Amanda Knox (2016) | A Netflix Documentary

[Arawn]

Originally Posted by Impossible

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

actually I think he was more of a roman

[jacobsever]

Finally got around to checking this out. I'm a huge huge fan of true crime. Serial really kick started my interest, but I've listened to countless podcasts, tv series, and documentaries since.

First and foremost, I absolutely HATE this guy:



Just hearing him talk, it's obvious this case was only about one thing to him...HIMSELF.

"People were shaking my hands and thanking me."
"People were criticizing and attacking me."

Me. Me. Me.

Dude comes from a medium sized Italian town most of the world hasn't heard of, gets an American girl wrapped up in a murder, becomes the center of a huge investigation and world wide news story, and only cares about making himself and his department look good. Is way more concerned about solving the case than finding the truth. Not to mention his outright misogyny. Calling her a girl with loose morals...why? Because she is sexually active? This isn't he 1600's. Woman can sleep with whomever they want, whenever.

Anyway, I'm 100% in the "innocent" club. Absolutely nothing linking her to the crime scene. Wasn't even home the night it happened. Convincing someone...twice no less...all because she acted a little strange and had an off putting personality? Come on Italy. Insane. Can't convict someone off pure circumstantial evidence. Actually, you can (Adnan Syed).

But a very well put together documentary. When this happened I was a year out of college. Still young and immature, didn't pay attention to news very much. I definitely heard about Amanda Knox, but didn't ever pay attention to the details or read further into it. So mostly everything about the case was new to me. Very interesting stuff, that seems (at least from this documentary) very cut & dry.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

No one was ever screwed over like Amanda was. That #&$% from Florida Casey Anthony gets acquitted when she OBVIOUSLY did it, killed her little daughter. Now don't get me wrong: Casey was rightlyly found not guilty. There was no evidence. The jury was right in that case.

What the jury did to Amanda Knox was evil. She was sent to prison, an innocent woman. There was ZERO evidence that she had committed the crime. None. None whatsoever. She was the most innocent person ever sent to prison. Her years there did real damage. She was a good girl, and she should have been treated like one. I can't believe that she was treated the way she was.

It's offensive. Screw you, Italy.

Many believe the guy who got sent down is innocent. There are shades of grey in this and we will never know the truth. My personal opinion is that Knox was guilty.

[BladeRunner2007]

Just seen it. Wow, they had absolutely no proof that Knox and her boyfriend were guilty. Utterly pathetic investigation and securing of evidence. A lawyer who gets his first big case and he just wants to solve it fast, so he can shine in the media and get all the attention. He didn't care who it was, as long as he was able to put someone behind bars. This makes me so angry. I hate this guy and everyone who didn't do their job right in this case. So she is found guilty because she's sexual active and maybe a bit cold on the surface?! Not everyone is socially equal in their behaviour. This is such a pathetic excuse. Italians are very warm and welcome, Americans not so much compared to Italians. I am so happy both of them are finally acquitted. Sadly, both of them probably won't be able to lead a normal life ever again.

[HockeySlasher]

The documentary was good but a bit slanted to a pro-Knox feel. I wonder if the PR firm the Knox's have been working with also had a hand in this.

If I remember correctly there was also some DNA that wasn't discussed in the doc - namely the mix of Amanda's and Meridths blood that was in the hallway. I never really bought into the "bathmat shuffle" Amanda said she did.

Then there were some timing issues with her phone calls around the time the cops were called.

And the fact that the two said they slept until 10:30a the next day but computer analysis shows his computer was accessed early in the morning and his phone was turned back on...

The problem is there has been so much misinformation out out there.

[NARMAK]

Originally Posted by HockeySlasher

The documentary was good but a bit slanted to a pro-Knox feel. I wonder if the PR firm the Knox's have been working with also had a hand in this.

If I remember correctly there was also some DNA that wasn't discussed in the doc - namely the mix of Amanda's and Meridths blood that was in the hallway. I never really bought into the "bathmat shuffle" Amanda said she did.

Then there were some timing issues with her phone calls around the time the cops were called.

And the fact that the two said they slept until 10:30a the next day but computer analysis shows his computer was accessed early in the morning and his phone was turned back on...

The problem is there has been so much misinformation out out there.

Anybody going in to watch this should know that it's biased towards Amanda Knox. It takes a few liberties with things and makes omissions of others from what I've read reviewers state and as you've also mentioned.

This isn't like the "Making of a murderer" or whatnot where you can see video evidence of the cops misleading Brandon for example. I won't doubt the claim that the Italians were stupid and incompetent in their collection of crime scene evidence BUT there are many outstanding legitimate questions.

All in all, surely you've all noticed that innocent or guilty, Amanda Knox has carved out a pretty small fortune off the back of all this.

[HockeySlasher]

Originally Posted by NARMAK

Anybody going in to watch this should know that it's biased towards Amanda Knox. It takes a few liberties with things and makes omissions of others from what I've read reviewers state and as you've also mentioned.

This isn't like the "Making of a murderer" or whatnot where you can see video evidence of the cops misleading Brandon for example. I won't doubt the claim that the Italians were stupid and incompetent in their collection of crime scene evidence BUT there are many outstanding legitimate questions.

All in all, surely you've all noticed that innocent or guilty, Amanda Knox has carved out a pretty small fortune off the back of all this.

Yeah, I knew that going in it was going to be a bit slanted, but I wasn't expecting it to be as slanted as it was.

Whatever. It was entertaining.

[serpentine]

The people I feel sorry for is the family of Meredith Kercher. To have the murder of their daughter/sister made into little more than TV 'entertainment' is grotesque.

[thewerepuppygrr]

Originally Posted by serpentine

The people I feel sorry for is the family of Meredith Kercher. To have the murder of their daughter/sister made into little more than TV 'entertainment' is grotesque.

The fact that Knox practically revels in it doesn't help. Honestly whether she did it or not, she still has no trouble displaying psychopathic behaviors.

[Night Fever Music]

The documentary offered nothing about Amanda Knox's life previous to moving to Italy. I'm curious as to her mental health. Does she have any sort of violence in her past that could connect the dots to murder? As others have mentioned, she had sort of an awkward social behavior, well I was a goth kid at her age, wearing nothing but black with a different shade of hair color every other week, didn't make me violent let alone a murderer. I came to the conclusion Amanda Knox is not guilty. The documentary clearly showed that this was nothing more than a Salem Witch Trial, just waiting to pin the murder on anyone they suspected. Scary as I've spent nearly a year of my own life traveling through Italy.

[zorbonaut]

I just caught this last night and knew almost nothing about the story going into it (I normally avoid this type of news story).

If I were on the jury and based my decision on the evidence in this documentary, it would no doubt be a not guilty vote for me. I realize that a lot of evidence was omitted from the documentary, but to me it looks like a case built on assumptions and preconceived notions instead of real evidence.

Originally Posted by jacobsever

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).

But you can be entertaining and still be mostly unbiased. This is where Moore fails and why I won't watch any of his documentaries. I can't trust anything he says because his bias is so overwhelming.

Morgan Spurlock is someone I respect because he makes entertaining documentaries but always seems to approach his subjects with an open mind. You can see this open mind in a few of his 30 days short docs pretty clearly.

[jacobsever]

Originally Posted by zorbonaut

But you can be entertaining and still be mostly unbiased. This is where Moore fails and why I won't watch any of his documentaries. I can't trust anything he says because his bias is so overwhelming.

Morgan Spurlock is someone I respect because he makes entertaining documentaries but always seems to approach his subjects with an open mind. You can see this open mind in a few of his 30 days short docs pretty clearly.

I love Moore films probably because I side with him politically nearly 100%.

I also have seen 2 Spurlock films, and didn't enjoy either. Supersize Me just made me really hungry, and I went to McDonalds on my drive home. And RATS was decent, but a gimmick.

[Member-275053]

I like both of their work.

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Many believe the guy who got sent down is innocent. There are shades of grey in this and we will never know the truth. My personal opinion is that Knox was guilty.

Based on what?! This was a case with essentially zero evidence.

[Steedeel]

Originally Posted by AaronJ

Based on what?! This was a case with essentially zero evidence.

Instinct. Her behaviour IMO, was bizarre throughout the whole thing. She didn't seem to display even a hint of shock or empathy throughout. I just think she looks guilty. Her eyes don't tell the truth lol.

[jacobsever]

Yeah, who needs any sort of scientific fact that would actually place her at the scene of the crime? Ya know?

[AaronJ]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Instinct. Her behaviour IMO, was bizarre throughout the whole thing. She didn't seem to display even a hint of shock or empathy throughout. I just think she looks guilty. Her eyes don't tell the truth lol.

Well, considering that none of that is actually evidence ...

I read her book, and she comes off as a decent enough person. But even if she were a horrible person, hell even a sociopath, that doesn't mean that she killed Meredith.

And as I said earlier in the thread, sometimes even guilty people -- Casey Anthony as a perfect example -- don't deserve to be convicted. We all know she killed her daughter. And we all know she didn't shed a single tear or give a damn about it. But her acquittal was the correct verdict, since there was essentially no evidence against her. Her story made almost no sense whatsoever, but as for evidence? It just wasn't there.

So, even if Amanda had killed her -- which she absolutely didn't, btw -- she certainly didn't deserve to be convicted. Some people didn't like the way she acted. Well, that's not a reason to convict someone of serious felony. You need evidence. And there was none here.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by Steedeel

Instinct. Her behaviour IMO, was bizarre throughout the whole thing. She didn't seem to display even a hint of shock or empathy throughout. I just think she looks guilty. Her eyes don't tell the truth lol.

I don't get this. When she is standing kissing her bf outside the house in the 'controversial' footage, her eyes look really haunted and she looks absolutely gutted.

How is one supposed to act? There were 4 girls sharing that house and none of them really spent any time together as they all had their own lives. Yet the focus was always solely on her and her actions.

[HockeySlasher]

Obviously she's socially awkward.

Looking at the evidence - most that wasn't presented in the documentary - I think she is guilty.

[Impossible]

Originally Posted by HockeySlasher

Obviously she's socially awkward.

Looking at the evidence - most that wasn't presented in the documentary - I think she is guilty.

The only main thing that wasn't in the doc was the luminal testing which was proved to be inconclusive anyways which is obviously why they left it out.

You can list 500 supposed items of evidence, but if none of them are actual 100% factually correct evidence, they shouldn't even be considered.