Sunday, September 15, 2013

Statement Analysis: Amanda Knox Speaks Out


Statement Analysis is added to the article, and is in bold type.  Emphasis in her statements is added. 

 If you were factually innocent from taking part of a murder, what would be the very first thing you tell the public about it?  Would it be, "I didn't do it"?  It would for me.  
Knox explained why she will not be returning to Italy:
I’m not going back to Italy for this new trial because my presence has always been a distraction in the courtroom. Every single movement I made, every gesture, every facial expression was the focus of scrutiny and distracted from the presentation and analysis of evidence.
Modal Trigger
Amanda with parents Edda Mellas and Curt Knox.Stuart Clarke
It’s incredible the number of times that what I was wearing, how I did my hair or whether I smiled to my parents was discussed as opposed to the evidence in the case. So part of not returning is to avoid that circus.
There was nothing I could do that was right. What I learned was to do as little as possible, to try to be as still as possible, to make as little noise as possible, so that I could disappear and allow for a discussion to happen.
It made me feel helpless, to feel nobody actually cared about the people in this case. Nobody seemed to care whether or not Meredith had been murdered by me or by Raffaele or by Rudy Guede.
Statement Analysis has shown that while Amanda Knox did not kill Meredith, she did have guilty knowledge of the murder, with her words showing the language of sexual homicide.  She was, in the very least, present for the clean up, and may have been present for the murder.  Her denial of killing Meredith, that is, the fatal blow, was reliable. 
Then there’s the emotional reason. While I must continue to have faith in the Italian legal process, it doesn’t change the fact that I spent four years imprisoned for something I didn’t do. The very risk of that happening again is enough to dissuade me from making myself vulnerable by returning to the country. People can criticize me for that reason, but it is entirely based upon my experience.
If it were possible to go to the court and not have to deal with the issues of being afraid of being thrown back in prison again for an arbitrary reason, or for being able to financially afford it, absolutely I would want to be there, to face my accusers in court. I want to do everything I can to prove my innocence.
That’s another lesson, it’s not about the prosecution proving whether I’m guilty, it’s about having to prove I’m innocent. I’m the one who begins with the disadvantage in this case.
Pronouns are instinctive and exhaustively reliable.  Note that she is able to frame the words "I'm guilty" in her open statement.  Note also that there is an order to her words:
1.  "I'm guilty"
2.  "I'm innocent"
Order is always important. 
Note also that she does not enter the language of anyone else, including prosecutors.  
Modal Trigger
Amanda Knox gets emotional following her release from prison in 2011.EPA/DAN LEVINE
Knox talked about how she how she was portrayed during the trial — and in the media.
Perceptions that people were projecting onto me were that I am the dark lady, that I am the jealous, stinky roommate who decided that Meredith was better than me and therefore had to die. Projecting that image justifies in their minds that I would be capable of committing a crime so heinous as this and therefore validates the guilty verdict in the first trial.
Modal Trigger
Knox’s actions and mannerisms in court were heavily scrutinized.Oli Scarff/Getty Images
At the beginning, my public image was of a young but ruthless liar, a sex fiend, a killer. That fascinated people for a while, and then it was a girl who had gone wild. There was the fantasy of how American girls are just out there and in your face.
Note "my public image" is that of three things:
1.  Ruthless liar
2.  Sex fiend
3.  killer
Even though this was a murder trial, we note that she lists "ruthless liar" first.  We know that she attempted to blame the murder on a man she knew was innocent and deliberately sought to put him to prison for life, though she knew he had not killed Meredith.  This should help us understand why "ruthless liar" is listed first in a murder trial, rather than "killer."  Though likely present for the murder, and present for the aftermath, "killer" listed last is logical.  Notice the difference in her description below.  Now it becomes an "image that was developed", which is passive language, about being an attention whore. 
Passivity in language is used to withhold identification or responsibility.  Here we see that she is passive about media attention.  It should be noted that her family hired a publicist.  
When my trial came around, the image was developed in the courtroom and changed into me being an attention whore. Then there followed a period when people thought that I was a young girl from a good home who was in the wrong place at the wrong time and did the wrong thing just randomly.
She recognized that "the" image was developed.  She does not say by whom this was done.  Next, it changes to "the perception" below: 
The perception created was I was two different people: publicly a good student, then as soon as night falls I’m clubbing, I’m orgying, I’m drugging. That image had to be to match the personality being projected of me?
Note the words she is able to frame, not using another's language, while using the pronoun:
"I'm clubbing"
"I'm orgying"
"I'm drugging"
I believe her on all three accounts. 
Please note any question in an open statement as possible that the subject is speaking to herself.  She does not deny these things about herself and her image, but instead takes pronoun ownership.  
Over time, as my appeal came around, people really started considering my innocence and being another victim of what was taking place. Now there is a polarization: I’m either a victim or a bloodthirsty killer who got off scot free.
Note "what was taking place" is passive language. 
There will always be conspiracy theorists, there will always be haters, there will always be people who are totally convinced I’m guilty for one reason or another.
Note that this creeps into her language repeatedly, without quoting someone else.  This is not something we expect the de facto innocent to say. 
"For those of you who believe in my guilt"  OJ Simpson
"my guilt" also spoken by Patsy Ramsey
If someone can hate me, they should hate me for the right reasons. It just really digs at me that people hate me for things that have got nothing to do with me. They project their own ideas about what’s evil or inhuman onto me.
Here is the perfect place for her to say that she was not involved in the death nor the cover up (clean up).  She does not. 
To them, I am not a human because they’re able to dismiss me and hate me without knowing the reality. I have occasionally read the stuff online, often as a reminder of what I’m up against, of the monster I’m facing.
I know that my well-being often offends certain people. I know there are people out there who are offended by whether or not I am even capable of living. It is scary, the idea that someone can feel such passionate hatred towards me and they don’t even know me or me them. There have been threats on my life, but how serious they have ever been, who knows?
From the very moment I came home, I had to think about my security every time I left the house. There were survival and self-protection lessons. I studied Krav Maga. I had to learn it because whenever I left my mom’s house I was always looking over my shoulder, wondering if I was being followed.
