Correcting Netflix 17: Omitted - Too Many Pesky Truths, To Inflame False Notion Italian Justice Failed Here
Inside Netflix’s Silicon Valley headquarters
Amanda Knox the Netflix documentary was directed and exec produced by two ardent Knox supporters, Rod Blackhurst and Stephen Robert Morse
They have been campaigning for Knox since 2011, which has included harassing real journalists who actually covered the case far more thoroughly than they did.
The movie opens with lingering almost gleeful close ups of the bloody crime scene and goes downhill from there. It begins by trying to shape a false narrative of handy villains who all seemingly came together like the stars aligning to make innocent Amanda look so screamingly, beyond a reasonable doubtingly guilty.
In the beginning, there were the cops. It was them who railroaded and coerced poor Amanda.
Then it was the nasty prosecutor, who the documentary falsely intimates took part in Knox’s trial and appeal, whereas he only took part in her trial and was one of several prosecutors. The documentary attempts to make out he’s some Sherlock Holmes fanboy nut job.
They also mistranslate him, by having him proclaim that only a female killer would cover a female victim, when he actually said that an “unknown” male killer - within the context of a supposed burglary gone wrong - would be unlikely to cover up a victim.
Then it was the ENFSI certified forensic specialist who Knox’s fan club labeled a “lab technician”. (Oddly, though, the same forensic specialist and prosecutor seemed to do a great job testifying against and prosecuting the black guy, and sogood work guys).
Then it was Meredith Kercher’s friends who conspired against The Railroaded One, then it was the innocent victim’s innocent family themselves who were “persecuting” sweet Amanda.
Now, courtesy of Netflix, the REAL villains were the tabloid media, specifically one tabloid hack, Cockney wideboy Nick Pisa, who comes across like I’d imagine Danny Dyer’s dad would come across as and is quite hilarious, albeit totally devoid of any scruples as any tabloid hack worth his/her salt would.
The media, the prosecutor, the witnesses, THEY were the ones who were responsible for poor Amanda’s woes (and not the 10,000 pages of behavioral, circumstantial and hard physical evidence against her which the documentary brushes over in a cursory manner.)
It makes out that Knox and Sollecito were in love after an alleged five day romance. I say “alleged” as Sollecito is rather inconsistent in this regard, variously claiming a fortnight, 10 days, to a week to now apparently five days. This is hammered home by shots of what I presume to be lovebirds, complete with feel-good treacle music.
Sollecito comes across as a smirking stoned weirdo, and Knox comes across as her usual creepy quasi psychopathic self, complete with crocodile tears and loud theatrical sighs.
Knox is also her usual inconsistent self and can’t seem to stop changing her story, whether it’s droning on that she and Meredith weren’t the best of friends (after droning on in other interviews that they were “dear friends”).
Or claiming that she only knew Guede to look at and had only seen him two or three times. This despite claiming that she only saw Guede for the first time ever in court (Dianne Sawyer interview) and claiming she never had contact with Guede, in her rambling eight page email to the Nencini appellate court before claiming - in a consecutive sentence no less - that she actually did have contact with him.
She proclaims it’s “impossible” for her DNA to be on the murder weapon, disregarding that it was a matter of established fact that her DNA is on the murder weapon with Meredith’s DNA on the blade.
The film makes out that Rudy Guede, the sole person convicted for Meredith Kercher’s murder, left his DNA all over the crime scene, with funky arrows pointing here, there, and everywhere. The problem is this simply isn’t true. Rudy Guede was convicted on less DNA evidence (five samples) than Amanda Knox (six samples).
The documentary also displays quasi racism, where trial and appellate courts can be rejected for innocent Amanda, but innuendo is sufficient for black guys, as Knox lies in the documentary that Guede is a known burglar.
The documentary happily facilitate this lie by obligingly showing a mugshot of Guede with the intimation that it’s a mugshot for burglary. The problem again is, this is simply untrue. Guede has no burglary convictions, and indeed was the only one out of the trio with no prior criminal record before Ms Kercher’s murder.
Knox and Sollecito both had minor run-ins with the law resulting in fines. Guede was never even charged with the burglary, and even the acquitting court decreed that the burglary was staged, as in staged in another flatmate’s room where Amanda Knox left her presumed blood DNA mixed with the murder victim’s and where no trace of Rudy Guede exists.
Knox also claims that no biological traces of her exist in one localized area of the crime scene, specifically Meredith’s bedroom, yet ignores that by such a rationale Guede couldn’t have committed the burglary.
Knox also claims that Guede acted alone, but no court decreed this, and she claims that he broke into her home when Meredith was present, neglecting to explain how Meredith never heard the 4 kilo rock hurling through Filomena Romanelli’s bedroom and why she obligingly did nothing while Guede shimmied 13 feet up a sheer wall TWICE.
The documentary, apparently not content with trying to match the record of most lies ever told in a single documentary before, then breezily attempts to surpass such a record, by introducing the film’s saviors, Stefano Conti and Carla Vechiotti, as “independent forensic DNA experts”.
Conti hypothesizes, like he did in court, that anything is possible. It’s like totally possible that contamination could have occurred, therefore it… DID occur. Basically a hypothesis on the basis that “anything’s possible” supersedes actual submitted evidence.
Vechiotti not to be outdone promptly contradicts Conti by attacking Low Copy Number (LCN) DNA as a science. Basically he claims Meredith Kercher’s DNA profile on the murder weapon (found in Sollecito’s flat, causing him to lie in his diary as to how the DNA got there by claiming that Meredith had cut herself cooking while at his apartment; but Meredith had never visited Sollecito’s apartment) is so tiny that it should be discarded and ignored.
LCN DNA is however now accepted by courts of law worldwide, including in the State of New York USA. Vechiotti also admitted in court that it was Meredith’s profile, and that contamination couldn’t have occurred due to the six day delay between testing.
She does a u-turn on the documentary though, claiming that contamination was likely due to Meredith’s profile being LCN and so small, despite testifying the exact opposite where it mattered the most, in court.
Problem is, Conti makes the contamination hypothesis for the bra clasp, only Sollecito’s DNA found there isn’t LCN, it’s a 17 loci match, with a US court considering between 10-15 loci sufficient enough to be used as evidence.
The doc also fails to explain how his DNA ended up only on the tiny bra clasp in such abundance and nowhere else apart from a cigarette, but mixed with Knox’s. So, too small for the knife, and hey, anything’s possible for the bra clasp.
They also make a big thing about the bra clasp lying in a sealed crime scene for 46 days, yet don’t mention that two samples of DNA evidence used to convict Guede (Meredith’s sweatshirt and purse) also lay there for 46 days. I guess there’s different burdens of proof bars for black guys.
However again the problem is that all of this (yep, again) is simply untrue. Conti and Vechiotti are not experts in forensic DNA or ENFSI certified.
Carla Vechiotti is a pathologist. Her lab at Sapienza University was shut down due to atrocious hygiene practices including honest to God corpses being strewn about the halls, I kid you not.
Conti’s expertise is “computer medical science”...whatever that’s supposed to be. Nor are they independent. Conti and Vechiotti were found “Objectively biased” and “Objectively deceptive” in court by the Nencini appellate. Specifically because Vechiotti falsely claimed that the technology did not exist to re-test the murder weapon. It did indeed exist in 2011.
Vechiotti was also filmed by the BBC shaking hands with Sollecito’s father in court, no less, hardly appropriate behavior for so-called independents. Vechiotti has also been found guilty of criminal misconduct in a separate case, and was fined €150,000 for screwing up in yet another separate case, known as the Olgiatta murder.
You’ll notice in this review how I’ve rarely mentioned the victim Meredith Kercher. That’s because she barely gets a mention in this sad excuse for a documentary. Not even an RIP.
Meredith, the victim is relegated to a mere footnote and indeed a foot under a duvet.
