Netflix new documentary: Amanda Knox. Discussion.
Just watched this last night. It was completely different to what i thought as have happened as painted by the media (the sex game gone wrong type etc..).
Basically gives a story of her before and after the event, the 2 trials, the appeals, etc. She actually spoke direct to the camera, in a quite emotional way.
The show mocks the Italian justice system, the insufficiency of the DNA evidence, and that the prosecutors could have done what they wanted, (beat her up, mental torture, lock her up and not let her sleep until she breaks down, etc). Under this pressure she then started accusing another guy (the bar owner), which further complicated the situation and made them not believe her.
In assessing whether or not she was guilty. After watching the movie, there are a couple of points that needs attention:
1. The knife.
They had some parts of Meredith's DNA on that knife, which was deemed incompatible with the majority of the wounds except one. Now, was this framing her? because they went into Raffael's house and found this knife, but later the investigators said the wounds are not compatible. So if that wasn't the knife, then the evidence is not valid.
2. She was trailed 2 times for 2 different motifs.
first was the sex game gone wrong story, which was later revoked as they said it was not compatible with Meredith's personality (of course it wasn't, it was obvious she was a good girl). The second trial they blamed the motif as an argument she had with the roommate over money. Now, this alone by itself, may be ok. But they specifically said that she DID NOT act alone. Where did they get this assumption? we don't know, it was not disclosed.
(A guess is that because the number of wounds would have been too many for a single person to do,(46 or something) and the fact that Guede's DNA was also in the room. Raffael's DNA was on the bra but this could easily been contaminated as it was found 36 days later and they messed up with technical part of the investigation)
Arguing over money and then suddenly there is a multi person murder? Usually money matters call for a 1 to 1 solution or escalation, very rarely it is a multi-person to single-person event. Think about the times where you had argument over money with your friends. This brings to the 3rd point of attention.
3. They were adamant that she did not act alone.
They had put the 3 of them in 2 separate trails, something also very strange, considering that the 3 must have done it together if they are all trailed for murder.
Now, here is the thing (and common sense) that most people should remember. She and her 'boyfriend' had only met each other 7 days before the murder. From my experience, most people who had known the girl/guy for that short amount of time would very very RARELY do something like murder together as we are not even sure about the other person, let alone commit this sort of thing together after only 7 days knowing each other... Think about the times where you met a girl for 7 days only, you barely know her, is it likely that you go along with something like this? just common sense...
4. Its really about 2 versions of events. Guede vs those 2.
The media had focused on entirely on Knox. try finding a video on Guede and I only could find one interview he did (in Italian). Now, Guede had originally been saying (through the skype conversation with his friend) that he was in the bathroom and he heard a scream and then he saw a man, Italian man, who fought with him, and then ran away, adding that Amanda was NOT there. Later on he changed his version after being caught, to saying Amanda was 110% there, but he didn't see her, he heard her, and also saw a man, but did not identify him as Raffael.
5. Is Guede's story believable?
you have to take into account of 3 things.
a) he admitted that he was at the scene and tried to stop the bleeding with a towel. That's why his DNA was in the room. (he even said he tried to understand what Meredith was saying by writing blood on the wall). I thought about this, but could not come to a conclusion wether a normal person would do that or not. He said she was trying to tell him something. (making everything sound mysterious again). But lets go on to the next part which begs for thinking...
b) he was later found out to be going to a night club after the murder, (after seeing Meredith and try cover her up with towel and after writing with blood on the wall even...) Now, what kind of person would go to a nightclub before running away after something like this? An average guy would either just 1) run away or 2) call the police. An average guy would probably scared and just run away, but he didn't do it immediately, he went to a nightclub... Is this something a mentally healthy guy would do?
c) he said he saw a man, and he shouted 'black man found', from watching Raffael's personality on the show, it doesn't seem like he would shout something like this.
6. Guede's new twist making it a mysery again.
Now, Guede has just sought to have a new trial. This in the US would have been suicide, as he was trailed for with ACCOMPLICE before (only 16 years right now), if he's on this new trial and the 2 have been acquitted now, this means he would be on the trail for sole murder. He's taking a big gamble on this and making the public even more confused as to why he would do this hence the question over Amanda and Raffale is still not closed. People are going to start suspecting the pair again. He's now accusing Amanda being there, and also claiming innocence.
To me this is just Guede trying to mock the Italian justice system. He now have seen 2 people got free because of insufficient evidence, he now sees how incompetent these prosecutors, investigators and judges are. And he thinks: hold on a minute, maybe i can get away too... I had my DNA in the room, but was because i arrived at the scene after, it doesn't prove anything... These people can't do anything to me.
What surprised me is the amount of public reaction to trying to convict her guilty. Everyone seems absolutely convinced, (at least in Europe) that she did it. You had people standing outside the courtroom shouting 'we will get her next time' as if they really know what happened and examined the evidence. Its this mentality that she 'needs to be hunted and tracked down' as we think she's guilty and she cant get away with that. Maybe this is what media does to you. Mystery sells.