Category: Statement analysis

Scientific Statement Analysis #5: Analysis Of Michelle Moore Protesting Steve Moore Is Not A Phony

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?

Ew.

“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.

...is 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:

Answer:

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 04:56 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Various hypotheses, Statement analysis, Hoaxers from 2007, Hoaxers from 2009, Steve Moore • Comments here (11)

Scientific Statement Analysis: Claims Made By Steve Moore About The Investigations In Italy

Posted by Peter Hyatt

I was asked by a commentator to do an analysis of the handwritten statement of Amanda Knox. At the time of the request, I had heard of the case, but wasn’t familiar with the details.

Statement analysis is best done cold.

When investigators ask other investigators to analyze a statement, the request is made insomuch as the statement is sent, along with the accusation, but without evidence, opinion, analysis, background checks, etc.

Only the allegation is given, and the analysis is done. This is so that the analyst is not influenced by anything but the statement.

Statement Analysis is also useful even when much information is known, especially for teaching purposes. For example, read Mark McClish’s analysis of Casey Anthony in which he concludes that the mother knows what happened to the child and is withholding the information from investigators.

Today, this sounds benign because we know that the alleged kidnapper never existed. But back then, Mark went on only the statement.

Of course, doing the same statement knowing all that we know is useful in showing where sensitivity indicators popped up, which we know in retrospect, were lies. For the purpose of instruction, revisiting analysis of adjudicated cases, for instance, is useful.

Casey Anthony will be studied for a long time. Her lying is rare, but the principles we employ remain the same and pick up the deception in her statement.

When I began analysis of Amanda Knox’s written statement, I stopped partially through due to the references (and details) to water (sexual connotation) and googled the case to familiarize myself with it. I returned and finished the analysis, but was surprised by the responses. Since then, I have seen passionate debates online regarding guilt or innocence of Amanda Knox.

A commentator on the case asked that I take a close look at Steve Moore’s defense of Amanda Knox.

Steve Moore’s claimed resume is impressive and he writes with passion. Given those claimed 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 the reason he was terminated as a security guard at Pepperdine University was due to his involvement in defending Knox.

My own analysis of the case starts from the wordings of Amanda Knox herself and I have posted previous statement analysis on TJMK (scroll down). In the first statement analysis posted, Amanda Knox tests deceptive, repeatedly and consistently.

We employ the same principles in analyzing an article as we do in analyzing 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.

It is helpful to read my Statement Analysis 101 if you are not familiar with the principles, as well as the analysis of Amanda Knox’s handwritten statement.

Investigation of Violent Crimes is My Life; Not a Hobby

by Steve Moore

My name is Steve Moore; I retired from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) in 2008 after 25 years as a Special Agent and Supervisory Special Agent. My entire investigative experience was in the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, from murder to mass-murder and terrorism.

In my last such assignment, I was the Supervisor of the Al Qaeda Investigations squad, following which I ran the FBI’s Los Angeles-based “Extra-Territorial Squad”, which was tasked with responding to any acts of terrorism against the United States in Asia and Pakistan. I have investigated murders throughout the United States and the world.

His first 10 lines are used to introduce himself, by his first and last name, with repeated mention of the FBI, indicating that this is a sensitive topic for him.

He also introduces “supervisor” in this introduction. In Statement Analysis, we look at the amount of words (or lines) assigned to various topics which can help us determine not only deception but priority. Note that his “entire” experience was in investigations of violent crimes, excluding all other work.

I do not know Amanda Knox. I have never met or spoken with anybody in the Knox or Mellas families. In my 25 years in the FBI, I had come to believe that if you were arrested, you were probably guilty. I never had a person I took to trial who wasn’t convicted.

I was especially tired of guilty persons claiming their innocence.

“I do not know Amanda Knox” is a strong statement. Our measurement for reliability and commitment is First Person Singular, past tense, and we note not only any deviation from this formula of commitment, but we note any additions. Here, by itself, it is strong.

But then he adds to it the additional information: “I have never met or (sic) spoke with anybody in the Knox or Mellas families”. We would then ask, “have you emailed them? Have you had contact with them through another party?” since we note that he felt the need to add distance to the statement.

This is the first mention of Amanda Knox. In analysis, it is important to note all names mentioned, and in the order they are mentioned, and how they are addressed.Also note that he mentions “FBI” again, which repetition shows sensitivity.

He then states that after 25 years experience, he holds to a prejudice that if someone is arrested, he is guilty. This presupposed guilt is noted, as he reveals how his own mind worked, even after 25 years experience and should be noted.

I had heard snippets about the Knox case from the news, and believed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito were certainly guilty.

Note the confirmation of his closed mindedness in the word “certainly”. He concluded this because they had been arrested and it was a “certainty” for him. This leads to the question on how 25 years experience failed to make him open minded. We note this along with the repetition of experience as sensitive to the subject.

Note that, within the prejudiced mind of guilt he heard “snippets” about the Knox case from the news. This would not be a study of a case file; but reduces the information he listened to to “snippets”.

But then I began to hear statements from the press that contradicted known facts.

Note that when someone “began” something, they should conclude it and may indicate a withholding of information; otherwise what was began was not completed and continues.

Note also that he began to “hear statements” that came from the press that “contradicted known facts”. We note the change in language, from “snippets” from the “news” to “statements” from the “press”.

When a change of language appears, it represents a change in reality. “I pulled out my gun, and fired my weapon, and then re holstered my gun.” Here, the gun became a “weapon” when fired; but returned to being a “gun” when holstered.

A change in language represents a change in reality. “My car started to sputter so I pulled over. I left the vehicle 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 an apparent change in reality, we may be looking at deception.

Note also that the “statements” from the “press” are no longer “snippets” from the “news” and, he reports, are contradicting “known facts”. We have another change in language. This leads us to conclude:either there is a new source of information justifying the change of language, or there is possible deception here, and the information is coming from the same source; media.

In an interview, we would want to ask about “snippets”, “news”, “statements”, and we would want to ask what “known” facts are, versus “unknown” facts. We would also need to know the source of the “known” facts. Without justification in reality, a change in language is flagged for possible deception.

Is the information coming from media outlets, which indicates deception, or does the subject have access to the case files in Italy, from which he can then compare the “known facts” to “statements and snippets” that came from media?

Where did the “known facts” come from? Were they from the press? Note that he does not disclose where the “known” facts came from and he now causes us to ask about the difference between “facts” and “known facts”; ie, what this means to the subject himself.

Wanting to resolve the conflicts, I looked into the case out of curiosity.

Note the inclusion of the word “conflicts”. Are these the “statements” from the press that “contradicted” the “known facts”? Note also that none are identified here.

We would seek, in an interview, clarification on what is “known facts” versus unknown facts; and how they came into knowledge (ie, from the media?) This may indicate personal knowledge of the case, that is, reading the case files from Italy.

The more I looked, the more I was troubled by what I found. So I looked deeper, and I ended up examining every bit of information I could find (and there’s a lot of it).

Note that he “looked” and was “troubled” by what he found. He does not say where he “found” these things that troubled him. Note now we have new language introduced: He does not tell us where he looked (news, press) but he was able to examine “every bit of information” he was able to find.

An exaggeration is not necessarily deceptive within itself, as it is used to make a point. If we have, however, repeated (sensitive) exaggeration, we will then wish to revisit it for deception. It also raises the question of need. Why would repeated exaggeration be needed?

The subject does not tell us where he found “every bit” of information, leading us to more questions. This is why Statement Analysis is helpful in getting beyond attempts to persuade, and to seek truth.

It is difficult for anyone to say that they examined “every” bit of information and not be questioned as to where it came from, but in this case, the files reside in another country, in Italian, and not in the United States, in English.

Perhaps he had access to the case file if it was 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 then on to investigating would have to be made known.

