Amanda Knox Body Language on Chris Cuomo Interview Shows Odd Behavior and Lack of Genuine Emotion



For years, Amanda Knox’s strange behavior after the murder of Meredith Kercher took place concerned everyone. She giggled, canoodled with boyfriend, and had many other inappropriate actions. Now that she has been found guilty by an Italian court, her interview with Chris Cuomo of CNN shows Knox’s continuing bizarre behavior which may reflect that she is not as innocent as she claims in the death of her former roommate. Her body language shows multiple signals of  behavior which cause concern.

Chris Cuomo asks her  “Why do you think this judge goes further than ever? Not only does he say that this is the knife, that you had it, but because of DNA around the hilt you were the one that killed Meredith Kercher?”

One would expect a person who had nothing to do with the crime to be incensed and show anger or rage at being falsely accused. That was not the case here. First Knox is silent as she looks up as see in the photo above.



Then she actually laughs. This is extremely odd behavior and not congruent in my view with someone who is innocent. Why is she laughing? Is she laughing because she is far away from Italy and thinks she will never be extradited? Does she laugh because she feels safe? It is not a  nervous laugh or smile. It is a genuine one with mouth open and cheeks raised and eyes squinted. This is not how someone should react when someone is killed if they had nothing to do with it. Perhaps she hated Meredith so much as indicated by their alleged fight over money, that she is secretly glad Meredith is dead and that she deep down feels she won’t be held accountable.

Then in a defiant tone she begins by saying “I believe… I can’t speculate what this judge’s motivation’s are personalize or  other wise”. as she raises an eyebrow.


The eyebrow raise in this context is telling as she deep down is saying that she thinks the judge is out to make a name for himself. It also reflects her anger towards the judge.



Then she fakes crying in a shaky voice which recovers quickly as she says I did not  kill my friend. I did not wield a knife,” It sounded to me as though it was rehearsed as world “wield” sound like something her lawyers may have said to her. The fact that she recovers so quickly from the crying voice shows me that she does not have much remorse or empathy for Meredith’s death.



Then she cocks her head to the side and opens her eyes wide as she says “I had no reason to…” said with upward inflection in a questioning tone. To me that seems like a signal of deception as she is trying too hard to convince with this type of vocalization. Also the fact that she doesn’t mention Meredith’s name. She ends the statement by saying “I had no reason to” and doesn’t finish the statement “kill Meredith” which also shows that her concern was not about Meredith. But the most telling thing is that she shakes her head No as she says this which may be the body language revealing the truth that she may have indeed killed Meredith Kercher.

She then says they were living together and “were becoming friends.” That is a very interesting statement as it means that they were “not friends” but they were “becoming friends”. Hence, the lack of emotion for someone who was not yet a friend.

Then she says something which is clearly rehearsed as she said the same thing in an earlier interview that if she would have had Meredith’s broken body on her and traces of herself.”  The term broken body seems to me like a term that is lost in the Italian translation into English- a term which she no doubt got from her lawyer. No one in the US says broken body. They would say “bloody”, or “mangled”, or “sliced” but definitely  not “broken.”

She once again feigns emotion as her voice cracks but then recovers immediately, which indicates insincerity. Since I have heard this plea before with the exact verbiage, there is no doubt Knox is on automatic pilot as she tries to convince the world she didn’t kill her roommate. She also says “around Meredith’s corpse” instead of Meredith’s body. which also appears to me a callous and detached description.

She looks down as she speaks instead of directly at Chris Cuomo which is also cause for concern. People who have nothing to hide look right at you and speak directly to you.

She then says she believes that it is truly possible for her to “win this”. The term “win” is of concern to me as this is not a contest or a manipulation. What she needed to say was to “show I am innocent.” But she does not say this.

Initially I wanted very much to believe that Amanda had nothing to do with Meredith’s death.  So often innocent people are accused of things they did not do in foreign countries. Since foreign justice is so different from American justice, it was easy to assume this. When she came out of prison and was released and was on American soil, the tears were genuine.When her initial charges by the Italian court was that it was a sex game gone wrong, I found it hard to believe and thought she had nothing to do with that. Thus, I assumed she was innocent.

But after hearing her multiple  interviews and getting more information, body language and speech and voice content wise, something does not add up. The lack of remorse bothers me as does the fake attempts at emotion. There is no doubt that Amanda is angry and that anger leaks out in her interviews. But she comes across as callous and not caring and odd ,as she laughs and smiles inappropriately. This does not endear her to the public and makes them question whether the Italian courts finally got it right in their decision about Amanda Knox’s guilt.





137 thoughts on “Amanda Knox Body Language on Chris Cuomo Interview Shows Odd Behavior and Lack of Genuine Emotion

  1. Brilliant analysis, there was so much more revealed through studying body language. I agree with everything you wrote. That smile at the start of the interview was misplaced and creepy. She seems to be laughing at the judicial process and thinks herself above everyone in it, including the judge.

  2. I agree with you, Dr. Glass. I’ve watched interviews of Amanda over time, and I see the progression from her showing grief and being frightened, to the kind of almost frozen-body appearance she has in this interview. Body language-wise, to me, she seemed to be an unmovable “brick” here, and I think this is because she is now DEFIANT. (“They’ll never catch me!!” she has said to the press after this “Guilty” verdict, as if she will run to the ends of the earth….) has her book, and I have purchased & listened to that. I got to hear her voice inflections, little pauses, and of course the content of this book. She comes across as likable ~ I WANTED to believe her. However, at the end, I found that I could NOT believe her. 2 reasons for this were: She said things about how she viewed the situation, how she felt, and “Why would I….?”, rather than answering the specific charges of the Italian Court. And secondly, Amanda peppers the whole text with, “I couldn’t BELIEVE that…..” She makes herself sound so innocent and naive that she is literally INcredible. In my view, only a 5 year old child or an adult with serious intellectual deficits would be as unaware of how to behave, what is going on, and how to understand the world as was Amanda Knox.

    In the end, like you, I have concluded that there is just “Something wrong with this picture” of innocence of hers. She is guilty IN SOME WAY, of SOMETHING, regarding this murder. That is my true belief.

    Thanks for your very good assessment of her interview, Dr. Glass!

  3. of course, however let us not forget she was convicted not for body language (which is undeniably suggestive and this is a very good analysis) but due to overwhelming evidence of various nature … partial confession placing herself there, the statement an innocent man had committed the murder and she had seen him, an accomplice placing her there, other witnesses proving her false alibi, mixed blood in 3 traces and mixed dna in others on the crime scene, a big patch of her own blood on the tap, her knowledge of details of the crime, the admission to her mother that she was there, dna of her boyfriend on a bra clasp and of mk on a knife, phones and pc evidence, footprints compatible made in blood of mk mixed with water, not visible to the naked eye as cleaned, she was the only one who had the keys, staged break in that only she could do to divert suspicions, clear evidence of a clean up, traces of multiple killers and much more. her innocence is simply an event with probability close to zero

    1. This article does not say she was convicted for body language although it certainly played a role in terms of her inappropriate courtroom behavior.Like it or not studies show that people do judge you on your body language.

      1. In fact I did not suggest that. This analysis is very interesting as all wonder why some US media was and is deceived by her and her family through a PR agency. They never mentioned key evidence against her so some people believed her innocent. Case against her is as strong as it gets, as explained well by famous Harvard professor Dershowitz, but audience, with the contribution of a less than professional US press, does not know the facts even if, unlike the US, in Italy there are written verdicts available which reporters could read. Every Italian Court must write up its reasoning for a sentence in great detail, such reasonings must always pass the test of logic, correctness and relevance by higher courts up to Supreme Court. Body language is not evidence in legal terms in that system, and cannot be in the US system (but in the US reasons used by a jury to convict are not made explicit as in Italy thus your answer to my post). Court that convicted Knox obviously did not use body language as a reason, it would have been illegal and the written reasoning makes no mention of it. See my point? They had overwhelming reasons and evidence which they had to write up. Since her TV interviews her support in the US did weaken as she does not sound believable, although people still fail to mention evidence against her, like the fact she accused an innocent man of murder placing herself at the scene. Clearly that is a confirmation of the studies you mention on language and body, TV audiences are understanding through body language what they could not understand before as they barely know the facts of the case due to the failures of US reporters and TV hosts.

      2. For the record Body Language can indeed be used in the US court system and I have personally served as an expert witness in behavioral analysis.It all depends on whether the judge will allow this in his court.

      3. on another point, I have noticed as time goes by her performances get worse, it is easier to spot body language and words that suggest insincerity and deceit

    2. Yves L, excellent observations. As the interviews progress, instead of polishing and refining her message and demeanor to resemble something halfway normal as a convicted murderer on appeal, it’s the opposite. Practice doesn’t make perfect and I believe it’s a personality disorder (disclaimer: speculation only) that fuels the narcissism and audacity.

      The Chris Cuomo interview revealed Amanda Knox as the deceptive, manipulative person she is. Keep talking, Amanda, keep up the callous words about Meredith, the confessions offered in her statements, placing herself at the scene, and the facial expressions and body language that tell us exactly who she is.

      Dr. Glass, thanks again for your perceptive and outstanding analysis of this interview.

