AmyStrange.org and the UNeXpLaiNed ©Copyrighted by Dave Ayotte & Caty Bergman
|JAN|FEB|MAR|APR|MAY|JUN|JUL|AUG|SEP|OCT|NOV|DEC|
BLOG ARCHIVE
2010 <<<< 2011 >>>> 2012
2011-OCT-04 [TUE] 09:07 PM (PDT)
!!!DON'T FORGET Meredith!!!
Here is our favorite news article that came out the day
after the verdict was announced in court on October 3, 2011:
Prison inmates cheer Amanda Knox after acquittal - Italy
Here is an archived copy in case that link disappears:
http://www.amystrange.org/NWS--2011-10-04--Italy--Prison-Inmates-Cheer-Amanda-Knox-After-Acquittal.html
2011-JUL-10 [SUN] 09:07 PM (PDT)
!!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!
The Conti-Vecchiotti Report
(translated into English from Italian):
http://knoxdnareport.wordpress.com/
2011-JUN-06 [MON] 07:37 PM (PDT)
As we promised, let's look at the evidence and see if this blog entry can earn the title as "the most biased, unbiased, look at the evidence" ever written.
We probably have no chance of ever convincing anyone to give us this title, so let's just get to it, look at the evidence critically, and see what happens.
BEFORE we go any further, let us all bow our heads together for just a second, in memory of Meredith Kercher, who will never get a second chance at anything ever again and is and always will be (regardless of which side you're on) the real victim here.
She is so sadly missed by everyone who loved her.
To both sides of this issue, the drama is worthy of a first-rate mystery thriller, but let's forget about all that for a minute, and ask, what would Meredith do, and how would she want to be remembered?
If nothing else, please atleast keep Meredith in your thoughts every now and again as you read through this.
2011-JUN-07 [TUE] 05:46 PM (PDT) OUR BIAS
Many people would say we're biased, because we still can't find the answer to that one question that would give us an unquestionable arguement for guilt.
Why wasn't Knox's DNA found in Meredith's room? Raffaele's DNA evidence is compromised at best. There are independant experts looking at the raw data right now and will make a report around the end of June. Hopefully, it will put all our questions to rest.
2011-JUN-08 [WED] 05:59 PM (PDT): SIDE CHATTER
SOME WEBSITES have reported Mignini as speculating that maybe Knox was directing the murder from the kitchen and outside of Meredith's room. This is obviously in response to questions about the lack of Knox's DNA in Meredith's room.
OTHER WEBSITES have argued THAT IT IS NOT UNHEARD of for DNA to NOT be found at the crime scene.
BOTH ARGUEMENTS ARE VALID, but are still only possibilities and not absolutes. What this means is that these are one of many valid arguements explaining why there isn't any of Amanda's DNA in the room. Some are more believable than others.
The easiest and most obvious explanation, of course, is that she'd never been in Meredith's room.
Or even more radical (and more obvious) is that, she had nothing to do with the murder.
2011-JUN-08 [WED] 06:19 PM (PDT): MIGNINI
Mignini (sorry to say) is, at the least, a colorful character. Some people even think he is lovable. Delusional or not, he really still believes Knox is guilty. We can't put our finger on it, but his theory about Amanda's DNA not being in Meredith's room just doesn't sound believable to us. Maybe our bias is getting in the way. We really don't know for sure.
Or maybe it's because, when a prosecutor changes their theory of the case depending on what the evidence shows... well, it's not really a good thing. In our opinion, investigators should gather and process evidence first, then form theories, not the other way around. This (the gathering and processing of evidence first) doesn't seem to have happened in this case.
When we say processing, we also mean waiting until the test results come back. The way they went after Patrick is a very good example of why this rule of thumb (evidence first, then theories) is so important. There are exceptions to this rule of course. For example, if you find someone in the room covered with blood and whacking away at the body, it would be safe to assume that this may be the murderer, but forming a theory that a couple are murderers after seeing them eat pizza is not a good enough reason to ignore the above rule of thumb, in our opinion.
Although we do both have to admit, the original satanic-ritual sex-orgy murder theory WAS interesting, but if the theory has no real basis in fact, and Amanda and Raffaele really are innocent, then it's just a very sad and pathetic joke, at the expense of Meredith too.
And, that's the saddest thing of all, because while everyone was titillating over the orgy-murder theory, they seemed to forget (or not even seemed to care) that Meredith suffered horribly for at least seven minutes while she slowly drowned in her own blood.
INSTEAD, WHAT EVERYONE FREAKING remembers is the Foxy Knoxy sex-orgy satanic-ritual SHIT!
Meredith does not need to be remembered this way.
She deserves better.
2011-JUN-08 [WED] 06:32 PM (PDT): NO DNA?
It isn't unheard of for DNA to NOT be found at a crime scene.
FBI stats (we think it is around seventy to eighty percent) seem to indicate that most murders are personal. What that means is that most murder victims personally knew their killers. Therefore, it's not surprising when the killer's DNA is found around the victim's body.
Which leaves us with roughly ten to twenty percent of the murders where very little or no DNA is ever found. Most of these murder scenarios (if not virtually all of them) where no DNA is found are usually at serial killer dump sites. Very little DNA (besides the victim's) is ever found at these places.
Not only that, but we really can't remember any murder case where there are three murderers, but only one of them leaves DNA evidence behind. Can't remember one case like that, not a one.
And finally, finding someone's DNA in the common areas of the house does not prove a thing (mixed with the victim's or not), because the question that still needs to be answered is why wasn't any found in Meredith's room.
If your answer is that it isn't unheard of for DNA to not be found at a crime scene, please reread the previous five paragraphs again, especially the third one. Thank you.
2011-JUN-09 [THU] 05:33 PM (PDT): the BREAK-IN
Let's look at the evidence as it piled up from the beginning.
The first thing, of course, is the "staged" break-in theory.
But, first...
2011-JUN-09 [THU] 06:02 PM (PDT): the MIGNINI LINE
...before we go any further, let's set-up a ground rule. Since Mignini first introduced the satanic-orgy murder theory, then let's use that theory as the approved base-line theory upon which all theories can be measured against, a "litmus-test", so to speak, of acceptable theory language that no one should cross.
Like cannibalism.
NOW you've gone and done it, you just crossed the MIGNINI LINE!! Good luck with that noise.
What's not to like?
APPARENTLY, since we have doubts about the case, we're allowed to make fun of Mignini. Our "fundamental social acceptability algorithmic probability chart", for "today" anyway; says it is now acceptable for doubters to make fun of Mignini. The wonders of number crunching. Gotta Love (LOVE!) those guys!! Number crunchers are always good in the crunch.
Ha Ha.
What?!
THERE IS NO WAY that "crunch" thing was any where near the MIGNINI LINE!!!
Just saying...
2011-JUN-09 [THU] 06:42 PM (PDT): !!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!
!!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!
Not Mignini.
OK where were we at? The "staged" break-in, that's right.
Sorry to say this, but when all is said and done, it is a toss-up.
This is what it comes down to:
There was glass on top of everything in Filomena's room, which couldn't be true, because if someone did break-in through that window, why didn't they ransack that room first? The room did show some signs of ransacking, her computer was on the floor, which basicly means the glass should not have been on top of everything, because while ransacking about, things get knocked over, along with the glass on top of them.
And since everything had glass on top of it, this is what started the police into thinking along the lines of a "staged" break-in theory,
When we first read this and before we started researching the "flip-side", the way they described it did make sense. Why not ransack Filomena's room first? Since you're in there anyway?
Duh?!
It just made sense...
Then we started hearing rumours about "other evidence" which was ignored. Scuff marks under Filomena's window, like someone was trying to get a foot-hold? No glass found or (from what we understand) even searched for on the ground under Filomena's window. There are no photos or videos to back this search up. There would have to be glass under the window for the "staged" break-in theory to be scraped. An arguement was made by a forensic engineer, (some say a pro-Amanda forensic engineer) that was bought by the Knox PR (Public Relations) firm (Marriott) and released as spin in order to alter people's opinions about Meredith's murderer (Amanda), that the break-in was real and not "staged" (see the link below).
Are all these things true or not?
We can't get answers ourselves from anyone or anywhere that explains it better than this site:
(Some folks say it is biased, but even if it is,
it still has some interesting facts worth considering)
http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/RonHendry------2.html
All of this lumped together makes us wonder what the real truth is here.
AND WE HAVEN'T EVEN YET MENTIONED the persistent rumours of photos that show the glass wasn't on top of everything. It was more like on top of "a lot" of stuff, rather than on top of everything.
That's why the "staged" break-in is a toss-up for us. There is just too much conjecture for and against it to be an absolute fact, in our eyes anyway. As we said, lots of conjecture yes, but no real evidence on which to base a statement of fact upon, but what's interesting is that it does really depend on your bias whether you believe the "staged" break-in theory or not.
Unfortunately, the "staged" break-in theory is what got the investigators thinking along the lines that this might be an inside job. So it IS important in that respect.
2011-JUN-10 [FRI] 07:19 PM (PDT): !!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!
!!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!
Not Mignini.
So, where do we go from here?
The thing with toss-up evidence is that it does not disappear, because it can be later used as part of what the U.S. legal system likes to call, the "weight of the evidence". What that means is each individual piece of evidence alone doesn't convict anyone, but when you put it all together, the "weight of the evidence" is just too much for any defense to overcome, or the prosecution would like the defense to believe anyway.
Or something like that.
What "weight" means most of the time is what kind of evidence it is. A legal document has more "weight" than someone's memory. For example, if someone remembers being in jail or in court on a certain day, inmate records or court records would have more "weight" than their memory. "Weight" also refers to how good the probability numbers are. What the odds are that the interpretation of this evidence is wrong.
And believe it or not, many (if not most) murder cases are based on probabilities. Not the, did they probably do it kind of probablies, but real probability numbers.
FOR EXAMPLE... let's look at genetics. The reliability of DNA is based on the probabilities that any one DNA match is wrong. The odds are something like a trillion to one, we think, but even if it's only a million to one, those odds are pretty hard to overcome. Most times, they are almost an insurmountable obstacle, but it has been done, so it's not like DNA is "totally" infallible.
2011-JUN-12 [SUN] 01:43 PM (PDT) THE CONFESSION
!!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!
Not Mignini.
The way Amanda and Raffaele acted after the murders up until their confessions is examined and theorized as part of the evidence against them.
It's a pretty sad state of affairs for both of them.
To us, all they are guilty of is "at best" bad taste, or "worse" bad manners.
Specifically the pizza eating, "lingerie" buying, cartwheeling, kissing and hugging and smiling behavior, some of which was photographed or videotaped. Some people said it was just plain bizzare behavior, especially since your roommate was just recently killed at your home. In the room next to yours. You should be in a bed somewhere crying your eyes out and also under the covers cowering and fearing for your life, lest you be next.
And it is true, for us anyway, that when you look at them from some angles, Amanda's eyes do look a little spooky.
All of this and more is still used by some people as evidence of their guilt. And since we did see the spooky look, we can understand why people think the way they do and that it makes sense why some people think of her as a "sociopath".
We eventually came away with a different conclusion though.
We agree that when you look only at the videos and photos of her and Raffaele kissing and hugging, and of Amanda smiling in court, the "sociopath" theory did make some sense. Some "sociopaths" like to kill, and thus the pro-guilty theory made sense.
THEN, before even looking to see what the "flip-side" had to say, we thought of context. What was the context of these photos and videos? What was happening around them at the time the photos and videos were taken, and also what were they doing just before and after?
Context like seeing her parents in court and smiling at them.
That's what context is, and sometimes context is everything. Single "stills" (taken out of context) can be deceiving, and if that's all you use to accompany written (or spoken) articles or comments about the case, then (in our opinion) that's dishonest reporting. As an interesting aside, we can usually tell the bias of a news article by the photo (or video) used to accompany it.
We also saw some before and after videos of them kissing and hugging. And, what we saw was a young lady in shock and probably still stuck in denial, but that's just what we think we saw, and not really evidence of anything at all, except to us.
Like we said, a good arguement can be made that she is a "sociopath", but it's a little harder to accept if you know the context.
We have to put this one in our "weight of evidence" files.
Alone it really doesn't mean anything, but when you put it together with the "staged break-in" theory, it really does start picking up some "weight", but there's really not a whole lot of it right now, but (once again) that's just our opinion.
LET'S ALL BE HONEST and see if this is not true for some of you out there also --if not all of you.
Most funerals we have attended, and the "reception" areas, before, during and after burials, is usually filled ceiling to cellar with a widely diverse collection of people and behaviors. Can't really remember any cameras at these things, but if there were. You would get a lot of odd and bizarre behavior that could be construed as suspicious also.
Anyone else out there notice this besides us?
Anyway long story short, odd and bizarre behavior from family and friends after someone dies isn't as uncommon as some people would like it to be.
Which brings us to probably the most complex and misrepresented aspect of this case and that is Amanda's confession.
Let's look first at what is right with it, but unfortunately this is also where some of the misinformation got its start.
In it, Amanda is suppose to have confessed to being at her home while Meredith was being killed in the other room. She named Patrick as the murderer. Later, after she had signed this "confession" and was put back in her cell, she recanted, but not the part about Patrick.
The one bit of evidence that can be proven about this confession, especially since the interrogations weren't recorded, is how soon after the confession was signed, they went out and arrested Patrick.
Many people have argued that the interrogations didn't need to be recorded. But we also believe that the police shouldn't then be able to profit from this and bring slander charges up, unless they record the whole interrogation, because most people will believe the authorities and it's kind of chilling in the way it can handcuff the defense.
So in this case it's a tough break for Amanda, but we really have wondered about this more than any other aspect of the case, because even though we're not experts, we know enough about "false confessions" to google up a few relevant examples for anyone to compare this case to, but a good place to start is the Innocence Project:
http://www.innocenceproject.org/understand/False-Confessions.php
Find your own evidence, read what you want on the subject, pro and con, and then make up your own mind about the confession.
But what really makes us wonder about this confession, is that almost immediately after getting it, and without even doing any kind of investigation, they went out and arrested Patrick and declared the case solved. Then a few days later the DNA evidence shows that Patricks didn't do it, but did show that a man named Guede's DNA was found in more than just a couple places in Meredith's room. A few days later, they released Patrick, due to lack of evidence, air-tight alibi, or whatever they wanted to call it.
Almost immediately after they got the confession, without any kind of investigation, they went out and arrested Patrick. We are repeating this, because it needs repeating. And to us, the only scenario that makes sense about this was if they thought Patrick was guilty and they told Amanda that she can either say that and get out of there now, or deny it and stay in this room until you do say it. Your choice. We can keep this up for days and weeks. How long can you hold out?
It explains all the weirdness about the confession, the arrest, and the recant that wasn't, better than any other explanation we've heard anywhere.
2011-JUN-12 [SUN] 08:12 PM (PDT)
!!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!
Not Mignini.
THE CONFESSION changed everything.
It gave the prosecution all it needed to hold Amanda, Raffaele, and Patrick over for trial, except they than switched, and took out Patrick and put Guede in his place, all the while, keeping Amanda and Raffaele as co-murderers.
