Our plan was never retaliation. We spoke the truth over and over again and eventually we won. Nothing can bring back the 4 years that were lost for Amanda and Raffaele so it is honestly not a time for celebration, but rather a time for healing.
IIP has been heavily attacked by TJMK/PMF because they knew we were making a major impact. Mignini spent 20 minutes talking about our efforts in his closing arguments. He knew we made a major impact also.
Needless to say, we have paid a lot of attention to those that have attacked us. Many here may not know all of the details about TJMK/PMF so it is understandable that they don't view them the same way.
A little perspective:
Peter Quennell and Peggy Ganong were interviewed after the first trial regarding their thoughts. They were interviewed by no one after the appeal. Why? Because the truth about their group was revealed by IIP.
Andrea Vogt sent an email to Amanda's family telling them she was planning on doing a documentary after the appeal. In the email she assured them that she would not include Peter Quennell. Quennell is even to toxic now for the yellow journalists.
Understood. I was not accusing you or others of retaliation, merely making an observation that labeling people, even ones who have undertaken to label others, does not make the argument stronger.
Don't get me wrong, in no way am I discounting your site, as that was my introduction to a lot of the evidence, which is conspicuously absent from many arguments towards guilt. I came into this out of curiosity about 3 months ago, and was quickly able to determine from comparison of the opposing views that (1) there was never a solid enough case against the two even before the DNA evidence was brought into question and (2) those who had to resort to character assassination and supposed reading of behavioral cues to build a case has no case. As such, I found the IIP website to be refreshing in its breakdown of the facts, complete with plausible explanations for all evidence, and pointing out the blatant lies and mis-characterizations of fact that persist even today in most pro-guilt arguments.
A little background on myself: one of my jobs is as a tutor for students interested in taking the Law School Admissions Test. While this test has absolutely no relationship to actual law, it does place a major focus on critical reasoning skills. The three areas that are tested are Arguments, Logical Reasoning, and Reading comprehension. In order to excel on the test, one must remain emotionless and objective, and argue strictly from what is known. Arguments can not be won by pointing out that the arguer has bias, that does not disprove their position. All arguments must be evaluated on the basis of their premises, and how those premises were connected to form a conclusion. The conclusion becomes questionable when you can point out any of the following: (1) The premises as presented do not fully support the conclusion, requiring one or more assumptions to fill in the gaps (2) The premises are not the fullest set of facts available, and other relevant facts are not considered (3) The argument relies on questionable techniques and logical fallacies, such as appeals to authority, attacks on those with opposing views, equivocation, invalid comparisons and analogies, invalid extrapolations from the individual to the group or visa versa, circular reasoning, and language shifts. In reading comprehension, one must limit oneself to stated opinions and stated facts, and cannot infer that someone who has stated a specific point of view shares other beliefs or opinions that are frequently shared by others with that point of view. In other words, one cannot ascribe views to others that they have not admitted to themselves. In logical reasoning, one must pay special attention to conditionals and mutual exclusivity in figuring out how the pieces fit together. Confusing an element in a puzzle that is necessary for another piece to fit as being sufficient to force the other piece, or failing to realize that if one excludes the other the other excludes the one is a prime area for errors to occur.
From this background, I commend you on the carefully constructed case for innocence presented on IIP. Having not found a similarly constructed case for guilt anywhere that is free of inconsistencies, I wonder how anyone could remain unconvinced of the legal innocence of the two, and practically ironclad case for factual innocence as well.
4 years is a long time. Especially knowing you're right and having others refuse to acknowledge the evidence backing your view, and making insinuations about your character. Four years behind bars for a crime one is innocent of is also inexcusable. Failing to recognize that, and being blind to the truth is human, even if deplorable to those who do see things more clearly.
It is indeed over for now, as your avatar declares. That does not mean that everyone is content to acknowledge that. Nor does it cause interest in this case to dry up overnight. As has been brought up before by other posters, possibly even by yourself, the majority of arguments against have been reduced to shreds in the light of objective examination. And I for one would like to remain objective, which means conceding that unpopular and minority views should be freely expressed, and those who express them treated with decency and respect, even if they fail to afford others the same courtesy.
Labeling is pejorative, and assigning labels to a group is pejorative as well. There is a long list of causes, some popular, some not, some positive, some not, that have earned followers a label. None of those labels capture the humanity of those to whom they are ascribed: instead they are used as a means to categorically dismiss all the labeled individuals with sweeping and often false characterizations.
It is my belief if anyone feels that one of these sites or its members has nothing to contribute, ignoring those contributions is a much better approach than labeling and castigating the contributors. If the contributions contain errors, addressing the errors is far better than dismissing them with ridicule, contempt, or condescension. If they add something to the debate, acknowledging it is only right, and does not need to be qualified as the exception. Simply letting the facts out and discussing them is sufficient.
Instead of "it's a hate site," a comment that "its members seem more interested in congratulating each other and banning those who dissent than objectively evaluating arguments" or points out the fact that members have actively campaigned against those who disagree with them. Then the person who reads your post is free to see why the site lacks value, or how the members spread negativity. No need to label.
It is indeed time to heal.
Pity those who spoke to Bruce.