The following are notes taken during a 6 hour session of ten experienced analysts and investigators looking at the murder of Amanda Blackburn.
Some are short abbreviations and thoughts while others are longer, complete sentences and analysis.
It includes Statement Analysis and commentary in the murder of Amanda Blackburn and is the summary works and thoughts preceded by the video of Amanda Blackburn's father. It is suggested that the video be watched which will provide a reference point for a closed loved one's words connected to a brutal murder, while maintaining the basis of faith.
Police have stated that 3 gang members have been arrested and the identity of the shooter is known. Police have also stated that Amanda's husband, Davey Blackburn, was not involved in her death.
The following is not limited to analysis as it includes external information, including information from the videos, media and the police affidavit.
First a video of what genuine emotional struggle sounds like from Amanda's father. This should be contrasted with the statements of the husband. He is:
a. Closely related
b. Faith based
c. A good example of "the expected versus the unexpected"
Note the reality; the struggle and the desire to protect, yet limit himself. Note the genuine emotion in light of Scripture, venus the language of Davey Blackburn. This is a good example of being hit with a horrible tragedy and seeking to trust God. The religious terminology is so different than Davey's that it sounds like an entirely different religion or different 'god.'
"She's the love of my life. "
The video is in stark contrast to the words of her husband.
Regarding some questions readers have had about language and analysis:
Mentally ill statements will not be cohesive and will lack a visible priority.
Delusional people will produce direct fabrications of reality. "I was talking to Satan last night who told me to kill my dog, Sam." This is a direct fabrication of reality, or, an outright lie.
DB's statements show clarity and a singular and powerful priority. They do strongly suggest mental health disturbance (general) including anti-social and narcissistic traits within language which often show the inability to have genuine emotion, rather they must mimic or copy others, including in language.
The change from "I" to "we" is a powerful, intuitive indicator of a need to place guilt in a context where there are others around me, which is then seen as 'reduced' overall impact. This is consistent from grade school on up.
Someone with anti-social and narcissistic traits knows what he is saying but may be incapable or have a reduced capability to have genuine emotion. This will trigger suspicion.
Pronouns are instinctive, intuitive and reliable. Entire cases are closed on pronouns. Accounts from more than 50 years ago can reliably pick the pronoun usage. Pronouns being in human speech from the earliest days, and the use is so extreme in repetition that they are "never wrong" and "incapable" of deception.
The change from "I" to "we" indicates guilt.
What is the source of guilt?
A . He knows the shooter
B. It is something else.
Police ruled out knowing the shooter. The experts in law enforcement insist that this is an ongoing investigation and they will be looking for any possible connection including:
*Did the husband meet any member of the gang through counseling?
*Does anyone in the church know
Universal parental guilt, or spousal guilt will not produce pronoun change.
It is not "universal guilt" that, for example, a parent would feel, terribly, if he let his 10 year old walk to school alone and was thus murdered. That guilt would be intense, but it is not likely to produce an immediate run to the plural "we" in a statement unless a specific circumstance existed:
It would produce "we", for example, if he had been warned, "DONT let her walk to school alone!"
This could produce "we decided" versus "I decided" due to extreme nature of murder.
But all parents feel guilt over children's death: Many feel 'responsible' when children die from illness such as cancer.
The guilt of Davey Blackburn is powerful enough to produce a pronoun change.When the pronoun "I" appears after a series of "we" it is also "strong" and important.
Allegation: Murder of Amanda Blackburn
I. Initial Public Statement after Murder This is important because it is his first thoughts (priority) and will not be impacted by news stories, analysis read, public, etc.
Elements of intrusion and Equality in Language
The level of intrusion will match language.
Ex. Baby Ayla kidnapping. Phoebe DiPietro's language revealed knowledge that no one broke into her house. "When someone enters your house and someone is casing your house..."
The pronoun "you" told us: there was no kidnapping. Home is a place of safety but also of vulnerability. It is very intrusive.
How powerful are pronouns?
Police were stopping black males when Susan Smith used one past tense verb about her sons. The road blocks and searching came to an end: the boys were dead and she, crying on TV, was the killer.
"Cayee loved the park." (Caylee is dead)
Experienced investigators trust pronouns.
"Hailey wasn't allowed to go out by herself..." said while missing. H was dead when the mother spoke this, allowing for people to continue to search.
The place of murder was the husband's own home.
The victim of murder was the husband's own wife.
The language should reflect this, even as Amanda's father's language showed his close relationship with his daughter.
Where we sleep (location) is a place of vulnerability. Sleep is mandatory. Home invasion destroys security and this is reflected in the language. We are incapable of protection while asleep making it most sensitive. We always flag location of sleep; often a refugee from trouble, and often in the language of both Domestic Violence and Domestic Homicide.
DB: murder in his home, of his wife and his pre born child. He was "one" with his wife, and this could not be more intimate. She was shot in the head. His language is expected to match this.
Even though media reported rape: DB did not use language of sexual homicide. If he had come in and found her and thought she had been raped, it would have been very difficult to keep this out of his language; it is too powerful for innocent people and guilty people alike. No matter the case, he did not have knowledge of sexual assault.
Coincidental Nature of the crime:
DB complained about his marriage, and stated that pregnancy made it worse. This was done publicly and repeatedly and often "the worst the pain the better the medicine" sales technique.
Wife 12 weeks pregnant while murdered. Investigators cannot ignore this. Video tapes give strong connection to how bad marriage was.
Video tapes: bad marriage, sexual drive, inadequacy of victim (disparagement) and powerful drive to succeed.
He even complained online: Number of 400 people more important than 16 souls saved. Numbers "coming" more important than anything.
Number of 6500 in attendance more important than wife's murder. This was a bizarre "intrusion" into his account. Amanda's murder is now "Amanda's story" even though no arrests were made at the time of statement. This is to telegraph future plans of "telling Amanda's story."
Will the language support this? Was he thinking of a book or made for TV deal while making this statement?
Expected Versus Unexpected.
Amanda's father: All expected language. No unexpected. Consistent, truthful, close painful language.
Davey: Most all unexpected. Sales pitch repeated. Deceptively withholding his emotions. Why? Does he feel them?
**Is Davey Blackburn incapable of feeling these emotions?
Expectation of the first statement :
"My wife, Amanda, was brutally murdered and..."
"I love Amanda"
"Amanda loved me and Weston, our son"
List of expected words or themes from initial statement by investigators:
4. possible revenge (pastor)—vengeance but in subtle (conflict)
6. disbelief, denial, bargaining
8. extreme language of emotion, sadness
1. FEAR –of killer return, fear for neighbors, etc.
1. We MUST catch this killer
What do you expect to hear about his wife?
“I love Amanda” not even “I loved Amanda” as it is just too soon for this?
From Religious background: I expect him to say “Amanda is in Heaven”
Q. What would you think, if, he does not place “Amanda in Heaven?”
Would this be subtle insult of the victim?-----
Men process death faster. "I loved Amanda" although soon, is still appropriate. His statement is void of this. In murdered children, fathers go past tense quicker than mothers. Some mothers hold on to present tense for years.
Husband and Father is expected to speak personally for himself with:
1. Emotions “I”
2. Violent Killer on the Loose must be caught, brought to justice--safety for Weston and neighbors
3. I love Amanda; Amanda love (d) me
4. Amanda is in Heaven, or a better place or safe…’reward’ the victim or even ‘protect the victim’ even if the husband feels guilty for not being home.
I. First Statement
I. “It’s impossible to communicate all the emotions my heart has been forced to process.
The statement does not begin with the pronoun “I” which means the analyst should be on alert for possible distancing language. The context of home invasion murder of a wife is “up close” and “personal.” This is not expected.
“all the emotions”: He begins by telling us what he cannot do: express “all” the emotions in his heart.
Will he give “some” of the emotions with the pronoun “I”? How about "I love Amanda with all my heart" as a single emotion?
What is missing is the emotions, the pronoun “I” , and what “forced” this.
We listen for “the murder of my wife, Amanda” in ANY terms…the “senseless death” or anything close.
Rule of commitment: Pronoun “I” directly connected by a verb.
The first thing someone says is always important. The very first thing he says is in effect:
'I am not committing myself to any specific emotion' which establishes priority. He signals here that he is not going to connect himself, personally, to Amanda.
Formula for commitment is First Person Singular, past tense verb.
“I thought” “I think” “I felt” “I feel”
He is speaking for himself, as his wife is dead.
“Forced” while in context, speaking of a very violent intrusive crime. A "circumstance" (unexpectedly soft for a violent crime) is "forced" upon him by whom? Life? God?
"Force": was force used to break in to the home? (no, door was not locked?)
My wife was such a beautiful, gracious, loving woman of God.
1. ISI: “my wife” lacks her name. This is not a complete social introduction, but it is also not a terrible one either. Without a CSI, we cannot say = good relationship. Something is 'less than good' here.
Some analysts had not heard the videos where he complains about her and commented that there is something amiss in the relationship.
That he takes ownership of her as "wife" is positive, but what is the context? While his wife was the victim of a brutal intrusive murder, he does not use her name here with ownership.
Context: “of God” she is “beautiful, gracious, loving woman” is this for him, or for God? We want to hear, "I love Amanda" and "Amanda was a good wife to me" and "Amanda was a good mother for Weston..."
Will she be the same when he, himself, is the context, as seen with the pronoun “I”? With "God" she is these things, but what about with the subject, himself?
"Such": ‘comparative’ --- what might this be compared to? Other woman?
“My wife, Amanda, was a beautiful…”in her walk with God, compared to with me, the subject, what was she?
Next, he introduces his ministry or "career", or "work."
Question for analyst: What is more important, his career or Amanda?
I have not only lost my ministry partner and support, but also my very best friend.
“I” and “very best friend” are far apart, with “ministry” coming before personal.
He has introduced “ministry” ---“company” or “career” ---one and the same first.
Be on alert that one who has not committed to emotions, has now introduced his career to the statement.
Difference in the language of “loss” between cancer and murder. "Lost" with sickness of cancer spreading out over time, but murder is always shocking, always unexpected (?) which means that this element will be in the language.
It is not.
“I, I, I” Discussed as principle. No "stuttering we" because "we" already provides safety by number which will act as protection from anxiety.
LSI…”stuttering pronoun” I indicates an increase in tension stress, and anxiety, if it hits “9” by a non-stutterer, it means immediate hospitalization and an entire central nervous breakdown and is ONLY found in spousal murder—
I have not encountered a stuttering “we” before this case. The public speaking DB did not find 'solace' or comfort while 'hiding' in the crowd of "we" in the statement.
There is no way to prepare yourself for circumstances like these.
1. The use of the 2nd person pronoun in a personal murder is not expected and is distancing language. This is not a common, universal event. This is "unexpected" pronoun use.
2. ""Circumstances": is soft, minimizing language and it is not expected (inappropriate)
3. “These” is plural. Are home invasion murders of pregnant women something that commonly or universally happens?
Also, “these”, being plural, tells us that there is something else that was a “circumstance” BESIDES the murder.
4. “Prepare” is in the negative “there is no way…” making it elevated in importance.
This is an unnecessary statement. Everyone knows that you cannot prepare for a home invasion murder.
Which then leads us to ask:
Why did it enter his language?
When we do not have an answer, the analyst should consider the possibility that leakage is presenting itself. This is subjective and the word “prepare” should be noted and put off to the side for future reference.
Did these circumstances have “preparation”? Police have said that they have not found anything to connect this man to the murder.
The subject has introduced the topic of “preparation” for murder in his language.
This is not expected. No one "prepares" for murder unless they know about it already and have prepared a "story." The word "story" so close to the UNSOLVED murder should not be in the language.
As deeply as I am hurting, I am hopeful and confident that good things will come of this.
1. The subject’s statement is written in a way which you must presume he is hurting in order for you to understand his communication. He does not tell you he is hurting, instead he goes directly to the ‘degree’ of the emotion. This is an assumptive statement and does not directly connect himself to the emotion. What is behind this "hurt"? He still does not say.
2. He avoids any specific designation of actual emotion. We saw in the first sentence a lack of commitment to any specific emotion, stating that it was impossible to tell “all”, but how about some?
3. “The word but being missing, yet the topic, or theme, included, via comparison.’
4. Scripture does not ever teach nor example, the exclusion of human emotions. “Jesus wept”/ David mourned the loss of Absolam, his son…”
5. therefore, is this an advertisement?
6. Is this a hint of narcissism in language? Psychological expert: We must consider both anti social and narcissistic elements in this language.
In the “higher life” ideology, he is “selling” a product that promises people various cures. Amanda Blackburn's father expressed getting through this, not 'celebrating' or 'laughing.'
What is the sales pitch?
It is that the deeper the pain, the greater the relief.
The worst the marriage the better the marriage counsel he offers.
People that are in pain, have reduced discernment and open to suggestibility. Davey will "do whatever it takes" and no matter how bad life is, "the best is yet to come" slogans.
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.
Appropriate use of Scripture if he assigns God as in control, even of death.
“Amanda made it her life’s calling to love and serve everyone she knew.
Amanda—her life calling, or ‘career’ is to “love and serve everyone she knew.”
Q. does this include Davey?
Q. does it include the living child, Weston?
Q. Will he mention the pre born child? he does not mention the child.
Q. Does it exclude those she did not know?
Q. Is he back to "selling" and advertising?
Is “everyone”; yet, he qualifies this to be people she “knew.” Will this be consistent?
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.”
“Even more” raises the level in comparison to loving everyone “she knew” to people she does not know.
Regarding the subject’s career, what do you think of this statement?
'16 people came to know Jesus as their personal savior but I am disappointed that you did not reach the goal of 400 people in attendance...' from video --not exact quote.
These people would come to his church or his company. Nothing about Amanda's life work being to love him, or be loved by him, or Weston.
Setting makes it even more troubling:
This is a few days after his wife’s brutal murder, he let people know that his work was going on.
IS THIS EXPECTED?
Who does Amanda love?
1. People she knows
2. She wants people to come to his 'company'
Is he going to say, more importantly, that Amanda loved me, and our children?
“I know that in her death and legacy even more people will come to a saving faith in Christ.
Why did Amanda die?
Is Amanda some form of sacrifice?
Is he using Amanda's death to prop up his business?
Outside info from video: Amanda said that the marriage went bad the day the honeymoon ended because he went "to work" and was so involved in his work that she was thinking of leaving him to go home to family.
“even more” is to compare WHAT? What number of people “coming” is he comparing it to?
Is this word in any way associated with “preparation”?
We do not know. We are listening. We are taking notes. We are asking questions, but why did he mention "preparation"??
*Will he keep using her death to advertise his business?
I know beyond a shadow of a doubt her desire for me would be to continue
This is an expression used when pushing back against doubters. He is owning that at least one person disagree about Amanda's desire: it is likely Amanda, herself. Will this be affirmed or weakened as we go forward?
“I know” is weak and “shadow of a doubt” is weaker because in order to be necessary there would have to exist doubt.
“beyond a shadow of a doubt” which introduces the word “doubt” into a statement about his murdered wife. This is to acknowledge the need to persuade a doubter or doubters. It is about his career, again.
It is to weaken the assertion of his wife’s desire for him.
He is introducing the fact that Amanda brought doubts to him regarding him continuing his ministry.
*outside this statement he spoke to a group of NON PASTORS and NON pastoral candidates and “warned them” how wives can harm ministries or they can "sling shot" ministries.
*Projection noted. He 'told ' the audience that Amanda in life was more interested in him Davey, which hindered his work.
There were doubts about him and his work from her.
*outside info: She stated that his work almost caused the disintegration of the marriage and that had her family lived closer, she would have left him.
*outside info; his mentor noted something "wrong" with him, called him "Crazy Davey" but only felt better about him with Amanda's presence. Did this cause him to envy her?
*He insulted her, humiliated her subtly and over talked her on the video. Disrespectful and competitive towards her.
He told us the marriage got worse from pregnancy and he was under sexual temptation at the gym and she could not or would not meet his needs.
“…people generally only say “beyond a shadow of a doubt” when someone is questioning…”
what we’ve started here in Indy.
The word “we” here is about his ministry and started speaks to the beginning when it was him and Amanda. This suggests unity at the beginning of the work.
Did he need a “fresh start” ?
He has a fake poverty story he tells...again, the worse the pain, the greater the medicine selling technique that he uses.
“we were broke” and “very poor” lived on mac and cheese,
This means that in some areas, “we” is indicated as positive.
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.”
“our”: Who is plural here? Amanda is gone. There is no "Weston" here in context so...
does he have a girlfriend?
does he see himself and the church as married?
does he have messianic or messianic like complex?
does he see himself as married to the church?
“tragedy”: this might be acceptable, much later down the road, right now it is a brutal unsolved murder with a dangerous killer on the loose.
With the plural:
Is he sharing this “tragedy” not murder, with someone else??
“The best is yet to come” is a published slogan of “resonate” church, that resonates with young people ---if you can, during lunch break, take a quick peek at some of the videos.
“The best is yet to come”
“truly” adds emphasis
It is his priority which comes forth plainly: his career and work.
He used his initial statement to advertise the church.
What is missing?
Love, and the death of his unborn child, and Amanda in Heaven.
Question for us: Did Amanda NOT deserve heaven? 12:45PM
“still good” --- because His “goodness” might be in question if He “allowed” this to happen. Is this part of Davey’s actual theology, however??
His mentor gets 16,000 people each week and changes the language with faux claims of knowledge of Hebrew. They "do whatever it takes" and success is measured in numbers.
He went to the memorial service and said this about Davey:
“There was something very wrong with this young man. “
Random thoughts of analysts listening:
‘jesus’ ---“whatever it takes….” “the best is yet to come”
“higher life movement” --------- “negation or suspension of human faculties in rising above life’s problems”
Sex & money
Is he “selling” and “advertising” so much so that it will continue?
“100% not a suspect” the need for emphasis by police while they knew his bizarre statement was attracting more than raised eyebrows. Fox News called it "narcissistic" and focus on self. They said he wants the public to know that while his wife has just been murdered, he is going on with his work.
*Anti social traits examined. Inability for genuine human empathy.
Highly intelligent public speaker.
Analyst: "his life with her wasn’t that good" drawn only from statement as analyst did not see any videos. ---Video 3 weeks prior to Amanda’s death. He and Amanda did “Q & A” for the church. Detective: body language obvious.
Subject's complaints about her as both agreed bad marriage:
–Amanda did not meet my sexual needs
disparaged her. “Date night” “Davey”had to have sex first otherwise he would not concentrate on Amanda's conversation. This is bullying, controlling behavior, that is highly insulting to her.
He reduced her to body parts; “depersonalization” of his wife
Videos show "performances, including choreographing, costumes (sex appeal) and doing to the Gospel "whatever it takes" to make it "appealing" or to "resonate" to young. Everything is about sex.
Narcissitic language and extreme focus on his “career”
audience is young---late teens, early 20’s
mocks her modesty
“bring the butter” in a “sermon” in a “church” alarming --many churches teach sex but ministers do not use themselves as examples and do not humiliate their wives publicly. Had he been a licensed therapist he would have had formal complaint against license.
The videos show a man obsessed with “numbers”
“salvation of one person in ten years, they rejoice! versus DB drive for numbers.
Davey, using the pronoun “I” speaks of his disappointment.
16 people were “saved” eternally ---but, ' got to tell you guys, I am disappointed because I set a goal of 400 people and you did not meet the goal…'
She said: The marriage went south when the honeymoon ended and he went “to work”
He said: The trigger for the marriage getting worse was pregnancy.
He whipped out a gun for a prop and pretended to shoot someone.
He then said, ‘I warn you about marriage and the ministry. A wife can slingshot you towards success or destroy it’
Less than one month later, she is murdered while pregnant and he does not grieve?
***The first analysis went on the blog. Another statement was made by DB. There are significant changes in the next statement, at first but then:
Dear Resonate Family,
I cannot thank you enough for the unbelievable outpouring of love that you have shared with my family over the past few days.
negative – elevated, but it began with “I”, so we should expect him to continue in the first person singular.
As many of you know, my wife Amanda Grace and our unborn baby have been tragically killed.
1. complete social introduction
2. mentioning of the unborn child
These were the three first concerns mentioned earlier.
“Parroting language.” Did subject become influenced by suspicion, criticism, analysis, etc?
“I did not kill my daughter, Jonbenet.”
unnecessary introduction for an artificial entry, or ‘use’
We are going to have church this Sunday, just like we always do.
“normal”: this will be, IN HIS LANGUAGE anything but normal. Even young children know that when a story is told, "It was a day like any other", they recognize something extraordinary is about to happen.
“We” : himself and the church. This is an appropriate use of “we”
"Dear Resolute Church" is to directly address them. This is NOT NECESSARY and it is, therefore, very important. The analyst should be on alert that the subject is aware that his audience is larger than just the church! Will the rest of the statement affirm this concern, or deny it?
Is he really addressing just them?
In addition to meeting together at our normal service times, we are going to focus on celebrating Amanda’s life later Sunday afternoon.
“Celebration” very close to the murder;
It is a positive term
Would you celebrate while a killer is on the loose?
Is this just an advertisement for the “higher life movement” or does he have a reason to celebrate?
Would you expect a murdered life to be celebrated:
a. so soon?
b. while the murderer is still on the loose?
Where is the shock, anger, rage, fear, denial?
Please join me at Traders Point Christian Church at 5:00pm.
invitation at new location that holds many more people.
Does he expect many more people than “like we always do” to attend?
Remember, he specifically addressed this to people of whom he did not need to address, making it ‘sensitive’ to him.
Does he know something that the people do not know?
We are going to worship, share the gospel through sharing Amanda’s story, laugh together and cry together.
Analyst: 'It strikes me, personally, as very inappropriate, and most unexpected.'
"celebrate" so close to her death? "laugh"? Is this more slogan-ism selling? It is unlike Amanda's father.
Her heart would be that you invite as many people as possible to this celebration service that do not know the Lord.