If it is from the press, is it “snippets” or “statements” or information that “every bit” he could locate contradicted “known” facts; leading us to ask:“known” by whom? If the subject is unable to identify what it is that the source of information that he called “known facts” we are likely looking at deception: only that he read the news and changed his mind; not that he was privy to case files in Italy.

In Statement Analysis, repetition indicates sensitivity. One repeated theme has been “FBI” in this statement.

Another is the word “every”, which is all inclusive. Each time “every” is used, it should be noted. The word “every” is repeated, indicating sensitivity.

Since “every” excludes none, it is something that may only rarely be used in association with an investigation, since “everything” cannot ever be known. Note here that “every rule of good investigation” is mentioned.

What are these rules?

Was “every” rule violated?

This is the language of persuasion, not of report. Note also the additional word “good”. This means that to the subject, there are investigations and there are “good” investigations, within his personal internal dictionary. What rules are referenced? This sensitivity again suggests deception regarding the case files, perhaps (or source of information) via exaggeration.

I spent years of my life working on cases in the federal courts, from simple murder to mass shootings to weapons of mass destruction.

Note the repetition of his life experience again. Note also “federal” is repeated. The amount of repetition associated here with his work is highly sensitive to the subject. His work record, therefore, would likely need examination.

He stated that he worked on cases, but did not say if he did so successfully.

Since the subject has not said so, neither can we. We can say that his work is a highly sensitive topic to him, and that he has not overcome presuppositional judgementalism even though he worked at it for 25 years. Thus, he is failing to build the reader’s confidence but instead 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 straightforward 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 now knows their thoughts or “hunches”.

The case is not only flawed, it is flawed with the sensitive addition of “in every way” and in its entirety. The repeated exaggeration is used to persuade; not report, and indicates deception. He cannot conclude that it is in “totality” anything, flawed or otherwise.

Note that this is the language commonly found in deceptive statements. “Every” rule has been broken, and the case is flawed in “every” way. He also claims access to the “totality” of the evidence; something which causes the reader to question the truthfulness of such a bold claim.

The argument he presents needs exaggeration and deception to be made. Note that the deception that is judged by common sense (not having access to “every” thing about the case, is evidenced by the high level of sensitivity in the language). The physical evidence against Amanda and Raffaele is wrong, Note that evidence is neither wrong nor right; it is what it is and is neutral.

What one concludes from evidence may be wrong or right, but in Statement Analysis we do not interpret his meaning for us; rather we look at the words he uses. This type of exaggerated and fabricated arguments may be why his career is something of high sensitivity; along with being unable to overcome presuppositional thinking that all arrested are guilty. It does not show an open-mindedness.

This is something that may have become problematic within his career.

contrived, misinterpreted, and (to put it kindly) misstated. The other “evidence” is made up of (embarrassingly naïve) hunches and bias. The “DNA” evidence is particularly inaccurate.

The alleged motive and modus operandi of Knox/Sollecito is so tortured (and constantly-changing) that it defies belief.

Thus far, Mr. Moore has used a great deal of his statement about his background and his work, and then upon debasing the evidence, but has still not informed us what evidence he refers to, nor how he was able to obtain the evidence, nor what manner of examination he employed.

Note that in order to draw such opinions, he would have had access to all the above, including DNA evidence. He states to have studied the information, but does not identify the information investigated.

Note also the use of exaggerated language is used consistently throughout his statement, including coming to a contrary opinion “defying belief” which may also be related to the sensitivity in his career. If this is his method of presenting an argument, it is likely that co workers may have held a very different opinion of the subject than he appears to in this article.

“FACTS DETERMINE CONCLUSIONS”””The universal truism of investigation. The instant that one’s conclusions determine or change the facts, you have corrupted the judicial system. I have been a young investigator, and I have supervised eager but inexperienced young investigators.

Note that he was a “young investigator” but that he has supervised “eager but inexperienced young investigators”, excluding himself from being “eager” and “inexperienced” when he was young.

Note also the repetition sensitivity attached to “supervisor”. Young or inexperienced investigators have a tendency to believe their own hunches. This is dangerous, because uneducated hunches are usually wrong. Hunches are not bad, they just need to be allowed to die a natural death when evidence proves them wrong. Note that the subject had 25 years experience but did not overcome presuppositional prejudice.

This appears to be a statement of his own projection. How he thinks, he projects upon Italian investigators.

Our words reveal us; they reveal our personalities and what we think of ourselves and others.

The sign of an investigation run amok is when an initial hunch is nurtured and kept on life support long after evidence should have killed it.

Likely the belief that any arrested person is guilty should have died during his rookie year in law enforcement, as most mature away from such concrete thinking and move on to a mature abstract thinking. This likely reveals how he conducted his own investigations.

This case is just such a situation. In the Knox case, the investigator openly states: “We knew she was guilty of murder without physical evidence.”—Edgardo Giobbi, Investigator.

We do not know the full text of the statement, but it appears to match his own belief about those arrested being guilty. Perhaps it is that the investigators, before test results came in, concluded that they had the killers based upon their own words.

At some point, the subject was either trained or offered training in Statement Analysis, meaning that he would have an understanding of the words chosen by Amanda Knox in her original interview, or even in her subsequent media interviews.

He would also know that a prisoner who gives a false confession due to coercion will test out “deceptive” because their statement of confession is, de facto, deceptive, as it was false and it was coerced by the interrogators.

Then, when physical evidence came in that did not support their story, they simply changed their story. And their suspects. And their murder weapons. And the motives. (If there was ever a “˜smoking gun’ in this case; that statement was it.)

The subject tells us that the physical evidence “came in” but does not tell us where it came into, nor how he was able to obtain it. If he did not obtain the evidence as he attempts to persuade above, he is being deceptive to his readers, thus the need for hyperbole and exaggeration.

I will only say of the interrogation…

Note: future tense verb. Note also “only” meaning exclusion of other things to say. Future tense violates the principle of First Person Singular Past Tense as establishing commitment. He does not establish commitment so neither can we.

...that if any FBI Agents I supervised had conducted that interrogation in the U.S., I would have had them indicted.

Note again the repetition of “FBI” and “supervision” (supervise) as the sensitivity continues. This calls attention back to his work record and would cause us to want to interview those he supervised.

I am not surprised that Amanda made incriminating and conflicting statements in such a horrible situation. I am more surprised that under that duress, she didn’t make more incriminating (but ultimately false) statements.

Note that he is not surprised that she incriminated herself, but he is surprised that she did not do so more so.

Note that Statement Analysis done of false confessions shows deception.

Note that he acknowledges that she made incriminating statements; would her statements, which showed deception, be considered unreliable when they were made to a journalist last summer? Those statements also incriminated her and showed guilt.

Hypothetically, any trained investigator operating for many hours without rules, in a foreign language, slapping and threatening a naïve, frightened girl just out of her teens and in a foreign country, (denying her food, sleep and the right to an attorney and Consular advice) can get her to say just about anything. If this was the medical profession, one might deem such activities “intentional malpractice”.

Note that this is reduced to “hypothetically” and it is not something he asserts with commitment. The lack of commitment shows attempt at persuasion, rather than report. Report is the honest recall of past tense facts, such as gaining all the evidence and case files from Italy, reading it, examining it, and reporting back upon it.

This type of work does not need persuasion nor exaggeration. It would not show such high and repeated sensitivity.

Note that the subject again 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 also suggests deception. It is deceptively written.

The investigators in this matter appeared to have decided upon a conclusion, and repeatedly changed their story so that the evidence would suit their conclusions.

Note the inclusion of the word “appeared”, which makes this statement honest. He claims that it “appears” to be a certain way to him, which is different than claiming to have examined all the evidence and to have known all the thoughts of those involved.

After the evidence came back that Rudy Guede sexually assaulted Meredith, did it not occur to the investigators that they had a simple rape/murder? The simplest answer is usually the correct answer. Crimes are only this complicated in James Bond movies.

