Friday, August 17, 2012

Former FBI Steve Moore on Amanda Knox



Analysis of a Defense of Amanda Knox

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.

One commentator asked that I look at Steve Moore's defense of Amanda Knox. Given his 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 he may have been terminated from his employment due to his involvement in defending Knox.

My own analysis of the case is strictly the wording of Amanda Knox.

It can be found here:


In the analysis, Amanda Knox tests deceptive, repeatedly and consistently.

Mr. Moore's plea follows in italics, with Statement Analysis in bold type. Any additional bold type is mine, added for instructional emphasis. His resume is impressive and he writes with passion. We employ the same principles of analysis in an article as we do in 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. (see analysis on Time and Form). It is helpful to read "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 (see article on "Form") but for 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 vehcile 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 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, of 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, and not in the United States. Perhaps he had access to the case file if 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 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 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 straight forward 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 has known their thoughts or "hunches".

The case is not only flawed but 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 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 verbnote 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 (see analysis)

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, examing 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 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 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 veractity.

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 but 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 associted 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.

104 comments:

Anonymous said...

I also do not believe that Amanda Knox committed the murder.
I would like to know more about the evidence(s) that Steve Moore had investigated in order to reach his conclusion in this case.

Sarah said...

He says: "The instant that one’s conclusions determine or change the facts, you have corrupted the judicial system..."

But he's the one who admits that he presupposes someone who is arrested is guilty.

Nanna Frances said...

Is this the same former FBI who worked for Tommy Croslin's attorney? He was on Florida television saying he had cracked the case and knew who killed Haleigh.

Anonymous said...

Wow! Interesting, thought-provoking analysis of Steve Moore. Thank you, Peter!

Anonymous said...

to the Anonymous poster

regarding the evidence studied by Steve Moore he did not identify it, but leads us to think that he was in possession of the case files (real facts) as well as the thoughts of the investigators at the time of his writing.

This is what is deception. He had the same material we have all had and we have all come to different conclusions. On one hand, he belittles media but on the other it appears that all of his info comes from media.

I liken the analysis of her statement to showing that she lied without saying why she lied.

I am struggling with the case but still can not get past why she needed to falsely accuse her boss and then lie about it.

oh, and I want to ask steve how he can tell when amanda is lying because she is beaten,
when she is lying to hang patrick out to dry,
and when she is telling the truth.

this guy does not claim to analyze the evidence or know any facts that the rest of us dont know

he is just listening to amanda and she is lying.

fbi guy not only riducles us but how does he know where amanda is truthful and wehre she is lying and why she is lying???

how does he know? ??? at least this guy gives us reasons why he belives someone is lying or truthgful. i am still studying the article on baby Gabriel to learn what a truthful statement looks like.

Seamus O Riley said...

Sarah,

point well taken.

He said that when he first heard this case he assumed she was guilty due to his presuppotion of guilt; which has come, chronologically, after his long career.

It causes me to wonder about the justice of his prior investigations. If 25 years experience does not beat back the presupposition of guilt, he is not likely to change his mind any time soon.

It was written to attempt to overwhelm the reader that the "real facts" are such as to overcome his decades long prejudice, but actually discredits him instead.

Anonymous: He did not identify where his information came from nor how he discerned that she gave a false confession or "implicated" herself. He does not say how he knows that her confession was a lie, and does not say address her written statement, email, or interviews.

I was disappointed with his article when I first read it because I was searching for solid arguments and his resume is impressive.

Sometimes the best evidence is the subject's own words.

Humans are complex and this is not a "simple" murder case.

Peter

Beth said...

Nanna Frances,

It may be.

Can anyone find out?

Beth

Anonymous said...

Florida Authorities Believe 5-Year-Old Haleigh Cummings Is Dead

Published April 15, 2010
| Associated Press
Print Email Share Comments (0) Text Size SATSUMA, Fla. -- The sheriff said Thursday that a 5-year-old girl who disappeared more than a year ago is likely dead, and he believes her body is somewhere along a stretch of river being searched by divers.

Putnam County Sheriff Jeff Hardy said a tip led investigators to the stretch of the St. Johns River where 20 to 30 divers have searched the past three days for Haleigh Cummings' body, declining to elaborate on the tip.

He told a news conference that he feels comfortable for the first time calling the case a homicide investigation. Detectives have identified persons of interest.

"People are starting to cooperate, that's why I've told people it's only a matter of time," Hardy said. "It's a good thing. People are starting to talk."

The divers have been hindered by murky conditions but some items have been recovered from the river.

"It's like looking for a needle in a haystack," Hardy said. "But we're willing to take the effort and time to look for the needle."

Haleigh vanished from her father's home in Satsuma, in northeast Florida, in 2009.

Her father's 17-year-old live-in girlfriend, Misty Croslin, was baby-sitting at the time. She told investigators she woke up to find Haleigh gone and a back door propped open with a brick.

The sheriff's office has questioned Croslin's credibility, saying investigators don't believe Haleigh was abducted by a stranger. Croslin currently is in jail on unrelated drug charges

Anonymous said...

That is STephen Moore and yes, there was lots of boasting that he had long FBI creds and had cracked the case and tommy was going to be charged with murder, blah blah blah but "refused" to come on TV and talk because he needed to "wait"

if it is the same guy i though he was full of $*%&( during the Haleigh case

Seamus O Riley said...

I don't know if it is the same S Moore as in the Haleigh Cummings case, but I do recall the claim of solving the case and had hoped each night he was going to appear on one of the talk shows.

Didn't an attorney claim that Moore had proof of solving the case, but had to wait for law enforcement before he went public?

Peter

Anonymous said...

This is NOT the same STEVE -
Tho both ARE FBI agents, one is STEVE BROWN, and the other is STEVE MOORE.
Sorry folks - Just thought I'd clarify.

CptKD

Anonymous said...

STEVE BROWN worked the Haleigh case. He worked with Tommy Croslin's lawyer, but I believe that he also worked with Picazio and her team prior to that. I know he had contact with the Sheffields in the beginning, and then later on, switched over to Tommy Croslin's Lawyer's side. Sorry, his lawyer's name escapes me at this given time.... CptKD

Anonymous said...

"Humans are complex and this is not a "simple" murder case.

Peter"

I agree.
Wouldn't it be something for you to have an interview with Mr. Moore?

Anonymous said...

Well for the majority of you who feel this girl is GUILTY because of Statement Analysis, without knowing the first thing about how the evidence was collected, or what the evidence is for that matter, (b/c it doesnt seem like they got much, it seems like they royally screwed this case.) when she arrested she barely spoke Itailian, and was denied a interpritor, and beat in the head, lock in interrogation room, without food or water, much less sleep for hrs, I have a prediction for you. I think this case will be overturned and Amanda Knox will be back in the US in the next 2-3 years, depending on how long it takes for her appeal to go through, be heard and her conviction overturned. So I guess we will wait and see.
~Karri

Anonymous said...

And one more thing, When that happens I hope that all of you who has a child bright enough to go to another country to study, give a long hard thought as to weather or not you want to let them go. Like I posted b4, if this had happened here,in the US, there would have been a different outcome. Evidenced would have been collected properly,examined properly, and hopefully a proper prosecutor would have NOT jumped the gun, and named the wrong ppl as suspects. What if she was your child? Would you believe the S/A, when its shoddy Italian just being learned, transcribed into english, or would you believe the evidence, because new ppl are going over the evidence, and my belief is, their results WILL free Amanda Knox. Will you apologize then, or stick by your S/A?
~Karri

I accidently put this on Zahra's article, I apologize for posting twice.

Jeanie said...

I'm the one who posted the Steve Moore stuff. I don't know why I (or others) get so passionate but something in me still wants her to be innocent. Part of me still wants to believe that somehow in a drugged state she really was confused enough to believe she maybe did something when she didn't, and therefore her words show deception. HOWEVER; with statement analysis, as Peter has used, there is little room for doubting that she's guilty.

It would be interesting indeed, if Peter interviewed Steve Moore.

Seamus O Riley said...

Hi Jeanie,

I received several requests to view Moore's material.

I admire the drive for truth in your recommendation to read.

LSI founder said that an Israeli study was done to learn what qualities the best investigators should have.

It is easy to say "open minded" as well as:
smart,
inquisitive
and so on.

He said that the number one quality was the ability to accept the unknown.

In other words, to have no resolution.

We all want an answer to puzzles and when I investigate something, it is hard to accept that I don't have an answer; it is a real challenge.

I want the "Amanda Is Innocent" crowd to post, post and post again.

I also respect Mark McClish for not drawing conclusions unless he is comfortable doing so.

I respect you for seeking truth.

