Immediately following the release of the Italian courts reasoning report for Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito’s latest murder convictions, Knox began another round of interviews. While being questioned by Chris Cuomo, Knox once again asserts her alleged innocence. With each interview that she gives, her body language and words seem to betray her.
It was only a year ago she gave her first of many “exclusive” interviews, the first one was with Diane Sawyer. Sawyer asked Knox point blank, “Did you kill Meredith Kercher? Were you there?” Knox said, “No” while simultaneously nodding her head “yes.”
According to body language expert Tom Scheve, this is a typical nonverbal clue that she is lying.
“A sign of deception is a smile or other gesture -- such as nodding "yes" during a denial -- that contradicts what is being said. When we normally interact, both speech and body language happen naturally, without specific thought. When we lie, however, not only must we appraise the truth, construct a plausible lie and then verbalize it, we must also decide which body gestures best match the lie, or rather best represent the telling of the truth. All of this thought leads to mis-matching words and body language.”
Knox exhibited another unusual reaction in the beginning of her appearance with Chris Cuomo. After Cuomo asked her the first question as to why she though Judge Nencini believes that she, herself, stabbed Meredith to death. Knox hesitated before answering, looked up and gave a big smile.
Carol Kinsy Goman wrote an interesting article for Forbes Magazine where she outlines the twelve ways to spot a liar. Number one on the list was a fake smile. Goman writes,
"It’s hard for liars to give a real smile while seeking to deceive. (Real smiles crinkle the corners of the eyes and change the entire face. Faked smiles involve the mouth only.)”
Knox’s smile before answering Cuomo’s question about Judge Nencini shows no crinkle around eyes or change in face.
But why smile at such a serious question? In his book “Body Language” Mark H. Ford describes the different reasons that people smile and how to spot an insincere expression. He describes how smiling can help relieve stress of a situation or to disarm others. He sums it up on page 121:
“Smiling is a portentous act that not only affects people’s opinion of each other, but also future harmonious interactions. On the other hand, the simple act of smiling can unduly beguile people with its disarming potential until they are aware of all the surrounding circumstances. Take some time to think before whipping up your enthusiasm without considering its causes. Ask yourself this question: Why are people smiling that way?”
Knox went on to answer by stating that she “believes” then cuts off to explain that she can’t speculate what the Judge’s motivations are “personal or otherwise.” Which leads one to wonder, what personal motivations would Judge Nencini have for Amanda Knox? Did they know each other personally?
Since we know that Knox did not attend her last appeals trial that Judge Nencini oversaw, it appears that they have not even met each other. However, Knox inexplicably alludes to the idea of the judge having some personal or emotional motivations. 'Emotional' is a dirty word to Knox who has claimed that the Kerchers are being emotional rather than logical in their believing her to be guilty. Amanda Knox wrote on her blog:
"Because it was first and foremost their loss, it is also hardest for them [Meredith Kercher's family] to get the idea out of their head that I had something to do with the murder. I don’t hold that against them because, at a certain point, their beliefs are more emotional than logical."
Knox seems to believe that this latest court verdict may be a personal attack on her by the judge. Who is being emotional now? Knox wants everyone to believe her (a convicted slanderer) when she states later on in the interview that there is no evidence of her at the crime scene. This of course is an outright lie as anyone who has read the evidence knows that Knox’s blood was found mixed with Meredith Kerchers blood in three locations in the bathroom, in her and Raffaele’s bloody footprints in the hallway and again Knox and Meredith’s blood mixed in Filomena’s room (where the staged break-in occurred.) There was no evidence of Rudy Guede in Filomena’s room although Knox continues to assert that Guede broke in there and ransacked the room.
Knox and her team of have spread mass amounts of misinformation trying to distort/disprove the copious amount of evidence against her online. Their efforts have had not swayed the courts who have analyzed the actual facts of this case. Facts that she would prefer the American public not know.
Knox referred to her PR team conjuring up new distortions and obfuscations of the evidence by saying, “The evidence of the prosecution has been proven less and less and less.” No it hasn’t. But that hasn’t stopped Knox PR from trying to make it appear so. This latest interview with Knox has proven to be more PR innuendos, lies and polluting the facts of this case. In the end, it is Knox’s credibility which has been less and less and less to the American public.