Amanda’s heart wants numbers is the "perceived reality of DB"
Amanda while alive, loved people she knew;
Amanda while dead, wants people she did not know to come.
'Amanda, while dead, is doing what she should have done while alive, for me, Davey: bring me new customers for my growing business'
Question: Is Amanda a commercial for his company?
This is not “Amanda” but “her heart”
Is this what Amanda did not want, but her “heart” did?
Another gnostic view: 2 different people in one package.
“I have a thin person inside of me dying to get out!”
Amanda’s story has attracted national news.
Here we have the hint from "Dear Resonate Family" inclusion in his statement. He is talking to resonate family but has one eye on the "nation"
*Amanda is an “unsolved murder”, not a story. Story is a soft term of a ‘created’ element.
We write and create and tell stories. It takes time and it takes preparation.
Think of leakage: “preparation”?
I know that Jesus is going to make good come from this,
What would be, in his personal, subjective dictionary, that would define “good” in this situation? What would be “good” from the murder of his wife and unborn child, leaving him without his “partner” and “very best friend” and his son, Weston, without a mother, (which, by the way, nothing of her as “mother” was in his original statement. I pointed this out and his NEXT statement addressed “mother” too!
What “good” will come?
Let’s see if he answers this for us:
so in the event someone from the media tries to speak with you, simply respond by asking everyone to join us in prayer for my family.
*Control. He will now tell people what to say to media. Don’t answer their questions, just ask them “all” (everyone) to pray for “my” family.
This is very important that he has now used the term, “my family” which he has consistently avoided and will consistently avoid it going forward.
This may be the only time I have heard this expression, “my family” and it is about “prayer” from the media.
You can let them know that we have extremely heavy hearts and although we are hurting tremendously, we are still hoping and believing that great things are still yet to come.
“my family” needs prayer, but “we” have extremely heavy hearts.
He avoids saying how he, himself, feels.
He feels the need in a murder case to emphasize this with “extremely”, as if a murder could produce anything else;
anti-social/narcissistic traits within language (control)
"We" instead of "I" is vital:
The use of "we" when he should use only himself:
This is to “run away from commitment” regarding how he, himself, feels about the murder of his own wife.
His initial statement prepared us for this.
Does he not feel what other humans feel? Must he mimic, imitate or borrow language?
*Did the 2nd statement affirm or deny his use of commercializing his wife’s death?
*He did not say “I love Amanda” or “Amanda loved me”
He has not placed her in heaven, yet.
Did Amanda so hinder his ministry that she did not deserve Heaven?
Free Editing Process where he answers questions on his own.
Note any disruption in the speed of transmission, including pauses, “ums” and “you know”, etc.
Stuttering is only observed in non-stutterers.
II. Interview Transcript
I: Pastor Blackburn, thank you for joining us this morning, we’re so sorry for your loss.
DB: Thank you George, thank you very much.
I: I know the community came together in a memorial service for Amanda over the weekend, what do you want the world to know now about your wife?
a. recognition of the huge service, but the question is personal and moves away from what interests Davey (crowd) to the real issue: violent unsolved murder with killer on the loose:
b. What do you want the world to know about your wife?
Males: all state this is an easy question to answer and the language will include "love" and "I" and child.
**It is an "easy question"
*Would this question be easy if he had hired someone to kill his wife?
Or, if the subject has an intense guilt that is powerful enough to impact language, would it become a difficult question?
DB: Oh my gosh, I wish I could tell the world everything about her, I wish I had the time to but, um,
Before he gets to time, he speaks of limitation.
He does not have the time. Why not? What does he have the time to talk about? We will listen to learn the answer.
“but” is used to compare his lack of time and wish with what follows next:
I think what I would really want the world to know is that she loved Jesus with her whole heart.
a. He speaks for himself, which is good. This is commitment.
b. “think” is to immediately reduce commitment and allow for himself, or others to think differently.
c. “really” want
d. “she loved Jesus with her whole heart”
“jesus” is his product which is sold at his company. His 'jesus' and Amanda's father from video 'Jesus' seem different.
Psych : Is he talking about himself? (Messianic complex)
And she loved people,
Does this sound strange coming before mentioning “loving me”? Or, she loved her son, Weston? She loved her family??
This is not here yet…
and she spent her life pouring her life out to people.
“to people” not to me, not to her son…not to her family, but to “people” and this is not even "for people":
What is DB building here?
She served people,
She served “people” and not “our son” or “her family” or “me”
The advertised “story” is in full bloom here. We will now listen for any planning he leaks out about selling or using this "story"
she uh, loved the people
She loved “the people” now, which is “specific” via the article, “the”
This is not the language of a husband but the language of a non-sexual relationship and we must explore the possibility of the language of selling her story.
Since “people” is now specified, which “people” does he refer?
that were un loveable,
She loved the un loveable people. I do not know if they would appreciate this title, but it is his language. Who were these "un lovable" people? What made them "unlovable"?
Question: Would Amanda describe them as unloveable?
Observations from those who have seen videos: Amanda was loving, Godly, genuine Christian wife and mother.
Is this assertion that Amanda loved the "un lovable" people fictional story telling on the part of her husband due to plans to "sell" this "story" far beyond just using it to get on Inside Edition, GMA, Fox, etc?
gave hope to people who um, didn’t have hope,
“gave hope to people” and these “people” are those who did not have “hope” which is the language of “story building.”
Is he signaling a book, made for TV movie, Hollywood, a reality TV show, and so on…?
“Amanda saves the world!” by Davey
“others” is only used when someone else, like FAMILY is priority.