I would like to interview Steve Moore but my guess is that if he reads the analysis of his argument, he will be displeased.

A personal profile emerges from our writings and it can be quite hurtful to face certain things about ourselves.

Maybe he would say, "you're right; I let my emotions get the best of me and based my arguments on my experience", of which it would be a terrific interview.

I would enjoy, "you are wrong, Hyatt" with particular answers regarding the statement of Amanda, and how he concludes this is truthful, or that is untruthful, etc.

At least here we say we believe one thing or another, and here is why...

There are intelligent people on both sides of this case, and the fighting is healthy for us all: it leads to truth.

I should be able to defend my analysis, just as he should be able to defend his position.
thanks, Peter

Anonymous said...

It would be interesting indeed, if Peter interviewed Steve Moore.

I've never listened to the show, but if Peter had Steve Moore on and Peter interviews people the way he says interviews should be conducted, I'd drop everything to listen to that!

Seamus O Riley said...

I think a differnt Moore was involved in Croslin case.
Cptkd: thanks!

Karri, I appreciate your zeal for the case.

We take Statement Analysis and apply it to each case, following the same principle.

I have concluded in the statement written by Amanda Knox herself, that she is not only deceptive, but repeatedly and consistently so.

What I cannot say is that she is guilty. This is for the reader to decide.

Sometimes the "why" of a lie is easy to tell; othertimes it is a bit cloudy.

I have wondered if she was involved in the death but not the principle player, but I don't wonder if she was deceptive.

You don't have to accept Statement Analysis but can draw any conclusion you feel free to. I personally like when people post the reasons for their opinions with something that can help us pause and think.

If the evidence was collected hastily, for instance, can you explain how it is you have concluded this, and where you learned it?

With Statement analysis, at least we can say to readers:

"This is unreliable due to..." and give them the reason; just as we can say "this appears to be truthful because...".

I have an article regarding the use of the pronoun "we" that will be up soon. In the examples I use, perhaps only 1 of 5 will be Amanda Knox.

Later, when this case fades from memory, readers will look at the article on "we" and seek to apply the teaching elsewhere.

If the principle is faulty, it will be known, especially as case after case after case is examined.

This is another advantage we have.

Amanda Knox was deceptive in her written statement.

Why did she need to be deceptive?

Casey Anthony was deceptive in her police interview.

Why did she need to be deceptive?

Melinda Duckett was deceptive in her interview with Nancy Grace.

Why did she need to be deceptive?

Tiffany Hartley was deceptive in her public interviews?

Why did she need to be deceptive?

The answer to these questions can arise from the evidence, which is often discussed here. Sometimes the "why" is plain, but other times, it is not.

Thanks for your post,

Peter Hyatt

Seamus O Riley said...

Anonymous, thanks for the compliment but the interview process is really boring for those looking for great questions.

Investigators sometimes ask what are the magical questions that get the most confessions. This is what I can give them:

THE best question:

What happened?

The next great question?

What happened next? :)

The biggest issue for Statement Analysis interview is that we seek to not say much, but ONLY (if possible) use a word that the subject used! This is the challenge.

THE best interview appears to be where the Interviewer says 10% and the subject ssays 90%!

What is fascinating, though, is when red flags are revisited (towards the end of the interview) where the subject is now asked about those sensitive gaps of time, for instance. These are not open ended questions and can be exciting.

Avinoam Sapir teaches that the best question upon receiving a confession is to ask the subject why did you decide to confess to me, and why now? It teaches the interviewer skill.

If anyone can take his course, you will share my view of him as a genius. The more I study, the more I am stunned at his powers of observation. His mind operates like a computer yet he has a disarming wit that makes the lectures interesting.

I want to take his courses again and again. He is the "grandfather" of Statement Analysis and every instructor and author that I have read, heard, or even read about, owes him a debt.

Little material is my own. My own experience only reflects or confirms what his principles have already stated.

Thanks,

Peter

Anonymous said...

It seems fairly obvious that Amanda Knox oozes with deception. I always felt the police did a crappy job in this case with regards to evidence, however, this doesn't make Amanda innocent. I still feel she had a role in Meredith's murder.

Look at the OJ case. Majority of people believe he murdered Nicole and Ron but the Prosecutors and evidence handlers did a crappy job. He got off. Doesn't make him innocent though just because he was found not guilty.

New poster but an avid lurker.
-SAM

Lis said...

Wow, Peter, this was a fantastic analysis and I learned so much from it. I respect the impartiality and meticulousness of statement analysis, it is a discipline I would like to learn more of.

By nature, I tend to form more of my impressions from a person's body language and expressions, particularly their eyes. (Yet, on the cases I've read here, I have tended to come to the same conclusions, i.e., something isn't right, or this person seems sincere, etc.)

The Amanda Knox case is interesting to me because when I first read the reports in the news, I was apprehensive that she was being wrongly accused. I was concerned her rights may not have been respected. Though I did not know, I tended to give the benefit of the doubt that she may very well be innocent. (I think that much of what is being printed on the case is written from that perspective.)

I personally changed my mind when I later saw videos of Amanda Knox appearing in court. Her facial expressions and body language rather stunned me because they were out of sync with the situation she was in. They seemed to me to reveal a bold, perhaps narcissistic, person and not an overly sensitive conscience. This is just a subjective impression, though, and it's hard to explain how and why I come to a conclusion like this. It is not of much use except my own interest.

The ability to impartially analyze a person's own words, however, is of great value to all. I really appreciate being able to learn from you! It is hard for me but I feel like I am beginning to understand and look at words in a new way.

Jeanie said...

Peter,
Making myself look at the feelings in me that need Amanda Knox to be innocent; I have to admit that it's partly because she looks so fresh faced, open and pretty. It makes me squirm her looks would influence me to want her to be innocent but I'm afraid that's part of the truth. And I think it's part of why others want her to be innocent. Also I'm from Washington State near-ish to Seattle and I think part of me identifies with her being from my community lending her a family-ish feeling.

Non-rational reasons for anything (i.e. emotion based reasons) aren't affected by reason unless reason can expose their existence and the person is honest enough to face it.

I venture to say whenever there is a passionate need for someone to be innocent it would be well if the person could look within at internal patterns.

Marci said...

I have thought from the very beginning that she is not guilty of the murder. She maybe guilty of other crazy, bad things but I thought the guy that raped her was the only one guilty of the murder.

I have followed this from the very beginning and I would agree with the large, ego FBI guy that she did not get a fair trial..

Marci said...

I might add too that I do believe she has some type of personality/mental disorder and may be narcissistic but I don't believe she murdered her roomate. I think she acted toltally inappropriate right after this murder and probably really didn't care deep down about what happened but not guilty. I think her statements are over the top because she feels like she is much smarter then everyone and that the more she describes the more believable it will be.

She makes herself look guilty because she doesn't know how to show true human feelings..

Anonymous said...

Karri wrote: Like I posted b4, if this had happened here,in the US, there would have been a different outcome. Evidenced would have been collected properly,examined properly, and hopefully a proper prosecutor would have NOT jumped the gun, and named the wrong ppl as suspects.

Karri, loads of American defendants complain of improper evidence collection and examination. Many, after their convictions, complain about the prosecutors.

I have seen no evidence that Italy is worse than the US.

Many people who defend Amanda Knox have no idea that the arguments used to defend her are used every day throughout the US and fail.

I don't know if Amanda's arguments will fail in Italy, but if they do, I for one won't lose a minute of sleep over it.

Anonymous said...

Peter/Seamus wrote: Anonymous, thanks for the compliment but the interview process is really boring for those looking for great questions.

I'm not looking for a tutorial in interviewing. The reason I said I'd drop everything and listen is that I've read your analysis of various specific interviews and have greatly appreciated how you have pointed out mistakes that the interviewer has made.

I'd enjoy a serious interview with a subject like Steve Moore conducted by you, since I believe your follow-up questions would be more probing or just more useful than what we normally see on televison.

Marci said...

Anon, ( I wish people would use some indentifier)

Have you done research on the evidence in this case and how they do their hearings? Their trials and the way they do the testimonies is nothing like here in the great ole USA!

Jeanie said...

I agree with anon, I would enjoy an interview with Moore by Peter because of reasons stated

Anonymous said...

Once again a fascinating and very interesting analysis Mr Hyatt.

For me, I believe some of his ill informed statements come directly from his wife; (a woman not known for her intellect) in a sort of working his back type of way.

The rest is the tired and losing mantra of the Marriot PR firm with additional touches from Edda Mellas.

I found it interesting when he first hawked his opinion around the media that he claimed he had never met or spoken with anybody in the Knox or Mellas families.

A quick look on Facebook revealed he was friends with no other than Edda Mellas.

Posted by Black Dog on 01/05/11 at 05:05 PM | #

This was posted at http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/scientific_statement_analysis_3_claims_made_by_steve_moore_about_the_i/#comments

----------------------------

Steve Moore did have contact with Edda Mellas. Why did he lie?

Anonymous said...

Photo of Steve Moore here is priceless. He looks as demented as Foxy Knoxy.

http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/scientific_statement_analysis_3_claims_made_by_steve_moore_about_the_i/#comments

Anonymous said...

Marci said...She makes herself look guilty because she doesn't know how to show true human feelings..
----
Marci I agree IMO that she doesn't know how to show true human feelings and this could also describe a sociopath not just a narcissist. Not all sociopaths murder but many murderers are sociopaths.
When I look at Amanda, her eyes seem cold to me.
-SAM

Marci said...

Sam I agree.. I think her profile and statements could point to her being guilty but I believe she is a souless narcissist/sociopath/nutjob that walked in on a murdered roomate..

JMO

Anonymous said...

There are so many variables involved in the way one acts, as well as the way one is perceived to act, that this article is almost meaningless. Unless you look at it as showing insight into the viewers themselves. That is ok, but the "science" of "Statement Analysis" is largely hocus pocus.

Jeanie said...

to people who seem to need to see people who are guilty or who they think are guilty or who they think are wrong in their opinions as ugly or crazy-looking etc: Doing that is the same thing, identically as thinking someone is innocent because they are pretty. Their looks should be irrelevant for the most part. When we 'see' innocence or guilt or kookiness we are quite likely projecting our own feelings and this is pretty much opposite of statement analysis.

Example: people who want Casey Anthony to be innocent find her very attractive & people who believe she's guilty go on and on about how awful she looks physically. Looks don't play a role in statement analysis, as far as I understand it.

A person can look like an angel or like Captain America and be guilty of a crime and being guilty doesn't make them any less beautiful, physically. Casey Anthony IS as good looking as most girls. Except for her facial expressions. So was Scott Peterson. Why can't we let that be true, whilst knowing they are ugly beyond belief, within?

I think seeing evil as ugly does a disservice to people, kids in particular, because it helps cause them to think evil people LOOK evil. The neighborhood pedophile probably looks very ordinary. We don't want kids to equate evil intentions with a 'certain look'.

Personally, if I were to paint a picture of Evil Incarnate, I would paint an exquisitely alluring person, with just a hint around the eyes... evil is very alluring for us when & where & if we are susceptible.

Hobnob said...

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.

Which is why knox is in court for slander along with her parents.
knox has since admitted that the police didn't hit her and treated her well. The parents also repeated the allegation of police abuse which uis why they are in court as well.
Knox came up with various excuses as to why she made the allegations but we shall know n more when the trial for slander begins.
this guy doesn't seem to be a very good investigator given his admission of a closed mind. he clearly is sensitive regarding his work with the FBI, why? is he pissed because he isn't advancing as far as he thinks he should? do lower ranks not repect him the way he feels he deserves?
I am sensing here that maybe he has been paid to come up with this conclusion. That someone within the knox family has contacted him and said look how corrupt the cops are in italy what do you think? money or cudos can buy a lot of opinion in the buyers favor.

Jeanie said...

I posted my thoughts about how looks play into things because Peter posted something saying he likes it best when people post 'why' they hold a certain view, I think if lots of people who are passionate about Amanda Knox being innocent would really look at why they feel she is innocent, quite a bit of their reasons stem from emotions invoked from things like how she looks or that she is alone in a foreign country or that they once felt alone in a foreign country and up against a wall etc, etc. And them people (myself included in past) go about finding facts to back up our emotional reasons. The bottom line is truth should come before anything.

Seamus O Riley said...

Jeanie

A strong self awareness is trustworthy and rare.

It's essential in investigations to identify personal triggers

Objectivity is impossible yet still strived for.


Great post,

Peter

Anonymous said...

Marci said: Have you done research on the evidence in this case and how they do their hearings? Their trials and the way they do the testimonies is nothing like here in the great ole USA!

Absolutely. I've looked into this with considerable vigor. That's why I've been rather peeved with CD-HOST making all kinds of statements which show he/she hasn't the faintest notion about many of the facts surrounding lots of his/her claims.

My point in saying that Amanda's defense is used regularly in the US was simply to rebut the claim made that what happened to Amanda in Italy would never have happened to her in the US.

Whether she is guilty or innocent, the evidence against her would all be admissible in a US court, save the double-DNA knife. In 2007, no US court had yet permitted LCN DNA testing. And the knife may be thrown out by Pratillo Hellmann during this appeal which is currently underway.

But Luminal evidence is admitted in US courts as a matter of routine. Mixed DNA samples from a defendant's own bathroom didn't originate with Amanda Knox. Via della Pergola 7 isn't the first crime scene cops had to return to much later in order to collect more evidence. Patrick Lumumba isn't the only person ever to be released because the police incorrectly believed a suspect was ratting out a guilty party. Scads of people have been tried for murder in the US on a collection of evidence far more scanty than that used to prosecute Knox and Sollecito.

Yes, a trial is conducted a little differently in Italy than it is here. But Italy still requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Defendants are not required to undergo questioning and may choose silence if they wish. (Better still, defendants in Italy can make spontaneous declarations in open court and not be questioned about these statements by the prosecutors.) Defendants are not put under oath in Italy. Defendants are guaranteed two appeals. Guaranteed.

Italy has an interesting system which repays some study. And even if a defendant finds his conviction upheld after all appeals are exhausted, the penal system is one which, with only some exceptions, operates to get the convict back into society even before the sentence is over. Many convicted criminals are permitted to leave prison during the day to work, after serving about half their sentence. There is "time off" the sentence for good behavior. And their prisons, particularly for women, are far less dangerous than American ones. Women in some circumstances can keep their very youngest children with them in their cell.

Anonymous said...

Has Amanda Knox taken a polygraph in Italy? Maybe Steve Moore can set one up for her.

Nanna Frances said...

Peter,

Did you know your article is posted here? http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index

A picture of Steve Moore is above the article.

CD-Host said...

I am struggling with the case but still can not get past why she needed to falsely accuse her boss and then lie about it.

Because she was under enormous pressure. The police saw a series of SMS messages from Amanda to her boss that in context were work related but they read into them murder related information. They wanted false statements from her and pressured her a lot till they got what they wanted.

While the guilters will deny she was being tuned up, her answers if you read them have a very "if I say X will you stop hitting me" kind of feel to them. She's doing everything possible to try and say what the police are demanding while creating deniability.

She doesn't win the bravery award and she's apologized profusely for caving in like that.

CD-Host said...

Hobnob --

knox has since admitted that the police didn't hit her and treated her well.

No she has not. Her very latest examination by her attorney he gave her a question about being treated well and she refused to confirm. She has absolutely 100% stuck to her story about being mistreated in captivity even when the prosecutor has threatened her and even when her own lawyer is trying to get her to back off the story.

Of course we don't do statement analysis on that because it would make her look good.

Anonymous said...

If Amanda simply walked in on a murder, no need to lie & flasely accuse your boss of the murder.

If I "walked in" on a murder I'd dial 911 which I'm sure Italy has an emergency number.

CD-Host said...

Jeanie --

I think she's damn cute and she was damn cute before I cared at all. It was the slander charge against the parents that got me off the fence about her. Because that proved she was being subjected to an abusive prosecutor. I don't see much difference from what Mignini is trying to do and those Pakistani's that kill a few soldiers every time they don't like an American movie or someone says something they don't like about the Koran. I'm a member of the EFF, ACLU. I've been opposed to European speech codes for 2 decades.

The closest analogy I can think of to Amanda Knox in terms of people's feeling about the verdict is Mumia Abu-Jamal and he is not a good looking man. Half the male population has a crush on Winona Ryder and people didn't say she was innocent.

Anonymous said...

Why are women like Casey A & Amanda K, Tiffany H instantly unlikeable? I see the nothingness in their souls through their eyes.

Is it psychopathy, being a sociopath, narcissist that come through & shows in their crazy faces? My husband loathes Amanda Knox. He only heard the facts through HLN's Nancy Grace or Prime News. Whenever they showed her in court during her trial he'd say turn it off. It angered him how she smiled & laughed like she didn't care about the victim & assumed she would walk out a free woman.

He observed Amanda flirting with men in the courtroom & acted nonchalant. At the time I had no firm opinion but have since realized she's guilty as sin & was one of the stabbers.

These women all seem to be shells of a person, you see them but no one is home. Detached from reality & minus empathy or feelings for anyone but themselves.

They are here to use others on a whim, whatever makes them feel good or bad. If someone gets to be too much of a responsibility or they disagree with a person they discard them like trash.

I believe Amanda, the boyfriend & Rudy wanted to play out a sexual fantasy game with Meredith & she refused & fought them off, it excited them & sexual violence ensued into murder.

It doesn't matter which one had the knife. All three got off on the violence & sexual aspect of this murder which accounts for Foxy's detailed description of showering so long with her boyfriend & him cleaning her ears & WASHING HER HAIR, BLA, BLA, BLA. What a strange statement to write down, all these sexual details & adding extra details about the boyfriend cleaning her ears....WTF??

The 3 perverts got off on the crime, were full of Merediths blood & washed the evidence off each other. They probably had sex in the shower as they cleaned Meredith's blood off themselves.

Anonymous said...

Steve Moore reads like a person who is mentally disturbed & maybe should have a real "hobby" instead of sticking his nose where it doesn't belong. He doesn't seem to know anymore than the average person who reads the news yet tries to be the ultimate "FBI" expert.

Anonymous said...

If Steve Moore automatically presumed the accused were guilty in his 25 year career with the FBI, I wonder how many innocent people may have been wrongly convicted due to this "FBI man's" bias?

Mr. Moore seems to be doing the same thing again, on the opposite end of the spectrum.

Like Mr. Hyatt said, it would be interesting to know which cases of Mr. Moores were successful.

Jeanie said...

another thing:
someone can be subjected to abuse by individuals within a system of law and be treated very badly, and still be guilty. Being unfairly treated doesn't mean she's innocent.
I agree with you in that I don't feel comfortable with the information I've read and the trouble is, where DO you go for unvarnished truth?
Those who believe in her guilt see all the facts through guilt-colored glasses and those who believe she's innocent and unfairly treated see it through innocence-colored glasses. Both kinds of 'glasses' will neutralize information that doesn't concurr with their diagnosis. So where to go for completely unbiased information?

Statement analysis IS unbiased. The SCIENCE comes from a FORMULA derived from A LOT OF CASES. That can be applied again and again using the exact formula. There is NO interpretation. Statement Analysis does not conclude guilt but deception.

The word analysis might seem to imply to you there is room for interpretation as in psychological analysis. There is not. There is no room for opinion or bias. It simply notes word use and certain word use has been noted over n over n over n over in cases where deception was later proved.

Jeanie said...

to one of the Anonomous's:

I have no problem with finding women like Casey, Tiffany and Amanda being instantly unlikable at all. But unlikable doesn't have to translate as hideous looking.
A person can feel nauseous whenever they look at Amanda but not have that translate into she's ugly? She isn't ugly...outside.

I still think it's not helping when we portray people who commit hideous crimes as hideous looking. I can't help thinking that contributes to people and particularly young people not being cautious enough when someone 'looks okay'. We all need to realize evil looks normal.

Jeanie said...

Anon,

there are plenty of people who think Casey A. is cute but also think she's a killer. A person can think both.
I think you misinterpreted CD Host, I don't think he is saying because she's cute he thinks she's innocent. Why does everybody have to paint anyone who disagrees with their opinions as an awful person?!!!!! People can think Amanda Knox is innocent, or Casey is innocent or Tiffany Hartley is innocent and still be nice people! (I happen to think they are all guilty as sin but people can see things differently without it making them into some kind of monster.

Anonymous said...

CD-Host said...
Of course we don't do statement analysis on that because it would make her look good.
---------------------

She does enough on her own without statement analysis to make herself look bad. If she wasn't trying to implicate people who were innocent, she was retracting statements to police because it seemed unreal to her, "like a dream." From the time she was brought in by police, Amanda Knox has been her own worst enemy, void of the ability to display any behavior indicative of her being an innocent woman who, first and foremost, wants to see justice for her "best friend."

Amanda Knox is a clear example of how psychopathy manifests itself in the most unlikely of people. Her concern is not finding justice for Meredith; she barely mentions it among her endless testimony of how she is the one who has been so unjustly treated and robbed of her freedom. Her inability to empathize as a human being is exactly why she is unable to express the injustice she feels she has received, in perspective to the injustice that Meredith and her family have received. Her injustice is paramount to that of Meredith. While the displacement of emotion may not be evident to everyone, those that study the psychopathic individual are very aware of this. While Amanda Knox remains inappropriately unemotional about particular aspects of this case, she does have no problem in expressing the underlying anger she has for being in the situation that she is in. We would like to think that Amanda would express an anger toward the individual that so brutally murdered her best friend and anger for what that individual has put Meredith's family through. Unfortunately, Amanda has no true real anger toward any of that. She is angry that her life has been interrupted and that she is being forced to be in an environment where she has no control and the lack of self-gratification. Her true anger and sadness that continues to come out in her words is because she was caught and forced to face the consequences.

While psychopathy is often described as the "evil seed", I believe it is also important to bring attention to how one's environment is a large contributing factor for psychopathy to foster in an individual over the years. I believe Amanda's parents provided such an environment. Over the years, as the Knox family has continued to speak out, the one thing that continuously jumps out at people, seems to be their lack of empathy for everyone else involved in this case, other than their daughter. It would be expected by most that the Knox family would be the first to reach out to the Kercher family, be their strongest support and advocate. This would be natural the parents of Amanda Knox, especially when they themselves felt like they lost their daughter. They would find strength and comfort in connecting and relating with the Kerchers, while rallying behind them. Most would find it unfathomable that over 3 years have gone by now with the parents of Amanda Knox never having uttered not one condolence to the Kercher's, which is not only acceptable to the Knox family, but excused by them because it was based on the advisement by their legal team.

To any human being that is ever blessed to be able to have a child of their own, there would be no amount of legal advice in this world that would ever get in the away of reaching out and embracing two other parents after knowing how horrifically and tragically they lost their daughter. Whatever the parents of Amanda Knox think they feel and are going through, will never pale to that of what the parents of Meredith Kercher will endure every day for the rest of their lives.
There is an evilness that exists in the Knox family, and its the same evilness that has been instilled in their daughter. Amanda Knox is a product of her environment, apparently where empathy and shame are non-existent.

Anonymous said...

I think the inside changes outside looks. I've dated men in my past life....not handsome but had that "thing" magnetism & sexiness because they like women & treated them well. Other pretty boys I found to be hollow & boring. some good looking men who are mean turn uglym looking. this applies to women as well.

I think all these women are attractive but my perception of them changed once they opened their mouths. Casey, tiffany, Amanda, Cindy anthony, Elizabeth Johnson, etc.

And Casey's appearance is going downhill imo. I looked at a slideshow last night of her in court from 2008 until now about 31 pics.

Her looks are catching up to the ugliness that exists in her soul. She's aging fast & looking haggard compared to the strutting hoodie wearing little thing she was when first arrested.

Amanda's cute, but again, her eyes disturb me & she's not looking well as time in priison wears on her. She looks downright creepy at times.

I've seen much prettier almost everyday where I work, out shopping & they are better people. Ugliness inside does affect how one is perceived on the outside.

Plus Amanda seems to be going bald, like male pattern baldness. women get it too & her Mother Edda looks thin at the top, just saying since it's been brought up so much about her looks. That's not cute.

Anonymous said...

Interesting! steve Moore´s statements so closely resemble those of Knox´s family, in style, exaggeration and ´tactics´ that I think you´re right about ´never met or talked to´not meaning ´no contact´. Also his approach resembles both Knox and Knox family statements and indeed her defence in court. Instead of challenging the evidence head on, both rely on ´this is the type of person I am -college kid - would I kill someone? FBI - Would I get this case wrong? Just as Knox´s appeal statement is 99 percent ´I´m a nice normal ´girl´and nice normal girls don´t murder their flatmates´ and doesn´t tangle with the evidence which has convicted her.

This only works with the US public who haven´t seen the case files or evidence the verdict was based on.
The only evidence that is reported in the US press is the few pieces of contested evidence! highlighted by her family as the ´only´ evidence.

Knox´defence therefore relies on her character (or persona) but her conviction relies on the evidence. The speciousness of the Knox position and supporters becomes evident vis a vis fellow convict Guede. The evidence which convicted him, from the same investigation team, scientists, police etc ridiculed and insulted by camp Knox, is accepted as valid. Why? Well, to put it crudely, he doesn´t have a ´college kid´ defence, is Black and a basketball player! Invert the sterotypes that make Knox assumed ´innocent´and we have á ´guilty´ type. The fact that team Knox have exaggerated Guede´s CV with some loaded terms ´drifter´ and ´small-time drug dealer´ which are false demonstrates their faith in stereotypes, rather than evidence, as a defining element in innocent or guilty verdicts. This has been directed at the US market, with members of Knox´s family even calling Guede ´an African-American´ in the hope that racist stereotypes will influence US public opinion.

IMO their deception makes me more inclined to believe her guilty and that they know she is guilty.

Claire

evrli said...

Peter~

Would there be any meaning into a written statement in which the writer starts every word with a capitol letter?

Jeanie said...

have it your way, every evil person is ugly and good people are beautiful.

I agree, with awful people knowing what's inside affects our perception of their outside but that is when we know some of what's inside. I know some very good people who are physically quite ugly. And the reason I see them not as ugly but attractive is because of their insides.

My thing is why can't people refrain from personal attacks? Why make digs at how someone looks? That isn't the point, surely. And for me it brings down my opinion a little, of the people who feel the need to do that sort of thing to anybody. There are plenty of things one can point to,actions the evil acts, even facial expressions but leave their looks, good or bad alone. It reminds me of mean, junior high school behavior which I stood up to.

Anonymous said...

CH-Host is infatuated with Amanda Foxy Knoxy "cute as hell" sounds obsessed. CD-Host-- are you a man or woman? Are you crushing on Amanda because of her notoriety?

Woman still propose to Charles Manson & he wants to marry Casey Anthony & for her to have his baby. all this violence is a turn on for some. Are you one of those criminal groupies who want to get up close & personal with Amanda...just asking because your defense of her is not the norm.

If you're a lesbian or a lonely man is beside the point. I'm just curious about your 24/7 nonsensical, absurd defense of this killer in the face of all facts & adversity.

Ella said...

Evril... there is meaning..but also some computers/phone text automatically will capitalize each word...I have done it and didnt know how I did but it was my pc ,not me...that I knew of doing on purpose..however handwriting analysis is fascinating as well as this.

OFF TOPIC: SAMPLE TO ANALYZE... I have a facebook friend who posted pics of his daughter of her 2 year old birthday party. His caption read: "The girl's 2nd birthday party."...He always calls her the girl, not her name ( I don't even know her name), not "my daughter"...just "the girl".. His wife is the same age as his grown up kids...

I have also heard of husbands talk of 'the wife'...

Peter can you address the article 'the' as it pertains to people? TYVM

Anonymous said...

@Jeannie

Absolutely fantastic post on how we want to believe certain people based on who we think they are! It´s what I was trying to say and why Knox has had such a pass in the media. It takes integrity to change your mind and admit that sometimes we believe what we want to believe.

How could someone who looks so sweet be so brutal? It´s very threatening to us to believe that normal looking people, let alone angel faces, can commit ugly crimes. We want to be able to recognise evil from the outside because we want to be safe.

Some real miscarriages of justice have taken place in the UK because the defendent looked like we want the defendent to look and acted the way we want our monsters to act - wierd and creepy loners. The evidence was weak but, hey, the guy certainly looked scary. The opposite of the Peter Preston ´I can tell by looking at Knox and Sollecito that they are innocent.´

We want to believe there is safety somewhere, in the family home, among neighbours and friends, that the danger is out there and we can protect ourselves from it. This is also why in the 80´s in the UK the majority of the public was just unable to accept the scale of sexual abuse of children by parents, not strangers.

Which is why we´re more comfortable believing that Meredith was murdered by a lone wolf acquaintance bad man than by a young woman, her flatmate, in her own home.

You´re right to say we need to look inside at our own wishes, hopes and fears. Only with that awareness do we have a chance of seeing clearly outside at what is really there.

Claire

Anonymous said...

Media ALWAYS exaggerates the looks of women & men in crime. They are all beautiful, handsome, movie star perfect on Jane Velez-Mitchell & Nancy Grace. It's called sensationalism.

Average or cute becomes "the beautiful exchange student" or the "gorgeous tom-mom".

Sex sells, so the imo gawky, big bird looking "CraigList killer" Philip Markoff becomes the "handsome medical student".

Too bad all killers can't so what Markoff did. Save everyone a lot of grief & one less murderer in the world to hurt others.

The pudgy wife & baby killer Scott Peterson is "the charming good looking husband".

It's nauseating but they do it in almost every criminal situation if the woman or man isn't a scary looking, hunch back, toothless ogre.

Anonymous said...

Media ALWAYS exaggerates the looks of women & men in crime. They are all beautiful, handsome, movie star perfect on Jane Velez-Mitchell & Nancy Grace. It's called sensationalism.

Average or cute becomes "the beautiful exchange student" or the "gorgeous tom-mom".

Sex sells, so the imo gawky, big bird looking "CraigList killer" Philip Markoff becomes the "handsome medical student".

Too bad all killers can't so what Markoff did. Save everyone a lot of grief & one less murderer in the world to hurt others.

The pudgy wife & baby killer Scott Peterson is "the charming good looking husband".

It's nauseating but they do it in almost every criminal situation if the woman or man isn't a scary looking, hunch back, toothless ogre.

Anonymous said...

Wednesday, 05 January, 2011

Anonymous said...
CD-Host said...
Of course we don't do statement analysis on that because it would make her look good.
---------------------

She does enough on her own without statement analysis to make herself look bad. If she wasn't trying to implicate people who were innocent, she was retracting statements to police because it seemed unreal to her, "like a dream." From the time she was brought in by police, Amanda Knox has been her own worst enemy, void of the ability to display any behavior indicative of her being an innocent woman who, first and foremost, wants to see justice for her "best friend."

----------------------

Good post, could it be that's why Amanda attracted a blowhard narcissist like Steve Moore to come to her defense? Birds of a feather....

Anonymous said...

Can anyone confirm Steve Moore's credentials or that, according to him, he is a former FBI agent as a result of retiring? The following article sounds as though it was one heck of a good PR attempt to explain how someone who apparently "had 100 agents working under him and was spending more time working on terrorism in Asia," left all of that to take a security position at a local university. The article then continues to explain away why the university seemingly fired him as well. If I didn't know better, it sounds like Mr. Moore wrote this article himself, it's just reeking narcissism... probably paid some dude to put it out there and publish it as a lousy PR attempt to save his name, not to mention his credibility.

http://www.vcstar.com/news/2010/oct/08/good-deed-costs-a-job/?partner=RSS

Anonymous said...

Thank you Peter for your analysis, it fascinating. Didn't know where to put this post but the statement below makes no sense and lends even more credence to her deceptiveness.

Amanda Knox: "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)."

Even a child knows you can't leave flooded water on the floor overnight and you have to clean it up right away. It ruins the floor, ruins the bottom of the cupboard, it seeps into another apartment and it will be gone by morning. You throw towels on it, you throw paper towels on it, whatever you have to soak it up. You don't leave it until the next day when you can find a mop.

evrli said...

Thank You Ella! ... :)

CD-Host said...

Jeanie --

I agree with what you are saying regarding ugliness.
Lets pick a better example then the ones we have here. We don't need to do statement analysis for these two we have them committing murders for fun on video: Karla Homolka and Paul Bernardo. Great looking couple. Liked to make home made porno of rape, torture murders after they discovered how much they enjoyed it by killing Karla's sister.

Karla Homolka, as the after evidence shows, could very easily just be a BDSM bottom and that would have been satisfying enough. She's evidentially a pretty good mother. But she happened to run into a rapist and wow did that push her buttons. She gave him an underage girl she drugged for a wedding president and started working on convincing him to go further.

OK so there is a prefect example of your thesis. But now lets complicate it a bit.

She did a dozen years and since she's been out she's been a model citizen. People who didn't know who she was wanted her to run for school board they liked her so much. Of course that got her discovered and she's moved.... The fact is different circumstances different responses, everything is a situation.

Our current president, a very good looking man BTW, has since his election caused America to perform more assassinations than all other presidents combined many times over. He's on his way to becoming the world leader who made the most heavy use of assassination in history. And I think he's a very moral person trying to do what he thinks is best and avoid unnecessary loss of life.

There is a funny comedy Trading Places which explored this really well. What happens when you take someone who is an ideal: take away his stuff, take away his advantages vs. the opposite for someone who never had any advantages and suddenly he has an aggressive support system. The rich guy degenerates into a drunk dating a prostitute and committing petty crime while the poor guy becomes a respected leader. Its doubtful you can have that much effect so quickly, as per the movie, but I think you can do a lot.

Seamus O Riley said...

Heather and I have long discussed the issue of "ugliness" within a normally attractive person.

I think Casey Anthony, Amanda Knox, Karla Fay Tucker and others, garner attention from males but others who are unfortunate looking don't get as much following.

