The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 26

[Stacyhs]

"Since, he has averaged about a book-a-month..."

I thought the "Book of the Month Club" was for reading a book, not writing a book!

 

[Bill Williams]

"Since, he has averaged about a book-a-month..."

I thought the "Book of the Month Club" was for reading a book, not writing a book!

Expect this thread to be flooded by van der Leek's PR agents, to resist the term "plagiarism" like the plague. Insults will be hurled at everyone - but the PR-person needs to tread lightly because she knows PQ reads here, too.

Oh what webs we do weave......

 

[TruthCalls]

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.

No, that he's a lousy 'author' who publishes nonsensical crap IS his downfall. Plagiarizing presents legal issues for him but at the end of the day he can deflect criticism of his crap by blaming those he plagiarized.

 

[TruthCalls]

"Since, he has averaged about a book-a-month..."

I thought the "Book of the Month Club" was for reading a book, not writing a book!

Ha, I thought Bill was referring to the number of books sold. Silly me.

 

[Stacyhs]

Ha, I thought Bill was referring to the number of books sold. Silly me.

Well, that too.

 

[Welshman]

1. I don't know any PGP who says the Italian courts are infallible. Certainly, it bends over backwards for the defendant far more so than the UK/USA courts.

2. Nencini as a judge had wide-ranging powers to direct the court as he saw fit. It's his job, as a judge. The fact of multiple killers was a submission by various counsel in their summings up and rebuttals. Crini suggested it was a row about stolen rent money, which is Rudy's claim. I wouldn't be surprised if, like Knox blaming Patrick/Guede, to detract attention away from herself, he was simply shifting the blame away from himself, onto Knox. Marasca had poor reason to quash Nencini at all. It substituted its own verdict which is (a) improper, and (b) reinstated Hellmann's reasoning, which was estopped as already settled by the Chieffi Supreme Court, res judicata. It upheld Massei in that the investigation was not suspect-centric.

3. A judge takes an oath of objectivity. Your nationality has nothing to do with how you try a case in the ECHR. What a pathetic idea, that Italian judges would not rule against Italy. Hello? This is the EU court of Human Rights. Ethics is their basis.

The below is a list of the massive level of corruption and misconduct carried by the police/prosecution in this case. As can be seen from the list, the police/prosecution violated the rights of Amanda during the interrogations by denying access to lawyers, not taping the interrogations, not telling Amanda and Raffaele their rights. Amanda and Raffaele were denied access to lawyers until the first hearing. The prosecution engaged in the massive suppression of evidence, fed false information to the media, lied in court and committed perjury. Amanda was the victim of disgusting lie where she was lied to she had HIV. Defence requests to have evidence tested was turned down. If the Italian Justice System is defendant friendly, why is that numerous abuses by corrupt police/prosecutors are tolerated?
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/raffaeles-kitchen-knife/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/contamination-labwork-coverup/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/meredith-kercher-perjury-corruption/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/evidence-destroyed/
http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/blood-evidence-downstairs-apartment/
https://knoxsollecito.wordpress.com...old-about-amanda-knox-and-raffaele-sollecito/
http://www.injusticeinperugia.org/myths.html
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11071314#post11071314
In addition to the above, there were numerous ways Amanda and Raffaele were badly treated by the Italian Justice System :-
• Convicted on the basis of evidence with no credibility full of holes such as the knife.
• Amanda and Raffaele had to wait a year before the Massei trial and the trial lasted a year which indicates the Italian Justice system moves at a slow rate.
• The testimony of blatant liars such as Quintavelle and Curalto was used as evidence.
• Amanda and her parents were charged with Calunia for speaking out against the abuses she endured in the interrogation.
• Amanda was charged with Calunia for naming Lumumba despite the violation of her rights during the interrogation.
• Hellman’s verdict was quashed on the basis of a motivation riddled with falsehoods and Amanda and Raffaele were convicted on the basis of another motivation report by Nencini riddled with falsehoods. The links below describe these falsehoods.
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=3142&sid=4352579c1292bedf6dd5e31f5c40b2de
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.org/viewtopic.php?p=139060&sid=57ce2f72c3b5437943a95e5b569e8ff9

PGP have often displayed staggering stupidity and one of the most ridiculous claims made by PGP is the notion the Italian Justice is defendant friendly and bends over backwards for defendants a claim Vixen repeats in her post. In view of the appalling way Amanda and Raffaele were treated by the Italian Justice System, could Vixen clarify how exactly does the Italian Justice System bend over backwards for defendants. There was certainly no sign of a justice system bending over backwards for defendants with Amanda and Raffaele.

 

[Bill Williams]

PGP have often displayed staggering stupidity and one of the most ridiculous claims made by PGP is the notion the Italian Justice is defendant friendly and bends over backwards for defendants a claim Vixen repeats in her post. In view of the appalling way Amanda and Raffaele were treated by the Italian Justice System, could Vixen clarify how exactly does the Italian Justice System bend over backwards for defendants. There was certainly no sign of a justice system bending over backwards for defendants with Amanda and Raffaele.

At the risk of seemingly taking Vixen's side on this, the Italian system seems to be built on skepticism that a prosecution can get things right.

Raffaele and Amanda had three evidentiary trials and 2 appeals to Cassazione, one which overturned an acquittal and the other which overturned a conviction.

All the while - as us descendants of "English"-style law always have a hard time dealing with - these five trials were, by Italian law, really only one trial. For instance, the concept of double jeopardy exists in Italy, but not until Cassazione signs off on a lower court verdict, or substitutes its own verdict for what the lower court should have found (based on the evidence in front of it).

As unwieldy as all that sounds, and as much as it actually does drag both accused - and victim's family - through the mire of uncertainty often for a decade or more.....

..... at the end of the day that system worked for Raffaele and Amanda.

There seem to be two kinds of judges in Italy.

- those who favour the old Inquisitorial system who expect defendants to prove their innocence; or
- those who favour the transition to the Adversarial system where the prosecution has to prove them guilty.​

Raffaele and Amanda "lucked out" in the sense that the Hellmann Appeal's Court and the 5th Chambers of Cassazione contained judges who favoured the latter.

The Italian system as it exists today will eventually (because of its multi-trial format) expose the case to a panel which will want the accused proven guilty - not force the accused to prove their innocence.

Indeed, the 5th Chamber's criticism of Nencini's court on its statement that TOD was not important, was that without establishing a TOD the accuseds were deprived of an ability to have an alibi. The failure of establishing a TOD falls squarely at the feet of incompetent investigators; Mignini even admitted that his only (!) mistake was not allowing the coroner to take body temperature at a time when TOD could have been narrowed greatly.

Having the 5th Chambers focus on that issue demonstrates it was looking for proof of the accuseds' guilt, and didn't need the accused to prove their innocence since BARD had not been achieved.

So is Italy's system weighted towards the accused? I would hope it was! Otherwise, why not just throw the accused into a lake and if they sink and drown, they are deemed innocent.

 

[Vixen]

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?

Move along. There is nothing to see.

 

[Bill Williams]

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?

Move along. There is nothing to see.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

And your interest for saying this is........?

You do realize that PQ thinks NvdL plagiarized part of this latest book?

 

[Stacyhs]

Move along. There is nothing to see.

Here, let me fix this for you: Move along. There is nothing I want you to see.

 

[Methos]

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...

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

Thank you.

"We"!?

What does this even mean? Neither did Nencini nor Massei do that either......

Erratum: that should have read 'Appeal Court'

So we take it you can't provide any evidence that Hellmann was "an inexperienced-in-serious-crime but well-meaning Judge."

So back to the original question we are, aren't we?

 

[Numbers]

At the risk of seemingly taking Vixen's side on this, the Italian system seems to be built on skepticism that a prosecution can get things right.

Raffaele and Amanda had three evidentiary trials and 2 appeals to Cassazione, one which overturned an acquittal and the other which overturned a conviction.

All the while - as us descendants of "English"-style law always have a hard time dealing with - these five trials were, by Italian law, really only one trial. For instance, the concept of double jeopardy exists in Italy, but not until Cassazione signs off on a lower court verdict, or substitutes its own verdict for what the lower court should have found (based on the evidence in front of it).

As unwieldy as all that sounds, and as much as it actually does drag both accused - and victim's family - through the mire of uncertainty often for a decade or more.....

..... at the end of the day that system worked for Raffaele and Amanda.

There seem to be two kinds of judges in Italy.

- those who favour the old Inquisitorial system who expect defendants to prove their innocence; or
- those who favour the transition to the Adversarial system where the prosecution has to prove them guilty.​

Raffaele and Amanda "lucked out" in the sense that the Hellmann Appeal's Court and the 5th Chambers of Cassazione contained judges who favoured the latter.

The Italian system as it exists today will eventually (because of its multi-trial format) expose the case to a panel which will want the accused proven guilty - not force the accused to prove their innocence.

Indeed, the 5th Chamber's criticism of Nencini's court on its statement that TOD was not important, was that without establishing a TOD the accuseds were deprived of an ability to have an alibi. The failure of establishing a TOD falls squarely at the feet of incompetent investigators; Mignini even admitted that his only (!) mistake was not allowing the coroner to take body temperature at a time when TOD could have been narrowed greatly.

Having the 5th Chambers focus on that issue demonstrates it was looking for proof of the accuseds' guilt, and didn't need the accused to prove their innocence since BARD had not been achieved.

So is Italy's system weighted towards the accused? I would hope it was! Otherwise, why not just throw the accused into a lake and if they sink and drown, they are deemed innocent.

It's not at all clear that the Italian judicial system in practice is weighted towards the accused. We don't know how many miscarriages of justice there are among the trials in Italy; Amanda and Raffaele may have been lucky in having their case finally reviewed by CSC judges who understood that under the adversarial system required by the Italian Constitution, guilt must be proven BARD for a verdict of guilty to be pronounced (CPP Article 533).

The US judicial system or those of other countries may or may not be better than the Italian one. There have been 2,109 known exonerations* in the US since 1989, and there are likely to be many additional persons who have been wrongfully convicted who have not yet been exonerated.

* Source: ww.law.umich.edu/special/exoneration/Pages/about.aspx

 

[TruthCalls]

At the risk of seemingly taking Vixen's side on this, the Italian system seems to be built on skepticism that a prosecution can get things right.

Raffaele and Amanda had three evidentiary trials and 2 appeals to Cassazione, one which overturned an acquittal and the other which overturned a conviction.

All the while - as us descendants of "English"-style law always have a hard time dealing with - these five trials were, by Italian law, really only one trial. For instance, the concept of double jeopardy exists in Italy, but not until Cassazione signs off on a lower court verdict, or substitutes its own verdict for what the lower court should have found (based on the evidence in front of it).

As unwieldy as all that sounds, and as much as it actually does drag both accused - and victim's family - through the mire of uncertainty often for a decade or more.....

..... at the end of the day that system worked for Raffaele and Amanda.

There seem to be two kinds of judges in Italy.

- those who favour the old Inquisitorial system who expect defendants to prove their innocence; or
- those who favour the transition to the Adversarial system where the prosecution has to prove them guilty.​

Raffaele and Amanda "lucked out" in the sense that the Hellmann Appeal's Court and the 5th Chambers of Cassazione contained judges who favoured the latter.

The Italian system as it exists today will eventually (because of its multi-trial format) expose the case to a panel which will want the accused proven guilty - not force the accused to prove their innocence.

Indeed, the 5th Chamber's criticism of Nencini's court on its statement that TOD was not important, was that without establishing a TOD the accuseds were deprived of an ability to have an alibi. The failure of establishing a TOD falls squarely at the feet of incompetent investigators; Mignini even admitted that his only (!) mistake was not allowing the coroner to take body temperature at a time when TOD could have been narrowed greatly.

Having the 5th Chambers focus on that issue demonstrates it was looking for proof of the accuseds' guilt, and didn't need the accused to prove their innocence since BARD had not been achieved.

So is Italy's system weighted towards the accused? I would hope it was! Otherwise, why not just throw the accused into a lake and if they sink and drown, they are deemed innocent.

I wouldn't take either side in this debate but I think Welshman's question to Vixen is still a valid one - just how does the Italian system "bends over backwards for the defendant far more so than the UK/USA courts." ??

I certainly don't think it's advantageous to the defendant that an acquittal can be appealed nor do I think it's helpful that this could lead to a potentially never-ending trial process. Indeed, the PGP feel cheated because Marasca didn't remand the case back to yet another appellate court, as if Massei+Hellmann+Nencini plus two trips thru Cassation wasn't enough.

It's also not at all helpful for the defendant to allow criminal and civil trials to be held concurrently and by the same court resulting in evidence ruled inadmissible for a criminal trial to be presented in court under the guise of evidence for the civil trial. That could never happen in the US/UK, or likely anywhere else but Italy.

Not sequestering the judges; prosecutors who direct the investigation; judicial truths being established in courtrooms where the defendants aren't represented by nonetheless held against them, etc.

In this case it did work out for the defendants but it took years spread across five courtrooms before it was settled. It's not like the US and UK systems don't have warts of their own, but I would really like to hear how the Italian system "bends over backwards" in favor of the defendant because to be honest, I don't see it.

 

[Bill Williams]

In this case it did work out for the defendants but it took years spread across five courtrooms before it was settled. It's not like the US and UK systems don't have warts of their own, but I would really like to hear how the Italian system "bends over backwards" in favor of the defendant because to be honest, I don't see it.

This is probably an excuse they trot out for the victim's family, to make the police's/prosecutor's incompetence seem like the accuseds' fault. It's prob also something they parrot when trying to argue that the acquitted were almost, but not quite, guilty.

 

[Vixen]

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

And your interest for saying this is........?

You do realize that PQ thinks NvdL plagiarized part of this latest book?

As Jack Keroauc would have put it, it is the 'sound of one hand clapping'.

 

[Vixen]

So back to the original question we are, aren't we?

So after two days of you and Stacyhs frantically searching for a citation, there are none.


The main reason his report was spiked was because he treated the evidence in a piecemeal fashion.

For example, imagine you have someone accused of embezzlement. There are ten instances of his transferring funds from his employers (let's say a trader in a bank) account into his own.

Hellmann would have looked at each occasion one by one dimissing each in turn as 'just a mistake'.

A judge with experience in serious crime, such as murder, would not make such an elementary error.

He or she would look at whole overview of the ten instances of the funds 'accidentally' ending up in the trader's account and spot a pattern.


No wonder Hellmann was shuffled out of his job immediately after his embarrassing performance.

 

[Bill Williams]

As Jack Keroauc would have put it, it is the 'sound of one hand clapping'.

What this thread will be treated to is someone who'll do anything but acknowledge that TJMK website believes NvdL is a plagarist.

Just like a PR advocate would. Divert divert.

 

[Vixen]

I wouldn't take either side in this debate but I think Welshman's question to Vixen is still a valid one - just how does the Italian system "bends over backwards for the defendant far more so than the UK/USA courts." ??

I certainly don't think it's advantageous to the defendant that an acquittal can be appealed nor do I think it's helpful that this could lead to a potentially never-ending trial process. Indeed, the PGP feel cheated because Marasca didn't remand the case back to yet another appellate court, as if Massei+Hellmann+Nencini plus two trips thru Cassation wasn't enough.

It's also not at all helpful for the defendant to allow criminal and civil trials to be held concurrently and by the same court resulting in evidence ruled inadmissible for a criminal trial to be presented in court under the guise of evidence for the civil trial. That could never happen in the US/UK, or likely anywhere else but Italy.

Not sequestering the judges; prosecutors who direct the investigation; judicial truths being established in courtrooms where the defendants aren't represented by nonetheless held against them, etc.

In this case it did work out for the defendants but it took years spread across five courtrooms before it was settled. It's not like the US and UK systems don't have warts of their own, but I would really like to hear how the Italian system "bends over backwards" in favor of the defendant because to be honest, I don't see it.

You only have to look at the statistics In the USA/UK few defendants are granted an appeal. Of the ones that do:

• In the USA 17% of appeals are successful.
• In Italy, a whopping 50% are successful.

In Italy appeals are automatic. In fact you get two.

So, imagine you are convicted in the States. Say your hope of getting an appeal, based on a point of law only, is one in five, and then, having had it granted, 17% chance of having your conviction overturned (official statistics). That's (0.20 x 0.17) = a 3.4% probability of walking free, or 96.6% chance of remaining convicted.

In Italy, an automatic appeal is 100% certain, not once, but twice, and at Supreme Court level it is a 50-50 chance either way. Then the probability is thus, (1.0 x 1.0 x 0.50) = 50% probability of getting off scot-free.

Whilst words can lie, numbers cannot.

 

[Vixen]

What this thread will be treated to is someone who'll do anything but acknowledge that TJMK website believes NvdL is a plagarist.

Just like a PR advocate would. Divert divert.

What is this, some kind of spectator sport? Those in the cheap seats, applaud, those in the Royal Box, rattle your jewellery.

Disperse, please. There is nothing to see. Move along, now.

 

[Bill Williams]

What is this, some kind of spectator sport? Those in the cheap seats, applaud, those in the Royal Box, rattle your jewellery.

Disperse, please. There is nothing to see. Move along, now.

<fx pr advocate>repeat this meme now that NvdL has been exposed by TJMK as a plagarist</fx>