The best thing about the Pluto image from NASA today is the silhouette of Pluto the dog right on it. pic.twitter.com/hVqD5QTwGz
— Scott Johnson (@scottjohnson) July 14, 2015
Friday, July 17, 2015
OBSCURITY Archive
Thursday, July 09, 2015
INTERROGATING OSCAR - A Documentary [Episodes 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 8]
\
Lisa Wilson on Oscar:
But is it new? Barry Bateman and Mandy Weiner raised the issue of the toilet flush just prior [in their view] or just after the shooting [in ours] in their book BEHIND THE DOOR. Lisa Wilson and I published a different version to their analysis but which lines up better with Oscar's behaviour [including the mysterious three shouts for help] in our final chapter of REVELATIONS, published in August 2014.
In Part 2 of Episode 3, Lisa discusses why we drew the conclusions we drew, why we differed from Bateman/Weiner and whether we feel the state/defense knew or didn't know about the toilet flush, and why this crucial evidence was not entered into the court record.
In Episode 4, Nick deals with our journey to Restoration - what does it mean, and what should it mean to us?
Order FUGITIVE our latest book on Oscar Pistorius here.
Sunday, July 05, 2015
Dark Insights, Doubt and Lessons Learned
Bestselling True Crime
writer and South African photojournalist Nick van der Leek writes about the
many flashbulb moments experienced writing about the Meredith Kercher Murder
Mystery.
Albert Einstein once said, "It's not that I'm so smart,
it's just that I stay with problems longer." One of the tremendously rewarding experiences
we [my co-author Lisa Wilson and I] have as authors is our research forces us
to set up camp around questions. We
spend time: mornings, afternoons, days, weeks, even months asking questions and
pursuing answers. The amazing thing when
it comes to True Crime, especially popular crime, is those answers are out
there. One merely needs to go out and make the effort to look for them. And keep
looking. Seek and we do find!
What makes our narratives distinctive, I think, is that Lisa
Wilson and I more often than not work as a team. How many other narratives have
two authors, working from opposite sides of the Atlantic? While Lisa provides a US perspective as a
juror and a True Crime buff, I am more interested in the intuitive subtleties
that underlie these cases. The
psychology, the economics, the motives. Human behaviour is fascinating,
especially when it drives people to the extreme. I’m also intrigued by what
these intuitions reveals about us, and society.
I wasn’t always into True Crime, in fact like Ann Rule I
sort of fell into it by accident. While
Rule worked with Ted Bundy, I was facebook friends with the model Oscar
Pistorius shot dead in his bathroom. I
didn’t intend to write a novel, I simply started asking questions, and then
penned a 12 000 word magazine article [intended as a 4 part series]. That narrative eventually became my
first bestseller.
Although I studied law and economics, I left the corporate
environment to freelance fulltime as a photographer and writer. My great grandfather
was a famous South African artist, and my brother and aunt are also both well
regarded artists [and yes, freelancers] in their own rights too. I guess there is something restless in my blood that makes we want to dig beneath the surface,
to see expanded perspectives than what the media serves us. I need to not only explore the world beyond my
door, but represent it to myself and others in a constructive and meaningful
way. I feel passionate about meaning above all, and it’s gratifying to find so
much in so grim a setting where someone has lost their life. When we honour them, when we remember them
honestly, something unexpected happens: we also set ourselves straight, we also
get ourselves [and society to some extent] back on track.
In terms of the Amanda Knox case, I stepped into the
bullring for the first time in April this year.
I knew virtually nothing about the case other than it had been
newsworthy around the world. I knew
‘something’ had happened in Italy, and that Amanda Knox was somehow involved
[or not] because she was a housemate of a murdered British girl [also a
student]. Before I started studying the
case I had no bias either way – I didn’t know whether she was guilty or
not. Based on the little media that came
my way, there seemed to me to be equal parts bias that she was innocent
and…suspicion.
As soon as I started examining the case, literally within a
few minutes, my interest was aroused. It
was along the lines of: she’s hiding
something. It was also along the
lines that I thought Amanda might be involved in some way, complicit in some
way, but probably not involved in the
actual murder. How could she? Why would
she?
Again, it is easy to ask these questions and then walk away
from them without investing time in their answers. And when they do come
they’re…well…stupefying.
While Lisa traveled to Italy to investigate this case
first-hand, I started working behind-the-scenes on a narrative Lisa and I
designed a framework for called DOUBT. The plan was that Lisa would return and then
we would work on the narrative together. I got so caught up in my own research I
started on the narrative and by the time Lisa returned from Italy DOUBT was
done. Interestingly, Lisa still wasn’t
convinced of Amanda’s guilt when she got back, and we had one or two heated Skype
calls while Lisa was still in Italy, where Lisa’s position was set to the
default setting of most outsiders to the Amanda Knox case: “but there was no
DNA.”
A lie repeated often enough eventually becomes if not the
truth, then a kind of truism, doesn’t it? A truism isn’t the truth, it’s a
platitude. It’s something you say to get rid of inquiring minds.
No DNA? Well, of course there is – at least five instances
of it, mixed with Meredith’s blood. What’s
perhaps more bizarre, for example, is the lack of Amanda’s fingerprints in her
own home. A single print? How many of us
could say the same about fingerprints in our own homes? Our computers, door handles, kitchen areas
ought to be splattered with prints.
Coming back to DNA, not only is Amanda’s DNA present, but so is
Raffaele’s in Meredith’s bloody bedroom.
What is the chance that Raffaele was at the villa, in Meredith’s room, but
not Amanda? What was he doing there if
Amanda wasn’t with him? And is it any surprise that Meredith’s bra, cut with a
knife after the murder also had Raffaele’s DNA on the bra clasp? This is a guy
who had a knife fetish, and who was carrying a knife at the time of his arrest?
In DOUBT [which was banned at first by strident Pro Knoxers
and then resurrected as DECEIT] I identified 28 Red Flags. These were singular signals that seem to show
patterns of inconsistency. Things just
didn’t add up. Indeed Amanda did seem to
be [and still is?] hiding something. In
DARK MATTER Lisa and I joined forces. We brought a binocular lazer-like narrative
focus to the four days of intense police investigation following the discovery
of Kercher’s body at midday November 2nd, 2007. In DARK MATTER we identified an additional
100 plus Red Flags [we distinguished these from the first 28 by calling them
‘Black Asterisks’]. In addition to these
we listed several other Highly Suspicious Events amongst other increasingly odd behaviors – not only from Amanda, but Raffaele as well. It is when we pool all
of these clues together that a picture begins to emerge. Patterns emerge. And suddenly the mystery becomes…less
mysterious.
If my initial ‘gut feel’ was that Amanda was simply ‘hiding
something’, by the end of DECEIT there was little doubt that there was a lot
more going on than that. In fact, I’ve
suggested to Lisa that based on forensic evidence alone [if one threw away all the circumstantial evidence], Amanda
would still a have a major case to answer to.
Conversely, if one took the entirety of circumstantial evidence,
including the on-again-off-again alibi, and simultaneously threw out [ie ignored] the totality of forensic
evidence, Amanda would still have a major case to answer to. That’s my opinion. Lisa’s too, now that she’s gone beneath the
surface of this case herself. The irony is this case is so large, so
convoluted, so filled with spin and counterspin, that it is easy to get lost in
the details. As we see so often in court cases, it is not a lack of evidence
that is a problem, it is the volume of it that gets disconcerting, and frequently
confusing. Confusion and doubt [and
‘reasonable doubt’] go hand in hand. Of
course being confused by a lot of information is not the same as uncertainty
based on a lack of evidence, or based on ambiguous evidence. The evidence isn’t ambiguous.
As such it is Lisa’s and my mission to demystify the eight
years culminating in Amanda’s and Raffaele’s ultimate acquittal. Our narratives, especially the first two or
three in the series are probably better suited to newbies [people like
us]. In THE IVORIAN, and the many
narratives to come after that, Lisa and I expect to be as well versed as some
folks on forums and resources like the incredibly valuable True Justice.org.
Before wrapping up, I’d like to share a final insight based
on our experience writing another true crime series. It may seem like Amanda Knox, Jodi Arias and
Oscar Pistorius are three distinct individuals, with nothing in common. But when we look closer we don’t simply see
matches in certain defense schemes, we see entire patterns of conduct
[including motive] overlapping, and doing so perfectly.
In South Africa we have a similar situation where the media
profit out of stories on Oscar Pistorius.
They are reluctant to declare him guilty as that would be slaying a
potential ‘cash cow’, and with book deals hanging in the balance [an acquittal
is literally worth millions], the media are hedging their bets. As a person involved in the media I am appalled
at this, hence our
eight narratives on Oscar, two detailing his motive and the method of what
we speculate was premeditated murder. In
terms of Amanda Knox, we suspect a similar game play between the media and
Knox. Both seem to be involved in a kind
of PR waltz which both stand to benefit from, if they can dance consistently to their own music.
It was once said of Lance Armstrong that one shouldn’t make
Lance Armstrong angry. Anger is what
motivates Lance to win. And then the punch
line: ‘Beating Lance makes him angry.’
Lisa and I have been astonished at the level of organization and
aggressive militancy [and dirty tricks] employed by Amanda’s supporters. If this was intended to dissuade us from
writing, these folks couldn’t be more wrong.
We are not out to make money, Lisa and I, although we care that our
narratives resonate and are successful.
What we really care about is justice.
The bottom line, whether one is a criminal, or the supporter of a
criminal is you never look good trying to
make someone else look bad. The venom and personal insults Lisa and I have
endured in our reviews is impressive. The strategy is clear – attack the credibility
of the messenger [since the message itself is problematic].
Our credibility is simple to establish. For my part, I am a
professional writer. I did not gain a
twitter following of almost 14 000 based on bad writing. I write in partnership with Lisa because her
research is often deeper and even more thorough than mine. For me our credibility is based on just two
tests: our personal standards and our
level of honesty towards ourselves and others.
What distinguishes our narratives from all the others out there is the
level of honesty – including self disclosure – both of us bring to our work.
This is because we care about something beyond justice. Besides wanting our
readers to have a meaningful and genuine experience reading about these tragic
crimes, we – as authors – also want
to be enriched. When we make it a
personal journey, the insights and intuitions are truly rewarding. We find how
these folks – not only the victim but also the perpetrators – are not so very
different from us. In this sense, if
when we genuinely learn something from
these true stories, Meredith Kercher’s death need not be in vain.
Follow Nick van der Leek on twitter @HiRezLife and Lisa
Wilson at @lisawJ13
Please “like’ Nick van der Leek’s Facebook
page.
Note: The first 5
readers to share this article on Facebook win a copy of DECEIT,
the first 5 to tweet this article win DARK
MATTER
OPEN LETTER: Attention L. Power [and others in the Amanda Knox fan club]
Very sweet of you to take such an interest in fraud and crime, L Power
[or whoever you are]. And you do take an obsessive interest in it. Do
you not have other hobbies, or a real job?
Although it seems to be a fun job shooting down other folks you have never met from the safety of your home, I wonder if you have the courage to tell us a little about yourself. It's one thing to mock something someone else has said, but who are you, and what do you stand for? What you do for a living, what's your version of the crime on November 1? Because if we're going to discuss credibility to take you seriously we also need to know whether you are credible [and at a minimum, honest].
Of course, no one - especially not you - will take such a genuine challenge seriously. Because that's not what you're paid to do. Your remit is to shoot the messenger in order to distract from the message.
We're not going to discuss the actual narrative. We're not going to go into why someone was accused of a crime in the first place! Haha what a joke.
No it would be silly to even consider such a thing. We're not going to talk about how someone was in a position to be a suspect, just how corrupt an entire justice system is. But we are going to discuss in detail the motives of the writer [to make a profit] and reviews you don't agree with. Well Amanda Knox also wrote a book and made $4 million from it. Her family paid for PR. She has endlessly done the rounds on television to promote her case. But in your view, any discussion of this is unacceptable. A dissenting view has to be shot down. Do you support free speech? Do you support the right of a human being to have an opinion, or a discussion? Do you? Because what's odd is when our views differ from yours you engage in character assassination. Why?
In Dr Hodges new book we see the same people running down his book with the same tired catchphrases. Do any of those folks read the book? Did you? Have you read any of my books? Then why are you reviewing them?
It makes me wonder...if everything you say is tactical as opposed to honest, strategic as opposed to heartfelt, contrived as opposed to authentic, how can any of it be taking seriously? As such, fraud is an interesting word for you to be using. Fraud is an interesting accusation to be made by you of others.
I've made a clear and unambiguous challenge to you here. I've asked you:
- to state who you are [what's your identity]
- to state what your job is
We want to establish your credibility, and also your motive for obsessively shooting down Pro Justice discussion. Are you prepared to have a discussion on your credibility? Are you? In fact I'd like to extend this invitation to everyone on your side - your FBI profilers, all your experts. Deal? An open, honest discussion where we simply discuss credibility.
If you fail to respond this challenge on its own merits, no excuses, no justifications, simply answer the questions, if you don't we both know exactly why, and so will other people. I won't be holding my breath for your clever catchphrase, knee jerk response. I have actual, honest work to do.
Although it seems to be a fun job shooting down other folks you have never met from the safety of your home, I wonder if you have the courage to tell us a little about yourself. It's one thing to mock something someone else has said, but who are you, and what do you stand for? What you do for a living, what's your version of the crime on November 1? Because if we're going to discuss credibility to take you seriously we also need to know whether you are credible [and at a minimum, honest].
Of course, no one - especially not you - will take such a genuine challenge seriously. Because that's not what you're paid to do. Your remit is to shoot the messenger in order to distract from the message.
We're not going to discuss the actual narrative. We're not going to go into why someone was accused of a crime in the first place! Haha what a joke.
No it would be silly to even consider such a thing. We're not going to talk about how someone was in a position to be a suspect, just how corrupt an entire justice system is. But we are going to discuss in detail the motives of the writer [to make a profit] and reviews you don't agree with. Well Amanda Knox also wrote a book and made $4 million from it. Her family paid for PR. She has endlessly done the rounds on television to promote her case. But in your view, any discussion of this is unacceptable. A dissenting view has to be shot down. Do you support free speech? Do you support the right of a human being to have an opinion, or a discussion? Do you? Because what's odd is when our views differ from yours you engage in character assassination. Why?
In Dr Hodges new book we see the same people running down his book with the same tired catchphrases. Do any of those folks read the book? Did you? Have you read any of my books? Then why are you reviewing them?
It makes me wonder...if everything you say is tactical as opposed to honest, strategic as opposed to heartfelt, contrived as opposed to authentic, how can any of it be taking seriously? As such, fraud is an interesting word for you to be using. Fraud is an interesting accusation to be made by you of others.
I've made a clear and unambiguous challenge to you here. I've asked you:
- to state who you are [what's your identity]
- to state what your job is
We want to establish your credibility, and also your motive for obsessively shooting down Pro Justice discussion. Are you prepared to have a discussion on your credibility? Are you? In fact I'd like to extend this invitation to everyone on your side - your FBI profilers, all your experts. Deal? An open, honest discussion where we simply discuss credibility.
If you fail to respond this challenge on its own merits, no excuses, no justifications, simply answer the questions, if you don't we both know exactly why, and so will other people. I won't be holding my breath for your clever catchphrase, knee jerk response. I have actual, honest work to do.
Monday, June 29, 2015
Interview with Lisa Wilson, True Crime author of DARK MATTER #AmandaKnox
Check Out Current Events Podcasts at Blog Talk Radio with True Crimes on BlogTalkRadio
Order DECEIT here.
Order DARK MATTER here.
Tuesday, June 23, 2015
Jodi Arias ordered to pay Travis Alexander's siblings $31 000 + Death row inmate pens tell-all about convicted murderer
Every hour #JodiArias works at prison job she'll be thinking that 20% of her hard earned wages go to Alexander sibs. That will piss her off
— JustDaTruth (@justdatruth2012) June 22, 2015REMINDER: The Alexanders still have a wrongful death civil case against #JodiArias and will ask for monetary... http://t.co/cmnEbcV8za
— Justice4Travis (@Justice4TravisA) June 22, 2015I see that Willmott's hair is still tragic. #JodiArias
— Erin Murray (@MsErinMurray) June 22, 2015Sam- $15,000 Tanisha- $10,000- Hillary $4000- Steven $1000- Dennis over $200 these are estimates
Hearing is now over #jodiarias
— Jen's Trial Diaries (@TrialDiariesJ) June 22, 2015Court has begun and #JodiArias is not there...as expected.
— Cathy (@courtchatter) June 22, 2015#jodiarias family does have violent background. Her grandpa's mug shot from 1902 San Quentin. Joe D Arias pic.twitter.com/Just8W3IW5
— Teresa Decker (@tdecker13) June 20, 2015#JodiArias fanboy, journo Michael Kiefer, is giddy with excitement- and I can reveal he's convinced Martinez will... http://t.co/tC3Yk7NX5W
— Justice4Travis (@Justice4TravisA) June 13, 2015Arizona State Bar investigating complaint filed against prosecutor #JuanMartinez in #JodiArias case https://t.co/9yN0ytuJAn via @abc15
— ✨WitchyWizdom✨™ (@WitchyTweets) June 13, 2015http://t.co/ARdl7Y5uKj Is the only official site for donations. Do NOT donate to any other site. https://t.co/XjExwGFWYT
— Justice For Jodi (@Support4Jodi) March 16, 2015Martinez is NOT a rock star. He's a corrupt, unprofessional, witness tampering prosecutor suffering from "little man syndrome". #JodiArias
— Jodi Arias Supporter (@JASupporter) October 6, 2014He knew martial arts, wrestling & "loved shooting". Jodi was a threat to Travis? He was a threat to her. pic.twitter.com/NS07z1kMlJ
— Jodi supporter (@Team_jodi_arias) June 17, 2015JAA Appellate Fund. Update: The current fund total, as of June 19th, 2015 is http://t.co/MMkv4GDhYZ #jodiarias
— Jodi Arias Updates (@JodiAnnArias) June 19, 2015@lisawJ13 and I are hard at work on #jodiarias book #5. Brace yourself for OBSCENITY‼️ http://t.co/iRQrd4plyV … pic.twitter.com/ysLhVjzVQK
— Nick van der Leek (@HiRezLife) June 22, 2015Sunday, June 21, 2015
Saturday, June 20, 2015
Wednesday, June 17, 2015
Watch Amanda Knox's reaction when asked whether she is the one who actually killed Meredith Kercher #DARKMATTER #DECEIT
Notice the contrast; an appropriately stoic Chris Cuomo asking [with sober gravitas]:
CC: Why do you think this judge goes further than any other?
Amanda Knox looking concerned, anxious.
CC: Not only does he say 'this is the knife', not only does he say 'you had it because of DNA along the bottom of the blade and hilt' but he believes you are the one who actually killed Meredith Kercher.
Amanda continues looking serious.
And then - as she responds to this allegation, did she kill Meredith - she flashes a HUGE smile.
Amanda Knox spoke out yesterday to Chris Cuomo on CNN.
She denies her involvement in the murder of Meredith Kercher and her words, like many times before, stun me.
Listen to Amanda Knox’s speech pattern. She says:
“(huh) I…believe…I mean, I can’t speculate what this judge’s motivations…personal motivations or otherwise…What I can say is that…as…this…case…has progressed…….the evidence…that the prosecution has claimed exist against me….has been…has been proven less and less and less.”
More on that here.
Saturday, June 13, 2015
Alley Cats and Spin Dentists - how the Pro Knoxers operate
An unassuming reader taking a cursory look at the reviews of DECEIT might think: oh, it's neither a good book nor bad, it's fair to middling. The book is rated an average 2.6 out of 5 stars, which is pretty average. It's also the lowest rating by some margin of all my and Lisa Wilson's 26 books currently available on Amazon.
But look a little closer and you'll see 39% of the reviews are 5 stars, 2% are 4 star and the rest - 59% - are 1 star reviews. There's not a single 2 or 3 star review, which appears to suggest that you're either going to love this book, or hate it.
The thing is, appearances can be deceptive. Also, one shouldn't always take the word of another as gospel. As in this review left by Bernard Steenis on June 8, 2015:
Now in Steenis' reading career he has only ever reviewed two books, one of them is DECEIT, but based on 17/27 helpful votes, he must be offering something useful, right? Here's the actual text Steenis refers to, and one assumes he doesn't think the prospective reader or customer will actually go to the effort to click 'Look Inside' and verify his review for themselves.
Let's zoom in on Steenis' comment:
Now according to Steenis' 'citation' I refer to Meredith Kercher as MK, he forgets the comma after 'particularly', misspells 'involvement', leaves out the semi colon, misspells 'instead' and 'we', refers to Amanda Knox as AK, changes the sentence structure, avers that a few lines further something is written when it is in the very next line...all of these slurs are not a true reflection of the actual text, which reads as follows:
So why would someone go to the trouble to do this? Steenis in the first line of his review urges the reviewer that 'there's no need to buy this thing' and towards the end 'No need to read any further'. That's fine, tastes differ, but to infer that the text itself (which he claims to quote) is riddled with errors is deceitful and dishonest. Steenis also conveniently skips the part where the introduction suggests that even if Knox is innocent, she should sue for time spent 'illegally' incarcerated in jail. Why doesn't she? Why doesn't Steenis refer to this? A little mischievous wouldn't you say?
Read DECEIT and decide for yourself what the truth of Meredith's Murder is. Don't let anyone tell you or influence you, you be the captain of your own mind.
You can order DECEIT here, and by all means, 'Look Inside' before you do.
COMING SOON...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)