Friday, August 07, 2015

Knox Book Phenomenon: PR Reaction Way Too Strident & Only Grows Suspicion She DID Do It

Posted by Nick van der Leek

Reporters, crime-book writers, and photojournalists, Nick van der Leek and Lisa Wilson

Overkill. A Sure sign of bad PR. As someone once said “An eye for an eye leaves everyone blind.”

What’s interesting for Lisa Wilson and myself as True Crime authors and wrieters of Dark Matter and Deceit is that there are not only always two sides to every story, but two factions as well. 

When the one faction believes us not to belong to theirs, well, then there is war.  Mudslinging, slander, insults ““ everything except a genuine discussion of the case.

From where Lisa Wilson and I stand, which is hopefully in the middle and on the side of Lady Justice [who is blind, or blindfolded] both factions are mirror-images of each other.  Both sides are throwing stones, like the protagonists in the Middle East conflict, both have their grievances, and plenty of stones to throw. 

And like the Middle East, the two factions in the Amanda Knox case have been in a war of mostly words for years.  Who has won?  Amanda Knox seems to have eeked out some sort of victory, but though recently engaged, shows no signs of getting married, and it’s possible the wedding is off.

All is not always what it seems.

Before highlighting a few of our haters, I want to touch on a quick incident that happened on twitter literally in the last day.  We had one of our followers enthusiastically report on one of the books she’d read [on Jodi Arias] and promise to give a review the same day.  We get bad reviews and we get good reviews, and especially when a book is new, reviews matter.  When I followed up with a tweet and then a second tweet, our enthusiastic reader said she felt pressured and obligated and then blocked me on twitter.

What I’m trying to illustrate here is that even those you agree with our work aren’t necessarily above board themselves.  What we’re trying to achieve with our books isn’t merely justice in the court of public opinion, but we also want to encourage people to go out and live their lives in an honest, genuine and hopefully happily-ever-after way.  One of the ways we interrogate these cases is we try to fathom the underlying psychology of the criminals, and we try to understand these crimes as cautionary tales that we can learn from, and hopefully avoid spiralling into ourselves.

Which is why Lisa and I find the constant lobbing of stones and jibes a little unfortunate.  When I confronted one of our supporters with their constant ping pong [block, reporting, badmouthing etc especially on twitter], the response was:  but didn’t that debate suit you when we were reviewing your books.

We’ve love our reviewers to be honest, even when they disagree, especially when they disagree.  We’d hate our books to be part of a sort of football that is kicked about to score personal points for either side.  Our narrative isn’t intended to score points for either team, it’s intended to solve “˜the mystery’ of Meredith’s death.  Lisa and I see very little debate on that.  Maybe that’s fair given the time since Meredith’s death, but for me this is a crying shame.

I came into this investigation unsure of whom to believe.  When you see ““ as you see in the Middle East conflict ““ two sides engaged in a tit for tat battle, it’s hard to come away with a sense that either side is right.  It’s even harder to trust that either side is going to even be able to be unbiased and fair in their assessment of things.  Does that make sense?

Of the 30-odd books I’ve written and co-written with Lisa Wilson, DOUBT [on Amanda Knox] was the first to face accusations of plagiarism.  It became a lightning rod for haters and Pro Justice folk, and to date is my most reviewed book on Amazon by far.  To be honest, Amanda Knox’s fans are by far the most vindictive and malicious of the folk we’ve encountered through the course of nearly 20 True Crime books.  To be honest these people and their underhanded behaviour, even their language, don’t reflect well on their patron at all.

They descend on any criticism of Amanda in organised groups that tag team each other.  Do these people not have day jobs?  Because it’s hard to believe such tactical and practised viciousness isn’t bought and paid for.  Such frenzied attacks inspire responses, and there’s been a lot in the comments section under various reviews ““ good and bad ““ of DECEIT. Does that mean people actually read the narrative or are debating it?  In a few cases they are, and in a few cases people have contacted us and let us know where they have learnt something or where they disagree, and this is tremendously useful and helpful. 

But what about the plagiarism accusation?  It was at one time the most popular “˜agreed on’ review when DOUBT was published, so does that mean the plagiarism accusation was actually valid? Or was the accusation a cynical attempt by one side to throw a stone at another side because they didn’t agree with something.  Shoot the messenger in other words, forget the message. 

