And is coining a derogatory name for people with opinions that differ from yours the best way to demonstrate your rationality?
To play devil's advocate for a moment, I think there were valid reasons to doubt that Knox was as innocent as her supporters claim. This is a woman, after all, who
didn't hesitate to implicate an innocent man in this brutal crime. But her supporters make it sound like she couldn't conceivably have done anything differently, or offered a consistent alibi throughout the interrogations and investigations, because the overzealous Italian police virtually forced her to blame Lumumba and change her story whenever she found it necessary.
Does that make her guilty? Of course not. But it doesn't make suspicion of Knox something freakish and inexcusable.
-Mike
Oh, well, all right then.
Um, just out of curiosity, when a person blames someone else for a crime, you really consider that a confession?
-Mike
Okay. I just wondered why it's "freakish and frankly inexcusable" to harbor suspicion toward someone who would knowingly accuse an innocent man of a heinous crime.
-Mike
No, she didn't. She just said she was at the house (since the cops falsely claimed they had evidence placing her there), cowering in fright while Lumumba killed Meredith.
I don't want you to think I believe this means Knox herself killed Kercher. But neither do I believe the woo-soaked notion that the police brainwashed her into fabricating an accusation against Lumumba. As for the cops exploiting Knox's trauma and nightmares, let's not be hypocritical here. The UK tabloids were wrong to revile Knox for not being sufficiently torn up about Kercher's death; if her behavior didn't betray trauma, that doesn't mean she was guilty. But it doesn't mean she was traumatized, either.
I'm just trying to make it clear that it's not so wacky to have been skeptical of Knox's innocence, given behavior like accusing an innocent man of a brutal murder. Are we allowed to be skeptical?
-Mike
First you say they were convinced of her guilt, then you say she told them what they wanted to hear, namely that Patrick Lumumba was the killer.
Hey, it's a done deal now. I just wanted to point out that it wasn't the cartwheels and vibrator that made me suspect Knox wasn't on the up and up. I admit I was a little put off by Knox playing blame-the-black-guy when the cops turned up the heat.
-Mike
I never said I bought the prosecution's failed theory, and I've repeatedly stated that I don't think accusing Lumumba means she was guilty. All I said is that it's not at all surprising that people didn't buy that Knox was as helpless and innocent as her supporters claim. And it's not because of the damn cartwheels. Not because of her sex life. Because she signed a statement incriminating an innocent man.
I get it, she wasn't guilty. Hooray, justice is served. But the notion that it was insane to be skeptical of her innocence is a bit much.
-Mike
What I've highlighted are merely prosecution accusations, except for the one ('didn't hesitate') so ludicrous (53 hours with police in 89 hours--the statements coming at the end of it) not even a corrupt prosecution could contend, and might have simply been a poor choice of words or a misunderstanding about the details of the case. At any rate they are not facts. What I bolded is what actually happened, and I don't know if that implies a progression in your thinking on this matter for sure, but are you interested in discussing it?
If your point is that no one was
insane to think Amanda guilty because of what they heard about her signing those statements and wrote that note, I'd have to agree. However I'd have to say that someone who read those statements and note and understood the context of what caused them to be written and still believed the prosecution and police regarding her 'knowingly accusing an innocent man' displays a narrowness of mind or understanding that suggests it could only be the result of motivated cognition or simply being pig-ignorant.
Here's the
statements she signed, and the
note she wrote later on the 6th. If you haven't read through them recently, or
ever for that matter, perhaps it would be helpful to do so now. Then read
this and note where the link comes from, that's a
law enforcement link with collected information to help
police officers, it's
not simply something from some criminal defense institution with an agenda to cast doubt on confessions.
I don't want you to read that simply as evidence that the statements were coerced, as I understand it that isn't an issue with you, but to understand the
nature of coerced confessions, and how you're simply mistaken in the
belief that police 'brainwashing' subjects is somehow 'woo-soaked.' Incidentally, as that link is older, you'll see the concept of an internalized false confession referred to as a 'hypothesis,' however that's not what the evidence suggests actually happened to Amanda Knox. What occurred was more the
basis of an internalized false confession, false memory syndrome, and using that term in Amanda's case is simply shorthand in my view.
I certainly understand if you believe that under pressure Amanda accused Patrick Lumumba of the murder, and as a result it caused you to be suspicious of her, and that
innocentisti peddling stories of 'brainwashing' sounds initially like rather a pathetic rationalization of her behavior--especially if you are unfamiliar with false memory syndrome--which you'll note that link not only cannot deny, it ridicules the idea it
can be denied. However the reason I think this important is that going over this in detail for the first time was what caused me to realize that not only were Raffaele and Amanda not guilty, they were highly likely to be totally innocent. In part that's because the story of the police and prosecution on the interrogation and the arrests of Patrick, Amanda and Raffaele is
so revealing as to their incompetence and corruption. Do you even know what it is? What Ficarra, Zugarini, Napoleoni, and Domino testified to regarding the interrogation? The conflicting accounts Mignini has given as to his presence and why the interrogation wasn't taped?
What Amanda and Raffaele have to explain about that night in the
Questura is complicated and to some perhaps even highly unlikely, what the police and prosecution contend is
utterly ridiculous and provably untrue. That's why you won't see what (in totality) the police and prosecution testified to defended in any of the 70k or so posts about the case on JREF from anyone who knows anything about it--
especially the ones who think her guilty.
One other thing you may wish to take into consideration is things like Amanda accusing a black man to save herself, and that she was 'cold' after the murder were disseminated for the purpose of suggesting to people like yourself that she was guilty of murder, they do not stand scrutiny and the latter one was even disproven by testimony from police and neutral sources in court. It was simply a smear, it is not uncommon elsewhere but is especially prevalent in Italy in high profile cases due to the lack of sequestered juries and the complicity of the Italian press which is easily cowed with
calunnia and
diffamazione charges and suits.
That I am! I just fell in love with her 
Seriously, though, I should add a disclaimer, lest I become a stain on JREF: I forgot to take off my Websleuths hat, and put on my Nietzsche-meets-Schopenhauer -and Jaspers persona: But I am of course perfectly capable of viewing Amanda objectively. She is just such a shock in her American persona. 
Will check out your link now. Dr. Hampakian was involved with the Innocence Project.
