Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Mary_H said:
That's very interesting, AnimalFriendly. Did you know that Nick Van Der Leek plagiarized much of Karen Parker Pruett's writing on the case for the first edition of his book? Amazon took all of his publications off their site until the conflict was resolved.
Click to expand...

Nick Van der Leek did not plagiarise Karen Pruett's time line. It was given proper attribution and link to the full article. This falls within the standard and conventional practice of Fair Use within a discussion, Nick's work being an opinion piece.

Nick agreed to remove it as Karen Pruett was so resistant to his opinion, and no other reason.

You seem to be a "disinformation" merchant, MaryH, as at no time did Amazon "take off all his works".

What they do is ask the two parties to resolve any issues between themselves; Amazon do not get involved.
 
AnimalFriendly said:
Yes I do remember a few weeks ago that Leek's first book about the Kercher murder was removed @ Amazon. He epitomizes the bottom feeder "journalist" of today who exploits tragedies for his own personal gain. He makes Barbie look positively respectable.

I just thought Vixen's involvement in his book was funny because I thought she had earlier denied any association with him. Or maybe there's 2 "Vixens" obsessed with this case:p
Click to expand...


My denial was truthful. Nick only came into this case recently (early May, AIUI) and I got involved when he asked for someone to proofread at short notice.

I looked over the latter part.

The book ended up being a crowd sourced affair. There is nothing underhand about it in any way. I am honoured to be associated with getting to the truth of this matter in the public interest.

Ultimately, though, it remains Nick's work. All credit to him for having the initiative to take it on, given the American market's focus on the denial of the glaringly obvious.
 
Vixen said:
Nick Van der Leek did not plagiarise Karen Pruett's time line. It was given proper attribution and link to the full article. This falls within the standard and conventional practice of Fair Use within a discussion, Nick's work being an opinion piece.

Nick agreed to remove it as Karen Pruett was so resistant to his opinion, and no other reason.

You seem to be a "disinformation" merchant, MaryH, as at no time did Amazon "take off all his works".

What they do is ask the two parties to resolve any issues between themselves; Amazon do not get involved.
Click to expand...

Thank you Vixen for clearing all that up. It's nice to know who and what we are dealing with. So, since you are posting this morning, are you going to admit that you were grotesquely wrong about the expected distribution of DNA in the cottage?
 
Dan O. said:
Is there another edition comming out? I'd be interested to see if they plagiarized material from this site. But then that would mean they would finally have some of their facts right for a change.
Click to expand...


I am sure Nick would be happy to consider your views fairly. It is the defense that have refused to be quoted.
 
Are we going to find the same factual errors in Nick's work as we find in Vixen's?
 
Dan O. said:
Are we going to find the same factual errors in Nick's work as we find in Vixen's?
Click to expand...

My opinions are my own. My reconstruction of the murder would be different in terms of motive, although essentially the same in terms of time line and physical actions.

It is true to say that the majority of convicted murderers keep their motive a secret, so we can only guess.
 
Vixen said:
My denial was truthful. Nick only came into this case recently (early May, AIUI) and I got involved when he asked for someone to proofread at short notice.

I looked over the latter part.

The book ended up being a crowd sourced affair. There is nothing underhand about it in any way. I am honoured to be associated with getting to the truth of this matter in the public interest.

Ultimately, though, it remains Nick's work. All credit to him for having the initiative to take it on, given the American market's focus on the denial of the glaringly obvious.
Click to expand...

I hope you didn't proofread for any factual errors. LMAO.:rolleyes:
 
Vixen said:
My denial was truthful. Nick only came into this case recently (early May, AIUI) and I got involved when he asked for someone to proofread at short notice.

I looked over the latter part.

The book ended up being a crowd sourced affair. There is nothing underhand about it in any way. I am honoured to be associated with getting to the truth of this matter in the public interest.

Ultimately, though, it remains Nick's work. All credit to him for having the initiative to take it on, given the American market's focus on the denial of the glaringly obvious.
Click to expand...

Well providing proper citations is all I thought was required to quote an author's published work, so I don't understand the kerfuffle if the attribution was provided originally. (But I understand Karen P's not wanting to provide any assistance in light of the author's intent).

I do believe continuing to maintain Ms Knox and Mr Sollecito had any involvement with the Kercher murder, is reckless profiteering at the expense of legally exonerated people, and probably a criminal fraud. It seems to me attempting to profit in such a manner based on lies and distortions of the well known guilter PR campaign of hate, is indistinguishable from aggravated fraud. It's long past time for the police to step in and put an end to it. Free speech does not include reckless intentional and malicious slander. But that's IMO of course.

But I am puzzled by the statement that the work is both "crowd sourced" and also "Nick's work". Does this mean Nick is a kind of 'curator of guilter PR'? And if the book is crowd sourced, then why is only Nick keeping any revenue that is generated? Would Nick consider setting aside some of the revenue towards any of the Kercher charities that have been established?
I think its progress to hear where you're coming from Vixen, and to see one or more of your other identities and comments associated with those accounts.

I still don't understand why you would describe yourself as 'undecided', when you pretty clearly seem to reside rather squarely in the guilter camp.
 
Last edited:
Grinder said:
Yes, at least in some cases when they knew the person was innocent. Truly pigs.
Click to expand...

The case most discussed in the article at
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_..._goethals_takes_district_attorney.single.html
involves the case of mass murderer Scott Dekraai, who pleaded guilty last year to killing his ex-wife and seven others at a beauty salon in 2011. Since he acknowledges guilt, he is not being framed. The alleged misconduct, which motivated the judge to disqualify the entire Orange County DA's office from continuing their involvement in the prosecution, involves the penalty phase of the trial.

Use of the word "frame" is appropriate in several circumstances:

1. A person claims to be innocent, and claims that others have falsely made him or her to seem guilty. That is, that persons claims to have been framed.

2. A person is assumed (or "known") to be innocent, either because it is obvious to the observer making the assumption (or logical conclusion) that the evidence does not support guilt, or because the observer holds that under law, a suspect or accused person is rightfully assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. An alleged effort to falsely make that person seem guilty would be an alleged framing of that person in the reference terms of the observer.
 
Last edited:
acbytesla said:
... So, since you are posting this morning, are you going to admit that you were grotesquely wrong about the expected distribution of DNA in the cottage?
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
I'll come back to you.
Click to expand...

This is what you posted earlier:
Vixen said:
...
There is no getting away from it. Yes, you might try to downplay it by saying, "Amanda lived there".

How do you explain five mixed DNA traces all together found at the murder scene of Amanda and Mez. Not Amanda and Filomena, not Filomena and Mez, not Amanda and Laura, not Laura and Mez, not Laura and Filomena. Of the probability of 16% of finding one such permutation (4 x 4), the probability of finding FIVE of *just Amanda and Mez mixed DNA* is ( 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16 x 0.16).

IOW Vanishingly remote. Easily within the 0.01 significance level, or three standard deviations, that this occurred purely by chance, "because Amanda lived there".
Click to expand...

This is a collection of some of the responses:

Dan O. said:
...
How do we say "wrong again Vixen".

Theses were not random samples. There was one characteristic that biased the sample selection. Do you know what that was? Also, the living area for the 4 girls was not uniformly distributed over the entire cottage. Can you come up with a formulation that properly considers the distribution? The answer is: no. And the reason is because the pretend doctor didn't collect a proper data set.
Click to expand...

Kauffer said:
In the large bathroom there would likely be mixed traces collectable in the same manner as in the small bathroom of all the flat mates in various combinations.

You [Dan O] are absolutely right about the absence of a proper data set.
Click to expand...

Kauffer said:
If Kercher's blood had been rinsed off in the large bathroom instead and had been sampled mixed with Romanelli and Mezzetti's DNA, would that mean we would have two more murderers? Is it possible, according to you, for a mixture to occur for innocent reasons?

What I'm trying to get at is that we know people leave their DNA in their own bathrooms - you would agree with this right? So, why do you necessarily infer from the mixture and given the collection techniques employed that it is in fact one sample? Why can't it also be reasonably possible that:

1) Amanda's DNA was already in situ and Kercher's blood was deposited on top of it
2) The two samples were not mixed in situ but mixed in the collection?
Click to expand...

davefoc said:
Vixen, did you notice this post by Dan O.? Do you understand his point? I believe that his point was that only Kercher and Knox shared the sink in question. How would that fact affect your calculation?
Click to expand...

The mixed blood claim is a key claim of people that claim AK/RS are guilty. You have repeated the claim several times without making any attempt to respond to the arguments against the claim.

Have you considered a hypothetical situation like this? There is a murder in Joe's house. The police sample traces of blood found in his bathroom sink and find that there is DNA from the murder victim mixed with his DNA. The police characterize this result as mixed blood being found in his bathroom sink and further claim it is evidence of his guilt. Can you see the problem with this characterization of the evidence?
 
Last edited:
Numbers said:
Use of the word "frame" is appropriate in several circumstances:

1. A person claims to be innocent, and claims that others have falsely made him or her to seem guilty. That is, that persons claims to have been framed.

2. A person is assumed (or "known") to be innocent, either because it is obvious to the observer making the assumption (or logical conclusion) that the evidence does not support guilt, or because the observer holds that under law, a suspect or accused person is rightfully assumed to be innocent until proven guilty. An alleged effort to falsely make that person seem guilty would be an alleged framing of that person in the reference terms of the observer.
Click to expand...

A guilty person can't be framed, period. The article said they hid evidence from the defense that would exonerate or be exculpatory.

Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt.​

I'm sure we people here that want to change that definition as well.

The standards in court have nothing to do with the definition of or what framing is.

The police could think someone was guilty and create evidence against them and it wouldn't be framing if he were guilty but would be framing if he were innocent. A person that is innocent or not guilty BARD may still be guilty of doing the crime.

Innocent in the definition of framing has nothing to do with a court verdict per se.

Not releasing exculpatory evidence is and should be criminal and in many cases would be framing.
 
Grinder said:
A guilty person can't be framed, period. The article said they hid evidence from the defense that would exonerate or be exculpatory.

Exculpatory evidence is evidence favorable to the defendant in a criminal trial that exonerates or tends to exonerate the defendant of guilt.​

I'm sure we people here that want to change that definition as well.

The standards in court have nothing to do with the definition of or what framing is.

The police could think someone was guilty and create evidence against them and it wouldn't be framing if he were guilty but would be framing if he were innocent. A person that is innocent or not guilty BARD may still be guilty of doing the crime.

Innocent in the definition of framing has nothing to do with a court verdict per se.

Not releasing exculpatory evidence is and should be criminal and in many cases would be framing.
Click to expand...

And how does one absolutely determine "guilt" or "innocence"? You seem to have a Newtonian concept that "guilt" or "innocence" is a property that can be somehow absolutely determined with certainty.

If a person has committed a crime, but states that he is innocent and was falsely made to appear guilty by the actions of others, he will claim to have been "framed". Determining whether or not he was indeed "framed" would require a process to determine whether or not he was actually guilty (using a standard such as BARD - ill-defined though that may be). In current practice, this requires a legally-recognized court judgment; all other statements of guilt or innocence would be opinion, whether or not accurate. The court judgment itself may or may not be accurate, but it is the legally accepted one, and of course, under certain circumstances may be reversed, even by executive pardon (in the US).
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Nick Van der Leek did not plagiarise Karen Pruett's time line. It was given proper attribution and link to the full article. This falls within the standard and conventional practice of Fair Use within a discussion, Nick's work being an opinion piece.

Nick agreed to remove it as Karen Pruett was so resistant to his opinion, and no other reason.

You seem to be a "disinformation" merchant, MaryH, as at no time did Amazon "take off all his works".

What they do is ask the two parties to resolve any issues between themselves; Amazon do not get involved.
Click to expand...

You are correct, Vixen. I apologize for my mistake. I misunderstood what Nick had written to Karen in an e-mail on May 10th:

Hi Karen

Due to your copyright infringement claim to Amazon my account - in its entirety - has been suspended.

Since I have 24 other books on Amazon, and since I write full time, and earn a living off writing, it's important to me to have the suspension lifted.

I apologize for referring to your Ground Report site.....
Click to expand...

And he did remove her work from his "book."
 
Last edited:
Dan O. said:
Are we going to find the same factual errors in Nick's work as we find in Vixen's?
Click to expand...

I think we now know who Vixen's source is. If Nick Van Der Leek says Raffaele placed a long blonde hair on Meredith's bag, then Vixen says it, too. Who knew there was someone out there more fantastical than Peter Quennell?

ETA:

Vixen said:
My denial was truthful. Nick only came into this case recently (early May, AIUI) and I got involved when he asked for someone to proofread at short notice.
Click to expand...

How do you feel about this, all you people who have been on this thread since 2009/2010?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom