Wednesday, April 27, 2016
Davey Blackburn Publicity and Book Deal
When Amanda Blackburn was murdered last Fall, the public was shocked, one way or another, by the appearance of her husband, Davey Blackburn, on television.
He distanced himself from her, and spoke about how many people he could get to come to his church and how much exposure he could get for his 'business'; something many of his comments showed to be his priority; specifically, numbers in attendance while he ignored the murder, itself.
He not only distanced himself from Amanda, his wife, but from his son and made references to what sounded like a book or movie deal. Later, he even claimed that while standing in the shower, the Almighty spoke to him and gave him plans for Davey to have success of a historic nature. Whenever he spoke of her death, the shooting, or similar, 'forensic' like topics, he used the pronoun "we", though he was alone.
"For us, we have nothing to hide", he said, strongly indicating a need to conceal something, within his language.
Here we pick up, in two parts, from an "interview" he gave with his former pastor, with the 2nd part of the analysis from Fox news, which covers the moments when he found Amanda bleeding to death. The topic here is something that was referenced to early in his statements: publicity.
With his repetition and strong statements about numerics, that is, the number of people who would come to his church, the number of people who would visit via the internet, and the number of people he would be in communication with via television, and lastly, through his "history making" mandate, we have "the expected" regarding this 'forgiveness' meeting.
What has been expected is the "public forgiveness" as an ultimate publicity stunt, granted to the criminals who shot Amanda.
When asked about this 'forgiveness meeting' he stated:
"Honestly, Perry, I know this sounds crazy and I honestly don’t know how I’m gonna do it outside of the, the grace of God, but I really hope I get the opportunity to share the gospel with these guys. I really do. I honestly have no idea how I’m gonna do it…"
Question for the reader/analyst:
Does the subject (Davey) have plans to meet with the killers? Is there plans in the making, including what will be said?
We believe what one says unless they give us reason to not. Following simple principles of Statement Analysis:
We note that this topic of meeting with the killers has produced two things:
a. The need to emphasize that he is telling the truth with the word "honestly" which is used by those who's general pattern is less than honest. It is a signal that the subject wants to be believed here, and by doing so, acknowledges that he is not always one who can be believed; hence, the emphasis.
b. the name of the Interviewer is used. This is to elevate attention to the answer.
I know this sounds crazy
He does not say "this sounds crazy" but instead he uses the words to express what he knows about how this will sound. This is to show an awareness of the impact and how it may be used. This is a form of manipulation similar to one saying
"well, if I were you, I would not trust me either, but..." where I generally advise the person to believe the subject and not trust him.
"I know" is to take a step away from "this sounds crazy" which is to distance oneself. In other words, by the simple addition of "I know", the subject is strongly suggesting that he does not believe "this is crazy" and that he knows it is begin "added for affect" upon the listener. If it had been something so unusual that it sounded crazy, as fascinating things sometimes do, the subject would say, "This sounds crazy but..." , instead the sentence structure focuses upon the subject himself, rather than the topic of craziness.
This leads us to ask:
Why does the subject need to make this sound as if it is something "crazy" to do in meeting with the killers?
Remember: the sentence is not an affirmation that the topic is crazy. The sentence is about the subject, himself, and his knowledge of the topic. This is what is meant by "listening" and "believing" someone, rather than interpreting his words to mean something else. Dishonest people are counting on us to interpret their words.
Does he want us to believe something about himself? We are not made to wait long for the answer:
and I honestly don’t know how I’m gonna do it outside of the, the grace of God, but I really hope
Note the second use of the word "honestly" as a practice of the habitually deceptive, in one answer. This now further increases the sensitivity of what he is asserting.
Next note that this need for "honesty emphasized" introduces the negative, of "don't know" which reports what is not known than what is known.
Is the subject attempting to cause us to interpret his words to suggest that he does not know if he will meet the killers and if he does, he he will react, because as a husband of a murdered wife, the emotion may cause him to physically attack the men as most husbands would?
The trouble with this interpretation is:
a. it is an interpretation and not what he said
b. it does not match any of his reactions to her death initially
c. it does, however, show a reaction to how people felt he reacted to his wife's death with his crass commercialization and capitalizing upon her death and even using her diary, all under the guise of religious language.
He "honestly" does not know how "outside the the grace of God", that is, he does know how he will react "inside" the grace of God, but not "outside."
If he does "not" know, he then refutes this lack of knowledge with the word "but" in his sentence.
The word "but" negated what came before it, via comparison with what follows, which is:
"...but I really hope I get the opportunity to share the gospel with these guys.
He does not say "with those killers" or something emotion-laden, but "with these" ("these" is close, psychologically) and they are only "guys", not "killers, bastards, murderers, animals, thugs" and so on. This, too, matches his words right after the murder where he not only showed no concern for his safety, his son's safety nor the public at large, while the killers were not caught, but did show emotion about how much his business would grow.
He not only "hopes" he gets the opportunity (please note who gets this opportunity: "I get the opportunity" and not "we get the opportunity" as he frequently used the pronoun "we" to the point where some erroneously concluded that it was a mental health issue with him. It was not).
He "really" hopes, making his "hope" now sensitive with "really."
Next comes "really" in repetition, regarding this hope:
I really do.
Enough "really" and even the untrained eye will recognize plans in place to have this publicity stunt pulled off.
I honestly have no idea how I’m gonna do it…"
In a single answer, he used the word "honestly" three times, making the topic of "honesty" something that is very sensitive to the subject.
This is consistent with his statements since he first went public with his statements immediately following the murder of his wife:
As a habit of speech, we note what provokes it, and what does not. This is the language of one who is habitually dishonest. This short answer to a question, itself, reveals a level of dishonesty that is reached through life long habituation. It is a very strong signal that the need to emphasize his own assertion is sensitive because he is not habitually truthful.
It is likely that at the time of this statement, plans have been made for the publicity stunt of "public forgiveness of the murderers" for the sake of self promotion. It may be that a script is already prepared, if not on paper, at least mentally, as this element of 'surprise' of not knowing, is something that produces the need for emphasis. Hence, plans are made and intentions expressed. Please also note that shortly after the victim died, the subject spoke with analysis showing that he planned on continuing to capitalize on her death for the purpose of promotion, with likely book or movie deal, as he referred to "Amanda's Story" in his language.
The subject is deceptive, and in other statements analyzed, has been consistent in his deceptive responses.
Next: What about when he found the victim bleeding to death? Will we be given an honest account?