Monday, March 30, 2015

Laurence Fishborne's Mother and Statement Analysis

Laurence Fishburne’s mother says she’s facing eviction
Which is more news worthy, a wealthy actor who buys his mother lots of stuff, or one who doesn't?

There is more here than meets the eye. The following is an article along with quotes.  I have added emphasis to the quotes and Statement Analysis to the article in bold type.

Yet, is there missing information here?  Some statement analysis of the author of the article might help.

Laurence Fishburne’s mother says she’s facing eviction

Laurence Fishburne, call your mother.
I hate to be the one to break the news. But the woman who gave life to the talented actor, who said she emptied her retirement savings account so her only child would grow into a star, director, producer and playwright, claims she’s down on her luck.

Note the author wrote "said" as not as definitive as the biological fact that began her writing. 


Hattie Crawford Fishburne, 80, told me that, unable to pay the rent for several months, she’s received written notice informing her she’ll be evicted from her Los Angeles apartment Tuesday.

And she said she can’t reach her wealthy son, with whom she last spoke more than a year ago when his father died.

“He’s gone Hollywood!” Hattie Fishburne told me.

"He's gone" is not "he went."
Please note that Laurence Fishborne has been a Hollywood star for many years.  


“For 20 years, I funded my son’s career,’’ she said. “He promised me he would take care of me. He promised me a house, a golden retriever, a calico cat. To this day, I have not got a Christmas present or a ‘Thank you, Mama’ present. He hasn’t given me a penny.
“I’m so hurt and disappointed.”

Please note the context of the article:  Eviction.  
Now, note the order that the mother says she has not received:
1.   "house" and not a "home", nor rent paid. 
b.   Golden Retriever
c.  Calico Cat. 
d.  Christmas present
e.  "Thank you, Mama"

Absent is any concern for her current home's rent.  


Laurence Fishburne, 53, is riding high, playing Earl “Pops” Johnson and executive producing the hit ABC-TV sitcom “Black-ish,” and appears as Jack Crawford, an FBI special agent, in “Hannibal” on NBC. He plays Daily Planet editor Perry White in the upcoming movie “Superman v. Batman: Dawn of Justice,’’ reprising a role he played in the 2013 flick “Man of Steel.” He was Morpheus in “The Matrix” movie trilogy, and was nominated for an Oscar for his starring role as the wife-abusing musician Ike Turner in the 1993 flick “What’s Love Got to Do with It.’’
The man sometimes called “Fish” is estimated by the website Celebrity Net Worth to possess a personal fortune of $20 million.

Rather than report his wealth, the writer gave a lengthy list of recent successes.  




Fishburne said she’s received written notice informing her she’ll be evicted from her Los Angeles apartment Tuesday.Photo: John Chapple
Hattie Fishburne raised her son almost single-handedly in New York City. Mother and child settled in Park Slope, Brooklyn, moving there from Georgia after Hattie divorced her son’s dad, Laurence Fishburne Jr., when the kid was young. Now she insists that her only child, officially named Laurence Fishburne III, has forsaken her.

“I was a damn good teacher, honey,’’ said Hattie, who said she was fired as a New York City public school math and science junior high school teacher in the ’90s after getting beaten up by a little girl, then accused falsely of beating up her principal.

Note the need to boast "damn good teacher" should cause the analyst to learn if she had been legitimately terminated.  


 (A spokesman for the city’s Department of Education could not locate any records.) 

She then moved to California, resumed teaching and retired in 2009.
Now, she said, she can’t pay her $1,500 monthly rent with her pension and Social Security benefits of $3,000 a month, and suffers from arthritis, an underactive thyroid and high cholesterol, and has difficulty walking after a “catastrophic” car accident.

I can’t buy food, clothing and shelter, go to the theater,” she said.

Note on her list of what she cannot buy:

1.  Food
2.  Clothing
3.  Shelter:  how does one "buy shelter" if she is living in her apartment?
Note the inclusion of "go to the theater" in her complaints. 



“I haven’t bought a dress since I retired. I need to find a benefactor.’’

This should cause the writer to question the mother's statements.  Generally, people facing eviction have more on their mind than buying a new dress.  


