Monday, November 30, 2015

Kenneth Wagnor Statement Analysis

Kenneth Wagner

This from with analysis added after the quotes.  You can read the entire article there.  

Indiana Pastor Davey Blackburn of Resonate Church was talking with his college roommate, Pastor Kenneth Wagner, on the telephone as his wife, Amanda, lay dying after an attack during a home invasion two weeks ago.

Wagner, who is pastor of United Church in Delaware, is first mentioned in the affidavit of probable cause against Amanda's suspected killer, Larry Jo Taylor Jr., 18, and his accomplice, Jalen Watson, 21. A copy of the document was shared with The Christian Post by the Marion County Prosecutor's Office on Tuesday.

On the morning of Nov. 10, when his 28-year-old wife was fatally shot in the head, arm and back, Blackburn told detectives that he left his home at about 6 a.m. to go to the L.A. Fitness gym located at 4015 Shore Drive in Indianapolis.
At approximately 7:10 a.m. Blackburn said he left the gym and was talking with Wagner at the time.

"Blackburn stated that he remained on the phone on the way home and was still on the phone when he arrived home at approximately 7:30 a.m. He stayed on the phone in his driveway until he entered (house) around 8:20 a.m.," the statement continued.

When Blackburn entered his home he found Amanda "face down in blood on the living room floor."

Speaking at Amanda's funeral five days later on Nov. 15, Wagner revealed that he would speak with Davey religiously every Tuesday from 7–8 in the morning. He explained how close he was to Davey and Amanda and said he was horrified to learn that Amanda had been killed.

"Tuesday I was sitting at lunch and I received a call that rocked my world forever. David had walked in and found his wife in the condition that she was in. And what you need to know about this story is that me and Davey would speak every Tuesday morning from 7–8. Davey had gotten off the phone with me, finished our conversation and walked in and found Amanda," said Wagner.

This is an important statement. 

Blackburn got home at 7:30AM but remained in the car for the next 40 minutes while Amanda Blackburn lay bleeding on the floor.  

*Did Blackburn, during this one hour regular call, always stay outside, or did he complete the call in the house, where Amanda was?

*Was there something so sensitive about the conversation that he needed to keep this from his wife?

*Was it his norm to remain in the driveway during morning calls, or would the conversation continue in the house?

"Tuesday I was sitting at lunch and I received a call that rocked my world forever. 

There is no need for us to tell us what his body posture was, but it is important to him.  This is often a signal of a slight increase in tension or importance.  "do your homework!" versus "Sit down and do your homework!" with an increase in importance. 


Note the language of impact:  "rocked my world", with the strong, "my" and not "our" even though what follows next is with his wife. 

David had walked in and found his wife in the condition that she was in. 

Note "the condition she was in" is distancing language which, in context, may be appropriately so:  she was still alive.  He also may not want, or may have been advised not to, reveal the actual condition.  This too would justify the passive-like feel to the language, making it appropriately distant.  

Note that "my world" is very close and personal venus the sudden change.  Police may have asked him not to reveal this detail.  

And what you need to know about this story 

Here is a signal that he knows more than what he says.  Please keep in mind that signals of deception, via withholding information are sometimes found in nurse, doctors, police, etc, when they have been asked not to, or are bound under laws of confidentiality. 

Having said this, "what you need to know" has the additional emphasis of "need", rather than "and what I can tell you..."

This shows that there was a "need" for the knowledge that follows.  What would people "need" to know?  He does not make us wait long for the answer:

"about this story" is to call it a "story", which is not expected.  Is this, too, due to be told not to reveal details?  Or, is "story" the language given to him, as Davey, himself, used it?


is this alibi establishment language?

Does Wagnor show an awareness that he needs to help his friend establish an alibi?  Perhaps.  The body posture increase in tension is that this call, itself, is increasing it at the time of the statement being made since it is in his recall.  

is that me and Davey would speak every Tuesday morning from 7–8. 

This is what the public has a "need" of knowing.  This is to flag the "normal" aspect of their conversation.  He now goes out of sequence, going back to what they did "every Tuesday morning from 7-8."

"Normal" is used in several ways, but they are related. 

In Statement Analysis we always flag "normal", no matter how it is worded, for sensitivity. 

When a person calls himself or herself "normal" it is an indicator that the person has likely been labeled "not" normal, by self or by others; 

When a situation is called "normal" it is a signal that it was anything but "normal."

