I had received a large number of requests on Madden. Until yesterday, I had not heard of this case and the analysis, although simple, shows what "guilty language" looks like.
The statistics of the blog show an increase in traffic from the Amanda Blackburn case. This murder case, above many others, has caught the nation's attention.
The first person to contact me did so as a friend and a devoted Christian who had come across the horror but then was "bothered" by the reaction from the husband, who is a pastor. Raised in Christian faith, herself, it was most "unexpected" to her. Knowing her as one who is not suspicious by nature, I read the statement.
I was 'confronted' by the lack of emotional connection to the victim by a husband, and the theme of "moving on" for the sake of his career. I knew that he would have to be cleared by police as the course of the investigation and due to the years of association with various Domestic Violence advocates, I was aware of the statistics that point to the death of a pregnant woman with the husband/boyfriend as primary suspect.
The statement was nothing I had expected from a husband, but even more so from his profession. My instinct was, "narcissistic-sounding' and ambitious.
I then was pointed to his church's videos.
There, I was shocked.
Without belaboring the point, if I were a debater of Christianity, I wouldn't use the videos as proof; they would represent 'straw men' arguments, or a caricature and would consider this akin to saying, "If you wish to know the average German today, look at Adolf Hitler." It is not just wrong, it is inherently weak.
The videos showed two things:
1. The performance
2. The words chosen
I am not a body language analyst expert and in an interview, should a woman cry, I close my eyes or look away, and listen only to the words chosen, lest I be emotionally taken off the path to truth.
When a 7 year old's leg twitches, he may be on Ritalin.
When a woman sneers, she may have a sinus condition.
I have seen the rise and fall of the popularity of "Lie To Me" which followed the same with profiling and "Silence of the Lambs."
Lie Detection is hard work and takes formal training, years of practice, and intense follow up training.
When I post analysis, I recognize that anyone in the public can read it, and when the topic is popular, many will read it and this includes experience investigators, peers (analysts), criminologists, psychologists, legal experts, linguistic experts, and so on.
When I post a strong conclusion, which I do in perhaps, more than 90% of the time, I have a need to be accurate.
Here, the analysis shows deception via withholding information and guilt; though the source of guilt remains unknown; that is, unknown with certainty.
*Is it guilt of association with the killers? The killers, if members of a gang, likely do not know Davey Blackburn; therefore, have no connection to him, but if sent deliberately to this home, collateral theft, the open door, the lengthy phone conversation while remaining outside the house, as well as the larger context of bad marriage, including pregnancy, come into focus. This association would produce the guilt within language, as well as reiteration of the pronoun "us" as plural, with "for us, we have nothing to hide."
If it is guilt of association, the association could take weeks or months to learn with the 'code of silence' difficult to break; especially if those directly involved did not know for whom they were sent. This is something that the phrase, "code of silence" suggests;
it is not likely that neighbors, themselves, would remain 'silent' if they, themselves, experienced home invasions (very personal) and spoke collectively, (empowering). Victims of gang violence who remain silent due so because they are personally threatened. If you put them together, they are incapable of keeping the secret.
1. It is human nature to communicate
2. Being personally invaded is intense, increasing anger and rage;
3. Being connected with others (plural) gives strength.
Silence is all but impossible.
If there is an association, it will be difficult to obtain, and would take infiltration of the gang or in the least, closeness.
If exists, the senior gang member who was behind this will boast.
If it is not guilt of association, could it be guilt of an opportunist?
There is nothing I could write, or anyone could say, that will cause the victim's husband to stop promotion. He was incapable of concealing his priority from his first statement, on down, even though this 'corrected' statements, where he knew of the 'internet trolls' and came out with a complete social introduction and the strong word, "killed" and even used the pronoun "I" with more frequency.
Even here, he was incapable of concealing his priority of language: promotion of his career.
There is nothing in the language to suggest an ability to stop using her death as a crass advertisement with "the best is yet to come" with its incessant promise of improvement of this life, which, by necessity , must weaken over time, if one considers his negative view of eternity in light of earthly success.
*Would guilt over capitalizing upon her death produce the linguistic change?
I do not see it as being powerful enough to eject the pronoun "I" from his language.
I consider a combination of factors that should be further examined in a larger context of guilt:
What if one not only feels a sense of guilt or shame due to capitalizing on his wife's death, but also feels the guilt of having a profound sense of relief that the death has spared him the possible divorce?