The doc does use archive footage of her mother, Arline, and intimates that she herself is having doubts, whereas the Kerchers have made very clear on several occasions that they know who murdered their daughter.
Reprehensibly, the doc also displays close up autopsy photos of Meredith, yet the autopsy photos were never made public.
Considering only the Kerchers (who didn’t take part in Netflix’s PR makeover) and the defence - and by extension the two former defendants - had access to such material, this begs the very pertinent question: who provided two ardent Knox supporters with autopsy photos of the murder victim?
The filmmakers should be ashamed of themselves for this alone, utterly contemptible behavior which comes across as needlessly and despicably taunting the victim’s family, and at the very least exploiting their daughter and sister purely for lurid effect to make their documentary more “gritty”.
So what’s the verdict on Amanda Knox the documentary?
Well, it’s a terrible, false and ultimately immoral exercise in innocence fraud, and here are some more of the facts that Knox’s PR infomercial left out:
1 The Supreme Court’s acquitting report states that Amanda Knox was present during Meredith’s murder and may even have possibly washed the victim’s blood from her hands afterwards but it STILL can’t be proved that she did it, which begs more questions, namely why didn’t innocent Amanda call the cops for her friend and why wasn’t she charged as an accessory at least? (The same Supreme Court did not make the same allowance for the black guy though, had he washed the victim’s blood from his shoes for example.) The court also states that there’s “strong suspicion” that Sollecito was there.
2 The Supreme Court’s acquitting report states that the burglary was staged.
3 The Supreme Court’s acquitting report states that Meredith was murdered by three attackers and that Guede had two accomplices. (And you really don’t have to be Stephen Hawking to figure out who these two accomplices were, when you view the evidence in its totality)
4 The Supreme Court’s acquitting report states that Meredith’s murder was NOT due to a burglary gone wrong.
5 The Supreme Court’s acquitting nonetheless finalizes Knox’s calumny/criminal slander conviction, which she was handed for falsely accusing her innocent employer of rape and murder, leaving him in prison for two weeks, and never retracting her statement, despite false reports that she did, meaning that Knox’s status is still that of a convicted criminal felon.
6 In finalizing Amanda Knox’s calumny/criminal slander conviction, the Supreme Court’s acquitting report states that Knox blamed her boss to protect Rudy Guede as she was afraid that Guede could “retaliate by incriminating” her, which of course begs some more very interesting and pertinent questions, such as how could Guede incriminate innocent Amanda to begin with?
7 The Supreme Court’s acquitting report does NOT exonerate Knox, it acquits her due to “insufficient evidence”,like Casey Anthony, OJ Simpson and that nice man Robert Durst now back on trial.
The Truth is Out There, as a fictional 90s FBI agent who investigated strange stuff once mused. The truth in Meredith Kercher’s case is out there too, specifically in the Massei and Nencini court reports.
Never have I seen a case where such overwhelming evidence existed and where all the primary sources and court reports are fully available, only for such false reporting and fawning (and equally false accounts abound). It’s like the mainstream media have collectively turned into the robotic town of Stepford.
Yet the truth often has the strangest habit of coming to light, often when we least expect it to shine. I have hopes it’ll shine in Meredith’s case, in time. The supporter fanboy filmmakers are fooling nobody who is familiar with Meredith’s case, and neither are Amanda Knox or Raffaele Sollecito.
RIP Meredith Kercher, who along with her stoic dignified family (who have been subjected to absolutely abhorrent abuse and attacks by Knox’s supporters online) and Knox’s employer Patrick Lumumba are the only victims here.
May the truth shine in your case one day and the facts and truth come to light.
