Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Amanda Knox Statement Analysis (repost)

by Peter Hyatt

Amanda Knox was convicted in the murder of Merideth Kercher (who died on Nov. 1, 2007) in Italy and has been incarcerated for the past 3 years. Recently, her case was given an opening for appeal: a review of DNA evidence.

Rudy Hermann Guede, a resident of Perugia, was convicted of the sexual assault and murder of Kercher and received a reduced sentence of 16 years after an appeal.

Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Amanda Knox, an American student who shared a flat with Kercher, were convicted of sexual assault and murder and sentenced to 26 years.

Amanda Knox has many supporters, and many who believe that police, prosecutorial and judicial improprieties have resulted in a wrongful conviction. Passionate arguments are made on both sides; those who seek justice for the victim's family, and those who believe that Amanda Knox was wrongfully convicted, and that her confession was coerced by Italian investigators.

Statement Analysis can get to the truth.

Statement Analysis, also called Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN) or Discourse Analysis, or Verbal Polygraphy, is a study of the words used, looking for deception. It has been taught to the FBI, most federal law enforcement agencies, police departments, prosecutors, Fortune 500 companies, investigators of all types, bill collectors, attorneys, therapists, and many more. It is used in Israel by the Mossad and other investigatory agencies, the former KGB, as well as many international law enforcement communities.

As a science, it is old, and is found in ancient literature, as exampled by King Solomon in 1 Kings, and is based upon two principles:

1. The rules of grammar
2. Observation

It is taught in native languages of various countries, and is best seen in some popular examples such as the Susan Smith case, where she was on television crying for her children, but spoke of them in the past tense, indicating to analysts that she knew her children were dead. It is also readily seen in cases such as OJ Simpson or Michael Jackson, Casey Anthony, and Drew Peterson.

The instructor who first introduced its study to the US is Avinoam Sapir, of the Laboratory of Scientific Interrogation (www.lsiscan.com) Most all instructors today owe their knowledge to him, including Dr. Susan Adams, who taught Statement analysis to the FBI. LSI continues to hold seminars and offers online training.

In law enforcement, a suspect is interviewed or interrogated and then a statement is typed up and he is asked to sign it. In law enforcement trained in analysis, the suspect is asked to write down what happened; and then the interview/interrogation is conducted.

Analysts frequently ask others to view the statement. A statement is sent to another with no details of evidence or even suspicion; only the allegation and the statement. Analysis should be uniformed, though some have a greater insight in terms of depth, due to experience or a clearer understanding of human nature. But in terms of indicators of sensitivity and deception, if the same statement is sent out to 100 analysts, to see if the statement is deceptive or not, we expect 100 of the same answers.

What follows below is a handwritten statement made by Amanda Knox.

Statement Analysis seeks to get to the truth by discerning deception. If a subject (not "suspect" but "subject" being anyone interviewed; whether for a crime, or for therapy or a job interview, etc, the principles remain the same) makes a false confession under duress, Statement Analysis will indicate this.

By observation (including observing the patterns of speech during polygraphs) some conclusions are suggested. For instance, when a subject uses the word "standing" in a conversation, it is generally an indication of tension. "My boss said to be here at 9AM" is different than "my boss stood before me and told me to be here at 9AM". In the 2nd statement, not only is "said" now "told" ("told" is stronger, but "standing" came into the subject's vocabulary, which means it is important to the subject the bodily posture of the boss. This is an example of "observation" which we will use.

We also do not declare a statement to be deceptive on a single indicator of sensitivity; we look for patterns and several indications of deception.

Statement Analysis is in bold type. Any additional bold type is used for emphasis.

This is very strange, I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else.

The opening line shows immediate sensitivity.

Dr. Paul Eckman teaches that testifying to memory failure is almost always deceptive. We don't know what drugs may have impacted her when this statement was made, but failure to remember is most always deceptive, especially in high stress situations. Memory lapse from alcohol is different than from drug use. Most believe that memory lapse from drug use is recoverable, but not from alcohol. We need to view what she does remember in order to discern if there is deception present.

In an open statement, we expect someone to tell us what happened, and not what did not happen. If we are told what did not happen, what was not said, what was not thought, we are to flag it as highly sensitive and possibly deceptive.

note the inclusion of sensitive words, "very" strange, (instead of just "strange")and "really" what happened. For her internal dictionary, there is "strange" and there is "very" strange, just as there is an event that happened and an event that "really" happened.

She notes that others are confused as she is.

I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.

Note the inclusion Passive language "I have been told" rather than who told her what specifically. But far more telling is the following words within her statement: "I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened". Knox places herself at the crime scene after stating that "there is hard evidence".

This is not something an innocent person generally says, even in the form of a question, nor in a reflection of others' words. Someone NOT at the crime scene would not frame these words. If you suspect your spouse is cheating on you and he says, "you think I am cheating on you?" in the form of a question, it is to be considered sensitive, as not only is he responding to an accusation with a question (a signal of sensitivity) but is also able to frame 'I am cheating' within a statement. This is generally not something that an innocent person has in their vocabulary)

Note that she Wants to confirm, which is different than confirming.

She wants to confirm something that to her, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible. Is the something that she wants to confirm something that would be different to someone else (hence the use of "to me"). She is not being asked "a few days ago", she is being asked in the present. It appears that her perspective on the "something" she wants to confirm is different now than it was a few days ago.

Also note that "would be impossible" is different than "is impossible." The addition of "would be" changes her claim from something that already happened into a future event reducing reliability

I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused. My account of this story goes as follows, despite the evidence stacked against me:
Note first her opposition to Raffaele.
Next, note "in my mind" is likely deceptive, as it is only in her mind; and not in reality. It is an attempt to avoid the stress of lying.

When people recount events from memory, they generally don't call it a "story", a word which conjures images of a made up tale.

On Thursday November 1 I saw Meredith the last time at my house when she left around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Raffaele was with me at the time. We, Raffaele and I, stayed at my house for a little while longer and around 5 in the evening we left to watch the movie Amelie at his house. After the movie I received a message from Patrik, for whom I work at the pub "Le Chic". He told me in this message that it wasn't necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work.

Note the "cluster of blue" of highest sensitivity.  This is a strong signal (very strong) that she is withholding information here. 

It may be that she and Patrick argued as noted by the stronger "told" than "said". Also, we note any introduction of any persons in a statement; how they are introduced and the order in which they are introduced. Here, Patrick is introduced without a proper social introduction,other than to say that she works for him. This is an indication that she does not have a good relationship with Patrick.

Now I remember to have also replied with the message: "See you later. Have a good evening!" and this for me does not mean that I wanted to meet him immediately. In particular because I said: "Good evening!" What happened after I know does not match up with what Raffaele was saying, but this is what I remember.

"Now I remember"  people can only tell us what they remember in truthful accounts.  Here is a signal from her that she is telling us what she "remembers"; indicating that she may have told us what was not from memory previously. 

Note the words "and this for me does not mean" which is a weak commitment to the text. If the subject does not own the text, neither can we. She tells us what it does not mean to her.

She also uses Raffaele's statement as a point of reference, rather than relying solely upon experiential memory. This is noted as sensitive.

I told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After that I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him.

Deceptive use of qualifiers. Again, see Dr. Eckman for this form of deception (memory).
Note "perhaps" (qualifier) she made love "to" Raffaele, now "with" Raffaele. Note also that she uses the word "told" rather than "said". She does not commit to what she did but it was not relaxful in any case.

How do we know this?

After that I believe we relaxed in his room together,

"After that" is called a temporal lacuane, or a passing of time. This indicates that she has skipped over time, and is withholding information of something that took place.

"I believe" is weak, which is why she uses the qualifier.

"My keys are locked in the car!" is stronger than
"I believe my keys are locked in the car!" which gives room for another belief; that they are somewhere else. She "believes" that they relaxed,but note the additional word "together" as unnecessary.

The qualifier reduces commitment but the sentence works with "we relaxed" but she needs the extra emphasis of "together" which tells us that there was likely a split between them and she needs to express a unity that should not need emphasis.

It wasn't relaxful and there was tension, and possibly disagreement between her and Raffaele.

She then says that they had sex. We begin by noticing that information is withheld (temporal lacunae) and note that the language suggests an argument or tension, and then note that in sex she made love "to" him, and not "with" him; nor did he make love to her.

Something is being left out and it may involve a disagreement between them and sexual activity.

Sex is a theme in this case, and should be explored by investigators. First she says she may have made love to Raffaele, then changes it to with him in the same sentence. The change in language would need to be explored. Was there two episodes of sexual activity, one that she was less willingly involved in?
Note that "with" shows distance and is not "Raffaele and I made love", or "we made love" which would be more unified. The difference, however subtle, is noted. There may have been a distance and even an argument or disagreement regarding sexual activity between her and Raffaele and should be explored by investigators.

However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure.

Note "quite sure" rather than "sure" gives the qualifier, which is presented in the form of the negative. We look for truthful subjects to tell us what happened and not what they do not remember.

I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much. One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time.

We can only commit to what the subject commits; here, she smoked marijuana (no qualifier) but does not tell us that she fell asleep. Note the additional words "might even" as weak.

Note, however, with significance, that she took a shower, but wants everything else to be vague; indicating deception.

It is to be noted that 'water' if included in many sexual homicides.

'Water' enters the subject's language when sexual activity has taken place, including bathing, washing of hands, washing of laundry, etc. It is often included in sex abuse cases, particularly, with children. A 'washing' away of guilt may be upon a subject's mind. Rapes and other violent sexual acts have been timelined properly by noting the time in which a subject speaks of washing hands or showering.

Note that this "might" (qualifier) "explain"; that is, to give explanation. This is different than reporting, as "explain" seeks to cause equality between what has been said before and what is now presented; a justification. This is not something we see in honest statements that simply report what is remembered.

In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair.

"in truth" is used because she now wants to be believed as is the inclusion of minute detail after reporting memory failure. Note that, again, she is reporting what she does not remember, which is found frequently in deceptive statements. A truthful account should tell us what happened, or what is remembered.

Note also that she revisits the showering. This shows that sexuality is highly sensitive to her; not simply due to repetition (repetition shows sensitivity)but because it is a theme in sexual homicides and that she now gives extra details including that they washed each other; that this went on for a long time, but then even adds in specifics such as "cleaned my ears". These additional details, which would appear needless, are something liars add in the hope of persuading (see Casey Anthony description of "Zanny the Nanny") rather than reporting.

The high sensitivity suggests that Raffaele had a reason to shower with her for a long time, and had a specific need to wash her ears. This suggests that evidence may have been needed to have been washed off "for a long time", and in specific areas. This likely places the deceased's wounds quite close to Amanda's face, hair, and ears.

The shower details are also interesting as it is used to pass time and sexuality. Sex is a theme in her statement. Think how you might describe your night; even if you had a romantic shower, would you include it? If you felt that you needed to include that you had a shower with your boyfriend, would you give details about ears? Sex is in her mind while giving this statement and should alert investigators to any sexual motive in the crime. Making love "to" not "with" her boyfriend may show that Amanda Knox strongly wanted to please him but was against what he wanted. This may speak to motive and just how far she went. The cleaning, in particular, of her own upper torso may suggest the blood from the victim was not easily cleaned off completely, and took special detail and time. The time that passed was not passed leisurely.

One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock.

Note that "one of the things I am sure of" indicates that there are other things she is sure of, in spite of claiming memory lapse.

After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand,
Note the absence of qualifiers here. It is likely that this happened and may have been from the concentration of him cleaning her (detail given) whereas we do not have the stressed details of her cleaning him. In a murder investigation, the subject now introduces the word "blood" after a detail about cleaning and showering, combined with sex. Its proximity is noted.

but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish.

She was "under the impression" is not the same as "it was from the fish"; but note the repetition of "blood" instead of the pronoun, "it" which I used. "Blood" is sensitive, as noted by repetition.

After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor.

Note that Raffeale "washed" the dishes, and not "did the dishes". This is another indication that sexuality is involved in this crime. "Washed" is, indeed, what took place. What was washed besides Amanda?

Note next another introduction of "water" in the topic.

But because he didn't have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home. I remember it was quite late because we were both very tired (though I can't say the time).

Note that whenever "so, since, because, therefore, etc" enter a statement, it is a signal of sensitivity. Why? Because a subject should tell us what happened, and not "why" something happened.

Note that she also tells us what another's person's state was "tired". When a person tells us what another thought or felt, it is often an indicator of deception. Note that they were both "very" tired even though they had been relaxing. Also note that when someone tells us what they "can't" remember, it is an indication that the limitation may be due to consequence. Since it is in the form of a negation and is restricted, it is likely that Amanda Knox knows not only the exact time line, but knows that there will be a consequence if she reveals it. 

When someone says that they "can't" say something or recall something; it can indicate that if they did tell the information, it would harm them. Here, she "can't" tell the time; yet has other details down carefully.

"noticed" is passive. Passive languge indicates a desire to conceal and she is withholding information here.

A statement has 3 general portions:

an introduction

the event

post event action

It is in the 3rd section that emotions and thoughts are most likely to be included in an honest statement.

note also the "balance" of a statement is where the introduction of an honest statement is about 25% of the statement; the event is 50%, and the post event (like calling 911, etc) is 25%. Any deviation is noted but strong deviation is a solid test for deception. This is covered in other analysis)

The next thing I remember

temporal lacunae. This indicates withheld information during a critical time period; high sensitivity. The police interview would strongly emphasize the time frame that Amanda Knox is withholding.

was waking up

note verb tense should be "woke up". "was waking up" reduces the commitment which should question whether or not she actually slept, as she casts doubt upon it.

the morning of Friday November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house.

