sat 04/04/2020

The Trials of Amanda Knox, More4 | reviews, news & interviews

The Trials of Amanda Knox, More4

The Trials of Amanda Knox, More4

Did the media condemn Foxy Knoxy or will it save her?

Perception was everything last night in Garfield Kennedy’s fascinating if, at times, frustrating documentary, The Trials of Amanda Knox. Was the American student who was convicted last month of murdering her British flatmate in Perugia, Meredith Kercher, a scheming hussy into (very) extreme sex games, or just an averagely adventurous twentysomething turned into a scapegoat by an Italian judiciary that had already convinced itself of her guilt? Kennedy’s film considered the evidence, and it also detailed the concomitant trial by the media - and there, to a degree, is a problem. Because this documentary is also “the media”, and Knox’s case (appeal pending) is not closed. Somewhat misleadingly, it could be argued, the film was screening in More4’s True Stories slot. But was this only the partial truth, with some added special pleading?

Perception was everything last night in Garfield Kennedy’s fascinating if, at times, frustrating documentary, The Trials of Amanda Knox. Was the American student who was convicted last month of murdering her British flatmate in Perugia, Meredith Kercher, a scheming hussy into (very) extreme sex games, or just an averagely adventurous twentysomething turned into a scapegoat by an Italian judiciary that had already convinced itself of her guilt? Kennedy’s film considered the evidence, and it also detailed the concomitant trial by the media - and there, to a degree, is a problem. Because this documentary is also “the media”, and Knox’s case (appeal pending) is not closed. Somewhat misleadingly, it could be argued, the film was screening in More4’s True Stories slot. But was this only the partial truth, with some added special pleading?

Explore topics

Share this article

Comments

The one thing the documentary did not cover in detail was the physical evidence that linked the accused to the crime. There is strong evidence that 2 knives were used from the wounds and the one knife print on the bedding. The knife that matched the fatal wound was found, having been heavily scrubbed with bleach, in Raffaele's apartment with Amanda's DNA in a crevice in the handle and Meredith's tissue in a knick on the blade a good cm away from the edge. That location casts strong doubt on the explanation that Raffaele "knicked" Meredith when cooking. The autopsy showed Meredith had been restrained while she was being assaulted and a bloody footptint unde the body matched Amanda's shoe size but could not have been Meredith's or the other 2 accused. That means there was definitely more than one person in the room at the time of the murder. Blood evidence from the house strongly demonstrates the presence of multiple people at the time of the murder and Amanda has admitted being present on the house at the time in one of her many versions of events. Raffaele's DNA was found on Meredith's bra clasp and both Rude's and Amanda's DNA was found elsewhere on the bra. Anyone investigating the evidence presented in court would find little room for reasonable doubt.

The evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming: Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on: 1. On the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts - Dr. Patrizia Stenoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli - categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade. 2. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the ledge of the basin. 3. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the bidet. 4. Mixed with Meredith blood on a box of Q Tip cotton swabs. 5. Mixed with Meredith’s blood in the hallway. 6. Mixed with Meredith’s blood on the floor of Filomena’s room, where the break-in was staged. 7. On Meredith’s bra according to Raffaele Sollecito’s forensic expert, Professor Vinci. Amanda Knox’s footprints were found set in Meredith’s blood in two places in the hallway of the new wing of the cottage. One print was exiting her own room, and one print was outside Meredith’s room, facing into the room. These bloody footprints were only revealed under luminol. A woman’s bloody shoeprint, which matched Amanda Knox’s foot size, was found on a pillow under Meredith’s body. The bloody shoeprint was incompatible with Meredith’s shoe size. Two independent imprint experts categorically excluded the possibility that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat could belong to Rudy Guede. Lorenzo Rinaldi stated: "“You can see clearly that this bloody footprint on the rug does not belong to Mr. Guede, but you can see that it is compatible with Sollecito.” The other imprint expert print expert testified that the bloody footprint on the blue bathmat matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot. An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito's DNA was found on Meredith's bra clasp. Meredith's bra was removed some time after she had been killed and Rudy Guede had fled the scene. The murder dynamic implicates Knox and Sollecito. Barbie Nadeau wrote the following: "Countless forensic experts, including those who performed the autopsies on Kercher's body, have testified that more than one person killed her based on the size and location of her injuries and the fact that she didn't fight back—no hair or skin was found under her fingernails." Judge Paolo Micheli claimed that Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito knew precise details about Meredith's murder that they could have only known if they were present when she was killed. Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she involved in Meredith's murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. She stated on at least four separate occasions that she was the cottage when Meredith was killed. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito both gave multiple conflicting alibis and lied repeatedly. Their lies were exposed by telephone and computer records, and by CCTV footage. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis for the night of the murder despite three attempt each. Legal expert Stefano Maffei stated the following: "There were 19 judges who looked at the evidence over the course of two years, faced with decisions on pre-trial detention, review of such detention, committal to trial, judgment on criminal responsibility. They all agreed, at all times, that the evidence was overwhelming."

