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

In honesty I think the reason that I struggle to fully accept that Knox had false memories implanted by the interrogation she experienced, is that in the cases where I have encountered people with what appeared (to me) to be indisputably genuine false memories (IYSWIM - where I did not once question that they believed what they were saying, despite the fact it could not possibly have been true) , the degree of abuse they had undergone to cause this was so much more prolonged and extreme than anything Knox experienced at the hands of her interrogators.

But I realise that my reasoning doesn't necessarily make sense, as that doesn't prove that less sustained, less intense abuse couldn't also have the same impact. And the poster who made the point that some people might innately be more susceptible to this than others, is of course correct.

The letter she wrote does not seem to me to be particularly convincing, but rather something deliberately phrased to "cover all bases", depending what angle she later decided to pursue.

But as I said, I am no expert in this field. And clearly lots of people are very strongly convinced that what happened to her indisputably produced false memories she was powerless to distinguish from the truth.

Sorry, I have it now. Coerced-Intrrnalosed False Confession.

Sorry, what is CIFC?

And it is true that it's so improvable, that it's a great "get out of jail free" card for anyone who makes false accusations in a context like this.
Absolutely, but the reason laws exist to prevent interrogations like this is because they tend to produce false statements, including coerced-internalized false confessions. And, while not impossible, I do think it extremely unlikely that Knox had the knowledge or wherewithal to record a written account so consistent with a CIFC. https://famous-trials.com/amanda-knox/2626-knox-s-handwritten-statement-to-police-11-06-2007

Edit tk add that, incidentally, that note is the note that her conviction of slander is based on, which the court (somehow) found was spontaneous and not connected with the interrogation.

I think it's also important to remember how you respond to situations depends on everything that has happened in your life before and how you made sense of it. What causes one person to experience trauma may not be enough for someone else.

For example, back in the 90s, it was common to be sexually harassed at work. Groped in taxis, suggestive remarks, etc etc. it wasn't ok, but it was also so common that you shrugged and got on with things. These days those events land differently.

Some eggs are more fragile than others.

Fair enough - I guess my response was very subjective, and it's interesting to read that other viewers found this section so persuasive and effective.

I'm no expert on implanted false memories - based on the limited experience I do have of this phenomena I honestly remain unpersuaded that any abuse Knox experienced was extensive and traumatic enough to have such a profound impact.

To me, the ITV series absolutely reinforced my assumption, as it felt so minimising - I am taken aback that other viewers saw that scene as an persuasive representation of a profoundly and genuinely traumatic experience.

And it is true that it's so improvable, that it's a great "get out of jail free" card for anyone who makes false accusations in a context like this.

But the truth is, that nobody apart from Knox herself will ever know for sure one way or the other.

@ilovelurchers

Bah, not available on a steaming platform I have access to (from the UK but emigrated a few years back). It does at least sound like other viewers found the show more persuasive than you, I just don't know if I'd be one of them. From an episode review:

"If one word can define The Twisted Tale of Amanda Knox episode 2, it’s nerve-racking. While the first part succeeds in making viewers understand more about the case, it doesn’t impress. Some of it is even predictable, for example, when Patrick appears, it’s clear he will become a suspect.

However, the second half of the episode comes and changes it all. Amanda’s last interrogation is incredibly disturbing. It’s hard to look at it, and when you remember that it’s real, it becomes even worse. It’s infuriating, even, thinking about how much pressure she suffered.

The cast does an amazing job at that, but the editing is the biggest reason for such discomfort. The voices around her become muffled and unclear, and she starts seeing many faces in her mind, trying to find a culprit she might not even know. It’s a great representation of how they’re forcing a story into her head, which works because of her confusion and stress."

I do wonder if we should also consider that Knox lives in the US where, after initial uncertainty, the media-at-large pivotted to supporting her, championing her innocence and criticing the Italian investigation and justice system. Even before she was definitively acquitted, a majority of the US public believed her yo be innocent, whereas only a small minority did in the UK

In the US, she has also been widely championed for her work as a prominent advocate against wrongful convictions.
Her tv drama was probably released primarily with that more supportive audience/environment in mind.

It is noteworthy that the two countries she has chosen to visit in the course of recent media projects are the UK and Italy - the two countries in which she remains controversial.

It could be courting controversy, although I don't think she needs it for the sake of her profile or career in the US. Perhaps generously, I'd be more inclined to think she wants to visit those specific countries to set the record straight - and I do think her statements around Cartwheel, and the content of the show as reported, do suggest controversy isn't her aim.

I'd have to watch the show to opine (but I'll see if I can track it down, you've piqued my interest).

I can't say I've seen anything from Knox that makes me think she courts controversy - I've seen that she's made self-deprecating jokes on social media before that have been received as controversial in the UK press, but I think that says more about the press than it does about her.

The one that springs to mind was when she commented on someone else's social media post (the other person was complaining that they'd hated their time studying abroad and couldn't wait to return home). Knox made a comment to the effect of "What are you talking about, studying abroad is great!" I thought that genuinely funny, and a good example of cathartic, self-depeciating humor. The tabloids...not so much (but, of course, they are in the business of generating controversy for clicks).

Agree we can't see inside her mind, but good reasons to believe her on the false memories are:

1. The account she gives in her immediate, post-interrogation note, which reads as a textbook account of a little-known psychological phenomenon, that she seems unlikely to have been familiar enough with to mimic.

1. She kept a private diary which recorded her personal struggles over the visions which had not completely subsided. Of course, you could come up with a self-serving and dishonest motive for making those writings, but others portions of the diary were "less flattering" (probably not to you or I, but in the context of the prosecution and media campaign to vilify her as a man-eater).

I guess the whole question of her accusation of Lumumba, and whether, ethically speaking, she owes him the apology he has repeatedly requested, hinges on whether she can be held responsible for what she said or whether the treatment she received from the police caused her to have temporary false memories, which I believe is how she explains it? (Trying to be careful here - happy to be corrected if anything I say is unfair, offensive or factually inaccurate).

Unfortunately I guess that's an impossible thing to conclusively prove one way or another, as nobody else can see inside her head.

I do have a little experience of a similar phenomenon (trigger warning on what I am about to say, CSA related). I used to do work with survivors of ritual abuse, and some said that they had witnessed the impossible (presence of Satan etc). And I absolutely believed that they believed this, or previously believed it (when I spoke to them most were at a point where they understood the "memories" were implanted.)

What these survivors had in common was that they had been subjected to sickeningly extreme physical, sexual and emotional torment over a very prolonged period of time.

I'm not sure it's possible to know for sure whether Knox actually had false memories implanted by her abusers (in this case the police) or not.

What I am confused by is why she allowed this scene to be presented in the way it was in the ITV drama. As what is shown there is such a minimisation of the level of psychological torture needed to induce a false memory (as I understand it) that it's possibly even offensive? Shortly before the interrogation scene, she is shown flirting with an attractive policeman in the waiting room and showing him some yoga moves - she appears entirely physically and mentally healthy and in control. Then in a short space of time in which a few people shout at her, she appears to be lightly struck twice (any police violence is totally wrong obviously, but it's really minimised), and the translator makes maybe one comment about the possibility of repressing things...suddenly she "sees" Lumumba. To be honest, that bit looks like it's more of a lightbulb type moment in which she thinks "I know, if I blame him they will stop shouting" than any kind of implanted memory....

And this is something that confuses me about Knox generally (and I really hope nobody finds this suggestion offensive) - I sometimes wonder if she actively courts negative opinions at times, deliberately portraying herself in a negative light. A lot of the ITV drama felt like that. And her very choice to make a comedy show, when she could have perhaps just promoted her show as a lecture or Q and A or story-telling show or whatever - to me feels like this too?

"Nikki Glaser introduces Amanda Knox's comedy set. - YouTube" https://m.youtube.com/shorts/KRAQrDFWJiA

This was a set which will have some similarity.

Reviewers tend to be reasonably objective though. They are often watching shows at the Fringe in double figures.
She will sadly always be tied and referred to by the case. She does not need to let it continue to define her. The headlines when Rudy Guede was let out named her not him! (e.g. Man convicted of killing Amanda Knox's ex flatmate released.) That is mindboggling.
Anyhoo,someone upthread asked for the link of clips. I will post that in a mo. But two of you who were butting heads but then made peace with each other - honestly, that was so refreshing to read and restored my faith in human nature. Fair play to both of you. 🍷

She has been attempting to redefine herself as a stand-up comic, and the parts of the show available online do have the appearance of (honestly, mediocre) stand-up comedy, so I don't know if it was silly/childish/provocative to categorize the show that way - particularly as you have to submit to the Fringe under a single category (e.g., it could either be "Comedy" or "Spoken Word"). It sounds as though there are meaningful elements of both, but does one far more successfully than the other.

Agree that the general audience is likely to range from sympathetic to neutral-but-curious, but I don't think that holds for the critics.

