Strongest arguements...
-
Usually there is a single item which makes one think that somebody is guilty, their "strongest argument" might be a way of describing it.
So what is your single strongest argument for the guilt of Amanda and Rafffaele?
-
Most Confirmation-Biased Pro-Guilt Gumpers (CBPG) won't tell you what their real strongest arguement is, because it's cheap and involves no thinking at all and is fed by their underlying perception of how the world should work, not how it actually works, but how they think it does or should work, and most of these perceptions are built around a narcissistic belief system, i.e. a system built on confirmation bias.
And that arguement is that Amanda looks guilty (sadly it really has nothing to do with getting Raffaele who truly is collateral damage here), and that's their strongest arguement for Amanda's guilt. They aren't really trying to find Meredith's real killer or even the truth or even that they really care about Meredith to begin with.
Some of it is based on woman hating in general, or hating of woman like Amanda. Some even enjoyed the thought that photos of Meredith's dead body were shown on the big screen in open court, with some of them searching for them on the internet.
It's really all about getting that B/ Witch Amanda.
And the dead giveaway is that almost all their evidence (their pretend strongest arguements) all center mostly around the psychology of Amanda. The way she acted after the murders (the cartwheel for example). Her inconsistencies in what she remembered after the fact. Her testimony on the stand. Saying that the break-in was staged by Amanda. All the motives that I've seen involve or revolve around Amanda somehow. If Amanda hadn't been there, it would never have happened scenarios. These are the corner stones of many of the CBPG's case.
One of many ways that you can tell who a Confirmation Biased Pro-Guilt Gumper (CBPG) is, is to go through this checklist (Any NO equals you're talking to a real CBPGer, the more NOs, the closer they are to being a real hardcore CBPGer):
1) Have they ever said that if the evidence proves otherwise, they will believe in their innocence, and they will actually discuss the evidence and not just explain how it's not legally evidence.
2) Do they want to know the whole truth, not just what they think the truth is, or what's legally admissible, but the real truth. For example, wanting the EDF files released and the inside of the knife looked at and the other profiles on the bra-clasp disclosed.
3) And finally, admitting that contamination of the bra clasp is possible. It doesn't have to be highly probable, but to say it's impossible is ridiculous and anyone who says that knows it.
-
Much of what is used by real CBPGers to attack Amanda (and her "groupies") is the same kind of bullying practices that were used in high school, it's actually the next logical step in bullying and many of the underlying practices are still being used. It would be untruthful and dishonest though, to say that only one side uses bullying as a way to get their kicks. People get a kick out of it. It's really as simple as all that.
Why they get a kick out of it is another subject all together, and the number of theories are mind boggling. But, it all eventually gets back to that kick, that people get out of doing things like bullying. Most of them, in my opinion, are being used as some kind of psychological release valve for their perceived angers.
Psychology is fun to think about, but shouldn't be used as evidence in a murder trial. If everybody agreed on what it all meant, than yes, maybe it might be of value, but not in its current state, especially with what little we know about killers to begin with.
If you're going to use psychology as one of the cornerstones for your guilt complex, be prepared to have the Psychological Interpretation Engine (PIE) used back at you.
For example, confirmation bias is not as easy to detect as you would think. I myself actively try not to use it in my research or opinions, but it still creeps in by way of (what I call) half-way thinking. I don't think something all the way through. I just assume it's true, and sometimes I didn't even realize I was assuming something until I look at it critically, so in my opinion, if you say that you don't practice confirmation bias, I don't believe it. Everyone does it, even when you actively try not to do it, or worse, when you don't even realize something is an assumption at all.
You have to take some things for granted, that's a given, for example your birth date, you were there at your birth, but when it happened is something you have to take other people's word for that along with anything that happened before you were born, but a lot of that can be questioned and should be verified (birth certificate) or sourced or at least looked at from a critical thinking point of view.
We've all done critical thinking, in at least a small way, like for example, when you watch movies and look for plot holes. Real critical thinkers (or skeptics, or they should be anyway) don't just accept one way of looking at evidence, they actually consider the other side, they look for the plot holes, both the innocence and/ or guilt probability plot holes of same. That's when I'm willing to call something a real hunt for the truth.
It's like the search for Bigfoot. I am a firm believer that he/ she really does exist. But, I am also willing to look at the other side and admit that there really is no good evidence proving it does exist, but that doesn't mean that Bigfoot doesn't exist, it's just that all the evidence, to date, is really bad. And I'm willing to admit that, but today, it looks like the evidence favors the skeptic.
What's interesting, and tends to jiggle my "but, what if" bone and all these witnesses have had to have seen something. There are just too many eyewitness reports and some them are from credible witnesses. Witnesses that know what a bear looks like and some that are in law enforcement and other government agencies, that have seen something. Maybe it's the Bigfoot some people think it is (like me) and maybe it's something else all together, a hybrid of some kind, or a one time true genetic mutation, or maybe it's just a guy or gal in a suit.
My point being is that even though I strongly believe in the existence of Bigfoot (like the belief that Amanda is innocent or guilty), but I'm at least enough of a critical thinker (and true skeptic) to realize and admit the evidence, so far, sucks, or to even admit that even though the probabilities are improbable that Bigfoot does exist (like my roommate believes), nothing's impossible, it's just sometimes not always probable.
Myself, I've already explained that most of my beliefs in their innocence is in the probabilities that I discussed
HERE and
HERE also, if you can convince me these innocence probabilities are not as high as I think they are (a higher probability that they're innocent, and a lower probability that they're guilty), then feel free to convince me. A good example of the kind of evidence that would sway me is if they opened the alleged knife and someone (other than Dr. Stefanio, an impartial forensic scientist that both sides could trust) found an abundant amount of Meredith's blood and DNA (subject to public review of all evidence, EDFs etc., and a video of the procedure from beginning to end), I would then have to change my probabilities,
d
-
) but do not want to discuss them at this time, 