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

Well actually I have made it clear that I am voicing a personal opinion. And as far as I'm concerned I am entitled to that opinion.
What I don't understand is why Knox, having been fully exonerated in the eyes of the law, can't let the matter drop in deference to the feelings of the family. Why torment them?

it was ITALIAN POLICE and prosecution actions that put an innocent man, another innocent man (Sollecito) and an innocent woman (Knox) in prison

No, you are not entitled to say someone is guilty when they have been fully exonerated. Thats slander.

You are entitled to your own view point about whether Knox is guilty or not. Just as I'm entitled to mine.
What should be at the centre of everyone's thoughts should be the horror of Meredith's death and what her family have had to go through since.

No evidence of faked break in? Really? Smashed glass all over one of the room mates room.

Yes the Italian courts have said she is innocent of all charges, but that doesn't change the fact her actions put an innocent man in prison.

Yep, just made it all about her.

Yes, it really is disgusting that Knox allowed the police to prosecute her for a crime when the forensic evidence is clear that she did not commit it and could not have been involved.

The prosection'a theory was simultaneously absurdly demeted and yet significantly less batshit than their early theories.

A real case of hear hooves, think Amanda Knox has sacrificed a herd of zebras to Satan and is using their severed hooves to put on a tap dance performance.

I'm honestly not sure why people are still claiming that the Fringe show is so offensive given that we now know the content - some spoken-word stuff with a bit of wry humour about Amanda's own experiences with false imprisonment. All relatively tame and anodyne.

She's hardly been up there cracking jokes about the murder itself.

Meredith and her family deserved a more competent investigation.
Absolutely agree with this. It was an horrendous murder and I feel such sympathy for her family. And such disgust for knox.

I agree with your last point, but other than that, the evidence has been extensively examined by the Supreme Court, and their conclusion has been that it is almost impossible that Meredeth and Raffaele were involved.

There were a lot of rumours, lies and misinformation during the original trial for sure.

Prosecution theory:

Guede frequented the downstairs apartment and had a passing acquaintance with Kercher, Knox and Sollecito. Kercher invites Guede to the apartment (there is no evidence to support this). Guede defecates in the bathroom but does not flush the toilet. Knox discovers this when she and Sollecito return to the apartment. Tensions between Knox and Kercher over cleaning the apartment come to a head (the prosecution abandoned their original theory that it was a sex game gone wrong as it was not consistent with the forensic evidence). The row escalates into physical violence. Kercher is stripped. Guede restrains and sexually assaults Kercher (the forensic evidence clearly shows that Guede sexually assaulted her) while Knox and Sollecito attack her with two knives. One of the knives is Sollecito's penknife (there is no forensic evidence suggesting this knife was used at all, but the alleged murder weapon is too big to have caused most of the injuries). The other is a kitchen knife from Sollecito's apartment which the prosecution allege Knox carries in her handbag for protection (there is no evidence to support this allegation - the available evidence suggests the knife was always in Sollecito's apartment). The fatal blow is administered using the kitchen knife which Knox is holding by the blade rather than the handle (marks on Kercher's skin clearly show that the fatal blow was administered by a knife being driven in violently up to the hilt, but the kitchen knife would have caused a much deeper wound if it had been used, so this was an attempt to make the theory fit the evidence. However, this explanation does not fit the forensic evidence - the marks on Kercher's skin were caused by the handle of the murder weapon, not by someone's hand). Some or all of the three then stage the scene to look like a break-in, including using a rock to break a window 4m off the ground from the outside (there is some debate about whether this is possible, leading to speculation about a staged break-in, but the evidence is clear that the window was broken from the outside using a rock that was found in the room). Guede leaves. Knox and Sollecito clean the room, removing all forensic evidence of their own involvement but leaving extensive forensic evidence of Guede's involvement (the forensic evidence is clear that the room was NOT cleaned, so the most likely explanation for the lack of any forensic evidence of Knox and Sollecito being present is that they weren't). At some point Sollecito removes a shoe and sock, gets blood on his foot then hops to the bathroom where he leaves a bloody footprint on the bathmat (as another poster points out, the forensic evidence is that this footprint was made by Guede, but the prosecution insisted it was made by Sollecito. The police forensic scientist also claimed that there were a lot of other bloody footprints around the apartment made by Knox and Sollecito which they had cleaned up, but her notes revealed that she had tested these alleged bloody footprints for blood and for Kercher's DNA and both tests had come up negative. During the original trial she had specifically denied carrying out any such tests - one of several lies she told to help the prosecution get a conviction). Knox and Sollecito then return to his apartment taking the kitchen knife with them. They clean his apartment with bleach to remove any traces of blood (there is no forensic evidence to suggest that his apartment had been cleaned in this way and, even if it had, it would have been possible to detect any bloodstains they had cleaned - none were detected). They clean the knife rather than disposing of it because it was on the inventory for the apartment and they would have had to replace it if they had disposed of it. The police then identify it as the murder weapon because it looks cleaner than the other knives in the apartment.

