AIBU to think an Edinburgh festival show about Meredith Kercher's murder should be stopped?

I was reading the tabloids at the time and they and the Kerchers vastly preferred first two idiotic theories (which were then sounding as idiotic as they do now) and continued to hint or imply that in reality Knox was still responsible. So I’m not surprised that some people still believe she is somehow guilty because the British press and the Kerchers never fully said - we were wrong and we are sorry. British press also doesn’t like to admit they were idiots

Does it matter what the jokes were about, or not?

What about the content of her act was disrespectful?

Why does she owe the Kerchers respect?

Does it matter that other people, particularly women, seem to have found a lot of value in her show?

Are you just leaping to judgments based on what you've read in the media?

she wrote about her experience. I get that. Standing up in a comedy venue making jokes is an absolute no, no. Totally crosses the line and disrespectful to Meredith's family. If she wants to do stand up go back to her home country to do it not here.

There was never anything that could reasonably be considered "evidence" against Knox - just fantasies and false claims.

At that time they were innocent, as in innocent until proven guilty, they were awaiting trial, there was evidence against them, there was an ongoing police investigation.

AK in particular was a flight risk.

Probably also worth repeating - it wasnt an ITV drama, though ITV picked it up in the UK. It was US-produced.

American viewers, and those from other international English speaking countries, were not primed to believe the Deviant vs Innocent narrative. The UK press spin was widely criticized internationally.

Again, I haven't seen the show, but the sort of characterization you describe seems as though it'd be considered "matter of fact" and inoffensive outside of the UK.

I haven't seen the show to can't comment on the exact portrayal, but those descriptions of Meredith's activities are supported by witness testimony from the investigation and trial (including from her romantic interest).

People forget that she was initially presented, by the prosecution and tabloid media (in the UK and Italy), as a "party girl" who died in a drug-fueled sex game gone wrong, in part based on statements given to police.

It was only later, after "sex game theory" fell apart that they pivoted to casting Amanda as the monstrous, hyper-sexual deviant - jealous of saintly and passive Meredith, because they suddenly needed a new motive.

Both partook in cannabis, both had recently started consensual sexual relationships with their new partners. They were both fairly normal young people. No judgment from me, either (not least because it would make me a gigantic hypocrite).

Both are. There is for example a scene when both young women are with different guys, and Knox thinks Kercher is reminding her to use a condom when she shags her guy, but it turns out she (Kercher) is asking Knox for a condom.

Another scene where they both go downstairs to "borrow" a joint from the guys who have the flat dunderneath them. One of these boys comments on the fact that he's had sex with Meredith Kercher already.

There are a few other examples. The point being made (I think) was that both Knox and Kercher enjoyed sex, cannabis etc, so that it was very unfair for Knox to be demonised for this in the way she was, while Kercher was presented by the prosecution as an innocent.

I can understand why Knox might want to make that point. However, it's also uncomfortable. Knox is in control of narrative now and has chosen to allow herself to be presented like this (and I understand why) as Kercher obviously can't consent to her portrayal.

Not that anyone should judge either young woman for their sexual choices in my opinion - and I don't personally feel strongly about recreational drug use either. But no doubt some viewers would.....

Are you sure about the presentation of Kercher in the ITV2 drama? I haven't seen it but the information I've found says it is Knox who is presented like that, not Kercher.

To be fair, if there is one thing that this series of tragic events should teach us, it's that courts can reach incorrect verdicts! Any court, even the Supreme Court, relies on humans, and humans can err.....

I personally don't question for one second that Knox is innocent of the murder of Meredith Kercher - the evidence seems pretty overwhelming to me. I am simply saying that the fact that the Supreme Court judges her innocent does not, in and of itself, logically prove this.

A woman is found murdered (stabbed to death), in an apartment that has been broken into. She has also been sexually assaulted.

Suspect A (male):

• has no significant prior relationship to anyone in the apartment;
• has a recent and extensive history of break-ins;
• has recent history of threatening people with knives;
• had intercourse with the deceased on the night of the murder (no prior relationship);
• is the only other person of significance, other than the victim, whose DNA is present at the scene (victim's bedroom).
• Fled the country following the murder.

Suspect B (female):

• is a housemate of the victim
• was with her boyfriend when he the police in relation to a break-in.
• No criminal history
• owns a vibrator, and is in a sexual relationship with her boyfriend (out of wedlock!)
• is perceived to be acting very inappropriately (
• no trace of their DNA at the scene.
• voluntarily cooperated with police.

Suspect C (male)

• Boyfriend of suspect B, of around 1 week.
• no trace of their DNA at the scene.
• called police.
• cooperated with police.

No reasonable person would jump to "Satanic sex game gone wrong" or the later theory of "argument over rent escalating into a rape by suspect A, while B and C also participated and they all carried out a murder.

Unfortunately, the lead prosecutor was not a reasonable man. He was a man, with deeply conservative religious views and a deep fixation with the occult, believing in the existence of a Satanic murder network.

He had been subject to widespread ridicule after reopening an investigation ruled, and widely considered, to be a death by accidental drawing or suicide - he determined it to be a massive conspiracy involving over 20 public officials, who he charged with a mass cover up (which he alleged involved two separate body-swaps of the body in the grave).

The case was thrown out for a complete lack of evidence.

In addition to the widespread ridicule, he was under criminal investigation at the time of Meredith's murder (for abuse of office and illegal wiretapping) - later charged and convicted but overturned on appeal.

Against the backdrop of his reputation being in tatters over ludicrous claims of satanic conspiracy, and with the murder of Meredith occurring on All Saints Day, he advanced the theory of Satanic conspiracy involving Meredith, which he believed to be linked to the previous case - sweet vindication!

At the epicenter of the world's press, and having coerced false statements from Knox (notwithstanding immediate retraction), he held a triumphant press conference, declaring to the world that he had cracked the case, and Lumumba, Knox and Sollecito all participated in a premeditated, Satanic murder.

Of course, Lumumba had a definitive alibi, and then cast-iron evidence emerged, showing Guede to be the attacker.

Unable to admit his mistake - that he had again been an absolutely moronic, fantastic, incompetent clown - he constructed a new theory to try and prove he was not completely wrong. In doing so, he refused to accept what the actual evidence showed, concocted ludicrous theories based on no or shoddy evidence, and the authorities used highly dubious tactics (like the HIV lie) to weaponize the press against Knox, and taint the jury.

The case against Knox was never just "weak", "speculative", "flimsy" or similar. It was insane.

I hope and trust that anyone who still believes it simply did not keep up to speed with later developments.

I dont generally read the tabloids, but I imagine they reported far more in depth on the "demonic succubus murderer" initial story than the "it is confirmed that we reported masses of objectively stupid bullshit" development that followed.

Just for my information as well (not disputing it), in what ways have they been vile? I just did a quick internet search and couldn't find anything that would count as vile - I know they have expressed a desire for privacy......

Related to this, I wondered if anyone has any thoughts on the presentation of Kercher in the ITV2 drama? It's clearly established that she was a young woman who enjoyed recreational sex and recreational drug use.

I'm not questioning the truth of that, and nor is it something that I personally would judge her for even remotely.

However, it's possible that this portrayal is upsetting to some - friends and/or members of her family, perhaps.

And Kercher has no means of confirming or denying the portrayal, of giving her account, etc

While I can understand why Knox chose to include these scenes, and the points she is making, there also seems to be an element of hypocrisy here - of making very something public that most of us expect, and many prefer, to keep largely private.

Again, not trying to upset or offend anyone, and very much trying to approach this discussion with an open mind.

It's not just a viewpoint though. It has now been properly examined by the Supreme Court, so thinking she's guilty of the murder is just incorrect.

She has extended and continues to extend that to them, more than they arguably deserve. Despite her exoneration they have persisted in being vile towards her.

Being the relatives of a murder victim does not entitle them to determine how Meredith Knox chooses to handle her own trauma, or tell her own story.

Some might argue that she owes them a certain amount of kindness and compassion as fellow human beings? I realise that's a subjective opinion. Additionally, having been friends with their murdered relative might count for something, to some.

Again, I am not entirely sure what I think overall, but can certainly see this side of the argument.

I think at least for some people (can't speak for everyone) the fact that she advertised it as a comedy show is what is offensive, rather than the content of it.

To be fair, only a few people will watch it, and they are choosing to be there so unlikely to be hurt or upset by it, whatever it contains. So I think the concern is more for the potential upset caused to those reading or hearing about it, and having the very notion of 'comedy' linked to a violent sexual murder.

(Not saying I agree by the way. I can see both sides).

Also, just a small detail and it doesn't much matter, but I am pretty sure that Sollicito had indeed retracted the alibi he gave her. Though he later retracted his retraction, and claims to have retracted it initially under similar duress that the duress she describes experiencing.

Just to clarify, I don't in any sense question the fact that it's possible to induce false memories - as I said, I have encountered this phenomenon in cult abuse survivors whom I have worked with, who had been subjected to extreme abuse over a significant period of time.

But (and I am trying to be really careful here to avoid giving offence or implying expertise I don't possess), it's also a phenomenon that advocates of abuse survivors need to be careful with, because it can, and many times has been, used to "explain away" abuse which has actually occurred.

We don't do the truth (and therefore, usually, women, who, let's be real, are most often the victims of disbelief) any favours, if we accept too readily that memory is so very malleable, that any degree of trauma can easily alter it.

But it's impossible to prove one way or another and no doubt Knox should be given the benefit of the doubt at least in a legal context - not be convicted of giving a false statement unless intent to do so can be proven behind reasonable doubt.

And I do accept the suggestion up-thread that (it stands to reason) some people would be innately more prone to such influence than others.

In fact, I do wonder whether that's what the insistent repeated presentation of Knox in her ITV show as a quirky, whimsical fantasist given to flights of imaginative fancy, was all about. As the "vision" we are through her eyes of Lumumba in the show is presented very much in the style of her other "fantasies" (where she sees the talking flyers, and so on) - perhaps the message is supposed to be that she had a highly visual imagination, which contributed to her accusation of Lumumba.

Again, feels to me like a trite over-simplification of a serious and complex issue. But maybe that's TV drama for you......

There was a break in.

And Guedy had committed a string or similar, break ins (including break ins in the days and weeks prior to the murder) where he had threatened people with knives.

There was also a shard of glass embedded in a bloody shoeprint left by Guede, proving the glass was already shattered and Meredith already attacked before he started walking around the rest of the apartment.

There was no evidence that the break in was fake.

Saying “it’s my personal opinion” doesn’t automatically protect you. It’s still a defamatory statement

It’s not unusual that one persons needs dont mesh well with someone else’s, and it is perfectly ok. It might be better for Meredith’s family to have no reminders. And better for Knox that she speaks up about what happened to her. The podcast I posted earlier about Andrew Malkinson gives some insight into why victims of MoJs might not want to be quiet.

you are making Knox responsible for Meredith’s family. When in fact the people responsible for both parties pain are the murderer, the authorities and the international press.

You are entitled to your opinion but, contrary to what many seem to think, voicing a personal opinion can be slander and posting it on a public forum such as Mumsnet can be libel. Stating an opinion about something that is clearly a matter of opinion such as the quality of Brad Pitt's acting is fine. Stating an opinion about something that is a matter of fact such as someone's guilt of a crime is not, particularly when the individual involved has been found not guilty and even more so when, as here, the evidence shows beyond any doubt that she could not have been involved.

Having said that, it is highly unlikely Knox would take action so you are almost certainly safe. And you are, of course, free to hold your opinion regardless of the evidence, just as flat earthers are free to hold their opinion regardless of the evidence.

There was smashed glass in Kercher's room, indicating that the window had been broken from the outside. There was a large rock in her room which is believed to have been used to smash the glass. Those items are evidence of a real break in. The police argued that the break in had been faked, but there is no evidence whatsoever to support that theory.

As has already been explained multiple times on this thread, it was the police that arrested an innocent man. He had already been arrested when the police extracted a statement from Knox implicating him. The ways in which they extracted that statement have already been set out on this thread.

She owes them absolutely nothing. They should not try to control her, any more than she should try to control them. They all have different things to deal with, and they have no responsibilities to observe or contact each other.