Wednesday, December 9, 2015
Amanda Blackburn Murder & Pronouns Examined
Question for Analysis:
Is it possible that the husband of murder victim Amanda Blackburn uses the pronoun "we" because he sees himself as connected to divinity?
Let's examine this.
The more one speaks, the more sample we have for analysis, and the broader the reference point or "baseline" we have to work with.
Pronouns are intuitive and are used to solve crimes. How powerful are pronouns?
When someone goes from "I" to "we" without any contextual justification, it is due to guilt. This is commonly found in case after case, from murder to theft, and is so common, in fact, that parents and teachers pick it up in children.
It is done to either hide within a crowd, or spread out the guilt, psychologically, as it lessens the impact of guilt. This guilt is not always the 'conscience' or cognizance of having failed morally, but a negative reaction in some solely wishing not to be caught. True sociopaths feel this stress or guilt, as it is commonly called, even if they care for no one other than their own selves.
In the murder of Amanda Blackburn, there is a list of coincidence which investigators say point to this murder being not random nor exclusively a home invasion. Here is why:
Home invasions are for the purpose of quick profit.
Investigators say most home invasions target the victim specifically for wealth, especially for cash, as in drug dealers. Others will grab the most valuable easily carried and pawned items for quick sale. The younger the invaders, the more unpredictable, including the penchant for violence. However, sexual homicide is not something expected to be seen.
In this murder, a reporter disclosed "sexual assault" which was later on refuted.
The removal of the victim's clothing is a sexual assault unless there is another explanation such as "staging", or corpse removal. Since she was left still alive, corpse removal is not likely. This leaves sexual assault or appearance (staging) of sexual assault and the journalist was correct, even if no forensic evidence is conclusive. Was this an intended rape? Did she fight off the rapist who then shot her?
Yet, even this is strange: she was shot three times.
The point of shooting her more than once was to kill her; as a single shot would likely end any fight or struggle, and speaks more to an execution.
Police had video of the shooter or gang, outside the home, and knew, with "100% accuracy" that the husband, Davey Blackburn, was not the shooter.
Video tape evidence at the gym showed him there during the time period of which the victim was likely shot. This was something, while the shooter was not arrested, was stated with emphasis by police: removing doubt that Blackburn was the shooter, but the investigation had to continue. They needed to learn:
Why was Amanda Blackburn murdered?
This would eventually answer more questions, including: Is the husband responsible for the murder?
This is the question that has been debated greatly in newsgroups.
1. The husband was obsessed with work.
2. The wife complained of his obsession with work.
3. The husband said it was a bad marriage and gave specific sexual complaints against her.
4. The husband said the marriage got worse with pregnancy.
5. Pregnancy demands interfere with work obsession.
6. The husband said he had sexual temptation at the gym.
7. The wife was shot while he was at the gym.
8. The husband brandished a gun at work 2 days prior.
9. The wife died from a gun. Criminal psychologists ask "Was this on his mind at the time?"
10. The husband spent one hour, each Tuesday, on the phone with the same person, the day Amanda was killed. On this day, however, the bulk of the call was in the driveway: he did not enter the home.
The wife became pregnant, again, and now is removed from the equation.
Linguistically, Blackburn uses the language of guilt.
1. Distance from the victim
2. Subtle disparagement of the victim
3. Distance language from family
4. Distance language from impact
5. No linguistic fear of killer
In repeated statements and questions related to the murder of Amanda, Blackburn uses the pronoun "we", rather than "I", even when seated alone.
When asked about what it felt like, "as a man of God" to be investigated, he said,
"For us, we have nothing to hide."
This begs the question, "who is 'us'?" and "who is 'we'?" by the news broadcaster.
It was not asked.
Recently, Blackburn spoke about a direct revelation he had from God. The analysis of such is found here: Deception Indicated.
To indicate deception in this "revelation" the subject must know and show awareness that he intends to deceive people.
He began with "I had a thought", which went to "God spoke to my heart", as if an impression, but once qualified, he then gave direct quotes. This is to claim direct revelation from God, Himself, and then he used this "Divine Authority" or marching orders to not only declare a vision, but to insult an entire church in front of its pastor, his father-in-law: the victim's father.
This is to show himself "above", both in authority and in 'relation to God', to the man who may suspect him in dispatching his daughter. By using the 2 qualifiers, he did what deceptive people do, with rapid transmission: gave himself an out.
This is a signal that he is well rehearsed in deception and may be a pathological liar.
Note the import of the lie: it made him and his company a historical figure of prominence.
Now consider that in this short speech, the use of the pronoun "I" was used, and in it, God used his first name, which is given for emphasis.
He then said that the murder victim died so the church could come to life. It was a trade in which he used sensitive emphasis, or the need to persuade, that it is something he would not have done.
To this, he was "alone" in his pronoun use.
He, alone, spoke to God.
He, alone, will pastor the "army" that will go forth in historical manner.
When he addresses Amanda's murder, he is "we" and he is "us", who has "nothing to hide."
When a 13 year old boy stands before his junior high school principal and says, "I have nothing to hide" it is a signal to see what's in his locker, on his person, etc. The crude remark is, "he has a turd in his pocket" when he said that.
It is a linguistic signal that the subject, at this moment, is thinking of things he does not want known and is concerned about them being found. We note what topic (context) produces this response.
When this arises with the plural pronoun, it indicates:
a. That there is something, or some things, hidden, of which the subject does not want known
b. That the subject is thinking of this hidden item in correlation with someone else; or
c. That which is hidden produces guilt of which the guilt is mitigated by a crowd.
Analysis Question: Given the 'divine revelation' claim, is it possible that Blackburn sees himself as 'one' with God, or in some strange way, a 'trinity' of sorts, or even of such divine cooperation that he is so close that this would produce the pronoun "we" in his language?
Answer: No. This is not supported by the context.
We look at what produces the pronoun "we" in his language, versus what produces the normal, "I" in his language and we find, consistently, a need to 'go plural' regarding the murder and its impact.
It is alarming that he has now found a "justification" for the victim's death. The "murder" (that which he called an 'event' or 'situation' early on) was something that "baffled the family", but now, not only does he know "why" she died, but her death is 'good' for his career, something he has obsessed about repeatedly.
Objection: Maybe the hurt is so bad that he retreats to the plural?
Answer: The truth is the opposite.
The murder of a wife is 'up close' and 'personal' and as we are possessive creatures, even against all 'political correctness', husbands and wives claim personal ownership over each other. The second most 'personal' death would be that of a biological child.
In language, this is where we hear "I", most often, even when a spouse is seated with other family members.
The other family members do not have the same close personal connection with the victim as the spouse.
The same is seen in child deaths.
In using emotional language in a you tube video, he expressed a stronger emotional pronoun about the failure to obtain numbers for his company, with this "disappointment" connected to reliably with the pronoun "I"; and in context, the negative comparison was with 'souls saved', which revealed priority and obsession.
In the claim of having a conversation with God, he gives signals of deception which indicates that he knows this is not true, and needs not only to convince the audience, but will have a technical "out" upon being challenged. "I said it was a 'thought'!" This is commonly used in deceptive advertising today. It is sometimes used conversationally in insults where the subject later says, "I was only kidding" having done the damage and communicated the message.
That the murder victim lost her 'life so the church could live' is not simply of concern to orthodox Christianity which teaches that Christ died to give life, but to criminal investigators as to possible motive.
Blackburn's use of pronouns, as well as his rapidity of transmission suggests a history of successful deception and may be a pathological liar.
A motive for possible connection to the shooter, even through various layers and connections to criminal elements, that should be considered is the profit to be gained from her death.
In his first statement, he used her death for advertising purposes and has consistently done so since.
Criminal investigators look into any possible planning and preparation, even while looking at the profile of one:
a. Does he have a history of lying?
b. Does he have a history of narcissism?
c. Is there a history of... and it goes on looking into all possibilities leading to,
"Can we locate a connection between the shooter, his gang and any adult, including the husband?"
The final pronoun objection is this:
The pronoun use of "we" is delusional.
This is not evidenced in the language. The delusional will not use qualifiers such as "I had a thought" and "felt like...my heart..." They do not show, in language, the need to deceive when speaking under clinical delusion.
The delusional will speak of voices, directly and commands. In the delusional, it is often difficult to pick up deception. "The angel Gabriel came to me today and said..." was told to me in an interview. The subject was delusional but the sentence structure shows no intention of deception. This is where lie detection picks up its signals: intent to deceive.
When we commonly speak of 'delusions of grandeur' it is not in the clinical sense of delusion. It can be a young boy believing against evidence that he will be a professional sports star, or someone who simply has a confidence that he or she is born to greatness yet unfulfilled. This expression is commonly used to describe extreme ego, but it is not to say that the person is delusional.
This was seen in the Casey Anthony trial where the women interrupted it and was given a light sentence under the claim of "not knowing what she was doing" because she was off her medication.
She knew how to get dressed, and knew which streets to navigate to get to the address of the court house. She knew which courthouse room to enter. She knew what time it started. She knew the television cameras were on.
It showed planning.
In the murder of Amanda Blackburn, investigators explore any possible planning involved.
The original question posed about the use of the plural pronoun having connection to 'divine' association is viewed in context which allows the subject to answer the question, himself, via his own language.
In connection to having a personal conversation with God, he does not retreat to 'we', as he did in questions related to the victim's murder, or its impact upon him, or his son.
Investigators should be very concerned about his public justification of Amanda's murder.
While all things eventually come together to produce good is a long term act of faith, which cannot see what possible good can come of something like this, calling the faithful to trust, here we have something investigators must consider as motive:
that Amanda died so his company would grow.
Davey Blackburn has not been charged, nor implicated by police as having any connection to the murder of Amanda Blackburn. Blackburn, himself, has not only advertised the murder for his own profit, but has made all of these statements available to the public for their opinion and judgement to be exercised.
Although I do not know if he has any indirect association to the murder, I am alarmed by the coincidental nature of the case, the language of guilt, and the justification of her murder, under the veil of religious language.
In my own work, I recognize that "for us, we have nothing to hide" is not simply the language of guilt, but of something hidden. That which is hidden may not be association to Amanda's killers.
It is something, but I have yet to conclude what I think it is.
I am bothered by the new 'motive' and justification for Amanda's death; not because of Christian blasphemy; from a deceptive one deception will come, but because it so quickly turns something so ugly into something 'positive.'
Far too little time has elapsed for such.
The need to justify is sometimes found in the language of killers. It is predominantly hidden, or subtle, but it is often there. The one exception I have learned from is Tammy Moorer: she justified the killing of Heather Elvis openly. This is the only example I have seen in which, prior to arrest, one has spoken thus.
This is more the language of one convicted who has exhausted appeals and the truth comes out.
Every other example I have studied and taught to investigators is subtle, teaching them to look for quiet, small words used to justify the homicide; especially domestic homicides.
In shaken baby syndrome, the baby is blamed for not 'cooperating'; in child molestation the child 'flirted';
In teenagers killed or abused, 'hormones' are cited.
When one dies, people, especially loved ones, speak only the positive, quickly forgetting the flaws.
That Amanda was "not well read" (which justifies the humiliation she experienced on video) is a subtle insult of her intellect.
That the husband is so driven as to even use 'sloganism' in her death is concerning.
Cold case detectives have to have thick skin.
By virtue of their work, they 'criticize' the failure of others.