Continuation Part 3 - Discussion of the Amanda Knox case

[Rolfe]

My thoughts?

I will not have people harassing me at my place of work.

Well, none of us would put up with that. However, has anyone harassed you at your place of work?

I felt like posting a copy of my psychology degree certificate on this site but what anonymous bloggers think of my education, Twitter, LinkedIn etc. isn’t really my problem.

So, you're not going to post any evidence that you had the qualifications you said you had? O.... K....

I’m sure this will seem like a victory…

Very possibly.

Rolfe.

 

[smkovalinksy]

My thoughts?




Well, none of us would put up with that. However, has anyone harassed you at your place of work?




So, you're not going to post any evidence that you had the qualifications you said you had? O.... K....




Very possibly.

Rolfe.

Yes, it would be good of her to post the degree certificate, although it would reveal her as being merely a student in 2009, and yes, it may indeed appear to be a victory for her "captors".

I doubt anyone would harass Ms R at her place of work, wherever that is, and it would be very wrong to do so.

Normally I would believe that the "sideshow" of "outing" others is very bad form, but as PMF does this excessively, it ought not surprise them that it is done back to them. Whenever one allows oneself to be publicly hailed as a qualified expert, scrutiny is certain to follow.

All Ms R would have to do is say "sorry I allowed my qualifications to be overstated and exaggerated; my posts stand, take them for what they are worth." To archive them seems a bit like a protective maneuver in terms of employers and having been found to be dishonest.

That said, I hope Judge Hellman and his jury rule swiftly and justly, and that this entire matter can be closed as it has gotten personal and rivalrous for many.... Justice is and ought to remain the goal....I hope the verdict is handed down this month. It has been a very long wait.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Bruce IIP doesn't own the innocent side of things. Having paid attention to this case from day 1, I've read the pro innocent comments all along and your attack on PQ isn't the only such attack. As for that attack, which didn't personally feel necessary anymore than the fur salesman stuff, I don't see how it will protect people from him and could have been done in a more subtle way.

Recently there have been suggestions about going after FBN because he works at the UW and must be posting during working hours. He and his wife were called out.

Anyway, I said that the other side has proudly raised this kind of harassment to an art form and clearly have and continue to go after all sorts of people for taking an innocent position. Just yesterday they attacked another reputable journalist while defending two of the least qualified.

An aside, they can track down every detail of everyone concerned with justice from the accused side yet the great leader claimed not to know that Barbie went to school in SD and never graduated. Just imagine that a journalist that doesn't toe the line of guilt PR hadn't gone to the right school and didn't even finish at the wrong school. And where did she get that accent?

With the internet it's free to join in and everyone is welcome to participate. There will always be individuals behaving poorly on both sides of any debate. When it comes to the organized groups there is a clear difference in behavior between the two sides.

IIP does not pretend to own the side of innocence and I would never suggest that to be the case. There were many people actively supporting Amanda and Raffaele long before IIP was created and we are just following their lead.

With respect to your comments about Quennell, if you consider informing the public about a stalker to be on the same level of importance as what someone may or may not do for a living then we will have to agree to disagree. I find it interesting that you would even think to compare the two.

 

[spartacus]

This is just another plain vanilla case of exposure of an internet fraud, in this case misrepresentation of your credentials. Since she lied about that why should he statement that she is harassed at work to be taken at face value? The more probable explanation is that she was embarrased to be exposed and threw that in there for sympathy points. Or maybe being exposed as an internet fraud causes trouble with her employer? This case is damaging, and probably illegal, as people read her posts as having an air of authority. So yes, Christianna, I do expect to be considered more reliable than her, and since you bring up the topic of being in the same field, yes I am, and have conducted research and written hundreds of scientific articles in that field, many of which are relevant here, such as the effects of stress on memory, or the science of false recollections, so when I see a fraud like this perpetuate nonsense and get people to believe her, it get particularly pissed off. Have a nice day.

 

[lane99]

...If I were those defending Amanda and Raffaele or those who want justice for Meredith there are many people, posters, etc. I would disassociate with...

Do you want to take a mulligan on this wording? Because it comes off, perhaps unintentionally, as insulting to those defending Amanda and Raffaele.

...The side show has nothing in the way of promoting truth and justice and has everything with detracting from it.

I find this statement quite thoughtless, as well. Uncovering instances where commentators have apparently lied about the expertise supposedly underpinning their pontifications has nothing to do with the truth?? Hard to believe anyone could take that position.

To the extent this "Miss Represented" (whoever or whatever she is) matters at all, it matters if she was lying about her qualifications.

 

[Rolfe]

Spartacus, Miss Represented did not state that she has been harassed at work. Take careful note of her choice of words.

Rolfe.

 

[Malkmus]

I imagine some will take her words seriously, but honestly, when was there any time for anything to happen? I don't think anyone can seriously believe that in the 24 hours between her fraudulent behavior being exposed and her taking down her blog that anyone had a chance (not that they should) to "harass" her at work. She got embarrassed, removed the proof of her fraudulence, and took the easy way out with a vague insinuation of being harassed.

 

[Mary_H]

If Rudy didn't climb up the wall and enter through the window, how and why did it get unlatched and opened? Why is glass picked out of one side of the pane and placed on the sill under the other side? How did the outer shutters get opened and then partially closed afterwards?

Ya got me there. That's what I get for ignoring the discussions about Rudy and the break-in.

I suppose this was also done to help alert the neighbors that somebody inside might need help

Oh no you did not just roll your eyes at me. Yes, I continue to believe that Rudy wanted somebody to find Meredith before she died.

Rudy's story just happens to justify every place a competent investigation should find his fingerprints or DNA.

??? Sorry, I don't follow. Do you believe Rudy did or did not get in a fight as soon as he left the bathroom? (Again, that's what I get for not following the discussions about Rudy.)

 

[christianahannah]

This is just another plain vanilla case of exposure of an internet fraud, in this case misrepresentation of your credentials. Since she lied about that why should he statement that she is harassed at work to be taken at face value? The more probable explanation is that she was embarrased to be exposed and threw that in there for sympathy points. Or maybe being exposed as an internet fraud causes trouble with her employer? This case is damaging, and probably illegal, as people read her posts as having an air of authority. So yes, Christianna, I do expect to be considered more reliable than her, and since you bring up the topic of being in the same field, yes I am, and have conducted research and written hundreds of scientific articles in that field, many of which are relevant here, such as the effects of stress on memory, or the science of false recollections, so when I see a fraud like this perpetuate nonsense and get people to believe her, it get particularly pissed off. Have a nice day.

I wasn't inferring that you were more or less reliable than the blogger, I was interested in your opinion since you had posted previously that you had experienced some workplace harassment and the blogger alludes to such. I gave each of you the benefit of the doubt.

Did this person really have such a big contribution to the case against Amanda and Raffaele? If so, how? I did not know of this blogger until recently and the last posts concerning this case were almost 2 years old.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Do you want to take a mulligan on this wording? Because it comes off, perhaps unintentionally, as insulting to those defending Amanda and Raffaele.




I find this statement quite thoughtless, as well. Uncovering instances where commentators have apparently lied about the expertise supposedly underpinning their pontifications has nothing to do with the truth?? Hard to believe anyone could take that position.

To the extent this "Miss Represented" (whoever or whatever she is) matters at all, it matters if she was lying about her qualifications.

Right. If there is to be a public discussion of this case, and some of those involved in this discourse claim to be qualified experts, then surely the rule of transparency follows. Many of us had been taking Ms R to be an expert with years of clinical experience. That it proved not to be the case is quite relevant. If she were being exposed as fat or ugly, that would of course be irrelevant and petty. Just recall what was made of Ms. Knox's supposed 'lies'; what is good for the goose, is good for the gander.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I wasn't inferring that you were more or less reliable than the blogger, I was interested in your opinion since you had posted previously that you had experienced some workplace harassment and the blogger alludes to such. I gave each of you the benefit of the doubt.

Did this person really have such a big contribution to the case against Amanda and Raffaele? If so, how? I did not know of this blogger until recently and the last posts concerning this case were almost 2 years old.

Yes; for those of us following the case in 2008-9, her contributions were many and formidable. As stated, I concluded the guilt of the defendants pre-verdict based on her theories, and used her as the model for my own blog posts, which I later removed when I recanted my original position. I would say that her power of language was enormous. Google - whose search engine is taken seriously by many researchers - placed her blog in first position when one did a search for "Amanda Knox case - blogs".

For all that, I have nothing against Ms R, who is only human; and I still hold that her writing is absolutely brilliant. ....in any case she joined PMF and stopped blogging. Today, she has archived her posts, I really do not know the point in such an action....

 

[christianahannah]

Do you want to take a mulligan on this wording? Because it comes off, perhaps unintentionally, as insulting to those defending Amanda and Raffaele.




I find this statement quite thoughtless, as well. Uncovering instances where commentators have apparently lied about the expertise supposedly underpinning their pontifications has nothing to do with the truth?? Hard to believe anyone could take that position.

To the extent this "Miss Represented" (whoever or whatever she is) matters at all, it matters if she was lying about her qualifications.

No I don't want to take back what I have written because it was not meant to be insulting. I believe there are those on both sides of the case which do more harm than good.

My words concerning the side show have to do with the actions of those on both sides of this case who feel it is their duty to uncover and expose to the public the private lives of those who may wish to remain anonymous. This blogger isn't the only person this has happened to. Bruce Fisher also had this happen to him and I think it is awful for someone's personal information to be made public if they wish it not to be.

 

[smkovalinksy]

I imagine some will take her words seriously, but honestly, when was there any time for anything to happen? I don't think anyone can seriously believe that in the 24 hours between her fraudulent behavior being exposed and her taking down her blog that anyone had a chance (not that they should) to "harass" her at work. She got embarrassed, removed the proof of her fraudulence, and took the easy way out with a vague insinuation of being harassed.

Here as elsewhere, you make the point succinctly. Thanks!

 

[smkovalinksy]

No I don't want to take back what I have written because it was not meant to be insulting. I believe there are those on both sides of the case which do more harm than good.

My words concerning the side show have to do with the actions of those on both sides of this case who feel it is their duty to uncover and expose to the public the private lives of those who may wish to remain anonymous. This blogger isn't the only person this has happened to. Bruce Fisher also had this happen to him and I think it is awful for someone's personal information to be made public if they wish it not to be.

This was not personal information; it concerned only her expert and professional experience and qualifications to opine about the psychological motives of the defendants. I am grateful to those who made all transparent. Of course, delving into personal things, would be quite a different matter.

 

[Malkmus]

No I don't want to take back what I have written because it was not meant to be insulting. I believe there are those on both sides of the case which do more harm than good.

My words concerning the side show have to do with the actions of those on both sides of this case who feel it is their duty to uncover and expose to the public the private lives of those who may wish to remain anonymous. This blogger isn't the only person this has happened to. Bruce Fisher also had this happen to him and I think it is awful for someone's personal information to be made public if they wish it not to be.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the information provided on Miss R. was not already public (Twitter, Linkdin), whereas the "investigation" carried out against Bruce Fisher involved digging up personal details that were not already public knowledge. Ironically, the results of PMF's investigation revealed BF to be exactly who he always said he was - just a normal guy.

 

[christianahannah]

I imagine some will take her words seriously, but honestly, when was there any time for anything to happen? I don't think anyone can seriously believe that in the 24 hours between her fraudulent behavior being exposed and her taking down her blog that anyone had a chance (not that they should) to "harass" her at work. She got embarrassed, removed the proof of her fraudulence, and took the easy way out with a vague insinuation of being harassed.

Someone had this information before making it public on this forum, perhaps even more than one person. Once that information was posted it would be rather easy for an/several email/s to be sent to a workplace concerning an associate.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the information provided on Miss R. was not already public (Twitter, Linkdin), whereas the "investigation" carried out against Bruce Fisher involved digging up personal details that were not already public knowledge. Ironically, the results of PMF's investigation revealed BF to be exactly who he always said he was - just a normal guy.

Right- Mr. Fisher never misrepresented himself; the same cannot be said for Ms. Represented. Fisher wrote a very clear book which stated his case excellently; for that, PMF will never, ever forgive him. The suspicion was in the eye of the beholders, and in their hearts, as a vice.

There was a public search done to determine her qualifications; we know nothing of Ms. R's private life, and have no need or desire to know such.

So you are right on both counts.

 

[smkovalinksy]

Someone had this information before making it public on this forum, perhaps even more than one person. Once that information was posted it would be rather easy for an/several email/s to be sent to a workplace concerning an associate.

Well, all of us who allow our work profiles to be made public on Linked In, Facebook, etc., are open to this scrutiny. I have received both words of praise and also words expressing dissatisfaction on those venues, in my work as a social media and press agent.

 

[Bruce Fischer]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe the information provided on Miss R. was not already public (Twitter, Linkdin), whereas the "investigation" carried out against Bruce Fisher involved digging up personal details that were not already public knowledge. Ironically, the results of PMF's investigation revealed BF to be exactly who he always said he was - just a normal guy.

Keep in mind that accuracy is not important to PMF. Peggy recently said she posts comments simply to see what the reaction will be.

 

[Malkmus]

Someone had this information before making it public on this forum, perhaps even more than one person. Once that information was posted it would be rather easy for an/several email/s to be sent to a workplace concerning an associate.

While possible, I just find it highly unlikely considering the very short amount of time, her choice of words, and that citing "harassment" is the easiest way out of an embarrassing situation. Supposedly she is a member of PMF, so if this was true I would imagine we would hear from there what exactly was done...