Tuesday, March 26, 2013
Hyperbole in Statements: Knox Defense by Former FBI
Statement Analysis of the statements of Amanda Knox show guilty knowledge of a sexual homicide. Her statements are useful in seeing the correlation between references to water and sexual abuse.
Here is a defense in which the title, itself, begins with weakness.
Deception can be via the means of exaggeration and hyperbole: is this the case here?
The argument is that Amanda Knox is innocent. This would including having not killed the victim, not been present for the assault leading to her death, or guilty knowledge of the crime, itself, as "guilty in concert" does not always differentiate between those who inflicted the final death blow and those who assaulted her, witnessed, brought the knife, etc.
Statement Analysis of Amanda Knox' statement is used to demonstrate principles of analysis in which specific language indicates guilty knowledge of a sexual homicide.
Underlining and emphasis has been added, with Statement Analysis in bold type.
Investigation of Violent Crimes is My Life; Not a Hobby
by Steve Moore
My name is Steve Moore; I retired from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2008 after 25 years as a Special Agent and Supervisory Special Agent. My entire investigative experience was in the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, from murder to mass-murder and terrorism. In my last such assignment, I was the Supervisor of the Al Qaeda Investigations squad, following which I ran the FBI’s Los Angeles-based “Extra-Territorial Squad”, which was tasked with responding to any acts of terrorism against the United States in Asia and Pakistan. I have investigated murders throughout the United States and the world.
His first 10 lines are used to introduce himself, by his first and last name, with repeated mention of the FBI, indicating that this is a sensitive topic for him and presents us with the element of "need to persuade", indicating weakness. As noted, the title, itself, begins with weakness, showing a need to not only assert his own history, but to insult contrary opinions as from those who are "hobbyists."
The need to insult reveals the weakness of his position, even before he began. This is then coupled with the emphasis upon himself, putting the strength of his statement, or "weight of the argument" about him, rather than the argument itself.
He also introduces "supervisor" in this introduction in capitalization, even though it is "the supervisor." This should be considered important to the subject, himself. It would be interesting to interview subordinates as to the revelation of his position.
In Statement Analysis, we look at the amount of words (or lines) assigned to various topics which can help us determine not only deception (see article on "Form") but for priority. Note that his "entire" experience was in investigations of violent crimes, excluding all other work.
Note his title includes "hobby" which is on contrast to his "life" and not his "employment", of which he was paid for. Note rather than saying "I investigated murders around the world" it is "I have investigated..."
I do not know Amanda Knox. I have never met or spoken with anybody in the Knox or Mellas families. In my 25 years in the FBI, I had come to believe that if you were arrested, you were probably guilty. I never had a person I took to trial who wasn’t convicted.
I was especially tired of guilty persons claiming their innocence.
"I do not know Amanda Knox" is a strong statement and it is in the negative, making it sensitive for the subject.
Our measurement for reliability and commitment is First Person singular, past tense and we note not only any deviation from this formula of commitment, but we note any additions. Here, by itself, it is strong. But then he adds to it the additional information: "I have never met or (sic) spoke with anybody in the Knox or Mellas families".
He has introduced something to us here that will now put us on alert as we go through: specifics.
We would then ask, "have you emailed them? Have you had contact with them through another party?" since we note that he felt the need to add distance to the statement.
This is similar to asking someone, "Did you talk to Tom?" of which the subject answers, "Did I talk to Tom? No, I did not talk to Tom", leading the investigator to ask, "Well, did Tom talk to you? Did you write Tom a letter? Did you email Tom? Did you communicate in any way, shape or form with Tom, including through a third party?" and so on, knowing that the subject may be 'wordsmithing' with us, that is, seeking to use a technicality to avoid straight communication.
This is the first mention of Amanda Knox. In analysis, it is important to note all names mentioned, and in the order they are mentioned, and how they are addressed.Also note that he mentions "FBI" again, which repetition shows sensitivity. He then states that after 25 years experience, he holds to a prejudice that if someone is arrested, he is guilty. This presupposed guilt is noted, as he reveals how his own mind worked, even after 25 years experience and should be noted. This is the second time he has stated how many years experience he had in the FBI. Its need is, again, the "need to persuade" rather than allow the argument itself to persuade. He sets up this scenario:
If you disagree with him, you must have:
a. More than 25 years with the FBI
b. Be more than a supervisor
c. Having every single criminal convicted in larger number, perhaps, than he did.
This is to belie more weakness in the statement. We often see that "shoot the messenger if you cannot answer the message" in arguments, but generally during the argument; not before it. This is to set up a 'safe wall of protection' from any possible criticism as he is attacking his critics' credibility before their voices are raised.
Yet, notice that the prosecuctors did not take someone to trial, the subject, himself did. This is unusual since the investigator's job is to uncover facts and allow the attorneys to do their work. Here, he takes ownership of their work, outside the realm of his employment. It would be interesting to speak to the prosecutors of whom he worked with regarding his taking credit for their work, besides examining the record, itself.
The inclusion of him in the role of prosecutor along with the word "never" would cause me to want to know if this is a reliable statement. "Never" by itself, is unreliable. It may be true, but by itself, it is not reliable.
Not only "tired" but "especially" tired is noted as before the argument on behalf of Amanda Knox begins, not only is his employment record specifically given and repeated, but he now includes his emotional state, as if this, itself, would further persuade the reader that whatever argument he has, must be true.
The narcissistic nature of the language is noted.
I had heard snippets about the Knox case from the news, and believed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were certainly guilty.
Note the confirmation of his closed mindedness in the word "certainly". He concluded this because they had been arrested and it was a "certainty" for him. This leads to the question on how 25 years experience failed to make him open minded. We note this along with the repetition of experience as sensitive to the subject. Note that, within the prejudiced mind of guilt he heard "snippets" about the Knox case from the news. This would not be a study of a case file; but reduces the information he listened to to "snippets".
Please carefully note: He has revealed the source of his information about the case: "snippets" from the news. This is his choice of language.
But then I began to hear statements from the press that contradicted known facts.
Note the change of language which should represent a change in reality, from "snippets from the news" to "statements" from the press.
What has caused this change?
"Snippets" has become "statements" and
"the news" has become "the press."
We look for something within the context to justify the change of language.
Next, we note that he used the word "began" in regard to the now "statements" not from the "news" but the "press."
Note that when someone "began" something, they should conclude it and may indicate a withholding of information; otherwise what was began was not completed and continues. I this something that is continuing to this writing?
We then have yet another change of language: the "snippets" were the source of his information until there was a "beginning" of "hearing" statements, which came from the "press", instead, of which these "statements" contradicted a new source of information: "known facts."
Note also that he began to "hear statements" that came from the press that "contradicted known facts".
We note the change in language, from "snippets" from the "news" to "statements" from the "press". What caused this change? What is the difference between "snippets" from the "news" but "statements" from the "press"?
When a change of language appears, it represents a change in reality. "I pulled out my gun, and fired my weapon, and then re holstered my gun." Here, the gun became a "weapon" when fired; but returned to being a "gun" when holstered. A change in language represents a change in reality. "My car started to sputter so I pulled over. I left the vehcile on the side of the road and walked."
Insurance investigators are often well trained (and in some regions, paid more than law enforcement) and recognize that the car was a "car" while being driven, but became a "vehicle" when it would no longer go. Therefore, the change of language is justified by the change in reality.
Statement Analysis principle: When there is a change in language, but not apparent change in reality, we may be looking at deception.
Is there a change in reality?
Note also that the "statements" from the "press" are no longer "snippets" from the "news" and, he reports, are contradicting "known facts".We have another change in language. This leads us to conclude: either there is a new source of information justifying the change of language, or there is possible deception here, and the information is coming from the same source; news media. There does not appear anything in the context to differ "snippets" and "statements" and "media" and "press" cited.
In an interview, we would want to ask about "snippets", "news", "statements" and we would want to ask what "known" facts, are, versus, "unknown" facts. We would also need to know the source of the "known" facts. Without justification in reality, a change in language is flagged for deception.
Is the information coming from media outlets, which indicates deception, or does the subject have access to the case files in Italy, of which he can then compare the "known facts" to "statements and snippets" that came from media? Where did the "known facts" come from? Were they from the press? Note that he does not disclose where the "known" facts came from and he now causes us to ask about the difference between "facts" and "known facts"; ie, what this means to the subject himself.
Wanting to resolve the conflicts, I looked into the case out of curiosity.
This sentence did not begin with the pronoun "I" but with "Wanting."
Note the inclusion of the word "conflicts". Are these the "statements" from the press that "contradicted" the "known facts"?
Note also that none are identified here. We would seek, in an interview, clarification on what is "known facts" versus unknown facts; and how they came into knowledge (ie, from the media?) This may indicate personal knowledge of the case, that is, reading the case files from Italy.
Note the motive here is mentioned: "curiosity"
We wonder: why the need to add motive? Why would simple "curiosity" be a motive into an alleged sexual homicide case?
From "snippets" to "statements" to "known facts", he has now "looked" but he does not tell us where he "looked" and what the source of his information was.
Did he receive the case file from Italian prosecutors? This new source of information, according to the subject, required "more looking", or greater effort. He is concealing something: the source of the "known facts" and likely does not want to lie outright with, "the Italian prosecutor" or "defense attorney mailed me..." as he labeled this information not only as "fact" but "known" fact.
The more I looked, the more I was troubled by what I found. So I looked deeper, and I ended up examining every bit of information I could find (and there’s a lot of it).
Note that he "looked" and was "troubled" by what he found. He does not say where he "found" these things that troubled him.Note now we have new language introduced:He does not tell us where he looked (news, press) but he was able to examine "every bit of information" he was able to find.
Note the inclusion, again, of the subject's own emotion. He has yet to tell us what the "known facts" are, instead, continuing with his focus upon self.
An exaggeration is not necessarily deceptive within itself, as it is used to make a point. If we have, however, repeated (sensitive) exaggeration, we will then wish to revisit it for deception. It also raises the question of need. Why would repeated exaggeration be needed? In this case, he weakens his own argument with the need to persuade, the need to ridicule and silence those who disagree with him, and the unsupported change of language indicating deception.
The subject does not tell us where he found "every bit" of information, leading us to more questions. This is why Statement Analysis is helpful in getting beyond attempts to persuade, and to seek truth. It is difficult for anyone to say that they examined "every" bit of information and not be questioned as to where it came from, but in this case, the files reside in another country, and not in the United States. Perhaps he had access to the case file if shared through his federal agency, but he does not say so.
We have another change of language:
The more I investigated, the more I realized that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito could not have had anything to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. Moreover, one reason that they were falsely convicted was that every rule of good investigation was violated.
We have a change in language, from "looked" and "examined" to "investigated". This is no longer someone viewing snippets from the news, hearing "statements" from the press, but now he is involved in an "investigation" which would require access to critical information of the case (in following his 25 year FBI career of investigating murders all around the world).
We have a change in language and it must be justified by a change in reality. What has changed that he has gone from "looking" even deeper, to "examine" and now to "investigate"?
He does not identify the source of information that he now investigated, but tells us that this investigation of unknown information caused him to "realize" that the two accused had "nothing to do" with it. This followed the importance of making certain his readers saw that he had never met nor had contact with the families. In order for this not to be viewed as deceptive, the information that he went from looking at, then to examining, and on to investigating would have to be made known.
