In the new Netflix Original documentary, Amanda Knox shares her story years after the murder of her flatmate Meredith Kercher. Lucy Thompson reviews
Following the success of Making a Murderer, Netflix is once again capitalising on viewers’ insatiable desire for true-crime documentaries, with Amanda Knox. The documentary focuses on the death of British student Meredith Kercher in 2007, in Perugia and the subsequent conviction of her flatmate Amanda Knox, her lover Raffaele Sollecito and Rudy Guede.
Arguably, the reason that Making of a Murderer and podcasts such as Serial have gained such widespread attention is due to the sheer complexity of these previously unknown cases and the exhaustive detail that is dissected and analysed. In this trend, passive viewers have become amateur detectives.
The film focuses predominantly on four main people: Knox, prosecutor Giuliano Mignini, Daily Mail journalist Nick Pisa and Sollecito. The film makes two points that have been echoed time and time again in analysis of the investigation and trial.
Firstly, that the Italian police botched the case. Secondly, that the sensationalist media circus created the image of Amanda as ‘Foxy Knoxy’ and is partially to blame for the imprisonment of her and Sollecito - that was later successfully appealed.
Giuliano Mignini represents the failure of the police investigation. Throughout the film he makes devastating leaps in order to implicate Knox and Sollecito in a bizarre satanic sex game theory, that results in Kercher’s death.
While Amanda Knox raises interesting questions and provides a solid case for her innocence, it is over-simplified, lacking in great detail and a fresh perspective on a widely-known caseRudy Guede, a burglar known to the police, had conclusive DNA at the scene and receives far less of his attention. In a shocking example of his incompetence, Mignini argues how only a female murderer could have covered a body with a blanket.
The other villain of the piece is Nick Pisa who is a gift to the filmmakers, neatly fitting into the caricature of a repugnant hack journalist, who describes nabbing a scoop about Knox as ‘like having sex’. He represents the sensationalist press which released wild theories about Knox, admitting that a lot of the information was ‘pure fiction’.
The remainder of the documentary is dedicated to Knox and Sollecito expressing their innocence, the way they were manipulated by the police into confession and how their prison time has affected them. What becomes clear is the sheer naivety rather than psychopathy of Knox in this nightmarish situation.
Exoneration is just the beginning: Amanda Knox eye-opener on life after you're found guilty, then innocent https://t.co/2urJonBRT2 @usatoday
— Jill Lawrence (@JillDLawrence) October 24, 2016
The film’s tight focus on these four people explains the general problems of case, but leaves many unanswered questions, as opposed to giving a detailed look at the evidence and the various theories of what happened that night.
Rudy Guede, who seems to be clearly involved in the murder (only serving 16 years) receives hardly any investigation and air-time. Is it likely that he acted alone? How did a non-violent criminal become a violent killer, especially when he knew tenants of the apartment? There is little discussion about what could have motivated him to commit such a heinous crime.
Aptly titled Amanda Knox, the obsession with Knox again leads to suspects fading from view. Patrick Lumumba, the man that owned the bar that Knox worked at, is not interviewed or investigated in the documentary. Although, it does appear that Knox and Sollecito are likely to be innocent, the gaping holes in their alibis are carelessly shrugged off as them misremembering.
There is no mention of Knox delaying the police opening Kercher’s door because she said it was normally locked - her other roommate was shocked and went into a panic hearing her door was locked. The documentary would have benefitted from more police accounts, accounts from respectable journalists to provide more than one insight (i.e Simon Hattenstone who has corresponded with Knox since 2009) and lawyers involved in the trial.
If you are genuinely fascinated by the case, the internet is teeming with information but this film fails to deliver. While Amanda Knox raises interesting questions and provides a solid case for her innocence, it is over-simplified, lacking in great detail and a fresh perspective on a widely-known case.
Featured Image: Flickr/Zennie Abraham
What do you think of the Amanda Knox documentary? Does it do the case justice? Let us know:
]]>