Repeatedly, investigators and commentators have said: 'this guy is not sad she is gone', to which the language agrees. It is like the one who goes to a lawyer's office to receive word of a huge inheritance amongst a crowd of people wearing black, who deeply loved the deceased, while the one, dressed in sneakers and jeans, has to conceal his joy, glad the rich one is gone, but even happier at the windfall.
Could the combination of these factors contribute to the guilty language?
It takes an awful lot to use:
a. distancing language
b. pronouns where one 'hides' among others
Pronouns are powerfully intuitive so the constant, "we are feeling" and "we are puzzled" combines with the extreme distancing of "the family is devastated" (which directly avoids saying, "I am devastated!") but then to say:
"we" will "dialog" with their child.
Teachers, social workers, and other profesionals "dialog" with children of others.
It is part of the ritual of gang membership survival in prison to not disclose the involvement of others. To do so would be to sentence oneself to "hell within hell" in prison.
It is not likely that the three in custody will give up anyone, and even if a non-shooter is offered no prison time, he still would have to return to his neighborhood as one who told: this is not going to happen.
Human nature is human nature.
When you read the New York Times saying "women and children refugees from war torn Syria.." and you see the actual video of 70-90% young male, you know you've been lied to. But when these young males land in European countries but protest and riot, demanding to go to only Germany or Sweden, you may ask "Why?", given that they come from different countries and races. The women and children are left in Syria to fend for themselves and the soldiers have stated that the country is not worth fighting for but something else is worth the violence:
Yet, human nature is your best guide. Germany and Sweden offer the most money.
When you see human nature before you, you may either observe and accept, carefully attempting to not project yourself into their language, or you can simply listen and watch and learn.
Gang violence has elements of human nature that are constantly on display, including factors of self interest while maintaining loyalty, and its own code of conduct. The only way to break that code is to make human nature's self interest appear pragmatically first in priority: not a reduced prison sentence, but a free pass and a free trip to another state in another name with money, was the tool to break mafia-like concerted violent activity.
You must understand, even in a limited degree, human nature in order to properly align "the expected" in any allegation.
Although severely ilmited in percentage, there have been comments in defense of the victim's husband's language as the language of "faith", which, in one sense, is very important.
We should listen to his language from his perspective.
This was especially pointed out by investigators who are people of faith who said, "I'm not buying it."
To them, the language was 'surreal' and 'bizarre' ranging from "how can anyone still be selling while his wife's killers are on the loose?" to " nope. no way. The coincedence? No one is that lucky."
To consider the victim's husband "lucky", one must already think:
This death actually pleases him.
Herein lies exactly why this case has caught the attention of the nation in a very powerful way.
Think: Scott Peterson.
S. PETERSON: I had nothing to do with Laci's disappearance. Even if think I did, think about Laci. And I know that there's a nation that wants to bring her home to our families.
Peterson's pregnant wife, Laci, was missing, and Peterson, like Blackburn, went from TV show to TV show and spoke in grandiose terms, without connecting himself strongly to her.
People across the nation, without training, grit their collective teeth.
"I don't know. This guy just gets me so angry...."
Peterson, too, knew the "nation" was watching him.
When Peterson was eventually arrested, people were not shocked and all the video "performances" were played again. They now knew what readers of Statement Analysis had already known.
The body language analysts came out of the woodwork with "I told you so!", yet, few actually did...before the arrest.
Scott Peterson's language was that of "anti-social narcissistic' type or 'sociopathic' with 'narcissistic elements.' His marriage? He said, "glorious is a word that comes to mind."
For Peterson, a divorce was not only costly but 18 years of chid support awaited him.
Peterson brought suspicion to himself via his words.
Davey? Or, in the words of his mentor, "Crazy Davey"?
The cause of the "internet trolls", which is the words of the mentor, is Davey Blackburn, himself.
Once others were arrested, we heard the "experts" make pronouncements on how they 'knew' that he was not connected and "statement analysis is helpful but..."
Not so fast.
"Psychopaths don't feel guilt"
Go back to Peterson.
Anti-social, sociopathic, etc...all feel the internal stress of lying as not only a disruption of the speed of processing language, but they are stressed at the thought of being caught, inclining being seen
as a liar.
Davey Blackburn is the architect of suspicion, so much so, that police have said he was "100%" not involved, and made arrests of those involved and people are still suspicious.
Who are these "people"?
The public, including those who's life work it is to:
a. understand language
b. understand people
c. investigate crime
d. investigate murder
It includes people of all ranges of ages and intellect, by sheer volume alone.