Note the memory appears stronger here.
Note also she is telling us the reason why ("so, since, because, therefore, etc") which is "out of bounds" of what happened, since it is an attempt to explain. Amanda Knox has a need to explain why she had a plastic bag, rather than simply report what she did. This is another indicator of sensitivity.

It was then that I arrived home alone

The extra word "alone" is unneccessary, therefore, in Statement Analysis, making it 'doubly important'. The word "alone" is added for emphasis, which would lead us to consider that Amanda was not alone.

that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began.

Doors opening and doors closing are often phrases found within sexual abuse or sexual homicide cases. For children, we often find that when they describe a door open, they use tense language, but when they talk about a door closing, there may be relief present. Here, she does not say that she opened the door, but "found" it opened (passivity noted). When passive language is used on an inanimate object, it is an indication that the subject is attempting to conceal responsiblity. For example, "the drugs sat on the table"; since drugs do not "sit", it is an indication that the subject put the drugs on the table. Here, Knox likely either left the door this way, or knows that Raffaele did; either way, she does not wish the identity known. It reads like a staged scene.

In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion.

Note that within her words is found:
this "confession" that I made framed within her own wording (see above for the principle)
Note the qualifier she uses: she is not doubtful, but "very" doubtful, increasing sensitivity.
note "very doubtful" qualifier; rather than making a full denial of her confession.

note the order: stress, shock, and extreme exhaustion. Stress is the first thing noted. Exhaustion is only noted lastly, and has the sensitivity added, which reduces commitment, in "extreme". She was likely stressed, but not exhausted. These are presented in order to excuse, not report.

Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly.

Here, Knox comes close to a confession, even in her denial. Note what she calls the information: "fact"

I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

Note that innocent people do not, nor ever, "understand" false accusations or brutality used to coerce. This statement is frequently found in guilty parties (see the recent statement made by Tiffany Hartley in which she "understands" why people doubt her "story". Innocents are bold and their language does not connect with the language of guilt and they do not accept responsibilty (pronouns) nor do they understand anyone who does not believe what they say. Innocence has a boldness to it.

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers.

Note the passivity of "my mind came up with"; as passivity seeks to conceal identity and remove responsibility.

In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images.

Note that here she tells us that she only saw Patrik in her "mind" but not in reality. It is the same as saying that she did not see Patrik. Note that even when people lie, they choose language based in reality.

It is critical in the analysis to know "how" she saw Patrik: it was in "blurred" images; not just "images" but "blurred images". Take note of this as we proceed:

I saw him near the basketball court.

This is not to say in blurred images. "Basketball court" is in her mind when she says this. Is there a basketball court nearby? For whatever reason, "basket ball court" enters her vocabulary because it is in her thinking.

I saw him at my front door.

The front door is also in her thoughts. Again, this does not say "blurry images".

I saw myself cowering in the kitchen

She states that she saw herself "cowering" in the kitchen. This "cowering" is something done in fear or shock. Why is this in her thinking, and therefore, entering her language? What is she telling us?

with my hands over my ears

Here, in her language, is her "hands" now mentioned, as well as her "ears". We note that previously, she spoke of her "ears" as in need of washing. Since she was also washing Raeffaele, she would be using her hands; which would then become clean. "Ears" is important to her (sensitive) which is noted by its repetition. It reminds me of being a boy and being told not to forget to 'wash behind your ears'. This washing and ears is linked and highly sensitive to Amanda. Was there blood behind or on her ears?

because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming.

This is now reported in her head: "I could hear Meredith screaming" as in her language, but only in her "head". Why does this enter her language? Is it because she heard Meredith screaming?

But I've said this many times so

Note that all self references are to be considered weak and unreliable. This indicates that she is remembering what she told others previously, rather than working from experiential memory.

as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me,

Note two things:

1. These things "seem" unreal; not that they are unreal.
2. These things seem unreal to "me" but not unreal to others.

This is deceptive language

like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.
Note that she is trying to answer questions in her head, first, but then the questions posed to her secondly. The order is always to be noted as important.

Even within fabrication, each word spoken (or written) is vital and should be examined within the forensics of the investigation.
We have already seen the lack of ownership and now she only reports seeing things in her mind. Yet, in spite of lying, there may be many important elements within her account.

But the truth is,

The word but means to refute what has come before and note what follows. Tis introduction tells us that she has lied and now wants to be believed

I am unsure about the truth and here's why:

Note that she is "unsure" about the truth, and not denying having killed Meredith; and will tell us why; noting that the explanation of why is sensitive within itself as it is out of the boundary of the general and open question of "What happened?".

1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places xc xat the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real.
Note that Amanda acknowledges that it may be true, and if so, it only means that she is "very confused" and what she calls a "dream" must be real. An innocent person does not acknowledge that any falsehood could be true. Note pronoun usage. This is one of the key points of Statement Analysis.

Pronouns can even precede speech. We learn to say "mine" and "my" from our earliest age (sometimes "my" is signaled by a baby's hands, pre speech).

Pronouns are instinctive in language.

Everyone has an internal dictionary. If I say
"girl" to you all, one might think of a baby girl being born; another might think of a teenager. Each of us has our own internal personal dictionary and a good investigator seeks to enter into a subject's personal dictionary.

There are, however, two exceptions: articles (the, a) and pronouns. She uses pronouns that place her in guilt.

2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true.

Knox is acutely aware of the evidence, the crime scene, and that she has been blamed. Note what she frames, however, with the pronoun, "I": "I have said things that I know are not true". This is not something an innocent person would normally say. Even as we flag it as such, we note how often she frames guilty words within her statement.

I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly.

Note the first sentence has no additional words, nor qualifiers.

But then note that she also claims to remember the precise moment in which she told him that. Not only is it likely deceptive to report what one doesn't remember, but the obvious contradiction present to the claim of a faulty memory.

I also NEVER asked him to lie for me.

(emphasis mine)
Note that "never" does not mean "no" and when found in a denial, it is not as reliable as "I didn't ask him to lie"; which is short (without the additional "for me". The extra words tell us that she likely told him to lie; just not for her, but for them both.

This is absolutely a lie.

Additional word "absolutely" noted weakening statement.

What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this.

That she feels the need to add that he was "so caring and gentle" indicates a need for the description. This indicates that Raffaele was not "caring and gentle" that night. It is a conflict for Amanda Knox.

What does he have to hide?

Note that by asking this question, she intimates that he has something to hide from investigators and would spur them on to find out what it is.

I don't think he killed Meredith,

Note the qualifier "think". "I left my keys in the car" versus "I think I left my keys in the car"; is weak and not reliable as she gives room for doubt. It also may be where she does not "think" he killed her, but he "knows" it.

but I do think he is scared, like me.

Note that Amanda links herself with him even after expressing doubt of his innocence. This would be a theme investigators need to follow up on. Why does she continue to link herself with him?

He walked into a situation that he has never had to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me.

Note that he "walked" into. It is likely that she is indicating tension on the night in question and is putting responsibility on him for "walking into" it. It is a strange sentence. Note also that he is "disassociating" himself "with" me; which is distance, but unified, where as
"from me" would be have distant and separated. Amanda Knox does not appear able to distance herself from him. This cooperation with him shoud be noted.


Repeated use of similar statements is from habitual liar (childhood) who wants to be believed

I understand because this is a very scary situation. I also know that the police don't believe things of me that I know I can explain, such as:
note "can't explain which may indicate fear of consequences"

1. I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long to call someone after I found the door to my house open and blood in the bathroom.

This tells us what Knox has been attempting to do: confuse the police. The police are not "confused"; they recognize the incongruity of Knox' statements. This is the "muddy the waters" technique employed by the guilty

The truth is,

noted again that now she is going to tell the truth, raising the question of what she has told previously.

I wasn't sure what to think, but I definitely didn't think the worst, that someone was murdered.

Note that "someone" is gender free even though she knows the victim is a female. Note also that when she said it took so long to call the police she said when she found the door open and then added the additional information about "blood" in the bathroom. Note that she raised the question, "Why did it take you so long?" but did not give answer.

We may use the same principle in Statement Analysis as if someone had plainly asked her a question and she did not answer it:

When a question is not answered, it means the question is sensitive. We have an expression: if the subject didn't answer your question, the subject did.

Why would Amanda Knox not identify her best friend by name, but rather use the genderfree "someone"? The use of "someone" being gender free should provoke investigators to press the issue of sex in the case, as the victim is now reduced, deliberately by the choice of words, to sexless. This is an attempt to distance herself from Meredith, and perhaps, even lie to herself about the murder. She knows the gender of the victim.

I thought a lot of things, mainly that perhaps someone got hurt and left quickly to take care of it.

Who might the "someone" who got hurt, but left quickly to take care of it be? This may be an indication of various alibis discussed.

I also thought that maybe one of my roommates was having menstral [sic] problems and hadn't cleaned up.

This would indicate gender. This would lead me to more questions, to learn if Amanda Knox was terribly unsanitary or raised in an unsanitary home. If not, it would appear to be a fabrication. Also, since she raised the topic of "menstral" it would be important for investigators to learn if she herself was menstrating and not interested in sex with her boyfriend, or if the victim was in her cycle during the crime. What may appear to be just an excuse by some, for Statement Analysis, we recognize that the words chosen, even if for only an excuse, do not come from a void, but from the subject's mind for a reason.

Perhaps I was in shock,
Note the qualifier, "perhaps"

but at the time I didn't know what to think and that's the truth.

As noted previously, when someone tells us what did not happen, or what was not said, it is highly sensitive. When someone tells us what they did not think, it is deceptive. (see Tiffany Hartley's statements made to Greta Van Sustren for examples of this form of negation)

That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.

Note "why" as very sensitive, and where discussion about lying likely took place.

Note that she was "worried and wanted advice" are without any additional words. They are presented in past tense form, first person singular and are reliable.

We are able to note in her statement that she uses lots of qualifiers leaving room for a variety of explanations in order to "confuse". Liars have a difficult and stressful task of recalling what stories they have told and by adding "perhaps" and "maybe", they are able to later defend their inconsistency.
First, she lists posible excuses for not calling police, excuses that didnt cause her to be alarmed. Then she goes on to say that "perhaps" she was in "shock", which means that she would have had knowledge of a traumatic event. In the next sentence, the "shock" turned to "worry" which caused her to seek advice

2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events

Note that she can't "fully" recall rather than just "recall". Note again that the subject tells us what can't be remembered is often deceptive and is noted here as another indication of deception.

that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating.

She acknowledges that what she has said is incriminating.

And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.

I have added the emphasis to her statement with the explainations already given. Note the self reference, "what I said before" in her statement means that it is not coming from experiential memory, which is at ease, but through the tension of trying to remember a lie.

Note also that whenever a sentence begins with "And" it is an indication of information that has been left out.

3. I'm very confused at this time. My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.

Note that she acknowledges that she has attempted to confuse them and that she "wants" to tell the truth, rather than she has told the truth. Future tense statements are found in most every murder investigation statement that is released to the press. Recently, a little boy was murdered and the accused said, "I would never harm" a child. This future tense statement is easy to make as once caught, it is truthful that the subject will never, in the future, "harm" the deceased. We also note in deceptive statements minimizing language, such as "harm" when it is actually a murder.

We also note that in her personal dictionary, there is "truth" and there is "real" truth and there is the "best" truth. This is an indication that Amanda Knox has been lying and likely has a life long habit of lying that may have become highly evidenced when she hit puberty.

I'm trying, I really am, because I'm scared for myself.

This is why she is trying: she is scared for herself; but does not say she is scared for her boyfriend.

I know I didn't kill Meredith.

In statement analysis, is this a strong denial?

No. "I didn't kill Meredith" is a strong denial, she only "thinks" she didn't kill Meredith. This qualifier is weak; especially given the accusation. It does, however, raise another question for me as I continue through the statement:

Does Amanda Knox believe that the final, fatal blow, was delivered by Raffaele, himself, rather than her? This is sometimes seen when two or more assailants take part in a murder, but the final inflicted injury that causes immediate death is attributed to one (rather than acting "in concert" in any way) It would take extensive interviewing with Amanda Knox to learn if she believes this to be so. We sometimes see this in drug overdosage where one gives drugs to the victim, but if the victim took the drugs on his or own accord, the supplier can say "I didn't kill him" and pass a polygraph.

That's all I know for sure.

Whenever someone says "that's all I know" it is an indication of withholding information.


Because truthful people will continually make attempts to remember any detail that may help police and often stay up late at night, losing sleep, in an attempt to recall anything not previously remembered. It is a sign that they wish questions to cease. (see analysis on Misty Croslin for this principle)

In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer,

Patrik is the murderer but only in her flashbacks

but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night.

bold type added by me for emphasis. Capital letters were written by Knox. Note that the "truth" (not "real" truth, nor "best" truth) only "feels" in her mind. She also shows deception by telling us what she does not remember, and then frames the words "I was at my house that night" within her statement.

The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:

Note that these questions only need answering for Amamda Knox. What does she want answers to?

Her best friend has been brutally murdered and she needs answers to:

1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?
2. Why did I think of Patrik?

Ask yourself how what questions you might have if you found your best friend and roommate murdered.
Who did it?
Is the killer loose?
Am I in danger of being killed, too?

Not so for Amanda. Order is important (see Solomon's use of Statement Analysis in the custody battle of 1 Kings 6 where he uses the order of the mothers' statements to determine custody. Order shows importance.

When Misty Croslin called 911 to report a missing child, her order revealed her priority:

1. That she was sleeping. This was the first thing she said and most important to her.

2. that the door was open. This is second in priority for her.

3. That a child was missing. It is only after the alibi is established does she bother to say a child is missing.

3. Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?

Note that pronouns are exempt from personal internal dictionary and are universal. Here we have "my presence" and "my memory"; taking ownership of both. In her framed words, she says "my presence at the time and place of the crime" even though it is worded in the form of a question. This is not what someone who was not present for the crime would do.

4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?

This question, the 4th in priority, seeks information that would condemn Patrik or anyone else, rather than herself.

3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]?

Note that in her list of questions, how low in priority this is. Note also the emphasis she places, both linguistically and in caps of "real" killer. Who caused the final, fatal infliction of injury that caused immediate death?

This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.

Note "feel" as a qualifier (someone may "feel" otherwise") weakening her assertion.

I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me.

Note the indication of deliberatley withheld information in the form of negation.

But this is the truth

Note that this is the "truth" and not the "real" nor "best" truth for Amanda Knox.

and this is what I'm thinking at this time. Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone.
Note the addition of "help anyone". This may reveal the motive for why she has attempted to "confuse" police (though they likely claimed not to be confused). She said the police were confused but didn't tell us that the police said they were confused. If the police did not say that they were confused, it is likely that she has revealed her motive for contradicting herself and her extreme use of qualifiers: deception by confusion. Her confusion is meant to help herself.

"I know Casey Anthony is lying because her lips are moving" said HLN News analysist, Mike Brooks.

This is the type of statement that frustrates investigators. We know that even within lies, truth is found. This statement attempts to "muddy the waters" so much that others will just give up in frustration. Children who employ this method with sucess, will do so as adults. Children who's parents (or teachers) take the time to get to the bottom of things will abandon this childish practice. It is likely that Amanda Knox used this technique early in life.

I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.

Note that there is no need to delay ("soon as possible") as truth can simply be told here and now. This sentence tells us that she has not told investigators the truth and investigators will have to wait for the truth.

If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are.
Note understanding with investigators who have accused her of murder is not something innocent subjects say. It is a form of manipulation. .

Please believe me at least in that,

She asks, with sensitivity (please) to be believed in "at least" that she is "trying"; not that she has told them the truth about the murder.

although I understand if you don't.
Note above.

All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.

Note again the phrase "all I know" is an attempt to end the inquiry.
Amanda Knox owns her involvement in Meredith's death with a pronoun, "my". Someone who was not involved in Meredith's death would not state "my involvement", because they would not own it. This is akin to a confession. When police have a false confession or a prisoner of war is forced to give a false confession, we find in their statements a lack of ownership of the crime, even during the confession. A false confession will often slip into present tense language, and give indications of deception regarding the confession itself. Amanda Knox gives indications of deception regarding the crime, not the confession.

The same theme continues. I have highlighted the key words as the explanation is the same. Knox can't tell the truth, as it would cause her consequences; therefore, she seeks to confuse and leave open all sorts of possible explanations. She does not report what happens, but attempts to persuade. This is likely how she got herself out of trouble growing up, and is used to getting her way. The wording suggests her form of lying is lifelong, and not specific to this event.

Amanda Knox would not pass a polygraph. She fails the polygraphy of Statement Analysis and places herself at the scene of the murder and is deceptive throughout her account.

In her account not only does she show ownership of the crime, but places herself at the crime scene and links sexual activity with the crime itself.

She is consistently deceptive in her statement.

Regarding the murder of Meredith Kitchner, Amanda Knox shows herself as deceptive, and responsible for the death of Meredith Kercher.

Meredith's family deserves justice.


john said...

On Thursday November 1 I saw Meredith the last time at my house when she left around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Raffaele was with me at the time. We, Raffaele and I, stayed at my house for a little while longer and around 5 in the evening we left to watch the movie Amelie at his house.


She uses "left" twice is this sensitive on this occasion

Anonymous said...

Peter, IMO, this is one of your best analyses ever and is carefully explained.

Based on my indepth and personal contact with a practiced, conniving pathological liar from teens and past that persons' twenties, (her parents thought it was "cute" when she lied as a child and would laugh at her when they caught her lying); it is easy to see Amanda's twisted and deliberate lies while faking memory loss and confusion. She believes she has everyone confused and believes she has done a good job keeping them confused. BS, she doesn't remember but she's "trying" to tell the truth!

IMO she remembers every detail of her part in Meredith's murder; her act is deliberate, she will never tell the truth and will continue to do what she does best: lie sweetly and plant seeds of doubt and confusion. She knows exactly what she's doing and enjoys it.

While her parents may be trying to believe her, and want to believe her; IMO, they HAVE to know deep down that she is lying since she has always been a liar who got her own way. They never took any action, made excuses for her, and allowed her to become a sociopath. It's unfortunate they never took control of her lying and allowed it to continue, to perpetuate and eventually excellerating into a sexually charged drug induced murder.

IMO, Amanda hasn't even taken Meredith's violent death seriously nor does she have any feelings of compassion as to how Meredith died in such a gruesome manner. She has no feelings for Meredith and HOW she suffered and died doesn't matter to Amanda Knox at all.

john said...

when i read your analysis earlier the words "LEFT" didnt show up in blue on my PC thats why i pointed it out,i think i may need a new PC. lol.

Ivy said...

This and the other statement (email) by Knox you posted were what got me interested in statement analysis. I recall reading a little about the case and Tim Egan's op ed in the NYT and wondering why the Italians were so obsessed with this poor American girl. Then I researched the case a bit and read about some of the evidence and that's when I read these two astonishing statements. This written statement to the police after she was no longer in custody was so clearly indicative of guilt to me, I'm astonished anyone can be convinced she was not involved based on this statement alone. At the conclusion of it, particularly in her questions, it seems to me that even though she is still saying that she's confused etc. she is basically conceding that the second account -- that she was there -- is the truth. She gives numerous indications that now that the police has physical evidence linking her to the crime scene that she is changing her story. She's not saying -- "well, your evidence is wrong, I wasn't there" -- but instead showing a willingness to admit that the new version is the real truth and that she may only have been confused about when she says she was at Raphael's especially since it is incriminating (her language) that she can't specify what they did that night. How hard would it be to remember I was at Raphael's apartment, I didn't leave and become involved in my roommate's murder? As easy as it is to be certain she did not murder Meredith. I "might" or "might not" have been there? She is willing to say that Raphael may not be lying in making statements incriminating her. And she even says that she won't be able to provide testimony against whoever did it even if she was there because of how confused she is about what happened. For whatever reason, to me that statement about her not being able to provide testimony to incriminate the perpetrator screams to me her willingness to accept the new version (her being there) as the truth -- it's like she's moved from denial and confusion to saying, okay, so I was there but I'm confused, so I can only help you so much. As I have thought about this case over the years, I am convinced of both her and Raphael's involvement in both the crime and cleanup. I find it extremely unlikely that Raphael would have helped her cover up a murder he was not involved in and if somehow he did because he was young and in love or whatever that he would have eventually said -- I helped clean up, but I didn't commit murder. I remember reading he told 3 different stories about what he and Amanda did that night before he stopped talking. I recall also that when questioned about Meredith's DNA being on the knife from his house he said she pricked her hand when they were making fish (!) I wonder a lot about that "walked into a situation" comment -- I wonder if he or Amanda were the ringleaders in all this. Amanda's confidence in her own ability to convince people of her lies and this "walked into" language suggests to me she is the ringleader, but he may just have had better counsel. His sister worked for the police, etc.

Lara Martinez said...

Amanda mentions 'ears' 3 times in this statement and the next one you posted.

In one statement, she is wondering if the blood she finds in the bathroom after one of her many showers is "from her ear" from ear piercings. She then thinks that maybe all the blood is from a roommate's "menstrual problem." (That is really interesting that you mention the possibility of poor hygiene--Meredith hated sharing a bathroom with her due to her filthy habits)

She recounts Raffaele "cleaning her ears" in a shower after the murder

And she tells of holding her hands over her ears as Meredith screams.

Shelley said...

Can't believe she is totally free. She clearly had involvement.

And if she was on drugs and didn't remember.. Like Peter has stated... It would be a clear denial "I don't remember"

And I've had roomates. If I came home and the door was open and I had found blood... I would immediacy check on my roomates just to see if they were ok. It may even just be they were sick.. But if this was a close friend, you would knock on the door to check. I checked on a roomate once just cause she parked her car so close to the garbage door it was touching it....in the middle of the day. Was not normal so I knocked on her door and asked if she was ok.

Sandy said...

It is pretty scary to realize that both Casey and Amanda are free... although at opposite ends of the U.S., both of these women are dangerous, IMHO.

Nn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.