Why would someone ignore a message, ignore a narrative unless there’s an implied threat that it could be true? 

If it wasn’t true, would anyone really care?  But in the context of justice denied, the stakes are rather higher when truth and facts are obscured from the public view.  And then it seems, in order to defend the indefensible, one resorts to dirty tricks, like suppression of freedom of speech, and slander.  The biggest ironies are the accusations that we are profiting from the tragedy.

Or that we’re slandering someone in our books [that’s the real crime]. It’s ironic when a murder suspect and her boyfriend together earned $5 million for their books, and have numerous and very real slander charges they have faced. In Knox’s case she’s already been found guilty of her false incrimination of Lumumba.  Lumumba never got off because Knox said, “Oh, hang on, that’s not right, sorry I made a mistake, it wasn’t him.”  Lumumba got off because he had an alibi and someone from the bar came forward to vouch for him.  In Sollecito’s case he must still defend allegations of police conduct made in his book [and so must Knox’s parents.

Since Knox was found guilty of slander she served a few years for that.  She hasn’t paid restitution to Lumumba [who lost his job and moved to Poland] to date.  If Knox is innocent, why isn’t she suing the Italian authorities for wrongful imprisonment?  Lumumba did and got a hefty pay-out, so why doesn’t Amanda? Why aren’t we talking about that? But no, we ““ those of us writing books about the trial ““ we are the real criminals, we’re the slanderers, we’re profiting out of the loss of the poor victim [no not Kercher, Knox].  This is a crazy inversion of the facts, and only the intellectually weak actually fall for it.

Coming back to Pruett’s plagiarism accusation:  was it an exaggeration, was it a lie?  Was it based on real plagiarism?  Within a few days ““ subsequent to a phone call to Karen Pruett, and a lawyer’s letter delivered by overnight courier to her work address [she’s a hairdresser in Seattle]”“ DOUBT was once again available online.  We elected to remove any references we made to Pruett’s work ourselves [credited in every instance] and repackage the narrative without including references to Pruett’s timeline in a new book, DECEIT.  Of course then the accusation is that our views, since we haven’t referred to Pro Knoxers, is biased and unbalanced.  Interesting isn’t it: you quote them and they accuse you of plagiarism, you don’t quote them and they accuse you of being biased.

I only subsequently saw Pruett is endorsed on Amanda Knox’s own website, and was probably paid to research the timeline she produced for Ground Report, which is itself a site facing shutdown due to financial difficulties.  The first 80% of her research seemed fairly solid and reasonably unbiased, much of it did reference court testimony, but the last 20% [relating to the crucial timeline of the crime itself] became increasingly dodgy, and part of the original DOUBT narrative highlighted this. 

If Pruett had received a hefty payment for her timeline and someone had come along and analysed all of it only to find sections of it to be”¦.well”¦wanting, well, no wonder she wanted herself excised out of her book.  No wonder she wanted the book blocked.  So was it really about plagiarism then [because I referenced all quotes to Pruett, and all her quotes were italicised] or was it about Pruett protecting Pruett?

In the end the blocking of the book [for a few hours, perhaps a day or two] by haters created curiosity amongst the Pro Justice folk, and this was invaluable PR for us. Upwards of 40 people asked for a PDF of the original DOUBT manuscript to be sent to them, and at least half sent through carefully considered reviews and feedback.  As a result of these reviews and the endorsement of Meredith’s supporters, when DOUBT returned as DECEIT it immediately sold like hot cakes.

Right now it’s currently in the top 20 in Amazon’s “˜Criminal Procedure’ category, and the interest in that book has encouraged us to write a second [DARK MATTER, #15 on Amazon] , and in two weeks we begin with a third [UNDER SUSPICION].  We plan on writing around a dozen more books on this case, and we hope by around midway we will have galvanised a real conversation, not around “˜libellous wankers’ or “˜plagiarism’ or “˜removing Jesus from the Last Supper’ but the most legitimate questions of all:

1. Did Amanda Knox get away with murder?
2. Can the courts in Italy [or the USA or SA] be trusted, even when the world is watching?
3. Is justice up for sale, is it a PR game? 
4. If it is, what can we do as the Court of Public Opinion?
As someone sympathetic to Meredith Kercher wisely pointed out in a recent review, the biggest mystery in this case is that it is a mystery at all. My suggestion is we do something more constructive than throw stones at each other.


Good questions, Nick,...and everything very well said. Thank you.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 08/07/15 at 04:17 PM | #

”...there are not only always two sides to every story, but two factions as well.

When the one faction believes us not to belong to theirs, well, then there is war.  Mudslinging, slander, insults – everything except a genuine discussion of the case.

From where Lisa Wilson and I stand, which is hopefully in the middle and on the side of Lady Justice [who is blind, or blindfolded] both factions are mirror-images of each other.  Both sides are throwing stones, like the protagonists in the Middle East conflict, both have their grievances, and plenty of stones to throw.”

I totally agree and have felt for some time that this case uncannily and strongly taps any deep personal sense of injustice unconsciously harboured by adherents in both the pro- guilt and pro-innocence camps. It’s one thing to believe in guilt or otherwise but quite another to attack with real venom those who don’t share your view, or even those you think might share your view but suspiciously don’t have your fanaticism.

I believe Knox is guilty yet I have been angrily attacked by hotheads, who also believe in her guilt, for not following for example the “party line” on whether a journalist should be considered as “on our side”. This isn’t just laughably puerile, it’s verging on paranoia and madness.

In the end it seems clear that many people become peculiarly addicted to this case and obsessive - even though they may have started out as reasonable and with the noblest of intentions. When you begin to see fifth columnists lurking everywhere in your cause it’s surely a cue to find a more wholesome pastime, at least until a healthy perspective can be regained.

The case will no doubt go on, with or without our presence.

Posted by Odysseus on 08/07/15 at 06:54 PM | #

@Odysseus…well said, too. It’s quite right, about the divisiveness - very regrettable.

I may have said before, but - borderline personality disorder ( there is strong speculation that the profile fits Knox) has one well known and infallible characteristic : it polarises people, ‘pro’ and ‘against’ him/her, or hate them, the passions become vehement in their extremes, in each ‘camp’.

Therefore, say, a prominent person, some sort of leader within an office or department will polarise her staff into loyal devoted followers and those who can’t abide her. Families can be polarised likewise.

And so on - one can think of many examples.

There’s a charity, Kid’s Company, folding in chaos at the moment in the UK, and there it seems there were ‘favourites’ and non-favourites - who were afraid of the ‘charismatic’ leader.

I don’t know much about that particular one, but this divisive pattern is a pattern one can often see. Not for nothing is it called ‘personality DISorder’....disorder is spread.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 08/07/15 at 08:23 PM | #

I do think “two waring camps” is a disempowering notion and would suggest our possible consideration of a better way to think.

Opinion in any area - the sciences, politics, culture, even football no doubt - is well proven to fit into a standard distribution curve. 


At the extreme left there are the comparatively few early adopters and at the extreme right there are the diehard laggards who are not ever going to change their minds. They are shown in green above, and typically represent less than 5% of the whole.

Among professionals it is seen as a GOOD sign not a bad sign when those at one or other end (usually those losing big, feeling power slipping away) become fanatic in the way Nick (who himself writes mildly and cautiously) suggests. 

Most in any area including most reading and posting here are not at either of those extreme ends. Here it is in part because TJMK for a full year (mid 2008 to mid 2009) kept its powder dry and its mind not made up. In the earliest posts you can see the evolution toward thinking this was a well proven case.

In process management and marketing and theories of science there are some fine books on the distribution curve (S-curve) and how to get beyond “old paradigms” and move the main body through all the turbulence toward, well, the left (not political left, that is something else).

Not possible to summarise all of that here but one main insight is: dont ever, ever bet the bank on the fired-up early adopters to move the whole show along.

Early adopters may mean well but are in fact often a plague, too hot and so off-putting to most, and it will be cold hard facts that persuade key cold-minded opinion leaders in the huge middle ground to advance everyone on the lines that process-management science expects.

This body of vital techniques has been somewhat bedeviled by the Internet, and by the type of anonymous “experts” it gives a forum to who in old face-to-face days would have been laughed out of court.

In our case here, one end of the curve seems to be bedeviled also by those looking for career opportunities and cash payments, and some kind of psychic satisfaction, driven along by a big-bucks PR.