What does this tell you about Blackburn's language?
His language is so extreme that even those without formal training, suspect a connection, and even official police "clearing" and arrests have done little to reduce suspicion.
Davey Blackburn is the source of suspicion; not Fox News, nor 'internet trolls', though one may consider the mentor's call for apology a slick opportunist element as the inevitable pattern of human nature may now become visible:
Student adoration of Mentor
Student studies and learns Mentor
Student comes to the eventual independence of Mentor, with continued guidance.
Student relies less and less on Mentor.
Mentor senses the 'divorce'
Student and Mentor eventually face off in competition.
How will Mentor react when Student's book becomes "best seller" at Amazon?
How will Mentor react when Hollywood announces "Amanda's Story" will be made into a movie, starring a handsome young actor as Davey?
Human Nature will, once again, rise and be heard in the language, with the most important word of the sentence being, "but."
Follow the pronouns, too. Human nature has a funny way of dealing with it, too.
"We are so pleased that Amanda's Story will now be told to an entire nation to the glory of God but I hope it will be accurate..."
Some people will hear or read that and say, "Yes, I hope it is accurate too" but others will see this:
""We are so pleased that Amanda's Story will now be told to an entire nation to the glory of God but I hope it will be accurate..."
Some will have heard..."Someone's envy is creeping out..."
"The Sinfulness of Sin" being so deeply embedded within human nature that even while guilty, it can present itself as righteousness.
A father told me he had not molested his child, he was "showing her" what "they" do, and was being a really "good father" so that she could protect herself.
We all reveal our understanding of human nature in our language.
Recently in a discussion about unjust laws being passed in history, I commented upon the topic of 'pendulum swing back' in human nature, which says:
'...unjustly punish a people long enough and eventually, their patience will run out and they will kick back. When they kick back, they will likely go too far. '
This is something your mother (or now, your grandmother) told you long ago: "Two wrongs do not make a right."
Laws that are passed which use the same "wrong" to correct an actual wrong are doomed to not only failure, but provocation.
In Blackburn's language, Christianity had little connection with the reality of human nature, while in Amanda's father's language, it was the source of what he looked forward to: conquering the hate and anger and rage and guilt he felt.
Parents who lose their children to cancer have guilt in their language, as if they 'could have' done something differently. Some will even torment themselves with what foods they fed their child. One even blamed himself for moving to a certain town that had "lots of electrical power lines." In other words, their imaginations were so extreme that they made foolish connections to their own child's illness.
This is the very human nature Solomon highlighted.
Two women gave birth to sons. Both similar in age, complexion and there is no mention of DNA or paternity testing as one rolled over upon her son, smothering him to death and stole the others, as they lived together in the same tent.
The local magistrates could not discern as both claimed ownership of the child, which led to the eventual appellate system's highest court: King Solomon.
What is too often missed in the great Solomonic decision of exploitation of human nature for lie detection is, perhaps, the most important aspect:
Solomon called for a sword and said to his guard to cut the baby in half and give them each half a baby.
One woman agreed, while the other shrieked and said, "No! Just give the baby to her!" which showed that there was a more powerful connection to a biological baby by its mother than exhibited in a mother who not only was lying, but who had recently suffered a tragedy and was either numbed by it, or murderously calloused in character.
Solomon had no intention of committing murder in his court.
Instead, he highlighted what is, in deed, highlighted in the very Book Blackburn quotes from:
language reveals us.
Language reveals what one is thinking.
"Tell us plainly, are you the King of the Jews?" was the charge, under oath.
"You have said it":
'Your own words have framed it. This truth has come out of the mouth of the accuser.'
The human heart is very deep and beyond exhaustive understanding. Denial, for example, is a powerful element.
When a young woman is perilously close to death by starvation and looks into the mirror and sees "grotesque obesity", we insist, and rightfully so, that professional intervention is needed. Her brain processes what her eyes see as "overweight" to the point of such "disgust", that her appetite shuts down and she slowly dies.
From this abundance, or great volume of the "heart", that is the "intellect" and the "emotions", the words come forth and they reveal the truth.
Solomon had no intention on murder.
Why did he call for this object lesson?
Because his audience did not listen to the women and his audience did not listen to his words, either.
This is an early historical example of "dulled listening" and is why, before he called for the object lesson, he repeated the arguments from each mother.
Their own words told us their priorities, but only if we are listening.
When my kids were little, I used to "amaze" them in opening Christmas gifts that said,
"To Peter and Heather, from Grandpa and Grandma" because I would then say,
"I think...hmm....(staring at the box, feigning psychic powers), I shall be the one to open this one!" and, lo and behold, (or behold and lo), the gift was something I would want far more than Heather.
"To Heather and Peter, Love Grandma and Grandpa" but this time,
I halted on the order of the names, AND I emphasized "love" instead of "from", to give the little ones the 'hint':
I then placed the package beneath my nose, like a bloodhound on a scent and said,
"I believe that I should not open this gift" and handed to Heather as the little ones were wide eyed with marvel:
As Heather opened the gift, it was something, likely, for the kitchen as she is an excellent baker and cake designer.
Dads only hold that vaunted status for a short time, but thankfully, get to regain it with grandchildren.
My next performance is but a few years hence.
Blackburn's own statements have been his best public relations as the free publicity, especially in the negative, will only increase sales.
The mentor is of strong intellect and he recognizes the power of "victim status" and how this phenomena both unites and empowers, howbeit unjustly, but why let a bit of ethics stand between today's headline and tomorrow's goal of New York Times Bestseller?
The publicity is good, and the negative publicity even better.
Mohammad Ali did not need a public relations team to churn up interest for his fights. This was a needless expense.
Bob Dylan kept reporters following him, digging through his garbage and hiding out on the roof of his house (literally) by refusing to give interviews, but when he did, he spoke in such 'hip cryptic language' that his 'followers' were left puzzled, trying to analyze his every word, which...
sold quite a few records.
Even Stephen King puzzled over "the Gates of Eden", instead of simply watching the hollywood movies that influenced Dylan's language. Fans were disappointed when, in 2005, they found a beautiful song of his had been directly lifted from Confederate poetry.
Today, celebrities often stage "outrageous behavior" to keep interest long past the limitations of talent. In a game of "can you top this?" America went from Elvis suggestively shaking his hips to Miley Cyrus. The intent has always been the same.
|Sex sells and Shock sells so why not combine the two?|
Blackburn "preaches" in jeans and tight shirts. "Whatever it takes" is his ideology and he is no so much obsessed with sex as he is obsessed with success. He is very intelligent and he knows that "sex sells" and so he talks about sex. Howbeit, at age 30, he is quite limited naturally, and he appears to not grasp sexuality as the Scripture explains it, so he does what comes most natural to him:
he talks about himself, and his own sex drive and while he is talking, we learn the truth:
The contempt he holds towards Amanda.
This is a repeated theme.
He states it openly in his videos, but then he explains the source of it: both in relation to his career and his own sex drive. Had he been a licensed therapist, using his own sex life would have put his license in jeopardy. This is why I wrote "inadvertent grooming of young people" by both choreographed "performance" and language: it may not be his intention, but he is using "word pictures" and "visual imagery" to convey his message of his powerful sex drive; so powerful, in fact, that he is incapable of concentrating on his wife's words.
The insult was deep and it was public.
This, too, is what has caused professional investigators to say, "I am not buying it!" and "He is selling, but I'm not buying."
He is the sole source of suspicion.
It was not Jeanine Shapiro who publicly spoke about how 'inadequate' Amanda was.
It was not Megyn Kelly who flashed a gun during a video performance days before her spouse was killed by a gun.
The Mentor needs to be careful here. He has shown his failure to grasp Hebrew and he may now show a failure of grasping human nature, too.
By calling out a national news agency, he is using "national" to broaden his exposure.
What if the agency refuses to apologize?
Will he back it up with a suit?
Here is where it gets interesting.
Imagine, for a moment, the defense using these video tapes and coincidental nature of the crime asking a jury, "What are the odds?"
Who also might be listening to the defense?
Amanda's family left bereft of their lovely and Godly daughter and of whom they may experience difficulties in seeing Weston as often as they want to, due to Davey's fame and book tour and his new girlfriend and...
They might hear the powerful defense arguments and begin to think...
They could seek justice the way that OJ Simpsons' victims family did:
To be held civilly accountable for her death.
Think of the pendulum or the metronome that sits upon your piano in your living room.
It swings one way and the more powerful the swing, the more powerful the backlash.
If they see Davey and Mentor beginning a national tour of competition at the expense of their daughter, they will experience negative emotions.
It is human nature.
Suspicion can destroy. Even Elvis sang, "we can't go on with suspicious minds..." as it eats away at confidence and any single event can cause it to rise to the surface, even if the event is unrelated. It is a powerful human emotion that can either be
starved with truth,
or fed with silence.
