Loading...
Follow Zap2it:
Could 'Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial' movie increase the real Knox's legal woes?
Twitter
Google
We've all heard the story and watched the extensive news coverage of Amanda Knox, the 23-year-old all-American girl who has been accused of murdering her roommate while on an exchange program in Italy. Knox was convicted despite incredibly circumstantial evidence. It seems we've all made up our minds as to whether the girl who was called "Foxy Knoxy" by her teammates and her Italian boyfriend could have killed Meredith Kercher. All of us, of course, except Hayden Panettiere, who plays Knox in Monday's Lifetime film, "Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy." Panettiere insists that while portraying Knox, she kept an open mind as to her innocence or her guilt.
"Lifetime was like, 'Don't say whether you think she is guilty or innocent.' But I couldn't even tell you, because I haven't decided. The approach I had to take was that even if she was guilty, she had convinced herself she was innocent," Panettiere tells The LA Times' Amy Kaufman. "I had her voice recordings on my iPod and I'd listen to her intonations as close as I could. I wasn't sleeping during production because I was nervous."
Panettiere has never met with Knox. In fact, no one on the production team met with Knox, her parents, or the parents of slain Meredith Kercher.
In the prison where she is serving her 26-year sentence, Knox did see the trailer for the movie, and it caused her to hyperventilate and get physically sick. "I'm sure it's upsetting for her to relive it, so I cannot blame her for feeling how she does," says Hayden. Still, she insists that the film was made with the best of intentions.
"It's nothing that would incriminate her or sway a judge's opinion of her in a court of law. That's the main concern here."
The film's trailers portrayed graphic scenes of Kercher being attacked while stripped down to her bra, as well as a steamy sex scene between Knox and her boyfriend. When the Knox and Kercher families (and the public) were shocked by the trailers, Lifetime and Youtube pulled them and re-edited them. It is unknown as to whether the actual movie has been edited to remove objectionable scenes.
Knox is appealing her conviction, and to protect her, her family has issued a formal complaint against Lifetime, concerned that the film could further bias a judge. "We have to act to protect Amanda, given the biased nature of the content in the trailer, and the unknown, and potentially harmful content of the actual film. The movie harms Amanda's presumption of innocence as afforded her by the Italian constitution," says her stepfather. "It is ill timed and inappropriate in many ways, so we have no other choice but to protest its airing."
Will you be tuning in to "Amanda Knox: Murder on Trial in Italy"? Do you think Lifetime should have held off on the film? Sound off in the comments section!
Follow Zap2it on Twitter and Zap2it on Facebook for the latest news and buzz
Photo/Video credit: Lifetime
Zap2it Elite Sheet Must Reads from the Web's In-Crowd
Advertisement
What's Hot Right Now
Sign in to connect with Zap2it:
Rewards Challenge Members
Top Users from the Past Week | All-time
Zap2it Elite Sheet
Must Reads from the Web's In-Crowd
Our Partners
When they protest against the movie MORE people will want to tune in to see what all the fuss is about.
They should of just kept quiet and and if the movie was slanderous then sue.
I set it to record and plan to definitely watch.
This girl may very well be innocent. Had she been tried for this same crime in the U.S. she never would have been found guilty. There is so much that has reasonable explanations. Her DNA would be present in the house because she lived there. What real reason do they have to believe there was more than one person that committed this crime? In my opinion, it most definitely could have been committed by one person. Rudy, with a knife. Rudy has shown remorse and at least apologized to the family. During the time after the crime, his phone's were wiretapped (unbeknownst to him) and when a friend told him that they suspected Amanda of doing it, he said oh I know who she is, but she absolutely wasn't there. I think this girl was convicted based solely on the following things:
-She acted oddly in the hours after the death (people deal with crisis differently)
-She did cartwheels at the police station (again, people deal with crisis differently)
-she kissed her boyfriend outside
(this didn't even look very passionate. it was subtle and looked like they were both just trying to calm down and comfort one another. i'm sure others might have reacted similarly)
-her phone was off the night of the murder, as was her bf's (this could well be coincidental. if her and her boyfriend planned to have sex and go to sleep, what real reason would you need to keep it on for?)
-The shop owner testified that she bought bleach on the morning the body was discovered (this same shop owner's employees contradict this so this is questionable)
-she falsely incriminated a man (it has been stated that she was coerced to say this. an american journalist has spoken out that he was terrified and near the breaking point when interrogated by the prosecutor for an unrelated crime -- the prosecutor's tactics are questionable)
-she hasn't expressed public grief for the victim thoroughly enough (this is what makes her empathetic and compassionate and what people expect. people deal with grief differently and it is possible that this is just her way. many other people react similarly)
-She has not expressed publicly (or at least that media has covered) a sincere apology for including the name of patrick in her interrogation. (whether it was coerced by the police or not, if she showed sympathy and heartfelt distress over this man being wrongly accused the same was she was being, people would be more apt to believe her)
-the fact that her boyfriend testified that he couldn't be sure that she was at his apartment that night or not. (this may have been him recognizing the media's portrait of her and in a moment of being scared, attempted to diassociate himself from her. this should be a clear as day fact on both their parts though. there shouldn't be a question in either of their minds only a short while after the crime as to their whereabouts to retracing the timeline of where they were the night of the murder. the inconsistancies together and apparent lack of empathy are what has convicted these too.
If they had one uniform story to explain their whereabouts that never waivered, they would not be percieved as guilty.
-also the man who testified that he saw Amanda and her boyfriend outside some basketball courts during those hours near the house, has been a witness that has made it hard for them to defend themselves. they have denied this.
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