Amanda Knox (2016) User Reviews

The press is guilty, but it's harder to say who else is

[paul2001sw-1 · 8/10 · 27 December 2019]

Amanda Knox was an American student in Italy whose flatmate was murdered. On being questioned, Knox lied to the police. She was subsequnetly convicted of murder amid lurid press coverage. However, the DNA evidence was weak and (on the basis of this movie) the chief prosecutor was something of a fantastist, with a worrying tendency to infer beyond the evidence. Knox appealed; the American press took up her case, ridiculing Italian justice and making a defence of the investigation, ironically, a point of patriotism for some Italians. In the end, Knox was exonnerated, and if this documentary is to be believed, this was the correct verdict. The film features a self-incriminating interview with muck-raking journalist Nick Pisa, a man who seems utterly unwilling to accept that his job carries any level of moral responsibility. Otherwise, it's basically a very sad story, made worse by the years it took to reach the legal conclusion.

Not so bad

[Benukra · 6/10 · 29 July 2019]

Nick Pisa is very annoying. You´ll hate him by the end.

Interesting

[andrezaregiane · 7/10 · 11 October 2020]

It is interesting to see how the media and journalists have reported false information and inflamed the public, but still exempt themselves from guilt. The journalist who was interviewed appears to have neither a sensitivity to the victim, nor to the accused falsely. And it is ridiculous how Americans want to intervene in everything, as if everyone depends on them. How superb.

Spitting on Meredith Kercher's Grave (Again)

[TheeMortyToad · 3 October 2016]

On the morning November 2, 2007, 21-year old Meredith Kercher's lifeless body was discovered in the room of a house that she shared with 3 other women while attending school as part of the Erasmus student exchange program in Perugia, Italy. She'd only been in Perugia a few months. One of the housemates present at the scene of discovery was 20-year old Amanda Knox of Seattle, Washington, also a student and the person from whom this Netflix documentary takes it's name.

Can't say that I was really looking forward to watching this, especially after finding out that it's producers were somewhat deceptive in their claims of showing what they had said would be an unbiased and neutral take in what has been one of the most divisive cases to emerge in the age of the internet and social media. Turns out they'd been advocates for Knox's innocence since at least 2011, when Judge Pratillo Hellmann acquitted Knox and co-defendant, Raffaele Sollecito at their first appeal. Why not state your pro-innocence bias upfront? Nothing wrong with that, if you truly believe it, but why state otherwise? And why also state you've got new revelations about the case when you really don't? In fact there was more left out than was put in, but then 90 minutes couldn't possibly cover the roller-coaster of the 3-tiered Italian judiciary system, so the documentary must be selectively streamlined. And boy was it. In a week that started with the first 2016 Presidential Debate between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, and the question rises about the inability of the news media to "fact-check", "Amanda Knox" finishes the week off with the same question; Did anybody bother to fact-check? Sure, there's a few facts sprinkled here and there, but they're mostly sugar-coated or given short thrift. But short thrift on facts is one thing, glaring omissions of them is another. People are given short thrift as well, most noticeably Meredith Kercher. The documentary almost treats her like an inconvenience to the main story of superstar celebrity Amanda Knox, who herself can't even get facts straight and contradicts her own documented statements several times throughout. Her personal script seems to change almost as much as her alibis did in 2007. And then there's her on screen, um, presence. She doesn't really have any and looks uncomfortable, all the while making her come across as very unlikable. How much is acting and how much is real emotion? With Knox it's hard to tell. Same goes goes for Knifeboy, excuse me, Sollecito. He's almost as unlikable as Knox. And was he stoned when they filmed his interviews? As for Nick Pisa, I had him pegged for scummy trash-journalist years ago and the documentary confirms this, but I don't think the makers of "Amanda Knox" realized that they would be proving his point as well. They're actually doing what he'll be blamed for and that's creating a "story" to mislead while omitting facts (like the fact that Italy's highest court did not exonerate Knox by any means, but that's another documentary) in order to grab headlines and cheap soundbites. The words are different, but the story's the same. They also don't quite pull off their efforts in dichotomy with Giuliano Mignini. The uninformed will see him as the other main villain, but anyone who has followed this tragic case knows better. Overall, "Amanda Knox" is a bad piece of Pubic Relations propaganda that certainly won't sway anyone who believes that Knox, Sollecito and Rudy Guede all participated in the murder of Meredith Kercher, but will certainly convince the selfie generation that, "OMG, she's so totally innocent, I can't believe it". And neither do I.

Confusing

[rachel-dear · 6/10 · 11 October 2016]

If you're looking for a piece of media to clear the confusing facts for you - this is not it.

The documentary is clearly very biased towards Amanda, making her the sole focus of the documentary and not the case - I am aware that it is titled after her name and therefore about her, but I feel the documentary unjustly shifted the focus of finding the truth from the case to a more "we're trying to prove she's innocent" film.

Would recommend to anyone looking for a good entertainment documentary, but in my opinion it does nothing but feed into the idea that Knox is innocent and absolves her of any involvement within the crime, feeding in to her dramatics.

Bad police investigantion + crap journalism

[tiagohmelo · 7/10 · 3 January 2020]

It is very clear that the police wanted to solve the case quickly and the disgusting British press put all the wood in the fire as possible. Who says she's a liar has gone through something similar to know what her reaction would be like? Easy to judge, hard to be on the other side being judged by cretins who believe everything they read in tabloids.

Concise doc

[Calicodreamin · 7/10 · 15 April 2020]

A quick and concise retelling of the Amanda Knox story. The interviewees were relevant to the case and provided insight into the story. The level of information given is thought provoking but not overwhelming, a good middle ground. The timeline of the case is presented well and allows the documentary to have a good flow. Overall, a good documentary on a wild story.

A review of the documentary, not the Verdict

[mb_yk · 8/10 · 10 September 2018]

I've read a number of negative reviews, all because they don't agree with the verdict and therefore the documentary didn't give them the answers they wanted to hear. Quite a few of the 1/10 and 2/10 reviews on here should be taken with a pinch of salt for that reason.

Firstly this isn't a documentary that will go on to become a classic, neither will be on a must see documentary list in 10 years time. It does focus on two very important aspects, flaws in the police investigation and also the media involvement with often sensationalist reporting. It shows how the legal system can almost breakdown when policing and reporting isn't done to a high standard. It's not just a matter of "who done it" anymore.

The documentary does a great job of portraying the police opinion from the outset, that Amanda Knox was guilty, even before they had evidence. The second aspect of this is the DNA evidence and how it impacted the verdicts and acquittals. It gives a real insight into why DNA evidence can fall apart. It reminded me a little of making a murderer for this reason and the case focus on DNA.

The media coverage and commentary by the Daily Mail journalist was also really interesting. Throughout it demonstrated just how important their sensational headlines changed public opinion of the case.

The documentary itself does a fine job of presenting the evidence. The issue is how it follows Knox and at times becomes a soapbox for her fame. I think it could have been a little more tasteful when interviewing her, maybe giving her less screen time was the answer.

Overall a great watch for anyone who loves crime documentaries. It shows how policing efficiency and the media in today's world can transform cases.

A documentary about the case that became an international sensation

[ComedyFan2010 · 7/10 · 3 April 2019]

This was an interesting documentary but of course it doesn't tell it all. Would also be hard to out every detail of the story that as dragged for 8 years into 1.5 hours. I think it pretty much does a good job. There are interviews with several people including the investigator and the journalist.

Does one feel after that Amanda and Raffaele are innocent? Yes, but they were also acquitted for pretty much the same reasons. Time for the haters to finally give it up. And one thing that was omitted was the fact that Rudy was becoming a more aggressive burglar and threatened a women in his last one with a knife. E everything kind of points to him and trying to add Amanda and Raffaele into it is kind of crazy. Even Rudy said at first Amanda wasn't there, he changed what he said when it came to real questioning by the police.

People say she acted weird after Meredith's death. I don't see it. Not everyone upset cries. She was shocked and looked for comfort in her boyfriend who was there. She didn't grieve enough and cared for herself. well she knew Meredith for 2 weeks. Sure she was upset but her worry about the accusations was bigger.

I did like the comment of the Italian lawyer that in 1308 Italy had their first law school while in America they were painting bisons on the cave walls. True. But to be fair it wasn't America then. It became America a bit later when people from countries with law schools came over. But this doesn't have much to do with Amanda Knox.

I am glad her and Raffaele can finally live in peace.

Police work and journalism of today, awful and amateurish!

[peppej · 8/10 · 19 October 2017]

Wtf...that was my first thought when I saw the journalist describing the scenario like it was book of fiction or something. Even if he was satisfied with getting the scoop...a normal (emotional) person wouldn't laugh and in the same time describe it like a perfect "media-story". He seems to be an awful human being...!...and a bad journalist admitting he wrote articles in the case without doing any background check...just like many others do in social media today. A young girl died and that laugh, that was the most disturbing in this documentary!

It was good that the chaos at the crime scene was recorded, that was enough to realize how non-professional the police was. And the the evidence they found after 48 day...wtf again...really!?!

A good example of bad police work and how awful media can be...shame on both police and media!

A longer and more thorough documentary would've helped, but not bad!

[hdammu11 · 7/10 · 22 August 2021]

This is not as biased as some reviewers claim it is, just not as thorough as the base material's scope allows. It is now pretty much established that there isn't a single evidence in the crime scene connecting Knox to it. As for Sollecito's DNA on the bra clasp, it was most likely contaminated during evidence collection and analysis stage. Guede's DNA on the other hand is all over the crime scene, and his behaviour post the murder and relevant criminal past is frankly far more incriminating than Knox's ever was! Classic misdirection I suppose.

They also show the supposed murder weapon and explain the possible reason for it containing both knox's and kercher's dna, which was surprising but convincing nevertheless.

They do somewhat get their main point across of how an enthusiastic and sensationalist media combined with an incompetent but powerful and corrupt police/prosecution can send pretty much anyone to jail.

But frankly this could've been better. Maybe a 3 episode limited series would've done this case justice. You need to more thoroughly show how the initial investigators disturbed the crime scene, didn't follow established procedure, etc. Which is the primary cause for all the subsequent legal mess and intense media hounding of weird but ultimately innocent people. Don't know how persuasive this documentary is to people who've already made up their mind that Knox and Sollecito are involved in the crime but got away! Entertaining bits were the journalist's complete lack of moral compass and the soap-opera-loving, sherlock-pipe-smoking lead prosecutor.

A Stylish and Haunting Documentary That Unfortunately Requires Further Investigation From the Viewer (positive review from someone certain of Knox's guilt)

[Doc_Blue · 8/10 · 15 August 2017]

Let me put it this way. I had little to no knowledge regarding this case before watching the film, and it still left me strongly convinced of Knox's guilt. It gave me the feeling that it wasn't telling us everything, but I didn't know or get the impression that the filmmakers thought she was innocent, and were trying to portray her as such. Like already mentioned, I knew next to nothing about the case and I was still very easily convinced that Knox had at least some form of involvement. I found out after watching it that the directors think she's innocent.

The problem is the film leaves out multiple pieces of incriminating evidence, yet has convinced some people that Knox is innocent. The film claims itself to be neutral, and for a while it is. But it eventually puts too much emphasis on a supposed lack of Knox's DNA found in Kercher's room, and leaves out forms of DNA evidence against both of them, a number of different testimonies from the night of the murder and the following morning, as well as many other things INCLUDING what I think might be the strongest piece of evidence against Knox and Sollecito; what happened when authorities first arrived to the crime scene.

The film makes it look like they phoned authorities who then quickly arrived, and then the odd behavior began with Knox and Sollecito noticeably expressing a suspicious amount of affection towards each other directly outside the murder scene. But clear reasoning to suspect Knox's guilt actually started even before that. The postal police ironically arrived first, due to having found both of Kercher's phones. Knox and Sollecito then show no concern for Meredith's safety and make no mention of her door being locked. Eventually Knox claims that it was normal for Kercher to leave her door locked, which has been refuted by all of the other roommates.