2011-JUN-16 [THU] 06:38 PM (PDT)
But, now they had to go out and get the evidence to get Amanda and Raffaele convicted of murder.
They didn't need to go out and get anymore to get Guede convicted, but getting proof that Amanda and Raffaele were also there wasn't easy.
Most of the evidence that supported their alibi was good until around ten p.m. After that, the only evidence they have is each other. If either of them gives up on the other, well, look at what already happened with the confession. There are rumours though that all Raffaele agreed to was that technically he didn't know for sure where Amanda was between 9 and 1, because he was asleep.
That's when the house of cards started falling down, ending with the "infamous" perp parade through town as the highlight of the whole festive event.
After that, they buckled down and started looking for evidence, but at the same time, they also started thinking up theories to explain away the early ToD (Time of Death) announcement which was originally thought to be between 9 and 10 p.m.
FOR THE MOMENT, we are taking a break to work on some other stuff.
But, we'll be back. the prelim forensic report should be ready in a couple weeks, we think, but before we leave, we wanted to pass along this "biased" blog article. Even "Harry Rag" makes an appearance, just like the old days. Ha ha:
Amanda Knox and the serial killer
(Sarah - Sunday, June 12, 2011)
http://rantsofapublicdefender.blogspot.com/2011/06/amanda-knox-and-serial-killer.html
"I haven't blogged much (or ever?) about the Amanda Knox case.
But not because I haven't followed it or formed opinions about
it. I have... "
Since we're "biased", here is an opposite view from ours. It's always a good idea to read both sides, and THEN make up your own mind using critical thinking:
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
PLUS, here is an archived (translated) copy of the Massei Report which is the "Motivations Report" (from the panel of judges and jurors who sat in on the first trial) that explains the reasoning behind why Amanda and Raffaele were convicted:
http://www.amystrange.org/BLG-Massei-Report.pdf
2011-JUN-29 [WED] 11:17 AM (PDT)
!!!REMEMBER Meredith!!!
(Court Appointed) Experts Contest DNA Evidence in Knox Trial - Italy
LINK BELOW IS OUTDATED:
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2011/06/29/world/europe/AP-EU-Italy-Knox.html?_r=1
NEW ARTICLE IS LINKED TO BELOW:
Amanda Knox DNA Evidence Called Unreliable - Italy
Posted by Janis Esch on August 1, 2011 11:55 AM
http://www.thirdage.com/news/amanda-knox-dna-evidence-called-unreliable_08-01-2011
"Independent experts testified Saturday that DNA evidence used in the Italian murder trial of U.S. college student Amanda Knox is unreliable... "
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...
2011-APR-28 [THU] 02:47 PM
For most of April, we have been studying the Amanda Knox case to make up our minds as to whether she and Raffaele Sollecito (who seems to have been lost in the creation of celebrity status for Amanda) are really guilty.
No matter what evidence we have read about, the one question that has never been truly answered by anyone who believes in Amanda and Raffaele's guilt is, if they are guilty, why is there no evidence (especially considering the amount that was left there by Rudi Guede) of either one of them being in the room also. This one fact alone sways us more in believing in their innocence than any arguement given by anyone from the side that believes in their guilt.
The only evidence of either of them being in the room (Sollecito's DNA found on the bra clasp) is questionable at best considering no one made any effort to collect the bra clasp as evidence until more than 46 days after the crime was discovered, and when it was finally retrievd investigators were filmed ignoring accepted forensic techniques during this retrieval and the first crime scene investigation and collection of evidence. Nor does it help any that it was improperly stored which resulted in it being so rusted that it is now virtually useless for retesting, which also begs the question why Sollecito's DNA was never found on the rest of the bra whatsoever.
2011-MAR-28 [MON] 08:32 PM
"NOVA: Dogs Decoded"
Studio: PBS
DVD Release Date: November 9, 2010
ASIN: B0040QYRS6
Nova has a winner here.