  4. I found your summation interesting and agree on all points, I noticed that when she said that if she had been involved there would have been traces of the victim on her, as she said this she reached up an touched her left shoulder like it had triggered a memory. I also felt that at some points she was forcing eye contact and was suppering her blink response to maintain it.

  5. Dr. Glass, this post is very informative. While not an expert in body language, I’m bothered by all the indications of deceit that you noted in her media interview. The inappropriate laughing and smiling aren’t a surprise to me as this was her demeanor throughout the trial. The day Judge Massei read the Guilty verdict was probably the only time she registered genuine emotion and distress. How odd is that? She was on trial for murder in a foreign country, with everything at stake, yet there she was playing to the cameras, giggling, smirking and defiant.

    After studying the evidence, I was convinced of her guilt, and the body language reinforced my opinion. I struggle trying to understand those who endorse her innocence based upon her word, the word of a proven liar. As Dr. Glass pointed out, her statements regarding Meredith are callous. She can barely bring herself to utter her name, and when she does it’s typically accompanied by the downward glance and fake cry face with no tears. In fact, I had a hard time seeing any crinkling of the eyes with that toothy grin. Everything about this woman is fake yet some can’t believe this to be true because she’s young, attractive and white. Amanda Knox is in for a surprise when the Italian Supreme Court upholds the guilty verdict of the appellate court, probably by this Fall. Dr. Glass, I look forward to reading more of your assessments of her media appearances.

      1. Thank you, debimarion! It’s troubling that people defend her without any valid reason other than insisting that pretty (highly subjective by the way — her personality makes her unattractive), young women simply cannot commit violent crimes. Or they insist there was no motive so it could not have happened, or she’s portrayed as the naive studious girl victimized by an evil archaic country, thereby insulting a very civilized beautiful country for no good reason.

        On social media, her defenders spend 99% of their time attacking and insulting, including vile insults directed at Meredith’s family. I don’t recall a case where the murder victim’s family was so harassed and disparaged.

        Dr. Glass has nailed how fake Amanda Knox is in these media interviews. After reading her analysis, it’s always interesting to re-watch the video. Seeing that big grin makes me feel ill. It’s as if she’s totally clueless about normal human feelings so she thinks it’s…what, cute and precious…to smile and smirk? The interviews backfire as I believe this one has.

  6. i feel like she is angry after all she went through of being accused! i feel like if i was innocent i too would be angry and over proving myself

  7. Dr Glass, I have said from day one, she was guilty, she said she was there the first day then she changed her story, as she did three times, she killed her in a sex game and they were probably stoned on extacy..don’t know how to spell the drug name.Meridith was a scholar a smart girl who’s life was robbed. I spent 3 weeks in that city in 2004..nice people, kind people..His sister was police officer, how do you think it was for her? These are honest people in this town. She was a bad kid a wild girl..she is evil!

  8. the whole case ..
    evidence & all information is available in documents …
    italian court or merediths site ..
    AK was obviously guilty from the start ..
    an ‘innocent’ person does not frame another innocent person for a crime ..
    an innocent person does not wait until after a shower to call the police with a dead body in the house ..
    the ‘media’ clowns bought & paid for are supporting an evil murderess while a young gal has her life ended because of jealousy …
    did anyone believe that her parents would stop seeking justice …
    all of perugia knows she did it ..
    she is a psychopath who thinks she will get away with it …
    her body language is over the top but it’s certainly clear she’s been guilty from the start …….
    AND for you astrology buffs out there?
    ..AK shares the same birthday with jodi arias & OJ simpson ..
    funny ain’t it ?

  9. great comment above ..
    i also have spent much time in perugia ..
    AK ain’t kiddin’ anybody in that town !
    & it is impossible to keep ‘secrets’ ….
    merediths parents will not stop fighting for justice either ..

  10. It is the lack of uncontested uncontaminated evidence that concerns me. The Italian judge speculates about a second knife that was not produced and obviously not connected to Amanda Knox. He speculates on a motive that is non-existent or overblown. He cannot prove that Amanda was present at the murder. What he has is Guede’s prosecutor and lawyer agreeing that Amanda and Raphaele were involved but only Guede’s agreement in exchange for a lighter sentence as corroboration.

    1. if you read the reasoning document of the judges, iespecially the last one, they have well explained that the Court can only speculate on motives, starting from the objective results of the investigation, but motive is not needed when there is certainty of guilt, in Italian courts or any other courts in the world … motive is not needed. Acquit someone as he or she did not confess explaining motive makes no sense, if guilt was established … in this case it was established with overwhelming evidence and a partial confession of two out of the three killers … if we wish however to compare common law with Italian system we must observe that, given there is a reasoning in writing which must be logical and well structured, we have a much higher degree of certainty ref evidence and guilt … in a common law jury, which de facto a black box, we never really know if the reasonable doubt standard was respected or if a conviction or acquittal are based on personal prejudices.

    2. if you speak of lack of evidence you have not followed this trial and not read the verdicts … there is a huge amount of evidence. Evidence is always contested by defence, in this case the arguments of defence are very weak and the
      pR objections from the US are what they are, PR ….. they had really no arguments given they assisted to all dna analyses and made no objections at the beginning + contamination can be excluded, well explained why in the recent verdict … evidence is overwhelming, incriminating, points in one direction. Evidence showing both AK and RS were in that flat is as strong as it gets, just missing a video of the action… We have dna of AK mixed with MK on luminol traces, mixed blood of AK and MK, dna on bra clasp by RS, evidence of clean up which only AK had interest in doing, footprints (not from Guede who had shoes) compatible with RS and AK, dna of MK on knife in RS’ flat where she never went, evidence on body multiple killers acted jointly, staged break in, they were seen by witnesses, they lied on multiple aspects of their whereabouts as proven by witnesses and by phones and computers … they contradicted each other on the fact Filomena’s door was open or closed, RS stated for 4 years AK had left the flat while he was sleeping (honour bound really) … then she confessed to be there and Guede confessed they were there … she accused an innocent man acting and saying she was afraid of PL and he was the killer … not even her family believes her imho

  11. I respect the expertise of Dr Glass regarding body language. However to me Amanda Knox’s reaction to the initial question is totally understandable. Assuming she is innocent she is asked to conjecture about what is in a judge’s mind when making statements she knows are totally false. I doubt anyone would have any instant answer thus the delay. In exasperation might a person not briefly laugh? I am not a trained body language expert but I found her answers did express indignation at the court’s statements about her.

    1. Her initial reaction was inappropriate especially the laughter and I stand by that. There is nothing to laugh about here. When there is anger at injustice the reaction is immediate. This was not the case here.

      1. Again she was reacting to a question about what was going through the mind of Judge Nincini. Respecting your body language expertise I do not expect this is an exact science. I have read in Psychology Today and other sources about nervous laughter that can be a reaction to stress or anxiety. Considering Amanda Knox’s legal situation could that not be a normal reaction?

      2. I have viewed several interviews yesterday and today. I consistently see the interviewed looking away from the interviewer intermittently much as Amanda Knox does in this interview. She seems to look away to formulate her thoughts but foes indeed look directly at Chris Cuomo to make her points. I also find her indignation genuine, not faked. As for her choice of words if that is based on the advise of her lawyer she does face 28.5 years in jail so what does that really tell us? While appreciating that Dr. Glass is a well respected expert at reading body language I detect some bias in this article.

  12. I am curious as to how you would respond to media speculation that perhaps Amanda Knox is on the autistic spectrum which could explain some of her unusual reactions and behavior. I am not an expert or professional in body language or psychology, but would love your thoughts.

    1. Stephanie you bring up a good point as I thought of that as well. But the fact that her emotions have been inconsistent is disturbing to me.She is inconsistent. The fact that she cannot of late bring herself to utter
      Meredith kercher’s name and the fact that she laughs inappropriately does not seem consistent to me with the autism spectrum as you suggest.

  13. Whenever the truth about Knox, there is no question Dr. Glass is quite full of herself. She mistakes her personal conceit for science.

    1. Fabrienne you have clearly shown your ignorancee as I can assure you I not full of myself and I do not mistake personal conceit for science. I am highly educated in this area and have written many books on the subject. Considering you do not know me Body language is both an art and a science and when people react without emotion and react inappropriately like Knox has displayed, there is scientific evidence to back it up. Perhaps it may be in your best interest to read my latest book The Body Language of Liars to gain some additional insight in this area before making such ridiculous statements.

      1. First, what I will say is that I have been following you and for the most part agree, although I think that sometimes you are dead wrong. I also do not like how you refuse to point out when you are wrong or hardly ever revise what you have said or speculated about people in the past which I think was very unkind or borderline mean-spirited and nasty.

        When a person becomes defensive, it is sign of being threatened. When Fabrienne stated that you “were full of yourself” you felt threatened because you immediately resorted to what Sigmund Freud referred to as an immature defense mechanism against ego threat which in this case is denial. You simply denied that you are full of yourself, then you went on to pull rank by saying that you are “highly educated in this area” and have “written many books on the subject”. Pulling rank is also a sign of being threatened or feeling insecure about something. Your academic training does not specifically qualify you to be a body language expert. Body language is an art and science, but it is not something people go to school for to learn. There are police detectives who never went to college who are on your level or better at body language than you are. They may not always be able to articulate what they can read from people, but they are nevertheless experts through experience. As for your books… Many books get written by people who do not know what they are talking about, so you stating that you have written many books on the subject does not make you any more credible. Your books use very few (if any) references to original scientific studies/literature which is a sign that much of what you write comes through your independent observations/experience (which is just fine).

        I honestly believe you are good at what you do, but denying that you are full of yourself simply solidifies who you really are. Floyd Mayweather and many other top athletes/celebrities are full of themselves and good at what they do as well, but the difference is that they will not bother to deny it because it seems they are very secure with who they are and how others see them.

  14. Dr. Glass,

    I would ask you, has the thought ever occurred to you that perhaps her responses are measured and awkward for reasons outside of your understanding?

    While in jail, and without the ability to speak for herself, it would be hard to deny that Ms. Knox life had been put up for consumption in an extremely demoralizing way. She was constantly analyzed as emotionless and in very sexual tones by a complicit press only interested in capitalizing on the salacious innuendos and tidbits being fed to them by the prosecution. While the press in Europe continued unabated for years to paint her as a seductress and murderer, she sat in prison without a voice unable to defend herself. Imagine what that would do to someone, especially a young woman who is still impressionable and only beginning to find her identity?

    The burden of defending herself publically has been thrust upon her by an unscrupulous judicial system, as well as morally bankrupt media looking for their next big story to feed the masses. She has only to reference the journey she has been on to feel the weight of the burden it has left her with. She has been forever scarred emotionally, and we have no compassion for this? Instead we look for more ways to tear her apart bit by bit?

    She lives in fear and anxiety that every aspect of her life will forever be used and distorted to satisfy agendas. And now we have people who use body language without context to impart more harm to someone they know nothing about?Imagine if you would what it would be like to have taken the journey that she has. Being accused of a crime you did not commit and being completely powerless to stop it. Then explain how that persons body language might just look after such a life altering event.

    You would see Amanda.

      1. Is a life of misery the only one she is entitled to? Can she never express a moment of levity, or laugh out of exasperation in front of others without people constantly judging her?

        What you are doing is dissecting her with bias. It couldn’t be anymore obvious how tainted your observations are. God help you if you were to ever walk a mile in the shoes of Amanda and Raffaele. Both have carried the weight of what they have endured with grace and dignity in the face of people like you.

        I can only hope she finds more moments of levity to heal herself through all of this. She deserves it.

      2. Now I know you are biased from day one. You speak as though it is your way or the highway.

      3. Don take your animosity elsewhere not here. Take it out on the killer of Meredith Kercher whomever that may be. I have no dog in this fight so to speak. Thus I am not biased. I only read body language and the bottom line is that Amanda’s body language was odd to say the least.

      4. I’m sorry, this is is no way shape or form rational. What this man did to her was horrific. For someone who has PSTD, she handled it better than any of us would have. I am saddened at the lack professionalism here and I’m willing to bet that if the author were to be put up to 10 others with the same credentials. we’d get some seriously different commentary. This is sad. Makes me want to look at her creds, but frankly, someone this shallow tells me everything I need to know already. Not worth our time. I think underneath this lies a jealous insecure lady who would much prefer to hate someone she hadn’t sent a minute of real time with. I HAVE spend time with Amanda. She is not who this “lady” would like to think she is.

      5. michellesings.wordpress.comx
        What is wrong with you Michelle? You obviously didn’ read the blog carefully enough or you wouldn’t have gone off half cocked as you did with you ridiculous accusations and Toxic comments. If you want to look at my creds- go to my website at and it will inform you of everything you want to know about me. I can assure you that I am not jealous of anyone, let alone Amanda Knox. I don’t hate Amanda Knox as those are your words not mine. It takes a hateful person like you must be to come up with such a conclusion. And to use you own words against you ” hate someone she hadn’t sent a minute of real time with”. I don’t care how much time you spent with Amanda. The interviews she gave showed inappropriate behavior. There was not one time observed that she showed actual remorse for her dead roommate. Take you hate elsewhere and put in on the person who killed an innocent woman- Meredith Kercher.

      6. Dr. Glass.

        I know the real identity of Michellesings, but (for ethical reasons) can’t share that info with you. Suffice to say that she’s fairly high up on the Knox supporter totem pole. To be fair, my reading of her is that she would not hesitate to tell you her real name (which you may already know).

        What you are being subjected to is the fizzling aftermath of one of the nastiest blog wars on the internet. (There is little doubt in my mind that, if the combatants could upload weapons, they would be shooting at each other). Now that Knox’s conviction has been overturned, her supporters seem to believe that they are in a position to go after the “war criminals”. They conveniently forget that Amanda is (by her own choice) a public figure, and therefore, subject to public criticism.

        Michelle is telling you the truth when she claims that she has spent time with Amanda. In fact, a few months ago, she clumsily (and possibly under the influence of whatever she considers a pleasant intoxicant) helped Amanda “out” herself as a Twitter troll, using a pseudonym. (An exchange that was apparently screenshoted by half of the pro-guilt community).

        I do not specifically refer to MIchelle, but I can assure you (from personal experience) that the Injusticeinperugia crowd is dangerous. As you can see from this thread, both Cali and I have come to your defense, regardless of the potential risk to our identities. For my part, I have no problem with you publishing my email address (since it’s an AK dedicated account, and it makes little difference to me whether their hate mail is prefaced with a “you received a reply” notification, or a direct response. I would, however, add my request to Cali’s, and ask that you not post our IP addresses.

        Thank you.


      7. Michelle, I don’t expect (nor do I care about) a reply from you. I’m not Rhodes, and I don’t follow women around the internet threatening them with physical violence. What I would ask you to do is to take a good look at yourself. Your cause has been won, yet here you are (with your posse) pouncing on a months-old blog. (Did you honestly think this would go down under my radar? Not to mention Cali)? Your side won a victory (at the CAS level, no less), yet here you are obsessing over a post that Dr. Glass made many months ago, when Amanda Knox still had a murder conviction on her record. AK is no longer in danger of being extradited back to Italy, and I (grudgingly) accept that. If I can let it go, why are you incapable of doing so?

        “Sue Italy? The CAS has given Amanda Knox the verdict she wanted. I should think she’d be a little more grateful”- Even Tempered.

    1. Ms. Knox had plenty of opportunities to speak (and lie) from jail. She announced that she was becoming a vegetarian to the press while continuing to eat meat. Just one example of many of her lies.
      She is emotionless due to some psychological issues – sociopath, psychopath . . . she knows that she is ill but refuses to get help from any psychologists or psychiatrists.
      She is guilty. You claim she has the ‘burden’ of proving herself – she has no burdens unlike the Kerchers who have truly suffered through all of this. Not only because Amanda Knox helped to murder their youngest daughter but also by the online attacks from anonymous trolls like yourself writing horrible things about them on various website and even contacting them directly.
      Amanda Knox is an angry person in general which is what led to her current situation. Her abuse of drugs (Cocaine dealers number on her phone) shows that she was out of control and this is what led to her killing Meredith Kercher.
      Now she profits from her crime, doesn’t pay her court ordered fees to the man she wrongfully accused, Patrick Lumumba, a completely innocent man whose life was ruined because of Amanda Knox. The fact that she would “blame the black man” and then try to push all of the blame on another black man shows her psychopathology and racism.
      She thinks she is superior to everyone else and has lied about everything. Her body languate accurately shows her deviant personality and the fact that she really hated Meredith. She wanted to compete with Meredith but she could not. Meredith spoke Italian better, had a scholarship in a prestigious Erasmus program, she was prettier and she starred in a music video. Knox continued to compete with Meredith even after killing her by being a part of another creepy music video. Pathetic and sick.
      Amanda Knox should pay Patrick Lumumba the court ordered fess and go back and serve her sentence.

      1. GG2000,
        You speak of anonymous on line trolls while spewing out totally fabricated misinformation and insults against Amanda Knox and others for expressing their honest opinion. I guess GG2000 is your real name? Merideth Kercher’s very untimely and brutal death are a real tragedy but you offer nothing to bring the Kercher’s peace and justice.

    2. Well said. People are not robots who react the same way to a given question or comment. Besides compare Amanda’s body language to others being interviewed . Everyone looks away from the interviewer periodically to formulate thoughts or other reasons. The laugh looks more like perhaps an anguished smile, ever so brief, likely due to stress.

  15. Really? How many times is a ‘body language’ expert going to invent an absurd theory about Amanda & use it to convince the world that she is guilty? We’ve been there/done that with this case so many times that this is just laughable. The fact is there is still no evidence implicating Amanda or Raffaele. You can play judge & jury based on what you perceive to be ‘incorrect’ our ‘inappropriate’ behavior but that means nothing. This conviction is a continuation of a 6+ year quest to condemn 2 innocents. Rudy Guede is the only man responsible for this horrific murder.

    1. No absurd theories are invented. Plain and simple- her behavior was inappropriate.And only Amanda knows what she did as she was there- not you and not me.I am simply reading her body language and it is odd to say the least.

      1. There is no code of conduct that we all follow. That is exactly what makes us individuals. Amanda has repeatedly shown how broken she is over this horrific murder of her friend. Just because her reaction isn’t what you or someone else expects to see doesn’t equate to guilt. The fact is no evidence exists that implicates her. She did not need $ nor did she have a strained relationship with Meredith. A judicial system that changes a motive, theory, contaminates evidence and withholds
        data is anything but honest. Maybe you should critique their ‘body language’ because this case is about CYA and not Justice for Meredith.

    2. There is a mountain of circumstantial evidence against her, all detailed in public record. The fact you are ignorant of it is nobody’s fault except your own.

      1. Mountain or molehill. I keep reading this descriptive word and it is really laughable. No offense but this case is a corruption issue at it’s grandest. Before, during, and after. Just a stinker.

    3. All of the many pieces of evidence prove Knox is a killer. Body language supports what everyone already knows, Amanda Knox assisted in killing Meredith Kercher. There is a ton of evidence and you know it. Rudy Guede is one of three who killed Meredith.
      Go back to twitter and waste away there Noel.

  16. The murderer has been convicted and is now in jail because his DNA was all over the crime scene. Amanda Knox is innocent because her DNA was not all over the crime scene. If Dr. Glass was falsely accused of murder, jailed for four years and regularly trashed in the press, she might act kind of odd too.
    Does Dr. Glass wish the world allowed criminal trials with only one witness – herself? She could insert herself into a high-profile case and tell us what the verdict should be, without discussing any facts. That might be good for her business, which is that of media hog. Look at her credits from her own website – you do not see lists of people she has helped – only books she has written, TV shows she’s on, and media outlets that seek her out.

    1. Ted take your animosity elsewhere- on the person who murdered Meridth Kercher- not me. I believe inthe criminal justice system and I do not believe in having one expert witness. My expert witness testimony is among many witnesses used in a trial situation, so don’t be ridiculous. And my business is not that of a media hog (do I detect some jealousy here?) Seems like it. And you do see a list of people I have helped in my life if you go to the legal part of the website. I have helped many falsely accused individuals through my anaylsis of their deposition and interrogation tapes.

  17. A while back I remember someone saying Amanda acts like someone who is on the autism spectrum. If she is, that would explain many inappropriate behaviors. I have always thought she must be innocent because the guy who had DNA all over the crime scene didnt say anyone else was involved until he thought it would deflect some blame off himself.

  18. From day one of watching AK in any interview I just felt, well, disbelief, of some her reactions. For a while I tried to give her the benefit of doubt; however, the more interviews she gives the more she seems to be guilty by her own words alone. I’m of the opinion that each individual has their own set of personal habits when someone is speaking to them, but when put into an uncomfortable situation all bets are off.

    In her best interest, I hope AK has a PR person, or someone, who is reminding her that she only has ONE more appeal. Now would be a good time to stop interviews of any media form across the board. Or maybe AK is a wildcard and just believes she’s smarter than everyone trying to assist her. It wouldn’t surprise me if AK already has a “go” bag packed since she’s said that she would never return. No one will ever convince me that body language (and speech analysis) plays a part in judgement, both in everyday life and in the court room. It’s part of human nature and goes both ways.

    I don’t consider myself an expert at body language; however when you pay attention while someone is speaking there are just certain body movements that can’t be faked by someone who is lying. I used this with my sons before I even knew about “body language” and always knew when they weren’t telling the truth. Reading people was necessary in my job. (I still can tell if a woman/wife is abused — physically or verbally — just by her body language and the way she answers questions — which would also include statement analysis.)

    1. Everyone is an expert on body language because everyone with the exception of kids less than 10 years old has had over 10,000 hours of practice in reading body language. Some people just know how to articulate and intellectualize what they see better than most and are more consciously mindful of what they see. Some, through education, experience and special training are able to put things into words what most of us cannot explain.

    2. Hi Claire! Amanda Knox’s family hired PR rep David Marriott of Gogerty Marriott in Seattle, within 3 days of her Perugia arrest in November 2007. His contract was signed before they hired lawyers. Whether she’s following advice or masterminding her own media strategy is anyone’s guess. Her press release in response to Judge Nencini’s sentencing report was coordinated through Marriott. In her place, I’d expect more. The language was weak, as all of her so-called denials are.

      Dr. Glass has presented a masterful assessment of the Chris Cuomo interview, and I hope she’ll continue to report on this case until the day Amanda Knox is returned to prison to serve out her 28 years, 6 months.

      1. Regarding the PR firm and attorney comment I suggest the following. The Knox family lived in Seattle, Wa thus had no contacts for Italian lawyers. The international media went into an immediate frenzy of negative reporting about Amanda Knox’s character largely based on leaks from the police and prosecution, with no check of her background. Amanda was not allowed any phone call after the interrogation or from prison. As a father I would want to take immediate action if one of my kids was arrested in a country overseas. Lastly there is a wide range of normal behaviors people can exhibit and the media both distorted and sensationalized Amanda’s behaviors from day one.

      2. Any proof of “leaks” by Italian prosecutors and police? Those are libelous accusations you make without offering evidence. She’s already served three years for calunnia by accusing an innocent black man (only she called him “black boy” in her written statement) for murder and has yet to pay him court-ordered damages. As for an “international media frenzy,” as of November 8, 2007 proof please?

        It’s your parental choice, as it was Curt Knox’s, if you would first hire an expensive PR firm a hot minute following the arrest of your adult daughter for murder in a European country. She was not being detained in Iraq, it was Italy. I know those countries all sound the same to some but western Europe is an ally. Apparently you believe there are no transnational or international lawyers in the entire state of Washington or the US. Or, if you can afford a high-profile PR firm, why not make a call to the Embassy and get a referral to a high-profile bilingual Italian criminal defense lawyer? Edda was already in transit to Italy before Knox was even arrested, and Curt Knox was right behind her.

        It’s not wise to lie here on social media and you’ve just done so by stating that Amanda Knox was “interrogated” and denied access to the outside world. She was in regular contact with the US Embassy from the start. Along with family and friends, the Embassy staff made routine visits to her in Capanne Prison. She never filed a complaint of human rights violations then, not did her family. They waited until it was a last ditch effort to try appealing her case to the EHRC to prevent her return to prison for the murder she committed. It won’t work. She’ll be back in prison to serve out her 28 years 6 months.

      3. Libelous accusations? I look forward to the lawsuit. There is no question information from her private conversations and journal notes were divulged to the media. There is no question her character was unfairly assassinated by the tabloid media. There is no attempt made in Italy to ensure the jury has no bias related to the case so media sensationalism can easily affect the verdict. By the way there are cases of injustice also in the US along with adverse media attacks, but at least the jurors are interviewed to try to weed out bias.

      4. I stand by my remark that your statements are libelous. Did I say you personally would be sued? Can you not focus on what was said instead of inferring and speculating and putting words in my mouth? You also have an unfortunate habit of confusing your opinions with facts. What’s so hard about proving that 1) police and prosecutors leaked case facts info to the press? And 2) that within three days — Marriott’s contract was signed within that time frame –of her arrest, Curt Knox had to hire an expensive PR firm because of the international media firestorm and character assassination of Knox (paraphrase), instead of engaging legal counsel for his daughter. Celebrities would do this, understandably, but I’d wager they’d have a lawyer on speed dial pronto. By the way, opinions are fine, just please distinguish between your personal opinion and fact.

        If you’re referring to the excerpts from her notebooks that she had upon entering prison, published by Corriere della Sera, the courts did rule it was an invasion of her privacy. This happened later and it was totally unrelated to case evidence. The Italians are so backwards and corrupt that they ruled in her favor, awarded her damages, against a major daily publication. How unfair is that.

    1. Yes, but some kinds of strange behavior are incongruent with the context of the situation (i.e. jolly at a funeral, angry at a wedding, jumping for joy after your best friend was killed, etc.).

    1. MissAmiaSays, were YOU there? And please cite the law that proclaims the public is forbidden from researching court transcripts, testimony, forensic reports and forming an opinion? Or perhaps you’re an HLN fan who likes murder lite?

      Taking your logic to the next level, MissAmiaSays, if everyone needs to “be there” i.e. witness the crime and attend each court hearing, what gives you any right to an opinion? If I had to be there so does everyone else here, including you.

      Oh and about your theory that everyone grieves differently, perhaps you should write to the current prosecutor (Alessandro Crini, not Giuliano Mignini).and recommend grief specialist Alyce LaViolette. She’ll explain away the splits and yoga bridge pelvic lifts on the police station floor, the constant laughter at the police station that upset Meredith’s friends, the constant PDA between her and her lover of one week including making faces at each other, sticking their tongues out, squishing up their noses (which Knox wrote to her lawyer that she and Sollecito always made post-coital faces at each other), telling a grieving friend of Meredith’s who expressed hope that she didn’t suffer by saying “of course she suffered, she had her f***ing throat cut and bled to death” [before anyone knew how Meredith died], callous disregard for her “friend’s corpse” — good god if you call your murdered friend’s body a corpse, and announce that you would have had traces of her “broken body” (WTH she meant by that is anyone’s guess. Meredith bled to death from a stab wound in her neck], then you and Amanda Knox could be BFF’s.

      I suggest, MissAmiaSays, that before you “say” any further patronizing remarks, start studying the 10,000+ pages pages of evidence and expert witness reports.

  19. *yawn* is not an intelligent response – it’s the response elicited from adolescents when they are unable to formulate an intelligent reply to sound reasoning.

  20. I have no real comment on body language and her response but I can say with all honesty that no one could recover their natural self and display it without very guarded and self conscious behaviours after the years of abuse and absolute trash that has been published about her so called personality and this was brutally and criminally laid down by the criminal tabloid media for a full year during which Amanda and Raffaele were in lockdown and voiceless during 2008.
    A disgusting character assassination that still continues and that is not something that does not take its toll. This is an abused woman at this point in time and the focal point of projected anger and rage by a lot of impotent people with nowhere else to vent. A sad spectacle.

    1. Because I have additional information witnessing her speak during her interviews which I did not have before. This validates the fact that I have no bias and only report what I see.

      1. Or can it be that circumstances other than lying or deception affect a person’s body language? This is not an exact science. One thing I notice is your assessment in both instances is very one sided with no room for different interpretations as though you are incapable of error.

      2. Exactly Don!

        Here’s the thing, the majority of those who have a public face weighing in on this case usually do so as a means to further themselves. Google a search on Knox and Dr. Glass is attached to it. Dr. Glass makes an assessment regarding her body language, and suddenly tabloid media is interested, perhaps even inviting her to do an interview.

        Dr. Glass inserted herself previously when the media was hot for this story and she did so with a different take. Low and behold we now have media attention heating up, and Dr. Glass inserts herself once again.

        Dr. Glass, there were plenty of instances of Knox that afforded you the opportunity to assess her. The constant looping of a kiss, her appearances in court, interviews and testimony by her and her roommates. You apparently had ample information in 2011 that made you comfortable making an assessment of her innocence and it got you face time. Perhaps we should just view your commentary in the context it should be and call this change of heart self-serving?

      3. No dopre You got it completely wrong. Now that we have in depth interviews her body language is revealing. We did not have that initially and hence my opinion based on what I say. But now that we have seen her speak and move we have more data from which to form opinions. I do not give an opinion to further myself in the media as you falsely state.

      4. If this is the case why in your most current analysis did you make an issue of Ms Knox’s “giggling, conoodling, and other inappropriate actions”? When you disputed Nancy Grace in the prior writing this seemed to be no issue. By the way I have no problem you disputing anything from Nancy Grace who never met an accused she did not find guilty.

      5. Because in the context in which she was speaking it seemed odd. When one mentions a murder they do not laugh.When I disputed Nancy Grace I did not have enough information. We did not see a formal interview with Amanda Knox at the time or a series of them as we do now.

      6. Dr. Glass, I am one of the few people on this board who recognizes this particular statement for what it is: a truthful admission that your opinion changed over a period of time with further observation. I can recognize this, because I too started out as pro-Knox until my own eyes were opened (largely by the behavior of some of her followers).

        You are under NO obligation to defend your change of opinion to them, and please listen to me when I say that you are wasting your time by trying to reason with them. I can’t say this about every pro-Knox participant in this discussion, but I can recognize a couple of the names, and identify them as dedicated members of Injustice in Perugia, a site run by an individual whose own online behavior often gets him banned from other sites. You may already know this, but some of these people have spent so much time “educating” themselves at IIP, and so many years militantly defending Knox that their zeal can (at this point) only be described as fanaticism. They are incapable of seeing anybody who does not agree with them as anything but a “guilter”. That is why you are being so aggressively attacked, and with such shrill language. The days of a civil Amanda Knox debate are long past except on blogs with the lowest visibility.

        The poster who keeps demanding to know (in an increasingly hostile tone) if you have had any contact with pro-guilt bloggers is trying (IMO) to connect you to True Justice for Meredith Kercher, or one of its affiliated sites (IIP’s pro-guilt enemies). I can’t vouch for the validity of the pro-guilt sites, and both sides have their bad elements, but the most extreme behavior I have observed always seems to come from the IIP crowd.

        This is your blog, and judging from your about page, I would say you have the resources to fend them off on your own, but I just wanted to make sure you knew that you’ve become embroiled in what I’ve affectionately nicknamed “The Knox War”.

        If this post raises any questions, please feel free to contact me at the email address submitted for this comment. Otherwise, I’ll assume that our business is concluded.

      7. Thank you so much. I appreciate your insight here. i do not get involved in anyh pro or against movements as you know. All I do as a body language expert is report what i observe. AS I said to a previous hostile responder, I have no dog in this fight so to speak (an awful term in itself) but one that I can only think of now.At first she spoke very little and presented herself with genuine emotion. One could not help but feel sympathy for her and joy upon her release. the more public she became and more vocal I began to see things I did not see before. hence the change. I have no idea if she is guilty or innocent as only she and her ex boyfriend and God know. I do know what her communication is very awkward and strange and laughing when discussing a dead woman is unacceptable. Whether she has autism or a form of it may or may not be true but she is very inconsistent in her communication. Based on patients with autism or a degree of autism along a spectrum they appear to be consistent so I cannot fully embrace the autism argument.All I can say is that in specific contexts she exhibits very telling signals.

  21. I agree with Don Baker. I found it strange that Dr. Glass would now bring up the old red herring of “giggling, conoodling, and other inappropriate actions”. Those actions would nave been known to Dr. Glass in 2011 when she offered her opinion that Amanda and Raffaele were innocent.

    1. You clearly did not read my blog Egbert. I did not bring up giggling or canoodeling. I brought up laughing when speaking about Meredith’s death! That is indeed on. And of course they weren’t known to Dr. Glass in 2011 because Amanda had not yet done a series of lengthy in depth interviews with the press as she did now. At the time in the interviews I saw she seemed genuine in her emotion about her plight but the more information i have and see the more things I can now pick up.

      1. You are misrepresenting the context of the laugh. She did not laugh about Meredith’s death, she laughed when asked an opinion of the judges decision. How can you not see how this is vastly different? That laugh was a show of exasperation and disbelief at the judges decision, it wasn’t a statement about how she feels about Meredith’s death.

        You did bring up giggling and canoodeling in reference to your assessment here. And you brought it up even though it was information you were aware of back in 2011 when you spoke in support of her. You are now resorting to twisting it to reflect a different viewpoint.

        I’m sorry, but I do find your assessment of Knox troubling. It feels as though it reflects a viewpoint being you are so willing to manipulate the context to fit a theme of guilt.

        I am going to ask you straight up, have you corresponded with other bloggers who believe in the pairs guilt?

      2. Paragraph 1 sentence 2. Is someone editing your articles without your knowledge? Also how could you have possibly commented on this case in 2011 with no knowledge of the 3+ years of media hype including the so called giggling, canoodling, etc that went before the acquittal? Lastly the so called laugh was a reaction to a question asking her to respond to what was in the mind of Judge Nencini not what was her feeling about the tragic and brutal death of Meredith Kercher.

      3. You didn’t answer my question. Have you had correspondence with any blog or blogger who believes in their guilt?

      4. Dupre, Very informative link. It should also be noted Steve Drizen is a clinical professor of law at Northwestern Law School who has served as an expert witness in US courts.

      5. Sorry I meant Dopre. Also I should have stated Mr. Drizen is a professor at Northwestern University School of Law. Taken at face value, so to speak, the use of body language reasoning appears to have the potential to be a dangerous and
        deceptive science.

      6. I would expect to be a law professor at a prestigious school like Northwestern University requires a excellent grasp of communication skills. Also perhaps his opinion is not relevant to you but it is very relevant to me and I am sure others.

      7. Dr. Lillian Glass,
        In your post on May 14 at 9:22 pm why do you refer to yourself in the first person, then the third person, then the first person again? Is the person posting replies on this blog as Dr. Lillian Glass in fact Dr. Glass? Is the writer of the original post about Amanda’s interview with Chris Cuomo and the writer of the replies the same person? If they are the same person how could they be so unaware of what they actually wrote in the original post of May 4th?
        The opening statement of the May 4th article is: “For years, Amanda Knox’s strange behavior after the murder of Meredith Kercher took place concerned everyone. ”
        First of all that statement is obviously false as there are many many people who do not view her behavior as “strange” and are not “concerned about it. The statement also begs the question of whether you were concerned about “Amanda Knox’s strange behavior” in 2011? If you were, why did you conclude in 2011 that she was innocent.

      8. Sorry my friend Egbert but when someone laughs after they are asked a question about murder it is indeed strange and ,most would agree. She did not laugh in order contexts during the interview but only when she was asked about the murder

      9. Dr Glass, I find it troubling you have not responded to Egbert Souse or myself regarding who it is who wrote in your article comments you deny making. Also why the switch from first to third and back to first person as pointed out by Egbert leaving us to believe there is some misrepresentation here? You state Amanda Knox shows deception when you seem to be doing just that.

      10. Don, take your hostility elsewhere. I have not denied anything and have no reason to. I said it repeatedly in the comments to both you and Egbert that during my first analysis I did not have the information I do know which includes viewing extensive one on one interviews with Amanda Knox. In the context of these interviews she does things which are odd like never mentioning Meredith name and laughing when asked directly about the murders. She doesn’t laugh at other points in the interview. So her behavior which is monotone is odd. There is no misrepresentation here and I am in no way showing deception so take your misguided “sleuthing” elsewhere.

      11. Absolutely no hostility intended. I am merely asking you to respond to questions asked repeatedly.
        (1) Why in 2011 is giggling,canoodling, and other inapproriste as stated in your blog in the very first paragraph an issue now but not in 2011?
        (2) Why did you deny to Egbert making the ststement you clearly did state?
        (3) it seems odd you switch from 1st to 3rd back to 1st person as pointed out by Egbert in detail. Can you help us understand?

        Regarding your repeated statement about Ms. Knox ‘s laugh I have watched and listened to the interview several times. As I and Dopre have stated it is not at all clear she is laughing. It is a slight smile accompanied by a sigh. She is responding to a question asking her to speculate about Judge Nencini’s reasoning. This response does not seem troubling to me. I do not detect a monotone . Lastly I counted 4 times Amanda mentioning Meredith’s name in the interview.

      12. Absolutely no hostility intended. I am merely asking you to respond to questions asked repeatedly.
        (1) Why in 2011 is giggling,canoodling, and other inapproriste as stated in your blog in the very first paragraph an issue now but not in 2011?
        (2) Why did you deny to Egbert making the ststement a ove you clearly did state?
        (3) it seems odd you switch from 1st to 3rd back to 1st person as pointed out by Egbert in detail. Can you help us understand?

        Regarding your repeated statement about Ms. Knox ‘s laugh I have watched and listened to the interview several times. As I and Dopre have stated it is not at all clear she is laughing. It is a slight smile accompanied by a sigh. She is responding to a question asking her to speculate about Judge Nencini’s reasoning. This response does not seem troubling to me. I do not detect a monotone . Lastly I counted 4 times Amanda mentioning Meredith’s name in the interview.

      13. Sorry Dr Glass my questions and comments are taken as hostile. However I feel strongly I and others have raised legitimate questions that are not addressed simply by your statement that over time you changed your mind or your assessment of the so called laugh. I have no issue with anyone changing their mind based on new Information. That being said Egbert and I challenged you on your assessment of Ms. Knox’s behavior in the May 4th blog and pointed out your direct quote in the very first paragraph. With all due respect your responses never addressed our question. I believe blogs are intended to encourage discussion which should also allow for disagreement and criticism. This will be my last comment.

  22. You skirted my question Dr.

    If you have a bias, such as an affiliation or correspondence with a guilt based blog or blogger, it should be pointed out to the reader. It would be important in the context, don’t you think?

    Confirmation bias is a very real phenomenon and every bit as important as perhaps your belief that body language has a place in the conversation.

  23. Dr. Glass,
    Your response to me on May 17, 2014 at 5:54 pm completely disregards the legitimate questions that I had asked and attempts to make a point that is unrelated to anything I’ve posted here. Are you having difficulty following the discussion here? Your refusal to address the issues raised by me, Don Baker, and dopre does not reflect well on you. I was struck by your calling me your “friend”. Are you in the habit of using sarcasm to deflect criticism away from yourself?

    1. Egbert, in your post of May 15, you seem to think you have outed Dr. Glass as being different people. You might be interested in knowing that by wording this post in the way you have, you have just outed yourself, and two other posters as working together. Mono a mono is fine in a debate, but don’t you think Mono a trio a little unfair.

      Let me share with you what I see as “very telling” about you. I googled “Egbert Souse” and “amanda knox” in the same search, and the only two results I got were this blog, and some bar owner in Oakland (no references to AK). I can see only three reasons for this. 1) You’re completely new to the AK debate (unlikely, considering the collaborative nature of your attacks against Lillian) 2) You are one of these other posters propping using a fabricated ID to increase the perceived size of your pack’s numbers. 3) You are a regular poster on other AK forums who (for whatever reason) is trying to conceal your regular poster ID.

      My money’s on the second option, and I can take an educated guess as to which one you are, but Dr. Glass is in a better position to check the IP addresses and sort the wheat from the chaff.

      1. I can say I have never before communicated with either Egbert or Dopre. I fo happen to share some of their same concerns and was unaware blogs fo not allow for questions, disagreements, or critisism. No conspiracy on my end. Beyond that I will let Egbert respond.

      2. I’ve posted using a different user name on some other sites. I have no idea who Don Baker or dopre are. And I am not either one of them Apparently we are 3 like-minded individuals. Sorry, but there is no conspiracy going on here.

        I don’t believe that I’ve “outed Dr. Glass as being different people”. I am not even sure what that means. Frankly, I do wonder whether the person who is responding here really is Dr. Glass or is an employee/assistant of hers. I’ve even thought about contacting Dr. Glass via a different channel to let her know what is going on here in case she doesn’t follow the responses closely.

        Despite my profound disagreement with Dr. Glass on Amanda Knox specifically and on Dr. Glass’ ability to read body language in general, I do admire her willingness to allow opposing views to be posted here. I just wish that she would answer the questions that Don Baker, dopre, and I asked.
        I guess I could google “Even Tempered” and “Amanda Knox” but what would be the point?

      3. You know who am Even, and you know I do not use other names. This is simply another attempt to discredit through innuendo. If you are the sleuth you profess to be, you can surely see our writing styles are different.

        If the Dr. choses to go the route of checking our IP addresses she risks her credibility in the process. But she is certainly in a position to do so.

        I do think it is rather interesting that she doesn’t just come here and be straight up about what is going on here in this comment section. She obviously has an admin. what’s the harm in admitting that? In that same vein, what’s the harm in admitting her affiliations as well?

        I am constantly amazed at how unwilling pro-guilt advocates are to being forth coming about their intentions. It’s seems obvious that Lillian is most likely attached to the pro-guilt movement, why not just say it? Is it that she feels it jeopardizes her credibility? If this is the case then perhaps she shouldn’t have written this article to begin with.

      4. I am not attached to any movement whatsoever and was not aware of any movement and as far as my credibility I am vey secure with my educational background my life experience and what I have done in my life and who I am You are contentious and hostile and as I said take your issues elsewhere as I will no longer allow you to bully me or my readers as you have done repeatedly

        Sent from my iPhone


      5. How is asking a question bullying? Look Dr. Glass, you have repeatedly accused others, and now myself, of bullying when all we have done is ask you questions. I asked this question of you over a week ago and you answered others without addressing mine.

        I am not bullying you. You have made an observation that I do not agree with and I have respectfully questioned you. That you view dissention as bullying is a misperception. I don’t agree with your viewpoint, that you flipped your opinion from a previously public viewpoint seemed suspicious.

        I’m moving on, but I want you to know that I do not agree that body language has a place in a courtroom. Least of all when someone’s life hangs in the balance.

  24. “She giggled, canoodled with boyfriend, and had many other inappropriate actions.”
    ” I did not bring up giggling or canoodeling.”
    ” I have not denied anything and have no reason to.”

    1. Egbert, Clearly Dr Glass has no intention to address legitimate questions about her blog as it relates to past statements.Looks like a board member has scolded us for being so bold. Seems disagreement or criticism is regarded as being hostile. I am now not sure what the purpose of blogs are if this is the case. Dr Glass denies making statements and then denies the denial.

      1. Thanks Don. As I said above I admire Dr. Glass for allowing opposing viewpoints to be posted here. I do agree that the person responding here as Dr. Glass seems to immediately jump to the conclusion that any disagreement is hostile.

        The responses here from Dr. Glass are rather bizarre especially coming from someone who professes expertise in communication skills.

    1. The bottom line is I have no agenda and I just report what I see and what I have seen was odd behavior during the interview. I don’t spin things and am not in anyone’s pocket as you well know from all of my posts. Thank you for your comments.

      1. Dr. Glass,
        Thank you for your recent responses.
        For the record I have no interest in who you have or have not corresponded with regarding the Meredith Kercher murder. I do not believe that the opinions you have posted here are the result of any affiliation, association, or attachment. I trust that your opinions are your own, as our mine.
        My questions to you and your responses speak for themselves. Anyone reading this discussion can judge it for themselves.

    2. Watchingya,
      First I am not affiliated in any way with the Knox PR campaign. My comments are my opinion only. I use 2 user names which sre my real name in this case and DBakes on othet sites so hoohle search all you want. As can be seen from the posts there are impassioned bloggers on both sides of the argument. My issue here is I believe the Internet and tabloid media has allowed Amanda Knox’s behavior and body language to be micro-analyzed in an international forum unlike any other defendant I can think of. The tabloid media in my opinion exploited nuances of her behavior to convict her before the trial began while she sat in jail for 1 year awaiting formal charges, and beyond.

      Please read the first paragraph of Dr. Glass’s blog and help me understand why she denies mentioning “giggling, canoodling, and other inappropriate actions” in her May 4th blog to Egbert Souse and myself on more than one occasion. I suggested as this was not a problem in her 2011 assessment this indicates some possible recent bias. While respecting Dr. Glass’s expertise reading body language I am convinced a person’s behavior in an interview situation is open to interpretation as body language analysis is no where near an exact science.

      Lastly I believe Dr. Glass when she states she has no affiliation with those on either side of this argument.

      1. I can assure you that there is no bias here. I do not deny anything and for the umpteenth time which I will say for the last time. Initially I did not have enough information as we had not yet seen her lengthy interviews. her reactions to her release appeared genuine. After analyzing the interviews she did with ABC two years in a row, I began to see extremely odd behavior. In my view Meredith needs to stay out of the press completely because she is not helping her case at all. Whomever is advising her PR wise is misguided as her on camera presence has raised further doubts. She has a long and uphill road ahead of her and in my opinion all her energies need to be spent with her legal team, not in front of the media. Enough said.

      2. Dr. Glass, just wanted to note an inadvertent error in your comment. “Meredith” should be replaced with “Amanda” so that your sentence reads: “”In my view, ‘Amanda’ needs to stay out of the press completely.”

        I see the Knox acolytes have invaded your commentary, attempting to disrupt and distract from the 10,000+ pages of solid evidence and testimony leading to her guilty verdict being upheld by the appellate court on January 30, 2014. Her fans are increasingly desperate and belligerent as her case progresses towards its conclusion when the Supreme Court upholds that verdict.

        Her media appearances don’t help her cause, which is to plead her case in the court of public opinion. And you have clearly stated that you have no agenda other than reporting on her words and body language. Yet that is not acceptable to Knox fans who are so heavily invested in her lies, They troll the internet attempting to intimidate and silence anyone expressing an opinion they don’t like.

        Dr. Glass, I hope this unpleasant experience won’t deter you from further analyses of Amanda Knox media interviews.

      3. CaliDeeva,

        So those who express disagreement to a blog are invaders and henchmen but the cheerleaders can state what they wish. Also I believe you have missed some of the discussion. I personally feel no desperation.

        As to the 10,000 pages of testimony I guess we all need to see how this plays out in the Italian courts and the extradition process if it comes to that.

      4. Don Baker, please do not put words in my mouth. I’m fairly certain Dr. Glass does not object to differing opinions, as long as they’re expressed respectfully. You claim to “respect” her expertise, yet a review of your comments reveals considerable disrespect. You and Dopre/Egbert have monopolized the commentary, badgering Dr. Glass to reformulate her opinions to support your your own personal agenda.

        You specifically accuse Dr. Glass of bias, and take offense at her observations that Amanda Knox laughs inappropriately in her media interviews. You harp on this to the point of obsession. Well, it’s Dr. Glass’ blog, Don Baker, not yours. She writes a blog to express HER opinions, not write a newspaper article. She owes you nothing, and has asked you more than once to take your hostility elsewhere, but you refuse to do so.. A few days ago, you announced a comment would be your “last” yet here you are again. This kind of behavior is perceived as stalkerish, bullying and yes, it qualifies as invading. Respectful people would accommodate the blog owner’s request and just leave. But not you.

        You haven’t restricted your insults to Dr. Glass either, engaging in name-calling of others who merely express opinions differing from yours. I can’t understand why you haven’t been blocked but Dr. Glass is generous enough to continue giving you a platform for your own biased opinions yet you express no gratitude.

      5. Thank you so much CaliDeeva. It certainly makes us wonder if Don Baker has a dog in this fight so to speak as he is way too zealous in my views or perhaps may be one of her PR people as many commenters have remarked.He has taken this fight for Amada was too personally as if he is Amanda herself, a family member or has a personal vested interest. If he is a PR agent of Amanda’s and I say if, and is attempting to use bullying PR tactics, they won’t work with my readers. If he is one of her PR agents, then she needs to fire him effective immediately as what PR agent in their right mind would allow their client to go on air and do such a terrible job telling her story with her inappropriate behavior, especially since she had acted the same way a year earlier on another ABC interview. If he is her PR person, he certainly did not do her any favors in the eye of public opinion in my view. If he is not her PR agent, he needs to move on. He’s expressed his views and we know what they are. The bottom line is an innocent girl who also went away from home to a foreign country to get an education is dead and Amanda could not bring herself to mentioning her name throughout any of her interview, She should no remorse for the dead woman. That is disturbing no matter who did or did not kill Meredith Kercher. Italy is not America. They have different justice systems so he needs to put his energy into pleading his case with the Italian press and bloggers, where it counts not on this site.

        And one more thing which I will say as I said 10 times before. If anything I was extremely sympathetic towards Amanda when she left Italy to come to the US . She was genuine in her tears and emotions. At the time we only heard snippets of what she had to say. So I believed she may have been railroaded as are so many Americans who go abroad. But the more INFORMATION I got in the form of her interviews the more uneasy I became. It was her interviews that have veered by opinions in a different direction. For DOn Baker to try to act like some type of sleuth and try to shame me that I said one thing and now say another, it is not working! I FULLY ADMITTED 10 TIMES NOW,THAT YES initially I had one opinion but when I when I got to know her via the volumes of information that from Amanda’s mouth my views changed! CASE CLOSED !!!

      6. It was my intention to cease commenting but it seems some wish to draw me back. I agree I made comments which should have been phrased differently and regret any disrespect I may have shown. I do however stand my opinions regarding the so called laugh and that reading body language is a dubious science that can lead to erroneous conclusions. I also strongly believe Dr. Glass never responded to certain very direct questions as detailed by me and Egbert Souse. Lastly I have no personal relationship with any of the Knox family or any PR firm so my comments are nothing more than my own personal opinion.

      7. Dr. Glass,
        For the umpteenth time you did deny bringing up giggling and canoodling and now you deny that you denied it. After analyzing your original post and your replies here I see extremely odd behavior. In my view, you should stay off the internet completely because you are not helping your reputation.

        BTW, you meant Amanda should stay out of the press, not Meredith. Also, “Whoever” is correct not “Whomever”.

  25. Ms. Glass, anyone that watched Amanda’s interviews knows you aren’t spinning anything. I’d say most of us picked up on how strange her reactions are. You study the science and have a greater understanding. I’ve followed you for years. You’re very good at your job, you know your stuff…..And nailed it!
    The only agenda out there is Amanda’s pr team. And it’s basically useless.
    Amanda will land back in Italy. There will not be marches or picketing by tons of people demanding America ignore the extradition treaty with Italy. It’s all just noise.

    1. Watchingya,
      There are many who see things very differently than you. Extradition certainly will not depend on marches but there are very legitimate factors to block it. I suggest you not be as confident as you are arrogant.

  26. Really? Personal insults? I’d say you’re a bit too emotional over St. Amanda. Take a breath. Do a cartwheel, maybe the splits. Relax

    1. Watchinya,
      My bad. I should not resort to name calling. You should not resort to unfounded accusations associating supporters of Ms. Knox with PR activity (largely a response to anti- Knox tabloid media sensationalism). I read anti-Knox comments without suggesting sny grand conspiracy on that end, although I may have suspicions. Anyway this case will drag out for years. There must be confirmation of the last verdict, appeal, and the possible long drawn out extradition process Again there are legal grounds.for refusing extradition. Also The UK has recently refused to honor extradition requests from Italy and EU countries have refused requests from the US.

      Lastly In no way do I regard Amanda Knox as a saint. Not do I regard her as some sex crazed Luciferina or the myriad other depictions by the Italian prosecution, judges and much of the tabloid media.

  27. Hi Dr. Glass. I’m responding to your June 9 11:01 pm comment. “What PR agent in their right mind would allow their client to go on air and do such a terrible job telling her story with her inappropriate behavior, especially since she had acted the same way a year earlier on another ABC interview…” I completely agree. Amanda Knox seems to be setting a precedent in this country. While there have been other famous convicted murderers, her publicist clearly stated their mission to influence the outcome of a trial The Seattle Business Journal interview with David Marriott in October, 2011, spelled it out. It bears repeating. He was hired 3 days after her arrest. He focused on controlling and lying to the American media while her Italian lawyers tried unsuccessfully to reign in her courtroom behavior during the trial. She and Sollecito both admitted they didn’t take the trial seriously and demonstrated considerable disprespect towards the court and the Kerchers,

    In this youtube, observe her showing off, pretend-singing (I hope) and moving to the music in her head while seated in court just feet away from the Kercher family. It was the beginning of her murder trial but she was having fun. She had not met nor seen the Kercher family before. I know how I’d feel as the victim’s family sitting in court while the defendants laughed it up — which she also did on the stand, openly laughing at her own jokes and sprinkling the expression “mama mia” throughout her testimony.

    I see Don Baker re-appears instantly every time his name is mentioned despite how many “I’m finished here, this is my last comment…” blah blah’s he spouts and despite how many times Dr. Glass has told him to zip it and move on.. Knox fans are attached to histrionics and dictating how people should run their own blogs, even someone like Dr. Lillian Glass. [Dr. Glass, I linked the video and hope it’s not against your policy to do so. Feel free to delete.]

    1. Cali,
      I risk again being scolded for reappearing. I watched and listened to the reference video from your link. You have often spoken disparagingly of the Knox PR campaign yet this video seems to epitomize the worst kind of propaganda. Just my observation. Included in your link are indeed some very informative videos which raise legitimate questions, both guilt and innocence.

  28. This is an article from a The Daily Mail back in 2011 showing how devastated Partick Lumumba was when Amanda Knox falsely accused him. This speaks volumes about her character. She ruined this man’s life.

