What is my own conclusion in this matter?
Consider the lengthy discussion into the murder of Amanda Blackburn and why this case has caught such interest.
A young pregnant woman is murdered in a home invasion robbery and with video tape, police announce quickly that the husband is not the shooter and shortly later, criminal thugs are arrested.
Not so fast.
When a pregnant woman is killed, especially in her own home, the husband or boyfriend is the statistically most likely killer, but here, with video, the killer is behind bars but interest in the case, instead of subsiding, actually increases the 'who done it' conversation.
"For us, we have nothing to hide." Davey Blackburn, on Fox News.
Instead of saying how it feels to be investigated in answer to the question, Blackburn said it was "hard to swallow" and then added a line that immediately invites new questions: "For us, we have nothing to hide." Had he said, "I have nothing to hide" he would have invited 'search' and suspicion, but retreating to the plural, he doubled up on the suspicion, something he had been doing since his first words after her murder.
The public quickly concluded what Blackburn's mentor would later say: "Something is wrong with this guy."
Statement Analysis of his statements issued and then of his interviews showed that Blackburn, in relation to the murder of his wife, is concealing or suppressing information. His choice of words reveal deception via withholding information. He uses the language of guilt.
I have not concluded the source of guilt fully yet, however, basically because interviewers have avoided asking the very same questions they generally ask in murder cases. Like Steve Doocey's embarrassing pass, they either ignore entirely any connection to the murder, or preface embarrassingly their questions with deference to ministry. I do have a sense, though, as time has passed and he has spoken out again and again.
There are various possibilities to the source of guilt which is being hid, but two main themes have emerged. A major difficulty, however, arises in the two:
I. Guilt due to prior knowledge of the murder
II. Guilt over sexuality
Q. What is this major difficulty with the two?
A. The major difficulty is that the circumstances speak to both hypotheses
I. Guilt due to prior knowledge of the murder seems to dominate commentators here. It is the suspicion of many in law enforcement. Here is why:
a. The marriage
The husband's obsession is with numerical success and his wife wanted his attention. This became very quickly a bad marriage, from the day the honeymoon ended. He said it got worse when she became pregnant. She became pregnant again and was murdered. The obsession with numerical success die his interpretation of Scripture to hyper-pragmatism; that is, "whatever it takes" which has led to a very specific choreography.
b. The timing
The murder took place on the very day in which he always goes to the gym and always talks on the phone to the very same person but on this day, as luck would have it, the phone call kept him out of the house for 40 crucial minutes: 40 minutes which had he entered the house, might have led to earlier intervention into stopping the blood flow. Might remaining outside the house for 40 minutes have cost her her life?
c. The aftermath
Immediately after the murder, Blackburn showed little linguistic connection to the victims, instead focusing upon his career. This was of alarm to Fox New, but what stood out more so to analysis is his utter lack of fear of the unknown killer returning to kill his son or himself. The detached, driven husband's focus was solely on how many people he could get to notice his church through her death. This was so dominant that he was incapable of stopping himself, even quoting the number of people who came to his church via the internet.
If this wasn't bad enough, he went on to claim to have a conversation with divinity in which he received the news that his wife died for the church; supplanting Christ's own death, and that he was going to have a church that was so big that it had no historical precedence.
That he mentioned the specific location of his meeting is significant in Statement Analysis: the reference to water ("shower") is closely associated with sexual abuse. That his wife's clothing was removed in her murder is not lost here, but the reference could also be due to his own childhood where he may have been a victim of sexual abuse, bringing him to the conflicting sexuality today. The connection with sexuality and deception is noted.
The statements made and the behavior both show guilt in relation to the murder of his wife. Is the source of guilt a prior knowledge of her murder?
This would mean some contact with a local gang where payment is made and low level gang members (kids) are sent out robbing, with the additional duty of murder. The young gang members would not likely know of any connection and would not give up names of higher ranking gang members. Better to go to prison silent, then go to prison and be sentenced to death as one who has revealed the information. This would explain why he had no linguistic expressions of concern for his son, the neighborhood, himself, or for justice for Amanda.
That he continues to subtly insult the victim also fits both categories: guilty knowledge, and sexuality. This adds to the confusion.
II. Guilt over sexuality.
"For us, we have nothing to hide" was said in regard to the fact that police were investigating or looking into his life over Amanda's death. This is not only to affirm that he has something to hide, but it gives the notion that what is hidden is in relation to someone else, with "we", but this too is then further emphasized, by the use of "us" in his statement.
In the free editing process, he chose this word in less than a microsecond of time. Either he needed to hide psychologically with "others", using the plural, or he is specifically thinking of at least one other person. In either case, he compounds the guilt.
Is what he has to hide sexuality?
Some of the very things in section one now support section two: his lack of linguistic connection with Amanda, for example, could be guilt from either.
It does not, however, explain the lack of fear, nor does it answer to the coincidental nature of the lengthy time on the driveway.
What does support it?
1. His self reported history.
He spoke of a lie in high school that was told in which his parents, teachers, faculty, coaches and even peers abandoned him. Lies will generally bring condemnation from peers or adults, in high school, but not both. The only thing I can think of that even friends would not support is a destructive lie about sex. This may have been severe enough to move to another city, and his father to give up his church and move to another.
2. His mentor's statements.
His mentor not only told us that he recognized something "wrong with that boy" but in a memorial about Amanda, the mentor had Davey on the mind: he spoke in sexualized terms about Blackburn, physically, as one would speak if sexually attracted. The mentor qualified this with, "if you're a man you know what I am talking about" (to which men have said that they do not know what he means) to exclude himself as homosexual.
His mentor's language appears supportive of this.
3. His own 'sermons.'
In video taping his messages, Blackburn wears tight fitting shirts, and walks back and forth, choreographing himself as if in a performance, while speaking repeatedly about sex: specifically communicating to his audience of his great heterosexual sex drive; so much so that his wife, the victim, could not satisfy him. His drive for sex with aa woman is so great that he said he was incapable of concentrating on dinner conversation. This is the language of sexual addiction; something many gay men seek help for. His need to convince his audience that he is a heterosexual is evident.
4. The disconnected language.
Who would not give linguistic connection over the loss of his wife?
a. One who orchestrated her death; or...
b. One who was trapped in a relationship against his sexuality.
The deception exists, but is its source guilty knowledge of the crime, or that of sexuality?
Or is it something else?
What do readers think?
"For us, we have nothing to hide" is:
I. Prior knowledge of her murder
III. Something Else either unknown or both?
In either of the two above, his statement, "for us, we have nothing to hide" is specifically why defense attorneys do not let their clients speak.
Police investigators know that this is something said when the subject is specifically thinking of something he does not wish to be known. This is no different from a 7 year old boy who harbors a guilty secret.
The 911 call has not yet been released, and we may see further arrests in this case still, as gang connections are made.
In either case, he has 'outed' himself with this phrase of hidden guilt, inviting closer inspection.
I have been long asked my opinion but have yet to give it...this, however, is where I am currently:
With his additional statements, I think the guilty knowledge is about his personal life that he is hiding, and that Amanda may have known about. I think a connection to the gang may have been found by now, yet, it is his language that persuades me that this is a co-occuring deception:
that is a deception that happens during an investigation where the subject is deceptive, but it is about something else, appearing at the time that creates suspicion.
That he has been deceptive is clear, but where, and why, have been ongoing questions that I have become more comfortable categorizing with his subsequent statements.
The 'shower' reference makes this argument stronger.
With the release of the 911 call, this could change, and it is only an opinion of the source of the withheld information.
The deception regarding sexuality is his own business. If he continues to speak publicly and is not involved in the murder, and his statements are in line with this, I will not be analyzing statements with regards to his sexuality.