As the Amanda Knox case re-enters the news, here is her original handwritten statement to police upon being arrested. The analysis seeks to learn if Amanda Knox was part of the murder of her then roommate. The knowledge comes from Amanda Knox herself, who, if was at the crime scene during the murder, would give us verbal indicators. If she was not, and did not take part in the murder, she would tell us this, as well. Whether or not DNA was handled properly, or whether prosecutors are corrupt or not, her own words will tell us what we need to know.
Analysis Question: Is Amanda Knox guilty, in concert, of causing or participating in the death of her roommate?
"Out of the abundance of the heart, the mouth speaks" is a principle followed from antiquity where the words in which we choose are then discerned to be truthful or deceptive. The "heart" is the seat of the intellect and affections (emotions); what we think, and how we feel. Statement Analysis of statements is able to discern truth from deception, including false confessions made under coercion.
Pronouns are of particular value as they are learned in our earliest days of speech, with possessive pronouns often predating speech in young children, as they attempt to say "my" or "mine" with hand motions. Pronouns and articles are exempt from internal subjective dictionaries (as is objective time) and are reflex in our speech with our minds dictating to our tongues what words to say in less than a microsecond.
The Amanda Knox case is one that provokes emotional responses from both those who believe that she is guilty, and those who believe she is innocent. When people lie, they have a reason to lie. Here, she is brought in for a murder investigation.
Transcript of Amanda Knox's handwritten statement to police on the evening of November 6, the day she was arrested.
The statement is in italics, with statement analysis in bold type. Words that are underlined are done so for emphasis.
This is very strange, I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else.
The opening line appears deceptive.
Dr. Paul Eckman teaches that testifying to memory failure is almost always deceptive. We don't know what drugs may have impacted her when this statement was made, but failure to remember is most always deceptive, especially in high stress situations. It should be noted that the word "this" indicates closeness, whereas the word "that" shows distance. On average, we see the word "that" used more frequently with memory failure.
note the inclusion of sensitive words, "very" strange, and "really" what happened. She notes that others are confused as she is. In a criminal investigation, innocent people (those who did not "do it" nor were involved in it) say so. They do so quickly, and without sensitivity indicators. Even in the most emotionally upsetting circumstances, a denial is found early and is comprised of:
The statement is in italics, with statement analysis in bold type. Words that are underlined are done so for emphasis.
This is very strange, I know, but really what happened is as confusing to me as it is to everyone else.
The opening line appears deceptive.
Dr. Paul Eckman teaches that testifying to memory failure is almost always deceptive. We don't know what drugs may have impacted her when this statement was made, but failure to remember is most always deceptive, especially in high stress situations. It should be noted that the word "this" indicates closeness, whereas the word "that" shows distance. On average, we see the word "that" used more frequently with memory failure.
note the inclusion of sensitive words, "very" strange, and "really" what happened. She notes that others are confused as she is. In a criminal investigation, innocent people (those who did not "do it" nor were involved in it) say so. They do so quickly, and without sensitivity indicators. Even in the most emotionally upsetting circumstances, a denial is found early and is comprised of:
I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.
Passive language "I have been told" rather than who told her what specifically. But far more telling is the following words within her statement possibly an embedded admission: "I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened". This is not something an innocent person generally says, even in the form of a question, nor in a reflection of others' words. Someone not at the crime scene would not frame these words, nor place herself there.
Note that she Wants to confirm, which is different than confirming and is a weak assertion.
She wants to confirm something that to her, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible. This means that, to someone else, it would not be impossible; only to "her", and only on the condition of being asked a few days ago. This is a strong indication that Amanda Knox is lying.
Is the something that she wants to confirm something that would be different to someone else (hence the use of "to me"). This is why extra words are essential in analysis. She is not being asked "a few days ago", she is being asked in the present. It appears that her perspective on the "something" she wants to confirm is different now than it was a few days ago.
Also note that "would be impossible" is different than "is impossible." The addition of "would be" changes her claim from something that already happened into a future event; making it weaker.
I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused. My account of this story goes as follows, despite the evidence stacked against me:
"I know" is strong and with the first person singular, it is something that she recognizes and asserts. Notice how "I know" is unlike her other statements. It is not "I believe" nor is it qualified with "I know that in my heart" or "I know that in my mind..." or any other additional words. That Raffaele has said that she was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder is something strong to Knox.
Also note that "would be impossible" is different than "is impossible." The addition of "would be" changes her claim from something that already happened into a future event; making it weaker.
I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused. My account of this story goes as follows, despite the evidence stacked against me:
"I know" is strong and with the first person singular, it is something that she recognizes and asserts. Notice how "I know" is unlike her other statements. It is not "I believe" nor is it qualified with "I know that in my heart" or "I know that in my mind..." or any other additional words. That Raffaele has said that she was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder is something strong to Knox.
Next notice that it is only "in my mind" that there are things that may be elsewhere; not just in her mind. This is likely deceptive, as it is only in her mind; and not in reality. It is an attempt to avoid the stress of lying.
When people recount events from memory, they generally don't call it a "story", a word which conjures images of a made up tale.
On Thursday November 1 I saw Meredith the last time at my house when she left around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Raffaele was with me at the 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 [sic], for whom I work at the pub "Le Chic". He told me in this message that it wasn't necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work.
Note that when the word "left" is used, it often indicates missing information. 70% of the missing information is due to time constraints, rushing, traffic, etc, with the other 30% being sensitive information.
When people recount events from memory, they generally don't call it a "story", a word which conjures images of a made up tale.
On Thursday November 1 I saw Meredith the last time at my house when she left around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Raffaele was with me at the 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 [sic], for whom I work at the pub "Le Chic". He told me in this message that it wasn't necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work.
Note that when the word "left" is used, it often indicates missing information. 70% of the missing information is due to time constraints, rushing, traffic, etc, with the other 30% being sensitive information.
Note whenever the number 3 enters a statement as it is known as the "liar's number" It should not be considered deceptive on its own, only noted in context. When someone wishes to be deceptive and chooses a number, it is often "3" unless the subject is asked how many drinks he or she had, and then the number is "two". The number 3 enters such as: "I was approached by 3 men" or "At 3 oclock on the third floor..." etc. It is not an indicator of deception on its own, for it is possible to be approached by 3 men on the third floor; only that it should be noted and later factored into the full analysis.
Note that the word "with" shows distance:
"My wife and I went shopping."
"I went shopping with my wife."
These are two ways of saying almost the same thing. A follow up question to B will likely show why distance entered into the statement; such as "I didn't want to go shopping" etc. Here, the distance is between her and Raeffale: "Raeffale was with me" but then immediately changes it to:
"we" which shows closeness, except that she has a need to emphasize the closeness by explanation: "We, Raffele and I stayed..." This need to emphasize, along with the needless repetition is an indicator that she is being deceptive.
Note that Patrik "told" me, rather than he "said" indicates firmness; It may be that she and Patrick argued, or that she wants to emphasize authority. But whatever the need, she uses "because" (which explains why something happened) making the statement itself, along with Patrik, sensitive.
Now I remember to have also replied with the message: "See you later. Have a good evening!" and this for me does not mean that I wanted to meet him immediately. In particular because I said: "Good evening!" What happened after I know does not match up with what Raffaele was saying, but this is what I remember.
Now I remember to have also replied with the message: "See you later. Have a good evening!" and this for me does not mean that I wanted to meet him immediately. In particular because I said: "Good evening!" What happened after I know does not match up with what Raffaele was saying, but this is what I remember.
Note that she "now" remembers which, like the word "but" (which refutes what was previously stated) stands to change her account.
Note that "goodbye", "see you later" etc, in homicide cases can indicate the time of death.
Note the return of "I know" which is strong. What does she know? She knows that it does not match up with Raffaele's testimony. weak commitment to the text. If the subject does not own the text, neither can we.
I 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.
I 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 the pronouns:
"I told Raffaele" is strong language. This may indicate an argument.
Note "after that" is a passage of time, or skipping over. There is missing information at this point of her statement.
Note that "I believe" is weak; but when the weakness is added to: "we relaxed" (which, by itself is strong) is then added "together" (redundancy), we see deception. This needless emphasis is being made to place them together.
Note "perhaps" is a qualifier and she is not committed to the statement.
Note that she "perhaps" made love or perhaps read. This is more than just deceptive: it is an indication of someone else's presence:
Timing is an issue as she has skipped over time and withheld information (temporal lacunae).
Why would she need to say that she made love to Raffaele? She already introduced him with "we". This is an indication of not only deception, but of the presence, within sexual activity, of more than just Amanda Knox and Raffaele. We do not know the time frame since she has skipped time.
Note: Deceptive use of qualifiers. Again, see Dr. Eckman for this form of deception (memory). Note "perhaps" (qualifier) she made love "to" Raffaele. Sex is a theme in this case, and should be explored by investigators. First she says she may have made love TO Raffaele, then changes it to WITH him in the same sentence. The change in language would need to be explored.
However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much. One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time.
However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much. One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time.
Note anything reported in the negative as sensitive.
Note "I admit" show reluctance and resistance overcome.
Note "with him" instead of "Raffaele and I smoked marijuana"; shows distance
Note that "these" things instead of "those" things.
Note that the entry of water into a statement is often an indicator of sexual assault. Whether it is the washing of clothes, washing of hands, shower, bath, etc,
Here we have the first indicator that her roommate died as part of a sexual homicide.
Note that when she was with Raffaele, she had to mention that she had sex "with him" which is an indication that during sex, at least one other person was present. Now, with the entry of water into the statement is indicative that Amanda Knox was not simply present at the murder of Merideth, but that she was present for a sexual homicide.
Note that to be vague; indicates an attempt at deception. She reports what may have happened, with choices such as reading or sex. This lack of commitment indicates deception on her part.
Note that to be vague; indicates an attempt at deception. She reports what may have happened, with choices such as reading or sex. This lack of commitment indicates deception on her part.
Deception, in order to be deception, must be willful. Amanda Knox places herself at the scene of a crime, and then gives indicators of a sexual homicide.
In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair.
In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair.
The qualifiers resemble Casey Anthony. "In truth" means she speaks at times
outside of truth.
Note that " I do not remember" is an affirmation of what she does not know. This is a signal of deception. Note that she does remember, but only not "exactly"
Note "we" took a shower. This is the 2nd indicator in a short statement where water is introduced. The element of water is often found in statements where a sexual assault or homicide has taken place.
It is significant that she tells us that Raffaele "cleaned" her. While speaking, even when attempting to be deceptive, what is in the heart slips out and she may have been thinking of washing off blood when she gave this statement. Those that wish to excuse her due to police misconduct, or mishandling of evidence must do so by ignoring not only the fact that she lied, but that she employed the language of a sexual homicide in doing so.
"I dropped off (the hitchhiker), stopped to get gas and wash up. After that, I drove down I-95 until..."
This was a statement where a hitchhiker was murdered. The timeframe where he washed up showed the time of death.
The shower details are also interesting as it is used to pass time and sexuality. Sex is a theme in her statement. Think how you might describe your night; even if you had a romantic shower, would you include it? If you felt that you needed to, would you give details about ears? Sex is in her mind while giving this statement and should alert investigators to any sexual motive in the crime. Making love "to" not "with" her boyfriend may show that Amanda Knox strongly wanted to please him. This may speak to motive and just how far she went.
One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock.
The lack of commitment to the events is noted but we also see:
One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can't be sure because I didn't look at the clock.
The lack of commitment to the events is noted but we also see:
That which is in the negative: when someone tells us what they did not do, did not say, did not think, particularly when offered in an open sentence, it is a strong indicator of what they did do, did think, and did say. Here, she remembers that she did not look at the clock. This tells us:
She looked at the clock as time was significant.
Note that this is something that "definitely" happened, yet she then says "I think" showing the obvious contradiction. Deception noted.
It is like the statement where the person says "and I saw no one run across my lawn" indicating that she saw someone run across her lawn. Always flag anything offered in the negative.
Also note that "because" is sensitive as it explains why something took place. In a statement, we normally get what happened and not why something happened, and just as being told what didn't happen, the "why, because, therefore, so, since, etc" is highly sensitive to the subject.
After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish. After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. But because he didn't have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home. I remember it was quite late because we were both very tired (though I can't say the time).
Note "I noticed" is passive. Passive language seeks to conceal identity or responsibility. Note that the word "but" is used to refute what was just said. What does she refute? Noticing blood? It is the origin of the blood that she seeks to conceal, not the noticing.
Note that "after dinner" chronologically is when she "noticed" blood, but then in her statement she says "after we ate" is repeated, going back to the event. Truthful accounts are in chronological order and can be repeated backwards and forwards. Any time someone is out of chronological order, it should be flagged for deception. Always note when someone says that they "can't" say something; it can indicate that if they did tell the information, it would harm them. Here, she "can't" tell the time; yet has other details down carefully.
Note also any inclusion of thought/emotion within an event. When someone is giving a verbal or written statement, it has been shown through careful study that in the recall process, emotions and thoughts are added later; not in the actual event itself.
A statement has 3 general portions:
an introduction
the event
post event action
It is in the 3rd section that emotions and thoughts are most likely to be included in an honest statement.
note also the "balance" of a statement is where the introduction of an honest statement is about 25% of the statement; the event is 50%, and the post event (like calling 911, etc) is 25%. Any deviation is noted but strong deviation is a solid test for deception. This is covered in other analysis)
Note also any inclusion of thought/emotion within an event. When someone is giving a verbal or written statement, it has been shown through careful study that in the recall process, emotions and thoughts are added later; not in the actual event itself.
A statement has 3 general portions:
an introduction
the event
post event action
It is in the 3rd section that emotions and thoughts are most likely to be included in an honest statement.
note also the "balance" of a statement is where the introduction of an honest statement is about 25% of the statement; the event is 50%, and the post event (like calling 911, etc) is 25%. Any deviation is noted but strong deviation is a solid test for deception. This is covered in other analysis)
Note time: she "can't" tell us indicates that she is restricted by consequence, since we know that she looked at the clock.
The next thing I remember
temporal lacunae. This indicates withheld information during a critical time period; high sensitivity. The police interview would strongly emphasize here
was waking up
note verb tense
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. It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began. In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion.
note "very doubtful" qualifier; rather than making a full denial of her confession. This is because it is almost impossible to lie upon a lie. She can only doubt the lies she told earlier. Note "this" confession, rather than the expected "that" confession, had it been false.
note the order: stress, shock, and extreme exhaustion. Stress is the first thing noted.
Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly.
The next thing I remember
temporal lacunae. This indicates withheld information during a critical time period; high sensitivity. The police interview would strongly emphasize here
was waking up
note verb tense
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. It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began. In regards to this "confession" that I made last night, I want to make clear that I'm very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion.
note "very doubtful" qualifier; rather than making a full denial of her confession. This is because it is almost impossible to lie upon a lie. She can only doubt the lies she told earlier. Note "this" confession, rather than the expected "that" confession, had it been false.
note the order: stress, shock, and extreme exhaustion. Stress is the first thing noted.
Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn't remember a fact correctly.
This is an example of an extra word, ie, one in which the sentence works without, giving away information. She could have said "I didn't remember a fact" but instead says "I didn't remember a fact correctly" which would show deliberate deception. She cannot tell us what she didn' remember, only what she remembers, so this would place it in the negative, however, it wasn't remembered "correctly", indicating that she did remember it, just not "correctly"; and is another indication of deception.
Here, Knox comes close to a confession, even in her denial. Note what she calls the information: "fact"
I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.
However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.
Here, Knox comes close to a confession, even in her denial. Note what she calls the information: "fact"
I understand that the police are under a lot of stress, so I understand the treatment I received.
However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming. But I've said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.
Note that innocent people never accept nor excuse false work by
Even within fabrication, each word spoken (or written) is vital and should be examined within the forensics of the investigation.
We have already seen the lack of ownership and now she only reports seeing things in her mind. Yet, in spite of lying, there may be many important elements within her account.
But the truth is,
This introduction tells us that she has lied and now wants to be believed
I am unsure about the truth and here's why: Note that "truth" repeated, shows sensitivity and the analyst should be on alert that "truth" is a sensitive topic to the subject.
1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real.
2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true.
Knox is acutely aware of the evidence, the crime scene, and that she has been blamed. Here, she also quotes her boyfriend, though we note the embedded still: "I have said things that I know are not true" appears supported by the analysis.
I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is absolutely a lie. What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this. What does he have to hide? I don't think he killed Meredith, but I do think he is scared, like me. He walked into a situation that he has never had to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me.
Note that she does not say "Raffaele did not kill Meredith" but only that she does not "think" he did; leaving room for someone else to "think" otherwise.
Note that while attempting to describe him as "caring and gentle" she uses the word "with" which shows distance, but then "this", showing closeness, to the things he was saying. Amanda Knox brings herself close to the detail; not further away as expected with innocent people.
Note that "but" refutes what came before it. What came before it? "I don't think Raffaele killed Meredith"
She recognizes that he had a part in the killing.
Several indicators here, including qualifiers, adverbs,and the inclusion of "never" which here is offered (negation) which suggests that she did ask someone to lie for her. Note that she says "he walked into a situation" with "walk" a word indicating tension.
Note that she says Raffaele is in need of a "way out" of the situation.
Honestly,
Repeated use of similar statements is from habitual liar (childhood) 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:
1. I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long to call someone after I found the door to my house open and blood in the bathroom.
This tells us what Knox has been attempting to do: confuse the police. The police are not "confused"; they recognize the incongruity of Knox' statements. This is the "muddy the waters" technique employed by the guilty (Jose Baez comes to mind)
The truth is,
noted that she has a need to announce truth, which brings the rest of her statement into question. This is something deceptive people do when they want to be believed.
I wasn't sure what to think, but I definitely didn't think the worst, that someone was murdered.
Note twice she goes to the negative: not sure what to think and what she did not think, yet, she adds in the weakened "definitely" to what she didn't think.
Note that the word, "someone" is gender free. This is an attempt to, perhaps, even lie to herself about the murder. She knows the gender of the victim.
I thought a lot of things, mainly that perhaps someone got hurt and left quickly to take care of it. I also thought that maybe one of my roommates was having menstral [sic] problems and hadn't cleaned up. Perhaps I was in shock, but at the time I didn't know what to think and that's the truth. That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.
Note that frequently in murders, guilty perpetrators will minimize what happened. Meredith did not get "hurt", she was murdered.
Note "left quickly to take care of it" can be viewed with the "taking care" of the cleaning of the person and the apartment.
Note the use of the word "perhaps" as not only used when a subject is deceptive and does not want to be pinned down in a statement, but here it is used repeatedly, showing sensitivity.
Note that "because" is noted for sensitivity as it is outside the boundary of the general statement of "what happened" and shows a need to explain.
Liars have a difficult and stressful task of recalling what stories they have told and by adding "perhaps" and "maybe", they are able to later defend their inconsistency.
First, she lists posible excuses for not calling police, excuses that didnt cause her to be alarmed. Then she goes on to say that "perhaps" she was in "shock", which means that she would have had knowledge of a traumatic event. In the next sentence, the "shock" turned to "worry" which caused her to seek advice.
2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating.
This is similar to an admission.
And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house. Note again that "but" refutes what came first. She wants to "stand" behind the statements but...this is where it is difficult to lie about a lie.
3. I'm very confused at this time.
Note that she is "very" confused, but only "at this time"
My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.
[illegible section]
I'm trying, I really am, because I'm scared for myself. I know I didn't kill Meredith. That's all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night. The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:
1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?
2. Why did I think of Patrik?
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?
4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?
3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.
I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me. But this is the truth and this is what I'm thinking at this time. Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone. I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.
If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't. All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.
Amanda Knox owns her involvement in Meredith's death with a word: MY. Someone who was not involved in Meredith's death would not state "my involvement", because they would not own it.
The same theme continues. I have highlighted the key words as the explanation is the same. Knox can't tell the truth, as it would cause her consequences; therefore, she seeks to confuse and leave open all sorts of possible explanations. She does not report what happens, but attempts to persuade. This is likely how she got herself out of trouble growing up, and is used to getting her way. The wording suggests her form of lying is lifelong, and not specific to this event.
Amanda Knox would not pass a polygraph. She fails the polygraphy of Statement Analysis and places herself at the scene of the murder and is deceptive throughout her account. She, by her own words, tells us that this is a sexual homicide, not just a homicide, and that she took part in it; present for the activity. She places herself by the crime scene and even though she attempts to deceive, her words give her away. She has nothing to be afraid of but lies, which would appear that she feared her lies were not bought by police.
It is likely that she, Amanda Knox, did not inflict the final death blow, and that she is not sure who's blow or cut was the final one that caused Meredith's death. This is why she said she did not "think" that Raffaele killed her, "but". This was likely a sexual assault that several took place in where they would each blame the other.
She attempts to build an alibi for herself, indicating the need for alibi, and she attempts to explain away the washing away of evidence on her part.
Amanda Knox was part of a sexual homicide. This comes from her own words, and is not changed if prosecutors are corrupt or honorable, nor if evidence was dropped or mishandled. Amanda Knox, herself, has told us that she was part of a sexual homicide, was present, and that she knows hard evidence thus proves it.
If her initial confession is thrown out, this statement itself shows her involvement. It is difficult to imagine anyone trained in interviewing and interrogation claiming that this statement is truthful. Mishandling evidence or dropping something, or not wearing gloves may cause difficulties, but it does not mean that Amanda Knox didn't take part in the murder. Her own words show that she did.
Even within fabrication, each word spoken (or written) is vital and should be examined within the forensics of the investigation.
We have already seen the lack of ownership and now she only reports seeing things in her mind. Yet, in spite of lying, there may be many important elements within her account.
But the truth is,
This introduction tells us that she has lied and now wants to be believed
I am unsure about the truth and here's why: Note that "truth" repeated, shows sensitivity and the analyst should be on alert that "truth" is a sensitive topic to the subject.
1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith's murder. I don't know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real.
2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true.
Knox is acutely aware of the evidence, the crime scene, and that she has been blamed. Here, she also quotes her boyfriend, though we note the embedded still: "I have said things that I know are not true" appears supported by the analysis.
I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is absolutely a lie. What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this. What does he have to hide? I don't think he killed Meredith, but I do think he is scared, like me. He walked into a situation that he has never had to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me.
Note that she does not say "Raffaele did not kill Meredith" but only that she does not "think" he did; leaving room for someone else to "think" otherwise.
Note that while attempting to describe him as "caring and gentle" she uses the word "with" which shows distance, but then "this", showing closeness, to the things he was saying. Amanda Knox brings herself close to the detail; not further away as expected with innocent people.
Note that "but" refutes what came before it. What came before it? "I don't think Raffaele killed Meredith"
She recognizes that he had a part in the killing.
Several indicators here, including qualifiers, adverbs,and the inclusion of "never" which here is offered (negation) which suggests that she did ask someone to lie for her. Note that she says "he walked into a situation" with "walk" a word indicating tension.
Note that she says Raffaele is in need of a "way out" of the situation.
Honestly,
Repeated use of similar statements is from habitual liar (childhood) 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:
1. I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long to call someone after I found the door to my house open and blood in the bathroom.
This tells us what Knox has been attempting to do: confuse the police. The police are not "confused"; they recognize the incongruity of Knox' statements. This is the "muddy the waters" technique employed by the guilty (Jose Baez comes to mind)
The truth is,
noted that she has a need to announce truth, which brings the rest of her statement into question. This is something deceptive people do when they want to be believed.
I wasn't sure what to think, but I definitely didn't think the worst, that someone was murdered.
Note twice she goes to the negative: not sure what to think and what she did not think, yet, she adds in the weakened "definitely" to what she didn't think.
Note that the word, "someone" is gender free. This is an attempt to, perhaps, even lie to herself about the murder. She knows the gender of the victim.
I thought a lot of things, mainly that perhaps someone got hurt and left quickly to take care of it. I also thought that maybe one of my roommates was having menstral [sic] problems and hadn't cleaned up. Perhaps I was in shock, but at the time I didn't know what to think and that's the truth. That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.
Note that frequently in murders, guilty perpetrators will minimize what happened. Meredith did not get "hurt", she was murdered.
Note "left quickly to take care of it" can be viewed with the "taking care" of the cleaning of the person and the apartment.
Note the use of the word "perhaps" as not only used when a subject is deceptive and does not want to be pinned down in a statement, but here it is used repeatedly, showing sensitivity.
Note that "because" is noted for sensitivity as it is outside the boundary of the general statement of "what happened" and shows a need to explain.
Liars have a difficult and stressful task of recalling what stories they have told and by adding "perhaps" and "maybe", they are able to later defend their inconsistency.
First, she lists posible excuses for not calling police, excuses that didnt cause her to be alarmed. Then she goes on to say that "perhaps" she was in "shock", which means that she would have had knowledge of a traumatic event. In the next sentence, the "shock" turned to "worry" which caused her to seek advice.
2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating.
This is similar to an admission.
And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house. Note again that "but" refutes what came first. She wants to "stand" behind the statements but...this is where it is difficult to lie about a lie.
3. I'm very confused at this time.
Note that she is "very" confused, but only "at this time"
My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith's death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.
[illegible section]
I'm trying, I really am, because I'm scared for myself. I know I didn't kill Meredith. That's all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night. The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:
1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?
2. Why did I think of Patrik?
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?
4. Is there any other evidence condemning Patrik or any other person?
3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.
I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me. But this is the truth and this is what I'm thinking at this time. Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone. I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.
If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don't. All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.
Amanda Knox owns her involvement in Meredith's death with a word: MY. Someone who was not involved in Meredith's death would not state "my involvement", because they would not own it.
The same theme continues. I have highlighted the key words as the explanation is the same. Knox can't tell the truth, as it would cause her consequences; therefore, she seeks to confuse and leave open all sorts of possible explanations. She does not report what happens, but attempts to persuade. This is likely how she got herself out of trouble growing up, and is used to getting her way. The wording suggests her form of lying is lifelong, and not specific to this event.
Amanda Knox would not pass a polygraph. She fails the polygraphy of Statement Analysis and places herself at the scene of the murder and is deceptive throughout her account. She, by her own words, tells us that this is a sexual homicide, not just a homicide, and that she took part in it; present for the activity. She places herself by the crime scene and even though she attempts to deceive, her words give her away. She has nothing to be afraid of but lies, which would appear that she feared her lies were not bought by police.
It is likely that she, Amanda Knox, did not inflict the final death blow, and that she is not sure who's blow or cut was the final one that caused Meredith's death. This is why she said she did not "think" that Raffaele killed her, "but". This was likely a sexual assault that several took place in where they would each blame the other.
She attempts to build an alibi for herself, indicating the need for alibi, and she attempts to explain away the washing away of evidence on her part.
Amanda Knox was part of a sexual homicide. This comes from her own words, and is not changed if prosecutors are corrupt or honorable, nor if evidence was dropped or mishandled. Amanda Knox, herself, has told us that she was part of a sexual homicide, was present, and that she knows hard evidence thus proves it.
If her initial confession is thrown out, this statement itself shows her involvement. It is difficult to imagine anyone trained in interviewing and interrogation claiming that this statement is truthful. Mishandling evidence or dropping something, or not wearing gloves may cause difficulties, but it does not mean that Amanda Knox didn't take part in the murder. Her own words show that she did.
No comments:
Post a Comment