Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Mary_H]

Seems Katody summed it up on that link, that pseudoscience was the only science which could make Knox and Sollecito guilty.

I was always very suspicious of statement analysis. If you really want to feel like you are going crazy, read Andrew G Hodges' books on the JonBenet Ramsey case which utilizes his "thought print analysis". Everything a person writes, even casually, means the opposite. If someone says that they are upset at accusations, they really mean "please accuse me, I am guilty". A return to Freud, and his maddening twisting of language to mean things that were never intended.

I do not doubt that the mother was involved in that case, but the statement analysis Hodges uses is so over the top it detracts from that conclusion. One example: JonBenet asks the gardener what a year is. He says it is our going all the way around the sun. So she says, at age 6, "Then I have been around the sun 6 times?" Hodges says JonBenet saying, "I have been around"the sun 6 times means she has been sexually molested. She is speaking like a loose girl or call girl, "I've been around". See? Maddening.

I actually did laugh out loud at the highlighted part.

 

[Bill Williams]

Just as an FYI, when we throw around the term "Statement Analysis" in this disucssion, we are usually referring to this website, written by one Peter Hyatt, a/k/a Seamus O'Riley. He earned an online degree in seeing things that aren't there. I don't think you want to say that you do what he does.

The first of his columns that caught our eyes was the analysis of Amanda's e-mail home in the days after the murder. As Seamus wrote, "note any inclusion of "shower" or "washing", "water" etc is an indication of sexual abuse." Oops! There was a lot of showering going on in those days -- proof positive of Amanda's guilt.

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2010/08/amanda-knox-email-analysis.html

If you search the earlier threads of the JREF discussion for "statement analysis," I bet you can come up with some pretty funny stuff from Rose Montague and the like.

Here is where we got started. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6311588&postcount=5486

LJ saw it on PMF and Katody linked us to the site. Some discussion ensued on JREF and on the Statement Analysis blog. halides1 made a Herculean effort to communicate with the guy (whom Rose characterized as having "read the book three times"). I got banned.

Yikes - there's a lot of banning going on these days. "Banning" for expressing an opinion!? Yikes. What's that about?

But you are correct, it is why I put "statement analysis" in quotes. I got my first info on the term from Wikipedia, which identifies Avinoam Sapir as the creator of "Scientific Content Analysis", which, while identifying correctly what a sentence does or doesn't say from a strict-logic point of view, makes the mistake of then claiming to be able to be able to turn this around and "read things into" what isn't there:

Sapir says that a fundamental principle of statement analysis is that "denying guilt is not the same as denying the act. When one says "I am not guilty" or "I am innocent," they are not denying the act; they are only denying guilt." Sapir claims that it is almost impossible for a guilty person to say "I didn't do it." He asserts that guilty people tend to speak in even greater circumlocutions by saying things like "I had nothing to do with it" or "I am not involved in that."

He offers an example which is strictly-logically quite correct, but it is very much a stretch to move from the simple, most immediate parsing of the sentence (and what it means using strict logic) to impugning meaning, or in a criminal context, guilt:

"I counted the money, put the bag on the counter, and proceeded to go home." Sapir says the statement was literally true: "He counted the money (when you steal you want to know how much you are stealing), and then the subject put the bag on the counter. The subject didn't say that he put the money back in the bag after counting it, because he didn't; he left the empty bag on the counter and walked away with the money."

The only use I can see of this method is to use a statement to compose further clarifying questions. Eg. "So, you counted the money, and put the bag on the counter... this does not answer where the money ended up."

Yes, you can say what this does not mean - but statement analysis CANNOT turn around and then conclude what it does mean. That attempt is what makes this junk.

I have done in my own work this when someone uses the passive tense of a verb in making a claim about something. Again, one has to be careful in impugning motive here for the use of the passive tense.

Eg. if you want to establish someone's authority for chairing an ad hoc meeting, someone can say, "I was asked to call you together and chair this meeting." The unanswered question when the passive tense is used is, "who did the asking?"

