Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Vixen]

From his diary I do not think Raffaelle determined a location on Meredith's hand, just that he had accidentally pricked her hand. I think more he was trying to explain why there could possibly be DNA of Meredith on the knife - not that he was subtly conveying details of Meredith's injuries (thus being her murderer).

I know you were not the one to say back of hand. Maybe in a later publication or media Raffaelle did locate the injury but his diary in November 2007 was probably the first he had written of this.

Good point.

 

[Vixen]

No more great an illustration is there of the parallel universe in which you float than the nonsense that you wrote above, reflecting your complete misunderstanding or mischievous misrepresenting of a well written and insightful article by Amanda Knox.

It's revealing enough that you hound AK for a crime she didn't commit, but in dishonestly wading into her for an article you choose to misrepresent or simply don't understand (difficult to believe given you Mensa sized brain) brings your true character into sharp focus.

Your best excuse would be that you didn't read the article and gleaned your lies from other guilters. For your sake I hope this is the case.

'Well written and insightful'? They say Ian Brady is very intelligent and articulate, so perhaps WSH will invite him to write a few words on why sentencing for child murderers should be reduced and why should anyone care about the child victims or fret as to where they are buried, because after all, the REAL victims are the poor criminals who get wrongly convicted, just like himself. In between times I am sure he can provide an 'insightful' and most entertaining account of neo-nazi pagan rituals that he and Myra used to get up to, until the inconvenience of being arrested, tried and banged away for life.

Rose West could write a column on child-rearing and 'how to stay sexy for your man'.

Jeff Dahmer could reveal his recipe for chopped liver and kidney in onions and a side dish of braised penii.

ROLLING STONE who found the 'Boston bomber' so presentable, they had him as a 'pin up' on their front page. Yeah, he could write a well-written and insightful' about [That's quite enough ~Ed

 

[Bill Williams]

There are other aspects of PGP are what you would expect if the prosecution have a weak case and lack of evidence :-

• If PIP have been effective in rebutting the prosecution’s case, PGP will lie about PIP arguments to hide this.

Not only that, but there will be a continual repetition that In March 2015 Marasca-Bruno did something other than exonerate them. For Pete's sake, the subsequent judicial opinions (like the acquittal for calunnia against Knox brought by the Perugian cops) characterize the March 2015 annulment as an exoneration.

I guess this is one more judge to add to the conspiracy.

Yet, there's this business of "thinking for oneself." I don't know what other people do when they try to do this, but what I try to do is survey the prevailing opinion "out there", as well as the minority voices.

In this case, the minority voices readily available are cut-and-paste authors, and web-administrators of (let's face it) hate websites, one of which is now behind a registration wall, and which continues to ban people for expressing their own points of view in conflict with that site's prevailing wisdom.

In other words, if you think for yourself, you're not welcome.

One of the PIP "arguments" is the Marasca-Bruno report itself. Regardless of what M/B expressed in Section 9.4 to the end of Section 9, the report in full is a resounding spanking of the way the case had been handled, from the investigation through to all the judicial renderings. A survey of the Italian press subsequent to both the verdict and the release of the M/R shows the vast majority report this about M/B - that it was a resounding criticism about everything to do with this case; complete, though, with the four "shadows" that Luca Cheli says hang over it - before getting to the "light" and the "thunder" the M/B report represents.

But.... the unanimous view on this thread is that people should think for themselves. Both "sides" hold to that. So in doing one's research into prevailing opinion inside Italy and outside, as well as being mindful of minority views - it's worth asking........

Who outside of Vixen, or Harry Rag, or Machiavelli...... holds those minority views?

And it is also worth asking, from my point of view as well as WM's, why do those folk continually need to misrepresent the majority point of view to make their case?

 

[Methos]

Chiesta l’archiviazione La querela per diffamazione, firmata dal sostituto procuratore generale Mignini e da due poliziotte che quando prestavano servizio alla squadra mobile hanno svolto indagini sull’omicidio di Meredith, ha ricevuto una richiesta d’archiviazione da parte del pm di Firenze contro la quale è stata avanzata opposizione.

Google translation has:

Asked archiving The libel suit , signed by Assistant Attorney General Mignini and two policewomen that when they served the squad have played investigations into the murder of Meredith , has received a storage request by the prosecutor of Florence against which it has been advanced opposition.

Google translating is the one thing, understanding what the translation means is the important one...
Just for the record: The prosecutor in Florence has asked the judge to "file the case" i.e. "drop the charges" no matter that Mignini & Co. have opposed against that option in advance...

 

[Vixen]

There are other aspects of PGP are what you would expect if the prosecution have a weak case and lack of evidence :-

• If PIP have been effective in rebutting the prosecution’s case, PGP will lie about PIP arguments to hide this.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: One of the most blatant lies told by Vixen is the claim PIP ignore the mountain of evidence against Amanda and Raffaele. Selene Nelson made the same claim. In fact the websites Injustice in Perugia and AmandaKnoxcase have dealt with and rebutted all of the prosecution’s arguments. No one has been able to detail any evidence the PIP have ignored.
• Making scientific arguments with no validity because the prosecution have not made them.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: PGP have argued TMB can give false negatives and the negative TMB did not disprove the luminol prints were not made in blood. If this argument was valid, why did the prosecution not use it and the prosecution had to lie about the negative TMB results? In addition, why did Nencini make no mention of the negative TMB results in his motivation report?
• If the PGP have no solid and credible evidence to base their arguments on, they may have to resort to using things which are not incriminating and are not evidence of guilt.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: Amanda lived in the cottage and finding her DNA there was perfectly normal and in no way incriminating. DNA can’t be dated so it is impossible to establish if Amanda’s DNA was deposited in a location at the time of the murder. Despite this PGP often use Amanda’s DNA in the cottage as incriminating evidence.
• One of the clearest indications the prosecution have a weak case and PGP have a lack of genuine evidence to base their arguments on is when PGP have to resort to making new lies up long after a crime.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: As stated in my last post, the fake wiki themurderofmeredithkercher lied that one of Meredith’s friends reported Amanda’s behaviour to the police. This completely new lie was made several years after Meredith’s murder.
• Having to rely on discredited evidence.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: John Kercher’s book Meredith was riddled with evidence which had long been discredited.
• Books, films and documentaries which argue the case for guilt have to resort to falsehoods.
What happened with Amanda and Raffaele: Books, films and documentaries which argue for the guilt of Amanda and Raffaele are filled with falsehood which are detailed below :-
John Kercher’s book Meredith. The falsehoods in the book are discussed here http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1870&sid=c5559ea245ac3f97b2dc90ba24daf702
Barbara Nadau’s book Angel Face. The falsehoods are discussed in the chapter in Injustice in Perugia on the media
The lifetime movie on the Amanda Knox case. There is a chapter about this film in the book Finding Justice in Perugia.

What? The two websites you cite, are so heavily one-sided, poor old Planigale has spent the last eight years believing, 'there were only three pinprick wounds on Mez'.

'In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king' ~ HG Wells

 

[Vixen]

Google translating is the one thing, understanding what the translation means is the important one...
Just for the record: The prosecutor in Florence has asked the judge to "file the case" i.e. "drop the charges" no matter that Mignini & Co. have opposed against that option in advance...

Oh, OK, right. Can you sum up what the issue re Chiari was, as we are none the wiser.

 

[Vixen]

Not only that, but there will be a continual repetition that In March 2015 Marasca-Bruno did something other than exonerate them. For Pete's sake, the subsequent judicial opinions (like the acquittal for calunnia against Knox brought by the Perugian cops) characterize the March 2015 annulment as an exoneration.

I guess this is one more judge to add to the conspiracy.

Yet, there's this business of "thinking for oneself." I don't know what other people do when they try to do this, but what I try to do is survey the prevailing opinion "out there", as well as the minority voices.

In this case, the minority voices readily available are cut-and-paste authors, and web-administrators of (let's face it) hate websites, one of which is now behind a registration wall, and which continues to ban people for expressing their own points of view in conflict with that site's prevailing wisdom.

In other words, if you think for yourself, you're not welcome.

One of the PIP "arguments" is the Marasca-Bruno report itself. Regardless of what M/B expressed in Section 9.4 to the end of Section 9, the report in full is a resounding spanking of the way the case had been handled, from the investigation through to all the judicial renderings. A survey of the Italian press subsequent to both the verdict and the release of the M/R shows the vast majority report this about M/B - that it was a resounding criticism about everything to do with this case; complete, though, with the four "shadows" that Luca Cheli says hang over it - before getting to the "light" and the "thunder" the M/B report represents.

But.... the unanimous view on this thread is that people should think for themselves. Both "sides" hold to that. So in doing one's research into prevailing opinion inside Italy and outside, as well as being mindful of minority views - it's worth asking........

Who outside of Vixen, or Harry Rag, or Machiavelli...... holds those minority views?

And it is also worth asking, from my point of view as well as WM's, why do those folk continually need to misrepresent the majority point of view to make their case?

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer quotes (German Lutheran Pastor and Theologian. His involvement in a plot to overthrow Adolf Hitler led to his imprisonment and execution. 1906-1945)

 

[Bill Williams]

Whoosh! Logical Fallacy #203 : the employment of pyrotechnics.

Calm down, dear.

...And don't play with matches.

A well reasoned rebuttal. Congrats.

 

[LondonJohn]

'Well written and insightful'? They say Ian Brady is very intelligent and articulate, so perhaps WSH will invite him to write a few words on why sentencing for child murderers should be reduced and why should anyone care about the child victims or fret as to where they are buried, because after all, the REAL victims are the poor criminals who get wrongly convicted, just like himself. In between times I am sure he can provide an 'insightful' and most entertaining account of neo-nazi pagan rituals that he and Myra used to get up to, until the inconvenience of being arrested, tried and banged away for life.

Rose West could write a column on child-rearing and 'how to stay sexy for your man'.

Jeff Dahmer could reveal his recipe for chopped liver and kidney in onions and a side dish of braised penii.

ROLLING STONE who found the 'Boston bomber' so presentable, they had him as a 'pin up' on their front page. Yeah, he could write a well-written and insightful' about [That's quite enough ~Ed

Ian Brady, Rose West And Jeffrey Dahmer were all safely and justly convicted of horrific multiple crimes committed over many months or years. And any reasonable, rational, objective analysis of the evidence against them would lead a critical thinker to conclude that they truly did commit those horrific crimes.

Amanda Knox was finally (but after far, far too long) safely and justly acquitted of one horrific crime committed on one night (by someone else......). And any reasonable, rational, objective analysis of the evidence against Knox would lead a critical thinker to conclude that there was never a single credible, reliable piece of evidence pointing to her guilt (nor that of Sollecito) and that Knox almost certainly had nothing whatsoever to do with that horrific crime.

Spot the difference. And spot the pathetic resorting to inflammatory (and entirely inappropriate) comparisons with the likes of Brady, West and Dahmer. Shame on Vixen's "argument". Disgusting.

 

[Bill Williams]

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer quotes (German Lutheran Pastor and Theologian. His involvement in a plot to overthrow Adolf Hitler led to his imprisonment and execution. 1906-1945)

Actually it was Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) who said this, not Bonhoeffer.

As an aside - unimportant really - who shares your views?

 

[LondonJohn]

Actually it was Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) who said this, not Bonhoeffer.

As an aside - unimportant really - who shares your views?

Not only that, Niemöller wrote/spoke those words (in various different but similar formats) after the end of WWII and the total collapse of the Nazi regime and its political/ethnic cleansing programmes, and after the full horror of the concentration/extermination camps and their victims had become global public knowledge.

To that end, Niemöller was not speaking these words as a martyr (as Vixen incorrectly (and agenda-led) ascribed them to Bonhöffer - who was murdered by the Nazis as an enemy of the state during the war), but rather he was speaking them as a combination of an apology and a denunciation of the apathy or collusion shown by various authorities and public bodies (not to mention large swathes of the military and civilian population) towards Nazi ideology and practices between 1932 and 1945.

That's important, because Niemöller was actually pointing out that the established Christian churches in Germany turned a blind eye to (and, in a small number of cases, disgustingly assisted in) the Nazi genocide programmes. And he was making the wider allusion to any groups who were not themselves directly adversely affected by such programmes, but who must have known (or at the very least must have strongly suspected) what was going on. And that it was only at the point when any given group was itself targeted by the Nazi regime that it actually spoke out.

