Did Davey Blackburn really have a conversation with God?
The actual question for analysis is this:
Does Davey Blackburn, himself, believe that he had a conversation with God? Or, is this something he simply wanted his audience to believe?
Statement Analysis gets to the truth.
In Statement Analysis (lie detection) one must have an intent to deceive. If someone truly believes that they have heard a voice telling them, they will say so and this will then lead to other questions.
In order to be deceptive about hearing this conversation with God, Blackburn would have to show a "need to persuade" or an "intent to deceive" his audience.
Christian Post published an article about Davey Blackburn's claim of Amanda's death.
The journalist left out much information but what he did give should be viewed.
He did write that Blackburn claimed to have a conversation with God about Amanda's death. The quote is for analysis.
Statement Analysis Principle: 90% or more deception is through missing information. A direct fabrication of reality is very rare.
To come right out and say "I heard a voice" would be a direct lie. It would also put him close to the "delusional" state where one does not know what one is doing.
Blackburn knows exactly what he is doing. In order to deceive, there must be 'intent to deceive' present.
Davey Blackburn's language shows an intent to deceive people into thinking that he had a conversation with the Almighty in a shower. Note how he does it.
This is very rare in the world of deception. It is not only very rare statistically, but it is very stressful: the subject has no memory from which to work from, and it is easily influenced by a variety of sources; what one has read, what one has seen in a movie, on television, what another said, and so on.
The source of the fabrication has no experiential emotional connection.
It is easy to mix up words, and the influences (it cannot come from a vacuum) can become entangled easily.
The lying subject fears being asked a direct question about it.
He does give some quotes and here you see the progression of deception. He does not want to directly lie and say he heard a voice so note the progression:
"I had a thought this morning in the shower. And felt like the Lord spoke to my heart and said: 'Davey, I want my church, I want my bride to come alive. And if I had asked you, Davey, before this if you were willing to give up your bride so that my bride can come alive, what would you have said?
Of course, like anybody else I said 'absolutely not. There is no way.' I'm good with being married and having two little kids, pastoring a church of 120 for the rest of my life. I am good with comfort. And the Lord said, 'That's why I didn't ask you the question beforehand.' Because sometimes when you say, I surrender all, you mean I surrender some. So you are put in a situation where you have to surrender all.'
What was the source of this Divine Revelation?
Note the progression:
1. It was only a thought.
"I had a thought this morning" Note that not only does the subject know how to use the pronoun "I", but he states that this was a "thought."
2. It was a feeling.
It "felt" like God was speaking to him...
3. It was only to the "heart"
If "felt" like God was speaking, not to his ear, nor his intellect, but his "heart"
Now it is no longer a thought of his own, and no longer a feeling, or emotion, that was to his heart, now it is an actual conversation with direct quotes and something else that should not be missed:
5. Attention Getting First Name
"Davey" enters the language of the Almighty.
This is not necessary unless someone else is in the shower with hi. Since he is alone, the "thought" progressed to not only a conversation with quotes, but then with his own first name: This is not going to be lost on the audience.
Davey Blackburn is to have God use his first name.
6. Then he goes into direct quotes in Q&A
This is to show that he knows that by qualifying the "Divine revelation" or "conversation" he can answer back with "thought" or what "felt like" and then only to his "heart."
Yet, the deception is indicated in the direct quotes. This is not a case where someone feels strongly about something else, but to attribute actual words, including the use of his own name, within quotes for the purpose deceiving the audience into believing that he has had a direct conversation with God, with the subsequent authority that this would entail.
This is to deceive people into believing that he has received Divine instruction and he does not make them wait long for him to wield this new authority. He will openly rebuke them and insult the work of their pastor.
We have already noted the location of this revelation and its linguistic association with sexual abuse and sexual homicide.
Please also note:
The answer to "God's" question:
Q. if I had asked you, Davey, before this if you were willing to give up your bride so that my bride can come alive, what would you have said?
A. This is just his "thought" (a) then it is his "feeling" that is in his "heart") but now it is not only a direct question, but it is one in which the Almighty needs to use his first name, which in analysis is a point of attention. Please compare this to the 'first name basis' of Davey Blackburn and "George" as in George Stephonolopholis on Good Morning America.
Would you give up your bride?
Please note that within the question, God's bride is not alive, but dead, in need of life. This speaks to the egomaniacal nature.
Would you give up your wife?
What is the expected response?
In Statement Analysis, we often have investigators count the number of words after the word "no", or even the repetition of the word "no", as a signal of need to emphasize.
Anything beyond "no" and the question becomes sensitive.
Of course, like anybody else I said 'absolutely not. There is no way.'
1. "Of course" is to believe without question. This is to cause his audience to believe, without question that his answer is "no" which shows a need to make this a 'matter of course' that needs no further investigation or questioning.
2. "Like anybody else"
Do you know anyone else who has been asked if they would be willing to give up their bride?
This is very similar to the use of the word "normal" in Statement Analysis. It is an attempt to make something sound acceptable and the norm, and is often used in deception.
School story telling time: "The day was like any other day..." will make 7 year olds' ears perk up with the information that something unlike any other day is about to be announced.
"I am a normal male" is only said by someone who has either thought himself abnormal, or has been labeled as such by others. This is often the defense of the pedophile who refuses to say "I did not molest or touch the child" instead says, "I am a normal male" or "I am happily married" to avoid the direct lie and internal stress of saying "I didn't do it."
"Like anybody else" is a need to persuade that he, just like every other husband would not do give up his bride's life.
This is to say "I am like every other husband " in a situation that is unlike every other husbands.
How many husbands do you know who have had conversations with God in the shower about their wife's death?
How many husbands of murdered wives have husbands asked if they would be willing to give them up?
How many of these wives were found murdered, with their clothes removed?
Hence, the shower as the place of washing, and the analytical connection with sexual homicide or assault.
3. "Absolutely not" is to use "not", which is appropriate, but to weaken it with "absolutely", showing the need for more emphasis, which is the weakening of the denial.
He is not done there.
4. "There is no way" is to continue all the words after the simple "no" which was all that was needed.
Instead of "no", which is one word, we have:
a. of course
b. like anybody else
c. absolutely not
d. there is now way
And then in a self revelatory way, he tells the Almighty that he would have been happy with the "ordinary" which includes 120 people (again, revealing the obsession with numbers). Not that 120 will be well cared for, but it is in the negative of what he was about to announce.
This is a very lengthy response to that which only required a single answer of "no" and is seen as "need to persuade."
He needs his audience to be persuaded that he would not have traded his wife in death.
Who would need such persuasion?
In order to conclude "deception indicated" the subject must know he is deceiving people.
By beginning with "thought" and then moving to a "feeling" and then to the "heart" all before going into exact quotations, Davey Blackburn is deception indicated about having a conversation with God in the shower. He is not delusional but knew he had to qualify the conversation before delivering it, so that the listeners would be left with the impression that God spoke to him directly.
A delusional person who believes he hears God speaking will make the claim of hearing voices and not have the need to qualify it.
Blackburn then took this "authority", immediately exercised it over his father in law, and gave a stinging rebuke of the church "not really caring" what they think of him. This is to say:
The sheep are dead because the shepherd has not been feeding them. They are dead because he has not inspired them, cared for them, nourished them and overall cared for them.
The man was silent in the face of this accusation, for what could he say, against one who just received the word from the Almighty in the shower?
The journalist left out the quotes about "history books" having not written...Someone in the comments section wrote, "Blackburn inches closer to confession..." as it is that he, himself, is making statements that should not be missed by investigators.
Blackburn's claim sounds delusional; it is not. He knew how to frame it so the message would be received while he could later defend himself against by saying, "it was just a thought."
He knows what he is doing and knows his future plans to further exploit her death for his gain. Whereas Christianity teaches that Christ died for his Church to live, so does Blackburn teach otherwise, leaving him in the authoritative role of re-writing history books anew.
Davey Blackburn has justified his wife's death.
In that which is so senseless that only faith could say, "I do not know why, but I must trust", he, no longer "baffled" (note: Blackburn never said, "I am baffled" but "we" were baffled), he now knows why Amanda died.
Would he trade Amanda for his church to live?
This is not the right question to ask.
"Did he?" is more appropriate.
Investigators always listen.
Analysis Conclusion: Deception Indicated. Blackburn knows that his choice of words will lead his audience to believe that he has just had a private conversation with God.