I’m different than the 20-year-old I was before, and a lot of that has to do with the fact I’ve experienced trauma and I’m continuing to suffer from it. Whereas before I tended to be very laid back and cheerful, today I’m quieter, more withdrawn.
How severe was the trauma?  She does not make us wait long: 
I’ve seen a counselor twice since getting back. I first went in January feeling like I was not going to get anything out of it because I kept telling myself I was fine. I’d just come back from Italy and was only doing it for my mom, who was worried I was damaged, that I was no longer happy. To this day, my mom thinks that.
I went there and talked to him about how I thought I was disappointing my family; the person they had wanted to save is not quite the person who had come home. I talked of feeling a lot of pressure to be happy, like the old Amanda. In that first therapy session, I could only handle 15 minutes before I became hysterical. I had a panic attack. I couldn’t breathe and had to leave. I did not go back for over a year.
Recently, I decided to go back to try again. I thought that on the publication of my book, I was going to feel better, but that’s not the case. The relief and the feeling of having accomplished something that was important to me was very brief, and I was brought back into the reality of having to deal with this legal issue all over again.
Modal Trigger
Amanda Knox says she’s battled PTSD during her ordeal.Stuart Clarke
The post-traumatic stress disorder comes into effect as the result of the trauma I experienced, which was extensive, pervasive, something that happened over a long time, during the developmental years of my life. My adulthood has been completely consumed by this persecution, the only adulthood I know is this.
PTSD debilitates me, makes me want to flee from life itself, makes me want to curl up in a ball and never come out. I can’t live like that. I have to move forward with my life.
Hence, the interview. 
I have this defining, traumatic experience, and it is a part of me. I’m trying to figure out how not to make it a debilitating thing, and that is a constant struggle for me. Some days, I find myself not being able to think of anything else but my sadness and anger and helplessness. Then I just sit and cry. I can’t breathe; I can’t talk to people; I can’t do my work; I can’t read or see the words I’m reading. Everything becomes this pressure inside me that squeezes and makes it hard to breathe. I have panic attacks.
Two years ago, I thought that after my acquittal it was over. I did not think that the Supreme Court would move and decide the way that they did. I will only be able to fully confront the trauma and anxiety once this entire legal process is over.
At the moment, I’m torn between my life moving forward with school, with work, with my relationships and feeling forever being dragged back into the quagmire of incredible helplessness, because what am I facing?
People seem to feel I’ve gotten off scot free and I’ve had nothing but gain from the experience, that I was able to write a book and things. They just don’t know, or don’t wish to know the reality of what has happened to me.
What has caused her to come out?
It was a $3.8 million deal. Of the $3.8 million received, I carefully dispersed it where it was due: to taxes, to my lawyers, to my family so they no longer had mortgages at stake. Part of it went in fees to my agent, part of it in fees to my collaborator. At this moment, I am negotiating the last of it with my lawyers in Italy for the latest legal fees.
Modal Trigger
Amanda Knox’s memoir is titled “Waiting to be Heard.”
When I signed the documents paying off the debts, the burden of facing that was gone and I felt total relief.
One of the things I hate — and I hated while I was in prison — was the fact that I knew I was completely dependent upon my family having to sacrifice themselves for me. And there was nothing I could do about it. I was completely dependent and helpless and trapped in this place that was sucking the life not only out of me but my family as well. There was nothing they wouldn’t have done because I have a wonderful family.
Note that she was not completely dependent upon the truth, but her family.  
If not for the book deal, I could have been facing a lifetime of financial burden of having to pay for a defense that could still stretch for years more.
After a year, I do not know what I’m going to do. So at this very moment, I have planned and negotiated and made possible, with everything I can manage, for a year. After that I’m reliant on my parents again. Because that’s it. That’s it.
In prison, I was barely able to move. One of the things that was claimed about me when I was in prison was that I was a snob because I wouldn’t talk much and I wouldn’t hang out much.
There was a long time in prison where I barely spoke to anyone and would go outside into the yard every day and just walk. I tried to do my own things on my own. I would not go to the social time. People hated me for that, they didn’t like the fact that I wouldn’t align myself with others. I felt very alone and very hated.
Being able to go outside to a yard and walk every day is more than what Meredith can do, and is better than the life sentence of pain Meredith's family has. 
Most the time I spent by myself . . . and silent. When I was in a cell with a number of people, I tried to spend most of the time by myself, reading or writing letters. I tried to control what interaction I had to a level that I felt comfortable with.
I could not afford to be caught in the frequent general prison drama that occurs all the time, the violence, the thieving, the arguments that can be taken out of context. I couldn’t afford to interact with people because if somebody decided that they didn’t like me and decided to do something about it, there was nothing I could do to defend myself.
The prison authorities could have done anything they wished to interpret anything I did to defend myself and there was nothing I could do. If somebody decided they were going to hit me, they could, and I would not have been able to do anything. I was never hit, although there were times when I was about to be hit and other inmates in my room stopped it.
One time, an inmate girl raised a hand to slap me and the others held her back and talked her out of it. Another girl who said she was going to flush my head in the toilet came very close to doing that when another prisoner intervened.
What I learned throughout the experience of prison was the more you can disappear, the better you’re going to be. It was very difficult for me to disappear because everybody knew who I was. But I tried desperately to disappear so nobody would feel the need to deal with me.
One of the major struggles I had in prison was the principles that were placed on a pedestal and the things that led to trouble. A simple example would be kindness, which is a weakness in prison. I was often seen as weak because I wouldn’t fight with people and wouldn’t say no when they wanted coffee or need help writing a letter.
I was seen as a pushover, and that led to more and more people taking things from me, because they could. They would take anything, from the shirt on my back to anything they saw and wanted. I had to learn how to say no.
The characteristics that made a person dominant in prison were the attitudes of manipulation, lying, selfishness, backstabbing, being able to deal with violence. If a person developed these characteristics, nobody messed with them, and if nobody messed with them, it was what they wanted.
Modal Trigger
Amanda Knox is escorted into an Italian court in 2009.AP Photo/Stefano Medici
I so often felt like a target, which is why I tried to disappear. But one thing that was really a struggle for me in prison was being able to find a balance between defending myself and not becoming the monster that prison was indoctrinating. I was constantly at odds with what was good for me in prison and what was good.
There are things I don’t want to ever forget that were difficult: I struggled to find the balance of establishing independence without having to exert dominance over other people. The usual way that people protected themselves in prison was by creating allies. But those allies were enemies to others, and what ends up happening is you get drawn into this conflict that has nothing to do with you but because you’re protected by some people who are antagonistic to others.
Modal Trigger
Amanda Knox says she still doesn’t feel free following her stint behind bars.Franco Origlia/Getty Images
I was called a snob as I chose to stay out of it, and because of it, I isolated myself and made myself more vulnerable. I am now in many kinds of prisons. One prison is the continuation of this case. I’m still trapped in the role of the defendant, still having to sacrifice my emotional and financial well-being, my privacy, for the sake of defending myself against this incredible persecution.
There’s a prison of nonclosure because the way that the investigators and prosecutors conducted themselves was wrong and has never been brought to light or acknowledged. I want them held accountable for the mistakes they made. I want it understood what they have done in this case, not just because of how it affected me but because unless they are held accountable, they can do this again and again and again.
I don’t feel free. To this day, I’m in this sort of cage of judgment where I still feel, for many people, there’s nothing I can do that’s right: unknown people, making judgments about me every day, judging everything I do or say.
I hope there is a time in my life when I can interpret experiences as not just another metaphor for being trapped in prison.
Knox describes the truth of the springtime meeting she had with her Italian former lover in New York, captured by the paparazzi:
When I saw Raffaele in New York, it was really just a matter of fluke coincidence. I was there for an interview, and he was there staying with family. We just happened to both be free on that day, and we met. We hadn’t seen one another for a long time.
Raffaele and I have gone through a horrible experience together. We know more about one another now than we ever did when we were dating. So many people were willing to dismiss him as guilty, simply because he was associated with me.
One of the most extraordinary things he’s done is to turn down a deal that was offered to him (by the prosecution) to turn on me. I had no idea about this at the time. I only found out about this through his book. He didn’t tell me, and it was only when his book came out, I read it and we talked about it. That simple piece of courageous humanity blew me away because it says a lot about the person who is in that situation and able to do that.
Modal Trigger
Amanda Knox and her former boyfriend Raffaele SollecitoAFP/Getty Images
What do you hope for from this new trial?
I hope that I will be found innocent and that no one will then question that verdict. I don’t want to live my life with this hanging over me. If this court will really investigate what happened and finds out where everything that went wrong, then there will be justice. I want people to know that I’m innocent.
This is not to say "I didn't do it", nor does she explain why she had the need to lie, nor to blame an innocent man. 
The appeal court called Rudy Guede, and he got away with saying nothing. Would you like to see the Italian system pursue that further?
I deserve a chance to confront him in court. I was prepared to do that during my appeal. I was prepared to demand some humanity from him. I’m not a vengeful person. I’m not interested in making him suffer; I’m interested in him doing the right thing after what he’s done.
What is not fully understood or accepted is that Rudy Guede’s evidence is all over this case. It’s not acknowledged that, in comparison to what the prosecution claimed against Raffaele and me, the evidence against Rudy Guede was so significant and definitive.
How can there be a conspiracy of three people when one person’s evidence is clear and non-negotiable and two others’ are unclear, complicated and circumstantial? How is that possible?
Note the questions are asked without waiting for answers.  To whom is this addressed?  To herself?
Modal Trigger
Amanda Knox hopes she’s found innocent now that her case is being considered for a third time in Italian court.Stuart Clarke
How is it that one person’s evidence is not questioned or examined in an open court? Rudy Guede’s statements changed over the course of time to become more and more accusational against Raffaele and me. I should have the right to confront an accuser. I think there’s more to this and more to Rudy Guede than what the prosecution has been interested in presenting. I think that deserves to be investigated and presented in court.
It’s conspicuous how easy Rudy Guede got off, considering the evidence against him. It’s conspicuous how his versions of what happened have changed over time to divert attention and responsibility away from him and onto Raffaele and me. It’s conspicuous that despite his history of being armed and breaking into people’s houses, he was still able to walk the street without a care. How is that possible? The police knew about these incidents, yet never prosecuted him.
How is it that for the prosecution during my trial, he became “poor Rudy”? That’s how they described him. It does not correspond to the way the evidence portrays him.
And the answer to that is?
I think that there might be a connection between him and the police or the investigators in Perugia. I think he got a deal with the prosecution for a lesser sentence against him by “informing against Raffaele and I.” I think that he got off too easy. I think it would be better for everyone if we understood why and how.
Amanda Knox lied during her statements and lied during her interrogation.  She had a strong following of male followers in the States.  She is acutely aware of how many people believe she is guilty, yet, again, as in other interviews, is unable to issue a reliable denial. 
A reliable denial consists of three components.  If less than three, or more than three exists, it is an unreliable component. 
I.  The pronoun "I"
II.  The past tense verb "did not" or "didn't"
III.  The specific allegation
Amanda Knox did not inflict the fatal blow, but her language shows guilty knowledge of the murder itself, as well as the cover up afterwards.  She had the need to lie. 
She also claimed that she gave a false confession because of torture.  As seen in other cases, when someone makes a false confession, deception is indicated because the subject did not speak from experiential memory.  
Amanda Knox  statement did not show thus.  
Amanda Knox was guilty, in concert, of the death of Meredith.  
Defenders rely upon hatred of Italian justice, inflammatory arguments and in the case of Moore, extreme use of hyperbole and deceptive language.  
Note what is missing from this interview, the 800 pound gorilla in the room:
A simple reliable denial.  

60 comments:

Anonymous said...

I thought that second picture was her with a shaved head.

Nic said...

ot

Dr. Phil to showcase Kyron Horman on Tues, Sept 17th. Also appearing, Kaine and Desiree.

Nanna Frances said...

Amanda Knox is living with many problems which she created by her own behavior. She deserves this and more. If she wants to confront her accuser, she can go to Italy and face him!
Why should she be dependent on her parents? She could get a job as most people do!

john said...

I was completely dependent upon my family having to SACRIFICE themselves for me..

An interesting choice of words given the circumstances..

Anonymous said...

YAY. JUST GOTTA SAY THANKS. my favorite part of this blog is when you analyze amanda knox stuff!!!!!!

you were losing me on the travon martin thing.

but in hopes of something like THIS is why I keep checing back in.

YAY.

Anonymous said...

but in hopes of something...John, please share some of the statements made after the crime.

john said...

Anon 1:48.

There is a search box on home page,just put in what you are looking for and press search..

Anonymous said...

"People seem to feel I’ve gotten off scot free and I’ve had nothing but gain from the experience, that I was able to write a book and things. They just don’t know, or don’t wish to know the reality of what has happened to me."

She doesn't counter the idea that she's gotten off scot free by saying that she doesn't actually deserve punishment because she did not do a crime -- instead she defends herself by saying that she has been suffering -- and feels she's suffered enough (for her crimes) by way of emotional pain --- .

She's so interesting. She wants it both ways -- but nobody can have that for ever. Everybody must eventually choose; confess, or fully absorb the lie.

But she resists this choice and that's where her internal torment really comes from. Her problem is that she can't let herself go fully to the dark side. She wants to be the good girl her family misses. But this means supressing and denying the murderous animal inside. And the Murderous side - let free - would obliterate the good girl in her. However she will not be at rest until one side wins.

Amanda if you find your way to read this - I'm telling you straight ---

To let the good girl win completely means taking responsability for your actions in full. The inside of you is telling you this -- and it will keep telling you until the day you choose to listen. Admitting, and accepting punishment for orchestrating Meredith's murder, cleaning up afterwards, lying to police extensively and intetionally falsely incriminating both Rudy (who you know was only in wrong place at wrong time) and Patrick.

---OR let the Evil side win -- and live your lies forever, absorb them as the truth nobody deserves but you, love who you really are and never try to be anything else - -- and most likely kill again and again, when oppurtunity and impulse present themselves. And then get caught again -- and then let the American justice system take care of you.

Missy said...

It is amazing how many words have come out her mouth, without denying that she took part in the murder and/or cleanup of the murder of Meredith. She IS paying for the crime, even though she's not in prison. She may have small enjoyments now, but overall her adult life is ruined and the interview clearly states her misery. Only by confessing her part will she be free of the torment. How freeing it would be for her if she could just say "I was jealous of Meredith, out of my element, high too often and felt out of control, and did something terrible." But I think the pattern of lying has become too entrenched by now for that.

Anonymous said...

john said...
Anon 1:48.

There is a search box...

john said..
An interesting choice of words given the circumstances..

September 15, 2013 at 12:47 PM

It bears repeating to point out how rude you are.

Sus said...

I agree with the commenter at 2:14. Amanda Knox is full of inner torment. She is not a sociopath as some have suggested.

She dwells on letting her family down. They "sacrificed" everything to say she did not murder Meredith...something Amanda has never said.

An added pressure seems to be Raffael. Amanda felt the need to explain why they were together in New York and that it was "pure coincidence ". She is amazed he didn't take a deal to turn on her. Remember, Raffael stated in his book he thought Amanda would turn on him. I believe they owe each other their continued lies and silence.

