Amanda Knox (2016) | A Netflix Documentary

[chip75]

Originally Posted by megafan2000

I saw a Reelz special on her a couple weeks ago, I didn't catch on to this unless I missed something. The Italian Supreme Court declared her "innocent". The special made it a point to point out that the Supreme Court said in the ruling "innocent" and not "not guilty", in essence condemning the lower court judge and the investigators.

Her calunnia conviction was upheld, so as far as I can tell she's guilty of providing testimony saying someone is guilty when they know they're innocent.

[imsounoriginal]

I'm ready for another Netflix true-crime docu, Making a Murderer was excellent. Pretty one-sided but that's by design, I don't think a documentary NEEDS to be objective at all.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

In the sense that she served a relatively short sentence, yes. But if you look at the entire story behind the scenes, and the intense corruption that went on -- it was a real screw-job.

Read this sometime:

That looks like an objective report

[megafan2000]

Originally Posted by chip75

Her calunnia conviction was upheld, so as far as I can tell she's guilty of providing testimony saying someone is guilty when they know they're innocent.

Ah okay. But from what I have seen, I am under the impression her entire signed confession was coerced under duress, so I just figured the Italian Supreme Court ruling exonerated her of everything. Either way, she's never going anywhere near Italy ever again.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by imsounoriginal

I don't think a documentary NEEDS to be objective at all.

It does if it wants to be taken seriously.

[jacobsever]

Originally Posted by Markgway

It does if it wants to be taken seriously.

Eh. Look at Michael Moore. Absolutely not objective, yet some of the best, and most entertaining documentaries ever made.

There's a difference between a Discovery Channel documentary (just showing the facts), versus a theatrical documentary (where a film maker has a story they want to share, or expose something they believe in).

[Col. Zombie]

Originally Posted by Veronica Mars

I don't think she did it, I believe very strongly that the Italian Justice system screwed her over until the very end, but I do still want to believe that she was a sex maniac.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

That looks like an objective report

You really should read it.

As far as I know, nothing in the book has been shown to be false.

[Veronica Mars]

This was good but not great. If Amanda wasn't very attractive she wouldn't have spent any time in jail.

[Markgway]

Originally Posted by jacobsever

Eh. Look at Michael Moore. Absolutely not objective, yet some of the best, and most entertaining documentaries ever made.

Do people take Michael Moore seriously, though?

Or is he just an entertainer?

[Impossible]

Just finished this.

Thought it was an excellent film.

It's so clear they were both innocent.

The world sux x

[AnamorphicWidescreen]

Recently finished watching the recent AK Netflix doc. & thought it was, overall, excellent. My only complaint is that I wish this doc. had been longer; it was only 1 1/2 hours, and could easily have been stretched out to 3 hours (or 2 parts @ 1 1/2 hours each). I've been following the case for years, and there was a lot about this that they didn't go over. Yes, it was biased in favor of AK, but it did also feature the prosecutor GM - so I felt it did show "both sides" of this (to some extent).

I am of the belief that AK & RS had nothing to do with the crime. The Italian prosecutor GM's theory of the "s@x crime" that involved RG, RS, and AK attacking MK is patently ludicrous. I don't know why MK & RS would even hang out with RG at all, when it's obvious that - according to AK's room-mates - she & RS were exclusively spending time with each other in the short time they knew each other (which was about a week before the crime). I do believe RG was directly & only responsible for this; it was well known that he had broken into houses before this crime, and had apparently even threatened at least one person with a knife. And, it's obvious he was there that night since his DNA was all over the house - and he didn't live there.

I do think there was DNA contamination, as mentioned in the doc.

Also, it's obvious that AK

[Show spoiler]unintentionally contaminated the initial crime scene when she went home & went to the bathroom to take a shower - and accidentally stepped in the blood on the floor & maybe touched the blood in the sink; this was mentioned in the doc. (and also mentioned in a book I read about the case).

As has already been said, it's amazing how much sensationalism & press this case got - incredible; people are still discussing this & docs. are being made about the case 9 years later. I'm always fascinated by cases that get a lot of attention, to the detriment of other cases (that are more important) that receive little (or no) press. If AK hadn't been young, American & attractive & if this had happened in the U.S., I doubt many of us would have ever heard about this case. It definitely wouldn't have received international attention.

The UK journalist (featured in this doc.) was a real opportunistic prick. In the beginning of the case, he was obviously going along with what the press was saying - i.e., that AK & RS were guilty. And then, after she was deemed not guilty, he went along with that as well. He obviously didn't care about her guilt or innocence - just about making $ off of the story. Which was a real issue with this case - i.e., it was tough to distinguish the sensationalism from the actual facts (in many cases).

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by AnamorphicWidescreen

Recently finished watching the recent AK Netflix doc. & thought it was, overall, excellent. My only complaint is that I wish this doc. had been longer; it was only 1 1/2 hours, and could easily have been stretched out to 3 hours (or 2 parts @ 1 1/2 hours each). I've been following the case for years, and there was a lot about this that they didn't go over. Yes, it was biased in favor of AK, but it did also feature the prosecutor GM - so I felt it did show "both sides" of this (to some extent).

I am of the belief that AK & RS had nothing to do with the crime. The Italian prosecutor GM's theory of the "s@x crime" that involved RG, RS, and AK attacking MK is patently ludicrous. I don't know why MK & RS would even hang out with RG at all, when it's obvious that - according to AK's room-mates - she & RS were exclusively spending time with each other in the short time they knew each other (which was about a week before the crime). I do believe RG was directly & only responsible for this; it was well known that he had broken into houses before this crime, and had apparently even threatened at least one person with a knife. And, it's obvious he was there that night since his DNA was all over the house - and he didn't live there.

I do think there was DNA contamination, as mentioned in the doc.

Also, it's obvious that AK

[Show spoiler]unintentionally contaminated the initial crime scene when she went home & went to the bathroom to take a shower - and accidentally stepped in the blood on the floor & maybe touched the blood in the sink; this was mentioned in the doc. (and also mentioned in a book I read about the case).

As has already been said, it's amazing how much sensationalism & press this case got - incredible; people are still discussing this & docs. are being made about the case 9 years later. I'm always fascinated by cases that get a lot of attention, to the detriment of other cases (that are more important) that receive little (or no) press. If AK hadn't been young, American & attractive & if this had happened in the U.S., I doubt many of us would have ever heard about this case. It definitely wouldn't have received international attention.

The UK journalist (featured in this doc.) was a real opportunistic prick. In the beginning of the case, he was obviously going along with what the press was saying - i.e., that AK & RS were guilty. And then, after she was deemed not guilty, he went along with that as well. He obviously didn't care about her guilt or innocence - just about making $ off of the story. Which was a real issue with this case - i.e., it was tough to distinguish the sensationalism from the actual facts (in many cases).

Agree with everything you said.

I felt a lot of anger about 'the way of the world' while watching it.

The role of the press and the ravenous public appetite for such lies & sensationalisim truly sickens me.

It reminded me a lot of Amy on that score.

Its an unbelievable story & I'm glad that justice was finally served.

[y2jman]

i just got done watch it and also don't think she's was gulity

[NARMAK]

I think cases like this need to be examined properly and objectively but from my recollection, this whole case was fishy and Amanda Knox didn't come across to me as a mere innocent victim. Seemed like she did a lot of shady crap which is why she's suspected.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

I think cases like this need to be examined properly and objectively but from my recollection, this whole case was fishy and Amanda Knox didn't come across to me as a mere innocent victim. Seemed like she did a lot of shady crap which is why she's suspected.

She cracked under the pressure of intence police questioning, in a foreign country and in a foreign language.

Just like Averys nephew and the guy from the Memphis 3.

Only she was a woman and one who had the gaul to have sex...

[JeffTheMovieGuy]

Originally Posted by Markgway

Do people take Michael Moore seriously, though?

Or is he just an entertainer?

Politically speaking I don't swing that way but I have watched every single one of Michael Moore's documentaries even if I don't agree with his political stance.

[bones00]

i agree that this could have stretched out to be a solid 2+ hour documentary. something about her just gives me the creeps but i'm not sold on her being guilty.

[wonkavision]

Poor Amanda Knox. Her story reminds me of Lindy Chamberlain in Australia (see A Cry in the Dark). Lindy didn't "look" or "act" the part society wished her to be and she was unjustly prosecuted.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by wonkavision

Poor Amanda Knox. Her story reminds me of Lindy Chamberlain in Australia (see A Cry in the Dark). Lindy didn't "look" or "act" the part society wished her to be and she was unjustly prosecuted.

Yup, pretty much exactly the same.