Documentary recaps Amanda Knox trial
Almost nine years since the murder of Meredith Kercher, a 22-year-old woman who was found dead in her apartment in Perugia, Italy, Netflix revisits the case in an original documentary called “Amanda Knox,” made by filmmakers, Rod Blackhurst and Brian McGinn. With interviews from the lead Italian prosecutor in the trial, Giuliano Mignini, Journalist Nick Pisa, Amanda Knox, and Knox’s boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, the film walks audiences through the facts and calls attention to the confusing nature of the crime. The documentary was released on Oct. 30.
Kercher’s murder was international news, and the press played a key role throughout the investigation and trial, painting Knox as a sexual fiend whose sexual history became a weapon used against her in the case. Blackhurst and McGinn created an insightful recount of the dramatic events, opening the documentary with footage from the actual crime scene.
The directors began the film’s production in 2011. The finished product gives viewers an honest recount of the dramatically publicized trial, which is the documentary’s strongest point. The directors’ approach allows Mignini, Pisa and Knox to speak their minds and tell viewers their different and unique perspectives in a candid setting.
The documentary opens with Knox’s voiceover, that helps set the mood for her portion of the film.
“There are those who believe in my innocence, and there are those who believe in my guilt,” Knox says. “There’s no in between. And if I’m guilty, it means that I’m the ultimate figure to fear, because I’m not the obvious one. But on the other hand, if I’m innocent, it means that everyone is vulnerable, and that’s everyone’s nightmare. Either I’m a psychopath in sheep’s clothing, or I am you.”
Knox remains unreadable throughout the duration of the film, making it challenging to decide whether or not to sympathize with her.
The Italian justice system is framed in a negative way, hinting that Knox was wrongly accused. The documentary recounts how Knox was bullied during questioning, falsely informed that she had HIV while in prison and how her private diaries were released to the press.
The film alludes to Knox’s perceived guilt being a direct result of Italy’s conservative Roman Catholic population. Mignini describes Knox as “totally irrational,” “uninhibited,” and the type of woman who “brings boys home.” Throughout the investigation and trial of Knox, Mignini painted her as a wild American party girl, and the press covering the events ate this picture of Knox up.
“If you could imagine a girl different from Amanda in every imaginable way, it would be Meredith,” Mignini says.
Blackhurst and McGinn include shots of Mignini praying as a voiceover plays.
“Amanda Knox” serves as a commentary on the media’s obsession with violent crimes. It focuses on how the media coverage shaped the world’s perception of Knox.
“It was a particularly gruesome murder, throat slit, semi-naked, blood everywhere,” said Pisa, former Daily Mail journalist. “What more do you want?”
Pisa comes off as happy and proud of his part in the Knox trial. He was one of the first journalists to obtain and publish her private diaries. Transitions in the form of headlines flash on the screen as Pisa explains his popularity and his increasing amount of bylines as a result of the trial. He compares the feeling of seeing his story on the front-page to the rush of having sex. He also participated in feeding the “sex-crazed man-eater” persona of Knox by publishing her MySpace profile pictures and revealing her nickname “Foxy Knoxy.”
Pisa comes off as a carefree and attention-seeking man, and the upbeat background music that conveniently plays during his interview scenes does not do much to help. By shining the spotlight on Knox during the trial, he was basking in the limelight as well.
Pisa admits that some information that was printed during the trial was crazy and made up.
“But hey, what are we supposed to do, you know,” Pisa said. “We are journalists, and we are reporting what we are being told. It’s not as if I can say, ‘Alright, hold on a minute, I just want to double-check that myself in some other way.’ Then I let my rival get in there first before me. And hey, I’ve lost a scoop. It doesn’t work like that, not in the news game.”
Documentaries for the wrongly convicted have created their own genre, but “Amanda Knox” is filled with feelings of unease and skepticism. After watching it, I still do not know whether or not to feel bad for her. The facts are jumbled and confused. Knox does not come off as a person who has been wrongfully accused. She is monotonous and unreadable, and it is incredibly difficult to feel bad for her, or even begin to trust what she is saying.
The documentary is more concerned with the media circus and the hard-headed prosecution that characterized Knox as a sex-driven seductress. No new information is presented throughout the documentary in regards to the case itself. Viewers are also not given any information about what Knox is doing today or what her plans are for the future, but they are made aware of the media’s role in the case. The documentary subtly blames news outlets for Knox’s wrongful conviction.