If it is from the press, is it "snippets" or "statements" or information that "every bit" he could locate contradicted "known" facts; leading us to ask:"known" by whom? If the subject is unable to identify what it is that the source of information that he called "known facts" we are likely looking at deception: only that he read the news and changed his mind; not that he was privy to case files in Italy.
In Statement analysis, repetition indicates sensitivity. One repeated theme has been "FBI" in this statement.
Another is the word "every", which is all inclusive. Each time "every" is used, it should be noted. The word "every" is repeated, indicating sensitivity. Since "every" excludes none, it is something that may only rarely be used in association with an investigation, since "everything" cannot ever be known. Note here that "every rule of good investigation" is mentioned.
What are these rules?
Was "every" rule violated?
How did he, in the United States, actually "investigate" this murder, while the case was in Italy? How did he follow the "rules" of investigation, himself?
This is where hyperbole is seen as deception.
This is the language of persuasion, not of report. It is also not true that "every" rule has been violated. Why the need to add this? Note also the additional word "good". This means that to the subject, there are investigations and there are "good" investigations, within his personal internal dictionary. What rules are referenced?This sensitivity again suggests deception regarding the case files, perhaps (or source of information) via exaggeration.
He has not revealed these "known facts", nor where he accessed the case file, or what rules he followed when he "investigated" the case, but now returns back to his own history. This repetition of 'self' is noted:
I spent years of my life working on cases in the federal courts, from simple murder to mass shootings to weapons of mass destruction.
Note the repetition of his life experience again. This should be considered a very weak point, as, rather than rely on the "facts" of the case, he again (repeated) relies on his own life. Note also "federal" is repeated. The amount of repetition associated here with his work is highly sensitive to the subject. His work record, therefore, would likely need examination. He stated that he worked on cases, but did not say if he did so successfully. Since the subject has not said so, neither can we. We can say that his work is a highly sensitive topic to him, and that he has not overcome presuppositional judgementalism even though he worked at it for 25 years. Thus, he is failing to build the reader's confidence but is weakening it.
The focus is upon self, and not the case. He continues to build up a wall against anyone who disagrees with him. The wall building, itself, reveals weakness, but the need to persuade, and then finally, the need to deceive his readers into believing he conducted "an investigation by the rules" of which he has done for "the federal" courts (scope) not only indicates deception, but reveals the narcissism that the language emphasis shows.
His view point of his work and career and that of his superiors is a highly sensitive and personal issue for him and should be examined since he has offered it as his defense before any attack or disagreement.
In the U.S., the totality of the evidence and the hunches of the investigators in this matter would not have been sufficient to get a search warrant, much less take somebody to trial. The case is completely flawed in every way.
In Statement Analysis, the shortest sentence is best. Every additional word which can be removed from the sentence is called an "unnecessary" word, making it, in Statement Analysis, doubly important as it shows sensitivity.
For example, if I said, "I am happily married" it would be a straight forward statement. If I said I was "very happily" married the additional word "very" would indicate sensitivity. We do not know what causes the sensitivity; perhaps the subject didn't expect to be happy, or was previously unhappy. But if the subject said, "I am very, very happily married" and even on to "I am very, very very happily married" we might, along with Shakespeare, ask, "who are you trying to convince; you or me?" as the sensitivity is magnified by repetition.
Here, the subject uses additional words which cause us to flag the sensitivity:
1. The "totality" can only be known if the subject has access to all the case file information.
2. "hunches" of the investigators is to know what is in their minds; meaning he is either being deceptive, or has interviewed every Italian investigator and has known their thoughts or "hunches".
The case is not only flawed but with the sensitive addition of "in every way" and in its entirety. The repeated exaggeration is used to persuade; not report, and indicates deception. He cannot conclude that it is in "totality" anything, flawed or otherwise.
Note that this is the language commonly found in deceptive statements. "Every" rule has been broken, and the case is flawed in "every" way. He also claims access to the "totality" of the evidence; something which causes the reader to question the truthfulness of such a bold claim.
The argument he presents needs exaggeration and deception to be made. Note that the deception that is judged by common sense (not having access to "every" thing about the case, is evidenced by the high level of sensitivity in the language). The physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is wrong, Note that evidence is neither wrong nor right; it is what it is and is neutral.
What one concludes from evidence may be wrong or right, but in Statement analysis we do not interpret his meaning for us; rather we look at the words he uses. This type of exaggerated and fabricated arguments may be why his career is something of high sensitivity; along with being unable to overcome presuppositional thinking that all arrested are guilty. It does not show an open-mindedness. This is something that may have become problematic within his career. He does not indicate one who shows self awareness, humility, or the ability to be reasoned with. This was likely very difficult for those who served beneath him.
contrived, misinterpreted, and (to put it kindly) misstated. The other “evidence” is made up of (embarrassingly naïve) hunches and bias. The “DNA” evidence is particularly inaccurate.
It is as if constant insulting will persuade readers rather than pressing an argument. He gives a list of all that is wrong, without any explanation of what is wrong with each, specifically.
Note the inclusion of insulting language belying weakness with "to put it kindly" and "embarrassingly naive" as well as the assertion that the DNA evidence, with "DNA" in quotation marks, as itself, a question (questioning the science of DNA and not the conclusion) is not only "inaccurate" but "particularly" inaccurate, though he does not tell us how this can be.
The alleged motive and modus operandi of Knox/Sollecito is so tortured (and constantly-changing) that it defies belief.
Thus far, the subject has used a great deal of his statement about his background and his work, and then upon debasing the evidence, and insulting those who may not agree with him, but has not informed us what evidence he refers to, nor how he was able to obtain the evidence, nor what manner of examination he employed. This is also associated with deception.
Note that in order to draw such opinions, he would have had access to all the above, including DNA evidence. He states to have studied the information, but does not identify the information investigated nor how he investigated, nor the rules that they broke, of which he claimed "every" one to be broken.
Note also the use of exaggerated language is used consistently throughout his statement, including coming to a contrary opinion "defying belief" which may also be related to the sensitivity in his career. If this is his method of presenting an argument, it is likely that co workers may have held a very different opinion of the subject than he appears to in this article.
“FACTS DETERMINE CONCLUSIONS”—The universal truism of investigation. The instant that one’s conclusions determine or change the facts, you have corrupted the judicial system. I have been a young investigator, and I have supervised eager but inexperienced young investigators.
Note the capitalization of the sentence, "FACTS DETERMINE CONCLUSIONS" as projection. We are not given what facts he asserts, where the facts came from, therefore, leaving, thus far, no conclusion as to the facts.
He returns to basing his assertion of Amanda Knox being innocent upon himself. This is to continue the theme that devotes the most amount of information to himself, and not to the case.
Note that he was a "young investigator" but that he has supervised "eager but inexperienced young investigators", excluding or separating himself from being "eager" and "inexperienced" when he was young.
Note also the repetition sensitivity attached to "supervisor" which is a position of authority. The topic of this authority is very sensitive to him, as is the need to show his own value, rather than address the murder case.
Young or inexperienced investigators have a tendency to believe their own hunches. This is dangerous, because uneducated hunches are usually wrong. Hunches are not bad, they just need to be allowed to die a natural death when evidence proves them wrong.
Note that the subject had 25 years experience but did not overcome presuppositional prejudice.
This appears to be a statement of his own projection and not part of any argument other than to state his own "experience" meaning that he cannot be disagreed with. How he thinks, he projects upon Italian investigators.
Our words reveal us; they reveal our personalities and what we think of ourselves and others. This statement is about him, his authority, worth, value, experience and how others are without value because they are not him and should not be listened to. Note what he then does to the Italian investigators:
The sign of an investigation run amok is when an initial hunch is nurtured and kept on life support long after evidence should have killed it. Likely the belief that any arrested person is guilty should have died during his rookie year in law enforcement, as most mature away from such concrete thinking and move on to a mature abstract thinking. This likely reveals how he conducted his own investigations.
This case is just such a situation. In the Knox case, the investigator openly states:“We knew she was guilty of murder without physical evidence.” -- Edgardo Giobbi, Investigator.
We do not know the full text of the statement, but it appears to match his own belief about those arrested being guilty. Perhaps it is that the investigators, before test results came in, concluded that they had the killers based upon their own words.
At some point, the subject was either trained or offered training in Statement Analysis, meaning that he would have an understanding of the words chosen by Amanda Knox in her original interview, or even in her subsequent media interviews.
He would also know that a prisoner who gives a false confession due to coercion will test out "deceptive" because their statement of confession is, de facto, deceptive, as it was false and it was coerced by the interrogators.
Then, when physical evidence came in that did not support their story, they simply changed their story. And their suspects. And their murder weapons. And the motives. (If there was ever a ‘smoking gun’ in this case; that statement was it.)
The subject tells us that the physical evidence "came in" but does not tell us where it came into, nor how he was able to obtain it. If he did not obtain the evidence as he attempts to persuade above, he is being deceptive to his readers, thus the need for hyperbole and exaggeration.
Note sentences that being with "And" have missing information. These are short and choppy.
I will only say of the interrogation,
Note: future tense verbnote also "only" meaning exclusion of other things to say. Future tense violates the principle of First Person Singular Past Tense as establishing commitment. He does not establish commitment so neither can we.
that if any FBI Agents I supervised had conducted that interrogation in the U.S., I would have had them indicted.
Note again the repetition of "FBI" and "supervision" (supervise)as the sensitivity continues. This calls attention back to his work record and would cause us to want to interview those he supervised. Note the narcissistic tendency back to his own supervision. He would not have corrected them, nor written them up, but would have had them "indicted"; that is, accused of criminal behavior. It would be interesting to hear from those he did supervise. Even if this is only hyperbole to make a point, he reveals a high mindedness that would have troubled those who worked under him, as well as those who worked with him.
I am not surprised that Amanda made incriminating and conflicting statements in such a horrible situation. I am more surprised that under that duress, she didn’t make more incriminating (but ultimately false) statements.
Note that he is not surprised that she incriminated herself, but he is surprised that she did not do so more so. Note that "incriminating" statements are those in which the subject links herself to the crime. Even false statements have genesis in truth: lies do not come from a vacuum, but from somewhere.
Note that Statement Analysis done of false confessions shows deception. Statement Analysis of Amanda Knox shows:
guilty knowledge of the crime
involvement in sexual abuse
Note that he acknowledges that she made incriminating statements; would her statements, which showed deception, be considered unreliable when they were made to a journalist last summer?
Those statements also incriminated her and showed guilt (see analysis)
Hypothetically, any trained investigator operating for many hours without rules, in a foreign language, slapping and threatening a naïve, frightened girl just out of her teens and in a foreign country, (denying her food, sleep and the right to an attorney and Consular advice) can get her to say just about anything. If this was the medical profession, one might deem such activities “intentional malpractice”.
Note that this is reduced to "hypothetically" and it is not something he asserts with commitment.
He does not say it happened. If it did happen, why add it? This is an attempt to enflame rather than report.
The lack of commitment shows attempt at persuasion, rather than report.
Report is the honest recall of past tense facts, such as gaining all the evidence and case files from Italy, reading it, examing it, and reporting back upon it. This type of work does not need persuasion nor exaggeration. It would not show such high and repeated sensitivity.
Hypothetical than moves on to claims made by Knox. Which is it? Is it "hypothetical" or is he referencing what Amanda Knox claimed? Is she now to be believed, but her incriminating statements not to be believed? If so, what tool of analysis is used? Where is the reference point?
Note that the subject does not tell us that he obtained evidence.
Note that the subject does not tell us that he obtained the case files. Note that the subject does not tell us that he spoke to the investigators and uncovered all their hunches (every one of them). His statement is reported as if he did, but since he does not tell us he did, we cannot say that he did. This is where the sensitivity of deception comes in: allowing his readers to believe that he obtained every bit of evidence from the case, including interviews, files, DNA, physical evidence, etc, as well as being able to interview and access the thoughts and hunches of all the investigators involved, and now is able to accurately report these things to his readers. The language employed shows deception, but the possibility of the subject having obtained all of this information regarding the case itself suggests deception. It is deceptively written.
The investigators in this matter appeared to have decided upon a conclusion, and repeatedly changed their story so that the evidence would suit their conclusions.
Note the inclusion of the word "appeared", which makes this statement honest. He claims that it "appears" to be a certain way to him, which is different than claiming to have examined all the evidence and to have known all the thoughts of those involved.
After the evidence came back that Rudy Guede sexually assaulted Meredith, did it not occur to the investigators that they had a simple rape/murder? The simplest answer is usually the correct answer. Crimes are only this complicated in James Bond movies.
The complexity of crimes is why hard work, education, and lots of training is needed. Note the reduction and minimization of hard work and training found within his theory.
Note "the evidence" came back, but he does not identify where it came back from, nor if he examined the evidence. To dismiss complexity in crime is to say we don't need complex training for investigators. This is a rather embarrassing statement.
Amanda would not even have been a suspect in any US investigation.
Note again the use of exaggeration with "any" US investigation; a point that can not be proven nor disproven. When a subject needs to rely upon exaggeration, it is the subject that is causing the reader to question veractity.
One present for a murder who lies would not be considered a suspect in "any" US investigation is not only deception by assumption and exaggeration, it is an insult to Italy.
also note: the use of the name, Amanda.
Recall the sensitivity in the opening part of his statement that was noted. Since he "never" met anyone in the family, it is unusual for him to simply use her first name. I would question the family to learn if anyone has communicated with him via letters or exchanged emails but in person.
A sex murder occurs and your prime suspect is the female roommate?
He poses this as a question. Note that in an open statement, it is possible that a question is the subject asking himself.
Note "your" is 2nd person, distancing language.
Experienced, or simply competent investigators would have known that statistically, 90% of murders are committed by men.
Note that he classifies investigators as "experienced" or "simply competent". We have another word that has repeated sensitivity: experience. In a sexual homicide committed by a man, can he think of any examples where a female was part of the sexual homicide?
When women commit murder, only 16% use a knife, and close examination might show that the vast majority of those are gang-related. Any conclusion that involves a woman stabbing another woman is statistically so rare, that it should be looked at with great suspicion.
Note that in his statistics "only" 16% use a knife. This indicates that 84% use something else. Note that he writes that it should be looked at with "great suspicion" but does not claim that investigators did not look at it with "great suspicion".
There is also a thing called “leakage”. Leakage is the tendency of homicidal or mentally ill people to ‘leak’ behavior that would indicate their true nature.
If one is to believe that Amanda Knox was the drug-crazed, homicidal Svengali that she was made out to be, there is absolutely NO way that such sociopathic behavior would not be leaked in some significant way prior to this crime.
In her interview analyzed, note what is leaked out by Amanda Knox. The association of her wording is found with sexual activity; generally sexual crime (LSI).
Note that not only does she reference water but note how often it is repeated as well as the details given (see analysis). Even if she is only 16% likely according to Mr. Moore's statistic, it is not proof of innocence.
No, instead we see a girl on the Dean’s list working several jobs to attend a university program in Italy. A girl who had not even had a scrape with law enforcement.
Note that Amanda Knox is described as a "girl" and not a "woman". Note her innocence because she had good grades and a job. Is this the argument he wishes to press here?
A good auto mechanic who lacks scruples, can take a car out of a junk yard, bolt on a couple of new fenders, drop in new carpets and slap on tires and a $100 coat of paint. Once he cleans up the interior and rolls back the odometer, he could sell it as a near new car to 99% of the population. It appears new, the mileage says it’s new, and only a trained mechanic would know the difference.
He dedicates 6 lines to auto mechanics. Note the inclusion of "99% of the population". This leaves only 1 % population remaining to know better. This, coupled with the high level of sensitivity about his background and experience may show leakage of his thought process here: how he views his opinion and how he views the opinions of those he disagrees with.
But bring in a trained mechanic, and he might notice that the brake pedal, for instance, is worn almost to the metal. That’s a sure sign of 100,000 miles of use or more. The hint of blue smoke out of the exhaust would be a dead give-away of a worn-out motor. He would warn you that all is not as pretty and new as it seems.
Another 5 lines dedicated to auto mechanics and not to specific evidence.
He has not presented:evidence, nor where he obtained the evidence, nor how he spoke to the investigators, but claims to know their thoughts; hunches. We have the repeated employment of exaggerations, meaning that repeated exaggerations themselves indicate sensitivity. The sensitivity suggests that the subject is deceptively representing himself as an investigator who accessed the evidence, the files, and knows the thoughts of the investigators, and was able to get information outside of media, because he found media to be contradictory to "known" facts.
The sensitivity of his statement, however, is mostly associated with his career and work.
He appears deceptive about his relationship with the case files and investigators in Italy, and that his reason for declaring Amanda Knox as innocent is associated with his own work and career performance, which would need careful examination including interviews with his superiors and the people he claimed to have supervised.
Note his thinking as presented in his writing: he is 25 years FBI; therefore, Amanda Knox is wrongfully convicted.
For an article written about Amanda Knox, he dedicates much time to his career, repeating that he was FBI, supervisor, and that he, himself, is the basis for his audience to believe his claim about Amanda Knox.
Note carefully his own words: Take my word for this.
This is something that is likely problematic.
When someone tells others to take their word for something, in particular, if the subject is in a position of authority, it would likely be problematic in career and personal life, leaking an insecurity shown in a desire to control what others think.
It is likely difficult to be supervised by someone that holds to this mentality, and the subtle ridicule is something more used in bullying rather than the factual presentation of ideas or the free exchange in debate.
Rather than being able to think for oneself, the "take my word for it" mentality can cause interpersonal problems in marriage, work place, friendships, and in business.
In investigations, complexity demands an input of conflicting ideas.
Investigation of violent crimes is my life; not a hobby.
He refers back to himself again as his reference point of his premise: that Amanda Knox is innocent. It also presupposes that for others, investigations of violent crimes is reduced to status of "hobby". This is a subtle insult upon readers who may not share his view.
Note that "hobby" may be seen as an insult to those who do not make "violent crimes" their "life" or profession.
This type of subtle insult is found throughout, including at Italian investigators:
The case the Italian prosecutors are trying to sell you is not the beautiful thing it appears to some to be. It’s a junker all cleaned-up and waiting to be purchased by naïve people. And the jury in Perugia bought it.
Note the unusual word "beautiful" in describing the case presented by Italian prosecutors. This would prompt more questioning of how he views the case, and why "beauty" is attached to a murder investigation. This may be due to the many headlines of "Foxy Knoxy" regarding her physical beauty.
He then insults them by calling their work "junk" and insults the public (hobbyists?) as "naive". Well thought out arguments do not need deception, exaggeration, nor insult and ridicule. He refers to their investigation work as "junk". It would be interesting to hear what Italian investigators think of his presented argument in defense of Amanda Knox. As far as Statement Analysis is concerned, we have deception via hyperbole and exaggeration as well as a self centered claim of knowledge, and a high level of sensitivity associated with his ability to supervise others.