Moderated Personal Reflections on the Amanda Knox Thread as a Forum Phenomenon

[Kevin_Lowe]

PART ONE: WHAT THE HELL JUST HAPPENED?

From the outside I am quite sure that the three consecutive Amanda Knox threads resemble a rugby match played between teams so covered in mud you don't even know who is on whose side, played by entirely unknown rules, mostly behind a wall that you couldn't be bothered looking over. Occasionally folks from the rest of the forum peer over the wall curious to see what the heck could possibly be going on in there, and leave as mystified as they came.

It's also an extraordinarily polarized thread. The pro-guilt side and the pro-innocence side are both quite convinced that the other side is colossally and wilfully misinformed about basic facts at best and wilfully mendacious at worst. So any attempt to summarise the contents of the thread and the events within it from either side will inevitably and immediately be met with outright contradiction from the other side. For outsiders there is no way to get an unbiased view of what's going on - one side or the other must be lying about what is going on, but which? Or maybe they're just all mad in there and it's best to wall them off and forget about them?

The fact as I see it is that the Amanda Knox thread is a new kind of problem for the JREF forum community. It has aspects in common with earlier thread blowouts, but the differences are hugely important.

While some JREFers do like to give the JREF community a pat on the back about how clever, rational and informed they are the fact remains that the JREF forum community mostly tackles problems which are objectively speaking extremely easy to get right. Is homeopathy real? Of course it bloody isn't, the whole idea is stupid and the evidence is unequivocal. Can Uri Geller really bend metal with his mind? Of coure he bloody can't, the whole idea is stupid and the evidence is unequivocal.

These are still important issues, because lots of stupid people believe in homeopathy and Uri Geller. Those battles are far from won.

By the same token lots of people can't read at all, so if you can read a David Eddings book all by yourself than you're one up on a frightening percentage of the population.

So when we had a massive influx of extremely motivated, partisan posters pushing 9/11 Truth the JREF forum community handled it admirably. The threads got somewhat out of control, it's true, and passions did run high, but the majority of JREFers were quite capable of keeping a handle on the fact that 9/11 Truth was stupid and the evidence was unequivocal. 9/11 Truth broke comfortably down to a lot of individual questions each of which were very individually manageable. Did the Pentagon plane go north of the CitGo (or whatever it was)? No. Did thermite bring down the towers? No, that's stupid. So on and so on. These were easy problems.

The Amanda Knox issue is frankly one hell of a lot harder to keep a handle on. The central claim that Amanda Knox, her boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito and local crook Rudy Guede ganged up to sexually molest and murder Amanda's housemate Meredith Kercher is not prima facie an extraordinary claim on the level of "thermite brought down the WTC!", and the prosecution case has literally hundreds of pages of facts and argument to support that claim.

On the other hand a lengthy list of DNA experts, criminologists, crime scene experts, senior former law enforcement officials and so on have gone on the record and said that the prosecution case is scientifically flawed, illogical, factually false, highly implausible and just plain fails to even approach proof beyond reasonable doubt.

On the other-other hand, the pro-guilt side respond that Raffaele Sollecito's dad is rich and well-connected, the Knox family have hired a PR firm with supervillain-level reach and powers to spread misinformation and hire experts to lie for them, that deranged Amanda Knox groupies were conducting a deliberate campaign to misinform the public, and that all of this supposed evidence and all of these supposed experts were tricks to foment public support for Amanda Knox.

It's not at all easy to decide who is right and who is wrong without mucking in yourself and actually trying to read hundreds of pages of content from both sides of the case, and even then it takes above-average memory and reasoning skills to keep track of even a significant chunk of the vast debate.

As a result when the influx of pro-guilt and pro-innocence partisans hit the forums the Amanda Knox threads "went critical" with sheer volume of controversial content. With dozens or hundreds of seperate and interesting issues to discuss, you could hash out in detail one particular issue (Was it or was it not the case that it was hard to climb in through Filomena's broken window?) but then in fifty pages time someone would just bring it up again, and then in another fifty pages they would bring it up again. Both sides would be adamant that last time it was discussed they won, so referring to previous discussion barely helped at all. With many, many points like this to discuss, the threads ran around in circles over mostly the same ground for 1800 or something pages of discussion.

JREF forum regulars took sides and pitched in alongsde the single-issue newcomers, but there was no clear "JREF side" and "outsider side" as there was with 9/11 Truth.

The thread appears to be winding up now, but that is not because anything has reached a consensus. It's more because one by one the most vociferous pro-guilt posters have either committed suicide by mod or volunatrily retreated to their own echo chamber at perugiamurdefile.org where they can ban all pro-innocence posters and agree with each other in peace.

It's also no wonder the mods are sick of the whole matter. The volume of posts is enormous, both sides are borderline uncivil at the best of times, the number of posts that go over the line is attested to by the sheer number of posts sent to AAH and posters sent to the changing rooms or banned, and it seems very clear to me from their PMF posts that some of the pro-guilt community were spamming their report buttons as hard as they could possibly get away with whether or not their complaints had any merit - Stilicho is still very vocally aggrieved that despite his PM-writing campaign the mods refused to move the thread into the Conspiracy Theories section for him.

My perception was and is that the pro-guit side were abusing the system and breaking the MA far more than the pro-innocence side, and I think this is reflected in the lengthy list of suspended and banned pro-guilt speakers. However they for their part are convinced that the moderators are all agin' them, that they never did anything the other side didn't do and that they never did anything to deserve being banned. Since the most offensive posts from both sides get deleted, unless you were there at the time establishing the truth or otherwise of these claims is impossible.

I did suggest to them that if they thought the moderation was biased they should actually make a complaint with evidence to back it up in the relevant section of the forum, but despite complaining long and loud about biased moderation they never did so as far as I am aware.

So that's a probably over-lengthy analysis of why the systems and people in place that normally hammer out a contentious issue in ten or twenty pages at most to the satisfaction of a skeptical audience failed completely in this case, leading to a self-perpetuating monster thread that in the end could only be resolved by the mods hunting down and shooting pro-guilt posters one by one until few were left. (They all had it coming).

The other side of the debate will have their own slant on absolutely everything I've said, as is their right.

Some day I'd like to write a Part Two, where I summarise for the JREF public and the annals of JREF history who was right (me, of course) and why (which would take some time, although less than you perhaps might expect). However while the Amanda Knox threads are still running that would be off-topic, and if I posted it there nobody would see it and it would soon vanish in the flood anyway.

The recent Fiona thread drew my attention to the fact that in the absence of any reasonable possibility of figuring out the facts for themselves, quite a few JREF forumites seem to have been using a sort of pack affiliation heuristic to fix an opinion - I like Fiona, Fiona is sad, Fiona must be in the right. Or Kevin is smart, Kevin says the prosecution case is a scientifically illiterate witch hunt, Kevin must be in the right. Obviously this is not how good skeptics should fix beliefs.

If you're tempted to fix a belief either way by this sort of primate pack affiliation, I urge you to instead either suspend belief completely or do your own research.

For my part I stand by the position that the pro-guilt community is a disturbingly cult-like entity with the same degree of scientific literacy as the 9/11 Twoofers, the same approach to lying about themselves and defaming their critics as the Scientologists, and their own unique pathology of enabling and encouraging fantasies of truly sickening and hateful violence against Knox, her family, and her supporters both on and off the internet. I think it's sad that we've had some of our posters go over to their side, and I think that you should take anything said about the topic from PMF members with a substantial grain of salt while they are immersed in that community. I'm not saying they should wear a yellow star but I do think they owe it to you to make their affiliations clear.

I think like in any cult, the people on the inside of the pro-guilt community feel perfectly normal. They get their information from the cult, they get their arguments from the cult and they feel just as rational as they ever did. To them it seems like the rest of the world slowly turned irrational - the mods turning against them, previously meticulously rational posters turning into crazed and dishonest partisans - and they are the only ones who stayed sane. Yet in fact as a group the PMFers are becoming more and more isolated from the reality-based world as they drift off deeper into their own echo chamber.

Then again they'll say that I'm off my tree too, so who are you to believe?

I hope that's shed at least a little light on what has been going on behind that wall where all the grunting and thumping happens, and from behind which a steady trickle of banned members have trudged away back to their home forums. You still will have no reasonable basis to say who was right and who was wrong, but hopefully you have some more idea of the general shape of the controversy and why the discussion exploded in such an unprecedented way.

 

[Draca]

JREF has hosted one of the few places on the web where the Innocentisti and the Guilters have been able to meet somewhat civilly and discuss the case. I actually wish the mods would un-ban most posters and allow the discussion to continue. A rough conversation is better than none.

As someone involved in the cause to Free Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito I will miss the crazy intelligent people I've met here on JREF, IIP and Facebook this last year. It has been rewarding to be involved in this cause. A year ago things were a lot rougher. There is a feeling in the Innocentisit camp that the truth is finally being heard and the momentum will end with freedom. Hopefully there is not huge disappointment in store, it has certainly happened before with the Perugia courts.

Thank you Kevin Lowe for your thoughtful analysis.

 

[komponisto]

It's not at all easy to decide who is right and who is wrong without mucking in yourself and actually trying to read hundreds of pages of content from both sides of the case, and even then it takes above-average memory and reasoning skills to keep track of even a significant chunk of the vast debate.

On the other hand, the results of the Less Wrong survey on the issue are very telling, in my opinion. Those interested in using outside heuristics to determine which side is right are well-advised to take a look.

As a Less Wrong regular who recently arrived on the JREF forums as a one-issue poster (despite familiarity with and admiration for the actual JREF), my perspective is somewhat different. As I mentioned in my introductory post, I had scanned the original thread here a year ago and soon fled in dismay. Used to the very high standards of discourse on LW (both intellectually and in terms of civility), I found the volume of ignorant snarks by pro-guilt posters extremely off-putting. Now, maybe that was in some sense provoked by the thread title, which did seem somewhat absurd (though not nearly as much as you might think; it was, as a matter of historical fact, a judgemental interpretation of Knox's behavior which first led Giobbi and Mignini to regard her as a suspect). However, the fact that there were (apparently a significant number of) people on here who fancied themselves rational skeptics and yet were unable to tell the difference between supporters of Knox and Sollecito and 9-11 "truthers" was just too much to stomach, and my opinion of the JREF community and "skeptical" movement in general took a rather large hit. As you (Kevin) say above, it's easy to be right about homeopathy; the real test of rationality is whether you can get the right answer on subjects where there isn't already a natural "in-group" position. That's why I regard this case as something of a rationality litmus test: despite the fact that it isn't a standard "skeptical" issue, the answer should be obvious -- even on a few minutes' reading -- to anyone who really, truly has a firm grasp on how to evaluate evidence and come to a rational conclusion.

Well, somehow I hadn't realized that not only had the discussion continued with a high rate of posting for all this time, but the community did in fact seem to be sorting the issue out properly, for the most part: the clueless snarks remained, but they stood in immediately noticeable contrast to a fortress of formidable sanity on the other side, something I hadn't seen in the original "cartwheel" thread, which just seemed like a noisy mess. In retrospect, I wish I had been able to participate in the erection of this fortress; as an Italian speaker I could have made particularly valuable contributions in the days before the guilters came out with their translation of the motivation document, and in any event was all too eager to explain my view of the case in a setting where there was a possibility of intelligent discussion with people who didn't yet quite "get it" but were willing to listen -- of which there seemed to be some here, for all that it's extremely difficult anywhere to find outright guilters who don't have some kind of screw loose. (The Injustice in Perugia forum is a nice place, but everyone there already strongly agrees with me; and on Less Wrong not only is the issue considered settled and easily so, but the honest truth is that this sort of topic is probably too "lowbrow" for regular discussion there, I regret to say.)

As for whether the moderation has been fair, I can't really say, since I'm a new participant. But I'll just point out that there remain people on the pro-guilt side who are allowed to post here (despite behaving like clueless jerks, in many cases). Can anyone name for me a single regular pro-innocence poster on PMF who hasn't been banned or told never to post again? Hence guilter complaints about moderation seem to me to be as much an example of hypocrisy and projection as their accusations of uncivility, or their claims that those on the pro-innocence side believe in a conspiracy theory.

 

[Cuddles]

The fact as I see it is that the Amanda Knox thread is a new kind of problem for the JREF forum community. It has aspects in common with earlier thread blowouts, but the differences are hugely important.

No, not really. Pretty much the same as bigfoot, 9/11, Israel/Palestine and a whole bunch of other subjects that have come up here.

JREF forum regulars took sides and pitched in alongsde the single-issue newcomers, but there was no clear "JREF side" and "outsider side" as there was with 9/11 Truth.

Wow. You really have no idea how this forum works, do you? Have a look in Politics or Philosophy one day, then try coming back and telling us about this "JREF side" that you imagine exists. People disagree on every subject that is ever raised here. If that wasn't the case, the forum most likely wouldn't exist. After all, what's the point of a discussion forum if there's no discussion?

What's really sad here is your mention of 9/11 truth. This splitting into imaginary groups of "JREFers" and "outsiders" is exactly what they always say.

The thread appears to be winding up now, but that is not because anything has reached a consensus.

Have the arguments about Israel died out? Have the arguments about 9/11 died out? Have the arguments about Obama died out? Have the arguments about bigfoot died out? Have the arguments about UFOs died out? On the vast majority of topics raised here, there is no general consensus. That's why they continue to be raised again and again.

If you seriously think that discussions here are decided by some elite JREF clique coming to a consensus and excluding all the outsiders, you really have an awful lot to learn about what this forum is.

So that's a probably over-lengthy analysis of why the systems and people in place that normally hammer out a contentious issue in ten or twenty pages at most to the satisfaction of a skeptical audience failed completely in this case

Once again, I can only suggest you try having a look around the forum. That is not a vaguely accurate summary of how things usually work here.

 

[zooterkin]

No, not really. Pretty much the same as bigfoot, 9/11, Israel/Palestine and a whole bunch of other subjects that have come up here.

Not to mention the threads related to the Lockerbie bombing, which seems like a particularly close match, being concerned with a potential miscarriage of justice.

 

[JimBenArm]

So basically the revelation is that people, when emotionally invested in a certain viewpoint, throw rationality and objectivity out the window, and become woo-ish?
Wow, wonder if this ever happens in the politics section?

 

[SomeAlibi]

PART ONE: WHAT THE HELL JUST HAPPENED?

I think like in any cult, the people on the inside of the pro-guilt community feel perfectly normal. They get their information from the cult, they get their arguments from the cult and they feel just as rational as they ever did. To them it seems like the rest of the world slowly turned irrational - the mods turning against them, previously meticulously rational posters turning into crazed and dishonest partisans - and they are the only ones who stayed sane. Yet in fact as a group the PMFers are becoming more and more isolated from the reality-based world as they drift off deeper into their own echo chamber.

A rather pointless paragraph. You just explained (at length) why the two sides were so entrenched. You are deeply partisan pro-innocence concerning which you are willing to defend your views, as you have done to the tune of multiple tens of posts on many individual days for months on end. Your views of the pro-guilt side are no more balanced than those you allege of people on the pro-guilt side. The paragraph is pointless because it firstly points out your partisan stance and for the fact that it can be simply re-written as a critique of the pro-innocence side from some on the pro-guilt side. Two deeply entrenched sides think the other totally misguided. Your post inferring that it is exclusively a pro-guilt one (together with 20 judges and jury) is clearly partisan and therefore specious.

It doesn't take a lengthy peruse or much skepticism to see this mail as a je m'excuse. The reason for this is that, I'm sure you will agree (regardless of whether you believe it is in any way justified which no doubt you do not) that your own personal demeanour on the thread has been the subject of some of the most sustained criticism of that thread. I personally stopped posting there because I was unwilling to continue to post when almost every single reply contained a snide comment or dig.

The pro-guilt posters who left have in some minority cases been banned and in many case left of their own volition because of the inability to have a dispassionate debate. While I am plenty critical of some, including you, elsewhere, here I was willing to follow the rules of the house but I found it impossible to stay because of the behaviour of a small but most vocal minority. I was happy to debate with a number of pro-innocence people who could act with decorum. Again, while you may disagree with it absolutely, you have been one of the people whom most others criticised for your approach to that debate.

The numbers are a give away; Fiona, capealadin, lionking, loverofzion, treehorn, Fulcanelli, Pilot Padron, Solange, SomeAlibi, Machiavelli, Stillicho and Amazer who are all passionate posters on this topic, nevertheless were banned in the minority but in the majority chose to leave because they felt unable to conduct a debate in the hostility of the environment. That should speak loud and clear to a problem with a small number of debaters on the pro-innocence side who have essentially wrecked the thread as a result. I make no comment on moderation - only conduct.

I am going to have a go at posting elsewhere on JREF as I like many of the posts I've seen here. But in JREF central, it must be considered that to lose posters like Fiona and many of the others, is indicative of something deeply wrong on that thread which this je m'excuse does absolutely nothing to address.

 

[Mary_H]

A rather pointless paragraph. You just explained (at length) why the two sides were so entrenched. You are deeply partisan pro-innocence concerning which you are willing to defend your views, as you have done to the tune of multiple tens of posts on many individual days for months on end. Your views of the pro-guilt side are no more balanced than those you allege of people on the pro-guilt side. The paragraph is pointless because it firstly points out your partisan stance and for the fact that it can be simply re-written as a critique of the pro-innocence side from some on the pro-guilt side. Two deeply entrenched sides think the other totally misguided. Your post inferring that it is exclusively a pro-guilt one (together with 20 judges and jury) is clearly partisan and therefore specious.

It doesn't take a lengthy peruse or much skepticism to see this mail as a je m'excuse. The reason for this is that, I'm sure you will agree (regardless of whether you believe it is in any way justified which no doubt you do not) that your own personal demeanour on the thread has been the subject of some of the most sustained criticism of that thread. I personally stopped posting there because I was unwilling to continue to post when almost every single reply contained a snide comment or dig.

The pro-guilt posters who left have in some minority cases been banned and in many case left of their own volition because of the inability to have a dispassionate debate. While I am plenty critical of some, including you, elsewhere, here I was willing to follow the rules of the house but I found it impossible to stay because of the behaviour of a small but most vocal minority. I was happy to debate with a number of pro-innocence people who could act with decorum. Again, while you may disagree with it absolutely, you have been one of the people whom most others criticised for your approach to that debate.

The numbers are a give away; Fiona, capealadin, lionking, loverofzion, treehorn, Fulcanelli, Pilot Padron, Solange, SomeAlibi, Machiavelli, Stillicho and Amazer who are all passionate posters on this topic, nevertheless were banned in the minority but in the majority chose to leave because they felt unable to conduct a debate in the hostility of the environment. That should speak loud and clear to a problem with a small number of debaters on the pro-innocence side who have essentially wrecked the thread as a result. I make no comment on moderation - only conduct.

I am going to have a go at posting elsewhere on JREF as I like many of the posts I've seen here. But in JREF central, it must be considered that to lose posters like Fiona and many of the others, is indicative of something deeply wrong on that thread which this je m'excuse does absolutely nothing to address.

Most (if not all) pro-guilt posters who have left did so because they could not answer the last question that was put to them or they could not win the last debate they were engaged in. If you could win your arguments, you would still be making them. The facts, not the pro-innocence posters, are your problem.

 

[Justinian2]

JREF has hosted one of the few places on the web where the Innocentisti and the Guilters have been able to meet somewhat civilly and discuss the case. I actually wish the mods would un-ban most posters and allow the discussion to continue. A rough conversation is better than none.

As someone involved in the cause to Free Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito I will miss the crazy intelligent people I've met here on JREF, IIP and Facebook this last year. It has been rewarding to be involved in this cause. A year ago things were a lot rougher. There is a feeling in the Innocentisit camp that the truth is finally being heard and the momentum will end with freedom. Hopefully there is not huge disappointment in store, it has certainly happened before with the Perugia courts.

Thank you Kevin Lowe for your thoughtful analysis.

I thought that was a great idea at first. All the restraint I've had against the pro-guilt group could finally be unleashed in a torrent of truthful ad hominem evaluations.

However, I never verbally blast the idiots I see walking the streets, so why should I tear into the idiots I see in the forums? I never go into a nursing home and get into a heated and antagonistic argument with the droolers. I never insult the children, grade school kids or even high school children, so why should I do it in the forums?

My usual discourse is with engineers, lawyers, teachers and other highly educated people. When I see some of the statements on the internet, I am aghast. Internet posts run from the extremely intelligent to the Jared Lee Loughner type.

In the beginning of the internet, the posters were largely from academia and engineering. This is my recollection of the internet. Thus, it seems to me that people are on a downward slide. The reality is that more people are using the internet than ever before.

 

[Justinian2]

I don’t want to be a party to enabling (by ignoring) extremist posting/thinking of the type that enabled Jared Lee Loughner. I would rather enable intelligent and factual discourse. I consider the posts that degrade Amanda Knox or Raffaele to be libelous even if the Italian Judiciary hasn't yet had that epiphany.

 

[Schrodinger's Cat]

I just don't understand the interest in this case that people have.

I had always enjoyed Fiona as a poster, though I have never gone to the Amanda Knox thread myself. But when I found out she had left JREF for a forum dedicated ENTIRELY to this case...that just strikes me being an unhealthy level of interest for something that has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Someone else said it recently, can't remember who, but I agree: A murder case sounds like a horrible hobby. Whatever happened to oragami?

 

[whatthebutlersaw]

I just don't understand the interest in this case that people have.

I had always enjoyed Fiona as a poster, though I have never gone to the Amanda Knox thread myself. But when I found out she had left JREF for a forum dedicated ENTIRELY to this case...that just strikes me being an unhealthy level of interest for something that has absolutely nothing to do with you.

Someone else said it recently, can't remember who, but I agree: A murder case sounds like a horrible hobby. Whatever happened to oragami?

I'm not sure Fiona left JREF _for_ PMG. I think leaving here and registering there just coincided. As for murder cases as hobby - I used to be a voracious amateur Ripperologist, but I don't see myself as being of unhealthy mind because of that. (That has other reasons)

It is perfectly possible for someone to make friends on one board and register on another board where they hang, without really being all that into the topic of the board. I am registered at two of Sweden's most notorious forums* - despite not sharing any opinions with a majority of the posters there, or even caring very much about their profile or topics. Some people I like hang there and sometimes you will be able to get an alternative take on topics that are waltzing the tabloids. You can count the posts I have made there on one hand, and even then, mostly they are more along the lines of "So, how about that weather, huh?"

The fact that I'm registered there doesn't really say much.


* The chav hell that is called familjeliv.se and the libertard criminals of flashback.se.

 

[SomeAlibi]

Most (if not all) pro-guilt posters who have left did so because they could not answer the last question that was put to them or they could not win the last debate they were engaged in. If you could win your arguments, you would still be making them. The facts, not the pro-innocence posters, are your problem.

I think you prove my point amply. Nothing else to be said really.

 

[Stellafane]

Most (if not all) pro-guilt posters who have left did so because they could not answer the last question that was put to them or they could not win the last debate they were engaged in. If you could win your arguments, you would still be making them. The facts, not the pro-innocence posters, are your problem.

Actually, I don't think you're correct. I think most (if not all) of the so-called "pro-guilt" posters left because it was pointless to engage in further discussion with many of the pro-Amanda posters, who in many cases act as though the more aggression and venom they can inject into the discussion, the stronger their case becomes. For instance, you likened my very brief contribution to the thread to receiving an obscene phone call. I'll leave it to anyone interested enough to review my contributions (it won't take long) to determine whether the "obscene phone call" imagery speaks more to where my mind is at, or yours.

Edited by Locknar: 

Edited, breach of rule 11 removed.

 

[SomeAlibi]

I'm not sure Fiona left JREF _for_ PMG. I think leaving here and registering there just coincided. As for murder cases as hobby - I used to be a voracious amateur Ripperologist, but I don't see myself as being of unhealthy mind because of that. (That has other reasons)

It is perfectly possible for someone to make friends on one board and register on another board where they hang, without really being all that into the topic of the board. I am registered at two of Sweden's most notorious forums* - despite not sharing any opinions with a majority of the posters there, or even caring very much about their profile or topics. Some people I like hang there and sometimes you will be able to get an alternative take on topics that are waltzing the tabloids. You can count the posts I have made there on one hand, and even then, mostly they are more along the lines of "So, how about that weather, huh?"

The fact that I'm registered there doesn't really say much.


* The chav hell that is called familjeliv.se and the libertard criminals of flashback.se.

I think there's a bit of confusion here and I wouldn't hold myself out as completely speaking for Fiona but:

She didn't leave JREF for PMF as a replacement. PMF is a single topic forum solely related to the murder of Meredith Kercher. She was already a member of PMF a long time ago. But obviously it's not a JREF alike.

My understanding is that she left JREF, inter alia, because she was unhappy with the way the thread had been moderated and run.

 

[Guybrush Threepwood]

I guess this is as good a place as any to ask this question, I've been wondering about it for a while but couldn't motivate myself to read the threads.

Has anyone, from either side, changed their mind during the course of the threads and acknowledged that the other side had the greater weight of evidence?

 

[quadraginta]

Her join date on the PMG forum is Dec 11, 2009, so she left JREF long after she started there (I have no idea whether she was involved in running that forum).

I expect that she registered with that board when she began to research the available information about the case. That join date coincides with the inception of the "Cartwheels" thread, and probably her interest in the case was spurred by that thread. PMF seems to have been around far longer than that. Accusations of bias aside, it seems to be one of the more complete repositories of easily accessed data concerning the case. Even the most partisan of Knox advocates is not above using their collection of material as a citation source, which is how I first encountered that board. Delving into the discussion area is not required.

When the humble little JREF thread on the Knox case became a watering hole for single issue posters from elsewhere there was a tiny leavening of PMF regulars among the passionate Knox defenders. I expect that Fiona found their comments here generally to be less confrontational, or at least less insulting than the the ones by those convinced of her innocence. I know I certainly did.

I have no idea what the community at PMF is like, but it isn't unusual for people to find a common spirit at single issue boards which is not tied exclusively to areas of advocacy about that issue.

Fiona's posts here have always been paragons of calm deliberation to an extraordinary degree which most of the rest of us have read only with admiration (and perhaps a certain amount of jealousy) even when we don't necessarily agree with her point. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary I will have to think that she would behave the same way elsewhere.

 

[Stellafane]

I guess this is as good a place as any to ask this question, I've been wondering about it for a while but couldn't motivate myself to read the threads.

Has anyone, from either side, changed their mind during the course of the threads and acknowledged that the other side had the greater weight of evidence?

Yep -- I did. When I first started reading the thread, I believed there was a likely possibility that Ms. Knox was the victim of too-eager prosecution. I subsequently changed my mind, based primarily on two factors:

1. The "guilty side" offered a much more cohesive and plausible overall scenario of what happened.
2. A quite large percentage of the "innocent side" were acting (and in my view, continue to act) like CTers, which to me is usually indicative of an indefensible position.

 

[SomeAlibi]

I guess this is as good a place as any to ask this question, I've been wondering about it for a while but couldn't motivate myself to read the threads.

Has anyone, from either side, changed their mind during the course of the threads and acknowledged that the other side had the greater weight of evidence?

There was a spate of new posters who set themselves up as firm guilt-believers who then had damascian revelations and ended up on the innocence side. The problem was, a number of them were shown to be set up jobs of people previously vested in the topic. There was also a rather comedic serial progression of these types for a while where people would turn up in PMF and pronounce "hey ho, I'm open minded" all for it to fall apart very quickly. LondonJohn who posts here is one such person according to pro-innocence posters which he would no doubt completely disagree with. It therefore becomes extremely hard to distinguish genuine converts from the pre-arranged.

The cadre of posters who represent those most-complained about for wrecking the thread (again, this is an objective statement about the most oft-complained-about rather than me levelling anything new) is extremely small but you can see from the posting numbers that KevinLowe, LondonJohn, and Mary H whom would fit that core group, are so vested (Mary, based in Amanda's hometown of Seattle has done 2,400 posts on one topic in just 6 months) that there isn't a normal debate going on here. There is a hardcore who post multiple tens of posts a day and are so vested and vociferous, it's impossible to have a standard debate with them in there. I'd happily debate with almost all the other pro-innocence posters in there, many of whom are deeply opposed to my pov.

 

[quadraginta]

I didn't read it. Could someone briefly summarize it for me?

No problem: She did it. (Be forewarned, not everyone may entirely agree with that summation.)

Well, that settles that then! And I didn't have to wade through thousands of posts. Nice, thank you.

Of course it isn't that simple.

My take is that Knox is an 'innocent as a new-born lamb' paragon of virtue. Any suggestions that she may not be are the feverish ramblings of diseased, sub-normal minds. There is no evidence against her. It is all malicious lies, incompetence, or conspiracy coming from a third world country with a pre-historic justice system that has a pathological hatred of pretty, white, American girls. It must be patently obvious to even the least intelligent or educated that anyone who disagrees with any of that is obviously a "guilter" who deserves only ridicule and shunning.

... and is probably mean to puppies.