Amanda Knox movie full length review - How to deify a criminal in the court of public opinion
Amanda Knox, a Netflix documentary directed and exec produced by two ardent Knox supporters, Rod Blackhurst and Stephen Robert Morse, who have been campaigning for Knox since
2011, (which included harassing journalists who actually covered the case far more thoroughly than they did), opens with lingering almost gleeful close ups of the bloody crime scene and goes downhill from there. The documentary begins by trying to shape a false narrative of handy villains who all seemingly came together like the stars aligning to make innocent Amanda look so screamingly, beyond a reasonable doubtingly guilty. (and not the overwhelming behavioral circumstantial and hard physical evidence against her which the documentary brushes over in a cursory manner.) Villains first were the cops then prosecutor, and now according to Netflix,the tabloid media,anyone except Amanda Knox herself.
The film makes out that Rudy Guede, the sole person convicted for Meredith Kercher's murder, left his DNA all over the crime scene, with funky arrows pointing here there and everywhere. The problem is this simply isn't true. Rudy Guede was convicted on less DNA evidence (five samples) than Amanda Knox(six samples).
As for the featured so-called "independent DNA experts", Conti and Vechiotti, well, they were found "Objectively biased" and "Objectively deceptive" in court by the Nencini appellate. Specifically because Vechiotti falsely claimed that the technology did not exist to re- test the murder weapon. It did indeed exist in 2011. Vechiotti was also filmed by the BBC shaking hands with Sollecito's father in court no less, hardly appropriate behavior for so-called independents and neither's expertise is in forensic DNA anyway (Vechiotti is a pathologist & Conti's expertise is um, "computer medical science" whatever that's supposed to be).
You'll notice in this review how I've rarely mentioned the victim Meredith Kercher. That's because she barely gets a mention in this sad excuse for a documentary. Not even an RIP. Meredith, the victim is relegated to a mere footnote and indeed a foot under a duvet. Reprehensibly, the doc also displays close up autopsy photos of Meredith. Yet the autopsy photos were never made public. Considering only the Kerchers (who didn't take part in Netflix's PR makeover) and the defence- and by extension the two former defendants- had access to such material, this begs the very pertinent question- who provided two ardent Knox supporters with autopsy photos of the murder victim? The filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for this alone, utterly contemptible behavior which comes across as needlessly and despicably taunting the victim's family or at the very least exploiting their daughter and sister purely for lurid effect to make their documentary more "gritty".
So what's the verdict on Amanda Knox the documentary? Well it's a terrible, false and ultimately immoral exercise in innocence fraud and here are some facts that Knox's PR infomercial left out:
1 The Supreme Court's acquitting report states that Amanda Knox was present during Meredith's murder and may even have possibly washed the victim's blood from her hands afterwards but it STILL can't be proved that she did it. (which begs more questions, namely why didn't innocent Amanda call the cops for her friend and why wasn't she done for accessory at least?) The same Supreme Court do not make the same allowance for the black guy though, had he had have washed the victim's blood from his shoes for example. The court also states that there's "strong suspicion" that Sollecito was there.
2 The Supreme Court's acquitting report states that the burglary was staged.
3 The Supreme Court's acquitting report states that Meredith was murdered by three attackers and that Guede had two accomplices. (And you really don't have to be Stephen Hawking to figure out who these two accomplices were, when you view the evidence in its totality)
4 The Supreme Court's acquitting nonetheless finalizes Knox's calumny/ criminal slander conviction, which she got for falsely accusing her innocent employer of rape and murder, leaving him in prison for two weeks and never retracting her statement, despite false reports that she did, meaning that Knox's status is still that of a convicted criminal felon.
5 In finalizing Amanda Knox's calumny/criminal slander conviction, The Supreme Court's acquitting report states that Knox blamed her boss to protect Rudy Guede as she was afraid that Guede could "retaliate by incriminating" her, which of course begs some more very interesting and pertinent questions, such as how could Guede incriminate innocent Amanda to begin with?
6 The Supreme Court's acquitting report does NOT exonerate Knox, it acquits her due to "insufficient evidence",like Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson and that nice man Robert Durst.
RIP Meredith Kercher, who along with her stoic dignified family (who have been subjected to absolutely abhorrent abuse and attacks by Knox's supporters online) and Knox's employer Patrick Lumumba are the only victims here. May the truth shine in your case one day and the facts and truth come to light. Neither Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito are fooling anyone familiar with Ms Kercher's case & facts are available at the murder of Meredith Kercher .com and in the Nencini and Massei reports.