Home / General / Is the Forthcoming Netflix Amanda Knox Doc Troofer-Curious?

Is the Forthcoming Netflix Amanda Knox Doc Troofer-Curious?

Comments
/
/
/
1796 Views

SPL_amanda_knox_raffaele_sollecito_jef_130903_16x9_992

I don’t know if the Netflix documentary is really troofer-curious or if they’re just pandering to the FOXY KNOXY crowd in its ads, but this Shape of the Earth Views Differ presentation is really misleading:

The second trailer, “Suspect Her,” takes a more doubtful approach to Knox’s claim of innocence, reminding viewers of her cavalier behavior (like doing cartwheels in the police station) while under investigation for Kercher’s murder and—far more damningly—her false accusation of Patrick Lumumba, a local barman who Knox named as the murderer while being interrogated.

Nah nah nah. We’ve been through this before, but the case against Knox is such a farcical shambles that I’m surprised Jill Stein hasn’t called on her to be extradited:

  • Amanda Knox did not kill Meredith Kercher. It is, I suppose, impossible to prove to an absolute certainty that she had nothing to do with the murder, but if the Italian authorities had any actual evidence that she was involved they were too modest to present it.
  • The lurid wank fantasy that was used to convict her the first time was so massively implausible and devoid of supporting evidence that when she was convicted a second time the court abandoned it. Alas, the second, mutually inconsistent theory is also massively implausible and devoid of supporting evidence. In related news, the framers of the United States Constitution turned out to be wrong about a lot of things but the double jeopardy clause really was a sound idea.
  • Knox not acting according to some arbitrary standard of How Accused Criminals Are Supposed to Act is evidence of shit.  When you’re leaning hard on this uselessly tautological line of argument — since there’s no one way that innocent people react when being accused of serious crimes by authorities, there’s always a story you can tell about how the accused is revealing a guilty conscience if you’re determined to reach the conclusion — it’s pretty much dispositive evidence that there’s no real case.
  • The false accusation of Patrick Lumumba might be “damning” of Amanda Knox as a human being — although personally I’m strongly disinclined to judge the actions of someone being accused of a serious crime and interrogated over several days without counsel in a non-native country, and it’s overwhelmingly likely that Knox “accused” Lumymba because the authorities made it clear that’s what they wanted to hear —  but it’s not remotely “damning” evidence that she had anything to do with the murder. It’s evidence that she wanted to stop being accused of the murder and didn’t want to go to prison.
  • It strikes me that you shouldn’t wait until the last sentence to note that someone else has been convicted of the crime, and that there was actually a solid case against him. It’s also important to add for context that the (sound) theory that was used to convict Guede isn’t consistent with either of the ridiculous theories that were used to convict Knox.

Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito are innocent. They are obviously innocent. If the documentary tries to suggest otherwise it’s a travesty, and the Both Sides Do It trailer isn’t encouraging.

…in comments, IB points us to this review, which seems to indicate that despite the trailers the documentary isn’t troofer-curious. I look forward to watching it and reporting back!

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Google+
  • Linkedin
  • Pinterest
It is main inner container footer text