This thread is starting to go off the rails. I realize that there are some who believe Amanda and Raffaele are guilty and others who don't but we are not some kind of surrogate jury trial, we are a group of amateur sleuths trying to figure out what really happened (I think). I don't really care if the "burden of proof" against Amanda and Rafaelle was met. Thats the business of the Itallian justice system.
Those of us who believe Amanda and Raffaele were involved have been presenting the case that the evidence demonstrates that they engaged in a staging/clean-up that attempted to remove the evidence of their presence while leaving evidence of Rudy's presence there. The "pro Amanda" group seems to be trying undermine this argument without really offering an explaination of what really happened. This whole issue of whether or not the "crime scene" was limited to just Meredith's room is completly irrelevant to understanding what really happened but it a key part of the argment that "burden of proof not met" (no evidence of Amanda's presence at the crime scene). I would like the "friends of Amanda" to explain what they think really happened; and why.
Also, there are numerous references to Amanda's lamp, with the cord leading out of her door. (although I haven't read where it was actually pluged in). This would suggest that Meredith had not simply borrowed it before anything had happened. It would be intyeresting to know whose, if any, fingerprints or DNA was on it.
BBM
As a part of the so-called "Pro-Amanda group" I take offense to the statement I have bolded. I
have, on numerous occasions, offered my theories on what I believe really happened. I know other so-called "Pro-Amanda" posters have, as well. I don't think the problem is so much that we don't offer what we believe really happened as much as I think it is that the "Pro-Guilt group" aren't
willing to listen to what we have to say. Anytime I have offered a solution or a more plausible explanation for events that occured, I get shot down with silly rhetoric, snap comments or a request to answer questions that I or others have already addressed, numerous times, like, "Why was their blood mixed throughout the cottage" (it wasn't) or "Why were Amanda's footprints in blood in the hallway?" (they weren't). It's like debating in circles. Or, we get ignored. More than once, one of us have asked a sticky question of a "pro-guilt' poster and are met with silence, unless another "Pro-Amanda" poster feels like answering.
When we post a link to something that we consider to be valuable information and it is from a so-called "Pro-Defense" site, it's shot down with comments like, "That's a Pro-Amanda site, of course they are lying" or "of course they are biased". I'm pretty sure when we post a link to these sites, the Pro-Guilt posters don't even look. Have you ever read through any of the "Pro-Amanda" sites? Have ANY of the Pro-guilt posters or do you all just brush these sites off as false and uninformed? I read through sites from BOTH sides, I gather information from sites representing both sides. I prefer balance, I guess. The problem, IMO and I'm sure the opinon of others, IS that "pro-prosecution" posters aren't willing to take a look in another direction and NOT that we don't offer it. Too much blind faith in what Mignini says. It's disturbing.
Also, I know we're not a 'surrogate jury', I feel it's important for us at WS to offer a balanced discussion for others to read. More than once, a newcomer to the case or the site has said that this is the only site they have found that discusses both sides of the case or that WS is the only site that isn't biased towards one side or the other. I'm proud of that, aren't you? I DO care if the burden of proof against them wasn't met, because it could happen to anyone. Anyone could be convicted of a crime that they didn't commit. It's important to bring awareness to it when it so blatently happens, IMO.
Another thing, I'm more than just a part of a "Pro-Amanda" group. Amanda isn't the only one wrongly convicted here. Raf is wrongly convicted, too. I prefer Pro-Innocence or Pro-Defense. It's sad, to me, that Raf gets lost in this. He is also being held hostage for a crime he did not commit, just like Amanda. If you're interested in the theories I have offered all you have to do is look. My theories are plastered all over the first two threads, right along with the numerous theories of the other Pro-Defense or "On the Fence" posters.