The danger comes when I have a suspicious mind about all this, and I suspect that the "asker" in turn has set up this meeting illegitimately. The my suspicion pollutes the analysis....

Statement analysis as used in relation to AK is junk science. To my eye it is used to simply confirm the bias of the person writing it. At best, AK's statements should be submitted to someone with no knowledge of this case who could write objectively.

At best, this sort of linguistic parsing only serves to create a list of further clarifying questions. I do not see how it can lead to the firm conclusions its proponents claim.

Strangely - mix this in with the Reid Technique of interrogation..... one of the goals of that method is to avoid ANY questions which lead to the suspect saying, "I did not do it!" ie. a statement of fact about the act of the crime.

Again, citing Wiki:

Step 3 - Try to discourage the suspect from denying his guilt. Reid training video: "If you’ve let him talk and say the words ‘I didn’t do it’, and the more often a person says ‘I didn’t do it’, the more difficult it is to get a confession."

What statement analysis as presented by those using it here does not do, then, is assess of the context of the person's statement.

It also does not take into account culture, sub-culture or other larger socio-linguistic patterns, or the basic differences of language itself. Eg. some cultures are more comfortable with black humour.

I've wondered why AK is critiqued for rarely using MK's name in her statements, or seemed to be indifferent to MK's fate. Some cultures find it offensive or uncomfortable to talk of the dead.... and this is before assessing someone's personal comfort within whatever culture they are in. One would want copious amounts of one person's writing or statements before one could possibly make a judgment of only one statement (eg. AK's first e-mail home). You don't do it on one sample.

I'm rambling. I'm wanting to say that in case your "statement analysis" of this post didn't pick that up!

Anyway, statement analysis is basically juck. Esp. as used in this case.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I actually did laugh out loud at the highlighted part.

Yes, with statement analysis and thought print analytics, you have to laugh, or you'll cry. I would hate for any of my emails or written communications to ever be analyzed by such "professionals". I recall one Statement Analysis headline: "Amanda Knox: Language of Sexual Violence". Really scary.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I've wondered why AK is critiqued for rarely using MK's name in her statements, or seemed to be indifferent to MK's fate. Some cultures find it offensive or uncomfortable to talk of the dead.... and this is before assessing someone's personal comfort within whatever culture they are in. One would want copious amounts of one person's writing or statements before one could possibly make a judgment of only one statement (eg. AK's first e-mail home). You don't do it on one sample.

. . .

Anyway, statement analysis is basically juck. Esp. as used in this case.

Right. And you can bet your life that if Knox DID constantly use MK's name, THAT would be viewed as an indication that she is trying to make us believe there is a closeness there, she is trying to be sentimental to get sympathy from the victim's family, etc. Yes, it is bunk.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Below is the sort of thing I found most frightening about statement analysis, because it seems so esoteric. I simply am not getting out of Amanda's little statement, which I myself may have made under similar circumstances, all that the analyst is: Is it just me?

I told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After that I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him.

Note the pronouns:
"I told Raffaele" is strong language. This may indicate an argument.
Note "after that" is a passage of time, or skipping over. There is missing information at this point of her statement.
Note that "I believe" is weak; but when the weakness is added to: "we relaxed" (which, by itself is strong) is then added "together" (redundancy), we see deception. This needless emphasis is being made to place them together.
Note "perhaps" is a qualifier and she is not committed to the statement.
Note that she "perhaps" made love or perhaps read. This is more than just deceptive: it is an indication of someone else's presence:

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2011/07/amanda-knox-language-of-sexual-homicide.html

 

[Kestrel]

Statement Analysis is a technique for selling articles to tabloids. It's about as scientific as the astrology articles found in the same publications.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Statement Analysis is a technique for selling articles to tabloids. It's about as scientific as the astrology articles found in the same publications.

I guess you are right. In the above-mentioned instance, it is also highly libelous.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Amanda moving in with a guy when only back in the US a short while is a clear and definitive mark of her sociopathic nature, and her desire to return to the Sollecito arrangement in 2007. Hellmann's acquittals MUST be quashed, ere a second tragedy occurs.

 

[Kaosium]

Below is the sort of thing I found most frightening about statement analysis, because it seems so esoteric. I simply am not getting out of Amanda's little statement, which I myself may have made under similar circumstances, all that the analyst is: Is it just me?

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2011/07/amanda-knox-language-of-sexual-homicide.html

A cacophony of woo, that's what they are, astrology, 'statement analysis'--but most of all this: they are picture readers! They can tell what Amanda is thinking just because of the expression on her face when a picture is taken of her. Here's how it goes, watch and learn!

Here she's obviously saying 'Ha! I'm going to get away with it! Seattle Prep, gateway to the ruling class, has sent forth a team to rescue me from my hedonistic ways so I don't have to face more punishment for my excesses with the prole playthings!

Oh, and I'm a WITCH too!'

 

[smkovalinksy]

A cacophony of woo, that's what they are, astrology, 'statement analysis'--but most of all this: they are picture readers! They can tell what Amanda is thinking just because of the expression on her face when a picture is taken of her. Here's how it goes, watch and learn!

[qimg]http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Amanda+Knox+Amanda+Knox+Appeal+Hearing+Perugia+Edq-ht_FzABl.jpg[/qimg]​

Here she's obviously saying 'Ha! I'm going to get away with it! Seattle Prep, gateway to the ruling class, has sent forth a team to rescue me from my hedonistic ways so I don't have to face more punishment for my excesses with the prole playthings!

Oh, and I'm a WITCH too!'

Yes. Said perfectly; you have captured their mindset.

Of course here she is , as the journalist terms it, "shooting the photographer a sullen look" - as well she should. A killer walking free must needs look very sullen:

 

[Bill Williams]

Let's do a little Statement Analysis of Amanda Knox's return to the US, at Sea-Tac Airport. See if you do not agree.

Amanda has obviously thought through what she is going to say. Yet, she cannot resist spontaneity. She is a "wholistic thinker", rather than a linear thinker. Is she incapable, as are many others, of launching into a conversation without pausing to first offer all the yes-buts and pre-explanations, because she actually does want you to understand the wholistic context that simply launching in will not provide.

I actually know other tedious people who seem to never "get to the point" with all their caveats about Aunt June who used a recipe, that reminded her of a smell, that is evocative of her first husband...... oh and yes, what I wanted to say is that your house is on fire.

Do you know people who are constantly pre-explaining themselves? Personally, I find it annoying.

This is revealed about AK, why? Because she starts off her planned comments with three totally off-the-cuff remarks - embedded in the moment:

"They are reminding me to speak in English. Because I'm having problems with that."

She then says, "Um," and thinks a bit more. Even though she has obviously thought about what to say, she cannot resist the temptation to try to prepare her audience by pre-explaining what she's about to say.

"I'm really overwhelmed right now." Subtext: so please, if I don't get this all out, please understand. Note that she still has not got to what she'd planned to say. She's still in pre-explanation mode!

However, stuck in the here-and-now she further deviates.....

"I was looking down from the airplane, and it seemed that everything wasn't real." She's still pre-explaining the comments she intends, trying to put them into the here-and-now present, while at the same time being overwhelmed by the here-and-now.

Please note that she's not philosophizing here.... the "everything wasn't real comment" is not further explained, because she now recovers to begin (again) with what she'd prepared to start with. Her pre-explanations are over.

Note: this is 31 seconds into her remarks, and she has just now decided, enough with the pre-explaining.......

"What's important for me to say is just thank you to everyone who's believed in me, who's defended me, who's supported my family....... um,"

A long pause. I believe that as an indication of an in-the-moment thinker, now that she's into her intended remarks, she is struggling with what more to say. The planned narrative starts to break down, because the planning does not compare with the emotional impact of the "right now". She's probably thinking, "Nothing I intended to say prepared me for this".... so it breaks down.

"I just want,...... my family's the most important thing to me right now and I just want to go be with them. So thank you for being there for me."

End.

What can be gleaned from this as to criminal repsonsibily? Nothing, nada, none either way. It would be as bogus for me to use these remarks to claim innocence as it would someone else to demonstrate guilt.

However, I see these remarks as fully consistant with her character - a wholistic thinker, not very much of a linear thinker. Does this mean she is incapable of linear thinking? No. It means that when in a time of stress, that's what her personality type defaults to.

Are my remarks accurate? Probably not.

Is she guilty because she never once mentions the horrible tragedy that MK and the Kercher family endured and continues to endure? No.

Is it AK's "culture" not to mention these things? I haven't a clue, so saying something either way would be bogus. Within AK's culture, is she a rebel or a conformist when it comes to talking of tragedy or the dead? Again, I haven't a clue, so saying something either way would be bogus.

Statement Analysis as practised by those who see guilt in AK's statement is completely bogus. It is a classic example of reading things into a statement, rather than gleaning things from it. It reveals more about the analyst than the subject.

As perhaps does mine.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Let's do a little Statement Analysis of Amanda Knox's return to the US, at Sea-Tac Airport. See if you do not agree.

Amanda has obviously thought through what she is going to say. Yet, she cannot resist spontaneity. She is a "wholistic thinker", rather than a linear thinker. Is she incapable, as are many others, of launching into a conversation without pausing to first offer all the yes-buts and pre-explanations, because she actually does want you to understand the wholistic context that simply launching in will not provide.

I actually know other tedious people who seem to never "get to the point" with all their caveats about Aunt June who used a recipe, that reminded her of a smell, that is evocative of her first husband...... oh and yes, what I wanted to say is that your house is on fire.

Do you know people who are constantly pre-explaining themselves? Personally, I find it annoying.

This is revealed about AK, why? Because she starts off her planned comments with three totally off-the-cuff remarks - embedded in the moment:

"They are reminding me to speak in English. Because I'm having problems with that."

She then says, "Um," and thinks a bit more. Even though she has obviously thought about what to say, she cannot resist the temptation to try to prepare her audience by pre-explaining what she's about to say.

"I'm really overwhelmed right now." Subtext: so please, if I don't get this all out, please understand. Note that she still has not got to what she'd planned to say. She's still in pre-explanation mode!

However, stuck in the here-and-now she further deviates.....

"I was looking down from the airplane, and it seemed that everything wasn't real." She's still pre-explaining the comments she intends, trying to put them into the here-and-now present, while at the same time being overwhelmed by the here-and-now.

Please note that she's not philosophizing here.... the "everything wasn't real comment" is not further explained, because she now recovers to begin (again) with what she'd prepared to start with. Her pre-explanations are over.

Note: this is 31 seconds into her remarks, and she has just now decided, enough with the pre-explaining.......

"What's important for me to say is just thank you to everyone who's believed in me, who's defended me, who's supported my family....... um,"

A long pause. I believe that as an indication of an in-the-moment thinker, now that she's into her intended remarks, she is struggling with what more to say. The planned narrative starts to break down, because the planning does not compare with the emotional impact of the "right now". She's probably thinking, "Nothing I intended to say prepared me for this".... so it breaks down.

"I just want,...... my family's the most important thing to me right now and I just want to go be with them. So thank you for being there for me."

End.

What can be gleaned from this as to criminal repsonsibily? Nothing, nada, none either way. It would be as bogus for me to use these remarks to claim innocence as it would someone else to demonstrate guilt.

However, I see these remarks as fully consistant with her character - a wholistic thinker, not very much of a linear thinker. Does this mean she is incapable of linear thinking? No. It means that when in a time of stress, that's what her personality type defaults to.

Are my remarks accurate? Probably not.

Is she guilty because she never once mentions the horrible tragedy that MK and the Kercher family endured and continues to endure? No.

Is it AK's "culture" not to mention these things? I haven't a clue, so saying something either way would be bogus. Within AK's culture, is she a rebel or a conformist when it comes to talking of tragedy or the dead? Again, I haven't a clue, so saying something either way would be bogus.

Statement Analysis as practised by those who see guilt in AK's statement is completely bogus. It is a classic example of reading things into a statement, rather than gleaning things from it. It reveals more about the analyst than the subject.

As perhaps does mine.

Well said.

Do you know there was actually a ProGuilter who found great, profound meaning in that, "I was looking down from the airplane and it didn't seem real" remark?

They immediately linked it to her saying to the police, that her remarks about seeing Patrick, and screaming an covering her ears as Meredith was killed, "did not seem real".

Ergo, when Knox asserts that something "didn't seem real", we can bank on it being real, because we know the arial view of Seattle was real. So the scene with Patrick at the cottage must likewise be so.

 

[Bill Williams]

Yes. Said perfectly; you have captured their mindset.

Of course here she is , as the journalist terms it, "shooting the photographer a sullen look" - as well she should. A killer walking free must needs look very sullen:

[qimg]http://www.radaronline.com/sites/radaronline.com/files/photos/image_20111114/FNP_EW_0251094.jpg[/qimg]

This is proof that AK has not been coached well on dealing with the media. In that picture, AK probably thinks she's only looking at a guy with a camera who is in her face.

She is not aware of anyone looking back at her.

A competent media advisor would actually train AK to be mindlful of the people looking back at her - millions of them who form a body politic.

I'm mindful of the pictures of then-President Gerald Ford slipping on the last step of an airplane stair-ramp. That 1/800th of a second caught on the frame became a statement, "The man's a klutz." He was anything but.

In fact, Gerald Ford was perhaps the most athletic of all the presidents, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt. He was far more athletic than John Kennedy, who only played touch football with family. Ford played university ball.

AK needs a better media advisor. She needs to be able to craft a public image......

Then again, maybe she doesn't want to. Hopefully all this will go away, and the likes of me will stop posting to websites.

 

[Bill Williams]

Well said.

Do you know there was actually a ProGuilter who found great, profound meaning in that, "I was looking down from the airplane and it didn't seem real" remark?

They immediately linked it to her saying to the police, that her remarks about seeing Patrick, and screaming an covering her ears as Meredith was killed, "did not seem real".

Ergo, when Knox asserts that something "didn't seem real", we can bank on it being real, because we know the arial view of Seattle was real. So the scene with Patrick at the cottage must likewise be so.

That is stunningly & ignorantly the most stupid thing I have ever heard. The only saving grace would be if this was a 14-year old who connected those very, very, galactically-distant dots.

The true tragedy from a evolutionary point of view would be if that statement came from a unversity professor somewhere trained in semantics. That would mean that we are not as far up the evolutionary ladder as people think.

I don`t think an intelligent chimpanzee would connect those dots.

 

[Dougm]

This is proof that AK has not been coached well on dealing with the media. In that picture, AK probably thinks she's only looking at a guy with a camera who is in her face.

She is not aware of anyone looking back at her.

A competent media advisor would actually train AK to be mindlful of the people looking back at her - millions of them who form a body politic.

I'm mindful of the pictures of then-President Gerald Ford slipping on the last step of an airplane stair-ramp. That 1/800th of a second caught on the frame became a statement, "The man's a klutz." He was anything but.

In fact, Gerald Ford was perhaps the most athletic of all the presidents, with the possible exception of Teddy Roosevelt. He was far more athletic than John Kennedy, who only played touch football with family. Ford played university ball.

AK needs a better media advisor. She needs to be able to craft a public image......

Then again, maybe she doesn't want to. Hopefully all this will go away, and the likes of me will stop posting to websites.

I don't know how good her media advisor is, but I think she has been doing exactly the right thing. What she is doing is communicating by example, and ignoring all the idiots in the media, and on websites, who are going to try to find something bad in everything she does. She should do exactly what she is doing, which is living life as normally as she can.

Amanda never did anything wrong in the first place, and she is not doing anything wrong now. She cannot stop some fools from taking a picture of her coming out of a store or something, and commenting that she looked angry or scared, and that is a sign of something or other. She's not a president or an actress, she is an unwilling celebrity. She needs to be herself as much as she can be, stay out of the media for now, and let the bizarros and guilters do what they do, because their weird obsession with her is their problem, not hers.

PS -- My exception to this is anyone that gets threatening, physically or otherwise, or slanderous towards her. Those should not be ignored. However, the fools who care if she is smiling, or surprised, or angry looking, in a picture, are just that.

 

[Chris_Halkides]

White knights

LJ saw it on PMF and Katody linked us to the site. Some discussion ensued on JREF and on the Statement Analysis blog. halides1 made a Herculean effort to communicate with the guy (whom Rose characterized as having "read the book three times"). I got banned.

Mary_H,

Thank you for the kind words. At first I thought that I could have a respectful dialog with people at that site. My opinions about statement analysis are that it does not seem to have ever been put to any scientific test of which I am aware and that it will generally give results that are biased against the accused. I asked Peter Hyatt to analyze one of PM Mignini's statements, and he only did a few sentences with great reluctance. If one applied it to everyone's statements, not just the accused, perhaps statement analysis might provide some useful insights, here and there. However, it should never be used as a substitute for solid investigations, IMO.

My attempts at having a dialog were further thwarted by the presence of too many people (including Peter Hyatt, it seemed to me) who believed that Amanda's supporters were white-knight fantasists or worse. When I corrected a poster who made false claims about Amanda's personal life, my comment was deleted but not the one to which I responded. At that point I gave up.

 

[Dougm]

A cacophony of woo, that's what they are, astrology, 'statement analysis'--but most of all this: they are picture readers! They can tell what Amanda is thinking just because of the expression on her face when a picture is taken of her. Here's how it goes, watch and learn!

[qimg]http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/gi/Amanda+Knox+Amanda+Knox+Appeal+Hearing+Perugia+Edq-ht_FzABl.jpg[/qimg]​

Here she's obviously saying 'Ha! I'm going to get away with it! Seattle Prep, gateway to the ruling class, has sent forth a team to rescue me from my hedonistic ways so I don't have to face more punishment for my excesses with the prole playthings!

Oh, and I'm a WITCH too!'

When I look at this picture, I could just as soon add the caption: "Holy crap! You people really are crazy, aren't you?" (looking at Mignini, Comodi, Maresca, et al).

 

[Bill Williams]

PS -- My exception to this is anyone that gets threatening, physically or otherwise, or slanderous towards her. Those should not be ignored. However, the fools who care if she is smiling, or surprised, or angry looking, in a picture, are just that.

At the risk of passing on gossip, there was a report on another website that some pro-guilters are trying to interfere in AK re-enrolling at UWash. Does anyone have a citation for this?

 

[pilot padron]

I do not agree

Let's do a little Statement Analysis of Amanda Knox's return to the US, at Sea-Tac Airport. See if you do not agree.

Amanda has obviously thought through what she is going to say. Yet, she cannot resist spontaneity. She is a "wholistic thinker", rather than a linear thinker. Is she incapable, as are many others, of launching into a conversation without pausing to first offer all the yes-buts and pre-explanations, because she actually does want you to understand the wholistic context that simply launching in will not provide.

I actually know other tedious people who seem to never "get to the point" with all their caveats about Aunt June who used a recipe, that reminded her of a smell, that is evocative of her first husband...... oh and yes, what I wanted to say is that your house is on fire.

Do you know people who are constantly pre-explaining themselves? Personally, I find it annoying.

This is revealed about AK, why? Because she starts off her planned comments with three totally off-the-cuff remarks - embedded in the moment:

"They are reminding me to speak in English. Because I'm having problems with that."

She then says, "Um," and thinks a bit more. Even though she has obviously thought about what to say, she cannot resist the temptation to try to prepare her audience by pre-explaining what she's about to say.

"I'm really overwhelmed right now." Subtext: so please, if I don't get this all out, please understand. Note that she still has not got to what she'd planned to say. She's still in pre-explanation mode!

However, stuck in the here-and-now she further deviates.....

"I was looking down from the airplane, and it seemed that everything wasn't real." She's still pre-explaining the comments she intends, trying to put them into the here-and-now present, while at the same time being overwhelmed by the here-and-now.

