The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 31

Vixen said:

Incorrect. Do check your facts. Yes, one can see how some Knox fans identify with Knox being so insanely jealous of Mez' good looks, brain power and sheer classiness that she brutally did what she did.

Even now she rationalises it. Demands that Mez' family meet with her.

Click to expand...

What?? Tip for you: do get a closer relationship with factual truth and honesty, and stop writing vindictive incorrect crap like this. OK?

(And it's Mez's, not Mez' (though of course it should actually be Meredith's or Kercher's, for anyone looking to be taken seriously in a debate about this case). Your poor grammar makes your posts rather hard to read.)

Reminds me of a clip I saw of serial killer Aileen Wuornos, a hooker who killed seven men. The interviewer asks her about the victim's families, whereupon Wuornos turs to the camera aggressively and sneers, "Here's my message to the victim's families: YOU owe ME!!! Your husband raped me*."

*The latter statement turns out to have been a story Wuornos made up for the court as she laughingly tells another interviewer a few years later, feigning remorse.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. You have an awful lot to learn, Vixen. Starting with things like this.

TruthCalls said:

Martuscelli is referencing Marasca, and specifically sect 9.4.1 of the MR, which reads;

"With this premise, with regards to Amanda Knox’s position, it is now observed that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is an acclaimed fact of the trial, based on her own admissions, also contained in her signed memorial,..."
IOW, there is no evidence of Amanda being present at the time of the murder except Amanda's coerced, inadmissible statement.

I'm not really sure I understand why you keep going down this path, except perhaps to try to convince yourself. You sure as hell aren't convincing anyone else.

Click to expand...

I'm going to interject here because I think there was a poor translation of a word or two in the quoted sentence from the Marasca CSC panel MR, the first sentence of Section 9.4.1. The words "acclaimed fact" should rather be "confirmed", "declared", or "overt fact" (or "obvious {acknowledged) given").

The Italian text is:

9.4.1. Tanto premesso, si osserva ora, quanto alla posizione di Amanda Knox, che la sua presenza nell'abitamione, teatro dell'omicidio, è dato conclamato nel processo, alla stregua delle sue stesse ammissioni, contenute anche nel memoriale a sua firma, nella parte in cui riferisce che ....

Click to expand...

Here's a Google translation:

9.4.1. Given the above, it is now observed, with regard to the position of Amanda Knox, that her presence in the house, the scene of the murder, is confirmed in the trial, like {based on} her own admissions, also contained in the memorial signed by her, in the part in which she reports that ....

Click to expand...

Using Collins Reverso for the translation of "e dato conclamato nel processo" gives:

"is declared in the process {trial}"

It should be recalled that the "trial" specifically refers to the trial before the Nencini court. However, none of the courts trying Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges explicitly challenged Knox's interrogation statements, which form the basis for this "confirmed" "fact" of the proceedings.

The point of this translation exercise is that the Marasca CSC panel MR is pointing out the "judicial facts" of the Nencini trial in this matter. Marasca does not seek to dispute this element of the Nencini MR because it is not relevant to the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito based on the lack of (credible) evidence of their involvement in the murder/rape. In Section 9.4.1., the Marasca CSC panel MR does not state that it was certain that Knox was in the house at the time of the murder, but rather that this was an "acceptable" judicial opinion by Nencini. This "acceptability" is based on the Marasca CSC panel applying Italian judicial standards of logic and avoiding any challenge to how Knox's interrogation statements were acquired. The Marasca CSC panel goes on to evaluate other evidence presented in the documents of the case to demonstrate that there was no credible evidence that Knox (or Sollecito) had participated in the murder.

Numbers said:

I'm going to interject here because I think there was a poor translation of a word or two in the quoted sentence from the Marasca CSC panel MR, the first sentence of Section 9.4.1. The words "acclaimed fact" should rather be "confirmed", "declared", or "overt fact" (or "obvious {acknowledged) given").

The Italian text is:



Here's a Google translation:



Using Collins Reverso for the translation of "e dato conclamato nel processo" gives:

"is declared in the process {trial}"

It should be recalled that the "trial" specifically refers to the trial before the Nencini court. However, none of the courts trying Knox and Sollecito on the murder/rape charges explicitly challenged Knox's interrogation statements, which form the basis for this "confirmed" "fact" of the proceedings.

The point of this translation exercise is that the Marasca CSC panel MR is pointing out the "judicial facts" of the Nencini trial in this matter. Marasca does not seek to dispute this element of the Nencini MR because it is not relevant to the acquittal of Knox and Sollecito based on the lack of (credible) evidence of their involvement in the murder/rape. In Section 9.4.1., the Marasca CSC panel MR does not state that it was certain that Knox was in the house at the time of the murder, but rather that this was an "acceptable" judicial opinion by Nencini. This "acceptability" is based on the Marasca CSC panel applying Italian judicial standards of logic and avoiding any challenge to how Knox's interrogation statements were acquired. The Marasca CSC panel goes on to evaluate other evidence presented in the documents of the case to demonstrate that there was no credible evidence that Knox (or Sollecito) had participated in the murder.

Click to expand...

Completely agree. I was merely pointing out the genesis of the passage is a coerced statement from an inadmissible interrogation.

TruthCalls said:

Completely agree. I was merely pointing out the genesis of the passage is a coerced statement from an inadmissible interrogation.

Click to expand...

Yes, I am confident that we are in agreement.

The intent of my post was to provide more detail on the "judicial logic" used by the Marasca CSC panel and the Nencini (as well as Hellmann and Massei) courts

I've posted before on my disagreement with the choice of the translator(s) who supplied "acclaimed fact" (acclaimed meaning "enthusiastically praised") for "dato clamato" (translating to, for example, "overt given" or "confirmed").

Vixen said:

That case was thrown out.

Click to expand...

That's a commonly held misconception. I was referring to the 1998 case, not the 2008. It was a later rape case in which the rapist used the " tight jeans alibi" defense established by the 1998 SC ruling that resulted in that defense being overturned. It was the 'tight jeans' defense that the 2008 court threw out, not the previous case acquittal. That man was definitively acquitted and remains so, but the tight jeans defense can no longer be used.

AnimalFriendly said:

Casey Anthony's acquittal wasn't thrown out. So by your (lack of any) logic, it is a fact that Anthony did not kill her daughter.

Click to expand...

Vixen's wrong about that case being thrown out. It was the tight jeans DEFENSE that was overturned in an unrelated case 10 years later. The original acquittal stood as it had been confirmed by a SC. As usual, Vix doesn't know what she's talking about.

LondonJohn said:

LOL. You have inside knowledge of how this book was written, do you?

Or is it simply your fevered imagination coupled with your vindictive attitude towards Knox?

***DING DING!!*** We have a winner!

Click to expand...

Waiting to be Heard was written by Linda Kulman, so your hysteria is rather misplaced.

LondonJohn said:

What?? Tip for you: do get a closer relationship with factual truth and honesty, and stop writing vindictive incorrect crap like this. OK?

(And it's Mez's, not Mez' (though of course it should actually be Meredith's or Kercher's, for anyone looking to be taken seriously in a debate about this case). Your poor grammar makes your posts rather hard to read.)






Hmmm. You have an awful lot to learn, Vixen. Starting with things like this.

Click to expand...

Aileen Wuornos was a self-professed - and proud - hooker. She killed her Johns.

Why is reality so hard to accept?

Vixen said:

Waiting to be Heard was written by Linda Kulman, so your hysteria is rather misplaced.

Click to expand...

Oh, just stop embarrassing yourself. Kulman collaborated with Knox. She didn't write the book. Do you hate Knox so much that you can't even acknowledge that?

"An award-winning journalist and author, Kulman has collaborated on seven nonfiction books, including the New York Times bestselling memoir, Waiting to Be Heard, Amanda Knox’s personal account of her wrongful imprisonment in Italy."

Vixen said:

Aileen Wuornos was a self-professed - and proud - hooker. She killed her Johns.

Why is reality so hard to accept?

Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:

Oh, just stop embarrassing yourself. Kulman collaborated with Knox. She didn't write the book. Do you hate Knox so much that you can't even acknowledge that?

"An award-winning journalist and author, Kulman has collaborated on seven nonfiction books, including the New York Times bestselling memoir, Waiting to Be Heard, Amanda Knox’s personal account of her wrongful imprisonment in Italy."

Click to expand...

Linda Kulman wrote the book. As in 'as told to'.

Stacyhs said:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/7166961b5c7380a90d.jpg[/qimg]

Click to expand...

It is a statement of fact Wuornos was a psychopathic serial killer. Pardon me if I have used the wrong terminology for your sensibilities.

Vixen said:

Linda Kulman wrote the book. As in 'as told to'.

Click to expand...

Maybe you better tell Linda Kulman because she's unaware of that.

I have collaborated on seven nonfiction books, working successfully with a group of diverse people to shape their personal, and sometimes painful, stories into compelling narratives.

These include Amanda Knox’s New York Times bestselling memoir, Waiting to Be Heard;

Click to expand...

https://www.lindakulman.com/bio/

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Vixen said:

Aileen Wuornos was a self-professed - and proud - hooker. She killed her Johns.

Why is reality so hard to accept?

Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/7166961b5c7380a90d.jpg[/qimg]

Click to expand...

Vixen said:

It is a statement of fact Wuornos was a psychopathic serial killer. Pardon me if I have used the wrong terminology for your sensibilities.

Click to expand...

Did you notice the part I highlighted wasn't about Wuornos? I know she was a sex worker. I never said she wasn't. Do try and pay attention.

Stacyhs said:

Maybe you better tell Linda Kulman because she's unaware of that.


https://www.lindakulman.com/bio/

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Click to expand...

It is a statement of fact that Kulman wrote the Knox book and Gumbel the Sollecito book.


This is important because by getting a normal third party person to write it up, they were able to insert themselves into it with normal human feelings. For example, Kulman trying to imagine what it must have been like to have been told by a bent Italian prison doctor that she had HIV out of sheer spite and forced to present a list of all her partners. And Gumbel's bleeding heart account of how Sollecito so honourably refused to let Mignini force him to implicate Knox. Hence, 'Honor Bound'.

Vixen said:

It is a statement of fact that Kulman wrote the Knox book and Gumbel the Sollecito book.


This is important because by getting a normal third party person to write it up, they were able to insert themselves into it with normal human feelings. For example, Kulman trying to imagine what it must have been like to have been told by a bent Italian prison doctor that she had HIV out of sheer spite and forced to present a list of all her partners. And Gumbel's bleeding heart account of how Sollecito so honourably refused to let Mignini force him to implicate Knox. Hence, 'Honor Bound'.

Click to expand...

One day you'll read back to these sorts of posts and be very embarrassed.

Stacyhs said:

Did you notice the part I highlighted wasn't about Wuornos? I know she was a sex worker. I never said she wasn't. Do try and pay attention.

Click to expand...

Explain what is wrong with the wording. Wournos' self-description is 'prostitute'.

Here's the video. apx 48" in.

Herewith also the bit that reminded me of Knox demanding the Kercher family meet her.

"Here's a message to the families: YOU owe Me, not, I owe you".

Where have we heard that before? 'The Kerchers are to blame for my conviction'.

Wuornos admitted later she killed in cold blood and it had nothing to do with self-defence.

Stacyhs said:

Maybe you better tell Linda Kulman because she's unaware of that.


https://www.lindakulman.com/bio/

Stop embarrassing yourself.

Click to expand...

My own conspiratorial spidey-senses are on overdrive here.

It's a simple fact that Vixen herself once helped Nick van der Leek with his cut and paste "books" on famous murder cases.

Maybe Vixen is now claiming that she deserves to be credited as the real author of his plagiarisms? She should be careful, NvdL was once suspended from Amazon for plagiarizing from......

...... Karen Pruett, who herself is now an Amazon-recognized author!

Vixen said:

Explain what is wrong with the wording. Wournos' self-description is 'prostitute'.

Here's the video. apx 48" in.

Herewith also the bit that reminded me of Knox demanding the Kercher family meet her.

"Here's a message to the families: YOU owe Me, not, I owe you".

Where have we heard that before? 'The Kerchers are to blame for my conviction'.

Wuornos admitted later she killed in cold blood and it had nothing to do with self-defence.

Click to expand...

Do you not get embarrassed when you make up stuff like this?

Numbers said:

Yes, I am confident that we are in agreement.

The intent of my post was to provide more detail on the "judicial logic" used by the Marasca CSC panel and the Nencini (as well as Hellmann and Massei) courts

I've posted before on my disagreement with the choice of the translator(s) who supplied "acclaimed fact" (acclaimed meaning "enthusiastically praised") for "dato conclamato" (translating to, for example, "overt given" or "confirmed").

Click to expand...

Correcting my typo.

BTW, working backwards from "acclaimed", the closest Italian equivalent to that word is "acclamato", according to Collins Reverso. The similarity of "conclamato" to "acclamato" may explain the confusion in the English by the translator(s).

To gain some insight into how long Italy may take to finally resolve the ECHR case Knox v. Italy to the satisfaction of the Committee of Ministers (CoM) of the Council of Europe, I examined the timing of some roughly similar cases against Italy that are now closed and that are now pending, as listed in HUDOC EXEC*. By "roughly similar" I mean that the CoM case category (called "theme domain" by the CoM) was one that matched one of the two assigned by the CoM to Knox v. Italy. (Note that my search method may have missed some cases.)

The two case categories (theme domains) assigned by the CoM to Knox v. Italy are**:

1. Access to and efficient functioning of justice: Unfair judicial proceedings (criminal charges)

2. Right to life and protection against torture

Results:

Among the closed leading cases, there are 4 cases with case category #1, and 2 other cases with case category #2, for a total of 6 cases. Of the 6 cases, 3 cases took 3 1/2 to less than 4 years to reach final resolution after final ECHR judgment. The other 3 cases took 4 1/2 to 8 1/2 years to reach final resolution.

Among the pending leading cases, there are 5 cases, including Knox v. Italy, that share the same case categories as Knox v. Italy. One of these cases (Cestaro v. Italy) represents 5 other repetitive cases, while a second (Saba v. Italy) represents 1 other repetitive case. As of 12/12/2021, the approximate length of time since the final ECHR judgment date ranged from 1 1/2 years to 7 1/2 years; Knox v. Italy being about 2 1/2 years since its final ECHR judgment date of 24 June 2019.

The Country Fact Sheet for Italy published by a branch of the CoM provides an overview of how Italian law (including its Constitution) and legal practice have been changed in response to ECHR judgments.***

* Source: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22EXECDocumentTypeCollection%22:[%22CEC%22]}

I filtered by country (Italy) and theme domain to obtain the results.

** Source: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

*** https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/italy

Vixen said:

It is a statement of fact that Kulman wrote the Knox book and Gumbel the Sollecito book.


This is important because by getting a normal third party person to write it up, they were able to insert themselves into it with normal human feelings. For example, Kulman trying to imagine what it must have been like to have been told by a bent Italian prison doctor that she had HIV out of sheer spite and forced to present a list of all her partners. And Gumbel's bleeding heart account of how Sollecito so honourably refused to let Mignini force him to implicate Knox. Hence, 'Honor Bound'.

Click to expand...

You're really big on these "statement of fact" thingies, aren't you? Well, here's one more for you - you're full of crap.

Kulman and Gumbel are ghostwriters. One of the things ghostwriters do is assist non-authors write books. There is nothing in this relationship that implies the ghostwriter creates or modifies the content. Their role is to structure the content to make the book readable, or as Amanda puts it, "turned my rambling into writing". To infer anything more is dishonest and disingenuous, and yet this is precisely what you are trying to do.

Amanda offers up her thoughts on the false HIV results, how it might have happened and why. You apparently didn't care for what she had to say as it suggests there may have been a deliberate, immoral if not illegal motive behind it, so you immediately try to impugn the comment by writing “A book ghost written by someone who was not there.” It matters not whether the ghostwriter was there or not as the comment is coming from Amanda.

You, of course, have not a shred of evidence that Kulman influenced the content of the book yet here you are claiming this is exactly what she did. This isn't embarrassing behavior on your part, it's shameful.

TruthCalls said:

You're really big on these "statement of fact" thingies, aren't you? Well, here's one more for you - you're full of crap.

Kulman and Gumbel are ghostwriters. One of the things ghostwriters do is assist non-authors write books. There is nothing in this relationship that implies the ghostwriter creates or modifies the content. Their role is to structure the content to make the book readable, or as Amanda puts it, "turned my rambling into writing". To infer anything more is dishonest and disingenuous, and yet this is precisely what you are trying to do.

Amanda offers up her thoughts on the false HIV results, how it might have happened and why. You apparently didn't care for what she had to say as it suggests there may have been a deliberate, immoral if not illegal motive behind it, so you immediately try to impugn the comment by writing “A book ghost written by someone who was not there.” It matters not whether the ghostwriter was there or not as the comment is coming from Amanda.

You, of course, have not a shred of evidence that Kulman influenced the content of the book yet here you are claiming this is exactly what she did. This isn't embarrassing behavior on your part, it's shameful.

Click to expand...

I suggest that this assessment is not correct.

"Ghostwriters" are generally unacknowledged authors of a work credited to another. For example:

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

Click to expand...

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwriter

In contrast, Kulman was acknowledged by Knox in her book as an editor, and Gumbel was acknowledged by Sollecito in his book as co-author.

It's a general practice for books to be subject to review by one or more editors, including sometimes editors hired by the author, as well as editors hired by the publisher.

It's not at all surprising that Sollecito, not a native speaker of English, would seek an English-speaking co-author to write a book in English.

A response to a posted misstatement by perhaps unintentionally agreeing to part of its falsehood, perhaps a falsehood based on misuse of terminology, may lead to confusion.

I recall a somewhat similar episode where a poster responded in agreement to another poster's claim that the Marasca CSC panel MR only annulled the Nencini court conviction and did not actually acquit Knox and Sollecito. This confusion was based on the failure to recognize that the MR's disposition (the PQM, the "For these reasons" section), the operative part of the judgment, used only the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) article number, and not the Italian word, for acquittal. Similarly, in the Boninsegna court MR, the crimes attributed to the police and Mignini, if Knox's statements are taken to be true, are listed only by Criminal Code (CP) article number in a beginning section. There is no difference in legal effect in either case. It's the same as when one orders by number from a restaurant where each menu item has been given a distinct number.

Numbers said:

In contrast, Kulman was acknowledged by Knox in her book as an editor, and Gumbel was acknowledged by Sollecito in his book as co-author.

It's a general practice for books to be subject to review by one or more editors, including sometimes editors hired by the author, as well as editors hired by the publisher.

It's not at all surprising that Sollecito, not a native speaker of English, would seek an English-speaking co-author to write a book in English.

Click to expand...

When the PMF websites were up and running, the haters there often crawled over themselves to riff like Vixen has, competing to compose the most vile interpretation of anything to do with the case - the sole object was to come up with the sluttiest remark they could.

Vixen, here, continues that tradition by purposely distorting the distinctions between ghost-writer, co-author and editor. It would be worse if Vixen was not doing that 'on purpose'.

Back in the PMF days, if they'd read your post here, Numbers, back at PMF you'd be accused of having a sexual interest in the case. If you tried for a civil response, you'd be bullied and cat-called.

Vixen is about the only one left who purposely tries to skew authorship distinctions, to bad mouth anyone to do with the case. Vixen even said above that the chief aim of those secondary editor/authors was to instill some humanity into the text, of otherwise cold hearted people.

I wonder what Rorschach would say about Vixen's posts?

Numbers said:

To gain some insight into how long Italy may take to finally resolve the ECHR case Knox v. Italy to the satisfaction of the Committee of Ministers (CoM) of the Council of Europe, I examined the timing of some roughly similar cases against Italy that are now closed and that are now pending, as listed in HUDOC EXEC*. By "roughly similar" I mean that the CoM case category (called "theme domain" by the CoM) was one that matched one of the two assigned by the CoM to Knox v. Italy. (Note that my search method may have missed some cases.)
The two case categories (theme domains) assigned by the CoM to Knox v. Italy are**:

1. Access to and efficient functioning of justice: Unfair judicial proceedings (criminal charges)

2. Right to life and protection against torture

Results:

Among the closed leading cases, there are 4 cases with case category #1, and 2 other cases with case category #2, for a total of 6 cases. Of the 6 cases, 3 cases took 3 1/2 to less than 4 years to reach final resolution after final ECHR judgment. The other 3 cases took 4 1/2 to 8 1/2 years to reach final resolution.

Among the pending leading cases, there are 5 cases, including Knox v. Italy, that share the same case categories as Knox v. Italy. One of these cases (Cestaro v. Italy) represents 5 other repetitive cases, while a second (Saba v. Italy) represents 1 other repetitive case. As of 12/12/2021, the approximate length of time since the final ECHR judgment date ranged from 1 1/2 years to 7 1/2 years; Knox v. Italy being about 2 1/2 years since its final ECHR judgment date of 24 June 2019.

The Country Fact Sheet for Italy published by a branch of the CoM provides an overview of how Italian law (including its Constitution) and legal practice have been changed in response to ECHR judgments.***

* Source: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng#{%22EXECDocumentTypeCollection%22:[%22CEC%22]}

I filtered by country (Italy) and theme domain to obtain the results.

** Source: https://hudoc.exec.coe.int/eng?i=004-52517

*** https://www.coe.int/en/web/execution/italy

Click to expand...

Some of the interesting cases that my search method missed include:

Dorigo v. Italy [8 1/2], Luca v. Italy [4 1/2], and Craxi v. Italy [2].

The numbers in square brackets are the approximate time in years between the ECHR final judgment date and the final resolution to the CoM's satisfaction.

Those cases each involved the use of (pre-trial) testimony from a witness who was not cross-examined during the trial. This was essentially what the prosecution attempted to do in the Knox - Sollecito case by introducing the results of Guede's trial into the Knox - Sollecito trial. The Marasca CSC panel MR called it out as a violation of Italian law and constitution, but it was the 3 ECHR cases listed above that led to the changes in Italian law and constitution that prohibited such unfair practices.

These cases are of interest because they illustrate the strong influence the ECHR and CoM have in Italy's evolution toward having stronger human rights laws relating to its criminal justice system, including through fundamental changes in its constitution.

Paragraphs 20 through 30 of the Luca v. Italy judgment give a summary of the state of Italian law about the use of unexamined testimony to convict up to February 2001.

Other interesting reading (which I have previously cited) is the English translation by the Italian Constitutional Court of its judgment number 113 of 2011 which essentially requires the Italian courts to consider* a request for revision of a conviction when that request is based upon the final judgment of the ECHR that the conviction was the result of an unfair trial. See:

https://www.cortecostituzionale.it/documenti/download/doc/recent_judgments/S2011113_en.pdf

* Which is not necessarily to grant.

Bill Williams said:

When the PMF websites were up and running, the haters there often crawled over themselves to riff like Vixen has, competing to compose the most vile interpretation of anything to do with the case - the sole object was to come up with the sluttiest remark they could.

Vixen, here, continues that tradition by purposely distorting the distinctions between ghost-writer, co-author and editor. It would be worse if Vixen was not doing that 'on purpose'.

Back in the PMF days, if they'd read your post here, Numbers, back at PMF you'd be accused of having a sexual interest in the case. If you tried for a civil response, you'd be bullied and cat-called.

Vixen is about the only one left who purposely tries to skew authorship distinctions, to bad mouth anyone to do with the case. Vixen even said above that the chief aim of those secondary editor/authors was to instill some humanity into the text, of otherwise cold hearted people.

I wonder what Rorschach would say about Vixen's posts?

Click to expand...

I would assure everyone that my interest in the ECHR is purely platonic, but that assurance might be taken the wrong way.

Numbers said:

I would assure everyone that my interest in the ECHR is purely platonic, but that assurance might be taken the wrong way.

Click to expand...

But can you explain the pic of you in an ECHR speedo?

Bill Williams said:

But can you explain the pic of you in an ECHR speedo?

Click to expand...

Shhhhh!

Bill Williams said:

When the PMF websites were up and running, the haters there often crawled over themselves to riff like Vixen has, competing to compose the most vile interpretation of anything to do with the case - the sole object was to come up with the sluttiest remark they could.

Vixen, here, continues that tradition by purposely distorting the distinctions between ghost-writer, co-author and editor. It would be worse if Vixen was not doing that 'on purpose'.

Back in the PMF days, if they'd read your post here, Numbers, back at PMF you'd be accused of having a sexual interest in the case. If you tried for a civil response, you'd be bullied and cat-called.

Vixen is about the only one left who purposely tries to skew authorship distinctions, to bad mouth anyone to do with the case. Vixen even said above that the chief aim of those secondary editor/authors was to instill some humanity into the text, of otherwise cold hearted people.

I wonder what Rorschach would say about Vixen's posts?

Click to expand...

Projection?

Vixen said:

Aileen Wuornos was a self-professed - and proud - hooker. She killed her Johns.

Why is reality so hard to accept?

Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:

[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/imagehosting/7166961b5c7380a90d.jpg[/qimg]

Click to expand...

Vixen said:

It is a statement of fact Wuornos was a psychopathic serial killer. Pardon me if I have used the wrong terminology for your sensibilities.

Click to expand...

Stacyhs said:

Did you notice the part I highlighted wasn't about Wuornos? I know she was a sex worker. I never said she wasn't. Do try and pay attention.

Click to expand...

Vixen said:

Explain what is wrong with the wording. Wournos' self-description is 'prostitute'.
Here's the video. apx 48" in.

Herewith also the bit that reminded me of Knox demanding the Kercher family meet her.

"Here's a message to the families: YOU owe Me, not, I owe you".

Where have we heard that before? 'The Kerchers are to blame for my conviction'.

Wuornos admitted later she killed in cold blood and it had nothing to do with self-defence.

Click to expand...

Try reading the highlighted parts again...this time very slowly...and see if you can figure out where you went wrong. If you can't, here's a clue:

Bill Williams said:

One day you'll read back to these sorts of posts and be very embarrassed.

Click to expand...

Hell, I'm almost embarrassed just reading them.

Vixen said:

It is a statement of fact that Kulman wrote the Knox book and Gumbel the Sollecito book.


This is important because by getting a normal third party person to write it up, they were able to insert themselves into it with normal human feelings. For example, Kulman trying to imagine what it must have been like to have been told by a bent Italian prison doctor that she had HIV out of sheer spite and forced to present a list of all her partners. And Gumbel's bleeding heart account of how Sollecito so honourably refused to let Mignini force him to implicate Knox. Hence, 'Honor Bound'.

Click to expand...

Well, I guess you would know better than Kulman herself who wrote that she collaborated with Knox on the book. After all, you have quite the ability in knowing what others are thinking as you demonstrate quite often. It's a gift.

An example of a ghostwriter would be Michael D'Antonio who wrote Art of the Dealfor Trump.

Numbers said:

I suggest that this assessment is not correct.

"Ghostwriters" are generally unacknowledged authors of a work credited to another. For example:



Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghostwriter

In contrast, Kulman was acknowledged by Knox in her book as an editor, and Gumbel was acknowledged by Sollecito in his book as co-author.

It's a general practice for books to be subject to review by one or more editors, including sometimes editors hired by the author, as well as editors hired by the publisher.

It's not at all surprising that Sollecito, not a native speaker of English, would seek an English-speaking co-author to write a book in English.

A response to a posted misstatement by perhaps unintentionally agreeing to part of its falsehood, perhaps a falsehood based on misuse of terminology, may lead to confusion.

I recall a somewhat similar episode where a poster responded in agreement to another poster's claim that the Marasca CSC panel MR only annulled the Nencini court conviction and did not actually acquit Knox and Sollecito. This confusion was based on the failure to recognize that the MR's disposition (the PQM, the "For these reasons" section), the operative part of the judgment, used only the Italian Code of Criminal Procedure (CPP) article number, and not the Italian word, for acquittal. Similarly, in the Boninsegna court MR, the crimes attributed to the police and Mignini, if Knox's statements are taken to be true, are listed only by Criminal Code (CP) article number in a beginning section. There is no difference in legal effect in either case. It's the same as when one orders by number from a restaurant where each menu item has been given a distinct number.

Click to expand...

Linda Kulman's own Linkedin page lists her as "Ghostwriter/Editor/Writer" so she is, in fact, a ghostwriter, amongst other things. So, is it correct to call her a ghostwriter for WTBH?

From the FreelanceWriting website;

"Ghostwriters are also hired to write books for people. In such cases, the author of the book is the person who hires the ghostwriter, unless the book author wants to share some of the credit with the ghost. In this case, the ghost may be listed as a coauthor or as the “editor” of the book; generally, this is listed somewhere in the acknowledgments page."

That seems to apply quite aptly in this case. Regardless, I believe this is mostly semantics.

The point is, the content of the book is Amanda's. Vixen was attempting to discredit something Amanda included in her book by implying that Kulman wrote it and therefore anything she disagrees with is nothing more than Kulman taking creative liberties with the truth. Amanda hired Kulman to help her organize her thoughts into a well structured book, not to create content.

TruthCalls said:

The point is, the content of the book is Amanda's. Vixen was attempting to discredit something Amanda included in her book by implying that Kulman wrote it and therefore anything she disagrees with is nothing more than Kulman taking creative liberties with the truth. Amanda hired Kulman to help her organize her thoughts into a well structured book, not to create content.

Click to expand...

Attempting? That's all Vixen ever does with anything to do with obvious innocence.

The one thing never provides is evidence. Vixen passes on Mignini's claims. At least Mignini has one fan. We all need someone.

TruthCalls said:

Linda Kulman's own Linkedin page lists her as "Ghostwriter/Editor/Writer" so she is, in fact, a ghostwriter, amongst other things. So, is it correct to call her a ghostwriter for WTBH?

From the FreelanceWriting website;

"Ghostwriters are also hired to write books for people. In such cases, the author of the book is the person who hires the ghostwriter, unless the book author wants to share some of the credit with the ghost. In this case, the ghost may be listed as a coauthor or as the “editor” of the book; generally, this is listed somewhere in the acknowledgments page."

That seems to apply quite aptly in this case. Regardless, I believe this is mostly semantics.

The point is, the content of the book is Amanda's. Vixen was attempting to discredit something Amanda included in her book by implying that Kulman wrote it and therefore anything she disagrees with is nothing more than Kulman taking creative liberties with the truth. Amanda hired Kulman to help her organize her thoughts into a well structured book, not to create content.

Click to expand...

My impression is that some of the posters claiming that Linda Kulman was the ghostwriter of Amanda Knox's book is that those posters are seeking to lessen Knox's reputation. Such posters appear to deny that Knox is capable of expressing herself in writing, or to claim that the substance and/or tone of Knox's book is fabricated. However, Knox has published articles, delivered speeches, and presented podcasts. She appears to be a capable writer and speaker.

On Kulman's website*, she states that she collaborated with Knox on Knox's book, and Kulman is credited in Knox's book as editor.

On her website, Kulman states:

I have collaborated on seven nonfiction books, working successfully with a group of diverse people to shape their personal, and sometimes painful, stories into compelling narratives.

These include Amanda Knox’s New York Times bestselling memoir, Waiting to Be Heard; Hillary Clinton’s Dear Socks, Dear Buddy: Kids’ Letters to the First Pets, written while she was First Lady; New York Governor Andrew Cuomo’s All Things Possible: Setbacks and Success in Politics and Life; George McGovern’s What It Means to Be a Democrat; George Foreman’s Guide to Life: How to Get Up Off the Canvas When Life Knocks You Down; and James Carville’s We’re Right, They’re Wrong. Each of these projects required me to become an expert on a nuanced topic, whether on the Italian legal system, the root causes of homelessness, heavyweight wrestling, or gun safety reform.

Click to expand...

Editors typically fill one or more of three roles: development, copy, or proofing.** Development editors work on the broader aspects of a work, such as its structure, while copy editors address more detailed aspects such as style.

It's is impossible for us as outsiders to say with certainty what level of editorial or writing assistance Kulman provided to Knox in the preparation of Knox's book. I suspect that Knox had significant time to devote to her book, probably unlike some others Kulman assisted.

My view is that a person who is credited as an editor of a work is not necessarily a ghostwriter of that work. In that case, I would agree with your statement:

Amanda hired Kulman to help her organize her thoughts into a well structured book, not to create content.

Click to expand...

But if Knox hired Kulman as a ghostwriter, then would it not be justified to consider that Kulman, and not Knox, had created the content?

* https://www.lindakulman.com/bio/

** https://eliteauthors.com/blog/what-does-a-book-editor-really-do/

Numbers said:

But if Knox hired Kulman as a ghostwriter, then would it not be justified to consider that Kulman, and not Knox, had created the content?

Click to expand...

That's not how I would interpret it, no. WTBH is a memoir, a narrative of Amanda's personal memories. That is the content. I have no idea what role Kulman played in writing the book, but whatever it was it does not change the fact that the book is still Amanda's memoir, not Kulman's.

Honestly, I still think you're arguing semantics but the point is moot.

TruthCalls said:

That's not how I would interpret it, no. WTBH is a memoir, a narrative of Amanda's personal memories. That is the content. I have no idea what role Kulman played in writing the book, but whatever it was it does not change the fact that the book is still Amanda's memoir, not Kulman's.

Honestly, I still think you're arguing semantics but the point is moot.

Click to expand...

I think that the problem is that a loose definition of "ghostwriter" is being used by some (as shown in some online sources) to include the functions of editors, content conveyors, and content creators under that one term.

First, in my opinion, the term "ghostwriter" is most appropriately used to describe when the identity of the author of a written work is suppressed or unacknowledged.

Second, when a person seeking to write a memoir enlists another person, probably more skilled and experienced in writing and editing books (for example, because the memoir is to be in a language that is not the memoirist's native one, and the memoirist has never before written a book), to help write the memoir, and acknowledges that person as a co-author, then that is not "ghostwriting".

Third, when a person seeking to write a memoir enlists another person, probably more skilled and experienced in writing and editing books (for example, because the memoirist has never before written a book) to help edit the memoir, and acknowledges that person as an editor, then that is not "ghostwriting".

The sizzle

There's the sizzle, then there's the steak.

When there's no steak, you have to fake the sizzle with mouth sounds hoping no one pulls back the curtain.

Ever since the 2011 trial, there'd been no steak. Never had been. So it was that the two PMF websites as well as Peter Q's place had to up the sizzle.

That meant they had to up the character assassination. Hopefully the sheer volume of their sizzle would hide that for about a decade now, there never had been a steak.

The latest sizzle? That Knox was not the author of her own book. Dudes and dudettes there, that's not even fat or gristle. Harper Collins and everyone else in the known universe knows who authored that book.

Unless all you have is the loud sizzle of jawing about what an editor is or isn't.

This won't be the last. It's what happened to the PMF websites, which are now defunct because ultimately people want to see the steak, rather than have that request drowned out by louder sizzle.

Numbers said:

I think that the problem is that a loose definition of "ghostwriter" is being used by some (as shown in some online sources) to include the functions of editors, content conveyors, and content creators under that one term.

First, in my opinion, the term "ghostwriter" is most appropriately used to describe when the identity of the author of a written work is suppressed or unacknowledged.

Second, when a person seeking to write a memoir enlists another person, probably more skilled and experienced in writing and editing books (for example, because the memoir is to be in a language that is not the memoirist's native one, and the memoirist has never before written a book), to help write the memoir, and acknowledges that person as a co-author, then that is not "ghostwriting".

Third, when a person seeking to write a memoir enlists another person, probably more skilled and experienced in writing and editing books (for example, because the memoirist has never before written a book) to help edit the memoir, and acknowledges that person as an editor, then that is not "ghostwriting".

Click to expand...

Here's what Amanda says of Linda Kulman in WTBH;

"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 rambling into writing, and taught me so much in the meantime. I am grateful to her family - Ralph, Sam, Julia - for sharing her with me for so long."

Ghostwriter, editor, writer, coach, mentor, psychologist... who knows what the proper title(s) are. At this point all I can say is I'm sorry I ever used the term ghostwriter as it was completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Let's just pretend I said "editor" instead and leave it at that. The point remains exactly the same.

Bill Williams said:

There's the sizzle, then there's the steak. When there's no steak, you have to fake the sizzle with mouth sounds hoping no one pulls back the curtain.
Ever since the 2011 trial, there'd been no steak. Never had been. So it was that the two PMF websites as well as Peter Q's place had to up the sizzle.

That meant they had to up the character assassination. Hopefully the sheer volume of their sizzle would hide that for about a decade now, there never had been a steak.

The latest sizzle? That Knox was not the author of her own book. Dudes and dudettes there, that's not even fat or gristle. Harper Collins and everyone else in the known universe knows who authored that book.

Unless all you have is the loud sizzle of jawing about what an editor is or isn't.

This won't be the last. It's what happened to the PMF websites, which are now defunct because ultimately people want to see the steak, rather than have that request drowned out by louder sizzle.

Click to expand...

Yes.

It's also the m.o. of those who favor not bothering with defense rights or scientifically valid and effective criminal investigations.

Here's a past example of sizzle with no steak:

Posters here may recall when Amanda Knox was invited to the University of Windsor in Windsor, Ontario, Canada by their Law in Defence of the Wrongfully Convicted and Speakers Committee.

Vixen, IIRC, raised the issue that Knox would be violating Canadian law by entering Canada because Knox was, according to Vixen, a felon as a result of having been finally convicted for calunnia in Italy.

In fact, Canadian law bars felons from entering Canada unless they have notified the proper Canadian authorities and have received permission. US citizens and residents who are felons attempting to cross into Canada are especially likely to be detected because, according to one law firm, Canada has access to US criminal records.*

Perhaps not surprisingly, Knox entered Canada, gave her talk at U Windsor Law School, and returned to the US without known incident.

How could this happen?

1. Amanda Knox is not a felon in the US. As far as generally known, she has no criminal (misdemeanor or felony) record at all in the US.

2. Knox was wrongfully convicted of calunnia by Italy; at the time of her entry to Canada, her application seeking to have Italy declared in violation of her rights under international law was already lodged with the ECHR. Canada is an observer state at the ECHR and may well have been aware of this from being an observer or from being informed by Knox or U Windsor.

3. U Windsor Law School would most likely be aware of Canadian border entry law and would inform Knox of any issues that could arise so that they would be resolved prior to her entry. Otherwise they would most likely not have invited her.

4. Calunnia - the Italian crime of knowingly making a false accusation to the police or judicial authorities against someone - may not be considered a crime of potential significant harm to the public in Canada. This sort of crime is most likely to occur in an interrogation or court testimony. The crimes of most concern relating to Canadian entry would be those not requiring special circumstances such as an interrogation and that endanger persons directly. One Canadian law firm offers a short list of common offenses of concern.**

Rather than resulting in any new legal problems for Knox, her talk at U Windsor Law School resulted in a least one online post*** and one academic paper**** about the police "errors" in her wrongful conviction for the murder/rape of Meredith Kercher.


* https://www.temporaryresidentpermitcanada.com/felony.php

** https://www.canadavisa.com/inadmissibility-canada-common-offences.html

Although the Canadian border strictly prohibits foreigners from gaining access to the country if they have a recent criminal record that equates to a hybrid or indictable offense, they are particular stringent on Americans with a felony. This means the absolute only way for a criminally inadmissible felon to ensure successful passage into Canada is to get approved for a Temporary Resident Permit or Criminal Rehabilitation.

Click to expand...

*** https://www.defencegroup.ca/blog/justice-denied-the-wrongful-conviction-of-amanda-knox/

In a recent talk delivered at the University of Windsor, Faculty of Law, Amanda Knox went into detail about how unreliable DNA evidence and false confessions tainted the investigation of Meredith Kercher’s murder, which put her unjustly behind bars.

Click to expand...

**** https://www.coursehero.com/file/84472690/Case-studydocx/

Amanda Knox: The significance of proper crime scene security and evidence collection
University of Windsor
FRSC 1107: Introductory Crime Scene Investigation
Dr. Pardeep Jarsa
November 11, 2020
Case Study

Click to expand...