PDA

View Full Version : The Collapsing Case Against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito



pcford
04-04-2011, 07:57 AM
First the prosecution's "super witness" could not have seen AK and RS on the date alleged and he is found to be a heroin addict. Then the prosecution's main evidence seems non existent or unusable. Now it is revealed in one of Italy's major magazines that the person that claimed to have heard screaming on the night of the murder is hard of hearing and has spent time in a mental hospital.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/20...ele-sollecito/ (http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/03/new-revelations-no-evidence-against-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/)

pcford
05-15-2011, 11:00 PM
"If at first you don't succeed, failure may be your style."
Quentin Crisp

Donn,

Hey, that’s pretty funny. Sorry to take so long to get back with you; I've been busy at work.

So you are interested in Quentin Crisp!!…your interests are wider than I would have thought! Rose and I went to a talk he gave here in town several years ago here in Seattle…one of the points he made was that the state of one’s housekeeping does not get any worse after you do not do it for a year.

Donn, you might be interested in noting that CNN has presented a show on the increasingly shaky case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito. The charges against them are gradually being shown to be false one by one.

The Committee to Protect Journalists has drawn attention to the efforts of the prosecutor in the case, Giulio Mignini, to bring lawsuits against anyone casting doubt on the prosecution’s bizarre Rube Goldberg theory of how Amanda and Raffaele were involved in the murder. He has filed around a dozen lawsuits, including one against a tiny neighborhood paper here in Seattle.

Candace Dempsey, a writer who has been following the case in Italy, states that British tabloids have paid six figure sums to a pro guilt participant in the case. Not surprisingly, the recipient changed his story to suit.

The CPJ also reveals how a Perugian pro-innocence blogger, Frank Sfarzo, has been intimidated. Five policemen came to his apartment and accused him of attacking them all. They took him to a psychiatrist and attempted to make the doctor certify that he was psychologically disturbed for defending the accused.

This has a parallel in the last "Amanda" thread in which I participated. downthecreek said I had a “venomous obsession” with the defense of these two young people. That thread was deleted by the moderator for unknown reasons, but I saved it here: http://criterionweb.com/amandapage2.htm

Donn, I have no doubt that time will show the innocence of the accused…witness testimony and DNA evidence have recently shown to be bogus. Don’t you think that MLK’s saying: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.” might be appropriate here? It is strange that evidently you, like a dwindling number of pro-guilt adherents cannot see the other side this heart-breaking case. Pretty disturbing.

Quentin Crisp has another notable quote that might well for you to consider:
"The very purpose of existence is to reconcile the glowing opinion we have of ourselves with the appalling things that other people think about us."
Quentin Crisp

Garnett
05-16-2011, 12:28 AM
I seee that besides the Italian judiciary, the British press, the Perugian police and certain people on this forum, Google are also in on this conspiracy (http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/05/11/google-silences-blog-critical-of-amanda-knox-prosecutor/) too. Do these theories have any followers outside Seattle?

pcford
05-16-2011, 12:42 AM
I seee that besides the Italian judiciary, the British press, the Perugian police and certain people on this forum, Google are also in on this conspiracy (http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/05/11/google-silences-blog-critical-of-amanda-knox-prosecutor/) too. Do these theories have any followers outside Seattle?

Conspiracy theory? I don't understand.
Google has to obey the laws of the country in which it is operating. Google was obligated to obey an Italian court order.

The blog in question is being reassembled on a Wordpress site. It's a pity that Google had to shut the blog down. However, it is only temporary; it will return.

bobbys
05-16-2011, 01:19 AM
Keep up the good work Mr PcFord

pcford
05-16-2011, 08:23 AM
Keep up the good work Mr PcFord

Thanks Bob. A server in Sweden evidently has the Sfarzo blog up again. These days it is very difficult to hide the truth in situations like this.

George Jung
05-16-2011, 08:38 AM
Interesting developments; thanks for the heads up.

Donn, do you really think the Italian legal system has been fair in this case? I'd be curious why - I haven't read anything suggesting the shenanigans on the other side of this side that the prosecution has run with. If they are exonerated - by the Italian courts - the next question will be - why the stance so many here adopted? It's not logical - it got nasty, early on, and between folk who normally get along well. And that's the pity.

wardd
05-16-2011, 08:47 AM
First the prosecution's "super witness" could not have seen AK and RS on the date alleged and he is found to be a heroin addict. Then the prosecution's main evidence seems non existent or unusable. Now it is revealed in one of Italy's major magazines that the person that claimed to have heard screaming on the night of the murder is hard of hearing and has spent time in a mental hospital.
http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/20...ele-sollecito/ (http://blog.seattlepi.com/dempsey/2011/04/03/new-revelations-no-evidence-against-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/)


would that mental institution be called italy?

pcford
05-16-2011, 08:54 AM
would that mental institution be called italy?

Frank Sfarzo says that the criticism of the old lady that said she heard screaming (Nara) is misplaced....I don't know. But the case against AK and RS is so ridiculous that it hardly needs the addition of this item or not.

Osborne Russell
05-16-2011, 10:12 AM
I'm still trying to accept the idea that it's a crime to "defame" a prosectutor in Italy. A very potent weapon of tyranny. Regardless of whether you're convicted, you're in jail in the meantime. That's enough to silence the press or convert them into your lap dog.

Another question: How exactly does Italy or anyone have the power to order a website to shut down?

pcford
05-16-2011, 11:26 AM
I'm still trying to accept the idea that it's a crime to "defame" a prosectutor in Italy. A very potent weapon of tyranny. Regardless of whether you're convicted, you're in jail in the meantime. That's enough to silence the press or convert them into your lap dog.

Another question: How exactly does Italy or anyone have the power to order a website to shut down?

It is possible (obviously) in Italy to shut down a website for prosecutorial "defamation." One must bear in mind that the legal system of Italy is different than the US or Britain...and there are some points that seem better in their system.

Osborne Russell
05-16-2011, 12:29 PM
Like what? This sure ain't one of 'em.

pcford
05-16-2011, 01:32 PM
Like what? This sure ain't one of 'em.

For example, the accused are effectively given two trials and are considered innocent until both are concluded. The point I am trying to make is that it is not appropriate to complain about the way thaT Italian jurisprudence is set up. It's the misfeasance and malfeasance of the prosecutor and police. Remember, injustice happens in our system as well...

Osborne Russell
05-16-2011, 02:00 PM
For example, the accused are effectively given two trials and are considered innocent until both are concluded.

If he's acquitted the first time why is there a second trial?


The point I am trying to make is that it is not appropriate to complain about the way thaT Italian jurisprudence is set up.

Human rights are universal.


It's the misfeasance and malfeasance of the prosecutor and police.

You mean they're exceeding their authority?


Remember, injustice happens in our system as well...

I'll agree to that all day long but I don't see how it matters.

PhaseLockedLoop
05-16-2011, 02:37 PM
...Human rights are universal...

Really? And just what rights are those? I'd be interested to hear what universal human rights are.

pcford
05-16-2011, 02:49 PM
If he's acquitted the first time why is there a second trial?
Human rights are universal.
You mean they're exceeding their authority?
I'll agree to that all day long but I don't see how it matters.

In this particular case...it does no good to complain about the Italian judicial system...justice will be accorded (or not) within that system...unless Obama sends in the Seals...and that ain't gonna happen.

I am not sure of your point...if you are saying that the US should put pressure on the Italians to end this nonsense...well...I suspect that is going on behind the scene. But having a big blow-up over how bizarre one thinks the Italian system is will not be profitable.

As I said...this case is where it is through the misfeasance and malfeasance of the prosecutor and police. Aided and abetted by the disgusting British tabloids...it is reported that Italian news was not as bad as the British...it is horrifying what has been said about Amanda:..."she-devil" a "person without a soul." This is not a dry...guilty or innocent murder mystery...the prosecution has used the vile reporting to support their case...and the jury was not sequestered. It's not surprising that most of the pro-guilt people here are Brits...and this poison certainly leaked to people on the jury.

(By the way...there are plenty of Brits who have looked carefully at this travesty and she the mess for what it is.)

People need to be made aware of what is going on in Perugia...there are still a lot of people whose opinions were poisoned by the early reports and some have not bothered to dig deeper into the shabby, shabby prosecution case. That has been demonstrated on this forum.

Osborne Russell
05-16-2011, 06:36 PM
Really? And just what rights are those? I'd be interested to hear what universal human rights are.

Among them are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Perhaps there is a secret Chimp squad memo abolishing that as well. And then the drone attacks in Afghanistan would make it bi-partisan.

Osborne Russell
05-16-2011, 06:46 PM
I am not sure of your point...if you are saying that the US should put pressure on the Italians to end this nonsense...well...I suspect that is going on behind the scene. But having a big blow-up over how bizarre one thinks the Italian system is will not be profitable.

It would not be profitable for the US to put any pressure on Italy, public or private. I think a massive public protest might be in order, if things are as I suspect.


As I said...this case is where it is through the misfeasance and malfeasance of the prosecutor and police.

Still not sure what you mean. If you mean their investigation was incompetent, that's one thing. If the rights of the accused are not respected that's another. Could be one or the other or both.

If the investigation was incompetent, and you say so, this guy has you thrown in the slammer. That isn't misfeasance or malfeasance, it isn't even him doing it. The judge orders it. WTF !


Aided and abetted by the disgusting British tabloids...

How do they contribute to the mis/malfeasance of the prosectors?

George Jung
05-16-2011, 10:14 PM
'Considered innocent until the second trial' isn't really accurate, is it? AK has been in jail/prison from the start; if she's 'innocent' until the second trial ends, that's a long time

to be cooling her heals, waiting for the second act.

pcford
05-16-2011, 10:58 PM
'Considered innocent until the second trial' isn't really accurate, is it? AK has been in jail/prison from the start; if she's 'innocent' until the second trial ends, that's a long time

to be cooling her heals, waiting for the second act.

Legally, the accused are considered innocent until found guilty at the second trial...perhaps longer not sure about the appeal process. However, this is a fairly recent addition to Italian law. Yes...it is a long time...but AK and RS will certainly be found innocent. And, the Italian taxpayers pay handsomely for the mistakes of their civil servants. Too bad that the people involved directly do not have to pay. And I include here those that repeated foolish lies of the British press...I'd like to see them digging into their pockets.

Alas, the likely best we will be able to do is to observe their chagrin on learning the part they played in this persecution.

George Jung
05-17-2011, 10:36 PM
I was curious just how our British peers could have such a different perception of this case, and in an effort to understand, I googled the principle, coming across this

article in the bbc news:

Kercher killer Amanda Knox tried for slandering police


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13429499


Hehehe.... I tink I see the problem.....

pcford
05-18-2011, 12:17 AM
I was curious just how our British peers could have such a different perception of this case, and in an effort to understand, I googled the principle, coming across this

article in the bbc news:

Kercher killer Amanda Knox tried for slandering police


http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-13429499


Hehehe.... I tink I see the problem.....

Wow, that's pretty amazing. That's not a vile British rag like the Daily Mail...it's the BBC fer gosh sakes. It is true that headlines are not written by the actual reporter. In this case the actual news report is not as accusatory as the headline. However, itt also is a fairly recent posting...far after the prosecution's case has been revealed to have been built on lies and shoddy police.

The American news media falls far short of perfection...needless to say...but some of the British papers are revealed in all their disgusting glory with this unfortunate tale of injustice.

I am still waiting for any of our British cousins to admit they were wrong when they joined the howling lynch mob.

Garnett
05-18-2011, 03:32 AM
Calling Amanda Knox "Kercher killer" is not accusatory - she has been tried and convicted - it is correct terminology. If Knox is subsequently acquited the term will cease to be correct, and you won't see the BBC using it.


I am still waiting for any of our British cousins to admit they were wrong when they joined the howling lynch mobYou seem to be forgetting - only one person has died so far, and it wasn't as nice a way to go as hanging. I know Meredith Kercher wasn't American but that doesn't preclude her from being a victim. And, "lynch mob"? The UK did away with capital punishment some time ago along with most other civilised nations.

The only thing comparable I can think of is the case of "the most notorious criminal convicted in Massachusetts (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_case)". As a result Massachusetts brought back the the death penalty (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louise_Woodward_case#Trial). I guess Knox is lucky she wasn't tried there.

