AmyStrange.org and the UNeXpLaiNed ©Copyrighted by Dave Ayotte & Caty Bergman
OUR BLOG: 2011 MAY
|2010|JAN|FEB|MAR|APR|MAY|JUN|JUL|AUG|SEP|OCT|NOV|DEC|2012|
2011-MAY-15 [SUN] 06:58 PM (PDT)
After spending almost all of our free time lately reading all the news articles and websites related to the Meredith Kercher murder case (especially the comment sections of each), we have come no closer to a conclusion as to whether they (AK and RS) are guilty or innocent.
But if anything sways us into believing in their innocence (like we said in our April blog entry), more than any other bit of evidence used to prove their guilt; it's that there is no evidence of Amanda and Raffaele ever being in Meredith's room that night, except for his DNA found on the very tip of a bra clasp which (as a result of sloppy forensic collection and preservation techniques) is suspect at best.
There were no fingerprints, hair fibers, skin cells, or any kind of DNA (from either of them) found anywhere in the room, but Rudi Guede's was found everywhere. There also were four different mixed DNA samples (from Meredith and Amanda) found outside the room. All four samples were found in the common areas of the house, but none were found in Meredith's room.
The first thing we noticed while reading through the comment sections of the blogs and news articles was the anger coming from both sides of this issue and aimed at the other side.
Although both sides of the case are guilty of this behavior, three things stand out about many of the anti-Amanda folks that seriously undermine their attempts to appear impartially searching for the truth (which they, like the "pro" folks believe is on their side).
To put it simply, even though the "anti" Knox folks display the same kind of "group-think behavior" that is also displayed by the "pro" Knox folks, it's the differences that interest us the most.
But before we get into these odd differences, let's explore this little "group-think behavior" thing first. One good example of this is the http://www.truejustice.org/ (TJMK: True Justice for Meredith Kerch) which is one of the more popular websites dedicated to the memory of Meredith Kercher and also considered by many as an advocacy group for victim's rights. This is definitely a noble endeavor, but is undermined by their bias, because shouldn't true justice mean an impartial and objective analysis of evidence, not a biased one?
After viewing the site, it left us with the impression that their agenda has nothing to do with true justice, but rather as a public forum to express and bolster their belief that Knox and Sollecito are guilty of murder and just about anything or anyone that disproves or questions this belief is either ignored or explained away using biased logic rather than an impartial look, but don't take our word for it, go there, read through it yourself and make up your own mind:
Almost the exact same thing (about bias, justice, impartiality, and "group-think bahavior") can be said about the following website whose focus is on the opposite side of the "who's guilty" coin:
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/
Our advice (if you really want to learn more about the case and make up your own mind about who is guilty and/ or innocent) is to first wipe your mind of any and all preconceived prejudices, and then go read both of the above sites using critical thinking and see which arguement makes the most sense to you.
True justice (as we explained earlier) should mean an impartial and objective analysis of evidence, not a biased one.
A COMMENT from a reader - Antony:"I disagree with the item on your website which appears to accuse Injustice in Perugia of the equivalent failings as TJMK (IIP at least presents the evidence in an organised and objective way, while TJMK employs astrology and statement analysis). You go on to advise people to read both websites and make up their own minds (in which case the contrasting styles will be obvious), but I'm afraid many will not do this and will form the opinion that both sides are as bad as the other."
The above quote can be found here (at this specific JREF FORUM thread):
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=215085&page=84
We tend to think the above reader is right that maybe you (our dear reader) might assume (from our comments) that both websites are too biased to even consider reading, but we want to emphasize that you shouldn't take our word for anything and that (while using your critical thinking skills of course) you should make up your own mind by reading both sites, because both sites each have their own way of evaluating the evidence and this is crucial in understanding why the case has developed as it has, and we can't emphasis enough to be sure to read them both using your critical thinking skills.
Critical thinking involves not assuming what the writer or debater is saying is true, but question whether what they are saying is based on actual fact, perceived fact or is merely an opinion of the author, and then try to determine how exactly did they reach that conclusion. In short, critical thinking means being skeptical (or critical) of everything you read, no matter what your bias.
One way to differentiate between fact and opinion, is to look at the adjectives used. They can sometimes indicate the writers intent. Try replacing suspicious adjectives with neutral-biased adjectives and see if that changes the tone of the arguement. Also, don't read a quote out of context, but read the whole context of a quote or picture or video.
Also, take the opposite track and look at something from an opposing point of view (put yourself in their shoes) to see if it makes sense to you. We have faith that you are smart enough to find the real truth of this case and atleast form a fair and unbiased opinion as to whether Amanda and Raffaele have a higher probability of innocence or of guilt.
HERE ARE THE THREE WEBSITES (AND FORUMS) MENTIONED ABOVE:
the TJMK (True Justice for Meredith Kercher) homepage
the TJMK FORUM Registration
the IIP (Injustice In Perugia) homepage
the IIP FORUM
the JREF (James Randi Educational Foundation) homepage
the JREF FORUMS homepage
Anyway, getting back to our examination of the three basic things that we found odd and different about much (not all but much) of the "anti" group-think behavior (how it appears to us anyway) is how differently each side communicates their perspective bias to others.
This sometimes can be seen in the selective use of cut and paste to distribute misinformation from the anti-Knox frenzy that the media just ate up before and during the first trial. There isn't even a pretention of impartiality which is a good way to define perspective bias.
Many of the pro-Knox and Sollecito people do this same thing also so this is not odd in and of itself. What makes it odd is, despite what is being revealed (as we write this) by the current appeals process, they refuse to even consider the remote possibility they might be wrong. Instead they use reverse possibility theory to explain away said unraveling of the evidence.
Just because someone testifies that he saw Amanda and Raffaele near the house at around the time (and day) of the murder is a drug addict, doesn't mean the rest of his testimony is unreliable. At the same time it doesn't really matter if he also testifies he saw "disco buses" that same night, and it was later established that the "disco buses" weren't running that night, the "anti" folks either ignored it as unreliable, or they just shrugged and admitted that just because one part of his testimony is wrong doesn't mean the rest of it isn't reliable.
Which brings us to Knox's confession and subsequent accusation as another example of perspective bias. You would think that if one part of the confession is found to be untrue, then why isn't the rest of it discounted as potentially false also? They say Knox and Sollecito lied about their alibi (that they were together the night of Meredith's murder) and Knox confessed to the crime so that proves they are guilty. They ignore the fact that this confession was a result of a marathon interrogation where she was denied food, water, and rest room use; and her naming of Patrick Lumumba as the murderer was proven to be simply false. It's the perfect example of a false confession. But instead, "guilters" (as the anti-Knox and Sollecito folks are refered to by those who believe in their innocence) point to this false accusation as further proof that they are guilty. In short, they acknowledge that the accusation is a lie (which weirdly enough proves that she is a liar), but the rest of the confession is still reliable.
What we find interesting about this whole "accusation" incident is that it seemed like even before the ink on the confession had a chance dry, and before they even investigated this accusation, they almost immediately went out and arrested Patrick, and then (using Knox's confession as proof) declared the murder solved. This is very suspicious behavior and the only way to describe it so that it makes sense to us is that the interrogators believed this to be true and suggested to Knox that unless she admitted this the interrogation would never end.
These same interrogators (and investigators) then went out to find the evidence to support this little theory of theirs about Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele.
As an aside, we know the confession was disallowed as evidence during the first murder trial, but the jury still heard it as part of the civil trial which went on at the same time as the murder trial.
Then a strange thing happened, these same interrogaters and investigators started discovering that Patrick had an iron-clad alibi and all the physical evidence pointed exclusively to Rudi Guede as the killer, so rather than use "Occam's Razor" on the evidence, they kept the original "sex-orgy" murder theory and substituted the players, Patrick and Guede, but kept Knox and Sollecito as the original participants of this theoretical orgy murder.
Anyway, getting back to the original discussion, one of the first odd differences we noticed was how the "anti" Knox folks want everyone to buy into the idea that most of the "pro" Knox folks do not really care about Meredith, because they are trying to get her killers off, and if they really cared about her, they would not be doing this.
