basically contains proof that establishes near 90% certainty that Amanda Knox was involved in the killing. The reason it isn’t discussed is because, really, it’s just damning. The timing of the police call, the ‘locked door’, the deliberate post-death removal of the bra. She and her psycho boyfriend were involved.
So I agree, drop the CSI nonsense, and focus on their behavior.
“a priori” anyone who failed to call the police about an apparent burglary until the police show up.… haven’t realized their room-mate has been dead for hours “because she locks her door all the time” …. failing to check on her or talk to her about the burglary through the door....
I’d say, for that case, no other factors, “a priori” guilt is +90%.
Oh, and pretend intellectuals, the man she accused FIRED HER.
ALSO:
Despite the “cuff them now” evidence available, the police noticed that Amanda was a pretty girl, so they still tossed the black club-owner in jail, until it became obvious he couldn’t have done it.
They did everything in their power to let her walk.
One of these new users who showed up through a link to your Knox stuff, obviously.
Am I the only one who feels less confident about their estimation of Knox and Sallecito’s guilt since the influx of new traffic—not because they brought contrary evidence (actually I’ve seen more evidence for innocence from new users) but because some of them sound like they’re too invested in their position and not objective in their presentation of the facts. I’ve tried to only update based on well cited facts (or at least have them influence my estimation less, rumors have a chance of being true) but I can’t help reading the unsubstantiated stuff and I get the feeling that in infects my estimation. The sites were biased but they were clearly set up to address the same questions so I could compare their positions and find rebuttals in the opposing site. Now I just see random things about Guede or Knox and I think I update without realizing it.
Am I the only one who feels less confident about their estimation of Knox and Sallecito’s guilt since the influx of new traffic--
I don’t know about that but I’ve certainly become less interested. It is just people trying to influence policy when they are completely unable to do so. A recipe for terrible mental hygiene.
This page:
http://www.truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/understanding_micheli_2_why_judge_micheli_rejected_the_lone_wolf_theory/
basically contains proof that establishes near 90% certainty that Amanda Knox was involved in the killing. The reason it isn’t discussed is because, really, it’s just damning. The timing of the police call, the ‘locked door’, the deliberate post-death removal of the bra. She and her psycho boyfriend were involved.
So I agree, drop the CSI nonsense, and focus on their behavior.
“a priori” anyone who failed to call the police about an apparent burglary until the police show up.… haven’t realized their room-mate has been dead for hours “because she locks her door all the time” …. failing to check on her or talk to her about the burglary through the door....
I’d say, for that case, no other factors, “a priori” guilt is +90%.
Oh, and pretend intellectuals, the man she accused FIRED HER.
ALSO: Despite the “cuff them now” evidence available, the police noticed that Amanda was a pretty girl, so they still tossed the black club-owner in jail, until it became obvious he couldn’t have done it.
They did everything in their power to let her walk.
Seriously, who voted this comment up?
One of these new users who showed up through a link to your Knox stuff, obviously.
Am I the only one who feels less confident about their estimation of Knox and Sallecito’s guilt since the influx of new traffic—not because they brought contrary evidence (actually I’ve seen more evidence for innocence from new users) but because some of them sound like they’re too invested in their position and not objective in their presentation of the facts. I’ve tried to only update based on well cited facts (or at least have them influence my estimation less, rumors have a chance of being true) but I can’t help reading the unsubstantiated stuff and I get the feeling that in infects my estimation. The sites were biased but they were clearly set up to address the same questions so I could compare their positions and find rebuttals in the opposing site. Now I just see random things about Guede or Knox and I think I update without realizing it.
I don’t know about that but I’ve certainly become less interested. It is just people trying to influence policy when they are completely unable to do so. A recipe for terrible mental hygiene.
I suggest ruthlessly downvoting such comments, which are unfortunately doing harm to the signal-to-noise ratio of this site.