The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 26

Status
Not open for further replies.
A known burglar with no business in Meredith's home the same night it had an apparent break-in mentions her stolen rent money

*in extremely deep thinking PGP voice* but what could it mean?

Add to this - the only person in the known universe who gives evidence that he was in Meredith's cottage with Meredith's permission, is Rudy Guede himself. (Judge Nencini elevates this claim to a "judicial truth" by accepting this.)

Add more to this - the only person in the known universe to have his DNA inside the victim's vagina is the one who claims he'd been in the cottage with Meredith's permission. Add to this - the only known person to give direct, uncoerced evidence that Amanda Knox had been in the cottage that night was this very same Rudy Guede. (This, after initially telling a friend that Knox had had nothing to do with the crime.)

*in an even more extremely deep thinking PGP voice* but what could it mean?
 
Here's the thing - in a clinical setting even after multi sessions with someone like this, reputable psychologists/psychiatrists would probably give only a provisional diagnosis.

JREF/ISF is not a clinical setting. None of us are reputable psychologists.

There are so many other explanations as well. True, it doesn't change the normal disgust one might feel when reading their stuff..... but that is a different animal.

OK, this is fair. I think when I (not sure about others) speak about "sociopathic" or "narcissistic" behavior we aren't diagnosing, at least not in the same way other people are when they say Amanda is a sociopath. If I say those things it is to convey that the behavior (e.g. trying to get people fired from their job for disagreeing with you; smearing someone's reputation online; online harassment/bullying) is linked to these kinds of personality disorders. Much in the same way that one paper about the McCann trolls identified the behavior as sociopathic without diagnosing any individuals. Maybe outside of their weird Knox obsessions they are sweet as a peach, and Amanda triggers some disorder in their minds. Who knows?

But anyway this type of behavior is important to identify and understand -- online harassment and bullying is a serious issue. You can't "just ignore it" once it hits critical mass.
 
But anyway this type of behavior is important to identify and understand -- online harassment and bullying is a serious issue. You can't "just ignore it" once it hits critical mass.

As long as one is clear they are being colloquial, there's nothing wrong with id'ing that stuff as crazy.

The "critical mass of crazy" online in this case perhaps was in 2010 when the (then) single PMF, TJMK and here on JREF was controlled by PGP who had developed a narrative supported (then) by the Italian courts.

It was 2011 when that crazy was exposed for what it was. Since, too many of us on all sides confuse sociopathy with old fashioned confirmation bias....

...... and confirmation bias is not pathology. Even the slut-shaming is simply a more disgusting form of an otherwise garden variety phenomenon.

I showed up in late 2011, and since then the vast majority of on-line warriors on both sides have departed. The confirmation biased Wikipedia entry on the case was restored to sanity with Jimbo Wales direct intervention.

Is it sociopathic that a bookkeeper in England thinks it's fair to call forensic-DNA experts corrupt? Probably not. This is the internet aka the Wild West.
 
I never thought the bathroom/toilet was the cause of the murder, although it may have been a factor in building up Knox' rage. Knox was probably winding up Mez for sport and getting on her nerves for fun.

Ah...the rage that absolutely nobody else saw? Not Filomena, not Laura, not the boys downstairs, not the Brits girls, or any of her Italian friends testified that they had heard even a raised voice between the two or as much as a negative word about Meredith from Amanda. Yet, in your "objective" mind, you take all this (non-existent) evidence and decide Knox was enraged and deliberately wound up Meredith. That seems logical to you?

You didn't answer my question in my original post. Does it seem logical to you that Stephanie would not ask what the quarrel was about or that she never mentioned it in her court testimony? Will you continue to claim that Meredith and Amanda "quarreled" over the bathroom issue?
 
Last edited:
Vixen will not be pleased.

From P. Quennell over on TJMK:

Headsup: We'd prefer not to recommend the new Nick van der Leek book for the moment. There's a perception among some readers that it lacks depth and is not really ready for prime time. We did not peer-review the book, received no copy, and our one major suggestion for more accuracy was rejected, so please note it's not yet among our recommendations.

:D:D:D:D

ROTFLMAO! Quennell has amended his statement re NvdL's book:

Headsup: We'd prefer not to recommend the new Nick van der Leek book for the moment. There's a perception among some readers that it lacks depth and is not really ready for prime time. We did not peer-review the book, received no copy, and our one major suggestion for more accuracy was rejected. There's maybe some plagiarism. It's not recommended by us for now.
Looks like Nicky didn't learn his lesson the first time he plagiarized part of his book and had to remove it. Why would anyone want to be connected to this opportunist?
 
Last edited:
ROTFLMAO! Quennell has amended his statement re NvdL's book:

Headsup: We'd prefer not to recommend the new Nick van der Leek book for the moment. There's a perception among some readers that it lacks depth and is not really ready for prime time. We did not peer-review the book, received no copy, and our one major suggestion for more accuracy was rejected. There's maybe some plagiarism. It's not recommended by us for now.
Looks like Nicky didn't learn his lesson the first time he plagiarized part of his book and had to remove it. Why would anyone want to be connected to this opportunist.?

Plagarism! No! Nick, say it ain't so!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

It's official and unanimous. Three words describe Nick van der Leek.

Cut.

And.

Paste.
 
As it is impossible to prove a negative, it will be much easier for you to cite any serious crime (not fraud or treason*) that Hellmann ever presided over as a Supreme Court judge (*like-for-like).

We are all sitting at our 'puters with bated breath, in anticipation of your citation/s.
No, Vixen, I'm not going to do your homework for you. You claim something, you provide the evidence. This is how it works. (Remember Chieffi's if you claim contamination you are the one to prove that it happened?)
And btw, I never claimed that there are cases judge "Hellmann presided over as a Supreme Court judge", please stop putting words into my mouth...

Absolutely not. Pete isn't telling anyone to 'toe the party line'. This is a matter of priniciple. He has his principles (and it is his site, so he can do what he likes, anyway) and Nick has his. I have no problem with people standing by their principles.

It's the boxed header warning I didn't understand. Seems a little bit unkind, as Pete admits he hasn't even read Nick's book.

<shrug>
If that is all you have...
<shrug>
 
As long as one is clear they are being colloquial, there's nothing wrong with id'ing that stuff as crazy.

The "critical mass of crazy" online in this case perhaps was in 2010 when the (then) single PMF, TJMK and here on JREF was controlled by PGP who had developed a narrative supported (then) by the Italian courts.

It was 2011 when that crazy was exposed for what it was. Since, too many of us on all sides confuse sociopathy with old fashioned confirmation bias....

...... and confirmation bias is not pathology. Even the slut-shaming is simply a more disgusting form of an otherwise garden variety phenomenon.

I showed up in late 2011, and since then the vast majority of on-line warriors on both sides have departed. The confirmation biased Wikipedia entry on the case was restored to sanity with Jimbo Wales direct intervention.

Is it sociopathic that a bookkeeper in England thinks it's fair to call forensic-DNA experts corrupt? Probably not. This is the internet aka the Wild West.


Chartered.
 
No, Vixen, I'm not going to do your homework for you. You claim something, you provide the evidence. This is how it works. (Remember Chieffi's if you claim contamination you are the one to prove that it happened?)
And btw, I never claimed that there are cases judge "Hellmann presided over as a Supreme Court judge", please stop putting words into my mouth...


If that is all you have...
<shrug>

So we take it, 'Hellmann has never presided over a murder case appeal in the Supreme Court.'

Thank you.
 
There are odd statements by the PGP which are laughably lacking in context. It's not clear if these garbled statements result from a serious lack of subject-matter knowledge or an intent to provoke a response. The absence of context renders these statements totally devoid of relevance.

Take, for example, the statement: Judge "Hellmann has never presided over a murder case appeal in the Supreme Court."

Now, Judge Hellmann at the relevant time was a judge in an Italian court, the Assize Appeal Court of Perugia.

Similarly, Judge Nencini at the relevant time was a judge in an Italian court, the Assize Appeal Court of Florence.

Judge Massei at the relevant time was judge in the Assize Court of Perugia.

For a trial of a serious crime, such as murder, the Assize Court and Assize Appeal Court each consists of a panel of two professional judges and 5 "lay judges" who are citizens who are not professionally trained judges. The lay judges must have at least an elementary school education (Assize Court) or high school education (Assize Appeal Court).

The Italian Supreme Court of Cassation (CSC) includes about 400 judges. About one-half the judges serve in the Civil Division and one-half in the Criminal Division. Each Division consists of a number of Sections, each of which is assigned to only certain types of cases. An appeal of a criminal case judged in an Assize Appeal Court (and some other appeals) are heard by the CSC by a panel of judges, which consists of 5 judges assigned from a Section of the Criminal Division. In rare cases, for example, where there is some issue of conflict of law, CSC decides that an appeal must heard by a larger panel of nine judges, a panel called the "United Sections" or "Joint Sections", assigned from several Sections.

Among the judges serving on the CSC at the relevant time were Gemelli, Chieffi, and Marasca.

In each motivation report, the names of the judges who heard the case are given on the first page of the text.

There is also an Italian Constitutional Court, also called the Supreme Constitutional Court, which is separate from the CSC. The Constitutional Court is the only Italian court authorized under the Italian Constitution to interpret the Italian Constitution. It receives cases only as forwarded by the decision of a lower regular (criminal or civil) court or by request from the executive branch of the Italian government. Unlike the US system, an individual may not petition the Italian Constitutional Court to have a case reviewed by the Italian Constitutional Court.
 
Last edited:
Rubbish. Pete's angry because they didn't change the title.

You must know something unavailable to others. Quennell used the word "plagiarism", suspicion of which some years ago got Nick van der Leek's Amazon account suspended for a period of time.
 
You must know something unavailable to others. Quennell used the word "plagiarism", suspicion of which some years ago got Nick van der Leek's Amazon account suspended for a period of time.

No, that was not plagiarism. Nick quoted Karen Pruett, (fanatical 'Friend of Amanda Knox'), accredited her with the quote and directly linked to her original article. Pruett put in a complaint to Amazon, but it wasn't plagiarism. All she had to do was ask him to remove it. In the end he simply deleted the quote, and brought the book out under a new title. How odd, eh, that the book is still in publication if the content is plagiarised, as you claim.

Pruett was motivated by spite.
 
Last edited:
No, that was not plagiarism. Nick quoted Karen Pruett, (fanatical 'Friend of Amanda Knox'), accredited her with the quote and directly linked to her original article. Pruett put in a complaint to Amazon, but it wasn't plagiarism. All she had to do was ask him to remove it. In the end he simply deleted the quote, and brought the book out under a new title. How odd, eh, that the book is still in publication if the content is plagiarised, as you claim.

Pruett was motivated by spite.

That is a highly sanitized version of events. You have no idea what motivated Pruett once it was clear that van der Leek had plagiarized. You must be a mind reader.

Van der Leek actually sent insulting e-mails to someone he'd thought was the author. He badgered someone with insults, who had no clue what he was talking about. He became so intransigent about it that Amazon took action to suspend his account. The suspension is what got his attention and motivated him to settle things which he did by removing the offending material. Otherwise he would have bulled ahead, plagiarizing at will.

Since it is a complaint-driven process, just because someone plagiarizes doesn't mean that Amazon immediately picks up on it.

But it is strange that now you are defending him from charges brought not by Pruett, brought not by Amazon, but by Peter Quennell of TJMK's website. Those familiar with van der Leek's "writing" know that whole swaths of his stuff is simply cut and pasted from the fake-Wiki or TJMK. Until they complain, van der Leek can cut and paste all he likes. This is simply the first of many (potential) complaints.

At the end of the day, the time he saves on research by plagiarizing will be his downfall.

It's amazing that his proof-readers don't point out all this to him. They must be in on the scam. They certainly are willing to act as PR agents for him in providing sanitized versions of events with a clear chain of events.
 
Last edited:
Rubbish. Pete's angry because they didn't change the title.

So Pete doesn't recommend a book because he doesn't like the title? And why does he think he has the right to tell an author (and I use that term loosely with NvdL) what to call his book? I guess Nicky better toe Pete's line or he'll lose his only market; the few remaining TJMK devotees.
 
So Pete doesn't recommend a book because he doesn't like the title? And why does he think he has the right to tell an author (and I use that term loosely with NvdL) what to call his book? I guess Nicky better toe Pete's line or he'll lose his only market; the few remaining TJMK devotees.

Anyone interested in the saga of Nick van der Leek finding this case as a cut-and-paste cash-cow, should check this very thread, circa May 30-31, 2015. (Continuation 16.)

Nick wrote his first book about this case that month, and Vixen confirmed that he'd first heard about it all in April 2015. That's right, van der Leek took a whole month to cut-and-paste his first book on this, and temporarily lost all his books selling on Amazon until the plagiarism report got cleared up.

My view of it is that he simply took out the reported material, so as to get all his books back up selling on Amazon. Since, he has averaged about a book-a-month, until this latest plagiarism incident, this time alleged by Peter Quennell of TJMK - one of the websites that allegedly van der Leek heavily cuts-and-pastes from.

One of his principal PR-agents posts both to this site, as well as to TJMK with featured articles. How's that for being "objective" about his work?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom