Friday, May 2, 2014

"I Did Not Kill My Friend" Amanda Knox

Amanda Knox once again denied slitting roommate Meredith Kercher's throat when they lived together in Italy in 2007, saying "I did not kill my friend."


We now need to learn about the word "friend" in Knox' personal, subjective internal dictionary.  What was her relationship with Meredith Kercher?

Although this article is not complete transcript, we look for the subject to guide us: 








"In the month that we that we were living together, we were becoming friends," Knox said, appearing to be on the verge of tears.


Here we see that they were not yet friends, but becoming friends


"A week before the murder occurred, we went out to a classical music concert together. We had never fought."


Note the "murder occurred" is passive language.
Note "never fought" a week before, not only gives time, but is in the negative.  This would lead me to ask if they fought the night of the murder.  Will she allow for the possibility of such?  If so, she would have to allow for her to be present during the murder: 





Meredith Kercher of Great Britain was murdered in 2007.HO/REUTERSMeredith Kercher of Great Britain was murdered in 2007.
Knox's latest comments aired two days after an Italian court released a 337-page document explaining its January conviction in a retrial of her and then-boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito.
The judicial panel in Florence said evidence showed Knox held the knife and delivered the fatal slash as Sollecito and another cohort, Rudy Gude, held Kercher back.
Guede is currently serving a 16-year prison sentence for the 21-year-old British woman's murder.
Amanda Knox pauses emotionally while speaking during a news conference at Sea-Tac International Airport, Washington, after arriving, a free woman again, on U.S. soil.ANTHONY BOLANTE/REUTERSAmanda Knox pauses emotionally while speaking during a news conference at Sea-Tac International Airport, Washington, after arriving, a free woman again, on U.S. soil.
Knox batted away the panel's findings that she attacked Kercher during an argument over rent money.


"If I were there, I would have traces of Meredith's broken body on me. And I would have left traces of myself around Meredith's corpse," she said.

Here she allows for herself to be at the murder scene.  Note Meredith's "broken body" and not "blood."

Will she now say "I was not there"?

"I am not there. And that proves my innocence."

She is unable or unwilling to say "I was not there" but truthfully says, "I am not there"; present tense language. While giving this interview, she "is" not there. 


Rudy Guede, center, is currently serving a 16-year prison sentence for the 21-year-old British woman's murder.FEDERICO ZIRILLI/AFP/GETTY IMAGESRudy Guede, center, is currently serving a 16-year prison sentence for the 21-year-old British woman's murder.
Knox and Sollecito were initially found guilty in 2009 sentenced to 25 years in prison.
An appeals court overturned the convictions in 2011 and the pair was released. Knox immediately returned to her hometown of Seattle.
In March 2013, Italy's highest criminal court set aside the acquittal and ordered a new trial, which resulted in January's conviction in Florence.
Knox didn't attend the trial and has vowed to fight any attempts to extradite her to Italy.
Defense lawyers have one more shot to appeal, this time to the Supreme Court of Italy.
Claudio Hellman, the judge who tossed out the pair's convictions, called the Florence Appeals Court ruling a "fantasy."
"The Florence Appeal Court has written a script for a movie or a thriller book while it should have only considered facts and evidence. There is no evidence to condemn Knox and Sollecito," the judge told CNN.

35 comments:

Anonymous said...

I was hoping you'd analyze this! Thanks! I love this blog and visit often. First time posting a comment here!

bigmtn said...

Then pick a name.

Anonymous said...

I just wish"Hobnob"would anylise the latest"MCCann"travesty displayed all over England's media the last few days.

Anonymous said...

This video is fascinating.
Every sentence Amanda speaks seems like easy pickings for statement analysis.
At 1:39 ish she clearly is able to visualize being at the scene, but denies it.
More analysis on this please.
Also, I am trying to think how I would react in this situation if I were Amanda and was innocent.
I wouldn't be uttering her garbage about winning her appeal and bringing peace to everyone. Meredith's family won't ever be at peace !
I wouldn't be trying to explain how I couldn't have been at the scene.
I would say that Rudy was convicted, that he was evil, a murderer and rapist and should never be free for his crimes.

Anonymous said...

And THAT is why you sir are NOT A CELEBRITY!!! she's "milking"it.Your right she is GUILTY.

Luna said...

It is rather disturbing that the first questioned AK is asked...about why the judge thinks she is the one who killed MK...causes her eyesto light up and a huge smile to appear on her face! Are you serious AK? Guilty!!!

floridamomma said...

