The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 29

[Stacyhs]

What part of the highlighted part are you not comprehending? "No one here, and certainly not me" is part of any PR campaign. Or are you now going to make a ridiculous claim that we are all being paid, 4 1/2 years after the DEFINITIVE ACQUITTAL of being paid by a dead David Marriott? I know this is pissing in the wind, but let's see you provide any evidence that we've ever said Knox was "forced" to list her sexual partners. I'd like to see you provide a quote from anyone connected to David Marriott saying Knox was forced. Some random, unidentified internet poster in a comment section doesn't count...even if you can find one.

Not only are you not familiar with the case you aren't even aware of the FOAK own soundbites.

'Forced to list her partners' is the meme designed to trigger outraged sandal-wearing GRUANIAD readers.

Using the old "the best defense is a good offense" tactic when you can't provide the evidence again, I see. Produce these alleged 'soundbites' or stop making these claims.
Anyone want to bet she doesn't?

 

[Vixen]

In respect of the claim, if you stand on a chair and look out of the boys' bathroom window, just below and slightly to the side of Filomena's window, you can't see anything but the wall. The attached police crime scene photo taken at the time of the incident shows very clearly a good view of that window from the car park approach. If we can see it, then persons the other side of it can likewise see us, if looking out.

Re Truth Calls claim there was an easier way of looking out, via the front. Not so. The window at the front belongs to the upper level of the cottage and is the large bathroom/washroom where Knox claimed to have had a fright from the contents of the toilet bowl. As you can surmise from the photo, this is a long room extending almost to the front door and to the far wall, the loo being at the far end and Knox claiming to blow dry her hair at the front door end (from whence Rudy could easily have made his escape were he a burglar caught out by Mez' arrival home and was in here hiding). As an aside, one has to be sceptical she could see the contents of the loo from her position up to twenty feet away.

Photos source: themurderofmeredithkercher.com

 

[Vixen]

Using the old "the best defense is a good offense" tactic when you can't provide the evidence again, I see. Produce these alleged 'soundbites' or stop making these claims.
Anyone want to bet she doesn't?

Stop trolling. You know it's true.

 

[Vixen]

As Rose has already pointed out, she never claimed it was the prosecution. You really do need to slow down when reading to improve comprehension.

All prisoners may be aware that their belongings can be confiscated by the authorities, but what those authorities are NOT allowed to do is sell it/give it to unauthorized persons...which is exactly what happened. Knox sued, and won, a lawsuit against Fiorenza Sarzanini and Corriere della Sera for invasion of privacy after they used her diary illegally.

You can be as certain as you want, but that means zero, zip, nada. If we look at the many things you've also been "100% certain" about, it's a pretty lousy track record.

One of your lot was offering dirty pictures of Knox to the tabloids, which they considered too disgusting even for their rags, so how do you know it wasn't the same person who filched the diary?

 

[Vixen]

Good luck with that. I'm guessing AIUI means that somebody made it up and since it supports a certain view of the case, it must be true.

It means 'as I understand it'.

 

[Vixen]

I never claimed the prosecution leaked it. More likely it was a corrupt prison official Friend of Amanda Knox trying to make some money. However, I am highly certain it was not AK. That sounds like another Free Rudy theory.

FIFY

 

[Vixen]

"To claim it was the prosecution is purely specious."

This - embedded with three other paragraphs where you turn your own spaciousness into, "I am 100% certain......" Let this be the guide to evaluating the objectivity of your posts. Meaning, there is none. Pure PR.

But you're still not answering what you're avoiding. How can you say the the Italian Supreme Court has no right to evaluate items of evidence, but then claim that the 2013 Supreme Court threw out the Conti-Vecchiotti report?

Like all the other stuff you avoid, I actually don't expect you to answer.

That was on points of law. Chieffi heavily criticised Hellmann for failing to justify in legal terms why he had appointed them at all, amongst a myriad of other legal issues.

 

[Stacyhs]

No, WTBH was written by Knox with help from Kulman. The rest of your post is nothing but rank speculation based on your bias. Moreover, despite your customary effort to distract from the actual subject, you claimed that Knox was trying to "destroy the reputation of the prison doctor". NOTHING Knox has ever said or written misrepresented what the doctor said to her. She wrote in her prison diary very early on that he told her she had tested positive for HIV but that more testing needed to be done in order to confirm it. That is hardly trying to destroy his reputation.
Your claim bears no relation to the truth.

WTBH was written by Linda Kulman. If she was merely a ghostwriter she would not have been credited as the author /joint author.

Good heavens! Your ability to twist things is remarkable!

1. I never said she was a 'ghostwriter'. I said Knox was the author "with help from Kulman".

2. A 'ghostwriter' is defined as
"A ghostwriter is hired to write literary or journalistic works, speeches, or other texts that are officially credited to another person as the author."

3. Kulman is NOT credited as the author/joint writer:



4. Kulman herself says she "collaborated on" not "co-authored" WTBH:

I have collaborated on seven nonfiction books, working successfully with a group of diverse, demanding personalities to tell their personal, and sometimes painful, stories. These include Amanda Knox’s New York Times bestselling memoir, Waiting to be Heard;

https://branford.yalecollege.yale.edu/linda-kulman

You're really going to have to step up your game here, Vix.

 

[RoseMontague]

In respect of the claim, if you stand on a chair and look out of the boys' bathroom window, just below and slightly to the side of Filomena's window, you can't see anything but the wall. The attached police crime scene photo taken at the time of the incident shows very clearly a good view of that window from the car park approach. If we can see it, then persons the other side of it can likewise see us, if looking out.

Re Truth Calls claim there was an easier way of looking out, via the front. Not so. The window at the front belongs to the upper level of the cottage and is the large bathroom/washroom where Knox claimed to have had a fright from the contents of the toilet bowl. As you can surmise from the photo, this is a long room extending almost to the front door and to the far wall, the loo being at the far end and Knox claiming to blow dry her hair at the front door end (from whence Rudy could easily have made his escape were he a burglar caught out by Mez' arrival home and was in here hiding). As an aside, one has to be sceptical she could see the contents of the loo from her position up to twenty feet away.

Photos source: themurderofmeredithkercher.com

Looks like a wicker seat on that chair. I wouldn't stand on it. Might fall through. I do see an outlet that wasn't shown in the video, so thanks for that.

 

[bagels]

That was on points of law. Chieffi heavily criticised Hellmann for failing to justify in legal terms why he had appointed them at all, amongst a myriad of other legal issues.

The Chieffi court was so mad they couldn't finalize a Knox conviction. Haha, suckazzzzz

 

[Bill Williams]

That was on points of law. Chieffi heavily criticised Hellmann for failing to justify in legal terms why he had appointed them at all, amongst a myriad of other legal issues.

Ah, er, no that's not it. The Chieffi panel had said no such thing.

 

[Bill Williams]

WTBH was written by Linda Kulman. If she was merely a ghostwriter she would not have been credited as the author /joint author.

Why do you lie like this?

 

[Stacyhs]

In respect of the claim, if you stand on a chair and look out of the boys' bathroom window, just below and slightly to the side of Filomena's window, you can't see anything but the wall. The attached police crime scene photo taken at the time of the incident shows very clearly a good view of that window from the car park approach. If we can see it, then persons the other side of it can likewise see us, if looking out.

Re Truth Calls claim there was an easier way of looking out, via the front. Not so. The window at the front belongs to the upper level of the cottage and is the large bathroom/washroom where Knox claimed to have had a fright from the contents of the toilet bowl. As you can surmise from the photo, this is a long room extending almost to the front door and to the far wall, the loo being at the far end and Knox claiming to blow dry her hair at the front door end (from whence Rudy could easily have made his escape were he a burglar caught out by Mez' arrival home and was in here hiding). As an aside, one has to be sceptical she could see the contents of the loo from her position up to twenty feet away.
Photos source: themurderofmeredithkercher.com

First Highlight:
I agree, if you stand on a chair (as located in the video) you likely couldn't see anything but the wall as it lowers the line of sight outside. Which is why I said earlier that one would stand close to the window and look up from the lower part of the window.

Second Highlight: TruthCalls never said that. He did say

Why would they be standing on a chair, leaning over the tub to look thru a small window when there was a full size window in the next room with basically the same view?

#2442

This larger window just next to the bathroom window:


Third Highlight:

Amanda said she saw the feces as she was putting the hairdryer back (WTBH pg. 66). Police video (Nov 2, 2007) show that hair dryer at the extreme end of the counter closest to the toilet. Below is an aerial view of that bathroom. The hair dryer (not visible in this photo) is lying just on the other side of the short wall to the right. That is approx. 6 feet from the toilet, not the ridiculous ' up to 20 ft' you speculate. There is no reason she could not look down into that toilet bowl and see the feces.

 

[Stacyhs]

Using the old "the best defense is a good offense" tactic when you can't provide the evidence again, I see. Produce these alleged 'soundbites' or stop making these claims.
Anyone want to bet she doesn't?

Stop trolling. You know it's true.

And I win my bet! Then again, it really wasn't much of a gamble. The odds were definitely in my favor.

 

[Stacyhs]

One of your lot was offering dirty pictures of Knox to the tabloids, which they considered too disgusting even for their rags, so how do you know it wasn't the same person who filched the diary?

This should be entered in the dictionary under "desperation".

 

[Stacyhs]

Good luck with that. I'm guessing AIUI means that somebody made it up and since it supports a certain view of the case, it must be true.

It means 'as I understand it'.

In other words, what RoseMontague said.

 

[Bill Williams]

That was on points of law. Chieffi heavily criticised Hellmann for failing to justify in legal terms why he had appointed them at all, amongst a myriad of other legal issues.

Ah, er, no that's not it. The Chieffi panel had said no such thing.

For anyone who actually want to read an English translation of what the Chieffi Court actually said....

https://chieffireport.wordpress.com/11-procedural-rulings-ordering-new-expert-review-of-genetic-evidence-and-denying-new-review-of-the-new-sample-trace/

It is bewildering why you, gentle reader, would want to read actual text, rather than taking anyone's word here for it. Vixen and me included.

You will read in the first, long paragraph, that even though the Supreme Court (Chieffi panel) wanted to quibble with the reasoning given, the need given by the Hellmann/Zannetti second-level court could not be questioned. At. All ....

The decision to proceed with a new expert assessment is therefore not open to censure by this Court, other than due to inadequate reasoning; aside from the unfortunate path of reasoning adopted, the decision reveals the judges’ uncertainty about the results in evidence due to the probative information being held incomplete, and therefore evidences a need, for the purposes of the decision to acquire new information, which cannot be questioned by this court.​

Imagine that. The Chieffi panel actually said....

THE

EXACT

OPPOSITE

OF

WHAT

VIXEN

CLAIMED.

The exact opposite. Is Vixen, then, simply uninformed, or is she lying?

 

[Stacyhs]

The pattern here is for Vixen to make a claim without providing any evidence. Her claims are then disproved by presenting evidence with citations.

If I got batted down as many times as Vixen regarding unsupported/disproved claims, I'd quit standing up.

 

[toto]

Good heavens! Your ability to twist things is remarkable!

1. I never said she was a 'ghostwriter'. I said Knox was the author "with help from Kulman".

2. A 'ghostwriter' is defined as
"A ghostwriter is hired to write literary or journalistic works, speeches, or other texts that are officially credited to another person as the author."

3. Kulman is NOT credited as the author/joint writer:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/thum_716695d7949cd452af.jpg[/qimg]

4. Kulman herself says she "collaborated on" not "co-authored" WTBH:


https://branford.yalecollege.yale.edu/linda-kulman

You're really going to have to step up your game here, Vix.

I am not sure of the definitions of co-author (which I agree Linda Kulman is not credited as) or ghost writer ,but perhaps AK's comments explain all:

"I wouldn't have been able to write this memoir without Linda Kulman. Somehow, with her Post it Notes and questions, with her generosity, dedication, and empathy, she turned my ramblings into writing, and taught me so much in the meantime

Edited to add that of course you have just given definition of ghostwriter: I suppose LK could be seen to be that; not clear whether AK gave long extended interviews and they were shaped into a narrative by LK although it seems that way myself.

 

[RoseMontague]

I am not sure of the definitions of co-author (which I agree Linda Kulman is not credited as) or ghost writer ,but perhaps AK's comments explain all:

"I wouldn't have been able to write this memoir without Linda Kulman. Somehow, with her Post it Notes and questions, with her generosity, dedication, and empathy, she turned my ramblings into writing, and taught me so much in the meantime

Edited to add that of course you have just given definition of ghostwriter: I suppose LK could be seen to be that; not clear whether AK gave long extended interviews and they were shaped into a narrative by LK although it seems that way myself.

I would say that is similar to a really engaged beta reader and editor. I get the feeling that certain posters doubt her ability to write but after reading her articles I have no doubt that she has that ability. Meaning she probably did learn a good bit.