Friday, February 04, 2011

Lifetime TV Appear To Have Lied And Invented False Facts For Their Horrific Knox TV Movie

Posted by Peter Quennell

These are all of our previous posts on this hapless film, which defense lawyers had said they might sue to be put on ice until after the appeals are all done.

There seems to be growing outrage in the media (read the many angry comments down below there) over what seems the sensational promotion and the offensive and misleading content of the film.

The film was made in Milan and Rome and it is due to air in the US on Monday 21 February, and thereafter in various other countries around the world. .This is the film that both Arline Kercher and John Kercher had spoken out very strongly against. It appears from the trailer and the still images to contain various manufactured scenes seemingly designed to enhance Knox.

1) This scene at the top certainly did NOT take place,  as Sollecito and Knox bizarrely chose to go for a pizza rather than join the grieving crowd at the memorial service for Meredith.

Among all who knew Meredith who were still in Perugia, they were the ONLY ones to refuse to attend. Neither Knox nor Sollecito have ever shown genuine sympathy for Meredith or for her family and friends.

2) This scene idepicts Meredith in an amorous position on top of Rudy Guede. This did NOT take place. Neither the Micheli court NOR Guede’s two appeal courts NOR the Massei court accepted that. Four courts rejected it as a lie and a defamation of the victim.

If Meredith were still alive, this would certainly be defamatory. Meredith had a headache that night and was tired after staying out most of the night before (Halloween), and she intended to finish a homework assignment and go to bed. She already had a boyfriend that she liked, and unlike Knox had zero history of sleeping around.

3) Lifetime told Meredith’s father John and many others in a public statement (they have never ever been in touch with the family quietly and directly) that the film would NOT depict the crime against Meredith, regardless of what angle Lifetime took toward Knox. The timeline would stop short of that.

And yet this scene show Meredith being savagely attacked by three people - exactly what Meredith’s family had feared most.

Right after the movie, Lifetime will apparently give the Knox-Mellases a full hour to sell their usual self-serving fabrications and half-truths. 

And meanwhile, still not one word from Lifetime for the family of the real victim. Lifetime is a smallish network with a mostly elderly female demographic, and it mostly focuses with varying sympathy on women who have been hurt or killed. The REAL victims.

So what happened here?

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/04/11 at 12:48 AM in Various hypothesesMovies on case


America really is a sick society. Like Flight 93, I will never see this film. This makes me so angry

Posted by DougPDX on 02/04/11 at 04:30 AM | #

I’ve said this before in previous comments I have made here; this movie should never have been allowed to be made.
The producers must have the morals of an alley cat.
What for? why make this movie?
What is the real reason?
I smell a rat..

Posted by Black Dog on 02/04/11 at 09:45 AM | #

.... pecunia non olet ....

Posted by ncountryside on 02/04/11 at 09:58 AM | #

Thanks for the links. These images of the attack - be it that they show all three convicted assailants participating, and with Amanda holding the murder weapon - are gratuitously horrific and upsetting, particularly for the Kerchers and more particularly because they are still grieving and living through the appeal processes.

As the reports in these links show the film is going to serve up the above scenario AND an alternative or alternative scenarios (for those who want it) to exculpate Amanda.

The makers of the film can rely upon Knox/Mellas generating further interest.

It is just about making money.

Posted by James Raper on 02/04/11 at 12:02 PM | #


Posted by mojo on 02/04/11 at 02:06 PM | #

This movie looks truly revolting. Is there somewhere we could get a petition started to send our views to the producers? Somewhere that we could show our solidarity with the Kercher family so that they will know how many people support them? To show how many people will boycott this crap for TV?

Posted by bedelia on 02/04/11 at 04:38 PM | #

Amanda Knox’s lawyers are being reported in Italy as claiming to have sent a legal threat to Lifetime and to be preparing to initiate a suit. 

Amanda Knox’s lawyers have sent a warning to the studio Lifetime to “immediately stop and not distribute, publish or broadcast the film ‘Amanda Knox on murder trial in Italy’. The youth of Seattle ‘in prison sentenced to 26 years for the murder of Meredith Kercher.

Luciano Ghirga who defends Knox with Carlo Dalla Vedova said that lawyers are “clearly against the spread of the film ” because “we’ve seen the trailer and contents are highly damaging to the reputation of Amanda. In the movie there is data about how sex. It is absurd that during an appeal process there is a spread like this. “

“We shall proceed to take legal action announced the defence lawyer, referring to the contents injurious to Amanda. The film is planned to air 21 February next, and the next appeal hearing’ isset for March 12. Along with Amanda, Raffaele Sollecito was also sentenced to 25 years in prison for the same crime.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/04/11 at 05:27 PM | #

John and Arline Kercher have strongly spoken out. Beware the images in The Sun are even more graphic than those we had to post above to make our points.

We prefer not to quote as the text at this moment is rather garbled - it reads as if it has been twice through translation.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/04/11 at 05:35 PM | #

I’m a bit worried too that this could lead Knox and Sollecito’s lawyers to have legal grounds for appeal (“poisoning the well”). I hope I’m being too paranoid, but you can’t be too cautious when it comes to legal matters.

former bad girl, I believe there’s a facebook page against the movie (I’m not on facebook, though). I’d sure sign a petition to get it jettisoned.

This is so disgusting and hurtful to the family. If James is right and they present an “alternative scenario” of Knox’s innocence (yeah right), that’s the most disgusting and hurtful thing of all.

They shouldn’t be putting this on at all until the appeals are all finished, and then at the very least, they should leave out the graphic scenes.

Posted by Earthling on 02/04/11 at 06:44 PM | #

And Curt Knox’s and Edda Mellas’ slander hearing is scheduled very soon in the Perugia court.

So where is this good ole American Knox/Mellas family that their pr campaign has been attempting to portray to the mass media since 2007?

.............................or will they be appearing on some other American tv network?

Posted by True North on 02/04/11 at 06:54 PM | #

Hi Earthling. Yes I guess that the Knox defense team could indeed use that as a last desperate ploy. As the Supreme Court of Cassation has already accepted that all three participated in the attack on Meredith, this present appeal seems otherwise to be seriously going nowhere. 

The movie seemed to move though two generations, maybe starting with the angle that Knox was being framed and then introducing this either/or approach when the Massei Report in English became available on PMF and TJMK for download.

Curt Knox and Edda Mellas have never spoken out against this movie, even now, and their role in its initiation if any is unknown. Chris Mellas in Perugia seems to be siding with the lawyers in wanting the PR and the conspiracy theorists gone..

The next trial date for Curt Knox and Edda Mellas on the Calunnia charge (roughly, accusing someone of a criminal offense) will be Tuesday the 15th of this month. They may or may not attend.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/04/11 at 07:12 PM | #

Peter shows two scenes of outright falsehood, one of them defamatory. There may be a verbal falsehood also when the actor playing Patrick Lumumba says of Amanda (in a somewhat racist juxtaposition) “She’s evil.”

Compare from Mail Online (25 November 2007) words attributed to real-life Lumumba:

“She was angry I was firing her and wanted revenge,” he says. “By the end, she hated me. But I don’t even think she’s evil.

To be evil you have to have a soul. “Amanda doesn’t. She’s empty; dead inside. She’s the ultimate actress, able to switch her emotions on and off in an instant. I don’t believe a word she says. Everything that comes out of her mouth is a lie. But those lies have stained me for ever.

Quotation marks are problematic here.

I do think the actors are well-cast, including the woman portraying Meredith.  As for falsehoods they will work against the credit of the film, which is unlikely to change the minds of those who believe (as I do) in Amanda Knox’s manifest guilt.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 02/04/11 at 11:30 PM | #

I can’t help thinking the Knox/Mellas and their PR campaign are behind this movie.

The killing scene portrayed in the trailer is a red herring. I think this scene turns out to be prosecutions (computer) re-enactment during their summations (and whats the betting that the Meredith/Guede scene is not?)


Posted by jhansigirl on 02/04/11 at 11:32 PM | #

Dear God I am so ashamed to be an American and see the media pigs of the USA capitalize on this horrific act. My only hope is that it will create enough renewed interest in the viewers for most to delve deeper into the facts and realize (as most already to in this country) of the fabrication and biased opinion being spewed by the LIFETIME Channel. Before the intensified debate in the US regarding the liberal leaning media, it has long been fact that this network has been abashedly liberal. Not to make this a political issue, but despite what subjective definitions the readers here have regarding what is liberal and what isn’t, it is clear that the US media holds a disturbing perspective in which they interpret their agenda. Superficiality is one label the opposition has given the “liberal” media, and given the superficial “Let’s side with the American girl with the pretty face” attitude they want to subject to their viewers. It is clear to me that this label is something that they truly earned by spewing this garbage to the public.

Posted by Kazwell on 02/05/11 at 12:51 AM | #

This Feb. 4, 2011 ABC News link titled,


exposes Amanda Knox’s step-father, Chris Mellas’ apparent communications with Lifetime movie actress Hayden Panettiere, who plays Amanda Knox.

One excerpt reads, “We, quite some time back, asked Hayden to visit Amanda, but they never got back to us after several conversations”, Mellas said.

Posted by True North on 02/05/11 at 03:16 AM | #


1) Hayden Panettiere sounds like a charming psychopath - absent the charming part.

“And in a jaw-droppingly crass manner, Hayden admitted she screamed with joy when she got the part. She recalled: “I was standing in the driveway, and I was jumping up and down like this.”

“I was jumping like a jumping bean. I was screaming at the top of my lungs. I was so excited that this opportunity had come up.”

2) John Kercher is quoted as sad, shocked and disgusted.

3) And while Curt Knox and Edda Mellas are STILL not decrying the movie from Settle (we wonder why) Chris Mellas from Perugia had this:

“The families of Knox and Sollecito are trying to prevent the film from being broadcast in America on cable channel Lifetime on February 21 until after the appeal.

Last night Chris Mellas, Knox’s stepfather, revealed how his family were also opposed to the film and said they had asked Hayden to visit her in prison.

Mr Mellas, who has moved to Italy to be near Knox, said: “We have formalised a complaint against Lifetime.

“Some time back we asked Hayden to visit Amanda but they never got back to us after several conversations.

“We at least wanted her to meet for accuracy’s sake. It is ill-timed and inappropriate in many ways, so we have no other choice but to protest its airing.”

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/05/11 at 09:06 AM | #

“Some time back we asked Hayden to visit Amanda but they never got back to us after several conversations….“We at least wanted her to meet for accuracy’s sake. It is ill-timed and inappropriate in many ways, so we have no other choice but to protest its airing.”

What kind of idiotic logic is this from Mellas? Does he honestly think that Hayden P actually would have any say in this project regardless of how charmed she was supposed to be by meeting AK and hearing “her side” of things?

It sounds like Mellas is projecting his own starstruck ambitions upon his step daughter with the hopes Hayden P comes out to the world, and somehow, her B list credentials as an actress, and I use the term loosely, will sway public opinion in favor his psychopathic step daughter’s innocence.

Maybe it would have been a good thing they met so he could see for himself what little HP could do for his daughter’s hopeless cause. Doubtful though, that even if HP was somehow touched by AK’s “side” of things, she would be stupid enough to jeopardize what little career she is hanging onto by making any statements that give the impression she is not unbiased despite her own idiotic “jump for joy” attitude about getting the role.

This unabashed attitude clearly proves she is more interested in celebrating a move regarding her own career path than about the feelings of the families on either side. Maybe she was perfect for the role. Who better to portray a self-centered media pig than another self-centered media pig?

Posted by Kazwell on 02/05/11 at 09:33 AM | #

“Right after the movie, Lifetime will apparently give the Knox-Mellases a full hour to sell their usual self-serving fabrications and half-truths.”

Wait a minute.
They are protesting loudly through their lawyers on the one hand to stop the production/showing of this obscenity.
And on the other hand.
They have agreed to go on air for an hour after it to be interviewed.
Sounds as if there has been a lot of behind-the-scene talks going on here.

BTW, this particular older US woman plans plans not only to boycott this particular piece of trash movie, but Lifetime, and the idiot star of it as well.
What a lot of empty soulless pieces of garbage.

Posted by lauowolf on 02/06/11 at 09:54 PM | #

Good point, lauowolf. Methinks they dost protest too much, when they are clearly participating at some level. What is the deal with this after-show? Who is producing it? Who will be interviewed? What will be the viewpoint?

I’ve never seen anything like this on American TV before. If the victim were, say, Natalee Holloway (an American white girl), I don’t think we’d be having this conversation.

Thanks, Lindsy, for adding your voice.

RIP Meredith Kercher, the ONLY victim on November 1, 2007.

Posted by Earthling on 02/08/11 at 12:01 AM | #

[Co,mment here on Panettiere has been hidden as I will be reposting it as a front page post. To Ernest below, your comments much appreciated, I hope you will repeat them under the post.]

Posted by Hopeful on 02/08/11 at 09:18 AM | #

Responding with thanks to Hopeful whose thoughts have stirred my imagination.
(a) I can’t quite believe Amanda’s words as quoted by Chris Mellas.
(b) But if Amanda said that (gave Mellas that idea) it shows a violence of reaction which calls for exploration like this.
(c) True or false, to me this hints of a possible upheaval in the construct that Amanda invents. May need the right trigger.
(d) And yes, there must be something of envy of Hayden Panettiere, as well as bitter reminders of what she has lost.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 02/08/11 at 05:43 PM | #

Quoting Hopeful directly:

...the strange feeling Knox had when seeing “a girl who looked like her, dressed like her, playing her life.” ...Perhaps this seeing herself through objective eyes is shaking up her fragile sense of identity.

...she is reminded of all the glories that were lost seeing the colors and happy scenes of bouncing carefree Hayden/herself flitting around Perugia at the university… it must be horrifying to have traded all that freedom…

She may… resent this lovely actress’s freedom to vicariously take over her life and her sufferings… It’s like two actresses vying for a juicy role and one losing out to the other, the loser being Foxy, ironically she being the authentic character and born to play the role.

It’s equally possible that her tears and nausea are an act… a falsehood concocted by her family to camouflage the fact that she’s secretly revelling in every minute of increased notoriety… love of the limelight once again, but anger that she has been cut out as scriptwriter.

Posted by Ernest Werner on 02/08/11 at 11:20 PM | #

There is a scene in the trailer showing Amanda stressed out during police questioning in the early hours of the 6th Nov. I wonder how this episode actually plays out during the film. There is human drama here but also scope for much sliming and if this turns out to be the case pro-Knox campaigners will jump on it with glee.

The usual refrain from the other side is that she was denied her rights and that the so-called confession, which would not have occurred otherwise, was prejudicial. This will undoubtedly come up immediately after the airing of the film - if that happens.

So what of this argument?

Well, there is, in fairness, an argument that Amanda should have been treated as a suspect earlier than she was.

Her behaviour was odd at the crime scene and at the police station, and then there was the scene of the alleged break in. I have long myself thought that the break in scene is the “smoking gun” in this case. Even the postal police, before Meredith’s body was found, were suspicious and the carabinieri who followed thought likewise. It was surely not long before they had suspicions about Amanda. However that is not necessarily the same as having enough information which which to treat her as a suspect. That point probably occurred when Raffaelle pointedly refused to confirm Amanda’s alibi. Amanda had already told the police that she had been with Raffaelle all night.

As a suspect Amanda was then entitled to have a lawyer present for any further questioning and could have refused to answer any questions. The questioning would also have had to have been taped.

Whether she would have then invented the scenario of Patrick attacking Meredith is debatable - with a lawyer present probably not. With a lawyer present there would certainly have been no allegations of being cuffed round the head, or being pressured into discussing hypothetical situations, the latter being a police tactic with which, by the way, I am well familiar during my previous life as a criminal defence lawyer.

One claim that is simply wrong is that Amanda was subjected to long hours of interrogation. On the 6th Nov she was questioned from midnight to 1.45am when the questioning stopped because of her accusation regarding Patrick. Two hours of questioning - most of it a rehash of what the police have already been told - is by no means strenuous, particularly if you are innocent. In the event Amanda was now a formal suspect and was not questioned again that night.

What is the relevance of her treatment and the so-called confession that the pro-Knox campaigners keep whingeing on about? Remember Amanda said that she in the kitchen when Patrick attacked Meredith in her bedroom.

I have said it before and I will say it again - none so far as the criminal charges ( other than that of falsely implicating Patrick) are concerned. She does not confess to being involved in the attack and it has no probative value in placing her at the crime scene.

Consider the following statement. ” I was in the building and saw John set off the fire alarm”.

The alarm did go off but John was never in the building. In fact I may well have been in the building when the alarm went off but it would be foolish for anyone to accept that this was so from my statement- even more so if I retract the statement - without some corroborative evidence.

The evidence for Amanda being at the scene lies elsewhere and the Massei report makes this clear. Furthermore as Massei and another judge sat on the jury they would have made this perfectly clear to the lay jurors as well.

So why the fuss? It is a smokescreen.

Whether or not she did commit the crime is a matter of evidence. The purpose of the smokescreen is to distract us from that fact.

Posted by James Raper on 02/10/11 at 02:55 PM | #

Latest from Hayden Panettiere.

“It was very interesting to play a character where you didn’t know if she was guilty or innocent. My job was to be as innocent as I could be.”

Thanks for making that clear Hayden.

Posted by James Raper on 02/10/11 at 04:13 PM | #

Further to my above comment I would like to add that if anyone is wondering, or hoping, that Amanda’s alleged ill treatment and denial of rights at the police station constitutes some technicality on which she can walk free, that of course is rubbish.

Evidence can be rendered inadmissible by a technicality but there is no technicality, as far as I can see, with regard to the real evidence here.

An example of evidence being rendered inadmissible could be, for instance, if it was gathered as the result of, or if it followed on from, an illegal search or an illegal detention and/or questioning. This sort of thing we are used to and I’m sure similar principles apply in Italian law.

None of the evidence here was gathered because of anything that happened at the police station. It would have been gathered anyway. No-one has suggested that the search of Raffaelle’s flat was not legal.

Furthermore if Amanda’s detention was authorised as a result of the so-called confession, and that was not permissible because of the alleged ill treatment, denial of rights, etc, then it was permissible for various reasons because her alibi had been broken by Raffaelle.  Any notion that the police had nothing on either of them until the so called confession is false.

What I suspect really irks Edda iin retrospect is that Amanda had lost her liberty by the time she arrived in Italy.  Had she got there sooner I have little doubt that she would have packed her daughter’s bags and booked the first available flight home.

That Amanda had not herself done so already was no doubt due to (a) overconfidence, (b) her relationship with Raffaelle, (c) an obsessive curiosity as to how things would play out, and (d) she just didn’t want to give up her carefree life and go home so soon. These things would have been more important to her than anything the police or her mother said. How she must be kicking herself.

Posted by James Raper on 02/12/11 at 03:31 PM | #


“...That Amanda had not herself done so already [booked the first available flight home] was no doubt due to (a) overconfidence, (b) her relationship with Raffaelle, (c) an obsessive curiosity as to how things would play out, and (d) she just didn’t want to give up her carefree life and go home so soon. These things would have been more important to her than anything the police or her mother said.

How she must be kicking herself.”
Posted by James Raper on 02/12/11 at 09:31 AM | #

James, do you think she’s kicking herself about her overconfidence in THIS admission? :

“Raffaele and I have used this knife to cook, and it’s impossible that Meredith’s DNA is on the knife because she’s never been to Raffaele’s apartment ....”
Quotation from Amanda Knox’s Diary, voluntarily written, in her own handwriting, while in Prison.

We already know that the Court in Perugia concluded that both Meredith’s and Knox’s DNA are on the knife, and not “planted” [Massei-Report-Translation, pp. 264-266, & 376-377].

So Knox’s voluntary, handwritten-statement, admitting that she had used the knife, but asserting as “impossible” that Meredith’s DNA is on it, blows-up in her overconfident face?

If as Knox stated, MEREDITH NEVER WAS AT SOLLECITO’S APARTMENT, how did Meredith’s DNA get onto the knife the Police found in Sollecito’s kitchen-drawer?

The two DNA experts from Sapienza University who have been assigned to retest the above knife, have apparently asked for permission to break open the handle of the knife they are asked to retest, but it remains to be seen if they do so.

Peter pointed-out that “If Meredith’s blood is found to have seeped into the handle, by itself that will be case closed and verdict confirmed.”

And if Meredith’s blood is NOT found to have seeped into the handle?

Will this help Knox?

It’s hard to believe it would.

If Meredith’s blood is NOT found to have seeped into the handle this should NOT HELP Knox, and the guilty verdict should still be confirmed.

Posted by Cardiol MD on 02/12/11 at 09:01 PM | #

I totally agree, Cardiol. Somehow, with Amanda, playing it innocent and a knack for self incrimination, become as one. I think this why some people’s intuitions have got confused and they believe she is innocent.

And if Meredith’s blood/DNA is not found to have seeped into the handle? Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Posted by James Raper on 02/13/11 at 02:12 AM | #

“…That Amanda had not herself done so already [booked the first available flight home] was no doubt due to (a) overconfidence, (b) her relationship with Raffaelle, (c) an obsessive curiosity as to how things would play out, and (d) she just didn’t want to give up her carefree life and go home so soon. These things would have been more important to her than anything the police or her mother said.
How she must be kicking herself.”
Posted by James Raper on 02/12/11 at 09:31 AM | #

Well said (and thanks for your clarifications on the “confession” as well).
I think that Knox was enjoying being at the centre of attention after the murder, and really thought that she would never be caught out. I guess she is used to telling lies and getting away with it.
That her mother rushed over so fast always made me think she had figured Knox was in some way involved. Even she admitted Knox’s phone call on the morning after the murder was strange.

Posted by lilly on 02/13/11 at 07:58 AM | #

Post A Comment


Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Open Letter To Everyone Remotely Involved In Lifetime’s Crass Enterprise “Murder on Trial in Italy”

Or to previous entry Explaining The Massei Report: A Visual Guide To The Faked Break-In Via Filomena’s Window