Now, that may not seem like much at first, but think about what her story is. She claims that before phoning police and anyone else arriving, she began to panic, knocked multiple times on Kercher's door, eventually climbing the balcony to try to see into her window, and even getting Sollecito to try to kick the door down. So we're trying as hard as possible to peak into windows and bust the door down to make sure she's okay, but when authorities suddenly arrive due to finding her phones in a random backyard, they don't freak the hell out? Or even mention her door being locked?! It was mentioned in the phone call! The phone call to police that oddly did not happen until after the postal police had arrived. They claimed otherwise, but the full timeline for that morning has been established based on several different testimonies and phone records.

If they were innocent, there's no doubt that they would have instantly entered a stronger state of panic when realizing her phones had been ditched, and directed the postal police's attention to the locked door. Instead, Knox diverts their attention away from the door after it's discovered to be locked, with the flat-out lie that Kercher commonly left it that way. Everybody else claims that she had never once left her door locked before. You may ask, well why would Amanda do this? It's pretty simple. Cold feet. Authorities arrived even quicker than they had planned, before they phoned them themselves, and reality set in. Knox got nervous and wasn't ready for authorities to find the body, so she tried to buy more time and shift their attention away from her room.

Unlike a lot of users who are convinced of Knox's guilt, I would still recommend the film. It really upsets me that it has convinced people that she's innocent, but due to the scale of her role, believing Knox is guilty makes it an even creepier and more memorably haunting experience. Imagine how amazing of a documentary this would have been if it had actually been a neutral exploration that presented allllll of the significant evidence and allowed the viewer to decide on their own. It feels like a rare opportunity to make a documentary that very largely features new interviews from two people convicted twice of murder (that many people still believe are guilty). Their footage should have given everyone that haunting, at least suspicious sensation that it gave me, but I see now how the filmmakers irresponsibly structured the film to have you ultimately be on their side and feel sympathy for them. I'd still recommend it. It's creepy, gorgeous, and quite thought-provoking in many aspects. But I stress that you go to themurderofmeredithkercher.com afterwards and read into all of the evidence. Knowing what the film leaves out, makes it more enjoyable and less enjoyable at the same time.

I don't know why the directors are convinced of Knox's innocence, but there is significantly more to the case than what the film shows. And that is an understatement. With all things considered, the idea that Knox and Sollecito had zero involvement is absolute insanity. Unsavory qualities you may see in a journalist or detective are irrelevant. Yes, the media acted ridiculous. I don't disagree. But at the end of the day, that really changes none of the hard evidence. Ultimately, a technically proficient documentary that exploits very interesting and personal aspects, but without giving you the whole story. It's cool that Knox is in it, but all forms of significantly incriminating evidence against her and Sollecito still should have been provided, and that clearly isn't what they did. It still serves as an essential fact that Guede did not act alone and that a lot of evidence (including eye-witness testimonies that the film excludes) points to three people being involved. I would love to know who the directors think the other two are.

She is not Guilty!

[hakarmirxani · 7/10 · 13 March 2020]

She is not guilty because why you will kill your friend and broke the window to go out while you have the key of door I'm with amanda.

This is a biased and misleading documentary

[manfromatlan-63369 · 2/10 · 3 October 2016]

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.

Documentary?

[random-70778 · 10 December 2019]

In fact Knox is very likely guilty. This "documentary doesn't even go near Knox's many proven false statements or her racist attempt to frame a black guy.

funny how Knox is a cause celebre of the left, and htese film makers are that, when she is a racist and despicable enabler of rape and murder

Plays more with sympathies and emotions.

[athallica · 7/10 · 15 June 2020]

Ok, it turns the interest to this case.

But the documentary is nothing to base an opinion upon. Of course it is interesting to see how the world sees this case (we have never left medieval...), feelings. What hit me most was the interrogation. It reminded me of "In the name of the Father".

So, I searched for more information and found the book of Douglas Preston, "The forgotten killer". In this book, it is the analysis of John Douglas which seems most analytic and believable. At least plausible and rational, based on the data given. So, I believe that Rafaelle and Amanda are innocent of this crime and that it was a burglary gone wrong. But more than that I feel deeply sorry for the family of Meredith and all families who have been violantly robbed of their children.