    Amanda Knox is a fantastic actress, says bar owner she accused of murder
    UPDATED: 22:15 EST, 10 October 2011
    The bar owner wrongly named as the killer of Meredith Kercher by Amanda Knox has condemned her as a ‘fantastic actress’.
    Patrick Lumumba, 38, was arrested and spent two weeks in prison after Knox told detectives she ‘had covered my ears in the kitchen’ while ‘Patrick killed Meredith’.
    However, the claim was false and Italian prosecutors alleged Knox had made it to throw suspicion off herself.
    Flashback: Patrick Lumumba (centre) was arrested and detained for two weeks after Amanda Knox told police he was the killer +5
    Flashback: Patrick Lumumba (centre) was arrested and detained for two weeks after Amanda Knox told police he was the killer
    Speaking in a telephone interview with MailOnline from Poland, Mr Lumumba said: ‘I feel so angry. When I heard the verdict I was shocked for poor Meredith. I have always said that Amanda is a fantastic actress and that’s what she will always be for me.
    ‘I spent two weeks in jail for something I didn’t do because Amanda said I was the killer. I will never forget when the police banged on my door and took me away.

    All I want for Christmas is you: Foxy Knoxy and Raffaele to reunite before end of the year
    Meredith Kercher crime scene investigators joked about taking cocaine to stay awake
    ‘Meredith was the first victim in all this and I was the second. Because of what she said I lost my livelihood, I lost my job and now I have nothing – just my family, which is the most important thing for me’

    Read more:
    Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

  29. Can we see other examples you have of Amanda Knox on Video, so an unbiased person could compare your professional findings with? One subject group would not be considered enough to be weighty enough scientifically… Of course you could always point website visitors to other examples of your 100% “Spot on work”, maybe I’m missing those posts and a link could be provided.

    Could you post the link to your Chris Cuomo Footage and put the frames numbers (the location of the stills in reference to the total clip?) you posted above. Also the transcript of the Cuomo interview would be helpful so we can be on the same page and discuss our insight into the subtle tales of BL.

    THX Dr G
    Steve — Student of Body Language.

    FYI: Time code is the type of reference used in Video to refer to a certain video still/frame. I’m sure you knew that already.

  30. Dr Glass,

    Amanda Knox DID NOT ruin Patrick Lumumba’s life. The POLICE had been wiretapping Patrick’s bar DAYS before they claim she accused him. Kinda hard to do that if they weren’t already aware of him, don’t you think? They also kept his bar closed for months after his release, even though they KNEW he was in no way involved in the murder. Why do you suppose they did that?

    You are a quack and I hope the media and everyone else lets you fade away.

      Eva If you read the reports Amanda Knox falsely accused an innocent man of killing Meredith Kercher.BEfore you name call and call someone a quack look at what the media has reported. You are an very Toxic person it seems. Why are you so concerned with this case after she has been found not guilty. The case is closed. Stop living in the past and move on with your life and to use your words ” fade away”.

    2. You regard Dr. Glass as a quack but here you are on leaving comments on her blog. Who cares what you think about Patrick Lumumba? The fact is that Amanda Knox has been definitively convicted of the calunnia conviction. Cassazione acquitted her of murder charges but she will forever have a conviction on her record for accusing an innocent man of murder. She continues to defy the court order to pay him monetary damages. The longer she violates the law by not paying, the more she owes.

      On June 9th in Florence, the court will hold hearings in the first stage of a trial for additional calunnia charges for AK’s lies in her book, in interviews, while giving testimony during her trial, and to police.

    3. Amanda Knox had two solid weeks to retract her accusation of Patrick, yet she chose not to do so. The only reason he was cleared was that SOMEONE ELSE came forward with a viable alibi, demolishing Knox’s perjury. No matter how you people try to gloss it over, the Calunnia factor will continue to hang around the Foxy one’s neck like a milestone. (Technical note: Surrendering your IP address to someone, and then calling said someone a “quack” is really poor judgement).

      “Sue Italy? The CAS just gave Amanda Knox the judgement she wanted. I should think she’d be a little more grateful”. – Even Tempered.

      1. Even Tempered,
        I believe by virtue of Amanda Knox retracting her confession the next morning suggests she could not possibly be witness to Patrick Lamumba being the murderer. Secondly it was the Italian authorities who held Patrick for 2 weeks evidently with no attempt to verify his rock solid alibi. Lastly I agree the case is closed short of the final motivation report. However before chastising the supporters of Ms Knox’s innocense for comments after the final verdict please be aware there are several who cannot accept her acquittal annonymously posting very disturbing on line death threats on a continuing basis.

      2. What do the death threats against Amanda Knox have to do with Dr. Glass and her blog? Nothing. You seem to have overlooked the my reason for “chastising” the current trio of Knox supporters, so the task of connecting the dots for you now falls to me.

        You and I both know that ALL comments posted to this article draw the attention of ALL posters who remain subscribed to it. The three stooges who crashed Dr. Glass’s blog (on a dead thread) were unaware of that little technical detail. They expected a three-against-one exchange, but when the playing field leveled out, they promptly high-tailed it back to Injusticeanywere to lick their wounds. (Poor Michelle is really having a bad week, especially since this is the second time she’s been chased off of a “dead” forum). These people didn’t all “just happen upon this particular post at the same time”. This was a coordinated endeavor, and if Cali and I had thought to unsubscribe to Dr. Glass’ blog, she would have been on he own against three posters (one of whom might possibly be Michelle’s egotistical, boorish excuse for a husband). In short, you’re out of your depth, Don, and for future reference, it would (IMO) be very wise of you to avoid sticking your nose into other people’s business.

        Death threats against Amanda Knox. Is that your excuse for being here? Knox has been threatened online (and in the real world), but the FBI is in a far better position to protect her than a bunch of online, armchair crusaders. Also, according to my research, the most credible threat against her apparently came (big surprise) from someone who knows her.

        “Sue Italy? The CAS just gave Amanda Knox the verdict she wanted. I should think she’d be a little more grateful”. – Even Tempered.

      3. I agree that the death threats are not directly related to this blog and I and others not police or FBI officials are in no position to provide security to the target of the threats. I do have a couple of points to make. First related to Dr Glass I was accused by more than one commenter of being part of a trio of coordinated attackers when challenging certain assertions she made. I never knew and still do not know the other two. Dr Glass not only ignored direct questions about statements she made in the very first paragraph of her article, she denied making those statements. Thus I do share concerns with Michelle and others about the professionalism of her blog and responses and may not be intruding on anyone’s business here. Secondly I do not know what research you have done about what you call credible death threats or how you are in a position to research those threats but I have seen several posts which go so far as to detail Amanda Knox’s daily habits, implying some sort of stalker. I am ready to move on after the final verdict but there are those who refuse to move on and seem determined to seek justice outside the courtroom. That continues to concern me.

      4. “I can say I have never before communicated with either Egbert or Dopre. I to happen to share some of their same concerns and was unaware blogs to not allow for questions, disagreements, or criticism. No conspiracy on my end. Beyond that I will let Egbert respond.”

        You’re quite right, Don. Last year, I took you up on your invitation to “google away”, and found that I was mistaken in linking you do Dopre. However, in spite of your disclaimer about not knowing him, your concluding sentence is a clear admission that you and Egbert were practically working as a tag-team. I was wrong. It was only two men against a single woman; not three. In the part of the country in which I live, however, it still smacks of cowardice.

        You “share Michelle’s concern over this blog”? Again, I invite you to take a look at the date of this blog post. With a murder conviction no longer on Knox’s record, it constitutes no threat to her whatsoever (and probably never did, since this case was resolved at the Italian judiciary level). It would have remained in internet obscurity if this recent mischief hadn’t gone down. Why don’t you be honest with yourself. You opened your inbox Monday, and saw that Dr. Glass was under attack, used a clumsy excuse to return to this thread (after the blog owner had already repeatedly made it clear that you were not welcome), and are once again taking pot shots at her through your replies to me. What does that make you?

        I’m truly moved by your concern that Amanda is being stalked, so I’d like to end this on a friendly note. You obviously can’t protect her online, so my advice would be that you go to Seattle. (Don’t worry about the rumors that she’s seeing pro-guilt stalkers around every corner, and is now carrying a concealed weapon). When you find the Foxy one, make sure to announce your presence before offering your protection. Just walk up to her, and shout: “HEY! YOU’RE AMANDA KNOX”! (If I’m wrong, and she is packing, at least the gene pool will be a little cleaner). You’re dismissed.

        “Sue Italy? The CAS just gave Amanda Knox the verdict she wanted. I should think she’d be a little more grateful”. – Even Tempered.

      5. E.T.,
        My statement was in response to your accusation of some sort of 3 way conspiracy. Others on this blog made the same accusation. You presume that because I do not speak for Egbert and invite him to respond for himself we are some sort of tag team. I suggest several commenters, including you, support others speaking up but do not therefore accuse you of being some sort of conspiracy. Perhaps I should believe you tag team with others in your accusations toward Egbert and me?

        “If I’m wrong and she is packing at least the gene pool will be a little cleaner. You are dismissed.” Interesting choice of words for someone accusing others of being egotistical.

      6. We at Even Tempered Inc. apologize for your inconvenience, sir. Customer satisfaction is important to us, regardless of race, color, creed, or IQ. Please be assured that your complaint will be filed for review. Due to a backlog of complaints similar to yours, please allow 1-2 business years for a response. The “Exit” sign is to your left. Have a nice day.

  31. Dr. Glass, emails and IP addresses of commenters are are being disclosed with your answers. Can I please ask you not to publicly disclose my private information? Thank you very much.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s