The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 26

[Stacyhs]

Er, hang on a minute. Don't attribute other people's quotes to me.

Do you agree with NvdL's quote or would you like to take this opportunity to disagree?

 

[Stacyhs]

I can't see any quote there where I said Knox was a cocaine user. Her boyfriend on the train was indeed jailed for cocaine smuggling. Fact.

As I said, you've never come right out and said it but you have implied it many times as your quotes show. Just come out and clear this up with a simple "yes" or "no" answer; do you believe Knox used cocaine?

Ummm...he was not her boyfriend. Nice try there and oh so typical. There is no evidence she ever saw him again after that train trip and evening they spent at the same hotel. Or do you think a dinner (shared with her sister) and doing some heavy petting later constitutes a boyfriend relationship? If so, you have a very peculiar definition of what a boyfriend is.

 

[Vixen]

Do you agree with NvdL's quote or would you like to take this opportunity to disagree?

I'm an independent person in my own right. Nick believes cocaine consumption was a factor in the crime.

All I know about is the hashish, which is not a substance that is associated with violence.

My view of the crime is that it was a sadistic 'thrill killing' and if drugs were involved, they would be as a facilitator, not the trigger. Rather in the same way the WM3 drank beer and whiskey to loosen their inhibitions.

Since I believe the murderers have a personality disorder, the secondary issue of 'what drugs were they on' is not particularly relevant.

 

[Stacyhs]

You have been told it was.

LOL! And that's why Amazon suspended his account until he removed the relevant content?

As I said (and which you ignore): if something is published on the internet (as Pruett's timeline was)) then an author has every legal right to use it as long as it is correctly and legally cited. Whether Pruett wanted it included in vdL's book or not would not have mattered. And Amazon would have had no cause to suspend his account. No matter how often and how loud you proclaim otherwise, those are the facts.

 

[Stacyhs]

I'm an independent person in my own right. Nick believes cocaine consumption was a factor in the crime.

All I know about is the hashish, which is not a substance that is associated with violence.

My view of the crime is that it was a sadistic 'thrill killing' and if drugs were involved, they would be as a facilitator, not the trigger. Rather in the same way the WM3 drank beer and whiskey to loosen their inhibitions.

Since I believe the murderers have a personality disorder, the secondary issue of 'what drugs were they on' is not particularly relevant.

What evidence does Nick base his claim on? Nothing as there is none. In fact, forensic tests showed no cocaine use by Knox. Yet he declares it as a fact thus misinforming his ignorant readers.

I see you are tap dancing around the question. No surprise there. I rather suspected you would. Nice touch, by the way, with the WM3 drinking beer and whiskey bit. Subtle...but the implication is there. And that is what you do.

 

[Vixen]

LOL! And that's why Amazon suspended his account until he removed the relevant content?

As I said (and which you ignore): if something is published on the internet (as Pruett's timeline was)) then an author has every legal right to use it as long as it is correctly and legally cited. Whether Pruett wanted it included in vdL's book or not would not have mattered. And Amazon would have had no cause to suspend his account. No matter how often and how loud you proclaim otherwise, those are the facts.

You have it arse over tits. Amazon do not get involved in dispute resolution.

Somebody called Michael B bragged he had a pirated PDF version of Nick's book and offered to send it to anybody who wanted to read it. Howzat for a wilful breach of copyright?

Someone gave me a free copy of the latest drivel from that phony Nick van der Leek.

This is quite funny:

Curiously, just a few weeks after DECEIT was published at the end of May 2015, one of the key timelines supporting Amanda’s version of events disappeared. DECEIT criticised the accuracy of these timelines and assertions, referencing particular inaccuracies published on the Ground Report platform.The contentious timeline, compiled and authored by Karen Pruett, a Seattle-based hairdresser and supporter of the Knox family,is now unavailable online and thus unavailable to be scrutinised. In the first iteration directly quoting Pruett [in DOUBT], Pruett actively and successfully tried to have the book blocked on Amazon. We then republished DOUBT as DECEIT, excised all references to Pruett, but did make reference by hyperlinking to dodgy timeline data on Ground Report. As I say, the entire site is now offline too. Coincidental or suspicious?

A well-balanced, open-minded reader might well ponder: “Well, who is Pruett anyway, and how important is she?” Well, on Amanda Knox’s official website, under the section TIMELINE, the 31 go to hyperlink at the top of the page is to none other than Pruett’s timeline. Pruett is also mentioned by name prominently at the very top of the page dedicated to TIMELINE. In other words, Knox endorses Pruett’s version, and Pruett endorses Knox’s version. Of course, the link on Knox’s website to Pruett’s timeline [on Ground Report] is no longer a functional link.

Really? Works for me. :mrgreen:


Here's the PDF of "Under Suspicion" if anyone can be bothered reading it.

Ground Report works for me too!

I started to read Leek's novel and got to the part where the note regarding an apartment to rent is deemed to written by Amanda Knox. The author probably needs to study how most Italians write. I actually questioned some Italian family members about just how similar handwriting was among them all and it appears at school you were required to write that way. If I can find some examples from letters sent to me from family I will put them up...if anybody is interested! They all looked just like the handwriting in that note. I wont be reading any further. Mind you I have never been into fantasy. ;-)
http://www.groundreport.com/5088798/

Wed Sep 23, 2015 4:01 am


So, the fanatical unhinged Amanda Knox foot soldjah MichaelB himself confirms Nick published a direct link to Pruett's timeline linked to her own article.

 

[Vixen]

As I said, you've never come right out and said it but you have implied it many times as your quotes show. Just come out and clear this up with a simple "yes" or "no" answer; do you believe Knox used cocaine?

Ummm...he was not her boyfriend. Nice try there and oh so typical. There is no evidence she ever saw him again after that train trip and evening they spent at the same hotel. Or do you think a dinner (shared with her sister) and doing some heavy petting later constitutes a boyfriend relationship? If so, you have a very peculiar definition of what a boyfriend is.

They kept in touch afterwards. The only reason he was caught and jailed was because police found his details on her phone contacts. ('Your phone, his details'.)

What do you want me to call him, her co-fornicator..?

 

[Vixen]

What evidence does Nick base his claim on? Nothing as there is none. In fact, forensic tests showed no cocaine use by Knox. Yet he declares it as a fact thus misinforming his ignorant readers.

I see you are tap dancing around the question. No surprise there. I rather suspected you would. Nice touch, by the way, with the WM3 drinking beer and whiskey bit. Subtle...but the implication is there. And that is what you do.

It's his considered opinion and he explains in detail why and how he comes to that opinion.

 

[Stacyhs]

You have it arse over tits. Amazon do not get involved in dispute resolution.

Somebody called Michael B bragged he had a pirated PDF version of Nick's book and offered to send it to anybody who wanted to read it. Howzat for a wilful breach of copyright?

Wed Sep 23, 2015 4:01 am


So, the fanatical unhinged Amanda Knox foot soldjah himself confirms Nick published a direct link to Pruett's timeline linked to her own article.

Michael does not confirm "Nick published a direct link to Pruett's timeline". Van der Leek says he quoted Pruett but does not say he linked to her article in Doubt. He only hyperlinked to it in Deceit:

In the first iteration directly quoting Pruett [in DOUBT], Pruett actively and successfully tried to have the book blocked on Amazon. We then republished DOUBT as DECEIT, excised all references to Pruett, but did make reference by hyperlinking to dodgy timeline data on Ground Report.

I see you describe Michael as a "fanatical and unhinged" Knox foot soldier. You just can't stop the personal insults, can you? Reminds me of someone else.

 

[Stacyhs]

They kept in touch afterwards. The only reason he was caught and jailed was because police found his details on her phone contacts. ('Your phone, his details'.)

What do you want me to call him, her co-fornicator..?