Defence theory:

Guede is known to commit burglaries. When doing so he carries a knife which he uses to threaten people if discovered. He gains entry to the apartment shared by Knox and Kercher from by breaking a window from the outside with a rock. Kercher discovers him when he returns home. Realising that she knows who he is, he attacks her with his knife, which has never been recovered but there is a bloodstain on the bedding in the shape of a knife which is the right size to have caused all Kercher's injuries. He also strips her and sexually assaults her. At some point he defecates in the toilet but does not flush it - it is not clear if this happened before or after Kercher's death, but the presence of Guede's bloody footprint suggests it was after. He would subsequently claim that Kercher was murdered while he was using the toilet and that he heard Knox's voice - note that he never claimed to have seen her and was adamant that he was not present in the room when the murder was committed, despite the forensic evidence clearly showing that he was. He makes his escape and disposes of the knife.

The defence theory entirely matches the forensic evidence. The prosecution theory does not.

In bad taste and utterly insensitive. It is not a topic you can justify using for comedy and to make money from.

And the true whining green eyed basis is slowly leaking out.

I can help you there:

"who left the bloody footprint,it was too small for Guerdy"

It’s almost certainly Guede’s. The prosecution’s initial claim that it was "too small" relied on distorted perspective photos and incorrectly measuring two merged toes as one. Proper photogrammetry proved his foot dimensions fit the print fine. Plus, the court ruled the print too degraded by water on the bathmat to be definitive anyway.

"What was going on with the
fake robbery?"
Italy's Supreme Court explicitly ruled there was no evidence of a staged break-in.

Furthermore, Guede had a documented history of breaking into properties to commit theft, by smashing windows (including a nearly identical break-in in just weeks prior - stone through a second story roof).

"Her behaviour though raised eyebrows, the flatmate and her boyfriend who gave AK and RS a lift were so concerned they searched the car for a murder weapon." This is pure fiction. No flatmate ever testified to this, nor is it in any police report. The roommate's boyfriend searched his own car for tools to help force open Meredith’s locked door before police arrived.

I'd like to know who left the bloody footprint,it was too small for Guerdy.

What was going on with the fake robbery?

@Pleasedontdoitagain she wasn't taken in for questioning immediately after the murder. Her behaviour though raised eyebrows, the flatmate and her boyfriend who gave AK and RS a lift were so concerned they searched the car for a murder weapon.

Meredith and her family deserved a more competent investigation.

Anyone has the right to call someone ignorant who insists an innocent woman is guilty given the amount of evidence to support her innocence and the lack of evidence to support her guilt in the public domain.

The fact that you seem to think AK’s behaviour after the murder strengthens your case only adds to the likelihood that you are not basing your opinion on relevant facts.

I'm sorry but why do you assume I know nothing about the case? What right have to you to call me ignorant when you know nothing about me ?
I actually followed the case quite closely and was appalled by it and remember vividly the accounts of Knox's behaviour when she taken for questioning immediately after the murder.

So your opinion is that she is guilty, knowing nothing about what really happened and not having been in court throughout the multiple trials and appeals? She has been found not guilty. What utter ignorance on your part 😡

Well, guess I won't be having an act at the Fringe anytime soon.

I presume this is a joke since she clearly exists and is still alive.

Regarding your earlier post, it should be noted that the police in the UK are barred by law from lying to suspects. In my view this should be banned everywhere.

I hate to break it to you, but there never was an Elizabeth Loftus.

People get wound up when you mention her, but Elizabeth Loftus work on false memories is fascinating. There's a famous experiment where they intensively interviewed the subjects families before interviewing subjects. They asked if the subjects remembered the time they got lost in the mall - having categorically established that had not happened. A significant portion of subjects "remembered" the event, and at following interviews had elaborated on the "memory" these were people under no duress, no stress, interviewed in their own language.

I'm also no expert in the field, to be clear.

I'll leave aside Knox-specific articles (which could carry bias), but here's an explanation of CIFCs:

"Coerced-Internalized Confessions

This is the most psychologically complex type of confession in which innocent people come to believe they may have actually committed the crime. This can happen when:

• Memory is impaired (due to stress, exhaustion, or substance use)
• Interrogators convince them they have repressed memories
• They are presented with false evidence that seems compelling"

Knox was exhausted and stressed.

She was told that she had trauma-induced amnesia, and told to try and unblock her repressed memories of Patrick (specifically) murdering Meredith.

She was told that:

• falsely - that there was evidence that confirmed her presence at the scene;
• falsely - that they already had identified the suspect;
• truthfully - that the suspect was black (which is why the pushed her to "remember" it was Patrick):
• falsely - that her Sollecito had retracted the alibi (that he was with her overnight, at his house).

I do think those three common factors seem conclusively checked off.

Her statement does also confirm that she had repeatedly told police that she was not confident that what she was seeing in her head, at their demand, was accurate.

And I still just find it very hard to believe that she cobbled together that note in a sophisticated, less than honest fashion, so soon after the interview and after limited sleep - particularly as there's nothing in it which would be helpful to her case, and if she was being self-protective the obvious thing to do would be not to make any further statement until speaking to a lawyer.

I totally get that the psychology is hard to readily accept, but it is a known phenomenon, her statement aligns with the phenomenon and the circumstances that produce it, and there's no good alternative explanation for why she would have made any of the statements otherwise (particularly now that we know the actual murderer and that Knox's involvement is all-but-impossible).

I think they just kept her awake and screamed at her in Italian until her head was wrecked.