Sunday, March 31, 2013

POLL: Amanda Knox

What do you think of Amanda Knox?

One writer suggested that people view this from the perspective of nationality with Americans believing her to be innocent, while Italians believe her to be guilty.

What do you think?

Statement Analysis of Amanda Knox shows clear:

Attempt to deceive and blame another;
Guilty knowledge of a sexual homicide

In order to be seen as deceptive, the will to deceive must be present.  This means that Amanda Knox deliberately said (and wrote) things that she knew was not true, and would be viewed as pointing guilt at someone else.

Amanda Knox also gave us a Confession by Pronoun.  This is when she wrote, "my involvement" acknowledging that she was, in fact, involved.

Pronouns do not lie.  They are instinctive, and we are, as humans, 100% efficient in their use.  We are exhaustively efficient, to the point where we say that pronouns (and articles) are exempt from the principle of personal, internal, subjective dictionary.

Her supporters say she was beaten and worn down into a false confession.  This is also not supported by the language.

When one gives a false confession, the words will not come from experiential memory.  Amanda Knox' words show that she was involved, not simply in a homicide, but in a sexual homicide.  She was present for the killing of her roommate Meredith.

We have seen passionate defense of her, with most pointing to prosecutorial misconduct.  This very well may be the case, but it does not mean she was not involved in the murder.  She was originally found guilty, but when the verdict was overturned, her supporters argued that she was innocent based upon the second trial.  This argument can then be used to support innocence for both Casey Anthony and OJ Simpson.

                                                          What do you think?

Here is both a poll, and her own written statement with the analysis previously published (and updated).

I add in to our poll another choice, so consider carefully what you choose.  We'll look at the breakdown of not only guilt or innocence, but whether some believe she was not only present, but active in the assault.

What do you think of Amanda Knox? free polls 

Statement Analysis is in bold type.

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.  


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. 


Anonymous said...

Excellent comprehensive analysis

Anonymous said...

Amanda's highschool & mine were in the same aethletic league in seattle, so she likely played soccer on my old campus, etc. I can tell you in that world -- within the Seattle Prep school scene Amanda must have felt very ordinary. There are legions of healthy pretty sporty white girls in Seattle, many that look like her and certainly some prettier. The point is -- though the world at large views her as beautiful I can tell you she grew up in an insular world where she wanted to be beautiful but was deeply afraid she was ordinary. Within her social world in Seattle she was probably viewed as ordinary. I suspect when she got to Italy she stood out -- and it was like a rush to her senses to be the special one finally. And when Meridith challenged her on that -- she was ilke I'm never going back to not being special - i'll kill first. The Irony is -- then the world called her angel and couldn't get over how beautiful she is. She actually got what she wanted finally. But at what cost.

Layla said...

I think her statement seems like a flimsy attempt to deny involvement. The whole thing where she can't remember, in her mind she sees this, in her head she sees that, she sees scattered images, she's unsure did she relax, study, or have Raffaele clean her ears. It seems like she must have been actively involved in the killing of her roommate. If she hadn't been involved why wouldn't she just say so? Even if she had been present, no matter how terrible that is, if she had not participated, she at least would deny doing so. Her statement seems like it comes from someone who had active involvement and is trying hard to go into denial.

MizzMarple said...


Below is an excerpt from Amanda's statement regarding the Supreme Court's ruling of 3/26/13 which overturned the appellate court's decision:

"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 :

Once again, there are those words "my involvement in Meredith's murder" -- which are the same words Amanda wrote in her statement given back in November 2008!

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

It is my opinion that Amanda wrote that statement!

What do you think ?

Layla said...

Does she have to go back to Italy and be retried? I don't really understand what the ruling means.

MizzMarple said...

From Peter's Statement:

"What do you think of Amanda Knox?

One writer suggested that people view this from the perspective of nationality with Americans believing her to be innocent, while Italians believe her to be guilty.

What do you think?"



This seems to be the "general consensus" : the majority of Americans believe Amanda is "innocent" while the majority of Italians believe Amanda is "guilty".

However, there is a reason this is the general consensus in U.S. and that is because the American public was NOT given the FACTS of this case.

A Public Relations Firm was retained by Amanda's family -- now WHY would a family of an "innocent" person hire a PR Firm ? To SPIN their "story." What happened in this case was that the Knox's paid this PR Firm a huge amount of $$$$$, reportedly almost $1 million dollars, to tell Amanda's "side of the story" -- therefore, the FACTS were totally IGNORED in the American media ! So of course the PR Firm is going to say what they get paid to say, otherwise, they would not have a "client" paying them $$$$$!

Basically, the American public was "fed" Amanda and her family's "story" with the FACTS "conveniently" left out.

Remember, when Edda Mellas, Amanda's mother, went to Italy when Amanda was first arrested and met with her at the jail, Amanda "almost" spilled the beans to Edda about that night. But Edda told Amanda to shut up because their conversation was being recorded.

So when Edda got back to the US, her and Knox's father hired the PR firm to put out this "story" that Amanda was "innocent."

The American people have NOT been given the FACTS of the case, and this is due to the work of the PR Firm. The PR Firm was able to "get to" ALL the major media networks in the U.S. and present "their side of the story."

And because of the lack of good investigative journalists in the U.S. media, Amanda's "side of the story" was barely challenged by any of the "talking heads." However, IF you did challenge the PR Firm's story, you were labelled a HATER of Knox.

In my opinion, I think there is some prejudice of some Americans who think that Amanda did not get a "fair trial" etc. because they just do not like Italy, or maybe do not like Europe.

But the "talking heads" and media have NO EXCUSE for any bias or prejudice -- they are supposed to report the FACTS and they did NOT in this case ... they followed the SCRIPT from Marriott & Company, the PR Firm that was hired on behalf of Amanda Knox.

The American public should have been informed of the FACTS regarding Knox, Sollecito and Guede -- all 3 charged with the brual murder of Meredith ... and unfortunately, I do not think the TRUTH will ever be told in the US because of the biased media.

Mouse74 said...

Thank You for bringing that up, Mizz Maple! It has nothing to do with Nationality, but the media of our US nation. Exactly Exactly Exactly!!

Amanda would have been another Casey Anthony or Jodi Arias case if held here in the US. Her guilt is seething, and the media would have capitalized on it.

Here's the difference between the murder happening in the US v. Italy.

Italy: Which story do you think sells better in the US. A story that indicates guilt on the behalf of an American citizen OR an innocent American abroad?

U.S.: Which story sells best? The guilty beautiful psychopath, of course.

Our Media is not always a good thing. I was originally part of the clan that believed AK to be an innocent American abroad, until I looked into more.

Anyway, glad you clarified that MizzMaple!

MizzMarple said...

Layla said...

Does she have to go back to Italy and be retried? I don't really understand what the ruling means.


She does not have to go back to Italy -- YET -- BUT -- the US does have an Extradition Treaty with Italy.

I will try to explain as best I can the legal proceedings :

- Trial of Amanda Knox and Rafaelle Sollecito:

Both were found GUILTY of the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Amanda Knox was also found GUILTY of "calunnia" -- blaming the murder of Meredith on an INNOCENT MAN -- which was her boss, which Amanda KNEW he was at work that night.

Rudy Guede -- took the "fast track trial" in Italy by admitting guilt and his sentence was reduced to 16 years. Guede was in jail at the time of Knox and Sollecito's trial.

- Knox and Sollecito APPEAL their convictions [they remain in jail in Italy during these hearings]:

The Appellate Hearings were held and Judges Hellmann and Zanetti overturned the Trial Court's murder convictions.

These two judges should have NEVER overturned the original conviction, but since they did, Knox and Sollecito were released.

- The Prosecutor APPEALS the Appellate Court's decision by Hellmann and Zanetti which overturned the murder convictions to the Supreme Court of Italy:

The Prosecutor is allowed to appeal the appellate court's decision, which ruling overturned the murder conviction.

The Supreme Court of Italy then overturned the Appellate Court's "acquittal" of Knox and Sollecito, and ordered a new Appellate Hearing. The Supreme Court of Italy will be releasing an Opinion within the next 90 days, so it will be interesting to read their reasons!

Next, the Appellate Court will have another Hearing [and and the corrupt Hellmann and Zanetti will NOT be the judges!] No date has been set for this new hearing date.

Back to Rudy Guede: even though he admitted "guilt" and was sentenced to 16 years, he appealled his sentence to the Supreme Court of Italy.

The Supreme Court ruled in Guede's case that Rudy DID NOT ACT ALONE -- that THERE WERE OTHERS -- and these OTHERS are Knox and Sollecito! The evidence proved it was Knox and Sollecito!

So I was NOT surprised that the Supreme Court overturned the Appellate Court's ruling, which appellate court said that Rudy acted alone.

The Supreme Court KNOWS the facts of this case and KNOWS that Knox and Sollecito WERE involved in Meredith's murder ... and I think that the Appellate Court is going to UPHOLD the Trial Court's CONVCITION of Knox and Sollecito, and IF they appeal back to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court is going to UPHOLD both the lower court's decisions !

Now whether or not Knox is extradited back to Italy is another story, and that all depends on the extradition treaty and state department ... we shall see ...

MizzMarple said...

Mouse74 said...
Thank You for bringing that up, Mizz Maple! It has nothing to do with Nationality, but the media of our US nation. Exactly Exactly Exactly!!

Amanda would have been another Casey Anthony or Jodi Arias case if held here in the US. Her guilt is seething, and the media would have capitalized on it.


Hi Mouse !

You are so right -- IF this would have happened in the US, Amanda would have been another Casey or Jodi !

The US media is all about the $$$$$ -- and they know how to make the $$$$$ !

For example, HLN's recent SPIN on the Arias case : which is now trying to portray Jodi as an "abused woman" !

HLN's rating would go up IF -- God forbid -- IF Jodi Arias is not convicted of 1st degree murder. If she gets a lesser charge, she will eventually walk !

And this means more people tuning in to HLN at the "surprise verdict" and this means more $$$$$ from sponsors, and more $$$$$ for them !

See, everyone knows that this case is a "no brainer" -- just like Casey Anthony -- "no brainer" -- she did it ... she will be convicted ... no jury will buy the "story" ...

But IF Jodi is found NOT guilty of pre-meditated 1st degree murder, and guilty of a lesser charge, the ratings for HLN will skyrocket like they did AFTER the Anthony verdict!

As a wise man once told me : "follow the money" ...

Layla said...

Mizz Marple--Thank you for the explanation! I did not understand before, but your explanation was very clear and now it makes sense to me. It will be interesting to see how the whole thing plays out and whether she ends up being extradited. It is just mind-boggling especially her statements are maddening with how "fuzzy" she acts about everything.

Lynn said...

Peter, unfortunately I am going to bring up a program that I watched last night and the only thing I can remember is that it was about a girl named Kenia who was abducted, raped, and murdered by a man named Travis Forbes. I don't remember the name of the program and I'm frustrated. There were clips of an interview that he gave and he stated that he did not kill her, stated it in first person past tense with no qualifiers. But he actually did kill her, eventually confessed, and took them to her body. I was blown away. I had thought he was guilty but then after that denial I had doubts. I think I remember you saying it can happen but it's rare, right?

Lynn said...

Did she have to surrender her passport or anything? Could she flee to another country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with Italy and live her life without fear of imprisonment or extradition? If her family has enough $ to spend on legal fees and a PR firm, I would imagine they have enough to send her abroad again, unless the legal fees have depleted their accounts.

~mj said...


Mr. Hyatt, have you looked into the missing persons cold case Maura Murray? Her dad made a statement that seems like a statement analysis gold mine. If you haven't already done some work on it, it would be insightful as to what you think of the dads statement:

His statement can be found on March 31st 2013 post, entitled"A Question"

Ivanna-Anna said...

I have a couple of thoughts I would like to share:

... hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder
... Raffaele has placed evidence against me
... the evidence stacked against me
*She admits it's evidence. She doesn't claim it/them to be "unfounded accusations," "false statements" etc. Evidence.

Has there been doubt as to where Patrick was? This is probably nothing, but it caught my attention:
"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."
* if he said she didn't need to come to work, there was someone at work: he was there.

"I told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening."
*According to this, she was at home. She didn't read the message at Raffaele's place, but at home.

"I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house"
*The wording/structure is odd, but I get the impression that at the time she had left her house, the clothes were already dirty. She then took them back home in a plastic bag. (So Meredith was murdered, Amanda left her house taking her own bloodied clothes with her, and took them back the next day).

About the boyfriend, she says
"He walked into a situation that he has never had to be in"
*This sounds like she had something to do with the situation, but not the boyfriend. He just walked into it.

Lis said...

MizzMarple, you are so right.

MizzMarple said...

Lynn said...

Did she have to surrender her passport or anything? Could she flee to another country that doesn't have an extradition treaty with Italy and live her life without fear of imprisonment or extradition? If her family has enough $ to spend on legal fees and a PR firm, I would imagine they have enough to send her abroad again, unless the legal fees have depleted their accounts.


As far as the passport, she has not had to surrender it -- if she had to, no doubt we would have heard about this "ad nauseum" from the US news media.

It has been reported that she is living in Seattle with a new boyfriend. Just my opinion, but they have kept her fairly quiet since she returned to the US, which I find interesting considering she has been given "celebrity status" by the US news media.

As to the money -- it was reported that Knox is getting $4 Million for her book ... it is OUTRAGEOUS that she is able to capitalize off of the brutal murder of a young lady she murdered !

$4 Million Dollars for a book of LIES !

And it is no "coincidence" that Knox's book release date is a month AFTER the Supreme Court ruling. This was done "just in case."

I hope the Italian authorities look into Knox's "book deal" as they are currently investigating Rafaelle Sollecito's book -- which is a major flop!

I hope Meredith's family can sue Knox and get all of that $4 Million for the WRONGFUL DEATH of their daughter/sister!

Anonymous said...

Νo preԁіcament - they also accept dish washing, ocеan entrance prоpertieѕ, and desk
dancіng (in accordance to the menu, whiсh iѕ
full of witty tiԁbits. Do-it-yourself bread is not only ѵery
easy to make, but іt trulу іs considerаbly better foг you.
Τhe landfill extenԁeԁ the locatiοn ѕο it can be second hanԁ to maκе on.

mу homepаge ::

Shayna said...

Exactly what I was thinking Miz Marple. If there was a like button or vote for this scenario, I would vote that your assertion is dead on. I knew very little about the Knox debacle until I started reading here. Statement analysis taught me Knox is a liar and probably a murderer.

MizzMarple said...

Shayna said...

Exactly what I was thinking Miz Marple. If there was a like button or vote for this scenario, I would vote that your assertion is dead on. I knew very little about the Knox debacle until I started reading here. Statement analysis taught me Knox is a liar and probably a murderer

Me too, Shayna -- I knew very little about this case until I read Peter's Analyses that he did a few years ago.

Peter's statement analyses on Knox "peaked" my interest in this case -- so, I started following the case.

Peter's Statement Analyses are also listed on the True Justice for Meredith Kercher website, which is the best site for info on this case, as well as Perugia Murder File. They also translated many of the court documents and Italian news articles into English!

Tania Cadogan said...

I wonder if there would have been as much support if knox had instead been male?

It is uncommon for a woman to be involved in a sexual homicide as was done to Meredith.
It is more expected from males in any sex crime, is this why so many Americans are claiming she is innocent? simply because the concept of a woman participating in the rape and murder of another woman is so rare.

the fact that she is also considered pretty is also in her favor, good looking people do not commit crimes it is always the ugly, the strange looking, the plain.

Even in fairy tales the goodies are always beautiful and the baddies are ugly, deformed or different.

If society could identify baddies just by looks life would be so much simpler, paedophiles would always be greasy ugly looking oily men, rapists would be short and ugly, murderers would look evil, robbers would look shifty and untrustworthy.

It doesn't work that way, it is often the good looking ones that commit the most horrendous crimes, conman are always smart and presntable and trustworthy looking, if they weren't the con would fail.

Look past the facade (money can do a lot to change appearance) look past the spin, listen only to the subject's words and let them guide you.

MizzMarple said...

Hobnob said...

I wonder if there would have been as much support if knox had instead been male

This is an interesting point, Hobnob!

In my opinion, nope ... "he" would not have received a "fraction" of the support Knox has received.

One of the reasons I think she received this much attention is because she is a female.

Your post just gave me an idea ... but have you ever seen the series "Snapped" -- true crime shows on women who kill because they "snapped" ?

Take a look at some of them women -- many are "unattractive" and not "well kept" if you know what I mean.

I think the media "picks and chooses" many of its "high profile cases" based on "appearances" ...

Of course, this is all my opinion.

Shelley said...

Her opening statement:

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

If you were innocent and just NOT there. What is confusing?

This to me screams "im guilty and now im going to toss out all my words and confuse everyone in circles so they forget what the question is"

If someone told me that I killed Meredith, arrested me and told me to write a statement about what happened. Mine would be simple:

I did not kill Meredith. I was not home that night. When I returned to the next morning to find our door unlocked and blood on the floor and Merediths door locked and no response, I was concerned and I called the cops.

Statment over.

What else is there to say if you were not involved.

Would you blame someone else, lie, change your story? Or would you have one story.
What else is there to state if you were just not there.

Shelley said...

And for those reading this that do think Amanda is innocent.

I am curious why. You have a reason. I am just very curious.

Not being rude. I honestly want to hear you point of view on this.

Statement Analysis Blog said...


I have sought answers as well, but spent an inordinate amount of time having to delete the comments.