It does not seem from the statements made by Amanda that she would have classified "people" as unloveable. This appears to be classic story building language by one about to cash in on her death. Sales from such a book would far outweigh any monetary gain from life insurance and he has no emotional connection (using "I") to Amanda.
didn’t think they had a future, and um, she just absolutely gave everything she had to her Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Amanda’s love gives “futures” to un loveable and those without hope. Who are these people who are said to be without futures? How did Amanda give them futures?
This is ^&O*(U$$*() (unprintable)
Is this guy a slick salesman who is 'pushing the right buttons' with the public? He has insulted people and ascribed Messianic like qualities to a young mother who was likely so busy with a child and a demanding narcissistic husband that she did not have time to give futures to the world of unloveable people.
This is the language of hyperbole, which will get stronger as he goes on and he will show what it means to "get pronoun strength" coming up...
Question: Who is an “un loveable” person?
Answer: Murders, child molesters, killers, etc…. “Davey”?
Psych : projection from childhood?
But, after giving “absolutely” to people, un loveable, hopeless, futureless what eve was left, she gave it to JC, but…
nothing for Davey?
“Perhaps he was envious of her relationship with God.”
Cain sacrificed and it displeased God.
Abel sacrificed and it pleased God.
Cain took Abel to the “field’ (where disputes were often heard in private) and something was said that caused him to kill his brother.
Question: is 'envy' in the language of DB towards Amanda?
Answer: See what he praises Amanda for: not stealing the spotlight from him.
Also note “her Lord and Savior” and not “our Lord and Savior (from a husband)” may suggest that Davey disagreed with her philosophy of practical, hands on worship, which is often seen in helping others as maybe she did not agree with his "numbers first" mentality of success.
I: We know the police in, have released surveillance photos, some surveillance videos overnight, what else have they been telling you about who might have done this and why?
What have police told you?
Police reveal all or most all to family they KNOW are not involved, but withhold information from anyone who might talk, or might be suspected…
DB: Um, ya know, the ah investigators um, haven’t given me ah, a, ton of details that um, they’ve given me the details that they’ve released to, to the public as well,
The public speaking subject halts on a sensitive topic and reveals that the police have not shared with him ANYTHING about the case.
an, an so we, we’ve been really tryin’ to do over the past week is um, is, is, kinda figure out , we, ya know, how to grieve the loss an,
Grieving the murder: It is not “I”, nor “me” but “we”
The murder is not “my loss”, nor even “our loss” but it is “the loss”, which is so distant that it sounds like he is counseling someone in his church.
Is he incapable of feeling emotions? (sociopathic imitation of emotions)
Something caused a powerful change to cause him to go from “me” to “we” at a most personal point. (Grieving)
an how to, how to move forward from here an how to work thru all of this ,
From his first statement: he wanted to move forward before there has been a moment to yet grieve. This was noted initially, too.
it’s devastating to the family
"the family" is not "me" or "my family."
We cannot say that Davey Blackburn is devastated by his wife's murder because he himself will not say it.
This is distancing language that suggests a need to explore if he:
a. is incapable of emotion
b. or has guilty knowledge of the crime
------has extreme guilt in something, enough to eject "I" from his language.
Question: If he was having an affair, is this enough guilt to produce pronoun ejection?
psych please consider that the affair would cost him his career if recovered....
It is not “devastating to me”
The disconnect comes in the use of complex language AND a consistent priority.
Clinical: like a professional treating unrelated clients or patients. There is no connection to the pain or loss.
an , and um, ya know the fu, funeral this past Sunday was just an amazing celebration of, of her life an, we just um, we were so grateful for, for friends and family comin’ to show support, and the nation um, there were over 6500 people tuned in across the world um, and, and, what was so great about Amanda is she was so selfless, that she didn’t want here life to be put on display ever, but she wanted Jesus to be put on display. We feel like that’s what happened at the celebration service, that Jesus was lifted up and people’s lives have been changed because of that.
In statements where he has no connection to grief, fear, or Amanda, he can accurately quote the number of people who came to see his company online.
(This shocked those who had no knowledge of the case) ---how could the murder victim's own husband even care about such a thing?? how could he be so crass as even mention it?
Then, what is so “great” about Amanda is that she did not steal his thunder. (his spotlight, his attention) “Amanda was so selfless that there was only me to soak up all the attention.”
“Display” He is telegraphing his plans to capitalize on her death.
: And it was such
Here is cross talk
DB: and, so , um , we’ve been …
I: It was such an outpouring of…
DB: Go ahead George..sorry
I: I’m sorry, sorry, I apologize
I: "Do you have any idea why anyone would want to hurt Amanda?"
Police said at this point: the reason why is because she disrupted a home invasion robbery.
DB: "There's not, Amanda did not have an enemy in the world. Um, I, I can't, I cant imagine any reason why, that's why this has baffled us as much as anybody and so we are trusting the investigators who have been so good to us through this process um, trying to keep us up to speed on what they have and we trust, you know, that they are they are doing the best they can and have all the resources at their disposal right now to catch who did this."
a. he avoided the motive police stated
b. Stuttering on “I” increase in anxiety
c. Who is “us”? Who is “we”? This change of pronoun comes after grieving and the motive for the crime.
d. He tells us in the negative that she did not have an enemy in the world, causing us to ask, “did he know of someone who, himself included, that may be considered an enemy?”
e. He cannot “imagine” even though police have told him the answer.
The question is not who would hurt Amanda, but “why” that causes great sensitivity to the subject.
I: "Investigators have also said that there is a code of silence that may have prevented people from coming forward even if they have information that might solve this crime. What do you want to tell those people who might know something about this?
Fear of gang violence and retribution. Maybe Amanda was killed because she recognized or could identify the killer.
The Interviewer recognizes code of silence –fear of gang?
Davey has not said anything about fearing the killer. Not once has DB expressed fear of the killer. This is not natural when an unknown killer or killer who entered his OWN home and killed his OWN wife is on the loose!
DB: 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 but I read Amanda's journal
What "topics" produced which pronoun?
Topic: information produced “we”
Topic: gratitude produced “we”
Topic: emotions over murder produced “we”
Topic: confusion produced “we”
Topic: understanding produced “we”
Topic: anger produced “we”
Topic: what to do, produced “we”
Topic: Story telling brought back the confident non stuttering salesman who not only read his wife’s journal, but is now telling the entire nation what was in it.
The power to change pronouns is very strong.
Davey Blackburn is writing a story to sell.
Example of Hillary clinton: it took 6 years and countless affair so eject "I" from her language. It is a powerful thing to have "I" avoided or ejected from English humans: We say "I" so many millions of times that there must be a powerful reason (guilt) to change it.
He runs away from commitment.
Did you do it??
entry just a few days before as she journaled every day of her life just a few days before she was killed and she put something in there that just spoke volumes to us that we are deriving strength from she said we don't know what the future holds but we know Who holds the future and that's Jesus, and so we are drawing our strength from that and Jesus holds the future and we can't see it clearly now but she can see it clearly now as she is in heaven with Jesus and we will see her soon."
This is crass commercialism for his upcoming book, made for TV movie, and ultimate success that drives him
it is not just that he read her diary but that he felt the need to tell the nation!
I: Thank you (cross talk) can you mention how you are holding up through all of us, hey hey there've been you know, when you look at these photos and see all this has there been any other problems in the neighborhood did you did you or any of your neighbors recognize uh, that person , its kind of hard to determine who that person might be, that person in the photo?
DB Yeah, Yeah, I mean it was such an obscure photo its I mean its extremely difficult to say anyone recognized it I mean our fam, our neighborhood was so close and it was such a seemingly safe neighborhood that this devastated all the neighbors, you know we knew all the neighbors we had just lots of cook outs with them recently and uh, and so, you know, we're we're we're we're just as confused as everybody else...at this point.
This is to run away from commitment.
What is “it”? “It” and not “him” in the photo??
Question: Is it possible that Davey met one of these gang members in a counseling session?
I: "Your little boy Weston is just 15 months old he won't grow up with his mom. What are you going to tell him about her?
All: easy question. "I will tell him how much his mom loved him and how much he meant to her and how she loved his smile every day..." (on and on)
Very easy question.
Extremely telling response:
DB: "Yeah, yep. I think that thats probably one of the hardest things in this whole process is knowing
He tells us that this is a “process” (which may speak to his future plans)
This is to affirm the "story building" and the story selling. This could lead to millions of dollars.
that he is not going to grow up with Amanda,
Distancing language note.
"Amanda" is not even his mom. Yet, he changes her into "mom" but only when he moves away from personal Weston, and on to the "world", further telegraphing his plans to sell this deceptive story to the world:
because she was the perfect mama, every mom in the world could have learned from her,
Hyperbolic language noted which is often associated with criticism of one’s motherhood up to even CPS intervention or threats. It is not likely that Amanda experienced CPS, but the increase is likely that the subject complained and criticized her, perhaps for "only" being a mother.
It is very likely that Amanda loved being a Christian mother and the subject was not pleased. Being a Christian mother is not 'world wide' and is not 'inviting people to come' and so on. It is very much the impression Amanda Blackburn left with the nation:
not flashy, story telling, company building...
More hyperbole that is associated with deception and need to persuade: Every wife in the world should learn from her what he, himself refuses to personally say about her:
I wish every wife in the world could have learned from her and I know that there is going to be some stories that we're going to tell Weston as he grows up but I do know one thing that through all of this Amanda's hope and um her prayer is that Weston grows up and sees Jesus in all this and falls in love with Jesus.
And that would be her hope through all of this and so as we're dialoging with him and trying to shepherd his heart as he grows up we're just going to continue to point to the fact that his mom loved Jesus and loved people and that's contagious and we just believe that that the Lord is going to do a great work in his life as well.
note there was no social into of Weston
note the word “with” between people indicates distance
note the “dialoging” (clinical language with a two year old)
note the plural “we”again
Is he and the book going to 'shepherd' Weston? Why not just say "I will tell Weston (not "we") that Mommy loved you with her whole heart and wanted you to walk in faith of Christ, too, so that you will be with her again, in heaven"??
Perhaps he is going to just give Weston an autographed signed copy?
Loved Jesus and loved people, but not me…and…
what about Weston? Not “your mother loved you very much, Weston!”
"Thank you very much, Pastor"
DB: "Thank you very much, George."
Fox News gave him opportunity to address suspicion and deny.
The interviewer said that this was difficult to ask but police must start with the husband and this must be very hard for him to deal with as a man of God but they must first clear the husband and then move out to other suspects:
This was the time for him to say “I didn’t kill my wife Amanda, and I don’t know who did.”
Had he said this, we would have concluded: one selfish narcissistic heartless crass cold saleman who did not have guilty association with his wife’s death.
"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.
“difficult to swallow” ---could she breathe?
"to understand" is to accept. This is not something we expect from innocent people. HIS WIFE was murdered and there is nothing to understand! Police, go find my wife's killer, now before he kills again!
Praise of police -ingratiating.
Some info from the affidavit or media?
Police reiterated that he is not involved and they have the shooter and two accomplices in custody. She was not raped. Her clothes were moved a bit, but rape now excluded.
