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

Comments

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1/10/11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hyatt sees no firm denial.

This is a squirrel cage of words.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is a performance to behold.

Thank you Peter Hyatt for your insight into these statements.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fail. An F on all counts.

Hopeful,

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

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

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

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

Hi Allison,

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

Thanks The Machine

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

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

Hi Allison,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, *shame on you.*

To jgstallingsiii

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

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

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

***

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

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

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

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

To jgstalingsiii,

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

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

Lewis Carroll from “Through the Looking Glass”

By Storm Roberts (Innai)

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

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

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

Hi, Innai.

Your response to jgstalingsiii:

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

Is PERFECT!

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

Where next:

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

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