Aggression genetics was one of the subjects brought up by this interesting Science Report from Nova. Starting in 1959, Soviet scientist started setting up genetic research project around the country. One of these projects was performed in Siberia. There, it was the goal to remove and breed around 1 percent of silver fox (foxes are closely related to wolves) pups that were not only fearless of human contact, but also not so agressive as the other pups.
Within 3 generations, almost all the aggresive behavior began to disappear.
This is strong evidence favoring the theory that aggression is mostly genetic in nature.
==========
==========
RELATED WEBPAGES (for more info)
Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domesticated_silver_fox
Farm Fox Experiment:
http://www.hum.utah.edu/~bbenham/2510%20Spring%2009/Behavior%20Genetics/Farm-Fox%20Experiment.pdf
Archived Copy of "Farm Fox" Article:
http://www.amystrange.org/SCI-Farm-Fox-Experiment.pdf
2011-FEB-01 [TUE] 04:45 PM
FROM: http://vancouver.ca/police/organization/investigation/investigative-services/major-crime/sister-watch.html
"Women in the Downtown Eastside are particularly
vulnerable to violence, injury and death. Crime statistics for
this area of the city have never truly reflected the danger and
jeopardy facing the women who live there. Whether the cause is
fear of reprisals or general distrust of authority, women have
been traditionally reluctant to report crimes against themselves
and others. The Sister Watch Project is a multi-faceted
operation designed to combat violence against women in the
Downtown Eastside and make the community safer for everyone who
lives and works there."
==========
The articles below document how this project is working out. Other cities should take a cue from Vancouver and start programs of a similar nature. Making sex for hire illegal only helps serial killers and hurts more women than helps them. Not saying that sex workers are only women, but historically most of them have been. People who think they are better than everybody else and advocate the continued persecution of these women with jail and prison are no better than the evil and mean and disgusting men mentioned below.
In our opinion, they should be prosecuted as co-conspirators.
These as-they-happen News Alerts are brought to you by Google.com ========== Cops capture terror of Vancouver downtown east-side women Vancouverite "As a result of Sister Watch, Martin Tremblay has been charged with four counts of trafficking cocaine and one charge of possession of cocaine for the ... http://www.vancouverite.com/2011/02/12/cops-capture-terror-of-vancouver-downtown-east-side-women/ Vancouver police arrest 11 criminals in sweep of Downtown Eastside The Province By Cassidy Olivier, Postmedia News February 11, 2011 Vancouver Police Inspector Mike Porteous holds a mugshot of suspected sex offender Martin Tremblay at a... http://www.theprovince.com/Vancouver+police+arrest+criminals+sweep+Downtown+Eastside/4269177/story.html Vancouver police call out to sex victims CBC.ca Vancouver Police have taken the extraordinary step of issuing a public plea for victims of a man called Martin Tremblay. Tremblay is currently facing four... http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/02/11/bc-dtes-charges.html VPD announce 11 new arrests of violent Downtown Eastside drug traffickers Vancouver Sun By Gerry Bellett, Vancouver Sun February 11, 2011 Inspectort Mike Porteous of the VPD holds a mugshot of suspected sex offender Martin Tremblay at a press... http://www.vancouversun.com/news/announce+arrests+violent+Downtown+Eastside+drug+traffickers/4268664/story.html THIS ARTICLE IS ARCHIVED HERE: 2011-FEB-11 - SEK: VPD announce 11 new arrests of violent Downtown Eastside drug traffickers - Canada VPD: More charges in Sister Watch program News1130 For now, Martin Tremblay is charged with possession and trafficking drugs, but police say he's terrorized that neighbourhood for years... http://www.news1130.com/news/local/article/182494--vpd-more-charges-in-sister-watch-program Revolving Door: Rally Opposes Release of Sex Offender Targeting Aboriginal Girls The Media Co-op by Sandra Cuffe - Original Peoples Aboriginal youth and women rally at bail hearing of