Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 27

[Bill Williams]

I can't tell if this is brilliant irony seeing as advertising and PR is what allowed a bumbling Italian police department to turn a mistake with a crime where a local burglar raped and murdered a student in her own home into a world wide sensation about a random American girl on the cover of every tabloid in the world next to pictures of evidence wrapped giant cleavers and bloody crime scenes.

The prosecution's presentation fooled a lot of people (such as yourself) hook line and sinker.

People that actually stop and take moment to think, like for example Grinder, looked at the initial press conference on the 6th (before anything was done by anyone) and went, wait...what they're saying isn't adding up...

Meanwhile this is what people do who consume whatever slop is shoved into their brain without thought:

I miss Grinder.

 

[Bill Williams]

There are plenty of books on the market ( see, for example, Nick Van der Leek) which will guide you through the slurry.

LOL!

Nick van der Leek has been accused of plagiarism from all quarters. His Amazon account was suspended until he rectified one accusation. Then again, I was wondering how long it would take for you to bring up his name after his embarrassing foray into ISF here.

 

[LondonJohn]

I can't tell if this is brilliant irony seeing as advertising and PR is what allowed a bumbling Italian police department to turn a mistake with a crime where a local burglar raped and murdered a student in her own home into a world wide sensation about a random American girl on the cover of every tabloid in the world next to pictures of evidence wrapped giant cleavers and bloody crime scenes.

The prosecution's presentation fooled a lot of people (such as yourself) hook line and sinker.

People that actually stop and take moment to think, like for example Grinder, looked at the initial press conference on the 6th (before anything was done by anyone) and went, wait...what they're saying isn't adding up...

Meanwhile this is what people do who consume whatever slop is shoved into their brain without thought:

Yup. Well, I'd append your position somewhat. The incompetent and mendacious police and prosecutors in this case (who had their own special reasons to act in that way) found extraordinarily willing accomplices in the media, especially in Italy and the UK. The notion of a young, pretty American exchange student teaming up with her boyfriend (whom she has wrapped around her little finger....) and a willing black guy to torture, sexually assault and murder a young, pretty English exchange student with whom she shared a house, over something related to a mixture of jealousy and extreme sexual/psychotic perversions, is manna from heaven to certain sections of the media. And, by sad extension, to a large proportion of the public who consume those media. And here they had the official mandate to cut loose with the most lurid, graphic tales along those lines, fed constantly by corrupt police and prosecutors with "evidence" that was either grossly misrepresented or flat-out invented.

What happened in this sad case - which in reality was nothing other than a single man breaking into an empty house with the intention of burgling it, then being interrupted by a lone girl arriving home, then getting into a confrontation which ignited overpowering urges of lust and control within the man, which led to the sexual assault and murder of the woman - was something of a perfect storm of incompetent/deceptive police/prosecutors, a media who were desperate to buy the narrative of "Foxy Knoxy sex games gone bad" etc, and a public who got some sort of rush from reading those sorts of stories (coupled, in many instances, with associated urges towards retribution and punishment).

So, as you say, the massive irony is that the very thing Vixen accuses pro-acquittal commentators of - the wholesale uncritical swallowing of a particular version of events, on the back of a barrage of "persuasion" through multiple parallel channels, and with hints of some form of lust or admiration thrown in for good measure - is EXACTLY the thing which was thrown at willing, gullible and uncritical sections of the public via the willing, gullible and uncritical media coverage of this case. A tiny proportion of whom evolved into the pro-guilt squad......

 

[LondonJohn]

There are plenty of books on the market ( see, for example, Nick Van der Leek) which will guide you through the slurry.

I'm asking you to provide this alleged "proof" here, Vixen. And most certainly not via that steaming piece of bat guano that is the "book" "published" by dilettante ignoramus-with-an-agenda vdLeek . OK?

 

[LondonJohn]

It would be an interesting exercise to apply Statement Analysis to the tirade quoted above.

Take the first three sentences as a starting point:

Unlike you, I have a business qualification.​

Statement Analysis says: how does the person making the tirade know this about the other? For me, a reader unfamiliar with the "expertise" of either of the verbal combatants, there's no basis for saying, "Unlike you," unless it was missed.

I am willing to bet you know nothing at all about logos, branding, licensing and how branding works.​

Statement Analysis says: given that the first sentence only mentions the broad occupation of "business", and makes no mention of the level of "qualification" achieved, on what basis is the first sentence connected to the second? Statement Analysis would make note that the person making the tirade has not remotely established credentials in making the additional statement, "I am willing to bet...."

You are seriously deluded if you think Nike is anything more than a logo.​

Statement Analysis says: this is a bewildering sentence, as it is factual that any objective reader thought he/she was being set up for a claim, "If you think Nike is limited to being a mere logo." After thinking that that was what the person making the tirade was going to say, she shifts counter-intuitively to claiming that Nike is/was a "mere logo".

Indeed, if the statement Vixen makes is true, she should be in touch immediately with all Nike shareholders who have bet their portfolios that Nike is something MORE than a logo.

Yet the Statement Analysts gathered around the iPad here agree on one thing - the person making the tirade is simply pounding out expert-like gobble-dee-gook, trying to sound like she knows what she's taking about, in an area that she, by her own admission, only has a "business qualification". Such claim does not remotely indicate any expertise in advertising or PR.

So sez Statement Analysis.

Yes. It's all really quite pathetic (in the original sense of the word) as much as anything else. We're back in the sad old world of beating chess grand masters and being top of the class, and all that crap. Mannnnn I despise intellectual dishonesty on that scale. It really does stifle any attempt at reasonable debate and discussion.

 

[Vixen]

Yes. It's all really quite pathetic (in the original sense of the word) as much as anything else. We're back in the sad old world of beating chess grand masters and being top of the class, and all that crap. Mannnnn I despise intellectual dishonesty on that scale. It really does stifle any attempt at reasonable debate and discussion.

If Planigale and you insist in personalising your comments towards me, I will of course exercise my right of reply and defend myself.

 

[LondonJohn]

If Planigale and you insist in personalising your comments towards me, I will of course exercise my right of reply and defend myself.

*ahem* Remember the words below, Vixen? Hint: you wrote them, personalising your comments towards me, within the past hour! (I've bolded the personalisation/attacking bits for your appreciation):

Unlike you, I have a business qualification. I am willing to bet you know nothing at all about logos, branding, licensing and how branding works. You are seriously deluded if you think Nike is anything more than a logo. Its products are made in sweatshops around the world. Adding the Nike logo, which they buy on licence means they can charge a much higher mark-up than otherwise.

You obviously believe all the **** in Amanda Knox' book WTBH and Raf & Andy's Honor Bound. You are an advertisers' dream. You have no powers of discernment as to what is bull butter and what is fact.

You think any 'content analysis' exposing the lies is heretical, yet you lap up the lies. It must be a really bewildering world when there are no advertisers or PR merchants telling you what to think and what to buy.


Any pots and kettles spring into your mind, Vixen..........?

 

[LondonJohn]

By the way, how are you coming along with providing the "demonstrable proof" of all those (extreme) claims you made within this very thread this very evening, Vixen? We're all waiting, I wager

 

[Vixen]

*ahem* Remember the words below, Vixen? Hint: you wrote them, personalising your comments towards me, within the past hour! (I've bolded the personalisation/attacking bits for your appreciation):

Unlike you, I have a business qualification. I am willing to bet you know nothing at all about logos, branding, licensing and how branding works. You are seriously deluded if you think Nike is anything more than a logo. Its products are made in sweatshops around the world. Adding the Nike logo, which they buy on licence means they can charge a much higher mark-up than otherwise.

You obviously believe all the **** in Amanda Knox' book WTBH and Raf & Andy's Honor Bound. You are an advertisers' dream. You have no powers of discernment as to what is bull butter and what is fact.

You think any 'content analysis' exposing the lies is heretical, yet you lap up the lies. It must be a really bewildering world when there are no advertisers or PR merchants telling you what to think and what to buy.


Any pots and kettles spring into your mind, Vixen..........?

This is fair comment within the context of the argument (being Stacyhs' assertion that 'statement analysis' is pseudo science). If you believe statement analysis cannot identify manipulation, persuasion and lies designed to deceive, then it is fair comment that you are an advertisers' dream and a sucker for hoax innocence campaigns, based on PR/advertising techniques. I see nothing personal there.

It isn't fair comment to claim, as Planigale did, from nowhere and apropos of nothing that as a professional accountant, I don't know the difference between zero and exempt VAT. What? That is a professional slur.

 

[Stacyhs]

There are plenty of books on the market ( see, for example, Nick Van der Leek) which will guide you through the slurry.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Should we read a "good" book on the subject or van der Leek?

Name one credible book (so that excludes Nickie) has ever stated any of the following:

"Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches."

Go ahead. Name one.

 

[Vixen]

By the way, how are you coming along with providing the "demonstrable proof" of all those (extreme) claims you made within this very thread this very evening, Vixen? We're all waiting, I wager

You can find a very good cataloguing of demonstrable proof of all the lies on this site here:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Or, go direct to court documents: Crini spells out in detail how Knox and Sollecito's alibis are actively fake.

Why would someone charged with a serious murder come up with a fake alibi, and then refuse to testify? Crini explains why: guilt.

But don't stop there. Even Marasca-Bruno comments on the fact the pair lied 'umpteen times'.

Raff had his claim for compensation thrown out because of his deliberate deception, evasion and fraudulent utterings.

 

[Vixen]

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Should we read a "good" book on the subject or van der Leek?

Name one credible book (so that excludes Nickie) has ever stated any of the following:

"Raff and Amanda and their PR team of Marriott-Gogerty, Preston, Douglas, Moore, Gill, etc, did deliberately set out to subvert justice by a series of false and misleading statements, press conferences, netflix, books and phoney innocence project speeches."

Go ahead. Name one.

EXTRADITION, for one.

 

[LondonJohn]

You can find a very good cataloguing of demonstrable proof of all the lies on this site here:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Or, go direct to court documents: Crini spells out in detail how Knox and Sollecito's alibis are actively fake.

Why would someone charged with a serious murder come up with a fake alibi, and then refuse to testify? Crini explains why: guilt.

But don't stop there. Even Marasca-Bruno comments on the fact the pair lied 'umpteen times'.

Raff had his claim for compensation thrown out because of his deliberate deception, evasion and fraudulent utterings.

No, it doesn't work like this, Vixen.

"Proof" does not consist of simply writing "you can find proof here, here and here". I want to see the actual documentary proof of your claims written by you on this thread. You're welcome (indeed encouraged, if not mandated) to point to primary-source evidence to support your "proof".

Have another, better, attempt.

 

[LondonJohn]

EXTRADITION, for one.

Did you fail to see the stipulation "not written by (overinvested charlatan with a pre-conceived agenda) vdLeek"......?

 

[LondonJohn]

This is fair comment within the context of the argument (being Stacyhs' assertion that 'statement analysis' is pseudo science). If you believe statement analysis cannot identify manipulation, persuasion and lies designed to deceive, then it is fair comment that you are an advertisers' dream and a sucker for hoax innocence campaigns, based on PR/advertising techniques. I see nothing personal there.

It isn't fair comment to claim, as Planigale did, from nowhere and apropos of nothing that as a professional accountant, I don't know the difference between zero and exempt VAT. What? That is a professional slur.

Wow. Well this is another piece of selective "reasoning" for the ages

 

[Bill Williams]

EXTRADITION, for one.

Who did van der Leek plagiarize that snippet from?

 

[Stacyhs]

Here is an excellent article on why statement analysis is a pseudoscience. Included in this article is the following quote which included my favorite line which I've put in bold print:

In any case, those like Avinoam Sapir, who developed what he calls Scientific Content Analysis (SCAN), think they've discovered something that goes beyond mere logical and common sense analysis of people's statements.

Sapir claims to know that John Ramsey was "an abuser and knows who killed his daughter [Jon Benet]." He analyzed the CNN interview of the Ramseys done about a week after the murder of their daughter.* He knows this by Mr. Ramsey's choice of words. Sapir also claims that Magic Johnson got infected with HIV in a bisexual encounter. He knows this because Johnson never said he wasn't a bisexual, only that he wasn't a homosexual, and he said he was certain he got HIV from a woman. According to Sapir, using the word 'certain' indicates "a lack of certainty."* I wonder how certain Sapir is of that claim.

http://skepdic.com/statementanalysis.html


There is a reason statement analysis is not allowed as evidence in court in the US, UK, Canada and elsewhere: it is not a proven science. It is pseudoscience.

 

[Welshman]

You can find a very good cataloguing of demonstrable proof of all the lies on this site here:

http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Or, go direct to court documents: Crini spells out in detail how Knox and Sollecito's alibis are actively fake.

Why would someone charged with a serious murder come up with a fake alibi, and then refuse to testify? Crini explains why: guilt.

But don't stop there. Even Marasca-Bruno comments on the fact the pair lied 'umpteen times'.

Raff had his claim for compensation thrown out because of his deliberate deception, evasion and fraudulent utterings.

Vixen again attacks Amanda and Raffaele for lying and in the same posts yet again repeats the falsehood the supreme court said Amanda and Raffaele said umpteen lies. PGP are so staggeringly stupid they can't recognise their blatant hypocrisy.

 

[Stacyhs]

EXTRADITION, for one.

Ummm...no. I said credible. That you resort to hawking your buddy's incredibly awful ebook is evidence that you cannot provide a single credible book that supports your claim. Try again.

 

[Stacyhs]

Still working on that citation regarding Italian law requiring lawyers to report abuse of their clients, Vixen?

Hmmm...somehow...somehow...I suspect this will go the way of all those other citations you failed to produce.