Amanda Knox trailer released for Netflix doc

Producer Stephen Robert Morse is an ardent Knox supporter who has been busily deleting all his supporting tweets, now that he's involved in the doco. He also harassed journalist Andrea Vogt who attended the trial & appeal.
You'll find screenshots of his comments here. (you might have to scroll down.)
http://perugiamurderfile.net/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=461&start=7000
This will be another exercise in PR for criminals. (Knox remains a convicted criminal felon today for blaming her boss of rape and murder and leaving him in prison for two weeks, on the apparent grounds that black guys make better suspects. Supreme court which illegally acquitted her, in violation of article 628 of the Italian Criminal Procedure Code decreed she blamed her boss to protect Rudy Guede, the sole person convicted for Meredith's murder).
Supreme court concluded that Amanda Knox was 100% absolutely there when Meredith was murdered but that even had she had have washed Ms Kercher's blood from her hands, it still can't be proved that she did it. Court doesn't make the same allowance for the black guy though, had he had have washed Ms Kercher's blood from his shoes, for example. I guess Italian courts have different standards of proof for white and black defendants.

Resta, nondimento, forte il sopetto che egli fosse, realmente, presente nella casa di villa della pergola la notte d'ella omicidio in une moneto, pero' che non e' stato possible determinare. D'altro canto, certa la prezenza della Knox in quella casa, appare scarsamente credible che eglinon si trovasse con lei

Translation:

Nevertheless there is strong suspicion that he (Sollecito) was, truly, present in the house in villa della pergola on the night of the homicide, however, it is not possible to determine when he was there. On the other hand, since it was certain that Knox was present in that house, it seems scarcely credible that he would not have been there with her.

(Bruno Marasca acquitting report p49)

^^Court also says there's strong suspicion that her ex boyfriend Raffaele Sollecito was there, as in the guy in whose apt the murder weapon was found with Knox's DNA on the handle & Ms Kercher's DNA on the blade, and who left his DNA on the victim's underwear in a 17 loci match.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Double_DNA_Knife
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Bra_Clasp

Guede was tried separately and all courts- seven in total- concluded that Guede had two accomplices.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Multiple_Attackers

It doesn't take a genius to figure out who those accomplices were. The Kerchers were treated disgracefully by the Italian judiciary. Italy is not a country under the rule of law and cannot deliver justice for its citizens or visitors when two can be illegally acquitted despite being convicted on more evidence than Scott Peterson and Whitey Bulger.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Evidence

The definitive documentary on Meredith's case can be found here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf_8BDVRWrc
It is by American journalist Andrea Vogt who attended Knox's entire court process, trial and both automatic appeals and gives both supporters and prosecution equal opportunity to state their case. It's been constantly reported by Knox's supporters and constantly re-upped by campaigners for justice.
It should be noted that Knox's conviction would be finalized right after her trial in the US, UK, Australia, Canada, and many more western nations. Only in Italy had she the automatic right to two appeals, with the second level appeal essentially being a rehash of the trial.
In Italy, neither Steven Avery nor Brendan Dassey's conviction would be final until both had finished their appeals, one which covers evidence again and the supreme court appeal which examines law points. It's how the Italian supreme court acted illegally as they weren't authorised to examine the evidence again, as her trial and second level appeal had already established the facts of the case. They weren't authorised to acquit either but only to defer the case back to a lower court for retrial. They acted completely arbitraily, actually mooted a new defence for Knox, hardly the purpose of an impartial appellate court and actually flat out lied that cops had destroyed evidence when this simply wasn't true.
The truth has a habit of coming out one day. I hope it will here.
The primary sources on Ms Kercher's case and judges reports are fully available here.
http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/Main_Page
Make up your own mind.
RIP Meredith Kercher the real victim here. My deepest sympathies and condolences to her very dignified and stoic family who have suffered obscene levels of online abuse by Knox's sychophants and who were abandoned by the Italian judiciary. I will never stop speaking the truth about Ms Kercher's case.
Cheers.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Here is an article from co-producer Stephen Morse on Knox from a while back, where he lies that "for the record" Guede murdered Ms Kercher alone. This is untrue as all courts decree that Guede had two accomplices, including the one which illegally acquitted Knox.
Morse removed this article from his blog once the advertising for the netflix doco began but such things can be retrieved.

https://web.archive.org/web/20140306164731/http://stephenrobertmorse.wordpress.com/2014/02/24/amanda1

Again this "documentary" will be yet another fawning PR exercise for criminals, another example of innocence fraud, riding on the success of its innocence fraud predecessor Making a Murderer, imo.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Same trailer is out by Netflix only under the title "Suspect her".
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9r8LG_lCbac

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Comment by a Knox supporter on the Knox netflix documentary IMDB board,to highlight why I don't suffer murderer groupies and also the types of creep that Criminals like Amanda Knox attract.

by The_Mob_Has_Spoken
» 19 hours ago (Mon Sep 12 2016 13:58:00) Flag ▼ | Reply |
IMDb member since August 2001
Post Edited: Mon Sep 12 2016 15:44:06
Rudy Guede left Kercher's dead snatch full of inferior African baby batter and an unflushed inferior African turd in the toilet. He basically caught himself.


"I like simple pleasures like butter in my ass and lollipops in my mouth." - Floyd Gondolli

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5952332/board/thread/260403478
This guy and Prometheus would probably get on like a house on fire...

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Prosecution response to Netflix's PR makeover.

Some facts recognized as certain by the Cassazione, not reported in the documentary, are that it is anyway a “proven fact” that Amanda Knox was present at the scene of crime when crime was committed. The same ruling also points out how it is proven beyond doubt that Meredith Kercher was murdered by more than one person, and Rudy Guede certainly acted together with others. The fact that Amanda Knox was certainly there is emphasized by the Court to the point of noting their agreement with the lower Court on the fact that Ms. Knox heard Meredith’s harrowing scream, and even noted that she had the victim’s blood on her hands, that she washed them in order to clean them from Meredith’s blood.

Response in full
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php

Dr Mignini speaks

I will share just some of my thoughts after reading the article in that magazine, which I would really prefer not to speak about. I mainly want to say that those statements which are put between quotation marks as attributed to me contained in that article? I never pronounced them.

I have never said – and anyone who knows me would understand (though this journalist Judy Bachrach doesn’t know me, doesn’t know me at all and I myself didn’t have the misfortune to know her) that I would never say, I’d never talk about, and I’d never mention, the morality or the immorality of a person as an argument within the explanation for a crime. Absolutely no way.

A crime is a violation of a law, an action that may be reprehensible or whatever you like, but it is an action regulated as provided by the penal code, subjected to penalty by the code, that needs to be ascertained, period. And that’s all. It needs to be ascertained following totally objective criteria. A crime is an objective action, a codified action. It has nothing to do with moral qualities, or allegations of moral qualities, or lack thereof, of an individuals.

The discussion in the article of Bachrach about those allegedly quoted statements about “morality” attributed to me, they are FALSE, I have simply never said them. And one cannot even say that they were a little changed, because I’ve never said anything even remotely like them. Those are statements of a kind that I would NEVER make.

Such is one statement reported in the article where I allegedly said “Amanda killed because motivated by a wish to be liked at any cost” – by the way, statements like those do not make any sense: the person who makes up such statements doesn’t realize she is saying things void of any meaning.

The Italian Penal Procedure code (art. 220) prohibits that any research into the personality of a suspect could be used in court as evidence, such as the finding of a propensity of a suspect to commit crimes or similar argumentations. A proper research into the personality of a suspect is permitted only when there is a need to establish mental capabilities. On the other hand, some features of a suspect personality might be considered during investigations but only to understand the context of a crime.

When I happened to point at some features apparent in the personality of the suspects, I actually cited observations made by criminal psychiatrist Dr. Mastronardi who had given his opinion on the case. Aspects of personalities traits, showing features such as manipulative behaviours or a passive and dependent attitude – to mention some findings involving the suspects – were rather noted, highlighted or detailed not by the prosecution, but by the judges on various instances of the investigation and pre-trial hearings (Investigation Judge C. Matteini, Re-Examination Judge M. Ricciarelli, and Preliminary Judge P. Micheli).

[Editors note. These are the judges who really guided the case. Go to this post and scroll down and click through to posts #13 to #16. That includes the findings of the Supreme Court, which backed up the findings of Dr Matteini and Dr Ricciarelli’s panel. It also includes Dr Mignini’s interrogation of Knox, in which she in effect froze up; this was done at her own request though her lawyers were none too thrilled - they feared she would bomb out, and she did.]

As for the “motive” on this case. It should be pointed out that in a case like the murder of Meredith Kercher – the murder of a young student girl who was uninvolved in dangerous circles and had no enemies – independently from the identity of the perpetrators, we are talking about a crime that cannot have have a “motive” with a rational or consistent logical structure, nor could it be ascribed to a particular conscious and organized intention.

We may talk about causes that could have contributed to leading to a situation that ended in committing the crime. Among the factors we know that unbalanced personalities, life or emotional disorganization of perpetrators, behavioral excesses, inabilities to handle relations, psychological fragilities, are elements that always contribute to this kind of crimes, and we had reasons to believe that drugs also played a role.

The task of the judiciaries is not really to set out the motives of the individuals from a subjective point of view. We know that unfortunately a record of cases exists, in which apparent “ordinary” looking young people – including students – have committed very violent murders, in contexts where no “motive” could be explained in a way that appears rational or serious from an objective point of view, since futile crimes - including group murders - may emerge from the building up of situations involving individuals not able to handle issues of adult life.

Thus, all statements within quotation marks as reported in the article by Bachrach are false, I’d say absolutely false: they are the product of a making-up or a spin (I reserve for myself any necessary action in the event there is also a defamatory report) or reported without their context or with their context changed (like falsely reporting the dates, such as when I mentioned the time when some Perugian citizens used to compliment me).

I was stunned by one statement by the end of the article, that says – in which I am reported to have said – that “if they were innocent, they should forget”. That is a statement which I said on request of one of the two interviewers, who asked “what would you say to those young persons in the event that they were actually innocent?”. So what could I say, what should I answer to a question framed and spun in such a way? I might say: “it’s an experience that unfortunately happened to you, something that may happen, try to forget, seek all legal ways” – but I was saying that in the abstract, purely in the abstract – “that you think you can follow if you deem that you suffered an injustice” – albeit the Cassazione ruling is in the dubitative formula (Art. 530 § 2. cpp).

But then the Vanityfair journalist does not report my *second* statement, that is, the other one I said just following: “And what about if they are guilty? If they were guilty I’d suggest them to remind that our human life ends as trial that has an irreversible sentence, that will last forever”. My answer was made of two statements, not of one. Both were rhetorical and hypothetical. The last statement was the one I thought would have unleashed criticism, but curiously it’s the one missing in the article, there is no comment about it.

Another thing: it is true that people in Perugia happened to come to shake my hand and compliment me, but that happened much later, around 2013 and later, and those people basically complimented me about the Narducci case. It was somehow satisfying because it came after many years of difficulties and attacks. The Perugian people expressed their support to me because of the Narducci case, and secondarily they also expressed their support because of my independency in facing the international media campaign that was mounted against me after the Kercher case.

I don’t know if Vanityfair was the one which made up or spun my answers, falsely reporting them from the Netflix documentary, or if it was Netflix itself who made them up by editing the interview and disseminating content from a video prior to the premiere. I had a positive experience working with the documentary directors at the time. Not knowing what the journalist watched or made up, I will anyway reserve my decision as a consequence. I have to say, I am quite disconcerted about the way a certain American environment appears to think and keeps going on in a raving manner about this case.

One stunning aspect of this, is that the narrative they put forward, such as in the article we talk about, seems to be based on a focus on me, as if I were to become a kind of key character functional to their fictional story. I found this particularly strange since in reality the Kercher case investigation was actually based on the work of a number of judiciaries, all of them making decisions with a power that was equal, or greater than mine. So is how the Italian system works on these type of serious crimes.

The fact that even a second Public Minister was appointed almost from the beginning may suggest that we didn’t have personal investment: I asked Manuela Comodi – who has my equal rank, is not my deputy – to share the investigation and deal with the technical parts, such as the expert witnesses, since she is very good in this area. The other, multiple judiciaries involved beside us, all had greater powers, each of them could have stopped the investigation or changed its orientation and settings.

Therefore, a personalization of the case – as if I had some kind of special power – or a “polarization” of it – like a narrative that is woven between me and one of the suspects as main characters – that appears unrealistic to any person with a minimum of understanding of the system. Indeed if there are reporters who like to make up a story where a person with my name plays the role of a picturesque fictional character, motivated by “moral” or religious obsessions or else, all of this only shows an agenda pursued by those journalists that tells much more about them and about the type of campaign they are part of, than about the case.

There is anyway one important element which, unfortunately, I know was left out from the documentary – partly because it was produced earlier than the publication of the Cassazione ruling – I know that something the documentary omits to mention, is the actual content of the latest ruling by the Fifth Panel of Cassazion. If we leave aside, for a moment, the several issues of consistency and law inherent in the ruling itself (those that may be spotted by those who read it with some knowledge of the topics), there is anyway the fact that the ruling confirms certain findings.

Some facts recognized as certain by the Cassazione, not reported in the documentary, are that it is anyway a “proven fact” that Amanda Knox was present at the scene of crime when crime was committed. The same ruling also points out how it is proven beyond doubt that Meredith Kercher was murdered by more than one person, and Rudy Guede certainly acted together with others. The fact that Amanda Knox was certainly there is emphasized by the Court to the point of noting their agreement with the lower Court on the fact that Ms. Knox heard Meredith’s harrowing scream, and even noted that she had the victim’s blood on her hands, that she washed them in order to clean them from Meredith’s blood.

The High Court only raises a reasonable doubt about the active participation of Amanda Knox in the action of killing. The Court – in agreement with other definitive findings – also reminds that Ms. Knox voluntarily lied as she falsely accused an innocent, and notes that no way could this finding ever be overturned. All these things are missing in the documentary. I’d like all American friends to bear in mind these last bits of information as well, whenever they decide to seek information about the Kercher case.]

RIP Meredith Susanna Cara Kercher (December 28 1985- November 01 2007)
May the truth come out about your murder and your murderers one day.

Hey, look at that! She's not crazy, she's being chased by a cheetah!

reply share

add reply

formatting help

Just finished it right now. Way better of a documentary than Making a Murderer. They're not altering anything here to create drama.

reply share

add reply

formatting help