Saturday, March 30, 2013

Amanda Knox: Language of Sexual Assault


by Peter Hyatt


Confession By Pronoun

We have seen admissions or confessions by pronouns before.  Here we have Amanda Knox confessing to being present at the murder of Meredith.

As the Amanda Knox case re-enters the news, here is her original handwritten statement to police upon being arrested.  The analysis seeks to learn if Amanda Knox was part of the murder of her then roommate.  The knowledge comes from Amanda Knox herself, who, if was at the crime scene during the murder, would give us verbal indicators.  If she was not, and did not take part in the murder, she would tell us this, as well.  Whether or not DNA was handled properly, or whether prosecutors are corrupt or not, her own words will tell us what we need to know. 

Analysis Question:  Is Amanda Knox guilty, in concert, of causing or participating in the death of her roommate?

"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" is a principle followed from antiquity where the words in which we choose are then discerned to be truthful or deceptive.  The "heart" is the seat of the intellect and affections (emotions); what we think, and how we feel.  Statement Analysis of statements is able to discern truth from deception, including false confessions made under coercion.  

Pronouns are of particular value as they are learned in our earliest days of speech, with possessive pronouns often predating speech in young children, as they attempt to say "my" or "mine" with hand motions.  Pronouns and articles are exempt from internal subjective dictionaries (as is objective time) and are reflex in our speech with our minds dictating to our tongues what words to say in less than a microsecond.  

The Amanda Knox case is one that provokes emotional responses from both those who believe that she is guilty, and those who believe she is innocent.  When people lie, they have a reason to lie.  Here, she is brought in for a murder investigation.  

Transcript of Amanda Knox's handwritten statement to police on the evening of November 6, the day she was arrested.

The statement is in italics, with statement analysis in bold type.  Words that are underlined are done so 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 appears deceptive.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.  It should be noted that the word "this" indicates closeness, whereas the word "that" shows distance.  On average, we see the word "that" used more frequently with memory failure. 

People report what they can remember.

Note the inclusion of sensitive words, "very" strange, and "really" what happened. She notes that others are confused as she is.  
In a criminal investigation, innocent people (those who did not "do it" nor were involved in it) say so.  They do so quickly, and without sensitivity indicators.  Even in the most emotionally upsetting circumstances, a denial is found early and is comprised of:

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.

Passive language "I have been told" rather than who told her what specifically. But far more telling is the following words within her statement possibly an embedded admission: "I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened".   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, nor place herself there. 

Note that she Wants to confirm, which is different than confirming and is a weak assertion. 

She wants to confirm something that to her, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.   This means that, to someone else, it would not be impossible; only to "her", and only on the condition of being asked a few days ago.  This is a strong indication that Amanda Knox is lying. 

It would also be impossible "a few days" ago, but as more information has come forward, it may be different now for her. 

Is the something that she wants to confirm something that would be different to someone else (hence the use of "to me").  This is why extra words are essential in analysis.  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; making it weaker. 

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:

"I know" is strong and with the first person singular, it is something that she recognizes and asserts.  Notice how "I know" is unlike her other statements.  It is not "I believe" nor is it qualified with "I know that in my heart" or "I know that in my mind..." or any other additional words.  That Raffaele has said that she was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder is something strong to Knox. 

Next notice that it is only "in my mind" that there are things that may be elsewhere; not just in her mind.  This 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 timeWe, 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 [sic], 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 that when the word "left" is used, it often indicates missing information.  70% of the missing information is due to time constraints, rushing, traffic, etc, with the other 30% being sensitive information. 

Note whenever the number 3 enters a statement as it is known as the "liar's number"   It should not be considered deceptive on its own, only noted in context.  When someone wishes to be deceptive and chooses a number, it is often "3" unless the subject is asked how many drinks he or she had, and then the number is "two".  The number 3 enters such as:  "I was approached by 3 men" or "At 3 oclock on the third floor..." etc.   It is not an indicator of deception on its own, for it is possible to be approached by 3 men on the third floor; only that it should be noted and later factored into the full analysis.  

Note that the word "with" shows distance:
"My wife and I went shopping."
"I went shopping with my wife."
These are two ways of saying almost the same thing.  A follow up question to B will likely show why distance entered into the statement; such as "I didn't want to go shopping" etc.  Here, the distance is between her and Raeffale:  "Raeffale was with me" but then immediately changes it to:
"we" which shows closeness, except that she has a need to emphasize the closeness by explanation:  "We, Raffele and I stayed..."  This need to emphasize, along with the needless repetition is an indicator that she is being deceptive. 

Note that Patrik "told" me, rather than he "said" indicates firmness; It may be that she and Patrick argued, or that she wants to emphasize authority.  But whatever the need, she uses "because" (which explains why something happened) making the statement itself, along with Patrik, sensitive. 

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. 

Note that she "now" remembers which, like the word "but" (which refutes what was previously stated) stands to change her account. 
Note that "goodbye", "see you later" etc, in homicide cases can indicate the time of death.  
Note the return of "I know" which is strong.  What does she know?  She knows that it does not match up with Raffaele's testimony.  weak commitment to the text. If the subject does not own the text, neither can we.

told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After thaI believe we relaxed in his room togetherperhaps 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.
Note the pronouns:  
"I told Raffaele" is strong language.  This may indicate an argument. 
Note "after that" is a passage of time, or skipping over.  There is missing information at this point of her statement. 
Note that "I believe" is weak; but when the weakness is added to:   "we relaxed" (which, by itself is strong) is then added "together" (redundancy), we see deception.  This needless emphasis is being made to place them together.  
Note "perhaps" is a qualifier and she is not committed to the statement. 
Note that she "perhaps" made love or perhaps read.  This is more than just deceptive:  it is an indication of someone else's presence:

Timing is an issue as she has skipped over time and withheld information (temporal lacunae).  
Why would she need to say that she made love to Raffaele?  She already introduced him with "we".  This is an indication of not only deception, but of the presence, within sexual activity, of more than just Amanda Knox and Raffaele.  We do not know the time frame since she has skipped time. 
Note:  Deceptive use of qualifiers. Again, see Dr. Eckman for this form of deception (memory). Note "perhaps" (qualifier) she made love "to" Raffaele. 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.

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

Note anything reported in the negative as sensitive. 
Note "I admit" show reluctance and resistance overcome. 
Note "with him" instead of "Raffaele and I smoked marijuana"; shows distance
Note that "these" things instead of "those" things. 
Note that the entry of water into a statement is often an indicator of sexual assault.  Whether it is the washing of clothes, washing of hands, shower, bath, etc,  
Here we have the first indicator that her roommate died as part of a sexual homicide. 
Note that when she was with Raffaele, she had to mention that she had sex "with him" which is an indication that during sex, at least one other person was present.  Now, with the entry of water into the statement is indicative that Amanda Knox was not simply present at the murder of Merideth, but that she was present for a sexual homicide. 
Note that to be vague; indicates an attempt at  deception.  She reports what may have happened, with choices such as reading or sex.  This lack of commitment indicates deception on her part. 

Deception, in order to be deception, must be willful.  Amanda Knox places herself at the scene of a crime, and then gives indicators of a sexual homicide. 
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.

The qualifiers resemble Casey Anthony.  "In truth" means she speaks at times 
outside of truth.  
Note that " I do not remember" is an affirmation of what she does not know.  This is a signal of deception.  Note that she does remember, but only not "exactly"
Note "we" took a shower.   This is the 2nd indicator in a short statement where water is introduced.  The element of water is often found in statements where a sexual assault or homicide has taken place. 

It is significant that she tells us that Raffaele "cleaned" her.  While speaking, even when attempting to be deceptive, what is in the heart slips out and she may have been thinking of washing off blood when she gave this statement.  Those that wish to excuse her due to police misconduct, or mishandling of evidence must do so by ignoring not only the fact that she lied, but that she employed the language of a sexual homicide in doing so.  

"I dropped off  (the hitchhiker), stopped to get gas and wash up.  After that, I drove down I-95 until..."

This was a statement where a hitchhiker was murdered.  The timeframe where he washed up showed the time of death. 

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, 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. This may speak to motive and just how far she went.  

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

The lack of commitment to the events is noted but we also see:
That which is in the negative:  when someone tells us what they did not do, did not say, did not think, particularly when offered in an open sentence, it is a strong indicator of what they did do, did think, and did say.  Here, she remembers that she did not look at the clock.  This tells us:

She looked at the clock as time was significant.  
Note that this is something that "definitely" happened, yet she then says "I think" showing the obvious contradiction.  Deception noted. 

It is like the statement where the person says "and I saw no one run across my lawn" indicating that she saw someone run across her lawn.  Always flag anything offered in the negative. 

Also note that "because" is sensitive as it explains why something took place.  In a statement, we normally get what happened and not why something happened, and just as being told what didn't happen, the "why, because, therefore, so, since, etc" is highly sensitive to the subject. 

After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish. After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. 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 "I noticed" is passive.  Passive language seeks to conceal identity or responsibility.  Note that the word "but" is used to refute what was just said.  What does she refute?  Noticing blood?  It is the origin of the blood that she seeks to conceal, not the noticing.  
Note that "after dinner" chronologically is when she "noticed" blood, but then in her statement she says "after we ate" is repeated, going back to the event.  Truthful accounts are in chronological order and can be repeated backwards and forwards.  Any time someone is out of chronological order, it should be flagged for deception. Always note when someone says that they "can't" say 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.

Note also any inclusion of thought/emotion within an event. When someone is giving a verbal or written statement, it has been shown through careful study that in the recall process, emotions and thoughts are added later; not in the actual event itself.

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)
Note time:  she "can't" tell us indicates that she is restricted by consequence, since we know that she looked at the clock. 

The next thing I remember 

temporal lacunae. This indicates withheld information during a critical time period; high sensitivity. The police interview would strongly emphasize here 

was waking up 

note verb tense instead of "I woke up"

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. 

Blood on his hand; need to wash, clean up, and now plastic bag of clothing. 

It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began. 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 "very doubtful" qualifier; rather than making a full denial of her confession.  This is because it is almost impossible to lie upon a lie.  She can only doubt the lies she told earlier.  Note "this" confession, rather than the expected "that" confession, had it been false.

"I'm doubtful" would show some weakness, but she adds even more with "very"

note the order: stress, shock, and extreme exhaustion. Stress is the first thing noted. 

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. 

Deception indicated.  