It's one of those things....how many times do we find "dream team" attorneys rushing to offer pro bono services to black females accused of murder?

It's the reality of fame.

By the way, depending upon time frames, an analysis of the judge's written report may be useful.

Is Amanda's original confession on line for analysis?

Peter

CD-Host said...

Peter --

Agree on the attention. There is a name for this Missing white woman syndrome.

As far as "original confession". You actually analyzed one of them already, the one where she talks about hearing the scream and covering her ears. They aren't confessions. If there was an actual confession she wouldn't have nearly this many people defending her. Amanda has been consistently ambiguous in her "confessions". But there are more statements of hers.

For example in Italy a defendant is allowed to anytime during the trial stand up and offer testimony against what a witness is saying. Sort of like right to be a automatic rebuttal witnesses. They can't be cross examined so defendants do do it. We haven't looked at those.

I just posted another one of her testimonies in another thread. And there are more, like her long direct examination by her attorney. That's a lot of material. That BTW is where you see her strongly, direct simple answers, talking about how she was mistreated by the police even as her own lawyer tries to get her to back off that claim. You'll find lots of this material on PMF though some of it is scattered in discussions and not linked back.

One thing that I think might be interesting is doing SA on Guede's diary. He likely lying about some of it, but that doesn't mean none of it is true. For example was there another large man (i.e. not Raffaele who's smaller than Guede).

Marci said...

CD Host can you pot that testimony here also or let me know where you posted it?

VLW said...

Jeanie, I was thinking the same thing! If Amanda Knox were fat, had acne, crooked teeth, and a hick accent, would there be this much outcry over her situation? The justice/injustice would be the same, but would there be the same passion over the case? I doubt it.

Certainly, there were mistakes made in the investigation and collection of evidence. (I've watched enough Cold Case to know that's not necessarily unusual, right here in the U.S.) But what I can't understand is, if she is truly innocent, what is her need of continuing deception? She's already been convicted; how much worse can it get if she opens up and tells the whole truth, whatever it is?

I agree with other posters that she may not have committed the actual murder. But it seems plain to me she's deeply involved and knows a great deal more than she's telling. I wish we did know all the facts--it's frustrating and troubling not to, which is probably why we're all on this site anyway, trying to understand.

This case reminds me of the one a few years ago, where the young British nanny was on trial for the death of the baby of an American couple. I can't think of her name. That would be interesting to view, in light of statement analysis. Again, there was passionate belief in her innocence by her countrymen and passionate belief in her guilt by many here in the U.S. Mysteries, mysteries...

Anonymous said...

Peter,
Thank you for your kind response, even though I keep butting head with you on this one. I agree with alot of you analysis. I just find this one rather difficult to analize seeing as when she was interrogated she was just learning Italian, and was not fluent in the language, they refused her a interpretor, and what she said in Italian to LE could have been so jumbled in her "loose" Italian she had knowledge of at that time. Most of the time I agree with you, but we can not KNOW for sure what she said or if she even knew what she was saying when she was not fluent in the language. Of course now she is. She has had to become fluent to face trial, and jail there. However even at the trial, she had a interpretor, because she still wasnt getting her point across in italian. So I think her iterogation should be taken with a grain of salt. I dont think S/A applies here. If she was interviewed with a translator, or by someone who understood english, then yes, by all means, but when someone is talking in a languiage they barley know, how can u analise their statements? It makes absolutely no sense. Like if I were to saything in spanish to you. Ok I know some, alittle. Me Yamo es Karri,( my name is karri), but I could not explain to you in spanish what had happened at my family home last night at length, because I dont know that language well enough. Do you understand where I can see S/A not working here?
~Karri

Seamus O Riley said...

Karri,

yes I can see.

S/A is best done in the original language which is why I did so little work on the appeal statement that she made in Italian.

I am uncomfortable making strong conclusions on a 2nd language.

If I have no choice (as in an actual investigation) then I proceed with caution. Here, I am more comfortable saying much less than the norm.

thank you,

Peter

Kate said...

Anonymous:
I liked what you wrote about understanding and recognizing the emotional displacement of psychopathic individuals and the relevance this has to the individual's upbringing. There have been several instances where I have suspected that AK's insensitivity has stemmed from her father, Curt. When I observe him in interviews I see an undercurrent of controlled rage...not good. When asked by Oprah about reaching out to the Kercher family, his response and demeanor was very odd. He said casually 'well, they got a call that no parent wants to get, but, we still have our daughter.' Insensitive, you better believe it. Curt has also assured us that 'there is nothing in her background that would explain how Amanda would ever be involved in something like this.' It was very defensive. In this same interview with Deanna Knox after the original verdict. She said that because her sister stood up and told the court that she didn't do it, she should not have been convicted. Arrogance? In Edda Mellas I see a very silly woman, when Peter writes of Amanda's lying being a lifelong habit, I think of Edda as an easy springboard for a liar like Amanda to bounce her lies off of. Very interesting indeed.

Lis said...

CD-Host, you feel that her answers have an "if I say X will you stop hitting me" kind of feel to them; I see more of an "if I say X will you stop asking me hard questions and let me out of here to go on with my life" kind of feel to them.

She has a very Casey Anthony way of explaining things, and not just in police interviews, this carries through in her own statements, as well.

Jeanie, your point about appearance is well taken. I think also that if a person reminds someone of someone they know personally, it is harder to be objective. Let's say the defendant resembles a much-loved daughter or son. And likewise, if they resemble someone who has treated you badly or you have known to be dishonest or guilty, you have to be aware and fight the tendency to infer.

I never look at a person in terms of attractive or unattractive but there are certain expressions people have and body language that tend to illustrate what kind of a person they are. This is something I have gained from having known a few sociopathic people closely. There is a look to their eyes. Others recognize it and say 'she has cold eyes.' Yes, she does, and there is more to it than that which is hard to describe.

The anonymous person who posted "Amanda Knox is a clear example of how psychopathy manifests itself in the most unlikely of people" - I hope you will choose a nickname and keep posting here, your post was excellent!

CD-Host said...

Marci --

Marci said...
CD Host can you pot that testimony here also or let me know where you posted it?


Not sure which testimony you mean I've mentioned several could you be more specific?

____

Lis --
CD-Host, you feel that her answers have an "if I say X will you stop hitting me" kind of feel to them; I see more of an "if I say X will you stop asking me hard questions and let me out of here to go on with my life" kind of feel to them.

1) How would you distinguish in terms of answers?
2) Ultimately what's the difference? If she's just doing the "fine, fine whatever I saw a flying pig" or "ouch, ok i saw a flying pig" either way she's disassociating herself from the flying pig?

Jeanie said...

VLW,
I agree, it would be interesting to see the british nanny's statement & 911 call if she made the call.

And as to facial expressions; Casey Anthony's expressions very clearly show her disdain and sense of superiority and so do Scott Peterson's expressions as well as lots of others but I haven't seen that disdainful look on Amanda Knox. (that doesn't mean others don't see it) The only inappropriate look I've noticed is her inappropriate serene & calm when anybody would look tense. Because I only see an open face (& the inappropriate lack of tension) it creates in me a subliminal feeling that she has nothing to hide. WHEREAS through statement analysis I see clearly a lot of 'inappropriateness' to say the least.

We have to set aside how we respond to their looks and OUR INTERPRETATION of what their expressions mean and go straight to what they say.

Marci said...

To CD Host: This is what I was requesting

I just posted another one of her testimonies in another thread. And there are more, like her long direct examination by her attorney. That's a lot of material. That BTW is where you see her strongly, direct simple answers, talking about how she was mistreated by the police even as her own lawyer tries to get her to back off that claim. You'll find lots of this material on PMF though some of it is scattered in discussions and not linked back.

Anonymous said...

How do you spell 'idiot'?
s-t-e-v-e m-o-o-r-e

CD-Host said...

Marci --

A good source is PMF in their own words. Some of the materials are unfortunately embedded in the never ending comment threads on that board and aren't indexed and some other stuff is scattered. But for example her description of what happened with Patrick I think sounds plausible:



And as long as we are on this segments I'd like to use Peter's criteria:

CP: Listen, but you were accompanied to the bar, they offered you a cappuccino
over the night? They assisted you through the night?

AK: I was offered tea after I had made declarations.

CP: So they treated you well.

AK: No!


Simple direct immediate no sensitivity at all. She's telling the truth. And a good example. He's trying to pressure her into recanting on her getting hit claims.

And in the same way if you look at her discussion of her Nov 5th 2007 interrogation:


AK: So what ended up happening was, that they told me to try to remember what
I apparently, according to them, had forgotten. Under the amount of
pressure of everyone yelling at me, and having them tell me that they were
going to put me in prison for protecting somebody, that I wasn't protecting,
that I couldn't remember, I tried to imagine that in some way they must have
had...it was very difficult, because when I was there, at a certain point,
I just...I couldn't understand [Start of 15:19 minute video segment
http://tg24.sky.it/tg24/cronaca/2009/06 ... ffesa.html ]
why they were so sure that I was the one who knew everything. And so, in my
confusion, I started to imagine that maybe I was traumatized, like what they said.
They continued to say that I had met somebody, and they continued to put so much
emphasis on this message that I had received from Patrick, and so I almost was
convinced that I had met him. But I was confused.


Listen to how short and direct she is. Telling me they are going to put me in prison for protecting someone....

Anonymous said...

Peter,
Yesterday I believe you asked me this question in a post.

If the evidence was collected hastily, for instance, can you explain how it is you have concluded this, and where you learned it?

Here is my Answer:
Pull up your internet, go to GOOGLE, type in Amanda Knox. This will take you to several sites that give you extesnsive info on the evidence used against her, how it was collected, and mostly how it does NOT add up to AK being guilty. Why do you think she won this latest appeal to have new eyes look at the evidence again? Thats my answer GOOGLE it.

P.S sorry if this sounded like a smart mouthed comment, but for real thats the answer.

~karri

Anonymous said...

What's the consensus it Italy? It doesn't matter what the public perception is in the USA.

Are they just going through the mostions of appealing the DNA evidence? I read The Massei Report at http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/newsweek_report_from_italy_on_damage_shrill_campaign_is_dong_to_knoxs_.

I'm convinded now that Amanda is guilty. Since Italians are probably more familiar with this detailed report that damages Amanda's defense, does it really matter what us bloggers think? Or for that matter the massive PR scheme & propaganda effort by FOA like Steve Moore & her family?

The public relation's effort is insulting to Italy & will backfire. It will hurt Amanda & may even result in more time behind bars.

Anonymous said...

Friday, January 07, 2011

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

Posted by Cardiol

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Anonymous said...

Amanda had a diabolical look on her face in court, downright creepy smiling throughout. Her dark emotions & intentions show on her features. At least Rafaelle looked nervous & scared.

Anonymous said...

Steve Moore's interview clips & photos make him looks crazed, like he's becoming unhinged. Why do high profile cases attract the lunatic fringe of society?

Same as in Casey Anthony's case. The grifters, scammers & sleaze bags crawl out the woodwork & insert themselves usually doing more harm than good.

CD-Host said...

What's the consensus it Italy? It doesn't matter what the public perception is in the USA.

Sure it does. These public campaigns work. Mumia abu Jamal is alive 25 years later because of the free Mumia campaign. Were it not for their work he's be toast. And 20 years ago I was one of the people who thought the campaign was nonsense and favored the death penalty. Today I still think he did it, but the fact that me meant that much to so many. The Mumia campaign in the 1980s is what the Knox campaign reminds me of.

I think this is likely to cut her time. Remember the Italians are huge believers in the notion that standards of justice should be international. In particular that's been their argument against the US death penalty. For them now to ignore US opinion puts a lie to everything they've claimed to believe in for decades.

Imagine its 2016 Rudy Guede the rapist is out on parole; Amanda still has 16 years to go on her sentence and an Italian national is coming for an execution. They make a claim to our shared standards of justice.....

Anonymous said...

John Kercher, Amanda's Father

"To many, Knox seems an unlikely killer. Yet to my family she is, unequivocally, culpable."


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1334777/From-Meredith-Kerchers-father-passionate-attack-cult-Foxy-Knoxy.html#ixzz1AOKDGtHW

Anonymous said...

Bless you John. Your daughter has come to symbolise so much for those who did not know her, but see in her face a shining example of goodness. She will never be forgotten by me and others.

Her smile lights mine up every time I see it, and every time I hear the lies put out by Amanda Knox's family I think of the qualities that Meredith had, and that they and their daughter lack: grace, intelligence, judgement and intellectual capacity. Not everyone is fooled by the Knox family, trust me. No-one can deny the qualities in Meredith you speak of when they look at her face, and see the dignity of her family. Her death has robbed the world of a little sweetheart, that much is clear.

Knox's despicable behaviour in court shows she has a heart devoid of pity and any normal measure of human decency. She is where she belongs, and I have no doubt her appeal will fail. Be proud of your beautiful girl, and the scholarship in her name. She will help others achieve what she herself was denied.

- Sarah, Hampshire, UK, 1/12/2010 16:10


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1334777/From-Meredith-Kerchers-father-passionate-attack-cult-Foxy-Knoxy.html#ixzz1AOL9SgJD

Anonymous said...

John Kercher Decent people in the UK will find Amanda Knox anything but a celebrity. The haste in which this film was made is obscene.

I lost a son when he was 17 and nobody knew what I was going through because it hadn't happened to them. I hope you and your family can find some peace soon.
- Anon Female, UK, 2/12/2010 5:18


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1334777/From-Meredith-Kerchers-father-passionate-attack-cult-Foxy-Knoxy.html#ixzz1AOLftfOz

Anonymous said...

Changing stories - no remorse - sloppy burglary cover-up - forensic evidence.

Good for the Kercher's that this is not classic American tap-dance OJ Simpson style justice.

DNA evidence proved Foxy Knoxy as she likes to be called, guilty. Forensic evidence was not ignored under a confused guise of doubt vs. reasonable doubt.

Anonymous said...

Barbie Latza Nadeau

Interview with Angel Face Author on Amanda Knox

by The Daily Beast Video

In an exclusive interview, the author of Angel Face, Barbie Latza Nadeau, shares her insights into the infamous murder trial of Amanda Knox, why she thinks she’s complicit, and what’s next for the convicted murderer and her ex-boyfriend. Includes rarely seen footage from the crime scene and from inside the courthouse.

Watch Barbie Nadeau discussing the Knox case and see rare crime scene footage.

Barbie Latza Nadeau was the only American journalist who attended the trials. She believes Amanda Knox is complicint in Meredith Kercher's murder.
________________________________

The Daily Beast Video:

The Truth About "Angel Face" Amanda Knox:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/blogs-and-stories/2010-04-09/interview-with-angel-face-author-on-amanda-knox/

Anonymous said...

CD-Host said...

Mumia abu Jamal is alive 25 years later because of the free Mumia campaign. Were it not for their work he's be toast. And 20 years ago I was one of the people who thought the campaign was nonsense and favored the death penalty. Today I still think he did it, but the fact that me meant that much to so many. The Mumia campaign in the 1980s is what the Knox campaign reminds me of.
--------------------------------------------------
The only thing that the Mumia campaign and the Knox campaign remind me of is how the Kercher family is now having to endure the same injustice for Meredith, that the Faulkner family has had to endure for Danny. After reading the above post, I felt inclined to expand upon some of the reckless statements that were made, so that others were not left misinformed.

Mumia Abu-Jamal is alive 28 years later because the Free Mumia campaign has sensationalized the tragic death of police officer, Danny Faulkner, and glamorized a cold-blooded murderer as a celebrity. Those who know Mumia Abu-Jamal for the callous street thug and criminal that he is, refuse to even dignify him other than referring to him by his birth name, Wesley Cook. These would be the same people that would not dignify Amanda Knox by her nickname, after she started referring to herself as Foxy Knoxy. Wesley Cook has continued to escape the death penalty 28 years after his sentence, not because he has meant that much to many, but because he has become a pet cause for the left, furthering the liberals in their fight against racism. He serves as the poster child for all the Hollywood A-listers who are against the death penalty and want to get their point across by providing this murderer with all the funds necessary to apparently appeal a death sentence for 28 years. Wesley Cook has become a scapegoat for the violent, radical organization MOVE to push their propaganda. MOVE has capitalized nicely on their Mumia connection and are currently using his face to recruit new members and supporters, not to speak of thousands of dollars of money and material. For those who are unaware of the MOVE organization, the Philadelphia Inquirer best described them as, “a group with history of blood, murder, and lacking any sense of moral clarity, all of which is publically overlooked, because they shroud their violent cultism in a marinade of politics and radical environmentalism.” This organization has gained its recognition and notoriety by instilling fear in people. It should be noted that over the years, many individuals that have continued pushing and seeking justice for Danny Faulkner, have been warned by this organization to cease their involvement in the case, or else face the potential consequences. Just as Wesley Cook is a coward, so are these people.

Anonymous said...

continued....

