• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Cont: The Trials of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito: Part 32

Stacyhs said:
This just shows the unreliability of AI, but the ECHR also ruled it was a retraction. Regardless, the Nov. 7 memoriale leaves no ambiguity:

"I didn’t lie when I said I thought the killer was Patrick. I was very stressed at the time and I really did think he was the murderer. But now I remember that I can’t know who the murderer was because I didn’t return back to the house."

I agree that it's more important that it's ambiguous and even contradictory. The only thing she wrote that could even be considered a confirmation is the "And I stand by my statements that I made last night about events" part, but even that is very much weakened by the remaining part of the same sentence, "that could have taken place in my home with Patrik, but I want to make very clear that these events seem more unreal to me than what I said before, that I stayed at Raffaele's house." Its exclusion reeks of intellectual dishonesty. The vast majority of the Nov. 6 memoriale is questioning those "memories" as real or her imaginings and she even states that she's " very doubtful of the veritity [sic] of my statements."
Click to expand...
The over-positive publicity around AI may lead some to accept AI results without verification, which can lead to accepting false information as true - an especially serious problem in, for example, legal cases.*

In the case of Knox's conviction and re-conviction for calunnia, it's important to understand the relevant actual facts, laws, and legal principles.

*See, for example:

Study Finds That AI Search Engines Are Wrong an Astounding Proportion of the Time​

futurism.com

Study Finds That AI Search Engines Are Wrong an Astounding Proportion of the Time

New research found that AI models gave the wrong answer in search results more than 60 percent of the time.
futurism.com futurism.com

Court Sanctions Attorneys for Submitting Brief with AI-Generated False Citations
natlawreview.com

Court Sanctions Attorneys for AI-Cited Fake Cases—Rule 11 Violati

Highlights
natlawreview.com natlawreview.com

Hallucination (artificial intelligence)​

en.wikipedia.org

Hallucination (artificial intelligence) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org en.wikipedia.org
 
I only use AI as a starting point for information. For example, I use it to find if something is mentioned in an untranslated court document. Then I ask for an actual quote or page where the info is located and confirm from there. It's very helpful that way.
 
Just popping in to say it's really funny that despite Vixen's 100,000 posts or whatever she's up to now the most powerful argument for Amanda's guilt is this: Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is an Amanda Knox supporter. It's almost enough to make one rethink reality.

BTW I am the same age as Meredith Kercher, she would be turning 40 just like me if Rudy hadn't brutally murdered her for no reason. Time marches on for everyone, but not for her. But we will keep her memory alive in this thread by once and for all figuring out who killed the girl surrounded by the bloody handprints of knife wielding crook Rudy Guede.
 
"...the most powerful argument for Amanda's guilt is this: Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is an Amanda Knox supporter."

There's a flaw in that: he was a supporter until she didn't vote for him in 2016. Now she's a horrible, disloyal person because he claims he donated to her legal fund, so she then 'owed' him her vote.
 
bagels said:
Just popping in to say it's really funny that despite Vixen's 100,000 posts or whatever she's up to now the most powerful argument for Amanda's guilt is this: Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is an Amanda Knox supporter. It's almost enough to make one rethink reality.

BTW I am the same age as Meredith Kercher, she would be turning 40 just like me if Rudy hadn't brutally murdered her for no reason. Time marches on for everyone, but not for her. But we will keep her memory alive in this thread by once and for all figuring out who killed the girl surrounded by the bloody handprints of knife wielding crook Rudy Guede.
Click to expand...
It can be hard to look reality in the face but trying to rewrite history doesn't actually change reality. Reality stares you in the face. That is why all three were convicted. That people lack the imagination to realise Knox' and Sollecito's input - as was proven in the merits court - is the reason they keep looking for get-out clauses and rationalisations such as 'would could or should' which, as can be seen in this multiple-hundred-page thread, runs incessantly along the lines of 'if RS or AK had done this that or the other, they would not have or could not have done it because they would have could have X, Y and Z instead'. It's hilarious. How many times do Knox and Sollecito have to spell out they did it and they were there? There is no undoing what was done.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
"...the most powerful argument for Amanda's guilt is this: Donald John Trump, President of the United States, is an Amanda Knox supporter."

There's a flaw in that: he was a supporter until she didn't vote for him in 2016. Now she's a horrible, disloyal person because he claims he donated to her legal fund, so she then 'owed' him her vote.
Click to expand...
Trump is typical of many AK supporters. Trump believes that if he says a thing, it becomes true.
 
Last edited:
Knox has spelt it out in writing that she met 'Patrick' in the basketball court. She even demonstrates Kercher's scream by placing her hands over her ears whenever she talks about it. "I cannot lie I was there."

Look at the footprint on the bathmat. The one size 42 with a hammer toe...just like...well, you figure it out. The guy who lied and lied and lied about what he did that evening. Even lying about switching off his phone. About the U-band in his sink falling off of its own accord.

When someone tells you who they are, believe, them...the first time. Stop making excuses for them. Let people take ownership of what they did.
 
Vixen said:
It can be hard to look reality in the face but trying to rewrite history doesn't actually change reality. Reality stares you in the face.
Click to expand...
Your grasp of the reality of this case is tenuous at best.
Vixen said:
That is why all three were convicted.
Click to expand...
That's why Knox and Sollecito were exonerated. And please, don't tell me they weren't exonerated or I'll just have to quote and cite the Italian law site that says they were...again.
Vixen said:
That people lack the imagination to realise Knox' and Sollecito's input - as was proven in the merits court - is the reason they keep looking for get-out clauses and rationalisations such as 'would could or should' which, as can be seen in this multiple-hundred-page thread, runs incessantly along the lines of 'if RS or AK had done this that or the other, they would not have or could not have done it because they would have could have X, Y and Z instead'. It's hilarious. How many times do Knox and Sollecito have to spell out they did it and they were there? There is no undoing what was done.
Click to expand...
All you have is your imagination and a keyboard.
 
Vixen said:
Knox has spelt it out in writing that she met 'Patrick' in the basketball court.
Click to expand...
Knox has spelt it out in writing that she spent the night with Raffaele and never went to her apartment that night in her Nov. 7 memoriale. You know, the one she wrote and not the police.
Vixen said:
She even demonstrates Kercher's scream by placing her hands over her ears whenever she talks about it.
Click to expand...
Whenever she talks about it? Another assfact, Vixen. You can't cite a single example of her doing this. Knox never said she put her hands over her ears due to Kercher's screaming; it was prosecution who came up with that story.
Vixen said:
"I cannot lie I was there."
Click to expand...
Another classic example of your willful ignoring of facts. Even your beloved "merits trial" Massei understood she was referring to Raffaele's apartment. Not even Nencini bothered trying to contort it into meaning the cottage. Not one court agrees with your delusion on that.
Vixen said:
Look at the footprint on the bathmat. The one size 42 with a hammer toe...just like...well, you figure it out. The guy who lied and lied and lied about what he did that evening. Even lying about switching off his phone. About the U-band in his sink falling off of its own accord.
Click to expand...
Yadda, yadda, yadda. We have looked at all of that and so have the courts. The final decision: Sollecito was not involved in Kercher's murder. Suck it up. buttercup

Vixen said:
When someone tells you who they are, believe, them...the first time. Stop making excuses for them. Let people take ownership of what they did.
Click to expand...
Oh, we believe you! You've told us exactly who you are and we believe you! I suggest you take your own advice and admit ownership of what you've done and continue to do: defame two innocent people by pushing mis/disinformation and outright lies.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Your grasp of the reality of this case is tenuous at best.

That's why Knox and Sollecito were exonerated. And please, don't tell me they weren't exonerated or I'll just have to quote and cite the Italian law site that says they were...again.

All you have is your imagination and a keyboard.
Click to expand...
They were acquitted on a 'technicality' dreamt up by a couple of rogue judges spoonfed by mafia-friend Bongiorno. The facts found at the fact-finding trial, which was lengthy and fair and a level playing field, remain proven.

BTW Einstein said true intelligence was having imagination, not knowledge. So thanks for the (unintended) compliment.
 
Last edited:
Stacyhs said:
Knox has spelt it out in writing that she spent the night with Raffaele and never went to her apartment that night in her Nov. 7 memoriale. You know, the one she wrote and not the police.

Whenever she talks about it? Another assfact, Vixen. You can't cite a single example of her doing this. Knox never said she put her hands over her ears due to Kercher's screaming; it was prosecution who came up with that story.

Another classic example of your willful ignoring of facts. Even your beloved "merits trial" Massei understood she was referring to Raffaele's apartment. Not even Nencini bothered trying to contort it into meaning the cottage. Not one court agrees with your delusion on that.

Yadda, yadda, yadda. We have looked at all of that and so have the courts. The final decision: Sollecito was not involved in Kercher's murder. Suck it up. buttercup


Oh, we believe you! You've told us exactly who you are and we believe you! I suggest you take your own advice and admit ownership of what you've done and continue to do: defame two innocent people by pushing mis/disinformation and outright lies.
Click to expand...
You can keep doing the Dale Carnegie 'every day in every way' you believe the pair innocent 'in every way' but the fact is, the merits courts found the prosecution case proven, These two people you have decided to champion, are not your friends or relatives, and I doubt they will even thank you for your support. All Dale Carnegie does is coach people in how to deceive themselves by repeating statements over and over until you come to actually tell yourself you believe in them. Come on, Stacyhs you know they did it. Face it.
 
Vixen said:
You can keep doing the Dale Carnegie 'every day in every way' you believe the pair innocent 'in every way' but the fact is, the merits courts found the prosecution case proven, These two people you have decided to champion, are not your friends or relatives, and I doubt they will even thank you for your support. All Dale Carnegie does is coach people in how to deceive themselves by repeating statements over and over until you come to actually tell yourself you believe in them. Come on, Stacyhs you know they did it. Face it.
Click to expand...
laughing.png

Nothing but a failed attempt to divert attention from the fact that you cannot provide a single example of your claimed Knox "even demonstrates Kercher's scream by placing her hands over her ears whenever she talks about it." Nor can you dispute that not a single court, including Massei and Nencini, found that Knox was referring to anywhere but Sollecito's apartment when she said "I was there. I can't lie about this".
 
Last edited:
Vixen said:
They were acquitted on a 'technicality' dreamt up by a couple of rogue judges spoonfed by mafia-friend Bongiorno. The facts found at the fact-finding trial, which was lengthy and fair and a level playing field, remain proven.

BTW Einstein said true intelligence was having imagination, not knowledge. So thanks for the (unintended) compliment.
Click to expand...
Ah, there it is! The "bent judges and mafia reference" rubbish again. What? No Trump and Clinton interference accusations? You're slipping.
BTW, I was being generous when I said 'imagination'. 'Unreality' is more accurate.
 
Vixen said:
They were acquitted on a 'technicality' dreamt up by a couple of rogue judges spoonfed by mafia-friend Bongiorno. The facts found at the fact-finding trial, which was lengthy and fair and a level playing field, remain proven.

BTW Einstein said true intelligence was having imagination, not knowledge. So thanks for the (unintended) compliment.
Click to expand...
As the appellate courts in Italy are trial de novo, Hellmann would also be considered a fact finding trial, and they completely disagreed with the 'facts' as outlined by Massei.

Nearly 60% of all major crime verdicts from the first instance are reformed in the second instance court. So like the majority of cases, Massei was reformed by Hellmann, which not only looked at all the evidence again, but also allowed independent experts to review the DNA work performed by Stefanoni, which exposed a plethora of mistakes, omissions and lies by her.

I would disagree that the 'facts' found at the first instance trial remain proven. Quite a few were proven false, and that doesn't even begin to touch on the speculation and assumptions so heavily embraced by Massei and the pro-guilt community. But not to worry, most everyone has learned this, so there may still be hope for you, though after 18 years the odds seem to be shrinking.
 
Disbelief said:
Facts and reality say they were exonerated, contrary to your fantasy land.
Click to expand...
This statement underlines the point I was making. Think hard about your need to call a simple acquittal 'an exoneration'. Either you are fooling yourself or trying to deceive others. Or both. Or you believe stating a lie makes it magically true. In which case, you consider your readers stupid, which still doesn't reflect well on you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom