Sunday, January 09, 2011

Scientific Statement Analysis: Amanda Knox’s Statement To The Appeal Court On 11 December

Posted by Peter Hyatt


As with the previous examples this analysis is cross-posted from Statement Analysis at the invitation of TJMK.

Amanda Knox made this statement in Italian at the opening of the second appeal hearing on 11 December. TJMK reported on the statement but I read no reporting or other analyses before completing this exercise.

Statement Analysis, for which the proper term is “Scientific Content Analysis” (SCAN), is best conducted in the original language. The Laboratory for Scientific Interrogation (LSI) conducts instruction in various countries in the native language of the country.

The translation was kindly done by a PMF Forum poster with native Italian.  In Knox’ case, her first language is English and not Italian. Should the original version in English be released by her team, we will do a more detailed analysis. To avoid error, we will employ only general principles.

Amanda’s speech in court:

...It would happen sometimes that someone would propose a subject to discuss among us, everyone giving their opinion. I liked to followed these discussions but I was uncomfortable about whether I should participate directly, because I’m not talented for discussions. Often I don’t succeed in expressing my convictions, at least verbally right at the moment.

In fact, of all my friends, I’m the weakest for this. That’s why, jokingly, my friend would usually jump on this, that my character was so peace-loving, and would challenge me with a little sentence: “Stand up for yourself Poindexter”, which means “Defend yourself, grind” [secchiona=someone who studies too hard, too serious]. It was a joke.

And inevitably, either I would answer, but the answer coming out of my mouth would get all twisted incomprehensible…incomprehensibly around itself, or, I just didn’t succeed in answering at all, because my mind would get blocked and my tongue would get all stuck.

I couldn’t do the thing that my friend often asked me to do, which was to defend myself. We have to imagine [Figuriamoci se io…not easy to render in English: maybe “You can imagine”] that I’m the weakest person in this room for expressing myself.

That’s why I ask for patience, because all this that I’ve prepared are the things that I didn’t succeed in saying to you yet. Or better, I find myself in front of you for the second time, but these are the things that I would like to have said already.

I ask you for patience because there have been opportunities to speak, but I was of few words. I believe that often words didn’t come to me, because I never expected to find myself here,

Note that in Amanda Knox’ address to the court, she spoke at length about how she feels she does not communicate well. Almost 25 per cent of her words are about her own speech.

Note that her initial accounts of what happened tested deceptive in statement analysis. (see prior analysis) The language she used suggested sexual activity and deception. She claimed to have been confused about details and here she dedicates a lengthy introduction to claim that although educated, she lacks skill in verbal communication and that she isn’t someone to defend herself. Note that when an innocent person is falsey accused, they find ways to communicate this plainly. In her magazine interview, as well as her descriptions of prison life, she does not show any handicap or disability in communication. Nor do we find any here, in her recent statement.

Next, we find her first denial:

“for I crime I didn’t do” (which may have been ‘commit’ lost in translation) Note that this denial has the first person singular, but is not as strong as identifying the action, rather than the classification of actions (crime). We look for a specific denial such as “I didn’t stab Meredith” or “I didn’t attack Meredith” as being stronger.

condemned for a crime I didn’t do. In these three years, I’ve learned your language, and I’ve seen how the procedure goes, but I’ve never gotten used to this broken life. I still don’t know how to face all this if not just by being myself, who I’ve always been, in spite of the suffocating awkwardness. I was wrong to think that there are right or wrong places and moments to say important things. Important things have to be said, and that’s all.

The only thing I am really sorry about now is that there are people to whom I should turn, who are not here, but I hope my words will reach them, because I am either locked in prison, or I’m here. And…I’m here.

Here she says that there is only one thing she is “really sorry” about: people she cannot see due to being in prison or court. “really” sorry would indicate other sorrows. Next, she then says she is sorry to the family of Meredith:

To the family and dear ones of Meredith, I want to say that I’m so sorry that Meredith is not here any more. I can’t know how you feel, but I too have little sisters, and the idea of their suffering and infinite loss terrifies me.

Note that “I’m so sorry” is found with the same sentence as “Meredith is not here any more”, which is minimizing. It is not just that Meredith isn’t present, she is murdered and will never be anywhere but dead. This minimization is noted among the deceptive and guilty; coupled with “I’m sorry” shows responsiblity.

It’s incomprehensible, it’s unacceptable, what you’re going through, and what Meredith underwent. [Long pause]

Note “what Meredith underwent” is to avoid much stronger language of being knifed, attacked, and brutally murdered. Minimization is noted.

I’m sorry all this happened to you and that you’ll never have her near you, where she should be. It’s not just and never will be. If you’re not alone when you’re thinking of her, because I’m thinking of you, I also remember Meredith, [5:00] and my heart bleeds for all of you.

It is likely that Meredith’s family did not wish to hear that Amanda Knox was thinking of them.

Meredith was kind, intelligent, nice and always available.

I hesitate to quote the word “available” as it sounds strange to the English language, and may not be what Knox said. “Available” in a sexual homicide, suggests willingness. It is noted here, but, again, with caution, as it may not have been the English word intended by Amanda.

She was the one who invited me to see Perugia, with her, as a friend. I’m grateful and honored to have been able to be in her company and to have been able to know her.

By stating that “she was the one who invited me” she may suggest that what happened was Meredith’s fault and is a subtle casting of blame. Again I caution the reader due to translation. Amanda Knox’ other statments, in English, should be considered more reliable. Yet, is there blame being cast here?

If Meredith was “available” when wanted, would she have been killed? Note the caution above of putting too much into this word, “available” since it may not have been the English word used. If it was, then under the circumstances, it is highly sensitive.

Patrick? I don’t see you. But, I’m sorry. I’m sorry, because I didn’t want to wrong you. I was very naïve and really not courageous, because I should have been able to endure the pressure that pushed me to hurt you. I didn’t want to contribute to all that you suffered. You know what it means to have unjust accusations imposed on your skin. You didn’t deserve what you went through. I hope you’ll succeed in finding your peace.

Amanda Knox implicated Patrick in the murder of Meredith, falsely, and here says that she is “sorry” but then blames others in the “pressure that pushed me to hurt you”; alleviating her of personal responsibility.

Note that although she claims to be unable to defend herself clearly due to language and communication limitations, she was clear when she implicated Patrick as Meredith’s killer.

Meredith’s death was a terrible shock for me. She was my new friend, a reference point for me here in Perugia. But she was killed. Because I felt an affinity towards her, suddenly, in her death, I recognized my own vulnerability. I clung above all to Raffaele, who was a source of reassurance, consolation, availability and love for me.

I also trusted the authorities carrying out the investigation, because I wanted to help render justice for Meredith.

She trusted the authorities carrying out justice but lied to them (see previous analysis) and blamed another.

It was another shock to find myself accused and arrested. I needed a lot of time to accept that reality, of being accused, and redefined unjustly. I was in prison, my photo was everywhere.

Note that she mentions her photo published. Journalists have written that she appeared, initially, to enjoy the attention. Her photo taken is important to her, which is why it entered her statement.

Insidious, unjust, nasty gossip about my private life circulated about me.

Note that this gossip was about her “private life” and note the order:

  • “insidious”
  • “unjust”
  • “nasty”

Living through this experience has been unacceptable for me. I have trusted above all to the hope that everything will be arranged as it should have been, and that this enormous error about me will be recognized, and that every day that I spend in a cell and in court is one day nearer to my liberty. This is my consolation, in the darkness, that lets me live without despairing, doing my best to continue my life as I always have, in contact with my dear friends and my family, dreaming about the future.

What allows her to be consoled is that she is closer to liberty with each passing day.

Now, I am unjustly condemned, and more aware than ever of this hard and undeserved reality. I still hope for justice, and dream about a future. Even if this experience of three years weighs me down with anguish and fear, here I am, in front of you, more intimidated than ever, not because I’m afraid or could ever be afraid of the truth,

Note that the subject tells us what she is not afraid of

...but because I have already seen justice go wrong. The truth about me and Raffaele is not yet recognized, and we are paying with our lives for a crime that we did not commit.

Note the order: “me and Raffaele” with regards to the truth

He and I deserve freedom, like everyone in this courtroom today.

Note the order: “He and I” with regards to freedom.

We don’t deserve the three years that we already paid, and we certainly don’t deserve more.

Note here that she uses “we” in regards to time served

I am innocent. Raffaele is innocent. We did not kill Meredith.

This is a weak denial.

“I am innocent” is not “I didn’t do it” but then is weakened further by the use of “we”. She has the need to speak for him as well. This, along with “we” indicates that the two are tied together; whereas one cannot be guilty without the other being guilty; one cannot be innocent without the other being innocent.

I beg you to truly consider that an enormous mistake has been made in regard to us.

Note “mistake” regarding a conviction of murder. And note “us” continuing to tie herself to Raffaele

No justice is rendered to Meredith or her dear ones by taking our lives away and making us pay for something we didn’t do.

Note that here we have the denial of “didn’t do” but it is weakened by the pronoun “we”. “I didn’t do it”; first person singular, past tense, is strongest.

Of course, there is nothing to stop a lawyer from writing out a statement for her to read as we know in Statement Analysis, the “I didn’t do it” must be in the freely edited process of the subject, such as Richard Jewell, while the subject is speaking for himself, unrehearsed. When this is done, an innocent person will say that they didn’t do it, and accept nothing else.

The innocent person has no “we”, and has no need to minimize what happened because they do not have an emotional attachment (hate, rage, anger, etc) to the crime; therefore, the innocent person will often use harsh terminology, whereas we see, particularly in brutal murders, softer language, such as “I would never harm him” or “I wouldn’t hurt her” when talking about murder but ONLY while the person’s mind is choosing the words to speak.

This is the editing process that we all exercise. It must be free (this is why we note reflected language in interviews and why we are careful to ask open ended questions whenever possible).

I am not the person that the prosecution says I am, not at all.

Note that in an answer with the word “no” that each word that follows “no” weakens, even if slightly, the statement.

According to them, I’m a dangerous, diabolical, jealous, uncaring and violent girl.

This is something we find in guilty statements where the subject frames truthful words together, such as “you think I did it”. (See the example in Scripture regarding the trial of Christ as “king” of the Jews). It is Amanda Knox who frames these words:

“I’m a dangerous, diabolical, jealous, uncaring, and violent girl” comes within her statement. This is not something that innocent people do because they do not have the connection (emotionally or intellectually) with the description.

If someone says to you “you think I cheated on you!”, the wording shows an increased in the percentages that the subject cheated on you. It is not to be taken by itself; but upon the whole. If something is 70% likely, it still is 30% unlikely.

But when taken with other indicators, it can reveal if the person cheated. Note the innocents generally cannot connect themselves with guilty words in this manner.

Given the many indicators of deception in her early statements, it would appear that Amanda Knox is recognizing things about herself. It would be interesting to learn the Italian word for “girl” rather than “woman”.

Again, Statement Analysis is best conducted in the language of the statement.

Their hypotheses depend on this. But I’ve never been that girl. Never.

Note two things: previously, she stated that she has always been herself. Note also that she repeats the word “never” which increases the sensitivity of the statment.

The people who know me are witnesses of my personality. My past, I mean my real past, not the one talked about in the tabloids, proves that I’ve always been like this, like I really am,

Something may be lost in translation here, especially in the words ““that I’ve always been like this…” following the tabloids. It does not flow, which may suggest translation difficulty.

and if all this is not enough, I ask you, I invite you, I ask you to ask the people who have been guarding me for three years. Ask them if I have ever been violent, aggressive or uncaring in front of the suffering that is part of the broken lives in prison.

Knox offers her behavior in prison as proof that she is not violent. I do not think “in front” is meant as deceptive (as if she has been violent, just not in front of others) but is convoluted in translation.

The way to verify the meaning is to either ask her to explain it in English, or check not only her prison record, but interview other prisoners.

Because I assure you that I’m not like that. I assure you that I have never resembled the images painted by the prosecution.

Note “resembled”

How could it be possible that I could be capable of achieving the kind of violence that Meredith suffered? How could it be possible that I could throw myself like that at the opportunity to hurt one of my friends?

Note again the wording that is phrased. On general terms, the innocent do not frame guilty language within their sentences, even when posed as a question or an exclamatory statement.

...such a violence, as though it were more important and more natural than all my teaching, all my values, all my dreams and my whole life? All this is not possible.

That girl is not me. I am the girl that I have always shown myself to be and have always been. I repeat that I also am asking for justice. Raffaele and I are innocent, and we want to live our lives in freedom. We are not responsible for Meredith’s death, and, I repeat, no justice is accomplished by taking our lives away. [Whispers: “okay”] Um, thank you

We still not have have a strong denial from Amanda Knox.

Note that many words in her statement have been skipped here due to possible translation issues. She does frame words in a manner of guilt, but more reliable are her statements made early on, and to the press when she spoke in English. Italian Statement analysis would be better, though the analysts there must use caution as Italian is her second language.

What is best for our understanding is when she speaks English and the analysis is done in English.




Comments

Every one of these disastrous statements only seems to dig Amanda Knox (and Sollecito) in deeper. Will she be making any more? Consider.

1) Her statements from the stand at trial in June 2009 (here and here left a few million amateur statement analysts in Italy with the unshakable notion that she had been lying. Smart move?

2) This appeal statement analysed by Peter above took the familiar route of blaming almost everyone possible other than herself. She certainly knows how to share it around. In her view Judge Micheli, Judge Massei, many other judges, many lawyers and many investigators were simply too, ah, thick to get it all right. Smart move?

3) And now she is now faced (see here and here) with the daunting choice of whether to get back on the stand and face REAL cross-examination for the very first time. Smart move?

The case against Knox never really was all about her wagging tongue but ironically it could be her wagging tongue that finally lays her low.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/09/11 at 11:22 PM | #

If Amanda had kept quiet, then most people would have speculated whether she was guilty. Once she opened her mouth, she confirmed her guilt. Had she humbled herself and treated everyone with respect, refraining from arrogant verbal and written communication, she may have received more sympathy from the court and a reduced sentence. But, she chose to savour her moments in the spotlight. She seemed to really enjoy herself.

On a separate point, I hope that Peter Hyatt will analyse some of Raffaele’s communication, after translation into English by an expert to get the proper meaning of his Italian words.

Posted by Terence on 01/10/11 at 03:46 AM | #

Imho these posts about SCAN are highly interesting. Of course this last is about a speech red - in Court - in Italian language by an American. Perhaps written by lawyers, perhaps not. Or perhaps revised by a parliamentarian. And the translation process makes the analysis less effective, here. For example the italian word said in Court “disponibile” translated as “available” might be translated in this case also as “helpful” or “ready”.

I agree with Terence about an analysis of RS’s statements. But is it possible to analyze his text directly in Italian and only then report the analysis in English ?

