• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Continuation Part 22: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

Status
Not open for further replies.
Vixen said:
I am only defending Nick Pisa insofar as he is only doing the job he is paid to do. I am not saying I approve of this job.

You do know the DAILY MAIL is the UK's top-selling 'middle class' paper, don't you?

The SUN is the top 'red top'. Whilst you or I might consider that to be the gutter, there is huge competition by hacks to be SUN or DAILY MAIL reporters, together with a handsome salary.
Click to expand...


You know Pisa was only ever a hack stringer for the Mail during the Knox/Sollecito era of 2007-2015, don't you? That he was therefore not on a salary, but was paid if/when his copy made it to publication and where it was placed in the publication?

Now sit back for a moment and think about how this might have influenced the content and style of the articles he wrote (hint: sober, reflective, accurate reportage would get him onto page 7 occasionally at best; lurid, salacious tittle-tattle (which Mignini was disgracefully feeding him, and which Pisa could therefore use as a protective source against two people who, in any case, were in no position at that point to sue for libel) would get him regularly onto page 3 or even page 1.)

And, in passing, even most salaried reporters for UK national newspaper titles do not earn very much at all. Only a tiny handful of columnists and "star reporters" earn anything even approaching the region of six figures.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ah, so one's a "joke" and the other's not a joke, according to the selective interpretive wisdom of Vixen......

(And BTW I'd say that asking "how are the kiddies" at the end of a communication that also talks about "training his scope" on her apartment are a damn site more worrying/damaging than a (possibly misplaced) article in which Burleigh said she'd happily fellate Clinton for his continued legalisation of abortion - an article which explicitly juxtaposed the sexual-harassment hunt against Clinton with his pro-women policies and activism, and within which the fellation suggestion is clearly intended as a rhetorical device)
Click to expand...

Well that's highly selective, isn't it? You haven't provided the context of what Pete allegedly wrote. For all you know she might have hurled a load of abuse at him, or it might indeed be a joke. It all depends on context.
 
Vixen said:
You sound jealous because 'creepy' is just YOUR take on it based on some kind of ageism. Fact is, the woman was happy for Pete to invest in her as a business launch, and appointed him as the web host for her new website.

She then changed her mind. He resented the money he claims he invested, she said, tough, and walked.

Some things she released regarding his emails, might be a little risqué, but saying he and his wife had separate beds seems to be the worst thing you can find.

She may well have felt sexually harrassed, but you don't know. It's pure conjecture. It's not just men who take advantage. I knew one woman who got this guy to buy her a motorbike and all the biker gear that goes with it, and then dumped him. You can't assume the guy is always the baddie.
Click to expand...


You're kidding, right?

I strongly suggest that you read the emails again, in their entirety. Pay particularly careful note to a) whether the woman in question ever initiated or validated any of Quennell's suggestive come-ons, and b) how she replied to Quennell as the come-ons got more explicit and more direct. If you think the worst thing Quennell wrote was that he and his wife had separate beds, then you're very sadly mistaken.
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
Well that's highly selective, isn't it? You haven't provided the context of what Pete allegedly wrote. For all you know she might have hurled a load of abuse at him, or it might indeed be a joke. It all depends on context.
Click to expand...


"Pete" hehehehehehehehe
 
Vixen said:
He came across well notwithstanding the deliberate attempts to misrepresent him.

It is very hard to misrepresent an honest person.
Click to expand...
If you think that "He came across well ", then you have a very strange opinion of what "comes across well" is.
Most people saw a women hating, sex obsessed, stupid nutcase who thought he was Sherlock Holmes and had superior powers of intuition, and that pig headed intuition justified falsifying evidence and beating up a terrified young woman to satisfy his twisted obsession with women who did not behave appropriately.
Those were his own words.
You have to be drinking "truther" cool aid to think what he showed "came across well", and I am glad that he showed it to the whole world.
I AM JUST LOVING THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
Vixen said:
Nina Burleigh has long attempted to pervert justice on behalf of her client, Amanda.

Let's not forget Nina Burleigh's nutty public offer to give married man Bill Clinton oral sex for supporting abortion on demand.
Click to expand...
I am starting to think that Vixen is actually Magnini.
 
Stacyhs said:
Oh, nice attempt at diversion but no cigar there, Vixen. Burleigh is not, nor ever has been, a "client" of Amanda. In fact, Amanda's family is not particularly fond of Burleigh.

Burleigh's comment about Clinton is totally irrelevant to what Quennell wrote to her.
Click to expand...


Ain't it strange how often one hears the standard pro-guilt mantra that anyone who writes/speaks in support of the acquittal of Knox (and Sollecito), and/or who writes/speaks in critical terms about the prosecution or police incompetence/malpractice in this case, is probably a "client" of Knox, or in the payroll of Marriott, or overcome with blind lust for Knox, or has some other vested interest?

Once again, it's emblematic of the monumentally poor thinking skills exhibited with weary regularity by so many of the pro-guilt community......
 
LondonJohn said:
You're kidding, right?

I strongly suggest that you read the emails again, in their entirety. Pay particularly careful note to a) whether the woman in question ever initiated or validated any of Quennell's suggestive come-ons, and b) how she replied to Quennell as the come-ons got more explicit and more direct. If you think the worst thing Quennell wrote was that he and his wife had separate beds, then you're very sadly mistaken.
Click to expand...

Vixen is no friend of PQ's, she should not be addressing this AT ALL. It just keeps things going for him.
 
Bill Williams said:
Vixen is no friend of PQ's, she should not be addressing this AT ALL. It just keeps things going for him.
Click to expand...


