Wednesday, December 29, 2010

Scientific Statement Analysis: Knox’s Handwritten Note To Police On The Day She Was Arrested

Posted by Peter Hyatt

Above: Amanda Knox telling one of her three previous stories to the police outside the house several days earlier.

These posts analyzing key statements are adapted from posts on Statement Analysis at the invitation of TJMK. They are examples of the application of statement analysis, a powerful investigative technique with a very long history of success.

In Meredith’s case such analysis surfaces very telling patterns in the statements of those convicted and undergoing appeal, and also in the statements of those seeking to gain for themselves from the death of Meredith Kercher. 

This is an analysis of the transcript of Amanda Knox’s handwritten statement to police on the evening of November 6, the day she was arrested.

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

The opening line appears deceptive.

Dr. Paul Eckman teaches that testifying to memory failure is almost always deceptive. We don’t know what drugs may have impacted her when this statement was made, but failure to remember is most always deceptive, especially in high stress situations.

note the inclusion of sensitive words, “very” strange, and “really” what happened. She notes that others are confused as she is.

I have been told there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.

Passive language “I have been told” rather than who told her what specifically. But far more telling is the following words within her statement: “I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened”. This is not something an innocent person generally says, even in the form of a question, nor in a reflection of others’ words. Someone NOT at the crime scene would not frame these words.

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

She wants to confirm something that to her, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible. Is the something that she wants to confirm something that would be different to someone else (hence the use of “to me”). She is not being asked “a few days ago”, she is being asked in the present. It appears that her perspective on the “something” she wants to confirm is different now than it was a few days ago.

Also note that “would be impossible” is different than “is impossible.” The addition of “would be” changes her claim from something that already happened into a future event.

I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith’s murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused. My account of this story goes as follows, despite the evidence stacked against me:

“in my mind” is likely deceptive, as it is only in her mind; and not in reality. It is an attempt to avoid the stress of lying.

When people recount events from memory, they generally don’t call it a “story”, a word which conjures images of a made up tale.

On Thursday November 1 I saw Meredith the last time at my house when she left around 3 or 4 in the afternoon. Raffaele was with me at the time. We, Raffaele and I, stayed at my house for a little while longer and around 5 in the evening we left to watch the movie Amelie at his house. After the movie I received a message from Patrik [sic], for whom I work at the pub “Le Chic”. He told me in this message that it wasn’t necessary for me to come into work for the evening because there was no one at my work.

It may be that she and Patrick argued.

Now I remember to have also replied with the message: “See you later. Have a good evening!” and this for me does not mean that I wanted to meet him immediately. In particular because I said: “Good evening!” What happened after I know does not match up with what Raffaele was saying, but this is what I remember.

Weak commitment to the text. If the subject does not own the text, neither can we.

I told Raffaele that I didn’t have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After that I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him.

Deceptive use of qualifiers. Again, see Dr. Eckman for this form of deception (memory). Note “perhaps” (qualifier) she made love “to” Raffaele. Sex is a theme in this case, and should be explored by investigators. First she says she may have made love TO Raffaele, then changes it to WITH him in the same sentence. The change in language would need to be explored.

However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don’t think I did much. One thing I do remember is that I took a shower with Raffaele and this might explain how we passed the time.

We can only commit to what the subject commits; here, she took a shower, but wants everything else to be vague; indicating deception.

In truth, I do not remember exactly what day it was, but I do remember that we had a shower and we washed ourselves for a long time. He cleaned my ears, he dried and combed my hair.

“in truth” is used because she now wants to be believed as is the inclusion of minute detail after reporting memory failure. Sometimes liars add extra, minor detail, in the hope of persuading (see Casey Anthony description of “Zanny the Nanny”).

The shower details are also interesting as it is used to pass time and sexuality. Sex is a theme in her statement. Think how you might describe your night; even if you had a romantic shower, would you include it? If you felt that you needed to, would you give details about ears? Sex is in her mind WHILE giving this statement and should alert investigators to any sexual motive in the crime. Making love “to” not “with” her boyfriend may show that Amanda Knox strongly wanted to please him. This may speak to motive and just how far she went.

One of the things I am sure that definitely happened the night on which Meredith was murdered was that Raffaele and I ate fairly late, I think around 11 in the evening, although I can’t be sure because I didn’t look at the clock.

Lack of commitment to the events noted

After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele’s hand, but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish. After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor. But because he didn’t have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home. I remember it was quite late because we were both very tired (though I can’t say the time).

Always note when someone says that they “can’t” say something; it can indicate that if they did tell the information, it would harm them. Here, she “can’t” tell the time; yet has other details down carefully.

“noticed” is passive. Passive languge indicates a desire to conceal and she is withholding information here.

Note also any inclusion of thought/emotion within an event. When someone is giving a verbal or written statement, it has been shown through careful study that in the recall process, emotions and thoughts are added later; not in the actual event itself.

A statement has 3 general portions:

  • an introduction
  • the event
  • post event action

It is in the 3rd section that emotions and thoughts are most likely to be included in an honest statement.

Note also the “balance” of a statement is where the introduction of an honest statement is about 25% of the statement; the event is 50%, and the post event (like calling 911, etc) is 25%. Any deviation is noted but strong deviation is a solid test for deception. This is covered in other analysis)

The next thing I remember

Temporal lacunae. This indicates withheld information during a critical time period; high sensitivity. The police interview would strongly emphasize here

was waking up

Note verb tense

the morning of Friday November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house. It was then that I arrived home alone that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began. In regards to this “confession” that I made last night, I want to make clear that I’m very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion.

Note “very doubtful” qualifier; rather than making a full denial of her confession.

note the order: stress, shock, and extreme exhaustion. Stress is the first thing noted.

Not only was I told I would be arrested and put in jail for 30 years, but I was also hit in the head when I didn’t remember a fact correctly.

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

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

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers. In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images. I saw him near the basketball court. I saw him at my front door. I saw myself cowering in the kitchen with my hands over my ears because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming.

But I’ve said this many times so as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me, like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.

Even within fabrication, each word spoken (or written) is vital and should be examined within the forensics of the investigation.

We have already seen the lack of ownership and now she only reports seeing things in her mind. Yet, in spite of lying, there may be many important elements within her account.

But the truth is,

This introduction tells us that she has lied and now wants to be believed

I am unsure about the truth and here’s why:

1. The police have told me that they have hard evidence that places me at the house, my house, at the time of Meredith’s murder. I don’t know what proof they are talking about, but if this is true, it means I am very confused and my dreams must be real.

2. My boyfriend has claimed that I have said things that I know are not true.

Knox is acutely aware of the evidence, the crime scene, and that she has been blamed.

I KNOW I told him I didn’t have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly. I also NEVER asked him to lie for me. This is absolutely a lie. What I don’t understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this. What does he have to hide? I don’t think he killed Meredith, but I do think he is scared, like me. He walked into a situation that he has never had to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me.

Several indicators here, including qualifiers, adverbs,and the inclusion of “never” which here is offered (negation) which suggests that she did ask someone to lie for her. Note that she says “he walked into a situation” with “walk” a word indicating tension.


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

I understand because this is a very scary situation. I also know that the police don’t believe things of me that I know I can explain, such as:

Note “can’t explain”

1. I know the police are confused as to why it took me so long to call someone after I found the door to my house open and blood in the bathroom.

This tells us what Knox has been attempting to do: confuse the police. The police are not “confused”; they recognize the incongruity of Knox’ statements. This is the “muddy the waters” technique employed by the guilty (Jose Baez comes to mind)

The truth is,


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

Someone; gender free. This is an attempt to, perhaps, even lie to herself about the murder. She knows the gender of the victim.

I thought a lot of things, mainly that perhaps someone got hurt and left quickly to take care of it. I also thought that maybe one of my roommates was having menstral [sic] problems and hadn’t cleaned up. Perhaps I was in shock, but at the time I didn’t know what to think and that’s the truth. That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.

Lack of commitment noted; lots of qualifiers leaving room for a variety of explanations in order to “confuse”. Liars have a difficult and stressful task of recalling what stories they have told and by adding “perhaps” and “maybe”, they are able to later defend their inconsistency.

First, she lists posible excuses for not calling police, excuses that didnt cause her to be alarmed. Then she goes on to say that “perhaps” she was in “shock”, which means that she would have had knowledge of a traumatic event. In the next sentence, the “shock” turned to “worry” which caused her to seek advice.

2. I also know that the fact that I can’t fully recall the events that I claim took place at Raffaele’s home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating. And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele’s house.

3. I’m very confused at this time. My head is full of contrasting ideas and I know I can be frustrating to work with for this reason. But I also want to tell the truth as best I can. Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith’s death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.

[illegible section]

I’m trying, I really am, because I’m scared for myself. I know I didn’t kill Meredith. That’s all I know for sure. In these flashbacks that I’m having, I see Patrik as the murderer, but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don’t remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night. The questions that need answering, at least for how I’m thinking are:

1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?

2. Why did I think of Patrik?

3. Is the evidence proving my pressance [sic] at the time and place of the crime reliable? If so, what does this say about my memory? Is it reliable?

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

3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]? This is particularly important because I don’t feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.

I have a clearer mind that I’ve had before, but I’m still missing parts, which I know is bad for me. But this is the truth and this is what I’m thinking at this time. Please don’t yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn’t help anyone. I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.

If there are still parts that don’t make sense, please ask me. I’m doing the best I can, just like you are. Please believe me at least in that, although I understand if you don’t. All I know is that I didn’t kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.

Amanda Knox owns her involvement in Meredith’s death with a word: MY. Someone who was not involved in Meredith’s death would not state “my involvement”, because they would not own it.

The same theme continues. I have highlighted the key words as the explanation is the same. Knox can’t tell the truth, as it would cause her consequences; therefore, she seeks to confuse and leave open all sorts of possible explanations.

She does not report what happens, but attempts to persuade. This is likely how she got herself out of trouble growing up, and is used to getting her way. The wording suggests her form of lying is lifelong, and not specific to this event.

Amanda Knox would not pass a polygraph test. She fails the polygraphy of Statement Analysis and places herself at the scene of the murder and is deceptive throughout her account.


Hi Peter,

Thank you for this excellent and fascinating analysis of Amanda Knox’s handwritten note to the police.

There were two huge red flags that Knox and Sollecito were involved in Meredith’s murder from the beginning.

When they were questioned, they made conflicting witness statements and they claimed to be suffering from cannabis-induced amnesia which meant they couldn’t remember very much about what they were doing the evening Meredith was murdered.

On 5 November 2007, the police confronted Sollecito with his telephone records that proved he and Knox had lied to the police. He admitted lying to the police and stopped providing Knox with an alibi. He claimed that she had left his apartment at about 9.00pm and returned around 1.00am.

When Knox was informed that Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi, she admitted that she was at the cottage when Meredith was murdered. She stated on at least four separate occasions that she was present when Meredith was killed.

Knox changed her story to fit the new information as it became known. She could no longer claim she was at Sollecito’s apartment.

However, she still lied repeatedly in an effort to deflect the attention away from herself and derail the investigation by putting the blame on a man she knew was completely innocent.

She didn’t recant her false and malicious allegation against Diya Lumumba the whole time he was in prison.

The following sentence from Knox’s note to the police leapt off the page at me:

“Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith’s death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.”

She voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Meredith’s murder. The significance of this can’t be emphasised enough.

It is also worth pointing out that Knox’s note contained several significant elements of truth.

She claimed that she was in Piazza Grimana on the night of the murder, which was corroborated by Antonio Curatolo. She made this claim on three separate occasions.

She knew that Meredith had been sexually assaulted before the results of Dr. Lalli’s autopsy report were presented to the court on 8 November 2007.

She knew that Meredith had been sexually assaulted by an African man.

Knox claimed that she heard Meredith screaming. Nara Capezalli and Antonella Monacchia testified that they heard a loud scream on the night Meredith was murdered.

She stated she heard thuds and this would explain how Meredith received wounds to her skull. The prosecutors believe that Meredith was banged against the cupboard.

Posted by The Machine on 12/29/10 at 05:25 PM | #

In all her statements Amanda has to struggle with the fact that there are two entirely different narratives before her.

One narrative (the concocted one) is the version that happily for her explains why she is innocent of any involvement in Meredith’s death. The other narrative (the reality) is the one that explains why she is guilty.

She is unable to cope with the dichotomy when she is subjected to examination. The result is this spider’s web of confusion and deception.

Only telling the truth in Amanda’s case would dissolve the dichotomy and this she will not do.

Peter has it absolutely right - “Knox can’t tell the truth as it would cause her consequences: therefore she seeks to confuse and leave open all sorts of explanations. She does not report what happens but attempts to persuade. This is likely how she got herself out of trouble growing up, and is used to getting her own way. The wording suggests that her form of lying is lifelong and not specific to this event.”

This is the narcissistic psychopathological default. As children we undoubtedly all behaved this way at times and even as adults, faced with extreme personal trauma, we can regress to this default position.

However most adults, in Amanda’s position, would have the maturity to cope in another way, adopting one or other of the narratives and not trying to resolve the dichotomy. An innocent would be faced with a dichotomy the other way round from Amanda’s: innocence is the reality, the concoction would be the police version of events. Easy to choose. The guilty suspect, however, must either stick with his concocted narrative, or if he has none either take his chances with the evidence or put his hands up.

Guede had his concocted narrative prepared in advance. It was, for him a good one, and he stuck to it. That was his dichotomy resolution.

Raffaelle does not even attempt dichotomy resolution.

That Amanda should subject herself to the stresses and strains of dealing with both narratives like this is a sign of her immaturity and all she succeeds in doing is pointing a big “I am guilty” sign at herself. It is displayed all over the language that she uses.

And so as adults we judge children. We know when they are lying. Children, of course, are assiduous in practising self belief in their lies and are often therefore unable to understand just how we know, even when it is obvious.

I am reminded of Amanda’s performance in court over the 12.47 phone call to her mother. Questioned over this she denied the call until Massei intervened to tell her that the call had definitely been made. It was in her phone record. It existed. No nonsense. The only question was whether she remembered it and what was said in it. She then accepted, finally and in a childishly reluctant way, the existence of the call but could not remember what was said. So she had a little childish victory of sorts save for the fact that we all knew she was lying.

Here is a little of my own analysis.

“I am told that there is hard evidence saying that I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened. This, I want to confirm, is something that to me, if asked a few days ago, would be impossible.”

Crikey, that’s an awful second sentence.

Grown up translation - “If I had been asked a few days ago, before this evidence had been discovered, whether there was any likelihood of such evidence being discovered, I would have answered very positively no. That’s because I was (to me) very confident that the only incriminating evidence there was, we had cleaned up.”

Posted by James Raper on 12/29/10 at 11:21 PM | #


Thank you again, Mr. Hyatt. It must be exhausting to analyze so many lies. Your expertise is greatly appreciated.

Her opening line is “strange…confusing” and her final focus is on “nothing but lies to be afraid of.” That much is true. Her lies are snaring her.

Her attempt to make a numbered list of questions that might help the police solve the confusion that she herself has created, that’s rich. Comical and repugnant.

Perugian police had it right from the get-go:  “stupid liar”. This genius honor student, who can’t remember 1+1=2 , who can’t remember anything. “My dreams must be real.”

Posted by Hopeful on 12/30/10 at 12:39 AM | #

No matter how many times I read this statement from Knox,I am astounded. Only someone capable of being completely delusional (ie., her mother), someone who doesn’t care at all about the truth, or anything else, it appears, (ie., Chris Mellas) or someone desperately trying to hold onto a shred of normalcy (ie., her father) could read this and believe Amanda Knox did not participate in the murder of Meredith Kercher.

“Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith’s death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.”

As The Machine notes, this statement leaps off the page, as does the statement quoted by James Raper, “This, I want to confirm…”

How she strains to absolve herself in advance of any responsibility for anything! Can’t remember, can’t understand, can’t tell dreams and thoughts from reality… And to demonstrate just how helpless she really is, Knox (“the writer”) throws in a few instances of absurdly bad grammar—“even though it is contrasting, are the best truth…”

What also stands out for me is the last phrase: “...are the best truth I have been able to think.”

What she really meant to say is: “... are the best truth I have been able to THINK UP.”

Posted by wayra on 12/30/10 at 05:37 AM | #

Good to have it posted. One thing that struck me, Peter’s saying:
“Weak commitment to the text. If the subject does not own the text, neither can we.”
He also contrasts her making love “to” & making love “with.”  That may be telling. The use of “to” almost puts the initiative on herself.
But give Amanda credit here (in making the statement at all) that she IS trying to take the initiative. She rebuts Sollecito’s lies & plants a telling metaphor: blood on his hands late that evening (Note also to Raffaele: ‘Take warning, fellow. You’re not going to dump on me!’)
Overall, her printed statement (Telegraph, 22 Nov. ‘07) fairly invites a careful exegesis. Thanks, Peter Hyatt & other posts here. Her claimed confusion seems to be the only strategy she has regarding witness.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 12/30/10 at 05:39 PM | #

Forgot one detail. Amanda says:

In regards to this “confession” that I made last night, I want to make clear that I’m very doubtful of the verity of my statements because they were made under the pressures of stress, shock and extreme exhaustion.

After sleeping on it she is very eager to contradict last night’s “confession.”

Posted by Ernest Werner on 12/30/10 at 05:50 PM | #

I also wonder if her mother, having arrived may have given her a good talking to and told her that she had to withdraw her confession - “No daughter of mine is going to spend the next 30 years in jail, guilty or not!”. Does anyone know the timeline and how the mother’s arrival relates to the withdrawal of the confession? If her mother did have something to do with it, it could explain Amanda’s refusal to come clean - she has to comply with the demands of her mother and family. Her family are certainly forces to be reckoned with.

Posted by Vedantist on 12/30/10 at 06:55 PM | #

@Peter Hyatt - Thank you for this detailed analysis - deception is so appropriate for this handwritten “confession.” Knox seems to admit and deny at the same time, covering all bases in this very vague and strange letter. I would wager a guess that with the statement “In these flashbacks that I’m having, I see Patrick as the murderer…” was to nail Lumumba to the cross in the event that he did not have a iron-clad alibi. “The best truth” that she was able to think is ludicrous.

Posted by giustizia on 12/31/10 at 02:20 AM | #

Thank you Peter for this excellent analysis!

Looking at the photo on this page I thought that her body language is somewhat uneasy. I did some reading and came across something interesting (I may be wrong, but it makes sense):

Knox has her hands with palms pressed together which apparently indicates a more anxious pleading, it can be interpreted as a sign of discomfort and the need to hide something. This gesture is seen with fingers upwards or as Knox has done thrust towards the other person. Although I should add that it can also be a sign of a person thinking and deciding. If her palms had a gap and it was only her fingers that were touching - it would be a sign of confidence and sense of superiority.

Overall I read her gesture in this photo as a defensive one with the need to hide something and placing a barrier between herself and investigators - while at the same time trying to push forward her version of events and prays that they will believe her “story”. I may be wrong but there is something about her body language in this photo that smells funny…

Since Knox was not yet a suspect in this photo - it seems strange that she would already be defending herself (seen also in her email sent out before her arrest).

Posted by Giselle on 12/31/10 at 03:40 AM | #

The expression on the face of the woman captured above is not one of any normal young woman grieving,stressed, in shock or, let’s face it, the slightest bit disturbed to learn of the violent, fatal attack upon her “friend”. She is, once again, in her element, surrounded by a coterie of Men, and making eye contact with a handsome detective. So polite and helpful. They cannot help but like her, no?

James said, “Children, of course, are assiduous in practicing self-belief in their lies, and are therefore unable to understand just how we know, even when it’s obvious.” Maybe this is the “naivete” to which Knox’s parents are so fond of referring. If no one SAW her kill anybody, they got nuthin’ on her. I have spent the past four years working with elementary school kids. The boy who wouldn’t return the game I saw him take at recess from another boy’s jacket pocket ( because he didn’t see me seeing him take it-
therefore my seeing him did not occur)... It’s like a tonguetwister: you never seen cause I never seen that you seen?

Vedantist suggested that Edda may have clamped down on her daughter’s imminent spilling of the unsavoury beans. Was Knox not purportedly overheard by police tapping their confab to have said , but mom, “I can’t lie, I WAS THERE.” ? Which same phrase the Dumbpsey twisted to mean “she was ‘THERE’, as in, “not there”, as in, at Raf’s” as if, when discussing a crime “THERE” could possibly be taken to mean anyplace OTHER than ground zero!
For me, the detective holding his head, at lower left, sums up the travesty of the moment. Why does this stupid girl not even see the horror of the situation?

Posted by mimi on 01/01/11 at 05:38 AM | #

Amanda Knox suffers from psychopathy.

Granted Amanda Knox is very untruthful - even intentionally so - but part of her deceptive conduct and statements stems from the fact that her experience of the world is fundamentally different to yours.  Her answers seem confused because her “reality” is just that - confused. This is quite complicated, so let me explain by quoting from Mask of Sanity:

“Observation ... makes it increasingly plain, however, that he is not reacting normally to the surroundings that are ordinarily assumed to exist. I cannot clearly define the specific milieu which such a patient encounters and to which his reactions are related. There is much to suggest that it is a less distinctly or consistently apprehended world than what Straus describes as the inner world of the obsessive patient. It is my belief that it may be a world not less abnormal and perhaps more complexly confusing… Is it not he himself who is most deeply deceived by his apparent normality?”

Perhaps the best analogy is to the amnestic protagonist in Christopher Nolan’s 2000 film, Memento. Having no short term memory, the main character struggles to formulate a coherent view of his ever-changing world. To quote Oliver Sacks, he is “deprived of continuity, of a quiet, continuous, inner narrative. The world keeps disappearing, losing meaning, vanishing - and he must seek meaning, make meaning…” (A Matter of Identity, The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat).

Posted by Aquarian_Love on 11/20/11 at 02:33 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Report #5 On Perugia: The Walk From The Basketball Court Through The Intersection To The House

Or to previous entry Report #4 On Perugia: Why Amanda Knox Might Have Encountered Guede 20 Or More Times Near Her Home