The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 26

Status
Not open for further replies.
Bill Williams said:
After months' of asking, maybe Vixen could also provide one, just one forensic-DNA expert who supports Stefanoni's police-DNA-work....
..... work which was accepted in the 2009 trial (which convicted the pair) and work which was trashed in the 2011, second-trial after the appointment of independent forensic-DNA experts. (Note: Stefanoni's work has been trashed by every forensic-DNA expert since, as well as ordinary DNA experts.)

So there are issues piling up for Vixen. No wonder she'd rather talk about some author's parents being "stoned hippies". Divert, divert, divert.
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
As I keep saying, Dr Stefanoni is a member of staff not a research fellow writing up papers for peer review.Please be realistic.
Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:
No one has said Stefanoni was not a member of the police staff. What this has to do with Bill's question is....nothing.


Evade, evade, evade....
Click to expand...

Vixen said:
Why would anybody do a research paper appraising a member of staff. Is it not normal to research already published works and add to the body?
Click to expand...

Once again, you are twisting things. No surprise there. Bill did not ask about any papers but about her police DNA work. And as he correctly stated, the records of that work are available for review by others. Which is exactly what was done.

Keep on dancing...

It is also noted that, once again, you fail to acknowledge you were wrong about what Burleigh said much less what I said.
 
Vixen said:
No, she did not say that. What she did say was, 'I never saw them take drugs' [paraphrase].

In other words, they were stoned out of their boxes.
Click to expand...

Man I hate your behavior.

Now I grant you that just because children never witnessed their parents taking drugs doesn’t mean the parents didn't. However it doesn't mean they did either. And given that Nina who KNEW her parents believed that they didn't how do you a person who doesnt know her parents at all justify coming to the opposite conclusion?

This behavior is DESPICABLE. Or didn't you learn in school that you need to be informed before you make conclusions?
 
Stacyhs said:
Oh, sweet Jesus. This is a classic example of why you have the reputation for twisting and contorting things. Notice I said "misinformation" which it clearly was as it was the Daily Mail and not the Times. Nowhere did I suggest you lied.

In fact, I even clarified that I didn't think you were lying when I later wrote:



No one has forgotten, however, that you have still failed to provide any link to the alleged article by Follain in the Sunday Times where he talked to people about Knox's "wild behavior" as you claimed. You have done the usual song and dance of doing everything you can to avoid producing said link...one which you claimed you have done many times before. As is obvious, if such an article existed you would produce it. Therefore, it is extremely probable that no such article exists. Why can't you just admit you made a mistake like an adult?

Now that it's clear you were wrong about question #1, how about dealing with the other two:


2. I said that "there can only be one newspaper report and one witness."

3. I called you any "childish names".
Click to expand...

Can you spell out your reason for wanting me to pay subs to the TIMES to dig out this article yet again instead of doing a simple search on ISF/

By claiming I was 'making it up' (=calling me a liar) you implied the DAILY MAIL was the only proper source.
 
Stacyhs said:
I see you agree that it was the "most stupid" opinion ever rendered, or a willful attempt at......
Click to expand...


No. It is misconceived to imagine anyone would do a scientific thesis on Stefanoni, or Mignini or Massei or any person.

If I were a research fellow, I would set out to look at forensic procedures, not personalities.
 
acbytesla said:
Man I hate your behavior.

Now I grant you that just because children never witnessed their parents taking drugs doesn’t mean the parents didn't. However it doesn't mean they did either. And given that Nina who KNEW her parents believed that they didn't how do you a person who doesnt know her parents at all justify coming to the opposite conclusion?

This behavior is DESPICABLE. Or didn't you learn in school that you need to be informed before you make conclusions?
Click to expand...


Come off your high horse. Being at Haight-Astbury at the height of the Summer of Love was the ultimate status symbol.

Why else do you think Nina Burleigh wrote an article bragging about it. Saying you were there but never inhaled just isn't going to be believed.
 
Vixen said:
No. It is misconceived to imagine anyone would do a scientific thesis on Stefanoni, or Mignini or Massei or any person.

If I were a research fellow, I would set out to look at forensic procedures, not personalities.
Click to expand...

Who on earth has been talking personalities? You either have serious reading comprehension issues or are willfully goalpost shifting. Is there any point in talking to you?

For those who wish to talk seriously about this, here is a link to Dr. Peter Gill, the father of LCN DNA testing, trashing Stefanoni's work. What Gill thinks of her personality is of primary interest to Vixen and Vixen alone.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497316300333
 
Bill Williams said:
Who on earth has been talking personalities? You either have serious reading comprehension issues or are willfully goalpost shifting. Is there any point in talking to you?

For those who wish to talk seriously about this, here is a link to Dr. Peter Gill, the father of LCN DNA testing, trashing Stefanoni's work. What Gill thinks of her personality is of primary interest to Vixen and Vixen alone.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1872497316300333
Click to expand...

Peter Gill based his work on Conti & Vecchiotti who were heavily criticised by Chieffi, as Hellmann failed to state a reason as to why he hired them at all, when Novelli and co were equally if not more so expert and called them 'intellectually dishonest'. They also had the Carabinieri watching them.


Gill has no first hand access to Stefanoni's labs, reports and samples.

It's unethical to base results on someone else's experiment when you were not there and had no part in it.
 
Vixen said:
Peter Gill based his work on Conti & Vecchiotti who were heavily criticised by Chieffi, as Hellmann failed to state a reason as to why he hired them at all, when Novelli and co were equally if not more so expert and called them 'intellectually dishonest'. They also had the Carabinieri watching them.


Gill has no first hand access to Stefanoni's labs, reports and samples.

It's unethical to base results on someone else's experiment when you were not there and had no part in it.
Click to expand...

I note no cites at all to any of the ridiculous claims made in this post. But you have dodged the claim you'd made that the issue was personalities.

- Chieffi did not criticize C&V. Chieffi wrote that Hellmann had erred by allowing C&V to make the de facto judicial decision about the testing of Sample 36I. You don't even know the reasons why Chieffi annulled the Hellmann acquittals.

- Hellmann, in fact, did state the reason. You just don't agree with it.

- "Novelli and c." did not call them "intellectually dishonest."

- I have also heard reports that the Carabinieri had been sent to harass C&V with threats of arrest - and given that those threats were never carried out proves that they were meant to intimidate.

- Gill had first hand access to everything that Stefanoni had submitted to the court. Indeed, Gill is able to completely trash Judge Nencini's own misunderstanding of DNA forensics, and showed that Nencini had completely misunderstood even what Stefanoni had submitted:​
The police scientist stated that she ran a negative amplification control concurrently with sample “B” that had very low background noise7. This finding was interpreted as evidence that the item was not contaminated in the Nencini sentencing report and this was a critical reason why the defendants were found guilty. The same error was also made in relation to the bra-clasp.

From the Nencini report

“Surely, because it was a low copy number, the sample taken from the knife’s blade and identified by letter ‘B’ could not produce findings of certain attribution; nevertheless, this Court finds that the interpretation of the test is correct for the reasons highlighted above, because it is a trace that bears the presence of only one contributor, which make a test error less probable; also, the positive and negative checks established that there was no contamination of the item.”​
“In conclusion, we must declare that with respect to Item No. 36 (the knife, the alleged murder weapon) and Item No. 165-B (the closure hook of the bra worn by Meredith KERCHER the night she was killed), no contamination or pollution has been proven or could be concretely possible. This assertion is also confirmed by the negative and positive controls (to be further discussed below) conducted by Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni and part of the trial record, which show that there was no contamination of said evidentiary items.”​

However, this was also a serious error of interpretation. The negative control is simply a blank or empty tube run concurrently with the samples in the laboratory beginning at the extraction stage of the analytical process. Consequently, it can only be used as a control for potential reagent contamination. It cannot be used to discount possible contamination, either at the crime scene or in the examination room.
Click to expand...

As for "It's unethical to base results on someone else's experiment when you were not there and had no part in it," that is complete stupidity and shows a remarkably willful misunderstanding of this case.
 
