SPOILERS: I was on the fence about Knox for many years, but after hearing that pompous atrocity, Sherlock Holmes wanna-be prosecutor, in his own words; and hearing the slimy tabloid hack who came up with the name "Foxy Knoxy", actually refer to himself as a 'journalist', I am no longer on the fence. This girl was railroaded. Smeared. Run through through the gauntlet of media exploitation for ratings. This case is an utter embarrassment to the Italian justice system and media. At one point the prosecutor rolls out this bizarre titillating story of kinky sex and murder .... <more>
then you realize this garbage coming from his own sick imagination. There's no evidence for any of what he's saying! He's making up the entire crime. The man is twisted. Incompetent. And he was punished by being promoted. I thought our judicial system was f*cked up. And the press is just as guilty. They helped crucify her with sensational stories void of any journalistic merit or responsibility. I actually fell for a lot of that stuff because that's all we were getting. At one point the hack who thinks he's a journalist blames the fiasco on the police and actually asks what did we expect him to do, look deeper into the story?... Uh, yeah, that's JOURNALISM, you freekin poser. Sorry, but I'm angry. I just finished watching. Anyway, this is a great docu about a modern day witch-hunt. I wouldn't have been surprised if the prosecutor tried to throw her into water to see if she floats.
When I first heard that there was going to be a new movie called "Amanda Knox" I met it with a healthy dose of skepticism, I had become hardened to what mainstream and tabloid media had produced about this young lady and her Italian friend in the past decade; I had learned not trust the opinions of people who read only headlines.But I must say I was not only pleasantly surprised by the outcome, I welcomed it gladly like a breath of fresh air. You see, I am a researcher for the advocacy that helped Amanda and Raffaele correct misinformation in social media, I volunteered to read the <more>
"mountain of evidence" against them.I know the "complex" first hand, so McGinn and Blackhurst's use of "simple" is brilliant.The guiltless in context with the people guilty of robbing them of their freedom and rights. It evoked a visceral reaction in me that was a surprise, the usual eye-rolling annoyance gave way to white hot anger because the film was so intimate. It brought the antagonists right into my home and, yes, I did yell "FU" at the TV a few times.Amanda and Raffaele are those people you saw on film, no acting, the real thing. Just two ordinary people who met everyone's nightmare – duplicitous authorities. Those people you see against that stark backdrop are exactly who they say they are, McGinn and Blackhurst captured their personalities perfectly.They captured the essence of Giuliano Mignini, Valter Biscotti and Nick Pisa as well. It sickened me to watch them preen for the audience, but the very important point I want to make is that the public's dislike of Pisa, despite his drooling over headlines, is misplaced. Pisa is the tabloid jackal you see, but at least he is honest about it and that authenticity sets him aside from the other antagonists who have cloaked themselves in respectability; wolves in sheep's clothing.If my opinion matters to you, then kindly pay close attention to Prosecutor Mignini if you have not yet seen this film. To those who have, please watch it again and witness "Amanda Knox" parting the curtain to show you official confirmation bias at work in a justice system.The stunning arrogance of Guede's lawyer Biscotti, for example, about being the "better attorney" for the murderer while the uninformed public knows nothing about the Italian fast-track trial system vs. the regular trial system. Can you imagine being found guilty in a court of law without being represented by a lawyer or being able to cross-examine your accuser? Consider the legal plight of Raffaele and Amanda, outside looking in, during Guede's trials while Biscotti swept their Constitutional rights away.Giuliano Mignini's interview was the most telling, he is right that he knows Italian law. So well, in fact, that he used it to pull the wool over the eyes of Raffaele's well-connected family including sister the cop just long enough to force the young man to "have his day in court" as mandated by law. He also pulled the wool over the US Embassy in Italy by not declaring Amanda an official suspect until after her arrest, though she was under surveillance, wiretapped and Perugian authorities were preparing to interrogate her and Raffaele both. Mignini's signature on the detention forms was inked mere hours before help would arrive for both naive students, and those papers are the tip of the legal iceberg. Because of the wiretapping Mignini knew his unfettered access to the pair was coming to an end as soon as Amanda's mother arrived.I was most surprised to see Mignini's mantra from court transcripts for the world to see: "Let's consider." "Let's imagine." "If only there was a video in the room." Well, that last part is not in the film, only the case file along with many other examples of this so-called professional imagining "what may have happened." His penchant to "make up dialogue" for Meredith and Amanda was also present and this man has made up many disgusting things; that is without question.Then there is the prosecutor's denial of knowing how Lumumba's name was fed to Amanda during the interrogation in contrast to his confirmed presence just outside the room; while he was engaged in advising the police. Mignini is provably part of the more than a dozen Perugian law enforcement members present while she was abused, broken, and forced to sign away her life in a foreign language. It is heartbreaking to see the part of the film when Amanda finally realized that nothing she said mattered to him, all that mattered was his opinion.So Mignini knows intimately how Lumumba's name was introduced and his denial of that fact in this film is pure gold.You see the barest hint of his Madonna/Whore Complex in the film as well, osmotic evaluation of the legal dossier reveals a dirty old man entertaining the court with the latest script from his "soap opera." The scared foreign kid is "crazy," the party-animal British Girls are "proper," and the murder victim is "virginal." Satan, the Mason's, Reefer Madness, Catfights, Guede's Poop, it's all there. The man in the mirror is an arrogant official, a devil some would say, who lied to the victim's family and accused innocent people of a crime he concocted in his own head.McGinn and Blackhurst did a great job of taking a complex issue and simplifying it in ninety minutes. I invite you to take that time, kickback with a cocktail in the comfort of your own home and see how easy it is for an authority to scoop kids right off the street. Amanda believes the public thinks she is a monster, but the most frightening monsters are the powerful ones pulling strings behind our backs.Turn away from Amanda and Raffaele; and see the monster that stalked them. Giuliano Mignini.
