When is a poor review a genuine poor review, and when is it trolling? #2 Zarla

When a reviewer leaves 6 reviews in a day, and 3 more a few days later, something is up.  For UK-based "Zarla" it's all about rushing to the defence of the McCanns. It doesn't seem to matter to Zarla if her arch-defence against Shakedown's assessment of the McCanns involvement in their daughter's disappearance appears in reviews of books that aren't about Madeleine McCann. It's fairly clever though, associate a poor review for one book with a poor review of another, and vice versa.

This might be credible except it's all engineered on the spot, on a single day.

Zarla's main criticism is that the writer suffers from a "relentless obsession", and much of his work amounts to "obscene slander."

Zarla's obsession however, appears to be with the use of a narrative device to make allegations that could otherwise be a little sticky.  The McCanns are notorious for suing or warding off writers, as they did with lead Detective Amaral and criminal profiler, Pat Brown.

By providing a symbolic narrative device, one then procures a narrative license that allows a narrative to entertain various speculations.

Rather predictably, Zarla makes the use of this device her pet criticism, all the while crowing about libel at every chance she gets. Ironic, isn't it?

There are three additional reviews which continue Zarla's attack on the raven symbology.  She plugs these into entirely disparate narratives, from a trilogy dedicated to the '96 Everest tragedy, to the Amanda Knox case and then most bizarre of all, Shakedown's take on The Durrells.

Zarla's review on The Other Durrells is the longest and most enthusiastic of the lot.  Here she reveals just how personal the McCann's status are to her. She goes to some trouble to make scathing personal attacks.  This is indicative of an effort and some investment in the actual narrative for once, but the motive is really to find personal disclosures that she can use against the author.  That she digs up some of the most painful disclosures demonstrates to what extent Zarla feels personally impinged by the allegations in the DOUBT trilogy. 

In her review of The Other Durrells, Zarla circles back repeatedly [in the review and the comments following] to the McCanns.  She leaks crucial information in her comments below her review of The Other Durrells about herself which shows not only just how close her affiliation is to the McCanns [she is likely a relative or a close friend or both], but also her intimacy with the medical profession in the United Kingdom: 

I don't expect you to answer this, but will ask it anyway: the McCanns are 50 now and qualified to be doctors in the 1980s, when the government paid tuition and parents usually paid living grants (if parents earned below a certain amount, the UK government paid that too). You state that the McCanns, in 2007, would have been 70k in debt each from their 1980s/very early 90s training. 

Where did you get this absurdly inflated figure from?

I know a surgeon who qualified in the late 80s and they'd paid off their 10k student debts well before the 21st century came around. Why did you include 2017 costs for doctor training?

This is especially slippery:

I know a surgeon who qualified in the late 80s and

 they'd paid off their...

The answer to her question is the same answer to all information/insights provided in the Shakedown narratives: Shakedown references are clearly hyperlinked, as is this one.

Below is a screengrab of the original comment with the context in the surrounding comment envelopes.

ATTENTION OSCAR PISTORIUS TRIAL EDITORS: The rule against publication which could prejudice the administration of justice is known as the sub judice rule

Through the grapevine I've heard word of contempt of court Nick van der Leek. Apparently I am an idiot who doesn't understand media law.  That's a curious thing because I have three years of Commercial law, as well as Family and Private law in my back pocket, but...uh...let's examine my ignorance when it comes to matters of the media and the law.  Personally I think SA media watch too much American/British TV, and should maybe definitely catch a wake up!

No. I think he’s an idiot [Nick vd Leek].

The reason the SA media will not publicise his book has nothing to do with Brand Pistorius and everything to do with the sub judice rule. Your mate is very likely to find himself in contempt of court at the very least. At worst he may have handed Pistorius his Get Out of Jail Card. If Oscar is convicted his lawyers can now seek a mistrial on the grounds that your mate has prejudiced the outcome. If that fails they can seek an appeal on the same grounds. >>>The idea of a mistrial is something I specifically researched for Resurrection, and hence published an extract here.

Take note my comments in this excellent article by Webber Wentzel's Dario Milo and Stuart Scott are provided in bold.

But could the publication of the video/article/eBook down under/or over here amount to a mistrial?

We submit not. I submit not too.

Significantly, the footage has not been relied upon by the state or the defence and thus it has no bearing on Pistorius’s murder trial whatsoever. 

Why would they not relie on it?  Because it's irrelevant to their own stating of their case in court.  

It follows that there is simply no basis for the view that Oscar’s or the state’s right to a fair trial has been infringed by the mere publication of the footage.

Accordingly, there is with respect no basis for the view that the broadcast creates what the Americans call a “mistrial”.

The legal reason is that our Supreme Court of Appeal made it clear in the Baby Jordancase that the test for whether a publication during a pending or on-going criminal trial is unlawful is whether there is a real risk of demonstrable and substantial prejudice to the administration of justice. And “[e]ven then publication will not be unlawful unless a court is satisfied that the disadvantage of curtailing the free flow of information outweighs its advantage.”  This rule against publication which could prejudice the administration of justice is known as the sub judice rule.

Importantly, the panel deciding Oscar’s legal fate is not a jury comprised of lay people who might be erroneously influenced by evidence which is not before the court, but a Judge and two legally-trained assessors.  Our courts have emphasised the importance of this distinction.

A helpful example in this regard is the case of Joseph Arthur Walter Brown v the NDPP and Others in which the former chief executive of Fidentia, (this case law, incidentally, is discussed in RESURRECTION) along with comment from David Dadic and Ulrich Roux) who had been charged with numerous counts of fraud and theft, applied for a permanent stay of the prosecution against him on the basis that pre-trial media coverage infringed his right to a fair trial.

The court agreed that there was indeed adverse media coverage in relation to his case but found that Brown had failed to show any link between the publicity and the effect that it would have on his trial.

>>>One also has to ask the question, if an idiot journalist were to write a book that could result in his, a publications and those he quoted being sued, why would litigation experts contribute to it?  Simple answer, we know something the ADD starved MSM don't.  Perhaps it's time you paid attention to the details people...