Continuation Part 16: Amanda Knox/Raffaele Sollecito

[Kauffer]

I'll come back to you.

Are you checking in with Nick for the answer?

 

[Numbers]

Originally posted by Mary H:

Hi Karen

Due to your copyright infringement claim to Amazon my account - in its entirety - has been suspended.

Since I have 24 other books on Amazon, and since I write full time, and earn a living off writing, it's important to me to have the suspension lifted.

I apologize for referring to your Ground Report site.....

It's interesting that Nick vdl is exploiting the Meredith Kercher case, and spreading falsehoods about Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, who were finally acquitted of her murder, to make a living by writing crap books. This is especially of interest because Vixen on ISF has stated that the many independent scientific and technical experts, such as Professor Gill, who have publicly taken expert positions contradicting the prosecution, have done so for financial motives rather than for upholding truthful science. Of course, the true motivation of the experts is to maintain the integrity of their field.

Those who write crap books full of falsehoods and their associates may not understand or agree with any concept of integrity or truth.

 

[lonepinealex]

What kind of idiot would write a book claiming Knox and Sollecito are guilty now? Does this Van der Leek character have money to burn on libel lawsuits or something?

 

[Mary_H]

What kind of idiot would write a book claiming Knox and Sollecito are guilty now? Does this Van der Leek character have money to burn on libel lawsuits or something?

What libel?

If Knox wasn't a good waitress, she was a good actress, and a good liar, important traits for an on-your-toes drug pusher.

(from DECEIT: The Meredith Kercher Murder Mystery)

 

[Kauffer]

What kind of idiot would write a book claiming Knox and Sollecito are guilty now? Does this Van der Leek character have money to burn on libel lawsuits or something?

Oh but it's great stuff! Look at this:

"Amanda is not thinking straight. She is drunk on coke and marijuana. Adrenalin and fear have alchemised this brew into an even deadlier cocktail. She has no idea what to do, but she’s playing leader to two schmucks. So she runs with it. She draws out the torture over half an hour. Meredith aggression alternates with terror. She begs Amanda to let her go. To stop."

Irresistible, n'est pas?

 

[lonepinealex]

schmucks? Amazing, a 21st century penny* dreadful.


*well, 99p

 

[Bill Williams]

Oh but it's great stuff! Look at this:

"Amanda is not thinking straight. She is drunk on coke and marijuana. Adrenalin and fear have alchemised this brew into an even deadlier cocktail. She has no idea what to do, but she’s playing leader to two schmucks. So she runs with it. She draws out the torture over half an hour. Meredith aggression alternates with terror. She begs Amanda to let her go. To stop."

Irresistible, n'est pas?

The strange thing is now Vixen herself could potentially get caught in a libel lawsuit, where Perugian police themselves are called to give testimony against her.

It would go like this at trial:

Question: "Mr van der Leek claims Amanda was drugged up on coke. Did you in processing her arrest check for past cocaine use?"

Ans: "Yes we did. We did not find any use of cocaine or any other drugs at arrest."

Question: "Are you confident, then - even as an arresting officer that neither cocaine nor any other drugs played a role in this crime, regardless of who did it?"

Ans: "Yes."

I truly hope the people who participate in the libelling of people now fully exonerated have deep pockets. On this one the PLE will be testifying against THEM!

 

[Bill Williams]

You are correct, Vixen. I apologize for my mistake. I misunderstood what Nick had written to Karen in an e-mail on May 10th:

Hi Karen

Due to your copyright infringement claim to Amazon my account - in its entirety - has been suspended.

Since I have 24 other books on Amazon, and since I write full time, and earn a living off writing, it's important to me to have the suspension lifted.

I apologize for referring to your Ground Report site.....

And he did remove her work from his "book."

Nick's email to Karen Pruett acknowledging that his copyright violation caused the suspension of his account means one of two things.

1) Vixen lied to this thread.
2) van der Leek lied to Vixen.

Which is it?

