Wednesday, February 19, 2014

Our Reviews Of The Painstaking BBC-3 Report First Aired In The UK On 17 February 2014

Posted by Our Main Posters

Review by SomeAlibi

Watching “Is Amanda Knox Guilty” was a funny thing. I suspect for people following the case closely, on either side, it was a sobering experience. Not because it changed perspectives, but simply to see how quickly one hour passed and the necessary trade offs that had to be made to fit within that schedule. The opportunity cost was a level of detail to which in-depth followers have become accustomed.

Just one example: Sollecito and Knox’s partial alibi that they were checking their emails on the night of November 1st was explained as being challenged by two broken computers. Perhaps, (although unlikely to be the material issue) but where was the much more salient fact that their ISP records showed that was conclusively untrue? Where was the challenge: if you say you’re checking emails to establish part of your alibi against a murder and it is shown to be absolutely untrue, what does that suggest…?

There were many other “clinchers” that had to be let go in the name of brevity. But it wasn’t that sort of documentary - it was neither a case for the prosecution or a case for the defence: it put the main suggestions at the level of detail that was possible and it allowed both sides to speak to the points at that level of detail.

I find it interesting that there has been such a howl of bias from those supporting Knox and Sollecito. Objectively there’s no good ground for it: the documentary allowed both sides forward in equal measure and no pro-justice watcher would celebrate it as a pro-conviction piece.

The arguments were balanced, the video, audio and picture quality eye-opening. For those on the other side, their markedly different reaction appears to be that the documentary has broken the taboo that The Evidence Shall Not be Told. The idea that there is an easy-to-consume piece that puts forth the case and defence equally is seen as a disaster.

The campaign for Knox continues to be obsessed, beyond all things, with trying but now failing to make sure the public doesn’t know the basis of the case. For a long time they hoped to drown out the multitude of terribly inconvenient truths within it by screaming “no evidence”. ‘Is Amanda Knox Guilty’ put the lie to that conclusively, but fairly, and now many hundreds of thousands, perhaps soon to be millions will ask themselves why those supporting Knox and Sollecito have had to adopt this tactic at all.

If they really are innocent, why has the case against them been so comprehensively white-washed in the US?

The conclusion, is rather simple and I saw it encapsulated on a large television screen last night with the repeated clips of Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito outside the cottage kissing and “comforting” each other: there for a fraction of a second, shown several times, is Amanda Knox, unable to stop herself glancing at the camera filming her and stealing her gaze away again very quickly pretending she hasn’t.

It’s a look that says everything: furtive, pretending it didn’t happen, immediately covering up in a way that poses a stark proposition: why on earth would you do that if you had nothing to hide?  And like so much of the multiple collapsing alibis and non-working answers and the desperately dishonest fingers-in-the-ear “no-evidence” pretence of those supporting her, is a proposition that can withstand no scrutiny.

Review by SeekingUnderstanding

What a relief to watch a very clear and unbiased narrative. The quality of the visual information was top rate - seeing so much original footage, and presented as it was in a logical time sequence.

Even though I was already familiar with the evidence, including the photographic material, I found it very helpful to see it all presented in this way. I appreciated, too, hearing and seeing the excerpts in original Italian (along with English translations). It added even more authenticity.

I hope that, at long last, this will have helped some - or hopefully many- people to see that the two ‘camps’ in this case do not divide into AK supporters and AK ‘haters’. There are the FoA and their followers ...and there are the others who seek the objective truth and justice.

If hate has been generated in some quarters, then the Knox (and Sollecito) camps need to look to themselves and their own behaviour. This programme was important in the tone it set.

I actually found it to be quite lenient towards the defence on a number of counts.

There were several instances where the defence point of view could have been strongly countered by known and established facts, but, bending over in fairness, these were left unanswered.

Here are just four instances :

1) In the discussion around the blood and DNA left in the bathroom - Dr. Gino’s assertion that ‘the blood/DNA ‘could have come from anywhere’ might have been countered with AK’s own declaration that the bathroom was previously clean. Dr. Gino also suggested a very improbable scenario of ‘it could be saliva’ (on the bidet?). Cassation emphatically said that it must be shown HOW any suggested contamination could have occurred.

2) There was a missed opportunity in discussing the knife presumed to be the murder weapon to mention Sollecito’s lame, unreal excuse of ‘Meredith pricked her hand’ etc.

3) Anne Bremner stated ‘Amanda could not have turned overnight…into a murderer’. Attention could have been drawn to many things, both physical events (her predilection for cruel pranks, including a staged burglary in the US, and wild parties, etc), and also many psychological indicators that would have clearly shown how her behaviour has, in fact, demonstrated consistency.

4) In the discussion re the bra clasp, the delay partially being caused by the defence themselves was not mentioned. Also, detailed discussion re the one bare footprint on the bathmat was omitted.

Since there is, in fact, so much evidence, it must have been difficult to chose and balance what did go into the hour long programme. All in all, I feel Andrea Vogt and her team worked hard, and did very well to let the facts speak for themselves.

I hope it will lay a few fictions and myths to rest.

Review by Earthling

What is the “Amanda Knox trial” (really the Meredith Kercher murder trial) really about? Is it about an innocent 20-year-old pretty white girl being railroaded by the medieval Italian justice system?

Or is this actually a murder trial, about the fact that a beautiful, intelligent, ambitious young woman, innocently trying to improve her life by study abroad, was brutally murdered?

I believe it’s the latter, and the BBC3 production gives us one of the first truly balanced reports on this trial.

The filmmaker starts from the beginning, and takes us through the murder, investigation, and various trials and appeals up to the present day. Instead of the breathless “Perils of Penelope” tone (toward Amanda Knox) that most such previous “documentaries” have taken, this one takes a sober look at the actual evidence.

Did you realize that there are luminol-revealed bare footprints in Knox’s size in the apartment? Luminol reveals blood and a few other substances; but those substances can be ruled out because the test was done six weeks after the murder, by which time those substances would have dissipated.

Blood doesn’t dissipate. This documentary shows you those bloody footprints in all their creepy glory, something never shown on American TV before.

“Is Amanda Knox Guilty” also speaks of the actual DNA evidence in the cottage linking Knox to the murder, including five mixed-DNA spots (Knox and Kercher) that tested positive for blood. Both prosecution- and defense-oriented experts are allowed to comment on this evidence, and the viewer is allowed to make up his or her own mind.

My one criticism is that a lot of the evidence against Knox (witness statements, cell phone data, fake break-in) is skimmed over or not even mentioned. Also, because the documentary quotes Rudy Guede’s position at length without any contradictory narrative, it is confusing as to whether the filmmaker might have believed him.

In the end, the filmmaker says, he was convicted of participating in the group murder. However, a stronger statement against his “I’m entirely innocent” defense would have been good.

Other than these quibbles, this is the best documentary on the Meredith Kercher murder case that I have ever seen.

Review by ZiaK

I watched the BBC programme on the Meredith Kercher case hoping for a more balanced view of the case than has been presented in the English-speaking media to date.

The documentary does present some of the evidence against Knox and Sollecito - including the bloody footprints, the mixed blood/DNA traces in the bathroom and corridor, the bra clasp, the knife DNA evidence, the strange timings of phone calls to police, the unlikelihood of the “break-in” being anything other than staged - but omits to point out that none of the other flatmates’ DNA was found in the blood traces, so saying that “it’s because Meredith and Amanda shared a flat” is misleading.

Nor does it point out that, although the murder knife was found in Sollecito’s flat, none of HIS DNA was found on it: it had only Amanda’s and Meredith’s DNA.

The programme didn’t cover the cell-phone evidence, showing that neither Knox nor Sollecito were where they said they were, at the times that they claimed. The programme also repeated the “Friends of Amanda” PR soundbites, such as “there was no evidence of Amanda in the murder room” - whereas the fact that her footsteps tracked blood OUT of the room are actually evidence of her having been present IN the room before it was locked (i.e. at the time of the murder).

Furthermore, in my opinion, the narrator’s voice seemed to evince sympathy towards Amanda, rather than describing events with a passive or objective tone of voice.

As one of the translators who has participated in translating case documents (such as the judges’ reports describing why they came to their decisions), I am only too aware of the extent of evidence against Knox and Sollecito, and I would like to see knowledge of this evidence become more widespread throughout the English-speaking world.

The BBC programme is a step towards this, but in my mind, only a very small step. I hope the pace will pick up soon, and more objective and extensive knowledge of the true facts of this case will be made available to everyone so they can form a rational opinion of the case based on true understanding.

Review by Cynthia

I’ve just watched this, and it’s very good - with a huge amount of footage hitherto unseen (directed by Andrea Vogt).

For what it’s worth, I note the following points:

1) There’s no mention of Meredith’s friends who heard Amanda say ‘she fucking bled to death’ before the fact was known to anyone else. Perhaps they didn’t testify, being too distressed? If so, it’s a great pity, because it seems a veritable clincher that hasn’t been used at all.

2) The bra DNA arguments are quite extraordinary. If we can determine that we all have Neanderthal DNA (tho’ I know a lot of American fundamentalists don’t believe that mankind goes back more than 6,000 years!) I can’t for the life of me see why DNA would be unusable after a poxy delay of 12 days ...

3) The argument that the Luminol traces may indicate not barefoot treading in blood but in bleach seems absolutely unbelievable to anyone who does housework (like me!) Bleach is horrible stuff, and you really, really don’t want to be getting it on your bare skin. Even Amanda, with her vestigial domestic skills, would have noticed if she’d trodden in it.

4) Bremner says Amanda was an honor student. She wasn’t; she had funded herself (not that that’s discreditable). (Also, are honor students unable to write cursive script? The shots of her handwriting show that she can’t do joined-up writing. [Or thinking.] I don’t know whether the phrase exists in American English, but not doing joined-up writing is a term of great intellectual contempt in English.)

5) We saw Amanda’s ‘mask’ speech. This is really interesting - who would even think that masks were being put on them if they weren’t using them themselves?

6) The programme mentions the little-reported fact that another, smaller knife found at Sollecito’s also had Meredith’s DNA on it.

7) The film omits to mention Hellman’s lack of any experience in criminal trials.

8) Every shot of Amanda in the film has her talking about ‘me’ and ‘I’. She never, ever mentions Meredith - it’s all about HER suffering. She never even says ‘the murderer is out there - I wish you’d stop persecuting me and get them’.

Presumably this is because Guede is supposed to be the sole murderer - and nobody seems in the slightest bit worried that there’s no murder weapon with HIS DNA on it! (Yes, there are his turds - but that wasn’t what killed Meredith.)

9) FOA has used the fact that the recent jury took 12 hours to deliberate over the verdict as an indication that they couldn’t agree. But why not just that they were being extremely careful and re-examining everything?

10) Finally, just an observation: Maresca speaks the most beautiful Italian - you can hear every word calmly flowing past.

Review by Miriam

Much appreciated. Outside of the Porta a Porta transmissions on the case, the best I’ve seen.

I understand they had to give both sides, but I felt that the defense came out on the losing side. I thought it funny that it was implied that since they only tested for blood it could of been saliva.

I don’t believe even her supporters would argue that Knox was so quirky as to brush her teeth in the bidet! Or maybe she spit in the bidet, in which case Meredith would have had every reason to complain about her bathroom habits!

Now if only this or something like this would air in the U.S.

Review by Sara

This is actually one of the most objective and well-researched reports I have seen on the case and I am very happy that BBC has managed to be so unbiased.

It presents both sides of the story equally well and does an excellent job of countering the extremely silly “no evidence” argument that the FOAkers like to repeat at equal intervals.

Regardless of what one believes, I think the documentary will at least succeed in convincing most people that there is indeed sufficient evidence against the two of them, and Italy’s judicial system is not crazy to convict people without any evidence.

My favourite part was when the defense DNA expert (can’t recall her name) tried to explain away the mixed blood evidence by saying that one of them could have had a nose bleed, and the other could have cut her hand in the same place leading to mixed blood.

Come on already, what are we? Kindergartens making excuses for not handing in homework? What is the possibility that both of them would bleed in exactly the same places not once or twice but multiple times? I think anyone with a bit of sense can see that they are clutching at straws.

However, I was a bit disappointed that few things were missed out. For instance, the fact that Guede’s footprints led straight out of the house, the fact that Amanda’s lamp was found without any obvious reason in Meredith’s room, Amanda’s extremely odd midnight call to her mom that she conveniently “forgot”, her million showers despite her concern towards “water conservation” etc.

Sollecito’s multiple changing stories were not really elaborated upon (the story in which he went to a party, the one in which he checked emails, the one in which he pricked Meredith etc etc).

Also, inconsistencies between their accounts of various events could have been pointed out (Was Filomena’s door open or close? Did AK call Filomena from the cottage or from Sollecito’s house? etc).

Witness accounts were not given any screen space either. I think touching upon these would have made the documentary even more impressive.

That said, I understand that the team has done the best they would within the limited time they had, and everything just cannot be accommodated within one hour.

So, all in all, kudos to the team and BBC for a job well done.

Review by Odysseus

I though it was a very competent overview of the case. After so much pro-defendant spin in the MSM (no doubt engineered by the American defendant’s PR outfit), it was refreshing to have a sane, measured and rational presentation. The victim deserves no less.

Congratulations to BBC3 and to the programme makers. It’s good to know that the BBC of blessed memory hasn’t been entirely dumbed-down nor intimidated by “partial outside interests”, the latter being director Andrea Vogt’s own description of the forces intent on muddying the waters in this case.


Wondering if it will be shown in the US, maybe on BBC America?

Posted by jamesepowell on 02/19/14 at 09:42 PM | #

Great post, SomeAlibi - I really appreciated it, you’ve said everything important.

It’s one of the sad things about this case - so much of the self-proposed exposure of Knox, through video and interview, has actually had the inverse affect to the one intended.

And if the evidence is not quite conclusive enough, just seeing the duplicity, and insincerity, body language, tone of voice, etc etc of the accused has been more than enough to ring alarm bells and convince anyone with insight, and knowledge of human nature, as to their guilt of involvement.

Something is so obviously being covered up. The original tragedy - bad enough - has just been tripled by the ongoing lack of truth.

Let’s just hope that something will get through now, and they’ll learn to be quiet, - or quieter.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/19/14 at 10:09 PM | #

Excellent reviews. I’m in the states and have no idea how I can see this but I do hope I can soon.

@SeekingUnderstanding - I appreciate the fact that you call attention to the simple behavior of the accused and the “alarm bells” that this raises. I have often thought, as you, that the original tragedy has indeed been magnified many times by the lack of truth.

This has led me to a hypothesis: what if the original tragedy actually was three times worse than we now know. Put another way - which you might be able to help answer - what degree of shame is necessary for this kind of cover-up? And what would one have to do to cause one’s self to experience so much shame?

I’m thinking something more than murder - although I am certainly not implying any stupid distraction such as satanism.

Posted by Patrizio on 02/20/14 at 12:13 AM | #

Hello Patrizio,

Sadly, I have to say that I think this is already one of the worst, the most cruel of tragedies.

I think that the perpetrators, being young and inexperienced in life, and in their own handling of life when it occurred, were themselves totally overwhelmed by the horror and cruelty of what they had done - of what had emerged or burst out of themselves, without being consciously premeditated.

I think that being unable to face the extent and depth of the cruelty, the brutality - which is in contrast to the cultured, civilized values that both had been expected to aspire to - has been a large factor in their concealment, and consequent behaviour.

How it did in fact happen will probably remain a subject for psychological analysis for some while. (Let’s hope this can help for somewhere in the future).

Shame is a very profound and significant aspect of psychology. The ability to admit to the feelings that it gives rise to is significant. Sadly, in some people with very disturbed and/or troubled personalities, they are not able to acknowledge their shame - not at all. Thus it remains in their subconscious, split off from the person they like to imagine they are.

The ability to feel shame is not wrong - it provides some necessary social restraint, and some consciousness of the way we may come across to others, or are interacting with them.

It is a point of interest that Amanda Knox seemed (by all accounts) to have been painfully UNaware of certain behaviour of hers (for example, in her loud flirtations in Patrick’s cafe, or some of her behaviour in the police station November 2 -7th)... that in other types of people would have been accompanied by a feeling of mortification - embarrassment, shame.

Something is wrong. But the worst, saddest thing is that the shame cannot be felt. I personally think that this is one of the reasons many people have felt so deeply outraged : WHY can’t they feel ashamed about about they are doing/ have done (since the murder)?

It doesn’t make sense.

‘And what would one have to do to cause oneself to experience so much shame?’

Unfortunately, I don’t think the ability to experience - or acknowledge - one’s shame is related to ‘doing’. It’s more related to ‘being’. Our shame is there, whether we express it, or are aware of it, or not.

In fact, if and when one can start feeling a bit of one’s own shame, perhaps this is the beginning of ‘growth’ or healing. In reflection, we begin to look at where it came from, and this is usually very painful. But it’s a beginning for change.

It’s the denial of shame that is so lethal, so potentially explosive, so negative.

Perhaps this is one of the unsaid purposes of detention or prison : it offers an opportunity to slowly - very gradually indeed - allow the shame of one’s actions to dawn upon oneself.

It’s interesting, when we find ourselves saying, “What a shame!” or, “For shame!” It’s usually a shame that has been buried by someone - and caused a mistake to have been made.

It’s very important to be able to say the simple phrase:  “I’m sorry (I made a mistake)”.

It’s when people can’t that the trouble begins.

Alas, the shame(s) that had been long buried in our case, here, resulted in poor, lovely Meredith’s death. And we feel the deep injustice of this.

(Apologies for the long post, and ‘lamentations’ again).

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/20/14 at 02:03 AM | #

These are excellent reviews, simply marvelous. Thank you for such great reviews and kudos to Andrea Vogt.

These insightful reviews reflect the high quality of the BBC work.

The visuals in the BBC documentary were outstanding. It was like watching a bigscreen movie after squinting at a laptop. The blue luminol footprints never looked brighter. The photography throughout was exquisite.

It was good to see and hear directly from the intelligent David Balding, steady as a rock. They showed Nencini reading out the guilty verdict. Maresca was imperial in his bearing, dignified and generous after Florence victory. Mignini rises brilliantly above the quagmire of detractors who made it personal against him.

The BBC has made an expressive and beautiful piece of film. It is an elegant tribute to the Kerchers’ stoicism. The poetic beauty of it gives a hint of Meredith’s grandeur.

Thank you again to all the reviewers.

Posted by Hopeful on 02/20/14 at 02:51 AM | #

I agree with the sentiments, and add my thanks to the above reviewers.

Lovely to see the focus on Meredith; some nice images at the beginning and end of the docu.

Couple of points I wished they would have made:

They said the prosecution appealed the Hellmann court. True (technically), but the defense appealed it as well. Nearly everyone forgets this bit!

Also, with regards to collecting DNA from the crime scene 46 days after the murder: IIRC more items of DNA linking RG to the scene (2) were collected on this date, than link RS to the scene (1).

Posted by Rocket Queen on 02/20/14 at 04:30 AM | #

Thank you for these reviews. I share some of the mixed feelings and, too, the awareness of just how much to this case there is. I look forward the the motivations report for another chance to see everything laid out in a satisfying (logically satisfying) way. I hope that can make it into the larger press consciousness as well.

A quick question for Cynthia above, in your point 6. you mention Meredith’s DNA on another knife, do you mean Amanda? I had never heard that Meredith’s knife was found on another knife and would think that would be rather earth shattering news.

Posted by carlos on 02/20/14 at 05:33 AM | #

Re SeekingUnderstanding’s Post on 02/19/14 at 08:03 PM:

“....totally overwhelmed by the horror and cruelty of what they had done - of what had emerged or burst out of themselves, without being consciously premeditated.”

“...without being consciously premeditated.”?

I agree with you SU that they reacted almost reflexively to Meredith’s piercing scream, but….IIRC - the Massei Court concluded that a ruling of premeditation does not require “mature” reflection; premeditation can be very brief.

The mere seconds elapsing between the scream and the decision to stab Meredith into silence were enough meditation for the Court to legally rule them as constituting pre-meditation.

I do believe that the killers were immature and shocked, but not so overwhelmed that they did not intend to silence Meredith.

IMO, they did intend to silence Meredith, and they did elect to do so by means that were felonious.

Don’t you think that conclusion was correct?

Posted by Cardiol MD on 02/20/14 at 06:04 AM | #

Yes, their conclusion of pre-meditation during the last seconds was, I’m sure, completely correct.

I’m sorry if my post gave a misleading impression - I should have added ‘without being consciously pre-meditated a long time beforehand’ or similar. Sorry, as it’s obviously very important.

I find it hard to believe that murder was intended or pre-meditated before the attack began, although even then the risks and danger SHOULD have been known.

In speaking of ‘being overwhelmed by the horror of what they had done’, I was focusing on their behaviour after the event, and their lack of ability to face up to what they had done,- in short, to own their responsibility.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/20/14 at 10:57 AM | #

interestingly, NBC is behind this?

Posted by mojo on 02/20/14 at 01:45 PM | #

This heads-up arrived in our emails:

“The BBC Amanda video is only available until next Wednesday, February 26th, at 2.29 am (our time), so Europeans need to get watching it before the end of next Tuesday”

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/20/14 at 02:47 PM | #

I have just read again this excellent past post by Cardiol; here is the link in case anyone else would like to :

It is explaining, very well, important differences between the UK and USA systems of justice, and the Italian one. Cardiol explains about testifying, and how the systems are different regarding the defendant telling lies in court.

It seems outrageous for AK and her ‘team’ to have been so blatantly derogatory about Italian justice,whilst simultaneously trying to make use of the system to her own advantage.

Hopefully, now and ongoing, all the lies and untruth will be seen more and more for what they are.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/20/14 at 02:49 PM | #

Excellent reviews.

This youtube video is still playing in Australia:

Posted by Tiziano on 02/20/14 at 02:55 PM | #

In case anyone is unaware:

Tonight Thursday 20 Feb. BBC Radio 4 8pm local time “Who killed Meredith Kercher?”.

I presume this will be available “live” on BBC i-player

Overseas listeners might need one of the same “unblocking” solutions that were given here for watching the BBC3 TV documentary. (Or maybe the i-player will function without it in this case).

Posted by Odysseus on 02/20/14 at 03:34 PM | #

Hi, mojo, yes, it looks like it is NBC, after all, ain’t capitalism wonderful? They are indeed willing to sell you the rope with which you hang them, but in this case truth simply sells better than lies, it’s a win-win, TV execs take note.

Posted by Bjorn on 02/20/14 at 04:42 PM | #

Ruth Alexander wrote the article about Amanda Knox and bad maths in court for the BBC website:

Posted by The Machine on 02/20/14 at 04:47 PM | #

Hi, all, my review was delayed, still digesting and want to look at the doc again. It was an excellent documentary, and much as we all have some wishes as to what should have been included, in my case, the eyewitnesses to Knox and Sollecito’s presence that night, the production company has to be lauded for condensing the mountain of evidence to this brilliant piece.

My comments probably won’t add much to what already has been said; my interest is in ensuring we get this screened in North America, and remind the MSM about it, as we get to the publication of Nencini’s motivations report.

PS: Cynthia, your number 06. See

Meredith’s DNA wan’t found on the smaller knife, it was Knox and Sollecito’s DNA, mixed on the clasp of the knife, the Brian Tighe I believe. That is why I believe RS inflicted the lesser wounds, even though Meredith’s DNA wasn’t found, possibly because it was cleaned thoroughly.

It is was good that the kitchen knife DNA testing did conclusively (as I believe the Nencini Report will confirm) show Meredith’s DNA on it, and that it was the murder weapon, and the fatal wound was inflicted by Amanda Knox.

Posted by Ergon on 02/20/14 at 05:39 PM | #

Tiziano..thank you for the link. It was extremely well done in light of the pages and pages of court documents that dad to be boiled down to 60 minutes. I highly doubt it will ever see the light of day in the USA unless it is underwritten and shown independently.This site is one of the few sources for dependable information and the press and media in general are swayed mostly by the opinion they believe to be the most prevalent.

Posted by fotomat1 on 02/20/14 at 06:48 PM | #

Indeed, Tiziano, thanks for that link! I’m wondering fotomat1 - since it’s an NBC production and got such a high viewership…you never know!

Posted by mojo on 02/20/14 at 10:42 PM | #

I have just heard the BBC radio 4 programme…
I was most disappointed.
It started well, and factually, but then dwelt for most of it on making the case for reasonable doubt - ending by saying ‘we’ll never know what happened” etc.
Sollectio’s DNA a on the bra strap was most likely contaminated; the footprints were ‘inconclusive’ and dismissed; the mixed blood and DNA in the bathroom was unreliable, to be expected and ‘CSI affect’; the DNA knife was ‘impossible’, says Sollecito, therefore it must be…and anyway it was carried in a cardboard box…..
In other words, a chain of statements we have already heard for years - and all of which, without exception, have already been counter-answered in detail.
Not enough time given to homework, is my conclusion! More research, and more attention to court documents with their reasoning and detail would have produced a different, and less shallow programme.
However, there was no attempt suggest the break-in was other than staged, and other facts came out which were useful.

In a different league to the Andrea Vogt film, which I’m glad to say has made an impression - allowing people to see - really see- many things for themselves.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/20/14 at 10:51 PM | #


Agreed. I think that Ruth Alexander misunderstood her role, which was to report on the case from Perugia and give an overview of both the prosecution and defense cases.

It’s immaterial whether she (or her producer?) believes the case hasn’t been proved beyond a reasonable doubt, the court in Florence seem to think it has and it’s likely that the Supreme Court will too. If that’s OK with Ms. Alexander.

I think you’re right - not enough homework done.The Italian Embassy in London should lodge a complaint to HM Government - the BBC shouldn’t be suggesting that the Italian justice system isn’t up to scratch when in fact it’s this programme’s researchers who are less than competent!

Posted by Odysseus on 02/20/14 at 11:05 PM | #

Good idea, Odysseus, and very well expressed - about the producer’s or journalist’s subjective opinions in contrast to the thoroughness and good authority of the Italian courts.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/20/14 at 11:14 PM | #


Thank you so much for your knowledgeable explanation of shame and the importance of this for understanding this crime:  “It’s the denial of shame that is so lethal, so potentially explosive, so negative.”

I guess it could be said that AK and RS are consummately shameless people ...

Posted by Patrizio on 02/21/14 at 12:27 AM | #

I have just listened via podcast to the BBC radio 4. 
It is somewhat disappointing in that it criticises the bra clasp evidence and also airs Sollecito denying significance of both the bra clasp and kitchen knife DNA evidence.
An expert criticises the failure to test the pillow-case stains and the conclusion is that the truth about Meredith Kercher’s
murder will never be known.

Posted by Tiziano on 02/21/14 at 02:19 AM | #

Thank you. I’m glad if it could help a little.
‘For further reading’..... just in case anyone is interested… there is a reliable book called:

‘Shame and the origins of self-esteem’ A Jungian approach. by Mario Jacoby.

It is readable, and just over a hundred pages long.

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/21/14 at 10:54 AM | #

Editorial heads-up. We’d like to run at least two more posts on the generally excellent BBC 3 report, as interest remains high and as more people get to see it.

This may help a little in getting it on the air in the US. In the post above five of the reviewers are in the UK, two in Italy, and one in the US.

Posted by Peter Quennell on 02/21/14 at 03:09 PM | #

Re: interestingly, NBC is behind this?

The comments below the article are very passionate on both sides but it’s the first time I’ve read so many people who believe in guilt. 

What’s the situation about the pillow stain which was requested to be tested by the defense but was refused, again in the last appeal?  True?  Why?

Posted by believing on 02/21/14 at 05:01 PM | #

Those small pictures of the crime scene and evidence - are they available in a larger size so that we can see them better?  I tried increasing the size but they are too fuzzy.  Thanks

Posted by believing on 02/21/14 at 05:05 PM | #

“(Apologies for the long post, and ‘lamentations’ again).”

Haha, you SeekingUnderstanding. Was this shame?
Do you own the ‘lamentations’ or distance from it by punctuations?

Thnx for your Seeking and Insights! I a a longtime admirer!

Posted by Helder Licht on 02/21/14 at 11:35 PM | #

Tongue in cheek, as we say!
Of course, it’s difficult to talk about this subject without being sorrowful, but one tries to keep a balance… x

Posted by SeekingUnderstanding on 02/22/14 at 12:24 AM | #

Thanks for the link Tiziano, I was able to watch the entire program and I did think it was very well done despite a couple of errors, such as showing the wrong bathroom for Rudy Guede.  I liked the narration and the translations from Italian to English from the lawyers.  It would be a good thing if it were shown in the USA.  We will see if that will happen.  The scenes of Perugia were just stunning.  I hope to visit it someday.  Nothing can ever fully explain the senseless tragedy of that night and the many other lives affected by it.

Posted by believing on 02/22/14 at 05:05 AM | #

Since Knox has actually been found guilty (the ‘is Knox guilty?’ title does point to a bit of bias towards the defence) a better program may have been entitled ‘why do some people (still) think Knox is innocent? and then blast the thoughts with facts.

Posted by dadredge on 02/23/14 at 03:31 PM | #

“‘why do some people (still) think Knox is innocent?”

There is no answer for that . . . .

Posted by Helder Licht on 02/23/14 at 03:38 PM | #

You can watch the BBC documentary on Here is the link:
or search for “new documentary: is Amanda knox guilty” it should come up. Posted by Docuworld on Youtube.

Posted by irne on 02/24/14 at 12:31 AM | #

And if you use the TubeMate app you can download the YouTube version to your computer/tablet/smartphone for offline viewing.

Posted by dadredge on 02/24/14 at 03:23 PM | #

on the face book page of the two, called “Amanda Knox and Raffaele Sollecito” ... there is this post by the manager [Knox’s PR man?] on that page:


Call for ACTION: The updated version of the response to BBC3’s documentary ‘Is Amanda Knox Guilty?’ is now complete. Please send this video with complaints about the documentary to BBC complaints. Also please tweet, reddit, pinterest, etc.


Posted by nopassingby on 02/25/14 at 04:39 PM | #
Commenting is not available in this channel entry.

Where next:

Click here to return to The Top Of The Front Page

Or to next entry Power Shift In Italy Very Unfavorable To Anyone So Stupid As To Thumb Their Noses At Italian Justice

Or to previous entry Congratulations To The BBC For A Report Emphasizing The Sheer Extensiveness Of The Evidence