Laurence Fishburne started acting professionally on stage, at his mother’s urging, at age 10, was cast in the TV soap opera “One Life to Live’’ by 12, and broke into the movies at 14. As legend has it, at age 14, he conned his way into winning the role of Tyrone “Clean” Miller in the 1979 flick “Apocalypse Now” by telling director Francis Ford Coppola that he was 18. Billed as “Larry Fishburne,” the vertically gifted lad — he now stands 6 feet and a half-inch tall — traveled to the Philippines for filming with his mom in tow.

We now have a bit more insight:  

Modal Trigger
body language analysts should recognize this posturing 
But in 1994, Hattie made news when she said she was being evicted from her Brooklyn home — she told me she was forced to live with a female friend for two years. Laurence has not spoken publicly about this. But in 1999, he accompanied his mom to Washington, DC, for the Kennedy Center Honors awards gala. A picture of the pair posing with President Bill Clinton is one of Hattie’s most treasured possessions.

Laurence praised his mother in a 2000 interview with Cigar Aficionado magazine.

“I’ve got to tell you, my mother is very bright.  I mean she’s got a really, really amazing mind. Now I’m a really smart guy. I’m bright. I know s- -t from shinola. And all that I get from her.”

Note the sensitivity about his mother being "bright" and having an "amazing mind" being connected with discernment from "s to shinola", an expression often used to show that one can discern a liar, or a scammer, or trouble.  

There is, perhaps, a cleverness to Laurence Fiscborne's mother that Mr. Fiscborne may qualify as...

manipulation?



So what happened?
The manager of Hattie’s apartment building told me only that “things have changed.” But Hattie believes she’ll still be evicted. Laurence’s rep told me the actor is shooting “Hannibal” in Toronto and could not be reached for comment.

"Things have changed" is passive, which seeks to conceal identity or responsibility.  
This may lead us to wonder:  

Did Mr. Fishborne pay the back rent and not want it revealed?

One may also wonder:

Is his mother deliberately attempting to persuade media in order to get more money from him?


Laurence Fishburne has a daughter with his current wife and a son and daughter from a previous union. That daughter, Montana, has said her dad stopped speaking to her after she started acting in porn films in 2010 at age 18, a career she’s given up. She was spotted last year working as a stripper in Texas.
Can this family be saved?
I am not equipped to act as a counselor for the Fishburne clan. But somebody’s got to do it.

AJ Hadsell: Father In Court

MISSING11.jpg

Missing university student's father was trying to interfere with probe, prosecutor says


Anjelica (AJ) Hadsell has been missing since March 2. (Norfolk Police Department)
A Virginia prosecutor told a judge Friday the stepfather of a university student missing since March 2 was “seeking to impede” the police investigation into the woman's disappearance.

Note that "seeking" is present tense. 
Note to "impede" is the opposite of progress.  
He has been interviewed. 
Every interview gives the Interviewee the impression that the subject is working in order to facilitate the flow of information, or impede it.  


Police have accused Wesley Hadsell, 36, a convicted felon, of breaking into the home of a person Norfolk police questioned in the disappearance of his stepdaughter. Anjelica (AJ) Hadsell, 18, vanished nearly four weeks ago while home on spring break from freshman classes at Longwood University in Virginia.

Prosecutor Ashley Coleman said at a bond hearing for Hadsell that after breaking into the person’s home March 6, Hadsell punched a dog there, the Virginian-Pilot in Norfolk reported Saturday. Coleman said Hadsell threatened several police witnesses with violence and harassed one with an air horn.

Hadsell told a Virginia TV station he believes his daughter was abducted by the man who lives in the house he burglarized.

“If he entered the house, it’s because he thought his daughter was in danger," defense attorney Katherine Currin said at the hearing.

Note the defense attorney allows for the possibility of what police have accused him of, and then ascribes motive. 


The paper said Currin asked the judge to release her client on bond or home electronic monitoring. The lawyer said Hadsell was not a risk to flee, despite a rap sheet that includes convictions for felonious restraint, burglary and bank robbery.

“Mr. Hadsell would very much like to be with his family and help with the search for his daughter,” Currin said.

Judge Bruce Wilcox said Hadsell should remain behind bars until his criminal case is resolved.

Hadsell was arrested March 21 on charges of breaking and entering, obstructing justice and possession of ammunition by a felon. The arrest occurred the same day Norfolk searched a wooded area in Chesapeake for his stepdaughter.

The Virginian-Pilot said Coleman told the judge Hadsell had been living in a hotel room after splitting with his wife. She did not say if the break-up occurred before or after Anjelica vanished. Police searched the room and found 75 rounds of ammunition.

Hadsell told WAVY-TV he was arrested after police interrogated him for 15 hours, and asked what he knew about his stepdaughter's disappearance.

“They asked me where she was at,” Hadsell, 36, told WAVY-TV March 21 during an interview at the Norfolk County Jail. I know, give them the answers. I can bring AJ home. Their words last night [Friday].”

Please note that he says that these are "their words", yet he did not say, "they said 'you know', but used the pronoun "I" leading to the question:
If he is quoting them, is it likely that they used the pronoun "I"?  Remember:  he said, "their words."

Hadsell said he had nothing to do with Anjelica’s disappearance and just wants her found safe.

The Virginian-Pilot said police have declined to say whether Hadsell is a suspect in the disappearance.

To decline to answer indicates sensitivity to the police.  This sensitivity may be due to a number of things:

a.  because he did it
b.  because someone else did it but they do not wish to address this
c.  because it gives him suspect status
d.  unknown 

Sunday, March 29, 2015

"No Man Can Lie Twice": Statement Analysis of Cat Stevens

Yusuf Islam

Readers here know that "no man can lie twice."  This is a principle that my healthy scientific skepticism caused me to carefully research, including employing the help of many others, including analysts, investigators and researchers. 

I asked for any information that could defy this principle. 

*This is why we "lock one into his lie" on a statement.  We know that "no man can lie twice", which is now a powerful tool in our hand.  We cause the subject to focus in upon his lying statement.  If we know "he did it" while he says "I never did it", we then bring his attention to his lie, knowing it will force him to tell the truth. 

We can force someone into the truth.  

This is the power behind the principle that "no man can lie twice."  I will give a short explanation here, but please use the search feature to grasp this amazing rule in Statement Analysis, and learn how you can use it to gain truth.  

Here it is:

If one says "I didn't do it" and really did "do it", the subject will not be able to look at his lie, and lie about it, saying "I told you the truth."  We can use "never" as well, once it is confirmed that "never" is not only "unreliable", but it is a lie.  

We "lock" the subject into a position, truth or lie, and then focus his attention on his statement and force him to tell us the truth. 

In Analytical Interviewing:  

We psychologically force the liar to tell the truth.  

In trainings, we do it over and over and over, until the investigator knows how to pounce on it.  Once we have locked the subject into an answer, truthful or deceptive, the right technique will always yield the truth. 

If he did it, and says he "didn't do it" or "never" did it, and we focus his attention on this lie

The pronoun "I" and the word "truth", coupled with "told" or even "telling", will not exist in his response.  "Lie", "lying", and other such words may, but "I told you the truth" will not exist on top of a lie, but will exist on top of the truth. 

In other words, by locking the subject into one or the other, we now use his own ego against him, clearing the innocent, and exposing the guilty in the interview process.  

Analytical Interviewing is the sharpest sword in the arsenal of all lie and truth detection.  

Rule:  No man can lie twice. 

When the liar is asked, "Why should we believe you when you say you didn't do it?", he may say 
anything along these lines:
"I don't lie.  I'm not lying.  I am not a liar."

He may use the word "lie" but he will not be able to use the word "truth" with the pronoun "I" and "told" or "telling" in his response.  It is that psychologically, he cannot look at his own lie, and lie about it.  

I know, I know, it is not something easily understood but the years have proven this out. 

Perhaps Cat Stevens can help us understand it. 

If you grew up in the 70's, you likely heard Cat Steven's, "Peace train" "Morning Has Broken" and "Father and Son."  It was almost required learning for anyone trying to play the guitar.  

If you've read this blog anytime in the past few years, you've come to see that the word "never", when referencing a specific allegation, is deemed "unreliable" for our work.

We play the odds. Cat Stevens, having spoken up recently, has given us the opportunity to test our principle.  

We work by percentages. We are guided by odds, turning left when it says "70% turn left" and turning right when it says "80% turn right" and, with enough signals, we get to the truth, whether one is guilty or innocent.  We will know.  

It can be that "never" is an appropriate response, especially if the question is, "Have you ever...?", but when found as a denial, in substitution of "didn't" or "did not", is not reliable. 