 

[AnimalFriendly]

My denial was truthful. Nick only came into this case recently (early May, AIUI) and I got involved when he asked for someone to proofread at short notice.

As believable as a

 

[davefoc]

Oh but it's great stuff! Look at this:

"Amanda is not thinking straight. She is drunk on coke and marijuana. Adrenalin and fear have alchemised this brew into an even deadlier cocktail. She has no idea what to do, but she’s playing leader to two schmucks. So she runs with it. She draws out the torture over half an hour. Meredith aggression alternates with terror. She begs Amanda to let her go. To stop."

Irresistible, n'est pas?

I understand the humor but I don't think it is appropriate. It is possible that the quoted text constitutes libel in a straightforward, unethical and actionable way. It is serious stuff regardless. If the author couched the quote in some sort of weasel words about how it is just his speculation it may just be highly unethical given there is zero good faith basis to support such speculation and not actually libelous.

I am one that has been very skeptical of some of the views expressed here that Knox or Sollecito would have a practical case against anybody in the US for libel with regard to what they write. Some kind of plausible good faith basis for almost anything that is said with regard to this case seems likely given the vast array of misinformation distributed by the press. The quoted text above, I believe, may step over the line and constitute a case of straightforward libel for which Knox and Sollecito would have recourse. I suspect the key issue with regard to that is what disclaimers the author has made about the text. If those disclaimers do exist then it seems that the quote has been taken out of context and the people quoting the paragraph should have included the disclaimers put forth by the author. If the disclaimers don't exist I hope that the US libel laws are such that he can be successfully sued.

 

[carbonjam72]

Marketing 001

What kind of idiot would write a book claiming Knox and Sollecito are guilty now? Does this Van der Leek character have money to burn on libel lawsuits or something?

Look, this is not a high integrity person/author(s). But from a marketing standpoint, its kind of understandable.

Its a self published book, so there's no barrier to entry. He copies pastes for the most part, so he can turn out these screeds like candy.

Since the cassation acquittal & exoneration in March, 2015, no legit author or publisher would write a guilt flavored product, so they kind of have the 'guilter niche' to themselves in a way that wouldn't have been possible before the acquittals. And they are cynical enough to believe that people, outside the small circle of the hate cults, are that dumb and plentiful.

Personally, I think Nick and Lisa should be hauled into court and be given a chance to defend their criminal malicious slander, before being carted off to jail.

But the entry of an amateur work, from a guilter POV, post acquittal, is as predictable as shower slime. Its the bottom of the barrel as 'journalists' go, which is saying a lot. Its not even fair to call them 'journalists', or even 'citizen journalists' because they lack good faith.

Its a big world, filled with wonderful people. But also filled with jerks, crooks, thugs, criminals and psychos, etc. At some point, the bad pennies are the police's problem.

Interesting though how Vixen presented their vixen-atious self as 'undecided', when first joining, then spamming the thread.

 

[AnimalFriendly]

I hope you didn't proofread for any factual errors. LMAO.

Don't worry, Tesla . As someone who has managed to read this swill, it doesn't appear that she, or anyone else, did. In fact, Leek outright lies when early in the book he states that Amanda had "prior misdemeanourS", then goes on to talk about the noise ticket in ridiculous terms, citing the ever-responsible Daily Mail as his "source". IIRC, you said that you knew the police officer who responded to the call and he was never interviewed by the DM?

Leek can't even get Kercher's name correct, spelling it "Kerchner" at least once (Loc 340 of 6744). There are plenty more silly little, and huge, errors throughout.

In all seriousness, this book is such an insult to Meredith Kercher's memory. In one disgusting passage he "theorizes" that Amanda used particularly despicable language regarding Kercher. I'm not going to dignify it by repeating it here, and it wouldn't make it past the censors anyway, but it's at location 1648 of 6744.

You would think that people like Leek and Vixen would at least have had the basic decency to wait until the SC motivations report comes out in late June. And be willing to consider the reason why actual judges saw fit to exonerate Amanda and Sollecito so thoroughly...before producing this kind of garbage.

 

[Bill Williams]

I understand the humor but I don't think it is appropriate. It is possible that the quoted text constitutes libel in a straightforward, unethical and actionable way. It is serious stuff regardless. If the author couched the quote in some sort of weasel words about how it is just his speculation it may just be highly unethical given there is zero good faith basis to support such speculation and not actually libelous.

I am one that has been very skeptical of some of the views expressed here that Knox or Sollecito would have a practical case against anybody in the US for libel with regard to what they write. Some kind of plausible good faith basis for almost anything that is said with regard to this case seems likely given the vast array of misinformation distributed by the press. The quoted text above, I believe, may step over the line and constitute a case of straightforward libel for which Knox and Sollecito would have recourse. I suspect the key issue with regard to that is what disclaimers the author has made about the text. If those disclaimers do exist then it seems that the quote has been taken out of context and the people quoting the paragraph should have included the disclaimers put forth by the author. If the disclaimers don't exist I hope that the US libel laws are such that he can be successfully sued.

Vixen and Nick van der leek should brush up on libel law, esp. as it relates to the internet.

I realize the Carol Burnett vs. National Enquirer case is not parallel to this obvious libel that van der Leek (and perhaps even Vixen) has done; but it would be wise to at least look into it.

Burnett sued the National Enquirer over this report (the following is the sum total of what was at issue):

In a Washington restaurant, a boisterous Carol Burnett had a loud argument with another diner, Henry Kissinger. Then she traipsed around the place offering everyone a bite of her dessert. But Carol really raised eyebrows when she accidentally knocked a glass of wine over one diner and started giggling instead of apologizing. The guy wasn't amused and 'accidentally' spilled a glass of water over Carol's dress.​

Facing lawsuit, the Enquirer printed this retraction - a rarity for sure!

An item in this column on March 2 erroneously reported that Carol Burnett had an argument with Henry Kissinger at a Washington restaurant and became boisterous, disturbing other guests. We understand these events did not occur and we are sorry for any embarrassment our report may have caused Miss Burnett.​

That retraction was not good enough for Burnett. "Because Burnett was judged to be a public figure under the standard of New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, she was required to prove "actual malice" --i.e. that the defendant published the item either knowing that it was false or with reckless disregard for whether it was true or false," (from Wikipedia).

Even with this higher standard accorded because of "public figure" status, "The jury awarded Burnett $300,000 in compensatory damages and $1.3 million in punitive damages. The trial court reduced this to $50,000 in compensatory damages and $750,000 in punitive damages."

The Enquirer appealed and lost, except that the appeal court reduced the award, saying the original one was excessive.

Good luck to those now in harms' way.

 

[Numbers]

schmucks? Amazing, a 21st century penny* dreadful.


*well, 99p

On the Amazon website, accessed today (5/31/2015), Deceit: The Meredith Kercher Murder Mystery, by Nick van der Leek and Liz Houle, is priced at $7.77 for the Kindle edition.

From the Amazon website:
Nick van der Leek is a South African storyteller, photographer and editor (of www.africanman.co.za) with an unconventional background. Instead of journalism he studied law, economics and brand management.

His writing career started online.

Nick vdl apparently has written a number of online books about various murder cases that have been in the news.

I haven't read any of his books, but my review of the reviews is that Deceit is aptly titled. (One of the reviewers pointed this out as well.) His book Deceit, according to quotes in the reviews, is based on the lies of the prosecution and malicious fantasy.

 

[Bill Williams]

Don't worry, Tesla . As someone who has managed to read this swill, it doesn't appear that she, or anyone else, did. In fact, Leek outright lies when early in the book he states that Amanda had "prior misdemeanourS", then goes on to talk about the noise ticket in ridiculous terms, citing the ever-responsible Daily Mail as his "source". IIRC, you said that you knew the police officer who responded to the call and he was never interviewed by the DM?

Leek can't even get Kercher's name correct, spelling it "Kerchner" at least once (Loc 340 of 6744). There are plenty more silly little, and huge, errors throughout.