I used to be on the fence with this case, prior to learning just a little bit about SA, and reading her book. I was convinced of her guilt a chapter in!

Anonymous said...

She called it an "experience",and "I can WIN this"wow

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

"I did not kill my friend."

Am i right in thinking that. Given she does not say "I did not kill Meredith Kercher" a strong denial. Then her denial essentially true.

When she says "I did not kill my friend." In her mind she is including her friends at this present time, and they are still alive. Including her present friends into her denial will then lesson the stress she may have felt if she had inserted Merediths name into her statement.?

elf said...

Mark redwine was arrested but the news said its not in relation to Dylan. I wonder if its a ploy by police?

Craftymama said...

OT...
Mark Redwine has been taken into custody. It is unknown if it's related to Dylan but it sounds more like public intoxication. Hopefully a step toward justice though.

http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2014/05/03/father-of-dylan-redwine-taken-into-custody/2128630/

john said...

Father of Dylan Redwine taken into custody



http://www.9news.com/story/news/local/2014/05/03/father-of-dylan-redwine-taken-into-custody/2128630/

Anonymous said...

Thanks for posting this Peter.

I read the trsnscript first and then watched the video. I have no idea is she participated in the murder or not but I do find several indicators for deception. AK tries to portray herself and the victim as friends but refers to them living "together" and going to a concert "together". Together indicates distance and conflicts with the narrative she puts forth in the interview.

She also said that she did not kill her friend. You noted one possible explanation above. Some people also make the leap of logic that they didn't kill the victim, the knife killed them, or the hypovolemic shock killed them, or the other person killed them while I held them down. You get the idea.

Anyway, I see no creditable denial in her interview.

-Akula

Craftymama said...

Sorry I posted my comment before seeing yours. I hope it is something to get him to talk.

Maybe said...

Quote from Amanda Knox

"I'm never going to be OK with the idea that somebody can quote some judge's decision and say I'm a convicted murderer.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/feb/07/amanda-knox-guilty-verdict-meredith-kercher

Anonymous said...

OT: This week a little 4 month old baby boy in Iowa was found dead in his apartment. The 17 year old bio father has been arrested.

The even more tragic side of this case is that the baby had been placed for adoption, but then the 16 year old bio mom changed her mind and took him back from the adoptive parents. He was with the bio parents for 40 days before suffering head trauma and dying. I am sharing this with you all for 2 reasons. First, the interview with the adoptive mothers (yes it was a same sex couple) because their interview is so raw and real. It shows the marked difference (to me) in interviews with parents like the Lunsfords, Celis', DiPietros, McCann's, Ramseys, etc... These 2 women are obviously grieving and some of their comments might be shocking in terms of how this is almost a relief, but having lived through a custody nightmare with my adopted son, I understand the fear.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2014/04/24/infants-death-leaves-3-mothers-grieving/8133673/

Here is the 911 call: http://www.hlntv.com/video/2014/05/01/mcfarland-gabriel-911-call-baby-murder-adoption-reverse

Apple said...

OT:
Tyler Dasher

http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/shelby-dasher-pleads-guilty-of-killing-young-son-in-affton/article_dd2099ae-d2f9-5b27-817b-61a87084e480.html

bragi said...

If anything this is more a strike against Statement Analysis than Amanda Knox.

If you knew anything about this case you would know that the right person was convicted. You'd also know how bizarre and tainted this investigation and the Italian legal system are. Additionally, you'd know how weird Amanda Knox is and that the things she does and says are inscrutable.

Statement Analysis makes judgments without outright doing so, which is ironic for a technique that can take in nothing but the stark, direct language of those it analyzes.

Anonymous said...

"If you knew anything about this case you would know that the right person was convicted. You'd also know how bizarre and tainted this investigation and the Italian legal system are. Additionally, you'd know how weird Amanda Knox is and that the things she does and says are inscrutable."

I agree. Amanda is her own worst enemy...a typical , need-I-say liberated, orthodox Seattle earth child, ..in other words a naif flibbety-gibbit of the worst kind. But a murderer? After reading a couple of books about her and the Italian court system and the evidence the court used to convict her, it's absolutely byzantine that this is still going on!

Statement analysis can't begin to cope with the likes of "love child" Amanda Knox. She belongs with the Haight-Asbury hippies of San Francisco in the 60's. She's a definite throwback to that culture and era. I'd call her stupid, but that word doesn't quite fit. She may be "smart" but she has zero common sense. You'd have to know the Seattle college hippie scene to understand her.