You may wonder how it is that when Brittany Spears went to Burger King and a Barber Shop to shave her head who called the paparazzi to arrive just in time?
"Reality" tv shows are anything but, yet, though I do not watch them (yesterday, I missed a powerful "honey boo boo" comical reference about giving Mountain Dew soda to a child), I recognize that they must be selling, lest they be canceled. Apparently, America loved an overweight, rude uncivilized family implode in sexual abuse. I had no interest until the implosion of statements as people asked, "Did the mother know?"
The analysis said, "yes she did."
The story then caught my interest, too.
Like the train wreck we all know we should look away, we attempted to look away but Davey yelled at us, "Don't look away! You must see this!" with his bizarre "moving on", and "laugh" and dishonest abuse of Christian faith. One devout Christian said to me, "The 'jesus' of Davey Blackburn has no resemblance to the Christ of John the Baptist's description."
John the Baptist's clothing was symbolic of his nature: he did not seek "Front and Center", nor did he wear tight bi-cep fitting shirts to highlight his weight lifting. In fact, his words mirror what Davey said was the "best thing" about Amanda.
John said, "I must decrease, that He may increase", seeking less popularity for himself.
Davey said the "best" thing about Amanda was that she did not want to compete with Davey for:
"Front and Center."
I continue to assert that I do not know the source of the powerful guilt evident in the language of Blackburn and use Hillary Clinton's example:
When her husband ran for office of President of the United States, Gennifer Flowers came forward and accused him of wrongdoing which prompted Hillary's defense:
'When the man I love and the man I respect is attacked, I will...'
The pronoun "I" is the most used word in English language. It is powerful. How powerful? It is as powerful as one's own inclusion in life, itself, as language is the verbalized perception of reality.
But after 6 years of allegations of affairs, the powerful emotional devastation of years of betrayal impacted the language:
After the Monica Lewinsky 'admission', Hillary said,
'When the man you respect and the man you love is attacked....'
It took years and much pain to eject the pronoun "I" from her language.
Longterm readers here are well familiar with the many statements where the guilty went to the pronoun "we", where readers longed to ask, "Hey, you, who is this 'we' you're talking about?"
In my own interviewing, when a subject has used "we" where no one else was in the room, I have stayed silent. This was a powerful signal of guilt which eventually led to admissions.
In a theft interview from a nursing home, the staffer said,
"We didn't take anything."
In the interview room, it was just her, me and the tape recorder on the table.
"We were reimbursed by check."
I did not ask who "we" was...yet.
In theft, human nature will do whatever it can to not only 'share' guilt but also 'hide' in a crowd, no different than a child.
Yet there is something else to consider in theft, sex abuse, child murders, and so much else:
The human nature will do almost anything to reduce guilt, including:
This is a powerful element of human nature.
Madden: "she was looking for..." stopped in self-censoring. Too many child molesters have told me that the child 'asked for it' or was 'looking' for a sexual 'encounter'.
"The baby would not stop crying" is to blame the baby.
Human nature even can blame a child for a parent striking out:
'It's not my fault, the baby would not stop crying,' with some young mothers even saying 'she is faking it. I know her cries. She is doing it on purpose to get on my nerves' as if an infant's intentions were known and justified an angry response.
In older abused (or murdered children), "Oh she was great and I loved her but you know hormones...." as a subtle shifting of blame upon the victim.
Human nature will go a very long way to convince one's own self that its unrighteous behavior is righteous. This is how 'wicked' wickedness is. It is never content, and even while 'accepting' responsibility, it is shifting it, just as quickly.
If police eventually arrest Blackburn because a tie to the gang was found, there will not likely be a populous "shock" from the nation. A few Monday morning quarterbacks, yes, but most people will not likely be surprised.
If the guilt is solely from capitalization, I will be surprised.
If the guilt in language is from a large combination of factors, including a cocktail of:
capitalization, relief, and having a quick Amanda replacement on the sideline, I won't be surprised.
Guilt can range from inappropriate guilt (like the parent of a sick child) to mild and common, ('if only I had not gone to the gym') to powerful.
The language here was so powerful that the news agency picked up on it, beyond the simple crime statistic that says husbands and boyfriends are often involved in the murder of pregnant women.
The source of the language was the victim's husband.
If blame is to be assigned for Fox News having doubts, far more than the statistics, the blame rests at the feet of the victim's husband.
It was his words that caused the nation to react as it has.