Superb documentary - ignore the haters (by Zebb67)
Superb documentary - ignore the haters. Apparently some right wing news site sent a lot of people over here to write horrible reviews about this great documentary, even though critical reception has been universally and unanimously terrific. This really shows how the media can shape a story based on their own desire for ratings and sales, not reaching the truth. The fact that the judge, who believes satanic cults were roaming the countryside, was allowed to use his bias and superstitious beliefs to so taint this case, show how this case was doomed for the defense from the start, at least <more>
until just this was finally served in Amanda Knox was freed from prison. Those who have written here that the Catholic Church is incapable of having a member do something evil, I suggest you watch the movie Spotlight, now showing here on Netflix. A must for true crime fans.
So many people already made up their minds (by Rick-34)
The movie and the reviews here show how people can be so adamant about the need to punish somebody for a crime that they buy into the most ludicrous theories. Amanda Knox was persecuted by the police in Perugia for committing the transgression of being a "loose woman". What do we know about this case? - Rudy Guede's DNA was at the scene, a fact that makes no sense unless he was involved in the murder - In a Skype chat with a friend, Guede said Amanda wasn't there. - Guede had a history of violence and breaking in to homes. - High pressure tactics were used by the police to <more>
get Raffaele to change his alibi for Amanda, and to trick Amanda into a vague confession - The vague confession by Amanda implicated her boss, but this theory was discarded by the police. Instead, Guede was inserted into the case while the confession by Amanda was treated as evidence of her guilt. - the treatment of the DNA evidence by the Italian police was atrociously sloppyMany 1-star reviews are being given by people who are convinced of Amanda's guilt. They say that the film is "biased", apparently because the filmmakers didn't give equal weight to a pro-guilt side. Well...that's not what "biased" means. Yes, the filmmakers clearly feel that Amanda Knox is innocent. You know who else does? The Italian courts. To make claims of bias, you have to go further than to say that a person has an opinion you disagree with. You have to show that they view evidence in a partial fashion: discarding evidence that disagrees with predetermined conclusions while overstating the importance of evidence that agrees with them. There is bias in this case, as the documentary clearly shows. The prosecutor pursued a case against Amanda Knox for clearly irrational reasons, and the theories he uses are inconsistent and often ludicrous. His interviews are the most painful parts of the movie. He says things like "A female murdered covers the body of a female victim; a man does not. That's why I suspected a woman from the start." This is ludicrous. Amanda Knox and Raffaele Solecitto lost years of their lives to this nonsense - emotionally driven aversion to evidence-based pursuit of the truth. Bravo to the filmmakers for giving this story the care and attention it deserves.One final note: shame on all the tabloid journalists who fed the frenzy of insanity. The interview of the journalist who published Amanda's diary shows that he feels no shame at what he did - that he feels comfortable with the violation of her privacy. I wonder if he'll ever figure out what he did wrong here.
Divisive, intriguing true crime story (by futuredwight2007)
The Amanda Knox story is, historically, a very divisive crime story, and the public opinion that has become enveloped in the "truth" has evolved to relatively toxic sides. Either you think she is innocent, or she is guilty. But as one of the first lines spoken in this masterful documentary presents, from Knox herself: Either she is a psychopath in sheep's clothing, or she is you. And both are equally terrifying. This incredible dichotomy of a revelation is expertly told and discovered in the Netflix-original documentary, that is engrossing to the last second. The editing, the <more>
cinematography, and the interviews of some of the key players of the crime are all must-sees.
Wow ! Corruption, of course it's Mafia country (by gibbs-18172)
A superb documentary in which the ending may not be 100% fact based but you have to make up your own mind.Changed my mind and made me feel silly for believing so many of the tabloid garbage when I'm normally a sceptic.I know what I believe now I've more facts . Maybe you will think differently.Great doc
Anatomy of a modern-day witch hunt (by krisrox)
As humans, we just can't resist a juicy story. And the infamous Meredith Kercher murder case had it in spades: the gruesome killing of a beautiful young girl, a picturesque Italian village, a throwback Sherlock Holmes-style detective-philosopher, and an interconnected web of young, multicultural, possibly sex-addicted suspects, headlined by a knockout American student with icy blue eyes - the titular Amanda Knox.Somebody had to make a documentary about it, and here we are. Netflix covers the bases: they get all of its principal actors on camera, stylishly photographed, as is the norm <more>
today for true crime; they weave in surprisingly detailed case footage - including that of the actual crime scene, moments after the murder had taken place; and they let the story unfold chronologically, making sure the intrigue is as strong as ever.What emerges is the dissection of a modern-day witch hunt. The main adversaries are "hot property" Amanda and the pipe-smoking Italian lead investigator, who are both captivating in their own right, even if for completely different reasons. But the crucial insights come from Nick Pisa, the British journalist who broke the internet with his scoops during the case. Halfway, he sheepishly smiles at the camera, and then sums up the whole mess in one line: we just can't say no to a juicy story.Recommended if you like true crime, done well.
Giuliano Magnini, the prosecutor who fabricates evidence, read on and check it by yourself. (by gonzofaratro)
If you know something about Mario Spezi and Amanda Knox, then you also know Giuliano Magnini. You CAN NOT even begin to understand Amanda's case without knowing and understanding who the monster of Florence is, Giuliano Magnini. I came across Amanda's case while reading a book called " the monster of Florence" an amazing chronicle of mediocrity and corruption during one of the most well know cases of serial murders in Italy.Giuliano Magnini, the prosecutor fabricated evidence, played with it, invented a orgy/drugs/sex/blood sect, sound familiar? sent a respected reporter <more>
to jail, for reporting, tapped phones .Magnini was even given a conviction and jail time ... and guess what, due to the system in Italy he can still be a prosecutor and worst, can do the same all over again !A famous articled titled "You're my enemy? Then I will indict you." is a must read if you do not understand Giuliano, you only understand 50% of this senseless story. He landed Amanda's case and with it, he tried to create a smoke curtain to erase his past, how unfortunate this young lady was, to fall victim to this monster, to get a mentally unstable man as her prosecutor, a man that will do and lie shamelessly to make his point, a man that even refused to accept other man's innocence because it contradicted his case.The real criminal is Giuliano Mignini, a monster that in the USA will be locked for life for what he has done, yes ... he is the one who prosecuted Amanda.Do yourselves a favor, read The Monster of Florence by Douglas Preston and Mario Spezi and get to know who Giuliano and once you research well you will be shocked
The truth is a strange beast (by michael-kaercher)
I learned about this case several years ago in the media. In Germany, the media referred to Knox as "The angel with the ice eyes". Even Germanys "Der Spiegel", a usually more serious tabloid used the term.I would see the media in this case as one big Problem. Terms like "foxy knoxy" or "Angel with the ice eyes" suggest something, what is may be not there. In General, the media influence could not be more harmful.I watched the documentary today on Netflix and I am Aware, that an American production may over-emphasize the view of Knox. But I did not find <more>
clear evidence for a made up Story. Reading through some of the web sites for the case, the General story-line is accurate and the results of the film-maker is quite consistent with the ruling of the Italian board of Appeals, which eventually finished off the case.After all, there was a burglary that night in that house by a known criminal. There was not a lot of evidence, which linked Knox and her boyfriend to the Scene of crime. The circumstantial evidence was more like about a strange behavior like kissing on the Scene of crime or a blanket covering the victim. I cannot help but think, that Knox behavior is more the behavior of a half-child then of a criminal woman, who just conducted a murder and try to get away with it.I buy the Story of Netflix. Especially after reading through some - even critial - web sites. Therefore I consider this a good documentary. I changed my mind about the case and think - considering the horrible influence and Quality of the media - this was one step into the right direction.Good work, Netflix