The counselling and PTSD is particularly revealing. Amanda spent 15 minutes with a counselor before having a panic attack. Lying is stressful. The PSTD diagnosis is from a textbook and self-given. She has it confused with guilt.

Last, notice how much of the article dwells on prison life. Amanda HATES being under the control of others. She hates that she now owes her family, and Raffael. She is in a prison of her own making.

Anonymous said...

Last, notice how much of the article dwells on prison life. Amanda HATES... murdered, and is free...most likely due to an inept interrogator.

john said...

It bears repeating to point out how rude you are.

September 15, 2013 at 3:40 PM

Hi Anon,how am i being "Rude"?

I directed you to the search engine to find what you were looking for.I don't know all the statements that have been analysed,or posted,hence the search engine.I use it all the time..Im sorry if you think i was being rude it wasn't meant to be..

twatface said...

Shit OFF!!!

BostonLady said...

Victim. That is what Amanda is portraying herself as. She takes no responsibility for any of this.

Anonymous said...

Again!

Anonymous said...

Shut up.

TrishapatK said...

to John@4:36,

I did not find your comments to be rude at all. I thought your comment about it "being an interesting choice of words" made perfect sense and that your suggestion to use the search box was straightforward and helpful.

You handled your response to the accusation nicely. I appreciate your comments and your common decency.

Anonymous said...

He is NASTY!Id kiss His vendu,Flavie frustrated penis ,observer

Anonymous said...

John is and has been a total delight and a real gentleman since the day he started posting here. He is careful in his words and always tries to be helpful. Anyone who says any differently is just looking to stir up trouble and strife. Bless you, John.

Anonymous said...

I don't get it, why Peter does nothing to stop the nasty trolls who post here. At the least he could delete them. But does he? Not. It leads me to wonder if he enjoys this.

weetabix create my farts said...

SHUT UR CUNTING MOUTH U CHIMP FACED PROSTITUTE!!!!!

weetabix create my farts said...

Analise THAT!!!!!!!!

weetabix create my farts said...

Thanks anon,i try to be nice and courtious but people are very angry lately.

John said...

Ok.

John said...

Ok thanks.

Anonymous said...

Can I ask a question about reliable denials with a specific example?

Is it reliable if someone denies something by saying
"I never (blank). And that is the truth." (and then follows up this statement by going on about the meaning of (blank) to explain why they could never have done (blank)."
Sorry I'm being vague, but can someone tell me is this a reliable denial?

chimpish said...

Hi Great question.NOT UR"QUESTION"SOMEONE ELSES.YOU ARE À TURDFACE!!!! SHUT UPPPP HOOOOOOKERRRR!

ibmmuseum said...

Peter, a week in, I wonder if you would feature the incident of a racial slur left on a receipt in Franklin, Tennessee. Both the waitress and customer have made statements. Please let me know if I can provide any assistance.

gobsmacked by yall all said...

What??????? U STUPID SHITE!!!!! GET À JOB U FAT MONKEYS ASS!!!

chimpish said...

Yes.

Anonymous said...

Hi, could someone please tell me if that is a reliable denial (the example that I posted) even though the troll jumped all over it.
Oh, and Mr. Troll, how intimidating you are with your potty mouth! Seriously, you are annoying as hell, not funny at all, and a complete yawn with your dictionary of 6 or 7 "naughty words". Contribute or go away!

Sus said...

Anon 9:50 pm
There are far more knowledgeable posters than myself here, but I will attempt to answer your question.

Your example is not a reliable denial. The denial should be specific to the event. Never makes it general. " And that's the truth" weakens the denial further. A sentence beginning with and indicates missing information. That's the truth is a way of saying I don't wish to speak anymore on it or to tell more. Which of course means there is more to tell. Any further explanation is even more weakening of the denial.

Hope this helps.

Anonymous said...

Sus, thank you. Your analysis is extremely helpful and I really appreciate it!

Jen said...

Hi anon-.

That is not a reliable denial. 'Never' is not a subsitute for 'didn't', and 'thats the truth' indicates either sensitivity about the truth of the matter, or like Sus mentioned is a way of stopping the flow of information. I would like to know more about the context, or more of a statement it you want to share. (You dont have to be too specific if you dont want).

Was there a defined accusation that was being answered to? Was the thing they 'never' did a downplayed or exaggerated version of the accusation? Never may be used as a distancing (either/or) type of deception....as in, 'I never did xxxx, and THAT is the truth'...but there may be a 'THIS' they did do.

Anonymous said...

Thanks,i was wrong AGAIN(

john said...

Trishapatk,Anon @8:39,

Thank you for your kind words. :)

john said...

OT..

Dog Helps Uncover Babysitter Abuse 'Nightmare'.


The child's parents say they became suspicious about the woman after their pet started becoming aggressive towards her.

.................................

Would a few simple questions using S/A helped this family from allowing a child abuser into their home.?

http://news.sky.com/story/1141993/dog-helps-uncover-babysitter-abuse-nightmare

Anonymous said...

Like i said previously YOUR an arrogant person John.

Anonymous said...

Once again AK rambles on about how everyone thinks she's a skank, rather than denying that she was involved in Meredith's murder. Well, that was her 'defence', since she certainly never explained her actions or convinced anyone of her 'innocence'.

I note she uses the word 'evidence' with reference to herself and RS as well as RG. The evidence was 'confused'? unclear? Yes because of staging and lies. However unlike her family she doesn't say there WAS no evidence. SA shows she has always known there was 'evidence putting me at the scene of the crime'

Peter, what do you mean she didn't make the fatal blow. How do you know her exact part in this? I don't believe she would continue to lie if she were not equally to blame.

Hobnob said...

I deserve a chance to confront him in court. I was prepared to do that during my appeal. I was prepared to demand some humanity from him.


This caught my eye.

She doesn't do the expected of an innocent person which is demand he tell the truth regarding his role in the murder and her innocencein the same crime.
If she was innocent she would be demanding he tell the court this.

Instead we see her demanding he show humanity to her.
to me to shown someone humanity is to show kindness, forgiveness.

She is saying look there was evidence to nail you, you admitted the crime, you got a sentence reduction, why should youinvolve us? they have a killer.

Thos leads to to wonder, what was her relationship with rudy?
Was it sexual?
her language implies that she is willing to offer something in return for his humsnity, money? sex?

At no point does she say she didn't kill Meridith or wasn't there when she was raped and murdered.
Instead we see lots of embedded admissions of guilt, how she has suffered.

I wonder what she would do if a reputable polygrapher offered to take a polygra[h with her ( assuming he asked the right questions) and that it would prove her innocence once and for all if she passed.

She passes, she gets the public support behind her and it leads to her being cleared of all charges.

If she fails though her guilt is proven and she does a full life sentence.

I womder if when she returned if anyone thought to have her polygraphed such as family, her publisjer etc so as to make sure they aren't being conned?

If they haven't, then they should.

Hobnob said...

Anonymous said...

Can I ask a question about reliable denials with a specific example?

Is it reliable if someone denies something by saying
"I never (blank). And that is the truth." (and then follows up this statement by going on about the meaning of (blank) to explain why they could never have done (blank)."
Sorry I'm being vague, but can someone tell me is this a reliable denial?


This is not a reliable denial.

Never does not mean did not.

Reliable denials consis of:
First person singular I

Paste tense DIDN'T/ DID NOT

Event specific KILL/RAPE/TAKE etc

Anything other than the above is unreliable.
Qualifiers (additional words which when removed , do not change the meaning of the sentence) weaken the statement, the more qualifiers the weaker the statement.
In your example you say And that is the truth."
Atartuing a sence with AND indicares missing information.
This is close that is distancing, in this case they are distancing themselves from the truth.
Additional words after that again are qualifiers which weaken the statement further.
If the specific question was "did you take/kill/ do a specific something? and yhery gave you the above answer and then explained why they couldn't have done it, they have gone outside the boundries of the question making the question itself sensitive.

Also be aware for reflected language which again is not a reliable denial.

Ie: Did you take the money?
No, i did not take the money.

They are using the interviewers own words in their answer making it unreliable.

This is why it is also important not to introduce new language into the interview and to use only the words used and introduced by the subject.

I would ask the question again with a specifc did you...?
Listen to the answer and if they avoid a strong reliable denial ask again.
Lying is stressful and people do not like being stressed.

Anonymous said...

Anon 1:05 said, you were losing me on the trayvon thing.

Statement Analysis is not for everyone. You can't pick and choose what SA you want to believe. The truth is the truth. You may not like it, but you would need to accept that analysis discerned truth on the part of GZ in regards to fearing for his life.

Anonymous said...

it was not the statement analysis that lost me with travon martin -- it was the lengthy talk about how girls are not as tough as boys and how hoodies show disrespect. it was your personal opinions that offended me.

your statement analysis keep my coming back though.

we can't all get along all the time.

Anonymous said...

Jen and Hobnob--Thank you for taking the time to analyze the example I posted. What both of you wrote was extremely helpful. Jen--Your insight that the statement "And that is the truth" indicates sensitivity about the truth of the matter I feel is accurate. Yes, in answer to your question, there was a specific accusation that was not being exaggerated or downplayed when asked. I do feel this person was lying, but it is hard when someone lies, you have your inner feeling about what the truth is and then the person's words which carry a lot of weight if that makes sense.
Hobnob, yes the person answering my question did step outside of the boundaries of the question quite a bit, and I appreciate your insight on that, because it helps me understand the statement better.
Sorry I am being vague. I do feel the person lied but was not sure, and I very much appreciate the great analysis of the statement from the both of you as well as Sus previously.

charlotte from denmark said...

"Hello there stranger, who I have never seen before! I see you are about to rape and murder my room mate. That looks fun, may I join you?"

Those who believe that Amanda Knox killed Meredith, has to believe the above scenario.

Had I been in Miss Knox's place, i.e. being in an italian prison, my concern would have been for myself and my mental health.

Especially when the killer already is in jail.

I know my english is not good, but I am learning.

charlotte from denmark said...

"Hello there stranger, who I have never seen before! I see you are about to rape and murder my room mate. That looks fun, may I join you?"

Those who believe that Amanda Knox killed Meredith, has to believe the above scenario.

Had I been in Miss Knox's place, i.e. being in an italian prison, my concern would have been for myself and my mental health.

Especially when the killer already is in jail.

I know my english is not good, but I am learning.

Anonymous said...

Those who believe that Amanda Knox killed Meredith, has to believe the above scenario.

Or...believe the eye-witness that saw the victim with the other three the evening of the crime.

Shelley said...

While I too hate the trolls that clearly have nothing better to do that post childish insults.

But I am sure Peter does not have time to constantly delete them.

They are so common. Its like stopping all the spam that comes to your email. Just too much effort.

Instead I have choosen to just ignore them and read only the posts that are about this blog and these crimes.


And I would rather Peter spend time writing these articles than worrying about the trolls.

Just my opinion.

Shelley said...

While I too hate the trolls that clearly have nothing better to do that post childish insults.

But I am sure Peter does not have time to constantly delete them.

They are so common. Its like stopping all the spam that comes to your email. Just too much effort.

Instead I have choosen to just ignore them and read only the posts that are about this blog and these crimes.


And I would rather Peter spend time writing these articles than worrying about the trolls.

Just my opinion.

Anonymous said...

The one thing that sticks out to me is the fact that she can go on and on and on with out focusing on the details of that night. Especially now that they are opening the case and she is choosing to “talk”.

I had kept something from my ex-husband. It was nothing that hurt anyone else, just had to do with credit card debt. Long story short, when he found out that I did have a lot of debt and confronted me I finally had to just own it and tell him everything.
Mind you he was very angry as to him this was like not telling your partner that you’re a “registered sex offender”. Those were his exact words. To him, having debt was just as bad. And trust me, he did mean that. That is why I kept it from him. His views on that were known very early in our relationship and I was afraid to lose him and figured I could just get it paid off.
So what happened at that point was I spilled everything. I told him every detail, how I got into debt, why I didn’t tell him. I gave him examples of comments he made, things his family said. How much I had paid off etc.
Amanda does not talk about anything but what she has endured. How people didn’t believe her.
I recall what I went through with my ex as I listen to her and I was not facing murder charges. Yet I would not stop talking. I forced him to hear me. I forced him to listen and I told him EVERYTHING that had to do with it.
When it comes down to it, if you are innocent, you spill your guts to save yourself. For me, it was saving my marriage. While Amanda has been and is again going to be on trial for murder which is so much worse.
Yet, she still can not bring her self to tell everything. Even if she was not there, that would be clear from what she says. She would recall that night well….. She would recall what they did, talked about, details etc. She does not do this. She has a “story” about the night before, but one that reads as just a “story”. She doesn’t reflect back on things that happened that night.
And when confronted a few months back on how she doesn’t really state she “didn’t do it” and “how that looks” she responds that “no one believes me when I say that I didn’t do it.
Well, my then husband didn’t believe me when I tried to explain why I didn’t tell him. In fact, he thought I was having an affair. Yet I repeatedly over and over and over told him the truth. I forced him to hear me. I didn’t skirt around it. I told him everything.
She does not tell everything. It is so clear from her statements.

Anonymous said...

Part of the transcript where she is called out on her lack of a direct “I didn’t do it” denial.
CUOMO: Do you think you come off to I can't prove it and not enough I didn't do it. Do you understand the distinction between those two? Ask me if I killed somebody, the answer is no, I didn't do it. I didn't do it. I didn't do it. Not you can't prove it. Not you can't place me at the scene. Do you understand how you can't place me at the scene sounds cagey?

KNOX: Yes, I mean, I have professed from the very beginning that I didn't do it and no one believed me. I was screaming it to the prosecutor when they were screaming at me during my interrogation telling me that I had amnesia, telling me that I had to know what I told them I didn't know and I do it and I wasn't there and no one listened to me. It's like I'm having to prove my innocence instead of just saying it.

She still does not say “I didn’t do it”.
She says “I professed from the beginning that I didn’t do it”. This is not saying now today to the camera “I didn’t do it”.
Instead, she is reflecting to what she did profess (past tense) years ago. She did tell them then that she didn’t do, she likely even screamed it to them…… So what she did was tell Cuomo “ back then I did tell them I didn’t do it but no one listened” Which she did do.

Yet she still does not now, issue that reliable denial

Anonymous said...

She also said this in the interview.


KNOX: I sit in my hotel room and cry so loud until the security calls the room because the person next door has heard me crying.


I wonder if anyone could call these "hotels" and see if anyone has complained of loud crying.

Somehow I doubt it.

Especially since I think she is guilty and at this point, even with a new trial (its very unlikely she will be extradited) she is free.

She should be happy. She got away with murder.

Anonymous said...

lets not forget her final speach to the jury in Italy. Again, NEVER issued a reliable denial. NEVER.


Members of the court. Many times people have said I am some other person, people don’t understand whom I am. The only thing different from four years ago is what I have suffered. I lost a friend, a girlfriend, in the most brutal way in the most unexplained manner.
My trust in the police authorities has been betrayed. I have had to dealt with unfair and unfounded charges. I have paid with my life for things that I did not commit.
Four years ago I did not know what tragedy was. I have never faced so much anger before. I didn’t know how to interpret it. How did we react when we found out Meredith had been killed? I did not believe it. How was it possible?
Her bedroom was next to mine. She was killed in our home. If I had been there that night I would have died. The only difference is, I was not there. I trusted the police’s sense of duty and trust. I trusted them completely. I was betrayed on the night of November 5. I was manipulated.
I am not who they say I am. I am not violent. I don’t have a lack of respect for life. And I did not kill. I did not rape. I did not steal. I wasn’t there at the crime scene.
I had good relationships with everyone who lived in my flat. We all had good relationships. We helped each other. I shared my life, particularly with Meredith. We were friends. She was worried about me. She was very kind to me.
I have never run away from the truth. I insist after four desperate years, that our innocence is true and needs to be recognized. I want to go back home. I want to go back to my life. I don’t want my life and my future taken away from me for something that I didn’t do.
I am innocent. We do not deserve this. We never did anything to deserve this. I have the utmost respect to this court and the care that it has shown. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

As much as you all hate her and think shes guilty fuck you shes never going back to Italy so your dreams of seeing her in jail won't come true. THe true killer whose fucking DNA was found in MK vagina is sitting in jail.

