Series Steve Moore

Wednesday, April 06, 2011

The Seattle University Panel: Some Of The Ways In Which Steve Moore Got His Analysis Wrong

Posted by James Raper


I have watched the clip of Steve Moore’s address at the University of Seattle seminar.

1.  Scenario of the crime

Steve Moore starts with the assertion that it is obvious what happened. Guede broke in via Filomena’s window and went to the loo.

Meredith comes home and is attacked, raped and murdered by him. Naturally he did not show a photo of Filomena’s window from outside the cottage. I wonder why?

Meredith came home at 9.30pm. She died some time after 11pm. Steve Moore does not elaborate as to what Guede was doing all the time in between. He sat on the loo for a long time and/or the sexual attack went on for a long time?  Both unlikely hypotheses.

2.  Concerning bleach

Then Steve Moore turns to what he states is “The Lie over the Bleach Cleaner”.

Whether or not the police/prosecution ever said that they thought bleach cleaner had been used is not clear to me.  Whether or not they had, it was not something that they continued to insist on. No one smelt bleach at the cottage on the 2nd November.

In any event Steve Moore has his own argument (which, to be fair, I did follow) to demonstrate from the pictures of the luminol traces that there could have been no bleach used as a cleaning agent.

“No bleach, no clean up!” The fact that one can wipe away relatively recent blood/bodily fluids without bleach escaped him. 

Having established that there was no bleach used he explains the luminol glow as being due to ..yes.. bleach!

3.  The luminol footprints

Drawing on his claimed considerable FBI experience (yet to be validated by anybody) he asserts that luminol reacts to bleach as strongly as blood.

Experienced forensic experts say that they can often tell the difference because the strength of a reaction all depends on the concentration in bleach – bleach which was not used in a clean up and which no one detected by sense of smell.

He then goes on to say that bleach is commonly used as a household cleaner. Yes, the main constituent of bleach is chlorine or chloride, commonly used, diluted with other ingredients, in some household cleaning fluids, though of course bleach can be bought as bleach.

Steve Moore says that Amanda Knox took a shower on the morning of the 2nd November, standing in the shower basin in diluted bleach (very diluted after a shower, one would think) and then traced that around, accounting for the luminol glow.

You do not have to be terribly clever to see that if that was the case then the luminol glow would not be all that bright due to the dilution. One can see from the photos that the glow was in fact very bright.

One also has to wonder why straight from the shower she stepped in Meredith’s invisible blood (in fact she says she scooted from the bathroom to her room on the bathmat) without the diluted bleach degrading Meredith’s DNA.

4.  Concerning TMB tests

Steve Moore asserts that Stefanoni lied about TMB tests. TMB is tetramethylbenzadine and it is used to establish whether a detected trace is blood or not.

The reactive process is the same as with luminol which has to be used to detect a trace in the first place. It is to do with the peroxadase-like activity of heme. The results look different however, TMB produces a change of colour whilst luminol produces a glow in the dark.

Steve Moore was initially appalled to think that Stefanoni did not use the TMB test on the luminol revealed traces, but then it was discovered that she had and the results were negative as to blood.

Conclusion : she lied about the TMB tests. Why?  According to Steve Moore because she knew the luminol test did not reveal blood. And was trying to conceal this fact.

I would be surprised if Steve Moore has read the trial records.  What does Massei say?  All I can find are the following:

Stefanoni did say that she could not be positive that what the luminol revealed was blood. Here I think that she was speaking very carefully as a scientist and leaving others to their conclusions. 

I do not see that she was specifically asked about TMB tests re luminol so I cannot comment on that.

However Massei quotes Amanda Knox’s expert, Dr Gino, in the following terms :

With respect to the luminol positive traces found in Romanelli’s room, in Knox’s room and in the corridor, she (Gino) states that by analysing the SLA cards “we learn, in contradiction to what was presented in the technical report deposited by the Scientific police, and also to what was said in court, that not only was the luminol test performed on these traces, but also the generic process for the presence of blood, using tetramethylbenzadine .. and this test … gave a negative result.

On being asked as to why generic tests like luminol and TMB might produce different results:

She added that in her own experience, analyses performed with TMB on traces revealed by luminol give about even results : 50% negative, 50% positive.

I would have thought that Gino’s statement is statistically meaningless unless we assume that we are talking about blood traces revealed by luminol. 

So, in other words, the fact that the TMB tests were negative does not establish that the luminol-revealed trace was not blood.

From which I assume, since luminol and TMB have the same reactive process, that the prior luminol test takes precedence, be it that of course the trace might be vegetable or fruit juice, or bleach!- none of which, of course, are capable of producing a human DNA read out, whereas blood does.

Also I would have thought that if the reactive process is the same for both then the reactive process engendered by the luminol may not leave much for a subsequent TMB test – but then that’s just speculation.

I am no scientist, but then neither is Steve Moore really qualified to talk of the actual scientific process despite being in the FBI for 25 years ( he says). I think that the closest he gets to science is how to use an aerosol can.

5. Other claims

The following topics were also then discussed by Steve Moore : Bathroom photos, staged break in, murder weapon versus knife mark, and contamination. More of the same.

Posted on 04/06/11 at 08:51 PM by James RaperClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links: Hoaxes against Italy3 No evidence hoax4 No firm DNA hoaxHoaxes re Guede33 Sole attacker hoax34 Bad guy hoaxHoaxers from 2008Steve Moore
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (21)

Monday, April 04, 2011

Today An Obsessional Group Rant About “No Evidence” By A Stacked Panel At Seattle University?!

Posted by Peter Quennell


Seattle University is a small Jesuit college just this side of Seattle’s downtown.

Today at 4:00 pm in the Pigott Auditorium, in what seems to us a seriously dopey and un-academic exercise, some of the most obsessed of the conspiracy theorists will assemble to peddle their illusions.

Two of the panelists, Paul Ciolino and Steve Moore, have been exhaustively debunked on TJMK in the past, and sooner or later we will probably turn our attention to debunking the other two: Mark Waterbury, and Candace Dempsey.

Our posts on the hotheaded faux detective Paul Ciolino are here, here, and here, and our posts on the hotheaded faux FBI murder investigator Steve Moore are here, here, here, and here.

The other two panelists, Mark Waterbury and Candace Dempsey, have authored slow-selling books which studiously ignore 95 percent of the evidence and mis-state the other 5 percent. Tom Wright of the Friends of Amanda Knox group will be presiding.

Would you like to attend, well-equipped with some questions? Ask these questions and these questions and these questions. Around 400 in all. Any reports would be appreciated.

Below: Seattle University President Father Steve Sundborg. Does he know what his film department is getting up to?


Posted on 04/04/11 at 12:48 PM by Peter QuennellClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links: Hoaxers from 2008Knox-Mellas teamHeavey, BremnerPaul CiolinoMore hoaxersThe wider contextsSeattle contextSteve Moore
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (22)

Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Scientific Statement Analysis #5: Analysis Of Steve And/Or Michelle Moore’s Attempt At Rebuttal

Posted by Peter Hyatt





I was asked to analyse some of retired FBI investigator Steve Moore’s articles about the case.

I was sure looking forward to seeing how someone who claims such a sterling resume would view the case, in light of statement analysis.

I was really surprised at what I encountered. The Steve Moore article first analyzed relies very heavily upon hyperbole, a legitimate form of communication, but in such acute concentration reveals deception.

I concluded in the statement analysis that the subject did NOT have access to the case files, and he did NOT interview any of the many Perugia and Rome investigators. In fact he may not even have been to Italy, and it appears he speaks little or no Italian..

A comment was left on the same Steve Moore statement analysis posted on my own site by someone who purports to be his wife.

When I compare the language of the original Steve Moore article with the comment, I conclude that the authors are either the same; or as in the case of some are husband and wife who are of such a close nature that they sound alike. (Spouses often enter into each other’s personal, subjective internal dictionary, which should be noted in analysis).

A question for analysis arises. Is the author of the comment the same as the author of the Steve Moore article?

This below is is the comment, along with the statement analysis, and the reason why I believe that the author is either the original subject’s spouse, or the subject himself.

Michelle Moore wrote:

The person who wrote this is 100% absolutely crazy! He or she has not in any, way, shape or form not ONE clue as to what they’re talking about. This is beyond sad.

I don’t know what he does for a profession, or why he would respond at such length to people so obsessed with Steve, but to give in to people who are even MORE crazy is truly pathetic. I feel for this person, and for the lack of absolute wisdom…astonishing!

What is wrong with you people?

Ew.

“The person who wrote this”

Note that “person” is gender neutral and that the article says “by Peter Hyatt” on it.  “this” is close; “that” is distant. The article likely touched a nerve. This is evidenced by the attempt to distance the subject from the writing (“person” gender neutral in spite of name) betrayed by the use of the “this” rather than “that.”

Note that in a rebuttal, we would expect to see points refuted. A rebuttal is similar to the question, “why is this wrong?” with an expected answer. Note that in Statement Analysis, when a question is not answered, it is an indication of sensitivity. We also say ‘if the subject has not answered the question, the subject has answered the question’.

The Statement Analysis concludes that the subject did not access the case files, nor know the thoughts and intents of the Italian investigators. If the analysis was incorrect, we would expect the subject to confront it with an answer. The absence of a response is noted.

The person who wrote this is 100% absolutely crazy!

Here is the first indicator that this comment is the same person who wrote the article: hyperbole.  In the article, repeated hyperbole is used throughout. Rather than a statement of fact, exaggeration after exaggeration is employed by the subject, which being flagged for sensitivity, shows weakness and deception.

Here, the “person” is “100% absolutely crazy”. Note that

  • “the person is crazy” is strong
  • the person is 100% crazy” is modified, with the inclusion of “100%” indicating that others may be less than “100% crazy” in the subject’s personal internal dictionary; but she is not finished:

“100% absolutely crazy” shows the redundancy of “100%” and “absolute”, unless, as deceptive people show, the internal dictionary has a different rate of measure with 100% not being complete (see analysis on Joey Buttafouco and OJ Simpson on my website for percentages above 100% in language). If one is “absolutely” crazy, there is no need to add “100%”, which is why taking the two sensitive additives points to deception.

It is like the woman who says “I am very very very happy in my marriage”, though she is likely headed for divorce.  If the subject knew the person to be “crazy”, the additional wording would not be necessary.

Moreso, if the “person” was incorrect in the analysis, it could simply be stated and proven, but rather the subject attempts to disparage, for now, the “person”, rather than address the issues of:

  • Did he see the actual case files>
  • Did he directly encounter the Italian investigators

Rather than address the issues raised and waiting for an answer, the subject attempts to discredit the “person”‘s sanity.

He or she has not in any, way, shape or form not one clue as to what they’re talking about.

Note that in spite of the author’s name posted, the “person” is now “he or she”. Next note that regarding having even “one” clue, the “he or she” has not (present tense noted)

  • “in any way” a clue;
  • “in any way, shape” a clue
  • “in any way, shape or form”
  • “in any way, shape or form not” in the negative.

This is the language of deception.

Here are four answers to the question “Are you happy in your marriage?”

  • I am happy. Person A answers in a straightforward manner and is likely content in marriage.
  • “I am very happy”. Person B shows sensitivity with the word “very”, meaning that, perhaps, the person was previously unhappy, or didn’t expect to be so happy. In any way, the person of B has sensitivity attached to happiness and in an interview, it would likely show itself.
  • “I am very very happy” is now stretching further with even more sensitivity.
  • “I am very very very happy” with 3 sensitivity indicators which would lead us to ask:

We tend to think “who are you trying to convince: yourself or us, of your happiness?”

This is the nature of sensitivity in language.

For the subject here, the use of sensitivity indicators is so strong that she uses two negatives (meaning a positive) thus

He or she has not in any, way, shape or form not ONE clue as to what they’re talking about

has “not” is in the negative, and “not” ONE clue. Two negatives sandwiched with lots of indicators.

The man or woman, he or she being addressed, has not, not a clue, coupled with 5 indicators of sensitivity.

This is the language of deceptive people.

What emerges here is that the same pattern of exaggeration in the original article, all in the “extremes”, is in this short comment.

It is likely the work of the same person or that husband and wife have learned to speak each other’s language, although it is hard to imagine two people given to the same deceptive language of exaggeration so abundantly.

It is like she wants to say about her marriage: “I am very, very, very, very, very, very happy” (with the 6th “very” added in to equal the double negative). (and yes, I had to count)

If someone ever says the above sentence about their marriage to you, you can bet he or she is headed for both a divorce and a breakdown.

This is beyond sad.

Even the emotional state must be exaggerated and “extreme”. What is “beyond” sad? Note that “this” is; and not “that is beyond sad” showing closeness.

I don’t know what he does for a profession,

Here is the first honest statement.

Notice the absence of sensitivity indicators, or in her case, the absence of the need to exaggerate. (it says “investigator” on the side of the blog under “profile” but as an honest sentence, it is likely that the subject did not see the profile section when she wrote this.

Note how unusual it is to point out one sentence that is void of exaggeration.

...or why he would respond at such length to people so obsessed with Steve

Note that the “person” who is “he or she” is now “he”.

The change of language shows deception. What is the deception? Answer: pretending not to know who wrote the article as a way of marginalizing the author, with subtle insult (see the insult of Italian investigators, along with any in the population who have not investigated violent crimes for a living in the original article).

Subtle insult is in several places in the article and is now found here; again suggesting that both were written by the same person.

Note next that “he” responds to “people” and not to the article. Note also the hyperbolic language of “respond at such length”. The statement analysis is actually shorter than the Steve Moore article. The analysis may be less than the part of the article dedicated to Moore’s FBI career rather than to defending Knox.

...people so obsessed with Steve…

The analysis was in response to the Steve Moore article; not “people”.

Note that “people so obsessed with Steve” is information offered that was not sought. This is a revelatory phrase.

Rather than answer whether or not Steve Moore was deceptive in his defense of Amanda Knox, the subject ridicules the writer of the analysis, and now offers that there are “people” (plural) who are not only “obsessed” with “Steve” but “so obsessed” (the need for exaggerating language).

This would indicate that the subject is seeking to avoid answering the following question about Steve being deceptive.

  • Did Steve Moore obtain Italian case files?
  • Did Steve Moore interview and learn “all” the thoughts, hunches, intent, etc, of “all” the Italian investigators?
  • Did Steve Moore know that “every rule” of investigations was broken by Italian investigators?

These (and many others) are points of the statement analysis which indicate that Steve Moore was deceptive in his article. This becomes a de facto question waiting for him to give an answer.

But rather than answer, the subject ridicules the mental health of the author of the analysis, feigns to not know the name and gender of the author, and claims that the author is only responding to people “so” obsessed with “Steve”.

...but to give in to people who are even MORE crazy

Note that the subject shows deception. The subject has identified the author (person, he or she, he) as “100% absolutely” crazy but now has identified “people” who are more than “100% absolutely crazy”.

This is the language of a deceptive person, more than just a deceptive response.

In the subject’s personal internal, subjective dictionary, there is no such thing as “100%” truthful, since percentages can be changed. In the subject’s personal internal, subjective dictionary, there is no such thing as “absolute” since there can be ‘more’ than both “absolute” and “100%”.

What this means is that the subject has learned, probably from childhood onward, to deceive. The more successful the subject was in childhood, the more loose the tongue becomes with exaggeration and hyperbole.

In short, the personality emerges as not just controlling (see the original post on Steve Moore’s article), egotistical, prejudiced, but deceptive; which is likely just as self deceptive as any intent on deceiving others.

It also points to one author of both the article and the comment.

...is truly pathetic.

Note that it is not just “pathetic” but “truly” pathetic. When “truly” enters a statement, always note it, as it means that there are likely other things presented that are not “truly”.

I feel for this person,

Note first person singular and present tense. Why the gender confusion of neutral, he and she? It may suggest that the author is being deceptive about his/her own identity.

Did Moore’s wife write the original article? Did Moore? The writer may attempt to deceive here regarding gender.

...and for the lack of absolute wisdom…astonishing!

Note that it is not just the lack of wisdom but the lack of “absolute” wisdom. What is “absolute” wisdom?

Is this a reference to Proverbs? Is it a reference to divinity? We would need to ask the subject what is “absolute” wisdom.

“astonishing” is used rather than just ‘wrong”. This word means to “astonish”. What has caused the subject to be “astonished” but the “lack of “absolute” wisdom”. If the wisdom is “absolute”, then it can only be from the Creator.

Why would a person “astonish” another by being a human being, subject to mistake, errors, and failures? What is the expectation? Perfection? Infallibility? The language suggests deceptive attempt at portraying something that is so wrong that it “astonishes” the subject; beneath answering.

    Question: “Steve, did you get the case files from Italy to investigate?”

    Answer: “I am so astonished that anyone, in any way shape or form, on any planet, void of eternal and unchanging wisdom, could be so beyond sad and absolutely 100% more than crazy, and be so weak as to give in to people who are so incredibly and astonishingly obsessed with me, that I cannot even answer your question!”

It sounds as goofy as it is, but the bottom line is: in the many words, the subject has not answered the question. In Statement Analysis we say: “If the subject has not answered the question, the subject has answered the question.”

What is wrong with you people? Ew.

Here a question is posed, attempting to learn what is wrong with “you people” whom have already been identified as more than 100% crazy, more than obsessed, more than sad, and felt for, emotionally.

The projection should not be lost on those who read the original article and saw narcissistic control issues that belie an underlying mental health condition.

“Ew” is consistent with the insulting nature of the original article by the subject, and the use of hyperbole and exaggeration is strikingly similar. In this short statement, only one sentence is without exaggerating language.

There is something else to be noted here: with the word “ew”, a commentator has pointed out that this is not only unusual, but it is the same word used by Amanda Knox herself in describing her “best friend’s” blood spilled everywhere.

Moore uses the word “obsessed” and the projection is noted.

However, in putting the two thoughts together, it suggests that (1) there is something within the immature personality of Amanda Knox (“ew”) that has so “obsessed” Moore, that (2) he has defended her without reason or logic, and (3) has said that due to his many TV appearances he lost his job as a security guard.

Is Moore so obsessed with Amanda Knox that the word “ew” creeps into the language?

Investigators don’t buy coincidences. Finding the word “ew” in one statement in a lifetime is enough for the odds makers. Finding it a second time suggests something entirely different.

This may explain why the basis of Moore’s argument against Knox’ guilt is Moore himself. The link is powerful.

Exaggeration is a legitimate form of argument, used to make a point.

Its repetition, however, indicates sensitivity. Its cartoon-like employment is deceptive, used to masquerade weakness even while it actually highlights it instead.

Example with exaggeration: I’ve never seen more exaggeration used in a single paragraph than I have here.

Example without exaggeration: We are STILL waiting for Steve Moore’s answers to these.

(1) What evidence did he read?

(2) And which investigators did he meet?

Posted on 01/19/11 at 10:56 AM by Peter HyattClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links: Crime hypothesesStatement analysisHoaxers from 2008Steve Moore
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (11)

Wednesday, January 05, 2011

Scientific Statement Analysis: Claims Made By Steve Moore About The Investigations In Italy

Posted by Peter Hyatt


I was asked by a commentator to do an analysis of the handwritten statement of Amanda Knox. At the time of the request, I had heard of the case, but wasn’t familiar with the details.

Statement analysis is best done cold.

When investigators ask other investigators to analyze a statement, the request is made insomuch as the statement is sent, along with the accusation, but without evidence, opinion, analysis, background checks, etc.

Only the allegation is given, and the analysis is done. This is so that the analyst is not influenced by anything but the statement.

Statement Analysis is also useful even when much information is known, especially for teaching purposes. For example, read Mark McClish’s analysis of Casey Anthony in which he concludes that the mother knows what happened to the child and is withholding the information from investigators.

Today, this sounds benign because we know that the alleged kidnapper never existed. But back then, Mark went on only the statement.

Of course, doing the same statement knowing all that we know is useful in showing where sensitivity indicators popped up, which we know in retrospect, were lies. For the purpose of instruction, revisiting analysis of adjudicated cases, for instance, is useful.

Casey Anthony will be studied for a long time. Her lying is rare, but the principles we employ remain the same and pick up the deception in her statement.

When I began analysis of Amanda Knox’s written statement, I stopped partially through due to the references (and details) to water (sexual connotation) and googled the case to familiarize myself with it. I returned and finished the analysis, but was surprised by the responses.  Since then, I have seen passionate debates online regarding guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox.

A commentator on the case asked that I take a close look at Steve Moore’s defense of Amanda Knox.

Steve Moore’s claimed resume is impressive and he writes with passion. Given those claimed credentials, I was initially excited about what he would say in her defense.

Since then, I have learned that he has made numerous appearances on the major networks on the Amanda Knox case, claiming that he once he thought her guilty, but now believes that she is innocent, and is actively engaged in seeking to help Knox.

In fact, it appears that Mr. Moore may have suffered personally due to his passionate stance on this case, as news reports say that the reason he was terminated as a security guard at Pepperdine University was due to his involvement in defending Knox.