Not quite enough of a look into the story.

[emilyclairegreenwood · 6/10 · 20 February 2017]

This is a good documentary for a brief look into the infamous story of Amanda Knox, and I particularly like the way they have this led by interview pieces to camera with Amanda herself. However, I feel as though the documentary was almost slightly biased and didn't spend enough time looking into the other avenues of how the situation came about. It's worth a watch for sure, Amanda is an odd and interesting character to watch, but don't expect edge-of-seat gripping.

Something's not quite right

[pete-95462 · 7/10 · 4 February 2023]

I have always had a penchant for real world crimes. Especially when it comes to ones involving the injustice of the criminal system. And so, when I came across this documentary, and my memory of it involving such injustice as I recollected, I thought it would make an interesting watch in order to find out where the justice system has failed Amanda Knox.

However, as I followed the documentary, as it attempted to prove how shoddy and blinkered the whole investigation against Knox and Solliceto had been, some things started to provoke unanswered questions.

How did she manage to return on the morning after the murder and take a shower without noticing the break in. Even Sollecito pointed this out when he recounted his arrival at the house that morning.

Why did they cave in so readily to pressure from the police at interview, so it seems. Having been in similar situations and of a similar age at the time this makes no sense. The one thing you keep in your mind, no matter what the perceived threat, is that it will all be over soon as long as you don't crack. And I was no tough guy. Far from it. Because you know that the consequences will be a whole lot worse if you do. And yet these 2 starting singing like canaries at the first semblance of a threat. Why? Were they really that week willed or did they feel the interrogation was getting too close for comfort so they had to come up with something.

As a result, i am still unsure of their innocence, if that's what the documentary makers were hoping to achieve. Instead it has provoked more curiosity than closure. And, from what I have now discovered, there are 2 sides to every story.

My own conclusion from this is that the whole truth will never be known. Guede, who I am convinced was definitely involved, has too much to lose by speaking about this and so his lips will likely always remain closed. And without him there will be no new revelations.

Divisive, intriguing true crime story

[jakethesandbag · 9/10 · 14 May 2019]

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 cinematography, and the interviews of some of the key players of the crime are all must-sees.

Read the Up On The Case

[dougmacdonaldburr · 7/10 · 25 May 2017]

First of all, to those who say it is disrespectful to the victim, you might be right. Then again you could say that about all true crime documentaries.

The ultimate verdict on this depends on whether you think she is guilty or innocent. If she is guilty it would be celebrating a psychopath, If she is innocent her name deserves to be cleared and this documentary can help with that.

I read up on the case before I watched this and I made up my mind.

I think she is innocent.

There was no DNA evidence from either of them found in the room of the murder, on the murder weapon or on the victim's body.

Guede had every reason to lie if blaming them could exonerate him or spreading guilt could reduce his sentence. Innocent people don't tend to leave the country the next day.

There is no way her or her boyfriend could have been involved with her rape and murder without leaving some DNA evidence.

With no other suspects in sight the police pressed her and her boyfriend as much as they possibly could. Whenever there is a tragedy the longer it takes for the police to arrest someone, the worse it looks. Her and her boyfriend were easy targets. She was young, in a foreign country being screamed at by police for days at a time. If the police make it seem like your options are 5 years for a crime you know you didn't commit or 50 years for a crime you know you didn't commit, who wouldn't eventually crack and tell them what they wanted to hear?

Even if you were to believe she was a psychopath, she clearly isn't stupid. I think she could come up with a better plan than 'lets taunt her, get some guy we barely know to rape and kill her in our own house, let him escape to Germany while we stay here and call the police without covering any of it up'

Honestly, I think the Italian police got scared and didn't want to look stupid so they did everything they could to make it look like they were right all along. Instead of admit they made a mistake and had rushed to judgement. I think this girl was just in the wrong place at the wrong time and the Italian police and world media have ruined her life. The fact that she looks like a movie star could be the very reason this happened to her. A beautiful girl is a deadly murderer makes for a better story than, was accused of a murder she didn't commit because the Italian police are idiots.

On the whole, this may be a bit insensitive to the victim (like all true crime), but, if you read up on the case she is clearly innocent.

Everybody is so sure they know what really happened

[admin-802 · 8/10 · 27 April 2020]

Everybody is so sure they know what really happened. Please take a moment to CONSIDER you could be wrong, either way.

All the haters, don't you have something better to do with your pathetic lives?

Also consider that you can't possibly know how YOU would behave when placed under so much pressure and accused of something so horrible. Would you be composed or crack under pressure telling the police what they want to hear? or anything at all to be left alone?

Humans are so easy to judge others! Where is the compassion? where is the benefit of a doubt? What's her motive? Her life ruined by media frenzy and some amateur police work in Italy.

If you want to have a different perspective on this, read Malcolm Gladwell's "Talking to Strangers", he discusses this case a lot. Then maybe you'll realize that your conviction either way is not based on anything real or true and maybe you'll then be humbled and realize that you, just like everybody else, is biased about pretty much everything.

Presumption of innocence..absent.

[herrick416 · 7/10 · 25 November 2018]

I don't get all the anger that shows absolutely no uncertainty. In watching this documentary that slanted towards innocence as opposed to previously viewed accounts where facts differed slightly but interpretation relied heavily on the debatable science of body language. Upon seeing varying conclusions, I was convinced it f one thing above all else ... reasonable doubt.

The anger reminded me of the Casey Anthony trial where I agreed with the jury who had the guts to follow the judges instructions as in how to weigh experts' testimony that conflicted within the prosecution's case. Now Jodi arias there's a case where I was enraged by the hung jury in the penalty phase. Because there I saw no reasonable doubt no remorse and a level of dishonesty that lacked all decency.

CROOKS

[Smoovkill · 8/10 · 24 January 2020]

The way this cop puts himself on a pedistool and paints a factual picture of this girl is disgusting. What a crook and broken system they have in some countrys. I always tell my boys be careful when you travel man. Terrible justice system. Guilty or not. I'm only half way through it. Lol

A well made documentary on a fascinating case

[jtindahouse · 7/10 · 8 January 2017]

There's nothing I love more than learning about a new murder-mystery. There are certain cases that I have spent days reading about and trying to reach my own conclusion on. Some are undoubtedly more interesting than others. I knew very little about the 'Amanda Knox' story going into this documentary, so it was very interesting to learn all the facts and come to my own conclusion.

It's a classic murder-mystery in the sense that there are things that don't make sense on both sides of the ledger. Both guilty and not guilty could easily be argued by anyone who knew enough about the case. If I had to lean in a direction by the end of the documentary I would have said not guilty, but I'm far from 100% certain on that. Anyone that lies in their statements to police is very hard to ever fully accept as innocent in my opinion.

'Amanda Knox' does a good job of keeping things simple and easy to follow, but a flaw it has is occasionally leaving out information that would be great to know. There were times when things were brought up, like the detective saying the break-in was clearly staged, and then were never touched on again. No reason is given why it was clearly staged, just that it was. This is very annoying when you're trying to come to your own conclusion on things.

There were some interesting, and at time deplorable, people featured in the interviews. Both the detective and the journalist said some bizarre and extremely arrogant things at times. This isn't a mark against the documentary in any way, they can't control how people come across, it's simply an interesting fact.

I found this a fascinating documentary about an extremely interesting case. I'm glad I watched this and became familiar with it so I can now continue to look into the case and fine tune my opinion. There are far worse ways you could spend 90 minutes than watching 'Amanda Knox'.

Amanda's PR Firm hard at work

[ClosingCredits · 3/10 · 30 September 2016]

I don't know if Amanda is guilty or innocent. Apparently, the Italian courts had trouble making up their mind as well. In watching this "documentary", I had hoped to view a balanced picture with all of the evidence discussed. Instead, I saw a film that was written to promote Amanda Knox's profile as spokesperson of the wrongly convicted. It was so blatantly one-sided that it convinced me of nothing and left me with only more questions.

If you feel strongly that Amanda is innocent, you will enjoy this lovely piece of marketing.

And if you feel she is guilty, you will be creeped-out by her final smile, which is incongruous with the speech she had just delivered.