Monday, November 24, 2014

Amanda Knox: Judge's Report

This is from the Digital Journal.  One may wonder how much information the United States public was fed by the public relations team hired by the Knox family, versus the ability to read about the crime itself.  Statement Analysis showed guilty knowledge of the crime, as well as the need to deceive.  She did not appear to kill the victim, instead being an early witness or participant, subsequently lying about it.

Note the analysis after the article regarding one who's life was impacted by his defense of Amanda Knox.  This has been previously published here, and is added as one now considers just how much the public was influenced by Knox' looks, and the publicity professionals who were involved.  The need for the use of hyperbole is the principle followed in the analysis, though a profile of the subject appears to emerge.

For us, Knox' deception and need to deceive gave us answers.

The English Version of the Judge's Report is HERE

Use the search feature here for analysis of the various statements of Amanda Knox.

Op-Ed: Finally, is this the truth about Amanda Knox?

From Digitl jouranal dot com
Judge Alessandro Nencini upheld Amanda Knox’s guilty conviction this year, and his 350-page official report has just been translated from Italian into English. So what does it tell us? Is this, finally, the truth about Knox?
On March 25, 2015, the ongoing saga of the Meredith Kercher murder case will finally come to a close. Over seven years have passed since 21-year-old Kercher was found brutally stabbed in her bedroom in Perugia, Italy, and, after one trial and two appeals, the subject of whether her American roommate Amanda Knox is guilty is as hotly contested as ever.
Judge Alessandro Nencini upheld Knox’s guilty conviction this year, and his 350-page official report analyses the evidence, court testimony and legal arguments that led to his verdict. An English translation of the report was published last month, so what does it tell us? Despite the claims of “no evidence”, a cursory glance through the Nencini report informs us this is not the case. But is the evidence enough to prove guilt? Decide for yourself:
The staged burglary
At the very heart of this case lies the staged burglary. The prosecution have always claimed the break-in was simulated to point the finger elsewhere; staged break-ins are often attempts to divert attention from individuals who have access to the property concerned.
Aside from highlighting the near-impossible window entry point and the fact that nothing of any value was taken, one thing that is very striking about Nencini’s report is the placement of the broken glass. Four eyewitnesses stated that the glass was in fact ON TOP of the clothes and items within the ransacked “break-in” room.
Picking up the computer I noticed that I lifted some glass, in the sense that the glass was on top of things. I remember very well [the glass] on top of the computer bag because I was careful as it was all covered with glass. We mentioned this, saying, the burglar was an idiot, he did not take anything… the jewelry is here, the computer is here…and in addition to the fact that he didn’t take anything, the pieces of glass are all on top of the things.” – Filomena Romanelli, Amanda Knox’s roommate
The fact that the glass fragments from the window wound up on top of the strewn clothing and objects… is surely incompatible with a breaking of the glass in a phase preceding the ransacking inside the room of the apartment. The window glass evidently was broken after entry into the cottage, by someone who was already inside and had already arranged the disorder that was then seen by the witnesses.” – Judge Nencini
In addition to the many other red flags that have previously been raised with respect to the apparent burglary, as well as the fact that Knox’s boyfriend knew “nothing had been taken” before the roommates had even checked their possessions, this is surely definitive proof that the “break-in” was staged. So the real question is: who staged it?
The phone and computer records
The Nencini report places considerable weight on the circumstantial evidence, in particular the phone and computer records that prove Knox was, at the very least, untruthful. Despite Knox and Sollecito stating they slept through the night and didn’t wake until 10 am, this is not the case:
"What the Court finds proved is that at 6:02:59 am on 2 November 2007 they were not in fact asleep, as the defendants claim, but rather the occupants were well awake. At 5:32 am on 2 November 2007 the computer connected to a site for listening to music, remaining connected for around half an hour. Therefore, at 5:32 am someone in the house occupied by Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito sat in front of the computer and listened to music for around half an hour and then, at 6:02:59 am, switched on Raffaele Sollecito’s mobile phone…" 

According to Knox, after discovering the “break-in” the very first person she called was her roommate Romanelli, who urged her to call Kercher. Yet, Knox never mentioned the fact that just one minute before she called Romanelli she had already made a call to Kercher’s English phone.
I rang Filomena. She was worried so after her I rang Meredith three times. Once on her English cell telephone, once on her Italian cell telephone, once again on her English number. I didn’t get a reply.” – Amanda Knox, November 9th 2007
What is most conspicuous about the phone records is that they show Knox, apparently frantic with worry at not being able to reach her friend, only let Kercher’s phone ring for mere seconds. This is troubling and hard to find a reasonable innocent explanation for, as Judge Nencini explains:
“The telephone call made [by Knox] at 12:11:54 pm to the English service of the victim lasted 4 seconds. Perhaps not even the time to repeat the first ring. 
Knox should have been affected by a certain anxiety in calling Kercher’s telephone services. Filomena Romanelli let the defendant’s telephone ring for 36 seconds the first time, and the second for a good 65 seconds; an insistence which appears normal. But that did not happen when Knox called… these are two calls that barely registered [and this] has only one plausible explanation:
There was no concern at all in the mind of Amanda Knox when she made the two calls to the young English woman, simply because she knew very well that Meredith Kercher could not have answered the calls; calls which had to be made because Filomena Romanelli insisted, but which the defendant knew were useless. Nobody would have been able to answer those calls; let alone poor Meredith Kercher whom the accused knew was lifeless, locked in her own bedroom.”
The other untruths 
Why did Sollecito claim the reason Kercher’s DNA was on his knife was because “once when we were all cooking together I accidentally pricked her hand,”– only to later admit this was an utter fabrication and Kercher had never been to his house? Why did Knox lie about Kercher always locking her bedroom door? Why does Knox’s account of the morning of November 2nd make so little sense?
Why did Knox accuse her employer of Kercher’s rape and murder after only two hours of interview? Despite the idea of a long, torturous interrogation that many seem to entertain, this just simply isn’t the case; as soon as Knox learnt that Sollecito had withdrawn her alibi, she pointed the finger at a man she knew to be innocent, even voluntarily writing her account down. This was not something blurted out on impulse under duress and later retracted, as Nencini highlights:
"Amanda Knox repeated the allegations in front of the magistrate, allegations which she never retracted in all the following days, even when finally freed from the clutches of the police and the prosecuting magistrate, [with] the opportunity to talk with her lawyers and family. To make such a very damaging denunciation meant causing the detention for numerous days of a person she knew to be innocent, completely indifferent to the human suffering she caused him."
In her phone call to Romanelli, in addition to giving the impression that she had not yet called Kercher, Knox also lied about her whereabouts:
In the first telephone call the defendant made to Filomena Romanelli, she clearly said that she would go back to Raffaele’s place to tell him about the strange things discovered in the apartment, and then return with him to check the situation. This circumstance is clearly false, since when Amanda Knox made the first call to Romanelli at 12:08:44 pm on 2 November 2007 she was at already Raffaele Sollecito’s apartment and not at 7 Via Della Pergola.” 
The forensic evidence
The knife, with Kercher’s DNA on the blade and Knox’s on the handle, and the bra clasp containing Sollecito’s DNA, are strongly disputed by the defense as “contaminated”. Nencini says otherwise, pointing out that DNA traces on the knife were analyzed six days after last handling Kercher's DNA, ruling out lab contamination. Because Kercher had never even set foot in Sollecito’s apartment, transfer contamination can also be ruled out.
The bra clasp: "By the quantity of DNA analyzed and the analysis at 17 loci with unambiguous results, not to mention the fact that the results of the analysis were confirmed by the attribution of the Y haplotype to the defendant, it is possible to say that it has been judicially ascertained that Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was present on the exhibit.”
The knife: “...the consultant also did a statistical calculation with the purpose of determining the probability that the profile could belong to someone other than the victim Meredith Kercher. The calculation of the Random Match Probability came to one chance in 300 million billion.”

Moving on from the infamous knife and bra, what does the other physical evidence comprise of? What’s most revealing about Nencini’s findings is that in the bedroom of Filomena Romanelli – the “break-in” room – there’s not a single trace of Rudy Guede, whom the defense claim shimmied up the wall, smashed the window, pulled himself through and ransacked the room. There is, however, the mixed DNA of Knox and Kercher in a luminol-revealed bloodstain on the floor and in the corridor:
The analyses attributed the biological trace to a Knox–Kercher mix. The finding is of unquestionable importance in this trial, considering that the mixed trace of the victim and the defendant was found inside the room of Filomena Romanelli, in a place where – unlike the bathroom – there was no regular presence on the part either of Knox or Kercher. This room, furthermore, was the site of the simulated entry set up by the perpetrators of the murder in order to lead the investigations astray.” 
The mixed DNA of Kercher and Knox was also found in three blood stains in the bathroom: on the bidet, in the sink and on a cotton swab container. Knox’s own blood (that she testified was not there the day before the murder) was found on the faucet. There was no trace of Guede in the bathroom.
Luminol-revealed footprints were found in the corridor: one of these was compatible with Sollecito’s right foot, two others matched Knox’s right foot. None were compatible with Guede, whose footprints led straight out of Kercher’s bedroom and out of the cottage. Based on this evidence alone, it would have been impossible for Guede to have tracked Kercher’s blood into Romanelli’s room during the scene-staging later on – or to have left the blood-stained bare footprint in the bathroom, which incidentally matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito's foot.
As Judge Nencini says, the evidence has to be considered wholly. There is no smoking gun in this complex case; rather, there is a lengthy trail of untruths, unanswered questions and incriminatory evidence that, once put together, makes it difficult to come to a plausible explanation that doesn’t involve the guilt of all three defendants: Rudy Guede, Raffaele Sollecito, and Amanda Knox. The truth may, finally, be coming to light.

Amanda Knox has been ordered to stand trial, again for a homicide she had been found guilty of previously, then overturned.  Italy's highest court handed down its ruling today. 

Statement Analysis of the statements of Amanda Knox show guilty knowledge of a sexual homicide. Her statements are useful in seeing the correlation between references to water and sexual abuse. 

This is a reposting from our prior address, but it is useful in our study of Content Analysis, where we look beyond simple "truth versus deception" elements, into how the system of analysis developed by LSI reveals information to us.

Deception can be via the means of exaggeration and hyperbole:  is this the case here?

Amanda Knox was charged with, convicted, and then overturned, in the death of her former friend, while she was living in Italy.  Her statements showed that she had guilty knowledge of a sexual homicide according to Statement Analysis principles.  She was seen as deceptive in her statements, consistently, including her emails. 

She is now back in the United States and is free. 

This goes back several years in which a former agent from the FBI wrote a defense of Amanda Knox.  I began the analysis looking for content, not deception.  Note that some of the sentences are 'dated' in that they were written before she won her appeal. 

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 and none of the facts of the case which are so commonly known today.

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.   We now know that much of the information people went on came from the publicity professionals hired by the Knox family.

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; nothing else.  This is statement analysis only.

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 capitalization, even though it is "the supervisor."  This should be considered important to the subject. 

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.

Note his title includes "hobby" which is on contrast to his "life" and not his "employment", of which he was paid for.  Note rather than saying "I investigated murders around the world" it is "I have investigated..."

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 and it is in the negative, making it sensitive for the subject. 

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". 

He has introduced something to us here that will now put us on alert as we go through:  specifics. 

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 similar to asking someone, "Did you talk to Tom?" of which the subject answers, "Did I talk to Tom?  No, I did not talk to Tom", leading the investigator to ask, "Well, did Tom talk to you?  Did you write Tom a letter?  Did you email Tom?  Did you communicate in any way, shape or form with Tom, including through a third party?" and so on, knowing that the subject may be 'wordsmithing' with us, that is, seeking to use a technicality to avoid straight communication. 

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.

Notice that the prosecuctors did not take someone to trial, the subject, himself did.  This is unusual since the investigator's job is to uncover facts and allow the attorneys to do their work.  Here, he takes ownership of their work, outside the realm of his employment.  

The inclusion of him in the role of prosecutor along with the word "never" would cause me to want to know if this is a reliable statement.  "Never" by itself, is unreliable.  It may be true, but by itself, it is not reliable. 

Not only "tired" but "especially" tired is 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".  What caused this change?  What is the difference between "snippets" from the "news" but "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.  

Is there a change in reality?

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; news media.  There does not appear anything in the context to differ "snippets" and "statements" and "media" and "press" cited.

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.

Note the motive here is mentioned:  "curiosity"

We wonder:  why the need to add motive?  Why would simple "curiosity" be a motive into an alleged sexual homicide case?

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. It is also not true that "every" rule has been violated.  Why the need to add this?  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.  This should be considered a very weak point, as, rather than rely on the "facts" of the case, he again (repeated) relies on his own life. 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.

It is as if constant insulting will persuade readers rather than pressing an argument.  

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.

This is the quote used by "48 Hours" but is not expanded upon. 

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.  We also do not know how much interaction existed between the Knox' hired publicists and the editorial team at "48 Hours" or CBS.  

It is likely due to his employment, that 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.

The language would not come from Experiential Memory and would appear deceptive.  This is the nature of false confessions:  they do not come from experiential memory but are a fabrication.  

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.

Note sentences that being with "And" have missing information.  These are short and choppy. 

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.  Note the narcissistic tendency back to his own supervision. He would not have corrected them, nor written them up, but would have had them "indicted"; that is, accused of criminal behavior.  It would be interesting to hear from those he did supervise.  Even if this is only hyperbole to make a point, he reveals a high mindedness that would have troubled those who worked under him, as well as those who worked with him.  

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 "incriminating" statements are those in which the subject links herself to the crime.  Even false statements have genesis in truth:  lies do not come from a vacuum, but from somewhere. 

Note that Statement Analysis done of false confessions shows deception.  Statement Analysis of Amanda Knox shows:

missing information;
guilty knowledge of the crime
involvement in sexual abuse

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. 

He does not say it happened.  If it did happen, why add it? This is an attempt to enflame rather than report.  

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.

Hypothetical than moves on to claims made by Knox.  Which is it?  Is it "hypothetical" or is he referencing what Amanda Knox claimed?  Is she now to be believed, but her incriminating statements not to be believed?  If so, what tool of analysis is used? Where is the reference point? 

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.  To dismiss complexity in crime is to say we don't need complex training for investigators.  This is a rather embarrassing statement. 

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.  

One present for a murder who lies would not be considered a suspect in "any" US investigation is not only deception by assumption and exaggeration, it is an insult to Italy. 

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.  It is possible for one to become infatuated with another by letter and/or photo.  This was seen in America in the number of marriages that took place during and shortly after World War II where millions of letters were exchanged.  The power of the written word should not be underestimated, when it comes to human emotions. 

It is impossible to say the above sentence truthfully, unless one has sought the opinion of "every United States investigatory agency", in every county in every state.  Therefore, the sentence is not truthful.  This is not, however, our question.  Our question is to ask:

Why the need to use something untruthful in his defense of Amanda Knox?

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

He poses this as a question.  Note that in an open statement, it is possible that a question is the subject asking himself.

Note "your" is 2nd person, distancing language.  He does not write, "and the prime suspect..."  The distancing language is due to his personal opinion; therefore, appropriate. 

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.  In a sexual homicide committed by a man, can he think of any examples where a female was part of the sexual homicide?  

Note the need to insult, rather than report. This is a theme in his statement that is repeated. 

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".  Why "might" a close examination show gang relation?  Why not tell us what percentage of these murders with knives, by females, be gang related?

Again, this is a suggestion, that is, a dropping in of a word that is used to persuade, rather than report.  It is also an instrument commonly used in deception.  

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".  Note her innocence because she had good grades and a job. Is this the argument he wishes to press here?

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 mechanics and not to specific evidence. 

He has not presented:evidence, nor where he obtained the evidence, nor how he spoke to the investigators, but claims to know their thoughts; hunches. We have the repeated employment of exaggerations, meaning that repeated exaggerations themselves indicate sensitivity. The sensitivity suggests that the subject is deceptively representing himself as an investigator who accessed the evidence, the files, and knows the thoughts of the investigators, and was able to get information outside of media, because he found media to be contradictory to "known" facts.

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

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

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

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

Note carefully his own words: Take my word for this.

This is something that is likely problematic.

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

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

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

In investigations, complexity demands an input of conflicting ideas.

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

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

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

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

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

Note the unusual word "beautiful" in describing the case presented by Italian prosecutors. This would prompt more questioning of how he views the case, and why "beauty" is attached to a murder investigation.  This may be due to the many headlines of "Foxy Knoxy" regarding her physical beauty.  

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.  As far as Statement Analysis is concerned, we have deception via hyperbole and exaggeration as well as a self centered claim of knowledge, and a high level of sensitivity associated with his ability to supervise others.  

The volume of this work dedicated to tangent (self references, resume)  as well as the need to persuade rather than report, as well as passivity in language, all come together in a conclusion that suggests itself.  

The subject was terminated from employment over this case. 

 Was the subject, at the time of this writing, obsessed or infatuated with Amanda Knox?  Was the subject, at the time of this writing, simply following what was reported by CBS, or what was given to the public by the Knox team?  It is difficult to discern, in reading media reports, what was truthful and what was publicity.  

We now have the Judge's report. 

Taking the statements of Amanda Knox, over the years, and now with the judge's report published, allows us to draw a conclusion for ourselves, outside of the 'war' that appeared to exist between media outlets.  

Passions ran high in this case.  For one to be told to "stop" speaking about a case he was not involved in, by his employer, suggests that his campaign was interfering with his job and had become acute.  That he refused to stop and was terminated for it suggests how deep his commitment to "Amanda" was.  

Can someone with such a passionate stance, upon finding evidence to the contrary, admit being wrong?  

Thursday, November 20, 2014

Complete Statement Analysis of Barbara Bowman

I was asked to do a deeper analysis of Barbara Bowman; more than just "veracity indicated."

There is a short article about "humor" in Statement Analysis, as well as a video just released by the Associated Press in which Cosby is asked, there times, about the allegations.  His answers are interesting and note worthy, as is his response when he believed the interview was over.  

What do we look for in a false accusation? We have seen them repeatedly, including "Fake Hate", which is posted on this blog.  

What do we expect to see in a truthful account?  

The following is an interview with one of the women who had accused actor Bill Cosby of sexual assault, including drugging the alleged victims.  The interview is recent, with the allegations years old.
For commitment to the statement, we look for, among other things: 
Strong pronoun usage
Past Tense verbs
We also need to note how she relates to "Bill Cosby", as the perpetrator. We will take note to see if there is any change in his name, in context of what happened. 

A truthful victim will show consistency in language. 

Also:  We know that first person singular, "I", with past tense verbs, connects to the past in a reliable way, yet victims of sexual abuse can suffer PTSD or PTSD-like symptoms, which can lead to some use of present tense verbs.  In these cases, we look for the context of present tense verbs:  is it directly linked to suffering?  This is critical. 