In all seriousness, this book is such an insult to Meredith Kercher's memory. In one disgusting passage he "theorizes" that Amanda used particularly despicable language regarding Kercher. I'm not going to dignify it by repeating it here, and it wouldn't make it past the censors anyway, but it's at location 1648 of 6744.

You would think that people like Leek and Vixen would at least have had the basic decency to wait until the SC motivations report comes out in late June. And be willing to consider the reason why actual judges saw fit to exonerate Amanda and Sollecito so thoroughly...before producing this kind of garbage.

I am unsure why you would refer to "basic decency" with Nick van der Leek, or any of them who have made money from Meredith's murder, by persecuting her friend.

 

[davefoc]

Nick's email to Karen Pruett acknowledging that his copyright violation caused the suspension of his account means one of two things.

1) Vixen lied to this thread.
2) van der Leek lied to Vixen.

Which is it?

I may not understand your point here.
From the quoted letter by Nick van der Leek:

Due to your copyright infringement claim to Amazon my account - in its entirety - has been suspended.

Van der Leek doesn't appear to be acknowledging that he is guilty of copyright infringement there, he is only acknowledging that Karen H has made a copyright claim against him and that Amazon has frozen his account in its entirety.

However, Mary_H apologized, apparently for stating that all of Van der Leek's works were taken off. Was the apology based on a distinction between "all Van der Leek's works being taken off" and "my[Van der Leeks] account - in its entirety - has been suspended"

Vixen wrote this:

You seem to be a "disinformation" merchant, MaryH, as at no time did Amazon "take off all his works".

 

[Bill Williams]

Vixen wrote this:

You seem to be a "disinformation" merchant, MaryH, as at no time did Amazon "take off all his works".

Heavens that we should be seen as disinformation merchants, when Vixen is calling us that name.

I don't want to pursue it, really, but van der Leek acknowledges his account was suspended. Is this not the Amazon-equivalent to "taking off all of his works" until the matter is settled?

If not, I apologize.... I just wish Vixen would apply that level of precision of language to the claims she is making.

 

[davefoc]

Heavens that we should be seen as disinformation merchants, when Vixen is calling us that name.

I don't want to pursue it, really, but van der Leek acknowledges his account was suspended. Is this not the Amazon-equivalent to "taking off all of his works" until the matter is settled?

If not, I apologize.... I just wish Vixen would apply that level of precision of language to the claims she is making.

I hesitated to pursue it as well and agree it was of limited interest. However, I am a bit grinder like (albeit without his extremely detailed knowledge of the case eta: and his keen mind) in that I feel fairness requires that I post when I disagree with somebody that I agree with almost entirely. As to your question, the distinction between the two phrases seem trivial and I'm not sure what Mary_H apologized for.

 

[acbytesla]

Heavens that we should be seen as disinformation merchants, when Vixen is calling us that name.

I don't want to pursue it, really, but van der Leek acknowledges his account was suspended. Is this not the Amazon-equivalent to "taking off all of his works" until the matter is settled?

If not, I apologize.... I just wish Vixen would apply that level of precision of language to the claims she is making.

I wouldn't count on it. She said she would get back to me about the flaw in her logic about the distribution of DNA. This was pointed out to her yesterday and it is obvious. I asked her about it again this morning. But she hasn't got back to me.

I keep trying to get her to acknowledge an obvious error. But I'm not holding my breath.

 

[AnimalFriendly]

I am unsure why you would refer to "basic decency" with Nick van der Leek, or any of them who have made money from Meredith's murder, by persecuting her friend.

Indeed, Leek hasn't exhibited any decency with respect to the murder of Meredith Kercher. I should have said one would hope instead of one would think because there's nothing concrete on which to base this kind of expectation.

Regarding the 99-cent rip-off, er, price, that's what I got it for at Amazon but I do see today where only the $7.77 is shown - not sure why. I'm not an Amazon Prime member or anything like that.