Ian McColgin
05-18-2011, 07:33 AM
If people read Garnett's two click-over references in post #25, they will see that Woodward is hardly "the most notorious criminal convicted in Massachusetts" and her case has nothing to do with the debate about whether to bring back the death penalty or not (still not). These flat out insanely false assertions do nothing to advance any observers' understanding of Knox's trial or of the justice systems of any nation. I don't know where Garnett is coming from here, but it's nowhere close to reality. If people who think Knox guilty were all so willfully indulgent of falsehoods, I'd hold no hope. But fortunatly, peculiar as the Italian system seems to us, it appears to be lurching towards a more well developed and well proven conclusion than the tabloids and blood mongers who just want to sell Kercher's corpse.

Garnett
05-18-2011, 08:21 AM
Ian, I think most people can read for themselves. You, however, seem to have completely ignored or missed the crux of every point I made.

Just by way of example.

What Ian says the linked article states:

If people read Garnett's two click-over references in post #25, they will see that Woodward is hardly "the most notorious criminal convicted in Massachusetts" .
What my linked article states:

Woodward was deemed the "most notorious criminal convicted in Massachusetts" by Boston law magazine Exhibit A ten years after the death

What Ian says the linked article states:
If people read Garnett's two click-over references in post #25, they will see that Woodward['s]... case has nothing to do with the debate about whether to bring back the death penalty or not (still not).
What my linked article states:

The conviction had a side effect on killing legislation in Massachusetts to restore capital punishment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_punishment)
Forgive me if I'm wrong but "a push for capital punishment (http://www.nytimes.com/1997/11/13/us/a-further-distinction-for-the-au-pair.html)" sounds a lot more like a "lynch mob" than anything I've seen in relation to the Kercher murder case.

Ian McColgin
05-18-2011, 09:14 AM
Garnett is correct that "Exhibit A", a short-lived free "legal" magazing for non-lawyers, did label Woodward as he quoted. That's right up there in credibility with the National Enquirer's UFO reports. While I happen to disagree with the obscure quote that the Woodward case had anything to do with our preventing the death penalty that year, it's pretty clear that a quote that the case helped kill the death penalty is a far cry from claiming that as "a result Massachusetts brought back the the death penalty", [#25] in a state where there is not capital punishment.

Capital punishment is a measure brought forward by some hysterical Republicans in this state almost every legislative session. Depending on what's in the news or can be whipped into the public debate, it gets closer and right now we have fewer principled politicians who will do all to prevent a death penalty than we've had in the past. It could happen yet. But nothing in the Woodward case ever had anything even remotely to do with a death penalty that's ever been proposed in this state or passed in the last few decades in any other state.

There are similarities between the Woodward and Knox cases in that in each case the girl's home public was strongly disposed towards seeing her as innocent. Woodward was never villified in the US the way that Knox has been villified in the UK, but in the US sentiment that was sympathetic to her and rather hostile to the rich adverts for entitlement that hired her was somewhat countered by a small group that viewed her as at least an accidental baby killer.

The eventual reductions of her conviction and of her sentence were both greeted in this nation as suitable.

Garnett
05-18-2011, 10:30 AM
Ian, apologies - I mis "cut & paste". Rather than "bringing back the death penaly" I meant to record that there was a push to do so which jars with references to a "lynch mob" mentality elsewhere in the world.

You'll note I quoted "most notorious criminal convicted in Massachusetts" to draw attention to the fact it was a direct quote - I was hoping to emphasise the fact that it was such a ridiculous thing for the magazine to have said.

This thread has prompted me to do further reading, and the case does appear complex, and it seems people on all sides have put forward some incredibly biased opinion.

Knox hasn't been villified here. By reporting tradition, if someone is convicted of a charge then the press refer to them as guilty. If someone convicted of a crime is subsequently acquited, they stop doing so. Our press is as broad a basket and any other, so you'll get all sorts.

Please can someone spell out what is so bad about the BBC article cited above?

S.V. Airlie
05-18-2011, 10:47 AM
If it was not Amanda Knox, who was it?

Ian McColgin
05-18-2011, 10:48 AM
Nothing wrong with the BBC story that I can see. Given that from the start we were informed of the way Italy has two trials and that in US law (I don't know UK on this point) the first trial is almost semi a little analogous to what for us is a grand jury, it does seem to me that the provisional nature of first trial's "guilty" ruling could have been better recognized in the headline. Point is, to the US public and as shown in some of the heated exchanges on this Forum, it appears that Knox is not viewed as sympathetically on the other side of the Atlantic as we tend to view her here and that more than the public merely feeling nice about an attractive American woman, that gulf of sympathy has been fed by contrasting press coverage.

In addition, there is the way in which Italian authorities prosecute anyone who questions them with any weight, so it seems to US readers as if the UK press not only is prejudiced against Knox, but is also afraid of the Italian justice system. I am not convinced that either of these perceptions is true, but they do add to a tendency to rally around the girl.

On the quoted Wikipedia articles: The source is generally non-controversially reliable most of the time, but on these two points some Wiki author clearly had an ax to grind. I would not be surprised if at some point someone besides myself sees how factually wrong the claims of "most notorious criminal" and that her conviction in any way thwarted the death penalty (two contradictory claims if there ever were) are.

The only analogy between the two cases is that both young women got somewhat more favorable press in their homeland's than in the other nation's.

Garnett
05-18-2011, 12:08 PM
Touche.

I have to put my hands up and say I thought she'd been convicted from what I read in the press over here (in the UK).

Ian McColgin
05-18-2011, 12:17 PM
She was convicted, but just in the first trial of a two trial system. The first trial is only vaguely analogous to our grand jury and the second trial, while slightly analogous to our appeals courts, differs, being more like an original trial in how evidence enters. In short, the systems work quite differently.

George Jung
05-18-2011, 12:40 PM
I found the article innocuous, the headline, less so; it reeks of tabloid reporting, and could have been done much more appropriately with very little effort.

Comparing the Italian 'two trial' system to a Grand Jury/trial seems incongruous, in that Knox has been in prison, what, 4 years now? If this case were being tried in the US, based on what I've read of the 'evidence', I've no doubt she would be exonerated. Italian system, not so sure. If exonerated, however, four years imprisonment is tough to accept, especially since this trial will, presumably, be based on the same evidence.

The Italians penchant for charging any and all who are critical of their police/legal system with slander, and doing so with a straight face, is a bit galling. Fascism, indeed.

pcford
05-18-2011, 01:30 PM
If it was not Amanda Knox, who was it?

Rudy Guede was the sole perpetrator. He had no visible means of support, had a history of theft and breaking and entering with a knife, was athletic...could have entered the second story window.

It's a relatively simple crime. The Italian authorities have done their best to make it difficult with their bizarre Rube Goldberg theories.

Garnett
05-18-2011, 02:05 PM
From the Wikipedia article it seems Knox and Sollecito couldn't remember whether they were with each other or where they were that evening.

What incentive do the conspirators have for their actions?

pcford
05-18-2011, 02:13 PM
From the Wikipedia article it seems Knox and Sollecito couldn't remember whether they were with each other or where they were that evening.

What incentive do the conspirators have for their actions?

The first thing you need to realize is that the prosecution must prove AK and RS guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the law. They do not have to prove their innocence.

The Wikipedia article is the subject of controversy...the founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, has promised he would look into the article...this has been with condemnation from the rabid pro-guilt crowd.

Try looking at http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/ for a look at reality.

It won't take you long to find "not knowing where they were" story is bogus like so much of the prosecution's story.

Ian McColgin
05-18-2011, 04:43 PM
I happen to believe Knox not guilty but it should be noted that injusticeinperugia.com is a far from objective site. For example, under the section on the Italian justice system, there is no explanation, just a rant about corruption. This is not a useful site by itself for people with open minds.

pcford
05-18-2011, 04:54 PM
I happen to believe Knox not guilty but it should be noted that injusticeinperugia.com is a far from objective site. For example, under the section on the Italian justice system, there is no explanation, just a rant about corruption. This is not a useful site by itself for people with open minds.

Ian, if you believe Ak and Rs are innocent, how can you not believe that there is monkey business happening with the Italian authorities? Call it a rant if you desire...that rather misses the point. Bruce Fisher, the owner of the blog, is perhaps the least "rant-prone" of any blogger who examines this sorry mess.

As far as I know, there is no purely objective site relating to this horrible case. Perhaps the closest one can get is the James Randi forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=196814

Ian McColgin
05-18-2011, 05:03 PM
Never said Italian justice was wonderful or not corrupt in this case or in general. To be clear, a site that labels a section "Italian Legal System" in the contents, changes the name to "The Italian Justice System" in the text, and then does not explain any - I mean not one - step in the system but instead just does a fact-free undocumented rant is not serving a persuasive function. I'm on her side and I don't buy such a cheap bit of agit-prop every bit as lame as the prosecutors' propensity for filing criminal charges at all of us who call them liars, jerks and what not - all of which names the Italian authorities are doing their very best to earn.

pcford
05-18-2011, 05:40 PM
Never said Italian justice was wonderful or not corrupt in this case or in general. To be clear, a site that labels a section "Italian Legal System" in the contents, changes the name to "The Italian Justice System" in the text, and then does not explain any - I mean not one - step in the system but instead just does a fact-free undocumented rant is not serving a persuasive function. I'm on her side and I don't buy such a cheap bit of agit-prop every bit as lame as the prosecutors' propensity for filing criminal charges at all of us who call them liars, jerks and what not - all of which names the Italian authorities are doing their very best to earn.

Ian, to compare Bruce Fisher and the injusticeinperugia.org site to Mignini and his minions is just a little bit over the top...don't you think...

"Legal system" and "justice system" seems to me to be a close approximation...(I'm not an attorney though I did take a few courses at Boalt Hall while an undergraduate.) Maybe a treatise on the the structure of the Italian legal system might be useful...but what was done is not offensive to me.

pcford
05-19-2011, 11:11 PM
CNN a review of this case on May 8th; here is the transcript:

http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1105/08/cp.01.html

Garnett
05-20-2011, 01:17 AM
The first thing you need to realize is that the prosecution must prove AK and RS guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. That's the law. They do not have to prove their innocence.

PCFord, a couple of posts above mine, you state what you think happened. My post was in that context. I'm aware of the burden of proof for criminal conviction.

It seems bizarre the two could not remember whose house they were at earlier the same evening, and whether or not the other was with them.

You weaken your position by bizarre claims:

You state that "As far as I know, there is no purely objective site relating to this horrible case. Perhaps the closest one can get is the James Randi forum http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=196814"

The first post in that link states:

However, I don't think it will help convince the pro guilt people. Scary thing is, I don't know if anything will...

Would you agree that by stating that in your opinion that that forum represents the most objective site about the case, you demonstrate that you cannot adopt a objective view yourself, and so your other statements are undermined.

There seem to be as many sites as there are opinions. Here's one with a similar name to others listed previously:

http://truejustice.org

All these sites come accross like religious websites - it appears you have to have faith rather than evidence either way.

The one you mention - Try looking at http://www.injusticeinperugia.com/ for a look at reality - is an incredibly emotive site, seemingly short on fact and long on narrative.

I was told to look at this pro-Knox website to prove to myself that stories about Knox and Sollectito not knowing where they were are "bogus like so much of the prosecution's story."

The (pro-Knox) site states:

Direct handwritten evidence of Knox: "I know that Raffaele has placed evidence against me, saying that I was not with him on the night of Meredith's murder, but let me tell you this. In my mind there are things I remember and things that are confused."

"What happened after I know does not match up with what Raffaele was saying, but this is what I remember. I told Raffaele that I didn't have to work and that I could remain at home for the evening. After that I believe we relaxed in his room together, perhaps I checked my email. Perhaps I read or studied or perhaps I made love to Raffaele. In fact, I think I did make love with him.


However, I admit that this period of time is rather strange because I am not quite sure. I smoked marijuana with him and I might even have fallen asleep. These things I am not sure about and I know they are important to the case and to help myself, but in reality, I don't think I did much."

I have difficulty understanding how someone can be so vague about the details of what they did and where they were hours before they discovered their house mate had been murdered.

I've yet to see any of "the rabid pro-guilt crowd" you mention. The term is based on certain assumptions of fact. What would the appropriate similarly term that people diametrically opposed to your position and making similar assumptions would use? "The rabid pro-murder crowd"?