8 ms·

It’s a really powerful article, and it’s hard to argue with any of it. What a nightmare it must be to have what happened to Amanda Knox happen to you. A totally

by OskarS 5y ago

It’s a really powerful article, and it’s hard to argue with any of it. What a nightmare it must be to have what happened to Amanda Knox happen to you. A totally innocent person, who was not only imprisoned for years for a crime she had nothing to do with, but also had her name dragged in the mud by the global press for years. To such an extent that most casual observers still think she had something to do with the crime. It’s clear that the filmmakers have no legal obligation to Knox (and she acknowledges as much in the article), but I think it is equally clear that they have a moral obligation to not slander her using a thinly veiled fictional character. It’s a shame too, because the real “Amanda Knox saga” would make for a much more interesting movie: what is it like to have your roomate murdered, your life destroyed, and your identity robbed from you by the global tabloid press? That’s the real Amanda Knox story.

f38zf5vdt 5y ago
"Capitalism" and "moral obligation" are probably mutually exclusive, e.g. Milton Friedman's "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits". [1] Friedman would argue that the movie maker has a social responsibility to its employees and shareholders, and that bending truth to meet these obligations would be its moral imperative. https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctr... edit: To downvoters, I'm not agreeing with the perspective, just saying that there is one.
- 6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
  > Capitalism" and "moral obligation" are probably mutually exclusive How else are we supposed to read this than something you are making the case for when you so directly say they are probably mutually exclusive?
  - f38zf5vdt 5y ago
    I was referring to the "moral obligation" not to take someone's story and make it a different story for the sake of a profit, which the original poster was referring to as a "moral obligation". An alternative perspective is the "moral obligation" to ones employees and shareholders. What is a "moral obligation" is a matter of perspective. I try to avoid a lot of documentaries and "historical" films because of these conflicting sentiments. Going into seeing a film, you know that profit, in most cases, is the end goal.
  - Y_Y 5y ago
    I agree that they're mutually exclusive. It's not necessarily a good thing. I think pretty much all capitalists, as people, have some sense of moral obligation. That's not to say that the two concepts necessarily overlap, or that the world wouldn't be a better place if they were somehow forced to. I think it isn't controversial, as a matter of philosophy, to say that capitalism (as distinct from its observed consequences) is not connected to morality one way or another, any more than bubblesort has a moral value.
    - f38zf5vdt 5y ago
      Aye, perhaps using the word "capitalism" set people off. In capitalist terms the demand for the product by consumers justifies the corporation creating the product for them. It might not be "right" or "wrong", but in this case, it does seem like people are on the side of it being morally unjustified despite the profit incentive. I guess our capitalist "vote" is simply not paying to see this film.
    - dnautics 5y ago
      your statement is contradictory. Two things cannot be "mutually exclusive" and "not connected". If they are mutually exclusive, then there must be communication between the concepts to coordinate the exclusion, the connection suggested by the word "mutually".
- dnautics 5y ago
  they're not mututally exclusive, they're orthogonal. If people want moral goods, capitalism will (imperfectly) skew towards providing them. If the people want trash, capitalism will (imperfectly) skew towards providing trash.
  - stjohnswarts 5y ago
    You are correct. They can definitely have an intersection. Some companies actually do some good in the world AND make profits. They don't have to be "mutually exclusive"
    - treeman79 5y ago
      The primary good of capitalism is having such huge efficiencies of resources and manufacturing. That we have to keep redefining poor people such that they can have air conditioning, car, housing, fridge, be fat as hell, and still be defined as poor.
      - stjohnswarts 5y ago
        Not all of us buy into the claims capitalism can do no wrong and should be turned upon the world with no limits that some libertarians seem to have. You will never hear me say capitalism is in essence a bad thing, but like most concepts it has to have limits. Otherwise you get fascism, J.P. Morgan, Epstein, etc.
- moron4hire 5y ago
  I disagree that the concept that "Capitalism and moral obligation are mutually exclusive" is a valid concept to even consider. They are certainly orthogonal, but do not exclude each other. Capitalism isn't a philosophy for living life, or if it can be considered as such, it's definitely not a complete one. In contrast, Communism is a philosophy for life, as it extends beyond the economic sphere and into the political and social. How you organize work and trade is not the complete picture. The continued assertions that "Capitalism is immoral" as a valid viewpoint, versus just being ammoral, are part of why both corporations have been allowed to run amock and why dangerous philsophies like Communism have been on the rise again.
- robertlagrant 5y ago
  What's the alternative? Giving the responsibility of resource allocation to the state? Aren't they the ones who locked her up, which is the overwhelmingly huge original problem? The state locked someone up who it knew was innocent, and years later a business badly misrepresented that person's story. Damn it, capitalism!
  - f38zf5vdt 5y ago
    Well, if the state recognized the crime of the state and prohibited the film from being created... then that seems like a good alternative?
    - robertlagrant 5y ago
      You're blaming freedom to do things without the state interfering, when the real criminal in the story is the state. Do you work for the Italian criminal justice system?
- saghm 5y ago
  There are plenty of ways to make money that don't involve screwing over innocent people. Maybe I'm a bleeding heart socialist, but I think the moral imperative to blue ruin someone's life trumps the one to make a few more dollars.
  - tonystubblebine 5y ago
    Matt Damon especially has plenty of options to make money. I can't believe this was even the most lucrative script in his inbox when he accepted it.
  - saghm 5y ago
    Too late to edit, but "blue" was a phone autocorrection of "not"
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- tacitusarc 5y ago
  Given that capitalism is underpinned by the right to own property, it would seem the more accurate argument is that this particular immorality stems from an imperfect capitalism, that is: one with incomplete property rights. It is not at all obvious to me that capitalism and morality are in someway orthogonal let alone mutually exclusive.
- amadeuspagel 5y ago
  > That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Emphasis mine. Surely it's against ethical custom to "bend the truth", to destroy someone's reputation, framing them as somehow involved in a murder.
- mikem170 5y ago
  Companies are given a charter to operate and limited liability by the government, in return for performing a public good. At least that was how the idea of corporations came into being. Capitalism is an economic system, not a system of government. Theoretically we can change the any of the rules corporations operate under through our government, if people cared enough and/or weren't so distracted with other things. Other governments hold companies in their jurisdictions to different standards, like the Chinese, various European countries, Cambodia, etc. All different. The fact that our culture values money more than many other things, and that we allow corporations and their rich owners to fund politicians has got us to where we are now. The establishment is always resistant to change.
Cederfjard 5y ago
> It’s a shame too, because the real “Amanda Knox saga” would make for a much more interesting movie: what is it like to have your roomate murdered, your life destroyed, and your identity robbed from you by the global tabloid press? That’s the real Amanda Knox story. What are the themes of this new movie, then, if not those?
- ukoki 5y ago
  > What are the themes of this new movie, then, if not those? It falsely implies that Amanda is partially guilty for one (from the article): > McCarthy told Vanity Fair that “Stillwater’s ending was inspired not by the outcome of Knox’s case, but by the demands of the script he and his collaborators had created.” Cool, so I wonder, is the character based on me actually innocent? > Turns out, she asked the killer to help her get rid of her roommate. She didn’t mean for him to kill her, but her request indirectly led to the murder. How do you think that impacts my reputation?
- OskarS 5y ago
  I haven’t seen the movie so I have no idea, but I can’t but quote from the article itself: “..is the character based on me actually innocent? Turns out, she asked the killer to help her get rid of her roommate. She didn’t mean for him to kill her, but her request indirectly led to the murder. How do you think that impacts my reputation? I continue to be accused of “knowing something I’m not revealing,” of “having been involved somehow, even if I didn’t plunge the knife.” So Tom McCarthy’s fictionalized version of me is just the tabloid conspiracy guilter version of me.”
  - Cederfjard 5y ago
    Thanks. I can see now how the tone might appear different, but it was a genuine question.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
- danso 5y ago
unyttigfjelltol 5y ago
>It’s clear that the filmmakers have no legal obligation to Knox (and she acknowledges as much in the article) I think you and she are being generous. Amanda 'jokingly' floats the idea of defaming and slandering Matt Damon under the guise of fictionalization. She makes an excellent point-- Matt wouldn't put up with that. The only plausible distinction he can make is that his movie is not a gross distortion of the moral character of a living person, which seems like the sort of thing courts can and do sort between litigants who cannot agree.
- etothepii 5y ago
  I'd contribute to the Kickstarter.
- jasode 5y ago
  >floats the idea of defaming and slandering Matt Damon under the guise of fictionalization. She makes an excellent point-- Matt wouldn't put up with that. But it seems like Matt Damon would have to put up with it. What could Matt realistically do? Filing a lawsuit would probably go nowhere. See the informal "small penis" rule by fiction writers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_penis_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_penis_rule The 2010 film "The Social Network" didn't even bother with fictionalized names and made Mark Zuckerberg look bad but he didn't sue. One legal opinion thinks MZ didn't have an easy case of defamation which would make the lawsuit a waste of time: https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/07/articles/the-law/for-non-lawyers/why-mark-zuckerberg-wont-sue-for-defamation-over-the-facebook-movie/ https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/07/articles/the-law/...
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - _jal 5y ago
    Money and connections open other options for applying pressure. For instance, see the alleged behavior of Harvey Weinstein towards Rose McGowan involving spooks for hire. (I'm not talking about Damon at all here, I don't know much of anything about him. Just pointing out that lawsuits are far from the only tools available to those with means.)
stjohnswarts 5y ago
They really would have done her service if they would have just left her name out entirely and just said "the movie stands on its own merit". They could have handled this so much better if they would have just talked to her from the start rather than near completion/release of the movie. Particularly in promoting it.
- rchaud 5y ago
  They could if it was an indie movie. If Matt Damon's starring, that's an 8-figure sum that's got to be made back somehow. Marketing costs for movies today are as much as the film budget itself.
  - ksec 5y ago
    >Marketing costs for movies today are as much as the film budget itself. I think I will have to fact check on this when I have time. Seems to be off to me as the numbers and scale dont make much sense.
kevinmchugh 5y ago
Jimmy Dell : I think you'll find that if what you've done for them is as valuable as you say it is, if they are indebted to you morally but not legally, my experience is they will give you nothing, and they will begin to act cruelly toward you. Joe Ross : Why? Jimmy Dell : To suppress their guilt. - The Spanish Prisoner
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
contravariant 5y ago
> the real “Amanda Knox saga” would make for a much more interesting movie: what is it like to have your roomate murdered, your life destroyed, and your identity robbed from you by the global tabloid press? That’s the real Amanda Knox story. I might be confused but isn't that the exact plot of the movie she is referencing?
- robotresearcher 5y ago
  Apart from the detail where the real Knox is innocent and the movie Knotnox conspired with the killer, as the article explains.
  - prepend 5y ago
    The real Knox was acquitted and found not guilty. That’s different from being innocent.
    - macintux 5y ago
      She was explicitly declared innocent by the court system, not merely "not guilty".
    - oh_sigh 5y ago
      No, the Italian Supreme court definitively acquitted them and explicitly ruled that they were innocent. I'm sure that doesn't change your viewpoint on anything though.
    - Lazare 5y ago
      100% wrong. From Wikipedia: "On 27 March 2015, Italy's highest court, the Court of Cassation, ruled that Knox and Sollecito were innocent of murder, thereby definitively ending the case. Rather than merely declaring that there were errors in the earlier court cases or that there was insufficient evidence to convict, the court ruled that Knox and Sollecito had not committed the murder and were innocent of those charges..." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher)
  - 5y ago
Taylor_OD 5y ago
There is a quite interesting Amanda Knox documentary that she was very much involved in making on Netflix. If you want the, "saga" its worth a watch.
mmarq 5y ago
While Amanda Knox is not guilty of Meredith Kercher's murder, she is guilty of accusing a random guy of being the murderer. I think she was sentenced to 2-3 years for this false accusation.
- oh_sigh 5y ago
  You're talking about the one where the European Court of Human Rights condemned Italy for not giving her a fair trial? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-knox-court/european-court-condemns-italy-in-amanda-knox-calumny-case-idUSKCN1PI1UG https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-knox-court/european...
  - mmarq 5y ago
    I didn't know about that, but it doesn't surprise me, given the shit show Italian courts are. Thank you
stefantalpalaru 5y ago
> the real “Amanda Knox saga” would make for a much more interesting movie It would: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Evidence http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Evidence

by OskarS 5y ago

f38zf5vdt 5y ago

"Capitalism" and "moral obligation" are probably mutually exclusive, e.g. Milton Friedman's "The Social Responsibility of Business is to Increase its Profits". [1] Friedman would argue that the movie maker has a social responsibility to its employees and shareholders, and that bending truth to meet these obligations would be its moral imperative. https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctr... edit: To downvoters, I'm not agreeing with the perspective, just saying that there is one.

6gvONxR4sf7o 5y ago
> Capitalism" and "moral obligation" are probably mutually exclusive How else are we supposed to read this than something you are making the case for when you so directly say they are probably mutually exclusive?
- f38zf5vdt 5y ago
  I was referring to the "moral obligation" not to take someone's story and make it a different story for the sake of a profit, which the original poster was referring to as a "moral obligation". An alternative perspective is the "moral obligation" to ones employees and shareholders. What is a "moral obligation" is a matter of perspective. I try to avoid a lot of documentaries and "historical" films because of these conflicting sentiments. Going into seeing a film, you know that profit, in most cases, is the end goal.
- Y_Y 5y ago
  I agree that they're mutually exclusive. It's not necessarily a good thing. I think pretty much all capitalists, as people, have some sense of moral obligation. That's not to say that the two concepts necessarily overlap, or that the world wouldn't be a better place if they were somehow forced to. I think it isn't controversial, as a matter of philosophy, to say that capitalism (as distinct from its observed consequences) is not connected to morality one way or another, any more than bubblesort has a moral value.
  - f38zf5vdt 5y ago
    Aye, perhaps using the word "capitalism" set people off. In capitalist terms the demand for the product by consumers justifies the corporation creating the product for them. It might not be "right" or "wrong", but in this case, it does seem like people are on the side of it being morally unjustified despite the profit incentive. I guess our capitalist "vote" is simply not paying to see this film.
  - dnautics 5y ago
    your statement is contradictory. Two things cannot be "mutually exclusive" and "not connected". If they are mutually exclusive, then there must be communication between the concepts to coordinate the exclusion, the connection suggested by the word "mutually".
dnautics 5y ago
they're not mututally exclusive, they're orthogonal. If people want moral goods, capitalism will (imperfectly) skew towards providing them. If the people want trash, capitalism will (imperfectly) skew towards providing trash.
- stjohnswarts 5y ago
  You are correct. They can definitely have an intersection. Some companies actually do some good in the world AND make profits. They don't have to be "mutually exclusive"
  - treeman79 5y ago
    The primary good of capitalism is having such huge efficiencies of resources and manufacturing. That we have to keep redefining poor people such that they can have air conditioning, car, housing, fridge, be fat as hell, and still be defined as poor.
    - stjohnswarts 5y ago
      Not all of us buy into the claims capitalism can do no wrong and should be turned upon the world with no limits that some libertarians seem to have. You will never hear me say capitalism is in essence a bad thing, but like most concepts it has to have limits. Otherwise you get fascism, J.P. Morgan, Epstein, etc.
moron4hire 5y ago
I disagree that the concept that "Capitalism and moral obligation are mutually exclusive" is a valid concept to even consider. They are certainly orthogonal, but do not exclude each other. Capitalism isn't a philosophy for living life, or if it can be considered as such, it's definitely not a complete one. In contrast, Communism is a philosophy for life, as it extends beyond the economic sphere and into the political and social. How you organize work and trade is not the complete picture. The continued assertions that "Capitalism is immoral" as a valid viewpoint, versus just being ammoral, are part of why both corporations have been allowed to run amock and why dangerous philsophies like Communism have been on the rise again.
robertlagrant 5y ago
What's the alternative? Giving the responsibility of resource allocation to the state? Aren't they the ones who locked her up, which is the overwhelmingly huge original problem? The state locked someone up who it knew was innocent, and years later a business badly misrepresented that person's story. Damn it, capitalism!
- f38zf5vdt 5y ago
  Well, if the state recognized the crime of the state and prohibited the film from being created... then that seems like a good alternative?
  - robertlagrant 5y ago
    You're blaming freedom to do things without the state interfering, when the real criminal in the story is the state. Do you work for the Italian criminal justice system?
saghm 5y ago
There are plenty of ways to make money that don't involve screwing over innocent people. Maybe I'm a bleeding heart socialist, but I think the moral imperative to blue ruin someone's life trumps the one to make a few more dollars.
- tonystubblebine 5y ago
  Matt Damon especially has plenty of options to make money. I can't believe this was even the most lucrative script in his inbox when he accepted it.
- saghm 5y ago
  Too late to edit, but "blue" was a phone autocorrection of "not"
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
tacitusarc 5y ago
Given that capitalism is underpinned by the right to own property, it would seem the more accurate argument is that this particular immorality stems from an imperfect capitalism, that is: one with incomplete property rights. It is not at all obvious to me that capitalism and morality are in someway orthogonal let alone mutually exclusive.
amadeuspagel 5y ago
> That responsibility is to conduct the business in accordance with their desires, which generally will be to make as much money as possible while conforming to the basic rules of the society, both those embodied in law and those embodied in ethical custom. Emphasis mine. Surely it's against ethical custom to "bend the truth", to destroy someone's reputation, framing them as somehow involved in a murder.
mikem170 5y ago
Companies are given a charter to operate and limited liability by the government, in return for performing a public good. At least that was how the idea of corporations came into being. Capitalism is an economic system, not a system of government. Theoretically we can change the any of the rules corporations operate under through our government, if people cared enough and/or weren't so distracted with other things. Other governments hold companies in their jurisdictions to different standards, like the Chinese, various European countries, Cambodia, etc. All different. The fact that our culture values money more than many other things, and that we allow corporations and their rich owners to fund politicians has got us to where we are now. The establishment is always resistant to change.

Cederfjard 5y ago

> It’s a shame too, because the real “Amanda Knox saga” would make for a much more interesting movie: what is it like to have your roomate murdered, your life destroyed, and your identity robbed from you by the global tabloid press? That’s the real Amanda Knox story. What are the themes of this new movie, then, if not those?

ukoki 5y ago
> What are the themes of this new movie, then, if not those? It falsely implies that Amanda is partially guilty for one (from the article): > McCarthy told Vanity Fair that “Stillwater’s ending was inspired not by the outcome of Knox’s case, but by the demands of the script he and his collaborators had created.” Cool, so I wonder, is the character based on me actually innocent? > Turns out, she asked the killer to help her get rid of her roommate. She didn’t mean for him to kill her, but her request indirectly led to the murder. How do you think that impacts my reputation?
OskarS 5y ago
I haven’t seen the movie so I have no idea, but I can’t but quote from the article itself: “..is the character based on me actually innocent? Turns out, she asked the killer to help her get rid of her roommate. She didn’t mean for him to kill her, but her request indirectly led to the murder. How do you think that impacts my reputation? I continue to be accused of “knowing something I’m not revealing,” of “having been involved somehow, even if I didn’t plunge the knife.” So Tom McCarthy’s fictionalized version of me is just the tabloid conspiracy guilter version of me.”
- Cederfjard 5y ago
  Thanks. I can see now how the tone might appear different, but it was a genuine question.
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
danso 5y ago

unyttigfjelltol 5y ago

>It’s clear that the filmmakers have no legal obligation to Knox (and she acknowledges as much in the article) I think you and she are being generous. Amanda 'jokingly' floats the idea of defaming and slandering Matt Damon under the guise of fictionalization. She makes an excellent point-- Matt wouldn't put up with that. The only plausible distinction he can make is that his movie is not a gross distortion of the moral character of a living person, which seems like the sort of thing courts can and do sort between litigants who cannot agree.

etothepii 5y ago
I'd contribute to the Kickstarter.
jasode 5y ago
>floats the idea of defaming and slandering Matt Damon under the guise of fictionalization. She makes an excellent point-- Matt wouldn't put up with that. But it seems like Matt Damon would have to put up with it. What could Matt realistically do? Filing a lawsuit would probably go nowhere. See the informal "small penis" rule by fiction writers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_penis_rule https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Small_penis_rule The 2010 film "The Social Network" didn't even bother with fictionalized names and made Mark Zuckerberg look bad but he didn't sue. One legal opinion thinks MZ didn't have an easy case of defamation which would make the lawsuit a waste of time: https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/07/articles/the-law/for-non-lawyers/why-mark-zuckerberg-wont-sue-for-defamation-over-the-facebook-movie/ https://www.litigationandtrial.com/2010/07/articles/the-law/...
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- _jal 5y ago
  Money and connections open other options for applying pressure. For instance, see the alleged behavior of Harvey Weinstein towards Rose McGowan involving spooks for hire. (I'm not talking about Damon at all here, I don't know much of anything about him. Just pointing out that lawsuits are far from the only tools available to those with means.)

stjohnswarts 5y ago

They really would have done her service if they would have just left her name out entirely and just said "the movie stands on its own merit". They could have handled this so much better if they would have just talked to her from the start rather than near completion/release of the movie. Particularly in promoting it.

rchaud 5y ago
They could if it was an indie movie. If Matt Damon's starring, that's an 8-figure sum that's got to be made back somehow. Marketing costs for movies today are as much as the film budget itself.
- ksec 5y ago
  >Marketing costs for movies today are as much as the film budget itself. I think I will have to fact check on this when I have time. Seems to be off to me as the numbers and scale dont make much sense.

kevinmchugh 5y ago

Jimmy Dell : I think you'll find that if what you've done for them is as valuable as you say it is, if they are indebted to you morally but not legally, my experience is they will give you nothing, and they will begin to act cruelly toward you. Joe Ross : Why? Jimmy Dell : To suppress their guilt. - The Spanish Prisoner

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

contravariant 5y ago

> the real “Amanda Knox saga” would make for a much more interesting movie: what is it like to have your roomate murdered, your life destroyed, and your identity robbed from you by the global tabloid press? That’s the real Amanda Knox story. I might be confused but isn't that the exact plot of the movie she is referencing?

robotresearcher 5y ago
Apart from the detail where the real Knox is innocent and the movie Knotnox conspired with the killer, as the article explains.
- prepend 5y ago
  The real Knox was acquitted and found not guilty. That’s different from being innocent.
  - macintux 5y ago
    She was explicitly declared innocent by the court system, not merely "not guilty".
  - oh_sigh 5y ago
    No, the Italian Supreme court definitively acquitted them and explicitly ruled that they were innocent. I'm sure that doesn't change your viewpoint on anything though.
  - Lazare 5y ago
    100% wrong. From Wikipedia: "On 27 March 2015, Italy's highest court, the Court of Cassation, ruled that Knox and Sollecito were innocent of murder, thereby definitively ending the case. Rather than merely declaring that there were errors in the earlier court cases or that there was insufficient evidence to convict, the court ruled that Knox and Sollecito had not committed the murder and were innocent of those charges..." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_Meredith_Kercher)
- 5y ago

Taylor_OD 5y ago

There is a quite interesting Amanda Knox documentary that she was very much involved in making on Netflix. If you want the, "saga" its worth a watch.

mmarq 5y ago

While Amanda Knox is not guilty of Meredith Kercher's murder, she is guilty of accusing a random guy of being the murderer. I think she was sentenced to 2-3 years for this false accusation.

oh_sigh 5y ago
You're talking about the one where the European Court of Human Rights condemned Italy for not giving her a fair trial? https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-knox-court/european-court-condemns-italy-in-amanda-knox-calumny-case-idUSKCN1PI1UG https://www.reuters.com/article/us-italy-knox-court/european...
- mmarq 5y ago
  I didn't know about that, but it doesn't surprise me, given the shit show Italian courts are. Thank you

stefantalpalaru 5y ago

> the real “Amanda Knox saga” would make for a much more interesting movie It would: http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Evidence http://themurderofmeredithkercher.com/The_Evidence