The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 26

[Bill Williams]

And just to steal Welshman's schtick.....

If the case against RS and AK was such a slam dunk, why did PQ have to lie about Miss Represented's credentials to make a point about a further lie - AK's and RS's psychopathology.....

Which no one has observed before or since, and which none of the 5 courts which ruled on this even commented upon? Much less investigated....

Other than that, the well oiled guilter PR machine might be on to something.

 

[Stacyhs]

This is very cynical of you, Stacyhs, to imply that Peter Quennell and Miss Represented (not her real name) might have been LYING.

So when PQ implies that NvdL is a plagiarist, who's the liar? PQ or NvdL?

Vixen won't tell us, so you're going to have to fill in.....

Miss R was definitely lying. I'll give PQ the benefit of a doubt on whether he actually knew Miss R did not have a doctorate in criminal psychology or any degree at all. Miss R could have lied to him, too. However, I never saw PQ address this after Miss R was exposed as a fraud. Like so many PGP do with uncomfortable truths, he may have just ignored it as if it never happened.

 

[Vixen]

Miss R was definitely lying. I'll give PQ the benefit of a doubt on whether he actually knew Miss R did not have a doctorate in criminal psychology or any degree at all. Miss R could have lied to him, too. However, I never saw PQ address this after Miss R was exposed as a fraud. Like so many PGP do with uncomfortable truths, he may have just ignored it as if it never happened.

I see. So if someone disagrees with your views you think it is normal to snoop into their private life and publicly publish their personal data to try to cause them distress.

How contemptible.

In the UK it is both a civil and and a criminal offence to breach a person's personal data privacy. Section 6 of the Data Protection Act states personal data cannot be used for the purpose of causing that person distress.

Amazing that a supporter of one of the most infamous persons of recent years, pretends to take the high ground by inviting people to potentially harass this woman at work. And how do you know you even have the right person.


It is completely reckless, tasteless and to be expected from the fans of two people who obviously committed a heinous murder. Even if you disagree with this, it's shocking you feel it is OK to stalk people who do not share your views.

SHOCKING!!!

Stop, and take a reality check.

 

[Vixen]

There is no "doxxing" in that. It is all public domain information.

Nina Burleigh did not contact the employer only the employee.

Linked-in details are public domain by default, unless one explicitly chooses for them not to be, which utterly defeats the purpose of linked-in anyway.

How does Burleigh know she has got the right person?

It should be obvious to anyone with an iota of common sense that it is only Miss Represented's opinion.

Say someone disagrees with someone they believe to be you for your views on, say, telephone antennae. Would it be OK for that person to stalk you and publish your linkedin details so that people with a malicious bent can contact you at your workplace and hurl abuse at you?

And it might not even be you who was the person who expressed the opinion that fuelled hatred in the stalker, who has published your details on a public forum, and now everybody thinks it was you.

The slippery slope...

 

[Vixen]

Apparently, lying is part of the pro-guilt-PR strategy. The problem is, the last time I claimed such, I got called out for using the phrase "part of".

​

​

​

​

​

​

​

And all this is before considering that the pro-guilt-PR campaign still cannot name one forensic-DNA expert who agrees with Stefanoni.

Or that the pro-guilt-PR campaign is now fractured into two by conceding that NvdL is a plagiarist.

Pete Quennell stated he had not read the book and added 'it might be plagiarised' to rationalise his warning that people shouldn't read it because he doesn't like the subtitle.

The Pruett incident was a dispute between two people, which was resolved by one party leaving the situation for a quiet life. Full stop.

The book concerned is still in publication, together with the one Pete Quennell 'cannot recommend', so there is obviously nothing illegal about it as you keep insinuating.

 

[Vixen]

Wait a minute, wasn't it YOU, Vixen, who wanted Stacyhs to prove that Miss Represented WASN'T a psychologist?

This is how off the rails the guilter-PR campaign is. Now we're not even allowed to look into the background of the only person in the history of everything to claim expertise in diagnosing someone else's psychopathology.

Why on earth would someone who disputes "Miss Represented"'s bona fides be criticized for posting her Linked-In details?

The guilter-PR campaign is so far off the rails that finding out that this person does charity work - work completely distant from formal psychological expertise - is now considered "doxxing". Others could be forgiven for thinking that this proves that there is no expert who's ever said RS and/or AK ever suffered from psychopathology, but the guilter-PR campaign has a different agenda.

The guilter-PR agenda is to promote books by Nick van der Leek, even when other parts of guilter-land accuse NvdL of plagiarism for his latest effort, just like those in innocence-land accused him of plagiarism the last time. And the last time NvdL actually had his Amazon account suspended...... by Amazon!

The guilter-PR effort is all about moving goalposts. It dares others to prove that Miss Represented (not her real name!) is not a professional psychologist competent to make such determinations - THEN it accuses people of doxxing her when they look into her qualifications.

Welcome to the almost-decade-long guilter-PR agenda. The real difference lately is that now is not 2008-2009, when the prosecution (Mignini and Comodi) had unchallenged and unvetted access to tabloid media.

How do we know this? Nick Pisa, the main tabloid presence in Perugia at that time, told us so. He said that if he'd taken time to actually vette something the prosecution had told him - particularly the more slutty stuff - he'd be scooped by some other tabloid hack - and thus, not be paid.

This is how the guilter-PR agenda rolls.

Sorry, how do you know Burleigh has 'exposed' the right person? There might be a few dozen 'Ellie Wassername' in England.

I don't know this person, and I don't recall reading her article.

However, common sense should tell you it is just one private person's opinion.

If you disagree, then just write an article setting out the counterargument, including your belief she has no psychology qualifications as she claims.

That's how civilised people do it.

 

[Vixen]

My favorite touch was the "blackmailing" part. Exactly how Vixen concludes that Burleigh blackmailed Ewing by not revealing her name is perplexing.

Turning a "UK social media company" into a "charity", turning emailing Ewing at work into "contacting her employers" and "blackmail", and quoting from a TIME article which revealed Miss Represented's real name is turned into "doxxing" in an attempt to "solicit Amanda Knox fans to harass her at work" . This convoluted and irrational thinking is a prime example of how negative TMB tests can still be blood, how finding a person's DNA in their own bathroom is inculpatory evidence, how a footprint never identified with DNA or even compared to anyone else's footprint becomes Amanda's and how world renowned forensic experts become "paid shills" who don't know what their talking about.

Of course it's a form of blackmail. It's saying anyone who dares to express an opinion about a notorious public figure, can expect to be stalked and 'exposed' by Nina Burleigh who will research your personal details so she can contact you at work and write an article about you calling you a 'hater'.


Loose morals, for sure. Not just offering a married man a lewd act, but stalking detractors of her heroine.

 

[Vixen]

Miss R was definitely lying. I'll give PQ the benefit of a doubt on whether he actually knew Miss R did not have a doctorate in criminal psychology or any degree at all. Miss R could have lied to him, too. However, I never saw PQ address this after Miss R was exposed as a fraud. Like so many PGP do with uncomfortable truths, he may have just ignored it as if it never happened.

I ask again. How do you know you have got the right person?

 

[bagels]

Of course it's a form of blackmail. It's saying anyone who dares to express an opinion about a notorious public figure, can expect to be stalked and 'exposed' by Nina Burleigh who will research your personal details so she can contact you at work and write an article about you calling you a 'hater'.


Loose morals, for sure. Not just offering a married man a lewd act, but stalking detractors of her heroine.

Amanda Knox is a "notorious public figure" because she happened to exist while renting a flat above a bunch of potheads who hung out with lowlife drug dealers and burglars, one of whom butchered another girl in the flat. If Ms-whoever-I-don't care felt she might get fired for butting herself into this story...who cares? Try spending four years in prison and having your herpes outbreak on the front page of every paper in the world.

I literally cannot even begin to comprehend caring what real life repercussions PGP people experience over this really stupid case.

 

[Methos]

How does Burleigh know she has got the right person?

It should be obvious to anyone with an iota of common sense that it is only Miss Represented's opinion.

Say someone disagrees with someone they believe to be you for your views on, say, telephone antennae. Would it be OK for that person to stalk you and publish your linkedin details so that people with a malicious bent can contact you at your workplace and hurl abuse at you?

And it might not even be you who was the person who expressed the opinion that fuelled hatred in the stalker, who has published your details on a public forum, and now everybody thinks it was you.
The slippery slope...

Well, isn't it a interesting coincidence that the "author" - who apparently is now a member here - was harassing "at her workplace" a person he thought of being the author of the timeline he later removed from his so called book?
A person who wasn't "the person who expressed the opinion that fuelled hatred in the stalker" (your words, not mine...)
Double standard to me it seems you are fine with

 

[Bill Williams]

Pete Quennell stated he had not read the book and added 'it might be plagiarised' to rationalise his warning that people shouldn't read it because he doesn't like the subtitle.

And this makes their dispute better......... how?

The Pruett incident was a dispute between two people, which was resolved by one party leaving the situation for a quiet life. Full stop.

The dispute was between Amazon and NvdL. It was Amazon which suspended his account, no one else. It was resolved when NvdL complied. Whether or not his compliance was an admission is up to you.

The book concerned is still in publication, together with the one Pete Quennell 'cannot recommend', so there is obviously nothing illegal about it as you keep insinuating.

There you go making stuff up again. The sign of a PR campaign is making stuff up. No one has ever claimed what NvdL is remotely illegal. No one has remotely insinuated it either. But it is informative that you'd manipulate things that way.

 

[Welshman]

I reckon you have a template, on which you simply fill in the blank spaces, ready to send off.

"Why do the PGP constantly accuse........of.........when the PGP themselves constantly.........

Vixen constantly accuses Amanda and Raffaele of ........., when Vixen herself constantly.......


If it is such a slam dunk case, why do the PGP need to repeat the same lie over again.

Below is a link to my last twenty posts about the lies the PGP constantly say is a mountain of evidence and a slam dunk.'

Vixen complains that I point that Vixen attacks Amanda and Raffaele for something whilst she does the same thing herself. This is an internet forum and anyone who displays hypocrisy deserve to have their hypocrisy pointed out. Vixen constantly attacks Amanda and Raffaele for lying and bangs on about Amanda and Raffaele telling umpteen lies. As I have pointed out Vixen has on numerous occasions used falsehoods in her posts and defended people who have lied which means PGP show staggering hypocrisy when they attack Amanda and Raffaele for lying. Does Vixen seriously expect someone can come on an internet forum, viciously attack someone for doing something, display gross hypocrisy by doing the same thing themselves and other posters to stay silent about blatant hypocrisy.

Vixen complains I bring the same points up again. Vixen repeatedly attacks Amanda and Raffaele for lying which means it is only fair to point out the gross hypocrisy of the PGP every time they attack Amanda and Raffaele for lying.

 

[Vixen]

And this makes their dispute better......... how?

The dispute was between Amazon and NvdL. It was Amazon which suspended his account, no one else. It was resolved when NvdL complied. Whether or not his compliance was an admission is up to you.



There you go making stuff up again. The sign of a PR campaign is making stuff up. No one has ever claimed what NvdL is remotely illegal. No one has remotely insinuated it either. But it is informative that you'd manipulate things that way.

Anyone can file a 'complaint'. It doesn't make it upheld.

Amazon explictly states in its t & c 's it doesn't get involved in legal disputes.

Anyone can notify Amazon that a book violates some policy or other.

So, we can see a rabid Friend of Amanda Knox thought she would cause trouble for an unwary author, who did not realise she was a Knox advocate with a passionate hatred of anyone who came to the conclusion the sprog of her high school sweetheart, Curt, was culpable.

It was never a genuine complaint. It was a Nina Burleigh-style stunt.

 

[Bill Williams]

Anyone can file a 'complaint'. It doesn't make it upheld.

Amazon explictly states in its t & c 's it doesn't get involved in legal disputes.

So? None of this was a legal dispute!

Anyone can notify Amazon that a book violates some policy or other.

So? In this case Amazon determined that an account would be suspended until NvdL complied with its policy on plagiarism. NvdL complied. His account was restored. Why are you making it something other than this?

So, we can see a rabid Friend of Amanda Knox thought she would cause trouble for an unwary author, who did not realise she was a Knox advocate with a passionate hatred of anyone who came to the conclusion the sprog of her high school sweetheart, Curt, was culpable.

Oh for Pete's sake. "We" see nothing of the sort. This PR effort is basef on hyperbole and ad hominem.

It was never a genuine complaint. It was a Nina Burleigh-style stunt.

Plagiarism is a valid complaint, as witnessed by Amazon's action. As for the other Pete's sake, even Peter Quennell has suspicions of this.

 

[Vixen]

So? None of this was a legal dispute!

So? In this case Amazon determined that an account would be suspended until NvdL complied with its policy on plagiarism. NvdL complied. His account was restored. Why are you making it something other than this?


Oh for Pete's sake. "We" see nothing of the sort. This PR effort is basef on hyperbole and ad hominem.


Plagiarism is a valid complaint, as witnessed by Amazon's action. As for the other Pete's sake, even Peter Quennell has suspicions of this.

On 27 May 2015, I contacted Amazon 'title submission', who deal with disputes (but do not arbitrate them):

'ASIN: B00Y9CS69C Van der Leek, Nick; DECEIT The Meredith Kercher Murder Mystery

Dear Sir or Madam

I confirm that the above publication has been fully rewritten and retitled from the original title, DOUBT, which I understand you had a complaint about from Ms Karen Pruett. Whilst it is disputed there was any infringement of her copyright, all references to her have been edited out. [continues]'


So, your claim Amazon upheld your chum's claims is frankly complete and utter nonsense.


Karen Pruett wrote, 27.5.2015 to Amazon, Nick and a solicitor [excerpt]

'You are correct that I have agreed to pass over any monies you gathered, I won't take money from something that harms Amanda Knox, I want that to be very clear. And I encourage you once again to study the defense arguments, Amanda is a sweet young woman who did not deserve what happened to her in Perugia or in the media. With your experience I expect you know how treacherous the tabloids are, I think you will find a much more compelling story if you allow yourself to not be swayed by the pro-prosecution factions. What happened was a classic witch hunt and propaganda campaign by the Italians and British, it was extraordinary because of the internet and I am sure it's effects will be studied for years to come. Even now there are media classes at local universities are teaching students the mechanics of "how" Amanda was brutalized in the media, while Meredith's true killer was swept under the proverbial rug, by the tabloids who dominated the story.

Secondly I do appreciate the removal of my work from your book, thank you. As writers, you know how hard we all work and how precious our works are. Thank you for doing that for me.

[continues]


So, no sign of the 'P' word, anywhere. Just special pleading about 'what a sweet young woman' Amanda Knox is.

Factionalism. Q.E.D ::

 

[Bill Williams]

So, your claim Amazon upheld your chum's claims is frankly complete and utter nonsense.

Your loyalty to NvdL is admirable.

To repeat - it was Amazon which took action based on these "claims". Take up this matter with Amazon.

Your cites do not at all challenge that NvdL plagiarize. He took action without admitting to the plagiarism. But the important thing was that he relented.

Then Amazon unsuspended his account. Why is this difficult?

My view is that the second allegation makes it look worse. Even you are mad at PQ for his claims.

 

[acbytesla]

Nonsense. So you think that she would have trusted Guede...a guy she'd met once or twice... not to turn on her instead of just cleaning up all the evidence? She would have had no reason to think Guede wouldn't turn on her and Sollecito in an instant in an effort to save himself.
Get real.

You keep asking Vixen to use logic. This seems to be an unknown concept to her.

 

[Stacyhs]

Miss R was definitely lying. I'll give PQ the benefit of a doubt on whether he actually knew Miss R did not have a doctorate in criminal psychology or any degree at all. Miss R could have lied to him, too. However, I never saw PQ address this after Miss R was exposed as a fraud. Like so many PGP do with uncomfortable truths, he may have just ignored it as if it never happened.

I see. So if someone disagrees with your views you think it is normal to snoop into their private life and publicly publish their personal data to try to cause them distress.

How contemptible.

In the UK it is both a civil and and a criminal offence to breach a person's personal data privacy. Section 6 of the Data Protection Act states personal data cannot be used for the purpose of causing that person distress.

Amazing that a supporter of one of the most infamous persons of recent years, pretends to take the high ground by inviting people to potentially harass this woman at work. And how do you know you even have the right person.


It is completely reckless, tasteless and to be expected from the fans of two people who obviously committed a heinous murder. Even if you disagree with this, it's shocking you feel it is OK to stalk people who do not share your views.

SHOCKING!!!

Stop, and take a reality check.

Oh, knock off the feigned outrage. It got tiresome a long time ago. What was contemptible was a university student lying about being psychologist, allowing PQ to claim she held a doctorate in criminal psychology without correcting him and "diagnosing" a (later acquitted) defendant of being a psychopath. Where is your contempt for that? Talk about hypocrisy!

If she was exposed for her disgusting lies and actions, she has no one to blame but herself. She was not expressing a personal opinion, she was misrepresenting herself as a psychologist and proffering an "expert" opinion under false pretenses. In other words: SHE WAS A LIAR.

Nice touch with bringing in the Section 6 of the Data Protection Act but it is totally irrelevant as her information was not private as it was on Linkedin.

Your allegation that anyone "invited people to potentially harass this woman at work" is an excellent example of how you twist things past the point of being ludicrous.

Stop with the false allegations. That you think anybody cannot see them for what they are is SHOCKING!

 

[Stacyhs]

How does Burleigh know she has got the right person?It should be obvious to anyone with an iota of common sense that it is only Miss Represented's opinion.

Say someone disagrees with someone they believe to be you for your views on, say, telephone antennae. Would it be OK for that person to stalk you and publish your linkedin details so that people with a malicious bent can contact you at your workplace and hurl abuse at you?

And it might not even be you who was the person who expressed the opinion that fuelled hatred in the stalker, who has published your details on a public forum, and now everybody thinks it was you.

The slippery slope...

How does Burleigh know she got the right person? Um...because Ellie ADMITTED IT?

It should be obvious to anyone with an iota of common sense that this was far more than Miss R's opinion. She LIED about being a psychologist and proffered a supposedly professional and expert diagnosis.

I ask you once again: WHERE IS YOUR OUTRAGE AND CONTEMPT FOR HER LYING ABOUT BEING A PSYCHOLOGIST AND ALLOWING PEOPLE TO BELIEVE SHE WAS AN EXPERT IN CRIMINAL PSYCHOLOGY?

 

[Stacyhs]

Pete Quennell stated he had not read the book and added 'it might be plagiarised' to rationalise his warning that people shouldn't read it because he doesn't like the subtitle.The Pruett incident was a dispute between two people, which was resolved by one party leaving the situation for a quiet life. Full stop.

The book concerned is still in publication, together with the one Pete Quennell 'cannot recommend', so there is obviously nothing illegal about it as you keep insinuating.

So now you seem to know why PQ said it might be plagiarized; to rationalize his not recommending the book because he doesn't like the freaking subtitle?

The book concerned is NOT still in publication. Another version was released. It was revised with the plagiarized part removed and brought out under a different title. No one said there is anything illegal about the reissued version.

You are very defensive of NvdL for obvious reasons. But it's also very apparent that you have heard only his side of this which, naturally, would favor poor blameless him as the victim of the horrible Pruett woman. Oh, poor Nickie.