Stacyhs said:
Link to this alleged article? I've been unable to find any such article. Not that you'd make this up.:rolleyes:
QUOTE]


Vixen said:
Can you spell out your reason for wanting me to pay subs to the TIMES to dig out this article yet again instead of doing a simple search on ISF/

By claiming I was 'making it up' (=calling me a liar) you implied the DAILY MAIL was the only proper source.
Click to expand...

Can you spell out your reason for wanting me to pay subs to the Times to dig out this alleged article when you are the one claiming it exists? As for doing a simple search on ISF/, why don't you do it for the exact reason I just stated? Why should I spend who knows how long trying to find something that may...or may not...exist? I know this is difficult for you to understand, but it is not up to me to prove your claim. But this the usual game you play: make a claim, fail to provide proof, and when asked to do so, put the onus on the other person to prove your claim.

Prosecutor: We have proof that the defendant is guilty.

Judge: Please present this proof.

Prosecutor: Your Honor, just search through the court files and you'll find it. Or are you calling me a liar?

I never implied the Daily Mail was the only proper source. I said straight out that Malone's article was in the DM and not the Sunday Times. You claimed Follain wrote a piece in the S Times where he, after interviewing Knox's friends, described her "wild behavior". As I said, I think you confused the article by Follain (that was provided by Bill, IIRC) with the Malone DM article.

As for calling you a liar, I did not. I asked for a link as I could not find (nor could anyone else) this alleged article. As for your "making it up", I'm going on past history where you have provably made things up. They've been listed many times before. Would you like that list provided again?

Now, stop this song and dance routine. If you could provide that article, if only to prove us all wrong and you right, you would. There is absolutely not a single logical reason you would not. You know it. We know it. Anyone reading this knows it.
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
Come off your high horse. Being at Haight-Astbury at the height of the Summer of Love was the ultimate status symbol.

Why else do you think Nina Burleigh wrote an article bragging about it. Saying you were there but never inhaled just isn't going to be believed.
Click to expand...

Please, for the love of God, stop wildly speculating on her motives, her thoughts, her beliefs, and everything else just because she thinks Knox is innocent. You keep proving her point over and over again.
 
Stacyhs said:
Stacyhs said:
Link to this alleged article? I've been unable to find any such article. Not that you'd make this up.:rolleyes:
QUOTE]




Can you spell out your reason for wanting me to pay subs to the Times to dig out this alleged article when you are the one claiming it exists? As for doing a simple search on ISF/, why don't you do it for the exact reason I just stated? Why should I spend who knows how long trying to find something that may...or may not...exist? I know this is difficult for you to understand, but it is not up to me to prove your claim. But this the usual game you play: make a claim, fail to provide proof, and when asked to do so, put the onus on the other person to prove your claim.

Prosecutor: We have proof that the defendant is guilty.

Judge: Please present this proof.

Prosecutor: Your Honor, just search through the court files and you'll find it. Or are you calling me a liar?

I never implied the Daily Mail was the only proper source. I said straight out that Malone's article was in the DM and not the Sunday Times. You claimed Follain wrote a piece in the S Times where he, after interviewing Knox's friends, described her "wild behavior". As I said, I think you confused the article by Follain (that was provided by Bill, IIRC) with the Malone DM article.

As for calling you a liar, I did not. I asked for a link as I could not find (nor could anyone else) this alleged article. As for your "making it up", I'm going on past history where you have provably made things up. They've been listed many times before. Would you like that list provided again?

Now, stop this song and dance routine. If you could provide that article, if only to prove us all wrong and you right, you would. There is absolutely not a single logical reason you would not. You know it. We know it. Anyone reading this knows it.
Click to expand...


No, I am not going to spend my time digging out articles just for the sake of your getting me to dance to your tune, when you confirmed you are not the slightest bit interested in the article anyway.
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
Stacyhs said:
No, I am not going to spend my time digging out articles just for the sake of your getting me to dance to your tune, when you confirmed you are not the slightest bit interested in the article anyway.
Click to expand...

Which is just another way of saying there is no such article. And no, I don't think you intentionally lied about it. I think you made a mistake and just cannot admit it. How Trumpensian.

Now, how about addressing the remaining questions that:

2. I said that "there can only be one newspaper report and one witness."

3. I called you any "childish names".
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Vixen said:
Which is just another way of saying there is no such article. And no, I don't think you intentionally lied about it. I think you made a mistake and just cannot admit it. How Trumpensian.

Now, how about addressing the remaining questions that:

2. I said that "there can only be one newspaper report and one witness."

3. I called you any "childish names".
Click to expand...

Please refer to my previous answer.

"The road to Hell is paved with good intentions".
Click to expand...
 
Vixen said:
Come off your high horse. Being at Haight-Astbury at the height of the Summer of Love was the ultimate status symbol.

Why else do you think Nina Burleigh wrote an article bragging about it. Saying you were there but never inhaled just isn't going to be believed.
Click to expand...

BULL. You DON'T KNOW and suggesting that you do is DESPICABLE. I know people who went to Woodstock and didn't take drugs as well. I've been to Haight Asbury many times. It's just a neighborhood with a few bars, music and clothing stores and head shops. It really wasn't much different in 1969.

I have lived around drugs with siblings that even sold them. I'm next to the youngest of 9 children. Everyone of them smoked pot and most would do any drug put in front of them. And I Have NEVER smoked pot or any other non-prescription drugs. NEVER..NOT ONCE.

This is your problem. You judge based on your preconceived ideas. Oh, they went to Haight Asbury in 1969, they must be hippie stoners. Amanda had sex...she must have killed her roommate.
 
Unsurprisingly, NvdL has yet another AK book out. This one published just two weeks after the last one. I can only imagine the hours of intense and thorough research spent in front of the computer googling the internet. Long nights of cutting and pasting. Early morning risings, fueled by strong coffee, to fit in all that had to be done in order to put out such a credible and well-researched piece of professional journalism. Also unsurprising is the review. And I do mean review. No "s". But I'm sure more of the same NvdL fan reviewers...all 3 or 4 of them...will by dropping by to give it their thumbs up. For a laugh, go have a look at the description of the book, etc. Just be sure to visit the WC first because you might just piss yourself laughing. Oh..almost forgot; it's called FOXY KNOXY FIGHTS BACK: Second Trial and Acquittal.
 
Last edited:
Will you please return to discussing the trials of Ms Knox and Signor Sollecito. At the same time, will you all please remember to be civil and polite.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Agatha
 
There really is nothing to discuss unless we go back to playing whack a mole with the falsehoods that the PGP routinely post as if they were actually true.

Which is what I hate about this forum.
 
acbytesla said:
There really is nothing to discuss unless we go back to playing whack a mole with the falsehoods that the PGP routinely post as if they were actually true.

Which is what I hate about this forum.
Click to expand...

I moderately disagree. Examining the prosecution and trial history of this case is a virtual roadmap of and classic account of a wrongful prosecution where people actually did jail-time. For Raffaele that was exclusively preventative detention, and for Knox a combination of time for the calunnia conviction, plus preventative detention for the annulled murder stuff.

There's also the issue of people like Nick van der Leek. There are those who remain to cut-and-paste "books" to basically regurgitate the failed Mignini prosecution, as if there has been merit to it to begin with.
 
Bill Williams said:
I moderately disagree. Examining the prosecution and trial history of this case is a virtual roadmap of and classic account of a wrongful prosecution where people actually did jail-time. For Raffaele that was exclusively preventative detention, and for Knox a combination of time for the calunnia conviction, plus preventative detention for the annulled murder stuff.

There's also the issue of people like Nick van der Leek. There are those who remain to cut-and-paste "books" to basically regurgitate the failed Mignini prosecution, as if there has been merit to it to begin with.
Click to expand...

I would urge everybody to read Nick van der Leek and Lisa Wilson's books for a cutting insight into this crime.
 
Vixen said:
I would urge everybody to read Nick van der Leek and Lisa Wilson's books for a cutting insight into this crime.
Click to expand...

I would urge anyone with half a brain or anyone who doesn't want to be lied to .....not to bother.