Even young children being read to recognize this:

"It was a day like every other when..."

causing them to perk up their attention as something not very ordinary is about to be said.  It is a common signal of deception, especially in criminal statements where the subject wishes to conceal what happened; 

"Normal" as in alibi establishing.  

This could be of a result of two things:

a.  public suspicion.  
b.  His own private suspicion. 

In public suspicion, if the subject recognized that people are going to be asking, "Hey, why did he stay on the phone while Amanda lay dying?" in suspicion, here he answers it with "this is normal for him to be on the phone..." as an answer to the allegation or suspicion. 

In private, however, if he is not aware of any accusation, he is "cutting it off before it happens", which reveals his own moment of doubt of his friend, such as, "Oh, no, I hope Davey is not involved!", even if just for a single moment. 

Question:  how might we know?

Answer:  short of asking him, we look to see if there is any indication within his own language that he might entertain a doubt about his friend, Davey?
This does not mean Davey is associated with the killers, but that his friend even entertained, for a moment, that Davey could be.  

Davey had gotten off the phone with me, finished our conversation and walked in and found Amanda,

Note the order:

1.  Davey got off the phone
2.  finished our conversation
3.  walked in
4.  found Amanda

One may consider that the finish of a conversation precedes getting off the phone. 

If this is out of chronological order, it may suggest a moment of doubt; that is, a sensitivity indicator where the subject is carefully guarding his words, and not speaking from experiential memory.  

It suggests the need for alibi, and perhaps speaking from memory of what was said earlier, rather than from simple experiential memory,  which reveals doubt. 

Please recall the words of his mentor, who knew Davey before he was married to Amanda. 

He stated that he "knew" that there was something "not right about that young man" using the distancing word "that", confirming that he was suspicious.  

Did Wagnor feel the same?

The word "with" shows distance between people.  "We ended our call" is to show the conclusion but from a perspective of unity.  He used "with" to separate himself from Davey in his wording.  

In college, Blackburn said he was docked two full letter grades for just one inappropriate remark in  a sermon.  

He does not reveal what remark would drop him this significantly, but it was enough for the professor to not simply admonish, but actually punish by 2 full letter grades.  


We look for psychological disturbance in the childhood of murder suspects, along with an outworking or evidence of it in adolescence.  Hence, the background, for example of Casey Anthony showed that she buried pets where she buried her daughter, and accused her father of sexual molestation, and "suddenly' began lying in high school where she eventually even lied about being pregnant, having a job, and later, about having a nanny.  The links between fabrication and murder are well known.  

Blackburn stated that he told a lie in high school but withholds what the lie was, naturally arousing the questioning from readers.  He further fuels interest in saying the single lie was such that teachers, faculty, his peers and parents turned away from him and in this year, they moved out of town and away from his father's church.  It is very difficult to know what lie would be so bad as to impact both peers and adults, but, he said, it destroyed his reputation.  He showed no empathy towards those he devoted. Lies that ostracize adults are usually met with sympathy from peers, as high school boys, in particular, are known for bad behavior in high school.  

"I got a phone call (from someone), he explained what had happened to Amanda and then he said it happened last night. I said 'that's impossible because I talked to Davey this morning,'" said Wagner.
"I began to hope, pray that it was impossible, that it wasn't reality. The texts begin to flood. The calls begin to flood, and I realized it was true. So I go home and walk in the house and tell Sherry 'I've got horrible news,'" he said.

"Sherry is my wife. We've been married for seven years. We got married three weeks before Amanda and Davey. And I watched my wife just fall to the floor and experience some of the deepest sorrow that I have ever experienced in my life," he added.

He said he and Davey went to Southern Wesleyan University in South Carolina together where they played baseball for four years.

"We were roommates together and so during that time a lot of interesting things happened. I know a lot about their relationship that most people don't. I've been around since the days when Amanda gave Davey up for Lent," he said to laughter.

In Statement Analysis, as jokes are made, we still listen to the words chosen.  This is why the "Crazy Davey" comment is a revelation that the mentor "knew" something was "wrong" with Davey. 

Here, the joke is made that Amanda "gave up" Davey for Lent.  The gist of the joke is to portray Amanda in need of getting away or giving up Davey. 

The mentor said that he offered Davey the job because of Amanda, as if Amanda would "fix" what was wrong with Davey.

People joke about what is real.  When there is no correlation, there is no sense to the joke. 