But as Nick van der Leek is arguing, this is looking increasingly suspect to the huge-middle crowd.

Many UK lawyers may have been misled by Fred Davies, but nail his lies of commission and commission, and they will abandon him, and he will be out on his own (as some readers think he actually realised late in his series - but in riding a tiger its the getting off part that is hard).

The huge-middle crowd in Italy are not any more persuaded by Marasca and Bruno than they were by Hellmann. I think we are looking at the end-game and those plaguing Nick on Amazon sense they have already lost.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/07/15 at 08:29 PM | #

But But But!!!
The other day I received a phone call from the FBI in Seattle with the basic warning to stop harassing dear Amanda Knox or I would be liable for criminal proceedings because yadda yadda yadda, it’s across state boundaries etc:

The real joke is that without a court order they can’t stop anything.

The real joke is that Knox (if she so wished) could block my writing on her blog at the stroke of a finger, something from her past history she has proven to be good at.

The real joke is that if they went after me they would have to go public, something they prefer not to do because they know that the more people who look at the case the more will realize just how guilty Knox is. I’m not talking about the Seattle bunch here since they are obviously third rate breading stock and beyond all hope, something like the believers of David Koresh or Jim Jones or any cult you like.

The real joke is that Steve Moore was behind it which proves once more that if you get too close to telling the truth, that Knox is guilty of the torture rape and murder of Meredith Kercher, they will come after you, or attempt to by making silly threats, and why not indeed since Knox is still considered a cash cow.

I was even asked if I intended to harm Knox in some way or get someone else to do it. Now That’s a very serious Joke since anyone who had a nefarious desire to perform grievous bodily harm would quite willingly admit to the FBI (Steve Moore) that they intended to do so.

Perhaps they will read this since I have never made any secret of just who I am. If they do then I would remind them that I made no declaration concerning my not writing on Knox blog with which I shall continue.

“Damn the torpedoes and pass the ammunition.”

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 08/07/15 at 09:01 PM | #

Right, Grahame.

We do believe, though, that this was not an official call, and since a few very tough real facts about the case and the legal scene and Steve Moore were shared with the guy heading that outlying unit (including that the Italians have put other arms of the FBI on the alert) there’s been no comeback at all. Given the Sollecito/Montreal connection, the FBI is lost to Knox’s cause.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/07/15 at 09:20 PM | #

@Grahame Rhodes. Shocking. It seems Steve Moore may be abusing FBI connections if he uses FBI clout to shut you down from commenting on someone’s blog or threatens to interfere with your free speech (something Moore cried loudly about when he thought Pepperdine was shutting his free speech down).

Shocking waste of FBI resources. He crushed BRMull with same threats. Discussion of this criminal case with the defendants reveling in their sick celebrity status, it’s a two-edged sword. They sought worldwide headlines and paid PR Marriott to get it for them on TV, newspaper, magazines. Then that makes Knox and codefendants public figures. Public figures, that means no longer private people, there’s greater latitude to discuss public figures. This website debates opinions and suggests various possibilities of her criminal involvement.

This is protected speech. Everyone should be cautious about libel and slander at all times, however.

Posted by Hopeful on 08/07/15 at 09:31 PM | #

Unfortunately, a desire to discuss this case on-line is impossible given the rabid Knox fans determination to hound people with insults, slurs and threats.  Like Knox herself, many of those who support her have shown themselves to suffer from personality disorders. 

A big bravo to Mr Rhodes for detrminedly having his say!

Posted by MHILL4 on 08/07/15 at 09:31 PM | #


“I think we are looking at the end-game and those plaguing Nick on Amazon sense they have already lost.” That’s encouraging!

Interesting application of what statisticians call the Normal Distribution where, as you show,  95% of observations lie within plus or minus 2 Standard Deviations of the mean and 99.7% within plus or minus 3. I agree that posters here don’t tend to be the rabid outliers - maybe because this is a well-argued and generally moderate forum, which is likely anathema to them?

Posted by Odysseus on 08/07/15 at 09:36 PM | #

A small addendum.

I have pointed out on Knox’s blog, and in no uncertain terms, that we are not going to go away even if it takes many years.

I for one will be still at this for as long as it takes until true justice is finally realized. The forces of evil have the faint hope that we would simply get tired of posting and digging for the truth and just fade away. Nothing could be further from it, the truth I mean.

That I believe has been the main bur under the saddle for the pro Knox bunch of banana’s and if they want to come after me they know where I am.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 08/08/15 at 12:03 AM | #

When entering the murky waters of commenting on videos or articles on Knox, the unpleasantness of her acolytes can be, to say the least, disheartening. The natural instinct is to reply in kind but this only seems to embolden them and as a politician of some infamy in the UK (George Galloway) said “if you wrestle with a chimney sweep, you can’t avoid getting as filthy as they are”. Sage words.

I much prefer poking at the weakness in their arguments (achingly simple to do) with a sharp stick before disengaging swiftly. Not that I’m an advocate of the Christian turn the other cheek ethos. If you hit me, I’ll try and hit you back twice as hard. But in the online world, the moral high ground is not too difficult to occupy when dealing with the idiots who idolise the murdering lowlife so turning an online cheek (having first rebutted their nonsense) can be quite empowering.

I suspect some of them may be paid by the word for their efforts so even more reason to keep any engagement to a minimum.

I fail to see how any normal person of even average IQ could read the whole of TJMK from its inception and not conclude Knox and Sollecito were guilty of the crimes they were accused of. As Peter mentions above, the site evolved its opinion in line with the evidence, starting out as non commital. The fact that it became more strident in its condemnation of all things Knox is entirely understandable in the face of the unbearable and illogical Knox PR machine. Someone had to stand up for truth and justice and this site has done so admirably.

I just hope it will continue to do so whilst this terrible miscarriage of justice exists. Bullies rely on acquiescent victims. The many people I admire who contribute articles and comments on this site will, I am sure, continue to keep fanning the last embers of the justice fire.

When it roars back to life, and I believe it will, there will be a great many of us warming ourselves beside it and basking in the reflected glory of Peter & Co’s monumental achievement.

Posted by davidmulhern on 08/08/15 at 03:01 AM | #

Nick:  Your post tile should be revised to: “Knox PR Reaction Way Too Fanatical - Only Helps Lead the Curious Reader to the Proof That She Killed Meredith Kercher.”

Posted by whatswisdom on 08/08/15 at 04:55 AM | #

The anonymity in the internet world brings out their true self. When a commenter resorts to abuse, it simply means that she/he has run out of her/his logical ammunition. I post rather infrequently because I too have a day job and too many responsibilities (and I cannot hope to win in the game of abuse) and, finally, yes, I am not interested in wrestling with a chimney sweep.

I personally believe that many of Amanda Knox’s supporters do believe that she is guilty. That is the basic reason, I think, they cannot argue on reason or logic. Just like Justice Hellman commented: that the real truth could be different. Or the surprise statement of Lawyer Bongiorno (on the latest verdict).

When you went for a PR agency (after the arrest of Amanda Knox) rather than hunting for a good lawyer, you gave up your own game. You told the world that you know that she has done it but she need to be saved. At any cost. Do I read you loud and clear?

Posted by chami on 08/08/15 at 09:28 AM | #


Good quote from George Galloway.

He is derided (mostly by knee-jerk authoritarian types) but I think he’s a brilliant debater and rhetorician. The way he single-handedly stood up to the US Senate committee, which had the bare-faced impertinence to accuse him of underhand oil dealings, was a wonder to behold. I particularly enjoyed:

“Senator, I am not now, nor have I ever been, an oil trader - and neither has anyone on my behalf. I have never seen a barrel of oil, owned one, bought one, sold one - and neither has anyone on my behalf. Now I know that standards have slipped in the last few years in Washington, but for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever having written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever, and you call that justice.

They might be a wee bit more careful with their accusations next time.

Posted by Odysseus on 08/08/15 at 11:07 AM | #

Subtle point Chami but very true. I agree that some of the Knoxen do indeed know she is guilty but they’re along for the ride. So empty are their own lives that they hitch themselves to the Knox wagon to inject a bit of something into their own. I’m sure the end game for these cult members is to one day receive a message from their heroine or, the ultimate prize, actually meet her.

I suspect the latter might prove underwhelming for most, except for the most deluded of their number i.e. the Moore’s, Clemente, Sforza etc etc. and these people just tend to be middle aged sleaze bags, hanging on to Knox’s long since faded looks and figure. She becomes more Edda like with each passing day, a chunky monkey as we say in Scotland.

I agree with your description of Galloway, Odysseus. He certainly divides opinion. Personally, I’m a fan although I find much to disagree with him on. He’s one of the very few I’ve seen give Christopher Hitchens a run for his money in debate.

Posted by davidmulhern on 08/08/15 at 12:34 PM | #

Chami and David

As you know Curt Knox made the PR choice astonishingly early. The instant flood of misinformation took the defense lawyers breaths away and one was fired when he protested.

Only a very few non-Italian lawyers have ever tried to insert themselves into the case. One was the flamboyant and flamboyantly wrong TV lawyer Joe Tacopina. No contract. Ann Bremner followed soon after. Also no contract. Since then no American lawyers tried a comprehensive rebuttal of the case.

The only lawyer who did try, Fred Davies (post on him below, more soon) was in the UK and in the huge series just ended got fact after fact after fact wrong. Dr Mignini and Dr Stefanoni and many other Italian justice officials Fred Davies smears could well protest in court on the same lines that Odysseus quotes George Galloway:

...for a lawyer you are remarkably cavalier with any idea of justice. I am here today but last week you already found me guilty. You traduced my name around the world without ever having asked me a single question, without ever having contacted me, without ever having written to me or telephoned me, without any attempt to contact me whatsoever, and you call that justice.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/08/15 at 10:18 PM | #

For me,
the viciousness of the crime and the sense that justice has not been served rankles me. I mostly post here and when I was taking time off I responded to some blog posts. It is not easy to keep ones cool when obvious lies are being perpetrated and a blatant disregard of court documents and credible evidence. I do not look at it as being on a particular “side” and wanting to sling mud at others. I have maintained that if you look at the evidence, the least one could surmise is that the perps are liars and all three gave different alibis on different occasions. Testimony was not consistent and Amanda committed collunia for which she served her time.
Innocent people normally do not lie, obfuscate the truth, falsely accuse others, contradict testimony, have blood mixed with victim, slander, hire PR, have no solid alibi and then write it all down in books. People have become so abusive and nasty on social media that it is not healthy to spend too much time interacting with such “unhealthy” people. One wonders how they act in real life? It takes courage to stand up for the truth and what is right. You will be a target if you stand up for justice.

Posted by Vinnie on 08/08/15 at 11:36 PM | #

Personally, I don’t consider the people who post at this forum or at .NET to be “at war.” I would caution against the fallacy of false equivalence.  I can’t agree when I hear it said, “this side is just like the other side” and, in its more usual form, “this side is just like the other side and everyone has forgotten about justice for Meredith.”  There might be, although I don’t know of any, a few individuals who fit such a description, but it’s a fallacy to think that people who stand up for truth and justice are the equivalent of the FOA. We are standing up for the truth and for reason.  We have the record to prove it.  I don’t like being compared to the FOA.  I don’t think it’s logical.  We are not two sides of the same coin.  We are and have always been here for truth and justice.  We are not exposing personal information.  We are not making threats.  We are not murder groupies.  And we don’t need to be “objective” like journalists.  It’s OK.  In fact, it’s necessary for us to have a point of view.  Whereas their entire side stands for a lie and their values as a group encourage abusive posting.

Posted by JohnQ on 08/09/15 at 04:08 AM | #


There is a difference between the collective property and individual property. A nation is made up of people and the property of the nation can be significantly different from the members. In fact, in an aggregation, new properties appear that are virtually absent in the individual.

In the same sense, the concept of morality and justice (they are collective properties) has evolved over time and is still, in some sense, evolving. There is always some spatial and temporal variations (isotropy and homogeneity). Logic is basically, in this context, illogical. Fuzzy logic is the way to go.

One thing I know for sure: Meredith Kercher has gone beyond our petty squabbles on justice. She does not feel any pain or desire any more and perhaps sees everything differently.

This forum has been highly “civilized” in discussions but has been presenting the basic points forcefully but it is perfectly alright for others to see or think that “we are at war”. It is simply a matter of perception.

Nick van der Leek uses, in his two books, f**k (and derivative words) rather freely. Do you consider that abusive? I do. A point of view is actually a pair of points: the viewer and the viewee. We therefore grant everybody their points of view, even if it does not match with ours. There is nothing absolute in that..

Posted by chami on 08/09/15 at 09:06 AM | #

Chami, you “grant” others’ points of view? Then, you will grant me mine, especially because I made it perfectly clear that I was speaking from my own point of view.

Posted by JohnQ on 08/09/15 at 10:20 AM | #

I agree that a number of Knox’s fans know that she’s guilty and it therefore makes perfect sense that they are the type of people to be foul and abusive to those who disagree with them.  Murderer supporters are very likely to have personality disorders.  The levels they will go to became very apparent when I received an anonymous letter through the post so full of hatred and threats to myself and my family that I have involved the police. I’m happy to comment here and here alone.

Posted by MHILL4 on 08/09/15 at 01:08 PM | #


That’s terrible. Do you know how they got your address?

Posted by Odysseus on 08/09/15 at 01:12 PM | #


“Murderer supporters are very likely to have personality disorders”- I would have made a stronger statement.

They are desperate. They are dangerous. Please take all threats seriously. And let people know.

Posted by chami on 08/09/15 at 03:28 PM | #


I have no idea, however, the FOA are underhand and willing to go to any length to undermine people.  I would not put using FBI contacts to look at IP addresses, etc, past them.

Posted by MHILL4 on 08/09/15 at 03:35 PM | #

Dear Grahame The FBI usually make personal appearances when requests of that nature are issued. For that and many other reasons, including a lack of credentials, you may have been pranked.

Posted by Tina on 08/09/15 at 07:48 PM | #

About the FBI and what Bettina just wrote.

I think some in FOA would LIKE them involved on their side and hint that they are.  Well, they are, but not in a way that any Knox supporters would like.

We’re told the FBI HQ has been alerted by Italy on a number of matters including death threats, Steve Moore’s sniper claims, and broad hints from Sollecito about unsavory ties.

As I mentioned in a comment near the top, the contact with Grahame - which was by a real agent - seems to us to have been “off the books” and Grahame wrote back to his boss including a stark list summarising the above and more.

Lot for that unit to chew on, and unsurprisingly Grahame has heard nothing back and I dont think ever will. 

Grahame did say he used his own name and email address in his posts to rattle Knox and getting from there to an IP address and a phone number doesnt require special access or skills.

Legal actions moving down the pike should chill the FOA for good. They will or should watch their own backs. You may have seen that the nasty Ground Report, their main vehicle for reaching out, is already gone and unlikely in any form to return.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 08/09/15 at 08:15 PM | #

Dear Odysseus,

Over the course of the last 8 years I have seen some bossy hotheads too. People who want to fight on public boards are just that, “People who want to fight…”  They come in every shape and size!!

Arguing with MK supporters is not even an option for me, and distracts from the mission of dealing with knuckleheads who post false information, lie for the killers, and type abusive content aimed at Meredith Kercher and her beautiful family.

Some of us have developed a way of using the foul energy of Knoxies to our advantage, something like Aikido, if you get my drift. Anger can be absorbed or deflected or even utilized like a mirror.

When allies seek to divide there is the option to ignore or block.

Best wishes!

Posted by Tina on 08/09/15 at 08:29 PM | #

Hi Bettina

Good to hear you are unfazed by dubious tactics, so it would seem you CAN wrestle with chimney sweeps without getting as filthy as they are!


Posted by Odysseus on 08/09/15 at 10:45 PM | #

Hello MHIL44

Welcome to the small group who have been contacted one way or the other by the FOA or their so called representatives. Congratulations. Of course this is all they have and if you get to close to, as they perceive, telling the truth that Knox is a murderer they get defensive and lash out if they can. Obviously you did.

Their threats mean nothing. I have given them my true co-ordinates because I wish to let them know that they do not scare me at all. In fact they are obviously scared of me since I refuse to be intimidated and shut up. Individual interpretation does not make us “Murder Groupies” either, that’s what they are, and I defy them to come after me personally.

They won’t just as they will not come after you since that is not their stock in trade, and as their past history shows they are cowards every one of them on every level. In particular Steve Moore and his rabid wife. so don’t fret but celebrate the knowledge that you did some good.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 08/10/15 at 12:51 AM | #

@Grahame Rhodes, stay brave. Be wise.

We await sentencing report but can look back at all the good influence Meredith’s life gave us. Her dream of Italy lives on in the justice websites. The early years saw art, comedy, music, travel videos, cartoons, recipes, pix of beloved pets, funny cats. The case moved along, justice prevailing.

Meredith’s bio and her family made a happy contrast to the trio of loners who infiltrated her life. A Dickens novel met Italian opera, many characters came to the fore. Strong advocates arose for Meredith.

Massei, Micheli, Mignini hit home runs. Nencini and Florence did, too. Italy’s system came alive.

Meredith’s warm influence and her love of Italy live on…so we wait. As the brave ones say, “it’s a hard life but a merry one.” Be brave, and fortune will favor you.

Posted by Hopeful on 08/10/15 at 03:51 AM | #


Of course I do not doubt what you say may be true…but, it’s just so hard to wrap my head around that nonsense. That’s all.

Posted by Tina on 08/10/15 at 07:27 AM | #

Those are lovely words indeed Hopeful, your moniker is as apt as it was meant to be when you chose it no doubt.

I’ve done a lot of swimming in Knox waters over these last few years just to see what is said and by whom (akin to doing the breast stroke through a sewage farm I’d imagine) and there has been nothing written on her behalf (or for the other two) from any of her advocates that has been quite as elegant, quite as beautiful quite frankly as the four short paragraphs you wrote.

The reasons are simple. The FOA do not attract genuine, warm hearted individuals and the main protagonists (Knox, Guede and Sollecito) all have some kind of personality disorder going on, hence they themselves are thoroughly unlikeable and thus cannot possibly attract the kind of posters more common to this site.

If the legal system ultimately lets Meredith and her dignified family down, I can only hope that they will look down upon the FOA insects from atop the rather high moral high ground that they occupy as the FOA scurry and feed amongst the garbage and their own filth and feel glad that they never allowed themselves to descend to that level.

Posted by davidmulhern on 08/10/15 at 01:12 PM | #

@Grahame, thank you for your kind advice and for so bravely continuing to give the FOA the middle finger!  I am sure you drive them more insane than they already are which is a good thing!

Apparently, Bruce Fisher has mentioned doing some sort of deal to keep Ground Report alive.  I hope this is untrue.

Posted by MHILL4 on 08/10/15 at 06:47 PM | #

To begin with Bruce Fischer is incapable of doing anything. He and his sad excuse for a family have been financially bankrupt twice in their sorry shallow life and he personally has been morally bankrupt for all of it.

I find it gratifying that they have attempted to threaten me. That was a huge joke and one I gladly went along with. I was even asked if I intended to harm Knox in some way or get someone else to do it for me, as though I would admit anything like that over the phone. It’s so pathetic and a complete laugh plus I was asked if “I was scared of any man?” It was then that I nearly lost it and threw up into the phone with barely held laughter and it was then that I really wished I had a ships horn handy but still.

I find it gratifying that I have managed to get under Knox skin (Read Moore Read Fischer) As though I would stop by some thinly veiled threat ........Hysterical.

Posted by Grahame Rhodes on 08/12/15 at 02:06 AM | #

Hi Bettina,

Odysseus hasn’t been attacked with real venom by anyone on PMF or TJMK because he didn’t follow the party line on whether a journalist should be considered as on our side. That’s why he was unable to substantiate his claim.

I do recall a number of posters on PMF, myself included, making valid criticisms about John Hooper’s coverage of the case after Odysseus recommended his book e.g. his articles were biased and one-sided and he relied on clowns like Steve Moore and Paul Ciolino. He also thinks it’s plausible that an abundant amount of Sollecito’s DNA might have floated on a speck of dust and landed on the exact part of Meredith’s bra clasp that was bent out of shape during the attack on her. I make no apologies for criticising a journalist who acted like a spokesman for the FOA.

Posted by The Machine on 08/15/15 at 02:56 AM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry The Amanda Knox Calunnia Trial In Florence: What It Is All About #1

Or to previous entry Why The Count Of Discredited Prosecution Witnesses Even Now Remains Down Around Zero