Those of you with less than half a brain....go ahead.
 
Vixen said:
I would urge everybody to read Nick van der Leek and Lisa Wilson's books for a cutting insight into this crime.
Click to expand...

I'd urge it, too. You'll be treated to cut and paste, mainly from the fake Wiki, and from a luminary named "Hopeful", complete with spelling mistakes.

It's the problem with averaging a book a month.
 
Bill Williams said:
I moderately disagree. Examining the prosecution and trial history of this case is a virtual roadmap of and classic account of a wrongful prosecution where people actually did jail-time. For Raffaele that was exclusively preventative detention, and for Knox a combination of time for the calunnia conviction, plus preventative detention for the annulled murder stuff.
Click to expand...
There is nothing in part 26 they can't get in part 20 Bill.
Bill Williams said:
There's also the issue of people like Nick van der Leek. There are those who remain to cut-and-paste "books" to basically regurgitate the failed Mignini prosecution, as if there has been merit to it to begin with.
Click to expand...
Does anyone really care?
 
It still amazes me how much ink, real and digital, is being spent on this one woman, apparently the victim of a travesty of justice that was then reversed.

So... what's the issue again? I mean, in the time this thread has run, thousands more have gone through a similar set of events. Should be make a thread for each of them?
 
Vixen said:
I would urge everybody to read Nick van der Leek and Lisa Wilson's books for a cutting insight into this crime.
Click to expand...

Really?

It seems like Mr van der Leek and Ms Wilson are just returning to the Kercher case because they sense that because of the upcoming anniversary a quick Dollar can be made.

This review of one of the pair's former attempts seems to be still standing and "Despicable" and "Foxy Knoxy fights back" are in the same league when it comes to unresearched nonsense.

Both books read like a combination of Daily Mail articles combined with posts made by likes of "hopeful" and "seekingunderstanding" on TJMK back then. Mr van der Leek and Ms Wilson seem to have by now adopted PQ's narrative as their own...
When it comes to "Despicable", it looks like it's the same old nonsense, riddled with typos. Long copied/pasted trial testimony translations (apparently from TMoMK) with strewn in comments by the author (not everytime recognizable, heck, Nick, learn how to format...) To me it looks like a re-hash of old post on TJMK and PMF, it's like yeah those witnesses' testimony was poor and maybe not relyable, but since it is damaging to Knox we are going to believe it anyway. :(
That there's so much reference to Follain in the narrative of that book makes me think that he used Follain's book as a roadmap.
I had to stop at the following part, because it's obvious that vdL has changed from "rabid Knox guilter" to "Guede fanboy":
"*Why had the investigators taken a month and a half to recover Meredith’s bra clasp? It should be noted it was photographed on November 2nd, but only retrieved for evidence much later. One reason is that while her body was moved by her killers, it wasn’t immediately moved by investigators on the scene. An additional reason can be inferred: if the perpetrators staged a cover up, and this staging involved lifting and moving the body, perhaps even washing her or items in the shower, before returning it/her to the bedroom, this might account for the bra clasp being lodged and becoming adhered to an area [such as below the duvet, or under the mat beside Meredith’s desk] where it might not easily be discovered. In effect, a cover up might cause something that ought to be easily discoverable to be less easily discoverable. On the other hand, it could just as easily be kicked into a new position by the flow of traffic into and out of Meredith’s room.

van der Leek, Nick. DESPICABLE: First Trial and Conviction (Kindle-Positionen2347-2359). Kindle-Version."
Click to expand...

When it comes to "Foxy Knoxy fights back" its interesting that he links to the page of his former editor (Link died this afternoon, I wonder why?):
By now Mr van der Leek has almost completely adopted the narrative PQ still tries to sell on TJMK, that Knox somehow wanted to kill Meredith because she was simply better on all accounts that mattered and because she was interfering with her campaign of casual sex... (Looks like vdL is quite impressed by posts of "hopeful" and the likes...)

I'm not so impressed, because again the book is riddled with typos and despite (again) recommending TMoMK as a source it clear that he hasn't done any research when it comes to the trial transcripts, or anything else.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad that he comes up with the following to discredit Conti and Vecchiotti:
"4 Basic Criticisms of the DNA Professors, from krissyg1.com:
1. On 21 April 2016, Carla Vecchiotti… was found guilty in a civil suit of gross negligence in the examination of the murder of Contessa Ogliata, dating from 1991, and ordered [with other co-accused] to pay €150,000 in damages.
2. Conti and Vecchiotti’s laboratory in Rome was closed down [recently] due to public health issues. Contamination almost certainly occurred in their laboratory. Rotting cadavers unclaimed by relatives, were said to have piled up in the corridors.
3. Judge Nencini [in the subsequent appeal] described Conti and Vecchiotti’s work as “misleading” and “reprehensible”.
4. Conti and Vecchiotii both appear in the PR film Amanda Knox [2016, Netflix], to continue their endorsement of the defense case. It’s painfully ironic that these two “experts”, who ran a filthy, carcass infested lab of their own in Rome, should be called to address the court on professional international standards.

van der Leek, Nick. FOXY KNOXY FIGHTS BACK: Second Trial and Acquittal (Kindle-Positionen2568-2599). Kindle-Version. "
Click to expand...

The only relevant point is "2.". It has been taken care of here:
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1302&start=3600#p180942
 
Methos said:
Really?

It seems like Mr van der Leek and Ms Wilson are just returning to the Kercher case because they sense that because of the upcoming anniversary a quick Dollar can be made.

This review of one of the pair's former attempts seems to be still standing and "Despicable" and "Foxy Knoxy fights back" are in the same league when it comes to unresearched nonsense.

Both books read like a combination of Daily Mail articles combined with posts made by likes of "hopeful" and "seekingunderstanding" on TJMK back then. Mr van der Leek and Ms Wilson seem to have by now adopted PQ's narrative as their own...
When it comes to "Despicable", it looks like it's the same old nonsense, riddled with typos. Long copied/pasted trial testimony translations (apparently from TMoMK) with strewn in comments by the author (not everytime recognizable, heck, Nick, learn how to format...) To me it looks like a re-hash of old post on TJMK and PMF, it's like yeah those witnesses' testimony was poor and maybe not relyable, but since it is damaging to Knox we are going to believe it anyway. :(
That there's so much reference to Follain in the narrative of that book makes me think that he used Follain's book as a roadmap.
I had to stop at the following part, because it's obvious that vdL has changed from "rabid Knox guilter" to "Guede fanboy":


When it comes to "Foxy Knoxy fights back" its interesting that he links to the page of his former editor (Link died this afternoon, I wonder why?):
By now Mr van der Leek has almost completely adopted the narrative PQ still tries to sell on TJMK, that Knox somehow wanted to kill Meredith because she was simply better on all accounts that mattered and because she was interfering with her campaign of casual sex... (Looks like vdL is quite impressed by posts of "hopeful" and the likes...)

I'm not so impressed, because again the book is riddled with typos and despite (again) recommending TMoMK as a source it clear that he hasn't done any research when it comes to the trial transcripts, or anything else.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad that he comes up with the following to discredit Conti and Vecchiotti:


The only relevant point is "2.". It has been taken care of here:
http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1302&start=3600#p180942
Click to expand...

Not 'former'.
 
Bill Williams said:
I'd urge it, too. You'll be treated to cut and paste, mainly from the fake Wiki, and from a luminary named "Hopeful", complete with spelling mistakes.

It's the problem with averaging a book a month.
Click to expand...

The publication dates of the last two AK related scribbles were two weeks apart.
 
Methos said:
Really?

It seems like Mr van der Leek and Ms Wilson are just returning to the Kercher case because they sense that because of the upcoming anniversary a quick Dollar can be made.

This review of one of the pair's former attempts seems to be still standing and "Despicable" and "Foxy Knoxy fights back" are in the same league when it comes to unresearched nonsense.

