If someone reveals that they have benefited from the death of a loved one, they will appear guilty in language.
Is this the case of Davey Blackburn?
With this theme in mind, let's consider:
I. Introduction to The Free Editing Process
II. Introduction to Behavioral Analysis
III. The Blackburn Murder: Expectations Met or UnMet?
I. Introduction to the Free Editing Process
The "Free Editing Process" or "the uncontaminated interview" is central to analysis. This is to hold the initial statements of the victim's husband to a higher standard.
When John and Patsy Ramsey finally spoke to media, they revealed;
b. Guilty knowledge of the death of Jonbenet
c. Linguistic indications of sexual abuse within the case, including, possibly, their own lives.
Eventually, an analyst publicly pointed this out and finally, John Ramsey took the microphone and said, "I did not kill my daughter, Jonbenet" using the two elements which he had heard in the analysis:
The lack of reliable denial
The incomplete social introduction.
He was not done, there, however. He then addressed the allegation of sexual abuse which he found to be the most disturbing, yet, as he spoke, he failed to deny it.
Thus the Free Editing Process' value to us: Even with all the training and preparation in the world, if we speak continually, eventually we all get "off script" and we will reveal ourselves.
We all do.
Therefore, we can expect, over time, a person who has either read analysis, read criticism or even having been coached, to address the concerns.
In the murder of Amanda Blackburn, in every statement released by her husband, Davey Blackburn, and in every interview publicly made to date,
he has, not once, said, "I love Amanda", or "I loved Amanda", and "Amanda love (d) me."
This is, perhaps, the most unexpected of all his statements.
It appears that police are close to an arrest in the rape and murder of Amanda, as they await DNA results, and the main suspect appears to be in custody on an unrelated charge.
For most, the question is: "Is the husband involved?"
Statistically, in the murder of pregnant women, the husband or boyfriend is the most likely to have done it.
II. Introduction to Behavioral Analysis
Behavioral Analysis: This is to set up the expected versus the unexpected and perhaps the most dramatic and easily discerned scenario is the missing child.
When a child goes missing, the behavior of the parents is predictable.
People love to say "you do not know how you would react in this situation! Everyone is different! There is no book on this!"
It is not true.
This is often the claim of the guilty's loved ones. "Just because someone told a few mistruths doesn't make her a murderer." Cindy Anthony
The missing child.
It is fair that you ask, "How would I react if my child went missing?"
It is very predictable and I can tell you how you would react.
You would call out for your child, you would cooperate with police, and you would search for your child.
This is more important than you think.
When Baby Ayla went missing, (you can substitute a lot of different cases here), father, Justin DiPietro, said she was kidnapped, so naturally, he is going to enter into negotiations with the kidnappers to get her back, right?
When police set up the media to do so, DiPietro sent out the "manly" note of being "emotionally incapable" of talking to the "kidnappers" through media. Immediately, police knew: he is hiding something and went on to fail his polygraph.
It is like going to the supermarket, and having your 3 year old wander off.
The expected: you, the parent, stop shopping, and call out to your child, calling her name out loud .
The unexpected: you, the parent, knowing she is missing, decide that you need to finish your shopping first, and need to finish checking out, too. Then, after check out, you know you have to look for her, but you decide to first drive home and unpack the groceries. Next, you think that it might be best if you eat lunch, and oh, that favorite TV show (Billie Jean) is on, and you don't want to miss that, either. Then, thinking it is now time to call out to the child and begin to search, you feel the need for a nap. Welcome to the world of Behavioral Analysis, which is based upon research of:
The Expected Versus The Unexpected.
When something happens, such as a missing child there is an exception of reaction.
When someone is murdered, especially a spouse within the home, there is also an expectation of reaction.
|Lovely Amanda Blackburn and her son, Weston|
It is the same as Statement Analysis.
In the case of Deborah Bradley, as a biological mother of Baby Lisa, there was an expectation that she would use Lisa's name and she would, as a mother given the closeness of the relationship between mother and child as evidenced by Solomon's wisdom, the personal pronoun "I" would be used, as well as the possessive pronoun "my" would be used.
The bond between a mother and a child is so powerful that the pronouns will be intuitive. Solomon used the language of the two mothers, one lying, to detect which one was lying. Those who dismiss "mere words" or "just a pronoun" will have to take up their argument with Solomon and a world of research.
III The Amanda Blackburn Murder
Amanda Blackburn was brutally murdered (and, perhaps, raped) within her own home, with a gunshot to the head.
Is it possible that Davey Blackburn sounds guilty because he knows he is benefiting from her death?
Is it possible that his detailed complaints about how bad his marriage was, and how a marriage will either "sling shot" the ministry upwards or destroy it, make his language appear guilty?
Would someone who prefers death to divorce, for the sake of his work, sound like a guilty person in a murder case?
The following is something you have to ask yourself, whether or not police connect Blackburn to the shooter:
Is it just a coincidence that a man driven to succeed in ministry could repeatedly complain about his marriage, attribute pregnancy to its decline, show off a gun as a theatrical prop in a sermon, have his wife shot with a gun while being pregnant and have his language focus primarily on his ministry rather than her?
In Statement Analysis, we measure the intensity of the allegation with the words. The more intense the allegation, the more intense the wording.
A 'personal insult' from a stranger online will, therefore, have less linguistic description intensity than a slap in the face from a loved one, which moves from words alone, to actual physical contact while moving from stranger, without audible perception, to the physical impact from one who is known. One will feel more over an assault than a name calling and will reflect this in the language. If, for example, the one who was called "a jerk" by a stranger online, gives lengthy and continual responses, it will likely be seen as "unmeasured", or beyond the expected. Historians say given the nature of the culture in which this was mandated, it was actually a "limitation of punishment " when "an eye for an eye" was introduced: not literal but that the punishment could not exceed the crime. A measured response is the expected in many human interactions.
In statement analysis, we note whenever the location of sleep is found within a statement. Everyone sleeps, but when one tells us where one slept (in an open statement) it is no longer expected that the person slept in his own bed, as a matter of course. That he or she (mostly female) feels the need to tell us the actual location of sleep, we are in tune to the possibility that the subject is a 'refugee' from something that has disrupted sleep. "I slept on the couch" is to be followed by, "Why? in the interview.
Sleep is essential to the human being, and while we sleep, we are terribly vulnerable. We sometimes hear those who suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder like symptoms say, "I pulled the blanket up and went to sleep" as the 'covering' of the blanket was very important to them: important enough to mention it in a statement tells us so.
A home is where one sleeps. While asleep, the one is completely vulnerable and has a strong human need to feel safe .
When people experience a home invasion, they often reflect this acute feeling of vulnerability in no uncertain language. A home invasion is to have the place of vulnerable and necessary sleep invaded, but in this case, this intensity is present, but many times more with:
The murder took place in the home where Davey sleeps, to the wife, of whom Davey had been "one" (literally) with, and to the child to which Davey and Amanda had produced.
There is not a more intrusive "up close" and personal scenario than this.
This is as far away from someone posting, "Davey is a jerk" anonymously on line, as can be. This is the single closest, most intrusive event with finality possible.
Therefore, the Expectation is this:
1. The Pronouns Will All Show How Personal This Is
2. The Words Used Will Focus Upon this Horrid Crime
3. The Order of the Words Will Reflect this priority of "utter invasiveness."
Had I been asked, "What is the expected? in this crime, I may have not have bothered to include, "I love Amanda" except to state, "expect love to be in present tense, not past tense language.' Due to the shocking intrusive nature of this violence, expect the language to be heavy in emotion
Here is what we received. This is the First Public Statement and the first words he chose to address the church about the murder. I have added emphasis in underling and color.
A. First Statement
“It’s impossible to communicate all the emotions my heart has been forced to process. My wife was such a beautiful, gracious, loving woman of God. I have not only lost my ministry partner and support, but also my very best friend. There is no way to prepare yourself for circumstances like these. As deeply as I am hurting, I am hopeful and confident that good things will come of this. I rest in the truth of Romans 8:28 that God works all things together for the good of those who love Him and who are called according to His purpose.
“Amanda made it her life’s calling to love and serve everyone she knew. Even more, she has made it her life’s mission to see as many people as possible come to know Jesus as their personal Savior.”
“I know that in her death and legacy even more people will come to a saving faith in Christ. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt her desire for me would be to continue what we’ve started here in Indy. I hold firm to the belief that God is still good, that He takes our tragedy and turns it into triumph, and that the best truly is yet to come.”
Follow the pronouns. He does speak for himself consistently in this statement.
Pronouns are instinctive and intuitive. It is not expected that he did not say "I love (d) Amanda" but also concerning that he used soft language about a murder, and there is no sense of invasiveness as this murder took place in the home. The "murder" is called "circumstance."
Murder is "circumstance" and "tragedy"
How many times does he refer to his work?
1. "my ministry partner" is the first mention of his work and it comes after the incomplete social introduction.
2 . Amanda's "life work " was not wife and mother to be "to see as many people as possible to come..." Consider this with his "disappointment" video about "not seeing 400 people in attendance" with his subsequent statement where "6500 people" attended Amanda's memorial on line.
3. In her death more will come...
4. Amanda's "will" for him is to "continue the ministry"; this is made very sensitive by the unnecessary (therefore important) addition of "beyond a shadow of a doubt", which give us the pause to consider: Davey may have felt Amanda was not the "sling shot" to success for his marriage.
5. "...and the best truly is yet to come" is the slogan for his work.
In his initial statement, he mentions his work 5 times.
It is to say his concern is about his work.
He does not mention loving Amanda, or Amanda loving him.
He does not mention Amanda loving her child.
He does not mention the death of his unborn child.
He does not ask for justice.
He does not express language associated with an invasion of where he sleeps.
He does not express fear for himself, his son, nor his neighbors.
The focus of his statement is his work.
My conclusion: Davey Blackburn's priority is his church ministry or "work." He gives us an indication that Amanda, in his view, was not a help in getting success (people coming in) until she died. In her death, she has contributed to the important numbers of people "coming" to his church.
In this sense, he is benefiting from her death.
Question for Analysis:
Is it possible that Davey Blackburn is not involved in his wife's death, but that his language reveals that his concern is for his own success?
Answer: It is possible that his narcissism about his work is so extreme that the loss of his wife appears to have been an actual positive development to him. This could cause him to appear guilty, as if he has benefited from her death.
B. In his second statement, he focused on inviting people to "come" to his church, and in doing so, he tells them that they will "laugh" (unexpected) and what to wear, and what to say to media.
Regarding Direct Involvement will he deny it?
Next, does his interview affirm his priority of his ministry and profiting off of Amanda's death?
Good Morning America
1. The first question was what he wants to tell the world about Amanda. Expected is how much he loves or loved her. He does not, but that Amanda loved "Jesus" and "people" without mentioning himself, or his children.
2. The second question is "who did this" and "why": He did not answer either.
His answer is to quote the number of people in attendance. ("6500 online") and assert that Amanda did not compete with him for attention in ministry. This is to affirm the profit from her death.
He said "we are trying to figure out how to grieve" and that "the family is devastated." He does not answer for himself. This is to affirm that he is not devastated but has profited from her death.
3. The next question was to try again to get an answer about "who" or "why":
He said, "I, I, I can't imagine any reason why" which not only stutters on the pronoun "I", which signals anxiety for a non-stutterer, but also calls to attention a "specific reason" why. Here is how:
"I can't imagine why" would be shorter, yet it is lengthened by "I cannot imagine any reason why" which is to examine various reasons in a whole. This would have been an important point to explore in the interview.
4. GMA then asked what he wanted to say to those who may know something to which the expected is strong direct language of: "Please call police. They will not reveal your name..." or something along these lines..."Do the right thing", "We cannot live in fear..." and so on, especially since this is possibly gang related.
He said, "well, I mean, I, we would beg them to give any information that they have. Uh, we'd be extremely grateful for for that, you know, uh, it is really hard to sort through the emotions of what we are feeling about all this, absolutely we'd, you know, it, we we are confused, you know, we don't understand why, we, you know, um, we are angry we we;re not really sure what to do..."
This is to avoid a strong insistence upon the public, and to give a bizarre, rambling answer from one who public speaks for a living.
From there, he went to Fox News
Would this confirm profiting from her death, or would it express love for Amanda, and personal loss?
In this interview, he will be asked about his involvement:
Would he deny it?
He was told that some might suspect him and that police begin such murder investigations with the husband. To this he said,
"I certainly understand that's always the first place they're going to investigate. I guess that was to be expected on some level," he said, adding that it was "difficult to swallow" at first.