Megan’s Movie Monday: Amanda Knox-Murder on Trial in Italy

Thousands of miles away, Amanda Knox is sitting in an Italian prison waiting to hear whether or not she’ll be granted a new trial, with a reexamination of evidence. It’s likely one of the reasons Knox’s family and her lawyers fought to get the movie off the air.

Since I’ve been following the case, I had to check this movie out. It’s available in full on Lifetime’s website.

As you may have read in a previous post of mine, the movie stars Hayden Panettiere as Knox, Marcia Gay Harden as Knox’s mother, Paolo Romio as Knox’s boyfriend, Raffaele Sollecito, and Vincent Riotta as prosecutor Mignini.

The movie opens with Raffaele and Amanda outside of the flat where Meredith Kercher’s body was discovered as the Italian police show up. Raffaele’s got the glasses and the scarf he’s been seen wearing in the media.

Knox and Sollecito

Photo is from http://www.crimerant.com

So, in a nutshell, here are some things I’d like to say about the movie:

While the movie jumps around as far as time goes, it is not very confusing and easy to understand. And while some scenes, particularly interrogation scenes or scenes during the trial seemed well-done, other parts of the movie were cheesier than a plate of nachos on Super Bowl Sunday.

What sticks out in my mind most as being cheesy is a scene when Knox and Sollecito skip through some sort of park with picnic gear, arms around each other while Amanda talks about what  a dream it is to there.

I wish the movie had more portrayal of the victim, Meredith Kercher. Although there was a cheesy scene that involved the roomates meeting, with Amanda making a comment about Meredith’s British way of speaking (we get it, she’s British)…there was not much more back story involving Meredith. (The family of the victim also fought to get the movie taken off the air).

I enjoyed Vincent Riotta’s performance as the prosecutor.

The movie seems to make a lot of assumptions and I’m not sure how factual they are. In one scene, Amanda is shown chatting with her sister about the drug scene in Italy and weed. In other scenes she is seen laughing and messing around with Raffaele and the movie does not show her grieving in any way.

Reportedly, the real Amanda Knox wanted to throw up when she saw her portrayal in the movie. I didn’t want to throw up but I couldn’t help but laughing at certain parts–particularly the romantic scenes between Raffaele and Amanda, and when Raffaele asks Amanda if she’s wearing underwear.

The movie had it’s good points and it’s bad points, but I think it might have been better for Lifetime to wait and air this movie when Knox’s appeal trial was over, so she was ensured a fair trial. After all, the movie could sway public opinion about the case and Amanda, as if it hadn’t already been swayed enough.

For its sometimes cheesy moments, and for a portrayal that may not necessarily be completely accurate, the movie gets a 2 out of 5 on my scale.

Follow me on twitter: http://twitter.com/musingsofmegan

Like Megan’s Musings on facebook: http://it-it.facebook.com/pages/Megans-Musings/150277644985564

Advertisements

7 comments

  1. Lifetime movies are lame.

    That said, I can imagine what you mean by “cheesier than a plate of Super Bowl nachos” (ba-zing!), as Lifetime movies cash in on the crowd that loves “real-life” chick flicks (my mom, for example).

    I do agree that it’s at least a little deplorable to rush the production of this movie to cash-in on the trial before it’s conclusively over. I would hate to see how I was played in a Lifetime movie too.

  2. The evidence against Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito is overwhelming. They gave completely different accounts of where they were, who they were with and what they were doing on the night of the murder. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have credible alibis despite three attempts each. All the other people who were questioned had one credible alibi that could be verified. Innocent people don’t give multiple conflicting alibis and lie repeatedly to the police. 

    The DNA didn’t miraculously deposit itself in the most incriminating of places. 

    An abundant amount of Raffaele Sollecito’s DNA was found on Meredith’s bra clasp. His DNA was identified by two separate DNA tests. Of the 17 loci tested in the sample, Sollecito’s profile matched 17 out of 17.