Both books read like a combination of Daily Mail articles combined with posts made by likes of "hopeful" and "seekingunderstanding" on TJMK back then. Mr van der Leek and Ms Wilson seem to have by now adopted PQ's narrative as their own...
When it comes to "Despicable", it looks like it's the same old nonsense, riddled with typos. Long copied/pasted trial testimony translations (apparently from TMoMK) with strewn in comments by the author (not everytime recognizable, heck, Nick, learn how to format...) To me it looks like a re-hash of old post on TJMK and PMF, it's like yeah those witnesses' testimony was poor and maybe not relyable, but since it is damaging to Knox we are going to believe it anyway. :(
That there's so much reference to Follain in the narrative of that book makes me think that he used Follain's book as a roadmap.
I had to stop at the following part, because it's obvious that vdL has changed from "rabid Knox guilter" to "Guede fanboy":


When it comes to "Foxy Knoxy fights back" its interesting that he links to the page of his former editor (Link died this afternoon, I wonder why?):
By now Mr van der Leek has almost completely adopted the narrative PQ still tries to sell on TJMK, that Knox somehow wanted to kill Meredith because she was simply better on all accounts that mattered and because she was interfering with her campaign of casual sex... (Looks like vdL is quite impressed by posts of "hopeful" and the likes...)

I'm not so impressed, because again the book is riddled with typos and despite (again) recommending TMoMK as a source it clear that he hasn't done any research when it comes to the trial transcripts, or anything else.

It would be funny if it weren't so sad that he comes up with the following to discredit Conti and Vecchiotti:


The only relevant point is "2.". It has been taken care of here:http://www.injusticeanywhereforum.com/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=1302&start=3600#p180942
Click to expand...

This is a classic example of the kind of lie that is spread by TJMK and its contributors/fans. When that lie is exposed by evidence as a lie, they just ignore it. And so it goes...
 
Methos said:
By now Mr van der Leek has almost completely adopted the narrative PQ still tries to sell on TJMK,
Click to expand...

It's the easiest to cut and paste.

It's absolutely mind boggling that NvdL admits to using Google Translate..... that's how seriously these books of his should be taken.
 
Vixen said:
Not 'former'.
Click to expand...

Wouldn't it be rather unethical for an author's editor (or former editor) to leave reviews on his work? Even work pertaining to the same subject? One might easily conclude that their review would be extremely biased. It could even be logically suspected that promoting the work by writing positive reviews could increase the sale of the author's work thereby being monetarily beneficial to that editor/former editor who could have a percentage of the royalties.

Just speaking hypothetically, of course.
 
Stacyhs said:
Wouldn't it be rather unethical for an author's editor (or former editor) to leave reviews on his work? Even work pertaining to the same subject?
Click to expand...

NvdL has dumbkopff editors, judging from the typos.

Just speaking hypothetically of course.
 
Stacyhs said:
Wouldn't it be rather unethical for an author's editor (or former editor) to leave reviews on his work? Even work pertaining to the same subject? One might easily conclude that their review would be extremely biased. It could even be logically suspected that promoting the work by writing positive reviews could increase the sale of the author's work thereby being monetarily beneficial to that editor/former editor who could have a percentage of the royalties.

Just speaking hypothetically, of course.
Click to expand...

I don't know if I would say it is exactly unethical. Silly and not unbiased yes. Let's be honest. NVDL doesn't really write...it's more compile what is out there.
 
acbytesla said:
I don't know if I would say it is exactly unethical. Silly and not unbiased yes. Let's be honest. NVDL doesn't really write...it's more compile what is out there.
Click to expand...

Judging from the amount of reviews, I'd say he's not going to make much money on this latest piece of rot. Maybe the TJMK crowd needs to be encouraged to buy it.
 
Stacyhs said:
Wouldn't it be rather unethical for an author's editor (or former editor) to leave reviews on his work? Even work pertaining to the same subject? One might easily conclude that their review would be extremely biased. It could even be logically suspected that promoting the work by writing positive reviews could increase the sale of the author's work thereby being monetarily beneficial to that editor/former editor who could have a percentage of the royalties.

Just speaking hypothetically, of course.
Click to expand...

Not hypothetical. Presumptuous.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom