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

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.

Notice when she actually answers the question just between 22 and 23 seconds her mouth twitches in another smile [split second] and she kinda change tack and says, "I mean, I can't speculate..." When you say the word 'speculate' - especially the way Amanda does - you can hide a smile in the word itself. The whole time Amanda is speaking, she's almost gloating. Almost smiling. Because she's won. She's gotten away with something hasn't she. She's also asked Cuomo to ask these questions, and has prepared her answers. Besides her inappropriate and out-of-place facial expressions, do her answers even make sense? Check this brilliant analysis out from EyesForLies.com:  

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...