False. They did not keep in touch. That is a false story that originated on Radaronline and then subsequently made it's way to the Daily Mail, the Mirror and Giallo who simply repeated what Radaronline had said. "Frederico's" phone number was 389-9647716, taken from the court order to tap his phone. The number may have been in her phone contact list, but there were no calls from or to it according to Knox's phone log. Can you guess why this was never brought up in court? Because there was no contact between them.

Well, if you consider some heavy petting one time as "fornicating" go ahead. But her "boyfriend" he most certainly was not.

 

[Vixen]

You have it arse over tits. Amazon do not get involved in dispute resolution.

Somebody called Michael B (Becker?) bragged he had a pirated PDF version of Nick's book and offered to send it to anybody who wanted to read it. Howzat for a wilful breach of copyright?




Becker does not confirm "Nick published a direct link to Pruett's timeline". Van der Leek says he quoted Pruett but does not say he linked to her article in Doubt. He only hyperlinked to it in Deceit:



I see you describe Becker as a "fanatical and unhinged" Knox foot soldier. You just can't stop the personal insults, can you? Reminds me of someone else.

I edited my post 12:27. Any particular reason you went to some great length to reproduce a pre-edited version instead, half an hour later?

Please explain why you did this.

 

[Stacyhs]

It's his considered opinion and he explains in detail why and how he comes to that opinion.

It may be his opinion but considered, it is not. There is no evidence whatsoever that Knox ever took cocaine. Nothing. But there is forensic evidence that she did not.

It is nothing more than vdL believing something because it fits his guilt bias.

 

[Stacyhs]

I edited my post 12:27. Any particular reason you went to some great length to reproduce a pre-edited version instead, half an hour later?

Please explain why you did this.

LOL! All I did was quote what you said by copy and pasting it. I had to go back and look at what you later edited and can see that you took out Michael's last name. I can see why. In fact, I just did the same thing for the same reason you did: it breaks the rules. I went to no "great length" at all. I had just c & p'd it before you edited it and then stepped away for a few minutes before finishing my post. Sheesh. Paranoid much?
Now how about YOU going back and editing your post to me to remove the last name before it gets noticed by the powers that be?

 

[Bill Williams]

I'm an independent person in my own right. Nick believes cocaine consumption was a factor in the crime.

All I know about is the hashish, which is not a substance that is associated with violence.

My view of the crime is that it was a sadistic 'thrill killing' and if drugs were involved, they would be as a facilitator, not the trigger. Rather in the same way the WM3 drank beer and whiskey to loosen their inhibitions.

Since I believe the murderers have a personality disorder, the secondary issue of 'what drugs were they on' is not particularly relevant.

The PGP-PR agenda is often confused with cultish behaviour. For the recored, strictly speaking it is not.

But it doesn't help that the PR-spin these folk put on things is based on "beliefs", rather than evidence.

 

[Stacyhs]

The PGP-PR agenda is often confused with cultish behaviour. For the recored, strictly speaking it is not.

But it doesn't help that the PR-spin these folk put on things is based on "beliefs", rather than evidence.

This reminds me of other beliefs based on no evidence: witches won't sink in water, the earth is the center of the universe, dinosaurs and humans co-existed, people's hearts will explode over 50 mph, and women in tight jeans can't be raped, and there are some "good people" among the neo-Nazis.

 

[Bill Williams]

This reminds me of other beliefs based on no evidence: witches won't sink in water, the earth is the center of the universe, dinosaurs and humans co-existed, people's hearts will explode over 50 mph, and women in tight jeans can't be raped, and there are some "good people" among the neo-Nazis.

A pseudonymous poster named Harry Rag used to for years repeatedly post stuff that was neither presented in court nor accepted by any court - similar to Vixen simply reposting that the courts had found that Knox had been present during the crime; when the Marasca-Bruno report from 2 1/2 years ago SPECIFICALLY says that at best the prosecution claims put Knox in the cottage after the crime and in another part of it.

Only in Harry Rag's case for years - years - he roamed the 'net finding news-stories, and he'd blanket the "discussion" thread below the piece with his own cut and paste.

