racism.  Here she admits racism, but just not as racist as someone (singular) would like them to be. 


Tell me about the GoFundMe campaign.

 David and I do not have direct access to this account and had no knowledge of it's creation.

It was set up by a dear friend and David's sister. We are very appreciative and would like nothing more that to be able to thank and hug each person who has given to the campaign. As you can imagine, there are expenses that we were not intending to have 2 weeks before Christmas, and this campaign and the generosity shown has lifted a burden.

 What can I do to help?


So many people have asked this question. I am overwhelmed by the generosity and love that has been show to our family. I don't have a specific answer to this question though. At first my obvious answer was, do you have a car I can borrow? Days after, here are my thoughts. I am not going to tell any one how they can help. If you feel like helping, if you have an idea that would benefit anyone, not just my family, do it.

 Show love in every place and any place available to you.


I am a wonderful person = in S/A, neglectful abusive mother, racist…

 If you have the means to help someone going through a rough patch, do it. So now that all of that has been said...


Racism is not comfortable subject. There are many who would like to pretend that it doesn't exist. There are those who believe racism only exists because, we continue to talk about it. I am not going to argue with anyone about the existence of racism or why it continues.

The argument she is holding is if racism (this event) is real or not! 

 What happened at my house is the cold hard evidence that it does exist and that it continues.

She has a need to persuade in light of what just happened, that what happened is real.

Question:  Who would have such a need to persuade?  (“cold hard evidence” with “cold” and “fire”).  This is the language of a bad relationship. 

Answer:  the one who is faking it.


The questions is what am I going to do about it?  What are you going to do about it? In spite of what was meant to cause fear, I am going to continue to love,

She introduces “fear”
Who’s items were lit up??

It was his items.  Did she do this to not only gain money but to scare him?
Or did he do this to scare her??

Is one of them involved with a black person??




 without regard to race, gender, age, religion, sexual preference or orientation. I am going to acknowledge the experience of those who are discriminated against daily.

 I will stand up for what I know to be true and right,

She knows this story is not true. 


even when it is uncomfortable to do so.



The discomfort may be due to the arson investigator.

 I am going to pick up the pieces and create something beautiful. I am going to embody the cliche "Be the change you want to see in the world."

Conclusion:

Jenny has guilty knowledge of the crime. 

She will not pass a polygraph.  

This statement is a good example of what police call "story telling" but analysis calls "narrative building" including techniques of attempts to manipulate reader emotions (anticipation) as well as artificial (editing) placement of emotion.  

This is also a good example of what "scripted language" looks like. It does not come from experiential memory, but memory of what has been previously discussed.  

Jenny is very likely the architect of this fake hate scam.  


Financial motive is strong. She has the need to defend working from home, and whatever disagreement took place, was resolved with this plan. She appears to have been surprised by the knowledge of the arson investigator, and had a need to praise him (ingratiating factor in language)

Jenny shows possible borderline traits, mental health issues unresolved, need to control; including control of David.  She may have even had to tell him to take his pants off to answer the door (as an example).
Collateral interviews should be on alert for any description such as 'chaotic, controlling' especially impact upon others.  

Domestic violence not indicated here, (Jenny is controlling)  but should be explored in Jenny's childhood, as well as financial issues.
Jenny may have trauma history, including childhood sexual abuse.
She and/or David may have been investigated before. 
She likely has been accused of neglect or abuse of her children. 
Manipulative, impulsive, poor boundaries, desperate for relevancy and attention.
She appears to be the lead in this crime, and shows a need to control, including the husband’s confession being to her. 
The racial aspect must be explored; contact with blacks, possibly within the context of marital discord.
Has family or friends ever accused her of racism?

She may have held the paint can (rattle)

To date, Jennifer and David Williams are not charged with any crimes, as he is reportedly in a mental health facility and are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law. 

If you wish to learn lie detection, please go to "services" at Hyatt Analysis Services for enrollment.  

58 comments:

Hippie Gypsy said...

Excellent!

Jen Ow said...

How could he later 'confess' to being behind the attack, when according to her he was laying in bed asleep beside her, being nudged by her, and asked if he heard the transformer explode?

I thought 'we' were then rattled awake by pounding of the neighbor's dad, and the neighbor who noticed the fire while returning from his trip to the grocery store in the wee hours of the morning?

Did she not recognize that her new claim that her husband confessed proves her entire story was a bold faced lie?

Her entire self described 'narrative' is laughable!

Jen Ow said...

Did she acknowledged these contradictions on her blog when she revealed his 'confession'?

Peter Hyatt said...

Jen,

she did not, but this is an excellent point!

By the way, I should have written that these are notes taken during the training, with input from analysts...it is not an "article" written coherently.

Peter

happyuk said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
happyuk said...

Just to clarify (more for my benefit more than anything) what is Guilty Knowledge, from the Law Dictionary:

"This term is used when you know that an unlawful situation exists but you choose to ignore such as accepting goods you know are stolen."

What struck me was all the negations of not going, not having, not doing, not being, not intending etc:

"The kids had still not gone to bed"
"They all said that they were not tired"
"The Harley was not currently insured "
"I do not have direct access to this account"
"... there are expenses that we were not intending to have 2 weeks before Christmas"
"I am not going to tell any one how they can help"
"I am not going to argue with anyone about the existence of racism"
"I am not going to broadcast that on the internet"

"Racism is not comfortable subject"


tania cadogan said...

Anything in the negative is sensitive .


As an off topic

Dallas police were looking Saturday for a man they say killed his ex-girlfriend and then dumped her body under a bridge.

Fox 4 Dallas reports that Marisol Espinosa, a hairstylist and mother of three, disappeared a year ago. Her body was found in southeast Dallas in March.

Her former boyfriend Faustino Valdez, 35, is now wanted for her murder.

Police obtained a warrant for Valdez’s arrest on Thursday, a year to the day the 34-year-old Espinosa disappeared, the station reported.

Espinosa’s family suspects Valdez may have fled to Mexico. His family says he disappeared Jan. 4.

Police said Valdez was the last person to see Espinosa.

He told Fox 4 on New Year’s Day -- three days after the disappearance — that he didn’t know what happened to her.

The day of the interview her abandoned SUV was found by a cousin, with her purse inside.

“She left the house fine,” Valdez told the station. “She got ready like she always does. She took a shower, got ready, put her clothes on and put her makeup on. She kissed me goodbye and told me she was leaving.”

Valdez also told the station that a lot of things were going through his mind. “I just don’t know what to think right now,” he said.

Valdez told cops Espinosa left for work. Friends said she never showed up there.

In March, two people searching a wooded area for stray dogs found her partially clothed body.

Espinosa and Valdez had two children together during an off-and-on relationship that last six years, the Dallas Morning News reported. Espinosa was also the mother of a third child. Her mother was given custody of the kids.

After a fire damaged her house, she started living with Valdez again. Her family believes Valdez started the fire, the paper reported.

Espinosa moved in with Valdez with her children, her mother and her uncle.

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/12/31/murder-warrant-issued-for-ex-boyfriend-dallas-mom-who-vanished-year-ago.html

Nic said...

Peter,

Reading your conclusion reminded me of Tammy and Sidney Moorer's dynamic. (Except nobody died!)

jmo

Nic said...

Happy New Year, to all!

Katprint said...

Re "insomnia is likely part of her reality" -- I'm thinking drugs (crack or meth in particular, given the comments about sleep/no sleep) is likely part of her reality. Her kids probably fear being around her after she has been up all night and school may be a comparative safe haven.

There seemed like an awful lot of marital unity expressed for either of them to be "involved with" a black person in a sexual way. I think a black drug dealer is more likely. She may resent all the money she and/or her husband spend on drugs. She and/or her husband spending a lot of time with a black drug dealer buying or consuming drugs may be why "N***** Lover" was chosen as the graffiti to be painted on her garage.

She wants people to "imagine" that "there are expenses that we were not intending to have 2 weeks before Christmas" but she doesn't say what those expenses were. Also, she says that their "estimated damage" was $1,739 for which they received a check of $168 from the insurance company but she doesn't say that they actually spent $1,739 towards that damage. She doesn't even say that they spent $168 on the damage.

They were both in on it; otherwise, the one who wasn't in on it would have insisted on moving their children to a safer location that wasn't being targeted by an arsonist.

Horse Chestnut said...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4078248/Family-s-homemade-menorah-vandalized-turned-swastika.html#comments

Never comes out and accuses anyone of doing it, always in passive voice. Has to be fake, surely?

John mcgowan said...

"After the fire was out and the smoke had cleared, the firefighters pulled their truck up to the hydrant that is in our front yard. We offered coffee or warm drinks as we all waited for the arson investor to arrive."

"Coffee" = social drink = conversation. Did she talk to the firefighters before the arson investigator arrived?
Was she trying to gauge their (firefighters) initial thoughts on what happened? Collecting as much information (floating rhetorical questions)
as she could, so to adjust her events of the alleged crime, if need be.


John mcgowan said...

OT:

I love this answer! :)

Snipped:

Before leaving the reporters, Trump commented about his relationship with President Barack Obama.
'I spoke to him yesterday, he's been very nice over the phone,' he said, before attacking John Kerry over his recent comments about Israel.


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4079332/Donald-Trump-arrives-New-Year-s-Eve-party-Mar-Lago.html#ixzz4UWNCN4zT

Nic said...

OT
http://www.cnn.com/2016/12/31/politics/trump-russia-doubts/index.html

Donald Trump: If you have something really important, write it out and have it delivered by courier, the old fashioned way, because I’ll tell you what no computer is safe. I don’t care what they say, no.computer.is.safe.

CNN: How are we suppose to read this, Eric? … this can’t be a government directive. How would you, how would you work that?

Eric: No. Obviously it can’t be a government directive. People use computers…instead of making fun of Donald Trump, I mean it’s worth pointing out that most people don’t send things via courier and the way business is done today is via computer. Uh, he, he’s sort of casting doubt on the possibility that cyber security is, is possible at all. Um, rather than being willing to assign blame, he’s sort of muddying the entire thing sa-saying there-there’s just no way to ever be safe. You know, as if the government is just as unaware of who might be hacking systems as you and I might be as to who is sending us spam. I-I-I don’t know how to make sense of it.
_____________

Yes it can be a government directive and yes Eric does know how to make sense of it.

Something else to note, Donald Trump only works with paper, which I think is the reason why the DNC had to go way back in the (entertainment news) archives to dig up dirt on him, via a hot mic. Every scandalous thing about him had already been written by the tabloids and consumed by the public.

For the record, once quantum computing goes "mainstream" there will be no such thing as "secure" encryption as it exists today. Until then, encryption is only as good as the programmer and there is always a smarter programmer - making paper and pencil the safest/most secure platform against hacking.

jmo

Hey Jude said...

'David hurried back to the bedroom to put on some pants. We woke the children before we knew the house itself wasn't on fire. In the middle of the night it is hard to tell the difference between smoke and steam. The kids and I gathered in the living room waiting for word of all clear or evacuate.'

While she claims they didn't know if it was 'smoke or steam' (why would there be steam?) or if the house was on fire, he took the time to put on some pants, rather than taking the children outside, just in case. Then she gathered the kids in the living room 'waiting for word of all clear'. If there was any possibility the house was on fire, the instinctive reaction would be for him to take the children outside rather than waste time putting on pants - after which she was comfortable to have the children hanging round in the living room 'waiting' rather than taking them outside just in case - I think they both knew there was not going to be any fire in the house.

Anonymous said...

"What happened at my house..." is the only place in this relatively long statement where the writer takes first person ownership of "my house"; which is in the same sentence in which she states this incident is the proof that racism actually exists.

Anonymous said...

Hi Peter,I am new to statement analysis but find it absolutely fascinating. I was wondering if her reference to “steam” constitutes a "water" reference? Particularly as you point out she repeatedly mentions doors.

Anonymous said...

- By Willow -

1) As the couple has comitted a crime, who are the injured party that can sue them? Fire department, individual funders?

2)One more detail where blatant lying is avoided by lengthy reporting:

"Do you know who did this?"

What follows is not a simple, no, I don't.

Instead we see "No" combined with self-gratiation.

"No, there are 2 people that we know and 2 incidents that we are aware of that this could be tied to. The arson investigator has all of those details and will pursue them."

Could this be interpreted along the lines of:

- Don't look at me. I want ypu to focus in on these 2 others that I've been gracious enough to already report to authorities. Most of all, Don't ask me about this futher. I don't want to give any more details so, I'm not getting messed up in my lying.

Did someone already point out that she says 2 instead of 3? What if she tells like it is here?
She and husband make two (2).

Best wishes!

W

Anonymous said...

Would anyone be able to offer their insights on the following statement. It's by a person that I once knew.

"Last night I was apparently not assaulted by the bouncer at this club in Leeds.

After spending 5 minutes asking me what happened the police went into the club and spent 40 minutes watching the cctv that at no point showed either I or my mate (who I was helping to leave) pushed down the stairs or punched in the face...still they gave me a lift home.

Anyway please could everybody boycott this horrible bar/club and warn people.

If anybody saw me get held down by a bouncer punched by another at about 2am yesterday while trying to help a mate home please let me know.
Again please boycott this horrid place"

He then goes on to post a link to the 'offending' nightclub.

I need to know if this person is being deceptive when he says he was struck by a bouncer.

While not necessarily being untruthful, there are a number of things that would want me to ask further questions.

1. He starts of by saying what "apparently" did not happen.
2. He twice mentions that he was helping a mate home which seems unnecessary information.
3. In one instance he says "I OR my mate" were pushed down the stairs "OR punched in the face". This sentence seems somewhat mangled and missing information. The reader is left puzzled as to whether BOTH were assaulted, or just one person. And also which one was punched and which one was pushed?
4. In a next sentence he mentions being held down by "a" bouncer and punched by another. More missing information as to who this "another" is. A bouncer - or not?
5. He first talks about "the" bouncer and later "a" bouncer.
6. "... still they gave me a lift home" this seems to imply he was after the police for something (getting the door staff into trouble?) but walked away with the consolation prize of getting a free ride home, as if it were better than nothing.

There are a number of things I could mention, but I thought this would give sufficient food for thought right now.

Thanks in anticipation.

lynda said...

This was quite a detailed SA Peter, very informative and interesting

John mcgowan said...

Anon @ January 2, 2017 at 7:39 AM

Hi

Another anon posted earlier, pointing out the use of the "article" shift, ("the" to "a", the wrong way round) it (their post) is not there anymore (could've gone to spam). I agree, (article) should be explored.
Was there other post's, introducing "the "bouncers"?

.............

Is anyone else having trouble posting?
I keep getting "bad gateway"

tania cadogan said...

Hi John i do, usually if i exceed the character limit.
I always copy and save my text in case of such errors, then i close the comment window and then reopen it by clicking the comment window link and posting the short version there and so on till my post is finished.

John mcgowan said...

Hi

Tania

HNY x

I understand, as you say, to many characters's. I get that, too. It's (bad gateway) been happening for some time, now. Even with a short (character) post. :/

Thank's, for your reply. too!

Anonymous said...

January 2, 2017 at 1:22 PM

Hi John it was just the one post on the subject of "bouncers". I seem to remember one single-line post disappearing...

John mcgowan said...

"Last night I was apparently not assaulted by the bouncer at this club in Leeds.

Going by the OP (we have to be open to correction, however, narrative) this is the first introduction of "the bouncer". If, the OP has not, previously introduced, (it could be in an earlier post, or maybe, soon AFTER a verbal exchange, in company, face to face, in a forum, etc... and then posted) then, it's one of two things. Either the OP, knows the alleged assaulter, ("the") or, the OP, is deceptive. Articles, like pronouns are instinctive, and 100% reliable.

Then we have. "If anybody saw me get held down by a bouncer punched by another at about 2am yesterday while (hina clause) trying to help a mate home please let me know.

"a bouncer"

These are his/her, words. We listen and let them guide us.

Using the article "a", we are now introduced to a second "bouncer".

John mcgowan said...

Oops, i hit post, instead of preview

Indefinite article noted.

"the cctv that at no point showed either I or my mate

It's interesting he capitalise's "I", this is important to him, he want's to be noticed, (maybe, narcissistic)

"trying to help a mate"

"ISI"

Not. I was trying (incomplete action) to help MY mate, but "a mate," distancing language.

We also have a change in language.

."still they gave me a lift home."

Always follow the pronouns.

Whom gave him a "lift home"?

More importantly, where is his "my/a mate". Did he leave him there?

I believe this is a deceptive account of his reality description

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the analysis John. The text was posted on social media the day after the alleged altercation. He did post a picture showing himself with a cut under the eye. I'm trying to gain an insight as to background behind the actual assault. It may well have been the doorman? But the picture he seems to be painting is that he was assaulted just just for helping a friend home. This seems a bit strange and there is information missing.

I'm trying to get a better understanding of why missing information is so important, while at the same time why the non-missing information is considered highly reliable, see an earlier post by Peter:

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2015/05/missing-information-and-reliability-by.html

John mcgowan said...

"After spending 5 minutes asking me what happened the police went into the club and spent 40 minutes watching the cctv that at no point showed either I or my mate (who I was helping to leave) pushed down the stairs or punched in the face...still they gave me a lift home."

Why was he "helping" his mate "leave"?
There is missing information for the reason why? What occurred for him to "help his mate leave"? passive!

"Last night I was apparently not assaulted by the bouncer at this club in Leeds".

True accounts, statistically begin with the first person pronoun I, this connects them to the statement.

I would like to know whom doubts his account. ("apparently") The passivity in this one word has me wondering, is it him, or another.

"I was apparently not assaulted"

If he is not quoting another's doubt, ("apparently") we maybe faced with an EA?



John mcgowan said...

""Last night I was apparently not assaulted by the bouncer at this club in Leeds.

After spending 5 minutes asking me what happened the police went into the club and spent 40 minutes watching the cctv that at no point showed either I or my mate (who I was helping to leave) pushed down the stairs or punched in the face...still they gave me a lift home.

Anyway please could everybody boycott this horrible bar/club and warn people.


Again we have passivity. Passivity conceals.

If "this bar/club" (his words) is so bad, then, why not name and shame?

Anonymous said...

Hi what is meant by an "EA"?

Anonymous said...

He did try to name and shame. The club was the SmokeStack in Leeds. He posted a link to the club at the end of the post.

I'm wondering if he has sufficient grounds for complaint, why didn't he take it further - legal action etc.

Also if the police indeed did take a good look at the CCTV footage using the alleged time/location that they probably would have asked him, and found no assault forthcoming - did this assault take place elsewhere??

John mcgowan said...

Hi, Anon

Would you chose a name, please, so i know whom i'm responding to.

Thanks

"Anonymous Anonymous said...

"Hi what is meant by an "EA"?

"Embedded Admission"

Known professionally (i'm not) as "Embedded Confession". My bad, thank's for addressing that.

"Embedded Confession"

See:

Madeleine McCann: The Embedded Confession

http://statement-analysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/12/madeleine-mccann-embedded-confession.html

John mcgowan said...


"After spending 5 minutes asking me what happened the police went into the club"

Who called the Police?
Didn't they ask his mate, too?

"and spent 40 minutes watching the cctv

With whom were they watching it with?
How does he know it took that long?

There's so much passivity and missing information. I could go on and on, i won't though, lol :)

Anonymous said...

OK thanks for the clarification on "EA".

So much missing info it's unreal lol but I have a much better idea now.

For licensed premises such as bars and nightclubs supplying CCTV at the request of police is usually part of licence conditions - they are obliged to supply it.

It's Ian btw.

Anonymous said...

Is lying really that bad?

GW said Saddam gots WMD's. Colin said Saddam gots chem weapons. W said, Oh Well, we cant find them he he he. Not here, not there he, he, he. Condy said we dont want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud. GW said Mission accomplished!! Thirteen years ago!! Rummy said the war will take about 6 weeks possibly maybe 6months. Thirteen years and it hasnt stopped. Rummy's shock & awe catastrophe. You're right. Lying is bad.

tania cadogan said...

Happy new year John xx

Peter Hyatt said...

lynda,

thank you. It was not predominantly my work; but the work of analysts and it is in an almost unedited form, rather than an article. They did excellent work on it.

A laugher: no one discussed the element of alibi building in view of the wife's claim of hubby's confession. I added that due to a comment here! It is an excellent point and something that should be examined after the first analysis.

The wife, according to her statement, is the architect of the scam. I hope investigators are paying attention because if uncharged, she is going to continue her crime...it is within her personalty to exploit.

Peter

lynda said...

OT..

I'm not sure when this happened but I see Davey Blackburn has now eliminated from his "bio" on Twitter and Instagram that he is husband to Amanda Grace..

Then he posted on instagram a creepy pic of his big bed, located in his perfectly decorated bedroom and spouted nonsense about how a well made bed reduces chaos or some such. Lord..I wish he would brought to some type of justice.

daveyblackburnI made one New Year's Resolution for 2017 - to make my bed every morning. This was something @amandagblackburn did for us every day of our marriage. It made the rest of the day feel put together. It gave us a lens of intentionality. It brought order to the chaos and reminded us our role in this life is to partner with Jesus to do the same for others. I didn't make my bed regularly in 2016, but 2017 will be different. I'm ready to live this year with intentionality. 2016's word was Survive. 2017's word is Believe. Believe that God can do greater things out of my tragedy than I can do out of my prosperity. Believe that no matter what I face, He is walking with me. Believe that the best truly is yet to come. Believe that order will come out of this chaos. Believe with me, friends. Happy New Year!

Link to pic...https://www.instagram.com/p/BOzo3W8BrwR/

Anonymous said...

OMG....having read bio's of true Christian men, George Whitefield. Charles Finney. John Bunyan. William Booth. George Fox. William Penn, the contrast between them & todays so called leaders is day & night. No gravity, fear, wisdom, character, spiritual power. Just slogans. The darkness is deep & the world more powerful than ever. Doubtful if young christians know any of the above named.

lynda said...

Anon @ 8:51

Good Point and probably truer than not. Davey is one of the worst. Devil in disguise.

tania cadogan said...

I wonder if showing his bed is a hint to show that he is sexually available?
It is an empty bed, there is no wife, no partner to share his bed.
it is his bed alone.
It is empty.
It needs to be filled.
Look at my perfect bed in my perfect bedroom.

Bedrooms are considered to be private space, it is where we sleep, where we are vulnerable.
To be shown someones bedroom is to invite you into their private space.

I wonder if he is on the lookout for sex or maybe more sex?
Is he looking for his next 'wife' that he can further 'grow his church'?
Is he selling himself as someone who is house trained perhaps?
Look at me i can make beds, i can do chores, i am available, i have wealth.

Anonymous said...

Davey may be looking for a man to spoon with him and snuggle with him in his neatly made bed but probably nothing to crazy so his bed stays organized and well made.

Anonymous said...

Davey has 2 nightstands--one on each side of bed--this suggests he may already have a partner. Sidenote: So funny how gay men are so good at decorating...all those pillows and everything so stylish! You go girl! I mean guy! Does it even matter these days?

lynda said...

tania cadogan said...
I wonder if showing his bed is a hint to show that he is sexually available?
It is an empty bed, there is no wife, no partner to share his bed.
it is his bed alone.
It is empty.
It needs to be filled.
Look at my perfect bed in my perfect bedroom.

Bedrooms are considered to be private space, it is where we sleep, where we are vulnerable.
To be shown someones bedroom is to invite you into their private space.

I wonder if he is on the lookout for sex or maybe more sex?
Is he looking for his next 'wife' that he can further 'grow his church'?
Is he selling himself as someone who is house trained perhaps?
Look at me i can make beds, i can do chores, i am available, i have wealth

____________________________

That's exactly what I was thinking that you stated so well, Tania..

I also think it's likely that Davey dropped the "AmandaGrace's husband" from his profile..big signal that he is now "available"
I think the whole "make my bed" was a crock just so he could show off his big empty bed.

Anonymous said...

THE GREAT HIJAB COVER-UP
January 4, 2017
Forget fake news; the real issue is fake "hate.” Ann Coulter.com

Anonymous said...

Why would Davey have all the snacks/mini bar looking items at the end of the bed? It even looks like there is a bag of Starbucks coffee there. I get the impression that this isn't his actual bedroom, but rather a picture he took of somewhere that he has stayed.

Anonymous said...

Why would Davey have all the snacks/mini bar looking items at the end of the bed? It even looks like there is a bag of Starbucks coffee there.

Uh, gee, I dont know...maybe so his exhausted, disgusted lover can refuel?

Anonymous said...

Proper nourishment helps ward off AIDS? Even a Snickers mini-bar could probably help.

lynda said...

Anon @ 1:07

Yes..I noticed the snacks, junior mints, pop cans, starbucks bag of coffee and God only knows what else. It's bizarre. They symmetry in the room is scary!

Davey's latest "sermon" of Jan 1 is a fireside chat in his home. It is sickening

Davey is no longer wearing his wedding ring either.

I don't know how much more obvious he can get that he is available.. with the bed pic and no ring.

elf said...

The ring isn't on his right hand is it?

Anonymous said...

I think his decorative pillows are deliciously arranged. I think I saw on one pic he has a rainbow ring on his pinky toe.

Anonymous said...

I would hope linguistic indicators could figure out what's going on regarding Davey's bed-making fixation.

lynda said...

elf said...
The ring isn't on his right hand is it?

January 6, 2017 at 12:44 AM

---------------

It wasn't on either hand in his cozy fireside chat that is posted where the first thing out of his mouth is how EXHAUSTED he is because he stayed up SUPER late on NYE. He even made up a new word. REFRESH-A-NATE! I'm sure he will be buying the domain shortly. It's because he's so excited about how much they've grown since the "great tragedy".He doesn't mention what the tragedy was because Amanda is no longer "useful" per se.
He then has the gall to say it's not about the numbers its about the people!

The best part comes tho when he talks about how Miss Norton was his favorite teacher of all time..she made English come alive for him and he is a writer because of her

BUT

she was a rather large lady and she always used to sit on the desk and everyone was waiting for the desk to collapse because she was so fat.
"BUT I LOVE MISS NORTON"
But she also didn't shave her armpits and she would always lean back and put her hands over her head and you would SEE ALL THAT..
"BUT I LOVE MISS NORTON" "I sure hope she's not watchin"

Poor Miss Norton. She got "Blackburned" meaning Davey builds her up just so he can rip her down. Much like Amanda. Much like every woman.

Davey then goes on to say that the number one lesson he learned in 2016 was "He has entrusted us with a great story" Wow..Amanda's murder is a great story!! He says that he believes GOD has entrusted him with this "pain" because God entrusts his toughest assignments to his strongest soldiers and DAVEY IS THE STRONGEST SOLDIER EVER!! He's been hand-picked by the LORD.

I can't write anymore because I truly cannot listen to him anymore. Poor Weston.

HE IS A PIG..A PIG! I think Davey will honestly be surprised when Satan is there at the end to welcome him into hell.

Lucy said...

As despicable and repugnant as Davey is, Im still curious to know why people here are so fixated on him. There are many evil and/or depraved people we study in these cases, and I am curious what is it about Davey that is more offensive than other villians from other cases who dont seem to have the same hold on people here?

flightfulbird said...

Lucy, I think much of it (or most of it - or all of it) is because despicable repugnant Davey Blackburn is a pastor. This guy (pig is an appropriate choice of words for sure) has a flock of young, impressionable kids going to his "church".
And fair or not, pastors are supposed to be men of God - expected to be above reproach - held to a higher standard of influence and behavior - especially when he is exposing himself and his ideals to kids who are unable to discern right and wrong.

Davey was amazingly hateful and disparaging to his wife while she was alive. He is using her death as a platform for fame for himself. I cannot remember another case where the husband of a murder victim was so shameless, his face so splashed all over the media within a week after the crime - who sold T shirts and made a domain name and is writing a book and recorded an album and was tweeting during her funeral that Nothing is Wasted - even having that engraved on her gravestone.

He has lied repeatedly about the details of the morning Amanda was killed, obscured the facts - taken no responsibility for leaving the door unlocked (saying "she was about to get up anyways") - expressed no regret for being on the phone for so long on the driveway while Amanda was bleeding out inside the house (no mention of "if only I hadn't gone to the gym" or "if I had gone inside as soon as I got home and not lingered on the phone with my BFF Kenneth Wagner, maybe I could've saved her". He has minimized the situation, is doing everything he can to point out that there is a happy ending, that Amanda is tanning in heaven, that God himself orchestrated this and allowed Amanda's death so that thousands could come to Christ.

He flaunts his wealth - all over social media - the humblebrags are ENDLESS. Wealth that was in no small part derived from life insurance on Amanda and from donations of well-meaning people who I'm sure were thinking the money they were giving would pay for college for Weston (or clothing or shoes) - not trips all over the world, a brand new SUV and house.

There is a major contrast in appearance as far as "some people show grief in different ways" compared to not showing grief at all. A few token blog and social media posts, carefully written to create a poignant and tearjerking picture - or twisting his ring on Inside Edition - or mentioning Amanda because he feels like he "should" - it's all smoke and mirrors and just so insincere.

Whether he had anything to do with Amanda's murder or not (and I strongly believe he did), he is glad she's gone. If he had nothing to do with it, this was like hitting the lottery for him. He is having the time of his life right now. Crossfitting and lying on the beach with his dead wife's best friend, posting Instagram videos of himself training and being exceedingly proud of his body, posting pictures of his bed and fireplace and house and pool. He is using Weston as a pawn or showpiece as well - having him lay flowers on her grave, what a nice photo op on Mothers Day - or hanging an ornament on the tree with her name on it last Christmas already.

Whoever wrote last year that Davey probably peed on her grave or at least danced on it - that person is not too far off.


Anonymous said...

Wonder if davie blackburn knows marsha blackburn?

Lucy said...

flightfulbird,

I think I understand what you are saying...the flamboyant nature of his bragging is quite obscene considering he surely had some involvement in Amanda's death and we don't typically see that. I guess I am not as surprised as some that he is a pastor...perhaps I am all too aware of how a facade of "holiness" is often a mask for great evil, nevermind that statistically sociopaths gravitate towards the career of pastor or policeman at a very high rate (John Douglas talks about this). I feel great sorrow for Weston who has been robbed of a loving mother and who is now the prop of a sociopath. I guess I have become hardened from studying these cases in regards to not being very surprised that he is getting away with his crimes.

lynda said...

Flightfulbird

Great post! Nailed it.