Co Occurring Deception in investigations is rare, but it happens.
Mostly it is evident in cases of employee theft where an investigation commences and an employee is deceptive, but the employee did not steal; but had done something else for which deception is present in the language, triggering suspicion.
Over the years, there has been only a handful of cases where co-occuring deception was indicated. In each case, it was challenging to sort through.
In a missing persons case, a father was deceptive about his missing toddler.
Later, a sex offender down the block was arrested in her murder.
The father was deceptive because he was hiding a secret...illegal drug abuse had led him to being passed out on the couch, incapable of protecting his daughter, who had gotten out of the house and wandered down the block into the path of a sex offender who had molested and killed her. In his timeline he indicated deception while speaking about 'what happened' to his daughter. This is a Co Occurring deception.
I once investigated a case in which a subject was deceptive and I sent my analysis for review of which it was agreed: "Yes, she is deceptive, but something else has taken place..." which caused me to explore tangent criminal behavior which later surfaced. With this being rare, and mostly within employee theft, it can be employee misconduct that is severe or important enough to surface during an investigation.
On another such theft investigation, a statement revealed deception, though not with the theft. I then learned that another (and far greater) theft had taken place of which she knew who had done it which is why her statement showed deception indicated.
The Murder of Amanda Blackburn
Davey Blackburn has been deceptive during the weeks following his wife's murder. He has shown a desperation to turn it into something it wasn't; to justify his own lack of emotional response to it, which is why he gave it the convenient and commercialized reason for it, ultimately tripping theologically in order to force the view.
He had a need to justify the death to quell the guilt that was within his language, over not being devastated by it, but relieved. This coupled with his insatiable drive for success, peddling her death to sell t shirts and bring in numbers. He has needed to do this.
He showed no emotion whatsoever regarding his wife's killers, uncaught and on the loose.
He showed little connection linguistically to his wife, her murder, or even his son. The distancing language was extreme.
When he was asked about the notion of the husband being investigated, he said,
"For us, we have nothing to hide" which was the giveaway.
This is something not only known to analysis, but to parents who hear this from their kids: he has something to hide. Not only did he signal he had something to hide, but psychologically 'hid' in the plural of "us" and "we", while speaking for himself.
When speaking of her death, he used the same plural pronouns.
He is hiding something and it has to do with someone else (plural) and he lacked normal human emotion regarding his wife's death.
If Blackburn is hiding something that is dual to his wife's murder, it may be something his mentor not only knows about, but has known about for years, indicating as much when he said, "there's something wrong with that boy" and then went on to give a sexualized description of Blackburn, himself, while at a memorial for Amanda.
When an investigation commences, one that is deceptive will bring suspicion upon himself or herself, whether is be drug purchasing and abusing, or something along the lines of sexual identity, it is never wise. The more one speaks, the more deception is indicated. The more deception is seen, the more the investigation triggers diligence. From the beginning, police have known he was not the shooter, but his statements and behavior signaled that something was amiss.
A husband not devastated by his wife and pre born child's death but emotionally distant who signals something is hidden may be just that: dual deception.
From the beginning I have noted guilt within the language, but have written that I do not know the source of the guilt; whether it is a connection to the gang that shot his wife, or something else, but whatever it is, it is life consuming and personally defining making it powerful enough in his life to overshadow the murder itself.
What supports this possibility?
a. The language as in posted analysis.
b. the videos including the repeated attempts to portray
c. The language of mentor
d. The language of friend
e. His self revealed history
f. Behavioral analysis (commercializing on her death)
What does not support this possibility?
a. The coincidental nature of the case
What might lead this to conclusion?
The 911 call.
As the police investigation continues more information is released. Blackburn, himself, had to be investigated by statistics, alone, but his own words increased suspicion. In this regard, he has no one to blame but himself.
For some it is the crass exploitation of Amanda's death, while for others, it is a painful misrepresentation of Christianity that so infuriates them.
For others, there is the circumstances that say, "no one is this lucky!" when it comes to the coincidental nature of this case.
Statement Analysis is concerned with truth.
"For us, we have nothing to hide" is a statement with several elements for analysis.
This means that when even a school boy under suspicion says, "I have nothing to hide" he is thinking of something he does not want revealed.
For Blackburn, not only did this come in the context of his wife's murder, but he used the plural, telling us what he 'did not' have (negative) and did so with 'needed emphasis.'
What does this mean?
It is the language of guilt.
It is the language of challenge.
It means that when asked about being investigated, he was specifically thinking of something that he does not want known and...
this is a challenging portion:
it is something that produced not only repetition ("us" and "we") but associates this secret with at least one other person.
The context: his wife's murder.
Did she know what he is hiding?
Does someone else know what he is hiding?
That he is hiding something is not in question, but with whom does the secret abide.
Or...is the plural a psychological retreat for safety, as researchers have shown, where guilt is shared, or thought to be mitigated by the presence of others, like a school boy who is caught and says, "but everyone was doing it!"