Amanda Knox

2016

Crime / Documentary

178
Rotten Tomatoes Critics - Certified Fresh 82%
Rotten Tomatoes Audience - Upright 71%
IMDb Rating 6.9 10 20,379

Synopsis


Downloaded times
October 12, 2020

Director

Cast

Donald Trump as Self
720p.WEB 1080p.WEB
848.07 MB
1280*720
English 2.0
NR
23.976 fps
92 min
P/S N/A / N/A
1.7 GB
1920×1080
English 2.0
NR
23.976 fps
92 min
P/S N/A / N/A

Movie Reviews

Reviewed by superfly-22308 1 / 10 / 10

This is the Amanda Knox story

"The media is the most powerful entity on earth. They have the power to make the innocent guilty and to make the guilty innocent, and that's power. Because they control the minds of the masses." Malcolm X Knox maintains that she was at Sollecito's address at 110 Corso Garibaldi watching Amelie at the time of Meredith's murder. Not even Raffaele supports this version of events and it begs the question why Blackhurst and McGinn have omitted the fact that Marasca and Bruno who acquitted the pair state in their motivation report "her (Knox) presence inside the house, the location of the murder, is a proved fact in the trial." The acquitting Judges go on to explain their reasoning that Knox was the first person to offer a sexual motive before there was any cadaver or autopsy reports available. They also make mention of Amanda's description of "the victim's terrible scream" which was confirmed some time later by witnesses Nara Capezzali, Antonella Monacchia and others. How could a person who wasn't present know these details of the crime? Knox goes on to describe an idyllic evening, smoking pot and making love yet makes no mention of who was listening to music on Sollecito's computer at 05:32 in the morning, a time that both Knox and Sollecito claim to be blissfully sleeping. Knox can't comprehend why there is a knife with her DNA on the handle and Meredith's DNA on the blade. There is no mention in the documentary of Amanda's recorded prison conversation with her parents in which she says "I am very worried about this thing with the knife, because there is a knife of Raffaele's" *Reference Massei report page 292. Neither do they address Sollecito's claim that the reason Meredith's DNA is on the blade is because he "accidentally pricked her while cooking." He later admitted this was a total fabrication, Meredith had never attended his home. Knox claims that she accused Diya Lumumba after long hours of questioning yet we know that due to the time recorded on her signed, voluntary statement that she had fabricated a story swapping Guede for Lumumba in under 2 hours and only did so upon learning Sollecito was no longer supporting her alibi. There is no mention in the documentary that Amanda had provided Diya Lumumba's name to Rita Ficarra in a list of persons of interest prior to learning Raffaele was not corroborating her version of events. There is no mention of the sample of Knox's blood recovered from the faucet of the bathroom she shared with Meredith which Amanda herself dated in her court testimony to the night of Meredith's murder. There is no mention of the mixed DNA sample of Knox and Meredith, recovered from a luminol revealed bloodstain in Filomena Romanelli's room. This is where the alleged burglary occurred, it is worth noting there is no biological trace of Rudy Guede in this room. Addressing the bra clasp, the Netflix documentary fails to address the only other sample of Sollecito's DNA identified in Via Della Pergola 7 was on a cigarette butt in an ashtray in the kitchen. This was a mixed sample containing Raffaele and Amanda's DNA. The documentary emphasises the farcical views of the so called "independent experts" Stefano Conti and Carla Vecchiotti. It fails to mention that Vecchiotti confirmed that contamination at Dr Patrizia Stefanoni's laboratory was not possible if there was a six day gap in the testing of materials during cross questioning at the Hellmann appeal hearing. PROSECUTOR COMODI: "Is six days a sufficient interval to rule out contamination?" CARLA VECCHIOTTI: "Yes absolutely" Neither to they address Conti's explanation as to how and why Sollecito's DNA was located on the hook of Meredith's bra clasp PROSECUTOR COMODI: "How would Sollecito's DNA accidentally arrive on the hook of Meredith's bra?" STEFANO CONTI: "Anything is possible" During his input in the documentary Conti implies that DNA is easily transferable, he gives an example of running his fingers along his arm. If this is the case I would like to pose a few of questions to him. 1, Why is the only other sample of Sollecito's DNA located on a cigarette butt in the kitchen? 2, Why is there no genetic trace of Guede in the small bathroom or in Filomena Romanelli's room? 3, Can you provide a figure for the statistical probability of Sollecito's solitary sample of DNA (other than the mixed trace on the cigarette butt) innocently finding it's way on to Meredith's bra clasp? Blackhurst and McGinn predictably make use of Rudy Guede's Skype conversation with Giacomo Bendetti in which he states Knox wasn't there, yet do not address the letter Guede wrote to his lawyers in which he refers to "a horrible murder of a splendid, beautiful girl that was Meredith by Raffaele Sollecito and Amanda Knox" Why have the documentary makers chosen to ignore these facts? The answer in my opinion is simple and evidenced by Blackhurst and McGinn's long standing support of Amanda Knox. Their production was never intended to be an objective documentary. It is nothing more than a PR exercise, it does what it says on the tin and tells the Amanda Knox story while omitting key facts. It is a blatant attempt to influence their targeted "banked on" audience and create sympathetic feelings towards Knox. Ironically towards the end of the documentary there is an interview with Curt Knox, he states "I'm not looking at her as a hot property." Yet Curt Knox enlisted David Marriott of Seattle based PR firm Gogerty Marriott within days of his daughters arrest. And nine years later Amanda Knox is still attempting to be "hot property". Read my full review at http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php? f=1&t=461&p=131314#p131314 Rest in peace Meredith Kercher

