Wednesday, January 19, 2011

Scientific Statement Analysis #5: Analysis Of Steve And/Or Michelle Moore’s Attempt At Rebuttal

Posted by Peter Hyatt

I was asked to analyse some of retired FBI investigator Steve Moore’s articles about the case.

I was sure looking forward to seeing how someone who claims such a sterling resume would view the case, in light of statement analysis.

I was really surprised at what I encountered. The Steve Moore article first analyzed relies very heavily upon hyperbole, a legitimate form of communication, but in such acute concentration reveals deception.

I concluded in the statement analysis that the subject did NOT have access to the case files, and he did NOT interview any of the many Perugia and Rome investigators. In fact he may not even have been to Italy, and it appears he speaks little or no Italian..

A comment was left on the same Steve Moore statement analysis posted on my own site by someone who purports to be his wife.

When I compare the language of the original Steve Moore article with the comment, I conclude that the authors are either the same; or as in the case of some are husband and wife who are of such a close nature that they sound alike. (Spouses often enter into each other’s personal, subjective internal dictionary, which should be noted in analysis).

A question for analysis arises. Is the author of the comment the same as the author of the Steve Moore article?

This below is is the comment, along with the statement analysis, and the reason why I believe that the author is either the original subject’s spouse, or the subject himself.

Michelle Moore wrote:

The person who wrote this is 100% absolutely crazy! He or she has not in any, way, shape or form not ONE clue as to what they’re talking about. This is beyond sad.

I don’t know what he does for a profession, or why he would respond at such length to people so obsessed with Steve, but to give in to people who are even MORE crazy is truly pathetic. I feel for this person, and for the lack of absolute wisdom…astonishing!

What is wrong with you people?


“The person who wrote this”

Note that “person” is gender neutral and that the article says “by Peter Hyatt” on it.  “this” is close; “that” is distant. The article likely touched a nerve. This is evidenced by the attempt to distance the subject from the writing (“person” gender neutral in spite of name) betrayed by the use of the “this” rather than “that.”

Note that in a rebuttal, we would expect to see points refuted. A rebuttal is similar to the question, “why is this wrong?” with an expected answer. Note that in Statement Analysis, when a question is not answered, it is an indication of sensitivity. We also say ‘if the subject has not answered the question, the subject has answered the question’.

The Statement Analysis concludes that the subject did not access the case files, nor know the thoughts and intents of the Italian investigators. If the analysis was incorrect, we would expect the subject to confront it with an answer. The absence of a response is noted.

The person who wrote this is 100% absolutely crazy!

Here is the first indicator that this comment is the same person who wrote the article: hyperbole.  In the article, repeated hyperbole is used throughout. Rather than a statement of fact, exaggeration after exaggeration is employed by the subject, which being flagged for sensitivity, shows weakness and deception.

Here, the “person” is “100% absolutely crazy”. Note that

  • “the person is crazy” is strong
  • the person is 100% crazy” is modified, with the inclusion of “100%” indicating that others may be less than “100% crazy” in the subject’s personal internal dictionary; but she is not finished:

“100% absolutely crazy” shows the redundancy of “100%” and “absolute”, unless, as deceptive people show, the internal dictionary has a different rate of measure with 100% not being complete (see analysis on Joey Buttafouco and OJ Simpson on my website for percentages above 100% in language). If one is “absolutely” crazy, there is no need to add “100%”, which is why taking the two sensitive additives points to deception.

It is like the woman who says “I am very very very happy in my marriage”, though she is likely headed for divorce.  If the subject knew the person to be “crazy”, the additional wording would not be necessary.

Moreso, if the “person” was incorrect in the analysis, it could simply be stated and proven, but rather the subject attempts to disparage, for now, the “person”, rather than address the issues of:

  • Did he see the actual case files>
  • Did he directly encounter the Italian investigators

Rather than address the issues raised and waiting for an answer, the subject attempts to discredit the “person”‘s sanity.

He or she has not in any, way, shape or form not one clue as to what they’re talking about.

Note that in spite of the author’s name posted, the “person” is now “he or she”. Next note that regarding having even “one” clue, the “he or she” has not (present tense noted)

  • “in any way” a clue;
  • “in any way, shape” a clue
  • “in any way, shape or form”
  • “in any way, shape or form not” in the negative.

This is the language of deception.

Here are four answers to the question “Are you happy in your marriage?”

  • I am happy. Person A answers in a straightforward manner and is likely content in marriage.
  • “I am very happy”. Person B shows sensitivity with the word “very”, meaning that, perhaps, the person was previously unhappy, or didn’t expect to be so happy. In any way, the person of B has sensitivity attached to happiness and in an interview, it would likely show itself.
  • “I am very very happy” is now stretching further with even more sensitivity.
  • “I am very very very happy” with 3 sensitivity indicators which would lead us to ask:

We tend to think “who are you trying to convince: yourself or us, of your happiness?”

This is the nature of sensitivity in language.

For the subject here, the use of sensitivity indicators is so strong that she uses two negatives (meaning a positive) thus

He or she has not in any, way, shape or form not ONE clue as to what they’re talking about

has “not” is in the negative, and “not” ONE clue. Two negatives sandwiched with lots of indicators.

The man or woman, he or she being addressed, has not, not a clue, coupled with 5 indicators of sensitivity.

This is the language of deceptive people.

What emerges here is that the same pattern of exaggeration in the original article, all in the “extremes”, is in this short comment.

It is likely the work of the same person or that husband and wife have learned to speak each other’s language, although it is hard to imagine two people given to the same deceptive language of exaggeration so abundantly.

It is like she wants to say about her marriage: “I am very, very, very, very, very, very happy” (with the 6th “very” added in to equal the double negative). (and yes, I had to count)

If someone ever says the above sentence about their marriage to you, you can bet he or she is headed for both a divorce and a breakdown.

This is beyond sad.

Even the emotional state must be exaggerated and “extreme”. What is “beyond” sad? Note that “this” is; and not “that is beyond sad” showing closeness.

I don’t know what he does for a profession,

Here is the first honest statement.

Notice the absence of sensitivity indicators, or in her case, the absence of the need to exaggerate. (it says “investigator” on the side of the blog under “profile” but as an honest sentence, it is likely that the subject did not see the profile section when she wrote this.

Note how unusual it is to point out one sentence that is void of exaggeration.

...or why he would respond at such length to people so obsessed with Steve

Note that the “person” who is “he or she” is now “he”.

The change of language shows deception. What is the deception? Answer: pretending not to know who wrote the article as a way of marginalizing the author, with subtle insult (see the insult of Italian investigators, along with any in the population who have not investigated violent crimes for a living in the original article).

Subtle insult is in several places in the article and is now found here; again suggesting that both were written by the same person.

Note next that “he” responds to “people” and not to the article. Note also the hyperbolic language of “respond at such length”. The statement analysis is actually shorter than the Steve Moore article. The analysis may be less than the part of the article dedicated to Moore’s FBI career rather than to defending Knox.

...people so obsessed with Steve…

The analysis was in response to the Steve Moore article; not “people”.

Note that “people so obsessed with Steve” is information offered that was not sought. This is a revelatory phrase.

Rather than answer whether or not Steve Moore was deceptive in his defense of Amanda Knox, the subject ridicules the writer of the analysis, and now offers that there are “people” (plural) who are not only “obsessed” with “Steve” but “so obsessed” (the need for exaggerating language).

This would indicate that the subject is seeking to avoid answering the following question about Steve being deceptive.

  • Did Steve Moore obtain Italian case files?
  • Did Steve Moore interview and learn “all” the thoughts, hunches, intent, etc, of “all” the Italian investigators?
  • Did Steve Moore know that “every rule” of investigations was broken by Italian investigators?

These (and many others) are points of the statement analysis which indicate that Steve Moore was deceptive in his article. This becomes a de facto question waiting for him to give an answer.

But rather than answer, the subject ridicules the mental health of the author of the analysis, feigns to not know the name and gender of the author, and claims that the author is only responding to people “so” obsessed with “Steve”.

...but to give in to people who are even MORE crazy

Note that the subject shows deception. The subject has identified the author (person, he or she, he) as “100% absolutely” crazy but now has identified “people” who are more than “100% absolutely crazy”.

This is the language of a deceptive person, more than just a deceptive response.

In the subject’s personal internal, subjective dictionary, there is no such thing as “100%” truthful, since percentages can be changed. In the subject’s personal internal, subjective dictionary, there is no such thing as “absolute” since there can be ‘more’ than both “absolute” and “100%”.

What this means is that the subject has learned, probably from childhood onward, to deceive. The more successful the subject was in childhood, the more loose the tongue becomes with exaggeration and hyperbole.

In short, the personality emerges as not just controlling (see the original post on Steve Moore’s article), egotistical, prejudiced, but deceptive; which is likely just as self deceptive as any intent on deceiving others.

It also points to one author of both the article and the comment. truly pathetic.

Note that it is not just “pathetic” but “truly” pathetic. When “truly” enters a statement, always note it, as it means that there are likely other things presented that are not “truly”.

I feel for this person,

Note first person singular and present tense. Why the gender confusion of neutral, he and she? It may suggest that the author is being deceptive about his/her own identity.

Did Moore’s wife write the original article? Did Moore? The writer may attempt to deceive here regarding gender.

...and for the lack of absolute wisdom…astonishing!

Note that it is not just the lack of wisdom but the lack of “absolute” wisdom. What is “absolute” wisdom?

Is this a reference to Proverbs? Is it a reference to divinity? We would need to ask the subject what is “absolute” wisdom.

“astonishing” is used rather than just ‘wrong”. This word means to “astonish”. What has caused the subject to be “astonished” but the “lack of “absolute” wisdom”. If the wisdom is “absolute”, then it can only be from the Creator.

Why would a person “astonish” another by being a human being, subject to mistake, errors, and failures? What is the expectation? Perfection? Infallibility? The language suggests deceptive attempt at portraying something that is so wrong that it “astonishes” the subject; beneath answering.

    Question: “Steve, did you get the case files from Italy to investigate?”

    Answer: “I am so astonished that anyone, in any way shape or form, on any planet, void of eternal and unchanging wisdom, could be so beyond sad and absolutely 100% more than crazy, and be so weak as to give in to people who are so incredibly and astonishingly obsessed with me, that I cannot even answer your question!”

It sounds as goofy as it is, but the bottom line is: in the many words, the subject has not answered the question. In Statement Analysis we say: “If the subject has not answered the question, the subject has answered the question.”

What is wrong with you people? Ew.

Here a question is posed, attempting to learn what is wrong with “you people” whom have already been identified as more than 100% crazy, more than obsessed, more than sad, and felt for, emotionally.

The projection should not be lost on those who read the original article and saw narcissistic control issues that belie an underlying mental health condition.

“Ew” is consistent with the insulting nature of the original article by the subject, and the use of hyperbole and exaggeration is strikingly similar. In this short statement, only one sentence is without exaggerating language.

There is something else to be noted here: with the word “ew”, a commentator has pointed out that this is not only unusual, but it is the same word used by Amanda Knox herself in describing her “best friend’s” blood spilled everywhere.

Moore uses the word “obsessed” and the projection is noted.

However, in putting the two thoughts together, it suggests that (1) there is something within the immature personality of Amanda Knox (“ew”) that has so “obsessed” Moore, that (2) he has defended her without reason or logic, and (3) has said that due to his many TV appearances he lost his job as a security guard.

Is Moore so obsessed with Amanda Knox that the word “ew” creeps into the language?

Investigators don’t buy coincidences. Finding the word “ew” in one statement in a lifetime is enough for the odds makers. Finding it a second time suggests something entirely different.

This may explain why the basis of Moore’s argument against Knox’ guilt is Moore himself. The link is powerful.

Exaggeration is a legitimate form of argument, used to make a point.

Its repetition, however, indicates sensitivity. Its cartoon-like employment is deceptive, used to masquerade weakness even while it actually highlights it instead.

Example with exaggeration: I’ve never seen more exaggeration used in a single paragraph than I have here.

Example without exaggeration: We are STILL waiting for Steve Moore’s answers to these.

(1) What evidence did he read?

(2) And which investigators did he meet?

Posted by Peter Hyatt on 01/19/11 at 10:56 AM in Crime hypothesesStatement analysisHoaxers from 2008Steve Moore



The Moores put on a funny ventriloquist act.

Posted by Hopeful on 01/19/11 at 02:22 PM | #

Every day now Steve Moore is being quoted by other conspiracy theorists like Mike Heavey and Bruce Fisher as THE expert on Meredith’s case.

He is the self-appointed lynch-pin of their arcane mission.

He seriously needs to put up now, or he will drag all of them down. Here is a helpful list. Steve Moore can maybe repair some of the conspiracy theorists’ ragged credibility by releasing all of the following:

1) Full year by year resume for the 25-year period when he was in the FBI; we’d expect this to be identical to his official resume which is of course legally obtainable from the FBI.

2) Full list of his investigations relevant to Meredith’s case with conviction rates and his role plus why none at all seem to be showing up on the Internet, not even those that are not deadly, deadly secret

3) Full list of the Meredith case documents he has examined, including of course which of those in the 10,000-plus pages in Italian that are released only on payment of a big fee he has actually read given that he seems to have no Italian.

4) Full list of investigators and interrogators in Perugia and Rome with whom he talked including what language they used to converse given that he seems to have no Italian.

5) Full list of people serving anywhere in the US Federal Government, including in the FBI and State Department and US Rome Embassy, who don’t think Steve Moore is full of poop.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/19/11 at 02:28 PM | #

Steve Moore and Bruce Fisher and Doug Preston might also need to prepare themselves for an interrogation by the Congress.

Many Italian American legislators have had it up to here with the sliming of Italy and they intend to move to stop it. We posted on this here.

Perhaps Steve Moore and Bruce Fisher and Doug Preston should have their passports taken away. Who knows? They may soon feel more welcome in Italy…

They could all though face Italy’s libel laws.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/19/11 at 02:58 PM | #

Steve Moore is most probably another one of these nuts-well of course, but for a different reason. He has fallen in love with AK and has this hero fantasy that he will set her free and she will be indebted to him for the rest of her life. Not for who he is of course, even in his twisted mind he realizes even a sociopath like AK wouldn’t accept him for who he was, but rather what he did for his “damsel” in distress.

But it doesn’t stop here for he realizes that this is just a fantasy therefore he has no problem with playing with or denying facts. In fantasy anything is possible, right? So he will continue to play out this charade in order to fulfill his internal need to play hero perhaps even taking pride in the fact that the false hopes he gives his “damsel” will make her feel better if only temporarily. Yes, the FBI does their best to weed out the nutcases, obviously they need to try a little harder.

Posted by Kazwell on 01/19/11 at 10:09 PM | #

“In Statement Analysis we say: “If the subject has not answered the question, the subject has answered the question.”

A Profoundly true saying!

Posted by Cardiol MD on 01/19/11 at 11:01 PM | #

Just have to share this piece of nastiness. Michelle Moore has written a review on Amazon of a book I shall not dignify by naming. She says:

“Meredith Kercher won’t be forgotten. If for nothing else, because of the injustice, it will at least keep her memory alive forever. However, what a tragedy all the way, because NOW there have been 2 more victims. I hope that the parents would be willing to take an open minded look at this book”

I am rarely speechless, but the cruel viciousness of that comment has left me cold, and stunned.

Posted by Janus on 01/20/11 at 10:13 AM | #

Hi Janus. Michelle Moore has long been harrassing Meredith’s family. I know some of Meredith’s friends absolutely despise her.

Actually you might consider posting the link. Anyone registered on Amazon can post a review of the book AND post comments under reviews like Michelle Moore’s. Last night all but one review were five-star.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/20/11 at 10:20 AM | #

Ah, well, I wasn’t sure if that would be appropriate, Peter, but absolutely, if any posters would care to inject a bit of sense into the Amazon reviews of this appalling and desperate Vanity-Published book, the link is below:

Posted by Janus on 01/20/11 at 07:45 PM | #

Mrs. Moore seems to get off on sliming the victim Meredith and her family.

Posted by DougPDX on 01/21/11 at 04:57 AM | #

Thanks Janus. You have already made a dent there on Amazon. There are several sarcastic one-star reviews and the gushing five-star reviews are being increasingly rated down.

We are looking at the book which is frankly pretty ludicrous. Bruce Fisher seems riddled with hatreds, absolutely unqualified in any relevant dimension, and a terrible analyst - he simply leaves out over 90 percent of what the jury saw.

Bruce Fisher was thrown off PMF after a few posts there for being intellectually unable to cut it. Small thinker, small cause, small man. And he tries to claim HE is the one serving Meredith and her family and friends best?!

Posted by Peter Quennell on 01/21/11 at 07:56 AM | #

I saw in her blog where Michelle criticizes the Kerchers.

Disgusting and embarassing.

I’ve never understood the hate of the FOA and their ilk toward a murder victim’s family.

Posted by Jeff Friend on 11/07/11 at 05:42 PM | #

Make a comment

If you are reading this please log in to post a comment.


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry The New 80,000 Pound Gorilla In The Room Introduced By The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation

Or to previous entry Inaccurate Report By The Associated Press Carried By Over 2,000 Media Sites Is Now Corrected