This is not about the death penalty. This is not about the color of skin. This is about one man who violently and heinously murdered another human being and was charged with murder of the first degree. The criminal justice system tried this man and a jury of his peers convicted and sentenced him to death. Wesley Cook has yet to receive his sentence because of the grossly negligent justice system that our nation has adopted over the years. A system which seemingly encourages the ability to afford convicted criminals endless opportunities to prolong or deter the sentence they received for their crimes. Even more disturbing is how these particular cases become representative of a criminal justice system that has set such standards for accommodating the rights of convicted criminals over the rights of their victims. Why have we adopted a criminal justice system where convicted criminals have the right to exercise such blatant defiance in serving their sentence, while continuously robbing victims of their justice? As long as such a complacent stance as this is maintained, no precedent is being set in deterring future crime. Where is our criminal justice system that stands for blunt refusal in delaying or denying justice being served?

The message we are sending to criminals is that they can commit a crime and escape the deserved punishment. Each year that goes by where Wesley Cook has yet to receive his sentence, is our criminal justice system shouting out that you can go and murder a police officer in the line of duty and not have to worry about the death sentence, even if you are caught and convicted. Some will argue that he is still serving a 28 year sentence on death row, behind bars, and therefore some justice has been served; however, every year that Wesley Cook remains alive, he continues to profit off of the death of Daniel Faulkner. It would most likely infuriate most to know that a murderer on death row has his on radio show out of his jail cell, has been a commencement speaker at graduations via video, and inconceivably has made more money in 28 years than some people will make in their whole life time.

This particular case is just one of many that are crucial in shedding light on why some individuals are not deterred in committing a crime, when they do not fear the consequences, even if they are convicted. This provides a false sense of criminals being relieved of responsibility for their crime, when apparently a good defense attorney and a lot of money can continue to prolong justice from being served. If this was not the overwhelming mentality of our society toward the criminal justice system, maybe the Tiffany Hartley’s and Case Anthony’s of this country would have thought twice before making the choices that they did.

If anything, our public campaigns should not be that of supporting criminals and the crimes that they have been convicted of; our public campaigns should be in support of all the victims who have yet to receive the justice they deserve by demanding that the necessary changes be made to the criminal justice system.

CD-Host said...

Anonymous (anti Mumia) --

Again in this case I think the guy was guilty. It seems you do agree then with the analogy. And since we are discussing Amanda Knox, my point was the pro-Mumia movement is the reason he's alive. Whether you agree with it or not, the political activism on his behalf was somewhat successful.

In terms of the actual Mumia case, I would disagree with MOVE being a threat much beyond the late 1980s. While Mumia may have been a thug in 1980 today he's a successful author and political activist with a wide following. He seems rehabilitated. And I'm not sure he was a "thug" even then, more like a violent political activists, what we might in today's terms call a terrorist.

Mumia did 28 years on death row, that's a pretty stiff punishment. I don't see anyone laughing off three decades as no big deal, whatever deterrence the system was capable of administering it did. He didn't escape "deserved punishment" he received it.

The question with Mumia now is what to do without someone who
a) Likely did engage in premeditated murder of a police officer over 3 decades ago.
b) Appears fully rehabilitated and not a threat to society
c) Has a large support group nationally and internationally.

I think ignoring (c) fundamentally politicizes the justice system. It creates a group of people who think of the system as fundamentally corrupt and evil. It was that attitude towards the police / court system, that it was not a justice system, in Philadelphia in the 1980s that allowed MOVE to thrive. Ultimately all government gains legitimacy from the consent of the governed. Lacking that all you have is a faction executing people with the same moral legitimacy as you see today in Iraq when the various factions carry out trials and executions. I don't see how you can argue there is a societal census to execute Mumia anymore. 95% of the people who know who he is, think he should be released and are only divided on whether he was innocent, think he has done enough time, think he's rehabilitated, are opposed to the death penalty under all circumstances....

30 years ago the people of Philadelphia were making the painful choices that would end MOVE. The humanity that the opinions of liberals and blacks matter any they deserve a say in government is the reason that consensus held.

Michelle Moore said...

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

Newbie said...

Michelle Moore (Steve's wife?) wrote this:

"Michelle Moore said...
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 "

is anyone going to analyze it? I feel like I could but am a bit self concious about it because i've been here only a few months but even I can see a few things in there that show the bull. Newbie

Betsy R said...

I live in Dallas, US of wrongful conviction-capitol. I believe most European courts is that they are more humane than ours.
The motive concocted here is bizarre. Did they a motive to convict? Still I convinced of AK's and RS's guilt. I doubt a killing was planned. Perhaps something went wild and escalated.

Rudy Guede does not appear to be bright enough to have planned the cleanup, though in his teens, some regarded him as a good student. I think Amanda is a compulsive liar, and always has been; bright enough to finish high school, be a good student, and enrolled in university. RS may not be quite as smart as her but I think he kind of defers to her.

I read the statement analysis last night. Without it, Amanda's writing is what I call "doublespeak." Who is this Steve Moore? He is full of doublespeak. I have worked for two government agencies, and his bragging goes too far. Both Amanda and Steve Moore seem to be trying to convince themselves of the truth.

Their ramblings remind me of when Dateline's Stone Phillips interviewed Texas cadet killer Diane Zamora a few years ago. Though polygraphs are not all that reliable, Diane submitted to one for Stone. She had learned in prison how some people beat one. The polygrapher kept telling her not to breathe that way. The results showed deception. I learned from a polygrapher once that it's very hard for smart people to beat a poly.

Diane was trying to convince herself it didn't happen. Like Amanda, she's a bright young woman. Diane and Amanda are not as soulless and simple as some criminals. On one level, their minds are rehashing what happened while trying to compose a fairy tale. And it shows.

I concur with this so-called former FBI agent that most people arrested are guilty. However, he shows his own ignorance.

I used to work in public welfare, and I have seen plenty of convicted criminals, enough to know that a few were wrongly convicted. I had a woman whose ID was stolen and got arrested over financial fraud. It was confirmed in my own records when my own investigators had investigated her for financial fraud and verified her story.

I find it hard to believe that, in 25 years of FBI work, Steve Moore never saw an innocent person wrongly convicted.

I am not sure how much of a person's employment history the CIA or FBI will confirm. The FBI appears to have received a lot of inquiries about this supposed former agent.

Some former FBI and CIA agents, whose stories seem more believable to me, will write of past FBI and CIA abuse. No law enforcement agency in any country is free of abuse.

Prosecutor Mignini is not the only court officer or cop accused of being a criminal himself. A criminal mentality helps them understand criminals. Look at former good cop, Drew Peterson, who's locked up now on suspicion of murder. Drew stayed out of the slammer a long time.

But when I read the story of the coverup, the cleanup, and the way Judge Micheli saw it, the pieces fell in place. Amanda seems the brightest of the convicted trio. I don't see that Guede as wanting anything more than forced sex with Meredith.

Guede is a compulsive liar too, but on a different level than Amanda. His truth would probably answer the most unanswered questions, but I am not sure he is capable of coming forward with it.

Guede acts more like a petty criminal. He may have been interested in money a tad, but most of all, he wanted sex. So he is used to concocting stories to hide his petty break-ins.

Amanda is very bright and concocting various stories to hide her truth but revealing lots of pearls of truth.

Amanda unintentionally got involved in a crime that escalated beyond her own realm of capability and is constantly lying to herself to pretend she didn't do it.

Betsy R said...

WOW! I found her complete statement and copied the following. She accused Raffaele of what I accused her of, walking in on a situation he'd never been in and trying to cover for it.

Raffaele's truth may be the most interested. Supposedly, he has not changed his story as much as she has.

Amanda changes her story causes she's smart and looking for excuses.

_________

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.

Jack Butler said...

Is statement analysis admissible in court?

Anonymous said...

who pays you...something very suspicious about you and you can create whatever you want to create if you see it that way. Says more about you Dude, whoever you are hiding there in your faceless blog in space.

Anonymous said...

Totally agree! Caveat emptor comes to mind...not my mind, mind you, but to the analogy used.

Carp diem for the authority vs power.

This man sought and won the limelight. Afterall, what is retirement for if all that bs-ing can't be used for monetary purposes to sell the public a bill of goods-even if it blows smoke and the brakes squel a bit.

I wouldn't worry so much about oil. Water blowing out the tail is much more dangerous!

GetThem said...

And the reference to the word "pretty" in the automobile sale description struck me as odd... It sounds like he is attracted to AK.

Susan said...

like he'd have any interest if she wasn't foxy knoxy!

Anonymous said...

Amanda Knox is guilty. The evidence is conclusive.

http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/

Anonymous said...

Why is there no link shown where
You say we can see your analysis of Amanda knox's statement?