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

yes.

not guilty

Apologies if this has been mentioned but I’ve just read a Reddit thread account of this show, which is doing a few dates in the US before coming to the fringe. I thought it might be helpful if I paraphrased it.

to summarise, AK mostly ‘jokes’ about her time in incarceration, the dating opportunities she’s had or not had when she returned to the USA, awkward moments where she’s had to explain who she was and where she’d been etc, a few uncomfortable sexual encounters, some jibes about Italian stereotypes. The show seems to run on the assumption that the audience had read her book, listened to her podcast, seen the show she co-produced.

She does not mention Raffaele, or Patrick, she mentions Meredith once.

Interestingly, while it is acknowledged that the show really isn’t about Meredith, it IS very much about Amanda being a victim. Which she was in a lot of ways, but the person who wrote this account found it uncomfortable that she appears to have a lot of trouble acknowledging that there was an even bigger victim in this case, who suffered far more that Amanda, and there was a family that were never able to welcome home their daughter. Amanda never seeks to show any humility in the face of this, across all the various platforms she’s used to tell her story.

It was received fairly luke-warmly by the audience, a lot of polite laughter, a lot of people there to see AK in the flesh and curious about what she might say when not bound by edited prose or script.

The show ends with her cartwheeling across the stage.

Will be interesting to see how it is received when it does come to the Fringe, although it may be difficult to get a grasp on that since there will be no official reviews.

Yes, she was found not guilty, but not because there wasn't enough evidence to convict or due to errors in the previous court hearings. The court made a positive finding that Knox and Sollecito did not commit the crime. They did not use the word innocent, but you are trying to argue about a distinction without a difference. If they did not commit the crime, they are innocent.

I disagreed initially based on English language reporting, but I do think Multiplepillows is fundamentally correct that the decision should be understood as "not guilty" (although the scathing condemnation the court gave to the prosecution and lower courts should not be dismissed).

But they are seemingly all best understood, by UK standards, as "not guilty because...", not a higher standard.

And, @Multiplepillows , it was in the local press of the country, but , similar to here, not all road traffic deaths make bigger news outlets.

And nor do the Uk courts use the word innocent

guilty
not guilty

AK was found not guilty

Tbf, as a Knox defender, furiously googling - I dont think there actually is a distinction between UK/US not guilty and Italian "innocence", other than that one sounds stronger than the other.

Not just not guilty. Not guilty as she did not commit the crime. Stating very clearly, but obviously not clearly enough for some, that Amanda Knox is innocent.

Do you have difficulty in understanding at other times? How can I simplify this for you?

Italian courts simply don't use the word 'innocente' - it is always phrased in other ways.
They have different acquittal formulas, designed to specifically rule out any lingering suspicion.
For example (these results are ones I just googled) :
Common Acquittal Formulas

• Il fatto non sussiste ("The fact does not exist"): The court finds that the alleged crime never actually happened at all. 1,
• L'imputato non ha commesso il fatto ("The accused did not commit the fact"): The crime happened, but it was done by someone else, not the defendant. 1]
• Il fatto non costituisce reato ("The fact does not constitute a crime"): The defendant did the act, but it is not a crime under the law (such as acting in self-defense). 1,

It was not in this country, it was over 20 years ago and although I don’t mind sharing the basics, I am not going to post details.

You've said a couple of times that the verdict was not guilty, which is different to just saying it wasn't innocent. Can you explain your rationale for saying it was not guilty? Obviously they didn't use those specific words given that the judgement was in Italian.

It's not sus. It's very insensitive what she is doing. I would have thought by now that someone in her life would tell her that it's enough. Part of the reason she was convicted in the first place was because of this attention seeking behaviour. She may be autistic, but this looks like narcissistic behaviour to me. She had a terrible time. Why perpetually go back to it if you know it upsets Meredith's family? Enough.

So the verdict was not guilty

and they did not use the word innocent (in Italian!)

He is! I knew him because his family were neighbours and I am still in touch with his mum. He went on to become a paramedic and has a child of his own, who I have met - he’s a great dad.

Yes. The standard not guilty ruling just means there wasnt enough evidence to convict. It's not the same as the Italian Supreme Court statement, which can be summed up as "they DEFINITELY had nothing to do with it".

I honestly don't know how to make this any clearer, and I suspect you're being obtuse in bad faith.

This is getting into silly linguistics

The court didn't just say not guilty. They said not guilty as she did not commit the crime. Essentially saying she is innocent

So you don’t know.

Are you saying that you’re going to can be found

guilty
non guilty
exonerated?

Just read the relevant wiki section. It's perfectly clear.

Is that actually a defined ruling in the Italian legal system? You can be non guilty OR exonerated?

No, the court's statement went a lot further than that. There's a difference between being found not guilty, and being completely exonerated.
I passed the text for you but you seem to prefer not to read it.

She was found not guilty. Correct

They used a legal phrase that literally means she did not commit the crime.

It is synonymous with innocent, and is a rare and exceptional legal finding.

So no, it is not a remotely important distinction.

The Italians have a word for innocent.

They didn’t use it

They didn’t use the English word ‘innocent’ because the judgement was in Italian. So you’re right, I should not have used quotation marks for the English word, as the English word does not feature in the judgement. The judgement makes it clear however it is not just a ‘not guilty’ verdict, it states quite clearly that they cannot have committed the crime and they are entirely exonerated. Ie, innocent.