"Yes, yes.... but what's any of this got to do with the Knox/Sollecito trial process?", I hear you ask. Well, it's extremely interesting to note that Niemöller's famous words carry certain resonance in the Knox/Sollecito trials injustice - and a resonance that is ironically opposite to Vixen's misplaced and misunderstood interpretation. And it's this: as soon as Knox and Sollecito were convicted by Massei's court in a gross injustice (and in fact ever since Knox and Sollecito were arrested in the aftermath of those infamous 5th/6th November 2007 interrogations), the vast majority of the media - led by a small cadre of low-intellect stringer hacks who were beholden to an egomaniac prosecutor and who couldn't see what was going on right underneath their noses, but who had become the chief media conduits in this trial process by virtue of having been ever-present - were all too happy to swallow the juicy myth that Knox and Sollecito had grouped up with Guede and sexually assaulted and murdered Kercher. It was a salacious tale which attracted viewers, readers and online clicks, and it had now seemingly been given the imprimatur of validity by the Massei verdicts.

So, in a very real sense (though very obviously on a dramatically different and incomparable scale to the "turning a blind eye" to the Nazi genocides), almost nobody in the media was willing to stick their necks out and challenge the Massei verdicts and the evidence (or "evidence") underpinning those verdicts. It would - and should - have been very easy for any media organisation, in, say 2010, to have looked properly at the way the Massei trial was conducted, and the evidence/testimony driving the verdicts from that trial. It wouldn't have taken a huge budget for a large media organisation to (for example) consult with several internationally-renowned gastroenterologists and/or forensic pathologists with significant experience in analysing post-mortem stomach/intestinal evidence, whereupon they would have learned that beyond all reasonable doubt, Knox could not have died any later than 4 hours after starting her last meal (very likely at 6.30pm), and that this on its own blew the entire prosecution and court theory of the murder - which was importantly predicated on a post-11.30pm ToD - out of the water. They would further have learned that the stomach/intestine evidence in this case indicated that Kercher almost certainly died within three hours of starting her last meal - placing her death at some point between 9pm and 9.30pm - which also directly contradicted other key prosecution "evidence".

And that's just one example. They could have listened to the world's top forensic DNA scientists, who - to a person - would have stated that the DNA "evidence" presented to the court in the Knox/Sollecito Massei trial was worthless and inadmissible, since it was the product of near-unbelievably incompetent crime scene investigation, evidence collection, evidence handling, packaging and transportation, and evidence analysis in Stefanoni's lab (complete with malpractice in testing and interpreting the results, and the associated failure/inability to provide the critical source data files to the defence or the court).

And they could quickly and easily have established that the three key "witnesses" upon whom the prosecutors and the Massei court relied so heavily were all fundamentally flawed and utterly unreliable/non-credible.

And so on, and so on.

Yet with a few honourable exceptions (Tim Egan in the NYT, the CBS "48 Hours" team.....), most of the mass media simply didn't bother. The narrative had (seemingly) been set in stone, and that was that. Not surprisingly, public perception was coloured heavily by this approach - the public in the US, UK and Italy all lapped up prurient juicy pieces about the manipulative Foxy Knoxy and the pliable "Harry Potter" geek boyfriend under her control. Thus the majority of the public chose to "look the other way" as well.

But Knox and Sollecito knew the truth. Their lawyers knew the truth. Their families and close friends knew the truth. And a very small number of other people in the media, in political circles, and in online communities, knew the truth. And that small collective of people were prepared to speak out in defence of Knox and Sollecito, and in condemnation of the Italian justice process that had treated them so abhorrently between 2007 and 2015.And ultimately (thankfully, but scandalously late) the Italian courts determined the truth (with the dishonourable exception of the outstanding criminal slander conviction, which the ECHR will force Italy to remedy).

And that small collection of people was right.

 

[Bill Williams]

Not only that, Niemöller wrote/spoke those words (in various different but similar formats) after the end of WWII and the total collapse of the Nazi regime and its political/ethnic cleansing programmes, and after the full horror of the concentration/extermination camps and their victims had become global public knowledge.

To that end, Niemöller was not speaking these words as a martyr (as Vixen incorrectly (and agenda-led) ascribed them to Bonhöffer - who was murdered by the Nazis as an enemy of the state during the war), but rather he was speaking them as a combination of an apology and a denunciation of the apathy or collusion shown by various authorities and public bodies (not to mention large swathes of the military and civilian population) towards Nazi ideology and practices between 1932 and 1945.

That's important, because Niemöller was actually pointing out that the established Christian churches in Germany turned a blind eye to (and, in a small number of cases, disgustingly assisted in) the Nazi genocide programmes. And he was making the wider allusion to any groups who were not themselves directly adversely affected by such programmes, but who must have known (or at the very least must have strongly suspected) what was going on. And that it was only at the point when any given group was itself targeted by the Nazi regime that it actually spoke out.

You are quite right, but don't lose sight of the reason for Vixen mis-citing this as coming from Bonhoeffer.

The parallel he was trying to make is that she's the one being persecuted for her views, and that (potentially) someone is coming for her. No one is coming for her - I asked for a cite from her about anyone who would share her views.....

The Niemöller quote fits more the lay-judges and the professional judges who saw the evidence and convicted anyway - particularly because they were trying to defend judicial truth.

Someone today dug out a quote from an Indonesian judge from the Neil Bantleman wrongful-conviction there. A foreign police-expert had testified that the investigation into the child-abuse allegations at the JIS school was flawed and there was, similar to Perugia in 2007, simply no evidence to convict Bantleman or the others.

The Indonesia judge in referring to that foreign detective said he disregarded it because it was an insult to Indonesia. Rather than looking at the (non-existent) evidence, Indonesia's reputation was judicially-all-important.

It's in THAT context that Niemöller's post-war observation about the churches and other institutions should be dusted off - not because Vixen posts rather-unique views onto an obscure website.

 

[Planigale]

What? The two websites you cite, are so heavily one-sided, poor old Planigale has spent the last eight years believing, 'there were only three pinprick wounds on Mez'.

'In the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king' ~ HG Wells

Just to complete your misquotations this was Erasmus, although HG Wells did use the quotation, but usually we do not count subsequent use.

 

[Planigale]

What? The two websites you cite, are so heavily one-sided, poor old Planigale has spent the last eight years believing, 'there were only three pinprick wounds on Mez'./QUOTE]

It shows what a dishonest person that you are that you can put so many lies into one short sentence. That you lie and misquote so relentlessly demonstrates the complete lack of any coherent pro-guilt narrative.

You claim I said 'there were only three pinprick wounds on Mez'. This is a lie. It is a repeated lie. If you had any honesty you would apologise.

1) You do not know what I believe or for how long - you cannot. So two lies here.
2) I never claimed the injuries on the hands were from pinpricks. Lie 3. I pointed out the 'Merit Court' has established as a 'judicial fact' (phrases you are fond of), that the three injuries were defence wounds from a knife - a reference you gave yourself but obviously either chose not to read or do not have the cognitive ability to understand.
3) I never claimed these were the only wounds. Lie 4. We were discussing only the wounds on her hands. Clearly since the case involves the murder of someone by being fatally stabbed in the throat there are more wounds than those on the hands.

Four lies and a misattribution. Sadly repeated, when previously corrected. So other than evil intent it is hard to see what excuse you have for repeatedly lying about what I posted

 

[Annella]

What? The two websites you cite, are so heavily one-sided, poor old Planigale has spent the last eight years believing, 'there were only three pinprick wounds on Mez'./QUOTE]

It shows what a dishonest person that you are that you can put so many lies into one short sentence. That you lie and misquote so relentlessly demonstrates the complete lack of any coherent pro-guilt narrative.

You claim I said 'there were only three pinprick wounds on Mez'. This is a lie. It is a repeated lie. If you had any honesty you would apologise.

1) You do not know what I believe or for how long - you cannot. So two lies here.
2) I never claimed the injuries on the hands were from pinpricks. Lie 3. I pointed out the 'Merit Court' has established as a 'judicial fact' (phrases you are fond of), that the three injuries were defence wounds from a knife - a reference you gave yourself but obviously either chose not to read or do not have the cognitive ability to understand.
3) I never claimed these were the only wounds. Lie 4. We were discussing only the wounds on her hands. Clearly since the case involves the murder of someone by being fatally stabbed in the throat there are more wounds than those on the hands.

Four lies and a misattribution. Sadly repeated, when previously corrected. So other than evil intent it is hard to see what excuse you have for repeatedly lying about what I posted

A handy checklist for Vixen to consider:


https://media.licdn.com/mpr/mpr/shrinknp_800_800/p/7/005/09e/2ce/2988cb5.jpg

 

[analemma]

The tales we tell ourselves.
So go back to the drawing board, get rid of the soundbites and slogans, and THINK for yourself. This will make you more of a man, not less. 'The truth will set you free' ~ Jesus.

Vixen should heed her own advice.
Rather than address any of Welshman's points, Vixen shifts to the ad homonym attacks "THINK for yourself. This will make you more of a man".
Vixen does nothing but write lies that cannot be supported.
If anyone refutes a vixen claim they are attacked for not thinking and vixen lets the lie stand without defense.
This lie and move on technique has been the PGP strategy since this whole sorry mess started.

 

[analemma]

“First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”

Dietrich Bonhoeffer quotes (German Lutheran Pastor and Theologian. His involvement in a plot to overthrow Adolf Hitler led to his imprisonment and execution. 1906-1945)

I can understand why Vixen idolizes Dietrich Bonhoeffer, who, by own admission, saw no need to speak the truth.

 

[Bill Williams]

Actually it was Pastor Martin Niemöller (1892–1984) who said this, not Bonhoeffer.

Not only that, Niemöller wrote/spoke those words (in various different but similar formats) after the end of WWII and the total collapse of the Nazi regime and its political/ethnic cleansing programmes, and after the full horror of the concentration/extermination camps and their victims had become global public knowledge.

To that end, Niemöller was not speaking these words as a martyr (as Vixen incorrectly (and agenda-led) ascribed them to Bonhöffer - who was murdered by the Nazis as an enemy of the state during the war), but rather he was speaking them as a combination of an apology and a denunciation of the apathy or collusion shown by various authorities and public bodies (not to mention large swathes of the military and civilian population) towards Nazi ideology and practices between 1932 and 1945.

It is massively stunning that the quote in question is not only badly mis-cited, but equally remarkable (in a bad way) that it is applied as Vixen tries to apply it.

It is as you say, LondonJohn, the parallel would be to direct Niemöller's quote to the complete outrageous-indifference that various courts and prosecutors showed to two people accused of a crime they simply could not have committed.

Anything more I type would be repetition. For Vixen to mis-cite this, and then apply it to herself is more than enough to expose the bankruptcy of what she's posted since joining this forum in April 2015. She not only does not know history (eg. it was not Bonhoeffer who said this) she misapplies it.

No doubt she'll ignore this and like always simply move on with the next factoid. One can hope she would take this obvious boo-boo on her part to make a gracious exit while the exiting is good.

"Better to remain silent and be thought a fool......" by Abraham Lincoln, Samuel Johnson, or Mark Twain, depending on who you like better.

 

[Methos]

Oh, OK, right. Can you sum up what the issue re Chiari was, as we are none the wiser.

I already did, in this post. I just left out the ct's surrounding it...

 

[Mike1711]

'Well written and insightful'? They say Ian Brady is very intelligent and articulate, so perhaps WSH will invite him to write a few words on why sentencing for child murderers should be reduced and why should anyone care about the child victims or fret as to where they are buried, because after all, the REAL victims are the poor criminals who get wrongly convicted, just like himself. In between times I am sure he can provide an 'insightful' and most entertaining account of neo-nazi pagan rituals that he and Myra used to get up to, until the inconvenience of being arrested, tried and banged away for life.

Rose West could write a column on child-rearing and 'how to stay sexy for your man'.

Jeff Dahmer could reveal his recipe for chopped liver and kidney in onions and a side dish of braised penii.

ROLLING STONE who found the 'Boston bomber' so presentable, they had him as a 'pin up' on their front page. Yeah, he could write a well-written and insightful' about [That's quite enough ~Ed

Your response is a non sequitur.

Let me try again...

"...well written and insightful..."

...now address the issue or shut up.