Stunning Interview by Amanda Knox with Chris Cuomo
Amanda Knox spoke out yesterday to Chris Cuomo on CNN. She denies her involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher and her words, like many times before, stun me.
Listen to Amanda Knox’s speech pattern.
She says, “(huh) I…believe…I mean, I can’t speculate what this judge’s motivations…personal motivations or otherwise…What I can say is that…as…this…case…has progressed…….the evidence…that the prosecution has claimed exist against me….has been…has been proven less and less and less.”
Amanda clearly connects the thoughts of “evidence” with “proven”. The fact she connects these words blows my mind. Most people who are innocent wouldn’t think they have “proven less” anything because there is nothing to prove. Period.
After all this time, I am also stunned at how she can’t make a clear cut rejection of her involvement immediately. Instead she we see incomplete thoughts and hesitations. She tells us the claim has been less and less. To me this is not rejecting her involvement. She is merely saying that they have less and less against her, which supports guilt.
If you were honest and uninvolved, would you even entertain this thought?
I have put dots in place where Amanda hesitates in her words above. What you are seeing is incredible cognition, and the fact that Amanda Knox has to think so much when telling the truth is shocking. If she was not involved and an innocent victim, she wouldn’t have to think to talk about how she is being wrongly accused. It would come out of her strongly and flow without any hesitation and thinking, but we don’t see that. Instead we see incredible control and manipulation, and she still fails.
Next Amanda says, “I did not kill my friend. I did not wield a knife. I had no reason to.”
She finally got out her denial, but it was more important to insult the judge on his personal motivations first. Stunning.
I am surprised she would even entertain talking about wielding a knife. Honest people who were not there or involved would never even consider talking about holding or wielding a knife because its so far from the truth and too painful to even entertain because its flat out WRONG.
She continues, “I….I was…in the month we were living together, we were becoming friends.”
Was Amanda trying to become friends with Meredith? Because at first she says “I was…” and then she says “they were”. Can you see the manipulation added on to the cognition going on? Wow.
Amanda goes on, “A week before the murder occurred, we went out to a classical music concert together. Like…we had never fought. There is no trace of us.”
Amanda’s thoughts are really disjointed. She wants to suggest they didn’t ever fight. She doesn’t deny it, she throws it out as an example “Like we had never fought.” If you notice, she doesn’t say “We didn’t fight!”
Then Amanda’s next thought switches entirely from her being friends with Meredith to “There is no trace of ‘us'” — I suspect she means herself and Raffaele. Why are her thoughts so disjointed? It’s as if Raffaele comes to mind when she thinks about her and Meredith and fighting. Interesting.
Amanda continues, “If Rudy Guede…committed this crime…which he did…we know that because his DNA is there…on the…on Meredith body, around Meredith’s body.”
Wow. Amanda doesn’t own that Rudy Guede actually did this at first. Then she corrects!! If she was innocent, I would expect she would believe Rudy Guede was the murderer for sure without any doubts!! This is a stunner. Why would she question it with the word “IF” unless she knows something different? I think all people accept Ruede Guede’s involvement, and Amanda shows clearly she doesn’t believe it as fact. Wow. The implications here are HUGE and shocking to me.
She continues about Guede, “His hand prints and foot prints in her blood. None of that exists for me and if I were there, I would have had traces of…Meredith’s broken body on me…and I would have left traces of myself….around…around Meredith’s corpse….and I…I am not there…and that proves my innocence.”
This sentence above that Amanda says is fascinating on multiple levels because she shows emotions for the first time and it seems to revolve around Meredith’s “broken body” (aka blood?) being on her. It’s odd she can’t say the word “blood” and that this evokes emotion, too. It seems to really hit a personal cord with her. If you were not there, there would be no emotional connection at this point in the speech for you on this element because there would be no emotional memories, but Amanda has some. I’m blown away. I believe she likely did have blood on her now.
Amanda also says in present tense, “I am not there”. She doesn’t say I WAS NOT there, which is a normal recollection. Instead, we seeing her say what she wants us to believe–not what is the truth.
By Amanda Knox’s response to the question “Were you with Rudy Guede at the apartment that night?”, I do not believe Amanda here. I DO believe she was with Guede. There is a look of fear in Amanda’s face at this point that is palpable.
Listen to Amanda Knox’s loss of confidence when she answers the question of was there a fight over money witnessed that night with Rudy Guede? Amanda says “no” very deflated and without any confidence whatsoever. This is stunning.
At the end, Amanda says, “I truly believe it is possible to win this and to bring…to bring an end to all of the speculation and the nonsensical theories and really bring peace to everyone who has suffered from this experience.”
Wow.
If you were put in prison for several years, accused of a crime and treated with suspicion as Amanda has for years, would you truly believe you can win? I don’t think so. You would have lost too much already. If you were involved in the murder, however, you might very well think you have won, if you got away with it, wouldn’t you?
This is Amanda’s most revealing interview to date, and it makes sense. The stakes are very high right now for her.
I am also stunned at how Amanda thinks that this case can go to a place for the Kercher family where they will have “peace” (” really bring peace to everyone”). I think anyone of a reasonable mind can see the Kercher’s will never get peace unless someone tells us what truly happened. The only one Amanda is thinking about is herself here. A true victim would know it is unlikely anyone will get the full truth because the investigation is so botched, but not Amanda!
I did not believe Amanda Knox from day one. I have always believed she was there that night and covered her ears at some point (by her own words), but that she twisted facts and lied to cover and protect herself on some level (what level I didn’t know). But the more I see of Amanda Knox, and especially after this interview, I believe she was there, was involved and had blood on her. Physically. That is all I can say, but that say a whole lot.
I’m stunned by what this interview reveals. It will take some time to shake this. I didn’t expect this at all.
Ok, so I have to admit I haven’t been following this case very closely and after seeing this my initial response was much like yours. I read your content afterward because I wanted to be unbiased. But then after reading your comments I re-watched the video. I noticed some of the things you pointed out may be because of the editing and the questions being asked.
For instance: You said, “the fact that Amanda Knox has to think so much when telling the truth is shocking. If she was not involved and an innocent victim, she wouldn’t have to think to talk about how she is being wrongly accused.” But was it not Ekman that wrote that this could be possible if someone was careful about what they were saying because of fear of being wrongly accused?
Also: “Next Amanda says, “I did not kill my friend. I did not wield a knife. I had no reason to.” ”
Although I agree that this statement is somewhat distancing and is non-contracting and has what is called a “Convincing Statement,” the wielding a knife part was in response to a direct question about whether she used a knife. So it seems possible to me that she could say that because she was asked.
Then you say, “She finally got out her denial, but it was more important to insult the judge on his personal motivations first. Stunning.” But once again I say she was responding to the question asked.
You also talk about her thoughts being disjointed. But I think if you look at the video again you can see that may have to do with the editing. I didn’t notice it at first either. But you can see that there is a cut between when she says: ” “A week before the murder occurred, we went out to a classical music concert together. Like…we had never fought. There is no trace of us.” You’ll notice there is a cut between “we had never fought,” and “There is no trace of us.”
I do agree with you that there is something up with the fact that she can’t say “Meredeth’s Blood.” And that she shows fear when asked “Were you with Rudy Guede at the apartment that night?” That was a hot spot I seen right away. But I can’t say for sure that the fear isn’t of being disbelieved? But it certainly is something I would delve deeper in if I were the interviewer.
All in all, I am uncertain at best at this point. I will have to watch more videos for me to be convinced one way or the other. But you do make some valid points. I seen some of these things myself but I have to remind myself not to make Othello’s Error and not to make the Brokaw mistake either. What are your thoughts on this?
I find your own publicity hard to believe. If you were chosen to be one of a small percentage of the population with a special ability to read human beings, then I dread to think about the people who put you in that category! There is nothing in this interview to suggest that Amanda Knox is lying. She is choosing her words carefully because her family has been sued for defamation, because they’ve taken second mortgages on their houses and because she’s already spent four years in jail for something she did not do. She is also a very articulate young woman; this gives her an ability to think about what words she will use in advance of simply ‘blurting’ them out. You may think that someone who answers spontaneously is innocent, but that would have been the 20 year old Amanda Knox, who believed that honesty would be obvious to anyone. Not so!
PS: She also says “I did not wield a knife” because those were the words used by the judge (as translated into English). You need to research better and look at things in the CONTEXT in which they appear.
I know this is very old, but does anyone else suspect that Knox may be somewhere on the autistic spectrum, even undiagnosed?
I honestly haven’t read enough facts (from unbiased sources) to say whether I think she is guilty or not, but I do know that one of my children is basically on the spectrum (tested several times, not diagnosed, but all testers agreed she is borderline) and when she is questioned about things, especially if they’re questions she finds stressful, she will behave in ways I’ve seen Knox behave. She acts shifty. Her answers are confusing and/or oddly worded. Her affect can seem very off. She looks guilty. She doesn’t seem to be able to give a straight answer. She is also highly suggestible, and will sometimes admit to things because she thinks it will ease the pressure or stop the discussion or even–sometimes it seems–because she has been convinced somehow through the questioning that she did in fact do what she’s being accused of or asked about. She will answer the question she *thinks* is being asked, rather than the question that *is* being asked.
My daughter is an intelligent, friendly, good person. Meeting her, you may think she’s a bit quirky, but you wouldn’t automatically know that she is “different” from most other kids. She does well in school; she has trouble making and keeping friends, but that’s largely because she doesn’t always recognize overtures of friendship and has trouble understanding the reciprocal nature of friendship.
I’m certainly not an expert, and again, I haven’t read much about the case, but this girl reminds me in many ways of my daughter. I honestly shudder to think of the danger my child would be in if questioned about a crime, especially a crime in which she witnessed or heard something. There is no way she would be capable of standing up to hard questioning, and no way those questions wouldn’t muddle her recollections and thoughts to the point that she would start to question what actually happened and wonder if maybe she did do it.
I’m not saying I think Knox is innocent, I’m just wondering if anyone else thinks there may be a neurological issue at play here.
Having seen Amanda on videos before the crime, I would say the chance of Aspergers is very, very low.
What’s your thoughts on Knox being sociopathic/psycopathic, Eyes? Clearly she’s not Jodi Arias level but what’s your gut feeling? I’ve always believed her guilty too and the evidence, aside from her words/mannerisms ,strongly suggest guilt too – as much as she keeps saying “there is no evidence”!! She never seemed to show remorse and was filmed laughing and joking with Raffaele Sollecito days after, and Meredith’s friends said she showed an absolute lack of empathy for Meredith’s awful death – which surely suggests some real anti-social personality disorder? But then she doesn’t scare me in the way Jodi Arias does! Would love to get your feedback on this. Thanks!
She shows traits which definitely make you wonder. I will leave it at that.
Not being a medical expert, I can’t say whether this is is a possibility but I like the way you think outside the box.
odd that her DNA is not at the scene seeing as she lived there. I had so much trouble at the start of this case due to the language barrier but I do recall some talking heads here in America saying there was more than a small amount of evidence suggesting she was there and had something to do with the situation , I note this interview she appears to be more coached than earlier naturally since she has had many meetings with her counsel. Did she do it ? Who knows IMO no one will ever know for sure
I believe the “wield a knife” point you made is mute. The evidence they’re trying to use to link her to the murder was her DNA found on a knife in her ex-bf’s apartment. Which provides the reason for her denying that she “wielded” a knife.
Finding DNA on a knife and “wielding” a knife are very different.
i notice she’s picking her words carefully, but more important, pay attention to when she looks down and to the right, and when she looks the interviewer in the eye.
Eye gaze direction gives zero indication if one is lying. That’s a myth.
I enjoy your commentary on this case. Can you please do some write-ups for her interviews and statements in the coming days? I would be interested in what you might say about her demeanour. I noticed she kept saying she was grateful in the statement outside her mother’s house but never took the chance to protest her innocence. She looked like someone who got away with it, and like you noted at some other stage, she didn’t appear to be angry, which she should be if she were innocent. Her over-the-top comments about Kercher seemed rehearsed and insincere.
Yes she’s well practiced verse. Been told what to say and how to say it. Her choice of words do not match those for a woman of her age and seems to only refer to the evidence and nothing in her discussion refers to a normal personal relationship you would develop with room mate. It’s almost like she talks about her in the third person. Why is she always smiling? Why does she always gave a little smirk on her face? You can see her eyes, forehead and brows have NO expression of remorse that a human close to her was so brutally killed because they don’t depress or show any pain. There is no expression of disgust or anger for the guy that did it. For sure she’s involved that cat got away with the cream. Basically it’s a joke to her. All her media pictures etc she’s cold and smiling. Weirdo
Great blog post, thanks. I wrote a book on Knox called DECEIT. I’d be keen to hear what you think of it. http://www.amazon.com/dp/B00Y9CS69C
The best way to do statement analysis is cold. If you go in believing something, or believing one way, then you will see what you want to see. That is clearly what happened here.
That said, I agree with you, lol. She’s very guilty. I just don’t think you can do Staten analysis, when you are so clearly biased.
I am not one who “does statement analysis”. My approach is comprehensive. Please know that many other elements are added into this than what you are seeing explained here.
My apologies, I thought that’s what this was.