Reviewed by Corpus_Vile 2 / 10 / 10

How to deify a criminal in the court of public opinion

Amanda Knox, a Netflix documentary directed and exec produced by two ardent Knox supporters, Rod Blackhurst and Stephen Robert Morse, who have been campaigning for Knox since 2011, (which included harassing journalists who actually covered the case far more thoroughly than they did), opens with lingering almost gleeful close ups of the bloody crime scene and goes downhill from there. The documentary begins by trying to shape a false narrative of handy villains who all seemingly came together like the stars aligning to make innocent Amanda look so screamingly, beyond a reasonable doubtingly guilty. (and not the overwhelming behavioral circumstantial and hard physical evidence against her which the documentary brushes over in a cursory manner.) Villains first were the cops then prosecutor, and now according to Netflix,the tabloid media,anyone except Amanda Knox herself. The film makes out that Rudy Guede, the sole person convicted for Meredith Kercher's murder, left his DNA all over the crime scene, with funky arrows pointing here there and everywhere. The problem is this simply isn't true. Rudy Guede was convicted on less DNA evidence (five samples) than Amanda Knox(six samples). As for the featured so-called "independent DNA experts", Conti and Vechiotti, well, they were found "Objectively biased" and "Objectively deceptive" in court by the Nencini appellate. Specifically because Vechiotti falsely claimed that the technology did not exist to re- test the murder weapon. It did indeed exist in 2011. Vechiotti was also filmed by the BBC shaking hands with Sollecito's father in court no less, hardly appropriate behavior for so-called independents and neither's expertise is in forensic DNA anyway (Vechiotti is a pathologist & Conti's expertise is um, "computer medical science" whatever that's supposed to be). You'll notice in this review how I've rarely mentioned the victim Meredith Kercher. That's because she barely gets a mention in this sad excuse for a documentary. Not even an RIP. Meredith, the victim is relegated to a mere footnote and indeed a foot under a duvet. Reprehensibly, the doc also displays close up autopsy photos of Meredith. Yet the autopsy photos were never made public. Considering only the Kerchers (who didn't take part in Netflix's PR makeover) and the defence- and by extension the two former defendants- had access to such material, this begs the very pertinent question- who provided two ardent Knox supporters with autopsy photos of the murder victim? The filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for this alone, utterly contemptible behavior which comes across as needlessly and despicably taunting the victim's family or at the very least exploiting their daughter and sister purely for lurid effect to make their documentary more "gritty". So what's the verdict on Amanda Knox the documentary? Well it's a terrible, false and ultimately immoral exercise in innocence fraud and here are some facts that Knox's PR infomercial left out: 1 The Supreme Court's acquitting report states that Amanda Knox was present during Meredith's murder and may even have possibly washed the victim's blood from her hands afterwards but it STILL can't be proved that she did it. (which begs more questions, namely why didn't innocent Amanda call the cops for her friend and why wasn't she done for accessory at least?) The same Supreme Court do not make the same allowance for the black guy though, had he had have washed the victim's blood from his shoes for example. The court also states that there's "strong suspicion" that Sollecito was there. 2 The Supreme Court's acquitting report states that the burglary was staged. 3 The Supreme Court's acquitting report states that Meredith was murdered by three attackers and that Guede had two accomplices. (And you really don't have to be Stephen Hawking to figure out who these two accomplices were, when you view the evidence in its totality) 4 The Supreme Court's acquitting nonetheless finalizes Knox's calumny/ criminal slander conviction, which she got for falsely accusing her innocent employer of rape and murder, leaving him in prison for two weeks and never retracting her statement, despite false reports that she did, meaning that Knox's status is still that of a convicted criminal felon. 5 In finalizing Amanda Knox's calumny/criminal slander conviction, The Supreme Court's acquitting report states that Knox blamed her boss to protect Rudy Guede as she was afraid that Guede could "retaliate by incriminating" her, which of course begs some more very interesting and pertinent questions, such as how could Guede incriminate innocent Amanda to begin with? 6 The Supreme Court's acquitting report does NOT exonerate Knox, it acquits her due to "insufficient evidence",like Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson and that nice man Robert Durst. RIP Meredith Kercher, who along with her stoic dignified family (who have been subjected to absolutely abhorrent abuse and attacks by Knox's supporters online) and Knox's employer Patrick Lumumba are the only victims here. May the truth shine in your case one day and the facts and truth come to light. Neither Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito are fooling anyone familiar with Ms Kercher's case & facts are available at the murder of Meredith Kercher .com and in the Nencini and Massei reports.

Reviewed by manfromatlan-63369 2 / 10 / 10

This is a biased and misleading documentary

I saw the film at the Toronto International Film Festival. As a passionate lover of movies and documentaries, I respect the right of ANYONE to create a documentary or film through the prism of their own POV. On the other hand, they owe us, the audience, a modicum of honesty in their reporting. Otherwise, as some one once complained about deceptive editing and reporting in one of Katie Couric's documentaries, it prevents "democratic discourse" and this is what we ask. By all means, engage with us, but do so honestly. Having followed the case for many years as well as attending the earlier Supreme Court hearing in 2013 I can add the following: -Rudy Guede's lawyer Valter Biscotti had a lot more to say about his client being convicted 'in conjunction with others'. This was edited out, as well as the caption Knox put alongside her blog when she posed with a machine gun,"The Nazi Within". Something the media reported correctly at the time, McGinn and Blackhurst not. The Producer Stephen Robert Morse hid his involvement in the project with Brian McGinn and Rod Blackhurst since 2011. They had ALL made inflammatory comments in favour of Amanda Knox over the years, with Morse hastily deleting some (but not all) as the Netflix sale came up. He even called Nick Pisa "a POS" in Perugia in 2011. It was the Danish production company head Mette Heide that approached Mignini and Pisa, who didn't know of Morse's involvement, but that gives the background to this biased 'documentary' and why some may feel it is less than fair or balanced in its portrayal of the protagonists. Mignini was referring to the Monster of Florence case when he talked of people coming up to shake his hand, the film makes it look like they were congratulating him for putting away Amanda Knox. He was referring to it being an inside job when he said an "unknown" man (edited out to make him seem misogynistic) would not have covered Meredith with a blanket. The film emphasized his Catholic beliefs to make it seem he was making a moralistic judgment about her. As he pointed out, the evidence was somewhat overwhelming. It also made it seem like his love of Sherlock Holmes was proof of him following a hunch. Um, that's what investigators sometimes do, especially when faced with the numerous prevarications and failed alibis of Amanda Knox. Obscuring the evidence to match your narrative is dishonest to the extreme. The 'independent' DNA experts Conti and Vecchiotti were given lots of room to claim contamination though that was never proved in court, only inferred. Also left out: Vecchiotti's sentence for not maintaining sterile conditions in HER laboratory. Her switching a suspect's DNA with another in one of Italy's worst murder cases in order to falsely exonerate someone with 'connections'. The tests had to be redone to obtain a conviction. As they make fun of Nick Pisa for 'not fact-checking', should they not have fact-checked before they placed her on camera? The biggest laugh the Toronto audience gave was WITH Nick Pisa when he said "I mean, she's (Knox) a complete and utter loon". This follows the Netflix template of creating reasonable doubt as it did with "The Making Of A Murder". By over emphasizing the defence case, and ignoring the prosecution's, it reads like propaganda. This is neither fair nor balanced, nor is it original. It adds nothing to our knowledge, being a rehash of her book and numerous TV interviews, and already covered in Michael Winterbottom's "The Face Of An Angel" in his fictionalized 'the making of a movie within a movie' adaptation of reporter Barbie Nadeau's book. Oh, and producer Morse insulted HER too. There were several prosecutors and judges helped convict her, not just prosecutor Mignini. Nor was it an exercise in misogyny, the case was driven by three women, prosecutor Manuela Comodi, Scientific Police DNA lab technician Patrizia Stefanoni and homicide Inspector Monica Napoleoni. This exercise in PR looks like an Amanda Knox Production, with her playing the lead role, director, producer and writer. Yet she fails to see how she comes across with her melodramatic styling and emotive pauses and outbursts. She is neither believable nor sympathetic, no matter how hard they all try. Two stars out of ten for production values and slick cinematography, none for the film itself. In the end, the picture belongs to Meredith Kercher, remembered by her family with a grieving Arline Kercher, her mother saying how she just could not understand how there could be two convictions and two acquittals; justice denied. And a haunting video of Meredith, taken in the full bloom of her youthful promise by Amanda Knox. She didn't want Knox to film her, as admitted in her book, she took it anyway. Meredith Kercher, RIP. Disclosure: I'm an editor at the Meredith Kercher case files website The Murder Of Meredith Kercher .com and co-administrator of one of the Perugia Murder File sites.

Read more IMDb reviews

0 Comments

Be the first to leave a comment