We have a murder case investigation that went cold shy 20 years ago, for analysis, that we have been working on.

The analysis has solved the case, and I believe it is going to end with justice in court.  Knowing who did it is the first step and Statement Analysis has been the single best tool employed, but now what is known must be proven, and in enters forensic experts while the critical interview with the subject is being prepared, as well as collateral interviews gathering information that has affirmed the findings of the investigation.

It is not a case that is public, but like so many that we do, it is private and when justice is served, none of the analysts who devoted hard work and concentration will receive any public recognition.

They will know.

They will feel a great sense of satisfaction and they will say, “all the hard work, not only done here, but in the years of study, testing, preparation and practice, were worth it.”

This will be followed by, “What’s our next case?” with an eagerness to get back to work.

Success can be its own reward, but when coupled with justice, there is something deep within human nature that is satisfied when injustice is defeated.

Statement Analysis takes a subject’s verbalized perception of reality, breaks it down into very small parts, examines all the parts, and comes to a conclusion.  Behind all these tiny parts is a belief system that the subject holds. Behind this belief system is his culture.  Behind his culture is a founding ideology.

Therefore, when we seek to understand one’s verbalized perception of reality, we must attempt to learn some basic elements about his belief system, as formed by culture and ideological influences.  Recently, analysts were charged with a cold case murder in which the subject chose to begin his statement 70 years earlier than the date of the murder:  the Great Depression.  This is a priority for him.  He began his statement with a portrait of the victim with the backdrop of the depression of the 1930’s, and moved on to the victim being an unwed mother and welfare.

This is to have a very different cultural view than it does today.  If we enter the statement with the projection of acceptance of these two elements in our culture, we will not understand nor discern if the subject is justifying murder, or showing sympathy for the victim.  There were specific widely held views on both of these topics back then, which reflected the larger ideology that stood behind it.  If you did not know the ideological beliefs, you would not have known if the subject was playing the role of prosecutor or defense attorney…or, as is the case of intimate murder, where deep internal conflicting drives and impulses are in play, both. 

Murderers often find a way to subtly blame their victim, or justify the killing because the victim “deserved” to be murdered.

This is the mirror opposite of one of the most prolific sentiments expressed today at a shocking murder, such as the Amanda Blackburn murder:

“She did not deserve to die this way!”  or anything similar.

In fact, this is an “expected” in analysis, and it is not nullified by religious faith which does not want to indict God, yet recognizes that in the definition of “God”, all things are under His control, including death and evil, yet trust (faith) is demanded.  In the Amanda Blackburn murder, this was a typical defense reaction to the distancing (and even indifferent) statements made by the victim’s husband. It takes time to process a shocking murder.

You might say that every murder comes as a shock, but it is not true for those who hold guilty knowledge.  Even those of faith, not willing to indict God with sin (see the ancient book of Job) will lament the way the victim died.  Not willing to lie and alter “God” (destroying the definition) they still feel the shock of such an unnatural death and the language shows this.  Years later, with much processed, the words may begin to soften.  But when there is no “shock”, the “shocking” after events, such as forgiveness, are not so very surprising and give us a strong sense of theater, rather than extraordinary faith.  In fact, in the Judeo-Christian ideology (speaking of the Amanda Blackburn murder), there is no statement or promise within the ideology (as found in the Bible) that any “release from the pressure tension or conflict in living the Christian life.” Instead, faith is a reaction, or a coping mechanism, where the intellect cannot grasp infinity, and must then trust. This theme, to the contrary, is promised or referenced throughout, both by precept and by example.  Perhaps the greatest single example of this comes from the shortest sentence of the Bible.  In this claim, Christ knew that He was to be unjustly accused, tried and condemned to death and that Jerusalem, the marvelous beautiful city which hosted His Father’s Word for centuries, would soon, in just a generation, be destroyed, with even the gorgeous temple torn down, block by block, in the coming invasion and slaughter by 70 AD.

He claimed to be God, (definition:  all knowing, all controlling, all powerful, perfection, eternal, etc) yet in considering what heartache awaited the inhabitants, with their wealthy properties and beautiful edifices about to become worthless as some would run for their lives while most would not survive, it says, “Jesus wept.”

This is the answer of ‘hyper faith’ or ‘superman’ rather than being utterly devastated by the murder of the “one half of one person” (marriage) when Amanda was cruelly killed.

The Ideology 

I have written that Islam is the world’s most successful criminal ideology in human history, eclipsing the inherent theft within communism/socialism, dwarfing the less than 2 decade run of national socialism, and shadowing any specific regime’s run of evil.

No ideology has been more powerful in overcoming entire countries.
No ideology has led to more specific crimes, including sexual assaults.
No ideology has been more insulated from reform than Islam.  To even criticize it, no less reform it, calls for the death penalty.  Also, in mimicking the Protestant Reformation, the call was to return to “sola Scriptura” and most people do not want Islam to “reform” by returning to the teaching of the Koran or the life of Mohammad.  This is where rape is taught, even in the religious ‘reward’ element, and jihad is explicit, including by migration into a land.

What is lost in all of this is the notion of impact of an ideology, and how this impact shows itself in language.  It is critical for analysts to understand the various cultural ideologies and how they eventually show themselves in action; highlighted for us, specifically, in the verbalized perception of reality.

With this in mind, I wish to examine  the world’s major ideologies and how the verbalized perception of reality has been impacted.  It is important to consider, as we begin, that this is about an ideology and its impact; not about faith, nor religion, though all major ideologies have religious beliefs.  The issue is not “jihad”, for in any war, only a small percentage of a population actually fights as soldiers.  The issue is the ideology, itself, that calls for the destruction of others.  If only 1% actually believe the ideology, this is to say, 1,000,000 people today are jihadists.  For 1400 years, this ideology has brought death and destruction; not progress, not civil rights, not justice, not arts, education, nor literature.  It is not ‘bad luck’, nor is it ‘bad genes’ or any form of racist belief.  It is the ideology, and how the ideology impacts those within a culture, whether or not they believe the teachings.

We begin with Christianity, the outworking of Judaism.  This is “Judeo-Christian” thought.

If you wish to understand the words, you must understand the person.
If you wish to understand the person, you must view the culture.
If you view the culture, you must view the ideology and how it impacts those living with it.

As we turn to study the murder of Amanda Blackburn, I will give a brief understanding of the ideology that influences the language as well as influence how we react to the statements.

We will view the basic ideology and the personality of those who simultaneously claim the ideology, while personally opposing it.

We will view those who do not affirm the ideology, but nevertheless are strongly influenced by it.  A classic example is in the moral argument.  A British comedian, for example, Pat Condel, posts effective videos on You Tube decrying the Islamization of his country and the world at large.  He condemns Islamic ideology by employing Judeo-Christian ideology that he grew up within, and when he is done, he adds in his condemnation of Christianity.

He uses principle borrowed from Christianity effectively (and accurately) and then condemns the very tools he used, grew up in, and directly benefited from.  He does not understand the ‘history of thought’ for himself, and for others.

In fact, the ignorance of the history of thought is a main element within all biological racism.  If those who look upon ignorance and barbaric practice, knew their own history, they’d be incapable of believing in their own genetic superiority.

To understand the Blackburn murder, we examine the language of the surviving spouse.  We do have some of the victim’s language, but it is not about the murder.  The spouse’s language has been key to understanding his verbalized perception of reality.  It is his. It is uniquely his.

We believe what we are told unless strong evidence arises to confront this belief.

It is critical to understand the driving ideology behind him, any bastardization of the ideology, (and why this is done) as well as his own ambitions, in order to get a full linguistic profile and insight into what happened to Amanda Blackburn.