FBI veteran Steve Moore, a Los Angeles resident, has been going to bat for Amanda Knox on national TV, and will visit Seattle next. He is pictured during a full-scale SWAT counter-terrorism training exercise in the U.S.
Former FBI agent and Amanda Knox supporter Steve Moore to visit Seattle
On national media blitz to share his point of view
Former FBI agent, Steve Moore, who lives in the Los Angeles area, believes West Seattle UW student Amanda Knox, and her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito, are innocent. They were charged Dec. 4, 2009, for the murder of Knox's college roommate, Meredith Kercher, who was brutally stabbed to death in the flat they shared in Perugia Italy. Knox is serving a 26-year sentence in Capanne Prison just outside Perugia.
Moore spent 25 years as a Special Agent and Supervisory Special Agent with the investigation and prosecution of violent crime, from murder to mass-murder and terrorism.He was the supervisor of the Al Qaeda Investigations squad, and ran the FBI’s Los Angeles-based “Extra-Territorial Squad” responding to terrorism against the United States in Asia.
The West Seattle Herald asked Moore some questions. Here they are, with his responses:
1) Which TV and radio shows you have appeared on to the point of arriving in Seattle?
The TODAY Show, The Early Show, Good Morning America, Good Morning TV: ITV Britain, Fox and Friends, KING5, Frank Shiers-KIRO, Gayle King- Oprah Radio XM.
2) You will be meeting Amanda’s family in Seattle. What would you like to discuss with them in person?
I want to support them in any way I can. I want to stand by them and give them as much strength as I can, and know we’re going to get Amanda home and stay alongside them until we do. I want to know how I can help them.
3) Are you trying to personally profit from all the media attention you are receiving?
I am not being paid. I am not writing a book. I do not want to get rich. I am not trying to get famous. I do not want to interfere with the family, so I want to be in communication with them.
4) Some first heard about “Steve Moore, the F.B.I. guy” on www.InjusticeinPerugia.org. Was that website one of the first places you wrote about the trial?
‘Injustice in Perugia’ was the first website where I expressed my opinion publicly. I showed them an article I had written and they asked if they could print it.
5) What in your professional background first convinced you that Amanda Knox was guilty before you looked further into the case?
I wasn’t so much convinced of her guilt as I simply “assumed” she was guilty. When I hear “police have arrested a suspect” on the news, I used to presume (because of my law enforcement experience) that they had conducted a thorough, careful investigation and come to a defensible conclusion. That’s the way it is 99% of the time.
I heard things in the press that confirmed to me that the police had gotten it right—obvious things like “Amanda purchased bleach the morning after the murder” and “Amanda is a hard-drug-user who was engaging in a wild sex party”. I even remember wondering how the any university could send someone like that over to Italy on a foreign exchange program. I wondered what kind of pre-screening they did.
Later, when I tried to prove Amanda’s guilt to my wife Michelle, I searched for proof of the wild sex party, the hard-drug use and the bleach purchase. I found that no such proof existed. The prosecution floated those stories to the press, yet had to know or at least find out at some point that those things had never happened. This is also where my suspicion began.
6) What was the tipping point that caused you to change your opinion, your “Ah ha!” moment?
The prosecution’s “read” on the crime scene was inexplicable and completely contradicted by the evidence. It was as if a group of libidinous adolescent boys had tried to imagine the most lascivious thing that they believed could have happened.
Tragically, the crime scene was a ‘blood-bath’. There were blood spatter stains on the wall completely inconsistent and contradictory with the theories stated by the prosecution. There was blood splashed all over the floor. There were bloody shoeprints all over the room, bloody hand smears on walls and furniture. There was a purse, opened and marred with a bloody handprint. Whoever was in that room left a huge amount of evidence. This room was not cleaned up, not bleached, not staged--this room was as it was when the murder ended.
But the most significant thing I saw was evidence of the presence of only one person: Rudy Guede. He left shoeprints, fingerprints, palm prints, bodily substances, DNA and other evidence. A law enforcement truism: “The absence of evidence is evidence of absence.”
7) How do you respond to those who feel certain Amanda Knox is guilty?
If they are ‘certain of her guilt’ I ignore them. If the evidence hasn’t convinced them, then they either haven’t seen the real evidence, don’t care about the real evidence, or have no knowledge of forensics or investigations. I’m happy to discuss the case with open-minded people and I often do.
Sadly, while some in the groups that advocate Amanda’s guilt are simply well intended but naïve, others have taken the discussion into the gutter. They are vulgar, base, and engage in character assassination and rumor-mongering, not facts or evidence.
Personal photos of myself, my 20 year-old daughter and my wife have been lifted from personal pages without our permission and posted on blogs, with comments on my wife’s appearance. She received a pornographic message from one of the main ‘posters’. I have seen a bogus biography of myself posted. Even my father’s activities were posted on a website in what I believe is an attempt to intimidate. The members of the anti-Amanda groups will not, of course, identify themselves or their occupations.
8) You have stated that Amanda Knox does not fit the profile of a killer. How can you be so sure?
I did not only say that Amanda does not fit the profile of a killer, but that everything I’ve learned from my investigations indicate she doesn’t even fit the profile of a person capable of ANY violence.
Criminal profiling is not a black art. It is a reliable science. FBI Agents learn through the FBI Academy and field experience how to apply certain constants to their cases. In serious cases, the National Center for the Analysis of Violent Crime (NCAVC, the people referred to by the public as “Profilers”) assist as necessary. I became very familiar with NCAVC practices due to the large number of threat and violence cases I worked. I assisted NCAVC in the creation of a text for law enforcement officers on “Lone Wolf” terrorists.
Whenever an act of ‘senseless violence’ occurred, we tried to determine if authorities, friends or family missed indicators of the pending violence.