Amanda Knox talks to Chris Cuomo

‘Seems’ being the decisive term. For things are not always as they *seem* to be. Put a stick halfway in a pond, and from your perspective, the stick suddenly appears crooked. Turns out it’s not, even though when submerged halfway it certainly *seems* to be.

A stick submerged halfway under water; it’s a nice metaphor for the actions of others and how we perceive them and attribute motives underlying those actions. Thing is, when evaluating behavior, we’re relying on our interpretations of that behavior. And our point of view, determined by our life experiences, shapes what we perceive underneath the surface.

And that’s where it gets kind of murky. Because as much as my alarm bells go off when I notice Amanda Knox going from very natural and forthcoming when talking about things she’s comfortable with, to treading very carefully when talking about her actions at the scene of the crime, there just might be some underlying experiences behind that behavior which could go a long way in explaining this apparent discrepancy.

For instance…

1. the experience of being grilled over and over again by the police on minutiae of her going to and fro the cottage at the time of Meredith Kerchers death; interrogators egging her on to fill in the blanks in her memory and to add more and more detail to her account of what (might have) happened, only to turn that around on her and ensnare her in seemingly inoccuous discrepancies about details, criminal knowledge and/or actions that seem out of order or implausible to an outsider, talking from the benefit of hindsight.

2. the experience of emotional coercion, manipulation and right out verbal battery involved in this interrogative process – It’s quite common for investigators to verbally batter a suspect into submission and false admissions, aided by such methods as sleep deprivation, 10 hour interrogations, shouting, intimidating, playing nice and then switching to bully mode, or playing on somebody’s guilt, willingness to help, and so on and so forth – Knox tells as much that’s how she was treated by the interrogators.

3. The experience of two trials, having every word that seems to imply contradiction meted out and twisted into the most damning interpretation possible by the prosecutor, plus being tried by media who took al sorts of quotes and innocuous actions out of context, magnifying them, playing them over and over and over again in order to paint the picture of a decadent, thrill-seeking, callous and promiscuous foreigner.

I could see someone coming from those experiences becoming exceedingly careful and particular with what he or she says about what exactly did and didn’t occur at the time of entering the scene of the crime, what she remembers, and what not.

Of course, for someone not coming from those experiences and trying to get a feel for whether or not a person is telling the truth, the notable shifts in Knox’ loquaciousness and facial expressions do register as quaint and unnatural, which then raises the question: what is off here? Why is she suddenly so hesitant and cautious? What is she not telling i.e. hiding i.e. misdirecting from?

However, that just goes to show the problematic nature of trying to sift the lies from the truth by reading someone’s behavior, speech and expressions. Reading people is not an exact science like mathematics or formal logic (in which B follows necessarily from A; and even mathematicians make mistakes by overlooking things or making a mistake in applying the equation). In fact, it’s not a science at all: it’s more like close-reading a book.

It’s all about interpretation. And interpretations can and occasionally will be off the mark. That’s why a good psychologist / therapist will always, always, always put their interpretation to the client, in the form of an open question: ‘I noticed that in our conversation you did so-and-so; what do you think that means? Could it mean this, or that, or… Which one rings a bell for you?’

Unfortunately, as television audience we don’t have that luxury. Neither does a police investigator. That’s why the physical evidence is so important in establishing the truth of what happened.

And the forensic evidence clearly exonerates Amanda Knox’, telling us that she wasn’t even in the room at the time when Meredith Kerchner was killed, but that a certain acquiantance of the neighbours below, a man named Rudy Guede, was. His bloodstained hand print was was found on a pillow, his DNA was all over and inside Kerchner, and it was his shoe print on the bath mat. Furthermore, Guede has a history of erratic, somewhat anti-social behavior: dropping out of college, losing his job, breaking into people’s home armed with a knife.

Had this guy been in the picture from the get go, we wouldn’t be scrutinizing Amanda Knox right now, because there’s simply no evidence, physical or otherwise, connecting her to the crime. There’s no apparent motive either. Basically, there’s no reason to suspect her other than that she was the first person on site and she showered before noticing something was wrong.

Now, if from the evidence it follows that there’s no reason to believe that Knox had anything to do with Kerchner’s death and that there is every reason to believe that Guede acted alone; it also follows that whatever shifts and discrepancies in Knox’ tone, expressions and loquaciousness should then be explained by something other than their untruthful nature.

Something like Knox’ experiences with police interrogations and having every word about her actions at the scene of the crime picked apart and being used against her, for instance.