More specifically in his case it was the "mixed-blood" meme and the "there was abundant DNA evidence to convict". Neither were true, but that did not stop him from flooding news-piece comments sections - for years.

Such has been the determined guilt-PR effort. Just repeat, repeat, repeat, and don't even address the postings which show that not even the "merits" courts Vixen says she's citing do not sustain what she's claiming.

Such has been the determined guilt-PR effort.

 

[Stacyhs]

A pseudonymous poster named Harry Rag used to for years repeatedly post stuff that was neither presented in court nor accepted by any court - similar to Vixen simply reposting that the courts had found that Knox had been present during the crime; when the Marasca-Bruno report from 2 1/2 years ago SPECIFICALLY says that at best the prosecution claims put Knox in the cottage after the crime and in another part of it.

Only in Harry Rag's case for years - years - he roamed the 'net finding news-stories, and he'd blanket the "discussion" thread below the piece with his own cut and paste.

More specifically in his case it was the "mixed-blood" meme and the "there was abundant DNA evidence to convict". Neither were true, but that did not stop him from flooding news-piece comments sections - for years.

Such has been the determined guilt-PR effort. Just repeat, repeat, repeat, and don't even address the postings which show that not even the "merits" courts Vixen says she's citing do not sustain what she's claiming.

Such has been the determined guilt-PR effort.

I'm familiar with Harry Rag. I learned to ignore his continual cut and paste posts that he plastered all over comment sections pertaining to the case.

 

[Vixen]

LOL! All I did was quote what you said by copy and pasting it. I had to go back and look at what you later edited and can see that you took out Michael's last name. I can see why. In fact, I just did the same thing for the same reason you did: it breaks the rules. I went to no "great length" at all. I had just c & p'd it before you edited it and then stepped away for a few minutes before finishing my post. Sheesh. Paranoid much?
Now how about YOU going back and editing your post to me to remove the last name before it gets noticed by the powers that be?

No, it's not because 'it breaks the rules', it's called 'manners'.

It was extremely rude of you to unedit someone else's post for mischievous reason.

 

[Vixen]

This reminds me of other beliefs based on no evidence: witches won't sink in water, the earth is the center of the universe, dinosaurs and humans co-existed, people's hearts will explode over 50 mph, and women in tight jeans can't be raped, and there are some "good people" among the neo-Nazis.

Then there are the gullible folks who believe psychopaths think and feel the same way as a normal person. Hence, they cannot possibly have committed a murder, is the reasoning, and it must have been a police frame up.

 

[Vixen]

A pseudonymous poster named Harry Rag used to for years repeatedly post stuff that was neither presented in court nor accepted by any court - similar to Vixen simply reposting that the courts had found that Knox had been present during the crime; when the Marasca-Bruno report from 2 1/2 years ago SPECIFICALLY says that at best the prosecution claims put Knox in the cottage after the crime and in another part of it.

Only in Harry Rag's case for years - years - he roamed the 'net finding news-stories, and he'd blanket the "discussion" thread below the piece with his own cut and paste.

More specifically in his case it was the "mixed-blood" meme and the "there was abundant DNA evidence to convict". Neither were true, but that did not stop him from flooding news-piece comments sections - for years.

Such has been the determined guilt-PR effort. Just repeat, repeat, repeat, and don't even address the postings which show that not even the "merits" courts Vixen says she's citing do not sustain what she's claiming.

Such has been the determined guilt-PR effort.

Amanda Knox put herself at the scene, once verbally, within an hour or so after voluntarily arriving at the Questura, when hearing Raff had withdrawn his alibi for her, telling police his initial statement had been a 'sack of ****', and twice more in writing by her own hand.

Her footprints in Mez' blood is highlighted by luminol. Her DNA is mixed in with Mez' DNA in the bathroom and in Filomena's room, and in one of the luminol highlighted footprint.

Oh, don't tell us: the luminol is all wrong.