This is an example of an extra word, ie, one in which the sentence works without, giving away information.  She could have said "I didn't remember a fact" but instead says "I didn't remember a fact correctly" which would show deliberate deception.  She cannot tell us what she didn' remember, only what she remembers, so this would place it in the negative, however, it wasn't remembered "correctly", indicating that she did remember it, just not "correctly"; and is another indication of deception. 
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.

Here sensitivity is shown.  She wants to show why she understands the police hit her in the head.  Please note that the sentence about being hit is deceptive:  
It is both passive ("I was hit in the head") and she added in the word "correctly" about a fact.  Now she wants to make peace with the police over being hit.  There is no agreement nor excuse when one is physically assaulted.  This is yet another sign that she is deceptive. 

Passivity is used when concealing is necessary.  

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


Note the desire to separate herself from her mind.  This is distancing language.  Lying causes stress and here we see her desire to distance herself.  

In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. 
She is lying. 

She did not see Patrik do these things:  he was not there, so it is in order to alleviate the stress of lying she adds "in my mind" she saw; but not with her eyes. This is an example of one not technically lying, but being deceptive. 

Her choice of language, however, is interesting.  It has to come from somewhere, as the brain knows, even when the tongue attempts deception.  Here is the difference:

1.  She saw Patrik, but only in her mind. 
2.  She does not say that when she saw herself cowering in the kitchen, covering her ears and hearing Meredith screaming that this was only in her mind. 
In her "head" she heard screaming. 

What is the difference between "mind" and "head"?

In the "mind" is often the source of the imagination. 
In the "head" is often where someone speaks of hearing screams, with the need to cover ears, with "head" often associated with a guilty conscience. 


But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, 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.

She does not say that these things are unreal.  She says that they only "seem" unreal, and only to her.  She says that they are "like" a dream, rather than lie, outright, and say it was a dream.  

Note that innocent people never accept nor excuse false work by 
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, 

This 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 "truth" repeated, shows sensitivity and the analyst should be on alert that "truth" is a sensitive topic to the subject. 
1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at 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.
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.  Here, she also quotes her boyfriend, though we note the embedded still: "I have said things that I know are not true" appears supported by the analysis. 

I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is absolutely a lie. What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this

Note that she makes a point to say that Raffaele was gentle "with me"; indicating that he was not gentle with someone esle.  

What does he have to hide? I don't think he killed Meredith, but I do think he is scared, like me. 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.

Amanda Knox may not know which inflicted blow killed Meredith. 

Note that she does not say "Raffaele did not kill Meredith" but only that she does not "think" he did; leaving room for someone else to "think" otherwise.  
Note that while attempting to describe him as "caring and gentle" she uses the word "with" which shows distance, but then "this", showing closeness, to the things he was saying.  Amanda Knox brings herself close to the detail; not further away as expected with innocent people.  
Note that "but" refutes what came before it.  What came before it?  "I don't think Raffaele killed Meredith"
She recognizes that he had a part in the killing. 
Several indicators here, including qualifiers, adverbs,and the inclusion of "never" which here is offered (negation) which suggests that she did ask someone to lie for her. Note that she says "he walked into a situation" with "walk" a word indicating tension. 
Note that she says Raffaele is in need of a "way out" of the situation.  

Honestly, 

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

The language of deception and now she recognizes her own lying and wants to be believed, so she calls attention to it

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:

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 (Jose Baez comes to mind)

The truth is, 

noted that she has a need to announce truth, which brings the rest of her statement into question.  This is something deceptive people do when they want to be believed.  

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

Note twice she goes to the negative:  not sure what to think and what she did not think, yet, she adds in the weakened "definitely" to what she didn't think. 
Note that the word, "someone" is  gender free. This is an attempt to, 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. I also thought that maybe one of my roommates was having menstral [sic] problems and hadn't cleaned up. Perhaps I was in shock, but at the time I didn't know what to think and that's the truth. That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.

Note that frequently in murders, guilty perpetrators will minimize what happened.  Meredith did not get "hurt", she was murdered. 
Note "left quickly to take care of it" can be viewed with the "taking care" of the cleaning of the person and the apartment. 
Note the use of the word "perhaps" as not only used when a subject is deceptive and does not want to be pinned down in a statement, but here it is used repeatedly, showing sensitivity.  
Note that "because" is noted for sensitivity as it is outside the boundary of the general statement of "what happened" and shows a need to explain. 

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

This is similar to an admission.  It will be by pronoun that we see her confession. 

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.  Note again that "but" refutes what came first.  She wants to "stand" behind the statements but...this is where it is difficult to lie about a lie. 
3. I'm very confused at this time.                
Note that she is "very" confused, but only "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.

Pronouns don't lie:  Confession or Admission by pronoun. 

Pronouns are instinctive and are exempt from the principle of personal, subjective, internal dictionary (LSI).  We learn pronouns from childhood with possessive pronouns pre-dating speech for some ("my" and "mine" via hand signals by toddlers)

We take possession of what we believe is ours; we do not take possession of what we do not want. 

OJ Simpson said, "...for those of you who believe in my guilt..."
Stephen Trunscott:  "I didn't really know my victim..."

Here, Amanda Knox says "my involvement in Meredith's death" shows ownership of the involvement:  it is an admission by pronoun.  


[illegible section]

I'm trying, I really am, because I'm scared for myself. I know I didn't kill Meredith. 

"I know" adds to the 3 pointed denial, making it unreliable and weak.  Please note that this author believes that Amanda Knox may not have inflicted the final blow upon the victim, but was present for the homicide. 

That's all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, 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. 

She falsely accused him, willing for him to spend the rest of his life in prison. 


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

These are questions she poses for herself, and may indicate she is speaking to herself

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

Couldn't she come up with someone else?  Did she not realize that he would be able to have his alibi verified?

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?

Admission by pronoun that she was there. 

4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?
3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.
I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me. But this is the truth 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. I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.
If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't. All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.


Amanda Knox owns her involvement in Meredith's death with a word: MY. Someone who was not involved in Meredith's death would not state "my involvement", because they would not own it. 

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.  She, by her own words, tells us that this is a sexual homicide, not just a homicide, and that she took part in it; present for the activity.  She places herself by the crime scene and even though she attempts to deceive, her words give her away.  She has nothing to be afraid of but lies, which would appear that she feared her lies were not bought by police.  

It is likely that she, Amanda Knox, did not inflict the final death blow, and that she is not sure who's blow or cut was the final one that caused Meredith's death.  This is why she said she did not "think" that Raffaele killed her, "but".  This was likely a sexual assault that several took place in where they would each blame the other.  
She attempts to build an alibi for herself, indicating the need for alibi, and she attempts to explain away the washing away of evidence on her part.  

Amanda Knox was part of a sexual homicide.  This comes from her own words, and is not changed if prosecutors are corrupt or honorable, nor if evidence was dropped or mishandled.  Amanda Knox, herself, has told us that she was part of a sexual homicide, was present, and that she knows hard evidence thus proves it.  

If her initial confession is thrown out, this statement itself shows her involvement.  It is difficult to imagine anyone trained in interviewing and interrogation claiming that this statement is truthful.  Mishandling evidence or dropping something, or not wearing gloves may cause difficulties, but it does not mean that Amanda Knox didn't take part in the murder.  Her own words show that she did. 
   

37 comments:

Hobnob said...

Peter, is it possible for you to send this analysis to the proescuters?

Anonymous said...

Peter you are so clever! So glad to have found your site. I have been following this case since day 1. I believe she is guilty and always have. It astonishes me that the majority of people DO NOT believe she is guilty. Your statement analysis clearly shows how she "owns" having being involved in this murder. I am horrified that this girl (up till now) has gotten away with murder AND made FOUR MILLION dollars on a book deal. How does she sleep at night. I think she has talked herself into believing her own lies. My theory on why people don't believe she is guilty is due to her being attractive, young, and American. At this point do you think the US will extradite her back to Italy?

Katprint said...

The extremely peculiar syntax of the statement makes me wonder two things:

1) Was the original statement said given in Italian or English? I don't speak Italian but I do speak Spanish which I believe is similar in sentence construction. For example, one would say "throw mama from the train (a kiss)" if one meant "from the train, throw a kiss to mama." The syntax of this statement sounds similarly foreign to me.

Properly interpreting statements from one language to another is more than a direct word-for-word translation. Also, sometimes a slang or colloquialism is used which may be unfamiliar to the interpreter. For example, "pigeonholed" may become "pig in a hole." Not the same meaning!

I have never seen any links to a pdf of a handwritten statement (like the one that Casey Anthony personally wrote out for the police officers) by Amanda Knox. I have only seen the typewritten versions, which may be an English translation of a statement she gave in Italian, or even an English translation of an Italian translation of a statement she gave in English. If the words in the typewritten version are not the words actually used by Amanda Knox then that decreases its usefulness for statement analysis.

2) Is this a word-for-word transcription of a handwritten or verbal statement, or a general summary of a statement? My experience with depositions in Europe (specifically, Germany and England) for cases pending in California courts was that we had to bring along our own court reporter to take down the proceedings in a word-for-word verbatim transcript, because apparently the norm in Europe is that the court reporter prepares a detailed summary of what was said, which is inadequate for the courts here.


So, I have some questions about the authenticity of the statement although I have no definitive proof that it is a translation or a summary rather than a direct statement.

lane said...

http://www.onlinesentinel.com/news/11-year-old-Kelli-Murphy-found-not-competent-to-stand-trial.html?pagenum=full
OT
Yesterday at 10:30 PM
11-year-old alleged baby killer not competent for trial – for now
By Doug Harlow dharlow@mainetoday.com
Staff Writer

and Betty Adams badams@centralmaine.com
Staff Writer

SKOWHEGAN — The 11-year-old girl who is accused of killing an infant last year is not competent to stand trial now but likely will be in the future, a judge has ruled.

Kelli Murphy of Fairfield is charged with manslaughter in the death of 3-month-old Brooklyn Foss-Greenaway of Clinton, who died on July 8 while staying overnight at the home of Murphy's mother, Amanda Huard.

In his ruling, Judge Charles LaVerdiere wrote that "at this time, the state has not met its burden of demonstrating that the juvenile is competent to proceed under the standard established by the Maine Juvenile Code." The court papers were signed Thursday and released Friday.

LaVerdiere wrote that "there is a substantial probability that the juvenile will be competent in the foreseeable future."

(snip)

The DHHS issued a notice to Huard on Aug. 10, saying its review showed that Huard had neglected the 3-month-old who was left in her care.

The notice also says Huard knew that Murphy, who was then 10 years old, should not be baby-sitting children but Huard continued to allow her to do so. The notice did not explain why the girl should not have been baby-sitting.

Huard has not been charged. Stokes has said that Huard was not charged because prosecutors have a higher burden of proof in a criminal case than DHHS caseworkers have.

According to the notice, Murphy suffers from significant behavioral problems and Huard failed to follow through on the required treatment, including ensuring that the girl was taking medication for attention deficit-hyperactivity disorder, oppositional defiant disorder and attachment disorder.

MizzMarple said...

"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."

----------------------------------

No innocent person would use the 2 words : "my involvement" -- and then follow it up with the words "in Meredith's death" -- IF they were NOT involved in a murder.

When the Supreme Court of Italy's ruling came out this past Tuesday, Knox used the words "MY INVOLVEMENT IN MEREDITH'S MURDER" -- AGAIN in her statement :

"It was painful to receive the news that the Italian Supreme Court decided to send my case back for revision when the prosecution's theory of MY INVOLVEMENT IN MEREDITH'S MURDER has been repeatedly revealed to be completely unfounded and unfair," Knox said in a statement.

Link : http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/03/26/italy-highest-court-overturns-amanda-knox-acquittal-in-murder-case-orders-new/


Now, many people believe her attorneys wrote this statement -- -- but NO attorney would use the "my involvement."

It is my opinion that Amanda wrote that statement!

Keep talking Amanda ... keep talking !

MizzMarple said...

Katprint said...
The extremely peculiar syntax of the statement makes me wonder two things:

1) Was the original statement said given in Italian or English?

...

So, I have some questions about the authenticity of the statement although I have no definitive proof that it is a translation or a summary rather than a direct statement.

----------------------------------

YES -- Knox's original statement was written in English -- she did not speak and/or write "fluent" Italian at that point in time, as she had only been in Italy for about 2 months.

Amanda was provided an interpreter from day one -- however, she did speak sometimes in Italian at the trial -- at that point, she learned the language being in jail there.

Also, the document is authentic, and there probably are copies of the original documen at TJMK.org or PMF.org

Remember, this statement came about because Knox's then boyfriend, Rafaelle Sollecito, was summoned to the police station because his "original story" did not match his cell phone records, etc. Amanda accompanied hiim to the police station. When Sollecito was confronted by LE, he then TURNED on Amanda and told the police that Amanda was NOT with him the night of the murder, that he was "home alone." So when Sollecito TURNED on Knox, LE spoke with Knox because she was "conveniently" there.

Ivanna-Anna said...

"My wife and I went shopping."
"I went shopping with my wife."

This is how I see the distancing even better:
I say:
"I went for a walk with my dog"

But I would not say:
"My dog and I went for a walk."
(That would sound like there was something going on between us).

Also:
"I went shopping with my daughter": she needed/wanted me to go because she wanted me to pay for something, or wanted me to help her choose. She asked me to join her.

"My daughter and I went shopping"
We went possibly to buy something, but we wanted to be together. (We might have gone for a chat).

"My daughter went shopping with me"
I asked her to join me (I might have wanted her company more than she wanted mine, or wanted her to help me choose what to but).


Anonymous said...

The text from Patrick is more important than anybody seems to realize -- it is precicely what set her off. Patrick was replacing Amanda as hostess of the club ---with Meridith. This is why Amanda named Partick -- she wanted him to go to prison for life -- she wanted to hurt him badly. Meridith's social star was rising and Amanda's was falling. Her boss thought so & even Amanda's own boyfriend thought Meridith was hot. Amanda wanted to shut down her competition pronto -- so she got her boyfriend and the other guy Rudy I think his name was -- to attack Meridith --- that night -- before she stepped in as her replacement at "Le Chic". Amanda basically f***ed Meridith to death via these two other dudes. And with a knife. I wouldn't doubt that Amanda inflicted the deadly stab wound.

Lis said...

Very good analysis, Peter. I think you could have given more explanation as to how the principles you used work, for those who are new to statement analysis, but this was direct and very clear to me. Those who are new to statement analysis may want to learn more about the principles from the archives.

Amanda Knox's statement shows deception and guilt and it has nothing to do with the sentence structure or which language she used; she chose her words to imply what she wanted to be believed, without actually saying it. This is how a liar lies. There is no language where "I wasn't there" turns into 'in my mind I see something but I am confused and maybe I was there but I really think I wasn't but I can't really remember, you see I was busy getting stoned and making love and taking long showers and having sex and I'm trying to tell the best truth I can about MY INVOLVEMENT in MURDER' and blah blah blah.

I find it so jarring that she seems to want to bring sexual references into her statements often and to dwell upon them, and under the circumstances of the investigation of a sexual murder it stands out as exceedingly creepy, as though she is almost taunting the investigators. The part about the long shower and him cleaning her ears and hair is disgusting.

Lis said...

Ivanna-Anna said...
This is how I see the distancing even better:
I say:
"I went for a walk with my dog"

But I would not say:
"My dog and I went for a walk."
(That would sound like there was something going on between us).

I like this example, Ivanna - "My dog and I went for a walk" - it is humorous to see it worded that way!

Anonymous said...

OT Peter I wonder have you ever looked into the Luke Mitchell/jodi jones case? It divides alot off strong opinions as too his guilt/innocence I know dr Paul ekman looked into the case on behalf off Scottish detectives and agreed he was a person off interest yet both Luke and his mother passed a lie detecter test! Do any readers know off the case that could put there skills use!

dadgum said...

My dog and I found the Easter candy. She smells better than I do.

Peter Hyatt said...

I am interested in the case of Luke Mitchell/jodi jones

especially since Dr. Ekman was involved. if you have any links with statements, please post.

Peter Hyatt said...

Ivanna Anna,

you have the concept down.

john said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CarlaP said...

I was wondering if this was a translation as well. Her language is so off and sentences are strangely constructed, it "reads" odd. If it isn't a translation, it sounds damning. What her her intent with the "I can't tell reality from my dreams" thing? Why not a flat out denial if she had no involvement?

equinox said...

The statement was handwritten by Amanda Knox in English on Nov 6th. 2007 just after she was arrested and before she had seen a lawyer or been taken to prison. It was published in the UK Telegraph on the 22nd of November.

She wrote this on the morning after she confessed to being at the cottage and accusing Patrick of the murder. She had been informed she needed a lawyer yet she voluntarily requested a tablet of paper and a a pen to write this. Unlike her confession the night before which was not recorded and was taken while she was still just considered a witness and not a suspect, with no lawyer present and was thus inadmissible against her, this written four page confession was used against her in her trial.
From the UK Telegraph

For an interesting comparison read Amanda Knox' private email sent to many people on November 4th, 2007

Ivanna-Anna said...

Mitchell/Jones
Here's something he said about finding her body (he was claimed to have known where the body was):

Using torches in the dark, Mitchell began to search for the missing girl with his German shepherd dog Mia. In his statement to police, he said: "We walked past the V-shaped break in the wall and a few yards past that, not even 20 yards past that, Mia stopped and put her nose in the air and put her paws up on the wall as if trying to sniff over." He then went across the wall alone and continued searching. The statement continued: "I saw this white thing stuck out in the light. I could see it was legs, like a tailor's dummy. After I saw legs I just took another step then I recognised it was a body lying there. I could see it was female. There was blood on the neck. She was naked."
http://www.heraldscotland.com/sport/spl/aberdeen/why-silent-and-defiant-to-the-end-luke-mitchell-denied-the-family-of-jodi-jones-the-one-answer-they-needed-1.65040

Ivanna-Anna said...

This is slightly better than the above link:
http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/media-and-other-considerations/mail-sunday-6th-2012/mail-sunday-6th-2012-page-4/

Seagull said...

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=67.0

The above is a transcript of Luke Mitchell's interview with Sky's James Matthews in 2003.

I've been reading this blog for a few weeks now and finally plucked up the courage to join in. I'm learning much from the insightful comments. A whole new world has been opened up to me.

Anonymous said...

All I can say is, I hope I never wake up in the morning, take a shower, have breakfast with my spouse, leave for work, and then come upon a crime scene. You guys would never believe me!

john said...

Corinne Mitchell’s – Polygraph Test – Video Footage

On the 23rd February 2012, Corinne Mitchell underwent a polygraph test to asses whether or not her responses to the following 3 test questions which are highly pertinent to the safety of Luke’s conviction were truthful:-

Did you falsify Luke’s alibi regarding his whereabouts on the day of Jodi’s death? – Answer : No - Result : Telling the truth
Did you burn clothing or evidence that would incriminate Luke of Jodi’s death? – Answer : No – Result : Telling the truth
Did you lie in your court testimony during Luke’s trial? – Answer : No – Result : Telling the truth
As well as the three key questions, the video shows Mrs Mitchell facing a series of “known truth” questions with clear-cut answers Mr Mullins also asks a series of “comparison” questions, designed to help him interpret the truthfulness of Mrs Mitchell’s answers to the three “relevant” questions.

Full article as first published by the Mail on Sunday is available here – Corinne Passes Lie Detector

http://caseblog.wronglyaccusedperson.org.uk/luke-mitchell-is-innocent/media-and-other-considerations/corinne-mitchells-polygraph-test-video-footage/

Anonymous said...

I find this part of her original statement odd:

On Thursday November 1 I saw Meredith the last time at my house when she left around 3 or 4 in the afternoon.

She says "MY" house. As though she knew from that moment on, the last time she saw Meredith, it was no longer Meredith's house. Wouldn't she have said "OUR" house since they lived there together. The sentence should have been more structured like this:
The last time I saw Meredith was Nov. 1st at our house and then she left (what did she leave for: work, school, date?) around 3 or 4. I would never just say someone "LEFT" in a statement regarding murder without saying where they left to. If you were there to see her leave chances are you knew where she was going.
I would be precise about where they "LEFT" to. Like I said above.. they left for work, school, a walk, a date, or a trip etc. etc.
Amanda was very bold to use "MY" house. If I was referring to my husband.. I would have said the last time I saw him was at OUR house and then he left for work at 4.

Seagull said...

Peter,

You make Statement Analysis easy to understand. I was at a funeral and got chatting with a friend whose wife was expecting their second child. I asked him if he knew what it was. He said,"it could be a boy, it could be a girl" there was a distinct pause after he said, "it could be a boy" I knew they already had a beautiful little girl. I didn't know prior to asking him that they were keeping the sex of the baby a secret until the baby was born. Perhaps he either wanted a boy or was thinking about the sex of the baby in his response. They had a baby boy. I guess Statement Analysis alluded to this by the order of what was said. Perhaps I should have placed a wager.... Statement Analysis tells us so much more

Anonymous said...

(From Ivanna-Anna)

On the contrary.

If you came upon a murder scene, and was asked to describe the day, taking a shower that morning would not feel significant enough to mention.

This is how I see the water/washing link: When someone has been sexually assaulted (or has done the assaulting) they will have felt dirty. (Women who are raped often scrub themselves until they bleed). When they're asked to describe the situation, they will remember how dirty they were, and how important washing felt to them, and this is why they will mention it. (The same with closing/opening doors -- a child who is afraid of being molested will lie in his/her bed and stare at the door, waiting. To them, a closed/open door will always have special significance, and they are more likely to mention it).

As for leaving: again, we pay attention to what's important to the person talking. You will need to leave your house to go somewhere else, so you don't normally mention it. I go to work in the morning. I would not say "I left the house and went to work" unless leaving had significance in itself. (I might say it if one of my kids was ill and I felt guilty about leaving -- in that case leaving the house would probably be a much stronger thougt than arriving at work.)

Mel said...

Anonymous at 2:38, I love your explanation!

Ivanna-Anna said...

Thank you, Mel :)

MizzMarple said...

CarlaP said...

I was wondering if this was a translation as well. Her language is so off and sentences are strangely constructed, it "reads" odd. If it isn't a translation, it sounds damning. What her her intent with the "I can't tell reality from my dreams" thing? Why not a flat out denial if she had no involvement?

-----------------------------------

Amanda's ORIGINAL STATEMENT was written in ENGLISH -- this is HOW she writes. She "thinks" she is "intelligent" and she "thinks" she writes well -- she does NOT ! Remember, Amanda wrote and posted a story about a woman who was "raped" on one of her social media sites which was prior to Meredith's murder. "Coincidence" ? I think NOT !

For more of Amanda's "samplings" of her "writings," check out the E-MAIL she wrote to her friends and family a couple of days after she killed Meredith. This e-mail was "all about Amanda".

Peter did a fantastic analysis of Amanda's e-mail as well !

I hope Peter will re-post it !

Anonymous said...

But what if my normal way of saying that I go from home to work is, "I leave for work at 8am". If that's just what I choose to say instead of "I go to work at 8am" (which actually, is unclear IMHO, since it does not tell me if the speaker starts commuting to work at 8am or begins work at 8am), then how is that sensitive?

I am fascinated by what I've read about SA so far, but I wonder how it can account for the natural variations in the way people speak. Some people are very plain spoken, while others use more modifiers and more varied sentence structure, but this doesn't mean the more plain-spoken person is more honest. A person could be more or less articulate for a lot of reasons - education, extroverted/introverted tendencies, language proficiency - but unless you are very familiar with that individual's normal speaking patterns, I think it would be specious to presume to be able to tell too much from their choice of words.

Some of the principles such as someone saying all the things he or shoe doesn't know, I can understand pointing to deception. Others leave me dubious, and I am not sure I'd want to assume someone wasn't telling me something important that happened just because he or she told me "Traffic was awful. I left at 9 this morning and it took me over an hour to get here."

Ivanna-Anna said...

I'll have a go -- Please correct me if I'm inaccurate or wrong!

When you analyse, look at the question and think about what makes sense as an answer. Are there any parts that seem odd? Here are a couple of imaginary examples:

Q: Why were you late?

A: Traffic was awful. I left at 9 this morning and it took me over an hour to get here."


Q: 911. Where's your emergency?

A: Traffic was awful. I left at 9 this morning and it took me over an hour to get here.

Q: Do you have an emergency?

A: Like I said, I just got here.

Q: Where are you?

A: Well, I would normally have arrived earlier, but since the traffic was really, really bad, it took me much longer than normal. So I just arrived now, not a half an hour earlier like on any other day.

Q: What happened?

A: Well, as it happens, my colleague doesn't seem to be breathing. I haven't actually checked it for sure, but she's definitely dead. I did touch the rope she was strangled with, so don't be surprised if you find my fingerprints on it. But like I said, the traffic was just murderous this morning. I really wouldn't have had time to commit my crime.

(The same exact words are said as a false alibi).


As for natural variations in the way people speak:

Look at the whole piece of text and compare/contrast the different parts. If a person is more articulate than the average person, that's fine. There might be a part in the text where the person is less articulate. There should be a reason for the change in the language, so it's worth taking a closer look. (Is he/she trying to avoid describing the time of the day when the crime was committed?)

Likewise, if the person is less articulate, and suddenly the sentences become longer, it's worth having a closer look at (especially) what follows this part. The person might be trying to avoid getting to the part where she/he is going to lie.

We have different vocabularies, and that's fine. Pay attention to changes of words within the text. If a person starts using a synonym for an object (even a person), try to see if there's an understandable reason for the change. A change can be a signal that - in the person's mind - the object has changed significantly (perhaps from living to dead).

Anonymous said...

this may have already been asked/covered.... but the interview that Amanda Knox gave (the one you are quoting), was it originally given in English? Or was it translated from Italian?

Peter Hyatt said...

This was in English.

We did cover this and Statement Analysis should be done in the original language.

It is best.

I do some 'block' style analysis, for example, on North Korea's statements but it is best done in Korean. When I did some of the Nuremberg trials, I took only large principles like "avoiding the question" instead of specific wording because I am at the mercy of the translator.

Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Anonymous said...
The text from Patrick is more important than anybody seems to realize -- it is precicely what set her off. Patrick was replacing Amanda as hostess of the club ---with Meridith. This is why Amanda named Partick -- she wanted him to go to prison for life -- she wanted to hurt him badly. Meridith's social star was rising and Amanda's was falling. Her boss thought so & even Amanda's own boyfriend thought Meridith was hot. Amanda wanted to shut down her competition pronto -- so she got her boyfriend and the other guy Rudy I think his name was -- to attack Meridith --- that night -- before she stepped in as her replacement at "Le Chic". Amanda basically f***ed Meridith to death via these two other dudes. And with a knife. I wouldn't doubt that Amanda inflicted the deadly stab wound.
March 31, 2013 at 1:25 AM


since I don't know much about the case, I think this comment bears worth looking into.

I know the basics of the case in general terms and have read the refutations, but it is Amanda Knox' own words that show guilt, deception and involvement in sexual homicide.

You have raised a sensitive point well, and it is worth reviewing carefully. Thank you, Peter

Peter Hyatt said...

Ivanna-Anna said...
"My wife and I went shopping."
"I went shopping with my wife."

This is how I see the distancing even better:
I say:
"I went for a walk with my dog"

But I would not say:
"My dog and I went for a walk."
(That would sound like there was something going on between us).

Also:
"I went shopping with my daughter": she needed/wanted me to go because she wanted me to pay for something, or wanted me to help her choose. She asked me to join her.

"My daughter and I went shopping"
We went possibly to buy something, but we wanted to be together. (We might have gone for a chat).

"My daughter went shopping with me"
I asked her to join me (I might have wanted her company more than she wanted mine, or wanted her to help me choose what to but).


In analysis, we highlight all names used, even pets, because there are some people who's pets are more important to them than humans.

I have heard "My dog and I went walking..." in the language of some people who live alone with pets.

Interesting.

thanks, Peter

Sandy said...

Anonymous at 5:20 p.m. March 31 -- the individual arriving late is lying. By telling you the traffic was horrendous (or whatever) they are directing your attention to the traffic, not to their tardiness. If they are telling the truth, they would probably say, "I'm sorry I'm late; the traffic was very slow/congested and I couldn't go faster 9or fast enough). In fact, the late arriving individual probably stopped for coffee and the line for coffee was very long.

This SA process has me listening to people much more closely now. Even my daughter telling me "Honestly, I've been glad to have your help." Instead of "Thanks for all your help," the other tells me she has taken my help but she really wished she didn't need it and me.

Very helpful, Peter!

Anonymous said...

HI. I would like to read your statement analysis of Amanda's interview with Diane Sawyer, that has come out now. Also there are other interviews online form example in german language. I noticed one "slip" she made in the interview which I couldn't believe she said! She was saying something like :...what Meredith went trough when...would have gone trough:.."So she was going to first say one thing, then realized she was being too honest, and changed what she was saying in the middle of the sentence to make it look as she never saw Meredith die.The first sentence (what she was about to say) revealed to me that she actully was there and saw what Meredith went trough when she died!You can watch it on youtube.

Anonymous said...

I've been reading the full case that's been translated into English. I think Rudy slept through the murder. Just the previous week he passed out sitting on the toilet in the downstairs guy's apt. he slept all night with his own feaces in the bowl under him - according to several guys downstairs. also he had complained of recently having blackouts at night. There's been word that there was a coke deal at 8:30 in front of amada's apt the night of the murder. Rudy was thought to be the middlke man possibly buying for knox and her bf. BUT I think he was just buying for himself. I think Rudy wanted the coke to help hiom get up the nerve to approach the girl. I think he waited for meredith to get home -- as she did some time after 9, she was familiar with rudy as he was buds with her bf and she was additionally annoyed with her bf for asking her to water his pot plant while he was out of town. I think rudy's story that he came in, she freaked out that amanda had stolen her money is more or less true, she would have stopped it from going far as she had her period -- he claimed it was because she didn't have a condom but this could easily have been misconstrued. i think he then went into the bathroom -- proceeded to use the toilet and passed out as had oddly become a phenemon for him. around this time amanda and Raffaelle arrive and attack meredith for their own evil recreation. the commotion of meredith's death scream and the two running out wakes Rudy --- he discovers meredith, tries to help her, cuts his own hand on a knife, is bewildred and terrified and runs out of the house. amanda sees him run from a distance where the two murderers watch the front door waiting for an opening to return. they can't ID rudy from the distance but when pressed Amanda names Patrick -- it's worth a shot -- she hates him for trying to squeeze him out of her job and all she knows is it was some back dude -- so she hopes he guesses right. ... I think Rudy can't name them outright as the killers because he actually did not witness them do it. And when they returned the next a.m. and realized somebody else had been all around at first they thought it was their undoing and they freaked -- as some neighbor reported hearing -- but then they saw the opportunity in the crisis -- what crazy luck, and they cleaned up after themselves and did everythingt to make it look like a breakin and rape and murder by the other guy.