sex offender Martin Tremblay. Photo: Sandra Cuffe Relatives and... http://vancouver.mediacoop.ca/story/revolving-door-rally-opposes-release-sex-offender-targeting-aboriginal-girls/6205 Sex offender a community menace: protesters CBC.ca About a dozen members of the city's First Nations community said they opposed the release of Martin Tremblay, who was convicted of five counts of sexual... http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2011/01/28/bc-martin-tremblay-protest-lalonde-hernandez.html Activist Communique: Vancouver's 20th Annual Women's Memorial March rabble.ca (blog) Indigenous girls have continuously relayed harrowing stories of drugging and sexual assault by sexual offender Martin Tremblay... http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/krystalline-kraus/2011/02/activist-communique-vancouver%E2%80%99s-20th-annual-womens-memorial Sister Watch Exposes Atrocities CKNW News Talk 980 "Martin Tremblay has been perpetrating on our young Aboriginal women. He has been known to take videos of these young women... http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1363087 Young girl shares her agony to keep BC sex offender behind bars Montreal Gazette By Cassidy Olivier, Postmedia News January 29, 2011 Friends and family of victims outside the bail hearing for convicted sex offender Martin Tremblay at BC... http://www.montrealgazette.com/Young+girl+shares+agony+keep+offender+behind+bars/4191660/story.html Vancouver march for missing and murdered women to mark 20th year Straight.com Names released by the VPD include Martin Tremblay, a convicted sexual offender who is in custody on five drug charges, and Fabian Brown, who police say has... http://www.straight.com/article-374385/vancouver/vancouver-march-missing-and-murdered-women-marks-20th-year Police seek 'chronic offender' who preys on the most vulnerable in the... Global Regina Martin Tremblay, seen on a warning poster put up in the Downtown Eastside last spring, remains a target of Sister Watch investigators for preying on the... http://www.globalregina.com/Police+seek+chronic+offender+preys+most+vulnerable+Downtown+Eastside/4266728/story.html Sister Watch Getting Results CKNW News Talk 980 Martin Tremblay is already behind bars on charges including sexual assault and drug trafficking. But VPD Chief Jim Chui says the 45-year-old is a suspect in... http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1363048 Sister Watch Singles Out Violent Predator CKNW News Talk 980 "Martin Tremblay is in jail right now. He is in jail. He can't harm you." Chief Jim Chu says the 45-year old convicted sex offender is one of 11 people... http://www.cknw.com/Channels/Reg/NewsLocal/Story.aspx?ID=1363074
2011-JAN-14 [FRI] 08:47 PM
Fox's
"Fringe"
is, in our opinion, the best show on TV, now or ever:
http://www.fox.com/fringe
We actually started looking forward to this show long before the series premeired in the Fall of 2008. It reminded us of the X-Files, but ended up going in a totally different direction. One of the reasons this website exist is to explore the fringes and fringers of society and science, and we figured this would be an interesting and fun way to explore Fringe stuff, and in this it far surpassed all our hopes and desires and then some.
There are only two categories of entertainment, in television and everywhere else (and in our agreed opinions), and those categories are "chick flicks" and "action movies". If it ain't got lots of action, which usually involves blowing something up, then it's a "chick flick". And that's pretty much all I will agree to right now. I don't particularily care for the term "chick flick", but it is a good descriptive device, so who am I to judge?
Chick flicks are smarter movies anyway. Any moron can blow up a car, but it takes talent to describe it so vividly that you actually believe, that if you do this "one" thing, it will save the relationship. See what I mean? You forgot all about the blown up car and are now "thinking" about the relationship aren't you? Ha ha. Got you.
All movies are either one or the other, and some smart people are able to combine the two and make something truly amazing like "Casablanca" which successfully combined the two categories into one movie.
