Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Amanda Knox: "I Did Not Kill Meredith..."

In the latest, a book "by" Amanda Knox contained the sentence, "I did not kill Meredith" which caused some to consider not only did she not kill Meredith, but was not present for the assault on Meredith, simply because of this recently released book. 

It is far beyond anything that would be considered the Free Editing Process, even if it was written by Knox, herself.  

Amanda Knox was convicted in the murder of Merideth Kercher (who died on Nov. 1, 2007) in Italy and was incarcerated for years until she was released on retrial. 

Was she present for the assault that led to Meredith's death?

The public was deeply divided.  Retired FBI Steve Moore wrote a bizarre hyperbolic defense of Amanda which is analyzed here.  He reportedly became so obsessed with the case and appearing on television that he was terminated from his job.  

The analysis of his statement reveals quite a bit of information.  

Rudy Hermann Guede, a resident of Perugia, was convicted of the sexual assault and murder of Kercher and received a reduced sentence of 16 years after an appeal.

Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Amanda Knox, an American student who shared a flat with Kercher, were convicted of sexual assault and murder and sentenced to 26 years.

Amanda Knox has many supporters, and many who believe that police, prosecutorial and judicial improprieties have resulted in a wrongful conviction. Passionate arguments are made on both sides; those who seek justice for the victim's family, and those who believe that Amanda Knox was wrongfully convicted, and that her confession was coerced by Italian investigators.

Statement Analysis gets to the truth.

What follows below is a handwritten statement made by Amanda Knox.  It is in response to her involvement with police, so it is not a pure statement of what happened (contamination) but it can be analyzed as a response to that interaction.  

Therefore, sensitivity indicators such as 'offerings' must be taken in context:  she is responding to allegations such as 'you were at the scene", which is why we will not call such 'sensitive' by themselves; the sensitivity is seen in the original question.  Instead, we analyze the answers given.

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

The opening line shows immediate sensitivity.

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. Memory lapse from alcohol is different than from drug use. Most believe that memory lapse from drug use is recoverable, but not from alcohol. We need to view what she does remember in order to discern if there is deception present.

In an open statement, we expect someone to tell us what happened, and not what did not happen. If we are told what did not happen, what was not said, what was not thought, we are to flag it as highly sensitive and possibly deceptive.

note the inclusion of sensitive words, "very" strange, (instead of just "strange")and "really" what happened. For her internal dictionary, there is "strange" and there is "very" strange, just as there is an event that happened and an event that "really" happened.

She notes that others are confused as she is.  This is important. 

Her confusion that is claimed, shows a need to be shared with others.  This is similar to using "we" when one should use "I" instead.  

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.

Note the inclusion Passive language "I have been told" rather than who told her what specifically. But far more telling is the following words within her statement: "I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened". Knox places herself at the crime scene after stating that "there is hard evidence".  This is as a result or response to interaction to police.  Where it is presented, there is an expectation of refutation. 

The expected:  'they have hard evidence against me but that is not possible because I didn't kill my friend, Merideth and I was not there when she was killed.'  

Even as a response to an allegation, there is an expectation of reliable denial.  

The reason for this expectation is that she specifies that they placed her at the scene during the murder.  If she did not inflict the final death blow, she could say "I did not kill..." but she, herself, specified location.  It is the location and timing that we expect a denial.  

She gives;

a.  location 
b.  time of murder

This is in detail and easy to deny.  

She does not.  

If she is unwilling or unable to say that she was not there when Meredith was killed, why would someone else say it for her?

We will look at what others have said in her defense:  things that she, herself, would not say.

Note that she wants to confirm, which is different than confirming.

Days ago, it would be impossible to her, but why is it no longer so?

Also note the specific language that she chose to use.  It is 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 reducing reliability

This is very simple and expected.  It takes no careful thought or aligning of words:  "I wasn't there for the murder.

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:

Note first her opposition to Raffaele.
Next, note "in my mind"  as it is only in her mind; and not in reality. It is an attempt to avoid the stress of direct 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.  This could be the language of police, as it is not a pure statement of "what happened" but is a statement that is as a result of answering questions and accusations.  She still, however, offers 'what happened', though we know it is likely influenced, in its scope and direction, by the accusations.  It is also the perfect place for her to issue the two denials needed:

1.  That she did not kill Meredith
2.  That she was not present for the killing or any sexual assault

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 time. We, 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, 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 the "cluster of blue" of highest sensitivity.  Even with the presupposed question  of "When was the last time you saw Meredith", one may discount these sensitivity indicator, yet there is much else to glean. 

That "left" has a 'stopping' of the brain at a location, rather than going forward to the next location tells us that there is information being left out of the statement at this point. 

This is a very strong signal that she is withholding information here, at this moment in time, within her verbalized perception of reality.  

In a known contaminated statement, we do not take "because" with the same level of sensitivity; we cannot.  This is because it is possible that she is, in her mind, answering the questions already posed to her in the interview.  

This is not a pure "what happened" statement, but it is a statement that is, in context, an answer, or a "denial" of accusations made against her.  

Note who's house it is. 

Note communicative language.   

It may be that she and Patrick argued as noted by the stronger "told" than "said". Also, we note any introduction of any persons in a statement; how they are introduced and the order in which they are introduced. Here, Patrick is introduced without a proper social introduction,other than to say that she works for him. This is an indication that she does not have a good relationship with Patrick.

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.

"Now I remember"  people can only tell us what they remember in truthful accounts.  Here is a signal from her that she is telling us what she "remembers"; indicating that she may have told us what was not from memory previously. 

We also have, in a homicide statement, the departing statement.  This may set the time of death.  Amanda Knox has a need to communicate to us the departure from the presence of the victim, while avoiding directly stating that she was not there when Meredith was murdered.  Direct lying is cleverly avoided, as it does not come from experiential memory, risking inability for later recall, which heightens stress.  

"Good evening!" may also be weighed in the social context of "my" house, and not "our apartment" or "our house" as an attempt to persuade that the relationship was good at this time within her statement. 

Note the words "and this for me does not mean" which is a weak commitment to the text. If the subject does not own the text, neither can we. She tells us what it does not mean to her.

She also uses Raffaele's statement as a point of reference, rather than relying solely upon experiential memory. This is noted as sensitive.

She does not deny placing herself at the location of the sexual homicide and appears to show a need to persuade, rather than report truthfully, the relationship, activities, and even, perhaps the time of death. 

told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After that I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps 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 introduction of sexual activity in her statement about a sexual homicide.  

She feels the need to assert sex with Raffaele, yet does so with a weak assertion of "perhaps."

Deceptive use of qualifiers. 

Again, see Dr. Eckman for this form of deception (memory).
Note "perhaps" (qualifier) she made love "to" Raffaele, now "with" Raffaele. Note also that she uses the word "told" rather than "said". She does not commit to what she did but it was not relaxful in any case.

How do we know this?

Note the order as showing priority.  
Note the casual language of, "perhaps I read my email" which would allow for only the possibility of an alibi, yet even sexual activity is given the same casual language as checking email.  

After that I believe we relaxed in his room together,

"After that" is called a temporal lacuane, or a passing of time. This indicates that she has skipped over time, and is withholding information of something that took place.  That she sees herself unified with him, with "we" at this time in the chronology of the day, is important.  

"That", again, shows distancing language.  It is repeated by her, and it refers to that which preceded it.  Although too much should not be read into it, the repetitional use indicates a steady step-by-step attempt to move away from something specific: a time when she highlighted in her words of departure.  

"Relaxed" is important.  This is to avoid a specific activity but to introduce an element of unwinding required or needed, due to whatever just preceded it.  How did they "relax" is important, but may pale in comparison to the need to relax.  This was "perhaps" checking emails and sexual activity, but to commit to nothing specific.

"I believe" is weak, which is why she uses the qualifier. She can later state that she had not committed firmly to this, should it be verified and not found out to be true.

The qualifier reduces commitment but the sentence works with "we relaxed" but she needs the extra emphasis of "together" which tells us that there was likely a split between them and she needs to express a unity that should not need emphasis.

Please note that the need to persuade suggests:

It wasn't relaxful and there was tension, and possibly disagreement between her and Raffaele.

She then says that they had sex. We begin by noticing that information is withheld (temporal lacunae) and note that the language suggests an argument or tension, and then note that in sex she made love "to" him, and not "with" him; nor did he make love to her.

Something is being left out and it may involve a disagreement between them and sexual activity.

Sexual activity 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. Was there two episodes of sexual activity, one that she was less willingly involved in?
Note that "with" shows distance and is not "Raffaele and I made love", or "we made love" which would be more unified. The difference, however subtle, is noted. There may have been a distance and even an argument or disagreement regarding sexual activity between her and Raffaele and should be explored by investigators.

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

Note "quite sure" rather than "sure" gives the qualifier, which is presented in the form of the negative. We look for truthful subjects to tell us what happened and not what they do not remember.

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.

She now continues with a lack of commitment until one specific activity is important enough to her to assert with memory:


First:  We can only commit to what the subject commits; here, she smoked marijuana (no qualifier) but does not tell us that she fell asleep. Note the additional words "might even" as weak.

Note, however, with significance, that she took a shower, but wants everything else to be vague; indicating deception.

It is to be noted that 'water' if included in many sexual homicides.  It enters the world of sexual abuse, both victims and perpetrators with either excessive washing, or refusal to shower (I've encountered both in children, adults and adults with developmental disabilities), just as it enters the language of association with sexual abuse and the psychological need of cleansing. 

Recall 'Pastor Davey' Blackburn speaking after his wife 's murder, hearing from 'God' his new purpose in life, his wife 'dying for the church', supplanting Christ.  Where did he receive these 'diving marching orders of greatness to come'?

In the shower.  

He spoke of his wife's failure to meet his sexual needs, and even flaunting a gun shortly before his wife's murder.  The 'coincidental nature' of the case is such as to show either orchestration or extreme coming together of circumstances to his benefit.  'Water' references often indicate a need to be 'washed' or cleansed, internally.

'Water' enters the subject's language when sexual activity has taken place, including bathing, washing of hands, washing of laundry, etc. It is often included in sex abuse cases, particularly, with children. A 'washing' away of guilt may be upon a subject's mind. Rapes and other violent sexual acts have been timelined properly by noting the time in which a subject speaks of washing hands or showering.

Note that this "might" (qualifier) "explain"; that is, to give explanation. This is different than reporting, as "explain" seeks to cause equality between what has been said before and what is now presented; a justification. This is not something we see in honest statements that simply report what is remembered.

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.

Being noting:  "in truth" is used because she now wants to be believed as is the inclusion of minute detail after reporting memory failure. Note that, again, she is reporting what she does not remember, which is found frequently in deceptive statements. A truthful account should tell us what happened, or what is remembered.

Then, she wishes to report with emphasis, what she does remember, and returns to 'water' in her statement.  This is a strong indicator of experiencing something related to the sexual homicide.  Note also the heavy use of "we" within the language, as this cleansing need is shared, in unison, with Raffaelle.  Note the strange use of details as she revisits the showering. This shows that sexuality is highly sensitive to her; not simply due to repetition (repetition shows sensitivity)but because it is a theme in sexual homicides and that she now gives extra details including that they washed each other; that this went on for a long time, but then even adds in specifics such as "cleaned my ears".

Why the ears?

Did she hear her friend Meredith's cries to stop, or pleas for help from her?

Remember, it is Amanda Knox, herself, who has the need to tell us not only about the shower, but where she was washed.  

The high sensitivity suggests that Raffaele had a reason to shower with her for a long time, and had a specific need to wash her ears. This suggests that evidence may have been needed to have been washed off "for a long time", and in specific areas. This likely places the deceased's wounds quite close to his and Amanda's face, hair, and ears.

The shower details are also interesting as it is used to pass time by using sexual activity. 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 include that you had a shower with your boyfriend, 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 but was against what he wanted. This may speak to motive and just how far she went. The cleaning, in particular, of her own upper torso may suggest the blood from the victim was not easily cleaned off completely, and took special detail and time. The time that passed was not passed leisurely.

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.

Note that "one of the things I am sure of" indicates that there are other things she is sure of, in spite of claiming memory lapse.  She still will not commit to an alibi.  

After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand,

There is an important change of reference in language here.  She is heavily on qualifying everything; committing to little, yet here, she tells us what she "noticed", with no need to qualify it. 

This is a change in pattern or reference.  It is vital. 

What did she notice?

To "notice"...was this something she was looking for, or is it in response to the questions and allegations of police?  I cannot tell, therefore, I must focus on what she noticed, rather than the noticing, itself, as an activity.  If this was an open uncontaminated statement, I would view it differently, as if looking for blood. 

Note the absence of qualifiers here. It is likely that this happened and may have been from the concentration of him cleaning her (detail given) whereas we do not have the stressed details of her cleaning him. In a murder investigation, the subject now introduces the word "blood" after a detail about cleaning and showering, combined with sex. Its proximity is noted.

but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish.

a.  "but" refutes
b.  "under the impression" is another weak assertion, using passivity to conceal who it is who brought her under this impression.  

Her roommate and friend has been sexually assaulted and murdered.  

She is discussing her showering and the blood that needed to be washed over Rafaelle, of whom the pronoun "we" is consistently produced.    

She was "under the impression" is not the same as "it was from the fish"; but note the repetition of "blood" instead of the pronoun, "it" which I used. "Blood" is sensitive, as noted by repetition.

After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor.

A.  Washing 
B.  Flooding

Note that Raffeale "washed" the dishes, and not "did the dishes". This is another indication that sexuality is involved in this crime. "Washed" is, indeed, what took place. What was washed besides Amanda?  Amanda's ears?  The blood?

Now, concern that more evidence was in need of cleaning and more conscience in need of cleansing.  

Note that this is yet another  introduction of "water" in the topic.

If water is associated linguistically in sexual homicides, this is excessively so, as seen in its needless use.  

Note the continuation of unity between her and Rafaelle:  

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 the tiredness after relaxing.  This is an indication of extremity of stress and need of cleansing.  

Sensitivity versus Contamination:  Note that whenever "so, since, because, therefore, etc" enter a statement, it is a signal of sensitivity. Why? Because a subject should tell us what happened, and not "why" something happened.  Yet, we cannot make this conclusive due to the contamination of the interview.

Note that she also tells us what another's person's state was "tired". When a person tells us what another thought or felt, it is often an indicator of deception, especially if it is an emotional fatigue.  Yet here, we see that they were both "very tired" from "relaxing", though no specific is committed to.  


 Note that they were both "very" tired even though they had been relaxing.  Something that was both physically and emotionally exhausting had taken place prior, and whatever it was that took place  necessitated a "cleansing" for Amanda; a thorough cleansing of her, including her ears.  This cleansing, relaxing and fatigue, are all "we" aspects:  unity and togetherness. 

When someone says that they "can't" say something or recall 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.

"noticed" is passive. Passive languge indicates a desire to conceal and she is withholding information here, or was it in response to a direct question.  

The next thing I remember

temporal lacunae. This indicates withheld information during a critical time period; high sensitivity. The police interview would strongly emphasize the time frame that Amanda Knox is withholding.

was waking up

note verb tense should be "woke up". "was waking up" reduces the commitment which should question whether or not she actually slept, as she casts doubt upon it.  It elongates the process of waking.  Was this due to the extreme fatigue?  Marijuana?  Or, was there something else that 'wore her down'?

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.

Note the memory appears stronger here:  no "I remember" and no qualifier.  

Note also she is telling us the reason why ("so, since, because, therefore, etc") which is "out of bounds" of what happened, since it is an attempt to explain. Amanda Knox has a need to explain why she had a plastic bag, rather than simply report what she did. This is another indicator of sensitivity if not in response to a question posed.  I think it likely was an answer to "why did you?" from police.  

It was then that I arrived home alone

Here is a change.  She has been with someone else and it often produced the pronoun "we", yet here she is alone.  This is important to her. 

that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began.

Doors opening and doors closing are often phrases found within sexual abuse or sexual homicide cases. For children, we often find that when they describe a door open, they use tense language, but when they talk about a door closing, there may be relief present. Here, she does not say that she opened the door, but "found" it opened (passivity noted). When passive language is used on an inanimate object, it is an indication that the subject is attempting to conceal responsiblity. For example, "the drugs sat on the table"; since drugs do not "sit", it is an indication that the subject put the drugs on the table. Here, Knox likely either left the door this way, or knows that Raffaele did; either way, she does not wish the identity known. It reads like a staged scene.

"All this began" avoids what is expected:  "I found my friend Meredith murdered!"

"All this began" is to have more than just murder, and an event that has begun, and continues to this point: 

"All" is plural, not singular.  This is to go beyond just the murder.  

This next appears to be a response:  

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 that within her words is found:
this "confession" that I made framed within her own wording (see above for the principle)
Note the qualifier she uses: she is not doubtful, but "very" doubtful, increasing sensitivity.
note "very doubtful" qualifier; rather than making a full denial of her confession.

note the order: stress, shock, and extreme exhaustion. Stress is the first thing noted. Exhaustion is only noted lastly, and has the sensitivity added, which reduces commitment, in "extreme". She was likely stressed, but not exhausted. These are presented in order to excuse, not report.

She told us that she had been relaxing but now she had extreme exhaustion.  

Note she does not accuse police of wrongdoing, instead, blames her confession on these three elements:

"stress, shock and extreme exhaustion"

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.

If you had been coerced into a confession, what would be the first thing you would say?
When you reported the coercion, would the assault come after "stress" and "shock" and "extreme exhaustion"?

Order reveals priority and here she reduces being "hit" to low priority and avoids telling us who hit her and what she was hit with.  

What did she not remember?

A "fact" correctly.  This is to acknowledge something as a "fact." 

Here, Amanda Knox comes close to a confession, even in her denial. Note what she calls the information: "fact"

An assault by a police officer is an intrusion of personal space, it causes pain, and is a priority.  It is illegal, inexcusable, and a victim would not seek to justify it while accusing police: 

I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.

Please carefully note that she does not say "A police officer hit me in the head" but says she was hit in the head and that she understand police under stress.  

Deceptive people are counting upon audience interpretation so that they may avoid the internal stress of going into experiential memory and fabricating what does not exist there knowing that in recall, there will be nothing there but self reference.  It is too easy to get lost in attempting to keep track of wording that has no emotional or hormonal connection.  

Note also that innocent people do not, nor ever, "understand" false accusations or brutality used to coerce. This statement is frequently found in guilty parties (see the recent statement made by Tiffany Hartley in which she "understands" why people doubt her "story". Innocents are bold and their language does not connect with the language of guilt and they do not accept responsibilty (pronouns) nor do they understand anyone who does not believe what they say. Innocence has a boldness to it.  Remember Charlie Rogers "understood" how people might not believe her "story?"  Such an intrusive and violent assault and entry into personal boundaries has no such understanding or acceptance.  

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

Note the passivity of "my mind came up with"; as passivity seeks to conceal identity and remove responsibility.  It was not her, it was her "mind" speaking.  This is to divorce herself from responsibility.  

In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images.

Note that here she tells us that she only saw Patrik in her "mind" but not in reality. It is the same as saying that she did not see Patrik. Note that even when people lie, they choose language based in reality.

It is critical in the analysis to know "how" she saw Patrik: it was in "blurred" images; not just "images" but "blurred images". Take note of this as we proceed:

I saw him near the basketball court.

This is not to say in blurred images. "Basketball court" is in her mind when she says this. Is there a basketball court nearby? For whatever reason, "basket ball court" enters her vocabulary because it is in her thinking.

I saw him at my front door.

The front door is also in her thoughts. Again, this does not say "blurry images".  That Patrik was at her front door should cause investigators to learn if she had approached him for sex, or he had approached her.  Did one flirt?  Did one attempt some sexual action during the sexual assault on Amanda?  "Patrik" and "door" are together in her words.  

I saw myself cowering in the kitchen

She states that she saw herself "cowering" in the kitchen. This "cowering" is something done in fear or shock. Why is this in her thinking, and therefore, entering her language? What is she telling us?

Was this when they were "washing" or mopping the floor?  Next we have the same body part that needed cleansing:  

with my hands over my ears

Here, in her language, is her "hands" now mentioned, as well as her "ears". We note that previously, she spoke of her "ears" as in need of washing. Since she was also washing Raeffaele, she would be using her hands; which would then become clean. "Ears" is important to her (sensitive) which is noted by its repetition.  This washing and ears is linked and highly sensitive to Amanda. Was there blood behind or on her ears?  Or, was it the screams she sought to silence with the covering?

because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming.

This is now reported in her head: "I could hear Meredith screaming" as in her language, but only in her "head". Why does this enter her language? Is it because she heard Meredith screaming?

What was she screaming?

Was she screaming for help from Amanda?

But I've said this many times so

Note that all self references are to be considered weak and unreliable. This indicates that she is remembering what she told others previously, rather than working from experiential memory.

as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me,

Note two things:

1. These things "seem" unreal; not that they are unreal.
2. These things seem unreal to "me" but not unreal to others.

This is deceptive language

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.

Note that she is trying to answer questions in her head, first, but then the questions posed to her secondly. The order is always to be noted as important.

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,

The word but means to refute what has come before and note what follows. Tis 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 she is "unsure" about the truth, and not denying having killed Meredith yet; and will tell us why; noting that the explanation of why is sensitive within itself as it is out of the boundary of the general and open question of "What happened?", unless she is answering the police allegations. 

1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places xc xat 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.

Note that Amanda acknowledges that it may be true, and if so, it only means that she is "very confused" and what she calls a "dream" must be real. An innocent person does not acknowledge that any falsehood could be true. Note pronoun usage. This is one of the key points of Statement Analysis.

Pronouns can even precede speech. We learn to say "mine" and "my" from our earliest age (sometimes "my" is signaled by a baby's hands, pre speech).

Pronouns are instinctive in language.

Everyone has an internal dictionary. If I say
"girl" to you all, one might think of a baby girl being born; another might think of a teenager. Each of us has our own internal personal dictionary and a good investigator seeks to enter into a subject's personal dictionary.

There are, however, two exceptions: articles (the, a) and pronouns. She uses pronouns that place her in guilt.

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. Note what she frames, however, with the pronoun, "I": "I have said things that I know are not true". This is not something an innocent person would normally say. Even as we flag it as such, we note how often she frames guilty words within her statement.

I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly.

Note the first sentence has no additional words, nor qualifiers.

But then note that she also claims to remember the precise moment in which she told him that. Not only is it likely deceptive to report what one doesn't remember, but the obvious contradiction present to the claim of a faulty memory.

I also NEVER asked him to lie for me.

Note that "never" does not mean "no" and when found in a denial, it is not as reliable as "I didn't ask him to lie"; which is short (without the additional "for me". The extra words tell us that she likely told him to lie; just not for her, but for them both.

This is absolutely a lie.

Additional word "absolutely" noted  here for emphasis.  This is to say that other things may not have been "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.

That she feels the need to add that he was "so caring and gentle" indicates a need for the description. This indicates that Raffaele was not "caring and gentle" that night. It is a conflict for Amanda Knox.  It is a betrayal to her.  

What does he have to hide?

Note that by asking this question, she intimates that he has something to hide from investigators and would spur them on to find out what it is.

I don't think he killed Meredith,

Note the qualifier "think". "I left my keys in the car" versus "I think I left my keys in the car"; is weak and not reliable as she gives room for doubt. It also may be where she does not "think" he killed her, but he "knows" it.

She cannot say it plainly.  

but I do think he is scared, like me.

Note that Amanda links herself with him even after expressing doubt of his innocence. This would be a theme investigators need to follow up on. Why does she continue to link herself with him?

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.

Note that he "walked" into. It is likely that she is indicating tension on the night in question and is putting responsibility on him for "walking into" it. It is a strange sentence. Note also that he is "disassociating" himself "with" me; which is distance, but unified, where as
"from me" would be have distant and separated. Amanda Knox does not appear able to distance herself from him. This cooperation with him shoud be noted.

She acknowledges that it may be his plan to disassociate from her.  Why would this be useful to someone?


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

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:
note "can't explain which may indicate fear of consequences"

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

The truth is,

noted again that now she is going to tell the truth, raising the question of what she has told previously.

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

Distancing language from her friend, Meredith 

Note that "someone" is gender free even though she knows the victim is a female. Note also that when she said it took so long to call the police she said when she found the door open and then added the additional information about "blood" in the bathroom. Note that she raised the question, "Why did it take you so long?" but did not give answer.

We may use the same principle in Statement Analysis as if someone had plainly asked her a question and she did not answer it:

When a question is not answered, it means the question is sensitive. We have an expression: if the subject didn't answer your question, the subject did.

Why would Amanda Knox not identify her best friend by name, but rather use the genderfree "someone"? The use of "someone" being gender free should provoke investigators to press the issue of sex in the case, as the victim is now reduced, deliberately by the choice of words, to sexless. This is an attempt to distance herself from Meredith, and 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.

Who might the "someone" who got hurt, but left quickly to take care of it be? This may be an indication of various alibis discussed.

She now has the need to explain the blood.  Even as if an answer to the question, note what she uses for an excuse: 

I also thought that maybe one of my roommates was having menstral [sic] problems and hadn't cleaned up.

We have "thought" which allows for another "thought" to the contrary, and we have "maybe", which also reduces commitment.  This is safe to conclude:  Amanda Knox did not think this was the source of blood.

Perhaps I was in shock,
Note the qualifier, "perhaps"

but at the time I didn't know what to think and that's the truth.

Note the need to emphasize as she really wants to be believed here, weakening even further, the belief of the source of blood.  

That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.

She thought that maybe one of her roommates had a gynecological problem so she spoke to Raffaele to give advice. 

What does this tell us?

The deceptive one has confidence in her own talent and ability to deceive others; which comes from childhood.  

2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events

Note that she can't "fully" recall rather than just "recall". Note again that the subject tells us what can't be remembered is often deceptive and is noted here as another indication of deception.

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

She acknowledges that what she has said is incriminating.

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.

I have added the emphasis to her statement with the explainations already given. Note the self reference, "what I said before" in her statement means that it is not coming from experiential memory, which is at ease, but through the tension of trying to remember a lie.

Note also that whenever a sentence begins with "And" it is an indication of information that has been left out.

3. I'm very confused 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.

Note that she acknowledges that she has attempted to confuse them and that she "wants" to tell the truth, rather than she has told the truth. Future tense statements are found in most every murder investigation statement that is released to the press.

We  note that in her personal dictionary, there is "truth" and there is "real" truth and there is the "best" truth. This is an indication that Amanda Knox has been lying and likely has a life long habit of lying that may have become highly evidenced when she hit puberty. (see "menstrual") 

I'm trying, I really am, because I'm scared for myself.

This is why she is trying: she is scared for herself; but does not say she is scared for her boyfriend.  This is to show only self, not the murder victim, nor anyone else, including her family.  

I know I didn't kill Meredith.

Does Amanda Knox believe that the final, fatal blow, was delivered by Raffaele, himself, rather than her? This is sometimes seen when two or more assailants take part in a murder, but the final inflicted injury that causes immediate death is attributed to one (rather than acting "in concert" in any way) It would take extensive interviewing with Amanda Knox to learn if she believes this to be so. We sometimes see this in drug overdosage where one gives drugs to the victim, but if the victim took the drugs on his or own accord, the supplier can say "I didn't kill him" and pass a polygraph.

That's all I know for sure.

Whenever someone says "that's all I know" it is an indication of withholding information.


Because truthful people will continually make attempts to remember any detail that may help police and often stay up late at night, losing sleep, in an attempt to recall anything not previously remembered. 

In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer,

Patrik is the murderer but only in her flashbacks

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.

bold type added by me for emphasis. Capital letters were written by Knox. Note that the "truth" (not "real" truth, nor "best" truth) only "feels" in her mind. She also shows deception by telling us what she does not remember, and then frames the words "I was at my house that night" within her statement.

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

Note that these questions only need answering for Amamda Knox. What does she want answers to?

Her best friend has been brutally murdered and she needs answers to:

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

Ask yourself how what questions you might have if you found your best friend and roommate murdered.
Who did it?
Is the killer loose?
Am I in danger of being killed, too?

Not so for Amanda Knox.  

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?

Note that pronouns are exempt from personal internal dictionary and are universal. Here we have "my presence" and "my memory"; taking ownership of both. In her framed words, she says "my presence at the time and place of the crime" even though it is worded in the form of a question. This is not what someone who was not present for the crime would do.

4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?

This question, the 4th in priority, seeks information that would condemn Patrik or anyone else, rather than herself.

"Person" is gender neutral; allowing for the possibility of a female, and not just a male like Patrik.

3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]?

Note that in her list of questions, how low in priority this is. Note also the emphasis she places, both linguistically and in caps of "real" killer. Who caused the final, fatal infliction of injury that caused immediate death?

This may suggests that others had a role in killing her, but someone inflicted the fatal wound.  I do not think it was Amanda Knox who inflicted the fatal wound, only that she was present for the sexual assault.  

This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.

Note "feel" as a qualifier (someone may "feel" otherwise") weakening her assertion.

I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me.

If it is missing  why would it be bad for her?  The only way to answer this is to know what she believes is missing; likely fro the questions posed by police  

Note the indication of deliberatley withheld information in the form of negation.

But this is the truth

Note that this is the "truth" and not the "real" nor "best" truth for Amanda Knox.

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.

Note the addition of "help anyone". This may reveal the motive for why she has attempted to "confuse" police (though they likely claimed not to be confused). She said the police were confused but didn't tell us that the police said they were confused. If the police did not say that they were confused, it is likely that she has revealed her motive for contradicting herself and her extreme use of qualifiers: deception by confusion. Her confusion is meant to help herself.

I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.

Note that there is no need to delay ("soon as possible") as truth can simply be told here and now. This sentence tells us that she has not told investigators the truth and investigators will have to wait for the truth.

If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are.
Note understanding with investigators who have accused her of murder is not something innocent subjects say. It is a form of manipulation. .

Please believe me at least in that,

She asks, with sensitivity (please) to be believed in "at least" that she is "trying"; not that she has told them the truth about the murder.

although I understand if you don't.
Note above.

All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.

Note again the phrase "all I know" is an attempt to end the inquiry.

Technically, this is not a reliable denial as it violates the 3 component law by adding, "all I know" to the denial.  

Yet, consider that Amanda Knox may not have killed Meredith.  

What Statement Analysis concludes is this:

The language of Amanda Knox shows "guilty knowledge of a sexual homicide."

She was present for the sexual assault.  

Amanda Knox owns her involvement in Meredith's death with a pronoun, "my". Someone who was not involved in Meredith's death would not state "my involvement", because they would not own it. This is akin to a confession. When police have a false confession or a prisoner of war is forced to give a false confession, we find in their statements a lack of ownership of the crime, even during the confession. A false confession will often slip into present tense language, and give indications of deception regarding the confession itself. Amanda Knox gives indications of deception regarding the crime, not the confession.

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 using her own language. She fails the polygraphy of Statement Analysis and places herself at the scene of the murder and is deceptive throughout her account.

In her account not only does she show ownership of the crime, but places herself at the crime scene and links sexual activity with the crime itself.