There was little examination of the evidence in the documentary. There were a number of alibis presented by Ms. Knox and her boyfriend. Little was made of the "staged break-in" which was dismissed casually by the family. The fact was that the window was inaccessible, glass was scattered on top of the clothes of the room's occupant, which had been thrown around. the jury would have been very convinced by this. There were a number of witnesses, whose testimony was not discussed. The film examined the question of trial by media. That trial continues and it appears to me that the expensive P.R. company hired by the Knox family, is pulling the strings.

Gerard - I thought your take on the programme was good but to say "I didn’t follow the case at all closely as it unfolded, but purely from the evidence of last night’s documentary I would say it was probably Rudy Guede..." is just foolish. No-one can even begin to presume they can judge a case unless they look at all of the evidence in great depth. The documentary was a pretty fair balance I thought of both sides of the debate but it had almost no evidential debate. To decide that so and so probably did it on the basis of 50 minutes lite TV? That's EXACTLY what is wrong with the entire Knox case, the PR campaign and the nonsense we see in the press about this case.

In the interests of justice Mr. Kennedy's so-called "documentary" would have done better to seriously examine the evidence; and not just do a human interest piece. I had initially believed that Ms. Knox was being framed by a zealous Italian prosecutor, but a closer examination of the actual evidence reveals a completely different story. The evidence is damning. Amanda Knox's father was a Macy's corporation executive. The Knox family hired a public relations firm to help form public opinion. Judging by Mr. Kennedy's film, it looks like the Knox family got its money's worth.

Amanda and Raffaele are completely innocent, and the evidence against them is contrived. The partial shoe print that supposedly fits Amanda's size? Francesco Vinci did a presentation during the trial in which he showed absolutely that there are several prints that overlap, and the treads on each of them line up exactly with a shoe identical to the model that Rudy Guede has admitted he wore on the night of the crime and discarded in a dumpster when he fled to Germany. I've got this material on my hard drive; send an email to usexpedition@gmail.com and I'll send you the pictures. Bloody footprints in the hallway? If these were made with Meredith's blood, why wasn't her DNA found in any of them? And why is the one footprint attributed to Knox pointing toward Meredith's door? Did she step in Meredith's blood and then hop backwards into the hallway, after which she wiped it away but left Rudy's bloody shoe print intact less than a foot away? Email me if you want factual information about this: usexpedition@gmail.com The evidence is all smoke and mirrors. It has been proven to be false. But one must know the facts, rather than the garbage that Harry Rag and his cohorts post on the Internet.

Cue the OCD "Mez"-worshipping ghoulies: "million-dollar PR campaign," "mountains of physical evidence not presented to the public," "deliberately implicated an innocent black man," "cartwheels," blah blah blah. These folks need therapy.

Amanda never had sex on a train, why did you need to bring it up anyway? That is the ugliest of the rumors put out there by the Amanda haters. Nor did she need to compete with men just because her mother remarried. Are we living in the 21st century rf not? The competition thing was a silly tale made up by the Daily News and its utterly shameless reporters. It cheapens your otherwise excellent article to bring up such things.

The truth seems to be lost over the internet, along with civility. Each side keeps repeating themselves, ad nauseum. When the complete report is issued on Mar.4th, things may change. This is somewhat similar to the Kennedy assassination. No one could believe that Oswald did it alone, or that only his bullets could have done all that damage. This led to a vast amount of misinterpretation of evidence, making it look like conspirators were involved. Once conspiracy theories were established, they wouldn’t go away. People are still convinced Oswald had accomplices. He didn’t! I fear this is what has happened to Amanda and Raffaele. Despite overwhelming circumstantial evidence, much of it their own fault, they are innocent. However, the vast amount of circumstances, each explainable individually, together create a powerful perception they did it. This convinced the judges, the jury, and much of the public, just like the Kennedy conspiracy theories. Both are wrong. They didn’t do it. Why didn’t Rudy Guede scream out their names from the moment he was apprehended? Doesn’t it mean anything that they barely knew him, and never did anything remotely like this in their lives – utterly out of character? Sometimes the truth is simple. Rudy Hermann Guede, just like Lee Harvey Oswald, acted alone. Amanda and Raffaele are innocent. Hopefully, the Appeals Court will recognize this, and correct a gross, if understandable, injustice.

Add comment

newsletter

Get a weekly digest of our critical highlights in your inbox each Thursday!

Simply enter your email address in the box below

View previous newsletters