The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 26

[bagels]

In 2007 a local crook breaks into a cottage the same way he previously broke into a law office, carrying the same knife he previously pulled during a previous burglary

10 years later, I learn a man named Curt Knox is a "babe magnet."

*in Dr Malcolm voice* that's chaos theory

 

[Vixen]

A guy robbed a bank. When it was pointed out to him that he'd been caught, he tried to give the money back.

He then complained when he was charged with robbery.

You are so ignorant . Plagiarism is passing someone else's works off as your own. As Karen was fully credited with her quote, as well as it being in clear italics, it was pure malice for her to complain to Amazon.

Her work wasn't even original it was just quoting various widely promulgated news items. You cannot own a news item.

 

[Stacyhs]

...and yet...he removed it from his book and had to re-release it under a new title. uh huh

 

[Bill Williams]

You are so ignorant . Plagiarism is passing someone else's works off as your own. As Karen was fully credited with her quote, as well as it being in clear italics, it was pure malice for her to complain to Amazon.

This post is the nature of the remaining PR effort from the haters. It completely ignores the IMPORTANT party to this dispute, and the action that party took.

Amazon. Which suspended the account until that instance of plagiarism was dealt with.

The nature of the remaining PR effort is to try to control the narrative, mainly by leaving out salient details. One other detail is that even PQ is potentially citing another plargiarism issue. Another one.

Stay tuned. The PR effort cannot let this go.

 

[Welshman]

ROFLMAO

This has to be the epitome of hypocrisy.

Vixen accuses another post of being the epitome of hypocrisy. PGP need a reminder of the consistent hypocrisy they have shown in their posts :-

* Attacking Amanda and Raffaele for lying whilst lying in their posts and supporting liars on an industrial scale as highlighted in my post below

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11997763#post11997763

* Accusing Hellman and C&V of being corrupt whilst slavishly defending corrupt police/prosecutors who carried out misconduct and corruption on a massive scale as detailed in the links below

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

* Accusing Amanda of not being the sharpest tool whilst PGP posters display such chronic mental impairment they can’t understand even the simplest concepts as detailed in my post below .

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?postid=11951980#post11951980

* Attacking the supreme court for supposedly not following Italian law by annulling the conviction rather than sending it for another trial but PGP had no problem when the police broke numerous Italian laws during the interrogation as detailed below

http://www.amandaknoxcase.com/italian-interrogation-laws/

Just when I thought PGP could not stoop any lower in their hypocrisy, they now accuse posters of hypocrisy.

 

[Vixen]

...and yet...he removed it from his book and had to re-release it under a new title. uh huh

That's because Pruett being unreasonable, refused any communicaion.

Amazon doesn't arbitrate; it tells the two parties in dispute to come to an agreement.

 

[Bill Williams]

That's because Pruett being spiteful, refused to withdraw her claim.

Amazon doesn't arbitrate; it tells the two parties in dispute to come to an agreement.

Pruett, being filled with hatred towards anyone who pointed to Knox and Sollecito's guilt, simply refused to co-operate.

The PR effort continues. It continues against the obvious.

It did not tell the two parties, "to come to an agreement." That is the PR invention of someone with an interest in protecting an author.

Amazon suspended an account over plagarism. The plagiarist relented. The account was reopened.

Stay tuned. The PR effort of an interested party will continue.

 

[Vixen]

The PR effort continues. It continues against the obvious.

It did not tell the two parties, "to come to an agreement." That is the PR invention of someone with an interest in protecting an author.

Amazon suspended an account over plagarism. The plagiarist relented. The account was reopened.

Stay tuned. The PR effort of an interested party will continue.

As a master of spin, perhaps you can give me some PR tips.

 

[Bill Williams]

7

As a master of spin, perhaps you can give me some PR tips.

PR 2.01. Rather than deal with the actual facts of Amazon's action in dealing with plaguarism....

..... just turn it around and make accusations which move the issue even further from what's at hand.

Divert divert divert, but Amazon's suspension of account for plagiarism and Peter Quennell's comment about NvdL's further plagiarism go unaddressed.

Stay tuned. The PR effort of an interested party will continue.

 

[Stacyhs]

That's because Pruett being unreasonable, refused any communicaion.

Amazon doesn't arbitrate; it tells the two parties in dispute to come to an agreement.

And your evidence of this is? Let me guess; NvdL?

The undeniable facts are that 1)Amazon suspended his account and 2) it was not reinstated until the questionable parts were removed from his book and 3)it was reissued under another name.

Spin that.

 

[Vixen]

7

PR 2.01. Rather than deal with the actual facts of Amazon's action in dealing with plaguarism....

..... just turn it around and make accusations which move the issue even further from what's at hand.

Divert divert divert, but Amazon's suspension of account for plagiarism and Peter Quennell's comment about NvdL's further plagiarism go unaddressed.

Stay tuned. The PR effort of an interested party will continue.

You have zero evidence of plagiarism. The Amazon issue was to do with a copyright query. As you know, judicious quoting within the context of criticism and making a clear attribution, doesn't contravene any rules, although admittedly, the big newspaper chains don't like being quoted, even though they get their stuff from Reuters and AP press releases, and are hardly original as all the mass media publish the same news with similar wording.

In Karen's case the real issue was more mundane. It was pure factionalism.

 

[Vixen]

And your evidence of this is? Let me guess; NvdL?

The undeniable facts are that 1)Amazon suspended his account and 2) it was not reinstated until the questionable parts were removed from his book and 3)it was reissued under another name.

Spin that.

No, Amazon didn't insist on that. Karen refused to communicate so it was Nick's own initiative to break the deadlock by republishing with her quote removed. It was entirely without prejudice. There was no admission of liability by either Amazon or Nick.

She could have communicated with him direct with a quick email, instead of kicking up a stink.

 

[Methos]

You are so ignorant . Plagiarism is passing someone else's works off as your own. As Karen was fully credited with her quote, as well as it being in clear italics, it was pure malice for her to complain to Amazon.

Just for the record. Judging from the formatting of the re-published book called "Deceit" and the follow up's "Dark Matter" and "Under Suspicion" and the three new ones "Despicable", "Foxy Knoxy fights back" and "Extradition" (I want my money back) it is clear that nothing is "clear in italics" in any of those "books" (blame that on the editor )

Her work wasn't even original it was just quoting various widely promulgated news items. You cannot own a news item.

Funny thing about this is that Karen Pruett is one of the persons who have forgotten more about the case than You, VdL and Wilson combined will ever know...
Btw, this is the timeline we are talking about:
MEREDITH, AMANDA AND RAFFAELE: THE CALM BEFORE THE STORM (ground report saved via the wayback machine)...

But, well, it would be nice if this newly registered (see above) member "Nick van der Leek" would join the discussion here...

 

[Bill Williams]

You have zero evidence of plagiarism.

The PR effort of an interested party to the books continues.

The casual reader will judge. The evidence is this, Amazon suspended the account. Amazon asked only one person to do something to rectify this.

Nick van der Leek.

Van der Leek complied. Suspension ended.

But who needs evidence when Nick's PR department posts as she does. BTW - PQ has offered further "evidence" - similar fact evidence.

But PR attempts to get the reader to ignore that. Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

 

[Stacyhs]

And your evidence of this is? Let me guess; NvdL?

The undeniable facts are that 1)Amazon suspended his account and 2) it was not reinstated until the questionable parts were removed from his book and 3)it was reissued under another name.

Spin that.

No, Amazon didn't insist on that. Karen refused to communicate so it was Nick's own initiative to break the deadlock by republishing with her quote removed. It was entirely without prejudice. There was no admission of liability by either Amazon or Nick.

She could have communicated with him direct with a quick email, instead of kicking up a stink.

I stated three facts, none of which was that "Amazon insisted" on the removal or that anyone "admitted liability". However, once again, if vdL had correctly and legally given Pruett credit, there would have been no reason for him to have removed any part of it or to have reissued it under another name.

You have still failed to provide any evidence that 1) That's because Pruett being unreasonable, refused any communicaion.

or 2) Amazon doesn't arbitrate; it tells the two parties in dispute to come to an agreement.

 

[Bill Williams]

'To suppress criticism' insinuates they have something to hide.

Your implying they have something to hide is scurrilous.

The PR spin continues.

The "something to hide" is the track record of cut-and-paste books, on many more books than on this case. The "something to hide" is charges of plagiarism, now from two mutually opposite sources.

The PR effort is to blame others, make it seem that van der Leek's cut-and-paste book writing method is somehow legit, or at the very least adds something to a case that ended 2 1/2 years ago - 30 months! - with acquittals.

The "something to hide" is the process by which NvdL can "write" 12 to 20 books a year.

But let's talk about other things. The baby needs new shoes.

 

[Stacyhs]

'To suppress criticism' insinuates they have something to hide.

Your implying they have something to hide is scurrilous.

"Scurrilous"? As in claiming Burleigh's parents were "stoned hippies", that Pruett "had a crush" on Curt Knox and supported him because of that whether his daughter was guilty or not, that Pruett is "rabid pro-Knox worshipper", that "it was pure malice for her to complain to Amazon, that "Curt seems to be a 'babe magnet', with Cassandra, Edda and who knows who milling around him, that AK used cocaine, and all the rest of the false claims you've made? That "scurrilous"?

And you have the nerve to accuse others of hypocrisy?

 

[Vixen]

I stated three facts, none of which was that "Amazon insisted" on the removal or that anyone "admitted liability". However, once again, if vdL had correctly and legally given Pruett credit, there would have been no reason for him to have removed any part of it or to have reissued it under another name.

You have still failed to provide any evidence that 1) That's because Pruett being unreasonable, refused any communicaion.

or 2) Amazon doesn't arbitrate; it tells the two parties in dispute to come to an agreement.

He did credit her. If she has told you otherwise, she is being less than frank.

She didn't want her quote included at all, nor a link to her GR article.

The real question is what has she got to hide. Departing from the truth perhaps...?

 

[bagels]

He did credit her. If she has told you otherwise, she is being less than frank.

She didn't want her quote included at all, nor a link to her GR article.

The real question is what has she got to hide. Departing from the truth perhaps...?

rofl

the truth of this braindead case...finally exposed.... in some two bit smut book researched on google....

 

[Vixen]

The PR spin continues.

The "something to hide" is the track record of cut-and-paste books, on many more books than on this case. The "something to hide" is charges of plagiarism, now from two mutually opposite sources.

The PR effort is to blame others, make it seem that van der Leek's cut-and-paste book writing method is somehow legit, or at the very least adds something to a case that ended 2 1/2 years ago - 30 months! - with acquittals.

The "something to hide" is the process by which NvdL can "write" 12 to 20 books a year.

But let's talk about other things. The baby needs new shoes.

You are just one big stirrer, Bill.