Is she telling the truth?  Or, is there indication of deception within her answers?

Is she making this claim due to rejection by him?  Is she seeking fame?

We let her language guide us to the truth. 

Q.  How did you know Bill Cosby? 

The interviewer introduces the alleged perpetrator as "Bill Cosby", full name.  

I was a 17-year-old model and up-and-coming actress in Denver, Colorado. My agent knew Bill. I was told that he wanted to scout some new talent -- if we were lucky, we would be groomed to go to New York and get more solid training so we could move up the ladder, maybe eventually get to audition for the Cosby Show.
Bill came to town, and my agent set up a meeting for us. I was told that Bill wanted to get to know me and my acting abilities and skill level, and wanted to know what sort of marketing ability I had. He had me come meet him whenever he was in town to do meet-and-greets, and he’d give me acting lessons. Then, he started flying me around to major cities to events to get accustomed to being around celebrities, and, he said, to see if I was worthy of mentoring.

She is now an adult, and no longer 17.  It is interesting that she used the word "groomed" here; when it is so often associated with child abuse. 
The word "we" is regarding those who would be "groomed" and not a connection between herself and the actor.  

Follow the pronouns and names. 

Name:  The alleged perpetrator is "Bill", first name only . 
Context:  Meeting him, him coming to town, her being tested to see if she was "worthy of mentoring." This is casual and not formal.  
What would a victim have a casual attitude towards the rapist? Note the answer lies in the context. If we see the word "we" after the assault, there is a problem.  In this case, the word "we" is about the potential stars.  

"I was told" is passive which seeks to conceal identity.  The passivity is appropriate if the subject does not know the identity.  "I was told" is not ascribed to an agent or anyone specifically.  This may represent the 'layers' between a celebrity and someone trying to break in to the business. 

What did she believe that Bill Cosby wanted?  This is important for us to learn if she is a jilted lover out for revenge and is deceptive, or if this is about her career.  Her answer:

1.  get to know me:  what about her?  She then gives specifics: 

2.  acting abilities
3.  skill level
4.  marketing ability 

"me" is first, but 3/4 are career, of which "me" cannot exist without.  This is not an indication of a personal nature, but of a professional interest. She does not indicate that she went into this thinking romance with Bill Cosby, but about her career. She gives professional and financial descriptions and not personal descriptions about herself.  It is not about her being "nice" or "kind" or "good" or anything personal.  It is about career ability and marketability.  The language shows a serious and professional demeanor. 

"He had me come meet him" is showing Cosby as being in control and in authority.  It is important that we learn whether or not she is truthful about the exploitation of a younger woman by an older, established star.  We need to know if this is true, by the language.  Here we see him in this status and ability to organize or orchestrate. 

Q.  What was it like having Bill Cosby as your mentor?

Interviewer continues with full name. The response is now contextually negative and she uses "he" and avoids his name.  

Here, we want to see if she will 'gush' over him, or if she will go to the seriousness of her allegations. A deceptive subject might gush: 

It was overwhelming. It was surreal and exciting, but it was also scary. He worked me over emotionally and psychologically. He broke me down and really preyed on my insecurities…  I had no father figure in my life, so he zoomed right in on that and tried to make me feel as though he loved me like a father would. 

1.  surreal and exciting is then minimized by the word "but" and answered with:
2.  scary.

She then gives us the reason it was "scary":
"He worked me over emotionally and psychologically"
He broke "me down"
and "insecurities"

These are not self flattering terms.  

Not only is he holding over her the status of celebrity, but also the void in her life:  a father figure. 

I was young, wide-eyed and impressionable, and he would play games with my head, and manipulate me into believing that he cared about me, that I didn’t have anyone who cared as much as he cared, that I needed to trust him, that I had trust issues and that he would help me overcome those, because they would limit me as an actress. He told me I needed to give into him 100 percent, because he was investing in me, he believed in me.

"would" moves from the strong, past tense connection, but is sometimes used to describe actives that were ongoing. 
Note also "told" is strong, authoritative, and consistent with a much older man and a 17 year old.  Communicative language is important to notice. 

"That I didn't have anyone" is the isolation that abusers use.  He cared "the most"  or more than anyone. 
Note she had to "give in to him" because he believed in her. 

This is the language of control.  She is not flattering herself as one seeking fame or fortune. 


Names and Pronouns are critical.  Let us note here:

"Bill Cosby" or "Bill", to the subject, is now only "he" in the context of abuse and seeking to get her to trust him.  This is distancing language. We note that she used "Bill" when hoping to meet him and be part of a select group "groomed" for something:  success in show business.  As she now describes him, she moves closer to him with:  "he worked me over", which is negative.  Thus, the distancing from him by refusing, here, to employ his first name, "Bill", which would suggest closeness, instead using only the pronoun "he."

Q.  When was the first time you felt uncomfortable around him? 

The interviewer now drops the full name and uses the pronoun "him"

None of the abuse or drugging happened until I was 18… But on our very first meeting together, which occurred in the conference room at a nightclub in Denver, he led me through an acting exercise. First, he told me to go to the bathroom and wet my hair down. Then, he told me to sit in a chair, close my eyes, and act out a monologue as if I was really intoxicated. And he was touching my neck and stroking my hair. 

Abuse comes before drugging, and since the question was "when?", the answer "until..." is appropriate. 

"First" indicates logic with "Then" continuing the logical thought.  The tension for the subject is seen in body posture.  
She does not say "he touched" but "was touching", which indicates that she may be reliving the event at this point.  
In the context of specific abuse, "Bill" is only "he" again. 

We see the disparity of sophistication:  the famous actor teaching the young, inexperienced, how to act.  This, again, portrays him in the position where he could exploit, and is not flattering to the victim. 

I felt absolutely terrified. I was so new to the business and this was my first experience with a celebrity of such power, so I thought, “Wow, maybe this is what you are supposed to do. This is about learning how to be vulnerable in a scene, and if anyone would know best, it would be Bill Cosby.” I didn’t want to disappoint him or for him to think I couldn’t follow directions. So I gave it my all.

Please note that the emotions are here, in the 'perfect' part of the statement.  This often indicates artificial placement; however:
This interview is years past the event, which means that the subject has had a long time to process her emotions and is not indicative of deception or 'editorializing.'
She gives her reasoning, which is common in sexual abuse victims. 

"Bill Cosby", full and proper name, returns.  The context:  is knowing a celebrity.   

Where does "absolutely terrified" come from?  Here she answers it quickly:  "I was so new to the business" goes to the career and the business of making television programs and movies.  This is about career, again, and not about a personal relationship  with him.  The mentoring, to the subject, is about career. 

We continue to seek if this is a jilted lover deceptively and falsely blaming the alleged perpetrator but it is not supported by the language. She did not want to disappoint him, professionally.  

Q.  What else can you remember? 

I was assaulted a number of times from age 18 to 19. Cosby would warn me before out-of-town trips, "You aren't going to fight me this time, are you?"

Here she uses the word "assaulted" (very strong:  "I was assaulted" ) and calls him the less respectful "Cosby" and not the friendly and familiar "Bill", nor the celebrity "Bill Cosby."
This is consistent with abuse. 

Once in Reno, Nevada, he flew me out for a celebrity ski classic. He got me in a hotel room and fed me a lot of alcohol. He pinned me down in his suite on the couch, and he had me masturbate him. He really intimidated me, and I panicked. 

In this very negative context, the pronoun "he" is used.  She avoids using his name. 

From them on, I would be praying and begging to God that it was in my imagination, it didn’t happen. I’d sit on the plane and say “Please God, please God, this is really about my career--I’m lucky.” And then I’d get there and he would just intimidate me and make me so scared... 

Note that sexual abuse victims are often in denial, and when they are not in denial, they wish they were.  They often blame themselves, but later, when finally accepting the truth, they say things similar in which they "wished" it did not happen, or actually wish they could blame themselves.  This is often associated with the guilt they feel.  Even children that are sexually abused find ways to both blame and punish themselves.  

"I'd sit on a plane" shows her body posture, which indicates an increase in tension/anxiety as she considers this topic. 

The first time I was drugged for sure was in New York, when he invited me to dinner at his apartment. There was a chef, a butler; we had dinner, it was all fine. I had one glass of wine and then I blacked out. I woke up throwing up in the toilet, and he was standing over me, pulling my hair out of my face. I was wearing a white t-shirt that wasn’t mine, and he was in a white robe.

The passivity of language is not only the language of sexual assault victims, but of PTSD or PTSD like symptoms continuing.  They attempt to deny, or even justify (career), or anything to 'protect the brain' from emotional pain. 

The subject is not certain if she was drugged on other occasions.  This may introduce alcohol into the equation, where as a youth, she was not handling it well.  This may also be related to the passage of years as she has likely suffered nightmares and night terrors, and spent a great deal of time thinking about what happened and wondering if there were other times she was drugged and could not remember. 

Alcohol memories may not be recoverable, while drug memories sometimes are.  The combination is not good.  
Note that "I woke up throwing up in the toilet" needs no additional words to persuade and no qualifiers.  It is a truthful sentence. 

I think the final time I was assaulted by him was in Atlantic City. He took me there for a show and got me very drunk. Later, [the hotel] lost my luggage, so I was on the phone with the concierge and he had an absolute fit that I was on the phone, and went ballistic. The next morning, he summoned me into his room and started berating me and calling me names and yelling at me, telling me I had embarrassed him, and he threw me on the bed and blocked me with his elbow and got on top of me and started taking his pants off and I was screaming and crying and begging him to leave me alone and I fought so hard and I was screaming so loud that he got mad and threw me aside and got away from me, and that was it. 

She continues the distancing language with the celebrity in context of sexual abuse.
"I was assaulted by him", again, needs no persuasive language and no qualifiers. On its own, it stands strong.  Deceptive people need to persuade us.  She does not. 

The words "I think" reduce commitment, which indicates that she is not certain this was the last time.  

Note that the perpetrator had an "absolute" fit that she was on the phone.  This is consistent with controlling nature of power/authoritative abusers. 

She connects herself to the past with strong pronoun use. 
"I was screaming" instead of "I screamed" suggests ongoing impact to the victim. 

Note "he summoned me" with "summoning" being a word of authority; one who "summons" is superior to the one being "summoned."  This is to say that he is the celebrity, and she is only there by his good graces.  

Note the use of "I was screaming" instead of "I screamed."  Note where these verbs are used instead of the stronger, past tense. 

This is indicative that the suffering went on in duration longer than her words are revealing.  PTSD and PTSD like symptoms come to those who have been sexually abused and they can, while talking of the abuse, slip into present tense language.  Here, we find some sentences very short, and powerful, while others will give a sense of continued or continuing suffering.  Next: 

I was ditched. I was dropped like a hot potato by my agent. I was thrown out of my housing. They pulled the plug on me and said I had embarrassed him.

Question:  "I was ditched":  is it personal, romantic, or professional?

Answer:  " my agent."

This is not a woman who is seeking revenge on her former lover with false rape claims.  This is about her career, and the forced silence and disbelief that increased her suffering. 

In specific abuse, she appears incapable of saying his name. 

Short sentences are often best.  "I was ditched."  This is short and credible.  This is the result of her fighting back (above) 

Cosby said “I better never ever hear your name or see your face ever again.”

Note the narcissism. 

In quoting him, he remains only "Cosby", particularly here as he is shown as self important, so much so that he warns her that he had not even "hear" her name, as if somehow, he controlled the universe.  Remember, this is her language; her perspective and it fits the perspective as one who is star struck, beneath a celebrity, and now discarded.  

Note that there is a change of pronoun use:  he said these things to her, but when it came to housing, it was "they", indicating others backing what the celebrity mandated.  The language remains consistent. 

Q.  How did you feel?

this is a good question to ask, particularly at this point.  Will the emotions, having long processed, indicate veracity?

I was afraid he could directly affect my career by blacklisting me in the casting world and labeling me a troublemaker. I had no idea what sort of repercussions I would be exposed to; I knew I could be shut up real quick, and it didn’t feel good. I was afraid he was going to hurt me. I was afraid that because of his power and influence I would never be believed. He was Dr. Huxtable at that time. Everyone revered Bill Cosby. He could do no wrong. He was America's dad...

Once again, as a celebrity, he is "Bill Cosby" and not "Cosby"
Now note her emotions.  Will they be 'personal'?  This is very important in determining if she is truthful, or if this is personal revenge.  
Note the order:

1.  affect my career by blacklisting me
2.  label me a trouble makder
3.  Repercussions
4.  Being shut up.  This is also the language of those sexually abused in childhood:  having no voice, not being believed. 

Note that she does not include any personal hurt over rejection by him.  This is not about revenge. 

Q.  Did you tell anyone?
I told friend, who took me to lawyer… He laughed me out of the office. He thought it was absolutely preposterous... He treated me as if I was delusional.

Straight forward language. Note "a" friend is unnamed, and "A" lawyer is as well.  She withholds the names of both.  With the lawyer, however, she adds that she was not only not believed, but to be mentally ill to make such an assertion. This is what she listed as being afraid of.  This is another example of  consistency in language. 

Q.  Why did you finally speak out?

I heard about [Constand’s] case on the news in 2004, when I was living in Phoenix. By then, I had been married for several years and had two young children at home

This is a very typical pattern for adult female victims.  Note how she marks time by her life's changes:
marriage, and having children. 

Having two "young" children is mentioned specifically.  This often triggers victims simply because they now consider what this treatment would be like if it happened to one of her own.  Women who have been victimized sometimes do very well, for years, but when they have children of their own, triggers are set off.  Here, we find that she doesn't simply say that she reached a certain age, instead marking time by the important events of marriage and childbearing. 

. It enraged me that they were painting such an ugly picture of her being a liar and a slut. 

Note the target of her anger:
It is not Cosby
It is not her career

It is because another victim is not being heard and is being disparaged. 

"liar" making up allegations

"slut" for having participated in the sexual activity. 

