The trouble is it's so difficult to make anything fit the 'facts' given the hodgepodge of lying or unreliable 'witnesses' dredged up by Mignini.
How come eagle eye Curatolo doesn't see Rudy with Amanda and Raff? At what point in the evening did they get incredibly drunk and high given that they were at the basketball court for at least 2 hours? How come during the period they were at the basketball court Meredith's phones ping a previously unused cell tower? Wasn't the tow truck near the cottage until at least 11:30? why didn't they hear Nara's scream and running on leaves?
etc etc. This is why the guilters mostly resort to sarcasm and evasion. There are simply no sensible answers to these questions.
I think you've hit the nail on the head there.
Rationalists see the ability to turn on an intellectual dime as a virtue. In theory if you show a good skeptic ironclad proof that they have been arguing the wrong side of a case vigorously for years they will immediately say "Well it turns out I was wrong, thanks for letting me know".
However most people who aren't trained to think that way don't, and even confronted with such proof they will take some time to very gradually rearrange the internal landscape of their mind to take this new proof into account. They'll say "Yeah well you think you're all clever and stuff with your proof, but you're a bad person, so I'm not going to believe it".
These people have been arguing for years that Curatolo was a reliable witness, and despite the fact that we now have ironclad proof that he couldn't possibly have seen both Amanda and Raffaele at 21:27 (since at the very least one of them was punching keys on Raffaele's computer from 6pm to 1am) they can't let go of their attachment to that position.
These people have been arguing for years that Nara was a reliable witness, and despite the fact that we now have ironclad proof that Meredith couldn't possibly have died at 23:30 they can't let go of that either.
They've been arguing for years that Massei was a really smart guy with access to all the relevant facts and so he couldn't possibly be wrong, and despite the fact that we have Massei's own words to prove that he's a culpably poor thinker they can't let go of that either.
So when we ask them to come up with a theory of the crime that actually fits the facts as we know them now, they can't let go of Nara and Curatolo and Massei, admit that they were wrong all along to put these various colourful characters on pedestals, and start afresh to find a story that actually makes some sense.
It probably doesn't help in the least that on certain other boards the moderators will take it as a personal affront if you so much as attempt to revise the official doctrine on Quintavalle
even in a way designed to be compatible with guilt. So people who value their continued ability to post there have excellent reason not to even touch the idea that established guilter doctrine might be wrong on even one of these points. Seriously engaging with the idea that Meredith might have died at 21:10 while one or both of Raffaele and Amanda were at home from 6pm to 1am would probably make you
persona non grata permanently.
)
That's for sure, but I think some of the disparity between that arrow "poll" and the dailybeast online poll (75% for innocence) may be attributed to the specific target demographics of the Daily Mail.
or not using 'clear declarative statements', on this occasion.