Amanda Knox Speaks Out
The first words out of my mouth after hearing Amanda Knox speak are “WOW”.
I am utterly stunned at her responses, but Amanda has not fit the part that she has portrayed from day one, and this is just another instance.
Imagine you were wrongly accused, locked up for several years, supposedly hit by authorities, had to endure multiple trials of all lies, and finally, you were set free.
Would you feel “gratitude” after having to suffer for years and be looked at as a murderer due to an atrocious foreign injustice??
I don’t think so.
I watched Amanda and looked for any signs of pain for all the injustices she supposedly endured, and there are none. She didn’t have it when she first arrived home from her Italian prison, either. It was oddly and always missing.
Amanda only stressed when she tried to get people to believe her.
Amanda is so relieved, so free of any pain to support that she suffered the injustices she wants us to believe.
If Amanda was guilty, however, her behavior makes total sense.
I can understand “relief” that they finally got it “right” if one were innocent, but we don’t see relief. We see GRATITUDE!
And if you notice her mom is the only one that thinks of the word “right” — not Amanda, oddly. I would think that is the first thing she would think of if she were a victim in this case, but she doesn’t.
Furthermore, when Amanda talks of Meredith, there is no sadness to support her sympathy for Meredith. There are no oblique eyebrows whatsoever. No pain for Meredith at all. She works hard to try to find that place and fails.
And at the end, Amanda says she is the “lucky one”.
How many wrongly accused people have you heard feel they are the “lucky one”?
Its pure insanity!!
But yes, Amanda, you were one of the lucky ones. You were able to walk when I don’t believe you should have…
You vote. What do you think?
Nice to see some people aren’t fooled by a dishonest PR campaign or a murderer’s lies.
RIP Meredith Kercher. Justice failed you and your family and you all have my deepest condolences.
Hey Corp…get over it…she’s always been innocent and now it’s official. So sorry to spoil you and your guilter buddies ugly little persecution games, but keep it up and you’ll could end up in court. There are slander laws here as well as in Italy.
Tell us all about US slander laws Joan. We have an opinion. We get to express it.
By continuing to talk about “slander laws here” tells me you really don’t know the definition of the word. The legal term “slander” refers to the spoken word. “Libel,” refers to the written word. Amanda is a public figure. She became a public figure the moment she granted interviews and wrote a book. In the US, to “prove” libel, you have to have evidence that the statements are “scandalous” or caused the individual harm in some way.
Knox was convicted twice by the Italian courts and found guilty of murder. So, that ship has sailed.
Can you be specific about this PR campaign? How specifically did this PR campaign manipulate public opinion? Specifically. Which reporter from which respectable news source was deceived? And how did that affect his/her coverage — specifically.
To me her statement was transparent acting. It’s weird how many people on reddit etc can’t see it. You don’t even need the video, the audio alone leaves no room for doubt. I don’t do the analysis stuff that Eyes does, but I can hear an artificial character when someone is putting it on.
Absolutely. In fact, a quite separate matter from the question of her guilt. Even if she were innocent (which I doubt but only those present know what happened), she plain isn’t genuine in this press conference.
I got the completely opposite impression. And besides, there was very little evidence against her. In the end, it’s not whether she “looks” guilty that counts — it’s whether the evidence supports the assumption of guilt that counts. It didn’t.
Yeah, but I’m really good at this. And so is Eyes, and she says the same. I’m not commenting on whether she’s a murderer, and obviously the prosecution messed up the case so legally she should be free, but if she’s not a murderer then she’s hiding a huge aspect of her character, presumably because she thinks it would look bad.
We’re not discussing whether or not Amanda “looks guilty.” We’re discussing her public statements that she freely gave and how those statements are logically inconsistent with someone who is being truthful.
After her interview that showed on The Today Show, they reported that Amanda was looking forward to returning to Italy, someday, as a free woman. I find this so strange. It seems to me that she would never want to return to a country that had, supposedly, put her thru such an ordeal. I am sure that she made some friends there and had some supporters, but I wouldn’t ever want to return. There is always going to be a very hostile group there People don’t appreciate a person that they feel gets by with murdering one of their own. I have to wonder if she wants to return to gloat over getting by with her part in all that happened.
I was watching Raffaele in one interview, and he was asked about Meredith’s parents. He looked stricken with guilt. Maybe, their actions became more horrendous when their minds were clear of drugs, and they are looking back on the results.
I have always hoped that Amanda didn’t have a part in this. I don’t want to believe that she did, but I have some serious doubts about her. If she didn’t have a part, I can’t understand her staying attached to Raffaele after this happened. I just cannot believe that she didn’t know something of what took place.
she actually didn’t have any friends there.
How do you know she didn’t have any friends? I can’t help but wonder if she wants to go back because she isn’t over Raffaele. I know she has someone new, but that doesn’t mean she is really over him. Guilty or not, they went thru a lot together.
never seen a sign of one friend in Perugia and have been following it from the beginning. they all know she’s guilty.
You used to portray yourself as a friend of the group. No more, eh? And a Harvard Law graduate.
what the h e l l are you talking about? do you need to take your medication?
I was just curious, because there are always some that believe a person is not guilty, but I think most of the people in Italy know. I do believe, however, that there was a jump to judgement in this case. i do believe there could have been corruption from the prosecution, and that is probably why she is free.
Her family has been out a fortune trying to get her freedom. Why would she want to worry them and go back? She doesn’t seem to be able to see what her actions will cause. As I heard one psychologist say, she can’t see the big picture.
>Why would she want to worry them and go back?
Money. Headline: “Amanda Knox in line for multi-million compensation payout as she prepares to return to Italy to write a book”
Millions (that’s plural) of American dollars in exchange for her book. In Italy she can fully research the legal system, interview her defense attorney, get photos, interview sympathizers (if she can find any), etc., etc., etc., all of which would be much more difficult this side of the Atlantic.
She’ll never have to work again a day in her life.
So from her perspective she gets an all expenses paid trip to her second country, where she already speaks the language, all she has to do is write the book, and she’s set for life. She can pay her family back (and any supporters she might have had) and coast for life. The alternative is staying here and trying to find a job.
Which would you do if you were in her shoes?
Source: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3016597/Amanda-Knox-return-ITALY-write-book-country-s-legal-cleared-death-Meredith-Kercher.html
pity she can’t write
I’m with you there Russ. Why vocalizing this desire to go back?
the reason she is free is because of corruption, but not on the part of the prosecution.
…after only a month.
that’s right. what of it
Ditto Karon. An innocent person falsely accused of murder by a nation that was out to get her, “wanting to return” to Italy. It boggles the mind.
It really does boggle a person’s mind. There has to be a reason for her wanting to return. She is so grateful to them, and she wants to return. It just doesn’t make sense.
She’s lying as always. Italy would be the last place she should want to be. This case isn’t closed and being investigated again. Italy does not have double jeopardy. Is she sure she wants to go back? She might have to put her foot where her mouth one day.
I’d feel grateful. I’d be angry, but that would come later, once I felt confident it was all behind me, and I had more time to reflect, perhaps after coming down and possibly going into a related depression. Definitely relieved and grateful at first.
Based on her statements from the beginning, she has leaked guilt. This only confirms it. I’d love to be able to read people like Eyes, but I don’t have that talent! Thank you for your expertise Eyes !!!
The poll should have offered an option to check — ‘I believe AK was the instigator and responsible for fatal knife stab to Meredith Kercher.’ AK is a murderer! She will always be exactly who and what she is! She interviews and lies poorly b/c she can’t escape herself. Just like OJ Simpson, AK will be in serious trouble for another violent act in the future, maybe near future. Now that AK feels ‘free’ enough to be herself, return to her true nature, rather than forced to be ‘this other person — pretending to be innocent’ then watch out! Eyes for Lies has it right — nothing rings true about AK as she portrays herself as an innocent, b/c AK is a murderer!
She needs to go into acting. Great performance. I don’t believe a word of it.
Lol. I’m not a fan of her writing either…… Oh well.
Sad day for justice. A real travesty but why am I not shocked. US pressure, Italian-US relations was the priority this was all an unnecessary distraction for them in the end. The innocent victim Meredith was always forgotten sadly. My prayers are with her family, I can only imagine the pain. They have been let down badly by the Italian justice system. RIP poor Meredith. So so sad.
Meredith was not forgotten or let down. Her killer is in prison.
Had Amanda Knox acted the way this author thinks an innocent person should act, would this author then believe she is not guilty?
The problem is not just about the way she acted. She also lied repeatedly throughout the course of the investigation and this was proven. There’s also her DNA on the murder weapon along with her roommate’s DNA on the blade. She was the only one in Perugia that night besides the victim with a key to her apartment. This is just a fraction of what was against her. But she is free now so the evidence doesn’t matter. Hope she makes good use of her freedom, she’s a very lucky woman indeed.
How many lies? List them, if you would. Are you aware that the DNA is disputed and that despite whatever the lower courts said, the high court said it was not incriminating.
Eyes For Lies is not basing her analysis on the evidence presented at trial. That’s what people who are not familiar with her work focus on, is trial evidence.