An analyst said he was teaching in the murder capital of the US and stated this, only to have a female officer quip, "I should drop my husband off here" out loud.  Since she spoke out loud and made the class laugh, he addressed her. 

"You have thought about killing your husband?", he asked.  
"No, it was just a joke" she answered. 

After the seminar she approached him and asked why he asked her that.  He said that language comes from somewhere, not from a void.  She admitted, "I am getting a divorce and I have thought that it would be so much easier if he were to just die."

Here, Kenneth Wagnor jokes, too, and it is the same theme as the mentor:  

"I don't know if you guys have heard that story but that's a good one," he quipped.
"We were riding in the car one day and we were talking about Amanda and we were like, you know Mark, his cousin, was like, 'Davey, you always wanted a girl who loved Jesus more than she loved you.' And that was what he had in Amanda. But me and Gavin looked at each other and we were like, 'that is the most irrational decision she could have ever made.' We were mad for him, Gavin, right?" he quipped again.

The rest of Wagnor's quotes reveal a genuine, heart felt, sober view of the murder, with personal connection; language specifically missing in Davey Blackburn's own.  

It is likely that both the mentor and friend have entertained the thought of,

"Could he be involved?"

"Today what I want to tell you is that there are no words that I can say that are gonna be magical. There are no words I can present to you that are going to take the pain away … to cause an instant healing. But my prayer is this: that we would all take one step closer," he said.


Kenneth Wagnor showed how deeply impacted he and his wife were at the death of Amanda, but indicates sensitivity, which may be directly the result of having momentary doubt about the possibility that Davey had done something wrong. 

Even his joking is to portray Amanda as not rational to be with Davey. 

Davey's mentor also choked, but from the abundance of words, even jokes, come information and knowledge.  He not only plainly told us that something was wrong, but within his inability to describe is often found diagnosis.  

It is likely that his mentor also had his doubts when he first heard of Amanda's death. 

Both, as supporters of Blackburn, have likely seen the same bizarre wording that the rest of the world has seen, and are thrust into having defend him.  

The high school lie is examined in more detail.

Amanda Blackburn died as a result of a gunshot wound to the head two days after her husband brandished a gun during a church service. Amanda's killer is in custody.  

On Line Threat at University Analyzed

Here is the written threat that led to an arrest.  The FBI concluded that it was real.  What does the language tell us?

That the FBI arrested him is not in question:  they must take extra caution with the "better safe than sorry" view in mind.  We are looking not about justifying the arrest, but understanding the one making the threat.  It was left at "" which is known for publishing fights, especially between black women where men watch, video, and do not intervene, instead yell, "world star! world star!", indicating that it will receive publication.  

Question for analysis:  Is it a real threat?

“This is my only warning. At 10AM Monday morning, I’m going to the campus quad of the University of Chicago. I will be armed with an M-4 carbine and two desert eagles, all fully loaded. I will execute approximately 16 white male students and or staff, which is the same number of time McDonald was killed.  I will then die killing any number of white policeman in the process. This is not a joke. I am to do my part and rid the world of white devils. I expect you do the same.”

Here is the same statement broken down for analysis.  We seek to learn if the threat is real regardless of detail.  For us, if the threat to kill is real, for example, and the writer does not posses a specific weapon, he could still commit violence in another way.  Therefore, intent to harm is important to the analysis.   We will use (+) to signal 'strength while (-) to signal weakness.  

It is 93 words.  32 words are used before the violence.  

This is my only warning. 

1  It does not begin with the pronoun "I"

Where one begins is very important and often establishing a priority.  The first statement tells us that there is a doubt in the subject's mind of being taken seriously so he wants his audience to know that this will be his only threat.  This presupposes doubt, in his mind, by his audience.  

We note that he did not being the statement with the pronoun "I"

Statements that begin with the pronoun "I" show a marked increase in reliability. 

The word "this" indicates closeness, with the topic being his "warning." 

The first thing we note is that the subject believes his audience will doubt him, (-) and that it does not being with the pronoun "I" (-)

At 10AM Monday morning, I’m going to the campus quad of the University of Chicago. 

This next sentence using the pronoun "I", and has no additional language.  He gives a specific location (+) and it is very likely that at the time of his writing, this is his intention.  It is his intention which can change.  It could change shortly after writing, or it could be a last minute change, but we do not see any weakness in his intention.  It is very likely that this was his intention; whether armed or not, whether as killer or spectator.  

I will be armed with an M-4 carbine and two desert eagles, all fully loaded

Here we have him showing specific intention of having an M-4 carbine (note the use of the article "an"), which is strong, yet we then have the unnecessary "fully loaded" added.  If this is going to be a "world star" violence, the weapon would have to be loaded.  

He has used 32 words of 93 to get to "execution", which is a lengthy introduction.  

I will execute approximately 16 white male students and or staff, which is the same number of time McDonald was killed.  

Note that he does not say he will "shoot" them, since he is "fully loaded" but will "execute" them.  
It will be 16 while males students and, or staff and gives the reason for the number:  "McDonald."

Please note that the shooter of McDonald is in jail, facing murder charges and not free.  He is facing justice.  

Does the subject know this?

Note that he only uses the last name, "McDonald" and not the first name.  

The victim's first name is distinctly black or African-Amerian as it is, " Laquan."  

Since he introduced race with "white" male students, would you have expected to hear "Laquan" in his language?
Also, since this is about "race", would you expect only "males" to be "executed?"

Question for analyst:  Is the subject showing genuine racial anger?

I will then die killing any number of white policeman in the process. 

In a fire fight, with him being "fully loaded" and only shooting white "males", he will now die while killing the discriminated victims: 


This is to claim the ability to control the firefight.  Given the use of the proper article above, we may conclude that this is not someone who suffers from low intelligence.  

This is not a joke. 

This is in the negative and it is in the free editing process making it very important.  It should be understood with the initial statement where he would not be giving any more warnings.  (-) 

I am to do my part and rid the world of white devils. I expect you do the same.”

He posted this on a website that highlights black violence for entertainment but he does not show strong, angry racism that could translate into a threat as he describes. 

Although it may hurt the feelings of the racially sensitive, this subject does not show harsh venomous emotion towards whites.  He claims that this is his part of ridding the world of "white devils" while limiting his role, in spite of impressive weaponry, to just 16 of them, and, perhaps, a few white police males. 

It is best to arrest him for making this threat, but I do not believe that, even if a gun owner, he was going to go through with this, nor does he show the rage associated with either a loss of control, or a strong commitment.  That he would "execute" rather than "kill" or "shoot", is the language of control.  One can "execute" while having control, but in a shoot out with victims running and police responding, it is a spraying of bullets intending to kill. 

Conclusion:  This is not a genuine racially motivated killing spree about to happen.  

I wonder if the subject actually has racial hatred.  

The FBI did the right thing, however, in arresting him. 

What did the FBI tell the school?

We do not know, but for some readers, this statement by the school president, Robert Zimmer will be in agreement with the analysis: 

"Based on the FBI’s assessment of this threat and recent tragic events at other campuses across the country, we have decided in consultation with federal and local law enforcement officials, to exercise caution by canceling all classes and activities on the Hyde Park campus through midnight on Monday."

Had the threat been stronger the closing might have been based upon it, without need of "recent tragic events..."  

The Trump Video 9/11 Claim

Donald Trump said that he saw a video of thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating the 9/11 attack on television.  

Since that time, media has said it is a lie and no such video exists. To this CAIR and other Muslim groups agree:  Donald Trump is lying.  

Since that time, many people have come forward to say that they saw the same video.  

Then, media reported that in Patterson, NJ, a few "children" celebrated in a street, but there was no large celebration. 

My question for readers is this:

When someone asserts to have seen the video, how would you, the reader, know if the person is telling the truth?

*Consider that "reliable" may not be accurate.   This is very important in analysis.  In context, if media showed a video of Muslims celebrating on 9/11 from Pakistan, but the print on the video visible on TV showed "New Jersey Community Celebrates 9/11", the one who saw this would be incorrect, but the language would show "reliable", that is, no lying.  We can be wrong and not be lying.  

Consider the formula for reliability in context of emotion associated with the terror of the day.  

The formula for commitment is the pronoun "I" and past tense verbs.  This should be done without sensitivity indicator, nor need to persuade, except need to persuade is now "on the table" contextually, since "lie!" has been overwhelming alleged. 

There should be a strong commitment to what one saw, and given the passage of years, some form of memory or emotion now processed.  This can include memory of the emotion at the time, but it should be closely associated, linguistically, to what one alleges to have seen.  

Here is an actual statement for analysis about the 9/11 video.  

Is it true?