Here is what I have learned:

*Most seem to think she is innocent because of prosecutorial conduct.

After this, most comments were juvenile, insulting and based upon wording, came from young love-lorn males!

Even the insults were of a juvenile nature.

Amanda Knox got in with a bad crowd. I don't think she inflicted the death blow, and I don't think it was premeditated, but she was present for the murder. She herself guides us.

When a false confession is made, it is deceptively so: it does not proceed from memory. In Knox' statement her deception comes when she seeks to blame others, or even blame the police. Deception is indicated very close to her account of being hit by the police.

Being hit by the police, tortured, tired, under marijuana, (etc) would NOT produce the language that Knox produced.


Anonymous said...

I think it is worth noting that the claim above that Rudy Guede admitted guilt in the murder of Meredith Kercher is incorrect. He admitted being at the Via della Pergola house at the time (he could hardly deny it), but always maintained others killed Meredith.


Shelley said...

Peter - I totally understand what you are saying.

When I think about those times someone has come on your site to defend those that are shown as deceptive by SA on this site, they do not ever have any factual inforamtion to back up their claims of innocence.

And that is true that many do fall prey to what some claim as beauty. I think that is happening too often now with Jodi Arias.

So I retract my question.

This also reminds me that SA really does take out facts, timeline etc and focuses only on their words.

Shelley said...

MizzMarple shared part of Amandas latest statment.

This was the part that most stuck out to me....

when the prosecution's theory of MY INVOLVEMENT IN MEREDITH'S MURDER has been repeatedly revealed to be completely unfounded and unfair,"...

I find it interesting she says The "prosecutions theory" rather than her involvement in the murder. That it is only "their theory" that is unfounded and unfair.

I am also very into the new show called Scandel. I find SA all over the place on that show.

equinox said...

MizzMarple, thanks for your excellent summaries of the situation. It is so refreshing to read commentary about the legal situation for the murderers of Meredith Kercher which does not make my eyes roll back up into my head. Very fact based.

For the most thorough understanding of Amanda Knox' current situation you should read the article by the renowned Alan Dershowitz It is being said that his esteemed opinion may finally influence the American media to a more balanced reporting.

Amanda Knox would find it very difficult and unwise to flee America right now. She is a convicted felon. Tried, found guilty and punished for falsly accusing Patrick Lumumba. It's not easy to get on a plane with that kind of record, much less slip by with so much attentioni on her. And, as the Dershowitz article points out, her only hope may be the legal snarl her overturned acquittal has created in international criminal law.

Unknown said...

I finally watched 1/2 of the interview with Diane Sawyer & Amanda Knox says towards the beginning of the interview that she is bothered that people think "I was a murderer" ... then a little later when Diane Sawyer asks her if she killed Meredith and she answers "no" but does something strange with her nod. Then when Diane asks if she was present for the murder, Amanda Knox says "no" but shakes her head to nod "yes" ...

Amanda has such a strange way about her. Did you see the interview?

Anonymous said...

I tend to believe that amanda knox is innocent, but that was before I read the analysis. Why did I believe that? 1. No physical evidence of amanda in the room, no dna of amanda on meredith. 2. Rudy Guede is deceptive in his interview on youtube.

Reading the analysis I have to admitt that she is deceptive, although I can't imagine the scenario. How was she involved in a sexual homicide and leave no trace?

Rudy guede in his interview:
-doesn't deny killing meredith
-Shows the need to persuade that he is a really good guy in several parts of the interview. For instance: "Thank god I don't know what violence looks like"
He says he is ok with serving 5 or 20 years in jail for not having been able to save meredith. So, basically a saint this guy.

Other things I noticed:
-he is deceptive about amanda ringing the doorbell.
-He is deceptive about meredith inviting him into her house.
-He is contradicting himself when talking about his time in the toilet.
-he said meredith was "easy". I yet have to understand what that means in italian. I wondered if he meant that she was easy to get? Easy to have sex with? An insult of the victim, and also a possible motive: she rejected him, although she was an easy girl in his perception. But I am not sure about this.

He also said, as he listened to music on his ipod very loudly, 3 songs through his session at the toilet btw, he heard a scream so loud, that it probably could be heard by people outside on the street. Interesting isn't it? He worried about people hearing merediths loud scream.
Oh, and he is 101 percent sure, that he heard amanda knoxes voice, when he was in the bathroom, a hundred and one percent.

Now I am confused, amanda is deceptive, he is deceptive, what happened?

Anonymous said...

I'm sorry, rudy didn't say "easy", He said meredith was "reachable".