Eyes For Lies observes the individual speaking. She analyzes the individual’s behavior, facial expressions, statements, and how they speak.
You have to understand, upfront, that the skill EFL has, has been scientifically documented and tested under rigorous standards, in a research study. Of 15,000 people tested, scientists found about 50 people, who have this natural ability to detect lies. It’s not some unheard of skill. It’s documented. I’d Google Paul Ekman or Maureen O’Sullivan to learn more about what was called “The Wizard Project.”
I could be impressed with a peer-reviewed article in an A journal.
Read about micro expressions. They are real. http://www.detegogroup.eu/method-tools/paul-ekman-phd/pickups-expressions/?lang=en
Here are articles by Dr. Paul Ekman (now retired). The vast majority are published in well recognized juried journals, including JAMA and Nature, among many others. Other publications are book excerpts.
http://www.paulekman.com/journal-articles/
The research about Truth Wizards can be found here:
https://www.paulekman.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/06/WizardsofDeceptionDetection.pdf
and here:
https://www.paulekman.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/A-Few-Can-Catch-A-Liar.pdf
I’ll look at them in more depth. But I see the JAMA and Nature articles. But I’m not sure he (and she) have written on that subject in these journals.
Yes, Ekman has. Eyes For Lies has not. Ekman was a co-author of the Wizard Project. Eyes was a subject in the Wizard Project. The study focused on her ability to see micro-expressions. You can deny that people have this ability but it’s been scientifically proven.
Just because you don’t understand a documented ability, doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist.
Slight correction (unless by my error) the study measured the ability of individuals to correctly discern if a person was lying or telling the truth – it did not specifically measure the ability to see micro-expressions. I did a 13 minutes video that calculates the odds of passing this test by random chance are about 12 out of 10,000, and the video (and all the math) can be found here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XrImmXS8eBw
I like the idea of micro-expressions. But I have been influenced by what I have read disputing it. I’m still open to the possibility.
Disputing … what? That they exist? That people can read them? That micro expressions are not universal that they can mean anything?
So, you disagree with the author on her facial/verbal assessment?
>Had Amanda Knox acted the way this author thinks an innocent person should act, would this author then believe she is not guilty?
This seems like a perfectly fair question to me, and I also want to answer it (others have, too). Small piece of info – I interview and hire hundreds of people a year, and use many different skills to identify the best candidates for my customers, but I am not a truth wizard.
One thing I teach new recruiters is: “What you know, you know. What you don’t know, you don’t know. Filling in the gaps will almost always get you in trouble, because you’ll be wrong to some extent.” Back to the question at hand. If Amanda Knox acted perfectly consistently the way an innocent person would act, that’s what we would know about her behavior. However that’s not the complete picture. We would also have to look at the behavior of everyone else, and the physical evidence, and that’s what we would know.
A few people in general society are “Natural performers” – a term Ekman uses to describe people who are so good at lying that they are much less likely to be caught. A natural performer got past me last week, but we found independent evidence (court records) that the person lied on their application. So it can happen to me. This is much less likely with a truth wizard, such as Eyes or JJ Newberry. Generally if a truth wizard says a person is rock solid consistent and telling the truth, then that person is very very likely telling the truth. That is not the case with Amanda Knox at any level.
If she is guilty then she got away with it.
If she (and) he are not guilty, then a whole contingent of the Perugia-Umbria-Rome judiciary will probably get away with tormenting two innocent youngsters — barring an investigation.
Well, it didn’t even take a day for more of the truth to come out:
#Sollecito ‘s friend claims defence expert Vinci says bathmat foot print “should be #AmandaKnox ”
https://twitter.COM/Jackcassazione/status/581947232561315840
Friend of Sollecito ” #AmandaKnox probably had to pay Rudy for cocaine” how did #Cassazione get it so wrong?
https://twitter.COM/Jackcassazione/status/581944071150792705
Sick twisted Sollecito’s friend claims Honour Bound was written by Friends of#AmandaKnox more to follow
https://twitter.COM/Jackcassazione/status/581942208531701761
And there will be much more to come! RS had better marry Greta or she will start talking.
Baseless rumor mongering can come from all sides in a dispute. Police are superb, you must admit, at getting one perp to diss the other. They have been doing that for years — and it works.
Sollecito resisted this far longer than the average person. And all he did was to say read Nencini’s verdict and tell the world what Nencini said that Sollecito accompanied Knox at any of the alleged relevant sojourns.
Baseless accusations are a manifestation of the worst in people.
Thank you for writing this Renee! Indeed, you are right on once again. I look forward to reading more of your work on this case and others.
Amanda Knox does not behave the way you would like her to behave. That’s all. You should look at the Lindy Chamberlain files. In her thirties, then her baby was killed, Lindy Chamberlain’s face barely moved. She had dark hair, intense eyes and at some stages in her ongoing trial she also bought a number of new, kind of sexy (for that era) dresses. Yet she has been proven innocent beyond any shadow of doubt. What you’re doing with this website might be fun and interesting, but it has nothing to do with the truth. On a very superficial level, I could agree with you in that Amanda did not appear to be entirely connected with her emotions when she talked about Meredith. But again, that means nothing. Imagine the kind of stress Amanda has been under. I read that she hadn’t been able to sleep for days. It’s nonsense to judge her under the circumstances of that interview. The fact that she states she feels ‘gratitude’ is further proof of her nature. Yes, most people would not say that. But then, most people are not as diligent and don’t have Amanda’s respect for the law and for authority. All I have seen is a young woman who believes in truth and justice and for whatever reason, continued to believe in the goodness of others.
When Lindy was finally cleared, she cried tears of relief. So actually, the Lindy Chamberlain case IMO is good proof that innocent people do act innocent.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/jun/12/dingo-baby-azaria-lindy-chamberlain
Another significant difference between Lindy and Amanda was that Lindy had lost her child, so was going through unimaginable grief while being accused of murder. Amanda has lost no one. She Meredith had just met a few months earlier and by all accounts were not close.
Ok. But in the end it was not about Amanda’s behavior at a press conference that proves or disproves her guilt. It was the evidence presented at her trial that quite frankly was very poor and the highest court in Italy finally acknowledged. She didn’t do it based on the evidence. It’s that simple.
You don’t understand that behavior IS evidence. It’s actually strong evidence. Behavioral evidence, the things Amanda said, the words she wrote, were admitted into Amanda’s trial. So Amanda’s behavior at a press conference can give lots of information as to whether or not she is truthful, when she speaks.
We have the right to observe her behavior, watch her speak. We are allowed to hear her public statements that she’s given to the press, and evaluate what she says to determine if she’s being truthful or not. An expert in deception, Eyes For Lies, has done that from the very beginning of the case. From day one, Eyes For Lies has not believed Amanda.
All of you on this website are nasty little trolls who have harassed and persecuted an innocent young woman for years now. She has been officially exonerated and you need to go away and shut up…or risk spending a lot of time and money in court. As I told good, old corp…the slander laws in the US are pretty tough just as they are in Italy. Why don’t you all find something more constructive to do with your lives or is that too much to ask of people who seem to thrive on spewing poison and lies all over the web? Whatever…deal with it…IT’S OVER!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Joan, No one here has “persecuted an innocent young woman, and Ms. Knox has not been “officially exonerated.” All that happened was, her latest conviction was overturned. It did not “exonerate” Amanda or Raffaele.
You might want to reread US slander laws. In the US, people are are allowed to state their opinion about many things, people and especially public figures, and Amanda is certainly a public figure. She has given public interviews on national television and she wrote a book. To prove “slander” you must prove that statements “harmed” the individual in some way. That’s pretty hard to do with a public figure.
But getting back to the facts, EFL skill has been scientifically tested, through a rigorous testing method. Your probably not familiar with “The Wizard Project.” There was a study that tested approximately 15,000 people from all walks of life. They found only 50 people who have an natural ability to detect deception.
You should peruse EFL’s site and learn a bit about what it is she does. It’s fascinating. https://www.eyesforlies.com/services/the-science-of-facial-profiling/
EFL teaches that when you have an emotional bias, you are unable to accurately evaluate the behavior in front of you. Your words demonstrate that you have an emotional bias in favor of Amanda. Your world view would probably crumble if you were shown irrefutable proof that Amanda has not been honest in her public interviews.
Debate is encouraged here, but not bullying and name calling of other poster’s opinions.
Absolutely. Please flag comments that do not meet our standards. It will make it easier to delete them. Thank you so much, Sprocket!
I’m not sure how to flag a comment. Once I learn how, I’d be happy to do so.
Oh I see it now. Duh.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion on this blog. If you don’t agree, tell us your reasons, and we will respect your opinions.
Karon, you are right. We are discussing Amanda’s behavior here.
Joan James please point out Amanda’s behavior and statements, that indicate to you, she’s being truthful when she’s spoken out publicly.
To comply with your request, Joan James would need first to buy into your micro-expressions assertions.
Joan James,
I understand that you have very strong feelings about this issue, but your post is really rude, inappropriate, and also wrong on many levels.
The mods would be right to delete it, but I hope they don’t. That way it’s more embarrassing for you.
I will delete rude and disrespectful behavior. It serves no one.
Watching Amanda Knox here, make me feel physically sick to the stomach.
Looking through guilt colored glasses does that to a person. Try taking them…off?
I would love to have a pair of those glasses that stopped emotional and physical reactions. Do you have some?
Try some Pepto-Bismol
Please keep your replies respectful and on topic.
Drama queens’ journeys off topic are to be taken respectfully?
I am removing the trolls, FYI.
>How many wrongly accused people have you heard feel they are the “lucky one”?
I am curious why Amanda perceives herself as lucky. I can’t tell from the video. Luck can be a lot of different things, such as when a random event turns your way (winning the lotto), avoiding punishment you deserve, or it could be that she feels the Italian courts were normally corrupt but were not corrupt in her case, among a lot of other options. I agree, saying she is “lucky” seems very odd to me, too.
I would predict if a person was innocent they would finally feel vindicated, that the decision of the court confirms the truth, that justice has been served, or something along those lines, and “luck” would normally not enter into the discussion, so it seems quite odd here to me.
Your second paragraph exactly. She is so “off” whatever the reasons. I mean if someone could prove now that she is innocent, then I would conclude based on her demeanor that she is a strange person.
A victim who’s proved herself once again a compassionate and considerate person. Your ideas are lumpy and shapeless, and your insight opaque to the truth.
“lumpy”? sorry…. but what does that mean lol???
I’m curious, too. In math (specifically a field called topology), a shape can not be simultaneously lumpy and shapeless. It’s like a natural number that is simultaneously odd and even. Doesn’t exist. So I’m at a loss to understand the “lumpy and shapeless” comment, looking forward to clarification.
I’d like to know what “lumpy and shapeless” means, too. Please show some analysis of Knox’s public statements, that point to her being truthful when she speaks.
Here is another similar analysis that is equally disturbing:
Nonverbal
Communication Analysis No. 3140: Italian Court Overturns Murder
Conviction – Amanda Knox is She Sincere? (VIDEO, PHOTOS)
http://www.bodylanguagesuccess.com/2015/03/nonverbal-communication-analysis-no_9.html
Given how Meredith died, it’s interesting that when Knox says “Meredith was my friend”, she touches her throat.
Yes, I too noticed that. She touches her throat with her dominant hand, the one that killed Meredith.
I looked at the short interview much more than only
>He is not at all recognized by serious psychological behaviourists,
Here are a few of Ekman’s awards, including being named by the American Psychological Association as one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century, among many others:
Elected Fellow, American Psychological Association, 1967
Elected Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science, 1970
1983 Faculty Research Lecturer, University of California, San Francisco
1991 Distinguished Scientific Contribution Award – American Psychological Association’s highest award for basic research
1994 Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters, University of Chicago
1998 William James Fellow Award, given by the American Psychological Society
2001 Named by the American Psychological Association as one of the most influential psychologists of the 20th century based on publications, citations and award
2008 Honorary Doctor of Humane Letters, Adelphi University
2008-present: Scientific Adviser to the FOX/Sky drama ‘Lie to Me’ based on his work/experience
2009 TIME Magazine’s Top 100 most influential people of 2009.
Can some evidence be cited that Dr. Ekman is a charlatan? I’m not aware of any evidence.
If I find rude, threatening, or nasty comments, I will blacklist the offenders. People need to feel free to express their opinion respectfully. If they can’t, they are not welcome here. Thank you!
Totally! Confused on your sentence here though: “Amanda is so relieved, …”
You then say it’s not relief. Could you clarify? Assuming she is guilty, we can still expect relief, correct?
Ha! Great catch, Paul! You caught an inconsistency in my communication! Good job. I was struggling to say that she found relief in the overturned conviction. and while relief makes sense, it would be brief because she suffered a huge injustice and violations in this situation. and that should be the strongest feelings she has and yet they are absent. One who has suffered in a system and been victimized doesn’t feel gratitude… I clearly didn’t communicate that, but that is what I was trying to say!! I need to edit that.
She’s innocent. They have the killer already it’s Rudy Guede. This “analysis” is just based on your feelings of how you think she should have acted in her situation, there is no scientific facts being argued here. Until you’ve been there yourself through her incarceration and legal process, you really have no basis to make this judgement. I usually agree with your posts but as far as Amanda Knox is concerned, you really got it wrong.
You are wrong. Eyes For Lies analysis is not based on feelings. It’s based on science.
I watched it with the sound off. I have many years of acting when I was younger, under my belt and what I saw was someone who *thinks* they know what other people want to see but are not themselves convinced by what they are portraying, ie bad acting.
I can’t imagine buying her book, but making money may be, exactly, why she wants to return.