This was too close to home and it "enraged" her.  It would be like being re-victimized by Cosby.  She felt like a "liar and a slut" for her time spent with him, yet her language is void of personal connection to him; with heavy professional leanings. This indicates that if she is false in anything, it is in blaming herself.  

Victims of sexual abuse fear being labeled liars, promiscuous but also insane.  Childhood sexual victims feel silenced.  Many were threatened into silence, others were coerced into silence with, "you will destroy the family if you tell..." or "your father will go to prison.  You don't want that to happen"

This is done to children.  

It is something that adults could not bear up under, so one can only imagine the impact upon children. 

Children are stifled and need to be "heard."

Adult victims need to be "heard" and not silenced by being accused of lying, or sexual promiscuity, or mental health issues. These are all ways in which voices are squelched. 

I went on a crusade to be heard--I started to call everybody I could possibly think of who would listen to me. 

Note how consistent her language is:  she needs to be "heard", therefore, she seeks out someone who would "listen" to her. This is a consistent theme and speaks to veracity. 

I reached Andrea’s lawyer and I found out that 12 other women were involved in this
"This" indicates closeness; while "that" is distancing language. 

At first, she recommended that we all stay Jane Does, and some girls preferred that, but I said, “Hell no--I have been hiding this--it has been a secret--for too long. I am not going to sit in silence anymore.” 

The request to remain "Jane Does" is to protect and embolden victims. 

Note that she negates this with the powerful word, "but" in the middle of the sentence. 

Note "hiding" and "secret" are related = veracity. 

We now continue to listen for "voice" and being "heard"

We also listen for "attendant" crimes.  Rape is not a singular action, but it is an action of violence; specifically, sexual violence, which then revictimizes repeatedly, through accusation, horror, memory, and other forms of "abuse", including emotional abuse.  

We listen to her language to see if the theme continues, or we encounter the "unexpected" as we do in deception: 

I want to be the voice for women who are too afraid to speak up. 

Please compare the consistency of language with that of a false victim in "Fake Hate" (Charlie Rogers)  

If I show the courage, maybe that will encourage others to do the same thing. This man cannot get away with this. He cannot use his power and his money to abuse and rape young women and hide under this veil of wealth and celebrity status and intimidate us any longer. So I put my name out there. 

See the video of the 70+ year old Cosby and how he attempts to act intimidating and controlling. Now roll back the clock to a younger Crosby and a much younger woman, new to the celebrity world to get an idea just how intimidating he was and likely still is:
"abuse and rape young women" is not just "rape" but "abuse"

Note his use of "power and his money" to accomplish this and the opposite of disclosure and openness : "hide under this veil of wealth and celebrity status"

My only motivation was to support Andrea; my statute of limitations had long run out. There was nothing in it for me monetarily. It was strictly to have my voice heard and my story told.
It was also because I needed to heal. It is probably the biggest demon that I live with today. 

The words "my story" are not words we expect to hear from a victim of sexual assault close to the time of the assault; it is too painful to be a "story" yet as time passes, and the brain has had the ability to process it, and distance itself from it, the softer language enters.  Years have passed by the time this interview has taken place. 

These are past tense, but she is speaking now, and I believe, based upon her language, that she, herself, needs to speak out now (new motives), due to helping others, but also for her own sanity.  She "needed" to heal, yet she lives with the demon "today." 

This is consistently seen in her language. 

Q.  Were you disappointed that Andrea Constand took a settlement? 

I was disappointed because I knew that would shut everybody else up, including Andrea. And although I am grateful she was able to have closure for her own growth, it sends the message to other victims that they can be shut up.

For many victims of sexual abuse, not being heard is often listed as the greatest fear.  This is from childhood right on up to adulthood.  Not being "heard" is not simply silence, but not being believed, or being thought mentally ill.  

Note that the subject still finds reason to be positive:  one victim was able to get closure.  Yet, her concern is for other victims. 
Note the absence of any verbal indication of fame seeking. This is confirmed by the distancing language; the opposite of name dropping is the very avoidance of the name she is associated with.  This is a name she is reluctant to use and when she does, she speaks as a victim with appropriate distancing language.  

Q.  Why do you think people find it so hard to believe celebrities can be sexual assaulters?
The media creates this idealized image of celebrities: that they are untouchable, that they’re not one of us... I don’t think people want to believe it; to believe would shatter the illusion.

The language is not only void of deceptive indicators, but is consistent with sexual abuse. 
The subject is truthful.  She is 46 years old, and still feeling the impact of not only the sexual abuse, but the betrayal and black listing.  

This is a truthful account by a truthful victim, who:

did not have a romantic relationship with Cosby. 

Who was bullied into silence. 

Who has suffered for decades and continues to suffer. 
Who appears to finally be believed.  

She had her career destroyed and her life ruined more than she is willing to admit.  

Please see the short AP video of Cosby next, which is posted here. 

See if the aged Cosby is similar to what she described above.