Wednesday, November 7, 2012

Amanda Knox Email Analyzed

The following is an email sent by Amanda Knox. Statement Analysis is in bold type, with all italicized words done for emphasis by analyst.

In Statement Analysis, we take no sides, and attempt to have no preconceived notions.

If you go into the analysis wanting to see something one way or the other, you will. Let the text speak for itself and use the same techniques here that you would on any statement. No one indicator is used to declare veracity or deception; but when taken on a whole, a picture emerges.

By Amanda Knox

This is an email for everyone, because id like to get it all out and
not have to repeat myself a hundred times like ive been having to do
at the police station. 
The first sentence often gives us the reason to write.  Here she wants to get it "all" out and not have to repeat herself.  Note that "because" is very important.  She is not sending the email to say "I didn't do it", but to help have to stop repeating herself.  This is according to her own words. 

some of you already know some things, some of
you know nothing. what im about to say i cant say to journalists or
newspapers, and i require that of anone receiving this information as
well. this is m account of how i found my roommate murdered the
morning of friday, november 2nd.
Note what is in the negative:  she "can't say" to journalists or newspapers.  
Note  "my roommate" is without a name, indicating trouble within the relationship.  It is an incomplete social introduction. 

The last time i saw meredith, 22, english, beautiful, funny, was when
i came home from spending the night at a friends house. It was the day
after halloween, thursday. I got home and she was still asleep, bu
after i had taken a shower and was fumbling around the kitchen she
She identifies the last time she "saw" "meredith".  Please next
note any inclusion of "shower" or "washing", "water" etc is an indication of sexual abuse. We look for any repeat mentioning as highly sensitive and important.

emerged from her room with the blood of her costume (vampire) still
dripping down her chin. We talked for a while in the kitchen, how the
night went, what our plans were for the day. Nothing out of the

What caused the blood to be dripping "still"?  She does not say. 
Next note:  Negation: In an open statement, when a subject tells us that "nothing" happened; or "nothing" out of the ordinary, it is a linguistic indicator that something out of the ordinary did take place, and that the subject is withholding information. We expect to be told what happened; or what was said; not what did not happen; or what was not said. This is noted for high sensitivity.

then she went to take a shower

Second mention of "shower" indicating high sensitivity. This means that "shower" is very important to the subject.  Water in statements is similar to when a school teacher notices a student suddenly washing her hands repeatedly, and becomes concerned for sexual abuse.  It is not that Amanda took a shower, or that Meredith took a shower:  it is that the subject felt it important enough to bring this common activity into her statement (email).  

and i began to start eating a
little while i waited for my friend (Raffaele-at whose house i stayed
over) to arrive at my house.

note verb tense. When a subject tells us that they "began" something, we cannot say that it was concluded; here she "began" to "start" eating; repetition of an action increased sensitivity. Note also any inclusion of eating, watching TV, drinking coffee in a statement often indicates social activity. This would lead us to question whether or not subject was alone at this time, or was with another person there who is not mentioned.

He came right after i started eating and
he made himself some pasta. as we were eating together meredith came
out of the shower and grabbed some laundry or put some laundry in, one
or the other and returned into her room after saying hi to raffael.

note the pace of the account. The pace, or "lines per hour" in which a person writes an account of a day is a highly accurate tool of polygraphy; and can indicate veracity or deception. With pace, we note any skip in time

after lunch

Temporal lacunae. Sensitive time period in which information has been withheld. 70% likely due to time stress (traffic, work, etc) but 30% is critical information deliberately withheld. Note the jump in time. )

began to play guitar with raffael and meredith came out
of her room and went to the door. she said bye and left for the day.
it was the last time i saw her alive.

In domestic homicides; we always look for the inclusion of departure words. When it is important enough for the subject to tell us that the words "good bye" or "see you later" (etc), this is often an indicator that the person is dead, by this time in the giving of the account. It can also, sometimes, indicate the time of death.

Here is a dramatic change of language.  First she said "the last time I saw her" but here, she adds the additional words, "last time I saw her alive."

The word "left" when used as a connecting verb, is a very sensitive signal that there is a story connected to the leaving:  it is why the subject mentioned it.  There is missing information in her account, right at this point.  This "blue" is the highest level of sensitivity an analyst can give.  The "leaving" of a place, as well as the reason "why" someone did something are the only two places where we high light the color coding blue:  the highest sensitivity we can give. 

after a little while of playing guitar me and raffael went to his
house to watch movies and after to eat dinner and generally spend the
evening and night indoors. we didnt go out.

Notice how she went to his house, without "leaving" or the use of the word "left":  this is the other way of mentioning a change of location without the sensitivity of "leaving" in a statement. 

Negation. The subject has told us what wasn't done. This is an inidication that the subject did go out.

the next morning

Temporal lacunae. In an interview, each jump in time is focused upon as being sensitive. We also look for unnecessary words. When an unnecessary or unimportant word is added, Statement Analysis teaches that it is doubly important.

i woke up
around 1030 and after grabbing my few things i left raffael's

"left" is an indication that the subject has withheld information, when it appears as an unnecessary connecting verb. For instance:

"I has a meeting at 1In order to go to lunch, one would have to "leave"; so "left" is unnecessary and often tells us critical information has been withheld. Crimes of theft are often solved by this one verb. In the above statement, a stolen item was removed from the office and hid in the subject's vehicle; which is why he mentioned leaving AND he mentioned his car. As he wrote this statement, he was thinking about the theft and where in the car he hid the item, so while writing out the account of his day, it entered into his language.

"left" is 70% time related, but the 30% is critical; therefore, whenever unnecessary use of "left" enters a statement, our interview will focus upon it. 0AM in my office. I left the office in my car to go to Mcdonalds. I came back, ate lunch, and..."

and walked the five minute walk back to my house to once
again take a shower and grab a chane of clothes.

The interview is going to focus upon sexual activity. Any word repeated is noted, but when a word is repeated this often and is associated with sexual abuse, the subject of sex, including unwanted sex (abuse) will be explored as possible motive.

i also needed to grab
a mop because after dinner raffael had spilled a lot of water on the
floor of his kitchen by accident and didnt have a mop to clean it up.

In Statement analysis, we highlight any use of "so" "since"
"because" because a subject is supposed to be telling us what happened; not why something happened. If the "why" enters, it is noted as sensitive.

Here, we have both a shower and now the washing of a floor being so sensitive that the subject has a strong need to explain her action. We have the inclusion of "fake blood" as important enough to enter the subject's internal dictionary, and now we have our 3rd mention of showering (something people do but don't feel the need to mention) and now a washing of the floor. It is something investigators will focus upon.

so i arrived home and the first abnormal thing i noticed was the door
was wide open.

We have another "so", highlighted, and we have order mentioned (first) which will lead us to ask what the 2nd abnormal thing is to the subject.

here's the thingabout the door to our house: its
broken, in such a way that you have to use the keys to keep it closed.
if we dont have the door locked, it is really easy for the wond to
blow the door open, and so, my roommates and i always have the door
locked unless we are running really quickley to bring the garbage out
or to get something from the neighbors who live below us.

always highlight (blue marker on the sensitivity chart) the use of "so" "since" "because" "therefore" (and even "and hence") as sensitive, and note that what follows is an explanation of "why"; which may be an attempt to persuade; rather than report.

important piece of imformation: for those who dont know, i inhabit a
house of two stories, of which my three roommates and i share the
second story appartment. there are four italian guys of our age
between 22 and 26 who live below us. we are all wuite good friends and
we talk often. giacomo is especially welcome because he plays guitar
with me and laura, one of my roommates, and is, or was dating
meredith. the other three are marco, stefano, and ricardo.) anyway, so
the door was wide open. strange, yes, but not so strange that i really
thought anything about it.

We have highlighted the door being open as sensitive because of the repetition, but notice now that it is no longer "abnormal" and is now "not so strange". When someone reports what happened, it should be past tense; first person singular. Any deviation is noted. When someone uses the "why", it is no longer a report of what happened, but an attempt to explain.

The inclusion of thoughts and emotions in honest accounts comes afterwards in a statement; not during. Note any inclusion as an indicator of deception.

assumed someone in the house was doing
exactly what i just said, taking out the trash or talking really
quietley to the neighbors downstairs. so i closed the door behind me
but i didnt lock it, assuming that the person who left the door open

Instead of reporting what happened, she wrote what she "assumed", which weakens commitment.  She can only "assume" or make an assumption, that people were doing "exactly what I said",  further reducing commitment. 

 This is a strong signal that she is not writing from memory of what happened, but of memory of what she previously said, even though she does not have confidence in her own previous statement. 
Note that she reports what she did not do (i didn't lock it), rather than what truthful people do:  report what they did, what they said, what they heard, and so on. 
Note that "so" seeks to explain why something was done rather than report what was done.  This is a signal that they are concerned about being asked later, and "better explain why" before I am asked.

(note: inclusion of something not done; also, doors locked, opened, closed; often associated with child abuse.)

would like to come back in. when i entered i called out if anyone was
there, but no one responded and i assumed that if anyone was there,
they were still asleep. lauras door was open which meant she wasnt
home, and filomenas door was also closed. my door was open like always

Here, she again anticipates the need to explain her actions.  Truthful people simply report what they did, and what happened.  When someone has the need to explain why they did something, it is in blue, the highest level of sensitivity (along with 'left') in analysis. 
She has a need to tell us why she called out.  This is very sensitive to her. 

Also note that "like always" is the same as "normal";  an indication that it was anything but normal. 
Entering a door, doop opening, door closing is related to sexual activity. 
This is an attempt to persuade; not report

and meredith door was closed, which to me weant she was sleeping. i
undressed in my room and took a quick shower in one of the two
bathrooms in my house, the one that is right next to meredith and my
bedrooms (situated right next to one another).

Note that meredith's door being closed only means she was sleeping to the subject, with "to me" (this suggests that to others, her door closed has a different meaning.  This small inclusion of two words, "to me", is critical.  The writer knows that Meredith's door being closed has a different meaning than the one given by Knox. 

Next note more of the language of a sexual homicide:  Everyone who showers undresses.  It is, therefore, needless to say one undressed, making it doubly important for the subject.  Those with no knowledge of this case, only understanding Statement Analysis, will conclude sexual homicide. 
When it is important enough to enter the subject's language, it is vital to the account.

it was after i stepped
out of the shower and onto the mat thatnoticed the blood in the

1.  Note the repetition of "shower":  washing is very important to the subject.  We find this in both victims and perpetrators' written statements involving sexual abuse. 

2.  Also we have that she only "noticed" the blood, which is soft, passive language.  What is expected from the innocent? "I saw blood" but with Knox, it is not that she saw "blood" or even "someone's blood" but she uses the article, "the" even though she has not previously identified who's blood it is.  

Articles, like pronouns, are instinctive, and do not lie.  

"A man robbed me.  The man told me to hand over my wallet."  In this sentence, "a" man is used because he is not yet identified, but once identified, he is "the" man.  In money scams, we often find the articles mixed up.  Articles that are mixed up indicate deception. 

3.  Notice the extra words, "onto the mat" where she was stepping.  This extra detail is important.  

it was on the mat i was using to dry my feet and there were
drops of blood in the sink. 

Here she stops the flow to explain why she was on the mat.  It would appear to most of us that stepping on a mat is not important, but to her, it is critical that she explain where her feet were.  

Here, she goes even further:  Not only does she say where her feet were, but has the need to explain "why" she stepped on the mat:  "to" dry her feet.  This is the critical explanation of "why" something was done, rather than just report what was done. 

Note that, once again, she is on the mat and there were "drops of blood" that is, not "the blood", which came first, but "drops of blood."

The article "the" was artificially placed in the earlier sentence.  This is a signal of deception

at first i thought the blood might have
come from my ears which i had pierced extrensively not too long ago,
but then immediately i know it wasnt mine becaus the stains on the mat
were too big for just droplets form my ear,

Note that it is "the blood" now.  She "thought", which is past tense in writing about a past event. 
Yet, then she wrote, "i know", which is present tense.  This is an indication that she is likely making up this new "knowledge" as she typed.  

Change of language:   she changed "drops of blood" to "droplets" which is longer.  A change of language should represent a change in reality.  The "drops" of blood are not hers, as "droplets" would have come from her own ear.  Please also note that she pierced her "ears" but when viewing the blood she only says it was too big for droplets from my "ear" singular, not "ears"; it should be learned if she pierced just one ear.  If she pierced both, it is a signal that she is being, again, deceptive. 

 and when i touched the
blood in the sink it was caked on already.

The subject wants the reader to know that her fingerprints are on the blood.  

 there was also blood
smeered on the faucet. 

This is passive language.  Someone had to smear the blood.  When someone uses passive language, they seek to conceal identity or responsibility.  This is a strong signal that she either smeared the blood, or knows who did.  

again, however, i thought it was strange,
because my roommates and i are very clean and we wouldnt leave blood
int he bathroom, but i assumed that perhaps meredith was having
menstral issues and hadnt cleaned up yet. ew, but nothing to worry

inclusion of vaginal area noted, along with the constant repetition of shower; possible sexual motive
Note also that her emotions ("strange") are included in the perfect part of the story.  This is an artificial placement of emotions, which, in truthful stories, come after the event, as humans take time to process their emotions.  Story tellers put surprise, or feeling "strange" at the very moment where it appears "perfect" to the listener.  It is good story telling but not truthful accounts. 

i left the bathroom and got dressed in my room. after i got
dressed i went to the other bathroom in my house, the one that
filomena dn laura use, and used their hairdryer to obviously dry my

This signals that there is missing (withheld) information about the bathroom, that when she "leaves" the bathroom, it is the bathroom that is on her mind, and most important to her, which is why she must write that she "left" the bathroom.  
Note repetition of getting "dressed" which is, to cover one's nakedness.  This should be understood in context to the touching of blood.  

Understanding "to obviously dry my hair": 

If your house was robbed and you suspected that the garbage man did it, and in the investigation, he wrote:
"I went to the home to collect her garbage", it would signal that he went to the home for some other reason because the only reason he would have to go to the home is to collect garbage.  There is no need to say it. 

Here, Knox signals not only the reason "why" she used a blow dryer (to dry hair) but uses the word "obviously" (which means to accept without question).  She is telling us, strongly, that she used the blow dryer for a different reason.  She needed to let everyone know what rooms she was in, and what she touched.   

and it was after i was putting back the dryer that i noticed the
shit that was left in the toilet, something that definately no one in
out house would do. i started feeling a little uncomfortable and so i
grabbed the mop from out closet and lef the house, closing and locking
the door that no one had come back through while i was in the shower,

deception indicated.

Knox is as consistent in her email as she was in her interview with her deception. 
Note that human excrement is associated with sexual abuse.  Children who are sexually abused often touch, and even bag and carry their own waste with them, and cannot use the bathroom alone or unsupervised for this reason. 
Here, she puts her emotions "feeling a little uncomfortable" in the logical or "perfect" part of the story is a signal of placing them there artificially.  
Note the doors mentioned again, sexual activity signals. 
Note that she tells us what no one did, rather than what truthful people report:  what happened.  Here, she reports what "no one had come through", a strong indicator of deception, and again, has "shower."

In the sexual assault, abuse, and sexual homicide cases I have seen in statements and investigations over the years, this is the most extreme use of "water" signals I have encountered. 

The two "blues" in this portion of her email show the extreme sensitive nature of what she was engaging in.  The language is that of sexual homicide, and here, at this very point of the statement, she used a mop and has a need to explain why she used the mop.  Besides the artificial placement of emotions, we have the use of mop (water) and cleaning up (guilt) in sexual homicide.  She has the need to explain why she cleaned up blood, and why she was in another bathroom. 

Truthful people tell us what happened.  Here, she not only tells us what didn't happen (no one came through while she was showering) but has a need to explain all her actions, rather than just report them.  She is not simply an eyewitness to the events of Meredith's murder. 

and i returned to raffael's place. after we had used the mop to clean up the kitchen i told raffael about what i had seen in the house over
breakfast. the strange blood in the bathroom, the door wide open, the
shit left in the toilet.

She now tells, again, why she used the mop ("to clean up") indicating that she has a need to explain why she used the mop, the need, itself, is hyper sensitive (as seen through the sensitivity of repetition), but now she adds that she did not, alone, use the mop to clean up, but "we" had used it.  

note that the blood is "strange".  This is a change in language.  It is not "drops" nor "droplets (her own) but now it is "strange blood".

If you found blood that was unknown, it would be unknown to you, that is, you do not know who's blood it belongs to. By Amanda Knox calling it "strange" blood is an indication that she knows who's blood it is.  She calls attention, by use of her additional word, "strange."  It is Meredith's shed blood, and she signals, here, that she knows it. 

Any additional word is noted for sensitivty.
door open ;and now a reason to clean up is no longer spilled water, but human waste.

Police would likely think that now a clean up of a crime scene is taking place. Cleaning up is strong area of sensitivity to the subject.

he suggested i call one of my roommates, so i
called filomena. filomena had been at a party the night before with
her boyfriend marco (not the same marco who lives downstairs but we'll
call him marco-f as in filomena and the other can be marco-n as in

Now it is known that the reason to call filomena is very sensitive to Amanda Knox.  She knows that she will be asked, "Why did you call her?", and anticipates this.  

she also told me that laura wasnt at home and hadnt been
because she was on business in rome. which meant the only one who had
spent the night at our house last night was meredith, and she was as
of yet unaccounted for. filomena seemed really worried, so i told her
id call meredith and then call her back.

Knox has a reason to explain "why" she called Meredith's phone, rather than simply (and truthfully) report that she called Meredith. 
If your room mate was missing, you would call, but you would not have a reason to explain your actions, it is understood.  It is this guilty need to explain activity after activity shows that Amanda Knox was a participant in the activities that led to Meredith's sexual assault and eventual death.  Knox may not have inflicted the death blows (in her denial, this is apparent) but was involved.  

Note that filomena is not reported to have been worried, but only "seemed" to be "very" worried.  This is two points of weakness attached by Knox.  

Please note next that phone calls often link suspects to the crime scene, as they feel a need, in their statements, to report this connection:  

 i called both of merediths
phones the english one first and last and the italian one between. the
first time i called the english phone is rang and then sounded as of
there was disturbance, but no one answered. i then calle the italian
phone and it just kept ringing, no answer. i called her english phone
again and this time an english voice told me her phone was out of
service. raffael and i gathered our things and went back to my house.
i unlocked the door and im going to tell this really slowly to get
everything right so just have patience with me. 

The phone calls connect her to the crime scene, but it is the additional wording that catches our attention.  Rather than just go in, she first gives the detail, "i unlocked the door" setting the stage of the door being locked.  
Note that by introducing how slowly she is going to communicate should get your attention: 

the living
room/kitchen was fine. looked perfectly normal. i was checking for
signs of our things missing, should there have been a burglar in our
house the night before. filomenas room was closed, but when i opned
the door her room and a mess and her window was open and completely
broken, but her computer was still sitting on her desk like it always
was and this confused me. 

1.  Normal
2.  Reason why
3.  "like it always was"

1.  When someone uses the description of "normal" (or anything similar) it is a signal that it is anything but normal, and is found in story telling.  

2.  There "should be" is to tell the reason why she looked around.  This is highly sensitive.

3.  "like it always was" is an indication that she, or those with her, set this scenario up.  She wants the reader to think that this was 'unusual' and therefore, easily noticed, when, in fact, she herself brings us to the attention of the computer.  This is likely planned  story building in the anticipation of the 'appearance' of telling the truth via giving an extra detail. 

4.  Emotions.  Please see the teaching on emotions.  Emotions in statements are an indicator of truth, but their placement is important.  When they are in truthful accounts, they are found after the critical events.  It takes time for humans to process what happened, but in story telling, they are artificially placed in the critical portion of the story, like a Stephen King novel. 

I once had a gun put to my head by a drug dealer, at night.  I remained calm and he ran off.  I called police and gave an account.  Several hours later, I was hit hard by fear.  It takes time for us to process emotions and statements of truth reflect this. 

convinced that we had been robbed i went to
lauras room and looked quickley in, but it was spottless, like it
hadnt even been touced. this too, i thought was odd. i then went into
the part of the house that meredith and i share and checked my room
for things missing, which there werent.

She continues with the need to explain her steps.  She continues with the artificial placement of emotions and thoughts. 

When this is noted as fact, it is a sign of deception. It is only apparent that nothing is missing; not a fact.

then i knocked on merediths
Truthful accounts proceed from experiential memory.  For this reason, memory works chronologically.  Memory uses the same words. 
Here, she goes out of chronological order to explain herself, but in backtracking, she changes language:
She knocked on meredith's "room" not her "door."  

at first i thought she was alseep so i knocked gently,
but when she
didnt respond i knocked louder and louder until i was really banging
on her door and shouting her name. no response. panicing, i ran out
onto our terrace to see if maybe i could see over the ledge into her
room from the window, but i couldnt see in. bad angle. i then went
into the bathroom where i had dried my hair and looked really quickley
into the toilet. in my panic i thought i hadnt seen anything there,
which to me meant whoever was in my house had been there when i had
been there. 
Deception indicated. 

We have the reason "why" she did things. 
We have more emotions, including "panicing" at the "perfect" part of the story. 
We have the sensitivity of repetition:  again we need to know what she uses a blow dryer for:  her hair.  How many times does she need to say that she used a blow dryer for her hair before it becomes evident that she used a blow dryer for something else?  There is a heightened sense of the investigation in her language and she is well aware of footprints and other evidence and has a need to explain "why" she does things, including use of the blow dryer. 
She ran into check the toilet. 

If you knocked on your room mates door and did not get an answer, would it turn into banging and yelling?  Would you then run to the toilet to check what is in it?

If you thought someone had broken into your house, in your panic, would you run to see if the intruder used the bathroom?

These are all indicators of deception as well as the need to explain away her activities. 

as it turns out the police told me later that the toilet
was full and that the shit had just fallen to the bottom of the
toilet, so i didnt see it. i ran outside and down to our neighbors
door. the lights were out but i banged ont he door anyway. i wanted to
ask them if they had heard anything the night before,

The subject even feels the need to explain why she did not see the human waste. 
"as it turns out" if an attempt to put two or more things together to make them fit. 
Note that she wanted to conduct an investigation.

but no one was
home. i ran back into the house. in the living room raffael told me he
wanted to see if he could break down merediths door. he tried, and
cracked the door, but we couldnt open it. it was then that we decided
to call the cops. 

Note that raffael only wanted to "see" if he "could" break down Meredith's door.  
I always note when someone says "we called 911" or "we decided" since it is generally only one who makes the call.  This was part of the planning. 

there are two types of cops in italy, carbanieri
(local, dealing with traffic and domestic calls) and the police
investigaters. he first called his sister for advice and then called
the carbanieri. i then called filomna who said she would be on her way
home immediately. while we were waiting, two ununiformed police
investigaters came to our house. i showed them what i could and told
them what i knew

Showing them what she "could" indicates that there were things that she could not show them. 
Telling them what she knew is needless, since we can only tell someone what we know.  By using this needless sentence, she is telling us that she had other knowledge that she did not tell them. 

deception indicated. 

gave them ohone numbers and explained a bit in
broken italian, and then filomena arrived with her boyfriend marco-f
and two other friends of hers. 

dropped pronouns reduce or run away from commitment. 

all together we checked the houe out,

Note the need to persuade cooperation with the additional word "together":  she wants her audience to picture her and the others, as all "together" (extra emphasis) as unified.  

talked to the polie,a nd in a big they all opened merediths door.
i was in the kitchen stadning aside, having really done my part for
the situation. 

Note the inclusion of Meredith's "door", with "doors" linguistic signals of sexual abuse. 
In child interviews, the victims often have tension increasing with doors opening, and decreased tension with doors closing, signaling memory of the perpetrator entering to abuse, and leaving.  
Note that she uses her body posture, standing, as a signal of increased tension for her. 
Note that she only "really" done "my part", indicating that she is aware of things she should have done but did not.  This is another signal (there are several in the case) that she did not directly cause the death of Meredith, but was present for it, and for the sexual abuse that preceded it, and for the staging and alibi building that followed it.  She was "guilty in concert" of the sexual homicide, but there is enough in her statements to conclude that she did not cause the death blow (knife) but was part of the overall assault. 

Truthful people tell us what happened and commit to the account with the pronoun, "I" whereas deceptive people want to share guilt and stay with the plural:

but when they opened merediths door and i heard
filomena scream "a foot! a foot!" in italian i immedaitely tried to
get to merediths room but raffael grabbed me and took me out of the
house. the police told everyone to get out and not long afterward the
carabinieri arrived and then soon afterward, more police
investigators. they took all of our informaton and asked us the same
questions over and over. at the time i had only what i was wearing and
my badg, which thankfully had my passport in it and my wallet. no
jacket though, and i was freezing. after sticking around at the housr
for a bit, the police told us to go to the station to give testimony,
which i did. i was in a room for six hours straight after that without
seeing anyone else, answering questions in italian for the first hour
and then they brought in an interpreter and he helped my out with the
details that i didnt know the words for. they asked me of course about
the the morning, the last time i saw her, and because i was the
closest to her, questions about her habits and her relationships.
afterward, when they were taking my fingerprints, i met two of
merediths english friends, two girls she goes out with, including the
lat one who saw her alive that night she was murdered. they also had
their prints taken. after that, this was around 9 at night by this
time, i was taken into the waiting room where there was various other
people who i all knew from varous places who all knew meredith. her
friends from england, my roommates, even the owner of the pub she most
frequented. after a while my neighbors were taken in too, having just
arived home from a weeklong vacation in their home town, which
eplained why they werent home when i banged on their door. later than
that another guy showed up and was taken in for questioning, a guy i
dont like but who both meredith and i knew from different occasions, a
morracan guy that i only know by his nickname amongst the girls
"shaky". then i sat around in this waiting room wthout having the
chance to leave or eat anything besides vending maschine food (whcih
gave me a hell of a stomache ache) until 530 in the morning. during
this time i received calls from a lot of different people, family
mostly of course, and i also talked with the rest. especially to find
out what exactly was in merediths room whent hey opened it. apparently
her body was laying under a sheet, and with her foot sticking out and
there was a lot of blood. whoever had did this had slit her throat.
they told me to be back in at 11am. i went home to raffael's place and
ate something substantial, and passed out.
in the morning raffael drove me bck to the police station but had to
leave me when they said they wantrd to take me back to the house for
quesioning. before i go on, id like to ssay that i was strictly told
not to speak about this, but im speaking with you people who are not
involved and who cant do anything bad except talk to journalists,
which i hope you wont do. i have to get this off my chest because its
pressing down on me and it helps to know that someone besides me knows
something, and that im not the one who knows the most out of everyone.

She acknowledges that she "knows something" and explains why she is speaking out, even though she was told not to.  She has a "pressing down" on her.  This may be language of her involvement and what she did to Meredith.  Note that Meredith's throat was slit, yet her empathy is only for herself.  Her concern is for herself, her being cold, or being hungry and eating something substantial.  This is narcissistic behavior.  Most people would have trouble eating or sleeping had their best friend been brutally murdered.  Instead, she is front and center. 

at the house they asked me very personal questions about meredith's
life and also about the personalities of our neighbors. how well did i
know them? pretty well, we are friends. was meredith sexually active?
yeah, she borrowed a few of my condoms. does she like anal? wtf? i
dont know. does she use vaseline? for her lips? what kind of person is
stefano? nice guy, has a really pretty girlfriend. hmmm...very
interesting....weìd like to how you something, and tell us if this is
out of normal.
tehy took me into the nieghbors house. the had breaken the door open
to get in, but they told me to ingonore that. the rooms were all open.

First intimation that she would blame the police later on. 
giacomo and marco-n's room was spotless which made since becaus the
guys had thoroughly cleaned the whole house before they left on
vacation. stefano's room however, well, his bed was strpped of linens,
which was odd, and the comfoter he used was shoved up at the top of
his bed, with blood on it. i obviously told then that the blood was
definatley out of normal and also that he usually has his bed made.
they took note of it and ussred me out. when left the house to go
back to the police station they told me to put my jacket over my head
she has withheld information at this point. 
and duck down below the window so the reporters wouldnt try to talk to
me. at the station i just had to repeat the answers that i had givne
at the house do they could type them up and after a good 5 and a half
hour day with the police again raffael picked me up and took me out
for some well-deserved pizza. i was starving. i then bought some
 because as it turns out i wont be able to leave italy for a
while as well as enter my house.

Note the inclusion of "underwear" as unusual. Another indicator of sexual activity as part of this event.

i only had the clothes i was wearing
the day it bagan, so i bought some underwear and borrwed a pair of
pants from raffael.

Here is another indicator of extreme sensitivity.  She knows she is going to be asked about going shopping and has the need to explain why she went shopping before being asked.  Extremely sensitive. 

Spoke with my remaining roommates that night (last night) and it was a
hurricane of emotions and stress but we needed it anyway. What we have
been discussing is bascially what to do next. 

She needed to get this off her chest because she was told not to discuss, yet here she tells of their planning, using the pronoun "we" repeatedly, as part of the unity and cooperation.  The "we" exists because she was part of it.   Note that she stays away from speaking from the pronoun, "I" as indicator of desire to share guilt.  Parents of teenagers know this well. 

We are trying to keep
our heads on straight. First things first though, my roommates both
work for lawyers, and they are going to try to send a request through

First things first:  get a lawyer.  Her best friend is violently murdered and what is first (note that numbering has to do with logic and not emotion) is contact with legal advice and get her own documents.   Again the center of her attention is self. 
on monday to retrieve important documents of ours that are still in
the house. Secondly, we are going to talk to the agency that we used
to find our house and obviously request to move out. It kind of sucks
that we have to pay the next months rent, but the owner has protection
within the contract. 

No, it "kind of sucks" that Meredith is dead.  

After that, I guess I'll go back to class on
monday, although im not sure what im going to do about people asking
me questions, because i really dont want to talk again about what
happened. Ive been talking an awful lot lately and im pretty tired of
it. After that, Its like im trying to remember what i was doing before
all this happened.

Dr. Paul Eckman: failure to remember is flagged as deceptive in criminal investigations.

I still need to figure out who i need to talk to
and what i need to do to continue studying in perugia, because its
what i want to do.
Anyway, thats the update, feeling okay, hope you all are well, amanda


Mouse74 said...

This case is what led me to your blog, Peter. I followed this case closely and wound up finding a blog site called Perugia Murder File, which outlines every detail of the case, etc. Once AK and RS were set free, I found myself wondering how many other crimes are committed where the oh-so evident murderers got off scott free. A fellow blogger led me here. I have learned so much about not only Statement Analysis, but also myself. The group of people that stop by here and comment also add to the dynamics. Amanda Knox...uhg. Such an evil little brat. Statement Analysis just confirms what PMF already taught me about the case. She's guilty. Her family knew it too. I digress...

Lara Martinez said...

I was amazed at the sheer number of sexual references she made (shower, etc.) It seems she is obsessed with sexual activity.

I got the impression that maybe a sexual encounter happened between Meredith and Amanda during that part in her story where she describes Meredith coming out of her room with "vampire blood." Not a consensual one on Meredith's part--but something sexual that Amanda orchestrated.

And the references to the "shit" literally nauseated me! It seems so staged that she didn't just flush the toilet when she first found it when she borrowed the hair dryer. It's obvious she thinks it's part of her alibi--the fact that someone who doesn't belong to the house was there.

I've never been able to figure out what actually happened there with Guede (the African whose DNA was found)--he obviously raped Meredith, and he did not enter the house through the staged window in Philomena's room, since it's impossible to do that from the outside. Someone had to let him in the front door. It looks like a straightforward rape, but we've got Amanda & Raffaeli involved sexually and with the blood. It bothers me that I can't come up with a reasonable scenerio to explain all 3 people's involvement, but the evidence proves they were all involved.

There's also an interview Amanda gives where she goes into creepy detail of showering with Raffaeli and he washes her hair--she is obsessed with showers!

I also speculate that Amanda has a troubled sexual history starting with major child sexual abuse, total lack of boundaries in her sexuality, etc. Her parents and friends must have an inkling of this obvious fact, but they chose to paint a picture of a sweet angel. Very dishonest, since I think that Amanda's sexuality was quite apparent to others--she seemed to be aggressive about it.

All just my humble opinion!!

Mouse74--Tell us more! This case has always fascinated me too.

Lara Martinez said...

P.S. GREAT analysis, Peter!

I have a question: Is there a mental illness that explains why people get involved in legal cases where evidence clearly points to guilt, but they steadfastly defend the person's innocence? People who are not related to the person who become involved and insert themselves into everything? Examples like proponents of "Mumia," The vile Chad Evans, etc. They act like they're suffering under a delusion, but I'm just wondering how they make such a strange connection with the killers.

MizzMarple said...

Thank You, Peter, for this excellent analysis, and for remembering Meredith -- the ONLY VICTIM in this tragedy.

For those who want to get the latest news on this case, there is an outstanding website called "True Justice for Meredith Kercher."

The link is :

In March 2013, the Italian Supreme Court will hear the prosecution's appeal of the Hellmann-Zanetti appeal verdict, which Hellmann was totally WRONG and freed the killers !

This website has all the info on this case.

John Mc Gowan said...


Jimmy Savile 'Was Yorkshire Ripper Suspect'
West Yorkshire Police confirms the presenter was interviewed as a possible suspect in the notorious case more than 30 years ago.3:20pm UK, Wednesday 07 November 2012
Peter Sutcliffe, known as the Yorkshire Ripper, murdered 13 women

Jimmy Savile was questioned by detectives investigating the Yorkshire Ripper murder, West Yorkshire Police confirmed on Wednesday.

A senior officer who worked on the inquiry revealed the disgraced DJ was a suspect in the notorious case more than 30 years ago on Tuesday.

John Stainthorpe, a former detective with West Yorkshire Police, said the Leeds-born presenter was approached after an anonymous tip-off.

Mr Stainthorpe, who spent 40 years in the force, told ITV's Calendar News: "When the Ripper was really active, one of the suspects put forward by the public was, in fact, Jimmy Savile.

"Obviously, it was not he, but he was interviewed along with many others."

He said the person who reported Savile was "aiming in the right direction".

"Child perverts soon become child killers," he added.

The police force confirmed Savile may have been questioned, but did not reveal when he was interviewed or why.

A spokesman said: "As with thousands of other men in Leeds at the time, he may at some time have been approached by detectives on the investigation.

"What is without doubt is that Savile was clearly not the Yorkshire Ripper."

Peter Sutcliffe was convicted of murdering 13 women in 1981 and sentenced to life imprisonment. He is held at Broadmoor and has been told he will never be freed.

Sutcliffe has jumped to the defence of Savile, who he says befriended him during regular visits to the high security hospital.

Dismissing claims the late DJ abused around 300 victims over six decades, he said those making allegations were "jumping on the bandwagon".

Savile, who died a year ago aged 84, is now believed to be one of the UK's most prolific child abusers.

It comes after he was linked to fresh allegations of abuse at a care home in north Wales.

The Sun newspaper claimed boys were molested for his "entertainment" at Bryn Estyn in the 1970s.

Lawyers representing the disgraced DJ's alleged victims have said they have notified his estate executors, the BBC and three hospitals that they plan to launch damage claims against them.

The former presenter's £4m estate has already been frozen by executors NatWest.

Related Stories:
Jimmy Savile Erased From Roll Of Honour
Savile Scandal: BBC May Face Public Inquiry

sha said...

I still wonder if the laws of water evaporation are still in effect in Italy. Who the heck spills a lot of water on their floor and just leaves it there overnight hoping to borrow a mop in the morning? Really?

If one spills excess water on their kitchen floor, one would think it would either dry up overnight, or if it didn't it was enough to possibly do damage to the house, so a towel or even dirty laundry could be used to dry it up.

AK is one weird creepy girl, so I'm sure she will have no end of dudes lined up for her, right?

John Mc Gowan said...


Missing Lewis Eddleston: Body Found In Yorkshire.

A police investigation is under way after a body is discovered in a ditch in South Yorkshire.4:14pm UK, Wednesday 07 November 2012

Police are searching a field, which has a ditch running through it

The area has been cordoned off

Police investigating the disappearance of a 13-year-old boy in Doncaster have discovered a body in a ditch.

South Yorkshire Police have said it is too early to identify the body, but confirmed that they are linking it to the disappearance of the missing teenager, named locally as Lewis Eddleston.

Police and family liaison officers were at his family home on Wednesday.

A police spokesman said: "Formal identification procedures will take place but officers investigating are linking this to the 13-year-old boy recently reported missing in Doncaster.

"An investigation has commenced into the circumstances surrounding this tragic event. At this stage it is too early to determine the cause of death or confirm the identity of the male."

Officers have been searching for Lewis, from Doncaster, since he went missing on Sunday.

The Hungerhill School pupil was last seen leaving a group of friends on playing fields in Edenthorpe at around 4pm.

Appealing for information after his disappearance, Lewis's family told a local newspaper they feared he had been abducted.

Forensic officers and police are searching the ditch and surrounding field, which is behind Lewis' school.

MizzMarple said...

Rafaelle Sollecito's book : is a failure !

See what happened to Raf at his book signing in Seattle.

You Tube Video Link is below:

"Raffaele Sollecito Has Seattle Police Attack KCWM Over Infamous Bleach and Butcher Knife Photo""

Here is the link :

Anonymous said...

When Amanda went back to the house she knew all of her roommates were accounted for except Meredith, so why didn't Amanda check Meredith's room first?
Its because Amanda KNEW the horror of what was on the other side of Meredith's door.
Just a thought & jmo.

Ivy said...

I could not get over this email when I first read it. As you point out Peter, the explanations, the explanations, the explanations for the mop, the clothes in the washing machine, the hair drier, the door (which no one walked through! OMG). All the details she mentions -- the stuff she took to the house from Raphael's, the "five minute" walk -- it's like she's aware of what the police is focused on, since she's just been asked about all these details and she's just giving this account that explains everything to all these people. Can you imagine receiving this crazy email? Even explaining why she's calling her roommates to the point of saying other people told her to call them where there is no need for explanation for that -- to me evidence that people think they look more innocent if they have witnesses to their panic or discovery of the crime. She even feels a need to explain why she wasn't standing by and looking when the police opened the door to Meredith's room -- because she "had done what I could for the situation"(!!!) -- she's worried it makes her look guilty. The odd focus on her hunger and discomfort and inconvenience (underwear?!) with almost no mention of poor Meredith other than that she told the police about Meredith's sexual activities (borderline disparagement). She tells her audience she does not want to keep telling this story -- yes, it must be exhausting to keep it all straight. JMO

Ivy said...

Great Analysis Peter -- of both this and the statement to the police.

Mouse74 said...

@ Lara Martinez

Part of why this case facinated me so much is due to Amanda's odd behaviour that just screamed guilty, yet couldn't be used as proof. Talk about looking for the unexpected...this woman did so many unexpected things. I'm pretty convinced she's a sociopath. The most chilling to me, was a video of Raf and Amanda kissing outside of the house where the murder was committed. It was the WAY they kissed, and for just a split second, you can see Amanda look directly into the camera filming them, and you see her immediate response to return to acting like the sad roommate. Before re-entering the crime scene during the investigation, Amanda was given a pair of the protective white booties to place over her shoes. After putting these booties on, she swiveled her hips in a playful way and said "ooplah" or something similar. She was playful and flirty at a crime scene. What the?? She did cartwheels at the police station, did the splits, acting like she was there for routine questions about a robbery she witnessed, but it was for her ROOMMATE that was MURDERED. Who could be comfortable after your roommate was murdered, whether you liked them or not. A life was just lost, and she's doing cartwheels and making out with her boyfriend. Total sociopath. The DNA evidence is remarkable. There is so much more. Rafa once explained that Meredith's DNA on a knife found in his apartment got there because he accidentally cut her while cooking fish. Right. I don't understand how these murderers got off! So much more I learned from reading PMF blog for 2+ years.

Anonymous said...

I find the injustice of this so disturbing. I cringe when I see her face at the top of the post.
I realize that we are learning from your analysis and I appreciate that but having to look at her face and be reminded of her getting away with the crime is like twisting a knife. This case and the Casey Anthony Case sicken me.

MizzMarple said...

Peter's excellent Statement Analyses of this case are at the TJMK site.

Link is :

MizzMarple said...

Mouse74 said...
Amanda Knox...uhg. Such an evil little brat. Statement Analysis just confirms what PMF already taught me about the case. She's guilty. Her family knew it too. I digress...


Snipped ... I agree Mouse74 !

I agree that Amanda's family KNOWS she is GUILTY ! Edda Mellas and Cindy Anthony should have been charged with Obstruction of Justice and Perjury !

How convenient for Amanda to leave out of her e-mail and her statements to the court that she called her mother at 4:00 am Seattle time, while the Italian Postal Police were there investigating Meredith's cell phones ... And when Edda visited Amanda in jail she brought up Amanda's 4:00 am call, Amanda completely denied even calling her mother.

And the same for Rafaelle's family ... his sister is NO longer with the Police Force in Italy for tampering with the investigation, and Daddy Dear tried to "pay off" the authorities ...

Ladyluck WI said...

I had never seen this email.. wow it is just full of lies and deceit. Practically every sentence screams guilty!

The part that stood out to me was when she says, meredith got out of the shower and came and said "hi" to rafael.

THIS is the part where I believe something sexual happened. its kind of like mentioning a greeting that took place, almost like a "goodbye" would be. then the "goodbye" where meredith leaves is after she dies.

1)Amanda "begins" eating.. but doesn't finish..something interrupts the act of eating. Even Raffael comes over and "begins" to eat..but they are in the middle of the act of eating and are interruprted.

2)Meredith gets out of the shower and comes and says "hi" and then goes to her room to get dressed. that would seem obvious (retreating to the room) but amanda dictates that part to us, and mentions that meredith comes and says "hi" specifically to rafaell

and then amanda is so worried that something strange is going on that she leaves her asumed sleeping roommate at home, before checking in with her? totally unbelievable!

Ladyluck WI said...

One other part that I didn't realize before, was she mentions its the day after Halloween. plus adds in the there for explanation puprposes but also freudianslip/guilty knowledge of blood dripping down her chin. she couldn't have just said meredith went out on halloween, she was verbalizing what she had seen.

anyways..makes me wonder if it was perfect storm for amanda of being in a foreign country, with new acquainances and love flings, and it was halloween time. she was probably feeling a little on the adventerous side.. not trying to excuse any of her behavior of course.just putting myself there and seeing how this could have come about

Anonymous said...

Peter (and fellow posters),

Excuse me for my off-topic post but I was just floored...slack-jawed after watching the video posted below.

I've heard of 'unschooling' but 'radical unschooling' is a whole different bag of crazy! I am a huge proponent of attachment parenting (of which there are many misconceptions but that's another post) and I know many find that 'out there' but this is liberal even for the most liberal of parents. I can't even find words to describe this. How will these children function in society? How will they support themselves? How will they will help support any future family they try to have?

I would be very interested to hear your detailed thoughts (and the detailed thoughts of others) on this.

Anonymous said...

Thanks for the link Anon @ 3:15, I so agree. This is plain craziness. These kids will have no future, no career; wasted lives in turmoil. I can't understand states that allow this. When I was growing up it was mandatory that a child start in first grade by age six. Now it's pre-k age.

There's many nutso parents out there, but no education? Stupid stupid parents, cheating the kids, creating illiterates and possibly monsters.

Heck, I find it hard to agree to home schooling at all, as many parents I've known of aren't qualified to home school their kids, they need educating themselves! Also, many of these mothers who home school wind up with serious illnesses due to the stress or nervous breakdowns, going off the wall, abusing their kids, some of them even cracking up and killing them.

Even when the mothers don't go nuts; just to name a few of the activities properly educated kids need, these mothers are cheating their kids by not allowing them to progress in vital school activities and programs, a structured environment, and social skills needed to interact with other kids and peers in later life.

Also, it is just as necessary that a mother have a break in her routine and a break from her kids as it is for them to have a break from her. It's no wonder some of these home schooling parents go crazy as a bat and many of the home schooled kids wind up being abused by their mother.

Many families are so dysfunctional that sometimes going to school is a childs' only outlet for a normalcy in their lives. I certainly would not have wanted to be home schooled by MY mother!

Anonymous said...

BTW, I do NOT believe that Amanda Knox was ever abused in her childhood. I think she was a doted on, spoiled brat, who always got her way; learned early how to use sex to her benefit and how to throw sensuality around, was just a slut and still is.

John Mc Gowan said...

Note that human excrement is associated with sexual abuse. Children who are sexually abused often touch, and even bag and carry their own waste with them, and cannot use the bathroom alone or unsupervised for this reason.


Could you explain the above analysis and why it is linked to sexually abused children.

I dont understand..


Pak31 said...

She doesn't seem to care at all about Meredith. It's all about her, so much so that it's revolting. She was like that in court too, very smug, nose in the air. I remember the story of how, in order for her to take that shower she would have walked right through/around blood. Also, she comes home and the door is open, sees blood yet she doesn't check the roommates whose doors are closed? Just to make sure they are ok? I have always felt that her and her boyfriend were guilty, this seals the deal even more so for me. Her explanations are very staged.

Statement Analysis Blog said...

Thank you, Ivy. The encouraging words have impact upon me. Peter

C5H11ONO said...

but i assumed that perhaps meredith was having
menstral issues and hadnt cleaned up yet. ew, but nothing to worry

--Isn't this a form of disparaging the victim also. Also, if anyone saw the photos of the bathroom you would know she is lieing. The blood in that bathroom was unbelievable! This was her Adam Baker kind of statement!

Lara Martinez said...

I wonder what she really used the hair dryer for?

Lara Martinez said...

From True Justice for Meredith Kercher (thanks to the other poster for the link!)

"She had described many things which she now realized she had imagined, including Meredith having had sex and being killed, while Knox held her own ears closed so as not to hear Meredith’s screams.[67-68] "

~Interesting to note that her fingers may have been bloody when she plugged her ears with them, thus explaining the detailed cleaning Raff did of her ears in the shower.

"She took out her earrings and cleaned her ears - a regular necessity because the piercing in one ear had become infected. She noticed drops of blood in the sink, and thought this strange but continued to take a shower."

~Now the cleaning of her ears is due to an infection and this is where she first attributes the blood in the sink to this action.

"Having returned the bathmat, she put her earrings back on, brushed her teeth, dressed in clean clothes and then went in the other bathroom (the one used by Romanelli and Mezzetti) and dried her hair with their hairdryer. She then noticed that there were feces in the toilet, which was strange as Romanelli and Mezzetti were very clean. "

These are all summaries of the court documents of Amanda's statements to police. Notice the things Peter points out as being related to sexual homicide being used throughout this last statement--brushing teeth, dressed in "clean" clothes, feces in toilet that she makes a note of as "strange" but doesn't flush the toilet.

Lara Martinez said...

One more interesting note:

"It was also noted that Knox had already showered and washed her hair at Sollecito’s house, the previous evening: there was no obvious need for her to repeat those actions and, if there were such a need, there was no reason why she couldn’t do so at Sollecito’s. Fetching the mop to dry the floor was also deemed to be scarcely credible, considering that Sollecito employed a cleaner and, in any case, everything needed to clean up some water was already there.[85] "

Amanda tells investigators she took 2 showers!!

Anonymous said...

That is one way in which antisocials (true human predators) are created, they are not abused but enabled and spoiled. Therefore they grow up to believe the world revolves around them.

Jazzie said...

C5H11ONO said...
Isn't this a form of disparaging the victim also. Also, if anyone saw the photos of the bathroom you would know she is lieing. The blood in that bathroom was unbelievable!

Amanda's words are disparaging. The photo you are referring to - Is it the Luminol one of the massive cleanup job?

Jazzie said...

"While in the waiting room at the police station, another of the friends, Natalie Hayward, remarked: "I hope Meredith wasn't in too much pain." Ms Frost remembered Ms Knox replying: "What do you fucking think? She fucking bled to death."

Jazzie said...

too weird:

Jazzie said...

Amanda Knox's Prison Diary:

Anonymous said...

OT: Bennet has been indicted for Carnel Chamberlain's premeditated murder...FINALLY!

CanadianGirl said...

"and i also talked with the rest. especially to find
out what exactly was in merediths room whent hey opened it. apparently
her body was laying under a sheet, and with her foot sticking out and
there was a lot of blood."

Why did Amanda need to know "...what exactly was in Merediths room..."? If my roommate was murdered I wouldn't be concerned with what was in her room.

Also, why did she need to share with readers the fact that Meredith was covered with a sheet w/ her foot sticking out?
I can't imagine what was going through her friends and acquaintances heads while they were reading this ludicrous email.

Great job with breaking down her email Peter!!! Your comments about checking the toilet really made sense, seems like a bizarre thing for a person to be concerned about.

Mouse74 said...

Odd thing about the feces in the toilet, it really was Rudy's (3rd killer involved). DNA testing proved it to be his. Amanda knew it was his, so she wanted it to be left there.

Why was the poop there? In his trial, he explained that he was in the middle of using the restroom with his earphones in, and he heard screams, so he got up to investigate...leaving behind his deposit.

The rest gets foggy and I don't want to rewrite things, so please anyone correct me if I'm wrong.

He then states he saw 2 individuals running from Meredith's room, one yelling "black man found". He says he then found Meredith already cut. He never admitted to raping her, he said their time together was consensual, and it was during the bathroom break that the murder occurred. What he did admit to: leaving Meredith to die.

It's all rather odd to piece together, but you get the main picture when taking a bird's eye view. There will be some pieces that are never found, but a big enough picture has emerged.

Meredith, you are not forgotten.

Anonymous said...

Do Amanda's supporters know she is lying? If so, why do they support her? Or are they really duped?

I wonder the same thing about Obama's supporters.

Mouse74 said...

Really? You're comparing Amanda Knox's family to Obama supporters?

Her family didn't want her to spend the rest of her life in Italy. Her family didn't want to believe it, but deep down, they knew. The tactics they used, the finger pointing, whatever, they knew.

Regarding Obama supporters: Not everyone is like you. SImple as that. You WANT to believe that Obama is only a bad choice, so you tell yourself that surely, Obama supporters are duped, because NO WAY is he worthy at all. If he is worthy, then it invalidates all of your you tell yourself what you want to hear in order to feel good.

We have a choice who to vote for. Stop being angry at those that don't vote as you do. Look deeper than one's political choice, because there is so much more to people than that. Look deeper, into the heart. Just because we don't share a political party, doesn't mean we all aren't on the same team. Be kind, that will take you further in life!

Ladyluck WI said...

Again more references to the ears, Rudy claims he was wearing his earbuds when he was using the restroom.. a little odd..but once again felt the need to mention the ears.

Meredith must have been screaming very loudly. Describing ones senses seems to be very common when people are recanting what happened. so many murder mysteries i've listened to on dateline, 48 hrs, etc, the suspect often talks about the victims eyes, or different sensual things end up coming out showing guilty knowledge. for instance elizabeth johnson going above and beyond saying she suffocated gabriel, but that his body was in fact blue.

MizzMarple said...

CanadianGirl said...

Why did Amanda need to know "...what exactly was in Merediths room..."? If my roommate was murdered I wouldn't be concerned with what was in her room.

Snipped :

It was reported that Amanda's lamp was found in Meredith's room ... she used that lamp for extra lighting to clean up the evidence that placed her and Raf there.

And good point -- if your roommate was just murdered, WHY in the world would you be worried about the contents of her room ?

And that is because Amanda had left the lamp there !

Shelley said...

I just read her diary link that "jazzie" posted the link to above

I am more convinced of her guilt.

What strikes me about this... is that she does not seem mad/angry that she is sitting in prison and is innocent as she claims or be haunted by a brutal murder of someone she knows.

That would be horrifying to me and I would be angry, scared, mad etc.

Then she comments how she finally remembers every detail of the night and how she "cried she was so HAPPY" and "this is the happiest shes been since shes been there".

If i really had blocked out a tramatic murder of a friend, even a stranger, and all the sudden i could remember. I would be horrified. Again.

Even tho yes, it COULD help her case, there is no guarantee with anything..... So now you have this horrible memory (again assuming she had blocked it out and now remembers - which i dont believe)

Yet... does not guarantee it will help her with her freedom... Innocent people are convicted all the time.

Yet.... still...

She shows no trama over a murder, no trama over being in prison as an innocent person, its like shes just in rehab. Locked in, but its just temporary and all she had to do was admit she was an alcoholic and now will be on her way to freedom.

And I do have to say, if she was ugly, I believe she would still be in prison.

Something about pretty women and crime. Its like people cant belive they are evil inside.

Oh, if only the true person on the inside was reflected on the outside. We would know who is evil.....

Shelley said...

I thought I read the last page of her diary...

Realized there is more....

Just read this part and I am quoting her exact written words

"I remember what I did that night and there's no way they can prove that I was thee, and especially that I was in merediths room, because it is impossible"

And she talks about all these detials she had recalled yet does not not a single one.

Im still reading so maybe she did later.

Statement analysis needs to be taught to jurors, investigators, and journalists.

Shelley said...

At this site....

They claim she made this statement.

"I am paying with my life for things that I did not commit," said a shaking and tearful Knox in fluent Italian. "I am not who they say I am. The perversion, the violence, the lack of respect for life—I did not do the things they are saying I did. I did not kill, I did not rape, I did not steal. I was not there."

If it was word for word... what strikes me is that she does not say what "things" and is generic with "i did not kill, i did not rape..."

She does not say "i did not rape meridith, I did not..."

They also stated she worked on the speech for 3 months. So she memorized words and spoke but no heart or passion for the victim is shown. No direct denial of the murder of meredith.

Ladyluck WI said...

"I remember what I did that night and there's no way they can prove that I was there, and especially that I was in merediths room, because it is impossible"

such guilty words! I can't tell you how many suspects use the phrase "they can't prove it"!!!

anytime anyone tells me that phrase, from the beginning of an accusation then I know they are guilty! the phrase could possibly come up later in conversation but if this is the first thing on someone's mind then you can bet they are guilty!!

Ladyluck WI said...

Shelley, I agree, since I have studied statement analysis now, I just can't turn it off, and it has definitely changed things alot!
Being a lay person it does seem ridiculous or judgemental to accuse someone of something just because a certain phrase is used, tense, or modifier.. but someone who has studied it now for a couple! it is true as can be, of course nothing is "solid evidence" but once you start to see too many red flags.. or in amanda's case..every phrase is a red flag! you know in your heart it can't be the other way

Anonymous said...

Please help find Ayla
Statement analysis needs to be taught to jurors, investigators, and journalists.

November 8, 2012 11:17 AM
And to "caseworkers".

Anonymous said...

Hi Mouse74,

Yes, I am comparing the two, and thank you for your answers.

There are some interesting statements embedded in your answer:

"The tactics they used, the finger pointing, whatever, they knew."

"Obama is only a bad choice"

"Obama supporters are duped"

"NO WAY is he worthy at all"

"If he is worthy, then it invalidates all of your beliefs"

"you tell yourself what you want to hear in order to feel good"

"we all aren't on the same team"

Thank you,


Mouse74 said...


You need to study up a bit more on Statement Analysis.


Mouse74 said...


You may want to give this artical a read, it might help you relax a bit about the President, feel a bit more grateful for what we do have.

Anonymous said...

In Amanda's email, she refers to Meredith as her roommate because she is introducing her. She then refers to her as Meredith. The girls share a bathroom, so it is obvious that Amanda got the bathroom first, and that left Meredith waiting around still wearing her Halloween makeup.
Rudy Guede is obviously Meredith's murderer, his dna is splattered all over and inside the body and his prints are all over her room.
Meredith applied her makeup, and in the pictures the fake blood is very obvious. Mentioning the obvious makeup was to show why Meredith was waiting around for Amanda to finish up in the bathroom. Meredith want her turn in the shower. Nothing sexual, just a shower.

Dandy said...

Bullshit. if you read this e-mail without the insane and leading comments, you will see it is just a simple factual retelling of events. This girl did not murder anyone. the real murderer is in jail and this is evil nonsense.

Anonymous said...

You people need to be more careful with this fucking nonsensical garbage.

This is no different from the scrutiny that was recently applied to Sunil Tripathi. Oh you don't know that name? He was briefly suspected of being involved with the Boston bombing. Reddit wouldn't let the guy off the hook so easy; every lousy armchair forensics expert, every Horatio Caine wannabe with something to say stepped up to the plate and offered their "years of experience" in researching terrorist activity as to why it had to be that guy. Thousands of people huddled around this dude, exposing more and more evidence that linked him, inextricably, to the bombing.

Only, oh shit, it couldn't have been him, because he was found at the bottom of a river after having been missing since the middle of March. Good police work there.

This amateur hour nonsense has got to stop. You're entitled to your opinions; do the world a favor, and keep them the fuck to yourselves. You're goddamned right I'm angry; the line between harmless discourse and witch hunts is a lot finer than you think. Carrying on the discussion in this manner doesn't help anyone at all.

Anonymous said...

I think that Peter's analysis is very interesting - particularly with reference to some of the strange and potentially suggestive comments in the AK statements. I don't always feel happy with his methodology. Some of it seems too intricate and fussy; but most of it sounds fairly solid. I have found some very peculiar statements myself: most notably a prison diary entry in which AK states "If it were up to me my friend would never have been killed". Surely it wold make more sense to regret not being there that night to help Meredith fight off the attacker; or to say if only I'd been there that night, Meredith would probably still be alive, etc. So who was "it up to"? I think most people on here have a pretty good idea. Also, AK spoke recently of sitting in a courtroom "fighting for your life". It would be much better to say fighting for your liberty, or fighting for justice. And it was Meredith who literally had to fight for her life that terrible night. She even fought to breathe as her lungs filled with blood.

Meredith's violent and horrendous ordeal has now been somewhat overshadowed by accounts of smutty comments and questions allegedly made by a prison guard. Technically, this was a form of "sexual harrassment"; but not of the type Meredith suffered. Now Amanda is heavily into self-defence - to the extent whereby she appears on the CNN interview with heavily bruised knuckles. Amanda hopes to defend herself against violent attack too.

I applaud the people on here for pointing out the apparent coincidences and inconsistencies in the various statements. They are very chilling in my opinion. Defenders of AK and RS have been determined and clever in their "rebuttals". But if you take the time, you'll see that many suspicious actions and inactions just cannot be disputed away. I believe that Peter's mature and careful analysis should not be dismissed.

Anonymous said...

lets see you do SA on these next 3 statements.
“I honestly believe that if it was, you know, Ayla was their daughter or their child or their family member, I honestly believe the case would be solved.”

“Something terrible happened to Ayla that night, whether it was by accident or done on purpose, but people need, you know, they need to be brought to justice for it.”

“When what was shown to me, I don’t see how any little child can survive after that. All I can picture when I close my eyes is like, the blood that I saw.”

Anonymous said...

Nic said...

It's so fascinating to go back and read your analysis, Peter.

Peter said:

Note that meredith's door being closed only means she was sleeping to the subject, with "to me" (this suggests that to others, her door closed has a different meaning. This small inclusion of two words, "to me", is critical. The writer knows that Meredith's door being closed has a different meaning than the one given by Knox.

Bang on. Filomena contradicted this by saying the only time Meredith’s door was closed was when she went back to England and insisted that it be opened.

Reading back on this, Peter, does this remind you of BJD peeking in on Hailey? It does me.

Peter said:
She now tells, again, why she used the mop ("to clean up") indicating that she has a need to explain why she used the mop, the need, itself, is hyper sensitive (as seen through the sensitivity of repetition), but now she adds that she did not, alone, use the mop to clean up, but "we" had used it.

As per Raffaele's "Spontaneous Declaration" during the first trial:
and in any case if Amanda had asked me to do something I said that I did not share safely no, no, as it always was with all the people I know and anyone can give me reason imagine if you had asked me to do something as terrible as killing a girl, I repeat I am not a violent are not never been and I never will be either, I did not kill Meredith, and I was not in that house [the night of the murder,]

He retracted his statement about the two of them being together all night. He said that he was asleep and Amanda had gone out. So I believe him when he said that he was not in the apartment "the night of the murder".

As well, in Raffaele's above-mentioned quote he uses to "no's" to say he wouldn't do anything that wasn't "safe" (weakens) and then there is the never/would never either (past and future). I was reading in the court transcripts with reference to Raffaele owning a pocket knife. There was mention that he had gotten into trouble in school and the trouble included a knife. (He’s on record loving knives and loving (Japanese) comics depicting violence.) But that when the investigators went back to investigate the school incident, RS’s school records had been destroyed… and the "head master" [my words] was uncooperative. So as you say, never doesn’t mean no and it doesn’t mean wouldn’t. But RS is emphatic that he didn’t kill Meredith and he wasn’t in “that” (distancing) house the night of the murder. He was obviously in the house the next day,

The thing about this email, is that at the trial it came out that Amanda wrote it after spending half the night at the police station answering questions and giving statements. The police officers thought it wasn’t “normal” that after all she had been through, the first thing she would do is go home and write a long email to her family and friends. Inference being that she should have been exhausted and sleep her priority.

I was reading that after the apartment was sealed that it had been broken into twice. The second time, the mattress and pillow from Meredith’s room was stolen and a suitcase from Amanda’s room was taken, too.

Amanda refers to a “sheet” when she talks about how Meredith was found. She was under a comforter. She knew this. Additionally, the “English girls” (Meredith’s friends she hung with) said that Amanda was very forthcoming about how she died when they were gathered at the police station after Meredith was discovered. That she died slowly and in a lot of pain. She also said that she was found in the closet. Nobody knew that Meredith died in the closet and that she had been moved/staged.

So she was definitely there.

Rudy Guede was definitely there. it was his DNA that detected in Meredith's vagina.

Nic said...

I began to play guitar with raffael and meredith came out of her room and went to the door. she said bye and left for the day. it was the last time i saw her alive.

Peter said:
The word "left" when used as a connecting verb, is a very sensitive signal that there is a story connected to the leaving: it is why the subject mentioned it. There is missing information in her account, right at this point.

[snip] On cross-examination Butterworth broke down and started crying when asked by Knox's lawyer if there had been plans to include Amanda in their Halloween festivities.[119] Butterworth said she could not remember but that maybe Meredith had suggested including Knox in the festivities before eventually deciding against it. [120]
Butterworth was also asked to give details of the last time she saw Meredith. It was the afternoon of the day she was murdered. Meredith and the other British girls gathered at Butterworth's apartment to cook a pizza, watch a movie, and look at the digital pictures from the night before.[121] Meredith arrived at four in the afternoon and went home around nine that night.[122] Midway though the movie they paused it to have some apple crumble.[123] Butterworth also described how Meredith had mentioned that she felt bad for having turned down Amanda Knox's invitation to do something.[124] It was the second night in a row that Knox had asked and Meredith had declined doing something with her. [/end snip]

There you go. :0)

Anonymous said...

I wanted to ask them if they had heard anything the night before,

Interesting. How should she know what time anything had happened at this point in her story?

kimisan03 said...

It kind of sucks that we have to pay the next months rent, but the owner has protection within the contract.

No, it "kind of sucks" that Meredith is dead.

Does she even listen to herself talk? Obviously not, because she is still talking.

MsGvious said...

Staggering email.

I wonder about Amanda's form - her spelling, grammar, sentence capitalisation, lowercase pronouns.

Is the mop symbolic? Mops have been used to commit sexual assaults.

"We are trying to keep our heads on straight" i.e. Meredith didn't.

Jenna said...

when i entered i called out if anyone was
there, but no one responded and i assumed that if anyone was there,
they were still asleep. lauras door was open which meant she wasnt
home, and filomenas door was also closed. my door was open like always

This part is very revealing. Amanda knew that Laura and Filomena were out of town so the position of their doors meant nothing and didn't need to be included the narrative. Also she didn't need to call out if "anyone" was there because again, she knew only Meredith might be home. If this story were true she'd have said she called out to check if Meredith was home, knowing the other two would not be.

D said...

Onto mat, onto terrace. Strange choice of words. Being onto to somebody?

Laura's door was open and Filomena's also closed. Also??
She opened Filomena's door and, then she proceeds. And what??

Break down the door. Should be break open. Breaking down as in decomposition?

D said...