So, I didn't sign the petition as I don't believe in censorship (or at least, I believe there are very few situations that would justify it, and this isn't one of them, for me).

But I WAS pretty disgusted by the concept of Cartwheel, and did openly condemn Knox for thinking it was an appropriate venture to go ahead with.

And having her some of the feedback, I do feel less strongly about this. I still feel like her decision to bill it as a comedy was unnecessarily provocative and attention-courting in a silly and childish way - but I am pleased to hear the actual content isn't offensive, and indeed, if some people find it affirmative/comforting/helpful/whatever else, obviously that's a good thing and something she should be commended for.

I suppose it goes without saying that people who have paid to watch it will largely be existing fans, or at the very least people with a positive and sympathetic view of her. So their accounts aren't likely to be entirely neutral. But that's just the way art works I guess - it's consumed by people wishing to consume it, so their opinions are the only ones that matter in some ways - nobody is putting a gun to anyone's head and forcing them to go watch it......

If you read the headline “rookie standup acquitted of murder” speaks of her experience - how could anyone object?

it seems ludicrous to deny someone their story

Actually, have just seen a couple of other 4 star reviews from critics, so she's probably evening out at 3-stars overall (and it seems it may have been better reviewed had it been billed as a performance rather than as a comedy).

It does seem to be the near-universal reaction that there is nothing offensive about the show's content, and a lot of people have found it moving and/or meaningful.

Asked with sincerity, particularly now the thread has cooled a little - do the reviews and audience reactions cause anyone who signed the petition to have second thoughts about whether it should have been banned?

The reviews have ranged between 2 and 4 stars (more 2s than 4s) and seem to have a common theme - it's poignant, respectful, but broadly fails as a comedy.

Interestingly, the Telegraph's review was that it was too "good taste".

FWIW, from the clips I've seen of her jokes - they're mostly pretty obvious and pedestrian, though I did chuckle at a couple. She seems to have been better received on the comedy side in the US, so maybe it speaks to the culutral gap in comedic tastes.

Thank you @SpaceRaccoon . It’s nice to read informed comment.

Interesting, thank you.

As a PP mentions, the ECtHR has taken up the case and categorized it as an Impact Case, so perhaps we'll get a decision next year.

It really does appear bizarre how the Court upheld her conviction. In short:

• she was originally convicted of slander based on the statements typed up by the police during the interrogation (that implicated Lumumba, which the ECtHR ruled could not be used as a basis for conviction due to the coercive manner in which they were obtained, which rendered them unreliable).

• no longer able to convict based on those typed statements, the 2024/5 decisions convicted on the basis of the handwritten note that Knox produced a few hours after the interrogation, in which she retracted the allegations.

• The retraction was not a full-throated one, but described confusion. She said that, following the interrogation, she had images in her mind of Patrick at the scene. She said that she was not sure the events in the statements really happened, that the images she had (implanted...) in her mind were dreamlike, and that she did not know if they were real memories or if they are imagination.

• Normally, if a person was subject to human rights violations in order to obtain a statement, the statements obtained during or in the direct aftermath are deemed unreliable. To get around that, the Italian courts ruled that the handwritten retraction note was "spontaneous" and not connected to the previous interrogation (which seems quite a stretch, given that it was specifically about the statement extracted during interrogation, and mere hours afterwards).

• the court also ruled that Knox's intent in the statement was to implicate Lumumba, which seems absurd given he was already implicated by the typed statements, and she was clearly and explicitly communicating that she had real doubts as to whether he was there at all, or if what she was seeing was imagined.

On its face, it seems a genuinely ludicrous, self-serving, decision.

Here's the Guardian review for the curious - they give it 4 stars.

https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2026/aug/10/amanda-knox-in-cartwheel-review-rookie-standup-acquitted-of-tells-her-story

I never said it was AK’s fault. I also said that she has a right to tell her story, so I wouldn’t be signing the petition.

I just said that I also understood where the siblings were coming from, objecting to the story being told as a comedy. So I wouldn’t see it myself.

That is not AK’a fault though. The impact on AK life is absolutely huge and she won’t ever get over it.

She does have a right to tell her story, so I won’t be signing the petition. I wouldn’t watch it myself, though, as I can understand why Meredith Kercher’s siblings feel the way they do about the story being told as a comedy. It isn’t just Knox’s story, that’s the problem here.

However you look at it, the siblings have suffered a lot of loss, what with losing their parents as well.

they have accepted it