    According to Sollecito’s forensic expert, Professor Vinci, Knox’s DNA was on Meredith’s bra. 

    Amanda Knox’s DNA was found on the handle of the double DNA knife and a number of independent forensic experts – Dr. Patrizia Stefanoni, Dr. Renato Biondo and Professor Francesca Torricelli – categorically stated that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade. Sollecito knew that Meredith’s DNA was on the blade which is why he twice lied about accidentally pricking her hand whilst cooking.

    There were five instances of Knox’s DNA mixed with Meredith’s blood in three different locations in the cottage.

    Knox tracked Meredith’s blood into the bathroom, the hallway, her room and Filomena’s room, where the break-in was staged. Knox’s DNA and Meredith’s blood was found mixed together in Filomena’s room, in a bare bloody footprint in the hallway and in three places in the bathroom. 

    Rudy Guede’s bloody footprints led straight out of Meredith’s room and out of the house. This means that he didn’t stage the break-in in Filomena’s room or go into the blood-spattered bathroom after Meredith had been stabbed.

    The bloody footprint on the blue bathmat in the bathroom matched the precise characteristics of Sollecito’s foot, but couldn’t possibly belong to Guede. Knox’s and Sollecito’s bare bloody footprints were revealed by luminol in the hallway. 

    It’s not a coincidence that the three people – Knox, Sollecito and Guede – who kept telling the police a pack of lies are all implicated by the DNA and forensic evidence.

    Amanda Knox voluntarily admitted that she was involved in Meredith’s murder in her handwritten note to the police on 6 November 2007. After she was informed that Sollecito was no longer providing her with an alibi, she stated on at least four separate occasions that she was at the cottage when Meredith was killed. At the trial, Sollecito refused to corroborate Knox’s alibi that she was at his apartment.

    Knox accused an innocent man, Diya Lumumba, of murdering Meredith despite the fact she knew he was completely innocent. She didn’t recant her false and malicious allegation against Lumumba the whole time he was in prison. She admitted that it was her fault that Lumumba was in prison in an intercepted conversation with her mother on 10 November 2007.

    The English translation of the Massei report can be downloaded from here:

    http://www.perugiamurderfile.org/viewtopic.php?p=53735

  3. Thanks for the comment Harry. Really interesting stuff. The only thing I do not understand is what Knox and Sollecito’s motives for such a crime would be. Also I don’t know how Guede fits into all this. Or how well they knew him.

    Advocates for Knox and Sollecito’s innocence are saying the bra clasp was left on the floor for weeks and evidence could have been contaminated. I admit things look bad here from the changed stories, but is there a chance Amanda changed her story because of intense stress?

  4. Hi Megan,

    Amanda Knox lied to Filomena and the postal police on 2 November 2007 and to her friends in an e-mail on 4 November 2007. These lies cannot be attributed to stress.

    Raffaele Sollecito admitted that he had lied to the police and said Amanda Knox had asked him to lie.

    The fact the bra clasp wasn’t collected immediately is irrelevant. The cottage was a sealed crime scene. Contamination is always theoretically possible. There is no greater greater likelihood of contamination just because the clasp wasn’t collected immediately. It is not unusual for people to be convicted of crimes years afterwards on the strength of DNA evidence. Ronald Castree was convicted 32 years after he had murdered Lesley Molseed.

    Prosecutors in America, England and Italy don’t have to prove motive. There have been a number of high-profile cases where “nice” women have committed horrific murders with little or no motive. For example, Laurie Ann Swank, Karla Homolka, Kelly Ellard and Erika de Nardo. Judge Massei believes the motive was sexual erotic violence and that Knox and Sollecito were acting under the influence of drugs.

  5. “Everything I have said in regards to my involvement in Meredith’s death, even though it is contrasting, are the best truth that I have been able to think.” (Amanda Knox, 6 November 2007).

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s