It really is becoming a fascinating study of their collective ignorance, confirmation bias, intellectual dishonesty, vindictiveness and sheer stupidity.
I think that pro-guilt commentators fall into only a few different categories. But the largest category, as I observe things, is those who are primarily motivated by a genuine belief that they're fighting (and fighting against the forces of evil) for "truth and justice". A belief in the participation of Knox and Sollecito in the murder is, of course, a fundamental component of that primary motivation.
But since the primary motivation is the thing that really matters (married as it is to feelings of moral superiority and self-worth), the second-order question of whether Knox/Sollecito really DID participate in the murder cannot now be essentially challenged by them. For any of them to conclude at this point that it's even possible that Knox and/or Sollecito were not in fact involved would render their whole "campaign" moot, pointless, ill-judged and vindictive. So, intellectually and emotionally, they are fundamentally not only unwilling, but actually unable, to abandon a belief that Knox and Sollecito took part in the murder.
(Funnily enough, one sometimes (but rarely) sees this phenomenon with people who campaign for perceived miscarriages of justice, when it subsequently turns out that the person for whom they were campaigning did in fact commit the crime. This happened IIRC in the case of the famous "A6 Murder" in the UK. A low-intelligence drifter called James Hanratty was convicted and executed in the early 1960s, but many people campaigned for years to clear his name since they were convinced that he couldn't have committed the crime (for various reasons) and that there was another more likely suspect. Eventually the case was reopened, and in the mid-90s the investigating police actually declared Hanratty not-guilty. But improved DNA testing techniques led to a re-examination of semen swabs from the crime scene in 2002. They proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Hanratty was the killer. Even with this immensely powerful evidence, some campaigners were unable to accept the outcome, and continued to argue that there must have been some massive fault (or even malpractice) in the DNA testing.)
My contention - with possible confirmation bias very possible - is that just about every pro-innocence poster I've met, would change their views on innocence in a New York minute if it could be demonstrated that either AK or RS were, in fact, guilty.
For instance - if the putative semen stain was tested and found to be Raffaele's, then that would be game over. IIRC (and can be corrected if wrong) to have Raffaele's defence team request that the Nencini court test the sample, and have Nencini deny the request simply defies belief.
On IA/IIP there's a discussion about Jody Arias, just recently sentenced to life in prison for the brutal murder of her former boyfriend. There are a few "innocenters" contributing to that thread - I'm not one of them. Vindictive guilter I am.
In the wrongful prosecutions of Debra Milke, AK/RS, Nyki Kish, Russ Faria, etc. the reasons why most come to believe in their innocence is because of a phenomenon I've seen multiple times:
Someone starts with the view that they are probably guilty - because, let's admit it, police most often DO arrest the right/obvious people. Yet for some who are arrested, even after confessions (Central Park 5), all one needs to do is pull on a few threads of the case against them - confessions notwithstanding - and the case comes unraveled.
With Jody Arias, most surely there are threads hanging - but none of them, when pulled, cause the fabric of the case against them to come unraveled. She's guilty as hell.
In short, one tends to hold in the back of one's mind that one could be mistaken! What seems to be going on at .NUT is that no such possibility can ever be entertained. At all.
Have they started into conspiratorializing the exonerations? Where has Machiavelli ended up?