"I saw the 9/11 video of Muslims celebrating in New Jersey.  I was shocked and wondered, "why do they hate us?" I was surprised when the video did not replay over and over.  Back then, the news was on "constant alert status" with repeated video of the towers, people running and so on.  
The video was more like 'hundreds' and not 'thousands' and I saw people dancing in the street, singing, jumping up and down.  I saw men, women and children celebrating. Recently I read people saying that American flags were stepped on and I think I recall that, too, but I am not certain."  

Sunday, November 29, 2015

Reasons Why Davey Blackburn Was Not Involved in The Murder of Amanda

Statistics of murdered pregnant women show that the husband/boyfriend is the most likely suspect.  Familiar homicide investigations begin with family and move outward in suspects as each family member is cleared.

Fox News reported this normal suspicion but also added that the victim's husband's initial written statement was narcissistic which surprised them, given the circumstances.  Jeanine Shapiro said that it was all about the husband and his career.  To this, Statement Analysis agreed.

Police announced that the lone gunman who caused Amanda Blackburn's arrest as well as two others associated with it, who were in the area, robbing other homes, though there has been no reported violence in any other home than Blackburn's.

I have asked experienced investigators, analysts and professionals what they could say to help support the premise that Davey Blackburn has no association with those who killed his wife.

I  asked the same of the public, with readers to submit reasons why they could or should believe that the husband has no connection to the killers.  

I.  That Which Suggests Guilty Association with gang

II.  That Which Suggests No Association with gang

By putting one in proximity to the other, it allows for easy to comparison.  In either case, police investigation will be lengthy to learn the truth.

I.  Guilty Association

1.  Coincidence
2.  Language
3.  Lack of Denial

II.  No Guilty Association

1.  Police:  no arrests, nor announcements
2.  Religion examined. 

I.  Guilt Association

1.  The coincidental nature of the case:

The pastor described having a bad marriage made worse by pregnancy.  His pregnant wife was killed. This, alone, has led some detectives to say, "What are the odds?"

The victim said that bad marriage was due to his career focus.  His initial statement showed that his career took precedence and even warned potential future pastors that wives can "slingshot" a pastor to success or hinder the career.  His wife competed for his attention with his career.

Two days before she was killed, he used a gun on stage where he was video taped using it as a prop. She was killed by a gun.

Personality:  his mentor said that something was "wrong" with him.  The husband said that in junior year of high school he "told a lie" which caused an entire school to be disappointed in him; teachers, administrators, and coaches.  This one "lie" caused his friends to pull from him, even, leaving him utterly alone.  His next school year was in a new school in a new state suggesting that this one "lie" caused his family to move to another state and his father to leave his own career work.

That something is "wrong" is further evidenced in his video performances, obsession with sex, projection of his own sex drive, and the insult and humiliation of his wife, who failed to satisfy him sexually.  That these are all public statements, alone, suggests that his mentor was correct, but his language shows a distinct "anti-social" and "narcissistic" tone.

The murder took place while he was at the gym, a place where he said he experienced sexual temptation.  In spite of knowing that there were break ins, the door was unlocked and in his call to his best friend, he stayed outside the house for 40 minutes, on the phone, while his wife lay bleeding out.

2.  Language

Statement Analysis:  Guilty language evidenced.

This was seen in the extreme distancing language, including the pronoun "we" where only "I" is indicated.  Parents of young children even recognize this factor where a person 'hides' his guilt in a crowd of others.


He showed no fear of the killer for himself, his son, or his neighbors.
He did not mention his unborn son but used the death to advertise for his career, repeatedly.
He did not say he loved Amanda, nor that Amanda loved him.
His language about capturing the killer was weak;
His language minimized the murder into "event" and "circumstances" and not murder.
The distancing was extreme:  "the family was devastated", and "we will dialog with Weston"
The language of advertising was incessant, from slogans used, to "Amanda's Story", all while the killer remained at large.

3.  Denial

Blackburn was asked to deny involvement, but did not issue a denial. 

When publicly confronted with the accusation, he did not deny involvement, but only said, "For us, we have nothing to hide."

In Statement Analysis, when one says, "I have nothing to hide" instead of "I didn't do it", it is an invitation to "look for that which has been hidden."

By using "we", and affirming it with "us", he indicated that he is hiding something and it is with the assistance of at least one other person.

a.  He accepted that police had to suspect him;
b.  He did not deny the allegation
c.  He used the language of guilt with "for us, we have nothing to hide."

Question:  Then how is it that he could not have done it?