“I think people love monsters,” Knox says at the film’s conclusion. “So when they get the chance, they want to see them. It’s people projecting their fears. They want the reassurance that they know who the bad people are, and it’s not them. So maybe that’s what it is. We’re all afraid, and fear makes people crazy.”
There is no moment where everything is resolved and viewers get a feeling of fulfilment. Blackhurst and McGinn do a fantastic job of bringing all of the loose ends together as part of one documentary, but they do not inaccurately tie the loose ends together. “Amanda Knox” ends with an eerie sense of mystery, where viewers are forced to create their own happy ending or assume the worst.
McKinley Morganfeld • Oct 14, 2016 at 2:59 am
Keep in mind this important point:Perugia is famous for chocolates and NOT for first rate detective work.
Thank you,thank you very much!
Guest • Oct 13, 2016 at 11:58 pm
It’s now legally certain that Knox and Raffaele were both “there” at the crime scene at the time of the murder, and proven that Guede assaulted Meredith and helped kill her with accomplices, are we now to assume that the lying Knox and Sollecito were not the accomplices, but that one or two other criminals were also on the premises at the same time and were helping Guede kill Meredith? That stretches credibility. This ruling is unfathomable. I can only imagine the reaction of the Kerchers and of their Attorney Maresca. This ruling defies common sense. It seems to imply that Rudy committed the killing but that Knox and Raffaele were too afraid of him to tell the police, and instead helped him hide the crime at the risk of themselves being prosecuted for it?
That fear alone was the inducement to run an eight year long charade of lies and dissimulation, not to mention years of prison? When Raf’s father is connected to important people and when Knox’s family could afford a PR campaign to reach television? Yet Knox is so afraid of Guede counter-accusing her and of Guede being believed, that she has denied everything and even covered for Guede? Preposterous. Does Cassation think that Rudy set up the false burglary for his cover story, but then Knox and Raf lied to police about it for him? If Knox and Raf weren’t complicit in the crime but were there during its commission, what were they doing during the murder? Playing guitar and smoking weed? Knox and Raf overlooked Guede tracking blood around the cottage, heard Meredith’s scream but did nothing to aid her, too afraid to aid her and later ashamed of their cowardice? Were they threatened by Guede with the same fate? Or if they were hurting her along with Guede so that she did scream, they are still innocent? And why would Knox be washing Meredith’s blood off her hands into the bidet and washing up blood from the murder scene rather than call police and denounce Guede as the killer? Knox could have begged for police protection She had the USA to flee to. Raf’s father could protect him, his sister was Carabinieri! No. If Knox was washing Meredith’s blood off her hands, Knox was hiding her part in the murder. This ruling contradicts its own reasoning. It has proved the greater yet says it can’t prove the lesser.
Guest • Oct 13, 2016 at 11:58 pm
The Italian Supreme Court contravened articles 617 & 628 of their own judicial code to illegally acquit Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito.
Guest • Oct 13, 2016 at 11:57 pm
In the the final Supreme Court report of the case against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito, the court found the following:
* Knox was present at the cottage during the murder
* Knox and Sollecito had no alibis for the night of the murder
* Knox is a convicted liar who rightly spent four years in prison
* Knox heard Meredith when she was murdered
* Rudy Guede did not act alone
* Rudy Guede did not hold a knife
* Strong suspicion that Sollecito was at the cottage with Knox during the murder
* There was a spot mixed with the victim’s blood and Knox’s DNA found in the bathroom
* The crime scene was staged
* Knox was aware of the sexual aspect of the crime before it could be determined by the police
* There was no evidence of coercion by the police when Knox accused Lumumba of murder
* Knox’s motive for falsely accusing Lumumba for murder was to cover up for Rudy Guede
* Knox’s felony conviction won’t be affected in any way if the ECHR finds any human rights violations
* Rudy Guede has less motive than Knox to commit crime
All of the above would be more than enough to convict Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito for either murder or accessory to murder in every common court of law throughout the world. But not this one. Why? Because of Sollecito’s and Bongiorno’s corruption through political channels and the mafia. This is now world wide news and is history now written in stone. Everyone throughout the world now knows that both Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito got away with murder, but it will never get away from them so they will never have lives of their own. Basically we own them. 🙂