Posted by ncountryside on 01/10/11 at 10:13 AM | #

1/10/11

Thank you again, Peter Hyatt. The shocker for me was the the flashing neon, “The only thing I’m really sorry about is….”

Not murder but, “the only thing I’m really sorry about”, the clincher, is she is really sorry she is locked away from people she “should turn to” and can’t communicate with those she “should turn to.” Oops, the downside of prison. One is cut off. I believe she is “really sorry about” this.

Being “really sorry about” implies a whole lot of stuff she’s really not sorry about, and of course now at this time she addresses the Kerchers.

I think the Kerchers as a family, all 5 of them, are much more real to Amanda than their daughter ever was. She now faces them as her silent accusers, and yes, she is sorry they are suffering for Meredith’s loss, she really is, but she’s not so sorry Meredith is dead because she never says so.

Amanda’s whole speech feels like someone who is in love with a romantic new language. She enjoys trying out quaint new phrases recently learned, like “dear ones” (versus American useage, “loved ones” or even simply “family”). It’s elevated language with terms she has never thought in before. Now she loves to postulate in these foreign and grand terms in philosophical style: “violence more natural than my teaching, my values, my dreams…not possible”, these searching thoughts she enters as 2 questions. A question is a hook, forcing a response.

Rhetoric abounds: “I ask you, I advise you, I invite you, I assure you…and as if all this were not enough…”

Perhaps it’s the awkwardness of the English translation, but the phrase “How could it be possible…I could be capable of achieving the kind of violence that Meredith suffered?” sounds like a suppressed crow at an accomplishment (I’m capable, I’m achieving)”.

Then the next Socratic method sententious question, a twin of the preceding, “How could it be possible that I could throw myself at the opportunity to hurt one of my friends?” First of all, this sounds violent, the image of throwing oneself. Secondly, the term in English “throwing oneself at” used to refer to “throwing oneself at people” (almost archaic now) or where a girl would “throw herself at his head” the old form, as in chasing a person romantically, making so bold as to grab a man’s attention and try to entice him, being forward and unabashed.

Fits Amanda to a tee. She probably did throw herself at Meredith during the fight. Also, I think Amanda intended an echo of “throwing myself away”. She threw her own life away when she caused Meredith’s death. Even a far hint of “throwing myself off a cliff”, (committed suicide) or being a “throwaway person”.

The term “opportunity” clashes with the concept of causing a violent death.  Amanda’s “importuning” us here, an echo of her lost opportunities in life, no doubt she has dwelt on these many a long hour behind bars.

Again, the words in these 2 sentences: capable, achieving, opportunity seem to refer to herself while Meredith’s calamity and outrageous murder is minimized as something that “hurt one of my friends”.

Earlier she voiced her apology that Meredith is “no longer here”. She can’t bring herself to say Meredith is dead. As Peter points out, harsh language is no stranger to the innocent person shouting out his innocence, as he feels no causality in the crime. He doesn’t blush at portraying the crime’s dark nature because it only contrasts more clearly with his innocence, and the innocent person wants to see the real killer pay.

Amanda may be pretending delicacy here in saying “Meredith is no longer here”, but I think it’s sheer avoidance for her own safety.

“It’s incomprehensible, it’s unacceptable what you (the Kerchers) are undergoing and what Meredith underwent.” Sounds again like Meredith is put in the distance and at the end. Since this topic is “incomprehensible”, all thoughts about it are futile. It can’t be taken in. {Oh, but you can, dear listeners in court and beyond.}

The term “comprehend” means to form a circle around, to draw things into an area, corralled as in a circle, a set. She’s unable to do this with Meredith’s death, but soon gossip will “circulate” around Amanda. She will be right in the center of a big circle, as she desires. I imagine a friend like, was it Ben Parker? would be her choice of people to form the circle. The image of circle containing all things within it is like Stonehenge, or the bars of a prison. She is encircled, kept within.

“I assure you I’m not like that. I assure you…” this is a warning sign to not listen to another word, a rehash of Edda’s, “ya know….”

“Dangerous, diabolical, uncaring, violent”? Yeah, maybe. “Insidious, unjust, nasty gossip circulated around me.”

Meanwhile Amanda describes Meredith as kind, intelligent, nice, always available, my friend, a reference point for me here in Perugia, one who invited me to see Perugia as a friend, I felt an affinity towards her. (you sure that isn’t “finito”)

“But she was killed.” Nice vague passive voice, short and shall we move on to next topic, which is always “I” (Amanda). After “she was killed”, Amanda elides into her own vulnerability. Meredith’s death gets short shrift here where the natural reaction should be to lament it loudly and to lambast the perpetrators, who are still on the roam, or who is Rudy Guede the horrible murderer as one court has ruled. These people she should be chastising in no meek terms.

But no, Meredith’s death (killed, not murdered) is quickly moved away from as Amanda sees in it her own vulnerability (vulnerable to prosecution? vulnerable during the attack realizing she could have been jumped with knives by Raffaele and Rudy just as easily as Meredith was?) Now the talk of clinging begins, clinging to Raf. Now the flattery toward him begins, but he too gets short shrift “he was a source of….(as in narcissistic supply?).

Then she moves to the authorities, her accusation and arrest, prison and long delay at accepting sad new reality, being redefined, photos of herself everywhere, and on into the mighty musings of “who am I?” coupled with remonstrances that she and Raffaele are both innocent.

She gets a little cocky, though only a shadow of her former self, but here again is a sign of the Undefeated Amanda, you can’t get me down spirit—at the point where she says, “Even if this experience of 3 years weighs me down with anguish and fear, here I am in front of you (subtext: see, you ain’t beat me yet. I’m in your face, I rise up, I shake a metaphorical fist at all of you, I defy you, I’m still here! even with all you’ve thrown at me, no surrender, never surrender, I’m brave, I’m bold, watch me, Madison, mom and dad)...“here I am in front of you more intimidated than ever, not because I’m afraid or could ever be afraid of the truth…” (she always puts a lot of distance between herself and the truth with word structure, why couldn’t she just say, “I’m not afraid of the truth?” Why? because she is afraid of the truth) “but because I have already seen justice go wrong.”

Then it’s all about “me and Raffaele”, “he and I”, “we”—and as Peter Hyatt says, “The innocent person has no WE.”

Hyatt sees no firm denial.

This is a squirrel cage of words.

26 years in prison. At last Amanda has her own little world that nobody else can enter or take from her. Visits are restricted. Ties are being cut. I expect the sadly waved “goodbyes” will happen after the appeal flops, probably to everyone’s vast relief.

Ted Simon has been a huge waste of money because Amanda wouldn’t want to be extradited back to the States to serve time, and if she went free, she would remain in Italy or bounce off to some other foreign country and never go back to Seattle again. Her fame there has preceded her, or rather her infamy, which she can now use as an excuse to depart the place forever. I think that’s what she would do if she had her way, Ciao suckers, eat my dust. She always mentions “friends” before “family”.

Maybe prison is what Amanda needs to right the ship. She could have had the same “rehab” by merely slapping Meredith around, stealing, and destroying the cottage, but she’d have to admit some wrongdoing. Ain’t gonna happen, not yet. The narcissist perfectionism, formerly known as selfishness and overweening pride, coupled with “moral imbecile”. May God have mercy on us all. We really cannot see into our own hearts.

I squirm when I denounce people, even when deserved. In commenting on this case, I’ve learned a little what Steve Moore has gone through. The advice to not throw stones unless one is without sin, that’s the truth. I guess a lifetime of punishing people is wearying, despite the demands of justice. Cops burn out. Teachers, too. It’s hard to play the heavy, and requires constant vigilance to one’s own innocence.

The reaction is then to do something to balance the scales, often leapt into blindly. Two wrongs do not make a right, maybe the person who has made the leap to balance the scales of his soul at least feels better for now suffering himself. This is a hard and unnecessary road to take, a form of hubris and false martyrdom somewhat like Raf’s and Amanda’s?

The sorrow of causing pain is real. And despite her crime, once she is imprisoned longterm I will be grateful for all prison ministries and outreaches to Amanda, Raffaele, Rudy and other inmates. Mercy heals.

Posted by Hopeful on 01/10/11 at 11:34 AM | #

I would like to read a SCAN by Peter Hyatt on Amanda Knox’s English Language Statement at her trial on 06/12/09.

[“ Sky News Italy Video Of The Defendant’s Opening Statement Today” 06/12/09 Posted by Peter Quennell]

This statement was restricted to the subject of her false accusations against Patrick Lumumba.

I found-revealing her sing-song recitation of questions allegedly asked of her: e.g. at 1:02 minutes into the video as she repeated what she said an “interrogator” asked her:

“How could I imagine who could be the person who killed Meredith…..”

The video, and the Italian Translator’s immediately consecutive [semi-simultaneous] off-the-cuff Italian version of her statement, supplement the words-taken-in-isolation from the accompanying tone-of-voice, cadence,  pauses, facial expression, and whole-body-language.

It is a performance to behold.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 01/10/11 at 04:20 PM | #

Thank you Peter Hyatt for your insight into these statements.

One thing that struck me that has not been commented on was Amanda’s referring to her “little sisters”. I don’t think she is referring to Deanna in this statement. It seems that she is singling out her half-sisters by saying “little” instead of “younger”.

She says, “the idea of their suffering and infinite loss terrifies me.”

Since she states “terrifies me” in the present tense instead of the conditional tense it seems to me that she has already entertained this idea. Why would she even be thinking about this and why only her “little” sisters? It seemed unconsciously hostile towards her little sisters.

I say this in light of another comment she made about her little sisters. She once referred to them as the “replacement children”.

Is there anything in statement analysis that could shed some light on that statement?

Posted by bedelia on 01/10/11 at 06:53 PM | #

“Since she states “terrifies me” in the present tense instead of the conditional tense it seems to me that she has already entertained this idea. Why would she even be thinking about this and why only her “little” sisters?

It seemed unconsciously hostile towards her little sisters.  I say this in light of another comment she made about her little sisters. She once referred to them as the “replacement children”.

This is a very interesting comment, former bad girl. The devil is always in the details.

Posted by Nell on 01/10/11 at 09:24 PM | #

@Former Bad Girl: I think the reason behind this is that she is that she has been and will continue to contemplate with real fear, the permanent loss of her family if either i) Rudy Guede spills ii) Raffaele spills or iii) the further DNA tests reinforce the finding against her and Raffaele, particularly if they remove the handle and find more of her and / or Meredith’s DNA. 

Amanda knows she did it and she knows that she has put her family in penury in their support of her.  She knows that if she is busted (and she’s potentially exposed on at least three fronts which she can’t control), that they could very easily break off contact with her forever.  Hence the idea terrifies present tense - not death but complete loss nevertheless…

Posted by SomeAlibi on 01/11/11 at 08:05 AM | #

Hyatt sees no firm denial, because this is no firm denial. this, in and of itself speaks volumes.

Posted by mojo on 01/11/11 at 09:07 AM | #

SomeAlibi - I believe her parents know she is culpable. When the appeal affirms the lower court sentence, they will continue their cries of “wrongful conviction”. They are trying to force this into the political realm because they know the evidence does not support her innocence. 
They have no choice given the evidence.

Amanda will still have her 10 min. weekly phone call.  Her statement, “the idea of their suffering and infinite loss terrifies me.” According to Freud, the thing we fear is the thing we unconsciously wish for. “the idea” means that she has already contemplated this.

“their suffering and infinite loss” I do not know why someone would imagine what happened to Meredith to happen to their little sisters. It would be far more likely that it could have happened to her. She could have been Meredith.

She might say this if she was innocent: “It could have been me.” But she knows that she is responsible and therefore it couldn’t have been her. It’s easier for her to imagine her “little sisters” being tortured and killed then to place herself in Meredith’s place, even though she was Meredith’s roommate!

Posted by bedelia on 01/11/11 at 12:50 PM | #

The language is just wrong. It has no NATURAL flow. It’s not so much that it is rehearsed, but rather practised to evade, and deceive. If someone spoke to me in this *language*, I would be alert to someone being false.This is just common sense. The word availability is particularly strange.

Amanda is used to lying, to muddying the waters. People around her have let it slide, for their own purposes. Amanda is in a certain amount of shock..that it didn’t work in this case.

To me, it is insult upon injury..the false apologies. It’s almost worse than saying nothing. She is without empathy, she is a victim. Yes. A victim. Feeling sorry for herself. Most of all, indignant that she wasn’t able to squirrel herself out of this crime.

Stupid Italians. Didn’t they know she’s special? American? An Honours student? A naive, just out of her teen, attractive young girl, who knew that swivelling her hips, doing cartwheels proved that she was a carefree, hiking, camping, natural young vegetarian?

Aaah, but when all seems lost, when the best truth that I can think of, false accusations doesn’t work, plead, apologize, seem sincere. Unfortunately, with the best will in the world, 3 years later, being genuine, trying to show empathy, just isn’t in her make-up.

Fail. An F on all counts.

Posted by capealadin on 01/12/11 at 01:53 AM | #

Hopeful,

Your words ring true: “In commenting on this case, I’ve learned a little what Steve Moore has gone through. The advice to not throw stones unless one is without sin, that’s the truth.”

Developments in this case have often lead me to analyze how honest I am with myself. What Peter Quennell has called The Meredith Effect places Meredith’s promise in our hearts and Amanda’s squandered life opposite that.

Reflecting on all of this takes us far deeper into our souls than a mere interest in “true crime.”

Posted by Sailor on 01/12/11 at 03:32 AM | #

Hi all, this is my first post! I have been reading avidly for some time since reading Barbie Nadeau’s book and I watched an excellent documentary on Meredith’s murder around the time of her anniversary. With regard to the appeal, is it true that the evidence given by the man who saw A&R in the basketball court on the night of the murder is to be re-examined as there were no buses running that night [and he referred to buses in his statement]? Rgds Allison

Posted by Allison on 01/12/11 at 09:26 AM | #

Hi Allison,

The disco buses are not the only buses that run from Piazza Grimana and no-one has claimed there were no buses running in Perugia on the night of the murder.There is a bus stop outside the basketball court. Curatolo could have seen a public bus or a private mini bus.

Posted by The Machine on 01/12/11 at 11:33 AM | #

Thanks The Machine

I was watching a pro-Amanda clip on U tube and Kurt Knox told the tearful presenter that they found out that there were no buses running that night as it was a holiday. I thought it was strange as it is an obvious thing for the Prosecution to have checked.

Here’s hoping justice prevails once again!! Thanks for your prompt response..

Posted by Allison on 01/12/11 at 12:19 PM | #

Hi Allison,

Sollecito’s lawyers haven’t claimed that there were no buses running that night. They’ve only claimed that there were no disco buses.

Posted by The Machine on 01/12/11 at 01:55 PM | #

When will Sollecito speak?  I wonder if he’ll use the ‘we’ word.  Hmmmmmm

Posted by mylady007 on 01/12/11 at 02:11 PM | #

Thanks for clearing that up The Machine .. it was on my mind.. Allison

Posted by Allison on 01/12/11 at 02:24 PM | #

Hi mylady, I doubt it I’d say that he will keep letting his lawyers do the talking!!

Posted by Allison on 01/12/11 at 02:25 PM | #

I wanted to comment on this statement of Amanda’s above:
“The only thing I am really sorry about now is that there are people to whom I should turn, who are not here, but I hope my words will reach them, because I am either locked in prison, or I’m here. And…I’m here.”

When I first saw this, I thought she was trying to send a coded message to Sollecito. While he could have been in the courtroom, she was unable to speak with him directly -so she was trying to do so in code.  This, combined with her anxious efforts to have phone conversations with him from the prison earlier, and her “we are both innocent” statements lead me to believe this. It appeared to me as if she were saying, “stick with me. I’m standing up for you. Don’t betray me!”  Her anxiety on this point seems to be increasing.  The weird beseeching expressions on her face when she talks to the lawyers, the new attempts to explain that she can’t communicate simply because of her quirky nature and that’s why everything she has said has been misinterpreted—all these things show an intense anxiety. She realizes now that her usual act isn’t working and the one person who can really destroy her is Sollecito.

Posted by NCKat on 01/12/11 at 02:52 PM | #

Thanks for everyone’s comments on this article, and the article itself. All very interesting.

What strikes me most about Amanda’s statement is its intense focus on herself. It’s all about “me, me, me” and “I, I, I.” Note that even when she’s talking about the Kerchers’ loss of Meredith, she ends the sentence by referring back to herself, how much SHE is thinking of them (as if they care).

On PMF at one point, a video with the original audio overlaid with the English words was posted. Can someone post the link for that here, or to the appropriate PMF post? It would be interesting for me now to hear her say these things while being able to read the English simultaneously, to get her inflections and expression. Thanks in advance!

Posted by Earthling on 01/12/11 at 06:18 PM | #

´don´t deserve the three years we already paid and CERTAINLY don´t deserve more´ stood out to me. An innocent person would say they didn´t deserve a day in prison. Amanda thinks she deserves something but she´s already ´paid´ for more than that. It´s interesting to me that she uses the word ´paid´ You ´pay´for what you have done, not for what you haven´t done! Pay is correlated with mistakes and crimes.

I think Knox is relating Meredith´s family to her own with the remark about her little sisters. Suffering and infinite loss must refer to the people left behind, not the victim, otherwise she would have said suffering and death… Therefore she´s referring to her sisters´ suffering and infinite loss of HER if she stays in jail. An unconscious reflection of the Knox family rhetoric on the ´loss of daughters´... This suggests that she sees herself as ´dead´ in some way.

´But Meredith was Killed´ comes after acknowledging how useful Meredith was to Knox and what a good friend and is therefore still about her. The ´but´in this place is bizarre!

What really hurts Knox is the ´unjust´ representation of herself in the media - the mask forced onto her skin etc and she assumes this is what is bugging Patrick too, ´forced on your skin´ rather than going to prison, etc. Her statement is all about her concern about how she is seen, a depth of vanity that even extends to the whole section that she addresses to Meredith´s family. They shouldn´t feel alone because SHE is thinking of them - and that´s important!

And then ´important things have to be said´ (passive) but she still doesn´t say them!

Amaxingly she´s still talking most of the time about ´not being that type of girl´ rather than denying that she killed Meredith or played any part in her death. She spends so much time talking about whether she is ´that´ or ´this´ type of girl that she really does sound disassociated. She asks the court to ask for reflections from others to prove who she is. I think she´s in trouble mentally.

Posted by Clarissablue on 01/27/11 at 01:18 AM | #

To those of you who cheerfully support this blogger, such a pack of hyenas and imbeciles have I seldom witnessed outside of trips to the lunatic asylum.  Or the zoo.  Although presumably I share an Irish background with this “Seamus,” thank God I spent sufficient time in higher education to recognize a charlatan.

This person’s “analysis” would not survive five minutes of scrutiny by a linguist, or *anyone* whomsoever properly trained in the art of language.  It is transparently the work of someone—and a poorly educated someone at that—who has already formulated his opinion, only to now go to absurd lengths to “support” that opinion.

Put as succinctly as possible, all of you should be ashamed of yourselves.  First you allowed the dog and pony show put on in Perugia—then amplified in the international media—to bias you against a girl with an otherwise studious and impeccable background.  Then you eagerly bought the puerile, sexually sinister, patently absurd scenario painted by an apparently mentally unstable Perugian prosecutor.  Now, because it supports your worldview, you eat up this tripe as so much bread and circus.

Well, not all Americans are ugly.  And there is far too much that remains unknown in the case of Meredith Kercher’s tragic death—and too many compelling theories that argue against Amanda Knox’s involvement—for *any of you* to be so smug or glib.

Again, *shame on you.*

Posted by jgstallingsiii on 03/12/11 at 09:01 PM | #

To jgstallingsiii

I guess I’ll take this a piece at a time:

“To those of you who cheerfully support this blogger, such a pack of hyenas and imbeciles have I seldom witnessed outside of trips to the lunatic asylum.  Or the zoo.”

Opening with random abuse doesn’t really impress anyone. Nor suggest that you will have any reasonable argument, since you are wasting such valuable space with empty words. 

By the way, have you spent much time in lunatic asylums? (It is, of course, possible.) I suspect there are few hyenas there.

That is, your overblown language here is tripping over itself and becoming ridiculous.

***

“Although presumably I share an Irish background with this “Seamus,” thank God I spent sufficient time in higher education to recognize a charlatan.”

More pretty much off-topic. I guess you wanted to introduce the idea that you are educated.

***

“This person’s “analysis” would not survive five minutes of scrutiny by a linguist, or *anyone* whomsoever properly trained in the art of language. It is transparently the work of someone—and a poorly educated someone at that—who has already formulated his opinion, only to now go to absurd lengths to “support” that opinion.”

It is usually the practice among the college educated to argue, with examples, rather than simply assert, one’s propositions.

Rather, as a matter of fact, the way the argument above is organized by this poster you to whom you so object.

The bullying adjectives:“transparently,”“absurd,” don’t constitute an argument, rather they bypass it. It isn’t transparent, you need to show demonstrate it, and you aren’t doing so.

***

“Put as succinctly as possible, all of you should be ashamed of yourselves.  First you allowed the dog and pony show put on in Perugia—then amplified in the international media—to bias you against a girl with an otherwise studious and impeccable background.”

No, my initial reaction to the first report of the arrest of Patrick Lumumba was to believe the story Amanda Knox told.

It was only her multiple contradicting alibis, the abundance of evidence (mixed blood sample in the bedroom of the staged break-in, for example), and the complete impossibility of every narrative put forth by the defense, that led me to believe in her guilt.

***
 
“Then you eagerly bought the puerile, sexually sinister, patently absurd scenario painted by an apparently mentally unstable Perugian prosecutor.  Now, because it supports your worldview, you eat up this tripe as so much bread and circus.”

Oh my, more impressive words.  Puerile is not an adjective I would apply to the scenario presented by the prosecutors. It is usually applied to people.

I have seen no evidence that the prosecutors (there have been more than one) have done anything more than bring three dangerous individuals to justice.

***

“Well, not all Americans are ugly.  And there is far too much that remains unknown in the case of Meredith Kercher’s tragic death—and too many compelling theories that argue against Amanda Knox’s involvement—for *any of you* to be so smug or glib. Again, *shame on you.*”

Actually I don’t believe there is really much that remains unknown.  No one except the three individuals convicted of this crime knows exactly why they did such a thing.

Other than that, the attempts they made to confuse the crime scene did not succeed, and it told the story of what happened pretty clearly.

There have been Ugly Americans concerned with the case, but one of them is now in jail for her crime, and most of the rest of them took their dog-and-pony show - baseball hat, cameras in courtroom, and tasteless posing in Perugia - back to Seattle.

Posted by lauowolf on 03/12/11 at 10:52 PM | #

To jgstalingsiii,

One, two! One, two! And through and through
  The vorpal blade went snicker-snack
He left it dead and with its head
  He went galumphing back.

“And hast thou slain the Jabberwock?
  Come to my arms, my beamish boy!
O frabjous day! Callooh, Callay!”
  He chortled in his joy.

Lewis Carroll from “Through the Looking Glass”

Posted by James Raper on 03/13/11 at 08:06 AM | #

By Storm Roberts (Innai)

I think it is important to note, again, that the Italian system involves two prosecutors in as case such as this.

Both prosectors are very highly regarded, and well respected. As can be seen in this post from two years ago  Knox’s own lawyers do not think “sliming” (for want of a better word) is the way forward - actually they seem to be asking for comments such as those made by jgstalingsiii to stop.

There is no evidence that Knox, Sollecito or Guede were “railroaded” - there is plenty of evidence that they have had fair trials and plenty of evidence that they were, the three of them, responsible for what happened to Meredith Kercher - the young woman who is the victim in this case.

Posted by Nolongeramember on 03/13/11 at 09:53 AM | #

Hi, Innai.

Your response to jgstalingsiii:

“.....Knox’s own lawyers do not think “sliming” (for want of a better word) is the way forward - actually they seem to be asking for comments such as those made by jgstalingsiii to stop”

Is PERFECT!

Such “supporters” of Knox seem more concerned with themselves than with her.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 03/13/11 at 04:59 PM | #


Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.

Smileys



Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Claims Amanda Knox’s Confessions Resemble “False Confessions” Not Backed Up By Any Criminal Research

Or to previous entry Scenario Explaining Meredith’s Cell-Phones Dumped At The Same Address As The Toilet-Bomb Hoax