And that's what we think "Fringe" is. A "chick flick" and "action movie" combined together in such a way that it reminded us of the magical things that we liked about "Casablanca".
"Fringe" started out as your basic detective TV show except with an "X-Files" kind of kick in the pants. "Fringe" is "theoretically" that part of the FBI that investigates odd occurences, code named "The Pattern". Every once in a while someone would throw out words like "parallel" and "alternate" universes, amd everyone would laugh their fool heads off... err, I might be mixing two TV shows together? But definitely by the end of the first season, one of the main characters is unwittingly forced to visit that "alt world" they had been dropping hints about throughout the whole of the first season.
All of which leads us to the first season's cliffhanger which changed "Fringe" from a cop show with "X-Files" overtones to a purely science-fiction TV show like "Stargate". Except, it wasn't that kind of show.
At about (around, therabouts, more or less) the time "Fringe" started getting its act together, A slightly amazing over the top thing was going on in one of the film and movie departments at one of the major film production houses of its day. Someone decided to remake "Star Trek", and get J.J. Abrams (of "Lost" fame) to direct it. And, not just remake it mind you, but recast it (buzz kill) and give it a wholey different begining. WTF? A (surprise, surprise) alternate universe kind of thing.
Personally, we both thought it was a darn good movie, but as far as we were concerned, it did gave Abrams a direct line to Leonard Nimoy. Casting him as William Bell was a brilliant move, and also of interest, was that this was the only fictional TV show Nimoy had ever acted in since "Star Trek". He plays the saner of the two mostly insane mad scientist that you'd ever want to meet. who made "big-time" money from his partners genius. Rolling in it kind of money. His partner goes certifiably insane and he whoops it up with billions of dollars. This is no chump-change enterprise.
You can't help but love the guy, but the first thing you think of when you see him is "Spock". It's a subconscious kind of thingy that just defines how you think about things.
What the hell has Spock gotten himself into now.
The other mad scientist, the craziest one of the two, Walter Bishop, is played by John Noble as Walter Bishop is just plain fun to watch, but at the same time, I want to just smack him for being so much the naughty child, but then you remember he is an adult, and wonder if that might somehow be legal? Smacking an old guy around?
There's a fine line between mad scientist and just plain crazy. Noble walks that fine line with an aplomb. He owns the part. He is Walter Bishop. He is... the mad scientist.
The first season was freaky enough as Walter got his bearings and fell over a couple times, but considering that he's spent the last seventeen years of his life in an institution for the sanely challenged. The delightfully agonizing way he tried to deal with it. Endlessly talking about food and pretending he didn't give a rats petunia about the lives he ruined with his experiments, but he really does care about it, deeply. And then when he finally breaks down and honestly realizes what he's done. To these children. To Olivia. It made me cry. It was a masterful performance.
And as if that weren't hard enough already, we also have been learning things about his son Peter, and when that finally came crashing down on him at the end of season two, it's like whoa, where the freakin' hell can they possibly go from here?
And if you were one of those people who was wondered that very thing, you will not believe what they been up to this season, 'cause they went there, done that, and then went down the road a piece and then done did it again.
WTF?
During the first two seasons, Fringe Anna Torv (Olivia Dunham) was basic seen by most critics as, to be kind, a "bad" choice to play Olivia. If you had read most of the fan sites during the first and second season and read the comments, most people were not impressed with her in the least. Most of those people have lately changed their tunes quite drastically and it's good to see that some of the honest (and thus the best) critics admitting that they were wrong. It lightens my life.
====================
====================
The
"Fringe"
TV Show Encyclopedia:
http://www.fringepedia.net/wiki/Fringepedia
The best "Fringe"
reviewer, we've ever read, can be found here ("REVIEW:
Fringe
- 'Marionette'"):
http://www.accidentalsexiness.com/2010/12/10/review-fringe-marionette/
Follow @AmyStrange_org LAST UPDATED: December 1, 20112010 <<<< 2011 >>>> 2012