Sometimes, unreliable does not necessary mean deception, but where it is that one will not make the simple reliable denial, we are likely looking at deception.  

Back to Cat Stevens. 

He eventually dropped this stage name, converted to Islam, denounced his records, but continued to cash royalty checks, giving away money from "offensive" songs he sang. but keeping the rest, with Rolling Stone estimating that from the few hits of the 70's, he has brought in about 1 million dollars per year, every year.  

Some wondered if the 70's folk-rock star would return to popular music  but 9/11, however, brought anger from Americans, though, perhaps, less from his home country.  

As the years went by, he moved to the middle east but his children kept urging him to return to music.  
Yusuf Islam, (he new name), was conflicted about playing again, but the war in Afghanistan was raging and another conflict was looming in Iraq.  Over the years, Yusuf's children tried in vain to get him to begin playing guitar again. Then, a few months after 9/11, Yusuf found himself holding an acoustic guitar his son had brought home. It made him cry, he said, even as he continued to use his money to build Muslim schools in England, and even sought to raise money for victims of 911 as a way of countering the negative publicity for Islam. 

 Yusuf Islam said  that the world needed "to see at least one nonviolent Muslim on TV. " He chose himself to be that Muslim but, he was confronted about the death sentence pronounced by Muslims on the author, Salomon Rushdie.  
Recently, after recording another album, he addressed the issue and said, 

""I was never a supporter of the fatwa, but people don't want to hear that" to Rolling Stone magazine. He said that he was sick of everyone bringing this back up to him, over and over.  He was serious about showing a non violent Muslim to the world.

Was this a reliable denial?

A reliable denial has three components:

I.  The pronoun "I"
II. The past tense verb "did not" or "didn't"
III.  The specific allegation answered.

"I did not support the fatwa against Salomon Rushdie" is an example of a reliable denial.  If asked why he should be believed, were he to say "I am telling you the truth.  I did not support the fatwa against Salomom Rushdie" the odds of him telling the truth are now above 99%.

We play the odds and where the sample is increased, so is our success, when we stay in principle.

"I was never a supporter of the fatwa, but people don't want to hear that" has the pronoun "I", and the accusation ("fatwa") but the verb "didn't" is not there, violating component number II.  The entire quote will follow, with analysis.  

"Never" is something we hear a great deal from deceptive people.  Lance Armstrong, Marion Jones and David Ortiz "never" took PEDs, and all three relied upon the number of tests they passed as "proof", yet were unable or unwilling to say the word "didn't" in their denial.  

"Never" can be considered, psychologically vague, as it expands over indefinite time.  

Cat Stevens did speak to a college audience and it was recorded.  Stars often get "passes" on things.  Michael Jackson's child molestation pay offs and lack of denials did not stop the hero worship, even after his death, in spite of the lifetime of pain inflicted upon his sufferers. 

Women were raped by Bill Cosby, yet his audience support is strong. 

Methinks is A-rod hits home runs, the man who not only cheated, but threatened to sue the game of baseball, while lying, will be cheered in the Bronx.  

Yusuf Islam

Now, if "I was never a supporter" is a lie, will he lie about it, should he refer back to it in the complete statement?

Our principle says that if "I was never a supporter of the fatwa" is, indeed, deceptive, he will be unable to refer to this statement and lie about it.

Even in the Islamic rule of deception.

This means that even if it is his religious belief to lie to non-Muslims, or "unfaithful Muslims" in the cause of Islam, psychologically, he will be unable to look at it (if it is a lie) and lie about it.

I will not keep it a mystery.  It is true that he publicly stated that Salomon Rushdie should be murdered for his exercise of free speech.  Therefore, the unreliable use of "never" is deception indicated."
I will give the quote shortly. In fact, he has said he "never supported" it, more than a few times over the years.  Yet, he did, in fact, support it, publicly.
In the entire quote, spoken recently, we have him addressing his lie.

Question:  Will he be able to lie about his lie, affirming the "never" to be true?  If so, the principe is broken.  



Yusuf Islam
Yusuf Islam playing in London in 2009. Samir Hussein/Getty Images


After the Ayatollah Khomeini declared a fatwa against author Salman Rushdie in 1989, Yusuf had told a crowd at London's Kingston University that "He must be killed. The Quran makes it clear: If someone defames the prophet, then he must die.
This was recorded.  Herein proves that "never" was deceptive, but there is no surprise there, and, perhaps, not a big deal.  We see a lot of deceptive statements here, in the, you know, deception blog.  However: 

We now have the chance to see what happens when he is referred back to this.  

That he really did support it, had some repercussions for his money making. When Rushdie heard about Yusuf Islam supporting the fatwa and did a comedy sketch with  Jon Stewart, he called Stewart, quite angry about the apparent hypocrisy of Stewart, since Steward claims to be a freedom of speech supporter. 
Jon Stewart's reply also is here for analysis: 
"It became very clear to me that [Yusuf] is straddling two worlds in a very difficult way," Stewart said two years ago. "I wouldn't have done [the bit], I don't think, if I had known that. . . . Death for free speech is a deal-breaker."
You may note the weakness in Stewart's statement.  "Death for free speech is a deal breaker" but he only "thinks" he would not have done the comedy bit.  
In a recent interview, Cat Stevens defended himself, and clarified his belief.  Since his denial was unreliable, and video tape proof to the contrary, would he ask for forgiveness?  Would he say it is wrong to condemn someone to death for free speech?
Would he lie about his lie?

Remember:  We, the Statement Analysis world,  claim this to be impossible. 

What about the two worlds?  Not only do we have the "no man can lie twice" rule, but Stevens is now faced with a dilemma:
If he says he was wrong to support the fatwa, he has to deny the Koran and could be killed for it by the "peaceful religion."
Can he say "I never supported the fatwa.  I am telling the truth", it would mean that he has to lie about his lie.  

He was in a tough place.  Since I believe in the rule, he would have to look back at his lie, using the word "never" and contradict it, and admit the truth:  he believes that Rushdie should be killed.  

*Please note that this is what we mean when we say we want to "lock the liar into his answer."
We get the liar to commit to his lie, and then we focus on the lie, and produce truth.  

If he says that killing over free speech is wrong, he speaks against Islam. He could be sentenced to death for it. 
If he believes in Islam, seeing that he denied it the past, will he come clean?
Will he be deceptive?

Remember:  it is impossible for a liar to lie about his lie.  "No man can lie twice."  There is something within us that will not allow it.  The reporter said he made this remark clearly irritated:  

 "People need to get over it.  It's 25 years ago. I've got gray hair now. Come on. I was fool enough to try and be honest and tell people my position. As far as I'm concerned, this shouldn't be the subject of my life.  I'm a firm believer in the law.  I was never a supporter of the fatwa [against Rushdie], but people don't want to hear that because they keep saying that I believe in the law of blasphemy. All I'm saying is, how can you deny the Third Commandment? It's an Islamic principle that you must follow the law of the land where you reside."

Here is the same quote with analysis: 

 "People need to get over it.  It's 25 years ago. I've got gray hair now. Come on.

He begins with the responsibility of "people." This is not about whether or not he said an author should die for expressing his opinion, but of "people" having to "get over it. "
Next, note the passage of time:  "25 years" and "gray hair", spoken close to getting over it, showing the reason people should "get over it" is due to time. 
"come on" shows a persuasion.   Is he saying, 
"I was young and foolish but now I have gray hair and am wiser and of course, I do not want someone beheaded for free speech.  I disagree with him but defend his right to say it."?

Remember:  we do not interpret: we listen: 

 I was fool 
The emotional impact of this word, "foo", with the pronoun "I", is that one is now older and gray, and wiser, and was a "fool" as being young.  
Again, do not interpret, but listen: 


"I was fool enough to try and be honest and tell people my position. 

Note that being a "fool" when he was young was not for the position, but because his "foolishness" was in being honest. 
In his personal, subjective, internal dictionary, being a "fool" is telling the truth to the college audience. 
This is similar to the doctrine of Aisha, where a Muslim can be deceptive, but only to non Muslims and only for the cause of Islam.  
Note "my position" takes ownership of the position:
The author who ridiculed Islam should be put to death. 

As far as I'm concerned, this shouldn't be the subject of my life

Note that "this" is close; and it "shouldn't" be the subject of his life.  This recognizes that for many, particularly Americans who saw the multitude of death in the name of Islam in the New York City, and 911 attacks, it is associated with a pop star who took for his last name, the very word associated with death:  "Islam" and his very public declaration of support for its call to kill. 

This from a man who wanted to show a non violent Muslim on television.  He was only a "fool" for telling the truth about Shariya law.  The law comes directly from the Koran and for him to deny it, would be to have the "peaceful religion" visit violence upon him.  
Deception Indicated. 
Keep in mind his use of "this" and "that" in his language.  "This", that is, the fatwa, should not be the subject of his life.  "This" is close to him.  It was caught on recording that he did support it, and even here, he not only reaffirms it, but blames himself for being a "fool" when he told the truth to the audience.  Next, he gives another reason for believing the "fatwa" against Rushdie: 
 I'm a firm believer in the law.  I was never a supporter of the fatwa [against Rushdie], but people don't want to hear that because they keep saying that I believe in the law of blasphemy. All I'm saying is, how can you deny the Third Commandment? It's an Islamic principle that you must follow the law of the land where you reside.

The word "that" shows distancing language.  Yet, even as he distances himself from the fatwa, he now defends it:
1.  it is the law
2.  It is the third commandment in Islam
3.  It is an "Islamic principle" that "you" must follow the "law of the land."

Not only is it Koran, Islam, but he also says "the law of the land."

Question:  In his personal, subjective, internal dictionary, what "land" does he refer to?
Saudi Arabia?
Iran?
England?

Please note:  When he said he "never" supported it, he was deceptive.  Yet, a more powerful principle is in play:
Referring to his lie about denying it, would he lie about his lie?

He would like rock and roll hall of fame and what it brings but he refused to reinterpret the Koran to make it sound peaceful.  He refused to lie about his lie.  

This is one of the most complex of principles, and in the live training, it is done best through repetition, but it is also one of the most powerful of all tools.  It is what makes the questionnaire so brilliant:  It locks every person into an answer, which we then pound away with questions, getting the subject to defend or deny his answer. 
It gets us to the truth. 

Analytical Interviewing is for law enforcement, human resources, employment, journalism, therapy, counseling, sales, business negotiations, and just about every place where truth is needed to be known. 
Analytical Interviewing clears the innocent, and exposes the guilty. 
It uses the principles of Statement Analysis within the accepted guidelines of psychology and human nature, and gets a subject to commit himself to an answer, "yea or nay", and then re-focuses the subject back to his answer, knowing:
if he is lying, he will not lie about his lie.  He will come clean. 
If he is telling the truth, he will truthfully asset this.  

Cat Stevens fell on his own sword. 
He, as a "peaceful" Muslim, called for support of the death of a expresser of Freedom of Speech.  When pointed back to his statement, which was deceptive, he could not lie about his lie.  He had to come clean. 
No man can lie twice. 
In Steven's case, he not only was unable to look at his lie and lie about it, but actually went to the point of supporting the violence of his religion.  He yielded even more information, giving the reasons for his violent belief.  

In the interview, he continued to back peddle from his statement.  We all have our own internal, personal, subjective dictionary.   Remember, the word "dog" is often used to describe non Muslim.  The recent article, "Is this my Jewish boyfriend or my dog?"that was controversial, and in the news this week,  touches upon this theme. 
Stevens, or Islam, sings one song that he was challenged upon.  Was he calling Rushdie, the "dog" of the song?
One song on the new album seems to take aim at the controversy: "Cat and the Dog Trap." "Cat's in a cage," he sings. "Chained to a stone/Empty bowl by his side." He admitted it was autobiographical, but he refused to ID the inspiration behind the antagonistic dog, though Rushdie is a likely suspect., said the author "I used to be followed by a moon shadow," Yusuf says when pushed on the topic. "Now I'm followed by all these misconceptions, and they're like a ball and chain. I just want to write music from my heart and give people a message of hope and the search for a better place."

It would be interesting to learn what "hope" and "better place" he has for Rushdie, who lived his life in fear and hiding.  
Yet for us, it is another example of how Statement Analysis can not only get to the truth, but how its principles are so powerful; so very powerful, that they may be employed in the interview process, and "force" the subject to "show his hand."
The liar does not wish to be seen as a liar.  
The liar will not look on his lie, and lie about it.  He will come clean, or he will be silent. 
There are linguistic indictors that most subjects find irresistible, and will talk.  More on that later...

Saturday, March 28, 2015

Amanda Knox: "I'm The Lucky One"

'Grateful to have my life back': Amanda Knox murder conviction overturned by Italian court, surprising the mother of victim Meredith Kercher

Splash News

Amanda Knox addresses the media after being acquitted of Meredith Kercher's murder.

Speaking through tears outside her mother's Seattle home, Amanda Knox shared her relief hours after Italy's highest court overturned her murder conviction.
"I am so grateful for the justice I have received," Knox told local media outside her mother's Seattle home. "I am so grateful to have my life back."
The ruling by the Supreme Court of Cassation ended a years-long legal drama that brought two convictions and an acquittal for the 2007 murder of Knox's British roommate, 21-year-old Meredith Kercher.
Knox and her former Italian boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, were convicted from afar last year after two previous flip-flops on the verdict.

Kercher’s mother, Arline Kercher, told Britain’s Press Association news agency that she was “a bit surprised and very shocked.”

“They have been convicted twice so it is a bit odd that it should change now,” she said.

Amanda Knox prepares to leave the set following a television interview in New York in January 2014.Mark Lennihan/AP

Amanda Knox prepares to leave the set following a television interview in New York in January 2014.

When the verdict was read aloud, Vedova exclaimed: "Finished!"
It’s a victory of justice,” Vedova said outside the courtroom. “This was a mistake from the beginning.”
Knox first thanked supporters in a short statement after the verdict was announced.
Amanda Knox talks on a phone in the backyard of her mother's house Friday, March 27, 2015, in Seattle.Ted S. Warren/AP  Enlarge
ITALY OUTMassimo Percossi/AP  Enlarge

Both Knox, who was awaiting the verdict in her hometown of Seattle were she works for a local newspaper, and Sollecito have long maintained their innocence.

“I am tremendously relieved and grateful for the decision of the Supreme Court of Italy,” she said. “The knowledge of my innocence has given me strength in the darkest times of this ordeal.”
Speaking briefly to media Friday night, with her family and fiance at her side, Knox wouldn't comment on who she believes killed Kercher.
"She deserved so much in this life," Knox said. "I'm the lucky one."
The judges’ decision will be released within 90 days, according to authorities.
Knox, who was awaiting the verdict in Seattle, and Sollecito have both long maintained their innocence.
Knox spent the past few years working as a freelance reporter for her hometown newspaper, the West Seattle Herald, and recently got engaged to former New York musician Colin Sutherland, who now lives in Seattle.
PHOTO RELEASED BY THE ITALIAN POLICE, AP  PROVIDES ACCESS TO THIS PUBLICLY DISTRIBUTED HANDOUT PHOTO TO BE USED ONLY TO  ILLUSTRATE NEWS REPORTING OR COMMENTARY ON THE FACTS OR EVENTS DEPICTED IN  THIS IMAGE.AP

Knox and ex-boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito were convicted last year for the 2007 murder of her roommate, 21-year-old Meredith Kercher (pictured).

Kercher was found with her throat slashed in the apartment she shared with Knox and two other students in Perugia, Italy, on Nov. 2, 2007. She had also been sexually assaulted.
Knox and Sollecito were arrested days later and first convicted in 2009 after prosecutors argued the murder was part of a ritualistic sex party gone wrong.
The pair claim they were not at the apartment the night of the murder, but at Sollecito’s home smoking pot and having sex.
Stefano Medici/ASSOCIATED PRESS

Amanda Marie Knox, left, and Raffaele Sollecito, stand outside her rented house on the day 21-year-old British student Meredith Kercher was found dead, in Perugia, Italy.

In 2011, an appellate judge overturned the conviction and Knox returned to the U.S. after four years in behind bars.
Eventually another man, Rudy Guede, from Ivory Coast, was arrested, tried and convicted of the murder in a separate trial and sentenced to 16 years in jail.
But Italy’s high court threw out the Knox acquittal last year and ordered new trials for her and Sollecito at a Florence appeals court.
Knox was sentenced to 28 ½ years and Sollecito to 25 years in prison before Friday’s decision.
Sollecito’s lawyer, Luca Maori, called the young man with the good news from the steps of the courthouse.
“You have your whole life ahead of you now, Raf,” he told Sollecito.
“He almost couldn’t speak," Maori said after the call. “Eight years of nightmare over.”
Francesco Maresca, an attorney representing the Kercher family, was clearly disappointed by the ruling.
“I think that it’s a defeat for the Italian justice system,” he said.
With News Wire Services