peppej 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!

consciousgeometry I watched this completely spontaneously yesterday, without knowing what precisely it was about. Expecting nothing special, I can now say that I was very pleasantly surprised. Aside from what seemed to me a very on- the-nose way of building up tension at the beginning that had me rolling my eyes a bit (I expect someone who knows even a bit about the case would react very differently), this is a very solid documentary.As I see it, the most interesting aspects of this story are not the intricacies of the murder case itself- the collection and interpretation of clues and such. It quickly becomes more about how the media reacts to an "exotic" case (or is trying its hardest to make it exotic) like this and how it impacts the workings of a possibly incompetent police- and justice-system. I believe this was the decided intention of the makers of this documentary: They manage to pretty elegantly blend the human angle (the immediate experience of those involved in the case), the 'mystery angle' (uncovering what actually happened) and the bigger picture of how hyperbolic, borderline insane reporting on a case can shift the public opinion and potentially derail investigations in a very real way. The cinematography and editing are also excellently executed - the shots are stylish, but also convey information relevant to what's going on (as opposed to being vacuously flashy, as I've often seen in crime-related documentaries).Regarding the 1-star reviews (this may contain a few "spoilers"): I'm glad I didn't decide to not watch the film because of the many angry negative reviews here on IMDb. A cursory reading of most of them makes apparent that the criticism isn't really focused on the craftsmanship or the entertainment-value of this documentary but rather on a bias the filmmakers may or may not have towards displaying the titular Amanda Knox in a much more positive light than she deserves. If this really were the case, it would constitute a valid criticism, given that this is a documentary. But from what I've read the accusations made in these reviews are far from substantial and most of the people making them seem to have been deeply emotionally caught up in this case for years and obviously made up their mind a long time ago. For example, I've read multiple times that the documentary supposedly withheld "important" information, like the captioning of a myspace photo of Amanda holding a gun with the words "The Nazi Inside", or that the she once uploaded a short story of a woman getting raped, somewhere online. These reviewers apparently believe that this is damming evidence of her being a murderous sociopath. I'm baffled by this reasoning - it implies that every edgy teen on 4chan or reddit is an enormous danger to society.Regardless - even if after watching the documentary you are not convinced of Knox' innocence, the repeated revisions of the verdicts made by the Italian courts plainly show that this case was handled extremely incompetently, which in and of itself is worthy of reflection and discussion. I will concede that the way some people, especially Italian investigators and lawyers, were presented made them look like morons, or at least somewhat misguided - but I'm not sure how much of this can be attributed to the makers of the documentary trying to paint a false picture. I had the impression that what I got was a somewhat exaggerated, but essentially real picture of who these characters were.Anyways, a documentary well worth your time, especially as it brutally demonstrates the irrational malleability of public opinion - and this is true whether you consider Amanda guilty or not after having seen it.Edit: The reviews here are obviously being brigaded by people who dislike this film with a passion. Very detailed and well written positive reviews (not necessarily mine) that gave the movie a score of seven or higher have been overwhelmingly declared "not helpful" in spite of the movie having a pretty high rating here.

Doug Burr 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.

ph-69757 People with only a casual interest in the case my find this documentary interesting. It's well-made and presents the basic facts well. The filmmakers made a number of pro-Knox tweets and comments prior to making the film, so it's not unbiased. I won't go over the evidence and its presentation in the film except to say that the case against Knox is very well presented on the website themurderofmeredithkercher.com. Also, the trial transcripts (highlights at least) and "sentencing reports" are online in English (in Italy the judge issues a kind of term paper explaining how the verdict was arrived at.) The final sentencing report is the Marasca Report. That report explains why Knox was found not guilty by insufficient proof, a weaker status than the alternative form of not-guilty. Reports are also online from earlier trials in which Knox was found guilty (Massei and Nencini) and not guilty (Hellmann.) I will make just two points: 1) Kercher's family, friends, and surviving roommates seem to think Amanda and Raffaele are guilty. They did not participate in the documentary except via old footage. 2. Prosecutor Mignini is portrayed as biased against Knox by his Roman Catholic religious views and Knox's alleged sexy, druggy lifestyle. That is unfair. No devout Catholic would think it right to judge unfairly an accusation of murder because the defendant had engaged in pre-marital sex. That would be a grave sin as any priest would tell you.