The complexity of crimes is why hard work, education, and lots of training is needed. Note the reduction and minimization of hard work and training found within his theory.

Note “the evidence” came back, but he does not identify where it came back from, nor if he examined the evidence.

Amanda would not even have been a suspect in any US investigation.

Note again the use of exaggeration with “any” US investigation; a point that can not be proven nor disproven. When a subject needs to rely upon exaggeration, it is the subject that is causing the reader to question veracity.

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 or met in person.

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

He poses this as a question. Note “your” is 2nd person, distancing language.

Experienced, or simply competent investigators would have known that statistically, 90% of murders are committed by men.

Note that he classifies investigators as “experienced” or “simply competent”. We have another word that has repeated sensitivity: experience.

When women commit murder, only 16% use a knife, and close examination might show that the vast majority of those are gang-related. Any conclusion that involves a woman stabbing another woman is statistically so rare, that it should be looked at with great suspicion.

Note that in his statistics “only” 16% use a knife. This indicates that 84% use something else. Note that he writes that it should be looked at with “great suspicion” but does not claim that investigators did not look at it with “great suspicion”.

There is also a thing called “leakage”. Leakage is the tendency of homicidal or mentally ill people to “˜leak’ behavior that would indicate their true nature.

If one is to believe that Amanda Knox was the drug-crazed, homicidal Svengali that she was made out to be, there is absolutely NO way that such sociopathic behavior would not be leaked in some significant way prior to this crime.

In her interview analyzed, note what is leaked out by Amanda Knox. The association of her wording is found with sexual activity; generally sexual crime (LSI).

Note that not only does she reference water but note how often it is repeated as well as the details given (see analysis). Even if she is only 16% likely according to Mr. Moore’s statistic, it is not proof of innocence.

No, instead we see a girl on the Dean’s list working several jobs to attend a university program in Italy. A girl who had not even had a scrape with law enforcement.

Note that Amanda Knox is described as a “girl” and not a “woman”.

A good auto mechanic who lacks scruples, can take a car out of a junk yard, bolt on a couple of new fenders, drop in new carpets and slap on tires and a $100 coat of paint. Once he cleans up the interior and rolls back the odometer, he could sell it as a near new car to 99% of the population. It appears new, the mileage says it’s new, and only a trained mechanic would know the difference.

He dedicates 6 lines to auto mechanics. Note the inclusion of “99% of the population”. This leaves only 1 % population remaining to know better. This, coupled with the high level of sensitivity about his background and experience may show leakage of his thought process here: how he views his opinion and how he views the opinions of those he disagrees with.

But bring in a trained mechanic, and he might notice that the brake pedal, for instance, is worn almost to the metal. That’s a sure sign of 100,000 miles of use or more. The hint of blue smoke out of the exhaust would be a dead give-away of a worn-out motor. He would warn you that all is not as pretty and new as it seems.

Another 5 lines dedicated to auto and not to specific evidence. He has not presented:evidence, nor where he obtained the evidence, nor how he spoke to the investigators, but claims to know their thoughts; hunches. We have the repeated employment of exaggerations, meaning that repeated exaggerations themselves indicate sensitivity.

The sensitivity suggests that the subject is deceptively representing himself as an investigator who accessed the evidence, the files, and knows the thoughts of the investigators, and was able to get information outside of media, because he found media to be contradictory to “known” facts.

The sensitivity of his statement, however, is mostly 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.

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.

Posted by Peter Hyatt on 01/05/11 at 07:37 PM • Permalink for this post • Archived in Various hypotheses, Statement analysis, Hoaxers from 2009, Steve Moore • Comments here (16)

Category: Statement analysis

Scientific Statement Analysis #5: Analysis Of Michelle Moore Protesting Steve Moore Is Not A Phony

Posted by Peter Hyatt

Scientific Statement Analysis: Claims Made By Steve Moore About The Investigations In Italy

Posted by Peter Hyatt

Follow On Twitter

Click To Get There

Frontpage Comments