As we said earlier, true justice should mean an impartial and objective analysis of evidence, not a biased one.
The second odd thing are their charges that many (if not all) of the pro-Knox and Sollecito advocates are motivated only by their sexual attraction to Knox and her bad girl image.
And finally, the last odd thing is the small group that (seemingly) expresses a very rabid and obssesive hatred they have for Amanda Knox, while at the same time (in comparison anyway) doesn't even acknowledge that Rudi Guede or Raffaele Sollecito even exist. Why this small minority virtually ignores both Rudi and Raffaele and focuses their hatred almost exclusively on Amanda is a mystery to us, and a little scary too.
We're not saying that the pro-Amanda and Raffaele folks are all peaches and cream and without fault. Some are just as guilty of passionate and rabid attacks on the anti-Amanda crowd as some of the "anti" crowd are guilty of the same kind of attacks on the pro-Amanda people. The difference is that the evidence against Amanda and Raffaele (that helped convict and which has always been used by the "anti" people as some of the basis for their belief that they are guilty and also as a justification for their attacks) seems to be slowly falling apart during their current (as of this writing) appeals process.
With all that about impartiality and bias said, (in our opinion anyway) there really is nothing wrong with being biased or angry and attacking other people as a result of this anger. The problem is that no one explains why they do it, or what they are really angry about.
We are big believers in reducing stress (as a result of our anger) by ranting and/ or venting (WITHOUT MALICIOUS INTENT, we will explain what this means below) at other people about our frustrations in not being able to either change the world around us or ourselves or how people treat us or look at us or just because we are pissed off because of all the bad luck we've experienced in our lives or some of each or all four things or frustration with something totally different.
Where all of us go wrong is that instead of trying to unite with a common purpose, we unintentionally create a divide between us that can't be crossed and by refusing to realize this or admit it (even to ourselves) that what we are really angry about is the same thing except that it's being looked at from different angles and each angle is "wrongfully" considered superior to the other.
Please do not even get us started by forcing us to bring out that old story about the elephant and the blind men.
We almost all attack the people that are easiest to attack, and (for both sides) it's mostly done through the blogs and comment sections.
It's easier to do this than directly fighting what we are really angry about or who we are really angry with or at, because (by using blogs and comment sectyions) it's also easier to find like-minded people that support you in your attacks and cheer you on your anger.
And instead of uniting by finding common ground and working together, almost all of us project our anger onto the wrong people or wrong things and pretend they are the ones we (or all of us) are really angry with or at, which is why there is this seemingly impossible barrier between both sides of the Kercher case, because instead of focusing our energy bashing each other; we should both be finding a way to find common ground and unite to make that come true instead. We all owe Meredith this much atleast, if nothing else.
What common ground could any of us have? How about victim rights? Meredith died a horrible death and we all need to acknowledge this and work towards creating a global standard in retrieving "good" evidence to convict people faster rather than just relying on police hunches and theories and faulty confessions and media misinformation as the only way to convict people.
It would be a whole lot better world if (as we rant and vent at people) we would first explain to them that we're not really angry at them, but at other things (such as the death of Meredith or the injustice Knox and Sollecito are experiencing because of it) and are merely using them as sounding boards as a way to constructively reduce our stress (which is what we meant earlier by the phrase WITHOUT MALICIOUS INTENT), but we rarely (if ever) see this technique ever being used anywhere on the internet or anywhere else in the real world for that matter.
This type of behavior (directing anger at the wrong people or things) doesn't only happen with the Knox case, but also in all kinds of other discussions like politics or drugs or anything where we find ourselves (or you) facing someone on the different side of the fence from us (or you).
What a world this would be if instead of working to create a division between us and those we disagreed with, we instead tried to find a way to unite and find common ground somehow and work to solve problems that way instead.
ANYWAY, next month we'll look at all the evidence to see what we can see...
LAST UPDATED: June 3, 2011APR <<<< 2011 >>>> JUN