II.   No Guilty Association 

1.  Police

Police have only arrested the shooter and two associates and have not publicly connected him to the gang members.

This is the sole answer I have received in support of the theory of no association:  that it has yet to be found.  

Each theory as to why the language indicated guilt or distance, presented did not explain the lack of human grief, or the lack of fear of the unknown killer, or how, in the face of such tragedy, he could focus so precisely upon advertising, to the point of quoting numbers. 

For many, it came back to, "but what about the odds?" 

In seeking to explore the case, I sought, within myself, as well as detectives, analysts, and other experts to find something to buttress the theory that the husband could not possibly be involved. This includes ever meeting the gang members, or those who, in organized crime (gang) were above the actual arrested members.

With all those I have consulted, none were able to come up with a reason to clear him other than "thus far" police have not linked him.  Cold case detectives regularly deal in cases where guilty suspects have been cleared in the initial investigation.  It is an element of cold case work that is difficult, but a norm.

Readers,  too failed to come up with anything either.

Therefore, we ask:  

Does the subject's own religion make him less likely to have involvement?


The husband could not be the killer because, as Fox News said, he is "a man of God."  

This would mean that his religious beliefs would restrain any temptation greatly.  This resistance to crime would be seen in:

1.  Devout:  A close adherence to the tenants of religion, with no known compromising, twisting,  or negating for the purpose of personal gain. Since Christianity teaches "thou shalt not", is he devout in his beliefs, making it a powerful influence away from crime, or does he display a cavalier attitude in which any tenant or aspect of the faith be changed to suit his priorities, thus weakening the overall influencing effect?

2.  Background:  A strong history void of troubling behavior or any indications that one has any form of psychological indicator of trouble. 

A peaceful non-trauma background with no history of psychological disturbance, combined with devout adherence to truth would serve as 'buffers' or influences away from criminal behavior. 

Therefore, he could not be associated because of his strong belief, refusing to alter the beliefs, and a stable upbringing  with no hint of psychological disturbance. 

Even in the presence of both of these elements, one can still commit serious crime, but these two would be considered things one would have to 'overcome' to commit such a crime. 

Therefore, if he is known to 'twist' or negate Scripture, and if he has some signals of serious disturbance in childhood, "Religion" would not be considered a good 'reason' to support the "no association" theory. 

There are two things that weaken this defense:
1.  His pragmatic view of religion 
2.  His background story of "the lie" 

This means that he is free to be "unconventional" in his approach to Scripture.  (This is not the genuine disagreements that people have; but an actual twisting in order to fulfill  priority).

What does his language tell us about:

a.  His priorities
b.  His marriage
c.  Murder

His language shows what he defines "success" as being numbers in attendance and is similar to the language of his mentor.  This is a pragmatic or "unconventional" view and his statement of "doing whatever it takes" is evident in the videos.  The videos, themselves, suggest one who is not 'restrained' by traditional, historical Christianity, and likely need no further explanation.  

*Pragmatic view of Scripture found within his drive for numerical success.  This is also evidenced in the language of his mentor:

They say "whatever it takes" and they both have a willingness to depart from historic creeds and norms of Christianity for the purpose of popularity and numerical increase.  

For those unfamiliar with the evangelical world, it means a willingness to "reinterpret" or simply ignore entirely any teaching or practice of the church which will not lead to numerical success.

In this sense, Blackburn's own message about wives of ministers impact on the career, as well as his own wife's  statement about considering leaving him because he was only about his career now will focus on a belief that is not likely to lead to success:


The evangelical church seeks marriage counseling from those in successful marriages and a divorce (Amanda's desire to leave him) would have derailed his career terribly.  His career, according to his language, is his supreme passion.  

In his high school "lie" story, we are told that his whole world came crashing down from  just one lie; leaving the reader to guess what telling of a single lie could cause such impact, from his own teachers to school faculty to his family to his own peers, to possibly having a forced relocation of his entire family to another city and another school.

Actions cause trouble, but a single lie?  Even a false accusation of another would be something school officials would not likely be devastated over unless the lie was an action that...

devastated lives within the school.

If others were devastated, he affords them no sympathy in his post, but was concerned about one thing and one thing only:

His reputation.  This was his concern.  

What one lie could be so horrific to wreck his reputation?
What one lie could be of such a nature as to not only have adults turn from him, but peers?

I do not know, but can only guess.  

It is rare to consider something that would unite both groups while it is easy to think of something that would upset adults, but teens would rally around, or, that would upset the teens, yet the adults would be more like, "you did the right thing, son", even if his friends felt betrayed. 