My own analysis of the case starts from the wordings of Amanda Knox herself and I have posted previous statement analysis on TJMK (scroll down). In the first statement analysis posted, Amanda Knox tests deceptive, repeatedly and consistently.

We employ the same principles in analyzing an article as we do in analyzing a statement, with the exception of measurement of form (content percentage and subjective time; lines per hour) since it is not incident based. We may view the number of lines dedicated to a particular topic, but this is not the same as the measurement of form used to uncover deception.

It is helpful to read my Statement Analysis 101 if you are not familiar with the principles, as well as the analysis of Amanda Knox’s handwritten statement.

Investigation of Violent Crimes is My Life; Not a Hobby

by Steve Moore

My name is Steve Moore; I retired from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2008 after 25 years as a Special Agent and Supervisory Special Agent. My entire investigative experience was in the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, from murder to mass-murder and terrorism.

In my last such assignment, I was the Supervisor of the Al Qaeda Investigations squad, following which I ran the FBI’s Los Angeles-based “Extra-Territorial Squad”, which was tasked with responding to any acts of terrorism against the United States in Asia and Pakistan. I have investigated murders throughout the United States and the world.

His first 10 lines are used to introduce himself, by his first and last name, with repeated mention of the FBI, indicating that this is a sensitive topic for him.

He also introduces “supervisor” in this introduction. In Statement Analysis, we look at the amount of words (or lines) assigned to various topics which can help us determine not only deception but priority. Note that his “entire” experience was in investigations of violent crimes, excluding all other work.

I do not know Amanda Knox. I have never met or spoken with anybody in the Knox or Mellas families. In my 25 years in the FBI, I had come to believe that if you were arrested, you were probably guilty. I never had a person I took to trial who wasn’t convicted.

I was especially tired of guilty persons claiming their innocence.

“I do not know Amanda Knox” is a strong statement. Our measurement for reliability and commitment is First Person Singular, past tense, and we note not only any deviation from this formula of commitment, but we note any additions. Here, by itself, it is strong.

But then he adds to it the additional information: “I have never met or (sic) spoke with anybody in the Knox or Mellas families”. We would then ask, “have you emailed them? Have you had contact with them through another party?” since we note that he felt the need to add distance to the statement.

This is the first mention of Amanda Knox. In analysis, it is important to note all names mentioned, and in the order they are mentioned, and how they are addressed.Also note that he mentions “FBI” again, which repetition shows sensitivity.

He then states that after 25 years experience, he holds to a prejudice that if someone is arrested, he is guilty. This presupposed guilt is noted, as he reveals how his own mind worked, even after 25 years experience and should be noted.

I had heard snippets about the Knox case from the news, and believed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were certainly guilty.

Note the confirmation of his closed mindedness in the word “certainly”. He concluded this because they had been arrested and it was a “certainty” for him. This leads to the question on how 25 years experience failed to make him open minded. We note this along with the repetition of experience as sensitive to the subject.

Note that, within the prejudiced mind of guilt he heard “snippets” about the Knox case from the news. This would not be a study of a case file; but reduces the information he listened to to “snippets”.

But then I began to hear statements from the press that contradicted known facts.

Note that when someone “began” something, they should conclude it and may indicate a withholding of information; otherwise what was began was not completed and continues.

Note also that he began to “hear statements” that came from the press that “contradicted known facts”. We note the change in language, from “snippets” from the “news” to “statements” from the “press”.

When a change of language appears, it represents a change in reality. “I pulled out my gun, and fired my weapon, and then re holstered my gun.” Here, the gun became a “weapon” when fired; but returned to being a “gun” when holstered.

A change in language represents a change in reality. “My car started to sputter so I pulled over. I left the vehicle on the side of the road and walked.”

Insurance investigators are often well trained (and in some regions, paid more than law enforcement) and recognize that the car was a “car” while being driven, but became a “vehicle” when it would no longer go. Therefore, the change of language is justified by the change in reality.

Statement Analysis principle: When there is a change in language, but not an apparent change in reality, we may be looking at deception.

Note also that the “statements” from the “press” are no longer “snippets” from the “news” and, he reports, are contradicting “known facts”.  We have another change in language. This leads us to conclude:either there is a new source of information justifying the change of language, or there is possible deception here, and the information is coming from the same source; media.

In an interview, we would want to ask about “snippets”, “news”, “statements”, and we would want to ask what “known” facts are, versus “unknown” facts. We would also need to know the source of the “known” facts. Without justification in reality, a change in language is flagged for possible deception.

Is the information coming from media outlets, which indicates deception, or does the subject have access to the case files in Italy, from which he can then compare the “known facts” to “statements and snippets” that came from media?

Where did the “known facts” come from? Were they from the press? Note that he does not disclose where the “known” facts came from and he now causes us to ask about the difference between “facts” and “known facts”; ie, what this means to the subject himself.

Wanting to resolve the conflicts, I looked into the case out of curiosity.

Note the inclusion of the word “conflicts”. Are these the “statements” from the press that “contradicted” the “known facts”? Note also that none are identified here.

We would seek, in an interview, clarification on what is “known facts” versus unknown facts; and how they came into knowledge (ie, from the media?) This may indicate personal knowledge of the case, that is, reading the case files from Italy.

The more I looked, the more I was troubled by what I found. So I looked deeper, and I ended up examining every bit of information I could find (and there’s a lot of it).

Note that he “looked” and was “troubled” by what he found. He does not say where he “found” these things that troubled him.  Note now we have new language introduced:  He does not tell us where he looked (news, press) but he was able to examine “every bit of information” he was able to find.

An exaggeration is not necessarily deceptive within itself, as it is used to make a point. If we have, however, repeated (sensitive) exaggeration, we will then wish to revisit it for deception. It also raises the question of need. Why would repeated exaggeration be needed?

The subject does not tell us where he found “every bit” of information, leading us to more questions. This is why Statement Analysis is helpful in getting beyond attempts to persuade, and to seek truth.

It is difficult for anyone to say that they examined “every” bit of information and not be questioned as to where it came from, but in this case, the files reside in another country, in Italian, and not in the United States, in English.

Perhaps he had access to the case file if it was shared through his federal agency, but he does not say so.

The more I investigated, the more I realized that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito could not have had anything to do with the murder of Meredith Kercher. Moreover, one reason that they were falsely convicted was that every rule of good investigation was violated.

We have a change in language, from “looked” and “examined” to “investigated”. This is no longer someone viewing snippets from the news. We have a change in language and it must be justified by a change in reality. What has changed that he has gone from “looking” even deeper, to “examine” and now to “investigate”?

He does not identify the source of information that he now investigated, but tells us that this investigation of unknown information caused him to “realize” that the two accused had “nothing to do” with it. In order for this not to be viewed as deceptive, the information that he went from looking at, then to examining, and then on to investigating would have to be made known.

If it is from the press, is it “snippets” or “statements” or information that “every bit” he could locate contradicted “known” facts; leading us to ask:“known” by whom? If the subject is unable to identify what it is that the source of information that he called “known facts” we are likely looking at deception: only that he read the news and changed his mind; not that he was privy to case files in Italy.

In Statement Analysis, repetition indicates sensitivity. One repeated theme has been “FBI” in this statement.

Another is the word “every”, which is all inclusive. Each time “every” is used, it should be noted. The word “every” is repeated, indicating sensitivity.

Since “every” excludes none, it is something that may only rarely be used in association with an investigation, since “everything” cannot ever be known. Note here that “every rule of good investigation” is mentioned.

What are these rules?

Was “every” rule violated?

This is the language of persuasion, not of report. Note also the additional word “good”. This means that to the subject, there are investigations and there are “good” investigations, within his personal internal dictionary. What rules are referenced?  This sensitivity again suggests deception regarding the case files, perhaps (or source of information) via exaggeration.

I spent years of my life working on cases in the federal courts, from simple murder to mass shootings to weapons of mass destruction.

Note the repetition of his life experience again. Note also “federal” is repeated. The amount of repetition associated here with his work is highly sensitive to the subject. His work record, therefore, would likely need examination.

He stated that he worked on cases, but did not say if he did so successfully.

Since the subject has not said so, neither can we. We can say that his work is a highly sensitive topic to him, and that he has not overcome presuppositional judgementalism even though he worked at it for 25 years. Thus, he is failing to build the reader’s confidence but instead is weakening it.

His view point of his work and career and that of his superiors is a highly sensitive and personal issue for him and should be examined.

In the U.S., the totality of the evidence and the hunches of the investigators in this matter would not have been sufficient to get a search warrant, much less take somebody to trial. The case is completely flawed in every way.

In Statement Analysis, the shortest sentence is best. Every additional word which can be removed from the sentence is called an “unnecessary” word, making it, in Statement Analysis, doubly important as it shows sensitivity.

For example, if I said, “I am happily married” it would be a straightforward statement.

If I said I was “very happily married” the additional word “very” would indicate sensitivity. We do not know what causes the sensitivity; perhaps the subject didn’t expect to be happy, or was previously unhappy.

But if the subject said, “I am very, very happily married” and even on to “I am very, very very happily married” we might, along with Shakespeare, ask, “who are you trying to convince; you or me?” as the sensitivity is magnified by repetition.

Here, the subject uses additional words which cause us to flag the sensitivity:

1. The “totality” can only be known if the subject has access to all the case file information.

2. “Hunches” of the investigators is to know what is in their minds; meaning he is either being deceptive, or has interviewed every Italian investigator and now knows their thoughts or “hunches”.

The case is not only flawed, it is flawed with the sensitive addition of “in every way” and in its entirety. The repeated exaggeration is used to persuade; not report, and indicates deception. He cannot conclude that it is in “totality” anything, flawed or otherwise.

Note that this is the language commonly found in deceptive statements. “Every” rule has been broken, and the case is flawed in “every” way. He also claims access to the “totality” of the evidence; something which causes the reader to question the truthfulness of such a bold claim.

The argument he presents needs exaggeration and deception to be made. Note that the deception that is judged by common sense (not having access to “every” thing about the case, is evidenced by the high level of sensitivity in the language). The physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is wrong, Note that evidence is neither wrong nor right; it is what it is and is neutral.

What one concludes from evidence may be wrong or right, but in Statement Analysis we do not interpret his meaning for us; rather we look at the words he uses. This type of exaggerated and fabricated arguments may be why his career is something of high sensitivity; along with being unable to overcome presuppositional thinking that all arrested are guilty. It does not show an open-mindedness.

This is something that may have become problematic within his career.

contrived, misinterpreted, and (to put it kindly) misstated. The other “evidence” is made up of (embarrassingly naïve) hunches and bias. The “DNA” evidence is particularly inaccurate.

The alleged motive and modus operandi of Knox/Sollecito is so tortured (and constantly-changing) that it defies belief.

Thus far, Mr. Moore has used a great deal of his statement about his background and his work, and then upon debasing the evidence, but has still not informed us what evidence he refers to, nor how he was able to obtain the evidence, nor what manner of examination he employed.

Note that in order to draw such opinions, he would have had access to all the above, including DNA evidence. He states to have studied the information, but does not identify the information investigated.

Note also the use of exaggerated language is used consistently throughout his statement, including coming to a contrary opinion “defying belief” which may also be related to the sensitivity in his career. If this is his method of presenting an argument, it is likely that co workers may have held a very different opinion of the subject than he appears to in this article.

“FACTS DETERMINE CONCLUSIONS”—The universal truism of investigation. The instant that one’s conclusions determine or change the facts, you have corrupted the judicial system. I have been a young investigator, and I have supervised eager but inexperienced young investigators.

Note that he was a “young investigator” but that he has supervised “eager but inexperienced young investigators”, excluding himself from being “eager” and “inexperienced” when he was young.

Note also the repetition sensitivity attached to “supervisor”. Young or inexperienced investigators have a tendency to believe their own hunches. This is dangerous, because uneducated hunches are usually wrong. Hunches are not bad, they just need to be allowed to die a natural death when evidence proves them wrong. Note that the subject had 25 years experience but did not overcome presuppositional prejudice.

This appears to be a statement of his own projection. How he thinks, he projects upon Italian investigators.

Our words reveal us; they reveal our personalities and what we think of ourselves and others.

The sign of an investigation run amok is when an initial hunch is nurtured and kept on life support long after evidence should have killed it.

Likely the belief that any arrested person is guilty should have died during his rookie year in law enforcement, as most mature away from such concrete thinking and move on to a mature abstract thinking. This likely reveals how he conducted his own investigations.

This case is just such a situation. In the Knox case, the investigator openly states: “We knew she was guilty of murder without physical evidence.”—Edgardo Giobbi, Investigator.

We do not know the full text of the statement, but it appears to match his own belief about those arrested being guilty. Perhaps it is that the investigators, before test results came in, concluded that they had the killers based upon their own words.

At some point, the subject was either trained or offered training in Statement Analysis, meaning that he would have an understanding of the words chosen by Amanda Knox in her original interview, or even in her subsequent media interviews.

He would also know that a prisoner who gives a false confession due to coercion will test out “deceptive” because their statement of confession is, de facto, deceptive, as it was false and it was coerced by the interrogators.

Then, when physical evidence came in that did not support their story, they simply changed their story. And their suspects. And their murder weapons. And the motives. (If there was ever a ‘smoking gun’ in this case; that statement was it.)

The subject tells us that the physical evidence “came in” but does not tell us where it came into, nor how he was able to obtain it. If he did not obtain the evidence as he attempts to persuade above, he is being deceptive to his readers, thus the need for hyperbole and exaggeration.

I will only say of the interrogation…

Note: future tense verb. Note also “only” meaning exclusion of other things to say. Future tense violates the principle of First Person Singular Past Tense as establishing commitment. He does not establish commitment so neither can we.

...that if any FBI Agents I supervised had conducted that interrogation in the U.S., I would have had them indicted.

Note again the repetition of “FBI” and “supervision” (supervise) as the sensitivity continues. This calls attention back to his work record and would cause us to want to interview those he supervised.

I am not surprised that Amanda made incriminating and conflicting statements in such a horrible situation. I am more surprised that under that duress, she didn’t make more incriminating (but ultimately false) statements.

Note that he is not surprised that she incriminated herself, but he is surprised that she did not do so more so.

Note that Statement Analysis done of false confessions shows deception.

Note that he acknowledges that she made incriminating statements; would her statements, which showed deception, be considered unreliable when they were made to a journalist last summer? Those statements also incriminated her and showed guilt.

Hypothetically, any trained investigator operating for many hours without rules, in a foreign language, slapping and threatening a naïve, frightened girl just out of her teens and in a foreign country, (denying her food, sleep and the right to an attorney and Consular advice) can get her to say just about anything. If this was the medical profession, one might deem such activities “intentional malpractice”.

Note that this is reduced to “hypothetically” and it is not something he asserts with commitment. The lack of commitment shows attempt at persuasion, rather than report. Report is the honest recall of past tense facts, such as gaining all the evidence and case files from Italy, reading it, examining it, and reporting back upon it.

This type of work does not need persuasion nor exaggeration. It would not show such high and repeated sensitivity.

Note that the subject again does not tell us that he obtained evidence.  Note that the subject does not tell us that he obtained the case files. Note that the subject does not tell us that he spoke to the investigators and uncovered all their hunches (every one of them).

His statement is reported as if he did, but since he does not tell us he did, we cannot say that he did.

This is where the sensitivity of deception comes in: allowing his readers to believe that he obtained every bit of evidence from the case, including interviews, files, DNA, physical evidence, etc, as well as being able to interview and access the thoughts and hunches of all the investigators involved, and now is able to accurately report these things to his readers.

The language employed shows deception, but the possibility of the subject having obtained all of this information regarding the case itself also suggests deception. It is deceptively written.

The investigators in this matter appeared to have decided upon a conclusion, and repeatedly changed their story so that the evidence would suit their conclusions.

Note the inclusion of the word “appeared”, which makes this statement honest. He claims that it “appears” to be a certain way to him, which is different than claiming to have examined all the evidence and to have known all the thoughts of those involved.

After the evidence came back that Rudy Guede sexually assaulted Meredith, did it not occur to the investigators that they had a simple rape/murder? The simplest answer is usually the correct answer. Crimes are only this complicated in James Bond movies.

The complexity of crimes is why hard work, education, and lots of training is needed. Note the reduction and minimization of hard work and training found within his theory.

Note “the evidence” came back, but he does not identify where it came back from, nor if he examined the evidence.

Amanda would not even have been a suspect in any US investigation.

Note again the use of exaggeration with “any” US investigation; a point that can not be proven nor disproven. When a subject needs to rely upon exaggeration, it is the subject that is causing the reader to question veracity.

Also note: the use of the name, Amanda. Recall the sensitivity in the opening part of his statement that was noted. Since he “never” met anyone in the family, it is unusual for him to simply use her first name. I would question the family to learn if anyone has communicated with him via letters or exchanged emails or met in person.

A sex murder occurs and your prime suspect is the female roommate?

He poses this as a question.  Note “your” is 2nd person, distancing language.

Experienced, or simply competent investigators would have known that statistically, 90% of murders are committed by men.

Note that he classifies investigators as “experienced” or “simply competent”. We have another word that has repeated sensitivity: experience.

When women commit murder, only 16% use a knife, and close examination might show that the vast majority of those are gang-related. Any conclusion that involves a woman stabbing another woman is statistically so rare, that it should be looked at with great suspicion.

Note that in his statistics “only” 16% use a knife. This indicates that 84% use something else. Note that he writes that it should be looked at with “great suspicion” but does not claim that investigators did not look at it with “great suspicion”.

There is also a thing called “leakage”. Leakage is the tendency of homicidal or mentally ill people to ‘leak’ behavior that would indicate their true nature.

If one is to believe that Amanda Knox was the drug-crazed, homicidal Svengali that she was made out to be, there is absolutely NO way that such sociopathic behavior would not be leaked in some significant way prior to this crime.

In her interview analyzed, note what is leaked out by Amanda Knox. The association of her wording is found with sexual activity; generally sexual crime (LSI).

Note that not only does she reference water but note how often it is repeated as well as the details given (see analysis). Even if she is only 16% likely according to Mr. Moore’s statistic, it is not proof of innocence.

No, instead we see a girl on the Dean’s list working several jobs to attend a university program in Italy. A girl who had not even had a scrape with law enforcement.

Note that Amanda Knox is described as a “girl” and not a “woman”.

A good auto mechanic who lacks scruples, can take a car out of a junk yard, bolt on a couple of new fenders, drop in new carpets and slap on tires and a $100 coat of paint. Once he cleans up the interior and rolls back the odometer, he could sell it as a near new car to 99% of the population. It appears new, the mileage says it’s new, and only a trained mechanic would know the difference.

He dedicates 6 lines to auto mechanics. Note the inclusion of “99% of the population”. This leaves only 1 % population remaining to know better. This, coupled with the high level of sensitivity about his background and experience may show leakage of his thought process here: how he views his opinion and how he views the opinions of those he disagrees with.

But bring in a trained mechanic, and he might notice that the brake pedal, for instance, is worn almost to the metal. That’s a sure sign of 100,000 miles of use or more. The hint of blue smoke out of the exhaust would be a dead give-away of a worn-out motor. He would warn you that all is not as pretty and new as it seems.

Another 5 lines dedicated to auto and not to specific evidence. He has not presented:evidence, nor where he obtained the evidence, nor how he spoke to the investigators, but claims to know their thoughts; hunches. We have the repeated employment of exaggerations, meaning that repeated exaggerations themselves indicate sensitivity.

The sensitivity suggests that the subject is deceptively representing himself as an investigator who accessed the evidence, the files, and knows the thoughts of the investigators, and was able to get information outside of media, because he found media to be contradictory to “known” facts.

The sensitivity of his statement, however, is mostly associated with his career and work.

He appears deceptive about his relationship with the case files and investigators in Italy, and that his reason for declaring Amanda Knox as innocent is associated with his own work and career performance, which would need careful examination including interviews with his superiors and the people he claimed to have supervised.

Note his thinking as presented in his writing: he is 25 years FBI; therefore, Amanda Knox is wrongfully convicted.

For an article written about Amanda Knox, he dedicates much time to his career, repeating that he was FBI, supervisor, and that he, himself, is the basis for his audience to believe his claim about Amanda Knox.

Note carefully his own words: “Take my word for this.”  This is something that is likely problematic.

When someone tells others to take their word for something, in particular, if the subject is in a position of authority, it would likely be problematic in career and personal life, leaking an insecurity shown in a desire to control what others think.

It is likely difficult to be supervised by someone that holds to this mentality, and the subtle ridicule is something more used in bullying rather than the factual presentation of ideas or the free exchange in debate.

Rather than being able to think for oneself, the “take my word for it” mentality can cause interpersonal problems in marriage, work place, friendships, and in business.

In investigations, complexity demands an input of conflicting ideas.

Investigation of violent crimes is my life; not a hobby.

He refers back to himself again as his reference point of his premise: that Amanda Knox is innocent. It also presupposes that for others, investigations of violent crimes is reduced to status of “hobby”. This is a subtle insult upon readers who may not share his view.

Note that “hobby” may be seen as an insult to those who do not make “violent crimes” their “life” or profession.

This type of subtle insult is found throughout, including at Italian investigators:

The case the Italian prosecutors are trying to sell you is not the beautiful thing it appears to some to be. It’s a junker all cleaned-up and waiting to be purchased by naïve people. And the jury in Perugia bought it.

Note the unusual word “beautiful” in describing the case presented by Italian prosecutors. This would prompt more questioning of how he views the case, and why “beauty” is attached to a murder investigation.

He then insults them by calling their work “junk” and insults the public (hobbyists?) as “naive”.  Well thought out arguments do not need deception, exaggeration, nor insult and ridicule. He refers to their investigation work as “junk”.

It would be interesting to hear what Italian investigators think of his presented argument in defense of Amanda Knox.

Posted on 01/05/11 at 01:37 PM by Peter HyattClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links: Crime hypothesesStatement analysisSteve Moore
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (16)

Wednesday, December 15, 2010

Michelle Moore Lets Slip How Conspiracy Nut Bruce Fischer Brainwashed Steve Moore

Posted by SomeAlibi




1. The Rabid Moores

Michelle Moore is a vocal member of the Twitterati and blogging wife of Steve Moore, claimed FBI helicopter pilot.

Judgement has not been the Moores’ strongest suit. Steve Moore has been punting his “expertise” around the media for quite some time. One could pick numerous examples of wild exaggeration, such as:

  • Examples in The Machine’s fine post rebutting numerous false claims; see also the many great comments there.

  • Steve Moore’s frequent hyperbole that Amanda Knox was “beaten” - though she cant name by whom and Knox herself at most claims she was clipped twice over the head, her own lawyers and the courts did not believe her.

  • And that her interrogation was “just short of waterboarding”, and of course his proud boast that he didn’t need to read Judge Massei’s 425 page judgement of the case - he could divine the answers himself… 


2. Steve Moore’s Phony “Conversion”

Michelle Moore has revealed their true cynical colours online.

Note how Michelle Moore responded to an elaborate wind-up on Twitter from someone posting as “Archangelogab”.  In response to repeated tweets, Michelle let rip that she believes the tweeter is “sick and perverted” just like, in her opinion [prosecutor] Mignini.

Note the folksy god-fearin’ props the Moores put up behind them for a recent television interview, which were, to name them: a Bible, an ammo-clip and a mortgage statement (no seriously),

Note especially how Moore is fond of telling interviewers that he believed in the prosecution of Amanda Knox - until his wife challenged him to look at the evidence again because she was concerned about the case having watched a CBS documentary on the case.

This homely story has been repeated at various times. Except for that’s not actually how it happened at all. 

What actually happened as Michele Moore has let slip (see image below) how thrilling it was that Steve Moore was approached by one Bruce Fischer who runs the conspiracy website Injustice In Perugia.


What nice people! It was a thrill huger than anyone can imagine to be able to populate their empty lives with Fischer’s absurd conspiracies and anti-Italy bigotry and enter into years of defaming people!

This slip was quickly spotted and posted publicly on the pro-justice PMF forum. At which point the Michelle Moore blog mysteriously disappeared for the day.

It was returned to the net only after the damning screen-captures had already been posted on PMF. Therefore making the taking of the website down rather ineffective.

The blog limped sheepishly back under a new title.  Under a changing alibi, if you like. And Bruce Fischer confirmed that he had addled the Moores in getting them to join him.


3. Some Conclusions

Steve and Michelle Moore debased themselves by not checking out Fischer and the case better.

They might like now to reflect that credible supporters of people with strong causes have zero need to exaggerate and use hyperbole and rain invective.

The fact that they do so all the time raises serious questions about their judgement.  Their attack on Prosecutor Giuliani Mignini on false grounds is just another unveiling of the true colors of the people Knox attracts.

Posted on 12/15/10 at 12:46 PM by SomeAlibiClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links: Hoaxers from 2008Knox-Mellas teamHoaxers from 2010Steve Moore
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (15)

Tuesday, October 12, 2010

Ten Examples Of How The Former Campus Cop Steve Moore Serially Mischaracterizes The Case

Posted by The Machine




1. The Chronic Chest-Thumper

A couple of weeks ago Steve Moore was frogmarched out of his workplace on the campus of Pepperdine University and told not to come back.

Although Pepperdine apparently offered him a deal for his resignation, he refused, and so he probably departed with only the minimal severance entitlements in his contract. Now he is suing Pepperdine, presumably to see if he can get a little bit more. 

Steve Moore has been rather plaintively claiming since the firing that he did nothing wrong, except to avidly support the innocence of Amanda Knox in his own time. No mention of his confused take on the case or of Pepperdine’s exchange students in Italy who must rely on the police Moore delights in trashing.

We suspect that a lot of things about his confused, hurtful and ebullient campaign reached the front office of Pepperdine University and its Law School, and that some or many of these things may come out in the open when Steve Moore’s suit goes to court. Our next post will contemplate what some of these things may be.


2. Moore Adrift On Hard Facts

It’s not a secret at all to those involved in handling the case in Perugia and Rome (where Moore is much ridiculed) and presumably now at Pepperdine (which has a very good law school, one capable of correctly absorbing the Massei report) is how Steve Moore is serially unable to get the facts right.

His media interviews have followed the very familiar PR script. The presenter or journalist begins by really talking up Steve Moore’s 25-year career with the FBI as one of the FBI’s really big stars! Then going to to emphasize how Steve Moore has REALLY done his homework on this case! On the NBC Today Show, for example, it was claimed that Steve Moore has studied “every iota of evidence”! Reporter Linda Byron stated on Seattle’s King 5 TV that he had obtained the trial transcripts and the police and autopsy records! And Moore had all of them translated into English!

The intended message is clear: Steve Moore is an exceptionally credible professional expert in all the relevant fields! He knows this case inside out because he has researched it absolutely meticulously!

In this piece, we will compare just a few of the many claims that Steve Moore has made - here in interviews with Frank Shiers on Seattle’s Kiro FM Radio, with Ann Curry on the NBC Today Show, with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News, and with Monique Ming Laven on Seattle’s Kiro 7 TV - with the real facts, as described in the Massei report and the witness testimony from the trial.

3. Ten Of The Oft Repeated Lies By Moore


Frequent Moore Lie 1: The large knife doesn’t match the large wound on Meredith’s neck.

Steve Moore has repeatedly claimed in interviews with for example Frank Shiers, Ann Curry and Monique Laven that the double DNA knife doesn’t match the large wound on Meredith’s neck.

Untrue. Prosecution experts, multiple defence experts and Judge Massei in his report have all agreed that the double DNA knife DID match the large wound on Meredith’s neck.

On these matters, the considerations already made must be recalled, which led this Court to evaluate the outcome of the genetic investigation as reliable, and this knife as absolutely compatible with the most serious wound. (The Massei report, page 375).

Barbie Nadeau reported directly from the courtroom in Perugia that multiple witnesses for the defence, including Dr. Carlo Torre, conceded that the double DNA knife was compatible with the deep puncture wound in Meredith’s neck.

“According to multiple witnesses for the defense, the knife is compatible with at least one of the three wounds on Kercher’s neck, but it was likely too large for the other two.” (Barbie Nadeau, Newsweek).

He (Dr. Carlo Torre, defence expert) conceded that a third larger wound could have been made with the knife, but said it was more likely it was made by twisting a smaller knife. (Barbie Nadeau, The Daily Beast).

For someone who has allegedly “studied every iota of evidence”, it seems that Steve Moore is doing nothing more than regurgitating a familiar FOA myth that has long been completely debunked.

He clearly hasn’t studied every iota of evidence. Very far from it.

Monique Ming Laven had a copy of the English translation of the Massei report. Warning bells should have gone off in her head as soon as Moore claimed the double DNA knife didn’t match the large wound on Meredith’s neck, and yet she didn’t challenge him.


Frequent Moore Lie 2: They want you to believe that Amanda Knox inflicted all three wounds on Meredith’s neck

Moore stated in an interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News that “they” claimed that Knox caused all three wounds on Meredith’s neck.

“What they’re having you, what they want you to believe is that in the middle of a life and death struggle, holding a girl who is fighting for her life. Amanda stabbing someone for the first time in her life, takes two stabs with a very small knife, throws it away and says give me the other one” (5.48 -  6.05)

Untrue. Neither the judges and jury nor the prosecution have ever claimed that Amanda Knox inflicted all three wounds on Meredith’s neck:

“Elements which lead one to consider that the 4cm in depth wound was inflicted by Raffaele Sollecito with the pocket knife that he was always carrying around with him, and was inflicted immediately after having cut the bra…” (The Massei report, page 374).

The following extract is from Mignini’s timeline, which was presented at the trial on 20 November 2009 by the prosecutors:

23.30 ...At this point, the two knives emerge from the pockets of Amanda and Raffaele: one with a blade of four to five centimetres, the other however a big kitchen knife. Meredith tries to fend off the blades with her right hand. She is wounded.

23:40 ...The three become more violent. With the smaller knife, Sollecito strikes a blow: the blade penetrates 4 centimetres into the neck.

The timeline presented by the prosecutors during their summation was published in Il Messagero and other Italian newspapers. It was translated by main poster Tiziano and our other Italian speakers and posted on PMF and TJMK here.


Frequent Moore Lie 3: Meredith had no defensive wounds on her hands

Steve Moore told Frank Shiers on Kiro FM that Meredith had no defensive wounds on her hands.

Untrue. Moore clearly hadn’t read the autopsy report, or its summary in the Massei Report.

“They consist also in some tiny defensive wounds: one on the palm of her [396] right hand of a length of .6cm showing a tiny amount of blood; another on the ulnar surface of the first phalange of the second finger of the left hand, also of length .6cm; another on the fingertip of the first finger with a superficial wound of .3cm, and another tiny wound corresponding to the fourth radius.” (The Massei report, pages 369-370).


Frequent Moore Lie 4: Rudy left his hair and fluid samples on Meredith’s body.

Steve Moore has made this claim in interviews with Frank Shiers and George Stephanopoulos.

Untrue. Rudy Guede did not leave any hair or fluid samples on Meredith’s body. There is no mention of Rudy Guede leaving his hair or fluid samples on Meredith’s body in either the Micheli report or the Massei report.

Steve Moore is simply making things up or relying on false information.


Frequent Moore Lie 5: Amanda and Raffaele didn’t step in blood and that can’t be avoided

In his interview with Frank Shiers, Steve Moore claimed that Knox and Sollecito didn’t step in Meredith’s blood.

Untrue. The Massei report completely contradicts this claim. It notes that Amanda Knox stepped in Meredith’s blood and tracked the blood with her feet into her own room, the corridor, and Filomena’s room:

Even the traces highlighted by Luminol therefore show the existence of evidence against Amanda, making [the Court] consider that she, having been barefoot in the room where Meredith was killed and having thus stained her feet, had left the traces highlighted by Luminol (which could have resisted the subsequent action of cleaning, on which more will follow) and found in the various parts of the house which she went to for the reasons shown above (her own room, the corridor, Romanelli’s room). (The Massei report, page 382).

Judge Massei attributed the visible bloody footprint on the bathroom mat to Raffaele Sollecito and categorically ruled out the possibility that it could have belonged to Rudy Guede:

“Also from this viewpoint it must be excluded that the print left on the sky-blue mat in the little bathroom could be attributable to Rudy.  A footprint that, for what has been observed in the relevant chapter [of this report] and for the reasons just outlined, must be attributed to Raffaele Sollecito…” (The Massei report, page 379).

The bare bloody footprint in the corridor, referred in the Massei report as trace 2, was attributed to Raffaele Sollecito:

In this particular case, they lead to an opinion of probable identity with one subject (Sollecito with respect to trace 2, Amanda Knox with respect to traces 1 and 7) and to the demonstrated exclusion of the other two. (The Massei report, page 349).


Frequent Moore Lie 6: None of the luminol prints or stains contained Meredith’s DNA

Steve Moore told Frank Shiers that Meredith’s DNA wasn’t found in any of the luminol prints or stains.

Untrue. Meredith’s DNA was found in the luminol traces in the corridor and in Filomena’s room.

Amanda (with her feet stained with Meredith’s blood for having been present in her room when she was killed) had gone into Romanelli’s room and into her [own] room leaving traces [which were highlighted] by Luminol, some of which (one in the corridor, the L8, and one, the L2, in Romanelli’s room) were mixed, that is, constituted of a biological trace attributable to [both] Meredith and Amanda…” (The Massei report, page 380).


Frequent Moore Lie 7: The prosecutor through fierce interrogation coerced Amanda into implicating someone else in the case

Steve Moore has made this claim on a number of occasions

Untrue. The prosecutor wasn’t even present when Amanda Knox first accused Diya Lumumba.

Dr Mignini was called to the police station after she had ALREADY admitted that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed and after she had ALREADY made her false and malicious accusation against Lumumba.

Her implication of Lumumba was triggered by sight of a phone message she had denied. She had an interpreter with her at all times, and she had a lawyer present at all times after her status moved to that of a self-proclaimed witness.

Her own lawyers never ever claimed the interrogation was anything out of the ordinary (Italian law requires that lawyers report real claims of abuse), or that for a suspect she was treated less than kindly.

They never filed any complaint, contributing to her calunnia conviction, and making her situation at her slander trial in Florence in November one that is dire and untenable. 


Frequent Moore Lie 8: Amanda Knox wasn’t given food or drinks when she was questioned by the police.

Steve Moore claimed on the Today Show and ABC News that Amanda Knox wasn’t given food or drinks when she was questioned.

Untrue. Monica Napoleoni testified that Amanda Knox was given things to eat and drink.

“Ms Napoleoni told the court that while she was at the police station Ms Knox had been “treated very well. She was given water, camomile tea and breakfast. She was given cakes from a vending machine and then taken to the canteen at the police station for something to eat.” (Richard Owen in The Times, 1 March 2009).

Amanda Knox even herself confirmed during her testimony at the trial that she was given something to eat and drink.


Frequent Moore Lie 9: Amanda Knox was interrogated in Italian on 5 November 2007

Steve Moore stated in his interview with George Stephanopoulos on ABC News that Amanda Knox was interrogated in Italian, a language he says she barely knew, on 5 November 2007.

Untrue. Interpreters were present at all sesions on 2, 3, 4 and 5 November and their names appear in the records Knox signed. Knox was provided with an interpreter, Anna Donnino, on 5 November 2007, who translated all the police officers’ questions into English for her and translated her answers back.

In Amanda Knox’s own testimony on the stand in June 2009, she even referred to this interpreter - she claimed the interpreter seemed to give her some advice at one point.


Frequent Moore Lie 10: Amanda Knox recanted her accusation against Diya Lumumba as soon as she got some food

Steve Moore has made this claim in numerous interviews and articles.

Untrue. Amanda Knox didn’t retract her accusation as soon as she got some food at all. In fact, she reiterated her allegation in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007 which was admitted in evidence:

[Amanda] herself, furthermore, in the statement of 6 November 2007 (admitted into   evidence ex. articles 234 and 237 of the Criminal Procedure Code and which was mentioned above) wrote, among other things, the following: I stand by my - accusatory - statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrick…in these flashbacks that I’m having, I see Patrick as the murderer…”.

This statement, as specified in the report on it of 6 November 2007 at 2:00pm, by the Police Chief Inspector, Rita Ficarra, was drawn up, following the notification of the detention measure, by Amanda Knox, who “requested blank papers in order to produce a written statement to hand over” to the same Ficarra. (The Massei report, page 389).

The Massei court took note of the fact that Amanda Knox didn’t recant her false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba during the whole of the time he was kept in prison. Later courts noted that she told her mother she felt bad about it.

4. Verdict On Steve Moore

He is either an incompetemt or a phoney. Either way he is not to be trusted.

His various surfacings smack of a Walter Mitty character making things up as he goes along, with an expression and a tone of voice that suggests he is thinking “Yes, folks, this REALLY is all about ME.” 

He will save Knox! He will save Knox! Come what may!

Steve Moore has never ever addressed the numerous smoking-gun issues, like Knox’s and Sollecito’s many lies before and after 5 November 2007. It seems that perhaps he’s not even aware of them - he certainly seems to think Amanda Knox only lied on 5 November 2007.

Italian authorities worked hard and professionally in Perugia and Rome to get this case right. If he is ever to speak up again with any credibility at all, Steve Moore needs to read and actually understand the Massei report in its entirety.

It’s unforgivable for him to get so many facts wrong on so many occasions in front of large audiences, and then use those wrong facts to make multiple highly unprofessional accusations against the authorities in Perugia and Rome.

He would never have got away with this about a US case. He would have been held in contempt of court for trying to poison the jury pool.

And the journalists who get to interview him REALLY should have alarm bells going off when he comes out with his many fictions.

It was very remiss of Monique Ming Laven and Ann Curry not to challenge Moore over any of his false claims, such as the double DNA knife being incompatible with the large wound on Meredith’s neck. George Stephanopolous did at least make some small attempt to push back.

Steve Moore is not only oblivious to many facts about the case.

He seems totally oblivious to the real hurt that his cowardly, dishonest, self-serving campaign from across the Atlantic is inflicting on Meredith’s family and her friends.


Thursday, September 16, 2010

Newsweek Report From Italy On Damage From Knox/Marriott Campaign To Knox Interests & US Image

Posted by Peter Quennell


Click above for Newsweek’s new report.

Only Newsweek, the ABC News website, the Daily Beast, and Seattle PI among the American media have reporters in Italy telling us how it really is.

A pity. Perhaps the five main American TV networks and the press services and main newspapers like the New York Times should charter an aircraft, and go check out the major distaste that is now being expressed across all the Italian media, and among the Italian public generally to the nasty misinformed Knox campaign.

This campaign is now being waged by EIGHT conspiracy-theory websites and in a gullible mainstream media by sock-puppets like the increasingly hapless Steve Moore and Michael Scadron, whose Facebook friends seem to be all Knox family and other sock-puppets (he forgets to mention that). 

We have already reported one reaction to the ill-informed claims of Steve Moore, and our own posters and other contacts in Italy and our own daily reading of the Italian media suggest that Newsweek here is if anything downplaying the distaste being evoked.

Amanda Knox must surely cringe every time she hears that another vocal supporter in the United States has taken up her cause.

Knox does not ask for this kind of attention. Instead, prison guards and inmates say she bides her time behind bars studying and reading, careful not to say anything that would be held against her during her appeal, scheduled to begin later this fall. It will be heard by a new judge and jury who have not been protected from the firestorm around her case, so anything she says publicly could be construed as criticism against the system she is hoping will free her.

She has a job in the prison commissary, taking orders and delivering goods to prisoners in her wing. She is a “model prisoner,” according to Bernardina di Mario, director of Capanne. “She does nothing to stir things up. She just keeps to herself.”

The same can not be said for her supporters. Even the most banal headlines in the United States claiming miscarriages of justice and maltreatment of Knox are inevitably translated, along with snide comments defending the Italian system that impute to the American press a sense of American supremacy.

Since her arrest in November 2007 and conviction in December 2009, Knox supporters have repeatedly condemned everyone involved in the case who does not believe in wholeheartedly in her innocence. Knox’s stepfather, Chris Mellas, ridiculed the ruling judge’s conviction reasoning as a “fictional novel” and a support group called Friends of Amanda regularly called the chief prosecutor “mentally unstable” throughout the trial.

In the wake of the verdict last December, Sen. Maria Cantwell of Washington (Knox’s home state) promised to get Secretary of State Hillary Clinton to extradite the young American home from Italy (Clinton has said she will not intervene), and Donald Trump has even boycotted Italy and its products.

“Amanda has become an affair of the state,” wrote La Repubblica months before the verdict. “Italy blames the American conspiracy.”

Newsweek tried checking out what investigations if any were done by Steve Moore (who, as the post below shows, still seems blissfully unaware of the minefield that is the Massei Report) and they came up with this. 

And most recently, retired FBI agent Steve Moore accused the Italians of “manipulating evidence to make Knox look guilty” based on an “independent investigation” he conducted using what he calls “raw materials.” When asked by NEWSWEEK, neither the Italian state forensic department, the coroner who conducted the autopsies on Kercher, nor the homicide squad in Perugia had been contacted by Moore for original reports and documents, calling into question just where Moore’s “raw materials” came from.

And Amanda Knox herself and her lawyers repeatedly undercut, contradict and distance themselves from the campaign.

Various times throughout her yearlong trial in 2009, the prosecutor and members of the jury told NEWSWEEK they were “offended” by American criticism of the case. At the time of her verdict last December, when many Americans were shouting about what they saw as an unfair conviction, Knox herself felt compelled to tell a member of Italian Parliament that she was actually treated fairly, in part to appease the Italians and, according to her lawyers who defended her comments, to protect herself. “I still have faith in the Italian justice system,” she told Walter Verini, a member of Italy’s center-left government. “My rights were respected.”

Despite the heavy criticism from abroad, Knox’s own Italian lawyers have never been part of the frenzy and have repeatedly had to distance themselves from most of the most vocal voices. “There has been a lot of criticism of this case in America, but it is important to remember that no one speaks for Amanda except her lawyers here in Italy,” says her Perugian lawyer, Luciano Ghirga. “The Americans do not represent her here in Perugia, nor does the constant criticism represent her own views.”

So. Over to you, Ted Simon and David Marriott, to try to apply the brakes on this runaway train.

And please insist that EVERYONE including Steve Moore (if we are to actually hear from him again) knows the Massei Report back-to-front before attempting any new spin.

Posted on 09/16/10 at 07:42 AM by Peter QuennellClick here & then top left for all my posts;
Right-column links: Hoaxes Knox & team20 No-PR hoaxHoaxers from 2008Knox-Mellas teamHeavey, BremnerNews media & moviesGreat reportingBruce FischerSteve Moore
Permalink for this postTell-a-FriendComments here (14)

Monday, September 06, 2010

Steve Moore Is Baffling Informed Case Observers On Both Sides Of The Atlantic

Posted by Peter Quennell





We posted a week ago querying claims first made by Steve Moore to Seattle investigative reporter Linda Byron.

Now everybody seems to be doing it.

Our own well-informed posters have been going through the various claims made to Linda Byron and reporters on the morning shows in the light of the Micheli and Massei Sentencing Reports. They have apparently not yet encountered even one Moore claim that can credibly be considered legitimate.

The lone wolf theory Steve Moore is trying retroactively to espouse was first ridiculed by our poster Kermit in his much-viewed Spiderman Powerpoints late in 2008.

And then it was methodically demolished early in 2009 by Judge Micheli, and again by Judge Massei in his own report released in Italian last March.

Our legal and law enforcement supporters in New York and Washington who have long followed Meredith’s case are also scratching their heads over Moore’s claims.

Why did he fail to master the Massei Report (which all of them have now read - and admire) before so vehemently going live?

Several also question the professional ethics and legal wisdom of accusing THE ITALIAN COUNTERPARTS TO THE FBI without hard proof of having fabricated evidence to prove his case. 

And in Italy, there have been several sarcastic rebuttals.

The latest comes from Walter Biscotti as reported by Ann Wise for ABC.

Mr Biscotti is the effective lead lawyer for Rudy Guede - who, it should be noted, ended up with a sentence of only 16 years for acting smart and somewhat penitent, while Sollecito and Knox may eventually face up to thirty.

After former FBI agent Steve Moore came forward in the United States last week, appearing on ABC’s “Good Morning America” and other U.S. shows to defend Knox’s innocence, Italian newspapers picked up on the interviews with banner headlines.

“Amanda, new accusations from the U.S.,” read the leading daily Corriere della Sera Saturday. “A former FBI agent, who carried out a private investigation, tells American TV: ‘Rudy Guede is the murderer and evidence was manipulated to make her [Knox] look guilty,’” according to the subtitle.

That was too much for Walter Biscotti, a lawyer representing Rudy Guede, the third person—along with Knox and her former boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito—convicted of murdering Meredith Kercher in Perugia, Italy, in November 2007.

An indignant Biscotti contacted ABC News in Rome today in response to the headlines.

First of all, he said, he wanted to speak in defense of the Italian judicial system.  “I think it is only right that I speak out in favor of the Italian justice system, of which I am a part,” Biscotti said, “and of the courts of Perugia in particular….

Biscotti took offense with statements made by Moore, a 25-year FBI veteran with international experience, implying that evidence was planted during the crime scene investigation.

“He said that investigators manipulated the evidence, an affirmation that would get you arrested in a minute, if you said it in Italy,” Biscotti told ABC News.

“It is a serious accusation against the Italian legal system and, as a man of the law, I cannot accept this,” Biscotti added…

Biscotti also took issue, as he has done repeatedly in the past three years, with attempts to put the blame for the murder solely on his client, Guede, whom, he says, he is defending pro bono.

He said lawyers for Knox and Sollecito told the media after every hearing in their year-long trial “there is no point holding this trial because these two are innocent, the only guilty person is Rudy,” and he criticized a list of U.S. legal experts who have spoken out about the case in the United States.

We know of not even ONE similarly qualified person who has READ the Massei Report and is not impressed and convinced by it.


Thursday, August 26, 2010

Is The Campaign That Ranted Against Italy For So Long Now Fearing An Italian-American Backlash?

Posted by Peter Quennell


This bizarre Seattle PI blog post suggests that the Knox PR campaign may now fear a major Italian-American backlash.

Really?!

Not exactly surprising, after first stirring up so much anti-Italy hate - remember “third world country” and “keystone cops” and “kangaroo court” and “saving face” and “anti Americanism” and “tabloid journalism” and on and on?

Not to mention “evil Mignini” hoodwinking everyone in Italy all the way up to the Supreme Court with “satanic conspiracies” that work easily in a “catholic country” implying everyone there is too prudish or simply not very bright?

When did they ever say anything about Italy that was actually nice? Or restrain their forces from being over-the-top nasty, as with the venom the white knights STILL direct toward Mr Mignini?

Really GOOD PR people seek to merely shade the truth.

They don’t ever build a campaign around a really big lie, because when the really big lie comes down, it really comes crashing down and ALL is lost. A result worse than if there had been no campaign at all.

Proof?  Read the many hard, angry and incisive comments right under that blog post. And we know that Italian Americans now are showing some sure signs of having had more than enough.

Not exactly a PR man’s dream. 

Added: Important Breaking News

We all already know that the US State Department up to and including Hillary Clinton not only finds the Knox campaign ludicrous and very unhelpful -  they also regard it as xenophobic.

Now the chief of staff of an Italian-American member of the US Congress in Washington DC (not, obviously, David Wu’s chief of staff) has sent us this request.

He would like to get every possible example of the sliming of Italy and the Italian officials on Meredith’s case, including the sliming of Giuliano Mignini.

Please could our readers email or post here below any examples you may know of? We may create a new TJMK page just for them.

This may factor into political races in November, and there may be a political motion in the US Congress to stop this vile anti-Italy campaign dead.


Friday, July 31, 2009

Prosecutor Mignini Describes What Actually Happened At The Session With Knox Ending 5:45 AM

Posted by Peter Quennell


Linda Byron is an investigative reporter for a TV station in Seattle.

Her investigative exclusives seem almost exclusively to consist of long and unchecked quotes from the FOA camp together with two or three spaniel-eyed questions.

Which then become yet another shrill report on Seattle TV about what those dastardly Italians are doing to poor Knox. A typical report of hers can be seen here (try later if they are still hiding it).

These are a few of the facts of the case that Linda Byron seems NOT to have mastered.

  • That the Italian process of justice is actually very fair and very cautious, is tilted much more to the defense than in the UK and US, and requires prosecutors to jump through a number of hoops before they ever get their case to trial.

  • That a judge in Perugia last January issued an impressive 106-page report which explains in great detail why he decided Guede was guilty and why a great deal of evidence suggests that Knox and Sollecito might be too.

  • That there are TWO senior and respected prosecutors on this case, not just one, that the victim’s family has expressed full confidence in them, and that neither prosecutor has ever made any claims about a satanic motive here.

  • That the prosecution has just presented a formidable case with the help of Italy’s equivalent of the FBI and Scotland Yard, and the defenses seem to be gaining little traction in bringing it down or offering alternatives

  • That almost every prosecutor in Italy runs into administrative charges at some time in their career, they are so easy to file, and the charges against Mr Mignini always did look politically motivated and frivolous and likely soon to evaporate.

  • That the sliming of Mr Mignini has not been a success, that the FOA campaign in Italy has not been a success, and that Amanda Knox on the stand doesn’t seem to have been much of a success either.

And that above all there is a REAL victim here at the heart of this sad crime, known by the name of Meredith Kercher. And that her poor family is suffering for real here -  though of course many miles away from Linda Byron.

So. Instead of good journalism at long last in her latest report, what does Linda Byron have to offer?

No surprises here. Yet more of the sliming of Mr Mignini (this is an acrobat version).

“There are many parallels between the Monster of Florence case and the Knox case, I mean there are shocking parallels,” said American crime writer Doug Preston.

Preston says Mignini believes the monster was no lone psychopath, but part of a satanic sect. He suggested an eerily similar motive for Kercher’s murder, which took place on November 1, 2007.

“Which is right before the Italian day of the dead, and that this was some kind of satanic ritualistic ceremony that they were engaged in. That they killed Meredith Kercher as part of this satanic ceremony,” said Preston….

“He decides right up front with almost no evidence based on his gut feeling or intuition that you’re guilty and then sets out to prove it,” said Preston.

Actually, there seem to be no parallels whatsoever between the Florence and Perugia cases. For example Amanda Knox was interrogated only for two rather short periods - and Mr Mignini was not even present at the first of them.

And Mr Mignini was quite tangential to the Monster of Florence case. He was actually investigating a drowning to the west of Perugia. And when Preston and his partner interfered in Mr Mignini’s case in a particularly harebrained manner, a sharp response was inevitable.

Linda Byron invited Mr Mignini to provide a response to the heated claims in her piece. Either the response was completely over her head, or she did understand it and tried to bury it - it is ONLY only available in Italian, via a link, with a second link to Yahoo’s awful cut-and-paste translator.

Here now is Mr Mignini’s entire response put into good English, not by Yahoo, but by two of our own excellent native-Italian speakers.


Dear Ms Byron,

I hope we will be able to meet and discuss sometime in person, since some of the issues you have examined, specifically the Florentine proceedings against myself and Dr Giuttari, are way too complex to be described in just a few words. I will try to give a short answer here.

To begin with, there is no relationship between the events that are the subject of Spezi’s and Preston’s book and the murder of young Ms Kercher beside the fact that I am the one person dealing with both the Narducci proceedings (connected to the Monster of Florence case) and the Meredith Kercher murder.

These two are totally different events, as well as wholly unrelated to each other, and I am not able to see any type of analogy.

Furthermore, while the precautionary custody order for Spezi has been voided by the Tribunale del Riesame of Perugia, exclusively on the grounds of insufficient elements of proof, the precautionary custody order for Knox was firmly confirmed not only by the Tribunal of Riesame in Perugia,, but above all by the Sixth Section of the Court of Cassazione, which has declared the matter decided and closed.

About the “sacrificial rite” issue, I have never stated that Meredith Kercher was the victim of a “sacrificial rite”.

It should be sufficient to read the charges to understand that the three defendants have been accused of having killed Ms Kercher in the course of activities of a sexual nature, which are notoriously very different from a “sacrificial rite”.

The Monster of Florence investigations have been led by the Florentine magistrates Adolfo Izzo, Silvia della Monica, Pierluigi Vigna, Paolo Canessa and some others.

I have never served in Florence. I have led investigations related to the case since October 2001, but only with regard to the death of Dr Francesco Narducci, and just a superficial knowledge of those proceedings [Dr Narducci drowned or was drowned] would suffice to realize that I never spoke of a “sacrificial rite” which in this case doesn’t make any good sense.

About the defense lawyer issue.  Mr. Preston was heard as a person claiming information about the facts (in effect a witness), but after indications of some circumstances against him surfaced, the interview was suspended, since at that point he should have been assisted by an attorney, and since according to the law the specific crime hypothesis required the proceedings to be suspended until a ruling on them was handed down.

All I did was to apply the Italian law to the proceedings. I really cannot understand any problem.

In the usual way, Knox was first heard by the police as a witness, but when some essential elements of her involvement with the murder surfaced, the police suspended the interview, according to Article 63 of the penal proceedings code.

But Knox then decided to render spontaneous declarations, that I took up without any further questioning, which is entirely lawful. According to Article 374 of the penal proceedings code, suspects must be assisted by a lawyer only during a formal interrogation, and when being notified of alleged crimes and questioned by a prosecutor or judge, not when they intend to render unsolicited declarations.

Since I didn’t do anything other than to apply the Italian law applicable to both matters, I am unable to understand the objections and reservations which you are talking about.

Secondly, I have told you that explaining the nature of the accusations against me is a complex job.

In short, it has been alleged that I have favored Dr Giuttari’s position, who was investigated together with two of his collaborators for a (non-existent) political forgery of a tape recording transcription of a conversation between Dr Giuttari and Dr Canessa.

The latter was giving vent to his feelings, telling Dr Giuttari that the head prosecutor in Florence (at the time) was not a free man in relation to his handling of the Monster investigations.

A technical advisor from the prosecutor’s office in Genoa had tried to attribute that sentence to Dr Giuttari, without having previously obtained a sound test from him, only from Dr Canessa.

I decided, rightly and properly, to perform another technical test on that tape for my trial (I have a copy of it, and the original transcripts of the recording).

I had the technical test performed by the Head of the Sound Task Force of the RIS Carabinieri in Rome, Captain Claudio Ciampini.

If Giuttari had lied, Captain Ciampini would have certainly said so. But his conclusions from the analysis were that that sentence had been pronounced by Dr Canessa. And by the way, this is clearly audible.

I then deemed it appropriate to interrogate the technical adviser from Genoa, in the sphere of the investigations led by me, since the people under investigation were thoroughly but inexplicably aware of the development of the investigation of Dr Giuttari.

The technical advisor from Genoa had made some absolutely non-credible declarations, and I had to investigate him.

The GUP from Genoa, Dr Roberto Fenizia, by means of a non-contested verdict on 9 November 2006, acquitted Dr Giuttari and his collaborators, because the alleged crimes had never occurred.

Therefore, I am accused for doing a proper and due investigation, without even the consideration that I have spared some innocent people from a sentence. I leave any further evaluation up to you.

As for the phone tappings, they had been fully authorized or validated by the GIP. [Those charges are now thrown out.] Explain to me how they can be considered wrongful. I haven’t been able to understand this yet.

This is the story of that case in short, and I am certain the truth will prevail.

None of us is guaranteed not to be subjected to unjust trials, especially when sensitive and “inconvenient” investigations have been conducted.

When accusations are serious and heavy in Italy, a magistrate that has been investigated or charged suffers heavy consequences.

There are appropriate bodies in charge to intervene according to the current laws, but the Florentine penal proceeding so far hasn’t affected me at all, perhaps because everybody – and specifically those professionally working on the matter - have realized that such penal proceedings have been anomalous, to use a euphemism.

As to my possibility to appeal any conviction, the Italian law provides for it, and I don’t need to say more.

I will make some closing remarks on the different jurisdictions.

Indeed there are differences between the [UK and US] common law jurisdictions and those of continental Europe, including the Italian one, which like any other jurisdiction has its flaws but also its merits, of which I ‘m becoming more aware as I carry on.

Furthermore, both jurisdictions are expressions of the juridical culture of the Western world, and this is something that shouldn’t be disregarded.

I don’t think I need to add anything else, except that these issues would need to be discussed in a personal conversation in order to delve further into the matter.

Sincerely

Giuliano Mignini

No wonder Linda Byron seemed to want to bury this letter. Does anybody now not think that the charges against Mr Mignini are quite ludicrous?  Preston’s and the Florence prosecutor’s both? 

Mr Mignini seems to be suggesting to Linda Byron to hop on a plane to Italy and to try getting her facts straight once and for all. Don’t hold your breath waiting for that one.


Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Understanding Micheli #4: The Staged Scene - Who Returned To Move Meredith?

Posted by Brian S




1. Where We Stand

Just to recap. Judge Micheli presided over Rudy Guede’s trial and sentencing and the final hearing that committed Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox to trial.

Late January he made public the 106-page report that explains the thinking behind both actions. These posts are examining key areas of the report so that we too may decide on the rationales.

2. The Final Position Of The Body

Why this matters so much is that if the evidence holds firm, all by itself it will prove that there was a major rearrangement of the crime scene, to try to throw investigators off the trail.

This is as near to an 80,000 pound gorilla in the room as we are likely to see in this trial. And it may even be on the trial agenda for this coming Friday and Saturday.

Reports by the crime-scene investigators and Dr Lalli are summarised in Judge Micheli’s report. They describe the detail of the scene discovered in Meredith’s room. The investigators measured and photographed the position and state of everything, including blood, as it was in the room before anything was moved.

Amongst the items noted was a white bra. Some parts were soaked in blood, particularly the right shoulder strap and the outside of the left cup. They also noted that a portion of the backstrap with its clasp fixings was missing. Meredith herself was lying on her back midway between the wardrobe and the bed, without her jeans, a pillow under her buttocks and her top rolled up to reveal her chest.

Following this survey, Meredith’s body was then turned and moved by the investigators. This revealed the other items on which her body had lain. A tennis shoe, a white sheet from the bed and a blue zipped top, all with blood stains. Also a green bath towel and an ivory bath towel, both soaked in blood, and underneath the pillow was the missing clasp section of the bra back-strap.

Judge Micheli notes that Amanda’s defence claimed that “the small round spots of blood” apparent on Meredith’s chest indicated that she was not wearing her bra when she was killed. He agreed that it was likely that these spots fell from Meredith’s gasps for breath as she lay on her back after she had been stabbed. However, he could not agree with their conclusion that her bra had been removed before this time, as similar small round spots were also found on Meredith’s bra.

Micheli reasoned that this indicated that Meredith was still wearing her bra as she gasped for breath, but that her top was rolled up and the bra moved also. Thus indicating the sexual nature of the original attack, but also allowing the small round spots to fall on both chest and bra. Furthermore, other blood evidence involving the bra indicated that it wasn’t removed until some time after Meredith had died.

He said that Meredith’s bra was found by investigators away from other possible blood contamination on the floor, near to her feet. Photographs of Meredith’s body show clear white areas where the bra prevented blood from falling onto Merediths body. These white areas corresponded to those areas where blood was found on her bra. This was particularly true in the area of the right shoulder strap which was soaked from the wound to Meredith’s neck.

Micheli said that evidence showed that Meredith had lain on one shoulder near the wardrobe. She lay in that position long enough for the imprint of her shoulder and bra strap to remain fixed in the pool of blood after she was moved to the position in which her body was finally found. Photographs of blood on her shoulder matched the imprint by the wardrobe and her shoulder itself also showed signs that she had remained in that position for some time.

Based on all this, Judge Micheli concluded that there could be no doubt that Meredith’s body was moved away from the wardrobe and her bra removed quite some time after her death.

Neighbor Nara Capezzali had testified that people fled from the cottage within a minute of Meredith’s final scream. There was no time for any alteration of the crime scene in those very few moments.

Judge Micheli asks in his report, who could have returned later and staged the scene which was found? Who later moved Meredith’s body and cut off her bra? He reasons it could only be someone who had an interest in changing what would become a crime scene found at the cottage. Who else but someone who lived there, and who wanted to mislead the coming investigation?

It couldn’t have been Laura, she was in Rome. It couldn’t have been Filomena, she was staying with her boyfriend. It was very unlikely that it was Rudy Guede, all proofs of his presence were left untouched.

The culprits ran from the cottage in different directions and there is no reason to believe they met up again before some or one of them returned. Judge Micheli stated that, in his opinion, this just left Knox who would seem to have an interest in arranging the scene the police would find.

Bloody footprints made visible with luminol in Filomena’s room contain Meredith’s DNA. This indicated to Judge Micheli that the scene in Filomena’s room was also staged after Meredith was killed.

In Micheli’s opinion the scene in Meredith’s room was probably staged to point the finger at Rudy Guede. All evidence related to him was left untouched, and the pillow with a partial palm print was found under Meredith’s repositioned body.

But whoever later arranged that scene in Meredith’s room also unwittingly indicated their own presence at the original sexual assault. Who else could have known that by staging an obvious rape scene, they would inevitably point the investigators towards Rudy’s DNA which they knew could be found in Meredith?

Micheli asks: Seemingly, who else could it have been but Amanda Knox? And this in part is why she was committed to trial, for her defense to contend this evidence.


Sunday, January 25, 2009

Knox “Friends” Paul Ciolino & Co Smear Prosecutor Mignini As “An Out Of Control Maniac”

Posted by Peter Quennell





At the Salty’s hatefest in West Seattle, Paul Ciolino whipped up the crowd with a rant about Dr Mignini being “an out-of-control maniac”.

We see no proof. We check this whole point of view almost daily but we never, ever, ever get independent confirmation.  The BBC also checked it out and found zero proof of ANY of Ciolino’s wild-eyed claims.

We are repeatedly told that Mr Mignini is tough, fair, and effective, in an Italian system of justice where things are not particularly loaded on the side of the prosecution.

And that he has the reputation of being very, very caring of the victims and their families. The Kerchers have expressed their full confidence in him.

Also that Mr Mignini’s stepping-aside would probably make just about zero difference to the momentum of the case at this point.

There seems to be just too much suggestive evidence waiting to be explained, and a dozen careful judges have endorsed it as suggestive, and the strongly dominant mood in Italy seems to be one of: let us proceed.

Amanda Knox is of course very well represented by counsel. They have already shown irritation over attacks on the prosecutor.

Calling the prosecutor a maniac sure won’t be music to their ears. Is this whole PR campaign quite loopy, or what?!


Page 2 of 2 pages  <  1 2