Please note that she's not philosophizing here.... the "everything wasn't real comment" is not further explained, because she now recovers to begin (again) with what she'd prepared to start with. Her pre-explanations are over.

Note: this is 31 seconds into her remarks, and she has just now decided, enough with the pre-explaining.......

"What's important for me to say is just thank you to everyone who's believed in me, who's defended me, who's supported my family....... um,"

A long pause. I believe that as an indication of an in-the-moment thinker, now that she's into her intended remarks, she is struggling with what more to say. The planned narrative starts to break down, because the planning does not compare with the emotional impact of the "right now". She's probably thinking, "Nothing I intended to say prepared me for this".... so it breaks down.

"I just want,...... my family's the most important thing to me right now and I just want to go be with them. So thank you for being there for me."

End.

What can be gleaned from this as to criminal repsonsibily? Nothing, nada, none either way. It would be as bogus for me to use these remarks to claim innocence as it would someone else to demonstrate guilt.

However, I see these remarks as fully consistant with her character - a wholistic thinker, not very much of a linear thinker. Does this mean she is incapable of linear thinking? No. It means that when in a time of stress, that's what her personality type defaults to.

Are my remarks accurate? Probably not.

Is she guilty because she never once mentions the horrible tragedy that MK and the Kercher family endured and continues to endure? No.

Is it AK's "culture" not to mention these things? I haven't a clue, so saying something either way would be bogus. Within AK's culture, is she a rebel or a conformist when it comes to talking of tragedy or the dead? Again, I haven't a clue, so saying something either way would be bogus.

Statement Analysis as practised by those who see guilt in AK's statement is completely bogus. It is a classic example of reading things into a statement, rather than gleaning things from it. It reveals more about the analyst than the subject.

As perhaps does mine.

Interesting argument, Bill, but no I do not agree.

I also watched the return to Sea-Tac, Marriott managed and manipulated press conference.
As far as any statement analysis of that 'performance'.....
My only thoughts were that Patrick Lumumba was indeed correct when he said "Knox was the World's greatest actress. She has no soul".
Patrick, BTW, had many more opportunities to observe Knox in action, at work, and in Court, than all the posters above combined]/i]

But, if psychologists' opinions are what apparently impress some arguing innocence, consider this:
Renowned psychologist Dr. Coline Covington wrote the following about Amanda Knox:
“Knox’s narcissistic pleasure at catching the eye of the media and her apparent nonchalant attitude during most of the proceedings show the signs of a psychopathic personality. Her behaviour is hauntingly reminiscent of Eichmann’s arrogance during his trial for war crimes in Jerusalem in 1961 and most recently of Karadzic’s preening before the International Criminal Court at the Hague."

ETA:
Please address all outcries of dissent and the inevitable, endless, mindless atta boys about the dissent, directly either to Mr Lumumba and/or Dr Covington.
Messengers who do little more than to transmit what you prefer not to hear should not be shot. (again)

 

[smkovalinksy]

Interesting argument, Bill, but no I do not agree.

I also watched the return to Sea-Tac, Marriott managed and manipulated press conference.
As far as any statement analysis of that 'performance'.....
My only thoughts were that Patrick Lumumba was indeed correct when he said "Knox was the World's greatest actress. She has no soul".
Patrick, BTW, had many more opportunities to observe Knox in action, at work, and in Court, than all the posters above combined]/i]

But, if psychologists' opinions are what apparently impress some arguing innocence, consider this:
Renowned psychologist Dr. Coline Covington wrote the following about Amanda Knox:
“Knox’s narcissistic pleasure at catching the eye of the media and her apparent nonchalant attitude during most of the proceedings show the signs of a psychopathic personality. Her behaviour is hauntingly reminiscent of Eichmann’s arrogance during his trial for war crimes in Jerusalem in 1961 and most recently of Karadzic’s preening before the International Criminal Court at the Hague."

She has no soul? No soul at all? Evidence for this? Are we certain anyone possesses a soul in the cadaver of the body? The link to Eichmann: Isn't this a bit grandiose? I am getting a headache.......