What is so strange about this is that the lie cost him his friends.  Most male 17 year olds have gotten in some trouble and are very unlikely to abandon a friend unless he betrayed a friend, or lied about something even worse.  Betraying a friend might cost friends, but not teachers, faculty, coaches and parents.  

It would have to be something that is an affront to everyone, including teenaged boys.  Teens are quite forgiving of each other, often consoling each other with, "yeah, I almost did the same thing..." empathy or, "the adults don't understand." 

About the worst possible scenario I have come up with would be a false allegation of sexual abuse against a male teacher with himself as the victim.

This, if shown to be a lie, would be something that would disgust the community at large, and even disgust teenaged boys and cause them to pull away from their friend.  It is not just a "lie" but an attempted indictment of an utter disgusting nature that even after rescinded, will leave observers wary of he of whom the accusation was aimed.

This is something that would unite adults and teens in disgust.  

Beyond that, all the bad things teens do are well known to schools and churches who generally work to help the offender, rather than pull away from him.  In his post looking back, he wrote that he never felt so "utterly alone", which means others did not reach out to fix whatever he had done.

If the career is an obsession so powerful that even a murder is seen only in how it will bring in more customers, what would a divorce have done to one so deeply obsessed with success?

Could a twisted mind obsessed on numbers success who is already shown a willingness to 'change' or twist Scripture to fit his career, so conceive of a way of being free from Amanda without a divorce?

Was this something his mentor saw in him that alarmed him enough to say that he was not 'right'?

The high school story is alarming, but so is taking out a gun as a prop, two days before your wife is murdered; a wife of whom you openly stated was in a bad marriage along with the unborn child, who also had the open statement of how bad pregnancy made marriage.  So is the public statements about his sex drive, and the victim's inadequacies, and so much else that he has done "in the name of religion" that has caused Christians to recoil in discomfort, embarrassment and disgust.  

The high school lie story showed a distinct lack of empathy for its victims.  

Then, marriage could make or break his career, something so important to him that it trumped even his wife's murder, within his language.  

Now, divorce, the career ender, is no longer a possibility.

How lucky is that?

When one's own wife is brutally murdered and the killer on the loose and the husband shows no fear but can quote the exact number of new customers you can masquerade it any way you wish but the truth remains:

priority was and is just as Fox News said.

  This masquerading of guilt in religious language is not something that goes over well with both police, who have, in many cases, "heard it all", as well as those who see the priority and drive for success for what it is.

Don't think for a minute that they are not saying to themselves, 

"nobody is this lucky."

That his son is left bereft of his own mother is highlighted that "we" will "dialog" with him?  

Did the father of the child say this, or a child psychologist hired by the family?

When it was said that "the family is devastated", was this the husband of the victim speaking , 

or did a counselor hired by the family say it?

There is but one point that suggests that Blackburn is not connected to this murder and this is the fact that police have not found a connection...yet.  

Everything else says contrary:

His language, his behavior and even his pragmatic religious language fails to convince otherwise.

Police have a lengthy investigation ahead of them and they are dealing with a man who is very talented, in possession of a  strong intellect and who has a tremendous drive to succeed in life, at all costs. Did it cost Amanda her life, or is this all one big coincidence?

That he lacks human empathy was initially evidenced in his statement issued publicly, and then in his videos, his quest for numbers, and even in the high school "lie" account, where any possible grasp of the pain he inflicted upon others is absent replaced instead by his concern over his reputation.

When Amanda was murdered, he was incapable of saying "I love Amanda" and "Amanda loved me", and even in the subsequent corrected statements with "complete social introduction" and the mentioning of the unborn child, he still could not refrain ambition.

To have your wife murdered, in her own home, and her clothes torn off her would terrify anyone unless you knew the killer would not return for you, your son, or your neighbors

This can be masqueraded with religious language but it will be a masquerade that is noted. 

As his mentor properly sensed, there is something very wrong with him and if there is no association, he has done is best to make it appear that there is.

This is to conclude that neither religion nor upbringing would support the theory of no connection. 

Thus far, we have only that police have yet to announce an association on one side and a detailed list of coincidental circumstances on the other.  

Which is it?

*The robbery in the area does not explain the bizarre reaction and language. 

Question:  Would mental illness be so acute that one would have:

a.  distancing language 
b.  indicators of guilt
c.  no fear of the killer

yet still retain such powerful ambition as to make everything associated with this murder into a selling point?