Posted by Corpusvile on 11/12/16 at 08:51 PM in Evidence & Witnesses, The pack attack, News media & movies, Movies on case, Hoaxes against Italy, 1 Ital justice hoax, 2 Italian mileu hoax, 3 No evidence hoax, 4 No firm DNA hoax, 5 No pack attack hoax, 9 Mignini v Knox hoax, 12 Rabid media hoax, Hoaxes Knox & team, 13 AK persona hoax, 15 Single alibi hoax, Hoaxes Sollecito etc, 25 RS persona hoax, Hoaxes re Guede, 33 Sole attacker hoax, Hoaxers from 2007, More hoaxers, Hoaxers: media groups, The Netflix hoax
Tweet This Post
TweetComments
Great points Corpusvile. Much appreciated.
Not for the first time I am wondering exactly when the Conti & Vecchiotti interviews were filmed. They so totally ignore the 2011 cross-examination and the rebuttal witnesses. They also ignore the damning findings of the Carabinieri at the Nencini appeal in 2013-14.
Given their negative press in Italy and how they are being investigated and court cases likely much of what they claim here to trash Italian justice worldwide is distinctly unwise for them.
Any theories?
Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/13/16 at 06:12 PM | #
Rudy is out of Mammagialla prison on 36 hours leave. Photos in today’s Daily Mail (11/14/16) show him eating out with friends at a nice restaurant in Viterbo. This is his 4th freedom pass for good behavior.
It seems he stays at a halfway house hostel. During one of his 36 hour leaves he worked at a volunteer center.
He seems to be surrounded by rather nice friends to all appearances. He is dressed well. He chose bruschetta and pasta and wine and Coke for part of his meal.
He now has a degree in history and the environment.
Rudy honestly looks a lot more well-adjusted and healthy in body and mind than his two co-conspirators who dodged punishment.
Their angst shows on their faces and in their words. Rudy seems to be getting on with life more peacefully and productively than Sollecito and Knox put together.
Just my impression from Daily Mail photos of him.
Posted by Hopeful on 11/14/16 at 01:20 PM | #
He’s still an ‘Ivorian-born drifter’ after all these years. Just when will Rudy Guede stop ‘drifting’?
Posted by KrissyG on 11/14/16 at 07:08 PM | #
AK never acknowledges that her behaviour was weird. If she were innocent she would surely say something like, “looking back I was particularly stupid. I didn’t help the police with my behaviour and I must admit I probably did bring suspicion onto myself”.
She doesn’t even seem to feel bad that she showered whilst her next door flatmate lay dead. An innocent person would surely feel extremely bad for this.
I haven’t seen the pics of Guede but I believe what Hopeful says. I can’t stomach another viewing of the Netflix but I have rewatched bits of it and the look of Knox (1 hour, 3 minutes and 40 seconds remaining), well she looks most angst ridden.
At the end of the doc she says to RS “Raffaele, this is crazy”. CRAZY that that their innocence is confirmed?
I just wish the truth had been faced at the beginning.
Seeking Understanding said it in an article a while back, (around the time of the Daybreak interview), something to the effect of ‘it’s not too late’.
Posted by DavidB on 11/15/16 at 01:07 PM | #
EITHER I AM A PSYCHOPATH in sheep’s clothing she says confusing her metaphors, or I am you. This statement reeks of arrogance and she frames the words ‘I am a psychopath’. I challenge anyone to find an instance of Amanda owning her stupidity, tactlessness, lies, obfuscation and crass bad taste. She is merely quirky, misunderstood, a victim of bullying, only lying to save someone else’s skin.
It is very difficult for her to feign normality and that’s why she comes across as a ham actress particularly when she is in the wobbly voiced Larry the lamb mode. In her own mind she is giving a heart wrenching , tear jerking performance. Sadly it is easy to move the unthinking to tears. The shallow celebrity obsessed environment encourages the trivializing and warping of hard facts in exchange for cheap superficiality. Amanda is well aware of this but overplays her hand.
There is no alternative but to cringe with embarrassment when exposed to the performance. If the Kerchers can face the cameras with few tears and with their quiet, subtle, touching dignity so surely, could Knox. It is evident from their measure words that they are sure of the killer but their natural restraint prevents them from outbursts and accusations.
But AK will not be satisfied until everyone has been beaten into submission. At least the tenacity and impressive commitment of all of you will ensure that she has a long road ahead.
Posted by pensky on 11/15/16 at 03:45 PM | #
Corpusvile you wrote a perfect concentrated article. By the way, when Knox says “i am a psychopath” she tells the first time truth, the rest “in sheeps clothing” is already “salad dressing”.
Posted by Elisa on 11/15/16 at 05:08 PM | #
Bravo @pensky, that was as good a descriptive paragraph as I’ve ever read on Knox and what makes her tick. Superb stuff.
I strongly echo the sentiments of your final sentence too. You only need to dip into the vast vault of articles on this site, and the accompanying comments, to see the great sacrifices that have been made by Peter and all the other contributors to this splendid site. I personally find it very humbling. I have no doubt that Meredith’s wonderful family do too.
Compare and contrast with the foul creatures surrounding, and following, Knox and we really do have a classic “Good versus Evil” scenario playing out here. Even if a reversal in court is not forthcoming, Knox & Co have virtual pariah status a la OJ, Casey Anthony et al. This irks Knox immeasurably and is written all over her guilt and disease ravaged face.
Posted by davidmulhern on 11/16/16 at 05:25 AM | #
Greetings, and thank you to everyone for your continued vigilance.
I was prayer-full, especially for Meredith’s family and friends on November 1st.
I just wanted to pick up on DavidB’s comment above - Thankyou for remembering this article from some time ago - way before the Nencini or Rome judgements.
I thought at the time that if there was a shred of possibility that Knox (and Sollecito) could bring themselves to state unembroidered facts, pure truthful information, - this would be the effective and guaranteed way to ensure the beginnings of a better life.
It would have initiated a genuine hope for self development, a re-adjustment to more healthy relationships, an inner balance (not “crazy”), some hope of self-respect, leaving behind inner and outer restlessness and a compulsion to phoney-ness and a fabricated self.
It would have been better for everyone, but most of all it would have helped Knox herself.
Although not surprised when nothing was forthcoming (just the very odd letter to Nencini instead), I mused that sometimes a broken vase cannot be mended & stuck back together again. Sometimes it is just too broken.
Sad for everyone, ultimately.
Guede will probably do well - at least he has some hope of moderate happiness in his life now - rehabilitation as they say.
Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 11/16/16 at 08:03 PM | #
A question for someone who has watched the movie.
My fairly close current neighbor, Donald Trump (about 2 miles away as the crow flies), some comments in the film.
Is it made obvious when he made those remarks? The one time we noted him making any was seven years ago back in late 2009.
http://truejustice.org/ee/index.php?/tjmk/comments/a_shoot_from_the_hip_donald_trump/
Given the provable connection between the mafias and Knox walking free, it doesnt seem so smart of Netflix to have him stating an old opinion in the film.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/16/16 at 08:12 PM | #
It would be interesting to see a comparison of what they both was saying at the time, because didn’t Clinton say she was aware of the case or something? There is a tangled web there for sure leading to the usual subjects.
Posted by Deathfish on 11/17/16 at 12:00 PM | #
There you go, Peter 😊
See this 2010 YouTube video where Trump actively defends Knox to KOMO News channel 4. Also, “A member of her legal team actually visited Trump but to date he has not donated any money”
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCIa5WUbTr4
which is included in the Netflix documentary as confirmed by The Independent
Then this 2011 statement on Twitter https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/119806847921307650
Then #AmandaKnox er, slagged him in the back too, ahem 😊
http://www.westseattleherald.com/2016/11/14/opinion/amandas-view-amanda-stands-trump
“Trump had his own ideas and his own way; he called for the U.S. to sanction Italy until they released me—a pronouncement which only amplified anti-American sentiment towards me in the courtroom.”
Serpent’s tooth, ungrateful child.
Posted by Ergon on 11/17/16 at 11:29 PM | #
SeekingUnderstanding, you’re probably right; sometimes a broken vase is beyond repair.
I could be wrong but from my perspective the situation is now dreadful, (and inevitable). They will have to pretend it isn’t for longer than Guede will have spent in prison.
Posted by DavidB on 11/18/16 at 07:04 AM | #
For the rest of her life the murder of Meredith Kercher will define Amanda Knox.
Posted by whatswisdom on 11/18/16 at 10:57 AM | #
Courtesy of Andrea Vogt Twitter.
https://twitter.com/andreavogt/status/799214960588955648
Andrea Vogt â€@andreavogt · Nov 17
Dec 20: Florence appeals court to hear Rudy Guede’s revision request. He claims #amandaknox rulings conflict w/judgments in his case.
Posted by Ergon on 11/18/16 at 02:18 PM | #
@DavidB
Yes, my perspective too.
At best, inner restlessness - a permanent inability to be centred and calm (and therefore make wise decisions)... and at worst an inner anguish and conflict with no hope of resolution in sight, potentially very destructive.
All of which will be painfully reflected in any dysfunctional media.
Sometimes, just ‘holding onto the truth’ - in the sense that one feels one is treading water to stay still, and not progressing - is in fact doing a great deal.
One is not being swept along by irrational tides. That is something, quite a lot.
Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 11/19/16 at 04:51 AM | #
Very interesting read. Sorry I’m a bit distracted here. There’s a whale swimming around down below. A humpback whale no less, can grow to 50 feet. I saw the tail smack down. Every few minutes there’s a plume. A fast little Coastguard patrol boat is standing by. The whale is said to be very healthy, they can see it assembling fish (menhaden) into balls and swallowing a few hundred at a time.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/20/16 at 01:11 PM | #
Has it drifted up river?
Posted by KrissyG on 11/20/16 at 02:46 PM | #
Here it is!
https://twitter.com/mabomaPOG/status/799943212693491713
Posted by KrissyG on 11/20/16 at 02:53 PM | #
Good catch. I dont see anyone looking from the paths along the waterfronts. Its probably hard to see except from high up, though today its head, then its fin, then its long backbone, then its tail were all obvious every 3-5 minutes from here.
It certainly can move fast when it wants. My guess is it knows where it is and will head elsewhere when we are fished out. May take a while. The river has plenty of fish because fishing is mostly still banned because of some PCB contamination now mostly removed.
Really a very warming sight.
Posted by Peter Quennell on 11/20/16 at 05:57 PM | #
SeekingUnderstanding, I couldn’t agree more. And I think the inner restlessness especially shows on AK.
A proper house of cards has been built.
Posted by DavidB on 11/21/16 at 06:03 AM | #
Whale sighting cheered me up. Nature is grand!
(and I concur with SeekingUnderstanding and DavidB on Knox frame of mind, a catastrophe waiting to happen, a house of cards)
On happier whale and fish tale, a cousin used to use menhaden for bait in Gulf of Mexico. Last month my son-in-law won annual contest for biggest king mackerel caught from a kayak.
Posted by Hopeful on 11/21/16 at 10:51 AM | #
This smart rebuttal, link below to True Crimes Podcasts, is certainly worth a look. I just took a quick glance, there might be mistakes but what I read was fine.
(A podcast a few days earlier needs correcting. It stated based on Andrea’s Vogt that Rudy Guede has been granted a trial. No, the date is merely set fro a review of his request. It will be on 20 Dec. After that there could be real news. Not yet.)
<blockquote class=“twitter-tweet” data-lang=“en”>How you were manipulated by the Amanda Knox documentary https://t.co/BAq1zoRWaJ via @truecrimespod #amandaknox— True Crimes (@TrueCrimesPod) December 4, 2016</blockquote>
[removed][removed]
Posted by Peter Quennell on 12/04/16 at 04:21 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.
Where next:
Click here to return to The Top Of The Front PageOr to next entry Correcting Netflix 18 Omitted The Vital Context Of 200,000 In The US Wrongly Locked Up #1
Or to previous entry Correcting Netflix 16: Omitted - Good Media Reporting From Italy, Depicted As Fake News