People here ought to do some reading about this case. For example..."The Fatal Gift of Beauty" by Nina Burleigh which goes into detail about the shoddy evidence against her and the unreliable or proven to be "misremebering"/lying witnesses the Perugia court depended upon.

trustmeigetit said...

Please post the McCann statements here! Hobs will analyze!

Annonymous17 said...

Where do people get the idea that you have to be smart to kill someone? Naive hippy chicks kill too (anyone remember Charles Manson)?

It's not a stretch to think that Amanda, in a drug/alcohol induced haze, killed her roommate after fighting with her, with the help of her new boyfriend and the other guy who was convicted. It's only a stretch for those who believe the absurd notion that pretty American girls can't kill.

trustmeigetit said...

"I did not kill my friend."

If Meredith was not her friend that day (they claim they fought that day) then she is not lying. She didn't kill her friend. But she did kill Meredith.

And does anyone know did Rudy ever give details? I have never Ben able to find anything specific. It makes me wonder if Amanda and Raf wee there before or after Rudy. Maybe Rudy took advantage of a dying Meredith.

Just seems like if they were there he would just fess up and say this was each role.

Anonymous said...

Luna, there is something called "duping delight" that some subjects display during questioning. It is not a part of SA but is something I learned in the John Reed course. Usually it displays when a person smiles during a very inappropriate time in an interview. They usually have either just told a huge lie or are about to and are taking inappropriate pleasure in what they percieve as "duping" or fooling the interviewer. In this instance it may be that she has anticipated the question and has a well rehearsed answer teed up or it could be that she is genuinely suprised that the court found her guilty. It is a tough call but I find her smiling at that point noteworthy.

-Akula

Hobnob said...

Here you go Peter

Amanda Knox: statement following publication of Italian court's reasoning

I have stated from the beginning of this long ordeal that I am innocent of the accusations against me. I was found innocent by the only court in Italy that retained independent forensic experts to review my case. I want to state again today what I have said throughout this process: I am innocent of the accusation against me, and the recent motivation document does not – and cannot – change the fact of my innocence.

The recent motivation document does not – and cannot – change the forensic evidence: experts agreed that my DNA was not found anywhere in Meredith's room, while the DNA of the actual murderer, Rudy Guede, was found throughout that room and on Meredith's body. This forensic evidence directly refutes the multiple-assailant theory found in the new motivation document. This theory is not supported by any reliable forensic evidence.

The forensic evidence also directly refutes the theory that the kitchen knife was the murder weapon: the court-appointed independent experts confirmed that neither Meredith's blood nor her DNA was on the alleged murder weapon, which experts also agreed did not match the stab wounds or the bloody imprint of a knife on her pillow.

In fact, in the prior proceeding in which I was found innocent, the court specifically concluded that the forensic evidence did not support my alleged participation in the crime and further found that the circumstantial evidence was both unreliable and contrary to a conclusion of guilt.

The recent motivation document does not – and cannot – change the fact that the forensic evidence still does not support my participation and the circumstantial evidence still remains unreliable and contrary to the conclusion of guilt.

And the recent motivation document does not – and cannot – identify any legitimate motive for my alleged involvement in this terrible crime. No fewer than three motives have been previously advanced by the prosecution and by the courts. Each of these theories was as unsupported as the purported motive found in the new motivation document, and each of these alleged motives was subsequently abandoned by the prosecution or the courts. Like the prior "motives", the latest "motive" in the new motivation document is not supported by any credible evidence or logic. There is simply no basis in the record or otherwise for this latest theory.

I will now focus on pursuing an appeal before the Italian supreme court. I remain hopeful that the Italian courts will once again recognise my innocence. I want to thank once again, from the bottom of my heart, all of those—family, friends, and strangers—who have supported me and believe in my innocence.


http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/apr/29/amanda-knox-full-statement-italian-court-reasoning

Hobnob said...

n fact, in the prior proceeding in which I was found innocent, the court specifically concluded that the forensic evidence did not support my alleged participation in the crime and further found that the circumstantial evidence was both unreliable and contrary to a conclusion of guilt.

The recent motivation document does not – and cannot – change the fact that the forensic evidence still does not support my participation and the circumstantial evidence still remains unreliable and contrary to the conclusion of guilt.

And the recent motivation document does not – and cannot – identify any legitimate motive for my alleged involvement in this terrible crime.


This caught my eye.
She goes from alleged participation to my participation to alleged involvement.
A change is language menas a change in reality.
Is the change warranted?

She starts of with alleged participation in the crime.She doesn't state what the crime is she is alleged to have participated in.
She could and should have said alleged participation in the rape and murder of Meredith.
This is the perfect place to make a strong denial yet she doesn't.
She tells us the court that found her innocent on appeal concluded there was no forensic evidence to indicate alleged participation.
If there was no forensic evidence to indicate her alleged participation, was there forensic evidence that indicated her participation?

She then goes on talk about her participation.
She doesn't say the word alleged, she takes ownership of her participation.
Her participation is in relation to forensic evidence.
Here she admits she participated in the crime since she doesn't use the word alleged.

She then goes on to talk about her alleged involvement.
We have a change in language from participation to involvement.
She also includes the word alleged again.
This change in language is in regard to any legitimate motive.
This means there must then be a motive that is not legitimate.
What is her definition of a legitimate motive?

A legitimate motive to kill someone would be self defence, she was in fear for her life, it was accidental, it was altruitic (the victim was put out of their misery)
Thus i would assume a non legitimate motive would be killing for the sake of it, killing in the heat of the moment, killing to gain something, you get the idea.

She also refers to this terrible crime .
This is close, that is distancing.
An innocent person would try and distance themselves from the crime and would use the word THAT.
Here, knox places herself close to the crime.

Amanda Knox once again denied slitting roommate Meredith Kercher's throat when they lived together in Italy in 2007, saying "I did not kill my friend."
This is not a strong reliable denial.
A strong reliable denial consists of 3 parts.
first person singular I
Past tense did not/didn't
Event specific, in this case, kill Meredith Kercher.

Hobnob said...

Knox manages 2 out of 3, failing on the event specific section "Kill my friend"

She doesn't tell us that Meredith was her friend.
We do not know what her definition of friend is.
She may have considered sollectio as her friend and she didn't kill him.
Given that there were issues between Meredith and knox over hygiene, behavior and missing money, it can be safely said that knox and Meredith could not be considered friends.
If Meredith was not considered knox's friend by knox then knox did not kill her friend, knox killed a non friend, Meredith.

Tis is why it is important to learn the internal dictionary of the subject and not to assume they said what you think they said.
The assumption here is that knox and Meredith were friends and knox didn't kill meredith her friend, yet, when you look at what was actually said, you see they weren't friends, they fought sometime the night of the murder the time of the murder.
Remember never does not mean did not.
Notice also the word used.
She said fought.
Fought implies a physical action, and given the fact Meredith was murdered, it is a telling and implicating word.

The expected would be we never argued, to argue would indicate words rather than fists, arguing is spoken, yet knox uses a word that indicate physicality.

It is amazing what can be discerened from even a few words if you pay attention and listen to what is actually being said, rather than what you think they said.

I wonder what would happen if knox was asked to take a polygraph the result of which would mean she would get help fighting extradition.
It would be by an FBI polygrapher who could ask any questions they wanted and needed to rather than them going poly shopping, restricting the questions to be asked and imposing gagging orders.
Would she accept or refuse?

Better yet if she was interviewd by a trained statement analys, would she accept or refuse?

dadgum said...

..waves at hobs..
:)

Hobnob said...

~waves right back atcha 'Gum~

cooooooooooooooooeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee :)

Theresa said...

Eyes for Lies has a discussion about AK on her blog right now. Well worth the read.

Anonymous said...

Hi, I am not sure how to contact you directly Mr. Hyatt, but I wanted to tell you how fascinating your blog is. I have learnt so much about how people communicate - both normally and when being deceptive.
I have become intrigued by the Andrea Sneiderman case and was hoping you would do a blog on her. It would be very interesting to see your take on this case. Many thank from Montreal, Canada!

Anonymous said...

the recent motivation document does not – and cannot – identify any legitimate motive

:-) oh I see ''legitimate'' motives.

I've always felt that AK shows plenty of duper's delight. Her whole defence was about her not being the person the prosecution maintained she was and how there was no motive cos she and Meredith went to a chocolate festival together. She appears compacent about noone ever knowing the real motive for the killing.

I have no doubt that she was involved ''my participation indeed!

Anonymous said...

Nothing you just said equates to any real meaning in the English language.

Anonymous said...

AK is far from pretty, MK looks beautiful

foodnerd said...

Does anyone else spark on her use of the specific word alleged? It's always associated with legalese regardless of the person's guilt or innocence, and used throughout the trial even when it's inevitable to anyone following the story that the suspect will be found guilty. Attorneys and judges use alleged before the verdict even when there is clear, full-color video and reliable DNA.
If I were talking about the case with my friends, or even the media, I would say "supposed involvement" or what I supposedly did, not what I allegedly did!