Anonymous said...

'my presence has always been a distraction in the courtroom'... This woman is a serial liar at least. She will not return to Italy for fear of possibly going back to jail. She also claims to be broke financially. When a young girl signs a $$$ book deal
and returns $1.5 million to her parents, she isn't doing too bad. It appears no money was offered to the family of the victim.

Shelley said...

Please would someone analyze. This was testimony by Rudy Guede translated to english....

Guede is 'witness in the section below. I have always wondered what he really knew and feel he does hold clues to Amanda and Rafs roles.



“…DEFENSE ATTY. DALLA VEDOVA – And so, Mr. Guede, when you write the text that it was “a horrible murder of the wonderful marvelous girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox” what do you mean exactly? Had you ever said this?

WITNESS – Well this, I never said it explicitly in this manner however I always thought it.

DEFENSE ATTY. DALLA VEDOVA – So why did you write it?

WITNESS – I wrote it because it was a thought that I’ve always had [che è sempre stato dentro di me, lit. "that has always been inside me"].

DEFENSE ATTY. DALLA VEDOVA – But then it’s not true.

WITNESS – No it is absolutely true [verissimo].

DEFENSE ATTY. DALLA VEDOVA – And can you elaborate better? What does that mean?

WITNESS – It’s absolutely true.

DIFENSE AVV. DALLA VEDOVA – Do you confirm this fact [circostanza]? By [da parte]?

WITNESS – Well, I with the … well, like I told you earlier, this is a thought that I’ve always had in my head, it’s a thought that in any case in the end I decided to put in written form after hearing certain absurdities, in my opinion [secondo me] and I [get to] take on all the responsibilities [on] hearing a puppet manipulated by certain people, that’s all. Therefore if I wrote those words it’s because they are [real], I’ve always had them inside of me. It’s not up to me to decide who it is that killed Meredith, I in the statement that I made in my trial I always said who was there on that cursed night in that house, therefore I don’t think that I’m saying anything new, I just put in writing my thoughts and I made them tangible [concreta], that’s all. Therefore I don’t see what other questions I should respond to…”.

Hobnob said...



NEW YORK – American student Amanda Knox on Friday defended her decision not to return to Italy for a new appeals trial over the 2007 killing of her British roommate, even as she acknowledged that "everything is at stake," insisting she is innocent.

"I was already imprisoned as innocent person in Italy, and I can't reconcile the choice to go back with that experience," Knox said in an interview with Matt Lauer on NBC's "Today" show. "I just can't relive that."

Lauer asked Knox if she was worried that she was handing prosecutors an admission of guilt by not attending the trial.

The Seattle native replied, "I look at it of an admission of innocence, to be quote honest."

Knox said there was no trace of her in the room where her roommate, Meredith Kercher, was found killed when both were exchange students studying in Perugia, Italy. Kercher's throat had been slashed. "It's impossible for me to have participated in this crime if there's no trace of me," Knox said.

She said school and finances also were keeping her from attending the trial, which is scheduled to begin in Florence on Sept. 30.

In March, Italy's supreme court ordered a new trial for Knox and her former Italian boyfriend. An appeals court in 2011 had acquitted both, overturning convictions by a lower court. Italian law cannot compel Knox to return for the new legal proceeding.

Knox said Friday that she still had faith in the Italian legal system.

"I believe that people who really care about justice and look at this without prejudice will come to same conclusion," she said.

Still, she acknowledged that the prospect of returning to prison haunted her.

"I thought about what it would be like to live my entire life in prison and to lose everything, to lose what I've been able to come back to and rebuild," she said. "I think about it all the time. It's so scary. Everything is at stake."

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/world/2013/09/20/amanda-knox-on-retrial-everything-is-at-stake/?intcmp=latestnews

Anonymous said...

Shelley @11:05

While it is possible to ignore trolls I suppose, they seriously disrupt the conversation and they're not as benign as you might think. Trolls thrive on disrupting threads, using the most vile language, and attacking other posters.
Many will post links containing viruses.

It's not that time-consuming to filter through a spam folder and block ip addresses of the worst offenders. Doing so conveys respect for regular posters who don't need to be subjected to that abuse. IMO.

Anonymous said...

The evidence clearly demonstrated that she was present in the residence at the time of the murder, even if she was not the person who stabbed Ms. Kercher. If she had truly had no part in the murder (the only denial of culpability being that she was unaware of the rape/homicide occurring in another room and then panicked when she realized what had occurred), why will neither she nor Sollecito finally admit that they indeed were in the home? She easily asserts her innocence, a role she comfortably inhabits from her longstanding viewpoint of herself as the true victim of this situation, but has never owned up to what motivated her repeated lies, changing of the basic testimony, and false accusations. Sadly her family's PR campaign has been largely successful in marketing this image of an American Dreyfus to people in the states.