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

Meredith's DNA was not on the knife - that was a prosecution claim that was proven false.

A reminder that the court ultimately concluded that it was close to impossible for Knox or Sollecito to be involved, since there was no trace of their DNA at the scene.

Rudy Guede, speaking to a friend and unaware that the friend had been recruited by police, specifically denied Knox's involvement and didn't know who Sollecito was. He only implicated them after becoming aware of media reports.

I've already answered a very similar question you posed, probably a few pages back.

There were good reasons to arrest her.

I don't know if she is guilty or not, but there are questions she should answer.

There re huge holes in her story.

She put an innocent man in prison, he has since lost his business and I think, his home.

The police investigation was flawed but there was evidence to implicate her and Sollecito.

@randomchap

The knife from Sollecito's flat had Meredith's DNA on it. How did it get there?

Yes someone was found guilty, they said Knox and Sollecito were there too.

The murder was so brutal it had to be more than one person.

RIP Meredith

@11AndCounting what drew you to spending presumably many many hours going so deep in to this researching this case that the opinion you have formed seems to be something you feel very very deeply tied to?

That's not an observation, its a mistatement.

After about the 10th time you raised that Knox was convicted of slander, as an argument that she should not be given a platform at the Fringe, someone argued that, if you repeated your earlier posts in the thread, inside an Italian police station, you'd arguably be committing the same crime.

I.e., that it is a little inconsistent for you to accuse someone of murder, without evidence, while taking the position that Amanda Knox should be deplatformed for her false accusation.

The "that's speculation" or "that's just your opinion" comments have generally come from Knox's critics (save apart from people being challenged on their attempt at cancelling a show, that they havent seen, based on speculation of what its contents may be).

This isn't in response to a particular poster, just a general observation that there seems to be an odd double standard around speculation on this thread. Some posters were quick to warn others about unsupported or potentially defamatory claims, while lengthy speculation that supports their own position appears to be ok.

It could well be, but the compensation entitlement would have been pretty minimal in the scheme of things.

I tend to see if similar to the mental gymnastics the investigation felt compared to perform, to protect the ego of a man who felt he'd be further tarnished if he had to admit he got it wrong (again...as with his previous satanic panic case).

Either way, it's hard to perceive it as fair-minded decision, or one that will survive outside scrutiny.

Obviously its a small-fry conviction in the context of the original one, but I would like to see a satisfying, final win.

Speculation remains speculation only. Amanda Knox remains a convicted criminal for falsely accusing an innocent man of murder, following the final ruling of Italy’s highest court in 2025.

I suspect it’s also to do with the thorny issue of compensation.

Italy resisted compensating her and used the calunnia conviction as justification for this. They had to be ordered by the European Court to make a payment of a frankly nominal amount.

To say the whole case was mishandled is an understatement, and as a result Italy basically ended up being humiliated on the world stage. The calunnia conviction is one small win they want to hold onto, rather than admit total defeat.

I seem to have offended people by using the tern "fans of Knox" - please let me apologise/explain.

I did NOT mean to imply that everyone defending her right to perform her comedy show was a "fan'. I myself would defend this too, in the interests of free speech, while also still (I think, on the whole - and I am listening to other people's views) thinking that it was an error of judgement on the whole.

But I also think it's entirely possible that some people are fans of her - why not? She's now a performing artist - she sells tickets to her shows - why shouldn't she or wouldn't she have fans?

But I do realise that people could wish to defend her without classing themselves as a fan, and I am sorry that my previous post didn't acknowledge that.

And you all make good points about why she might not apologise to Lamumba even though she more than anyone knows the damage false accusation can do. If she was abused to the extent that she was incapable of understanding at the time that her accusation was a false one, I can see how she might feel that she had no need to apologise.

To those criticising the amount of speculation on the thread - isn't that exactly what her various collaborative ventures, performances etc encourage people to do - speculate? The purpose of art surely is to make people think, and talk - if she didn't want that she'd surely just keep quiet, or at the most issue a completely factual statement of events as she saw them, with no rehtorical comment......

No, it was a one-off comment she said to a journalist in an article I read. One of the links I posted upthread. The journalist mentioned it as they were saying she is a naturally funny, quick person with a wry sense of humour. It was an example of dark, gallows humour but her show afaik is pretty bland.

She says 'please don't die near me' in the show? That's vile.

couldn’t agree with you more - especially ed Sheeran

I don’t really like AK - am supporter of justice and free speech not her as another poster seems to suggest - that we are fans - couldn’t be farther from the truth

I’m not a “fan of Knox” but I do believe in (a) freedom of speech, even for people I don’t like, and even for people I don’t agree with and equally, (b) that criminal investigations and trials should not be popularity contests.

The title of this thread is about stopping a show because people either find the performer or subject matter distasteful, or think AK’s “had enough attention”. If you don’t like AK, or don’t want her to have any more attention, then just don’t buy a ticket.

I find Ed Sheeran pretty fucking offensive but I don’t think he should be stopped from singing his god-awful songs.

Not what I am curious about. I have an ND child who constantly forgets to flush. Now in fairness, I am related to him and expect it now. He's a work in process.
But if I was in a flat share I guess what I'm saying is if I found the loo like that, even if it wasn't the bathroom I'd usually use, I would flush it automatically.
💩
If she left it like that because she had the fear rather than the ick, you'd have thought she'd have pushed the ajar door sooner or brought Raff back sooner.
That's the only thing I'm curious about. I still feel very sorry for her though because it really feels like a Sliding doors scenario. There's another version of this whole thing whereby she showers at Raff's, has her clothes with her already, no leak to mop and they take a picnic as planned to Gubbio. And live happily ever after.
Filomena comes back to the flat first, shows the "right" reactions and the police await DNA.
That's fucking heartbreaking.
Or it's a pipe dream because the police were incompetent enough to have gone for them anyway and play them off against each other, all for a faster result.
This is interesting summing up of why things occurred although needs an update following their vindication.
https://www.lrb.co.uk/the-paper/v35/n20/nick-richardson/nothing-fits

As to the show, did I find the clips/and material on the reviews I read funny?
Please don't die near me, is dark but wry.
Wouldn't be the first time I signed something without understanding it, again wry.
Dr Seuss stuff Knox in box etc and rhyme - oof, less funny but can still see it working in a monologue.
Cartwheeling off the stage - a bit bad taste, but would work solidly as an end note to a tight hour on the Fringe.
TLDR: I've seen all sorts of shite and experimental crap at Edinburgh over the years. This would be me QLTM/a wry smile of acknowledgement rather than LOL but won't be the first or last dramedy one-woman show, reciting a monologue/story.
And I think she has balls of steel performing it. It is bloody brave, given the detractors she has. Edinburgh for heckling can be a bearpit. This clearly is Theatre rather than Stand up, and she seems to have a respectful rubbernecking audience who want to be there. But by God, I admire her for doing it.

@Ilovelurchers

I posted it earlier, and an except again later, so I'll avoid repeating it again, but I'd reccomend taking a look at Denise Huskins' post about her reaction to watching the show (and, if you're not familiar with her, reading her story).

Like moths to a flame though

Indeed! Who'd have thought it on a thread about "should this thing none of us have ever seen be canceled?"

A speculative opinion??? On this thread???

Obviously a speculative opinion, but the Italian Supreme Court's decision against her strikes me as an attempt to save face, by refusing to concede that every single decision rendered against Knox was catastrophically wrong.

On Lumumba, her account is broadly:

• she was in a state of sleep deprivation and extreme exhaustion;

• she was persistently yelled at by the police who wrongfully and persistently insisted she and Lumumba were present at the scene, and that they had proof;

• her "interpreter" convinced her she was repressing her memories;

• she was repeatedly struck on her head, while being yelled at to "remember";

• this produced an imagined vision of Patrick at the scene, which did not feel real to her but what she thought it must be like to recall a repressed memory.

The ECTHR finding was that she was subject to intense psychological coercion and placed in an unbearable situation of stress and oppression, to induce the allegation.

She promptly recanted when outside of the interrogation - but not conclusively so (i.e. that she did not have confidence the visions she experienced were real).

What she describes is highly consistent with documented psychological patterns observed in other false confessions and experimental research (termed Coerced-Internalized False Confession). She'd probably need to have had an extensive working knowledge of criminology and psychology to have faked it (given the contemporary evidence of her state of mind - i.e. her note).

I view it very much as something the police did to her and Patrick. The Italian Supreme Court, of course, do not agree with that (though I look forward to the ECTHR judgment, and expect it's quite likely we'll see another finding against Italy).

And yes, an apology could be weaponizes against her in the ongoing proceedings.

Yes as a general rule I wouldn't expect apologies from anyone involved in legal proceedings over the thing at issue, which Knox still is.

@Ilovelurchers see I took it more as self-awareness on her older self's part that she did come across as a bit of a twat.

She was almost certainly advised by her lawyers not to apologize, publicly or privately.

Apologizing would be an admission of culpability. The lawsuit concerning the false accusation concluded in 2025, so she certainly wouldn’t have been wise to accept responsibility whilst that was ongoing. It would have completely undermined her entire legal case. It would/could also leave her vulnerable to potential legal action against her by Lumumba.