Friday, February 12, 2016

Dhimmitude and Propaganda: Deception on Television

"Mein Jihad"

The President of the United States spoke at a mosque connected with terrorism.  He used tacqia, or the Islamic allowance for deception, to further the cause of Islam when he spoke about the Ramadan dinner with Muslims at the White House.  It is true, Islamic dignitaries were there, it was Ramadan, and they had dinner, but what he left out was:

*The dinner had intention to negotiate for the release of Americans taken hostage for slavery by Islamic barbary coast pirates
*To further learn the koran to study the enemy
*the Islamics demanded kaffir (infidel) women given to them for sex
*the Islamics demanded no wine be served.  

This led to the US Marine invasion of which they still sing, and the beginning of the US war against the world's most violent ideology.

"From the halls of Montezuma, to the shores of Tripoli..."

The outright lie was Muslim "contribution" to the founding of America, unless the bravery of the Marines in the Tripolotan War" is their contribution.

Angela Merkel and Barak Obama said that "war refugees" from Syria needed help.  Since no Islamic country will take them, Germany said she would.  They were "women and children" fleeing war and that they would "assimilate into European culture."

The result is Europe awash in violence; sexual violence specifically, and "no go zones", which are not dangerous areas to which Europeans enter at their own risk; they are entire communities in which European law has no place, and Sharia rules.  These are areas all but ceded to Islamic supremacists, except that they are supported by European money, with welfare running up to 90% in most areas, with 100% unemployment by Islamic females.

Stand down orders are the norm, and Germany turns on its own citizens to punish them for Islamic rape, from refusing to arrest rapists, to blaming the victims, and on to threatening anyone who criticizes Islam, enforcing Sharia blasphemy law.  This is the status of the Dhimmi, one who is permitted to live by the supremacist Muslim, as long as he is subservient and pays the Muslim (jizrah).

From the removal of "Islam" from "Islamic terror" records, to the erasing of names on the watch list, to the promotion of Muslims in high security places, and the denigration of Christians in the military and in society, Obama has faithfully promoted Islamic dominance as he works with the terrorist designated "CAIR" organization, including Common Core Curriculum's promotion of Islam in the schools.

Our children will be the ones who must deal with nuclear Iran, thanks to the treason of Barak Obama.   The photo of our crying soldier will be the photograph shown to our children regarding Islamic supremacy, thanks to this high handed treason.  

Obama is not alone.  

Merkel also practiced the Islamic lie.  She told Germans that the migrants would assimilate into European culture while working with Facebook and Google to promote Sharia blasphemy laws, destroying free speech.

Here is a German propaganda video called, "Mein Jihad."

It is a shocking example of Josef Goebbels Ministry of Propaganda resurrected by Merkel, as she supplants the German nationals with Islamic males, 70% to 90%, including ISIS and other Islamic supremacist fighters, with severe and advanced weapons, while seeking to disarm citizenry.  In 40 years, there has been no assimilation, and she has admitted the failure of "multi culturalism", as she has embraced Islamic supremacy.

Thursday, February 11, 2016

German Politician Stabbed 17 Times by Three Men?

A young German far left  politician reported that he was attacked by 3 right wing xenophobic men who stabbed him 17 times.  He was also insulted by name calling, "gay communist pig."

Julian Kinzel, member of the Schwerin board, did not go to the police station to make the report; he entered it via the internet. 

The hospital which treated him did not make a criminal report.  He told the doctor "three perpetrators beat him down and stabbed him around 17 times with a knife."  He told the hospital that the three attackers wore clothing typical of "the far right scene."

The federal Left party even said the case was one of "attempted murder". "We are shocked," party explained on Wednesday on Twitter. Federal managing director Matthias Höhn:

"The current case proves in a tragic way once again how dangerous and inhuman right-wing extremism is."

  Party leader Katja Kipping said: "The knife attack is horrific and also an attack on democracy". 

An attack on democracy?

The problem?

Julian Kinzel inflicted the wounds himself.   

He did not make a police report until the next day and then only via internet submission.  The hospital that treated him, contrary to law, did not file a police report either.  It is not known if Kinzel will face charges.  

Wednesday, February 10, 2016

Thoughts on the Seattle Training...

This past weekend, I was in Seattle, Washington for a two day training seminar in Statement Analysis, and with to convey my gratitude to the organizers and share with readers some of my thoughts on the experience.

The trip was an adventure that began with a 5 hour drive to the airport.  The drive is generally less than 2 1/2 hours but the snow made for a rough go, with lots of trucks sliding into the ditch on the highway.  Maine was in snow and this led to a lengthy delay and a forced stay overnight in Chicago.

I insisted to the United Airlines attendant that I was supposed to arrive Friday night for a Saturday morning seminar.  He said, "Sir, I can understand your predicament.  I can look for other flights for you.  I have one that will get you, the very earliest, to Seattle late Saturday afternoon."

I said that he had to get me there early enough for Day 1 and to move me to a different airline if necessary.  He said, "Sir, I can get you there by 1:30PM and that sometimes with tailwinds, time is made up.  I can help you find a hotel for tonight and I can do....but we can't, by law, switch you to a different airline."

I am not aware of any such law but I did hear the quick pronoun change.

"Sir, would you please get your supervisor so I can ask about a different airline?"

He said, "I can put you on American Airlines and you can get there in the morning..."

This particular lie had come after several others, earlier in the stay, where he continued to assert how I would "probably" make my connecting flight "because of headwinds" and other such nonsense.  He showed that he would say anything to take the easiest route for his job.

I interview.

I interview and listen to anyone who will speak to me.

In Chicago, a Mexican drove my shuttle.  He said he was in the country for 20 years and loved it.  He said he immigrated legally and has 6 kids, with the two youngest being 5 and 7.  He said of the older ones, "No one will work.  They refuse to and all their friends refuse to.  Not McDonald's jobs, not anything."  He said no matter how he has tried to teach them that hard work is necessary to survive they "laugh at me" and feel that they are "owed a living by the government" and that it is the same with all their friends.  He said "We are fighting a losing battle against the school."

I asked him about why he left Mexico.  He said that everyone expects the cartels to be the bad guys and even politicians are corrupt, but this was not the worst.

He said "the worst is the police.  They are corrupt and there is no rule of law in the country.  Nobody thinks they have to obey laws."

He said that people rob each other all the time and that he has lots of family still there, but says "I am American" and that when someone robs their neighbor, the neighbor has to handle it himself but can't call police because they generally won't come, but if they do, they expect payment, either from you, the victim, or from the thief.  He repeated the phrase, "the rule of law" throughout, and dropped the 'f bomb' in casual speech.  This was without emotion, and was not for emphasis.  It dominated his speech but was cultural.  He worked the overnight shift and was enjoyable to listen to.  I respected his work ethic and empathized his frustration with his children.

In the seminar itself, the pace was strong.  This group was easily engaged, and intellectually strong.  In spite of being about 2 hours late, they were eager to learn, working through breaks and even through lunch, and brought much to the seminar.  Backgrounds included military, security, social, and other 'branches' of life that help broaden the exposure into language.


In Statement Analysis, we do not interpret, but we listen to what one says and ask not if this really happened, but we assume it did happen, and ask, "Why does the subject feel it necessary to tell me this?"

Many of us start our mornings with coffee, though not like Seattle; they take their coffee seriously.  One quite intelligent woman said it was in her statement while she was alone.  She said she made her coffee in a manner I was not familiar with, which brought a chuckle or two, but another offered an interesting observation:

We flag "coffee" in a statement simply to ask, "Were you alone?" because most of the time coffee is mentioned because the subject is thinking about when he or she was with another person (which should lead us to ask about the conversation) and one offered that this may be due to the fact that generally people made a pot of coffee, rather than for a single person which means...

What about the k-cups?

Will the use of k-cups actually impact the language, since it is a single cup serving?

This showed me something important:  this group is thinking and this is a good thing!  Next, I needed to learn how they felt about distractions and about error.  Regarding the shift, I 'worked through' this on the plane ride and can share some thoughts on it later.  Regardless, it was an impressive display of open-mindedness while still respecting principle.

As they did an assignment, I continued to throw principle out to them, verbally, looking for signs of annoyance.  Every so often, someone will actually say, "could you please stop talking while I am concentrating?" which is very important for me in measuring the psychological aspect of the personality of the budding analyst.  Thankfully, no one did such a bold thing.

I then moved to classical music, and its complexities while they were analyzing and they continued to concentrate.

Dulled listening is a life long habit and it must be undone if one is to have success in analysis.

Several people came out who were blog readers and it was exciting to meet them.  One, in particular, surprised me with his age.  I am pretty good (at least I tell myself such) at guessing age.  My estimate was more than 10 years off!  He looked, perhaps 12 years younger than his actual age.  Good for him!  I wish I could say the same!  His speech, however, gave him away.  Strong intellect, engaging personality, yes, but his background and life experiences left him with a sense of broadness that, when coupled with humility, is a marvelous tool for analysis. He said he has been reading here for 6 years without commenting.

When I spoke of Soviet interrogation, I had an almost tri-linguial attendee who even knew some Russian, as I sought for a specific word.  He, too, had a fascinating background, full of colorful experiences, and an open mind for learning.

The "blog folks" were able to identify how different analysis is in training than on the blog, which I thought was both fascinating and telling.

We covered some "PC" language, and showed the importance of being able to successfully identify whether a subject is male or female, and with the varied backgrounds, much was brought to the table of the "expected", as a group.

With a few hours they were "on their own" and did successfully "solve" cases of not just "deception indicated" but by Day Two, they so deeply "entered the language" of an abuser that they may have, as I have in the past, felt like showering.  They grasped the sorrow that accompanies knowledge, particularly when going well beyond "101" and "deception or truth" but into content.

Knowing a case personality well, they successfully profiled a pedophile and even entered the shoes of those around him; rather than simple condemnation and dismissal, they went to empathy, for example, with collateral victims.  This is critical as they moved from the shoes of a 50 year old man, to a 10 year old girl, and on to another where the subject was...and so on.

Polite, supportive of each other, and open minded, they learned and in speaking privately with some, they "got it", meaning, they understood, more than just memorized, certain principle.

The talent in the room was such that they even began, in late Day Two, to move to "leakage"; the most subjective of all our work.  Some of the insight was startling in its clarity, and, as is showed, they "knew" things about some of the subjects, from only the statement, that I knew from the actual investigation.  This "affirmed" their positions.

Several will be going on to more advanced work and they understood the need for continual study.  They also grasped how overly simplistic instruction will lead to error and discrediting of our science, and seemed 'impressed' by how much they do not know.  This was, personally, very encouraging, as it is something I am regularly reminded of:

Each new statement is a new insight into the complex world of human nature!

I have announced the Online Guided Monthly training for the West Coast, beginning February 25th at 9am PT, and those who successfully complete the initial course are welcome, as they show proficiency in what they have studied to date.

I hope to return to Washington State, particular with the military, as a military representative was sharp, intuitive and also open and eager to learn.

The patriots in attendance discerned the difference between agenda and analysis, and showed both a dedication and an openness, which helps to keep our personal feelings, beliefs and agenda, at bay, as we seek to enter the shoes of others, see things from their linguistic lens and learn what really happened. 

The Seattle seminar's pace was a testament to their intelligence, dedication and humility.  None bristled about having to be "right", nor when they were "wrong", which was important when allowing the subject to tell us her age.  

The input was valuable and is part of a building data base of reactions, as well as turning the "40% rule" on its head, with one comment, on a statement that I have used for many years, that added to a statement of which I did not think anything more could be gleaned!

Always learning, always growing and always letting the truth dictate to us; rather than trying to make our belief system fit into the scenario.  

Congratulations to a great group!  There were those in attendance who will prosper in advanced, guided training.  

Tuesday, February 9, 2016

Monthly Training Announcement: West Coast

 Training Announcement:

We will now be hosting monthly online training for those of you in the Pacific Coast Time zone beginning on Thursday, February 25th, from 9am to 3pm, with 2 short breaks and one half hour break for lunch.  

This training is accredited by the University of Maine's Continuing Education Units for those of you who either have a professional license or who wish to build your resume.  

This training will be at Go To Meeting and is restricted to those who have been trained, and approved for this specific ongoing training.  

Go To Meeting is quite 'comfortable' in that you participate mostly through typing, and can take calls, see clients, etc, while not disturbing the meeting.  If you commit to a year's worth of training, there is a 25% discount, and should you miss a session, there will be many opportunities to make them up.  

The training is confidential, with approved attendees entering into a Confidentiality Agreement and is useful not only for training in Statement Analysis, but for the advanced training, psychological profiling and anonymous author identification. 

Upon approval, we will be working some live cases as well as personal cases, and this includes law enforcement, military as well as Human Resources, attorneys, therapists, and will be handling disputes, fraudulent claims, etc.  

For those of you who have not been trained, please go to Hyatt Analysis Services where you may take the training as an individual, or your department or company may host a 2 day seminar.  Successful completion of the initial training course allows you to sign up for the ongoing monthly training. 

The ongoing monthly training is made up of analysts from all fields, including criminal, psychological, business, military, security, and so on.  Its intensity is such that the time between trainings is valuable for processing and recovery, while the analyst works on unrelated statements daily.  This will also prepare the analyst for our Advanced Course which focuses upon the linguistic profiling and anonymous author identification that the analysis yields.  

In the personal course, the student is encouraged to take his or her time, and work through each chapter carefully and repetitively in the reversal of the process of 'dulled listening' we all do.  

As each training has limited number of spots, should we go over, we will schedule another day, but we do stick to the same day of the week, month after month.  

Two years of sustained regulated training, along with daily practice, will produce an expert in lie detection. 

There are no short cuts and there is no excellence in this world that comes but through dedication and hard work.  

*To be eligible for the ongoing training, you must have formal training beyond '101' training.  Introductory training is great to have, but by itself, it can lead to error and discredit our science.  

Successful completion of the course is mandatory for the soon to be released Advanced Course.  This includes the chapter tests and final examination.  

Tweet: John Podesta on Clinton Campaign Team

             Even tweets can present lessons in lie detection. 

People like to hear the truth as they know that when someone deceives, the deceiver must presuppose the audience to be inferior intelligence:  you won't be able to spot the deception.  

The news universally reported that Hillary Clinton's reaction to her declining popularity, particularly among women is that she is considering changing her campaign staff.  

John Podesta tweeted:

"There is zero truth to what you may be reading.  It's wrong.  Hillary stands behind her team, period."

This should be analyzed.  

"There is zero truth to what you may be reading.  It's wrong.  Hillary stands behind her team, period."

1.  He does not state, "Hillary will not be firing staff", or "Hillary is not changing staff" or anything similar which would deny any turnover or termination of the campaign staff, similar to what analysis calls a "Reliable Denial."

Note that "there is zero truth" is to address what is not there, and avoids a denial.  

2.  "There is zero truth to what you may be reading.  It's wrong.  Hillary stands behind her team, period."

"...may be reading" is not "what you are hearing" on the news, but specifies "reading" (but does so with the weakness of 'may'), which may suggest the existence of a specific report that has been read. 

Remember:  the 'brain knows what it knows' and if you expected him to say "contrary to what you heard" or "what media has reported", he was specific to that which is "read" and may be leaking an internal report, email, or written communication. 

3.  "There is zero truth to what you may be reading.  It's wrong.  Hillary stands behind her team, period."

Note the use of body posture. 

4.  ""There is zero truth to what you may be reading.  It's wrong.  Hillary stands behind her team, period."

"It's" refers to one single thing.  He does not say "reports are wrong."

Need to Persuade

5.   "There is zero truth to what you may be reading.  It's wrong.  Hillary stands behind her team, period."

First, he stated that there was "zero truth" to what you "may" be "reading" (note present tense).  "It's wrong" is unnecessary language, since if what it has is "zero truth", it cannot be "correct", or anything but "wrong."  This is a need for emphasis (weakness) that is unnecessarily added to the statement, further bringing the assertion to doubt. 

6.  "There is zero truth to what you may be reading.  It's wrong.  Hillary stands behind her team, period."

The word "period" is used (along with a period in the typing) which is to make a conclusion or end of the sentence of communication.  To articulate "period" is to double up on the emphasis, which, in analysis is called, "need to persuade."

Need to Persuade, or "NTP" is a signal of weakness, but it does not conclude deception.  It says that the subject knows he must over emphasize a report because he may not be believed.  

Why might one think he may not be believed?

This could be because of lies told previously, or even the current deception.  It is weak. 

Had he tweeted, "Hillary has no plans to change her team" would have been stronger, but

"Hillary will not change her team" would have been firm.  

Analysis Conclusion:

It is likely, at the time of this statement, that the subject (John Pedesta) is aware of a plan to change some of the campaign staff in some degree or another and that he is attempting to deny this while actually thinking of something he read, which may have been an email from Clinton, herself, or her husband.  

Hillary Clinton did address this with her own denial:  

"I have no idea what they are talking about or who they are talking to.  We're going to take stock, but it's gonna be the campaign that I've got I'm very confident in the people that I have.  I'm very committed to them; they're committed to doing the very best that we can.  We're gonna take stock.  What works, what doesn't work.  We're moving into a different phase of the campaign.  We're moving into a more diverse electorate and different geographical areas so of course it would be malpractice not to say "ok what worked what can we do better, what do we have to do new and different that we have to pull out."  

Monday, February 8, 2016

2nd Language Analysis: Sweden-English

We can do a basic or somewhat distant analysis in the 2nd language.  See various posts from Nuremberg transcripts.  

In such cases, although we cannot flag nuance, we can overall:

*Note priority within order
*Note sensitivity indicators such as:
a.  Refusing to answer a question
b.  Answering a question with a question
c.  Deflection, tangent 

Similar to contaminated statements, there are times where we know the source of contamination, void some sensitivity indicators (considering that some responses are not 'sensitive' in that they are in response to questioning that just took place.  We also cannot analyze "new language" as we cannot discern if the wording is that of the subject or from contamination from the Interviewer. 

The following is from Gatestone and is translated into English.  The setting:

The increasingly known rape and violence at the hands of migrants into Sweden, and the failure of the government to vet, to close the borders, to institute the rule of law that says that a refugee is to settle in the first non war country which he lands in.  Contextually, it is 

"The right of the refugee versus the right of a people to be safe" that was taken to this political official.  Introduced with:  

  • The atmosphere on Swedish social media is now almost revolutionary. People post videos of themselves accusing the government of murder, of filling Sweden with violent people.
  • When Alexandra Mezher was murdered, she was alone in the residence with ten asylum seekers. She was stabbed by one of the "children" she cared for.
  • When National Police Commissioner Dan Eliasson appeared on the "Good Morning Sweden" TV show, the day after Mezher's murder, he expressed sympathy for the murderer, but barely mentioned the victim. This sparked frenzied outrage on social media.

Gatestone Institute called Sofia Häggmark, a non-partisan official at the Department of Justice unit for migration rights. Here is the Q & A:
Q. Should everyone get to seek asylum in Sweden, even if it leads to Sweden's undoing?

A. "The right of asylum is very strong. We have international rules and EU rules that say that if a person comes to an EU country, that person has a right to seek asylum."

Q.  Is it all right to say no if there are groups in your country that are being threatened by the asylum seekers -- minority populations such as Roma, Jews and Sami [Lapp]? Or that Sweden cannot afford it?

A.  "No, if a person has grounds for asylum or risks the death penalty or torture in their home country, you cannot deny them asylum."

Q.  Is it not the Swedish government's primary task to protect Sweden and the Swedish people?

A.  "We need to abide by international rules; we are obliged to do that. We can be dragged before the Court of Justice of the European Union if we do not allow people to seek asylum."

Q.  Which is more important – Swedish lives, or the risk that you might end up before the Court of Justice of the European Union?

A.  "I cannot answer that question; I can only tell you what the rules are."

Q.  So you are saying that if 30 million people come here to kill us, we have no defense, we cannot stop it?

A  "I can only tell you that the right of asylum gives very strong protection."

Q.  But not for the Swedes?

A.  "If a person kills someone here in Sweden, the criminal justice system handles that and tries them. We need to look at every individual asylum case."

Q.  Do you think it has ever happened at any time in the history of the world that a country cared more for the citizens of other countries than its own?

A.  "I cannot answer that. But there is no rule that sets a limit for how many [asylum seekers] Sweden can accept."

Q.  So there is no plan for what to do when the country is full and the citizens are scared?

A.  "No, there is not."

Q.  Do you personally think that feels okay?

A.  "I cannot answer that. That is not my job."

Q. If several millions of Muslims come here and implement Sharia law, then the right of asylum has effectively contributed to abolishing the democracy in our country, replacing the Swedish people and annihilating the whole concept of Sweden. Have none of you pondered these fateful issues?

A.  "I understand your thoughts."

Wednesday, February 3, 2016

How To Stop Rape By Finnish Government

Not Expecting the Unexpected in Analysis

The correct expectation 

After many years of continual training, with a track record of near perfection, with polygraph, admission, confession and conviction affirmation, there is an element to consider, and never forget:

There will always be a statement that schools the analyst.

Human nature is, yes, this complex.

After formal training, and an initial period of intense rehearsal, the new analyst moves to application and ongoing guided training.  Once per month is intense enough for processed growth.  Even in years of incessantly processing the information through the lens and principle of analysis, human nature, as revealed in speech, will still surprise us.

That'll learn ya.

True enough, a 2 year mark of consistent, ongoing training has a 'magical effect' in which the analyst has now been broad enough to cover a wide swatch of human nature and will be so efficient that not only will he (or she) be prepared to tackle most anything thrown his way,

He will recognize the unexpected within the unexpected and seek help.

Group analysis guards against honing in upon a scent, which is natural and without group analysis, the only remedy is to complete the analysis, walk away, obtain an emotional and intellectual disconnect to the statement, and return to it.  With the potential for up to 40% more yield on the table, it is only through experience that this may be obtained.  In a room with several other analysts present, the experience is expanded greatly, on the spot.

We are impacted by deception.  It is insulting as it presupposes the idiocy of the audience.  When one picks up the scent of deception, particularly in the "aha!" moment, the scent (emotional/intellectual/hormonal) is in lock mode.

What emotions lock in on a single element of deception, particularly if it indicates guilt of the allegation?

"A killer is caught and justice will be realized!
I got him!
I can't believe he did this!
This guy would have ruined my business! 
I can't believe he thought he could get away with this!
My boss is going to be pleased!
I just saved us heartache. 
This stuff really works! 
What damage would have come had he gotten away with this!
Those who doubted me will have to deal with this, too!
I should get a raise for this!
I just saved my company tens of thousands in legal costs!
He would have killed again if the opportunity arose.  
I just got to the root of the problem!  She is going to be much better after this.
My client is now going to win.  I found the hole in their argument.  
What a relief!
What exhilaration!"

and on and on.  

This is a natural by-product of success and is something we do not want to "overcome"; as this would only harm our work.  

We simply need another perspective. 

The monthly training shows that learning is never ending, and the heightened professionalism only leads to more success and deeper analysis. 

To host a seminar or have individual training click here.

Tuesday, February 2, 2016

Amanda Knox: "I Did Not Kill Meredith..."

In the latest, a book "by" Amanda Knox contained the sentence, "I did not kill Meredith" which caused some to consider not only did she not kill Meredith, but was not present for the assault on Meredith, simply because of this recently released book. 

It is far beyond anything that would be considered the Free Editing Process, even if it was written by Knox, herself.  

Amanda Knox was convicted in the murder of Merideth Kercher (who died on Nov. 1, 2007) in Italy and was incarcerated for years until she was released on retrial. 

Was she present for the assault that led to Meredith's death?

The public was deeply divided.  Retired FBI Steve Moore wrote a bizarre hyperbolic defense of Amanda which is analyzed here.  He reportedly became so obsessed with the case and appearing on television that he was terminated from his job.  

The analysis of his statement reveals quite a bit of information.  

Rudy Hermann Guede, a resident of Perugia, was convicted of the sexual assault and murder of Kercher and received a reduced sentence of 16 years after an appeal.

Raffaele Sollecito, an Italian student, and Amanda Knox, an American student who shared a flat with Kercher, were convicted of sexual assault and murder and sentenced to 26 years.

Amanda Knox has many supporters, and many who believe that police, prosecutorial and judicial improprieties have resulted in a wrongful conviction. Passionate arguments are made on both sides; those who seek justice for the victim's family, and those who believe that Amanda Knox was wrongfully convicted, and that her confession was coerced by Italian investigators.

Statement Analysis gets to the truth.

What follows below is a handwritten statement made by Amanda Knox.  It is in response to her involvement with police, so it is not a pure statement of what happened (contamination) but it can be analyzed as a response to that interaction.  

Therefore, sensitivity indicators such as 'offerings' must be taken in context:  she is responding to allegations such as 'you were at the scene", which is why we will not call such 'sensitive' by themselves; the sensitivity is seen in the original question.  Instead, we analyze the answers given.

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

The opening line shows immediate sensitivity.

Dr. Paul Eckman teaches that testifying to memory failure is almost always deceptive. We don't know what drugs may have impacted her when this statement was made, but failure to remember is most always deceptive, especially in high stress situations. Memory lapse from alcohol is different than from drug use. Most believe that memory lapse from drug use is recoverable, but not from alcohol. We need to view what she does remember in order to discern if there is deception present.

In an open statement, we expect someone to tell us what happened, and not what did not happen. If we are told what did not happen, what was not said, what was not thought, we are to flag it as highly sensitive and possibly deceptive.

note the inclusion of sensitive words, "very" strange, (instead of just "strange")and "really" what happened. For her internal dictionary, there is "strange" and there is "very" strange, just as there is an event that happened and an event that "really" happened.

She notes that others are confused as she is.  This is important. 

Her confusion that is claimed, shows a need to be shared with others.  This is similar to using "we" when one should use "I" instead.  

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

Note the inclusion Passive language "I have been told" rather than who told her what specifically. But far more telling is the following words within her statement: "I was at the place of the murder of my friend when it happened". Knox places herself at the crime scene after stating that "there is hard evidence".  This is as a result or response to interaction to police.  Where it is presented, there is an expectation of refutation. 

The expected:  'they have hard evidence against me but that is not possible because I didn't kill my friend, Merideth and I was not there when she was killed.'  

Even as a response to an allegation, there is an expectation of reliable denial.  

The reason for this expectation is that she specifies that they placed her at the scene during the murder.  If she did not inflict the final death blow, she could say "I did not kill..." but she, herself, specified location.  It is the location and timing that we expect a denial.  

She gives;

a.  location 
b.  time of murder

This is in detail and easy to deny.  

She does not.  

If she is unwilling or unable to say that she was not there when Meredith was killed, why would someone else say it for her?

We will look at what others have said in her defense:  things that she, herself, would not say.

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

Days ago, it would be impossible to her, but why is it no longer so?

Also note the specific language that she chose to use.  It is that "would be impossible" is different than "is impossible." The addition of "would be" changes her claim from something that already happened into a future event reducing reliability

This is very simple and expected.  It takes no careful thought or aligning of words:  "I wasn't there for the murder.

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

Note first her opposition to Raffaele.
Next, note "in my mind"  as it is only in her mind; and not in reality. It is an attempt to avoid the stress of direct lying.

When people recount events from memory, they generally don't call it a "story", a word which conjures images of a made up tale.  This could be the language of police, as it is not a pure statement of "what happened" but is a statement that is as a result of answering questions and accusations.  She still, however, offers 'what happened', though we know it is likely influenced, in its scope and direction, by the accusations.  It is also the perfect place for her to issue the two denials needed:

1.  That she did not kill Meredith
2.  That she was not present for the killing or any sexual assault

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

Note the "cluster of blue" of highest sensitivity.  Even with the presupposed question  of "When was the last time you saw Meredith", one may discount these sensitivity indicator, yet there is much else to glean. 

That "left" has a 'stopping' of the brain at a location, rather than going forward to the next location tells us that there is information being left out of the statement at this point. 

This is a very strong signal that she is withholding information here, at this moment in time, within her verbalized perception of reality.  

In a known contaminated statement, we do not take "because" with the same level of sensitivity; we cannot.  This is because it is possible that she is, in her mind, answering the questions already posed to her in the interview.  

This is not a pure "what happened" statement, but it is a statement that is, in context, an answer, or a "denial" of accusations made against her.  

Note who's house it is. 

Note communicative language.   

It may be that she and Patrick argued as noted by the stronger "told" than "said". Also, we note any introduction of any persons in a statement; how they are introduced and the order in which they are introduced. Here, Patrick is introduced without a proper social introduction,other than to say that she works for him. This is an indication that she does not have a good relationship with Patrick.

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

"Now I remember"  people can only tell us what they remember in truthful accounts.  Here is a signal from her that she is telling us what she "remembers"; indicating that she may have told us what was not from memory previously. 

We also have, in a homicide statement, the departing statement.  This may set the time of death.  Amanda Knox has a need to communicate to us the departure from the presence of the victim, while avoiding directly stating that she was not there when Meredith was murdered.  Direct lying is cleverly avoided, as it does not come from experiential memory, risking inability for later recall, which heightens stress.  