**Did Davey Blackburn wait outside for an hour on the phone while his wife struggled to live?
Or, is this another false report from media?
"For us, we don't have anything to hide.”
“I have nothing to hide” is to invite searching. The ‘I have a turd in my pocket’ sort of thing.
For him it was “We have nothing to hide” but he felt the necessity of emphasizing the plural with “For us,..”
1. Who is “us”
2. Who is “we”
3. The lack of hiding is connected to at least one other person
4. When someone says this, they are often thinking of something they do not wish to be known.
IF Davey counseled one of the gang members, he could be arrested. But if he is not involved in her death he certainly is not upset by it and he intends to profit off of it.
She died at the hospital. She was unconscious at the home and might she have survived had one hour of lying bleeding not happened? 3 gun shots to the head.
Is it possible that the guilt he feels, being something strong enough to change pronouns, came from:
He was having an affair?
If so, is this enough to produce change in language?
1. Man is driven for success.
2. Man says marriage is really bad and pregnancy makes it worse.
3. Marriage not helping success.
4. Man tempted while at gym. Man uses gun in performance + language of violence
Wife is murdered.
Wife was pregnant
Man was at gym during murder
Man expresses no fear of killer for himself
Man avoids saying I love wife; wife loves me
Just a bizarre coincidece?
Question for detectives: How long would it take for police to definitively clear him of any association with shooters?
Answer: Weeks, at earliest, months at latest. Possible cold case issue: this is where police fail to find a connection, case is closed, and later reviewed by 'fresh eyes' in cold case. Something sticks out to detective and he begins to dig and gets case re-opened. This has happened many times. Subjects who have passed polygraphs have confessed and been convicted years later.
Analysis shows intense guilt, deception about emotions and priority of business success including the intention of exploiting Amanda Blackburn's murder for personal gain. At the time of the statement, the subject expressed no personal connection to the victim, and no fear of the killer at large.
Anti social, narcissistic personality can produce signals of guilt because the feelings are not real and must be borrowed and mimicked.
Yet, we have one driven for success who is capitalizing on her death and signals planning and intention for the future of "Amanda's Story" which, at the time of the statement, was an unsolved murder.
He is commercializing her death.
He signals plans to capitalize on the murder and has, within a week of her death, already changed the language of murder (which he softened) to "Amanda's Story" while no arrests effected and killer on the loose.
He does not say "I love Amanda", "Amanda loves me", nor does he say that Amanda loved Weston. Instead, he only attributes Amanda's love to
"un lovable" people
"people without hope"
"people she gave futures to"
and other "story building" lines that indicate deception and ascribes no love to himself, nor his son.
The analysis also shows the acute coincidental nature of the murder and questions the use of the word "preparation" when combined with the distancing language, and future plans of "Amanda's Story" and how this will unfold.
The analysis reflects his performances, including the disparagement of the victim, the obsession with sex, but predominantly, the obsession with "numbers" coming to his church. The analysis shows this as the priority, while expressing no fear of the killer.
That just weeks prior he complained of the bad marriage and connected the negative to pregnancy only to have her murdered weeks later while pregnant is the strong coincidental nature of the case.
Some of the most bizarre aspects:
In a sermon he did mention “life insurance”
In one video he pulled out a gun and fired it (air gun or pellet gun?)
Both he and Amanda give strong terms on how bad marriage was
He uses his own sex drive, while dressed in a 'hip' manner to 'resonate' with young people
His obsession with numbers is noted in the "6500" number quoted in the same interview in which he will not connect himself, linguistically, with Amanda.
His language did not show the language of sexual assault. This suggests that if she was sexually assaulted, he had no knowledge of it, from any source, including police.
The source of his guilt is not clear, but it is not 'universal' guilt that parents and spouses feel generally. It is a much more powerful guilt.
The guilt is strong enough to
cause him to "flee" to the pronoun "we", while then, upon its removal (topic, contextual) causes the pronoun "I" to reappear.
Would guilt over an affair be powerful enough to change language? Analysts were mixed on this with all agreeing that it would if the murder was the result of the affair, while the possibility of such would produce guilt if an affair would destroy the career.
In cases where this is indicated, we sometimes fine attempt to persuade of "great love", which is absent here.
Psychological impact upon language:
Anti-social personality (or traits) along with narcissism:
Inability to feel remorse; love, but can mimic the language of others.
His language showed a man un phased by tragedy.
Psch: He may see this as a bump in the road of his career that will be behind me;
Pronoun “we” was produced in specific areas which he was not strong, but in the area of his greatest strength; advertising: “I”
It is fascinating to see, in relation to Amanda, what he 'ran' from and what he 'owned' with the pronoun I. Each topic produces a pronoun:
As husband of Amanda, “we”
As father, this triggered the pronoun “we”
Grieving? This triggered the pronoun “we”
Emotions? This, too, though vague, produced, “we”
Even motive produced “we” and he stutters on "we" which is most unusual. "We" provides safety in numbers, therefore the anxiety should have already been reduced AND he is a public speaker.
When someone consistently uses "we" but suddenly switches to "I" in Statement Analysis, it is always a call to "take note" of something very important. It is a signal of instant importance and instant confidence or "ownership" and is always vital:
The pronoun "we" is engrossing the murder, the motive and the emotions associated with the murder, but when making this unsolved murder into "Amanda's Story" the pronoun "I" immediately returns.
Therefore, this portion is his least sensitive and his most confident portion of his statement. This statement about "Amanda's Story" was made before the dangerous killer was arrested. This is something most unexpected for quite some time after the murder's resolution and significant grieving time has passed.
Anti social and narcissistic indicators are evident within the language.