There continues to be unanswered questions.  

Police Officer Tony LePore & Free Speech

A young man works with all of his heart through grade, junior and high school, often staying late, doing extra assignments, volunteering and working hard.  Through his hard work he gains access to one of our nation's most prestigious universities and, for the first time in his life, is away from home, a freshman, with all the hope and promise this brings.

At the end of one semester, his first, his joy has been taken from him as he has been bullied into silence in class after class because he spoke a position that "offended" the others in his class, including his professors.

He said something that was quickly labeled as "pro business" and soundly condemned.  

Once a talented debater on high school award winning teams, he must sit through class after class in silence.

Either be muzzled or face the wrath of his fellow students and the potentially life destroying grades by the very ones paid to encourage the free exchange of information to facilitate growth. Life can be lonely for a young kid far from home, and friends are critical, but even his friends are afraid of what association with him might mean.  

It's easy for us to say "tough it out" but we are not an 18 year old kid alone with no friends, with the majority looking at him as if he has just betrayed their lives.  

Polling now shows that more and more college kids want less and less free speech and if their feelings are hurt, someone must pay the consequences for "upsetting" them, or making them feel "unsafe."  Even applause is condemned as "sexist" and "bullying" by the myriad of hurt feelings of college kids.  As businesses have provided them with the very beautiful buildings they currently occupy, the condemnation of the same, should it continue, will assist in destroying business to the point where it will no longer be able to accommodate the incessant demands

History has been denied them, so they do not realize that the Freedom of Speech was designed to protect that which was labeled "treason" by the government.

Here is a police officer who has brought joy to the lives of citizens with his silly traffic stop dances, brightening the average day as people traveled to and from work, during holiday season, now terminated or not seasonally rehired to his job because his opinion disagreed with the government's opinion.

What was so horrific, hateful and dangerous to cause a man to lose his job after more than 30 years on the job? From

he joined a police protest against a Dunkins Donuts employee who wrote #BlackLivesMatter on an officer's cup. This put him on the wrong side of Providence's left-wing mayor, Jorge Elorza, who has pandered to the racist hate group.
A Providence Police officer went to purchase a coffee on Friday night and his cup had a message from the Dunkin' Donuts employee writen on the cup, "#BlackLivesMattter."

O'Donnell's Facebook post:
"So my coworker just went to get a coffee Dunkin Donuts on Atwells Ave in Providence. The worker was immediately rude, and didn't appear to want to serve him in uniform. Upon leaving he noticed what she wrote on his coffee cup...#blacklivesmatter. ? Would you drink it? My suggestion...absolutely not, go to Starbucks. When is this silliness going to end. But if the store gets robbed she'll be calling us immediately to help AND we will because that's what we do!!!!"

Mike Iamondi, Providence Police Patrolman and Providence FOP Vice President told GoLocal in a phone interview:
"We have to look at the possibility if "Black Lives Matter" is on the cup, is there anything else going into the cup? That is a possibility, given what's going on around the country. If a guy goes in for a cup of coffee at a place we know, where we're patrons at, and they've always been great with us, do we have to worry?"
So Tony was purged for standing up to the hate group which enjoys the support of Obama, Hillary Clinton and much of the leadership of the Democratic Party.
"Recent statements made by Mr. Lepore gave the inaccurate impression that he represented the position of the Providence Police Department," Paré said in an email statement.

"Mr. Lepore was not authorized to speak on behalf of the Providence Police Department and his actions were, in my judgement, a disservice to the Department and to members of the Providence Community."
In a post on his Facebook page, Lepore, a retired police officer, attributed his firing to the work of "political puppets."

"They degraded all the work I did for the street cops, and the work I did for the city for 30 years. They said it didn't matter," Lepore wrote. "Some people are political puppets. They don't care about the men in the street."
Lepore wrote that he was asked to turn in his uniform and Providence police patch, but he would design his own patch and continue to dance.
Considering that Tony Lepore had long since retired, he clearly wasn't speaking for the department. Nor was he ever in a position to do so. So the excuse by Jorge Elorza's minion is paper-thin.

On Facebook, he posted, "To the Providence Police Department: I am addressing the ones on ground floor. The real cops. I want to wish you all and your families a Happy Thanksgiving. I know the story, and so do you. Your battle is not only on the street, it`s also eternally. Be careful out there, and God Bless you all."