Community Chat

[winamac1]

On 3/30/2015 RainCityGirl said:

So let me get this straight. If we have read the trial details and have followed the case and believe she is not a murderess we are "personally involved," and therefore are suspect, ourselves. But if we are just sure that she is guilty, despite the evidence, and we think she is a sociopath, a killer, a despicable person, then we are....what? Geniuses? Not personally involved? Third person omniscient?

We are all omniscient on these boards Rain.

[winamac1]

On 3/29/2015 Plaid Pants said:

On 3/29/2015 italia814 said:

On 3/29/2015 mousiegirl said:

I am not personally involved in this person, like some seem to be, so I neither like her nor dislike her, I just think she is guilty, period.

So do I - too bad she got away with it.

Pretty hard to "get away" with something that you didn't do.

AGREE!

[sligo]

She still has to live with her own conscience!!!!!!

[Moonchilde]

On 3/30/2015 engineer said:

She still has to live with her own conscience!!!!!!

Why yes, she does!!!!!!!!!!!

[scotttie]

I have not read one concrete piece of evidence that this girl is guilty. All of the evidence points to the man who is currently in prison. Any information or ""evidence"" that came out in the beginning has been proved false.

The declaration by the Italian court that she is not guilty was an unusual judgment. They declared her innocent.

[glass slippers]

She incriminated her employer at the time and is guilty of obstructing justice.

[scotttie]

On 3/30/2015 glass slippers said:

She incriminated her employer at the time and is guilty of obstructing justice.

Was that part of the documents provided by the over zealous prosecutor who decided she was guilty without any evidence? Was that part of the documents provided when she signed things without knowing the language?

I don't think some people have read anything past what came out the first couple of weeks...it has all been discredited.

[lulu2]

There was an interesting interview with Raffaele Sollecito this morning on TODAY. He wishes to distance himself from Amanda. He does not want to be known (forever) as her former boyfriend.

Can this girl really have the chutzpah to return to Italy to write a book?

[Cakers1]

On 3/29/2015 moonstone dunes said:

Amanda Knox had once posted on Facebook, paraphrasing, she "rarely is embarrassed and for that reason had no social inhibitions" Perhaps that was why some found her unlikeable? Her flat affect?

Or maybe it was the DateLine piece Keith Morrison hosted. His sinister spin on sensational story made a college student look like a partying kinky player.

Keith Morrison appears himself to be a little off. jmo

Another case of the s8x being the first thing most of the media was off and running with - can't have an interesting case unless the kink-o-meter is running overtime.

[SuiGeneris]

I watch a lot of Dateline shows, and have noticed in many of the police interviews that certain body language "tells" are evident in those interviews.

I watched the short Amanda Knox interview that was shown on most news stations and noticed a few things that I thought were "off" about her body language.

First, here is a short list of "pacifiers" a person will use when lying:

• Face touching
• Rubbing the back of the neck
• Lip pursing
• Hair stroking
• Playing with jewelry
• Covering the neck dimple (usually seen with women)
• Eye blocking- closing eyes tightly or even covering eyes with hands
• Rubbing palms on legs
• Hand wringing

Another thing to look for when a person is being deceptive is synchrony:

Synchrony. When deciphering truth from lie, watching for synchrony is key. Synchrony is the proper alignment of what is said verbally and nonverbally, between events and emotions, and between the circumstances of the moment and what is being said. For example, you normally expect a parent whose child is missing to be hysterical, begging for the police to get out there and find their baby. If a parent seems detached and aloof, something’s probably up.

Synchrony should also be present in the way a person moves their head. If a person’s head begins to shake either in the affirmative or in the negative as he speaks, and the movement occurs simultaneously with what he says, then you can typically rely on the veracity of the statement. However, if he does the head shake after he makes the statement, the statement is most likely false. You might even notice a person verbally saying “yes,” but shaking their head “no.” If what they say from their mouth doesn’t match with what their body says, you have a liar on your hands.

Taking these body language cues into account, I replayed the interview. Amanda Knox shuts her eyes tightly several times and keeps her hands up near her neck area. But, at the end of the press conference when she is asked the question, "What would you say to the Kercher family?," she quickly says "Meredith was my friend, and . . .," while looking down and moving her hand closer to her "neck dimple." There is a long hesitation, as she moves her hand closer and closer to her throat, and says, "Its . . .," and closes her eyes tightly. Her final comment is the most damming [IMO] in regards to body language.

She continues, changing her sentence from "Its . . ." to "She deserved so much in this life," with two head shakes indicating "no" after her statement. According to the information above, if the head shake is done after the statement, the statement is most likely false. What she says doesn't match what her body language is indicating.

There are FBI body language experts and scientists who study this interesting field. After statistical studies, it was shown that communication is only 7 percent verbal and 93 percent non-verbal. The non-verbal component was made up of body language (55 percent) and tone of voice (38 percent).

ETA: I didn't read any of the replies before posting this, so I don't know if her body language or flat affect was mentioned before my post.