Regarding the murder of Meredith Kitchner, Amanda Knox shows herself as deceptive, and has guilty knowledge of the  the death of Meredith Kercher.


trustmeigetit said...

I blacked out once from mixing alcohol

I remember a few things from the night..... before I blacked out. Then nothing until the next day when I woke up.

But when I spoke about it later, I didn't speak of what I didn't recall, flashes or dreams.

It was simple. I remember xyz and then blacked out a don't remember anything else.


Amanda rambles on and on and on about nothing.

This is not a "what happened" that night but a crazy rambling story.

I just can't wrap my head around what happened. Like we know Rudy had sex woth Meredith and was in the room after her murder (evidence) but how they became involved I just don't have any thoughts.

Anonymous said...

What effect does police bullying, threatening ("please don't yell at me" and she was charged with a crime for saying the police hit her)? Also assume that it is true that she went up to the house and the door was wide open, and that she took a shower for innocent reasons. If those two facts were true, how would she express those facts without a statement analyst drawing conclusions about sex abuse, sexual homicide, etc.?

Hey Jude said...

Wow - that is a great analysis - it took some reading.

One thought;

'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.'

If she had been asked a few days ago, she would have said (claimed) it was impossible there could be evidence- but now she has been told there is hard evidence, she has lost confidence in the impossibility of her being there. If she was sure she was not there, she would not change her mind, even if she was told there was evidence - I would expect her to say it must be a mistake, and it was just as impossible now as it was a few days ago, if either she knew she was not at the murder scene or (truly) had no recollection of being there when Meredith was murdered.


I am more convinced of their involvement now than I was previously, on account of all the water and washing references - SA gives such a different perspective - it's fascinating when the 'ordinary' seeming things which at one timeI would have passed over as unnecessary detail turn out to be so indicative and significant. Thanks for the great blog, Peter - that can't be said often enough.

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

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,

Peter, I will go one step further and say that she frames “this I want to confirm” as the allegation being affirmative. She is not just acknowledging that there was evidence to her being there, but that there was hard evidence.

This, […] is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.

Instead she avoids (lies) about the allegation and writes about a completely different period of time. She responded, “would be impossible.” to the allegation. She didn’t say “is”, she used the conditional conjugation “ would be” (future conditional) in the past. (This would be impossible, if [you were to have] asked [me] a few days ago.) Note dropped pronouns. The verb tense she chose to use makes this a true statement. Who would have believed it? Certainly not her. Still she doesn’t say she didn’t or couldn’t [do it]. She says that a few days ago (her actions,) would be impossible. But admits not anymore when she writes: “This I want to confirm.”


Nic said...

After that I believe we relaxed in his room together,

Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him.

In fact, I think I did make love [with] him.

She records all her activity as passive, “perhaps” she read/studied/made love “to”, as in my opinion, indifference. “perhaps” is repeated, so I interpret what she was not doing was sensitive.

As an afterthought she adds, "in fact" she “thinks” she made love with Raffaele. The word, “with”, is not the same as the word, “to”. The word “to" implies that it’s something done to Raffaele, not between them/one way. The word, “with” is distant, “him” is distant. For example, she went shopping with Raffaele and Meredith (or with him). Rafael and Meredith are together, and she is the outsider. "With him" would imply no unity and distance from Raffaele (him versus proper name).

Peter said: "Was there two episodes of sexual activity, one that she was less willingly involved in?
Note that "with" shows distance and is not "Raffaele and I made love", or "we made love" which would be more unified. The difference, however subtle, is noted.”

Expanding on what you’ve said here, Peter, I have a theory based on “with” and “to". Note that Meredith “left” sometime around 3 (liars number) or 4. So Amanda is not committed to the time she “left” their apartment. But that when she did leave, between 3 or 4, there was tension.

Based on your analysis and what I am learning, I agree that this was a sexual homicide. What if there were in fact two episodes of sexual activity, the “first” involving Raffaele and Meredith and then the “second” involving Amanda and Raffaele, as per her secondary thought of: “in fact”, I think I made love [with] him.”? Based on the word, “with”, (distancing) she demonstrates she was a secondary participant to the love making. Perhaps she was uninvited, as per my above analysis of supposed passive activity prior to making love “to” Raffaele.

So what was she doing while Raffaele and Meredith were together? Perhaps she studied, perhaps she read email….Or, perhaps she was watching and became jealous? So she jumped in (between) and made love “to” Raffaele? "Then, 'after that’ I ‘believe’ we relaxed together. Weakness with the word “believe”. The word, believe, is an opinion, it is not fact. So maybe she was the only one good with the opinion that everyone was “relaxed” about their commingling.

I don't think I did much.

Reporting what didn’t happen means that this period of time is sensitive and it could be that there was more going on than not much. She will only commit to smoking pot (to relax,) but not to ‘sleeping’. So if she wasn’t sleeping what was she doing in-between relaxing and smoking pot [after sex] and showering?

One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time.

The need to cleanse/washing is associated with homicide (i.e., truck station explanation.)

Nic said...

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.

...or, “just” dreams my head has made to .try to answer the questions in my head”

In my opinion anticipating what investigators will ask her and coming up with answers to the “'dreams’ and" (versus,) "the questions I am being asked"

The word, “dream", isn’t just what happens in our subconscious during sleep, it’s also what we “conceive” or “devise” (make up!) in our mind. So she says that she is conceiving answers to answer the questions she thinks they’ll ask her [and] the questions “I am being” (with certainty) asked.

Something about this statement of “facts” she wrote always struck me odd. Specifically, she was always placing them in Raffaele’s room. Once they left the apartment she shared with Meredith and the others, to watch a movie at Raffaele's, why keep saying, his apartment, his kitchen, his bedroom? He lived on his own, so why not just say, "we relaxed” without having to qualify that they were in “Raffaele’s” room relaxing? This need to show location and ownership/possession comes across as very sensitive to me. My impression, instead, is that a lot of their time was spent at the girls’ apartment, hence the sensitivity of labeling possession of rooms (bedroom, bathroom, shower, kitchen) until she marks the time at 11:00PM when they have dinner.


Nic said...

Actually, she says "just dreams" (as opposed to what alternative,) "her head has made" (distancing, not taking ownership/responsibility for the dreams and answers conceived and the answers conceived "and" for what investigators asked)


lynda said...

Great analysis...it was difficult to read and comprehend first thing in the morning! lol!
I did not follow this case. Amanda Knox sounds like she's mentally unbalanced to someone like me that has not read numerous accounts of this crime and her "confessions" or know any of the evidence. All this "think, perhaps, maybe, my head, dreams, blurry" talk is ridiculous. Who talks like that? Is she this "confused" because of some pot? That must've been some magic pot to cause all this "confusion".

I also agree with "trustme" as I experienced the same in my youth. When you black out, you black out. Nada, zip. The time that passed while you were blacked out does not come back, ever in my experience. She almost sounds like someone that experienced a terrible event and "blocked" it out and then it is coming back to her a bit at a time. Big difference. It also means she was present at a terrible event. A sexual homicide would qualify.


Klein investigations was on FB yesterday answering questions regarding their investigation into what happened to baby Deorr. Someone posted that your SA page had some very interesting blogs regarding the case. Klein replied "Don't believe everything you read on the internet." He is pompous and arrogant in my opinion thusfar. He has a 'body language" expert on his team, and an "interview expert" though. Did you rub Klein the wrong way Peter? lol

Unknown said...

Hi Lynda,

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet"...*says the guy answering questions on FaceBook.

Too funny, lol

John Mc Gowan said...

The constant reference to water is disturbing.

Nic said...

Earlier today, I came across this when I was researching Meredith Kercher’s death. She made a cameo appearance in a music video, called “Some Say” for Kristian Leontiou.


She was a very beautiful young lady and by all accounts, very well liked.

lynda said...

Jen Ow said...
Hi Lynda,

"Don't believe everything you read on the internet"...*says the guy answering questions on FaceBook"


Nic - she may be well liked and beautiful but considering Peter's track record I defer to him. She's an accomplished liar and had a hand in a torturous murder. *shiver*

jenniewren said...

I think Nic was talking about Meredith, not Amanda.

Anonymous said...

I find Amanda Knox extremely disturbing. From watching and listening to her, I believe she is a pathological liar and a sociopath. I hope the truth about what happened that night will come to light soon. I watched the recent Guede interview and have watched interviews with Sollecito as well, and I think they are also lying. Three liars makes the truth very unlikely to come out. I pray it will.

Nic said...


The link I provided was of Meredith Kercher's cameo in a video for the song, "Some Say", by Kristian Leontiou. My comment was in reference to Meredith’s beauty captured in the video and of Meredith's friends’ description of her (well liked, intelligent, innocent, witty, etc.). :)

Part 1
(From a translated transcript of Matteini Report) "… On her side, Knox, Amanda, on 6 November 2007, first at 1.45, then at 5.45, declared to the Public Prosecutor that on Thursday 1 November 2007, at 20.30, while she was at the house of Sollecito, Raffaele, she had received a message on her cell phone sent by a Patrick, manager of Le Chic pub, where she herself was working, by which the aforesaid [=Patrick] advised her that that night the local was going to stay shut and that therefore she did not need to go, the same [=Amanda] responding to him that they would meet up later, therefore left the house telling Sollecito that she was going to work while, on the contrary, she took herself to the basketball courts in Piazza Grimana; here she met Patrick, with whom she went back to the via della Pergola apartment, where she could not remember whether Meredith was already there or if the same [=Meredith] had joined them a short while later, adding however that, notwithstanding the confused memories arising from the hashish afternoon, Patrick took Meredith aside, with whom he had taken a fancy to, into her bedroom where they were having sex, that she could not remember whether the latter [=Meredith] had been menaced first but that it had been Patrick to kill her; specifying that in those moments she could not attest to hearing Meredith scream insofar as she was so frightened she blocked her ears, imagining what could have been happening. ..."

** Patrick L. was cleared. He was at the Le Chic all night. A traveling Swiss professor was at Le Chic speaking to him that night and a porter corroborated each other’s alibi as he was also at Le Chic repairing a drink dispenser.

Nic said...

Part 2

** The basketball court was known to be the meeting place for petty drug transactions.

** Rudy Guede was a known petty drug dealer and had a record. He initially reported he had arranged with Meredith to meet at her house and arrived about 8:30. He said he became intimate with her (consensually ) but they did not have sex; he said Meredith discovered her rent money was missing and blamed Knox. DNA evidence/prints put Guede at the apartment: in the bathroom and in Meredith’s bedroom. Blood evidence (footprint) puts him walking out the front door. However, according to CCTV Guede was in the vicinity (seen coming/going) twice, 7:15PM and again thought to be him at 8:10 or 8:20 (time was adjusted by 10 minutes during the trial).

**Raffaele’s computer time stamps the movie Amelie starting at 6:27PM, at 9:10PM the movie concludes, (human interaction on computer is electronically recorded). "Raffaele Sollecito’s computer had a remote control. If the remote is used (pause) it doesn’t register as a human interaction”. I went onto IMDb to look up how long the movie was and it says the duration is 2h2minutes. That makes 41 minutes wherein the movie had been “paused”.

**9:26 Spotlight metadata shows “Naruto ep 101.avi” file is opened on Raffaele’s laptop. [duration 23 minutes]

** CCTV shows that Meredith did not arrive home until 9:00PM; her cell phone shows activity at 8:56 (calling her mum,) 10:00 (dialing a bank) and 10:13 to access the internet (MMS) for 13 secs.

**Remarkably it is believed CCTV video captured Amanda Knox on the way to the cottage at appx. 8:55, but neither side use the footage during the trial and Amanda maintained that she was at Raffaele’s all night.

** Meredith and Amanda’s roommate, Robyn, reported problems between Meredith and Amanda, Amanda bringing strange men back to the apartment which Meredith didn’t approve of. Pg. 96 The Murder of Meredith Kercher https://books.google.ca/books?id=EeG5FWMbgokC&pg=PA93&lpg=PA93&dq=Patrick+Lumumba+freed+after+a+university+professor+provides+alibi&source=bl&ots=5mUgehByOJ&sig=fV6rpdIqL6x6xJSbFT-d12Cct9M&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiAhs-ZmtzKAhXGgYMKHQM9CtYQ6AEIODAF#v=onepage&q=Patrick%20Lumumba%20freed%20after%20a%20university%20professor%20provides%20alibi&f=false

Reference Knox’s translated “confession” above is not too off of electronic time stamps of the timeline and falls into line with third-party witnesses:


8:18 Amanda receives a text from Patrik saying she doesn't have to work.

8:35 Amanda respond's to Patrik's text.

8:40 a friend of Raffaele's stops by to say she no longer needs a ride from him. She reports that Amanda was the one who answered the door and invited her in, but she declined.

8:42 Raffaele's dad calls him. Raffaele tells his dad that he was with Knox, they had eaten and he was washing the dishes and notices a leaky pipe under the sink.

**Both Amanda and Raffaele's phones are turned off.**

Just reporting the facts as I discovered them.

Dan N said...

"Statement Analysis" is a pseudoscience. It's used to justify whatever the person doing it wants to believe.

Nic said...

Part 3

Rudy Guede's DNA was found in Meredith, although the swab tested negative for semen. So it's absolutely true that he was there and that he had (imo, by the bruising and wound described in the autopsy report) non-consensual sex with Meredith.

Raffaele's DNA was only found on a cigarette butt (one shared by Amanda and Raffaele according to DNA,) but he admits to being at the cottage in the days leading up to, and earlier in the day of, the murder.

As for Amanda and Raffaele being there: Amanda lied *a lot* about what happened that evening, even going as far as to accuse an innocent man. People don't lie unless they have something to hide. Speculating: Maybe her reasoning was if she protected Guede and didn't put put him at the scene of the crime, then he wouldn't put her there, either. So she threw Patrick under the bus saying he wasn't at work, (corroborating witnesses' testimony of a "man of colour" bumping into them/running from the cottage around 10:00PM); and Guede in turn Meredith by saying that he had made arrangements to meet Meredith at 8:30 at the cottage and had "consensual" sex with her then.

Guede's presence at the cottage is indisputable. Amanda, however, lied to Raffaele when she said she was leaving to go to Le Chic, but instead met Patrick at the basketball court. (The bar wasn't closed, Patrick was there all night.) The basketball court was a place petty drug transactions occurred. Guede was known to police as a petty drug dealer and thief. Amanda's departure from Raffaele's fits with the possible CCTV video of her arriving at the cottage shortly before Meredith, (as per Amanda's vague recollection in the above-quoted translation whether Meredith was there at the cottage, or she arrived shortly after Amanda). And it also coincides with Guede seen loitering on CCTV around the area at 8:20.

So, imo, there is much doubt around Amanda being at Raffaele's from 8:45PM onwards, Patrick being at the cottage instead of the bar (proven) or with Guede having 'consensual' sex with Meredith at 8:30 (proven via CCTV of Meredith arriving home at 9:00PM.) The only thing that is certain is that Meredith was at home at 9:00 and so was Raffaele (as per the movie he concluded at 9:10 and the episode he subsequently 'opened' on his laptop at appx. 9:26 -- which lasted for 23 minutes).

There is no accounting for Raffaele after that because his phone was off until the next morning.


So many loose ends. I feel very sorry for the Kercher family. It is indisputable that Guede was at the cottage and he committed a horrible act to Meredith. But there is so much doubt around Amanda Knox's innocence because of her lies and accusations about an innocent third-party. IMO, it's difficult to accept that justice was entirely served in regards to Meredith's murder.

lynda said...

Dan N said...
"Statement Analysis" is a pseudoscience. It's used to justify whatever the person doing it wants to believe.

February 3, 2016 at 8:30 PM


Does this mean we won't be seeing you commenting on Peter's blog again?

Anonymous said...

Hey Jude, excellent point about "hard evidence" for an innocent person.

Long ago an employer tried to scare me into confessing a theft of a few thousand dollars. I was much younger, so I took them all literally instead of realizing they must be bluffing (and that they likely were running the same bluff on all of us).

When after lengthy questioning they said they had the theft on video, I got mad!
I yelled at them, the store manager, detective and a cop, "Why are you all scaring the crap out of me when you didn't even bother to watch the (censored) tape! Put it in now!"

They sent me out immediately; they were all laughing but I was still furious they would be so stupid.
Now I'm sure it was a bluff, of course, but even "hard evidence" wasn't going to change my answers.

Anonymous said...

She should serve 25 years just for trying to pin it on an innocent man, and life without parole when the full truth comes out about her own involvement.

She is a sociopath snd lifelong liar and manipulator. She has zero remorse and Meredith probably isn't her last victim, if even her first.

Anonymous said...

Peter, you're wrong. What you are doing here is analysing the statements of a young woman who was interogated for HOURS and HOURS, who was TOLD what she was supposed to have done by corrupt officials.
I don't see how you can claim accuracy in analysing Amanda's words when she was not in a position to even think clearly;she was bullied and facing people who were determined to fit her into a narrative THEY concocted.
Amanda has been through too much already. It's cruel to keep suspicion on a young woman who has been to hell and back trying to get on with her life after experiencing such a nightmare.

John Mc Gowan said...

Lawyers volunteer to help Amanda Knox co-defendant Rudy Guede

By truecrimespodcast on February 2, 2016


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

Anonymous @3:34AM, statement analysis aside, there is evidence of at least two lies Amanda told before Meredith was killed, (The second lie) saying she was going to meet up with Patrick, when in fact she was up to something completely different. Raffaele said that those days were very magical and they were inseparable. But evidence shows me that if she was lying to get away from him that night to begin with (the first lie!), the bloom had quickly come off the rose for her; she just wasn't being honest about her feelings. And if you want to debate that, then let’s acknowledge a third lie that ties lies one and two together that went on for *weeks*. This lie destroyed the life of an innocent man. Her lie tainted his reputation to the point he lost his business and the ability to support his young family. Amanda's lie stole his "life" from him. As a result, Patrick was forced to move his family to Poland because of the fallout associated with her lie. She only “recanted” her perpetuating lie when the Swiss professor, who had travelled back home after that night with Patrick at Le Chic, caught the news feed about Patrick L.’s plight. Any way you might want to slice and dice it, this lie was NOT made under "duress". I would argue that if the professor had never seen the story, she would not have been motivated to recant her lie in the first place, and that she *reluctantly* did so when it was proven she was lying! Looking at it this way, think about what might not have happened that night if Amanda had simply done what she has tried to convince everyone around her about that night. (That she was with Raffaele "all night" at his place.) The evidence doesn't entirely agree with her and in my opinion, her proven lies reinforce the fact that she has somethings to hide, otherwise, why lie? Consequently, her disregard for her employer and friend's life (Patrick L.) and the merciless impact she knew it had on his young family, demonstrates to me her lack of integrity in the matter of her innocence regarding the murder of her friend, Meredith Kercher.


~mj said...

Anon, try and understand - had Amanda been innocent then her "coherced" words due to "hours and hours" of interrogation, upon analysis, would have indicated no guilty knowledge. The point with SA is not what is believed to be understood about what a person chooses to say, rather the words they choose to use.

Had Amanda been innocent, even in her ramblings after being interrogated for hours, her word choice would have indicated innocence. It didnt. Accept that and move on, or don't.

~mj said...

Nic, I really enjoy your comments. They are well articulated and clear on your line of thinking. Thank you.

~mj said...

Dan, I appreciate your opinion. You certainly have a nugget of truth, in that, SA can be misused to justify a person's agenda.

However, because SA is so accurate, when a person is using it to further their agenda, it will become obvious in their word choice.

I hope you dig deeper into SA and give it a fair shake when examining principals. The principals of SA are undeniable.

This blog does a fabulous job of highlighting the principals.

trustmeigetit said...

And now as she sits free back in America, she still can not just plainly state "I was not there" or that "I did not kill Meredith"

In fact one statement that always stood out when asked about her guilt was "there is no proof I was there when it happened"

If you were innocent would you not say simply "I was not there"

That's what SA does.

It is about what innocent people typically say versus what guilty people say.

If guilty 911 callers start with a greeting and innocent start by asking for help for the victim..then you have patterns

This was not based on one or 2 cases. It was developed over years of study. The man who invented this was a former Israeli police lieutenant.

So a man that has heard truth and lies found a pattern if you will.

Guilty say this. Innocent say this.

It's simple.

If I ask you now of you helped kill Meredith, your going to just say no.

Your not going to tell me there's no evidence you were there.

Anonymous said...

Trust me, mj and nic
You have a very good way of explaining things'
I enjoy reading your comments here. And most of the time agree.

Nic said...

Thanks guys. :0)

I would like to share an observation I made while reading all that I could manage to read the past couple of days and hear if you've noted the same thing: *Nobody* stood by Amanda Knox in those early days, except for Raffaele. Reading through translations of reports, reported observations and impressions of flatmates, and neighbours, etc., and listening on YouTube to Raffaele being interviewed last year here in the US, I was struck how he 'cared' for her. I'm talking, buying it, cooking it, cleaning it, showing her around, picking her up from work at the end of her shift when she called for a ride. Even the way Knox describes the way he washed her was very indulgent. To me he comes across as a pleaser/Mr. Fixit. When the cards came crumbling down, he was there at her beckon call, to investigate the cottage, to call police, and to speak on her behalf (because of her broken Italian). And in the end, her advocate. I came away with the impression that she used him --because she lied to him that night Meredith lied. I believe him when he says that the only reason why he was on trial was because he was her boyfriend. I don't even think he will ever how profound that revelation is! I think Knox latching onto Raffaele was by design and about using his devotion as a "shield of credibility". Unfortunately for him, it turned into a guilty by association thing.


Nic said...

** meant to type, "the night that Meredith died".

Anonymous said...

It's been awhile since I watched Raffaele's videos and read interviews, but when I did I believed he was involved. His statements, though not as odd as Amanda's, were very evasive. There have also been times where he appears to withdraw his support for her story.

Anonymous said...

I thought I heard it said once, that Amanda's words could have been so confusing is because it was written in or translated from Italian, in which she wasn't fluent. (Happy to be corrected if wrong.)

From transcript:

That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.

She thought that maybe one of her roommates had a gynecological problem so she spoke to Raffaele to give advice.

What does this tell us?

The deceptive one has confidence in her own talent and ability to deceive others; which comes from childhood.

I know what it tells me; barring that R. has a million sisters or one or the other of his parents are medical officials, Amanda's a liar, because who would be desperate enough to ask a male randomly "Do you think it's her period?" Even assumed wacked out of her mind?

Also, and I believe this has been asked before but never satisfactorily answered; if worried someone might have been bleeding to death, had a miscarriage, whatever; why didn't Amanda go throughout the flat hollering her roommates' respective names? "I'll go to bed and think of it in the morning," like Scarlett O'Hara (not literal Amanda quote, naturally).

trustmeigetit said...

The one thing that was highly analyzed was a letter she wrote in English. Peter did a post just on the letter. You can google it...

Nic said...

From an article in People magazine: http://www.people.com/article/raffaele-sollecito-speaks-amanda-knox-verdict

"I am obviously very happy for Amanda, since I knew from the start that she had nothing to with it and I believed in her innocence," he says.


accept (something) as true; feel sure of the truth of.

hold (something) as an opinion; think or suppose.
"I believe we've already met"


Raffaele uses the word “believe” to validate his thoughts about Amanda’s innocence, and this pretty much validates what happened during the initial days and what he admits to doing: covering for Amanda and changing his story multiple times and to the point where he admits he had been lying because she asked him to cover for her.

"I no longer want to be known as 'Amanda Knox's former Italian boyfriend.' I want to be known for something else than being connected by the prosecutors to a gruesome murder in which I had no part.

He declares himself not just AK's former boyfriend, but very specifically as “Amanda Knox’s former Italian boyfriend.”

He acknowledges what he “ is” (connected to a gruesome murder).

In which I had no part (to “a” gruesome murder).

Not only does he not say Meredith’s name, he does not specifically reference her murder when saying he had no part. He says that he has not had a part to “a” gruesome murder; but he doesn’t reliably deny having a part in Meredith’s murder.

If he can’t say it, then we can’t say it for him.


Anonymous said...

I find this incredibly thoughtless and bizarre (not to mention creepy):


Polo said...

From the minute I first read Amanda's statements (years ago) I knew she was lying. I knew why the Italian police and prosecutors believed she was involved. If she had been in the USA I am sure a Grand Jury would have voted to indict.

FYI - I was a victim of a home invasion 10 years ago.
1) I remember EVERYTHING.
2) My recounting of the events never changed no matter how many times I had to tell it.
3) In hindsight, I noticed that my memory only became hazy regarding the events that occured after I was rescued. My memory of the ambulance ride and the hospital stay is rather fuzzy. This may be due to pain meds administered in the ambulance or my total relief that I survived.

In other words, while under the most enormous amount of fear that I have ever experienced, I remember it all and never changed a detail.

Penny said...

3. I'm very confused 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.

^ She says, "my involvement in Meredith's death," a la "my guilt" from OJ.

Anonymous said...

"best truth that i have been able to think" as if truth is malleable or something that you think up...

Anonymous said...

Timing is all over the place. Apart from the more obvious red flags, ´´ that's why I asked Rafa about it in the morning´´ has always bothered me. it's so grammaticlly wrong that a native speaker would never say this here. This phrase is always used about the following morning ie looking towards the future (ie= tomorrow morning) but Knox uses it here to refer to asking Rafa's advice five minutes later the same day, from the future. She could have said ''later that morning'' ''the same morning'' ''later'' or NOTHING AT ALL.

If she asked Rafah about the blood ''in the mornig'' then she saw that blood the night before IMO.

Anonymous said...

i wonder if Knox went to the Square to meet Rudy to buy drugs, or saw him there and asked for drugs. Maybe she didn't have money but knew that Meredith did. Could she have gone back to the cottage to get it, only to be caught out by Meredith returning home? Maybe something kicked off and then Rudy came down looking for Amanda, knowing she'd gone to get money and it escalated from there. Could Rafaelle been involved in the clean up, but not the actual murder, as Knox's little fixer? The timings of the cctv seem to fit.

Anonymous said...

Just to clarify the above, I'm wondering if she went back to 'borrow' Meredith's rent money from her drawer and was caught by Meredith.
I truly hope some justice comes for the Kercher family. I've read all the court transcripts available and followed the last hearing live. I was absolutely gutted when they found her and solleccito not guilty. I will never believe they were not involved in this in some way.

trustmeigetit said...

Exactly what we see from victims.

What's even worse, is she claims she was just chilling at Rafeals all night.

That should be her entire story.

She has never just said "I was at Rafs that night and when I went home to clean up the door was open and it concerned me"

That's your entire story.

Her written letter in jail was super long and there was way too much information and nothing.

Nic said...

Anonymous @ 627 said: This phrase is always used about the following morning ie looking towards the future (ie= tomorrow morning) but Knox uses it here to refer to asking Rafa's advice five minutes later the same day, from the future. “

Yes, because they had not yet been to bed. :0) They were having “dinner” and she was speaking to Raffaele about what 'she saw" at the cottage. jmo

As per...
Both turned their phones off after Sollecito's dad telephoned at 8:42.
Past cell phone usage behavior recanted at the Massei trial, showed they had never done this before.

RS’s phone is turned back on at 6:00AM, when his dad’s text from the night before is delivered. The computer is also activated: “…At 5:32:09 am someone attempted to play an MP3 file using the program VLC on Raffaele's computer.[24] This results in VLC crashing. There are two additional attempts to play the file using VLC that also lead to the program crashing.[25] The individual using the computer then switched to iTunes and successfully played the MP3 file which is roughly 30 minutes long.”

Nic said...

**recanted should be relayed

Anonymous said...

I keep coming back to this case and reading over and over all of Peter's and everyone else's analysis of Amanda's statements. Why this case? It bothers me that I don't *know* if she's lying, that I can't say with certainty if she did or did not participate in Meredith's murder. Before now, I was convinced Amanda was innocent, but now I'm not sure.
[I'm the poster who told Peter he was wrong in his analysis of Amanda because she was interogated and bullied for hours. I couldn't understand how Peter could be so wrong when he's usually right.]
Something that is really quite simple and obvious took me a long time to understand and that is Amanda placed herself at the scene, even in her denials. I got to thinking about her imagining and perhaps-ing over stuff, and how she is confused about everything, etc.. it's manipulative, right? But what if it only sounds that way because at the time of the murder she was seriously high on marijuana??
I tried marijuana recently and I got completely stoned. It was a surreal and bizzare experience that made me paranoid. Reality? I was in and out of reality, here and not here at the same time. What if THAT is what happened with Amanda? Could THAT explain her "dreaming" and rambling on about different scenarios?

Did they test Meridith and Amanda, and everyone questioned/involved with Meridith's murder for marijuana in their system?

Jon said...

Hi anonymous (and everyone else), nice to see someone who believes in Knox's innocence but seems to be open-minded enough to have changed their mind. You're a rare example as most advocates for her innocence seem to be blatantly dishonest with the truth with most not even acknowledging that there's a chance that she could be involved and, amazingly, seem unable to get their heads around the fact that Knox is as capable of lying as anyone else.

Not sure if anyone will ever read this, but here goes;

Going to your first question last, I do not know if both Meredith/Knox were ever tested for marijuana, and tbh I think it's slightly irrelevant.

If we take Knox's word for it that she did take some weed (and the alternative is that she needlessly lied about taking weed), then she really goes out of her to give an "innocent" explanation as opposed to just saying what we'd expect an innocent person in that position to have said. Ie, "I started to black out and that's all I remember".

Yes. She is being extremely manipulative, and I'm afraid it's quite obvious to anyone that gives her statement even a cursory glance.

As far as the interrogation goes, and going off of Peter's excellent analysis, the part where you expect her to say "They beat me into a confession!" is put as a low priority by Knox herself (without navigating back to the analysis, I believe she prioritizes being shocked/extremely tired) meaning that we would, at the minimum, have to be sceptical about whether the claim is true or not.

artlover said...

These "statement analyses" are the most ridiculous form of so-called analysis that I have ever come upon. While the Freudian interpretation to water, ears etc might have some weight and truth to it, the rest is ridiculous and utter hogwash. (E.g. how would the qualifier "utter" and the word "hogwash" be put into a different meaning, not to even speak about the passive voice I just used...?) Like the one person above wrote: how would one about telling the truth without it being pulled apart. How else do you say: "I found the door open" if you did find it open? Etc, etc ad infinitum. Utterly ridiculous. This seems like the work of a person of very average intelligence thinking he found something that is quite smart and therefore wants to show off with it, while truly intelligent people can see it for the utter rubbish it is.

artlover said...

One more thing: it has become clear in the last couple of years just how powerful the power of suggestion by interrogators actually is. Just Google or Youtube it. For Hyatt to ignore this very well-known phenomenon says a lot about him and his (lack of) method. 'Nuff said... Not wasting more time on this bum.

D said...

Shower is repeated over and over. Also it's just a part of the whole.SA in itself only points out things that then need to be backed up by proof.

D said...

So she was still under the police influence when she wrote in her prison diary? Why not say I was baked as hell and I don't know? Then of course they would test her to see how baked exactly. Knox was tested but I have to find out when and what the results were.