Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rhea]

It's not just that any abuse is legitimate against evil people, it's any invented fact is legitimate in support of the truth. So, it's Raff's footprint on the bathmat; there were Amanda's footprints in blood; they "know" there was a staged break-in and a clean-up, so let's alter some photos to show how unattractive the broken window would have been to a "real" burglar; let's say the bleach receipts (which must have existed) were found; let's go on saying that Raff called the police after they arrived.

Exactly, that's the mechanism …

… and they sometimes do it with the best intentions, truly believing they are doing good; "the end justifies the means", so they are throwing restrictions and rules over board that are here to protect the innocents …

… and then in the end we have a disaster like here; two people innocently in jail and great pain inflicted onto their families, pure torture for all of them and a process that is in complete defiance of their human rights …

The good versus evil fight in this case has resulted in a horrendous ordeal for two completely normal, nice, innocent young people …

 

[AmyStrange]

I would agree...

Exactly, that's the mechanism …

… and they sometimes do it with the best intentions, truly believing they are doing good; "the end justifies the means", so they are throwing restrictions and rules over board that are here to protect the innocents …

… and then in the end we have a disaster like here; two people innocently in jail and great pain inflicted onto their families, pure torture for all of them and a process that is in complete defiance of their human rights …

The good versus evil fight in this case has resulted in a horrendous ordeal for two completely normal, nice, innocent young people …

-

Rhea and Antony,

if not for the Amanda specific basis of this hatred that is raised to such an unreasonable degree that critical thinking all but disappears, and I'm not saying that either of you are wrong at all in your analysis, because most of it does make sense, but what changes the answer (like I just said) is the person specific behavior that expands the original question from why are they behaving like this to specifically why Amanda?

Why are they specifically honing in on Amanda as the battleground to fight their perceptive version of evil?

Why not Muammar Gaddafi, or the depressive course of action displayed by the rulers of Saudi Arabia, or the ones who ordered the murder of the Tiananmen Square protestors a few years ago in China, or any of the many serial killers like Anthony Sowell etc etc.

Why are they ONLY attacking Amanda and her supporters? Of course, what makes the answer to this question doubly interesting (and equally as tricky and confusing) is that SOME of these same people are now doing the same thing in the Sarah Scazzi case:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...der-mystery-unfolding-live-on-italian-tv.html

But regardless, the question still remains, why Amanda (and/ or Sabrina) instead of Gaddafi (or Rudy Guede for that matter) etc. etc.?

We are currently researching the reason behind hate driven crimes such as those displayed by serial killers, or the killing of that black man in Mississippi a few days ago:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/06/mississippi.hate.crime/index.html

and not to mention Hitler, or the Nazis and other sociopaths of this type.

We have found in our research that there is ample evidence that aggression is genetic:

http://www.amystrange.org/SCI-Farm-Fox-Experiment.pdf

and this aggression (unexplained aggression for all intent and purposes) needs an outlet. Some people express this aggression by killing prostitutes (sometimes blaming their victims for their own deaths), while other people use more acceptable avenues like attacking convicted murderers (and their supporters) online to relieve this unexplained aggression.

Not saying that pro-guilters are evil sociopaths, but rather that much of their behavior is a classic example of anger transference, and with this in mind the question then becomes; what exactly are they "really" mad about? This behavior can be seen in some pro-Amanda folks also, so it's not like Amanda haters have a corner on this particular market, it just seems more pronounced in pro-guilter's behavior than in others or maybe I'm just biased in this observation. As I've always said, I'm not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and all of the above is not fact, but merely opinion,

Dave

 

[Mary_H]

-<snip>

Not saying that pro-guilters are evil sociopaths, but rather that much of their behavior is a classic example of anger transference, and with this in mind the question then becomes; what exactly are they "really" mad about? This behavior can be seen in some pro-Amanda folks also, so it's not like Amanda haters have a corner on this particular market, it just seems more pronounced in pro-guilter's behavior than in others or maybe I'm just biased in this observation. As I've always said, I'm not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and all of the above is not fact, but merely opinion,

Dave

This is what I was referring to in my previous post, Dave -- there is something they are hiding from themselves that they are reluctant to examine and correct. When I reflect on some of the different players, I see the potential for many different motivations.

For some, it's bitterness, because they perceive themselves as being on the outside of some circle they presume Amanda is on the inside of. For others, it's about constantly sitting in judgment of other people's "moral" behavior. Some people continue to take offense at the mistaken notion that Amanda was anti-Semitic. Peter Quennell likes young, slim, dark women with long black hair; somehow he has worked this into reason enough to hate Amanda. For many, I think they believe the lies only because they don't have the skills to logically analyze them. Wanting to be part of a group that seems sophisticated intellectual, they allow themselves to be led by the Svengalis.

 

[Rhea]

Rhea and Antony,

if not for the Amanda specific basis of this hatred that is raised to such an unreasonable degree that critical thinking all but disappears, and I'm not saying that either of you are wrong at all in your analysis, because most of it does make sense, but what changes the answer (like I just said) is the person specific behavior that expands the original question from why are they behaving like this to specifically why Amanda?

Why are they specifically honing in on Amanda as the battleground to fight their perceptive version of evil?

Why not Muammar Gaddafi, or the depressive course of action displayed by the rulers of Saudi Arabia, or the ones who ordered the murder of the Tiananmen Square protestors a few years ago in China, or any of the many serial killers like Anthony Sowell etc etc.

Why are they ONLY attacking Amanda and her supporters? Of course, what makes the answer to this question doubly interesting (and equally as tricky and confusing) is that SOME of these same people are now doing the same thing in the Sarah Scazzi case:

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articl...der-mystery-unfolding-live-on-italian-tv.html

But regardless, the question still remains, why Amanda (and/ or Sabrina) instead of Gaddafi (or Rudy Guede for that matter) etc. etc.?

Well, first of all; Gaddafi, Rudy Guede and others are absolutely included in their perceived world of evil, which is also an interesting aspect in my eyes; how they just throw everything together on their site, they talk about Gaddafi or Berluscuoni there, which I find odd, because it has nothing to do with this case, the reason seems to be this "good versus evil feeling" they have there, so other evil characters are straightforwardly included … they also mix it with their private lifes, pets, children, everything is thrown into the good fight, everything is a part of the whole good versus evil idea …

I think the reason they so much focus on Amanda is because everybody is against Gaddafi, how does that make them stand out from the crowd? But with Amanda's case, they can show how moral they truly are, there's where people show their true colours; a young pretty white girl and suddenly everybody is supporting a psychopathic sex-crazed killer. Here they can stand out, show how they aren't duped, how they stand by their convictions and morals and are not just throwing everything over board because Amanda is a nice and likeable looking young white woman.

And the fact that she is such an unlikely evil-character, has such an innocent aura, intensifies the whole feeling for them, that you would never think she was evil. It's more powerful then fighting an evil man or even dictator, because it's so extraordinary …

We are currently researching the reason behind hate driven crimes such as those displayed by serial killers, or the killing of that black man in Mississippi a few days ago:

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/08/06/...ime/index.html

and not to mention Hitler, or the Nazis and other sociopaths of this type.

We have found in our research that there is ample evidence that aggression is genetic:

http://www.amystrange.org/SCI-Farm-Fox-Experiment.pdf

and this aggression (unexplained aggression for all intent and purposes) needs an outlet. Some people express this aggression by killing prostitutes (sometimes blaming their victims for their own deaths), while other people use more acceptable avenues like attacking convicted murderers (and their supporters) online to relieve this unexplained aggression.

Not saying that pro-guilters are evil sociopaths, but rather that much of their behavior is a classic example of anger transference, and with this in mind the question then becomes; what exactly are they "really" mad about? This behavior can be seen in some pro-Amanda folks also, so it's not like Amanda haters have a corner on this particular market, it just seems more pronounced in pro-guilter's behavior than in others or maybe I'm just biased in this observation. As I've always said, I'm not perfect by any stretch of the imagination, and all of the above is not fact, but merely opinion,

Dave

Of course guilters are not sociopaths, we'd be doing the exact same mistake as them by assuming they were, their behaviour is in the realm of normal yet unfortunate human behaviour …

And it's true it can be seen in some pro-Amanda folks as well …

I think with some it is anger-transference as you mentioned, but I also think that many of them simply get a feeling of superiority — belonging to the good ones; that's a good feeling, you're better and more ethical than others, interestingly a lot of them are rather liberal, left wing politically, so I think this means a lot to them; not being racists (by not framing Rudy alone for the deed of them all), being on the side of the weak, the victims, not the perpetrators … I think it gives them significance and a feeling of moral superiority to fight their fight …

 

[AmyStrange]

Well said...

This is what I was referring to in my previous post, Dave -- there is something they are hiding from themselves that they are reluctant to examine and correct. When I reflect on some of the different players, I see the potential for many different motivations.

For some, it's bitterness, because they perceive themselves as being on the outside of some circle they presume Amanda is on the inside of. For others, it's about constantly sitting in judgment of other people's "moral" behavior. Some people continue to take offense at the mistaken notion that Amanda was anti-Semitic. Peter Quennell likes young, slim, dark women with long black hair; somehow he has worked this into reason enough to hate Amanda. For many, I think they believe the lies only because they don't have the skills to logically analyze them. Wanting to be part of a group that seems sophisticated intellectual, they allow themselves to be led by the Svengalis.

-

Mary,

and on that note, there's a controversial psychological theory that reason comes AFTER emotion and not before. In other words, first comes the anger and THEN the search begins for a reason for it.

Dave

 

[Mary_H]

-

Mary,

and on that note, there's a controversial psychological theory that reason comes AFTER emotion and not before. In other words, first comes the anger and THEN the search begins for a reason for it.

Dave

I agree.

 

[JREF2010]

Exactly, that's the mechanism …

… and they sometimes do it with the best intentions, truly believing they are doing good; "the end justifies the means", so they are throwing restrictions and rules over board that are here to protect the innocents …

… and then in the end we have a disaster like here; two people innocently in jail and great pain inflicted onto their families, pure torture for all of them and a process that is in complete defiance of their human rights …

The good versus evil fight in this case has resulted in a horrendous ordeal for two completely normal, nice, innocent young people …

its kind of scary, if true, then we have 8qty humans with this potential, who will soon be voting on the verdict.

I think Edda has mentioned this time they are not allowing themself to be so confident. Another issue with legal cases is the Lawyers pump up their clients on both sides. I think the Defense was too optimistic last trial, and the Prosecution has fed the Kerchers since day 1, their side of the story.
In paticular Maresca, has not seemed to be neutral but extremely biased for the local police.

And the layjudges are from Perugia, I think.

 

[AmyStrange]

True...

Well, first of all; Gaddafi, Rudy Guede and others are absolutely included in their perceived world of evil, which is also an interesting aspect in my eyes; how they just throw everything together on their site

-

and thank you for sharing Rhea,

but the sites aren't called "PeopleWeHate.org" (or something similar), but specifically about the Kercher case which more times than not is directed at Amanda while Raffaele is collateral damage. I would also like to add for clarity, most of the aggression I am referring to can be found in the comment sections of websites like Huffington Post and MSNBC.

I think the reason they so much focus on Amanda is because everybody is against Gaddafi, how does that make them stand out from the crowd? But with Amanda's case, they can show how moral they truly are

Good point and I agree, but the question still remains, why specifically Amanda? There are so many other evil people out there to jump on where they would stand out also, and also if they want to stand out from the crowd, why create forums that only allow arguements with which they agree?

I think with some it is anger-transference as you mentioned, but I also think that many of them simply get a feeling of superiority

Now here I totally agree and would also like to add that in there is a clue to the payoff they get for their transfer (attacking those with whom they see as inferior) and that's the reaction they get from her supporters, and also may be one of the reasons why they have forums so they have a place to go and brag about their exploits.

But let me once again reiterate that pro-guilters aren't the only ones who exhibit this behavior,

Dave

 

[Rhea]

Good point and I agree, but the question still remains, why specifically Amanda? There are so many other evil people out there to jump on where they would stand out also …

I don't think I understand, why not Amanda?

They stumbled across this case, got fascinated, were appalled by Amanda's behaviour, by her "assumed" crime, and from there it developed … why should they wait until something else comes along? They found their calling …

…and also if they want to stand out from the crowd, why create forums that only allow arguements with which they agree?

I think skeptical minds are threatening their world with compelling arguments which they can't handle, so they withdraw to their safe place where everybody is in sync with each other and nobody threatens the positive self-image they have of themselves …

… also they couldn't even retreat at this point, it's simply not an option; that they have spent almost four years obsessing over A & R's guilt and now they're supposed to be innocent? This concession would be simply impossible, yet the facts of this case tend to urge them to do that. So this is dangerous terrain for them which they better not even enter at all, and stay safe in their own homogenic world instead …

Finally; the standing out from the crowd / superiority happens in their minds mostly, if they would want to please us, they would be advocating innocence, but they want to please themselves, also; they know that many innocentisti are reading their board, they just don't or can't write there …

 

[AmyStrange]

You ARE right though...

Well, first of all; Gaddafi, Rudy Guede and others are absolutely included in their perceived world of evil, which is also an interesting aspect in my eyes; how they just throw everything together on their site

Rhea,

they do seem to throw everything (everything they think everyone else hates anyway) into their own bag of hate except the kitchen sink. I agree with you wholehearted here. It's like they are equating their hate for Amanda by including her with all of "them" together on their own "wall of shame". See, we hate all the same people you do, so our hate for Amanda must be legit also.

The other thing that is interesting also is how they don't see the critical mistakes in their logic (or even attempt to question their logic, but they must be aware of it, because they throw the same logical inferences at supporters of Amanda that they should be asking themselves).

I don't think most of them are evil people so much as they (like LE) are afraid to admit they are wrong, because of the crash to their psyche that would occur if they admit their belief system isn't credible --with LE it's a blow to their ability to prosecute if they aren't seen as credible.

They also think it would be a disaster to their self worth and self esteem, and in many ways they might be right, because they subconsciously know their psychological make-up couldn't handle it, which is why saying that there is a higher probability they are innocent (or guilty) is better than investing in total innocence (or guilt), but that's just my opinion,

Dave

 

[Rhea]

I don't think most of them are evil people so much as they (like LE) are afraid to admit they are wrong, because of the crash to their psyche that would occur if they admit their belief system isn't credible --with LE it's a blow to their ability to prosecute if they aren't seen as credible.

They also think it would be a disaster to their self worth and self esteem, and in many ways they might be right, because they subconsciously know their psychological make-up couldn't handle it, which is why saying that there is a higher probability they are innocent (or guilty) is better than investing in total innocence (or guilt), but that's just my opinion.

Exactly, at this point there is no going back for them anymore, they've invested so much in this; for example they've translated literally hundreds of pages to convince the public of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt, they've spent so many hours, wrote open letters, engaged in lively discussions. Then the psychological self-esteem; they couldn't handle this blow to their self-image …

… so it's psychologically understandable; the price is very high at this point, the more you've invested the more difficult it gets to back out, and the higher the risk that you will just keep on investing more and more and postpone the point where you finally have to acknowledge … that … you … were … wrong.

 

[AmyStrange]

Why Specifically Amanda?

I don't think I understand, why not Amanda?

-

Rhea,

there is something about Amanda that represents something else they think they hate. Maybe a childhood girlfriend that rejected them. A friend that took a man away from them. Or hate for beautiful American women in general. I have no idea, but I do agree that some of her pictures do make her eyes look spooky if you look at them from the right angle.

If this really were a case of hatred only because they think they are fighting evil and this justifies everything they do, why specifically Amanda?

There are literally hundreds of cases that happened just before this case with which they could have begun their obsession.

Not saying you are wrong Rhea, but this obsession is so deep that there has to be more to it than just "we happened upon the case" or "we're fighting evil" etc.

I mean, really why am I so much into this case? There are so many other injustices to fight, are the pro-guilters right that I'm biased because I have this fantasy of getting Amanda into bed?

I don't know for sure, but I do know that I believe that our subconscious does have some (if not a lot of) control over our conscious actions and the above reason maybe one of my subconscious ones. I don't know, but I do know that this case is not my whole life. I am way more interested in all kinds of other things unexplained as my website shows.

Plus, I don't hate the pro-guilt folks. I think I understand where they are coming from. I try not to attack them so much as try to put myself in their shoes and wonder why they don't see the critical flaws in their arguements and logic.

And I feel so sorry for Meredith and the horror she must have felt as she took her last breaths and even more so for her family and father who must still be having a hard time coming to grips with this tragedy that took his babies life away from him and can give him the benefit of the doubt in many of his actions,

Dave

 

[AmyStrange]

That is so cool...

Exactly, at this point there is no going back for them anymore, they've invested so much in this; for example they've translated literally hundreds of pages to convince the public of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt, they've spent so many hours, wrote open letters, engaged in lively discussions. Then the psychological self-esteem; they couldn't handle this blow to their self-image …

… so it's psychologically understandable; the price is very high at this point, the more you've invested the more difficult it gets to back out, and the higher the risk that you will just keep on investing more and more and postpone the point where you finally have to acknowledge … that … you … were … wrong.

-

Rhea,

that we were able to find common ground. I like your style,

Dave

 

[Rhea]

Not saying you are wrong Rhea, but this obsession is so deep that there has to be more to it than just "we happened upon the case" or "we're fighting evil" etc.

I mean, really why am I so much into this case? There are so many other injustices to fight, are the pro-guilters right that I'm biased because I have this fantasy of getting Amanda into bed?

I don't know for sure, but I do know that I believe that our subconscious does have some (if not a lot of) control over our conscious actions and the above reason maybe one of my subconscious ones. I don't know, but I do know that this case is not my whole life. I am way more interested in all kinds of other things unexplained as my website shows.

I definitely think if Amanda wasn't attractive there would be a lot less people interested in this case, and that's true for both sides; guilt and innocence, and true for both sexes; males and females, and that is also normal …

Some people would still be interested if she wasn't attracitve … we don't know who, and whether we would be …

 

[Rhea]

Rhea,

that we were able to find common ground. I like your style,

Dave

Oh thanks, likewise …

We did formulate the exact same thoughts independently, indeed …

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Exactly, at this point there is no going back for them anymore, they've invested so much in this; for example they've translated literally hundreds of pages to convince the public of Amanda and Raffaele's guilt, they've spent so many hours, wrote open letters, engaged in lively discussions. Then the psychological self-esteem; they couldn't handle this blow to their self-image …

… so it's psychologically understandable; the price is very high at this point, the more you've invested the more difficult it gets to back out, and the higher the risk that you will just keep on investing more and more and postpone the point where you finally have to acknowledge … that … you … were … wrong.

A majority of the Guilters are anonymous so there will be no price to pay for their actions. The internet gives their group a platform to spew hatred at people for 4 years and then simply walk away from the keyboard.

Those who are not anonymous may be surprised to find themselves in a courtroom once Amanda is home. Every word has been documented. Every page has been saved.

I am accused of libel all the time but the reality is that everything I print is backed by facts. They shout libel because it is their only defense. Facts are of little importance to PMF/TJMK. Peggy Ganong recently claimed to post information on her website just to see what the reaction would be. The truth is not the goal. They want to get a reaction. They want attention. There is no defense for the campaign of hate that we have witnessed from PMF/TJMK.

 

[Dougm]

I definitely think if Amanda wasn't attractive there would be a lot less people interested in this case, and that's true for both sides; guilt and innocence, and true for both sexes; males and females, and that is also normal …

Some people would still be interested if she wasn't attracitve … we don't know who, and whether we would be …

Hello everyone. Been lurking for awhile -- about time I post!

While I agree that people are more interested in the case because Amanda is attractive, I don't think the main interest is that element, and I think her attractiveness has been overemphasized to a great degree. Not that she is not attractive, but not uniquely so -- you can find dozens of more attractive girls on a five minute walk across any college campus. I think it is more of her "every person, girl next door" quality. I think people on both sides of the debate are facinated that a person who seems so, well normal, could be accused of a brutal murder.

Of course, the people who deem her guilty don't see her as normal, they think the normalcy is just a mask that hides the true evil. What I find amazing is that people can see such bad things in her speech patterns, and the way she tries to explain what happened to her. Where they get all this "she-devil" stuff is a mystery to me.

 

[bri1]

Hello everyone. Been lurking for awhile -- about time I post!

While I agree that people are more interested in the case because Amanda is attractive, I don't think the main interest is that element, and I think her attractiveness has been overemphasized to a great degree. Not that she is not attractive, but not uniquely so -- you can find dozens of more attractive girls on a five minute walk across any college campus. I think it is more of her "every person, girl next door" quality. I think people on both sides of the debate are facinated that a person who seems so, well normal, could be accused of a brutal murder.

Of course, the people who deem her guilty don't see her as normal, they think the normalcy is just a mask that hides the true evil. What I find amazing is that people can see such bad things in her speech patterns, and the way she tries to explain what happened to her. Where they get all this "she-devil" stuff is a mystery to me.

Doug, she certainly does seem normal to those who started off with the presumption of innocence and then looked at the evidence from that starting point, or those (like me) who assumed she must be guilty because of media coverage and ILE lies, but who were responsive to the evidence. However, you can see that once someone 'knows' she is guilty and her behaviour is interpreted through the lens of this 'knowledge' then her smiles in court, her dress, her 'lies' etc etc, would be highly indicative of a sociopathic personality.
I think there's an underlying misogyny which explains why RS and RG are not the main focus of guilter hate. Amanda is seen as 'one of those' girls who trades on her looks, using them to manipulate those (especially men) around her to get what she wants. (That's why they accuse us pro-innocence/ pro acquittal folk of being attracted to Amanda. They view us as being easily manipulated by her 'type'). The 'staged' break-in and the clean-up are examples of us being duped by the cunning fox, and they see us as weak for thinking with our trousers (even those of us who have girl-parts in our trousers).
The reason that Guede and RS (to a lesser extent) don't bring out the same vitriol is that they were among Amanda's victims, duped and manipulated.
The underlying assumptions are that women's only power comes from their looks and their sexuality, but that this power is overwhelming when used on most men. The same patriarchy who ensure that women have only this power then resent any woman who they perceive as exercising this power, because it corresponds to this perceived weakness in men, which apparently is out of their control.
You can see this attitude elsewhere in some parts of Italian society (although it certainly isn't limited to their society)in some people's (men and women) attitude to the Berlusconi/Ruby bunga parties, where Berlusconi is viewed as having been manipulated by these girls, even when we're talking about an unsurmountable difference in power where you have one of the richest men in Italy, who also holds the highest political office on the one hand, and a teenage sex worker on the other. On the topic of women who work in the sex industry, this is the same reason that sex workers (prostitutes, porn stars, lap dancers whatever) are often despised by men who use their services. They should love those women for providing a service they want, and of legitimising their own desires, and fulfilling their expectation of women having only this power. But they don't, they hate them.
On a more simplified level, the more that they see Amanda as trying to 'get away with it', the more determined they'll become to try and ensure that she doesn't. That's what worries me about Amanda's release from jail....
Anyway, that's my two pennies worth about why Amanda is singled out for hatred.

 

[lionking]

Those who are not anonymous may be surprised to find themselves in a courtroom once Amanda is home. Every word has been documented. Every page has been saved.

Yeah? Really? Do you want my real name to add to this imaginary list? Come on, take me on.

Emotionally invested fantasy.

 

[snook1]

Yeah? Really? Do you want my real name to add to this imaginary list? Come on, take me on.

Emotionally invested fantasy.

Are you saying that ms Peggy, Peter, Harry, SA, Kermit and many many others didn't offend Amanda Knox?

Go to .org, read the threads carefully, all of them. You'll find not only comments that are enough to launch a civil case, but you'll also find some big time name calling. "Witch, B.tch, W.ore, Slut.." are just examples. Also, during the reading you'll find out that they like to stalk. They're stalking the Knox/Mellas family via Facebook fake accounts, they're stalking their kids, they're stalking other members of the .org whenever someone raises their doubt. And so on.

It's not a fantasy, it is reality.