"Good evening!" may also be weighed in the social context of "my" house, and not "our apartment" or "our house" as an attempt to persuade that the relationship was good at this time within her statement. 

Note the words "and this for me does not mean" which is a weak commitment to the text. If the subject does not own the text, neither can we. She tells us what it does not mean to her.

She also uses Raffaele's statement as a point of reference, rather than relying solely upon experiential memory. This is noted as sensitive.

She does not deny placing herself at the location of the sexual homicide and appears to show a need to persuade, rather than report truthfully, the relationship, activities, and even, perhaps the time of death. 

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

Note introduction of sexual activity in her statement about a sexual homicide.  

She feels the need to assert sex with Raffaele, yet does so with a weak assertion of "perhaps."

Deceptive use of qualifiers. 

Again, see Dr. Eckman for this form of deception (memory).
Note "perhaps" (qualifier) she made love "to" Raffaele, now "with" Raffaele. Note also that she uses the word "told" rather than "said". She does not commit to what she did but it was not relaxful in any case.

How do we know this?

Note the order as showing priority.  
Note the casual language of, "perhaps I read my email" which would allow for only the possibility of an alibi, yet even sexual activity is given the same casual language as checking email.  

After that I believe we relaxed in his room together,

"After that" is called a temporal lacuane, or a passing of time. This indicates that she has skipped over time, and is withholding information of something that took place.  That she sees herself unified with him, with "we" at this time in the chronology of the day, is important.  

"That", again, shows distancing language.  It is repeated by her, and it refers to that which preceded it.  Although too much should not be read into it, the repetitional use indicates a steady step-by-step attempt to move away from something specific: a time when she highlighted in her words of departure.  

"Relaxed" is important.  This is to avoid a specific activity but to introduce an element of unwinding required or needed, due to whatever just preceded it.  How did they "relax" is important, but may pale in comparison to the need to relax.  This was "perhaps" checking emails and sexual activity, but to commit to nothing specific.

"I believe" is weak, which is why she uses the qualifier. She can later state that she had not committed firmly to this, should it be verified and not found out to be true.

The qualifier reduces commitment but the sentence works with "we relaxed" but she needs the extra emphasis of "together" which tells us that there was likely a split between them and she needs to express a unity that should not need emphasis.

Please note that the need to persuade suggests:

It wasn't relaxful and there was tension, and possibly disagreement between her and Raffaele.

She then says that they had sex. We begin by noticing that information is withheld (temporal lacunae) and note that the language suggests an argument or tension, and then note that in sex she made love "to" him, and not "with" him; nor did he make love to her.

Something is being left out and it may involve a disagreement between them and sexual activity.

Sexual activity is a theme in this case, and should be explored by investigators. First she says she may have made love to Raffaele, then changes it to with him in the same sentence. The change in language would need to be explored. Was there two episodes of sexual activity, one that she was less willingly involved in?
Note that "with" shows distance and is not "Raffaele and I made love", or "we made love" which would be more unified. The difference, however subtle, is noted. There may have been a distance and even an argument or disagreement regarding sexual activity between her and Raffaele and should be explored by investigators.

However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure.

Note "quite sure" rather than "sure" gives the qualifier, which is presented in the form of the negative. We look for truthful subjects to tell us what happened and not what they do not remember.

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

She now continues with a lack of commitment until one specific activity is important enough to her to assert with memory:


First:  We can only commit to what the subject commits; here, she smoked marijuana (no qualifier) but does not tell us that she fell asleep. Note the additional words "might even" as weak.

Note, however, with significance, that she took a shower, but wants everything else to be vague; indicating deception.

It is to be noted that 'water' if included in many sexual homicides.  It enters the world of sexual abuse, both victims and perpetrators with either excessive washing, or refusal to shower (I've encountered both in children, adults and adults with developmental disabilities), just as it enters the language of association with sexual abuse and the psychological need of cleansing. 

Recall 'Pastor Davey' Blackburn speaking after his wife 's murder, hearing from 'God' his new purpose in life, his wife 'dying for the church', supplanting Christ.  Where did he receive these 'diving marching orders of greatness to come'?

In the shower.  

He spoke of his wife's failure to meet his sexual needs, and even flaunting a gun shortly before his wife's murder.  The 'coincidental nature' of the case is such as to show either orchestration or extreme coming together of circumstances to his benefit.  'Water' references often indicate a need to be 'washed' or cleansed, internally.

'Water' enters the subject's language when sexual activity has taken place, including bathing, washing of hands, washing of laundry, etc. It is often included in sex abuse cases, particularly, with children. A 'washing' away of guilt may be upon a subject's mind. Rapes and other violent sexual acts have been timelined properly by noting the time in which a subject speaks of washing hands or showering.

Note that this "might" (qualifier) "explain"; that is, to give explanation. This is different than reporting, as "explain" seeks to cause equality between what has been said before and what is now presented; a justification. This is not something we see in honest statements that simply report what is remembered.

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

Being noting:  "in truth" is used because she now wants to be believed as is the inclusion of minute detail after reporting memory failure. Note that, again, she is reporting what she does not remember, which is found frequently in deceptive statements. A truthful account should tell us what happened, or what is remembered.

Then, she wishes to report with emphasis, what she does remember, and returns to 'water' in her statement.  This is a strong indicator of experiencing something related to the sexual homicide.  Note also the heavy use of "we" within the language, as this cleansing need is shared, in unison, with Raffaelle.  Note the strange use of details as she revisits the showering. This shows that sexuality is highly sensitive to her; not simply due to repetition (repetition shows sensitivity)but because it is a theme in sexual homicides and that she now gives extra details including that they washed each other; that this went on for a long time, but then even adds in specifics such as "cleaned my ears".

Why the ears?

Did she hear her friend Meredith's cries to stop, or pleas for help from her?

Remember, it is Amanda Knox, herself, who has the need to tell us not only about the shower, but where she was washed.  

The high sensitivity suggests that Raffaele had a reason to shower with her for a long time, and had a specific need to wash her ears. This suggests that evidence may have been needed to have been washed off "for a long time", and in specific areas. This likely places the deceased's wounds quite close to his and Amanda's face, hair, and ears.

The shower details are also interesting as it is used to pass time by using sexual activity. Sex is a theme in her statement. Think how you might describe your night; even if you had a romantic shower, would you include it? If you felt that you needed to include that you had a shower with your boyfriend, would you give details about ears? Sex is in her mind while giving this statement and should alert investigators to any sexual motive in the crime. Making love "to" not "with" her boyfriend may show that Amanda Knox strongly wanted to please him but was against what he wanted. This may speak to motive and just how far she went. The cleaning, in particular, of her own upper torso may suggest the blood from the victim was not easily cleaned off completely, and took special detail and time. The time that passed was not passed leisurely.

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

Note that "one of the things I am sure of" indicates that there are other things she is sure of, in spite of claiming memory lapse.  She still will not commit to an alibi.  

After dinner I noticed there was blood on Raffaele's hand,

There is an important change of reference in language here.  She is heavily on qualifying everything; committing to little, yet here, she tells us what she "noticed", with no need to qualify it. 

This is a change in pattern or reference.  It is vital. 

What did she notice?

To "notice"...was this something she was looking for, or is it in response to the questions and allegations of police?  I cannot tell, therefore, I must focus on what she noticed, rather than the noticing, itself, as an activity.  If this was an open uncontaminated statement, I would view it differently, as if looking for blood. 

Note the absence of qualifiers here. It is likely that this happened and may have been from the concentration of him cleaning her (detail given) whereas we do not have the stressed details of her cleaning him. In a murder investigation, the subject now introduces the word "blood" after a detail about cleaning and showering, combined with sex. Its proximity is noted.

but I was under the impression that it was blood from the fish.

a.  "but" refutes
b.  "under the impression" is another weak assertion, using passivity to conceal who it is who brought her under this impression.  

Her roommate and friend has been sexually assaulted and murdered.  

She is discussing her showering and the blood that needed to be washed over Rafaelle, of whom the pronoun "we" is consistently produced.    

She was "under the impression" is not the same as "it was from the fish"; but note the repetition of "blood" instead of the pronoun, "it" which I used. "Blood" is sensitive, as noted by repetition.

After we ate Raffaele washed the dishes but the pipes under his sink broke and water flooded the floor.

A.  Washing 
B.  Flooding

Note that Raffeale "washed" the dishes, and not "did the dishes". This is another indication that sexuality is involved in this crime. "Washed" is, indeed, what took place. What was washed besides Amanda?  Amanda's ears?  The blood?

Now, concern that more evidence was in need of cleaning and more conscience in need of cleansing.  

Note that this is yet another  introduction of "water" in the topic.

If water is associated linguistically in sexual homicides, this is excessively so, as seen in its needless use.  

Note the continuation of unity between her and Rafaelle:  

But because he didn't have a mop I said we could clean it up tomorrow because we (Meredith, Laura, Filomena and I) have a mop at home. I remember it was quite late because we were both very tired (though I can't say the time).

Note the tiredness after relaxing.  This is an indication of extremity of stress and need of cleansing.  

Sensitivity versus Contamination:  Note that whenever "so, since, because, therefore, etc" enter a statement, it is a signal of sensitivity. Why? Because a subject should tell us what happened, and not "why" something happened.  Yet, we cannot make this conclusive due to the contamination of the interview.

Note that she also tells us what another's person's state was "tired". When a person tells us what another thought or felt, it is often an indicator of deception, especially if it is an emotional fatigue.  Yet here, we see that they were both "very tired" from "relaxing", though no specific is committed to.  


 Note that they were both "very" tired even though they had been relaxing.  Something that was both physically and emotionally exhausting had taken place prior, and whatever it was that took place  necessitated a "cleansing" for Amanda; a thorough cleansing of her, including her ears.  This cleansing, relaxing and fatigue, are all "we" aspects:  unity and togetherness. 

When someone says that they "can't" say something or recall something; it can indicate that if they did tell the information, it would harm them. Here, she "can't" tell the time; yet has other details down carefully.

"noticed" is passive. Passive languge indicates a desire to conceal and she is withholding information here, or was it in response to a direct question.  

The next thing I remember

temporal lacunae. This indicates withheld information during a critical time period; high sensitivity. The police interview would strongly emphasize the time frame that Amanda Knox is withholding.

was waking up

note verb tense should be "woke up". "was waking up" reduces the commitment which should question whether or not she actually slept, as she casts doubt upon it.  It elongates the process of waking.  Was this due to the extreme fatigue?  Marijuana?  Or, was there something else that 'wore her down'?

the morning of Friday November 2nd around 10am and I took a plastic bag to take back my dirty cloths to go back to my house.

Note the memory appears stronger here:  no "I remember" and no qualifier.  

Note also she is telling us the reason why ("so, since, because, therefore, etc") which is "out of bounds" of what happened, since it is an attempt to explain. Amanda Knox has a need to explain why she had a plastic bag, rather than simply report what she did. This is another indicator of sensitivity if not in response to a question posed.  I think it likely was an answer to "why did you?" from police.  

It was then that I arrived home alone

Here is a change.  She has been with someone else and it often produced the pronoun "we", yet here she is alone.  This is important to her. 

that I found the door to my house was wide open and this all began.

Doors opening and doors closing are often phrases found within sexual abuse or sexual homicide cases. For children, we often find that when they describe a door open, they use tense language, but when they talk about a door closing, there may be relief present. Here, she does not say that she opened the door, but "found" it opened (passivity noted). When passive language is used on an inanimate object, it is an indication that the subject is attempting to conceal responsiblity. For example, "the drugs sat on the table"; since drugs do not "sit", it is an indication that the subject put the drugs on the table. Here, Knox likely either left the door this way, or knows that Raffaele did; either way, she does not wish the identity known. It reads like a staged scene.

"All this began" avoids what is expected:  "I found my friend Meredith murdered!"

"All this began" is to have more than just murder, and an event that has begun, and continues to this point: 

"All" is plural, not singular.  This is to go beyond just the murder.  

This next appears to be a response:  

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

Note that within her words is found:
this "confession" that I made framed within her own wording (see above for the principle)
Note the qualifier she uses: she is not doubtful, but "very" doubtful, increasing sensitivity.
note "very doubtful" qualifier; rather than making a full denial of her confession.

note the order: stress, shock, and extreme exhaustion. Stress is the first thing noted. Exhaustion is only noted lastly, and has the sensitivity added, which reduces commitment, in "extreme". She was likely stressed, but not exhausted. These are presented in order to excuse, not report.

She told us that she had been relaxing but now she had extreme exhaustion.  

Note she does not accuse police of wrongdoing, instead, blames her confession on these three elements:

"stress, shock and extreme exhaustion"

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

If you had been coerced into a confession, what would be the first thing you would say?
When you reported the coercion, would the assault come after "stress" and "shock" and "extreme exhaustion"?

Order reveals priority and here she reduces being "hit" to low priority and avoids telling us who hit her and what she was hit with.  

What did she not remember?

A "fact" correctly.  This is to acknowledge something as a "fact." 

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

An assault by a police officer is an intrusion of personal space, it causes pain, and is a priority.  It is illegal, inexcusable, and a victim would not seek to justify it while accusing police: 

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

Please carefully note that she does not say "A police officer hit me in the head" but says she was hit in the head and that she understand police under stress.  

Deceptive people are counting upon audience interpretation so that they may avoid the internal stress of going into experiential memory and fabricating what does not exist there knowing that in recall, there will be nothing there but self reference.  It is too easy to get lost in attempting to keep track of wording that has no emotional or hormonal connection.  

Note also that innocent people do not, nor ever, "understand" false accusations or brutality used to coerce. This statement is frequently found in guilty parties (see the recent statement made by Tiffany Hartley in which she "understands" why people doubt her "story". Innocents are bold and their language does not connect with the language of guilt and they do not accept responsibilty (pronouns) nor do they understand anyone who does not believe what they say. Innocence has a boldness to it.  Remember Charlie Rogers "understood" how people might not believe her "story?"  Such an intrusive and violent assault and entry into personal boundaries has no such understanding or acceptance.  

However, it was under this pressure and after many hours of confusion that my mind came up with these answers.

Note the passivity of "my mind came up with"; as passivity seeks to conceal identity and remove responsibility.  It was not her, it was her "mind" speaking.  This is to divorce herself from responsibility.  

In my mind I saw Patrik in flashes of blurred images.

Note that here she tells us that she only saw Patrik in her "mind" but not in reality. It is the same as saying that she did not see Patrik. Note that even when people lie, they choose language based in reality.

It is critical in the analysis to know "how" she saw Patrik: it was in "blurred" images; not just "images" but "blurred images". Take note of this as we proceed:

I saw him near the basketball court.

This is not to say in blurred images. "Basketball court" is in her mind when she says this. Is there a basketball court nearby? For whatever reason, "basket ball court" enters her vocabulary because it is in her thinking.

I saw him at my front door.

The front door is also in her thoughts. Again, this does not say "blurry images".  That Patrik was at her front door should cause investigators to learn if she had approached him for sex, or he had approached her.  Did one flirt?  Did one attempt some sexual action during the sexual assault on Amanda?  "Patrik" and "door" are together in her words.  

I saw myself cowering in the kitchen

She states that she saw herself "cowering" in the kitchen. This "cowering" is something done in fear or shock. Why is this in her thinking, and therefore, entering her language? What is she telling us?

Was this when they were "washing" or mopping the floor?  Next we have the same body part that needed cleansing:  

with my hands over my ears

Here, in her language, is her "hands" now mentioned, as well as her "ears". We note that previously, she spoke of her "ears" as in need of washing. Since she was also washing Raeffaele, she would be using her hands; which would then become clean. "Ears" is important to her (sensitive) which is noted by its repetition.  This washing and ears is linked and highly sensitive to Amanda. Was there blood behind or on her ears?  Or, was it the screams she sought to silence with the covering?

because in my head I could hear Meredith screaming.

This is now reported in her head: "I could hear Meredith screaming" as in her language, but only in her "head". Why does this enter her language? Is it because she heard Meredith screaming?

What was she screaming?

Was she screaming for help from Amanda?

But I've said this many times so

Note that all self references are to be considered weak and unreliable. This indicates that she is remembering what she told others previously, rather than working from experiential memory.

as to make myself clear: these things seem unreal to me,

Note two things:

1. These things "seem" unreal; not that they are unreal.
2. These things seem unreal to "me" but not unreal to others.

This is deceptive language

like a dream, and I am unsure if they are real things that happened or are just dreams my head has made to try to answer the questions in my head and the questions I am being asked.

Note that she is trying to answer questions in her head, first, but then the questions posed to her secondly. The order is always to be noted as important.

Even within fabrication, each word spoken (or written) is vital and should be examined within the forensics of the investigation.
We have already seen the lack of ownership and now she only reports seeing things in her mind. Yet, in spite of lying, there may be many important elements within her account.

But the truth is,

The word but means to refute what has come before and note what follows. Tis introduction tells us that she has lied and now wants to be believed

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

Note that she is "unsure" about the truth, and not denying having killed Meredith yet; and will tell us why; noting that the explanation of why is sensitive within itself as it is out of the boundary of the general and open question of "What happened?", unless she is answering the police allegations. 

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

Note that Amanda acknowledges that it may be true, and if so, it only means that she is "very confused" and what she calls a "dream" must be real. An innocent person does not acknowledge that any falsehood could be true. Note pronoun usage. This is one of the key points of Statement Analysis.

Pronouns can even precede speech. We learn to say "mine" and "my" from our earliest age (sometimes "my" is signaled by a baby's hands, pre speech).

Pronouns are instinctive in language.

Everyone has an internal dictionary. If I say
"girl" to you all, one might think of a baby girl being born; another might think of a teenager. Each of us has our own internal personal dictionary and a good investigator seeks to enter into a subject's personal dictionary.

There are, however, two exceptions: articles (the, a) and pronouns. She uses pronouns that place her in guilt.

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

Knox is acutely aware of the evidence, the crime scene, and that she has been blamed. Note what she frames, however, with the pronoun, "I": "I have said things that I know are not true". This is not something an innocent person would normally say. Even as we flag it as such, we note how often she frames guilty words within her statement.

I KNOW I told him I didn't have to work that night. I remember that moment very clearly.

Note the first sentence has no additional words, nor qualifiers.

But then note that she also claims to remember the precise moment in which she told him that. Not only is it likely deceptive to report what one doesn't remember, but the obvious contradiction present to the claim of a faulty memory.

I also NEVER asked him to lie for me.

Note that "never" does not mean "no" and when found in a denial, it is not as reliable as "I didn't ask him to lie"; which is short (without the additional "for me". The extra words tell us that she likely told him to lie; just not for her, but for them both.

This is absolutely a lie.

Additional word "absolutely" noted  here for emphasis.  This is to say that other things may not have been "absolutely" a lie.  

What I don't understand is why Raffaele, who has always been so caring and gentle with me, would lie about this.

That she feels the need to add that he was "so caring and gentle" indicates a need for the description. This indicates that Raffaele was not "caring and gentle" that night. It is a conflict for Amanda Knox.  It is a betrayal to her.  

What does he have to hide?

Note that by asking this question, she intimates that he has something to hide from investigators and would spur them on to find out what it is.

I don't think he killed Meredith,

Note the qualifier "think". "I left my keys in the car" versus "I think I left my keys in the car"; is weak and not reliable as she gives room for doubt. It also may be where she does not "think" he killed her, but he "knows" it.

She cannot say it plainly.  

but I do think he is scared, like me.

Note that Amanda links herself with him even after expressing doubt of his innocence. This would be a theme investigators need to follow up on. Why does she continue to link herself with him?

He walked into a situation that he has never had to be in, and perhaps he is trying to find a way out by disassociating himself with me.

Note that he "walked" into. It is likely that she is indicating tension on the night in question and is putting responsibility on him for "walking into" it. It is a strange sentence. Note also that he is "disassociating" himself "with" me; which is distance, but unified, where as
"from me" would be have distant and separated. Amanda Knox does not appear able to distance herself from him. This cooperation with him shoud be noted.

She acknowledges that it may be his plan to disassociate from her.  Why would this be useful to someone?


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

I understand because this is a very scary situation. I also know that the police don't believe things of me that I know I can explain, such as:
note "can't explain which may indicate fear of consequences"

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

This tells us what Knox has been attempting to do: confuse the police. The police are not "confused"; they recognize the incongruity of Knox' statements. This is the "muddy the waters" technique employed by the guilty

The truth is,

noted again that now she is going to tell the truth, raising the question of what she has told previously.

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

Distancing language from her friend, Meredith 

Note that "someone" is gender free even though she knows the victim is a female. Note also that when she said it took so long to call the police she said when she found the door open and then added the additional information about "blood" in the bathroom. Note that she raised the question, "Why did it take you so long?" but did not give answer.

We may use the same principle in Statement Analysis as if someone had plainly asked her a question and she did not answer it:

When a question is not answered, it means the question is sensitive. We have an expression: if the subject didn't answer your question, the subject did.

Why would Amanda Knox not identify her best friend by name, but rather use the genderfree "someone"? The use of "someone" being gender free should provoke investigators to press the issue of sex in the case, as the victim is now reduced, deliberately by the choice of words, to sexless. This is an attempt to distance herself from Meredith, and perhaps, even lie to herself about the murder. She knows the gender of the victim.

I thought a lot of things, mainly that perhaps someone got hurt and left quickly to take care of it.

Who might the "someone" who got hurt, but left quickly to take care of it be? This may be an indication of various alibis discussed.

She now has the need to explain the blood.  Even as if an answer to the question, note what she uses for an excuse: 

I also thought that maybe one of my roommates was having menstral [sic] problems and hadn't cleaned up.

We have "thought" which allows for another "thought" to the contrary, and we have "maybe", which also reduces commitment.  This is safe to conclude:  Amanda Knox did not think this was the source of blood.

Perhaps I was in shock,
Note the qualifier, "perhaps"

but at the time I didn't know what to think and that's the truth.

Note the need to emphasize as she really wants to be believed here, weakening even further, the belief of the source of blood.  

That is why I talked to Raffaele about it in the morning, because I was worried and wanted advice.

She thought that maybe one of her roommates had a gynecological problem so she spoke to Raffaele to give advice. 

What does this tell us?

The deceptive one has confidence in her own talent and ability to deceive others; which comes from childhood.  

2. I also know that the fact that I can't fully recall the events

Note that she can't "fully" recall rather than just "recall". Note again that the subject tells us what can't be remembered is often deceptive and is noted here as another indication of deception.

that I claim took place at Raffaele's home during the time that Meredith was murdered is incriminating.

She acknowledges that what she has said is incriminating.

And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me that what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house.

I have added the emphasis to her statement with the explainations already given. Note the self reference, "what I said before" in her statement means that it is not coming from experiential memory, which is at ease, but through the tension of trying to remember a lie.

Note also that whenever a sentence begins with "And" it is an indication of information that has been left out.

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

Note that she acknowledges that she has attempted to confuse them and that she "wants" to tell the truth, rather than she has told the truth. Future tense statements are found in most every murder investigation statement that is released to the press.

We  note that in her personal dictionary, there is "truth" and there is "real" truth and there is the "best" truth. This is an indication that Amanda Knox has been lying and likely has a life long habit of lying that may have become highly evidenced when she hit puberty. (see "menstrual") 

I'm trying, I really am, because I'm scared for myself.

This is why she is trying: she is scared for herself; but does not say she is scared for her boyfriend.  This is to show only self, not the murder victim, nor anyone else, including her family.  

I know I didn't kill Meredith.

Does Amanda Knox believe that the final, fatal blow, was delivered by Raffaele, himself, rather than her? This is sometimes seen when two or more assailants take part in a murder, but the final inflicted injury that causes immediate death is attributed to one (rather than acting "in concert" in any way) It would take extensive interviewing with Amanda Knox to learn if she believes this to be so. We sometimes see this in drug overdosage where one gives drugs to the victim, but if the victim took the drugs on his or own accord, the supplier can say "I didn't kill him" and pass a polygraph.

That's all I know for sure.

Whenever someone says "that's all I know" it is an indication of withholding information.


Because truthful people will continually make attempts to remember any detail that may help police and often stay up late at night, losing sleep, in an attempt to recall anything not previously remembered. 

In these flashbacks that I'm having, I see Patrik as the murderer,

Patrik is the murderer but only in her flashbacks

but the way the truth feels in my mind, there is no way for me to have known because I don't remember FOR SURE if I was at my house that night.

bold type added by me for emphasis. Capital letters were written by Knox. Note that the "truth" (not "real" truth, nor "best" truth) only "feels" in her mind. She also shows deception by telling us what she does not remember, and then frames the words "I was at my house that night" within her statement.

The questions that need answering, at least for how I'm thinking are:

Note that these questions only need answering for Amamda Knox. What does she want answers to?

Her best friend has been brutally murdered and she needs answers to:

1. Why did Raffaele lie? (or for you) Did Raffaele lie?
2. Why did I think of Patrik?

Ask yourself how what questions you might have if you found your best friend and roommate murdered.
Who did it?
Is the killer loose?
Am I in danger of being killed, too?

Not so for Amanda Knox.  

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

Note that pronouns are exempt from personal internal dictionary and are universal. Here we have "my presence" and "my memory"; taking ownership of both. In her framed words, she says "my presence at the time and place of the crime" even though it is worded in the form of a question. This is not what someone who was not present for the crime would do.

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

This question, the 4th in priority, seeks information that would condemn Patrik or anyone else, rather than herself.

"Person" is gender neutral; allowing for the possibility of a female, and not just a male like Patrik.

3. Who is the REAL murder [sic]?

Note that in her list of questions, how low in priority this is. Note also the emphasis she places, both linguistically and in caps of "real" killer. Who caused the final, fatal infliction of injury that caused immediate death?

This may suggests that others had a role in killing her, but someone inflicted the fatal wound.  I do not think it was Amanda Knox who inflicted the fatal wound, only that she was present for the sexual assault.  

This is particularly important because I don't feel I can be used as condemning testimone [sic] in this instance.

Note "feel" as a qualifier (someone may "feel" otherwise") weakening her assertion.

I have a clearer mind that I've had before, but I'm still missing parts, which I know is bad for me.

If it is missing  why would it be bad for her?  The only way to answer this is to know what she believes is missing; likely fro the questions posed by police  

Note the indication of deliberatley withheld information in the form of negation.

But this is the truth

Note that this is the "truth" and not the "real" nor "best" truth for Amanda Knox.

and this is what I'm thinking at this time. Please don't yell at me because it only makes me more confused, which doesn't help anyone.

Note the addition of "help anyone". This may reveal the motive for why she has attempted to "confuse" police (though they likely claimed not to be confused). She said the police were confused but didn't tell us that the police said they were confused. If the police did not say that they were confused, it is likely that she has revealed her motive for contradicting herself and her extreme use of qualifiers: deception by confusion. Her confusion is meant to help herself.

I understand how serious this situation is, and as such, I want to give you this information as soon and as clearly as possible.

Note that there is no need to delay ("soon as possible") as truth can simply be told here and now. This sentence tells us that she has not told investigators the truth and investigators will have to wait for the truth.

If there are still parts that don't make sense, please ask me. I'm doing the best I can, just like you are.
Note understanding with investigators who have accused her of murder is not something innocent subjects say. It is a form of manipulation. .

Please believe me at least in that,

She asks, with sensitivity (please) to be believed in "at least" that she is "trying"; not that she has told them the truth about the murder.

although I understand if you don't.
Note above.

All I know is that I didn't kill Meredith, and so I have nothing but lies to be afraid of.

Note again the phrase "all I know" is an attempt to end the inquiry.

Technically, this is not a reliable denial as it violates the 3 component law by adding, "all I know" to the denial.  

Yet, consider that Amanda Knox may not have killed Meredith.  

What Statement Analysis concludes is this:

The language of Amanda Knox shows "guilty knowledge of a sexual homicide."

She was present for the sexual assault.  

Amanda Knox owns her involvement in Meredith's death with a pronoun, "my". Someone who was not involved in Meredith's death would not state "my involvement", because they would not own it. This is akin to a confession. When police have a false confession or a prisoner of war is forced to give a false confession, we find in their statements a lack of ownership of the crime, even during the confession. A false confession will often slip into present tense language, and give indications of deception regarding the confession itself. Amanda Knox gives indications of deception regarding the crime, not the confession.

The same theme continues. I have highlighted the key words as the explanation is the same. Knox can't tell the truth, as it would cause her consequences; therefore, she seeks to confuse and leave open all sorts of possible explanations. She does not report what happens, but attempts to persuade. This is likely how she got herself out of trouble growing up, and is used to getting her way. The wording suggests her form of lying is lifelong, and not specific to this event.

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

In her account not only does she show ownership of the crime, but places herself at the crime scene and links sexual activity with the crime itself.

Regarding the murder of Meredith Kitchner, Amanda Knox shows herself as deceptive, and has guilty knowledge of the  the death of Meredith Kercher.