I know. And this is certainly not the place to repeat the content of the emails. But anyone who reads them with an open mind and a modicum of intellect cannot fail to come to certain conclusions about the character of Quennell.

As I mentioned earlier, when one puts this particular incident alongside Quennell's deeply weird and obsessive veneration of Kercher (a woman he never even knew), including repeated fantasies around what she "would have become" and fantasies around what she would and wouldn't have liked, and adds into the mix his extreme Walter Mitty fantasies (international teams of lawyers, pretences of having the ear of important media figures and organisations around the world, always using the pronoun "we" rather than the accurate "I", and so on), it's abundantly clear (again, to anyone with an open mind and a modicum of intellect) that Quennell a) has some serious issues of his own, and b) should not be considered in any way a credible part of the debate about the Kercher case and the Knox/Sollecito trials.
 
analemma said:
If you think that "He came across well ", then you have a very strange opinion of what "comes across well" is.
Most people saw a women hating, sex obsessed, stupid nutcase who thought he was Sherlock Holmes and had superior powers of intuition, and that pig headed intuition justified falsifying evidence and beating up a terrified young woman to satisfy his twisted obsession with women who did not behave appropriately.
Those were his own words.
You have to be drinking "truther" cool aid to think what he showed "came across well", and I am glad that he showed it to the whole world.
I AM JUST LOVING THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

But you don't understand. Vixen says that the documentary was edited to make Mignini look silly.

Yet despite that, he came across as sincere and credible. Apparently Mignini blinked out in Morse Code: "Help! They're making me say these things!"
 
LondonJohn said:
You're kidding, right?

I strongly suggest that you read the emails again, in their entirety. Pay particularly careful note to a) whether the woman in question ever initiated or validated any of Quennell's suggestive come-ons, and b) how she replied to Quennell as the come-ons got more explicit and more direct. If you think the worst thing Quennell wrote was that he and his wife had separate beds, then you're very sadly mistaken.
Click to expand...

Oh purleese. It's between him and this woman. They are both adults. When I worked at a four star hotel in Soho in their wine shop as a secretary to take wine orders, because I had French (and understood what customers were asking for when they rang up to order fines wines), as you can imagine, the place was packed with Italian, French, Moroccan etc waiters and us (three) office staff got free meals as part of the job. Every day was an exercise in self-defense.

One talented Italian chef used to make me some lovely meals, and then one day, he pounced! I had to physically fight him off. Another guy got me to take some documents to a hotel room, and the next thing I knew he was trying to wrestle me in!

So yeah, it's bad behaviour, but find it hard to believe there was anything 'criminal' about it.
 
analemma said:
If you think that "He came across well ", then you have a very strange opinion of what "comes across well" is.
Most people saw a women hating, sex obsessed, stupid nutcase who thought he was Sherlock Holmes and had superior powers of intuition, and that pig headed intuition justified falsifying evidence and beating up a terrified young woman to satisfy his twisted obsession with women who did not behave appropriately.
Those were his own words.
You have to be drinking "truther" cool aid to think what he showed "came across well", and I am glad that he showed it to the whole world.
I AM JUST LOVING THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Click to expand...

You know, Analemma, when you are happy, it makes us all very happy for you.

I wish you well.
 
LondonJohn said:
Ain't it strange how often one hears the standard pro-guilt mantra that anyone who writes/speaks in support of the acquittal of Knox (and Sollecito), and/or who writes/speaks in critical terms about the prosecution or police incompetence/malpractice in this case, is probably a "client" of Knox, or in the payroll of Marriott, or overcome with blind lust for Knox, or has some other vested interest?

Once again, it's emblematic of the monumentally poor thinking skills exhibited with weary regularity by so many of the pro-guilt community......
Click to expand...

Nina Burleigh herself said she was a pro-Knox advocate. At least she's open about it.
 
Vixen said:
Joking that you will train a telescope on a neighbour in nearby Manhattan is NOT in the same league as publicly offering to fellate a married man just because he supports abortion on demand.
Click to expand...

JOKING? Really? And I suppose ending his emails to Burleigh with "how are the kiddies?" is just more jocularity? You do NOT joke about a woman's children unless you are a family member or close friend.

I love how you attribute Quennell's comments to "kidding" but take Burleigh's statements as serious.

You are a classic case of confirmation bias.
 
Vixen said:
One talented Italian chef used to make me some lovely meals, and then one day, he pounced! I had to physically fight him off. Another guy got me to take some documents to a hotel room, and the next thing I knew he was trying to wrestle me in!

So yeah, it's bad behaviour, but find it hard to believe there was anything 'criminal' about it.
Click to expand...

Both the events you describe are indeed criminal.
 
Vixen said:
Oh purleese. It's between him and this woman. They are both adults. When I worked at a four star hotel in Soho in their wine shop as a secretary to take wine orders, because I had French (and understood what customers were asking for when they rang up to order fines wines), as you can imagine, the place was packed with Italian, French, Moroccan etc waiters and us (three) office staff got free meals as part of the job. Every day was an exercise in self-defense.

One talented Italian chef used to make me some lovely meals, and then one day, he pounced! I had to physically fight him off. Another guy got me to take some documents to a hotel room, and the next thing I knew he was trying to wrestle me in!

So yeah, it's bad behaviour, but find it hard to believe there was anything 'criminal' about it.
Click to expand...

Sexual harassment is "criminal". At least in the US.

Or do you think men sexually harassing women is just "bad behavior"? Sad.
 
Vixen said:
He came across well notwithstanding the deliberate attempts to misrepresent him.

It is very hard to misrepresent an honest person.
Click to expand...

So.......

Your claim that they edited the documentary to make him look silly was a lie.

Thanks for the admission.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom